Pints With Aquinas - 115: Tell us about your argument from motion

Episode Date: July 17, 2018

Show notes: http://pintswithaquinas.com/podcast/tell-us-about-the-argument-for-gods-existence-from-motion/ SPONSORS EL Investments: https://www.elinvestments.net/pints Exodus 90: https://exodus90.com/mattfradd/  Hallow: http://hallow.app/mattfradd  STRIVE: https://www.strive21.com/  GIVING Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show. LINKS Website: https://pintswithaquinas.com/ Merch: https://teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: https://www.strive21.com/ SOCIAL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattfradd Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd MY BOOKS  Does God Exist: https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist-Socratic-Dialogue-ebook/dp/B081ZGYJW3/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586377974&sr=8-9 Marian Consecration With Aquinas: https://www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecration-Aquinas-Growing-Closer-ebook/dp/B083XRQMTF/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586379026&sr=8-4 The Porn Myth: https://www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myth-P1985.aspx CONTACT Book me to speak: https://www.mattfradd.com/speakerrequestform  

Welcome to Pints with Aquinas, everybody! I don't know why I'm whispering, but welcome! What's up? If you could sit down over a pint of beer with Thomas Aquinas and ask him any one question, what would it be? In today's episode, we're going to ask Aquinas about his argument from motion. Buckle up. Yes, good to have you back here at Pints with Aquinas,

the show where you and I pull up a barstool next to the angelic doctor to discuss theology and philosophy. As I already said in today's episode, we are going to ask Aquinas about his argument from motion. I'm going to read from the Sumithiologiae. I'm going to break it down for you. And then we're going to take some of your questions. And there are some really interesting questions in here. Also, in today's episode, I've got somewhat of a big announcement, at least a plan. And so please stick around for that. I think you're going to find that interesting. What else? I was just in New York City and guess who I bumped into? Bishop Robert Barron. Yep. I'm going to throw up a photo

in the show notes just so you can see it because it's super funny. It was the day that I decided to wear my DC superhero t-shirt. Nothing says, hi, Bishop Barron, take me seriously than a comic book hero shirt. Of course, I was staying on Bleecker Street in Manhattan, so I should have wore a Doctor Strange shirt for those geeks who understood that reference. Anyway, that was kind of fun. But yeah, I think you're going to enjoy the episode. Hope you enjoyed last week's episode. We got some great feedback from last week's episode. We also had some people saying that they really disliked the episode and thought it was very misleading. One such writer, Philip, who is a patron, thanks, Philip, didn't like the episode at all. Not because he's a strict

creationist, but because he thought that there were some things said by Father Nicanor and myself that were misleading and or false. He recommends if you want to read a book that shows why there are holes in Darwin's theory, again, not so that you can be a strict creationist, but why we shouldn't take maybe Darwin's theory of evolution as the final word, get Stephen Meyer's book called Darwin's Doubt. He says it's a breezy read and he'd make a good guest on the show. Problem with these things, you know, is that you talk to people about stuff and you know very little about that stuff. I mean you, I mean me. I don't know much about the stuff. So, when somebody says something, I don't even know what I don't know. I don't know what I know and don't know in order to push back on what they've just said. I think that's true with most of us.

These are very complex topics. But I would say this, in the show notes of last week's episode, I threw up a video of Father Nicanor. And I've actually been to one of his presentations. And again, I find myself convinced by evolution. I guess we could quibble about the holes that might be therein. And I don't think anyone who would be a proponent of Darwinism would say that there aren't any holes or couldn't be any holes or the holes won't show up eventually. But anyway, look, in the format of an interview, it's difficult to kind of be thorough and precise. That's kind of the charm of podcast conversations is that you can sort of just chat back and forth leisurely without being too worried

about what you say. So, go and listen to his video if you're interested, because he might be able to sort of explain in a more thorough way what his points were that didn't come through on the podcast. That said, I know people will still maybe quibble with it, but anyway, I thought it was a good episode. You know, speaking – knowledge is a bloody funny thing, don't you think? funny thing, don't you think? I think it was the evangelical philosopher, Plantinga, who said, when most of us think of our epistemology, epistemology is the study of how we know things, we tend to think of like, you know, one brick neatly laid upon another brick, laid upon another brick, and that what we know is analogous to a skyscraper, you know, that we know all these things from top to bottom. But he says in reality, I think it's him again, I'm not sure. He says for most of us, it's less like a neat skyscraper and

