Has the Creator of the Universe Designed the Universe to Deceive Most of Mankind?

If we conclude to most men having one, or several, or many false beliefs over a long time period we may conclude most of mankind has been deceived by the universe and thereby in some manner the universe was created for men to be deceived. If we examine say theism, we note several major theistic religions with broadly competing truth claims, and within the same theistic religion, we find many competing denominations with diverse beliefs. For example, the monotheism of Christianity is diverse from the monotheism of Islam and that of Judaism. And within those three religions, there are many denominations with conflicting truth claims. 

If one group of men in any of these denominations of the monotheistic religions has the truth, then all other men have been deceived, including all men who are not included in any monotheistic religion. Alternatively, there are no true denominations as all may be false, and other men in another belief system may have the truth and then all men in monotheistic religions have been deceived. If so most men have been deceived.

As the major belief systems of the world have existed for many centuries, there is strong evidence that most men have been deceived for long time periods. If the universe has been created, the creator has then in some manner permitted the universe to exist and thereby deceive many men. If the Christian God made the universe, He has done so, knowing that most men will be deceived by the universe. As Christianity teaches that God cannot sin, then the creation of the universe is not itself the cause of sin, but an occasion for God to draw a good out of the evil. 

Therefore the deception of most men is occasioned by God for a large defect of deception as an occasion for a greater good which can be caused by only God alone. One such good may be the large deception permits many men to have an excuse for the many sins committed out of ignorance and thereby reduce man's culpability at the final judgment.

The Theism - Atheism Question as a Question of Two fearful Outcomes.

If atheism is true then man is all alone in the universe which is full of suffering and death. Such a universe is a fearful place for man to exist and die, along with the prospect that human life is ultimately futile. Such an existence is in accord with fear of existing for no reason without relief from the prospect of suffering and death and the accompanying injustices in the world.

If theism is true and God exists, man lives along with a giant God who watches our every move and choses to remain silent and largely remains hidden from most or many men. Such a God is beyond the control of men and cannot be stopped from acting. Men should then live in fear of the God who owns the universe and may justly judge man at any time.

Either way, there is good reason for man to fear if God does or does not exist.

The History of Atheism and Theism Points to the Catholic Doctrine of Original Sin.

Atheism says there is no god and yet atheism has many unresolvable problems and contradictions. One such contradiction is - Atheism says God, which is existence, does not exist.

Theism says there is a god, or gods. The multiple versions of theism make the many versions of theism false with only one version of theism true. 

The many errors on the issue of atheism and theism indicate that man collectively has trouble in knowing the truth concerning the existence of God. Such a problem is strong evidence for original sin which teaches that man has a wound of ignorance concerning the things of God and finds it difficult to know the truth and live the truth.

The Multiple Mysteries of Human Nature.

Human nature contains several mysteries or secrets concerning the existence and purpose of the human race. 

1) If man is composed of an immortal soul and a body and when man dies, he will continue to exist forever without a body and then man's existence is dominated as a life of a pure spirit. Such a life is outside sequential time as a measure of accidental change of bodies. Therefore the separated soul continues to live in time similar to that of the angels, called aeveternity, or if the soul sees God face to face, then eternity. The continued existence of the man without a body is a mystery concerning 1) the current union of body and soul and 2) the ongoing life of man with a separation of body and soul. 

2) If man is composed of an immortal soul and a body and when man dies he will continue to exist for a time without a body until the general resurrection. The general resurrection of man to restore man back to his integral nature is a mystery of the ongoing existence of man who is dependent upon the power and wisdom of God to cause the reunion of body and soul. Man then has his life here and now, then dies and lives another life in the spirit realm, and then lives a third life when reunited as body and soul. Each state of life is then a mystery in itself and a mystery in relation to the other states of life.

3) If man is only a material substance,  man ceases to exist at death and man's existence is only a temporal event without any permanent and lasting value. The existence of man and the universe is then a mystery of futility, whilst the universe continues to exist. All things then exist for no reason, when in fact if nothing existed, the negation would also serve the same futile purpose. The futile universe of the materialist is a universe with the equivalent value of a pure negation of all things. Such a universe containing the materialist man is a mystery.

The entire big picture of man as a creature with incomplete substantial parts of body and soul is also a mystery, for the entire show need not exist apart from the will of God that causes all things to exist and God's providence that causes all events to occur in accord with His plan.

Economics as Strong Evidence for the Existence of God.

Economic theory teaches that man has an infinite appetite, and yet man exists in a world of finite resources. The economic theory is stated to account for the condition of man that seems to be a contradiction. For man wants everything, but can only ever have so much. Such an economic theory is strong evidence for God, for only God is the infinite good who can satisfy man's natural appetite for the infinite good.

Economic theory is strong evidence for the existence of God.

The Modern Problem of Divorce Caused by the Wound of Original Sin and the Prior Denial of the True Spouse.

Modernity is marked by the proliferation of divorce, caused by unhappiness between the spouses. The two spouses that once loved each other, separated after love is lost. The loss of love between the spouses is caused in part through the wound of original sin, which causes men and women to seek fulfilment in a spouse as the object of happiness. But by seeking for the spouse that makes one happy, the man or woman has assumed a need for a spouse that is not proved for within the single human person. For example, the man seeks for a woman, for the man sees something lacking in himself and something fulfilling in the woman. By the man seeing something lacking in himself is assuming that lack can best be provided for through the woman. And yet the woman is only a human spouse of finite good, and even if a perfect woman, she cannot ever fill the void existing within the man.

The secular man, living in the modern age assumes there is no other spouse he can engage other than a human spouse, as the men then enters into marriage without any expectation for engagement from any other source of fulfilment than the female spouse. And when the female spouse fails to deliver the legitimate needs of the man (and vice versa), the man begins to move away from the female and the female away from the male spouse. Such a motion of spouses away from each other is in part caused by the assumption that there is no other spouse in the secular based marriage.

And yet divine revelation has provided a great truth that God is the truth spouse of all men and woman and is always present within every marriage. If the assumption that there is only one human spouse for the modern man is a false assumption, corrected by the truth of the existence of the divine spouse, modern marriages have a chance to survive and produce lasting fulfilment for both spouses. For the divine spouse will always act to heal and provide peace between the spouses whilst causing a release of pressure on the spouses to provide something that cannot be provided - fulfilment as through the infinite goodness of God.

In short, the assumption that God is irrelevant to modern secular marriages is an assumption based upon the wound of ignorance caused by original sin. Original sin is then a major contributor to the break up of many modern marriages, along with the consequent actual sins of the spouses against each other.

The Problem of the Generation of Children as a Miraculous Act of God Contrary to the Enlightenment's Denial of Miracles.

The person is defined philosophically as -  An act of being which is incommunicable. The person exists and is, therefore, an act of being. For being is to exist. Furthermore, the person is incommunicable, for a person owns everything which it has. For example, Peter owns his arms, legs, eye, heart, thoughts, willing and actions. Each of these parts can be communicated to another. Such as an idea. Peter can have an idea, which is known to him and is, therefore, Peter's idea. Peter can then also express the idea to another and thereby communicates the idea to another. Likewise, Peter can give every other part of himself to another. For example, Peter can give all of his actions to another as to an employer.

However, there is something Peter cannot communicate, or give to another. That which cannot be communicated to another is Peter's person. Peter is the name we give to the person, which is that which cannot be given to another. When Peter gives, it is Peter, and not another person that gives. Peter then cannot give something of himself that is Peter, for there is not a person, prior to the person of Peter, by which Peter can be given to another. Peter, then is the name given to the personhood of the rational substance, which is fundamentally incommunicable.

