"Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) lived at a critical juncture of western culture when the arrival of the Aristotelian corpus in Latin translation reopened the question of the relation between faith and reason, calling into question the modus vivendi that had obtained for centuries. This crisis flared up just as universities were being founded. Thomas, after early studies at Montecassino, moved on to the University of Naples, where he met members of the new Dominican Order. It was at Naples too that Thomas had his first extended contact with the new learning. When he joined the Dominican Order he went north to study with Albertus Magnus, author of a paraphrase of the Aristoteliancorpus. Thomas completed his studies at the University of Paris, which had been formed out of the monastic schools on the Left Bank and the cathedral school at Notre Dame. In two stints as a regent master Thomas defended the mendicant orders and, of greater historical importance, countered both the Averroistic interpretations of Aristotle and the Franciscan tendency to reject Greek philosophy. The result was a new modus vivendi between faith and philosophy which survived until the rise of the new physics. The Catholic Church has over the centuries regularly and consistently reaffirmed the central importance of Thomas's work, both theological and philosophical, for understanding its teachings concerning the Christian revelation, and his close textual commentaries on Aristotle represent a cultural resource which is now receiving increased recognition. The following account concentrates on Thomas the philosopher" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/).
ASSIGNMENT
READ THE FOLLOWING:
- WHETHER, BESIDES PHILOSOPHY, ANY FURTHER DOCTRINE IS REQUIRED?
- WHETHER SACRED DOCTRINE IS A SCIENCE?
- WHETHER THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS SELF-EVIDENT?
- WHETHER IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED THAT GOD EXISTS?
- For each text (four total), Summarize 1 Objection and the related Reply.
- For each text (four total), Summarize the "I answer that" section.
Please identify each objection and reply by number- for example, "Objection #2/Reply".
Marty Costes
ReplyDeleteWhether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?
Objection 1 states that,Man shouldn't seek any other knowledge besides reason, because anything above reason is not meant for us to know and has been already been solved.
The reply to objection one is that, that which is of higher knowledge than reason should be accepted by faith. It is revealed by God and therefore a sacred science exists and should be sought after.
Marty Costes
ReplyDeleteWhether sacred doctrine is a science?
Objection 1 states that, sacred doctrine isn't a science because it is based off of articles of faith and all men do not have faith. Therefor articles of faith are not self evident
The reply to objection one states that, The principles of the sacred doctrines are inside of themselves. They are able to be deduced to conclusions of a higher science, man.
Devin Viola
ReplyDelete1. Objection #1/Reply- There is no reason for any other knowledge besides philosophical science. Everything else besides philosophical science because everything else is unreasonable so we should not seek to know it. Replay- Not everything is sought out by reason. So through faith God reveals to us what we did not know before. " I answer that"- He says that knowledge must be revealed by God besides philosophical science. It is also necessary for man to find Truth without reason.
2."objection 1" The sacred doctrine is not a science because it proceeds from articles of faith that are not self-evident. Reply- The sacred doctrine is reducible to the conclusion of a higher science making it a science. "I answer that"- The sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles of " a light of higher science." The sacred science is established through what God reveals to us.
3. "Objection 1"-God is not a sacred topic, and even if someone does not follow him or even believe in him, he is known throughout people. People hear about him through different ways, but he is mostly known throughout all of us naturally. "Reply"- Man naturally knows God but only finds happiness through material items. "I answer that"- Any thing can be self evident in two ways. One is that it knows about itself but we do not know about it. The second way not only it knows about itself but we do also.
4.
4. "objective 1"- God cannot be demonstrated because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge which you cannot find in faith. Only faith exists with God. "reply"- You can find truths of God through natural knowledge. Nothing can prevent man to accept what is proven through faith. "I answer that"- There are two ways to demonstrate one is to argue what is prior absolutely and the other is through cause. God can be demonstrated to us through His effects on us.
DeleteIn the first objection it is best summarized as because the knowledge of God is self implanted in all living things, God himself is self evident. In the reply, the idea of God self implanted existence cannot be true for man' idea of happiness may be riches of things that are untrue happiness. The second part of the objections ,objection 2 is best told as if we can't figure out what god's essence is shown than we cannot prove gods existence .
ReplyDeleteNick Biglen
ReplyDeleteFor the document "Where, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is require?" The objection is that humans do not need any knowledge greater than what is acquired through reason. So philosophy is lies under the category of reason, anything else is unnecessary. The reply is saying that even though humans should not explore knowledge above reason, once it is presented to man by God, it cannot simply be ignored.
