The Non-Negotiables

In any conversation, especially when two people disagree, the minimal goal is for each person to understand the other's position.  In an argument, this is impossible when the two parties do not share sufficient common ground.

By this I mean they do not agree on terms or on concepts.  For example, if two people do not agree with the premise "all wood is hard" they will argue about the lifetime of a wood-frame house.  If they are both unaware they disagree on this foundational concept, they will never come to agreement at all.  However, if they instead address their common ground issue and come to an agreement on that, then they can revisit their original disagreement and argue upon common ground.

In the comment boxes on this blog, it has emerged that those who disagree with some of the content of our posts actually do not share some of the common assumptions we do.

Here are three which I consider "non-negotiable":

1. The Law of Non-Contradiction (aka the Law of Contradiction)
2. Something cannot come from nothing
3. Every effect has a cause

For example, a recent conversation held up quantum physics as disproving axiom 3.  While there is a great deal of confusion here (an event is cited whose effect actually occurs prior in time to its cause seems to disprove this axiom), it seems clear that there exists a cause without which the effect would not occur (would not have occurred).  This article describes a finding where the order of events are in a superposition whereby the order is not known until the collapse of the wave function.  Again, however, it is clear that the event is NOT uncaused.



Quantum physics is also cited in the case of virtual particles where they come into and out of existence from nothing.  This is amusing, since the "nothing" is actually a quantum vacuum of non-zero energy.  This does not qualify as "nothing".  David Albert's quote puts this very well:

The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.

Both Ben and I assume these axioms to be true in our writing and do not believe that arguments that assume one or more to be false will be fruitful.  Please excuse us if we refer you here if we find ourselves in a conversation of that type.

Thanks!

Aquinas Regarding Almighty...Again

Aquinas Regarding Almighty was posted in the early days of this blog, but I thought I’d bring it up again because…

1. It’s Aquinas’s feast day.

2. We have more followers now.

3. It’s just cool stuff! Joe and I never get tired of this sort of thing. What sort of thing? Thinking things and connecting things…because thinking means connecting things.

 

The post relates to the premise that God creates out of nothing. Now, some ridiculous discussions can be had about what really is “nothing”. Some say there is no such thing as “nothing”, which is true if there is always God (being itself), but to avoid sidetracks to nowhere and to bring some additional clarity, it might be better to start by saying that God requires no other condition, or set of conditions to exist in order to create. He is the one reality that requires no other reality.

 

 

Aquinas Regarding Almighty

St Thomas Aquinas falls into that category of people I like to call “scary-smart”. Reading his work can result in a peculiar experience, at least for me. I may read something translated to English well using perfect grammar, and understand the meaning of each individual word, yet somehow not understand what was said. Does Aquinas write nonsense or am I not the sharpest knife in the theological drawer? The latter is more reasonable.  Here is a case in point from the Compendium to Summa Theologica chp 70:

 

“The more remote a potency is from act, the greater must be the power that reduces it to act.”

 

With help from other Catholic thinkers that explain Aquinas and my blog buddy Joe, I can make sense of such a sentence. Rephrasing in more common language, I think it may read something like this:

 

The less one has to make something potentially happen, the more power one needs to make it actually happen. But what does this mean when contemplating ultimate things?

 

Analogies are most helpful………

Suppose you have a new car you wish to start. All that is needed is the key and the ability to turn the ignition; not very difficult. Now take away the gasoline. You now need the ability to get some gasoline, put in it the car and then start it. More resources are needed. In a sense you might say you need more “power”. Now take away the battery as well. You now need to get a battery, install it, get gasoline in the car, and then start it. You’ll need even more “power”.

 

The more that is taken away from the car, the more power needed to make it actually work. Taking away things to infinity becomes nothingness. Adding power to infinity becomes “all powerful”. If left with nothing to work with (no-thing), no matter, no energy, no force, no time, no space (no outside condition), the only way you could make a car first exist and then start it is if you had infinite power. To create from nothing then, requires infinite power.

