Friday, January 17, 2020
Concept Of God In Philosophy Essay
Please explain Immanuel Kant’s challenge to modern theology. In other words, what is Kant’s epistemology, i.e., his theory of how human beings know (how the mind functions)? According to this theory, then, is it possible to know God? Is it possible to have natural knowledge of God or to experience God in his view? How would Christian theologians and believers, who wanted to demonstrate the rational intelligibility of belief in and knowledge of God, respond to this? (10 points).            Immanuel Kant started with the hypothesis that: â€Å"the mind is active†. It forms part in the understanding of human especially if it is already acquainted with different kinds of experience and always imposes upon cognition in any forms given that it is still in the line of human perception.            However he said that not all things are connected to each other because in a way, they are not observable which gives the presumption that its connectivity is not determined by that simple idea. And also, Kant said that we lack the necessary organ to accommodate all the information that the mind can and may process.                        The mind cannot produce knowledge of such a transcendent being (The Breakdown of the Religion of Reason, p. 65). He also showed that, God is supposed to be perfect in all aspects of life. He followed what was written by Anselm during the 11th century and presented concrete evidences for such actuation. However, he wishes not to contradict the existence of God because it will also oppose that the predicate of a subject is not logical to use. He added that it will be a useless thing to do since there will be no contradiction because of his given analogy. Since existence is not a predicate, if I deny God’s existence, I am not denying a predicate of a subject; hence no logical contradiction is involved as the proponents of the argument contend. (Modern Christian Thought, p.66)            And he also argued that there is a limit for a human to our own empirical knowledge against the pure point of our operative life. Instead, this empirical knowledge is completely independent and the principles of pure reason.            Additionally, he said that human act morally not because of inclination to a certain event or object but because of one’s sense of duty. To act morally is not to act from inclination or even prudence but from a sense of duty (The Breakdown of the Religion of Reason, p. 69) What are the some of the most basic characteristics and values of the Enlightenment? What are the chief enlightenment values and how do these compare with those values/characteristics of the medieval era? Define the Enlightenment view of freedom and reason. Use your text on e-reserve. Then, respond: how would a theologian (like me) understand the promise and problem of these views from a theological (having to do with God) perspective?  (5 points).            The Enlightenment brought about change in man’s perception of the world and the society. According to Kant that the gist of the said idea is something that is already embedded to the line of thinking of a person and that it shows on up to what extent is a man capable or willing to do to suffice his own interest. Underlying this whole movement is a renewed awareness and trust in man’s own capacities and appreciation of, interest in, and hope for human life on this earth (Modern Christian Thought, p.2)            It was also during this time that â€Å"authoritarianism and the emergence of individual reason†started to spread amongst the people. From this time on, there is already a widespread of being liberated or freed from any entanglement to any person. It was then that autonomy is seen on a different perspective and remarkably, no one challenged the said idea.            Accordingly, there is another major contribution during the time of Enlightenment. The act of reasoning also became widespread following Francis Bacon and John Locke. They are the ones who defied the first idea given by Rene Descartes. It was then that Reason is treated as something that is a vital and progressive force; the depth of its meaning can be deduced by its function which can create many avenues to determine fact from opinion. How does Friedrich Schleiermacher respond to Kant’s challenge to modern theology? How do human beings come to know God according to Schleiermacher? What, then, is the subject of theology for a theologian like Schleiermacher? (10 points)            Schleiermacher defined what he thinks to be the true nature of religion and the conception of its idea. With this kind, there are two (2) forms of religion such as theoretical or practical point of view. He added that religion should be â€Å"something different from a mixture of opinions about God and the world, and of precepts of for one life or two†.            He also argues that if religion is the highest form of knowledge it should follow that reason or any scientific method can be measured by any organ. Also, he adds that if religion can be attained by reading materials such as books, journals, etc, then the most religious person should also be the most intelligent one. And, he clarified that neither religion nor morality should be interchanged or be treated as the same.            Religion is a feeling thus it is only a psychological emotion claiming that it is an immediate intuition or is based on one person’s instinct. However, he clarified that God need not to be present in any object or present Himself in such a way that He will be tangible for human.            