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.

Imprimatur Granted!

Good news! My book, Faith with Good Reason, recently received an imprimatur (or permission to publish) from our local bishop. A book imprimatur in the Catholic Church is not an endorsement, but an acceptance or guarantee that something is of a good standard, free of any moral or doctrinal error. I'll be working with the publisher to have the proper verbiage printed in the book.

Comment from the reviewing theologian…

"Excellent work! I really enjoyed the book. You have a gift for explaining ancient teaching with modern lingo and examples that lose none of the depth of the teaching."

I'll now have more confidence proposing the book and concept to Catholic organizations, book sellers, schools, etc. The concept itself is age-old in terms of Faith & Reason, but I added what I feel is a unique twist that relates our Catholic faith to elements of analytical problem solving and decision making.

Problem solving seeks to answer the question “Why did it happen?” Decision making seeks to answer “What should we do?” This relates strongly to how we think (the intellect) and what we do (the will). Why do people firmly believe things they can’t prove? For example, does the Earth really revolve around the Sun? Have you seen it? Have you measured it? Or do you firmly believe it because it’s what other people told you?

Since what we think ultimately directs what we do, it's imperative that we study what we think and why we think it. Faith with Good Reason attempts to do just that and to do it for what is mentioned in the Catholic Creed, which is no less than…“all things visible and invisible”.

Please enjoy Faith with Good Reason now available at all these on-line book sellers:

Barnes and Noble

Amazon Books

Books a Million

Chegg Books

Powell's Bookstore

on Climate Change

I thought I’d look at the topic of Climate Change through the lens of the problem solving methodology we use where I work.  Whatever you think about Climate Change, you might agree that people tend to first form a conclusion and then look for data to support it…and, of course, explain away or ignore any data that doesn’t support it. Why is that? Politically speaking, if we can definitively tie Climate Change to human activity (CO2 emissions), it’s a perfect opportunity for a power grab—to control a whole lot of human activity. On the other hand, refuting the aforementioned has the opposite effect if one wants to limit government involvement in human activity.

Before a conclusion can be reached for a problem, a hypothesis must be reasoned. Before a hypothesis can be reasoned, relevant data must be gathered & sorted. Before relevant data is sorted, irrelevant data must be weeded out. Before any data is gathered, sorted or weeded, we must know if there is really any problem to begin with. Before we can decide if there is really any problem to begin with, the situation must be made clear. Before a situation can be made clear any ambiguities and over-generalizations must be dealt with.

Beginning at the beginning, we can see that the term “Climate Change” is ambiguous because “change” can mean too many different things to too many different people. I went to a NASA website for clarification on what is changing. I found these:

• See levels are rising
• Ice sheets are shrinking
• Arctic sea ice is declining
• Glaciers are retreating
• Snow cover is decreasing
• Oceans are acidifying
• Extreme weather events are increasing
• The Earth and oceans are warming (Global Warming)

Whatta mess! Looking at one thing at a time, we should look at the most serious concern first, which would be the concern with the biggest current and future impact.  I’ll go forward with the premise that Global Warming is the highest priority concern on the list above because it could conceivably be causing most of the other things on the list.

If my superiors at work were to ask our group to look into the Global Warming situation, we would first look at something called “The Should” and also something called “The Actual”. For this case, “The Actual” would be the current average global temperature assuming we can get a reliable measurement. “The Should” would be the Earth’s “normal” average temperature range…the way it should be. What would be the upper limit of that range and what would be the lower limit? I can tell you that a huge difficulty we’d run into right away is defining “The Should”.

But why not just look at the rise in CO2 since that is the presumed main cause of the warming? We could, but we’d invariably be back to the same questions about the Earth’s temperature. What “Should” is good? I work for a large manufacturer of imaging products and we’ll define “The Should” for a product or system based on historical manufacturing records and control limits and/or established industry standards among other things. There are no such standards for the Earth’s average temperature range that I know of, but we can look at history.

Let’s suppose we have about 200 years of accurate global temperature data. My guess is that it is much less than 200 years because of the many years with no satellite temperature data from space, but we’ll go with it. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, but I’d say the climate 4.5 billion years ago is irrelevant data for humans living today. Let’s go back an amount of time in which the first mammals were happily living on Earth, breathing clean air and drinking clean water. Mammals go back about 200 million years. Keep in mind that 200 million years is only 4% of the Earth’s lifetime, so it’s a relatively short period of time to look at, but we’ll go with it. 200 years of temperature data in 200 million years would represent .0001% of the time.

To put this in context, the Dow Jones Industrial average (DJIA) has been around for about 120 years. .0001% of 120 years is about 63 minutes. Suppose that something very bad were to happen in the world on the next trading day causing the DJIA to dive 1000 points from 1:00PM to 2:03PM. At 2:04PM, should we conclude a long term financial disaster and an urgent need for more industry regulation? I’d say no.

For even more context, consider that 0001% of ten years is about 5.3 minutes. Suppose you walk into a ten year old home for the very first time with a family inside going about their business and you begin measuring the temperature. You note a warming trend of about 1°C after about 5.3 minutes and announce a domestic warming crisis and begin to regulate the families’ activity. Seems like hysteria to me without more data.

In either the case of the family home or the DJIA, if you were to declare a crisis and an urgent need for regulation you’d likely be on the receiving end of some blank stares.

This does not mean there should be no concern for Global Warming. In my profession I would need to report that there is not enough information to define “The Should”, so we would likely move this issue away from a problem analysis and into a decision analysis. Problem analysis focuses on the question “Why did it happen?” while decision analysis focuses on the question “What should we do?”

A good decision in this arena is above my pay grade. But… before a decision can be reached, options must be reasoned. Before options are reasoned, relevant data must be gathered & sorted for each option. Before relevant data is gathered & sorted for each option, the decision objectives must be clear.  Before objectives can be made clear, we need to clarify the purpose. Before we can clarify the purpose, we need to know what we are trying to do.

Whatever the decision, let’s be aware of two opposing extremes…

#1 Nature Worship

The view that nature is “perfect” just the way it is acts as a kind of secular “dogma”. With this as a base premise, we can see the logic that concludes the following…any unnatural interference or manipulation of nature for the benefit of man is a deprivation of nature’s perfection, and a good definition of evil is just that—a deprivation of perfection.1 Therefore, defending anything in nature against man is intrinsically “good” and promoting man’s industrialization and expansion is intrinsically “evil”.

#2 Nature’s Neglect

Beware of any ideology that says man can and should interfere and manipulate nature anyway we see fit. God wants us to take care of the temporary dwelling place he gave us. “The Lord God then took the man and settled him in the Garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.” (Gen 2:15) So if we are to be good stewards of all the gifts God gives us, including the Earth, should we not be trustworthy stewards?  Of course we should! “Now it is of course required of stewards that they be found trustworthy.” (1 Cor 4:2)

1. St. Thomas Aquinas, Aquinas’s Shorter Summa (Manchester: Sophia Institute Press, 2002), p. 125.

I Think...Therefore I Do

I’ve been speaking at a few parishes within my home diocese of Joliet, IL about my new book, Faith with Good Reason. During the talks, a general theme has come up which is quite simple in concept, but perhaps sometimes forgotten; it’s the fact that what we think ultimately directs what we do.

Many might be familiar with the tragic philosophy that says, “I think, therefore I am”. This makes the reality of our being dependent upon our thinking; it also bodes very well for a narcissistic society. With this as a base premise, one could see how believing in “yourself” is the most important thing in the universe to believe in. It also explains how bad things can happen in democracies in which the souls of the citizens are ruled by their own desires.

St. Augustine said something that sounds similar, but might as well come from the other side of the universe; “I believe, therefore I speak.”1 Perhaps St. Augustine got this from St. Paul who wrote, “Since, then, we have the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, ‘I believed, therefore I spoke,’ we too believe and therefore speak” (2 Cor 4:13). Both saints would acknowledge that their ability to proclaim Truth ultimately comes from something outside of themselves…and that something is what we call “God”.

If God is Truth itself, then “I think, therefore I do” may be more accurate words to live by if put in the context of the human soul. Our intellect thinks and our will does. Our will reaches for what our intellect has understood.

 

Consider the importance of “thinking & doing” in the following non-theological example: 2

• A World Series bat and ball signed by some famous Chicago Cubs costs $1500.
• The bat costs $1000 more than the ball.
• How much does the ball cost?

Let’s go forward with the thinking that says the ball must be $500. Now suppose an individual offers you the same ball for $400 and you think, “Good deal! I can save a hundred bucks!” If you were to pay the $400 you would actually be losing $150 because the ball is only $250!