more like just clumps of brick laying here on the cement, here over there on the cement. We know so little. That's not an argument for skepticism. It's just, I think, the way things are for most of us. I mean, even when you think of a PhD, I mean, the whole point of a PhD is to narrow in so precisely on some fine topic that no one else has thought about it this much yet. But it's like, that doesn't mean you know how to hang up your curtains. It's like, just because you have a PhD doesn't mean that you know how to, well, change a light bulb. And I was sitting with my wife the other day, we were having dinner. And I said to her, it sounds like a silly question, but I said, what's cinnamon? Where does it come from? She said, I think it comes from bark, doesn't it? I said, I think

you're right. I think it does come from bark. But what is it? She said, well, it's a spice. And I said, what's spice? She said, what do you mean? I said, well, I don't know what spice is. I mean, I know it's the stuff you put on food to, I guess, season it. But is all food that you put on other food seasoning? I mean, you wouldn't call mint a spice, would you? She said, I'm not sure. I said, neither am I. And you know what? I haven't even looked it up. I'm going to look it up right now while I talk to you. But the point is, we know so very little. And that doesn't mean we can't know things that we can't. But see, look up. Who is spice? Who the bugger? Some Jamaican singer. I'm not interested in you.

Spice, like a definition? Hopefully, they don't give me a definition. Okay. An aromatic or pungent vegetable substance used to flavor food. All right, cool. So, cloves, pepper. All right, so that's good to know. Vegetable substance. But okay, but then is what's cinnamon? Do you guys know what this is? Cinnamon.

It's a spice, but it's not a vegetable, is it? Okay, I need to know what cinnamon is a spice. Okay. So it's a spice from the inner bark of several tree species. But is it a vegetable? What's a bloody vegetable? I don't even know what a vegetable is. You think I'm joking. Cinnamon is a vegetable. I don't know. Stick around. Is cinnamon vegetable? Okay. See, here we go. This might be why I don't know. Stick around. Is cinnamon a vegetable? Okay, see, here we go. This might be why I don't know what a... Why is Covenant Eyes blocking that website? Come on, Covenant Eyes. Clearly, that has no porn in it. It's a question about vegetables. Anyway, the opening line says, the word vegetable isn't a technical term, really, unlike fruit. You'd normally classify

cinnamon as a spice. See, this is where things get bloody dicey. Is cinnamon a fruit or a vegetable? Boldybodybuilding.org. Why am I telling you about this? I'm going to get lots of nasty comments on this YouTube video of y'all telling me that I'm wasting y'all's time. But anyway, yeah, it's hard. Like, there's so much we don't know. Anyway, yeah, it's hard. Like there's so much we don't know. Like try and define a hot dog. Try it.

Anyway. So anyway, I hope you liked last week's episode. Speaking of things that are very difficult to understand, I want to talk about Aquinas' argument from motion today. Let's just totally break from that cinnamon discussion to Aquinas' argument on motion very awkwardly as I drink from my coffee. Oh, yes, baby. I've been drinking espresso lately, but I'm really starting to like not drinking espresso. It's more leisurely to drink a full cup of Guadalupe Roastery coffee.

All right. Here's some things that I usually complain about when evaluating critiques online of Aquinas' five ways. You've heard me say this. They don't realize that Aquinas' five ways are summaries for beginners. Suppose in 100 years from now, we were all studying a summary of, you know, like Dawkins, you know, let's say he wrote a summary of his arguments, his argument, I think he has one, against God's existence. People would rightly protest, you know, and say, look, you're not really taking him seriously if all you're doing is reading his summary. And they'd be right. And I think similarly, we can't just look at his summaries. We've got to think of his full fleshed out thought. Now you say, well, what do you mean? And what is his

fleshed out thought? Well, let me just give you an example. Okay. Like in the first way, the argument from motion. In the Summa Theologiae, he takes one paragraph to explain it. And so most people look at that and say, that's everything anybody has ever had to say about the argument from motion. In the Summa Contra Gentiles, Thomas takes, depending on your translation, around 21 paragraphs, right? One to 21. I mean, big difference there. So, we got to do a lot more than just look at the Summa Theologiae. You know, I've known for a while that Aquinas' five ways weren't original to him. He has original insights and developments in each of the five ways, but the basic arguments don't come from him. And I've known, like, for example,

the first and the fifth way, the argument from motion and finality come from Aristotle, but I wasn't aware where the others come from, and I spoke with my good mate, Carlo Brassard, who is an amazing apologist over at Catholic Answers. Anyway, he helped me with this. the argument from causality, if read existentially, then we can see that it's rooted in Avicenna, who's an 11th century Islamic philosopher. We spoke about him before. The third way, some parts are rooted in Aristotle and other parts are rooted in Averroes, who's a 12th century Islamic philosopher. And even we see it somewhat developed in Maimonides, the Jewish philosopher from the, I think, 12th century. The fourth way seems to be a meshing of Plato and Aristotle. So again, you can go into these different works. So for example, the third way, I think you can find the argument from contingency, if you want to call it that, in the De Caelo

