Chapter II

FAITH: AN INTERPRETATIVE ACT

A. PRESUPPOSITION: JOHN HICK’S THEORY

GOD

The believer recognizes ---not infers--- God

in the environment. First, there is therefore
the awareness of the environments
(physical and social), and then from here,
the awareness of God is mediated.

But, what is mediated awareness?

ENVIRONMMENTS:
1. What is awareness? We are aware of social & physical
things, of anything, because at that moment,
they are significant.
2. We are aware of our environments
AWARENESS = SIGNIFICANCE (social & physical) insofar as they are
significant!

3. But, how do we know that these

environments are significant? Because we 4. When we interpret, we put things in a
interpret them to be significant. We context!
interpret things in two ways: explanation
(in answer to the question, WHY) or INTERPRETATION presupposes,
recognition (in answer to the question, thus, a CONTEXT.
WHAT). These two may overlap.

5. When we go to the problem of the universe, it seems that it is something that cannot be
explained by having recourse to a broader context. In the case of the universe, there can be no
broader context! This being so, explanation cannot be a movement distinct from recognition.
when a believer recognizes the universe as God’s
What this means is:
handiwork, he is thereby proposing a metaphysical explanation.

6. Man’s context is not easy to analyze. But, we get something from the Spanish philosopher,
Julian Marias. He says that anything that ‘surrounds’ me, everything not-me that I inter-act
with, oppose myself to and be with in order to be me is my context. John Hick calls this
situational significance.
 7. Three orders of situational significance:

natural situation: the situation of being in a more or less orderly world whose
processes go by an approximately predictable pattern;

human situation: the situation of being with other men, of addressing others, of
responding to the demands of humanity in me as I encounter the humanity of others;

divine situation: the situation of being part of God’s creation and of fulfilling His
divine purpose.

8. In interpretation, however, we cannot present an incontrovertible evidence or proof of the

correctness of our option. Hence, it means to say that a fundamental everyday interpretation of
things most people make is unevidenced and “unevidenceable”. We can present arguments that
show that our position is not some mere wild guess, but this is never arbitrary!

In this unevidenced and “unevidenceable” character of interpretation lies the passion of faith.

9. Hick’s conclusion: THERE IS AN ASPECT OF LIFE THAT IS NOT SELF-EVIDENT.

AND, THEREFORE, BECAUSE IT IS NOT SELF-EVIDENT, IT IS PRONE TO A HOST OF
INTERPRETATIONS WHOSE STANCES MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM ONE ANOTHER,
BUT MAY BE REASONABLY JUSTIFIED WHEN CALLED FOR. TO THIS ASPECT OF
LIFE IS WHERE RELIGION BELONGS. THUS, IT IS NOT CORRECT TO DEMAND
DEMONSTRATION FROM RELIGION, FOR IT MERELY GOES BY AN EPISTEMIC
PATTERN THAT IS AT WORK IN THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF CONSCIOUS LIVING.

B. PETER BERGER’S THEORY OF RELIGION AS NOMIZING AND LEGITIMIZING

Man is an “unfinished being”. He becomes

by projecting his possibilities to the world.
How? By acting in and on the world!
This is the human presence in the world.

EXTERNALIZATI
ON, by which man
expresses himself, acts OBJECTIVATION
and works on the world
, by which the products
MAN of man attain the status
of facts-in-the-world
INTERNALIZATIO independent of him
N, by which man re-
appropriates these facts in
consciousness and thinks
along the lines of the
structures of the world

2
Man, the subject, first organizes and structures the world. The structuring and the organization
consequently acquire the status of fact, of objectivity. Finally, the consciousness of man is
itself structured as a reflection of or an echo to the structuring of the world.

1. When man objectivates, CULTURE is produced. CULTURE, as the totality of man’s

products, is therefore nothing less than the world itself as produced by man, the world that
brings him fulfillment.

2. Culture, the product of man, includes the material as well the nonmaterial dimensions.

what he THINKS MATERIAL

what he FEELS
what he DOES
MAN

CULTURE NON-MATERIAL

3. SOCIETY is part of the non-material aspect of culture, and it has to do with the manner in
which man deals with other men. That man is able to produce society comes from the fact that
he is essentially a social being. Consequently, man’s world-building is not an isolated
individual case. It is a collective activity!

4. SOCIETY is one form of objectivated reality. Once brought forth by man, it becomes part
of the objective reality and confronts man as a fact. There are social norms, social expectations,
and social structures that now make their demands on the individual. This is the existential
significance of objectivation

5. For society to continually exists, however, these things should be internalized, i.e., shape the
consciousness of the individual members, for where there is no internalization, society is
difficult to maintain.

6. Since the structuring of the world is a social event, what is internalized is likewise social and
it is because of the social character of the objectivized as well as the internalized that
communication with the significant others is important. Hence, my world becomes more
ordered in the measure that I am able to communicate my convictions to members who share
the same convictions. This effort helps in man’s progressive humanization! The socially
constructed world ---a world where everything has its time and place--- is a meaningfully
ordered world, nomos. As this world slowly really becomes objectivated, society begins to
impose a common interpretation of things and experiences
3
 COMMUNICATION breeds a
common interpretation of things
which, in turn, is the cause of order!

7. As long as communication continues, society is sustained

and maintained; and, order and meaning are preserved.

8. When this, however, is effectively interrupted, meaninglessness creeps in; and one’s world
begins to break. Such is what happens, for example, to one who is separated form those whom
he shares the same world of meaning or from one who is silenced. This is what Berger calls
ANOMY, or meaninglessness.

9. Nevertheless, because the world is essentially just a construct, there is something that is
naturally unsteady about it. Thus, there are times when man is put to doubt about the plausibility
of his way of looking at things. Thus, there is the nagging suspicion by man that the world may
have yet another aspect, other than that which he has taken. Religion is borne out of this
suspicion!

10. In religion, the sacral character of the world is established. It is the discovery of this sacral
character that puts a final and definite seal as well as a transcendental significance to its order
and structure. The antonym of ‘sacred’ therefore is not exactly ‘profane’ in this context, but
‘chaos’. It is God’s world, and therefore it is marked with purpose, intelligence, and design.
Without God in it, there is no meaning, for it is God who IS the meaning of the world!

Religion, thus, NOMIZES.

11. Religion also LEGITIMIZES.

Legitimation is socially activated knowledge that serves to explain and to justify the social
order. Why this and not some other order? When these questions are raised, the need for
legitimation asserts itself , and it is religion that fills in the gap.

4
12. Three levels of legitimation:

i. PRE-THEORETICAL. The guardian(s) of order simply uphold structures and practices

in the manner that they have been done traditionally, nothing more, northing less;

ii. INCIPIENTLY THEORETICAL. In this level, there is some effort at giving some
“reasonability” into the structures and practices. These “explanations”, however, come from the
imagination. And so here, we have myths, legends, epics, and stories;

iii. THEORETICAL. The nomos of society attains self-consciousenss

13. The efforts of a particular religion’s philosophers and theologians to raise their belief to
rational justification are examples of this. Nevertheless, this is legitimation is within religion
itself.

14. Berger extends the role of legitimation outside of religion by saying that, from the ‘inside’,
its justifications of itself affect society, and thereby, can cause social change! Such is what
happens with Liberation Theology.

15. As a legitimating phenomenon, religion is especially efficacious because it relates empirical

societies with ultimate realities! Faith, thus, provides the last frontier of sanity and rationality.
Despite the threat of meaninglessness, religion allows man to deal with the situation rationally
and gives it a context that allows man to be resigned to it. Religion, then, is man’s way of
coping with the threat of disorder and meaninglessness!

5
 Chapter III
THE FREEDOM OF FAITH AS LEAP INTO THE ABSURD

A. PRESUPPOSITION: JOHN HICK’S THEORY

GOD

INTERPRETATION

FAITH = AN ACT
OF
ENVIRONMENTS:
INTERPRETATION social & physical

1. Faith, however, is not a simple act of interpretation. It is a voluntary act of interpretation.

Hick speaks of cognitive freedom or epistemic distance, by which he means that the believer’s
recognition of God mediated by the environment IS NOT compelled by the force of perception,
but is a voluntary act of interpretation. Like the unevidenceability of interpretation, cognitive
freedom is a characteristic of man’s epistemic proceedings and is by no means unique to
belief.

