Post by The Lost One on Oct 4, 2019 11:08:49 GMT
I think Thomas Aquinas' point isn't that faith is a fall-back when evidence is lacking. It's that if one has faith, they don't need evidence in the first place. Subtle difference there. Thomas' arguments were academic exercises amongst fellow believers, they were not intended to convince atheists there was a God, and theists needed no convincing in the first place.
This might of course lead you to wonder why he bothered - it seems in the end he wondered this too. Thomas had a couple of religious experiences towards the end of his life and after these he didn't even think his Summa Theologica was worth finishing, stating that all he had written felt like straw to him. He died with it uncompleted. Oddly most Thomists seem to ignore this later move away from natural theology to revealed theology.
I'm not sure I buy the Santa analogy. Your belief in Santa was based on what turned out to be false evidence (your parents' testimony and the false signs they left). This differs from faith imo which is belief that does not come from, and may even be at odds with, the evidence presented to you.
This might of course lead you to wonder why he bothered - it seems in the end he wondered this too. Thomas had a couple of religious experiences towards the end of his life and after these he didn't even think his Summa Theologica was worth finishing, stating that all he had written felt like straw to him. He died with it uncompleted. Oddly most Thomists seem to ignore this later move away from natural theology to revealed theology.
I'm not sure I buy the Santa analogy. Your belief in Santa was based on what turned out to be false evidence (your parents' testimony and the false signs they left). This differs from faith imo which is belief that does not come from, and may even be at odds with, the evidence presented to you.