Happy Groundhog Day!
Augustine, Boethius, Anselm, Aquinas-LH 6-8. FL 9-10, HWT 9-10
LH
1. How did Augustine "solve" the problem of evil in his younger days, and then after his conversion to Christianity? Why wasn't it such a problem for him originally?
2. What does Boethius not mention about himself in The Consolation of Philosophy?
3. Boethius' "recollection of ideas" can be traced back to what philosopher?
4. What uniquely self-validating idea did Anselm say we have?
5. Gaunilo criticized Anselm's reasoning using what example?
6. What was Aquinas' 2nd Way?
FL
1. How did Enlightenment values advance in America in the 19th century?
2. What fantasy about 1776 has been accepted as fact by Americans across the religious spectrum (and Ronald Reagan) ever since?
3. How was religion in America, unlike Europe, non-binary?
4. How did Thomas Jefferson characterize America's religious differences in the north and the south?
5. What happened in Cane Ridge, KY in 1801, and how did a Vanderbilt historian describe it?
6. Who was Charles Finney, and what did he understand about American Christianity?
7. What did de Tocqueville say was different about religion in America, compared to Europe?
8. Who was William Miller and what beliefs did he help revive?
9. Who was Joseph Smith and what is the most interesting thing about him?
HWT
1. What fundamental and non-western sense of time has underpinned much of human history?
2. What is "dreamtime" and how is it alien to the modern west?
3. The universalism of western universities implies that what is unimportant?
4. What does John Gray say about the idea of progress?
5. Karma originally concerned what, and lacked what connotations now commonly associated with it?
6. What western ideas have displaced karma, for many young Indians?
Discussion Questions
- [Add your own DQs]
- Would the existence of evil equivalent to good, without guarantees of tthe inevitable triiumph of the latter, solve the problem of suffering?
- Why do you think Boethius didn't write "The Consolation of Christianity"?
- Do you think you have a clear idea of what it would mean for there to be an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good supernatural being?
- Do you think knowledge is really a form of remembering or recollection? Have we just forgotten what we knew?
- Is there a difference between an uncaused cause (or unmoved mover) and a god?
- Which is the more plausible explanation of the extent of gratuitous suffering in the world, that God exists but is not more powerful than Satan, or that neither God nor Satan exists? Why?
- Are supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence? Why or why not?
- What do you think of the Manichean idea that an "evil God created the earth and emtombed our souls in the prisons of our bodies"? (Dream of Reason 392)
- Do you agree with Augustine about "the main message of Christianity...that man needs a great deal of help"? (DR 395). If so, must "help" take the form of supernatural salvation? If not, what do you think the message is? What kind of help do we need?
- What do you think of Boethius' proposed solution to the puzzle of free will, that from a divine point of view there's no difference between past, present, and future? 402
- Did Russell "demolish" Anselm's ontological argument? (See below)
- COMMENT: “The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.” Carl Sagan
- COMMENT: “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.” Carl Sagan
- If you were falsely imprisoned, tortured, and scheduled for execution, would you be able to achieve "consolation"? How?
- Can the definition of a word prove anything about the world?
- Is theoretical simplicity always better, even if the universe is complex?
- Does the possibility of other worlds somehow diminish humanity?
- How does the definition of God as omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good make it harder to account for evil and suffering in the world? Would it be better to believe in a lesser god, or no god at all?
- Can you explain the concept of Original Sin? Do you think you understand it?
- Is it better to embrace (or renounce) religious faith early in life, or to "sow your wild oats" and enjoy a wide experience of the world before committing to any particular tradition or belief? Were you encouraged by adults, in childhood, to make a public profession of faith? If so, did you understand what that meant or entailed?
- Does the concept of a never-ending struggle between good and evil appeal to you? Does it make sense, in the light of whatever else you believe? Would there be anything "wrong" with a world in which good was already triumphant, happiness for all already secured, kindness and compassion unrivaled by hatred and cruelty?
- Do you find the concept of Original Sin compelling, difficult, unfair, or dubious? In general, do we "inherit the sins of our fathers (and mothers)"? If yes, give examples and explain.
- What kinds of present-day McCarthyism can you see? Is socialism the new communism? How are alternate political philosophies discouraged in America, and where would you place yourself on the spectrum?
