This book offers a new reading of Aquinas' views on faith. The author argues that the theological nature of faith is crucial to Aquinas' thought, and that it gives rise to a peculiar and otherwise incomprehensible relationship with reason. The first part of the book examines various modern and contemporary accounts of the relationship between faith and reason in Aquinas' thought. The author shows that these accounts are unconvincing because they exhibit what he calls a Lockean view of faith and (...) reason, which maintains that the relationship in question should only be treated by way of evidence. In other words, this view ignores the specific nature of the Christian faith and the equally specific way it needs to relate to reason. The second part offers a comprehensive account of Aquinas' view of faith. It focuses on the way the divine grace and charity shape the relationship between evidence and human will. The final part of the book ties these ideas together to show how Christian faith, with its specifically theological nature, is perfectly compatible with rational debates. It also argues that employing the specificity of faith may constitute the best way to promote autonomous and successful rational investigations. Aquinas on Faith, Reason, and Charity will be of interest to scholars and advanced students working on Aquinas, philosophy of religion, Christian theology, and medieval philosophy. (shrink)

In this book, Roberto Di Ceglie offers an historical, theological, and epistemological investigation exploring how commitments to God and/or the good generate the optimum condition to achieve knowledge. Di Ceglie criticizes the common belief that to attain knowledge, one must always be ready to replace one's convictions with beliefs that appear to be proven. He defends a more comprehensive view, historically exemplified by outstanding Christian thinkers, whereby believers are expected to commit themselves to God and to related beliefs no matter (...) how convincing the evidence contradicting such beliefs appear to be. He also argues that both believers and unbelievers can commit themselves to God and the good, respectively, thereby creating a spiritual turn in epistemology that enables them to generate the best possible condition for conducting rational enquiries and discussion. (shrink)

Can epistemology be shaped by the Christian faith? Is there anything specific to this faith that can give rise to an equally specific epistemology without compromising the autonomy that the latter requires from faith? In the footsteps of Aquinas's religious epistemology, I first focus on the fact that Christian faith seems to characterize intellectual activity in a way that appears to be irreconcilable with epistemological perspectives that are not shaped by faith. Second, I argue that it is possible to do (...) justice to the irreconcilability in question by making reference to what radically distinguishes the Christian faith from the epistemological reflection. Finally, I focus on two ways in which the specific nature of Christian faith can shape and promote rationality, and give rise to a Christian epistemology. (shrink)

‘No-fault unbelief’ can be named the view that there are those who do not believe in God through no moral or intellectual fault of their own. This view opposes a more traditional one, which can be named ‘flawed unbelief’ view, according to which religious unbelief signals a cognitive or moral flaw in the non-believer. Since this charge of mental or moral flaw causes a certain uneasiness, I oppose the former view, i.e. ‘no-fault unbelief’, with a strategy that has nothing to (...) do with the latter. I assume that ‘no-fault unbelief’ is correct and show what consequences follow for both unbelievers and believers. I conclude that the assumption in question is superficially beneficial but deeply detrimental to unbelievers, and by contrast, it is superficially detrimental and deeply beneficial to believers. (shrink)

Aquinas’s thought is often considered an exemplary balance between Christian faith and natural reason. However, it is not always sufficiently clear what such balance consists of. With respect to the relation between philosophical topics and the Christian faith, various scholars have advanced perspectives that, although supported by Aquinas’s texts, contrast one another. Some maintain that Aquinas elaborated his philosophical view without being under the influence of faith. Others believe that the Christian faith constitutes an indispensable component of Aquinas’s view; at (...) least when Aquinas focused on those statements that, though maintainable by mere reason, belong to the Christian revelation. In this essay I intend to show that the aforementioned perspectives can be reconciled on the basis of Aquinas’s concept of faith. If we do not limit ourselves to considering faith as the assent to the revealed truth, but also look at what leads the believer to assent—i.e., charity that unites the believer with God and is gratuitously conceded by God himself—then the relation between faith and reason appears to be twofold. On the one hand, the truths of faith cannot participate in the rational inquiry, because according to Aquinas faith lacks the evidence searched for by natural reason. On the other hand, since Aquinas holds that faith is the assent to the revelation due to the love for God that is granted by God himself, the believer will take faith as more certain than intellect and science, and the truths of faith will constitute the orientation and criterion of her/his rational investigation. The truths shall constitute orientation because the believer aims to confirm by reason what she/he already believes. They will also be criterion, because in case of a contradiction between rational arguments and revealed truths, reason must be considered mistaken and the rational investigation must start anew from the beginning. (shrink)

In a recent book devoted to the axiology of theism, Kirk Lougheed has argued that the ‘complete understanding’ argument should be numbered among the arguments for anti-theism. According to this argument, God’s existence is detrimental to us because, if a supernatural and never completely understandable God exists, then human beings are fated to never achieve complete understanding. In this article, I argue that the complete understanding argument for anti-theism fails for three reasons. First, complete understanding is simply impossible to achieve. (...) Second, even if achieving complete understanding were possible, it would not be beneficial. Third, the only type of complete understanding that is possible to achieve and is beneficial to human beings is the understanding of that which is of primary importance to us, and not the understanding of everything, as Lougheed seems to assume. God can grant us complete understanding of that which is of primary importance to us. As a consequence, God’s existence ends up being beneficial and not detrimental to us. (shrink)

In this essay, I propose two arguments from Thomas Aquinas’s reflection on theism and faith to rebut Schellenberg’s claim that divine hiddenness justifies atheism. One of those arguments, however, may be employed so as to re-propose Schellenberg’s conviction, which is crucial to his argument, that there are ‘non-resistant’ or ‘inculpable’ unbelievers. I then advance what I call the suffering unbeliever argument. In short, the unbelievers mentioned by Schellenberg are expected to suffer because of their non-belief, which—as Schellenberg says—prevents them from (...) achieving the greatest possible well-being. If they suffer, however, they cannot consider themselves unbelievers, since one cannot suffer from not having been given a certain good if one believes that the good in question has never existed. If they do not suffer, on the other hand, there is simply nothing for which they can consider themselves inculpable. (shrink)

In an essay titled Aquinas on the Foundations of Knowledge, Eleonore Stump rejects the idea that Aquinas's epistemology is foundationalist. I agree with Stump, and share in her conviction that the Angelic doctor developed instead what can be seen as a kind of theological reliabilism. In this article, I intend to take her position a step further. First, I would like to show that Thomistic reliabilism falls into a vicious circle if seen as based on a merely rational theism. Second, (...) I am going to argue that for Aquinas such reliabilism depends instead on Christian faith, construed as the act of believing the revealed truth by virtue of the love relationship that God allows human beings to have with him. (shrink)

In two recent articles, Travis Dumsday has formulated a response to the problem of divine hiddenness on the basis of the Christian doctrine—especially Aquinas’s thought. I agree with Dumsday that Christians qua Christians can significantly contribute to the debate in question. However, in both articles the author overlooks a decisive aspect of Aquinas’s doctrine of faith and the Christian teachings that trace back to it. This article dwells on Dumsday’s interpretation of Aquinas’s thought, and from within my argument proposes a (...) different response to the problem of divine hiddenness. (shrink)

In an essay titled Aquinas on the Foundations of Knowledge, Eleonore Stump rejects the idea that Aquinas's epistemology is foundationalist. I agree with Stump, and share in her conviction that the Angelic doctor developed instead what can be seen as a kind of theological reliabilism. In this article, I intend to take her position a step further. First, I would like to show that Thomistic reliabilism falls into a vicious circle if seen as based on a merely rational theism. Second, (...) I am going to argue that for Aquinas such reliabilism depends instead on Christian faith, construed as the act of believing the revealed truth by virtue of the love relationship that God allows human beings to have with him. (shrink)

