After experiencing a sizable body of classical theist media, it is pretty safe to say that the community loves Thomas Aquinas. The guy is, after all, a literal saint in the eyes of the Catholic church, and his writings have been elevated to the status of near scripture. Thus, in the eyes of classical theism, Thomas Aquinas is officially the greatest super-genius who ever walked the Earth [1,2,3,4,5]. It’s almost cultish how much they adore the guy, and it reminds of how Mormons tend to think of Joseph Smith [6]. Modern classical theism is, for all practical purposes, synonymous with Thomism, and so any exploration into the subject requires us to get familiar with Thomas Aquinas.
The first thing about Thomism that immediately stands out to me is the sheer volume of literature involved. The Summa Theologica, for example, is generally considered to be Aquinas’ magnum opus, and the document is over 4000 pages in length. After that, you have the Summa Contra Gentiles, which is another 700 pages, followed by the Commentaries on the Gospel of John, which adds yet another 1000 pages on top of that. The Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas is available on Kindle, and it boasts over 17-thousand pages of documentation [7]; only it’s not really a “complete” collection, because it’s still missing the Disputed Questions on Truth (1300 pages), The Disputed Questions on Virtue (420 pages), and On Evil (560 pages).
It’s not just Aquinas that appears to be in love with the sound of his own voice. In an apparent desire to emulate his master, Thomist Philosopher Edward Feser has likewise produced a substantial volume of his own literature in excess of 2000 pages and counting [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15] (and that’s not even including his regular blog!). It’s almost comical how bloated the literature is on this stuff, and I can’t help but feel reminded of the famous quote by Winston Churchill:
This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read.
Granted, mere word count alone is not some automatic deal breaker, but it can be gigantic red flag. In the world of classical theism, the enormous volume of literature almost serves as a kind of security blanket. Anyone who dares to refute some particular aspect of Aquinas’ first way, for example, can simply be ignored on the grounds that they are not yet properly educated on the foundations of rigorous theology. Unless you’ve completely digested the requisite introduction of six full-length books plus seven journal articles, then you are not even worthy of a proper rebuttal [16]. They do this sort of thing all the time, even when other PhD theologians are the ones giving the actual critique [17].
But hey, if that’s how you want to play it, then fine. Let’s take a look at Aquinas, shall we? What sort of topics were so important to the good philosopher that he honestly needed over 17,000 pages of documentation? To answer that question, we need look no further than the table of contents. In the Summa Theologica alone, we find hundreds upon hundreds of pages devoted to such thrilling topics as:
- Whether angels assume bodies?
- Whether the angels exercise functions of life in the bodies assumed?
- Whether an angel is in a place?
- Whether an angel can be in several places at once?
- Whether several angels can be at the same time in the same place?
- Whether an angel can understand many things at the same time?
- Whether the movement of an angel is instantaneous?
- Whether an angel’s act of understanding is his substance?
- Whether an angel knows himself?
- Whether an angel knows another?
- Whether one angel speaks to another?
- Whether local distance influences the angelic speech?
- Whether the orders of the angels are properly named?
- ... and so on, and so forth.
You may be familiar with the question, “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” That question is a direct mockery of the scholastic tradition typified by people like Thomas Aquinas. The guy had absolutely no problem with writing dozens of detailed essays over topics that were simultaneously irrelevant and unknowable. It reminds me of a popular debate topic among sci-fi nerds that asks whether or not the USS Enterprise could defeat an Imperial star destroyer in space battle. It’s a totally meaningless question for which there is no objectively correct answer, and it offers no practical distinction even if there were. Yet, for some strange reason, the internet is full of highly passionate nerds arguing their pet theories anyway [18].
This is a gigantic embarrassment, and it betrays a number of utterly dismal failures in the entire classical theist philosophy. The most immediate failure is the tendency to derive unwavering conviction over questions that cannot possibly be answered with certainty. On the topic of angels, for example, Aquinas explores dozens of questions about their physical composition, biological functions, intellectual capacity, and even their social structure. It really makes you wonder: How in the hell could he possibly know any of this information? Has he even seen an angel? Does he interact with them regularly? Did he conduct any field studies with documented observations? What experimental tests did he perform to validate his theories against empirical predictions?
Obviously, he didn’t do any of that stuff. Everything Thomas Aquinas pretended to know about angels was derived entirely through pure, armchair philosophy---as in literally, he thought really hard about it for a while and then wrote down whatever he decided the answers must be. It’s basically the philosophical equivalent to making shit up out of nothing and then hiding that fact under a veil of pretentious rationalizations. It’s a dead giveaway that Thomas Aquinas, and by extension all of his modern proponents, have no understanding of how basic epistemology works. They honestly believe that if they just close their eyes and concentrate hard enough, then the power of reason will magically endow them with rote facts about objective reality; not just mere hypotheses, mind you, but absolute certainties beyond all rational dispute.
