Skip to main content

Arianism

Hilaire Belloc (1870- 1953): The Great Heresies Belloc was a lively and opinionated Catholic writer. The Great Heresies was first published in 1938. In the book, Belloc describes five heresies, beginning with Arianism, and argues that the five he lists form the basis for all heresies. They keep changing their clothes, so to speak, but underneath they are in a sense these five:
  • Arianism: Christ was not fully divine.
  • Islam: A distant, cold God more concerned with might than right.
  • Albigensian: Denies that God is all good, or all powerful (many are mulling this in the wake of the recent Tsunami).
  • The Reformation: Separates the Bible from the Church, making each man an island in the faith.
  • The Modern attack: There is no truth, no good, and no evil. Man or Nature decides all.
I'm quoting only from the chapter on Arianism. The period Belloc discusses is just before and just after the Council of Nicea. If readers like this subject, I might look at the others in the future. Belloc writes of Arianism, that it
... sprang from the desire to visualize clearly and simply something which is beyond the grasp of human vision and comprehension. Therefore, though it began by giving to Our Lord every possible honour and glory short of the Godhead, it would inevitably have led in the long run into mere unitarianism and the treating of our lord at last as a prophet and, however exalted, no more than a prophet. ... [Arianism] it would have rendered the new religion something like Mohammedanism... ... [Arianism] attracted all the "high brows," at least half the snobs and nearly all the sincere idealistic tories [Roman pagans]. It attracted great numbers of people who were Christian. But it was also the rallying point of these non Christian forces which were of such great importance... Men of old family tradition and wealth found the Arian more sympathetic than the ordinary Catholic and a better ally for gentlemen... Many intellectuals were in the same position... they thought that this great revolution from paganism to Catholicism would destroy the old cultural traditions and their own cultural position. ... The Roman Army was strictly bound together by its discipline, but still more by professional pride... No one else except the Army had any physical power. There could be no question of resisting it by force, and it was in a sense the government. Its commander in chief was the absolute monarch of the whole state. The Army went solidly Arian. ... A battle of vast importance was joined... Had this movement for rejecting the full divinity of our Our Lord gained victory, all our civilization would have been other than what it has been... Such rationalistic efforts against the creed produce a gradual social degradation following on the loss of that direct link between human nature and God which is provided by the Incarnation. Human dignity is lessened. The authority of Our Lord is weakened. He appears more and more as a man - perhaps a myth. The substance of Christian life is diluted. It wanes. What began as Utilitarianism ends as paganism.
I don't have much to add other than that I find Belloc's conclusions about the effects of Arian thinking plausible. It is something of an effort to push God back into the closet and let our human bettors do as they see fit. I do look forward to comments, however. ***** The Maverick Philosopher responds to John Ray's support for Arianism here:
Here is a reason for an atheist to take the doctrine [the Trinity] seriously: it raises fascinating questions in philosophical logic and ontology, questions about numerical and qualitative identity, about the absoluteness vs. relativity of identity, about the relation between logic and reality, and others besides.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi