chapter 1 -INTRODUCTION
nature of apologetics
1 the science of christian apologetics is the systematic defense of the christian religion. it is systematic in that it follows a definite, logical and chronological order of argument in demonstrating the reasonable basis of christianity. it is a defense, not in the sense that it 'apologizes' for any weakness of inconsistency, but in that it explains why christianity is the true religion of God.
there are many different names for christian apologetics, but they are all the same in meaning and are merely synonyms for the title given to this textbook.
the science is called Fundamental Theology because it is the rational foundation upon which doctrinal theology is built.
it is called the Evidences of Religion because it investigates all the testimonies and it questions all the witnesses that influence human beings to accept christianity.
it is called Christian origins because it relates historically the beginnings and growth of the christian religion.
finally, it is also called Propaedeutics of Theology, which means the body of principles introductory to the science of theology.
from the philosophical point of view there is an apologetics for every science worthy of the name. a body of human knowledge, unified in a separate category, cannot gain acceptance by intelligent men unless there is also an explanation telling how it came into existence and what its purpose is. that is true of every science and it is the reason why colleges provide introductory courses prior to teaching of the science proper.
2 scope of Apologetics
thus christian apologetics is distinguished from any other introductory study by the subject to which it leads. that subject is the definite supernatural religion founded by Jesus Christ, preserved and expounded in the modern world by the organization. he etablished. specifically, then, Apologetics leads up to two objectives:
the teachings of Christ and the Church of Christ.
it removes the obstacles and explains the positive progress on the road to these objectives into the study of religion itself.
3 Preliminary Assumptions
4 at the present time it is far more difficult than it was at the time of the Apostles to present the truths which are contained in Apologetics. in the early church the proponents of christianity would meet people who acknowledged at least some common intellectual equipment with which discussion could begin. even the pagan admitted certain principles of reasoning which could form the basis of an argument...many outside the catholic religion...look with some disdain upon catholics who refuse to acknowledge the arguments of unreason. the possibility of converting such people is very small. discouragement and sometimes astonishment, comes to the student of a catholic university after he has spoken with a person of this kind. the student finds that all the arguments that appeared so acceptable and so reasonable to him simply do not make a dent on the mentality of his questioner.
it is true that we must accept certain preliminary facts even before we can begin the study of christian apologetics. but these are the same premises that ust be assumed in any science. for example,
we must admit
a. our own existence...
b. we are able to know truth and
that there is a difference between the true and the false.
c. absolute truth exists.
d. the testimony of human beings,in many cases at least, is quite valid for the acceptance of that truth.
these postulates of which we speak are really the first principles of knowledge.
they must be taken for granted, even by those who deny them.
even the so called 'first principles' which are established in the field of natural science are not in themselves first principles of reason but depend upon these latter.
for example, the 'laws' of physics are merely the generalizations of facts perceived by the senses and arrived at by the process of induction. (def 'induce' - to assert or establish (a proposition about a class of phenomena) on the basis of observations on a number of particular facts.)
they are really not principles at all. they are in themselves conclusions which depend upon the validity of the postulates which we have set forth previously.
it is one thing to state that the law of gravity has been attained through sense knowledge, but it is quite another thing to state that such a law cannot be known with certitude because we cannot be sure of our ability to know truth.
finally, since in everyday experience we do not hesitate to use the testimony of others for accepting facts, we must admit that such human testimony can be proved,
that it can be tried,
that it can be accepted.
opposing theories
theoretically speaking, the existence of the adversaries to the catholic religion need not disturb the faithful followers of Christ. but practically...the notions of these adversaries
5 have spread so widely that they have begun to infiltrate...
the ideas of AGNOSTICISM, NATURALISM and INDIVIDUALISM have presented many difficulties to sincere people who are seeking the truth in any field and they are indeed potent enemies in this all-important field and they are indeed potent enemies in this all important field of religion.
AGNOSTICISM is the bleating protest of the shallow mind, the pseudo-intellectual of today. it is not a novel or original protest, although every youthful agnostic acts as though he has made a clever discovery. it goes back far into the history of thought. there have always been doubters and there always will be people who question the evidence of their own senses and of their own minds as well as the evidence presented by others. Ag is the systematic DISBELIEF IN ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Ag seem to maintain that since people have been fooled too often they are always fooled...it develops an all inclusive doubt which refuses to accept not only the principles of reason but even the ordinary everyday perception of the senses. in its ultimate conclusion it writes finis to human knowledge and to the possibility of obtaining human knowledge.
the second modern error may be called intellectual INDIVIDUALISM. where agnosticism deflates and depreciates the human mind, ind abnormally inflates its capacity. it is full blown license rather than true liberty of thought and action. the individualist wants no shackles placed upon him either by God, by the state or by other human beings. he boasts of a self sufficiency which does not need the church or the dictates of God or even of moral conscience. he maintains that all he needs for a complete control over the forces of nature is sufficient knowledge. according to his theory, the human race is entirely autonomous, free and separate from
6 the nature which is beneath it and from the supernature which is supposedly above it.
