Please explain

[Hee_Zen]

God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things. (De fide.)

This is a direct quote from the catechism, and I need help to understand the details. It speaks of “created things”, but does not specify what are those created things which point to God’s existence - without any need to rely on faith. Thanks!

 

[Droning_Mary]

Created things mean just that - anything in the universe can lead a person by their own thoughts to understand that God exists. Basically, a human being is moved by what they know, hear, see, touch, taste, etc to an understanding that a higher power - God - must have created these things and therefore God exists. Some people look at a plant and say…this plant does not have a brain nor does it have the ability to work things out for itself but it is still able to show intelligent acts such as reproducing or responding to its environment. Where did this intelligence come from? It must have come from outside the plant…because the plant is basically dumb…Therefore there must be a God…I am certain there is a God. Some people might be moved by a sunset…or by anything else that you could possibly think of. This is belief by light of natural reasoning.

Now, belief and faith are not the same…you can have belief that God exists…that type of belief is not enough for salvation…after all…satan…also has this type of belief…satan knows God exists…however, belief that declares that Jesus is Lord and Son of the one true God in union with the Holy Spirit is faith belief and that is needed for salvation. Faith is required for this belief and it is a gift that requires direct revelation from God. Hope this helps a little. If not let me know and I will try a little harder.

Please pray for me a sinner.

 

[littlestsouls2]

Here is a great philosophy article that I recommend frequently. It is brief, clear and it relates to your question.

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/CAUSEFRS.HTM

 

[Nixbits]

To answer your question Hee_Zen, I don’t understand how looking at any or all of the things around us and using our natural reason can lead to the knowledge with certainty of God’s existence. I don’t believe it’s ever been demonstrated or explained satisfactorily. It needs faith.

Perhaps, if you have faith, then it seems to be perfectly clear and you know it’s right. But without faith the assertion seems unconvincing.

 

[Simca]

Created things mean just that - anything in the universe can lead a person by their own thoughts to understand that God exists. Basically, a human being is moved by what they know, hear, see, touch, taste, etc to an understanding that a higher power - God - must have created these things and therefore God exists. Some people look at a plant and say…this plant does not have a brain nor does it have the ability to work things out for itself but it is still able to show intelligent acts such as reproducing or responding to its environment. Where did this intelligence come from? It must have come from outside the plant…because the plant is basically dumb…Therefore there must be a God…I am certain there is a God. Some people might be moved by a sunset…or by anything else that you could possibly think of. This is belief by light of natural reasoning.

Yes to this.

I think the Catechism is basically referring to Romans chapter one, especially verses 19+20 which say: ‘‘What can be known about God is evident to them, because God has made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made…’’

You can read all of chapter one to get a clearer picture of the full idea behind the verses.

God bless

 

[John_Martin]

Aristotle had this understanding of God from reasoning about created things, things external to himself in the world and the universe, and within himself as he reasoned through what he saw and experienced in his own thoughts and actions.

The quote you listed is not quite accurate, though. It might be more correctly worded as

47 The Church teaches that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty from his works, by the natural light of human reason (cf. Vatican Council I, can. 2 § 1: DS 3026),

Basically it means that Aristotle knew of the One God, and in the revelation of Jesus Christ it is revealed that he is our Creator and Lord, our Friend, our Savior, although Aristotle died before that official good news (Gospel) could reach his ears.

St Paul said the same thing in the book of Acts to the people in Athens when he pointed out their temple to the “Unknown God”. Paul revealed to them not that this was the one true God (their reason already knew this God exists), but Paul revealed to them the Identity of this unknown God - if they hear Paul, then it is now “The Known God”.

So, the quote from the Catechism could be rephrased to say, “The Church teaches that the one true God, whom we within the Church proclaim his Identity as our Creator and our Lord, can be known as God, though not his Identity, with certainty from his works, by the natural light of human reason.”

 

[Hee_Zen]

Created things mean just that - anything in the universe can lead a person by their own thoughts to understand that God exists.

I am not sure I understand. Do you mean that everything is “created”? That there is nothing “natural”, everything is “artificial”? This is how I understand your post, but I may be mistaken.

To answer your question Hee_Zen, I don’t understand how looking at any or all of the things around us and using our natural reason can lead to the knowledge with certainty of God’s existence. I don’t believe it’s ever been demonstrated or explained satisfactorily. It needs faith.

Perhaps, if you have faith, then it seems to be perfectly clear and you know it’s right. But without faith the assertion seems unconvincing.

I agree. If reason would be sufficient, there would be no need for faith.

 

[Beryllos]

I am not sure I understand. Do you mean that everything is “created”? That there is nothing “natural”, everything is “artificial”? This is how I understand your post, but I may be mistaken.

