Religion Multiple Choice

What does Giussani mean when he uses the word “God”?

Giussani, in his work, does not explicitly define "God" in the provided excerpts. However, the text implies that "God" refers to the ultimate answer or solution to the "dizzying human condition" and the "religious sense" that seeks something "adequate to the structural needs of our 'I'." It is the "Other," the "ultimate factor," or the "infinite" that humanity is in search of, which transcends the limits of human reason and experience.

What is the dizzying human condition? What are its main characteristics?

The "dizzying human condition" refers to humanity's inherent search for a total, ultimate meaning or solution that is disproportionate to human capacity. Its main characteristics include an insatiable drive towards something "adequate to the structural needs of our 'I'". A constant, innate search for the ultimate reason for existence. A sense of profound restlessness and need for a definitive answer to life's fundamental questions. The awareness of a "disproportion" between human desire and human capacity to fulfill that desire.

What kind of solution is human reason in search of?

Human reason is in search of a "total solution" or an "answer adequate to the structural needs of our 'I'". This solution is one that can fulfill the innate religious sense and address the fundamental questions of existence, something that transcends the limitations of human capacity. 

 In what sense are all religions true, according to Giussani?

According to Giussani, all religions are "true in the measure in which they express that original movement, that primitive impulse of the human being in search of an answer" to the fundamental questions of existence. They are true in their expression of humanity's innate religious sense and the profound need for a total meaning in life, acting as pathways that spring from this original human dynamic.

What are the differences between the religious method and the method of revelation?

The religious method involves humanity's effort to reach God through its own understanding, searching, and constructs, like "bridges built by men that try to reach the stars". It's a journey from man to God. In contrast, the method of revelation is an initiative from God to man, where God "makes Himself known". It is described as "the stars bending over to touch man," or God Himself becoming the "bridge" to man.

Why does Giussani call the method of revelation an “overturning” of the religious method?

Giussani calls the method of revelation an "overturning" of the religious method because, instead of humanity seeking God (the religious method), God takes the initiative and reveals Himself to humanity. It reverses the direction of the relationship: "it is no longer man who seeks, but the Other who makes himself known". This is powerfully illustrated by the "parable" of the builders versus the man who claims to be the bridge.

Explain the meaning behind Giussani’s “parable” about the builders making bridges that try to reach the stars and the man who claims that he is the bridge.

Giussani's parable illustrates the difference between the religious method and the method of revelation. The "builders making bridges that try to reach the stars" represent the religious method, where humanity, through its own efforts, reason, and religious practices, attempts to bridge the gap between itself and the divine. The "man who claims that he is the bridge" represents the method of revelation, specifically Christianity, where God Himself, in the person of Christ, becomes the means by which humanity can access the divine. It signifies that the initiative for connection comes from god, not solely from human striving.

To the question of whether divine revelation has taken place, what is Christianity’s answer?

To the question of whether divine revelation has taken place, Christianity's answer is an affirmative "yes." It claims that "God has made Himself known to man in a particular way and at a particular point in time". This revelation is presented as an objective, historical event.

 In what sense are the gospels written “like a notebook”?

The Gospels are described as being written "like a notebook" because they record the immediate impact of Jesus's presence on his disciples, rather than being systematic theological treatises or fully developed doctrines. They capture the raw, lived experience of an encounter, detailing what the disciples "saw, heard, and touched" and how their lives were transformed by this encounter. They reflect a process of discovery and developing certainty.

How were Jesus’ disciples able to become certain of who Jesus is?

Jesus' disciples became certain of who Jesus is through their direct, continuous experience of Him, observing His "incomparable humanity". They were "overcome" by His presence, noting His authority, His words, and His miracles, which consistently pointed to an "otherness" that surpassed mere human capacity. Their certainty developed through their interaction with His compelling and transforming presence.

Why do the gospels continually repeat the phrase “and his disciples believed in him”?

