Belief, by Francis S. Collins

January 27 Discussion Questions

Question 1:  Anselm is no doubt the only person to ever repeatedly use the term: “that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought.”  It just rolls off the tongue so smoothly, doesn’t it?  And he’s not referring to Michael Jordan…although that would be close.  Assuming you absorbed this line of reasoning without lapsing into a semi-coma, what do you make of this case for God’s existence?  Would Anselm’s circular argument provide any assurance or clarity for contemporary discussions on this topic?  Why are language & meaning – particularly theological – so difficult to transpose from one generation to another?  How do we bridge such gaps?

Question 2:  Aquinas offers five “proofs” for God’s existence.  Each of these is limited by abstract thought…providing little in the way of concrete, contextual demonstrations. (Aren’t you glad I don’t preach this way?)   Look at each proof again and imagine potential examples in our time…good luck! 

In “The Simplicity of God,” Aquinas explains what God is not, namely: God is not corporeal; not composed of matter and form; not in any genus; nor can there be any accident in God.  “God is, therefore, wholly simple…”  While it’s doubtful that any of these are in question today, can you imagine the mindset of the common person back in Aquinas’ day...along with healthy doses of superstition and a general lack of education that permeated that time and culture?  Even so, such an academic style of writing would have been accessible only to a select few.  Just for fun, let’s attempt the same task, but in our language.  Briefly complete these two sentences: 

God is not _________? 

God is _________?  Explain your responses.

Question 3:  John Locke carries on this discussion of God’s existence from a slightly different angle.  On page 55, he concludes, “There is no truth more evident than that something must be from eternity.”    His second conclusion is the distinction between cogitative and incogitative beings…material and immaterial.  Where have these distinctions surfaced in contemporary theological, philosophical, and scientific discussions of late?  How might we transpose such fundamental ideological components into a more coherent schema for current existential interpretations?  How do we explain our origins now?

Question 4:  In his first section, “Foundations,” Pascal claims that “we know the truth not only through our reason but also through our heart.”  Contemplation of the whole of nature is essential.  He takes great pains to lay out this process and to cite the shortcomings of those who disregard or are careless with the task of contemplation…even (gasp) philosophers!  Hubris aside, what are the common limitations we tend to experience in our efforts to examine the inward and outward dimensions of our perceived world?  How has your sense of humility before God been shaped by such contemplation of the heart?

In his second section, “Of the Need of Seeking Truth,” Pascal states that all of us seek happiness and that this is the motive of our every action.  So far, so good…until he, too, lapses into an archaic style of prose seemingly confined to endless circular reasoning.  (This caused me to nod off more than once…Uffda!)  What to do with such “pure reasoning?”  From what I can gather here (and I do so with less than optimal confidence), Pascal invites us to consider not only the existence, but also the nature of the infinite…including God.  His best line (p.64) is, “But by faith we know his existence, by glory we shall know his nature.” 

From this point on, the discussion quickly dissolves into verbose speculation of dubious relevance and interest.  Whatever he meant to say, I’m pretty sure it was an encouragement of sorts to embrace faith in God.  Where does that leave us, the readers?  Perhaps our subsequent discussion is best focused on the question, “What is the difference between acknowledging the existence of something/someone and knowing its very nature?"  In other words, what is involved in discovering the true nature of something and how does that lead to a deeper relationship…especially with God?  What avenues, then, are available to us to further promote and enhance such journeys of faith?