Brian Davies (1)Critiques

The introduction and enlightenment readings like an introduction are easy to understand and are written in the [Preface] to express plainness, which is a clear framework, and the small amount of substantive content is called: cause autonomous Open to thinking, but in fact the thinness of the text makes this book seem like an illusion (maya). In addition, because of the simple definition of "philosophy of religion": the use of philosophical viewpoints and conceptual explanations to demonstrate religious theories, and rationally study the basic issues of religion, this simple definition has been controversial since ancient times, surrounding the mutual exclusion of philosophy and religion. The controversies unfolded, as rationalists who have read Le Moine et le Philosophe often question, combine to make this book more obvious, which does have a "textbook" feel.

On the premise that the weight is small, this book mainly discusses God and other related issues, and I am more interested in miracles and occultism/mysticism recently. It is a pity that most of the article is a statement and criticism of David Hume's views, and there is no valuable content other than that. And I'm actually curious about the specific views of Poiman and the friend he mentioned.
1. Boyman's friend:
When I arrived at a college in the Eastern United States as a young Christian mystic, I believed in miracles. ······At that moment I changed from a mystic to a rationalist. It is my decisive experiment. As far as I know, miracles don't happen.
2. The key concept of mysticism: mystic experience (the experience of feeling that one's soul is in harmony with a supreme spiritual entity), among which the mysticism proposed by Antoine Faivre ( esoterism) in connection with the interpretation of deism of the likes of Richard Swinburne.

Whether it is eternal esoteric classics that exist before human beings (eternalism), or Meister Eckhart's theological thought of the unity of all things & the high price of human nature, if you expect to see these aspects, This book is obviously not enough, it is just a collection of big problems.

Calvary Grace Gift 03/20

The Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, disease, and natural disasters: the coexistence of these and similarly dreadful phenomena with a supposedly omniscient and wholly good God is often referred to as “the problem of evil.” Some philosophers have observed the extent of genuine evil in the world and have concluded that God could not exist along with such evil. That conclusion is clearly a logical error. God surely could exist along with the world’s evil; it’s just that the god who so exists might be quite different from the god those philosophers thought they believed in.

Brian Davies is a professor of philosophy at Fordham University, a Catholic school. He takes on the issue in The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil. I finished the book because it was an assigned reading for Notre Dame’s Summer Symposium in 2018; otherwise, I would have tossed it midway through chapter 3 (of 9). It is replete with logical errors, but I suppose it is representative of the thinking of generally religious people who wonder why their god tolerates or allows the occurrence of world wars, genocides, and plagues.

Davies correctly assumes that the problem of evil does not arise unless there is a god who is both all good and omnipotent. But, he denies “that the problem of evil shows God to be certainly or probably non-existent.” He attempts to refute arguments made by David Hume in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion “that evil shows that there is no God (as [one of Hume’s interlocutors] conceives of him.” Davies actually handles that argument by Hume pretty well. More on that later.

To prove his thesis, Davies must assume or posit that a god exists. After all, the title of the book includes the “Reality” of God. So Davies tries to demonstrate that God exists through the old (discredited) argument of the Uncaused Cause or First Cause. In doing so, he gives Hume short shrift on a more important argument. The Uncaused Cause argument posits that every thing or condition requires a cause. Hume demonstrated that this assertion is merely an empirical observation, not a principle of logic.

In Davies’ words, “…it seems obvious to me, if every object in the universe needs something other than itself to account for its existence, the universe as a whole does so as well.” But all the causes cited by Davies and other theists are merely changes in pre-existing matter, not actually bringing new matter into existence, ex nihilo. They conflate the configuration of things with the very existence of the atoms that compose those things. Thus we cannot be sure that the universe as a whole had a similar “cause.” And even if it did have a cause of some kind, it could have had multiple causes. Hume speculated that multiple “gods” could account for the existence of the universe just as well as a single God. And in any event, that cause or causes need not be anything like a God—it or they could be completely impersonal, like gravity.

But how does a theist like Davies cope with the prevalence of evil and his notion of god as omnipotent and all good?

His first approach is to minimize the extent of evil. Moreover, he says that some evil may be necessary for there to be good. This is the old “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” argument. Nevertheless, he admits that some evil may not have any good aspect to it.

