Mythos and logos, at least in the past, go hand in hand. Logos (reason) helps man explain external reality. It's essential to discovery, invention, and the like. To explain the inexplicable, those in the past utilized mythos; stories which did not necessarily occur, but which explained things which always occur. It explores the human psyche, his soul, and what he cannot fully and empirically understand. Mythos used to be equally as useful as logos, but it has lost it's hold to logos, especially in the practice religion and in the interpretation of God (He who was once "Nothing" in the medieval times and now some sort of powerful being which people seek to define).
We believe that this excerpt from Armstrong seeks to point out the negative aspects of modern faith and interpretation and bring us back to the times before science and logic over analyzed the mysteries of faith. Though she did not directly state this, we feel, and agree, that our era has drifted from being enveloped and inspired by those mysteries to fundamentalism which seeks to, again, over analyze and use sacred scripture, tradition, and ritual to its own benefits. As Dei Verbum tries to convey to readers, scripture must not be literally interpreted due to changing times, and Armstrong appears to be backing the proclamation by the Vatican II Council.
But has the current way we worship, through rites and practice, really taken us away from true faith? Has the climate of the modern world made God seem smaller or more insignificant since some believe they narrowly define Him?
This post is by Chris Hudson and Meghan Creane (on Brook's blog since we can't figure out how to publish it on ours, we took ages trying to figure it out)
I believe that Armstrong is correct in her stance that man’s focus on logos has taken away from God’s role in the world. Ever since the Enlightenment, man has sought to explain everything with his own logic and reason, and many claim that if religion cannot be explained this way, then it must be illogical. However, I do believe that there are certain truths which man may never fully comprehend. God Himself is outside of time and all-powerful; thus, He is beyond our human understanding. Man is not all-powerful and neither is he perfect; therefore, he will not have a perfect understanding of his world, nor of Scripture. This being said, I am of the opinion that rites and practice are vital to our faith and belief in God. They guide in our understanding of Him, and they are outward signs of our inward beliefs. What we must be careful not to do is to solely restrict God to these rites and practices and not allow Him to come to us in mysterious and unexpected ways. We cannot put God in a box. God comes into each person’s life through different experiences, such as personal prayer and contemplation of God, and it is these different experiences that give our rites and practices meaning.
ReplyDeleteI really agree with your idea that while rite is important to faith other things are necessary to have true faith in God or any other object of worship.
DeleteRites and repeated ritual as a form and channel of worship have always been intended to encourage, deepen and solidify the faith of those who practice them. In our culture, which tends to look down on all "ritual" as pagan and superstitious, it is left to the faithful who participate in these rites to continue to keep the deeply spiritual aspects of these practices alive. For example, if a self-identified Catholic merely goes to Mass on Sunday to avoid the wrath of his or her parents and does not engage in the spiritual exercise that is the Sacrifice of the Mass, then this individual not only hurts him/herself, but also the whole community that relies on total participation in the mysteries to fully thrive. It is only in the realization and appreciation of the importance of ritual through mythos (and the reasons and meanings behind it) that man is able to participate in religion as he is meant to. It is in this sense that ritual and mythos are so profoundly linked, and it is here that our culture seems to lose track of the importance of mystery and clings white-knuckled to logos alone. If logos is a strictly "pragmatic mode of thought" as Armstrong puts it, then it cannot fully capture and express the full reality of those things beyond the grasp of man's reason--and a great deal of God's nature is just that.
ReplyDeleteLogos, while it plays an important role in our understanding and expression of worship, is also highly deceptive. Logos lacks a deep emotional connection and spiritual involvement, which is what makes it so appealing to our modern sensibilities. If man approaches God and religion in a strictly logical way, then surely he will believe that he can fully understand God and grasp all the intricacies of His nature, regardless of the size and capacity of his own limited intellect. A merely logical understanding of God can lure men into a false sense of knowledge of the Divine and blind him to his need for the mythos to fill in where his humanity cannot comprehend outright the vastness of God. So yes, in this sense the modern infatuation with logos and distain for mythos make God seem to be smaller and less significant. However, man’s perception of God does not change His nature.
