God is very much a part of our society today.  Even so, when the deity is examined closely, obvious flaws are discovered.  Therefore, a new perspective of the deity is needed to account for these lapses in understanding.  God has two different perspectives; the being of God, and the concept of God.  Unlike the concept of God, when the deity is understood as an object or Supreme Being, problems arise in the ability to comprehend such an object.  Ideals, on the other hand, are primarily based in philosophical thought.  For this reason, the concept or ideal of God proves to be far more effective at co-existing with our modern age of thought and reason than that of the Supreme Being God. Read the rest of this entry »

I’m going to use predicate calculus to simplify and hopefully clarify what was the most important point of my previous post, “‘God’, concept-object distinction”.

“What God is in himself is totally incomprehensible and unknowable.”
- John of Damascus

A philosopher of logic could reasonably call Saint John an atheist for that remark, thanks to the two words “…in himself…”.  But we’ll sit that interesting point aside for now.

My main point was that the popular notion of “God” being some kind of abstract thing, doesn’t lend well to being called “God”, and that another term should be adopted to describe the concept of “God” in religion.

To clarify some of the rules of logic mentioned or hinted to in the previous post, I’m going to break down a few of my sentences into predicate calculus.  Here goes:

“What God is in himself is totally incomprehensible and unknowable.”
- John  of Damascus

Every complete sentence contains two parts: a subject and a predicate. The subject is what (or whom) the sentence is about, while the predicate tells something about the subject.

In the quote above, this is the subject:

“What God is in himself…”

And this is the predicate:

“…is totally incomprehensible and unknowable.”

Gotlobb Frege, a mathematician and philosopher popularized the notion of separating concepts from objects present in singular propositions, in the same way that subjects and predicates are separated.  Though his method for creating this distinction is highly controversial (in those circles), the usefulness of the distinction itself is invaluable.

By Frege’s rules, the object would be:

“What God is in himself…”

and the concept would be:

“…is totally incomprehensible and unknowable.”

A concept cannot be the subject of a singular proposition, it must be the predicate, according to Frege.

With me so far?  re-read if your not, because what’s next is very important.

“What God is in himself is totally incomprehensible and unknowable.”

In the quote above, the subject is “God”.  We’ll assign the subject with the variable x.  There are two premises in the predicate: “unknowable” and “incomprehensible”.  We’ll call “unknowable” “P” and “incomprehensible” “Q”.  Therefore:

x[Px + Qx]

Translation: For x, P and Q are true

Now, to illustrate the importance of concept-object distinction, I’ll write the sentence another way:

Unknowable and totally incomprehensible is what God is in himself.

Px + Qx[x]

Translation: x is true for P and Q

Now, it appears that “unknowable” and “incomprehensible” are the object of the sentence, and “God” is the concept (whoa!).  But looking closer, you’ll notice the phrase “…in himself…” after the word “God”.  That phrase is a device of language designed specifically to describe the object or subject in its actuality, independent of perception or an observer.  So this sentence is illogical due to a concept-object distinction error.  Take the “thing in itself” phrase out, and you end up having to explain that “unknowable” and “incomprehensible” are objects, to which I say “Good luck!”.

But to prove a point, lets try anyway.  Let’s treat what would normally be a concept as an object instead.

unknowable is God.

According to the above statement, the concept of “God” is referent to the object “unknowable”.  Well, that’s an obvious falsehood; the concept of “God” is certainly knowable!

Now, outside Frege’s rules, one might interpret the above statement like so:

God = everything that cannot be known.

But to interpret it in this way will lead you down a path of infinite redundancy (because you’ll spend so much effort trying to figure out how to define “unknowable”)

because you’ll spend so much effort trying to figure out how to define “unknowable”

Can you see the futility of the “God” concept yet?

Conclusion

Three points:

1. Labeling “God” as a concept and then dismissing attempts to define that concept because “God is unknowable” (well, crap…), is not only illogical (literally) but also counterproductive to thinking.

2. Attempting to define the concept of “God”, without considering the object of “God” is an example of what psychologists call “denial of cycle” (of the existence of the object “God”).  And it also happens to be the direction religion is heading toward, which is why I suggest a change of terminology.  Changing the terminology would end the cyclic denial and turn this abstraction of “God” into “studying morality” or “observing human behavior”.

