Friday, February 11, 2022

Johnson contra Aquinas

My review of Jeffrey D. Johnson’s book The Failure of Natural Theology: A Critical Appraisal of the Philosophical Theology of Thomas Aquinas appears in the March issue of First Things.  You can read it online here.

Posted by at

51 comments:

  1. ThursdayFebruary 11, 2022 at 5:08 PM

    Some American Calvinists really seem to have it out for Aquinas. This isn't invariably part of their tradition, as there is such a thing as Reformed Scholasticism. Ryan McGraw has a pretty good book on it. But then, why did so many Americans go in for the Van Tilian nonsense? Anyone have any ideas?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TerilienFebruary 11, 2022 at 7:49 PM

      Intellectual laziness.

      Delete
    2. TalmidFebruary 11, 2022 at 9:12 PM

      I personally do like the van tillian aproach. Some of its more calvinist thesis, like Van Till use of total depravacy, are obviously wrong but if you tone it down it seems to me a interesting way of evaluating worldviews. Not to mention, it makes dealing with so-called empiricists easier*.

      About american calvinists: a similar thing seems to happen with eastern orthodox apologists, at least the ones i see. There were orthodox scholastics and even thomists but i don't usually see it when Rome is attacked. You will likely see accusations of rationalism and secularism against we contrasted with the EO sense of mystery and focus on experience.

      With the orthobros i can see it being the case because their theology is more suspicious of reasoning that our own, i remember how Palamas on the Trias mostly argued by using revelation. With american calvinists it is probably a combination of the van tillian aproach being vigoriously defended by people like Greg Bahnsen until it got popular in more conservative circles and it being more connected with modern epistemologies that the classical method. The popular myth that the classical arguments were easily refuted also helps.


      *I'am not saying anything about the world that would require me knowing it with certitude, i'am just targeting your beliefs and their consistence. What you are gonna do?

      Delete
    3. ficino4mlFebruary 12, 2022 at 6:30 AM

      As I remember, Reformed guys of the van Til stripe (this includes Francis Schaefer) pointed to Aquinas' notion of nature as fundamentally flawed. They were more totalistic about Total Depravity than Catholics are.

      Delete
    4. RunDecFebruary 12, 2022 at 1:01 PM

      Probably bad epistemology. We only really made strong, significant progress in epistemology in the 20th century. Aristotle's and Aquinas's, for instance, while sensible, are too unsystematic when compared to (e.g.) their metaphysics. And of course, Hume and (especially) Kant really messed up epistemology.

      Self-evidence (which thankfully was already understood by Aristotle), epistemological particularism, Moorean shifts and common sense, Phenomenal Conservatism, Internalism, are all sound epistemological principles which demolish not only Kantian skepticism but also the presuppositionalist arguments. You do not need any sort of "revelation" from God to know logical principles, or to be justified in believing in common sense propositions. In fact, the appeal to the divine is quite circular and useless once it is properly analyzed. You can know a *that* without knowing a *how*.

      There are some interesting epistemological arguments for theism, but presuppositionalism is nonsense and this might only have become clearer given the more recent developments of epistemology.

      Delete
    5. TalmidFebruary 12, 2022 at 8:20 PM

      @Unknown

      You are right, Van Till itself was influenced by Kant and the german idealists on his epistemology. Since the advances of epistemology are not known everywere, the pressup approach will ring more true that the classical one on some circles.

      I do disagree with these advances completely demolishing presuppositionalism*, since the coherence of combining, say, naturalism with casuality seems to be a diferent question. If i have plausive arguments to a certain worldview being self-refuting it does not seems likely that the advances can help much.


      *how they deal with Kant is also controversial

      Delete
    6. RunDecFebruary 13, 2022 at 8:47 AM

      "since the coherence of combining, say, naturalism with casuality seems to be a diferent question"

      Don't know what you are referring to, but as I said there are some interesting epistemological arguments for theism out there that are different from presuppositionalism.

      Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism, for instance, whatever one thinks of it, doesn't just attempt to give us a skeptical scenario by considering a mere possibility. His argument is that *if* naturalism is true and evolution occurred in a purely naturalistic context, that we would factually have grounds to believe that it's unlikely the deliverances of our cognitive faculties are true. And as such that one has reason to abandon naturalism in that case.

      This invites different responses and discussions, but it is completely different from the presuppositionalist nonsense of "if you don't believe in God, you cannot justifiably know the laws of logic!" (The more extreme form) or "if you don't believe in God, you cannot justifiably believe you are not being deceived by Descartes's demon or that you're not a brain in a vat!" these arguments face severe difficulties against, say, phenomenal conservatism, or Moorean common sense.

      (Also note how most presuppositionalists go beyond and think you must believe not just in God, but the God of the Bible in order to be justified. Which is crazy)

      Delete
    7. TalmidFebruary 13, 2022 at 8:01 PM

      Oh, i see. This kinda of pressup is really screwed when dealing with someone who knows his epistemology, or who knows philosophy in general. I was refering more to things like Greg Bahnsen aproach, were you pick up your oponent worldview and try to show that on it a certain accepted feature of reality(like casuality) can't be the case.

      And Van Till gave at least one argument for going directly to the God of the Bible. I think that it was called "the one and the many argument". From what i can remember about it it is interesting but i don't know if it gets us to the Trinity(or if any argument can do it).

      Delete
    8. UncommonDescentFebruary 14, 2022 at 7:18 AM

      @Unknown:

      Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism, for instance, whatever one thinks of it, doesn't just attempt to give us a skeptical scenario by considering a mere possibility. His argument is that *if* naturalism is true and evolution occurred in a purely naturalistic context, that we would factually have grounds to believe that it's unlikely the deliverances of our cognitive faculties are true. And as such that one has reason to abandon naturalism in that case.

      Can the naturalist escape Plantinga's EAAN?

      NO. He can not.

      Why?

      If (according to the materialist), we:

      1. Can not trust our brains (the seat of cognitive faculties) because our brains are easily deceived by evolution and,

      AT THE SAME TIME

      2. we have to rely on such brains to gain knowledge about "an external world", that is "composed of matter" and that  "undergoes evolutionary processes"

      We end up being forced to admit that: we are relying on a tainted source of knowledge (the brains undergoing materialistic evolutionary processes that are easily deceived) to receive information about reality.

      Therefore, to keep being rational and to keep intact our intellective faculties, we have to:

      a) reject our brains as a source of knowledge about the world (not likely)

      b) accept that we have a brain that is a source of knowledge about the world but reject that it has come about solely and exclusively via materialistic processes.

      The materialist who chooses a) is then put out of the realm of scientific knowledge.

      The materialist who chooses b) is then forced to admit that there is more to reality than his beloved "matter" and "mechanistic" evolution. Which threatens/erodes his philosophical position.

      Either way, the materialist loses.

      The Self-Defeat of Naturalism

      Delete
    9. UncommonDescentFebruary 15, 2022 at 8:09 AM

      Or more precisely: the naturalist (atheist) can escape Plantinga's EAAN, but only severely damaged.

      Because to escape Plantinga's trap, he could only do so by renouncing to the findings of science and then attempting a purely philosophical defence of his position. And then he would become a laughing stock.

      So naturalist, naturalist... who is going to help you?
      The Self-Defeat of Naturalism

      Delete
  2. NickFebruary 11, 2022 at 5:52 PM

    From your review:

    A little time with ­Google reveals that what Johnson presents as a passage from the ­Summa was not taken from any translation of that work, but instead was cut and ­pasted from a random source on the internet purporting to reconstruct Aquinas’s reasoning.

    Oof. I know you say it gets worse later, but this really says everything I need to know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DanielFebruary 17, 2022 at 3:57 AM

      Yeah. Another case of Ed having to backhand someone who doesn't really know what he is talking about and writing a whole book on that basis. Doesn't he know that this is what Ed's combox is for?

