On Nature and Grace: The Role of Reason in the Life of Faith

[Standing Wolf]

Where is revelation in Aquinas's the Five Ways of demonstrating God's existence?




It's not there. These are all argument based on natural first principles.


That misses the point of the thread however but seemed necessary from Wolf's wanting to steer it off-topic.

Boy, you're really on a roll today, aren't you? "Wolf's wanting to steer it off-topic"? I'm not even going to attempt to figure out how you arrived at that conclusion.

Aquinas' "proofs" are nothing more than facile speculation, i.e., "If this exists, it stands to reason that that exists".

[Chris]

Actually, I read every word of it. What you are saying, in effect, is that observation and experience are only as important to knowledge and understanding as we want them to be. That there is an alternative method to knowing what we know that is every bit as valid, and which is, in this case, a collection of ancient religious texts written by unknown persons from a pre-industrial society halfway around the world. If empiricism isn't our friend in justifying the latter, let us question empiricism itself.

And if you're going to "go there" right off the bat with comments like "You didn't read my response" and "Thus your comparison is silly", we might as well go no further. There was far too much of that kind of nonsense in the other thread.

Boy, you're really on a roll today, aren't you? "Wolf's wanting to steer it off-topic"? I'm not even going to attempt to figure out how you arrived at that conclusion.

Aquinas' "proofs" are nothing more than facile speculation, i.e., "If this exists, it stands to reason that that exists".

You're still off-topic. The topic is first principles. You're hung up on the God problem, which is the question of the other thread. Nor is the topic me.

I will respond when you can address the topic: First principles....

[Standing Wolf]

You're still off-topic. The topic is first principles. You're hung up on the God problem, which is the question of the other thread. Nor is the topic me.

I will respond when you can address the topic: First principles....

My first two posts in this thread were absolutely on the topic of first principles. Your next post went off on a tangent and I merely followed it and asked a very pertinent question, which you still haven't responded to.

You claim that I'm "hung up on the God problem"...but isn't "God" one of the major first principles being discussed? Hasn't every quotation and excerpt you've posted in this thread referenced God?

As for the topic not being you - it isn't me, either, bud.

That misses the point of the thread however but seemed necessary from Wolf's wanting to steer it off-topic.

A simple question about first principles. (One that I've asked before, but who knows, maybe you'll actually respond to it this time.) Is revelation - and please, if you wouldn't mind, explain what you mean by "revelation" - to be considered as valid a basis for establishing and recognizing a first principle as empirical knowledge?

[Chris]

My first two posts in this thread were absolutely on the topic of first principles. Your next post went off on a tangent and I merely followed it and asked a very pertinent question, which you still haven't responded to.

You claim that I'm "hung up on the God problem"...but isn't "God" one of the major first principles being discussed? Hasn't every quotation and excerpt you've posted in this thread referenced God?

As for the topic not being you - it isn't me, either, bud.

[/I][/I][/COLOR]A simple question about first principles. (One that I've asked before, but who knows, maybe you'll actually respond to it this time.) Is revelation - and please, if you wouldn't mind, explain what you mean by "revelation" - to be considered as valid a basis for establishing and recognizing a first principle as empirical knowledge?

My first two posts in this thread were absolutely on the topic of first principles

No, not really.

Your first point was "What first principle of Science cannot, ultimately, be discarded if sufficient evidence is found to disprove it?"

That I addressed in my next two posts as, one, "First principles are unproven", and two, the point of first principles is "Arguments from first principles prove other things."

But in both your first and second post you were already off-topic on revelation.

As for the topic not being you - it isn't me, either, bud

Your hang-up on the God problem is evidenced in your off-topic posts.

Is revelation - and please, if you wouldn't mind, explain what you mean by "revelation" - to be considered as valid a basis for establishing and recognizing a first principle as empirical knowledge?

Well, this is you continuing off-topic. And this is me trying again to steer discussion back to first principles: The answer to that is the answer to what is the valid basis of empiricism? Empiricism is assumed as a first principle that can neither be proven or disproven. That is the nature of first principles. The same basis as Aquinas's first principle. IOW, the question makes no sense when considering first principles.

Which takes us back to my first response to you: "First principles are unproven. Arguments from first principles prove other things."

[Standing Wolf]

No, not really.

Your first point was "What first principle of Science cannot, ultimately, be discarded if sufficient evidence is found to disprove it?"

That I addressed in my next two posts as, one, "First principles are unproven", and two, the point of first principles is "Arguments from first principles prove other things."

But in both your first and second post you were already off-topic on revelation.




Your hang-up on the God problem is evidenced in your off-topic posts.




