The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1905-11-04
CONVENTIONS CONCERNING
ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE
Continued from Page ~

Continued from Page ~
cnces. no grander or higher subject can occupy
mems thoughts than q true knowledge Of Illh'-
They who deny God, berett OF all knowledge
because without God there IS nothing by Tor ana
in God are all things. and without hm there could
be no knowledge This we learn from Gods own
word which compares the atheist to fool, because
not knowing. God he knows nothing. The fool SAID
in his heart there is no God Then by inverse
reasoning we conclude that the highest wisdom is
to be found in the knowledge OF God who Is the
Supreme Good and that means that man.
for his own sake, in order to I'LL the VOID
which the cravings OF soul demand, should
know and love God. In our age thus KNOW
edge is either forgotten or rclegated TO the
unknown. 1t IS age OF ubehet and should be
pitied rather than condemned The heart OF hu-
mainly seeks for some object to love, but lacking
the true knowledge of the Highest Good, The Beau
tiful, and the Most LoTable, it seeks IN vain for
real rest, becomes at every step empty and cha
grined, and at the least disappointment becomes
miserable and unhappy.
On the atheist, the sceptic and agnostlc vino
deny or doubt the existence OF a Supreme Being.
rest the burden of proof for their denlals and
doubts. Belief in God goes back to the root of the
human race, when God revealed himself to our hrst
parents This supernatural revelation pertains TO
faith, and also becomes matter of science. talth
does not rest entirely the fact of supernatural
revelation, but IS backed up by science through
Faith, which eschews science and falls back on
sentiment, feeling, Is not taith but credullty. III
real. true and substantial faith the motives OF
credibility must be rational and founded on sci
ence. Hence unless one knows, indepently of reye-
laton, that God exists, and Is the Creator OF all
things, his faith would not have the confirmation
of science 1t matters not that faith III God was
originally revealed by God himself for if science
confirms that taIth then and revelation hdT-
fnonize. Furthermore if that belief III the exist
ence OF God not first revealed, the human mind
could not originate it. All suppositious to the con-
trary presuppose the priority of belief. If we
should suppose certain class of people, who how
ever have never existed. that never heard of God,
the Immortality of the soul, and brought up totally
ignorant of any form of belief, either by tradition
or communion and communication with parties
who had faith, these people would for ever remain
in that state. unless God systematically revealed
himself to them. The belief in God may be exag-
gerated and become grossly corrupt it did with
the Gentiles when they separated from the syna-
gogue; but in all corrupt forms, whether we con
slider the rude forms of African fetichism or the
polished mythology of Greece and Rome the belief
In God or the gods must precede or be prior to the
exaggeration and corruption.
Tyndall in his famous inaugural address be-
fore the British Association" in 1874, cOnfounding
a personal with anthropomorphous, i. O., man.
shaped God declared that: "There Is no personal
or neutrality-suspicious. God" Between both terms
learned and scientific as he was, there was dis
tinction. His impersonal God, who is not God in
any sense, simply force operating without in
telgence, reason, or viii from the intrinsic neces
sity of It's own nature. To conceal his atheism he
has, like all unbeevers, recourse to vague express
slons, which, when sifted, mean nothing. Add to
his supposed force intelligence, reason and will,
and we have person, the only infinite and eternal
Being, always declared to be II am who am" He
COMPOUNDED the original belief as revealed in Par
adise transmitted through tie patriarchs and proph-
1 7 L II
still taught by the Catholic church, with that of
the ancient Greeks who represented their gods un-
der human form, and hence his contention against
all forms of belief. But arguing from one false
| premise there be no conclusion, nor could he
/ legitimately conclude because some are wrong in
their unbeIief that he is right in his unbeef and
as the burden of proof rests on the atheist whose
unbelief is subsequent to the faith of the believer
sim0le denial that God is should not be consd-
| cred. Ed.