/lit/ - Literature

>>16330077
It's a pretty simple argument.

1. Believing in atheism leads to believing that evolution crafted our brains (Premise)
2. Believing evolution crafted our brains leads to believing in (philosophical) skepticism (Premise)
3. Any belief that leads us to believe in skepticism must be rejected (Premise)
4. Believing in atheism leads us to believing in skepticism (1, 2)
5. Therefore, atheism must be rejected (3, 4)

Premises 1 and 2 are uncontroversial. Premise 2 is argued for by CS Lewis in that picture. Briefly, since evolution is directed at maximizing survival function and not maximizing truth-seeking function we cannot be sure that our brains and sense faculties are directed towards truth-seeking, therefore we must be skeptics as we cannot be sure of anything.

*regurgitates Aristotle*

>Is praised as one of the greatest philosophers, Canonised by the Catholic Church, studied by theologians for centuries to come.

How did he get away with it?

So I understand his arguments for the existence of a God, and I'm convinced by them. But what arguments are there for a theistic god, or even Christianity in general?

Is there any argument against Aquinas and his Five Ways?

Do you think reading Aquinas could help me alleviate fear of death? I think abridged Summa is in my reach, ive read bible and aristotle ethics already

unironically tho

>God is pure act, as radically not antropomorph as it can get

and this is supposed to listen to our prayers? total drivel

Name one thing Thomas Aquinas was ever wrong about.

>told Aquinas' Fifth Way is about teleology and not Intelligent Design
>look it up more
>its true

How the fuck does Aquinas' Fifth Way make sense at all? How is intelligence assumed into it?

>Not the Montecassino Renunciation in 29 Articles

none of his work is original

nah

Not even close tbqhfam

>I answer that, Some have asserted that our intellectual faculties know only the impression made on them; as, for example, that sense is cognizant only of the impression made on its own organ. According to this theory, the intellect understands only its own impression, namely, the intelligible species which it has received, so that this species is what is understood.

>This is, however, manifestly false for two reasons.

>First, because the things we understand are the objects of science; therefore if what we understand is merely the intelligible species in the soul, it would follow that every science would not be concerned with objects outside the soul, but only with the intelligible species within the soul; thus, according to the teaching of the Platonists all science is about ideas, which they held to be actually understood [84, 1].

>Secondly, it is untrue, because it would lead to the opinion of the ancients who maintained that "whatever seems, is true", and that consequently contradictories are true simultaneously. For if the faculty knows its own impression only, it can judge of that only. Now a thing seems according to the impression made on the cognitive faculty. Consequently the cognitive faculty will always judge of its own impression as such; and so every judgment will be true: for instance, if taste perceived only its own impression, when anyone with a healthy taste perceives that honey is sweet, he would judge truly; and if anyone with a corrupt taste perceives that honey is bitter, this would be equally true; for each would judge according to the impression on his taste. Thus every opinion would be equally true; in fact, every sort of apprehension.

Has Aquinas refuted subjectivism? Is this the end of subjectivist philosophy, i.e. 99% of modern philosophy?

>the sensible image is not what is perceived, but rather that by which sense perceives.

i.e. contrary to Hume and Kant, we don't see our own sight, or hear our own hearing -- which would trap us in subjective experience, in our minds -- we see actual existing things BY MEANS of our sight, hearing, etc. So when I look at a wall, I am not looking at my own subjective impression of the wall (unless I reflect on my own cognition), rather, I see AN ACTUAL WALL by means of my subjective impression. This means that the mind is not trapped inside itself, and we can know reality as it is.

I'm Orthodox, and can we talk about Aquinas? Do Catholics have any reeasonable defense for him saying latria should be given to the cross and to icons?
>Therefore Christ's cross should be worshiped with the adoration of latria.

See: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4025.htm

Also, can Catholic defend these insane views Roman Catholics express of the Virgin Mary?

>If God is angry with a sinner, Mary takes him under her protection, she withholds the avenging arm of her Son and saves him

>she is the sure refuge of sinners and criminals from the rigour of the wrath and vengeance of Jesus Christ

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/marian_apparitions.aspx

>>7864262
Never

Does the secular exist? Religions reach to all elements of life so there is no real room for a neutral secular life. All it is things in an atheistic sense, or just civil elements of life.

I hear the shortened version of Aquinas' Ways are lacking in the overall quality and work that's put in them so could someone, without simply pasting the shortened version, explain specifically Aquinas' Fifth Way for me please?

The shortened version is going to be posted anyway, isn't it

>the universe requires God to exist
>apparently this makes God pure actuality, expressing the fullness of being at all times
>in this universe exists one set of organization of matter at different times when they could have been different things at different times

Doesn't this refute the idea of God being purely actual? What is created exists in a certain way when he doesn't have to. God expressing the fullness of being and having it coming out a certain way (even if in a multiverse, the multiverse itself is a definite organization) should refute God in itself, right?

So after reading Aristotelian-Thomist thought I found it very interesting to see them making logical cases for the specific supernatural elements for their religion existing in nature. Very legitimate ones as well. I'm interested though - are there metaphysical examinations of other religions? Better yet, are there comparative metaphysical examinations for the different world religions?

Could be fascinating.

So I've seen that Aquinas' First Way is and has been thoroughly mistaken in modern times and now I've recently read from a few sources that Aquinas' Fifth Way deals nothing with Paley's Intelligent Design. How could that be? Does anyone have any sources I could go to to understand it better that isn't the truncated version of it at the beginning of the Summa?

Is classical theism life-affirming?

So Aquinas uses Aristotle's potentiality/actuality to say that the prime mover is immaterial. Either:

>The immaterial exists and is God
>Aristotle's terms of potentiality and actuality are wrong

which is it?