Passion, Politics and the Existence of God

Could the current political climate in this country be used as evidence for the existence of God? Could we take the recent Women’s March and the Right to life March, which both happened within a week of each other, and point to something transcendent? How about President Trump’s executive order on immigration and all the subsequent protests happening right now? Is there a path to God in such a mess? I think there is and I’m reminded of portions of a book called Jacobs Ladder: 10 Steps to Truth by Dr. Peter Kreeft and excerpts from my own book called Faith with Good Reason. Whether talking politics or religion it all starts with “passion”.

Of Passion...

There is no doubt that one side of the political aisle can see the passion of the other side. What the opposition is passionate about may be called wrong, misguided or even evil, but the observable effects of their passion remains factual nonetheless. Humans get passionate about things and I think we all know the difference between true passion and just a passing interest. Many are passionate about proper ethics, morals or justice (the Good). Others have their passion in art, literature, music, dance, theater, athleticism or nature (the Beautiful). Still others have a passion for technology, science, math or discovery (the True). Many are willing to commit their entire lives to these kinds of things, even unto death. This is also how we know we are different than animals. Not even our closest animal relatives show evidence for having a true passion for “the Good”, “the Beautiful” and “the True”. But passion alone can ignite anything it touches. It’s like blind power. I’m sure Osama bin Laden had passion for his cause.

Of Truth...

If you are truly passionate about a cause, it’s not a big step to accepting objective truth as something that is real. Holding truths to be self-evident, as the founders of this nation wrote, is different than a personal belief or opinion. If you are truly passionate about a woman’s universal right to choose or a baby’s universal right to live, you will not accept relativistic terms like “it’s just true for me” or “it’s only opinion”. If you are passionate about how much you love or hate President Trump's executive order on immigration, you will not think of it the way you might think of loving or hating chocolate ice cream.

Of Meaning...

Meaning is next. Once we consent to the existence of at least some objective truth, the acceptance of some real meaning or purpose behind it all is not a far leap either. All people desire lasting happiness and the truths that we hold are meant to lead us to happiness. We use our heads and our hearts in the pursuit of that happiness.

Of Love...

So what is the meaning of life, which will bring us lasting happiness? If we are only physical beings, then only physical things are needed to keep us happy. Outward abundance and physical pleasure should satisfy us fully and bring lasting happiness, but they don’t. We seek more; we seek love; and love is not the same as “good feelings”. If it were, we could say that taking drugs, which result in good feelings, is what true love is all about. So what kind of love are we looking for? It’s unconditional, unselfish and sacrificial love. This kind of love involves more than feelings. It requires willing the good of others, so it requires an act of the will or a choice. So love is an act of the will and can bring lasting happiness to everyone and is thus the meaning of life.

Of Laws...

Humans live in organized societies, which are guided according to certain principles, and those principles are reflected in the laws.Good laws would support and be consistent with what is good for human beings and the "Natural Law" of love. Bad laws would undermine love and thus be unnatural. Of course, without God’s Grace and with our own fallen nature the meaning of "love" and “good” are too easily confused. What some call good is actually bad and what some call bad is actually good; up becomes down and down is up.

"The peril is that the human intellect is free to destroy itself"
– G.K. Chesterton

But even with the chaos and muddled-thinking it all points to something…

Of God...

If there is sunlight, there must be a sun. If there is electricity, there must be a generator. If love is from the will and is the meaning of life, there must be a first “willer”. If one has accepted even some objective truth or morals, then there must be a source for it. If there is a natural or moral law that transcends human opinion, there must be a “first cause” for it or a moral law-giver. A loving moral law-giver reasonably implies something with intelligence and “intent” and one would do well to ponder what a curious thing that would be. Nothing in this post definitively proves what Catholic theology would say about God, but to say that the truths we hold as self-evident are only a delusion is wishful thinking for those who wish to avoid the reality of the human condition and its passion.

“Man does not explain himself to himself without the odd suspicion that he is missing something.”

 – James V. Schall, S.J. 

The Dark Side of Dolphins

Atheistic environmentalism seems to perpetuate the view that nature is perfect just the way it is. It 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. Therefore, defending anything in nature against man is intrinsically “good” and promoting man’s industrialization and expansion is intrinsically “evil”.

