Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g78kv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-31T08:47:26.749Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contemporary Naturalism, God, and the Methodological Relevance of Thomas Aquinas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Edward DeLaquil Open the ORCID record for Edward DeLaquil [Opens in a new window]
Edward DeLaquil*
Affiliation:
Boston College, Theology and Ministry, 9 Lake Street, Brighton, United States
*
esdelaquil@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article claims that the strict methodological considerations of contemporary philosophical naturalism do not hinder serious philosophical reference to the thought of Thomas Aquinas because his methodological principles are just as rigorous. The methodology of Thomas Aquinas is not explicitly stated in the Summa Theologiae. Therefore, the Summa contra Gentiles and On being and essence are referenced to clarify what Thomas seems to have thought about relationship between philosophy and theology. The work of Fiona Ellis is an example of how a contemporary philosopher can methodologically justify taking a position of qualified naturalism. Ellis calls this expansive naturalism. This methodology desires to accept a type of naturalistic philosophy. Yet, Ellis holds that expansive naturalism is able to employ theology as a resource for philosophy without falling into the trap of superstition. In order to arrive at this contemporary reflection, there is a very brief sketch of recent intellectual history concerning the relationship between philosophy and theology.

Keywords

AquinasGodmethodologynaturalismphilosophytheology
Type
Original Article
Information
New Blackfriars , Volume 102 , Issue 1100 , July 2021 , pp. 570 - 580
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ellis, Fiona. “God and other minds.” Religious Studies 46, (2010): 331–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Fiona. God, Value, and Nature. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Fiona. “God, Value, and Naturalism.” Ratio (new series) XXIV, (2011): 138–153.Google Scholar
Ellis, Fiona. “Insatiable Desire.” Philosophy 88, (2013): 243–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Fiona. “Metaphilosophy and Relativism.” Metaphilosophy 32, No. 4 (2001): 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Fiona. “On the Dismounting of Seesaws.” Philosophy 76, (2001): 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Fiona. ‘Religious Understanding, Naturalism, and Theory,’ in Ellis, Fiona, ed., New Models of Religious Understanding (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 42–58.Google Scholar
Ellis, Fiona. “Theistic naturalism.” The Philosopher's Magazine. 1st Quarter, (2016): 45–46.Google Scholar
Ellis, Fiona. “Why I'm not an atheist.” The Philosopher's Magazine. 1st Quarter, (2014): 33–40.Google Scholar
Velde, Rudi Te. Aquinas on God; The ‘Divine Science’ of the Summa Theologiae (New York: Routledge Press, 2006).Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. The Collapse of the Fact/value Dichotomy and Other Essays (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae; Questions on God. Davies, Brian and Leftow, Brian, eds., (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).Google Scholar
Aquinas, Thomas. On being and essence. https://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DeEnte&Essentia.htmGoogle Scholar
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa contra Gentiles. https://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles2.htm#4Google Scholar
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. https://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FP/FP002.html#FPQ2OUTP1Google Scholar