St. Thomas Aquinas

1225 - 1274

All of this to truly understand one word in our Creed. The word “Almighty” is not used simply because it sounds lofty and majestic. It describes, from logical necessity, the kind of power needed to bridge an infinite gap between potency and act.

Thank you St. Thomas Aquinas; thou art scary-smart!
 

Why Attend Mass?

Perhaps you have a friend or relative that rarely attends Mass, but did attend at Christmas. Perhaps you asked, or at least thought, “Why you don’t come next week and the week after?” If you were so bold as to invite them back as a kind of New Year’s resolution, you may have received a polite, “we’ll see” in response, which is often translated as “of course not”.

 

If you persist, you’ll eventually enter a realm the separates man from beast, the realm of the intellect, the desire to know “why”. A Catholic that “believes” to some extent will eventually ask why, even if only asking the question internally. Attending Mass is nice, but why necessary? God is everywhere, why can’t I be left alone to worship in my own way? Replying back that it is an obligation or a precept of the Church tends not to satisfy. Mentioning the violation of the first and third commandments may get more attention, but can still be seen as “finger wagging”. You’d do better noting that if the first is followed, abiding to the third will come naturally.

Another tactic came about for me and my wife as we became involved with the marriage ministry at our parish. One of the things we do is to meet with engaged couples in our home to review the results of their FOCCUS questionnaire. It covers many practical topics of compatibility including finances, communication, extended family issues, sexuality issues, etc. It’s a tool to help couples work through issues before marriage.

Of course, there are religious topics as well and the topics of marriage covenant and religion can be quite awkward when speaking with interfaith couples or catholic couples in which one or both are nominal in their faith. It’s not uncommon for us to dialog with couples in which one or both rarely attend Mass (if ever), and yet they still see it as important to be married in the Catholic Church (thankfully).

The following three areas of reasoning help to satisfy their intellect, at least to some extent. Since what you know will influence what you do, these thoughts just might help you tip the scales in getting someone to Mass. As Pope Francis is actively showing us, we need to meet people where they are at without denying the reality of where they are.

In Terms of Relationship:

It’s especially easy to draw this analogy when dealing with couples in love. Imagine you were married and you spent about one hour at Christmas and one hour at Easter with your spouse with no other interaction throughout the year. What kind of relationship would that be? Suppose it was one hour per month? That’s better, but still lacking. Even if it were once per week for about one hour, we might consider it a working relationship, albeit a weak one.

God desires a close relationship with us and all close relationships require time and commitment. How would you feel if your beloved thought that one hour per week with you is too much trouble?

In Terms of Reality:

The above might be easily refuted by saying, “I pray in my own way all the time. No need to sit in a church building. The man upstairs and I have an understanding.” This is when the imagination must be put firmly in its place with a reality check.

We can think of all reality as being made up of two parts; physical realities and spiritual realities. Think of your physical life. To be a physically functioning human being there are times when you must function alone, like getting dressed for the day, or perhaps you sometimes work alone or maybe you live alone. There are also times when you must function with others, like with family, co-workers, community members, etc. We’re social beings; it’s how God made us.

This parallels our spiritual life. To be a spiritually functioning human being there are times when you must function alone, like personal prayer and spiritual study. There are also times when you must function with others, like community worship (Catholics call this Mass). Once again, we’re social beings; it’s how God made us.

Last, but certainly not least…In Terms of the Eucharist:

This goes beyond community worship; it’s the source and summit of the faith. If the body and blood of Christ is given to us a spiritual food, it stands to reason that this is the most intimate thing God can possibly give to a human being still on earth.

So, the God of the universe wants this extreme level of intimacy with us and our response is…

- Too tried

Thou shalt NOT
have better things to do!

- Too busy

- No time

- Don’t feel like it

- I have better things to do

Think of how offensive this apathetic attitude must be to God? In this context, it seems more than appropriate to refer to skipping Mass as “grave matter”.

If the truth about relationships, the social & spiritual nature of man and the Eucharist really sink in, one’s perspective about attending Mass can change from a pessimistic, "I've got to do this?" to an enthusiastic, "I get to do this!” and it may even turn out that once per week is simply not enough!

