God is the ultimate source of truth so our Faith in God is founded on truth and reasoning! St Thomas Aquainas Heaven and Earth will pass away but my words will not! From our Lord Jesus Christ
Faith acceptance of true or false good or bad without EVIDENCE, name a single thing that cannot be accepted on faith! You can be a racist, nazi, communist, jew, Muslim, hindu just based on faith
"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth-in a word, to know himself-so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves" - Pope John Paul II, Fides-et-Ratio (On the Relationship Between Faith and Reason)
@@ThomisticInstitute Wow! The video series you're offering on TH-cam is such high quality (great format, length, imagery, crisp and clear - just like Thomas) - please continue these with your Dominican brothers!! Thomism is literally all we have to defend against the errors of scientism and radical skepticism and secularism, since Thomism meets the growing number of adherents to these modern views in what they think is their own playing field -- reason. I know Bishop Barron does a great job presenting Thomist thought online -- but there's nothing like hearing if from the Order of Preachers - just fantastic. Again, please please please, if possible, try to keep doing these videos - so very grateful for this, as I can offer these bite-size videos to others, as appropriate. May the Lord continue to bless this important work you're doing! *A Thomist series like this could very well be one of the MOST important evangelization tools in the digital age.*
Yes! This reminds me of a Baha’i passage: "If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism" -‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks (p.143)
Thank you, and blessings to you, Father. I feel that "reason" is often clothed in the expectations of culture, hence, the presumed conflict twixt them.
*Dear Thomistic Institute: Please use your platform to help Fr. Mark White, a diocesan priest at St. Joseph in Martinsville, VA. His bishop is threatening to strip him of his faculties for criticizing episcopal corruption.* Dear fellow Catholics: Please spread this message! Perhaps leave an encouraging message at Fr. White's personal blog!
"Reason forbade me many things which, Instinctively, my nature was attracted to; And a perpetual loss I feel if, knowing, I believe a falsehood or deny the truth. Al-Ma'arri
Well I wasn't raised Catholic, I think I always intuitively took the Aquinas view and always thought that when I encountered science that didn't quite mesh that it would work itself out eventually.
Excellent teachings if you can provide this knowledge in different languages like Spanish or Portugues. The Christianity world will be appreciate it very much with substitutes. Thanks and God bless you.
I disagree with your arguments here, but I do applaud you keeping your comments open. It demonstrates that you’re acting in good faith, no pun intended.
No, actually by the Thomsitic Institute in Washington, DC! The TI is associated with the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception/Dominican House of Studies.
For Father Legge and Father Davenport, I've been enjoying Aquinas 101 for several years and have learned a great deal from the many videos. I'm reading The Passion of the Western Mind by Richard Tarnas and have been struck by his presentation of Rene Descartes philosophy. How do you think Aquinas would have reacted to Descartes' approach to reconciling faith and reason? Thanks very much, John Harvey
Faith is the manner in which we receive God's self-revelation. By it, God leads us to intimate knowledge of himself. Science is a manner of knowing through reason, and by reasoning about the created order, man can come to know God through the reflection he left upon his creatures. Because these coincide in one human mind, they can work together to plumb the depths of what man can know about God.
Hey everyone, humbly I submit this: When people want to know if God exists they are wondering about a God who cares and a God who rewards our faith and awards justice. Just tell them to start making a note of the coincidence in their lives (daily). You know they will SEE Him. Thanks and God bless you.
When I say I have faith in my friend that he will pay me back for his car window.....Im not blindly assuming that he may do it cause I feel like it. I have faith that he will pay me back based on the fact that I know him and know hes true to his word. Excellent video! (true story btw, guy was mowing his lawn and a rock hit perfectly into one of the back passenger windows XD)
In Aquinas, the relation between Faith and Reason is Theology because theology is reasoning with two premises: Major premise of Faith (revelation), and Minor premise of natural reason (Philosophy). Most dogmas are theological conclusions. Hence, in his Summa, Aquinas establishes what is revealed, then he finds support from Metaphysics (usually from Aristotle) ---together, Aquinas arrives at his theological conclusion.
That's quite a good summary. The idea of premise of faith plus premise of reason becoming theology is a description of John of St. Thomas, a Dominican of a later century than St. Thomas himself. St. Thomas was not so explicit or restrictive with his use. Theology is the 'science' of faith. It utilizes the articles of faith as first principles and the whole body of knowledge that derives from that is called theology. Check out St. Thomas's extended conversation on this topic in his Commentary on the De Trinitate of Boethius (find it here: aquinas.cc/la/en/~DeTrin ).
@@ThomisticInstitute Yes, in his commentary on Boethius, he's explicit that for Theology to be a science--principles of reason be utilized, and he emphasized the role of Metaphysics thereby implying that theological syllogism is composed of two premises: one from Revealed truths as major premise, and one from Metaphysics as minor premise. If Theology is composed merely of Revealed truths as principles then Theology is not science in its proper sense but merely an exposition of the 'meaning' of the revealed truths without making explicit what is virtually revealed.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 01:24 🤝 Faith and reason are not in true conflict according to St. Thomas Aquinas. Truth is unified, based on the order of reality, and cannot contradict itself. 02:50 🙏 The Christian faith is eminently reasonable, supported by signs of credibility such as miracles and the enduring church, even though some of its mysteries cannot be proven by natural reason. Faith embraces these truths because God bears witness to them. Made with HARPA AI
Pertinent to the elements of discussion: Is Angelus “strictly” prayed at 6-12-6? I teach in a Catholic school where our class schedule at 12:00 is within class time… lessons are ongoing… I suggested that we move the Angelus to 2pm (our lunch time) to avoid lesson disruption but my colleagues went against that. I argued that time does not alter the purpose of Angelus & shifting the timing will avoid lesson disruption plus, we still get to pray the Angelus thus, reducing any form of disadvantage… the only thing that will raise a red flag is if I argue against the faith aspect of Angelus… I don’t know who is right? Applying the principle of utilitarianism does not seem to work with my colleges… what should I do?
The handouts for the audio lectures are typically posted at aquinas101.com under the Watch Tab. Just select the pertinent course and the lesson within that course and you should find it!
Alright, I have been following your videos for some time, yet where to start with St Thomas. The Suma seems a bit much for a serious Beginner. Thank you!
There are a number of great introductions. Jean Pierre Torrell's St. Thomas Aquinas, Spiritual Master is a good start. Aquinas, by Edward Feser is also good.
This is actually a question-a non-Catholic friend told me that the RC Church won’t perform funeral services for a miscarried or still-born child. I’d never thought about this-he told me he heard from a “good authority”. Is this true & if so what’s the Church’s reasoning?
"There cannot be something that is true according to faith and at the same time false according to reason or science." How does one respond to our nonbeliever friends that something like Virgin birth or even the Resurrection are not possible scientifically? (and we miss you in Louisville Fr Pine!)
My wild guess is maybe quantum mechanics, virtual particles - how matter can be suddenly altered. The evidence of an unusual energy source left an image on the Shroud of Turin. Asexual reproduction in nature. Elderly women suddenly becoming fertile a mystery too. Ex: Best astronomy can say re Fatima... something unusual was observed. See Miraclehunter to sort through Marian observations. Lot of evidence to sort through if eye witnesses means varied stories.
In the lecture God is source of truth and faith. Trusting God at His word.Also it was the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophesy many centuries earlier showing a unity of faith from God the source. Trust in what Isaiah and Luke have told us. All these points were covered in the lecture.
Now, I know I’m somewhat late, but the Virgin Birth and the Ressurrection are indeed naturally impossible. However, it is only rational that the very Author of nature is capable of freely suspending it’s laws in a *super* natural action
Thanks for the question. In short, it's about the causal structure of reality. God is the primary and universal cause. Creatures are secondary causes. Because of that, creaturely causality relies on God's causality. That means any effect produced by a secondary cause can be produced by God with or without that secondary cause. When something miraculous or supernatural happens, then, it is not so much a matter of God acting against the natural order as acting above it, to produce an effect beyond the natural causality of things. The effects are indeed impossible to secondary causes (or perhaps just to these particular secondary causes), but they are not impossible to the primary cause, especially if he acts without secondary causes or by supernaturally elevating those secondary causes. I hope that helps. God bless!
