Question about a Catholic dogma

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ashleybird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ashleybird

Guest
Hi everyone! I was born and raised Catholic, even confirmed into the faith in high school, but since then, I’ve drifted away. I’ve been seriously considering coming back recently, but there’s one question that I’m having a bit of trouble with. My question has to do with this particular dogma:
“God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things.”
So, a dogma is something that every Catholic has to believe, right? You’re not allowed to profess that you don’t believe it. Then this is something I’m really struggling with. If this is true, then why do atheists exist? Are they just being irrational? I guess my question is, if God can be known with certainty through reason, then what is this rational argument for Him existing?
I’ve managed to reduce it to a simpler question through my own thought. I’m a math major, so I tried approaching it from a mathematical way. The example I used was infinite-dimensional vector spaces and bases for them. We can prove that every vector space has a basis. However, for infinite-dimensional ones, it can be really hard or impossible to actually find that basis, yet we can prove that a basis does exist. Okay, so maybe this dogma is saying that God can be known with certainty through reason, not that that rational argument for Him existing can actually be explicitly stated. But then, what’s the proof that that rational argument exists? Like, I can prove that a basis for every vector space exists, even if I can’t explicitly find one. But how do I prove that a rational argument for God existing exists, even if I can’t explicitly find one? I hope that kinda makes sense; any enlightenment would be much appreciated. Thank you very much!
 
It’s a dogma (‘De fide’). Defined as such by the Vatican Council. Denzinger 1806: ‘If anybody says that the one true God, Our Creator and Lord cannot be known with certainty in the light of human reason by those thing which have been made, anathema sit.’
 
Last edited:
Maximian said:
I don’t think this is a dogma. It is the defense of a dogma.
Click to expand...
Good point. I would think the actual dogma would be that God exists, or that one believes in God as described in the Creed.

Also, while the Church does teach that “man can arrive at certainty” about the existence of God, in addition to the OP’s posted statement about how God “can be known with certainty…” note that the word used is “can”, not “must”. Just because God “can” be known in this way does not mean everyone will just make themselves manage to know him. People do struggle with doubt.

Regarding rational arguments, I would think the explanation would be here in the Catechism Part 1, Section 1, “I Believe” discussing this section.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c1.htm
 
I’m not an Ott fan and I don’t accept many of his contentions, sorry. I was sort of counting the minutes till he would appear on a dogma thread though. He always does.

Having pointed to the relevant Catechism section, I will take my leave then.
 
Last edited:
Then I suggest you read the ‘Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum’ (Denzinger) for yourself. You’ll find that Ott is correct. Failing that, there are a number of priests on this site. Ask them.

Have a nice day.
 
Thanks for the answers, however, I’m not super convinced, and actually, I’m a bit more confused. Is it a dogma or not that a proof of God’s existence exists? If it’s not, then I’m okay with that; I can just believe that God exists. If it is, then I have two options; either find an explicit proof that God exists or prove that such a proof exists. The first option seems like a monumental task that many before me have attempted, so the second is more palatable to me. But then what is that proof that such a proof exists? That section of the Catechism didn’t really convince me that such a proof exists, though I may have missed or misinterpreted something. Alternatively, can I take it on faith that such a proof exists? I’m okay with that, although to be honest, it does seem kind of roundabout; why can’t I just take it on faith that God exists and stop there? I hope my questions make sense, thank you for your time!
 
Last edited:
Human reason is more than logical proofs. My belief in God for instance has nothing to do with a particular argument, beyond acknowledging a first cause. It more has to do with my experience with him and witnessing others. Human reason can with certainty arrive at the existence of God is a dogma, how reason does that and what counts as certainty is not.
 
Ok, I can go with that. But part of the Catechism section linked above says:
“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.”
It’s that “converging and convincing arguments” line that is troubling me. How I interpret this is that we don’t, like, run experiments like you would in physics to prove that God exists. Rather, you would start with axioms and use logical reasoning and deduction to conclude God’s existence. This is exactly like how I would prove something exists in math. Or am I misinterpreting something?
 
I looked into Vatican I and found two sources on line that contain the decrees. It differs from yours

The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the beginning and end of all things, may be certainly known by the natural light of human reason, by means of created things; “for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” (Romans 1:20), but that it pleased His wisdom and bounty to reveal Himself, and the eternal decrees of His will, to mankind by another and a supernatural way: as the Apostle says, “God, having spoken on diverse occasions, and in many ways, in times past, to the fathers by the prophets; last of all, in these days, has spoken to us by His Son” (Hebrews 1:1-2).
Perhaps you have a source that is different from mine?
No anathema. You do seem to be quoting from Denzinger but I have no access to him.
 
