|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This page is for my niece, Truong
thi Tuyet Mai, daughter of my late brilliant brother, Truong Ngoc Kim and later dedicated teacher, her mother,
sister in law. Mai is a bright student
Raison and Faith...
We try to find the definition
of faith in the sens of common use. For example, when we say:I have a faith of You or I believe on You.
We also said''I believe what You say, or simply..I believe You In the first case, we affirm trust
with the loyalty to a person. In the second case, we assert to certain statements. The word faith had been writting
in the Bible and in the post bible-era.
In Old Testament, the word Faith has the sense of Absolute steadfastness, assurance and loyalty.
Thos word had relation with God " The Everlasting Rock" is used in the Psalms and the Prophets. In the New Testament,
the sense of personal trust and assurance of God is combined with the meaning of assent to the Gospel message about Jesus
and his works. There is an emphasis on Faith as a divine gift which enables the believers to lead the right life.
In the period of medieval Church, the great theologians and the great philosophers are aware of faith
as personal trust and adherence. However their main attention were for the faith. as said in the definite statement..."artiche
de croyance".It was the faith as knowledge and its relation to others sources of knowledge that is their concern.
Protestanism of the XVIIIth century had little concern for what we refer to today as " Christian Social
Action" . There was no tradition of concern for social problems handed down from the Reformation.. Neither
of the two leading figures of the Reformation period was much interested in the social problems which had robbed men of life,
liberty, justice, health, and peace of mind. Martin Luther's magnificent theological insights did little to enlighten
his social views. Politically and economically he was committed to a medieval feudalism which did little to lessen the social
problems of his day. His attitude can be seen in his refusal to side with the German peasants in their rebellion against their
feudal overlords. The theology of John Calvin did little to lead to a concern for social problems and
their remedies, at least for several centuries.
Thomas Aquinas hold that natural reason requires the direction and support of religious faith to
obtain truth in its fullness. For Aquinas, faith involes both the intellect and the will.In the act of belief, the
intellectis determined to assent by an act of the will.To bilieve is to think with assent...In scientific knowledge
the intellect also assents to definite propositions. But in the act of Faith, the decision to assent comes from the will,
while in scientific knowledge, the intellect assents of itself to what is demonstrably true.
A man may or may not assent to the essential doctrines of the Christian
religion.Where he does or doesnot is a matter of his will, of personal decision, not of intellectual perception alone.
But in scientific matters, the intellect must assent to what is either self-evident or demonstrably true.
Aquinas holds that reason can attain basic truths about existence God's existence and
nature.,...but that faith makes man's grasp of these thruths both more certain and more readily attainable. He holds,
further, that full knowledge about God and man's way to ultimate salvation requires faith in divine revelation. Such faith,
according to Aquinas, is the gift of God's grace. That is why faith, along with hope and charity, is called a theological
or supernatural virtue.
Other Christian thinkers consider human reason incapable of attaining truths about God and hold that man's
basic religious knowledge comes through faith alone. Luther emphasizes the passive aspect of faith as an unearned
gift of divine grace, which regenerates and enlightens man. Before this happens, man and his natural faculties are corrupt
and blind, incapable of apprehending any truths about God.
All these religious writers, however, would distinguish faith from what William James calls " the
will to believe" For James, the philosopher, whether or not we hold certain basic religious beliefs is entirely
a matter of our own free will. For the theologicians, God himself is the ultimate source of our will to believe when
we believe in the things that God has revealed to man.
anonymous
The Proof of GOD' s existence...
This subjet has had many controversies. But the religion and philosophy might be reconciled
if there were some common accepted proof of the existence of GOD...
There is no agreement among the authors concerning the existence of GOD, any more than there
is agreement on any other important problem. Some of them think that GOD's existence can be proved; some that it cannot proved.
And who think GOD's existence can be proved differ greatly in the proofs they employ.
We can devide the proofs for GOD's existence into two major types.. One is so called ontological argument.It
is also called an a priori proof, because ot depends in no way of our experience but only on our conception
of GOD. According to Anselm, GOD cannot be conceived except as thesupreme being;in other word, as a being than
which nothing greater can be conceived. Such a being, he maintains, not only much exist in the understanding, but
must alsohave real existence.T support the contention,Anselm asks us to consider the consequences that supposing
that GOD doesnot reallyexist but is only a cenception in our minds. Dans ces cas, ange etait la sensible presence
de Dieu...
