Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Cry 'Woof'

Home
Catholic
What We Can Know, and How We Can Know It

What We Can Know, and How We Can Know It

Last updated on: March 10, 2014 at 3:33 am by willduquette

What We Can Know, and How We Can Know It 2014-03-07T20:34:37-05:00 willduquette

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

According to Thomas Aquinas, we can know things in three ways:

Directly, as we know the things we see around us.
Indirectly, by reasoning from the things we see around us.
By revelation from God.

The first category—the things we know by direct experience, as I know the keyboard on which I’m typing and the desk it sits on—would go without saying if it weren’t for the persistent influence of Descartes’ methodological doubt and the absurdities of those who followed after him. As for me and Thomas, we accept objective reality as a given. (Yadda yadda yadda, brain in a jar, yadda yadda yadda: I’m not buying it.)

Second, we can learn many things by reflecting on the things we know by direct experience, and by reasoning about those things.

Scientific knowledge, properly understood, is a combination of these first two categories. It is always based on observation of things as they are, possibly with the help of complex instruments such as microscopes and supercolliders; and it is always based on reasoned abstraction from those observations. Newton did not observe that Force = mass times acceleration; he observed objects in motion, abstracted from those motions the notions of force, mass, and acceleration, hypothesized that the equation F = ma described the relationship between them, and found that in the examples he saw around him that F = ma was a good fit to the data. Similarly, Ptolemy was trying to predict the motions of the heavenly bodies. He proposed a model, based on observations taken with the naked eye, and found that it did a good job of predicting them—such a good job that it held up for over a thousand years, until better observations made with telescopes were available. (Michael Flynn has told the story of the Great Ptolemaic Smackdown in painstaking but fascinating detail; highly recommended.)

But though Thomas would certainly have supported the scientific method, as it later came to be understood (his master, St. Albert the Great, was the greatest scientific observer of his day), he went beyond that. In addition discovering the proximate causes of the events and phenomena in front of us, he believed (with Aristotle) that there were ultimate principles that could be discovered by applying logic to fundamental truths and observations of nature. One of these ultimate principles, according to Thomas, is the existence of God, and a handful of facts about Him. These, he thought, could be objectively and rigorously proved.

I am not attempting to prove this here, mind you, as it’s a lengthy chain of reasoning, and though I’ve followed it I’m not at all confident of my ability to present it accurately. I’ll simply note that Aquinas’ famous “five ways”, found in his Summa Theologiae, are proof sketches, rather than full-fledged proofs, and depend on a shared philosophical (not theological) understanding that derives from Aristotle’s Physics and Metaphysics. I may have some words to say about those at a later date.

Still, Aquinas’ proofs about God, what is called his “natural theology”, do not go very far, and are more about what we cannot say about God than what we can. To go farther we need revelation. God’s revelation to us, through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, through Moses and David and Solomon, and ultimately through Christ, shows us a God, creator of all, who wishes to make Himself known to us.

Aquinas did not hold that we could prove the truths of “revealed theology” as we could prove the truths of philosophy and natural theology. But one of the things Aquinas shows in the Summa is that God is not simply a speaker of truth, but Truth itself. God is not, therefore, a liar: everything He does is consistent with everything else. As He is the creator of the natural world, and the author of revelation, then, these two things cannot ultimately be in conflict. (This is why the Church accepts the fossil record and doesn’t generally support Young Earth creationism—if the earth is young, the fossil record would seem to be a kind of lie.) Thus, in the Summa Aquinas operates in two distinct modes:

He proves what he can prove (natural theology)
He refutes objections to proposition of revealed theology

In short, when I tell you that Christ is the Son of God, the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, I cannot prove to you that this is the case, either on scientific terms or by the kind of rigorous philosophical demonstration that Thomas favored. What I can (in principle) show is that it is not logically inconsistent with what we can know without revelation. (I say “in principle” because though I’ve been studying up on these things, as a philosopher/theologian I remain a pretty good software engineer.)

And that brings us to faith, which is not a blind acceptance of logical propositions, but trust in a person, Jesus Christ. You don’t need to know (or be able to articulate) everything about a person to know that they are faithful, that is, trustworthy. And because they are trustworthy, you can take what they say “on faith”. What Catholics mean by the God-given gift of Faith is this ability to trust in Jesus Christ.

I cannot argue you into this kind of faith, no matter how hard I try. All I can do is to do my best to introduce you to Jesus Christ himself; and ultimately, you have to ask Him to introduce Himself. Marshall McLuhan did this, as Julie Davis related recently. He prayed, “Lord, please send me a sign.”

He asked sincerely, and God answered.

____
photo credit: El Bibliomata via photopin cc

Deep Thoughts from the Doghouse

Previous Post

March 9, 2014

Whack-a-Mole and those Awful Middle Ages

Next Post

March 11, 2014 Review: The Virtues of War, by Steven Pressfield

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Admin App o' the Morning Ask the Dogmat Believing Thomas Bits of Fiction Blasts from the Past Bootstrapping the Interior Life Catholic Mom Christian Living Deep Thoughts from the Doghouse Dominicana Evangelii Gaudium Interviews It Was A Dark and Stormy Night Links to This and That Lumen Fidei Meme Watch On Writing Operation Gratitude Pedant Errant Photography Quill Random Barkings S'Mary's World Shakers of Salt Software Development The Dog Whistler The Dogmat Sez Third Orders Thomas Aquinas Uncategorized Vikings at Dinos Woof Guide to Cinema Woof Guide to History Woof Guide to Literature Woof Guide to Obscure Catholic Music Woof Guide to Philosophy Woof Guide to Popular Music Woof Guide to Technology Woof Guide to Theology Words I Wish I'd Written Works For Me

Select a Month September 2016 August 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was the name of the river where Ezekiel saw his vision?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Euphrates River Nile River Jordan River River Chebar