Also, anything the person owns cannot become and thereby communicate the essence of the person to any of the attributes of the person. Peter's hand cannot become the person of Peter, nor can any part of Peter become the person of Peter. For parts of Peter are parts which participate in the Person of Peter as the owner of all of the parts. The parts are then always ontologically subject and subordinated to the ontological reality of the person, that is Peter. The being of the person is then ontologically prior to and of a distinct nature to the being of all of the parts which are subject to the person. Peter as a person has the being of the person, which is ontologically prior to the being of Peter's hand, arm, leg, and his soul.

If we posit Peter was generated as the son of James and Sally, they act as Peter's parents to cause Peter's body through conception, and generation. However, because the person of Peter is not Peter's body, but rather, a being that owns Peter's body, the person of Peter is not caused by Peter's parents. For the parents are only physical causes of Peter's body and cannot be ontological causes of the existence of Peter's body, or soul, or Peter's person. All the being of Peter is caused by being itself, which is God, who is the universal cause of all creatures being.

But the being of Peter's person is a being that is caused by God as through an act of divine power to change the person of Peter as a potential person into an actual person as through a divine act of eduction. But for the divine power to act to cause Peter's person, God must act as the principal cause to raise the potency of matter to the act of being of the person. But as the act to be of the person is a special being, distinct from the being of Peter's body and soul, the being of the person is a very special being which -

1) owns the being and all physical attributes of Peter.

2) is a being that is unique and cannot be repeated, for the person is incommunicable.

As the being of the person is unique, the divine act to cause the being of the person, must also be co-natural to the uniqueness of the act of the person. Such as divine act may well be a miracle, whereby God as the principal agent acts with secondary causes, such as Peter's being of his body and soul, and the physical causes of Peters body to cause the being of Peter's person. For a miracle is a divine act whereby the obediential potency of the secondary cause is used by the principal cause to raise the secondary cause to act beyond its natural power. As Peter's being of his soul and body all have natural acts which cannot cause the being of the person, the divine act to actualise the obediential potency within Peter's body and soul uses Peter's body and soul as secondary causes to enact the being of the person of Peter.

In short, because the being of the person cannot be caused by Peter's body, or soul, or the being of Peter, the divine act within Peter to cause the being of Peter's person is an act beyond the nature of Peter's attributes. Such a divine act is equivalent to a miracle to cause the existence of the personhood of every child ever born as a divine act to actualise and obediential potency within the human generation process.

Now if we contrast the above argument of the person as caused by a miraculous power of God, to the enlightenment philosophy of David Hume, we note Hume denied the existence of miracles, whilst at the same time having the existence of his own person as caused through a divine miracle. Consequently, whenever a philosopher denies the existence of miracles he must also deny the proper account of the existence of the human person as a product of a divine, miraculous act. As the enlightenment, in general, denies the existence of miracles, the enlightenment has no proper account for the existence of human persons and is thereby an inhuman philosophy.

An Argument from Reason for the General Resurrection as Caused by the Power of God.

According to Aristotle and St Thomas Aquinas, man is a composite of body and soul, whereby the soul is the substantial form of the human body. The soul is immaterial and will continue to exist after death as an incomplete substance, whilst the body returns back to dust. From the nature of man which has the intellective power to know the natures of bodies and the power of the will to appetise that which is known, man is naturally both a knower and a lover. Through the acts of knowledge and love, man comes to perfection and thereby attains happiness. The nature of man is then ordered towards the attainment of happiness as the natural end of his actions.

As man's actions of knowledge to attain truth and love to attain the good are accomplished as acts ordered towards ends. Man's acts have a teleology towards proximate ends, which in turn are ordered towards intermediate ends, which are ordered (subordinated) to an ultimate end. The ultimate end of human acts is the ultimate good, which alone is the cause of perfect human happiness. Man then has a natural tendency to always acts towards the ultimate end to obtains happiness.

If we look at nature we see a similar pattern of teleology of acts towards the good. The seed has a teleology towards the tree, whereby the seed grows into the tree. And the tree has a teleology towards the fruit, whereby the tree produces fruit. Nature has a teleology of acts ordered towards ends that are good and the good is, as a normative rule attained, as from natural tendencies within natural substances, which efficaciously act for natural goods, as natural ends. Nature then has a tendency towards acting for the good, as through actions from integral substances. For it is the integral seed that becomes the tree, and the integral tree which becomes the fruit. 

Similarly, man as an integral nature of body and soul also acts for ends and thereby has a natural tendency to act for the ultimate end and attain happiness. And yet at death, man's soul is separated from his body and his soul continues to exist without the body. The human soul is then able to act for the ultimate good and attain happiness without the use of the human body. But such a happiness of the separated soul is imperfect, for the separated soul is an incomplete substance acting without the body. And as an incomplete substance, the human soul is not acting as man with an integral nature. As such, if the human soul is reunited to the body, the soul could again act with the body as through an integral nature to attain the ultimate end of man as the ultimate good attained by man, as man, and not just as the soul of man.

The nature of natural substances (such as a tree) which exist as integral substances and then act efficaciously for the good, infers man, as an integral substance composed of a union of physical body and immaterial soul, should also act efficaciously act for the good, and thereby attain the end of man as happiness. And such a combination of man acting in accord with -

1) The general law of nature, whereby natural substances are integral whole substances.

and 

2) The specific law of nature, whereby each substance exists and acts in accord with the nature of the metaphysical parts of the substance to attain to the natural end of the substance.

Infers after man's death, the metaphysical parts of man as the human, 1) immaterial soul should be reunited to the 2) human body again, so that man can act in accord with the general law of nature, and act as an integral whole of nature, to attain the ultimate end of man, which is the attainment of the good as man's happiness. Or again, from the nature of substances acting efficaciously for the good, and man having an immortal, immaterial soul, the soul should be reunited with the body after death. The universal law of integral substances, and the nature of man point to the fittingness of the general resurrection of man, whereby all men are again an integral composite of body and soul acting for the good.

From reason alone, we can see the fittingness of the general resurrection. And yet the fittingness of the general resurrection does not of itself prove the general resurrection will necessarily occur. And yet, one may posit the reunion of body and soul after death as through the power of God, which is known to currently operate to keep all creatures in existence. For creatures only have being, as the fundamental perfection, as the act to be. The creatures act to be is caused by God as the universal cause of all being. As all of the universe is then caused to be by God himself, God is the universal act of power that keeps all things existing. The power of God manifest within the universe acts co-naturally with all creatures, for creatures to act for ends. 

God's power acts with creatures for creatures to act efficaciously for ends to attain to the good. God as the author of being is the good and is the ultimate term of all of creatures actions. God as the ultimate good never acts to keep creatures from attaining the ends and the goods to which creatures are ordered. For God is the prime orderer of all creatures and is the prime cause of all efficacious actions of all creatures. And as man is a creature, God also acts co-naturally with man, for man to attain to the good, as man. So when God instituted the nature of man, it is fitting that God provides the power to restore man back to his original nature as a composite of body and soul for man to attain to the good and happiness.

The power of God that currently keeps all things in existence is a sure source to provide the act of power required to reunited man's body and soul when God determines that the divine work be accomplished at the general resurrection. Any deficiency of power within the nature of man as through death and the separation of body and soul is accounted for by God as the author of man, who always institutes a creature with a nature that does not have any natural impediement within the created order to frustrate man's attainment of happiness. For if man could never attain to human happiness as man, God would have instituted man with a nature that is frustrated by the very order of the universe created by God. 

God would then have placed a contradiction within the created order to have man ordered towards the good, as man, and yet create the universe with death, to prevent man from attaining the good. Such a contradiction within the created order infers the God of creation is not a  real God, but a false God of frustration and illusion. Evidently, the true God does not create to frustrate, but to bring created natures to their ultimate tterm in the good. Therefore, because God always acts with natures, and man needs to act as an integral whole of body and soul, and God is both infinitely good and powerful, God will act with the nature of man to bring about the general resurrection of the dead at a time dictated by God.

