Philo Faith And Reason

Front 1

Thomas Aquinas

Back 1

twofold truth
-1 which the inquiry of the reason can reach
-the other surpasses the whole ability of the human reason

-if some a matter of inquiry for the human reason… 3 awkward consequences
-few men would possess the knowledge of God
-those that would discover the abovementioned truth would barely reach it after a great deal of time
-investigation has falsity present within it due partly to the weakness of our intellect in judgment and partly to the admixture of images

The truth of the Christian faith surpasses the capacity of the reason, but that truth that the human reason is naturally endowed to know cannot be opposed to the truth of the Christian faith.

Because of the 3rd awkward consequence… it was necessary that the unshakeable certitude and pure truth concerning divine things should be presented to men by way of faith.

Reason can support faith

1.he doesn’t require each person have good reasons for what he believes because of the 3 reasons mentioned above. Not all people are capable of possessing the knowledge of God, those that do discover it would barely reach it after a great deal of time, and investigation has falsity present. This strikes me as a good reason because we do not all possess the time/or have the capacity to learn. God calls us to our own vocations in life, this however doesn’t mean we are not to put forth an effort to a degree.

2. With regard to accepting “truths of faith”, it is necessary to believe past reason in order to have a truer knowledge of God. A benefit is the curbing of presumption, the mother of error. This allows us a more humble inquiry after truth.

Front 2

Ibn Rushd

Back 2

Law commands the study of logic and philosophy for those who are qualified to study
-if teleological study of the world is philosophy, and if the Law commands such a study, then the Law commands philosophy.
-The best manner is demonstrative
-The Law demands that we have a demonstrative knowledge of God
-for he who does not understand the art does not understand the product of art, and he who does not understand the product of art does not understand Artisan
-3 ways to truth suitable to one’s nature (people have different assents
-demonstrative, dialectical, or rhetorical methods
-demonstrative truth and scriptural truth cannot conflict (similar to Aquinas)

Not Fit to study
-1) those with natural intelligence
-2) religious integrity/moral virtue blocks people from the door by which Law summons them to knowledge of God, the door of theoretical study which leads to the truest knowledge of Him; and such an act is the extreme of ignorance and estrangement from God the exalted.

Summary
-the law requires philosophy
-those who are best disposed
-in case of conflict: allegorize

Study Questions
1. Muslims who have the ability and opportunity to study philo ought to do so because the Law demands it so. The Law demands it that those capable ought to demonstratively reason for the existence of God. He argues that we should take steps to understand truth.
2. What similarities do Rushd and Aquinas have? They argue for using logic and reason to find the understanding of God. They also believe that there are only certain people capable of understanding the depth of God.

Front 3

Blaise Pascal

Back 3

If you had to decide for or against belief in the Christian God with no evidence whatsoever- no reason either to believe God exists or to believe that he does not- what should you choose?

The only rational choice under such circumstances is to believe. He doesn’t think it is really in our power to simply “decide to believe”. He believes that our desires keep us from choosing the rational choice.
What can we do? Purify our hearts
What two things do you have to lose? The true and the good
What two things are at stake? Your reason and your will
Our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

Study Questions
1. It is more reasonable to believe than to disbelieve because if there is a finite stake in a game where equal risks of gain and of loss are present, one ought to choose the gain of infinite.
2. People find themselves unable to believe because they are force to wager and think they are not free. In order to rectify this, one must not increase proofs of God but go by the abatement of one’s passions and follow others that took your path prior. We must purify our hearts.

Front 4

William Clifford

Back 4

He argues that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” If we act poorly supported beliefs, we are very likely to harm others as well as ourselves.

There is a moral duty to believe according to evidence
-just because you may believe that a ship is good to sail doesn’t justify the action if the evidence points to the contrary.
The question of right or wrong has to do with the origin of his belief, not the matter of it; not what it was, but how he got it; not whether it turned out to be true or false, but whether he had a right to believe on such evidence as was before him.

The question is not whether their belief was true or false, but whether they entertained it on wrong grounds.
No one man’s belief is in any case a private matter which concerns himself alone. Everything is common property.
*In the two supposed cases, it has been judged wrong to believe on insufficient evidence, or to nourish belief by suppressing doubts and avoiding investigation.

