A friend of mine and I were out a couple nights ago and at some point, as we were waiting for a movie to start, the conversation came to the topic of the Eucharist. I had pointed out to her that since she is Presbyterian, she ought not to take the Eucharist at Mass. This deeply troubled her. She felt that taking the body of Christ, as the body of Christ, was important, and that since only a few Christian traditions, Roman Catholics among them, have theologies which make the Eucharist the real presence of Christ, she should like to partake of the Eucharist at Catholic Masses.
As Easter approaches, a look at the Eucharist and what it means is, I think, appropriate.
To begin with, I think examining the historical development of Eucharistic theology is appropriate. The word "transubstantiation," used primarily to describe Roman Catholic Eucharistic theology, was invented by Martin Luther in an attempt to critique Catholic theology. Luther proposed that the "actual presence" of Christ was not present in the Eucharist, but that it was merely the representation of Christ. Because of this emphasis, Lutheranism moved from a focus on the "Body of Christ" to the "Priesthood of Believers." This distinction is an important one because it reflects the Christology of Lutheranism versus Catholicism. Luther understood the importance of the Eucharist symbolically while the Catholic Church continued to understand it actually. Luther did, however, still emphasize the importance of Communion and saw it as one of the three sacraments, the other two being baptism and confirmation, that were essential for Christian life.
John Calvin, however, took an even more skeptical view of the Eucharist. Calvin did not see any real importance to it and argued that the only sacrament was baptism. Communion was a purely symbolic act of union with the rest of the Church and none of it reflected our relation to Christ. For this reason, some Protestant Churches, following in the tradition of Calvin, do not even have Communion available every Sunday.
Thus we have sharp contrasts between main stream Christian faiths in the West. Every other Protestant denomination has Eucharistic theology that usually lies somewhere between the Catholic understanding of the actual presence, to the point where spilling the consecrated wine literally means spilling Jesus' blood on the ground, to Calvinism, where Communion is a nice gesture, but nothing more than that.
Because of the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, the requirements for partaking in it are quite stringent. As a convert to Catholicism, I was not permitted (theologically, nobody was physically preventing me) from taking the Eucharist because I had not been properly initiated into the community. Since Catholics see themselves as the Body of Christ, and since they see the Eucharist as the actual physical presence of Christ, one may not partake of the Eucharist unless he or she is a member of the body of Christ. For those baptized into the Catholic Church (ie, baptized by a Catholic priest), the Eucharist is available, even before confirmation. For those baptized outside of the Catholic Church (ie, by another Christian minister) or not Christian (Mormons included), the Eucharist is only available after completing the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults, a sort of catechesis. I went through this program myself two years ago, which culminated in my baptism, confirmation and first Eucharist. I am currently a volunteer for the Boston College RCIA program and those who are going through the program, with the exception of one of the candidates who was already baptized Catholic, must wait until confirmation for first Eucharist.
For those not in the know, the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and first Eucharist are considered the "sacraments of initiation." Catholicism is a "sacramental religion," meaning that the sacraments, or what we refer to as the sacraments, are given high priority. St Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa, lists seven sacraments: baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, confession, last rites, priesthood and matrimony. Because priests in the Roman rite are required to be celibate most people will never receive all seven sacraments and the only ones that were ever considered necessary for salvation were the three sacraments of initiation. As a sacrament of initiation, however, partaking in the Eucharist is an act of intentional communion. First communion, then, is the final step in "becoming Catholic." It is a wonderful celebration for those participating and symbolizes a celebration of having new members in the community.
For this reason, then, issues of the Eucharist can be quite divisive. Consider, for example, the fact that some American politicians have been denied the Eucharist for their political stances concerning abortion. This is quite a "big deal" because the act of denying Eucharist is a symbolic act of denying communion or friendship in the Body of Christ.
On the other hand, since Vatican II, the Roman Church has extended a hand of communion to the Orthodox Church and to the various Middle Eastern Churches that over the years became separated from Rome due to various conflicts, both theological and political. Currently, a Greek Orthodox, or an Assyrian Catholic alike can come up for Eucharist at any Roman liturgy in the world. This extension of communion represents the Roman attempt toward reconciliation. Granted, shared Eucharist does not heal all wounds, but the act of joining together in the Body of Christ is a start.
This leads, finally, to the question of ecumenism with Protestant Churches. It is one thing for Rome to finally reconcile with Constantinople, but it will be quite another thing to be restored to Western Protestantism. As mentioned before, both Luther and Calvin had radically different views of Communion from Rome, so it will be difficult for the Roman Church to allow Christians who do not believe the host to be the actual Body of Christ to participate in the Body of Christ. The Christian Church in the West, then, is at an impasse. If Rome allows communion with Lutherans and Calvinists, it denies its Eucharistic theology and its Christology. If Rome denies communion with Lutherans and Calvinists, we remain a divided Church. And somewhere in the middle, we, the members of Christ's Church get caught. We are prevented from full communion with our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Showing posts with label Thomas Aquinas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thomas Aquinas. Show all posts
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Nihilism vs Mysticism (revisited)
This piece probably should have been written in September or October at the latest. Two months ago, a 35 year-old man dressed in all white on Yom Kippur, walked up the stairs of Harvard Memorial Church shot himself in the temple with a silver revolver in front of a group of tourists. This, however, was not some sort of spectacle or art piece. It was, in fact, a statement, but it was a statement that concluded his 1905 page Magnum Opus, a book he entitled Suicide Note. Essentially, the piece is a Nihilistic anthem, an explanation of why the world is absurd and why life is not worth living.
I find myself resonating with his words. I feel he found a truth. In that, I admire him. However, what I find tragic is not that he felt this way, but that while he found a truth, he did not find the truth.
The truth he found was follows thusly. He argued that if all value systems (moral theories, philosophies and religions) are equally plausible, than none have precedence. If none have precedence, then all are equally right, and just as equally wrong. If all have equal value to them, then there is no single truth and every attempt to explain life worth is just as wrong as any other. If this is the case, then life has no real inherent value. Thus, there is no value in actually living and the only truth comes in not living.
I find his reasoning and his logic completely valid. However, where he and I would differ is that I reject his first claim. I don't think all value systems are equal. As a Catholic and as a Theologian, I think that some (particularly Christian theologies) have more precedence over others. Thus, my argument for the value of human life stems from a Christian understanding of life, salvation, faith, hope, the eschaton and God's Providence.
Both his position and mine are very controversial positions to take today. Very few people today would agree with him in saying that human life is devoid of intrinsic value, but similarly, the upper echelon of society would also reject my premise that human value lies in our relation to God. The sister of Mitchell Heisman, the suicide, said that had she known her brother was intending to commit suicide, she would have tried to convince him otherwise. She would have tried to convince him to make his own value for life. This is a position I find that many people take up today. She went on to admit, however, that he probably knew she would do that and thus never told her. Heisman's choice was not made because nobody had tried to convince him to make value of his life. Rather, it was the ultimate realization that making value for oneself is lying. This would be well for many, but his goal was to find truth, and accepting a lie for truth would not have satisfied him. He had come to the critical Nihilism vs Mysticism moment, and found that the competition of differing mysticisms left him with only the choice of abject Nihilism.
At this point, I would like to try to reconstruct how it is that a position like Heisman's becomes possible in our modern culture as well as how his sister's position becomes socially acceptable though logically absurd.
Heisman noted the pluralism of value systems. In our post-Reformation, post-Enlightenment, globalized society, there is almost no end to the value systems appropriated by people around us. In Medieval Europe, all were Catholics, with the exception of the Jews who were relegated to a lower status in society. Even post-Reformation, regions generally remained homogenous with a sect rather than accepting multiple religions in the region. Today, in large cities like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles we often encounter on a daily basis people who are Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, and even Taoist. People follow Kant's Universal Law or Utilitarianism. There is no end to the systems one can follow, including agnosticism and atheism, arguably non-systems (which, in itself, makes them systems, though not very systematic).
Furthermore, our society has lost the original sense of value. In place of quality, quantity has become the norm. Rather than speaking of inherency or universality, we have changed our view point to an emphasis on quantity and empiricism. Post-Enlightenment thought has led us to value not only what can be empirically proven, but what is popular. This Age of Democracy that we live in insists that something is right because we say it is. While I have decried the risk in place in this thinking in the last couple pieces, it should suffice to say that today we often think that something can only actually said to be right if there is unanimity, or at least something close to that.
At this point, we have enough to understand the situation. With value pluralism being a reality in our culture as well as the divergence of opinion and adherence to different systems, we wind up in a relativistic culture. The relativistic culture makes the following claim: "There are many ways that people follow for understanding value in their life. A definitive acceptance or rejection of a system would show that it is wrong. Very few systems are widely rejected (such as Satanism or extreme fundamentalism) and very few systems are widely accepted (such as patriotism and rights-based morality), thus most cannot be shown to be either resoundingly right nor resoundingly wrong. Thus, most have equal plausibility and their acceptance or rejection is a matter of mere personal preference."
Many people today live by a credo that mimics or mirrors the previously set out philosophy. Generally, it is the excuse adhered to for doing whatever somebody wishes to do. The excuse is that he or she did not see the act as wrong and the fact that someone else does is merely a matter of the value systems they both accept and reject. This eliminates universal right and wrong except in extreme cases (such as rape, and murder). However, this is a bad ethic. No good (not in the sense of morally good but in the sense of reasonable or rational) ethicist has ever taken a relativist stance, not even the antichristian Friedrich Nietzsche. "Pure relativism" is a sham, a cop-out for hedonism. It is the new opiate of the people--an seemingly rational philosophy that allows people to do what they please with no dire consequence.
Heisman realized that relativism is a sham. Perhaps we might declare him one of the few pure relativists. He plainly saw that if all systems have equally viable claims to truth, then there is no real truth and life has no real value except for a lie. The tragedy of Mitchell Hesiman was not that he did not understand the value of life as much as it was that he understood what few other relativists have the courage to admit--that if all is equal, then all is valueless.
This, then, is where I assert the value of Christianity. Though this is deserving of an entire apologetic, suffice it to say for now that even this claim is a difficult one to make. The Catholic Church, since Vatican II, has tried to acknowledge the inherent value of other value systems, but at the same time it has always maintained that it solely has claim to predominance. One might ask, "What gives you the right?" The simple answer to that is that someone NEEDS to claim that right. A look at apologetics, including Ss Thomas Aquinas and Augustine and Blessed John Cardinal Newman, will answer this question better than I can or will, but the point is that IF no one does claim the right, then, rationally, logically, we are forced to make the same tragic conclusion that Mitchell Heisman made.
I find myself resonating with his words. I feel he found a truth. In that, I admire him. However, what I find tragic is not that he felt this way, but that while he found a truth, he did not find the truth.
The truth he found was follows thusly. He argued that if all value systems (moral theories, philosophies and religions) are equally plausible, than none have precedence. If none have precedence, then all are equally right, and just as equally wrong. If all have equal value to them, then there is no single truth and every attempt to explain life worth is just as wrong as any other. If this is the case, then life has no real inherent value. Thus, there is no value in actually living and the only truth comes in not living.
I find his reasoning and his logic completely valid. However, where he and I would differ is that I reject his first claim. I don't think all value systems are equal. As a Catholic and as a Theologian, I think that some (particularly Christian theologies) have more precedence over others. Thus, my argument for the value of human life stems from a Christian understanding of life, salvation, faith, hope, the eschaton and God's Providence.
Both his position and mine are very controversial positions to take today. Very few people today would agree with him in saying that human life is devoid of intrinsic value, but similarly, the upper echelon of society would also reject my premise that human value lies in our relation to God. The sister of Mitchell Heisman, the suicide, said that had she known her brother was intending to commit suicide, she would have tried to convince him otherwise. She would have tried to convince him to make his own value for life. This is a position I find that many people take up today. She went on to admit, however, that he probably knew she would do that and thus never told her. Heisman's choice was not made because nobody had tried to convince him to make value of his life. Rather, it was the ultimate realization that making value for oneself is lying. This would be well for many, but his goal was to find truth, and accepting a lie for truth would not have satisfied him. He had come to the critical Nihilism vs Mysticism moment, and found that the competition of differing mysticisms left him with only the choice of abject Nihilism.
At this point, I would like to try to reconstruct how it is that a position like Heisman's becomes possible in our modern culture as well as how his sister's position becomes socially acceptable though logically absurd.
Heisman noted the pluralism of value systems. In our post-Reformation, post-Enlightenment, globalized society, there is almost no end to the value systems appropriated by people around us. In Medieval Europe, all were Catholics, with the exception of the Jews who were relegated to a lower status in society. Even post-Reformation, regions generally remained homogenous with a sect rather than accepting multiple religions in the region. Today, in large cities like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles we often encounter on a daily basis people who are Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, and even Taoist. People follow Kant's Universal Law or Utilitarianism. There is no end to the systems one can follow, including agnosticism and atheism, arguably non-systems (which, in itself, makes them systems, though not very systematic).
Furthermore, our society has lost the original sense of value. In place of quality, quantity has become the norm. Rather than speaking of inherency or universality, we have changed our view point to an emphasis on quantity and empiricism. Post-Enlightenment thought has led us to value not only what can be empirically proven, but what is popular. This Age of Democracy that we live in insists that something is right because we say it is. While I have decried the risk in place in this thinking in the last couple pieces, it should suffice to say that today we often think that something can only actually said to be right if there is unanimity, or at least something close to that.
At this point, we have enough to understand the situation. With value pluralism being a reality in our culture as well as the divergence of opinion and adherence to different systems, we wind up in a relativistic culture. The relativistic culture makes the following claim: "There are many ways that people follow for understanding value in their life. A definitive acceptance or rejection of a system would show that it is wrong. Very few systems are widely rejected (such as Satanism or extreme fundamentalism) and very few systems are widely accepted (such as patriotism and rights-based morality), thus most cannot be shown to be either resoundingly right nor resoundingly wrong. Thus, most have equal plausibility and their acceptance or rejection is a matter of mere personal preference."
