Pure Reason, Vatican I, and St. Augustine

[CrossofChrist]

Ever since the high point of Scholasticism, faith and reason have gradually come to be seen as being in conflict with one another. This rift can be seen in its initial stages with the rise of German mysticism and the Italian Renaissance in reaction to a decadent Scholasticism. The separation culminated to the point where Kant said we couldn’t prove God by “pure reason”. It has been since then that the Church has largely been seen as opposed to modernity, and for most of the time since then has seemed to taken this as a challenge to show that God could be proven by pure reason, and how the faith is ultimately very rational. From my understanding this seems to have been a major reason why there was the rise of a Neo-Thomism within Catholic theology, and Vatican I appears to be the Church’s response to Kant by saying, “Challenge accepted!”

Therefore, Vatican Council I said the following:* If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.*

The trend to combat modernity until Vatican II seemed to be strictly rationalistic. However, since Vatican II, there seems to be a different emphasis on this battle with modernity, at least the part about God’s existence. We find that the emphasis of coming to know God’s presence in the world isn’t so much about proving God as it is about desiring God. This can be seen especially in Henri de Lubac, who says, “God can never really be thought apart from a sursum, which no proof can ever arouse. It is much less important to prove God to the unbeliever than to open his eyes,” (p. 157 in de Lubac’s The Discovery of God).

We can also see this in Joseph Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict XVI, who has said, quoting the Scholastics, that “reason has a wax nose”. Furthermore, Ratzinger has mentioned how reason is always situated within a historical context, and as such it can’t ever be alone, or ever be “pure reason”. In fact, it is faith which purifies and perfects reason, and reason perfects faith. These two are always together, and can’t be separated. Similar ideas can also be seen in von Balthasar.

This seems to be very much Augustinian in nature, where we don’t “understand in order to believe, but believe in order to understand”.

So, by chance you have actually read all of this, I now ask whether or not we can truly come to a knowledge of God by the light of natural reason apart from faith. IOW, can we actually come to knowledge of God from pure reason, from reason alone? It seems to me, both from personal experience and from my interpretation of the most influential theologians of the movement behind Vatican II, that we need faith so that our natural reason can be cleansed from its errors. Vatican I says that our natural reason can come to a knowledge of God with certainty, but it never said it could do so apart from being purified by faith. Am I rejecting the arguments for the existence of God? No. But Aquinas’ proofs are hotly debated and don’t seem like sure footing, and other arguments, like Newman’s argument from conscience and arguments from design (these often are used together and combined probably make my favorite argument), can be (seemingly) explained away. But these arguments are shown to be true because, when examined in faith, we can see that any other explanation of the reality of human nature and the world is inadequate, and only God as seen by Christians can be satisfactory as to how reality is. After all, “Our hearts are restless until they rest in You!”

Your thoughts?

 

[marywarfield]

Ever since the high point of Scholasticism, faith and reason have gradually come to be seen as being in conflict with one another. This rift can be seen in its initial stages with the rise of German mysticism and the Italian Renaissance in reaction to a decadent Scholasticism. The separation culminated to the point where Kant said we couldn’t prove God by “pure reason”. It has been since then that the Church has largely been seen as opposed to modernity, and for most of the time since then has seemed to taken this as a challenge to show that God could be proven by pure reason, and how the faith is ultimately very rational. From my understanding this seems to have been a major reason why there was the rise of a Neo-Thomism within Catholic theology, and Vatican I appears to be the Church’s response to Kant by saying, “Challenge accepted!”

Therefore, Vatican Council I said the following:* If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.*

The trend to combat modernity until Vatican II seemed to be strictly rationalistic. However, since Vatican II, there seems to be a different emphasis on this battle with modernity, at least the part about God’s existence. We find that the emphasis of coming to know God’s presence in the world isn’t so much about proving God as it is about desiring God. This can be seen especially in Henri de Lubac, who says, “God can never really be thought apart from a sursum, which no proof can ever arouse. It is much less important to prove God to the unbeliever than to open his eyes,” (p. 157 in de Lubac’s The Discovery of God).

