1.

Plato

on Immortality

Plato was born in Athens or Angina, around 428-427 BC. He is known as the founder of the famous Academy. His philosophical views are the culmination of many philosophers who lived before him: (1) Socrates, (2) Heraclitus, (3) Parmenides, and (4) The Pythagorean school, all influenced his thought.

In Phaedo,72 E ff., a discussion on the immortality of the human soul can be found. Plato, writing for Socrates, attributes human memory and the ability to recall as coming from a former life. He based his argument on the ability of people to ask a question in a manner that will receive an answer which could only come from innate knowledge. For example, there are very simple math problems that may be asked and if coached correctly, even a child can give the appropriate answer. Plato asserts that recollection is proof of the idea, since when things are remembered that which his remembered is not the same as the actual thing in itself. the idea of the thing remembered is superior to that which is remembered.

If material substances are equal, then innate knowledge must be required to differentiate between items. For instance, how does the mind know the difference between a piece of wood or a piece of stone? In Plato's view, the senses see all things as equal and it is recollection from the past that enables the mind to distinguish between items. In order to have knowledge before birth, the soul must have existed out of the human body before it was in the form of a man.

Plato has a number of problems with his epistemology according to this writer (me). First, it is based on a kind of cyclical idea that somehow the universe is constantly recycling itself. This is absolutely false. Modern science has proven that the universe and all things in the universe are moving in a linear direction. When the cosmos is analyzed and submitted to the Doppler effect, the light spectrum at the end of the heavenly bodies are blue. This one fact makes the tenets of Plato's entire philosophy invalid.

Since memory is one of the main proofs Plato uses to prove the immortality of the soul and his ideas are based on a type reincarnation theory, he is in great trouble once that central component of his theory is destroyed.

My own view is that Plato is correct in a sense. There does exist a universal form or type but the human soul has nothing to do with this concept. Plato's idea of forms or Universal Idea has validity to some extent when removed from the context of the transmigration of the soul.

2.

Augustine

on THE EXISTENCE OF GOD and on FREE WILL

Born in Tagaste North Africa in AD 354, Augustine became the corner stone of early Christina thinking. His thought is deeply imbued with Platonic thought and this is his major downfall. The effort to prove the existence of God is adaptation of Neo-Platonic thought and assumes the theory of forms or ideas to be correct. These same assumptions are also the basis for his arguments on free will. Epistemology for Augustine was not the transmigration of the soul but truth (true knowledge) is arrived at from illumination of the human soul from the intellect of God. the discourse between Augustine and Evodius addresses three questions: (1) Does God exist (2) Are all good things from God (3) Is free will a good thing?

Augustine's entire argument on the existence of God is contingent on the validity of Plato's ideas or forms. He asserts that there are common truths that exist for all humans. One of those common truths is that man should strive after wisdom. Each human sees these common truths in his or her own mind and there is no such thing as a private truth. The rules of virtue are unchangeable and are common to all people who have the capacity to access them. The question is, do these truths belong to wisdom? What is the relationship between truth and wisdom? The answer is that making the right choice, and that which is good belongs to wisdom. Augustine refers to “rules and guiding lights of virtue” as belonging to wisdom.

Are wisdom and numbers the same thing since wisdom (the correct choice for truth) and numbers are both unchangeable? Furthermore, there are those who are good with numbers who are not necessarily wise. If wisdom and numbers are the same thing then why can a fool count? For Augustine, wisdom and numbers are con substantial and it isn't clear is wisdom is from numbers or numbers from wisdom since both are unchangeable truths. Unchangeable truths are superior to the human mind since the mind must choose to obey truths. Since truth is superior to her human mind, then truth must be God!

The foundation of Augustine's metaphysical view remains a problem for me. Do we live in a cosmos with a fixed boundary or a cosmos with no bounds and a curve in it as Albert Einstein suggested. If one believes that we live in a universe with a limit, it is natural to assume that God is on the other side. It was Immanuel Kant who assumed that space and time were not relative, but Einstein's theory of relativity destroyed Kant's cosmological theory. For Einstein the universe was boundless and time a space are relative. It is the idea that all things are relative that has dominated philosophical thinking this century and probably made the final death blow to the world view of Augustine's forms and ideas. It does seem that there may be some change on the way but at this point

3.

we must all admit that there are many things we do not know and can not know. It is a philosophical assumption to presume that we live in a universe with an ope system or on the other hand one with a closed system. If the former were proven, that would vindicate Augustine as well as Plato. We must accept some thing by faith but based on a faith on reasonable probability.

In argument concerning free will Evodius is perplexed as to why the human mind changes from the unchangeable to the changeable. Is the movement of the mind by nature or necessity? If the movement of the mind is by either humanity lives in absolute determinism and is not worth of blame nor praise for their actions. If this notion is rejected the movement of the mind must be held culpable. Augustine compares the motion of the mind to that of a falling stone to make his point. Once a stone is falling the stone cannot control its own movement. The mind is not lie the falling stone since the motion of the mind is voluntary. Unless the movement of the mind is voluntary, humans can receive no blame nor praise for worshiping God. I agree with Augustine except on his final point as to what drives the mind. Humans are endowed with the ability to be rational and have a God given ability to make a choice between good and evil. It is the direction of choice that indicates if one is worthy of blame or praise.

How does God know what humans will do beforehand and if God knows what humans will do beforehand how can humans be held guilty for their actions? Does foreknowledge leave any room for the providence of God? In this text, Augustine give Evodius an elaborate answer that I disagree with. If it is assumed that we live is a cosmos that is closed, then God is outside of time. Many ancient and some modern writers assume that God lives in a time period just as humans do. But the Bible teaches that at minimum, the abode of God is in a significantly different time frame if a time frame at all. To think of matters in in terms of human time seems to be an error. Divine providence is simply a matter of God opening and closing doors at His will for the chosen. Augustine asks the question that since God has foreknowledge does that make things he foresaw a necessity. The answer is that because of free will God compels no man to sin and therefore God is just for the punishment of humans for their sin.

PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS

ON THE NEGATIVE WAY!

Pseudo Dionysius is an unknown author to many. His works were widely accepted as being written by the Dionysius converted by the Apostle Paul. In later years, an examination of the works revealed a foundation of Neo-Platonic philosophy and since Plotinus taught and lived around AD 204, the origins of these documents have been reexamined and now is is assumed they were written

4.

around AD 500.

The key to understanding Pseudo-Dionysius may be found in his statement,”in ceasing thus to see or to know we may lean to know that which is beyond all perception and understanding.” For Pseudo-Dionysius true knowledge is not from sense perception but from within. Neo-Platonism has its roots in Plato's doctrines of forms combined with later philosophical views. This synthesis produced an epistemology that gives little credence to sense perception. By removing all knowledge produced by sense perception, inner beauty is exposed and thus true reality is exposed.

The positive approach to reality is self defeating, since any positive approach implies qualities, and true reality cannot be described in human terms. The negative approach removes qualities and is the only way to approximate reality.

This stripping of qualities includes human language since human language is inadequate to accurately define the God head. Therefore, God is without limitations and language has limitations.

Pseudo-Dionysius represents an extreme. It is true that language has limits and that much language used to describe God is metaphorical, but metaphors themselves have limits or they cease to be a metaphor. Metaphors give a broad category for thought and expression but not so broad that they become meaningless. Pseudo-Dionysius may represent a person who has given up. If we can not describe God maybe we should not try? I don't agree with that view but is is common to those who find that reason and logic will only go so far and move from the extreme of rational logic to the other extreme of irrational faith!

Anselm

on THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Anselm was born in Aosta in North Italy in 1033. He does not make a sharp distinction between philosophy and theology. Most of his works were cast in a theological mode.
The Ontological Argument consist of six basic components. (1) “Something than which nothing greater can be thought” exist in the understanding (2) It is greater to exist in reality than merely to exist in understanding. (3) Suppose that something than which nothing greater can be thought existed only in understanding. Then it would be possible to think of something even greater, namely, an entity otherwise identical which also existed in reality. (4) But this is impossible, since by definition it is impossible to think of something greater “than which noting can be thought of.” (5) Therefore, “ something than which

5.

nothing greater can be thought” exist in reality as well as understanding. (6) Since God is something than which nothing greater can be thought, God exists in reality.