Many people today live by a credo that mimics or mirrors the previously set out philosophy. Generally, it is the excuse adhered to for doing whatever somebody wishes to do. The excuse is that he or she did not see the act as wrong and the fact that someone else does is merely a matter of the value systems they both accept and reject. This eliminates universal right and wrong except in extreme cases (such as rape, and murder). However, this is a bad ethic. No good (not in the sense of morally good but in the sense of reasonable or rational) ethicist has ever taken a relativist stance, not even the antichristian Friedrich Nietzsche. "Pure relativism" is a sham, a cop-out for hedonism. It is the new opiate of the people--an seemingly rational philosophy that allows people to do what they please with no dire consequence.
Heisman realized that relativism is a sham. Perhaps we might declare him one of the few pure relativists. He plainly saw that if all systems have equally viable claims to truth, then there is no real truth and life has no real value except for a lie. The tragedy of Mitchell Hesiman was not that he did not understand the value of life as much as it was that he understood what few other relativists have the courage to admit--that if all is equal, then all is valueless.
This, then, is where I assert the value of Christianity. Though this is deserving of an entire apologetic, suffice it to say for now that even this claim is a difficult one to make. The Catholic Church, since Vatican II, has tried to acknowledge the inherent value of other value systems, but at the same time it has always maintained that it solely has claim to predominance. One might ask, "What gives you the right?" The simple answer to that is that someone NEEDS to claim that right. A look at apologetics, including Ss Thomas Aquinas and Augustine and Blessed John Cardinal Newman, will answer this question better than I can or will, but the point is that IF no one does claim the right, then, rationally, logically, we are forced to make the same tragic conclusion that Mitchell Heisman made.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Pride
"Proud to be an American," "The power of pride," "school pride," "gay pride," "national pride," "I'm proud of you," etc. The word pride, and it's variation proud, are often thrown about in colloquial conversation, as if something laudatory. We use the word pride often to describe something that we see as praiseworthy, such as when we say "I am proud of you," of "I am proud that..." However, I have come to the conclusion that either we greatly equivocate with the word "pride" or else we don't understand the true nature of the word pride.
For the sake of having something to write, I will assume that pride is often glossed over as being something more benign than it is. St Augustine, in the City of God, describes pride as the first sin, occurring almost simultaneously with creation (the full explanation takes care of the "God creating evil dilemma). Pride is also described as being the mother of all sins and the greatest of all sins by him.
Augustine's definition of pride was simply, "putting oneself before God." By this he means that in any instance, whether it be honor, devotion or service, we render to ourselves before we render to God, the universe, or else our fellow humans.
Later on, St Thomas Aquinas would list his "Seven Deadly Sins," a list of what he conceived to be the most vicious sins. The list includes several instances of pride, especially vanity. By applying Augustine's definition, we realize that not only vanity, but also at least gluttony, lust, sloth, greed and envy are also applicable, since they all depend on one putting himself above others.
Jesus says that the greatest commandment is to "Love God with all your heart, and the second is like unto it, thou shalt love your neighbor as yourself." Thus we can see that the commandment of Jesus Himself is a direct opposite to the demand of pride. If we love God with all our hearts, and our neighbors as ourselves, we no longer have the desire to put ourselves above either one of them.
But aside from theological talk, I must make a personal confession. I have found for myself that the time when I am the absolute most miserable is when I think I am not getting what is due to me. Whenever I get self-centered I never find myself being satisfied, but rather, being upset at what I have been given and what I perceive that I am missing.
On the contrary, the rare occasions where I find myself being generous, charitable and humble, I find myself more happy than any other time.
I have also noticed this quality in a lot of my family and friends. They're never happy when they think about themselves and what they think they ought to have. I've seen plenty of family torn apart because rather than loving people for who they are, they prefer to try to impose their own personality upon others. I have seen friends grow apart when one has had to call the other to reckoning and the other, in his or her own pride, has been loath to do so, or to admit that he or she does not have the ability to repay the debt.
Truly, pride is the most divisive vice there is. If there is a more destructive sin, I don't know what it could be.
Thus we're stuck in a bit of a contradiction. When we think of ourselves as being all-important, we exhibit hubris, one of the ugly heads of pride. However, it is against our nature and our experience to think in terms of anything besides ourselves. Thus, we get a plethora of philosophies and theologies that try to combat this problem. Even the scientifically based proposition that since humans are a relatively young species, on an infinitesimally small sphere in the vast universe, we are nothing, is itself based on a philosophy not unlike Nihilism. Platonism, Stoicism, and Aristotelianism all try to deal with overcoming the problem of pride, but they all also stop short of their mark, in that they are unable to show what else we should venerate (Platonism and Aristotelianism both advocate philosophy, but does not philosophy serve the needs of man? Stoicism takes the Nihilistic approach).
Theologies, on the other hand, get closer to dealing with this problem. Paganistic rites have always maintained that the gods need appeasing in order to take care of our problems, thus, in order to actually help ourselves, we need to do homage and sacrifice to them. Buddhism and Hinduism maintain that since we are reincarnated after death, we must respect all animals in order to bring about good Karma and to show respect to those which may be our ancestors. Zen teaches that the universe is nothingness, thus, one must only learn to respect the emptiness of the universe.
Monotheism, on the other hand, proposes that there IS a God, and that this God does have power over all things. There are various strains among the Judaism, Christianity and Islam which maintain that it is necessary to try to win God's favor, and thus, supplication and humility must be shown to God in order for blessings to be poured out to theists.
Christianity, specifically the versions of it that I find more orthodox, realizes, with a sort of Nihilistic understanding, that there can be no true prayer but, "Thy will be done." If God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then our supplications will not sway God unless God specifically wants our supplication. Furthermore, if bad things happen to us, they are likely, "God's will," or in other words, a lot of times out of our hands to do change.
It is important to note, however that Christianity should not become nor be confused with stoicism, wherein the highest virtue is apathy and the virtuous man realizes that he cannot avoid all the things that happen to him in life. Christianity believes that in the end, the way a man lives his life will affect his eternal destiny. Thus, a man may not have control over some of the good and bad things that happen to him, but he can decide how to respond to them, and he can demonstrate by his faith and (to me, more importantly) his ethics that he is a good person. Thus, he must pay homage to God first of all, for the good Christian understands that he is truly nothing, that God is everything, and that without the intervention of God Incarnate he is damned, but he also knows he must live a Christian life or he loses all of that.
In my estimation, the reason why this theology is superior is because it puts humanity necessarily in debt to God for something God has already done and that man must try to earn back. There is nothing like servitude to bring about a humble and pride-less attitude.
For the sake of having something to write, I will assume that pride is often glossed over as being something more benign than it is. St Augustine, in the City of God, describes pride as the first sin, occurring almost simultaneously with creation (the full explanation takes care of the "God creating evil dilemma). Pride is also described as being the mother of all sins and the greatest of all sins by him.
Augustine's definition of pride was simply, "putting oneself before God." By this he means that in any instance, whether it be honor, devotion or service, we render to ourselves before we render to God, the universe, or else our fellow humans.
Later on, St Thomas Aquinas would list his "Seven Deadly Sins," a list of what he conceived to be the most vicious sins. The list includes several instances of pride, especially vanity. By applying Augustine's definition, we realize that not only vanity, but also at least gluttony, lust, sloth, greed and envy are also applicable, since they all depend on one putting himself above others.
Jesus says that the greatest commandment is to "Love God with all your heart, and the second is like unto it, thou shalt love your neighbor as yourself." Thus we can see that the commandment of Jesus Himself is a direct opposite to the demand of pride. If we love God with all our hearts, and our neighbors as ourselves, we no longer have the desire to put ourselves above either one of them.
But aside from theological talk, I must make a personal confession. I have found for myself that the time when I am the absolute most miserable is when I think I am not getting what is due to me. Whenever I get self-centered I never find myself being satisfied, but rather, being upset at what I have been given and what I perceive that I am missing.
On the contrary, the rare occasions where I find myself being generous, charitable and humble, I find myself more happy than any other time.
I have also noticed this quality in a lot of my family and friends. They're never happy when they think about themselves and what they think they ought to have. I've seen plenty of family torn apart because rather than loving people for who they are, they prefer to try to impose their own personality upon others. I have seen friends grow apart when one has had to call the other to reckoning and the other, in his or her own pride, has been loath to do so, or to admit that he or she does not have the ability to repay the debt.
Truly, pride is the most divisive vice there is. If there is a more destructive sin, I don't know what it could be.
Thus we're stuck in a bit of a contradiction. When we think of ourselves as being all-important, we exhibit hubris, one of the ugly heads of pride. However, it is against our nature and our experience to think in terms of anything besides ourselves. Thus, we get a plethora of philosophies and theologies that try to combat this problem. Even the scientifically based proposition that since humans are a relatively young species, on an infinitesimally small sphere in the vast universe, we are nothing, is itself based on a philosophy not unlike Nihilism. Platonism, Stoicism, and Aristotelianism all try to deal with overcoming the problem of pride, but they all also stop short of their mark, in that they are unable to show what else we should venerate (Platonism and Aristotelianism both advocate philosophy, but does not philosophy serve the needs of man? Stoicism takes the Nihilistic approach).
Theologies, on the other hand, get closer to dealing with this problem. Paganistic rites have always maintained that the gods need appeasing in order to take care of our problems, thus, in order to actually help ourselves, we need to do homage and sacrifice to them. Buddhism and Hinduism maintain that since we are reincarnated after death, we must respect all animals in order to bring about good Karma and to show respect to those which may be our ancestors. Zen teaches that the universe is nothingness, thus, one must only learn to respect the emptiness of the universe.
Monotheism, on the other hand, proposes that there IS a God, and that this God does have power over all things. There are various strains among the Judaism, Christianity and Islam which maintain that it is necessary to try to win God's favor, and thus, supplication and humility must be shown to God in order for blessings to be poured out to theists.
Christianity, specifically the versions of it that I find more orthodox, realizes, with a sort of Nihilistic understanding, that there can be no true prayer but, "Thy will be done." If God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then our supplications will not sway God unless God specifically wants our supplication. Furthermore, if bad things happen to us, they are likely, "God's will," or in other words, a lot of times out of our hands to do change.
It is important to note, however that Christianity should not become nor be confused with stoicism, wherein the highest virtue is apathy and the virtuous man realizes that he cannot avoid all the things that happen to him in life. Christianity believes that in the end, the way a man lives his life will affect his eternal destiny. Thus, a man may not have control over some of the good and bad things that happen to him, but he can decide how to respond to them, and he can demonstrate by his faith and (to me, more importantly) his ethics that he is a good person. Thus, he must pay homage to God first of all, for the good Christian understands that he is truly nothing, that God is everything, and that without the intervention of God Incarnate he is damned, but he also knows he must live a Christian life or he loses all of that.
In my estimation, the reason why this theology is superior is because it puts humanity necessarily in debt to God for something God has already done and that man must try to earn back. There is nothing like servitude to bring about a humble and pride-less attitude.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Veritas Invenere
I apologize, first off, for my long absence. The last few months have been fairly hectic, and what with writing papers, organizing club stuff, being an RA and applying to grad schools, I haven't put much effort into keeping this up.
I came back into Vernal yesterday. And while I'm not going to comment on Vernal right now, on the three hour car ride home, I had a lot of time to think about whatever it is that I wanted to contemplate. I utilized the ride to think about why it is that there are so many differing belief sets in the world.
It occurs to me that there must be a certain appeal to any given philosophy or faith. There must be some aspect of it that attracts men and women to it. I feel, then, that any given practice of beliefs must have some truth within it. I believe, as Socrates, that humans can recognize certain truths. This, of course, would be why there are similar beliefs in remote parts of the world--similar in how they conduct themselves and even, to a certain extent, what they believe about our final ends and the governing powers of the universe.
However, we observe that there are also a great deal of differences between the various beliefs. I would submit that this is because, as Aquinas says, it is possible to come to a fullness of truth, but not everyone could come to the truth, and it would only be done by long and arduous labor. So, often, when someone comes upon some great truth, he synthesizes doctrines based on this, though often erroneously.
Of course, these sets of beliefs get propagated because man eventually feels the compulsion to find the truth. As Blaise Pascal said, every man, eventually, comes to the realization that death is coming hurtling at him. When we come to grips with our temporality, we realize seek to find some kind of reason for our being. So often, men turn to philosophies or faiths, especially those wherein they see a truth that they recognize.
But it cannot be the case that every single philosophy or religion is right. So many of them openly contradict each other, that it would be utterly incomprehensible to have a pantheistic or panphilosophic attitude. So the task lies on us to figure out which ones we can embrace and which ones to reject.
Of course, with the differing doctrines within each one, it is impossible to take a look from any perspective of the schools of thought to examine what we should do. Plato thought we should seek to live virtuous lives. Luther taught that we are saved through our faith by Grace, and that our works cannot achieve heaven for us. Hedonists and Nihilists claim that nothing we do has any moral or eternal bearing. If we are already attached to one thought, we cannot fairly judge any other school.
So I will not lie and say my opinion is unbiased. But I will try to demonstrate what I think the correct answer is and why. If the Hedonists, Nihilsts, and even some of the Existentialists are right, then we have no moral obligation to anythin. However, this is not the case, because it is obvious through the ways that societies work that at some level, we have a moral obligation to fulfill. If Locke and Hobbes, and for that matter Caesar and all the current talk show hosts, are right, then our moral obligation is only to the state, and that is wherein our salvation lies. However, this cannot either be the case, since states rise and fall all the time, and oftne men outlive their own body politic (read: in a relatively recent example, East and West Germany, the Soviet Union, etc). So it must be to some greater force, for some greater good. If we follow Luther, then salvation requires faith. My biggest problem with this doctrine is not that we are saved through Grace, but rather that our faith is necessary. This seem ridiculous when there are people in parts of the world who have no access to the Gospel, nor did our ancestors if we go back far enough. Thus, salvation excludes a significant portion of the population, and Grace doesn't really seem like Grace.
So, I find myself taking on a more Platonic ideal. I will not say that we need to try to embrace every single virtue in either a Socratic or Aristotelian method, but we do need to live our lives with a sense of what it is to be a good person. Righteous living is the key to our salvation. Even Vatican II made provisions for the "virtuous pagan" an idea that suggests that morality is actually universal, though faith in Christ Jesus is not.
So, I think that whether or not we devote our entire lives to honoring God is irrelevent, but living our entire lives as if we were serving Him or His children is absolutely relevent. Our salvation lies not in how many times we pray, nor in how often we attend church, but it absolutely depends on how we see our brothers and sisters and how we honor the light of God within them.
I came back into Vernal yesterday. And while I'm not going to comment on Vernal right now, on the three hour car ride home, I had a lot of time to think about whatever it is that I wanted to contemplate. I utilized the ride to think about why it is that there are so many differing belief sets in the world.
It occurs to me that there must be a certain appeal to any given philosophy or faith. There must be some aspect of it that attracts men and women to it. I feel, then, that any given practice of beliefs must have some truth within it. I believe, as Socrates, that humans can recognize certain truths. This, of course, would be why there are similar beliefs in remote parts of the world--similar in how they conduct themselves and even, to a certain extent, what they believe about our final ends and the governing powers of the universe.
However, we observe that there are also a great deal of differences between the various beliefs. I would submit that this is because, as Aquinas says, it is possible to come to a fullness of truth, but not everyone could come to the truth, and it would only be done by long and arduous labor. So, often, when someone comes upon some great truth, he synthesizes doctrines based on this, though often erroneously.
Of course, these sets of beliefs get propagated because man eventually feels the compulsion to find the truth. As Blaise Pascal said, every man, eventually, comes to the realization that death is coming hurtling at him. When we come to grips with our temporality, we realize seek to find some kind of reason for our being. So often, men turn to philosophies or faiths, especially those wherein they see a truth that they recognize.
But it cannot be the case that every single philosophy or religion is right. So many of them openly contradict each other, that it would be utterly incomprehensible to have a pantheistic or panphilosophic attitude. So the task lies on us to figure out which ones we can embrace and which ones to reject.
Of course, with the differing doctrines within each one, it is impossible to take a look from any perspective of the schools of thought to examine what we should do. Plato thought we should seek to live virtuous lives. Luther taught that we are saved through our faith by Grace, and that our works cannot achieve heaven for us. Hedonists and Nihilists claim that nothing we do has any moral or eternal bearing. If we are already attached to one thought, we cannot fairly judge any other school.
So I will not lie and say my opinion is unbiased. But I will try to demonstrate what I think the correct answer is and why. If the Hedonists, Nihilsts, and even some of the Existentialists are right, then we have no moral obligation to anythin. However, this is not the case, because it is obvious through the ways that societies work that at some level, we have a moral obligation to fulfill. If Locke and Hobbes, and for that matter Caesar and all the current talk show hosts, are right, then our moral obligation is only to the state, and that is wherein our salvation lies. However, this cannot either be the case, since states rise and fall all the time, and oftne men outlive their own body politic (read: in a relatively recent example, East and West Germany, the Soviet Union, etc). So it must be to some greater force, for some greater good. If we follow Luther, then salvation requires faith. My biggest problem with this doctrine is not that we are saved through Grace, but rather that our faith is necessary. This seem ridiculous when there are people in parts of the world who have no access to the Gospel, nor did our ancestors if we go back far enough. Thus, salvation excludes a significant portion of the population, and Grace doesn't really seem like Grace.
So, I find myself taking on a more Platonic ideal. I will not say that we need to try to embrace every single virtue in either a Socratic or Aristotelian method, but we do need to live our lives with a sense of what it is to be a good person. Righteous living is the key to our salvation. Even Vatican II made provisions for the "virtuous pagan" an idea that suggests that morality is actually universal, though faith in Christ Jesus is not.
So, I think that whether or not we devote our entire lives to honoring God is irrelevent, but living our entire lives as if we were serving Him or His children is absolutely relevent. Our salvation lies not in how many times we pray, nor in how often we attend church, but it absolutely depends on how we see our brothers and sisters and how we honor the light of God within them.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Aquinas' University
In 13th Century Paris, St. Thomas Aquinas proposed a curriculum for the university which offered a hierarchical view of studies. The newer students would study the liberal arts, including language, history, logic and geometry. After completing this, those students who wished to continue their studies would learn philosophy, including Aristotle. Finally, students would be taught theology. Theology was saved for last because, in Aquinas' mind, it was the highest discipline and therefore should not be taught to those who were not willing to learn all the other disciplines they needed to. Of course, this system sets up a highly educated caste of theologians, such that their intellect and knowledge would surpass the philosophers of the day.
Today's university has discarded of the practice of hierarchically ranking studies. Accounting is as valuable as philosophy and English as worthwhile as theology in our schools. This practice does not make for well-versed students. I do not say this because I think that theology is the best subject, but rather because we do not emphasize how all of these subjects can be connected to form a comprehensive understanding of the world. That being said, I will propose that theology does a great job out of all subjects for doing this.
Consider the following: a history class' objective is merely to report the facts of the past. The ramifications of these actions is not within the realm of history to determine, but rather for philosophers, politicians and strategists. A literature class seeks to understand specific literary works, which sometimes requires an understanding of time, and consequently history. However, rarely does this, unless it is a philosophical work, require an understanding of philosophy to understand the work. Rather, language devices and literary nuances are required.
If we follow this trend we can observe several other things. In sciences, for example, it is necessary to have an understanding of mathematical concepts, but math does not necessitate the understanding of science. Linguistics requires an understanding of at least one language. Engineering requires an understanding of physics and advanced math is only understood after simple math is learned.
As we follow this line of thinking, we discover philosophy incorporates several of these studies. As a philosopher, one has to understand a history that dates back to Pythagoras. Literary devices, including allegory, allusion and equivocation are important parts in philosophical discourse. As Socrates demonstrates in the Crito, even mathematics is important. In short, learning more and more about the world can only help one in the philosophical field.
Theology, then goes one step beyond this. Theology often incorporates philosophy and engages every other field of study. Evolutionary biology is constantly in direct dialogue with theology. Neuropsychology has implications for the nature of the soul and what it means to be human that theology must also engage. Even Quantum Mechanics, with its focus on elementary particles, has something to say about the universe that God created and the way that we understand the matter therein.
As we realize this, we discover something shocking and unsettling. We cannot intelligently engage in theological discussion without understanding a large amount of what is going on in the world. If we idly spout out uninformed opinions about God and the universe, we are little more than babbling fools. For how can we expect the world to take us seriously as believers when we respond to challenges to our faith in the most uninformed and baseless manner? If we want to enter into real discussion with the world, then we necessarily need to be aware of the matters in which we engage others in conversation. Laying baseless claims against the charges of unbelievers does not increase our credibility, but rather it makes us look like fools and yuppies in the eyes of our critics.
Today's university has discarded of the practice of hierarchically ranking studies. Accounting is as valuable as philosophy and English as worthwhile as theology in our schools. This practice does not make for well-versed students. I do not say this because I think that theology is the best subject, but rather because we do not emphasize how all of these subjects can be connected to form a comprehensive understanding of the world. That being said, I will propose that theology does a great job out of all subjects for doing this.
Consider the following: a history class' objective is merely to report the facts of the past. The ramifications of these actions is not within the realm of history to determine, but rather for philosophers, politicians and strategists. A literature class seeks to understand specific literary works, which sometimes requires an understanding of time, and consequently history. However, rarely does this, unless it is a philosophical work, require an understanding of philosophy to understand the work. Rather, language devices and literary nuances are required.
If we follow this trend we can observe several other things. In sciences, for example, it is necessary to have an understanding of mathematical concepts, but math does not necessitate the understanding of science. Linguistics requires an understanding of at least one language. Engineering requires an understanding of physics and advanced math is only understood after simple math is learned.
As we follow this line of thinking, we discover philosophy incorporates several of these studies. As a philosopher, one has to understand a history that dates back to Pythagoras. Literary devices, including allegory, allusion and equivocation are important parts in philosophical discourse. As Socrates demonstrates in the Crito, even mathematics is important. In short, learning more and more about the world can only help one in the philosophical field.
Theology, then goes one step beyond this. Theology often incorporates philosophy and engages every other field of study. Evolutionary biology is constantly in direct dialogue with theology. Neuropsychology has implications for the nature of the soul and what it means to be human that theology must also engage. Even Quantum Mechanics, with its focus on elementary particles, has something to say about the universe that God created and the way that we understand the matter therein.
As we realize this, we discover something shocking and unsettling. We cannot intelligently engage in theological discussion without understanding a large amount of what is going on in the world. If we idly spout out uninformed opinions about God and the universe, we are little more than babbling fools. For how can we expect the world to take us seriously as believers when we respond to challenges to our faith in the most uninformed and baseless manner? If we want to enter into real discussion with the world, then we necessarily need to be aware of the matters in which we engage others in conversation. Laying baseless claims against the charges of unbelievers does not increase our credibility, but rather it makes us look like fools and yuppies in the eyes of our critics.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Unanswered Questions
So Alexa and I had a long discussion today which involved several different things. However, there is really one which I would like to expound more. Anybody who has paid much attention to controversial issues of the day knows that a chief topic is Creationism versus Evolution.
Concerning the topic of Creationism, there are several big objections I have against it. The timing makes little to no sense, nor does the order of creation. Additionally, I have a hard time with the idea that God, being a god who is thought to work inside the confines of nature would create the world in such a strange manner, ignoring matter and universal properties rather than creating the sun with light, and land with the sea. Additionally, there is the simple matter of logistic errors. Why is there water in the sky? Why is woman pulled out of the side of the man? Why is the sun created after the earth? Finally, there is the contradiction in stories. Yes, storieS. Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis provide two different stories of the creation. In one instance, God creates everything, and in the end creates humans. In the second, God creates man, then creates everything else in order to be used by human. Both stories supply woman as being created after man, in one instance being drawn from his actual body, and in the other being created almost as an after thought.
However, even with these many objections, I do think that the Creation has some merit to it. It is a scriptural story that has lasted through thousands of years, a claim that NO OTHER origination idea can claim. Also, There is the simple fact of human telos and God's glory in us. Whether or not we believe the stories to be literal, they demonstrate for us God's love in a very basic way. God loves us from the beginning, makes us in God's image and watches out for us and takes care of us.
Also, there is a lot to be gained from the story allegorically, as Origen, even in the second century, admits. We learn a basic pattern for human labor. We learn a metaphysical truth that Aquinas would verify in the hierarchy of being. We learn the connection between all things and the divine origin of the universe. Finally, we see that all that God has created is GOOD.
Evolution has several problems with it as well, however. Human achievment, intelligence and sentience is discounted if we are little more than a step on the evolutionary ladder. Identity and purpose is void if we are simply mutated simians. Thousands of years of philosophies and theologies are invalidated because the true answer to human existence lies in random chances and chemical reactions.
Furthermore, the truth is that the idea of human origin through evolution is not a scientific principle, though thought by many to be so. Evolution is cited as a principle, insofar as we have observed it in lower life-forms (bacteria and insects, ie). However, the idea of humans being descended from primordial primates is NOT a principle, but merely a theory. Granted, it has valid implications and has plenty of basis, but as there is no definitive proof, one cannot state that evolution of human origins is a proven principle.
Also, Evolution is an idea only 150 years old (this year!). Science continually disproves itself. The physics of Aristotle's time were disproven by Cartesian physics, which were disproven by Newton, who was shown to be wrong by Einstein, which even today is considered incorrect by Quantum physics. Biological origination has come a long way since pre-Pasteur. Even evolutionary theory has moved a long way since Origin of Species. Thus, to assert the absolute correctness of modern evolutionary theories would be to deny any possibility of a better theory in the future.
I have no problem synthesizing the two ideas, however. If we imagine for ourselves a God who operates in the natural world, one can posit biological development as if God were working in a petri dish which we term "earth." Thus humanity can emerge from the natural world, a world which even the Genesis account deems to be "good." Human diversity, awareness, sense of telos and natural curiosity can be accounted for by God's creation of us, whereas our animal bodies can be explained by the evolutionary aspect of it.
It is important to note that science does not and has never disproven God. Furthermore, true theology should never conflict with scientific truths. Thirteenth century Muslim philosophers understood this idea better than most Christians do today. Muslim thinkers like Averroes and Avicenna taught that if a scientific principle conflicted with theology, either we misunderstand the scientific results or we misunderstand our theological truths. God cannot create a universe that disproves Him. This is essential for us to understand as believers. For those skeptics out there, it is important to remember that modern scientific method is derived from the Golden Age of Islam.
Finally, we must cede that we do not actually understand or know where it is that we come from. As believers, the best we can truly say is that we believe we are made in God's image and likeness. As scientists, the best we can say is that our physiology, anatomy, and DNA suggests a close relationship between us and other primates which suggests a common ancestry. But whether an idea is three thousand years old, or only a hundred and fifty, we do not know definitively what the real answer is. Thus, I think it is wrong for either side to discount the other completely. Being completely ideologically opposed to the propogation of the other idea is just as bad as the accusations leveled against whatever group we support.
Best of all we need to understand that as believers, we must be willing to accept what science tells us and seek to understand God better through this rather than denying whatever new ideas may come at us. The theology introduced in the Torah is radically different from the theology of the Gospels, which is added to and explained over the course of the proceeding two millenia. To follow the mantra of evolutionary theory, if we do not adapt with our theologies, we shall find that we whither and die.