The Gospels continually repeat the phrase "and his disciples believed in him" to emphasize that belief was a direct, experiential response to Jesus's presence and actions, rather than an abstract intellectual assent. It highlights the organic, developing nature of faith, rooted in their encounter with an "otherness" that demanded a response of trust and adherence. This repetition underscores the immediacy and transformative power of their experience of Jesus.

What characteristics make Jesus an “incomparable man”?

Jesus is an "incomparable man" due to several characteristics: His unique authority that captivated and challenged listeners, the profound and unprecedented nature of His teachings, His powerful and inexplicable miracles, and the absolute consistency of His claims about Himself with His actions and being. His presence elicited an unshakeable conviction in those who encountered Him that He was more than just a man.

Why does Jesus perform miracles?

Jesus performs miracles not merely as displays of power, but as "signs" that demonstrate His divine authority and confirm the truth of His claims. They are meant to reveal His identity as the "Other" and to evoke belief in Him. Miracles serve to authenticate His mission and invite a response of faith from those who witness them.

What is the general methodological indication that Giussani gives at the beginning of chapter 4?

At the beginning of Chapter 4, Giussani gives the general methodological indication that to understand religious experience, which is an experience, we must examine "how an experience works". He proposes looking at "the phenomenon or field of inquiry" of human experience in general to grasp the mechanics of religious experience.

Because religious experience is an experience, we must inquire into which phenomenon or field of inquiry to understand how it works. And why must we look at this phenomenon?

Because religious experience is an experience, we must inquire into the "phenomenon of experience itself" or the "field of inquiry of human experience" in general to understand how it works. We must look at this phenomenon because understanding how any human experience functions provides the key to understanding how religious experience functions. It allows for a proper methodology for observing the "human factor" involved in religious experience.

What does it mean to look at ourselves “in action”?

To look at ourselves "in action" means to observe our own experience as it unfolds, to be aware of our own reactions, desires, and the way we engage with reality. It's about self-awareness in the moment of living, recognizing the fundamental human needs and questions that drive our actions and perceptions.

What does Giussani’s example of the little boy who never tries math because he thinks he doesn’t like it teach us about observing (or not observing) ourselves in action?

Giussani's example of the little boy who never tries math because he thinks he doesn't like it teaches us that prejudgments or preconceived notions can prevent us from truly observing ourselves "in action". The boy's assumption prevents him from engaging with the experience and discovering his actual capacity or inclination. This illustrates that genuine observation requires an openness to experience without allowing biases to dictate our engagement or understanding.

Through what sort of questions does the religious sense express itself? Give a description and examples.

The religious sense expresses itself through ultimate and fundamental questions about existence, meaning, and destiny. These are questions like "What is the meaning of life?", "Why am I here?", "What is death?", and "What is happiness?". They are not merely intellectual curiosities but arise from the deepest needs and desires of the human heart. The religious sense is a fundamental dimension of human experience, a drive within the "I" that seeks ultimate meaning and fulfillment. It expresses itself through insistent, foundational questions about life's purpose, death, and the nature of reality. Examples include the universal human search for happiness, the desire for justice, the yearning for love that endures, and the persistent inquiry into why anything exists at all. It's the inherent openness of the human person to the infinite.

What is the religious sense looking for?

The religious sense is looking for an "adequate answer," a "total meaning," or an "ultimate factor" that can fulfill the innate human needs and desires. It is searching for something proportionate to the immense longing within the human "I," something that can resolve the "disproportion" between human capacity and human desire.

What is the “disproportion” that Giussani discusses in chapter 5?

The "disproportion" that Giussani discusses in chapter 5 is the fundamental gap between the immensity of human desires and needs (e.g., for ultimate happiness, truth, love, and meaning) and the limited capacity of human beings and worldly things to fulfill those desires. It's the awareness that no finite experience or achievement can fully satisfy the infinite longing of the human heart.

What does it mean that this disproportion is structural?

