Please explain

[John_Martin]

But is that really from the Catechism? I have failed to find it there. It looks like it (worded in this specific way) is from “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Dr. Ludwig Ott. It is still something worth defending, but wouldn’t it be better to keep “documentation” orderly?

Also, it means that context for this proposition might be different.

This is the quote from the Catechism that I found for my first post in this thread:

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),

And my rewording with parentheses for my clarifications was to answer Hee_Zen’s questions within the framework of the original post’s stated concerns, and answer within each set of parentheses.

The context of the proposition is a philosophy that redefines “creation” as a “modification of an existing reality into a new reality”, thus not understanding “creation” as ex nihilo something material now is, where nothing was, and creation referring to all that is material. Also, the meaning of the verb “can” in “can be known” does not imply that all are successful at knowing, simply that it is possible to come to recognize this God whom we as Catholics know by revelation. In fact, many, if not most, Catholics are unable to arrive at the “reasoning” out of the being of God using reason alone to duplicate the reasoning of the great philosophers long since abandoned by most. It is sad that the learning and undertaking of philosophy has been placed in the hands of institutions and tenured professors rather than being in schools of wise men.

 

[MPat]

This is the quote from the Catechism that I found for my first post in this thread: And my rewording with parentheses for my clarifications was to answer Hee_Zen’s questions within the framework of the original post’s stated concerns, and answer within each set of parentheses.

Yes, your quote (as opposed to the one given in the original post) is certainly from Catechism. They certainly say the same thing, but if the original poster thought his quote was from the Catechism, he probably hasn’t read it… Speaking of which, perhaps it would be worth to give the link: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c1.htm.

By the way, the other paragraphs (31-34) point to the other arguments, contrary to what the original poster thought.

The context of the proposition is a philosophy that redefines “creation” as a “modification of an existing reality into a new reality”, thus not understanding “creation” as ex nihilo something material now is, where nothing was, and creation referring to all that is material. Also, the meaning of the verb “can” in “can be known” does not imply that all are successful at knowing, simply that it is possible to come to recognize this God whom we as Catholics know by revelation. In fact, many, if not most, Catholics are unable to arrive at the “reasoning” out of the being of God using reason alone to duplicate the reasoning of the great philosophers long since abandoned by most. It is sad that the learning and undertaking of philosophy has been placed in the hands of institutions and tenured professors rather than being in schools of wise men.

I meant that, for all I know, some of the complaints about “lack of substantiation” might be answered by something on the same page of the source (although I am not sure what source the original poster has actually read - it is unlikely to be the Catechism, as that exact wording is not there, but I also doubt it was the actual “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”). Of course, the meaning of the proposition itself is not going to depend on the context that much…

 

[ynotzap]

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.

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

Since God is Pure Spirit, then it is only by spiritual power that we can know Him. Human intelligence is a spiritual power of the human soul, it is the source of understanding. The proof of God’s existence is attained by right-reasoning based on motion, order, grades of beings, dependence (necessity) and origin to name a few truths. Even though His existence can be proven by metaphisics His identity is known through the gift of revelation found in Christian Faith, Jesus Christ. So if one doesn’t do much meditation concerning the universe, it’s not likely that God will ever be found in this material universe. The signs of a Spiritual Being are understood by it’s effects eg. The order followed by the earth’s rotation around the sun The distance that is maintained to keep earth from burning, yet producing activity that benefits mankind such as supporting life Order and purpose are signs of intelligent activity, spiritual activity that could only be ascribed to a Divine Spiritual Being, God

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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!

I have read your posts and you seem intent on missunderstanding what the Catechism says. It purposely does not mention any specific argument guaranteed to prove the existence of God. That is not the Church’s mission. The Church’s mission is to teach the Word of God.

So you can read parageraphs 27-43 and you will see that the Church speaks of " converging and convincing arguments. " Then below it list some types of arguments which would fall into this category. But it warns in para. 29 that some people, through ignorance, bad will, moral corruption, etc. cannot accept the arguments offered.

So the question is which applies to you? If you are sincere you will find an argument which leads you to the Christian God. If you are not, then of course you will never find a satisfactory argument.

As to creation. The Christian understanding of creation is that God created the entire universe out of notheing in time. Indeed, God may still be creating. We do know that he creates each new soul. On the other hand, man makes things which, by a poor analogy some say they created. Man made things are not created, they are artifacts.

