The concision and quality of these videos have been phenomenal. They avoid the dangers of both misleading oversimplification and inaccessible complexity. I can't think of a better way to introduce people to the most important theologian in Christendom.
Thanks for saying that! Fr. Thomas Joseph, Fr. Dominic, and the other friars have worked hard on these lessons with exactly that goal in mind: accessibility without losing substance. Thanks for watching!
@@ThomisticInstitute What field of actual tested science does Fr. Thomas Joseph, have a degree in? He does not appear to know what the word science means in modern English. Aquinas' definition was not that of today. Surely Friar Joseph knows that much yet he carefully failed to mention that.
@@ThomisticInstitute Revelation and Faith from other religions conflicts with yours. If there an objective method that an honest third party can use to know which is true?.
The whole video is misleading. It is baseless assertions and Logical Fallacies. I am not sure if FR Thomas is willfully dishonest but someone of his level of education and experience surely would know that religions with conflicting beliefs could use the same argument. If people want to believe something based on Faith and dogma, that is one thing, but to claim that it is Science it is just dishonest.
So if you make absolutely ridiculous claims on what science is, you can call a collection of fantasies "a body of knowledge" and lie it's science... ok, not sure how you think being this transparently dishonest will help you, but I fully support you undermining your religion by being so blatant about it.
Instead of Watching The Liar Of Zod and Repeating His Hate, Why not Watch The Friar Joseph explain what He Means? Because what You said is Only Evidence that You have no Idea what You are Talking About. The Friar Joseoh is not Dishonest. You are, and so is Your Master, Zod.
It's something of an indictment that none of the critical comments here, however respectful they may be, are addressed but only the complimentary ones.
The Video is from 3 Years Ago and The Liar Of Zod's Hate Propaganda is from 5 Months Ago. You came Here because of The Liar Of Zod. And All of You just Repeat the Hate Propoganda. You repeat the Lies the Liar Of Zod said. The Liar of Zod Misrepresented Friar Joseph.
@@PimpMyDitchWitch - They came over from The UA-cam Channel "The Prophet Of Zod". Zod made Ridiculous Claims and Clearly Misrepresents what Friar Joseph Said and all They do is Repeat the Hate Sermon's Rhetoric. Its how they prove they Think for Themselves and Do their own Research. It also shows how Logical they are and how they use Critial Thinking...
@@ozunoma - The Liar Of Zod made his Video a few months Ago, but the Video is from 3 Years Ago. That's Why. Stop Lying about Christians being Dishonest or one Sided. That's what Atheists like You are Like. You are projecting Your Faults not Christians.
If a scientist is asked the question, “Do you believe that the universe was created,” and the scientist answers, “Yes,” that is not science. That is religion.
@@karlazeen If their opinion is that the universe was created, then they believe in a creator, and that is a religious belief. Science and religion do not mix, albeit that many humans that are religious, would like to believe that they are one and the same. When in 1927 the Catholic priest Georges Lemaître created the Big Bang theory, it followed that the Big Bang theory would be enmeshed with the idea that the universe was created by a god, as Stephen Hawking learned when he visited the pope. ... "In 1985, I attended a conference on cosmology at the Vatican in Rome. The gathering of scientists had an audience with Pope John Paul II. He told us that it was okay to study the workings of the universe, but we should not ask questions about its origin, for that was the work of God." Stephen Hawking
I hate to nitpick, but "super" (as in "supernatural") is not Greek, it is Latin. The equivalent Greek is "hyper". "Supernatural" in Greek would be something like "hyperphysical".
I don't think this really holds up. It's not using the scientific method. There is actually no proposed method to verify anything said here. "Faith" was undefined, most likely intentionally. I don't see the value in the video.
@@ShouVertica - No. You didn't. And I am Sick if how Militant Athiest like You Lie. You don't even Know what The Video is About. You just Repeat what The Liar of Zod said and Add to it other Dogmas from Your Atheistic Religion. And No I did not just say Atheism is a Religion.
You have it backwards here. The word science, as used by Aquinas, predates the scientific method along with Bacon (and Newton) who would have been familiar with Aquinas' work. If you want to define science as that which conforms to the "scientific" method, developed in later centuries (and in part borrowing from the metaphysical tradition Aquinas and Magnus), then you can substitute in a different word when Aquinas says "science."
@thinkingchristian I define science in the era I live in, if you want to play era definition games and use mental gymnastics in defense and explanation to that then ok, but that's your choice and not mine.
It is really bugging me that Father claims that the root of "super", as in "supernatural", comes from the Greek for "above", when the Greek for above is ὑπέρ (or huper, from which we get the English prefix 'hyper'), and the Latin word for "above" is... "super." The two words are probably etymologically related, but, yes, my brain had a hard time focusing on this reflection after that.
What's more, St. Thomas never said that grace is added from without or above. Rather he said that grace is created in the particular soul of each particular man as that man exists in time. It is not something which is added from above but that which is infused from within (see de Lubac Nature and Grace p.46).
Yeah, I caught that as well. Super is definitely Latin. And not Greek. But oh well. He made a mistake, a slip of the tongue more than likely. It doesn't take away from what he was saying.
@@kyleenzler94 Yes it calls everything in question as if you study a language you know what is Latin and what is Greek. Mistakes like this do not happen unless you do it with intent or you lack the qualification to talk on the topic. You can make your pick.
Well this is a simple question, yes it does exist and yes, we can absolutely know it. It doesn't need to be checked in respect to veracity, it is self-evident
Self-evidence is exactly like something true in itself, let me give you an example: the principle of non-contradiction. "A" cannot be "A" and "not-A" at the same time in the same respect. It is impossible to prove this as it is a principle, a premise, a statement without conclusion... Yet it is true and completely irrational to disagree with. It depends on your "faith in truth" for it to be true, and is a self-evident truth, as it proves itself.
@@wiwaxiasilver827 There is no subjective need for that premise to be true, there is an objective one. Having faith is essential to understanding reality; faith cannot (must not) contradict reason and vice-versa, another example: if your friend tells you he will go to the market, you don't ask proof or anything like that, you believe them.
Faith is not Belief Without Evidence. But Your Religion, The Atheism Is Not A Religion Religion, made it a Dogma that it is. You Didn't even Watch This Video. You came Here from The Liar Of Zod, a Pastor in Your Religion, Telling You what to Think.
@@skwills1629 Oh? Then you can provide sufficient evidence to prove the things you believe? Let's start with your claims about me. Those appear to have been made on faith without evidence.
@@gregcampwriter - Atheists like You never Prove what You beleive by Evidence. You Lie. You say You have No Burden of proof as You made no Claims when You clearly are making Claims. Meanwhile, You came Promptly After The Liar of Zod's Video and You make the same Arguments and You posted over there as well.
If something is not evidence based as you just admitted that theology is not evidence based. Then you just admitted that theology is not at all science.
He did not Admit Theology is Not evidence Based. And You Really Should Consider that just because The Liar of Zod said This is what Friar Joseph meant doesn't Mean it is. Why do Militant Atheists like You Always Lie?
That's because you are using the modern definition of science, he is using the definition that Aristotle has given around what is a science. And by using Aristotle he infact don't end up in contradition.
@Jack Well seeing as to how we have advanced so much since Aristotle's time and we are talking about science in this time. . . I really don't care. Science is evidence based, his theology by his own words is not evidence based, so his theology is not science as we know it today and that's all that matters. When we talk about science in the modern day, we do not use a 2,000 year old definition. Astrology used to be considered science but it's not anymore because we have advanced our understanding. Theology is not science, full stop. Theology is not supported by any science, full stop. Science is a self correcting process, theology is not.
@@darrylelam256 Why does what YOU’RE talking about have anything to do with what’s in the video? Just because you force your definition and ignore that English words can have multiple uses doesn’t make you right.
The definition of science that you speak of also has pressupositions that are not falsifiable. E.g, the epistemical validity of repeated experimentation, or something more fundamental like the laws of logic themselves.
If the claims you make can't be tested... it is not a science. You even end the video acknowledging that it is FAITH that leads you to your conclusions.
Friar Joseph did not say The Claims cannot be Tested. Also, The Liar of Zod claims He admitted its all taken on Faith at the End of the Video;. But, Knowing You define Faith as Belief Without Evidence, Friar Joseph never mentioned Faith at all. Oh He used the Word, But he did not mean Belief Without Evidence. And Honestly, He did not say Faith leads to His Conclusions. That is a Lie The Liar of Zod said. Instead, he said This. " Even with divine revelation, we cannot perfectly comprehend in an inclusive total way who God is, especially in this life. But faith is a real form of knowing God. And it's not the same thing as the vision of God or an immediate intellectual perception of God, but it gives us light and knowledge into who God is. So faith provides us with a kind of ultimate perspective on life, both through theology and through the spiritual life and mysticism, which don't compete with one another, but complement one another. But in this sense, faith gives rise to a science open to mystery so that theology is pointing us towards something beyond theology in our own spiritual life, it's pointing us towards a union with God." This is not saying Theology and Religion are Based on Belief Without Evidence. It is saying Faith is Trust. In this Case, Faith is Trusting what God has Revealed to us in Christ Through The Church. By the way, Theology is not Believing what Church people Told You about God. Zod Lied about that. Theology Studies The Church as much as it Studies The Mysteries of God. And Mystery is what is Revealed. And Christ is also Studied as Christ is God. Those are Facts The Liar of Zod left Out when he Lied and Claimed its just The Study if God and His Mysteries and then claimed what is the Object of Study and then the Source is The Churcher. he Lied. Look up what I said before You call me a Liar.
@@skwills1629 There is no way to test supernatural things. So it is not science. Try again when your god is in front of the U.N. and we can test things.
@@danielfernandezpeinado6294 The overwhelming majority of people would understand exactly what I meant by what I posted. I understand that the sciences are divided into the natural sciences, the formal sciences, and the social sciences. Let me explain what I meant by my original post. Within the field of mathematics, knowledge is derived from proofs written in the language of formal logic which begins with a set of axioms, so the facts and truths we uncover are not attained through a reliance on empiricism. Mathematical proofs are irrefutable and eternal... this is why Euclid's proof that the prime numbers are infinite is still true today just like it was 2,300 years ago, and it will ALWAYS be true. There is no such thing as competing theories within mathematics, and any person on the planet can verify any mathematical statement for themselves in addition to also testing that they always hold in real world situations if it is a form of applied mathematics. THAT is an example of objectivity in its purest form that can not be ignored or denied by anyone no matter what erroneous counter-arguments they present. This is why mathematics is found in literally ever field of science from economics to physics to chemistry to sociology to computer science. We are talking about a field which has withstood the test of time over and over because the truths which are derived from it have been scrutinized like no other body of knowledge compiled by humanity. If our understanding of mathematics was flawed, then all of this would collapse due to inconsistency and unreliability. So why hasn't this happened? This is in stark contrast to religions which are completely subjective and whose claims have over and over been contradicted by multiple branches of science. We know this to be true and can prove it by simply taking one religion, Christianity, and showing how it evolved over the past 2,000 years to the point to where there are multiple distinct branches who not only disagree about religious doctrine but also argue which writings are considered cannon... and this was true going all the way back to the first centuries after the formation of the religion. There is no such thing as a single Christian belief system and there never has been. The social science of religious studies in which academics analyze the world's religions and how various societies have practiced them over time plus how this impacted human history... THAT is science. But the comment by Aquinas in this video, that he equated to a scientific field of study, in which he stated theology's core principles are solely derived from divine revelation... THAT IS NOT science. That comment is UNPROVABLE... there is no experiment, investigation, logically constructed argument, or ANYTHING that can verify such a statement. Unlike the mathematical statements that every single person on the planet can confirm for themselves, no person could ever do the same for Aquinas' statement. Furthermore, other religions like Islam state the exact same thing that their religious beliefs are also derived from divine revelation. So who is correct and how would any person prove it? An individual trying to reconcile these contradictory positions is faced with the dilemma that both can not possibly be true yet each religion claims to be the infallible word of a deity, and this creates a paradox because neither is observable, testable, or capable of being resolved using logic. Christians themselves will admit that it is FAITH and faith alone which is the source for their beliefs because this is what the Bible itself clearly teaches... such as stories like Thomas doubting Jesus rose from the dead and insisting on touching his crucifixion wounds. The very argument presented by Christians that religious doctrine is based on scientific reasoning CONTRADICTS the religion's actual teachings. Christians freely admit their beliefs are based on faith yet Aquinas claimed the religion is grounded in scientific reasoning, which it clearly isn't, and those two positions conflict with each other which is what I was referencing in my original post. The individual in this video is talking nonsense... he could never in a million years point to a single shred of evidence, either reasonably consistent logic or observational, to back his claim except to blindly parrot Aquinas who himself could not present evidence to bolster his flimsy position 750 years ago. Religion isn't science... if it was, then the scientific community would happily embrace and utilize it to probe our universe to further our understanding. They don't because anything which laughably claims to have all the answers to every mystery, even those which humans have yet to encounter, is a poor tool to perform scientific research when it has been wrong over and over so many times before. Because news flash... the Earth was NOT formed in 6 days, so you already have proof of the religion being humiliatingly disproven within the first few verses of Genesis. I shouldn't have ever needed to explain this to you or any other person.
I always appreciate people being thoughtful and using the best tools available for what they believe so I have an appreciation for this video but I feel there is disconnect here when you go from calling what you are doing science elevating it from a study or investigation. Science gets it credibility from its painstaking adherence to the natural world and similarly is incapable of saying anything about the unnatural or supernatural world, at least until it verifiably makes its mark on the natural world. However, when that happens one could argue it's now part of the natural world - but that's for the philosophers. That is nature - the observable, verifiable and repeatably so - is the ultimate grounding and any scientific theory that doesn't comport with the natural world gets thrown out so when you start talking about alternate sources of knowledge and that faith is required like was mentioned right at the end, that is certainly studying your chosen subject, your way, but it's not science. Science, at least how I break it down, has two broad meanings: one is the rigorous processes used to obtain knowledge of nature; the other is the body of knowledge obtained from those processes and this video doesn't really match up with those.
Science does not Get its Credibility from is Painstaking Dedication to The Natural World, and Quoting Dogma from Atheist Sites isn't a Good Way to make a Point. Especially when You repeat the Lie that The Liar Of Zod said. Friar Joseph did not End His Video saying You should Believe all of this Without Evidence. Also, No One cares about The Definition of Science The Liar Of Zod Brainwashed You with. Especially since You Claim The Supernatural is Natural if it Impacts The Natural World but Never Has, Proving You Know Nothing of Catholic Theology to Begin with. And Friar Joseph did not even say he used Alternative Sources of Knowledge. This Video is about how Thomas Aquinas used the Word Science and what Aquinas Meant by it and is not an Apologetics Video that Argues that Theology is a Science as the term is used Today Anyway. The Liar Of Zod Misrepresented it like He did Everything Else in it. You came Here because of The Liar of Zod Video. But The Liar Of Zod didn't Really Tell The Truth. The Liar Of Zod Lied. He didn't Really Understand what was Said in This Video and he Admitted that, then said "Lets assume He means", and went from there. Before You call Me a Liar, The Liar Of Zod said this. First, He shows a Clip od Faher Joseph saying This. "aquinas does affirm that theology properly speaking is a science it's a study of the inner intelligibility of the mystery of god revealed in christ through the church" Then He says This. "this is an incredibly bizarre description assuming he's not just barking vaguely wise sounding words at us let's assume he meant something and try to parse out what it is." The Liar Of Zod attacks it as "Bizzarre" and Acts as if it canno be unxerstood, then he presents what it means, Which He says is an Assumption but Acts as if it is a Fact. The Liar Of Zod Continues. "first what is this science trying to study? the mystery of god. I guess that's pretty clear even though mystery makes the nature in depth of what we're supposed to learn about god pretty nebulous. second what are we studying about it? it's inner intelligibility. this sounds meaningless, and several longtime former Catholics have told me they've never heard of this term as far as I can tell maybe it refers to the internal consistency of an idea or the ability of a person to internalize it. whatever. the case since intelligibility is what's being studied it sounds like theology is just about the question does this narrative make sense without addressing the much more meaningful question is this narrative true. third is what is this narrative based on? in other words where do theologians get the body of data from which they study their science? and let's pay close attention to this because this is where the rubber hits the road and we see how seriously theology should be taken as a science. this information is revealed in christ. meaningless. through the church. it's literally just stuff people in the church tell you. so when you cut through the flowery wording Friar Joseph defined theology as the study of making sense out of mysterious sounding things the church told you about God" This is a Lie. This is not what Friar Joseph Said. He said This. " It's a study of the inner intelligibility of the mystery of God revealed in Christ through the Church." This is not Broken Apart like The Liar of Zod did. As if One is what is Studied, the other is what the Study is About, and the Other is the Source of information. Theology is The Body Of Knowledge about God and How H Works in The Church. The Church is as much What is Studied as is God. After all, God Works Through The Church. It is Considered Divine as Well. It is not the Source of Information but The object of Study. It is also not Meaningless to say This Information is Revealed in Christ. Notably because Friar Joseph did not say This, The Liar Of Zod did. Christ is not the One Revealing The Information, but as with The Church Christ is he Subject of the Study. In Christian Theology, Jesus is God. Theology is thus The Study of God and how God is Revealed in the Person of Christ in The Church, and How the Revelation of God allows us to make Sense of what is Known of God. What The Liar of Zod said is not what The Friar Said and what The Friar Said is Actually Understandable and not Bizarre at All. This Video is saying Thomas Aquinas used The Aristotelian Definition of Science and Viewed Theology as a Science since it is a Body of Knowledge on a Given Subject, but that Aquinas Taught that Unlike the Other Bodies of Knowledge on a Given Subject, Theology is made Possible by God Entering The World Through the Person of Christ and Making us able to Enter Into an Understanding of God Through the Revelations He gave Us. Contrary to the way Your Pastor, The Pastor Liar Of Zod, Put it, it is saying God did Impact the World and that God Spoke to Us and that God became Man and that God Persists in The World via The Church. Theology is thus The Story of God made Possibly By God coming to Us Rather than Us to God. And in Catholic Theology God Often makes Himself Known to Individuals, and it is NOT just Believing what People Tell You in Church. The Whole Point is the Opposite of what The Pastor called The Liar Of Zod said. Its God Revealing Himself to us Through Christ and Through The Church, not People simply Telling us About God. I mean Seriously, given The Catholic Church Maintains an Entire Division of Theology called Sacramental Theology which is All About how God is Manifest in The Blessed Sacraments You'd Think You'd Know this but apparently its Too much to Ask for You to Understand before You Speak. Or else to Ask You to Not Believe Without Evidence what The Liar Of Zod and Other Pastors iN The Holy Religion Of Atheism say. And the term The Holy Religion Of Atheism is not the same as Atheism is a Religion. Its what I call the form of Secular Humanism You follow. You Will of Course Ignore I said this. You Will claim I called Atheism a Religion. Because Facts do not Matter to You.
