Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
Thomism...or anyone want to get philosophical?
date
newest »
newest »
Kierkegaard was hostile to reason also. Well, mainly hostile to Hegelianism.
Reason is fabulous but is limited by the intelligence of the species. Even the 200 IQers have big holes in their knowledge and ability to integrate numerous complex subjects into a comprehensive whole. Theology and philosophy try by brute force to present Deism as a logical (or illogical) thought pill that can be swallowed cerebrally. Alas, the scope of creation is far greater than can be assimilated by puny humans. That's where Faith comes in and an extensive Scriptural background keeps it from being blind faith.
What do you mean by contemporary versus reformed apologists? I hope you don't mind explaining since I am still fairly new to apologetics.I wonder if all of these views are somehow true? When talking to people it seems you can always find someone who looked at the stars and somehow faith was born in them that there was a personal God who loved them and later they added to their faith knowledge. So that would be faith seeking understanding.
Then there will be someone who searched for truth and finally believed that God existed and believed. So someone who, as you said, had preambles to faith and then a revelation.
As for the last example, reason can lead to false conclusions and faith may be in constant battle with reason. I feel like I fit this category. Somehow I have faith in Jesus although in my mind I constantly battle thoughts that raise themselves up against Him.
I wonder if none of these is the "correct" answer, but are simply observations of different ways the faith/reason relationship works???
I didn't explain that well. If I recall, there are a few ways people do apologetics.Evidential - Present the evidences that Christianity is true and the person, if you present it right, has no reason not to believe (i.e. Evidence that Demands a Verdict by McDowell)
Classical - Present arguments for preliminaries to faith, such as existence of God. You slowly build your case from proving God's existence to proving why a good God would allow suffering to the resurrection of Jesus. I think Craig's method fits in here and it fits with Aquinas - you start with things you can prove by reason and where you run out of such things you move on to special revelation.
Reformed (or Presuppositional) - Argues that Christian faith is the only basis for reason; would note the fact of human sin as corrupting our reason so (unlike the previous two) you cannot just present arguments for the non-Christian is blocked from understanding by sin. In other words, there is no common ground with the unsaved. We start with faith and as we have faith everything makes sense. So AUgustine would go here (and so would the term faith seeking understanding).
Of course, I am not Reformed but I love the idea of "faith seeking understanding". I think you can reason with people, though I think everyone is influenced by sin so it is not as simple as assuming any sane person will come to agree.
Does that help?
I agree that all views may somehow be true. Reality, it seems to me, is too complex to reduce to arguing for one.
I would fall into the presuppositional camp, if not boderline fideism.
That was a great synopsis, David!I would follow none of them, especially the more confrontational. Rather, the best course of action IMO is to show by example that living the way Jesus taught brings the most joy, both to myself and to those I meet. If a person is inspired to give Jesus's way a try, then the truth of Jesus's teachings will become evident over time.
Conversely, if a person converts to Christianity on the basis of logical argument, but does not recognize the joy in following, nothing is accomplished. They will probably turn to some authoritarian sect and spread more unrest than peace.
I think Jesus was evidential, "Whenever you enter a town.. Heal the sick in it and say the kingdom of God has come near to you." Luke 10:8,9
Interestingly I probably think more classical than reformed. In my experience most people have behave as though they are in denial of Jesus rather than not understanding the message. I've never had someone put their fingers in their ears but it's apparent the mere discussion of Christ causes them some strange emotional pain. Perhaps it's because our Australian society is very post-Christian.
Thank you for explaining, David. It does help, though I have more questions now.I want to make sure I understand first. Examples of evidence for Christianity would be arguments for the reliability of the gospels, resurrection, etc. (I have not read Jsh Mcdowell.) and the Classical approach would be more philosophical in nature? (I have read Craig, but at the time I was only seeking answers to the problem of evil and not thinking of much else or how his approach fit in with the larger scheme of apologetics.)
As for reformed, does this mean that people who operate with this approach would feel apologetics to be a useless field? It seems from my limited understanding of your explanation that faith would simply be given (and I can't remember the references for the verses that say that) and there would be no need for a third party to play part in the conversion process. (Brent, did you say somewhere that you are Calvinist? If so, is this why you take the reformed approach? And if so, what is your opinion about apologetics?)
Also, I am curious why you put Augustine in the reformed category? I am no expert (obviously), this is straight from the armchair, but I am currently rereading The Confessions. I have not read The City of God or any of his other works. Anyway, it seems to me that Augustine fits more in the classical approach?? In the Confessions, I found the entire book leading up to his conversion one great struggle in the realm of reasoning. And especially in the chapter that contains the account of his moment of belief, he grapples with the problem of evil before moving to faith, right? Or maybe he adopts another position in his other works since this is simply a telling of his conversion??
Lee wrote: "Conversely, if a person converts to Christianity on the basis of logical argument, but does not recognize the joy in following, nothing is accomplished.."I think this is a good point, Lee.
I, like Genni, am rather new to Apologetics and was wondering if anyone in this group discussion knew of any interesting books on this subject. Particularly something that would clarify the theological/apologetic basis as well as the historical application of these various viewpoints. I don't want to err out of ignorance but in my experience each perspective has different strengths and weaknesses and would prove useful in one instance and worthless in another based on the question/problem one is attempting to solve.
Augustine's philosophy hinges everything on faith, as David said, as he hinges everything from reason onwards on faith, which indeed, is a gift from God. Confessions is an ancient autobiographical account of his conversion experience, not a philosophical work. Read on the predestination of the saints. Augustine would have disagreed with Aquinas had they squared off.
Lee - I think what you said in message seven borders on a "faith seeking understanding" idea. I resonate with that idea most, for reasons others have noted, even though I am not in the Reformed camp.
Josh - I would say it is an anachronism to take any of these positions and fit Jesus into one.
Genni - I think there is significant overlap in the classical and evidential. Like you said, classical may focus more on philosophy. Also, I think the key is order. Once a person pursuing the classical method gets to Jesus' resurrection, she will offer evidences for it. But I think her argument is that because we have shown there is a God earlier in our argument then we can now show that Jesus rose. The evidentialist may start with the resurrection (the classicist wants to prove God's existence first).
I don't think Reformed people say apologetics are useless. I think they more reject the divide of philosophy and theology. Like, if Aquinas says we can prove preambles of faith with reason his assumption is that unaided human reason can lead to truth. Augustine might argue that human sin has corrupted reason so it cannot do what Aquinas wants. In other words, Augustine wants to bring theology in right from the beginning.
So for Augustine, our reason is corrupted by sin. I think another aspect of this is that our presuppositions are the key - if you assume God then everything can make sense, if you assume no God then it does not. Or, to put it another way, the Christian and the Atheist do not have enough common ground to pursue truth together.
I am not reformed, but I think to some degree this is true. Our assumptions influence how we reason. I'd point to Alasdair Mcintyre's After Virtue as a non-Calvinist discussion that goes this direction.
I'd also argue it is somewhat of an anachronism to say Augustine is Reformed. "Reformed" was a category created centuries later. In some ways Augustine certainly can be seen as a theological predecessory, but I suspect he had some positions many later Reformed would deny. I mean, in my understanding Aquinas had high respect for Augustine and though he disagreed, Aquinas still had many places where he agreed too.
Here's a book. I've not read it, and it divides into five ways (separating Reformed from Presuppositional):http://www.amazon.com/Five-Views-Apol...
I'd also recommend Copleston's history of philosophy - volume 2 covers Augustine and Aquinas. And like I said, After Virtue is a fantastic book on moral philosophy, but it relates to some of this.
Calvin's position is indeed that sin has corrupted reason, while he splits reason twain, namely, knowledge of the world and knowledge of God. while the natural man might be able to utilize reason to grow in knowledge of the natural, he can never come to knowledge of God by reason. Calvin uses the metaphor of a man watching lighting flash, who only catches a minute glimpse of the flash and what it illuminates, but would never be able to see in the darkness by lightning, for it is gone in but a moment. The Reformers drew heavily on Augustine for a reason, but yeah, probably anachronistic to say he is Reformed bc he obviously coildnt have been yet.
David said,it is an anachronism..
What exactly are you saying here, that Jesus predates this field of discussion? That the approach taught by the apostles is old fashioned? not sure here.
Jesus predates? Kind of. I mean, he did not write philosophical treatises or give extended discussion on knowledge. So partly predates, partly not concerned with. I think you could try to extrapolate from what Jesus did say to get his views on such things - he seemed to think his opponents had a block from following his message. I just don't think you can jump from there to saying he was Augustinian or Calvinist or whatever.
And I am not saying what the apostles taught is old-fashioned. I am just saying they weren't meaning to write philosophy in the way Aquinas, or even Augustine, were.
this is a very good thread. I know very little about this stuff, so it's nice to read and learn.