      Delete
  3. Journey 516February 11, 2022 at 7:57 PM

    Wait… Johnson believes Aquinas taught BOTH that efficient causes can’t go infinitely into the past AND that philosophy cannot prove the world began to exist? Whaaaaa…

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownFebruary 13, 2022 at 11:07 AM

      Can you explain to me how one could even prove that they themselves exist? Thomists seem to forget that epistemology comes prior to metaphysics. It makes it very hard for them to interact with any modern philosophy.

      Delete
    2. KyleFebruary 13, 2022 at 3:42 PM

      It's not that Thomists "forget" that. It's that they make a choice not to bog themselves down in absurd starting points. Like why doubt your own existence? There are much more interesting things to spend your time on once you take it as a starting point that you do exist.

      Delete
    3. UncommonDescentFebruary 14, 2022 at 5:34 AM

      @Unknown:

      Can you explain to me how one could even prove that they themselves exist?

      Lol.What kind of question is that?

      If we do not exist... why should we fear "death" (going "out" of existence)?

      What's the point of "survival of the fittest" then if there is not a "real"(existent) self to begin with that can "survive"?

      Delete
    4. UnknownFebruary 14, 2022 at 6:39 AM

      I don't think the point of these questions is to sincerely question whether or not we exist, rather these questions allow us to set a standard or principle for why we believe the things we believe.

      Delete
    5. Journey 516February 14, 2022 at 6:46 AM

      Unknown, did you mean to make your comment as a reply to mine? I don’t see the relevance. But to your point I think modernity has done a number on the reputation of philosophy to those outside the discipline. Philosophers aren’t considered wise, as was the original goal for lovers of wisdom, but rather seem able to think themselves into holes: nihilism, existentialism, Humean causal theory, Cartesian doubt, Spinozian theology, etc. People give me looks when I tell them I study philosophy. Would rather find deeper understanding of reality than worry about whether I exist.

      Delete
    6. UnknownFebruary 14, 2022 at 11:47 AM

      Journey 516, did you read my comment? I told you the reason for these questions is to set a principle from which we can justify the things we decide to believe. It's called epistemology, I know most thomists seem to dismiss it but you simply cannot do this if you want to be taken seriously.

      Delete
    7. TalmidFebruary 14, 2022 at 8:17 PM

      @Unknown

      Why should we start with epistemology? Can't we start with the obvious fact that we know several things and them eventually find out how we know?

      As i remember one poster here saying once: we don't need to understand how digestion works before eating.

      Delete
    8. TonyFebruary 15, 2022 at 12:25 PM

      Talmid has a good point, and an important one for all realist philosophies: you not only can but MUST start with what is more known and proceed thence to what is less known.

      Unknown is correct that epistemology is critical to the endeavor, and any Thomist who is willing to dismiss it won't be taken seriously.

      The correct balance is for the Thomist to tell a questioner who is raising epistemological questions right out the starting gate "we will indeed answer those questions, but in the proper time and order, which is not yet. First we need to establish certain preliminary considerations that will set the stage for proper epistemology."

      To take Talmid's recalled example and bring it directly into the issue: we don't start teaching little toddlers to talk by first lecturing them what sound and speech are in principle, and then teaching semantic concepts, the definition of "definition", and so on. What is more known to them is sense impressions, so we begin by giving them (verbally) names applicable to some of those sensed things. We don't start in by distinguishing between the red ball that is external and the "red" and "round" and "smooth" that is only in the interior experience of the toddler.

      Insisting on starting with epistemology as if it MUST be the first discipline to be studied can only be made on an assumption that the distinctions necessary to get the RIGHT epistemology are already (and self-evidently) known, (and probably that some are known explicitly rather than merely implicitly). But this is a philosophically disputed position, so it should not be assumed. The Aristotelian starting point with, say, the existence of change, is manifestly true and known explicitly.