NATURALISM is akin to both agnosticism and individualism. in some cases it may be partly agnostic and partly individualistic. the nat is an empiricist or experimentalist who wants to talk only about the things that he can see and measure. he is the loud and ultimate 'scientist' who is the great opponent of the supernatural order because he believes that there is NOTHING ABOVE NATURE, nothing he cannot explain. he is the doctor at Lourdes who personally witnesses the occurrence of miracles and still repudiates the possibility of miracles, because there must be some natural explanation for such things. nat, therefore, is the basic theory of all nonsectarian education. unfortunately, it is also the habit of thought of the self-styled practical man of the street.
ways of obtaining knowledge
leaving aside for the moment these modern aberrations, let us see what technique we ourselves must use in achieving definite knowledge of the body of facts we are studying. EXPERIENCE, REASON and TESTIMONY are the three common ways of obtaining this knowledge we seek.
experience in general is of two kinds.
SENSE experience gives us knowledge of the ordinary objects with which we are in contact in our daily life. when a person burns himself he knows quite definitely that there are objects which can burn him. there can really be not doubt about a fact of this kind. ultimately, of course, the senses are the avenues through which all our knowledge comes. INTELLECTUAL experience, on the other hand, is a means of certain knowledge because it is our actual recall of and reflection upon, the object of our experience. we are able not only to really that which has come to us from our senses, but also to make the association of various past experiences. we are, indeed, sometimes led to false conclusions in recalling the past. but there
7 are still other ways by which we can check this knowledge gained from intellectual experience.
another medium of human knowledge is our faculty of REASONING. unfortunately, most men do not use this ability often nor do they use it well. thinking or reasoning is one of the hardest tasks a human being is called upon to perform. the proper use of this intellectual faculty demands practice and long training and it cannot be adequately replaced by other experiences, such as feelings or assumptions in general or faith. whether he admits it or not, the social scientist is using reason when he makes certain deductions from his generalization of facts. the biologist is using it when he makes the comparison between the circulatory system of an animal and that of man. even the biological evolutionist uses it after he has convinced himself that his assumptions are correct and wishes to pursue his study further.
the third means of attaining certain knowledge is that of TESTIMONY. the number of people who deny the validity of this method of knowledge is astonishingly large. they themselves are surprised when you point out that they too must rely to a tremendous extent upon the testimony of other human beings for the facts which they believe. they are astonished when you assert that this same human testimony can also be a source of information in the important question of knowing God and religion.
as we shall see, human testimony is valid and acceptable only when those who testify are truthful people and really possess the knowledge of which they speak. some people are deliberate liars, others are very poor observers; and thus from lies and errors there arises a vast body of false assumptions which nonthinking persons readily accept. the presence of these misconceptions, however, does not invalidate the knowledge which we can obtain from the word of truthful, observant people. for example, we can be certain of various historical events or even of occurrences that may be taking place in other parts of the world at this very moment. we hear
8 the reports of radio commentators; we read the stories of newsmen and we assume that they know what they are talking about because they are on the scene and we assume that with their job and their reputation at stake they are unwilling to tell lies. therefore, we have in this instance a good example of faith in the testimony of human beings.
in Apologetics, of course, we use all these three methods of obtaining knowledge, but the emphasis is upon the use of testimony and the use of reason. the student who has become accustomed to the methods employed in mathematics and the physical sciences in general may find it difficult to switch over to the methods used in apologetics. you can measure and weigh material objects, but you cannot measure and weigh God or the supernatural order, for God Himself is immeasurable and imponderable. the mathematician or the physical scientist is liable to give his students the impression that exact calculation and experiment are the only means for obtaining certainty. the least reflection will assure him that certainty can also be obtained in the most important affairs of everyday life, by methods quite different from calculation and experiment.
for example, it is possible to obtain in most cases very definite certainty regarding the decision of a law court. yet the judge and the lawyers, as well as the plaintiff and the complainant, depend almost exclusively upon the spoken word of other human beings. despite all the scientific gadgets now employed by detectives, the ultimate decision depends upon the human understanding and interpretation of the evidence revealed by these mechanical means. similarly, the certainty obtained in the science of apologetics is to be depended upon. it is a conclusion and an interpretation given by witnesses whose words are to be found frequently enough in true and authentic documents. we can be at least as certain of these truths as we are certain of the decisions arrived at in a court of law.