How do we know that the conversation between angel Gabriel took place when we well know none of the gospel writers was present? We to believe the person who was there and gave the account of events. She is none other than virgin Mary
I have read the Bible over and over again. I have followed the unfolding scientific research on the Holy Shroud. I have listened to the arguments of atheists. I have familiarized myself with a half a dozen major religions. Why? Because I am as skeptical as they come about everything from religion to nutritional supplements. I don't belong to a church. But I do believe this: A Jewish man lived 2000 years ago in Israel. Most of his life was lived in secret, except for the last two or three years when he became a public speaker -- a role that cost him his life. He received the death penalty reserved for non Roman citizens at the time. He was subsequently buried in a hurry. Three days later his body was missing, a mystery that curious modern-day scientists at space research centers in the U.S. and Italy; and university research labs in the UK, Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands are trying to resolve. Their findings so far? A burial cloth that wrapped the body of this Jewish man was at one time in Jerusalem in the spring. April to be specific. Blood stains left on the cloth (AB positive) show no signs of bodily decay. And a three-dimensional image, invisible to the naked eye, was created on the cloth by a burst of light that the most intense radiation machines available today have not been able to replicate. I'm not big on faith -- just reason.
Pray That I Will Conquer My Sinful Actions Vain Thoughts Fears Insecurities Doubts Flee Evildoers Pray The Rosary The Divine Mercy Prayer To St Michael Memorare To St Joseph Poor Souls In Purgatory That Blessings Will Come Upon My Property Belongings Life Health That I Will Live Peacefully With My Neighbors Practice The Golden Rule The Beatitudes Forgiveness Of Enemies
Dear Father, I have always been puzzled by what Christ meant when He said “Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the Kingdom of heaven.” My problem is that I am required to use my reason to grasp the meaning of these words. The faculty of reason is unique to humans (for we are made in God’s image). But this faculty is limited in what it is able to grasp and it also varies widely among us. The reasoning of a child is not as developed as that of an adult. Christ is telling me to become like a child, but in order for me to understand the passage, I am required to use my limited reasoning. I feel like I am going around in a circle; am in a circular cage whose bars are made of reason. The key out must be faith, a faith untainted by reason, the unbiased gaze of a child’s pure eyes. But I have used my reason to get here and am unable to reconcile the two. Maybe that’s the Mystery.
Become like a child in innocents But use your reason to the Maximum. Watch the movie “A man for all Seasons” St Thomas More. He was innocent as a child But used all his reason. They kllld him anyways
Become like a child in your trust of God. Don't trust in your own apparent wisdom because you can't see 'the whole picture.' Don't trust in your own power - it is fleeting. Don't trust in governments or human organizations - they can become corrupt and they don't love you. Trust in God the way a child totally believes in and trusts in the goodness of his loving parent. It's not about having the 'reasoning power' of a child; it's not about having the maturity of a child. It's about having the TRUST of a child in a loving father: "What father among you would hand his son a snake when he asks for a fish? Or hand him a scorpion when he asks for an egg? If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Father in heaven give the holy Spirit to those who ask him?” (Luke 11:11-13). You have to read scripture in its whole context. From the temptation of Eve through the whole of Salvation History in the Old Testament and right down to the reactions of people to Jesus, we see a common thread: Do we trust God and his provision for us (Adam and Eve had ALL the food in the garden, but couldn't trust that it was sufficient; the Israelites had manna every day to meet all their needs, but some of them tried to store up more because they didn't trust God - examples are rife)? Or do we decide that God cannot be trusted and WE will get ourselves better things and make better rules for ourselves than our Creator could make for us? The whole of salvation history hinges on one question: Do you TRUST God with childlike trust? Or do you imagine that you are smarter and wiser and better equipped than your Creator to make the rules for yourself? Trust God like a small child. Reason like an adult. Be responsible like an adult. Sacrifice like an adult - but trust like a child who has never known anything but goodness from his parents.
What matters is not what Thomas the syncretist taught but what the historical rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef taught! Radical Torah observance was the teaching of Yeshua, not abandoning the Torah for pagan ideas!!
skeptics believe that religion and faith cant go together fideism - "all we really need is the bible." subjectivism - faith is purely subjective "its only personal and interior" Unity of truth - order of reality (there cannot be something that is true according to faith and at the same time false according to reason and science) The truth is based on something outside of the mind or based on reality. God is the ultimate source of reason and faith. Truth can't contradict truth. If we find something that looks like a contradiction between faith in reason - our reason is faulty and doesnt prove its point - we misunderstand our faith The Christian faith is reasonable.
But why is faith a credible source? Because God revealed it. How do we know that God revealed it, and that he can't deceive or be deceived? Insert rational argument. If the rational argument is sound, then aren't we basing our faith on reason as the final authority to judge if faith is true? Is there anything wrong with that?
That is a great question, Commander Dunbar, and here is an extensive answer that I have offered to it: soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/fr-james-brent-op-uva-1-28
The problem with faith is that it can be used by anyone, anytime, for anything, for whatever reason. Faith is so problematic, that you will have good people doing horrible things because of faith.
@deejaythedeejay 0 seconds ago Faith is not that. Do you have faith your wife will not cheat on you? Yes. Do you have evidence? No. Do you hope and trust that she won't? Yes. Faith is not acceptance without evidence, it is merely just having trust.
@@PInk77W1 At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. - principal, Billy Madison
You misunderstand. Let's say you have a wife. You can know your wife to a large degree by 'natural reason.' You can look at her, weigh her, examine her physical body forensically. You can also ask her questions to get to know her, and she has to TELL you things about herself for you to get to know her in a different way, a way that is not based on natural reason, but on faith. So if your wife tells you, 'I feel afraid to be in the house alone when you go away on a business trip,' you can't know that from 'natural reason.' You can only know that because she reveals it to you - either by directly telling you in words or by observing her behavior (when you are away and can't observe her behavior). I explain it to beginners this way: there are two kinds of mysteries. There are mysteries we can solve (math problems, Sherlock Holmes-type stories, scientific questions about physical phenomena). We can call them 'physical mysteries' because we always begin with physical evidence that's available to our senses. (I have one pencil in my left hand and one pencil in my right hand and I can see that I have two pencils total. If I repeat this experiment again and again with various objects, eventually I can come to believe that 1 = 1 will always equal 2.) And there are mysteries we simply live. These are METAPHYSICAL mysteries; mysteries that we live, not mysteries we solve using physical evidence. So while I can run tests and solve problems (let's say medical problems) connected with your physical body, if you are living the mystery of depression, all I can do is believe your testimony that you are suffering depression. I cannot 'solve' it like a problem of science or math, because it's YOUR LIVED EXPERIENCE. If you tell me you are an Englishman, being an Englishman is part of your personal 'mystery,' but you live that mystery differently from every other Englishman. I am not an Englishman. No matter how much you tell me about 'what it's like to be an Englishman,' I cannot learn enough actually to LIVE THE EXPERIENCE of being an Englishman. No matter how much research I did into the identity of Brockwhite8699, I could never BE Brockwhite8699; I cannot live your mystery, because it's metaphysical, and I have only your testimony - which I must take on faith - to 'know' the mystery of your lived experience. We can reason to the conclusion that God or Brockwhite8699 actually exist (using natural reason). But we cannot use natural reason to find out what it means to BE God, to live the mystery of being God, the inner essence of God's existence. And I cannot use natural reason to find out whether you are happy or sad today, whether you love someone or not, what your political view are, whether or not you like your job, or if sunshine on your shoulders makes you happy. Most of what I could get to 'know' about you would NOT be based in natural reason, but in having FAITH in what you TELL me is your lived mystery of being Brockwhite8699. Thus is it with God. We can use natural reason to conclude, 'Well, I didn't make this, so someone else must be responsible. I'll call that 'someone else, "God."' I can also use natural reason to conclude, 'Well, the comment above didn't just appear without any cause; all my experience says that TH-cam comments that seem personal are generated by human beings. So I'm going to conclude that whoever typed the comment under the heading Brockwhite8699 is a human being.' But beyond that, I can only ask Brockwhite8699, 'Tell me about yourself' and then believe what he or she tells me, to get a BIT of a glimpse into the metaphysical mystery of what it means to be Brockwhite8699. There are plenty of metaphysical realities that have existence which we take on faith. Every scientist is trying to find out the 'truth' about the physical universe. And yet no scientist begins by trying to get a kilogram of 'truth' and have it in his lab. No one writes a grant proposal to go looking at the bottom of the ocean or the depth of the earth for 'truth' in its pure form. Nobody is trying to find the chemical element, 'truth.' Truth is something real; we all KNOW 'truth' exists. But there is no scientific proof that truth exists (while all of science depends on truth existing). Love, goodness, justice, a sense of wellbeing - all these things are metaphysical realities which everyone can KNOW by living them, by lived experience, but nobody is busy trying to do scientific experiments to prove that they exist. Likewise, if a person going by the handle Brockwhite8699 exists in the real world, it might be possible physically to produce him, but immediately I have to start relying on faith: that this guy really is Brockwhite8699; that the papers he carries with that name on it are his (because he tells me that they are) and not fake; that everything he tells me about himself to 'prove' that he's Brockwhite8699 is believable... I take it all on faith once I get past a physical human body in front of me. If you listen carefully, the speaker was saying that you can't explain things like the Trinity by natural reason - that's because the Trinity is God's inner essence; it's who he is when he's being God. It's his lived mystery and the only way you can get any glimpse of anyone's lived mystery is if they reveal it to you. And then you take their revelation on faith.
