Roberto Di Ceglie

In un saggio intitolato La fede e il dubbio. L’inesistenza e la violenza della fede, Emanuele Severino giudica incoerente la dottrina cattolica – come pure la prospettiva di Tommaso d’Aquino cui essa risale – stando alla quale la fede risulta certa nonostante le verità che in essa si credono manchino di evidenza. La fede sarebbe non solo inesistente (una fede certa, come quella proclamata dai Vangeli e sostenuta da Tommaso, semplicemente non può esistere) ma anche violenta (l’incoerenza che la contraddistingue vìola la natura della conoscenza razionale). La tesi di Severino è stata già discussa e criticata da alcuni studiosi ad avviso dei quali la prospettiva che la genera manca di un’adeguata considerazione della natura della fede cristiana, giudicata da Severino unicamente in base al criterio dell’evidenza razionale. In questo saggio si intende approfondire questa posizione critica nei confronti della tesi severiniana. Si puntualizzerà che al centro della dottrina tommasiana della fede si situa l’amore per Dio inteso come fine e senso della fede. Secondo Tommaso infatti non l’evidenza razionale ma la carità – donata da Dio stesso – porta i cristiani ad affidarsi a lui e a credere con fermezza quanto egli ha rivelato. Si preciserà quindi che, nel pensiero dell’Angelico, la realtà di un legame così decisivo non sminuisce la rigorosità dell’esercizio razionale. Al contrario, quanto maggiore è la fiducia riposta in Dio creatore tanto più grande risulta l’apprezzamento delle facoltà razionali da lui create. Per questo, Tommaso spinge la ragione a un’indagine senza limiti, sicuro del fatto che essa, sebbene non possa evidenziare la verità della fede, può tuttavia dimostrarne la coerenza interna e combatterne le obiezioni. Prima di procedere con l’esposizione della critica di Severino alla fede cristiana, una precisazione di carattere metodologico risulta doverosa. Alcuni studiosi hanno rilevato che tale critica dipende essenzialmente dalla prospettiva ontologica severiniana, incentrata, come è noto, sull’assunto parmenideo che l’essere è ed è impossibile che non sia. Tutta la tradizione occidentale, dall’evoluzione tecnologica alle convinzioni morali e alla fede cristiana, sarebbe stata fatalmente minata dal proprio radicamento in quella “follia” che per Severino è rappresentata per l’appunto dall’accettazione della realtà del divenire. Secondo la sintesi offerta ad esempio da Giuseppe Pirola, «pensando l’essere come niente, come ciò che può essere e non essere, anziché come ciò che è ed è impossibile che non sia, tutta la modernità cade nel nichilismo; non solo la tecnologia ma anche la morale e la stessa fede cristiana». Allo stesso modo, Leonardo Messinese sostiene che «l’affermazione rigorosa e concretamente determinata della verità dell’essere si è configurata in Severino comeun’affermazione che estende il suo raggio dal campo dell’ontologia a ogni altro ambito tradizionale della filosofia e, ancora più ampiamente, a ogni ambito della cultura e prassi dell’uomo». Ne consegue che «siamo in presenza di una critica della fede cristiana la quale contiene degli elementi di originalità rispetto alle tradizionali forme di critica della religione operate nel pensiero moderno e contemporaneo». Le considerazioni severiniane che qui si prenderanno in esame –considerazioni strettamente relative alla presunta inconsistenza razionale dell’atto di fede – sono tuttavia pienamente riconducibili al primato dell’evidenza così come esso si configura presso ogni forma di evidenzialismo moderno. Come verrà mostrato nel corso di queste pagine, al cuore della critica che Severino rivolge all’atto della fede cristiana vi è l’attenzione per una caratteristica propria dell’epistemologia della fede che anche altri pensatori, pur partendo da prospettive molto diverse da quella severiniana, ritengono sia il limite dell’esperienza dei cristiani: l’assenza di evidenza tipica delle verità rivelate e il fatto che conseguentemente è la volontà a spingere l’intelletto a dare loro l’assenso (da questo seguirebbe il dubbio e quindi la contraddizione con la pretesa di certezza che la fede cristiana porta con sé). In questa sede si procederà dunque a discutere la posizione di Severino a questo riguardo senza considerarne le assunzioni ontologiche e storico-filosofiche.