9 principal conclusions
the main conclusion of this study of agologetics is that the Catholic Church (note: not the church, rather the Living Word, Jesus Christ (I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, john 14.6) the Living Word and the Bible ( Thy Word is Truth, john 17. 17) the written Word of God) speaks with the authority of God. this conclusion depends upon the fact that God has given His word to that effect. how can we be certain that it is God's word to that effect. how can we be certain that it is God's word and that we can know it? God has spoken to us through MIRACLES and PROPHECIES, both of which are, in their turn, attested by reliable, living, human beings. after properly checking each step in the argument leading to that main conclusion, we can be positive that the testimony we employ is a true means of arriving at the facts. the proofs which we use in apologetics arrive at definite conclusions. to question these proofs would be to question one's own reason, one's own ability to know.
likewise the truths at which we arrive in apologetics are fully valid and certain. they are conclusions upon which we can depend. to question them would be to question the very basis of our ability to know. but these truths by no means force people to accept christianity. if a person is prejudiced, as many are, he simply will not accept what has been brought to him by the use of experience, reason and testimony. prejudice means a judgment made before the facts are in; and once a person is settled in his prejudice, there is little one can do to convince him. one the other hand, some people are incapable of understanding, for they do not wish or are not able to accept the facts even when these facts are presented in a most forceful manner. therefore, prejudiced and ignorant people will not accept the conclusions which we know to be inescapable and irrefutable truths. the proofs of apologetics will make absolutely no impression upon them, for human beings cannot be coerced into accepting truth. (foot.- this is evident from the fact that the orthodox explanation of faith calls for a 'free, intellectual assent', and thus we see that both the intellect and the will must be employed. while no one can be forced to believe against his will or be expected to accept unreasonable teachings, he certainly can give a voluntary intellectual assent to truths (ie. mysteries) which are not fully comprehensible to his mind.
Chapter 2 - THE EXISTENCE AND THE NATURE OF GOD
11 if God does not exist, apologetics is a waste of time, religion a stupidity and the church of Christ a folly. by the use of the natural sources and methods of human science we can learn the fact that God exists and we can be perfectly certain that that fact is true.
the fundamental step, therefore, in any religious question, is to recognize the fact of God's existence. without this acknowledgement the discussion cannot begin. the fundamental difficulty, however, as we have already suggested, is that people wish to see God the same way that they see their fellow man. can they recognize God as a person? and by that they mean: can they see, touch, feel God as they can any other human person? ...
three direct methods of proof
12 there is a definite philosophic method which has been used for many centuries in proving the existence of God from pure reason. in it there are many arguments, the most convincing of which can be reduced to three. these three direct arguments prove the existence of God by means of: first, the principle of CAUSALITY; second, the existence of ORDER AND PURPOSE in the world; and the third , the EXISTENCE OF DEPENDENT BEINGS. we shall consider these direct arguments in that order and then supply additional arguments proving that fact indirectly from the conscience of human beings and from history.
the principle of causality, simply stated, says that everything that begins to exist must have an efficient cause. in other words, unless an object is absolutely necessary and has the explanation of its own existence within itself, it must have a proportionate physical, efficient cause. despite the curious mental vagaries of many theorists and professors, the fact of causality is known in the everyday life of all human beings. a farmer, for example, readily recognizes causality in the admission that unless he plants the seed in the springtime he will not reap the harvest in the autumn. the architect who plans a new edifice knows that he himself is the cause of the blue print he makes. the builder who erects the edifice would object strenuously to the assertion that any other contractor was responsible for this building. and so in all the other concerns of human living we do recognize that cause and effect are always in operation, some things causing others and some maintaining them in existence.
let us see now whether it is necessary for us to arrive at an ultimate efficient cause which is the beginning of all other
13 causes and, therefore, of all effects in the world. if we consider the seed planted by the farmer we note that it comes from a previous plant of the same kind. that plant, in turn, comes from another seed and so on back to what might be termed the first seed. so also in the successive generations of human beings. we are the effect, materially at least, of our parents. we must trace back human ancestry, ultimately, to some first human parents. whether we are speaking of human beings or of nonhuman objects, such as seed, we must ask whether they are the effect of another cause or whether they caused themselves. if for the sake of argument we should admit biological evolution, we must still find the original being from which the others evolved.
can we dispense with an original being that began to exist and just go back further and further without any beginning? this would be to say that everything always was and nothing ever began. but such an infinite series of cause and effects is absurd and unthinkable, for it gives us, not a satisfying, sufficient, and ultimate explanation, but merely an infinite, eternal insufficiency. whatever else it was that first began to exist, it was the effect of the FIRST CAUSE. whatever else it is that started the whole series of cause and effect, it certainly does exist and it contains within itself the explanation of all existence. in apologetics we call this first cause God.