Brent wrote: ".Confessions is an ancient autobiographical account of his conversion experience, not a philosophical work."Yes, exactly. I find interesting if his approach was similar to a modern reformed approach when from what I read in the Confessions his personal conversion experience fits more with the expectation of classical apologetics, as David describes it.
And just on the side, although it is obviously autobiographical, I think it does contain quit a bit of philosophy as well, don't you think so? From refuting the Manichees, to quoting Plotinus, to the chapter on memory. There was quite a bit, imho. But again, I typically approach classics without commentaries and such. I enjoy grappling with the texts themselves. So my curve for error is probably greater.
David wrote: "I don't think Reformed people say apologetics are useless. I think they more reject the divide of philosophy and theology. Like, if Aquinas says we can prove preambles of faith with reason his assumption is that unaided human reason can lead to truth. Augustine might argue that human sin has corrupted reason so it cannot do what Aquinas wants. In other words, Augustine wants to bring theology in right from the beginning.So for Augustine, our reason is corrupted by sin. I think another aspect of this is that our presuppositions are the key - if you assume God then everything can make sense, if you assume no God then it does not. Or, to put it another way, the Christian and the Atheist do not have enough common ground to pursue truth together. ."
I think understand the difference between the two positions. What I don't get is WHY augustine is seen as having these approaches that are similar to reformists (I assume that what we should call them lol). Is this something that all the commentators that I haven't read say? :p I guess I am wondering if there are some passages in his works you could point me to so that I could review it to see what your point of view.
I have not read Aquinas yet (well, not since the university anyway, and then it was only a portion.) so maybe when I finally get to him, it will be easier to see the difference??
Genni wrote: "Brent wrote: ".Confessions is an ancient autobiographical account of his conversion experience, not a philosophical work."Yes, exactly. I find interesting if his approach was similar to a modern ..."
No, no, Augustine wouldn't in any way fall in line with Thomism, he understood that reason could only be found in God, and the will and intellect of man couldn't seek out God without a regeneration or quickening thereby enabling the faculties to be able to function and make sense of the spiritual.
"What then is it that I love when I love my God? Who is He that is above the head of my soul? By my soul itself will I mount up unto Him. I will soar beyond that power of mine whereby I cling to the body, and fill the whole structure of it with life. Not by that power do I find my God; for then the horse and the mule, "which have no understanding," might find Him, since it is the same power by which their bodies also live. But there is another power, not that only by which I quicken, but that also by which I endow with sense my flesh, which the Lord has made for me; bidding the eye not to hear, and the ear not to see; but that, for me to see by, and this, for me to hear by; and to each of the other senses its own proper seat and office, which being different, I, the single mind, do through them govern. I will soar also beyond this power of mine; for this the horse and mule possess, for they too discern through the body" (Augustine, Confessions, Bk X, Ch 7).
Aquinas constructed an entire philosophical system trying to show that reason alone could prove the existence of God. He realized this could only run so far, and hence appealed to special revelation for certain things that reason wouldn't be able to dictate such as the Trinity, etc. Augustine's approach was so wholly opposite, as he understood that reason leads to endless pursuits and roads that contain no knowledge at all. Augustine was enamored by philosophy, and saw himself on a higher plateau during his involvement with Manicheanism; nevertheless, at the end of the day, he realized he actually hadn't obtained any knowledge at all, and was as distant from God than the next man who knew nothing. Augustine realized that it was not only the will that was bound, but the intellect and reason as well. No, reason could not lead to God in any sense or else an ass or mule could find his way to God. Augustine knew that without God regenerating first, that is the fore and power he is speaking of in the above quoted passage namely Christ as the Head and the regeneration therewith, we are deaf and dumb, and truly dead in our sins (Col 2:13, Eph 2:1).
Here is a bigger question:Augustine had a powerful single moment conversion from an extreme life if licentiousness to a life of holiness. He takes the approach that the will is bound as is the intellect until God regenerates.
Aquinas grew up in the Church Catholic from a young boy, rose to prominence and eventually constructed his Summa, a masterpiece of scholastic thought. He takes the approach that reason can be used as an influential tool in proving theological truths, and holds that the will is not bound in the sense that man can find his way to God.
What role does the existential play in formulating our theological doctrine, whether realize it or not?
As a side note, my conversion experience was just as drastic in that it was a single moment life of the utmost extreme hedonism to Christianity: it is easy for me to embrace Reformed dogma because in my life, regeneration did precede faith for me, and if it didn't I felt I would have died.
