Thursday, April 26, 2007

St. Thomas Aquinas on the Explanation of Scripture

This is a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, Vol. 10 (written in 1272, roughly).
First the truth of Scripture must be held inviolable. Secondly, when there are different ways of explaining a scriptural text, no particular explanation should be held so rigidly that, if convincing arguments show it to be false, anyone dare to insist that it still is the definitive sense of the text. Otherwise unbelievers will scorn Sacred Scripture, and the way to faith will be closed to them.
How things might have been different if the church had taken these words seriously!

Sunday, April 22, 2007

A Second Response to Tara

Ok, so I'm still thinking about Tara's question in response to the Aristotle quote...
Do you think this statement implies that only an ignorant/naive person believes something they are told, to accept something before understanding it?
I’ve now processed the question from a whole different angle.

I would not go so far as to say that one who accepts something simply because he or she was told such is ignorant or naïve. What then would be trust? And, how could you then ever believe almost anything without extensive personal experience? (for to even read a book or manual would to be to accept something I was simply told)

I would go so far as to say that simply accepting second-hand is a potentially dangerous thing. Let me try and explain.

I do not understand electricity. Does that mean it doesn’t exist or that I am unwilling to use it? No. In fact I do both believe in it and use it (you might be surprised at that – HA!). However, my lack of understanding of electricity can be a dangerous thing. I can use it on a superficial level to my benefit, but to play with electricity on a more technical level without more extensive study, practice, and experience is very dangerous and could get me killed. Likewise, if I were to instruct another how to use electricity on a superficial level might also be beneficial for that person. However, if I were to instruct another on electricity at a more technical level, with no appropriate training and experience on my or their part could also get that person killed.

Here’s my touchy correlation. I may not understand the idea of God or theology. It doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist or that I can’t practice such belief. However, that lack of understanding can be a very dangerous thing. To assume that I can play with God by holding beliefs on a more technical theological level without more extensive study, practice, and experience is very dangerous on a psychological, social, and spiritual level. So, to encourage and instruct another on a theological level about the nature of God may be beneficial for that person on a more superficial level. However, to instruct (or condemn) without extensive study, practice and experience is very, very dangerous.

The church in the 15-1600’s subscribed to the Greek philosophical idea that the earth was the center of the universe and that the sun revolved around the earth. In fact, they had adapted their biblical understanding and theology to fully support that idea. To believe otherwise was heresy, sin, and deserving of death. However, this belief was adamantly held in the face of consistent astronomical evidence that such was not the case. Today we think this to be ridiculous. Everyone knows the earth revolves around the sun and no one interprets the Bible to support such a notion.

But my fear is, how many of these such beliefs still exist today. How many such attitudes and biblical interpretations are out there that are actually holding us back from discovery, better understanding about our universe, and interaction and relationship with God? I really don’t know. I don’t think anyone really can. And for that reason I hold many of my personal beliefs loosely.

Saturday, April 21, 2007

Response to Tara

In response to our Aristotle post, Tara asked the following question...
Do you think this statement implies that only an ignorant/naive person believes something they are told, to accept something before understanding it?
Intersting question T-Cat. I see how that could be read. That's not the direction I took it, though. My thought was the opposite, that an uneducated mind is more unwilling to even entertain thoughts unlike their own. Or, a trained mind can contemplate perspectives different than they believe without feeling the pressure to accept them.

For example, I do not claim to be a homosexual. However, I can certainly study homosexuality quite extensively (books, research, etc), as well as engage with homosexual friends and even interact in the gay community without subscribing to homosexuality myself. However, many people would consider that compromise of my beliefs because I am willing to contemplate and experience the gay lifestyle on a personal and social level (obviously I don't mean on a sexual level!). In their case, they would simply reject it from the point that they don't believe it and refuse to engage with another in that liefestyle. (more specifically, picture the person who adamantly claims that homosexuality is an abomonation to human design, a horrible sin, and completely anti-biblical, yet has never talked to someone who is gay, let alone ever having a gay friend.)

Does that make sense? I read Aristotle as making a statement about being close-minded vs. being open-minded. If you are willing to learn, to be educated, is to be open-minded... and it doesn't mean you are accepting everything you encounter/entertain. To be open-minded is to able to understand where someone else is coming from, to see life from their perspective - to be educated. To be close-minded is to judge right and wrong (in someone else) from predisposed bias, with no real personal experience, and thereby no true understanding – ignorance.

But maybe I read too much into it. :) Thoughts?

Thursday, April 12, 2007

70 mpg, Baby!



Some of you have heard the rumors... yes, we're slowly going Euro. We got a Piaggio Typhoon scooter for local transporation around Pasadena. It's like being in Europe again... except for that Hummer tailgating me!

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

That's What I'm Talking About!

Here's a fun quote from Aristotle's De Anima, book 2.
For any living thing that has reached its normal development and which is unmutilated, and whose mode of generation is not spontaneous, the most natural act is the production of another like itself.
Wahoo for "the most natural act!!!"

And yes... I'm still working on my paper.

Sunday, April 08, 2007

Aristotle

I'm researching a short paper I'm writing on Aristotle and I came across this quote.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
I guess that just strikes me because of people I've witnessed display a failure to grasp that concept.

Saturday, April 07, 2007

And the name goes on...

Robert Laufer Thurow IV was born on Good Friday to my brother, Rob and Sister-in-law, Ann who have already enjoyed the blessing of a sweet Emma Rae for 4 years. Anyway, he is too cute not to be on our page.

Friday, April 06, 2007

WWJRD

Pretty good thoughts!

CNN - What would Jesus really do?