On the Apprehension of Knowledge

[Truthstalker]

How do we obtain valid knowledge about things that are revealed by faith?

For the purpose of this thread I am employing a concept I call “Source,” which is that body of supernatural revelation, however constituted, by which one believes things that are beyond the reach of reason.

If you argue that all things must be subject to human reason, and thus one selects the validity of one’s Source on reason, then does not reason always trump the Source, and the human mind is the final determiner of what is true? In this case faith is always subject to reason. You have rationalism.

If you argue that the Source must triumph over human reason, then you are open to irrationality, as the Source, you say, transcends reason, and so reason is no good in understanding the Source. You have pure mysticism.

Between these poles is a region of compromise and coordination, synthesis and harmony, chaos and confusion. One cannot decide things on the basis of reason where reason does not apply, nor can one decide things rationally on the basis of the Source. The Source being beyond human thought, man cannot evaluate it.

God became man, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory. The Source, in other words, made itself comprehensible to man on terms man could understand.

It is the job of the Catholic apologist, I think, to explain how this necessarily leads to Catholicism. It is the job of the Protestant, I think, to show how it necessarily leads elsewhere, or at least to fault the Catholic argument. Or is this a straw argument? If so, why?

The ball is in play…

 

[C_Bautista]

Well, what are the base assumptions? And who’s involved?

If it’s just Protestants and Catholics involved and we assume that all shared beliefs are valid, then I don’t think Protestants stand much of a chance when you bring into account Church history (Protestant splits from the Church, etc.) and Protestant lack of access to Church Tradition (because of sola scriptura claims and the fallacy that follows when we inspect how early Christians determined what to write down int he Bible). Or if the flavor of Protestants we’re talking about doesn’t believe in sola scriptura, then we’re back at square one since they broke away from the Church that was protected by the Spirit through Holy Tradition.

It is clear, I think, even by just the inspection of history and Apostolic succession, that the Catholic Church is the Church found in scripture.

Of course, there are far more involved and extensive things that could be brought up here, but it seems to me that this is sufficient for the moment. Some apologetics beasts that are both Catholic or among our separated brethren will probably show me to be wrong, though.

 

[dylanschrader]

Be careful. Even though we know things by revelation that we could not have known by reason, there are mysteries that are not “comprehensible,” that is, they are inexhaustible to us. We can reason about them, however.

Are you asking how we evaluate the claim that a thing is revealed?

 

[JaneFrances]

Oh gracious, TS. . .I don’t even know where to begin. Aquinas or the Catechism. . .hmmmm?

I like the phrase “converging and convincing arguments” as related in the Catechism (31), but I think perhaps Summa does more comprehensive treatment of the role of human reason and the power of deduction.

The polemic representations of rationalism and mysticism ignore the reality of organic human knowledge. It is neither one nor the other, but a compenetration of the two. Faith and reason are never opposed. It is our fallen nature which distorts our natural propensity for knowing God. We were created rational and faithful beings. Sin disorders this such that we now tend to seek our First Love through glimpses, shadows and reflections.

 

[Truthstalker]

Hmmmm. Not sure anyone’s hit it. My OPs always are so lousy. Sorry. JF displays her typical knack for understanding my mutterings.

On re-reading and reflecting on this I think of the phrase “prevenient grace.” The world, in other words, only really makes sense because God says it does. The world can only make sense to us because God enabled us to understand it. If we give up on reason, we have only despair. But reason is not a default choice but rather a gift.

From what I have read of the Angelic Doctor he cheerfully assumes his church and Bible and authorities are right, along with his reason and powers and habits of observation. Likewise the Catechism presupposes Catholicism. But a thing cannot prove itself. It is not just that the owl stands blinking in the sunlight, wondering why it is not dark. It is a marvel that the owl wonders at all. In some ways that image is a digression, but it seems that anything I can think of is a digression from the mystery.

This is, perhaps, just “stream of conciousness” thinking, poured out on the electronic page. But maybe not. How to tell? How do you tell how to tell before you have a method of telling? Reason only goes so far, and then there is Source, which may defy reason.

 

[dylanschrader]

Hmmmm. Not sure anyone’s hit it. My OPs always are so lousy. Sorry. JF displays her typical knack for understanding my mutterings.

On re-reading and reflecting on this I think of the phrase “prevenient grace.” The world, in other words, only really makes sense because God says it does. The world can only make sense to us because God enabled us to understand it. If we give up on reason, we have only despair. But reason is not a default choice but rather a gift.

From what I have read of the Angelic Doctor he cheerfully assumes his church and Bible and authorities are right, along with his reason and powers and habits of observation. Likewise the Catechism presupposes Catholicism. But a thing cannot prove itself. It is not just that the owl stands blinking in the sunlight, wondering why it is not dark. It is a marvel that the owl wonders at all. In some ways that image is a digression, but it seems that anything I can think of is a digression from the mystery.

This is, perhaps, just “stream of conciousness” thinking, poured out on the electronic page. But maybe not. How to tell? How do you tell how to tell before you have a method of telling? Reason only goes so far, and then there is Source, which may defy reason.

That sounds a little Kierkegaardian … or Hegelian

Human beings are rational by nature. Reason is a tyrant. We can try to escape from it, but asking whether we have reason or why we have reason is itself evidence of the use of reason. We recognize, then, that we exist not through an act of our own will. Once we acknowledge that we have will and intellect and that we did not choose to exist, we can begin to apply our intellect to understanding things.

Of course, this kind of thought can be quite removed from the way human beings normally operate. There is something to be said for common sense as well as for trusting others. Human beings function more organically than by the use of pure reason or existential questioning. It’s an anthropological truth. The Church, then, is more like a mother teaching her children the language of faith than an instructor of propositions to be derived. Of course, we can apply our reason to certain things, and it is well to do so.