tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post4381424245800398001..comments2022-12-08T02:30:00.729-08:00Comments on Beginning Theistic Science: We are connected with God, but we are not characters in God's novelIan Thompsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-82191500897840097352012-02-16T19:28:38.560-08:002012-02-16T19:28:38.560-08:00The source is confusing and it also has me referri...The source is confusing and it also has me referring back to someone (Augustine, I believe). It's all a muddle until some nice person like Feser fleshes it out.<br /><br />For years I could not tell Aristotle, Aquinas, Augustine, Plato apart. But Feser has helped me be able to never forget Aquinas in the future. Feser is a great teacher, in a wacky way.<br /><br />Ontological? Definitely not my strong suit. But I think I would have to trust the person's reasoning power first and then go on to trust his ontology. He didn't pass my test for reasoning his way out of a box. I still love the Catholic church, though, since I think they find a way to rise above him most of the time.Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04122828543615175957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-75034904216040401452012-02-16T15:19:30.905-08:002012-02-16T15:19:30.905-08:00Perhaps you had better go back to the source, and ...Perhaps you had better go back to the source, and not rely so much on Feser?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/" rel="nofollow">Summa Theologica</a><br /><br /><a href="http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles.htm" rel="nofollow">Contra Gentiles</a><br /><br />I have concentrated more on the ontological foundations Aquinas uses.Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-1142421403485734832012-02-16T15:13:08.877-08:002012-02-16T15:13:08.877-08:00Have you noticed that Aquinas's reasonings (or...Have you noticed that Aquinas's reasonings (or at least my newfound Aquinas knowledge from Feser's blog) are narcissitic? Things that are wrong seem to always be about harming Myself. As if Myself were 'good'.<br /><br />Here's my list so far:<br />Lying is always wrong because it perverts my natural faculty, nevermind the consequences to others.<br />Ditto for anything sexual.<br />A joke that mocks another person is ok. (This comes from a story Feser tells about cornering a stranger who owns a Jaguar to tell him that his car has been totalled). Mocking the insecurity that prompted him to buy an expensive car is fine because it would not in fact pervert my wonderful faculty of truth in speech.<br />Pornography is wrong because it ... well, you know how it plays havoc with my faculties. But no mention of the fact that it is wrong because it promotes drug addicted young women falling victim to horrible harm.<br />A starving person stealing my food could be wrong except for the fact that my property rights are not strong enough to prevent it.<br /><br />Me, me, me. I could perhaps do right by others for the sake of doing right by others ... but sheesh! What about ME and my natural faculties! I am hoping to become perfect, so I will have to think only about myself. I hope you scared refugees will understand if you ever have to hide out in my basement. I'll have to (reluctantly) tell the murderers where you are so I can be Good!Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04122828543615175957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-48979438227045571562012-02-16T08:23:08.878-08:002012-02-16T08:23:08.878-08:00You first suggest trying to understand disposition...You first suggest trying to understand dispositional properties, but treating them as analogous to 'understanding'. That is one possibility, but it could be improved slightly:<br /> <br />Let us treat the 'underlying disposition' as the 'persisting love' that is the ontological being of the parts of an object, and treat the forms and structures and properties in which those parts appear and are arranged as the 'understanding' that the love has at a particular time.<br /><br />This is indeed to treat 'understanding' as a 'dispositional property', but only as long as it refers to the property and not the underlying love/disposition. That is because (after Plato & Aristotle) direct understanding is always understanding the <i>forms</i> of things: the manner in which they are at the moment. It takes a lot more intellectual effort to understand the <i>dispositions</i> of things: the manner which is the source of what they <i>could be subjunctively</i>. <br /><br />This last aspect -- that relating to disposition / love / substance -- is notoriously difficult to see intellectually, but we can infer it from observations & experiments. It is what science is all about. For that reason, though to many people that aspect may be the 'conceptually unknown', I think it can and should be the subject of a proper science. A 'theistic science', I say, because it also applies to God and his activities in the world.Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-43448934768724920482012-02-16T03:18:31.476-08:002012-02-16T03:18:31.476-08:00The 2nd-4th paras s/b italicized or enclosed in qu...The 2nd-4th paras s/b italicized or enclosed in quotes, and the concluding statement s/b "...the '<a href="http://www.moq.org/forum/Pirsig/emm.html" rel="nofollow">Conceptually Unknown</a>'."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-70880008054330209112012-02-16T03:15:35.397-08:002012-02-16T03:15:35.397-08:00This seems somewhat reminiscent of a prior pattern...This seems somewhat reminiscent of a prior pattern.<br /><br />Suppose we... analyse observed dispositions in terms of constituents. Presumably the parts are to have the ability to interact. But this means at the microscopic level of explanation we again have to accept some kinds of dispositional properties: of the parts this time. This is because 'to be able' signals a dispositional property. Thus I will argue (somewhat controversially) that in fact dispositional properties, though perhaps explained, are never explained away. However much we may dislike them, they are never found to be illusory, and cannot be completely replaced by talk of functional relationships, differential equations, and probability calculus.