Concerning the topic of Creationism, there are several big objections I have against it. The timing makes little to no sense, nor does the order of creation. Additionally, I have a hard time with the idea that God, being a god who is thought to work inside the confines of nature would create the world in such a strange manner, ignoring matter and universal properties rather than creating the sun with light, and land with the sea. Additionally, there is the simple matter of logistic errors. Why is there water in the sky? Why is woman pulled out of the side of the man? Why is the sun created after the earth? Finally, there is the contradiction in stories. Yes, storieS. Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis provide two different stories of the creation. In one instance, God creates everything, and in the end creates humans. In the second, God creates man, then creates everything else in order to be used by human. Both stories supply woman as being created after man, in one instance being drawn from his actual body, and in the other being created almost as an after thought.
However, even with these many objections, I do think that the Creation has some merit to it. It is a scriptural story that has lasted through thousands of years, a claim that NO OTHER origination idea can claim. Also, There is the simple fact of human telos and God's glory in us. Whether or not we believe the stories to be literal, they demonstrate for us God's love in a very basic way. God loves us from the beginning, makes us in God's image and watches out for us and takes care of us.
Also, there is a lot to be gained from the story allegorically, as Origen, even in the second century, admits. We learn a basic pattern for human labor. We learn a metaphysical truth that Aquinas would verify in the hierarchy of being. We learn the connection between all things and the divine origin of the universe. Finally, we see that all that God has created is GOOD.
Evolution has several problems with it as well, however. Human achievment, intelligence and sentience is discounted if we are little more than a step on the evolutionary ladder. Identity and purpose is void if we are simply mutated simians. Thousands of years of philosophies and theologies are invalidated because the true answer to human existence lies in random chances and chemical reactions.
Furthermore, the truth is that the idea of human origin through evolution is not a scientific principle, though thought by many to be so. Evolution is cited as a principle, insofar as we have observed it in lower life-forms (bacteria and insects, ie). However, the idea of humans being descended from primordial primates is NOT a principle, but merely a theory. Granted, it has valid implications and has plenty of basis, but as there is no definitive proof, one cannot state that evolution of human origins is a proven principle.
Also, Evolution is an idea only 150 years old (this year!). Science continually disproves itself. The physics of Aristotle's time were disproven by Cartesian physics, which were disproven by Newton, who was shown to be wrong by Einstein, which even today is considered incorrect by Quantum physics. Biological origination has come a long way since pre-Pasteur. Even evolutionary theory has moved a long way since Origin of Species. Thus, to assert the absolute correctness of modern evolutionary theories would be to deny any possibility of a better theory in the future.
I have no problem synthesizing the two ideas, however. If we imagine for ourselves a God who operates in the natural world, one can posit biological development as if God were working in a petri dish which we term "earth." Thus humanity can emerge from the natural world, a world which even the Genesis account deems to be "good." Human diversity, awareness, sense of telos and natural curiosity can be accounted for by God's creation of us, whereas our animal bodies can be explained by the evolutionary aspect of it.
It is important to note that science does not and has never disproven God. Furthermore, true theology should never conflict with scientific truths. Thirteenth century Muslim philosophers understood this idea better than most Christians do today. Muslim thinkers like Averroes and Avicenna taught that if a scientific principle conflicted with theology, either we misunderstand the scientific results or we misunderstand our theological truths. God cannot create a universe that disproves Him. This is essential for us to understand as believers. For those skeptics out there, it is important to remember that modern scientific method is derived from the Golden Age of Islam.
Finally, we must cede that we do not actually understand or know where it is that we come from. As believers, the best we can truly say is that we believe we are made in God's image and likeness. As scientists, the best we can say is that our physiology, anatomy, and DNA suggests a close relationship between us and other primates which suggests a common ancestry. But whether an idea is three thousand years old, or only a hundred and fifty, we do not know definitively what the real answer is. Thus, I think it is wrong for either side to discount the other completely. Being completely ideologically opposed to the propogation of the other idea is just as bad as the accusations leveled against whatever group we support.
Best of all we need to understand that as believers, we must be willing to accept what science tells us and seek to understand God better through this rather than denying whatever new ideas may come at us. The theology introduced in the Torah is radically different from the theology of the Gospels, which is added to and explained over the course of the proceeding two millenia. To follow the mantra of evolutionary theory, if we do not adapt with our theologies, we shall find that we whither and die.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Good God!
I've been very slothful in my updating responsibilities. I hope those who read this will forgive me, as RA duties/school work/Korean/being sick/club duties/grad school stuff/friendship/relationship/Korean/research have all been in que before my blog has.
A few weeks back (yes, I've been thinking about this for two full weeks), my philosophy professor asked how we can believe in an omnibenevolent God who is also omnipotent if we live in a world with evil. For if God is all good and all powerful, then He should prevent any evil.
To face this challenge, however, we first need to look at what it means to say "There is evil in the world." What do we mean by this? I take it that most of us would agree that by "evil" we mean something that is universally bad. Something might seem unfair, but if it generates net good (in a direct way) we cannot label it as evil. Likewise, even though someone might gain some advantage from some choice of his, if it creates a net negative reaction in a direct way, we might label this as evil. To illustrate this idea: Bill forgets to give his brother Steve the hundred dollars he promised and instead sends it to his favorite charity. Steve might think Bill's action was mean or unfair, but few of us would label a generous act, especially if it was in genuine forgetfulness, as evil. On the other hand: Rich embezzles money from his company. Rich benefits from this, and his workers suffer a bit, but overall we term this as evil.
Even with this sophisticated notion of evil, we haven't yet said anything about its origins. The idea of evil is not one that pervades every society, nor is it one that has been readily available to all peoples. According to Nietzsche, evil is a notion that can be traced directly back to monotheism in general and Judaism in particular. He says that most nations embrace an idea of "good" and "bad" wherein bad is simply "what we are not," and not anything more or less. In this way, something is good because it is widely accepted in society. However, Judaism introduces the idea of "evil" leading to an emphasis in evil over good. In this sense, evil means "what you are" with the you being other nations. Thus the emphasis is not a negative one (what isn't like me...) but a positive one (what is like you...). In this way the idea of evil is one that includes more malice and the idea of good is changed from a positivist spin to a negative one (even now we think of good as being without sin).
Is Nietzsche right, though? In Zoroastrianism as well as sects such as the Macabees and the Gnostics, the view of the universe has been a dualistic one. There is no "good and evil" but rather a "light and dark." This presents a less malicious view of what is seen in a negative light (evil/bad/dark) because by the very nature of dualism, the light and the dark are two parts of one reality. They almost exist in synchronicity, though usually only until the great and final battle where light conquers darkness (though only barely).
Similarly, in paganistic cults there were always gods of the dark arts. Hades is the god of the underworld and is always full of malice. Loki is the god of mischief. Anansi is the spider god who plays tricks on people. Toth is the deceiful god who tries to trick the dead. Cerberus and Fenrir are vicious dogs of godly power. But these figures are also countered by gods with more benevolent tendencies. However, whether it be Olympus or Asgard, the gods always seem to be more morally relative than in any sort of determinate ethical stance.
Hinduism and Buddhism also seems to see good and bad more as pathways through life. Good will lead us to Nirvana. Bad will send us circling around through various incarnations.
Even philosophy only speaks of things in terms of virtuous and vicious.
So we see that the idea of evil is inalterably connected to the idea of a good God. We cannot view there being any evil unless we come from a standpoint where we compare it to the absolute good (God). So we can't even speak of evil from an atheistic standpoint. We can talk of Nietzsche's will to power and people's selfish drives and immoral tendencies, but we can't use evil to describe it. For if we use the term "evil" that denotes that we are comparing it against something, presumably "good." And thus we must have some standard of good, otherwise our view of evil has no real basis. Thus, our standard of good must be the highest good, thus God.
But I have not yet answered the question. All I have shown is that we have locked ourselves into a paradox. With an omnibenevolent God, there should be no evil. However, without an omnibenevolent God we have no standard of good with which to talk about evil. So now I am forced to either answer the question to the best of my ability or remain silent on ethics until I can.
I take Augustine's view on sin and evil. Evil might be equatable to sin, since both are in opposition to God, and none should deny that evil is always sin. Thus, if sin and evil can be spoken of in this instance unequivocally (which I hope to show is the case), then my case might be made. Sin, to Augustine, is simply a turning away from God. If we concede that evil is the opposite of the ultimate good, then it follows as well that evil is a turning from God. Original sin, then was the first turning away from God which introduced sin and evil into the world and stained our human souls. However, original sin is not the subject of this discussion, though it is most certainly a part.
I further hold, as Aquinas does, that in order for something to become it best good (its telos, per Aristotle), it must be fully made through, or perfected. However, something that is created without the ability to reach its best good cannot grow or be perfected. It is a good thing to undergo growth and perfection, thus it is better to develop into the best good rather than be created in it. Thus it would seem that it is better to grow into our telos rather than being created in it. So we can see that humans can derive greater good from being imperfect and growing into perfection.
Part of not being made through, and growing, is the process of making choices. Many choices we make are ethical or moral choices. In choosing something good, we turn toward God. By being able to turn toward God, we must also be able to turn away from God. Thus, a necessary part of our being able to grow is to be able to sin.
If we admit all these things, then it follows that if God is all good, and part of His good is our perfection, then there must be evil in the world. This does not make the reality of evil any easier to understand or to accept, however, it shows that perhaps there is more to what's going on than a simple matter of what we think God should do and what God does. Simply because we see evil around us does not mean that God has abandoned us. What it might mean is that God wants us to help make a difference.
A few weeks back (yes, I've been thinking about this for two full weeks), my philosophy professor asked how we can believe in an omnibenevolent God who is also omnipotent if we live in a world with evil. For if God is all good and all powerful, then He should prevent any evil.
To face this challenge, however, we first need to look at what it means to say "There is evil in the world." What do we mean by this? I take it that most of us would agree that by "evil" we mean something that is universally bad. Something might seem unfair, but if it generates net good (in a direct way) we cannot label it as evil. Likewise, even though someone might gain some advantage from some choice of his, if it creates a net negative reaction in a direct way, we might label this as evil. To illustrate this idea: Bill forgets to give his brother Steve the hundred dollars he promised and instead sends it to his favorite charity. Steve might think Bill's action was mean or unfair, but few of us would label a generous act, especially if it was in genuine forgetfulness, as evil. On the other hand: Rich embezzles money from his company. Rich benefits from this, and his workers suffer a bit, but overall we term this as evil.
Even with this sophisticated notion of evil, we haven't yet said anything about its origins. The idea of evil is not one that pervades every society, nor is it one that has been readily available to all peoples. According to Nietzsche, evil is a notion that can be traced directly back to monotheism in general and Judaism in particular. He says that most nations embrace an idea of "good" and "bad" wherein bad is simply "what we are not," and not anything more or less. In this way, something is good because it is widely accepted in society. However, Judaism introduces the idea of "evil" leading to an emphasis in evil over good. In this sense, evil means "what you are" with the you being other nations. Thus the emphasis is not a negative one (what isn't like me...) but a positive one (what is like you...). In this way the idea of evil is one that includes more malice and the idea of good is changed from a positivist spin to a negative one (even now we think of good as being without sin).
Is Nietzsche right, though? In Zoroastrianism as well as sects such as the Macabees and the Gnostics, the view of the universe has been a dualistic one. There is no "good and evil" but rather a "light and dark." This presents a less malicious view of what is seen in a negative light (evil/bad/dark) because by the very nature of dualism, the light and the dark are two parts of one reality. They almost exist in synchronicity, though usually only until the great and final battle where light conquers darkness (though only barely).
Similarly, in paganistic cults there were always gods of the dark arts. Hades is the god of the underworld and is always full of malice. Loki is the god of mischief. Anansi is the spider god who plays tricks on people. Toth is the deceiful god who tries to trick the dead. Cerberus and Fenrir are vicious dogs of godly power. But these figures are also countered by gods with more benevolent tendencies. However, whether it be Olympus or Asgard, the gods always seem to be more morally relative than in any sort of determinate ethical stance.
Hinduism and Buddhism also seems to see good and bad more as pathways through life. Good will lead us to Nirvana. Bad will send us circling around through various incarnations.
Even philosophy only speaks of things in terms of virtuous and vicious.
So we see that the idea of evil is inalterably connected to the idea of a good God. We cannot view there being any evil unless we come from a standpoint where we compare it to the absolute good (God). So we can't even speak of evil from an atheistic standpoint. We can talk of Nietzsche's will to power and people's selfish drives and immoral tendencies, but we can't use evil to describe it. For if we use the term "evil" that denotes that we are comparing it against something, presumably "good." And thus we must have some standard of good, otherwise our view of evil has no real basis. Thus, our standard of good must be the highest good, thus God.
But I have not yet answered the question. All I have shown is that we have locked ourselves into a paradox. With an omnibenevolent God, there should be no evil. However, without an omnibenevolent God we have no standard of good with which to talk about evil. So now I am forced to either answer the question to the best of my ability or remain silent on ethics until I can.
I take Augustine's view on sin and evil. Evil might be equatable to sin, since both are in opposition to God, and none should deny that evil is always sin. Thus, if sin and evil can be spoken of in this instance unequivocally (which I hope to show is the case), then my case might be made. Sin, to Augustine, is simply a turning away from God. If we concede that evil is the opposite of the ultimate good, then it follows as well that evil is a turning from God. Original sin, then was the first turning away from God which introduced sin and evil into the world and stained our human souls. However, original sin is not the subject of this discussion, though it is most certainly a part.
I further hold, as Aquinas does, that in order for something to become it best good (its telos, per Aristotle), it must be fully made through, or perfected. However, something that is created without the ability to reach its best good cannot grow or be perfected. It is a good thing to undergo growth and perfection, thus it is better to develop into the best good rather than be created in it. Thus it would seem that it is better to grow into our telos rather than being created in it. So we can see that humans can derive greater good from being imperfect and growing into perfection.
Part of not being made through, and growing, is the process of making choices. Many choices we make are ethical or moral choices. In choosing something good, we turn toward God. By being able to turn toward God, we must also be able to turn away from God. Thus, a necessary part of our being able to grow is to be able to sin.
If we admit all these things, then it follows that if God is all good, and part of His good is our perfection, then there must be evil in the world. This does not make the reality of evil any easier to understand or to accept, however, it shows that perhaps there is more to what's going on than a simple matter of what we think God should do and what God does. Simply because we see evil around us does not mean that God has abandoned us. What it might mean is that God wants us to help make a difference.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Humanity vs the robots
No, I'm not speaking of some cheesy sci-fi B movie. I'm speaking of what it means to be human.
Normally I wax Theologic, but today I fear my tone will be more philosophical than anything else.
What does it mean to be human? Are we, as Aquinas defines us, the "rational animal?" Are we simply the most intellectually developed biological system? Are we evolution's greatest accomplishment?
We erect monuments and towers. We write books. We have history. All of these things I have noted before. And as I have noted, this denotes that there is more to us than the systems of organs and bones.
Psychology, which many accept as a branch of Philosophy, has long tried to unlock the real mystery behind that one organ which denotes us as superior to our animal cousins, the brain. While there are several schools of psychology, some of which are highly controversial and others which are more concretely scientific, there are a few which strike me for their approach to the human mind.
Gestalt theory, which comes from the German word for "whole" believes that 1+1 does not equal 2 but equals 3. There's a heavy emphasis that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Thus, the human mind is so much more than neurons firing impulses and neurotransmitters relaying signals. Their approach is to examine the person as a whole and prescribe treatment that emphasizes a holistic approach. A human then, is not simply a rung on the ladder of evolution nor is it a mass of biological material. A human is a human, and the definition of that is more than one can easily grasp.
Then comes my personal favorite psychological school. The humanists. Carl Rogers is often cited as the founder of this particular school. His theory of human sanity and the human mind was a system of needs. He believed that we must fulfill a certain set of needs, such as basic survival needs, before we can move on to more advanced needs, such as emotional needs. Eventually, when we have fulfilled all of our needs, we will find ourselves self-actualized. His list of self-actualized people reads like a list of "Who's Who in Philanthropy." To Rogers, self-actualization was the pinnacle of what it means to be human.
I take a lot of stock in the Rogerian system. However, it must be noted that many of the people on his list, such as Mother Teresa, were on that list despite not fulfilling some of their more "primitive" needs.
So it is that I have come to understand humanity as taking a two-course route through life. There are those who, as Rogers suggested, go through life seeking to fulfill some basic needs. These people often get caught up in some basic desire. They seek money, a survival asset at minimum. But they do it to excess. They become misers. There are also those who seek love too greatly. And rather than finding love they find cheap company and no sense of security. There are those who seek seek recognition and spend their lives working for the approval of others.
Most all of us are guilty of these things in some way or another. We all want to be able to feel like our needs are fulfilled. We do not want to feel as if we're lacking something. Worse yet, we don't want to feel deprived of something we need.
Then there are those who go straight for self-actualization. Some of these people are self-sacrificing. Others are simply philanthropists. Their needs are not as important for them to fulfill. They seek, rather, to fulfill the needs of others. These people are the ones who truly make the world go round. Their love and generosity are the warm fires by which all of humanity either stands or perishes in the cold.
Thus we come to another topic. The idea of human happiness and how it relates to the human person. Humans, at worst, are emotional, reckless, feckless, beasts which have the added disadvantage of questioning their purpose in the universe. It can be truly easy to be lost in the sea of humanity, wondering how to find happiness or to fulfill our destinies.
Those who genuinely seek to be happy and make others happy, seem to me to be true humans. They seek to fulfill their telos as humans. They seek to rise above the mechanical, simple biological functions passed on by millions of years of evolutionary instinct. They love more deeply, and they live more fully. These are the fortunate few who love life with a fulness that others who seek simply to survive lack.
Then there are the robots. These are the people simply trying to fulfill a basic need. Their evolutionary programming dictates what they do with their lives. They live by the pleasure principle. These people are like machines that have a basic programming that they seek neither to exceed nor to leave unaccomplished. They store money like squirrels for the winter. They mate like rabbits in the Spring. They preen and pout like peacoks in mating season.
How then are we different from the rest of the animal kingdom if we do not at least look at our direction? Socrates stated that "the unexamined life is not worth living." Have we examined our lives? Are we striving to fulfill biologic instincts or are we rising to our place among the heavens? Have we simply made our lives more convenient or have we truly contributed to this world?
Normally I wax Theologic, but today I fear my tone will be more philosophical than anything else.
What does it mean to be human? Are we, as Aquinas defines us, the "rational animal?" Are we simply the most intellectually developed biological system? Are we evolution's greatest accomplishment?
We erect monuments and towers. We write books. We have history. All of these things I have noted before. And as I have noted, this denotes that there is more to us than the systems of organs and bones.
Psychology, which many accept as a branch of Philosophy, has long tried to unlock the real mystery behind that one organ which denotes us as superior to our animal cousins, the brain. While there are several schools of psychology, some of which are highly controversial and others which are more concretely scientific, there are a few which strike me for their approach to the human mind.
Gestalt theory, which comes from the German word for "whole" believes that 1+1 does not equal 2 but equals 3. There's a heavy emphasis that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Thus, the human mind is so much more than neurons firing impulses and neurotransmitters relaying signals. Their approach is to examine the person as a whole and prescribe treatment that emphasizes a holistic approach. A human then, is not simply a rung on the ladder of evolution nor is it a mass of biological material. A human is a human, and the definition of that is more than one can easily grasp.
Then comes my personal favorite psychological school. The humanists. Carl Rogers is often cited as the founder of this particular school. His theory of human sanity and the human mind was a system of needs. He believed that we must fulfill a certain set of needs, such as basic survival needs, before we can move on to more advanced needs, such as emotional needs. Eventually, when we have fulfilled all of our needs, we will find ourselves self-actualized. His list of self-actualized people reads like a list of "Who's Who in Philanthropy." To Rogers, self-actualization was the pinnacle of what it means to be human.
I take a lot of stock in the Rogerian system. However, it must be noted that many of the people on his list, such as Mother Teresa, were on that list despite not fulfilling some of their more "primitive" needs.
So it is that I have come to understand humanity as taking a two-course route through life. There are those who, as Rogers suggested, go through life seeking to fulfill some basic needs. These people often get caught up in some basic desire. They seek money, a survival asset at minimum. But they do it to excess. They become misers. There are also those who seek love too greatly. And rather than finding love they find cheap company and no sense of security. There are those who seek seek recognition and spend their lives working for the approval of others.
Most all of us are guilty of these things in some way or another. We all want to be able to feel like our needs are fulfilled. We do not want to feel as if we're lacking something. Worse yet, we don't want to feel deprived of something we need.
Then there are those who go straight for self-actualization. Some of these people are self-sacrificing. Others are simply philanthropists. Their needs are not as important for them to fulfill. They seek, rather, to fulfill the needs of others. These people are the ones who truly make the world go round. Their love and generosity are the warm fires by which all of humanity either stands or perishes in the cold.
Thus we come to another topic. The idea of human happiness and how it relates to the human person. Humans, at worst, are emotional, reckless, feckless, beasts which have the added disadvantage of questioning their purpose in the universe. It can be truly easy to be lost in the sea of humanity, wondering how to find happiness or to fulfill our destinies.
Those who genuinely seek to be happy and make others happy, seem to me to be true humans. They seek to fulfill their telos as humans. They seek to rise above the mechanical, simple biological functions passed on by millions of years of evolutionary instinct. They love more deeply, and they live more fully. These are the fortunate few who love life with a fulness that others who seek simply to survive lack.
Then there are the robots. These are the people simply trying to fulfill a basic need. Their evolutionary programming dictates what they do with their lives. They live by the pleasure principle. These people are like machines that have a basic programming that they seek neither to exceed nor to leave unaccomplished. They store money like squirrels for the winter. They mate like rabbits in the Spring. They preen and pout like peacoks in mating season.
How then are we different from the rest of the animal kingdom if we do not at least look at our direction? Socrates stated that "the unexamined life is not worth living." Have we examined our lives? Are we striving to fulfill biologic instincts or are we rising to our place among the heavens? Have we simply made our lives more convenient or have we truly contributed to this world?
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Job and Hosea
As a theist, I have often encountered the Atheistically-aimed question of "Why do bad things happen to good people?" to which all I can truly answer is, "Why the hell not?"
I don't seek to demean personal problems nor the faith crisis of "Why won't God deliver me?" but I think our faith is exhibited, as well as our general character, in how we respond to the difficulties in life. If we are bellacose and pugnacious for every insignificant problem or conflict we encounter, we display that we really don't believe what we preach.
So I suppose one reason why we have difficulties, and I realize how very cliche this will be, is to test us. If we really believe in turning the other cheek and blessing our enemies, how can we abandon God when He doesn't want us to be miserable? Our true faith is often displayed not by the world being at peace, but by our own peace while the world rages in chaos. Can we truly stand at God's right hand while the world goes to Hell in a handbasket?
But I truly believe that there is more to the story than this. I realize stories like Job and Hosea portray hardship and trial as object lessons for us to learn from, but I do not believe that this is the case for us by and large.
This isn't to say that we should embrace a Kierkegaardian view on suffering. We should, indeed, suffer cheerfully. However, we need not seek out suffering. And indeed, much of our suffering is not due to anything that we could have or would have avoided. Any suffering that involves the decisions of another person, or even naturally occuring activities, cannot be voluntarily assumed by us. We can, as Kierkegaard did, abandon romantic relationships. However, we cannot induce heart attacks nor can we single-handedly destroy the economy, eliminating much needed jobs. So it is safe to say that this kind of suffering is much different than the voluntary kind.
I would submit that often times there is some kind of secret gem in store for those who patiently wait out the storm. Job was given more than he had after the great trial of his faith. I cannot guarantee this kind of grandeur, but perhaps we will be blessed greatly. Perhaps a rough time is necessary for us to receive some greater blessing. Perhaps being laid off will provide the ability to get a better job. Perhaps a death in the family will enable us to learn to mourn with those who mourn and teach us to be more sensitive to grief and more aware of our own feelings.
I do not mean to say that we should expect something amazing to come from the ashes of our heartache. However, I will suggest that neither can we know the will of God, nor can we dictate our terms with Him. Perhaps we are to be martyrs and die so that others can live. Perhaps we are to sacrifice all of our time and money to be buried in a pauper's grave but to raise up those who are disadvantaged. Maybe we must suffer many losses to learn how to comfort those who stand in need of comfort.
One might further wonder, "Can't God teach me this lesson in an easier way?" Aquinas demonstrated why there needs to be bad things happening to good people. If the world were just, then any injustice committed must be fully restored. However, there are countless injustices committed which have none to punish, whether by accident or intent. And punishment does not truly rectify an injustice as much as it seeks to replace what was lost with something that will equally be lost. Thus, if everyone were justly compensated for what they had lost, there would inevitably be some kind of great cosmic debt owed to all citizens of the world, which would yet be an injustice.
So, the good people will necessarily suffer. However, the good people, be they truly good people, should, in fact, be able to handle the suffering. Our faith should not falter, though it often does. Our belief should be strengthened instead of being weakened. We should seek God more and praise Him more after the trial than to blame Him and turn from Him.
As a closing thought, I would like to imply that a cheerful and faithful outlook in dire straits will leave us feeling happier after the dust has settled. Whether or not God will reward us directly for our faith is somewhat debatable. However, whether or not we feel good about our own reaction to it is not.
I don't seek to demean personal problems nor the faith crisis of "Why won't God deliver me?" but I think our faith is exhibited, as well as our general character, in how we respond to the difficulties in life. If we are bellacose and pugnacious for every insignificant problem or conflict we encounter, we display that we really don't believe what we preach.
So I suppose one reason why we have difficulties, and I realize how very cliche this will be, is to test us. If we really believe in turning the other cheek and blessing our enemies, how can we abandon God when He doesn't want us to be miserable? Our true faith is often displayed not by the world being at peace, but by our own peace while the world rages in chaos. Can we truly stand at God's right hand while the world goes to Hell in a handbasket?
But I truly believe that there is more to the story than this. I realize stories like Job and Hosea portray hardship and trial as object lessons for us to learn from, but I do not believe that this is the case for us by and large.
This isn't to say that we should embrace a Kierkegaardian view on suffering. We should, indeed, suffer cheerfully. However, we need not seek out suffering. And indeed, much of our suffering is not due to anything that we could have or would have avoided. Any suffering that involves the decisions of another person, or even naturally occuring activities, cannot be voluntarily assumed by us. We can, as Kierkegaard did, abandon romantic relationships. However, we cannot induce heart attacks nor can we single-handedly destroy the economy, eliminating much needed jobs. So it is safe to say that this kind of suffering is much different than the voluntary kind.
I would submit that often times there is some kind of secret gem in store for those who patiently wait out the storm. Job was given more than he had after the great trial of his faith. I cannot guarantee this kind of grandeur, but perhaps we will be blessed greatly. Perhaps a rough time is necessary for us to receive some greater blessing. Perhaps being laid off will provide the ability to get a better job. Perhaps a death in the family will enable us to learn to mourn with those who mourn and teach us to be more sensitive to grief and more aware of our own feelings.
I do not mean to say that we should expect something amazing to come from the ashes of our heartache. However, I will suggest that neither can we know the will of God, nor can we dictate our terms with Him. Perhaps we are to be martyrs and die so that others can live. Perhaps we are to sacrifice all of our time and money to be buried in a pauper's grave but to raise up those who are disadvantaged. Maybe we must suffer many losses to learn how to comfort those who stand in need of comfort.
One might further wonder, "Can't God teach me this lesson in an easier way?" Aquinas demonstrated why there needs to be bad things happening to good people. If the world were just, then any injustice committed must be fully restored. However, there are countless injustices committed which have none to punish, whether by accident or intent. And punishment does not truly rectify an injustice as much as it seeks to replace what was lost with something that will equally be lost. Thus, if everyone were justly compensated for what they had lost, there would inevitably be some kind of great cosmic debt owed to all citizens of the world, which would yet be an injustice.
So, the good people will necessarily suffer. However, the good people, be they truly good people, should, in fact, be able to handle the suffering. Our faith should not falter, though it often does. Our belief should be strengthened instead of being weakened. We should seek God more and praise Him more after the trial than to blame Him and turn from Him.
As a closing thought, I would like to imply that a cheerful and faithful outlook in dire straits will leave us feeling happier after the dust has settled. Whether or not God will reward us directly for our faith is somewhat debatable. However, whether or not we feel good about our own reaction to it is not.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Serenity
"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things that I can; and wisdom to know the difference. Living one day at a time; enjoying one moment at a time; accepting hardships as the pathway to peace; taking, as He did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it; trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His will; that I may be reasonably happy in this life and supremely happy with Him forever in the next."
I know this prayer simply for one reason: my grandfather is an alcoholic. He has been sober for nineteen years, but he still regularly attends AA meetings. The Serenity Prayer was obviously written for alcoholics, however I feel that there is much to be learned from both the prayer itself and the Alcoholics Anonymous credo.
To begin with, alcoholics admit a truth that we as humans are loath to admit. They admit that they are weak, undisciplined and therefore are in actual need of help. While society looks down on them and visually condemns them by agreeing, we fail to acknowledge how much we tend to be like them. However, the scary truth about the world is that alcoholics are self-diagnosed, meaning that the ones who are in really bad shape are the ones who don't even fit under the category of alcoholic.
If we realize that these people whom we condemn on a regular basis are no different than us, we must listen to what they have to say. Once we realize that alcohol is as much of a drug as any pleasure or selfish pursuit, we realize that we have the same problems they do. Granted, an over-eager businessman is not as at risk as the drunk when either are put behind a wheel. The single man who trolls bars and clubs to pick up women may not drink himself into poverty either. And even the laborer who indulges in a simple vice every now and then shares in common with the alcoholic.
However, as the AA program clearly states, acknowledging you have a problem is step number one. But admitting we have a problem is seldom an easy task. We live in a society that embraces an anarchistic view of dependency rather than acknowledging the age-old truth that man is, in fact, a social animal. We live in a society where "getting ours" is more important that providing for the general welfare of the community. Men like Donald Trump and Bill Gates are lauded as examples of what we should aspire to, rather than the mundane civil servants who provide us with life-giving and life-saving graces. At the risk of sounding cliche, the fireman is more socially beneficial than the entrepreneur.
But I seek not to disuade people from entrepreneurial endeavors. Rather, I would encourage us to examine our own consciences. What do we feel about our interactions with our fellow men?
So often, we seek to get as much as we can. We want to take what we think is due to us. However, as Aquinas notes, if everyone were to demand just treatment, the universe would be unable to supply for the demand. Not everything is fair, and not everything can be fair.
And so, against many, and probably most, of my friends and family, I have come to realize something. We are not in control of much of our lives. We are at the whims of those who surround us. Certain branches of psychology, behaviorism most especially, espouse the idea that we are who we are based on what circumstances we have been in. Our minds are set by the events and people who affect us. I would venture to say that much of this is true.
However, I diverge from the behaviorists and state that we are shaped and the form of our personality determined by how we react to these situations. It is true that there is little we can verifiably control in our lives. We cannot force people's minds, nor can we create something from nothing. We are mostly left to the good or ill favor of those who surround us and make themselves our friends.
And so I take strength in saying the serenity prayer. For there is a great amount that I cannot change. It does take courage to change what I can. And sometimes I fail to see the difference. If I can but achieve the gifts asked for in this prayer, I can, in fact, find myself reasonably happy in this life.
On top of all of this, I have also adopted the alcoholic credo of "One day at a time." By this ideology, I shall not try to force the future or be daunted by it. If I can but live my life for the now, trying my hardest to make the future bright based on what is before me in the present, I can stop worrying and feel less anxiety.
I feel that we, though we claim not to be alcoholics (for most of my readers), can learn a lot by the AA system. I don't wish to force it on anyone, but serenity is not the worst prayer a person can pray. And if we can truly find the blessings asked for in the prayer, I cannot see how this world would be anything less than a paradise as nobody will seek to try to force anyone's hand nor will we find ourselves upset at what we have no control over.
I know this prayer simply for one reason: my grandfather is an alcoholic. He has been sober for nineteen years, but he still regularly attends AA meetings. The Serenity Prayer was obviously written for alcoholics, however I feel that there is much to be learned from both the prayer itself and the Alcoholics Anonymous credo.
To begin with, alcoholics admit a truth that we as humans are loath to admit. They admit that they are weak, undisciplined and therefore are in actual need of help. While society looks down on them and visually condemns them by agreeing, we fail to acknowledge how much we tend to be like them. However, the scary truth about the world is that alcoholics are self-diagnosed, meaning that the ones who are in really bad shape are the ones who don't even fit under the category of alcoholic.
If we realize that these people whom we condemn on a regular basis are no different than us, we must listen to what they have to say. Once we realize that alcohol is as much of a drug as any pleasure or selfish pursuit, we realize that we have the same problems they do. Granted, an over-eager businessman is not as at risk as the drunk when either are put behind a wheel. The single man who trolls bars and clubs to pick up women may not drink himself into poverty either. And even the laborer who indulges in a simple vice every now and then shares in common with the alcoholic.
However, as the AA program clearly states, acknowledging you have a problem is step number one. But admitting we have a problem is seldom an easy task. We live in a society that embraces an anarchistic view of dependency rather than acknowledging the age-old truth that man is, in fact, a social animal. We live in a society where "getting ours" is more important that providing for the general welfare of the community. Men like Donald Trump and Bill Gates are lauded as examples of what we should aspire to, rather than the mundane civil servants who provide us with life-giving and life-saving graces. At the risk of sounding cliche, the fireman is more socially beneficial than the entrepreneur.
But I seek not to disuade people from entrepreneurial endeavors. Rather, I would encourage us to examine our own consciences. What do we feel about our interactions with our fellow men?
So often, we seek to get as much as we can. We want to take what we think is due to us. However, as Aquinas notes, if everyone were to demand just treatment, the universe would be unable to supply for the demand. Not everything is fair, and not everything can be fair.
And so, against many, and probably most, of my friends and family, I have come to realize something. We are not in control of much of our lives. We are at the whims of those who surround us. Certain branches of psychology, behaviorism most especially, espouse the idea that we are who we are based on what circumstances we have been in. Our minds are set by the events and people who affect us. I would venture to say that much of this is true.
However, I diverge from the behaviorists and state that we are shaped and the form of our personality determined by how we react to these situations. It is true that there is little we can verifiably control in our lives. We cannot force people's minds, nor can we create something from nothing. We are mostly left to the good or ill favor of those who surround us and make themselves our friends.
And so I take strength in saying the serenity prayer. For there is a great amount that I cannot change. It does take courage to change what I can. And sometimes I fail to see the difference. If I can but achieve the gifts asked for in this prayer, I can, in fact, find myself reasonably happy in this life.
On top of all of this, I have also adopted the alcoholic credo of "One day at a time." By this ideology, I shall not try to force the future or be daunted by it. If I can but live my life for the now, trying my hardest to make the future bright based on what is before me in the present, I can stop worrying and feel less anxiety.
I feel that we, though we claim not to be alcoholics (for most of my readers), can learn a lot by the AA system. I don't wish to force it on anyone, but serenity is not the worst prayer a person can pray. And if we can truly find the blessings asked for in the prayer, I cannot see how this world would be anything less than a paradise as nobody will seek to try to force anyone's hand nor will we find ourselves upset at what we have no control over.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Logos (parvae animae III ex III)
Now we come to my favorite part of the soul. The Logos. Logos is the word from which English words like logic, and every single ology comes. Literally, Logos means word, but it also incorporates in its definition all cognitive movement. So, apparently in ancient Greece, speaking and verbal communication was tied to thinking. How ironic that in today we often associate too many people as speaking without thinking.
The word Theology was originally translated not as the study of God, but as speaking with God. Thus, the logy part was not originally seen as studying. Similarly, we might view other sciences and areas of academic inquiry as dialogues rather than as "studies." Of course, this is not a fail-proof system. We can't call Biology and Zoology speaking with life and speaking with animals, respectively. In these instances, it is much more appropriate to define them as the study of life, or the study of animals. So, once again, we see again that even though Logos is speaking, it is tied with studying.
Logos is the highest function of the soul. Intellectual movement, to Socrates, is the greatest ability our souls possess. Logos is what gets us out of sticky situations, it's what prevents us from making rash decisions, and it's what advances us as humans and as a society. The Logos should reign in the soul over the Ethos and the Pathos, much as Plato's philosopher rules the Republic, over the protectors and the workers.
This is not to say that we should completely block out Ethos and Pathos, but we should make efforts to regulate them. Logos by itself in the soul is similar to a computer; soulless, emotionless and cold. We should have emotions. We should feel joy, sorrow, love, euphoria, dysphoria, emnity and all other emotions that we feel. However, we cannot let fleeting feelings regulate us as people. We must be able to differentiate between the good and the bad emotions and let our intellect regulate them. We should also embrace our loyalties. We can be religious, or patriotic, or devoted lovers. However, we should also not let the appeal to these attributes be unchecked by our own reasoning.
Unlike the Pathos and the Ethos, our Logos is not as appealed to by rhetoricians. If we want to be logically appealed to, we have to go to a library. We have to read academic journals, encyclopediae, and textbooks. We hear logical appeals from teachers, professors and tutors. We rarely see movies that appeal to us intellectually. If we do, it is not for entertainment value, generally it is for intellectual development. The documentary is the Logos' response to the drama of the Pathos. However, as movie sales show, documentaries never do as well as the action movie or romance playing at the same time.
The reason why we are not appealed to logically by rhetoricians is simple: it is not in their realm to appeal to us logically. A professor I had once told my class that in the ancient world there were three ways to tell somebody something they didn't know. There was rhetoric, which was what was convincing, philosophy, which was demonstrating, and theology, which was revealing. As shown by this example, the Logos' realm is that of philosophy. Rhetoricians, as such, do not try to convince people with concrete facts. Otherwise they would likely be scientists, and not rhetoricians.
Theologically speaking, Logos is the most highly valued part of the soul. Theologians of times past and present seek to talk about God in an academic fashion. St Thomas Aquinas, patron saint of philosophers, theologians, students and universities, spent his entire life devoted to demonstrating how being a Christian makes sense. Professors of theology in universities world wide teach students how to be a believer in the most academic ways possible. They teach us how to confront a world that increasingly relies on science and Logos to refute faith. Priests, as well, are trained not only theologically, but also philosophically.
But the most well-known use for the term Logos in the theological world is for Jesus. The opening verse of the Gospel of John read thusly: "In the beginning was the Word (Logos). And the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Much theology has arisen from those few verses. In Mass, we call Jesus the Word made flesh. St Augustine told us that Jesus' relationship to the Father is that of the Logos. In this way, since God is pure action, and His action is brought about by His thought, then the Logos has been around since the beginning, and the Son has been with the Father from the beginning.
If we view this as the order of God, then we can see for ourselves that we should also make efforts to embrace our Logos over our Ethos and our Pathos. Furthermore, as God's Logos provides a way for all mankind to be saved, then perhaps it is our own Logos that will allow us to save humanity.
The word Theology was originally translated not as the study of God, but as speaking with God. Thus, the logy part was not originally seen as studying. Similarly, we might view other sciences and areas of academic inquiry as dialogues rather than as "studies." Of course, this is not a fail-proof system. We can't call Biology and Zoology speaking with life and speaking with animals, respectively. In these instances, it is much more appropriate to define them as the study of life, or the study of animals. So, once again, we see again that even though Logos is speaking, it is tied with studying.
Logos is the highest function of the soul. Intellectual movement, to Socrates, is the greatest ability our souls possess. Logos is what gets us out of sticky situations, it's what prevents us from making rash decisions, and it's what advances us as humans and as a society. The Logos should reign in the soul over the Ethos and the Pathos, much as Plato's philosopher rules the Republic, over the protectors and the workers.
This is not to say that we should completely block out Ethos and Pathos, but we should make efforts to regulate them. Logos by itself in the soul is similar to a computer; soulless, emotionless and cold. We should have emotions. We should feel joy, sorrow, love, euphoria, dysphoria, emnity and all other emotions that we feel. However, we cannot let fleeting feelings regulate us as people. We must be able to differentiate between the good and the bad emotions and let our intellect regulate them. We should also embrace our loyalties. We can be religious, or patriotic, or devoted lovers. However, we should also not let the appeal to these attributes be unchecked by our own reasoning.
Unlike the Pathos and the Ethos, our Logos is not as appealed to by rhetoricians. If we want to be logically appealed to, we have to go to a library. We have to read academic journals, encyclopediae, and textbooks. We hear logical appeals from teachers, professors and tutors. We rarely see movies that appeal to us intellectually. If we do, it is not for entertainment value, generally it is for intellectual development. The documentary is the Logos' response to the drama of the Pathos. However, as movie sales show, documentaries never do as well as the action movie or romance playing at the same time.
The reason why we are not appealed to logically by rhetoricians is simple: it is not in their realm to appeal to us logically. A professor I had once told my class that in the ancient world there were three ways to tell somebody something they didn't know. There was rhetoric, which was what was convincing, philosophy, which was demonstrating, and theology, which was revealing. As shown by this example, the Logos' realm is that of philosophy. Rhetoricians, as such, do not try to convince people with concrete facts. Otherwise they would likely be scientists, and not rhetoricians.
Theologically speaking, Logos is the most highly valued part of the soul. Theologians of times past and present seek to talk about God in an academic fashion. St Thomas Aquinas, patron saint of philosophers, theologians, students and universities, spent his entire life devoted to demonstrating how being a Christian makes sense. Professors of theology in universities world wide teach students how to be a believer in the most academic ways possible. They teach us how to confront a world that increasingly relies on science and Logos to refute faith. Priests, as well, are trained not only theologically, but also philosophically.
But the most well-known use for the term Logos in the theological world is for Jesus. The opening verse of the Gospel of John read thusly: "In the beginning was the Word (Logos). And the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Much theology has arisen from those few verses. In Mass, we call Jesus the Word made flesh. St Augustine told us that Jesus' relationship to the Father is that of the Logos. In this way, since God is pure action, and His action is brought about by His thought, then the Logos has been around since the beginning, and the Son has been with the Father from the beginning.
If we view this as the order of God, then we can see for ourselves that we should also make efforts to embrace our Logos over our Ethos and our Pathos. Furthermore, as God's Logos provides a way for all mankind to be saved, then perhaps it is our own Logos that will allow us to save humanity.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Blind Faith
My last real post was on the irrationality of atheism. I feel in fairness, I need to address blind faith as well.
The funny thing about faith is that true faith necessitates that all you can honestly state is "I believe X." Faith, as faith, is different than knowledge. And from a purely philosophical and psychological point of view, the concept of knowledge is even a bit shaky.
But before I delve too much into that, I think it is important to note that faith should not be blind. No one should ever take the word of their parents or teachers as the word of God. Faith is the kind of substance that continually needs to be tried. This is how theology evolves.
It is all very well and good to believe in something, but it is important to know what it is that you believe in, and why it is that you believe that. For this reason, theology has changed in every single century for the last two thousand years. And within the last century, when humanism presented its case before faith, many theologians stepped up to greet the challenge and the emphases of the twentieth century reflect this.
Also, it is important to have people to look to for faith. Augustine makes it clear that the authority that Christians look toward helps direct them and gets them through the more puzzling aspects of being a believer. Authorities show the way and answer difficult questions. However, in today's world, there are so many different authorities saying so many different things, that it is important to be aware of what they are actually saying.
The biggest problem that I do see in people's faith is that they often take faith itself as the authority. It seems that many people follow the mantra "Well, I believe it, so it must be so." This is one of the greatest follies to which we as believers can fall. Simple belief in something does not make it so. It makes it even less so if there is no evidence to reinforce one's beliefs. I might believe that little leprechauns are stealing my socks from the dryer, but unless I can offer a plausible explanation, or at least one that is not completely preposterous, then my faith has no merit. Belief in a god, however, is plausible, as illustrated by Aquinas' defense from Sufficient Reason, which states that if something is, then there must be a cause for it. The cause for our universe can be a god, especially the way that philosophers and theologians account for the creation.
A quick anecdote will illustrate my point about faith. Growing up Mormon, my friends and family always encouraged us to "develop" what they called "a testimony." Essentially, a Mormon's testimony is his specific set of beliefs, most of which have very specific properties to them, such as the belief that Joseph Smith was God's prophet, and most of which are stated as matters of fact. The way a Mormon will usually present his testimony is like this, "I know that X" where X is something like "Joseph Smith was a prophet," "The Book of Mormon is true" or "Jesus is God's only Son." None of these things are reasonable to know, the way that most people talk about knowing anything. I can neither vouch for Joseph Smith's conversations with God, nor can I verify the authenticity of the Book of Mormon or even Jesus' actual life. All of these things must be taken on faith. However, Mormons not only generally state these beliefs as facts, but they use them as arguments for their positions.
But they are not alone. There are several faiths which encourage strict adherence to faith and reject normal methods of questioning or investigating. These groups discourage me. These faiths make me depressed about the state of faith in America. If we blindly follow what our leaders say, no matter how horrific it truly is, then we are no better than many of the nonbelievers say that we are.
But, I do also believe that we need something to believe in. It is perfectly fine to believe that in the hereafter, there will be a glorious reward for those who live righteous lives. It is normal to hope for a greater future, or a justification of souls. However, we cannot allow this faith to cause us to lose track of what it really is that we believe in.
The funny thing about faith is that true faith necessitates that all you can honestly state is "I believe X." Faith, as faith, is different than knowledge. And from a purely philosophical and psychological point of view, the concept of knowledge is even a bit shaky.
But before I delve too much into that, I think it is important to note that faith should not be blind. No one should ever take the word of their parents or teachers as the word of God. Faith is the kind of substance that continually needs to be tried. This is how theology evolves.
It is all very well and good to believe in something, but it is important to know what it is that you believe in, and why it is that you believe that. For this reason, theology has changed in every single century for the last two thousand years. And within the last century, when humanism presented its case before faith, many theologians stepped up to greet the challenge and the emphases of the twentieth century reflect this.
Also, it is important to have people to look to for faith. Augustine makes it clear that the authority that Christians look toward helps direct them and gets them through the more puzzling aspects of being a believer. Authorities show the way and answer difficult questions. However, in today's world, there are so many different authorities saying so many different things, that it is important to be aware of what they are actually saying.
The biggest problem that I do see in people's faith is that they often take faith itself as the authority. It seems that many people follow the mantra "Well, I believe it, so it must be so." This is one of the greatest follies to which we as believers can fall. Simple belief in something does not make it so. It makes it even less so if there is no evidence to reinforce one's beliefs. I might believe that little leprechauns are stealing my socks from the dryer, but unless I can offer a plausible explanation, or at least one that is not completely preposterous, then my faith has no merit. Belief in a god, however, is plausible, as illustrated by Aquinas' defense from Sufficient Reason, which states that if something is, then there must be a cause for it. The cause for our universe can be a god, especially the way that philosophers and theologians account for the creation.
A quick anecdote will illustrate my point about faith. Growing up Mormon, my friends and family always encouraged us to "develop" what they called "a testimony." Essentially, a Mormon's testimony is his specific set of beliefs, most of which have very specific properties to them, such as the belief that Joseph Smith was God's prophet, and most of which are stated as matters of fact. The way a Mormon will usually present his testimony is like this, "I know that X" where X is something like "Joseph Smith was a prophet," "The Book of Mormon is true" or "Jesus is God's only Son." None of these things are reasonable to know, the way that most people talk about knowing anything. I can neither vouch for Joseph Smith's conversations with God, nor can I verify the authenticity of the Book of Mormon or even Jesus' actual life. All of these things must be taken on faith. However, Mormons not only generally state these beliefs as facts, but they use them as arguments for their positions.
But they are not alone. There are several faiths which encourage strict adherence to faith and reject normal methods of questioning or investigating. These groups discourage me. These faiths make me depressed about the state of faith in America. If we blindly follow what our leaders say, no matter how horrific it truly is, then we are no better than many of the nonbelievers say that we are.
But, I do also believe that we need something to believe in. It is perfectly fine to believe that in the hereafter, there will be a glorious reward for those who live righteous lives. It is normal to hope for a greater future, or a justification of souls. However, we cannot allow this faith to cause us to lose track of what it really is that we believe in.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Anima Aeterna
So the thought occurred to me that one thing that most monotheistic faiths lack is a sense of the whatever comes before this life.
Of course that comes from the simple fact that as being travelers on this journey we call life,we are far more concerned with where we're going than where we're coming from. However, faiths such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Mormonism all provide explanations of what has come before. Socrates provided an explanation, as well, as did Vergil in the Aeneid.
I have to wonder, then, why it is that Judaism, Christianity and Islam does not seem to put such emphasis on this facet of our faith.Truly, if we claim that the soul is eternal, per Aquinas, then we have to ask where we came from.
I suppose this is a good opportunity to examine the case for eternality. Does eternality mean an infinite amount of time on both sides? Is eternity more like a geometric line or a ray? Does something eternal have a beginning or has it always existed?
Suppose we say that something is eternal. Therefore, it necessarily has an infinite amount of existence. Thus, it will continue to exist forever and whether or not it was created seems irrelevent because it will always exist. However, if we say it will always exist, this is different than saying it does always exist. If something is created but will never cease to be created once it's created, then we can always measure how long something has been around. On the other hand, if something's existence goes back ad infinitum then we can never say how long it has been around.
What I'm trying to say is this: If everything that is has always existed in some sense, then our souls necessarily have always existed in some sense. But, if we believe that at some point everything was created, then our souls were created as well. Simply because Newtonian laws dictate that everything that is will always be in some form or another does not mean that it always has been.
Here's the conundrum: if our souls have not always been around, how can we be sure that they will always exist? And if they were not created at some point, how can we say that our God is all powerful?
Perhaps this is the reason why monotheism has never addressed this issue. Buddhists have no real concept of an all-powerful God, therefore omnipotence isn't an issue. Hindus have a group of gods that work in concert, but none of them are all powerful either. The gods of the Greeks and Romans were little more than super-powered human beings. And Mormons' concept of divinity rings like a combination of monotheism with the Olympian gods, by which method humans can become gods and God himself is limited in the heavens.
Thus, the idea of our souls existing since forever seems to be absent from those who believe in a god who has all power in the universe.
Of course that comes from the simple fact that as being travelers on this journey we call life,we are far more concerned with where we're going than where we're coming from. However, faiths such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Mormonism all provide explanations of what has come before. Socrates provided an explanation, as well, as did Vergil in the Aeneid.
I have to wonder, then, why it is that Judaism, Christianity and Islam does not seem to put such emphasis on this facet of our faith.Truly, if we claim that the soul is eternal, per Aquinas, then we have to ask where we came from.
I suppose this is a good opportunity to examine the case for eternality. Does eternality mean an infinite amount of time on both sides? Is eternity more like a geometric line or a ray? Does something eternal have a beginning or has it always existed?
Suppose we say that something is eternal. Therefore, it necessarily has an infinite amount of existence. Thus, it will continue to exist forever and whether or not it was created seems irrelevent because it will always exist. However, if we say it will always exist, this is different than saying it does always exist. If something is created but will never cease to be created once it's created, then we can always measure how long something has been around. On the other hand, if something's existence goes back ad infinitum then we can never say how long it has been around.
What I'm trying to say is this: If everything that is has always existed in some sense, then our souls necessarily have always existed in some sense. But, if we believe that at some point everything was created, then our souls were created as well. Simply because Newtonian laws dictate that everything that is will always be in some form or another does not mean that it always has been.
Here's the conundrum: if our souls have not always been around, how can we be sure that they will always exist? And if they were not created at some point, how can we say that our God is all powerful?
Perhaps this is the reason why monotheism has never addressed this issue. Buddhists have no real concept of an all-powerful God, therefore omnipotence isn't an issue. Hindus have a group of gods that work in concert, but none of them are all powerful either. The gods of the Greeks and Romans were little more than super-powered human beings. And Mormons' concept of divinity rings like a combination of monotheism with the Olympian gods, by which method humans can become gods and God himself is limited in the heavens.
Thus, the idea of our souls existing since forever seems to be absent from those who believe in a god who has all power in the universe.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Being a Christian in today's world
So I've realized that I write a lot about what it means to be Christian and how different it is from what we normally view as Christianity.
To be fair, it seems to me that most of the people who act Christian tend to be more of the atheistic brand or adhere to some other religion. Those who go by the tag of Christian seem far more Nietzschean to my view.
The question, then, is how are we to reconcile the two camps? With the name of Christians being tarnished right and left, it becomes difficult to maintain a place in this world that is not completely looked down on. We hear people in the scientific and intellectual world tarnishing the name of Christians and the God of our faith. In the world of entertainment, we are represented by self-serving, war-mongering celebreties that portray us to the world in a negative light.
The problem is that there are not enough intellectual Christians to provide sustained dialogue between the atheist scholars and the Christian scholars.
So it is our duty to make a point of engaging the scientific world. One does not have to be an atheist to be a biologist or theoretical physicist. Christianity can engage in intelligent debate about the origins of man or the universe. Evolution is not against God's nature.
In reality, the sad truth is that Christianity has, for a long time, been behind the scientific world. Galileo discovers helio-centrism and is anathema. Charles Darwin discovers biogenetic diversity and is shunned. We cannot be afraid of the scienitfic world. All that that does for us is turns the learned man away from our faith.
Christianity has the honor of having some of the most famous philosophers learned men in its midst. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm, Kierkegaard, Pascal, and others have all graced Christianity with their intelligence and skill. It is not incompatible to be Christian and a scholar.
So we need to take up the call to be scholars. We need to engage the scholastic world with substantial discussion instead of hurling insults and refusing rationality. We need to learn to be Christians in our contemporary world, not in years long past.
To be fair, it seems to me that most of the people who act Christian tend to be more of the atheistic brand or adhere to some other religion. Those who go by the tag of Christian seem far more Nietzschean to my view.
The question, then, is how are we to reconcile the two camps? With the name of Christians being tarnished right and left, it becomes difficult to maintain a place in this world that is not completely looked down on. We hear people in the scientific and intellectual world tarnishing the name of Christians and the God of our faith. In the world of entertainment, we are represented by self-serving, war-mongering celebreties that portray us to the world in a negative light.
The problem is that there are not enough intellectual Christians to provide sustained dialogue between the atheist scholars and the Christian scholars.
So it is our duty to make a point of engaging the scientific world. One does not have to be an atheist to be a biologist or theoretical physicist. Christianity can engage in intelligent debate about the origins of man or the universe. Evolution is not against God's nature.