2. Any interpretation presupposes a margin of freedom.

3. Cognition conditions man’s habits of interpretation. Therefore, the lower the level of
cognition is, e.g. the bio-physical level, the more ‘compelled’ interpretations seem to be.
However, there are instances in this level where interpretations are indeed impracticable, e.g.,
interpreting a clod of soil to be chocolate, for the moment the interpreter pos it into his mouth,
he will conclude that it is not what he thought to be! It should be taken into account that
inasmuch as we have identical biological needs, we also have identical interpretation!

4. Conversely, the higher the level of cognition, the less ‘compelled’ they appear to be. And
so, the experience of cognitive freedom intensifies as man goes up higher. Moral and aesthetic
significances are definitely free interpretations. In fact, due to lack of education, one may
never be sensitive to moral or aesthetic significances.
6
 5. In the moral level, any situation interpreted as significant calls for the acknowledgment of a
moral obligation. Thus, if a person does not feel morally obliged, it is because he does not see
any moral significance in the situation!

6. When the religious man believes, he situates everything in his world, even himself within
the greater situation of God’s purposes and designs. Consequently, his theistic interpretation
of things means an act of self-yielding to God as the center of all things. Marx and Sartre, for
example, never subordinated themselves to such an interpretation. For them, man is the center
of everything!

7. The act of self-yielding, however, is a human act. It is a free act. God never imposes belief.
He communicates Himself, not in categorical propositions, but in symbols. A symbol, to say
the least, is a proposal. Through man’s environments, God proposes. In this sense, it is man
thus who ‘disposes’: he is the one who decides. In fact, he freely decides.

8. When man believes, thus, it is the height of his freedom!

It is the peak of is humanity.

B. SOREN KIERKEGAARD: FAITH AS THE ANGUISHED ASSENT TO THE ABSURD

FAITH
FAITH AS ‘WE’ AS ‘MY’
FAITH

1. Kierkegaard starts from the fact that Faith is all about MY faith: it is my personal assent to
something I believe! My faith, therefore, should never be a simple copycat of the faith of the
community where I belong. I don’t simply believe because my community tells it so. I
believe because I believe!

2. One does not become a Christian by studying what Christianity is all about, for after all,
Christianity is ABSURD … it can never be rationally justified. He becomes one by having
FAITH. 7
3. But what is Faith? Faith is not heightened reason or an illumination of the intellect. Faith
is outside of the realm of Reason. Thus, Reason should never meddle with Faith.

FAITH

REASON

4. Faith is the shift from IMMEDIACY to SPIRITUALITY

IMMEDIACY:
level of non-committed, objective
thinking; here, there is always a
question of what is True; Subject and
Object are just conformed.
SPIRITUALITY:
level of relationships, and therefore,
commitments; here, there is no
question of Truth, for the Subject and
Object are united.

5. The level of spirituality connotes that there is a subject, subject and object in relation, and
the subject’s PASSION for the object. Here is where FAITH is bred; for, faith can only be the
passion for the object one believes. But what is the object of my faith?

FAITH
S PASSION O

6. Kierkegaard says that the object of faith can only be hinged on the REALITY of the
teacher: does he exist for me? Or does he not? The answer to this can only be an
unconditional ‘yes’ or ‘no’, for faith is not all about the truth or untruth of a doctrine It is
rather anchored on a very basic concrete theme: for you, DOES HE OR DOES HE NOT? 8
7. The object of faith can not be any other ordinary teacher … except the teacher who is God,
but at the same time, man, in the sense of his existence. It can only be Jesus of Nazareth!

8. To be an object of faith, however, the existence of Jesus must have something other than
the historical existence of a hero. For, otherwise, it would be stupidity to believe in an
ordinary man whose existence does not offer any extraordinary detail beyond his humanity.
Christian revelation says that God entered the world through Jesus, the God-man.

This is where the great absurdity happens; for how can the
human mind understand what is Infinite?

9. Nevertheless, says Kierkegaard, it is only because of this absurdity that FAITH is most
possible:
WITHOUT THE ABSURD, FAITH IS NOT POSSIBLE!

10. But even though man has the difficulty to understand this God-man, what keeps him in
relation to it is the PASSION OF INWARDNESS that pushes him toward such object of faith.
For Kierkegaard, Peter is the consummate Christian believer. In him, Kierkegaard sees the
man who literally surrendered everything to Jesus: from RETIA to REASON! When man has
finally surrendered the latter, he is on his way to unity with the object of his faith.