<br /><br />At the microscopic level we might hope that the constituents have many definite properties (e.g. mass, shape, position, velocity, energy etc.), and only a few of those peculiar dispositional properties (e.g. perfect elasticity, gravitational attraction, and electric charge). In that way there might be a minimum number of these inexplicable 'occult powers'. Such would be the case if Newtonian physics were true, as [will be] seen in [a later] section[.] <br /><br />Quantum phenomena show, however, that this hope is not satisfied...<br /><br />Just taking a shot in the dark here, but suppose 'understanding of' is used in lieu of 'dispositional property' and 'principle' in lieu of 'constituent', and an unnamed something else in lieu of 'quantum phenomena'. If this were to be done, then some of the difficulties involved in each pursuit might appear as being similar.<br /><br /><br />Another shot in the dark: suppose the formation of an ontology is like an act of art expressing the 'Conceptually Unknown'...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-46675790406270276292012-02-16T03:04:56.109-08:002012-02-16T03:04:56.109-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-40205681554433439732012-02-15T14:35:10.167-08:002012-02-15T14:35:10.167-08:00Mostly I am trying to understand Aquinas from his ...Mostly I am trying to understand Aquinas from his basic principles. These are the principles that came originally from Aristotle, but were modified in various ways. You are right: I am not trying to follow everything he writes that might not be connected to those ontological principles.Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-50350158311389086162012-02-15T14:00:33.404-08:002012-02-15T14:00:33.404-08:00Who might 'we' be? And why might we (reade...Who might 'we' be? And why might <i>we</i> (readers of this blog) implicitly trust their perception? The (mostly very good) quotations on Love are not from ST, and it wasn't stated that they are. It was simply said that the statements "were made by Aquinas after he began his ST, but before deciding to leave it uncompleted." The phrasing used was not for the purpose of setting a 'trap', but I can see now that it did function as a kind of booby-trap for the unwary. Still, I'm suprised you (plural) fell into it so easily. Then again, maybe not. The understanding sometimes can lead astray, and love sometimes can blind the understanding. God help us all!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-89651735681010645652012-02-15T10:24:33.753-08:002012-02-15T10:24:33.753-08:00We do not read this in Aquinas, not even in the (m...We do not read this in Aquinas, not even in the (mostly very good) quotations on Love from ST that you give above.Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-88454079650037248332012-02-15T10:21:41.773-08:002012-02-15T10:21:41.773-08:00But not only with that, I agree with the entirety ...But not only with that, I agree with the entirety of "More fundamentally..."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-91208384286895840242012-02-15T10:19:54.022-08:002012-02-15T10:19:54.022-08:00Just as substance exists in certain forms, so does...<i>Just as substance exists in certain forms, so does love exist in certain truths.</i><br /><br />I agree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-53417479750370307102012-02-15T09:47:13.352-08:002012-02-15T09:47:13.352-08:00I agree that my phrasing here is too simple, and l...I agree that my phrasing here is too simple, and liable to be misunderstood. At the very least, it should have read ' .. and not <i>only</i> states or forms of truth'.<br /><br />More fundamentally, however, I see spiritual life as consisting of love as its being/substance. Our true identity is what our deepest love is. And that love exists in various forms or states, like 'shapes', which I take to be the thoughts (especially thoughts of truth) at that particular stage of life. Just as substance exists in certain forms, so does love exist in certain truths.Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-51324179683028626402012-02-15T09:42:53.936-08:002012-02-15T09:42:53.936-08:00Sue,
Aquinas built a nice framework of thought, b...Sue,<br /><br /><i>Aquinas built a nice framework of thought, but it does not reach to heaven. And that confuses some people.</i><br /><br />Something else pertaining to Aquinas which may confuse some people are some his statements regarding love (all these statements were made by Aquinas after he began his ST, but before deciding to leave it uncompleted):<br /><br />o <i>The spirit of the world is the love of the world, which is not from above; rather, it comes up to man from below and makes him descend. But the spirit of God, i.e., the love of God, comes down to man from above and makes him ascend.</i><br /><br />o <i>It is by the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us, that we are made strong in our love for God.</i><br /><br />o <i>The voice of Christ was spoken not only to the exterior, but it enkindled the interior of the faithful to love him.</i><br /><br />o <i>We should note that the cause of all our good is the Lord and divine love. For to love is, properly speaking, to will good to someone. Therefore, since the will of God is the cause of things, good comes to us because God loves us.</i><br /><br />o <i>God's love itself is the cause of the goodness in the things that are loved.</i><br /><br />o <i>Although love, notionally taken, is the principle of all the gifts given to us by God, it is nevertheless not the principle of the Son; rather it proceeds from the Father and the Son.