Your argument really points out how both logos and mythos are so important to truly having faith and understanding, something that Armstrong agrees with as well. It can also be seen in the description of divine revelation. It is that God wants to show himself to us to connect to the emotional part of faith and give us a kind of evidence of his work which comes into the more logical side of faith.
DeleteLaura, I am not certain what you mean by "total participation in the mysteries." I think the ideal is to "engage in the spiritual exercies" and to "[totally partcipate] in the mysteries." However, I find that I some times get distracted at Mass and am not always aware of the mysteries occuring around me. I think that choosing to perform spiritual rituals, such as attending Mass and praying a Rosary even when one is not fully participating in the mysteries due to human weakness, allows a person to grow closer to God. For comparison, I become a better musician by practicing my trombone and by stregthening my lip muscles, even though I may not always be aware of the beauty of the music. Can a person grow spiritually by performing rituals even if he or she is unaware of the mysteries at times?
DeleteTwo things with Laura's comment are interesting. If she limits the truly practicing Catholic to the one that actively tries to participate in the mysteries, and feels that Catholics who don't aren't necessarily helping the Church, the implied question is what is the solution? I have always thought about this because much in my high school years I thought critically of people who I knew were going just because they had to (esp. at school masses), and always wanted a smaller church body that was more devoted to God, however didn't know how the Church should handle this. The main issue is that one cannot outwardly measure faith - only God can. So it presents a conundrum that may not be solvable, yet does outwardly hurt our Church in ways I feel. Additionally, I agree with Eric, who brings up a good point about how we, with even good intention, still have trouble participating in the mysteries.
DeleteI really liked what Laura had to say about the limitations of logos in our faith today. That is not to say as earlier stated that logos cannot be helpful or beautiful in itself. Logos can be beneficial even to one's own spirituality. Logos can help us to understand and therefore come to appreciate the intricacies of God's creation. It can also point us towards belief and faith although, also as Laura says, there seems to be a need for some sort of mythos and practice in order to fully embrace one's religion.
DeleteIn regard to the discussion here on the "participation in the mysteries" I believe that a couple distinctions can be drawn. For one I think Laura and Eric touching on two different aspects of an issue. Laura speaks of people who are seemingly hypocritical Catholics or people who do not desire to fully engage themselves in the mythos is the practice of the religion. In that some religions, and especially Christianity as we address here, are communal in nature. So, if people who belong to the body of the religion are not engaging themselves and tapping into the mythos od the practice/ritual of the religion they are preventing the body of believers from its full potential.
I would not however say that this necessarily is "hurtful" to the community. The fact that these people are participating (in any religion) even if they are not fully engaged is a foot in the door and possible a stepping stone to mythos in ritual. It can be seen as potentiality for growth and opportunity for evangelization. Participating in the ritual itself, rather than hurting that person, may open them up to the religion eventually or bear fruits in other aspects of their life. This ties into Eric's idea that ritual can be beneficial without mythos, even if it is very much "lacking."
