Is Faith necessary to know that God exists?

[Darryl1958]

You speak as if God is a choice. God is not a choice, faith is a choice, and faith may not be a way to God. You sound like someone who is interpreting things through piety, not reason.

Your overall response is not so much a reasoned response, as a visceral reaction against an answer that reeked of decadence and spiritual decadence, that reeked of the culture of death that entombs our society.

And that I submit, is all the reason that life needs. It is not a reasoned response that keeps us alive, but a visceral one that we share with rabbits and cockroaches, bacteria, trees and all of life.

We don’t life because it is reasonable, logical proposition to do so, but according to the same visceral response that would have a coyote chewing his paw off in a trap rather than succumbing to the freezing cold.

The spirit of life flowing through a ferret is not the choice of the ferret. Indeed though man can reject Spirit. Only man among the life forms may reason that life is hardly worth the effort. and relative to the reason one has for living, we are all like Job, without a reason not to just curse God and die.

God gives Job no reason why, only faith to believe when there was no longer any reason to believe in anything, to believe in spite of the loss of all relative reasons that make life worthwhile.

 

[Detales]

Pew.

 

[Darryl1958]

Pew.

Good place for Catholic philosphers to sit on their thumbs.

 

[Bluegoat]

The Documents of Vatican II state “One Can Know God By the Natural Light of Human Reason”.

If this is true - is FAITH necessary to know that God exists?

I acknowledge the statement of Vatican II is TRUE. Therefore FAITH is NOT necessary to know that God exists.

What then does require Faith?

There are certain things you have to have faith in to allow for the possibility of true reasoning, and true reasoning from observing the world. We need faith in the Law og Non-Contradiction (A thing cannot be both one thing and it’s opposit at the same time and in the same sense.) To reason from observed things we need to have faith that those things, the universe, actually exists and is not a dream.

So, in that sense, all knowledge, except perhaps knowledge of our own existence at this very moment, requires faith. That would include knowledge about the existence of God.

But usually philosophers, theologians, and scientists do not talk about that first step. In a way, if we don’t assume that step, we might as well keep silent and live under a bridge.

So they start, like the document you mention, but assuming the possibility of reason. And yes, it is not required to have faith to know the existence of God - any two-bit philosopher can reason his way to God. (This is also stated clearly by St Paul, so the Vatican didn’t make it up.)

As Christians, there are any number of articles we must believe as matters of faith. Any historical fact, though we may have evidence for it, cannot be known. We cannot know for sure that Jesus was actually the Son of God. We cannot know that the Church is really what it says it is, or that the Bible is a godly document. We may have, and should have, good reasons for believing these things, but they are ultimately matters of faith, not knowledge.

Additionally, we know that God’s nature is actually beyond reason; not unreasonable, but supra-reasonable. In these things we can only know what little is revealed, or make negative statements.

Incidentally, there are also matters requiring faith outside the church - faith in things we can’t see, in historical events, faith in people, faith in black holes…

 

[Areopagite]

There are certain things you have to have faith in to allow for the possibility of true reasoning, and true reasoning from observing the world. We need faith in the Law of Non-Contradiction (A thing cannot be both one thing and it’s opposite at the same time and in the same sense.) To reason from observed things we need to have faith that those things, the universe, actually exists and is not a dream.

I agree completely. So true.

So, in that sense, all knowledge, except perhaps knowledge of our own existence at this very moment, requires faith. That would include knowledge about the existence of God.

Yep … although some philosophers have tried to doubt even our existence … who know.

But usually philosophers, theologians, and scientists do not talk about that first step. In a way, if we don’t assume that step, we might as well keep silent and live under a bridge.

It’s true in my experience that this topic isn’t talked about a lot, it seems. ** G.K. Chesterton**, however, in Orthodoxy talks about nicely though.

That peril is that the human intellect is free to destroy itself. Just as one generation could prevent the very existence of the next generation, by all entering a monastery or jumping into the sea, so one set of thinkers can in some degree prevent further thinking by teaching the next generation that there is no validity in any human thought. It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, “Why should anything go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?” The young sceptic says, “I have a right to think for myself.” But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, “I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all.”

You also say …

As Christians, there are any number of articles we must believe as matters of faith. Any historical fact, though we may have evidence for it, cannot be known. We cannot know for sure that Jesus was actually the Son of God. We cannot know that the Church is really what it says it is, or that the Bible is a godly document. We may have, and should have, good reasons for believing these things, but they are ultimately matters of faith, not knowledge.

I might take issue with these statements, though I haven’t ever thought this out completely and might be prone to error. You seem to say previously, as with the case with the principle of non-contradiction and whatnot, you say that such things require faith but nonetheless can be known. Faith, you indicate, is required for knowledge. Faith makes knowledge possible.

But when talking about Christ and the Church, you say that since these are matters of faith, they cannot be known. Yet, you had said that faith makes knowledge possible.

Now, of course, there is a distinction between Natural Faith vs. Supernatural Faith. The former pertains to natural intuitions we have as human beings (like the principle of non-contradiction), and the latter pertains to Christianity with its divinely revealed truths that are not naturally known. Nonetheless, I argue that the truths of Christianity can be known. Faith, I would say, is a combination of seeing and not seeing. It is part belief and part knowledge. It is part certainty and part uncertainty. To have faith be all belief is just a random guess at reality without any solid basis whatsoever. The Theological of Virtue of Faith though is a kind of knowledge, but which does not reveal to you everything of the things of God, and thus you must believe many things about God and the Church without exactly knowing why, though I think the more you grow in faith, the more belief turns into knowledge.

Maybe I’m wrong about this. But I think this has to be the case.

 

[Detales]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat:
"So, in that sense, all knowledge, except perhaps knowledge of our own existence at this very moment, requires faith. That would include knowledge about the existence of God.

“But usually philosophers, theologians, and scientists do not talk about that first step. In a way, if we don’t assume that step, we might as well keep silent and live under a bridge.”

This does seem to be true about those categories of thinkers in the West. It is not equally true about them in the East. Given that we all are operating under the template of “in the image and likeness of God,” perhaps some experiential exegesis from our non-christianist brothers might be admissible in the consideration of these points. I particularly speak of the knowing of God other than that “knowing” based on faith. Knowing here is in quotes as I agree with the “law of non-contradiction.”

Perhaps then we might agree that there are categories of knowledge, the chief of which can be knowledge that “I am,” (naming our own existence) which gives rise to “what” “who” “where” and “why” The last of these is the most likely of all, because it can, and most often does, become a confusion between “what” and “who.”

I am is empirical self knowledge. It serves until there arises in mind a distinction between a portable self and its “objective” environment. Thus arises subject/object awareness. I submit that all knowledge, including subjective sensual knowledge and all knowledge thought outside it as “the world” is all objective knowledge, the knowing of one’s ego and body yet being contents of the mind that perceived the original difference. I also submit, that since this split divides ones sense of self both from the “world” and from “body/self,” that that split in fact constitutes “Original Sin.” The Fall of Man as a general event may be more correctly attributed to the rise in our species of this very ability to consider self as an object, analyzable from an awareness position capable of critical thinking that comprehends the “self” as and object relative to the world.

I know that such a delineation is not strictly of perhaps even nearly Catholic teaching, but I also am not one to maintain that all teaching is literal, particularly OT material. As for knowledge of the kind we are mostly talking about here, I myself would make a distinction between factual knowledge such as is receivable through books and learning, faith included, and practical knowledge such as swimming. Clearly factual knowledge can be translated into experiential knowledge, as in the case of from knowing “about” swimming, to actually diving in and doing it yourself to whatever degree your interest and ability take you. Of course these two fields have a n overlap, which area gives us grounds for communication relevant to swimming.

It is in this same sense that we might understand faith as well. The comparison here might be that Jesus is, in our faith, the Original Swimmer. He has attempted by example, mostly I would think, and by words as well, to acquaint us with His realm of “Swimming.” As non- swimming receivers of those communications, I would think that some of the information relative to “Swimming” may have been diminished as it was handed down over time by various routs now of somewhat obscured origin. The activities surrounding those handings down are also to some degree obscured, as is testified to by even sympathetic sources in the historic record.

