AJ wrote: “How is it possible to have a "greatest" in a discipline in which everything is made up?”

Dear AJ,

In mathematics starting from various axioms one can generate a system of propositions. Axioms are made up. Axioms are not something one proves. They are given. However, as long as they are not contradictory one can generate a logical system. The same is true in theology.

That is part of what Thomas Aquinas did. In Denys Turner’s biography of Thomas Aquinas, there is the following:

...the proposition, clearly maintained by Thomas, that God could not create matter without form, Thomas having argued that no stuff could exist that was not stuff of some kind because to exist at all was to exist as something or other. In consequence, for Thomas the term “formless existence” was the nonsensical description of an impossibly existent nothing-in-particular. Even God, Thomas thought, cannot create anything that isn’t something.

Thomas Aquinas was more effective at systematising theology and eliminating that which could not stand the test of logic than any other theologian, and is, therefore, the greatest theologian.

Logical systems must follow from the axioms. With different axioms one may create different systems. An example in mathematics is geometry. Girolamo Saccheri, a brilliant monk, tried to prove the validity of Eucid's parallel postulate by negating it in two ways. He was aiming for a reductio ad absurdum. However, what he actually did was to create two other valid systems of geometry - spherical and hyperbolic.

AJ Philips,

>>How is it possible to have a "greatest" in a discipline in which everything is made up?<<

Well some people speak of Beethoven (or Mozart or Bach etc) as the greatest composer, similarly in other branches of the arts where everything is “made up” by the artist. And, as david f already pointed out to you, some people speak of abstract mathematics as being just “made up” but still hold this or that one to be the greatest in a particular branch of it.

Also, there are many contemporary theoretical physicists who “make up” their speculations about the cosmos (M-theory, multiverse, loop quantum gravity etc) before their theories can be supported by observation, while some people might still hold this or that one to be the greatest among them.

Dear david f,

Bertrand Russel allegedly called Aquinas great (as a philosopher) for the questions he asked not so for the answers he offered, however, I cannot find the exact quote. So instead let me quote from Russell’s History of Western Philosophy, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1961:

“Aquinas … is regarded as the greatest of scholastic philosophers” (p.444), and further “In his days he was considered a bold innovator; … He was even more remarkable for systematizing than for originality. Even if every of his doctrines were mistaken, the Summa would remain an imposing intellectual edifice. (p. 452).

Of course, Russell is critical of Aquinas, however the objection “the finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading” (p. 453) would then, in my opinion, apply also to philosophers of science seeking an explanation of quantum physics effects, where the conclusion - namely that QM “works” - is also given in advance.

Anselm spoke of fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding) to describe what Russell calls “finding arguments for a conclusion given in advance”. So maybe one could speak of “QM quaerens intellectum” as the task of philosophers of physics trying to find out how come the weird QM works.

.

Peter Sellick/Sells may possibly have, inadvertently, made a typing error when he wrote :

« I will engage with you if you engage with me »

Perhaps he meant to write :

« I will engage with you if you agree with me »

Or, more likely :

« I will not engage with you if you engage with me »

Or perhaps :

« I will agree with you if you agree with me »

Or alternatively :

« I will not engage with you if you do not agree with me »

Or, more to the point :

« I will not engage with you no matter what you do »

Yes, that sounds more like it. That’s probably what he meant to write.
.

But … (followed by a deep sigh) … when all is said and done, you can’t really blame a nice old blithering, blathering, gibbering, blabbering, drivelling, twaddling deacon of the Anglican Church for making silly typing errors, can you ?

Of course not !

(Sorry, but with Peter/Sells, I have to ask the questions and supply the answers too) :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17351#306885

.

Dear George,

Thank you for the quote and I can definitely identify with both Barron and Aquinas.

I couldn't tell whether Moses was frustrated or what were his expectations, but had I received any lesser response in his place, then I would tell that voice to piss off.

Some (if not most) people need to designate God as "ens summum" and they should not be condemned for it, for that is the best they can by their mental capacity. From your quote it seems that Thomas Aquinas was very wise and beyond such notions that suit ordinary people.

I am very impressed with Aquinas' summary: "To be God, therefore is to be “to be”" - it is equivalent and has a place among the greatest utterances, the Mahavakhyas, of the Upanishads: http://www.swamij.com/mahavakyas.htm

.

It just occurred to me that the explanation of Peter’s/Sells’ silence may be that he sees himself as an intermediary between God and the plebs (of which I am an evident example).

This function of the priest is attested by the Catholic Encyclopaedia :

« The priest is the minister of Divine worship, and especially of the highest act of worship, sacrifice. In this sense, every religion has its priests, exercising more or less exalted sacerdotal functions as intermediaries between man and the Divinity (cf. Hebrews 5:1: "for every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins") »

It is clear that the so-called “intermediary” function of the priest is limited to passing on worship from man to God, “especially” in the form of “gifts and sacrifices”. There is no mention of him passing back anything from God to man in return - not even a simple word of acknowledgement of receipt - just absolute silence.

I must say that I, personally, have not heard of any priest ever having claimed to have received a reply from God while exercising his so-called “intermediary” function, or on any other occasion for that matter. Of course that does not mean that the odd priest has never “heard voices” or “a voice” as other people have, including Joan of Arc, Gandhi, Freud, Socrates and Zinedine Zidane (http://www.hearing-voices.org/about-voices/famous-people/).

But, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever claimed to have heard the voice of God.

Perhaps in exercising his sacerdotal function here on OLO, Peter/Sells is simply relaying God’s reply to my comments, i.e., absolute silence. If that’s the case I can’t help but admire him. I have never known a priest as zealous as he is.

Unfortunately, there’s just one snag that bothers me with that hypothesis :

1 Timothy 2:5New King James Version (NKJV) :

« For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus »

Unless of course, Peter/Sells … (?)

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I appreciate your response. Aquinas, of course, is a classic. What I liked is the way Barron identifies - an identification where he is certainly not original - the mythical voice coming from the burning bush (I am who I am, i.e. do not confuse me with all sorts of gods, including those people might use to depict me) with the God of Aquinas’ “intellectual edifice”, as Russell put it. Including his philosophical distinction between essence and existence, a distinction applicable to everything, including all gods, but not to God.

>>but had I received any lesser response in his place, then I would tell that voice to piss off<<

Maybe so. Perhaps so would Aquinas, albeit without that piss. But Moses is seen as having lived at much earlier times, when neither the Summa nor the Upanishads were available to him. So he had to learn that this was not one of the gods of whom there are plenty, but God who just is - no “receptacle” as Barron puts it, to contain His existence.

>>people need to designate God as "ens summum" and they should not be condemned for it, for that is the best they can by their mental capacity<<

You are so right here! Also in physics, very few can grasp the concepts as they are understood by professional physicists. Others’ understandings are naive (e.g. without much mathematics) “for that is the best they can by their mental capacity”.

See also
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14814#256115.

Perhaps the God of all advanced religions, of the West as well as of the East, is jealous as far as WORSHIP is concerned, but magnanimous when you PRAY to (a personified depiction of) Him. At least this is how I see the Western religious tradition meeting the Eastern.