Does all knowledge come from God?

[Robert_Sock]

We fool ourselves with earthly science, attributing knowledge to our innate wit. The notion that humans can learn anything on their own is absurd if God is to be taken at face value. Earthly science is a scam.

What do philosophers have to say about this?

LOVE!

 

[FightingFat]

Earthly science is an investigation of creation. Scientific method was invented by Catholics seeking the truth. Rationalism and empiricism seek to deny the transempirical dimension to this reality. The Church affirms that there exists a knowledge which is peculiar to faith, surpassing the knowledge proper to human reason, which nevertheless by its nature can discover the Creator. This knowledge expresses a truth based upon the very fact of God who reveals himself, a truth which is most certain, since God neither deceives nor wishes to deceive.

 

[Bahman]

We fool ourselves with earthly science, attributing knowledge to our innate wit. The notion that humans can learn anything on their own is absurd if God is to be taken at face value. Earthly science is a scam.

What do philosophers have to say about this?

LOVE!

Are you calming that the knowledge called science which can explain the focused subject matter well so called the laws of nature, whether you like it or not, comes from God meanwhile one of the main result of science is to discard the concept of God by striving to a set of laws!?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Are you calming that the knowledge called science which can explain the focused subject matter well so called the laws of nature, whether you like it or not, comes from God meanwhile one of the main result of science is to discard the concept of God by striving to a set of laws!?

Too big an emphasis ‘human knowledge,’ as if it came from within our innate wit. In our technological world, people tend to attribute way too much to our God-given wit, as if it existed independently of God.

LOVE!

 

[Tom_Baum]

We fool ourselves with earthly science, attributing knowledge to our innate wit. The notion that humans can learn anything on their own is absurd if God is to be taken at face value. Earthly science is a scam.

What do philosophers have to say about this?

LOVE!

I don’t know what philosophers have to say about this but I would imagine that lots of people may have a thought or so concerning this.

I attribute our ability to acquire knowledge to the fact that God created us with the ability to acquire knowledge.

God also created creation to be learned from and to be able to be learned about.

Earthly science is not a “scam” but is mankind using his God-given abilities to understand and figure out what God has made figureoutable.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I’m assuming this topic has been started becuase of our discussion in this topic. I’ll just say again what I said there.

All knowledge is derived from God because it is through God that all things exist. While it is true that certain people use science to delude themselves into believing there is no God, this is a fault of the person, not of science. Science is the study of God’s creation, specifically the study of the aspects of creation which he has chosen to make knowable. This knowledge, while ultimately being derived from God, is the result of human efforts. Just because a human is involved does not mean that the knowledge should be discarded because, ultimately, the knowledge comes from God. Had he wanted us to only rely on Him for direct knowledge, then he wouldn’t have allowed the workings of the universe to be knowable. Since He did make them knowable, we can assume that he doesn’t have an issue with us seeking to understand them.

Now, it is completely possible for this knowledge to be misused (nuclear bomb, embryonic stem cells, eugenics, etc), however, this does not mean that the knowledge or pursuit thereof is bad, it simply means that people are once again abusing the gifts God has given them.

Knowledge is good, the pursuit of knowledge is good. The pursuit of God, however, is better, and should always be our primary motivator.

 

[Bahman]

Too big an emphasis ‘human knowledge,’ as if it came from within our innate wit. In our technological world, people tend to attribute way too much to our God-given wit, as if it existed independently of God.
LOVE!

There are two cases, either creation is perfect or imperfect. We don’t need God’s intervention in the first case as the creation is perfect hence it can search the truth and find the truth. In the second case we need God’s intervention, so called revelation. The second case is however sarcastic since it means that God purposefully perform the creation imperfect to assure that beings eventually will need its help so God has to come and complete an incomplete job. This has seriously conflict with the idea of God being rational.

 

[SecretCatholic]

Earthly science is a scam.

Robert, this is simply not a Catholic belief. You’re entitled to have your own personal beliefs, of course. But its just not representative of the Church’s history and theology.

Scientism is the scam, not science.

Earthly science is an investigation of creation. Scientific method was invented by Catholics seeking the truth. Rationalism and empiricism seek to deny the transempirical dimension to this reality. The Church affirms that there exists a knowledge which is peculiar to faith, surpassing the knowledge proper to human reason, which nevertheless by its nature can discover the Creator. This knowledge expresses a truth based upon the very fact of God who reveals himself, a truth which is most certain, since God neither deceives nor wishes to deceive.