by Aristotle. So, you can actually go into these philosophers and see where they use these arguments. These aren't original to Aquinas, but some things are unique to Aquinas in each of these five ways. So, just to give one example, if you look at the fourth way, Aristotle didn't use gradations of truth to get to God, whereas Aquinas does, obviously. All right. So, here's what I want to do. I'm going to read the first way from the Summa Theologiae, then I'm going to give you my breakdown of it. Then maybe we'll take some Q&A. And then at the end of the episode, I want to read everything Aquinas has to say in the Summa Contra Gentiles to sort of round out this episode. Now, some of you might get to that part of the interview and you think to yourself, no way, I'm done. That's too much. I don't want to

go. I don't want to listen to you read 21 paragraphs of Thomas. And that's fine. But I know that there's some of you here who might really like that. So let's begin with Aquinas' first way and from the Summa Theologiae. The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. Now, you notice he says more manifest. So, for Aquinas, all of these five ways will get us to God, but he thinks the most manifest way, the most maybe convincing way, is this one, the argument from motion. Aquinas says, it's certain and evident to our senses that in the world some things are in motion. Now, whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion. Whereas a thing moves in as much as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the

reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality except by something in a state of actuality. Thus, that which is actually hot as fire makes wood which is potentially hot to be actually hot and thereby moves and changes it. Now, it's not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot, but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect, in the same way, a thing should be both mover and moved, that is, that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by

another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another and that by another again, but this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover and consequently no other mover. Seeing that subsequent movers move only in as much as they are put in motion by the first mover, as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at a first mover put in motion by no other, and this everyone understands to be God.

What does that mean? All right, here's what it means. When we look at the world around us, All right, here's what it means. When we look at the world around us, okay, it's obvious to us that things change, which might be a more helpful word than Aquinas' motion. Because by motion, he means some sort of change, the reduction of actuality to potentiality. Here's some examples. We see things grow and die, like my dog Lucy who died last week. Or we see objects change in size, like me when I'm forsaking my paleo diet and just eating cake and drinking stuff I shouldn't drink. Things change color. They change location. So, how is it that things change? Now, that might

sound like a silly question, but it mightn't be. It actually puzzled ancient philosophers. Parmenides, I believe. Yes, Parmenides, right? So much, it puzzled these people so much that some of them just denied it. And again, this is Parmenides, right? He just said, nothing changes. Freaking love that, by the way. I just think that is so hilarious. So, if I remember correctly, Parmenides said something like this, all that exists, all that can exist is being. All right? Now, if something were to change, well, then that would be an example of non-being coming into being or being going into non-being. But non-being doesn't exist. All that there is is being.

Therefore, there is no change. And so he said, it seems like things change. I'll grant you that. But if you have a good think about it, you'll agree with me that nothing changes and we're just hallucinating or something like that. Like, everything's just an illusion. I think that's bloody brilliant, you know? But, you know, so it's not a silly question. I think sometimes things seem boring to us, not because they're boring, but because we are.

But if you actually think about these things, they're not as silly as they think. So, all right, consider this. How does liquid water become solid ice? Now, you might just say water freezes when it gets really cold or something like that. But what does that mean? What does it mean to say that when water gets really cold, it freezes? Well, it would mean that in some weird way, the property of being solid is in the water in some way, right? This makes water different from other things like truth. You can't freeze truth. Truth can't become a solid object like an ice cube. Now, liquid water obviously isn't solid. And so, that's why I say that this property of being solid has to, and not being solid, it has to exist in some sense in water, you know, and it has to exist at the same time because it can be both solid and not solid.

Now, this seems like a contradiction since a being can't have the property X and not X at the same time and in the same way. Like a man can either be married or he can be a bachelor, but he can't be a married bachelor. A shape can be a square or it could be a circle or some other shape, but it cannot be a square circle. So, how do you resolve this apparent contradiction? The only way, and this is Aristotle's genius, right, that sort of helps solve this issue. The only way to resolve this apparent contradiction is to realize that things can exist either in actuality as realized or brought to expression or in potentiality. That is to say, not yet realized or brought to expression. So, liquid water is actually wet, yes, but it's potentially solid.

The property of being solid, therefore, like we've said, exists in the water in some way. Well, that's some way. By some way, I mean as potential. So, it only becomes actual if something outside the water, like cold air temperature, makes it become actual or actualizes it. Another way of putting it, right? Same is true for the bachelor, you know? Like maybe you're listening to me right now and you're a bachelor. Well, you're potentially married. And that potential can be actualized if a young woman or not so young woman, depending on how old you are, I guess, comes along and says, I do. In the right circumstances, of course. Not just, you know, do you have a hat?

