In chapter three of the Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas discusses the twofold mode of truth about God. Some truths about God can be understood through human reason, while others exceed the ability of human reason. This …show more content…
This point is then backed with an argument based on the consequences on man. These consequences would result if the truth about God could only be understood solely by human reason. With a total of three consequences, each consequence acts as an argument in itself. Specifically looking at the first consequence, Aquinas argues that if truth could only be understood through human reason, only a select few would be able to possess the knowledge of God . The argument begins with the first premise that not all men were blessed with the ability to pursue knowledge. Without the ability to pursue knowledge, the highest level of knowledge, which is knowledge of God, cannot be reached. While this is the case for some, the second premise states that some do not prioritize seeking the truth about God. Instead, temporal matters that give temporary fulfillment are constantly pursued and take precedent . By doing so, these certain people do not have the time to sit and contemplate such matters of the higher knowledge. The third premise claims that some are simply indolent . Indolence affects the inquiry of the truth of God because the laziness and lack of interest correlates with the lack of the prior knowledge necessary to understand the truth. The example given specifically at the third premise is the study of metaphysics. Metaphysics is the last philosophy that is learned because it pertains to divine things. Prior knowledge through studying the basics of philosophy and building on those concepts is required. Time and dedication is required for the long laborious studies, two things that indolent people do not care for. Through the premises, Aquinas concludes that through this consequence one can see why we were given faith in partnership