Study Questions
1. He argues that it is morally wrong to accept any belief for which one does not have convincing rational evidence for. This is contrary to Pascal and Aquinas. He believes that just because you hold a belief, doesn’t make it truth. It is wrong to send a ship to sea even if you believe it will stay afloat if evidence points to the contrary.
2. He believes that it is morally wrong attaches to the mere holding of the belief and not only the actions that are based on it because having a belief with insufficient evidence is innately wrong.
3. Does he seem to have a particular kind of evidence for beliefs in mind? It is right to believe only when we face doubts and investigate thoroughly the situation at hand. One must be able to understand the nature of arguments and rationalize a belief based on sufficient evidence before it is valid.

Front 5

William James

Back 5

In response to Clifford, he argues for the “will to believe”
-The will to believe is more accurately the right to believe in certain cases in which we lack the strong supporting evidence that Clifford considered essential.
-*In the case of genuine options- choices that are “living, forced, and momentous”, we may and indeed must make our decisions to believe or disbelieve with our “passional nature”. (Of course this is only when objective evidence is unavailable.)

Live v. dead hypotheses are in relation to individual thinkers
A genuine option is:
Living when there is some appeal to your belief. I am catholic or agnostic
Forced when someone says “either accept this as truth or go without it”
Momentous: an expedition to the North Pole example

The first great commandment is: we must know truth and we must avoid error
What he says against Clifford is this: it is like a general informing his soldiers that it is better to keep out of battle forever than to risk a single wound.

Study Questions
1. A genuine option is one that is living, forced, and momentous. It is useful for ones that need rationality in accepting a belief because they have appeal, relevance, forces decisions, and provides unique opportunities.
2. He point out that “faith in a fact can help to create the fact” to justify that faith goes beyond one’s present evidence. This is used to defend against Clifford. Ex: Law courts must decide on the best evidence attainable and from this they can deduce more fact. Religion uses this, for to preach skepticism until ‘sufficient evidence’ be found, we would not find religion.
3. He argues that our interests and desires, our “passional nature” does have a considerable influence on what we believe and disbelieve. This is a valid point because often times we act not as we rationalize but on what desires we seek.
4. He believes in the idea that there are different values in the search for truth and that giving one value priority over the other may lead to different beliefs. Ex: a man who hesitates to ask a woman to marry him because he is not sure if she would prove an angel after he brought her home. This one value prioritizing over another leads to a different belief.

Front 6

Soren Kierkegaard

Back 6

Emphasizes the deeply subjective and personal nature of religious truth.
He insists that an attitude of detachment, objective inquiry is totally inappropriate in religious matters.
What is crucial is the way in which one is related to the truth that one believes.
Finally, in order to have vital faith, it is essential that one should not be able to prove that one’s belief is true.

God is a subject not an object. Thus, he exists only for subjectivity in inwardness.

Study Questions
1. I believe that having faith is believing in something without objective certainty.
2. He holds against objective process of reflection on available evidence because it is eternity impossible because God is a subject and therefore exists only for subjectivity in inwardness.
3. One prays in truth to God though he worships an idol (one who lives in the midst of Christendom goes up to the house of God, the house of the true God , and prays, but prays in a false spirit.)

Front 7

what are the 2 truths?

Back 7

those that inquiry can reach
those that surpass human reason
Aquinas

Front 8

3 awkward consequences of inquiry for human reason are

Back 8

few possess
only reach after a long time
falsity present
Aquinas

Front 9

what is a benefit of curbing presumption and what is presumption called

Back 9

called the mother of error
allows us a more humble inquiry after truth
Aquinas

Front 10

best way that the Law deamnds knowledge of God

Back 10

demonstrative
Rushd

Front 11

3 ways of truth suitable to one's nature

Back 11

demonstrative
dialectical
rhetorical

Front 12

it is wrong always, and everywhere to believe anything upon insufficient evidence

Back 12

clifford

Front 13

who calls for the "will to believe"

Back 13

james

Front 14

what is a genuine option

Back 14

one that is living, forced, and momentous
James

Front 15

what is the first great commandment according to James

Back 15

we must know truth and we must avoid error

Front 16

emphasizes a deeply subjective and personal nature of religious truth

Back 16

kierkegaard

Front 17

God exists only for ____

Back 17

subjectivity in inwardness
God is not an object
Kierkegaard

Front 18

what does Benedict say about God

Back 18

he is reasonable and logical (logos)
although we don't fully comprehend, God's unlikeness is greater than likeness to us

Front 19

reason can't prove demonstratively that God exists, what can?

Back 19

faith
Kant