What Would It Take to Convince You?

The last Reason Rally was held June 4, 2016. Maybe the novelty has worn off because I can’t find a date for a 2017 Rally. Perhaps it will be every four years, or perhaps "reason" has left this Nation. In any case, the upcoming anniversary got me thinking more about reason vs. atheism. I rarely go on YouTube, but I decided to go ahead and browse some videos of atheists/agnostics debating believers about the existence of God and also conversing with each other, such as this debate between Richard Dawkins and Cardinal George Pell:

And this conversation between Richard Dawkins and Matt Dillahunty:

Since I have some experience conversing (civilly) with atheist/agnostics on this blog and other forums, much of what I heard was not new. As a case in point, I noticed an underlying premise in the videos that I have also noticed in personal conversations. There is normally a fundamental and possibly subconscious premise of “knowing better” about certain things.

For example, if there really was a God who wanted to save us from sin, he surely would have come up with a better plan than becoming a man and then sacrificing himself to himself. If I know better, then I know that a real God would have come up with a plan I can agree with or at least find sensible. It’s the same type of thing with the Old Testament. Why would God first reveal himself to only the Jews (or the ancestors of the Jews)? Why not all people at once? Again, if I know better, then I know a real God would have revealed himself to the entire world and not just a chosen group of people. I suppose—in their minds—this would have made things simpler?

It’s a circular argument…

➤ If it is senseless to me, then it cannot be true

➤ It is not true because I think it is senseless

Something that was new to me was the question “What would it take to convince you that God exists?” There was mention of very clear empirical and sensory evidence that might convince them, like a giant Jesus descending from the clouds for all to see, but for the most part the answer was “nothing”. An answer met with enthusiastic applause from a sympathetic audience in at least one of the videos.

Evidence is another interesting topic in and of itself. Some atheist/agnostics I’ve conversed with came off as self-proclaimed authorities of evidence. Only empirical/scientific data was valid evidence for them. Data from metaphysics, philosophy, witness testimony, inferences and other modes of reasoning were generally dismissed. This poses a problem when debating something immaterial (non-physical). Do inalienable human rights exist? Do you have the right to life? Do you have the right to choose? How do we prove these things? Empirically? If we truly want to be objective, should we look at ALL the data or only the data we like best?
See 20 non-empirical proofs for the existence of God from the fabulous Dr. Peter Kreeft

It’s contradictory and smacks of Scientism…

➤ Using empirical data is the only valid way to prove something

➤ The above is a philosophical statement that cannot be proven empirically

Now, back to the question “What would it take to convince you that God exists?” Atheist Matt Dillahunty argued that God would know exactly what it would take to convince him, but God has not done so. Dillahunty then concludes two possibilities (2^nd video above, 45:50)…

➤ Either God does not exist or…

➤ God does not want him to know that he exists

…and for either case it is of no concern to him

I thought of a third option. Could it be that God would want you to form your own conclusions? Perhaps God respects your mind and does not want to force himself onto your thinking? Maybe there is a fourth option too. There is a God and there is a reason, but we don’t know it. Of course, this conflicts with the premise of “knowing better” as mention above. If I know better, then I know there can only be two possibilities.

What would it take to convince you?

In the spirit of fairness, I pondered the opposite question. What would it take to convince you that God does NOT exist? I had to think about that question for a while. Since Catholics (and others) say God is the ground of all being or being itself(1), we cannot answer the question the way one would answer, “What would it take to convince you that Zeus does not exist?” God is not “one being among many” like Zeus would be and every other being is. It's like asking “What would it take to convince you that being itself does not exist?” or perhaps like asking “What would it take to convince you that existence does not exist?”

In this sense, the question poses a contradiction and contradictions are essentially meaningless. What would it take to convince you that I can draw a square shaped circle? What would it take to convince you that I’m a married bachelor? A square shaped circle or a married bachelor cannot exist in reality. In a similar, but opposite way I do not see how the “ground of all being” cannot be or how existence cannot exist.

So as we approach the anniversary of maybe the last Reason Rally, and based on the logic above and the Catholic understanding of “being”, I would have to "reason" that God cannot…not exist.

I’ll end this post with a dangerous picture that can cause brain damage. Study it briefly…but then look away!!!

