Can we reach God by Reason Alone?

[devonsams]

I often say some catholics saying: “The church tells us that we can reach God by reason alone!”

and in counterpart I see some new atheist and atheists philosophers such as Bertrand Russell strongly criticizing the Church because he heartly disagrees that we can reach God by reason alone.

Now I would like to know what does that mean? Is it a Dogma of the church that we can reach God through reason alone? Any Pope said that? Thank you!

 

[OxygenMan]

We can come to know the existence of God in a general sense through reason. But to know Him in His entirety (or as close as we can understand it) also requires divine revelation. This is one of the reasons why other religions have the concept of “God” or gods, but those concepts are not always correct.

 

[inChristAlone33]

We reach God by seeing ourselves in a true light and by placing Him on the throne of our hearts. Until then, we are reckless and lost in our own self-love and worship.

We must lay before him what is in us, not what ought to be in us.
C.S. Lewis

 

[snarflemike]

I often say some catholics saying: “The church tells us that we can reach God by reason alone!”

and in counterpart I see some new atheist and atheists philosophers such as Bertrand Russell strongly criticizing the Church because he heartly disagrees that we can reach God by reason alone.

Now I would like to know what does that mean? Is it a Dogma of the church that we can reach God through reason alone? Any Pope said that? Thank you!

It is found in the CCC, and was dogmatically pronounced, I believe, in the 1st Vatican Council.

What it means is that we can know “by natural reason alone” of the existence of God, including most of his attributes (but not, for example, that he is Trinity).

 

[catholictiger]

it is possible to reach God through reason, this was claimed by Vatican 1

 

[Armor_of_Light]

That’s what they say…

I have not had to reach God through reason alone. I’m going to suggest (and this is just a thought) that maybe while you are searching for God through reason…with a pure motive…that God would be easier to know. Not like you get done with studying 100 reasons and poof God is known to you.

The Bible repeatedly tells us to seek God.

 

[R_C]

I often say some catholics saying: “The church tells us that we can reach God by reason alone!”

and in counterpart I see some new atheist and atheists philosophers such as Bertrand Russell strongly criticizing the Church because he heartly disagrees that we can reach God by reason alone.

Now I would like to know what does that mean? Is it a Dogma of the church that we can reach God through reason alone? Any Pope said that? Thank you!

It is an official teaching of the Church.

Reason is sufficient to reach knowledge of God, but not necessary.

Often, many wise men call “reason” their spiritual blindness, and for them no proof is enough proof.

 

[Theophorus]

I often say some catholics saying: “The church tells us that we can reach God by reason alone!”

and in counterpart I see some new atheist and atheists philosophers such as Bertrand Russell strongly criticizing the Church because he heartly disagrees that we can reach God by reason alone.

Now I would like to know what does that mean? Is it a Dogma of the church that we can reach God through reason alone? Any Pope said that? Thank you!

As others have said, Vatican I defined dogmatically a view that has long been held that there are two ways of knowing God: natural reason and supernatural revelation(cf.* Dei Filius* ch.4 which draws on the scholastic philosophical tradition for its definition). But knowing God by reason alone is not easy nor possible for many people for a variety of reasons(time, difficulty of the task, other commitments etc.), any many who try get it wrong. Nor can reason alone give us the fullness of knowledge of God that our minds are capable of receiving(that he is Triune), hence God in his Loving mercy revealed himself to us. The Church teaches that whether the truth is Divinely revealed or the discovery of human reason the source is the same.

 

[JReducation]

The problem here is very simple to resolve. People are making more of this than there is to it.

In Romance languages, the term “reason” has only two meanings. In English, the same word has several meanings.

The same happens with the word “reach”.

To translate this into our American English, the Council said that if man uses logic, he will find that there is a God.

By the way, this is not a dogma of the Church. Not everything that Vatican I said was a dogma. This was a direct quote from St. Thomas Aquinas.

The actual dogma follows this sentence. “Man is destined for God.” That’s the dogma. The sentence about reason is a transition sentence leading to the actual dogma.

It’s very important to read the documents as theologians read them, because they were written by theologians for theologians. They were not written for the man in the pew. The assumption of Vatican I was that theologians would disseminate its conclusions in a manner that was accessible and comprehensible to the faithful and that the bishops would oversee this important work. The Council Fathers never expected an Internet, nor did they expect us to be reading their writings.

If they had expected us to be reading their words, they may have used less jargon and more simple sentences. It is what it is. Right? :yup:

 

[Theophorus]

The problem here is very simple to resolve. People are making more of this than there is to it.

In Romance languages, the term “reason” has only two meanings. In English, the same word has several meanings.

The same happens with the word “reach”.

To translate this into our American English, the Council said that if man uses logic, he will find that there is a God.

By the way, this is not a dogma of the Church. Not everything that Vatican I said was a dogma. This was a direct quote from St. Thomas Aquinas.

The actual dogma follows this sentence. “Man is destined for God.” That’s the dogma. The sentence about reason is a transition sentence leading to the actual dogma.

It’s very important to read the documents as theologians read them, because they were written by theologians for theologians. They were not written for the man in the pew. The assumption of Vatican I was that theologians would disseminate its conclusions in a manner that was accessible and comprehensible to the faithful and that the bishops would oversee this important work. The Council Fathers never expected an Internet, nor did they expect us to be reading their writings.

If they had expected us to be reading their words, they may have used less jargon and more simple sentences. It is what it is. Right? :yup:

I agree that the documents must be read in the proper context, but nevertheless I must disagree with you in your interpretation. Dei Filius is a dogmatic constitution of an oecumenical council of the Church, its decrees are binding. It is in fact part of the deposit of faith, and dogmatically held, that man can know of the existence of God by the light of human reason. Vatican I felt it was necessary to define this in the aftermath of the so called “enlightenments” that occurred in Europe since the time of Kant and because of the growing prowess of the emperical sciences, which seemed to some to overshadow any aspect of human life that was not material.

2. On revelation

1. If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.

This of course is not a “Sola Ratio” along the lines of the protestant understanding of ‘sola’ but one of two possible modes of comming to know that God exists. Another more negative reaction to emperical science and modern philosophy was the rise of ‘fideism’ which tried to claim God could be known only by faith and not by reason.