- Andersen notes that since WWII "mainline" Christian denominations were peaking (and, as evidence shows, are now declining). What do you think about this when you consider the visible political power of other evangelical denominations? Are you a part of a mainline traditon? If so, how would you explain this shift?
==
If our brains seem to be a step ahead of our minds, does that mean we do not possess free will?
Are all our actions inevitable? (Don't confuse that with ineffable.)
Is belief in free will better for some of us, while belief in determinism is better advised for others?
The first sin that Augustine remembers doing was as a child stealing pears, just to steal them. That is, it was the crime itself that made him want to do it, he didn't even want the pears, he just wanted to sin. It was his "original sin" in a sense, and he always felt most guilty about it.
==
Aquinas...
==
I share these provocative cartoons not in hostility to religion, but because they reflect genuine puzzlements some of us have regarding the seeming incongruity of saying that God is ineffable AND being confident that one knows God's precise attitudes towards quite specific human concerns... and regarding the paradox of human free will in a universe allegedly governed by omniscience. I hope we'll all choose not to take offense, but to think about and discuss the experiences of ineffability, faith, agency, the unseen objects of belief, etc.
Emma Essary section 6
ReplyDeleteWhich is the more plausible explanation of the extent of gratuitous suffering in the world, that God exists but is not more powerful than Satan, or that neither God nor Satan exists? Why? For me, through my own experiences and having asked myself this question all my life, God and Satan do exist. The main argument, that often times draws out tough questions to even the most whole-hearted of christians, is if God is the most powerful being and is good through and though, why does evil exist? This can feel like an impossible question to answer, especially considering the extent of the evil that has swallowed our world. Instead of asking why God would let people do the evil things that they do, ask why people do the things that they do. To me, the idea of a God or Satan has a lot more to do with the influences that they have. From the moment we are born, we know the difference between good and bad. You can think to yourself "I really want to hit my brother right now," and two outcomes will come to mind. You know if you hit him that he will cry or that you will get in trouble, but he has been mean to you all day. He deserves it, right? Then another voice pops in and says " You wouldn't want someone to do that to you, and hitting him will not solve anything." These thoughts and choices happen every day, but only you can decide the person that you want to be. The more you listen to the voice that says "you should hit him, it will be really funny, ect," you will lean in this direction. This voice will become your guide, leading you down a dark path. This, however, is the point of christianity. No matter how hard you try, sin is inevitable. God knows this, but he also knows that if you listen and follow him that the temptation to do harm is backed by the hope to be better. I have hit my brother more times than I can count (I'm shameless), but the key is learning from these mistakes and acknowledging the harm that was done. The hardest part about being a Christian in our society is the judgement we put on other people, and the misconception of feeling too far gone. Although I also think that certain kinds of evil cannot be undone, the desire to find God and forgiveness is a comfort that no one can take away. Everyone is constantly faced with unhealthy desires, bad habits, shitty parents, partners, and friends. There is so much evil in the world. The only thing we can control(for the most part) is how we react to any given situation. Try to be the best that you can be so that when you are faced with two choices(or two voices), you will know exactly which one to listen to.
Can you explain the concept of Original Sin? Do you think you understand it?
ReplyDeleteI am not sure I fully understand the whole concept of Original Sin. I am under the impression that it is defined as everyone being born sinful from the beginning. I believe it means that we are born to sin or go against God's word. I still have some confusion about the term, considering it leads to multiple questions. Overall, my meaning of the term, or at least I have always assumed, is that it means sin has existed since humans have.
The way I see it, when God created our world at the very beginning it was completely pure and innocent. This includes when he made Adam and Eve. God loved Adam and Eve, but God also knew of Satan's temptation. However, when God asked Adam to choose between Him and Eden(Eden representing sin because she was told not to eat the "forbidden fruit"-which should be a whole different conversation- he chooses Eden. God, disappointed by his creation, created a world of sin. However, God knew all along that sin was inevitable for us. The love he had for us never changed, and he died for our sins. God knew that giving us a decision between him and evil was inevitable. Why did God punish Adam?-he didn't, he simply let him choose. This goes back to the everyday choices we make... and the reality is, following God and making the right decisions can feel impossible. Life is painful. God is merciful, but cruel too. God made life both beautiful and painful, which to me makes life more meaningful.
