The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. IV Saint Augustine's Philosophy and Theology
I. Pure Philosophy
"Saint Augustine, at most times, does not occupy himself with pure philosophy, but when he does he shows very great ability" (Russell, 352).
Book XI of Confessions is some of his best pure philosophy. Creation, out of nothing as was taught in the Old Testament, was totally foreign to Greek philosophy. Augustine sought to meld philosophy with the Scriptural account of Genesis.
This exercise led to Augustine asking why creation was created sooner. His answer was because there was no sooner. Time was created when the world was created. God is eternal and outside of time. There is only an eternal present for God.
Augustine concludes that time is purely subjective and exists only in the mind.
II. The City of God
The City of God was Augustine's response to the pagan's blaming Rome being sacked in 410 on the abandonment of the old Roman gods.
Augustine opens up the book to point out that sacks of cities have occurred long before Christianity and the fact that some were saved by hiding in Christian churches that were respected by the Goths shows that rather than being a cause of the destruction, Christianity actually helped soften the blow that came to the city.
The Christians do not have to be troubled by the Sack of Rome because they have a sanctuary in the city of God.
"It is true that God has foreknowledge of our sins, but we do not sin because of His foreknowledge" (Russell, 357).
Augustine esteemed Plato as the best philosopher because he was not materialistic. He argued against the Stoic ban on all passions because Christians can be passionate and be virtuous, the cause of the passion is what is to be considered.
"Platonists are right about God, wrong about gods. They are also wrong in not acknowledging
the Incarnation" (Russell, 358).
There is much in the philosophers to be admired but the knowledge of God is obtained only through Christ.
Augustine was so against lust and sex because lust was required for sex and lust was independent of the will. The will was where virtue came from and thus something that can't be controlled by the will was not something to be praised. It had to be tolerated for necessity, but a truly virtuous life would be one without it and the emotions that are attached to it.
"St. Augustine holds that God divided mankind into the elect and the reprobate, not because of their merits or demerits, but arbitrarily. All alike deserve damnation, and therefore the reprobate have no ground of complaint" (Russell, 362).
"What was influential was the separation of Church and State, with the clear implication that the State could only be part of the City of God by being submissive towards the Church in all religious matters. This has been the doctrine of the Church ever since" (Russell, 362).
III. The Pelagian Controversy
Pelagius was a Welshman who taught free will, questioned the doctrine of original sin and believed that by acting virtuously comes by moral effort. Augustine disagreed with these and had them declared heretical.
Augustine taught that the original sin of Adam was passed down to generation upon generation so that everyone born was deserving of damnation. God chooses of his own free will to save some. No reason is given for why some are saved and others are not. "Damnation proves God's justice; salvation His mercy. Both equally display his Goodness" (Russell, 365).
Showing posts with label Original Sin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Original Sin. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
Sunday, July 2, 2017
The Essential Vice
Pride or Self-Conceit is the chief vice of creation. "According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride. Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere fleabites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind" (Lewis, 87).
Pride is essentially competitive by nature. The man that is proud of his wealth, his house or his beautiful wife is not actually proud of those things. He is proud that he is wealthier than so-and-so, that his house is the largest on the block and that in his circle of friends his wife is more beautiful than all the others. If everyone were equally rich, with an equally palatial house and equally beautiful wives the proud man would not be proud. The key to ridding oneself of Pride then is remove the competition. Lewis states that the Christian virtue opposed to Pride is Humility. I wonder if it isn't contentment.
Pride never brings two together. Pride always means enmity, enmity between man and man and enmity between man and God. When you get to know God you realize that He is something that is immeasurably superior to yourself in every aspect. If one does not recognize this fact, one does not know God. "As long as you are proud you cannot know God. A proud man is always looking down on things and people: and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you" (Lewis, 90).
"Pride is a spiritual cancer: it eats up the very possibility of love, or contentment, or even common sense" (Lewis, 92). Pride is the primary sin. It requires very little other than the awareness of the self and of God. It then places the self ahead of God. All other sins than flow forth from pride. "It is the fall in every individual life, and in each day of each individual life, the basic sin behind all particular sins: at this very moment you ad I are either committing it, or about to commit it, or repenting it" (Lewis, 104).
Pride is essentially competitive by nature. The man that is proud of his wealth, his house or his beautiful wife is not actually proud of those things. He is proud that he is wealthier than so-and-so, that his house is the largest on the block and that in his circle of friends his wife is more beautiful than all the others. If everyone were equally rich, with an equally palatial house and equally beautiful wives the proud man would not be proud. The key to ridding oneself of Pride then is remove the competition. Lewis states that the Christian virtue opposed to Pride is Humility. I wonder if it isn't contentment.
Pride never brings two together. Pride always means enmity, enmity between man and man and enmity between man and God. When you get to know God you realize that He is something that is immeasurably superior to yourself in every aspect. If one does not recognize this fact, one does not know God. "As long as you are proud you cannot know God. A proud man is always looking down on things and people: and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you" (Lewis, 90).
"Pride is a spiritual cancer: it eats up the very possibility of love, or contentment, or even common sense" (Lewis, 92). Pride is the primary sin. It requires very little other than the awareness of the self and of God. It then places the self ahead of God. All other sins than flow forth from pride. "It is the fall in every individual life, and in each day of each individual life, the basic sin behind all particular sins: at this very moment you ad I are either committing it, or about to commit it, or repenting it" (Lewis, 104).
Catching up with CS Lewis (again)
I'm terrible at this daily reading thing. I'm on my A Year with C.S. Lewis kick again. It's July 2 and I'm only on February 23. I probably won't catch up today. But we're going to get closer to being on track.
Lewis notes that the Original Sin that our remote ancestors committed wasn't something sexual in nature. In fact he suggests that the corrupt sinful nature we have now is a direct result of the fall. The Original Sin was related to the danger of the self. We sin when we place our self above God. Essentially, the whole of human history and all of its issues are on account of misplacing our priorities. "All that we call human history - money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery - the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy" (Lewis, 59).
Basically, what Lewis is stating is that our Original Sin was substituting our self for God, trading true happiness for something temporary and fleeting. Lewis terms this the turning from God to self. In turning from God to self, the original sin is the creature denying and acting on that denial of the creatures true position in the created order. Lewis calls this turning from God to self the 'self-will'. It is a danger inherent to creatures with Free Will. Lewis remarks that God chose, in His wisdom, to create the world as such - it was a risk that God apparently thought worth taking. In Screwtape Letters the demon writes, "When He [God] talks of their losing their selves, He only means abandoning the glamour of self-will; once they have done that, He really gives them back all their personality, and boasts (I am afraid, sincerely) that when they are wholly His they will be more themselves than ever" (Lewis, 61).
In committing the Original Sin (and whenever we place ourselves above God) we turn to self-will. That self-will is a direct contradiction to the purposes we were created for. As Screwtape says, when we deny the self-will, and surrender our wills to His, we become more ourselves than ever.
Lewis notes that the Original Sin that our remote ancestors committed wasn't something sexual in nature. In fact he suggests that the corrupt sinful nature we have now is a direct result of the fall. The Original Sin was related to the danger of the self. We sin when we place our self above God. Essentially, the whole of human history and all of its issues are on account of misplacing our priorities. "All that we call human history - money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery - the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy" (Lewis, 59).
Basically, what Lewis is stating is that our Original Sin was substituting our self for God, trading true happiness for something temporary and fleeting. Lewis terms this the turning from God to self. In turning from God to self, the original sin is the creature denying and acting on that denial of the creatures true position in the created order. Lewis calls this turning from God to self the 'self-will'. It is a danger inherent to creatures with Free Will. Lewis remarks that God chose, in His wisdom, to create the world as such - it was a risk that God apparently thought worth taking. In Screwtape Letters the demon writes, "When He [God] talks of their losing their selves, He only means abandoning the glamour of self-will; once they have done that, He really gives them back all their personality, and boasts (I am afraid, sincerely) that when they are wholly His they will be more themselves than ever" (Lewis, 61).
In committing the Original Sin (and whenever we place ourselves above God) we turn to self-will. That self-will is a direct contradiction to the purposes we were created for. As Screwtape says, when we deny the self-will, and surrender our wills to His, we become more ourselves than ever.
Monday, March 6, 2017
Some of Lewis' thoughts on Free Will (and a short story idea)
God decided to create the world in such a way that man had free will. For what reason would God choose to create a world in which free will exists, knowing as He did, it could end up going very badly (as it did indeed)? "Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata - of creatures that worked like machines - would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).
God could have created a world where man had free will but chose to erase the Original Sin. But, if God had used some sort of magical eraser to erase the Original Sin or hit the reset button, then He would have continued to have to do it to erase the inevitable Second Original Sin, Third Original Sin, Fourth Original Sin, and so on ad infinitum. But, if He had opted for this course than either the world would have never really gotten going or eventually whatever umpteenth number Original Sin would have eventually started off the course at which we found ourselves.
Lewis states that some people claim to be able to imagine a world in which there is Free Will but no possibility of evil. Lewis denies this. Basically he states that in order to have a world with Free Will but with no possibility for the misusage of Free Will God would have to intervene at an infinite rate to produce miracles after miracles in such a way that they would disrupt the natural order of His creation. There would be no laws of physics or any kind of natural law because God would have to constantly intervene whenever someone tried to do something wrong. The way Lewis writes about this gives me a funny idea for a short story involving Cain and Abel.
The Unfortunate Events of Cain and Abel
Say God had decided to intervene with his magic original sin eraser. After about the three thousandth time of erasing the Original Sin God finally gets fed up with Adam and Eve and casts them out of the Garden. But, after awhile he decides to get back up to the whole reset button and magic eraser routine until Cain and Abel are ready to make their sacrifices. God accepts Abel's but rejects Cain's. Cain is so angry at Abel he calls him every name under the sun, but God, in order to spare the evil from polluting the world alters the sound waves so that Abel doesn't hear all the threats that Cain is making. The problem here becomes twofold. First, it further angers Cain. Second, it leaves Abel completely unaware that his brother is furious with him and wants to kill him. He accepts Cain's overtures to go hang out in the rock pit. Whereupon Cain picks up a rock in anger and tries to hit Abel upside the head, but God quickly changes the law of physics so that whatever Cain throws at Abel will end up harmless. The rock flies at Abel who is suddenly popped in the head with a Watermelon, leaving him stunned, but chuckling. He picks up a rock and pummels Cain with it. God however is so tired of this whole magic eraser business and is busy telling the Holy Spirit his frustration that he doesn't notice Abel throwing the rock at Cain and since He only changed the laws of physics to protect Abel from Cain's sin, Abel inadvertently slew Cain. Totally bemused with his first family and his ill-fated attempts to create perfect children with Free Will he decides to hit the reset button and leaves them Free Will and devises a different plan to get them out of the inevitable mess they'll make.
Lewis, however, is a bit more serious minded than I am. He contends that a world where Free Will exists and God changes their mistakes before they become sin would not only create a world where wrong actions are impossible, but where freedom of the will would become impossible. He also makes a fascinating point about being upset with God for creating a world with the possibility of such evil. He argues that we have no right and no real standing when we argue against God on this matter. God is the very source of our reasoning power, so to use our reasoning power to try and argue against him is not only fruitless, it's a little bit like chopping off the branch we're sitting on to spite the tree. The Tree is still going to be standing once we crashed out onto the ground.
God could have created a world where man had free will but chose to erase the Original Sin. But, if God had used some sort of magical eraser to erase the Original Sin or hit the reset button, then He would have continued to have to do it to erase the inevitable Second Original Sin, Third Original Sin, Fourth Original Sin, and so on ad infinitum. But, if He had opted for this course than either the world would have never really gotten going or eventually whatever umpteenth number Original Sin would have eventually started off the course at which we found ourselves.
Lewis states that some people claim to be able to imagine a world in which there is Free Will but no possibility of evil. Lewis denies this. Basically he states that in order to have a world with Free Will but with no possibility for the misusage of Free Will God would have to intervene at an infinite rate to produce miracles after miracles in such a way that they would disrupt the natural order of His creation. There would be no laws of physics or any kind of natural law because God would have to constantly intervene whenever someone tried to do something wrong. The way Lewis writes about this gives me a funny idea for a short story involving Cain and Abel.
The Unfortunate Events of Cain and Abel
Say God had decided to intervene with his magic original sin eraser. After about the three thousandth time of erasing the Original Sin God finally gets fed up with Adam and Eve and casts them out of the Garden. But, after awhile he decides to get back up to the whole reset button and magic eraser routine until Cain and Abel are ready to make their sacrifices. God accepts Abel's but rejects Cain's. Cain is so angry at Abel he calls him every name under the sun, but God, in order to spare the evil from polluting the world alters the sound waves so that Abel doesn't hear all the threats that Cain is making. The problem here becomes twofold. First, it further angers Cain. Second, it leaves Abel completely unaware that his brother is furious with him and wants to kill him. He accepts Cain's overtures to go hang out in the rock pit. Whereupon Cain picks up a rock in anger and tries to hit Abel upside the head, but God quickly changes the law of physics so that whatever Cain throws at Abel will end up harmless. The rock flies at Abel who is suddenly popped in the head with a Watermelon, leaving him stunned, but chuckling. He picks up a rock and pummels Cain with it. God however is so tired of this whole magic eraser business and is busy telling the Holy Spirit his frustration that he doesn't notice Abel throwing the rock at Cain and since He only changed the laws of physics to protect Abel from Cain's sin, Abel inadvertently slew Cain. Totally bemused with his first family and his ill-fated attempts to create perfect children with Free Will he decides to hit the reset button and leaves them Free Will and devises a different plan to get them out of the inevitable mess they'll make.
Lewis, however, is a bit more serious minded than I am. He contends that a world where Free Will exists and God changes their mistakes before they become sin would not only create a world where wrong actions are impossible, but where freedom of the will would become impossible. He also makes a fascinating point about being upset with God for creating a world with the possibility of such evil. He argues that we have no right and no real standing when we argue against God on this matter. God is the very source of our reasoning power, so to use our reasoning power to try and argue against him is not only fruitless, it's a little bit like chopping off the branch we're sitting on to spite the tree. The Tree is still going to be standing once we crashed out onto the ground.
Thursday, January 28, 2016
365 Day Bible 3 & 4
Day 3 of the 365 Day Bible (still have some catching up to do).
Genesis 5 - 10
Genesis 5:1-2 reminds us that when God created man He did so in the likeness of God, the Imago Dei. Interestingly here, the NIV says the "likeness of God" and not the "image of God". I wonder what the original text states? I know there are some Christian sects that believe that we were created in the image and likeness of God, but after the Fall we lost the 'likeness' and retained the 'image'.
Adam lived 930 years. Seth lived 912 years. Enosh lived 905 years. Kenan lived 910 years. Mahalalel lived 895 years. Jared lived 962 years.
Enoch lived 365 years and unlike his ancestors, the Bible doesn't say 'and then he died'. It states 5:24 "Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away". Is this poetic license? Is it just stating the same thing in a more flowery language? Or is it something else? I don't know.
Methuselah lived 969 years. Lamech lived 777 years. Lamech was the father of Noah.
Noah was the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.
Genesis 6 has some interesting stuff. First, "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose" (6:2). "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown" (6:4). What on earth does that mean? Who were the Nephilim?
In spite of the wickedness of man, Noah alone found favor in the eyes of the Lord. Noah was righteous, blameless and walked with God. God decided to wipe out all living things on account of man who had brought violence to the earth. But, God makes a covenant with Noah (this is the first time God makes a covenant in the Old Testament).
Why does God command Noah to take two of every kind of bird in 6:20 and seven of every kind of bird in 7:2?
After the flood the first thing Noah does is to build an altar and sacrifice to God. God then states, "never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood" (8:21). That doesn't exactly paint a very good picture of man - every inclination is evil from childhood. So much for the theory that man is intrinsically good.
God then reminds us of the Imago Dei in a warning not to kill another man - 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man".
God then makes his covenant with Noah never to destroy the earth by a flood and sets the rainbow as a sign to remember that He will remember the everlasting covenant between God and all the living creatures of every kind.
Noah then gets drunk and Ham dishonors him, but Japheth and Shem cover him up. Noah curses Ham (the father of Canaan) to be the slave of his brothers. Noah lived 950 years and died.
What are we to do with the ages in this passage? Are we to take literally that men lived nearly a thousand years? What can be the explanation for such longevity?
Matthew 3-4
John the Baptist bursts onto the scene in Matthew 3, calling for repentance. He prophesies about the coming Messiah who will baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit. He doesn't paint Jesus as a sort of wimpy guy either "His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12).
John the Baptist then, after mild protestation, baptizes Jesus. A voice from Heaven declares that Jesus is God's son.
After baptism, Jesus goes into the desert to fast 40 days. After this he is tempted by the devil three times. The thing I have always found the most interesting about this passage is that both use Scripture in their back and forth. Of course one would expect Jesus to quote Scripture, but the devil uses it as well. That's an unsettling thought.
Just like John the Baptist, Jesus begins to preach calling for repentance. Jesus then calls his first four disciples Simon-Peter, Andrew, James and John (the sons of Zebedee). Jesus then begins his ministry by preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing the sick. People flocked to him from all over and brought their sick to be healed.
Psalms 3-4
Psalm 3 is one of those Psalms that has a difficult verse in it. "Arise, O Lord! Deliver me, O my God! Strike all my enemies on the jaw; break the teeth of the wicked" (Psalms 3:7). Not exactly one of those verses that makes God seem like the great redeemer He is. It's hard to reconcile the love of God with what David is calling on God to do. But, just as we saw in Matthew 3, Jesus who is healing the sick just one chapter later is being prophesied as standing with the winnowing fork ready to store up his wheat in the barn and burn the chaff forever in an unquenchable fire.
But there are two verses that really stick out to me in Psalm 3. Psalm 3:5 "I lie down and sleep; I wake again, because the Lord sustains me". Even something so simple as waking up is worthy of praising God, because He sustains us. Psalm 3:8 "From the Lord comes deliverance. May your blessing be on your people". David, for all intents and purposes is one of the most renowned warriors in the Bible, but he sees the Lord as his deliverance, not his own strength or might.
Psalm 4 also shows David seeing God as his safety. But, the verse in Psalm 4 that strikes me the most is verse 4. "In your anger do not sin; when you are on your beds, search your hearts and be silent". Hear my prayer God, help me to search my heart so that I do not sin in anger.
Proverbs 1:10-23
Again we see a warning against sin - 1:10 "My son, if sinners entice you, do not give in to them". Again we see repentance and what it does for a man. 1:23 "If you had responded to my rebuke, I would have poured out my heart to you and made my thoughts known to you".
Genesis 5 - 10
Genesis 5:1-2 reminds us that when God created man He did so in the likeness of God, the Imago Dei. Interestingly here, the NIV says the "likeness of God" and not the "image of God". I wonder what the original text states? I know there are some Christian sects that believe that we were created in the image and likeness of God, but after the Fall we lost the 'likeness' and retained the 'image'.
Adam lived 930 years. Seth lived 912 years. Enosh lived 905 years. Kenan lived 910 years. Mahalalel lived 895 years. Jared lived 962 years.
Enoch lived 365 years and unlike his ancestors, the Bible doesn't say 'and then he died'. It states 5:24 "Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away". Is this poetic license? Is it just stating the same thing in a more flowery language? Or is it something else? I don't know.
Methuselah lived 969 years. Lamech lived 777 years. Lamech was the father of Noah.
Noah was the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.
Genesis 6 has some interesting stuff. First, "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose" (6:2). "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown" (6:4). What on earth does that mean? Who were the Nephilim?
In spite of the wickedness of man, Noah alone found favor in the eyes of the Lord. Noah was righteous, blameless and walked with God. God decided to wipe out all living things on account of man who had brought violence to the earth. But, God makes a covenant with Noah (this is the first time God makes a covenant in the Old Testament).
Why does God command Noah to take two of every kind of bird in 6:20 and seven of every kind of bird in 7:2?
After the flood the first thing Noah does is to build an altar and sacrifice to God. God then states, "never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood" (8:21). That doesn't exactly paint a very good picture of man - every inclination is evil from childhood. So much for the theory that man is intrinsically good.
God then reminds us of the Imago Dei in a warning not to kill another man - 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man".
God then makes his covenant with Noah never to destroy the earth by a flood and sets the rainbow as a sign to remember that He will remember the everlasting covenant between God and all the living creatures of every kind.
Noah then gets drunk and Ham dishonors him, but Japheth and Shem cover him up. Noah curses Ham (the father of Canaan) to be the slave of his brothers. Noah lived 950 years and died.
What are we to do with the ages in this passage? Are we to take literally that men lived nearly a thousand years? What can be the explanation for such longevity?
Matthew 3-4
John the Baptist bursts onto the scene in Matthew 3, calling for repentance. He prophesies about the coming Messiah who will baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit. He doesn't paint Jesus as a sort of wimpy guy either "His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12).
John the Baptist then, after mild protestation, baptizes Jesus. A voice from Heaven declares that Jesus is God's son.
After baptism, Jesus goes into the desert to fast 40 days. After this he is tempted by the devil three times. The thing I have always found the most interesting about this passage is that both use Scripture in their back and forth. Of course one would expect Jesus to quote Scripture, but the devil uses it as well. That's an unsettling thought.
Just like John the Baptist, Jesus begins to preach calling for repentance. Jesus then calls his first four disciples Simon-Peter, Andrew, James and John (the sons of Zebedee). Jesus then begins his ministry by preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing the sick. People flocked to him from all over and brought their sick to be healed.
Psalms 3-4
Psalm 3 is one of those Psalms that has a difficult verse in it. "Arise, O Lord! Deliver me, O my God! Strike all my enemies on the jaw; break the teeth of the wicked" (Psalms 3:7). Not exactly one of those verses that makes God seem like the great redeemer He is. It's hard to reconcile the love of God with what David is calling on God to do. But, just as we saw in Matthew 3, Jesus who is healing the sick just one chapter later is being prophesied as standing with the winnowing fork ready to store up his wheat in the barn and burn the chaff forever in an unquenchable fire.
But there are two verses that really stick out to me in Psalm 3. Psalm 3:5 "I lie down and sleep; I wake again, because the Lord sustains me". Even something so simple as waking up is worthy of praising God, because He sustains us. Psalm 3:8 "From the Lord comes deliverance. May your blessing be on your people". David, for all intents and purposes is one of the most renowned warriors in the Bible, but he sees the Lord as his deliverance, not his own strength or might.
Psalm 4 also shows David seeing God as his safety. But, the verse in Psalm 4 that strikes me the most is verse 4. "In your anger do not sin; when you are on your beds, search your hearts and be silent". Hear my prayer God, help me to search my heart so that I do not sin in anger.
Proverbs 1:10-23
Again we see a warning against sin - 1:10 "My son, if sinners entice you, do not give in to them". Again we see repentance and what it does for a man. 1:23 "If you had responded to my rebuke, I would have poured out my heart to you and made my thoughts known to you".
Thursday, July 16, 2015
God's role in the creation of sin revisited
The post below was written on November 18, 2005. Oh, to be 21 again! Typing that up here makes me realize that I've lost something in the past ten years. I've lost an innocence, a naïve world in which everything was black and white. If I had written that now as a more mature individual, with a little more schooling and personal experience I would hope to be shred to smithereens. But, life was different for me at in 2005. The world still existed as black and white and nuance was only a word I couldn't pronounce. That said, I stand behind the conclusion of my little essay, even if that essay sounds and was pompous. To hold the notion that 'God created sin' is logically indefensible.
Ten years on I can look at that essay and see the flaws in my thinking. Ten years from now I'll probably see the same in this little rereading (hopefully I'll still be using this platform so I don't have to go through the arduous process of bringing the diaspora of my thoughts into another single volume again). But, it does mark a point in my growth where I started to think about things that still pick at my mind today.
First, Original Sin and the Problem of Evil are things that are still very relevant to my thinking today. They interest me on a number of levels. But, at 21 I thought I could tell the rational girl Penny that she was irrational and because of that inherent irrationality she would have to accept my rational argument. In that way, I would win her over back to God. That's obviously not how this works. That's not how any of this works...
Second, because those interests were just at their formative stages back then, I see that ten years on I don't have the answers still perfectly before me. That leads me to believe that either I am not capable of having all the answers or that no one in particular is capable of possessing them. Some of the naïve nature of my research and thinking is gone, which is a good thing. Some of my innocence has been lost through life, which is a bad thing.
Third, at this point in 2005 I hadn't quite figured the entrenchment of ideas thing yet. I assumed that as I was moldable so was everyone else. I still like to think that the only thing that has crystalized in me is my music taste. Every once and a while a new song will come out, or a band that I liked that existed 10-20 years ago will come out with a new album that will capture my attention, but for the most part I return to certain songs and groups from years ago. I like to think that I am ever learning and ever open to having my mind blown and my thoughts on things blown up with the explosion to begin anew. But I know that ideas are entrenched in others and to disagree with them is a personal affront. That's when the exchange of ideas ends and the personal attacks begin. My essay may have been pedantic in nature ten years ago, but it was not an attack. Though, after I wrote that last sentence I realize that telling somebody they don't always think rationally, especially somebody who prides themselves on their rationality, probably came across an attack.
But, here is the point of my interrupting the 31 year old version of me digitizing the 21 year old version of me at this point - the essay I wrote ten years ago, as naïve as it was, it came to a correct conclusion. It came to the conclusion that to blame God for the evils of this world is logically indefensible. That said, I hope that as a slightly more mature human being, I don't offer a logical argument to someone who is searching through hard stuff as an approach to evangelizing.
Ten years on I can look at that essay and see the flaws in my thinking. Ten years from now I'll probably see the same in this little rereading (hopefully I'll still be using this platform so I don't have to go through the arduous process of bringing the diaspora of my thoughts into another single volume again). But, it does mark a point in my growth where I started to think about things that still pick at my mind today.
First, Original Sin and the Problem of Evil are things that are still very relevant to my thinking today. They interest me on a number of levels. But, at 21 I thought I could tell the rational girl Penny that she was irrational and because of that inherent irrationality she would have to accept my rational argument. In that way, I would win her over back to God. That's obviously not how this works. That's not how any of this works...
Second, because those interests were just at their formative stages back then, I see that ten years on I don't have the answers still perfectly before me. That leads me to believe that either I am not capable of having all the answers or that no one in particular is capable of possessing them. Some of the naïve nature of my research and thinking is gone, which is a good thing. Some of my innocence has been lost through life, which is a bad thing.
Third, at this point in 2005 I hadn't quite figured the entrenchment of ideas thing yet. I assumed that as I was moldable so was everyone else. I still like to think that the only thing that has crystalized in me is my music taste. Every once and a while a new song will come out, or a band that I liked that existed 10-20 years ago will come out with a new album that will capture my attention, but for the most part I return to certain songs and groups from years ago. I like to think that I am ever learning and ever open to having my mind blown and my thoughts on things blown up with the explosion to begin anew. But I know that ideas are entrenched in others and to disagree with them is a personal affront. That's when the exchange of ideas ends and the personal attacks begin. My essay may have been pedantic in nature ten years ago, but it was not an attack. Though, after I wrote that last sentence I realize that telling somebody they don't always think rationally, especially somebody who prides themselves on their rationality, probably came across an attack.
But, here is the point of my interrupting the 31 year old version of me digitizing the 21 year old version of me at this point - the essay I wrote ten years ago, as naïve as it was, it came to a correct conclusion. It came to the conclusion that to blame God for the evils of this world is logically indefensible. That said, I hope that as a slightly more mature human being, I don't offer a logical argument to someone who is searching through hard stuff as an approach to evangelizing.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Creation & Redemption in Eastern Traditions, Mysticism
(Originally written April 16, 2007 in Book 15)
In Eastern Religions one needs to be redeemed from phenomenal existence.
In Vedantic monistic Hinduism the philosophy begins with the continual existence of a soul (jiva) in this present world. Maya (this world) is full of suffering. So as long as jiva exists in the Maya the jiva will suffer. As the jiva exists in the Maya it is operated from its true state of existence as oneness with the Bhraman.
Samsara, the cycle of reincarnation that keeps the soul anchored in Maya, keeping people trapped in a life of suffering.
Whether one comes back as an animal, human, demon or whatever depends on the amount of Karma one accumulates by committing disruptive actions (Klesha).
The view of Samsara is a hopeless one because they do not see it as very easy to get out of the cycle.
Another major problem in this view is that of ignorance. One may not know his true identity of atman-Brahma. Salvation must come through knowledge (advaita).
Salvation is achieved through knowledge in Vedantic Hinduism.
Moksha is the "release" from Samsara.
Moksha is salvation in the sense that it saves one from phenomenal existence.
Buddhism, Jainism and other forms of Hinduism follow similar lines of salvation, but in there own way.
In Buddhism, it is not the identity of atman (the true self) one hopes to achieve, but anatman (non-self) [This is Theravada Buddhism].
In Theravada Buddhism salvation occurs when one recognizes that one does not exist and stop clinging to this realm of existence.
In Jainism we exist in the realm because of the accumulated karma (which in Jainism is actually physical matter clinging to our souls).
Karma is accumulated by our actions that harm other creatures.
To achieve salvation in Jainism one must cease doing things that accumulates dust on one's soul.
Jainism salvation also starts with knowledge. The soul that knows the truth and then acts on it is the soul that gains release from the cycle of reincarnation.
Chinese and Japanese traditions have no notion of salvation within themselves. Buddhism in these cultures has grafted the notion of salvation into them.
Christianity
Christianity is differentiated from all other religions by its notion of original sin.
Original sin rules out any neutral status of humanity. But, it is not Eastern in that original sin results from phenomenal existence, but fallen phenomenal existence.
The Fall of man resulted in a disruption of the God-man relationship. Salvation in Christianity is the restoration of this all important relationship.
Man is helpless and unable to restore this relationship through his own power.
Christianity holds that all human beings are fallen as a result of Adam's original sin.
Christianity emphasizes the fallenness of all human beings.
In Indic religions the cosmos and physical existence is corrupt; in Christianity the human soul is what is corrupt and if the cosmos and physical existence is corrupt it is because of the result of human fallenness.
The way to salvation in Christianity is through mediation via the atoning death of Christ.
Salvation entails a number of facets:
1) Justification - declaration of the sinner as righteous by God on the basis of Christ's work.
2) Regeneration - God implants a new nature in the person enabling him to live a righteous life.
3) Conversion - sinner turns from sin and trusts in God
4) Adoption - new believer is made a member of God's family
5) Indwelling - The Holy Spirit dwells within the believer
6) Glorification - Elevating the relationship between God and man to a higher status then Adam and God initially enjoyed.
In Christianity faith cannot be supplemented by works, but faith results in good works.
Grace in other religions
Christianity is not the only religion in where one is saved by faith alone.
There is a difference between grace and mercy.
Most religions have a concept of mercy which is usually a central concept.
Grace is entirely the result of the divine person's actions and is unaided by human efforts whatsoever.
Along with Christianity there are two classic examples of grace in world religions:
1) The cat school of Bhakti Hinduism
- Southern school of devotion to Rama
- Rama saves us the way a cat carries her young (in her mouth)
2) The Jodo-Shin-Shu school of Buddhism
- most popular school in Japan
- salvation comes from the buddha Amida
- The legend goes that Amido was a ruler under the influence of the Buddha Lokesvararaja and took up a monkshood. As a monk he went by the name Dharmakara and vowed not to achieve enlightenment until he made it possible for all creatures to achieve it. Thus, he created the pure land in which all would be reborn into and achieve nirvana in the next life.
- The monk Honen in the 12th century A.D. made this legend the core of his buddhism.
- One can enter the pure land in one's next life by stating "Namu Amida Butsu" (I worship the Buddha Amida (or "nembutsu" for short).
- Honen taught to recite nembutsu frequently to achieve rebirth as a male in the pure land.
- The Buddhist monk Shinran actually built on Honen's ideas and formed the Jodo-Shin-Shu school.
- Shinran taught that there is nothing a person can do to enter the Pure Land other than completely trusting in Amida.
Christian Response
In Christianity salvation comes via faith in Jesus Christ. In the cat school of Bhakti Hinduism comes through faith in Rama/Ishvana and in Jodo-Shin-Shu Buddhism grace comes through faith in Amida Butsu.
Christianity's concept of grace is tied to its concept of redemptive salvation which makes it drastically different than Eastern concepts of grace.
Christianity differentiates itself from all other religions in the role that its founder plays as a historical figure.
Islam could exist without Muhammad. Muhammad taught that Islam was practiced long before him, but it had been corrupted.
Muhammad plays an important role in Islam, but not an essential one.
The Buddha is neither unique nor essential to Buddhism. There were many Buddhas.
Jainism can exist without its founder Mahavira because he is non-essential.