That this disproportion is "structural" means it is an inherent, intrinsic, and unavoidable part of human existence, built into the very fabric of our being. It is not a flaw or a temporary condition, but a fundamental characteristic of the human "I" that drives us towards something beyond ourselves.

Give two definitions of sadness

1    The painful awareness of the fundamental "disproportion" between human desire and human capacity, leading to a sense of unfulfillment or longing for something more.

    2    The experience of being confronted with the limits and insufficiency of finite realities to satisfy the infinite yearning of the human heart.

What does Giussani mean when he talks about the structure of the I or self as “promise”?

Giussani talks about the structure of the "I" or self as "promise" to convey that the human being is inherently oriented towards something beyond itself, a fulfillment that is not yet attained but is implicitly anticipated. The very constitution of our being, with its insatiable longings and questions, points to an ultimate answer or destiny that is promised, even if it is not yet fully known or possessed. It implies an openness to a future fulfillment that will resolve the structural disproportion

Why does Giussani think that the world without God would be “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” (Macbeth, act 5)?

Giussani believes that the world without God would be "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" because without a divine ultimate meaning or purpose, human existence and the universe itself would lack ultimate significance. The "sound and fury" (human striving, suffering, achievements) would ultimately be meaningless without a transcendent referent, leaving everything ultimately devoid of ultimate purpose or lasting value. It underscores the idea that God provides the ultimate meaning that prevents existence from being absurd.

Why are the four causes called “causes”? What do they cause?

The four causes are called "causes" because they are explanatory principles that help us understand why something exists or how it came to be. They cause or explain the existence, nature, and purpose of things.

What is the difference between efficient and final causation?

Efficient causation refers to the agent or force that produces something, the "maker" or the immediate trigger of an event. For example, a sculptor is the efficient cause of a statue. Final causation refers to the purpose or end for which something exists or acts, its goal or telos. For example, the purpose of a house (shelter) is its final cause.

Why are the five ways called “the five ways”? They are ways of doing what?

The five ways are called "the five ways" because they are five distinct paths or arguments that Thomas Aquinas put forth to demonstrate the existence of God. They are "ways of doing what?" demonstrating God's existence by beginning with observable aspects of the natural world and logically reasoning to a necessary first cause or ultimate explanation.

What are potentiality and actuality?

Potentiality refers to the capacity or possibility for something to be or to become something else. For example, a seed has the potential to become a tree. Actuality refers to the state of being real or existing in fact, the realization of a potential. A tree is the actuality of the seed's potential.

The three ways we studied conclude that there must exist what three kinds of being? 

  1    A First Mover (from the first way).

• Everything in motion is moved by something else. There cannot be an infinite regress of movers, so there must be a First Mover, unmoved by anything else.

• This points to a being that initiates motion — Pure Act — often understood as God. 

  2. A First Cause (from the second way).

• Every effect has a cause, and you cannot have an infinite chain of causes. Therefore, there must be a First Causethat is not itself caused by anything.

• This being is necessary to explain the existence of anything at all — again, understood as God.

    3    An Intelligent Designer/Governor (from the fifth way). 

• Natural things act toward ends in a consistent, purposeful way — even though they lack intelligence themselves. This suggests a being with intelligence that directs them.

• Thus, there must be an Intelligent Designer or Governor guiding the order of the universe — identified with God.

What does Thomas mean by “motion”?

In the context of the first way, Thomas means by "motion" any kind of change or transition from potentiality to actuality. This includes not just local movement, but also changes in quality, quantity, or substance, essentially any process of becoming.

Summarize the first way in logical steps.

We observe that things in the world are in motion or undergoing change (moving from potentiality to actuality). Whatever is in motion must be moved by something else, as nothing can move itself (nothing can be both in potentiality and actuality at the same time in the same respect). This chain of movers cannot go on infinitely, because then there would be no first mover to initiate the motion. Therefore, there must exist a First Mover, itself unmoved by anything else. This First Mover is what everyone understands to be God

Summarize the second way in logical steps.