“If we attend Mass well, surely we are likely to think about our Lord during the rest of the day, wanting to be always in his presence, ready to work as he worked and love as he loved”
- Josemaria Escriva, Christ is Passing by

Dark Wonder

The word “wonder” seems to have a positive or joyful connotation. A baby discovers his or her hands or feet for the first time and is delighted to find out that he or she can control them (to some extent) and waves them about joyfully.  An older child may experience wonder watching Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz open the farm house door to see the colorful land of Oz for the first time, while the baby that just discovered hands & feet may see the same thing and be filled with wonder just because Dorothy was able to open the door.

Adults will express wonder at other things like the innocence of a child, the beauty of nature, the good deeds of others or just the miracle of living. We are but dust that can be blown away at any instant, and yet we are here and conscious of our very existence! This kind of wonder seems to be one of those uniquely human traits not seen in animals to any extent (sort of like religion). At least I don’t know of any evidence that shows an animal has looked up to the stars, observed the behavior of some other animal, or pondered its own existence and wondered “how?” or “why?”

INTERESTING SIDE NOTE:

When my oldest daughter was four she was obsessed with The Wizard of Oz, watching it over and over. One day I told her I had to go to Kansas for work and she asked me a sincere and serious question. The question was, “Will there be color?” (Kansas is always in black & white in the movie). I stood in wonder of her perfectly objective question.

There is another kind of wonder however, that might be call “dark wonder”. How is it that one can fly a plane full of innocent people into a building full of innocent people on an otherwise beautiful September morning? How is it that a person could walk into a school in Newtown CT around Christmas time in 2012 and randomly shoot children? How is it that a tornado can fall out of the sky in Washington, IL one Sunday afternoon in November of 2013 and carry people off to their death? What awaits us in 2014? We may wonder with a dark wonder.

Whatever we wonder about, we should take heart that wonder leads us to “seek”, opens our hearts and makes an answer possible for us; wonder leads to knowledge. Since the mind is made for infinite truth, it tends to move in that direction if there is nothing to stop it, so it is possible for any dark wonder you may have experienced in 2013 to become a wonder of light. Darkness always becomes a kind of light whenever it helps you to see.

Once a soul basks in the light of God’s presence (beatific vision), he or she may come to know that the death of a person may have been a rescue of some great evil had they lived. A painful romantic breakup may have been salvation from an unhappy marriage. The loss of wealth may have meant saving your soul from eternal loss. If you were blind and then you got your sight back, even the ugliest things would be appreciated.

Catholics may wonder how, after all the graces we receive from God in the Eucharist, reconciliation and other sacraments, not to mention all the actual graces from everyday blessings, can we still be so faulty and faltering? When we feel depressed by our faults and the faults of others, let us marvel at the Saints who were all just sinners that never gave up trying to be better. Let us be filled with wonder and praise that our God can forgive us so much.  

The following reflection is certainly appropriate for the wonder of the Epiphany and the New Year ahead of us.

Star of Wonder

“O Emmanuel, may the assurance of your unfailing presence be for me the source of unending peace. May I never fear my weakness, my inadequacy, or my imperfection.  Rather, as I gaze with faith, hope and love upon your incarnate littleness, may I love my own littleness, for God is with us. Endow my life with a holy wonder that leads me ever more deeply into the Mystery of the Redemption and the meaning of my vocation and destiny.” – Fr. Peter John Cameron

The St. Nicholas Cantata

St. Nicholas

270 - 343 AD

Recently, my eleven year old son was fortunate enough to participate in the children’s choir for a presentation of the St. Nicholas Cantata written by Benjamin Britten (text by Eric Crozier).

Cantata means "sung" and is derived from the Italian word "cantare”; it’s a vocal composition with an instrumental accompaniment, typically in several movements, often involving a choir. This particular performance involved a full orchestra, adult choir, children’s choir and a tenor.

This was not billed as a Christmas or Holiday concert and it was not sponsored by any church or other religious organization. It came from a state college/community music organization (DuPage Chorale) preforming in the theater of a private secular liberal arts college (North Central College).

