Defending Common Rationality: Roger Roseth on Trinitarian Paralogisms

Abstract

In his profession a medieval academic theologian had to strike a balance between two partly incommensurable traditions. On the one hand, as a member of the university community he had to adhere to a scientific framework, which, for the most part, the medievais had inherited from the ancient Greeks. On the other hand, he had to commit himself to the Christian tradition as documented in the sacred scriptures and in the authoritative writings of the church fathers. This tradition originated from a cultural context that differed very much from the Hellenistic world. Despite the fact that the Greek culture had an influence on the new religion during the first Christian centuries, Christianity preserved features peculiar to the monotheistic faith originating from the Semitic world. The tension between the scientific theories that mainly derived from Aristotle's works and Christian doctrines become apparent, firstly, because some Aristotelian views clearly seemed to rebut Christian doctrines,1 and secondly, because certain truths of faith seemed to contradict the rules of Aristotle's logic. When particular arguments of Aristotelian natural philosophy were in conflict with Christian doctrines, a medieval theologian could challenge Aristotle by using the same tools Aristotle himself had used. The common practise was to use logic to show that Aristotle had erred. Sometimes one could demonstrate that on the basis of natural reasoning various conclusions were possible. Thus, for example, natural reason can either regard the world as eternal or created, and since Aristotle