Bertrand Russell and Reason

  • Thread starter Thread starter paxromana
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

paxromana

Guest
He claimed in 1927 “that the Catholic Church has laid it down as a dogma that the existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason.”

Is this true? It has been my understanding that this is not the case.

I admire that Russell did hold us all to high moral standards if we do claim be Christians.
 
Actually, you can’t prove the existence of God. Belief in God is simply an act of faith. Russell came to the problem of unprovable first premices in logic. He found that religious first premices are the same; they cannot be proven. They must be accepted on faith.

Matthew
 
That was my understanding. I wonder where Russell got the idea that the church held that reason could be used to prove God’s existence.
 
From the CCC:

III. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH

36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.12

37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.13

38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”. 14
 
thanks for the passages.

Obvious questions arise from this reading
  1. To those who argue belief in God is a matter of faith which cannot be derived from reason what does this suggest?
  2. If God was the first cause what caused Him?
  3. If God’s existence can be demonstrated through reason why is there a need for faith at all and are the Mysteries of faith really mysteries at all?
4.Why is suggested that we have the ability to reason because we are created in the image of God but not have other Godlike qualities. What is the criterion for what powers we share with God?
 
paxromana said:
thanks for the passages.

Obvious questions arise from this reading
  1. To those who argue belief in God is a matter of faith which cannot be derived from reason what does this suggest?
Click to expand...
To me it suggests that when faith and reason are at odds with one another, one or both of them is incorrect.
  1. If God was the first cause what caused Him?
Click to expand...
Nothing. If something created Him, He would not be the “first” cause.
  1. If God’s existence can be demonstrated through reason why is there a need for faith at all and are the Mysteries of faith really mysteries at all?
Click to expand...
Because some parts of God’s revelation are not accessible to reason, e.g., the incarnation.
4.Why is suggested that we have the ability to reason because we are created in the image of God but not have other Godlike qualities. What is the criterion for what powers we share with God?
Click to expand...
I believe we have other Godlike qualities, e.g., the ability to love.
 
paxromana said:
thanks for the passages.

Obvious questions arise from this reading
  1. To those who argue belief in God is a matter of faith which cannot be derived from reason what does this suggest?
  2. If God was the first cause what caused Him?
  3. If God’s existence can be demonstrated through reason why is there a need for faith at all and are the Mysteries of faith really mysteries at all?
4.Why is suggested that we have the ability to reason because we are created in the image of God but not have other Godlike qualities. What is the criterion for what powers we share with God?
Click to expand...
Hi. Let me dive into the first three and leave the fourth alone for a while:
  1. This position is known as fideism and actually has been condemned by the CC. I guess the suggestion to those holding this position is that they are wrong. (more than a suggestion, I suppose 🙂 )
  2. God is the first cause in the sense of primary cause, not first in order of time. If things come into existence, they require a cause. If God does not require a cause, this entails that there never was a time when God “came into existence”—which is what traditional theism says about God.
  3. There is a need for faith for salvation. Saying “I believe that God exists” is not the same as saying “I believe in God” or “I have faith in God for my salvation.” Salvation through faith in Christ is not something which can be reasoned to without the aid of revelation. The same is true of the mysteries of faith, such as Christ’s dual nature. However, the existence of God is not one of the mysteries of faith, considered in and of itself.
 
As, Cpayne has succinctly tackled the first three questions, I will attempt the fourth.

St. Thomas Aquinas states that an image of something is not an exact copy - giving the example of looking into a mirror. Although, it shares some likeness it is not a perfect copy.

St. Augustine answers to clarify further “Where there is an image there is not necessarily equality.”

So, although, we are definitely and undeniably created in the “image and likeness of God” this image is an imperfect one. We are not equal to God.

We share many of God’s qualities, in a real but limited sense. We share God’s ability to reason. We share His ability to love. We share His knowledge. We are partly spiritual creatures.

I would go as far to say that we have ALL of God’s qualities in a limited sense. As human beings it is our duty to develop this image and likeness to the best of our ability, by becoming more loving, more reasonable and more knowledgable.

JD
 
cpayne said:
Hi. Let me dive into the first three and leave the fourth alone for a while:
  1. This position is known as fideism and actually has been condemned by the CC. I guess the suggestion to those holding this position is that they are wrong. (more than a suggestion, I suppose 🙂 )
I have never found a water-tight logical proof for the existence of God. I think Aquinas ontology is powerful but not proof of God’s existence.
  1. God is the first cause in the sense of primary cause, not first in order of time. If things come into existence, they require a cause. If God does not require a cause, this entails that there never was a time when God “came into existence”—which is what traditional theism says about God.
I think this is an overly simple view of casuality.
  1. There is a need for faith for salvation. Saying “I believe that God exists” is not the same as saying “I believe in God” or “I have faith in God for my salvation.” Salvation through faith in Christ is not something which can be reasoned to without the aid of revelation. The same is true of the mysteries of faith, such as Christ’s dual nature. However, the existence of God is not one of the mysteries of faith, considered in and of itself.
Click to expand...
Again logical proof of the existence of God is required to move to the next step about persoanl salvation.
 
