Reason and the existence of God

[isaacthesyrian]

Here are some questions that arose as I attempt a critical reading of the Cathecism to deepen my faith. Can anyone help clarify?

The Cathecism (36) teaches that man can arrive at certain knowledge of God’s existence through the use of natural reason. That is, man does not need God’s revelation to arrive at that truth. It also says (31) that the “proofs” of God’s existence are not proofs in the sense of the natural sciences but converging and convincing arguments.

It seems to me then that certain knowledge of God’s existence is not possible through natural reason alone. The “proofs” of God’s existence do not give mathematically certain knowledge. They convince but leave room for doubt as any incomplete mathematical proof would do. When one is convinced by a compelling argument one makes a leap of faith not an acquiescence to logic. So it seems man requires the certainty of faith to know of God’s existence.

The Cathecism also says (37) that though natural reason can come to knowledge of God’s existence with certainty it is hampered by disordered appetites, the senses and imagination. Therefore, man is in need of revelation. As we are all subject to the effects of original sin, then this “pure natural reason” it seems exists only in theory. In actuality, man can not come to know with certainty of God’s existence but through His grace and by means of faith.

Perhaps there is an expanded definition of reason that would help here?

 

[Cleb_Calimutan]

**Man can attain the necessity of God’s existence through reason: The argument that something exists is undeniable for how can one do the act of denying if one does not exist; Further among those that exist at least some of them are contingent (they exist today but they did not exist before). Along with this is the orbservation of the principle of contradiction: that one can not, “exist and not exist” at thesame time and the principle of cause and effect.

Now, It can not be that all that exist are contingent for one will arrive to the point of voidness or nothingness (This is a point of non-existence but existence and non-existence can not go together) and it will deny the present existence of things which is undeniable as I explanned above.

Therefore not all being that exists are contingent there is a necessity of a first being that exist in eternity and thus causes the existence of those that exist in contingency.

Finally, the necessary that exist is what the believers call God.

In conclusion, Mans reason and the reality of existence (e.g. nature) can let man arrive to the reality of God’s existence.
**

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Here are some questions that arose as I attempt a critical reading of the Cathecism to deepen my faith. Can anyone help clarify?

The Cathecism (36) teaches that man can arrive at certain knowledge of God’s existence through the use of natural reason. That is, man does not need God’s revelation to arrive at that truth. It also says (31) that the “proofs” of God’s existence are not proofs in the sense of the natural sciences but converging and convincing arguments.

It seems to me then that certain knowledge of God’s existence is not possible through natural reason alone. The “proofs” of God’s existence do not give mathematically certain knowledge. They convince but leave room for doubt as any incomplete mathematical proof would do. When one is convinced by a compelling argument one makes a leap of faith not an acquiescence to logic. So it seems man requires the certainty of faith to know of God’s existence.

The Cathecism also says (37) that though natural reason can come to knowledge of God’s existence with certainty it is hampered by disordered appetites, the senses and imagination. Therefore, man is in need of revelation. As we are all subject to the effects of original sin, then this “pure natural reason” it seems exists only in theory. In actuality, man can not come to know with certainty of God’s existence but through His grace and by means of faith.

Perhaps there is an expanded definition of reason that would help here?

they dont mean a mathematical deductive method, the concepts involved arent so concrete as quantities.

they mean things like the cosmological, ontological, etc arguments. but even those arent necessary, because we have many witnesses who wrote the books of the Bible.

 

[Magnanimity]

As regards the OP, there are a couple of principles underlying those statements from the CCC, I think. First, if you read the dogmatic decrees from Vatican I, you will find that not only can God be known to exist with certainty, but several of His attributes are also known, as well, and from reason too. By “reason” here would mean the intellect unaided by any divine illumination.

Second, although these sorts of people are rare who reason God’s existence as established, but simultaneously withold any religious commitment as a consequence of their understanding, they nevertheless exist.

Mortimer Adler was an example. He was for years an affirmed Thomist (following the teachings of St Thomas Aquinas), yet was quite agnostic as regards any particular religious tradition. Only after many decades later in his life did he eventually make a commitment to Christianity. He was once asked by an interviewer how he could be an avowed Thomist, yet without any religious profession of faith or personal commitment to the God he knew existed. You know what Adler’s response was? “You do not understand the Thomistic doctrine of grace,” he said. He knew that there was quite a distinction to be drawn between belief that God exists and belief in that God. The former atheist Antony Flew is also an illustration of this distinction.

Coming to believe that there must exist a God is not necessarily enough to move one to a commitment to that Being.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

As regards the OP, there are a couple of principles underlying those statements from the CCC, I think. First, if you read the dogmatic decrees from Vatican I, you will find that not only can God be known to exist with certainty, but several of His attributes are also known, as well, and from reason too. By “reason” here would mean the intellect unaided by any divine illumination.

Second, although these sorts of people are rare who reason God’s existence as established, but simultaneously withold any religious commitment as a consequence of their understanding, they nevertheless exist.

Mortimer Adler was an example. He was for years an affirmed Thomist (following the teachings of St Thomas Aquinas), yet was quite agnostic as regards any particular religious tradition. Only after many decades later in his life did he eventually make a commitment to Christianity. He was once asked by an interviewer how he could be an avowed Thomist, yet without any religious profession of faith or personal commitment to the God he knew existed. You know what Adler’s response was? “You do not understand the Thomistic doctrine of grace,” he said. He knew that there was quite a distinction to be drawn between belief that God exists and belief in that God. The former atheist Antony Flew is also an illustration of this distinction.

Coming to believe that there must exist a God is not necessarily enough to move one to a commitment to that Being.

excellent point about adler and flew.

 

[isaacthesyrian]

I appreciate the helpful thoughtful replies. I’m with warpspeed in thinking that the witness of the Church is important in knowing of God’s existence - it isn’t necessary to come to knowledge of God’s existence through natural reason.

It seems the Cathecism is an element to that witness though and it’s making the claim of certainty through natural reason.

In Cleb’s direction: It is convincing and compelling to argue “existence exists.” That seems undeniable. To recognize that there is a first cause to that existence that believers call “God” also is convincing - but it does not seem certain. For though St. Thomas argues to the contrary I can imagine at least that causes go on ad infinitum. If existence itself is called God then “existence exists” seems an irrefutable argument but then it says nothing about God - just a redundancy. Is this (saying nothing) consistent with St. Thomas who claimed science can only teach us what God is not???

In Magnanimity’s direction: Interesting about Adler and will need to look at Vat I docs. That people have arrived at God’s existence outside of revelation is definitely evidence for the possibility - but is not enough to demonstrate it. People certainly have come to the opposite conclusion based on reason alone. This fact (I think) the catechism is teaching is due to the effects of sin. Which suggests that because we are all sinners the success of someone like Adler - is due to God’s grace - not purely natural reason. A supernaturally endowed reason?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It seems the Cathecism is an element to that witness though and it’s making the claim of certainty through natural reason.

i think that you may mean ‘certainty’ in the strictest sense. not a mathematical, or logical one, but rather a 100% situation, where absolutely no doubt can be entertained.

that sense of certainty doesnt exist in any field at all. not even mathematics or logic

this wiki gives a general overview of the problem.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certainty#Quotes

 

[isaacthesyrian]

Yes, thank you. I think that’s the point. Even in mathematics we are guided by faith.

Certain knowledge (of anything) is found only in the light of faith.

Perhaps in the catechism I should interpret “certain” knowledge as “sure” or “reliable” knowledge. The knowing of “God exists” is reliable and sure as seen by faith though the method of natural reason used to obtain such knowledge is not.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes, thank you. I think that’s the point. Even in mathematics we are guided by faith.

Certain knowledge (of anything) is found only in the light of faith.