11. The more absurd Christianity is, then, the more faith is possible:
The depth of absurdity is equated
to the intensity of the PASSION.

FAITH: the more absurd the object is,

the more intense is the passion! O

MORE ABSURDITY
S

9
MORE PASSION

12. Absurdity reaches its peak in the God-man of Christianity: the Most Infinite, All-Powerful
God is crowned with thorns and dies in the cruelest manner man has ever invented: He is
crucified. And because the absurdity is greatest, the tension is heightened most … and faith is
fullest. When this God-man manifests Himself to man, the question remains: is man for Him
or not? Kierkgaard says the choice is only an EITHER-OR. When man chooses the God-man,
the next thing he does is a “leap into the Absurd” … which means, a leap into the dark. And a
leap into the dark means the same challenging leap that the apostles made the first time the
God-man made Himself manifest to them.

13. That is why, Kierkegaard says:

if it not be the faith of the apostles, our faith is no faith at all!

14. The paradox, however, is that when man has surrendered his reason, Reason becomes
more reason! And man has become more human, for he has become more of the subject that
he is. He has no proofs about his faith (Hick), but it is his BECOMING MORE INWARD that
is very vital to faith. Becoming more inward, faith leads man to full consciousness! This
comes out in the form of COMMITMENT! And it is this commitment that suffices as proof
for his faith. In commitment, the whole person is involved in his thinking, feeling, and doing.
For Kierkegaard, then, the man who believes in the existence of the God-man simply leaves
everything … for Him. In his leaving behind everything, he, in turn, is filled up and fired up
all the more by the object of his faith!

15. It is only in subjectivity that man encounters the Eternal.

S=O

14. Rationality, after all, says Kierkegaard, should never be confused with the use of reason.
It actually lies outside the bounds of the rational man. It has roots in Passion, not in
Intellection. The subjective thinker becomes the most ‘rational’ man because he realizes that
rationality is an off-shoot of his passionate aspiration for the Infinite. With subjective
thinking, the knower arouses his aspirations and moves beyond intellection to an action rather
than to an idea alone!

15. When man neglects the pursuit of the Eternal in his Subjectivity, however, Kierkegaard
says that he will definitely miserably despair! He has no self … because he has no God. 10
16. In this sense, faith is really the renunciation of thought and understanding.
It is, thus, never distinguishable from nonsense!
For, when faith has become sensible, it is no longer faith.

17. For Kierkegaard, TRUTH is not OBJECTIVITY; TRUTH = INTERIORITY. The more
man attends to the desires of his interiority, the more he is on the side of truth. So the quest for
truth is at the same time the becoming of man. And since in the depths of his subjectivity, man
discovers his relation with the Absolute, becoming man then is ‘coram Deo’, before God.

18. Ultimately, man cannot avoid ‘becoming man’!

19. If man cannot avoid ‘becoming man’, he will always be met by the stares of the
paradoxical God-man; and if man cannot avoid the paradoxical God-man, he will always be
thrown in the middle of the dialectical tension to choose to become or not.

20. When man finally chooses God, he chooses automatically himself; for the Subjectivity of
man is always intimated to God.

21. The moment man chooses God, however, the immediate consequence of that would be
man realizing that he is just “dust and ashes”. In the language of Kierkegaard, he incurs “the
consciousness of guilt”. What is this guilt all about?

22. When speaking of ‘guilt’ in Kierkegaard, it is not connected with any sin or with any
infraction of the law. In this sense of ‘guilt’, it is presupposed that man can still seek for a trial
where he can probably be able to defend his cause. The Kierkegaardian guilt, on the other
hand, is a GIVEN. It is a priori. Man is, therefore, guilty of the sin that he is. His being,
compared to the Being of a totally different higher order, is so little and finite. Before this
Being, then, he feels so radically finite!

23. The paradox of the God-man, which attracts man to a passionate relationship, is the same
paradox that leads man to the TRUTH about himself: that he is ontologically nothing without
affirming the fact that it is actually a recognition of this truth in him that makes him face-to-
face with himself. It is guilt, therefore, that leads man to a full consciousness of who he is,
which in turn leads to man’s recognition of a basic need: that, without God, he is nothing.