I agree with everything Meghan and Chris said about mythos and logos and the relationship between God and the modern man. I think that having a narrow definition of God through literal interpretation of the Scriptures is devastating toward truly understanding Him. For example, over the summer I attended a service at a Seventh Day Adventist church. I went with my voice teacher who, as a Seventh Day Adventist, is one of the most religious people I know (she had asked me to sing a song I had been working on at the service). From the limited knowledge I had about Seventh Day Adventism, I expected the service to be heavily based on and include a lot of readings from the Bible. Seventh Day Adventists follow a literal interpretation of the Bible, specifically when it comes to creationism. They have church on Saturdays because they truly believe that God created the world in six days and that He established the Sabbath on the seventh day, the day He rested. However, at the service I attended, there was ONE reading from Scripture. They had story time for children (which was not Biblically based), they had announcements, they had a preacher talk about how important education is, and they only read from the Bible once. I agree with Sarah that ritual is vital when it comes to worship. Obviously, I think it’s possible for Seventh Day Adventists to have faith, and I don't want to sound like I'm criticizing Seventh Day Adventism because that is certainly not my intention, but I do think that the service I went to was skewed in its priorities. I believe that the Bible is extremely important, but literally interpreting it can lead to very harmful things. When I went to Mass the next day, I was so happy to experience the Bible in such a beautiful way. Catholic rites and practice help glorify the Bible. They give the Bible proper respect, and they also make manifest the beauty of mythos. Logos is beautiful, too, but without mythos, our worship can become so ordinary. I’m so glad that when I go to Mass, I feel like I’m experiencing something truly mystical, wonderful, and powerful, instead of feeling like I’m just going to a meeting at which I’ll happen to hear a reading from Scripture.
ReplyDeleteJust a compliment, I really liked how you used your personal experience to contribute to this discussion. I think that it brought a new, important, and meaningful dynamic!
DeleteWhile logos may have taken something away from our conception of God, I think it has also steadily added to it. After all, if God truly does exist and he created the world, then he also, in a certain sense, created all the natural laws. Through logos, we have come to better understand our world, and therefore better understand God. I don't know about you guys, but the concept of the Big Bang and our galaxy as being only a tiny speck in the KNOWN universe still blows me away. armstrong is mainly arguing against logo being the only possible way of "knowing" something.
ReplyDeleteRemember though, when Armstrong suggests that "a myth was never intended as an accurate account of a historical event"(xi) and, "If a conventional idea of God inspires empathy and respect for all others, it is doing its job"(xvii), she is really suggesting that our conception of God and Jesus needn't be historically accurate. She suggests that so long as the mythos of Jesus inspires people to follow the golden rule, it does not matter if the Gospels' account of him are factual or not. Therefore ALL accounts of God are true, so long as it inspires empathy. So if the Hindu god Vishnu, or Lauren's Seventh Day Adventists' idea of God inspires someone enough to do good and be good, then it is an acceptable account of God. And as we learned in philosophy last semester, this appears to defy the logic of "a thing cannot be and not be at the same time in the same respect."
Thoughts?
PS: Speaking of defying laws, apparently we're defying the laws of Time. LOL.
I like how you said that "all accounts of God are true, so long as it ... inspire someone enough to do good and be good". However, I can't help but bring Aristotle into this and remind us all that 'good' has a different definition for the many different people in all of the diverse religions around the world. I don't think I need to mention the Muslims who commit murder for their religion etc.Would this be an acceptable account of God? A being who sanctions murder? I don't think so,and I know thats not what you probably meant...I'm just responding for the sake of conversation.
DeletePS; I know right...whats up with the clock??!!
Maria, I don't think that the point about radical Muslims applies to this case because their beliefs do not promote "empathy and respect for all others" as a religious belief should according to Armstrong. And Mary,I agree with most of what you said. However, after reading some of Pope Benedict's Jesus of Nazareth, I realized that the Gospels must be at least somewhat factual, for it is vital to Christianity that God actually came to Earth as a human being and entered into our humanity at a specific point in our history. Otherwise, if I read and believed a "sacred scripture" about a magic albino squirrel and if this belief inspired me to treat others well, then this belief would be a perfectly "acceptable account of God." Hopefully, we can all agree that this belief is not an acceptable account of God because it is not based in reality.
