Proof of the existence of God
What I "blame" is the diversion away from real philosophy to mere description. Lonergan does appear to agree with some of my assessment. On page 415 of his book Insight he says, "In brief, phenomenology is a highly purified empiricism, and it did not take long for it to topple over into an existentialism that describes, not the abstract possibility of description, but men as they are.
Before this he mentions the ego, but I don't quite understand what he means, "But the whole enterprise is under the shadow of the principle of immanence, and it fails to transcend the crippling influence of the extroversion that provides the model for the pure ego."
A friend raised an interesting question - does one need to have faith to believe a scientific demonstration; or does one need to believe to see the validity of a proof of God's existence? I would say no to both, but one would have to have some intellectual and philosophical training, and that is what is exactly missing in the emphasis on empiricism! Of course one does actually have "faith" in science - that is, in the postulates and previous work of the scientists. You say that belief and the Catholic system would help one; I could agree about this somewhat but that would be because the Catholic system helps one to think in metaphysical terms and to go beyond the common sense grasp of reality and being which itself gives an "intuition" of truth and the exsistence of God; this I think Lonergan might not agree with as he deprecates common sense to some extent. Also, his proof seems doubtful to me in that he seems to absract from proofs that depend on grasping the reality through the senses. To me what Lonergan gives is not a proof but a description of what a proof is like and this is a different thing.I'm referring to his idea about the five proofs of Aquinas and contingencies; maybe this isn't even Lonergan's proof.
When a culture doubts all reality, I suppose the idea of a "hint" goes along with this and seems less "dogmatic" than a proof or demonstration. It also allows one to continue one's doubt unhindered and undisturbed. Is this a good thing? Maybe it is in that anything that seems to be so assurred is rejected as mere "dogma" or belief unfounded?
John
On the Solemnity of Our Lady Of Mount Carmel
(Photo from http://www.carmelite-seremban.org/Spirituality/saint16.html )