People in religion always play the “God” theme and pretend that it is science. Example as follows. From the book … SPOOK … Science Tackles the Afterlife … author … Mary Roach. On December 26, 1993, the Hubble Telescope made visual contact with Heaven and took hundreds of pictures and sent these pictures of Heaven to Goddard Space Center in Maryland…. In the pictures of Heaven, you can see bright light and what looks like the Holy City…. Heaven is located at the end of the Universe. This dispatch comes to us courtesy of the Internet Religious News service. One fine day I called Goddard Space Flight Center to see what they had to say about this. “Well,” said a good-natured NASA spokesperson named Ed Campion, “it is true that Hubble focuses on faint lights at the most distant parts of the universe.” That’s why NASA sent a telescope way out into space-to get closer to the oldest, most distant parts of the universe, the stuff that dates to the Big Bang. But Campion hadn’t heard about the heaven photos. Or the secret NASA space probe that recorded millions of voices singing “Glory, Glory, Glory to the Lord on high” over and over-as reported, here again, by our imaginative friends at the Internet Religious New service. Or the NASA photos of the “Two Giant Human-Looking Eyes in deep space that are billions of light years around the billions of light years apart looking at earth.” “That last one,” said Campion, “kind of gives me the willies.”
@@hYpNoXiDe Only modern definitions of science are really adequate to describe modern science. Very old, a few hundred years let's say, definitions would hardly be adequate, unless by accident, for the modern science processes and body of knowledge we have accumulated. Second, if you have a better definition offer it for examination rather than just say you don't think what someone else says fits, offer a better alternative and let's examine it.
@@hYpNoXiDe Granted, there is a distinction between a specific scientific methodology applied in a specific field of science for a specific experiment; and, the scientific method as general principle on science experiments; and, the scientific process in general that includes going beyond the experiment which includes things like peer review. So of those three I am referring to the last as the now well honed scientific process and I don't have a problem just calling that biggest picture one as one of the two major aspects of science therefore just calling it science for short. If you want to give it another term, go for it, I'm all ears. And of course like you rightly pointed out the other is the body of knowledge that has been produced from that process. One cannot exist without the other as the process is what gives the body of knowledge its CREDIBILITY. That and the fact that what gets learned from science gets reliably used in engineering, otherwise we wouldn't have 24/7 electricity yet alone an internet. But now I get it, you're buying into this video holus bolus, yeah, until you really understand the power of modern science, the modern process and the body of knowledge and how they work together as one, MUST BE AS ONE for the INTEGRITY of science itself, I don't see this being worth continuing as it's just going to be you throwing out opinions and not really shedding any light on things so this will be my last reply so feel free to get the last word in, I suspect it will make you feel better. And, enjoy your beliefs, I'm not out to convert or convince anyone, I leave that for the ex-religious who have an axe to grind with their former teachings when they've figured out that the very foundations they where taught come crumbling down once they stop looking at them through their indoctrination, but like I said, that's not my fight.
You say that Aquinas asks whether theology can be considered a science like biology, ethics and metaphysics. Where exactly Aquinas compares theology to biology? Surely he does not in the Summa Theologiae, where there is no reference to biology. The latin word "biologia" was coined in the 18th century, Aquinas could not have used it. Are you sure you are not simply mistaken or equivocating?
@3paz Yes, that is exactly what theology also is: listening to the same nonsensical claims again and again, until you think they're true. And btw, there is no "supernatural science"; science can by definition not be supernatural. If it is, it's not science.
I say I have to disagree, science is a method of creating models that incorporate all the known data and then make testable predictions using those models. The main difference between science and theology is that theology makes no testable predictions. So no, theology is not a science. Also, faith cannot be knowledge because a quality of knowledge is that it is demonstrable. What about faith can be demonstrated to be true?
Jesus has taken this over for us and we let Him do the talking. Believers do not need to do this work because good information is out there for any topic like this. I think it starts with the effort to research credible material and get into the science of Theology ( ua-cam.com/video/1OhTlwiHOJI/v-deo.html ). Ultimately, it has never been proven that God does not exist either; so here we are in this void between two ideas where one side uses Confirmation (if not the rite then testimony) and does not need to express proof and the other side (which quite possibly has entirely different beliefs or none at all) demands that it be proven without the Holy Spirit working in their lives. So basically... if one does not accept the Holy Spirit into their hearts authentically the chances of witnessing any blessings or graces first hand decreases. Faith is a legitimate word (meaning "COMPLETE trust or confidence in someone or something") and I pray you find some spiritual apprehension in this matter if you are open to the process. This is your decision to make and we all come to a point in life where we are called to decide what we will choose to take with us in the near future and further into eternity. I pray for you neighbor and brother of us all. We keep ourselves thankful for the blessings and gifts continuing to reach us from a power greater than ourselves. We did not create ourselves and it would be wise to humbly ask God to shed some more light in our directions and take it on down the line clear back to the beginning of creation. ( ua-cam.com/video/7k2ohtYWY4g/v-deo.html) Amen.I pray for a willingness to open your heart to allowing God to open your mind to this by revealing these things to you via the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit should you choose the spiritual path. I pray each part of the trinity works its way into your life gracefully and profoundly. Amen p.s. knowl·edge /ˈnäləj/ noun 1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through EXPERIENCE or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
@@ajmartin7115 An important characteristic of knowledge is that it can be demonstrated. The crux of your contention is that 1.) God hasn't been disproven, and 2.) That one must accept the holy spirit before gods existence can be proven. These are both vacuous claims 1.) You claimed that God hasn't been disproven. Well, there are thousands, probably millions of story book characters that can't be disproven, why make a special exception for this one? This is an attempt to shift the burden of proof since the claim that god exists still hasn't been proven. Because it hasn't been proven, it has no more validity as a descriptor of reality than any other fictional character. 2.) The claim that one has to accept the holy spirit before gods existence can be proven, is circular reasoning. Succinctly, "Assume the conclusion beforehand." How can this be distinguished from self deception? Religion makes no testable models of reality and is therefore not science, that's all I'm saying. Non-testable hypotheses are useless. I'm open to the possibility though, so if you have a single fact that indicates that god exists, I'd be happy to hear it.
@@ajmartin7115 Alright, just gonna sidestep my objections and questions and repeat yourself? Theology isn't a science bc it doesn't have a testable model that accounts for all the data. So what is a fact that demonstrates that god is even possible, let alone exists?
@@TheEpicTricycle Maybe it's: J(10)E(5)S(19)U(21)S(19)=JESUS(74). The meaning of Jesus (mean) could be 14.8 then. Matthew 7:7. The Jewish community is wise, no doubt, and they are the chosen people after all, that's some of what I choose to know...
I am a muslim,and i think we should appreciate and cherish one another as we come from the same Abrahamic tradition,that's why i also want to get acquainted with Saint Thomas Aquinas,because his works are really appealing to me. Furthermore,He was also influenced by many islamic thinkers and theologians like imam ghazli and ibn Rusd, which shows his open-mindedness towards knowledge and truth. As the quote of ibn Rusd goes Truth doesn't contradict truth.
This is so. But in the Past People Use to Understand that Religion is not Mine is All True Yours is All False. Today we seem Rather Absurd in that as a Society.
@@PimpMyDitchWitch - That is not however the same as Catholicism is True therefore Nothing is True in Any Other Religion, which is how People tend to use this Line of argumentation.
@@pelgrim8640 - And Atheists like You claim Your Religion is Absolute Truth and All that is in Other Religions is False. You then Lie, and say You have no Religion. And you are going to Lie by saying I called Atheism a Religion when I didn't. I said you follow an Atheisgic Religion, but that is not Atheism is a Religion. Why should I believes Without Evidence that All Religions are False Except the modern Atheist Religion You follow? Oh that's Right, I have to accept it as the Default Position because You said so and also accept that you made no Claims and have No Burden of proof even though You can't be the Default Position and be a lack of belief in a god.
@@skwills1629 Your rant is utterly pointless, since atheism is not a religion but a stance on not believing something, just like not-collecting-stamps is not a hobby and like not-playing-football is not a sport. You have yet to demonstrate that any god exists.
You are equivocating. You take an obsolete meaning for the English word 'science', but you want your audience to hear the modern meaning of the word. You quote Aristotle, who lived some 2300 years ago, instead of a modern philosopher of science, such as, just to pick the first name that comes to mind, Popper. Theology may be science in the old sense of just knowledge---although I would argue that it is not and does not produce knowledge of anything real---but it certainly not science in the modern sense, in the way that physics and chemistry are sciences. Theology does not use the scientific method. It does not make testable predictions. It does not test those predictions (that it does not make).
You came Here because Your Pastor in Your I Have No Religion Religion The Liar Of Zod made a Hate Sermon Video on it. You have Not watched the Actual Video. You Know what The Liar Of Zod claims it says. Friar Joseph did not Quote Aristotle, by the way. He did Mention Him, though. This Video is Not a Christian Apologist Arguing that Theology is a Science. it is a Historian Exclaiming what Thomas Aquinas meant When he call3ed Theology a Science in The 13th Century. Thomas Aquinas used The Definition of Science Supplied by Aristotle. No one Who Actually Listened to The idea Thinks He is Speaking of The Modern Definition of Science. Why would Friar Joseph Of The Thomistic Institute Quote Popper? He is Explaining the Works of Thomas Aquinas, Who lived Centuries Earlier. You'd Know that if You watched This Video and not The Liar of Zod Video. Also, How can You Liar Atheists sit there with q Straight Face and say Theology is not Knowledge since it Does not give Knowledge of Anything Real and Still say You made No Claims and have No Burden of proof? You even say it is Dishonestly Shifting The Burden of proof if Someone says it is. You made the Claim that God does not Exist here. I won't pretend its not a Claim based on Anthony Flew Lying about Atheism being a lack of belief in a god and not a belief that no gods Exist. Also, Theology does make Testable Predictions and You simply haven't bothered to Study it. All You Know is the Hate Propaganda from Your I have No Religion Religion. You never Question what it Taught You.
@@ozunoma - You don't even Know what This Video is about. The video is Explaining Why Thomas Aquinas called Theology a Science and what The Term means in the 12th Century.
actually, the word mentioned here is super (from "supernatural"): which means "above", and indeed comes from Latin, whereas the greek word for "above" would be "hyper". However the etymology has the same roots and the video is super! : )
At last! I have been waiting for your videos every single day. You have engaged every sincere Inquirer of the Christian faith-even me, a Reformed Protestant-in the best way with your aesthetically edited videos and precise explanations. I watch your videos alongside studying his Summa Theologiae. Keep it coming, please? God bless!
Thanks for watching! Many more videos coming. A full index of published and future videos can be found here: aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/watch-index
Theology is not science. All I heard you make were unsupported claims. Please try again, but begin with some accurate definitions. Going by your claims every religion rests upon faith. All those religions claim different gods, who cannot all exist. How does one "scientifically" know which one is true, if any?
You didn't Hear Him At All. You Listened to The Liar of Zod's Hate Sermon. Seriously, You Think Friar Joseph is a Christian Apologist, and Think he is Arguing Theology is a Science using the Modern Definition of the term. You have No idea what This Video is Actually About. For example, The Friar did not say Every Religion rests on Faith. He also doesn't Define Faith as Belief Without Evidence. This Video is also about how Thomas Aquinas Defined the Word Faith in the 13th Century and is an Explanation of what Thomas Aquinas meant by that;. The Liar Of Zod Lied about what the Video was about.
“He also notes that it differs significantly from other sciences primarily because theology’s principles or starting points are not derived from evidential knowledge, from things we ordinarily experience or our own natural knowledge of the world. Instead, theology’s first principles are given vertically, as it were, in divine revelation by God.” In other words, theology is not science. It's all based, by your own admission, on "faith" in Bible stories.
Considering that the natural sciences are revealed to us by the same God, through His creation and our ability to derive its intelligibility, I hardly see the conflict you’re having. Both are revealed by God, but in different ways and by different principles. The principles of the natural sciences are “natural,” and theology’s are “supernatural.” They’re both real.
Thatps not what He said. That's what The Liar of Zod said. And You believe The Liar of Zod without Evidence. The Joke is, Faith does not mean Belief Without Evidence. That's a Lie, too. Also, You have No idea what Friar joseph said. You Know what The Liar Of Zod said he meant. The Bible is not just a Book fll of Stories. And By that I don't just mean its True and not Stories. I mean much of it is not Narrative. And The Catholic Church doe snot use the term Revelation as a Synonym for The Bible. Nor does The Catholic Church base All of its beliefs on The Bible. You aren't even Aware Enough to Know that.
@@davidrawlings778 - He watched a "Prophet Of Zod" Video and is Repeating what that Idiot claims The Friar means, and did not watch The Video or Understand Catholicism.
@@CortxVortx - Except He does. You'd Know that if instead of watching Atheist youtubers and letting them Tell You what to Think You Studied what Christians Actually Said and believed. And I am uninterested in the I Use to be a Christian Lie You all say. You Clearly have no idea what Christianity Teaches.
@@johnmcjeff881 And even then it is utter bs. Theology is part of the fantasy genre. There is no such thing as a theological "science" in a purely literal manner. It is all just made up nonsense.
TRINITARIAN: (Systematic Apologetics) This is fascinating! 2:34 🤔 I didn't realize "Doctrine" was the technical word for science in the discipline of "Theology Systematics!" But then again, Theology Proper was once known as "The Queen Of The Sciences"! (✝️💞🫅) Actually, now that I think about it, by way of modern media, our Lord is giving this current generation of "Elects" a free education in "theology proper" that was created with the sacrifice of blood sweat and tears of the "Elect" that came before us! 🤯 (Sometimes contemplating the complexity of His grace and mercy are extremely humbling!) 🙏😔😢
A lot of you have the attention span of a nat. Fr. White is using the Aristotelian definition of science, that is “any collected body of knowledge” ie ethics, philosophy, history are all considered a science under that traditional definition had you bothered to watch the video.
Hi Aquinas 101, thank you for all your videos! Because of them I've decided to start reading the Summa. Immediately though, I encountered a problem: Aquinas sounds like a fideist or a presuppositionalist in this passage: "... doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else... If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning... arguments from human reason cannot avail to prove what must be received on faith... But sacred doctrine makes use even of human reason, not, indeed, to prove faith (for thereby the merit of faith would come to an end), but to make clear other things that are put forward in this doctrine." Does Aquinas think we should just take a leap of faith and accept Christian doctrine? Or is Aquinas's view more nuanced than this?
I kinda interpreted it as: if an interlocutor you're engaged with is a materialist, they'd presuppose the non-existence of the supernatural and therefore rule it out of any reasoning you might try to give. Is it way off?
You have to realise, however, that St Thomas wrote the _Summa Theologica_ addressing students of Theology, whom he did presuppose to be training for the Priesthood and thus already having accepted the articles of Christian doctrine. There are other works - like for instance the _Summa contra Gentiles_ where he explains and defends Christian religion (this one probably written as an aid to missionaries in proselytising to Jews and Muslims mostly). What I understand of the passage you quoted is what Fr. Thomas White says in the video about Divine Revelation being a set of facts which cannot be philosophically derived, but have been revealed, and Christian Theology then investigates how these facts illuminate human experience.
