Do you think that these writings really reflect the average medieval man? Weren't most of the writers and philosophers back then nobility, or at least the learned upper class?
The world is a much more complex, and populous place than it was in medieval times, I believe that mans ethos has evolved, along with societies. Of course the ethos have changed, but that is because man has. I believe, though, that men still hold those same things dear to him now, that they did then.
God exists as He reveals Himself, but I believe that He reveals Himself differently to individuals. If God's truth were universal, then why don't all men believe the same? I agree that scripture exists, but that says nothing of it's being a universal truth, just that it exists. I belief the universality of God's truth, is that it is revealed to individuals, resulting in individual beliefs. Beliefs that have no way of being proven or disproven.
I don't know, do today's books and newspapers relect the average man? True that the educated men of the time were either nobility or clergy. But the churches were filled with average men and women who learned from those clergy. Not to mention that the first schools were started by those clergy.
I believe that mans ethos has evolved, along with societies. Of course the ethos have changed, but that is because man has. I believe, though, that men still hold those same things dear to him now, that they did then.
Evolved? If you consider neo-barbarianism evolving then okay. I disagree. During those so-called dark ages the average man held God and Church above state; today, the State holds the position of supremacy.
If God's truth were universal, then why don't all men believe the same?
If facts are universal, why don't all men believe the same? Because man has a fallen nature and has an unfortunate tendency to pursue his own appetites than aknowledge an uncomfortable universal truth.
Again, if truth is not universal then how is communication possible?