Definitions

Aquinas stated that in order to be able to discuss a topic with someone else, you have to properly establish the basic principles - the facts that all parties agree are true and properly lay out the definitions intended. To not do so is to not teach or learn but to speak blindly and ineffectively.

I'm reading this book by Ralph McInerny, A First Glance at St. Thomas Aquinas. Its written as an introduction to Aquinas and lays out a lot of basic principles of philosophy that I agree with. McInerny is a Catholic philosopher and his slant is one of advocating a position for the supremacy of Aquinas's thought. He starts out by presenting Aquinas's writing that I've paraphrased above, and then goes on, IMHO, to not follow the same advice. McInerny talks about the deplorable state of modern philosophy in which a theologian cannot discuss God with a modern philosopher butneglects the fact that he has not laid out the definitions well. How can one have a discussion on creation and try to bring God into the argument without defining what one means by God? Do not do so would be leaving a big hole in the discussion.

Religious figures point out the time the fact there are limits to what science can teach without contributing to the discussion. Science already knows there are limits to what it currently knows. That's the whole point of science - to push the boundaries of human knowledge. For relgion to say that science is flawed because it has limits is to not contribute but to sit on the sidlelines and heckle. Its petty and immature.

Where was I going with this? I don't remember. I think it just annoys me when relgious people try to tell me what I should believe in when they haven't really examined what they believe in. Paying lip service to what someone else has told you without truly reflecting on the implications of what is said is at best intellectually lazy and could be dangerous.