Perhaps we are not so objective as we would all presume.
Fascinating stuff,I think in western philosophy spiritual dynamics are often ignored or forgotten and I think this is what we are talking about here.
"faith" as we are calling it is perhaps one of the greatest miracles. Not an external occurrence yet a very common and quite dramatic change in people.
A-priori is often considered in philosophy to be a function of the intellect, however I think the scriptural view suggests that it is, in fact, more than that. As Paul writes belief is an issue of the heart. Also he writes that the "god of this world has blinded their eyes".
I understand the scriptural view of a-priori to be the soul. The core of who we are that can be influenced both by spiritual and natural things.
So, one who's belief systems are open to Christian faith is able through reason to adjust their perception of God.
However we are motivated by beliefs more than reason. A great example is a story when Eddie Murphy was in an elevator and told a white woman to hit the floor. He was just meaning the button she was about to press but she dropped to the floor hysterically! Her beliefs about black people governed her reason.
If one's belief system is opposed to the things of God the beliefs possess greater power than one's ability to reason. For one in this position the touch of God produces a dramatic change that resonates through the whole being.
The miraculous occurrence of faith is perhaps the most poignant evidence there is.
"no-one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" John 6:44
But that's probably not what you meant by evidential, so I guess this verse makes a case for presuppositional, however, I see in the violent reaction of the religious groups (Acts 7) a dynamic that suggests the evidence was clear and they didn't want to hear it.
In my experience reason alone is like head butting people and hoping they like you. Any progress on a rational levels upsets them and they don't know why, until they have an experience like Brent's.
Perhaps a simple presentation of the gospel is the most effective method that allows the work of the spirit without causing too much rational distress. hmm. thinking out loud perhaps that's why the foolish simplicity of the message is great wisdom!
Good summary Brent! I do recall, and this may help Genni, taking a class in seminary studying Augustine, Pelagius and Cassian - grace theology in early church. If you read some of Augustine's works early on, he does not sound "reformed". His views were sharpened during the controversy with Pelagius - the more Pelagius (or his successors, really) taught humans were able to come to God without need of grace, the more Augustine responded on the deep need for grace and our inability.I like Cassian, middle of the road.
What role does the existential play in formulating our theological doctrine, whether realize it or not?
I agree, we are not as objective as we think. I think this fact alone is a point for Augustine. There is much more going on then pure reason. I suspect this is why you enjoy existential philosophy Brent? My reading of some of the "new atheists" was that they had not taken seriously enough the critiques of people like Nietzsche.
If we really want to go crazy, we could discuss nominalism and realism. That is a bit out of my depth, but I think it also points to some of our debates today. It is the whole question - could God have given us a different moral law?
Aquinas argued that God is the ultimate good so there is no real separation between God and the good. It is not that God submits to a law that is higher then God. Instead God acts in accordance with his nature. Thus, robbing from a poor person is wrong because stealing goes against God's nature. I guess the extension of this is that living in accordance with God's nature is true human flourishing, so stealing actually harms you in the long run.
Others, like William of Ockham, took the view that God commanded whatever God wanted. So hypothetically, God could have commanded stealing to be good. When I hear people say "God can do whatever God wants" I hear echoes of this.
Oh, and Genni, don't worry. I haven't read Aquinas either,other than portions here and there. I tried reading the Summa Theologica and maybe I will someday. Most of my understanding comes from secondary sources. Has anyone other than philosophy profs read the Summa?
I have much to say but am at work so I will comment when I get home. Great discussion guys.
I also can pop on my phone and read comments during the day but cannot sit down and put two thoughts together until after my boys go to bed.
Brent wrote: "Aquinas constructed an entire philosophical system trying to show that reason alone could prove the existence of God. He realized this could only run so far, and hence appealed to special revelatio..."Thank you for the fuller explanation, Brent. I can see how Augustine contrasts with Aquinas a bit now, totally taking your word on Aquinas right now.
Brent wrote: "Here is a bigger question:Augustine had a powerful single moment conversion from an extreme life if licentiousness to a life of holiness. He takes the approach that the will is bound as is the i..."
This is a great question, Brent. You are really making me want to read Aquinas now and I can't! It doesn't fit in my current reading scheme!! :p
Just from these two examples, it would definitely make a case that our outward experiences formulate our theologies to a great extent. But I did think of my brother-in-law who is a Baptist pastor. He had an incredibly dramtic conversion from drugs, but apologetically leans towards the classical approach, as I understand it.
