An Essay about Atheism in Latin

[Belacqua]

there does seem to be this one dominant theme in theology that generally constrains the range of thinking allowed in the field, and that is the dogmatic belief that "God exists".

Yes, I suspect that nearly everyone who has devoted himself to theology takes it as true a priori that God exists. And for most of them, given the time and place they were in, this was reasonable and understandable of them. When absolutely everything anyone knows about the world is explained through a small set of "givens," it must be near-impossible to get outside of that. 

I think this is what I want to keep in mind as a warning to myself. Everybody has these a priori ideas, and practically nobody can imagine them not being so, and it must be as true of me as of anybody. This is maybe the main reason to study the old guys, I think, even if we don't expect to end up agreeing with much of what they say. To be presented with a fantastically intelligent system which is nonetheless completely different from our own is an important message that entirely different sets of ideas are possible. It would be cool if we could read what people will say 700 years from now, but since that isn't available I think 700 years ago is also good.  

What got me started on all this, years ago, was Umberto Eco's book on Thomist aesthetics. Eco's first novel had just become a best-seller so they published an early non-fiction book of his. I was putting myself through my first grad school by working at the Cloisters museum in NYC, and this book made waves in the staff there. Of course I was completely soaked in modern ideas of what good art is and does (which much later I discovered were based in Kant) and I thought that's all there was. So to be presented with this entirely different yet fully worked-out system made a big impression on me. 

(And I realized that Aristotle's system of Four Causes makes a perfect recipe for modern art: take an object and mess up one of the four, and it's ready for the MoMA. Like a handsaw, but made of glass.)

nevertheless you don't find them convincing as well. I would say that's confirmation that perhaps they're not strong arguments after all.

I guess it would be comforting to have the youthful confidence of FlatAssembler, but I have to keep open the possibility that the fault is with me!

---

Belaqua, I was able to locate that book by Feser on Kindle but there is no purchase option for it. There are two other books by the same author that I am able to purchase that seem relevant here: "Five Proofs of the Existence of God" and "Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide". I'll download the Aquinas one for now, and if I get enough value out of it will consider the other one.

Since I am possessed by evil demons, I have no qualms about pirating these things. 

Administrator Notice
Link removed.

But I think it makes sense to begin with Aquinas. It is a more general view of things, and then if you're at all still interested Scholastic Metaphysics takes it farther. 

I'm not always crazy about Feser, who is a social conservative and not somebody I think I'd enjoy drinking with. But he knows about Aquinas and he's a clear writer.

[Cecelia]

I know a person whose linguistic ability was such that from a basis of zero knowledge in Japanese, he was able to master it to the point of writing a scholarly paper and then chair a symposium in japanese, all in less than 6 weeks.   During these weeks he neither slack in his day job nor shafted his family or normal leisure activities, such as reading a novel in his native Portuguese.

That's crazy.

A friend of mine (Well I say friend, but we only talk maybe a few times a year.  Mostly because she's in another country) can speak over twenty languages fluently.  But she definitely takes a bit longer than 6 weeks to master a language. 

I'm always impressed at what some people can do with languages.

[FlatAssembler]

And for most of them, given the time and place they were in, this was reasonable and understandable of them.

What gives you that impression? Aquinas, if I am not mistaken, explicitly wrote that the world, at least for the most part, looks exactly as we would expect it to be if there were no God.

---

As for logic, that's a field in philosophy. The experts on what logic is or does are philosophers.

Don't you think computer scientists today know much more about logic than philosophers do?

[Belacqua]

Aquinas, if I am not mistaken, explicitly wrote that the world, at least for the most part, looks exactly as we would expect it to be if there were no God.

Where did he say this? Do you recall the exact words?

[FlatAssembler]

Aquinas, if I am not mistaken, explicitly wrote that the world, at least for the most part, looks exactly as we would expect it to be if there were no God.

Where did he say this? Do you recall the exact words?

Quod potest compleri per pauciora principia, non fit per plura. Sed videtur quod omnia quae apparent in mundo, possunt compleri per alia principia, supposito quod Deus non sit, quia ea quae sunt naturalia, reducuntur in principium quod est natura; ea vero quae sunt a proposito, reducuntur in principium quod est ratio humana vel voluntas. Nulla igitur necessitas est ponere Deum esse.

Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.

[Belacqua]

Where did he say this? Do you recall the exact words?

Quod potest compleri per pauciora principia, non fit per plura. Sed videtur quod omnia quae apparent in mundo, possunt compleri per alia principia, supposito quod Deus non sit, quia ea quae sunt naturalia, reducuntur in principium quod est natura; ea vero quae sunt a proposito, reducuntur in principium quod est ratio humana vel voluntas. Nulla igitur necessitas est ponere Deum esse.

Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.

Oh, I see where you got that.

If you try to learn about difficult subjects through snippets and sound bites you're not going to get a very good view of things. Please look at that passage in context. It is absolutely NOT the view of Thomas; it is an objection he imagines someone making. The rest of that chapter is his explanation as to why that view of things is, according to him, not true. 

Why are you so careless?

[FlatAssembler]

Oh, I see where you got that.

If you try to learn about difficult subjects through snippets and sound bites you're not going to get a very good view of things. Please look at that passage in context. It is absolutely NOT the view of Thomas; it is an objection he imagines someone making. The rest of that chapter is his explanation as to why that view of things is, according to him, not true. 

Why are you so careless?

When reading a Croatian translation, I got the impression that Aquinas was trying to say: "At the first sight, it does seem like there is no god. However, there are at least five ways to prove using reasoning that a god exists.".

[Belacqua]

When reading a Croatian translation, I got the impression that Aquinas was trying to say: "At the first sight, it does seem like there is no god. However, there are at least five ways to prove using reasoning that a god exists.".

Throughout the Summa, Thomas argues by suggesting objections that people might have to his arguments and answering those objections. People in those days debated theological ideas with great strictness and care, and by the time Thomas wrote things out he generally knew what the objections would be better than anybody else. 

The clue is at the beginning of the paragraph, where it says, "Objection 2."

[FlatAssembler]

When reading a Croatian translation, I got the impression that Aquinas was trying to say: "At the first sight, it does seem like there is no god. However, there are at least five ways to prove using reasoning that a god exists.".

Throughout the Summa, Thomas argues by suggesting objections that people might have to his arguments and answering those objections. People in those days debated theological ideas with great strictness and care, and by the time Thomas wrote things out he generally knew what the objections would be better than anybody else. 

The clue is at the beginning of the paragraph, where it says, "Objection 2."

Like I've said, I see very little point in such hermeneutics. Maybe if Einstein said something relatively unclear about special relativity, it would be worth trying to figure out what he actually meant and suggest we may be misunderstanding what he meant. Maybe, though slightly less so, it makes sense to try to understand what Newton meant with his unclear formulation of the Newton's Second Law in Latin. But there is little reason to think Aquinas was even partly right about God, so why bother trying to deeply understand it?
And assuming there is a reason to try, there is no way to know when we get our understanding of Aquinas right. It's not even a soft science, this is not science at all.
Sure, it may be worth to debunk some common misconceptions about philosophy. Hegel saying that the 8th planet is philosophically impossible or "Too bad for the facts!" are myths, and it's obvious to anybody who has actually read the Hegel's works. But I think you are just taking it too far here, and that this could even be counter-productive.

[Belacqua]

But there is little reason to think Aquinas was even partly right about God, so why bother trying to deeply understand it?

You've made it clear that before understanding Thomas you've decided he's worthless, so I agree that it's a waste of time for you.