Science or Scripture?

Summa Theologica is a discussion of the components of religion. According to Aquinas, "... things which are beyond man's knowledge may not be sought for by man though his reason, nevertheless, what is revealed by God must be accepted through faith" (386). His discussion tackles the idea that religion can not be classified only in one category and must consist of both to make sense. I agree with this idea and definitely think that small parts are gathered together in this case to make up an entire idea. When taken just as parts, each one is significant for its own reasons but isn't as powerful as the end result. Each article he presents a different idea that is subsequently tackled to be shut down. He says things like, “It seems that sacred doctrine is a practical science, for a practical science is that which ends in action, according to the Philosopher” (388). In the first quote we assume he is siding with a philosophical stand point, we move down to the second and realize that the complete opposite is stated here. There is no side taken by Aquinas because he is pushing for the idea that they can not exist for the purpose of doctrine separately. This is like the idea that language is a sum of its parts. Words mean one thing on their own but when placed into a context their meaning may or may not change. Here we have a repeated mention of how technical science is and very close behind it we are convinced about how scriptures and doctrines were written by people who were only capable of thinking scientifically and therefore have to have meaning behind it all. I think that because he constantly repeats ideas he supports, he wants his reader to focus on that which is key, not just the body of the text.