It is not believing in God that is important; what is important is that God exists.
In my desperation for something to read around here, I picked up Garrigou-Lagrange's The Existence of God, which I first read two or three years ago, but don't remember blogging about. That was right in the middle of my Garrigou-Lagrange phase, and this one may have slipped through the crock.
Garrigou-Lagrange is a confusing writer, in the sense that he's so damn clear:
To cause confusion, ambiguity is more than enough; clarity is enough.
He's never ambiguous, that's for sure, and I think I know why. The following happened while he was studying medicine in 1896, and that? was that!
I was able to glimpse how the doctrine of the Catholic Church is the absolute Truth concerning God and his intimate life and concerning the human person, his origin and his supernatural destiny. I saw in the wink of an eye that it was not a truth relative to our time and place but an absolute truth that will not change but will become more and more apparent up to the time when we see God face to face.
The wink of an eye, eh? That checks out, for
Truth convinces with a wink; error needs speeches.
Wait, there's more to the (?!):
A ray of light shone before my eyes and made clear the words of the Lord: "The heavens and the earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." I understood that this truth must bear fruit like the grain of wheat in good soil...
The rest was commentary, I guess. Including this book, which absolutely proves the existence of God, bearing in mind that logical proof is a modest thing compared to the experience described above.
The Church doesn't only teach that it is possible to prove the existence of God, but that it is anathema to believe otherwise: let not the village atheist come along and pretend the Creator "cannot be certainly known by the natural light of human reason through created things" (First Vatican Council). After all, logic is logic, and if it's not, then we are all condemned to eternal tenure.
But even then,
The books of the unbeliever constitute the true apologetics for the Faith.
According to Schuon, there are two ways to prove the existence of God, "one in an upward and the other in a downward direction"; or one via direct intellection, the other via standard-issue rationalism available to anyone at any time.
I suppose we could say that the first is top-down, center-out, or synthetic, the second bottom-up, outside in, or analytic. Or, we could even say right-brain vs. left brain. Of course, it's best to max out both sides of the brain, as does a Schuon or Garrigou-Lagrange.
At any rate,
We understand more easily from the top down than from the bottom up -- the reverse of what they claim.
The truth can also be known more or less directly via intuition, which is not quite intellection; or perhaps intellection for regular folks. I remember the comedian Norm MacDonald saying he just knew Christianity is true, even if he didn't know how. Maybe similar to how we know a joke is funny.
No doubt one can immediately accept the supernatural and have no need of such proofs (Schuon).
Lucky!
The following seems to apply to G-L's experience, which was more a function of grace than intellection per se:
To be sure, one must not underestimate the possibility of a spontaneous intuition: if authentic, it necessarily contains in an infused manner the certainty transmitted by the proofs of God or the supernatural... (ibid.).
It's the infusion (↓) that counts, even supposing logical proof:
The “proofs” of Christianity are attempts to leave out grace.
Or at least can be, supposing they ignore or usurp the x-factor that can only enter from outside the human system -- in other words, something breaks into what is otherwise an absurcular existence. The aphorist is raising his hand. Yes, Nicolás?
Christianity is the paradigm of the gratuitous insertion of axiological flashes into time.
Correct: vertical flashes (↓) into the horizontal (← • →).
Now, all the (↑) in the world can never result in (↓). You can't storm heaven or force God's hand or take enough LSD.
But man moves in a shadow pierced by splendors.
Especially an upright man (← ↑ →) who takes the trouble to at least knock. For in the Ultimate Sense of things,
Religious history ascends to a point from which it descends.And that includes your own personal religious history, because only persons have a history. The point here is that (↑) must already be a form of (↓), and likewise the proofs of God (i.e., no one sets out to prove the impossible, or something of which he hasn't the slightest intuition).
Which is why, or so it seems, the proofs may not be convincing to the intransigent or frivolous flatlander (← • →), much less the man who is in rebellion against reality.
Come to think of it, nor will the proofs be of much consolation to the person feeling spiritually desolate or abandoned, or to anyone in whom (↓) is inoperative, or is veiled, or has been withdrawn, hopefully just for routine maintenance.
Failing the sort of experience G-L describes above, it is hardly unreasonable to politely ask for a little proof, please. Even The Aphorist says
Believe in God, trust in Christ, and be suspicious.
So, trust but verify. The file isn't closed on this one. To be continued....
2 comments:
Another interesting point about Garrigou-Lagrange. I remember being haunted by something Churchill said toward the end of his life, that "I have achieved a great deal, to achieve nothing in the end."
Really? Where does that leave the rest of us, who have achieved comparatively bupkis?
On another occasion he said, "I feel like an aeroplane at the end of its flight, in the dusk, with the petrol running out, in search of a safe landing." He further described himself, according to his physician, as "the chief mourner at his own protracted funeral."
In contrast, a biographical sketch of Garrigou-Lagrange says that, as his energy dissipated and his faculties diminished, he "underwent a serene decline."
No details, but that would be a nice way to make one's exit.
It would indeed. A few years ago, I was sent a link to an account of the final days of one of my aunts, as written by some of her many children (they are a huge Catholic farming family). She passed at home, surrounded by love, beauty and the music of her children. It is a rare thing for someone to be so blessed, especially in this day and age.
The “proofs” of Christianity are attempts to leave out grace.
Without the grace, would Christianity be worth anything?
Post a Comment