Aquinas vs. Averroes on Faith and Reason
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มี.ค. 2023
- In this lecture series, Dr. Peter Kreeft examines key ideas in philosophy by comparing and contrasting two representative philosophers in each episode.
In lecture 5, Dr. Kreeft presents the synthesis of faith and reason achieved by Aquinas, which overcomes the problem of the double-truth theory of Averroes.
To learn more about these philosophers and the other major philosophers who helped shape the world, check out Dr. Kreeft's book series, "Socrates' Children: An Introduction to Philosophy from the 100 Greatest Philosophers": books.wordonfire.org/socrates...
---WATCH---
Subscribe to this Channel: wordonfire.institute/youtube
Bishop Barron’s Channel: / @bishopbarron
Word on Fire en Español Channel: / @wof-es
---WORD ON FIRE INSTITUTE---
Join Bishop Barron and over 20,000 evangelists inside the Word on Fire Institute at wordonfire.institute
---WORD ON FIRE---
Word on Fire: www.wordonfire.org/
FREE Daily Gospel Reflections (English or Español): dailycatholicgospel.com/
---SOCIAL MEDIA---
Bishop Barron Instagram: bit.ly/2Sn2XgD
Bishop Barron Facebook: bit.ly/2Sltef5
Bishop Barron Twitter: bit.ly/2Hkz6yQ
Word on Fire Instagram: bit.ly/39sGNyZ
Word on Fire Facebook: bit.ly/2HmpPpW
Word on Fire Twitter: bit.ly/2UKO49h
Word on Fire en Español Instagram: bit.ly/38mqofD
Word on Fire en Español Facebook: bit.ly/2SlthaL
Word on Fire en Español Twitter: bit.ly/38n3VPt
---SUPPORT WORD ON FIRE---
Donate: www.wordonfire.org/donate/
Word on Fire Store: store.wordonfire.org/
Pray: bit.ly/2vqU7Ft
These lectures should be part of the High School’s mandatory curriculum. No one should enter adult life without listening to him.
hahahaha...
@@briendoyle4680 this is funny because…?
@@maxrophage8384 It is fiction and fraud...! Prove a god...!
@@briendoyle4680 Prove a “Brien Doyle.”
@@mehmeh217 Childish... I am observed..! Show a god haha or shut up the infantile evasions... ! hahahha
There are no words to describe how much I love this series. These were the things we should've learned in University but didn't get to
Aquinas seems the way back to sanity. Thank you Prof. Kreeft for your lifelong gift to us.
I am an Evangelical that was intoduced to Thomas Aquinas in one seminary class. I was enthralled by his Treaties on the Virtues. Years later I began working through the Summa Contra Gentiles which I did in 18 months. This changed my life. I am now part of an Aquinas Study Group. We just finished the Summa Theologica. I guess I am classified as an Evangelical Thomist.
Amazing. Still we are brother and sister in Christ.
@@borneandayak6725 he needs to convert bro
Convert to the true faith brother.
Come home bro
@thelastbrobo7826 its not conversion. it's just partaking in the eucharist
Kreeft's lectures invite more than one viewing....
So excited whenever they come out with a new episode! Peter Kreeft is a legend. If only I had discovered him as a troubled teenager lol
God bless you
i feel sad for some or most young gen in the Philippines, as a Catholic country, these young are so poorly catechized and more focused on social media validation seeking/and tiktok 😢 I pray for all regarding this🙏 thank you so much for these great insights and teachings... all the best for word on fire team🔥
I agree with you. I feel the same. It is heartbreaking for me that majority of the Filipino people are Catholics but know so little about their faith. I think we are unable to rise above this spiritual and moral mire we have been in for centuries because of this. Clearly, something must be done.
Thats how China make our younger generations go backward. China give us Tik Tok, while Tik Tok doesn't exist in China. They corrupt our Children to became narsistic, care more about attention than knowledge, while they themselves don't let their children to have Tik Tok, instead encourge their children to focus on science and technology.
@@chelobanal-formoso2582the new gen are just learning about what catholism did to their ancestors and how brutal it was and it’s good for them as their forced great grandparents would have left if it wasn’t for the inquisitions
This is amazing. I love this guy! He does this so well! And the blue suit is smokin! Good job word on fire!
These lectures are perfect. Exactly the right length to be engaging and in-deepth without turning into a slog. Crystal clear explanations, extracting the essence of the ideas in a way you can hold on to and remember. Contrasting philosophers against each other in order to brighten thier points and to keep the whole mess from becoming muddled and difficult to parse out on your own. If a person only knew the information presented in these lectures and nothing more, they would have most of the history of human thinking down.
Kreeft is gold.
Word on Fire was wise to film him.
Great series! Thank you so much, Dr. Peter Kreeft!
I’m so fortunate to have happened upon these lectures.
Quite a number of the negative comments on this video suggest that in time, we will learn what we are yet to. Thank you so much Peter Kreeft and the Word on Fire team.
Wonderful series! Thank you so much.
Ineffable... What a master Kreeft is
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
01:17 🤝 Aquinas synthesized philosophy and theology, reason and faith better than anyone else, combining clarity and profundity.
02:31 🌍 Aquinas explored both supernatural and natural realms, emphasizing that Grace enhances and perfects Nature.
04:06 👥 Aquinas combined intellectual brilliance and common sense, offering clear and simple arguments on topics like free will and temptation.
06:00 ❤️ Aquinas united the absolutes of truth and love, considering both to be divine attributes and key powers of the human soul.
08:18 📚 Aquinas is easy to understand once you grasp his technical philosophical vocabulary; he's both clear and commonsensical.
09:00 🔗 Aquinas argued that faith and reason cannot contradict each other; truths known by faith and natural reason are consistent.
10:25 🚫 No argument can prove essential Christian doctrines false, as truth cannot contradict truth; faith and reason coexist.
25:12 ⚖️ Aquinas addressed the crisis of faith and reason posed by Aristotle's ideas and Islamic philosophy, working to harmonize them with Christianity.
26:24 🧠 Aquinas and Averroes were pivotal in the faith-reason debate among Muslim philosophers.
26:52 🌙 Aquinas emphasized not relying on ever-changing scientific theories for philosophical positions.
27:18 🕊️ Aquinas confronted and refuted opposing viewpoints through rational argument.
28:00 🔀 Three responses to the faith-reason crisis emerged: fideism, rationalism, and synthesis.
