# A Thomistic Approach to Chemistry

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-thomistic-approach-to-chemistry/6894>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Philosophy, Theology\
**Created:** [July 5, 2019, 3:25am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-thomistic-approach-to-chemistry/6894 "2019-07-05T03:25:00Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 45

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dga471](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dga471/32/5233_2.png) [@dga471](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dga471)\
**Post date:** [July 12, 2019, 4:14pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-thomistic-approach-to-chemistry/6894/45 "2019-07-12T16:14:02Z")

</div>

> [@vjtorley](#):
>
> I have to ask you: **what’s the attraction of A-T?** The reason why I’m asking is that I studied it myself for several years as a young man, before concluding that it really didn’t gel with science or common sense. What’s worse, the attempts of its leading exponents to explain away difficulties with their theory struck me as lame and evasive. So I’m mystified as to why you find it appealing.

I’ve somewhat answered this [here](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/aristotelian-thomistic-philosophy-and-scientific-evidence/6953/13):

> [@Aristotelian-Thomistic Philosophy and Scientific Evidence](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/aristotelian-thomistic-philosophy-and-scientific-evidence/6953/13):
>
> I find A-T philosophy helpful to explain a few things. Some examples:
> 
> - Understanding the nature of God (e.g. divine simplicity) and his relationship to the world (primary/secondary causality)
> - The laws of nature
> - Interpretations of quantum mechanics (i.e. wavefunction collapse as actualization of potential)
> - Philosophy of mind (the hard problem)
> - Philosophy of biology (understanding the unity of organisms)
> 
> I wouldn’t count myself as a full-blown Thomist on all of the above areas just yet, only that I think A-T philosophers have said things which give interesting and satisfactory answers to common problems.

To add on to what I said: to me, the great attraction of A-T philosophy is that it’s a **comprehensive, holistic philosophy that purports to explain multiple spheres of reality.** I think it explains some areas well while it is awkward (though in my opinion not insuperably so) in others, but this is unsurprising, given its ambitious scope in the first place. Contemporary analytic philosophy, while technically impressive, is often disjoint and fragmented, with decreasing relevance to everyday life since almost all major positions have several serious arguments against them. (Just look at the literature on the Gettier problem, for example.) I’ve been dabbling in philosophy and theology since I was a teenager and I’m tired of reading Christian philosophers and theologians defending a growing list of arguments which might not even be consistent with each other.

I think one difference between us is that you are from a Catholic background, so perhaps a lot of this stuff (A-T philosophy and theology) is very familiar, perhaps even stale. For me, coming from a relatively “low church” evangelical background, it’s quite refreshing to find out that using only philosophy, one can rigorously argue that God is one, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, omnipotent, and fully good, and that this is the _traditional_ view of God throughout the history of Christian theology! (To quote Feser’s _Five Arguments for the Existence of God_.)

In some Protestant evangelical circles, while there is a lot of appropriate respect for Scripture, I feel there is not enough philosophical reflection on how the Christian worldview fits with all other aspects of reality, which leads to unsatisfactory answers to questions and various problems. For example (as I alluded to above in my reply to Josh), I have a suspicion that the false dilemma we’re often given as Christian scientists to choose between a deistic God or a creationist one (who constantly intervenes miraculously) is a result of unconsciously and uncritically adopting modern metaphysical categories and trying to haplessly fit God into this picture. In contrast, I notice that many Catholics seem to be more secure about evolution, because they already have the philosophical concepts to understand primary and secondary causation and how God can use both means, for example.

Finally, it’s also important to understand that I’m still thinking about and working through a lot of this stuff. I’ve only started reading A-T philosophy on and off for about 1.5 years, and who knows what my views will be in the next few years. (After all, not being a Catholic, I’m freer to pick and choose which parts of A-T philosophy and theology make sense for me.) My bringing up these issues to these forums where there are critical readers like you is part of the process of figuring out whether A-T philosophy is worth it or not.

> [@vjtorley](#):
>
> If Thomists can’t even decide whether they’re substances or accidents, then I have to say that their metaphysical theory is impossibly vague: you can’t pin it down on anything.

I think that’s an unfair standard to hold Thomists to. Thomists are already incredibly united on many philosophical issues. Is there any other contemporary school of metaphysics or any philosophical camp whatsoever that has better agreement than Thomism? Most analytic philosophers today have their own collection of eclectic views.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-thomistic-approach-to-chemistry/6894)._