I found it both curious and uplifting to see a secular musical ensemble loudly and shamelessly singing praises to God, and all of it happening in a secular environment.

I wanted to share some of the insightful music lyrics from the part of St. Nicholas; they read like biblical psalms. I don’t know if these are actual quotes from the saint, but I thought I’d share them nonetheless, since they seem as true today as they must have been in his time.

“Poor man! I found him solitary, racked

By doubt: born, bred, doomed to die

In everlasting fear of everlasting death:

The foolish toy of time, the darling of decay—

Hopeless, faithless, defying God.”

“O God! We are all weak sinful, foolish men.

We pray from fear and from necessity at death, in sickness or

private loss. Without the prick of fear our conscience sleeps,

forgetful of Thy Grace.

Help us, O God! to see more clearly.

Tame our stubborn hearts.

Teach us to ask for less and offer more in gratitude to Thee.

Pity our simplicity, for we are truly pitiable in Thy sight.”

Here is something to remind us of the gift of Christ at Christmas…

“O man! The world is set for you as for a king!

Paradise is yours in loveliness.

The stars shine down for you, for you the angels sing,

Yet you prefer your wilderness.

You hug the rack of self,

Embrace the lash of sin,

Pour your treasures out to bribe distress.

You build your temples fair without and foul within:

You cultivate your wilderness.

Yet Christ is yours. Yours!

For you He lived and died.”

God in mercy gave His son to bless you all

To bring you life…”

If all this wasn't amazing enough for a secular event, the congregation was encouraged to sing along with the following hymn…and they did!

“All people that on earth do dwell

Sing to the Lord with cheerful voice!

Him serve with fear

His praise forth tell,

come ye before Him and rejoice.

O enter then His gates with praise

Approach with joy His courts unto,

Praise, laud and bless His name always,

For it is seemly so to do.

For why? The Lord our God is good:

His mercy is for ever sure;

His truth at all times firmly stood,

And shall from age to age endure. Amen.”

The whole thing brightened my holiday season; hope it adds to yours as well, and Merry Christmas from “all of us” at Two Catholic Men and a Blog!

The Cosmos Knows Nothing

Last month, many of the daily scripture readings were from the book of Daniel. One verse in particular caught my attention because, even today, we spend much of our energy in pursuit of things which have no intelligence.

 

“you have rebelled against the Lord of heaven…and you praised the gods of silver and gold, bronze and iron, wood and stone, that neither see nor hear nor have intelligence. But the God in whose hand is your very breath and the whole course of your life, you did not glorify.” (Daniel 5:23)

Some proudly go along living their lives with the premise that we come from nothing, are going back to nothing, all for the purpose of nothing. More simply put, we come from nothing intelligent for no intended purpose. Since intention implies intelligence, our being must be unplanned. It is curious that many of these same people are fascinated by science, and science fiction, that are full of speculations about making contact with intelligent cosmic dwellers – if only our instruments could be delicate enough or set in the right direction. We are reluctant to accept our loneliness in the universe.

Foolish humans!!!

Many atheists and agnostics can gladly agree that the known universe began some 13.7 billion years ago and they will also generally agree with the premise that every effect must have a cause, so if there was a big-bang there must also be a “big-banger”. They may even go so far as to agree that the big banger (whatever caused the big bang) must be something outside the known universe. Further still, they may consent to the metaphysical logic that demands the necessity of a “first cause”, sometimes called an uncaused cause, or prime mover, or unconditioned reality.

No matter how far causes are traced back, and no matter how much consensus there is, the consensus seems to crumble at the point of “intelligence”. For some, the universe needs to be “dumbly” there in order for it to suit their worldview. The cosmos is certainly intelligible, but there must be no intelligence behind it all. The first cause, whatever it is, can be mysterious, powerful, beautiful and mind-boggling, but it MUST also be completely mindless.

I find it superbly ironic that an intelligent discussion will diverge at the point of “intelligence”. C.S. Lewis said it intelligently (pun intended) in his book The Case for Christianity:

"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."