24. When man has finally accepted his need of God, he has reached the point of belonging to
God. When he has reached this point, man is dead to what unites men. The religious man is a
singular man … and individual. He only belongs to God. “Christianity,” says Kierkegaard,
“does not unite men.” Believing in the God-man is a solitary move … an individual leap.
Christianity, then, is a call for the individual to get out of the group, and be singular!
11
 GOD

MAN

CHURCH

25. It has to be remembered that Kierkegaard was, by religious profession, a Protestant; and,
therefore, his propensity to emphasize the individual must not surprise anybody. While it is
true that man should appropriate his faith, truer also is the fact that he is facilitated in his
appropriation of it through the community. And this is what the Catholic church means when
it emphasizes the role of Church in the formation of one’s faith.

12
 Chapter IV
THE AFFIRMATION OF REALITY AS MAN’S
FUNDAMENTAL ATTITUDE

A. HANS KUNG: MAN’S FUNDAMENTAL ATTITUDE

1. Reality is problematic. It is not transparent. And, therefore, how I react to it is also not given. I can
either be hopeful (radical trust) … or desperate (radical distrust), reject … or accept it. The challenge: I
MUST MAKE A STAND!

2. Affirming or denying reality, however, is an exercise of subjectivity: my response is mine alone to

give. But, the fundamental stance of affirming or denying is not arrived at overnight. It is something
“repeated” in time and space. I affirm or deny according to my concrete circumstances. Thus, of necessity,
my position towards anything and towards reality itself is selective, conditioned, and perspectival. I
CANNOT BUT DECIDE WHICH FUNDAMENTAL RESPONSE TO TAKE. This decision is inherent
in one’s daily choices, outlooks, moods, activities and priorities. Here, there is no stance that is absolute;
for, my response depends on the manner that I interpret Reality! Negative? Or positive?

REALITY
DENIAL AFFIRMATION

denial 1 affirmation 1

denial 2 affirmation 2
concrete concrete
daily daily
decisions denial 3 affirmation 3 decisions

denial 4 affirmation 4

denial 5 affirmation 5

DENIAL FUNDAMENTAL OPTION AFFIRMATION

3. In Kung, therefore, the use of man’s freedom is very concrete. It is “incarnated” in my daily attitude
towards life, the activities I undertake, the things that I do. Nevertheless, the matrix in which these ‘little’
decisions are made is the fundamental option I take as a stand before a Reality that is not easily
transparent.

4. The fundamental option I take is shaped by my environment and my feelings, thoughts, and sentiments.
So, if my environment is negative, my easy tendency is to have negative feelings, thoughts, and sentiments
about reality. Then, my general response to Reality is also negative: that of denial; and vice-versa.

13
 AFFIRMATION?
(radical trust)

personal REALITY
context and
circumstance

DENIAL?
(radical distrust)

5. Radical distrust is a basic “no” to Reality. It means to say that I concede to the fact that ultimately
everything is meaningless, that nothing leads anywhere. But is this possible? Naturally, man seeks sense-
meaning-value. Radical distrust means that ultimately these are not attainable. A radical “no” to Reality,
therefore, is something that goes against man’s natural inclination! So, even if man rejects Reality, he
cannot totally not seek sense-meaning-value. He cannot avoid finding meaning in some things … like
eating when he is hungry, or like sleeping when he wants to rest.

6. Radical trust, for its part, is not naïve confidence that everything one does will turn out right. It may be
tested by the vicissitudes of life, but it is hoping that, despite what appears to be impossible, there are such
things as sense-meaning-value. One’s option to radically trust is not immune from the temptation to
despair. Rather, it is forged by it. For, as he is tossed by the great waves of life, his trusting stance leads
him to see some light, even in the midst of being tossed.

Does it mean to say that to trust is more rational than to distrust?

7. There is initial rationality in radical distrust. Once rejected, however, Reality no longer yields
anything! Whereas when I take the stance of radical trust, despite its problematic character, my act of
assenting to Reality gives me the possibility of it being open to me. Thus, this act of assenting possesses
originating rationality: that possibility of being yielded a justification of Reality. This means to say that,
because of my openness, the possibility of finding some sense-meaning-value is present. It is, thus, my act
of assenting that gives birth to the rationality of trust.

8. It is to be remembered that the option between radical trust and radical distrust is not a choice between
equal possibilities, but between reality and non-reality. When seen in this manner, it is understandable
why one who opts for non-reality gets himself involved in contradictions.