Also on the side, I have not experienced a dramatic conversion. My experience with God has been slow and incredibly painful, like pulling teeth for twenty years.
David wrote: "I do recall, and this may help Genni, taking a class in seminary studying Augustine, Pelagius and Cassian - grace theology in early church. If you read some of Augustine's works early on, he does not sound "reformed". His views were sharpened during the controversy with Pelagius - the more Pelagius (or his successors, really) taught humans were able to come to God without need of grace, the more Augustine responded on the deep need for grace and our inability..."Thanks for this. It makes me feel better, anyway, for not picking up on this in The Confessions.
David wrote: "It is the whole question - could God have given us a different moral law?."I have also often wondered this, but have not had the time to read up on it so it would also be beyond me.
"Oh, and Genni, don't worry. I haven't read Aquinas either,other than portions here and there. "
I hope to read it someday, but feel like I need to get my thinking skills in shape before I attack it! I suppose it would be faster to read secondary sources and have everything explained to me, but to me, that takes all the fun away. :-)
Has anyone here done any extensive research on the religious philosophies of the Bacons, Roger and Francis? I read them many years ago, but can't recall what each had for a main thrust.
This question doesn't really have anything to do with the faith/reason relationship, but I thought I would post it here anyway. It is about faith. It is a simple question (I think). Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
I can hope for many things, a new car, for instance. But usually, if I am to have any assurance of the things that i hope for, it will require some outside assistance. A promise from my husband or the knowledge that I have a bonus paycheck coming or something. The same thing goes for having conviction of things unseen. I cannot see air, but according to most scientists, it is real and there is evidence for it.
So, do these verses imply that faith is a three-way party? That it is not something that I can drudge up myself, but requires God's assistance? I thought of Jesus being the author and finisher or our faith. And also the exhortion to do deeds or use our gifts according to the faith given us. But as far as I can remember, I only see that there are verses telling us to have faith or act in accordance with faith, or verses that say or imply that He gives it to us, not any that link that two.
So what to do if faith is wavering and it seems God is not "giving" more?
I find clarity comes through John. He speaks of faith but uses different words.Jesus said
"Truly I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what He see's the Father doing." John 5:19
what's more he says
"the Father loves the Son and shows him all that He himself is doing" verse 20.
The beautiful mystery is lost in translation here. This is one of the very few times that phileo is translated love. It means affection.
The capacity for the things Jesus did came through the Father's affection.
The jewel here is found later in John 16:27
"the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God."
again both times it is phileo
This word affection is very rarely used in scripture but here in Jesus words John shows us that the path to faith is love.
In agape (charity) we love because He loved us. 1 John 4:19
In phileo God loves us in response to us loving Him and so faith, mystery, revelation unfolds. This is what true worship is about.
I had another thought I might share at the risk of being tedious. For those who approach faith like God is an ethereal puppetmaster (greek philosophy) life is full of disappointments.For those who approach life like God is the Most High who reaches out to us through the Spirit (as scripture says) every revelation, every breakthrough, every blessing is a cause for rejoicing.
Thank you for sharing your thought, Joshua. I had not thought about the relationship between faith and love before. I tend to think of them as separate virtues, but I follow your line of thinking.
And why don't we all become chubby little cherubs, sitting on a pink cloud and blowing our little trumpets singing "Hosiah in the Highest" all day?
you make me laugh. Still God is love whether you like it or not.
Joshua - of course God is love and He must be possessed of an abundance of it if He thinks the world of the weak, sinful bunch we turned out to be. Every revelation, breakthrough, and blessing SHOULD be a cause for rejoicing, but more often it's met with: "Why couldn't you have favored me with this tidbit when I could have made use of it to my advantage? - thanks a lot for the timing, Lord!"
How does faith relate to reason?
"Faith seeking understanding" - Augustine (and Anselm) - you start with faith and reason from there.
Faith and Reason working together - Aquinas - Reason can give you the preambles to faith (God's existence) but faith (revelation) has to take over to go farther.
Faith and Reason may contradict - Averros (and Cay) - Reason may lead to conclusions which faith shows are not true? Did I get that right?
Anyway, feel free to fix my definitions. And also, where are you? I think many contemporary apologists (Craig, Strobel) are more akin to Aquinas while maybe the Reformed apologists are more in line with Augustine.