[Note: We've just begun reading this work in my philosophy discussion group. Over the next few months I'll occasionally post passages of interest and hopefully get a variety of perspectives on Augustine's thoughts. Let's start at the beginning...]
The following dissertation concerning the Trinity, as the reader ought to be informed, has been written in order to guard against the sophistries of those who disdain to begin with faith, and are deceived by a crude and perverse love of reason. Now one class of such men endeavor to transfer to things incorporeal and spiritual the ideas they have formed, whether through experience of the bodily senses, or by natural human wit and diligent quickness, or by the aid of art, from things corporeal; so as to seek to measure and conceive of the former by the latter. Others, again, frame whatever sentiments they may have concerning God according to the nature or affections of the human mind; and through this error they govern their discourse, in disputing concerning God, by distorted and fallacious rules. While yet a third class strive indeed to transcend the whole creation, which doubtless is changeable, in order to raise their thought to the unchangeable substance, which is God; but being weighed down by the burden of mortality, whilst they both would seem to know what they do not, and cannot know what they would, preclude themselves from entering the very path of understanding, by an over-bold affirmation of their own presumptuous judgments; choosing rather not to correct their own opinion when it is perverse, than to change that which they have once defended. And, indeed, this is the common disease of all the three classes which I have mentioned,—viz., both of those who frame their thoughts of God according to things corporeal, and of those who do so according to the spiritual creature, such as is the soul; and of those who neither regard the body nor the spiritual creature, and yet think falsely about God; and are indeed so much the further from the truth, that nothing can be found answering to their conceptions, either in the body, or in the made or created spirit, or in the Creator Himself. For he who thinks, for instance, that God is white or red, is in error; and yet these things are found in the body. Again, he who thinks of God as now forgetting and now remembering, or anything of the same kind, is none the less in error; and yet these things are found in the mind. But he who thinks that God is of such power as to have generated Himself, is so much the more in error, because not only does God not so exist, but neither does the spiritual nor the bodily creature; for there is nothing whatever that generates its own existence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
LB quoted: The following dissertation concerning the Trinity, as the reader ought to be informed, has been written in order to guard against the sophistries of those who disdain to begin with faith, and are deceived by a crude and perverse love of reason.
Well... *that* made me laugh out loud - which probably wasn't what the author intended!
I'm not really surprised that Augustine advised people not to put their faith in reason. After all reason and faith are mutualy exclusive concepts. Reason *destroys* faith. Faith *fears* reason. People who think, probe, question and experiment are those who lose faith in what their priests tell them to think. Encouraging people to *love* reason would be like Augustine cutting the ground from beneath him.
LB said: We've just begun reading this work in my philosophy discussion group.
Religious philosophy or wider than that?
Philosophy is fun isn't it? especially in a group setting.
Sorry I haven't responded sooner, CK.
Our group is not focused on "religious philosophy". They started with the pre-Socratics and have worked their way (in 7+ years) into the early Medieval period. I say they, since I only recently joined during the discussion of Plotinus, of all people. The group is small, about 6-8 regulars, most of whom attended or now attend St. John's College which is in my (current) home town. St. John's is hardly a hotbed for fideism! Most also attend my church which itself is hardly a hotbed for fideism, either.
Have you read any Augustine?
We did start to investigate that idea further to see what Augustine mean by "crude and perverse love of reason", but we ran out of time before we could settled anything. Given how we discuss a work, we did not address it the first week even though it was in the first sentence. But inevitablely someone did ask "What the ____ ?" We'll pick it up next week. But given what follows though it's hard to say Augustine gave reason no quarter. The question is whether unaided human reason can grasp all that there is to know. I think it's eminently reasonable to say that if God does exist He could not be completely comprehended by us. Given that the treatise is about the Trinity, the subject falls into that category, but still, even Augustine couldn't fill 16 books with "just take it by faith" and indeed he does not.
LB said: They started with the pre-Socratics and have worked their way (in 7+ years) into the early Medieval period.
Wow. That's really taking their time! The Pre-Socratics didn't really 'do' much for me except to point out just how wrong there were about things - and to show that speculation without reasonable data leads inevitably into error and fantasy.
