@ughaibu,
ughaibu;135834 wrote:It's interesting that even in the 13th century and even in Italy, believers needed to offer arguments in their attempts to persuade others that their god was real.
Was it really mischaracterization?
it is interesting that
as in - hmmmm intersting, I find it funny that, isn't it a litte queer - Interesting - the English catch all word for I really don't find this fascinating I find this run of the mill bordering on stupid.
That even in the 13 century and even in Italy
Double evens even coupled 13th century and Italy - This sets up the incredulity of the rest of the sentence by setting up the 'even in the stereotypically church theocracy of the dark ages' Double modifiers signify the magnitude in which it was 13th century Italy, not just normal 13th century Italy.
Believers needed to offer arguments
After having set up the sarcastic introduction by stating unsurprised incredulity the following in no way can be interpreted as unbiased. By coupling Beleivers (faithful) with needed to offer arguments. it is asking the question in the readers mind, Why would the faithful need to explain anything, if they believed they should not have to offer logical arguments. This also implies that faith itself is illogical. "I find it incredulous that a confessed person of faith has a double standard of "blind faith" and the need to have a rational explanation.
in their attempts to persuade others that their god is real
in this section the possessive pronouns their is distancing the speaker from the believer, redirecting the reader to see the speaker as the incredulous one in the beginning of the sentence. Attempts to persuade coupled with the incredulity shows the inherent unsucessful nature of the believer's argument, any argument that a believer might have as it was not directed specifically to Aquinas. Their god is real also shows that the believer is just one of many that believe in any number of gods that are equally unarguable and equally deserving of the incredulity of the speakers opening words.
was it really a mischaracterization? Speaker opening with derision then distancing himself from the subject matter by intimating that they are all unable to be logical because of their belief, even when the majority of their peers share that belief?