If that than which nothing greatercan be conceived, he explains, were to exist in
the understanding alone., then it would lack the perfection of real existence. Hence it would not be the supreme being that
we set out to conceive. Therefore, Alselm concludes, the supreme being mist exist in reality as well as in
the mind. A slightly different version of the argument is offered by Descartes in his Meditations.
Aquinas rejects this argument. In his view it amounts to saying that God' s existence is
self - evident to us, which he does not think is the case. The argument may show that we are unable to conceive a supreme
being without conceiving such a being as having real existence; but Aquinas, and later Kant, maintain that
we can not validly infer God' s existence from the fact that it is impossible for us to think of a supreme being without thinking
that such a being much exist.
The second main type of argument for God' s existence consists of all causal or posteriori proofs. These
are all arguments from effects to causes. They are a posteriori in the sense that they start from the known
facts of real existence, and from them infer the existence of a cause which conforms to our notion of God.
Let me give you one example of this mode of reasoning... We observe that the things in this world come to
be and pass away. This leads us to see that their nature are such that it is possible for them not to exist. This would not
be the the case if their existence followed from their Natures. Something outside their Natures must be the cause of their
existence. - that is, of course, if we accept the proposition that everything which exists or happens must have a cause of
its existence ou happening.
What can be the cause of the existence of that which does not existe of its own Nature ?
Another thingof the same sort ?. Hardly,becauseif such a thing does not existe of its own Nature, it cannot
cause the existence of anything else. If this last statement is true, then it follows that the cause must found in a being
which exists by the very nature of what it is. But,...such a being is what we conceive God to be; that is, a supreme
being the absolute perfection of which involves existence...
The validity of this mode of argument is rejected by those who think that the world as a
whole does not come into being or pass away and so does not need a cause of its existence . It is also questioned
by those who think that we cannot use the principle of causation to interfer the existence of causes beyond
our experience from the existence of effects within our experience.
Philosophers, such as Hume and Kant, who reject both
the ontological and the causal arguments for the existence of God, tend to be agnostics rather
than atheists. While denying that we can know God' s existence by the evidence of reason or experience, thay do
notdeny that God exists. Our belief in God, in their view, comes not from reason or experience but from other sources. For
Hume, the source is " faith and divine revelation". For Kant, God' s existence is a matter of rational faith,
a postulate of the practical reason. " it is morally necessary ",he says..." to assume the existence of God"..
anonymous
l' existence et la nature des Anges...
La signification originale du terme
Ange est le messager... Dans La Bible, ange etait messager de
Dieu pour communiquer ses paroles pour l' homme. Dans les textes de la Bible, " anges de Dieu "
consolait Hagar, restrainait Abraham de la sacrification de Isaac
, parlait a Moses du buisson brule...Dans ces cas, l' ange est sensiblement pour la presence
de Dieu.
Dans les textes de la Bible,
Anges sont les Etres intermediaires qui presentaient les messages de Dieu. Comme
le roles de Gabriel et Michael, dans son apparence de Daniel, et par Gabriel dans
l' annonce de Marie
Pour tous ces cas, Anges
sont les agents que Dieu creait ses desires et ses pouvoirs pour le monde. Dans le premier cas,
Anges sont presentes sous la forme de l' Homme visitant et voyant avec Homme. Les ailes des
Anges presentant le role de presenter les messages., et l' aureole, presentant le spirite, pour
addition de l' age mur...Plus tard, Judaisme classifiait les Anges ... cherubime
et seraphime, et differenciait les Archanges et les autres Anges . Dans le
Chretien, on a neuf ordres... Seraphime, Cherubime, Thrones, Dominations,
Virtues, Pouvoirs, Principalites, Archanges et Anges.
Les materiels riches de la tradition religieuse, exprimaient par des images bien colorees,
etaient aussi les sujets des interpretations methodiques par les theologiciens de la periode medievale. En addition
des notions des philosophes grecques, les theologiens avaient la notion pour l' existence de la nature. Platon,
a affirme l' existence du royaume de idees perpetuelles, meme avec changement des choses physiques.
