Aquinas followed Aristotle in regarding perception as the starting point and logic as the intellectual procedure for arriving at reliable knowledge of nature, but he considered faith in scriptural authority as the main source of religious belief.
-- At this point I would say belief could be based on reason.
Descartes ...Thus, in a manner of speaking we could know God through reason and the examination of nature, which he supposed to be logical and based on a few premises.
Here Here!
Hegel used this insight to examine the development of phenomena in consciousness, in an attempt to show that there was progressive revelation, both historically and in the individual consciousness, and therefore a hypothetical endpoint where all that is rational about the object is comprehended. He argued that the standpoint of absolute knowledge was possible at his historical juncture, because history had essentially fulfilled itself.
--Say what? I would say he is reverting back to Aquinas, saying belief is based on faith, and that as time wears on and the stones speak (archeology) and prophecies come true, that reason allows one to believe in religion without faith. Is that the same as revelation?
But, the door is wide open now. I can see it.
I really appreciate your posts. And looking forward to reading your recent one on post-Hegel. I have stated on SI before that I believe that the Declaration of Independence is the pinnacle of philosophy, and has gone down hill ever since. Basically a dead art. Dead because it is entirely devoid of God. I will engage the article with an open mind however. When I was younger I read "Judas My Brother" by Yerby. A great challenge to a person's faith, I think. But I feel I read it with an open mind, and that the meat just wasn't there to compel a change of belief. Not that I view your post as threatening! Lol. Just saying I am open minded.
Please do not hesitate to flame me for being a bone-head. Growing up with a name like Walter, I have a rather thick skin. |