I do. Okay. So, have me the right circumstances. So, like the potentiality of an unmarried man to be a married man can be actual do. Okay. So, it had to be the right. So, like the potentiality of an unmarried man to be a married man can be actualized. Okay. So, there are other similar, like we could list a bunch of other similar cases, but they prove two things. And by the way, if this sounds like I'm just stating the obvious, it's because I am, but you need to do that, you know, when you're trying to think through these arguments, because there will be people who try and quibble with everything.

They prove two things. Number one, change occurs when potential becomes actual. And the second thing it proves is that nothing can actualize itself. All right. So to get back to the analogy of like ice cubes, like liquid water in a tray of ice cubes can't freeze itself apart from cold air or special chemicals, I guess. I'm not sure. The tray also can't, like you couldn't put it in the freezer unless something else that's, you know, actually puts it in the freezer. And maybe there's something in the way and you have to move that. But those other actualizers, like the freezer's cold air or the hands that move the tray are also examples of an actualized potential. So, hands move when arms move and

arms move when the brain sends a signal to the muscles and the brain is moved by other stuff. Speaking about stuff, I don't know know i got no idea how it works like physiological processes so similarly freezes like okay so that's the hand but then the other actualizer we mentioned was the freezer and so it's like okay well freezes turn on when electricity runs through their circuits why does electricity run through its circuits well Well, because of other forces, I don't know, like in wiring or something, right? So, the point is these actualizers that are actualizing the potential of something else are themselves, can be in a set of potentiality or are in a set of potentiality. So, here's the question we have to confront. Why is there any change or

motion at all? Why isn't there just nothing or just a static, immovable, motionless universe devoid of change that's always existed, right? Things don't change or move on their own. We know that. I remember I was at a debate once with Trent Horn and he made this point. It was super funny. He said, things don't move on their own. And if they do, you freak out and call Ghostbusters, right? They don't move on their own. So, our answer has to include a more complete account of the beings that actualize potential, resolving the question to some source or causal ground, the still point of the turning world, you might say. Now, some people might say that this chain of movers actualizing potential could just be infinitely long, and this is what people do,

in fact, say. This is what Dawkins has said. This is what other YouTube atheists have said. This sort of misses the point, right? Their point is, okay, well, yeah, I get it. Things can't actualize themselves. They need things outside of them to actualize them. But, you know, maybe this change is infinitely long and you might not like that, but that still might be the case. And by saying that, they're saying, well, there doesn't need to be an ultimate explanation in the way that Aquinas wants to say. Like it's not needed anymore. But this doesn't actually explain why there's any motion in the first place. Like in other words, from where does the chain of movers derive this capacity to cause motion? That would be the line. So, if you're reading this,

that's what I want you to highlight. I need some sort of bell so I can make, you know, sentences stand out more to you. I don't know what you're doing right now. But that's the point, right? Like, where does the chain of movers derive this capacity to cause motion? This is what Aquinas is arguing as I drink from my coffee. I'm so sorry. You have to hear me drink coffee in your ears. That's got to be the grossest thing ever. So I suppose you could have, like I said, let's just try and deal with that for a second. Okay. In that scenario, right? Even if you have like an infinite number of movers, we could still ask why is there motion instead of just an infinitely long chain of beings that are frozen because they exist in a world without motion or change? Like, just adding movers to the series doesn't solve this problem.

It only delays giving an adequate answer to the problem. As there's a Dominican scholar, philosopher, Gary Goulagrange, how's that? Gary Goulagrange, Reginald Gary Goulagrange, he says this. He says, here's a direct quote from him, to do away with the supreme cause is to claim that, as someone has said, a brush will paint by itself, provided it has a very long handle. That's funny. Another way to think about this that I find helpful

is thinking about a train. Okay? Train cars on their own can't move themselves. And this is true no matter the length of the train, right? Even if you have like an infinite series of, you know, train cars, it's going to stand perfectly still if it's composed of nothing but train cars. Like to an order, in order to explain the most, this is sort of what happens when you, in Australia, this is very common, a lot of flat land, especially towards the middle of the country. And you've got this big train called the Gann that goes from Perth to Sydney.

