Upon reading the works of Barbour and Saint Thomas Aquinas, it appears that modern science has come a long way to what we understand of it today, especially from the work of Barbour. Barbour through his work mentioned how the Medieval Mind considered science to be the work of magic, astrology or sorcery. Thinking about it, the Medieval mind might considered science to be the work of magic, astrology, or sorcery because at that time, society do not quite understand science or why certain things happen. Thus in order to keep thing simple, they just will consider it magic. During the Medieval Ages as mentioned by Barbour, the Church had the authority on what can be interpreted via the Scriptures. This in turn would somewhat narrows the mind of the Church when Medieval scientist, such as Copernicus, presented the idea of Heliocentrism. At that time, the Church was fixated on the concept of Geocentrism because human beings were God's chosen creatures, so it would make sense if human beings were at the center of things. From a personal standpoint, Geocentrism at that time would make sense because Medieval thought was in general "realistic" as being perceived and experience at that time according to Barbour. This realistic perception of the world would then seem to support the idea of Geocentrism because while standing on Earth, one cannot feel if the Earth is indeed moving, thus the Earth must be at the center and any idea that challenges it must be erroneous. Geocentrism is then somewhat of a "Created Hierarchy" as mentioned by Barbour. This "Created Hierarchy" seems to be how human beings are able to determine their position in the world and they come to understand it.
The idea of how humans can come to knowledge or reason is the general idea of both writers, specifically both writers mentioned about we as humans can come to knowledge of God. According to Aquinas, knowing God is the highest level of knowledge and in order to do this, we must believe that God is above everything and that it is possible for us to think about God. This statement from Aquinas seems to be the link between faith and reason to me because as human beings, we cannot prove the existence of God with concrete evidence, so we must take a "leap of faith" and believe that God exist. Then once we take this "leap of faith," it is possible for us to understand God with our rationality. Therefore, faith brings perfection to the human reason according to Aquinas. From a personal standpoint, this seems true because if one was to reject an idea before even considering it then it must be false, so there must be no point in examining it thoroughly. Through Barbour's sections entitled "Methods in Theology: Reason and Revelation," Barbour mentioned Aquinas' idea about Revelation being necessary because reason cannot access important theological truths, such as the trinity and incarnation. This statement from Barbour to me basically suggest that we cannot know everything by shear reason or faith alone and that we must somehow integrate our faith and reason in order to come to a different truth and understanding of our universe and faith.
First thank you for starting off the conversation. I think that you make great points about both readings. Especially about Aquinas and the leap of faith that most be made in order to try and understand God. Aquinas makes great points for harmonizing reason, faith and truth. however I have a hard time with some of the assumptions he makes along the way.
ReplyDeleteBarbour and Aquinas also touch on the fact that humans are always making errors and mistakes. So finding a divine truth is a very difficult process. Barbour seems to be much more open minded about different truths than Aquinas is. But truth is the final end for both, they just seem to disagree with what that truth is.
While I disagree with much Aquinas has to say about truth, he certainly makes interesting points. I do like the distinction that God requires a leap of faith. One cannot argue the existence or attributes of God with any greater conviction than that of faith. I find the concept of God to be inherently illogical if not impossible. Thus, faith is where people find answers.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate where Barbour points out human error and how finding the 'truth' can be so difficult. I would contend that there is no way to know scripture to be true, either literally or metaphorically. It it not something one can know, rather it is something one has faith in. Thus I would conclude that there remains truth and faith as two separate spheres. Faith can give an individual things that they believe to be true. One could argue that if something exists in the minds of believers than it has a true existence, though that idea has many nuances and holes.
Although Aquinas describes faith as being vital for acquiring an understanding of God, he still claims that rational or pratically applicable principles work in harmony with divine law. It seems as if the past conflicts between theology and scientific theories fail to bear any major significance to Aquinas. He seems to dismiss anything failing to coincide with his concept of truth which may have very well included scientific theories which have led us to factual discoveries about our universe.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Aquinas tries to describe a harmony, it appears as if conflict is quite existant and should not be overlooked philosophically.
Barbour mentions the scientific discoveries of Galileo as having conflicted with medieval theological views which causes me to question the theoretical harmounious relationship betweeen reason and divine revelation. In conclusion, I wonder how Aquinas would respond to the scientific discoveries which challenge certain ideas he expressed.
A particular thing that I found interesting between the two exerpts was the use of nature. In Barbour’s section titled “Humanity as the Center of Cosmic Drama” nature seems to be extremely unimportant on the minds of Medieval thinkers. It was there only to serve humanities needs so that humanity can serve God. [As a side note, it is interesting to think about how this could have had a large effect on our environmental problems today.] On the other hand, Aquinas talks mainly about how nature is a main resource in finding truth for the logical/reasonable component of truth can be found in the natural sciences (for how else can we find things reasonable if we cannot experience them with our own senses). In this way, nature does not seem to have such a menial purpose.
ReplyDeleteAquinas also stated that because men were not given full truth by means of reasonable knowledge, all men now have the same level of knowledge of God. I think that is illogical to state because all men do not have equal knowledge of God nor of anything thing in the world. Because he used the argument that men cannot be given full truth reasonably for they would all be on different levels of knowledge, I cannot agree that this is a valid or strong argument.
Since everyone has commented or made some connection to faith. I'll ask something I have always wondered. Why does Aquinas or anyone believe relying on faith is a good thing? Aquinas says that you must rely on faith to begin to understand God. Do you think that is a cop out? Or do you really think it is rational to do so?
ReplyDeleteI think Mike brings up an interesting point. Aquinas did mention that a "leap of faith" is needed in order to understand God. I think that faith is needed when it comes to believing in God, because as humans we don't have full capacity to grasp the concept of God. At least at this moment in time, we can only rely on Scripture and Tradition to help us try and understand God. These two essentially don't tend to satisfy our understanding of God, so therefore it is through faith that we believe in God. I mean, what other way do you think you can understand or believe in God?
ReplyDeleteI think these two readings compliment each other quite nicely when you get down to the technical details such as faith and reason. Barbour's concern about the authenticity of truth can be answered with further study of Aquinas' writings.
ReplyDeleteAlthough not mentioned in the current readings for Aquinas, in other theological and philosophical works I have studied, Aquinas likes to use the image of two wings of a dove to represent the collaboration of faith and reason. He explains that the two counterbalance one and other in order to achieve the highest level of understanding. One cannot understand truth to its fullest extent by flying on one wing or by faith or reason alone.
Mike, to answer your question regarding relying on faith, I think Aquinas sees it as very important but it is not the only thing he believes you must rely on. Like I said above he seeks a balance between faith and reason. Relying on faith is important because it goes beyond what we know from nature. It is the liturgical way of knowing where as reason is simply the philosophical way of knowing. Both of which, when combined, can lead to the highest level of knowing, i.e. God.
Aquinas causes me to question if faith is something that has been taught to us a humans through tradition or culture, or it really is instilled in us by God. Yes, Aquinas obviously believes that what human reason cannot grasp is resolved through faith. But to me I can't help but think that maybe faith is something that humans have instilled in each other for so many years that it is thought of something that we are born with as humans. But maybe it is something learned, not innate. That is just a thought, though.
ReplyDeleteBarbour's explanation of the "new world view" gave a brief history of how the seventeenth century changed the way people viewed God and human nature through new science and scientific understanding. This resulted in the discussion of how the world thought, and how science changed that idea.
I used to have your viewpoint, I believed that many philosophers used the "god argument" as a sort of logical loophole to avoid accurately defending their viewpoints however, this has recently changed. One must remember that their role as philosophers were to, not prove, but investigate theological arguments and scripture. However, as Barbour outlined, their societal preconceptions were fundamentally different from our own. They saw proof of god's existence everywhere they looked. The animals were created to serve humans, and humans were created to serve God. They saw the moon, the stars, and the sun and literally assumed that the world revolved around them. There was an almost perfect logic to the world. Where-as we see the world mostly through the eyes of scientists. Modern society assumes "Everything can be quantified and explained." In summary, I do not defend their use of the "god argument" however, from the point of view of Aquinas, many theological, philosophical, and societal views had already put fourth an abundance of support for the existence of God.
ReplyDeleteInteresting point about faith being taught. I believe in the end it all comes down to ones choices. Aquinas was talking about how, faith is not for everyone; or how not all humans have the mental drive to find truth. Some because their daily & lively activity and some are just not driven mentally.
ReplyDeleteAs a kid you are taught everything you would need to move forward in your society. How you decide to go about it is entirely up to you. I see faith in almost the same way. We all grow up learning different things; but how we go about mixing the cocktails of information to help us move forward everyday is what differentiates us as individuals. Two people might have faith in the same God but the way they go about that faith are on extreme ends.
So what I am understanding from reading both excerpts is pretty much the timeline. During their time period, they had such & such beliefs. Now it is up to me to take what I was taught of faith & truth; knowing what they (readings) know of faith & truth; with the scientific view of my time on faith & truth. All these are informative for me in living my everyday life, or the quest of seeking faith & truth. As Barbour mentions in the introduction
"A religious tradition is not just a set of intellectual beliefs or abstract ideas. It is a way of life for its members. Every religious community has its distinctive forms of individual experience, communal ritual, and ethical concerns."
I personally have always wondered the question about whether faith and knowledge of god is taught or is it human nature? With a surplus of end of the world scenario movies recently and watching one this past weekend (the Book of Eli) one has to wonder whether faith in god is relevant because it is part of human history. Aquinas states that to have faith and find the truth of god is only for the strong willed which I find on the other side of the argument this could be stated that people who seek religion are the weak minded because they need answers for things that cannot be explained. Just as Barbour explained about the medieval mind used to explain as magic now we "humans" assign reason to science or faith.
ReplyDeleteThis is just something i have always thought about and whether the time spent, for some fruitless searching, for the truth and faith of god could be spent many different ways and without religion how different history would be?
When looking at the Aquinas reading, I think it's important to remember that Aquinas thinks that faith isn't necessary IMMEDIATELY to believe in God, but that faith is what takes over after reason has proved that what one is believing in is reasonable. In answering some of the discussion above, I think that it's important to at least make sure that we're giving Aquinas due credit by accurately representing his discussion.
ReplyDeleteIn looking at Barbaur's text, I thought of it more as 'background knowledge' on how faith and science have interacted in the past - I did not see much of a connection between the two texts, although it appears that both are important for a well-rounded perspective.
I think it's interesting that Aquinas brings up "...although the truth of the Christian faith which we have discussed surpasses the capacity of the reason, nevertheless that truth that the human reason is naturally endowed to know cannot be opposed to the truth of the Christian faith." Thus, I agree with Chelsey and find it an interesting logical point that faith isn't necessary IMMEDIATELY to believe in God, as he openly admits that knowing God by reason alone is impossible. Yet, Aquinas spends an entire document trying to logically approach a belief in God.
ReplyDeleteBarbours text has a similar logic behind it, looking at Medieval approaches to God and beleif in him. As medieval's would resort to magic being a logical end, it appears that Aquinas would allow "faith" to become the end of an logical argument. I don't think it would go to far to say that a concept of "faith" has taken the point of our arguments logical end.
-John McCarthy