His second approach to say that we cannot judge God by our standards of morality. To him, his God is not a “moral actor.” Davies wants to say that his God is good, but to do so he must change the normal meaning of good!

Thirdly, he resorts to the obfuscation that the ways of god are inscrutable to us mere mortals. That seems like a cop out to me.

Chapters three through nine of the book are rather repetitious in that Davies repeats those same three “arguments” in various rephrasings.

In the final chapter, the author raises the question of whether God is “loving.” In a sentence that captures the spirit of the book, he states that we can

“…make true statements about God—e.g. that God exists, that God is perfect, that God is good, or that God is loving. But…we are seriously in the dark when it comes to what it is for God to exist, or to be perfect, or to be good, or to be loving.” [Emphasis added.]

Here the vapidity of Davies’ arguments are on display: he wants desperately to say that God exists and is perfect, good, and loving; but to do so, he must say that he has no idea what those words mean when they are applied to God!

In summary, I agree with David Hume that you cannot prove the existence of a god through the exercise of pure reason. On the other hand, I agree with Davies that if you believe in God (a BIG IF), the presence of evil in the world ought not dissuade your belief. And like Davies, I think the persistence of evil ought to make devout theists alter their perception of what their god is like. But unlike Davies, I am not willing to twist the meaning of the words “good,” “moral,” or “powerful.” Perhaps Davies’ god is not powerful enough to prevent evil, or, (more frighteningly) he is not good enough to care.

(JAB)½

Brian Davies explains with great clarity and profundity the Thomistic analysis of God and evil. Beginning with Saint Thomas's teachings on metaphysics -- with a particular emphasis on goodness -- Davies sets out to reconcile it with his understanding of God's existence and creativity. Davies then considers theological subjects such as faith and Trinitarianism. Davies exhibits both an understanding of the whole Thomist system and a particular carefulness towards details. It acts as a very good overview of the subject and should certainly complement one's own reading of Saint Thomas.

This book was decades in the making. This book has all the major current Thomistic scholars composing chapters on their own specific area of expertise. This work is marvelous to read. It shows St Thomas in the breadth and depth of philosophical and theological advocacy. Davies and Stump serve as editors but they orient all the contributors toward a crafted summary which gives the reader a mini-encyclopedia on Thomas. This book is not religious in foundation (Aquinas in the title denotes the historical man and his own respective thought) although it does cover the outlook which Thomas indeed had as a Parisian professor of theology. This book is now the new standard for students to reference on any topic involving the life and thought of Thomas Aquinas. Excellent.

This is an amazing book explaining Thomas Aquinas's thinking. I had tried to read Aquinas and found him difficult to understand at best. Davies is a great teacher. Don't pass this one up.

The Reverend Dr. Brian Davies, O.P. (of Blackfriars and St. Bennett's, Oxford University) presents St. Thomas' magnum opus, the Summa Theologiae. The Summa is of course overwhelming, intended by its author as an introduction, the English editions are 3 to 5 vols. (approx. 5000 dense pages) and the Latin & English editions (of which Blackfriars is the most deservedly famous) some 60 vols.

So, the search for a tour guide is a fait accompli for the beginner. As for requirements to approach St. Thomas’ thought, a good grasp of traditional logic, a dash of Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics (see Ed Feser’s Aquinas for this), and some Thomistic natural philosophy would be a good recipe to aspire to. Very few have this background however, and that is the beauty of Davies' book because this is one place anyone can dive in.

Who is Aquinas? Why should we be concerned with him. Anthony Kenny as editor of a collection of essays, Aquinas: A Collection of Critical Essays(London, 1969),had this to say:

“Aquinas is, I believe, one of the dozen greatest philosophers of the western world. His philosophy of nature has been antiquated, in great part, by the swift progress of natural science since the Renaissance. His philosophy of logic has been in many respects improved upon by the work of logicians and mathematicians in the last hundred years. But his metaphysics, his philosophical theology, his philosophy of mind and his moral philosophy entitle him to rank with Plato and Aristotle, with Descartes and Leibniz, with Locke and Hume and Kant.”

He was an Italian Dominican priest of the Catholic Church, and an immensely influential philosopher and theologian in the tradition known as scholasticism. “Aquinas” is not a surname (hereditary surnames were not then in common use in Europe), but is a Latin adjective meaning "of Aquino", his place of birth in Italy.