The Catechism in that section goes on to give out a very short litany of “arguments” which are 1) converging: they all point towards and end on God 2) convincing: they are satisfying accounts of our reality, that lead to knowledge of God, in the sense which they define right after: a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.

I think the only misapprehension here is possibly thinking that it exclusively requires the math-type method you would use. That may certainly be part of it, but also is not the end of it. I say that because of you look at all the “proofs” given in that Catechism section individually, you would see that you can argue very strongly against them. So this isn’t a strict logical proof all of them, they just all point towards God and together are satisfying, and through them by Grace the human intellect will have certainty of the existence of God (defined above).
 
Rational argument is order of our world. There is certain intelligence in it’s design and as such suggests that world was created. If there is a higher power that created the world, atheism in it’s purest form (rejection of supernatural) ceases.

Of course dogma just says that fact there is Creator can be seen. It doesn’t claim every dogma of faith can. That requires supernatural Faith. Existence of God requires natural Faith.
 
Ok, so the way I was interpreting it as first was “there exists a proof of God’s existence”. But if I’m understanding correctly, what it’s actually saying is “there exists reasonable evidence of God’s existence”. Am I correct? If so, I can definitely go with that.
 
Yes, and this reasonable evidence, which is a summary of many smaller “arguments” and our experience, can (maybe not will actually do so in every case), lead to a certainty of God, (certainty I take to mean unshaken conviction, at least enough to act on). Overall I see the dogma as saying this: “It is possible for a human being to use their faculties of intellect to arrive at a certain conviction of God’s existence, and act on it.” This dogma guards the faith from being opposed to reason and nature.
 
No, that is not correct. The teaching of Vatican I is grounded in the teaching of St. Paul in Romans 1… Strictly speaking, one must believe that the existence of God is demonstrable by natural reason - but one does not need to ascribe to a particular argument/demonstration.

I am astounded that in 14 replies, not a single person has offered a simple go at the cosmological argument.

See if you can work through the first three “ways” of St. Thomas - here (in the “I answer” part of Article 3 - although Article 2 is also helpful): SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The existence of God (Prima Pars, Q. 2)

Let us know what you think of it…
 
Last edited:
hope said:
I looked into Vatican I and found two sources on line that contain the decrees. It differs from yours
…
No anathema. You do seem to be quoting from Denzinger but I have no access to him.
Click to expand...
Sources of Catholic Dogma (Denzinger) Denzinger - English translation, older numbering

The Vatican Council 1869-1870
Ecumenical XX (on Faith and the Church)
Session III (April 24, 1870)

Chap.2. Revelation
… For The fact of positive supernatural revelation, see 1785 [Heb.1:1 f; can. 1], and the canon is 1806:
1806 1. [Against those denying natural theology]. If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and our Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema [cf. 1785].
Click to expand...
Chap. 4. Faith and reason
… For The twofold order of knowledge see 1795 [Rom. 1:20; cf.John 1:17; 1 Cor. 2:7,8,10; cf. Matt. 11:25], and the canon is 1816,
1816 1. If anyone shall have said that no true mysteries properly so-called are contained in divine revelation, but that all the dogmas of faith can be understood and proved from natural principles, through reason properly cultivated: let him be anathema [cf. n.1795f.].
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
hope said:
I looked into Vatican I and found two sources on line that contain the decrees. It differs from yours
Click to expand...
Were you referring to this:

‘The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certitude by the natural light of human reason from created things; “for the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” (Rom. 1:20); nevertheless, it has pleased His wisdom and goodness to reveal Himself and the eternal decrees of His will to the human race in another and supernatural way, as the Apostle says: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, in these days hath spoken to us by His Son” [Denzinger: ‘Enchiridion Symbolorum – The Sources of Catholic Dogma’; number 1785).

And then there’s this:

‘All knowledge of God, even natural knowledge, even in the pagan philosophers, cannot come except from God; and without grace knowledge produces nothing but presumption, vanity, and opposition to God Himself, instead of the affections of adoration, gratitude, and love.’ (Ibid, number 1391).

I hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
Niblo said:
This last quote confirms that although the existence of God ‘can be known with certitude by the natural light of human reason from created things’, knowledge of His nature can be known only through revelation.
Click to expand...
That does not seem right. The text appears to indicate simply that natural reason is itself from God, Who also allows it to be used and gives it the right signs to be able to recognize Him in creation. Every act is from God in a way - I think this is the sense in which this text needs to be taken.
 
Indeed! Thank you. As you can see, I’ve corrected my post.

Peace, and have a great day.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top