Nevertheless, the avenue of inquiry into “Swimming” as an experiential activity may be more accessible than may be ordinarily believed. Unfortunately, there is a parallel prophylactic activity to this accessibility which takes the form of the developments and refinements of the delineation of faith that are unchecked by the Original Swimmer in other than, what?–faith based ways. And we know that by the Law of Non-Contradiction, faith, per se, is not knowledge, save of an intellectual or self validating sort. Let us remember here that a system valid within itself, no matter how energetically utilized, may be true or not to various degrees when distributed over Reality. The very self confirmation of the validity by distribution in action may re-enforce the feeling conviction that the valid system is in itself true.

So, without elaborating further on the experiential accessibility to “Swimming,” let me say pertinent to this thread that faith may be useful towards “salvation” insofar as it leads to swimming in the abstracted right pool, but hinders if it excludes pertinent and relevant data outside its own faith system. “Salvation” itself, along with “Incarnation,” “Redemption,” and “Resurrection,” may yet have different current faith values than originally assigned them by the “Original Swimmer.”

Bindar Doondat, FZPC

 

[geometer]

In my understanding and experience, there is a huge difference between knowing THAT God exists to WHO God is.

That God is can be determined by the light of natural reason.
WHO God is requires Faith by the light of God’s revelation about Himself.
We would never know WHO God is unless God revealed this to us. This knowledge and understanding can only be gained by FAITH.

Moses asked God for his name. God answered. You can ask and know about God, if you have real nerve, like Moses…

 

[Bluegoat]

I agree completely. So true.

Yep … although some philosophers have tried to doubt even our existence … who know.

It’s true in my experience that this topic isn’t talked about a lot, it seems. ** G.K. Chesterton**, however, in Orthodoxy talks about nicely though.

You also say …

I might take issue with these statements, though I haven’t ever thought this out completely and might be prone to error. You seem to say previously, as with the case with the principle of non-contradiction and whatnot, you say that such things require faith but nonetheless can be known. Faith, you indicate, is required for knowledge. Faith makes knowledge possible.

But when talking about Christ and the Church, you say that since these are matters of faith, they cannot be known. Yet, you had said that faith makes knowledge possible.

Now, of course, there is a distinction between Natural Faith vs. Supernatural Faith. The former pertains to natural intuitions we have as human beings (like the principle of non-contradiction), and the latter pertains to Christianity with its divinely revealed truths that are not naturally known. Nonetheless, I argue that the truths of Christianity can be known. Faith, I would say, is a combination of seeing and not seeing. It is part belief and part knowledge. It is part certainty and part uncertainty. To have faith be all belief is just a random guess at reality without any solid basis whatsoever. The Theological of Virtue of Faith though is a kind of knowledge, but which does not reveal to you everything of the things of God, and thus you must believe many things about God and the Church without exactly knowing why, though I think the more you grow in faith, the more belief turns into knowledge.

Maybe I’m wrong about this. But I think this has to be the case.

I don’t think I disagree with you.

Yes, the possibility of human knowledge demands a kind of faith - or to put it another way, we cannot know, for sure, that there is a real possibility of human knowledge. If those assumptions are correct, then faith does indeed lead to true knowledge.

As well, there are certain religious truths that we must take as matters of faith - that could, if correct, give us the possibility of another kind of knowledge. But we cannot know, for sure, that that knowledge is really possible either. But if those assumptions are correct, they also lead to true knowledge.

In both cases, we cannot know if the assumptions or articles of faith are correct.

Which is to say, the possibility of natural and religious knowledge are both matters of faith. All knowledge is potentially unsure. Of course there may or may not be equal grounds for accepting the assumptions, or faith assertions, of each of these categories. I think it would be safe to say that if there is no possibility of natural knowledge, there is no possibility of religious knowledge. The opposite would not necessarily be the case.