Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-25T22:59:22.852Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The functions of natural theology in Thomas Aquinas: A presumption of atheism?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2023

Clemente Huneeus Open the ORCID record for Clemente Huneeus [Opens in a new window]
Clemente Huneeus*
Affiliation:
Centro de Estudios Generales, Universidad de los Andes, Las Condes, Chile
*
Email: chuneeus@miuandes.cl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Antony Flew argued for a ‘presumption of atheism’ that intended to put the philosophical debate about God under a light which demands setting the meaningfulness and logical coherence of the theistic notion of ‘God’ before any arguments for His existence are suggested. This way of proceeding, discussing divine attributes before considering the arguments for the existence of God, became dominant in analytic philosophy of religion. Flew also stated that Aquinas presented his five ways as an attempt to defeat such a presumption of atheism. However, Aquinas proceeds in the reverse order, beginning with God's existence before discussing the divine attributes. He does so because he believes that natural knowledge of God must be drawn from creatures. Accordingly, from the Thomist perspective, natural theology is necessary not because it provides rational justification for religious belief in God's existence, but rather as a means to fix the referent for the word ‘God’ (semantic function) and provide an intelligible account of the divine nature (hermeneutic function). We should also acknowledge a correlative hermeneutic function of religious faith. Therefore, natural theology should not begin from a presumption of atheism nor proceed in the way suggested by Flew, because its main intention is not strictly apologetical.

Keywords

Antony FlewThomas Aquinaspresumption of atheismnatural theologyreligious epistemology
Type
Original Article
Information
Religious Studies , First View , pp. 1 - 14
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Aquinas, T (2012a) Summa Theologiae. Prima Pars, 1–49. Green Bay, WI: Aquinas Institute.Google Scholar
Aquinas, T (2012b) Summa Theologiae. Secunda Secundae, 1–91. Green Bay, WI: Aquinas Institute.Google Scholar
Aquinas, T (2018) Summa Contra Gentiles. Books I–II. Green Bay, WI: Aquinas Institute.Google Scholar
Burrell, DB (1979) Aquinas. God and Action. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Ferrer, J (2001) Filosofía de la religión. Madrid: Palabra.Google Scholar
Flew, A (1972) The presumption of atheism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flew, A (2005) God and Philosophy. New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Garrigou-Lagrange, R (1976) Dios: su existencia. Madrid: Palabra.Google Scholar
Garrigou-Lagrange, R (1977) Dios: su naturaleza. Madrid: Palabra.Google Scholar
González, ÁL (2008) Teología Natural, 6th edn. Pamplona: EUNSA.Google Scholar
González Álvarez, Á (1963) Tratado de Metafísica: Teología Natural. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Huneeus, C (2022) Triplex via and the ‘gap problem’ with cosmological arguments. New Blackfriars 103, 536–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, J (1997) Knowledge and Faith in Thomas Aquinas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kenny, A (2003) The Five Ways: St Thomas Aquinas’ Proofs of God's Existence. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kerr, F (2002) After Aquinas: Versions of Thomism. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvanvig, JL (2020) Anselmian adversities. Religious Studies 56, 318–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvanvig, JL (2021) Metatheology and the ontology of divinity. In Kittle, S and Gasser, G (eds), The Divine Nature. New York: Routledge, pp. 138–157.Google Scholar
Mann, WE (ed.) (2005) The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Religion. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, MJ and Rea, MC (2008) An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez De Laborda, M (2015) Dios a la vista: el conocimiento natural de lo divino. Madrid: Rialp.Google Scholar
Rocca, G (2004) Speaking the Incomprehensible God. Thomas Aquinas on the Interplay of Positive and Negative Theology. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, EF (1996) Thomas and Barth in convergence on Romans 1? Modern Theology 12, 57–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romera, L (2008) El hombre ante el misterio de Dios. Curso de teología natural. Madrid: Palabra.Google Scholar
Taliaferro, C, Draper, P and Quinn, PL (eds) (2010) A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, 2nd edn. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Te Velde, R (2006) Aquinas on God: The ‘Divine Science’ of the Summa Theologiae. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Twetten, DB (2005) Aquinas Aristotelian and Dionisian definition of God. The Thomist 69, 203–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twetten, DB (2007) To which ‘God’ must a proof of God's existence conclude for Aquinas? In Houser, RE (ed.), Laudemos Viros Gloriosos. Essays in Honor of Armand Maurer, CSB. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 146–183.Google Scholar
Velecky, L (1974) ‘The five ways’–proofs of God's existence? The Monist 58, 36–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velecky, L (1994) Aquinas’ Five Arguments in the Summa Theologiae 1a 2, 3. Kampen: Kok.Google Scholar
Wainwright, WJ (ed.) (2005) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolterstorff, N (1986) The migration of theistic arguments: from natural theology to evidentialist apologetics. In Audi, R and Wainwright, WJ (eds), Rationality, Religious Belief and Moral Commitment. New Essays in the Philosophy of Religion. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 38–81.Google Scholar