29:21 🚫 Irrationalism rejects reason, favoring faith alone; Al-Ashari advocated this approach.
31:23 🧐 Rationalism, embraced by Averroes, sought to reconcile faith and reason through reinterpretation.
32:47 👥 Averroes' triple truth theory divided people into exhortation, demonstration, and theology classes.
34:10 💬 Averroes' theology aimed to balance faith and reason but had levels of truth for different groups.
35:20 📚 Aquinas opposed the relativism of double truth theory, defending an objective truth.
37:01 ⚖️ Aquinas' influence paved the way for Mainline Christian philosophy to reconcile faith and reason.
Thank you so much for the presentation. It has been illuminating.
Wonderful as always.
Also, would it be possible for the channel admin to add all these videos into a playlist? Thanks.
Comment for traction. This is great.
Guided phylosopocal meditation by Mr.Richard : )
It works! ❤
The more I learn, the less I know.
"Grace perfects nature, as light perfects all colors and shapes." This is a much more beautiful and true expression than "Grace builds on nature."
Very deep and enlightening . I only take a statement like "because it is true" at the beginning with a grain of salt..
St. Thomas was an eclectic philosopher.
But you have to know Aristotle's philosophy to understand him.
Which is just as well, because everyone should try and understand Aristotle.
I think it’s important to understand Aristotle beforehand, but Thomas’ connection to Aristotle’s philosophy means that reading Aquinas can actually help you understand Aristotle better.
Is there a list of these lectures in the correct order?
Can’t wait for the Aquinas vs Aristotle lecture where you show how he truly married faith and reason
4:18 "If free will doesn't exist. Rewarding and punishing people would be meaningless". But don't we reward and punish dogs all the time though? And it seems to work. I don't think anyone argues that dogs have free will. Free will doesn't need to exist for us to reward and punish behavior.
The CREATION of a " valid" disparaging.
I have a question. If faith and reasoning cannot contradict what do I do with this argument which can be used for either universalism or calvinism against the free will defense of hell. Please explain my mistaken reasoning if I make any mistakes.
The basic argument is if God knows what we do before we do it wouldn't he know if we are going to choose hell before we are born, and if it is literally true "better for that man if he hadn't been born" wouldn't a loving God refuse to create such a person in the first place? Wouldn't it be more loving not to create them in the first place? I admit I put God in time weighing the marits of two options but I admit this is metaphorical. Also the idea cs lewis showed to be incoherent in itself, on the idea that it would be better for God not to create he says in the problem of pain "better for me if I did not exist, in what sense for me?" I believe the only logical interpretation of our lord's words on Judas is better for him if he were not born but it was good for him that he was conceived. That the best thing for Judas would be if he were a miscarriage.
I return to the original point, I suppose one could argue God doesn't know hypotheticals, that he knows everything that will happen but he doesn't know potential futures that will not in fact come to pass, that God knowing whether a man will repent or perish is contingent on whether or not that man will in fact be created. But the mainstream translation of 1 Samuel 23 refutes this, I say mainstream translation because while most translations indicate God's knowledge of a potential future that doesn't come to pass my favorite translation, young's literal actually doesn't say "will the people of Keilah deliver me up" it says "do the people of Keilah shut me up" but I ask, how could God make decisions about how to providence will unfold unless he knows what would hypothetically happen if he does something. Again I admit this is metaphorical and God doesn't sit in time pondering what to do before he does it but this is the only language I know how to use for this subject.
Another possible objection is what if God is unable to create a world of only saved souls. That the butterfly effect of the decision Bob made to repent will inevitably cause Joe to reject God and be damned. Then that makes God a utilitarian. The end of Bob's salvation justifies the means of Joe's damnation. You could say as sinners they deserve to have their interests sacrificed, but that would make God's act of creation of that man an act not of love but of wrath. That to me sounds like calvinism, the idea that someone's very creation is a punishment.
But if calvinism is clearly refuted by both scripture and reason do I have any option but universalism, and one verse I absolutely cannot reconcile with calvinism is 1 corinthians 8 11 "and the brother who is infirm shall perish by thy knowledge, because of whom Christ died?" The greek word translated perish is apollomie which means completely destroyed, lost, dead and is several passages it explicitly means perdition in that very epistle. The only defense the calvinists have been able to come up with is apollomie in this one particular instance doesn't mean lost it means temporarily falling into sin which is just not what the word means and not how it's used in scripture the prefex apo intensifies the word ollomie to destroy.
And one last argument, if it's true that God will in fact be all in all someday, what can we choose that isn't ultimately a choice for God?
As to how universalism can be reconciled with the hell passages in scripture, it all seems to hinge on the greek word aionian, commonly translated as forever or eternal in most Bibles. However it's root word aion doesn't mean an infinite period of time, it means an age and is used that way I'm scripture. Young's literal translates aionian as age-during. You might comeback and say "well the Bible also describes heaven as aionian so does this mean heaven isn't eternal either?" Aionian can mean eternal in the sense of never ending in certain contexts. The generally agreed on meaning of aionian among universalists is "to the fullness of the age" the kingdom of God is eternal because God is eternal. It lasts as long as God lasts.
One passage that I think counts against universalism is hebrews 6 4 -6 "for [it is] impossible for those once enlightened, having tasted also of the heavenly gift, and partakers having became of the Holy Spirit, and did taste the good saying of God, the powers also of the coming age, and having fallen away, again to renew [them] to reformation" but what is impossible with men may yet be possible with God.
A more personal reason is I feel this man once enlightend who has then fallen away may be describing me, I fear I may have committed the unpardenable sin. I was once listening to a cs lewis audio when I looked out the window and saw the sunset and felt a deep peace and joy and love and I fancied that that was the moment I was born again. But later in a fit of despair and pessimism I said something to the effect of "God is not love, he does not reward those who seek truth, that feeling I felt was a deception of the devil" on the one hand I fear that might have been blasphemy of the holy spirit, on the other hand I fear more that I may have been right and God is not the God I know. I fear I have planted in my soul a mustard seed of doubt that once planted cannot be uprooted and will never alow me to fully trust God again. But I know the holy spirit is more then some good feelings you feel once in a while, I have felt that sweet feeling again since the moment of doubt. But I fear it may never come to abide. That it may be like a ball that bounces a few times before coming to rest on the ground. This along with my own assessment of the genneral wretchedness of my soul makes me feel like I must believe in universalism or abandon hope of my own salvation. But I will not give up on my salvation. I will not abandon hope while there is yet life in me. I admit I often have emotional (but not logical) doubts about universalism. I feel like it's to liberal or impious or wishful thinking. But I also have feelings that I ought to be a calvinist or that faith and reason are irreconcilable. My feelings are all over the place.
