Reddit reviews Thomism (Etienne Gilson Series)

> Like, you mentioned the third one, but correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like he's saying because entropy hasn't destroyed the universe yet there must be God.

The third way relies on contingency of beings. See here.
It basically says that no contingent being can be the cause of the universe... so entropy really has nothing to do with it.


Another point I'd like to make is that the 5 ways in the SUMMA are just brief sketches, not arguments proper, so if you take them from there there are some premises that people might object to strongly. For example in the 3rd way Aquinas says "But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not." which people sometimes reads "If something exists only contingently, then there is some time at which it did not exist."... which is problematic if read in this way... (of course Aquinas mainly meant that it simply is possible that something that is contingent to go out of existence and thus it cannot be necessary as a being)

But Thomists have not been sitting on their hands and have reformulated and worked on the arguments proper. It's not like the "Five Ways" have been taken as unchanged as in the Summa for 800 years, Thomists and philosophers have been listening to critics and have worked (successfully I might add) to find solution to the criticism.

For example in the third way you can argue that contingent beings are not necessary even if they exist forever in a temporal sense

....

The claim "because entropy hasn't destroyed the universe yet there must be God." seems to me to be again William Paileys


>and besides the fact that everyone has trouble discerning what he's talking about in the first place, of the many different interpretations I've not heard one that even makes sense.

I think the idea "everyone has trouble discerning what he's talking about " comes from the fact that Thomists continuously have to correct bad readings of Aquinas from pop-atheists.
If you read someone's purely through his critics you are very well bound to get distorted views, because atheists start with the intention to "debunk" rather than to "understand".

In addition, o properly understand Aquinas one must understand Aristotelian philosophy, Scholasticism and also be familiar with Platonism. Many if Aquinas "critics" read him without being overtly familiar with this (even most pro-philosophers are not really too familiar with pre-moderns).

Point is: read the experts on Aquinas and Medieval philosophy. You do not go to an Intelligent Design supporter to understand the theory of evolution, you go to someone who works on evolutionary biology instead.

So if you want to understand Aquinas you want to read someone who is interested in Aquinas work itself and not just reads it to debunk it and has no other interest than that.

To note that Thomists do NOT assume that "Thomas Aquinas was always 100% right and defintive". Rather their work builds on Aquinas as a foundation and they think the foundation is solid even if here and there there is work to be done (like actually expanding and updating the arguments)

Now onto the books I reccomend:
I would say Edward Feser is probably the most accessible writer for laymen on Aquinas. Indeed his book "Aquinas (A Beginner's Guide)" is concise and is both meant for non-philosophers and philosophers alike.
Notably Feser was an atheist for a long time until he actually startedto read Aquinas properly (he recounts his story here where he explains that initially he also just read it to set up strawmen to be knocked down for philosophy classes, but slowly he realized there was much more meat to the arguments than thought.)

For more depth there are so many volumes, I will only mention a few that are general, like Etienne Gilson's "Thomism"; Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought; Eleonore Stump, Aquinas