Augustine, Boethius, Anselm, Aquinas-LHP 6-8. FL 9-10, HWT 9-10
LHP
- [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?
"Boethius (AD c.475–524) was a Christian philosopher and theologian from an aristocratic Roman family who worked as principal minister to Theodoric the Ostrogoth, the ruler of Italy from 493 to 526. Boethius was depressed by the rapid degeneration of intellectual life and by the fact that few people in the West could read the Greek classics any more. He set out to translate all of Plato’s and Aristotle’s works into Latin so that they would not be lost to future generations.
Unfortunately he was executed for treason before this ambitious project could get very far. Its only surviving fruits are Latin versions of Aristotle’s logical writings, which may help to explain why early medieval philosophers were so obsessed with old logic. They had little else to study. It is intriguing to speculate how much better informed the Latin world might have been if only the labours of Boethius had not been cruelly cut short.
On the other hand, his indictment on what were probably trumped-up charges did have one happy result, though not for him. It was while he was in prison under sentence of death that Boethius wrote his impassioned The Consolation of Philosophy. Impending extinction concentrated his mind wonderfully: this masterpiece became one of the most widely read books of medieval times. King Alfred the Great, Chaucer and Queen Elizabeth I were among those who made English translations of it. It might never have been written had Boethius lived to a ripe, uneventful and scholarly old age instead of getting caught up in politics.
The Consolation takes the form of a dialogue between Boethius, who speaks in prose, and Lady Philosophy, who replies mostly in verse. Lady Philosophy answers Boethius’ despondent meditations about the miseries and injustice of life with a mixture of Stoic and Platonic wisdom. Adversity in general and evil rulers in particular are powerless to harm a good man, she says, because a good soul will remain untouched by ‘slippery Fortune’; besides, divine Providence oversees everything.
Lady Philosophy steers him away from the many false roads to happiness and tries to guide him instead towards the contemplation of all that is good—which is to say, God: Grant, Father, that our minds Thy august seat may scan, Grant us the sight of true good’s source, and grant us light That we may fix on Thee our mind’s unblinded eye. Disperse the clouds of earthly matter’s cloying weight; Shine out in all Thy glory; for Thou art rest and peace To those who worship Thee; to see Thee is our end, Who art our source and maker, lord and path and goal.
The book never explicitly mentions Christianity. But it manages to address, in a non-technical manner, many of the philosophical problems that are likely to intrigue a believer. For example, it includes a solution to the puzzle of how man can be said to have any real choice in his actions if an omniscient God always knows beforehand what he is going to do. Boethius’ answer starts from the idea that there is no difference between past, present and future from God’s point of view. For God, all of eternity is like the present. So when God foresees what I will do, my freedom is no more curtailed by this fact than it would be by somebody observing what I am doing while I am doing it. Essentially the same solution was adopted by St Thomas Aquinas and some other late-medieval theologians.
Dream of Reason: A History of Western Philosophy from the Greeks to the Renaissance (New Edition) by Anthony Gottlieb
Jay Triplett, Section 2-
ReplyDeleteLHP-
1. Augustine “solved” the problem of evil by saying that, since every action is God’s doing, then acts of evil must be God’s will as well. When he was younger, however, he believed that the forces of good and evil were constantly battling for control. Sometimes the force of good, God, won, and sometimes the force of evil, Satan, won. He didn’t believe that God was as all-powerful as he later believed, so he had no problem with this understanding. His understanding shifted to believing humans have free will, which allows us to choose goodness or evil.
2. He doesn’t mention that he was a Christian, instead referencing a vague God that could be applied to any religion or philosophy. However, his messaging closely follows the Christian value of humility.
3. They can be traced back to Plato, who taught that “all learning is really a kind of recollection of ideas we already have.”
4. Anselm said that, since we have an idea of what God is, then God must exist. He said that, since God is the most perfect being of everything, our understanding of him alone means that he must exist.
5. He used the example of picturing a perfect island. Then, he explains that our envisioning of the island alone does not materialize a perfect island, just as our understanding of a perfect God does not create a God.
6. Aquinas’ 2nd Way explains how God exists using empiricism rather than rationalism. It says that something must have brought the objects on Earth into existence because we can’t have an infinite regression of people inventing and creating things, as something must have created the first things.
Discussion Questions:
- "Why do you think Boethius didn't write "The Consolation of Christianity"? "
Since Boethius borrowed so heavily from Greek philosophers, he may have separated the idea of philosophy, at least partially, from his Christian beliefs. Although Christianity certainly has philosophical beliefs, there are some principles that existed before and are therefore removed from Christianity.
-"Do you think knowledge is really a form of remembering or recollection? Have we just forgotten what we knew?"