Without the historicity of Christianity is a religion of impossible moral exhortations.
Without Jesus and his death on the cross and his resurrection there can be no Christian atonement.
Christianity is a wholly unique religion because it is falsifiable (Jesus' body could be found and falsify the resurrection) and because it can be shown as plausible because of historical evidence.
Cosmos & Mysticism
Mysticism exists in Eastern & Western Religions.
The essence of a mystical experience is that one participates in an unmediated link with something absolute.
Examples of Mysticism
1) A Sufi (Islam) experiences the closeness of Allah
2) A Kabbalist (Judaism) sees God on his throne (the devekuth)
3) The Vedantic Hindu who realizes the absorption of his atman in Brahman
4) The Bhakti Hindu who has a direct vision (darshan) of his deity
5) The Buddhist who comes to awareness in nirvana
6) The Daoist who yields all to the Dao
Eastern mystical experiences deal with paths of redemption whereas Western mystical experiences merely enhance the total spiritual picture.
There is no good reason to infer that Christian mystics encounter the same reality as non-Christian ones (contra the "Perennial Philosophy")
Mystics do not encounter "Reality" they encounter a deity.
There should not be too much significance placed on mystical experiences within Christianity.
Mystical experiences are not a part of Christianity's theological concept of redemption.
Cosmic Redemption
While there is no notion of Original Sin in Judaism, it stresses the fallen nature of the present world order.
In addition to human beings each needing individual redemption, the cosmos as a whole needs redemption.
In Western Traditions the cosmos will eventually be redeemed: Islam- Heaven & Hell; Judaism - kingdom of God; Christianity - New Heaven & Earth; Zoroastrianism - reclaiming of the universe. But, in Eastern traditions the cosmos are continually renewed, but never redeemed.
In Eastern Religions one needs to be redeemed from phenomenal existence.
In Vedantic monistic Hinduism the philosophy begins with the continual existence of a soul (jiva) in this present world. Maya (this world) is full of suffering. So as long as jiva exists in the Maya the jiva will suffer. As the jiva exists in the Maya it is operated from its true state of existence as oneness with the Bhraman.
Samsara, the cycle of reincarnation that keeps the soul anchored in Maya, keeping people trapped in a life of suffering.
Whether one comes back as an animal, human, demon or whatever depends on the amount of Karma one accumulates by committing disruptive actions (Klesha).
The view of Samsara is a hopeless one because they do not see it as very easy to get out of the cycle.
Another major problem in this view is that of ignorance. One may not know his true identity of atman-Brahma. Salvation must come through knowledge (advaita).
Salvation is achieved through knowledge in Vedantic Hinduism.
Moksha is the "release" from Samsara.
Moksha is salvation in the sense that it saves one from phenomenal existence.
Buddhism, Jainism and other forms of Hinduism follow similar lines of salvation, but in there own way.
In Buddhism, it is not the identity of atman (the true self) one hopes to achieve, but anatman (non-self) [This is Theravada Buddhism].
In Theravada Buddhism salvation occurs when one recognizes that one does not exist and stop clinging to this realm of existence.
In Jainism we exist in the realm because of the accumulated karma (which in Jainism is actually physical matter clinging to our souls).
Karma is accumulated by our actions that harm other creatures.
To achieve salvation in Jainism one must cease doing things that accumulates dust on one's soul.
Jainism salvation also starts with knowledge. The soul that knows the truth and then acts on it is the soul that gains release from the cycle of reincarnation.
Chinese and Japanese traditions have no notion of salvation within themselves. Buddhism in these cultures has grafted the notion of salvation into them.
Christianity
Christianity is differentiated from all other religions by its notion of original sin.
Original sin rules out any neutral status of humanity. But, it is not Eastern in that original sin results from phenomenal existence, but fallen phenomenal existence.
The Fall of man resulted in a disruption of the God-man relationship. Salvation in Christianity is the restoration of this all important relationship.
Man is helpless and unable to restore this relationship through his own power.
Christianity holds that all human beings are fallen as a result of Adam's original sin.
Christianity emphasizes the fallenness of all human beings.
In Indic religions the cosmos and physical existence is corrupt; in Christianity the human soul is what is corrupt and if the cosmos and physical existence is corrupt it is because of the result of human fallenness.
The way to salvation in Christianity is through mediation via the atoning death of Christ.
Salvation entails a number of facets:
1) Justification - declaration of the sinner as righteous by God on the basis of Christ's work.
2) Regeneration - God implants a new nature in the person enabling him to live a righteous life.
3) Conversion - sinner turns from sin and trusts in God
4) Adoption - new believer is made a member of God's family
5) Indwelling - The Holy Spirit dwells within the believer
6) Glorification - Elevating the relationship between God and man to a higher status then Adam and God initially enjoyed.
In Christianity faith cannot be supplemented by works, but faith results in good works.
Grace in other religions
Christianity is not the only religion in where one is saved by faith alone.
There is a difference between grace and mercy.
Most religions have a concept of mercy which is usually a central concept.
Grace is entirely the result of the divine person's actions and is unaided by human efforts whatsoever.
Along with Christianity there are two classic examples of grace in world religions:
1) The cat school of Bhakti Hinduism
- Southern school of devotion to Rama
- Rama saves us the way a cat carries her young (in her mouth)
2) The Jodo-Shin-Shu school of Buddhism
- most popular school in Japan
- salvation comes from the buddha Amida
- The legend goes that Amido was a ruler under the influence of the Buddha Lokesvararaja and took up a monkshood. As a monk he went by the name Dharmakara and vowed not to achieve enlightenment until he made it possible for all creatures to achieve it. Thus, he created the pure land in which all would be reborn into and achieve nirvana in the next life.
- The monk Honen in the 12th century A.D. made this legend the core of his buddhism.
- One can enter the pure land in one's next life by stating "Namu Amida Butsu" (I worship the Buddha Amida (or "nembutsu" for short).
- Honen taught to recite nembutsu frequently to achieve rebirth as a male in the pure land.
- The Buddhist monk Shinran actually built on Honen's ideas and formed the Jodo-Shin-Shu school.
- Shinran taught that there is nothing a person can do to enter the Pure Land other than completely trusting in Amida.
Christian Response
In Christianity salvation comes via faith in Jesus Christ. In the cat school of Bhakti Hinduism comes through faith in Rama/Ishvana and in Jodo-Shin-Shu Buddhism grace comes through faith in Amida Butsu.
Christianity's concept of grace is tied to its concept of redemptive salvation which makes it drastically different than Eastern concepts of grace.
Christianity differentiates itself from all other religions in the role that its founder plays as a historical figure.
Islam could exist without Muhammad. Muhammad taught that Islam was practiced long before him, but it had been corrupted.
Muhammad plays an important role in Islam, but not an essential one.
The Buddha is neither unique nor essential to Buddhism. There were many Buddhas.
Jainism can exist without its founder Mahavira because he is non-essential.
Without the historicity of Christianity is a religion of impossible moral exhortations.
Without Jesus and his death on the cross and his resurrection there can be no Christian atonement.
Christianity is a wholly unique religion because it is falsifiable (Jesus' body could be found and falsify the resurrection) and because it can be shown as plausible because of historical evidence.
Cosmos & Mysticism
Mysticism exists in Eastern & Western Religions.
The essence of a mystical experience is that one participates in an unmediated link with something absolute.
Examples of Mysticism
1) A Sufi (Islam) experiences the closeness of Allah
2) A Kabbalist (Judaism) sees God on his throne (the devekuth)
3) The Vedantic Hindu who realizes the absorption of his atman in Brahman
4) The Bhakti Hindu who has a direct vision (darshan) of his deity
5) The Buddhist who comes to awareness in nirvana
6) The Daoist who yields all to the Dao
Eastern mystical experiences deal with paths of redemption whereas Western mystical experiences merely enhance the total spiritual picture.
There is no good reason to infer that Christian mystics encounter the same reality as non-Christian ones (contra the "Perennial Philosophy")
Mystics do not encounter "Reality" they encounter a deity.
There should not be too much significance placed on mystical experiences within Christianity.
Mystical experiences are not a part of Christianity's theological concept of redemption.
Cosmic Redemption
While there is no notion of Original Sin in Judaism, it stresses the fallen nature of the present world order.
In addition to human beings each needing individual redemption, the cosmos as a whole needs redemption.
In Western Traditions the cosmos will eventually be redeemed: Islam- Heaven & Hell; Judaism - kingdom of God; Christianity - New Heaven & Earth; Zoroastrianism - reclaiming of the universe. But, in Eastern traditions the cosmos are continually renewed, but never redeemed.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Morality & Guilt in various religions
(Originally written April 11, 2007 in book 15)
Chapter 4 - Morality & Guilt
Some fundamental distinctions
There are many moral concepts that are universal to all religions.
Duties in Religion
1. Moral Norms
2. Religious Norms
A. Obligatory Actions
B. Ritual avoidances
i. Defilement of self
ii. Defilement of the Holy
The Common Core
There are similarities in moral codes from religion to religion, but upon closer examination they can be seriously different.
Some principles may seem similar like Thou Shall Not Kill of Judaism & Christianity and the principle of ahimsa - the 10 precepts of Buddhism. But, "Thou shall not kill" means do not murder, while ahimsa is no harming of life whatsoever.
Other principles are completely contrary from religion to religion. The second commandment, "Thou shall not bow down before any graven images" is contrary to the statues of Buddhas, an integral part of Buddhism. Ahimsa is contrary to the animal sacrifice of the Old Testament.
Religious and ethical considerations go hand in hand. An ethical concept of a religion cannot be isolated from the overall context of that religion.
The Ceremonial Dimension
Sin and defilement are very different. Sin (a breaking of a moral rule) involves intent, whereas defilement (a breaking of a ceremonial rule) completely disregards intent.
Moral, religious, and ceremonial concepts can be isolated only in theory. In practice they work hand in hand and no such distinction is found among practitioners.
Case in point: Christianity
Christianity is not an ethical religion like Judaism or Islam. It is a redemptive religion The heart of Christianity is not its moral code (it does have one) but a historical event leading to the salvation of men.
The Law within Christianity operates in a few ways:
1) It governs life so that life is actually livable.
2) It functions as a "schoolmaster" (Galatians 3:24). It prepares us for adoption into God's family. It shows us that we are incapable of earning admittance into God's family and that we can enter only by Grace.
3) The keeping of the law is only possible via the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit.
"Christian ethics apart from a Christian supernatural setting is pointless" (Corduan, 88).
Christian religion and Christian ethics are utterly and wholly intertwined. Without the theological underpinnings of Christianity all that is left is an impossible moral code.
From its inception Christianity ahas been against many of the ritual prohibitions that were integral parts of Jewish and Gentile societies.
The only occurrence of ceremonial purity in the New Testament is Paul's admonishment of the Corinthians' treatment of the Lord's supper (1 Corinthians 11:17-34).
Corduan believes that this admonition is not so much a command for personal holiness prior to partaking of Communion, but a mandate to understand communion correctly and to treat it with proper respect. Linehan feels that this is a ceremonial purity issue right now (subject to change of course).
Side not: It may not be a call to become personally holy before partaking communion because that would in fact deny the nature of communion, but a more inner ceremonial purity in being ready to partake of communion. As for what communion is I am not ready to give it the Catholic transubstantiation status, but neither do I want to reduce it to a mere remembrance of the event. I think it is a true partaking of something holy and not merely a remembrance of something holy.
In various aspects of Christendom throughout history some ceremonial purity has emerged, but is not a part of the New Testament.
Ethics in the religious universe
Judaism & Islam have similar ethical codes.
Judaism has a longer history and a much more detailed set of codes.
The moral codes function differently in Islam and Judaism. Adherence to the moral code in Judaism is an expression of the relationship between the Jew and YHWH whereas adherence to the moral code in Islam is the way to enter Heaven for the Muslim.
The standards of Judaism also apply solely to the Jews whereas the moral codes of Islam we taken as universally binding.
Zoroastrianism's moral code is similar to Islamic & Jewish codes. All three were revealed by God to a prophet (Zoroastrianism - Zoroaster, Islam - Muhammad, Judaism - Moses).
Zoroastrianism however is preoccupied with ceremonial purity more than ethical obligations.
In Indic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism) there is a two-tiered arrangement. Monks have stricter codes than the laity.
The Hindu code is hinged on the caste system. All ethical and moral obligations are tied to one's caste.
Hinduism also has duties associated with stages of life.
A man must become a sannyasin and renounce everything, his name, his family, his caste, etc. in order to achieve moksha (release, liberation).
The monks in Buddhism and Jainism are the only ones capable of release from the cycle of reincarnation. The laity can work to have a better rebirth, but cannot achieve nirvana.
Jainism is harshly ascetic. Eventually a monk will starve himself to achieve his goal.
Buddhism considers itself the "middle way" and is not as ascetic as Jainism.
Buddhism teaches that harsh asceticism can be a hinderance to spiritual enlightenment.
Confucianism is above all else a code of behavior.
Confucianism came to exist within other religions (Daoism/Buddhism in China, Shinto in Japan), not along side it.
Confucianism focuses on human behavior and teaches that proper individual behavior will alleviate societal problems.
Confucianism does not possess within itself any religious doctrine.
Violations and their Consequences
There are two major trajectories in the world's religions:
1) Western/Abrahamic Traditions
- Judaism
- Zoroastrianism
- Islam
- Baha'i
- Christianity
2) Eastern/Indic Traditions
- Hinduism
- Buddhism
- Jainism
- Sikhism
- Daoism
These two groups differ radically on the conception of sin.
In Abrahamic religions sin is an offending of God and breaking the human-God relationship.
In Indic religion sin is a negative Karmic effect.
God is the source of moral rules in monotheistic traditions.
The character of moral law is prescriptive and proscriptive, not descriptive in Abrahamic traditions.
Punishment occurs after sin in the West. It could be a warning, salutary, or be a making of an example out of the person.
Punitive action results out of a decree of a personal God. A personal God can also provide mercy or grace to the sinner.
Sin in the Indic traditions is similar to breaking a natural law.
Indic religions have the concept of Karma, which is not tied to a personal God.
In Hinduism, Karma is tied to Samsara, the cycle of rebirths. One's present life is the result of one's previous life.
Karma is not deterministic or fatalistic in Hinduism. One controls one's karma.
Karma is automated in Hinduism. It is not (usually) a judgment passed by a deity.
Karma is negative and pessimistic. It is viewed as perpetual suffering.
The goal of Hinduism is not to accumulate good karma, but to escape the samsara cycle.
There can be a divine intervention in samsara and karma. This is what the Bhagavad Gita tells Hindus.
The negative aspect of karma is even more noticeable in Buddhism and Jainism.
Buddha taught that there is no individual soul and that each person's an aggregate of effects.
Good karma in Buddhism is karma nonetheless and must be balanced out in another life. The goal is to have no karma at all.
In Jainism, Karma is a dust that accumulates on one's soul.
Only a complet abnégation of life leads to release from samsara.
The goal of a Jain monk is to do nothing and to starve himself to death.
Sin belongs within the framework of a system with a personal God. Karma fits into a framework without a personal deity much better.
Christianity alone possesses the notion of "original sin". At first blush this can appear similar to karma in that everyone is born into a state of condemnation through no fault of our own.
The major misunderstanding with original sin is to tie it to finitude. Our finitude makes it impossible not to sin is a common erroneous belief.
Christ proved that human being can live a sinless life.
Original Sin describes the broken relationship between man and God, not the introduction of finitude.
Healing the Breach
Ronal M. Green distinguishes between four senses of reason
1) Theoretical reason - our conceptualization of the world around us
2) Prudential reason - our capacity for living successfully in the world as we understand it
3) Moral reason - places our priorities in order
4) Religious reason - attempts to reconcile the conflict between prudential and moral reason
Response to the World Parliament Statement
Only the most minimal code seems to be fairly universal (truth-property-life-sex) and even these must not be abstracted from their religious context lest they become equivocations and meaningless.
The statement, originally by Hans Küng calls for an end to prejudice and hate. This is all well and good unless it denies objective truth on matters like abortion and homosexuality. Many Christians are labeled as bigots for their stances on these issues.
Likewise, Küng demands that religions denounce their fundamentalists because they deny peace among religions and without religious peace there can be no world peace. But this world be a denouncement of objective truth on many vital issues.
The 1997 Declaration of a Global Ethic affirms an universal moral code and locates it where it ought to be, within a religious context. But, it does not give any implementation strategy and leave evangelical Christians in a place where they cannot agree with it without giving away too much.