Les Theologiciens utilisaient les principes de la philosophie basique pour interpreter les traditions
religieuses pour les Anges. Aquinas , par exemple, ecrivait le traite pour les Anges comme les
subtances eternelles, immaterielles, Et aussi pour lui, different avec Platon pour l' eternite des idees, c'
etait l' existence de l' intelligence ne suivant pas avec la matiere.
Les modernes Penseurs, ridiculaient les considerations des Anges comme speculation
inutile pour la notion imaginaire des Anges. Quoiqu' il en soit, nous pouvons penser pour l' existence actuelle des
Anges, nous pouvons penser l' illumination des Anges . Speculation pour la realite des creatures materielles
, ou juste dans la Memoire et l' Ame peut nous aider de comprendre le monde materiel que notre Memoire et Ame sont immenses...
La Speculation des philosophes pour utopie - purement ideal - humain dans la communaute peut
nous aider de comprendre la politique actuelle et l' organisation dela societe. Aussi dans la situation semblable, la
nature des Anges peut nous dire de la relation entre la nature humaine. Par exemple, s' il y a existence
des Anges, ils peuvent comprendre immediatement les choses,... et la societe des Anges
est controllee par les lois de l' Amour. Ca veut dire pour nous, le type de connaissance et la sorte
de la societe n' est pas seulement formee par la chair et l' esprit comme nous avons.
Une choses importante est que nous devons comprendre ce que nous ne savons pas, ou nous vivons comme les Anges
et nous ne pouvons pas des actions comme les betes.
Vraiment, Anges n' etaient pas Hypothese Utile dans
la speculation philosophique. Le terme Ange avait le sens essentiellement religieux. Dans les traditions
de la Bible, Anges etaient le fait de l' experience concrete. Hagar, Abraham, Moses
et Marie n' etaient pas hypotheses mais les Messagers de Dieu...
anonyme
The problem of immortality..
Belief in immortality depends on
a certain view of human soul . If the soul, or its essential element, is thought to be immaterial
and capable of existence apart from the body, it is also thought to be imperishable. However, those who believe in
the immortality of the soul differ about what it consists in. There are three main theories :
One is that the soul returns to its original source ( Spirit, God, etc...) and
death. According to this theory, the individual soul does not survive as such. It becomes a part of the whole from which it
was temporarily separated.
Another theory is that the individual soul has always existed and will always exist.
It is eternal like God. The soul goes through an endless series of existences, occupying a different body in each existence.
This doctrine of transmigration or reincarnation was widely held in the ancient world. Plato
gives it classical expression in Western philosophy.
The third approach, and the one most familiar to us, is the Christian Doctrine
that the individual soul is immortal but not eternal . It did not always exist but it will always
exist. It comes into existence by divine creation. It is uniquely infused into one human body, but it can exist separately
from that body and survives that body after its death.
The Christian Doctrine is completed by the notion of the resurrection of the body at the
Last Judgement. This is made necessary by the Christian Idea of the Unity - and interdecadence - of body
and soul . In this respect the Christian notion of immortality differs from the Platonic, which views the
soul as a spiritual substance completely independnent of the body and alone worthy of judgement and redemption.
Philosophers offer various arguments for immortality. Plato argues that the
soul is a purely spiritual substance, simple and without parts, and hence imperishable. The soul
literally " animates " the body, is the principal of life, and cannot itself perish. Aristotle holds that
the intellectual aspect of the soul may be separable from the body, since what the intellect knows is immaterial
and eternal. Aquinas follows Aristotle' s argument to show that the soul as a whole exists
apart from the body after death, but he also appeals to the soul' s " natural inclination to be united
to the body... " in arguing for the resurrection of the body.
Another type of argument for immortality has been the moral
one. This life is not sifficient to mete out perfect justice. For that an afterlife without eternal rewards and
punishments is necessary. In one of Plato' s dialogues,..." the soul stands naked before the divine judge, revealing the
marks of evil the dead man has done in this life...". Virgil portrays an Elysium
for the blessed and a Tartarus for the damned. And we encounter similar descriptions and
prophecies in the New Testament.
Immortality is not always conceived in terms of the endless existence of the individual human
soul. Spinoza attributes immortality to the individual who achieves participation in eternity through his knowledge,
or " intellectual love " of God. Platon and Aristotle recognize that men seek immortality
in their descendants or in their creative works. Indeed, the ages have put Plato and Aristotle
themselves among the " immortals ".