Alla provvidenza di Dio si fa spesso ricorso per proporre una soluzione al problema del male, quando questo venga usato a fini ateistici. Negli ultimi decenni, accanto al problema del male, si è imposto un altro problema finalizzato a negare l’esistenza di Dio, quello del nascondimento divino, soprattutto nella versione che ne ha offerto il filosofo canadese John Schellenberg (1959-). In questa sede, intendo trattare il rapporto tra nascondimento e provvidenza di Dio. Intendo innanzitutto mostrare che alla base dell’argomento del nascondimento, così come Schellenberg lo propone, vi è un’inadeguata lettura degli eventi storici. Di essi non vengono considerate le conseguenze, perlomeno le più significative, che possono darsi nel corso del processo storico. Intendo poi confermare questa mia lettura in due modi. In primo luogo, mostrando che la filosofia della storia, ossia una lettura razionale degli eventi storici, si è potuta dare solo quando tali eventi siano stati letti secondo un’ipotesi che ne considerasse, appunto, il successivo processo di sviluppo. In secondo luogo, mostrando che questa ipotesi, a differenza di quella che non considera tale processo, evita l’insorgenza di un problema morale.

Lo storico della filosofia e filosofo francese Étienne Gilson (1884-1978) ha notoriamente offerto una lettura innovativa di importanti figure del pensiero medievale, da Tommaso d’Aquino a Duns Scoto e Bonaventura, includendo in questa lista anche Agostino di Ippona. L’originalità della lettura offerta da Gilson si esprime per lo meno in due modi. In primo luogo, Gilson ha argomentato a sostegno dell’effettiva caratura filosofica, e non semplicemente teologica, del pensiero di quei pensatori. Contro un pesante pregiudizio che all’epoca in cui egli iniziava le sue ricerche, e specialmente nella sua Francia, gravava nei confronti della cultura medioevale – di non aver espresso alcuna filosofia ma solo una teologia – egli acquisì «il merito di aver non solo iniziato genialmente la riscoperta della filosofia medievale, ma di aver decisamente contribuito a riportarne la storia ai livelli della scientificità e della dignità accademica». In secondo luogo, Gilson ha sostenuto che la filosofia in questione si caratterizza di uno «spirito cristiano» che, come aveva caratterizzato l’epoca medievale sotto ogni altro aspetto, ne aveva informato il pensiero filosofico, dando vita a una vera e propria «filosofia cristiana». Ma se questo significa che, per il filosofo francese, si dava un elemento di caratterizzazione unitaria del pensiero medievale, va anche rilevato che, per lo stesso autore, questo pensiero andava indagato nella sua notevole varietà. Con competenza e lettura fedele dei testi, Gilson valorizzò le differenze tra le filosofie dei vari autori presi in considerazione. In questo articolo, intendo mostrare che queste due caratteristiche dell’interpretazione gilsoniana del pensiero medievale si applicano entrambe all’interpretazione che il filosofo francese offrì del pensiero di Dante Alighieri. In primo luogo, Gilson ha riconosciuto anche a Dante, come al pensiero medievale tutto, una caratura specificamente filosofica. In secondo luogo, della filosofia del sommo poeta (che Gilson riteneva anch’essa ‘cristiana’) ha evidenziato la peculiarità, sganciandola dalle classificazioni che la volevano ridurre a qualcuna delle correnti filosofiche del Duecento. Il fine che mi propongo è quello di mostrare (nella prima sezione) in che cosa consista questa peculiarità, per poi procedere (nelle successive tre sezioni) a rilevare che essa conduce Gilson a una coerente interpretazione di Dante filosofo secondo tre direttrici: quella etica, quella politica e quella filosofico-storica.

