Discussion Question: Do you think religion can be rationally explained?
On Wednesday we discussed Scholasticism, and posed to ourselves the above question. We mainly talked about how trying to rationalize modern religion is almost an impossibility, as it would most likely end the way it did concerning Thomas Aquinas philosophy in relationship to the Church and theologians of the time. I think it is an unfortunate truth that there is somewhat of a divide between those who are religious (or have a "popular belief") and those who choose to look at the world in a rational, philosophical way.
I think it's interesting how Aquinas used his ability to rationalize his beliefs to come to the conclusions that he did. It's obvious from both the text, and from real life experience, that this kind of thinking is considered dangerous; an example being how the Church forebode the following to be discussed (high-lighted from the text):
152. That theological discussions are based on fables.
40. That there is no higher life than philosophical life.
153. That nothing is known better because of knowing theology.
154. That the only wise men of the world are philosophers.
175. That Christian Revelation is an obstancle to learning.
37. That nothing should be believed unless it is self-evident or could be asserted from things that are self-evident.
Factual Question: What was one of the most important text during the time of Scholastics?
A: Aristotle's Sophistic Reflections.
I think that it is really interesting to be able to have an open mind when it comes to religion and philosophy. I personally believe that rational thinking, philosophy, and religion can go hand in hand. Mainly because the more you can rationally explain religion the more convincing it can be. On the other hand, there are certain things in religion that are really hard to be logically explained. And like Ryan said, there are some things that are meant to be a mystery. And I agree with this opinion, because religion is also about faith. But there are other aspects of religion that are not really rational. For example, there are some religions that make women dress a certain way or religions that keep women from cutting their hair. If you look at these aspects from a rational view point, then it does not seem to reasonable. Thus, it is interesting and
ReplyDeleteknowledgeable to see religion from a rational point of view.
Factual Question: Who did Cardano call "the great new Averroist of Padua"?
A: Pomponazzi
Discussion Question: Do you think that people need threats of heaven and he'll in order to be moral?
Overall, I find that it is in fact very hard to explain many aspects of religion rationally, and I can see why this may be a reason that many people are skeptical about religion all-together. But I also feel that this is all part of the experience with following a religion, faith is a huge component of religion and most who ascribe to one know this. The fact that you choose to believe in something so strongly though there may not be a 100% proof of its evidence at all, is what I believe drives one to become only stronger and more stable in thier beliefs. Even I too as a Christian, sometimes wonder if this is really it, the way I am intended to live, but I do not dwell on my doubt, because deep in my heart I have my own substantial reasons for coming back around and staying true to what I believe at the end of the day. It is a tough question to decipher, but in the end I believe it all comes down to faith and trust in what you believe in, not only this, but also taking a stand for it, and not being afraid to display it.
ReplyDeleteFactual Question: Although Pmponazzi was sometimes issued warnings, what ended up still happening to him?
A: He lived a full life, became a professor of philosophy at Bologna, and was considered the greatest Aristotelian of Italy.
Discussion Question: It says in our text that, "Great power had been seen as crucially linded to great goodness."...But what do you think; does Great goodness necessarily promote and provoke about great power? Feel free to use figures throughout history, or different scenarios to explain in agreeance or to oppose your opinion.
linked*
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteFor me, rational thinking and religion do not coexist. Rational thinking is based on facts and experimental data while religion is based on faith alone. They collide all the time in the search for truth about the world, and often impede one another. Most people in modern times will try to explain their religion using rational terms, but that creates rifts within the religion itself when there are multiple interpretations. If you take the direct word of religious texts into consideration, they are often plauged with instances that don't make sense, so in order to believe these instances, you have to have faith in it.
ReplyDeleteDiscussion question: What do you think about the quote from Pomponazzi, "It is likely that the whole world is deceived in this common idea of immortality, for if we assume that there are three major religions -- Christ's, Moses', and Muhammad's -- either all of them are false and the whole world is cheated or two are wrong and the greater part of mankind is deceived."?
Factual question: Who questioned the relationship between high morality and worldly success?
Machiavelli
I agree with most of what Alexis said and there is a big line between your own religious views and the philosophical view. Now everyone is entitled to their own view but rational and religion will never go together. Because being rational means questioning and if you question someone's faith then your just asking for trouble. To be rational in any aspect of religion is not possible so you have to choose. You either be rational or choose religion because you can't do both. They were not meant to coexist in the same sense and it should be kept that way. But that's just what I think that doesn't mean someone can't try to do both I'm sure they'll get a head ache but still.
ReplyDelete