DeleteIf God was SOLELY based off of experience, it could even very well be a pipe dream, and your observance of all religions being possible would be equivalent to the possibility its all fabrication - atheism. For that, I agree with Eric, that God works specifically in the world. I reference repeatedly to the theophenies of the saints. How did Saint Bernadette know of the immaculate conception? Mary told her. A factual event. HOWEVER, this is not faith, this is reliance on evidence. Faith itself is the actual relationship. Faith is THE relationship. You don't share a friendship with someone SOLELY because they helped you, or gave you something, or assisted you in various ways. You are a friend because of an indescribable connection that only stories can tell (why do we have tumblr???) Ergo - Mythos
DeleteOh and I figured out the reason why the time is all screwed. Ready...The time zone settings for the blog are off. I'm going to try to fix them, or ask Ms. Berry to fix them. JMJ+
As we learned from Aristotle last semester: “Man by nature desires to know”. Primarily, I think that man obviously desires to know the things that are more difficult or even impossible to understand; in this case God. Armstrong tells us that in pre-modern cultures “both [mythos and logos] were essential and neither was considered superior than the other; they were not in conflict but complementary”. However, it appears that our ‘desire to know’ has become the more important, and now the logos aspect of our thinking and understanding has all but made the mythos disappear. I don’t think that the current way we worship, with all the rituals, has taken us away from our true faith. Rather, I believe that the faith that was required to perform those rituals has been depleted as the centuries have past. Before, human beings relied on the fact that we could not hope to understand God’s true nature in order to perform the rituals; they had reverence for the unknown and were okay with not fully understanding what they believed in. They still had FAITH in an inexplicable being. However, as time passed, humans became more adamant for new knowledge and, seeing as God is the biggest unexplainable entity, decided to pursue that other-worldly subject.
ReplyDeleteDei Verbum focuses on how and why God gave us divine revelation. According to the document, the purpose of divine revelation was for God to allow human beings to transcend the closed understandings of their minds and experience a fuller and more beautiful truth. God, seeing that we were dissatisfied with our ignorance of Him, decided to give us a small glimpse of his true nature through divine revelation; however, we were not satisfied with this immense grace, we wanted more. So, with our logos, while disregarding the mythos, we decided to invent an explanation to the things that were impossible for us to understand in the past. As a result, we have lost belief in the fact that God far exceeds our human thoughts and concepts. Because of this reality, God does seem smaller and more insignificant; but, I believe this is not because He is so narrowly defined, but because humans have continually labeled and defined him in their own sense that we have lost the capacity to truly define Him in our sacred scripture, rituals, and even within ourselves.
I really liked you connection between last semesters philosophy work and Armstrongs article. I hadn't thought of that before. It seems like God is the big entity that challenges the knowledge and science that we possess in the modern world. It is interesting to look at Dei Verbum as being a kind of response to the way in which people see God in the modern world.
DeleteI liked Karen Armstrong's argument a lot... but was anyone else confused by the fact that she said that some people do not have a "knack" for relgion? I think that people can come to God through either Logos or Mythos or both. Some people like to pray rosaries and wear scapulars and have a very simple faith and that's fine, and there are others who like to read things like the Summa and have reason rather than faith-based approach to religion. I agree with Lauren and the point about the ritual of mass being inspiring...the music and art definitly help people get into the spirit of religion. However, I have a hard time with the concept that stories in the Bible are true but not literally true... it's a very interesting thought but I don't really get how that works
ReplyDeleteI think that the "knack" idea means that there are many who are not necessarily aren't good at ritual or understanding what is meant by a story in the Bible for example, but I think knack means (one of many things) 1) a person who does something mindlessly does not have really a knack for it 2) someone who is simply not capable of fully appreciating/understanding/etc aspects of religion ie God. It doesn't mean that that person is stupid or anything, it just means that they may not have been touched (at least knowingly) by God, His teachings, and such related things........regarding the stories, I believe that Dei Verbum gives a good explanation. that the stories in the Bible are "synthesis." The people who wrote the Bible were not there for everything that happened. Matthew was not there when Jesus was born, so he had to hear stories (and as we all know, stories can change down the line). Heres an example. Say you went to listen to someone make a speech. You really liked what they said so you wanted to write it down. however, when you got home, you forgot a few things except for some important quotes and the gist of the speech. You write that down, maybe add a few of your own points. I think that is sorta what happens in the Bible. it utilizes mythos (the extra parts) and logos (the real history)
DeleteJust to add to Chris's example, which is a good one, Dei Verbum's teaching helps explain some aspects of the Bible that are difficult to understand or that don't fit seamlessly with other parts or with historical evidence. This is seen in the numerous differences in the four Gospels--if solely a literal interpretation were to be used in relation to the Gospels I have no idea how anyone would be able to make sense of them. Rather, the Gospels, and all the Bible, are God's words in human words--they are inspired by God, but written by men. What is important to understand is that, while there may be inaccuracies and even errors within the Bible, it contains what is necessary for salvation.