We can also see this in Joseph Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict XVI, who has said, quoting the Scholastics, that “reason has a wax nose”. Furthermore, Ratzinger has mentioned how reason is always situated within a historical context, and as such it can’t ever be alone, or ever be “pure reason”. In fact, it is faith which purifies and perfects reason, and reason perfects faith. These two are always together, and can’t be separated. Similar ideas can also be seen in von Balthasar.

This seems to be very much Augustinian in nature, where we don’t “understand in order to believe, but believe in order to understand”.

So, by chance you have actually read all of this, I now ask whether or not we can truly come to a knowledge of God by the light of natural reason apart from faith. IOW, can we actually come to knowledge of God from pure reason, from reason alone? It seems to me, both from personal experience and from my interpretation of the most influential theologians of the movement behind Vatican II, that we need faith so that our natural reason can be cleansed from its errors. Vatican I says that our natural reason can come to a knowledge of God with certainty, but it never said it could do so apart from being purified by faith. Am I rejecting the arguments for the existence of God? No. But Aquinas’ proofs are hotly debated and don’t seem like sure footing, and other arguments, like Newman’s argument from conscience and arguments from design (these often are used together and combined probably make my favorite argument), can be (seemingly) explained away. But these arguments are shown to be true because, when examined in faith, we can see that any other explanation of the reality of human nature and the world is inadequate, and only God as seen by Christians can be satisfactory as to how reality is. After all, “Our hearts are restless until they rest in You!”

Your thoughts?

How far in knowledge by reason and not faith? So
one is then speaking of man in his natural state.
And man in his natural state it would appear does
indeed perceive “God” or at least a Superior Being purely
through reason- around the world we see this in
indigenous people- yes.

 

[powerofk]

Through reason, we can see God’s “back”, as it were - how He is reflected in His Creation. The thing is, though, it takes eyes of faith to see past the beauty and find God. The biggest problem with the pagans was that instead of looking past the beauty of God’s creation to find the divine, they deified the creation itself.

 

[hicetnunc]

This seems to be very much Augustinian in nature, where we don’t “understand in order to believe, but believe in order to understand”.

Your thoughts?

What a thoughtful and thought-provoking post, CrossofChrist…thank you…

For me, there always seems to be this tension between rationality and mysticism, and it’s a tension I find over and over again in St Thomas. On the one hand, the rational arguments for God do indeed seem totally wanting, in that they do not engage the heart; on the other hand, reason is the way in which we share in the Divine, and the way in which friendship is initiated. Friendship and the desire are essentially rational, it seems, otherwise they are reduced to the totally emotive and eradicate the use of freewill in responding to the love of God. And yet, when friendship is considered as something purely rational, it seems to dissipate before our eyes.

St Thomas says that reason is purified by faith, and that faith purifies reason. Grace works to perfect the will and reason so that it sees and chooses clearly. He also equates desire for God as the highest act and perfection of reason, so that they are not in fact in opposition to one another.

What do you think?

Incidentally, have you ever read Luigi Giussani on the Religious Sense? I think this would be right up your alley.

 

[Shike]

So, by chance you have actually read all of this, I now ask whether or not we can truly come to a knowledge of God by the light of natural reason apart from faith. IOW, can we actually come to knowledge of God from pure reason, from reason alone?