Chapter 4 - Morality & Guilt
Some fundamental distinctions
There are many moral concepts that are universal to all religions.
Duties in Religion
1. Moral Norms
2. Religious Norms
A. Obligatory Actions
B. Ritual avoidances
i. Defilement of self
ii. Defilement of the Holy
The Common Core
There are similarities in moral codes from religion to religion, but upon closer examination they can be seriously different.
Some principles may seem similar like Thou Shall Not Kill of Judaism & Christianity and the principle of ahimsa - the 10 precepts of Buddhism. But, "Thou shall not kill" means do not murder, while ahimsa is no harming of life whatsoever.
Other principles are completely contrary from religion to religion. The second commandment, "Thou shall not bow down before any graven images" is contrary to the statues of Buddhas, an integral part of Buddhism. Ahimsa is contrary to the animal sacrifice of the Old Testament.
Religious and ethical considerations go hand in hand. An ethical concept of a religion cannot be isolated from the overall context of that religion.
The Ceremonial Dimension
Sin and defilement are very different. Sin (a breaking of a moral rule) involves intent, whereas defilement (a breaking of a ceremonial rule) completely disregards intent.
Moral, religious, and ceremonial concepts can be isolated only in theory. In practice they work hand in hand and no such distinction is found among practitioners.
Case in point: Christianity
Christianity is not an ethical religion like Judaism or Islam. It is a redemptive religion The heart of Christianity is not its moral code (it does have one) but a historical event leading to the salvation of men.
The Law within Christianity operates in a few ways:
1) It governs life so that life is actually livable.
2) It functions as a "schoolmaster" (Galatians 3:24). It prepares us for adoption into God's family. It shows us that we are incapable of earning admittance into God's family and that we can enter only by Grace.
3) The keeping of the law is only possible via the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit.
"Christian ethics apart from a Christian supernatural setting is pointless" (Corduan, 88).
Christian religion and Christian ethics are utterly and wholly intertwined. Without the theological underpinnings of Christianity all that is left is an impossible moral code.
From its inception Christianity ahas been against many of the ritual prohibitions that were integral parts of Jewish and Gentile societies.
The only occurrence of ceremonial purity in the New Testament is Paul's admonishment of the Corinthians' treatment of the Lord's supper (1 Corinthians 11:17-34).
Corduan believes that this admonition is not so much a command for personal holiness prior to partaking of Communion, but a mandate to understand communion correctly and to treat it with proper respect. Linehan feels that this is a ceremonial purity issue right now (subject to change of course).
Side not: It may not be a call to become personally holy before partaking communion because that would in fact deny the nature of communion, but a more inner ceremonial purity in being ready to partake of communion. As for what communion is I am not ready to give it the Catholic transubstantiation status, but neither do I want to reduce it to a mere remembrance of the event. I think it is a true partaking of something holy and not merely a remembrance of something holy.
In various aspects of Christendom throughout history some ceremonial purity has emerged, but is not a part of the New Testament.
Ethics in the religious universe
Judaism & Islam have similar ethical codes.
Judaism has a longer history and a much more detailed set of codes.
The moral codes function differently in Islam and Judaism. Adherence to the moral code in Judaism is an expression of the relationship between the Jew and YHWH whereas adherence to the moral code in Islam is the way to enter Heaven for the Muslim.
The standards of Judaism also apply solely to the Jews whereas the moral codes of Islam we taken as universally binding.
Zoroastrianism's moral code is similar to Islamic & Jewish codes. All three were revealed by God to a prophet (Zoroastrianism - Zoroaster, Islam - Muhammad, Judaism - Moses).
Zoroastrianism however is preoccupied with ceremonial purity more than ethical obligations.
In Indic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism) there is a two-tiered arrangement. Monks have stricter codes than the laity.
The Hindu code is hinged on the caste system. All ethical and moral obligations are tied to one's caste.
Hinduism also has duties associated with stages of life.
A man must become a sannyasin and renounce everything, his name, his family, his caste, etc. in order to achieve moksha (release, liberation).
The monks in Buddhism and Jainism are the only ones capable of release from the cycle of reincarnation. The laity can work to have a better rebirth, but cannot achieve nirvana.
Jainism is harshly ascetic. Eventually a monk will starve himself to achieve his goal.
Buddhism considers itself the "middle way" and is not as ascetic as Jainism.
Buddhism teaches that harsh asceticism can be a hinderance to spiritual enlightenment.
Confucianism is above all else a code of behavior.
Confucianism came to exist within other religions (Daoism/Buddhism in China, Shinto in Japan), not along side it.
Confucianism focuses on human behavior and teaches that proper individual behavior will alleviate societal problems.
Confucianism does not possess within itself any religious doctrine.
Violations and their Consequences
There are two major trajectories in the world's religions:
1) Western/Abrahamic Traditions
- Judaism
- Zoroastrianism
- Islam
- Baha'i
- Christianity
2) Eastern/Indic Traditions
- Hinduism
- Buddhism
- Jainism
- Sikhism
- Daoism
These two groups differ radically on the conception of sin.
In Abrahamic religions sin is an offending of God and breaking the human-God relationship.
In Indic religion sin is a negative Karmic effect.
God is the source of moral rules in monotheistic traditions.
The character of moral law is prescriptive and proscriptive, not descriptive in Abrahamic traditions.
Punishment occurs after sin in the West. It could be a warning, salutary, or be a making of an example out of the person.
Punitive action results out of a decree of a personal God. A personal God can also provide mercy or grace to the sinner.
Sin in the Indic traditions is similar to breaking a natural law.
Indic religions have the concept of Karma, which is not tied to a personal God.
In Hinduism, Karma is tied to Samsara, the cycle of rebirths. One's present life is the result of one's previous life.
Karma is not deterministic or fatalistic in Hinduism. One controls one's karma.
Karma is automated in Hinduism. It is not (usually) a judgment passed by a deity.
Karma is negative and pessimistic. It is viewed as perpetual suffering.
The goal of Hinduism is not to accumulate good karma, but to escape the samsara cycle.
There can be a divine intervention in samsara and karma. This is what the Bhagavad Gita tells Hindus.
The negative aspect of karma is even more noticeable in Buddhism and Jainism.
Buddha taught that there is no individual soul and that each person's an aggregate of effects.
Good karma in Buddhism is karma nonetheless and must be balanced out in another life. The goal is to have no karma at all.
In Jainism, Karma is a dust that accumulates on one's soul.
Only a complet abnégation of life leads to release from samsara.
The goal of a Jain monk is to do nothing and to starve himself to death.
Sin belongs within the framework of a system with a personal God. Karma fits into a framework without a personal deity much better.
Christianity alone possesses the notion of "original sin". At first blush this can appear similar to karma in that everyone is born into a state of condemnation through no fault of our own.
The major misunderstanding with original sin is to tie it to finitude. Our finitude makes it impossible not to sin is a common erroneous belief.
Christ proved that human being can live a sinless life.
Original Sin describes the broken relationship between man and God, not the introduction of finitude.
Healing the Breach
Ronal M. Green distinguishes between four senses of reason
1) Theoretical reason - our conceptualization of the world around us
2) Prudential reason - our capacity for living successfully in the world as we understand it
3) Moral reason - places our priorities in order
4) Religious reason - attempts to reconcile the conflict between prudential and moral reason
Response to the World Parliament Statement
Only the most minimal code seems to be fairly universal (truth-property-life-sex) and even these must not be abstracted from their religious context lest they become equivocations and meaningless.
The statement, originally by Hans Küng calls for an end to prejudice and hate. This is all well and good unless it denies objective truth on matters like abortion and homosexuality. Many Christians are labeled as bigots for their stances on these issues.
Likewise, Küng demands that religions denounce their fundamentalists because they deny peace among religions and without religious peace there can be no world peace. But this world be a denouncement of objective truth on many vital issues.
The 1997 Declaration of a Global Ethic affirms an universal moral code and locates it where it ought to be, within a religious context. But, it does not give any implementation strategy and leave evangelical Christians in a place where they cannot agree with it without giving away too much.
Creation & Redemption in Western Traditions
(Originally written April 11, 2007 in Book 15)
Chapter 5 - Creation & Redemption
The need for redemption in Christianity did not arise from phenomenal existence (existence as material and finite being).
In some religions though redemption is needed precisely because we have a phenomenal existence.
Phenomenal existence implies a creation, but not all religions have a specific doctrine of creation where a god or gods created phenomenal existence.
No religion has a concept of redemption that is identical to Christianity's.
The Created Order: What went wrong and what went right:
There are two ways of viewing creation:
1) Creation as positive work
2) Creation as unfortunate work
In cases where creation is viewed as an unfortunate work, redemption is merely an escape from phenomenal existence (Eastern Tradition).
In cases where creation is viewed as a positive work, redemption deals with how phenomenal existence became defective (Western Tradition).
Western traditions view creation as good and pure phenomenal existence as good.
Islam has no original sin. All children are born innocent. Sin enters a person through volition.
As humans have left Allah by will so they can return to Allah by will.
In Judaism creation and phenomenal existence is good. There is no specific mechanism for salvation. There is no concept of Original Sin.
In Judaism, Jews must maintain all 613 commandments of the Torah as a witness to God for Gentiles.
Gentiles are not held to the strict standards of Judaism because they are not the chosen people.
In Zoroastrianism, one must aid God (Ahura Mazda) and repudiate Satan (Angro Mainyu or Ahriman).
Salvation depends purely on what a person does in response to Ahura Mazda.
In the end, the final prophet will come (Saoshyant) and the world will be engulfed as molten metal. The good will enjoy the experience, but the evil will be in immense pain. All will come out pristinely pure though.
Good physical existence was created by Ahura Mazda. Bad physical existence was created by Ahriman. Creation is not evil in this sense.
In summation, Western Religions teach creation is good by nature and that evil emerged via volitional misuse.
Chapter 5 - Creation & Redemption
The need for redemption in Christianity did not arise from phenomenal existence (existence as material and finite being).
In some religions though redemption is needed precisely because we have a phenomenal existence.
Phenomenal existence implies a creation, but not all religions have a specific doctrine of creation where a god or gods created phenomenal existence.
No religion has a concept of redemption that is identical to Christianity's.
The Created Order: What went wrong and what went right:
There are two ways of viewing creation:
1) Creation as positive work
2) Creation as unfortunate work
In cases where creation is viewed as an unfortunate work, redemption is merely an escape from phenomenal existence (Eastern Tradition).
In cases where creation is viewed as a positive work, redemption deals with how phenomenal existence became defective (Western Tradition).
Western traditions view creation as good and pure phenomenal existence as good.
Islam has no original sin. All children are born innocent. Sin enters a person through volition.
As humans have left Allah by will so they can return to Allah by will.
In Judaism creation and phenomenal existence is good. There is no specific mechanism for salvation. There is no concept of Original Sin.
In Judaism, Jews must maintain all 613 commandments of the Torah as a witness to God for Gentiles.
Gentiles are not held to the strict standards of Judaism because they are not the chosen people.
In Zoroastrianism, one must aid God (Ahura Mazda) and repudiate Satan (Angro Mainyu or Ahriman).
Salvation depends purely on what a person does in response to Ahura Mazda.
In the end, the final prophet will come (Saoshyant) and the world will be engulfed as molten metal. The good will enjoy the experience, but the evil will be in immense pain. All will come out pristinely pure though.
Good physical existence was created by Ahura Mazda. Bad physical existence was created by Ahriman. Creation is not evil in this sense.
In summation, Western Religions teach creation is good by nature and that evil emerged via volitional misuse.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Class notes on Augustine's division of history
(Originally written March 27, 2007 in Book 15)
Class notes
Salvation
The Christian emphasis on salvation being the most important part of religion is a criteria of differentiating it from all other religions.
Christianity is unique in its conception of Original Sin (or Fallenness or Total Depravity).Christians cannot save themselves nor do they believe man is desiring of salvation.
Atonement (makes possible) grace. Grace (how we receive it) is faith.
Augustine vs. Pelagius (c.a. 400 A.D.)
Pelagius held that we must be able to achieve the righteousness required to go to Heaven or else God couldn't have given the Commandments.
Augustine held that the commandments are given so as to show our fallenness in order to receive grace from God.
Pelagianism - possible to earn salvation, but salvation via grace is a secondary option.
Semi-Pelagianism - Grace is essential to salvation; once one has received the grace of God then one has the ability to earn one's salvation.
Receiving God's grace is not merely the forgiving of all our sins, it includes a transformation of the receiver's nature.
Regeneration - 2 Corinthians 5:17, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come; the old has gone, the new is here!
Augustine's 4 divisions of history
1) Adam & Eve in the Garden
- "posse pecare" - it is possible to sin
2) Fallenness pre-Christ
- "non posse non pecare" - not possible not to sin
3) Fallenness post-Christ
- " posse non pecare" - it is possible to not sin
4) In Heaven
- "non posse pecare" - not possible to sin
Justification - God declares us to be righteous in the light of the work of Christ
Conversion - a change in the will.
Class notes
Salvation
The Christian emphasis on salvation being the most important part of religion is a criteria of differentiating it from all other religions.
Christianity is unique in its conception of Original Sin (or Fallenness or Total Depravity).Christians cannot save themselves nor do they believe man is desiring of salvation.
Atonement (makes possible) grace. Grace (how we receive it) is faith.
Augustine vs. Pelagius (c.a. 400 A.D.)
Pelagius held that we must be able to achieve the righteousness required to go to Heaven or else God couldn't have given the Commandments.
Augustine held that the commandments are given so as to show our fallenness in order to receive grace from God.
Pelagianism - possible to earn salvation, but salvation via grace is a secondary option.
Semi-Pelagianism - Grace is essential to salvation; once one has received the grace of God then one has the ability to earn one's salvation.
Receiving God's grace is not merely the forgiving of all our sins, it includes a transformation of the receiver's nature.
Regeneration - 2 Corinthians 5:17, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come; the old has gone, the new is here!
Augustine's 4 divisions of history
1) Adam & Eve in the Garden
- "posse pecare" - it is possible to sin
2) Fallenness pre-Christ
- "non posse non pecare" - not possible not to sin
3) Fallenness post-Christ
- " posse non pecare" - it is possible to not sin
4) In Heaven
- "non posse pecare" - not possible to sin
Justification - God declares us to be righteous in the light of the work of Christ
Conversion - a change in the will.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Sin in various religions
(Originally written March 22, 2007 in Book 15)
Effects of the Breach of the Rules
Western Religions - disrupts the relationship between God and man. Therefore, the need to restore the relationship.
Eastern religions: caught up in the endless cycle of karma-samsara (reincarnation). Therefore, the need to escape the cycle
Christianity
- Fallenness (Original Sin, Total Depravity)
- We are not sinful because we are finite
- Sin is not tied to finitude or creation
- Fallenness effects our spirit, mind and will
- Need for forgiveness
Judaism & Islam
- No fallenness/original sin
- sin constitutes damage
- need for greater effort
Hinduism
- The problems are engendered by the very fact that one exists as an entity in the universe
- The Hindu conception of sin:
PAAPA or ENAS > "sin" against the gods or against the rules of Dharma
- But, sin (PAAPA or ENAS) is not the central issue of Hinduism
- Karma is the central focus
- Karma originally meant "motion", then "duties", then "duties of your caste"
- Karma has consequences. What you do influences what you will be in your next life.
- Samsara (reincarnation) is a very negative and oppressive concept in the east.
Entrapment by karma (personal)
- Evil people must be reincarnated
- "I hurl these monsters, cruel... people into the never-ending cycle of rebirths (Bhagavad Gita)
- Good people can continue in heaven, but then must be reincarnated (Bhagavad Gita 9:20-21)
- People who do nothing must be reincarnated
- One does not attain freedom from the bondage of Karma by merely abstain from work (Bhagavad Gita 3:4).
Cosmic entrapment by Karma
- The same multitude of beings comes into existence again and again at the arrival of the creative cycle and is annihilated, inevitably, at the arrival of the destructive cycle (Bhagavad Gita 8:19).
Conclusion
- There is some similarity among the religions as to the basic values of life, marriage, truth and property.
- These values are embedded in different contexts
- The values are expressed in rules that play different roles in the religions
- The effects of breaking the rules are very different from religion to religion
Effects of the Breach of the Rules
Western Religions - disrupts the relationship between God and man. Therefore, the need to restore the relationship.