I disagree with this reasoning because over the course of human history, we have invented objects and concepts that are unfathomable to those from ancient times. It doesn’t make sense for us to “remember” knowledge that didn’t exist before.
-"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?"
I think the latter is the more plausible explanation, going off of Christian mythology. Since Satan is the result of the angel Lucifer falling from heaven and becoming a demon, he cannot be stronger than God, seeing that God is the one who punished him. A theological explanation I can find for this is that God allows for evil in this world to test his believers, as he tested Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
After some thought I would agree with you about the nature of knowledge. While it is interesting to think about, I also do not see how learning new things could just be remembering what we have forgotten. Your point about objects invented not supporting this idea is really good. We did not remember how to get to the moon; we invented a way to do it. However, do you think that there could be an element of both? I am trying to think of a situation that would definitively support this theory but have yet to do so.
DeleteThere is a plot hole that I find in Augustine's thinking about God being able to stop evil but not doing so because he wants to give humans free will. This does not explain the evil that comes in the form of natural disasters. These are not neccesarily caused by man, and yet God does not stop them from happening. So this still raises the question, how can God be completely good if he lets this happen?
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with your sentiment, as this is a question that I, too, have wondered for a long time. Can't God stop cancer? Can't he stop hurricanes, tornados? I would point out that from what we read about Augustine's philosophy in LHP, he doesn't address disease and natural disaster, but the book states "moral evil" comes from free will.
DeleteHowever, importantly missing from the conversation was the definition of "evil." Can a tornado be evil? We could say that, while a tornado is not evil in and of itself, God could be considered evil for allowing the destruction it causes. Can we truly apply the same moral judgements to God as we apply to ourselves? If tornados didn't exist, what other sort of weather patterns would be disrupted? I think the question you posed is one of the most complicated ones that exists, and a very interesting one to think about.
I completely agree, Augustine kind of contradicted himself in my opinion. Saying God gave us free will and that self control is what gets rid of evil doesn't explain why God wouldn't intervene when great evils were committed.
DeleteBella York, Section #3
DeleteWhile moral evil comes from human behavior, I'd argue that "natural evil" (the bad things which result from natural disasters, disease, animal behavior, etc.) are a result of the original sin. As soon as the first sinful decision was made by a person, the entire earth physically changed. In the garden of Eden (if one physically existed) there were no biting mosquitos, dangerous lions, or unstoppable tornados. Everything was in harmony and peace (We can see this peace in the fact that nothing died until after Adam and Eve sinned, and God killed an animal to clothe them). So from my understanding, even "natural evil" was caused by "moral evil," or human action.
It's interesting to me that Philosiphers look to Boethis as a reliable source and his most popular work is the one he wrote while he was being tortured in captivity. He said he saw Philosiphy as a woman that talked to him, which was obviously an illusion. He was not in a right state of mind and to me it seems that he was trying to grappel with the fact he was going to die soon. This woman told him that luck changes and he shouldn't stress about what he can't change in order to have some peace in his last moments. He desired to find true happiness though he was about to die. I think he was trying to find a way to deal with his death. Possibly a reason why he believed there was life after death so what happened in his life was unimportant.
ReplyDeleteLike many other people, I am skeptical of Anselm's reason as to why God exists. You can't apply his theory to everything, like an island for example. But he says that it is only meant to be applied to God. Which makes me question, how is it true if you can only apply it to one thing? Personally, I think it just doesn't make that much sense.
ReplyDeleteIs 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?
ReplyDeleteI love this question, partly because I have yet to meet someone who is in full support of either side. Both of my parents are Christian; however they never forced that onto me. They were more concerned with how I felt about things and not how they wanted me to feel. Religion and faith are so personal that I believe it is wrong to force them on others, but I also believe it to be wrong to condemn those who find value in it. Of course, it being personal means that while one is free to believe what they wish, they should not use that as justification for the mistreatment and harm of others they do not agree with. If it works, it works. What works for me works for me and might not work for you. However, this only works if there is a mutual agreement to respect each other and not seek to invalidate the beliefs of others, especially in an attempt to push an agenda. I also like to make the distinction between faith and organized religion, which I am far from a fan of. I would say that it is very important to be skeptical and question what you are told, so whatever worldview you arrive on is authentic and personal. And if that means personally understanding and embracing faith young, that works. If it means exploring the world, that works too. The most important part is that whatever it is truly makes sense to you.
I really love your take on this, I also like to emphasize the subjectivity and individual nature of a relationship with God. Of course most modern Christians will have the same framework of instruction from the bible, but each life lived is different. Even the divisions WITHIN Christianity illustrate the subjectivity of interpretation and adaptation of the bible's teachings. I think more Christians should take the time exploring other religions' teachings. Being educated on more than your own belief system would benefit the greater population because it would diversify your background knowledge and inform decisions when interacting with those with unlike beliefs. Your point about respect is great as well. I really disapprove of the narrative that just because we have different beliefs means I can rain all over your parade or limit your actions.
