Post by gerard on Mar 6, 2011 10:12:51 GMT -6
Thanks for the article, Malati-didi, some good ideas there:
Especially the last one is interesting as neuro-scientists are trying to tell us this all the time while being New Atheists themselves!
But: Father Seraphim Rose (1934) wrote: "Atheism, "true 'existential' atheism, burning with hatred of a seemingly unjust or unmerciful God is a spiritual state; it is a real attempt to grapple with the true God Whose ways are so inexplicable even to the most believing of men, and it has more than once been known to end in a blinding vision of Him Whom the real atheist truly seeks."
I like this as an example of "reason" and part of the 17th century's desciption of God. It is from Part 5 of Spinoza's Ethica, (1677):
Prop. XVII. God is without passions, neither is he affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain.
Proof.- All ideas, in so far as they are referred to God, are true, that is adequate; and therefore (by the general Def. of the Emotions) God is without passions. Again, God cannot pass either to a greater or to a lesser perfection; therefore he is not affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain.
Corollary. Strictly speaking, God does not love or hate anyone. For God (by the foregoing Prop.) is not affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain, consequently he does not love or hate anyone.
Prop.XVIII. No one can hate God.
Proof.- The idea of God which is in us is adequate and perfect; wherefore, in so far as we contemplate God, we are active; consequently there can be no pain accompanied by the idea of God, in other words, no one can hate God. Q.E.D.
Corollary.- Love towards God cannot be turned into hate.
Note.- It may be objected that, as we understand God as the cause of all things, we by that very fact regard God as the cause of pain. But I make answer, that, in so far as we understand the causes of pain, it to that extent ceases to be a passion, that is, it ceases to be pain; therefore, in so far as we understand God to be the cause of pain, we to that extent feel pleasure.
Prop. XIX. He, who loves God, cannot endeavour that God should love him in return.
Proof.- For, if a man should so endeavour, he would desire that God, whom he loves, should not be God, and consequently he would desire to feel pain; which is absurd. Therefore, he who loves God, &c. Q.E.D.
(I deleted his internal references.)
Alister McGrath wrote an excellent introduction to Christian theology:
Christian Theology: An Introduction
Blackwell Publishers
Oxford, 2nd edition 1996.
If there was a flaw in human reasoning processes, reason itself would not be able to detect this. We would be locked into unreliable patterns of thought, without any means of escape.
...
"The God in whom the nineteenth century ceased to believe was invented in the seventeenth century."
...
What if human reason is influenced by factors that we do not understand, and cannot control?
...
"The God in whom the nineteenth century ceased to believe was invented in the seventeenth century."
...
What if human reason is influenced by factors that we do not understand, and cannot control?
Especially the last one is interesting as neuro-scientists are trying to tell us this all the time while being New Atheists themselves!
But: Father Seraphim Rose (1934) wrote: "Atheism, "true 'existential' atheism, burning with hatred of a seemingly unjust or unmerciful God is a spiritual state; it is a real attempt to grapple with the true God Whose ways are so inexplicable even to the most believing of men, and it has more than once been known to end in a blinding vision of Him Whom the real atheist truly seeks."
I like this as an example of "reason" and part of the 17th century's desciption of God. It is from Part 5 of Spinoza's Ethica, (1677):
Prop. XVII. God is without passions, neither is he affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain.
Proof.- All ideas, in so far as they are referred to God, are true, that is adequate; and therefore (by the general Def. of the Emotions) God is without passions. Again, God cannot pass either to a greater or to a lesser perfection; therefore he is not affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain.
Corollary. Strictly speaking, God does not love or hate anyone. For God (by the foregoing Prop.) is not affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain, consequently he does not love or hate anyone.
Prop.XVIII. No one can hate God.
Proof.- The idea of God which is in us is adequate and perfect; wherefore, in so far as we contemplate God, we are active; consequently there can be no pain accompanied by the idea of God, in other words, no one can hate God. Q.E.D.
Corollary.- Love towards God cannot be turned into hate.
Note.- It may be objected that, as we understand God as the cause of all things, we by that very fact regard God as the cause of pain. But I make answer, that, in so far as we understand the causes of pain, it to that extent ceases to be a passion, that is, it ceases to be pain; therefore, in so far as we understand God to be the cause of pain, we to that extent feel pleasure.
Prop. XIX. He, who loves God, cannot endeavour that God should love him in return.
Proof.- For, if a man should so endeavour, he would desire that God, whom he loves, should not be God, and consequently he would desire to feel pain; which is absurd. Therefore, he who loves God, &c. Q.E.D.
(I deleted his internal references.)
Alister McGrath wrote an excellent introduction to Christian theology:
Christian Theology: An Introduction
Blackwell Publishers
Oxford, 2nd edition 1996.
