PHILOSOPHY - Religion: Classical Theism 2 (In Favor of Classical Theism)

43문장 0% 일본어 번역 0명 참여 출처 : 칸아카데미
0 영상보기
영어 to
일본어
2단 보기 1단 보기
번역 0%

PHILOSOPHY - Religion: Classical Theism 2 (In Favor of Classical Theism)발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

(intro music) Hello! My name is Elmar Kremer. I'm a professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Toronto.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

In the last session, I set forth the philosophical approach to the nature of god known as "classical theism," and contrasted it with the main modern alternative known as "theistic personalism."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

In this segment, I want to go on to an argument in favor of classical theism.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

It begins with the premise that god is the first being, in the sense that all other things depend on god, and god does not depend on anything.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

It follows that (Proposition One) god causes the entire world of dependent things ex nihilo.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

It also follows that god is simple, i.e., not composite in any way.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Proposition 2 follows because, in Aquinas' words, “every composite is posterior to its component parts and dependent on them.”발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

From the first two propositions, it follows that (Proposition Three) there is only one causal act in god, and by it he causes ex nihilo whatever exists apart from himself.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Therefore, god and a creature are not causes in the same sense of the word.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But god causes as a person, that is, causes intelligently and voluntarily.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

It follows that god and a creature are not persons in the same sense of the word.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Proposition five is sufficient to show that theistic personalism is mistaken.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But it does not yet establish the more general claim that no positive descriptive expression is true of god and creatures in the same sense.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

To establish that more general claim is no easy task.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But according to Aquinas, if a positive description is true of a creature, the property or perfection it signifies exists in the creature as distinct from other properties, whereas proposition two makes it clear that all perfections exist in god in a united way.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

For example, when we apply the term “wise” to man, Aquinas says, we signify some perfection distinct from a man's essence, and distinct from his power and existence and from all similar things.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

By contrast, god's wisdom is not distinct from his essence or power or existence.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Hence, the expression “is wise,” or any other positive description, can not be true of god and a creature in the same sense.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

By this argument, we've arrived at (Proposition Six) no positive descriptive expression is true of god and a creature in exactly the same sense.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Let me then, next, consider some objections to classical theism.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

The first can be summed up in a slogan: "The god of the classical theists is not the god of the bible.”발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

The second objection is that classical theism makes god so mysterious that we can not think about him in a coherent way.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

If either argument is sound, then obviously classical theism is not an acceptable way of thinking about the god of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

In raising the first objection, theistic personalists do not deny that many of the statements about god in the bible are metaphorical.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Classical theists agree that many statements about god in the bible are metaphorical.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

They also agree that some are not metaphorical, including the statement that god loves the world.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But they hold that the non-metaphorical statements must be read in the light of the difference between god and created things.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

This view is born out by the meaning of the word “loves.”발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Love enriches and fulfills human beings.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

It is what we are made for.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But love does not enrich or fulfill god.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

For god, as the classical theist Robert Sokolowski puts it, "is capable of existing in undiminished goodness "and greatness even if the world had not been.”발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

In this view, god's love is not an enrichment of god, but rather the pure overflow of god's goodness, something quite unlike love in any created being.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Turning to the second objection, classical theists agree that god is mysterious and cannot be comprehended.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But that god is mysterious does not mean he cannot be thought about in a coherent way.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Rather, it means that our understanding will never be equal to or exhaust what god is.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Many philosophers, including Descartes, have thought that human freedom is also mysterious in that way.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Aquinas and Descartes compare our inability to comprehend god conceptually with our inability to embrace a mountain.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

You can touch a mountain, but you can't get your arms around it.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

It remains possible, according to classical theism, that god should reveal truths about himself that human beings could never discover by the use of their natural cognitive abilities.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Christian classical theists believe that all of revelation can be found in the bible, if it is properly interpreted.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But, to quote Sokolowski again, they also believe that "the most fundamental "intellectual requirement for understanding "the bible is that it be read in the light "of the Christian distinction between god and the world."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

칸아카데미 더보기더 보기

전체보기
Top