My uncle used to work there as a chef. And sometimes you'll come up to this bloody railroad and you'll look, you know, left and right. And all you see, right, is train cars. It appears like it's infinitely long. But of course, you know that there has to be something else than train cars. Even though you don't see what it is that's moving it, you just know that there has to be because train cars on their own can't move themselves. Even if, like there's an, even if I was right and it was like, dad, this looks like an infinite series of train cars on their own can't move themselves. Even if I was right and it was like, Dad, this looks like an infinite series of train cars. Yes, you're right, it is. That's why they move. That doesn't make any sense. In order to explain the motion of the train,

you need something that doesn't merely receive motion, but actually gives motion without receiving it from anything else. In other words, you need a locomotive. Now, since as we've seen, motion or change, remember, is just the actualization of potential. The ultimate cause of the universe can't have anything potential about it. If it did, then its own motion or change could only be explained by something else. Right? This gets back to our discussions on divine simplicity. And when we were talking about an infinite chain of causes earlier on, we realized that this actually doesn't get us anywhere. So, the first cause or first mover, Aquinas wants to say, is not just one more mover

immersed in the web of interdependent movers. Instead, it imparts to all lesser movers their very capacity to move. It actualizes. Again, by actualize, I mean sets in motion, the whole web of movers. This first cause of the motion and change in the universe, Aquinas says, and this is what the argument gives you if it works, is pure actuality or pure act. It has nothing potential about it. It's moved by nothing else, but it just is pure actual existence, or to put it simply, existence itself. Now, if it is existence itself, pure act, then it must be necessary, right? It cannot fail to exist. If it could fail to exist, then it would be in a state of potentiality.

The potential to not exist. For the same reason, the first mover can't be made of matter. Aquinas has like, he actually gives three arguments in the Summa for why God isn't matter. But one of those reasons is that matter always has some kind of potential, whether that is to be divided or moved. So it can't be subject to time since time is a measure of motion. And we said that the first mover is unmoved. So, instead, the cause of all motion and change must exist beyond space and time as unchanging and eternal. If this first mover is pure unlimited existence, right, without potential, then the first mover must also be infinite, not finite, not limited, and it also has to be all-powerful. So, that's an interesting thing, right?

Like, why does it have to be all-powerful? And I think this is again what I'm a fan of William Lane Craig's arguments, but this is what it seems to me that he is unable to offer from his basic arguments anyway. You know, for example, when he uses his Kalam argument and he says, God must, this cause must be powerful, if not all powerful, since it brought something into being from nothing. If you've ever listened to his debates, that's what he says. But for Aquinas, the reason God has to be all powerful is that if there was something this first cause couldn't do, like provided the operation isn't contrary, like, anyway, that's a different discussion. If there was something God couldn't do, that would represent a limit or potentiality. So, that sounds very boring, but that's kind of Aquinas' answer to why God has to be all-powerful. He says a lot more, of course. Okay, final point that we should make. This cause, and again, we're just sticking to the

first way here. I'm not trying to get into the others. This cause is also the source of all change that moves from imperfect to more perfect. So, all perfections, including changes in perfection like growth and knowledge and goodness, come from an all-knowing, all-good source of change. In other words, the motion and change in our universe can only be explained by an infinite, necessary, eternal, immaterial, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good cause, or what most people call God. Fascinating, I think. I think it's really fascinating stuff. Now, again, I don't think that this argument is what I would bust out, but I like it. I think it's a good argument. And when I read it, I get the sense that there's a fullness here, even though I don't fully comprehend it. It's funny, Aquinas didn't say that everybody would

know that God exists by philosophy. He said you could know it through philosophy, but he said, no, some people aren't smart enough. And I really do consider myself to be in that category. I read these arguments like, yeah, I see it. I see it. But anyway, I think a lot of people, it's like we have other things to do and stuff like that. But I think it's a fascinating argument. If you want to learn more, you could always get my book, Does God Exist? A Socratic Dialogue and the Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas, which you can get for free, by the way, a signed copy for free if you want to start being a patron of Pints with Aquinas. That'd be super cool if you want to do that. Just go to patreon.com slash Matt Fradd. But there's kind of the basic gist of it. Now, hey, before I read what Aquinas says from the Summa Contra Gentiles, for those of you who

are like super eager, I want to let you know about a project that I'm looking to do. If you haven't yet subscribed to my YouTube channel, there's a good reason for you to want to start doing that because for a while now, I've been wanting to do sit down video interviews with people. And this is a difficult thing to do. I have to say, I definitely don't agree with Joe Rogan on everything, nor do I agree on all of his choice of language or things like that. I definitely don't agree with Dave Rubin, who's maybe you haven't heard of these people, but they sit down with people and chat for like two to three hours on different topics. And I thought to myself, I'd love to do that because I know so many interesting people. Like I'd love to fly down

Christopher West or Father Mike Schmitz to Atlanta, sit down for two hours and just chat so that you're not just getting soundbites from these people. You're not just getting the rehearsed verbiage that they're accustomed to giving because they've given certain talks a certain amount of times. I want to delve into their thought and ask them interesting questions and just have back and forths. So I want to do that. Is it expensive? Oh my gosh. There's a reason I think right now that there's no one doing this in the Catholic world. Like there's people who like do Skype interviews and they do a good job of that. But as far as like flying people in, sitting them down, having a professional studio, this is something I'm looking at doing. Now,