1. Fr. Robert Barron, Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of Faith (New York: Image Books, 2011) p. 61-64.

Human Rights on a Buisness Card?

Not too long ago I was working on a project with an imaging company out of Belgium for my job. One of the engineers from Belgium handed me his business card and I noticed this on the back…

It’s the complete Universal Declaration of Human Rights from the United Nations printed in ultra-fine type, strategically placed there in order to show-off their dry toner electrophotography technology. The U.S. based employees had the entire U.S. Constitution printed on the back of their business cards.

The opening line of the preamble in the UN declaration says, “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world…”

I was reminded of how people all over the world will universally accept certain immaterial or spiritual realities just like a “religion”. The UN declaration is certainly compatible with Catholic teaching about the dignity of the human person, but does it not also act as a secular “dogma” for many materialist, atheists and agnostics? Declaring an inherent dignity with equal and inalienable rights for all people is an extraordinary claim, and shouldn’t extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

Another word for inalienable is unchallengeable and another word for inherent is in-born or in-built, but I think I can indeed challenge these claims. Should all people really be treated with equal dignity and with inalienable rights or is this just delusional thinking? What would make these rights "inherent" and what would make them "inalienable"? How can we prove things from a materialist point of view? We need empirical evidence, right? We need the Scientific Method.  What if I can show empirically how some humans are superior to others in all the ways science can measure? Would this not be clear objective evidence that some people are superior to others, which in turn proves the UN declaration to be wrong?

If your neighbor is stronger and faster than you in every measurable way, has a higher IQ in every kind of IQ test, has more assets, more friends, more people who say they love and respect him or her, how could anyone possibly say he or she is not a superior human being? What evidence would you have to prove otherwise? So if we can prove empirically that we are not equal, what is the rational basis for saying all people should be treated equally with inalienable rights if not grounded in some other, immaterial or spiritual reality?

For example, the presidential election season has been gearing up for a while now. If your neighbor makes more money, pays more taxes and has a higher IQ than you, shouldn’t that persons vote in an election count more than your vote does? Does this not make perfect sense based on the empirical evidence? If not, what evidence would you show to prove differently? Think about it...

It seems, deep down, we know that spiritual realities like inalienable rights exist outside of human opinion or empirical data, but many have trouble admitting it because it points to so much more. We also sense that we need to live harmoniously with these spiritual realities in order to be happy, so it is vital that we all strive to know what they really are and where they really come from.

One of my all-time favorite quotes is in order…

"I believe in God as I believe the sun had risen, not because I can see it, but because by way of it, I can see everything else."

– C.S. Lewis

 

The Mother of ALL Questions

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.

The War on Terror vs. The War on Women

It’s interesting to note that those who think the term “war on terror” is politically incorrect seem to be very comfortable with the term “war on women”.

The war on terror should be called “overseas contingency operation”, but the war on women, happening right here at home, is a real war and The Catholic Church is a top aggressor. How dare they not help pay for the contraception of others; to help them deface their natural & healthy fertility!? How dare the Church want legal protection for every human life!? Have you ever heard of such madness!? While this travesty is happening in the U.S, there are some actually worried about a few extremists in the Middle East who get carried away sometimes.  If we could be a little nicer to them, I’m sure they would lighten-up so we could focus more on the real war happening in our own backyard.

 

In case you can’t tell, I’m being sarcastic. What would a real war on women look like? Consider a scenario where men kill innocent women and call it an “honor killing” or a land where men will relieve a woman of her nose with a knife if she removes her veil in public. Now that is a war on women if I ever heard of one.

Is the Catholic Church an enemy of women or did the Catholic Church actually begin woman’s liberation? In a book called How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, by Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Ph.D., we read about some interesting things that may not be taught in our public schools (or Catholic schools for that matter).

Ø  After the promiscuity of the ancient Romans, the early Church taught that intimate relations were only for husband and wife restoring dignity to women and marriage in general.

Ø  The Church also sanctified marriage elevating it to the level of a sacrament and prohibited divorce. This was a huge benefit to the women of the ancient world. Men could not leave their wives with nothing to run off and marry another woman.

Ø  Adultery, according to the Church was not confined to only a wife’s infidelity, as the ancient world so often had it. The men were held equally accountable.

