S
snarflemike
Guest
This is what the Church teaches (Vatican Council I and II), though I’m sure most Catholics don’t know that (I certainly didn’t). Agree? Disagree? Comments?
- Status
D
Drinkgasoline
Guest
Definitely agree, in my eyes, the mighty St. Thomas Aquinas clearly proved this.
E
eightandsand
Guest
Agreed. The Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith has made it clear that, “There is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth”, and that “this one true God, by his goodness and almighty power…brought into being from nothing the twofold created order, that is the spiritual and the bodily, the angelic and the earthly, and thereafter the human which is, in a way, common to both since it is composed of spirit and body.” Morever, this God could "be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason."
This whole conflict between Christianity and Modern Science (Materialism) goes back to the ancient rival cosmological arguments of Epicurus and Aquinas. Everything depends on whether the things of nature are or are not eternal. If they are, Epicurus is right, and nature is self-contained, having no need of a divine source; if they are not, Aquinas is right, and nature is contingent, existing in a state of dependence on the source of its existence, a source outside of nature. The beauty of Aquinas’s argument from contigency, is that it is not based on revelation. It is not a scriptural argument. The Bible is never mentioned. It depends entirely on natural reason. And Aquinas’s argument actually has science on its side; indeed, since the advent of Big-Bang cosmology last century, it certainly seems that the great weight of physical evidence points to the contingency of the universe. There is no actual direct evidence supporting the Epicurus’s “eternal atom” or the “grand unification theory” as it would be called today. None of the arguements in favor of Materialism is based on direct evidence, whereas all of the arguments in favor of an intelligent Designer are in fact based on empirical evidence that we can see and measure. When one see design (the purposeful arrangement of parts) in Nature, it is only reasonable to conclude the presence of a Designer. Modern science (materialism) was designed to exclude the Designer. Science, for the materialist, is not about truth-seeking. It is a about therapy, about achieving “ataraxia” (“freedom from disturbance” as Epicurus put it) from the fear of hell and the guilt of sin and the demands of the gods.
Ironically, there is nothing more likely to lead to the ultimate collapse of Materialism* than *the advance of science. Non-materialist arguments are viable alternatives as long as they explain the visible phenomena equally well or better. Thankfully, nature is independent of any scientific hypothesis defining scientific inquiry; Nature has the last say. Sadly, materialists often hold to materialist dogma even when their own science turns up starling evidence of the Designer.
Darwinism cannot remain merely a scientific theory. A materialist cosmos must necessarily yield a materialist morality. All scientists making scientific arguments are - at the same time - making moral claims, for statements or presupposititons about nature necessarily include human nature. In the same way, all moralists making moral arguments are - at the same time - making scientific claims, for statements or presuppositions about human nature necessarily rest on nature itself. There is no way to escape the interrelationship of science and ethics. Rival cosmological accounts imply rival views of morality. I think the 20th century demonstrated that very clearly.
C
cpayne
Guest
I agree, as long as we recognize that “knowing with certainty” does not mean “knowing absolutely” or “knowing infallibly.”
For example, I know with certainty that my wife is faithful to me. That doesn’t mean I have infallible knowledge of her faithfulness.
Same with God’s existence. Through reason and our experience, we know with certainty that God is. But we must believe that He is, as well.
For example, I know with certainty that my wife is faithful to me. That doesn’t mean I have infallible knowledge of her faithfulness.
Same with God’s existence. Through reason and our experience, we know with certainty that God is. But we must believe that He is, as well.
F
fakename
Guest
They are not analogous, because I think the Church definitely means that we know of God’s existence with a mathematical and infallible certainty.
However, it is an inductive certainty in the sense that the proofs for God use the word “because” in the same way that one would use the word “because” to explain the twinkling of the stars “because” the stars are far away. That’s true, but their twinkling is essentially because of the properties of optics and light even though it is a necessary antecedent that they should be far away for the properties to take effect.
C
cpayne
Guest
Dear Fakename: You wrote, “They are not analogous, because I think the Church definitely means that we know of God’s existence with a mathematical and infallible certainty.”
I actually think you are not correct about this, but I am open to correction myself. Anyone know for sure the Church’s teaching on this? I know Aquinas says that God’s existence is not self-evident, in the sense of a proposition self-evidently true. But he says we can INFER our way to a rational demonstration of God’s existence. This is not the same as “mathematical and infallible certainty.” In this, he disagreed with Anselm, and I think the Church has essentially adopted his position: certainty, but not absolute knowledge.
However, as I said, I’m open to correction.
I actually think you are not correct about this, but I am open to correction myself. Anyone know for sure the Church’s teaching on this? I know Aquinas says that God’s existence is not self-evident, in the sense of a proposition self-evidently true. But he says we can INFER our way to a rational demonstration of God’s existence. This is not the same as “mathematical and infallible certainty.” In this, he disagreed with Anselm, and I think the Church has essentially adopted his position: certainty, but not absolute knowledge.
However, as I said, I’m open to correction.
D
davidv
Guest
Do you have a Catholic teaching source for this claim?
