The Philosophy of St. Augustine vs.. The Philosophy of Cognitive Science
by The article provides an in depth look at the philosophical teachings of St. Augustine versus the new age philosophy of cognitive science. An opinion of which is better is included based upon reasoned judgment. The three criteria discussed are simplicity, consistency, and universality.
The third and last criterion is of simplicity. Between Augustine and cognitive science, it is difficult to determine which the more simplistic view is. At first glance, Augustine appears to have the advantage over cognitive science, because cognitive science is, to me, more complicated. Nevertheless, cognitive science explains the way the brain works as simple as possible. Augustine does not address this, because this information was before his time. However, I think that if you follow his view on human nature, today you would argue that God made the brain operate in the way it does, which is essentially just an additional step in the process of explaining. This step is superfluous when explaining the brain. Now cognitive science appears to have the advantage, despite its complicated views.
Notwithstanding cognitive science’s fewer steps to explaining the brain, I believe that Augustine’s views on most everything else, such as ethics and immortality for example, are much simpler than would be a cognitive scientist’s views. Cognitive science is at a disadvantage in that it combines so many different views from different sciences. Cognitive scientists have many different views concerning human nature. In addition, research is still accomplishing tasks today in the field of cognitive science to determine what being a human signifies. There are numerous variations of views for the cognitive scientists, and I am certain that there is less differentiation among believers in Augustine’s views. As a result, the simplicity point goes to Augustine.
Although his views have some problems, in my opinion, Augustine explains human nature better than cognitive science. His most notable problem arises when he tries to explain that God knows our future and that we have free will. This is a difficult idea to grasp, let alone try to explain. I think that today’s Christian scholars have and will continue to try to explain this belief. Even though it cannot be proven, I think that a clearer explanation would help people understand the belief that God knows our future, but he does not control it.
Furthermore, cognitive science is great for determining what we are, based upon scientific study, however it struggles to explain what we should be. A cognitive scientist may argue that we must first know what we are. Then, and only then, can we discover what we can be. I, on the other hand, would rather strive to achieve what I should be, than try to figure out what I am. What we are is not as important to me because it is not something we can control. Cognitive science leaves me feeling empty since it does not explain our purpose as humans. To live this way is to live a meaningless life. As humans, for the most part, we can control what we become, as we have daily decisions to make. Knowing what we should be, can help us decide which paths to follow. Without understanding what we should be, what purpose is there in this life? Even though Augustine’s views cannot be proven by science, they do provide meaning to this life and the next.
Works Cited
Wall, Thomas F. On Human Nature An Introduction to Philosophy. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2004. Print.
Liked it