We observe in the world an order of efficient causes (things causing other things). Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself, because it would have to exist prior to itself, which is impossible. The chain of efficient causes cannot go on infinitely, because if there were no first efficient cause, there would be no intermediate or ultimate effects. Therefore, there must exist a First Efficient Cause, which is uncaused by anything else. This First Efficient Cause is what everyone calls God.

Summarize the fifth way in logical steps.

We observe that natural bodies, which lack intelligence, act for an end or purpose.They act always or nearly always in the same way to achieve the best result, which indicates intention, not chance. Whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end unless directed by something intelligent, just as an arrow is directed by an archer. Therefore, there must exist an intelligent being by whom all natural things are directed to their end. This intelligent being is what we call God

According to the author, what is the “analogy of poets”?

The "analogy of poets" is the power of the poet to gather up and hierarchize the real through discerning resemblances or affinities between things, even those that are remote or opposed. Poets do not create these resemblances but discover them. This analogy allows poets to elevate material things to spiritual things due to perceived resemblances. It is also called "metaphorical analogy" because the sense of words is transferred beyond their proper area, creating an immediate connection between two things without a comparison

What is the “metaphysical analogy” and how does it differ from the analogy of poets?

  The "metaphysical analogy" is a way of unifying things and rising to God through the "ladder of things". It differs from the analogy of poets in that it operates differently. The metaphysician discovers that all entities are interrelated and gathers them under the common name "being," as all things share in exercising the act of existence. The word "being" when applied to different things (material or spiritual) is never a metaphor, and its meaning does not change; it always indicates the basic connection between essence and existence, though in infinitely diverse proportions. This is why it is called the "analogy of proportionality". Unlike poetic analogy, which relies on external resemblances or metaphors, metaphysical analogy finds its source within each being and covers all categories of the real, rising from a blade of grass to God without needing to adjust the meaning of "being".

What is the etymology of the word “analogy”?

The word "analogy" comes from the Greek adverb ana, meaning "a movement from below to above," and logos, meaning "reason".

What is the etymology of the word “symbol”?

The word "symbol" comes from the Greek syn, meaning "with" or "together," and ballein, which means "to throw". The symbol "throws together" two distinct things in the mind that are mysteriously united.

Explain the following quote: “for the poet, everything is a hieroglyph”

This quote means that for a poet, every observable thing in the material world functions as a sign or symbol ("hieroglyph") that conveys deeper, often supernatural meanings. Poets perceive that the things of this world speak a language that hints at the world of the soul and God. Through the poet's eye, nature, instead of being a dark forest, becomes a "forest of symbols" where natural things, things of the soul, and things of God discover astonishing kinships.

Why is the word “being” the basis for all metaphysical analogies?

The word "being" is the basis for all metaphysical analogies because it is the common element that all entities share: the act of existence, whereby they are "plucked from nothingness" and triumph over the abyss. Even with vast differences (e.g., between God and a blade of grass), both are constituted by the same relation to existence, which allows the intellect to reconcile them. The word "being" indicates what is most basic in all realities: an essence and an existence and their connection, allowing for an understanding of diverse proportions of this bipolarity.

What is the difference between “participated being” and “absolute being”?

The provided text primarily focuses on "participated being." It states that in our region, the being we encounter is always a "limited being" that "was not" yesterday and "will no longer be" tomorrow. This "participated being" is described as a "received, caused being," meaning that being does not inherently belong to it, but it contains only a part of being. "Absolute being" is implied as the contrast to this, the unreceived or uncaused source of being, though not explicitly defined in this excerpt.

St. Augustine writes the following quote in his Confessions: “We are because all of us have been created. Therefore we were not before being. We cannot create ourselves.” Is this quote describing participated being or absolute being? Why?

This quote describes participated being. The phrases "We are because all of us have been created" and "We cannot create ourselves" explicitly state that existence is received from another source, not self-originated. This aligns with the text's description of participated being as a "received, caused being" that does not inherently possess being but contains only a part of it.

