Bernard,
Religion is belief. It is not science. It is not intellectual. This is a whole different thread if that is what you want to get into. Just because Egyptian religion was complex does not change that it still is fundamentally based around beliefs that are not provable in any discernible way. That is what makes belief in a spirit world not an intellectual pursuit. And such beliefs in a spirit world predate Egypt and are not some "special" intellectual aspect of Egyptian thought. Yes, they did evolve the cosmology into a very complex system of belief, but this evolution starts with those same beliefs in nature spirits found in traditional animist religions. Also, like all animist religions the Egyptians believed that various aspects of nature had souls. Therefore, even if it is complex, it is still fundamentally an expression of animist belief, which is not something based on intellect. That is not to say they weren't using their brains in organizing such theological concepts, just that theological concepts are not empirical fact that can be observed and understood in an intellectual way. You cannot observe and understand a hawk god that flies in a day bark then goes around in a night bark and fights against a mythical creature as his arch enemy. Those are not things that you can intellectually debate as they don't exist in the real world of discrete nature. Sure, such stories do contain valuable insight into human nature and society, but that is not different than any other mythological tale from any other mythological religion, be it a tortoise versus the hare or the owl versus the rabbit or any other such story. If you don't consider the complexity and nature of traditional animist religions as intellectual, like those of the American Indians or Africans or various Asian groups, then what makes Egyptian thought any different?
As for Thomas Aquinas, his idea was that philosophy and theology were not two separate things, but interrelated. However, I don't believe such a thing. I think this is just a form of rationalism of human belief. In other words, accepting the fact that humans, by their very nature, are susceptible to the belief in a "spirit" world of unprovable things. These things are not intellectual pursuits, but reflections of the make up of the human psyche, in my opinion. That is the only reason why some people call such beliefs and the religions that stem from it, intellectual, or a reflection of mental activity in trying to understand the nature of the soul and its relationship to everything around it. But attempts to explain such things have been going on for a very long time and is the basis for what we call theology. It isn't some special "intellectual" capacity of a specific culture or individual, it is a reflection of the fundamental make up of the pshyche of man himself. HOwever, that said, no matter if Aquinas did try and reconcile the nature of religious belief, it does not change the fact he was a Catholic and did not believe in a "Sun God" or "Hawk God" as valid expressions of faith.
[
www.radicalacademy.com]
[
www.fordham.edu]
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/2007 04:16AM by Doug M.