I won't pretend to know much about philosophy, but the philosophical statement - "if God didn't exist it would be necessary to create him" is from my perspective the most useful statement I've ever heard. The second most useful statement was made by an atheist who said that he doesn't know the answers to why and how we exist, but he is not going to make up a story to explain it. Have your God in the way that you conceive, but why the need to have everyone else agree with your conception? Why the need to use reasoning to convince others, and illogical reasoning at that? Free will - how can something that was not responsible for it existence have free will? If we have free will, why is there a cost attached to the exercising of it? What is worthy of eternal suffering other than a God? God surely could have made a perfect world without the possibility of any sin or bad experiences. Why would God subject all subsequent people to negative experiences for the acts of one or two individuals? How can an immortal entity be a sacrifice? Where is the loss in that? A fair role model would have to be equal with the person who would follow their example. Christ and humans would have to be of the same nature - either both God or both man. Don't we all have to live with a degree of faith, whether we are a believer or not, that everything will be alright upon death?
You say you don't know much about philosophy, but your questions seem to show that you want to, and that you wonder about the deepest questions, those same questions that mankind has been asking since Socrates. If you really want the answers to these questions, the answers are out there. Dr. Peter Kreeft is not a bad place to look because he does a phenomenal job of delivering the most important philosophy and theology recorded by man to his readers and listeners. He will tell you who the people are that came up with these most important philosophies and theologies that answer all of your questions, and all of the subsequent ones you will have besides.
Word.
My question is what does this say about theistic evolution vs young earth creationism, is theistic evolution like the catholic church teaches just the rationalism described in this?
What did Thomas mean @ 20:03 when he says that arguments are at most are probable isn’t probable a sort of maybe this is true type way of saying something about something mainly a probable argument against Christianity how can something be probable but wrong someone please explain
Logos Rising goes into this split between faith and reason which the.author called Averonism or Fideism. Nice hearing this knowledge in a succinct video.
Is this a Catholic channel? I can't see protestants pulling this off.
❤❤❤🎉
Outstanding as always. But will somebody fix the distracting, faulty plumbing.
I like it, it's calming.
#Lecture5
😀
I'm not sure Aquinas needed to correct Aristotle on creation or the immortality of the soul. Didn't Aquinas show that, even if the world were eternal, God would still be the cause of its being, bringing it into being eternally (= creator)? On the subject of immortality. Yes, some people claim that this is what Aristotle implies in the de Anima. But doesn't Aquinas show that the correct interpretation is otherwise?
13:09
One big thing missing here is a definition of 'Faith'. But what it definitively isn't, is believing something without good reason. The Biblical use seems to be, trusting someone (God) because you have good reasons to believe them to be trustworthy. But it is hard to see how to neatly fit this definition into this analysis of faith and reason.
It depends on your definition of faith, but faith can simply mean complete trust/belief in something. You might have complete faith in your wife/husband because they have proven to be loyal, loving etc. Faith doesn’t necessarily mean ‘unreasonable’ belief.
@@thenablade858 Yes. I would go further and say that if you trust someone without a reason, you're being rash, at best, and probably foolish. One might say that the Bible implies that you should have faith in Christ because he's proved himself trustworthy through his crucifixion and resurrection, for instance.
A CONTRIVING to an " absolute-truth"(?)
20 years thinking Dawkins, hitchens , niel de grass Tyson guy were all superior in intellect than any Christian apologist I ever seen.
Untill I read the drs of the Catholic church.
Run this as TH-cam ads. More people need reason with there faith please.
The immortality of the soul hypothesis seems to disagree with Jesus' words that the body and soul will be destroyed in Gehenna
If there is a true And pure and perfect God then according to all religions faith and beliefs sins faults and hell came from where? Is that belief not a contradictory?
For it is necessary to inquire to understand and thereby know, i wish to beg the Question on the astonishing things said here. I bag to pardon my english, as i am no native speaker.
Can Truth contradict itself? If yes, it would be equaly right and false to conclude that, because the Truth is always right, but the contradicton false, whereby that what is right would have to be wrong, wich is wrong because of contradiction. Thereby we can together conclude, that Truth can never contradict itself. Wouldnt you all agree?
Further it must be true because of that, that the Christian doctrine and the Insights through reason cannot contradict, if both are entirely true. Entirely here as by the exclusion of contradicton. Isn't that so?
Kann Knowledge, as Insight through reason contradict itself? As the Insights in mathematics, can it there ever be true, that 3 and 4 are equaly the sum of 2 and 1 alone? (Only for intuitiv purpose, because the mathematicians will know better)
For Insights through reason we can thereby conclude, that they are either never false, or are not real insights, but Errors and Illusions. Isn't that evident?
For Doctrines of faith in the other hand, we must ask ourselfs: Can they contradict? I think it will become clear by asking, if Doctrines contradict. Here we See, that Dr. Kreeft says astonishing things really. If the Christian Doctrine is to be true, it must be in itself and thereby one. Is the Christian doctrine one? Far from that! Up to 30.000 different denominations, and already 3 Major churches. Why there be more then one, If they dont contradict each other? They will be many, precisely because they contradict each other on particular topics. Christianity and Reason are thereby by no necessity equaly true, for If they where, insights of faith must be reasonable, or they are uncomprehensible. What is uncomprehensible might be true, but Not knowable. But if faith claims Insight in truths without reason, it is Knowledge, as it would be as much true to believe in the Angel Michael, as in the Vendigo or the ghost under the bed. But we can even Go further as it seems to me, and please think for yourself If it does Not seem to you the same way.
If we where to Claim, that Faith itself is true Like the knowledge of Reason, we must further ask, If faith is true and Not contradictory in itself. We ask thereby, If Faith is one and coherent. Asking this we must realise, that Faith is neither one, nore coherent. And it astonishes me, with what certainty Dr. Kreeft speaks of Faith and Christianity synonymasly. That is evidently wrong, for there are over 5 Billion people on earth living today, having another Faith then Christianity. Ask them, what they think about the Truth of it, and they will probably laugh in their own certainty, saying of course, that only Islam or Hinduism or Shinto or Jainism true is, but all other false. For Islam has Allah as one good that is Not tripartide, whereas Christianity has one of that kind. Both cannot be true, but both false. Wich one is it? That must be inquired, instead of claiming boldly. But i assume, that Mr. Kreeft and some of you claim to have inquired it and to have found reasons to decide the Question. But you might Not have thought about the instance, that if found reasons to thereby know, it isn't a Matter of Faith anymore. But if you have no reasons apart from Faith, wich is no reason at all, because of the contradicton inside Faith itself, by lacking reasons outside of it, you would neither know, nore be able to decide reasonably. One might say, all Faiths are true as the same can be portraied in manyfold ways. But that cannot be, because Faith states Claims about Something, with existential relevance, whereas a applepie might be cooked in manyfold ways, indifferent to existential questions. In sight of Truth, different Faiths cannot be true equaly, but a cake can be in different way, indifferent in light of the Question of Truth. As also anyone can Love anyone, but Not everything is Love.
To Claim that Faith and Reason never contradict each other, If they are true, wich would be true under that premisses, bags the Question, which Branch of which Faith is true. But how will one decide that, If not by inquiring the reasons? But If so, than there is nothing besides science and Philosophy, as the one reaches the reasons of experience, the other of thought. What is this Faith besides that? Either reasonable, or unreasonble. And by seeing that, one can guess, wich is the more reasonable solution.
Further the Argument for the Truth of Faith presented Here with the aid of aquinas seems false, or questionbagging to me. For i have understood it this way: there are contants of Faith, that are reasonable in the way, that we can Know them through reason, but also Others, wich cannot be known by reason, but nevertheless known. If Not by reason and inquiry, it must have come to us by another way. It is Said, it comes through Revelation. He who revelates himself is god himself, who cannot lie. Therefore, If we believe Something without reason, and Claim to know it as true, we relie on Revelation, that cannot lie because of god. It is quite sophisticated, and i mean it in the Sense of beeing like a sophist would have Said it. For it says really, that from Truth follows Truth and never Falsehood. If god cannot lie, then everything i believe, believing he has communicated it himself to me or someone, cannot be false, but must be true. We see fast, why Faith is often put in contrast to Reason. The Reason for Faith is Faith itself, wich does not require Reason, as it would make Revelation unnecessary. By that way, Faith is Not comprehendable through reason, or Faith is only Reasons too, but without Revelation beeing necessary. Philosophy and Religion can therefore never be the same, If understood that way. Further it Demonstrantes the flaw of Faith, because of the simple instance, that the Question, wich Faith is right, can only be answered by Faith itself, wich is no answer at all, or the answer is, that Faith is no answer. Or all Faith is right, as no Insight by reason is false, but that is not true, as the Faiths contradict each other. It is equaly true of the various schools of thought and similar things, because they cannot be all right, If they contradict each other. To find the right one, the Truth needs inquiry, and this needs Reason, whereby Revelation is a complete unreasonble Matter, and Philosophy the only reasonable Matter, with aid of its child Science and Brother Mathematics, all born from Reason and therefore reasonable, If i May use this metaphore.
(Personal Note) : because of that and more i left Christianity, but i have Not stopped searching god and myself, but reather began, as i have left, and maybe could only have so by that condition. Maybe poor the Person, who never learned to believe first, but poorer the Person who never learned to seek and know at all.
Indeed Dr. Kreeft is right by saying, that belief and Knowledge are different, as we have also Seen. But also in saying, that the Elements of Faith and Insight by reason, or as we might call it 'knowledge', are not necessarily contradictory. But they can contradict, or at least by my presented inquiry, wich i bag to correct, If someone found a better way or a Error by my side, as i expect to be there. If Faith is understood only as the truths in it, then they would Not contradict, but i Hope it has become clear, what a bold claim that is, wich has No reason for it, other then Faith in the god, that cannot lie. But that is, what is needed to be reasoned First, which would be otherwise falleciously presupposed and be tautological.
This are only some of the reasons why i was irritated by Dr. Kreefts words. As i Hope to have shown, they lack sufficient reason or are outright bold Claims, or false in a particular Sense. I wrote down my thoughts to the true benefit of Dr. Kreeft, you all, whom i have to thank for your attention, and myself. I thereby would be grateful for responses, that also only seek the general benefit. As i seek to inquire, inspired by Socrates, for whom i share love as Dr. Kreeft too, i am grateful for any correction.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but it seems like Aquinas dealt a huge blow here to Islam without even intending to.
In Dr Kreeft’s reading yes. But I find Ibn Sina to be a worthier Philosophical Opponent. Do consider that Ibn Sina’s impact gushes forth in Summa Theologica. The original officiant “this marriage” between faith and reason was Ibn Sina, while Saint Thomas recited the vows in the Catholic ritual.
Even with Saint Thomas this happy marriage is abruptly halted when Faith is left at the alter since reason cannot defend the Trinity. Where Saint Thomas is left to defend the concept in the same light as his great 5th Century Christian counterpart, “faith and faith alone.”
I also wish that Dr. Kreeft had not chalked up almost a millennium and a half of rich Philosophical tradition to mere musings of Al Ashari and Ibn Rushd, even those with gross misconceptions about their respective views and roles (Al Ashari was never a philosopher but rather a Theologian who could care less about the philosophical implications of his works). Since Ibn Sina’s tradition continues down to modern day through the likes of Suhrawardi and Mullah Sadr to modern times in the works of Allamah Tabatabai and his student Ayatullah Jawadi-Amoli.
I understand that as a born again Catholic Dr. Kreeft is compelled to defend his beliefs through his position but it shows oversight or misunderstanding of the Islamic Philosophical Tradition.
@@SaroshJafri5 I'm interested to read the books these talks are based on. Perhaps he did so here for the sake of brevity and time? I also think the point of these talks to contrast different views held by different philosophers that still can be seen today.
I've also noticed that the Trinity seems to be a hot button issue that Muslims bring up a lot. Understandable based on the difference between the two faiths, but is the reason why because most see it contrary to reason?
@@ElessarofGondor within Islam, as with Judaism, the concept of Trinity goes against the very understanding of Divine Unity (Tawheed in Arabic) and the even some of the Divine attributes (one of the 99 Names of God in Islam is Al-Hay which means the everliving, and it conflicts with God being “born as the Son” (PBUH) and dying) and the separation of Jesus (PBUH), the Holy Spirit, and God is key for Islam.
@@SaroshJafri5 I see. So Islam takes something like “everliving” or “unity” very exact? Obviously Christians believe in these things but with the explanations about how God can be three and one, and the hypostatic union of Christ.
@@ElessarofGondor youtube.com/@SaiyadNizamuddinAhmad
So Thomas Aquinas was the inventor of the word salad. Interesting.
There is not the slightest glimmering of the reconciliation of faith and reason.
The truth remains: if you have faith, you do not heed reason, if you have reason, you do not need faith.
About time. The Son was created from all eternity. But the Son hence embodied in succession and thus in time, posed nescesarily a first act. That is: time is a formal distinction rather than a beginning of the clock, that only was a consequence of creation. So in a way Aristotle was right: creation and eternity are similtanious. The reason dit God has always been creating is his illimited love. He couldn't wait... So the entire humanity in Jesus and Marie have always been 《aside 》God.
A great lecture, though some friendly correction is needed.
You see, Averoes was a pure Arestotelian and not a Neoplatonist.
Ashari was a theologian and not a philosopher. His positions might be a reaction to the overly liberal use of the reason by the Mutazila. And yet he was well versed in philosophy and was using logic in dealing with the Mutazila. For doing that, he is attacked by the salafis as an innovator. To get the wider and amaizing spectrum on predestination and God's wisdom one has to look into the Maturidi school and also read Ibn Qayyim al Jawziyya's " On Divine Wisdom and the problem of Evil".
Holy Quran envites us to use our logic and logic is taught as standard part of the religious studies curriculum.
I commend St. Tomas for reconciling Aristotle with religion. Other then those few issues, he had great admiration for Averoes whom he adressed as the " comentator" because he based his work on Averoes' comments of Aristotle.
One thing we should have on our minds is that medieval Islam had a lot of intelectual freedom and there was no inquisition or a church body that would control the philosophers so that might be one of the reasons how come they produced works that were not always going in step with the religion.
to haled hajdari, Aquinas was restricted in not knowing the qualitative equality of the female egg and male sperm.
Hence Aquinas taught inseparability of reason ensuring and faith insuring but not their qualitative equality.
Now this is known with powerful microscopes detecting the female egg, Pope Francis, trained in organic and inorganic chemistry, on the reference point of the two marriages of Mary the first celibate vowed to man in Christ and the second male female with St Joseph vowed to God as successive immediately, Lk 1:38 and Mt 1:24, kept this inseparability and qualitative equality in uncertainty of his belief on this reference point of Mary (Luke 1:29-45) from his election on 19 March 2013 and particularly evident on 10 June 2021 or just after in the cases of his ensuring his procreation role gift charity donations alleged embezzled by ten of his Vatican state citizens/employees, including Cardinal Angelo Becciu, and his insuring his need of union of his identity with the identities of his fellow consecrated celibates at unacceptable risk of fraud by the Italian state Parliament "Zan" anti-homophobia bill.
Why did Boston College,bastion of catholicism banned Aquinas from their syllabus if he is so profound?.Prof.Dr.Nasir Fazal Cambridge USA 🇺🇸
*Aquinus
The exhortation to use your reason is found throughout the Quran, so why are you giving the impression to your audience that the Quran is averse to reason?
One example: ( 8:22 ) “ indeed, the most despicable creatures in the sight of God are the deaf, the dumb those who do not reason”
😄, faith can be seriously wrong, eg. worshipping men , no matter how much promoted , is related to God’s teachings at all
Aquinas is one of my favorite philosophers, as I think the idea of Natural Law is paramount in understanding the world and how to operate within it. However, I reject the notion of "revealed Truth" as dangerous and necessarily leading to hubris. I see this in people every day, both those explicitly religious (many, many Christian churches for example) or not (say, the contemporary woke Left). I give a pass to Aquinas on this because he wrote well before anything was known about evolution, complex systems, game theory, and cognitive science. But now we ought to know better. Aquinas was a genius but had his limitations due to no fault of his own. Still, excellent lecture.
Peter Kreeft tends to be more interested in rhetoric than in scholarship. If science could prove that the universe never had a beginning then science would refute a tenet of faith. St Thomas Aquinas held that the notion of creation, considered philosophically, does not require an absolute beginning; but he did hold that an absolute beginning was required as a doctrine of faith. Therefore, if science disproves an absolute beginning it follows that science would disprove a doctrine of the faith.
I quote another Thomist: "Where does being come from? It is the only question that the philosopher asks. All the other things, certainly worthy and beautiful, very interesting, and rich in content, are left to the scientists. The philosopher asks himself only one question, apparently very poor, even simple, naive, a child's question.
This is why science today despises philosophy so much because it says: you are naive, children. But theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven! Yet the philosopher asks himself only one naive, simple question. He says: I don't care what biological expedients man is a man instead of a cat, I don't care what chemical expedients the cat's brain structure works differently from a dog's brain structure, very interesting things, very worthy, but not sufficient.
He interests me only one thing: how come man, cat, and plant exist? How come? This is the question, the only one, that must be asked in the disciplines of wisdom. And St. Thomas has the tremendous courage to ask himself these questions. Then even precisely in the history of philosophy, St. Thomas glimpses these passages, this tiring elevation of humanity towards true wisdom, in a nutshell towards metaphysics(...)
Since the creature's being includes all its essential and accidental dimensions in itself, everything that belongs to the creature is because it has being, it means that outside of being, there is absolutely nothing in the creature. Therefore, to cause being in the creature means to cause all that is of the creature in the creature. Indeed, since everything is, only because it belongs to being, not because it goes beyond being; if it went beyond being it wouldn't be there; since everything that is, is by virtue of being, is immersed in being, He who gives being caused all of the creatures because everything of the creature is included in being.
What is there outside the being of the creature? Nothing! Outside of being there is nothing. So God is Creator because he gives being to finite essences, giving being cannot presuppose something that exists before being, because what is before being is outside being and this which is outside being is nothingness. Therefore, if there were a presupposition to divine creation, that presupposition could not exist. That is, one would arrive at the paradox that there should be something that at the same time cannot be there.
Therefore, if creation is truly such, that is, if it is what by definition it must be, or the giving of being, if creation is giving being to a finite essence, creation takes place ex nihilo, that is, it takes place from Nothing. Why? Because outside of being there is nothing.
