Our last readings of the semester deal with the often uneasy relationship between faith and reason. Whereas Augustine follows the dictum of "faith seeking understanding," Aquinas more clearly divides the two. Can faith and reason happily coexist with one another? Which should take precedence if they come into conflict? And what do such conflicts suggest about the nature of truth itself? From Galileo to Darwin, these questions have routinely entered the public consciousness during the last few centuries and continue to generate a good deal of debate today. What might we add to this discussion?
3 comments:
Aquinas breaks down faith and reason by explaining that faith belongs more to theology and reason more to philosophy. While the theologian accepts things more on faith and uses this idea to explain things, the philosopher relies on reason. The philosopher uses reason to gain knowledge from one thing to the next untl he has reached and understood the true end. Faith and reason can co-exist but only in so far as each is accepted. Faith can help the theologian make sense of things in the world but it is not based on an conclusive evidence. Reason therefore must come first because it is through reason that one can truly understand and gain insight. Yet, Aquinas discusses that to an extent we can understand God's essence in this life, which ultimately leads to absolute happiness, but we can not fully grasp his essence during our physical life. We can use reason and faith to find an imperfect, incomplete sense of happiness that will help understanding in the next life, but it is absolutly beyond our grasp in this life. Therefore, does it really matter if one puts more emphasis on faith or reason since we can never truly understand God's essence? Perhaps using both reason and faith are good because each point us in the direction of goodness, which will help our understanding in the next life.
Aquinas touched upon the difference between the philosopher and the theologian. The distinction that most stands out is that the theologian observes things from a standpoint that God created everything, but he can still apply some sort of reason to things through this lens. While his reasons may be vague, he still applies some sort of reason. The philosopher, on the other hand, sees everything and observes through a scope saying that there is a reason for every thing's existence apart from the view that God created it. In a sense, theology is a form of religious science. It offers explanations for the objects in this world stemming from the belief that God created it. Philosophy gives logical reasons for any sort of existence, offering science sometimes as proof.
I found Aquinas’ theory on friendship in relation to happiness quite interesting. I always looked at friendship as a means to being happy not realizing that we should actually be happy with or without friendship. It seems as though according to Aquinas friendship is more of an accessory to happiness; it’s something we use to accomplish good deeds and if we have good friendship we should in turn help others accomplish good deeds. Although I can see where Aquinas is coming from I feel that friendship might have more to do with happiness then he believes it does. Personally if I didn’t have friends I don’t think that I would be very happy; what do you do without them? Hang around by yourself? I think that maybe Aquinas intends for us to have filled that void in our lives with God rather than friends and in his times I can see that method working but in modern times I don’t think it would work because there are far too many people who believe in nothing and therefore rely on friends to be happy, but then again the people I find to be happiest in the world are deeply religious so maybe Aquinas was on to something….
Post a Comment