I might not end up doing it, right? Because it might just be way too expensive. But this is something that I want to do. So, let me just kind of give you a quick breakdown of like how much that's looking to cost. I'm looking at this. I think what I'll do in the beginning is if I can do this at all is I might do like one of these sit down interviews a month. But that's going to cost me about like, I could buy all the equipment myself and pay the guy to do all this stuff. But that costs a lot of money. So I'm thinking, okay, I pay like $1,000 to a studio. Okay, right. There you go. Here's $1,000. They've got like three cameras set up. They helped me build this set. It looks awesome. Okay. I'm assuming I don't have to pay for the building of the set. I think they could probably cobble something together. Next thing that happens is let's say I want to get a speaker out. Well, I can't just say, hey, leave your family and just come be with me. I got to pay them. I got to at least pay their flight. I got to pay their hotel. Like it could cost, it could cost about like $3,000 like for an interview. Now, if I was to do weekly interviews, then the

studio would charge me a lot less. But that's what I'm looking to do right now. So, follow me on YouTube and start supporting me on Patreon. I've been super impressed at how many people have begun supporting me on Patreon because they believe in the work that I'm doing. Right now, I'm looking at reshaping all of my gifts on Patreon. It's been a crazy, like, several months. My wife's been in the hospital. She's had major surgery. We've moved house. So, I really want to make Patreon the best experience for all of you guys.

So, I'm actually looking at totally redoing all of these tiers right now so that it's, like, super great. looking at totally redoing all of these tiers right now so that it's like super great. But right now, you know, like if you want the Pints of the Climax beer style, you give 20 bucks a month, you want the signed book, but then there's all those other free things that come along with it. And I'm going to think about a lot of other things with your help, dear patrons, on how I can make this the best experience for you. Because as I say, like this is a lot of money. And so the money that I'm raising at this point isn't going to my personal whiskey collection fund, although that would be cool. It's going to projects like this. So if you want something like that to happen, why don't you do that? Go to patreon.com slash Matt Fradd and

support me. And I think that would just be fun. I would just love to do something like that. This has been such a joy doing these episodes. And I'm so honored to all of you who think that this little podcast is worth your attention, but also worth your money. You know, 10 bucks a month, 20. I just greatly appreciate it. I know there's people who are giving like one buck a month, five bucks a month. Thank you so much. Like, yeah, y'all are awesome. Okay. Now it's time for some of your questions. All right. I just paused the audio there went upstairs refreshed the old coffee sent my amazing patrons a post and so here are the questions that are rolling in like right now bobby vogel says what does aquinas have to say about celebrating feast days how does one do that properly um without doing any research, I don't know if

Aquinas says anything specifically about celebrating feast days. How does one do that properly? That's a good question. Obviously, there are major feast days and what we might call minor feast days. And so, it might be a little exhausting to celebrate every single feast since there are feasts almost every single day. But I know for us, we like to celebrate our children's saint day, especially. Like my daughter, Avila, is obviously named after Teresa of Avila. My son, Liam's middle name is Augustine, named after Saint Augustine. And so, we like to celebrate these feast days. So, that would be a good idea. Yeah, just kind of being mindful of it. So, like, I know

The Magnificat is a great little read and it'll help you stay, you know, it'll help you realize when the feast days are coming up and they won't just sort of catch you flat footed. Yeah. So, I don't know. That's what I'd think. So, you know, if you have a specific saint that you like to venerate, you might go to Holy Mass on that day, ask for their specific intercession. You know, in the social media world, you might also just like post out quotes from them and images from them to help other people learn about them. Adrian Boudreaux says, what are your thoughts on the Jordan Peterson phenomenon? Have you been following him at all? I have been following Jordan Peterson and I really enjoy Jordan Peterson. I think he's very bright. And I read most of his book,

and I learned a lot from it, got a lot from it. I think he's excellent. I think he's somebody that doesn't speak in soundbites. And so it's very easy to take a couple of sentences from him and totally misconstrue what he's trying to say. I like to listen to the interviews that he's done with Joe Rogan on Joe Rogan's podcast. They're like three hours and 40 minute episodes, you know. I think he's excellent. What do I think about the phenomenon? I don't, it's a really interesting question. We're living in a crazy, crazy, crazy age, aren't we? I mean, just look, Trump, Brexit, no one expected either of those things to happen, or at least many people didn't expect those

