So, if we buy that modern science was set into motion by Aquinas (wouldn't he be so proud?), then we can trace some culpability back to him. We can also, as I discussed in Part I of this discussion, trace at least part of the idea of an immutable God (which, to be fair was in existence long before Aquinas) who creates an unchangeable creation to Aquinas. Another strike against him - as to believe that the only change that comes to creation must be from God is to believe that any attempt to 'fix' or alter the course of that creation would be 1) impossible and 2) a direct defiance of the Creator.
But, according to Gonzalez, Aquinas helped to promote study of creation as a study that could reveal God. This may be an 'in' for environmentalists. Certainly, science, technology, and human 'advances' in manipulation of our environment are responsible for getting us into this mess. They are also, as I stated in the previous post, responsible for our current awareness. Those who are suspicious of the reality of global warming these days also tend to be suspicious of science in general - an attitude of the religious right that probably goes back to the fundamentalist movement and the "Scopes Monkey Trial." However, in Thomas Aquinas, we have a precedent that goes back to the 13th century for the study of our environment. Current observations suggest a world in peril - in direct relation to the amount of greenhouse gases that we pump into the atmosphere. If we rationally examine the data - and it is my understanding that Aquinas was all for rational thought - it seems almost unavoidable that we will come up with pretty solid evidence that we are altering the climate. I'd like to think that if Aquinas could get his head around that challenging idea - that humans are actually capable of changing creation - then he would also be in favor of returning the climate to God's original intention. Tune in next time to see if I can find any evidence that he would, in fact, support such a notion.
No comments:
Post a Comment