Posted by Ivan on January 25, 19101 at 14:12:52:
In Reply to: Re: Christ OS: natural and supernatural: Second Law? posted by Teresita on January 25, 19101 at 13:34:05:
: Ahem, good man, but I don't recall hearing anything from the Catholic Church about Kant destroying St. Thomas' proofs for the existence of God, or Irenaus', or any other "logically compelling" arguments. It is true that these don't lead to God, but they can surely point one in the right direction.
: At any rate, you seem to have drifted far from the OS analogy.
They don't need to be destroyed. The most he accomplished with his "5 ways" was the establishment ONLY of some metaphysical first principle. His doctrine on God relies not just on his rational theology. If one stops with that, they're still in the realm of philosophy, of metaphysics. One must go on in the "Summa" to his revealed theology in order to encounter the Thomist God.
Ahem? Somebody bless you.
As regarding Kant, true enough, there are those in Catholicism, traditionalists, for whom the Enlightenment simply never happenned. Certainly no "enlightened" Catholic theologian believes that Aquinas has "proved" the existence of God so maybe we're down to semantics? when you say Kant didn't destroy the "proofs"? At least most of the Protestant theologians after Schleirmacher have ditched rational theology because of Kant.
As for drifting from the OS analogy, I'm continually having to correct the erroneous conceptualizations that are making their way into the Christ OS metaphor, which, btw, I'm all ears if we're using complexity theory. That will accomodate my objectivist epistemology quite well and you folks can have your ontological discontinuity cake while eating your metaphysical dualism ice cream (thanks, jb).
Respectfully,
Ivan