Anglican Progressives Get Him Wrong

Citing "Rev." Dr. Matthew Fox

First, too much can be made of the term “proofs for the existence of God” by Thomas Aquinas. As scholar Mary T. Clark advises, he “never claimed that the five ways for trying to prove God’s existence … were his ‘proofs.’” They are found in his summa theologica right after he talks of how God’s existence is not self-evident to us. He seems more to be addressing pagan philosophers in his remarks; and, in his eminently ecumenical way, offers guideposts on where to look into science for overlaps between believers and non believers around God talk. (110f)*

By self evident, St. Thomas does not mean that 2 + 2 = 4 (that is a conclusion, made evident from other things evident), but rather things like 1 + 1 = 2 (that being the definition of 2). By "to us" he means, to those who know the terms "God" and "exist" better than we do (God and the blessed in His presence), to them it really is even self-evident.

Therefore, when he speaks of the five ways, he really does consider them as proofs. That they are from Aristotle is banal, they are called "of St. Thomas" because he listed these five and put them in this order in I pars, Q 2, A 3 of Summa Theologiae:

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

Therefore, he really and truly regarded the five ways as true proofs, like a stringent proof of 2 + 2 = 4.

Fox again:

He seems more to be addressing pagan philosophers in his remarks

He is in fact using them. But unlike Summa contra Gentes, he is not adressing them, he is adressing Dominican Theology students.

and, in his eminently ecumenical way, offers guideposts on where to look into science for overlaps between believers and non believers around God talk.

If that's ecumenic, I'm ecumenic, and so are Pope Michael and Mgr Williamson (hint : rejectors of Nostra Aetate). He looks into certainly known things, not into any- aned everything now or then known as science. He in fact opposes the Sorbonne Averroists by argument, like bishop Tempier opposed them by the condemnations of 1277 - and in that day they had as much a reputation as scientists as evolution believes do now./HGL