This is a highly suspicious quote. Aquinas was more or less a follower of Avicenna who thought faith and reason should be so close to each other that with good enough reasoning almost no faith should be necessary.
“It appears to be a loose paraphrase of S.T. II-II, Q. 1, Art. 5, reply obj. 1: “Unbelievers are in ignorance of things that are of faith, for neither do they see or know them in themselves, nor do they know them to be credible. The faithful, on the other hand, know them, not as by demonstration, but by the light of faith which makes them see that they ought to believe them, as stated above” (A. 4, ad 2, 3).
The paraphrase is a potentially misleading oversimplification, though, as you can see from S.T. II-II, Q. 2, Art. 10, “Whether Reasons in Support of What We Believe Lessen the Merit of Faith.” Basically, one who has faith doesn’t care whether explanation is strictly necessary, because “when a man’s will is ready to believe, he loves the truth he believes, he thinks out and takes to heart whatever reasons he can find in support thereof; and in this way human reason does not exclude the merit of faith but is a sign of greater merit.” And, although one without faith can’t be sufficiently led to faith by explanation of doctrines, nevertheless the “reasons which are brought forward in support of the authority of faith [...] remove obstacles to faith, by showing that what faith proposes is not impossible.” If it were not so, St. Thomas would not have written this:
Quote
It is written (1 Pet. 3:15): “Being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that faith [*Vulg.: ‘Of that hope which is in you.’ St. Thomas’ reading is apparently taken from Bede.] and hope which is in you.” Now the Apostle would not give this advice, if it would imply a diminution in the merit of faith. Therefore reason does not diminish the merit of faith [S.T. II-II, Q. 2, Art. 10, sed contra].
So the truth is that, to one who has faith, explanation is eminently desirable, to the extent that it’s possible; and to one without faith, explanation is possible, to the extent that it can remove what falsely appear to be persuasive rational objections to faith. The paraphrase deviates so far from this truth as to be seriously misleading, and it doesn’t accurately represent St. Thomas’s thought on the relationship between faith and reason.”
Aquinas was more or less a follower of Avicenna who thought faith and reason should be so close to each other that with good enough reasoning almost no faith should be necessary.
Rather like science! Those who can do the reasoning need not have faith; those who cannot can only take the science on trust.
Depending on the perspective of the reader, this one’s an attack either on faith or on explanations.
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”
-St. Thomas Aquinas
This is a highly suspicious quote. Aquinas was more or less a follower of Avicenna who thought faith and reason should be so close to each other that with good enough reasoning almost no faith should be necessary.
This comment here seems to argue it is a highly misleading paraphrasation of a text that means almost the opposite, http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=a87v4a2tvmgo7pqkbp4fvj42l5&topic=3154091.msg30423351#msg30423351 but I suspect this PHPSESSID thing means it is not a permanent link.
Perhaps I should just copy it here:
“It appears to be a loose paraphrase of S.T. II-II, Q. 1, Art. 5, reply obj. 1: “Unbelievers are in ignorance of things that are of faith, for neither do they see or know them in themselves, nor do they know them to be credible. The faithful, on the other hand, know them, not as by demonstration, but by the light of faith which makes them see that they ought to believe them, as stated above” (A. 4, ad 2, 3).
The paraphrase is a potentially misleading oversimplification, though, as you can see from S.T. II-II, Q. 2, Art. 10, “Whether Reasons in Support of What We Believe Lessen the Merit of Faith.” Basically, one who has faith doesn’t care whether explanation is strictly necessary, because “when a man’s will is ready to believe, he loves the truth he believes, he thinks out and takes to heart whatever reasons he can find in support thereof; and in this way human reason does not exclude the merit of faith but is a sign of greater merit.” And, although one without faith can’t be sufficiently led to faith by explanation of doctrines, nevertheless the “reasons which are brought forward in support of the authority of faith [...] remove obstacles to faith, by showing that what faith proposes is not impossible.” If it were not so, St. Thomas would not have written this:
Quote It is written (1 Pet. 3:15): “Being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that faith [*Vulg.: ‘Of that hope which is in you.’ St. Thomas’ reading is apparently taken from Bede.] and hope which is in you.” Now the Apostle would not give this advice, if it would imply a diminution in the merit of faith. Therefore reason does not diminish the merit of faith [S.T. II-II, Q. 2, Art. 10, sed contra].
So the truth is that, to one who has faith, explanation is eminently desirable, to the extent that it’s possible; and to one without faith, explanation is possible, to the extent that it can remove what falsely appear to be persuasive rational objections to faith. The paraphrase deviates so far from this truth as to be seriously misleading, and it doesn’t accurately represent St. Thomas’s thought on the relationship between faith and reason.”
Rather like science! Those who can do the reasoning need not have faith; those who cannot can only take the science on trust.