Rats. I hate to get involved in what looks like a good discussion and then back out, but this is my finals week. So I’m going to leave the conversation in the hands of others. Bye for now, everybody!
 
Johndigger said:
As, Cpayne has succinctly tackled the first three questions, I will attempt the fourth.

St. Thomas Aquinas states that an image of something is not an exact copy - giving the example of looking into a mirror. Although, it shares some likeness it is not a perfect copy.

St. Augustine answers to clarify further “Where there is an image there is not necessarily equality.”

So, although, we are definitely and undeniably created in the “image and likeness of God” this image is an imperfect one. We are not equal to God.

We share many of God’s qualities, in a real but limited sense. We share God’s ability to reason. We share His ability to love. We share His knowledge. We are partly spiritual creatures.

I would go as far to say that we have ALL of God’s qualities in a limited sense. As human beings it is our duty to develop this image and likeness to the best of our ability, by becoming more loving, more reasonable and more knowledgable.

JD
Click to expand...
All of God’s qualties? Wow that sounds like a pretty positive view of humankind.
what is immortality in a limited sense? 🙂
how about omniscience in a limited sense?
 
Thank you for replying. 🙂
Click to expand...
paxromana said:
All of God’s qualties? Wow that sounds like a pretty positive view of humankind.
Click to expand...
It is. Although, we are disfigured by sin the human race is still worth dying for.

God really only has one quality - that is “Godness.” God is infinitely simple, however, we use human words to describe the ways in which this simplicity manifests itself by how God acts in our world and what we understand about his nature from supernatural revelation and reason.
What is immortality in a limited sense? 🙂
Click to expand...
We die. Therefore, we are mortal. But we also have immortal souls, therefore we are also immortal.

We share God’s immortality in a limited sense.
how about omniscience in a limited sense?
Click to expand...
God knows everything. We know some things. Therefore, we know part of everything.

We share in part of God knowing everything, by knowing a little.

Whilst, I see your point have you either being omniscient or not and there being no middle ground, God has given us the ability to move more and more from our ignorance towards omniscience even if we will never reach it.

God bless you!

JD

Small disclaimer: This is not an official Church position that I know of, so obviously, no one is bound to believe it.

However, it is a position I am quite happy to defend.
 
Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.13
Click to expand...
I wonder if the question hinges on what the Catechism means by certainty. You often hear (as in another thread) the demand that God’s existence be proved by “scientific standards.” Obviously, this is ill-conceived even in presumption, since scientific facts are not “proved” by scientific standards, not deductively anyway, as the demand implies. Are we talking about deductive proof from obviously true premises? Are there such axioms we can accept prima facie? Or, can we argue merely that the existence of God is a “reasonable” claim to make, and view the question as a coherentist would? Is this discussion really so old that even my keyboard is groaning under the strain of typing it up? Certain knowledge of the one personal God and Natural Law written in our hearts by the Creator. This is the claim. Which one comes first? Can you argue from one to the other? What is certainty in this context? What is knowledge? These are not rhetorical.

God Bless

Jon Winterburn
 
JonW said:
I wonder if the question hinges on what the Catechism means by certainty. You often hear (as in another thread) the demand that God’s existence be proved by “scientific standards.” Obviously, this is ill-conceived even in presumption, since scientific facts are not “proved” by scientific standards, not deductively anyway, as the demand implies. Are we talking about deductive proof from obviously true premises? Are there such axioms we can accept prima facie? Or, can we argue merely that the existence of God is a “reasonable” claim to make, and view the question as a coherentist would? Is this discussion really so old that even my keyboard is groaning under the strain of typing it up? Certain knowledge of the one personal God and Natural Law written in our hearts by the Creator. This is the claim. Which one comes first? Can you argue from one to the other? What is certainty in this context? What is knowledge? These are not rhetorical.

God Bless

Jon Winterburn
Click to expand...
Good points. I’m pretty sure “rationality” in earlier terms (Aquinas’s usage, for instance) meant a great deal more than logical deductive certainty. Rationality is bound up with the total person, as the image and likeness of God. So even if strict deductive proofs are not possible (I personally think they are possible, but that’s a different thread), someone without these deductive proofs can still be rationally certain of God’s existence, on the levels of reason, history, personal experience, existential reaction to the fact of the universe, and so on.

As you point out, this is not a scientific proof, however, and is not supposed to be. It’s much stronger. 🙂
 
cpayne said:
Good points. I’m pretty sure “rationality” in earlier terms (Aquinas’s usage, for instance) meant a great deal more than logical deductive certainty. Rationality is bound up with the total person, as the image and likeness of God. So even if strict deductive proofs are not possible (I personally think they are possible, but that’s a different thread), someone without these deductive proofs can still be rationally certain of God’s existence, on the levels of reason, history, personal experience, existential reaction to the fact of the universe, and so on.

As you point out, this is not a scientific proof, however, and is not supposed to be. It’s much stronger. 🙂
Click to expand...
A logical proof for the existence of God is Logicians holy grail.
Not only do I doubt the existence of one I think it faulty to claim uniaded reason can come to the conclusion of God’s existence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top