Based on this quote here, there is no such thing as inductive certainty.
I
IbnFiktur
Guest
I think we must be careful in how we understand the idea that “reason alone” can lead us to God. Even JP II acknowledged that it could only take us so far before we rely on divine revelation. I think these words of his sum it up the best:
“It is clear that knowledge through faith differs from purely rational knowledge. Nevertheless God would not have been able to reveal himself to the human race if it were not already naturally capable of knowing something true about God. Therefore, alongside and in addition to an “I know,” which is proper to man’s intellect, there is an “I believe,” proper to the Christian. With faith the believer has access, even if obscurely, to the mystery of the intimate life of God who reveals himself.”
Source: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19850320en.html
Before we make St. Thomas Aquinas the definitive authority on the subject, I think it is important to mention that St. Augustine (also a doctor of the Church) may have had a different, and perhaps equally valid, perspective on the matter. To paraphrase him, it’s God Himself who reveals himself to us THROUGH a variety of means (including but not limited to reason), not purely human reason that reveals Him to us.
It’s a minor subtlety in wording, but I think it best reflects the truth.
Excellent thread, by the way.
“It is clear that knowledge through faith differs from purely rational knowledge. Nevertheless God would not have been able to reveal himself to the human race if it were not already naturally capable of knowing something true about God. Therefore, alongside and in addition to an “I know,” which is proper to man’s intellect, there is an “I believe,” proper to the Christian. With faith the believer has access, even if obscurely, to the mystery of the intimate life of God who reveals himself.”
Source: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19850320en.html
Before we make St. Thomas Aquinas the definitive authority on the subject, I think it is important to mention that St. Augustine (also a doctor of the Church) may have had a different, and perhaps equally valid, perspective on the matter. To paraphrase him, it’s God Himself who reveals himself to us THROUGH a variety of means (including but not limited to reason), not purely human reason that reveals Him to us.
It’s a minor subtlety in wording, but I think it best reflects the truth.
Excellent thread, by the way.
J
jochoa
Guest
Agreed and personally validated.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Thomas discusses the belief in God’s existence as opposed to knowing of his existence. He held that the object or our faith and our knowing cannot be the same. I have never understood the argument. He said that the " existence of God " is not an article of Faith. However we say in the Creed " I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth…" There is something here I don’t quite get. Nevertheless, that God exists can be held with absolute certinty. That is infallible teaching of the Church, so it can be held with absolute certinty.
D
Drinkgasoline
Guest
Wahey I managed to find the quotation:
“Natural reason tells us that because of the inadequacies we perceive in ourselves we need to subject ourselvesto some superior source of help and direction; and whatever that source might be, everybody calls it God.” - St Thomas Aquinas
“Natural reason tells us that because of the inadequacies we perceive in ourselves we need to subject ourselvesto some superior source of help and direction; and whatever that source might be, everybody calls it God.” - St Thomas Aquinas
F
fakename
Guest
Well done. You are correct in that I spoke too soon. I should not have compared mathematics to God’s existence for one is apriori and the other aposteriori.I meant merely that we know of God’s existence with certainty and also we know it aposteriori. Apparently though, we perhaps know of his reality with the same feeling of certainty as we feel about math, though math is more certain and scientific.
F
fakename
Guest
(1) No, but what other certainty can there be, except infallible certainty? Certainly we would not say, given the strength of the proofs (debateble but among some people at least) and Aquinas’s testimony (for in the Summa Theologica he is writing for beginners & he tackles the epistemology behind the 5 ways. And therefore, he would’ve qualified such a delicate point, like the level of certainty we had in the proof, for us.) that our certainty was fallible.
(2) And inductive certainty exists IMO (the quote still perhaps withstanding) insofar as the senses, their observations, and self-evident truths all agree. Inductive certainty is simply the logical certitude from sound deductions that are not apriori (that are not, deduced “from the essence or cause of the thing”). However I understand that reality is shifty and the senses are fallible so that data are unreliable. Yet, logic and the knoweldge of what is possible or impossible will help us to reject the datum which is false.
I should clarify one thing. Induction for Aquinas means knowledge from the effect and not from the cause. So since some things have certain and constant causes, for Aquinas induction is capable of certainty.
F
fakename
Guest
I think the pope was thinking of supernatural theology and natural theology. In the latter we know of God through reason, and in the former God reveals things that are impossible to grasp rationally (the Trinity) but are amenable to reason and rational creatures.
C
Cascadian
Guest
as far as the existence of God goes yes, certainly and it is only by embracing a self defeating epistemology, positivism, has the intellectual world done the absurd and lost sight of God.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
You can disagree but if you did you would be a heretic because this is a part of the " Deposit of the Faith " and may not be doubted. In fact this is a Defined Dogma so it is a little more fundamental than those elements not so defined. What you say is probably true for though the Catechism of the Catholic Church is now nearly ten years old, people have not bothered to read it. Yet all Catholics are morally obliged to form their consciences upon the norms of Church’s teaching. Reading the Catechism would in my mind constitute a bare minimal effort in that regard.
- Status