Sunday, October 4, 2009
Gibbons Discussion Question
On pg. 154 Gibbons notes that "the practice of superstition is so congenial to the multitude that, if they are forcibly awakened, they still regret the loss of their pleasing vision". This is almost like an inverse of Hume's situation, where even when faced with death Hume adheres to his non-belief (neither is really convinced to change what they believe even when it is most convenient to do so). Gibbons appears to be saying that even if the Christians' beliefs were proven false, they would be too preoccupied with grief to come to the revelation of truth. But where Hume's conviction is all about truth, Gibbons' Christians seem more self-serving. Would the kind of reaction Gibbons mentions seem realistic or is it unfair to say in general that one group (Hume, the non-believers) is more concerned with truth than the other (the Christians), and that faith is merely a measure of how much we want to believe?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
In Gibbons argument, the reaction he describes that Christians would have is very realistic. Gibbons implies that the Christians not only truly believe that there is a heaven for their sanity, but also attempt to convince others the same to secure their beliefs, saying "every age had believers to convince.. and sufficient motives might always be produced to justify the interposition of Heaven." (151) Through this Gibbons is clearly stating that these actions are necessary for Christians and without them their whole structure of religion and culture would fall apart.
Post a Comment