DeleteThe "knack" idea is something from this article that kind of bothered me as well. To me, the idea of someone having a knack for something makes it sound like their ability is more of a natural inclination than something that involves practice or effort. An example that we talked about in class was someone having a certain knack for a musical instrument, like they possess a predisposition to play the piano well. However, that would imply that someone who may not necessarily have the knack for an instrument cannot develop their abilities to the same extent. To me, a knack is an internal, almost intrinsic ability. If this is true, then I don't think that this can really be applied to religion or faith. That would mean that someone who does not have this natural ability cannot attain the same fulfillment in the same way that someone who does have it. I think that each person is called to respond to God's call in their lives individually, but this whole knack thing kind of twists this idea. Because if each person has a distinct calling, then it wouldn't really make sense that some people have a naturally have a greater ability to respond fully and completely while others cannot. If God wants each of us to respond to Him completely, then why would it be intrinsically easier for some to do so?
DeleteThe way the world works today it is understandable why logos is often the prevailing method of thought. People like to see the way things work, experience things themselves, after all, seeing is believing. I agree with Sarah that in our current culture the role of God has all but vanished because of the influence of enlightenment thinkers. The developing sense of "it doesn't exist if you can't prove it" seems to dominate the forefront of arguments against religion and scripture. However, Armstrong's position is an interesting one. The bible as "myth" is such an interesting concept that I hadn't really considered until this reading. Of course it makes complete sense that the bible would follow the structure of enlightenment dramas, morality plays, highlighting morals in a metaphorical sense. And once people accept the 'myth of the bible' to be at least partly true, there is a greater capacity of the bible to address a current audience, even a skeptical logos based one.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe People put faith in ritual because it is a reasonable way to gain a modicum of control over their spiritual well being. For the same reason people have ritualistic health practices, such as going to the gym, people can use the ritual of the church to hone and practice their spirituality. To address Chris and Meghan's original question- I don't think that this has subtracted in any way from peoples search for the true faith. And I don't mean to say that people can't or don't benefit from attending mass. On the contrary I believe that the system of faith makes it easier and more accessible. To be a practicing Christian, something we began to discuss in class, I believe that one must be working to achieve some truth. And without something solid or defined to practice, lots of people would lack the resolve to attain spiritual health, in the sense of understanding. Much like when practicing music a musician can benefit from moments of pure inspiration or from repetitive practice of basic scales, Christian's benefit both from attending church and having personal inspiration.
I agree with Lauren that literal interpretation of Scripture is detrimental to fully understanding God. I liked what Armstrong wrote about how mythos and logos were both considered equally important and complementary. Logos, has always been necessary to plan and organize. For example, people needed to use logos to make efficient weapons. However, logos has its limitations, which mythos makes up for. I think both are necessary for a complete understanding of God and Scripture.
ReplyDeleteThe question is though: how much must we rely on mythos? I mean to say that there must be a balance between logos and mythos, otherwise if there is too much myth and not enough reason, then is it something worth beliving? Does that influence one's belief in one way or another? Something to think about...
ReplyDeleteIt's a great question to consider, though Armstrong points out how the two must be balanced because they are complementary.