Yes, we can come to know many things about God through philosophy. Strict philosophy will not get you much further than classical theism. In other words, a lot of distinctive elements of Catholicism come to us through revelation and philosophy will never replace that. Therefore, while someone may indeed reason to God, it still remains an open question what precise religion they might become (or any at all), though that is not to say they are all equal or befitting the evidence. I think in modern Catholic apologetics we tend to move too quick too fast and sometimes go beyond what the arguments actually justify. Hence, someone will point to Aquinas’ Five Ways as knock-down proofs of the existence of God without 1) explaining the background metaphysical and philosophy of nature presuppositions that make the arguments intelligible, 2) without giving precise definitions of the terms since words have changed a lot in definition over the years, 3) helping the other see the context of the argument and show that Aquinas builds off of these conclusions to show that such a being is Unique, All-powerful, Perfect, Loving, All-knowing, All-good, Personal, etc in the next 100 or so pages that follow the Five Ways.

Do not give up on Aquinas merely because a lot of people hotly contest the arguments. People hotly contest everything, especially in the field of philosophy. And especially on the topic of God (the hardest topic in philosophy there is) and especially since there is a streak in humanity that does not want to hear the conclusions.

It is a shame that since (not because of the teaching of) Vatican II there has been a shameful drop in Thomistic studies. But be of good cheer; word on the street is there is a lot of Thomistic revival and neo-scholasticism these days.

I would recommend to you the book, The Last Superstition by Dr. Edward Feser for some of the important metaphysical and philosophy of nature context that is required for arguments like Aquinas’ to make sense and have philosophical force. Plus, it is often very funny and sarcastic–something sometimes needed when dealing with certain prominent “new atheists”. If you want a deeper treatment without a lot of the sarcasm, check out Aquinas by the same author.

Take care,
Michael

 

[animalis]

But Aquinas’ proofs are hotly debated and don’t seem like sure footing

If you are referring to the presentation he makes in the Summa regarding the existence of God, it would be a suffiction to maintain that those were intented to prove the existence of God. The Summa was written for beginners, the presentations he presents for the existance of God are encyclopaedian in what they conclude toward. They were not intented to ‘seal the deal’.

Moreover, in his work regarding the confessing of the faith to the muslims (De Rationibus Fidei), St. Thomas says, in chapter two, "First of all I wish to warn you that in disputations with unbelievers about articles of the Faith, you should not try to prove the Faith by necessary reasons. This would belittle the sublimity of the Faith, whose truth exceeds not only human minds but also those of angels; we believe in them only because they are revealed by God.

Yet whatever come from the Supreme Truth cannot be false, and what is not false cannot be repudiated by any necessary reason. Just as our Faith cannot be proved by necessary reasons, because it exceeds the human mind, so because of its truth it cannot be refuted by any necessary reason. So any Christian disputing about the articles of the Faith should not try to prove the Faith, but defend the Faith. Thus blessed Peter (1 Pet 3:15) did not say: “Always have your proof”, but “your answer ready,” so that reason can show that what the Catholic Faith holds is not false."

dhspriory.org/thomas/english/Rationes.htm#2

 

[empther]

Before getting to Aquinas, the Reformation, the Renaissance, the Age of Enlightment and all that,
let’s take a look at what the Bible says:

Punishment of Idolaters.
18

• The wrath* of God* is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickednessp of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.
  19
  **For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. :bigyikes: :bigyikes: **
  20
  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.r As a result, they have no excuse;

What was that? :bigyikes:

Paul is not talking about faith, because the idolators he talks about are the people outside the revelations to the Hebrews, cut off from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the rest,
the Chinese, Australian aborigines, and Africans among many others.

Paul says the existence of God was self-evident to them from his effects. That of course is what Aquinas says in the five ways. ( Where does Aquinas mention anything about faith in the five ways? ) Paul says the idolators had no excuse.

So it is because of man’s selfishness, foolishness and all the rest that he rebels against God’s providence and plan for man.

In subsequent chapters he gives reasons men fall away.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I now ask whether or not we can truly come to a knowledge of God by the light of natural reason apart from faith. IOW, can we actually come to knowledge of God from pure reason, from reason alone? It seems to me, both from personal experience and from my interpretation of the most influential theologians of the movement behind Vatican II, that we need faith so that our natural reason can be cleansed from its errors. Vatican I says that our natural reason can come to a knowledge of God with certainty, but it never said it could do so apart from being purified by faith.

I ought to clarify myself with regards to the above. I don’t mean that we can’t come to know of God by reason without the gift of faith. Even though reason is always situated within a historical context and hence “pure reason” doesn’t exist, within each historical context God has given us the capability of coming to recognize his presence from reason. It’s just that our knowledge remains very imperfect, and the ways with which we can apply “reason” to real life situations can become very irrational. Reason without faith, including reasoning to God’s existence, provides us with unstable footing. We can do so, and come to certain knowledge, but I think it is hard to stay put without an encounter with God, without having meaning which only belief can provide. So we need faith to perfect our reason.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Paul says the existence of God was self-evident to them from his effects. That of course is what Aquinas says in the five ways. ( Where does Aquinas mention anything about faith in the five ways? ) Paul says the idolators had no excuse.

On the contrary, Aquinas says that God’s existence isn’t self evident.

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article1

Although from what little I know about philosophy, personally I think I do have some Neoplatonist tendencies.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Do not give up on Aquinas merely because a lot of people hotly contest the arguments. People hotly contest everything, especially in the field of philosophy. And especially on the topic of God (the hardest topic in philosophy there is) and especially since there is a streak in humanity that does not want to hear the conclusions.

Here’s what I think may be the problem: people point to Aquinas and say how we have these 5 proofs for God’s existence. Then everyone starts analyzing these proofs as if they were a scientific formula that is self-sufficient and closed in on itself. The proofs are called the 5 ways for a reason.

It is a shame that since (not because of the teaching of) Vatican II there has been a shameful drop in Thomistic studies. But be of good cheer; word on the street is there is a lot of Thomistic revival and neo-scholasticism these days.

The first is a good thing. The latter I’m not enthusiastic about.

I would recommend to you the book, The Last Superstition by Dr. Edward Feser for some of the important metaphysical and philosophy of nature context that is required for arguments like Aquinas’ to make sense and have philosophical force. Plus, it is often very funny and sarcastic–something sometimes needed when dealing with certain prominent “new atheists”. If you want a deeper treatment without a lot of the sarcasm, check out Aquinas by the same author.

Take care,
Michael

Thanks for the recommendations.

 

[empther]

On the contrary, Aquinas says that God’s existence isn’t self evident.

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article1

Aquinas says that God is not self-evident because we don’t know his essence, that is, what it is that makes him what he is. When do we not know the essence of something? When we can’t observe it directly. That is, we can’t examine it scientifically. But already Aquinas is saying we can know things not self-evident from effects.

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article1

Therefore I say that this proposition, “God exists,” of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (3, 4). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature — namely,** by effects.**

In article 2 he explains we can demonstrate God from his effects.

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article2

Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.

Paul kept things simple for his simple audience. What he’s saying is that the universe and how it works to supply us all we need is self-evident to us. Just look. There it is!
From this, we should see that such a marvelous universe couldn’t exist without God.

The Baltimore Catechism, which the nuns used to teach us, follows Paul’s simple path:
catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson02.html

1. Can we know by our natural reason that there is a God?
   We can know by our natural reason that there is a God, for natural reason tells us that the world we see about us could have been made only by a self-existing Being, all-wise and almighty.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice; because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. (Romans 1:18-19)

Heavy stuff for third graders.

 

[TRH1292]

Pope Pius XII says:

"Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful. This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”-

 

[fhansen]

Through reason, we can see God’s “back”, as it were - how He is reflected in His Creation. The thing is, though, it takes eyes of faith to see past the beauty and find God. The biggest problem with the pagans was that instead of looking past the beauty of God’s creation to find the divine, they deified the creation itself.

Exactly. By reason we can come to a knowledge of God-the necessity of a creator, a mind behind the existence of the universe-but not all the way to the God of Christianity. But this in no way implies that faith and reason can conflict-and this, incidentally, likewise means that Christian mysticism and reason can never conflict. Humans may or may not insist that reason necessarily conflicts but there’s simply nothing irrational about faith.

