Replies

And to follow up on my previous post, I'm not suggesting that there is some kind of unbridgable dichotomy between faith and reason (as alot of folks seem to think today when they talk about religion vs. science), or between reason and revelation so that ... faith and revelation are [held to be] ultimately unreasonable. Nor am I suggesting that faith should not be subject to an examination by reason, or the other way around...

On the other hand, I agree with Hank that there is a certain amount of Manicheism and Platonism - I might say also gnosticism - that has permeated popular Christianity.

Cat baby, whar the hail is the basis that equates Plato[nism] with Manicheism?

There is nothing in Plato (or Christianity) that says "the world" of physical nature is (categorically) "bad."

After decades of study, I have found nothing in Plato that wants to "run away" from physis, that is, from natural bodily existence. In fact, the point I think he makes abundantly clear is that psyche-in-soma is indivisible in human existence -- that is to say, in human lived experience, mind (reason, consciousness) -in-soma (physical body) is seemingly innately understood as the process of becoming "itself" (that process of "in-between reality" that seeks to realize being in existence).

The two are parts of one synergistic Whole; and are therefore indivisible in principle.

Fast forward here to the famous curse of the modern age, that burning, seemingly irreconcilable issue first noticed by Rene Descartes. His was a take on reality that propounded a profound dualism in human life and nature, requiring the complete separation of body and spirit.

Plato would never have accepted Cartesian dualism as a reliable model by which "reality" might be reliably known and understood.

For Plato -- and later, Christianity -- the very notion of psyche-in-soma indicated a dynamic, synergistic whole constituted by seemingly mutually-contradictory parts.

For Plato, the "parts" of spirit and body may not be separated, detached from each other. For the "complete picture" of human and natural reality depends, in the long run at least, on the proper correspondance and correlation of two divinely-ordained principles that express and realize the divine paradign, "set up in heaven" -- described by the very language of the formulation, "psyche-in-soma."

So if you want to say that gnostics and Manichees espouse cosmic dualism as the reality behind nature and human experience, well, you're protected by the First Amendment. Plus you probably have a good deal of evidence on your side.

Just please don't impute this result either to Plato or Christianity. Neither espouses dualism in any way, shape, or form. Both seek the One source that alone makes intelligible what is actually seen in human existence and experience, as reflected and meditated by men who seek wisdom.

betty,

I didn't equate Manicheism with Plato or with Platonism, and Platonism is not (in my mind at least) to be equated with what Plato actually wrote or taught. Manicheism posits a cosmic duality; Platonists (as perhaps opposed to Plato) posit a microcosmic one - body and spirit or soul.
Both are wrong, at least in part.

At the same time, I think there are strands of both in Christianity as it is misunderstood by many. I don't blame Plato or Christianity for Christianity misunderstood.

Hank,

what I meant to say (and apparently didn't very well) was that faith is not inherently unreasonable, like some seem to wish, although it may involve more than reason only.
It's hard for me to disagree with most of what you said in post 69. I don't know what other knowledge there is that does not come to us via our senses through which it seems all of our concepts and ideas ultimately originate. Again, I don't see a conflict with Christianity, which teaches that throughout history God has intervened in various ways. One thinks immediately of pillars of fire and cloud, the ark of the covenant, the tablets on which the law was written, etc. in the OT and the physical person of Jesus in the NT and of course, as you pointed out, the Scriptures themselves. In fact, it seems that Christianity is to a great extent the history of God mediating himself to man through physical means.

And I'm sorry I called you a pagan (I assumed you weren't a Christian, and I don't use the term "pagan" perjoratively).

Alamo-girl,

I think anyone who looks will see the cat, just like anyone who looks with care will reach certain conclusions about man, his nature, the way we should behave and other things.
We can also conclude, through reason, that Jesus lived, that he made certain seemingly outlandish claims, that he performed miracles and even that he rose from the dead.
Concluding that one must commit one's self to Jesus fully is a bit different, although the former can play a role in the latter. Hey, I started this thinking we diagreed on something, but I guess we agree after all! It must be getting late.

Thanks.