@@karlazeen - It makes More sense if You dn;t Truncate it. "I answer that, As other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences: so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else;" The Point being Made is, You have to have Common Ground before Any Argument can be made when Arguing with Others. Its not Really saying to Never Try to Have Proof.
Love the little guy being whisked away by the Holy Spirit and dropped in the Theology tree😂😂❤❤... We'll just send him an Eagle from The Misty Mountains if he gets stuck there and needs to come down!😁🍻 This is an Awesome series! Blessed be the Lord!
Yeah he claims that it's science, but unlike those "other" sciences, theology is "known" through faith instead of evidence... So it's _not_ science, but any modern definition of the word. It's trying to hijack the respectability of science but without any of the actual work providing the evidence needed to back up the knowledge claim.
Why are Atheists like You such Liars? Friar Joseph did't even say :"We know these Things through Faith". And Faith des not mean You made it all Up. Just like it does not Mean Beleif Without Evidence. You didn't even Watch The Video. You watched The Liar Of Zod.
I have a question: what if divine revelations contradicts nature? For instance, the Bible saying the Earth is flat and 6000 years old - whereas Science says Earth is a ball and millions of year old
The Bible doesn't say The Earth is Flat. It also doesn't day The Earth is Only 6000 Years Old. Also, Catholics ae not Protestants. Why do You Think "Revelation: means "The Bible"? Also, The Earth is Billions of Year Old.
When one makes the claim that one story in a story collection shows reality then the person has to prove it. It is very simple one writes a peer-reviewed article that shows how god creates matter, creates life, and creates mud men and rib women. If this can be peer-reviewed and published in a biology or physics scientific journal then we can look at the validity of the claims. So far it is on the level of Harry Potter and Starwars.
@@skwills1629 We have talking burning bush, talking snake, people walking over water and mud turned in man and rib into a woman. These things are found in fairy tales and mythology.
@@TorianTammas -You Idiots beleive made up Fake Stories in Books All the Time. like the made up Lies Christopher Hitchens said, or the made up Stories of Sam Harris, or the made up Stories of carl Sagan. You then say You "Made no Claims, and therefore I have No Burden of proof" as if You sitting there repeating the Stories your Divine Prophets said in Your Sacred Scriptures is not making a Claim. You can't even Get Grammar Right, yet You say I have bad grammar and Falsely say I Randomly Capitalise Words. Its God, capital G, as it is a Name. No it is not a Tiztle You idiot. The Your gods name is Yawheh not God Routine ignores that We also Capitalise Words used in place of Named. All You did was repeat the Crappy Dogma Your Pastors in Your Atheistic Religion Fed You, and its Stupid since You aren't Addressing what This Video said. The Liar of Zod Lied to You about that. by the way saying Your Atheistic Religion is not the same as "Atheism is a Religion". You Will Lie and claim I called Atheism a Religion when i did not. By the way More-On, Catholics accept Evolution, and Repeating the Silly Hate Speech that was made up by The Divine Prophet of Your Atheistic Religion Seven Weinbe4rge and saying mud men and Rid Women only proves how Childish and Stupid You are. So is comparing The Babel to Harry Potter and Star Wars. That's not Cleaver. All You did is Prove you are Stupid and Can't Think for Yourself. by the Way idiota, The Bible is not like Star Wars o harry potter and just Comparing the Bible to Fiction doesn't make it Fiction. And You are making Claims so you do have The Burden of proof. that Stupid lie The Divine prophet Anthony Flew Most Holy And Exalted gave you is a Lie. Atheism is not a lack of belief in a god. It Certainly is not True that You make no claims at all whatsoever. Comparing the Bible to harry potter an Star Wars is making a Claim that it is Fictional and Only a Gullible Idiot would Think its True. And You do have The Burden of Proof. And No idiota, Repeating "talking Snakes and talking Donkeys' and' Talking Bushes" doesn't prove Anything other than you don't Think for Yourself, and are not Smart. For a Group that Prides itself on Being Freethinkers, All you ever do is repeat what Other Atheist Told You to say. None of this is Your original View, and its all just Stories You beleive because Your Pastors and Your Divine Prophets and Your Holy Books said so. The Joke is, Catholics don't Base their beliefs on The Bib le. The Certainly don't see The Bible as The Sole Source of Lithotrity in Mattes of Faith and practice. They are not Protestants. Rather, They see The Bible as coming from The Church, and it is The Church that gave us The Bible rather than The Bible being the Foundation of The Church. But You are So Stupid You don't even Bother to check the beliefs Your Atheist Pastors told You to Attack.
@@TorianTammas - All You did was Repeat Garbage from Atheist Hate Sites. What's the Point? Its not like I haven't seen this Before, and it doesn't mean Anything or Address hat This Video said. You just came here because The Liar of Zod Preached a Hate Sermon on this, and it doesn't even occur to you that he is a Liar and an idiot Who misrepresented Friar Joseph. Instead you just Quote the Sacred Scripturas of The Holy Religion of Atheism Is Not A Religion at me as if they have Any Relevance. Calling Christian Beliefs from he Bible Fairy Tales and Mythology means Nothing given You beleive Fairy tales to be true Yourself. Any of the Fairy Tales about Eeeeeeeeevil Christians Holding back Science and giving us The Dark Ages for example. Or the Fairy Tale that no One has Ever Killed in the name of Atheism and how Communist Nations Killed for Communisms which is actually a Religion, and nit Atheism. or the Fairy tale that a Scientific Utiopia of peace and Advancement will occur if everyone became an Atheist. By the way, Idiota, Catholics accept Evolution. You are Stupid and don't Know that. You also think they beleive in Sola Scriptura and base All they beleive on The Bible...
So the Egyptian gods' theology is a science, as the greek gods, the Hindu gods, the Sumerian gods, the Akkadian gods, and Voodoo theology. Thank you for providing us at least with 10.000 more sciences as people worship so many different goddesses and gods.
Others already Repeated what Pastor Liar of Zod Preached in His Hate Sermon. And You should not Beleive without Evidence what he Holy Religion of Atheism is Not A Religion teaches. What You said is Stupid and makes No Sense. Do You even understand The Liar of Zod Lied to You? You have no idea what Friar Joseph said Here. You're also Stupid if ou Think Each Individual god gets a Theology a nd each is a Separate Science. That's not even Remotely Valid.
Of course this is really simplified, as exposed in this way it seems circular. How do I know that God incarnated in Jesus? By the faith supernaturally granted by the holy spirit? And how do you know the the holy spirit is acting on you like this? By the faith supernaturally granted etc. etc. Of course faith is reasonable only if i first prove, by natural means, the praeambula fidei. So I know the the holy spirit is doing this because I've previously proved by reason alone that there's a God, that he truly revealed to man, etc...
The Problem is, You don't Know how Faith is Defined. it means Confidence or Trust, not Belief without Evidence. Also, These are Catholics, not Pentecostals. They do not Think The Holy Spirit Individually gives you Faith. He never said that You Know Jesus was Incarnated because of Faith given by The Holy Spirit, or that The Holy Spirit Acted on You Personally. He never even Said this. The Holy Spirit is Only Mentioned Once. "So the core Truths of Christianity are known and they're certain, but they're not known by natural demonstration or philosophical argument, but by a deeper form of insight provided by the grace of the Holy Spirit." The Thing is, No Shot Video explains Everything. But if You Know Anything at All About the Cathodic Church, You Know that The Church is The Font Of Truth, and that The Grace of The Holy Spirit refers less to an individual Change that comes Upon you by The Holy Spirit Acting on You, but by The Church. And The Church does not Tell you to Simply Believe and has a Very Long Historical tradition of Providing Ecv9idence and Explanations.
@@skwills1629 no one can say that Jesus is lord if he's not under the holy spirit's action. This is not pentecostalism, this is Saint Paul, and this is indeed the catholic teaching. Faith is a rational action, but reducing it to confidence, maybe confidence in a testimony I'm justified believing it is true, even if I see that it's a common opinion among American theologians, according to the Roman school and classical thomists it is an heterodox opinion
@@Pienotto As different Christians make contradicting claims it all can be false and non of them could prove to all Christians that their opinion is true. They usually say this is a wrong belief and get ignored by other Christians.
@@TorianTammas - Atheists like You make Contradictory Claims, like saying God does not Exist and is a Fairy Tale Only to Refuse to give Evidence by saying Atheism is not a belief and is a lack of belief so You have made no Claims, then to also say Atheism is The Default Position, which makes no Sense as it cannot be The Default position unless it is a Position and if its a lack of belief in a god then its not a Position at all. And it snot like Atheists All Agree on Everything. Really, its not ignoring Anything to State what You Think it's True, and You just Say that because the Pastors of our Religion We're supposed to pretend is not a Religion but a mere lack of belief in a god said so. And No, I did not call Atheism a Religion. But You follow a Region that is Atheistic., You Will ignore that I said this and Claim I called Atheism a Religion.
Not Really. But You don't Know what Aquinas said or Wrote or Anything about Him, and Only came due to Your pastor in Your I Have no Religion Religion The Liar of Zod made a Video preaching a Hate Sermon on this.
@@hectorn - There are No Logical Fallacies in This Video. You'd Know that if You watched it and Trued to understand it instead of just Blindly believing in the Words of The Liar of Zod.
@@PimpMyDitchWitch - They came from The UA-cam Channel "The prophet Of Zod". He Ridiculed this Video. But he either did not understand it or Lied about it. They just Repeat what Their Pastor Zod Told them in His Hate Sermon.
@@skwills1629 , your reaction seems to be to accuse anyone who disagrees with your beliefs as being ignorant of them. Nice defense mechanism, but obviously false.
Funny, theists are always trying to raise religion by saying that it is a science, or lower science by saying that science is a religion. Strangely, you never hear a scientist trying to do the opposite by identifying what they do as being a religion. Seems to be a little envy on the part of theists. (OK, a whole lot of envy. Science has a cachet that religion would like to co-opt but will never be able to.)
@@rockycomet4587 It wasn't a strawman. This video claims that religion is science. It isn't. Most apologetics claims that science is religion. Science isn't religion. Maybe you should learn what a straw man argument is?
@@freddan6fly - This Video did not say "Religion is a Science". This Video is also not an Apologetics Video. I Know that's what The Liar of Zod told You in His Hate Sermon, but its not what was Actually said. This Video is Explaining Theology. Even though in Your Mind Theology and Theism and Religion all mean the Same Thing, they aren't all the Same Thing. And This Video is actually Explaining Why Thomas Aquinas Called Theology a Science in The 13th Century. The Actual Objectise is to Explain Why Thomas Aquinas said This. Your Pastor, The Liar of Zod of The Holy Religion Of Denying You Have A Religion simply Lied about what Friar Joseph was and The Subject Matter of The Video.
In a renaissance painting The Scholastism painted there is Plato pointing his finger upward and Aristotle pointing his finger downward! These two has different view of what is Reality! Plato believes that the reality resides in Heaven up above and our perception of God while Aristotle pointing downward believes that the Reality the truth is known on this physical world were living which we call earth! The two opposite thoughts and beliefs of these two great Philosophers are reconciled and expounded by St Thomas Aquainas in his 12 volumes of his Summa Theologica! K
This seems like a rather roundabout way of saying you just want Christianity to have preferentral treatment. Just go out saying that instead of smashing sophisticated words together and quoting old world philosphers.
You clearly came because The Liar Of Zod Hate Sermon. There is No Rational Way You can Claim He wants Christianity to have preferential treatment based on what he Actually Said.
@@skwills1629 Actually there is. He claims faith to be the good reason to accept christianity. That is preferential treatment, because every religion can claim faith.
@@pelgrim8640 - You Listened to The Liar of Zod's Hate Sermon. You then Beleive whatever Your Pastor Indoctrinated You to Think. Friar Joseph never Actually said "Faith is a Good Reason to Accept Christianity". Saying so would make No Sense given how The Catholic Church defines the Word Faith. It does not mean Belief Without Evidence. Which is what The Liar of Zod demands. he demands You beleive Him with No Evidence. Faith means Trust, and he is saying Trusting in God is a Way to Know God, not belief Without Evidence is a Good Reason to accept Christianity. Also, I Know it is Dogma of Your Not-A-Religion Religion but do You Really Think "The Religious" Think their Religion is 100%$ True and all other Religions 100% False? The Catholic Church Actually Teaches Most if not All Religions have some truth to them. They do not Think All Religions, as You define the term, as Equally True but they also don't Think of them as Entirely Wrong, Either. The Catholic Church also says Reason leads to Faith, and Faith is something You give Christianity After You become Convinced of it. The Catholic Church does not say to beleive in Christianity on Faith, and Certainly not on belief Without Evidence, the fake Definition you Morons Always Use.
"Can theology be a science? An epistemological reflection" Gabriel Andrade. Ajman University, Emiratos Árabes Unidos. Mètode Science Studies Journal, núm. 12, pp. 14-21, 2022 Universitat de València. Abstract: Many dubious disciplines have been removed from academic institutions, but theology is not one of them, as it is still taught in respectable universities. This article argues that theology does not deserve that special treatment. Theology has long pretended to be a science, but it can never be, because ultimately, theology is grounded on faith and authority, two tenets that run counter to the scientific method. Natural theology appeals to evidence and reason, but it also fails in its endeavor. More recent theologians admit that their discipline is not science per se, but still consider it legitimate in its quest for meaning. There are also reasons to doubt this claim, as there is no need to appeal to the supernatural to find meaning.
Science is not simply a collection of knowledge in one subject, science is a process to acquire knowledge and that process, the scientific method, is incompatible with theology. Theology can be a subject of study, an academic discipline or whatever other name you may want to give it, but it's not a science. It's quite deceitful to try compare biology to theology, as if they occupy the same position in terms of rigor or putting things to the test. This is not anything new so please try to keep things separate that do not belong together.
@@GuitarBloodlines lol nice, make the most random statement but do not bother to defend it. Well I say it is because of dinosaurs that we have the scientific method.
Thank you so much for your video series! It helps prepare for courses in theology where I will have to read St. Thomas. God bless your work! (PS. How can I help support your work?)
Its God Capital G. And You Liar Of Zod Fanboys have No Idea what Friar Joseph said. No, He did not Break it down to Faith. Especially since You define Faith as Belief Without Evidence and that is NOT what Friar Joseph means by it. Instead of Repeating the Hate Propaganda by Your Religion's Pastor, The Liar Of Zod of The Holy Religion Of Atheism is Not A Religion, Why not do something Productive and Actually Learn what Catholicism Teaches instead of Repeating the Lies of some Idiot Atheist Pastor Who, even Though He says He was Steeped in the Intellectual Side of Christianity was Never even a Christian. That is not a No True Scotsman,. The Liar of Zod has No Understanding of Christianity.
On what grounds can human beings make judgements concerning the logical validity of things that are, be definition, beyond our comprehension? This question seems to me to bedevil the philosophy/theology and the reason/faith distinction. You could leap into pure fideism or pure rationalism as a way to overcome the problem. But I don't like either of these options. Can Thomas really help?
There is no Circular Reasoning in This Video. And The Only Reason you came Here is Because The Liar of Zod has You under His heel and Extorts You. You don't even Know what This Video is About.
If I had heard pseudo-intellectual word salad like this way back when I was a still a Catholic in my teens and 20s, I’m pretty sure I would have deconstructed and deconverted from Catholicism and Christianity much sooner. Because this video is best summarized by saying the science of theology is that, “we believe God told us stuff, and you should believe what we tell you that God told us.” 🤮
@3paz sorry, but that’s BS. I’m not Roman Catholic any more, no matter what anyone else says. Neither heaven nor hell exist, and belief in them is fantasy.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 📚 Theology is considered a science, but it differs from other sciences because its principles come from divine revelation rather than natural knowledge. 01:54 ✝️ Core truths of Christianity are known through the grace of faith, which goes beyond natural human knowledge and introduces us to God's mysteries. 03:18 🤝 The truths of revelation align with natural reason and are not contrary to it, and faith provides confirming signs and internal coherence that make it rational to believe. 04:40 🕊️ The central focus of theology is knowledge of the Holy Trinity, which illuminates all other Christian doctrines and helps us understand God's revelation. Faith provides insight into God's nature and points us towards union with God. Made with HARPA AI
I just wish to echo Cicero1988's comment. I learnt more in the past 6 minutes from Fr White than I've manged in the last 20 years+ of (half-hearted, to be honest) study of St Thomas Aquinas. Many thanks and may God Bless your work.
I would love to hear you address how the graphing of infinity explains how a start point is not necessary therefore Aquinas’ theory that there had to have been a mover is disproved by modern knowledge. If Catholic/Christian religion adheres to scientific knowledge they would be forced to restructure their belief system or at least acknowledge the counterpoints brought up.