DeleteBased on the comments it's pretty evident that logos alone cannot bring us closer to acquiring the divine truths. But what about mythos? What would our society be like with a higher value on it than logos? Do you think a dependency on one is worse than a dependency on the other?
I believe that certain ways we worship have taken away from our faith that we develop ourselves. Our faith has been created and dictated towards us and in the modern world the meaning of God and the means to which we contact him have been changed. The modern world, especially Hollywood portrays God as a figure we only go to in times of need or deep confusions and appeals to our logos. However in the ancient world religion was taught through mythos. God has been placed on a “backburner” to our social and work lives. We, as a society, tend to go to church for logos rather than the mythos.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Laura and how some Catholics only attend church to escape the wrath of their parents and due to superstitions. Through the mythos and logos combined one can truly learn and appreciate God and come to a deeper understanding of God. True faith requires more than just logos and church. To have true faith mythos, logos and understanding must be combined and practiced.
The literal interpretation of the scripture can be detrimental in terms of understanding God. However, one must consider that the Scripture may be the only viable tool that aids people in their comprehension of the greater mysteries that elude us today. Even though there can be literal interpretations of a text, many meanings can be drawn. The only varying factor in this equation is our own perception of what the text represents to us today. We are shaped by our society and thus we shape the meaning and even the message that comes with it as well. As we have progressed through time, we as a people have become more scientific in our approach to understanding as well. With this in mind, we hold quintessential in our minds the exact nature of words. What I mean by this nature is that however the words are placed within the text that is how they should be interpreted. Because of this unfortunate circumstance, we have obscured the meaning of God and the faith within our culture today.
ReplyDeleteNowadays, more people seem to rely on logos than mythos to explain things because as society has become more advanced, people have become more inclined to seek empirical evidence as answers to questions. I think that logos can hardly be used to explain religion though because there are so many things about religion that are unexplained. Faith is a mysterious thing and the only way to acquire it is to let go of reasoning and accept myth, to a certain extent. I would agree that the current way we worship has taken us away from true faith because we are trying to find answers too often where there are none and there comes a point where, in order to have faith, we have to stop looking and simply start believing.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteLindsay- I 100% agree with what you said ("in order to have faith, we have to stop looking and simply start believing"). As a modern people, we too often are searching for concrete answers when it would be more beneficial for us to believe in what God's word says and to apply it to our lives, either literally or figuratively.
DeleteIn Fr. Jude's homily tonight, he said that we cannot put limits on the Bible which has no limits. I agree with him that we must implement God's word in our lives in any and all ways possible in order to have true faith and religion.
However, I do not agree that because of how we worship we are being taken away from true faith. Our answer seeking may cause a deterrence, but I do not think our rituals and rites hinder our faith in anyway. Rather, I think they help us to see and actively take part in our faith in order to grow and develop in God.
First, I would like to go back to earlier discussions about religious rites and their relationship to faith. It's true that, if the practitioner is not careful, rites and traditions can easily become perfunctory and become a convenient way to be 'religious' without being truly faithful. However, I agree with Sarah in that they are still very important to our understanding of God and help us “access truth” as we mentioned in class. Of course, if these practices are to help us grow in our faith, they must be approached with sincerity and attentiveness rather than with passiveness and detachment.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I really like Caitlin's point about how our culture tends to view God as some abstract idea that we appeal to only when we're really desperate rather than making Him a part of our daily lives; this is something that I believe Armstrong would attribute to the over-emphasis of logos and under-valuing of mythos because it results from the opinion that we can figure things out on our own through logos and do not need God, but when we are truly in need then we realize that our reason and abilities are limited and we do, in fact, need God, which reminds us of the inadequacy of logos by itself and the need for God, approached through mythos.
