14 Responses to “Belief in God”

1. 1 johnboy316 Dec 6th, 2006 at 4:36 pm

   I was trying to explain that belief in God was an act of faith first, because as the Church TEACHES one cannot be convinced of his/her belief through reasoning until an ASSENT OF FAITH has occured first. The reason atheists exist is because they don’t have faith and therefore nothing will be reasonable. Like I inadvertently quoted: “Faith seeks understanding”–*St. Anslem*. Does it happen the other way around–I find it hard to imagine: That is I reason God exists and therefore I will next have faith in Him.

   Therefore, I personally cannot accept the idea that one can reason his/her way to believe that God exists without a blind faith. Belief in God is still in my opinion a result of grace from God exclusively, which is cooperated with the recipient.

   I would like to discuss this with other folks, however.

2. 2 Ambrosius Dec 6th, 2006 at 4:55 pm

   Johnboy,

   What do you make of this teaching from the First Vatican Council:
   “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.”

3. 3 johnboy316 Dec 6th, 2006 at 8:44 pm

   It means that human reason allows us to have certainty in our belief in the existence of God. See my take?

   What do you think of this:

   “God’s existence is not merely an object of natural rational knowledge, but also an object of supernatural faith” — de fide per “Fundamental’s of Catholic Dogma” under Chapter 2: The Supernatural Knowability of the Existence of God.

4. 4 johnboy316 Dec 6th, 2006 at 8:54 pm

   It’s under Part I, Section I, Chapter 2: The Supernatural Knowability of the Existence of God in “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.”

5. 5 Doctor Asinorum Dec 6th, 2006 at 9:56 pm

   Ambrosius has already correctly noted the distinction between philosophy and theology. The Church teaches that we can know the existence of God by the natural light of reason alone. Now we have to be careful here (and I think Ambrosius was being a little bit oe’rhasty when he seemed to claim Magesterial authority for St. Thomas’ Second Way [the argument from Causation]). For curiously (and with charity for her wayward children who fancy themselves philosophers) Holy Mother Church limits herself to the merely formal claim that the existence of God can be known by natural reason (unaided by supernatural revelation), but she does not directly assert the inerrancy of any particular argument for the existence of God (though Ambrosius is probably picking up on the fact that many Thomists do accept the argument from Causation). Thus, we may say that the following is a de fide proposition of the Catholic Church:

   It is possible to know that God exists by natural reason.

   That is, the proposition “God exists” is the conclusion of some non-vacuous, sound argument whose premises do not require divine revelation.

   This, however, is different from the theological virtue of Faith, which includes a great deal more than mere knowledge of the fact of God’s existence. The theological virtue does require supernatural grace, but that is simply because Faith embraces much more than merely rational assent to the proposition “God exists.”

   Johnboy, I have no idea what you mean when you say that you “cannot accept the idea that one can reason his/her way to believe that God exists without a blind faith.” Why not? You should accept it if for no other reason than that Holy Mother Church asserts it.

   Your second quotation reflects a confusion. Although it is true that God’s existence does embrace supernatural faith, that does not preclude the possibility of knowing the truth of the proposition “God exists” by reason alone. Look closely at your own quote.

6. 6 Clara Dec 6th, 2006 at 11:08 pm

   Just to supplement what the Doctor has said, Ludwig Ott cites the following proposition as dogma (de fide), as declared by the first Vatican Council: “God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things.” Ott cites scriptural proofs showing that God can be known through nature (Wis. 13, 1-9, and Rom. 1, 20), through conscience (Rom. 2, 14) and from history (Acts 14, 14-16, and 17, 26-29).

   Interestingly, the claim God’s existence can be proven by means of causality is labeled by Ott as sententia fidei proxima, or in other words, a doctrine which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, which has not formally been promulgated as such by the Church.

   As you see, Ludwig Ott and my Doctor are entirely on the same page.

7. 7 johnboy316 Dec 7th, 2006 at 1:09 am

   I now note the philosophical distinction of knowing God exists versus the theological distinction that God is the object of faith.

   I was confusing faith in the revealed truth with philosophical proof of the existence of God.

   My primary reason for this confusion was that I thought the 5 proofs were only for those pre-disposed with faith in God.

8. 8 johnboy316 Dec 8th, 2006 at 10:47 am

   Actually there is a distinction that Ambrosius did not make, nor one that I think anyone really made. In his main post Ambrosius states that “belief” in God is not the same as faith.

   Per “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” under the de fide statement “God’s existence is not merely an object of natural rational knowledge, but also an object of supernatural faith” the “rational knowledge” means “knowing” God exists whereas the “supernatural faith” means “believing” in God’s existence (note the profession of faith is “I believe in one God”). Of course belief presupposes one’s acceptance to Divinely revealed truths.

   “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” further states some theologians/saints argue that both “knowledge” and “belief” can be held one at the same time in an individual. St. Thomas Aquinas differs, apparently stating knowledge and belief are not held by one person at the same time. I apparently hold the former per my discussion.

   So technically speaking and not considering what Ambrosius was trying to say (which I obviously didn’t understand clearly), my reference was 100% correct with Catholic Dogma, that is “I personally cannot accept the idea that one can reason his/her way to believe God exists without a blind faith.

   I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts. This topic should be called “What is Not Faith.”

9. 9 johnboy316 Dec 8th, 2006 at 11:00 am

   So I would have been wrong and heretical if I stated “I personally cannot accept the idea that one can reason his/her way to know that God exists without a blind faith.”

10. 10 johnboy316 Dec 8th, 2006 at 11:19 am

    Although my statement that “I find it hard to imagine: That is I reason God exists and therefore I will next have faith in Him” is too exaggerated and gives the wrong impression. My experience with the existence of God was what I was thinking, and I never recall knowing God existed first through my personal rational thought before I believed in God. Perhaps it was the result of being infused with the Theological virtue of Faith at Baptism or something!!!

11. 11 johnboy316 Dec 8th, 2006 at 11:40 am

    There’s also a great discussion in “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” under Section 2, Chapter I, “The Supernatural Knowledge of the Divine Being in This World through Faith.”

12. 12 johnboy316 Dec 8th, 2006 at 11:43 am

    And supernatural knowledge is the subject of theology, in which the saying “Faith seeking understanding” is 100% accurate.

13. 13 johnboy316 Dec 8th, 2006 at 2:06 pm

    So. Taking all my comments at face value, folks, there is *nothing* wrong with any comment, particularly when discussing the premise of “belief” in God as a purely rational process (which seems to be in *contradiction* with Catholic teaching).

    But I now see Ambrosius changed the name of this post from “What is Faith” to “Belief in God”.

14. 14 johnboy316 Dec 8th, 2006 at 2:12 pm

    In discussing St. Thomas Aquinas and his idea that no one could have both belief and knowledge of the existence of God I would note that I may not be understanding his teaching correctly. For technnically I think I believe his idea because I faith seeking understanding by no means invalidates human reasoning. So does this infer that I “believe” and “know” of God’s existence? I do not fully grasp what this idea means at this time.

Leave a Reply