Thank you for your views almost there not quite agree but very good attempt to present Catholic views, You guys are like MIT , CAL TECH, Georgia Tech, RAS ( Roger and Academy of sciences (Cold War Era! Poland Institute of Technology), in terms of Christianity ✝️!
In my eyes , Logic is believing and following the rules of the Natural World .But the Natural World and its Rules can fail .Faith is believing in the Supreme Creator of the Natural and His Will , He who does not fail .Reason is Logic having learned from Faith .Saying Faith unreasonable is like saying the Cold is not Ice .Reason is nothing but Logic being tempered and molded by Faith .
The pile on of attributions to the idea God actually makes the idea impossible. Truth is a concept and so to equate God to being a concept is to declare that God doesn't exist.
@The Romish Papist It is not an assertion, but a fact that various attributes are incompatible. It is impossible to be both completely just and completely merciful, since just entails the idea of getting a "deserved" punishment, while the idea of mercy entails without holding a "deserved" punishment. The concept intelligence is developmental which includes the idea of such being contingent. Thus, claims of a non-contingent intelligent agent is incoherent, since intelligence is contingent, thus the claim would entail the idea of a non-contingent contingent agent. === What does the term concept mean to you? What does the term truth mean to you? Why? Your question strikes me as bizarre.
@The Romish Papist [It is not impossible to be completely just and completely merciful.] False. Why? The terms are in opposition to each other such that to do one entails NOT doing the other. The concept intelligence as observed references the capacity to learn and make decisions as observed.as well as the details of process to the extent to which such is known. All of which are contingent. Thus, insofar as we know, the concept intelligence is contingent. This the claim of a non-contingent intelligent agent IS incoherent due to intelligence being contingent insofar as we know. Concepts are abstractions and truth is one of many concepts. iep.utm.edu/prop-log/
@The Romish Papist Being completely merciful entails NOT executing a deserved punishment. Being completely just entails executing a deserved punishment. Thus two ideas are in conflict. Can you understand this or is this beyond you?
@The Romish Papist You asked about how attributes can result in an impossibility. I am pointing out that IF one is completely merciful one cannot be completely just. Attributes are a state of being. IF such is not constant, then such cannot be claimed as an actual attribute, but at best a capacity. Thus, the statement of being completely merciful would be false, since, it is NOT total, but merely an action claimed and thus NOT an attribute. Whether one is merciful or not is NOT about another, but about one's self. Thus, your comment about acceptance is irrelevant.
@The Romish Papist ["Whether one is merciful or not is NOT about another, but one's self." What do you mean by this statement? ] If I tell you that you get to decide whether I kill or set someone free, then the idea of my being merciful or just is optional. The very act of deference would make me without mercy or justice or at the very least denote such as optional to me and thus not a core aspect of my makeup. Or put another way... If I don't make the decision, then I cannot be denoted as being either merciful or just, since, in deferring I dismissed my consideration in deference to another. The depiction I presented changes when the concept of omniscience is added, since, given knowledge of what another would pick, there can never be an actual deferment, since, one would know what would be picked. Thus, the conflict between mercy and justice would remain, since, it is necessarily the case that one or the other is being selected. Attributes are not considered to be the same as actions. When one claims that X is an attribute (aspect of one's nature), then ANY violation of that X in any manner is to dismiss such from being the case. It should be noted that the inability to actually defer is in conflict with omnipotence, since it denotes a something that various others can do, but cannot be done IF one is omnipotent and thus showing that omnipotence is logically incoherent. This is another example of attributes creating conflicts resulting in a conceptual impossibility. Every additional attribute creates the potential for conflicts resulting in an impossibility. [Lod's Justice and Mercy are not attributed that are changing as God is Immutable ] One cannot be claimed to interact IF one is immutable, since, the idea of interaction entails receiving of information which entails change.
It's not an assumption. Check out some of our other videos on philosophy, but especially this one, about God as Creator. th-cam.com/video/oU48R8ZJ2HA/w-d-xo.html
"All faith and reason comes from God" is a faith based claim and the biased assumption of Aquinas's reasoning. It is a leading question with the answer God, Vaguely defined (logos, beginning, end, truth, light, the way ect.) in mind. We need to make the leap of faith before we can reason this way. False appel to a vague conceptualisation of God fallacy. It is a slide of hand in with Philosophy( open ended search for truth and wisdom) is exchanged for Theology (a closed off search for wisdom where the boundaries of the search is contained by "God"). Whitin theology all questioning will lead to God. Within Philosophy all questioning will lead to complexity. There might be some truth in God, but that does not mean that God is the truth.( Slippery slope fallacy).
The motives of credibility just help us to acknowledge how faith is not in conflict with reason. They do not produce faith. Faith comes from God, elicited not only by what we hear but by the movement of the Holy Spirit in us. We would expect that subsequent investigation would lead us to acknowledge that faith and reason are compatible, but an a honest pursuit of truth would preclude begging the question, though it is a danger we have to avoid. Thanks for your thoughts.
@Hayden Cowart I think this is a fair point, I believe I misused the fallacy. I know this video isn't an argument for god's existence, but it seems the assumed argument being accepted is 1.) If reason exist, it must be sourced by God 2.) Reason exist 3.) God must exist This is just modus ponens, which is a valid structure and isn't begging the question. My real objection I guess is I think premise one isn't well substantiated
Thank you for that wonderful lesson in question begging. Just assert outright that God exists and that truth/faith both derive from him. That’s not “reason” my friend. That’s called “rationalization.”
This video does not beg the question because it does not presupose the conclusion. It does, however, presupose the existence of God, but this is not a problem, because the video is addressed to people who believe in God, and refutes the three mistakes from that point of view. And while you might disagree with the trueness of the argument this video makes, it is logically valid.
@@bruhmomentum7528 It may be valid, but is it sound? To answer my own question, no it is not. Saying this argument is logically valid may make it seem like this is a good argument, but soundness is very important here. And I'm unimpressed.
These are all variants of "God must exist, therefore let's work back from that, and apply our considerable intellect to proving it. Not compelling. (btw, shouldn't it be Thomist Institute, not Thomistic Institute, as if you're not quite sure if you're acting like Thomists?)
It's actually not too difficult to explain the necessity of faith regarding an understanding of God. Starting with epistemology, we can recognize that ideas such as solipsism, empiricism, scientism, and relativism don't work to explain abstracts. Fitch's Paradox of Knowability shows that unknowables exist but cannot be known. Someone can bring up the Münchhausen trilemma, but this is answered with a healthy mix of idealism, coherentism, foundationalism, and Haack's Foundherentism. From a method of Cartesian doubt, we can admit that Kantian noumena exist. As God must exist outside of time (see Leibniz's PSR, the B-series of time, and Avicenna's works), He fits the qualifications of a noumenon. From here, people can argue that this absolutely simple Being is overly complicated, but at no point have we applied any property to Him other than that of Aquinas' idea of ipsum esse subsistens. There's a whole lot more to just the epistemic possibility of recognizing God, but this is just a starter.
The most powerful heavenly beings ever created the Catholic dead saints. Firstly the Church grants them entry into heaven. 😂😅 Secondly they are omnipresent, can hear prayers in heaven & answer them on earth. Thirdly all their powers come from the Catholic Church_I wonder if God knows of their presence & Superman powers😂😂😂😂. At this rate God might lose His Job.
Using middle age ignorance to justify iron age myth Faith the acceptance without evidence Wow your reasoning takes HUGE leaps and arguments from ignorance There were witnesses? Name 1
Faith is not that. Do you have faith your wife will not cheat on you? Yes. Do you have evidence? No. Do you hope and trust that she won't? Yes. Faith is not acceptance without evidence, it is merely just having trust.
