John Henry Newman said that having faith means "being capable of bearing doubt." RT's post is an outstanding example of what involves.
Here is my response to his question, which you should in context and not excerpted:
The classic definition of essence is "that which makes a thing what it is." But what makes this particular thing what it is in particular is precisely what it does not have in common with anything else. We are said to be made in the image and likeness of God. But God is the one, true singularity. Whatever derives from Him is necessarily singular. The many things of this world derive their being from the One, and reflect the One in terms of the irreducible uniqueness of each.
Frank, the notion that we are made in His image seems to me to be a Judeo-Christian notion. By extending the argument, does it mean that other religions -- if that is not their central precept -- are markedly deficient? Where does that leave Muslims, Hindus, and others now and throughout history? As you can see, my doubts are many but not rising to the level of making me an agnostic. Perhaps I should read William James' Varieties of Religious Experience again. And the quest continues!
ReplyDeleteI presume that Islam, as one of the Abrahamic religions, shares the Judeo-Cjhristian notion of our being masse in God's image. Hinduism and Buddhism and even Taoism, I guess, can be interpreted as suggesting that the self is illusory, thus leaving the question moot. Of course our true self would be the one God is creating at every moment of our lives, not the one we like to think we have constructed.
ReplyDelete