And God himself, simply always was. Everything in the universe, even artifacts, depend on him for their existence, either directly or indirectly.

Now, are you arguing seriously or not. Otherwise we are all wasting our time.

And if you are arguing honestly, pin you question down to one thing, what is the one thing you want of us?

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Hee_Zen]

The context of the proposition is a philosophy that redefines “creation” as a “modification of an existing reality into a new reality”, thus not understanding “creation” as ex nihilo something material now is, where nothing was, and creation referring to all that is material.

The assumption of “creation ex nihilo” has never been experienced of manifested. Its existence could only be accepted if God’s existence would be substantiated. Therefore the supposed “creation ex nihilo” leading to God’s existence is a circular argument, and as such it is a logical error. Any “argument” which is founded on a logical fallacy is useless.

So we are back to square one. Assuming that the catechism is logically correct, the word “creation” must be understood in the normal sense, of creating something “new”. We all experience new novels, new musical pieces, new dishes, etc… therefore “creation” does lead to the concept of a “creator”. It says nothing about the specifics of the creator, but it substantiates its existence. Of course there is problem. How does one tell apart the “created” from the natural"? Without a method to tell which is which the whole problem is unsolvable. As such it is a logical error to start with the assumption that everything is "created’ and nothing is “natural”.

 

[Hee_Zen]

It purposely does not mention any specific argument guaranteed to prove the existence of God. That is not the Church’s mission.

If the church is unwilling / unable to substantiate what it says, then why should one listen to it? Empty claims are dime a dozen.

So you can read parageraphs 27-43 and you will see that the Church speaks of " converging and convincing arguments. " Then below it list some types of arguments which would fall into this category. But it warns in para. 29 that some people, through ignorance, bad will, moral corruption, etc. cannot accept the arguments offered.

Aha! So if the argument is unconvincing, blame the audience’s “ignorance, bad will, moral corruption, etc.” instead of admitting that the argument was deficient. A very lame argument.

 

[Nixbits]

I have followed this thread with interest. I have to admit that I agree with Hee_Zen (again). The dogma of the Church, as stated by several posters here, seem to be: Such and such is true. Several clever people have used reason to prove this is true. If you can’t come to the same conclusion then you must be too stupid, or evil, or you deliberately refuse to agree.

That’s not a very helpful or convincing argument.

Many clever people, in the past and in the present day, may very well have come to the conclusion that God’s existence can be proved by reason. However, many clever people, in the past and in the present day, have come to the conclusion that God’s existence cannot be proved by reason. Where does that leave the rest of us?

Those who honestly seek the truth, examine the arguments for and against, and consider the evidence, will come to their own conclusion. I share Hee-Zen’s frustration that the justification for the Church’s position cannot be, or is not, explained more clearly.

 

[inocente]

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

A quick google shows that the quote is definitely not from the catechism, which instead makes this claim:

CCC 36 “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.”[sup]11[/sup] Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.

The claim is not about God’s existence!!! The claim is that God reveals his nature through that which he made (it cites Dei Filius 2, which is headed “Revelation”). So for instance, the orderly laws of nature tell us that God is not capricious.

Another quick google linked to this page which explains the thinking, from a book by Robert Gasgoigne.

I have followed this thread with interest. I have to admit that I agree with Hee_Zen (again). The dogma of the Church, as stated by several posters here, seem to be: Such and such is true. Several clever people have used reason to prove this is true. If you can’t come to the same conclusion then you must be too stupid, or evil, or you deliberately refuse to agree.

That’s not a very helpful or convincing argument.

I’m not a Catholic, and am also regularly accused by a small minority of posters of being unwashed and ignorant for not accepting so-called “proofs” of God, but I don’t think they reflect the teaching of the Church. If you read chapter 3 of Dei Filius, it also obstinately refuses “proofs” in favor of faith through grace:

"But the Catholic Church professes that this faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, is a supernatural virtue by which we, with the aid and inspiration of the grace of God, believe that the things revealed by Him are true, not because the intrinsic truth of the revealed things has been perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. For, “faith is,” as the Apostle testifies, “the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not”- inters.org/Vatican-Council-I-Dei-Filius

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If the church is unwilling / unable to substantiate what it says, then why should one listen to it? Empty claims are dime a dozen.

Aha! So if the argument is unconvincing, blame the audience’s “ignorance, bad will, moral corruption, etc.” instead of admitting that the argument was deficient. A very lame argument.