Everything was good untill you brought trinity Bro trust me you lost me there It doesn't make any sense Yes. Your previous speech consisted of some truths but your conclusion is just madness Thats why islam is the truth We don't just believe, we question everything, even the Quran , but guess what there is answer for every question So Return to the Almighty God who has no partners, who has no children , no parents , God is one ,eternal ,all knowing , most powerful, most high ,the creator of everything,God is not like anything In arabic we call Allah ,The Almighty 😊 I bear witness that there is no One worthy of worship except Allah and Adam ,Noah , Abraham ,Moses ,Jesus , Mohammad,all are the messengers of Allah (peace be on all of them ) And PROPHET MUHAMMAD (peace be upon him) is the last and final messenger of God
So much misleading. “Is faith unreasonable”. Nobody is questioning whether faith is unreasonable. They are questioning whether blind faith is reasonable or not which it is evidently not.
Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment. A preliminary question before trying to respond: as you understand it, what is the difference between "faith" and "blind faith"?
It's actually not too difficult to explain the necessity of faith regarding an understanding of God. Starting with epistemology, we can recognize that ideas such as solipsism, empiricism, scientism, and relativism don't work to explain abstracts. Fitch's Paradox of Knowability shows that unknowables exist but cannot be known. Someone can bring up the Münchhausen trilemma, but this is answered with a healthy mix of idealism, coherentism, foundationalism, and Haack's Foundherentism. From a method of Cartesian doubt, we can admit that Kantian noumena exist. As God must exist outside of time (see Leibniz's PSR, the B-series of time, and Avicenna's works), He fits the qualifications of a noumenon. From here, people can argue that this absolutely simple Being is overly complicated, but at no point have we applied any property to Him other than that of Aquinas' idea of ipsum esse subsistens. There's a whole lot more to just the epistemic possibility of recognizing God, but this is just a starter.
@@josephwalkowski if a being can't be sensed, it can't affect your life in any meaningfull way so. Plus you have Schopenhauer critic if you need to use names which argue that Kant noumenon mix the concept with actually being. For example an absolute god bringing pizza which I can witness to my bed every morning at nine is a valid concept but does not exist since I have no pizza in my bed everyday at 9.
@@loicgrossetete9570 Foundherentism and the coherence theory of truth show that the experiential qualia/phenomena resulting from a cause act as justifications for valid knowability of such an entity that can't be empirically shown.
@@josephwalkowski can we stop referring to obscure theory and use commonly understood sets of words to converse? I don't see how these these theories do so plus even if there is an entity which can neither be directly sensed nor has an existence which can be deducted from a sit of consequences, this entity can't have an effect on our lives.
"These things cannot be prpven, but god bears witness for us" This is not an identifier of truth. The witnessing of truth has now been shifted to another unreliable source. Citing god possesses credibility when god itself is actually credible, yet aside from having faith there is god, there is no evidence to off of. The claims of reason here do not seem to withstand much scrutiny and instead feel like safe havens to quell the questioning apologist
Great questions! As concerns the consistency of the Church's teaching, the classic text on this is St. John Henry Newman's Essay on the Development of Doctrine. As concerns the possibility of proving the existence of God, you might enjoy the video on the Five Ways: th-cam.com/video/42Eg6UUBqqo/w-d-xo.html.
It's actually not too difficult to explain the necessity of faith regarding an understanding of God (as we're talking about the Anselmian God here, you'd capitalize the proper noun). Starting with epistemology, we can recognize that ideas such as solipsism, empiricism, scientism, and relativism don't work to explain abstracts. Fitch's Paradox of Knowability shows that unknowables exist but cannot be known. Someone can bring up the Münchhausen trilemma, but this is answered with a healthy mix of idealism, coherentism, foundationalism, and Haack's Foundherentism. From a method of Cartesian doubt, we can admit that Kantian noumena exist. As God must exist outside of time (see Leibniz's PSR, the B-series of time, and Avicenna's works), He fits the qualifications of a noumenon. From here, people can argue that this absolutely simple Being is overly complicated, but at no point have we applied any property to Him other than that of Aquinas' idea of ipsum esse subsistens. There's a whole lot more to just the epistemic possibility of recognizing God, but this is just a starter.
But, the church's teachings have Not been consistent, and in fact are veey fluid, changing and adapting to the norms of the day to remain relevant. Even now where priests might be allowed to marry to try and combat the rampant sexual assault of minors, to the idea that suppossedly many people witnessed these miracles, but none were recorded till many years after the suppossed fact
First of all "faith" is belief without proof. Therefore believing in a god's existence - any god - only requires one's choice to believe. Any rigor of the scientific method, or of historical research, is not needed. Faith need not be irrational or unreasonable - irrational and reason are not defined by Fr Legge. But, assuming the usual connotations of these words, a faith - a belief - can be irrational from a particular perspective. Believing that the "world" was created according to GEN 1, or GEN 2, is irrational, and unreasonable. In fact these two creation stories are contradictory. So a faith can be unreasonable. It is also subjective, if subjective means the individual point of view, or a particular world-view. I am a Pacific Islander and my ancestors' creation story is vastly different from the GEN 1 or 2 stories. Which story is the "truth," i.e., what ACTUALLY happened at creation? That is, IF by "reason" and "truth," Fr Legge means actual physical event provable with scientific rigor. Take your pick. Because any one could be, or none at all. With no human (we who record) present at the "beginning," the best we can do is look at the evidence, form conjecture and hypothesis, experiment, and establish the most probable scenario, a theory. OR we can make up a story to explain that of which we have little or no knowledge - creation myths, such as GEN, or my ancestral story.
Science has achieved many things but it still doesn’t give a clear explanation of consciousness either in the physical or invisible. Science agrees consciousness is real
This is why I love being Catholic.
As a recent convert from Somalia, 🇸🇴 I enjoyed your informative video
Best of luck to you with your journey with god!
Well that's a high standard
@@gowdsake7103 what do you mean
God is the ultimate source of truth so our Faith in God is founded on truth and reasoning! St Thomas Aquainas Heaven and Earth will pass away but my words will not! From our Lord Jesus Christ
great saint he is .
Thank You Fr Chris. This is Wendy who used to go with Mary Anne in the wheelchair to Lourdes.
Faith is everything that the soul needs. Reason is the vessel where Faith grows.
Faith acceptance of true or false good or bad without EVIDENCE, name a single thing that cannot be accepted on faith!
You can be a racist, nazi, communist, jew, Muslim, hindu just based on faith
Nope. Not even close. Reason renders faith unnecessary.
Faith is an emotional response. Reason is a logical response.
Trying to learn more about Thomism and Thomistic Philosophy thanks to Alasdair MacIntyre. This channel is so good.
T. A. 🙏. FOR US. H. S. ENLIGHTEN US
JESUS SEND US.
"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth-in a word, to know himself-so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves" - Pope John Paul II, Fides-et-Ratio (On the Relationship Between Faith and Reason)
Amen. Alleluia.
@@ThomisticInstitute Wow! The video series you're offering on TH-cam is such high quality (great format, length, imagery, crisp and clear - just like Thomas) - please continue these with your Dominican brothers!! Thomism is literally all we have to defend against the errors of scientism and radical skepticism and secularism, since Thomism meets the growing number of adherents to these modern views in what they think is their own playing field -- reason. I know Bishop Barron does a great job presenting Thomist thought online -- but there's nothing like hearing if from the Order of Preachers - just fantastic. Again, please please please, if possible, try to keep doing these videos - so very grateful for this, as I can offer these bite-size videos to others, as appropriate. May the Lord continue to bless this important work you're doing! *A Thomist series like this could very well be one of the MOST important evangelization tools in the digital age.*
One of my favorite quotes from JPII! especially "to know himself"
Yes! This reminds me of a Baha’i passage: "If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism"
-‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks (p.143)
Please pray that I may become a holy priest of God 🥰
This is an excellent series to continue educating Catholics world wide, thank you so much!
It's our joy. All the best!
It's called indoctrination
Thank you, and blessings to you, Father. I feel that "reason" is often clothed in the expectations of culture, hence, the presumed conflict twixt them.
*Dear Thomistic Institute: Please use your platform to help Fr. Mark White, a diocesan priest at St. Joseph in Martinsville, VA. His bishop is threatening to strip him of his faculties for criticizing episcopal corruption.* Dear fellow Catholics: Please spread this message! Perhaps leave an encouraging message at Fr. White's personal blog!
It is a really a good work, that you are doing..🙏🙏
"Reason forbade me many things which,
Instinctively, my nature was attracted to;
And a perpetual loss I feel if, knowing,
I believe a falsehood or deny the truth.
Al-Ma'arri
By the holy spirit we walk by faith to discover the truth in all things.
Seriously, with all due respect can you explain what you've just said, because it just sound totally made up to me.
There can be no humanity without faith. Just getting up in the morning is a projection of faith.
I have no faith, I get up in the morning without any problem at all. Explain this please.
Sure father I will pray for you, you also pray for me
Very visual learner . The animations help 💯💯💯
Cheers!
Please pray that I may become a holy priest of God 🥰
Thanks.
Our pleasure!
Well I wasn't raised Catholic, I think I always intuitively took the Aquinas view and always thought that when I encountered science that didn't quite mesh that it would work itself out eventually.
Please pray that I may become a holy priest of God 🥰
Yuy y 4:22
J I I w see
😅😅
😊😊😊
We already are a priest of God through baptism ?
Beautifully explained
Thanks!
I think tha is very important razonar the faith. Thanks
Thanks
Thank you, may our Lord Jesus Christ bless you!
Excellent course. Thank you.
It's our pleasure!
from the heat coming from my soles to the chill shrowding my torso I know this is true.
That seems like an affirmation? In any case, stay healthy! :)
An excellent presentation, I think. Thank you.
You're most welcome! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
these videos are truly excellent.
Excellent teachings if you can provide this knowledge in different languages like Spanish or Portugues. The Christianity world will be appreciate it very much with substitutes.
Thanks and God bless you.
th-cam.com/video/s-iLc9Q4rHE/w-d-xo.html
Spanish and Portuguese subtitles are available.
Outstanding
Cheers!
Thank you. Ed
I've started Father Torrell's, o.p. two volume of Saint Thomas Aquinas. I don't expect to understand it the first time around.
To have faith, one has to have reasoning.
The intellect, after all, is the seat of the virtue of faith! Good catch!
☝️Ash hadu Allah ilaha ilalah wa Ash hadu ana Mohammadan abduhu wa rasooluhu salalahualaihiwasalam 😊
That's purely helpful
Ty Fr.! I recently enrolled in Aquinas 101
Great!
Aluna da Academia Atlântico, presente!!!
I disagree with your arguments here, but I do applaud you keeping your comments open. It demonstrates that you’re acting in good faith, no pun intended.
So clear!
Thanks!
Only God knows the depts of God. God speaks: Only a few rare ones know Me accurately as I am, they have a lot of happiness in them...
So impressed with whatever the Dominicans do. It is pure quality. Are these videos also being produced by Blackfriars?
No, actually by the Thomsitic Institute in Washington, DC! The TI is associated with the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception/Dominican House of Studies.
These videos are being produced by Coronation Media out of Emmittsburg, MD. They're wonderful to work with!
For Father Legge and Father Davenport, I've been enjoying Aquinas 101 for several years and have learned a great deal from the many videos.
I'm reading The Passion of the Western Mind by Richard Tarnas and have been struck by his presentation of Rene Descartes philosophy.
How do you think Aquinas would have reacted to Descartes' approach to reconciling faith and reason?
Thanks very much, John Harvey
faith and science both leads to god the ultimate about his power n mercy , pls elaborate more how did saint thomas connected them
Faith is the manner in which we receive God's self-revelation. By it, God leads us to intimate knowledge of himself. Science is a manner of knowing through reason, and by reasoning about the created order, man can come to know God through the reflection he left upon his creatures. Because these coincide in one human mind, they can work together to plumb the depths of what man can know about God.
I wish you cited somewhere in the Summa or any other of his writings we can refer to for further reading.
Hey everyone, humbly I submit this: When people want to know if God exists they are wondering about a God who cares and a God who rewards our faith and awards justice. Just tell them to start making a note of the coincidence in their lives (daily). You know they will SEE Him.
Thanks and God bless you.
Esses vídeos deveriam ser todos traduzidos
Concordo cara, são sensacionais
We should read the text Fides et ratio by John Paul II.
great quality video guys!
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it. God bless you!
When I say I have faith in my friend that he will pay me back for his car window.....Im not blindly assuming that he may do it cause I feel like it. I have faith that he will pay me back based on the fact that I know him and know hes true to his word. Excellent video!
(true story btw, guy was mowing his lawn and a rock hit perfectly into one of the back passenger windows XD)
a good definition of hope. Confident expectation. I hope in God because He is worthy of my confidence!
my*
Great comments! Thanks!
thank you !
It's our pleasure!
In Aquinas, the relation between Faith and Reason is Theology because theology is reasoning with two premises: Major premise of Faith (revelation), and Minor premise of natural reason (Philosophy). Most dogmas are theological conclusions. Hence, in his Summa, Aquinas establishes what is revealed, then he finds support from Metaphysics (usually from Aristotle) ---together, Aquinas arrives at his theological conclusion.
That's quite a good summary. The idea of premise of faith plus premise of reason becoming theology is a description of John of St. Thomas, a Dominican of a later century than St. Thomas himself. St. Thomas was not so explicit or restrictive with his use. Theology is the 'science' of faith. It utilizes the articles of faith as first principles and the whole body of knowledge that derives from that is called theology. Check out St. Thomas's extended conversation on this topic in his Commentary on the De Trinitate of Boethius (find it here: aquinas.cc/la/en/~DeTrin ).
@@ThomisticInstitute Yes, in his commentary on Boethius, he's explicit that for Theology to be a science--principles of reason be utilized, and he emphasized the role of Metaphysics thereby implying that theological syllogism is composed of two premises: one from Revealed truths as major premise, and one from Metaphysics as minor premise. If Theology is composed merely of Revealed truths as principles then Theology is not science in its proper sense but merely an exposition of the 'meaning' of the revealed truths without making explicit what is virtually revealed.
Great Video! :)
Cheers!
my teacher sent me here
cool.
And when they said non sense like evolution then we have to hold true to faith as primary to reason and conform reason to it not the other way around.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
01:24 🤝 Faith and reason are not in true conflict according to St. Thomas Aquinas. Truth is unified, based on the order of reality, and cannot contradict itself.
02:50 🙏 The Christian faith is eminently reasonable, supported by signs of credibility such as miracles and the enduring church, even though some of its mysteries cannot be proven by natural reason. Faith embraces these truths because God bears witness to them.
Made with HARPA AI
Pertinent to the elements of discussion: Is Angelus “strictly” prayed at 6-12-6? I teach in a Catholic school where our class schedule at 12:00 is within class time… lessons are ongoing… I suggested that we move the Angelus to 2pm (our lunch time) to avoid lesson disruption but my colleagues went against that.
I argued that time does not alter the purpose of Angelus & shifting the timing will avoid lesson disruption plus, we still get to pray the Angelus thus, reducing any form of disadvantage… the only thing that will raise a red flag is if I argue against the faith aspect of Angelus… I don’t know who is right?
Applying the principle of utilitarianism does not seem to work with my colleges… what should I do?
What app do you guys use to make your videos. :)
How can we get electronic files of the handouts that are mentioned in the audio lectures?
It is in the video description. Go to Aquinas101.com
The handouts for the audio lectures are typically posted at aquinas101.com under the Watch Tab. Just select the pertinent course and the lesson within that course and you should find it!
Alright, I have been following your videos for some time, yet where to start with St Thomas. The Suma seems a bit much for a serious Beginner. Thank you!
There are a number of great introductions. Jean Pierre Torrell's St. Thomas Aquinas, Spiritual Master is a good start. Aquinas, by Edward Feser is also good.
Does it mean that faith is neither personal nor communional
So we avoid hyper/hyper rationality :)
This is actually a question-a non-Catholic friend told me that the RC Church won’t perform funeral services for a miscarried or still-born child. I’d never thought about this-he told me he heard from a “good authority”. Is this true & if so what’s the Church’s reasoning?
"There cannot be something that is true according to faith and at the same time false according to reason or science." How does one respond to our nonbeliever friends that something like Virgin birth or even the Resurrection are not possible scientifically? (and we miss you in Louisville Fr Pine!)
My wild guess is maybe quantum mechanics, virtual particles - how matter can be suddenly altered. The evidence of an unusual energy source left an image on the Shroud of Turin. Asexual reproduction in nature. Elderly women suddenly becoming fertile a mystery too. Ex: Best astronomy can say re Fatima... something unusual was observed. See Miraclehunter to sort through Marian observations. Lot of evidence to sort through if eye witnesses means varied stories.
In the lecture God is source of truth and faith. Trusting God at His word.Also it was the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophesy many centuries earlier showing a unity of faith from God the source. Trust in what Isaiah and Luke have told us. All these points were covered in the lecture.
Now, I know I’m somewhat late, but the Virgin Birth and the Ressurrection are indeed naturally impossible. However, it is only rational that the very Author of nature is capable of freely suspending it’s laws in a *super* natural action
Thanks for the question. In short, it's about the causal structure of reality. God is the primary and universal cause. Creatures are secondary causes. Because of that, creaturely causality relies on God's causality. That means any effect produced by a secondary cause can be produced by God with or without that secondary cause. When something miraculous or supernatural happens, then, it is not so much a matter of God acting against the natural order as acting above it, to produce an effect beyond the natural causality of things. The effects are indeed impossible to secondary causes (or perhaps just to these particular secondary causes), but they are not impossible to the primary cause, especially if he acts without secondary causes or by supernaturally elevating those secondary causes. I hope that helps. God bless!
How do we know that the conversation between angel Gabriel took place when we well know none of the gospel writers was present? We to believe the person who was there and gave the account of events. She is none other than virgin Mary
"Signs of Credibility" is same as "Motives of Credibility", right ?
I have read the Bible over and over again. I have followed the unfolding scientific research on the Holy Shroud. I have listened to the arguments of atheists. I have familiarized myself with a half a dozen major religions. Why? Because I am as skeptical as they come about everything from religion to nutritional supplements. I don't belong to a church. But I do believe this: A Jewish man lived 2000 years ago in Israel. Most of his life was lived in secret, except for the last two or three years when he became a public speaker -- a role that cost him his life. He received the death penalty reserved for non Roman citizens at the time. He was subsequently buried in a hurry. Three days later his body was missing, a mystery that curious modern-day scientists at space research centers in the U.S. and Italy; and university research labs in the UK, Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands are trying to resolve. Their findings so far? A burial cloth that wrapped the body of this Jewish man was at one time in Jerusalem in the spring. April to be specific. Blood stains left on the cloth (AB positive) show no signs of bodily decay. And a three-dimensional image, invisible to the naked eye, was created on the cloth by a burst of light that the most intense radiation machines available today have not been able to replicate. I'm not big on faith -- just reason.
Pray That I Will Conquer My Sinful Actions Vain Thoughts Fears Insecurities Doubts Flee Evildoers Pray The Rosary The Divine Mercy Prayer To St Michael Memorare To St Joseph Poor Souls In Purgatory That Blessings Will Come Upon My Property Belongings Life Health That I Will Live Peacefully With My Neighbors Practice The Golden Rule The Beatitudes Forgiveness Of Enemies
Dear Father,
I have always been puzzled by what Christ meant when He said “Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the Kingdom of heaven.”
My problem is that I am required to use my reason to grasp the meaning of these words.
The faculty of reason is unique to humans (for we are made in God’s image). But this faculty is limited in what it is able to grasp and it also varies widely among us. The reasoning of a child is not as developed as that of an adult. Christ is telling me to become like a child, but in order for me to understand the passage, I am required to use my limited reasoning. I feel like I am going around in a circle; am in a circular cage whose bars are made of reason. The key out must be faith, a faith untainted by reason, the unbiased gaze of a child’s pure eyes. But I have used my reason to get here and am unable to reconcile the two. Maybe that’s the Mystery.
Become like a child in innocents
But use your reason to the Maximum.
Watch the movie
“A man for all Seasons”
St Thomas More.
He was innocent as a child
But used all his reason.
They kllld him anyways
Become like a child in your trust of God. Don't trust in your own apparent wisdom because you can't see 'the whole picture.' Don't trust in your own power - it is fleeting. Don't trust in governments or human organizations - they can become corrupt and they don't love you. Trust in God the way a child totally believes in and trusts in the goodness of his loving parent. It's not about having the 'reasoning power' of a child; it's not about having the maturity of a child. It's about having the TRUST of a child in a loving father: "What father among you would hand his son a snake when he asks for a fish? Or hand him a scorpion when he asks for an egg? If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Father in heaven give the holy Spirit to those who ask him?” (Luke 11:11-13).
You have to read scripture in its whole context. From the temptation of Eve through the whole of Salvation History in the Old Testament and right down to the reactions of people to Jesus, we see a common thread: Do we trust God and his provision for us (Adam and Eve had ALL the food in the garden, but couldn't trust that it was sufficient; the Israelites had manna every day to meet all their needs, but some of them tried to store up more because they didn't trust God - examples are rife)? Or do we decide that God cannot be trusted and WE will get ourselves better things and make better rules for ourselves than our Creator could make for us?
The whole of salvation history hinges on one question: Do you TRUST God with childlike trust? Or do you imagine that you are smarter and wiser and better equipped than your Creator to make the rules for yourself? Trust God like a small child. Reason like an adult. Be responsible like an adult. Sacrifice like an adult - but trust like a child who has never known anything but goodness from his parents.
Thank you. You are right. TRUST IN GOD.@@FigaroHey
What stops someone from any other religion from making these same arguments?, and if these arguments can support any belief, what's the point?
E X C E L L E N T
What matters is not what Thomas the syncretist taught but what the historical rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef taught! Radical Torah observance was the teaching of Yeshua, not abandoning the Torah for pagan ideas!!
Perhaps Pope Francis needs to tune in for this series.
Lost cause bro. I shouldn't say it, but it is about as true as it gets with that one.
skeptics believe that religion and faith cant go together
fideism - "all we really need is the bible."
subjectivism - faith is purely subjective "its only personal and interior"
Unity of truth - order of reality (there cannot be something that is true according to faith and at the same time false according to reason and science)
The truth is based on something outside of the mind or based on reality. God is the ultimate source of reason and faith.
Truth can't contradict truth.
If we find something that looks like a contradiction between faith in reason
- our reason is faulty and doesnt prove its point
- we misunderstand our faith
The Christian faith is reasonable.
But why is faith a credible source? Because God revealed it. How do we know that God revealed it, and that he can't deceive or be deceived? Insert rational argument. If the rational argument is sound, then aren't we basing our faith on reason as the final authority to judge if faith is true? Is there anything wrong with that?
That is a great question, Commander Dunbar, and here is an extensive answer that I have offered to it: soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/fr-james-brent-op-uva-1-28
The problem with faith is that it can be used by anyone, anytime, for anything, for whatever reason. Faith is so problematic, that you will have good people doing horrible things because of faith.
@deejaythedeejay
0 seconds ago
Faith is not that. Do you have faith your wife will not cheat on you? Yes. Do you have evidence? No. Do you hope and trust that she won't? Yes. Faith is not acceptance without evidence, it is merely just having trust.
@3:41 "The truths of faith ... cannot be proven by natural reason."
"And for that reason, I'm out."
- Mark Cuban
Natural reason concerns things
The truths of faith concerns eternity
@@PInk77W1 At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.
- principal, Billy Madison
You misunderstand. Let's say you have a wife. You can know your wife to a large degree by 'natural reason.' You can look at her, weigh her, examine her physical body forensically. You can also ask her questions to get to know her, and she has to TELL you things about herself for you to get to know her in a different way, a way that is not based on natural reason, but on faith. So if your wife tells you, 'I feel afraid to be in the house alone when you go away on a business trip,' you can't know that from 'natural reason.' You can only know that because she reveals it to you - either by directly telling you in words or by observing her behavior (when you are away and can't observe her behavior).
I explain it to beginners this way: there are two kinds of mysteries. There are mysteries we can solve (math problems, Sherlock Holmes-type stories, scientific questions about physical phenomena). We can call them 'physical mysteries' because we always begin with physical evidence that's available to our senses. (I have one pencil in my left hand and one pencil in my right hand and I can see that I have two pencils total. If I repeat this experiment again and again with various objects, eventually I can come to believe that 1 = 1 will always equal 2.) And there are mysteries we simply live. These are METAPHYSICAL mysteries; mysteries that we live, not mysteries we solve using physical evidence. So while I can run tests and solve problems (let's say medical problems) connected with your physical body, if you are living the mystery of depression, all I can do is believe your testimony that you are suffering depression. I cannot 'solve' it like a problem of science or math, because it's YOUR LIVED EXPERIENCE. If you tell me you are an Englishman, being an Englishman is part of your personal 'mystery,' but you live that mystery differently from every other Englishman. I am not an Englishman. No matter how much you tell me about 'what it's like to be an Englishman,' I cannot learn enough actually to LIVE THE EXPERIENCE of being an Englishman. No matter how much research I did into the identity of Brockwhite8699, I could never BE Brockwhite8699; I cannot live your mystery, because it's metaphysical, and I have only your testimony - which I must take on faith - to 'know' the mystery of your lived experience.