I think there are two sides to the coin.. or maybe three or four... (use logos on THAT!) I think a problem that our society faces is the idea that we can systematically categorize, understand, and learn EVERYTHING. People live in a positivist way, that is, thinking everything can be logically explained and reduced to a scientific method. Yet to understand that you aren't the master of the universe takes courage. To have enough humility to recognize that we don't understand everything and we're very small in the grand scheme of things.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, people of faith can tend to slap the answer of God on everything. We don't necessarily understand Him, but we can see His effects concretely and it is only through a relationship with Him that we can live life to its fullest. We need that direct knowledge in order to have faith, we can't just will ourselves to believe. That's what Christianity is: God, ubiquitous and timeless, entering our finite world in a specific place and time. And so... it's not so much that we BELIEVE, but instead we KNOW!
I do not think at all that ritual has taken away from true faith in God. Lack of ritual or disconnect from ritual, I believe, is dangerous in that it creates relativistic faith – in the sense that people shape the image of God to fit their beliefs- moral, philosophical, or political. If people do not participate in rituals, then they find religious experiences elsewhere. These experiences do not necessarily have anything to do with faith, though they may. Rather, these experiences could be any philosophical or moral experience, which could substitute for a morality based on faith in God. And in finding those experiences elsewhere, they can be influenced by various moral ideas that don’t coincide with or go against faith. Politics is an example of a dangerous platform in which people find a pseudo-religion. Today, so many people believe in government - in its redemptive qualities that there is always a solution to the problem and that government can fix it to bring Heaven on earth. Some believe that government should not legislate morality… (this is impossible because any law or government plan has, at its root, an idea of how man should act as an individual in society). In sum, faith and ritual go hand in hand. If there is no ritual, then faith is weakened. When one’s faith is weak, they may look to other ideas for the answers to life’s questions.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with everyone on the point that logos blinds us from discovering a meaningful faith in God. Logos brings about sameness on a subject that is undefined and open to interpretation. Mythos allows us to question what we believe in order to develop a deeper and stronger understanding of who God is to each of us. It also allows us to explore the meaning of our existence as we attempt to discover God’s purpose for us in this world. It is thus the basis of religion. I thought Armstrong did a wonderful job of explaining this idea by considering the definitions of Logos and Mythos. In the process, she makes a compelling case that religion is something worth practicing because of its mythos.
ReplyDeleteToday, I feel that many of us lose track of this idea. Until I came to Catholic, logos was a major part of my faith. I went to church Sunday and said my prayers at night. I was part of a society that taught me to worship one way, and I was ignorant enough to believe that was the extent of faith in life. When I got to Catholic, a different society led me to think outside of the confinements of one thought and to practice pursuing an understanding of God’s eternal mysteries through a deeper faith. My life feels so much better as a result, but someone else might not feel the same. God created many societies to help us explore his eternal mysteries. We categorize society as only one thing because of the effect that the mainstream media has had on all of us, though. Societies are integral in transference of thoughts and human development, especially in faith. Each society is different, and each of us chooses our own society to mold us how ever severely we want. It is our choice, so we cannot blame anyone but ourselves if we do not like the results that society has on us. God is as big or small as we want him to be. True faith is inside of us. It has not been taken from us. We just have to find it. Some will hear the call to pursue it while others will not. The choice is ours.