He said that no man is religious because he was able to read doctrines and follow it thoroughly and experience different kinds of things instead, piety emancipates from one’s own original feeling and not because other people told him to be as such. What are some of the most basic characteristics and values of Romanticism, the intellectual movement of the 19th century which following the Rationalism of the Enlightenment in the 18th century. How does Schleiermacher reflect the ideas of Romanticism? (5 points)            Romanticism as what Schleiermacher have seen it, it is a new way for â€Å"modern religious†thoughts have a foundation or ground that will suffice the needs, interest and critiques of most people especially the Philosophers.            By giving this idea to the people, he wanted to show to them that what religion they have been rejecting all the while is not at all the religion that they need to embrace and understand deeply. Rather, it is the â€Å"external†religion that they are despising all the while and that this kind of religion is something that should not be studied or known at all.            He also wanted to defy the opinions that were raised during that time about the religion on utilitarianism. Schleiermacher claims that if there is a certain point when the issue is not coherent with its true value, then it is something that should not be wasted time upon.            However, he contradicts his own perception by saying that religion has a peculiar sense that is indispensable when talking about the spirit of man. Modern theology in the 19th century followed the thought of Friedrich Schleiermacher and his way of doing theology. What major event occurred at the beginning of the 20th century that convinced Karl Barth that the entire way of doing modern/liberal theology was deeply problematic and morally bankrupt? (5 points) One major event that made Barth think that doing liberal theology is problematic and morally bankrupt is when the Church always assumes that they are infallible or those who does not do anything wrong to any one and at the end of the day, surrender their selves to the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ. This is when Barth said that â€Å"hermeneutical principles of subordination and surrender have nothing to do with the kind of biblical or ecclesial authoritarianism†. Because according to him, having a superior and an inferior means that there should be an effort to remove one’s self from interpretative process instead focus on neither human basic needs nor the desire for authority. How does Karl Barth understand that human beings may come to know God? Do we have a natural capacity, i.e., an ability within human nature and thus apart from God, to know God? (10 points)            We should cultivate a life that is humble and each should not cease on praying before Him, listening actively to His teachings in order for us to know what are the things that we really need.            He added that to â€Å"let go†of the material and human needs that we have right now is a preparation for us to know God fully. Leaving things would eventually prepare us from knowing how the real God is and that we will have a much clearer understanding on why He created things.            Also, by leaving things, we do not need to carry on an excess baggage that may sometimes hinder us from knowing who God really is. What happens when human beings claim to know God on the basis of their own experience or their own thinking about God? What happens when human beings try to know how Jesus was on the basis of their own historical reconstruction or psychological evaluation of him? Why is this so dangerous? How is it to be avoided? Can it be avoided? What is the only way, according to Barth, that purely human thinking about God can be avoided?  (10 points)            When we experience things, it means that, in one way or another we have already met God. However, each person has a different meaning on things especially with their experiences. It can be connoted as something that is dangerous for them but pleasant to others. That is why there is a misconception on which our God really should be.            It is dangerous because people are worshipping other gods and is prone to misunderstanding especially to those who have a different encounter with their own gods. It can also be a way of having the society is fragmented since there are different sides of the story on how they were able to encounter god.            Proper interpretation of things can somehow avoid this kind of fragment among the people. However, only few are able to interpret the story well and still leaves the danger hanging and vulnerable to anyone who tries to interpret anything. What is theology for Barth? How should the theologian attempt to do theology?  What do faith, prayer, and obedience have to do with this method or way of theological reflection? Define faith, prayer, and obedience for Barth. (10 points)            Obedience as it is being co-related to faith, according to Barth, is something that â€Å"can simply turn on at moment of one’s choosing†. By these, it is one way for God to connect with his people and confront them in their own freedom and history.            Needless to say, one’s interpretation of things should be accorded with obedience in order to examine personal experience and relate it to the scripture or passage that is being taught. For him, the writers should not write about anything that will be later on associated with them, rather they should write about an experience that is interlaying with the scripture that they are reviewing.            