Having thus confirmed the hat he wears as a writer, we must now ask whether or not Aquinas' method is effective. He writes, “God’s essence is nothing else than His existence.” Therefore, to demonstrate God’s existence is to demonstrate His essence. This seems to be a very difficult task for nearly all philosophers and theologians. How does one demonstrate God’s essence? And how so will such a demonstration inspire faith in God?
Whereas Aquinas suggests that Aristotelian arguments can sufficiently inspire the spark of faith in the God of Christianity, I believe he falls short. Faith in a supreme, unknowable deity cannot rest solely on philosophical demonstrable proofs. Aquinas dwells on the works of Aristotle to such an extent that he fails to see the gap between a simple philosophical deity and the Judeo-Christian God. I reason that demonstrating God’s essence and inspiring faith in Him is not a matter providing a philosophical “proof” for His existence, but rather an issue of naming that deity.
Augustine opens his Confessions asking, “How shall I call upon my God?” as well as, “Who then are you, my God? What, I ask, but God who is Lord?” Thomas does not shy from this question, however, in his works, addressing the issue of naming God in Part I of the Summa Theologica. He believes that words are a necessary medium for naming God in that they “function in the signification of things through the conception of the intellect.” He continues, “We cannot see the essence of God; but we know God from creatures as their cause, and also by way of excellence and remotion.” For Thomas because man is a creation of God, attributes that exist within us must pre-exist in God in pure actuality and perfection. Thus, those attributes which are named in human beings can thus be named and appropriated in a limited understanding, bound by man’s limited intellect, to God, such as goodness and love.
Naming God, though, for Aquinas in this sense is significant only so far as “naming” Him pertains to communicating about Him. The name of God is not communicable properly and in reality because His whole signification cannot be demonstrated amongst people, Thomas believes. The name of God can only be communicated in likeness, or relatively, by human opinion. Naming God is not a measure of deriving His essence but as a necessary step once faith has come about in a person, thus having no place in his proof for God’s existence.
This belief, I propose, is the key point where Thomas’s philosophy proves insufficient in bridging the gap with the theology of Christianity. Dr. Janet Soskice looks at naming God not as the act that defines His essence but as the beginning of the process by which a human attempts to understand His essence more fully. Naming anything, in this case God, is a relational act and ritual taught to all humans by their parents and other adults as they become more and more socialized. The name any given person ascribes to another thing can be both a relative action, such as calling one’s mother, “Mother,” or specific such as addressing someone by their full and proper name.
With God, then, man ascribes names to Him in both relative and precise manners, as Thomas demonstrates. God as creator and provider over man is referred to as “Father” and “Lord.” In Hebrew, God is also sometimes called in an affectionate and intimate way, “Yahweh.” God defines Himself to Moses as, “I AM who I AM,” in a term of promise to Moses of His faithfulness both in the immediate and future. Therefore, in this experience with Moses God names Himself based on His relation to Moses and Moses’ people, the Hebrews. In the following verse God again names Himself, this time as, “Yahweh, the God of your fathers – the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” This time, God defines Himself in relation to His actions as revealed by the words and writings of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In both cases, God’s name is of a relational origin and is revealed to Moses at the very beginning. Though Moses cannot entirely at this point in Scriptures define the essence and person of God, he can name Him. Because of God’s revelation to Moses in the form of the burning bush, Moses can pray and call on the Lord, despite knowing very little about His true nature.
This account in Exodus seems thus to suggest that naming God is the beginning of deriving His essence and existence whereas Thomas’s philosophy places it at the end. Man seeks to name God for his own use and comfort in the hopes of making God more familiar. God even blesses this desire, as illustrated in the Book of Exodus, as God grants Moses’ wish that God name Himself. To name God is to start the quest and the name of God is an invocation of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment