Were does morality come from?

[Abu]

DPMartin
Is reason morality?

No. Morality, whether an action is right or wrong, can be known from reason as we have seen.

John Finnis writes: “for Aquinas, the way to discover what is morally right (virtue) and wrong (vice) is to ask, not what is in accordance with human nature, but what is reasonable.” So, then, human good is in accord with reason and human evil lies outside the order of reasonableness: “So human virtue, which makes good both the human person and his work, is in accordance with human nature just in so far as it is in accordance with reason; and vice is contrary to human nature just in so far as it is contrary to the order of reasonableness.” (Aquinas, Summa, I-II, qu. 71, art. 2, resp.).

“To ascertain the reasonableness of something, one must examine cause-and-effect relationships, a process that calls for scientific research and study.”
[See *Christians For Freedom, Chafuen, Ignatius 1996, p 29-30].

From Fides et Ratio, John Paul II, 1998:
[vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html]](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j.../hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html])

(#4). “Although times change and knowledge increases, it is possible to discern a core of philosophical insight within the history of thought as a whole. Consider, for example, the principles of non-contradiction, finality and causality, as well as the concept of the person as a free and intelligent subject, with the capacity to know God, truth and goodness. Consider as well certain fundamental moral norms which are shared by all. These are among the indications that, beyond different schools of thought, there exists a body of knowledge which may be judged a kind of spiritual heritage of humanity…. Once reason successfully intuits and formulates the first universal principles of being and correctly draws from them conclusions which are coherent both logically and ethically, then it may be called right reason or, as the ancients called it, orthós logos, recta ratio.

(#5). “Complex systems of thought have thus been built, yielding results in the different fields of knowledge and fostering the development of culture and history. Anthropology, logic, the natural sciences, history, linguistics and so forth—the whole universe of knowledge has been involved in one way or another. Yet the positive results achieved must not obscure the fact that reason, in its one-sided concern to investigate human subjectivity, seems to have forgotten that men and women are always called to direct their steps towards a truth which transcends them.

(#9). “The First Vatican Council teaches, then, that the truth attained by philosophy and the truth of Revelation are neither identical nor mutually exclusive: “There exists a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards their source, but also as regards their object. With regard to the source, because we know in one by natural reason, in the other by divine faith. With regard to the object, because besides those things which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, cannot be known”.

 

[Betterave]

Good question, and I’m not sure of the answer. We have to start from some point about which we can say “this is true”, and God surely has to direct us to that point.

What do you mean by this?
(It just raises the same question: do we have to KNOW that it is God ‘directing’ (whatever that means) us to that point?)

 

[Syntax]

What do you mean by this?
(It just raises the same question: do we have to KNOW that it is God ‘directing’ (whatever that means) us to that point?)

That’s right. But just so Ender doesn’t feel singled out, let me say that I am not sure how to answer my question either! lol.

The question is clearly an epistemic issue needing a good answer. I’ve entertained some possibilities, but not so sure I am satisfied with them…so I continue to ponder.

Maybe we could start by distinguishing between moral truths arrived at by “the natural light of reason” and those “arrived at by direct revelation” which are not accessible to reason unaided by God’s hand? I can’t seem to make a distinction between different types of epistemic warrant without also first making a distinction between different kinds of moral truths.
I think perhpas my own question was way too generalized and poorly formulated to boot simply because it raises so many other questions…

Have any ideas of your own which might point us in the right direction, Betterave?

 

[Abu]

Ender
I’m not sure quite what to do with the conscience.

We are obliged to use our reason to determine what is a moral (right) action according to human nature, imbued with the natural law created by God in man’s nature and outside of man’s control.
Therefore we already can know what God requires of us in moral actions.

Freedom of conscience means freedom to form our consciences (the means of discerning or judging our actions) in accord with the truth. Conscience does not make truth, it can only judge on the basis of what has informed and formed it.

Fr.Stephen F. Torraco of EWTN, on 27/6/2008:
Conscience is NOT the same as your opinions or feelings. Conscience cannot be identical with your feelings because conscience is the activity of your intellect in judging the rightness or wrongness of your actions or omissions, past, present, or future, while your feelings come from another part of your soul and should be governed by your intellect and will. Conscience is not identical with your opinions because your intellect bases its judgment upon the natural moral law, which is inherent in your human nature…

 

[Syntax]

We are obliged to use our reason to determine what is a moral (right) action according to human nature, imbued with the natural law created by God in man’s nature and outside of man’s control.
Therefore we already can know what God requires of us in moral actions.

Freedom of conscience means freedom to form our consciences (the means of discerning or judging our actions) in accord with the truth. Conscience does not make truth, it can only judge on the basis of what has informed and formed it.

Fr.Stephen F. Torraco of EWTN, on 27/6/2008:
Conscience is NOT the same as your opinions or feelings. Conscience cannot be identical with your feelings because conscience is the activity of your intellect in judging the rightness or wrongness of your actions or omissions, past, present, or future, while your feelings come from another part of your soul and should be governed by your intellect and will. Conscience is not identical with your opinions because your intellect bases its judgment upon the natural moral law, which is inherent in your human nature…

Thanks for all your information on Aquinas, but I think you’re missing the point of the question in our little discussion here.

We want to know that when God directs a person’s conscience to find the correct moral principle about some matter whether that person has any epistemic justification, or an epistemic right, to believe that moral principle is true if that person still lacks complete awareness that it was, in fact, God directing him or her in finding the truth about the matter.

In other words, God directs person A to recognize a true moral princple X, but that person is not aware that God has so directed him or her. So is this person justified in believing that moral principle X is true, even though he or she is not aware that it is God who (partly or fully) indirectly led him or her to it?

This is a difficult question to answer, and you haven’t addressed it at all yet.

 

[Abu]

Syntax
So is this person justified in believing that moral principle X is true, even though he or she is not aware that it is God who (partly or fully) indirectly led him or her to it?

The question pertains also to “can a non-Catholic be saved?”

We can’t alter the fact that we have a conscience which can know right from wrong. It comes back to conscience, and doing what one thinks, believes, is right and true. We are bound to follow our conscience. We are also bound to use reason to determine what is right and what is wrong, as well as investigating the claims, if we have encountered them, that God has redeemed us through His Son and founded a Church with His authority to teach us how to be saved. The same God allows for any and all mitigating circumstances that may have defiled or obstructed our conscience, and reason, on any particular matter.

With the evident design and purpose in the world, and the association of all peoples with the idea of a creator God, it is those, like Dawkins, who buck reality and construct fantasies to try to live as though there is no God.

 

[Syntax]

The question pertains also to “can a non-Catholic be saved?”

We can’t alter the fact that we have a conscience which can know right from wrong. It comes back to conscience, and doing what one thinks, believes, is right and true. We are bound to follow our conscience. We are also bound to use reason to determine what is right and what is wrong, as well as investigating the claims, if we have encountered them, that God has redeemed us through His Son and founded a Church with His authority to teach us how to be saved. The same God allows for any and all mitigating circumstances that may have defiled or obstructed our conscience, and reason, on any particular matter.

With the evident design and purpose in the world, and the association of all peoples with the idea of a creator God, it is those, like Dawkins, who buck reality and construct fantasies to try to live as though there is no God.

I agree. But this still doesn’t answer the question.

 

[Syntax]

The question pertains also to “can a non-Catholic be saved?”

We can’t alter the fact that we have a conscience which can know right from wrong. It comes back to conscience, and doing what one thinks, believes, is right and true. We are bound to follow our conscience. We are also bound to use reason to determine what is right and what is wrong, as well as investigating the claims, if we have encountered them, that God has redeemed us through His Son and founded a Church with His authority to teach us how to be saved. The same God allows for any and all mitigating circumstances that may have defiled or obstructed our conscience, and reason, on any particular matter.

With the evident design and purpose in the world, and the association of all peoples with the idea of a creator God, it is those, like Dawkins, who buck reality and construct fantasies to try to live as though there is no God.

I agree. But this still doesn’t answer the question.

Even if a person’s conscience is functioning correctly, does that person have to be further aware that his conscience is, in fact, functioning correctly in order to be justified in believing that the outputs of his conscience are true?

