In the first two reading passages (excluding the Robinson article), we are presented with two very different methods of theological thought. Whereas Thomas Aquinas primarily discusses theological issues in a manner that is structured and to the point, Anselm's writing, the Proslogium, is more characterized by an internal "discourse" that delves into personal theological struggles. For most of us, Aquinas' method is closer to what we are used to, as it is more academically oriented. Therefore, it is important to examine more closely the Proslogium, as though it might be more foreign to us, it nevertheless contains great insight. So, how does Anselm's method of writing and "doing" theology impact the content and issues with which he is dealing? In other words, how does his style affect the reader's understanding of what he is trying to communicate.
Then in regards to Aquinas, in Article 1, the first objection brings up philosophical science and how "we have no need of any further knowledge." Aquinas, later on, refutes this point and disproves it. Yet, this point brings a different question: what is the relationship of philosophy and theology? Last semester, a similar question arose in our reading of "The Philosophical Act" by Josef Pieper. Pieper maintains that theology and philosophy seek answers to the same questions, but have different approaches. If this is the case, then which method of seeking answers do you feel is more effective?
Both Aquinas and Anselm hold that faith is the starting point of theology, which then leads to reason and hopefully to understanding. Anselm states this almost directly and Aquinas says that divine revelation is necessary to know certain truths, thereby implying it. Since faith is a gift, not a product of man's own work, how is it that some people are apparently born with faith, while others it can take years to find, and still others may never gain it. How does this fit in with the Christian understanding of God's love and His desire for all His creation to seek Him and find Him?
Dan Grabowski, Andrew Krema, Rhodes Bolster
While I found both authors to be quite inspiring in their writings I mostly preferred Aquinas' use of the Socratic method in order to teach his values to the masses. Anselm's writings seemed, in an overall manner, to merely represent a prayer of supplication. While this can be inspiring, it seems to make man to be merely an animal searching for fulfillment. Aquinas on the other hand recognizes the views of his opponents' objection. Also, he relies on the conjectures of others to help foster new ideas into his writings. Anselm does not follow this same suit. Anselm instead seeks for God to effectuate salvation into his life. Aquinas' method of educating insinuates that he is constantly refining beliefs held by the faithful. By allowing others to question their beliefs, he is able to then explain his reasoning behind his own statements. Aquinas is simply better suited to educate the masses on the tenants of theology. Anselm on the other hand personalizes his plea. This can confuse many people who either do not hold the same beliefs as Anselm or it can misconstrue the values of what Anselm is trying to instill within the populace. Aquinas in the greatest sense utilizes a more unbiased, scientific method that aids his quest to disseminate his notions on the faith.
ReplyDeleteTo begin, I must agree with Brooks. While both authors, Anselm and Aquinas, are inspiring, Aquinas is certainly more persuasive with his logical and demonstrative rhetoric. Perhaps it is because his argument reminds me of the well-structured philosophical reasonings of authors we've read previously this year, like Aristotle, or possibly because this style of 'self-debate' and 'questioning' strikes me as a more effective way to understand one's faith. Either way, I rather like the connection that Dan, Andrew, and Rhodes made to the text of Josef Pieper. Especially in the recent works we've read and previous class discussions, we've seen that Pieper's assertion: "theology and philosophy seek answers to the same questions, but have different approaches," carries weight. Personally, I hold that philosophy is the best way to achieve the mutual goal described by Pieper, which I understand to be truth (something I'm sure we could talk at length to define properly). While I'm sure there are others who disagree with this, I find that the strength behind theology is muddied by the narrow grey area between religious thought and religious propaganda where the search for truth takes place. Of course, this is a personal opinion - and I find that there are are arguments for theology, which have yet to convince me, because I dislike being told how to believe (something which religious propaganda is guilty). I am more convinced by the idea of Christian philosophy, a combination of the faith-based aspect of theology and the persistent questioning that derives from philosophy proper.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone above that I found Aquinas to be more approachable than Anselm. Anselm’s prayer to God was certainly inspiring and impressive, but I found it to be somewhat lofty for the average reader. However, I do think that Anselm’s method of doing theology is something to which those of us who are trying to deepen our faith lives should aspire. Clearly, just by method alone, Anselm is advocating for a faith life filled with prayer and supplication to God. I don’t agree with the idea that Anselm makes it seem like searching for fulfillment through God makes us animalistic; on the contrary, I think that the need for fulfillment through God is distinctly human. I like the connection made to Pieper, and I think that philosophy and theology must be intertwined in order to make someone truly satisfied with what they are seeking. For example, in his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle proposes that the highest good that people can strive towards is happiness. One may ask what happiness is, and I believe that this is where theology comes into the conversation. Personally, I believe that happiness is ultimately God. Finally, when it comes to the gift of faith, I think it is something that we have to actively seek throughout our lives. Aquinas said that we need divine revelation to know certain truths, and I believe that to experience divine revelation, we have to be out looking for it. I think the beauty of the gift of faith is that even though we do not always act faithfully all the time, God still loves us, and the gift of faith is still there for us to cherish. Some people may be better at actively using their gift of faith, but none of us are perfect, and none of us are going to automatically have faith and have it all the time. I think that to be faithful people, we need to actively seek divine revelation. Unfortunately, some people may completely ignore their gift of faith, but I think it’s something we all have to work on to experience its full beauty.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast with previous posts, I found Anselm’s “Discourse on the Existence of God” a much more approachable method of theological thought. Anselm evoked such passion and emotion in his discourse that I couldn’t help but agree with his words. All of the questions asked, like “Why did he shut us away from the light, and cover us over with darkness? With what purpose did he rob us of life etc...” seemed to me the epitome of what theological thought is. Is it not , in its most basic form, our supplications and questions to God about things that we know nothing about?