Breaking the problem down step-by-step, we can see the reality:

                    The bat and ball cost $1500:      Bat + Ball = $1500

  The bat costs $1000 more than the ball:      Bat = Ball + $1000

     We now express the problem like this:      (Ball + $1000) + Ball = $1500

                How much does the ball cost?:      ($250 + $1000) + $250 = $1500

So the ball is $250 and the bat is $1250 for a grand total of $1500. Why is this important? Because what we think directs what we do. If we are thinking wrongly (like thinking the ball is $500), then we will be doing wrongly (like taking a bad deal).

Some of this logic can spill over into the notion of “Love the sinner, but hate the sin”. This is an important idea because we know we can separate an inclination we have from what we do about it. I am a sinner, but it is not necessary that I sin. To internalize this and make it real I need to understand what sin is and why it’s bad for me. If I were an alcoholic it would not be necessary that I drink, but again, to internalize this and make it real I would need to understand what alcohol is and why it’s bad for me. Loving the sinner, but hating the sin also frees us to love our enemies, since we are able to separate the two.

But what if we go forward with the thinking that says…

1. Who we are is what we do
2. Our inclinations define who we are

If this is true, then our actions are as integral to who we are as our skin color or our gender. With this mentality it’s easy to see why those who dissent from Catholic teaching in areas of human sexually (the topic of almost all dissent) might hate the phrase “Love the sinner, but hate the sin”.

For example, if some are inclined toward same-sex attraction, that’s who they are—and who they are and what they do cannot be separated, right? In other words, if you are gay, you should be gay. It’s an immutable fact. Go out and start dating; try different things with different partners. See what you like and what you don’t. Be who you are! Furthermore, if anyone hates what you are doing, they must also hate you personally since the two naturally go together. By the way, the exact same thinking can apply to opposite-sex attraction in the context of fornication. Go out and start dating; try different things with different partners. See what you like and what you don’t. Be who you are.

If we are thinking wrongly, then we will be doing wrongly! If God is Truth, then objective Truth should be the object of our intellect, which will in turn direct the will. If love is an act of the will, then to love or discern something we need to know it. The primacy of the intellect is important in order to act and love properly.

“The origin of all deviant practice is deviant thought. The knowing why it is deviant is a function of mind based on a standard of reason. It is the steady ‘knowing why’ that, before anything else, we are missing.” 3

1. Saint Augustine, Confessions (New York: Barns & Noble Books, 2007), p. 5.
2. Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011), p. 44.
3. James V. Schall, S.J., Catholic World Report [Website], “Catholics and the Present Confusion”, (9 January 2017), Site address: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5337/catholics_and_the_present_confusion.aspx

Decision 2016 - How Well Do You Make Decisions?

Imagine you had to make the following two decisions simultaneously (and you had no moral objection to gambling).

Decision #1:

Choice A: Sure gain of $240

Choice B: 25% chance to gain $1000 and 75% chance to gain nothing

Decision #2:

Choice C: Sure loss of $750

Choice D: 75% chance to lose $1000 and 25% chance to lose nothing

If you are like most people, you’d probably choose A and then D. No one in their right mind would pick C under any circumstances, right? Without a doctorate in statistics, but with some slow and effortful thinking, we can reason through the following if we focus on “the big picture”…

What do the following decisions taken together really mean?

Choice A and D = 25% chance to win $240 and 75% chance to lose $760

Choice B and C = 25% chance to win $250 and 75% chance to lose $750

(If you doubt it, go back and study it for a while)

Including choice C (a sure loss of $750) with choice B is a better gamble.1

I know...it's hard to believe.

The above is an example of a situation that is easily under analyzed by the average person, but over analyzing can lead to bad decisions as well. I think the current presidential election is an example of something currently being over analyzed. With all the talk of tax returns, an pneumonia and even the current president’s origin of birth, we easily get lost in the arcane details. How can we look at the big picture of a complex situation without be sidetracked by all the obscure and often irrelevant data?

The decisions about gambling shown above can be looked at objectively; decisions about elections get much more subjective, but here’s a way to look at it using a simplified version of a process we use where I work called Decision Analysis—except that it’s done in terms of Faith and Reason. First, some clarity on what’s most important…

-       What is important?

-       Reality is important.

-       What is Catholicism?

-       A universal way of seeing reality; a way of seeing in which we can best respond to the world around us.

Now, what are the specific ways in which government acts or has acted to undermine this reality (policy or law contrary to the Catholic faith)? What are the trends?

Please Note: What follows is just an example. You can make your own list of issues and follow each step using your own input, but be specific. Things like “Life Issues”, “Social Justice”, “Religious Liberty” and even "Temperament" are too general.