From a Catholic perspective, we live in a fallen world. The harmony and order of creation has become disordered because of Original Sin. I have always felt that evils like natural disasters, disease and even some of the brutality of animals are the result of Original Sin. Paragraph 400 in the Catechism says “Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject ‘to its bondage to decay’” Scripture also gives us a hint, “…that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now;” (Rom 8:21-22). In the Catholic view, the evil found in nature mirrors the evil in the human heart.1

Another atheistic, and perhaps environmentalist “dogma” is that people are merely smart animals. Observed differences between people and animals are only a matter of “spectrum”, meaning that any human behavior can be found in the animal kingdom, albeit from a lower end of the evolutionary scale. I have yet to hear a good Darwinistic reason as to why humans wear cloths (even in the hottest climates), appreciate the arts, and have a longing to worship something greater than themselves, but I digress.

With humans fundamentally the same as animals as a base premise, we can see the logic that concludes the following…any basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness granted to people should apply to animals too (intelligent animals at the very least). Also, if we truly want to learn more about ourselves and understand what it means to be fully human, why bother studying philosophy, theology or Church teaching? We must study animals; especially intelligent animals that have never been corrupted by things like "religion".

Consider dolphins. We all know how cute, smart and playful dolphins are. Maybe we’ve seen or heard of shows like “Flipper” and movies like “Dolphin Tale” or the kind of endearing antics dolphins do at SeaWorld and other marine animal shows. Dolphins are undeniably and absolutely wonderful, are they not? I thought this too until I saw a documentary about the dark side of dolphins. Aside from some violent attacks on humans, I was quite surprised to learn that male dolphins have a kind of “rape culture”.

Here is a clip (consider it PG-13):

These highly evolved and intelligent mammals will sexually assault not only adult females, but under aged males and females as well. There also seems to be a lot of kidnapping going on. Groups of males will work together to keep a harem of females captive. The video called them “sex pirates”!! They also showed a team of two males trapping one female for themselves. They take turns guarding and raping the female while the other hunts for food.

What does this have to do with us? Thinking means connecting things and what we think leads to what we do. If nature is perfect just as it is, and animals are part of nature, and humans are merely smart animals, how can we present ethics in any coherent way? Can dolphins be immoral? Do dolphins have rights? If yes, could we not argue for a moral obligation to protect the innocent animals and punish or rehabilitate the guilty ones? If intelligent animals have no moral culpability, how do we separate the dark side of dolphins from the dark side of humans…and what makes it “dark” to begin with? After all, boys will be boys.

Remember that defining our idea of “right” vs. “wrong” depends on the beliefs we hold, and since we all believe things we can’t prove, it’s essential to drill down to the base premises for those beliefs to clarify exactly what they mean and where they come from. We seem to be forgetting that ideas have consequences.

1. Fr. Greg Shaffer, CW Catholic Q&A [Website], “Natural disasters - from God or because of us?” (15 October 2010), Site address: http://gwcatholicforum.blogspot.com/2010/10/natural-disasters-from-god-or-because.html

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 Moral Boats of C.S. Lewis

It’s not too often that I read spiritual books written by non-Catholic thinkers, but I’ve gotten around to reading “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis. Lewis’s astute writing style and use of clever analogies reminds me a bit of Catholic apologists Frank Sheed and G.K. Chesterton. I have read “The Screwtape Letters”, but this is quite different.  The book is based on a series of radio broadcasts Lewis gave during WWII, talking about the Christian faith from a common sense perspective.

The theme stays with the basic ideals of Christianity without digging into the doctrinal and denominational differences, hence the “Mere” in the title. In the beginning of the book Lewis used an analogy of a great hall with many rooms leading out from the hall. The hall is Christianity itself and the many rooms are all the different denominations. He explains how his goal is to get people into the hall, and once inside, they can choose which doors to knock on and which room to finally go into. He cautions that the decision should not be based on which room looks best and has the most comfortable furniture. Rather, one should ask which is the "right" door and the "right" room.  As a Catholic I can certainly agree with that, but I would add that once inside a room, one should continue to study the denomination, its history and its founders. Study the history of the authority and the drill down to the base premises of the faith and see how well they stand up to reason.

