Dear Cornel,
Thank you for you question about God. Like you, I have experienced an
atmosphere of faith. Then studies led me to deepen this problem, rather this
mystery.
While studying classical Latin, we found how Cicero, the Roman writer,
philosopher and politician, was defending the existence of 'gods'. In his
book De natura deorum, he would prove that if one throws letters to the air,
one cannot get a book. How can the beautiful world come without powerful
beings, without gods? He did not arrive at the notion of one God.
From natural science, we cannot prove the existence of God. The scientist
works with a well-ordered universe, discovers physical laws, admires and
enjoys the beauty of the cosmos, which we believe to have been created by
the Almighty Creator God in the light of reason and Jewish-Christian
Revelation.
Like Albert Einstein, we can sense "lawful harmony of the world", "unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as science can reveal it".
Einstein would not accept a personal God, a law-giver. By his own
definition, Einstein was a deeply religious person: "A knowledge of the
existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the
profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to
our reason in their most elementary forms--it is this knowledge and this
emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in
this alone, I am a deeply religious man." In his paper entitled Science and
Religion, he says: "a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to
be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the
fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings
and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value
..." He argues that conflicts between Science and Religion "have all sprung
from fatal errors." However, "even though the realms of religion and science
in themselves are clearly marked off from each other", there are "strong
reciprocal relationships and dependencies" ... "Science without religion is
lame, religion without science is blind ... a legitimate conflict between
science and religion cannot exist." But he makes it clear that he does not
believe in a personal God, and suggests that "neither the rule of human nor
Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure,
the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never
be refuted ... by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains
in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot."
I like also this quote of Einstein: "Gravitation cannot be held responsible
for people falling in love. How on earth can you explain in terms of
chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love?
Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with
that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's
relativity".
From metaphysics, we can point out to the Prime or Unmoved Mover. There is
argument from contingency to the Necessary being. God gives being to the
Universe. Cosmological argument--from the beautiful, orderly world to its
Cause.Ontological proof:--the all-encompassing, most real and most perfect
Being has a necessary existence. But we do not speak apriori of the essence
that has a necessary existence. We speak aposteriori, that is, from the
world of experience to the existence of the Supreme being.Sufficient reason
is to be found in him. Otherwise, we would fall in infinite series of
contingent beings. In short, the existence of God can be philosophically
proved by a metaphysical argument. Further, it is only the existence of God
that will make sense of man's moral experience and of religious experience.
From theology, we can speak of the experience God. Human being is "naturally
religious", oriented towards the Ultimate Cause, towards God. Human history
confirms this statement. In this sense, for me there is no true atheist
(veri nominis). Can an atheist prove non-existence of God? An agnostic
declares that he does not know whether there is God or not. An agnostic
scientist will declare that he believes that there is no God because natural
science does not prove it. This is scientism, going beyond the bounds of
empirical science. Faith is not diametrically opposed to reason and
scientific thought. (It is a pity that the concept of classical education,
including teaching about God, is being removed from Western public schools
and being replaced with scientism. There should be integration between
science and faith, as we had in our childhood.) Science cannot prove nor
disprove the existence of God. To say that I do not believe that there is a
"supernatural Reality" or God is also a leap of faith.
In the light of Christian revelation, we can have experience and knowledge
of God. Jesus speaks of his Father. God is Love. He shares it with humankind
in creation and salvation.This is also a leap of faith, but it is a leap
into an area illumined by Jesus, whom the believers accept to be God-Man
("Son of God"). His words of authority, his miracles as signs of divine
presence and his entire personality make it clear. His death and
Resurrection are supreme signs of his divinity. Therefore, it is faith
grounded on reasons to believe, not blind or irrational. Christian faith is
for us also God's gift. It is up to human freedom to accept it humbly or
reject it proudly. I hope that I have answered your question satisfactorily.
Regards.
Fr.Ivo
Dear Fr Ivo
Many thanks for your detailed reply to the questions that I had
addressed to you. I can see now that all your religious beliefs seem to
arise from the central premise that there is a God. This therefore prompts
me to ask one more question, please: exactly what convinces you (apart
from the Bible written by humans, whether or not by Divine agency) that
there must be a God who is Almighty? This is a sincere and genuine
question that has surely intrigued humans from earliest times.
