Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cellophane deity
I think that one of the better (or at least better known) examples of a philosopher who has done this is Aquinas. He was an avid believer in Christianity, but he also wished for a Reasonable (note the capital R!) proof of God. He would not settle for only the Bible to help him define his God, but also used ontological proofs. He's now known as one of the greatest Christian philosophers in history (even though his proofs had nothing to do with the Christian God, but I'll let that slip for this thread.)
Unfortunately, I've noticed that devoutly religious people don't seem to do this as often anymore. Even in these forums, I occasionally find people supporting their philosophical beliefs with no more than quotations from their religious texts or prophets. In my opinion, this is poor philosophy, and I wish for these people to strive for more.
|
Two things to consider. Aquinas, or any rationalized system, carries the risk of intellectual coherance at the cost of livability. For instance, to deal with the problem of evil, Aquinas introduced the anti-humanist concept of Original Sin. We've had fun with it ever since...and a whole host of anti-body, anti-sex, anti-person theologies have stemmed from it. I know you're not on the Aquinas bandwagon, but i want to suggest the problem with philosophical reasoning. It may be intellectually satisfying, but leave problems in other areas.
why i think this to be true is that all reasoning carries with it assumptions. philosophy claims to state those it employs. i beg to differ.
i think therefore i am.
Descartes assumes a being, observes thought, and draws a conclusion. Where's the confession of belief behind this all? That "I am" is better than to not be. It's funny that way, but the conclusions and reasonings of philosophy reveal a great deal of confessional theology (statements of value or belief that are authorized by the adherants statement that they believe). When i do theology, i'd prefer to get that over with, and confess my beleifs, draw conclusions from those starting points, and then take the conversation from there.
so i don't want to leave alone the idea that it's not a good idea for people to be citing the leaders or texts of their group....as confession, that citation indicates an assumed starting point. hopefully, that person will be willing to discuss and elaborate from there....but i can't think of a better starting point than to review assumptions.