9. On the other hand, the rationality of the option for reality is not given prior to the affirmation. It does
not even induce the act of affirmation.

Rather it is the very act of trusting that shows itself to be rational!

14
10. Confidence in reality, then, is a rationally justified risk. It is not demonstrable, but hints are given to
him who trusts Reality. There is no certitude, but at least meaning and value are latent. The temptation to
fall into distrust will always be present; but, it must be remembered that choosing to trust is a project! It is
a process. And as long as man chooses to trust, Reality is yielded to him!

Ultimately, for Kung, the affirmation of Reality is the

affirmation of God!

B. GABRIEL MARCEL: BEING AND HOPING

1. From Kung’s fundamental option to trust, Marcel concretizes this option to mean HOPE. He starts with
the phenomenology of a basic experience --- “I hope”.

2. Hope, says Marcel, has meaning from within a situation of trial. It is the expression of a soul’s turning
towards the light which it does not yet perceive. It is, therefore, a response of my being to trial and to the
possibility of liberation.

3. “I hope” is not the same as “I hope that …” The first transcends all particular objects while the second
is connected with just one particular object, very much near the concept of “I expect …” Furthermore,
when one pronounces, “I hope”, it can not but be in humility. He does not have the confrontational stance
of one who expects, because his hoping does not have any object. He is assured that something positive is
bound to happen, but whatever that is, he does not attempt to discover. On the other hand, one who expects
is focused on just one concrete possibility so that his posture is one of confrontation when it does not
happen!

4. Hope, however, is never to be mistaken with optimism. The optimist assumes a privileged perspective
that allows him to be assured that “all things will turn out well”. Inasmuch as he assumes, he escapes the
process, and anticipates the outcome. The man of hope does not escape the process. Rather, he allows
himself to undergo through it. But, while he allows himself to undergo through it, he trusts. He makes no
claims at a privileged insight. Thus, he does not anticipate results.

What is more important for him is not the result,

but his act of allowing himself to go through life in trust.
It is this stance that is going to carry him through.
OPTIMIST
positive results

MAN
WHO
HOPES
+?
- ?
5. Because of this attitude, the man who hopes is afforded a perspective that is not yielded to any ordinary
person. He sees the same world that others see, but his attitude allows him to have ‘another’ way of
looking at things.
15
6. Hope is humble, then; but, it is not effortless. The man of hope has to always struggle against the
temptation to despair, for when he gives in to despair, meaning is not yielded to him by life!
7. To be able to be hopeful, one must believe in a creative process that gives meaning to the trials which I
accept as integral to life.

CREATIVE PROCESS
MAN WHO (meaning & sense)
HOPES

+?
concrete day-to-day experiences of trials
- ?
8. This creative process allows the man of hope to see meaning and sense in the trials and tribulations that
he undergoes everyday. And he looks at them as an integral part of life; and as an integral part of life, they
purify and chasten his spirit in the light of a purpose that does not fall under his own!

9. But what is the core of this hope? It is PATIENCE. This is that which makes possible the denial in the
man who hopes the absoluteness of the trial being undergone. Because of patience, the man of hope is able
to domesticate the impending negativity of the “trial”: ‘in due time, I will come out of this situation!’

10. On the other hand, the man who despairs permits the ‘here’ and the ‘now’ of the trial to tame him; and,
thereby, to oppress him. Once he is oppressed, there is no future to project. The temptation to despair is
precisely the absence of any reason to suppose that a miracle will alter the situation favorably.

11. There are then two vectors: one that draws me towards the future,
another that fixes me in the oppressive present.
12. The latter surrenders to the present moment, while in the former, freedom is employed: I choose to
hope. That is why, for the man who hopes, there are obstacles, but obstacles which are never
insurmountable because hope transcends all objects. The man who does not hope, on the other hand, gets
so attached to an object that, at the end, it is this object that overwhelms him. Making himself dependent
on it, the man who does not hope effectively sets obstacles to himself!

13. No wonder, it is the inner disposition of hope not to set conditions or limits and to abandon one’s self
in absolute confidence that makes the man who hopes able to undergo trial and tribulation.

normal situation: MAN IS OPPRESSED

TO PROJECT HIMSELF IN THE FUTURE
BECAUSE OF TRIAL

MAN

16
DAY-TO-DAY TRIAL
 The man who hopes
does not allow any
object to tame him.
It is precisely
because of his ‘free-
spirited’ HOPE that
MAN WHO he is able to go
beyond what
HOPES normally oppresses
him, and, thus,
reaches out to the
Future. He becomes
DAY-TO-DAY TRIAL bigger than that
which is supposed
to oppress him.