ReplyDeleteAquinas’ work goes very well with Anselm’s, because Aquinas insists that theology was learned through divine revelation. However, why did God choose to give humans theology through divine revelation in the first place? : Because, in our ignorance, we pray to God to answer the deepest and truest questions of our hearts, like Anselm does in his work. With these sincere questions, also in the form of prayers, Anselm shows a true method of learning theology, which is also supported by Aquinas.
Anselm also addresses the question of faith. He says: “For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand”. Although this statement may be confusing to some, Anselm shows that in order to understand we must first have faith. Without faith, we would not have the desire to understand because it would not be possible for us to comprehend without first believing. People have different levels of faith depending on who they are and where they come from. As Dan, Andrew, and Rhodes said, God desires for all his creation to seek Him and find Him. However, not all can do this because in order to seek God, you have to believe He exists, that is, you must have faith. Many times, faith is found during very low points of our lives, where we NEED to believe that there is a higher being in control, in order to keep us from going crazy with the many things that tear us down.
I believe that many cannot seek God because they do not have faith. However, ALL people have it in them to discover their faith. First people must have the desire to believe in a higher being, and then they can begin to form their faith. Once that faith is formed, a period of learning and understanding can finally begin.
I agree with Maria that Anselm’s work felt more approachable. Last semester we compared the styles of Aristotle and Plato in a similar way. I find that Aquinas’ style is more like Aristotle in that he discusses the matter, like Brooks said, using the Socratic method, and Anselm’s is more like Plato with his descriptive, story like style. Plato was easier for me to read and contemplate, so Anselm’s “Discourse on the Existence of God” was more effective to me, as a result.
ReplyDeleteAnselm’s view of God was also more effective to me than Aquinas’. Anselm talks about God in terms of faith like Maria explained above. Aquinas writes about Theology as a science instead. He explores ways in which faith is and is not a science, and he does the same with Theology. Aquinas may have focused on the science of Theology and faith in order to convince the masses to believe in God because of its factual prevalence to life. In the process, Aquinas makes religion out to only have a set number of beliefs like a science. On the contrary, I felt that Anselm was more astute on this matter by approaching faith and Theology as uniquely individual. His description was more meaningful because he wrote in the perspective of a single person who, as Anselm puts it, “strives to lift his mind to the contemplation of God, and seeks to understand what he believes.” Anselm is trying to understand God’s place in the life of one human being while, unconsciously, convincing the reader to take similar action in order to discover his/her own place for God in life. As a result, I think Anselm discovers a more productive understanding on how to approach faith for those that believe and do not believe. It is a sort of personalized way that every person can interpret differently and thus receive a belief in God.
First of all, I agree very much with what both Maria and Shultz have said regarding the difference between Anselm's writings and Aquinas' writings. While both Anselm and Aquinas discuss the human understanding of God, they take extremely different approaches. Of course, when one takes into account that Aquinas is attempting to persuade non-believers of God's existence through logical progressions in thought and step-by-step argumentation, (about which I agree with Shultz in that it is very Aristotelian) while Anselm's work is very personal and internal, it is clear why such a contrast in the works exists. Personally, I, like Maria and Shultz, found Anselm not only more “reader-friendly” because of this, but also much more persuasive.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason that I prefer Anselm is that there are certain aspects of his writings that I considered to be more theological as opposed to Aquinas' more academic work, such as Anselm's deep, personal questions for God that came from his inner searching and confusion; that is not to say, going back to our class discussion last Wednesday, that theology is not academic, but, in my opinion, that it is a combination of academics and spirituality with a heavier focus on the spiritual aspect.
Concerning the question of faith and how we are to come by it, and why some are more likely to find it than others, Anselm's work makes an interesting point that I thought was very helpful in answering this question. Of course there is the line “man cannot seek God, unless God himself teaches him; nor find him, unless he reveals himself.” Therefore, of course, according to Anselm, it is necessary that God allows us to know him in order for us to believe. However, this brings up the question of why God would reveal himself to some, giving them faith, and not to others. I believe that Anselm may have implied an answer to this inquiry as well. Towards the end of the selection, Anselm discusses how his sins are what blind him to God's light and truth and weigh him down so that he cannot look up towards God. He implores “lord, I am bowed down and can only look downward; raise me up that I may look upward. My iniquities have gone over my head; they overwhelm me; and, like a heavy load, they weigh me down. Free me from them; unburden me, that the pit of iniquities may not close over me.” It is clear that these sentences suggest that there is at least some link between our sinfulness and our ability or inability to see God and come to know him. So, does it follow that the reason that some are made aware of God's existence and some are not comes down to the different degrees of seriousness in their sins? That is, God enlightens the less sinful more often than those whose sins are more severe? This was just my interpretation of what Anselm had to say on the matter, and I have not made up my mind about whether this is accurate or not, so I would love everyone's input on that suggestion!
I don't believe that it is necessarily a question of which of the two texts are more convincing, but rather how two texts that differ so greatly in their composition still arrive at the same conclusion, namely that understanding must be built on the foundations laid by faith. Brooks et al. are right in asserting that St. Thomas' way of "doing" theology is very academic and methodical and therefore could be more "convincing" to someone of a more reasoning disposition. Maria et al., on the other hand are also valid in their appreciation of the more impassioned and intimate reckoning of theology offered by St. Anselm's writing. It is in this contrast however that I find the strongest conviction. It is a marvel that God's nature is so infinite and so all-encompassing that it can be approached in two extremely different ways. Yet both are perfectly acceptable ways of coming to understand one of the foundational provisions of theology, that understanding must begin with faith.
ReplyDeleteIt is possible, too, that this may offer an answer to the question of why some seem to be granted faith from the get-go, while for others it is a long and agonizing struggle. Because faith can be approached and appreciated in very different lights (as we see in these texts) is it unreasonable to say that each individual's grasp of that faith could also vary greatly without one person's faith being better than another's? That is to say that perhaps just because Francine's faith seems more natural (in the way St. Thomas' writings are more of a well laid-out thought) while Esmerelda's faith is more of a struggle (as St. Anselm's work is as much of a plea to God as it is a discourse on theology) that does not mean that God has given more and/or better faith to either Francine or Esmerelda. Just a thought.
Going back to the first question asked by Rhodes, Dan, and Andrew, Anselm's method of writing and doing Theology in a questioning and personal way impacts his reader's perception of what he is saying because Anselm is giving us an example of how he believes Theology is to be understood. Anselm is trying to communicate to readers that in order to find God and truly understand His presence and impact on us, we must embark on a personal journey of inquiry into the nature of God. Anselm shows us that Theology is God revealing Himself to us through our own active seeking. Anselm's Proslogium is an example of what all who are seeking understanding should strive for because everyone has their own questions and ideas that will shape their beliefs of God. We all should try to channel our own questions into our personal path to God.
ReplyDeleteHowever, like Laura said, I also believe that although neither of the texts are more convincing, but they rather should be used for different reasons. Aquinas' method yields more scientific and direct answers using evidence from Scripture, while Anselm's method yields personal answers through internal thought and questioning. In order to truly and completely understand all we believe, I feel that we need to make use of both Anselm's and Aquinas' method of Theology. Like stated above ("Both Aquinas and Anselm hold that faith is the starting point of theology, which then leads to reason and hopefully to understanding."), I think that after one has faith, he/she can utilize Aquinas' method to find reason/evidence and Anselm's method to find personal understanding.
Anselm writes quite plainly and simply to communicate to the reader that the devotion one puts toward their faith will solidify their relationship with God. Anselm paints a picture of God that is heartfelt and personal, beyond proofs or speculation. I am inferring that one following Anselm's model of theology wouldn't need to undergo the scholastic discourse as exercised by Aquinas. Devotion and faith will grant the believer that divine revelation as mentioned by Aquinas. I am not discarding reason as a tool in the quest for understanding, for it is the engine by which we make decisions. Faith weighs in on those decisions, depending on how disposed we are in making the right one. As for those who may have trouble finding the gift of faith, they are still loved. Faith is more than a mere statement, it is evident in the good works of the believer. Carrying out God's will is a stronger act of faith instead of merely saying "I believe". Aquinas' method is better put to understanding God's nature, while Anselm's regimen of contemplation serves better in settling the conflicts within our hearts and in discerning God's plan for oneself. Full understanding requires the use of both.