He was the foremost classical proponent of natural theology, and the father of an eponymous school of thought, Thomism. His influence on Western thought is considerable, and much of modern philosophy was conceived as a reaction against, or as an agreement with his ideas, particularly in the areas of ethics, natural law and political theory.

Thomas is held in the Catholic Church to be the model teacher for those studying for the priesthood. The works for which he is best-known are the Summa Theologica and the Summa Contra Gentiles. One of the 33 Doctors of the Church, he is considered the Church's greatest theologian and philosopher. Pope Benedict XV declared: "The Church has declared Thomas' doctrines to be her own." For Catholics, studying Thomas is a way to understand your faith.

In this book Davies aims to give a general and introductory overview of Aquinas's teaching – the problem as noted above is that the St. Thomas’ writings run to thousands of pages. Even Davies calls attention to the fact that “one simply cannot do justice to them in one volume.”

But, as Davies tells us, Aquinas himself comes to his rescue: “For, though there are significant developments in his thinking, there is also enormous continuity. His major conclusions can all be found in his first important work, the Commentary on the Sentences. He shifted in his emphases, but he did not change his mind radically. One cannot seriously speak of an `Early Aquinas' and a `Later Aquinas'. He was a man of many thoughts, but he always had a single vision, albeit one presented with varied nuances and with different degrees of attention to detail.”

So in a way Thomas is relatively easy to expound. Another feature of Thomas’ thought that Davies says assists greatly is that he is enormously systematic. What Thomas says on one topic almost always needs clarification in terms of what he says about something else. Expounding him on one subject can quickly lead to a flow of exposition and Davies says you can see this by the number of times he uses expressions like “as we have seen” or “as we shall see”.

Davies follows Thomas broadly in accordance with the scheme he provided in the Summa theologiae, widely regarded as his greatest achievement, and which is also the best-known synthesis of his thinking. “It presents the essentials of a lifetime's reflection in an order which he felt appropriate, so I presume that one will hardly be doing him an injustice if one tries to introduce him with that text, those essentials, and that order in mind.”

Lest you think this is just some forumulaic recapsulation of the Summa theologiae, Dr. Davies does note ways in which the contents of that work differ from Aquinas’ teachings presented by him elsewhere. He has also excised a lot of Aquinas’ writings on politics and aesthetics that you might find in the Summa and discussion of Aquinas's contribution to thirteenth-century debates about the legitimacy and running of certain religious orders in the Catholic Church -- which is now of only historical interest.

The result is a highly readable, cogent and lucid summary of the great Doctor’s thought. This is a must buy for those who wish to build a PATTS bookshelf.

Brian Davies, a Dominican Priest, is Professor of Philosophy, at Fordham University (since 1995) and author of An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, first published in 1982 and now in a third English edition. Considered a classic, it has been translated into five Asian and European languages.

It is a book that he tells us “is concerned with questions of possibility and actuality.” To whit, that he asks frequently whether certain views can be immediately ruled out as nonsensical or, if acceptable, for what reasons.

Religious assertions (especially the existence of God) are often dealt with in these black-and-white terms (nonsensical/believable) by philosophers. Hence Fr. Davies’ method of inquiry demands that such assertions be looked at. A third option that he advances here, in addition to the black-and-white alternatives noted, is whether it is legitimate to ask if certain religious beliefs are capable of rational support.

Good Dominican priest that Fr. Davies is, he suggests that some are. For those concerned with Fr. Davies’ impartiality, consider this disclaimer he posts at the beginning of his book:

"The philosopher of religion can belong to any religion or none, and even if he can show that some religious beliefs are true, it does not follow that he has demonstrated the truth of an entire religious system. One can, for example, believe in God without being committed to religions like Judaism or Christianity. There are numerous theological positions of which I say nothing in this book; so I shall not here be arguing either for or against any particular religion."

So what we get here is a remarkably cant-free exposition of faith and reason for belief on the existence and nature of God, life after death, good and evil, and morality. The reason it is used in so many introductory courses of Religious Philosophy is the clear concise way Fr. Davies goes about introducing all these issues. A good way to go back and touch base with these things if you haven’t for a while and a good way to become familiar with them if you are attracted to thinking about them.