St Vincent Seminary - Symposium Yearbook (Latrobe, PA)

Page 85 text:

KT .Hmnulllu . ' - . . 1 , Q . . . Q . . ' 7 1 . . . . . . . . . Y 7 7 ' ! 7 - . , . . . y . - . prevalence of such opinions but the Catholic remains unaffected The Vatican Council has solemnly declared that reason can prove the existence of God The Catholic knows besides that this dogma. IS supported by those tive lrrefutable arguments of St Thomas It is true these proofs have been scorned by many philosophers the apostles of the induction system the senti- mentalists the positivists the evolutionists and the upholders of relative truth have all denied the efhcacy of St Thomas proofs for the existence of God But their systems and their theories have passed away while the arguments of St Thomas are today as cogent as they were in the thirteenth century. The philosophic systems that followed St. Thomas were built on the sand of false principles, and the tide of changeable public opinion washed them away. But the teaching of St. Thomas has a solid foundation. Built on reason, his proofs for the existence of God are as convincing today as they were six hundred years ago. 55323 As the years roll on, and new advances are made in the field 1 f of science, new ways of living are cultivated, new systems of thought are propounded, many will be startled by the question: Must we alter our concept of God in the light of these changed conditions? The Catholic will not be alarmed by such a query since for him the' existence of God is an unassailable truth. His certainty that there is a God rests on two adamantine pillars, .faith and reason. Zllllllllllllll A illli ' ' lll Elllllli llllll 'HH' SZ ll82ll

Page 84 text:

HIIIIHIIIIIIA , X : O ., . E 2 Ill Ill illlllllllllli Q2 - 1 Modern Concept o God N THE light of recent scientific progress do we need a new concept of God? May we perhaps have to deny HIS very existence? Within the last few months these questions have been asked more than once, and affirmatively answered to the accompaniment of blatant notices in the secular press, and a notlceable agitation in scientific circles. Perhaps the most note- worthy, or to be more exact, noticeable occasion of this kind, occurred during the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, held in New York at the begin- ning of the current year. This great body had held its various committee-meetings for some time without attracting undue notice in the press, until a professor of history in a small New JC Nfl: 'K f Illlllll llllll. England college leaped into prominence by reading a paper con- taining the assertions: that in the light of modern scientific research, a new definition of God is necessaryg that our old con- cept of sin must be abolished, and that new rules of conduct, based on a scientific foundation, be devised. Of course this statement was hailed by the newspapers as though it were the keynote of the proceedings of the Scientific Association' While it cannot be denied that utterances of this kind are often made, and truly represent the opinions of some scient1sts, we must not forget that orthodox scientists have no use for such opinionated assertions. Those men who have given their lives to scientific research, who have increased our scientific knowledge of the universe, well know, and do not hesitate to say, that our ignorance of the universe is abysmal. They are one in de- ploring the entrance of scientists, knowing so little of their own realm, into the domain of theology of which they know nothing. How little attention then, should be paid to men, who, like Professor Barnes are not scientists, and are, we fear, but super- ficial historians and philosophers. What brings this point out very clearly is the fact that the proceedings of the Association were taken up for the most part in showing how little we really know and understand of the phenomena about us. The leader of the convention did not hesitate to deplore the attention given to this paper and its president, Dr. Millikan, strongly rebuked those who dogmatize about matters of which they have no knowledge. Where does the Catholic stand, in the light of this Godless theory? Other churches and persuasions may be agitated by the 1-K ll81ll rmimmun. QIIIIMIIIIE . l . 1 I r l Af in - , :I I 1 A fl, l -l .1 . fp ' 'Q 'ff X .1 M, y I 4 Jr if .4 4- la 351' ' was 6 , :J ' pb' W rf 1 .fl tn, . ,.., fi I g i I 9 1 . 9' H in Qu . f' S A ' . ' if 5 'fl iv QP' M1 x S . x 14 1 , . . . ,. . . 'fje-.mf E : iglllllg I- I

Page 86 text:

REV. JOHN Nlslfomuclmls l'IRUz.x, 0.S.l3., S. 1 h.L. Visa-Rector, Profvxsor of Philosophy Ruslrr Rnsv. Auluamus STE!-Ima, O.S.B., S.Th.D Prcsidenl The F acuity Rm. ALFRED Kocx-1, O.S.B., S.Th.D. SfJ1jfil1llLl Direclor, Prnfossor of Exogcsis H3311 VERY REV. AMHROSE K0m.lx1zCK O.S.B., S.Th.D. Rovlor, Professor of Dogmolic Theology