 

[empther]

CrossofChrist,
If you really want to get into this subject,
try Pope Pius X’s encyclical, “Stupid, Insane, and Totally Bogus Doctrines of the Modernists”.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

 

[CrossofChrist]

Aquinas says that God is not self-evident because we don’t know his essence, that is, what it is that makes him what he is. When do we not know the essence of something? When we can’t observe it directly. That is, we can’t examine it scientifically. But already Aquinas is saying we can know things not self-evident from effects.

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article1

In article 2 he explains we can demonstrate God from his effects.

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article2

I’m mistaken. Thank you.

 

[CrossofChrist]

CrossofChrist,
If you really want to get into this subject,
try Pope Pius X’s encyclical, “Stupid, Insane, and Totally Bogus Doctrines of the Modernists”.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

While Pascendi had some good points, the effects of the Encyclical (or if you prefer, the “spirit” of the Encyclical) eliminated some “wheat along with the chaff” so to speak.

 

[CarmelJerome]

All our knowledge comes first through the senses, and the senses are vastly disordered in our technological, commercial and ideological environment. Natural reason can hardly work when our education and our daily experience is not with reality at all, but with fabricated images which are extremely distant from their real foundations. In the most basic ways, we don’t experience our natural limitations, because the technological aids give us illusions of autonomy and immunity, even of eternity, that simply exclude the normal awareness of the origin of our being and our gifts. We don’t experience the hierarchies of being or value because of this contextless fabricated bubble which is defined by advertising and deceit.

 

[ynotzap]

FWIW Who has pure reason? Has anyone been exempted from sin and its effects eg. ignorance. the loss of the Holy Spirit of Truth at Adams fall affected all humanity. I believe that St. Thomas mentioned three conditions for knowing the truth. I don’t remember its been so long ago, but one of them is A) a good moral life b) perhaps a sincere desire to know? C) a mind that is not pedjudice or bias? Someone may know for sure. What I’m saying that if these conditions are met, then one can prove by reason God’s existence

We know spiritual realities by the effects they cause in the material world. It is only by the reasoning power of men, which is a spirtual power that we can know spiritual realities.and enter the gateway to the spiritual world. And interestingly only rational beings can commit sin. All that God created is good. Mary was the only one exempted from original sin.

 

[CrossofChrist]

So, by chance you have actually read all of this, I now ask whether or not we can truly come to a knowledge of God by the light of natural reason apart from faith. IOW, can we actually come to knowledge of God from pure reason, from reason alone? ]

Yes we can. Sorry for implying we couldn’t.

 

[balto]

Yes we can. Sorry for implying we couldn’t.

What changed your mind?

I had been getting really into the rational defense of Catholicism over the past year, but actually I think you brought up quite a number of good points in your OP. Recently I finished up reading one of Peter Kreeft’s books on Pascal’s Pensees and Pascal was very much an Augustinian thinker. At first I thought he was kind of cowering away by not grabbing the rational, Thomistic proofs head on, but what he was arguing for actually made a lot of sense. All the rational justifications of Catholicism are sound, yes, but they are not going to convince anyone who doesn’t want to be convinced. You can argue with the secularist all day long and win every debate, but if she doesn’t want theism to be true, then theism is not going to be true to her. The question we should be asking is does it even make sense to want Christianity to be true? That’s what Pascal’s Wager seems to have been all about, not necessarily the fear of going to hell if you guessed wrong about whether God exists, which is the usual, naive presentation of the wager. Even Aquinas discusses this I believe, when he argues that the intellect is the formal cause of the will but the will is the efficient cause of the intellect. The book is called Christianity for Modern Pagans if you are interested (the title is just one of Kreeft’s usual witty things ).

I was rereading G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy and he talks a lot about all of this as well, at least in the first few chapters.