Sorry but my mac still isn't allowing me to comment so I have to answer in a new post.
In response to what you said Mr Bennett, I understand that E would not accept the Bible as a source which is why it would not be the only thing I would use if I were trying to prove God's existence to anyone whether they were an E or not. I agree with the basic principles of what Anselm says but I certainly wouldn't say it is the reason I believe there is a God. I don't think he meant it to be that way either, he was just speaking his mind about the condition of people who don't believe. And of course people always like to use the term "leap of faith". Augustine can say whatever he likes, but no where in the Bible, whether it be inspired by God or not, are we asked to have "blind faith". In fact the Bible demands the opposite. Paul, in his letter to the church in Corinth?, asks the people to do away with childish thinking and reasoning and to defend the faith with sound reasoning and doctrine. When Paul spread the gospel he did it through reasoning of the scriptures not a call to blind faith and this is the reason his message had such an appeal to the often sophisticated leaders of the Roman Empire. I find that the only way to maintain a strong belief in God is to back up our humanly conviction of a God with facts and "sound reasoning and logic". For me it would require much more faith to not believe in a God then to believe in Him.
Your comments are too vague for me to respond. You speak as if you've read Anselm's proof yet make no allusion to specifics. The same with Augustine. You are clearly more familiar with Paul's second letter to the Corinthians,and it is one of the most powerful and moving documents in the Christian ouevre, but I've never heard it argued as a proof of God's existence. But, you may be on to something, and I admit I haven't read it recently.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, however, regardless of how firmly you believe, we must all agree that there is no proof for the existence of God. All great theological minds agree on this point. It would not be called "faith" if it were a certainty, would it?
The fly in the ointment of belief in God, is, of course, the presence of Evil in teh world. MOnotheists use the idea of "free will" to explain this, though most sufferers find it hollow. Thus, while many are able to reconcile this inconsistency, namely a perfect God creating horrible evil, many others see this as evidence of God's non-existence.
I have not stated my own belief system as yet. I may well be a more devout Christian than you. But, regardless of my personally held convictions, I recognize the extreme difficulty of faith.
You are in luck, by the way. Our next film was made for you!
Whats our next film?!?!
ReplyDeleteOh and when you say that it would take more faith for you not to believe in God that shows me that you were raised in a religious family and more or less forced or better yet eased into believing that religion is legitimate. Through your environment you have grown to accept this as truth, but to truly question ones convictions i believe one must first undergo trauma. And this will really test your faith. But that is besides the point. This pertains to when you said E says all these atrocities are okay. No these atrocities can be explained through a persons environment and mental state just as your religious convictions can be explained through your environment and mental state. So in fact existentialism can be argued to be for the fact that we have no control over our lives and environment and people will always have the upper hand.
I smell Jesuit education? But really, Ilya, stop being nosy and making blind assumptions of other people's lives.
ReplyDelete