all the phenomena of nature are handy evidences that the principle of causality is really valid, always in operation and is understood even by the unsophisticated. if a boy is struck by a rock, he knows that the rock was thrown by someone else. he may even ask who threw it. if a soldier sees shells falling all around him, he does not for a moment question the fact that gunners, enemy or otherwise, are the cause of those shells being in his own vicinity.
savages still think of lightning and thunder as a visitation of the gods. scientists scoff at them and explain with great erudition how the laws of nature operate and how thunder and lightning really occur. but the mere observation of and
14 generalization from, these facts do not constitute a satisfactory answer. in acknowledging a divine cause the savage is, perhaps, thinking more deeply and more scientifically than the scientist himself. with all the explanations of moisture, condensation and air currents, we must still conclude that these things in themselves are effects and that their ultimate explanation requires an existing God.
the final and satisfying explanation of causality can be found only when we reach some cause that is not an effect, a cause which does not recieve its existence from something else. we call it the first cause because all things in nature necessarily depend upon it for their existence. if the cause we have discovered is not expanatory of itself, then we must still look for a further one. ultimately we arrive at that first cause, which is God.
the second argument for the existence of God is, for many people, even more convincing. this is the argument from order and purpose in the world. it is intellectually dishonest to object to the existence of complicated design as a proof of the existence of a designer. we constantly observe that an automobile, an airplane, any of the modern inventions, are of very intricate and complicated patterns. only a food would deny that the various co-ordinated sections of these patterns were designed by a human being or by a group of human beings working cooperatively. consider the problems in the construction of a modern airplane, from the mind of its designer through the blueprint stage, through the factory and testing ground until it is considered a workable machine. each part has its definite function. the object of planners has been to remove superfluity, to obtain more efficiency in every machine for use. all of this points to the obvious fact that there is a mind behind the machine.
by a parallel type of reasoning we see that the whole universe has a definite design, that the days follow each other
15 because the planets move and rotate with a certain regularity. we can depend upon their operation to such an extent that we are able to foretell some of the future events in the physical universe even years in advance.
any particular instance of deign within the whole universe will bring out our observation more clearly. for example, the human body is considered a very efficient machine by doctors who do not wish to state anything further than that which their senses can observe. the body is so arranged that the human being can fulfill his various physical, intellectual and moral functions in a very appropriate manner. the question is not whether the body is perfect of whether it can be improved upon, but whether it in itself definitely shows the existence of someone who must have thought beforehand what the body was to perform. doctors are not always successful in curing their patients, but from long experience they have noted that the human body functions in an orderly and purposeful manner and they can arrange their diagnoses and prescriptions accordingly.
now the main question in our search here is whether or not these orderly arranged objects in the world can account for themselves or whether it is necessary to look for an arranger and designer outside of them. if you can discover the person who designed the human body, then you have either God Himself of someone who was designed by God. ultimately, the only explanation of purpose and order and design is an intelligent God who is responsible for them.
thus we see that the argument from purpose of design brings us a step closer to God. it gives us also a slightly different aspect of God beyond the mere fact of His existence. by
16 a very clear process of reasoning we must come to the same conclusion at which we arrive in other examples. if we are forced to admit that there is an intelligent designer responsible for the intricacies of the airplane, we must also admit that there is an intelligent designer behind the order and beauty of the universal design.
this first designer must necessarily be a PERSON, that is, an individual with intellectual and volitional powers. he must have an intellect in order to know that which he wants to do, and, secondly, he must have a will because we see that his plan has actually been put into operation.
there is a further proof subsidiary to the previous one and also necessary for it and that is the proof of the existence of a lawgiver in nature. the very basis of all the conclusions of physical sciences is the fact that the whole material universe is obedient to law. there is a certain mode of action in each individual object and that mode of action can be depended upon. whether this is called the natural law, or merely the 'statistical average of events', the truth remains that all things are governed by the manner in which they act. this is true in both animate and inanimate nature.
for example, astronomers long ago discovered the regularity of the movements of celestial bodies. the solar system is so exactly timed that even seemingly irregular occurrences, such as eclipses and the appearance of comets, can be predicted with certainty. again, the chemist can be sure that the aterial with which he works is going to react with other materials in a definite way. frequently his life depends upon this knowledge. finally, the laws of sound, heat, light and electricity, and so forth, work with such accuracy that the physicist can calculate results with precision.
in the sphere of animate creatures the same kinds of activity
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment