Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Ontology, Splontology!

I've just been reading Aquinas and a few other bods on arguments for the existence of God. Aquinas - "good 'ol, Tommy Ackers", as I used to call him - seems to use rather pedantic arguments in his famous five "proofs" or "ways"; riding on the wings of Aristotle. (Motion, Causes, Contingent Possibilities, Change, Design). I doubt that most pagans would be very impressed by them.

These assertions form a nest of what are called, cosmological and teleological arguments - i.e., deduced from the existence of the universe and from the order of things; so-called, arguments to design - that's a couple of new words for the day. These arguments seem to in be a kind of ontological loop; and a loop is not going to get us very far. Plantinga has resurrected some of these arguments (especially the ontological one, which originated from Anselm of Canterbury, by the way) so there is more here than meets the eye, perhaps.

You can read more of this stuff here: www.philosophyofreligion.info/theisticproofs.html

One of the things that does occur to me as I was reading through some of the later arguments from people like Anselm, (who made all of his investigations as prayers - famous dictum, "Faith seeking understanding - fides quaerens intellectum"), Gaunilo, (and his "Perfect Island"), Descartes (depending on our God-given mind for proof) and Kant (Ethical or moral proof), is that when Aquinas states at the end of each case, "this we call God", he finds it so easy to make this claim. It seems very matter of fact, casual almost. Such a generic statement, I attribute, is probably just a reflection of the waters he swam in - the world around him, the ideas we all grow up with. Moreover, it seems to me that how much and what we believe is directly related to the concepts we have received, learned or been exposed too.

How can we conceive of something or anything, without an idea being introduced to us (usually by an authority figure); a lens with which to view things, and a terminology or language to frame our reality - really, the perception or conception of that reality.

I wonder, for instance, whether people who grow up with a sense of faith from what they see and are told, are the most susceptible to belief, whatever the stripe. It seems obvious that it must lead to a perpetuation of faith. So does this necessarily apply across the board to all that a person believes? Is this just a part of socialization? Not that it does away with genuine faith, as though growing up in faith-filled home is an irresistible cause of personal belief, or a construction that we would otherwise have missed out on - though not always.

There are some who have made phenomenological arguments for God's existence, based on human experience, i.e., spiritual experiences, but this is also problematic. These are good fun to read, it must be said, unlike much philosophy and theology, which seem deliberately opaque and frequently dull. I would love to see art and more creativity set to work in these enterprises.

George Lindbeck, writing about post-liberal approaches to doctrine, makes the point that we are born into the world, or rather a culture, which informs and forms us; especially in terms of our religion. His view is called linguistic-cultural; though not strictly concerning proofs of God's existence, there are some parallels with my above discussion about faith-formation. This process could be referenced more broadly to other areas of development (not confined to faith-development). This process of formation, or inculcation of specifically religious values, behaviours, and norms, he says, is more than cognitive, though it does constitute fully, “comprehensive interpretive schemes”.

I would note that so many arguments (about our topic being discussed in this post) are put together mostly on a rational level. It is somewhat refreshing to go in a new direction - as Lindbeck does. I also appreciate Pascal’s focus on the heart, rather than just the noggin' (head). The faith-view we have is not merely developed or arrived at by cogitation of the little grey cells, it is something we breathe in and out. Okay, some did not inhale!

I like the idea of "Truth Myth", posited by Gary Dorrien, which indicates that our lives can be deeply enriched by the Big story of faith - something to sate the soul, not only the mind. Maybe, it is futile to try to prove there is a God - but there are evidences that beg the question, (such as the clearly historical basis of Christianity) nonetheless - and each of us have moments when they come knocking at our doors.

Cheers!

Peter