The passage from the possible to the actual can be understood in three ways: there is the process of alteration, the process of generation, and the process of creation. Let's take the process of alteration, for example, in the summer: one goes to the beach and comes back tanned. All right, today it's fashionable, everyone has that little color so apparently healthy, well, then, you see. What is that skin color change? It is an accidental change, while man is supposed to remain substantially the same.
In a generation, we have a passage from the generable to the generated, which involves a substantial transformation, because the material subject of the generation, the seed of the parent, is the same as the generated, while the form of the subject changes, which from the seed of the parent acquires the form of the generated.
As for the process of creation, a passage takes place from the possible existence of the creature to its real existence by the work of the divine creative act."
In a nutshell: for things to exist, it is necessary that they are already defined, ordered in themselves, in their essence. Only an ordered essence is capable of emerging from nothing; disorder as the disorder is not likely to be.
Even disorder, to exist, must be only partial disorder; total disorder is perfect nothingness. Then everything has its own certain intrinsic shape or structure. This intrinsic form or structure of things is called precisely the formal cause or even the essence of things.
And all these forms or essences inherent in single things give order and structure; think then in living things: how much more complicated is the formal cause of a living thing? If it is already very difficult to understand the structure of an atom, how much more difficult it is to understand the structure of a cell?
Through genetic engineering we manage to manipulate it; but to fully understand it, no. We're not there yet. Therefore, this structure inherent in things is decisive for the being of things themselves. By virtue of this structure, the thing is such and not such another. For example, it is a cell of a plant and not of an animal due to its certain formal characteristics.
Now notice well that those forms or essences which are inherent in individual things and give structure and order and definition to things have obviously been thought of from all eternity by the creative mind. God, before making this or that thing emerges from his nothingness, so to speak, giving it being, preconceived in his divine mind the possibilities of being, that is, the single essences or single order structures that could exist.
In Thomas Aquinas‘s view, as I understand it, science is included with reason, and he does not believe that any form of reason can prove that the universe had a beginning, since the claim would be dealing with an accidentally ordered series that extends back in time. Nor can reason disprove it. He does not say that perhaps the universe did not have a beginning. He asserts that it certainly does have a beginning, because it has been revealed to us, and revelation from God is true. Doctrine is not, in the Christian view, arbitrary, but a statement of truth that has been granted to us by God and could not be achieved by our own reason. There may be a lot more to his argument, and one who is a better Thomist than I might know what it is. Aquinas does believe that one can demonstrate by reason alone, that at any given moment, nothing can stay in being without God, or one who is pure being himself, keeping them in being. The act of creation is not at one moment, but continual.
@@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp , I’m fascinated by your way of reasoning. I’m curious where are you based and if there is a chance we can somehow connect through, at least through correspondence if not in person. Please let me know and be well.
That would be impossible to prove considering the deterministic implications of cause & effect.
Without the neccesary force/energy something can't stay in motion, a enclosed loop is simply impossible thus a external mover in any form would need to enact force.
He sounded smart until he started making blunder about the Quran, because of his ignorance about Muslim philosophy I no longer trust his reports about other philosophers, because this is my field of discipline 😂
explain
I think Pro. Kreeft has very little understanding about Quran. Also, I think he overrated Aquinas. And Averroes was right: reason and many verses of the Quran (and the Bible, I believe) is not compatible at all, and they will never marry each other.
What is the deal with someone peeing in the background? I know that’s not PK. Why ruin a perfectly good lecture?!😢
Apparently, Aquinas is the Prince of Deepities. A Deepity is a "folk song" level profound idea (e.g. love is love, love is Truth, love is just a word); a term coined by a renowned philosopher's daughter, criticizing him for SHALLOW and grandiose, seemingly profound sayings.
Gross misrepresentation of imam ashari and his school . “ there were no Muslim philosopher who tried marry faith and reason in the Muslim world “ really? That’s the whole point of the Ashari school of creed. How about Al Ghazali ( an ashari btw) for a start who aquinas quotes and benefits extensively from. We respect what you guys are trying to do with the channel but it’s better to be cautious when you speak of things you don’t know about. A bit more research would help
Imam al-Ghazali stand against Philosophy as heresy against Islam, while Averrose was a follower of European thought, he was the follower of Aristotles. Al-Ghazali wrote a book named "The Incoherence of the Philosophers (Tahafut al-falasifa)", a scathing and influential critique of the Neoplatonic philosophical tradition in the Islamic world and against the works of Avicenna in particular. Among others, *Al-Ghazali charged philosophers with non-belief in Islam and sought to disprove the teaching of the philosophers using logical arguments.* Asharism clearly a school that stand against reason.
@@borneandayak6725 you're clearly contradicting yourself. if Ghazali was using logical argumentation as you admit how can he stand against reason - the act of the human mind to seek truth using the tools of logic. 'Averroes was a follower of European thought ' Nothing is further from the truth. The history of Europe as 'Plato to NATO' is a modern construction. Plato and Aristotle belong as much to the East as they belong to the West. its as if I say Descartes and Keppler was a follower of islamic thought because they were influenced by thinkers in the Islamicate world.
@@borneandayak6725 In Al-Ghazali's book named "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" he criticizes certain Philosophers of his time and not Philosophy. Scientific innovation and research continued in the Arab Islamic World till the 15th century, about 3 to 4 centuries after Al-Ghazali. The decline in Arab Islamic science and thought happened due to the Mongol huge invasions from the East and the fall of Arabic Spain and the shift of trade form the far East ( China and India) to the West after the European conquer of America and other continents. So the political disintegration and fragmentation of the Arab Islamic world and the decline of funding of research all affected this thought. However, these scientific inventions in all fields and schools of thought and the Greek legacy was transferred to Europe from the Islamic Universities in Spain and Sicily which gave birth to the Renaissance and the rise of Europe...
Dr. Kreeft pretty much indicted Apologetics by saying that "knowing god drags him down to human levels".
Averroes was right, the Quran and reason are not compatible at all. The same cannot be said for the Bible though, as shown by Aquinas.
Not really, the quran doesn't show any science it's the bible that have all these myths about Adam being 100m tall and such.. the quran is a moral/philosophical book, when averroes talked about reason and faith he didn't mean science and faith because quran already never gave any scientific claim.
So, please have a neutral criticism for both books, don't be an NPC.
Thats why he was labelled by the Ulamas and Imams as heretic and unislamic. Because nothing Islamic in Averrose thought at all, he simply following Greek Philosophy. During the reign of Hisham II, Averrose and his follower being presecuted. Hisham's gatekeeper, Almanzor, ordered the destruction of the books al-Hakam II and others. During this period, Ibn Rushd was exiled from Cordova to Marrakech, and his followers were persecuted to the point where they hid their knowledge for fear of being killed.
You should read the Holy Quran and even better, grab an interpretation with it.
In fact a holy book that envites to reason is the Holy Quran.
Pse bre Ju jeni të gjithë low iqs? D'Aquinas is a child compared to Al-Ghazali, Al-Razi, Taftazani, Jurjani, Dawani, Kalanbawi, Ibn Sina and every single Ashari/Mutakalim scholars.
Aquinas and Averroes "command morality" is practically the same. Averroes' is overt, Aquinas' is hidden behind circular logic and poetic nonsense.
You, my very dear Sir, need to study Islamic intellectual history more rigorously, saying that Asharis are against reason is just plain incorrect and unscholarly.
Mohammed made up the quran verses. He was a hedonistic, ego centric cult leader.
He's referring to the intellectual capacity of understanding in a metaphysical sense, it is not meant as demeaning...you should listen more attentively.
lol
Imam al-Ghazali (Asharite) stand against Philosophy as heresy against Islam, while Averrose was a follower of European thought, he was the follower of Aristotle. Al-Ghazali wrote a book named "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" (Tahafut al-falasifa), a scathing and influential critique of the Neoplatonic philosophical tradition in the Islamic world and against the works of Avicenna in particular. Among others, *Al-Ghazali charged philosophers with non-belief in Islam and sought to disprove the teaching of the philosophers using logical arguments.* Asharism clearly a school that stand against reason.
@@borneandayak6725 Even you still running around with that old rhetoric, this kind of claim is laughable in modern scholarship. Al Ghazali was not against "philosophy", he was against a particular religious understanding of some particular philosophers (Avicenna, Ibn Sina). In fact, the irony is that, religious fundamentalists extremists burn Imam Al Ghazali's books for the charge of philosophy. Also, if you read Averroes carefully, his critique was not general but rather specific. To sum up, He and the Asharites were against "particular philosophical positions" not "philosophy/rational arguments per se".
@@borneandayak6725 just coping and pasting this while running from the replies.
Aquinas created god's properties by definition, using circular logic.
It's a foundationalist structure my good sir, not circular.
@@OfficialDiogenesofSinope the circle is ample, that's why it's almost invisible.
Aquinas uses Aristotle's "mover" concepts, Plato's perfections and christian divine philosophy to build parts of the circle, and uses poetic meandering to pull a rabbit from the philosophical hat.
Just for example: Aquinas relies on Aristotle's "obvious fact" that a "prime mover" must exist, and because the universe seems to be eternal, that "prime mover" must be eternal. We need proof (not just assertions) of the following things to un-cicularize his logic: that eternity is real, that there is only 1 original mover to call it "prime" and that a mind can exist without a brain.
@@goodquestion7915 1) Aquinas does not agree with Aristotle on an eternal past and neither does modern physics (at least the provable parts we can know scientifically). Physics is actually quite suggestive of a beginning in time, thus implicating the need for a personal "first mover" to choose "outside-of-time" (eternal) to set the chain of events leading to the present in motion. This is also metaphysically supported by the apparent unreasonableness of a physically infinite past series of events without an initial starting point to begin the series of events from. It may be possible (even if unlikely) the universe is physically infinite in time in some way going back before the big bang and cosmic inflation, but if so then that justifies the prime mover as being eternal within time as well to avoid a physical infinite regress and thus an incomplete explanation. The Prime Mover would have to be eternal either way as the logical start of all contingent reality.
2) Christians have a plethora of historical and biblical evidence for the Prime Mover being "Prime" and also personal, but most of this evidence is dismissed a priori by non-believers due to their own assumptions discussed in 3 below. Metaphysically speaking, yes the "Prime Mover" must be "Prime" (singular) by definition to be the necessary cause of all contingent reality as discussed in 1. If this role is shared between 2 or a trinity then the group must be considered the sole cause of contingent reality, and thus "prime" (as in the sole group cause) anyway. So it does not seem such a distinction is meaningful to the logic of the argument.
3) Asserting that a mind cannot exist without a brain relies on a materialist assumption that nothing non-physical can exist. That claim and its opposite are both usually a priori positions so merely positing one as in need of evidence over another is not really helpful for ascertaining proof either way. I would argue that information is non-material in essence and that its order and universality is indicative of a non-physical mind as the source of that information, rather than chance which does not produce order or even "being" at all. It is at least evidence against materialism. Information is inherent in the fabric of our universe from physical laws, to mathematics, to DNA. It may take material form but the information encoded in the material is not strictly material itself. You can assert that this information is imposed by our own minds, but that is also an a priori assumption. One I do not think is appropriate or reasonable considering the universal nature of this information, independent of the minds that recognize it.
Aquinas' reasoning is not circular but informed by his other knowledge of reality. He doesn't just posit these properties in poetic meandering but deduces them from his observations and reasoning.
@@user-gs4oi1fm4l addressing foundational things:
About materialism. We know a material reality exists, and we imagine supernatural realities exist. Materialism is the philosophy of reality; all the others are philosophies of the imaginary (e.g. Idealism, Panpsychism, etc.)
About evidence. Assertions are not Evidence. Evidence is a FACT of reality, ACCEPTED by ALL parties (opposing and agreeing). You disagree with the dictionary definition for things you reject. A mormon shows you evidence of the prophet mentioning the golden tablets and the words of the angel; but you say "baloney, that's not evidence for me". For you Moroni is not a fact. The Book of Mormon exists, but you disagee in its truth value; so that book cannot be called evidence.
About metaphysics. Metaphysics is the "philosophy of the gaps" and was invented by some very intelligent people that didn't understand or like reality. There is nothing real beyond (meta) physics; show evidence if you disagree.
About infinite series of events. Nothing wrong with them. When you move your hand to grab a glass you crossed an infinite number of points across an infinite number of instants. Each crossing of a point at an instant could be "counted" as an event. So, you didn't move your hand?
About evolution. Evolution works with RATCHETS. The SELECTION word in "natural selection" refers to ratchets. The "selector" (drought, earthquake, predator) is a ratchet that allows change only in one direction, REGARDLESS if mutations are random (natural) or intelligently injected by geneticists using CRISPR.
About information. Information is represented and stored in material media and changed by material things; and when ALL material media is destroyed information is destroyed. Nothing magic or eternal or "transcendent" about information.
About Aristotle. He was a Zeus believer turned atheist. His Prime Mover was not personal or intelligent. On top of that he had some extremely goofy ideas, in addition to the good ones.
@@user-gs4oi1fm4l addressing your numbered points:
1) Aquinas used several of Aristotle's (an atheist, previously Zeus and Athena believer) ideas as a skeleton or strong foundation to support gooey Christian doctrine like Creation Ex-nihilo, God's goodness, existence of souls, etc. Aquinas would have been in trouble if he used Eternity of the World, Pure Reason (no revelation), Eudaimonia, etc.
2) The Bible has no Evidence of the divine. There is Evidence that God is the author of confusion provided by 45,000+ (last count in 2021) christian sects and denominations. So, the Bible is in shaky ground to aspire to be Evidence for the Prime Mover.
3) We need evidence of a mind without a brain, not just assertions. We DO have evidence of brains producing minds. We also have evidence that drugs and sicknesses that affect the brain affect the mind in VERY clear and undeniable ways. We can zap your brain with a very powerful magnet and you will experience the divine, and this can be repeated many times.
This St Thomas Aquinas worship (bordering on idolatry) is rather embarrassing. There are unquestionably innumerable errors in the theology and philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas (such as his views on predestination and the delight the blessed will receive when witnessing the misery of the damned). St Thomas was a great metaphysician but his theology leaves a lot to be desired. Peter Kreeft talks as though Augustine and Aquinas are the greatest thinkers in the Christian tradition but that's opinion at best. What about St Gregory of Nyssa, St Gregory Nazianzus, St Maximus the Confessor, and St John Damascene? Aquinas inherited to errors of Augustine. We cannot afford to treat individual theologians as infallible; they are not. This presentation could do with more of a critical attitude. The Popes have recommended the thought of Aquinas- but not in all respects! Pope Benedict XVI, for instance, had a critical attitude towards Aquinas, as did Von Balthasar, et al.
All of those heavy hitting names are great and respectable movers in the Catholic world, but none of them had the volume of writing, the impact on the modern world or the sheer depth that Augustine and Aquinas had perhaps with the exception of maybe Damascene.
@@realtourdreams9655 Athanasius and the Cappadocians shaped the doctrine of the Trinity as it emerged in the 4th century debates with the Eunomians and the Pneumatomachi, so I rather think that they had a much greater influence on Christian orthodoxy than Augustine and Aquinas. Moreover, there are errors in scriptural exegesis in Augustine and in Aquinas (as Aquinas followed Augustine in this regard). Also, Aquinas summaries the Greek and Latin theologians, so in that sense his work is not as original as that of the Cappadocians. Aquinas was a great metaphysician but not a great theologian. Do we really want to say that burning hectics is ok? Or that the blessed will have their bliss augmented by witnessing the torments of hell? Aquinas held both positions. He was also wrong about predestination: based on a misinterpretation of Romans by Augustine (who couldn’t read Greek so read the NT in Jerome’s often inaccurate translation).
@@bayreuth79Exactly!
But still neither Augustinus nor Aquinas couldn't refute Arius. They couldn't understand that trinity is bogus
its so "nice" talk; but bottom line, the pope is somehow nowdays agreed "to bless" the lgbt, right?!...
somehow show double standards from this philosophy or theology (proclaimed in this speech) ....🤔..
Too much worship
I'm not impressed with his attempts to demonstrate
the "clarity and profundity" of Aquinas, and I have to
assume that these are among the best Aquinas has to offer, otherwise why would Kreeft highlight them.
Let me take the three quotes in reverse order.
"Nature makes nothing in vain. Thus man's natural natural desire for immortality is a sign of its reality." (4:56)
The conclusion does not follow. I will grant the premises that nature does nothing in vain and that man naturally desires to live forever. But all this demonstrates is that the desire to live forever is somehow useful to man's actual survival.
"Man has free will; otherwise, all praising, blaming, counseling, commanding, rewarding and punishment are meaningless and in vain."
This is completely backward. It is precisely because a man's behavior can be determined that counsel, command, blame, praise, reward and punishment can have the desired effect. Again, taking the premise that nature does nothing in vain, we must assume that the illusion of free will has a survival payoff.
"Man cannot live without joy; that is why one deprived of true spiritual joy will turn to carnal pleasures"
True enough, but all of man's pleasures and joy's are in his body.
I think what all these quotes show is not any particular clarity or profundity on Aquinas's behalf, but that self-deception has a role to play in man's happiness and survival, which kind of explains Catholicism, doesn't it?
What he is proving is nothing more than his prejudice. As did Aristotle the great philosopher of Doxa claiming to be as philosopher of reason.Aristotle’s reason is accepting any given mores of society ..Samkhya was explained finally through advaita . There is no such marriage in the west .Aristotle did not contradict Christianity.. The differences are trivial . Aquinas worships Aristotle because the father of dogmatism is Aristotle , the man who inspired Alexander to murder and rape, based on the presumption of “ Hellenic superiority “ now replaced by “ Christian superiority” .
So much adulation of Aquinas. .he set the stage for theocratic justification for unsubstantiated faith .Aquinas has no justification of the universalization of the prejudices of Christian atrocities .He assumed the exclusivity of the Euro interpretation . It is not even an issue with him that his u understanding could be prejudiced by his existence . Criticizing passion without inquiry. Why is faith more important than experience .Science developed after it trashed Aristotle . The study of the self will become genuine once Aquinas is trashed .. Aristotle and Aquinas are basically theocrats telling me to worship a Judeo Christian God It is stunning that this arrogance of the west is still not challenged .. what is the relationship of divine with nature.he has done nothing to sway why the Judeo Christian truth of the euro system should be good for me .he has reduced God and humans to be polar opposites. There is the dualism that he cannot explain
This chap makes loads of assumptions and assertions but does not prove any of them. They are based on faith. He believes in God, in the soul, in immortality and in absolute truth - but there is no proof of any of these. I have no problem with him believing in all this stuff but there is no logic to his beliefs.