      Delete
    9. Craig PayneFebruary 15, 2022 at 5:02 PM

      For Aquinas, the impact of ens (being) is prior to the recognition of esse (the act of being). In other words, epistemology cannot and does not have to come first in our thinking, and Descartes's "I think; therefore, I am" is exactly wrong by being reversed.

      Delete
    10. UnknownFebruary 16, 2022 at 6:34 AM

      Tony, I'm just not sure how you can get away from epistemology as the starting point. Simply because you think there are obvious starting points that we can all agree on does not make those starting points true. This comes across as an appeal to popularity fallacy. I'm concerned with truth, not what people think is the truth.

      Delete
    11. UncommonDescentFebruary 28, 2022 at 7:48 AM

      @Unknown:

      How would you prove for example that "the whole is greater than its parts"?

      Delete
  4. MichaelFebruary 11, 2022 at 8:40 PM

    As expected Johnson has misrepresented Aquinas, but I was also surprised that he's also misrepresented a Calvinist theologian as well. Johnson quotes a number of times from the Protestant theologian Herman Bavinck. The review below reveals numerous instances where Johnson misquotes Bavinck to make it look like Bavinck agrees with his own views on things.

    https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4321905160?book_show_action=true&from_review_page=1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Son of Ya'KovFebruary 18, 2022 at 12:51 PM

      Ouch! The guy cannae even get his own tradition right! What a yob!

      Delete
  5. TalmidFebruary 11, 2022 at 9:25 PM

    It is interesting that Johnson seems to get close to some orthodox objections to thomism like it being incompatible with the Trinity or with we having direct contact with God. I guess that his acceptance of western-type divine simplicity* prevented him from going that far on these and it is why his thinking on these look sloopy.

    His point on the diference between natural theology and natural revelation is interesting, though. I think that i remember seeing you accepting a similar distinction, Dr. Feser. St. Paul famous Romans passage and a similar one in the Book of Wisdom seem to talk of a more intuitive knowledge of God that is got and them repressed on a more subconscious way that a philosophical argument. It would be closer to the average man on the streets sort-of teleological argument that a cosmological one in that it is hard go put into words but it is there.

    Not saying that his objections against natural theology work, they do not, but the distinction seems okay to me.


    *by it i mean the one were there are no God energies, which i guess is common on the east and seems to go back go some eastern fathers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TonyFebruary 12, 2022 at 8:14 AM

      St. Paul famous Romans passage and a similar one in the Book of Wisdom seem to talk of a more intuitive knowledge of God that is got and them repressed on a more subconscious way that a philosophical argument.

      Perhaps. But this more intuitive knowledge would have to be something like a direct apprehension of God, and not merely of God as "a something great, I know not what" but precisely as God in order to do the work needed. And yet (so far as I have seen) nobody seems to have teased out this direct apprehension of God as God to shine a light on it that makes us more conscious of it and how we ALL have it, etc. (Such as: "all" would include little kids, or would necessarily entail a moment in time where a kid transitioned from not having it to having it.)

      The underlying problem with such a direct apprehension is that we simply DON'T have such an experience of God, and so nothing in our experience can be readily allocated to such an apprehension to answer for it. And if it's not direct apprehension, then we must apply our reason to other data in order to arrive at the necessary knowledge. Which JUST IS natural theology.

      Delete
    2. TalmidFebruary 12, 2022 at 8:10 PM

      @Tony

      Indeed, in the end one needs to go to natural theology if God nature is to be properly understood, as the pagans did. I also agree that the van tillian view of natural revelation is clearly wrong.

      I agree that the intuitive knowledge we have of God is very indeterminated, as St. Thomas says, but i wonder if it is not enough by itself to rule out polytheism and the immorality on the pagans civilizations that Scriture condemns. There are several tribes were a sort of monotheism is believed and there is a interesting old hypothesis called primitive monotheism that suggests that polytheism seems more probable when civilizations get bigger, richer and more immoral. If there is a tendency on persons to monotheism that get obscured by the surrounding culture them some weaker view of natural revelation seems okay.