Conclusion - From reason alone we expect God to act with power at a time and place to cause the general resurrection of man. The ressurected man will then act as an integral whole to attain to that end of man as the good. Of course, God is the good of the universe, and by acting to resurrect man, God is acting to permit man to act for Him, to thereby grant man the ability to give glory to God. 

Objection 1) We see natures such as tree exist and then die. We should expect the natures only attain to a natural good until death and then those natures continue as dead, unto corruption and remain as such. The norm is that God acts with natures, which are composites of body and soul as real parts of a nature for the nature to continue until corruption at death.

Answer 1) Natures are composed of parts, as body and soul and God does act with natures that are composed, and which subsequently, naturally decompose. Yet the nature of plants and animals is to have a material soul united with a body and not an immaterial soul united to a body, as occurs in the nature of man. God then acts with animals and plants to have them continue in corruption and need not resurrect animals and plants. But contrarily, because man has a contrary, immaterial soul, God will then act with the nature of the immaterial soul which always retains its transendental relation to the human body, to reunite man's body and soul to allow man to attain to man's ultimate end as the good. Also as man alone has an end beyond the natural goods of this world, God also acts with man to resurrect him and thereby permit man to attain to God.

Objection 2) Man can attain to happiness without the body as through contemplation of the good after death. Therefore there is no need of the general resurrection at the end of time.

Answer 2) Man can contemplate the good after death, but his happiness after death without the body is incomplete. As man's happiness is only complete when man acts with an integral nature, God will act to ensure man acts as man to contemplate the good and thereby obtain happiness.

Objection 3) The general resurrection is an act of God against the nature of man which has parts, which have an accompanying tendency to fall apart. When man falls apart, God should always comply with the nature of man to permit man to continue as a separated soul and not use any power as an act of violence against the natural corruption of man.

Answer 3) God does always act with nature, and as such, God will act with nature for man to achieve his ultimate end as man. For man is naturally composed of parts, which have a tendency to fall apart. And yet those parts have a natural tendency to come together again. For the soul is the substantial form of the body, which is to be a transcendental relation to the body. The soul is from its very nature ordered to be the first form of the particular body, rather than exist alone and without the body. The natural structuring of the soul as a form of the body infers God will act with the nature of the soul to bring about a reunion of body and soul. What seems to be an act of God that is violent, to reunited the body and soul after a nautral corruption of the man, is in fact an act of God that occurs to restore the fullness of nature to man.

The 17th and 18th Century Intellectual Enlightenment as an Intellectual Movement that is in General, Inhuman and without Authentic Love.

The Enlightenment is a rationalist based movement that emphasises the use of human reason and generally denies the truth value of any knowledge obtained through the virtue of divine faith. Consequently, in general, the Enlightenment is against the notion of divine revelation and any knowledge that can be obtained from the divine apart from reason. For example, Enlightenment philosopher David Hume was an opponent of Christianity -

“He [David Hume] set out to destroy the traditional Christian view of man as divided between Divine reason and brute passion and directed his attack at the metaphysics that had since Plato’s time supported it.” - (The Pursuit of Certainty, by Shirley Robin Letwin)

Also, David Hume, along with Spinoza denied the existence of miracles in contradiction to divine revelation.

No other element of Spinoza's philosophy provoked as much consternation and outrage in his own time as his sweeping denial of miracles and the supernatural. In fact, Spinoza stands completely alone among the major European thinkers before the mid-18th century in ruling out miracles. Since miracles were seen as the ‘first pillar’ of faith, authority, and tradition by theologians at the time, Spinoza's rejection of the possibility of miracles seemed to bring all accepted beliefs, the very basis of contemporary culture, into question. (Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650-1750, by Jonathan I. Israel)

And because divine revelation is generally denied by prominent Enlightenment scholars, divine truth and divine gratuity must also be denied. For divine revelation is an action of gratuity on behalf of God, whereby God acts without obligation towards humanity, to reveal truths to humanity that would otherwise not be humanly known. And divine gratuity presupposed in divine revelation is an act of divine goodwill and thereby an act of divine love towards humanity. The Enlightenment's denial of divine revelation, therefore, includes an implied denial of divine love.

And the Enlightenment's denial of divine love is an implied denial of authentic love. For natural love is ordered towards the natural truth and natural good. And the natural good desired through natural love is ordered towards the supernatural good desired through supernatural love. For the supernatural is that which builds upon and exceeds the natural. Therefore the natural love is always in accord with supernatural love. And when supernatural love is denied in the Enlightenment, natural love which is naturally open to supernatural love, becomes artificially disordered. And the natural love, which is artificially disordered is itself disordered and thereby becomes an inauthentic love.

Or again, because all natural love is in accord with divine love, for supernatural love builds upon and exceeds natural love, the denial of divine truth and divine love is an implied denial of an authentically human love. And the denial of authentic love is a denial of love. As the Enlightenment denies divine revelation, so too, the Enlightenment denies divine love, and must also deny authentic love. Therefore the Enlightenment is an intellectual movement without authentic love. And because the nature of man is to know and love, as acts of the intellect and will, the Enlightenment is in general without an authentically human knowledge and authentically human love. And what is without an authentic knowledge and authentic love is inhuman. Therefore the Enlightenment is in general, both inhuman and without authentic love.

Conclusion - Because the Enlightenment is in general inhuman, the intellectual movement is, in general, a false intellectual movement. The general falsity of the movement does not, however, deny many truths contained within the movement mixed in with the falsity of the anti-Christian agenda.

An Argument for God as the Metaphysical Cause Acting with the Biological Parents to Cause the Generation of a Child.

If a person is defined as the first subject of prediction, then that which is owned is owned by the person as the first subject. For example, the person called Peter owns his hands, arms, legs, and entire body. Peter as the first subject is then the owner of all things biological. The person is consequently not a biological reality, based in the body alone. For if the person was only a biological part of Peter's body, the reality of the person would be ontologically self-contradictory as demonstrated through the logically circular definition of person. For if the person is part of the biological body, Peter owns his body, would mean part of Peter's body owns Peter's body. But Peter own's his body, and then the part of the body that is the person of Peter is then both 1) the owner of all biology within Perter's body, and 2) owned by part of Peter's biological body. 

If the person is part of the biological body, the person is then both the owner and owned. But what is the owner has all things subject to it. Therefore in Peter's body, the person is ontologically superior to Peter's body. But what is owned is subject to another. Therefore in Peter's body, part of the body is ontologically superior to Peter's body. The part of Peter's body that is the person is then both ontologically superior to the body and inferior to the body. And what is both ontologically superior and inferior to itself is greater and lesser than itself, which is impossible. Therefore the person of Peter as the first subject of predication is not a part of Peter's biological body, as a biological reality of itself.

The person of Peter as the first subject is then something that exists and thereby has being. But the person of Peter is not biological, but must in some manner reside within a biological body. The person as the first subject is a being united to the biological body as the owner of the body. But furthermore, as man is composed of body and soul, the person as the owner of all of the man, is also the owner of the soul of the man, as well as the body. The person must then also in some manner reside within the soul of the body of the man. The person is an ontological reality within man, that is -

1) Superior to all parts of man.

2) In some manner resides within man, and thereby has a relationship of the subject as the owner in relation to the owned as subordinated parts of man.

3) Is not of the same nature of any part of man, but integrated into the nature of man. For if the first subject was of the same nature as any part of the man, the person would be ontologically self-contradictory as shown above with regard to the person as a biological part of Peter.

4) Is something that exists in man and thereby has being.

5) Cannot be caused by any of the parts of man, for the ontological inferior parts cannot cause the first subject which is ontologically superior to the parts and the sum of the parts.