I believe the relationship between faith and reason is an extremely important one. Reason allows one to understand many aspects of our world. Reason is logical and is oriented to the empirical and tangible. However, if one relies completely on reason, some of the most important parts of life are unexplainable and devalued. For example, the joy of music or the beauty and stillness of snowfall are both awe inspiring and stir something within us which is beyond reason. Reason cannot explain why merely seeing snow affects our attitude and disposition to life. This is because there is something beyond reason. As we talked about in class, we are attracted to the good, the true, and the unitive. These all compel us to seek God is His goodness, in His truth, and His unity. Ultimately, we know that there is something beyond reason which pushes us to understand and be a part of this world. This is where faith steps in. Faith is both a gift from God and a personal choice to believe and respond to God's truth. I think faith has serious implications if thought about. If we actually believe that there is a God and he love us infinitely and faith is a way to respond to His love, then how can this knowledge not affect our lives? True belief cannot be detached from reality and real life. If faith is not merely given a fleeting thought, it must affect every aspect of our lives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Armstrong and my classmates that over application of logos is a major cause of problems within religion. The problem with logos alone is that it builds off the premise that we can understand what we are examining completely in an empirical way. We cannot do this with God because God is incomprehensible to the human senses and capabilities. However, God has revealed himself through scripture and tradition, so, in a limited way, we can understand certain aspects of Him.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I find it fascinating that many of the comments seem to dismiss the need for logos in religion, as my initial belief in God is based on a logical argument. My parents raised me Catholic, but my faith didn’t become my own until reason showed me why I should have faith. I followed the traditions dutifully, but until I applied logos, the mythos was unable to affect me. Mythos and logos complement each other, each building on what the other allows us to experience. By knowing the reasons for the various rituals—the parts of the mass, the practices for lent and Easter, the stories of saints—my faith increased and I could experience Catholicism on a deeper level. The same is true about reading theologians’ work in other areas. When we consider some of the texts we have already read—Aquinas and Dei Verbum—the search for truth is made by means of logic, and can aid in increasing our understanding and belief.
Like Rhodes said, faith and reason go hand in hand--however, faith will always trump reason if there is a conflict. As the Church reminds us, scientific truths cannot beat out religious Truths. I did not really like Armstrong's article because she seemed, in my view, to undervalue the truths behind science and scholasticism. I love Aquinas--while his method may make God appear to be something we can understand, I think that Aquinas keeps in mind that no one can truly know God. I read recently that the Eastern Churches use "negative theology", wherein they believe that our words can only describe what God isn't. I think that the claims in the article line up more with that, but the claims should not discredit the long Catholic tradition of aligning reason with our Faith.
ReplyDeleteAs Lucy pointed out, logos is necessary for the mythos to be effective. While many of us would like to think that we believe something just because the Bible or a priest told us we should, often times we do not completely believe it until we experience something that makes that belief seem logical to us. For example, it is impossible to know exactly how much God loves us, but we can come to understand that His love for us is vast and unending. If humans only had to rely on the mythos to believe and be perfect Christians, then I do not think there would be as many atheists as there are. I guess when it comes to faith logos does not mean completely understanding everything that is occurring, but rather that the beliefs make sense and are real. Because once a belief is made real to a person, it is hard to forget that experience or the feelings that came along with it.
ReplyDeleteLogos is not the way to grasp fully the reality of God. If it were that way, then God would merely be another code or artificial construct made by man. The rational process does let the practicioner observe and appreciate the beauty of creation. In that way, logos would then be related to the likeness of God found in everyone of us. Religious and non-religious thinkers alike seek empirical proof in Scripture, history, etc. to answer theological questions. But the basis of Christianity is the fact that our salvation relies on the power of a mystery, hence the coming into play of mythos. Therefore, our rituals emphasize the mythical ubiquity of God throughout our world. These elements can be found in Oriental traditions too (Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism). That is to say, the God we know is much more experiential than we thought. In such a way, believers can meditate and open their minds to the presence of God. These emotional bonds linking us to God are stronger, in my opinion, than the logos that desires explanation.
ReplyDeletei agree with david's comment in that in our daily world we too heavily rely on logos, and are unable and even unwilling to believe in something that we can not fully fathom or understand. yet, similarly believers are all to ready to answer everything with God, which can make believing seem ridiculous even to believers. i think thinking critically about our theology and faith is important and especially fruitful because knowledge increases love. i love it when reading Aristotle, one of the greatest philosophers of all time, speaks in accordance with the faith that i believe. and t is great to know that many of the theological doctrines that define my faith are founded upon the works of Aristotle and great philosophers alike.
ReplyDelete