In the Catechism and other Church documents, “created” means created by God. “Created things” means everything created by God, which is to say everything that exists. This includes the universe and everything in it. It also includes heavenly and eternal things like angels. It is not restricted to things which are artiificial, created by man, or other than natural.

 

[Hee_Zen]

In the Catechism and other Church documents, “created” means created by God. “Created things” means everything created by God, which is to say everything that exists. This includes the universe and everything in it. It also includes heavenly and eternal things like angels. It is not restricted to things which are artiificial, created by man, or other than natural.

If that is the case, then the quoted text loses its “convincing” value. It degenerates into a circular argument: “God created everything, so everything points to God’s existence”. The word: “created” is only meaningful if there are "uncreated or “natural” objects.

When I first encountered the text in the catechism, I was quite excited. I expected some argument, which shows that there is no need for revelation, there is no need for faith, that there is some purely secular, rational line of thought which demonstrates God’s existence. Such a demonstration cannot start with the assumption that everything is “created”.

 

[Beryllos]

Created things may also be understood as the order that exists in the universe. I am a scientist, and when I contemplate nature, from its most basic laws to its most complex behavior, I see such beauty, symmetry, and “rightness” that I am convinced that it was created by an all-powerful, all-knowing, and loving God.

As Droning Mary wrote, different people have different ways of understanding the order of creation. A non-scientist may look at the starry sky on a clear night and just feel the power and majesty of God. Another person might perceive it in living things. Another might perceive it in the complexity of weather. “God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.” (Genesis 1:31)

 

[Nixbits]

Many people, scientists and non-scientists alike, look around at the physical world and appreciate the beauty, the symmetry, the order, but they do not necessarily conclude that there is a ‘rightness’ that points to the existence of God.

Many people also see the hunger, desperation, disease and ugliness. They also see the parasite boring into the eyeball of a African child making them blind. They also see a universe that is largely dispassionate about whether or not the human species (or any species) survives. On balance, taking all things into account, this argument for the existence of God is unconvincing to many.

 

[Partinobodycula]

God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things. (De fide.)

The problem is that by “reason” anything is possible. It’s “reason” that leads ISIS to persecute, rape, and kill thousands of people who are guilty of nothing more than failing to subscribe to the beliefs of a violent and powerful few.

It’s “reason” that leads to prejudice. It’s “reason” that leads to oppression. It’s “reason” that leads to hatred. People find “reason” to believe whatever they choose to believe. It has always been true that the desire to believe, precedes the reasons to believe. And so people believe what they choose to believe, and only afterward do they justify it by virtue of “reason”.

There is nothing in this world that gives evidence for the existence of God, unless one first chooses to believe in God. To ground one’s claim for the existence of God on “reason”, is to ground it on nothing, for all men ground their beliefs on “reason”.

It’s better to simply accept that there are things that you cannot know, rather than attempt to justify the things that you don’t, by matter of “reason”.

 

[Beryllos]

Many people, scientists and non-scientists alike, look around at the physical world and appreciate the beauty, the symmetry, the order, but they do not necessarily conclude that there is a ‘rightness’ that points to the existence of God.

Yes, and there are also scientists who say the order of the universe is accidental. There is the multiverse theory which says universes too many to count may have spontaneously formed, most of them ugly and disordered (not to mention inhospitable to life), and we just happen to be in one of the few governed by physical laws that allow us to exist. How lucky!

God will never force us to believe in him. Why is that?

Many people also see the hunger, desperation, disease and ugliness. They also see the parasite boring into the eyeball of a African child making them blind. They also see a universe that is largely dispassionate about whether or not the human species (or any species) survives. On balance, taking all things into account, this argument for the existence of God is unconvincing to many.

Yes, the world is imperfect as far as you and I are concerned.

I wonder if God sees it the same way.

Perhaps the universe could be no other way.

Living things are so full of the potential to live that they will do anything to survive, even kill other living things. Therefore we have predators and diseases. We also have living things in every part of the world. If living things were not so adaptable, perhaps they would have perished billions of years ago.

Human intelligence also has its downside. It is like a tool that can be used for good or evil, to build up or to destroy. If we did not have such intelligence, I guess we would be like animals. Are we better off having intelligence and free will? What are the alternatives?

I don’t fully understand why God made the universe the way it is, but I am not one who says he should have done things differently.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Created things may also be understood as the order that exists in the universe. I am a scientist, and when I contemplate nature, from its most basic laws to its most complex behavior, I see such beauty, symmetry, and “rightness” that I am convinced that it was created by an all-powerful, all-knowing, and loving God.

As Droning Mary wrote, different people have different ways of understanding the order of creation. A non-scientist may look at the starry sky on a clear night and just feel the power and majesty of God. Another person might perceive it in living things. Another might perceive it in the complexity of weather. “God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.” (Genesis 1:31)

This is all very nice, but what does it have to do with the assertion that “pure reason” will point to the existence of God? It is fine that you are convinced that all this shebang was created by “an all-powerful, all-knowing, and loving God”. We are not talking about some personal conviction, we are talking about something impersonal, like the proof the Pythagoras theorem, which does not need revelation, or faith - only “pure reason”.

God will never force us to believe in him. Why is that?

If there would be a purely rational proof of God’s existence, then one could not doubt it. It would not force anyone to “believe”, because “belief” would not even be part of the picture - it would ne overridden by knowledge.

 

[Beryllos]

Interesting. I am not a logician, and not well schooled in philosophy. As an experimental scientist, I work comfortably with incomplete evidence and theories that approach but never arrive at the full truth. This involves a different kind of reason, I think. Good luck in your own quest for truth.

 

[PseuTonym]

If there would be a purely rational proof of God’s existence, then one could not doubt it. It would not force anyone to “believe”, because “belief” would not even be part of the picture - it would be overridden by knowledge.

I think that the word “belief” is used in ordinary conversation as a kind of disclaimer. If you want to be doctrinaire about the distinction between knowledge and belief, then you will need to monitor yourself and think very carefully before you use the word “know.”

For example, do you know that, right now, there are stars between one and two light-years in distance from the Earth?

How could anybody know that? Maybe you can say that about a year ago there were stars between one and two light-years from the Earth. If you want to say more than that, then you need some assumptions and some reasoning. For example, you might say, “Nothing could have moved all of those stars out of that range of distances from the Earth.” However, at one time continental drift was considered a disreputable idea. After all, what could possibly move the continents?

 

[MPat]

If there would be a purely rational proof of God’s existence, then one could not doubt it. It would not force anyone to “believe”, because “belief” would not even be part of the picture - it would ne overridden by knowledge.

No, faith is a different thing.

Let’s look at a different example. It is well known that people are often scared of flying by plane. It is also well known that flying by plane is less dangerous than, let’s say, riding by car - and those same people are not that scared of that. Reason is saying that there is nothing to be that afraid of. So, what is missing? Faith. Faith makes us trust the conclusion that reason has reached.

How do we know that is the kind of faith that matters here? Have a look around: when will you see someone saying that their faith became weaker? When they saw an argument in favour of atheism? No, it is far more common to see someone say that after death of a relative. But is death something that contradicts the Catholic doctrine? No, Catholic doctrine predicts that all of us are mortal. How can a fact in conformity with Catholic doctrine make one doubt it (especially when actual arguments against it have failed)? Well, that happens because reason has little to do with that. It is just that faith becomes weaker and one trusts the conclusions of reason less.

Also, if you think that rational proof cannot be doubted, look at Monty Hall problem or “1=0.9999…”. Rational proof is often doubted.

So, sure, it is not impossible to doubt rational proof of existence of God. It does not mean that there is anything wrong with the proof.

 

[MPat]

If that is the case, then the quoted text loses its “convincing” value. It degenerates into a circular argument: “God created everything, so everything points to God’s existence”. The word: “created” is only meaningful if there are "uncreated or “natural” objects.

When I first encountered the text in the catechism, I was quite excited. I expected some argument, which shows that there is no need for revelation, there is no need for faith, that there is some purely secular, rational line of thought which demonstrates God’s existence. Such a demonstration cannot start with the assumption that everything is “created”.

That part of Catechism does not give an argument for God’s existence and it is not meant to. It simply says that such arguments exist and explains why that shouldn’t be surprising.

If you are looking for arguments themselves, there are some lists. For example, peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm.

 

[PseuTonym]

I did a bit of fact-checking, and see that my question should have been as follows:

For example, do you know that, right now, there are stars between four and five light-years in distance from the Earth?

 

[Hee_Zen]

Interesting. I am not a logician, and not well schooled in philosophy. As an experimental scientist, I work comfortably with incomplete evidence and theories that approach but never arrive at the full truth. This involves a different kind of reason, I think. Good luck in your own quest for truth.

That is perfectly fine and I agree with you. But we are talking about two different kinds of things. The **existence **of the external universe is beyond any doubt. The scientific explanation for certain phenomena is an evolving process and every explanation can be overridden by a better one - so there is no “certainty”, just convincing or maybe overwhelming evidence. But the catechism talks about “certainty” - which is a whole different ballgame. It is a much higher standard. After all philosophy is not an experimental science (actually it is not a science at all) it is mere speculation. That is why I was astonished to see the claim of “certainty”.