Eastern religions: caught up in the endless cycle of karma-samsara (reincarnation). Therefore, the need to escape the cycle
Christianity
- Fallenness (Original Sin, Total Depravity)
- We are not sinful because we are finite
- Sin is not tied to finitude or creation
- Fallenness effects our spirit, mind and will
- Need for forgiveness
Judaism & Islam
- No fallenness/original sin
- sin constitutes damage
- need for greater effort
Hinduism
- The problems are engendered by the very fact that one exists as an entity in the universe
- The Hindu conception of sin:
PAAPA or ENAS > "sin" against the gods or against the rules of Dharma
- But, sin (PAAPA or ENAS) is not the central issue of Hinduism
- Karma is the central focus
- Karma originally meant "motion", then "duties", then "duties of your caste"
- Karma has consequences. What you do influences what you will be in your next life.
- Samsara (reincarnation) is a very negative and oppressive concept in the east.
Entrapment by karma (personal)
- Evil people must be reincarnated
- "I hurl these monsters, cruel... people into the never-ending cycle of rebirths (Bhagavad Gita)
- Good people can continue in heaven, but then must be reincarnated (Bhagavad Gita 9:20-21)
- People who do nothing must be reincarnated
- One does not attain freedom from the bondage of Karma by merely abstain from work (Bhagavad Gita 3:4).
Cosmic entrapment by Karma
- The same multitude of beings comes into existence again and again at the arrival of the creative cycle and is annihilated, inevitably, at the arrival of the destructive cycle (Bhagavad Gita 8:19).
Conclusion
- There is some similarity among the religions as to the basic values of life, marriage, truth and property.
- These values are embedded in different contexts
- The values are expressed in rules that play different roles in the religions
- The effects of breaking the rules are very different from religion to religion
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Christian Assumptions
(Originally written February 15, 2007 in Book 14)
Christianity and Religious Pluralism
The key in religion is the question, "But is it true?"
I could accept Christianity as true if...
- God were to appear to me
- Christians weren't such hypocrites
- There wasn't so much evil in the world
- There was some way of my being able to figure out if Christianity as truer than all other religions
Christian Assumption
1) Authority of Scripture
- The meaning of inspiration
- 2 Timothy 3:15 "And that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ"
- 2 Peter 1:20-21 "He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God"
- The locus of inspiration
- not the reader
- to some extent the writers
- most importantly the text
- (plenary verbal)
2) Historicity of Christ
- Grounded in and tied to history
- 2 Peter 1:16-18, "For it is written: 'Be Holy, because I am holy'. Since you call on a Father who judges each person's work impartially, live out your time as foreigners here in reverent fear. For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors.
- Cannot separate Jesus Christ the person from the teachings of Christ.
3) Mediation by Christ
- The utter inability of human beings to restore themselves to a relationship with God
- Original sin, fallenness and total depravity
- I John 1:5, "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all".
- The completed work of Christ
-Displaying the righteousness of God
-Atonement
4) Salvation
A) Salvation: the necessary condition
- intellectual faith (belief that)
- Trusting faith (belief in)
- Reliance on Christ alone
B) Salvation: the necessary consequence
- Good works are the necessary consequences of true faith
Righteousness of Christ Necessary condition (faith alone) -> Human Person -> Changed life (necessary consequence of faith)
Christianity and Religious Pluralism
The key in religion is the question, "But is it true?"
I could accept Christianity as true if...
- God were to appear to me
- Christians weren't such hypocrites
- There wasn't so much evil in the world
- There was some way of my being able to figure out if Christianity as truer than all other religions
Christian Assumption
1) Authority of Scripture
- The meaning of inspiration
- 2 Timothy 3:15 "And that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ"
- 2 Peter 1:20-21 "He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God"
- The locus of inspiration
- not the reader
- to some extent the writers
- most importantly the text
- (plenary verbal)
2) Historicity of Christ
- Grounded in and tied to history
- 2 Peter 1:16-18, "For it is written: 'Be Holy, because I am holy'. Since you call on a Father who judges each person's work impartially, live out your time as foreigners here in reverent fear. For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors.
- Cannot separate Jesus Christ the person from the teachings of Christ.
3) Mediation by Christ
- The utter inability of human beings to restore themselves to a relationship with God
- Original sin, fallenness and total depravity
- I John 1:5, "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all".
- The completed work of Christ
-Displaying the righteousness of God
-Atonement
4) Salvation
A) Salvation: the necessary condition
- intellectual faith (belief that)
- Trusting faith (belief in)
- Reliance on Christ alone
B) Salvation: the necessary consequence
- Good works are the necessary consequences of true faith
Righteousness of Christ Necessary condition (faith alone) -> Human Person -> Changed life (necessary consequence of faith)
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Philosophy of Religion - Hick: Ch. 4
(Originally written January 31, 2007 in Book 7)
Philosophy of Religion
John Hick
Ch. 4 - The Problem of Evil
The Problem
The main reason people cannot believe in a loving God is the depth and extent of human suffering and the selfishness and greed of humanity.
Evil - physical pain, mental suffering, and moral wickedness.
Moral wickedness is the cause of physical pain and mental suffering.
The form of the problem of evil is often a dilemma:
1) If God is perfectly loving, God must want to abolish all evil
2) If God is all-powerful, He must be able to abolish all evil
3) Evil exists
4) Theefore, God cannot be both omnipotent and perfectly loving.
One possible solution is to state that evil is an illusion of the human mind. But, this is unacceptable in the Judaeo-Christian tradition.
There are three main Christian responses to the problem of evil:
1) Augustinian - the concept of the Fall
2) Irenaeus - gradual creation of perfected humanity through life in an imperfect world
3) Process theology - God is not all-powerful
All three use the free will defense. Humans are free to act wrongly and rightly. It states that a genuinely free moral agent and the possibility of evil are logically inseparable.
The Augustinian Theodicy
Augustine held that evil has a negative or privative nature. He holds the universe to be a creation by a good God for a good purpose. Everything that has being is good because it has been created. Some things with being are more good and others are less good. Evil is a going wrong of something inherently good. "Evil always consists of the malfunctioning of something that is in itself good" (Hick, 43).
Evil came about when angels turned from the Supreme Good (God) to lesser goods. The same happened with Adam and Eve.
The natural evils are thus punishments and a result of the chaos man has thrown upon his dominion.
Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) a German Protestant, was the first to criticize Augustine. He stated how could a perfect God create a perfect universe that somehow went wrong? Basically a flawless creation would never go wrong.
The Irenaean Theodicy
St. Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.) distinguished between two stages of creation of humanity.
Creation - they were created as immature creatures
Maturation process (life) - they matured into the children of God
God's purpose in creation was not to construct a paradise. It was made to create souls who would inherit eternal life through struggle and maturity.
Process Theodicy
Process theology is built upon the metaphysical framework of A. N. Whitehead's philosophy. Process theology holds that God cannot be omnipotent. He interacts with he process of the universe, which he didn't create but is able to influence.
Process theology holds that God is a part of the universe which is an uncreated process.
Evil is the event when the power of God's will is thwarted.
Process theodicy has been severely criticized. One criticism is that it involves a morally and religiously unacceptable elitism. God is somehow satisfied with the mass majority suffering and living unfulfilled lives so that a few can become marvelous human beings.
Philosophy of Religion
John Hick
Ch. 4 - The Problem of Evil
The Problem
The main reason people cannot believe in a loving God is the depth and extent of human suffering and the selfishness and greed of humanity.
Evil - physical pain, mental suffering, and moral wickedness.
Moral wickedness is the cause of physical pain and mental suffering.
The form of the problem of evil is often a dilemma:
1) If God is perfectly loving, God must want to abolish all evil
2) If God is all-powerful, He must be able to abolish all evil
3) Evil exists
4) Theefore, God cannot be both omnipotent and perfectly loving.
One possible solution is to state that evil is an illusion of the human mind. But, this is unacceptable in the Judaeo-Christian tradition.
There are three main Christian responses to the problem of evil:
1) Augustinian - the concept of the Fall
2) Irenaeus - gradual creation of perfected humanity through life in an imperfect world
3) Process theology - God is not all-powerful
All three use the free will defense. Humans are free to act wrongly and rightly. It states that a genuinely free moral agent and the possibility of evil are logically inseparable.
The Augustinian Theodicy
Augustine held that evil has a negative or privative nature. He holds the universe to be a creation by a good God for a good purpose. Everything that has being is good because it has been created. Some things with being are more good and others are less good. Evil is a going wrong of something inherently good. "Evil always consists of the malfunctioning of something that is in itself good" (Hick, 43).
Evil came about when angels turned from the Supreme Good (God) to lesser goods. The same happened with Adam and Eve.
The natural evils are thus punishments and a result of the chaos man has thrown upon his dominion.
Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) a German Protestant, was the first to criticize Augustine. He stated how could a perfect God create a perfect universe that somehow went wrong? Basically a flawless creation would never go wrong.
The Irenaean Theodicy
St. Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.) distinguished between two stages of creation of humanity.
Creation - they were created as immature creatures
Maturation process (life) - they matured into the children of God
God's purpose in creation was not to construct a paradise. It was made to create souls who would inherit eternal life through struggle and maturity.
Process Theodicy
Process theology is built upon the metaphysical framework of A. N. Whitehead's philosophy. Process theology holds that God cannot be omnipotent. He interacts with he process of the universe, which he didn't create but is able to influence.
Process theology holds that God is a part of the universe which is an uncreated process.
Evil is the event when the power of God's will is thwarted.
Process theodicy has been severely criticized. One criticism is that it involves a morally and religiously unacceptable elitism. God is somehow satisfied with the mass majority suffering and living unfulfilled lives so that a few can become marvelous human beings.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Notes on John Scotus and Abelard
(Originally Written December 13, 2006 in Book 11)
Medieval Realism
John Scotus Erigena was a medieval realist in that he believed universals to be real in their own right.
Erigena distinguished between 3 real entities:
1) The independently real universe
2) The sense object
3) The Memory image
Erigena's solution seemed plausible for the 11th and 12th century thinkers like Odo of Tournai, Anselm of Canterbury and William of Champeaux. It helped solve problems like Original Sin in Christian doctrines. But it has a pantheistic element that is incompatible with Christianity.
Nominalism
Extreme nominalism is no solution to the problem of universals. Nominalism has difficulties explaining the doctrine of the Trinity. Either there are three Gods or God is one in nominalism, which is heresy.
Conceptualism
Neither realism (independent universals) nor nominalism (no objective of universals) was adequate.
Aristotle was a compromise between the two and the medieval compromise was strikingly similar to Aristotle.
Abelard
Peter Abelard devised conceptualism, which is the nominalist theory that universals are mental concepts, but have objective value because they are conceived by multiple human minds.
Abelard was born in 1079 in Nantes, France. He was educated in Paris by the realist of William of Champeaux.
Abelard became a rival and set up a rival school of William of Champeaux.
Abelard had an affair with he daughter of the Canon of Notre Dame. The affair led to Abelard's de-nutting and he retired to St. Denis.
But Abelard continued to stir up trouble wherever he went. He was finally condemned in 1142. He never fell out of love with Heloïse, the Canon's daughter.
Abelard was a prototype for the scholastic method.
Abelard would attack and ridicule his rival's views and philosophically beat them into submission or frustration.
A universal is an abstraction and it is real as it is abstracted.
Abelard shifted the emphasis of the problem of universals from metaphysics to logic and psychology.
A universal exists in two ways:
1) It exists in the individual particulars as a common likeness.
2) It exists in the human intellect as a concept formed as a result of the intellect's shaving focused it attention on the likeness.
The Faith-Reason Controversy
At first faith and reason can be supposed to not be in conflict, they yield the same results.
John Scots Erigena held their optimistic view, but the churchmen began to see faith as being threatened by reason.
Final Exam Study!
Augustine
1. Epistemology and philosophy of mind
Medieval Realism
John Scotus Erigena was a medieval realist in that he believed universals to be real in their own right.
Erigena distinguished between 3 real entities:
1) The independently real universe
2) The sense object
3) The Memory image
Erigena's solution seemed plausible for the 11th and 12th century thinkers like Odo of Tournai, Anselm of Canterbury and William of Champeaux. It helped solve problems like Original Sin in Christian doctrines. But it has a pantheistic element that is incompatible with Christianity.
Nominalism
Extreme nominalism is no solution to the problem of universals. Nominalism has difficulties explaining the doctrine of the Trinity. Either there are three Gods or God is one in nominalism, which is heresy.
Conceptualism
Neither realism (independent universals) nor nominalism (no objective of universals) was adequate.
Aristotle was a compromise between the two and the medieval compromise was strikingly similar to Aristotle.
Abelard
Peter Abelard devised conceptualism, which is the nominalist theory that universals are mental concepts, but have objective value because they are conceived by multiple human minds.
Abelard was born in 1079 in Nantes, France. He was educated in Paris by the realist of William of Champeaux.
Abelard became a rival and set up a rival school of William of Champeaux.
Abelard had an affair with he daughter of the Canon of Notre Dame. The affair led to Abelard's de-nutting and he retired to St. Denis.
But Abelard continued to stir up trouble wherever he went. He was finally condemned in 1142. He never fell out of love with Heloïse, the Canon's daughter.
Abelard was a prototype for the scholastic method.
Abelard would attack and ridicule his rival's views and philosophically beat them into submission or frustration.
A universal is an abstraction and it is real as it is abstracted.
Abelard shifted the emphasis of the problem of universals from metaphysics to logic and psychology.
A universal exists in two ways:
1) It exists in the individual particulars as a common likeness.
2) It exists in the human intellect as a concept formed as a result of the intellect's shaving focused it attention on the likeness.
The Faith-Reason Controversy
At first faith and reason can be supposed to not be in conflict, they yield the same results.
John Scots Erigena held their optimistic view, but the churchmen began to see faith as being threatened by reason.
Final Exam Study!
Augustine
1. Epistemology and philosophy of mind
Friday, November 17, 2006
More book notes on Augustine
(Originally written November 17, 2006 in Book 11)
Augustine's ethics
Augustine's ethics have a negative tone.
Augustine saw the good life being attainable only as a gift from God.
He believed it was much easier to do wrong rather than right.
Augustine's asceticism was moderate compared to his contemporaries, but severe by modern standards.
Augustine agreed with the Platonic notion that the wise man is cultivated in a society.
He had little to say about social ethics other than we ought to help one another as much as we can.
Augustine advocated for a strong law and strong ruler because it is better than the alternative: civil war.
Revolting against a leader is revolting against God.
Slavery was viewed as an evil, but agitating for its abolition was wrong because it was instituted by God as a punishment for sins.
To improve or altar existing social arrangements is to imply we are not content with God's program for us.
The evils we suffer are either goods in disguise or well-deserved punishments.
The delights and pains of the flesh are inconsequential as compared to the delights and pains of the soul.
Ethical value lay in motive rather than accomplishment for Augustine.
Augustine and Aristotle treated incontinence in similar manners, but for different reasons.
1) Where Aristotle disliked incontinence because it demeaned man, Augustine disliked it because it was disobedience to God.
2) Aristotle relieved men of responsibility when temptation became too great to overcome. Augustine held men accountable for their actions regardless of their temptation.
3) Augustine would have regarded many thing Aristotle held to be continent as incontinent
Augustine saw men as being incontinent frequently and paradoxically blamable
Everything except love for God was a snare and a delusion.
Augustine believed that living morally will not significantly help us, but living immorally will damn man.
The good for Augustine was a reunion with God. A separation occurred between man and God as a result of Adam's sin.
The way back to God was through faith in Jesus, "Through religion, that is not through ethics, which is first and foremost concerned with behavior in this world" (Jones, 119).
The Drama of Salvation
Each man is an actor who plays a small role in the big production of God's drama.
Sinful desires are incredibly difficult to eradicate, especially pride. Even when men overcome pride and are humble they take pride in their humility.
No one is certain of salvation. Even those who have been saved by divine intervention came are not freed from the temptations of the flesh.
Relapse for the saved is possible at all times. Therefore, complacency is an acute danger.
Life is desperately hazardous. The past is due to anyone's future.
The Mechanics of Salvation
To whom was Christ praying when he died for man's sins?
If it was God the Father, then God has a divided will, which is absurd. It can't be Satan because God doesn't owe him anything.
Augustine began with traditional Biblical language but began reinterpret it.
The Son became man to prove that flesh is not evil.
The Son died to show that death, though a punishment for sin, is not itself a sin.
Christ's death shows us how we ought to die - in piety, humility and peace.
God sending His Son shows us His great love for us better than anything else could.
The Play within a play
The passion is a play-within-a-play designed to invoke emotions in the other players of the large play. Man's egoism has often prevented Him from seeing just how much love God has shown us.