Mindlessness does not beget mindfulness.The cosmos as cosmos knows nothing. There is a first intelligence, and it does not come from a mindless universe.

The Immaculate Deception?

Here is some Catholic trivia for the feast of the Immaculate Conception. What saint wrote that the Mary was conceived WITH original sin? The answer is St. Thomas Aquinas. I did a double-take myself when I first stumbled upon it in the Compendium to Suma Theologica, chapter 224:

 “Likewise, if Mary had been conceived without original sin, she would not have had to be redeemed by Christ, and so Christ would not be the universal redeemer of men, which detracts from His dignity. Accordingly we must hold that she was conceived with original sin, but was cleansed from it in some special way.”

Could this be the beginning of a new scandal in the Church that has its roots way back in the 13th century? Is the Immaculate Conception really the Immaculate Deception? Should Catholics be mortified, crushed and shaken to their very core of their faith? No, not at all; why not? Because when someone is declared a saint, it does not mean everything he or she did, said or wrote is infallible.

How then, can we know true Christian dogma? What is the foundation for truth? Where do we turn? What do we do? We can start with the Bible, but the Bible will direct us elsewhere; it directs us to “…God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” (1Timothy 3:15 is a verse every Catholic should memorize)

The Immaculate Conception was dogmatically defined by “God’s Household” in 1854 and is one of those “thorny” teachings that non-Catholic Christians object to, and I’ll bet some Catholics object to it too. This is the teaching that Mary was spared from original sin by God. An analogy is that we all fell in a mud puddle, and God cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary’s case, God saved her by not letting her enter the mud puddle to begin with. Some may say this teaching is not only unbiblical, but actually contradicts the Word of God. After all, the Bible is clear, “all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God;” (Romans 3:23), but what is clarity without perspective, and what is perspective without context.

We can't really be clear about something until it is understood in its proper context. Suppose someone said they have beheld the most beautiful eyes on a woman and then proceeded to show you her eyes in a box, would you be entranced by their beauty or be horrified? Her eyes are beautiful in the proper context of her face, not in a box.

Another way to better understand a thing is to compare it to other similar things in a similar context. Consider temperature in degrees kelvin. If I told you it is 250°K outside, what would you wear to go out? You may have no clue unless you had a relevant basis of comparison. 250°K is about -23°C, or about -10°F; not exactly flip-flop weather.

250°K

To what can we compare Romans 3:23 to get a better understanding?

• How about this verse? “In Adam all have died…” (1 Cor. 15:22). In the Old Testament Enoch and Elijah did not die; they were taken up to heaven. Does this mean Paul contradicts scripture? No, this shows how “all” does not mean “every single one.” Also, if Christ never sinned, once again “all” does not really mean all. It reminds me of other generalizations like, “Everybody loves pizza”. I bet you can find at least one human on earth that does not like pizza.

• Paul also says that “death came to all men, inasmuch as all sinned” in Romans 5:12. Again, this proves that “all” does not mean “every single one” because death did not spread to all men as we have already seen with Enoch and Elijah.

• Here’s a doozy; “as it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one;’” (Romans 3:10). Some may use this verse to show how all human beings are sinful including Mary, but the basis for the verse comes from Psalm 14:3 or Psalm 53:4. These psalms are not talking about all people being sinful. They note that among the wicked, all are sinful.

• What about the words of Jesus himself? In Luke 18:19 Jesus says, “No one is good but God alone.” But then in Matthew 12:35, Jesus also says “A good person brings forth good…” So Jesus says no one is good but God, and then calls another person good. Is Jesus also contracting himself? I think not.

How do we know what’s true? The saints, as they lived on earth, were fallible humans just like you and I. The Bible alone leads to confusion alone (30,000 different Christian denominations & counting). Conscience alone leads to relativism alone. It is the spirit of truth that guides us to all truth (see John 16:13), but we cannot know the stages of guidance. Whatever the case or whatever the stage, remember to stick with God’s Household, which is the Church of the living God, and have a happy feast day!

You're kinda lost without it...