 

[Abu]

For a Catholic the following is very relevant:

As Msgr Cormac P Burke (Law and Dissent, 1985) points out, for the Catholic, there is never a conflict between the authority of the Church and conscience, because belief that Christ has given His Church authority to teach without error is part of his conscience, freely accepted. According to Canon 205, Catholics are those in full communion with the Church through the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance.

If one holds a personal opinion that a particular course of action seems licit – contrary to the Church’s teaching – he has a conflict within his own conscience. This is doubt or rejection of the divine guarantees of the certainty of the truths already present in his mind, to accommodate a contrary opinion. We now have a house divided against itself.

He cannot escape the conclusion that his contrary opinion must be mistaken, as he would be acknowledging the accepted fact of the fallibility of conscience – it does not make truth. He then has to see where he has been mistaken, to reflect more deeply on the arguments for the Church’s teaching. If he feels that he is not mistaken, then he must conclude that Christ’s Church is mistaken and naturally his faith in Christ and His Church has started to collapse.

He has no grounds then to believe in any truths – the sacraments (especially the Eucharist), or in Her worship or any other aspect of Her life. Such a Catholic needs the counsel of a faithful priest.​

The non-Catholic can only follow his conscience and may not have the “awareness” (certainty)
that his conscience is correctly formed. Having done his best to form his conscience he is bound to act according to that conscience.

 

[DPMartin]

No. Morality, whether an action is right or wrong, can be known from reason as we have seen.

John Finnis writes: “for Aquinas, the way to discover what is morally right (virtue) and wrong (vice) is to ask, not what is in accordance with human nature, but what is reasonable.” So, then, human good is in accord with reason and human evil lies outside the order of reasonableness: “So human virtue, which makes good both the human person and his work, is in accordance with human nature just in so far as it is in accordance with reason; and vice is contrary to human nature just in so far as it is contrary to the order of reasonableness.” (Aquinas, Summa, I-II, qu. 71, art. 2, resp.).

“To ascertain the reasonableness of something, one must examine cause-and-effect relationships, a process that calls for scientific research and study.”
[See *Christians For Freedom

, Chafuen, Ignatius 1996, p 29-30].

From Fides et Ratio, John Paul II, 1998:
[vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html]](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j.../hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html])

(#4). “Although times change and knowledge increases, it is possible to discern a core of philosophical insight within the history of thought as a whole. Consider, for example, the principles of non-contradiction, finality and causality, as well as the concept of the person as a free and intelligent subject, with the capacity to know God, truth and goodness. Consider as well certain fundamental moral norms which are shared by all. These are among the indications that, beyond different schools of thought, there exists a body of knowledge which may be judged a kind of spiritual heritage of humanity…. Once reason successfully intuits and formulates the first universal principles of being and correctly draws from them conclusions which are coherent both logically and ethically, then it may be called right reason or, as the ancients called it, orthós logos, recta ratio.

(#5). “Complex systems of thought have thus been built, yielding results in the different fields of knowledge and fostering the development of culture and history. Anthropology, logic, the natural sciences, history, linguistics and so forth—the whole universe of knowledge has been involved in one way or another. Yet the positive results achieved must not obscure the fact that reason, in its one-sided concern to investigate human subjectivity, seems to have forgotten that men and women are always called to direct their steps towards a truth which transcends them.

(#9). “The First Vatican Council teaches, then, that the truth attained by philosophy and the truth of Revelation are neither identical nor mutually exclusive: “There exists a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards their source, but also as regards their object. With regard to the source, because we know in one by natural reason, in the other by divine faith. With regard to the object, because besides those things which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, cannot be known”.

Abu
thanks for the reply

Other than the statements by The First Vatican Council it seems this is more like “know yourself” or maybe “know human nature” stuff, or both. To what value is it to know yourself? Surly it is limited, and all you will come to know is your limits. And those who seek to know themselves seek to create themselves and the world around them in their own image.

But to know God is to be known by Him and be recreated into His Image around Him.

If one repeats a lie he is a liar whether he originates the lie or not. Why must he be punished or receive consequence for that when if one Trust the Truth, the Word of God, then the consequence is Life.

If a child trust not the word of his parent and puts his hand in the fire surly he shall be burned. But if the child trust the word of his parent then the consequence is freedom from punishment.

Was not reason used in the garden? Then what moral value is there to reason when you have just stated. (“No. Morality, whether an action is right or wrong, can be known from reason as we have seen.”) basically this says that reason is required to realize right from wrong, doesn’t it?

Basically it seems what is misunderstood is, if man doesn’t know God how can he know good seeing that according to Jesus only God is Good? It is true that God made man upright, but with out God, man cannot know Good unless the man know God, for man is made to know God. And with out God how can man know what is good or even good for the man? Without knowing God the man can only judge what is good or evil or right and wrong according to his reason, or even his own reasons.

 

[Ender]

If one holds a personal opinion that a particular course of action seems licit – contrary to the Church’s teaching – he has a conflict within his own conscience.

This point goes to my comment about being unsure how ones conscience fits into all this. We are obligated to follow our conscience but we also recognize that our conscience may be wrong. How do we know if our conscience is wrong? When it differs from what the Church teaches. How do we know that what the Church teaches is right? We don’t; we accept it on faith with the assent of reason, but underlying our entire moral structure is faith that the Church is right.

This is doubt or rejection of the divine guarantees of the certainty of the truths already present in his mind, to accommodate a contrary opinion.

I have trouble with this. I don’t doubt that even the unformed conscience can in large measure determine right from wrong but we have already admitted that the conscience can be wrong so I am uncomfortable with a statement as broad as “the divine guarantees of the certainty of the truths already present in his mind.” Clearly this can only be partly true.

Ender

 

[Betterave]

This point goes to my comment about being unsure how ones conscience fits into all this. We are obligated to follow our conscience but we also recognize that our conscience may be wrong. How do we know if our conscience is wrong? When it differs from what the Church teaches. How do we know that what the Church teaches is right? We don’t; we accept it on faith with the assent of reason, but underlying our entire moral structure is faith that the Church is right.

But if the Church is right, then we don’t need faith in the Church to know what is morally right! We don’t even need faith to know that God exists, so it seems to me that a fortiori we don’t need faith to know that morality exists. And what we can know by reason about the existence of morality is not necessarily dependent on what we can know by reason about God. If you think otherwise, please explain why.

I have trouble with this. I don’t doubt that even the unformed conscience can in large measure determine right from wrong but we have already admitted that the conscience can be wrong so I am uncomfortable with a statement as broad as “the divine guarantees of the certainty of the truths already present in his mind.” Clearly this can only be partly true.

In other words, the fallibility of conscience is real but limited. (Thus I wince somewhat when Syntax talks about moral principles that everyone could be wrong about: “Everyone could have the exact same universal cultural codes of conduct, all of which are false because they don’t give expression to actual moral principles.”) And unless you want to say that conscience always speaks first of our moral duties as being duties to God, then you have to agree: the existence of morality is logically independent from the existence of God, i.e., *no God *does not imply no morality, unless you further stipulate that no God implies no conscience (which no atheist defender of objective morality will grant).

 

[Betterave]

Abu
thanks for the reply

Other than the statements by The First Vatican Council it seems this is more like “know yourself” or maybe “know human nature” stuff, or both. To what value is it to know yourself? Surly it is limited, and all you will come to know is your limits. And those who seek to know themselves seek to create themselves and the world around them in their own image.

But to know God is to be known by Him and be recreated into His Image around Him.

But we are all created in the image of God already! That image may be tarnished, but we can look at ourselves and seek to know ourselves and thereby find indications of God.

Was not reason used in the garden? Then what moral value is there to reason when you have just stated. (“No. Morality, whether an action is right or wrong, can be known from reason as we have seen.”) basically this says that reason is required to realize right from wrong, doesn’t it?

Without reason there is no possibility of right or wrong action. That’s why animals can’t sin. Citing misuse of reason (‘rationalization’), or reason’s being overruled by temptation, does not count as an argument against reason.

Basically it seems what is misunderstood is, if man doesn’t know God how can he know good seeing that according to Jesus only God is Good? It is true that God made man upright, but with out God, man cannot know Good unless the man know God, for man is made to know God. And with out God how can man know what is good or even good for the man? Without knowing God the man can only judge what is good or evil or right and wrong according to his reason, or even his own reasons.

I think you (and certainly Jesus before you) raise a puzzle with this quote, but it certainly isn’t a proof-text that can be employed against the use of natural reason.