things to happen. What is going on? I have this thought that people on, to use a term that we might not all agree with, but the left, So you think like the Hollywood elites and like those politicians, you know, who are all pro-LBGT, LGBTQ, alphabet soup, and people who are, you know, pro-abortion. And it feels like a lot of them are preaching to themselves. So like when Oprah got up and said, live your truth, and everyone clapped, and they talked about the Me Too movement. And of course, there are good things about the Me Too movement. I'm not disparaging that, but it feels like they're preaching to themselves. I'm not a huge fan at all of Trump's character. He seems like a really flawed human being, but it doesn't... Do I have to say everything he does is wrong? Because when you watch mainstream

media, it sounds like that's what you have to say. That's the dogma that you have to submit to in the secular world. And you look at all these so-called comedians who are just like trashing on Trump. It's like, oh my gosh, like there's something weird here. It's like there's small amounts of people who are all talking to themselves and then there's the rest of us who are like, I don't know, man. It feels like there's this underground group of people. And it seems like those were the ones responsible for, say, Trump's election. Again, I'm not making any specific claim on whether that was a fantastic thing or not. I think it was better than Hillary. And I'm certainly not promoting Trump. But my only point is the fact that these mainstream media people are getting caught off guard by these big decisions seems to say to me

that they're not in touch with regular people and that there's a lot of regular people who are making these big things happen. So there's just all this crazy stuff going on. And Jordan Peterson comes along and he seems to have some really insightful things to say that are upsetting both people on the left and the right. So, yeah, I have, just to follow up there, I have listened to him. I really enjoy what he has to say. Claire Barry says, do you read any non-heavy theological Catholic books? Any suggestions? All right, Claire. Good question. I just bought The Brothers Karamazov yesterday again, because the old book won't do it anymore. It doesn't work. It's a joke. I tried reading it about five years ago, and I found it very difficult. But I'm thinking about taking

all of August off from the internet. I'll explain more about that in an very difficult. But I'm thinking about taking all of August off from the internet. I'll explain more about that in an upcoming episode. But I think I'm going to read that, The Brothers Karamazov, next month. But yeah, I need to read more fiction because a lot of the stuff I read is kind of dense philosophical books. Thanks, Claire. Scott bainfield says could satan and his angels be forgiven could satan be redeemed could other angels fall wow it's a lot of good questions there um satan uh will not see the difference between the angels and us is that the angels are sort of intellect, but they don't have the concupiscence or the passions that we have. So, the understanding is that when Satan and the angels fell, that this was prior to the beatific vision. So, when you say, could other angels fall?

The answer would be no, any more than you and I could be in heaven and fall. Because when they, after having been given that choice, say they fell or they came into the presence of God, we might say, and now that they're in the presence of God, their decision has been ratified. And so, Satan will not repent and the demons will not repent and therefore, they cannot be forgiven. There's a really interesting picture of this in Dante's Inferno where Satan, you know, you often think of Satan, you think of the flames of hell, but Dante imagines Satan trapped in ice all the way up to his sort of belly and he's flapping his wings violently, right? And he will not repent. And the beating

of his wings is what freezes the waters of hell. So, it's his continual resistance that keeps him imprisoned, but he will not repent. So, I think it's fair to say Satan and his angels will not be forgiven because they will not repent. And other angels cannot fall because their decision has been ratified. We did one episode on the angels where I shared a talk from Peter Kreeft. If you go to pintswithaquinas.com in the search bar, type in angels. That might interest you. Thank you very much. Your next question is, can the DC Universe films be redeemed? You know, I don't know. Probably, probably not. I really enjoyed the Justice League, okay? Like, again, I know that goes against what everyone is saying, but I don't care. I bloody

well like Justice League. I thought it was a fun movie. I didn't go there to have my life changed. I went there to have a good time. I really enjoyed Flash. Wonder Woman is like the greatest female protagonist in, I think, all of the comic book world by a long shot. The videos especially is what I mean. And I liked what they did with Aquaman. I thought it was really cool that they showed Superman's superiority to the other. I liked it a lot. You know what I don't like? I don't like when they trot out a massive monster that's so big you can't even be afraid of him anymore, because he's like the size of the universe. I don't like that. I like the kind of more sinister ones, like the Joker. I love the Joker. Definitely the best kind of more sinister ones, like the Joker, you know? I love the Joker. Definitely

the best kind of villain in the comic book world, I think. So yeah, I don't know. I haven't gone to see Ant-Man and the Wasp, but I really look forward to that. I'm kind of done with the rest of it. Like, yeah, Ragnarok was fine. And then the Thor Ragnarok, and then the latest one, Thanos thing was, that was fine, but I'm kindagnarok, and then the latest one, Thanos thing. That was fine, but I'm kind of done. Like, I'm really kind of done. If I never, like, speaking of Star Wars for a moment, if I never see another Star Wars movie as long as I live, that'd be just fine with me. I'm kind of over it, a lot of that stuff.