Perhaps in the catechism I should interpret “certain” knowledge as “sure” or “reliable” knowledge. The knowing of “God exists” is reliable and sure as seen by faith though the method of natural reason used to obtain such knowledge is not.

glad to help.

 

[Magnanimity]

“In Magnanimity’s direction: Interesting about Adler and will need to look at Vat I docs. That people have arrived at God’s existence outside of revelation is definitely evidence for the possibility - but is not enough to demonstrate it. People certainly have come to the opposite conclusion based on reason alone.”

A phrase like “reason alone” irks me somewhat. It strikes me kind of like faith alone or the Bible alone or science alone… It is true that a person like Aristotle or Adler (or Flew maybe) is extremely rare. However, I tend to think that the situation, even with regard to individuals like these, is usually going to be more complicated than arriving at a belief through reason all by its lonesome. It is also almost certainly going to be the case on the opposite end too. Most atheists are such just by virtue of their reasoning and nothing else? I doubt it.

But, I think wspetey is right. There are different levels (or types), if you will, of certainty. About that which we can be absolutely 100% certain of no error, it’s going to be quite limited. Possibly truths like “thinking is going on,” or “something exists” will fall within this very upper echelon of certainty. The rest will be relatively certain, in some sense.

And Vatican I, coming as it does out of the strongly pronounced, if not rigid, Victorian (heels of the Enlightenment) era, writes its decrees in this strong, confident fashion. The CCC, no doubt, is getting its strong language in this context from the decrees of that Council. I think it was still within a context of the success of various versions of scholasticism, with its multitude of arguments for the existence of God, that the particular language of the Council on this issue was phrased.

 

[isaacthesyrian]

Thanks for that comment. It seems to make sense of the “certainty” expressed in the catechism we need to approach it with a mindset to understanding the historical and interpretive context in which it was written. This we do in interpretive studies of scripture.

It seems this discussion is suggesting a contextual interpretation of magisterial teaching as well - i.e. the catechism.

Which may be fine. But then it seems to me that the difinitiveness stressed by the magesterium with regard to its own teaching comes into question.

 

[KingCoil]

Well, I like to mention that for atheists reason does not necessarily bring man to the existence of God.

Because although reason might bring man to God as the ultimate explanation for the existence of everything, it can and it does in fact a better job bringing man to the idea that:

1. Things have always existed, period.
2. Or everything existing came from nothing, including God if He does exist.

KingCoil

 

[Abu]

isaacthesyrian
it isn’t necessary to come to knowledge of God’s existence through natural reason.

It is necessary otherwise very many people who do not have any belief in God originally, whether scientists or anyone else would not have the means to be drawn to God as they have may have no other teaching that reveals Him.

The existence and nature of God can be proved by pure reason from: order and law in nature; motion and change; causality, and dependence.

KingCoil
for atheists reason does not necessarily bring man to the existence of God.

1. Things have always existed, period.
2. Or everything existing came from nothing, including God if He does exist

Those atheists who don’t accept that reason alone can prove the existence of God, have not used their reason reasonably.
Antony Flew, the most notorious atheist, now attests to reason and is now a deist.
“I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence,” he affirms. "I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source.
“Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than half a century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science. Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature.” (There Is a God, 2007, pp. 88-89).

 

[spockrates]

they dont mean a mathematical deductive method, the concepts involved arent so concrete as quantities.

they mean things like the cosmological, ontological, etc arguments. but even those arent necessary, because we have many witnesses who wrote the books of the Bible.

Agreed. It’s certainty derived through inductive reasoning.

 

[spockrates]

Thanks for that comment. It seems to make sense of the “certainty” expressed in the catechism we need to approach it with a mindset to understanding the historical and interpretive context in which it was written. This we do in interpretive studies of scripture.

It seems this discussion is suggesting a contextual interpretation of magisterial teaching as well - i.e. the catechism.