Well, this is you continuing off-topic. And this is me trying again to steer discussion back to first principles: The answer to that is the answer to what is the valid basis of empiricism? Empiricism is assumed as a first principle that can neither be proven or disproven. That is the nature of first principles. The same basis as Aquinas's first principle. IOW, the question makes no sense when considering first principles.

Which takes us back to my first response to you: "First principles are unproven. Arguments from first principles prove other things."

Understood. You don't want any questioning of your claims, and whenever you're asked difficult questions, however pertinent to the subject, you claim that they're off-topic. Even when it comes to questions directly relating to first principles, you insist on being cagey and not responding to them directly.

Your claim that "First principles are unproven" is deliberately misleading, because you then employ it to mean that a theory or axiom based on empirical data is existentially indistinguishable, in terms of value or certainty, from one based on...what...faith, revelation? Again, you refuse to say.

[Chris]

Understood. You don't want any questioning of your claims, and whenever you're asked difficult questions, however pertinent to the subject, you claim that they're off-topic. Even when it comes to questions directly relating to first principles, you insist on being cagey and not responding to them directly.

Your claim that "First principles are unproven" is deliberately misleading, because you then employ it to mean that a theory or axiom based on empirical data is existentially indistinguishable, in terms of value or certainty, from one based on...what...faith, revelation? Again, you refuse to say.

Nothing of the sort--as you again invent reasons to discuss me ("you don't want," "cagey").

I posted a topic on first principles looking for discussion of that as it related to Aquinas.

Your claim that "First principles are unproven" is deliberately misleading, because you then employ it to mean that a theory or axiom based on empirical data is existentially indistinguishable, in terms of value or certainty, from one based on...what...faith, revelation?

I've said nothing of the sort. You have.

First principles are unproven, yes, that I said. Because that's the fundamental definition. There is nothing misleading about that.

They cannot be derived from other assumptions or facts. The example I gave was empiricism itself, the assumption that all knowledge is derived from experience. There is no way to prove or disprove that. It is taken on faith.

Thus what's misleading here is your existential comparison of revelation and empiricism. They are both first principles. There is no way to establish existential value or certainty for either as a first principle. You cannot prove a first principle.

Not sure how I refuse to say what I have been saying throughout this thread and just said again.

You could argue--to the point of the OP--that there is value in the practical results of applying empiricism by pointing to scientific knowledge. But you can--as the OP and Aquinas do--argue there is value in the practical results of applying revelation by pointing to theological knowledge.

But you cannot objectively value one over the other based on first principles or practical results, only subjectively.

Perhaps that's the confusion here. While the topic is about first principles, you keep looking at practices and applying your personal subjective valuation there. That certainly seems to be the case when you conflate "theory or axiom" for an axiom is a first principle with no empirical basis while a theory is a practical result of applying an axiom with other propositions, assumptions, observations, and experiments. But that was Aquinas's point as cited in the OP: “As other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences: so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else, as the Apostle [Paul] from the resurrection of Christ argues in proof of the general resurrection (1 Cor. 15).”

[Standing Wolf]

Nothing of the sort--as you again invent reasons to discuss me ("you don't want," "cagey").

I posted a topic on first principles looking for discussion of that as it related to Aquinas.




I've said nothing of the sort. You have.

First principles are unproven, yes, that I said. Because that's the fundamental definition. There is nothing misleading about that.

They cannot be derived from other assumptions or facts. The example I gave was empiricism itself, the assumption that all knowledge is derived from experience. There is no way to prove or disprove that. It is taken on faith.

Thus what's misleading here is your existential comparison of revelation and empiricism. They are both first principles. There is no way to establish existential value or certainty for either as a first principle. You cannot prove a first principle.

Not sure how I refuse to say what I have been saying throughout this thread and just said again.

You could argue--to the point of the OP--that there is value in the practical results of applying empiricism by pointing to scientific knowledge. But you can--as the OP and Aquinas do--argue there is value in the practical results of applying revelation by pointing to theological knowledge.

But you cannot objectively value one over the other based on first principles or practical results, only subjectively.

Perhaps that's the confusion here. While the topic is about first principles, you keep looking at practices and applying your personal subjective valuation there. That certainly seems to be the case when you conflate "theory or axiom" for an axiom is a first principle with no empirical basis while a theory is a practical result of applying an axiom with other propositions, assumptions, observations, and experiments. But that was Aquinas's point as cited in the OP: “As other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences: so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else, as the Apostle [Paul] from the resurrection of Christ argues in proof of the general resurrection (1 Cor. 15).”

Just a suggestion. Try getting your head out of Aquinas and company and make an honest attempt to describe your beliefs - or what you believe your beliefs ought to be - in your own words, without resorting to the sort of dense, convoluted, jargon-laden gobbledygook exemplified by that last paragraph. You're really not impressing anyone.

[Chris]

Since at this point I see no on-topic response since my previous post I'll add this....