Your objection does not recognize the failing of human nature which ever seeks to justify its own preconceived notions. Human nature has a tendency to reject what it does not like, regardless of the power of opposing arguments concerning truth. This is evident in all aspects of our lives, why blame the messanger who is delivering truths. It is ever the case that merely to object does not substantiate a prejudiced view. One can lead a horse to water but one cannot make him drink.

I wish you well.
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have followed this thread with interest. I have to admit that I agree with Hee_Zen (again). The dogma of the Church, as stated by several posters here, seem to be: Such and such is true. Several clever people have used reason to prove this is true. If you can’t come to the same conclusion then you must be too stupid, or evil, or you deliberately refuse to agree.

That’s not a very helpful or convincing argument.

Many clever people, in the past and in the present day, may very well have come to the conclusion that God’s existence can be proved by reason. However, many clever people, in the past and in the present day, have come to the conclusion that God’s existence cannot be proved by reason. Where does that leave the rest of us?

Those who honestly seek the truth, examine the arguments for and against, and consider the evidence, will come to their own conclusion. I share Hee-Zen’s frustration that the justification for the Church’s position cannot be, or is not, explained more clearly.

The Church cannot define which arguments specifically and definitely prove that a personal God exists because different people view multiple arguments differently, as you and others have said. But so that all men may know that a personal God does exist the Church explians and Defines that this can be known by Faith. In this way that a personal God exists may be known by all men regardless of their personal intellectual abilities, all that is needed is faith. And that is open to all men who are honest and truthful.

It is true that many even reject this teaching. Human nature is what it is, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. Even Christ and the Apostles had limited success with threir teaching. Why should it be different today. Christ calls all, but not all will come.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A quick google shows that the quote is definitely not from the catechism, which instead makes this claim:

CCC 36 “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.”[sup]11[/sup] Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.

The claim is not about God’s existence!!! The claim is that God reveals his nature through that which he made (it cites Dei Filius 2, which is headed “Revelation”). So for instance, the orderly laws of nature tell us that God is not capricious.

But it is about God’s existence. That God exists can be known through human reason. This is the meaning of the dogma. Some things about God’s nature can also be known through human reason. But more things about his nature can be known throug Revelation ( all of which are in Defined Dogma or which flow from Dogma). You object to the Dogma because you reject the notion that God’s existence can be known through reason, because you mistakenly assume that this necessarily refers to philosophical arguments, such as might be given by Thomas Aquinas. But the Church carefully refuses to mention specifically which arguments are " converging and convincing " arguments demonstrating God’s existence. Each person is different, one person will see the truth by one argument, another by another, and not all arguments are metaphysical. Some are quite mundane such as the evidence of conscience.

Another quick google linked to this page which explains the thinking, from a book by Robert Gasgoigne.

You will have to give a better link. Who is Robert Gasgoigne? Whatever he says does not change the plain meaning of the Dogma.

I’m not a Catholic, and am also regularly accused by a small minority of posters of being unwashed and ignorant for not accepting so-called “proofs” of God, but I don’t think they reflect the teaching of the Church. If you read chapter 3 of Dei Filius, it also obstinately refuses “proofs” in favor of faith through grace:

Now Lucy, that is a bit unfair. Who has accused you of being unwashed?

"But the Catholic Church professes that this faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, is a supernatural virtue by which we, with the aid and inspiration of the grace of God, believe that the things revealed by Him are true, not because the intrinsic truth of the revealed things has been perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. For, “faith is,” as the Apostle testifies, “the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not”- inters.org/Vatican-Council-I-Dei-Filius

Indeed it does. So no one, in the end, has any excuses. God’s grace is sufficient for those who are earnest. One does not have to accept mere human arguments, even those based on metaphysics. The truth is open to all through faith. And even those who see the truth of human arguments must also accept the truth based on faith. In the end everything is based on faith. Salvation does not rest on human reason, not even on metaphysics. As I have often said, metaphysics is only a tool, a way to faith. It never supplants faith.

Pax
Charlie

 

[inocente]

But it is about God’s existence. That God exists can be known through human reason. This is the meaning of the dogma. Some things about God’s nature can also be known through human reason. But more things about his nature can be known throug Revelation ( all of which are in Defined Dogma or which flow from Dogma). You object to the Dogma because you reject the notion that God’s existence can be known through reason, because you mistakenly assume that this necessarily refers to philosophical arguments, such as might be given by Thomas Aquinas. But the Church carefully refuses to mention specifically which arguments are " converging and convincing " arguments demonstrating God’s existence. Each person is different, one person will see the truth by one argument, another by another, and not all arguments are metaphysical. Some are quite mundane such as the evidence of conscience.