The prime Mover was not disproven by Modern Knowledge, and You should stop Listening to Atheist Hate Sermons and learn Real Logic and Real Philosophy.; By the ay, This Video is not about Religion, its about theology. you Think Theology and Religion mean the same Thing because you are Stupid.
You Believe without Evidence what The Liar Of Zod Told You to Think. This "Apologist" did not Present Anything He had No Evidence for. He is also not an Apologist. He is a Historian Explaining Why Thomas Aquinas called Theology a Science in The 13th Century. But You didn't Watch the Video.
@@martyfromnebraska1045 - If You watch The Liar of Zod's Video on this, He doesn't even Try to Understand what Friar Joseph is Saying and Knocks Down a Massive Strawman. His Disciples came Here after he preached a Hate Sermon and simply Repeated what He said in it. Proving they truly are Free Thinkers.
Thomas Aquinas was summoned by Pope Gregory X to the second council of Lyons in 1274, where he probably would have been chastised, but he died on the way, at the Cistercian
@@skwills1629 My source for the information about Thomas Aquinas is "Din Timelines World History Timelines" 1274 x - Thomas Aquinas * was summoned before a council at Lyons to answer for his opinions. He was publicly chastised but not condemned. Thomas Aquinas was summoned by Pope Gregory X to the second council of Lyons in 1274, where he probably would have been chastised, but he died on the way, at the Cistercian abbey of Fossanova. Several of his theses were thereafter condemned by the masters of Paris, the highest theological jurisdiction of the Church.
Divine revelation is gained through understanding and familiarity with god I agree but not through blind faith but rather reasonable understanding of sciences and not pseudoscience or “must have been”
A wonderful explanation. The orator makes a complex topic easy to understand, which I'm sure is easier said than done. Thank you for the videos, I look forward to learning more and deepening my faith through watching them. Thanks again.
You found that convincing? Really? No theology is not a science by the modern definition, it does not use the scientific method, it does not test its hypotheses and it doesn't make testable predictions. Please stop and just think...
This is great - it's worth mentioning the distinction between Aristotle's definition of science and the 'scientific method' - they don't contradict but the method of modern science is the first thing most viewers might think of. Most of what we today call 'sciences' are bodies of organized knowledge that are founded on the process of observation-hypothesis-testing-analysis. I see two important points here: first, modern sciences are not 'just' the scientific method, but also incorporate appropriate functions of rational agents to organize knowledge (as well as inappropriate dysfunctions that disorganize knowledge) and second, the scientific method would not be applied in theology in the same way, I don't think, because grace does not work in the same way as nature. If a Friar has a moment, I'd be interested to hear a comment on the scientific method. Or a video.
If you take science in poppers definition, then theology is very unrelated. Science avoids truths and only sets out to deductively rationalise theories which fit data and can easily be disproved and falsified through exact experiment. The great irony of scientism is that this nuance is forgotten. Theology could never work that way.
Why do You Think they'd Object? Unlike You they'd Likely watch the Video and not just Attack it because the Liar of Zod Ridiculed it. Zod Lied of course like he Always does.
@@skwills1629 I think they would object because science, as we think of it today, is defined by its method. And clearly theology as it is explained in the video does not and cannot apply the scientific method in its inquiry. So, you can call it "science" if you want, but it is not, by any means, science in the sense of the term as it is used and understood in the world academic community (I have no idea who the Liar of Zod is).
@@ozunoma - This Video is actually about a Historian Explaining what Thomas Aquinas, a 13th Century Monk, meant by the Word Science, and is Trying to Explain how it was Understood. Because of The Liar of Zo Hate Sermon, He is now being called a Christian Apologist Who is Arguing that Theology is Science. Those aren't the same Objectives. Also, The Liar Of Zod is The Prophet Of Zod. And They are His Disiples. They did not watch This Video, they watched The Zod Video. They don't even Really Understand This Video.
An esteemed member of your order, one Fr. Hettinger O. P., R.I.P. in his Natural Religion (English title) suggests that St Thomas proposes that some of our ideas, not all, are innate such as being and existence, right and duty and a few others. What say you?
St. Thomas argues that some habits are innate, but only in a certain sense. We, unlike angels, are not furnished with fully-formed ideas at birth. We're something like a blank slate. But, there are some habits that require only that they be activated by reality, and don't need to be fleshed out in the ordinary acquired and discursive way. So, for instance, intellectus or the first principles of speculative reason (principle of identity, principle of non-contradiction, principle of causality, etc.) are not learned in the way that knowledge (scientia) is. Rather, they are immediately evident to us upon our engaging with reality. One such example is the principle of non-contradiction. We don't need to be taught that something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. Rather, it's just the case that when we engage with reality, we recognize that it is self-consistent, and if we were forced to do so, we could express that in propositional form as the PNC. St. Thomas says that this dynamic is also at work with the first principles of practical reason, which he calls synderesis.
The sheer abstruseness and attempted sophistry of these "angels on the head of a pin" discussions are, to me, the strongest indication of the sheer implausibility of this entire & utterly fantastical theology, whether or not delivered in medieval costume (I doubt very much if the garment weave is the original rough wool that Benedict of Nursia would have expected his followers to wear, nor his Dominican, Premonstratensian, and Cistercian counterpart successors) I thought Christianity was meant to be accessible for everyone, and not so bafflingly mysterious that only an intellectual priestly class can ponder it and then translate for the great unwashed.
This is an Effort to Explain what was Meant by Thomas Aquinas in The 13th Century. You don;t Need it to Be a Christian. its simply that the Terms Changed over the Centuries.
@@edgarmatzinger9742 - Deflecting. Not Reflecting. Get Your Pathetic Allegations Right. Also, do You More-Ons Think this Silly Accusation Game Proves Anything when You can't even Discuss what Friar Joseph Actually said?
I agree that this video misses the mark in some ways and slightly over-simplifies a complex topic. When I studied this topic at graduate level the main points of difference were that working out God's existence via philosophical arguments is not another example of revelation as such, but natural theology that prepares the ground, so to speak, for revelation. Secondly, we were encouraged to take on board the point that many sciences draw first principles from others (e.g. music drawing from mathematics) but what makes theology different and better is that it draws it's first principles from natural theology - both on its own (Plato and Aristotle), or from natural theology plus revelation, with signs of credibility (miracles) adding weight to revelation (as in Augustine, Aquinas, etc).
Is Theology science? What is a science? Organized body of knowledge to understand the given subject. Is Christian theology? It is. It differs significantly. It is not based on ordinary evidences. It starts from grace of faith and also from divine revealation. It is science made known by Grace. Coherence. Human experience. Reason. Signs; reasons of credibility.
If christian theology were science, there would be one christian church, not the thousands we have, all of which claim to have the one true interpretation of the bible.
@@walkergarya - Why do You Liar Atheists need to Repeat the Dogmas of Your Religion You Deny is a Religion as if it is True? You are a Liar. It is a Lie to say All Christian Churches say they have The One True Interpretation of the Bible. You are such a Liar.
@@skwills1629 SK Wills @walkergarya - Why do You Liar Atheists need to Repeat the Dogmas of Your Religion You Deny is a Religion as if it is True? You are a Liar. It is a Lie to say All Christian Churches say they have The One True Interpretation of the Bible. You are such a Liar.
Theology is a science with two lumen quo: 1. light of Faith, 2. light of natural reason. As a science, Theology is discursive i.e., it concludes from two premises: Major premise: Revealed truths, Minor Premise: Natural reason or natural sciences. hence Theology is unique in that way because its conclusions (theological) attain two 'certitude': a. certitude of faith (from authority) without evidence; b. certitude of reason with evidence. Thus, Theology as a science is most certain compared to natural sciences, inferior only to the science of the Saints. Theology is the synthesis of Faith and Reason---thanks to the Scholastics especially to Aquinas who worked on it.
How on earth would being based on faith from authority, and without evidence make it a superior science? That makes absolutely no sense at all. Do you know what science is? And the science of the saints? Really? When the saints are able to explain and predict the movement of the planets or the orbitals of electrons I might consider taking that claim as anything other than a joke.
@@rodriguezelfeliz4623 - He didn't say its based in Faith and he also did not say Faith is Belief Without Evidence. Nor did He invoke Authority. Stop Listening to The Liar of Zod. He Lied to You.
@@rodriguezelfeliz4623 - No, The Liar of Zod said that for Him. The Catholic Church does not Define Faith as Belief Without Evidence and Friar Joseph never said that We should "base it all on Faith". So Why don't You stop Lying?
@@skwills1629 I was responding to the comment in this thread not to the video... I don't really remember what the video says. So why don't You stop accusing me
What a load, if you swallow all this mumbo jumbo talk you don't understand what "science" means. He even admits that the “Science of Theology” isn’t aligned with other types of science. So by his own terms its not science. Geez, stop painting yourself into a corner.
Intellectual Dishonest is what Militant Atheists Revel in, not Friar Joseph. You don't even Understand what Friar Joseph Said. You didn't watch His Video. You watched The Liar Of Zod.
@@skwills1629 Silly comment relying on name-calling. "Militant Atheist?" You come up with that on your own? I DON'T NEED to have proof in a god's existence. I only need faith. By definition, faith requires no proof. So why do you "learned" christians keep trying to make their god something any god cannot be - physical reality. A god is no thing - creator cannot be created.
@@jacuz169 - The Soviet Union came up with the term Militant Atheist. Also, Faith is not Belief Without Evidence. I also didn't Make God Anything. And I didn't Really on Insults like You did.
1. Actus Purus = Pure actuality as the result of eliminating all potentialities [imperfections], but potentialities are relative imperfection [relative to actualities] and actualities are relative perfection [relative to potentialities] denoting time and change. God is beyond both actuality and potentiality, since His Perfection is Eternal and is not relative to any previous unactualized state = a gross blunder in Aquinas' logical process 2. Aquinian Divine Simplicity = Aquinas treating Essence and Person and Energy as ontological parts, so that he ended up answering an imaginary 'problem', namely 'how can God be incompound if He is made up of Essence and Person and Energy?' And answering it by conflating and identifying them. But Essence is not an x part, nor Person an y part, nor Energy an z part of God [God is not made up of an x part namely Essence, and an y part namely Person, and a z part namely Energy] = Aquinas treating Essence and Person and Energy as 3 lego blocks making up 1 lego construction ['God'] = gross blunder in Aquinas' logical process 2A. But Aquinian Divine Simplicity denies Essence-Energy Distinction, which is taught in Cyril and Basil 2B. By denying Essence-Energy Distinction, Aquinian Divine Simplicity precluded Communicatio Idiomatum in the Incarnation 2C. And thus Aquinian theology, according to the Athanasian dictum, precluded taking up what Christ came to save
theology is a science because its conclusions are reducible to the higher light of faith. Science is reasoning i.e., which from its premises, a conclusion is inferred. In case of theology, its premises are derived from faith (revealed truths, from Fathers and Doctors of the church), most of the time, its minor premises are from metaphysics which are grounded from natural sciences. E.g. Jesus is God (from faith, major premise), But Mary is the Mother of Jesus (from reason/history/fact Minor premise). Ergo, Mary is the Mother of God (theological conclusion). Hence, Theology utilizes two lights (a quo) : light of faith, and light of natural reason (philosophy and other natural sciences). In that sense, Theology is most certain of sciences because its conclusions derive their certitude from Faith (which may be doubted but cannot err) and from natural reason (which is not doubted but can err)---i.e., it cannot err and cannot be doubted.
"Faith (which may be doubted but cannot err)" By your admission with this statement, theology is definitely not a science. As any theory, hypothesis and even scientific laws should be falsifiable.
@@pelgrim8640 - How about Lying by Claiming if You drop The Flowery Language Friar Joseph is Defining Theology as Believing the Stories about God Told to You by Church as Written in The Bible? That's not what Friar Joseph said. in Fact, the Whole Routine where The Liar of Zod broke down what Friar Joseph said is a Contrivance. Friar Joseph did not say Theology is The Study of God, and then say it specifically Studies the Mysteries ect, only to Finish off by saying the Source of the Study is Christ, which is Meaningless according to the Liar of Zod, and The Church. In Fact, The Church is a Subject of Theology not the Source of Information for Theology. After all, The Catholic Church views The Church as Divine, and it is By the Church that God Manifests himself to man. There is an Entire Branch of Theology called Ecclesiastical Theology which is he Study of The Church itself. Thee is also Sacramental Theology. The Liar Of Zod Lied by saying The Church was The Source of Information, as distinct from the Object of Study. And Friar Joseph Never Said that. An d Why did The Liar of Zod say Christ was meaningless? Is The Liar of Zod Seriously Claiming Christ is Meaningless to Christianity? The Liar Of Zod doesn't even Address the Reality of Catholic Beliefs and Completely Altered the meaning of what Friar Joseph was Saying.
The concision and quality of these videos have been phenomenal. They avoid the dangers of both misleading oversimplification and inaccessible complexity. I can't think of a better way to introduce people to the most important theologian in Christendom.
Thanks for saying that! Fr. Thomas Joseph, Fr. Dominic, and the other friars have worked hard on these lessons with exactly that goal in mind: accessibility without losing substance. Thanks for watching!
Thanks so much for the encouraging commendation!
@@ThomisticInstitute
What field of actual tested science does Fr. Thomas Joseph, have a degree in? He does not appear to know what the word science means in modern English. Aquinas' definition was not that of today. Surely Friar Joseph knows that much yet he carefully failed to mention that.
@@ThomisticInstitute Revelation and Faith from other religions conflicts with yours. If there an objective method that an honest third party can use to know which is true?.
The whole video is misleading. It is baseless assertions and Logical Fallacies. I am not sure if FR Thomas is willfully dishonest but someone of his level of education and experience surely would know that religions with conflicting beliefs could use the same argument.
If people want to believe something based on Faith and dogma, that is one thing, but to claim that it is Science it is just dishonest.
So if you make absolutely ridiculous claims on what science is, you can call a collection of fantasies "a body of knowledge" and lie it's science... ok, not sure how you think being this transparently dishonest will help you, but I fully support you undermining your religion by being so blatant about it.
Instead of Watching The Liar Of Zod and Repeating His Hate, Why not Watch The Friar Joseph explain what He Means? Because what You said is Only Evidence that You have no Idea what You are Talking About.
The Friar Joseoh is not Dishonest. You are, and so is Your Master, Zod.
It's something of an indictment that none of the critical comments here, however respectful they may be, are addressed but only the complimentary ones.
The Video is from 3 Years Ago and The Liar Of Zod's Hate Propaganda is from 5 Months Ago. You came Here because of The Liar Of Zod. And All of You just Repeat the Hate Propoganda. You repeat the Lies the Liar Of Zod said. The Liar of Zod Misrepresented Friar Joseph.
@@PimpMyDitchWitch - They came over from The UA-cam Channel "The Prophet Of Zod". Zod made Ridiculous Claims and Clearly Misrepresents what Friar Joseph Said and all They do is Repeat the Hate Sermon's Rhetoric. Its how they prove they Think for Themselves and Do their own Research. It also shows how Logical they are and how they use Critial Thinking...
Indeed, I noticed that too.
@@ozunoma - The Liar Of Zod made his Video a few months Ago, but the Video is from 3 Years Ago. That's Why. Stop Lying about Christians being Dishonest or one Sided. That's what Atheists like You are Like. You are projecting Your Faults not Christians.
If Thomistic theology was a science, Pope Pius X wouldn’t have asserted that it cannot be debated.
If a scientist is asked the question, “Do you believe that the universe was created,” and the scientist answers, “Yes,” that is not science. That is religion.
Spot on
@@rodriguezelfeliz4623 Thank you.
More accurately its their opinion
@@karlazeen If their opinion is that the universe was created, then they believe in a creator, and that is a religious belief.
Science and religion do not mix, albeit that many humans that are religious, would like to believe that they are one and the same.
When in 1927 the Catholic priest Georges Lemaître created the Big Bang theory, it followed that the Big Bang theory would be enmeshed with the idea that the universe was created by a god, as Stephen Hawking learned when he visited the pope. ... "In 1985, I attended a conference on cosmology at the Vatican in Rome. The gathering of scientists had an audience with Pope John Paul II. He told us that it was okay to study the workings of the universe, but we should not ask questions about its origin, for that was the work of God." Stephen Hawking
What You said is Rubbish. Belief in God can be backed by Science. And Religion is not Theism.
“...it matters what you think”. Well, I think I’ve seldom heard such a load of claptrap.
Well that's just what you think. 🤣
Sorry for the language, but I would say it was more like pure balderdash!🤣
@@GalapagosPete How so?
You didn even watch the Video. You watched The Liar Of Zod's Hate Sermon.
I hate to nitpick, but "super" (as in "supernatural") is not Greek, it is Latin. The equivalent Greek is "hyper". "Supernatural" in Greek would be something like "hyperphysical".
I don't think this really holds up.
It's not using the scientific method.
There is actually no proposed method to verify anything said here.