</i><br /><br />o <i>Some people are lamps only as to their office or rank, but they are snuffed out in their affections: for as a lamp cannot give light unless there is a fire blazing within it, so a spiritual lamp does not give any light unless it is first set ablaze and burns with the fire of love. Therefore, to be ablaze comes first, and the giving of light depends on it, because knowledge of the truth is given due to the blazing of love.</i><br /><br />o <i>The sea became rough, agitated by a great wind [John 6:18]. This wind is a symbol for the trials and persecutions which would afflict the Church due to a lack of love.</i><br /><br />o <i>Christ is within us in two ways: in our intellect through faith, so far as it is faith; and in our affections through love, which informs or gives life to our faith.</i><br /><br />o <i>One who eats and drinks in a spiritual way shares in the Holy Spirit, through whom we are united to Christ by a union of faith and love.</i><br /><br />o <i>Through love, God is in man, and man is in God.</i><br /><br />o <i>The Holy Spirit is given to us so that we might raise our hearts from the love of this world in a spiritual resurrection.</i><br /><br />o <i>The love by which we love God is from the Holy Spirit.</i><br /><br />o <i>No one can love God unless he has the Holy Spirit: because we do not act before we receive God's grace, rather, the grace comes first.</i><br /><br />o <i>The Son is a consoler because he is the Word. The Son is a consoler in two ways: because of his teaching and because the Son gives the Holy Spirit and incites love in our hearts.</i><br /><br />o <i>From the fact that God loves us, he influences us and helps us to fulfill his commandments, which we cannot do without grace.</i><br /><br />o <i>Carnal love is contrary to the Holy Spirit, since the Spirit is spiritual love.</i><br /><br />o <i>Our Lord says that eternal life lies in vision, in seeing, that is, it consists in this basically and in its whole substance [John 17:3]. But it is love which moves one to this vision, and is in a certain way its fulfillment.</i><br /><br />o <i>It very often happens that contemplatives, because they are docile, are the first to become acquainted with a knowledge of the mysteries of Christ--but they do not enter, for sometimes there is knowledge, but little or no love follows.</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-18026094271635840742012-02-15T09:35:04.120-08:002012-02-15T09:35:04.120-08:00Ian,
He did not see, for example, that spirituali...Ian,<br /><br /><i>He did not see, for example, that spirituality consists of states of love, and not states of forms or truth.</i><br /><br />The concluding phrase seems somewhat ambiguous to me. I get that you are saying that spirituality does not consist of forms. But you say something else in the concluding phrase, and it is this something else which seems ambiguous to me. Are you saying that spirituality does not consist of states of truth? Or more generally that spirituality does not consist of truth?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-68494078093822316622012-02-15T04:56:39.414-08:002012-02-15T04:56:39.414-08:00I just woke up thinking about Aquinas and put my f...I just woke up thinking about Aquinas and put my finger on what is wrong. His framework was fine and valuable and led to men being able to be moral by following certain precepts (such as 'man has natural faculties that should not be perverted')<br /><br />But he stops short of showing WHY something is right or wrong. Everything is either right or wrong based on a level of thinking that is above what he addrsses. He is ususally correct, but that's almost a coincidence. It seems to back him up. But he is also often totally wrong, and then the people following him closely go off track right behind him.<br /><br />Case in point: man's penchant for perverting his sexual faculty which is in the news right now. The Feser blog with Aquinas insists that that is always a huge sin. But they are not seeing WHY it is a huge sin. It is not a huge sin because you are perverting a natural faculty (even if that is also true), it is a huge sin because you are hurting others. You are not loving.<br /><br />And it occurred to me that that is part of what went wrong in the bishop pedophilia horror. The bishops, who have memorized Aq., saw that the priest was perverting his natural faculty and dealt with it mostly on that level. But they missed the overall problem: people were getting hurt.<br /><br />Aquinas built a nice framework of thought, but it does not reach to heaven. And that confuses some people.Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04122828543615175957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-75573809272346049032012-02-14T13:44:09.234-08:002012-02-14T13:44:09.234-08:00I think what he saw, in the first part of his life...I think what he saw, in the first part of his life, was rather limited by his following Aristotle. He did not see, for example, that spirituality consists of states of love, and not states of forms or truth. He saw angels as forms, not as loves; in fact, devoid of love in their essence.<br /><br />I do like to think that, at the end of his life, he saw further.Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-53455326814916445032012-02-14T13:40:17.212-08:002012-02-14T13:40:17.212-08:00True. So the pernicious influence is not Aq.'...True. So the pernicious influence is not Aq.'s fault. He just wrote what he saw as the truth. And then the Catholic Church loved him for his defense of them. And then he really caught on. And some people (Pope John for instance) can use his theories in a wonderful enlightened way. But people can also use it to put faith above love. Not faith alone, but faith above.<br /><br />Didn't he himself see the light and decide it was all straw that he had written? Which could be symbolic of a great idea (green grass) dying.Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04122828543615175957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-1276468218481738442012-02-14T12:35:13.839-08:002012-02-14T12:35:13.839-08:00I notice that Aq. can lead to bad conclusions.