That’s a very strange claim. The Church knows of proofs of God’s existence but keeps them a big secret? A proof works for one person but not another? If a proof is a proof in the morning, it ceases to be a proof when the sun goes down?

You are joshing me my man. If God’s existence could be proved, there would be no point in faith.

“Truly I tell you, if you have -]a proof/-] FAITH as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move.”

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever -]has a proof of/-] BELIEVES in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

When the authors of the CCC said “known”, I think we should take them at their word. Otherwise the next sentence doesn’t follow. “Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation”. We don’t need proofs to be able to welcome God’s revelation. But we do need to know who God is to be able to welcome God’s revelation.

Nor would the next sentence follow. “Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God””. Being created in the image of God doesn’t give us the capacity to make proofs, that wouldn’t make sense, God never makes proofs. Being created in His image means God is not alien to us, it means we have the capacity to relate to Him. It means rather than God being the passive subject of a proof, God is active in the relationship, he calls us by name. I have a certain Joseph Ratzinger on my side here - catholicbridge.com/catholic/ratzinger_creationism.php

You will have to give a better link. Who is Robert Gasgoigne? Whatever he says does not change the plain meaning of the Dogma.

He’s a professor in the Department of Theology and Philosophy at the Australian Catholic University.

Indeed it does. So no one, in the end, has any excuses. God’s grace is sufficient for those who are earnest. One does not have to accept mere human arguments, even those based on metaphysics. The truth is open to all through faith. And even those who see the truth of human arguments must also accept the truth based on faith. In the end everything is based on faith. Salvation does not rest on human reason, not even on metaphysics. As I have often said, metaphysics is only a tool, a way to faith. It never supplants faith.

Que? I think you are playing with words. Faith = “based on spiritual conviction rather than proof”. A proof would obviate the need for faith.

Besos, Lucy

 

[ynotzap]

Hee Zen: To creat in the purist sense is to realize into being, to bring it into actual existence in all it’s concreteness, to produce a thing that in no wise previously existed either in itself or in the potentiality of a subject. The sculptor carves a statue, the statue as such did not exist but it did exist as marble. On the contrary, God by His creative act realized the world when there existed nothing outside Himself, The concept of creation is naturally knowable to human reason.

Demonstration of God’s existence can be made in two ways, one is through cause, the other is through effect. To argue from what is known first is to argue" from cause, to argue from what is known after is called “from effect” When we know the effect we can proceed to the knowledge of the cause. If the effect exists the cause must pre-exist. God’s existence is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated. Of course this is beyond imperical science who operate under the illusion "if it is not matter, it doesn’t exist " They don’t transcend to the acknowledgement of a spiritual reality, a reality that is not sensed, but a reality that can only be understood by a spiritual power called “human intelligence”. This knowledge requires discipline, and right-reasoning, and a good understanding of words. You show a lack of understanding of the concepts or meaning of some words, and this will be an obstacle to your communication. Rather then arguing try to dialogue as to the mutual understanding between responders.

 

[Hee_Zen]

A quick google shows that the quote is definitely not from the catechism, which instead makes this claim:

CCC 36 “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.”[sup]11[/sup] Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.

The difference is just “fluff”. What it says is that “God… can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason”. The rest is just a “filler”, with VALUE (LOW-VALUE) as it would be stated in COBOL .

The claim is not about God’s existence!!!

It is an indirect claim. It asserts that God’s “EXISTENCE” can be known by using only reason, without revelation and without faith. I was asking about the “how”?

The claim is that God reveals his nature through that which he made (it cites Dei Filius 2, which is headed “Revelation”). So for instance, the orderly laws of nature tell us that God is not capricious.

Not really. it does not. The orderly laws of nature do not point to any creator. Many people confuse “order” with “design” - but that only shows their lack of understanding.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Your objection does not recognize the failing of human nature which ever seeks to justify its own preconceived notions. Human nature has a tendency to reject what it does not like, regardless of the power of opposing arguments concerning truth. This is evident in all aspects of our lives, why blame the messanger who is delivering truths. It is ever the case that merely to object does not substantiate a prejudiced view. One can lead a horse to water but one cannot make him drink.

No human with average intelligence can reject the Pythagoras theorem. The claim of “by the light of natural reason” explicitly asserts that there is no need for faith, no need for revelation. Two and two makes four no matter what philosophical platform one starts from.

As far as I understand the church’s “task” is to spread the “good news”, to bring everyone to God. That is a noble endeavor and the method should be to tailored to the target audience. There are the atheists and all those who have no faith, who had no personal revelation, who ONLY accept reason and logic need a formal proof to be convinced. That is why I said that the catechism is deficient, because it does not get down to the “dirty” details.

I wish you well.

Thank you. I wish you the best, too.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That’s a very strange claim. The Church knows of proofs of God’s existence but keeps them a big secret? A proof works for one person but not another? If a proof is a proof in the morning, it ceases to be a proof when the sun goes down?

You are mincing words. The Church as the one source for defining and handing Christ’s Revelation in faith and morals, does not know a specific " proof " for God’s existence. But following St. Paul and other instances in Scripture, the Church merely states that such is the case, that there are " converging and convincing arfguments," which allow us to attain certainty about the truth, that God exists, and that he is a personal God, and that he is the principle and origin of all that exists. You confuse these proofs with scientific proofs. The Church says that these are not scientific truths but ways of coming to God, they may easily be rejected or remain unknown to certain people for a variety of reasons. You seem to be convinced that everyone is capable of understanding these truths, which is not true. And some may recognize their validity and still reject them. So, whether everyone accepts them or not, they are still true - even " as the sun comes down. "

You are joshing me my man. If God’s existence could be proved, there would be no point in faith.

Not joshing at all. The Church has always said, " God Exists " is an article of faith. All the creeds begin with it. And further, the Church has made it Defined Dogma. So while one can come to a conviction that God exists, from reason, one must still believe it. And one can believe without having reached any sort of knowledge through natural reason.

“Truly I tell you, if you have -]a proof/-] FAITH as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move.”

Indeed.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever -]has a proof of/-] BELIEVES in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Certainly, one must believe, and it is good to know as well. Knowing alone is not enough, one must also have faith.

When the authors of the CCC said “known”, I think we should take them at their word. Otherwise the next sentence doesn’t follow. “Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation”. We don’t need proofs to be able to welcome God’s revelation. But we do need to know who God is to be able to welcome God’s revelation.

We are not talking of " proofs " in the scientific manner but of " converging and convincing arguments. " And indeed they are open to all men except the mentally challenged. See para 30.

Nor would the next sentence follow. “Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God””. Being created in the image of God doesn’t give us the capacity to make proofs, that wouldn’t make sense, God never makes proofs.

See paras 32-35. You seem fixated on the type of arguments Aquinas makes but there are other kinds of proofs or " converging and convincing arguments. " And certainly God does give all of us to form " converging and convincing arguments, " except the inept or the culpably willfull or stubborn. And " God never makes proofs " is certainly wrong, he made them in the things he has made, they reflect his nature and shout his existence - unless one is blind, stubborn, or culpably willfull.

Being created in His image means God is not alien to us, it means we have the capacity to relate to Him. It means rather than God being the passive subject of a proof, God is active in the relationship, he calls us by name. I have a certain Joseph Ratzinger on my side here - catholicbridge.com/catholic/ratzinger_creationism.php

And it also means that we have an intellect we can use and should use to see God’s existence and nature through the things he has made. And such knowledge prepares us for faith, as the Church says. But if for some reason we have not made the necessary connections between nature and its creator, Faith will serve. God created nature, he meant for us to reflect on that. But some can’t or won’t - and some are just too stubborn to.

He’s a professor in the Department of Theology and Philosophy at the Australian Catholic University.

Well. What did he say that you thought so important.

Que? I think you are playing with words. Faith = “based on spiritual conviction rather than proof”. A proof would obviate the need for faith.

No. A " proof " does not lead us to love, only Faith does that. And we are saved through Love, called Charity.

Pax
Charlie

 

[MPat]

If the church is unwilling / unable to substantiate what it says, then why should one listen to it? Empty claims are dime a dozen.

Because that is the job of professional and amateur philosophers.

Aha! So if the argument is unconvincing, blame the audience’s “ignorance, bad will, moral corruption, etc.” instead of admitting that the argument was deficient. A very lame argument.

I have followed this thread with interest. I have to admit that I agree with Hee_Zen (again). The dogma of the Church, as stated by several posters here, seem to be: Such and such is true. Several clever people have used reason to prove this is true. If you can’t come to the same conclusion then you must be too stupid, or evil, or you deliberately refuse to agree.