Delete"God knew all along that sin was inevitable for us." Sure. That's what it means to be omniscient. But if you're also omnipotent, you have the power to prevent inevitable sinning. And the power not to create the worst sinners (Hitler and the like) in the first place. So if that's who God is, Houston, we have a problem. It's called the problem of evil (or, better, suffering).
DeleteIn the beginning God created all things (Heavan and Earth, light and darkness, seas and land, crawling things and birds, as well as humans). Adam was lonely so God created Eve for him as a suitable partner. God gave the two humans two rules. Number one everything in the Garden of Eden was for Adam and Eve except the Tree of Knowlege they shouldn't eat from the tree "For you will surely die". Number two be fruitful and multiply meaning go and populate the garden, have kids make more humans. This is the first 2 chapters of the Bible. Well in chapter three incomes the serpent. The serpent tempts Eve to eat from the tree and says, "will you actually die?" this is the first bit of temptation. Then Eve eats it and takes it to Adam and they both realize that they are naked and immediately feel ashamed. So, they hide in the Garden and God comes looking for them. When he finds them, he first cloths them so they don't feel ashamed and them He punishes them just as a father would punish his kids for not listening to him. He tells Adam that he will have to work the ground for the food, and for Eve delivering a baby will be painful. Then they were led out of the garden. Anyway, the reason we have free will is because God is just like a Father. Is it very loving of a God to force his self on people? Would you like it if someone you don't like was forcing themself into your life? Constantly nagging you always following you just creeping you out? Well God understands that. God is never going to force himself on you he wants a relationship with you not a forced love but one that people come too by themselves. If not we would all just be robots with a programming. God loves us enough to send his son Jesus to die for our rebellion against God. We have sinned against Him by breaking his laws. To get right with God you have to give up the wicked desires of your heart (Galatians 5:19-21) and follow the spirit (Gal. 5:22-25). Repent and make a behavior change in your life humble yourself and realize we are evil in our hearts, and we need to be corrected. Learn everything you can about God then go and teach it to others.
DeleteAugustine, in his younger, pre-Christian days, explained away the problem of evil by being a member of a religious group that believed that the forces of good and evil co-existed in the mortal realm, and that neither was inherently more powerful than the other. That group believed that both constantly chalked up victories, as opposed to one being omnipresent.
ReplyDeleteWithin his texts, Boethius did not mention his Christian faith, his writings that mention God are vague enough to be traced back to Plato's idea of god outside of the Christian or Abrahamic belief, the general idea of perfect goodness, one that can be applied to any daily life. It was only later Christian philosophers assigned Boethius' idea of god to the one also referred to in Christian texts.
Anselm claimed because we all have an idea of a perfect god, that God in his belief must exist. That by nature of being the idea of everything made perfect, God must somehow be self-manifesting. The monk Gaunilo later refuted this by using his example of a perfect island; just because you can imagine it, doesn't mean it must exist.
Thomas Aquinas' second of his Five Ways was the idea of cause and effect, that if you break down what any thing is made of, and ask why is it made that way, you'd be able to in turn break those components down, and to ask that same question about those in turn. This chain of Causes and Effects would continue on until you came across what Aquinas claimed to be an Uncaused Cause. This was paradoxical to Aquinas, so he claimed that instead of there being an existence of an infinite regress, there must instead be a god that put fourth that first cause, leading to everything else we see in the world today.
Speaking to the idea of theoretical simplicity, I often take the stance of Occam and his often spoken to razor. I believe that in our world of near endless possibilities, it is easy to get caught up in the fantastical or interesting if less plausible when seeking out the truth. Mystery and the unknown leaves the door open for our minds to run wild with all sorts of radical ideas, regardless of how likely or unlikely they may be. When logic and reason hasn't been able to solve a mystery, I've often found that the simplest solution is often the most likely, that adding too many moving parts or complexities often serves only to bog down those trying to seek the truth.
I think this same general idea could be scaled up to the world at large. For thousands of years humankind has answered its own question of 'Why are things the way they are' with tales and stories of gods, divine forces, ancient beasts and countless others that predated humankind. When we of course now have the evidence to answer those questions with far more simple and straight forward explanations, that can be laid out and proven scientifically.
In general - and in matters both big and small - I think it more efficient to keep things as simple as possible, and to only add more complexity when it becomes clear that such a thing is unavoidably needed.
LH3
ReplyDeleteBoethius' "recollection of ideas" can be traced back to what philosopher?
This concept can be traced back to Plato.
LH2
ReplyDeleteWhat does Boethius not mention about himself in The Consolation of Philosophy?
In The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius does not mention the fact that he was Christian.
LH 6
ReplyDeleteThe second of the Five Ways if the First Cause Argument. The
Five Ways are the Five Ways that were meant to demonstrate that God exists. The First Cause Argument is a theory that because there is a cause and effect to everything, you can trace things back to their origins. However, this tracing back is hypothetically infinite but this First Cause Argument proposes that there may have been a cause less first cause that’s set everything in motion. ie. the big bang theory
Section #6
ReplyDelete2/2
LHP 1: After his conversion to Christianity, Augustine reasoned that the reason evil exists in the world, despite there being an all-powerful, all-good god, is the idea that humans possess free will outside of god’s guidance. He believed that if humans so desired, we could do wrong or sin, justifying the existence of evil despite the ideas of the Christian god. This wasn’t an issue for him initially, as his previous religion believed in a just god that wasn’t all powerful.
LHP 2: Boethius neglects to mention that he was an early Christian in his book
LHP 4: Anselm believed that God must exist in reality, because we can’t truly imagine the perfect being due to our limited minds, and god is inherently a perfect being; therefore by this logic, god must exist. This idea then presents that in a way, God exists because of our imagined version of him being inaccurate to the true perfection God is.
LHP 5: Gaunilo proposed the example of the most perfect, uninhabited, beautiful and bountiful island you’ve seen in your imagination. If someone were to say that the island doesn’t exist, then that would be understandable, but to then claim that it must because the idea of perfection in your mind isn’t true perfection, is somewhat silly, as you can’t create things into reality just by imagining what it would be like.
Section #6.
ReplyDeleteDo you think you have a clear idea of what it would mean for there to be an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good supernatural being?
I think that there is no way for anyone to truly grasp understanding how much we really do not know. This is part of what religion trys to explain by encouraging followers to relinquish what we do not know and to let the one who is all-powerful lead your life
Hayden Dalton Section 7
ReplyDeleteLH3
-The ideas trace back to the philosopher Plato
LH4
-Our human depiction of God would never accurately represent what he truly is like.
HWT4
- John gray said that progress is any advancement that is cumulative.
DQ
Do you think you have a clear idea of what it would mean for there to be an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good supernatural being?
- I would say the closest to understanding a god would be as an author of their own story. Tolkien for example created an entire world with its own deep history. He created everything from the good and the evil in that world. In the same way that some believe that a god has done to our world in creating it.
LH
ReplyDelete1. How did Augustine "solve" the problem of evil in his younger days, and then after his conversion to Christianity? Why wasn't it such a problem for him originally? Augustine was a Manichaean in his younger years, they believed that evil and good were in a constant battle and evil only prevailed for a moment. After converting to Christianity he believed that evil was a result of our own choices and partly from the first sin being passed down to us since the Garden of Eden.
3. Boethius' "recollection of ideas" can be traced back to what philosopher? Boethius' "recollection of ideas" can be traced back to Plato, that idea that every revelation we have is an idea we actually already knew on some level, we simply recollected it.
6. What was Aquinas' 2nd Way? Aquinas' second way of proving the existence of God was based on logic, it said that if we were to find the cause of something and then ask what the cause of those causes were and so on we would eventually have to have a first uncaused cause. The 'first cause' would have to have been extremely powerful and he believed it could have only been an act of God.
Raymond Curry Section 6
ReplyDeleteI do not buy Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God. To me Gaunilo's criticism of Anselm is valid. I do like Aquinas's First Cause Defense. Everything starts with something and there has to be a beginning. I believe in the Big Bang and in Evolution. I also have no problem with saying God started the process.
Raymond Curry Section 6
ReplyDeleteI believe in Free Will. Nothing in predetermined in human actions. I think that we have choices and that we can, not in an absolute sense, choose our destinies. There are always going to be things that we cannot control, acts of nature or the behavior of others, but we do have control over our actions.
Raymond Curry Section 6
ReplyDeleteAs a believer in free will, I am also a believer in Karma. Our actions, whatever they are good or bad, will have consequences. What goes around comes around. That does not mean that bad things will not happen to your if you are always good but that if you do good consistency our life will be much better that if we do bad or evil things.
Section 7 Carter Marbry
ReplyDeleteLH 2:He used to be a Christian
LH 3:Plato
LH 4: god has to be real since we would not be able to comprehend what a perfect being truly is since our brain is so limited to knowledge.
LH 1: Augustine originally as a younger man believed that God and the Devil originally battled in a bid of good vs evil. Although God is powerful, he wasn't strong enough to destroy all evil in it's entirety. However later in life, his thoughts on free will resonated with many which stated that God gave humans the choice between good and evil, so in essence the evil stems from human's choices with free will.
ReplyDeleteLH 3. Boethius "recollections of ideas" can be traced back to the Philosophic predecessor Plato and his ideas of universal forms, which he partially learned from Socrates.
Gaunilo argued that you can't conjure something into existence just by imagining it. He applied an example of imagining a perfect abundant island, and just because it is perfect in thought doesn't mean it is real. Therefore, he rebuttes that Anselm's idea that God exists just because we have the thought of him. That it would be absurd to think the perfect island exists just because it is thought of. It is not grounded in material by idea alone. I agree that Anselm's theory is baseless. Yes, thought is very powerful. However, I can't summon wealth with just thought alone. There has to be action, and physical proof of those efforts to create that reality. This arguement can apply to manifesting things in your life by thought as well. I believe action, behavior, and habits are what creates your reality.
ReplyDeleteLHP Q.5
DeleteLH 2. Anselm brought forth the prospect that God is a perfect being therefore, our perception of him is incorrect in nature due to our innate flaws. This thought further emphasizes the existence of an almighty god.
ReplyDeleteLHP, Q2. What does Boethius not mention about himself in The Consolation of Philosophy? → his christianity, or his former christianity
ReplyDeleteLHP, Q3. Boethius' "recollection of ideas" can be traced back to what philosopher? → Plato
LHP, Q5. Gaunilo criticism Anselm's reasoning using what example? → Using the most perfect island: you can't conjure a perfect island into existence.
LH 6-8.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1. In his younger days, Augustine avoided believing that God wanted evil to happen. In his eyes, God wasn't super powerful and was in a constant battle for control with Satan. After his conversation to Christianity, he came to realize how God was powerful and didn't bring evil upon humanity, rather humanity brought evil upon itself. The free will of people led to evil because of their own choices. Originally the blame was on the higher powers then he shifted the blame of how evil rooted from those around him.
Kailei Davis. Section #6
Hannah Collins sec 10
ReplyDeletelh 6:
Aquinas 2nd way was to explain how everything had a cause. essentially without a causer "god" there would be nothing "no effect".
lh2:
Boethius does not mention his prior history with christianity, perhaps he assumed it was implied or he thought that mentioning this connection might yield the assumption of bias
Connor Haynes, Section 10 LH 4 +
ReplyDeleteAnselm proposed the idea of "ontological argument," which argues that the concept of God, as the greatest conceivable being, is self-validating. He argued that the very idea of God as the most perfect and necessary being implies that God must exist, because a being that exists in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
Gaunilo criticized Anselm's ontological argument by using the example of the "Lost Island" in his work "On Behalf of the Fool". He argued that using Anselm's reasoning, one could claim the existence of a perfect island by defining it as the most perfect and necessary island. However, this does not necessarily mean that such an island exists in reality. Gaunilo's objection is an example of the "reductio ad absurdum" technique, which uses a counterexample to show the flaws in an argument.
What does Boethius not mention about himself in The Consolation of Philosophy?
ReplyDeleteLH,Q2- That he was a Chirstian
Boethius' "recollection of ideas" can be traced back to what philosopher?
LH,Q3- Plato
What uniquely self-validating idea did Anselm say we have?
LH,Q4- That everyone has an idea of God, therefore, this proves that God exists.
#6