But I did like Ant-Man the first time it came out. I thought it was kind of funny and cute and winsome. So I'll watch that one. Okay. James McPheeters says, did you ever discern the religious life or single life, consecrated or not? If so, how did you discern marriage as your vocation? Thanks, James. I was seriously discerning the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal for a couple of years. I went and lived with them in England, prayed about it a great deal. At the end of the day, I think the reason I chose to pursue my wife was that the reason I was looking to the priesthood was out of fear. I was afraid to be a bad father, a bad lover, a bad husband, a bad provider,

that I wouldn't succeed at these things. And I was so afraid of being exposed. And honestly, I think for me, it's like, well, if I was so afraid of being exposed. And honestly, I think for me, it's like, well, if I just wear a habit and a big rosary, then people can like, they'll at least respect that. Now, I didn't say that out loud, you understand. If I said it out loud, I would have seen what I was doing. But it was more just this underlying thing where I was so afraid of being bad at all this stuff. Whereas if I'm a priest, I don't have to worry about any of that stuff. So that was me. So I had some good people who helped me discern marriage. I remember at one point, I was discerning both marriage and the priesthood. And I had a friend say to me, you got to stop

doing that. You got to choose one. He's like, you can't walk two paths at once or you'll split yourself in half. So make a decision. And I made a decision. And I think that's sometimes what we just have to do. We have to make a decision based on what we know. Like God doesn't speak to you in a way that you won't understand. He's not leading you in a way that you have no clue about. I mean, so sometimes I think we hide behind the word discernment because we're afraid to make a decision. But for me, I'm like, okay, I just have to make a decision. I'm going to pursue Cameron. And, you know, glad I did. Nathan asks, I was going to ask a question about evolution, but just realized the newest episodes about evolution. Okay. And he wrote, hashtag profitants.

Thanks, Nathan. Hannah says, perhaps an episode on bioethical questions, dignity with end of life care, transgender surgeries, the topic pregnancy is more focused on how Catholics, especially as healthcare workers, we can think about and respond to these situations. Yep, that's a great point, Hannah. I should do that. It's difficult because Aquinas says very little on these things, obviously, but yes, I grant your point. Megan says, what kicked started your public speaking career after Net Ministries? So this is a fascinating discussion and I wish I could get into it now, but I will bore you all if I do that. Essentially, I was working for NET in Canada. I had a two-year visa.

I was the recruiter there. And I remember my wife and I sitting on the bathroom floor as we bathed our children and saying, okay, we've got a two-year visa. Like either the Lord opens a door or we go back to Australia, and that's fine too. And at least we'll know we gave it a shot because I really did feel called to public speaking and things like this, you know? Well, while I was up in Canada, I got a call from Catholic Answers in San Diego who wanted me to come down for an interview. Now, when we were living in Canada, like I don't mean to overstate this, but it was pretty tough. We couldn't afford, we were definitely beneath the poverty line. We couldn't afford a bed from Salvation Army. We could never afford meat. I mean, it was pretty tough. Two kids, capital city, about 35 grand a year we were making.

It was just really tough. Again, I know people have it much worse. I'm not complaining. It was a tough situation. And so when Catholic Answers said, we'd like to fly you down for an interview, I was like, oh gosh, that'd be amazing. I love Catholic Answers. Flew down there and it turns out it was less like an interview and more like an invitation. And so my wife and I got ready to move to San Diego from Canada. It was funny, they said, we'll pay your moving expenses so we can pay like $5,000 for you to move all your furniture. And we said, no, you don't understand. We have nothing. We have bookshelves and couches, but most of them we found on the side of the road or people gave them to us. And if we try to move this stuff, it'll disintegrate. So they gave us the money they were going to give us to move,

they gave us, and then we went to Ikea and bought a few things there. So anyway, that's kind of how it got started. And then Catholic Answers obviously had a big interest in me traveling and speaking so they could make money and stuff. And so that's kind of how that started. Thank you very much, Megan. I was going to read the argument from motion in the Summa Conscia Gentiles, but honestly, it's too long. And I imagine if I read it, it's going to be difficult to follow unless you yourself are reading it too. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to cut and paste this argument into the show notes, which you can find at pintswithaquinas.com. So be sure to go there and read through this over a beer, because I think you'll get a lot out of it. Big thanks to everybody who listens to Pints with Aquinas. Huge thanks to you if you've supported

us on Patreon or if you've started to. Please leave us a review on iTunes and be sure to tune in next week as we discuss the argument for atheism from God's hiddenness and what to think about that. That'll be a very fascinating discussion. We're going to interview one of our evangelical friends and I'm sure we'll all learn a lot. Thanks so much for listening.

God bless.