6) Is an ontological reality in man that is an order of being other than the parts of man. The order of being is that which is according to before and after relative to some principle. The principle of the first subject is the principle of ownership of all the man's body-soul composite. The body-soul parts of men then always according to the principle of the owned, and are then always subject to the person acting as principle of all human acts.

7) Is an ontological reality that fundamentally resides in the superior part of man as the man's spiritual soul. For that which is superior is proportional to the superior and less proportional to the inferior. The superior then tends to more closely associate with the superior than the inferior. Therefore the person of man resides firstly in the spiritual soul of man, for the spirit is superior to the physical body, then secondarily resides in the body.

8) Is a spiritual reality, that is fundamentally not physical, but the owner of both the spiritual soul and body of man as two incomplete parts of man that exist together as a complete compound.

Accordingly, the person as the first subject is not a product of the biological causes of generation. For no parents of the child can act to cause that being within the child which is ontologically superior to any and all biological causes. The metaphysical reality of the person of the child must be accounted for as through a cause other than the parents. That cause must itself be proportional to the effect as a person. And what is proportional to the effect is itself a person who causes the production of the human person in the child. The person who is that cause of human personhood is itself being, for only being can proportionately cause being. And a person that is itself being is God. Therefore whenever a child is generated, the person of the child is caused by God who acts with the parents and the biology within the child to cause the person of the child.

Conclusion - whenever a child is born, God has acted within the created order to produce the person of the child within the child's body. Such an act of divine power is a preparation for the gospel, for all men born of parents are generated as from God who makes all men. As men are made by God, it is natural for men to return to God as the beginning and end of their own existence.

An Argument for the Moderate Detachment of the Scientist from any Theory in Empirical Science.

Empirical science contains the inductive method which includes the steps of 1) observation, 2) hypothesis, 3) testing the hypothesis through experiment, 4) development of a theory from a successful hypothesis, 5) further experiment testing of the theory with regard to predicted results and prospective invalidations of the theory. 6) Acceptance of the theory by the academy. The inductive method includes the use of the external senses of taste, touch, smell, hearing, and sight to make observations. The human reason is then used to develop a hypothesis, make predictions, develop experiments and develop the scientific theory. The combined use of the human senses and the human intellect is an authentically realist approach to men coming to understand nature through science.

Yet when the scientist comes to understand nature through the empirical sciences, he only does so as through analogy. For the observations are always made in the singular, as objects of the human sense powers. The observations are then used with reason, which is always in the abstract and never in the concrete. For reason requires the use of the intellect which always makes logical acts of apprehension, judgement and reason in the universal. Each act of reason in the universal presumes the laws of reason are in accord with the laws of nature.

But the union of reason within the scientific theory and nature is only a union of analogy. For scientific theory is always idealised which presumes the theory is only in some manner an imitation of nature, rather than an exact theoretical copy of nature. As the scientific theory is always abstract, and idealised, the theory is in some manner not natural, but at least in part, an artificial construct of the scientist mind, based upon observations and the known laws of science and logic. By the scientific theory only attaining an idealised and abstract knowledge of nature, the scientist never attains to a comprehensive knowledge of nature, but only an extrinsic and analogous knowledge of the causes within nature that exist, but are beyond direct sense observation.

For example, a scientist may posit a theory of the atom, which is composed of a nucleus and surrounded by electrons. Yet the scientist only has an abstract and idealised understanding of the atom, which is never directly observed. The atomic theory may have many predictions that are experimentally verified, but because the theory is always in the abstract, the theory can never claim to observe the causes within the model which the theory proposes to exist. A scientific theory may be well developed to the point that the theory is well accepted by the academy, so much so that the scientist always thinks of nature in accord with his theory containing abstract and idealised concepts.

But even so, the scientist never directly knows the intrinsic nature of the body he is observing. He only ever knows observations through the senses and the theory through the intellect. As direct human knowledge of the intrinsic nature of bodies is not available to man, the scientist may always be detached from every scientific theory and easily embrace several theories which seek to have some explanatory value with regard to the actions of natural bodies. Moreover, the scientist may also approach science knowing that all scientific theory is open to being invalidated at any time by an observation not yet made which is not accounted for within any theory.

Based upon the limitations of the inductive method, a scientist is prudent to have a moderate detachment from any theory in the empirical sciences. Each theory does offer idealised explanatory value and does permit nature to be opened up to human knowledge. But no theory is a copy of nature, but only an analogy of nature. As analogies always involve differences between the primary analogate (observed nature) and the secondary analogate (scientific theory), the diversity between nature and theory permits the scientist to have a moderate detachment from any particular theory.

The Agnostic and Null Truth Value of Empirical Science Consequent to an Atheistic, Materialist Worldview.

Preliminary Definitions -

Intelligible - that which is understandable through the act of abstraction. The body of timber is intelligible when the timber is known through the act of abstraction to be timber.

Comprehensible - that which is known through its causes. A thing is fully comprehensible when all the causes of the thing are fully known. A thing is partially comprehensible when part of all the causes of the thing is fully known.

An Argument for the Agnostic and Null Value of Empirical Science-Based Knowledge when Atheistic Materialism is Assumed.

Empirical Science endeavours to attain knowledge of the universe through the inductive method. But by applying a method to attain knowledge, the method does not demonstrate, but only assumes the universe is in some manner both intelligible and comprehensible. Yet if the intelligibility and comprehensibility of the universe are only assumed, the inductive method rests upon the unknown truth value that may or may not be attained through the inductive method. For if the inductive method does not prove that the universe is both intelligible and comprehensible, the knowledge attained through the method is of unknown veracity within the method itself. To have veracity of knowledge concerning the intelligibility and comprehensibility of the universe, the inductive method must depend upon the truth of the intelligibility and comprehensibility of the universe through deductive reasoning.

Yet the inductive method as used by atheistic scientists assumes a materialist worldview, which excludes the existence of non-bodily substances. But the exclusion of non-bodily substances infers man is only material and can only do material-based actions. Knowledge is then according to materialism, only a material act, likened to the sense knowledge of animals. But if human knowledge is sense knowledge, then knowledge is only in the singular and concrete and never in the universal. For the universal is in the abstract and thereby an immaterial act.

The lack of ability of man to do an immaterial act according to the materialist worldview excludes the existence of deductive reasoning. For deductive reasoning is made from principles to conclusions known in the abstract. Therefore, if deductive reasoning is excluded by the materialist worldview, no deductive based argument can be made to ascertain the truth value of the intelligibility and comprehensibility of the universe assumed in the inductive method. The inductive method must proceed, based upon the presumed truth of the intelligibility and comprehensibility of the universe which is never known to be true.

The lack of proof assumed in the inductive method infers the materialist worldview causes science to only ever attain knowledge of the universe that may be both unintelligible and incomprehensible. The atheistic scientist who assumes knowledge of the universe is attained through the inductive method when in fact the lack of certitude of truth attained within the inductive method infers the empirical sciences must always be agnostic about scientific knowledge. If a scientist never thinks the universe is both intelligible and comprehensible, and the inductive method is impotent to provide any proof for the intelligibility and comprehensibility of the universe, then any, or all knowledge of the universe attained through science may only be a superstition. For example, a scientist may conclude that a model has been constructed to predict the motion of the planets, but the model may in fact only be a superstition that is always unrelated to anything in the universe. For the universe may be both unintelligible and incomprehensible, when the scientist has only assumed the universe to be otherwise.

In fact, if atheistic materialism is assumed, human knowledge is always a material act which excludes the act of abstraction. If abstract thought is excluded by materialism, science knowledge becomes a series of sense acts like that of a dog barking or a bird chirping. The laws of science known through the inductive method are then the equivalent to a meaningless howl of a dog or a whinny of a horse. The material, singular sense acts of animals never enunciate universal laws because sense acts are never universal, but always singular. If atheistic materialism is presumed, science knowledge is consequently destroyed and the universe is necessarily both unintelligible and incomprehensible. For if man is only a material thing, man is only a well-developed animal with sense knowledge. And sense knowledge is not the intellective knowledge required for the universe to be intelligible.

Comment - The problem of the assumed intelligibility and comprehensibility of the universe is only removed if the atheistic materialist worldview is removed and replaced by a realist worldview that permits the existence and actions of spirits in the universe. Only then can one arrive at a realist anthropology which includes the existence and act of a spiritual intellect in man, to then used deductive reasoning to make an argument for the intelligibility and comprehensibility of the universe. Once proven that the universe is both intelligible and in part, comprehensible, the truth value of the inductive method can then be assessed.

Empirical science is in reality only ever based upon a monotheistic worldview which includes the notion of man as a composite of body and soul, which is consistent with Christianity and divine revelation. The denial of Christianity and divine revelation concludes to the agnostic nature of the inductive method that opens the empirical sciences to the criticism that all knowledge attained through the inductive method may well only be of the equivalent value of superstition. The veracity of the empirical sciences is dependent upon the veracity of the worldview presumed prior to the acceptance of the value of the knowledge attained within the empirical sciences.

The Problem of Scientism and the Intelligibiity of the Universe.

Scientism says knowledge of the universe is always subject to and validated by the inductive method.
Therefore all knowledge of the universe is measured only by the knowledge attained through science.
But science is only concerned with the nature of bodies.
Therefore the act of knowledge itself is subject to science.
What is subject to science is a body.
Consequently, the act of knowledge itself is a body.
A body is material.
Then according to scientism, the act of knowledge itself is material.

But, knowledge of a body is the ability of a body to be intelligible.
And the intelligible is in the abstract.
For the abstract is that which is in the universal and raised above matter.
What is in the universal and raised above matter is then immaterial.
For the material is always in the singular and individual.
But the abstract is had without the singular and individual.
Abstract knowledge of bodies is then an immaterial act.

But if scientism is true, knowledge is material.
Therefore if scientism is true and knowledge is material, knowledge is not knowledge.
Therefore no knowledge is had through scientism.
Therefore scientism is false.
Or knowledge in the abstract is had through scientism and scientism is false.
Either way, scientism is false.

Discussion - Science presumes the true anthropology derived in philosophical psychology, where it is shown that man has an intellect to know the natures of bodies in the abstract. The intellective act of knowing in the abstract is the act of the intellect raising forms above matter. Such an act of abstraction can only be performed by a power within man that is non-bodily and spiritual.

Intellective knowledge is an act beyond the restraints of the false worldview of scientism that requires intellective knowledge to be a material act of an organ such as the brain. Scientism assumes a false anthropology and is therefore inhuman.

A Paradox Involved with the all Holy Creator with knowledge of the Consequent Creature's Sin.

The existence of God may be proven from reason in at least five ways according to St Thomas Aquinas as elaborated in natural theology. A conclusion of natural theology is, God is pure act, or God is act without limit. Following this conclusion one may also conclude the God of reason is also holiness without limit.

God is act without limit.
Act without limit is all perfection had simply without limit.
Personhood is a perfection.
God is personhood without limit.
Therefore God is a divine person.
A person is a subject as a spirit.
For a spirit is that which exists and acts without a body.
A spirit acts to know via the intellect and love via the will.
Therefore, God acts from intellect and will.
But because God is pure act, God's will is act without defect and thereby without fault.
And what is without fault is impeccable.
And what is impeccable is holy.
Therefore God's will is holy.
Because all is simple in God, what God has, God is.
God has holiness, then God is holiness.
And what is all holy is without sin.
1) Therefore God cannot sin.

It has been revealed that God created the universe which includes free secondary agents such as angels and men.
Both angels and men can and have sinned.
But angels and men exist because God chose to create.
And because God is all knowing, God chose to create creatures He knew would sin.
Therefore sin exists because God acted as a cause of creatures.
And what is a principal cause is a cause of all that follows upon the principle.
Sin follows upon the principal cause of God acting as the creator of all creatures.
Therefore God is a cause of sin, and as a cause is responsible for sin.
2) God then in some manner, sins.

Discussion - Therefore there is either a contradiction or a paradox that follows upon the existence of God as all holy and God who creates creatures who sin in accord with the denial and affirmation of God sinning in 1) and 2) above respectively. For God as all holy has nothing to do with sin. Yet God as creator is involved and in some manner responsible for sin. There is, however, no contradiction, for God does not sin formally by acting to create any free agent. For sin only requires that a free agent act unlawfully. And as creatures are free and act unlawfully, the imputation of sin is applied directly, or formally to the creature that misuses the free will to act against the eternal law. God is then responsible for sin as creator, but no sin is imputed to God as the principal cause of creation.
For God as the principal cause is not the secondary cause that acts to sin.

The apparent contradiction as shown above in 1) and 2) is really a paradox of God acting both without and as a cause of sin. For a paradox is an apparent contradiction, in which the affirmation and negation occur in different respects. 1) God is all holy formally according to His nature and will without defect. But God is also 2) materially responsible for sin through the act of creation which provides the circumstance for sin to exist.

Therefore the all-holy God who creates involves a paradox of holiness and sin in relation to the same God.

An Argument for the Moderate Number of Scientific Facts as having a Superstitious Nature.

Science contains much that is contrary, due to the nature of the inductive method which permits many and various explanations for the same observations. The various explanations infer several or many causes posited to exist, that may in fact not be real. If not real, science is then open to scientific explanations that contain causes that do not have the power to cause the effects observed. Such explanations are then aligned with a superstitious understanding of reality.

If a scientist claims there is evidence for a theory that contains false causes, the purported scientific evidence is only evidence for a superstitious theory, and consequently is only superstitious evidence. The observation may not be superstitious, such as the observation of a galaxy. But the claim that the observation is evidence for a scientific theory is itself a superstitious claim of superstitious evidence.

The scientific claim like saying a man claps his hands and the door opens. The academy invents a scientific theory that accounts for the opening of the door through the clapping hands causing the door to open. The clapped hands are observed and the observation is claimed as evidence for the theory. The science theory however falsely assigns causation to the clapping hands when the cause of the door closing was the wind. The claim for the clapping hands as evidence for the door closing is only a superstitious claim of superstitious evidence for a superstitious theory.

Science history bears witness to the existence and subsequent removal of scientific theories. Science history then bears strong testimony to the existence of many theories that propose either non-existence or false or inadequate causes to account for the observations. Each scientific theory that is debunked is evidence for the ongoing existence of models and scientific understandings of the world that assign causes that are in some manner false. As the proposed causes are false, the debunked theories were accepted at least for some time as having explanatory value when in fact the theories were false. Such falsity within science theories provides strong support for the superstitious nature of science and the associated claims of scientific facts.

Even if a theory is not ever debunked, competing theories that purport to account for the same or similarly associated observations infer that one or more of the competing theories are superstitious. For example, the claims that observations that confirm the existence of gravitational lensing associated with general relativity theory are observations that do not match other contrary theories such as Newtonian mechanics, which does not require or predict any gravitational lensing. We may also posit, say 10-20 predictions made by general relativity theory that are not predicted by other theories. We may also posit 10-20 predictions made by two or more other similarly associated physics theories that are not predicted by general relativity theory. The accumulation of predictions made by several competing, contrary but similar theories implies the empirical sciences have a moderate number of so-called scientific facts that are in fact only observations subject to a method that causes said observations to take on a superstitious nature.

Conclusion - Within the empirical sciences, there is a moderate number of scientific facts, that due to the inductive method that permits several explanations for the same observations, have a superstitious nature.

