Knowledge vs. Faith

[Flopfoot]

Just a bit more from the CCC that I reckon may help. Not sure how relevant to the discussion at hand but still good to read.

II. WAYS OF COMING TO KNOW GOD

31 Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.

**32 **The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.7 And St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: “See, we are beautiful.” Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change?8

**33 **The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God’s existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul, the “seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material”,9 can have its origin only in God.

**34 **The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10

**35 **Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

 

[svoboda]

Flopfoot:

Just a bit more from the CCC that I reckon may help. Not sure how relevant to the discussion at hand but still good to read.

II. WAYS OF COMING TO KNOW GOD

31 Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.

**32 **The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.7 And St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: “See, we are beautiful.” Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change?8

**33 **The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God’s existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul, the “seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material”,9 can have its origin only in God.

**34 **The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10

**35 **Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

There are all sorts of wonderful philosophical arguments for the existence of God. By the way Aquinas based his works heavily on Aristotle who predated Christianity and as far as I know is the author of the prime mover (i.e. first cause) argument. Augustine got many of his ideas from the neo-Platonists, again non-Christian.

I can appreciate the arguments for the existence of God, but I don’t see how they equal the Catholic Church.

For all we know the God that exists is more consistent with deism than theism.

Do you have evidence to show otherwise?

 

[Flopfoot]

Well, I don’t know exactly what you mean by Theism and Deism, although I have heard something about Deism saying that God merely makes the world and then leaves it to itself, not actually caring what happens much less intervening - is that correct about Deism?

One thing I could say then is that we have historical records (written as well as oral tradition) of prophets and miracles, of God actually speaking to His people and in a way proving Himself to them. There are records explaining how we got from Abraham to the Catholic Church - in particular the bible. Lots of historians accept that Jesus is a real person and there are plenty of arguments / proofs that Jesus is in fact God. I have read something once, I think it was called The Case for Christ, I’ll look into it.

But there’s more to it than that. Even just looking at the human person. Why is man a religious being? Even from early (Neanderthal) times, man has had things like burial rituals, demonstrating a belief in the afterlife. why does man have a conscience, a sense of right and wrong, instead of acting out of instinct like other animals? Why does man feel called to know and to love God? If God wanted nothing more to do with the world apart from creating it, why would He make man like this?

Must be off for now, I’ll try and write more about this later.

 

[the-3rd-parent]

I agree. Unfortunately, when I took Philosphy of Religion, I had a professor who believed that faith was based on knowledge. I tried to write a paper going into how all our knowledge is based on faith – that the foundation of knowledge is faith and that then after that knowledge builds on itself. I would even say that some of the presumptions we hold stem from faith we’ve had in things of which we no longer have and we spend a lot of time just presuming things without looking back down that path.

I’d say that’s the way people lose their faith in religion. They are taught contradictory things and are encouraged to only go down that path of looking to “How did I come about believing in God?” But they are never challenged to ask “How did I come about believing in science, medicine, etc?”

I honestly think that faith in God holds more water.

 

[svoboda]

Flopfoot:

Well, I don’t know exactly what you mean by Theism and Deism

I am thinking about what the original Deists of the Englightenment believed: that God exists, that our moral conscience is from God, emphasis on living morally, don’t believe in miracles or God who is actively involved in the world, believe will be held accountable to God upon death. Don’t believe in revelation and dogmatic religion. I don’t know if this is how it is defined.

One thing I could say then is that we have historical records (

Why are the arguments convincing to you? Can you find anything at all that supports the big events of the Old Testament (i.e. something like enslavement of Jews recorded in egypt, evidence of Jews wandering in desert for forty years etc.)?

Why do you believe that gospels are a good historical account of what happened? Does it bother you that they were written 40 - 60 years after Jesus’ death? Does it bother you that Mark, the first gospel is far less developed than John? Does it bother you that Paul doesn’t mention the Church established on Peter, neither do Mark or Luke even though virtually identical passages as Matthew exist?

Does the immorality found in the Old Testament bother you?

What about Jesus’ sayings that the world will end within the lifetime of those standing near him?

In short, what makes you think that Jesus is more than another mythical character (i.e. there was such a man, but the gospels as stories embelished him and added things that weren’t there. it wouldn’t be the first time special powers would be attributed to a man, all he does is perform miracles none of which are a huge deal, and in the early ending of Mark no one sees him after the resurrection they just find the empty tomb, although the women are told that he is risen and went ahead to Galilee) Miracles are attributed to him, but not by Paul who wrote in 50AD onward. Miracles were attributed to pagan miracle workers as well, doesn’t mean they were true. I bet now some followers of televangelists believe that they are performing miracles and could testify to that. So what?

Between Jesus’ death and the writing of the gospels these stories floated around in the oral tradition for nearly 40 years. And their culture wasn’t one of skepticism and science, they had magicians back in those days, they believed all sorts of things.

Plus, have you ever wondered how the gospel writers knew what was said for example to women at the empty tomb, how Jesus was tempted by the devil in the desert?

Who was there recording that stuff?

Plus, what about the fundamental principle: why would the crucifixion do anything for human beings? God becoming man and sacrificing himself to himself, why does that save us? Baptism doesn’t seem to do anything because people are just as sinful as they were before.