God cod could have redeemed man via divine fiat (as He created the world) but for mysterious reasons chose this way instead.
Augustine's notion of redemption is much more enlightened than the primitive notion of bloody sacrifice.
Augustine faces problems like if God is all then man is nothing. "No man is rightly saved by the assistance of divine aid" is an inadequate formula.
An arguing against the Manichaeism and Pelagians he used Pelagian arguments to refute Manichaeism. He used the arguments of Manichaeism to refute Plagiarism. The Pelagians were acute enough to point this out.
Linehan: Jones' characterization of Augustine is pretty awful. Even Russell give him more of a fair treatment. Jones is atrociously guilty of the fallacy of equivocation, especially in regards to the Doctrine of redemption.
The world is actually a puppet theater. God writes the parts and pulls the strings. Why would God write and perform a play for himself? Why go to the trouble of the play if God knows who will be saved and who will be damned?
Another problem for Augustine is that God arbitrarily chooses who will be saved.
Augustine's conception of justice was much different than modern men's conception of justice. Modern man sees it as unjust that we should inherit Adam's sin. "It seems unfair that Adam, who might just as well have been created with fewer deficiencies should be blamed for what, given his nature, was bound to happen. It seems unfair... that some few of us should be arbitrarily pulled out of the common cesspool of iniquity" (Jones, 124).
Augustine's doctrine of predestination is immoral and impracticable.
Augustine could not live up to the doctrine of predestination because otherwise he would not have advocated for us to pray, to do good, to fast, to struggle against temptation, or to do anything because whether or not we do anything is irrelevant to whether or not we are to be saved.
Augustine's life leading up to his conversion was irrelevant because his conversion was directly induced by God. At the moment of conversion he stood in an immediate relation to the Deity.
Augustine's interpretation of salvation is unacceptable in ecclesiastical terms because the Church in the exclusive agency through which souls are saved. The Church is the mediator between God and Man.
Augustine had a problem because he saw salvation in both mystical and ecclesiastical terms.
The Donatism Heresy
Augustine faced this problem when he went to Hippo in 391.
Donatism was a vigorous rival to the Church at this time.
Donatism was a peculiar heresy because it did not differ from the Church in doctrine.
Donatists believed that the sacraments were ineffective if performed by unworthy priests.
While this may seem plausible and harmless the Church saw it as a danger to their institution.
The Church had to maintain that the worth of the sacraments came from God and the Church, not from the administering priests.
Augustine first tried to reason with the Donatists. He believed the truth would prevail over heresy. When this failed Augustine elicited help from imperial authorities. This was easy because in addition to being heretics, the Donatists were social radicals.
Through persecution the Donatists lost their grip on N. Africa and Catholic Christianity held it for one more century (only to lose it to Islam).
While this may seem inhumane, Augustine advocated it because it turned many back to the Catholic faith. This ideal paved the way for the Inquisition.
Augustine did not recognize the primacy of the Pope because he held no man to be infallible.
Augustine saw the final authority of Christ as a general council.
Augustine held that we ought to use reason to discover truth as best we can, remembering that God would not have given us reason if we weren't to use it, but to remember that if we believe reason to be the ultimate source of truth we will be damned by our pride.
Augustine held a belief that man, in a general use of the word could slowly but steadily increase his grasp of truth through corrections of councils and doctrine. But no council or doctrine could ever arrive at the ultimate truth.
Augustine's view of the sacraments:
The earthly city had a dual meaning:
1) hell
2) the pilgrimage of this life
The City of God had a duel meaning:
1) Heaven
2) The Church
The visible Church is the embodiment the invisible church.
The Church and its members are the body of Christ. It owes its allegiance and life to Jesus.
The City of God was a very complex structure.
The synthesis of Augustine's two conceptions of man's relationship to God (ecclesiastical through the Church and its rites and the mystical conversion) is difficult and problematic. In the mysticism and predestinarianism synthesis God and man are privately united and the City of God is a mere aggregate of private relations. In the ecclesiastical version the Church and its sacraments were the key to salvation and private salvation was danger to the authority of the Church.
Nature and Natural Science
The physical world was the stage on which the drama of salvation unfold.
Augustine's Disinterest in science
Augustine was basically disinterested in science and the physical world.
He lacked the curiosity of the Greeks and the moderns. Curiosity was replaced by the fear of intellectual pride.
He did not have the incentive of happiness in this world that Greek and the moderns have.
His otherworldliness made him indifferent to ethics, politics and physical interests.
Nature was dominated by a naive teleology in Augustine.
Man, thought nothing in respect to God, was the center of the physical universe. Man is the end or purpose for which the universe was created.
"Augustine's teleology was so naively anthropocentric that it ws impossible for him to reach an unbiased conclusion" (Jones, 130).
Uncritical of the marvelous
Augustine's disposition made him very open to miracles.
Modern man looks at miracles and see them not as miracles, but as challenges.
Other reasons for Augustine's unscientific approach
Augustine's ingenuity achieved an incredibly synthesis between the Scriptures and his personal beliefs. It was a correspondence between two conceptual systems, not a conceptual system and reality.
Augustine held that whatever was to be known about the physical world was easily discovered and what was not easily discovered was purposely hidden by God.
Belief in the regularity of nature
Since everything is caused by God, everything is, in sense, a miracle.
Unusual things only appear more miraculous.
Augustine believed in a uniformity or regularity in nature and that unusual things were only unusual in our minds. This line of thinking paved the way for science to have a good argument for the regularity of nature.
History
The history of humanity was to serve as instruction for future acts of man.
Prior to Jesus' life, God gave signs to man to point them to Him. The history of the Jews was a sign.
Teleological Bias
Augustine's account of history was dominated by a teleology that was anthropocentric.
Augustine and the Greek Historians
Herodotus and Thucydides (the greatest Greek Historians) were far more scientific than Augustine. But, in some respects were much more narrow than Augustine.
The Greeks were dominated by current events. Their historians also attributed a lot to chance and accident. Augustine held that nothing happened by chance. His historical conversion "may be worthless" but his notion of unity and purpose in everything is key to historians today.
Augustine held that Jesus' life was the turning point of history. Everything leading up to it was actually leading up to it and everything after it was designed to supplement it.
While most people do not see divine providence in action, the teleological approach is necessary in historian work today.
Augustine's focus on universal history vs. the provincial focus of the Greek was a vast improvement over the Greeks.
Conclusion
Augustine does not evoke a neutral response.
Most people see Augustine as hopelessly unbalanced - "a neurotic exaggeration of guilt and sin and an unhealthy otherworldliness that results in almost total neglect of the really serious social and political problems that it is the business of the philosopher to discuss" (Jones, 136).
Augustine's mystical experience is viewed as a sign of psychic instability.
Others will see modern times as going too far in the other direction. Even those who do not accept Augustine's Christianity see his picture of human nature as better and more accurate than the 18th and 19th century philosophers.
Linehan - It is a bit sickening to read a trashing misrepresentative account of Augustine. And though Jones pays some respect to him in a few final paragraphs it was atrocious to read.
Augustine's ethics
Augustine's ethics have a negative tone.
Augustine saw the good life being attainable only as a gift from God.
He believed it was much easier to do wrong rather than right.
Augustine's asceticism was moderate compared to his contemporaries, but severe by modern standards.
Augustine agreed with the Platonic notion that the wise man is cultivated in a society.
He had little to say about social ethics other than we ought to help one another as much as we can.
Augustine advocated for a strong law and strong ruler because it is better than the alternative: civil war.
Revolting against a leader is revolting against God.
Slavery was viewed as an evil, but agitating for its abolition was wrong because it was instituted by God as a punishment for sins.
To improve or altar existing social arrangements is to imply we are not content with God's program for us.
The evils we suffer are either goods in disguise or well-deserved punishments.
The delights and pains of the flesh are inconsequential as compared to the delights and pains of the soul.
Ethical value lay in motive rather than accomplishment for Augustine.
Augustine and Aristotle treated incontinence in similar manners, but for different reasons.
1) Where Aristotle disliked incontinence because it demeaned man, Augustine disliked it because it was disobedience to God.
2) Aristotle relieved men of responsibility when temptation became too great to overcome. Augustine held men accountable for their actions regardless of their temptation.
3) Augustine would have regarded many thing Aristotle held to be continent as incontinent
Augustine saw men as being incontinent frequently and paradoxically blamable
Everything except love for God was a snare and a delusion.
Augustine believed that living morally will not significantly help us, but living immorally will damn man.
The good for Augustine was a reunion with God. A separation occurred between man and God as a result of Adam's sin.
The way back to God was through faith in Jesus, "Through religion, that is not through ethics, which is first and foremost concerned with behavior in this world" (Jones, 119).
The Drama of Salvation
Each man is an actor who plays a small role in the big production of God's drama.
Sinful desires are incredibly difficult to eradicate, especially pride. Even when men overcome pride and are humble they take pride in their humility.
No one is certain of salvation. Even those who have been saved by divine intervention came are not freed from the temptations of the flesh.
Relapse for the saved is possible at all times. Therefore, complacency is an acute danger.
Life is desperately hazardous. The past is due to anyone's future.
The Mechanics of Salvation
To whom was Christ praying when he died for man's sins?
If it was God the Father, then God has a divided will, which is absurd. It can't be Satan because God doesn't owe him anything.
Augustine began with traditional Biblical language but began reinterpret it.
The Son became man to prove that flesh is not evil.
The Son died to show that death, though a punishment for sin, is not itself a sin.
Christ's death shows us how we ought to die - in piety, humility and peace.
God sending His Son shows us His great love for us better than anything else could.
The Play within a play
The passion is a play-within-a-play designed to invoke emotions in the other players of the large play. Man's egoism has often prevented Him from seeing just how much love God has shown us.
God cod could have redeemed man via divine fiat (as He created the world) but for mysterious reasons chose this way instead.
Augustine's notion of redemption is much more enlightened than the primitive notion of bloody sacrifice.
Augustine faces problems like if God is all then man is nothing. "No man is rightly saved by the assistance of divine aid" is an inadequate formula.
An arguing against the Manichaeism and Pelagians he used Pelagian arguments to refute Manichaeism. He used the arguments of Manichaeism to refute Plagiarism. The Pelagians were acute enough to point this out.
Linehan: Jones' characterization of Augustine is pretty awful. Even Russell give him more of a fair treatment. Jones is atrociously guilty of the fallacy of equivocation, especially in regards to the Doctrine of redemption.
The world is actually a puppet theater. God writes the parts and pulls the strings. Why would God write and perform a play for himself? Why go to the trouble of the play if God knows who will be saved and who will be damned?
Another problem for Augustine is that God arbitrarily chooses who will be saved.
Augustine's conception of justice was much different than modern men's conception of justice. Modern man sees it as unjust that we should inherit Adam's sin. "It seems unfair that Adam, who might just as well have been created with fewer deficiencies should be blamed for what, given his nature, was bound to happen. It seems unfair... that some few of us should be arbitrarily pulled out of the common cesspool of iniquity" (Jones, 124).
Augustine's doctrine of predestination is immoral and impracticable.
Augustine could not live up to the doctrine of predestination because otherwise he would not have advocated for us to pray, to do good, to fast, to struggle against temptation, or to do anything because whether or not we do anything is irrelevant to whether or not we are to be saved.
Augustine's life leading up to his conversion was irrelevant because his conversion was directly induced by God. At the moment of conversion he stood in an immediate relation to the Deity.
Augustine's interpretation of salvation is unacceptable in ecclesiastical terms because the Church in the exclusive agency through which souls are saved. The Church is the mediator between God and Man.
Augustine had a problem because he saw salvation in both mystical and ecclesiastical terms.
The Donatism Heresy
Augustine faced this problem when he went to Hippo in 391.
Donatism was a vigorous rival to the Church at this time.
Donatism was a peculiar heresy because it did not differ from the Church in doctrine.
Donatists believed that the sacraments were ineffective if performed by unworthy priests.
While this may seem plausible and harmless the Church saw it as a danger to their institution.
The Church had to maintain that the worth of the sacraments came from God and the Church, not from the administering priests.
Augustine first tried to reason with the Donatists. He believed the truth would prevail over heresy. When this failed Augustine elicited help from imperial authorities. This was easy because in addition to being heretics, the Donatists were social radicals.
Through persecution the Donatists lost their grip on N. Africa and Catholic Christianity held it for one more century (only to lose it to Islam).
While this may seem inhumane, Augustine advocated it because it turned many back to the Catholic faith. This ideal paved the way for the Inquisition.
Augustine did not recognize the primacy of the Pope because he held no man to be infallible.
Augustine saw the final authority of Christ as a general council.
Augustine held that we ought to use reason to discover truth as best we can, remembering that God would not have given us reason if we weren't to use it, but to remember that if we believe reason to be the ultimate source of truth we will be damned by our pride.
Augustine held a belief that man, in a general use of the word could slowly but steadily increase his grasp of truth through corrections of councils and doctrine. But no council or doctrine could ever arrive at the ultimate truth.
Augustine's view of the sacraments:
The earthly city had a dual meaning:
1) hell
2) the pilgrimage of this life
The City of God had a duel meaning:
1) Heaven
2) The Church
The visible Church is the embodiment the invisible church.
The Church and its members are the body of Christ. It owes its allegiance and life to Jesus.
The City of God was a very complex structure.
The synthesis of Augustine's two conceptions of man's relationship to God (ecclesiastical through the Church and its rites and the mystical conversion) is difficult and problematic. In the mysticism and predestinarianism synthesis God and man are privately united and the City of God is a mere aggregate of private relations. In the ecclesiastical version the Church and its sacraments were the key to salvation and private salvation was danger to the authority of the Church.
Nature and Natural Science
The physical world was the stage on which the drama of salvation unfold.
Augustine's Disinterest in science
Augustine was basically disinterested in science and the physical world.
He lacked the curiosity of the Greeks and the moderns. Curiosity was replaced by the fear of intellectual pride.
He did not have the incentive of happiness in this world that Greek and the moderns have.
His otherworldliness made him indifferent to ethics, politics and physical interests.
Nature was dominated by a naive teleology in Augustine.
Man, thought nothing in respect to God, was the center of the physical universe. Man is the end or purpose for which the universe was created.
"Augustine's teleology was so naively anthropocentric that it ws impossible for him to reach an unbiased conclusion" (Jones, 130).
Uncritical of the marvelous
Augustine's disposition made him very open to miracles.
Modern man looks at miracles and see them not as miracles, but as challenges.
Other reasons for Augustine's unscientific approach
Augustine's ingenuity achieved an incredibly synthesis between the Scriptures and his personal beliefs. It was a correspondence between two conceptual systems, not a conceptual system and reality.
Augustine held that whatever was to be known about the physical world was easily discovered and what was not easily discovered was purposely hidden by God.
Belief in the regularity of nature
Since everything is caused by God, everything is, in sense, a miracle.
Unusual things only appear more miraculous.
Augustine believed in a uniformity or regularity in nature and that unusual things were only unusual in our minds. This line of thinking paved the way for science to have a good argument for the regularity of nature.
History
The history of humanity was to serve as instruction for future acts of man.
Prior to Jesus' life, God gave signs to man to point them to Him. The history of the Jews was a sign.
Teleological Bias
Augustine's account of history was dominated by a teleology that was anthropocentric.
Augustine and the Greek Historians
Herodotus and Thucydides (the greatest Greek Historians) were far more scientific than Augustine. But, in some respects were much more narrow than Augustine.
The Greeks were dominated by current events. Their historians also attributed a lot to chance and accident. Augustine held that nothing happened by chance. His historical conversion "may be worthless" but his notion of unity and purpose in everything is key to historians today.
Augustine held that Jesus' life was the turning point of history. Everything leading up to it was actually leading up to it and everything after it was designed to supplement it.
While most people do not see divine providence in action, the teleological approach is necessary in historian work today.
Augustine's focus on universal history vs. the provincial focus of the Greek was a vast improvement over the Greeks.
Conclusion
Augustine does not evoke a neutral response.
Most people see Augustine as hopelessly unbalanced - "a neurotic exaggeration of guilt and sin and an unhealthy otherworldliness that results in almost total neglect of the really serious social and political problems that it is the business of the philosopher to discuss" (Jones, 136).
Augustine's mystical experience is viewed as a sign of psychic instability.
Others will see modern times as going too far in the other direction. Even those who do not accept Augustine's Christianity see his picture of human nature as better and more accurate than the 18th and 19th century philosophers.