With prayers, he said that it is not necessary to endlessly pray to God, admit it or not, we are not all the time confident that God is listening to our prayers. What is scripture according to Karl Barth? How does this reflect a deeply theological understanding, i.e., an understanding that comes from God. And, how does this reflect a deeply human and modern understanding of the role of human beings in the writing of the Bible? Is the Bible already the Word of God i.e., the words on the page, for Barth, or does the Bible become the Word of God? If so, when does it become the Word of God? What happens to make it become the Word of God? (10 points)            A scripture, according to Barth is something that is written about God and will be relevant or at least be a human testimony of God’s existence and all the things that he did in history.            He tends to interpret scriptures, known as hermeneutics, to help biblical scholars to understand the true meaning of each. And with that, he tends to extend some of his arms to other people in terms of helping them suffice whatever struggle they have.            However, with his interpretations does not come any personal experience. He writes some of his experience but does not delve much on to it. Rather, he makes a deeper study on why those things were said and how the people did then accepted or rejected the fact that things are happening during their time.            The Bible is the Word of God because it contains His teachings and the moral lessons that we need to learn in life. However, not all teachings can be found in the Bible. Some should be experienced first hand in order for us to learn new things. According to Rosemary Radford Ruether, what does all theology begin with? What is the problem with the so-called â€Å"objective†sources of Christian theology, i.e., scripture and tradition? And, what is unique about feminist theology and the role of experience in theology according to Ruether? What is the hermeneutical circle of theological interpretation? What is the final norm/criterion of theological truth? (10 points)            Theology is the testimony of one’s faith, life and service to God. Theology actually questions it self whether or not they are true or not. There are specific gauge that is used in order for Theology to be considered true, they measure their action, talk about God, and if it is against the Church. It is also something that is alien with its own standard; source and object.            On the other hand, the feminist theology uses experience as a criterion for exploring a much deeper sense of study and critical forces based on the experience of males that eventually gives them the notion as a universal human experience. What is the prophetic biblical principle interpreted from a feminist perspective? What are the four main categories of feminist liberation theology? Cite biblical passages that show you understand how the Bible can be used to fight the root sin of domination and subjugation. (5 points)            Those females are only second-grade citizens compared to male. Because then, there is a stereotype in gender since other scholars claim that males are wiser than female. Also, the Patriarchal system exists that time and that same idea is molded upon the image of God, reasoning that God is male.             There is also a prophetic traditional labeled as â€Å"cultural vacuum†that makes true of the statement written above. It shows how the society is delving much on what they think is right because it is fair and just to all of them but on what is written in the scriptures. Compare and contrast the theology of Karl Barth with that of Rosemary Radford Ruther? How would Karl Barth critique Ruether? What would he say about the role of experience and the potential dangers involved in such a kind of theology? What would Karl Barth say about God in her theology? Does she have a role for the objective action of God in the world or is God only actualized in our consciousness and social activity for the poor and marginalized? How would Ruether respond to this critique? What would she say in her defense? In other words, what are the problems of beginning with scripture and tradition apart from women’s experience according to Ruether?  What would that do for or to women? Finally, how would Ruether criticize the theology of Karl Barth? What is the problem of beginning with revelation in scripture, and apart from women’s experience, according to Ruether? (10 points)            Barth and Ruether have completely different view points with regards to Theology and how they perceive such topic. With Barth, he is more of delving much on the experience of one person because from the experience they may be able to deduce something that is very vital for their survival. Also, he tends to focus more on the things that needs to be critically revised or interpreted using personal experiences he got from other people.            Barth is also confided with the norms of the society. He was not able to explore on other possible things and did not try to convince other people that there are other possibilities regarding their study.            With Ruether, she is more of a liberal thinker, given that there are points that she raised about feminist liberal theology. She was able to grasp on other ideas or methods to use in other to arrive at a much well interpreted scripture following the experiences of the writer or associating the moral of the scripture to any experience that of the writer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.