In this article, I show why the Christian faith, which is, among other things, a response to the need for life’s meaning and an anticipation of eternal life, will not become superfluous in case digital immortality is achieved. I also deepen a view that emerges from this debate, which is the view of both Christian religion and transhumanism as promises of happiness. I argue that they differ from each other in that Christian religion, unlike transhumanism, requires everybody to commit themselves to moral growth.

In this book, Roberto Di Ceglie offers an historical, theological, and epistemological investigation exploring how commitments to God and/or the good generate the optimum condition to achieve knowledge. Di Ceglie criticizes the common belief that to attain knowledge, one must always be ready to replace one's convictions with beliefs that appear to be proven. He defends a more comprehensive view, historically exemplified by outstanding Christian thinkers, whereby believers are expected to commit themselves to God and to related beliefs no matter how convincing the evidence contradicting such beliefs appear to be. He also argues that both believers and unbelievers can commit themselves to God and the good, respectively, thereby creating a spiritual turn in epistemology that enables them to generate the best possible condition for conducting rational enquiries and discussion.

In a recent essay Duncan Pritchard argues that there is no fundamental epistemological distinction between religious belief and ordinary or non-religious belief. Both of them – so he maintains in the footsteps of Wittgenstein's On certainty – are ultimately grounded on a-rational commitments, namely, commitments unresponsive to rational criteria. I argue that, while this view can be justified theologically, it cannot be advanced philosophically as Pritchard assumes.I offer an account of Aquinas's reflection on faith and reason to show that the theologian – not the philosopher – is entitled to deal with a-rational commitments, because the truths of faith can be seen as simply intellectual – like the rational statements considered by the philosopher – but also as decisions made by way of divine grace. I also suggest that Pritchard's thesis may be re-proposed on a new basis, if Aquinas's theological stance were reinterpreted so as to point out unexpected connections between theology and philosophy.

Two significant aspects of Thomas Reid's thought seem to be irreconcilable with one another. On the one hand, Reid constantly refers to the substantive benefits which human knowledge receives from the Christian revelation. On the other hand, he does not justify philosophical or scientific beliefs by way of appeal to God. In this essay, I argue that a closer inspection of both Reid's philosophical reflection and scientific investigations shows that the two aspects just mentioned are compatible with one another. In short, although an influence on rational investigation is somehow exerted by divine revelation, this does not limit the autonomy of reason, which is actually stimulated and promoted precisely because of a religiously rooted confidence in our rational faculties.

Intellectual humility plays a crucial role among intellectual virtues. It has attracted considerable attention from virtue epistemologists, who have offered a fair number of treatments. In this essay, I argue that, regardless of the difference among these treatments, they are beset by two problems: (1) they fall into a circular argument; (2) they fall into a self-referential contradiction. I then argue that a recent proposal by D. Pritchard allows us to avoid (1), but not (2). However, by combining this proposal with another reflection advanced by the same author while he discusses the Wittgensteinian notion of hinge commitments, it is possible to avoid (2). The thesis that emerges is that only a partial application of intellectual humility solves (2). Finally, I reinforce this thesis by rejecting an alternative solution to (2).

This book offers a new reading of Aquinas' views on faith. The author argues that the theological nature of faith is crucial to Aquinas' thought, and that it gives rise to a peculiar and otherwise incomprehensible relationship with reason. The first part of the book examines various modern and contemporary accounts of the relationship between faith and reason in Aquinas' thought. The author shows that these accounts are unconvincing because they exhibit what he calls a Lockean view of faith and reason, which maintains that the relationship in question should only be treated by way of evidence. In other words, this view ignores the specific nature of the Christian faith and the equally specific way it needs to relate to reason. The second part offers a comprehensive account of Aquinas' view of faith. It focuses on the way the divine grace and charity shape the relationship between evidence and human will. The final part of the book ties these ideas together to show how Christian faith, with its specifically theological nature, is perfectly compatible with rational debates. It also argues that employing the specificity of faith may constitute the best way to promote autonomous and successful rational investigations. Aquinas on Faith, Reason, and Charity will be of interest to scholars and advanced students working on Aquinas, philosophy of religion, Christian theology, and medieval philosophy.