In reality, the sad truth is that Christianity has, for a long time, been behind the scientific world. Galileo discovers helio-centrism and is anathema. Charles Darwin discovers biogenetic diversity and is shunned. We cannot be afraid of the scienitfic world. All that that does for us is turns the learned man away from our faith.
Christianity has the honor of having some of the most famous philosophers learned men in its midst. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm, Kierkegaard, Pascal, and others have all graced Christianity with their intelligence and skill. It is not incompatible to be Christian and a scholar.
So we need to take up the call to be scholars. We need to engage the scholastic world with substantial discussion instead of hurling insults and refusing rationality. We need to learn to be Christians in our contemporary world, not in years long past.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
fides contra rationem
I really need a better title than that. But I couldn't think of anything. This semester I am in a philosophy class centered on theological claims. A lot of what we have been learning and studying focuses on proofs for the existence of God.
I have a really hard time accepting the proofs given. It's not that I doubt the intellectual capacity of people like Anselm, Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Averroes, Avicenna, and others. It's more that I don't think that philosophy has any say in religious conviction. Yes, we can use the philosophy of Aristotle, Mills, Kant, or Nietzsche to tell us by what standards to live. Yes, we can use Plato, Nietzsche, Saint-Exupery or MacIntyre to tell us what we should esteem. But I don't think that the existence of God has any place in philosophy.
Yes, we can speak of religious things. We refer to "Christian virtues." We speak of "the way," being "disciples of Christ," and of our teleological value. But we can only discuss this in light of our belief, a belief which does not come from philosophy.
If God were provable, then faith, one of the three Christian virtues, would be null and void. If we could take Kant's model, or Aquinas' proofs, or Anselm's definition of God as a concrete way to show God's existence, then there would be no requirement for faith. How can we esteem faith, if faith isn't even necessary. How can we be Kierkegaard's knight of faith when there is no place for faith?
Long have theologians argued about the place of faith. St Paul tells us that we are saved through our faith in Christ. James responds that faith without works is dead. The argument gets taken up again in the Reformation period with figures such as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and the entire Roman Church.
So how can we say that we can prove God exists? Pascal only tells us that it's better statistically to believe in God. Most theologians tell us to have faith in God. Even those arguing about the proofs of God are only arguing that they can prove why it makes sense to believe in God. God is not provable. If God were, then there would be no struggle, no faith requirement or trials to overcome. If God is a logical deduction, there are no atheists.
Even so, God provides us with enough to make it reasonable to believe in God, and also reasonable not to. The beauties that surround us and are right in front of our eyes are seen by some to be infallible proof for God's love, and by others as the beauty of chaos. Our minds and bodies prove to some that God exists and to others that natural selection favors certain traits. Even our history and progress shows to some that God has been there, and to others that nature's laws are above all others.
I have a really hard time accepting the proofs given. It's not that I doubt the intellectual capacity of people like Anselm, Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Averroes, Avicenna, and others. It's more that I don't think that philosophy has any say in religious conviction. Yes, we can use the philosophy of Aristotle, Mills, Kant, or Nietzsche to tell us by what standards to live. Yes, we can use Plato, Nietzsche, Saint-Exupery or MacIntyre to tell us what we should esteem. But I don't think that the existence of God has any place in philosophy.
Yes, we can speak of religious things. We refer to "Christian virtues." We speak of "the way," being "disciples of Christ," and of our teleological value. But we can only discuss this in light of our belief, a belief which does not come from philosophy.
If God were provable, then faith, one of the three Christian virtues, would be null and void. If we could take Kant's model, or Aquinas' proofs, or Anselm's definition of God as a concrete way to show God's existence, then there would be no requirement for faith. How can we esteem faith, if faith isn't even necessary. How can we be Kierkegaard's knight of faith when there is no place for faith?
Long have theologians argued about the place of faith. St Paul tells us that we are saved through our faith in Christ. James responds that faith without works is dead. The argument gets taken up again in the Reformation period with figures such as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and the entire Roman Church.
So how can we say that we can prove God exists? Pascal only tells us that it's better statistically to believe in God. Most theologians tell us to have faith in God. Even those arguing about the proofs of God are only arguing that they can prove why it makes sense to believe in God. God is not provable. If God were, then there would be no struggle, no faith requirement or trials to overcome. If God is a logical deduction, there are no atheists.
Even so, God provides us with enough to make it reasonable to believe in God, and also reasonable not to. The beauties that surround us and are right in front of our eyes are seen by some to be infallible proof for God's love, and by others as the beauty of chaos. Our minds and bodies prove to some that God exists and to others that natural selection favors certain traits. Even our history and progress shows to some that God has been there, and to others that nature's laws are above all others.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Ex nihilo ad Omnium
Please excuse my Latin.
I was reminded earlier today of a key difference in Mormon theology and Catholic theology. That difference is the doctrine of "creation ex nihilo" or "creation out of nothing." What it basically means is that God created the entire universe from nothing.
Mormons believe that God "fashioned" the universe. He was more of a cosmic carpenter or watchmaker. Along with this doctrine comes the notion of divination and a procession of Gods (not to be confused with gods). For Mormons, there's a pseudo-doctrinal idea that God became God in such a way that mankind may also become God. This leads to a question of whether or not God had a God, and that God had a God.
However, St. Thomas Aquinas assures us that it is impossible for there to be an unending procession of necessary things (viz the Third Way). A necessary thing for Aquinas is something which is not "contingent," that is, generated and corrupted. God is neither generated nor corrupted. God is. "I am that I AM" He proclaims in Exodus to Moses. He is Aquinas' "first mover," that which cannot be moved by His own creations.
But what of creation then? Well, Genesis tells us that God "created" all things. Christians believe that God created all that is. The Big Bang theory suggests that everything that is exploded from nothingness. Is this the same? Perhaps it is. Nothing in the Big Bang theory suggests that there was no cause of the explosion. Perhaps God said, "let there be everything."
Then we come to the tricky business of creation of mankind. Evolutionary theory suggests that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor. Pope John Paul II allows for this, provided that humankind shares one original set of parents, an Adam and Eve, if you will.
But what about all the diversity in the world? We cannot hold to the assumption that in 6 thousand years (according to the Bible), the human race went from being 2 people of similar traits to all the different ethnicities to be found throughout the world. Furthermore, the Bible was not written in real time. The Torah was written about 1000 BC. At this point, everything written therein is orally handed down. So the question of the authenticity of the accounts comes into question (a topic which I hope to further discuss in later posts).
So, with this new information brought to light, what are we to think of humanity? Anselm, Athanasius, and almost every other theologian asserts that humankind was made in God's image and likeness. This is where I think our true question must be answered: If man is in God's image, how can we know this, and what does this say about evolution?
I was reminded earlier today of a key difference in Mormon theology and Catholic theology. That difference is the doctrine of "creation ex nihilo" or "creation out of nothing." What it basically means is that God created the entire universe from nothing.
Mormons believe that God "fashioned" the universe. He was more of a cosmic carpenter or watchmaker. Along with this doctrine comes the notion of divination and a procession of Gods (not to be confused with gods). For Mormons, there's a pseudo-doctrinal idea that God became God in such a way that mankind may also become God. This leads to a question of whether or not God had a God, and that God had a God.
However, St. Thomas Aquinas assures us that it is impossible for there to be an unending procession of necessary things (viz the Third Way). A necessary thing for Aquinas is something which is not "contingent," that is, generated and corrupted. God is neither generated nor corrupted. God is. "I am that I AM" He proclaims in Exodus to Moses. He is Aquinas' "first mover," that which cannot be moved by His own creations.
But what of creation then? Well, Genesis tells us that God "created" all things. Christians believe that God created all that is. The Big Bang theory suggests that everything that is exploded from nothingness. Is this the same? Perhaps it is. Nothing in the Big Bang theory suggests that there was no cause of the explosion. Perhaps God said, "let there be everything."
Then we come to the tricky business of creation of mankind. Evolutionary theory suggests that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor. Pope John Paul II allows for this, provided that humankind shares one original set of parents, an Adam and Eve, if you will.
But what about all the diversity in the world? We cannot hold to the assumption that in 6 thousand years (according to the Bible), the human race went from being 2 people of similar traits to all the different ethnicities to be found throughout the world. Furthermore, the Bible was not written in real time. The Torah was written about 1000 BC. At this point, everything written therein is orally handed down. So the question of the authenticity of the accounts comes into question (a topic which I hope to further discuss in later posts).
So, with this new information brought to light, what are we to think of humanity? Anselm, Athanasius, and almost every other theologian asserts that humankind was made in God's image and likeness. This is where I think our true question must be answered: If man is in God's image, how can we know this, and what does this say about evolution?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Abortion
I know, it's the dreaded A word. And I'm sure you are expecting a tirade against how evil it is and how it is an affront to all that is good and right in the world.
Sorry to disappoint.
The truth is, there's something faulty in the way that anti-abortion lobbyists lobby. One cannot attack abortion from a strictly Catholic standpoint, and here is why.
A lot of pro-life activists claim that abortion is "the murder of innocents" (not to be confused with innocence). There is one very large doctrinal problem here, and we have St. Augustine to thank for it.
First off, the issue of abortion is not about whether or not we are murdering babies. It gets turned into that by those arguing from a purely pathological standpoint (appealing to one's feelings=pathos). When we use terms like "murder" especially around something as cute as a baby, then it evokes strong emotions. But really, the issue of abortion is about two things: redemption and conception.
Conception is easy enough to understand. The argument is focused on when life begins--whether or not it starts with the unification of egg and sperm or sometime after. This is precisely why abortions are illegal in the third trimester. This is why infanticide is illegal. Proponents of abortion point out that there is something very different about an embryo and a real baby. Anti-abortionists point out that it is still living in a somewhat scientific way (imagine that, using science to back up theology (thanks Vatican I)).
Redemption is the question of letting natural consequences go as they should. This argument isn't heard as often, but once in awhile an pro-lifer will say something like, "Well, I don't support abortion except in cases of incest and rape" (viz official Mormon Church doctrine). This asks the question of whether or not somebody can be forgiven for their sin, or whether they must suffer the natural consequences (viz The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne).
But aside from these arguments, the question of innocence must come up. Calling unborn babies innocents is an entirely Protestant, even Zwinglian (most especially the Anabaptists) approach. From a Catholic approach, babies are not innocent. Thanks to St. Augustine, and later emphasized through the Council of Trent, the official Catholic Church states that babies are born into the world stained with the sin of Adam (original sin). This is why Catholics baptize their babies before anything can happen, to remove that sin and make the baby finally innocent. Thus we cannot argue that we are "murdering innocents."
Secondly, Thomas Aquinas can step into the picture and show us why and how Euthanasia and the death penalty are far bigger causes to take on than abortion. According to Aquinas' metaphysics, all things are made up of a combination of potential and action. That which does, has more action, and that which might possibly do is more potential. Rocks have more potential, and angels have more action. Human beings sit somewhere between animals (potential) and angels. While this is kind of hoaky, this goes to show that unborn baies are almost completely potential, as they haven't done anything yet. Thus, an elderly person, who has done a lot with his or her life, or a convict should therefore be more defended than a guilty, mostly potential entity.
So, if we're attacking abortion, let's not mince words. Why don't we flat out say that we prefer people to accept the consequences of their actions, or that we think the fetus is ethically alive?
Sorry to disappoint.
The truth is, there's something faulty in the way that anti-abortion lobbyists lobby. One cannot attack abortion from a strictly Catholic standpoint, and here is why.
A lot of pro-life activists claim that abortion is "the murder of innocents" (not to be confused with innocence). There is one very large doctrinal problem here, and we have St. Augustine to thank for it.
First off, the issue of abortion is not about whether or not we are murdering babies. It gets turned into that by those arguing from a purely pathological standpoint (appealing to one's feelings=pathos). When we use terms like "murder" especially around something as cute as a baby, then it evokes strong emotions. But really, the issue of abortion is about two things: redemption and conception.
Conception is easy enough to understand. The argument is focused on when life begins--whether or not it starts with the unification of egg and sperm or sometime after. This is precisely why abortions are illegal in the third trimester. This is why infanticide is illegal. Proponents of abortion point out that there is something very different about an embryo and a real baby. Anti-abortionists point out that it is still living in a somewhat scientific way (imagine that, using science to back up theology (thanks Vatican I)).
Redemption is the question of letting natural consequences go as they should. This argument isn't heard as often, but once in awhile an pro-lifer will say something like, "Well, I don't support abortion except in cases of incest and rape" (viz official Mormon Church doctrine). This asks the question of whether or not somebody can be forgiven for their sin, or whether they must suffer the natural consequences (viz The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne).
But aside from these arguments, the question of innocence must come up. Calling unborn babies innocents is an entirely Protestant, even Zwinglian (most especially the Anabaptists) approach. From a Catholic approach, babies are not innocent. Thanks to St. Augustine, and later emphasized through the Council of Trent, the official Catholic Church states that babies are born into the world stained with the sin of Adam (original sin). This is why Catholics baptize their babies before anything can happen, to remove that sin and make the baby finally innocent. Thus we cannot argue that we are "murdering innocents."
Secondly, Thomas Aquinas can step into the picture and show us why and how Euthanasia and the death penalty are far bigger causes to take on than abortion. According to Aquinas' metaphysics, all things are made up of a combination of potential and action. That which does, has more action, and that which might possibly do is more potential. Rocks have more potential, and angels have more action. Human beings sit somewhere between animals (potential) and angels. While this is kind of hoaky, this goes to show that unborn baies are almost completely potential, as they haven't done anything yet. Thus, an elderly person, who has done a lot with his or her life, or a convict should therefore be more defended than a guilty, mostly potential entity.
So, if we're attacking abortion, let's not mince words. Why don't we flat out say that we prefer people to accept the consequences of their actions, or that we think the fetus is ethically alive?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
