"Richard Dawkins, the Protestant atheist"

[Errigal]

I'm not sure how accurate this is:

Richard Dawkins, the Protestant atheist

Dawkins does not recognise that experimental science is not value-free but deeply enmeshed with a Protestant myth



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/feb/08/richard-dawkins-protestant-atheist?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

At fundamental issue in the Reformation was the Catholic idea of nature as a sacrament. In the Catholic view nature is a single organic being with a soul. God is not outside nature but within it, the material world is his body so to speak.

That sounds odd to me. I thought that was Spinoza's idea?

This author of this Comment is Free piece seems to be labelling Enlightenment thinking as Protestant thinking.

[Józef Piłsudski]

I recently was at a discussion with Fr. Martin Rhonheimer who has taken a very close look at the evolutionary debate. He should have a book out soon.

He strongly condemned Intelligent design advocates for meeting atheists at the level of primitive theology. Dawkins greatest trick according to him, is that he sets-up a very weak theology and then attacks it. Dawkins of course has no philosophical or theological training and so perhaps he's unaware of what he's doing, but it's sad that others especially the ID camp decide to meet him at his level instead of showing him that the theology he attacks his fundamentally wrong.

His arguement was quite the opposite of this article, he argued that Catholic theology has a God who is outside nature, who is super-natural. To argue that the study of science (material world) can disprove a super-natural being is fundamentally wrong.

It was an interesting discussion, and Fr. Martin is a controversial character but he had some interesting points. My priest didn't seem to be too much of a fan, but he hosted him anyway.

-----

More to Errigal's point, that phrase you bolded doesn't sit well with me.

Yet St. Francis' Canticle of the Sun has never sat well with me:

Be praised, my Lord, through Sister Moon and the stars;
in the heavens you have made them bright, precious and beautiful.

Be praised, my Lord, through Brothers Wind and Air,
and clouds and storms, and all the weather,
through which you give your creatures sustenance.

Be praised, My Lord, through Sister Water;
she is very useful, and humble, and precious, and pure.

Be praised, my Lord, through Brother Fire,
through whom you brighten the night.
He is beautiful and cheerful, and powerful and strong.

Be praised, my Lord, through our sister Mother Earth,
who feeds us and rules us,
and produces various fruits with colored flowers and herbs.

Be praised, my Lord, through those who forgive for love of you;
through those who endure sickness and trial.

Happy those who endure in peace,
for by you, Most High, they will be crowned.

Be praised, my Lord, through our Sister Bodily Death,
from whose embrace no living person can escape.
Woe to those who die in mortal sin!
Happy those she finds doing your most holy will.
The second death can do no harm to them.

There are other prayers similar to this. I have never truly understood them.

I would be interested to hear what more learned Catholics have to say.

[Errigal]

That prayer still keeps God and Nature separate though; it doesn't seem to fit with the claim made in the Guardian article.

[Monty]

That prayer still keeps God and Nature separate though; it doesn't seem to fit with the claim made in the Guardian article.

I think the Dawkins reference refers to his anti-Aristotelianism.

[Errigal]

I think the Dawkins reference refers to his anti-Aristotelianism.

I don't follow you.

[Monty]

I don't follow you.

This would take some explaining.

Here's a discussion of Aristotle's four causes (http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/4causes.htm). Dawkins would hold to Material and Formal causes, but deny Efficient and Final causes. This is called "protestant" because it rejects Thomistic metaphysics, which is based on Aristotle.

The Catholic philosopher Edward Feser has a whole book on this called The Last Superstition. It is a fun read.

[Basil Fawlty]

This would take some explaining.

Here's a discussion of Aristotle's four causes (http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/4causes.htm). Dawkins would hold to Material and Formal causes, but deny Efficient and Final causes. This is not right. Dawkins is a mechanist so he would recognise the efficient cause only.

[Monty]

This is not right. Dawkins is a mechanist so he would recognise the efficient cause only.

Hmm....<searches>... this is from a review of Fese (http://www.newoxfordreview.org/briefly.jsp?did=0911-briefly)r:

Examinations of modernism’s embrace of material causes instead of formal or final causes emphasize the modernists’ belief in the “primacy of subjective human consciousness.” Feser abhors modern philosophy’s [=Dawkins] forsaking of formal and final causes because it eliminates the basis for morality: “If nothing has any inherent goal, end, or purpose — then reason is not objectively ‘for’ anything either, including the pursuit of the good.”

OK, formal and final causes. Also (http://www.conservative.org/wp-content/themes/Conservative/bl-archive/Issues/issue120/081115cul.php):

In mainstream Anglo-American philosophy, the dominant position is that Hume and Kant long ago showed that the theistic proofs do not work. To overturn this verdict is a formidable task, and to accomplish it Feser needs to present a great deal of background material. The principal reason, he holds, that modern philosophers reject the theistic proofs is that, since the Enlightenment, they have accepted a truncated notion of causation. Today, philosophers think of a cause as one event, preceding another in time that brings it about. As an example, if I light a match, these philosophers would take this to mean that the event of striking the match is followed by the event of the fire’s appearance.

This departs from Aristotle’s delineation of four causes, efficient, final, formal, and material. Aristotle’s efficient cause corresponds most closely to the modern view, but even here the resemblance is not very strong. Aristotle thought efficient causation involved a substance rather than an event: I, not the event of striking the match, cause the fire.

To grasp Aristotle’s doctrine of causation, developed and extended by Thomas Aquinas and other scholastics, Feser needs to go back to Plato to explain the famous problem of universals. He argues against the view that universals are merely words or concepts in our minds. Instead, he favors the moderate realism of Aristotle and Aquinas...

[Errigal]

Basil what do you think of the original calim I quoted in the opening post? It sounds odd to me.

[Petr]

Basil what do you think of the original calim I quoted in the opening post? It sounds odd to me.
It sounds to me like Guardian leftists are trying to claim that RC nature-tradition is pantheistic or panentheistic, and thus no threat to evolutionism. A clear attempt to "divide and conquer" Prods and RCs. "Only those silly Evangelical fundies see a conflict between evolution and faith, and Dawkins is a reverse-fundie."

[Basil Fawlty]

Basil what do you think of the original calim I quoted in the opening post? It sounds odd to me.The Guardian quote? It's completely wrong. It is claiming that the Church is pantheist, which is crazy. God stands outside of creation.

[Monty]

It sounds to me like Guardian leftists are trying to claim that RC nature-tradition is pantheistic or panentheistic, and thus no threat to evolutionism. A clear attempt to "divide and conquer" Prods and RCs.

To be fair, I think the Guardian leftists dug up the old claim about Protestantism being nominalist and applied it to Dawkins. The English Left sometimes see themselves as continuing the leveling fringe of the Roundheads. In this trope, Dawkins is like Cromwell, dealing a death blow to superstition.

[Basil Fawlty]

To be fair, I think the Guardian leftists dug up the old claim about Protestantism being nominalist and applied it to Dawkins. Protestantism is nominalist and so is Dawkins.

[Errigal]

The Guardian quote? It's completely wrong. It is claiming that the Church is pantheist, which is crazy. God stands outside of creation.

That's what I thought. I think the author likes the idea for environmentalist reasons, likes Catholicism and so he just decided to marry the two.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/thomas-jackson

[Delmac]

Protestantism is nominalist and so is Dawkins.

Protestantism is of necessity nominalist, or has tended to be so as a matter of historic fact? (genuine question)

[Monty]

Protestantism is nominalist and so is Dawkins.

I knew as soon as I saw that header that you would jump on that old hobby horse.

Roman Catholic cranks use the term nominalism to attack protestants for denying transubstantiation. Never mind that the medieval RCC incubated real nominalism for centuries, the term sounds lofty and serious to the unread.

You, yourself, are a nominalist:

There is no such person as "Basil Fawlty" (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1003419&postcount=198).

I also challenged you to show me one Reformed theologian who sees his faith as a matrix of voluntarism and nominalism.

[Basil Fawlty]

I knew as soon as I saw that header that you would jump on that old hobby horse.It's not a hobby horse and it's not controversial, except perhaps for people ignorant of intellectual history.
You, yourself, are a nominalist:No, I'm not.
I also challenged you to show me one Reformed theologian who sees his faith as a matrix of voluntarism and nominalism.We've been through this before and you didn't even know what Nominalism or Voluntarism are. I notice from the above that you still don't. As for Protestant theologians of such stripe, see Luther and Calvin.

[Basil Fawlty]

Protestantism is of necessity nominalist, or has tended to be so as a matter of historic fact? (genuine question)Historically, Protestantism grows out of Nominalist currents in the late middle ages.

[Monty]

Historically, Protestantism grows out of Nominalist currents in the late middle ages.

So did Tridentine popery!