ReplyDeleteAs of now everyone has, for the most part, stayed on topic, and, as such, there is not too much "moderating" to do. However, it appears to me that several of the later comments have either overlooked, or misunderstood the question proposed in the second paragraph of this post. It is not asking which method of Aquinas versus Anselm that you find more effective (although that is an interesting topic as well). Rather it is asking which method of philosophy versus theology you find more effective. Keep in mind that, while Aquinas' method may be more philosophical in nature than Anselm's, we are viewing each in terms of theological thought.
ReplyDeleteI personally found Anselm’s method of “doing” theology to be more inviting to the reader. To agree with Maria, he evoked passion in his reader. Anselm also leaves room for wonder and accepts that he will never fully comprehend the great mystery that is God. Aquinas, on the other hand, explains theology in a more scientific manner, nearly devoid of Aquinas’ own personal struggles with theology. While Anselm’s language can be slightly harder to understand than Aquinas, I found that he presented the material in a way that inspires prayer and greater contemplation of as being an entity which man will never fully understand. Anselm thus presented theology in which I could personally connect to. I feel that the average person is not concerned about whether or not theology is a true science; rather, the average man hopes to better understand God. I found the technicality of Aquinas’ writing to take away from the true theological questions being contemplated.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the question posed in the second paragraph, I feel that both philosophy AND theology should be used. Yes, they seek answers to the same questions, but philosophy comes from a more reason-based perspective and theology comes from a perspective that allows for a divine figure which is much higher than man and that man does not necessarily have to entirely understand. Both exercise different sides of man’s intellect and both can attain truths.
Finally, I agree with Laura’s idea that faith can be approached and appreciated in different lights. Some who may seem to be “born” with their faith may simply approach faith in a way that is more natural to them. Others may not know of different ways to approach faith and instead try to force themselves into having faith in an unnatural way. Each person must find his or her own way of seeking God that makes sense to him or her.
Apologies for potential redundancy (it's not my fault great minds think alike) but here are my two cents.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking in the most basic, stylistic sense - to answer the first question to the effectiveness of Anslem's method - I feel as though his style directly parallels his message. The evocative, first-person narration and fragmented syntax is ultimately a lot more intimate/personal to an audience than a rational lecture. By connecting to his audience with pathos, I believe he perfectly exemplifies a man struggling and longing to understand God (or truth). His style is emotional and inquisitive, as is man's desire for divine revelation.
Secondly, although philosophy and theology do ask the same questions, I feel as though they don't arrive at the same answers. Therefore, to assess which is more "effective" depends on which of the fields you feel comes to the more accurate answers (if any). This ties to what Sarah says about the differing perspectives of philosophy and theology.
I'm not entirely sure how to answer the last question. All I know is that faith is something personal and unique to one person. Although I'm no expert in Catholicism, I figure that God has granted everybody the capability of having faith. Whether we grow up with it and are supposedly "born with it," attain it at a later age, or just opt to not have it is a matter of choice. If God wants us to seek Him and find Him, then He'll enable all of us to have faith. Whether we choose to accept it is a different story.
In reference to the question of whether or not faith is a gift from God, which Anselm states that it is, I disagree. Faith is much deeper than something that can simply be given by anyone, even God. If God exists, then I think He would give the gift of faith to everyone. There would be no reason for Him to withhold it from anyone, and so either He gives it to everyone or to no one. I personally think that it is neither of these, and that faith comes from within us and not from God. No one suddenly wakes up one day with faith inside them. Children may be told by their parents that God is real and that they should believe in Him, but at some point in their lives they will wonder and eventually decide for themselves whether or not to have faith. If this is not the case, then it is scary to think that people will believe something without first investigating and questioning it. Anyway, I believe that people have faith building inside them throughout their lives. This process may happen more quickly for some than for others (or perhaps not at all), but it is not immediate, in my opinion. If this is true, then that would mean that faith is not a gift from God but rather a developing feeling or thought inside each person. This would also explain why some people have faith and others do not: some people are more open to the idea of it than others.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Maria when it comes to Anselm's discourse being more effective than Aquinas's. I found his writing to be very strong because of the fact that, even though it was written similarly to a prayer, he allowed questions and doubt to be part of it. To me, this is much closer to the way in which we find faith than Aquinas's scientific discussion is.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the question Dan proposed of philosophical versus theological methods, I don't believe that one of them could be labeled as more effective overall. I think it depends on how you are applying each of them and on which aspects of faith you are focusing. I also believe that some types of people could find their faith through philosophical thought, while some people would need theology to get them to the same place. All of the past comments show that some people connect better with Aquinas's philosophical approach, while others really appreciated Anselm's theological process. The ways in which people have faith differ, so it is good that there are writers with vastly different approaches; Pieper's statement that theology and philosophy "seek answers to the same questions" seems to agree with this.