In recent decades, Richard Swinburne has offered an influential view of the relationship between faith and reason. In doing so, he focused to a considerable extent on Aquinas’s view of faith. For Swinburne, Aquinas’ view of faith is that to have faith in God is simply to have a belief-that. In contrast, it is another view of faith, which Swinburne calls ‘Lutheran,’ that involves both theoretical beliefs-that and a trust in the Living God. In this article, I argue that Swinburne’s (...) view is not faithful to Aquinas’s doctrine of faith. In the first section, I will explain Swinburne’s view of belief in detail and its application to Aquinas’s doctrine of faith. In the second section, I will bolster my argument by showing that Swinburne’s reading is inconsistent with Aquinas’ statements regarding three relationships, which are essential to Aquinas’s faith. I am referring to the relationships between faith and will, between faith and merit and between faith and doubt. (shrink)

In Advice to Christian philosophers Alvin Plantinga suggested that Christians who propose to be philosophers should not limit themselves to being philosophers who happen, incidentally, to be Christians. Instead, they should develop a Christian philosophy. From this, however, a problem followed, which is still seen as a reason to deny that a Christian philosophy is possible. It seems implausible that the outcome of the interaction between faith and philosophy is, really, philosophy and not merely theology. Plantinga did not deal with (...) this problem. Unlike him, thinkers of various orientations, especially scholars of Thomas Aquinas, had discussed it during the French querelle in the 1930s. In this article, I argue that they did not solve this problem because they did not examine the relationship between faith and philosophy by considering what faith requires in order to relate to reason. Instead, this consideration was suggested by Plantinga’s Advice and, long before, it had been developed in detail by Thomas Aquinas. It is, therefore, time to propose Thomist Advice to Christian Philosophers. (shrink)

In this essay, I first show that, from the view that God is the ultimate cause of the human ability to perform ethically laudable acts, does not follow that no continuity between biological and intentional altruism is possible. In line with recent theological research concerning the non-human world, I argue that there is a partial continuity between these two forms of altruism. I also show that, from a naturalistic viewpoint, no continuity at all seems demonstrable between the two forms of (...) altruism at stake. I therefore contribute to strengthen a more general conviction, according to which evolution in itself is more persuasive than its combination with naturalism. (shrink)

In this article, I focus on the circular relationship that, in his 1998 encyclical, Jean Paul II argued there is between faith and reason. I first note that this image of circularity needs some explaining, because it is not clear where exactly the circular process begins and ends. I then argue that an explanation can be found in Aquinas’s reflection on the gift of understanding. Aquinas referred to the virtue of faith as caused by God, which promotes human reason, and (...) this in turn strengthens the certainty of faith. (shrink)

John Schellenberg’s version of the divine hiddenness argument is based on a concept of God as an omnipotent, morally perfect, and ontologically perfect being. I show that Schellenberg develops his argument in a way that is inconsistent with each of these aspects, from which it follows that the argument in question proves to be unsustainable.

Many believe that a peaceful, tolerant and respectful coexistence among religions is not compatible with the conviction that only one of them is true. I argue that this ‘incompatibility problem’ (IP) is grounded in a ‘naturalistic assumption’ (NA), that is, the assumption that every subject, including religion, should be treated without taking into account that a super‐natural being may exist and reveal to us an unexpected way to deal with our experience. I then argue that in matters of religion, NA (...) is untenable and that its very opposite, which I call ‘super‐naturalistic assumption’ (SA), should be adopted. My thesis is that, once SA is adopted, IP can be dismissed and that it is plausible to maintain that a peaceful, tolerant and respectful coexistence among religions is compatible with the conviction that only one of them is true. (shrink)

According to Plantinga, both the theistic and the Christian belief can be affirmed basically, namely, without proofs. Such a position—he tells us—traces back to Aquinas and Calvin. Here I intend to revisit Plantinga’s view of the relation between his own position and Aquinas’s. I shall argue that the type of harmony the Reformed philosopher believes to have with Aquinas is only partially present, and that there is a different type of affinity between the two thinkers—though Plantinga is not aware of (...) it. My aim is to show that Aquinas’s thought is really fruitful and inspiring to contemporary philosophy of religion, and that an outstanding thinker of our time such as Plantinga takes it as a reference point although does not entirely capture all its intellectual and spiritual depth. (shrink)

