Notes on Apologetics

• These days we do not have the backing of signs and wonders that the disciples were blessed with in their evangelizing, as we see in Mark 16:15–18,20. Our audience is also not one of Jews, whom were already awaiting the Redeemer, nor Gentiles, for whom the reality of God also played a key role in their lives. Therefore, the imperative to believe on the part of those to whom we testify in this day and age is simply not as powerful as it was for those who received the testimony of the Apostles. Moreover, the philosophical muddle with which we have to contend before a person will be in the right frame of mind to accept the Gospel is troubling. Postmodernism has fooled many into believing that there is no such thing as truth — especially religious truth — or that truth exists only relative to man and time. Modern-day liberalism has placed greater authority on subjective feelings over the idea of the good, if it even recognizes that there is such a thing as an objective good for all men. Pluralism insists that all religions are equal in substance and essence; as a result they are reduced to mere conventions and preferences, having no claim upon the nature of reality. This is why the need for apologetics — that is, an intellectual defense of the faith — is so dire in this day and age.

• Contra modern liberalism, feelings are not a reliable guide to truth, nor the best norm by which to solve moral quandaries. Feelings are unstable and impermanent, and so cannot serve as a uniform guide to those things which concern the political, the moral, and the religious dimension. A heart detached from the head (or a head overtaken by the heart) is always a recipe for disaster, the equivalent of building a house on sand (Matthew 7:26)

• Christ came ultimately to teach what all men must do and believe to be saved, that is, to bring men back to union with God.

• Apologetics can be of great value, even for the person who never encounters opposition. For inasmuch as it calls explicit attention to our motives for believing, apologetics can serve as a powerful way to strengthen our trust in God. It is hard to say whether I would have persisted in believing, had it not been for the resources of apologetics to confront many a restless and disquiet night of being unable to respond to what I took to be serious objections against God, the Bible, and Christianity.

• God’s existence is not self-evident (that is, it is not clearly and precisely grasped) for the simple reason that a truth which is self-evident can in no way be denied. And yet, “God exists” is a proposition the truth of which is continually denied by atheists. Hence, to know that God exists requires that some chain of reasoning precede this conclusion, be it an appeal to religious experience, a metaphysical demonstration, or something else.

• There are, in the end, three possibilities regarding the relationship of faith and reason 1) faith without reason, 2) reason without faith, and 3) reason giving way to faith. I take 1 to be simply incoherent, for one cannot, on pain of circularity, assent to any particular belief or doctrine unless there is a solid basis for believing it. 2 is such that it would make divine revelation superfluous, and leave man in the dark in the process. If it is difficult as it is for man to comprehend many truths about the natural order, how much more so it would be for him to understand those truths concerning the super-natural order! The clearest, quickest and most infallible way to come to knowledge of super-natural things (and even aspects of the natural order) is by means of divine revelation. It seems, then, that 3 — a combination of faith and reason — is called for if we are to have assurance of the truth in matters of supernatural religion.

• Certain kinds of agnosticism fail to grasp that one can know the existence of X without knowing X exhaustively. In much the same way, we can know that God exists even though we cannot understand him fully.

• The relationship between God and man’s soul is such that it instills in us a strict obligation to practice religion. It is incumbent upon Christian philosophers, then, to establish the two.

• The basic character of Aquinas’ five ways involves a movement in the intellect from effect to cause, from the received to the unreceived, from the conditioned to the unconditioned.

• The difference between us and animals is that man has a spiritual soul, whereas animals do not. This spiritual soul grants man certain powers that animals cannot in principle possess. It also grants man a certain mode of existing which differs from that of lower-level creatures.

• A defining feature of man is his ability to think, which flows from his intellectual powers. In conceiving some thought or grasping an idea, he must first perceive and form an image of something. He begins by perceiving some particular, such as this car, or that cat. But the intellect can move further than any particular instance by stripping away all the notes which belong to any individual X, until it arrives at those characteristics belonging to all instances of X. In other words, the intellect can move from particulars to universals. Now, a universal is something immaterial; it is not composite, nor can it be seen or touched. But since the intellect can grasp universals, which are immaterial, the intellect must be of the same order. That is to say, it must be immaterial in nature.

• The intellect can also reflect upon itself. But if the intellect were a material organ, it could not reflect on its own operations. Therefore, the intellect is immaterial. The eye cannot see itself seeing, just as the ear cannot hear itself hearing. But the intellect can know that it is thinking.

• Man’s ability to speak and to progress point to the immateriality of the intellect, for these activities involve the ability to form abstract ideas, and to consider the relations between them once they are formed.

• Since will follows upon intellect, the will must also be immaterial. The will can also strive toward immaterial goods such as honor, justice, and so on. Material organs can only strive toward material things.

• The soul exists as an immaterial substance, and therefore doesn’t need the body to exist. But what constitutes a human being is the unity of body and soul. So the soul without the body is but an incomplete human being.

• From the fact that we have an immaterial soul we can conclude that it must be actualized by a Being of unlimited power. The immaterial cannot be brought forth from the material, for a cause must always be greater than the effect. And since it is in no way composite, it must be created and infused into a body directly and immediately. This requires infinite power, the kind only God can possess.