F
frangiuliano115
Guest
Hi JuanI think in many cases discussions like this arise just from the logical analysis of certain philosophical and even theological systems. It does not necessarily have to do with a lack of faith or with an absurd and unusual existential stance. I think freedom should be taken as a premise in Christian theology as well as in a philosophical system, but sometimes certain conclusions that have been reached through a chain of logical reasonings lead some people to go back to the premises to revise and question them. Strangely, the conclusions adopt then the role of premises originating a great disorder: suddenly you are reasoning without foundations, in the air, and you don’t even take notice. Such thing happens in the case of human freedom, which we know by direct experience, and God’s omniscience, which is completely mysterious to us.
Now, look how both philosophy and theology are certain uses of language. But philosophers do a careful analysis of it. Theologians make use of the results of such analysis and develop discourses on the basis of a narrative (sacred texts) which has been accepted as truth by faith. Those discourses fulfill the intention of making the narrative as rationally consistent as possible to us. As for philosophy, it starts with some texts too, but usually those are not recognized as sacred. They only motivate our reflection in a very peculiar way and challenge our deepest convictions, forcing us to pay a renewed attention to our basic intuitions and reasonings. If philosophy can lead us to God, it is only in a negative way, because we can realize how indigent ourselves and the world are by ourselves. But it does not always happen. Sometimes, philosophy adopts the form of a rebellious act. A fervent desire for truth, which seems to continually run away from us, is always necessary to find God, receiving the testimony of others (verbal or written) in a community.
Yes. Of course we re-examine our belief system many times in life. Then, eventually, you get older and just come to the conclusion that you just have to accept things. Which is why I souldn’t be on “philosophy”. I’ve come to that point, but still find all this interesting, and, I must say, it’s helpful when speaking to an atheist, unless they’re a physicist and then I’m in trouble - but I’m strong in my beliefs and am never turned away from testimony. We can always apply our beliefs to science - God created that too!
My bishop is thinking to let seminarians do 3 years of philosophy instead of 2. This might turn away many who are thinking of becoming Deacons. Maybe it’s on purpose? I’d concentrate more on theology at that point. So much to know…
I find what you say below very interesting:
If philosophy can lead us to God, it is only in a negative way, because we can realize how indigent ourselves and the world are by ourselves. But it does not always happen. Sometimes, philosophy adopts the form of a rebellious act. A fervent desire for truth, which seems to continually run away from us, is always necessary to find God, receiving the testimony of others (verbal or written) in a community
What do you mean? First you say that it’s negative but then you say it makes us realize how indigent we are by ourselves. Isn’t this good? Isn’t this a reason to believe? Or do you just mean that it’s just another way of looking for God and God cannot be found somehow so this is used as a method…
Surely God is spirit and can only be found in spirit.
Fran