In reality....
What do we even mean when we say that?
Speaking for myself, I suppose it is to distinguish something from appearances: it looks like X, but in reality it is Y. Only man knows about reality because only man knows about appearances.
Come to think of it, most blues songs have this structure of appearance / reality. To boil it down to the essence, it would go something like: Had me a good woman once / Least I thought I did.
It also reminds me of a B.B. King song: Nobody loves me but my mother / and she could be jivin' too.
"In reality," writes Schuon (continuing with what he was saying yesterday about the theomorphism of human intelligence),
the laws of intelligence, hence also those of reason, reflect the laws of the divine Intellect; they cannot be contrary to it.
I'm going to stop him right there, not because Like anybody could know that!, but to highlight that God too is apparently subject to his own law:
God can do anything, but He cannot be contrary to His nature; He cannot not be God.
Conversely, Luther's God is not bound by any nature, such that, for example, if he decreed that murder -- or ignorance, or lying, or adultery -- was good, then it would be. But if God's nature is intelligence, then unintelligence can't be a virtue. And if He is good He can't be bad.
Schuon's story checks out: according to Gagliardi (Catholic Dogmatic Theology),
The Christian faith is a gift of the Logos, and thus it is deeply logical, not in the sense that the dogmas of the faith are the result of rational inferences, but in the sense that the truth of faith, though it surpasses rational truth, does not contradict it.
Moreover,
The human intellect, our little logos, is created by the divine Logos in its own image.... the Catholic et-et [i.e., both-and] never descends into a form of irrationalism; namely the oxymoronic reconciliation of contraries. It does not violate the principle of non-contradiction...
As above, so below: the micrologos is an image, creation, and projection of of the macrologos. And if God is on earth, then man is in heaven.
Gagliardi goes on to say that
Our perspective is that truth exists and that human beings -- along with all their known limitations -- have access to it.... Thus the human being can know the Truth about God and about what he wishes to reveal.
The point is, reality for us isn't merely existential or epistemological, but ontological and even trans-ontological, truly "in the nature of things." In short, we can say: in reality. It's not just a custom or convention.
Let's bring Schoun back into the discussion:
If the functions of intelligence were opposed to the nature of God, then there would be no need to speak of intelligence, precisely; intelligence, by definition, must be fitted to the knowable, which means at the same time that it must reflect the divine Intelligence, and this is why man is said to be "made in the image of God."
Except I wouldn't limit it to intelligence (nor would Schuon), since there are also love, beauty, virtue, etc.
As to Luther and other fideists who "scorn intelligence," the question arises of how and why God
could have endowed man with an in instrument of perception which provides what is contrary to reality, or provides it in an arbitrary manner beyond a certain level? For it is obvious that if certain philosophers deny God -- those precisely who detach reason from its roots -- it is not because reason obliges them to do so, otherwise atheism would be natural to man.
After all, everything has a sufficient reason. To exclude human intelligence -- of all things! -- from this axiom is not only arbitrary, it's self-canceling:
Is it with the intelligence that we should admit that intelligence is intrinsically incompatible with the knowledge of God?
In conclusion -- because I have to leave, not because there's nothing more to say -- "in reality" we're describing a kind of expanding circle that spirals from God down to us and then back up again:
To the extent that God makes Himself the object of our intelligence, it is He Himself who knows Himself in us...
20 comments:
It's amusing, actually, to see men using their God given free intelligence to deny and disparage intelligence and its reflection of Him. I don't think God thinks it's funny, though.
Philosophy:
https://existentialcomics.com/
Blues song - just because. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQRnvmf_fsk
"...But if God's nature is intelligence, then unintelligence can't be a virtue. And if He is good He can't be bad..."
I'd just suggest, that in place of those "can't"'s (struggling mightily to suppress the urge to make a Kant joke), we put "won't"'s - they're more meaningful and reliable.
(God's " He can't be"'s, that is)
Is this the same Luther who started out trying to convert the Jews, and after much frustration, wound up hating them so much he laid the foundations of Nazism?