Ø  The Catholic Church helped women gain autonomy. Women were allowed to form self-governing communities. Where in history were women able to run their own schools, convents, colleges, hospitals and orphanages outside Catholicism?

 

INTERESTING SIDE NOTE:

So numerous were the women joining the Church in the early centuries, the Romans thought Christianity was a religion for women.

 

As mentioned before on this blog, every problem has a cause and an effect and it is important to know which is which. Do we really understand the cause of the problem or are we only fixated on the effects? A root-cause of many societal problems is a misunderstanding of the word “freedom”. The supposed war on woman is about people thinking rights are being taken away and taking away rights would be akin to losing freedom, but if we understand true freedom we understand this: Freedom is NOT being able to do what we want; freedom is being able to do what we ought.

Fight for true freedom

The Logic of Bullying

In today's polarized political climate, I offer some observations on hypocrisy.

---

It seems that it is okay to engage in spewing poisonous rhetoric regarding the conservative stance on gay "marriage."   Childish personal attacks and  oh-so-witty and hip "arguments" are rampant.


















After bullying them with such wit, they cry with shared sympathy for someone who has been bullied saying, "Don't you know it's cruel to belittle and demean someone else?"

---

They scream with horror that the religious right is imposing their version of morality on them, crying "who are you to tell us how to live?!"

And in the next breath, they will explain how THEY know what to do and that everyone ought to do what they say is right.

---

They will say "be yourself, who cares how you look to others?"

And then hold up those who do exactly that and proceed to mock them for how silly they look.

---

They will sneer at conservative believers who respect their own leaders.

Then they will practically worship those who think like they themselves do.

---

They will tell you that some people have no will in the matter of practicing homosexuality since they are born that way.

Every person looks out at the night sky, or the mountains, or the sea in awe with an innate belief in something more, certain that there is more to the universe than what can be seen.

Yet they are told that there is in fact nothing more; and they should fight this instinct to believe.  You have a choice, just suppress it.  You are not an animal at the mercy of your instincts.


Find purpose despite the fact that your life is a meaningless accident and so there logically can be no purpose.

---

This one-sided freedom to mock, to return hate with hate is not how Christians are to behave.  We are to bring reason, clarity and kindness to the conversation.  We are to be a light, a light that both lifts the darkness of ignorance and is a beacon to lead all people to the truth.  That truth is, after all, what we all are seeking.

One thing at a time?

This past week, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF) issued a document ordering a supervised renewal of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR).

Since then it has been volley after volley at the bishops with accusations and comments ranging from "after the sexual abuse crisis, where's your moral authority?" to "an all-male hierarchy are again telling women what to do."

What I found the most interesting is the concept where, since there is a sexual abuse crisis going on, the Church is not allowed to work on anything else.  I think this is not a logical nor reasonable approach.

I often see this in secular politics.  "It's the economy, stupid!"  So then government leaders cannot work on any other problems until this is worked out?  Health care has to wait?  Transportation infrastructure has to wait?  HHS Mandate has to wait?  Obviously not.  A government, like a person, can have several things going on at the same time.  I am sure each person reading this has.

Is it simply a red herring?  Is it a distraction to stop the Church's progress on one front because someone doesn't like it?  I don't know.  Perhaps.

Be that as it may, I'd like to point out another "either/or" occurrence within the LCWR situation.  The CDF has pointed out that not enough attention is being paid to doctrinal matters within the Conference.  Media reports were that the sisters were somehow spending too much time on feeding the poor and caring for the sick.  Cries of "what would Jesus do?" and  "the bishops have it wrong" arose.  On and on.

Again, why is it an either/or situation?  In one's life, in your business, in your government, isn't it expected that, in the pursuit of a goal, many different courses have to be pursued simultaneously?  Of course it is.  Yet the women religious are seen by the media as "one trick ponies."  As if they are only able to do one thing at a time.  However, isn't it clear that when one thing is pursued exclusively, balance is sacrificed?

Spending all of one's time reading doctrine on why we should serve poor, and then NOT serving the poor is out of balance.   Conversely, serving the poor without understanding why we should, may achieve a goal, but is that at the expense of another, just-as-important goal?  An outside observation can sometimes be the most perceptive and helpful.

Recall that the CDF is correcting a group who professes to BE Catholic.  To be Catholic, one must both believe all that the Catholic Church believes and teaches, and then one is to go and do likewise.  Why is this assessment not well within the Church's purview?  Of course it is.  Why the sexist rhetoric?  This is not a male vs. female false dichotomy, it is the Church helping the Church.

Why else is spiritual direction so well-advised for those trying to grow in spirituality?  That's exactly what I see here.

Hate the war, love the warrior

I saw Rosie O'Donnell on Windy City Live yesterday morning.  She is gay and has 4 adopted children.  One has chosen to go into the military.  She is well-known to be anti-war, so the host asked her if she had a problem with her son choosing the military.

She said that she is not "anti-war" but "anti-unnecessary war" and that while she is opposed to killing, she supports the troops that serve in the military.

It struck me as the same reasonable logic we use about sinners in general and homosexuals in particular.  Hate the sin, but love the sinner.  She uses the same argument for her son and the military but, I suspect, would take offense if it were applied to her as a homosexual.

I thought, "what a bunch of mental gymnastics she has to go through to hate war but love warriors."

Analogies

In ideological discourse, it is often true that, to make one’s point, an analogy is employed.  For example, one might want to show a comparison between smoking and drinking.  Smoking is currently illegal in Chicago in enclosed public places and places of business.  One might want to wish to assert that drinking also be likewise prohibited.  One might then show by way of analogy that smoking and drinking are “alike” in some way, that they share some common attributes to support this assertion.  Let’s say that they wish to point out that both are drugs, both change behavior and both adversely affect people around them.  (All three of those things would have to be supported by the proponent of the analogy.)  The argument could then be a “good” one if the analogy/comparison between smoked tobacco and alcohol were “strong” and then that those particular attributes are the ones that caused smoking tobacco to become (and remain) illegal.  I would say more about how to build an effective analogy, but for the sake of brevity I will save that for perhaps another time.

What makes for a good analogy?  Some would say “if the similarities between the things being compared are major and the differences only minor, then it is a strong analogy.” and vice versa.  While that is a good first-pass, I have concluded that that is too weak of a test.  It only begs the question, what is a major and minor difference?  

I would refine this just a bit.  Analogies are not simple comparisons of objects or ideas.  Analogies are comparisons along one or more dimensions of comparison.  This is similar to comparing mountains to roads.  How can you make that comparison?  Roads are flat and mountains are high.  But wait, if you compare the height of a mountain to the length of a road, there may be a basis for comparison.  We do speak about a mountain being thousands of meters high and about roads that are thousands of meters long.  In THAT dimension, there is some basis for comparison.  Someone may interject that mountains and roads are so different in some OTHER dimension that the analogy is a poor (or weak) one.  

In that I would agree and in that ONLY would I make that judgment.  An analogy is a good one ONLY insofar as ALL of the relevant dimensions of comparison are good.  However, if irrelevant dimensions are not good, the analogy is still valid.  It may become more persuasive if irrelevant dimensions are good, but that’s all.

I have recently been part of discussions where an analogy was disparaged for a different reason.  The analogy in play was that of the recent HHS Mandate and Bishop Lori’s parable of the Kosher Deli.  In this discussion, the analogy was dismissed because it was considered insulting that the health of women was compared (in the parable) to a ham sandwich.  The merits of the comparison along the relevant dimension was not an issue so much as along another, irrelevant, dimension.  I say “irrelevant” in that the closeness of the comparison was not necessary to make the point at issue.  This would be to say that the mountain and road analogy is invalid because mountains are aesthetic and roads are mundane, or conversely that roads are useful and mountains are not.  

Analogies are not used to compare the same things, but comparable things.  The subjective (or objective) value of the objects compared has no real bearing on the value of the analogy.  It may be a good analogy despite any personal distaste of the analogous objects used.

This “ham sandwich” caused the discussion to derail.   

I tried to simplify the analogy by using a simpler metaphor that reduced the dimensions of comparison.  Suppose, I said, that the government says that your way of arranging your furniture (at home) is "wrong" and that some other arrangement is better and now if you don't comply because you prefer it your way, is that imposing YOUR arrangement on someone else?

I was pointing out that the issue at hand was not “women’s health” (so called) but religious liberty.  The responses were:

• Furniture has nothing in common with a woman's productive organs. A ham sandwich has nothing in common either.
• You have to understand/agree that comparing a woman's reproductive organ/right to furniture or the right to rearrange furniture is offensive? That analogy trivializes and degrades women and reproduction in general, don't you think? The *logic* behind the analogy might be similar, but it's just not comparable.

The problem is, it is precisely comparable because “furniture” is a non-controversial object. I chose it deliberately.  It is not a comparison between “furniture placement” and “contraception” but between “furniture placement” and “freedom to practice the tenets of a church.”  

My response was:

• However the analogy is not that of women's reproductive rights to furniture, but that of the church's free expression of its tenets to furniture. If anything you are worried that the church's tenets are more important than furniture. Thank you!

Unfortunately, my interlocutors were not convinced.  

So, while it is really very frustrating to take the time and effort to create good, powerful analogies and have them dismissed out of hand because someone says “That’s not the same at all!” when it clearly is, I would encourage you keep on fighting for clear language, for logical and reasonable arguments that help people to reach the truth.  The Truth is the highest goal of all language and Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

All Statements are False!

If the title of this post is true, it must also be false since it too is a statement. It is a self-contained contradiction. It fails a basic rule of logic called the principle of non-contradiction. The only way to reconcile it logically would be to say, “All statements are false except this one.” From here we would need to explore and question the premises and sources for the exception. The point of this post is not to play word games, but to help us think through the things we believe in.

Let’s look at some more…..

Ø  A Square Circle: This is fairly simple to understand.  It is not possible to have a geometric shape that fits the definition of both a square and a circle at the same time.

Ø  An Achieved Unachievable:  Also simple. If you achieved it, it cannot be unachievable.

Ø  All Truth is Relative:  We’ll need to think harder now. For this statement to be true it must also be something relative, which by definition cannot be universally true.

Ø  Truth is Unknowable: Is this statement true? How can we know for sure if truth is unknowable?

Ø  Nothing is True:  Very similar to the title of this post; if true, it must also be false.

Ø  The Bible Alone is True (Sola Scriptura): A contraction arises because “Bible Alone” is not found in the Bible. We need to go to some source outside the Bible to get it. It is unbiblical as well as illogical. Additionally, we find scripture like 1Timothy 3:15, where the pillar & foundation of truth is said to be The Church, not scripture itself.

Here’s one on Papal Infallibility just for fun…..

Ø  No person can be “infallible”: If true, no person could declare this “infallibly”.

Self-contained contractions are also used as amateur attempts to mock the existence of God. For example, “Can God make a four sided triangle?” or “Can God make a weight so heavy that He cannot lift it?” These kinds of things are meaningless. In a certain sense they are nothing…………. and nothing is impossible with God!!

WARNING: Contemplating the photo below can lead to insanity. It’s really nothing. Just let it go.

Pro-Life or Social Justice?

I have been struck lately by the perceived dichotomy among Catholics to be either "pro-life" Catholics or "social justice" Catholics.  I believe this comes from the traditional political conservative and liberal extremes.  Hence, conservative Catholics define themselves primarily as pro-life and place social justice in a secondary position "because if you are not alive, all the other rights don't matter."  Liberal Catholics are "social justice" activists because Jesus and a vast array of saints worked for social justice, and therefore place their pro-life views in a secondary position, perhaps because the poor and oppressed are here now and unborn babies aren't..

Catholic teaching, however, embraces both of those positions in a typical "both/and" fashion, so politically, we are forced to choose a majority party and swallow the wrongs of that party in order to achieve the rights.  This has the unfortunate (planned?) effect of splitting Catholics into separate, opposing camps.

Denying the right to life does indeed undermine the US Declaration of Independence's affirmation of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which places Life in the primary position.  All other rights are useless if your life can be taken away by law.  Therefore the inherent right to life is foundational.  By any definition, however, social justice assumes the right to life.  Social justice activists would never assert that the lives of the poor and oppressed should not be protected!  Looked at that way, protecting life can be seen as a fight for the equality of all, born and unborn, therefore it is also social justice.  The dichotomy, then, is a false one and all Catholics should embrace both pro-life and social justice teachings and, better, fight for the rights of all people!

When will the irrationality of professing equality for all, while protecting some but not others, end?