Is...<i>I notice that Aq. can lead to bad conclusions.</i><br /><br />Isn't this a bit like noticing the 'pernicious influence' of Kant?<br /><br />Aquinas does has a thing or two to say about God's Divine Providence operating if not within a person, then into a person. So, from my perspective (which I won't say is necessarily a 'correct' perspective), the appearance of Aquinas' severity leading to separation stems from seeing only part of the picture painted by him (and, obviously, not that part of the picture having to do with DP's activity in or into a person).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-49504496540653693182012-02-14T12:28:10.876-08:002012-02-14T12:28:10.876-08:00Okay, thank you for answering the question.Okay, thank you for answering the question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-11944614326249260852012-02-14T11:09:08.023-08:002012-02-14T11:09:08.023-08:00My answer still stands: the potency of God is almo...My answer still stands: the potency of God is almost exclusively active potency/power/potentiality.<br /><br />The word 'almost' here is to allow for some response by God to the contingent actions and loves of beings in the world. In all religions, even Islam, God knows about us. And just that knowledge must indicate some dependence (in some aspect of God) on us. And love too, not just knowledge.Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-44281851710993631602012-02-14T10:52:30.392-08:002012-02-14T10:52:30.392-08:00My apologies; I had not seen before deleting it th...My apologies; I had not seen before deleting it that you had responded to the comment. I deleted the comment in order to expand it. However, the expansion still seems valid (with one exception (choice a))), in that you say (my emphasis), "The <i>primary sense</i> of God having potency is that it is an active potency."<br /><br /><i>God has potency (power, potentiality), I insist, without it needs being actualized by another.</i><br /><br />Which of the following is true regarding God's potency: <br /><br />a) It exclusively passive.<br />b) It is exclusively active.<br />c) It is sometimes passive, sometimes active, but never simultaneously passive and active.<br />d) It is sometimes passive, sometimes active, sometimes simultaneously passive and active.<br />e) It is always simultaneously passive and active.<br />f) There is nothing to be gained by alleging a distinction between 'passive potency' and 'active potency'.<br />g) None of the above is true, but something else is.<br /><br /><br />**********<br /><br />So readers may know what you had responded to, the deleted comment is/was:<br /><br /><i>God has potency (power, potentiality), I insist, without it needs being actualized by another.</i><br /><br />Which is true regarding God's potency: <br /><br />a) It exclusively passive.<br />b) It is exclusively active.<br />c) It is both passive and active.<br />d) There is nothing to be gained by alleging a distinction between 'passive potency' and 'active potency'.<br />e) None of the above is true, but something else is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-245851351230402992012-02-14T10:38:03.416-08:002012-02-14T10:38:03.416-08:00The primary sense of God having potency is that it...The primary sense of God having potency is that it is an active potency. This is what is needed to create the world and manage it. This is what must be attributed to the Godhead, or the primary being of God as Love and Wisdom.Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-35979778741949084432012-02-14T10:33:22.821-08:002012-02-14T10:33:22.821-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-47194769754746134462012-02-14T09:36:22.434-08:002012-02-14T09:36:22.434-08:00That is certainly a serious problem, one that is n...That is certainly a serious problem, one that is not widely appreciated.<br />Some physicists (eg Hawking) try to get around it by having universes composed of positive and negative energy of equal amount.Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.com