Q1)How does Anselm's method of writing and "doing" theology impact the content and issues with which he is dealing? In other words, how does his style affect the reader's understanding of what he is trying to communicate?
ReplyDeleteA1) Anselm’s method of prayer-like meditation dives into the personal side of theology. His style is focuses much more on personal encounters with the Divine, based on one’s own experience in the world and the Church’s basic understanding of God.
Remember that Anselm wrote at the very start of the 12th Century Renaissance, which was started by the recovery of the Greek and Latin texts, most notably Aristotle’s works. Before this, theology was only studied in monasteries, and most often was in the form of a sermon, such as Bernard of Clairvaiux’s Sermon on the Song of Songs. In other words, Anselm’s Proslogium was most likely created as a sermon, to be preached to monks and church-goers; his audience was full of believers. So it makes sense that Anselm’s style would be poetic and meditative, and not from a completely objective standpoint.
That being said, Anselm does pose a few intriguing questions. When he writes on pg 2, para 4, “He possessed in happiness, and miserably forsook his possession; we suffer want in unhappiness, and feel a miserable longing, and alas! We remain empty,” Anselm basically questions why we are not satisfied with our material possessions. Again, in the following paragraph, he asks, “Why did he not keep us, when he could so easily, that whose lack we should feel so heavily? Why did he shut us away from the light, and cover us over in darkness?” which basically questions why “The Fall” happened, and why all humans must suffer as a consequence. Pretty deep and sensitive topics, actually... Like I said, he’s questioning the church doctrine; something that I think we all agreed was key to theology and religious thought.
Q2) Pieper maintains that theology and philosophy seek answers to the same questions, but have different approaches. If this is the case, then which method of seeking answers do you feel is more effective?
A2) Comparing philosophy to theology is like comparing apples to oranges; I can’t really say which is more “effective.” And by effective, do you mean efficient? Sorry, I just really don’t understand the question,especially since we have detatched it from our personal POV's on Aquainas' & Anselm's methods.
Q3) Since faith is a gift, not a product of man's own work, how is it that some people are apparently born with faith, while others it can take years to find, and still others may never gain it. How does this fit in with the Christian understanding of God's love and His desire for all His creation to seek Him and find Him?
A3) By “gift” I must assume that we mean, “the time, place, and conditions in which you were born into.” I can see no other way that faith is a gift that you were “born” with...
Faith is a way of understanding our world, and I do not mean for this statement to be associated with the negative connotation, “the baby died ‘cuz God wanted another angel,” or something… Rather, I mean that some people find Faith as a path to understand all that we experience, especially the things we really have no particular method for explaining, such as, “for what purpose do we exist?” The most interesting aspect is that Faith doesn’t necessarily provide clear-cut answers.
As others have said, such as Sarah, God is simply unable to be completely understood by our minds. In this context, Anselm's cry to the God that he searches for is the way that hits closest to our selves. We all search for God, and often the search becomes somewhat desperate. Anselm captures the exasperated and helpless feeling that can come when striving to attain knowledge of that which is beyond our scope of understanding. Anselm may not have as many concrete answers as Aquinas, but Anselm makes the reader say, "Yes, yes, that's it!" I am not putting Aquinas down--I love his way of doing theology. However, theology also has a personal aspect that Anselm develops far better.
ReplyDeletePhilosophy and theology are undoubtedly interlinked, as these both reach after a Truth that can be universally applied. Philosophy, done correctly, may lead to one turning to theology, because we believe God to be Truth itself. Theology works with philosophy to develop into a doctrine which does not get out of touch with the rest of the world as Man understands it.
As for the last question, I have been searching for the answer for several months now and have yet to come up with any sort of answer.
