Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / Church, state and public religion

**Posted by iwpoe** 4/08/2016 1:30 am

@MB

If I recall correctly, the last time Daniel and I discussed it, he's willing to consider belief in the Aristotelian-Platonic God by 'deism'. This seems strictly right but contrary to the history of the word.

Because philosophy is for the few and religion for the many, I generally speaking don't endorse a merely philosophic God as the Divine figurehead for the state because you do not want something so philosophically specific that it prevents thought of a rational God emerging legitimately. Only a state permanently ruled by philosophers could safely venture to have a philosophic Divine at its head, and even then the philosophers would have to propagate popular mythical representations.

**Posted by Mysterious Brony** 4/08/2016 2:28 am

@iwpoe
Interesting, Plato's city comes into light.

**Posted by iwpoe** 4/08/2016 2:44 am

Mysterious Brony wrote:
@iwpoe
Interesting, Plato's city comes into light.

**Posted by DanielCC** 4/08/2016 4:49 am

Mysterious Brony wrote:
@DanielCC
I think, from a classical theist a la Aquinas, moral deism is no good because moral deism ends up denying many crucial A-T metaphysical fundamentals. (In those days, the Newtonian metaphysical picture was prevalent and I think this is one of the reasons why Locke argued that God was the ultimate ground of morality or rights.) However, could a classical theist argue that metaphysical moral deism is a useful fiction as a practical political philosophy out of respect of other religions?

Poe's later post is correct - I was using the term 'Deism' as synonymous with non-revelation based Classical Theism and not as representative of the view of any historical deist. (In actuality I'm not sure if many deists were committed to the sort of view Ed outlines if only becomes some of their other views e.g. the success of the cosmological argument or God as a moral arbitrator imply otherwise).

It would differ from A-T in that it would deny the validity of Natural Law (good riddance in my opinion) as a self-contained system of immanent ends*, accessible to the naturalist if they're willing to countenance ‘physical intentionality’. As it stands Thomas moral theory is a combination of Goodness as the realization of natural ends and Goodness as participation in God; the sort of theory I’m looking to outline would put a heavier emphasis on the latter aspect.

*On the other hand I wonder if I'm not committed to a more substance dualistic account of human nature (one can be both a substance duelist and hylemorphist as Bonaventure and arguably Scotus were). If one accepts the premise 'Our bodies ends are not our own' one looks pushed towards the conclusion 'we are not our bodies'.

Last edited by DanielCC (4/08/2016 4:52 am)

**Posted by Mysterious Brony** 4/08/2016 8:28 pm

@DanielCC
I see thanks for the insight
@iwpoe
I realized something interesting related between the American political establishment and Platonic thought. I will talk about it in another post though.