"Faith" was undefined, most likely intentionally.
I don't see the value in the video.
You did not Watch The Video. You watched The Liar Of Zod. You don't even Know what This Video is About.
@@skwills1629 nope, watched the video.
@@ShouVertica - No. You didn't. And I am Sick if how Militant Athiest like You Lie. You don't even Know what The Video is About. You just Repeat what The Liar of Zod said and Add to it other Dogmas from Your Atheistic Religion. And No I did not just say Atheism is a Religion.
You have it backwards here. The word science, as used by Aquinas, predates the scientific method along with Bacon (and Newton) who would have been familiar with Aquinas' work. If you want to define science as that which conforms to the "scientific" method, developed in later centuries (and in part borrowing from the metaphysical tradition Aquinas and Magnus), then you can substitute in a different word when Aquinas says "science."
@thinkingchristian I define science in the era I live in, if you want to play era definition games and use mental gymnastics in defense and explanation to that then ok, but that's your choice and not mine.
It is really bugging me that Father claims that the root of "super", as in "supernatural", comes from the Greek for "above", when the Greek for above is ὑπέρ (or huper, from which we get the English prefix 'hyper'), and the Latin word for "above" is... "super."
The two words are probably etymologically related, but, yes, my brain had a hard time focusing on this reflection after that.
What's more, St. Thomas never said that grace is added from without or above. Rather he said that grace is created in the particular soul of each particular man as that man exists in time. It is not something which is added from above but that which is infused from within (see de Lubac Nature and Grace p.46).
Yeah, I caught that as well. Super is definitely Latin. And not Greek. But oh well. He made a mistake, a slip of the tongue more than likely. It doesn't take away from what he was saying.
@@kyleenzler94 Yes it calls everything in question as if you study a language you know what is Latin and what is Greek. Mistakes like this do not happen unless you do it with intent or you lack the qualification to talk on the topic. You can make your pick.
First of all, does *absolute* truth exist, and if it does, can it *absolutely* be known? If so, how do we check the veracity of those ideas?
Well this is a simple question, yes it does exist and yes, we can absolutely know it. It doesn't need to be checked in respect to veracity, it is self-evident
@@nomnombr How do we know it is self-evident without testing?
Self-evidence is exactly like something true in itself, let me give you an example: the principle of non-contradiction. "A" cannot be "A" and "not-A" at the same time in the same respect. It is impossible to prove this as it is a principle, a premise, a statement without conclusion... Yet it is true and completely irrational to disagree with. It depends on your "faith in truth" for it to be true, and is a self-evident truth, as it proves itself.
@@nomnombr No, I don’t think our subjective need for it to be true proves it at all. We don’t really know if superposition doesn’t exist, for one.
@@wiwaxiasilver827 There is no subjective need for that premise to be true, there is an objective one. Having faith is essential to understanding reality; faith cannot (must not) contradict reason and vice-versa, another example: if your friend tells you he will go to the market, you don't ask proof or anything like that, you believe them.
Faith isn't knowledge.
Faith is not Belief Without Evidence. But Your Religion, The Atheism Is Not A Religion Religion, made it a Dogma that it is. You Didn't even Watch This Video. You came Here from The Liar Of Zod, a Pastor in Your Religion, Telling You what to Think.
@@skwills1629 Oh? Then you can provide sufficient evidence to prove the things you believe?
Let's start with your claims about me. Those appear to have been made on faith without evidence.
@@gregcampwriter - Atheists like You never Prove what You beleive by Evidence. You Lie. You say You have No Burden of proof as You made no Claims when You clearly are making Claims. Meanwhile, You came Promptly After The Liar of Zod's Video and You make the same Arguments and You posted over there as well.
@@skwills1629 You keep making assertions about me without knowing anything.
@@gregcampwriter - I've seen You Around. I do Know.
If something is not evidence based as you just admitted that theology is not evidence based. Then you just admitted that theology is not at all science.
He did not Admit Theology is Not evidence Based. And You Really Should Consider that just because The Liar of Zod said This is what Friar Joseph meant doesn't Mean it is. Why do Militant Atheists like You Always Lie?
That's because you are using the modern definition of science, he is using the definition that Aristotle has given around what is a science. And by using Aristotle he infact don't end up in contradition.
@Jack Well seeing as to how we have advanced so much since Aristotle's time and we are talking about science in this time. . . I really don't care. Science is evidence based, his theology by his own words is not evidence based, so his theology is not science as we know it today and that's all that matters. When we talk about science in the modern day, we do not use a 2,000 year old definition. Astrology used to be considered science but it's not anymore because we have advanced our understanding. Theology is not science, full stop. Theology is not supported by any science, full stop. Science is a self correcting process, theology is not.
@@darrylelam256 Why does what YOU’RE talking about have anything to do with what’s in the video? Just because you force your definition and ignore that English words can have multiple uses doesn’t make you right.
The definition of science that you speak of also has pressupositions that are not falsifiable. E.g, the epistemical validity of repeated experimentation, or something more fundamental like the laws of logic themselves.
If the claims you make can't be tested... it is not a science. You even end the video acknowledging that it is FAITH that leads you to your conclusions.
Friar Joseph did not say The Claims cannot be Tested.
Also, The Liar of Zod claims He admitted its all taken on Faith at the End of the Video;. But, Knowing You define Faith as Belief Without Evidence, Friar Joseph never mentioned Faith at all.
Oh He used the Word, But he did not mean Belief Without Evidence. And Honestly, He did not say Faith leads to His Conclusions. That is a Lie The Liar of Zod said. Instead, he said This.
" Even with divine revelation, we cannot perfectly comprehend in an inclusive total way who God is, especially in this life. But faith is a real form of knowing God. And it's not the same thing as the vision of God or an immediate intellectual perception of God, but it gives us light and knowledge into who God is. So faith provides us with a kind of ultimate perspective on life, both through theology and through the spiritual life and mysticism, which don't compete with one another, but complement one another. But in this sense, faith gives rise to a science open to mystery so that theology is pointing us towards something beyond theology in our own spiritual life, it's pointing us towards a union with God."
This is not saying Theology and Religion are Based on Belief Without Evidence.
It is saying Faith is Trust. In this Case, Faith is Trusting what God has Revealed to us in Christ Through The Church.
By the way, Theology is not Believing what Church people Told You about God. Zod Lied about that.
Theology Studies The Church as much as it Studies The Mysteries of God. And Mystery is what is Revealed. And Christ is also Studied as Christ is God.
Those are Facts The Liar of Zod left Out when he Lied and Claimed its just The Study if God and His Mysteries and then claimed what is the Object of Study and then the Source is The Churcher. he Lied.
Look up what I said before You call me a Liar.
@@skwills1629 There is no way to test supernatural things.
So it is not science.
Try again when your god is in front of the U.N. and we can test things.
The definition of what you mean by science is valid in a different context. We must not forget that science is a polysemous word.
@@danielfernandezpeinado6294 The overwhelming majority of people would understand exactly what I meant by what I posted. I understand that the sciences are divided into the natural sciences, the formal sciences, and the social sciences. Let me explain what I meant by my original post.
Within the field of mathematics, knowledge is derived from proofs written in the language of formal logic which begins with a set of axioms, so the facts and truths we uncover are not attained through a reliance on empiricism. Mathematical proofs are irrefutable and eternal... this is why Euclid's proof that the prime numbers are infinite is still true today just like it was 2,300 years ago, and it will ALWAYS be true. There is no such thing as competing theories within mathematics, and any person on the planet can verify any mathematical statement for themselves in addition to also testing that they always hold in real world situations if it is a form of applied mathematics. THAT is an example of objectivity in its purest form that can not be ignored or denied by anyone no matter what erroneous counter-arguments they present. This is why mathematics is found in literally ever field of science from economics to physics to chemistry to sociology to computer science. We are talking about a field which has withstood the test of time over and over because the truths which are derived from it have been scrutinized like no other body of knowledge compiled by humanity. If our understanding of mathematics was flawed, then all of this would collapse due to inconsistency and unreliability. So why hasn't this happened?
This is in stark contrast to religions which are completely subjective and whose claims have over and over been contradicted by multiple branches of science. We know this to be true and can prove it by simply taking one religion, Christianity, and showing how it evolved over the past 2,000 years to the point to where there are multiple distinct branches who not only disagree about religious doctrine but also argue which writings are considered cannon... and this was true going all the way back to the first centuries after the formation of the religion. There is no such thing as a single Christian belief system and there never has been. The social science of religious studies in which academics analyze the world's religions and how various societies have practiced them over time plus how this impacted human history... THAT is science. But the comment by Aquinas in this video, that he equated to a scientific field of study, in which he stated theology's core principles are solely derived from divine revelation... THAT IS NOT science. That comment is UNPROVABLE... there is no experiment, investigation, logically constructed argument, or ANYTHING that can verify such a statement. Unlike the mathematical statements that every single person on the planet can confirm for themselves, no person could ever do the same for Aquinas' statement.
Furthermore, other religions like Islam state the exact same thing that their religious beliefs are also derived from divine revelation. So who is correct and how would any person prove it? An individual trying to reconcile these contradictory positions is faced with the dilemma that both can not possibly be true yet each religion claims to be the infallible word of a deity, and this creates a paradox because neither is observable, testable, or capable of being resolved using logic. Christians themselves will admit that it is FAITH and faith alone which is the source for their beliefs because this is what the Bible itself clearly teaches... such as stories like Thomas doubting Jesus rose from the dead and insisting on touching his crucifixion wounds. The very argument presented by Christians that religious doctrine is based on scientific reasoning CONTRADICTS the religion's actual teachings. Christians freely admit their beliefs are based on faith yet Aquinas claimed the religion is grounded in scientific reasoning, which it clearly isn't, and those two positions conflict with each other which is what I was referencing in my original post.
The individual in this video is talking nonsense... he could never in a million years point to a single shred of evidence, either reasonably consistent logic or observational, to back his claim except to blindly parrot Aquinas who himself could not present evidence to bolster his flimsy position 750 years ago. Religion isn't science... if it was, then the scientific community would happily embrace and utilize it to probe our universe to further our understanding. They don't because anything which laughably claims to have all the answers to every mystery, even those which humans have yet to encounter, is a poor tool to perform scientific research when it has been wrong over and over so many times before. Because news flash... the Earth was NOT formed in 6 days, so you already have proof of the religion being humiliatingly disproven within the first few verses of Genesis. I shouldn't have ever needed to explain this to you or any other person.
I always appreciate people being thoughtful and using the best tools available for what they believe so I have an appreciation for this video but I feel there is disconnect here when you go from calling what you are doing science elevating it from a study or investigation. Science gets it credibility from its painstaking adherence to the natural world and similarly is incapable of saying anything about the unnatural or supernatural world, at least until it verifiably makes its mark on the natural world. However, when that happens one could argue it's now part of the natural world - but that's for the philosophers. That is nature - the observable, verifiable and repeatably so - is the ultimate grounding and any scientific theory that doesn't comport with the natural world gets thrown out so when you start talking about alternate sources of knowledge and that faith is required like was mentioned right at the end, that is certainly studying your chosen subject, your way, but it's not science.
Science, at least how I break it down, has two broad meanings: one is the rigorous processes used to obtain knowledge of nature; the other is the body of knowledge obtained from those processes and this video doesn't really match up with those.
Science does not Get its Credibility from is Painstaking Dedication to The Natural World, and Quoting Dogma from Atheist Sites isn't a Good Way to make a Point.
Especially when You repeat the Lie that The Liar Of Zod said. Friar Joseph did not End His Video saying You should Believe all of this Without Evidence.
Also, No One cares about The Definition of Science The Liar Of Zod Brainwashed You with. Especially since You Claim The Supernatural is Natural if it Impacts The Natural World but Never Has, Proving You Know Nothing of Catholic Theology to Begin with. And Friar Joseph did not even say he used Alternative Sources of Knowledge.
This Video is about how Thomas Aquinas used the Word Science and what Aquinas Meant by it and is not an Apologetics Video that Argues that Theology is a Science as the term is used Today Anyway. The Liar Of Zod Misrepresented it like He did Everything Else in it.
You came Here because of The Liar of Zod Video. But The Liar Of Zod didn't Really Tell The Truth. The Liar Of Zod Lied. He didn't Really Understand what was Said in This Video and he Admitted that, then said "Lets assume He means", and went from there.
Before You call Me a Liar, The Liar Of Zod said this. First, He shows a Clip od Faher Joseph saying This.
"aquinas does affirm that theology properly speaking is a science it's a study of the inner intelligibility of the mystery of god revealed in christ through the church"
Then He says This.
"this is an incredibly bizarre description assuming he's not just barking vaguely wise sounding words at us let's assume he meant something and try to parse out what it is."
The Liar Of Zod attacks it as "Bizzarre" and Acts as if it canno be unxerstood, then he presents what it means, Which He says is an Assumption but Acts as if it is a Fact.
The Liar Of Zod Continues.
"first what is this science trying to study?
the mystery of god.
I guess that's pretty clear even though mystery makes the nature in depth of what we're supposed to learn about god pretty nebulous.
second what are we studying about it?
it's inner intelligibility.
this sounds meaningless, and several longtime former Catholics have told me they've never heard of this term as far as I can tell maybe it refers to the internal consistency of an idea or the ability of a person to internalize it. whatever.
the case since intelligibility is what's being studied it sounds like theology is just about the question does this narrative make sense without addressing the much more meaningful question is this narrative true.
third is what is this narrative based on?
in other words where do theologians get the body of data from which they study their science? and let's pay close attention to this because this is where the rubber hits the road and we see how seriously theology should be taken as a science. this information is revealed in christ. meaningless. through the church. it's literally just stuff people in the church tell you.
so when you cut through the flowery wording Friar Joseph defined theology as the study of making sense out of mysterious sounding things the church told you about God"
This is a Lie. This is not what Friar Joseph Said. He said This. " It's a study of the inner intelligibility of the mystery of God revealed in Christ through the Church."
This is not Broken Apart like The Liar of Zod did. As if One is what is Studied, the other is what the Study is About, and the Other is the Source of information. Theology is The Body Of Knowledge about God and How H Works in The Church. The Church is as much What is Studied as is God. After all, God Works Through The Church. It is Considered Divine as Well. It is not the Source of Information but The object of Study.
It is also not Meaningless to say This Information is Revealed in Christ. Notably because Friar Joseph did not say This, The Liar Of Zod did. Christ is not the One Revealing The Information, but as with The Church Christ is he Subject of the Study. In Christian Theology, Jesus is God. Theology is thus The Study of God and how God is Revealed in the Person of Christ in The Church, and How the Revelation of God allows us to make Sense of what is Known of God.
What The Liar of Zod said is not what The Friar Said and what The Friar Said is Actually Understandable and not Bizarre at All.
This Video is saying Thomas Aquinas used The Aristotelian Definition of Science and Viewed Theology as a Science since it is a Body of Knowledge on a Given Subject, but that Aquinas Taught that Unlike the Other Bodies of Knowledge on a Given Subject, Theology is made Possible by God Entering The World Through the Person of Christ and Making us able to Enter Into an Understanding of God Through the Revelations He gave Us.
Contrary to the way Your Pastor, The Pastor Liar Of Zod, Put it, it is saying God did Impact the World and that God Spoke to Us and that God became Man and that God Persists in The World via The Church. Theology is thus The Story of God made Possibly By God coming to Us Rather than Us to God.
And in Catholic Theology God Often makes Himself Known to Individuals, and it is NOT just Believing what People Tell You in Church.
The Whole Point is the Opposite of what The Pastor called The Liar Of Zod said. Its God Revealing Himself to us Through Christ and Through The Church, not People simply Telling us About God.
I mean Seriously, given The Catholic Church Maintains an Entire Division of Theology called Sacramental Theology which is All About how God is Manifest in The Blessed Sacraments You'd Think You'd Know this but apparently its Too much to Ask for You to Understand before You Speak.
Or else to Ask You to Not Believe Without Evidence what The Liar Of Zod and Other Pastors iN The Holy Religion Of Atheism say.
And the term The Holy Religion Of Atheism is not the same as Atheism is a Religion. Its what I call the form of Secular Humanism You follow.
You Will of Course Ignore I said this. You Will claim I called Atheism a Religion. Because Facts do not Matter to You.
Science is the study of what is perceived as being natural.
Religious claims are of there being a "super"-natural.
People in religion always play the “God” theme and pretend that it is science. Example as follows.
From the book … SPOOK … Science Tackles the Afterlife … author … Mary Roach.
On December 26, 1993, the Hubble Telescope made visual contact with Heaven and took hundreds of pictures and sent these pictures of Heaven to Goddard Space Center in Maryland…. In the pictures of Heaven, you can see bright light and what looks like the Holy City…. Heaven is located at the end of the Universe.
This dispatch comes to us courtesy of the Internet Religious News service. One fine day I called Goddard Space Flight Center to see what they had to say about this. “Well,” said a good-natured NASA spokesperson named Ed Campion, “it is true that Hubble focuses on faint lights at the most distant parts of the universe.” That’s why NASA sent a telescope way out into space-to get closer to the oldest, most distant parts of the universe, the stuff that dates to the Big Bang. But Campion hadn’t heard about the heaven photos. Or the secret NASA space probe that recorded millions of voices singing “Glory, Glory, Glory to the Lord on high” over and over-as reported, here again, by our imaginative friends at the Internet Religious New service. Or the NASA photos of the “Two Giant Human-Looking Eyes in deep space that are billions of light years around the billions of light years apart looking at earth.”
“That last one,” said Campion, “kind of gives me the willies.”
@@hYpNoXiDe Only modern definitions of science are really adequate to describe modern science. Very old, a few hundred years let's say, definitions would hardly be adequate, unless by accident, for the modern science processes and body of knowledge we have accumulated. Second, if you have a better definition offer it for examination rather than just say you don't think what someone else says fits, offer a better alternative and let's examine it.
@@hYpNoXiDe Granted, there is a distinction between a specific scientific methodology applied in a specific field of science for a specific experiment; and, the scientific method as general principle on science experiments; and, the scientific process in general that includes going beyond the experiment which includes things like peer review. So of those three I am referring to the last as the now well honed scientific process and I don't have a problem just calling that biggest picture one as one of the two major aspects of science therefore just calling it science for short. If you want to give it another term, go for it, I'm all ears.
And of course like you rightly pointed out the other is the body of knowledge that has been produced from that process. One cannot exist without the other as the process is what gives the body of knowledge its CREDIBILITY. That and the fact that what gets learned from science gets reliably used in engineering, otherwise we wouldn't have 24/7 electricity yet alone an internet.
But now I get it, you're buying into this video holus bolus, yeah, until you really understand the power of modern science, the modern process and the body of knowledge and how they work together as one, MUST BE AS ONE for the INTEGRITY of science itself, I don't see this being worth continuing as it's just going to be you throwing out opinions and not really shedding any light on things so this will be my last reply so feel free to get the last word in, I suspect it will make you feel better.
And, enjoy your beliefs, I'm not out to convert or convince anyone, I leave that for the ex-religious who have an axe to grind with their former teachings when they've figured out that the very foundations they where taught come crumbling down once they stop looking at them through their indoctrination, but like I said, that's not my fight.
You say that Aquinas asks whether theology can be considered a science like biology, ethics and metaphysics. Where exactly Aquinas compares theology to biology? Surely he does not in the Summa Theologiae, where there is no reference to biology. The latin word "biologia" was coined in the 18th century, Aquinas could not have used it. Are you sure you are not simply mistaken or equivocating?
Thank you, Fr. Thomas, for brilliantly explaining and demonstrating how theology is not a science.
@3paz Yes, that is exactly what theology also is: listening to the same nonsensical claims again and again, until you think they're true.
And btw, there is no "supernatural science"; science can by definition not be supernatural. If it is, it's not science.
I say I have to disagree, science is a method of creating models that incorporate all the known data and then make testable predictions using those models. The main difference between science and theology is that theology makes no testable predictions. So no, theology is not a science. Also, faith cannot be knowledge because a quality of knowledge is that it is demonstrable. What about faith can be demonstrated to be true?
Jesus has taken this over for us and we let Him do the talking. Believers do not need to do this work because good information is out there for any topic like this. I think it starts with the effort to research credible material and get into the science of Theology ( ua-cam.com/video/1OhTlwiHOJI/v-deo.html ). Ultimately, it has never been proven that God does not exist either; so here we are in this void between two ideas where one side uses Confirmation (if not the rite then testimony) and does not need to express proof and the other side (which quite possibly has entirely different beliefs or none at all) demands that it be proven without the Holy Spirit working in their lives. So basically... if one does not accept the Holy Spirit into their hearts authentically the chances of witnessing any blessings or graces first hand decreases. Faith is a legitimate word (meaning "COMPLETE trust or confidence in someone or something") and I pray you find some spiritual apprehension in this matter if you are open to the process. This is your decision to make and we all come to a point in life where we are called to decide what we will choose to take with us in the near future and further into eternity. I pray for you neighbor and brother of us all. We keep ourselves thankful for the blessings and gifts continuing to reach us from a power greater than ourselves. We did not create ourselves and it would be wise to humbly ask God to shed some more light in our directions and take it on down the line clear back to the beginning of creation. ( ua-cam.com/video/7k2ohtYWY4g/v-deo.html) Amen.I pray for a willingness to open your heart to allowing God to open your mind to this by revealing these things to you via the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit should you choose the spiritual path. I pray each part of the trinity works its way into your life gracefully and profoundly. Amen p.s. knowl·edge
/ˈnäləj/
noun
1.
facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through EXPERIENCE or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
@@ajmartin7115 An important characteristic of knowledge is that it can be demonstrated. The crux of your contention is that 1.) God hasn't been disproven, and 2.) That one must accept the holy spirit before gods existence can be proven. These are both vacuous claims
1.) You claimed that God hasn't been disproven. Well, there are thousands, probably millions of story book characters that can't be disproven, why make a special exception for this one? This is an attempt to shift the burden of proof since the claim that god exists still hasn't been proven. Because it hasn't been proven, it has no more validity as a descriptor of reality than any other fictional character.
2.) The claim that one has to accept the holy spirit before gods existence can be proven, is circular reasoning. Succinctly, "Assume the conclusion beforehand." How can this be distinguished from self deception?
Religion makes no testable models of reality and is therefore not science, that's all I'm saying. Non-testable hypotheses are useless.
I'm open to the possibility though, so if you have a single fact that indicates that god exists, I'd be happy to hear it.
@@ajmartin7115 Alright, just gonna sidestep my objections and questions and repeat yourself? Theology isn't a science bc it doesn't have a testable model that accounts for all the data. So what is a fact that demonstrates that god is even possible, let alone exists?
@@TheEpicTricycle Maybe it's: J(10)E(5)S(19)U(21)S(19)=JESUS(74). The meaning of Jesus (mean) could be 14.8 then. Matthew 7:7. The Jewish community is wise, no doubt, and they are the chosen people after all, that's some of what I choose to know...
What is the argument being made here
Religion is not science. And you know that. Stop lying.
Why don't you stop Lying. You didn't even Watch This Video. You came Here based on The Liar Of Zod's Hate Sermon Telling You what to Think.
@@skwills1629 Why are christians like you lying so much all the time?
Is that because you are raised to lie or does that come natural?
The definition of what you mean by science is valid in a different context. We must not forget that science is a polysemous word.
Religion is a word invented by evolutionists
I am a muslim,and i think we should appreciate and cherish one another as we come from the same Abrahamic tradition,that's why i also want to get acquainted with Saint Thomas Aquinas,because his works are really appealing to me. Furthermore,He was also influenced by many islamic thinkers and theologians like imam ghazli and ibn Rusd, which shows his open-mindedness towards knowledge and truth.
As the quote of ibn Rusd goes
Truth doesn't contradict truth.
This is so. But in the Past People Use to Understand that Religion is not Mine is All True Yours is All False. Today we seem Rather Absurd in that as a Society.
@@PimpMyDitchWitch - That is not however the same as Catholicism is True therefore Nothing is True in Any Other Religion, which is how People tend to use this Line of argumentation.
@@PimpMyDitchWitch A muslim would argue that Islam is all true and that other religions sit on varying degrees of truth.
@@pelgrim8640 - And Atheists like You claim Your Religion is Absolute Truth and All that is in Other Religions is False. You then Lie, and say You have no Religion. And you are going to Lie by saying I called Atheism a Religion when I didn't. I said you follow an Atheisgic Religion, but that is not Atheism is a Religion.
Why should I believes Without Evidence that All Religions are False Except the modern Atheist Religion You follow?
Oh that's Right, I have to accept it as the Default Position because You said so and also accept that you made no Claims and have No Burden of proof even though You can't be the Default Position and be a lack of belief in a god.
@@skwills1629 Your rant is utterly pointless, since atheism is not a religion but a stance on not believing something, just like not-collecting-stamps is not a hobby and like not-playing-football is not a sport.
You have yet to demonstrate that any god exists.
You are equivocating. You take an obsolete meaning for the English word 'science', but you want your audience to hear the modern meaning of the word. You quote Aristotle, who lived some 2300 years ago, instead of a modern philosopher of science, such as, just to pick the first name that comes to mind, Popper.
Theology may be science in the old sense of just knowledge---although I would argue that it is not and does not produce knowledge of anything real---but it certainly not science in the modern sense, in the way that physics and chemistry are sciences. Theology does not use the scientific method. It does not make testable predictions. It does not test those predictions (that it does not make).
You came Here because Your Pastor in Your I Have No Religion Religion The Liar Of Zod made a Hate Sermon Video on it. You have Not watched the Actual Video. You Know what The Liar Of Zod claims it says.
Friar Joseph did not Quote Aristotle, by the way. He did Mention Him, though.
This Video is Not a Christian Apologist Arguing that Theology is a Science. it is a Historian Exclaiming what Thomas Aquinas meant When he call3ed Theology a Science in The 13th Century. Thomas Aquinas used The Definition of Science Supplied by Aristotle.
No one Who Actually Listened to The idea Thinks He is Speaking of The Modern Definition of Science.
Why would Friar Joseph Of The Thomistic Institute Quote Popper? He is Explaining the Works of Thomas Aquinas, Who lived Centuries Earlier.
You'd Know that if You watched This Video and not The Liar of Zod Video.
Also, How can You Liar Atheists sit there with q Straight Face and say Theology is not Knowledge since it Does not give Knowledge of Anything Real and Still say You made No Claims and have No Burden of proof? You even say it is Dishonestly Shifting The Burden of proof if Someone says it is. You made the Claim that God does not Exist here. I won't pretend its not a Claim based on Anthony Flew Lying about Atheism being a lack of belief in a god and not a belief that no gods Exist.
Also, Theology does make Testable Predictions and You simply haven't bothered to Study it. All You Know is the Hate Propaganda from Your I have No Religion Religion. You never Question what it Taught You.
Very well said. Ando also very much evident.
@@ozunoma - Except its not True.
@@skwills1629 It is true, indeed. Theology does not use the scientific method. It is clearly explained by Fr. White himself in the video above.
@@ozunoma - You don't even Know what This Video is about. The video is Explaining Why Thomas Aquinas called Theology a Science and what The Term means in the 12th Century.
Well, yes, but you wouldn't say that "sub" is Greek for "under" because the Greek is υπο.
actually, the word mentioned here is super (from "supernatural"): which means "above", and indeed comes from Latin, whereas the greek word for "above" would be "hyper". However the etymology has the same roots and the video is super! : )
Indeed, the video is super, and the longer, accompanying podcasts superb.
At last! I have been waiting for your videos every single day.
You have engaged every sincere Inquirer of the Christian faith-even me, a Reformed Protestant-in the best way with your aesthetically edited videos and precise explanations.
I watch your videos alongside studying his Summa Theologiae. Keep it coming, please?
God bless!
Thanks for watching! Many more videos coming. A full index of published and future videos can be found here: aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/watch-index
Theology is not science. All I heard you make were unsupported claims. Please try again, but begin with some accurate definitions. Going by your claims every religion rests upon faith. All those religions claim different gods, who cannot all exist. How does one "scientifically" know which one is true, if any?
You didn't Hear Him At All. You Listened to The Liar of Zod's Hate Sermon. Seriously, You Think Friar Joseph is a Christian Apologist, and Think he is Arguing Theology is a Science using the Modern Definition of the term. You have No idea what This Video is Actually About.
For example, The Friar did not say Every Religion rests on Faith. He also doesn't Define Faith as Belief Without Evidence.
This Video is also about how Thomas Aquinas Defined the Word Faith in the 13th Century and is an Explanation of what Thomas Aquinas meant by that;. The Liar Of Zod Lied about what the Video was about.
“He also notes that it differs significantly from other sciences primarily because theology’s principles or starting points are not derived from evidential knowledge, from things we ordinarily experience or our own natural knowledge of the world. Instead, theology’s first principles are given vertically, as it were, in divine revelation by God.”
In other words, theology is not science. It's all based, by your own admission, on "faith" in Bible stories.
Considering that the natural sciences are revealed to us by the same God, through His creation and our ability to derive its intelligibility, I hardly see the conflict you’re having. Both are revealed by God, but in different ways and by different principles. The principles of the natural sciences are “natural,” and theology’s are “supernatural.”
They’re both real.
@@davidrawlings778 , you are merely pointing at things and claiming, "My god made that!" You have no evidence that your god actually exists.
Thatps not what He said. That's what The Liar of Zod said. And You believe The Liar of Zod without Evidence. The Joke is, Faith does not mean Belief Without Evidence. That's a Lie, too.
Also, You have No idea what Friar joseph said. You Know what The Liar Of Zod said he meant.
The Bible is not just a Book fll of Stories. And By that I don't just mean its True and not Stories. I mean much of it is not Narrative. And The Catholic Church doe snot use the term Revelation as a Synonym for The Bible. Nor does The Catholic Church base All of its beliefs on The Bible. You aren't even Aware Enough to Know that.
@@davidrawlings778 - He watched a "Prophet Of Zod" Video and is Repeating what that Idiot claims The Friar means, and did not watch The Video or Understand Catholicism.
@@CortxVortx - Except He does. You'd Know that if instead of watching Atheist youtubers and letting them Tell You what to Think You Studied what Christians Actually Said and believed. And I am uninterested in the I Use to be a Christian Lie You all say. You Clearly have no idea what Christianity Teaches.
I don't think you understand what science is.
Theology is a science, like smurfology is a science.
You didn;t even Watch The Video. You watched The Liar Of Zod;'s Hate propoganda. And The Liar of Zod misrepresented what was Said.
The definition of what you mean by science is valid in a different context. We must not forget that science is a polysemous word.
These are monks that speak latin, they mean "science" in a purley literally manner.
@@johnmcjeff881 And even then it is utter bs. Theology is part of the fantasy genre.
There is no such thing as a theological "science" in a purely literal manner. It is all just made up nonsense.
TRINITARIAN: (Systematic Apologetics)
This is fascinating! 2:34 🤔
I didn't realize "Doctrine" was the technical word for science in the discipline of "Theology Systematics!"
But then again, Theology Proper was once known as "The Queen Of The Sciences"! (✝️💞🫅)
Actually, now that I think about it, by way of modern media, our Lord is giving this current generation of "Elects" a free education in "theology proper" that was created with the sacrifice of blood sweat and tears of the "Elect" that came before us! 🤯
(Sometimes contemplating the complexity of His grace and mercy are extremely humbling!)
🙏😔😢
Indeed! 🤣🤣
"Science" is a word stolen by Doctrine in order to give Doctrine a cache of respectability.
A lot of you have the attention span of a nat. Fr. White is using the Aristotelian definition of science, that is “any collected body of knowledge” ie ethics, philosophy, history are all considered a science under that traditional definition had you bothered to watch the video.
Hi Aquinas 101, thank you for all your videos! Because of them I've decided to start reading the Summa. Immediately though, I encountered a problem: Aquinas sounds like a fideist or a presuppositionalist in this passage:
"... doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else... If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning... arguments from human reason cannot avail to prove what must be received on faith... But sacred doctrine makes use even of human reason, not, indeed, to prove faith (for thereby the merit of faith would come to an end), but to make clear other things that are put forward in this doctrine."
Does Aquinas think we should just take a leap of faith and accept Christian doctrine? Or is Aquinas's view more nuanced than this?
I kinda interpreted it as: if an interlocutor you're engaged with is a materialist, they'd presuppose the non-existence of the supernatural and therefore rule it out of any reasoning you might try to give.
Is it way off?
You have to realise, however, that St Thomas wrote the _Summa Theologica_ addressing students of Theology, whom he did presuppose to be training for the Priesthood and thus already having accepted the articles of Christian doctrine. There are other works - like for instance the _Summa contra Gentiles_ where he explains and defends Christian religion (this one probably written as an aid to missionaries in proselytising to Jews and Muslims mostly).
What I understand of the passage you quoted is what Fr. Thomas White says in the video about Divine Revelation being a set of facts which cannot be philosophically derived, but have been revealed, and Christian Theology then investigates how these facts illuminate human experience.
How is it a presupposition when there hasn't been any solid proof for it at all?
@@karlazeen - It makes More sense if You dn;t Truncate it.
"I answer that, As other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences: so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else;"
The Point being Made is, You have to have Common Ground before Any Argument can be made when Arguing with Others.
Its not Really saying to Never Try to Have Proof.
Love the little guy being whisked away by the Holy Spirit and dropped in the Theology tree😂😂❤❤...
We'll just send him an Eagle from The Misty Mountains if he gets stuck there and needs to come down!😁🍻
This is an Awesome series! Blessed be the Lord!
"we know those things through faith".
So, you admit you are making the whole thing up, sort of like fractional reserve banking.
No wonder money works.
