1) Aquinas does not require that each individual person have good reasons for what he or she believes. He explains that there is the human reason (God is triune) and natural reason (God exists) which considers some truth of God. He discusses limitations to human intellect. He explains that the truth is open to reasoning. He reasons that humans have better knowledge of God when they cannot understand. He explains that many people are not fitted to reach the highest level of knowledge, which is understanding God. When truths are explained they are mixed in with false statements. Aquinas reasoning does make sense, it is vague and confusing to grasp, but the underlying components are logical. It is a good reason, because he allows for the individual to decide what he or she wants to believe and believes as their own.
2) According to Aquinas there are certain “truths of faith” that we should accept even though we are unable, by human reason, to see that they are true. He states that the divine Wisdom knows everything, and it is designed to reveal to people its teachings. He explains that the truths of reason cannot be opposed to the Divine truth, they cannot be thought of as false, and truths by faith are not allowed to be thought of as false. He states that, “…only the false is opposed to the true…” This reasoning was confusing to me, the statement makes sense, but just the explanation is hard to follow.
3) Fideism is taking a neutral stance about religious truth claims, putting all your commitments aside and turning towards the neutral side. Evans’ objections to fideism are whether or not neutral stance is desirable, because once someone becomes neutral will they be even able to understand religion. Evans explains how we cannot ...
... middle of paper ...
...ut we should be able to hear others out and maybe come to common ground, but the process will deepen faith.
7) Of the two I preferred Evans views, they were easily read and vast evidence was given. Evans position made the most sense to me. I agree that every individual has their own beliefs, but should consider others views as well. Aquinas’ views and reasoning were hard to follow and vague.
8) I agree that religious truths and natural truths are both true, but I disagree that they have nothing to do with each other. And that even though they operate of different planes of human consciousness, I think that they influence each other vastly. All our thoughts come from somewhere and are influenced by various factors, so I think that religious and natural truths influence each other is different ways, and help us both explain what we stand for.
Examining the two works against each other as if it were a debate makes it a bit clearer to compare. Aquinas, reveals his argument under the groundwork that there are essentially two methods of understanding the truth. One being that it can be surmised through reason an logic, and the other being via inner faith. On the surface at this point it could be argued that this ontological determination a bit less convoluted than Anselm, yet I tend to think it could be a bit more confusing. This is what leads him to the claim that the existence of God can be proven by reason alone or “a priori”. Stemming from this belief he formulated his Five Proofs or what he called the “Quinquae Viae”. The first of which is fairly simple based on the fact that something in motion had to have been moved. Agreeing that something set it in motion therefor there must have been a...
Evans’ explanations and arguments on the Fideist point of view are eye-opening and well argued. The fideist believes that people who choose neutrality are the rebellious humans that do not believe in God and that being neutral is just an illusion. The fideist thinks that a person who attempts to be neutral is, “impious or presumptuous, an arrogant placing of human reason above God,” (p. 117). Evans goes on to point out that his view is that humans can never really be religiously neutral. Either they believe or they do not, and the non-believers according to Evans are “rebels against the Creator,”. I particularly like this next quote because it makes me think about my own situation a few years ago, Evans states the rebel goes against the grain and chooses a path that, “All her activities reflect the distorted and twisted character she has given to life,” (p. 116).
This essay explains how he feels about any religion, “To choose unbelief is to choose mind over dogma, to trust in our humanity instead of all these dangerous divinities…The ancient wisdoms are modern nonsenses. Live in your own time, use what we know, and as you grow up, perhaps the human race will finally grow up with you, and put aside childish
In the first part, Aquinas states that the existence of god is not self-evident, meaning that reason alone without appealing to faith can give a good set of reasons to believe. To support this claim, Aquinas refers to “The Argument of Motion”, proposing that:
Aquinas’ argument has a couple of flaws in it. One is pointed out by Samuel Clarke, who says a whole series of dependant...
Also, he does say he is certain only of his uncertainty, but he could claim some reason for how he exists, as well as God. Descartes believes only in what’s in the mind and how he experiences things in the world. I do agree with some of Aquinas’ claims. Such as the idea that nothing comes from nothing. I believe something has to happen to become.
He continues by saying that for any change to occur there must have been a previous cause that existed in reality and if one was to trace this line of causes and effects all the way back there must be a first cause that began the chain. But there cannot be anything worldly like that because anything natural must have an impetus already in reality to transform it from potentiality to reality. The only explanation, in Aquinas' e... ... middle of paper ... ... s a cause except God.
Through my study of Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” and Saint Augustine’s “The Confessions”, I discovered that both text involve a journey of finding real truths before acquiring a faith. This suggests that faith and reason are compatible because one must embark on journey in which they are educated about real truths before they are able to acquire a faith.
Thomas Aquinas. Faith, Reason and Theology. Armand Maurer,translator. Mediæval Sources in Translation, vol. 32. Pontifical Institute of Mediæval Studies, Toronto : 1987.
Both Abelard and Aquinas were the two leading followers of scholastics of their time. Summa Theologica and Sic et Non, to this day, are controversial ways man has looked for reason in finding the truth about God and the divine order of life. The views on the "natural world" were challenged without challenging the Christian faith, while being followers of the Christian faith.
existence to those who could not accept or believe God on faith alone. Aquinas’ first way
This is because it’s possible for everything both to exist and not to exist, therefore both possibilities must have been fulfilled at some point. He phrases it in those terms, but I believe his argument is better understood by saying everything which exists must have come into existence, and therefore didn’t exist before that. Since something cannot spontaneously come into existence, he believes, another being gave everything else existence. This is called a “necessary thing,” meaning its existence is necessary for the existence of other things. Aquinas believes a being bestowed its necessity onto itself and did “not [receive] it from another.” What was a paradox before, an object being both the cause and effect, is now the logic. This object is God, and gave existence to all other
Aquinas, in the Summa Theologiae, stated that, “Man should not seek to know what is above reason.” His argument was, in very simple terms, that men need reason to understand all of God’s truths. Yet there are certain truths that are beyond reason which men can only understand through Divine Revelation, or faith. And sometimes there might be certain aspects of faith that one day reason might have been able to prove but only a few men would know and understand this, so it is necessary that all men know this through Divine Revelation and faith.
Today, faith is the cornerstone of all major religious knowledge claims because there is no definitive way of...
Aquinas and Augustine's showed their philosophies ,that were derived ancient philosophers, when they spoke of faith and reason, both of them tried to get there point out in there own way. Aquinas and Augustine both had one goal and and that was too prove that Christianity was somehow intertwined with philosophy and Both of them did just that, many people may or may not agree with these philosophies but it just depends on the type of person you are. Many people like to live off fact and know for certain, but like Aquinas and Augustine we all have our own philosophies, we choose what to believe and what not to believe. We are not machines nor are we controlled by one. We are after all humans and have free will, what we want to believe in is ours for the