An Argument for Much Suffering of the Separated Soul After Death.

Man knows the nature of bodies in the universal. For example, the statement - Peter ran to the shop, infers the words, Peter, ran, and shop are all words in the universal. For the universal is one said of many and the above statement may be made of many men called Peter, many acts of running and many shops. A defining characteristic of the universal is the universal is had without any individuating notes. For example, a tree has a place, height, shape, and colour as individuating notes of this singular tree existing in the concrete. But the universal tree does not have any individuating notes but accounts for all trees, each of which is singular and has individuating notes in the concrete. The universal is then not found in the concrete and singular, or material, but only in a manner that is immaterial. And what is immaterial is not physical, but spiritual. Man's intellect as a power to know in the universal is then a power that performs an act that is immaterial. And because there is due proportionality between the act and the power, the power is as immaterial as the act. The human intellect is then an immaterial or spiritual power.

But a power is a can do, which resides in a substance. For a can do, is an accident and an accident always resides in another from which it attains its being. For example, the quantity of a body is an accident that resides in the substance of the body. Similarly, any power to act is also caused by the prior existence of the substance. Therefore if the power is immaterial, the substance in which the power resides must also in some manner be immaterial. As the power is immaterial within a human body that is in the concrete and not immaterial. Man is then substantially physical and material, but in another manner substantially immaterial. The manner in which man is immaterial is according to substance and according to a substance that has an immaterial form. For a form is an act, and a substance with a form as the root cause of an immaterial power is then a form had of the substance. Man then has a substantial form as the root cause of man's immaterial powers. The substantial form of man is the immaterial soul, which is spiritual.

As the spiritual is not composed of physical parts, the spiritual soul continues to exist after death which is an act of separation of body and soul. The ongoing existence of the human soul then infers man continues to live, have knowledge and love after death. As the soul continues to exist after death, the soul has a life in accord with the nature of the soul and a state of the soul as determined by the ultimate end freely chosen by the soul when the man was alive.

If the man when alive chose to sin mortally, the man chose to act disconformed to the eternal law and love a created good above God, who is himself the good. By sinning mortally, the man has acted to subordinate all of his loves to the created good, loved above God. As all loves are subordinated to the ultimate created good willed in mortal sin, the man is unable to love God above all creatures, unless the man is moved again by God for the man to love God above all creatures again. When the man dies in mortal sin, the man continues to incorrigibly love a creature above the good, for God only acts to correct man's ultimate loves in this life as a grace (or gift) and not in the next. After death, as the will of the separated soul is always fixed towards loving above all other loves, that created good which is unnatural to love, the separated soul continues to love in a manner that is disconformed to the eternal law, who is God himself. The separated soul is then ordered away from God who is the good, as the ultimate love of man. But what is ordered away from the good, is ordered towards a lack of good, which is evil.

Yet when a man is ordered away from God as the ultimate good, and thereby to always act in an evil manner, the man suffers that which is unnatural as a punishment for sin. As the results of mortal sin in man, man in the next life is in an unnatural state, and what is unnatural is against the nature of man and against the nature of the good. What is against the nature of man always causes man to suffer, for the unnatural always acts against the nature of man, who naturally desires the good. The complete loss of the ultimate good as a consequence of mortal sin infers an immense suffering for those who die in a state of mortal sin. For a separated soul in mortal always has a disordered love away from the good. The separated soul always acts in an unnatural manner, and thereby acts contrary to the nature of man. But to always act contrary to the nature of man is to act against the good. And to act against the good is to act as to incur an evil. As the loss of love of the greatest good corresponds to the greatest evil, the separated soul in the state of mortal sin will suffer the greatest evil.

If a man dies without mortal sin, the man has naturally ordered his will towards God as the greatest good. But man can and does sin against nature whilst alive in a manner that is not mortally sinful, but only venially sinful, whereby man continues to love God as the greatest good, but loves a creature in a disordered manner in a particular moral act. If man acts to sin venially there is a debt of nature incurred which must be restored in accord with natural justice. For when a man sins, natural justice is breached and requires restitution. For example, a man breaks a neighbours windows, and natural justice demands the window be repaired. As men frequently breach natural justice (seven times a day), there is an accumulation of a natural debt made by men each time a man sins venially.

When a man dies without mortal sin and has his will ordered towards the good, man is then naturally ordered towards the good. The natural ordering towards the good enables the man's separated soul to avoid the penalty of suffering incurred by mortal sin. But because the good naturally requires the debt of sin be accounted for, a natural punishment ensues after death until the debt of venial sin is paid in full. As the debt is caused by man, the living part of man is naturally punished until the injustice is remitted. It is therefore within the nature of man, who has free will and has the ability to easily sin venially to suffer a natural punishment after death to account for venial sin.

Conclusion - Men can and do commit mortal and venial sin in this life. Consequently, due to the consequences of sin, men after death naturally suffer in accord with a deformity of disordered love within the will caused by sin. The suffering continues until the deformity in the will is totally removed. In a separated soul with mortal sin, the soul continues forever with an uncorrectable disordered ultimate love. For the separated soul in mortal sin naturally loves itself above God and no act within the separated soul can cause the ultimate love to change to re-order the soul's ultimate love to appetise God above creatures.

The separated soul who has committed venial sin(s), has the ultimate love of the will directed towards God. Such a soul is ordered in accord with the nature of man to have his loves subordinated to that of God. Yet the separated soul's will is not impeccable and has some disordered attachment to creatures that is not correctly ordered towards God as the good. Such a separated soul may have such disordered loves removed from the will which are accidental and subordinated to the love of God as the true ultimate good of the soul.

The sufferings of the separated soul in the next life are intense, for the soul no longer exists within the body but exists as nakedly exposed to reality. The separated soul is then subject to the direct action of the divine agent without any physical causes involved. As the soul is the formal cause of life of man, the soul is most sensitive to any cause contrary to the good of life. Therefore because the soul is the most sensitive part of man, the sufferings experienced by the soul are in proportion to the nature of punishment and the sensitivity of the soul. As God always acts conaturally within creation, the just punishment given to the soul is connatural to the debt of sin (which may be great), and the sensitivity of the soul. Therefore, from the manner in which God acts within creation, and the sensitivty of the soul it is probable, from reason alone, that the separated soul which has an attachment to sin, suffers much in the next life.

The Problem of the Implied Superstition within Empirical Science.

Empirical Science operates via the inductive method which includes a process of observation, hypothesis, testing, verification, development of the hypothesis into a theory, and further testing of outcomes. The inductive method has served to enable man to attain many insights into nature. Yet the inductive method is subject to superstition. Superstition occurs when a man falsely attributes a cause to a thing or act that the thing or act does not have. For example, I clap my hands and the door opens. I attribute the door opening to my clapping hands, when in fact the door opened via a force from the wind.

If a scientist proposes a theory to account for an observation, that theory may well be at least in part a superstition. In fact, the inductive method implies the inevitability that several, or many theories are at least in part superstitious. For the inductive method says several theories may be proposed to account for the same observations. If for example, we propose several explanations for gravity -

1) Gravity is caused by the attraction of the masses.

2) Gravity is caused by the bending of the space-time continuum.

3) Gravity is caused by the motion of a vortex.

4) Gravity is caused by space acting like a fluid that causes a pressure variability.

Let us assume 1) is true, then 2)-4) are all false. If the academy promotes 2)-4) the academy does so when in fact gravity is assigned to a cause(s) that is not real but thought to be real. By assigning false causes to gravity, the academy has legitimately acted within the inductive method to unwittingly promote a superstitious understanding of gravity. In fact, because the inductive method does permit the academy to promote many theories, no theory is ever known to be fully true, and all theories may be false. Therefore, there is always contained within the inductive method a propensity for superstition to abound. Therefore, those who embrace the modern error of scientism, which claims all knowledge is attained through the empirical sciences, will inevitably end up with a worldview that is at least in part superstitious, mixed in with truth.