Linehan - It is a bit sickening to read a trashing misrepresentative account of Augustine. And though Jones pays some respect to him in a few final paragraphs it was atrocious to read.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
More notes on Augustine
(Originally written November 14, 2006 in Book 11)
Chapter 4: Augustine: The Created Universe
The Two Cities: Heaven and Hell
Augustine's dualism came out very strong here. The two cities:
1) The City of God: the community of the saints
2) The City of Earth: the community of lost souls
The saints are predestined to reign eternally with God. The lost souls are predestined to suffer eternal punishment with the devil.
The two cities exist as one until the final judgment day. Thus, neither is wholly good nor wholly bad.
Augustine conceived hell as both literal and symbolic. A literal hell raises problems like how is a being in fire and not consumed?
Heaven was also literal and symbolic. It was a place where saints' souls and risen bodies were reconciled and a peace of soul indwelled them all.
Augustine defines virtue as "the order of love". "When we love the right objects in the right way we are virtuous, and since the wholly right object is God, virtue merges with religion" (Jones, 104). Understanding this maxim will bring an understanding of all of Augustine's most important insights.
Heaven is not so much a fire material state, it is a possible, present spiritual state.
Heaven is a communion with God through love. Hell is a disorder love, a separation from God.
Augustine regarded Heaven and Hell as literal places and metaphysical states. His dualism here is certainly evident.
The Earthly pilgrimage
Man is living in the earthly city and those who will eventually dwell in the Heavenly City live here as a pilgrim.
Man
Augustine's view of man and his place was determined by two main considerations:
1) His conception of God
2) Reflection of his own life and experience
Augustine faced problems in his conception of man because it was based on a problematic conception of God.
The Human Predicament
Augustine was pessimistic in his view of humanity. Nothing seemed more obvious to him than the misery of the human situation.
If Augustine is correct than his debasing of man was necessary because if man has any intrinsic value then God's complete preeminence destroyed.
Augustine's life was dominated by a sense of hopelessness. He struggled to find redemption through intellect, but even when he reasoned that he could only be saved by the Christian God, he was helpless to achieve that salvation. God had to give it.
Despite his inability to achieve salvation, Augustine felt responsible for his actions.
According to Augustine God had to create a sinful man because a sinless man would be a perfect being, it would be whole and total in reality.
Linehan - This is a gross misrepresentation of Augustine. Jones has completely missed the ball here, painting Augustine as pure Neoplatonic.
Sin is the kind of evil that results from a deficient will.
Augustine's account of sin
Evil did not enter the world, it has always been a part of the created universe.
The entrance of sin into the world, which is evil connected to the will, has something to do with the roles that God assigned Adam, Eve and Satan in the cosmic drama.
There is no efficient cause for an evil will. A will becomes evil when it turns from putting God first to putting something lower first. The lower thing is not evil or bad; it is just the turning that is evil.
The cause of an evil will is a defect.
To seek the deficient cause of a will becoming evil is like looking for darkness.
All evil is a privation. Man's sin was not caused by Satan. Both Satan and Man had a privation in their will and thus, turned from good to evil.
Pride is the root of an evil will. Pride is leaving the true end (God) and making one's self an end.
Augustine's distinction between efficient and deficient causes is critical to his theory. But, it does not stand up to scrutiny.
Another problem with Augustine's account is that even if the evil will is caused by a defect, then how is man responsible for a defect God created?
The worst punishment God has given sinful man is a divided will.
Man's will is not wholly bad since it is corrupted. It still yearns for the good, but it is incapable of achieving it.
The flesh is not evil per se. It is only made evil by a corrupt soul.
Augustine was not an extreme ascetic. The bodily needs were to be taken care of, but not to be lusted after.
Chapter 4: Augustine: The Created Universe
The Two Cities: Heaven and Hell
Augustine's dualism came out very strong here. The two cities:
1) The City of God: the community of the saints
2) The City of Earth: the community of lost souls
The saints are predestined to reign eternally with God. The lost souls are predestined to suffer eternal punishment with the devil.
The two cities exist as one until the final judgment day. Thus, neither is wholly good nor wholly bad.
Augustine conceived hell as both literal and symbolic. A literal hell raises problems like how is a being in fire and not consumed?
Heaven was also literal and symbolic. It was a place where saints' souls and risen bodies were reconciled and a peace of soul indwelled them all.
Augustine defines virtue as "the order of love". "When we love the right objects in the right way we are virtuous, and since the wholly right object is God, virtue merges with religion" (Jones, 104). Understanding this maxim will bring an understanding of all of Augustine's most important insights.
Heaven is not so much a fire material state, it is a possible, present spiritual state.
Heaven is a communion with God through love. Hell is a disorder love, a separation from God.
Augustine regarded Heaven and Hell as literal places and metaphysical states. His dualism here is certainly evident.
The Earthly pilgrimage
Man is living in the earthly city and those who will eventually dwell in the Heavenly City live here as a pilgrim.
Man
Augustine's view of man and his place was determined by two main considerations:
1) His conception of God
2) Reflection of his own life and experience
Augustine faced problems in his conception of man because it was based on a problematic conception of God.
The Human Predicament
Augustine was pessimistic in his view of humanity. Nothing seemed more obvious to him than the misery of the human situation.
If Augustine is correct than his debasing of man was necessary because if man has any intrinsic value then God's complete preeminence destroyed.
Augustine's life was dominated by a sense of hopelessness. He struggled to find redemption through intellect, but even when he reasoned that he could only be saved by the Christian God, he was helpless to achieve that salvation. God had to give it.
Despite his inability to achieve salvation, Augustine felt responsible for his actions.
According to Augustine God had to create a sinful man because a sinless man would be a perfect being, it would be whole and total in reality.
Linehan - This is a gross misrepresentation of Augustine. Jones has completely missed the ball here, painting Augustine as pure Neoplatonic.
Sin is the kind of evil that results from a deficient will.
Augustine's account of sin
Evil did not enter the world, it has always been a part of the created universe.
The entrance of sin into the world, which is evil connected to the will, has something to do with the roles that God assigned Adam, Eve and Satan in the cosmic drama.
There is no efficient cause for an evil will. A will becomes evil when it turns from putting God first to putting something lower first. The lower thing is not evil or bad; it is just the turning that is evil.
The cause of an evil will is a defect.
To seek the deficient cause of a will becoming evil is like looking for darkness.
All evil is a privation. Man's sin was not caused by Satan. Both Satan and Man had a privation in their will and thus, turned from good to evil.
Pride is the root of an evil will. Pride is leaving the true end (God) and making one's self an end.
Augustine's distinction between efficient and deficient causes is critical to his theory. But, it does not stand up to scrutiny.
Another problem with Augustine's account is that even if the evil will is caused by a defect, then how is man responsible for a defect God created?
The worst punishment God has given sinful man is a divided will.
Man's will is not wholly bad since it is corrupted. It still yearns for the good, but it is incapable of achieving it.
The flesh is not evil per se. It is only made evil by a corrupt soul.
Augustine was not an extreme ascetic. The bodily needs were to be taken care of, but not to be lusted after.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
The Mysticism of Paul
(Originally written November 12, 2006 in Book 11)
Chapter 2: Christianity: The Formative Years: The Mysticism of Paul
Paul was a Jew of the Diaspora. He was Hellenized, of a well-to-do family, educated and a Roman citizen.
Paul was extremely proud of his Jewish heritage.
He aimed himself to destroy the heretical Christian movement.
Paul's vision
Paul switched from persecuting Christians to spreading Christianity after a vision.
Christians explain this vision as a direct intervention of God, Freudians explain it as a psychotic man suffering from sexual repression and a father fixation. Epilepsy, fatigue and other mental problems have been labeled as the cause of Paul's transformation.
Paul's transformation, whatever the cause, had a monumental effect on the history o the Western world.
Paul interpreted Jesus' teachings in light of familiarity with Eastern mysticism.
Paul interpreted all of Early Christian teaching in a way that the Roman world could accept. His reinterpretation of it led to a cult to become a world religion.
The Letter to the Romans
Paul made the historical Jesus into a savior god and "built up a mythical setting for this god out of the Jewish legends and stories" (Jones, 41).
All men have inherited sin from the sin of Adam. Because of sin man's doomed, but Jesus was a savior for all.
Paul was ascetic, holding that the functions of the body were low.
Sin in Paul became associated with flesh and much wider than mere incontinence.
Paul adopted a dualism battle between flesh and spirit for his metaphysical base.
He held that the will was divided unless God intervenes to make it a unity.
This dualism was markedly different from Jesus' teachings.
Paul's asceticism was also much more severe than Jesus' mind-set.
Jesus took for granted that man was capable of working at his own problems, whereas Paul held man to be incompetently helpless.
Jesus held salvation to be obtainable by taking care of one's inner life. Paul believed man needed transcendental help.
Paul's dualism was two-fold:
1) Man was body and spirit
2) Jesus was God and Man
Each dualism had a battle between higher and lower principles, the only difference is that Jesus' higher principles was out unaided by God.
Paul placed emphasis on the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus more than any other part of Jesus' life.
Jesus' suffering for us became Paul's chance to give all men hope to achieve the higher principle of life.
Like the Mystery cults, Paul emphasized the union of God and men. According to Paul, this happened through the salvation of man through Christ.
The Mystical Union with Christ
Paul's focus on the mystical union with Christ was a radical departure from the old worship of YHWH.
Man becomes identical with Christ according to Paul.
Paul regarded the Law as the way for man to live prior to the coming of Christ.
Paul attacked the Judaizing of Christianity. He focused on the ritual of circumcision.
Despite using Jesus as a freeing from the Law, Paul still maintained religious rules so people did not live life as there were no consequences.
Some followers of Paul abused the freedom from the Law, but Paul corrected them, especially in Galatians.
Paul maintained that those who truly live in spirit will no longer want to do evil deeds.
Paul held love as the ultimate virtue; knowledge, beauty, strength and wisdom are nothing without love.
Love was the source of all other virtues. Paul also added to love the virtues of faith and hope as important virtues.
Paul's mysticism
Paul was eloquent and a phenomenal missionary.
Paul was brought before the Roman leadership in Jerusalem by the Jews. He was then imprisoned in Caesarea, transferred to Rome, had a long imprisonment and was executed in 62 AD.
Pauline Christianity
Paul was a mystic, not a philosopher. Paul's views have however persisted to be a part of philosophy since the Middle Ages.
Paul's unique cultural background is what enabled him to turn Christianity into a world religion.
The synthesis of Paul's views into a systematic view was a difficult task for Paul's followers.
Paul's view of salvation freed contradicting theses in his own works:
1) Salvation is magical (through ritual acts)
2) Salvation is spiritual (through mystic inner changes)
Paul was contradictory in faith and works to salvation.
Paul's doctrine of original sin was almost problematic. How did men inherit the sin of Adam? If man inherited sin how is he responsible for it? Why did God allow Adam to sin? These questions plague theologies still today.
Another major problem for Paul is Jesus is son of God, but monotheism has to be maintained by now.
Chapter 2: Christianity: The Formative Years: The Mysticism of Paul
Paul was a Jew of the Diaspora. He was Hellenized, of a well-to-do family, educated and a Roman citizen.
Paul was extremely proud of his Jewish heritage.
He aimed himself to destroy the heretical Christian movement.
Paul's vision
Paul switched from persecuting Christians to spreading Christianity after a vision.
Christians explain this vision as a direct intervention of God, Freudians explain it as a psychotic man suffering from sexual repression and a father fixation. Epilepsy, fatigue and other mental problems have been labeled as the cause of Paul's transformation.
Paul's transformation, whatever the cause, had a monumental effect on the history o the Western world.
Paul interpreted Jesus' teachings in light of familiarity with Eastern mysticism.
Paul interpreted all of Early Christian teaching in a way that the Roman world could accept. His reinterpretation of it led to a cult to become a world religion.
The Letter to the Romans
Paul made the historical Jesus into a savior god and "built up a mythical setting for this god out of the Jewish legends and stories" (Jones, 41).
All men have inherited sin from the sin of Adam. Because of sin man's doomed, but Jesus was a savior for all.
Paul was ascetic, holding that the functions of the body were low.
Sin in Paul became associated with flesh and much wider than mere incontinence.
Paul adopted a dualism battle between flesh and spirit for his metaphysical base.
He held that the will was divided unless God intervenes to make it a unity.
This dualism was markedly different from Jesus' teachings.
Paul's asceticism was also much more severe than Jesus' mind-set.
Jesus took for granted that man was capable of working at his own problems, whereas Paul held man to be incompetently helpless.
Jesus held salvation to be obtainable by taking care of one's inner life. Paul believed man needed transcendental help.
Paul's dualism was two-fold:
1) Man was body and spirit
2) Jesus was God and Man
Each dualism had a battle between higher and lower principles, the only difference is that Jesus' higher principles was out unaided by God.
Paul placed emphasis on the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus more than any other part of Jesus' life.
Jesus' suffering for us became Paul's chance to give all men hope to achieve the higher principle of life.
Like the Mystery cults, Paul emphasized the union of God and men. According to Paul, this happened through the salvation of man through Christ.
The Mystical Union with Christ
Paul's focus on the mystical union with Christ was a radical departure from the old worship of YHWH.
Man becomes identical with Christ according to Paul.
Paul regarded the Law as the way for man to live prior to the coming of Christ.
Paul attacked the Judaizing of Christianity. He focused on the ritual of circumcision.
Despite using Jesus as a freeing from the Law, Paul still maintained religious rules so people did not live life as there were no consequences.
Some followers of Paul abused the freedom from the Law, but Paul corrected them, especially in Galatians.
Paul maintained that those who truly live in spirit will no longer want to do evil deeds.
Paul held love as the ultimate virtue; knowledge, beauty, strength and wisdom are nothing without love.
Love was the source of all other virtues. Paul also added to love the virtues of faith and hope as important virtues.
Paul's mysticism
Paul was eloquent and a phenomenal missionary.
Paul was brought before the Roman leadership in Jerusalem by the Jews. He was then imprisoned in Caesarea, transferred to Rome, had a long imprisonment and was executed in 62 AD.
Pauline Christianity
Paul was a mystic, not a philosopher. Paul's views have however persisted to be a part of philosophy since the Middle Ages.
Paul's unique cultural background is what enabled him to turn Christianity into a world religion.
The synthesis of Paul's views into a systematic view was a difficult task for Paul's followers.
Paul's view of salvation freed contradicting theses in his own works:
1) Salvation is magical (through ritual acts)
2) Salvation is spiritual (through mystic inner changes)
Paul was contradictory in faith and works to salvation.
Paul's doctrine of original sin was almost problematic. How did men inherit the sin of Adam? If man inherited sin how is he responsible for it? Why did God allow Adam to sin? These questions plague theologies still today.
Another major problem for Paul is Jesus is son of God, but monotheism has to be maintained by now.
Thursday, November 9, 2006
Class Notes on Augustine
(Originally written November 9, 2006 in Book 11)
Augustine - Ethics
Ordo Amoris - "order of loves"
Life as a drama
Original Sin
-Formalized by Augustine
-Involves both guilt and corruption
Adam's sin had no efficient cause - it was a privation
Other Doctrines in City of God
1. Creation "ex nihilo"
2. Hierarchy of Being
God
Angels
Man
Primates
etc.
3. God has no opposite
4. All beings have some good
5. Divine sovereignty and foreknowledge are consistent with human freedom.
Political Philosophy
1. City of God v. City of Man
2. Just War theory
Problem of Evil
2 Types
1) God created all things
Evil is a thing
Therefore, God created evil.
Augustine's response: Evil is not a thing, it is a privation of good.
2) An all powerful, all knowing, all good God will not allow evil.
Evil exists.
Therefore, God is not all powerful, all good, and all knowing.
Augustine's response was to deny that an all powerful, all knowing, all good God would not allow evil.
Theodicies
1) Aesthetic Totality Theory
2) Evil for Greater Good
Augustine - Ethics
Ordo Amoris - "order of loves"
Life as a drama
Original Sin
-Formalized by Augustine
-Involves both guilt and corruption
Adam's sin had no efficient cause - it was a privation
Other Doctrines in City of God
1. Creation "ex nihilo"
2. Hierarchy of Being
God
Angels
Man
Primates
etc.
3. God has no opposite
4. All beings have some good
5. Divine sovereignty and foreknowledge are consistent with human freedom.
Political Philosophy
1. City of God v. City of Man
2. Just War theory
Problem of Evil
2 Types
1) God created all things
Evil is a thing
Therefore, God created evil.
Augustine's response: Evil is not a thing, it is a privation of good.
