Aquinas and the Integrated Worldview [IV]
May 29th, 2010 § 2 Comments
IV. Towards an Integrated Worldview
Christopher Hitchens discussing Aquinas ‘living in a time of abysmal ignorance and fear‘[1] writes: ‘(…) we (…) never again have to confront the impressive faith of an Aquinas or Maimonides (…). This is for a simple reason. Faith of that sort ―the sort that can stand up at least for a while in a confrontation with reason― is now plainly impossible.’[2] Or is it?[3] After discussing the synthesis that Aquinas achieved between reason and faith I think it becomes quite clear that not only was it impressive but that it stands out as a shining example of what needs to be done today.
Many of us have never considered how fundamental this is; the idea of meaning as part of reality is considered by most an innate feature of reality. It isn’t. Meaning is not in the material object out there; meaning is derived and assigned. Like Adam named the animals, God gives reality its name and meaning. Describing reality without an ultimate reference point from which to derive meaning is impossible. The end result is postmodern speechlessness.[4]
Before we turn our attention to the solution let us briefly recapitulate the Western predicament. Our first problem is that the Enlightenment’s sole reliance on reason while discarding the need for revelatory knowledge has led to a denial of the supernatural altogether. This has resulted in meaninglessness and lack of coherence of reality. Meaning and coherence have to come from ‘above’. Our second problem is that Western Thought has no way of bringing back the supernatural. We, i.e. Western civilization, simply do not believe it’s there or that it’s knowable.[5]
A few things certainly won’t work. Reverting to hard modernism for instance. Postmodernism can be seen as solid proof for modernism’s failure to provide meaning. Also, reverting to a pre-modernist state won’t cut it. We are simply here and regressions into the past lead to artificial ignorance. Yet in Aquinas’ example we see a clear precedent to our current situation. Just as we are faced with the results of an over-reliance on reason that has decimated revelatory knowledge, so Aquinas faced the threat of the rationalistic approach of Aristotelianism with its potential danger for theology. If Aquinas reached a synthesis, could it not be done again? Have modernism and postmodernism really brought us anything that an essentially Thomistic approach can’t deal with? I don’t think so.
Without going into detail here as to how a new synthesis can be reached[6] I would like to outline three basic steps that need to be taken:
- Step 1. Just like Aquinas used a theoretical model to safeguard the elevated position of revelatory knowledge, Christian Philosophy today needs to build an ontological and epistemological basis for the supernatural. Its existence needs to be argued for and it needs to be made accessible.[7]
- Step 2. A new synthetical theoretical system needs to be developed. This system needs to be coherent and evidence clear advantages over against the naturalist assumption.
- Step 3. This synthesis needs to be defended and applied in all areas of life: academic, practical, theological and at the level of church life to mention a few.
Naturally we would like to see how this solution is played out not only in our Western culture at large but specifically in the Evangelical Church. In the first place we need to repent of our false dualism. It has not only held our civilization in its grip but has permeated the Evangelical Mind too. We therefore need teachers that address this issue. The new philosophical synthesis needs to be disseminated through ‘intermediate knowledge providers.’ Secondly, this teaching and repentance should bring us to embrace the need for an integrative approach and lead the church on a journey of discovery to see the manifold applications of the new synthesis. In the third place Christians ought to be willing to think hard for the Kingdom of God. Thinking is a deeply spiritual activity that needs to be used for the glory of God. Worldview thinking and apologetics need to take centre stage and be practiced by those who are gifted in that particular area. Lastly our theology and works should once again match. Evangelism and mercy should go hand in hand. This will require more than an intellectual paradigm shift; it requires us to be counter-cultural, authentic, selfless, and willing to loose our lives for the sake of Christ, the Logos that became flesh and dwelt among us. And even here we find Aquinas’ shining example: ‘even if his devotion and love are not allowed to manifest themselves in the pages of his academic works, the ecstasies and mystical union with God of his later years bear witness to the fact that the truths of which he wrote were realities by which he lived‘.[8]
Notes
[1] Christopher Hitchens, “God is Not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything”, (2007): 64.
[2] Ibid., 63.
[3] Apart from the historical blunder Hitchens commits here, he has been forced to swallow these words in the light of his humiliating defeat in his Biola University debate with William Lane Craig (See: http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2009/01/christopher-hitchens-vs-william-lane.html).
[4] Yet as Groothuis says: ‘Many people operate intellectually with a dichotomy between an upper story and lower story concerning their beliefs. (For more on this see, Francis Schaeffer, The God Who is There [InterVarsity Press, 1998.]) [The upper story consists of] morality, spirituality, personal/private truth, faith. [It is] not verifiable or reasonable [and pertains to] things not knowable, [whereas the lower story consists of] facts, science, objective truth, reason. Things that are knowable. But philosophically, the goal is to have an integrated worldview or philosophy of life. One’s beliefs about the most important things in life should at least aspire to knowledge, not rest in mere belief or hope without sufficient evidence. Philosophy can help one sort out one’s worldview in this respect (See: Douglas Groothuis: http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2010/03/truth-knowledge-and-comparative.html).
[5] Though there is a component of pride in the turn the West has taken, there is a certain epistemological helplessness too. We really don’t know how to mend this problem. It has become part of our held beliefs. And so examining Aquinas’ example we wonder what we have lost. We lament the lack of synthesis and despair. But even now most are not willing to consider how fundamental the connection with the supernatural really is.
[6] My other paper on the theme of the need for an integrated worldview deals somewhat more extensively with how a modern version the Thomistic approach in the form of Christian Philosophy (abreast of current developments in theoretical thought and science) might achieve this.
[7] In assessing the importance of Aquinas for Protestant Thought points how Aquinas showed how philosophy may be mustered to enrich and enhance the Christian message: ‘He affirms both the gospel and Aristotle, though not as equals; rather, he finds in Aristotle’s thought resources that he can use to facilitate his articulation of the gospel’ Vos, “Aquinas, Calvin, and Contemporary Protestant Thought: A Critique of Protestant Views on the Thought of Thomas Aquinas,” 165.
[8] Copleston, “Mediaeval Philosophy – Part II,” 22.
Hi Josh,
Quite an interesting article. I very much liked you saying, that thinking is a deeply spiritual activity. I agree fully. I think there is such a thing as intellectual worship. The contemporary consensus seems to be that where thought enter, faith leaves the room in dismay. So don’t think!
I agree with you also that a thinker like Thomas Aquinas forged a synthesis between faith and reason that is still exemplary for us today.
However. His dogmatic use of Aristotle and his ‘naturalism’ seem to be incompatible with biblical thinking.
Maybe that’s worth a debate?
If you want to debate that issue in Dutch, we might do it on our websites 0- I saw that you also have a nice Dutch blog – and post it also on mine which is http://www.doopsgezind.wordpress.com. Drop me a line to see if we can enter into a (public) dialog on these issues.
Again, thanks for this insightful post.
Hi Robbert, you’d have to explain what exactly you mean by ‘dogmatic use of Aristotle’ and why Aquinas ‘naturalism’ seems to be incompatible thinking. I am not the kind of guy to enjoy forum discussions for too long, but we can try. Sometime next week. I’m currently busy with finals ;-)