The I answer that focuses on how God is the source for knowledge that is not philosophical. It is saying that what God plans to reveal to you, he will reveal to you regardless of the level of truth. For human salvation, it is brought by ideas in the spectrum of religion, in this case theology. That holds the greater power of knowing.
"The sacred doctrine is a science?" is the next part. The first objection is that sacred doctrine is not a science because not everyone accepts it factually, like they would for a science like biology. The reply to this objection is that sciences in it of itself are either self evident, or have conclusions of a higher science. That means that there is both legitimate sciences and the ones prompted by God which are true in themselves from the infallible source.
The I answer that states that sacred doctrine is not a science. There are the sciences from the light of physicals proofs, and the sciences given by God. The distinction is that a sacred doctrine may be motivated and given by God, but because it is a physical thing that claims to be science it cannot be a science.
The article "Whether the existence of God is self evident?" Is saying that God implants his knowledge in all of us, so in essence he is self evident. God created science so he can incorporate science of theology in it. Man desires happiness, but often times happiness comes from material possessions. Others achieve happiness through God, so God cannot be self evident because some don't even acknowledge God as a source, and for the ones who don't follow God a science through him will not make sense.
The I answer that is saying that basically once the term and idea God is revealed to one, it creates parts of him. Once we learn the name of the parts it becomes a whole to us. Once God is understood as whole, he can be understood as self evident and knowledgable.
For the document "Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists?", objection one is saying that man inherently knows God through a search for an eternal happiness, but God's existence is known but not fully know. We can understand the idea of God but not fully know him because his existence cannot be proved in a physical way. The reply to objection one is saying that God does not exist through the existence of evil. How the bad can come out in an idea of an infinite good shows that it is truly not totally good. God is to be understood as an idea of faith and no concrete proofs will make his existence.
DeleteDemonstration of God's existence comes from the idea of cause and effect. There is a knowing of God by existence where he is the cause, and the effect is the result of the cause which is God. So effects are conclusions and whether humans acknowledge it or not are results of God because he once demonstrated himself as the creator of edistance.
God's self evidence is achieved through his causes and effects.
Whether the existence of God is self-evident?
ReplyDeleteObjection 1. Since the knowledge of God is implanted in all living things God himself is self evident./REPLY The idea of God's self implanting is untrue since man's idea of "true happiness" can be riches rather then the true happiness that comes from being in unity with God. "I answer that" there are two slit was of God's self evident- that of self evident in itself or self evident in itself but not through us.
Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists?
Objection 2. We are man wish to find God's essence for if we can not find it we can't prove God's existence./REPLY The effect of a cause becomes the definition of the cause. Since this is the case its fair to label the cause as a middle way for God existing because the cause leads to the effect."I answer that"-
((Continue))
DeleteThere are two ways to demonstrate Gods existence with them being the effect(a posteriori) and the cause(a priori). If effect is the known we follow the knowledge on the cause for its cause can be demonstrated since the cause must pre-exist for the effect.
Whether,besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?
Objected 1. Man shouldn't wish to seek knowledge on something greater in existence then themselves for that which is high is treated as philosophical science./REPLY even if the knowledge is higher once revealed to man through God should be accepted in faith."I answer that"- the only way for Salvation to come to man it needs to be taught although greater as it is. God reveals this to man for a reason and shouldn't be ignored once presented.
Whether sacred doctrine is a science?
Objection 1. Since science originates form self evident principles and sacred doctrine do not scared doctrine can't be a science./REPLY much like sacred doctrine any science either reducible to the conclusion of a higher science or are self evident themselves."I answer that"-
(Continue)
DeleteConsider that sciences depend on other sciences principles to enhance itself to a degree scared doctrine is a science. Although these may differ to the point of being opposite (science of the light of knowledge and the science of the light as a higher science) they are both still sciences nevertheless
Chris Mettee
ReplyDeleteWhether, besides Philosophy, any further doctrine is required.
1.In Objective 1 it is saying that philosophy is the only science man needs to know for that it involves reason and reason is above all. And with that said whatever is not above reason is fully treated in philosophical science. With that said anything besides philosophical science is superfluous. In his reply anything that are once replied by God, they must be accepted by faith not as much as reason.
2. He says that the end must be first known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Therefore it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation.It was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover would only be known to a few and that after a long time and with the admixture of many errors.
Whether sacred doctrine is a science?
