Augustine v Pelagious

[egb_hibs]

Back in the 4th century these two fellas, had a right old ding dong about the nature of man. To brutally pare down; Augustine's position was that man was intrinsically flawed, and without the grace of God could not transcend this starting position (Calvin and Luther took this ball and ran with it, and asserted man was completely incapable of moral agency full stop). Pelagious, a more optimistic sort - though by all accounts, Augustine got more of the laydeez - posited that man was potentially intrinsically good, and thus could achieve a state of sinless existence under his own steam.

So much, so obscure Christian arcana. Except; this debate underpins, arguably, the entirety of western moral philosophy therafter.

It can be secularised into the (small c) conservative proposition that man is a creature of his appetites against which reason is a weak foil, and to which end tradition is important as a battle-tested means of keeping us on the straight and narrow, and that any change should be approached with caution for fear of the unintended consequences that emerge when that tried and tested containment plan is given a jolt.

Versus... the view that humanity is in fact sullied by it's inheritance, and if relieved of it, and with the right plan, can reach a new, enlightened way of being.

In case it ain't obvious, these are, respectively, the extrapolated positions of A and P.

They are also usually respectively attributed to conservative v progressive philosophy; which is I stress different than right v left. While they generally do map philosophically, there can have been few more cynical adherents to the Augustinian position than leaders of actually existing socialism.

Anyway; what side do you favour; Augustine or Pelagious?

As an aside; A Clockwork Orange is all about this; rather than mascara, bowler hats and bovver boots. And moreover, which side it comes down on is arguably dependent on whether you read the american edition (on which the film is based) or Burgess's original english cut. Which, to pile useless trivia upon useless trivia, inverts the stereotypical merkin preference for a happy ending over our apparent greater cynicism.

 

[CATS]

I suppose I'd side with Pelagious in that I take the side of "nurture" in the Nature vs Nurture debate. I believe that how we are brought up has a much greater impact on our lives than our DNA.

The problem I have with their debate (and the problem I have with theology in general) is that much of it consists of "the Apostle said this in the Bible", replied with "no, but later on the Apostle said the other thing" - the idea being that ultimately, interpreting the word of God in the Bible is the key to understanding the human condition.

Augustine believes in the soul. That seems to me inherently (excuse the pun) different from the Darwinian idea of DNA carrying specific skills and character traits. It invites needless superstition into discussions concerning science and ethics. For example, his views on abortion depended on whether a soul enters a male fetus at 40 days, and a female fetus at 80 days. You might say that the modern version of this is the 24 week law, but doesn't describing fetuses as having "souls" merely confuse what is already a volatile and emotional issue? There is no evidence that souls exist - on the contrary, there is substancial evidence that they don't eg damage to the brain causing personality changes in car crash victims. Depends on your definition of "soul" of course, but if you're going to define it as "something undefinable" then its existence or non-existence isn't relevant to any debate anyway.

This all being said, the man was clearly an accomplished philosopher. Quite how you would take this to be an affirmation of the Bible being the "be all and end all" is a mystery to me though. It proves the world had great scholars in the 4th century - so what? We had great scholars a thousand years prior too.

 

[StevieC]

I suspect that back in the 4th century there wasn't much to do at nights.

:hmmm

 

[egb_hibs]

I suppose I'd side with Pelagious in that I take the side of "nurture" in the Nature vs Nurture debate. I believe that how we are brought up has a much greater impact on our lives than our DNA.

The problem I have with their debate (and the problem I have with theology in general) is that much of it consists of "the Apostle said this in the Bible", replied with "no, but later on the Apostle said the other thing" - the idea being that ultimately, interpreting the word of God in the Bible is the key to understanding the human condition.

Augustine believes in the soul. That seems to me inherently (excuse the pun) different from the Darwinian idea of DNA carrying specific skills and character traits. It invites needless superstition into discussions concerning science and ethics. For example, his views on abortion depended on whether a soul enters a male fetus at 40 days, and a female fetus at 80 days. You might say that the modern version of this is the 24 week law, but doesn't describing fetuses as having "souls" merely confuse what is already a volatile and emotional issue? There is no evidence that souls exist - on the contrary, there is substancial evidence that they don't eg damage to the brain causing personality changes in car crash victims. Depends on your definition of "soul" of course, but if you're going to define it as "something undefinable" then its existence or non-existence isn't relevant to any debate anyway.

This all being said, the man was clearly an accomplished philosopher. Quite how you would take this to be an affirmation of the Bible being the "be all and end all" is a mystery to me though. It proves the world had great scholars in the 4th century - so what? We had great scholars a thousand years prior too.

I'm not sure what you're getting at S?

whose affirming the bible as be all and end all?

And Augustine and Pelagious didn't based everything on it.

And their debate, while in a religious context, defines the fundamental arguments of the human condition, and is readily secularisable, as I did.