What is a transcendental being?

The provided text does not explicitly define "transcendental of being" but discusses how "being" can "gather" all things together in unity and how "all things resemble one another in the relation of their essence to their existence," revealing their affinity because they belong to a common cause. This implies that these are properties that apply across all beings due to their relation to existence.

What are the four transcendentals of being?

1    Truth

    2    Unity

    3    Goodness 

    4    Being

What is the relationship between the metaphysical analogy and the transcendentals of being?

The relationship between metaphysical analogy and the transcendentals of being is that analogy, specifically the analogy of being, provides a framework for understanding the transcendental properties of being, which include the One, the True, and the Good. Analogy helps us grasp how these properties, which are applied to all beings, are related to their ultimate source, God

What is a proposition?

A proposition is a statement that can be either true or false. It is the content of a belief or a declarative sentence.

Give a definition of belief (there are two different ones in the article)

A belief is an "attitude that we take toward a proposition," where one "holds it to be true". A belief is also described as a "state of mind that we have when we regard a proposition as true”

What is the difference between propositional knowledge and knowledge by acquaintance?

Propositional knowledge is "knowledge that" something is the case, meaning knowing that a certain proposition is true. For example, "I know that Paris is the capital of France". Knowledge by acquaintance is direct, non-propositional knowledge of something or someone, often involving direct experience or familiarity. For example, "I know Paris" (meaning I have visited and am familiar with it)

According to the JTB theory of knowledge, what are the three components of knowledge?

According to the Justified True Belief (JTB) theory of knowledge, the three components are: Justification: The belief must be rationally supported or have good reasons. Truth: The belief must correspond to reality; what is believed must actually be true. Belief: The knowing subject must actually believe the proposition in question.

What are the different ways in which knowledge can be good?

Knowledge can be good in several ways: Instrumentally good: It can be useful for achieving other goals or solving problems. Intrinsically good: It can be good for its own sake, simply for the satisfaction of knowing. Perfecting a person: It can contribute to the development of a person's intellectual virtues and overall well-being.

According to the intellectual virtue theory of knowledge, what are the components of Knowledge?

According to the intellectual virtue theory of knowledge, knowledge is a true belief that is arrived at through the exercise of intellectual virtues on the part of the knower. The components are: True belief: The belief must be true. Intellectual virtue: The belief must be formed or held as a result of the knower employing intellectual virtues (e.g., careful observation, logical reasoning, intellectual humility, open-mindedness).

 If people already knew who Jesus was, why did they still ask him "who are you?"?

Because although people sensed something extraordinary in Jesus — through his words, actions, and presence — he didn't fit into their expectations. Their question, “Who are you?”, reveals their struggle to understand a man who seemed human like them, yet spoke and acted with divine authority.
Giussani emphasizes that the question expresses a tension: they perceived signs pointing to something more, something transcendent, but couldn’t fully grasp it. So the question reflects a deeper longing to understand the mystery they were encountering.

Why is Peter's response to Jesus ("Lord, we also do not understand. But to whom shall we go? You alone have the words of eternal life") profoundly reasonable?

Because Peter's response shows a rational recognition of an undeniable experience. Even though he doesn’t fully understand Jesus, Peter cannot deny the impact of Christ’s presence and words.
Giussani would say this is the most human and reasonable stance: not blind faith, but a trust grounded in evidence — the correspondence between Jesus and the human heart’s need for meaning, truth, and life. Peter’s decision is an example of faith as a reasonable risk, based on what he has seen and heard

Why did Jesus only reveal who he was gradually?

Because if Jesus had revealed his full identity immediately, people would have misunderstood or rejected him based on preconceptions. Giussani explains that God respects human freedom and reason — He doesn't impose Himself.
Instead, Jesus invited people to observe, listen, and engage, allowing them to discover the truth of his identity through a relationship. This gradual revelation respects the human path of awareness and freedom, guiding people to recognize God not as an abstract idea, but as a living presence who enters history.