We can reason to the conclusion that God or Brockwhite8699 actually exist (using natural reason). But we cannot use natural reason to find out what it means to BE God, to live the mystery of being God, the inner essence of God's existence. And I cannot use natural reason to find out whether you are happy or sad today, whether you love someone or not, what your political view are, whether or not you like your job, or if sunshine on your shoulders makes you happy. Most of what I could get to 'know' about you would NOT be based in natural reason, but in having FAITH in what you TELL me is your lived mystery of being Brockwhite8699.
Thus is it with God. We can use natural reason to conclude, 'Well, I didn't make this, so someone else must be responsible. I'll call that 'someone else, "God."' I can also use natural reason to conclude, 'Well, the comment above didn't just appear without any cause; all my experience says that TH-cam comments that seem personal are generated by human beings. So I'm going to conclude that whoever typed the comment under the heading Brockwhite8699 is a human being.' But beyond that, I can only ask Brockwhite8699, 'Tell me about yourself' and then believe what he or she tells me, to get a BIT of a glimpse into the metaphysical mystery of what it means to be Brockwhite8699.
There are plenty of metaphysical realities that have existence which we take on faith. Every scientist is trying to find out the 'truth' about the physical universe. And yet no scientist begins by trying to get a kilogram of 'truth' and have it in his lab. No one writes a grant proposal to go looking at the bottom of the ocean or the depth of the earth for 'truth' in its pure form. Nobody is trying to find the chemical element, 'truth.' Truth is something real; we all KNOW 'truth' exists. But there is no scientific proof that truth exists (while all of science depends on truth existing). Love, goodness, justice, a sense of wellbeing - all these things are metaphysical realities which everyone can KNOW by living them, by lived experience, but nobody is busy trying to do scientific experiments to prove that they exist.
Likewise, if a person going by the handle Brockwhite8699 exists in the real world, it might be possible physically to produce him, but immediately I have to start relying on faith: that this guy really is Brockwhite8699; that the papers he carries with that name on it are his (because he tells me that they are) and not fake; that everything he tells me about himself to 'prove' that he's Brockwhite8699 is believable... I take it all on faith once I get past a physical human body in front of me.
If you listen carefully, the speaker was saying that you can't explain things like the Trinity by natural reason - that's because the Trinity is God's inner essence; it's who he is when he's being God. It's his lived mystery and the only way you can get any glimpse of anyone's lived mystery is if they reveal it to you. And then you take their revelation on faith.
Thank you for your views almost there not quite agree but very good attempt to present Catholic views, You guys are like MIT , CAL TECH, Georgia Tech, RAS ( Roger and Academy of sciences (Cold War Era! Poland Institute of Technology), in terms of Christianity ✝️!
In my eyes , Logic is believing and following the rules of the Natural World .But the Natural World and its Rules can fail .Faith is believing in the Supreme Creator of the Natural and His Will , He who does not fail .Reason is Logic having learned from Faith .Saying Faith unreasonable is like saying the Cold is not Ice .Reason is nothing but Logic being tempered and molded by Faith .
The pile on of attributions to the idea God actually makes the idea impossible. Truth is a concept and so to equate God to being a concept is to declare that God doesn't exist.
@The Romish Papist
It is not an assertion, but a fact that various attributes are incompatible.
It is impossible to be both completely just and completely merciful, since just entails the idea of getting a "deserved" punishment, while the idea of mercy entails without holding a "deserved" punishment.
The concept intelligence is developmental which includes the idea of such being contingent. Thus, claims of a non-contingent intelligent agent is incoherent, since intelligence is contingent, thus the claim would entail the idea of a non-contingent contingent agent.
===
What does the term concept mean to you? What does the term truth mean to you?
Why? Your question strikes me as bizarre.
@The Romish Papist
[It is not impossible to be completely just and completely merciful.]
False. Why? The terms are in opposition to each other such that to do one entails NOT doing the other.
The concept intelligence as observed references the capacity to learn and make decisions as observed.as well as the details of process to the extent to which such is known. All of which are contingent. Thus, insofar as we know, the concept intelligence is contingent.
This the claim of a non-contingent intelligent agent IS incoherent due to intelligence being contingent insofar as we know.
Concepts are abstractions and truth is one of many concepts.
iep.utm.edu/prop-log/
@The Romish Papist
Being completely merciful entails NOT executing a deserved punishment. Being completely just entails executing a deserved punishment. Thus two ideas are in conflict. Can you understand this or is this beyond you?
@The Romish Papist
You asked about how attributes can result in an impossibility. I am pointing out that IF one is completely merciful one cannot be completely just.
Attributes are a state of being. IF such is not constant, then such cannot be claimed as an actual attribute, but at best a capacity.
Thus, the statement of being completely merciful would be false, since, it is NOT total, but merely an action claimed and thus NOT an attribute.
Whether one is merciful or not is NOT about another, but about one's self. Thus, your comment about acceptance is irrelevant.
@The Romish Papist
["Whether one is merciful or not is NOT about another, but one's self." What do you mean by this statement? ]
If I tell you that you get to decide whether I kill or set someone free, then the idea of my being merciful or just is optional. The very act of deference would make me without mercy or justice or at the very least denote such as optional to me and thus not a core aspect of my makeup.
Or put another way... If I don't make the decision, then I cannot be denoted as being either merciful or just, since, in deferring I dismissed my consideration in deference to another.
The depiction I presented changes when the concept of omniscience is added, since, given knowledge of what another would pick, there can never be an actual deferment, since, one would know what would be picked. Thus, the conflict between mercy and justice would remain, since, it is necessarily the case that one or the other is being selected.
Attributes are not considered to be the same as actions. When one claims that X is an attribute (aspect of one's nature), then ANY violation of that X in any manner is to dismiss such from being the case.
It should be noted that the inability to actually defer is in conflict with omnipotence, since it denotes a something that various others can do, but cannot be done IF one is omnipotent and thus showing that omnipotence is logically incoherent. This is another example of attributes creating conflicts resulting in a conceptual impossibility. Every additional attribute creates the potential for conflicts resulting in an impossibility.
[Lod's Justice and Mercy are not attributed that are changing as God is Immutable ]
One cannot be claimed to interact IF one is immutable, since, the idea of interaction entails receiving of information which entails change.
Why assume God is the foundation of reality?
It's not an assumption. Check out some of our other videos on philosophy, but especially this one, about God as Creator. th-cam.com/video/oU48R8ZJ2HA/w-d-xo.html
@@ThomisticInstitute I'm sorry, but in the video cited, the way it is presented, Aquinas assumed God and reasoned from there. So why assume god?
"All faith and reason comes from God" is a faith based claim and the biased assumption of Aquinas's reasoning. It is a leading question with the answer God, Vaguely defined (logos, beginning, end, truth, light, the way ect.) in mind. We need to make the leap of faith before we can reason this way. False appel to a vague conceptualisation of God fallacy. It is a slide of hand in with Philosophy( open ended search for truth and wisdom) is exchanged for Theology (a closed off search for wisdom where the boundaries of the search is contained by "God"). Whitin theology all questioning will lead to God. Within Philosophy all questioning will lead to complexity. There might be some truth in God, but that does not mean that God is the truth.( Slippery slope fallacy).
This seems like a textbook example of begging the question
The motives of credibility just help us to acknowledge how faith is not in conflict with reason. They do not produce faith. Faith comes from God, elicited not only by what we hear but by the movement of the Holy Spirit in us. We would expect that subsequent investigation would lead us to acknowledge that faith and reason are compatible, but an a honest pursuit of truth would preclude begging the question, though it is a danger we have to avoid. Thanks for your thoughts.
@Hayden Cowart I think this is a fair point, I believe I misused the fallacy. I know this video isn't an argument for god's existence, but it seems the assumed argument being accepted is
1.) If reason exist, it must be sourced by God
2.) Reason exist
3.) God must exist
This is just modus ponens, which is a valid structure and isn't begging the question. My real objection I guess is I think premise one isn't well substantiated
Someone should show this video to Pope Francis and his team of mess makers.
Thank you for that wonderful lesson in question begging. Just assert outright that God exists and that truth/faith both derive from him. That’s not “reason” my friend. That’s called “rationalization.”
@The Romish Papist Do you understand that rote say-so does not make propositions true?
@The Romish Papist Then congratulations, you now understand the problem with this video.
This video does not beg the question because it does not presupose the conclusion. It does, however, presupose the existence of God, but this is not a problem, because the video is addressed to people who believe in God, and refutes the three mistakes from that point of view. And while you might disagree with the trueness of the argument this video makes, it is logically valid.
@@bruhmomentum7528 It may be valid, but is it sound? To answer my own question, no it is not. Saying this argument is logically valid may make it seem like this is a good argument, but soundness is very important here. And I'm unimpressed.
These are all variants of "God must exist, therefore let's work back from that, and apply our considerable intellect to proving it.
Not compelling.
(btw, shouldn't it be Thomist Institute, not Thomistic Institute, as if you're not quite sure if you're acting like Thomists?)
It's actually not too difficult to explain the necessity of faith regarding an understanding of God. Starting with epistemology, we can recognize that ideas such as solipsism, empiricism, scientism, and relativism don't work to explain abstracts. Fitch's Paradox of Knowability shows that unknowables exist but cannot be known. Someone can bring up the Münchhausen trilemma, but this is answered with a healthy mix of idealism, coherentism, foundationalism, and Haack's Foundherentism. From a method of Cartesian doubt, we can admit that Kantian noumena exist. As God must exist outside of time (see Leibniz's PSR, the B-series of time, and Avicenna's works), He fits the qualifications of a noumenon. From here, people can argue that this absolutely simple Being is overly complicated, but at no point have we applied any property to Him other than that of Aquinas' idea of ipsum esse subsistens. There's a whole lot more to just the epistemic possibility of recognizing God, but this is just a starter.
This dissertation on the relationship between faith and reason is based on the assumption of a god. What justifies this assumption?
th-cam.com/video/42Eg6UUBqqo/w-d-xo.html
The most powerful heavenly beings ever created the Catholic dead saints.
Firstly the Church grants them entry into heaven. 😂😅
Secondly they are omnipresent, can hear prayers in heaven & answer them on earth.
Thirdly all their powers come from the Catholic Church_I wonder if God knows of their presence & Superman powers😂😂😂😂.
At this rate God might lose His Job.
Using middle age ignorance to justify iron age myth
Faith the acceptance without evidence
Wow your reasoning takes HUGE leaps and arguments from ignorance
There were witnesses? Name 1
Faith is not that. Do you have faith your wife will not cheat on you? Yes. Do you have evidence? No. Do you hope and trust that she won't? Yes. Faith is not acceptance without evidence, it is merely just having trust.
Everything was good untill you brought trinity
Bro trust me you lost me there
It doesn't make any sense
Yes. Your previous speech consisted of some truths but your conclusion is just madness
Thats why islam is the truth
We don't just believe, we question everything, even the Quran , but guess what there is answer for every question
So Return to the Almighty God who has no partners, who has no children , no parents , God is one ,eternal ,all knowing , most powerful, most high ,the creator of everything,God is not like anything
In arabic we call Allah ,The Almighty 😊
I bear witness that there is no One worthy of worship except Allah and Adam ,Noah , Abraham ,Moses ,Jesus , Mohammad,all are the messengers of Allah (peace be on all of them )
And PROPHET MUHAMMAD (peace be upon him) is the last and final messenger of God
So much misleading. “Is faith unreasonable”. Nobody is questioning whether faith is unreasonable. They are questioning whether blind faith is reasonable or not which it is evidently not.
The Catholic Church generally agrees that blind faith is unreasonable.
Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment. A preliminary question before trying to respond: as you understand it, what is the difference between "faith" and "blind faith"?
Nonsense piled on top of nonsense piled on top of nonsense.
Aquinas is wrong in this subject. Just his own ideal dogma left.
G.od A.lways Y.eets
So faith is what you think is true with no definite evidence until proven true?
It's actually not too difficult to explain the necessity of faith regarding an understanding of God. Starting with epistemology, we can recognize that ideas such as solipsism, empiricism, scientism, and relativism don't work to explain abstracts. Fitch's Paradox of Knowability shows that unknowables exist but cannot be known. Someone can bring up the Münchhausen trilemma, but this is answered with a healthy mix of idealism, coherentism, foundationalism, and Haack's Foundherentism. From a method of Cartesian doubt, we can admit that Kantian noumena exist. As God must exist outside of time (see Leibniz's PSR, the B-series of time, and Avicenna's works), He fits the qualifications of a noumenon. From here, people can argue that this absolutely simple Being is overly complicated, but at no point have we applied any property to Him other than that of Aquinas' idea of ipsum esse subsistens. There's a whole lot more to just the epistemic possibility of recognizing God, but this is just a starter.
@@josephwalkowski if a being can't be sensed, it can't affect your life in any meaningfull way so. Plus you have Schopenhauer critic if you need to use names which argue that Kant noumenon mix the concept with actually being.
For example an absolute god bringing pizza which I can witness to my bed every morning at nine is a valid concept but does not exist since I have no pizza in my bed everyday at 9.
@@loicgrossetete9570 Foundherentism and the coherence theory of truth show that the experiential qualia/phenomena resulting from a cause act as justifications for valid knowability of such an entity that can't be empirically shown.
@@josephwalkowski can we stop referring to obscure theory and use commonly understood sets of words to converse?
I don't see how these these theories do so plus even if there is an entity which can neither be directly sensed nor has an existence which can be deducted from a sit of consequences, this entity can't have an effect on our lives.
"These things cannot be prpven, but god bears witness for us"
This is not an identifier of truth. The witnessing of truth has now been shifted to another unreliable source.
Citing god possesses credibility when god itself is actually credible, yet aside from having faith there is god, there is no evidence to off of.
The claims of reason here do not seem to withstand much scrutiny and instead feel like safe havens to quell the questioning apologist
Great questions! As concerns the consistency of the Church's teaching, the classic text on this is St. John Henry Newman's Essay on the Development of Doctrine. As concerns the possibility of proving the existence of God, you might enjoy the video on the Five Ways: th-cam.com/video/42Eg6UUBqqo/w-d-xo.html.
It's actually not too difficult to explain the necessity of faith regarding an understanding of God (as we're talking about the Anselmian God here, you'd capitalize the proper noun). Starting with epistemology, we can recognize that ideas such as solipsism, empiricism, scientism, and relativism don't work to explain abstracts. Fitch's Paradox of Knowability shows that unknowables exist but cannot be known. Someone can bring up the Münchhausen trilemma, but this is answered with a healthy mix of idealism, coherentism, foundationalism, and Haack's Foundherentism. From a method of Cartesian doubt, we can admit that Kantian noumena exist. As God must exist outside of time (see Leibniz's PSR, the B-series of time, and Avicenna's works), He fits the qualifications of a noumenon. From here, people can argue that this absolutely simple Being is overly complicated, but at no point have we applied any property to Him other than that of Aquinas' idea of ipsum esse subsistens. There's a whole lot more to just the epistemic possibility of recognizing God, but this is just a starter.
But, the church's teachings have Not been consistent, and in fact are veey fluid, changing and adapting to the norms of the day to remain relevant. Even now where priests might be allowed to marry to try and combat the rampant sexual assault of minors, to the idea that suppossedly many people witnessed these miracles, but none were recorded till many years after the suppossed fact
Bird Soldier Ghe Catholic Faith is not fluid. You’re developing Relativism whereas the Catholic Faith secured in absolute /objective truths.
Is the same shit about being fideistic with dogma or the cathecism, it’s a nonsense loop
First of all "faith" is belief without proof. Therefore believing in a god's existence - any god - only requires one's choice to believe. Any rigor of the scientific method, or of historical research, is not needed.
Faith need not be irrational or unreasonable - irrational and reason are not defined by Fr Legge. But, assuming the usual connotations of these words, a faith - a belief - can be irrational from a particular perspective. Believing that the "world" was created according to GEN 1, or GEN 2, is irrational, and unreasonable. In fact these two creation stories are contradictory.
So a faith can be unreasonable. It is also subjective, if subjective means the individual point of view, or a particular world-view. I am a Pacific Islander and my ancestors' creation story is vastly different from the GEN 1 or 2 stories. Which story is the "truth," i.e., what ACTUALLY happened at creation? That is, IF by "reason" and "truth," Fr Legge means actual physical event provable with scientific rigor.
Take your pick. Because any one could be, or none at all. With no human (we who record) present at the "beginning," the best we can do is look at the evidence, form conjecture and hypothesis, experiment, and establish the most probable scenario, a theory. OR we can make up a story to explain that of which we have little or no knowledge - creation myths, such as GEN, or my ancestral story.
Science has achieved many things but it still doesn’t give a clear explanation of consciousness either in the physical or invisible.
Science agrees consciousness is real