We've been through this before and you didn't even know what Nominalism or Voluntarism are. I notice from the above that you still don't. As for Protestant theologians of such stripe, see Luther and Calvin.

We've been through this and you won't back your claims with evidence. All assertions.

Again: show me one Reformed theologian who sees his faith as a matrix of voluntarism and nominalism. In his own words. Put up or shut up.

[Delmac]

Historically, Protestantism grows out of Nominalist currents in the late middle ages.

I believe this to be true, just wanting to clarify whether Monty or some other protestant could consistently be a nominalist, without rejecting protestantism. Presumably the genealogy of protestant ideas and morality can have influenced the development of their logical and factual content, without determining it once and for all?

[Basil Fawlty]

So did Tridentine popery!More patent nonsense.
We've been through this and you won't back your claims with evidence. All assertions. I have, we've been through this before. I showed how Luther was a Nominalist and also Calvin.
Again: show me one Reformed theologian who sees his faith as a matrix of voluntarism and nominalism. In his own words. Put up or shut up.I already have, troll.

[Monty]

And from the last time (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1005021&postcount=283):

You still didn't answer the questions. You say that "Peter was appointed by Christ, as the text states clearly," which is meaningless according to your theory.

1.) Why should I care what the text says? What establishes this authority? If I "need something more than just the text," why should I believe in that thing?

2.) Why should I care what you reject? You condemn all Christendom for "crude, literalist readings" that God in the OT is not just "a tribal deity." Rome does not teach this and -- in the old days when it had teeth and was sufficiently annoyed -- would punish you for it.

[Monty]

I showed how Luther was a Nominalist and also Calvin.
I already have, troll.

Primary sources. Not just because you, the tribune of the Hibernian Herrenvolk, have spoken.

Show me one Reformed theologian who sees his faith as a matrix of voluntarism and nominalism. In his own words. Put up or shut up.

[Basil Fawlty]

Primary sources. I gave them before. But what use is it, as you do not know what Nominalism or Voluntarism are?

[Errigal]

This passage from another of his articles seems unconventional too:

Aquinas does not think God exists. He thinks he is existence. Aquinas does not think, as Paley did, that God is outside the world but within it. "God dwells in the world and that innermostly", and this is why natural things are so beautiful and sometimes awesomely sublime. The relation of the world to God is not that of a watch to its maker. It is more like that of a picture to the artist who painted it. We do not say that Picasso is his picture. But nor do we think that he manufactured it. It is full of his style, his personality, the very presence of his creative being. There is a sense in which Picasso both is and is not his picture. An even closer analogy to Aquinas's thinking, perhaps, would be the relation of myself to my body.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/15/religion-evolution-purpose-intelligence

[Delmac]

"God dwells in the world and that innermostly", and this is why natural things are so beautiful and sometimes awesomely sublime. The relation of the world to God is not that of a watch to its maker. It is more like that of a picture to the artist who painted it. We do not say that Picasso is his picture. But nor do we think that he manufactured it. It is full of his style, his personality, the very presence of his creative being. There is a sense in which Picasso both is and is not his picture. An even closer analogy to Aquinas's thinking, perhaps, would be the relation of myself to my body.

I guess there is some residual lefty in me in that I find that view of god somewhat convincing and natural. However it seems a lot more like deism, or some forms of westernised sufism than anything Aquinas is likely to have thought.

[Errigal]

I guess there is some residual lefty in me in that I find that view of god somewhat convincing and natural. However it seems a lot more like deism, or some forms of westernised sufism than anything Aquinas is likely to have thought.

Yes I think he's doing fine until he gets to "an even closer analogy to Aquinas's thinking, perhaps, would be the relation of myself to my body". That part seems outside what I was taught or picked up one way or another as mainstream Christianity.

[Man of Ash]

I believe this to be true, just wanting to clarify whether Monty or some other protestant could consistently be a nominalist, without rejecting protestantism. Presumably the genealogy of protestant ideas and morality can have influenced the development of their logical and factual content, without determining it once and for all?
I believe you would find a return to Platonic-type realism in a Lutheran mystic like Boehme and his Anglican follower William Law. Perhaps also among some of the Caroline Divines. Certainly among the Cambridge Platonists. But then Anglicanism has a lot of room for 'Catholic' elements in general, so I'm not sure if it's qua Protestants that they manage to be metaphysical realists. I wish I could say more than that with certainty, but perhaps these are some starting points? Macrobius would be a good man to ask, I imagine.