But there’s more to it than that. Even just looking at the human person. Why is man a religious being? Even from early (Neanderthal) times, man has had things like burial rituals, demonstrating a belief in the afterlife. why does man have a conscience, a sense of right and wrong, instead of acting out of instinct like other animals? Why does man feel called to know and to love God? If God wanted nothing more to do with the world apart from creating it, why would He make man like this?

Just so you know, Neaderthals are considered a separate species from humans. Even though their tools were nearly as sohpisticated as ours, and they did bury their dead.

By the way, in one of the documentaries I was watching a yougn chimp died. All the male chimps gathered around him and groomed him, something they never do with live young chimps, and the only other young chimp allowed near him was his brother. Very strange, no? Watching those documentaries make me more and more certain that chimps are sentient

But those are all good questions, they are really big questions. There could very well be a God, but again, maybe it is a God who reveals himself to us individually through our moral conscience, our reason etc. Maybe this God wants us to figure things out on our own, and values creativity and development and individuality more than belief in a specific creed and obedience. Maybe God wants us to find our own way to him and for that reason chooses not to reveal himself. Maybe he wants there to be different faiths, different ways of thinking etc.? Maybe that’s the point, for us to create all of these different ways of understanding?

I also think evolution gives great insights into man’s nature.

What do you think of the idea of hell? Abandoned Catholics who remarry because of loneliness will go there unless they repent and change their ways. Catholics for whom NFP doesn’t work and they choose to use birth contorl will go there. Jesus said most people will go there. Is this justice?

 

[InSearchOfGod]

svoboda:

Do you think dogs can figure things out? I don’t.

Well, now, this depends on what you mean by “figure things out.” I have certainly seen my dog figure out that if she wants some more food to come running to me with her empty bowl in her mouth. I am certain God placed an amount of intelligence in more than just humans, yet humans are the only ones with the capacity to realize the existence of God (among other things).

Also, svoboda, your inquiries about evidence are intriguing. Evidence seems to be one of those things needed for proof, which is needed for knowledge. Yet what makes something “evidence” is faith itself, isn’t it? The Bible itself could be considered evidence for the things that happen in it, but it does take faith. For dinosaur fossils to be considered evidence for life before mankind, one must have faith in the scientists that discover and analyze them. Of course, it’s easy to believe some things, other things are harder to believe so it makes you want more “evidence.” But this only furthers my argument that “knowledge” in many instances depends on and comes from faith. If that’s not “knowledge” I wouldn’t know what else to call it.

Many thanks to all for the replies and subject/book recommendations. I hope to look into them.

 

[svoboda]

InSearchOfGod:

Well, now, this depends on what you mean by “figure things out.” I have certainly seen my dog figure out that if she wants some more food to come running to me with her empty bowl in her mouth. I am certain God placed an amount of intelligence in more than just humans, yet humans are the only ones with the capacity to realize the existence of God (among other things).

Can you be certain of that? The Neanderthals buried their dead. They were a different (albeit related) species.

Also, svoboda, your inquiries about evidence are intriguing. Evidence seems to be one of those things needed for proof, which is needed for knowledge. Yet what makes something “evidence” is faith itself, isn’t it?

That depends on what you mean by faith, right? In order to begin in the first place you have to have “faith” in the ability of our minds to reason and arrive at valid conclusion through reasoning.

Is this the same kind of faith as that God became man in the womb of Virgin Mary?

The Bible itself could be considered evidence for the things that happen in it, but it does take faith. For dinosaur fossils to be considered evidence for life before mankind, one must have faith in the scientists that discover and analyze them.

Well, those of us who are not scientists do have a certain level of trust in the reports of what has been found etc. But scientists have to have “faith” in their ability to reason, in the existence of the physical world.

The way you are using faith, you could apply it not just to the Bible but also to Greek myths, the Quran, and virtually anything and everything.

I think the problem here is in our use of the word faith.

There are some basic assumptions we have to make: external world exists, our senses give us accurate information about it, the way our minds reason is valid etc.

This is not at all the same as having faith in the Prophet Mohammed, or the assumption of Mary

 

[mosher]

The problem I see here is that there is an assumption that in the Catholic mind there are any assumptions being made. Rather, the only assumptions that are made are when it comes to matters of revelation. Matters of revelation are given and then proved rational. If something is thought to be revelation and cannot be made rational then it is thrown out as revelation as all revelation must not be contrary to reason. So, to come to the God of Catholicism - the God of Faith - one must start with the given which is Divine Revelation. Now on one level this Divine Revelation must be taken on faith but at the same time it is subject to the rigors of reason and must also be made reasonable. This is how the development of doctrine occurs - this is how we determine what is in the Sacra Doctrina.

A note about animals and their behavior. What it is true that some ape species have many traits that seem to follow what some would call rational thinking it is not consistent with reason itself. Rather the actions described earlier by the now Suspended member can all be demonstrated to be proper to the animal soul as opposed to the rational soul as they are reactions to their environment mingled with natural evil. In no instance can a person reason exists in a being that is lower on the hierarchy of being than a human.