Yeah he claims that it's science, but unlike those "other" sciences, theology is "known" through faith instead of evidence... So it's _not_ science, but any modern definition of the word. It's trying to hijack the respectability of science but without any of the actual work providing the evidence needed to back up the knowledge claim.
Why are Atheists like You such Liars? Friar Joseph did't even say :"We know these Things through Faith". And Faith des not mean You made it all Up. Just like it does not Mean Beleif Without Evidence. You didn't even Watch The Video. You watched The Liar Of Zod.
I have a question: what if divine revelations contradicts nature? For instance, the Bible saying the Earth is flat and 6000 years old - whereas Science says Earth is a ball and millions of year old
The Bible doesn't say The Earth is Flat. It also doesn't day The Earth is Only 6000 Years Old. Also, Catholics ae not Protestants. Why do You Think "Revelation: means "The Bible"? Also, The Earth is Billions of Year Old.
When one makes the claim that one story in a story collection shows reality then the person has to prove it. It is very simple one writes a peer-reviewed article that shows how god creates matter, creates life, and creates mud men and rib women. If this can be peer-reviewed and published in a biology or physics scientific journal then we can look at the validity of the claims. So far it is on the level of Harry Potter and Starwars.
@@skwills1629 We have talking burning bush, talking snake, people walking over water and mud turned in man and rib into a woman. These things are found in fairy tales and mythology.
@@TorianTammas -You Idiots beleive made up Fake Stories in Books All the Time. like the made up Lies Christopher Hitchens said, or the made up Stories of Sam Harris, or the made up Stories of carl Sagan. You then say You "Made no Claims, and therefore I have No Burden of proof" as if You sitting there repeating the Stories your Divine Prophets said in Your Sacred Scriptures is not making a Claim. You can't even Get Grammar Right, yet You say I have bad grammar and Falsely say I Randomly Capitalise Words. Its God, capital G, as it is a Name. No it is not a Tiztle You idiot. The Your gods name is Yawheh not God Routine ignores that We also Capitalise Words used in place of Named.
All You did was repeat the Crappy Dogma Your Pastors in Your Atheistic Religion Fed You, and its Stupid since You aren't Addressing what This Video said. The Liar of Zod Lied to You about that. by the way saying Your Atheistic Religion is not the same as "Atheism is a Religion". You Will Lie and claim I called Atheism a Religion when i did not.
By the way More-On, Catholics accept Evolution, and Repeating the Silly Hate Speech that was made up by The Divine Prophet of Your Atheistic Religion Seven Weinbe4rge and saying mud men and Rid Women only proves how Childish and Stupid You are.
So is comparing The Babel to Harry Potter and Star Wars. That's not Cleaver. All You did is Prove you are Stupid and Can't Think for Yourself.
by the Way idiota, The Bible is not like Star Wars o harry potter and just Comparing the Bible to Fiction doesn't make it Fiction. And You are making Claims so you do have The Burden of proof. that Stupid lie The Divine prophet Anthony Flew Most Holy And Exalted gave you is a Lie. Atheism is not a lack of belief in a god. It Certainly is not True that You make no claims at all whatsoever. Comparing the Bible to harry potter an Star Wars is making a Claim that it is Fictional and Only a Gullible Idiot would Think its True. And You do have The Burden of Proof. And No idiota, Repeating "talking Snakes and talking Donkeys' and' Talking Bushes" doesn't prove Anything other than you don't Think for Yourself, and are not Smart.
For a Group that Prides itself on Being Freethinkers, All you ever do is repeat what Other Atheist Told You to say. None of this is Your original View, and its all just Stories You beleive because Your Pastors and Your Divine Prophets and Your Holy Books said so.
The Joke is, Catholics don't Base their beliefs on The Bib le. The Certainly don't see The Bible as The Sole Source of Lithotrity in Mattes of Faith and practice. They are not Protestants. Rather, They see The Bible as coming from The Church, and it is The Church that gave us The Bible rather than The Bible being the Foundation of The Church. But You are So Stupid You don't even Bother to check the beliefs Your Atheist Pastors told You to Attack.
@@TorianTammas - All You did was Repeat Garbage from Atheist Hate Sites. What's the Point? Its not like I haven't seen this Before, and it doesn't mean Anything or Address hat This Video said. You just came here because The Liar of Zod Preached a Hate Sermon on this, and it doesn't even occur to you that he is a Liar and an idiot Who misrepresented Friar Joseph. Instead you just Quote the Sacred Scripturas of The Holy Religion of Atheism Is Not A Religion at me as if they have Any Relevance.
Calling Christian Beliefs from he Bible Fairy Tales and Mythology means Nothing given You beleive Fairy tales to be true Yourself. Any of the Fairy Tales about Eeeeeeeeevil Christians Holding back Science and giving us The Dark Ages for example. Or the Fairy Tale that no One has Ever Killed in the name of Atheism and how Communist Nations Killed for Communisms which is actually a Religion, and nit Atheism. or the Fairy tale that a Scientific Utiopia of peace and Advancement will occur if everyone became an Atheist.
By the way, Idiota, Catholics accept Evolution.
You are Stupid and don't Know that. You also think they beleive in Sola Scriptura and base All they beleive on The Bible...
Love love loving this series! Keep up the great work, y'all!
Thanks for the encouragement!
@@ThomisticInstitute this was a garbage video designed to obfuscate and muddy definitions.
So the Egyptian gods' theology is a science, as the greek gods, the Hindu gods, the Sumerian gods, the Akkadian gods, and Voodoo theology. Thank you for providing us at least with 10.000 more sciences as people worship so many different goddesses and gods.
Others already Repeated what Pastor Liar of Zod Preached in His Hate Sermon. And You should not Beleive without Evidence what he Holy Religion of Atheism is Not A Religion teaches. What You said is Stupid and makes No Sense. Do You even understand The Liar of Zod Lied to You?
You have no idea what Friar Joseph said Here.
You're also Stupid if ou Think Each Individual god gets a Theology a nd each is a Separate Science. That's not even Remotely Valid.
So yes it would be a science
Of course this is really simplified, as exposed in this way it seems circular. How do I know that God incarnated in Jesus? By the faith supernaturally granted by the holy spirit? And how do you know the the holy spirit is acting on you like this? By the faith supernaturally granted etc. etc.
Of course faith is reasonable only if i first prove, by natural means, the praeambula fidei. So I know the the holy spirit is doing this because I've previously proved by reason alone that there's a God, that he truly revealed to man, etc...
Science is whatever agrees with what I already believe because I can't be wrong... 😀
The Problem is, You don't Know how Faith is Defined. it means Confidence or Trust, not Belief without Evidence. Also, These are Catholics, not Pentecostals. They do not Think The Holy Spirit Individually gives you Faith. He never said that You Know Jesus was Incarnated because of Faith given by The Holy Spirit, or that The Holy Spirit Acted on You Personally. He never even Said this. The Holy Spirit is Only Mentioned Once.
"So the core Truths of Christianity are known and they're certain, but they're not known by natural demonstration or philosophical argument, but by a deeper form of insight provided by the grace of the Holy Spirit."
The Thing is, No Shot Video explains Everything. But if You Know Anything at All About the Cathodic Church, You Know that The Church is The Font Of Truth, and that The Grace of The Holy Spirit refers less to an individual Change that comes Upon you by The Holy Spirit Acting on You, but by The Church.
And The Church does not Tell you to Simply Believe and has a Very Long Historical tradition of Providing Ecv9idence and Explanations.
@@skwills1629 no one can say that Jesus is lord if he's not under the holy spirit's action. This is not pentecostalism, this is Saint Paul, and this is indeed the catholic teaching.
Faith is a rational action, but reducing it to confidence, maybe confidence in a testimony I'm justified believing it is true, even if I see that it's a common opinion among American theologians, according to the Roman school and classical thomists it is an heterodox opinion
@@Pienotto As different Christians make contradicting claims it all can be false and non of them could prove to all Christians that their opinion is true. They usually say this is a wrong belief and get ignored by other Christians.
@@TorianTammas - Atheists like You make Contradictory Claims, like saying God does not Exist and is a Fairy Tale Only to Refuse to give Evidence by saying Atheism is not a belief and is a lack of belief so You have made no Claims, then to also say Atheism is The Default Position, which makes no Sense as it cannot be The Default position unless it is a Position and if its a lack of belief in a god then its not a Position at all.
And it snot like Atheists All Agree on Everything.
Really, its not ignoring Anything to State what You Think it's True, and You just Say that because the Pastors of our Religion We're supposed to pretend is not a Religion but a mere lack of belief in a god said so.
And No, I did not call Atheism a Religion. But You follow a Region that is Atheistic.,
You Will ignore that I said this and Claim I called Atheism a Religion.
My brother in Christ, I do not exist.
Praise be thy non existence 🙏🏽
In other Words, You came here to Ridicule Christians because The Liar Of Zod Told You to.
REALIZE: You were better educated, more informed and in possession of more facts than Thomas Aquinas by the time you were in the 5th grade.
And still relied in Logical Fallacies and Faith 😀
Not Really. But You don't Know what Aquinas said or Wrote or Anything about Him, and Only came due to Your pastor in Your I Have no Religion Religion The Liar of Zod made a Video preaching a Hate Sermon on this.
@@hectorn - There are No Logical Fallacies in This Video. You'd Know that if You watched it and Trued to understand it instead of just Blindly believing in the Words of The Liar of Zod.
@@PimpMyDitchWitch - They came from The UA-cam Channel "The prophet Of Zod". He Ridiculed this Video. But he either did not understand it or Lied about it. They just Repeat what Their Pastor Zod Told them in His Hate Sermon.
@@skwills1629 , your reaction seems to be to accuse anyone who disagrees with your beliefs as being ignorant of them. Nice defense mechanism, but obviously false.
Thank you for teaching the faith through these videos!!! The world is so desperate for Truth!!!!!!!!
It's our joy!
@@ThomisticInstitute ♥
Amazing job with these videos. Thanks to all involved.
Our pleasure!
Science? What?
The Liar of Zod Lied, and coming to Attack a Man You don't Know for Things Someone Else claims he said is Stupid.
The definition of what you mean by science is valid in a different context. We must not forget that science is a polysemous word.
Funny, theists are always trying to raise religion by saying that it is a science, or lower science by saying that science is a religion.
Strangely, you never hear a scientist trying to do the opposite by identifying what they do as being a religion. Seems to be a little envy on the part of theists. (OK, a whole lot of envy. Science has a cachet that religion would like to co-opt but will never be able to.)
Nice straw man. Where can I get one?
@@rockycomet4587 It wasn't a strawman. This video claims that religion is science. It isn't. Most apologetics claims that science is religion. Science isn't religion. Maybe you should learn what a straw man argument is?
@@freddan6fly - This Video did not say "Religion is a Science". This Video is also not an Apologetics Video. I Know that's what The Liar of Zod told You in His Hate Sermon, but its not what was Actually said.
This Video is Explaining Theology. Even though in Your Mind Theology and Theism and Religion all mean the Same Thing, they aren't all the Same Thing. And This Video is actually Explaining Why Thomas Aquinas Called Theology a Science in The 13th Century. The Actual Objectise is to Explain Why Thomas Aquinas said This. Your Pastor, The Liar of Zod of The Holy Religion Of Denying You Have A Religion simply Lied about what Friar Joseph was and The Subject Matter of The Video.
In a renaissance painting The Scholastism painted there is Plato pointing his finger upward and Aristotle pointing his finger downward! These two has different view of what is Reality! Plato believes that the reality resides in Heaven up above and our perception of God while Aristotle pointing downward believes that the Reality the truth is known on this physical world were living which we call earth! The two opposite thoughts and beliefs of these two great Philosophers are reconciled and expounded by St Thomas Aquainas in his 12 volumes of his Summa Theologica! K
What does it mean to call theology a science? It means whoever says that is a liar.
It means using the word science in a misleading and equivocating way. Possibly on purpose.
This seems like a rather roundabout way of saying you just want Christianity to have preferentral treatment. Just go out saying that instead of smashing sophisticated words together and quoting old world philosphers.
You clearly came because The Liar Of Zod Hate Sermon. There is No Rational Way You can Claim He wants Christianity to have preferential treatment based on what he Actually Said.
@@skwills1629 Actually there is. He claims faith to be the good reason to accept christianity. That is preferential treatment, because every religion can claim faith.
@@pelgrim8640 - You Listened to The Liar of Zod's Hate Sermon. You then Beleive whatever Your Pastor Indoctrinated You to Think. Friar Joseph never Actually said "Faith is a Good Reason to Accept Christianity". Saying so would make No Sense given how The Catholic Church defines the Word Faith. It does not mean Belief Without Evidence. Which is what The Liar of Zod demands. he demands You beleive Him with No Evidence. Faith means Trust, and he is saying Trusting in God is a Way to Know God, not belief Without Evidence is a Good Reason to accept Christianity.
Also, I Know it is Dogma of Your Not-A-Religion Religion but do You Really Think "The Religious" Think their Religion is 100%$ True and all other Religions 100% False? The Catholic Church Actually Teaches Most if not All Religions have some truth to them. They do not Think All Religions, as You define the term, as Equally True but they also don't Think of them as Entirely Wrong, Either.
The Catholic Church also says Reason leads to Faith, and Faith is something You give Christianity After You become Convinced of it. The Catholic Church does not say to beleive in Christianity on Faith, and Certainly not on belief Without Evidence, the fake Definition you Morons Always Use.
This is very good, but "super" is Latin, not Greek.
also in Greek:
υπερ
@@thomasjosephwhite190 we generally transliterate that with hyper, not super; but you are right that the etymology is the same.
@@barbaraosimani6285 the good friar slipped up but yes there is a common root
Where science end religion begins! Dr Albert Einstein
"Can theology be a science? An epistemological reflection"
Gabriel Andrade. Ajman University, Emiratos Árabes Unidos. Mètode Science Studies Journal, núm. 12, pp. 14-21, 2022 Universitat de València. Abstract: Many dubious disciplines have been removed from academic institutions, but theology is not one of them, as it is still taught in respectable universities. This article argues that theology does not deserve that special treatment. Theology has long pretended to be a science, but it can never be, because ultimately, theology is grounded on faith and authority, two tenets that run counter to the scientific method. Natural theology appeals to evidence and reason, but it also fails in its endeavor. More recent theologians admit that their discipline is not science per se, but still consider it legitimate in its quest for meaning. There are also reasons to doubt this claim, as there is no need to appeal to the supernatural to find meaning.
This!
It is so great to have this accessible resource!
We're delighted to provide it!
Science is not simply a collection of knowledge in one subject, science is a process to acquire knowledge and that process, the scientific method, is incompatible with theology. Theology can be a subject of study, an academic discipline or whatever other name you may want to give it, but it's not a science. It's quite deceitful to try compare biology to theology, as if they occupy the same position in terms of rigor or putting things to the test. This is not anything new so please try to keep things separate that do not belong together.
it is because of theology we even have the scientific method
@@GuitarBloodlines lol nice, make the most random statement but do not bother to defend it. Well I say it is because of dinosaurs that we have the scientific method.
Thank you so much for your video series! It helps prepare for courses in theology where I will have to read St. Thomas. God bless your work! (PS. How can I help support your work?)
You broke this down to faith and assertions you know god is real. I have no reason to believe that assertion has any truth to it.
Its God Capital G. And You Liar Of Zod Fanboys have No Idea what Friar Joseph said. No, He did not Break it down to Faith. Especially since You define Faith as Belief Without Evidence and that is NOT what Friar Joseph means by it. Instead of Repeating the Hate Propaganda by Your Religion's Pastor, The Liar Of Zod of The Holy Religion Of Atheism is Not A Religion, Why not do something Productive and Actually Learn what Catholicism Teaches instead of Repeating the Lies of some Idiot Atheist Pastor Who, even Though He says He was Steeped in the Intellectual Side of Christianity was Never even a Christian. That is not a No True Scotsman,. The Liar of Zod has No Understanding of Christianity.
@@skwills1629 Why are christians like you lying so much all the time?
Is that because you are raised to lie or does that come natural?
@@boterlettersukkel - Accusing Me of Lying by Copy And Paste is Just done to Abuse me and Draw Attention Away from the Lies You as a Group Told Here.
@@skwills1629 For somebody who lectures others about the use of capital letters, you use an awful lot of wrong capital letters. 😂
Both Actus Purus and Aquinian Divine Simplicity are results of categorical fundamental flaws in reasoning
It is really quite ridiculous
On what grounds can human beings make judgements concerning the logical validity of things that are, be definition, beyond our comprehension? This question seems to me to bedevil the philosophy/theology and the reason/faith distinction. You could leap into pure fideism or pure rationalism as a way to overcome the problem. But I don't like either of these options. Can Thomas really help?
where is the evidence? circular reasoning and bull explaining nothing but how to keep the 'faithful' under your heel so that you can extort them
There is no Circular Reasoning in This Video. And The Only Reason you came Here is Because The Liar of Zod has You under His heel and Extorts You. You don't even Know what This Video is About.