Now, it is completely possible for this knowledge to be misused (nuclear bomb, embryonic stem cells, eugenics, etc), however, this does not mean that the knowledge or pursuit thereof is bad, it simply means that people are once again abusing the gifts God has given them.

 

[Bahman]

Earthly science is an investigation of creation.

Earthly science together with philosophy and math which is essential for science are seeking the truth rather than creation.

Scientific method was invented by Catholics seeking the truth.

You mean Galileo and all those unknown who put knowledge in applications. The one who used stone to build tools, …

Rationalism and empiricism seek to deny the transempirical dimension to this reality.

What reality? We are exposed to one reality which we can experience them through our sense, either it is sufficient or not, in first case Empiricism is correct and in the second case creation is imperfect, hence we need revelation to fill the gap which could be filled in a perfect creation since God is omniscience, omnipotence and rational hence the second case is a failure meaning that rationalism is correct since God decide on pure reason.

The Church affirms that there exists a knowledge which is peculiar to faith, surpassing the knowledge proper to human reason, which nevertheless by its nature can discover the Creator.

How this knowledge could be constructed if it is not based on pure reason? Do you have any other option than reason?

 

[Robert_Sock]

I’m assuming this topic has been started becuase of our discussion in this topic. I’ll just say again what I said there.

All knowledge is derived from God because it is through God that all things exist. While it is true that certain people use science to delude themselves into believing there is no God, this is a fault of the person, not of science. Science is the study of God’s creation, specifically the study of the aspects of creation which he has chosen to make knowable. This knowledge, while ultimately being derived from God, is the result of human efforts. Just because a human is involved does not mean that the knowledge should be discarded because, ultimately, the knowledge comes from God. Had he wanted us to only rely on Him for direct knowledge, then he wouldn’t have allowed the workings of the universe to be knowable. Since He did make them knowable, we can assume that he doesn’t have an issue with us seeking to understand them.

Now, it is completely possible for this knowledge to be misused (nuclear bomb, embryonic stem cells, eugenics, etc), however, this does not mean that the knowledge or pursuit thereof is bad, it simply means that people are once again abusing the gifts God has given them.

Knowledge is good, the pursuit of knowledge is good. The pursuit of God, however, is better, and should always be our primary motivator.

As before, I agree with much of what you say, but I do not view this world to be some kind of a toy that God gave to us and wants us to figure it out. We possess no truly innate wit of our own.

LOVE!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Everything comes from God.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

As before, I agree with much of what you say, but I do not view this world to be some kind of a toy that God gave to us and wants us to figure it out. We possess no truly innate wit of our own.

LOVE!

I’m not saying it’s a toy, I’m saying that it’s our charge, what we’ve been tasked with maintaining. In order to maintain it, we have to understand it. I agree that our intellects are a gift form God, but that does not mean that we do not possess our own intelligence (“wit” as you called it). He gives us intelligence to used as we see fit, and it is ours to use or abuse, and as such we can be said to gain knowledge on our own, even if that knowledge’s ultimate source is God.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I’m not saying it’s a toy, I’m saying that it’s our charge, what we’ve been tasked with maintaining. In order to maintain it, we have to understand it. I agree that our intellects are a gift form God, but that does not mean that we do not possess our own intelligence (“wit” as you called it). He gives us intelligence to used as we see fit, and it is ours to use or abuse, and as such we can be said to gain knowledge on our own, even if that knowledge’s ultimate source is God.

Such is an extremely popular view, but that does not necessarily make it true.

LOVE!

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Such is an extremely popular view, but that does not necessarily make it true.

LOVE!

Correct, being the popular view doesn’t ensure that it’s true. That said, the Catholic Church has always supported this view, and does so explicitly in the catechism:

39 In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.

159 Faith and science : “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” (Dei Filius 4: DS 3017) “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.” (GS 36 ’ 1)

2293 Basic scientific research, as well as applied research, is a significant expression of man’s dominion over creation. Science and technology are precious resources when placed at the service of man and promote his integral development for the benefit of all. By themselves however they cannot disclose the meaning of existence and of human progress. Science and technology are ordered to man, from whom they take their origin and development; hence they find in the person and in his moral values both evidence of their purpose and awareness of their limits.

2294 It is an illusion to claim moral neutrality in scientific research and its applications. On the other hand, guiding principles cannot be inferred from simple technical efficiency, or from the usefulness accruing to some at the expense of others or, even worse, from prevailing ideologies. Science and technology by their very nature require unconditional respect for fundamental moral criteria. They must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, of his true and integral good, in conformity with the plan and the will of God.

