Catholic Apologetics Online

Choose a topic from Vol 3:

God

Man

Religion

The Religion of the Bible

The Christian Religion

A Definite Christian Faith

The Problem of Reunion

The Truth of Catholicism

The Church and the Bible

The Dogmas of the Catholic Church

Moral Teachings of the Catholic Church

The Church in Her Worship

The Church and Social Welfare

The voice of science

551. Do you even know the difficulties which reasoning and scientific men have proposed against the Catholic Church?

I know the difficulties urged by all and sundry as motives for the refusal of submission to the Catholic Church. For the most part they are not proposed by reasonable and scientific men. The majority of the difficulties urged are based on guesswork, gratuitous assertions, contradictions in terms, errors in fact, and absurdities by the score. In nearly every case the objector has not even bothered to get right notions of the doctrine he wishes to assail. When he does get right notions, his objection falls to pieces.

552. You have spoken of "sane reasons." Pope Pius XI. spoke of the "diabolical reasoning" of Communists. What is the difference between reason, sane reason, and diabolical reason?

Reason is the intellectual power possessed by men enabling them to distinguish between the true and the false, the good and the bad. But man can use his reason to good or bad purpose. So we have a sane use of reason, or a warped use of reason. Sane reason makes sure of its facts and the validity of its logic in its deductions from those facts. Warped reason jumps at conclusions that are convenient, without bothering to make sure of things taken for granted, or that it is observing the laws of logic. That concerns the true and the false. But reason also enables a man to distinguish between the good and the bad; and it can therefore be used on behalf of the good or the bad. For example, the doctor uses his reason to discover what will benefit his patient. That is a good use of reason. A murderer uses his reason to plan his crime, and to discover means of avoiding detection. That is a diabolical use of reason. Now the Pope applied the term "diabolical reasoning" to that use of the intelligence which is calculated to destroy faith and love of God, to destroy man's hope of eternal happiness, to set itself up as the supreme and self-sufficient guide, to offer men a materialistic destiny on this earth only, to deny the right of man to possess property sanctioned by God's commandment. "Thou shalt not steal." This use of reason to repudiate dependence on God and the obligation of His law is diabolical; for it is based on the very cry of Satan, "I will not serve."

553. Science has never yet accepted such a thing as a soul.

Multitudes of scientific men are firmly convinced of the existence of the soul. They may not accept the fact as having been demonstrated by experimental science, though some do. But no really scientific men hold that "experimental science" is the only available means of discovering the truth. Sir Oliver Lodge claims to have experimental proof of the existence of the soul, not only in the living human body, but in a stateof separation from it. Yet even if you do not accept his verdict, "experimental science" can give not a vestige of proof that there is no soul. True scientists accept as proved all that experimental science has demonstrated. But they accept also many other things as certain both on the grounds of history and of reason. It is scientific to demand a proportionate cause in order to account for effects already known. And both physiologically and psychologically we have abundant evidence proving the existence of the soul.

554. If there was any chance of uncovering proof of a future life science would have interested itself long before this.

Science has interested itself in psychical research based upon the sensibly manifested phenomena of spiritism in its various phases. Of these phenomena Lord Rayleigh, President of the British Association, said: "I find it difficult to believe the folly and fraud theory of these occurrences; but failing that one must admit the possibility of much that contrasts strongly with ordinary experience." Having a truly scientific temperament, he is a little more modest than those who know so much less.

555. How you people can accept subdivisions of the better world is beyond all comprehension.

The "other" world is not necessarily the "better" world. But we can let that go. It is certainly true that we do seriously accept different states in the next life, despite your inability to comprehend our doing so. You admit the fact that we do so, and also that it is beyond your comprehension. That is something. And as there is at least one thing certain despite your not being able to comprehend it, you will find, if you progress, that there are yet other things beyond your comprehension which are similarly true.

556. Science has not established these different subdivisions; therefore they do not exist. They are but myths.

In order to prove by science that these subdivisions are myths, it is not enough to say that science has not established them. There was a time when science had not established the existence of Neptune. But that planet was not a myth. To gain your point you must show that science has positively proved that there is no other world, and no different phases of it. Until that is done you act in a very unscientific way when you deny them. At most you could say that they may or may not be.

557. For that matter, science has never proved the existence of God. Experimental science has neither proved nor disproved the existence of God.

But it is most unscientific to restrict all evidence to evidence of a particular kind, and to entertain a blind and credulous faith that nothing exists unless it can be discovered with a telescope or by chemical analysis. Speaking of this subject, Lord Rayleigh said, "Surely it is a proposition which I need not pause to refute that the lifelong beliefs of Newton, Faraday, and of Maxwell are inconsistent with the scientific habit of mind." Lord Kelvin said, "Science positively affirms creative power, which it compels us to accept as an article of faith."

558. Science scouts belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

It does not. And it cannot really deal with the question. Do you know what the Immaculate Conception means? It means that Mary the Mother of Christ was never contaminated by the stigma of original sin inherited from our first parents. You don't believe in original sin at all, nor in its derivation to mankind. Whilst, therefore, I believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, you believe in the immaculate conception of everybody; for you believe that nobody is contaminated by original sin.

NEXT TOPIC »

MORE FROM VOLUME 3

• About the Author
• Preface
  - Msgr Fulton J Sheen
• Author's Foreword
  - Dr Rumble, MSC

Prefer a PRINT version?

Copyright