DeleteIs theoretical simplicity always better, even if the universe is complex?
ReplyDeleteI have learned in life that humanity loves to simplify what should not be simplified and overcomplicate what is not inherently complicated. Additionally, I also have observed that many of the world's issues have stemmed from oversimplification leading to an excessively divided society. In philosophy, I tend to overthink rather than underthink. It is far easier to take a step back and simplify something you have overcomplicated than it is to do the opposite. A well thought out and complex idea can have simple and practical applications; it just takes a little more work at first. However, some things truly are not complicated and should not be, so I suppose it depends on the situation.
Forgot to put my name again, that was me.
DeleteSection #1
DeleteJack, I completely agree with you. I mentioned in my post that discussion about possible creation theories perplex me to no end. But I think a lot of people either are convinced that they know everything (or at least a lot) or that they CAN know everything. I know that, as co-philosophers, we're encouraged to seek out what we can in the world, but it is unreasonable to believe or accept that we know/can know everything. Not everything is as simple as we can explain it.
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?
ReplyDeleteThe concept of a never-ending fight between "good" and "evil" makes more sense to me than an "all-powerful god." I have always looked to the Epicurean Paradox, and no one has been really able to disprove that to me. A never-ending fight would. However, I'm agnostic. I still don't really believe in a god, but there might be one out there. I simply don't know.
I can't imagine a world without evil. Mostly because we don't have a concrete definition of "good." What is good to one person might not be to the next. Killing animals to eat, would that be okay in a perfect, good world? Only dying of old age, but still causing grief on families, is that good? Would only necessary evil exist, and even then- what is necessary? It's overwhelming to even try to conceptualize.
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.
Yeah, it's difficult, unfair, and at best dubious. Why should we get "punished" for something that, to Christian beliefs, happened before we were ever a grain of sand in a desert? I do believe we genetically inherit certain traits that are negative. Like, I definitely got some of my dad's anger issues. On the opposite end, we are usually a product of the teachings of our guardians. If someone's parents weren't necessarily good people, that would reflect on their kids.
Section #1
DeleteI also agree that the never-ending fight makes more sense, and, even as a Christian, I don't think I can give a reason for the other side-- an all-powerful God. And I think that issue is a prevalent one, even in religious communities. I don't really understand how we are supposed to have free will or think for ourselves as Christians (me talking personally) without finding fallacies in what our religion teaches. I wish I could understand the logic behind my own religion-- something I'll have to research on my own.
Section #1
ReplyDeleteLHP
6. Aquinas explained his First Cause Argument, advocating for the validity of creation. He believed that you would not be able to go back into time infinity and that there would be an eventual nothingness. So, something must have caused everything to exist. I find it hard to wrap my head around concepts like "does God exist?" or "what was before God?" I suppose that is, in part, because of my upbringing-- I never liked questioning God's existence because it was such a headache, just like how it still is now for me. Even looking at this argument, I'm just thinking, "Is it really more logical that all time and space was created in a moment? Or does the whole concept of reality make less sense when you view it as an infinitum?" To be honest, those conversations stump me, and so my belief in God relies purely on hope and faith that He's there instead of trying to justify it to myself. That may be small-minded of me, but I feel like it's impossible to even fathom what might've been from a scientific or logical standpoint.
Section 1
ReplyDeleteLHP
4. He said that God exists because we can think about him. He bases this on the claim that God is the greatest being to ever exist. However, I refute that claim based on the fact that it is impossible to confidently say that God is the greatest thing to exist. If God were an immutable, undeniably powerful being like many say, then how can you imagine something greater than that, one may ask. You can't simply think of, for example, God+1, and suddenly you have something that is even greater than God. However, I say that it is not correct to say that God is omnipotent with any degree of certainty. I say this because, by definition, we cannot imagine something that is omnipotent. To be omnipotent is to be capable of all possibilities. So, they can reason, they can lift infinite weight, they can balance on one foot, but what else? To think of omnipotence you would first have to know of every possibility, which is omniscience. We are certainly not omniscient, so, we cannot fathom omnipotence. And at that, whose to say that something greater than God—greater than omnipotence—doesn't exist? Perhaps we just can't imagine it yet. So, this leads us to two conclusions. The first being we cannot say God is the greatest being. The other being the being we are thinking of is not God. Therefore, the theory fails to prove itself. In either case, the reasoning collapses: the existence of God cannot be proven by human thought alone, because our thought is necessarily limited.
Section #1
DeleteI think the idea that humans are incapable of understanding the depth of what "God" actually is carries more weight than people believe. The inability to fully grasp concepts and characteristics that we so easily apply to God is the leading reason of differing schools of thought on the subject (in my opinion). I mean, how exactly are we supposed to argue and understand things our brains literally cannot grasp.
