There are many
BIG questions in life like…
Why are we here?
What’s the meaning of life?
What’s the best way to live?
How can I have lasting happiness?
Are you saved?
I
would suggest that there is one question that acts as the mother of them all…
How do we know what’s true?
I recently
finished a book called "Ten Universal Principles; A Brief Philosophy of the Life Issues", by Fr. Robert J. Spitzer. I was immediately struck at how
the first three principals were very similar in concept to the problem solving methodology
we use where I work. I was surprised, but then again not so surprised, because
in the end coherent logic is coherent logic.
In problem
solving we want to know, “Why did it happen?” in regard to a certain object(s) or
system(s) with a deviation or multiple deviations. Other modes of thinking also
ask “why?” but go beyond objects and deviations. Disciplines like philosophy,
theology and metaphysics also ask “why?” and can begin to tackle a question
like “How do we know what’s true?”
Regardless of
the thinking discipline, some things are universal to any thinking process. The
first three principals are the “Principles of Reason” which underscore the
universality of rational thought.
The
Principle of Non-Contradiction (Plato & Aristotle)
Valid opinions or
theories have no internal contradictions.
If I said I was
a married bachelor and we were clear on the meaning of “married” and
“bachelor”, then a married bachelor is an internal contradiction. There would
be no need for you to investigate my life to see if my claim was true or false.
It would be the same situation if I said I can draw a square shaped circle. If
we are clear on the definition of these shapes, then we know that drawing a
square circle is not possible. No further probing required.
An awareness
of contradictions can help problem solvers to hone in on potential causes
without incongruities and move towards a valid solution. Suppose you came home
one dark and stormy night and noticed your front porch light was out. Since the
light is on every other night, you think the storm has caused a power outage.
As you walk into the house you see the digital clock on the microwave oven lit
up with the correct time as usual. Unless there is some other power supply for
the microwave, maintaining your theory of a power outage in the house would be
contradictory.
In terms of
faith & reason, you’ll find no contradictions in Catholic teaching. Once
objections and over-generalizations about the faith are separated are clarified,
what might appear to be a contradiction is actually not. I won’t attempt to
list the many misconceptions about Catholicism here, but let’s ponder a couple
of things.
The development
of doctrine can create the illusion of contradiction. If the Truth does not
change, why has the Catholic Church changed or added to its teaching over the
centuries. Imagine a dimly lit room; you can barely make out the shape of the
room and the faint outline of some furniture. If we turn up the lights, we see
things more clearly, even the color of things, the paintings on the wall and
all the knickknacks on the coffee table and end tables. The room did not
change, we just see it better. It’s the same idea with the development of
doctrine. The Truth has not changed, it is better understood.
Do the four
different gospel accounts of the life and times of Jesus and his miracles contradict
each other? Consider the resurrection as written in each gospel. All four have
a different take with different details. Is this evidence that the resurrection
is a farce? I think it’s exactly the opposite; it’s evidence of its
authenticity. From my experience, whenever I hear different people describe the
same complex and puzzling situation, mixed in with some emotional baggage, the
gist of the problem is the same after some deliberate questioning, but many of
the details are different. In fact, I would be surprised and even suspicious if
each account was exactly same.
No one can be
forced to accept Catholic dogmas, but they cannot be validly rejected via the principle
of non-contradiction. This is not so for at least one other non-Catholic
Christian dogma. Anyone who accepts the dogma of Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) runs
into the wall of contradiction and most likely does not realize it. If one believes that all matters of
Christian doctrine and practice should be based on the Bible alone, then one
accepts a contradiction. The problem is that this doctrine is not found in the
Bible (it’s unbiblical), so you need some other non-biblical source of authority
to declare it. If this wasn’t clear enough, the Bible itself points us to
another authority. In 1Timothy 3:15 the pillar and foundation of Truth is said
to be the Church, not scripture itself.
In a way
contradictions are beyond not true; they are meaningless. They cannot be,
therefore they have no “being”, and therefore they are no-thing; they are
nothing… and nothing is impossible with God.
 |
Don't think about this pic too long.
It'll drive you nuts. |
The
Principle of Objective Evidence (Plato & Aristotle)
Non-arbitrary opinions
or theories are based upon publicly verifiable evidence.
Data accessible
only to you is subjective. Data accessible to everyone is objective. This is
not to say that data only accessible to you is not true; it's just not good
objective evidence. When problem solving, this concept can be embodied in
something called a problem specification. Without going into all the excruciating
details, a problem specification is a formal way of sorting relevant data from
irrelevant data, documenting the specific facts and making them
"visible" to everyone. Grade schools teach this basic principle to children
via the activity of “Show & Tell”. Telling is not good enough; we must
learn to “show” and show in a public way.
This may be
where the materialist or atheist thinks he has the deist cornered. There is no publicly
verifiable evidence for the existence of God, right? People always “tell” and
never “show”. Even if we exclude evidence via the historical method, witnesses of
events past and present and those today who witness with their very lives, there
are still many proofs for the existence of what Catholics would call God; they
are also publicly verifiable and the thinking is made “visible”. A good and
rather lengthy five-step proof can be found in another book by Fr. Spitzer
called "New Proofs for the Existence of God". The beginning of the proof can be
found at THIS LINK. The reality of these proofs does not mean that all who read and
understand them will have faith in God, but they are publicly verifiable
evidence nonetheless.
As a side note
to any Christian or Deist, if you were to say “God told me ABC” or “The Holy
Spirit taught me XYZ”, it may be perfectly true, but it is not good objective
evidence since it is data only accessible to you.
By the way,
if you ever wondered why it takes the Catholic Church so long to declare a
saint a saint, it is because they are sorting relevant data from irrelevant
day, looking for publicly verifiable evidence and making the thinking “visible”.
These things take time.
The
Principle of Complete Explanation (Socrates, Plato & Aristotle)
The best opinion or
theory is the one that explains the most data.
When a number
of possible causes of a problem have
been identified, problem solvers are challenged to identify the best opinion or
theory as the most probable cause by looking at any assumptions that have been
made and documented. The most probable cause will have the fewest number of
assumptions, the most reasonable assumptions and the overall simplest
assumptions.
The world
view of materialism does not explain the most important “data” found in the
human condition. Truth, Beauty, Goodness, Morality, Love, Justice, Purpose,
etc. cannot be reduced down to only physical elements of matter and energy if
they are to have any meaning. Everything about life cannot be explained by merely
seeking biological opportunities or avoiding biological dangers without some
serious gaps. To avoid these data gaps some will simply wave the evolutionary magic
wand. For example, how can evolution explain homosexuality in terms of a
species surviving and reproducing? I was once told that having a certain
homosexual percentage in the population prevents overbreeding, and thus helps
the species as a whole. So there you have it, and how can anyone argue with
such a firm wave of the evolutionary magic wand.
Consider too
the data from design. No matter how much evidence of purposeful design is found
in our finely tuned universe and planet, the data is explained away by “dumb
luck”. Additionally, the origins of life cannot be explained by the survival of
the fittest, because in beginning there was nothing alive to survive to be the
fittest. The random jostling of matter and energy will have to do as the explanation.
Chance is used to explain away any data which points to deliberate design, but
how well does randomness really explain all the data as compared to an
intelligent cause?
Non-Catholic
Christians are in the unenviable situation of trying to explain a lack of
Christian data from shortly after the Book of Acts was written to around the
time of the Protestant Reformation; about 1,500 years. Did the Holy Spirit
abandon the Church for 1,500 years and then finally reemerge in the hearts of Martin
Luther, John Calvin and others to guide them to all Truth? If so, the reformers
and their descendants would surely agree on doctrine, and all non-Catholic
Christians would follow their teachings today with no further divisions needed,
right?
Or perhaps the real Church
went underground to hide from the oppressive Catholic Church and was finally
able to resurface after 1,500 years. If we are to follow the previous principle
of reason, we should ask, “Where is the publicly verifiable evidence for the
existence of this 1,500 year underground church?” What if we claimed that the Church
Christ founded has had a lot of problems over the centuries, but has never
stopped being the one universal and apostolic Church on earth and it is called
the Catholic Church today? Which explanation of Christian historical data has
the fewest number of assumptions, the most reasonable assumptions and the
overall simplest assumptions?
In his book,
Fr. Spitzer recounts how, when he taught philosophy to university students, he
would ask, “Are all opinions equally valid?” Most students would answer yes, in
the spirit of fairness and equality. Then Fr. Spitzer would use principles,
like the three listed above, to demonstrate how some opinions are more valid
than others. Catholicism is an all-encompassing worldview that can be examined
by using classic, rational thought, and it all stands to reason. If God is the
source of reason, then the reality of God and his Church will not violate the
basic principles of reason.
