What is your answer?
In Aquinas, "reason" refers to
{ 1 } - what we can know by experience and logic alone (apart from any special revelation from God from the Bible or Christian Tradition).
{ 2 } - what is reasonable to accept.
{ 3 } - what we can know just by thinking (apart from our sense experience).
{ 4 } - the errors of proud philosophers who don't believe in the Bible.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 4.
1 is correct!
In Aquinas, "reason" refers to
{ 1 } - what we can know by experience and logic alone (apart from any special revelation from God from the Bible or Christian Tradition).
{ 2 } - what is reasonable to accept.
{ 3 } - what we can know just by thinking (apart from our sense experience).
{ 4 } - the errors of proud philosophers who don't believe in the Bible.
Aquinas argued that we can know from reason alone that there is a God and that there is only one God. Any human being -- regardless of the person's religious commitment or lack thereof -- can in principle arrive at these truths by experience and logic alone.
Aquinas had a great respect for human reason -- and saw it as compatible with faith (which gives us additional information about God). If we understand faith and reason correctly, there will be no conflict between what faith tells us and what reason tells us.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
2 is wrong. Please try again.
In Aquinas, "reason" refers to
{ 1 } - what we can know by experience and logic alone (apart from any special revelation from God from the Bible or Christian Tradition).
{ 2 } - what is reasonable to accept.
{ 3 } - what we can know just by thinking (apart from our sense experience).
{ 4 } - the errors of proud philosophers who don't believe in the Bible.
Aquinas distinguished "faith" from "reason" -- but thought that both were reasonable. Faith went beyond what human reasoning by itself can establish and gave us additional information about God.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is wrong. Please try again.
In Aquinas, "reason" refers to
{ 1 } - what we can know by experience and logic alone (apart from any special revelation from God from the Bible or Christian Tradition).
{ 2 } - what is reasonable to accept.
{ 3 } - what we can know just by thinking (apart from our sense experience).
{ 4 } - the errors of proud philosophers who don't believe in the Bible.
This sense of "reason" is opposed to "experience." This wasn't the sense of "reason" that Aquinas had in mind.
<= back | menu | forward =>
4 is wrong. Please try again.
In Aquinas, "reason" refers to
{ 1 } - what we can know by experience and logic alone (apart from any special revelation from God from the Bible or Christian Tradition).
{ 2 } - what is reasonable to accept.
{ 3 } - what we can know just by thinking (apart from our sense experience).
{ 4 } - the errors of proud philosophers who don't believe in the Bible.
Aquinas had a great respect for human reason -- and saw it as compatible with faith. If we understand faith and reason correctly, there will be no conflict between what faith tells us and what reason tells us.
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end