I forgot to read to take notes on the thinker which helps me develop his thinking. So I am sorry.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Saturday, April 9, 2011
I decided not to blog on weekends.
As the title says I deserve rest on two days and war on the rest.
Friday, April 8, 2011
John locke: How do we know Christianity is true?
I am sure anyone who has taken a history class has heard at least once of John locke. Ever hear the expression " Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"? Well John locke orginally said " Life, liberty and property" it was changed by Thomas Jefferson. Well enough of the history let's get to the heart of the issue.
What did John locke say about religious epistemology? Well he argued that any religious belief must have a foundation that is based on evidence. And if one were absent that the belief is totally unwarranted. He argued that the existence of God is obviously discovered by reason. He argued by the means of the cosmological argument to prove that God exists. But when it came to the matters of faith or religous truths he said that any revelation cannot condradict reason. That is to say any type of religious belief cannot go against what reason says is true. And if a religious belief contradicted reason than it should not be believed. For example let's say the Bible taught the earth has a face on it. Reason obviously contradicts this notion. So John locke would have rejected it. So even though John locke believed anything that came from God is true he said that reason can gurantee if this revelation really is from God. Not only is religous belief must be in harmony with reason but it also serves to discern whether a revelation is genuine. It must have rational proofs to show that it is divine. If there is no proof then one is irrational.
John locke proceedes to give out three criteria to discern a genuine revelation from God.
1. It must not dishonor God or be inconsistent with natural religion or natural moral law.
2. It must not inform man of anything insignificant, indifferent or easily discovered by natural ability.
3. It must be confirmed by supernatural signs.
As for Christians beliefs he agued that fufilled miracle and prophecy make it reasonable that Christ was divine and what he taught was true so Christianity must be true.
Well that is it for what John locke thought on the issue tomorrow I will discuss another thinker who had a radically different approach to the issue than John locke's theological rationalism.
What did John locke say about religious epistemology? Well he argued that any religious belief must have a foundation that is based on evidence. And if one were absent that the belief is totally unwarranted. He argued that the existence of God is obviously discovered by reason. He argued by the means of the cosmological argument to prove that God exists. But when it came to the matters of faith or religous truths he said that any revelation cannot condradict reason. That is to say any type of religious belief cannot go against what reason says is true. And if a religious belief contradicted reason than it should not be believed. For example let's say the Bible taught the earth has a face on it. Reason obviously contradicts this notion. So John locke would have rejected it. So even though John locke believed anything that came from God is true he said that reason can gurantee if this revelation really is from God. Not only is religous belief must be in harmony with reason but it also serves to discern whether a revelation is genuine. It must have rational proofs to show that it is divine. If there is no proof then one is irrational.
John locke proceedes to give out three criteria to discern a genuine revelation from God.
1. It must not dishonor God or be inconsistent with natural religion or natural moral law.
2. It must not inform man of anything insignificant, indifferent or easily discovered by natural ability.
3. It must be confirmed by supernatural signs.
As for Christians beliefs he agued that fufilled miracle and prophecy make it reasonable that Christ was divine and what he taught was true so Christianity must be true.
Well that is it for what John locke thought on the issue tomorrow I will discuss another thinker who had a radically different approach to the issue than John locke's theological rationalism.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Thomas Aquinas how do we know Christianity is true?
Thomas Aquinas one of my favorite philosophers. He was the guy who wrote the most extensive apologetic in the midevil times so he deserves our recognition. Thomas aquinas answered the question in a very interesting way.
Aquinas thought the relationship between faith and reason could be answered if we made a distinguish between truths of reason and the truths of faith. Now what are the truths of reason? Well the truths are reason in a nutshell are truths that can be obtained through reason only such as philosophical investigation, scientific study, etc. The truths of faith are those which can not be obtained by such methods. Now in Christianity he thought that both truths exists. He said we can know God exists through reason. The arguments of natural theology render the existence of God to be the most reasonable thing a mad can conclude. So the existence of God is a truth of reason. But he asked a question well can we know by reason that God is triune? ( trinitarian concept of God) We obviously not. For example the Kalam Cosmological Argument will get me to God existence but from that conclusion can I say he is triune or he is loving? No we cannot. So in case you don't understand Thomas thought that religious truths or theological truths cannot be known by empirical investigation. Which leads us to the truths of faith.
The truths of faith are those which cannot be known be reason. Now let's be careful to say by reason. Thomas does not mean the truths of faith are beyond reason. Rather what he means that they cannot be known by a certain means of investigation. So how does one know the truths of faith? He thought we can know it indirectly. Thomas appealed to Augustine's thought. Authority but with a twist. Since the Bible is the word of God it must be true and have the highest authority. This is confirmed by the miracles and prophecy which shows the Scriptures to be from God. Therfore everything that the Bible teaches must be true. So the truths are faith are indeed true. So let me explain this again in case you didn't understand. The truths of faith cannot be know directly but indirectly by the authority of the Bible, since it's true the thing it teaches must also be true therefore the truths of faith must be true. But Thomas hit a problem the same one that plagued Augustine. How do we know the miracles and prophecy took place? Since they lacked the historical method of investigation. Thomas appealed to the miracle of the Church to prove the miracles and prophecy took place.
Also to note in Thomas work we see the word faith has been reduced in meaning. Since Thomas thought if you knew something by reason you cannot believe it by faith. So he reduced the word faith to mean a mere trust of commitment such as I know the chair won't break I know that it was built right but I put my trust that when I sit on it won't break. This is very important since the word faith as of today means this. Just a little history lesson. Well next time I will talk about more contemporary well not really thinkers.
Aquinas thought the relationship between faith and reason could be answered if we made a distinguish between truths of reason and the truths of faith. Now what are the truths of reason? Well the truths are reason in a nutshell are truths that can be obtained through reason only such as philosophical investigation, scientific study, etc. The truths of faith are those which can not be obtained by such methods. Now in Christianity he thought that both truths exists. He said we can know God exists through reason. The arguments of natural theology render the existence of God to be the most reasonable thing a mad can conclude. So the existence of God is a truth of reason. But he asked a question well can we know by reason that God is triune? ( trinitarian concept of God) We obviously not. For example the Kalam Cosmological Argument will get me to God existence but from that conclusion can I say he is triune or he is loving? No we cannot. So in case you don't understand Thomas thought that religious truths or theological truths cannot be known by empirical investigation. Which leads us to the truths of faith.
The truths of faith are those which cannot be known be reason. Now let's be careful to say by reason. Thomas does not mean the truths of faith are beyond reason. Rather what he means that they cannot be known by a certain means of investigation. So how does one know the truths of faith? He thought we can know it indirectly. Thomas appealed to Augustine's thought. Authority but with a twist. Since the Bible is the word of God it must be true and have the highest authority. This is confirmed by the miracles and prophecy which shows the Scriptures to be from God. Therfore everything that the Bible teaches must be true. So the truths are faith are indeed true. So let me explain this again in case you didn't understand. The truths of faith cannot be know directly but indirectly by the authority of the Bible, since it's true the thing it teaches must also be true therefore the truths of faith must be true. But Thomas hit a problem the same one that plagued Augustine. How do we know the miracles and prophecy took place? Since they lacked the historical method of investigation. Thomas appealed to the miracle of the Church to prove the miracles and prophecy took place.
Also to note in Thomas work we see the word faith has been reduced in meaning. Since Thomas thought if you knew something by reason you cannot believe it by faith. So he reduced the word faith to mean a mere trust of commitment such as I know the chair won't break I know that it was built right but I put my trust that when I sit on it won't break. This is very important since the word faith as of today means this. Just a little history lesson. Well next time I will talk about more contemporary well not really thinkers.
Monday, April 4, 2011
St. Augustine how do we know Christianity is true?
Well St. Augustine was a medievil theologian. So let's look at what he said about the relationship between faith and reason. If you want to hear it on video you can visit my youtube page Djchrist15. Anyway let's begin!
St. Augustine thought that the basis of believing in Christianity is solely on authority. Since the word of God is absolutelty true (since it's from God) and since it's absolutelty true it has authority and it must be believed. But the Augustine thought of something. Many books on earth claim to be from God, how do we know that the Bible is the correct one? In other ones they all have claims to authority so must we believe all? Well Augustine answered by saying that since the Bible is confirmed by miracles and prophecy it must be true. Since it's confirmed by these signs it shows the Bible to be from God and thus have the authority which compells us to believe.