2295 Research or experimentation on the human being cannot legitimate acts that are in themselves contrary to the dignity of persons and to the moral law. The subjects’ potential consent does not justify such acts. Experimentation on human beings is not morally legitimate if it exposes the subject’s life or physical and psychological integrity to disproportionate or avoidable risks. Experimentation on human beings does not conform to the dignity of the person if it takes place without the informed consent of the subject or those who legitimately speak for him.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Correct, being the popular view doesn’t ensure that it’s true. That said, the Catholic Church has always supported this view, and does so explicitly in the catechism:

Yes, I’m aware of that. But doesn’t it seem strange that something that is already known needs to be learned? Why not just ask God in the first place? What is the purpose of such ‘science?’ Is it like some sort of an IQ test from God?

Is science really discovering this knowledge, or is it simply being revealed to us from God? I say the latter, with ‘science’ being an illusion.

LOVE!

 

[Tom_Baum]

Yes, I’m aware of that. But doesn’t it seem strange that something that is already known needs to be learned? Why not just ask God in the first place? What is the purpose of such ‘science?’ Is it like some sort of an IQ test from God?

Is science really discovering this knowledge, or is it simply being revealed to us from God? I say the latter, with ‘science’ being an illusion.

LOVE!

I would say that any “knowledge” concerning God wouild be revealed to us by God since knowledge about God is beyond our mental capabilities but that “knowledge” concerning God’s creation is knowable to us thru our God-given mental capabilities since God made creation to be knowable and God gave us the “tools” to do this.

As far as “doesn’t it seem strange that something that is already known needs to be learned?”, just because God knows something doesn’t mean we know something so it isn’t something that is known to us but is something that we learn using our various God-given ways of learning.

In other words, we are learning things that are NOT already known.

As far as “Why not just ask God in the first place?”, maybe God’s answer would be something to the effect, I gave you the ability to figure out the figureoutable so use what I gave you.

 

[davidv]

Yes, I’m aware of that. But doesn’t it seem strange that something that is already known needs to be learned? Why not just ask God in the first place? What is the purpose of such ‘science?’ Is it like some sort of an IQ test from God?

Is science really discovering this knowledge, or is it simply being revealed to us from God? I say the latter, with ‘science’ being an illusion.

LOVE!

Based on assumption above, this would be a valid reason to question why God created anything.

We are sojourners in a foreign land. Why? Because we must learn to love. In order to love we must have hope. In order to have hope we must have faith. In order to have faith we must be taught the truth so that it came become knowledge that can grow to wisdom. The truth of the physical is evidence of the non-physical. Paraphasing Scripture: all creation cries out the glory of God.

 

[Bahman]

Is science really discovering this knowledge, or is it simply being revealed to us from God? I say the latter, with ‘science’ being an illusion.

Then what is the point of mental activity, reading, learning, gathering knowledge, etc.

Why by insisting in rereading a text, the ambiguity disappears when the text is no clear in the first place?

Do you believe that we have an intellect? Can you define the intellect and tell us what is its duty?

Your way of thinking tells me that God constantly reprogram our minds since we have no ability to construct knowledge. What is the point creating such a being, too sarcastic for me to be true.

 

[Bahman]

Based on assumption above, this would be a valid reason to question why God created anything.

We are sojourners in a foreign land. Why? Because we must learn to love. In order to love we must have hope. In order to have hope we must have faith. In order to have faith we must be taught the truth so that it came become knowledge that can grow to wisdom. The truth of the physical is evidence of the non-physical. Paraphasing Scripture: all creation cries out the glory of God.

If you accept so then that means that the process of learning the truth is reduced to a reprogramming of our minds, hence we shouldn’t be happy for love we have for God since nothing that we know is real since we cannot justify it.

 

[davidv]

If you accept so then that means that the process of learning the truth is reduced to a reprogramming of our minds, hence we shouldn’t be happy for love we have for God since nothing that we know is real since we cannot justify it.

It appears that you don’t understand what I wrote. What you state above is not even close to any conclusion I would reach based on my post.

1. “reduced to a reprogramming of our minds” - non sequitur, nothing in my post states, nor implies this.

2.“nothing that we know is real” - Solipism is an unwarranted philosophy and will preclude productive discussion.

What in my post is not clear?