×

We use cookies to help make LingQ better. By visiting the site, you agree to our cookie policy.

image

Crash Course 2: Philosophy., 12b. What is God Like? Part 2/2.

12b. What is God Like? Part 2/2.

● FLASH Philosophy - Thought Bubble (06:09)

Let's look at this idea up close in this week's FLASH Philosophy. When people talk about praying for something to happen, or to not happen, or are otherwise making a request of god, they're making what are known as petitionary prayers. When you pray in this way, you're asking god for something - to help you pass a test, or to save a loved one who's in danger, or to make sure the Patriots win the game. Contemporary American philosopher Eleonore Stump argues that:

"We have no reason to think that asking god for something would actually make a difference." She thinks about it like this:

If god knows everything, including the future (which he does if, he's omniscient), and if god has the power to bring about any state of affairs (which he does. if he's omnipotent), and if he always wants to bring about the best state of affairs (which he does, if he's omnibenevolent), then god has already decided what's going to happen in every single case. To everyone.

Always.

So either your prayer is asking god to do something he was already going to do, in which case your case was kind of a waste of time, or your prayer is asking god to do something he's already decided not to do because it wasn't factually the best thing. Sorry Patriots. And in that case, even if god wanted to change his mind based on your prayer, you wouldn't want him to because it would actually make things worse then they would have been if you'd just let god do his thing. In other words:

"If god knows what's best, why would you want to change his mind?" Now, Stump suggests that:

"There might be some value in the asking. Even if the prayer doesn't actually change what's going to happen." Maybe you agree with her, but at this point, it should be clear just how many problems there are in the divine attributes when you think about them. Thanks Thought Bubble.

● Body: Analogical Predication (07:31)

Thomas Aquinas, the thinker who's largely responsible for the traditional divine attributes we think of today, responded to these sorts of puzzles by saying that all this speculation of what god is like is just analogical predication. Basically, Aquinas said that we can't predicate, or assert, anything about god, because he's so far beyond our understanding. When we speak of god, Aquinas said, we never really say anything that's true. Instead, we have to speak entirely in analogies, because that's all we can do. So god isn't literally our father, for example, but we can understand his role for us as being father-like because that's as close as we can get to really understanding what he is. Or think of it this way: people in South Florida might say it's cold when the temperature dips into the 50s, but in Alaska, it's not cold until it's well below 0. But both of those frames of reference are more similar to each other to each than they are to the cold that is absolute zero, which is about -273 degrees Celsius. You might even say that absolute zero cold and -10 degree cold are not even the same thing, but we use that one word, "cold," to describe them both as a kind of analogical way of talking about something that defies our complete and personal understanding. So Aquinas basically said not to worry about all of these puzzles because none of these things we say about god is more than an approximation - a little analogue that our tiny little minds can come up with so that we can talk about an infinite being.

● Conclusion: God May Love Amethyst (08:49)

Now there are other thinkers, particularly in modern times, who point out that none of the traditional divine attributes are in the bible anyway, so maybe god isn't an omni god. Maybe he's more like a superhero - he can be way smarter than us, way more powerful than us, way more good than us, but still not perfect. This seems like a sacrilege to a lot of people, but some philosophers argue that it's more compatible with the god of the bible. After all, in the bible, we see god doing very human things like walking in the garden, getting angry, being surprised, and changing his mind. So it could be possible that god actually does hate cilantro or is a big fan of Amethyst.

● Closing: What We Learned (09:22)

That's the kind of stuff that we, as philosophers, get to ponder - kindly, and thoughtfully, in the comments. Today, we learned about The Traditional Divine Attributes, Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnitemporality, and Omnibenevolence, and the puzzles they create for our understanding of god.

We also explored some possible solutions to those puzzles from Aquinas' ideas of Analogical Predictions to the work of Eleonore Stump. This episode is brought to you by Squarespace. Squarespace helps to create websites, blogs, or online stores for you and your ideas. Websites look professionally designed regardless of skill level - no coding required.

Try Squarespace at Squarespace.com/crashcourse for a special offer. Squarespace: share your passion with the world.

Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association with PBS and Digital Studios. You can head over to their channel to check out amazing shows like Shanks FX, It's Okay To Be Smart, and The Art Assignment. This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course studio with the help of all of these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.

Learn languages from TV shows, movies, news, articles and more! Try LingQ for FREE

12b. What is God Like? Part 2/2. 12b. ¿Cómo es Dios? Parte 2/2. 12b. Hoe is God? Deel 2/2. 12b. Jaki jest Bóg? Część 2/2. 12б. На кого похож Бог? Часть 2/2. 12b. Яким є Бог? Частина 2/2. 12b. 上帝是什么样的?第 2/2 部分。

● FLASH Philosophy - Thought Bubble (06:09)

Let's look at this idea up close in this week's FLASH Philosophy. When people talk about praying for something to happen, or to not happen, or are otherwise making a request of god, they're making what are known as petitionary prayers. 当人们谈论祈祷某事发生,或不发生,或以其他方式向上帝请求时,他们进行的是所谓的请愿祈祷。 When you pray in this way, you're asking god for something - to help you pass a test, or to save a loved one who's in danger, or to make sure the Patriots win the game. 当你以这种方式祈祷时,你在请求上帝某事——帮助你通过考试,或拯救陷入危险的爱人,或确保爱国者队赢得比赛。 Contemporary American philosopher Eleonore Stump argues that: 当代美国哲学家埃莉诺·斯塔普(Eleonore Stump)认为:

"We have no reason to think that asking god for something would actually make a difference." She thinks about it like this:

If god knows everything, including the future (which he does if, he's omniscient), and if god has the power to bring about any state of affairs (which he does. 如果上帝知道一切,包括未来(如果他是全知的),并且如果上帝拥有引发任何状况的能力(他确实拥有), if he's omnipotent), and if he always wants to bring about the best state of affairs (which he does, if he's omnibenevolent), then god has already decided what's going to happen in every single case. To everyone.

Always.

So either your prayer is asking god to do something he was already going to do, in which case your case was kind of a waste of time, or your prayer is asking god to do something he's already decided not to do because it wasn't factually the best thing. 因此,无论是祈祷上帝去做他本来就打算要做的事情,这样的话你的祈祷实际上是一种浪费时间,或者你的祈祷是在请求上帝去做他已经决定不做的事情,因为那不是事实上最好的选择。 Sorry Patriots. 对不起,爱国者。 And in that case, even if god wanted to change his mind based on your prayer,  you wouldn't want him to because it would actually make things worse then they would have been if you'd just let god do his thing. Y en ese caso, incluso si dios quisiera cambiar de opinión basándose en tu oración, no querrías que lo hiciera porque en realidad empeoraría las cosas de lo que habrían sido si hubieras dejado que dios hiciera lo suyo. 在这种情况下,即使上帝想根据你的祈祷改变主意,你也不希望他这样做,因为这实际上会比你让上帝去做他的事情更糟糕。 In other words:

"If god knows what's best, why would you want to change his mind?" Now, Stump suggests that: 现在, Stump 建议:

"There might be some value in the asking. "Podría haber algún valor en la petición. "提问可能会有一些价值. Even if the prayer doesn't actually change what's going to happen." Aunque la oración no cambie realmente lo que va a pasar". 即使祈祷实际上并不能改变即将发生的事情." Maybe you agree with her, but at this point, it should be clear just how many problems there are in the divine attributes when you think about them. Thanks Thought Bubble.

