Believe then understand
Posted on
..
Here is my latest column for the magazine "Philosophy Now," about Aquinas and the Indian philosopher Shankara, and how both thought philosophy could be pursued while presupposing principles of religious belief. So this is part, like, five hundred of my attempt to show that religion and philosophy are not mutually exclusive (see also "rule 14" of my 20 rules for history of philosophy).
Add new comment
- Add new comment
- 911 views
Blog Archive
- November 2020 (3)
- October 2020 (4)
- September 2020 (2)
- August 2020 (1)
- July 2020 (4)
- June 2020 (2)
- May 2020 (1)
- March 2020 (4)
- February 2020 (1)
- January 2020 (5)
- November 2019 (2)
- October 2019 (4)
- September 2019 (3)
- August 2019 (3)
- July 2019 (2)
- June 2019 (2)
- May 2019 (2)
- April 2019 (3)
- March 2019 (2)
- February 2019 (4)
- January 2019 (2)
- December 2018 (5)
- November 2018 (1)
- October 2018 (3)
- September 2018 (5)
- August 2018 (8)
- July 2018 (4)
- June 2018 (2)
- May 2018 (3)
- April 2018 (5)
- March 2018 (3)
- February 2018 (3)
- January 2018 (3)
- December 2017 (5)
- November 2017 (4)
- October 2017 (5)
Nice article, Peter! One
Nice article, Peter! One nuance I'd like to add: you say of the Christian mysteries that "We can at least establish that they involve no impossibilities." The view of Aquinas, as explained by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, is actually subtler: we cannot prove the Trinity to be non-contradictory but we can show that it cannot be proven to be contradictory.
For Catholics this is especially important to get right with regards to the Trinity because as the ground of all being, God contains nothing that is unnecessary. That means that anything that can be rigorously demonstrated to be possible about God, must be not only possible but necessarily true. So if a Catholic says we can prove the Trinity is possible he is implying that God can be known to be a Trinity by reason alone. But if we can know even the supernatural mysteries of God by reason then the distinction between supernatural and natural, between God and man, breaks down. We can know God's attributes by reason because they are attributes we can naturally participate in, but what belongs to the intimate life of the Deity qua Deity (not qua good, powerful etc) is unknowable by the human intellect.
The same principle (it cannot be proven possible but we can see that it can't be proven impossible) applies to things like the Incarnation too, but since the Incarnation is contingent, a free act of God, saying it can be proven possible at least doesn't cause the same massive problem as with the Trinity.