Life is like an LSAT problem—tricky, complex, and never enough time to figure it out. We survive by making assumptions and taking risks. We assume that the primary ingredient in our breakfast cereal is wheat, not arsenic; we assume that smiles are not death threats, and we (sometimes wrongly) assume that the other cars will stop at red lights, and go at green ones. Society moves too fast to require strict proof. It hasn’t always been this way.
Aquinas explained life by “proving” God’s existence in painful detail, but he never managed to account for the unmoved mover. Descartes famous “I think, therefore I am” proved some level of human rationality, but suddenly weakened in its explanation of God. Kierkegaard made a blind leap of faith away from logic and towards an unknown and unknowable God, but his ethereal explanation was notably detached from the verifiable observations which grounded Aquinas and Descartes. Jefferson left philosophical perambulations to continentals, and adopted a world view that fit the world he viewed. He assumed rationality, made careful note of the world around him, and plugged in various explanations until he found one that fit.
In our post Jeffersonian world, we seldom bother to make fully informed choices. We assume, observe, and act—unless of course, we’re talking about God. Suddenly, every warrant is subject to strict scrutiny. Full explanation is required, and Christianity is held to a standard that Aquinas could not have surmounted. Given enough time and energy, it’s possible to figure out what’s in those Cheerios, and green or red, it’s always smart to look both ways. But as Kierkegaard would argue, God isn’t susceptible to this type of proof. Jefferson’s deistic beliefs seem quaint in light of current science, but that doesn’t mean his methods were flawed.
Like an LSAT problem, life is a high stakes game. Pascal’s Wager shows that the odds favor a belief in God. Why don’t we leave complete proof to Aquinas, apply Occam’s Razor, and look for a God that would explain our world?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Job wrote in the midst of immense pain that if he was able to engrave words on a rock that he would proclaim that he knew that his Redeemer liveth and that He would stand at last on the earth. However we reach out for God, He meets us more than half-way, leaving no stones unturned in His efforts to communicate His love to us.
I just tried to post, but it didn't work. Basically what I had said was this: I love thought exercises and trying to explain things about God and/or why things happen...but most of all I love the peace and comfort that I feel when, after my brain is spinning from trying to figure things out, I rest in the idea God is really beyond my human understanding anyway. The faith part is the best part!! Heb 11:1.
Eloquently put, old chap. Your strenuous debates in Law School and your numerous writing exercises cerainly shine through!Good thoughts.
I can't claim clarity. This is a very broad subject, and there are plenty of warrants. Feelings and personal connections are important, for some more then others. some of us feel like we have to prove everything. this post is an attempt at middle ground.
Paul, your post and our discussion en route to Frederick warm me. Reason is something I have honored, I love Euclid's approach. But I was interested recently to learn while listening to a lecture about Heidigger (sp?) that good arguments can be brought to bear against too much reflective thought. The time spent in thinking when done in isolation from acting is time when we are not experiencing life. I think in some way that perspective could be harmonized with Jen's observation that "the faith part is the best part".
Strange that Heidegger would say such a thing when he probably spent most of his time in reflective thought.
Well actually, he practiced his own philosophy to some extent. Heidegger was very politically active in the 1930's. Unfortunatly, his activism was mainly connected to his whole-hearted ideological commitment to Nazism.
Still, Ted's point is well taken. Action is the thing. But action for what? Perhaps some can "experience" the answer to this question by literally acting their thinking into existence. However, let us not argue that, (from a purely logical point of view)reflective thought is unnecessary for answering the "why to act?" question. Yes, action tells us a sense of "how to act", but this is not the foundational question. Reflective thought on the ultimate exigence for our actions is completley valid. Keep it up Paul!
experience and common sense often trump logic in our daily lives. There's nothing wrong with this, logic is a fine tool, but intutition shouldn't be undervalued. if one tool doesn't seem to be working, grab another.
But why grab tools in the first place, and what do you mean by a tool "working"? These questions have driven some philosphers nearly insane, but I beleive their is a rational--if not precisly logical--answer.
(1) There is at least one original exingincy,(or throw out the concept of intrinsic worth compeltely, which will then make utter mockery of all logical explanations for our world).
(2) Human experience points to numerous connections and lines of convergance. The possibility that there is a single point of convergance is therefore quite reasonable
Following paul's advice:
Points 1+2 = God
Of course, whether God is more than an abstract idea requires a detailed discussion of personality, what it means, and more importantly, what the universe would look like without One.
Barry, I'm not sure that you decisively proven that point 1 plus point 2 equals God. It all sounds very nice, but I think those points are in need of a little clarification. First of all, exigency (meaning urgency) doesn't seem to be quite the right word to use, although I think I know what you were attempting to convey (communication is a mysterious thing n'est-ce pas?;) Second, I would be benefited by a fuller explanation of how "lines of convergence" leads directly to the existence of God. I don't disagree with your conclusion, but I do think that the method by which you reached it could use a little shoring up.
Post a Comment