In a recent book devoted to the axiology of theism, Kirk Lougheed has argued that the ‘complete understanding’ argument should be numbered among the arguments for anti-theism. According to this argument, God’s existence is detrimental to us because, if a supernatural and never completely understandable God exists, then human beings are fated to never achieve complete understanding. In this article, I argue that the complete understanding argument for anti-theism fails for three reasons. First, complete understanding is simply impossible to achieve. Second, even if achieving complete understanding were possible, it would not be beneficial. Third, the only type of complete understanding that is possible to achieve and is beneficial to human beings is the understanding of that which is of primary importance to us, and not the understanding of everything, as Lougheed seems to assume. God can grant us complete understanding of that which is of primary importance to us. As a consequence, God’s existence ends up being beneficial and not detrimental to us.

In Advice to Christian philosophers Alvin Plantinga suggested that Christians who propose to be philosophers should not limit themselves to being philosophers who happen, incidentally, to be Christians. Instead, they should develop a Christian philosophy. From this, however, a problem followed, which is still seen as a reason to deny that a Christian philosophy is possible. It seems implausible that the outcome of the interaction between faith and philosophy is, really, philosophy and not merely theology. Plantinga did not deal with this problem. Unlike him, thinkers of various orientations, especially scholars of Thomas Aquinas, had discussed it during the French querelle in the 1930s. In this article, I argue that they did not solve this problem because they did not examine the relationship between faith and philosophy by considering what faith requires in order to relate to reason. Instead, this consideration was suggested by Plantinga’s Advice and, long before, it had been developed in detail by Thomas Aquinas. It is, therefore, time to propose Thomist Advice to Christian Philosophers.

In recent decades, Richard Swinburne has offered an influential view of the relationship between faith and reason. In doing so, he focused to a considerable extent on Aquinas’s view of faith. For Swinburne, Aquinas’ view of faith is that to have faith in God is simply to have a belief-that. In contrast, it is another view of faith, which Swinburne calls ‘Lutheran,’ that involves both theoretical beliefs-that and a trust in the Living God. In this article, I argue that Swinburne’s view is not faithful to Aquinas’s doctrine of faith. In the first section, I will explain Swinburne’s view of belief in detail and its application to Aquinas’s doctrine of faith. In the second section, I will bolster my argument by showing that Swinburne’s reading is inconsistent with Aquinas’ statements regarding three relationships, which are essential to Aquinas’s faith. I am referring to the relationships between faith and will, between faith and merit and between faith and doubt.

Many believe that a peaceful, tolerant and respectful coexistence among religions is not compatible with the conviction that only one of them is true. I argue that this ‘incompatibility problem’ (IP) is grounded in a ‘naturalistic assumption’ (NA), that is, the assumption that every subject, including religion, should be treated without taking into account that a super‐natural being may exist and reveal to us an unexpected way to deal with our experience. I then argue that in matters of religion, NA is untenable and that its very opposite, which I call ‘super‐naturalistic assumption’ (SA), should be adopted. My thesis is that, once SA is adopted, IP can be dismissed and that it is plausible to maintain that a peaceful, tolerant and respectful coexistence among religions is compatible with the conviction that only one of them is true.

In this article, I focus on the circular relationship that, in his 1998 encyclical, Jean Paul II argued there is between faith and reason. I first note that this image of circularity needs some explaining, because it is not clear where exactly the circular process begins and ends. I then argue that an explanation can be found in Aquinas’s reflection on the gift of understanding. Aquinas referred to the virtue of faith as caused by God, which promotes human reason, and this in turn strengthens the certainty of faith.