The three parts of morality found in Book Three, Chapter I, also employ a clever metaphor involving boats. You have heard the Golden Rule, which is to do unto others what you would have done unto you, but have you heard of the Silver Rule? It says, “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you." In other words, do what you want as long as you do not hurt others. This is the first part of morality according to Lewis; I think of it as the first stage, since it involves just coexisting peacefully with others. Imagine a bunch of boats traveling together. Many would agree that as long as you do not hit the other boats traveling with you on life’s journey, everything is fine. Few would agree with the Benny Hill rule; “Do unto others, then run.”

 

Of course, the meaning of “hurt” can lead to an endless game of “point-counterpoint”. Doesn’t abortion involve hurting others? No problem; just change the definition of “others” and magically turn some “others” into “non-persons”. How about assisted suicide? Isn’t that hurting others? Of course not, we just call upon the Dogma of Consent. Does the death penalty hurt others? Some call it justice, but doesn’t it fall more along the lines of revenge in many cases? And what of sadomasochism; hurting others for depraved pleasure is certainly okay, right?

The second part, or maybe the second stage, of morality involves harmonizing what is inside of each individual. Besides not “hurting” others, how should I behave when I am alone? How should I treat myself when alone or with others? Where do my idle thoughts go? Does it matter what my ship is like on the inside as long as I do not hit other ships? It makes some sense on the surface, but stop and think for a moment; if you can’t handle your own boat, how can you possibly expect to avoid collisions with other boats?

The third part ,or third stage, is concerned with the purpose of the journey. What is the nature of the boats and of the ocean itself? Are you really the owner of the boat or are you only a steward?  What is the final destination of the fleet and what is the best course to get there? Erroneous beliefs about the nature of boats and the ocean will lead to wrongheaded thinking; wrongheaded thinking leads to bad boating behavior; bad boating behavior leads to bad boating habits; bad boating habits lead to a bad sailing character; a bad sailing character will lead to a lost fleet and a hopeless journey.

 

 

“You cannot make good men by law: and without good men you cannot have a good society.”

- C.S. Lewis

Religion & Science ARE Opposed

“Religion and science are opposed . . . but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything.”

- Sir William Bragg

 

 

Faith & reason together is what helps us to “grasp everything”. Saying “everything” may be akin to saying “all of reality” and we can think of reality as having two parts, material or physical reality and immaterial or spiritual reality.

Physical reality has certain laws like…

• Laws of motion
• Laws of matter
• Laws of energy

These laws are universal and unchangeable. Not knowing, not understanding or ignoring these laws will hurt our bodies. The more we learn about, understand and adapt our life to these laws the more we can live in harmony with the world around us and be happier. In a certain sense we never really break physical laws, they break us!

Spiritual reality has certain laws like…

• Divine Law
• Moral Law
• Natural Law

These laws are universal and unchangeable. Not knowing, not understanding or ignoring these laws will hurt our souls. The more we learn about, understand and adapt our life to these laws the more we can live in harmony with the world around us and be happier. In a certain sense we never really break spiritual laws, they break us!

For the strict materialist, spiritual realities do not exist, at least not like physical laws. Things like morality, justice or goodness can only exist as concepts that evolve over time and different people have different concepts about how the world ought to be. With this logic of moral relativism one cannot grasp the most important parts of reality just like one cannot grasp a football without an opposing thumb. Our concepts of right vs. wrong are tied up in something that ought to be or ought not to be. For that concept to make any sense, you actually need an “ought”!

In a worldview with no spiritual reality, we may say that a group like ISIS has a certain concept of how the world ought to be that is likely different than yours or mine or Mother Teresa’s. Their concept cannot be objectively wrong because there is nothing to make it wrong (no outside system). A compass points north because an outside system (the earth’s magnetic field) makes it point north and there is only one north, not many “norths”. It does not matter what direction a group of travelers believes is north because the magnetic field is completely independent of the minds of the travelers.

What happens if a large group of interdependent travelers refuse to use the compass? They will go “somewhere” based on their beliefs and experience about traveling.  They may split up into smaller groups, but even the smaller groups need to decide what to do. The strongest will rule eventually, whether by physical force or via other kinds of peer-pressure, coaxing or bullying. It’s the same in societies. Even for the most stubborn and independent of individuals, the strongest will rule eventually, whether it’s a dictator by physical force or just a majority via laws and lawyers.