The Ontological Argument assumes there are degrees in nature. This is probably a correct assumption. Anselm's first point says what a fool claims there is no
God the fool has proved the existence of God, since God can not be thought of if God does not exist. It may be noticed that Anselm uses the words 'hearing' and 'understanding' in his argument. Thus, knowing in this argument comes from the senses. If the first point of his argument is accepted, the points that follow are logical.

People had tried to dispute the argument for centuries and anything I might try and add is foolish. This argument leaves me with an uneasy feeling but I can't pin point the source of the problem.

AQUINAS

on REASON AND FAITH

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, ANALOGY

and on MIRACLES

Thomas Aquinas was born in Roccasecca in S. Italy, 1125 A.D. Before Aquinas the Platonic epistemology was the dominant view. It was about this time that Aristotle's works were translated and the world view of Augustine and Plato were challenged. The shift was from knowing only by faith to knowing some things by reason. Plato's forms and ideas were in the heavens but for Aristotle the form was in the thing in itself. Thus faith came down from the heavens to the earth. Aristotle also taught that all things are moving toward a purpose. He had a four fold model of causation. (1) The formal cause (2) The material cause (3) The efficient cause (4) The final cause. A substance can be described by the form it takes, the stuff it is made of, the force that brings it about, and the purpose it fills.

For Aristotle, motion is described as either potentiality or actuality. God is the final cause but not the efficient cause.

Aquinas addresses the question of the Nature and Domain of Sacred Doctrine.

Is there any need for other ways of knowing besides philosophy? His answer is an affirmative yes. Philosophy is the use of human reason and logic but Scripture

6.

is inspired by God and is accepted on the basis of faith. Thus, there is a need for faith and reason.

For Aquinas the rational creature is moving toward God and Christ is the path to God. To understand this the concept of divine essence, what concerns the distinctions of persons and what concerns the processions of creatures from Him must be considered. Other questions that must be addressed are: (1) Does God exist (2) What is the manner of his existence? (3) What concerns his operations, namely his knowledge , will, power? To understand the above the first question must be addressed and that is: Whether The existence of God is Self-Evident?

To critique the doctrines of Aquinas, it is Aristotle that must be examined. Nevertheless, Aquinas says that knowledge of God is implanted within human beings. This is a self-evident truth. If we accept this assertion then the idea that the whole is greater than the part follows. If it is evident that humans are the part, then God must be the whole. If a self evident truth, the predicate is included in the subject. The proposition that God exist is not different. The nature of existence or essence may not be know to us (but accepted by faith) but we must observe the effects of existence or essence to approximate an understanding of existence (by reason). One of these effects is the self evident truth that is implanted in man that there is a God so therefore God exists.

In article two, the question is asked if it can be demonstrated that God exists. Aquinas argues that we can reason from an effect to the cause. God can be known by reason if we start with the effect and reason backwards.

The objection is then raised that since we have evil in the world and God is good, how can God exist? Motion proves the existence of God and there is an order of efficient causes. Most all of his arguments from the 5^th Article to the end of this section assume that syntax and language are part of nature since his arguments are grammatical in nature. He follows the model of Aristotle in almost every instance to try and prove his point. If one wanted to discuss the validity of the philosophy of Aquinas, first the validity of Aristotle must be proven.

HERBERT OF CHERBURY

on REASON AND FAITH!

Herbert of Cherbury is best known as the Father of Deism. He cannot be called a Deist in the modern sense of the word, but many of the origins of deistic thought can be attributed to him. He rejected the idea of the mind as a blank slate, which is an important part of modern deism.

7.

For Herbert, there are innate notions in the human mind that allow mankind to make judgments. Common notions are necessary to make religious judgments. All religions are founded on common notions, since any argument given by the church to accept a doctrine may be used by any religion to impose a different doctrine.ⁱ Religions ought to be based on reason and not faith. History shows how silly faith based religions are. Cherbury tried to establish a universal religion¹ based on the idea of common notions. These ideas are: (1) There is a supreme God (2) The Sovereign Deity ought to be worshiped (3) There are common rites and ceremonies and traditions to all religions (4) All men need salvation (5) There are rewards and punishments after death.

For Cherbury, true revelation was the ten commandments. Elements of the ten commandments can be found in all religions. Revelation consist of three parts. (1) We must employ prayers, vows, faith and any faculty which can be implored to improve general and special providence. (2) Revelation must be given to some person. History and tradition are not revelation. (3) Revelation must be connected to some course of action. Cherbury either represents an extreme of rational thought or a giving up on what can be known by reason. I personally think it is some of each.

Descartes

on THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Descartes was born at La Haye in Touraine in 1596. He is often called the father of modern philosophy and is known for his works in mathematics. He refined modern geometry while lying in bed and plotting the movements of a fly on the ceiling. He is also known for climbing inside of a cook stove and staying for several days in order to prove he existed. A cornerstone of his philosophical views is that of doubt. All knowledge begins with doubt. This is what we know as Cartesian philosophy.

Descartes believed in innate ideas. The idea of God proves the existence of God since it is impossible to have the idea through a sensory manner. While humanity may have cluttered the idea of God, this cluttering is because of sense perceptions. He also argues that eternity and perfection are co-equal, meaning that it impossible to have one without the other. This same line of reasoning will be continued with Spinoza.

8.

SPINOZA

on THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Spinoza was in some ways an extension of Descartes. He was a radical rationalist. He believed in innate ideas and thought that all knowledge about nature can be known by mathematics and reason. There is an interaction between all things in nature and mathematics is the key to unlocking those secrets. Spinoza lived in a historical period when worship of nature was on the rise. Nature and God are close to the same thing. I find a contradiction in his logic when he resorts to his arguments based on perfection and eternity since no material substance can be perfect and that eliminates all material substances as being connected with God. His contradiction is best seen in his statement that the “essence of God proves the existence of God.” Spinoza also refers to God as a substance.

JOHN LOCKE

on REASON AND FAITH

John Locke represents a change in epistemology. For Locke, the only way a human knows is what is received through the senses.² Learning is a matter of experience imprinting on the mind. When a person is born the mind is like a blank slate and from birth the slate gathers information. A similar belief may be found in the works of Aristotle.

The epistemology shift represented by Locke stresses reason. This is best expressed by his statement” no man inspired by God can by any reflection communicate to others any new simple idea which they had not before from sensation or reflection.” In other words, what you read or observe is what there is. John Locke referred to other experiences as enthusiasm. Enthusiasm in the context of Revelation is simply an over active brain impulse.!!

LEIBNIZ

on THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

on THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz has a philosophical system resting on two points. His view concerning the nature of individuality and the existence of the individual are the assumptions his entire system rests on. He uses the ancient idea that the predicate is included in the subject if the proposition is to be true.

Leibniz is a absolute determinist. He tries to explain why individuals exist in

9.

this world and not in some other world. Why does the concept of an individual exist at all? He has a very simple answer to these questions which is: the author is this world chooses existence.

Reason and facts are two kinds of truth but reasons are not known to us even if they are true. You can know some things by reason and one of those things is there must be a power and that power if God. Knowledge is the infinite possibilities of all choices and will is the selection of choices.

As one might expect, the above ideas create the problem as to how evil exists. The answer is that since God makes the choices, he chooses the best. the best is a superlative. The best does not eliminate other choices and evil may take place when that principle is applied.

BERKELEY

Berkeley carries Locke's empiricism further. Al matter must be analyzed by sense perception. Berkeley is known for his statement that ask the question, if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it fall, does it make any noise? Of course, with modern recorders, his question isn't as mystifying as it once was since we realize that sound it made from waves. Waves happen even if no one is around.

Berkley tries to prove the existence of God by what he calls divine visual language. Ideas are formed in the human mind by that which is received through the senses. By observations the human mind forms an image of God. What we know about God is what God has allowed us to know. The idea of God in the human mind is proof of the existence of God.

BUTLER

For Butler human nature is a kind of hierarchy evolving toward benevolence, self love and crowned with a conscience. This sound much like Plato's idea of the soul and similar to Sigmund Frueds id, ego and superego.

This section of text compares the natural condition of the world with revealed religion. Butler was arguing against the Deist and the thrust of his arguments centers on probabilities. To Butler, the works of nature and intelligent creatures are proof of God's existence. The analogy between laws that govern mankind and laws that govern nature prove that both are introduced by an intelligent being.

10.

HUME

David Hume was a turning point in philosophy. Until the time of Hume the Christian and non Christian community tried to prove the existence of God and Miracles by the use of reason. Hume thought the quest for knowledge by reason had gone too far and set out to show that there are some things we can not know by reason. Hume covers the gambit of the ancient philosophers and proves that we can show that there is a first cause or a Deity but we can never go beyond that point. His arguments concerning Miracles is simple. Miracles did exist when the Bible was written but that was a different age. Miracles do not exist in this age and that is all man can know. I have always that Hume did not mean to have the effect on philosophy that he did have. According to Hume, man can't really know much at all.

KANT

Kant was the answer to Hume. It was Kant who remarked that Hume “awoke me from my dogmatic slumber.” Hume was accused of extreme skepticism and maybe correctly so but Kant is not without his problems. Kant wanted to do away with what he called speculative metaphysics. Kant approached philosophy as anyone else might approach mathematics. David Hume and other rationalists tended to be determinist in the sense that if you accepted their idea of causation, logic must follow and once logic and reason is applied there is little room for human free will. Kant's most valuable contribution to modernity was on the volition of the human will. On the other hand, one of the most detrimental effects of Kant's philosophy was the idea of the neutral universe. Kant drew such an extreme line between God and man that sin for Kant depended solely on a mental cognition. A personal God is not present in the universe of Kant. In our reading, Kant will prove the existence of God on the basis of a priori reasoning. He shows why the existence of God can not be proved with the ontological argument nor wit the physico-theological argument. The cosmological argument is also a vain approach. One might prove the cause of all nature, but a cause that is outside of nature must be done by pure reason.

HEGEL

on Revealed Religion.

In this document, Hegel writes a response to Kant. He criticized Kant on the grounds that he treated space and time as if the were simple ingredients added to the mind. Hegel was a rationalist. For the rationalist, whatever is rational is real and not just concepts subject to an individual mind. Hegel views religion in a

11.

different manner than he views philosophy. The Absolute mind manifests itself pictorially. Objects presented to the senses more or less fuse with hand in the mind. In our reading, Hegel is using this idea to speak of art but the symbolic forms of art are not complete or on a high enough level and demand an expression in religion.

SCHLEIERMACHER

on RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE AND RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE

and on MIRACLES

Schleiermacher again is a reaction. He was post Enlightenment and anti-rationalism. Schleiermacher tried to show that religion had an inner nature about it. For Schleiermacher, humans are absolutely dependent of God. What is important to Schleiermacher is the self consciousness and there are two kinds. One kind of self consciousness lead to a partial feeling of dependence and the other a partial feeling of freedom. When Schleiermacher introduces a third kind of self consciousness it is more akin to animal instincts. The self consciousness has no absolutes and later in the section of religious languages, Schleiermacher will claim that religious language is only an account of other peoples emotional experience. There was no place for the miraculous or miracles in the theology of Schleiermacher. Miracles were not scientific.

MILL

on MIRACLES

Mill is best known for his writings on Utilitarianisms. He did not believe in God and might be called an agnostic. However, he thought the idea of God was a noble effort and good for morality. In this short tract he reacts against Hume and gives a scientific overview as to why miracles are possible under certain conditions. He shows that somewhere in the universe there is an unknown cause and if that is accepted, a belief in miracles does not present a problem.