that's why Orthodox rely on icons

and pictures so much

i mean the pope is an icon of catholicism i’d say

and they’re quite reliant on him

Catholics, as in referring to the ideology, are not Aristotelicians by any stretch of the imagination, Galileo's head rolled because the one and only Aristotelician ideal that the Catholic Church supported (all others were rejected) was the geocentric model and Galileo threatened that. The Church as a whole didn't apologize for doing this until 1996.

They are heavily reliant on dogma, not Aristotelician ideals.

@Deleted User

Thomism dude

look it up

it's like the defining catholic ideology of the renaissance

it's litteraly the most aristotelician philosopher since aristotle

also Boece

Thomism led to the strengthening and rebranding of the Catholic church and Calvinism led to the strengthening and defining of the Protestant movement. A passage from Aquineas, "We do not perceive by an immediate intuition that God exists, nor do we prove it a priori. But we do prove it a posteriori, i.e., from the things that have been created, following an argument from the effects to the cause" paraphrased down to, "God exists because nothing here would be here without God." That is dogmatic

actually read the summa theologica

or the summa contra gentiles

it's about empirical analysis of god and his creation

it's obviously dogmatic but still aristotelician

dogmatism isn't contradictory to aristotle

i don't agree with it but it's dishonesty to reject it's aristotelician basis

coming from maimonid and averroes

"Empirical analysis of god and his creations", not the empirical analysis of EVERYTHING but just assuming that God created everything, Aristotle was the student of Plato whom in turn was the student of Socrates and they came to the general consensus that everything must be questioned and that there is nothing to be taken for granted.

that's also Aquinas's point

that we can get anything for granted because we are mere mortals

but it's an argument he's pushing with analysis

the whole introduction of the summa contra gentiles says it

"nothing can be proven thus here are arguments why I believe this to be true"

What I'm stating is though he views religion with an analytical view point, Aristotle questioned everything and made no incorruptible premise

ok yeah i stand with you on that, but the thomist methodology and dialectics follows aristotle

like "with reason i can prove that god is real with the philosopher's dialectics"

it's more of a point than an affirmation

like "this is why I believe"

not "this is the truth"

Which difffers from Aristotle, whom sought "truth", not "belief"

that's what i got from reading the summas

because god is surpassing our reason, then the only way to demonstrate if he is or isn't real is based on argumentation and reason

the truth of god is completely out of reach

so how do we prove or disprove his existence

that's why thomas wrote the summas

i'm not disagreeing with you, just nuancing it

He wouldn't have lived to the age he did if he asked, "How do we know God exists?", he pushed the ideology of "Can't disprove it, so why not God exist?" to push the beliefs of the Catholic church

yeah, that's the whole point of Scolastics I agree