A modern St. Thomas Aquinas?
While reading a critical review of The God Delusion the other day, I thought, What Christians really need is not this criticism of Dawkin's weak arguments. What we need is someone who sets forth the atheist argument clearly and convincingly, better even than the atheists have set it forth themselves. The author needs to write as if s/he takes the atheist position quite seriously, and admit where it has merit. The argument needs to be made in such a way that the atheist nods his head vigorously and with pleasure, while the religious reader trembles with uncertainty. This way, the author demonstrates his intellectual honesty to the atheist reader. Then and only then, that person needs to explain clearly and irrefutably the fatal flaw in the atheist argument.
In other words, I want a modern St. Thomas Aquinas. This is precisely the format he aspired to use when writing the Summa Theologica:
(That said, I should hope such an individual wouldn't argue the Christian position along these lines, either: It was fitting that [paradise] should be in the east; for it is to be believed that it was situated in the most excellent part of the earth. Now the east is the right hand on the heavens, as the Philosopher explains (De Coel. ii, 2); and the right hand is nobler than the left: hence it was fitting that God should place the earthly paradise in the east.
Yes, that is an actual argument in the Summa Theologica.)
Such attempts may very well have been made, but if so, I don't recall coming across any (in the modern age). I'm not as well read as I'd like to think, so that's not a surprise. For example, I never have read C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, which is supposed to be among the best answers to rationalism. If you, kind reader, are aware of any such text, I'd be very interested in the reference.
That said, I admit that faith is not a matter of having the right answers to people's questions. Although faith and reason should mingle one with the other, faith is a matter of a life that is changed for ever, and that entrusts itself from then on to the One whose touch changed that life. So we should seek not to argue the truths of Christian faith, but to demonstrate them in our lives.
If I tell myself that enough, maybe I'll start doing it.
Posts
4 comments:
The problem with St. Thomas was that he didn't make any of his arguments in the light of scientific data. Not that it was his fault. He lived about 400 years before science began. I think Dawkins is our modern day St. Thomas. It's just that with all the data in, the weight of the evidence goes against the existance of a creator.
I think Dawkins is our modern day St. Thomas.
Quite the opposite, actually. As I point out, Aquinas wrote up his opponents' arguments even better than they could. Another trait I find admirable in him is that he never spoke with derision of others' ideas, with one notable exception where he referred to someone's idea as "truly stupid".
Dawkins, by contrast, isn't even informed about what religious people believe. He doesn't think he ought to be informed, and is quicker to attack his enemies personally than to bother reading what they have to say.
Even atheists have expressed embarassment at Dawkins' ignorance on religion. To be a modern Aquinas, Dawkins would have to read up a little theology, something that he makes quite clear is beneath him.
It's just that with all the data in, the weight of the evidence goes against the existance of a creator.
As someone who is familiar with the evidence, I am convinced that quite the contrary is true, nor am I alone.
most people,at some level,know that there is, a "something" or "Someone."When they say they do not believe,it is that they do not want to-do not like the possible implications etc.The real concern is, Who he really is, and how he is calling each individually at the moment,and in the future for each individually and as a whole.
I see that Islam is a force that will soon be in control over parts of western Europe in a fe decades, and the questions of why God is permitting this. Many of the Fathers thought they was to be a great Apostasy and the belief that the Jewish people would come to see that Jesus was the Christ-the Messiah.We need it to become known that great saints have experienced this as so from God,where in Islam no saints have experienced God praising Mohammed,nor and Jewish saints having God telling them of the blasephemy of Him being jesus.
Russ,
Thanks for the comment. I suspect that we agree on the most important points, so I express my disagreement with two, in the hope that you will be able to show me how I have misunderstood you.
most people,at some level,know that there is, a "something" or "Someone."When they say they do not believe,it is that they do not want to-do not like the possible implications etc.
Although I agree with the first sentence, I cannot agree with the second. Most of the people who believe in something, as opposed to someone, believe that this something is both impersonal and indifferent. Thus, they find it absurd to assert, as we Christians do, that this something/someone entered our human experience in the incarnation and hung on the cross for our sake. Why should God care? When even seminarians are given to asserting seriously that God doesn't care, we have a real problem.
We need it to become known that great saints have experienced this as so from God...
I agree, but the proclamation of such marvels is bound to meet indifference as long as people are sincerely convinced that God is indifferent. (Note that I myself believe in the marvels, and from time to time I've even referred to them on this weblog.)
In my experience, most people base their belief in God's indifference on their own experience, namely their lack of awareness of God's action in the world. So we have to approach with some form of respect for such a widespread error which permeates even Christendom much more deeply than it should. I cannot imagine that so many profoundly damaging theologies would be so popular today among Christians if they genuinely believed in the incarnation, the cross, and the resurrection, rather than just picking the one or two that appeal most to one's point of view.
One of the greatest preachers of all time pointed out that the cross is a stumbling block for Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. Foolishness indeed, and yet the most profound wisdom, once one sees it. Yet seeing it is precisely the hardest part: no one can come to Christ unless the Father beckon. And even then...
Post a Comment