DESCRIPTION: This text by Bronisław Dembowski, a long-time employee of ATK and member of the SPCh editorial board, concerns the understanding of God's relationship to the world. The author starts from the tension between religious and philosophical thinking about God, in other words, between the “God of faith” and the “God of philosophers.” He considers the possibility of creating a way of philosophical thinking that would be both methodologically correct and consistent with the Christian faith. In addition, he asks whether traditional Thomism can be considered this kind of philosophical thinking. Finally, is such thinking useful for deepening and purifying faith, or, on the contrary, is faith a necessary condition for clarifying and deepening philosophical reflection on God? "In light of these truths, and in light of the analyses carried out in the article, we can move on to the conclusions: 1° Rejecting Thomism in favor of the philosophy of development in the question of God's relationship to the world does not seem justified. 2° However, the methodological principle formulated by Donceel in relation to pantheism and by Ashley in relation to the philosophy of development is important, namely to approach the counterproposal as closely as possible without error. 3° For a better understanding of the problem of God's relationship to the world, it is worth conducting further analyses of the following issues raised in this article: 1. God as the identity of being and existence, and thus as the Eternal Present of Being, in which creation exists (Owens). 2. Reflection on panentheism (Donceel) can help to express this truth. 3. However, it is necessary to take into account analogies when speaking in our limited language about the unlimited God (Ashley), as well as 4. the fundamental distinction between real and intentional relations, and 5. a deeper analysis of causality (Clarke)" (p. 101).
Table of contents: Introduction. 1. The God of faith and the God of philosophers. 2. God - Self-Existent Being according to existential Thomism as understood by J. Owens. 3. The postulate of changing the Thomistic approach: 3.1. W. Stokes. 3.2. J. Donceel. 3.3. J. Van der Veken. 4. Attempts to respond to difficulties within the Thomistic approach: 4.1. M. C. D'Arcy. 4.2. В. M. L. Ashley. 4.3. W. N. Clarke. Conclusion.
This website uses cookies for proper operation, in order to use the portal fully you must accept cookies.
English
Język Polski