I know atheists who just want proof. They say, set a table at the family Thanksgiving for Jesus and if he appears, even briefly, then they'll be praying like the dickens to make up for lost time. Maybe Luther's Jews just wanted proof. Or, to be told enough times what fools they were for not feeling that proof.
The proof is everywhere.
That people have a bad habit of ignoring and/or forgetting the truth is a story as old as the beginning. Or did you never hear the one about how the Israelites, having just been led out of bondage by an absolutely dazzling set of ongoing miracles, decided to make a golden idol and worship that while Moses was up on the mountain getting further instructions?
In the face of proof, even when it's accepted, all too often people are inclined to demand, "well, what has he done for me lately?"
Proofs for the existence of God abound for those who do not need them.
You know what's really significant?
The passing of time.
The significance
Of
The passing
Of
Time.
Significant.
Nicolás shoots, and scores again!
"Proofs for the existence of God abound for those who do not need them."
Indeed. Case in point, I correctly installed a brass valve per strict instructional manual which then mysteriously leaked. Had I not done everything right? Miffed, I went to YouTube and found a video from an honest looking guy who advised using plumbing sealant on top of the tape. When the camera panned back, I saw he was wearing a Romans 8:28 tee shirt, and knew his advice would work. And it did!
But then I read further and became confused again. Please advise.
I know a kid who likes to ask people questions, then when they try to answer he slaps his hands over his ears and starts yelling or saying stupid repetitive nonsense, or just yells at them to shut up.
Nobody likes that kid. Not even his mama.
But what if that kid's mama was even stupider?
Seriously Daisy, I've never known a single kid who asked questions then slapped their hands over ears and started yelling stupid repetitive nonsense. Not a single one.
But adults? Sadly, many.
To clarify, I was asking about the conflict (my interpretation) seen Romans 8 between free will and predestination. If you answer clearly, then I promise to not slap hands over ears and yell any stupid nonsense. I'll just thank you for your time.
If you've never met someone like that, consider yourself fortunate. I've know a few, and not just little kids.
As far as Romans 8 goes, it's true. Really don't know what else to say about that.
Thank you Daisy. I’ll admit, I’ve never known a severely autistic child.
As for God, how else can an all-knowing everywhere-all-the-time being be? No matter where you go, or even him, there he’s already been. I still find it interesting how Jesus tried very hard to modify the predestination equation. I’ve said it before, the only way that this all makes sense is that God is an artist because that’s all an omnipotent being can really be.
But then there’s this YouTube guy who claims that hell couldn’t possibly exit. At least not in the forms of our interpretations...
It is no coincidence that religiosity decreases as science education increases. It's also no coincidence that consumers of conspiracy theories and propaganda tend to be the most religious. Just look at the way Putin has coopted the Russian Orthodox Church, same way Trump has with the evangelicals. There is no coincidence these people are prime consumers of the Big Lie and various forms of science denial.
Neil deGrasse Tyson has pointed out factually that religiosity increases as education decreases, no coincidence. Most 'christians' don't even know what is in the bible, that it advocates for slavery and beating slaves, that it advocates for subjugation of women, that it mentions mythical stuff like unicorns, dragons, multi-headed beasts, miracles and magic. If science or most any doctrine did this, it would be widely discredited. In fact, a whole discipline of excuse making and rationalization has emerged to explain these problems ... it's called apologetics.
A few lines are enough to demonstrate a truth. Not even a library is enough to refute an error.
It's amusing, pathetic and telling that this particular troll thinks it can somehow shame us by first telling us that only stupid people have faith, and that it knows and understands the Bible better than we do. And further, it does so by citing Neil DeGrasse Tyson as its appeal to authority.
There is no God, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson, of all people, is his prophet.
Actually, it is appropriate that such a terminal midwit should advocate such a terminally midwitted metaphysic.
Which is also -- obviously -- a religion, only worse. But we'll let that pass.
Post a Comment