This person’s ignorance is stunning.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and Remove All doubt. Seethe harder
If I had heard pseudo-intellectual word salad like this way back when I was a still a Catholic in my teens and 20s, I’m pretty sure I would have deconstructed and deconverted from Catholicism and Christianity much sooner. Because this video is best summarized by saying the science of theology is that, “we believe God told us stuff, and you should believe what we tell you that God told us.” 🤮
Spot on.
I'm glad I've only wasted four years with this rubbish.
@3paz sorry, but that’s BS. I’m not Roman Catholic any more, no matter what anyone else says. Neither heaven nor hell exist, and belief in them is fantasy.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 📚 Theology is considered a science, but it differs from other sciences because its principles come from divine revelation rather than natural knowledge.
01:54 ✝️ Core truths of Christianity are known through the grace of faith, which goes beyond natural human knowledge and introduces us to God's mysteries.
03:18 🤝 The truths of revelation align with natural reason and are not contrary to it, and faith provides confirming signs and internal coherence that make it rational to believe.
04:40 🕊️ The central focus of theology is knowledge of the Holy Trinity, which illuminates all other Christian doctrines and helps us understand God's revelation. Faith provides insight into God's nature and points us towards union with God.
Made with HARPA AI
I just wish to echo Cicero1988's comment. I learnt more in the past 6 minutes from Fr White than I've manged in the last 20 years+ of (half-hearted, to be honest) study of St Thomas Aquinas. Many thanks and may God Bless your work.
I would love to hear you address how the graphing of infinity explains how a start point is not necessary therefore Aquinas’ theory that there had to have been a mover is disproved by modern knowledge. If Catholic/Christian religion adheres to scientific knowledge they would be forced to restructure their belief system or at least acknowledge the counterpoints brought up.
The prime Mover was not disproven by Modern Knowledge, and You should stop Listening to Atheist Hate Sermons and learn Real Logic and Real Philosophy.;
By the ay, This Video is not about Religion, its about theology. you Think Theology and Religion mean the same Thing because you are Stupid.
Ah, the apologists, how they try, and fail miserably, to make sense of their belief without evidence.
You Believe without Evidence what The Liar Of Zod Told You to Think. This "Apologist" did not Present Anything He had No Evidence for. He is also not an Apologist. He is a Historian Explaining Why Thomas Aquinas called Theology a Science in The 13th Century. But You didn't Watch the Video.
@@martyfromnebraska1045 - If You watch The Liar of Zod's Video on this, He doesn't even Try to Understand what Friar Joseph is Saying and Knocks Down a Massive Strawman. His Disciples came Here after he preached a Hate Sermon and simply Repeated what He said in it. Proving they truly are Free Thinkers.
Thomas Aquinas was summoned by Pope Gregory X to the second council of Lyons in 1274, where he probably would have been chastised, but he died on the way, at the Cistercian
You don't have a Source for this so...
@@skwills1629 My source for the information about Thomas Aquinas is "Din Timelines
World History Timelines"
1274
x - Thomas Aquinas * was summoned before a council at Lyons to answer for his opinions. He was publicly chastised but not condemned.
Thomas Aquinas was summoned by Pope Gregory X to the second council of Lyons in 1274, where he probably would have been chastised, but he died on the way, at the Cistercian abbey of Fossanova. Several of his theses were thereafter condemned by the masters of Paris, the highest theological jurisdiction of the Church.
@@skwills1629 you also don't have a source for most if not all of your books writtings, they are from "Anonymous "
so....
From GOD?
God who creates everything...God gave us Good life.
But I dont want to beleive about evil...
Divine revelation is gained through understanding and familiarity with god I agree but not through blind faith but rather reasonable understanding of sciences and not pseudoscience or “must have been”
A wonderful explanation. The orator makes a complex topic easy to understand, which I'm sure is easier said than done. Thank you for the videos, I look forward to learning more and deepening my faith through watching them. Thanks again.
You're welcome. We're very glad you found the videos helpful. God bless you!
You found that convincing? Really? No theology is not a science by the modern definition, it does not use the scientific method, it does not test its hypotheses and it doesn't make testable predictions. Please stop and just think...
Great!
Cheers!
This is great - it's worth mentioning the distinction between Aristotle's definition of science and the 'scientific method' - they don't contradict but the method of modern science is the first thing most viewers might think of. Most of what we today call 'sciences' are bodies of organized knowledge that are founded on the process of observation-hypothesis-testing-analysis. I see two important points here: first, modern sciences are not 'just' the scientific method, but also incorporate appropriate functions of rational agents to organize knowledge (as well as inappropriate dysfunctions that disorganize knowledge) and second, the scientific method would not be applied in theology in the same way, I don't think, because grace does not work in the same way as nature. If a Friar has a moment, I'd be interested to hear a comment on the scientific method. Or a video.
If you take science in poppers definition, then theology is very unrelated. Science avoids truths and only sets out to deductively rationalise theories which fit data and can easily be disproved and falsified through exact experiment. The great irony of scientism is that this nuance is forgotten. Theology could never work that way.
I wonder what christian scientists (physicists, biologists etc.) really think of this.
Why do You Think they'd Object? Unlike You they'd Likely watch the Video and not just Attack it because the Liar of Zod Ridiculed it. Zod Lied of course like he Always does.
@@skwills1629 I think they would object because science, as we think of it today, is defined by its method. And clearly theology as it is explained in the video does not and cannot apply the scientific method in its inquiry. So, you can call it "science" if you want, but it is not, by any means, science in the sense of the term as it is used and understood in the world academic community (I have no idea who the Liar of Zod is).
@@ozunoma - This Video is actually about a Historian Explaining what Thomas Aquinas, a 13th Century Monk, meant by the Word Science, and is Trying to Explain how it was Understood. Because of The Liar of Zo Hate Sermon, He is now being called a Christian Apologist Who is Arguing that Theology is Science. Those aren't the same Objectives.
Also, The Liar Of Zod is The Prophet Of Zod. And They are His Disiples.
They did not watch This Video, they watched The Zod Video. They don't even Really Understand This Video.
An esteemed member of your order, one Fr. Hettinger O. P., R.I.P. in his Natural Religion (English title) suggests that St Thomas proposes that some of our ideas, not all, are innate such as being and existence, right and duty and a few others. What say you?
I say he sounds like a Scotus and God bless Him!
St. Thomas argues that some habits are innate, but only in a certain sense. We, unlike angels, are not furnished with fully-formed ideas at birth. We're something like a blank slate. But, there are some habits that require only that they be activated by reality, and don't need to be fleshed out in the ordinary acquired and discursive way. So, for instance, intellectus or the first principles of speculative reason (principle of identity, principle of non-contradiction, principle of causality, etc.) are not learned in the way that knowledge (scientia) is. Rather, they are immediately evident to us upon our engaging with reality. One such example is the principle of non-contradiction. We don't need to be taught that something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. Rather, it's just the case that when we engage with reality, we recognize that it is self-consistent, and if we were forced to do so, we could express that in propositional form as the PNC. St. Thomas says that this dynamic is also at work with the first principles of practical reason, which he calls synderesis.
The sheer abstruseness and attempted sophistry of these "angels on the head of a pin" discussions are, to me, the strongest indication of the sheer implausibility of this entire & utterly fantastical theology, whether or not delivered in medieval costume (I doubt very much if the garment weave is the original rough wool that Benedict of Nursia would have expected his followers to wear, nor his Dominican, Premonstratensian, and Cistercian counterpart successors)
I thought Christianity was meant to be accessible for everyone, and not so bafflingly mysterious that only an intellectual priestly class can ponder it and then translate for the great unwashed.
🤡
@@rockycomet4587 At least we know you admit to being a clown. Cheers!
@@colonelcampbellsoup6318 wrong
@@rockycomet4587 "wrong"
~Clown
This is an Effort to Explain what was Meant by Thomas Aquinas in The 13th Century. You don;t Need it to Be a Christian. its simply that the Terms Changed over the Centuries.
Excellent explanation of the biblical theology and the science of Christian theology
Cheers, thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you!
_"the science of Christian theology"_ This is an oxymoron.
@@edgarmatzinger9742 - No, its not. And you are a L:ar Of Zod Fanboy Who didn't even watch The Video.
@@skwills1629 It seems you haven't watched this video. All you're doing is reflecting...
@@edgarmatzinger9742 - Deflecting. Not Reflecting. Get Your Pathetic Allegations Right. Also, do You More-Ons Think this Silly Accusation Game Proves Anything when You can't even Discuss what Friar Joseph Actually said?
I agree that this video misses the mark in some ways and slightly over-simplifies a complex topic. When I studied this topic at graduate level the main points of difference were that working out God's existence via philosophical arguments is not another example of revelation as such, but natural theology that prepares the ground, so to speak, for revelation. Secondly, we were encouraged to take on board the point that many sciences draw first principles from others (e.g. music drawing from mathematics) but what makes theology different and better is that it draws it's first principles from natural theology - both on its own (Plato and Aristotle), or from natural theology plus revelation, with signs of credibility (miracles) adding weight to revelation (as in Augustine, Aquinas, etc).
it is as much a science as the study of Harry Potter or Starwars is.
Is Theology science?
What is a science? Organized body of knowledge to understand the given subject.
Is Christian theology? It is. It differs significantly. It is not based on ordinary evidences. It starts from grace of faith and also from divine revealation. It is science made known by Grace.
Coherence. Human experience. Reason. Signs; reasons of credibility.
If christian theology were science, there would be one christian church, not the thousands we have, all of which claim to have the one true interpretation of the bible.
So no, theology is not a science. Muslims claim the same "grace from faith" and "divine revelation", as do many other cults.
@@walkergarya - Why do You Liar Atheists need to Repeat the Dogmas of Your Religion You Deny is a Religion as if it is True? You are a Liar. It is a Lie to say All Christian Churches say they have The One True Interpretation of the Bible. You are such a Liar.
@@skwills1629
SK Wills
@walkergarya - Why do You Liar
Atheists
need to Repeat the Dogmas of Your Religion
You Deny is a Religion as if it is True?
You are a Liar.
It is a Lie to say All Christian Churches say they have The One True Interpretation of the Bible.
You are such a Liar.
@@skwills1629 Why are christians like you lying so much all the time?
Is that because you are raised to lie or does that come natural?
Wow. God must have been eating paint chips when he made you in his image.
Theology is a science with two lumen quo: 1. light of Faith, 2. light of natural reason. As a science, Theology is discursive i.e., it concludes from two premises: Major premise: Revealed truths, Minor Premise: Natural reason or natural sciences. hence Theology is unique in that way because its conclusions (theological) attain two 'certitude': a. certitude of faith (from authority) without evidence; b. certitude of reason with evidence. Thus, Theology as a science is most certain compared to natural sciences, inferior only to the science of the Saints. Theology is the synthesis of Faith and Reason---thanks to the Scholastics especially to Aquinas who worked on it.
How on earth would being based on faith from authority, and without evidence make it a superior science? That makes absolutely no sense at all. Do you know what science is? And the science of the saints? Really? When the saints are able to explain and predict the movement of the planets or the orbitals of electrons I might consider taking that claim as anything other than a joke.
@@rodriguezelfeliz4623 - He didn't say its based in Faith and he also did not say Faith is Belief Without Evidence. Nor did He invoke Authority. Stop Listening to The Liar of Zod. He Lied to You.
@@skwills1629 buddy, you're wrong... read the original comment again. He literally said all of that.
@@rodriguezelfeliz4623 - No, The Liar of Zod said that for Him. The Catholic Church does not Define Faith as Belief Without Evidence and Friar Joseph never said that We should "base it all on Faith". So Why don't You stop Lying?
@@skwills1629 I was responding to the comment in this thread not to the video... I don't really remember what the video says. So why don't You stop accusing me
Fedoras seething in the comment section.
Thank you father, hope to see you on more videos. Excellent breakdown.
What a load, if you swallow all this mumbo jumbo talk you don't understand what "science" means. He even admits that the “Science of Theology” isn’t aligned with other types of science. So by his own terms its not science. Geez, stop painting yourself into a corner.
Thank you so much for these videos. I am learning a lot as a discalced carmelite seminarian.
Intellectual dishonesty at its finest
Intellectual Dishonest is what Militant Atheists Revel in, not Friar Joseph. You don't even Understand what Friar Joseph Said. You didn't watch His Video. You watched The Liar Of Zod.
@@skwills1629 Why are christians like you lying so much all the time?
Is that because you are raised to lie or does that come natural?
@@boterlettersukkel - Accusing Me of Lying by Copy And Paste is Just done to Abuse Me and Draw Attention Away from the Lies You as a Group Told Here.
@@skwills1629 Silly comment relying on name-calling. "Militant Atheist?" You come up with that on your own? I DON'T NEED to have proof in a god's existence. I only need faith. By definition, faith requires no proof. So why do you "learned" christians keep trying to make their god something any god cannot be - physical reality. A god is no thing - creator cannot be created.
@@jacuz169 - The Soviet Union came up with the term Militant Atheist. Also, Faith is not Belief Without Evidence. I also didn't Make God Anything. And I didn't Really on Insults like You did.
TOTALLY BASED
Thank you, may our Lord Jesus Christ bless you!
You're welcome. Thanks for watching!
1. Actus Purus = Pure actuality as the result of eliminating all potentialities [imperfections], but potentialities are relative imperfection [relative to actualities] and actualities are relative perfection [relative to potentialities] denoting time and change. God is beyond both actuality and potentiality, since His Perfection is Eternal and is not relative to any previous unactualized state = a gross blunder in Aquinas' logical process
2. Aquinian Divine Simplicity = Aquinas treating Essence and Person and Energy as ontological parts, so that he ended up answering an imaginary 'problem', namely 'how can God be incompound if He is made up of Essence and Person and Energy?' And answering it by conflating and identifying them. But Essence is not an x part, nor Person an y part, nor Energy an z part of God [God is not made up of an x part namely Essence, and an y part namely Person, and a z part namely Energy] = Aquinas treating Essence and Person and Energy as 3 lego blocks making up 1 lego construction ['God'] = gross blunder in Aquinas' logical process
2A. But Aquinian Divine Simplicity denies Essence-Energy Distinction, which is taught in Cyril and Basil
2B. By denying Essence-Energy Distinction, Aquinian Divine Simplicity precluded Communicatio Idiomatum in the Incarnation
2C. And thus Aquinian theology, according to the Athanasian dictum, precluded taking up what Christ came to save
Deo Gratias Ave Maria!
theology is a science because its conclusions are reducible to the higher light of faith. Science is reasoning i.e., which from its premises, a conclusion is inferred. In case of theology, its premises are derived from faith (revealed truths, from Fathers and Doctors of the church), most of the time, its minor premises are from metaphysics which are grounded from natural sciences. E.g. Jesus is God (from faith, major premise), But Mary is the Mother of Jesus (from reason/history/fact Minor premise). Ergo, Mary is the Mother of God (theological conclusion). Hence, Theology utilizes two lights (a quo) : light of faith, and light of natural reason (philosophy and other natural sciences). In that sense, Theology is most certain of sciences because its conclusions derive their certitude from Faith (which may be doubted but cannot err) and from natural reason (which is not doubted but can err)---i.e., it cannot err and cannot be doubted.
"Faith (which may be doubted but cannot err)"
By your admission with this statement, theology is definitely not a science. As any theory, hypothesis and even scientific laws should be falsifiable.
Amen
thank you very much.
You're very welcome!
BS at its finest
I thought it was great
After watching prophet of zod, this vedio is at best gobbledygook
It is also balderdash and claptrap, drivel and gibberish.
Word salad, I tell you.
The Problem is, The Prophet Of Zod Misrepresented The Video and what Friar Joseph was Saying. He Lied.
@@skwills1629 In what way?
@@pelgrim8640 - How about Lying by Claiming if You drop The Flowery Language Friar Joseph is Defining Theology as Believing the Stories about God Told to You by Church as Written in The Bible? That's not what Friar Joseph said.
in Fact, the Whole Routine where The Liar of Zod broke down what Friar Joseph said is a Contrivance. Friar Joseph did not say Theology is The Study of God, and then say it specifically Studies the Mysteries ect, only to Finish off by saying the Source of the Study is Christ, which is Meaningless according to the Liar of Zod, and The Church.
In Fact, The Church is a Subject of Theology not the Source of Information for Theology.
After all, The Catholic Church views The Church as Divine, and it is By the Church that God Manifests himself to man. There is an Entire Branch of Theology called Ecclesiastical Theology which is he Study of The Church itself. Thee is also Sacramental Theology. The Liar Of Zod Lied by saying The Church was The Source of Information, as distinct from the Object of Study.
And Friar Joseph Never Said that.
An d Why did The Liar of Zod say Christ was meaningless? Is The Liar of Zod Seriously Claiming Christ is Meaningless to Christianity?
The Liar Of Zod doesn't even Address the Reality of Catholic Beliefs and Completely Altered the meaning of what Friar Joseph was Saying.