I agree that Anselm's method was much more effective. Because he places an influence on questioning one's values, he forces one to further investigate faith and in doing so, strengthening their understanding of faith. Because he mixes the monastic style of meditation and individual reflection with the scholastic style of scientific exploration. As a result, he emotionally connects with the reader and effectively gets his point across.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading these two authors' works and listening to the discussions in class, I was reminded of the popular YouTube that I recently watched called: "Why I Hate Religion, but Love Jesus". I am sure many of you have seen it, and if you haven't I strongly suggest that you do watch it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY). In the video, a young explains why he values the relationship he shares with Jesus, but does not necessarily agree with the Church on many issues. After watching this video, I was not sure what to think at first. It forced me to reflect on my own beliefs and in doing so, asking myself whether I simply valued the doctrines and ideas instilled in me through the Church or the relationship I share with Jesus. I think this is an ongoing question that can only be answered with constant reflection and meditation.
1: I feel that Anselm's method is definitely effective in creating a personal connection between author and reader. Anselm offers his own personal struggles as a way for his readers to connect. However I found his method to be lacking in real evidentiary support. Aquinas does write in a more scientific manner I find it easier to apply to the modern day.
ReplyDelete2: I feel that philosophy is the more effective method of seeking answers to great questions The reason I believe this is that to find answers through theology a person must have faith. Whereas in philosophy faith is not a necessity to answer many questions. This makes questioning via philosophy a more widely accepted method. Thus it has more collaborators and better chance for more developed answers.
3: I find this question hard to answer due to the fact that faith is such a personal thing.
Anselm’s writing style of writing is a much more theological approach to providing an argument in the belief of God. He questions not the reader, but God himself, holding an almost one sided conversation with God that lacks a Socratic approach that many favor in an academic setting. He is approaching the belief of God in a much more theological way rather than Aquinas’s question-answer approach. He places his faith out there to gain an understanding rather than waiting for clarification to obtain any faith.
ReplyDeleteI believe the theological approach is a much more effective way to build faith because there is already a foundation of faith, the questioning is only to lead to more understanding. However a philosophical approach tends to be a more effective way to come to a true understanding of faith because all questions and doubts of faith are answered. The theological approach does not require one to build as much on their faith. However one who follows the philosophical method must have faith to base the questions upon.
I believe that faith is something that all of mankind has the potential to find, however it is not a gift. It is something to which must be worked at. Everyone has the power to believe, however the power to believe must be turned into faith through deeper understanding and the allowance of God to enter as well as accepting the inexplicable. To understand one must have faith and some cannot acquire the faith that is required for acceptance and understanding. Those who cannot acquire this spirituality never reach the level of faith that those who can reach it.
I agree with Sarah that Anselm's writing is more inviting to the reader. Anselm acknowledges that humans cannot fully understand and comprehend God. I think Caitlin is on the right track in saying that the theological approach is more effective. A foundation of faith does help gain a better understanding because the desire to understand is greater. However, I think philosophy is more objective because it does not require faith, just basic understanding of the concept.
ReplyDeleteSeeing as this debate between Anselm and Aquinas has been convered fairly well, I intend to respond to the last questions posed by Dan, Andrew, and Rhodes. I believe when we use the term faith is a gift, we are not talking about some divine revelation, but the experience of faith. I mean to say that when we talk about a gift, we are saying it is a gift because it is given to us, we did not make it ourselves. Therefore the gift of faith could be as simple as meeting someone who has more faith and certainty than ourselves. This is a gift because we did not make ourselves meet that person who is farther ahead of us, or we did not give him faith, instead he met someone, who met someone, who met Jesus. The faith is something more concrete, but it is a gift because this experience or encounter of meeting someone else was given to us. If something is a gift, we imply that there is a giver. This is all through reason. I disagree that some people are "born with faith," what does that mean? That they grew up in a Catholic home and because they were taught it since they were young, they believe it? That does not seem like faith. Faith is the recognition that one sees something, meets someone, or gets a glimpse of something that corresponds with their heart and so from this faith is the acknowledgement that there is something real and true and although one cannot understand all of it, we know that its true. The encounter has to come first.Otherwise faith is just some creation of the mind. As far as the reason why some people meet Christ and some do not, I do not understand.But just because I do not understand doesn't mean I just stick the label of faith onto it. Faith is the belief that what I met, the truth I have seen will present itself again to me. Faith is by no means the end or an excuse and this is why from what we read by Anselm is not enough. Yes he desires the answer and that is good, but from what we read, we left off at just faith alone, and that's not concrete enough. Maybe this is completely off topic, if that is the case, then I apologize.