Section #1
ReplyDeleteI believe that Augustine has one of the more logical viewpoints of the paradoxes on the idea of God. When looking towards conflicting ideas, such as an all-good God and a world created by him that contains a lot of evil, it may seem self-contradictory. I think Augustine's idea of free will explaining the existence of evil is plenty logical. The fact that we were created to have the ability to choose to do good or evil, leads us to have accountability and power in the world we live. This, at least from a human perspective, seems to be the outcome of a good God who does not want to make us robots, however, if we choose to do evil with this freewill, God will not stop that (which adds to his all-goodness). Unfortunately, this level of freedom (or free will) can lead to bad things happening to good people. This is a common argument against the idea of an all-good god existing. They argue, "how can God allow and accept children to die because of the actions of someone else, especially when the children have done nothing to deserve those acts?" I think this is explained through the fact that the all-good God gave us the ability to choose which actions to take. His interference would technically deny us the right of free will. This, as I see it, means the existence of good and evil in our world proves that we do have free will (under the impression that God exists). However, I think no matter what stance one takes on religion, there is always contradicting ideas or counterarguments (I even have conflicting ideas about what I wrote in this post). This leads me to believe that God is something us humans cannot completely fathom. Religion leads to so many branches of belief and differing schools of thought, to the point where I wonder if we can even come to a correct conclusion, due to our limits of human consciousness and understanding.
I completely agree, especially on your point about the limits of human understanding. I think in faith there is a point where you have to have faith and I think we have enough grounds to believe that we don't know everything, and therefore we can't explain everything.
DeleteDo 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?
ReplyDeleteI have absolutely no idea what that would mean, but I don't think it would be good. If we had one all-knowing being that we knew existed I feel as though the human race would cease having individuality, and that everyone would follow the exact same rules and do the exact same things and that would ruin individuality and the difference in opinion that is so great about the human race.
I don't think humans will ever be able to fully conceptualize what infinite knowledge really means.
Delete6. What was Aquinas' 2nd Way?
ReplyDeleteAquinas' second way was that everything had a cause and therefore something that was uncaused (God) then caused everything else. This idea is interesting in the sense that Aquinas was a logical philosopher and made this "way" independently of contemporary religious views which of course for the time period was highly controversial.
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)
ReplyDeleteI believe that this is an incredibly unique point, but I would also have to disagree. I think the idea that our biggest limiters are ourselves and that a lot of our problems are usually self inflicted, but at the same time I find it hard to think that a malicious god made us "suffer" by living. I myself find life as an immense privilege and find myself the lucky one for the being able to live even when times are tough and I have to suffer. Pain is inevitable, misery's a choice.
"Pain is inevitable, misery's a choice." W quote. Its the same concept as what Epictetus preached. Focusing only on what you can control (Your perspective on life).
DeleteIs theoretical simplicity always better, even if the universe is complex?
ReplyDeleteI think that this a terribly difficult question to ask and of course there is no true answer to it. I think we all have had times in our life's where we wish things could be simple and straight to the point, but on the flip side I also believe that there has been times where we have relished the complexity of a topic in all of its glory. I personally find myself in a grey area of this question, of course based on my last remark, but I believe I find myself in the middle of both sides of the argument because of lived experience which I cannot expect all other view points to understand and agree with.
I think theoretical simplicity is an easier thing to wrap our heads around as 'mere mortals' but a healthy awareness of the more complex is in order. To be honest I agree with you that most all of us lie in the grey area but personally I don't care to complexly theorize the way that the philosophers we read about did. I think it's subjective for sure and if one felt called to dig in and ponder the complexities of the universe they should... but at this moment I would not opt to do that with my time!
DeleteDo you think knowledge is really a form of remembering or recollection? Have we just forgotten what we knew?
ReplyDeleteI think knowledge is partly a form of remembering. Sometimes it feels like we’ve just forgotten what we already knew, our experiences, distractions, or assumptions can cover truths we once sensed or understood. But other times, knowledge seems entirely new, built from discovery and experience. So maybe remembering and learning aren’t separate, and what we call knowledge is a mix of both.
Skylar Bishop, section 3
ReplyDeleteLHP
1 Augustine originally believes that G-d is not all powerful, and therefore engages in a constant battle between good and evil. He believed that in this situation, sometimes the good was more powerful and a good thing would happen, and sometimes evil would win resulting in the opposite. After his conversion to Christianity he primarily answered the question with free will. Because G-d loves us, He has given us free will, and therefore we can choose to do evil.
3. It can be traced back to Plato. Plato taught that when we learn, we are actually just remembering something from the perfect world of forms.