Just as I attribute the clap the of my hands as the cause of the door closing is a superstition, the scientific attribution of bending of the space-time continuum, vortex and the fluid of space as causes of gravity are also superstitions under the current example given above.

A Proof that almost all of Reality is Invisible.

To Prove almost all of Reality is Invisible.

Proof from within Theism.

If a body exists, the body is composed of metaphysical parts of essence and being.
Being is the actualisation of all acts.
The being of a body is the act to be of the body.
The being of the body is not caused by the body, for the act to be is prior to all other acts of the body.
The act to be of the body is then caused by another cause other than the body.
The act to be is caused be being itself.
For being is the only cause that can act prior to essence.
For being enacts essence for being is the act to be.
As being is the cause of the act to be of a body, and being is universal, then being is a universal cause of a universal effect.
The universality of being infers being as the prime cause, is being unreceived.
But being unreceived is being as pure act without limit.
If a body exists, then being as pure act is the cause of the body's act to be.
The prime being is then infinite.
But bodies are finite in being.
Both bodies and the prime being exist.
As being is of itself without any accidentals such as shape, place, or colour, being is of itself always unsensed.
What is unsensed is invisible.
Therefore the prime being is invisible.
Therefore because the prime being is infinite and the bodies are finite, almost all of reality is invisible.

Proof from within Atheism.

Similar to the above proof, a body is dependent upon another cause other than the body for the act to be.
But atheism must deny the prime being as pure act, for such a prime being is God.
Atheism must then substitute the prime being for another creature to cause the being of the body.
But such a solution concludes to an infinite regress of creatures that cause the being of one body.
For each creature in the series has the same defect of the act to be which must be caused by another and so on.
Therefore because there is an infinite regress of causes to cause the act to be of a body, and there is no scientific evidence based upon observation for any of the infinite number of causes actually existing with bodies that can be sensed, then the infinite series is composed of creatures that do not have bodies.
Such an infinite series is a series of quasi-spirits, or spirits.
For a spirit is that which exists and acts without a body.
So if a spirit exists, it does so without being visible.
Therefore if atheism is true, an infinite series of invisible creatures exist to cause the act to be of one body.
Therefore because there are many bodies, there are also many infinite series of invisible causes.
Therefore because there are is a multitude of infinite series of creatures and the bodies are finite, almost all of reality is invisible.

Therefore if either theism or atheism is true, almost all of reality is invisible.

The Problem of the Sceptics Refutation of the Christian God.

The sceptic may seem to have strong evidence against the existence of the Christian God.

For the sceptic may claim to have strong and possibly irrefutable empirical evidence that contradicts several, or perhaps many passages in the bible. For example, there may be much empirical evidence against the universal flood and against the relatively young age of the universe.

Yet so, even if the Christian grants that all of the empirical evidence brought forward is true, the sceptic's position does not ever prove, nor demonstrate that any part of divine revelation is false, nor that the Christian Trinitarian God is false.

For the Christian God is a supernatural God who can act with power beyond nature to bring about effects that are beyond the power of natural science to explain.

Therefore, even if the entire universe has multiple pieces of evidence and multiple theories that contradict parts of divine revelation has are naturally observable, the Christian always has recourse to the supernatural action of God that can act beyond natural knowledge and human reasoning.

Because the Christian God is supernatural and thereby beyond reason, the same God can and has and does act beyond reason.

To then reduce the action of God in history to empirical methods that are only subject to reason is to reduce the Christian God down to the god of rationalism.

The sceptic must then presume a rationalist God to then supposedly provide a demonstration of the falsity of the supernatural God.

Such an approach by the sceptic is fallacious, for the method used presupposes there can only be natural reasons explainable by men to account for divine actions.

Yet such a presumption by the sceptic is false.

For natural reasons may always provide some insight into divine acts, but will never fully account for divine acts.

Therefore, any supposed empirical or historical evidence against divine revelation cannot ever be used as a demonstration of the falsity of divine revelation, nor of the falsity of the Christian God.

Therefore, divine revelation is always never proven false.

Consequently, what can never be proven false may be true, then divine revelation and the Christian God may be true.

Therefore, the sceptic is acting rationally to be open to divine revelation and the existence of the Christian God.

Exposing the Error of Philosophical Idealism.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines philosophical Idealism as -

 This entry discusses philosophical idealism as a movement chiefly in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, although anticipated by certain aspects of seventeenth century philosophy. It examines the relationship between epistemological idealism (the view that the contents of human knowledge are ineluctably determined by the structure of human thought) and ontological idealism (the view that epistemological idealism delivers truth because reality itself is a form of thought and human thought participates in it). After discussing precursors, the entry focuses on the eighteenth-century versions of idealism due to Berkeley, Hume, and Kant, the nineteenth-century movements of German idealism and subsequently British and American idealism, and then concludes with an examination of the attack upon idealism by Moore and Russell.

The same article summarises idealism as –

 It nevertheless seems safe to say that within modern philosophy there have been two fundamental conceptions of idealism:

something mental (the mind, spirit, reason, will) is the ultimate foundation of all reality, or even exhaustive of reality, and

although the existence of something independent of the mind is conceded, everything that we can know about this mind-independent “reality” is held to be so permeated by the creative, formative, or constructive activities of the mind (of some kind or other) that all claims to knowledge must be considered, in some sense, to be a form of self-knowledge.

The fundamental principle of idealism as stated above is that reality is created, formed, or constructed by human thought. Consequent to the fundamental principle, thought is a cause of external reality. So, when a man thinks is his mind that a tree exists, then the tree exists outside his mind. The causality of philosophical idealism requires thought, which is interior to the man, to cause many things known by the man’s mind, which are outside the man’s mind existing in the concrete real. The absurdity of idealism may be exposed by noting several examples –

Man knows the tree, and by knowing the tree, the tree is caused to exist by the man’s knowledge of the tree. Consequently, when man causes the tree by thought, the tree in the real, outside man, has many causes, such as soil, nutrients, water, and atoms, and sunlight which also cause the tree, which just so happen to coincide with the man’s knowledge of the tree. Let us hypothetically suppose as true that in accord with idealism’s understanding of the relationship between man’s knowledge and things existing externally from the man in the real, that the man’s knowledge causes the tree.

Then man’s knowledge of the tree must cause all causes within the tree, that make the tree exist in the real, and all the causes that are external to the tree that also cause the tree to exist in the real. For knowledge to cause the tree means knowledge causes the tree in toto, which includes knowledge causing all causes within the tree. Yet such knowledge of the tree by man must be comprehensive knowledge whereby the man knows all causes all the time, in a complete and comprehensive manner. Yet such knowledge of the tree is not possible, as argued below.

 Man does not have a comprehensive knowledge of any body at all as Implied by Idealism.  

We know this from the nature of human knowledge that is only apprehensive and not comprehensive. Apprehensive knowledge only permits some knowledge of the nature of a body, whereby the nature of a thing is known apart from its individuating notes in the real. Such oppressive knowledge of any body is the reason why man uses the process of judgement and reason to arrive at new knowledge of bodies. For example, a man knows Peter, who is a man, and then makes the judgement that Peter is a man. The judgement made arrives at a new conclusion after the man apprehends both the natures of Peter and man. Consequent to judgement, men use reason to arrive at further conclusions. For example, Peter is a man. Man is mortal. Therefore, Peter is mortal. Whereby the conclusion is a new truth known through the process of reason.