ReplyDeleteA1) When Anselm is doing theology, he is demonstrating the distinction that exists between theology and religious studies, and this causes his example of theology to be more personal. Thus, this serves to bolster his main premise – that understanding requires faith. This understanding, which I disagree with the original posters on, is similar but different to Aquinas’s distinction. Aquinas believes that understanding requires “knowledge” of certain truths; Anselm’s style suggests a deeper dialogue; on this point, I agree with Shultz that Anselm is generally to Plato as Aquinas is to Aristotle. While Aquinas uses knowledge of certain revealed truths to assert God, Anselm approaches this deeper as that belief, acceptance and personal understanding of God that allows him to seek understanding; thus one must read Anselm as a believer or one seeking to believe, while Aquinas can be read to seek to know logically and philosophically. At first glance, therefore, I see Aquinas closer (but not exact) to what we defined in class as “religious studies” which omits a personal bias or belief (which would helps Aquinas be more scientific) and Anselm completely embraces that personal belief and thus is more of a theologian.
ReplyDeleteA2) I prefer a similar approach to Pieper, but one that is slightly different, and this affects my understanding of what method is more effective. I recently spoke to a priest about theology and philosophy, and he told me that many of the errors made in theology are in fact errors of logic and philosophy. Philosophy and theology are intertwined and have the same goal as Pieper says, but I believe philosophy as a science is the human aspect, and theology is the human aspect in combination with key truths required to fully understand God. Philosophy’s understanding goes as far to suggest a pursuit of wisdom in the method of wonder, and thus suggests a pursuit of a being beyond us. Theology is the combination of key truths with this pursuit in order to be able to successfully identify “God”, the personal Catholic example of God, as the God we can seek to understand
A3) This question is a doozy, and it seems to not be questioned by either writer. Firstly, the OP (original poster) made an error of understanding faith – we aren’t necessarily BORN with faith, but it is GIVEN AND TAKEN over a lifetime, whether for the entire lifetime or given and taken at different points. Any of us experiencing spiritual darkness, such as Mother Teresa, is an example of this. Using the word “born” is quite restrictive. As Jason admitted, I think a definitive answer as to why God omits faith to some and not others is a concept we shall not fully understand. I think the answer is deeper than Catlin’s belief that faith is simply “willed” because in that case, our belief’s may be simply “willed” because our beliefs depend on faith. My personal, cliche-ridden answer for the time being is that God’s will and reason are reasons that, although beyond human comprehension, seek to bring each person to their best fulfillment in His plan. It is quite possible that salvation and heavenly given merit belong not just in belief alone, because, due to their love, there surely could be atheists entering the kingdom of heaven ahead of unloving theists. If Mother Theresa had a stronger faith, would her works be filled with such zealous love? The question could be further explored, however, my approach is that deprivation and giving of faith by God (as I have experience in my own lifetime) is, in the end, always intended to bring us closer to Him – whether we know it or even believe in Him or not.
Anselm’s meditative, prayerful method makes the reader feel like Anselm is practicing his faith, not simply writing about God. His approach is as much about self-reflection and growth as it is about teaching others. I find it difficult to read Anselm without taking it as a work of literature, something that’s meant to be beautiful; it strikes me as a personal monologue that he thought others might find beneficial. Aquinas on the other hand seems more focused on making the reader see the clarity of a certain point, not necessarily by proselytizing, but simply in a manner of informing the reader of the results of his free inquiry.
ReplyDeleteI’ve noticed that many of the previous responses imply that Anselm takes a theological approach while Aquinas uses a strictly philosophical one. I don’t think this is the case. Although Aquinas is certainly more logical in the format and content of his writing, he still writes from the perspective of a believer and theologian. Additionally, he expands on the necessity of having Divine Revelation in addition to philosophical science. If he were seeking to write from a philosophical perspective I don’t think he would focus on that point.
I think faith can be a gift, but a better way to look at it is as a choice. One must choose to be open to faith, or it can never be given. People take different paths to achieve faith, but this is due to the fact that every person has free choice. The inclination to seek faith reaches people differently because they are in a wide variety of circumstances and react in diverse ways to same stimuli.
I think that Aquinas' method of writing allows him to provide a clear and specific answer to the questions that occur in his studies of theology. His approach is straightforward and to the point, which is useful to the reader who seeks to understand theology from an objective and rational point of view. Anselm's approach, however, provides for a bit more subjectivity. As many have said before me, Anselm's method of writing allows him to connect to the reader on a deeper, more personal level. The reader is invited to make Anselm's prayers of desperation and supplications their own. Through this exchange with God, Anselm hopes to have the questions that he has in his own mind resolved. The reader then can address the questions that they have in a way that is similar to Anselm. I think it is interesting to compare these two works because they are two very different approaches to theology that both attempt to bring the reader to a better understanding of God.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the question whether I believe philosophy or theology to be more effective in the search for answers, I think much of the time a combination of both of these can result in a fuller and more substantial answer. Like others have said, philosophy does seem like an objective means of answering a question because it can rely solely on information. Theology on the other hand requires the individual to really reflect on their own life and their faith as well as things like the teachings of the Church or Sacred Scripture. So maybe philosophy can provide something that our faith can be built off of, just like Aquinas' work gave definitive answers to questions for an individual to apply to their own lives and faith. Philosophy does not always need to come to clear answers, but it can give a foundation that we can build our faith off of through the study of theology.