Barring that failure, let’s suppose we’re feeling generous and just grant anyway that local distance indeed influences angelic speech. Now what? What am I supposed to do with that information? Do I need to account for that in any way? Can I measure some sort of time the delay between prayer and response? Do I need to pray more loudly if I'm further way from angels so that they can hear me?
Or better yet, what if the opposite conclusion were true? What changes? Does this mean instantaneous communication is possible? Can I exploit that to send information backwards in time? No? Then what difference does it make? What decisions can I now make in the real world with real, empirical consequences, that will manifest under the expectation of a spatial independence on angelic speech? Please enlighten me.
The obvious problem is that it makes absolutely no difference either way. Angels, according to Thomism, are "immaterial" beings and thus cannot be observed or quantified in any empirical capacity. So even if we grant entirely that angels exists (which we don't), then there's nothing we can ever possibly do about it. It’s another profound failing of the entire Thomist tradition, in that they love to obsess endlessly over trivially irrelevant information that carries no distinction between truth and falsehood.
A classic example of this behavior is the so-called doctrine of Divine Simplicity, which basically holds that God is perfectly simple in his composition. That is to say, God is without parts, and the very being of God is identical to the attributes of God (whatever that means). So let's ask a simple question: What if, hypothetically, this doctrine turned out to be mistaken? Say, for instance, God was actually comprised of two parts rather than one. How exactly would that change anything? Do you suddenly stop going to church over this? Would you pray less, or pay any less tithing? Do you stop marveling at the beauty of the universe? Do you love your neighbors any less?
Clearly, the answer is no. Nothing actually changes if this doctrine happens to be wrong, yet you still find Thomist philosophers wasting hours of our lives about it anyway [19,20,21]. It’s as if the Thomist community is completely clueless how basic Christianity operates. Remember that God is supposed to be an all-loving being who desperately wants to build a deep, personal connection with all of his human children. We will literally be damned if we fail to build this relationship, so presumably it ought to be easy to connect with God directly and get to know Him. Yet, according to the classical theists, we cannot even hope to have a coherent discussion about God’s very existence without first studying a mountain of literature in excess of the Bible itself.
Is it any wonder why the Catholic church is hemorrhaging members? It should not require a PhD in theology just to demonstrate basic religious facts. A God that hides Himself behind a wall of bloated ivory-tower literature is hardly a God that deserves any serious consideration, let alone devotion.
Notes/References
- Brian Holdsworth, “Why St. Thomas Aquinas is so Important” (2020) [link]
- Bishop Robert Barron, “Bishop Barron on St. Thomas Aquinas” (2009) [link]
- Bishop Robert Barron, “Bishop Barron on Thomas Aquinas’ Writing” (2011) [link]
- EWTN, “St, Thomas Aquinas---Who is St. Thomas Aquinas” [link]
- “The Thomistic Institute exists to promote Catholic truth in our contemporary world by strengthening the intellectual formation of Christians at universities, in the Church, and in the wider public square. The thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Universal Doctor of the Church, is our touchstone.” – The Thomistic Institute [link]
- “Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it.” – John Taylor, Third President of the LDS Church
- The Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas, Kindle Edition [link]
- Feser, E., Five Proofs of the Existence of God, 336 pages (2017) [link]
- Feser, E., Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide (2009), 224 pages [link]
- Feser, E., Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction, 290 pages (2014) [link]
- Feser, E., Aristotle’s Revenge: The Metaphysical Foundations of Physical and Biological Science, 515 pages (2019) [link]
- Feser, E., Philosophy of Mind: A Beginner’s Guide, 276 pages (2006) [link]
- Feser, E., Locke, 196 pages (2013) [link]
- Feser, E., The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism, 312 pages (2010) [link]
- Feser, E., On Nozick, 104 pages (2003) [link]
- Feser, E., “A Clue for Jerry Coyne” (2011) [link]
- Feser, E., “Classical Theism and the Nature of God" (2019) [link] (being at timestamp 34:00)
- “USS Enterprise-D vs Imperial II Star Destroyer | Star Trek vs Star Wars: Who Would Win” [link]
- Feser, E., "Distinguishing Classical Theism from Theistic Personalism," Southern Evangelical Seminary YouTube Channel [link]
- "Robert Barron vs. William L. Craig - Divine Simplicity," YouTube [link]
- Mathoma, “A Defense of Classical Theology (Part 2): God is not a god," YouTube (2018) [link]
Are you planning on making this a series?
ReplyDelete