1.In Objective 1 it is saying that sacred doctrine is not a science because not all of the truth are admitted by all, "For all men have not faith". He replies that principles of any sciences are either in themselves self-evident or reducible to the conclusions of a higher science and such that are the principles of sacred doctrine.
2.Scared doctrine is a science. We must know that there are two sciences, one that is known by the natural light of intelligence like geometry. Others that which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because is proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, the science of God and the blessed.
3. Part 1.) Objection 3: The existence of truth is self-evident. Whoever denies the existence of truth says that truth does not exist. If truth does not exist, then the saying "Truth does not exist" is true. Therefore whoever says that truth does not exist is contradicting their selves. In Jn. 14:6, God says that he is the truth. Therefore, the existence of God is true.
Part 2.) Something can be self-evident in two ways; self-evident to itself but not to humans, and self-evident to itself and humans as well. The saying "Man is an animal" is self-evident because all men are animals, but not all animals are men.
4. Part 1.) Objection 1: The existence of God cannot really be demonstrated. It is only on faith that we believe that God exists. But what if we cannot prove that faith is real? A demonstration of something produces actual knowledge but faith cannot be seen. Therefore, it cannot be proven that God exists.
Part 2.) Demonstration can be shown in two ways: One is through cause and can be shown through an argument of what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect and can be shown through an argument of what is prior relatively to us. When the effect is better known than the cause, we tend to go with the effect because that is all we know. We go with what we know because we find it hard to have faith in what we cannot see.
Liam Breslin
ReplyDeleteWhether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required.
Objection 1:
In the first objection the asker says that we have no need for any further sciences because we have all that we need in philosophy. This person is also stating that it would be unwise for one to know things that would be above them as in they are not at that state of being.
I answer that 1:
Thomas suggests that the other sciences are a necessary aspect God gave the humans so they may work towards their salvation. Although Thomas does believe it is valuable for humans to learn these sciences as to be ready for their salvation he also believes that these sciences should be taught through divine intervention lessons from God.
Whether sacred doctrine is a science?
Objection 1:
The asker says that sacred doctrines are not science because they lack self evident principles, sacred doctrines are brought from articles of faith which are not widely excepted.
I answer that 2:
St.Thomas reminds the asker that there are two sciences which could be taking place there, the sciences which spring from natural light math,chemistry,etc. and then there are sciences which come from an even higher science which is where the sacred doctrines as a science branch from the science of God and the blessed, so sacred science are revealed through the principle of God.
AyoIn objection 1 The theory that sacred doctrine is not science is proposed. Science comes from self-evidence and validation from ones self. Sacred is brought up through objectives of faith not being self-evident as the truth is not admitted by all. Everyone doesn't have faith and if they do it may not be in the same level of faith making it opposed to science.
ReplyDeleteIn "I answer that" A debate is brewing stating that there are two kinds of science. Some in which know by the natural light of intelligence. For example arithmetic and geometry.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAyo and Damien
ReplyDeleteWhether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?
Objection 1:
Philosophy is reason. Man does not need to know more than reason because then man would be looking too high. Any information beyond philosophy is excessive and unneeded. Philosophy has already covered what is not above reason.
I answer that:
The knowledge of God is higher than just secular reason because the knowledge of God comes from God. We must know more than just reason alone to gain knowledge about divine revelation. Our knowledge must exceed what we can know by just reason alone.
Whether the existence of God is self-evident?
Objection 1:
The existence of God is self-evident because "the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all."
I answer that:
Things can be self-evident in itself and not to us, or they can be self evident in itself and to us as well. Since we cannot fully know God, He cannot be self-evident to us. We also do not know the essence of God so He is not self-evident to us.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMarty Costes
ReplyDeleteWhether the existence of God is self-evident
Objection 1 states that, the existence of God is self-evident because it is naturally implanted in us. This knowledge determines us to think that way.
In reply to objection 1, Aquinas states that even though the existence of God is planted in us and often confused, but what man naturally desires is happiness, and what man naturally desires is known by God
Marty Costes
ReplyDeleteWhether it can be demonstrated that God exists
Objection 1 states that, the existence of God cannot be demonstrated because the belief of God is based on faith. Faith cannot be physically demonstrated.
In reply to objection 1 Aquinas states, that truths about God are known by natural reasons, not by faith. With that being said, one can use natural reason to demonstrate his or her faith.
Adam & Matt 📜 💯💯💯™
ReplyDeleteFirst Part Objection #1: We should not seek for anything more than reason, because everything we need to know is answered through philosophical science. This leads to the assumption that any other knowledge other than philosophy is not necessary. Reply- Even though men may not seek what is beyond reason, it has been revealed by God therefore we must trust it, and have faith in God.
I answer that; With philosophy and human reason at the base, these things are necessary for our salvation. Even though things like truths may be above our human reason, we can come to believe those things above us because of divine revelation. Therefore a belief in God depends on his truth, and through divine truths and divine revelation. God used these because it was fit for humans, this leads to a necessary science about sacred science, that teaches us the revelation.
"Whether sacred doctrine is a science"
Objection #1: Sacred doctrine should not be a science, because science comes from self-evident truths, but doctrine requires a leap of faith. "Therefore doctrine is not science"
Reply: Any science has these self-evident principles, and for sacred doctrine we can come to know these principles through a higher science.
I answer that: Sacred doctrine is a science because it is in the higher group of sciences. There are 2 types of sciences, those whic are naturally known from intelligence such as math. Sacred doctrine is derived from a higher meaning, because it is established through God it has been named a science, because God has revealed these principles to us.
Brad Barron
ReplyDelete1) Objection 1: Do not seek anything above reason, which is theology, because it is too high for us to comprehend. Humans should stay worried about the philosophical sciences.
Reply: Even though there are things above us, we accept them through faith and theology, not human reason.
I answer that: The End must be known by people who are willing to seek it. These Truths are understood because of our human reason, and are revealed to us for our salvation and relationship with God.
2) Objection 1: Sacred doctrine is not a science because it is of the intangible, which is faith, and not the tangible. Not everyone has human reason.
Reply: The only reason we have lower sciences is because we have God to teach us these Truths.
I answer that: Sacred doctrine is a science because it comes from a higher source, the science of God, in which he reveal Truths.
3) Objection 3: If there is no truth, you believe that is true, which makes truth exist, and since God is truth, then you believe in God.
Reply: truth is tangible making it self-evident but Primal Truth is intangible, making it not self-evident. Humans would need some other source.
I answer that: The subject and predicate can make things self-evident to us as long as we have learned about such a thing, like "man is an Animal." We know that animal is contained in man. "God exists" is self-evident because the predicate is the same subject, but is not self-evident to us for we do not know the essence of God and need to focus on the smaller things like nature before we can truly understand God.
4) Objection 1: We can not prove God exists because this comes by faith, which can not be demonstrated because faith is belief in the unseen. If we make faith demonstrable, then it is not truly faith, but a science.
Reply: We can know God and His Truths through natural reason which will then lead us to having faith.
I answer that: There are two ways of demonstrating, which is cause and effect. If the effect is greater than the cause, then we know that there is a cause because an effect must come from a cause. Since we know God's effects, then we know that God does truly exist.
Jessie Westfall is my partner
ReplyDeleteWhether the existence of God is self-evident?
Objection 1: The existence of God is self-evident. Things are naturally implanted in us come from the knowledge which self-evident gives. Damascene states that “the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all.” Therefore God’s existences is self-evident.
Reply to the Objective: Knowing god exists is a simple way that is implanted in us by nature. Man desire happiness and natural desires of man are known to him. However this is not exactly how God exists. Everyone has a different image of happiness.
I answer that: a thing can be self-evident in two way, in itself and to us. The essence of the predicate is essences of the subject. “Man is an animal.” Animal is the essence of man and can be known to us. However there is an essences of predicate that is not known. Predicate and subject is known to itself but to no one else. If one does not know the essence of something then it is not self-evident. God’s essence is not known therefore God is not self-evident.
Whether it can be demonstrated the God exist?
Objection 3: The existence of God were demonstrated this is a cause of his effects. His effect are not proportionate to him, if his effects make him demonstrated.
Rely to Objection 3: The effects are not proportionate to God but using the effects we can demonstrate the existence of God.
I answer that: Demonstration can be made in to ways: one is through the cause known as “a priori” and argues what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect and is called “a posteriori” and this is argue to what is prior relatively only to us. Therefore God is not self-evident because we can know his effect but not his cause.
In objection 1 The theory that sacred doctrine is not science is proposed. Science comes from self-evidence and validation from ones self. Sacred is brought up through objectives of faith not being self-evident as the truth is not admitted by all. Everyone doesn't have faith and if they do it may not be in the same level of faith making it opposed to science.
ReplyDeleteIn "I answer that" A debate is brewing stating that there are two kinds of science. Some in which know by the natural light of intelligence. For example arithmetic and geometry.
Whether besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?
ReplyDeleteReply to Objection 1:
Once things are revealed by God, they must be accepted as truth. The things revealed by God are beyond regular sciences.
Whether the existence of God is self-evident?
Reply to Objection 1:
Man desires happiness. Man can only truly know what he desires. Man does not desire God, so man cannot know God fully. Man cannot absolutely know that God exists.
Adam & Matt
ReplyDelete#3 Part 1
Objection three discusses the existence of truth. The idea that truth does not exist would be a truth in itself because the person that believes this would find this to be true meaning that truth is self-evident. Since God is truth this means that the existence of God is self-evident.
Aquinas replies by stating that, although truth in general is self-evident, the existence of God is uncomprehendable and not self-evident to us.
#3 Part 2
Aquinas states that there are two ways that a thing can be self-evident: self-evident in itself, but not to us/ self-evident in itself, and to us. Aquinas uses the example of the predicate and subject in "Man is an animal." If everyone knew this then it would be self-evident to all but since some people are ignorant it is not self-evident to all. Therefore God is self-evident in itself but not to all. The use of the effects of God have to be used for people to even have a thought of God.
Alex kolakowski= partner
ReplyDelete1) Whether the existence of God is self evident?
- existence of God is self evident. This is said because the knowledge of God is within us. The reply to this is that we desire happiness, so we desire to know God. However, we do not know if God absolutely exists. Since happiness is different for all people.
* God's existence is self evident and it is also not. It isn't because we do not know God essence. It is because only God knows his/her existence. This can only be explained by things that are effected, but we do not know the cause.
2) Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists?
- God's existence cannot be demonstrated. It cannot be because "it is an article of faith that God exists." Faith is unseen, therefore we cannot tell of God truly exists. The reply to this is that what we know by natural reason, we can determine that it is not because of faith.
* We can try to demonstrate God's existence through "a priori" and "a posteriori." This helps us to learn the cause that comes before the effect. Everything has a cause, as long as it's effects are known to us. This means we cannot demonstrate that God exists, only his effects on us in our lives and in the world around us.
Lukas Kinter
ReplyDeleteWhether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?
Objection 1: states that no one needs further knowledge. For that man should not seek to know what is about reason. So whatever is not above reason is fully treated in philosophical science. Therefore any other knowledge besides philosophical is superfluous. In the reply it says that although those things which are beyond man's knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason.
I answer that: it says it's necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. The moves to the truths about God which human reason could have discovered, was necessary so man should could be taught by a divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.
Whether sacred doctrine is a science?
Objection 1: says that the sacred doctrine is not a science. For every science proceeds from self-evident principles, but sacred doctrine proceeds from articles of faith which are not self-evident. In the reply it states that the principles of any science are either in themselves self-evident, or reducible to the conclusions of a higher science.
I answer that: Sacred doctrine is a science, but we must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry. So therefore sacred science is established on principles revealed by God.
Kai and Donald
ReplyDelete"Whether the existence of God is self evident?"
This statement says that we are born with God's knowledge encoded in us, which makes God himself self evident.
The reply : "Man" wants to be happy and God already knows what "Man" wants but the final conclusion is that everyone has a different context of happiness, therefore we cant know if God truly exists.
I answer : Something is self-evident in itself and to us, if one does not know the origin of something then it is not self-evident. We can God’s origin is not known therefore God is not self-evident.
" Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists?"
We can't prove God exists because believing in God is a sign of faith, which is a belief that cant be seen.
The Reply: We know God exists through natural reason which as result will lead to us having faith.
I answer : God's existence can be demonstrated using natural reason. Natural reason in this case means cause and effect, everything has a cause and we should be able to identify the effects. We conclude God effects every human being and the world itself.
Kai
ReplyDeleteWhether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required ?
Objective 1 : Man should only seek the knowledge of reason. Anything above reason has already been solved and is not meant for Our knowing.
Reply to Objection 1 : An higher knowledge of reason should be accepted by faith. It is revealed by God and therefor is a sacred science and should be sought after.
Kai
ReplyDeleteWhether sacred doctrine is a science ?
Objection 1 : Sacred doctrine is not a science because it is based off articles of faith. All men do not have faith. Articles of faith are not self evident.
Reply to Objection 1 : The principles of the sacred doctrines are inside of themselves. They are able to be deduced to conclusions of a higher science, man.