2) An all powerful, all knowing, all good God will not allow evil.
Evil exists.
Therefore, God is not all powerful, all good, and all knowing.
Augustine's response was to deny that an all powerful, all knowing, all good God would not allow evil.
Theodicies
1) Aesthetic Totality Theory
2) Evil for Greater Good
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Time and The Knowledge of Good and Evil
(Originally written July 29, 2006 in Book 7)
Time
Time is a creation of God as a boundary for finite creatures. Infinity is not a ceaseless amount of time it is an existence apart from time.
Time is finite as an hour is finite. An hour is merely sixty minutes. A minute is merely 60 seconds. A second is a combination of smaller units. This pointless process can continue ceaselessly. But, that is not infinitude.
God exists as infinitude. He is infinite. Thus, rules that apply to anything finite do not pertain to infinite beings.
The knowledge of Good and Evil
Prior to the Fall of man his possibilities were endless in a certain manner as he was not subject to death. Thus, man was not hampered by a horizontal way. But man did not have access to the full knowledge of good and evil. Thus, he was limited in a vertical way. (Horizontal and vertical only stand for ways, the choice to label which as which was merely personal preference).
After the Fall man acquired the full knowledge of good and evil, thus remaining the limit of knowledge of good and evil. But it created a limit of death.
Unfortunately man has only the faculty to comprehend so much of good and evil. This is the disease all humans now suffer: humanity possess an unlimited knowledge both good and evil, but only possess a small amount of time to comprehend it. If man could live long enough he could theoretically comprehend it all and become the equal, yet opposite of God (undoing them both). Death imposed on mankind was punishment for his sin and the same time an act of mercy.
Time
Time is a creation of God as a boundary for finite creatures. Infinity is not a ceaseless amount of time it is an existence apart from time.
Time is finite as an hour is finite. An hour is merely sixty minutes. A minute is merely 60 seconds. A second is a combination of smaller units. This pointless process can continue ceaselessly. But, that is not infinitude.
God exists as infinitude. He is infinite. Thus, rules that apply to anything finite do not pertain to infinite beings.
The knowledge of Good and Evil
Prior to the Fall of man his possibilities were endless in a certain manner as he was not subject to death. Thus, man was not hampered by a horizontal way. But man did not have access to the full knowledge of good and evil. Thus, he was limited in a vertical way. (Horizontal and vertical only stand for ways, the choice to label which as which was merely personal preference).
After the Fall man acquired the full knowledge of good and evil, thus remaining the limit of knowledge of good and evil. But it created a limit of death.
Unfortunately man has only the faculty to comprehend so much of good and evil. This is the disease all humans now suffer: humanity possess an unlimited knowledge both good and evil, but only possess a small amount of time to comprehend it. If man could live long enough he could theoretically comprehend it all and become the equal, yet opposite of God (undoing them both). Death imposed on mankind was punishment for his sin and the same time an act of mercy.
Saint Thomas Aquinas
(Originally Written July 29, 2006 in Book 5)
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter 13 - St. Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) is the greatest scholastic philosopher of all time.
Catholic philosophies still teach his philosophical system as the only true system.
He has the respect and authority of the Church Fathers in Catholicism.
Thomas was the son out Count Aquino and born in Naples near Monte Cassino. Monte Cassino is where the "angelic doctor" began his education. He then studied at the University of Naples. He became a Dominican and then studied under Albertus Magnus at Cologne.
Aquinas had a fuller understanding of Aristotle than other scholastics. He disliked Neo-Platonism, even in the writings of Augustine.
He convinced the Church in the philosophy of Aristotle, despite misinterpretations of Islamic Avveroist Aristotelians.
Thomas' most important work is the Summa Contra Gentiles. Its purpose is to establish the truth of Christianity in arguments to Non-Christians.
Summa Theologica is of almost equal importance, but is addressed to Christians.
This is an abstract of Summa Contra Gentiles
1) Wisdom is concerned with the end of the universe
2) The end of the Universe is the good of the intellect (truth)
3) Natural Reason is deficient in the things of God. It can prove some parts, but not all. It can prove the existence of God and the immortality of the Soul, but not the Trinity, the Incarnation or the Last Judgment.
4) Nothing in revelation (the Scriptures) is contrary to reason
Linehan - Not exactly.
The Summa Contra Gentiles is divided into four parts. The first three do not refer to the Scriptures as arguments.
The first step for Aquinas was to prove the existence of God. He rejected the ontological argument because it requires man to know the essence of God, which is impossible. The existence of God can be proved, but it can also be deduced by faith. Aquinas denies that only faith makes God knowable.
Aristotle proved the existence of God through the argument of the unmoved mover:
1) There are things that are only moved
2) There are things which move and are moved.
3) Whatever is moved, is moved by something
4) An endless series of movers is impossible.
Conclusion: There necessarily exists something that moves without being moved. This unmoved mover is God.
Aquinas gives five proofs for the existence of God in the Summa Theologica
1) the argument of the unmoved mover
2) the argument of the first cause
3) there must be an ultimate source of all necessity
4) the various perfections of this would must have their source in something completely perfect
5) Non-living things have a purpose, but only living things have a purpose and thus something outside of them must have a purpose.
In returning to the Summa Contra Gentiles: after proving the existence of God we can say many things about him in a negative sense.
1) He is unmoved, thus eternal
2) He contains no passive potentiality, thus he is unchanging
3) He is not primary matter (pure passivity) thus he is pure activity
4) God has no composition, thus no body, thus no body parts, thus he must be something other than physical
Since God is not a composite he is his own essence.
God's essence and existence are identical.
There are no accidents in God. He cannot be defined.
It is more proper to state that X is similar to God in such a way than to say that God is similar to X.
God is good. He is the good of every good.
He is intelligent. His act of intelligence is His essence. He understands by His essence and understands himself perfectly.
God understands forms because he created them. He understands the world as being like Him in a way or unlike him in another way. God understand the plant as:
1) like him in that it is alive
2) unlike him in that it is not possessing of knowledge.
A creature always differs from God in some form of negation.
God understand all things at the same instant.
God is literally truth.
Aquinas is now troubled with the question, can God know particular things or does He only know universals and general truths? As a Christian, Aquinas believes in providence and that demands that God must know particular things despite weighty arguments against this view. Aquinas states 7 contrary arguments then refutes them.
1) Singularity being signate matter, nothing immaterial can know it. Refutation God knows singulars as their cause.
2) Singulars do not always exist and cannot be known when they do not exist; therefore they cannot be known by an unchanging being. Refutation God nows things that do not yet exist
3) Singulars are contingent, not necessary. Therefore there can be no certain knowledge of them except when they exist. Refutation He sees all time as present.
4) Some singulars are due to volitions, which can only be known to the person willing the volition. Refutation God knows our minds and secret wills
5) Singulars are infinite in number and the infinite as such is unknown. Refutation God knows an infinity of things
6) Singulars are too petty for God's attention. Refutation Nothing is wholly trivial.
7) IN some singulars there is evil, but God cannot know evil. Refutation God knows evil things because he knows what is good and anything not good must be evil.
God possesses will. His will is His essence. His will is the cause of other things. He does not will necessarily. It is free-will.
God hates nothing. He is happy and is His own happiness.
God create the world out of nothing.
God cannot be a body, change, fail, be weary, forget, repent, be angry or sad, create a man with no soul, make the sum of the angles of a triangle be the sum of two right angles, undo the past, commit sins, make another God or make himself not exist.
Intellectual substances are immaterial and incorruptible.
The intellect is part of the soul.
The soul is not created through sexual reproduction, it is created new in each body.
Linehan - I tentatively reject this view. The soul must be reproduced in sex for the inheritance of sin to happen.
Thomas adopts Aristotle's view on universals. "Universals do no subsist outside the soul, but the intellect, in understanding universals, understands things that are outside the soul" (Russell, 458).
Evil is unintentional, not an essence. It has an accidental cause, which is good.
God is the end of all things so all things tend to be like God.
Man's happiness lies in moral virtue, not bodily pleasures. It consists in the contemplation of God.
Ultimate happiness is unachievable on earth. It only exists in heaven, when we see God face to face (even though God doesn't really have a face).
Divine Providence does not negate evil, contingency, free will, chance or luck.
Evil comes through second causes.
Angels are each individual species.
Astrology is rejected, as well as any notion of fate.
Prayer is useful in spite of Providence being unchangeable.
Miracles are solely performed by God. Magic is demonic.
Divine law:
1) directs us to love God
2) directs us to love our neighbor, but not as vividly
3) it forbids birth control because it is against nature (interestingly it does not forbid celibacy)
4) matrimony is indissoluble
5) not all carnal intercourse is sinful, but continence is a better life than marriage
6) monogamy is demanded
7) incest is forbidden
Mortal sins demand Hell as punishment. No man can be forgiven of sin without grace, yet is condemned if he doesn't convert.
God is not the cause of sin, but chooses to free some from sin and leave others in sin.
Aquinas states God is knowable three ways:
1) Reason
2) Revelation
3) Intuition of previous revelation
He blames the Greek Church for denying the double procession of the Holy Ghost and the supremacy of the pope.
He believes the sacraments are valid even if dispensed by a wicked priest.
Aquinas basically agrees with Aristotle philosophically. He is original in aptly adapting Aristotle to Christian dogma.
He was very innovative and condemned in Paris and Oxford universities.
He was even more remarkable in systematizing then originality. "Even if every one of his doctrines were mistaken, the Summa would remain an imposing intellectual edifice" (Russell, 461).
He is fair to arguments and positions contrary to his own. He then firmly dismantles them.
He does a good job in distinguishing arguments from reason and arguments from revelation.
He thoroughly knows Aristotle.
Russell contends that since Aquinas already knows the outcome of his arguments (revealed by God) that he cannot be regarded as an elite philosopher.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter 13 - St. Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) is the greatest scholastic philosopher of all time.
Catholic philosophies still teach his philosophical system as the only true system.
He has the respect and authority of the Church Fathers in Catholicism.
Thomas was the son out Count Aquino and born in Naples near Monte Cassino. Monte Cassino is where the "angelic doctor" began his education. He then studied at the University of Naples. He became a Dominican and then studied under Albertus Magnus at Cologne.
Aquinas had a fuller understanding of Aristotle than other scholastics. He disliked Neo-Platonism, even in the writings of Augustine.
He convinced the Church in the philosophy of Aristotle, despite misinterpretations of Islamic Avveroist Aristotelians.
Thomas' most important work is the Summa Contra Gentiles. Its purpose is to establish the truth of Christianity in arguments to Non-Christians.
Summa Theologica is of almost equal importance, but is addressed to Christians.
This is an abstract of Summa Contra Gentiles
1) Wisdom is concerned with the end of the universe
2) The end of the Universe is the good of the intellect (truth)
3) Natural Reason is deficient in the things of God. It can prove some parts, but not all. It can prove the existence of God and the immortality of the Soul, but not the Trinity, the Incarnation or the Last Judgment.
4) Nothing in revelation (the Scriptures) is contrary to reason
Linehan - Not exactly.
The Summa Contra Gentiles is divided into four parts. The first three do not refer to the Scriptures as arguments.
The first step for Aquinas was to prove the existence of God. He rejected the ontological argument because it requires man to know the essence of God, which is impossible. The existence of God can be proved, but it can also be deduced by faith. Aquinas denies that only faith makes God knowable.
Aristotle proved the existence of God through the argument of the unmoved mover:
1) There are things that are only moved
2) There are things which move and are moved.
3) Whatever is moved, is moved by something
4) An endless series of movers is impossible.
Conclusion: There necessarily exists something that moves without being moved. This unmoved mover is God.
Aquinas gives five proofs for the existence of God in the Summa Theologica
1) the argument of the unmoved mover
2) the argument of the first cause
3) there must be an ultimate source of all necessity
4) the various perfections of this would must have their source in something completely perfect
5) Non-living things have a purpose, but only living things have a purpose and thus something outside of them must have a purpose.
In returning to the Summa Contra Gentiles: after proving the existence of God we can say many things about him in a negative sense.
1) He is unmoved, thus eternal
2) He contains no passive potentiality, thus he is unchanging
3) He is not primary matter (pure passivity) thus he is pure activity
4) God has no composition, thus no body, thus no body parts, thus he must be something other than physical
Since God is not a composite he is his own essence.
God's essence and existence are identical.
There are no accidents in God. He cannot be defined.
It is more proper to state that X is similar to God in such a way than to say that God is similar to X.
God is good. He is the good of every good.
He is intelligent. His act of intelligence is His essence. He understands by His essence and understands himself perfectly.
God understands forms because he created them. He understands the world as being like Him in a way or unlike him in another way. God understand the plant as:
1) like him in that it is alive
2) unlike him in that it is not possessing of knowledge.
A creature always differs from God in some form of negation.
God understand all things at the same instant.
God is literally truth.
Aquinas is now troubled with the question, can God know particular things or does He only know universals and general truths? As a Christian, Aquinas believes in providence and that demands that God must know particular things despite weighty arguments against this view. Aquinas states 7 contrary arguments then refutes them.
1) Singularity being signate matter, nothing immaterial can know it. Refutation God knows singulars as their cause.
2) Singulars do not always exist and cannot be known when they do not exist; therefore they cannot be known by an unchanging being. Refutation God nows things that do not yet exist
3) Singulars are contingent, not necessary. Therefore there can be no certain knowledge of them except when they exist. Refutation He sees all time as present.
4) Some singulars are due to volitions, which can only be known to the person willing the volition. Refutation God knows our minds and secret wills
5) Singulars are infinite in number and the infinite as such is unknown. Refutation God knows an infinity of things
6) Singulars are too petty for God's attention. Refutation Nothing is wholly trivial.
7) IN some singulars there is evil, but God cannot know evil. Refutation God knows evil things because he knows what is good and anything not good must be evil.
God possesses will. His will is His essence. His will is the cause of other things. He does not will necessarily. It is free-will.
God hates nothing. He is happy and is His own happiness.
God create the world out of nothing.
God cannot be a body, change, fail, be weary, forget, repent, be angry or sad, create a man with no soul, make the sum of the angles of a triangle be the sum of two right angles, undo the past, commit sins, make another God or make himself not exist.
Intellectual substances are immaterial and incorruptible.
The intellect is part of the soul.
The soul is not created through sexual reproduction, it is created new in each body.
Linehan - I tentatively reject this view. The soul must be reproduced in sex for the inheritance of sin to happen.
Thomas adopts Aristotle's view on universals. "Universals do no subsist outside the soul, but the intellect, in understanding universals, understands things that are outside the soul" (Russell, 458).
Evil is unintentional, not an essence. It has an accidental cause, which is good.
God is the end of all things so all things tend to be like God.
Man's happiness lies in moral virtue, not bodily pleasures. It consists in the contemplation of God.
Ultimate happiness is unachievable on earth. It only exists in heaven, when we see God face to face (even though God doesn't really have a face).
Divine Providence does not negate evil, contingency, free will, chance or luck.
Evil comes through second causes.
Angels are each individual species.
Astrology is rejected, as well as any notion of fate.
Prayer is useful in spite of Providence being unchangeable.
Miracles are solely performed by God. Magic is demonic.
Divine law:
1) directs us to love God
2) directs us to love our neighbor, but not as vividly
3) it forbids birth control because it is against nature (interestingly it does not forbid celibacy)
4) matrimony is indissoluble
5) not all carnal intercourse is sinful, but continence is a better life than marriage
6) monogamy is demanded
7) incest is forbidden
Mortal sins demand Hell as punishment. No man can be forgiven of sin without grace, yet is condemned if he doesn't convert.
God is not the cause of sin, but chooses to free some from sin and leave others in sin.
Aquinas states God is knowable three ways:
1) Reason
2) Revelation
3) Intuition of previous revelation
He blames the Greek Church for denying the double procession of the Holy Ghost and the supremacy of the pope.
He believes the sacraments are valid even if dispensed by a wicked priest.
Aquinas basically agrees with Aristotle philosophically. He is original in aptly adapting Aristotle to Christian dogma.
He was very innovative and condemned in Paris and Oxford universities.
He was even more remarkable in systematizing then originality. "Even if every one of his doctrines were mistaken, the Summa would remain an imposing intellectual edifice" (Russell, 461).
He is fair to arguments and positions contrary to his own. He then firmly dismantles them.
He does a good job in distinguishing arguments from reason and arguments from revelation.
He thoroughly knows Aristotle.
Russell contends that since Aquinas already knows the outcome of his arguments (revealed by God) that he cannot be regarded as an elite philosopher.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)