 

[Abu]

DPMartin
To what value is it to know yourself?..if man doesn’t know God how can he know good seeing that according to Jesus only God is Good?

Shakespeare has it right: “to thine ownself be true and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man." (Polonious – Hamlet Act 1, scene 3, 78–82).

So man can know God, because man knows “good” as God has provided him (a human person with a human nature) with a conscience and endowed him with intelligence and free will. It is through that conscience that man can know right from wrong. Our philosophers teach us that; Christ’s Church teaches us that – which is precisely why it is possible for pagans to be saved.

However, due to Original Sin and the clouding of reason and intelligence God has provided us with a redeemer (His Son) and His Church to enable us to share in His Life and ensure our salvation if we choose to follow Him.

 

[Abu]

1. Ender
   How do we know that what the Church teaches is right? We don’t; we accept it on faith with the assent of reason, but underlying our entire moral structure is faith that the Church is right.

Quote:
This is doubt or rejection of the divine guarantees of the certainty of the truths already present in his mind, to accommodate a contrary opinion.
2) Ender
I have trouble with this. I don’t doubt that even the unformed conscience can in large measure determine right from wrong but we have already admitted that the conscience can be wrong so I am uncomfortable with a statement as broad as “the divine guarantees of the certainty of the truths already present in his mind.” Clearly this can only be partly true.

1. We do know that Christ’s Church is infallible in defining faith and morals to the whole Church because it is His, with His authority. Yes all teaching on faith and morals is guaranteed by Christ.
   One of the foremost theologians at Vatican I, Giovanni Perrone, expresses what we have seen well for he “was on most biblical grounds when he pointed out that Christians must adhere to the pope not because he is infallible; but since they must, on divine command, adhere to the pope, he has to be infallible.” (The Keys of the Kingdom, Franciscan Herald Press, 1986, p 170).
2. As faithful Catholics assent to all infallible teaching, and submit will and intellect to non-infallible teaching, such truths are part of our intellect and will. Consciences that are formed correctly, and followed, do not result in error. Thus the statement should not make you uncomfortable, and is completely true. BTW Msgr Cormac P Burke (post #145) is a prelate of Opus Dei, and was a Judge of the Roman Rota. [cormacburke.or.ke/cv/1]](Curriculum Vitae | www.cormacburke.or.ke]).

 

[Betterave]

Shakespeare has it right: “to thine ownself be true and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man." (Polonious – Hamlet Act 1, scene 3, 78–82).

Of course, Shakespeare’s Polonious was more a foolish babbler than a wise man, if I remember his character correctly…

 

[DPMartin]

But we are all created in the image of God already! That image may be tarnished, but we can look at ourselves and seek to know ourselves and thereby find indications of God.

Without reason there is no possibility of right or wrong action. That’s why animals can’t sin. Citing misuse of reason (‘rationalization’), or reason’s being overruled by temptation, does not count as an argument against reason.

I think you (and certainly Jesus before you) raise a puzzle with this quote, but it certainly isn’t a proof-text that can be employed against the use of natural reason.

Are you? Is God flesh and blood? If you don’t know God, nor have been in the presence of God, how do you know that? Only God knows what He is Like, and what His Image is. It true that God made man upright, but consider that it is possible that a man may not know God’s Presence for his own reasons, when as you have pointed out, the reason is to be Like Him.

Then why can’t animals sin? They are flesh and blood also aren’t they? As you say, we are already made in God’s image, then why the concern for right and wrong? Can man place himself in the Presence of God because his own reasons are right in his own judgement? Can man make God speak to him? What reason can man have, in his own reasoning of right and wrong, that would supercede his Maker’s? Consider: if God was to speak to you, would it be the Truth?

One could quote the whole Bible and only prove that the Bible says. What proves there is a God is the Presence of God which only He can prove, or make known. How could He who made nature be against it, unless those in whom it be given to, be against Him who has given it to them? If one values his place in the flesh more then his place with his Maker, then what should His Maker decide?

 

[Ender]

But if the Church is right, then we don’t need faith in the Church to know what is morally right!

But we don’t know what is morally right - or perhaps we differ over what it means to “know” something. Can you claim to know something is true if you cannot prove it? I agree that if we know something to be true then it doesn’t require faith to believe it, but we don’t know that the Church is right so (reasoned) faith is required to accept that what she says is true.