The question really amounts to this, for knowledge to have any value must it be empirically based? Does not being empirical disqualify such knowledge as, what, superstition?

Is all the great theological literature going back to Aquinas--nay, Aristotle and further mere superstition? Hmmm.

All of the hard sciences follow the same model. Based on one or more first principles, construct an entire science, like, oh, say, Evolutionary Science or Relativity Theory or Quantum Physics or other as yet to be fully empirically tested. All superstition?

Most of mathematics follows the same model, based on one or more first principles, construct an entire mathematics, like Euclidean Geometry, or non-Eucludean Geometry, and others. None of which is empirical and so all of which is mere superstition?

Soft sciences like the Austrian School of Economics which is entirely a prior and non-empirical. Superstition?

All of philosophy, superstition?

Law, same model, a few first principles (Declaration), derived rules (Constitution), derived interpretations. Non-empirical. Superstition.

Politics and government?

Are we to say that all these examples of fields of knowledge hold no value because they are non-empirical?

I don't think so. They all, including theology, start from first principles and reason from there to derive new principles, theologies, theories, and more.

[Standing Wolf]

Since at this point I see no on-topic response since my previous post I'll add this....

The question really amounts to this, for knowledge to have any value must it be empirically based? Does not being empirical disqualify such knowledge as, what, superstition?

Unsupported speculation, at best.

Is all the great theological literature going back to Aquinas--nay, Aristotle and further mere superstition? Hmmm.

A commentary on superstition, perhaps. An attempt to make a theory of the universe based on children's stories, and unsupported by any known methodology for distinguishing truth from fiction, appear to be philosophically palatable and something to be taken seriously. Fans of the movies have devoted thousands of pages to analyzing and expounding upon every moment of every Star Wars film with pretty much that same motivation and just as much self-importance and wasted fervor.

For a religious tradition that insists on the vital importance of faith and its mysteries, and on keeping one's eyes "not on what is seen, but on what is unseen", the Church's scholars and philosophers certainly went through a lot of vellum in an attempt to imbue their doctrines and practices with the appearance of something that makes logical sense.

All of the hard sciences follow the same model. Based on one or more first principles, construct an entire science, like, oh, say, Evolutionary Science or Relativity Theory or Quantum Physics or other as yet to be fully empirically tested. All superstition?

If anything, the opposite of superstition. No scientific first principle or theory built thereon, to my knowledge, is founded on a belief in the irrational, the magical, or the supernatural.

Most of mathematics follows the same model, based on one or more first principles, construct an entire mathematics, like Euclidean Geometry, or non-Eucludean Geometry, and others. None of which is empirical and so all of which is mere superstition?

Soft sciences like the Austrian School of Economics which is entirely a prior and non-empirical. Superstition?

All of philosophy, superstition?

Law, same model, a few first principles (Declaration), derived rules (Constitution), derived interpretations. Non-empirical. Superstition.

Politics and government?

Are we to say that all these examples of fields of knowledge hold no value because they are non-empirical?

I don't think so. They all, including theology, start from first principles and reason from there to derive new principles, theologies, theories, and more.

You attempt to conflate first principles based on observation and experience with the "first principles" of a religion like, as an example, Christianity, whose first principles include things like the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the redemption of mankind by his sacrifice, etc. There is no rational or intelligent way to compare the two.

[Chris]

You attempt to conflate first principles based on observation and experience with the "first principles" of a religion like, as an example, Christianity, whose first principles include things like the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the redemption of mankind by his sacrifice, etc. There is no rational or intelligent way to compare the two.

One, no, I do not do that.

Two, you do and it shows you still do not understand what first principles are.

From observation and experience you derive/deduce laws/rules/etc. First principles are not derived/deduced.

Again, as an example of a first principle, empiricism, which means that all knowledge is derived from observation and experience, is a first principle of science. It is not observed, it is not experienced, it is not derived, it is not deduced. It cannot be proved. It cannot be disproven. It is assumed to be true. It is thus a first principle.

As another example of a first principle, that of religion, God exists--or, more generally, revelation. It is not observed, it is not experienced, it is not derived, it is not deduced. It cannot be proved. It cannot be disproven. It is assumed to be true. It is thus a first principle.

And yet another, the axiom of Euclidean Geometry, a straight line is the shortest distance between two points. It is not observed, it is not experienced, it is not derived, it is not deduced. It cannot be proved. It cannot be disproven. It is assumed to be true. It is thus a first principle.

I can and have done the same with first principles in law, politics, economics, and so on.

Statements about observations, experiences, derivations, deductions, inductions, proofs, disproofs are secondary propositions, they are not first principles.

I am clearly distinguishing first principles from observation and experience. If there is conflation, it is yours.