Step 1: List specific issues (as many as you want)

• Euthanasia
• Abortion
• Torture
• Marriage definition
• Unjust war
• HSS Mandate

Step 2: Think of the current impact of each issue and its potential trend

Issue	Impact
Euthanasia	Legal in 4 states, trend increasing
Abortion	>1 million babies killed per year (U.S.) and continuing unabated
Torture	Currently no reports of the gov. torturing people. Those in favor could reinstate it
Marriage Definition	Adds to sexual confusion/sin. Discrimination increasing for those holding a traditional marriage view
Unjust War	Dealing with world-wide aftermath. Those in favor could start a new war
HSS Mandate	Law suits taking time & money. Catholic Institutions closing or being punished. Higher cost to government to fill the gap.

Step 3: Find the most serious issue and give it a 10 (there can be more than one 10). Compare others to it and assign numbered weights by comparing to the 10. Remember that this is only an example.

Issue	Impact	Weight
Euthanasia	Legal in 4 states, trend increasing	7
Abortion	>1 million babies killed per year (U.S.) and continuing unabated	10
Torture	Currently no reports of the gov. torturing people. Those in favor could reinstate it	3
Marriage Definition	Adds to sexual confusion/sin. Discrimination increasing for those holding a traditional marriage view	8
Unjust War	Dealing with world-wide aftermath. Those in favor could start a new war	6
HSS Mandate	Law suits taking time & money. Catholic Institutions forced to close or be punished. Higher cost to government to fill the gap.	7

Step 4: Compare candidates. Score the best candidate for each issue with a 10. Note that 10 does not mean “perfect” and there can be more than one 10. Score remaining candidates (0–10) relative to the 10. Multiply score x weight and add the weighted scores.

Issue	Weight	Democrat	Republican	Libertarian	Green
Euthanasia	7	6 6x7=42	10 10x7=70	2 2x7=14	5 5x7=35
Abortion	10	2 2x10=20	10 10x10=100	6 6x10=60	4 4x10=40
Torture	3	10 10x3=30	0 0x3=0	9 9x3=27	10 10x3=30
Marriage Definition	8	2 2x8=16	10 10x8=80	5 5x8=40	2 2x8=16
Unjust War	6	7 7x6=42	2 2x6=12	10 10x6=60	7 7x6=42
HSS Mandate	7	5 5x7=35	8 8x7=56	10 10x7=70	4 4x7=28
	Weighted Score	185	318	271	191

Please Note: At this point in the election cycle, carefully analyzing a third party candidate is like analyzing a fantasy…interesting, but basically a waste of time.

Step 5: Asses risk. Look at the candidate with the highest weighted score and ask, “If he/she was elected what could go wrong?” Are we willing to accept the risk(s) to gain the benefit of this choice? If yes, pick it. If not, repeat for the next best candidate.

Now, this is all very interesting, but let’s not kid ourselves; people won’t do this. Thinking is very hard and we are very lazy, so we make quick decisions based on intuition like choosing A and D in the gambling example above.

I try not to make decisions based solely on intuition, but I will make a prediction. I predict the Republican running for president will lose and at about the same margin as the 2012 election (332 to 206 electoral votes). But Donald Trump and Mitt Romney are so vastly different in how they present themselves; what makes me think the result will be about the same?

I think the “God Demographics” of society are changing. What do I mean by God demographics? As a society moves further and further from God, it must naturally gravitate more and more toward sin (we won’t stay still). If sin is the root of all unhappiness, then more sin means more dissatisfaction with life. If we are moving away from God, we must find another “savior” to liberate us from what is wrong so we can finally be happy.

In general terms (there are plenty of exceptions I'm sure), I think the portions of the electorate who are satisfied with life want less government involvement, fewer taxes, less regulation, etc. They tend to lean Republican. Those dissatisfied look to government as the ultimate source to make things right, just, fair, etc. They tend to lean Democrat. Other political parties never seem to gain ground either way. The current Republican presidential candidate is certainly not your typical candidate, but I think the pattern in God Demographics mentioned above will “Trump” everything else. We’ll see.

For those looking for a simpler analysis, I heard this on the Dennis Prager radio show not too long ago...

• Door #1 says "Man Eating Lion."
• Door #2 says "Perhaps Man Eating Lion."

Which do you choose?

We await your decision.

I'll take Door #2
BTW,
Trump = Door #2

1. Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011) p. 334.