Reading the Church Fathers discussion
This topic is about
City of God
Augustine of Hippo: City of God
>
Book V. Fate, Free Will and the Foreknowledge of God
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Nemo
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mar 14, 2019 11:15PM
In the first part of book V, Augustine defends the doctrine of free will against the pagan idea of Fate, and astrology's claim.
reply
|
flag
You choose a day for taking a wife. The reason, I suppose, is that unless the day is carefully chosen you might hit on an unlucky day and make an unhappy marriage. But where, then, is the fate decreed for you by the stars at your birth?I enjoy it when he takes an argument, as if it were valid, and then shows how it leads to an absurd conclusion.
At the end of chapter 7 he writes: But, in fact, it is only to human beings that God has given free will!Would everyone in those times agree with that? Or is he now introducing his own opinion as opposed to what the astrologists say.
Beginning of chapter 8: There are some, however, who use the word “fate” not for the position of the stars at the moment of a thing’s conception or birth or beginning but rather for the chain and sequence of all causes, due to which everything that happens happens.Now this seems very similar to what modern atheists say. But later in this chapter Augustin seems to agree with this point of view. How can that be?
But it is precisely because he is omnipotent that some things are not possible for him.I am reminded of a rabbi who said that we humans have something that God has not: we are limited.
This Is a non sequitur: whoever along time ago said the Great courses on the city of God was a great piece of teaching, was not lying. Whoever said that thank you for recommending it.
So I’ve seen Augustine’s rhetoric throughout the first four books, but the fifth book, he switches gears into overdrive! The pure reason is utterly amazing. Especially halter 9 & 10. However, tending toward the Armenian “free will” side personally, but currently reading Calvin’s “Institutes” and his reliance on Augustine’s arguments and landing in predestination, I’m wondering if Augustine will every clearly state a position?
John Angerer wrote: "tending toward the Armenian “free will” side personally, but currently reading Calvin’s “Institutes” and his reliance on Augustine’s arguments and landing in predestination, I’m wondering if Augustine will every clearly state a position?"If you're wondering whether Augustine will ever take side on free will vs. predestination, I think the answer is No; if you're wondering whether he will clearly state his position, the answer is Yes. His position on the issue is as clear as it can be: both free will and predestination are true.
John Angerer wrote: "whoever along time ago said the Great courses on the city of God was a great piece of teaching, was not lying. Whoever said that thank you for recommending it."That would be Ruth.
Ruth wrote: "At the end of chapter 7 he writes: But, in fact, it is only to human beings that God has given free will!Would everyone in those times agree with that? ..."
That human beings have free will? Yes. There would be no justification for law if there is no free will.
Cicero expounds the notion of natural law in his book The Republic and The Laws, in which he explains that man's free choice of will is the basis of Roman law. So I think Augustine is right in saying that Cicero rejects foreknowledge because he wants to defend free will.
Nemo wrote: "That human beings have free will? Yes. There would be no justification for law if there is no free will."Aha, I see. And also just noticed in chapter 10 that apparently the Stoics had invented some ways of distinguishing various causes, in order to maintain that we have free will.
The notion that humans might not have free will is apparently very modern? I mean for example the idea that our behaviour is completely determined by biological processes in our brain. A quick search on google gave me this interesting viewpoint on the downside of doubting free will:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...
Ruth wrote: "The notion that humans might not have free will is apparently very modern? I mean for example the idea that our behaviour is completely determined by biological processes in our brain...."I haven't come across anybody who argues against the existence of free will of man in my reading.
Biological process does not negate man's free will any more than it negates his ability to reason.
In chapter 12, on the Roman love of glory and virtue, the writers:How deeply this view was ingrained in the Romans is shown also by the fact that the two temples of the gods which they established closest to each other were those of Virtue and Honor (for they took as gods what are actually gifts from God)
I think this latter remark is very interesting to ponder. What do we devote our lives to, and what are the results? Who is God, and what are his gifts?
I can very well imagine that someone would like to devote his life to being virtuous. In a way it's almost the same as serving God, just as for example pursuing truth is very similar to worshiping God. But I listened to the audio course on this chapter this morning and there it was mentioned that one can very courageously (ie. virtuously) serve a tiran like some nazis were courageous, but served very wrong ends.
Ruth wrote: "I can very well imagine that someone would like to devote his life to being virtuous. In a way it's almost the same as serving God, just as for example pursuing truth is very similar to worshiping God. ."If Christianity is true, all virtues and pursuits of truth ultimately lead to God, and, although secular humanism also pursues virtu and truth, it stops on the way before reaching the ultimate end.
I haven't read any books written by Nazis, so I can't say I understand why they did what they did. But if one is courageous in the wrong cause, it means that he is actually cowardly in the right cause, for he does not courageously do what he ought to do.
Ruth wrote: "There are some, however, who use the word “fate” ... for the chain and sequence of all causes, due to which everything that happens happens.Now this seems very similar to what modern atheists say. But later in this chapter Augustin seems to agree with this point of view. How can that be?"
I haven't met an atheist who argues from chain of causes, so I can't say I understand the argument. I think Augustine is saying that whatever "causes" there are, God is the ultimate cause of those causes. The free will of man being a case in point.
There is an interesting debate about "causes" between two philosophers Edward Feser (Catholic) and Arif Ahmed (Atheist) on YouTube. It's a very civil and informative debate, but I get the feeling that they are talking past each other most of the time, because they are not thinking in terms of the same conceptual categories, which rather reminds me of the Tower of Babel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A48zs...