3. Attempting to define the object of “God”, without considering the concept of “God” is fundamentalist.  To define an object without the use of concepts is logically fallacious (if not impossible), but ignoring logic for a moment:  Many fundamentalists try to do this (whether they realize it or not), and they end up with a slightly more quantified version of “God”.  The problem with a quantifiable “God” is not only the lack of logic but also the lack of evidence for it.

And the definition of “god” (not capitalized) from merriam-webster.com/dictionary:

1 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
2 : a person or thing of supreme value
3 : a powerful ruler

I want you to look at the definition of the capitalized word “God”, outside of the context of this post.  It’s…so conceptual!

*Note: if you haven’t noticed, I don’t want a quantified or object “God” nor do I want an abstract or conceptual “God”.

I’ve noticed a gradual change in how people define “God”.  It appears to me that, even among classical and radical believers, “God” is becoming much more abstract.  The social reasons for such abstraction in the definition of “God” are beyond my understanding, but I can suggest that linguistics explains empirically what this abstraction is.  From there, I will point out that the degree of abstraction of “God” is directly proportional to the declining usefulness of the term “God”.

Some examples of the abstraction of “God”, or to put it another way, the “liberal theology” of “God”:

“God is so great that the greatness precludes existence.”
- Raimundo Panikkar, The Silence of God: The Answer of the Buddha (1989)

“It is the final proof of God’s omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us.”
- Fictional Character Reverend Mackeral, The Mackeral Plaza (1958)

“…God isn’t just a being like you or me or the microphone in front of me or even the atom, an unseen being that we can find in our laboratories.  What we mean by ‘God’, some theologians have said, is being itself; that its in everything that is around us and cannot be tied down to one single instance of being.”
- Karen Armstrong, NPR “Fresh Air” interview (2009)

“…The early Christians…didn’t believe in deities, they believed in the god of classical western theism who’s not an existent in the world of existent, not a thing in the world of things, but a grand goal of all existence, in who all exist.”
- Reverend Richard Harries

“What God is in himself is totally incomprehensible and unknowable.”
- John of Damascus

These opinions are similar to those of classical theologians like Thomas Aquinas, and its those views which I am arguing against.  The liberal/abstract view of “God” is extraordinarily malleable, which may explain its popularity.  After all, scientific evidence suggests that humans ascribe their own personal beliefs onto their own definition of “God” (and: “…reasoning about God’s beliefs activated many of the same regions that become active when people reasoned about their own beliefs…”).

Use-mention distinction

And now onto the linguistic nature of this trend toward a more abstract definition of “God”.  In linguistics, there is a rule to distinguish the use of a term from the mentioning of a term;  its called the use-mention distinction, and here’s how it works:

“Tom” has three letters.

Tom has three letters.

In the first sentence, I am describing the word “tom”.  In the second sentence I am describing how many messages tom has.  You can easily see that in the first sentence, I am mentioning the word “tom” and in the second sentence I am using the name “tom”.

The quotation marks are used to denote the mentioning of a term, so as to avoid confusion with the actual use of the term.  A use-mention error usually happens when the writer fails to make the distinction between the use of a word or phrase and the mentioning of it.  Perhaps the below sentence is an excerpt from a paper on grammatical treatment of names:

Jill has four letters and Tom has three letters, so together they have seven letters.

So who are these letters addressed to exactly?  Are Tom and Jill mail couriers?

Its easy to see where a use-mention error might confuse someone, especially when the context is not clear.  But use-mention distinction has applications not only in linguistics, but also in logic and argumentation.  In first-order predicate calculus for instance, use-mention errors usually result in two different propositions being logically equivalent, which can lead to an ambiguity within the informal presentation of a proposition.

The very same problem persists on a more obtuse scale with concepts.  Use-mention errors of this sort occur when an object is confused with a concept.  Gottlob Frege popularized the distinction between objects and concepts.  His rule was that “any sentence that expresses a singular proposition, consists of an expression that signifies an object together with a predicate that signifies a concept.”  So by this rule, a concept must be a predicate or else it is not a concept.  It follows that:

The concept horse is not a concept.

The above sentence is true in terms of Frege’s rule because “The concept horse…” is the subject of the sentence, therefore in cannot be the concept.  The concept in the above sentence is in the predicate, which is: “…is not a concept.”