14. For the man who hopes, therefore, no degree of suffering can mar his affirmation of Reality (to use a
Kungian phrase). If affirmation of Reality belongs to the same context as the affirmation of God,
according to Kung, then:

No breadth of evil can touch

the affirmation of God of the man who hopes!
15. A religious interpretation, says Hick, is all-comprehensive, all-pervasive. When the man of hope
interprets everything “through the eyes of belief”, then all the evil, pain and suffering that weigh the man
who does not have hope, are all transmuted by him in trust into a scheme of transcendent purpose whose
terms he himself is not free to specify.

16. He does not choose because a favorable result is foreseen at the end; he simply chooses … and it is his
choice that breeds the results! The former is dubbed by Marcel as HAVING --- the attachment to results.
The latter, BEING --- a transcendence from all these attachments.

17. But, where is Hope based?

Absolute hope, says Marcel, is based on absolute faith!

Man hopes … because he believes.
18. But what does man believe? He believes in a creative process that is above everything that happens in
the ‘here’ and ‘now’. This creative process is LOVE … and to God alone belongs LOVE!

17
19. This creative process gives shape to the reality of the ‘here’ and ‘now’. It gives meaning and sense to
it. It gives man the possibility of going beyond what is expected through established experience. It tries to
disprove assertions that have long been held as true. It gives man the Reason to Hope. That is why,
because it is not tainted by the blunting effect of experience, Hope now is characterized by Marcel as
“virginal”. It is the prerogative of those not hardened by life --- rather of those who choose not to be
hardened by life. Hope is a protest against the cult of experience … a rebellion against the conclusion that
what happened in the past echoes itself in the ‘here’ and ‘now’, and therefore, happenings are just the tragic
replay of what has already been … a closure from which there is “no exit”. Hope is confidence to a
transcendent creative power at work in the world.

20. Resignation, then, has to be clarified. There is a resignation that looks at Reality as bigger than man’s
capacity to cope with it. This is the resignation of the stoic who goes beyond the quotidian trials of life
unmoved and undaunted, unaffected by what is happening. There is a resignation that looks at Reality as
bigger than man … but discovers the possibility in man to choose which stance to take against the bigness
of this Reality. This possibility is the acknowledgement of a transcendent creative process that is above
and beyond the bigness of Reality. When man chooses this possibility, he becomes bigger than impending
Reality. Hope is the value that makes him go beyond himself … dwarfed by the bigness of Reality!

18
 Chapter V
“PROOFS” OF GOD’S EXISTENCE

A. THOMAS AQUINAS: “QUINQUE VIAE”

1. It is best to recapitulate first the Five Proofs of the existence of God by St Thomas Aquinas:

First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual
and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone
understands to be God.

Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.

2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
3. Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
6. The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no
things existing now.
7. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity

1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of
being i.e., contingent beings.
2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.
3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
4. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
6. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent
beings into existence.
7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
8. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.

19
 9. Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
10. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another
being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
2. Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter
according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
3. The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
4. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness,
and every other perfection; and this we call God.

Fifth Way: Argument from Design

1. We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
2. Most natural things lack knowledge.  
3. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence
achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
4. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and
this being we call God.

2. These proofs bespeak of the fact that, to Aquinas’ thinking, the world suffers from the inability to
explain itself ... that when called to explain itself, the world does not have any other recourse than GOD!
Aquinas is of the belief that pointing out the cause of something is precisely arriving at its explanation or
reason!

3. That there can be such a thing as ‘proof’ of the existence of God is to say that the affirmation of God is
rational, that it is an intelligent decision, that the religious man does not become non-rational in religion.
But to admit that the most one can deal with is a demonstration proceeding from His “effects” is to admit
that the essence of God escapes investigation. And while man is able to affirm that He is, such affirmation
does not entitle one to assert what He is! Was it not Kierkegaard who demanded that when man has finally
known the ‘what-ness’ of God, faith finally ceases to be faith … for God has ceased to be the Absurd that
only spurs man to believe?

20
21