# Aristotelian-Thomistic Philosophy and Scientific Evidence

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/aristotelian-thomistic-philosophy-and-scientific-evidence/6953>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [July 12, 2019, 2:24am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/aristotelian-thomistic-philosophy-and-scientific-evidence/6953 "2019-07-12T02:24:16Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 14

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Burke](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jonathan_burke/32/21_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Burke](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jonathan_Burke)\
**Post date:** [July 12, 2019, 3:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/aristotelian-thomistic-philosophy-and-scientific-evidence/6953/14 "2019-07-12T15:56:46Z")

</div>

> [@dga471](#):
>
> I don’t understand what you’re talking about. You’ve been using the term “scientific claim” a lot, and I am really confused by what you mean by that. Seems like we just have very different ideas of what science is.

No I don’t think we do. You’re making claims about exactly what science makes claims about. Look at this stuff.

> …[P]rime matter always exists in the real world as limited by its form, and hence having limited potency instead of infinite potency (as is the case with prime matter). Thus, when you die, you undergo substantial change, but there is a limited amount of things that you can transform into, because the matter of your body doesn’t have infinite potency. Thus, your corpse retains some similar properties to the current you but different in other properties. In A-T philosophy, form, not prime matter, “controls” above anything else about what changes can or cannot happen.

Look at all those empirical claims you’re making. Where does this all come from? Not experimentation, just people making things up. I will channel someone else here.

> [@A Thomistic Approach to Chemistry](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-thomistic-approach-to-chemistry/6894/42):
>
> This is precisely the kind of woolly thinking that makes me want to scream.

Well said.

> [@dga471](#):
>
> A-T philosophical concepts such as substances and forms have basis in empirical reality, but it is best called pre-science rather than science as such.

It’s best called “pre-modern science”. It’s what we had before we had real science (the thing which works). When it is represented as still relevant science these days, we should call it “pseudoscience”.

> [@dga471](#):
>
> I find A-T philosophy helpful to explain a few things. Some examples:

In other words, some science stuff which actual science already explains (properly), and some theology.

> [@dga471](#):
>
> Finally, I think that your scaremongering that A-T philosophy is pre-modern is not helpful either.

I have no clue what you mean by scaremongering. To say that AT philosophy is pre-modern is a simple chronological fact.

> [@dga471](#):
>
> I have nothing much to say against your sweeping accusations against A-T philosophy: only that I would say it’s best to respond to arguments that have actually been advanced here, by your discussion partners, instead of quoting random people on the internet.

I think it’s best to quote actual AT philosophers, especially if they happen to be fully qualified professors in the relevant field, who have held academic positions and have a long list of formal publications. I see no reason for you to dismiss such people as “random people on the internet”.

Just to be clear on this, you dismissed [Dr Dennis Bonnette](https://drbonnette.com/about-dennis-bonnette-p-hd/) as a random person on the internet. Let’s look at his academic record.

> At the end of 2003, Dr. Dennis Bonnette retired as Full Professor of Philosophy at Niagara University in Lewiston, New York, where he was also Chairman of the Philosophy Department from 1992 to 2002. He received his doctorate in philosophy from the University of Notre Dame in 1970, and taught philosophy at the college level for more than 40 years. Dr. Bonnette was a faculty member of the San Diego College for Women, Loyola University in New Orleans, and the University of Dayton, before coming to Niagara University.
> 
> He has participated in many radio and television programs on social, ethical, and theological topics in the course of his career, and written a number of scholarly articles as well as two books, Aquinas’ Proofs for God’s Existence and Origin of the Human Species. This last work has just been published in a second edition (Sapientia Press: 2003) with a new foreword by Dr. Michael J. Behe, Full Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University and author of Darwin’s Black Box.
> 
> Dr. Bonnette is presently teaching free courses in philosophy at the Aquinas School of Philosophy in Lewiston, New York. See [www.aquinasphilosophy.com](http://www.aquinasphilosophy.com).

Could you possibly be a bit clearer about your reasons for treating him with dismissive contempt? It seems to me that he knows a lot more about this subject than you do.

> [@dga471](#):
>
> I think we should not simply dismiss something just because it’s old, or associated with outdated views

I agree.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/aristotelian-thomistic-philosophy-and-scientific-evidence/6953)._