|
Objection 1: It would seem unnecessary to believe those things which
can be proved by natural reason. For nothing is superfluous in God's
works, much less even than in the works of nature. Now it is
superfluous to employ other means, where one already suffices.
Therefore it would be superfluous to receive by faith, things that can
be known by natural reason.
Objection 2: Further, those things must be believed, which are the
object of faith. Now science and faith are not about the same object,
as stated above (Question 1, Articles 4,5). Since therefore
all things that can be known by natural reason are an object of
science, it seems that there is no need to believe what can be proved
by natural reason.
Objection 3: Further, all things knowable scientifically would seem
to come under one head: so that if some of them are proposed to man as
objects of faith, in like manner the others should also be believed.
But this is not true. Therefore it is not necessary to believe those
things which can be proved by natural reason.
On the contrary, It is necessary to believe that God is one and
incorporeal: which things philosophers prove by natural reason.
I answer that, It is necessary for man to accept by faith not only
things which are above reason, but also those which can be known by
reason: and this for three motives. First, in order that man may
arrive more quickly at the knowledge of Divine truth. Because the
science to whose province it belongs to prove the existence of God, is
the last of all to offer itself to human research, since it presupposes
many other sciences: so that it would not by until late in life that
man would arrive at the knowledge of God. The second reason is, in
order that the knowledge of God may be more general. For many are
unable to make progress in the study of science, either through
dullness of mind, or through having a number of occupations, and
temporal needs, or even through laziness in learning, all of whom
would be altogether deprived of
the knowledge of God, unless Divine things were brought to their
knowledge under the guise of faith. The third reason is for the sake
of certitude. For human reason is very deficient in things concerning
God. A sign of this is that philosophers in their researches, by
natural investigation, into human affairs, have fallen into many
errors, and have disagreed among themselves. And consequently, in
order that men might have knowledge of God, free of doubt and
uncertainty, it was necessary for Divine matters to be delivered to
them by way of faith, being told to them, as it were, by God
Himself Who cannot lie.
Reply to Objection 1: The researches of natural reason do not
suffice mankind for the knowledge of Divine matters, even of those
that can be proved by reason: and so it is not superfluous if these
others be believed.
Reply to Objection 2: Science and faith cannot be in the same
subject and about the same object: but what is an object of science for
one, can be an object of faith for another, as stated above
(Question 1, Article 5).
Reply to Objection 3: Although all things that can be known by
science are of one common scientific aspect, they do not all alike lead
man to beatitude: hence they are not all equally proposed to our
belief.
|
|