LB asked: Have you read any Augustine?
No. He's never been on any of my study lists. I've got a copy of 'Confessions' but haven't read any of it.
LB said: The question is whether unaided human reason can grasp all that there is to know.
I think that given enough time we can know all that it is possible to know. The question is: Where are the limits? Or indeed: Are there any limits to knowledge? Although it's still early days I think we're doing OK so far - though there's still a *long* way to go!
LB said: I think it's eminently reasonable to say that if God does exist He could not be completely comprehended by us.
Why?
"I think that given enough time we can know all that it is possible to know."
I guess, in theory, humans could eventually collect or discover all available empirically verifiable data. I'm not sure, even then, that it would be proper to say that "we know all there is to know".
First, because, even if all the data was available, no one could read it all, therefore who could claim to know it all?
Second, I think it's fair to say that we don't *now* know things we *used* to know as humans. One example is the knowledge of past events.
Third, have you heard the story about the US government official who stated that the Patent Office should be closed because "everything that could be invented, has been invented" - in 1899! That statement will never be true. The universe is a dynamic place, knowledge is a moving target.
Finally, what good would collecting all "data" do. For example, say I have data in my possession regarding Augutine's view of faith and reason which I haven't read, thought about, or understand, yet in my mind I am satisfied that I have all the knowledge I need to expound on the topic. Suppose further that I claim to have learned from the pre-Socratics about the dangers of speculation without reasonable data! So there is knowledge available to me that I don't "input" into my mind, and the knowledge I have "input" doesn't reliably "output". This scenario is played out, not only in me, but in every other human on Earth.
So I ask you, what good is a library of data, even an truly universally exhaustive library of data, if it's true (and it seems to be) that we can't fully comprehend or make proper or consistent use of even the miniscule amount data we have at our disposal.
Then you ask why God is considered beyond our comprehension!
LB said: I guess, in theory, humans could eventually collect or discover all available empirically verifiable data.
You've just moved the goal posts. Firstly you were talking about knowledge - now you've changed it to: all available empirically verifiable data. These are not the same (at least as I understand them). Actually collecting or discovering all available empirically verifiable data is *much* easier than acquiring knowledge of things!
LB said: I'm not sure, even then, that it would be proper to say that "we know all there is to know".
See my point above.
LB said: First, because, even if all the data was available, no one could read it all, therefore who could claim to know it all?
I'm not talking about any individual person. It's impossible for one person to know everything about everything and has been for some considerable time. I'm talking about *us* - humanity. It's certainly possible for Mankind to know everything that can be known.
LB said: Second, I think it's fair to say that we don't *now* know things we *used* to know as humans. One example is the knowledge of past events.
You mean things that have been forgotten or lost? True. Many things have been lost throughout History. But we also know more about the past than the people living at the time did. Also it is not impossible that lost things can be recovered and forgotten information rediscovered at some point.
LB said: That statement will never be true. The universe is a dynamic place, knowledge is a moving target.
Very true. I doubt that we will ever know where every grain of sand is at any given moment. But such knowledge would be pretty much useless don't you think? We might know where every planet in the Universe is though.... Now that's useful knowledge.
LB said: Finally, what good would collecting all "data" do.
I have no idea. But its interesting when two (or two million) bits of data are put together. Sometimes you produce a theory that explains.... everything.
LB said: For example, say I have data in my possession regarding Augutine's view of faith and reason which I haven't read, thought about, or understand, yet in my mind I am satisfied that I have all the knowledge I need to expound on the topic.
...actually I know that I don't have "all the knowledge I need to expound on the topic." The previous comment was regarding the piece you posted and my knowledge of some of the 'arguments' used by theists to undercut or dismiss the power of human reason.
LB said: what good is a library of data, even an truly universally exhaustive library of data, if it's true (and it seems to be) that we can't fully comprehend or make proper or consistent use of even the miniscule amount data we have at our disposal.
Because many people *can* make proper or consistent use of even the minuscule amount data we have at our disposal.
If I was writing a term paper on Augustine's views on Reason I'm positive that my argument would've been more robust though probably just as dismissive.
LB said: Then you ask why God is considered beyond our comprehension!
Probably because it was in the best interests of the ruling elite to have that believed so that they would be the ones who mediated between God and the mass of the population thereby keeping themselves in power...? Just a thought....
CK: You've just moved the goal posts...
I moved the goal posts for your sake. I take the position (tentatively) that knowledge is dynamic, so the idea of ever attaining "all knowledge" is, for me, a nonsense statement.
CK: It's certainly possible for Mankind to know everything that can be known.
If by that you mean that at some point in the future the aggregated knowledge of every living human will equal the total amount of knowledge possible to know, I disagree. Anyway, of what value is aggregated human knowledge? I think if we did possess all possible knowledge, we would still be by and large a foolish species.
CK: ...we also know more about the past than the people living at the time did.
I don't agree. Hindsight does have some value and future people (can) have a broader perspective on historical events that those present at the time, but that, to me, does not mean we of the future know *more*.
CK: We might know where every planet in the Universe is though.... Now that's useful knowledge.
Whose moving the goal posts now? "Every grain is sand" is empirically verifiable data. Knowledge is more than where everything is, but includes the understanding of abstractions like justice and freedom. Can we ever know abstractions definitively?
CK: I'm positive that my argument would've been more robust though probably just as dismissive.
Well, after you study Augustine for yourself, I'll be interested in reading your robust and dismissive argument.
CK: ...it was in the best interests of the ruling elite....
Cynical much? How could anyone use the concept that God is incomprehensible to keep themselves in power? If they said, "God is incomprehensible to you but not to us" I could see it, but, of course, that's not what's said *and* that's not what 'incomprehensible' means.
One final question. When we know all things will we still make mistakes?
LB said: I take the position (tentatively) that knowledge is dynamic, so the idea of ever attaining "all knowledge" is, for me, a nonsense statement.
So.... attaining "all knowledge" is even theoretically impossible? What does that say for God's ability to be 'all knowing'? Is knowing *everything* also beyond God?
LB said: Anyway, of what value is aggregated human knowledge? I think if we did possess all possible knowledge, we would still be by and large a foolish species.
Possibly. It is entirely plausable that people could ignore some aspects of knowledge that clashed with their beliefs. Individual fools will probably always exist - though if their is a gene for foolishness it might be possible to eliminate it [laughs]. Aggregated human knowledge is valuable because it can be used as a resource by everyone. It means that you don't have to spend 100's of years attempting to learn stuff that other people have already discovered.
LB said: but that, to me, does not mean we of the future know *more*.
Do you mean that people in the past knew more or can know more than people in the present or the future? There are many things we know now that we didn't 100 years ago & I suggest that we will know more in 100 years time. Generally speaking knowledge expands over time so I would always expect us to know more than those who lived before us.
LB said: Knowledge is more than where everything is, but includes the understanding of abstractions like justice and freedom. Can we ever know abstractions definitively?
We can know what people *think* of as Justice or Freedom - but I think its a mistake to think of those constructs as 'things' that can be understood in the same way as the location of grains of sand or planets....
LB said: Well, after you study Augustine for yourself, I'll be interested in reading your robust and dismissive argument.
I'll let you know [grin]. It might take a while to get around to it though as its not exactly on my 'must read' list ATM.
LB asked: Cynical much?
Very actually........
LB said: How could anyone use the concept that God is incomprehensible to keep themselves in power? If they said, "God is incomprehensible to you but not to us" I could see it, but, of course, that's not what's said *and* that's not what 'incomprehensible' means.
By saying that 'God moves in mysterious ways' it gets around the problem of why bad things happen to good people - like God-fearing peasents. Also, presumably Priest had *more* understanding of the ways of God than laymen? So that God is *more* comprensible to them? Gods apparent incomprehensibility means that laymen have to come to priests to try & figure out what is going on rather than doing it for themselves. This gives them power & influence beyond what they normally could've expected if God was plain to understand.
Oh.. incomprehensible means "beyond comprehension" doesn't it? Beyond our understanding?
LB asked: One final question. When we know all things will we still make mistakes?
Probably. Just being all-knowing won't necessarily make you infallible. Emotional responses could get in the way of a rational decision - for example.
Post a Comment