St. Thomas Aquinas thought that “natural revelation” was accessible to all people everywhere and that it could be attained through reasoning and observation of the physical universe. On the other hand, he considered “special revelation” as knowledge that comes from God’s direct disclosure through means other than reason, such as the Scriptures. In this sense the knowledge of a unique God and Creator was a “prolegomenon for the faith” and it was within reach of any human being as part of the natural revelation. Hence to acquire that piece of knowledge it is not really necessary to have what we refer to as “faith” (which for example is needed to understand or believe in the Trinity of God).

The idea that “you can reach the knowledge of the existence of God” just by reasoning and observation is rooted in the Bible:

The heavens declare the glory of God; the firmament proclaims the works of his hands. Day unto day pours forth speech, night unto night whispers knowledge. There is no speech, no words; the voice is not heard; a report goes forth through all earth, their messages, to the ends of the world (Psalm 19).

Or if you prefer it in a slightly less positive tone:

The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:18-31).

I admit, I like the ending of this passage.

Still, some writers in the brilliant Middle Ages considered it a good idea to provide philosophical demonstrations of the existence of God based on logic. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote the famous “Five Ways.” Francisco Suarez reformulated them and St. Anselm left us his famous “ontological argument.” Just one of the Aquinas “ways” will convince any unbeliever of the existence of that what we call “God,” and surely the ontological argument of St. Anselm will make an impression on anyone who approaches it in good faith. 

However, since the 18th century, many atheist philosophers have dismissed those arguments. (Advice for skeptics: ignoring what is not accommodating has never been a good way to face reality.) Others claimed to have proven them wrong. Not quite. In reality, those logical arguments are logically indisputable, and they will bring light to any agnostic. … As long as the skeptic is able to understand them. 

 And here is the point.

The “Modern Person” (allow me the generalization) is rationalistic but doesn’t like logic; is more prone to physics than to metaphysics; has little patience and low attention span; is impressionable more than realistic. The “Modern Person” doesn’t seem to be an individual inclined to philosophy. (I would love to see how anyone tries to explain the difference between ens actu or ens potentia or “essence” and “existence,” or what is a “transcendental,” to a typical Gen Z or millennial.)

On the other hand, the “Modern Person” is dazzled by technology and has high consideration for science and scientists even to the point of absurdity, and this “Modern Person” has swallowed the poisoned myth built during the dark ages of rationalism that “science is opposing God.” 

This is ironic. Science has always led to God. (One could argue that science was “created” by Catholic priests and scholars as they built the first universities.) But as a result of all the above the current main reason for abandoning religion is the perception that science and faith are contradictory — according to a 2014 poll in the United States by the Pew Research Center 82% of millennials who abandoned religion did so because of a perceived confrontation between religion and science and 63% did so “for lack of evidence.”

As I was doing the research for my new book, New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God, I became convinced that Divine Providence has acted in providing contemporary man what is required for our current times, and thus the latest developments in physics, cosmology, mathematics, chemistry and biology provide the evidence that, as Max Planck stated, “impose (i.e., logically require) the idea of God.” Current scientific evidence in favor of God´s existence is so overwhelming that if any other topic were being discussed, there would be total consensus and no debate at all. 

Arguably this is confirmed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church — following the teachings of the First Vatican Council — that asserts that the knowledge of the existence of God can be reached with certainty (No. 36): “Our Holy Mother the Church holds and teaches that God, the first principle and the end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” And follows: “Man has this capacity because he is created in the image of God.”

As I write these lines some few months after the book was first published in Spain (possibly the most secularized country in Europe) I am able to see proof that these “New Five Ways” work. I have been surprised by the dozens of testimonies from grateful people who have given up atheism as they found that ideology irrational and with no base in science and reality, and by the many others from religious people who see their faith confirmed and strengthened by these scientific developments and who use the knowledge and arguments from the book to help friends and relatives in need for additional reasons to believe.

Laus Deo.