But if you're a skeptic your obviously going to ask the question well how do we know that these miracles and prophecy even took place? Since that happened in the past there is no way of knowing if it did or did not happen. Well Augustine answered this question with the thought of the day. Back in medievil times knowledge of the past was taken purely on authority. That is too say that the witnesses off the past are too be believed since they were there and they must be telling the truth because if they were lying it would make no sense. So knowledge of the past was based on authority. But what about the knowledge of present? Well knowledge of the present was based on reason since we can observe and test the present.
So back to the question how do we know that the miracles in prophecy took place? Well on the basis of the authority we can know the miracles and prophecy took place. Since they took place that confirms the scripture to be true giving it the authority which demands our belief that is how we know Christianity is true. But Augustine posed one more question. Why should we believe the authority of the witnesses of the past? Why should we accept their witness? So Augustine answered in the following way: we can reject the witnesses of the past but we are still left with the miracle of the church which is present and real. Since this miracle can't be denied and it's true it must be the Bible is true giving it authority which demands our belief. Now Augustine doesn't base the authority of the Bible on the authority of the Church. The Bible is greater than the Chuch was he is saying is that everyone is believing in Christianity despite the fact we can't know if the miracles took plac, and that very act of believing is in of itself is a miracle.
Since Augustine lacked the historical method of investigating the past to see if the miracles really took place he appealed the miracle of the Church. It's ironic since the Church miracle can be known be reason and not authority his model is based on reason and authority together which he sought to avoid.
Well tomorrow we will see the St. Thomas Aquinas thought about the relationship between faith and reason and how do we know Christianity is true.
St. Augustine thought that the basis of believing in Christianity is solely on authority. Since the word of God is absolutelty true (since it's from God) and since it's absolutelty true it has authority and it must be believed. But the Augustine thought of something. Many books on earth claim to be from God, how do we know that the Bible is the correct one? In other ones they all have claims to authority so must we believe all? Well Augustine answered by saying that since the Bible is confirmed by miracles and prophecy it must be true. Since it's confirmed by these signs it shows the Bible to be from God and thus have the authority which compells us to believe.
But if you're a skeptic your obviously going to ask the question well how do we know that these miracles and prophecy even took place? Since that happened in the past there is no way of knowing if it did or did not happen. Well Augustine answered this question with the thought of the day. Back in medievil times knowledge of the past was taken purely on authority. That is too say that the witnesses off the past are too be believed since they were there and they must be telling the truth because if they were lying it would make no sense. So knowledge of the past was based on authority. But what about the knowledge of present? Well knowledge of the present was based on reason since we can observe and test the present.
So back to the question how do we know that the miracles in prophecy took place? Well on the basis of the authority we can know the miracles and prophecy took place. Since they took place that confirms the scripture to be true giving it the authority which demands our belief that is how we know Christianity is true. But Augustine posed one more question. Why should we believe the authority of the witnesses of the past? Why should we accept their witness? So Augustine answered in the following way: we can reject the witnesses of the past but we are still left with the miracle of the church which is present and real. Since this miracle can't be denied and it's true it must be the Bible is true giving it authority which demands our belief. Now Augustine doesn't base the authority of the Bible on the authority of the Church. The Bible is greater than the Chuch was he is saying is that everyone is believing in Christianity despite the fact we can't know if the miracles took plac, and that very act of believing is in of itself is a miracle.
Since Augustine lacked the historical method of investigating the past to see if the miracles really took place he appealed the miracle of the Church. It's ironic since the Church miracle can be known be reason and not authority his model is based on reason and authority together which he sought to avoid.
Well tomorrow we will see the St. Thomas Aquinas thought about the relationship between faith and reason and how do we know Christianity is true.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Tomorrow's the day I decide to blog again.
Since I got lazy on the studying I think that blogging my help me get into the material by forcing me to read it again in order to blog it. So tomorrow I will explore what St. Augustine thought about the relationship between faith and reason. I also decide to take this week off from the gym. I need to see if I can cancel my membership. Or find the proper way to do all the excersises. Either way lot's of things to do this week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)