Quale atteggiamento deve assumere il cristiano in filosofia? Se la condizione di cristiano è tale da influire sulle modalità della riflessione filosofica, che cosa ne consegue per il rapporto tra la fede e la ricerca della verità? I due autori, entrambi cristiani, hanno approcci diversi al riguardo, sotto il profilo dell’ispirazione intellettuale, degli approfondimenti tematici e dello stile espositivo, ma è comune a entrambi il desiderio di riflettere sull’amore e l’obbedienza come fonti della filosofia del credente. -/- Questo piccolo libro (...) realizza un’eco italiana del dibattito intorno a «una filosofia conforme a Cristo», molto vivo soprattutto nei paesi anglosassoni, qui articolato con un costante riferimento al pensiero di san Tommaso d’Aquino, così centrale nella tradizione religiosa e culturale del nostro Paese. (shrink)

In this essay, I focus on the theological origins of the argument for the existence of God that Anselm develops in chapters 2-4 of the Proslogion. By ‘theological origins’ I mean that the unum argumentum was put forward in support of the truth (or at least of the internal consistency) of the Christian faith, whether the argument was intended to convince unbelievers or not. My aim is to demonstrate that, contrary to what is often believed, it is precisely the theological (...) origins here under consideration that created the circumstances out of which Anselm developed a rigorous and original philosophical inquiry. (shrink)

Sacrifice as a practice aimed at honoring deities by offering them something as a sign of propitiation or worship is usually studied from the viewpoint of numerous disciplines and religious cultures, from which equally numerous interpretations follow. However, the view of sacrifice as able to shape life in its entirety, which means that every act taken by believers may be seen in sacrificial terms, does not seem to be sufficiently considered. This is a view that I believe emerges from various (...) reflections on sacrifice, especially the ones offered by thinkers of the past such as Augustine and Aquinas. In this essay, I first focus on these reflections and more specifically on Augustine’s and Aquinas’s view that religious believers should order everything to God. I then argue—in the footsteps of Aquinas—that this view applies to important acts taken by believers. These acts are prayer, faith, and intellectual activity. (shrink)

Divine providence plays a significant role in John Schellenberg’s formulation of the divine hiddenness argument. Although Schellenberg does not openly mention the providence of God, his refutation of this attribute supports his denial of God’s existence, a denial which is the aim of Schellenberg’s hiddenness argument. In this article, I show that Schellenberg’s implicit refutation of providence presupposes two assumptions, the more comprehensive of which consists in saying that there is no good end of history and no commitment to the (...) good is required on the part of the prospective believer. I argue that the assumptions at stake are inconsistent with Schellenberg’s view of God as the omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly loving creator of all things, a view which Schellenberg uses as a starting point for his hiddenness argument. (shrink)