The mode of immortality may be perpetuation throught one' s progeny, survival
in the memory of mankind, throught the knowledge of God, or in the subsistence of the individual soul. But whatever the
mode, man' s desire for immortality expresses his dread of Disappearance into utter
nothingness. He feels a need to be joined with the enduring, the eternal, and a revulsuion against total annihilation.
anonymous
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
free will and determinism...
Those who deny free will will
usually do so because they explain all natural phenomena in terms of a chain of causes. They hold that since man is a part
of nature, he cannot be exempt from this universal chain of causes. Those who uphold free will usually distinguish between
human actions and all other natural events. They maintain that a man' s action flow from his own initiative
claimed for human action is characteristic of everything else in nature. They believe that our basic model for interpreting
the world as a chain of causes is all wrong.
Let us be clear what is meant by " freedom of the will ". It means freedom
of decision, not freedom of action. It is freedom to choose a certain course of action, a certain
goal, or a certain way of life. Being able to do what we choose to do depends on external circumstances. Despite " what
every woman knows " not every woman who wants to get married succeds. Thus, it is possible to believe in freedom of the
will while holding that a man' s freedom to act be limited by adverse circumstances.
In past ages, philosophers such as Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, and
Kant uphold free will, while Hobbes, Spinoza, Hume and J.S. Mill oppose it. In our own
day, Jean Paul Sartre, the French existentialist philosopher, is perhaps the most extreme protagonist of man' s power
to determine for himself what he will become. Sartre says man is absolutelyfree of all conditions, including the
influence of his own past. We are only what we choose to be. We have to be free on order to be at all. Human
existence is freedom. The unfree is inhuman. Says Sartre :
Human freedom precedes essence in man and
makes it possible... Man does not exost first in order to be free subsequently; there is no difference between the being of
man and his being - free.
Other modern thinkers, such as A.N.Whitehead, Henri Bergson,
Paul Weiss, and Charles Hartshorne, agree with Sartre in affirming freedom of choice. However,
they differ from him in ascribing some influence to an individual' s past and in extending freedom of choice to the nonhuman
world.
When we mentioned psychology as " disproving " free
will, we are probably thinking of Sigmund Freud. He is one of the most pronounced opponents of free will in our time.
For Freud, all of a man' s desires are determined, on the one hand, by natural impulses and needs, and, on the other,
by cultural pressures to which he unconsciously conforms. Psychoanalysis offers a way to achieve individual
freedom, through an arduous process of self - knowledge and self - mastery. But freedom of the will as a natural endowment
is for Freud a complete fiction. Freud says :
The psychoanalyst is distinguished by an
especially strong belief in the determination of the psychic life. For him there is in the expression of the psyche.. nothing
arbitrary, nothing lawless..Anyone.. breking away from the determination of natural phenomena at any single point has thrown
over the whole scientific outlook of the world.
Contemporary positivistic philosophers, such as Moritz Schick
and A.J. Ayer, believe that freedom consists in our being able to carry out desires in action. They think we
are free when circumstances are such that we could have done otherwise than we did, had we chosen to do otherwise. But they
claim that we could not have chosen to do otherwise unless our whole past and all other influences on us were different.
In taking up a postion on this subject, we face an interesting dilemma :
Are our views of free will themselves determined, or are they a matter of free choice ?.
In either case we are out of realm of scientific demonstration. And, by
the way, nobody can yet claim that psychology has disproved free will. William James, himself a believer in free
will as well as a scientific psychologist, maintains that the stand we take on this question is itself an act of free will.
We must decide freely even when we espouse determinism. All our subsequent " proofs " depend on the previous
act of the will.
James tells a delighful story about a man who found himself in a quandary.
He saw two buildings on opposite sides of the street, one with the sign "Determinist 's Club ", the other with
the sign " League for Free Will ". He first went into the Determinist' s Club but when he
ask why he wanted to joinit, he replied.." Because I choose to " and he was thrown out. He then thied to join
the League for Free Will, and he asked a similar question, he replied " Because I have no other choice " and
again he was turned away.
The paradoxical and circular character of this problem cause James many sleepless
nights and brought him to the verge of a nervous breakdown. I hope that you will not be similarly disturbed..
anonymous
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
|