If we convince ourselves that spiritual laws do not really exist, we will live life on our own terms as much as we can get away with. This means we cease to be truly free and alive which is how we “ought” to be. We become small souls, locked in the prison of our ego and victims of a great lie.

 This post started with a notable quote and so it will end with another:

"Growth in faith is growth in the right perception of all reality."

– Thomas Keating

 

The "Dogma" of Consent

We’ve all heard the teaching. It’s an often unquestioned and perhaps unconscious assumption. It acts as a sort of secular dogma. Nothing is morally wrong as long as you don’t hurt others.

But what if a doctor needs to perform a medical procedure on you involving some physical pain or “hurt”? What if an emergency responder needs to damage some of your property in order to respond to an emergency? What about two sadomasochists? They must hurt each other physically in order to satisfy their depravity. The “dogma” is not really about hurting people or property, it’s about consent. If what you do must affect others, it’s okay as long as you have consent.

Let’s work with this idea a bit beyond things that are already legal in some states like gambling, prostitution & recreational marijuana. If two parties consent to making a wager or to exchange drugs or sex for money, it’s all perfectly moral under the dogma of consent, but…

What if black salves consented?

Life for African-Americans in the South after the Emancipation Proclamation was not exactly the America dream. Imagine house slaves working in a mansion for a very wealthy plantation owner. What if they preferred their life as slaves over the prospect of being thrown out into the mean streets of the South to fend for themselves? They could have willfully signed a contract with the plantation owner to forfeit their freedom and remain his legal property. Under the dogma of consent, couldn’t slavery be reinstituted as legal in the U.S.?

What if the Jews consented?

Nazi scientists preformed inhumane experiments on Jewish people against their will. What if they consented? Suppose some old or terminally ill Jews agreed that the experiments on them could provide valuable data to help others? Suppose poor Jews were offered a large sum of money that could be given to their families after their death in an experiment. Would this not be perfectly moral under the dogma of consent?

How about suicide?

This would NOT be about doctor assisted suicide. Suppose a young man no longer wished to live for whatever reason, but alas, the poor guy does not have the courage to kill himself. What can be done? With consent, a friend (or stranger) could agree to shoot him in the head without any fear of reprisals.

Foolish humans!
We will make them consent!

What about date rape?

Are all the date rape incidents at the college level prosecuted? What if the woman gives consent initially, but then violently resists in the heat of the moment.  Too late; she consented, therefore the act is perfectly moral. In fact, if her physical resistance injures the man, perhaps the woman should be prosecuted instead.

…and marriage laws?

If any consenting adults should be able to marry, then it should be any consenting adults. Three or more should be recognized by the state as well as any consenting relatives. If you oppose parents marrying their adult children in order to obtain state offered marriage rights, then you are a bigot that makes groundless distinctions simply because two persons share very similar DNA.

One thing that confounds the Two Catholic Men is how many people will claim that moral absolutes can’t really exist objectively, but they don’t live that way, which implies they don’t really believe it. They actually do accept certain morals that are universal and unchangeable (just like physical laws) regardless of any consent or a lack of. As a side, the existence of moral absolutes or moral laws would reasonably imply a moral law giver, and what a curious thing that would be.

It’s the same kind of contradiction for someone who would deny the existence of physical laws. You would note that they do not live as if they actually believed what they claim (if they are sane). Consider the law of gravity; we attune our life and safety around it. Living in harmony with the law of gravity allows us to live a happy life. Disharmony with gravity will hurt us or even kill us.

It seems, deep down, we all know moral laws exist irrespective of “consent”, but many won’t admit it because it points to so much more. We also sense that we need to live harmoniously with these laws in order to be happy. The fact is, we actually can’t break moral laws, just like we can’t break physical laws. They break us; either as individuals or as a society, so it is vital that we strive to know what they actually are and where they come from.

“In you, O Lord, have I hoped; I shall not be confounded forever.”