In un saggio intitolato La fede e il dubbio. L’inesistenza e la violenza della fede, Emanuele Severino giudica incoerente la dottrina cattolica – come pure la prospettiva di Tommaso d’Aquino cui essa risale – stando alla quale la fede risulta certa nonostante le verità che in essa si credono manchino di evidenza. La fede sarebbe non solo inesistente (una fede certa, come quella proclamata dai Vangeli e sostenuta da Tommaso, semplicemente non può esistere) ma anche violenta (l’incoerenza che la contraddistingue (...) vìola la natura della conoscenza razionale). La tesi di Severino è stata già discussa e criticata da alcuni studiosi ad avviso dei quali la prospettiva che la genera manca di un’adeguata considerazione della natura della fede cristiana, giudicata da Severino unicamente in base al criterio dell’evidenza razionale. In questo saggio si intende approfondire questa posizione critica nei confronti della tesi severiniana. Si puntualizzerà che al centro della dottrina tommasiana della fede si situa l’amore per Dio inteso come fine e senso della fede. Secondo Tommaso infatti non l’evidenza razionale ma la carità – donata da Dio stesso – porta i cristiani ad affidarsi a lui e a credere con fermezza quanto egli ha rivelato. Si preciserà quindi che, nel pensiero dell’Angelico, la realtà di un legame così decisivo non sminuisce la rigorosità dell’esercizio razionale. Al contrario, quanto maggiore è la fiducia riposta in Dio creatore tanto più grande risulta l’apprezzamento delle facoltà razionali da lui create. Per questo, Tommaso spinge la ragione a un’indagine senza limiti, sicuro del fatto che essa, sebbene non possa evidenziare la verità della fede, può tuttavia dimostrarne la coerenza interna e combatterne le obiezioni. Prima di procedere con l’esposizione della critica di Severino alla fede cristiana, una precisazione di carattere metodologico risulta doverosa. Alcuni studiosi hanno rilevato che tale critica dipende essenzialmente dalla prospettiva ontologica severiniana, incentrata, come è noto, sull’assunto parmenideo che l’essere è ed è impossibile che non sia. Tutta la tradizione occidentale, dall’evoluzione tecnologica alle convinzioni morali e alla fede cristiana, sarebbe stata fatalmente minata dal proprio radicamento in quella “follia” che per Severino è rappresentata per l’appunto dall’accettazione della realtà del divenire. Secondo la sintesi offerta ad esempio da Giuseppe Pirola, «pensando l’essere come niente, come ciò che può essere e non essere, anziché come ciò che è ed è impossibile che non sia, tutta la modernità cade nel nichilismo; non solo la tecnologia ma anche la morale e la stessa fede cristiana». Allo stesso modo, Leonardo Messinese sostiene che «l’affermazione rigorosa e concretamente determinata della verità dell’essere si è configurata in Severino comeun’affermazione che estende il suo raggio dal campo dell’ontologia a ogni altro ambito tradizionale della filosofia e, ancora più ampiamente, a ogni ambito della cultura e prassi dell’uomo». Ne consegue che «siamo in presenza di una critica della fede cristiana la quale contiene degli elementi di originalità rispetto alle tradizionali forme di critica della religione operate nel pensiero moderno e contemporaneo». Le considerazioni severiniane che qui si prenderanno in esame –considerazioni strettamente relative alla presunta inconsistenza razionale dell’atto di fede – sono tuttavia pienamente riconducibili al primato dell’evidenza così come esso si configura presso ogni forma di evidenzialismo moderno. Come verrà mostrato nel corso di queste pagine, al cuore della critica che Severino rivolge all’atto della fede cristiana vi è l’attenzione per una caratteristica propria dell’epistemologia della fede che anche altri pensatori, pur partendo da prospettive molto diverse da quella severiniana, ritengono sia il limite dell’esperienza dei cristiani: l’assenza di evidenza tipica delle verità rivelate e il fatto che conseguentemente è la volontà a spingere l’intelletto a dare loro l’assenso (da questo seguirebbe il dubbio e quindi la contraddizione con la pretesa di certezza che la fede cristiana porta con sé). In questa sede si procederà dunque a discutere la posizione di Severino a questo riguardo senza considerarne le assunzioni ontologiche e storico-filosofiche. (shrink)

Intellectual humility plays a crucial role among intellectual virtues. It has attracted considerable attention from virtue epistemologists, who have offered a fair number of treatments. In this essay, I argue that, regardless of the difference among these treatments, they are beset by two problems: they fall into a circular argument; they fall into a self-referential contradiction. I then argue that a recent proposal by D. Pritchard allows us to avoid, but not. However, by combining this proposal with another reflection advanced (...) by the same author while he discusses the Wittgensteinian notion of hinge commitments, it is possible to avoid. The thesis that emerges is that only a partial application of intellectual humility solves. Finally, I reinforce this thesis by rejecting an alternative solution to. (shrink)

In this article, I focus on what emerges from Thomas Aquinas’s religious epistemology once taken into consideration in the light of the contemporary debates on Christian philosophy. I argue that Aquinas profitably explores what is specific to Christian faith – its being under the command of the will moved by God’s grace. According to Aquinas, it seems that it is precisely that which is specific to faith and distinguishes it from human reason that puts believers in an ideal condition to (...) develop intellectual activities. (shrink)

