.
I would like to examine not necessarily a passage, but more of an overarching state of mind of the people of Augustine's time. The people of this era had unshaken faith in the existence of god , even though they did not understand certain aspects of their own faith. The work as whole demonstrates this . Augustine and Evodius both do not fully understand free will, how it should be used, or if it was given by god, yet they both believe without fully understanding. The second section of the work has several quotations that demonstrate this perfectly. The stretch from the bottom of the second paragraph that begins with " yet if it is certain that god gave free will, however it was given, we must acknowledge that.............." and ends at the top of the next page with " A. At least you are certain that god exists- E . I accept even this by faith and not by reason" is this view in a nutshell. This is in striking contrast to the types of thinkers in the age of reason who worked tirelessly to find " proof" for the existence of god. The Enlightenment sought out a base or reasoning behind things in nature, and many saw god as no different. Even if God was a higher being than other things in nature, it still must have some logic behind it. The church ruled these times with an iron fist. To speak out against the church or to question it's dogmas was punishable by death. Many great thinkers like Galileo were seen as enemies of the church, and forced to recant or be put to death. I am not surprised that the masses, almost all of whom were poorly educated, believed with blind faith, but I am surprised that even intelligent philosophers were in this frame of mind as well.
What I find most interesting about this concept is the special place it is given by the human mind. People almost always want sound reasons why they are expected to believe something. " I'll believe it when I see it" or " Prove it" are common phrases . However, religion is given the free pass. People see past all of the evidence, and just have faith that a supreme being exists. It has always interested me . Many have searched for the reason why, perhaps we are all just afraid of death, perhaps we do not like to take the blame for things that happen. Overall I chose this because it demonstrates just how powerful the church of this time was. There was zero doubt in the minds of even the most educated ( or maybe they were just too afraid to say it )
A number of Medival Philosophers took the existence of God as a given. No argument that is logical in structure but requires an appeal to faith can be credible. The faith of Medieval Philosopher's prevented them from making sound arguments (at least when it came to proving the existence of God).
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think that the Enlightenment figures who sought to prove God's existence are also guilty of dogmatic arguments (though to a lesser degree). Although they did not rely on statements such as 'In proving this I appeal to your faith and conscious' (Anselm) in their actual arguments, they, like the Medievals, did not reach a conclusion by reason, but instead attempted to use reason to validate a belief they already had. Descartes did not intend to discover whether or not there was a God, he set out to prove God's existence.
I would like to point out that even the philosophers of today are guilty of dogmatic arguments concerning the existence of God. Plantinga's arguments for the existence of God, at first glance, appear quite modern and free from subjectivity. In fact, most of his arguments are reducto ad aburdum -they begin with a negation of God's existence and seek to prove that the statement is an absurdity. However, all of these arguments seek to prove God's existence and simply in doing so show that the goal is to use logic to support a belief that already is embedded in the heart of the individual making the argument. It's no surprise that Plantinga is an outspoken Christian and also wants to use a logical scaffolding to beautify his faith.
ReplyDelete