Which may be fine. But then it seems to me that the difinitiveness stressed by the magesterium with regard to its own teaching comes into question.

Perhaps it is certainty in the sense of trusting something is true beyond a reasonable doubt? My thought is that this is the kind of certainty Saint Paul the Apostle had in mind when he wrote this to the Church at Rome:

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

(Romans 1)

But it is a lesser degree of certainty than that explained by the historian Luke:

1In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

(Acts 1)

 

[isaacthesyrian]

Sorry that I have not had a chance to reply earlier.

From the discussion so far, it seems that God’s existence can be known with ‘certainty’ but in a limited sense. The cathecism’s use of certainty is to be interpreted according to the context in which it was written. That is, we are invited to struggle to find the meaning intended by the choice of words in the catechism. This dialectical struggle clarifies and deepens our understanding of the faith.

Does it lead to a contextual relativism? Here, statements contained in the cathecism, and also perhaps statements of objective morality are interpreted subjectively and contextually. It is the statement’s meaning which is important, not the objectivity of the statement. Objectivity of statements is denied as they are valid only in the sense of the individuals contextual interpretation.

Clearly the dialectical struggle is needed if we are to make sense of the catechism - but need we then abandon objectivity?

I think somewhere in there this concept of ‘reasonable doubt’ spockrates mentioned will be important. It is perhaps related to a contrast between a healthy dialectical struggle for truth vs. a hard hearted ‘unreasonable doubt.’ Is this a matter of the will?

 

[Abu]

From Fr Thomas Dubay, Faith And Certitude, Ignatius Press, 1995:

“They attain truth who love it. One of the chief immoralities is an indifference to truth. It is worse than sexual perversion, said Jesus Himself. Those who reject His representatives are more guilty than perverted Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt 10:14-15). Indifference to truth is nothing less than and indifference to reality and to the Author of reality…One of the too little noticed traits of the saints is their utter commitment to truth.” (p 189-190).

Objective certitude “has three traits. First it is an enlightened assent. One not only knows something, but he also knows why he knows it, and he sees the objective reasons why it is so….[Second] certitude excludes a reasonable fear of being wrong…[Third] certitude is unchangeable. Because it is based on objective reality it is permanent.

Doubt and Difficulty
“A negative doubt is a close relation to ignorance. An opinion is an assent of the mind but with a well-founded fear that the opposite may be true.” With an unhealthy doubt, “a person suspends judgment even when the evidence is conclusive and completely adequate. This is skepticism, intellectual cowardice……A difficulty is a problem, a not-seeing how two realities fit together….a situation we do not yet understand and perhaps will never understand. It is a limitation on our knowledge, a passing or permanent limitation.”

John Henry Cardinal Newman said “ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate.” (Apologia pro vita Sua). [Fr Dubay, op. cit. p 82-4].

 

[Abu]

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm
You’ll find the proofs for the existence of God, there.

Also, the ]Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine (CD), Our Sunday Visitor, explains:
“Rational ‘proofs’ for the existence of God are constructed by looking at natural phenomena and then reasoning to a cause or a formal order of things beyond finite nature.
St. Thomas Aquinas’s five proofs for the existence of God (cf. CCC 32) are cases in point. Aquinas’s arguments presuppose that nature is not self-explanatory, and the force of each argument depends upon agreement that the human intellect can make legitimate inferences from the seen to the unseeable, from the finite to the infinite. Because modern philosophy begins with doubt, many philosophers now would limit the reach of the intellect to what can be verified by immediate sense experience or proved by testing hypotheses in a laboratory. The First Vatican Council (1869-1870), therefore, took great pains to defend the human mind’s integrity and its capacity to know spiritual as well as material realities.”
The ideas produced by the intellect show the spiritual nature of the human person.

It is only in the West that science developed due to the reason and faith of the Catholic Church. The present worsening in reason and faith is the obvious result of the relativism and secularism following the revolt and so-called Enlightenment – that anything goes.