If such knowledge of Peter as a mortal man causes Peter and Peter’s mortality, then knowledge of Peter alone, which causes all the causes in Peter, would already know peter is both mortal and all other truths about Peter that could be arrived at though reason. Consequently, the philosophy of idealism has a false understanding of the nature of human knowledge, which commonly uses judgement and reason, which is always made apart from any possibility that human knowledge is comprehensive. Therefore, strong evidence is found from the natural use of human intellect in reason to show human knowledge acts in a manner diverse to that required by idealism.

 The Existence of Science Contradicts Man’s Mind as a Cause of External Reality  

Inductive sciences assume external reality is objective and thereby known to have causes through hypothesis, models and experimental data collected from those models. Such causes are then known to exist within things that exist in the real. The change from non-knowledge to knowledge of causes within things which existed before knowledge of those causes was known is strong evidence that man’s mind does not cause external causes, but man’s mind is in fact informed by external causes, whereby man comes to know causes, which always assumes those external causes existed before man came to know those causes. The causation of things eternal to man prior to knowledge implies external causes act independent of man’s knowledge.

 Man’s knowledge is not Ongoing and Therefore Not Causative of External Reality

Men come to know the external reality, then move on to know other external realities, and sometimes, whilst asleep, do not in act actually know any external reality for several hours each day. The man who knows the tree and then ceases to know the same tree does not cause the tree to stop existing. We know this from common sense experience. A tree is known to exist in the backyard, is filmed to continue to exist, whilst the man sleeps. As the man sleeps the tree does not disappear from the camera, but remains the tree. Similar examples can be given for any external thing, which continues to exist, even when no man knows of the things existence. Such simple life experience is enough to overturn the philosophy of idealism.

 Discovery Provides Evidence for External Things Existing apart from Knowledge  

A man digs a hole and finds some gold. The gold then must have existed prior to the man digging the hole, and the gold is then not dependent upon the man discovering the gold. Both discovery and surprise in the man who finds the gold is strong evidence that the gold has its own external causes which are sufficient to account for the existence of the gold, apart from any knowledge of the gold.

Furthermore, if all of external reality corresponded to human thought as the cause of external reality, then man could imagine anything, and thereby think of some new reality and that reality would begin to exist for as long as the thought existed. So if we use the example of the man digging up the gold, idealism would posit that the man caused the gold by thinking of the gold when he dug the hole. But what of the same man, who thinks of gold whilst digging another hole, but never finds the gold? Should not the man digging, and thinking of gold, always find the gold? According to idealism it necessarily follows that the reality of gold follows upon the thought of gold. Why then in the practical don’t men just think of gold and gold then appears? Because external reality does not follow upon thought. Again, a simple experiment shows the practical falsification of the philosophy of idealism.

External reality is not caused by thought. But thought may follow upon external reality, because external reality is active in the act of knowledge. The activity of the object, external to the knower is well attested by moderate realism, and by the modern application of science which requires external reality to act to provide data to then use the date to check theory. The idealist cannot account for science, which assumes the activity of external reality in the act of knowledge, for idealism denies the very activity of external reality.

 Some Corollaries to the Falsity of Idealism

 Man does not cause external reality through knowledge of external reality.  Man’s knowledge does not account for the existence of external things. As the mind does not cause extrinsic causes, then the mind (intellect) only has causes intrinsic to man himself. Hence knowledge of the real, is caused by the senses, and the intellect, which do not cause the tree.

The Correct Understanding of the Human Mind is other than Idealism and Materialism –

Both Idealism and Materialism are false philosophies of the human mind. Consequently. there must be another philosophy that correctly accounts for the action of the human mind. One such candidate is the moderate realism of St Thomas, which says the human intellect is a spiritual power that becomes the form of the external thing known in the intellect. Hence when the man knows the tree, the man’s intellect remains an intellect, but also becomes the form of the tree, and has his mind informed by the tree to know tree-ness.

The Academy is Shown to be False with Regard to the Human Intellect –

As the academy embraces idealism and materialism, and both philosophies are false, then one should become a moderate sceptic regarding the opinions of the intellectuals who claim to be educated in the area of philosophy. For if the philosophers can and have made such elementary blunders concerning the nature of the human intellect, then they can and probably have made several other elementary errors in other areas as well.

 The Elementary Errors of Idealism and Materialism Point to Man’s Fallen Nature –

The Catholic Church teaches man has a fallen nature and is thereby prone to easily sin and thereby have a darkened intellect. The darkening of the intellect then causes difficulty in both finding truth and then living that truth. The falsity of idealism and materialism is strong evidence from within the academy that the academy is composed of men who have a fallen nature, and who find it difficult to explain reality and then live by their explanations of reality. Nobody can live out idealism or materialism, for nobody can live out an error.

 The Falsity of Idealism and the Avoidance of Solipsism – 

If Idealism is true then when a man knows other men, all other men are cause by the knowledge of the one man. Such a philosophy of one causing the many is consistent with solipsism, which says only the one man can be known to exist.  For if only one man causes all of reality through knowledge then really only the one man exists as the cause of all other things. Idealism is not identical to solipsism, but has some consistency with solipsism. The falsity of idealism once exposed then removes the false wold view of solipsism.

 Parts of Enlightenment Philosophy are False –

Enlightenment Philosophers such as Rene Descartes promoted a philosophy of knowledge as the precursor to idealism. For Descartes said man only knows his thought. By Descartes saying such a statement, other philosophers who followed Descartes than concluded that only ideas are known, therefore external reality is really only an extension of ideas and therefore external reality is caused by human ideas.

As idealism is false, then the Philosophy of knowledge promoted by Rene Descartes may well be false in principle. As it turns out, Descartes philosophy is false, for man does not know only ideas, but knows the nature of bodes through ideas attained through the internal sense of imagination and the eternal senses of taste, touch, sight, smell, and hearing. As the idea is not what is known as Descartes taught, but that through which the external reality is known, then there is no need to posit that man only knows ideas and consequently external reality is tied to, or caused by human thought as the idealists taught.

Descartes classic statement that “I think, therefore I am”, presupposed Descartes principle of man’s intellect only knows ideas. For if only ideas are known, then I exist, because I think and thereby know I exist. Hence only knowledge of ideas leads to the conclusion that man’s knowledge is causative of concrete, real things. But because Descartes principle of man only knowing ideas is false, his statement of “I think, therefore I am”, is also false. For man exists first, then knows of both his ability to know external reality, and his ability to reflect and thereby know that he exists. Descartes, would have better said, I exist, therefore I can think, rather than his famous, but false statement of “I think, therefore I am”.

 Idealism Ignores the Activity of the External Things in the Act of knowledge.

By idealism proposing that the human mind causes external things to exist, the external thing thereby does not in any way cause the act of knowledge. But if the only cause of knowledge is the man (subject), and not the tree (object), then according to idealism, knowledge is only ever subjective and not objective. Whereby man both never knows the tree as an object of knowledge, for the tree as an object does not cause knowledge. But man knows the tree as an object only subjectively and the knowledge thereby causes the concrete object external (the tree) to the knowing man.

Idealism is thereby inconsistent. For idealism teaches man does have a knowledge of the tree, and thereby admits of the causation of the tree in knowledge, making knowledge objective. But idealism then denies the causation of the tree in knowledge by affirming that human knowledge alone causes the tree. Thereby idealism teaches knowledge is only subjective. And by idealism denying the activity of the object of knowledge, idealism cannot consistently affirm any access to objective knowledge and thereby cannot make any consistent claims concerning what knowledge may or may not do to any objective reality outside the activity of the subject.

In short, by idealism’s denial of the activity of the object in the act of knowledge there remains no causal link between the subject and the external object, to then affirm the act of knowledge causes the object. If only the subject is the cause of knowledge, then knowledge as a cause of anything outside the subject must remain unknown, and not affirmed as causative of any concrete reality outside the knower.

JM