      Notice that i don't deny that natural theology is important, only that it is what St. Paul had in mind. Just like how his famous remark on the same letter about natural law does refers more to our intuitive knowledge of the first principles of ethics than to a systematic philosophical study of ethics.

      Delete
    3. Journey 516February 14, 2022 at 10:26 AM

      I see your point Talmid, because most would not have the power to clarify the intuitive knowledge of metaphysics they have from experience anyway. If they did we would not have the Enlightenment.

      I don’t see how the intuitive knowledge would not get us enough to explain Paul’s statement. All Romans 1 says is that the Gentiles had access to knowledge of God’s “eternal power and deity” but that they exchanged Him for other gods. I think people naturally think of supreme powers as having a single head (they had kings and emperors after all) so why wouldn’t God be single and ultimate as well?

      Delete
    4. TalmidFebruary 15, 2022 at 7:24 PM

      Exactly, it seems enough to get the job done. St. Paul text even fits with a phenomena that i remember from Andrew Lang book on the origins of religion: some tribes did had the concept of The God but just started not caring about Him and starting worshipping lesser beings because these could be bribed or forced by spells to give certain blessed while the Father could not.

      Delete
  6. BillFebruary 11, 2022 at 10:59 PM

    Great review of a shallow book.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Vito B. CaiatiFebruary 12, 2022 at 7:50 AM

    This book appears to be a perfect illustration of the Italian proverb, “L’ignoranza è la madre dell'impudenza” (Ignorance is the mother of impudence).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Philosophy From Byzantium February 12, 2022 at 1:40 PM

    We are beating a dead horse at this point, but kudos to Dr. Feser for yet another wonderful takedown

    ReplyDelete
  9. Miguel CervantesFebruary 13, 2022 at 4:05 AM

    Yes. Johnson can't get near the Scholastics. He would have had a lot more luck landing a punch had he criticised the unsanitised Aristotle.

    ReplyDelete
  10. UnknownFebruary 13, 2022 at 11:02 AM

    Great review Dr. Feser! I would love to hear your opinions on presuppositional apologetics and the transcendental argument sometime. This method seems to be gaining popularity alongside the rise of then "ortho-sphere".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TalmidFebruary 13, 2022 at 8:12 PM

      Having Ed adressing the orthodox someday would indeed be very cool. While i can't see much being gained in a discussion on divine simplicity*, a discussion on epistemology, apologetic method etc would be interesting.


      *the analytics that Dr. Feser argues against do say more interesting things there. Ed view of the divine energies would be cool to know, though

      Delete
  11. Son of Ya'KovFebruary 13, 2022 at 5:27 PM

    Gnu Atheists and Fundamentalists are breed from the same pstri dish.....

    Classic Theists laugh with great derision and unlimited cruelty.

    St Thomas Aquinas Ora Pro Nobis!

    Amen!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CosmicCatFebruary 15, 2022 at 12:22 PM

      Gnu Atheists and Fundamentalists are breed from the same pstri dish..... Classic Theists laugh with great derision and unlimited cruelty.

      I agree!

      Delete
    2. Son of Ya'KovFebruary 16, 2022 at 7:39 AM

      Of course I miss spelled "petri". Still getting used to my new keyboard.

      Cheers.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousFebruary 16, 2022 at 3:58 PM

      Yako - I think that should have been 'misspelled'. No doubt that was your new keyboard too��

      Delete
    4. Son of Ya'KovFebruary 18, 2022 at 12:47 PM

      Nay I just cannae make myself care enough to put in the effort beyond what spell check do.

      For decades I have been famous for my bad spekking.

      Delete
    5. UncommonDescentFebruary 25, 2022 at 2:26 PM

      @Son of Ya'Kov:

      St Thomas Aquinas Ora Pro Nobis!

      Yes Doctor. Save us from nominalism and its demonic spawn: marxism, feminism, CRT, darwinism, "gender" theorists, sexual "revolution" advocates... We're literally drowning here.

      Delete
  12. AnonymousFebruary 14, 2022 at 8:10 PM

    Enjoyed this, thank you. I first encountered the Summa on my father's bookshelf as a kid. Of course the most amazing thing to me was how accessible he is to anyone willing to take some time with it. Although I majored in Philosophy in college, I took a very different professional path. By way of a hobby, I have kept up some with modern philosophical developments over the years. During that time, I have never read a critical evaluation of Thomas Aquinas that did not begin and end with a misunderstanding, or worse, intentional mischaracterization of what he actually said. It reminds me of when I am in middle of a series on Netflix (yes, it happens that I am an ordinary human) in which a character states, "The Church says...." proceeds to state something which is not Catholic dogma, and then of course smashes it with a witty line. Bravo? So I guess things haven't changed much, and I find this very odd considering how clearly and unequivocally he puts things. It also remains true that Thomas himself listed the best arguments for the other side, while managing what appears to be the difficult task of re-stating his own argument accurately. Ha!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BillFebruary 15, 2022 at 7:35 AM

      My experience was different. I picked up Aquinas years ago and didn't have a sweet clue what I was reading. It took Geisler and Feser to help me understand the concepts Aquinas was teaching.

      Delete
    2. TalmidFebruary 15, 2022 at 7:30 PM

      Also had a similar experience to Bill. I remember hearing the Five Ways before starting understanding the concepts and not really getting the arguments. On contrast, pretty much every commentary of William Lane Craig was easy to me to get if i took some time.

      Perhaps it has to do with the eyes that approach it? I took a lot of study to learn to see reality as the ancient did.

      Delete
  13. Tom MoreFebruary 14, 2022 at 11:16 PM

    How embarrassing to write a book with such manifest ignorance of very basic and elementary facts of what Aquinas wrote. I don't see any rational path for the mind that misses final causality and reality literally moved by LOVE, that truly actus purus our knowable purpose and Final Cause.

    ReplyDelete
  14. EricFebruary 16, 2022 at 9:41 AM

    All I can think of after reading Dr. Feser's response is that scene from the Simpsons where Krusty is beating up pretend burglar and a kid in the crowd screams "Stop, he's already dead!"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcZzlPGnKdU

    ReplyDelete
  15. P.S.March 5, 2022 at 1:50 AM

    It looks like you’re shooting fish in a barrel with this one, professor.

    ReplyDelete
  16. S.S.March 5, 2022 at 1:51 AM

    Enjoyed this, thank you. I first encountered the Summa on my father's bookshelf as a kid. Of course the most amazing thing to me was how accessible he is to anyone willing to take some time with it. Although I majored in Philosophy in college, I took a very different professional path. By way of a hobby, I have kept up some with modern philosophical developments over the years. During that time, I have never read a critical evaluation of Thomas Aquinas that did not begin and end with a misunderstanding, or worse, intentional mischaracterization of what he actually said. It reminds me of when I am in middle of a series on Netflix (yes, it happens that I am an ordinary human) in which a character states, "The Church says...." proceeds to state something which is not Catholic dogma, and then of course smashes it with a witty line. Bravo? So I guess things haven't changed much, and I find this very odd considering how clearly and unequivocally he puts things. It also remains true that Thomas himself listed the best arguments for the other side, while managing what appears to be the difficult task of re-stating his own argument accurately. Ha!

    ReplyDelete
  17. James MatthewMarch 12, 2022 at 4:11 PM

    His response to Dr. Feser's review was posted on Feb 15, 2022. Entitled "Doubting Thomas Indeed: A Quick Response to Edward Feser":
    https://reformedbaptistblog.com/2022/02/15/doubting-thomas-indeed-a-quick-response-to-edward-feser/

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)