We don’t even need faith to know that God exists, so it seems to me that a fortiori we don’t need faith to know that morality exists.

Since God’s existence cannot be proven I’m not sure how you can say it is possible to know he exists.

And what we can know by reason about the existence of morality is not necessarily dependent on what we can know by reason about God.

It seems like we’re backing up here: are you rejecting the statement that the existence of objectively true morality is dependent on the existence of God?

And unless you want to say that conscience always speaks first of our moral duties as being duties to God, then you have to agree: the existence of morality is logically independent from the existence of God,

Why don’t you explain what you mean by “duties to God.” Depending on how you use it I might be quite willing to accept that definition.

*no God *does not imply no morality, unless you further stipulate that no God implies no conscience (which no atheist defender of objective morality will grant).

The existence of the conscience does not prove that what it perceives as a moral action is objectively true. In fact we know that this can’t universally be the case since two people often come to diametrically opposing views of what is or is not moral behavior. There is no claim that people don’t behave in a way they view as moral; the question has always been whether their moral choices coincide with objective truth or are merely subjective.

Ender

 

[Syntax]

Originally posted by Betterave
But if the Church is right, then we don’t need faith in the Church to know what is morally right!

But we don’t know what is morally right

Yes we do–because we know the Church speaks the Truth.

• or perhaps we differ over what it means to “know” something.

No. There is only one meaning of the word “knowledge.” Knowledge is justified, true, belief. But there might be different kinds of justification: rational, empirical, historical, spiritual, and moral.

Can you claim to know something is true if you cannot prove it?

Yes, if you are **justified in believing **that it is true.

I agree that if we know something to be true then it doesn’t require faith to believe it,

Yes.

but we don’t know that the Church is right so

Not so. I know that at least ***I ***have a justified belief that what the Church says is true, so…

(reasoned) faith is required to accept that what she says is true.

…I don’t need to accept what she says is true “blindly.”

Since God’s existence cannot be proven I’m not sure how you can say it is possible to know he exists.

God’s existence cannot be proven, but I have darn good reasons for believing that He does exist. And since it is more likely that He does, than does not, exist, I am more rational to believe that He does exist than that He doesn’t.

It seems like we’re backing up here: are you rejecting the statement that the existence of objectively true morality is dependent on the existence of God?

No he isn’t. Please pay attention to what you are reading. Betterave said, “*what we can know *by reason about the existence of morality is not necessarily dependent on *what we can know *by reason about God.” This is not the same.

The existence of the conscience does not prove that what it perceives as a moral action is objectively true. In fact we know that this can’t universally be the case since two people often come to diametrically opposing views of what is or is not moral behavior.

It doesn’t matter. We know that person A’s conscience is not functioning properly by reason of having a justified belief that what the Church teaches is true. So there exist properly-formed functional consciences and poorly-formed dysfunctional consciences.

 

[Abu]

Ender
we don’t know that the Church is right so (reasoned) faith is required to accept that what she says is true….God’s existence cannot be proven…[this last repeated by Syntax]

This is rather bizarre in anyone claiming to be Catholic and willing to publicly debate on a DB as a Catholic, presumably acknowledging the infallibility of Catholic dogma and doctrine.

First things first. The existence and nature of God can be proved by pure reason from:
order and law in nature; motion and change; causality, and dependence. You will find these proofs in Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, The Saint Austin Press, 2001. The objections of Kant are answered.
Also see: newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

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.”

Proofs of God’s existence (EWTN)
Answer by Richard Geraghty on Feb 12 2008:
Frank Sheed’s “Theology and Sanity” is a good start. Fr. Owens’ “An Elementary Christian Metaphysics” is the best book I know of but it is may prove difficult for beginners. Determined readers, however, could get a great deal out of it. Fr. Farrel’s “Companion To the Summa” book one, is also quite good.

Answer by David Gregson on March-12-2007:
For a simpler explanation of the five (and other) proofs, I recommend Peter Kreeft’s Fundamentals of the Faith, available in online bookstores.

Secondly, we do know that Christ’s Church is infallible in defining faith and morals to the whole Church because it is His, with His authority.