Notes from 'Grammar of Assent'
– Man is a seeing animal. Only those propositions which he can associate with a personal, sensorial, concrete experience will have an impact on his life (this is what Newman calls a ‘real assent’). This holds true for every kind of not purely practical knowledge. The existence of God, tolerance, morality etc. Propositions about these themes will be ineffectual unless people are able to associate them to a concrete experience.
– The only way for man to live and act in reality is that of holding a certain number of propositions as absolutely true. Man does not only consider true the things of which he has experimental proof (these are extremely few). He holds true a great number of things he has no ultimate proof about. Did he not do so, he could not live. How is this possible? At a certain point, within the reasoning process, he makes a choice, a personal act of will, by which he establishes that the evidence he has access to amounts to a proof. Every act of knowledge is then based on a judgement, and involves a risk. The faculty which governs this act of judgement is the so-called illative sense. It is a highly personal capacity of examining both the premisses which govern the reasoning and the actual development of the reasoning itself.
– There is no intrinsic difference from the rational act by which I believe the existence of God and, say, the rational act through which I assent to a mathematical theorem or a physics law. Both are not based on experimental proof, but on the evaluation of probabilities. The way in which I consider propositions about the existence of God is not a special way of reasoning, or worse, a debasement of reason, it is just the same and sole manner which has been afforded to man for reasoning in concrete matters.
– Any act of reasoning is articulated in three steps: evaluation of the premisses, development of them, assent to the conclusion. Of these three act the first is the most important, as it governs the other two. The quantity and quality of evidence, and our own keenness to admit to the truth of a proposition, depend on the mental templates we work within. These are a series of propositions we unconsciously hold as true (that is: we hold them as true without explicitly formulating within our mind the reasons for their truthfulness). These propositions have been deposited in our mind by a variety of factors: education, relationships, age, sympathies, desires, reasonings etc.
– The consequence of this situation is that experiential evidence is not sufficient to convince everyone. If one moves from a prejudice, he won’t be able to attribute to experience its true meaning. The better way to understand the phenomenon is the passage by David Foster Wallace (see previous post)
– At the beginning of the process of reason there is always a choice (conscious or not), a choice we are accountable for.
– This holds true even in relationship to Christ. One might be tempted to think that, had he seen miracles, like the Apostles saw them, he would believe. This is not true, as a man whose relationship with reality is altered by a prejudice will not be able to recognize miracles or to assign to them their true meaning. Even in the case of the Apostles, acknowledging Christ as God was the result of a choice. And those who did not recognized him are accountable for their choice. This seems to me in perfect tune with the genuine doctrine of the gospels. John 3:19 ‘He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light’. On the other hand, the man who starts from the right frame of mind will see evident signs of the existence of God in reality. Newman even goes so far as to affirm that it is easier to believe in God and in Christ for us now than for the Apostles and Jesus’ contemporaries, as the presence of Christ in the Church is even more evident, for those who have eyes for it, than when Christ was in the world.
– Where does a true hypothesis about reality can be produced? What can change the predispositions of men towards reality, so as to make them able to see signs of God’s presence in the world? Newman says that there is an irresistible evidence at the level of conscience. Conscience, or the heart, is the only power able to deconstruct continually the lies through which man alters his perception of reality. Conscience is the ultimate, inescapable reality. At this level, man can not escape the feeling that certain actions harm him, and that he constantly feels a desire which no human experience is able to fulfil. This inner life of conscience can lead to a positive opinion on the existence of God, an opinion which will allows us to collect more and more evidence from reality. This moral sense is innate. However, our personal experiences and the way we use our freedom can progressively dim our moral perceptions. We no longer acknowledge that some actions are negative, and, though we experience the harm they produce, we fail to make the connection between them and our feelings of sorrow and pain.
– Certitude is obtained when, starting from a positive hypothesis about reality, we move to collect evidence in facts and incidents. This evidence, fixed by memory, lays the foundation of a long lasting knowledge and of faith.
– The only way for man to live and act in reality is that of holding a certain number of propositions as absolutely true. Man does not only consider true the things of which he has experimental proof (these are extremely few). He holds true a great number of things he has no ultimate proof about. Did he not do so, he could not live. How is this possible? At a certain point, within the reasoning process, he makes a choice, a personal act of will, by which he establishes that the evidence he has access to amounts to a proof. Every act of knowledge is then based on a judgement, and involves a risk. The faculty which governs this act of judgement is the so-called illative sense. It is a highly personal capacity of examining both the premisses which govern the reasoning and the actual development of the reasoning itself.
– There is no intrinsic difference from the rational act by which I believe the existence of God and, say, the rational act through which I assent to a mathematical theorem or a physics law. Both are not based on experimental proof, but on the evaluation of probabilities. The way in which I consider propositions about the existence of God is not a special way of reasoning, or worse, a debasement of reason, it is just the same and sole manner which has been afforded to man for reasoning in concrete matters.
– Any act of reasoning is articulated in three steps: evaluation of the premisses, development of them, assent to the conclusion. Of these three act the first is the most important, as it governs the other two. The quantity and quality of evidence, and our own keenness to admit to the truth of a proposition, depend on the mental templates we work within. These are a series of propositions we unconsciously hold as true (that is: we hold them as true without explicitly formulating within our mind the reasons for their truthfulness). These propositions have been deposited in our mind by a variety of factors: education, relationships, age, sympathies, desires, reasonings etc.
– The consequence of this situation is that experiential evidence is not sufficient to convince everyone. If one moves from a prejudice, he won’t be able to attribute to experience its true meaning. The better way to understand the phenomenon is the passage by David Foster Wallace (see previous post)
– At the beginning of the process of reason there is always a choice (conscious or not), a choice we are accountable for.
– This holds true even in relationship to Christ. One might be tempted to think that, had he seen miracles, like the Apostles saw them, he would believe. This is not true, as a man whose relationship with reality is altered by a prejudice will not be able to recognize miracles or to assign to them their true meaning. Even in the case of the Apostles, acknowledging Christ as God was the result of a choice. And those who did not recognized him are accountable for their choice. This seems to me in perfect tune with the genuine doctrine of the gospels. John 3:19 ‘He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light’. On the other hand, the man who starts from the right frame of mind will see evident signs of the existence of God in reality. Newman even goes so far as to affirm that it is easier to believe in God and in Christ for us now than for the Apostles and Jesus’ contemporaries, as the presence of Christ in the Church is even more evident, for those who have eyes for it, than when Christ was in the world.
– Where does a true hypothesis about reality can be produced? What can change the predispositions of men towards reality, so as to make them able to see signs of God’s presence in the world? Newman says that there is an irresistible evidence at the level of conscience. Conscience, or the heart, is the only power able to deconstruct continually the lies through which man alters his perception of reality. Conscience is the ultimate, inescapable reality. At this level, man can not escape the feeling that certain actions harm him, and that he constantly feels a desire which no human experience is able to fulfil. This inner life of conscience can lead to a positive opinion on the existence of God, an opinion which will allows us to collect more and more evidence from reality. This moral sense is innate. However, our personal experiences and the way we use our freedom can progressively dim our moral perceptions. We no longer acknowledge that some actions are negative, and, though we experience the harm they produce, we fail to make the connection between them and our feelings of sorrow and pain.
– Certitude is obtained when, starting from a positive hypothesis about reality, we move to collect evidence in facts and incidents. This evidence, fixed by memory, lays the foundation of a long lasting knowledge and of faith.