6. Aquinas 2nd way is that there is not a cause for G-d, that He was not created in the same way as us. He said that G-D is “the uncaused cause for everything that is”
Makenzie Collins Section 1
ReplyDeleteBoethius' "recollection of ideas" can be traced back to what philosopher?
Boethius' recollection of ideas can be traced back to Plato's idea of anamnesis.
Are supernatural stories of redemption, salvation, or faith more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence?
ReplyDeleteAs someone who grew up in the Christian church I was always accepting of the supernatural bible stories I was read in Sunday school and before bed. Naturally, children are naïve to the "real" world around them and for this reason I think it was easier for all parties (my parents and me) to propagate the 'good guys always win' bible stories. As i've grown up, however, I am obviously more observant of the grey areas that used to be black and white. Modern stories of redemption, faith, and salvation are becoming harder to believe and far more rare. For this reason I find myself relying on my own reasoning and evidence to keep me grounded in my life. Perhaps this is because I've begun valuing my own logic and common sense more than blindly believing in only the stories taught to me?
Personally, I can fully relate to your backstory behind this question. As we get older, reason and logic becomes more important to most of us and we all become naturally more skeptical of what we are told. What stories were once comforting proof of God to me slowly became less and less impactful over the years. This is not to say that I can't still find some level of comfort in these stories, but it is far more difficult for me to buy in with the same level of confidence that I once had. Nowadays, reason and evidence would be more comforting to me, however it is difficult to find satisfyingly sound reasoning as even the most convincing arguments for God can have many counterpoints brought against them.
DeleteCorbin Medley - Section 3
DeleteI really like the way you develop your response, from childhood to adulthood. I think that regardless of how comforting stories of the supernatural and faithful are, as intellectual beings, we must question the reliability of these tales and provide some significant quantity and quality of evidence to support them. I also find knowing the truth more comforting than ignorantly believing otherwise, as to be ignorant is not a thing to be comfortable or blissful in. That does not mean I do not have faith in things that do not have evidence or proof to them, I just believe it is best to have that over nothing.
Bella York, Section #3
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with Augustine's view that free will is the cause of most evil, I think he fails to describe the reasoning behind God giving us freewill. In the Christian view, God is supremely good, loving, and kind. Anything good in this world is because of God (Bible, James 1:17).
As to the question of Hell; If everything good comes from God -like human feelings/actions of mercy, kindness, loyalty- then one can only imagine life without God, without any goodness in the world. Not only would people have not a single ounce of good in their hearts, but even nature would be an exemplified version of our natural disasters and evil (see my earlier reply). Because of the lack of what Christians call "common Grace", the ability for good things to happen to bad people, a complete lack of God would result in a terrible environment. The epitome of torment, hate, and hopelessness. This state is called Hell.
Why would a good God send people to Hell? A good God wouldn't force you to be with him. If I spent my entire life trying to stay as far away as possible to God, I'm signaling to God that I want to continue that for eternity. What a cruel thing to do, forcing someone who wants nothing to do with you to be with you for eternity. God, being infinitely good, cannot do this.
Section #1
ReplyDeleteLHP question 1,
Before Christianity evil wasn't his problem to solve, it was more of an external strain for him and that idea seemed to relieve him of responsibility. But after Christianity it forced Augustine to self reflect, evil wasn't something external anymore, it was a lack of good. instead of good and evil, god and the corruption of god. this made Augustine battle with personal accountability as it meant his choices were what determined if he was aligned with what was said to be right in the eye of god or if he would fall into a disorder of poor decisions which didn't align. the change that occurred was when he realized that evil lies within yourself.
Antonella Comaschi section 3
DeleteI agree that Christianity does force a person to self reflect, for it states that a person is in charge for their sins and fighting against evil. Although we are not alone God is by our sides to help us combat these desires.
Mackenzie Harris, Section 2
ReplyDeleteLHP
2. Boethius does not reveal that in his early life he was a Christian.
3. Boethius recollection of ideas comes from Plato.
Discussion question :
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?
- After reading "The Poisonwood Bible" last year I learned from the religion of the Congolese, which are naturally spiritual people, that when God or gods puts creatures on to this earth he thinks of everyone and everything as his children/his creations. He wants not only humans to succeed in life, but he also wants everything else he created in life to succeed as well. I don't necessarily believe in God or Satan, but you I do believe that you can't believe in good and not believe in evil. This is because the two coexist and you wouldn't want a world full of all good, but you also don't want a world full of all evil.
My take on your discussion question is that both scenarios are equally plausible. In both of these scenarios, God and Satan are both equal in power. In the first scenario they are equal because they are battling but neither can entirely overcome the other and in the second instance they are equal because they are both nothing. Therefore I think an individual's answer to this question is more of an exercise in how well they can prove or disprove the existence of God such as in the discussions surrounding Anselm's and Aquinas's theories.
DeleteCorbin Medley - Section 3
DeleteI think you have an incredibly unique perspective on this question, not one I have heard from many if any people. I absolutely agree that fundamentally there is good and there is evil in existence. I believe these values exist both subjectively and objectively. What people think are good and bad are subjective, but only to a certain degree. To say it is okay to kill children who are not suffering or in agony or anything extreme to that liking, could never subjectively be an okay thing to do. Where this objectiveness comes from I cannot say for sure, innate value in living things I'd say, but some may say God. If God exists, if we are made in his image, if we are his creations he wants to succeed above all else, then I do not see why evil would be allowed to exist if he was all-powerful as well as all-good. There is no moral justification for allowing such things to take place even in the argument of free will, which already has an argument of deterministic biological motivations to our environment. There are a lot of aspects to both sides of the question, but I believe that if God exists, he cannot either be perfect, all-good, and all-powerful; one may be missing.
Corbin Medley - Section 3
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?
When he was younger he practiced Manichaeism, which led him to believe God is not all-powerful and could not always prevent evil; that is why it was not really a problem for him. Later in life, he explains it the same we most people would do so now. Much of sin is derived from free will, and the consequences of the Garden of Eden. I don't think this answer resolves very much, as regardless of these two motivations, sin is originally the fault of our ancestors and there is no just reason why we would suffer from the actions of our forefathers. The most compelling argument I have heard for this concept is that God provides a way of escaping this sin through devotion, but to me that still does not resolve the fact that we inherited (the original) sin from the people who did wrong, not for something we did ourselves.
2. What does Boethius not mention about himself in The Consolation of Philosophy?
That he is a Christian, and I have no idea if this was intentional but I'm sure not specifying the God in which Philosophy meant allowed readers to interpret it as whoever they wished/worshipped.
4. What uniquely self-validating idea did Anselm say we have?
Anslem claimed that God has to exist, as the God we conceptualize in our head is "all-powerful" it would be illogical to say he does not exist as a God that exists in reality is more powerful than one that exists in our minds. This argument is so nonsensically self-validating that I can't help but wonder why there is any real weight given to it. Just because you imagine something as all-powerful does not mean it has to exist outside of your mind. The concept being God does not make it any different. God being all-powerful is because he exists (if you believe that), but that does not originate or associate with the concept of him within the human mind. It is as the book puts it, "there is something fishy about how he arrives at the conclusion. It just doesn’t feel right. Not many people have come to believe in God purely on the basis of it... Gaunilo pointed out that if anybody used this argument to try and persuade you that this most perfect island actually existed, you’d probably think it was some kind of joke." Arguing with this logic by simply saying, "God is the only being this applies to because he can't not exist" is about as far in the conversation as you can get without a difference in fundamental values of faith - it will only boil down to if you believe in him or not.
Can the definition of a word prove anything about the world?
ReplyDeleteWithout seeing more examples of this being done, I do not think it is at all possible for definitions to prove things about the world. Ultimately language is a human social construct, not anything concrete. To use our own constructs to concretely prove things about the world and things higher than us seems foolish to me. If God exists on a level so much higher than us, then how can we use our own lesser worldly concepts to define him and prove his existence?
I agree, just defining something doesn’t make it real. Saying “God is the greatest being” doesn’t prove He exists, because words are just human ideas. Even supporters of the argument admit it only works if you accept that some beings exist necessarily, which is hard to know.
DeleteDoes 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?
ReplyDeleteThe short answer is, for me, no. A world with a constant struggle of good and evil does not appeal to me, yes, in causing suffering, but also in the context of not believing such a statement to be entirely accurate to my current perception of reality. In a perhaps unintended analysis of this question, I should probably first establish morality, both in its common perception and my own personal view. Most (and I mean the vast majority) of people who I have heard speak of morality and ethics seem to have the perspective that morality exists as a sort of universal law of judgement for actions, one founded in truth and with the ability for one to be mistaken about its decrees (often called being ‘misguided’). I have grown to disagree with this assertion, namely in the respect to its objectivity; I believe morality is a survival-oriented compulsion that is entirely a matter of opinion and instinct. To elaborate, I do not believe in objective, universal “good” and “evil” actions, but instead that each person harbors and develops their own, equally subjective set of morals that are no more right or wrong than any other perspective from a standpoint of fact. However, on an opinionated level, of course I have moral disagreements with others (sometimes quite large, mind you). In practice, I behave much the same as others who hold the opposite view, attempting to inspire changes in the world that better reflect my personal conception of “good”. Really the only difference for me is that I try not to internalize moral disagreements from a standpoint of who is right, but from a way that encourages me to seek understanding and empathy in spite of such conflicts. For example: a large component of my moral code has surrounded learning to empathize with and respect the lives of nonhumans, especially groups such as insects which are historically among the most hated and least empathized with by humans. Because of this, I often encounter people who view insects as simple, unfeeling, and insignificant creatures to be killed and experimented on without concern for their wellbeing, and this does hurt me to hear and experience, but I am able to empathize with them by pushing to understanding why they think this way and perhaps walking away each having learned something productively instead of arguing aimlessly.
To return to the question, it might be most helpful for me to interpret “good” as subjective pleasure or contentment in life, and “evil” as equally subjective harm or sadness. Under these definitions, I believe that no world could exist free of pain, because there has never been a consensus on what is “good”, and living things must survive by consuming and competing with other living things. To me, suffering is just as crucial a component of life as pleasure and contentment, whether it be killing to eat or defending yourself or loved ones from harm.
Section 2
Delete2. Boethius doesn't mention that he's a Christian in his book, The Consolation of Philosophy. This might be because he didn't want to exclude anyone from his books based on religion.
ReplyDelete3. Boethius's "recollection of ideas" can be traced back to Pluto, who believed anything we learn is just something that we're being reminded of.
Addison Baird, Section 2
ReplyDeleteDiscussion question 2- 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?
I believe that the Christian God that has been taught is not as plausible as there being no god at all. If God is less powerful than Satan, than it is not possible, like a majority of religions believe, that there is a all-knowing, all-powerful, benevolent God. The existence of this god and the suffering in the world contradict themselves. The fact of morality, to me, seems almost entirely up to free will as a concept. We have to choose, continuously, to be good people. It seems more plausible to have people WANT to be good and choose happiness for themselves and others rather than have some 'invisible forces' out to fight that battle of good and evil through humans. It seems a lot more plausible to have there be no god at all.
Antonella Comaschi section 3
DeleteA common belief people get confused is that God and Satan are equal beings and they fight against each other to create good or evil. Although if you research the true origin of Satan, you'll discover that God created him and he was one of his angels. He was a powerful being and had a purpose to serve God like all the angels. Then Satan began to believe that he was superior to God, he began to feel pride and desired to become God. He began to collect angels to fight with him and began the War in Heaven. Ultimately, Satan lost and was banished to Earth with the 1/3 of angels he corrupted. Therefore, Satan isn't more powerful than God and he has never been; he's not even more powerful then God's archangel: St Michael. So, the evil in the world comes from Satan and his demons trying to corrupt the souls of the world, and God fights against it but if you don't reach out to him and ask him for his help he won't help you because of the free will he granted us.
Are supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteI think having faith and following a certain religion is as popular and widespread as it is because of its ability to comfort by explaining the unknowable. Religion explains how we came to be and what will become of us after we're gone, things that are impossible to truly know with science alone. Furthermore, the act of being religious offers acceptance, community, and forgiveness- something living a life full of reason and evidence cannot. I am not a religious person in the typical sense, but I definitely understand and respect why other people are.
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?
ReplyDeleteMy idea of an all-knowing all-powerful being is really understanding we have no idea at all. If such an all-powerful God exists, it would be incomprehensible. Such a "being" can hardly be said to be "being" at all. Such a thing would reside above gender, personhood, or any other human attributes many religions assign to their god(s).
Augustine was a good Christian asking normal questions we ask today. He fought against sin and I enjoyed that they pointed out that he asked God to stop his desirer for sin "but not yet." This is a common struggle many Christian deal with even in todays age. We want to fight against our sin in order to become more holy and grow closer to God, but we also enjoy the "worldly pleasures too much." This is the biggest struggle as a Christian for you have to die to yourself in order to be raised to life by God. But dying to yourself is the most difficult process any person has to experience and its a constant process.
ReplyDeleteAntonella Comaschi Section 3
DeletePhilopateer Iskandar Sectiion 3
ReplyDeleteWhat uniquely self-validating idea did Anselm say we have we all have an idea of what God is and even if you don’t believe in him you can imagine him
Gaunilo criticized Anselm's reasoning using what example: A island.
What was Aquinas' 2nd Way? If we asked where something came from every time we would come to the fact nothing made everything and that would be wrong
Morgan Conner Section 3
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 “solved” the problem of evil in his younger days by believing that there was a never-ending struggle with God and Satan, goodness and evil, and that neither was powerful enough to defeat the other. However, after his conversion to Christianity, Augustine solved the problem of evil by stating that evil partly stems from the Original Sin, and is passed down generations through sexual reproduction, as well as the Free Will Defense, explaining that God has given all people free will, and that it is their choice to do evil things.
2. What does Boethius not mention about himself in The Consolation of Philosophy?
Boethius does not mention in The Consolation of Philosophy that he was an early Christian.
3. Boethius' "recollection of ideas" can be traced back to what philosopher?
Boethius’ “recollection of ideas” can be traced back to the philosopher Plato in a philosophy known later on as Neoplatonism.
I personally do not believe in the never-ending struggle between good and evil. I'm an Independent, Baptist Christian. I believe that one day, God will "defeat" (I put that in quotations because in reality, Satan can only do what God will let him do, so Satan really has no power) Satan and return to the Earth to restore order and perfection. If there was no ending to the battle of good and evil, then you're saying that God isn't more powerful than Satan, which takes away from him being all-powerful. This is just what I believe, and I understand that not everyone feels this way. I could go into full detail about the order of events listed in the Bible, but that would take a long time. Instead, the short answer is no. I do not believe that there is a never-ending fight between good and evil. One day, God will return and create a perfect world.
ReplyDeleteI think I understand and can explain the concept of the Original Sin. Essentially, after God created the Earth and Adam and Eve, he gave both of them jobs and tasks to do. They were allowed to eat anything except from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. After Lucifer fell and became Satan, he convinced Eve to eat of the tree. Then, Eve gave the fruit to Adam, meaning both of them sinned, cursing them both and every man after that. After that day, every human has been born into this curse of sin, cutting us off from God. Romans 5:12 (KJV): “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” So, every human is a sinner, cut off from God.
ReplyDeleteMy consistent problem that has always occurred to me when trying to perceive of a God, is that I can't seem to fathom an all powerful God who is simultaneously all good. And I don't really understand the argument that God has supplied humanity will free will and therefore all bad things that happen are a result of human actions. Even if that's the case, isn't God still letting the atrocities happen. I'm definitely trying to stay open minded, but I would say this is how I see things now.
ReplyDeleteAnselm's suggestion seems sort of ridiculous to me. It definitely seems like a stretch. Just because an idea is suggested does not equate to a confirmation of that thing existing. I mean isn't that the whole basis of fiction?
ReplyDeleteCan the definition of a word prove anything about the world?
ReplyDeleteI don't believe it can prove anything about the world, but it can make the world we know make more sense to more people.
Is theoretical simplicity always better, even if the universe is complex?
I think that simplicity is better to believe in. The world can be as complex as you think it might be, but that doesn't mean that the world is that complex. It is only that complex to you because you choose it to be.
Does the possibility of other worlds somehow diminish humanity?
It does not diminish humanity because even if there are more worlds, with possibly more species of human or other species. We are still human, we are who we are, and no matter how large our space is and how many species or things are out there it doesn't change who we are.
William Miller was a 19th century baptist preacher that founded the Miller Lite movement. Joseph Smith was the founder of mormonism. The most interesting thing about him is that he wrote the book of Mormon. Boethius didn't mention his religious faith in his texts.
ReplyDelete-Honestly, the idea that neither God nor Satan exists might seem to be the more plausible answer for suffering in the world. When I think of God, I think of an all powerful being and one that created everything. The fact that God created Satan, who is merely a former angel, suggests that Satan would be much less powerful. Biblically, Satan's original power consisted of wisdom and beauty, none of which measure up to God who presumably formed our existence and world. The Bible also does not notify us of Satan growing in power.
ReplyDeleteAs for suffering, I think most people know the notion of free will and that God gave it to us out of love. When you love someone you want them to love you the same way and for who you are. You can't just force a person to love you because that wouldn't be loving of you and even if you did it would not be genuine. In this way God created us so that we could live in fellowship with Him, but gave us the choice of whether we wanted to love Him back because God was searching for a true relationship. This is why mankind was given free will and we ultimately chose not to live in fellowship with God. Metaphorical or not, this is the fall of mankind and how we chose the absence of God. This is why there is evil in the world. Not because God created it, but because we and Satan chose it. This ideology resembles Thomas Hobbes's idea that humans have an inherently bad nature. Just like how cold is the absence of heat and how darkness is the absence of light. People wonder why God doesn't intervene more but forget the actions He took in the Old Testament to rid the world of its evil doers as well as sending Jesus to provide a way out of our suffering. Suffering such as mental issues and handling our every day struggles.
-To follow that up I would say it is more comforting to me to have faith in a supernatural being. I say that for the sake of the question because I think its possible for both. For me, I know that the plans for my life are set out in a way for me to prosper. This is the result of me believing in an all loving God who wants the best for me and everyone I know. When I do wrong or make mistakes I know that I don't have to tip the scale with good works for God to forgive me. All that He asks of us is to try our best, and strive for a righteous life. I also, believe in reason and evidence. Personally, I expect that the creation and nature around us is a good enough explanation that there is a God. I find people struggling more with the question which god is right. People could say it's chance or coincidence, but how is it that we were all given this life of ours?
Sorry for the tangent.