Musings on Medieval Philosophy

The middle ages were such  rich time of learning – the Scholastics in particular fascinate me. People like Anselm, Aquinas, Ockahm, Duns Scotus, Abelard and many, many others really were part of one of the richest intellectual traditions in history, a tradition that continues on to this day. What I find to be very interesting is how much we’ve inherited, culturally speaking, from the middle ages – politically, philosophically, theologically, ethically, etc. What a wonderful world to spend time learning about – here’s a couple resources that have been invaluable to me:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Discarded-Image-Introduction-Renaissance/dp/0521477352

http://www.amazon.com/A-Short-History-Medieval-Philosophy/dp/0691019568/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335149088&sr=1-1

William of Ockham on Pictorial Resemblance

 

‘It is clear that, although due to the diversity in shape and color and other accidents in diverse men we can fashion diverse [fictions] which are not similar to every man (or perhaps [are similar to] no man), nevertheless, we can have a notion of some fiction which is equally related to all men, according to which we are able to judge of anything whether it is a man or not.’ (William of Ockham, ‘Ordinatio ‘ 278)

This is a passage that wouldn’t have sounded out of place in early Wittgenstein.

An Analysis of Thomas Aquinas and his Natural Theology

Natural theology, as defined by Thomas Aquinas, is the study of God and His attributes purely apart from divine revelation; that is to say, a study of God based on reason alone. The things learned by this method Aquinas calls, “preambles,” to faith:

“The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature and perfection the perfectible.” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 2, Reply to objection 1.)

That statement is an overview of Natural Theology, which must not be mistakenly seen as the only kind of theology or the only kind Aquinas believes is necessary. On the contrary, Aquinas defined “Sacred Doctrine” as the attributes and knowledge which God Himself can give. Sacred Doctrine consists of things of God which no human reasoning can begin to understand, and Natural theology consists of the things of God which human reason can begin to understand.

Having established both of these doctrines, the question becomes: which is more important, and in what order should they be pursued? This point is a little more difficult; the ultimate goal of natural theology is to prove the existence of God by pure human reason, while Christianity is based in faith in that which cannot ultimately be proven, and so the two appear to be mutually exclusive.

“…when natural theology is successful it does not provide any grounds for faith in any strict sense of grounds. That is, if natural theology succeeds in its initial task, to prove the existence of God, no de fide truth follows from this as a consequence. If it did, the de fide truth would be transformed into a known truth … (Ralph McInerny, “On Behalf of Natural Theology,” in Being and Predication (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1986), p. 251)

It appears, then, that the question becomes as much of a definition of “faith” as an explanation of how two apparently opposing doctrines can exist with each other. The concept of “faith,” as a blind leap in the dark appears to be where Aquinas is leaning here; a simple belief in that which cannot be seen or proven, for if it is proven then faith is not needed. However, since the definition of a “leap in the dark,” does not fit with Biblical definitions of faith, an examination of the definition of “faith,” is necessary:

“Faith in the biblical sense is substantive, based on the knowledge that the One in whom that faith is placed has proven that He is worthy of that trust. In its essence, faith is a confidence in the person of Jesus Christ and in His power, so that even when His power does not serve my end, my confidence in Him remains because of who He is.” (RaviZacharias, “Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message,” Thomas Nelson Inc, 2002)

“Though He slay me yet will I trust Him…” (Job 13:15, “Holy Bible,”)

We can see that Biblical faith is not a mere belief, will to believe or blind belief in a lack of evidence; contrary to that it is trust by experience and through proof. Aquinas’s definition seems to err more on the side of pure belief, and this is the cause for his concern. Thus, natural theology would appear to be at odds with a belief system in which faith is defined as just belief in that which cannot be proven.

The weakness of Aquinas’s system, therefore, was the thought that if God could be proven, faith would no longer be needed; this view, when examined in light of a Biblical understanding of faith, is false.

Having a proper understanding of both Sacred Doctrine and faith is key to refuting the Thomistic belief that a doctrine which can be known cannot be believed; it is clear that with a Biblical understanding of faith the opposite is true. However, the medieval mode of theology, with faith before understanding clearly colored Aquinas’s view of theology:

“Nor do I seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand. For this too I believe, that unless I first believe, I shall not understand.” (Anselm ofCanterbury, “The Devotions of Saint Anselm ofCanterbury,”)

However, as stated above, knowing and believing are only exclusive to each other if the definition of faith takes on clearly un-Biblical connotations. Neither can be seen to be superior to the other; without a personal trust, Christianity is mere intellectual belief, and without reasonable knowledge there are little grounds for faith.

God can, then, be both known and believed in a purely Biblical sense. There are attributes of God that can be known through natural theology and there are attributes that can be known through Divine Revelation only; but neither need be exclusive to the other, indeed, the two are meant to work in tandem:

“…Love the Lord your God all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength….” (Mark 12:30, “Holy Bible”)

From a Biblical standpoint no faculty is exclusive to the other, and the above statement is confirmed that faith and reason are to work together. Aquinas certainly didn’t dismiss faith as unreasonable or reason as incompatible with faith, but his limited definition of faith forced him reduce faith a more blind belief , which practical and defendable to Aquinas is not an entirely Biblical model.

The conclusion reached is therefore twofold: natural theology and Sacred Doctrine are to work in tandem and not merely picking up where one leaves off; and that a proper understanding of faith is necessary to reconcile the seeming differences and limitations of faith, natural theology, and reason.

————————————————————————————————

Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica. B&R Samizdat Express. 2009. E-book.

McInerny, Ralph “On Behalf of Natural Theology,” in Being and Predication. Washington,DC: TheCatholicUniversityofAmericaPress. 1986. Print.

Zacharias, Ravi. Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message. Thomas Nelson Inc, 2002. Print.

Anselm of Canterbury. The Devotions of Saint Anselm of Canterbury.  New Century Books. 2010. E-book.

Quest Study Bible. NIV.Michigan. Zondervan. 2003. Print.

Beowulf as Medieval Christian Evangelistic Literature

Beowulf is considered the most important pieces of Anglo-Saxon literature for a number of reasons: it is the first epic poem written in the vernacular as well as the oldest English piece of literature currently in existence. However, it’s most often overlooked trait is that is also an example of fervent Anglo-Saxon Christianity and a brilliant example of primitive Christian fiction for the purpose of both defending and spreading the Christian belief throughout the pagan Scandinavian lands.

That Beowulf borrows enormously from Christianity and the Bible is no secret, but these traits are often cited as mere influences and do not have any purposes beyond showing the fact that the author was devoutly Christian himself.

The evidence for it being a work designed to legitimize Christianity on a large scale is as follows:

1. The author makes numerous attempts to show the superiority of the Christian god and the assistance given to those who follow Christianity, as the Anonymous poet tells us, “It was hard fought, a desperate affair that could have gone badly; if God had not helped me,” (1656-1657).

2. It is made clear that the Scandinavian people desire glory and power, and the Christian god is portrayed as a glorious and powerful being with titles like, “almighty,” occurring frequently throughout the text; descriptions of the Christian god’s wrath are brutal and simple, “They suffered a terrible severance from the Lord; the Almighty made the waters rise and drown them in the deluge for retribution,” (1691-1693)

3. The immediate adversary for the Danes is a monster named Grendel, who is the spawn of Cain, the first murderer, but is also a creature who is destroyed be Beowulf, who is empowered and equipped by God, “The sons of Ecgthow would have surely perished and the Geats lost their warrior under the wide earth had the strong links and locks of his war-gear not helped to save him; holy God decided the victory. It was easy for the Lord, the Ruler of Heaven, to redress the balance once Beowulf got back up on his feet.” (1550-1556)

Other themes of subtle contrast, comparison and praise for the Christian God abound and frequently echo Biblical styles and themes; lines 1724-1745 resemble both in style, tone and subject matter the Psalms of King David ofIsrael.

It is quite clear however that this is not simply a tract for conversion since pagan influences do have a strong hold. The more destructive ones are not mentioned and the more positive ones are, i.e. swords and armor have names and characteristics and even personalities as is common throughout the medieval period; meeting halls are filled with mead and warriors eager for glory and celebration; camaraderie and a father-like love between a commander and his troops is often showcased.

Thus, Beowulf is not just an anti-pagan tract, but rather a brilliant and subtle expression of Christianity’s superiority over the old pagan religions of the north. The Christian god is shown to not just be a powerful deity, but THE powerful deity, the almighty, who rewards valour and bravery in a far better way then the pagan gods of the time.  Hence, Christianity is portrayed not as the weak kneed religion of the infidels, but rather as the powerful belief system of the hero of the Danes and Geats, Beowulf. This makes it a powerful and effective evangelistic story and one that clearly had a large influence on both the culture and religion ofScandinavia in terms of advancing Christianity as a legitimate religion.

SOURCES -

Anonymous. “Beowulf.” “The Norton Introduction to Literature.”

Alison Booth. Kelly J. Mays.New York,London. W.W. Norton & Company, 2010. 1088-1098. Print.

The Thought of Saint Anselm of Canterbury – Part I

This will be the first in a series of posts reflecting on the contribution to Western though by Saint Anselm of Canterbury; this post will focus on the Ontological Argument.

What is the Ontological argument in its original form?

Therefore, Lord, who grant understanding to faith, grant me that, in so far as you know it beneficial, I understand that you are as we believe and you are that which we believe. Now we believe that you are something than which nothing greater can be imagined.

Then is there no such nature, since the fool has said in his heart: God is not? But certainly this same fool, when he hears this very thing that I am saying – something than which nothing greater can be imagined – understands what he hears; and what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it is. For it is one thing for a thing to be in the understanding and another to understand that a thing is.

For when a painter imagines beforehand what he is going to make, he has in his undertanding what he has not yet made but he does not yet understand that it is. But when he has already painted it, he both has in his understanding what he has already painted and understands that it is.
Therefore even the fool is bound to agree that there is at least in the understanding something than which nothing greater can be imagined, because when he hears this he understands it, and whatever is understood is in the understanding.

And certainly that than which a greater cannot be imagined cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is at least in the understanding alone, it can be imagined to be in reality too, which is greater. Therefore if that than which a greater cannot be imagined is in the understanding alone, that very thing than which a greater cannot be imagined is something than which a greater can be imagined. But certainly this cannot be. There exists, therefore, beyond doubt something than which a greater cannot be imagined, both in the understanding and in reality. (Proslogium, Saint Anselm)

The basic ideal at the heart of Anselm’s argument is this: if something exists in thought, then it must exist in reality. We can conceive of God; therefore He exists.  A being that is totally perfect would have complete existence in every reality including our own; since we can conceive of such a being, it therefore exists in every possible world and as such exists in our actual world.

The obvious weakness here is a simple one: does that mean anything that one can conceive of is out there, existing, somewhere? Anselm would say no, that his argument applies only to such beings as no greater can be conceived; therefore thinking of such things as cars, islands or whatnot aren’t simply wrong, they misunderstand the argument. All these examples do not need absolute perfection to exist; God, however, by definition, does and therefore this argument applies and works only when used for God.

How, then, does the argument hold up? Critics from Thomas Aquinas (who argued that only God could know God’s essence completely, therefore only God could use the ontological argument to prove it to Himself)) to David Hume’s objection:

[T]here is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any argumentsa priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable.

…to Kant (who objected to being being a predicate to existence) have all rejected it in it’s original form; however, other modes of the argument that are much tight and more valid continue to provoke thought and criticism to this day.

The next posts will deal specifically with various criticisms of the argument as well as newer versions.

Various other forms of the argument include Alvin Plantingas Modal argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga#Modal_ontological_argument

And variousother revisionists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Revisionists