Alla provvidenza di Dio si fa spesso ricorso per proporre una soluzione al problema del male, quando questo venga usato a fini ateistici. Negli ultimi decenni, accanto al problema del male, si è imposto un altro problema finalizzato a negare l’esistenza di Dio, quello del nascondimento divino, soprattutto nella versione che ne ha offerto il filosofo canadese John Schellenberg (1959-). In questa sede, intendo trattare il rapporto tra nascondimento e provvidenza di Dio. Intendo innanzitutto mostrare che alla base dell’argomento del (...) nascondimento, così come Schellenberg lo propone, vi è un’inadeguata lettura degli eventi storici. Di essi non vengono considerate le conseguenze, perlomeno le più significative, che possono darsi nel corso del processo storico. Intendo poi confermare questa mia lettura in due modi. In primo luogo, mostrando che la filosofia della storia, ossia una lettura razionale degli eventi storici, si è potuta dare solo quando tali eventi siano stati letti secondo un’ipotesi che ne considerasse, appunto, il successivo processo di sviluppo. In secondo luogo, mostrando che questa ipotesi, a differenza di quella che non considera tale processo, evita l’insorgenza di un problema morale. (shrink)

Modern philosophical accounts of faith and reason have often been characterized by the idea that faith in God should be epistemically grounded in the belief that God exists. This idea only partially characterizes the Christian view of faith, at least if we consider Aquinas’s thought, which has often been taken as an exemplary way of handling the relationship between faith and reason. I argue that, even though evidence for God’s existence plays a significant role in Aquinas’s reflections, this is only (...) part of his view of the relation between faith and reason. Unlike many modern interpreters of his works, Aquinas sees not only the role played by reason in arguing for faith, but also the autonomy of faith—the fact that faith stands by itself—and the influence that it can exert on the use of reason, including his discussion of the preambles of faith. (shrink)

Lo storico della filosofia e filosofo francese Étienne Gilson (1884-1978) ha notoriamente offerto una lettura innovativa di importanti figure del pensiero medievale, da Tommaso d’Aquino a Duns Scoto e Bonaventura, includendo in questa lista anche Agostino di Ippona. L’originalità della lettura offerta da Gilson si esprime per lo meno in due modi. In primo luogo, Gilson ha argomentato a sostegno dell’effettiva caratura filosofica, e non semplicemente teologica, del pensiero di quei pensatori. Contro un pesante pregiudizio che all’epoca in cui egli (...) iniziava le sue ricerche, e specialmente nella sua Francia, gravava nei confronti della cultura medioevale – di non aver espresso alcuna filosofia ma solo una teologia – egli acquisì «il merito di aver non solo iniziato genialmente la riscoperta della filosofia medievale, ma di aver decisamente contribuito a riportarne la storia ai livelli della scientificità e della dignità accademica». In secondo luogo, Gilson ha sostenuto che la filosofia in questione si caratterizza di uno «spirito cristiano» che, come aveva caratterizzato l’epoca medievale sotto ogni altro aspetto, ne aveva informato il pensiero filosofico, dando vita a una vera e propria «filosofia cristiana». Ma se questo significa che, per il filosofo francese, si dava un elemento di caratterizzazione unitaria del pensiero medievale, va anche rilevato che, per lo stesso autore, questo pensiero andava indagato nella sua notevole varietà. Con competenza e lettura fedele dei testi, Gilson valorizzò le differenze tra le filosofie dei vari autori presi in considerazione. In questo articolo, intendo mostrare che queste due caratteristiche dell’interpretazione gilsoniana del pensiero medievale si applicano entrambe all’interpretazione che il filosofo francese offrì del pensiero di Dante Alighieri. In primo luogo, Gilson ha riconosciuto anche a Dante, come al pensiero medievale tutto, una caratura specificamente filosofica. In secondo luogo, della filosofia del sommo poeta (che Gilson riteneva anch’essa ‘cristiana’) ha evidenziato la peculiarità, sganciandola dalle classificazioni che la volevano ridurre a qualcuna delle correnti filosofiche del Duecento. Il fine che mi propongo è quello di mostrare (nella prima sezione) in che cosa consista questa peculiarità, per poi procedere (nelle successive tre sezioni) a rilevare che essa conduce Gilson a una coerente interpretazione di Dante filosofo secondo tre direttrici: quella etica, quella politica e quella filosofico-storica. (shrink)