As for the digression on abortion, that's really not what I want this thread to be about!

 

[cabbage]

I can't believe you got a reasoned argument in reply to this thread on a weekend.

Obviously Augustine was wrong, because there is no God (or gods). That would imply that the Pelagious argument was right by default, (but then Scorpio lobbed in Darwin / DNA and different genetical traits as a third probabilty). Religion is merely a way to encourage the masses to lead a 'good' life, help society as a whole by taking on teachings that build on the inherent sociabilty of the human being. And this is not something unique to Christianity.

In one respect, Augustine was correct, in another Pelagious is correct and in another they are both saying the same thing.

 

[egb_hibs]

I can't believe you got a reasoned argument in reply to this thread on a weekend.

Obviously Augustine was wrong, because there is no God (or gods). That would imply that the Pelagious argument was right by default, (but then Scorpio lobbed in Darwin / DNA and different genetical traits as a third probabilty). Religion is merely a way to encourage the masses to lead a 'good' life, help society as a whole by taking on teachings that build on the inherent sociabilty of the human being. And this is not something unique to Christianity.

In one respect, Augustine was correct, in another Pelagious is correct and in another they are both saying the same thing.

The existence or otherwise of God is not essential to the basic argument.

Augustine has us as possessing an intrinsic nature, which is intrinsically flawed (by the standard of Christian morality). Pelagious argues that we are, in effect, endlessly malleable.

This is the defining argument of philosophy one might say.

In my own view Augustine's position is the one that coincides with what science tells us is true, and Pelagious's the one that coincides with what we wish was true.

 

[cabbage]

The existence or otherwise of God is not essential to the basic argument.

Augustine has us as possessing an intrinsic nature, which is intrinsically flawed (by the standard of Christian morality). Pelagious argues that we are, in effect, endlessly malleable.

This is the defining argument of philosophy one might say.

In my own view Augustine's position is the one that coincides with what science tells us is true, and Pelagious's the one that coincides with what we wish was true.

I'd say that last statement was the other way about going off the first paragraph of your first post.

Personally, I do believe religions have a lot to be applauded for, and, in my case, I think The Church of England does a good job. However, I don't believe in God, The Son, heaven, or hell. I'm not a hypochrite, but (apart from getting my kids into the good school, and helping me get a job a while back) I do think I'm better for listening to the preachings at church on the odd Sunday morning; it helps me to learn how to be a good citizen of this Earth, and the learning never stops.

Augustine was wrong to argue that we are basically flawed. We learn constantly, and we adapt as we learn, because we have a basic drive to be good and help one another. I'm with Pelagious.

 

[egb_hibs]

I'd say that last statement was the other way about going off the first paragraph of your first post.

Personally, I do believe religions have a lot to be applauded for, and, in my case, I think The Church of England does a good job. However, I don't believe in God, The Son, heaven, or hell. I'm not a hypochrite, but (apart from getting my kids into the good school, and helping me get a job a while back) I do think I'm better for listening to the preachings at church on the odd Sunday morning; it helps me to learn how to be a good citizen of this Earth, and the learning never stops.

Augustine was wrong to argue that we are basically flawed. We learn constantly, and we adapt as we learn, because we have a basic drive to be good and help one another. I'm with Pelagious.

I'll not pick up on para 2 if that's ok, because this isn't intended to be about religion.

Augustine's view is definitely the one that's in line with science IMHO. He sees it in religious terms, but the wider point is about the inherent nature of humanity which is in my opinion both obviously true, and the scientific evidence is piling up behind it as well.

In my view Pelagious's position is not only wrong but dangerous, all the utopian experiments gone tits up, are in large part down to the same mistaken view of humanity that he had.
I'd

 

[cabbage]

I'll not pick up on para 2 if that's ok, because this isn't intended to be about religion.

Augustine's view is definitely the one that's in line with science IMHO. He sees it in religious terms, but the wider point is about the inherent nature of humanity which is in my opinion both obviously true, and the scientific evidence is piling up behind it as well.

In my view Pelagious's position is not only wrong but dangerous, all the utopian experiments gone tits up, are in large part down to the same mistaken view of humanity that he had.
I'd

Actually, my para 2 was an attempt (through beer goggles) to makethe point that the important thing about religion is it gives us rules to live a good and enriched life. If you remove the imagery, mythology, iconism, etc, from religion, what you have is a set of rules, or a guidebook, to lead a good life.

The point I was trying to make is that if you strip religion down to it's bear bones, and consequently strip God down to the bear bones, then Augustine and Pelagious therefore have the same argument. One man's christianity is another man's utopian dream. The major religions we have around the world today, are essentially those utopian dreams that did not go tits up.

I wasn't trying to deflect the argument to an argument about religion, it was merely a drunk's attempt to rationalise a thought process that came after a few beers. (Glad I don't drink too often :coffee: )