Finally, I also find the last question a little difficult to answer. I agree with Sarah and Laura, however. The way that an individual approaches their faith is different for everyone and it can take time to discover the way that fits for them. I do think faith is a gift from God given to everyone, but it is also up to us to develop it and actively grow in our faith towards God. We cannot simply accept the great gift of faith from God and think that our passive acceptance is enough. But I think that God does give us what we need to persevere in our faith if we are open to His guidance in our lives.
As many people have said before, Anselm had a passionate opinion that brought out people's emotions. This is much different from Aquinas' style which is written in a logical format. Caitlin brings up a good point that a theological and a philosophical approach can bring different outcomes to the same question. With theology, people already bring facts to the table that they feel they cannot question. However with philosophy, people can question everything, even the basics. Neither method is more precise than the other, but they both shed some light on the subject.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, it has been established that Anselm speaks on a more personal level, though he does make important theological claims. It would seem that he is writing more like a monastic theologian such as Benedict rather than like a scholastic theologian like Aquinas. Aquinas is obviously more formulaic and philosophical.
ReplyDeleteI would like to comment on Anselm's idea of faith as a gift from God. It is often debated whether faith is given by God or if one receives faith because of one's openness to faith or ones decision to believe in God. It would be a wonderful spiritual concept if God was the giver of all faith and if God was the cause of the spiritual longings within the hearts of people. However the controversial question here asks why does it seem that God gives faith unequally or seemingly never to certain people. As a God who loves his people it would seem that he would give as much faith as possible to all of his people. So I partially agree with Lucy. I think faith is first given then it can be chosen. But also there is room to say that God works in mysterious ways, ways that transcend human understanding. (This must not however be a fall back response that excludes the viability of human reason to try to understand God's plan)
The other side of the argument involves us being the cause of our own faith. This is a theology in which the individual person brings about their own faith because of their own efforts.
The responses I have gathered to these ideas are as follows. God does give faith to his people. And we humans are not the cause of our own faiths. It is not to the glory of the individual who has a belief in God that they have that belief. It is rather God working in them. It is a grace and a gift. Why then are there people without faith or belief if we have such a loving God? I have a friend in this situation who feels God has never given him/her the gift of faith. Some thoughts i have gathered in the past week follow. He gives faith to his people in different forms at different times. Each person is different, but God knows each person better than that person knows themselves. So it would be fitting that God gives faith to each person is a different manner. Also, we must seek after we are given faith in order to understand. If we are given faith we must be open to the love and belief God does bestow upon us for it to take root in our lives.
I would like to note two things. Anselm's idea of faith is in line with Aristotle's idea od the first mover, who existed before all things and sets all things in motion. Also, Anselm's idea, that faith must first be given by God, seems radical in this day and age where it would seem that humans are independent and rational beings that are the masters of their own life and the cause of their own success.
I agree with Lucy in that I think that both passages are works of theology. Aquinas is using a very categorical, exhaustive approach to theology in which he attacks every little point in a way which is reminiscent of Aristotle, but that doesn't make it not theological. In the older sense of the word, maths, sciences and really all kinds of wisdom were considered a type of philosophy, so Aquinas is still doing philosophy as well, since he is studying the divine science.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that one thinker is necessarily better in any way than the other since they are trying to do very different things, one (Aquinas) is trying to provide answers to every theological question of his age, the other (Anselm) is poetically writing an urgent prayer to his God, which he is letting others read.
this second question disturbed me for a while which resulted in my search for an answer that i could at least be somewhat satisfied with. i have talked with a few pople about this topic and one answer that i found interesting is that indeed either some are given these gifts, specifically of faith, and that others are not. at the moment of our Baptism, however, we receive the potential for gifts and some actual gifts. this would mean then, frustratingly, that because of certain situations and life circumstances, some people do not receive the gifts or even the opportunities or the receiving of gifts. but if fruits are not resulting in the baptized it is out of our own denial and nonrecognition of these gifts because they were bestowed upon us in our Baptism. this does mean however that if not Baptized we can not receive gifts form God and faith.
ReplyDelete