In this essay, I first show that, from the view that God is the ultimate cause of the human ability to perform ethically laudable acts, does not follow that no continuity between biological and intentional altruism is possible. In line with recent theological research concerning the non-human world, I argue that there is a partial continuity between these two forms of altruism. I also show that, from a naturalistic viewpoint, no continuity at all seems demonstrable between the two forms of altruism at stake. I therefore contribute to strengthen a more general conviction, according to which evolution in itself is more persuasive than its combination with naturalism.

‘No-fault unbelief’ can be named the view that there are those who do not believe in God through no moral or intellectual fault of their own. This view opposes a more traditional one, which can be named ‘flawed unbelief’ view, according to which religious unbelief signals a cognitive or moral flaw in the non-believer. Since this charge of mental or moral flaw causes a certain uneasiness, I oppose the former view, i.e. ‘no-fault unbelief’, with a strategy that has nothing to do with the latter. I assume that ‘no-fault unbelief’ is correct and show what consequences follow for both unbelievers and believers. I conclude that the assumption in question is superficially beneficial but deeply detrimental to unbelievers, and by contrast, it is superficially detrimental and deeply beneficial to believers.

In an essay titled Aquinas on the Foundations of Knowledge, Eleonore Stump rejects the idea that Aquinas's epistemology is foundationalist. I agree with Stump, and share in her conviction that the Angelic doctor developed instead what can be seen as a kind of theological reliabilism. In this article, I intend to take her position a step further. First, I would like to show that Thomistic reliabilism falls into a vicious circle if seen as based on a merely rational theism. Second, I am going to argue that for Aquinas such reliabilism depends instead on Christian faith, construed as the act of believing the revealed truth by virtue of the love relationship that God allows human beings to have with him.

Modern philosophical accounts of faith and reason have often been characterized by the idea that faith in God should be epistemically grounded in the belief that God exists. This idea only partially characterizes the Christian view of faith, at least if we consider Aquinas’s thought, which has often been taken as an exemplary way of handling the relationship between faith and reason. I argue that, even though evidence for God’s existence plays a significant role in Aquinas’s reflections, this is only part of his view of the relation between faith and reason. Unlike many modern interpreters of his works, Aquinas sees not only the role played by reason in arguing for faith, but also the autonomy of faith—the fact that faith stands by itself—and the influence that it can exert on the use of reason, including his discussion of the preambles of faith.

Aquinas’s thought is often considered an exemplary balance between Christian faith and natural reason. However, it is not always sufficiently clear what such balance consists of. With respect to the relation between philosophical topics and the Christian faith, various scholars have advanced perspectives that, although supported by Aquinas’s texts, contrast one another. Some maintain that Aquinas elaborated his philosophical view without being under the influence of faith. Others believe that the Christian faith constitutes an indispensable component of Aquinas’s view; at least when Aquinas focused on those statements that, though maintainable by mere reason, belong to the Christian revelation. In this essay I intend to show that the aforementioned perspectives can be reconciled on the basis of Aquinas’s concept of faith. If we do not limit ourselves to considering faith as the assent to the revealed truth, but also look at what leads the believer to assent—i.e., charity that unites the believer with God and is gratuitously conceded by God himself—then the relation between faith and reason appears to be twofold. On the one hand, the truths of faith cannot participate in the rational inquiry, because according to Aquinas faith lacks the evidence searched for by natural reason. On the other hand, since Aquinas holds that faith is the assent to the revelation due to the love for God that is granted by God himself, the believer will take faith as more certain than intellect and science, and the truths of faith will constitute the orientation and criterion of her/his rational investigation. The truths shall constitute orientation because the believer aims to confirm by reason what she/he already believes. They will also be criterion, because in case of a contradiction between rational arguments and revealed truths, reason must be considered mistaken and the rational investigation must start anew from the beginning.