● Body: Analogical Predication (07:31) ● 正文:类比预言(07:31)

Thomas Aquinas, the thinker who's largely responsible for the traditional divine attributes we think of today, responded to these sorts of puzzles by saying that all this speculation of what god is like is just analogical predication. 托马斯·阿奎那,这位在我们今天所认为的传统神圣属性方面有很大责任的思想家,对这些谜团做出回应,他说所有这些关于上帝形象的推测仅仅是类比预言。 Basically, Aquinas said that we can't predicate, or assert, anything about god, because he's so far beyond our understanding. 基本上,阿奎那说我们不能对上帝做出预言或断言,因为他远超出我们的理解能力。 When we speak of god, Aquinas said, we never really say anything that's true. Instead, we have to speak entirely in analogies, because that's all we can do. So god isn't literally our father, for example, but we can understand his role for us as being father-like because that's as close as we can get to really understanding what he is. Or think of it this way: people in South Florida might say it's cold when the temperature dips into the 50s, but in Alaska, it's not cold until it's well below 0. 或者这样想:在南佛罗里达,温度降到50多度时,人们可能会说很冷,但在阿拉斯加,直到低于零度才算冷。 But both of those frames of reference are more similar to each other to each than they are to the cold that is absolute zero, which is about -273 degrees Celsius. 但这两种参照框架彼此之间比起绝对零度更相似,绝对零度约为-273摄氏度。 You might even say that absolute zero cold and -10 degree cold are not even the same thing, but we use that one word, "cold," to describe them both as a kind of analogical way of talking about something that defies our complete and personal understanding. 你甚至可以说绝对零度和零下10度并不是同一回事,但我们用"冷"这个词来描述它们,作为一种类比的方式来谈论一些超出我们完全和个人理解的东西。 So Aquinas basically said not to worry about all of these puzzles because none of these things we say about god is more than an approximation - a little analogue that our tiny little minds can come up with so that we can talk about an infinite being. 所以阿奎那基本上说,不要担心所有这些谜团,因为我们对上帝所说的所有这些事情都不过是一个近似值 - 是我们微小的大脑可以想到的一个小模拟,让我们能够谈论一个无限的存在。

● Conclusion: God May Love Amethyst  (08:49) ● 结论:上帝可能爱紫晶(08:49)

Now there are other thinkers, particularly in modern times, who point out that none of the traditional divine attributes are in the bible anyway, so maybe god isn't an omni god. 现在有其他思想家,特别是在现代,指出传统神性属性中根本不存在于圣经中,所以也许上帝并非是全能的上帝。 Maybe he's more like a superhero - he can be way smarter than us, way more powerful than us, way more good than us, but still not perfect. 也许他更像一个超级英雄 - 他可以比我们聪明得多,比我们强大得多,比我们更善良得多,但仍然不完美。 This seems like a sacrilege to a lot of people, but some philosophers argue that it's more compatible with the god of the bible. 对很多人来说,这似乎是对神圣的亵渎,但一些哲学家认为这与《圣经》中的上帝更加相容。 After all, in the bible, we see god doing very human things like walking in the garden, getting angry, being surprised, and changing his mind. 毕竟,在《圣经》中,我们看到上帝做一些非常人性化的事情,比如在园中行走,发怒,感到惊讶,改变主意。 So it could be possible that god actually does hate cilantro or is a big fan of Amethyst.

● Closing: What We Learned  (09:22)

That's the kind of stuff that we, as philosophers, get to ponder - kindly, and thoughtfully, in the comments. 这就是我们作为哲学家可以在评论中温和、周到地思考的事情。 Today, we learned about The Traditional Divine Attributes, Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnitemporality, and Omnibenevolence, and the puzzles they create for our understanding of god. 今天,我们了解了传统的神性属性,全能、全知、永存和全善,并且讨论了它们对我们理解上帝的困惑。

We also explored some possible solutions to those puzzles from Aquinas' ideas of Analogical Predictions to the work of Eleonore Stump. 我们还探讨了一些可能的解决方案,从阿奎那的类比预测到埃莉诺·斯坦普的作品。 This episode is brought to you by Squarespace. Squarespace helps to create websites, blogs, or online stores for you and your ideas. Websites look professionally designed regardless of skill level - no coding required.

Try Squarespace at Squarespace.com/crashcourse for a special offer. Squarespace: share your passion with the world.

Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association with PBS and Digital Studios. You can head over to their channel to check out amazing shows like Shanks FX, It's Okay To Be Smart, and The Art Assignment. This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course studio with the help of all of these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.