That’s not a very helpful or convincing argument.

It is not an argument. It is an observation.

And it is not even a unique observation. Think about many other areas: evolution, global warming, any number of conspiracy theories, Monty Hall problem… I am pretty sure that you have some opinion (at the moment it doesn’t matter what that opinion is) about at least some of those questions. There are arguments that you consider persuasive. Yet many people are not persuaded by them. Why? Don’t you think that the real cause for that is “ignorance, bad will, moral corruption, etc.”?

Whenever you see “But they are financed by X!”, the observation is of a similar type.

If the fact that someone is not persuaded by the argument must always mean problem with the argument and not with the listener, there wouldn’t be many good arguments left for anything…

And in this case we have at least one source that was given incorrectly. That is sloppy research. Are you certain that it is the only instance…?

 

[Hee_Zen]

Because that is the job of professional and amateur philosophers.

Are there no philosophers in the church? If the “task” of the church is to bring the “good news” to everyone (including those atheists who only listen to reason and shun “faith” and “revelation”) then it is the bare minimum to tailor the arguments to the level of understanding of the audience. The ones who reject the existing arguments are millions… some of average intelligence, some on the level of Mensa, some in-between and some are below average intelligence. But they all have one thing in common, they all reject the unsubstantiated claims of “faith”, and they are all willing to listen to the arguments of reason. Where are those arguments?

If the church has those compelling arguments but does not share it with us, then it does not fulfill its mission. It cannot say: “but you are too dumb to understand my superior arguments, so I will not even bother to share them”. Let’s hear them and then we can start a meaningful conversation. Are you in the position to argue for the church? We are ready to listen.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No human with average intelligence can reject the Pythagoras theorem. The claim of “by the light of natural reason” explicitly asserts that there is no need for faith, no need for revelation. Two and two makes four no matter what philosophical platform one starts from.

As far as I understand the church’s “task” is to spread the “good news”, to bring everyone to God. That is a noble endeavor and the method should be to tailored to the target audience. There are the atheists and all those who have no faith, who had no personal revelation, who ONLY accept reason and logic need a formal proof to be convinced. That is why I said that the catechism is deficient, because it does not get down to the “dirty” details.

Thank you. I wish you the best, too.

I think you have read the Catechism with a prejudiced mind ( I don’t mean in a hostile mind necessarily but more with the idea that you were going to object to every thing you could conceivably object to, a kind of game ). Now the " converging and convincing arguments " are not meant to compare to scientific or mathematical demonstrations, for reasons listed in para 30.

But atheists are becoming Christian or Catholic every day, and some of them come to it through philosophical reflection, others because they feel something missing in their lives. Take a look at one recent stroy here of a University Professor who came to the Church from atheism : strangenotions.com/from-atheist-professor-to-catholic-an-interview-with-dr-holly-ordway/

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[MPat]

Are there no philosophers in the church?

Sure. And they (among other things) are presenting those arguments.

If the “task” of the church is to bring the “good news” to everyone (including those atheists who only listen to reason and shun “faith” and “revelation”) then it is the bare minimum to tailor the arguments to the level of understanding of the audience.

And if the task of a university is to teach, let’s say, Mathematics to every student, then “it is the bare minimum to tailor the arguments to the level of understanding of the audience”…?

The ones who reject the existing arguments are millions… some of average intelligence, some on the level of Mensa, some in-between and some are below average intelligence. But they all have one thing in common, they all reject the unsubstantiated claims of “faith”, and they are all willing to listen to the arguments of reason.

And yet you did not give any “argument of reason” that such millions willing to listen to the arguments actually exist…

Where are those arguments?

Search and you will find. Forums, blogs, scholary papers…

If the church has those compelling arguments but does not share it with us, then it does not fulfill its mission. It cannot say: “but you are too dumb to understand my superior arguments, so I will not even bother to share them”. Let’s hear them and then we can start a meaningful conversation. Are you in the position to argue for the church? We are ready to listen.

Well, you didn’t ask for that in the original post, therefore it wouldn’t be on topic here…

Also, let’s not forget that you are not complaining that arguments are not available (they are available and you have even said that you have read them, although you do not like them). You are complaining that you didn’t find the arguments in some short summary of teaching of the Church. That doesn’t look like a reasonable objection… Even mathematical theorems are often presented without proof in various textbooks.