Many philosophers disagree with Frege on this, but in hopes that you may understand Frege’s logic in this rule, here is a simpler example:

Socrates is a philosopher.

In the above sentence, the object is “Socrates” and the concept is “being a philosopher”.  Here you can see his reasoning behind the predicate concept a little easier. It is certainly reasonable to disagree with this rule, but its difficult to disagree with Frege’s reasoning for creating a distinction between concept and object, and I’ll take a point from philosopher Daniel Dennett to illustrate why:

The concept HORSE is not a horse!

You cannot saddle, ride or groom a concept of a horse, because a concept is not an object.  That being said, I can now relate all the above information with my original theme by saying this:

The concept “God” is not a god.

And yet so many theologians, church officials, and religious practitioners speak of the concept of “God” as if it is an object (just reread the above list of quotes).

That is a linguistic explanation of why there is this abstraction of “God”.

A small warning about theologians and opinionated people in general

Any time you wish to read an essay or a book or a paper about something supernatural or metaphysical in nature, watch out for use-mention errors. theologians thrive off use-mention errors (you’ll notice this if you pick up any of their books).  The same advice applies to situations in which you engage in debate with someone about similarly uncertain topics.

Usefulness of the term “God”

For this point, let me go back to one of the quotes from above:

“What God is in himself is totally incomprehensible and unknowable.”
- John  of Damascus

By this logic, the object “God” is being applied to the concept of being “incomprehensible and unknowable”.  Bearing that in mind, take a look at Karen Armstrongs definition of “God”, from an excerpt of her newest book A Case for God :

“…God is not a being at all. We really don’t understand what we mean when we say that he is good, wise or intelligent.”

Saint John’s definition of “God”, is by no incident, useless for all its futility and redundancy.  But it is at least a little bit more honest than Karen Armstrong’s definition, which seems to strip existence as a whole away from the object “God”.  As Biologist and Author Richard Dawkins puts it:

“If sophisticated theologians and post-modern relativists think they can rescue God from the redundancy scrap-heap by downplaying the importance of existence, they should think again.  Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is to vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist.  They’ll be right.”

The term “God” is perhaps one of the least descriptive terms in all of religion, in particular the monotheistic religions.  Not only is there the common confusion between the concept “God” and the object “God”, but also the fact that every human being has a different definition of “God”, and then there is the degree of abstraction to consider.  You could map the degrees of abstraction of “God” on a spectrum:

My biggest charge against the abstraction of “God” is that those who hold this view tend not to know why they do, or for whatever reason, they are afraid to say that the object “God” does not exist (perhaps because they grew up with the tradition of religion).

Saint John applies the concept of “unknowable” to the object “God”.  But I’m curious if anyone would be willing to append to the object “unknown” the concepts of “will” or “intelligence”, that they so readily append to the object “God”.

I conclude this point with the suggestion that the word “God” is an inadequate descriptor for all the concepts that the object “God” seems to represent.  Find another term.

Conclusion

It can difficult sometimes to identify when someone is referencing a concept or an object in verbal conversation, so always ask for clarification if needed.  A good way to ensure clarity is to actually say “blah blah blah…the concept of blah.”  Or “blah blah blah…object of blah.”

Though that can make for some awkward sounding dialogue (kind of like this paper).

This article will attempt to expand on a point I briefly mentioned in an earlier article.

When it comes to the beginning of everything, many people of faith point to a single argument for the existence of a divine entity.  They will ask “What are the chances?”

What are the chances that…

The big bang produced all the elements of life in such a seemingly chaotic chemical chain reaction?

Those components formed stars, which then went supernova, eventually giving birth to planetoids?

Strong force, gravitation, electromagnetism, and weak force work perfectly in our favor?

Earth is perfectly situated  in the solar system to support human life?

Bacteria formed from non-living matter or that bacteria arrived to Earth from an asteroid impact?

Bacteria navigated the evolutionary chain to form humans after about a few hundred million years?

Out of 700 songs, the one that happens to be extremely relevant to my life at the moment decided to play when I hit the “shuffle” button?

And so on…

This, in my opinion, is quite literally a backwards way of thinking.  Let me explain…

Many people of faith believe that they were brought into existence, and then life, by an intelligent being of some kind. This belief presupposes that the observable universe is somehow meant for humans, that all the phenomena we witness has something to do with human existence.  This causes believers to see themselves as superior to, if not separate from nature in some way, and they take these conditioned beliefs with them when judging the universe.  They consider themselves a unique part of the universe, special because a divine being created them, or at least has a purpose for them.

And so they approach big questions with a big ego.  Because of their preconceived notions, they assume that, if indeed nature created humans, than it had to have been in defiance of the odds, and that leads them to the mistaken conclusion that an intelligence is behind it all.

I want people to completely abandon the notion that probability had anything to do with our successful evolution.  I want you to understand that we are not part of this universe; we are the universe.

Consider this

The Miller-Urey experiment in 1952 tested chemical evolution in a setting thought to be similar to early Earth atmospheric conditions.  From Wikipedia:

At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10–15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed.

The results of this experiment have been reproduced countless times since then, and it’s extremely important to know that many of the building blocks of life on Earth (sugars, lipids, amino acids, carbon, etc…) have been found on meteorites.

In April 2009 Paul G. Higgs and Ralph E. Pudritz of McMaster University in Ontario, published an experiment that tested a hypothesis that 10 of the most abundant amino acids can be formed in the universe regardless of the source.  In other words, the recipe for these certain amino acids is built into the universe.  The Abstract of the Higgs and Purditz journal article (emphasis added):

Of the twenty amino acids used in proteins, ten were formed in Miller’s atmospheric discharge experiments. The two other major proposed sources of prebiotic amino acid synthesis include formation in hydrothermal vents and delivery to Earth via meteorites. We combine observational and experimental data of amino acid frequencies formed by these diverse mechanisms and show that, regardless of the source, these ten early amino acids can be ranked in order of decreasing abundance in prebiotic contexts. This order can be predicted by thermodynamics. The relative abundances of the early amino acids were most likely reflected in the composition of the first proteins at the time the genetic code originated. The remaining amino acids were incorporated into proteins after pathways for their biochemical synthesis evolved. This is consistent with theories of the evolution of the genetic code by stepwise addition of new amino acids. These are hints that key aspects of early biochemistry may be universal.

If 10 of the 20 amino acids present in human biology, are in fact built into the universe, than it’s likely that another species of intelligent life would have some similarities to humans.  Intelligent life might be rare, but Humans are by no means special, much less superior to nature.

The implications of this are huge.  If it’s true that the recipe for life is built into the universe, what does that do to the belief that an intelligent force created life?  What does that do to the notion that Humans exist because we ‘beat the odds’?

There was some chance involved in the evolution of humans specifically, but not life in general.  But what I’m trying to get across is that humans aren’t separate from, or superior to nature, thus we are not the perfect beings that God(s) would have us believe we are.  Because of that, the probability of our existence doesn’t matter one bit.

You could make the very same ‘what are the chances?” argument for this, this, this, this, this, and this.

Try to look at it differently

I’ll play into the probability argument a little, if only to prove it even more inadequate.  Suppose the act of rolling a 20-sided die represented the big bang, and what ever the result was, that’s the universe that formed.  Let’s say I roll a 5, and that creates a universe similar to ours, and after a while, intelligent life forms in universe 5.  Well, obviously that intelligent life is going to wonder where it came from.

What are the chances that an intelligent life was formed from all those seemingly chaotic reactions?!!  Well, the chances were 1 in 20.

Now let’s say I roll it again to make a new universe, and this time I get a 7.  Universe 7 gives me intelligent life after a while, but it’s a helium based life form, and they aren’t made of flesh or blood.  But they still wonder:  what are the chances?

well, the chances are 1 in 20.

One last roll, this time, I get a 16, and that creates a universe that somehow doesn’t support the evolution of intelligent life.  In universe 16, no intelligent life is there to ask the question: what are the chances?

The chances that a roll of the d20 will create a universe without intelligent life? 1 in 20.

As far as we can tell, there is only one universe, so assuming that’s true, ask yourself this:

Do you think the intelligent life that could have been is wondering what the chances are?

The chance of it doesn’t matter one bit.  It’s difficult to explain it any better, so I hope you’ll stop looking at the universe with preconceived notions that you’re special, and start being humble.  You weren’t placed here by an intelligent being, you aren’t God’s conduit, and for those of you who have an abstract view of “God”, (i.e. a god of the gaps) I would ask you this:

Why not just save a step and say that the universe is eternal?

The words of Saint Thomas Aquinas:

“…As we attain to the knowledge of simple things by way of compound things, so must we reach to the knowledge of eternity by means of time, which is nothing but the numbering of movement by “before” and “after.” For since succession occurs in every movement, and one part comes after another, the fact that we reckon before and after in movement, makes us apprehend time, which is nothing else but the measure of before and after in movement. Now in a thing bereft of movement, which is always the same, there is no before or after. As therefore the idea of time consists in the numbering of before and after in movement; so likewise in the apprehension of the uniformity of what is outside of movement, consists the idea of eternity.”

We are the universe, go outside and look up.

In this world there is a great deal of religious conflict between people of differing religious beliefs and between believers and nonbelievers. But these groups can all come together as one and express the same sentiment concerning their (lack of) belief in the Goddess N’da.

The Creed

Our creed concerning the Goddess N’Da is as follows:

There is no rational basis to believe in the Goddess N’Da.

We claim that everyone, no matter what their other beliefs may be, can agree with this creed.

Background

We will now outline some support for the above creed.

Evidence & Statistics

When we look at the usual pillars of faith, we can see little reason for belief in N’Da.

• Sacred texts: None known.
• Relevant historical events: None known.
• Churches: None known.
• Followers: None known.
• Scientific evidence: None known.

Based on this evidence, there appears to be no reasonable basis for anyone to believe in the Goddess N’Da. She is mentioned in no historic records, and appears to have had no followers at any time in the past. No miracles have been ascribed to her, no one is seen to pray to her, and no one has claimed to have performed any acts under her influence.

Newness Argument

Some people might argue that new religions arise over time, new gods appear and old ones appear to lose followers and die. According to such an argument, the lack of any past support for the Goddess N’Da may only be a sign that the earth was not yet ready for any revelation at all about her existence. In such a worldview, other religions may be seen as preparing the way for her.

A skeptic might wonder “Why Now?” and “Why N’Da?”. Before anyone can reasonably believe in the Goddess N’Da, it seems sensible to wait until there is some more concrete basis for belief (e.g., sacred texts, known followers, miracles or other supernatural occurrences attributed to the Goddess N’Da, claimed consequences for nonbelief, rewards for belief).

Faith

Some people say that to believe without any evidence whatsoever is a test of faith, and on that basis belief in the Goddess N’da would appear to be an act of profound faith. But similar or greater faith would be required to believe that crows are really aliens or that cushions are imbued with the spirits of the dead. There appears to be no good reason to choose to believe in the Goddess N’da compared to any other supernatural force or entity.

Direct Personal Revelation

Some people would claim that although external evidence is not required for faith, they have internal evidence to support their beliefs. They might say that one way to know the reality of the Goddess N’Da is simply to enter a contemplative state and seek revelation. For example, after you have read this paragraph and before reading the next one, close your eyes, relax, breathe slowly and deeply, focus, and take a few minutes to seek enlightenment about the Goddess N’Da. Ask her to reveal herself to you. This feeling of enlightenment can arrive as tingle that slowly builds across your body, a presence or eerie sensation, or simply a feeling of being loved. (Feel free to take a moment now and seek that sensation.)

_________________________________________________________________

Most people will feel something when they try the above exercise if they focus properly, given an appropriate open frame of mind, but we should not assume that they have actually felt the love of the Goddess N’Da. There are other, more rational, explanations, involving suggestion. No matter how profound the feeling appears to be (and for some people, the results can be dramatic), we can almost always explain those results as simply the result of suggestion.

Conspiracy Theories

Of course, one might ask why anyone would take the time to refute the existence of a nonexistent God with no known followers, and that doing so is clearly suspicious. “Why,” they might ask, “do they want us not to believe?”. A typical conspiracy explanation would be that followers of the Goddess N’Da have as a tenet of their faith the requirement that they only argue against the existence of the Goddess N’Da, in which case, vast numbers of people (including self-professed atheists!) could secretly be followers of the Goddess N’Da. Similarly, as Donald Rumsfeld said, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” so the fact that there are no public records of N’Da showing her power and no public sacred texts does not mean that these things do not exist.

Like most conspiracy theories, this theory cannot easily be refuted, but Occam’s Razor suggests that given multiple explanations, we should prefer the simplest one. Thus, rather than suppose that there are lots of people who believe in the Goddess N’Da but do not admit it, which is somewhat paranoid, it is simpler to suppose that most people do not believe in the Goddess N’Da.

Gnostic vs Agnostic Views

In the creed, it merely states that there is no rational basis to believe in the Goddess N’Da. Some people might be willing to go further and explicitly state that the Goddess N’Da does not exist (gnostic viewpoint). Our suggested creed is more inclusive since it is accessible to agnostics who might be skeptical about the Goddess N’Da, but who, nevertheless, cannot completely rule out the possibility of her existence.

Unresolved Questions

One last unresolved question that remains is one we raised in the conspiracy section: If there is no Goddess N’Da, why talk about her at all? We might also note that the entire tone of this document is careful to avoid making an outright statement on the existence of the Goddess N’Da, which allows the possibility that its author(s) actually (secretly) believe.

In this case, Occam’s Razor would still lead us to prefer the explanation that this page is an elaborate joke or thought experiment written by one individual than that the Goddess N’Da is the one true god who demands that most patience and faith, whose love is received in private contemplation, and whose existence must never be acknowledged except to oneself.

Reposted from: http://nda.jottit.com/

Saint Augustine was a man who grew up in changing times. He was born in the transitional period between the ancient age of thought and the middles ages. In fact, Christianity was a relatively new ideal that was spreading across Europe and Russia. With this spread, people from all across Europe began to travel to holy sites and question the old gods that had existed for centuries. Interestingly enough, Augustine was born to a catholic mother and a pagan father, which caused him to be very conflicted in his faith. In his book titled Confessions, Augustine questions his beliefs, his education, his life and understanding, and even questions God. The question of who or what God is has been around since the invention, or discovery, of God. The modern idea of God suggests that there is a supreme being that is all knowing, all powerful, all benevolent and all encompassing. This God is one who is feared and worshiped by the laity and can be prayed to when help is needed. He is watching our every move and knows the path that we will take in life, but there seems to be a problem with this. This idea of God seems to be far too “human” to be God. Meaning that this way of looking at the deity is very shallow and naïve. Instead, Augustine proposes that God is something far more complex and incomprehensible. God is a form based on perfections of different ideals such as morality, justice, love, wisdom, thought, desire, understanding and faith and when correct reason is applied to the pursuit of these forms or perfections, then the nature of God will become much clearer.

To fully grasp the Augustinian God, you must understand the mindset of the time that Augustine lived. Today, the goal of Christianity is to reach the mental and physical experience that could be described as the presence of God. In other words, the individual must achieve an epiphany or mystical occurrence in order to “know” God. Augustine on the other hand, had a very different understanding of being spiritual. The common belief at his time was that if one could understand or interpret the scriptures in a skillful way, then that person was a spiritual individual. Meaning that since Augustine, in his later years, had come to some degree of understanding of the scripture, he was a very spiritual Christian, even if he did not have any mystical understanding of the nature of God. His ability to read through the visible words of scripture allowed him to better understand the nature of God according to the common beliefs at his time. Read the rest of this entry »

In books three and four of Saint Augustine’s Confessions, he outlines his troubling path towards God’s truth and morality.  He explains the nature of suffering and how he embraced the vices in society in order to satisfy some need for fulfillment.  As Augustine explains these troubles in his life, he attempts to reach for some underlying truth that he states can only be found in God (Saint Augustine Confessions, Book 4: 24).

Unlike books one and two that mainly talked about his folly as a young man, books three and four express his basic philosophical views of the nature of goodness and truth.  He begins book three by discussing the ideal of suffering, or at least his definition of it.  Suffering is naturally a negative aspect of life, and he viewed the entire world and everything in it as some form of suffering (Confessions, 3: 3).  He goes as far as to say that even compassion is a form of suffering because it needs some sort of negative feeling to exist (Confessions, 3:4).  As he studied in Carthage, he began to explore the world of Philosophy.  In his studied he realized that there was some truth that needed to be discovered in order to obtain some special sense of fulfillment, but at this time, Augustine was still very vile in his mind and blind to what this truth was.  He compares this state of mind as eating in a dream:

“Food pictured in dreams is extremely like food received in the waking state; yet sleepers receive no nourishment, they are simply sleeping.” (Confessions, 3: 10)

Read the rest of this entry »