- St. Claude de la Colobiere

 

 

The Maniac

G.K. Chesterton would have been 140 years old on May 29. Although he passed on a bit short of that mark (June 14, 1936), even the most resolute atheist would admit that he lives on through all his writings. There are quite a few things lurking in this blog inspired by Chesterton. Sadly, I’ve only read one of his books from cover to cover (so far), but it’s a classic; it’s Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy means “right teaching”, which is the opposite of what we have today where we act as if there is no “right” and no “teaching”, but we do find plenty of heresy or heterodoxy, which means “other teaching”. Chapter II of Orthodoxy is entitled The Maniac and it begins with a popular other teaching we often hear today. It’s the individualistic philosophy that a person will get along fine in life if he just believes in himself. There is nothing wrong with self-confidence, but could we not write “He Believed in Himself” over the grave of every famous tyrant in history? Could we not find criminals, oppressors and terrorists today who believe in themselves? Could we not find people in insane asylums who believe in themselves?

Anyone can believe in himself, and in a culture that denies objective truth all opinions become equally valid, even the opinion of a maniac. In this environment basic terms cannot be defined because the definitions are relative, and having well defined terms is a first step in logic. So reasoning with a maniac about what “believe in yourself” really means can be the catalyst for an endless game of “point-counterpoint”.

“A madman is not someone who has lost his reason but someone who has lost everything but his reason”

 – G.K. Chesterton

 

Examples:

• If you have children you may be familiar with “point-counterpoint”. Once, my son was bothering my oldest daughter by touching her. I said, “Stop touching her.” He said, “I did not touch her.” I replied, “I just saw you!” He said, “I touched her shirt, not her.” Of course, my daughter just happened to be wearing the shirt he was touching. From here we could have gotten into an insane discussion (or demonstration) about what would constitute touching someone, but I wasn’t in the mood for games.
• This need not be only a game for children. I’m reminded of the trouble former President Bill Clinton got into in the late 90’s with a certain female intern which caused him to say, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
• One might think it easy to be clear about such simple words as “touching” and “is”, but maniacs can be great reasoners. Imagine someone suffering from paranoia says to you, “Everyone wants to kill me.” You respond, “I don’t want to kill you." The person answers, “Of course you would say that to keep your evil plan a secret.” There is logic there. The explanation covers the facts.

“If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

– G.K. Chesterton

 

The above examples may seem humorous, but the consequences are no laughing matter when the maniac engages the very basics of life, family and what it means to be human. When does human life begin? Both science and faith point to the moment of conception, but the maniac will look elsewhere. What is marriage? Whatever we want it to be? If it can mean anything, then it means nothing, so we demand some kind of definition via laws and definitions always require limits. How do we know if the limits are right or wrong? Cultural consensus becomes the infallible guarantee that all is well with whatever opinion the majority has. The underlying problem is that we demand laws, limits and morals without God. It’s like demanding electricity and then denying the existence of a generator.
 

A clever analogy between the sun and the moon was given at the end of the chapter to compare reason grounded in God (orthodoxy) vs. reason grounded in man (heterodoxy). God is our ultimate source of reason just like the sun is our ultimate source of energy. The sun provides both light and heat, but it is impossible to look at it directly. We call its shape round, but as we wince at it and try to trace out its exact shape with our eyes, we can’t do it. It’s too much for us. It’s both shining and shapeless. Like a mystery, we can’t define it perfectly.
 

Whatever light we receive from the moon is secondary light that ultimately comes from the sun, although one might think at first glance that moonlight has nothing to do with sunlight. The moon reflects light off of a dead world and gives no warmth, but at the same time the moon is quite reasonable. Its circular shape is clear and unmistakable.
 

“The moon is the mother of lunatics and has given to them all her name.”

– G.K. Chesterton
 

So how can one finally reason with the maniac? Other than presenting orthodoxy and insisting upon well-defined terms and premises (both stated & assumed), I really don’t know. At times it seems to be more about casting out demons than debating philosophies and facts. As far as a final solution, I’ll need to think about it and get back to you.

I’ll just sit here until I figure all this out.

 

The Logic of Moral Relativism

The doctrine of subjectivism is a curious thing.  It claims that for each person, truth is different.  There is no absolute truth.  If this is indeed the claim, it is easily refuted as this claim itself is an absolute statement.

I suspect that subjectivists take a more soft line in this respect (in order to avoid this embarrassing conundrum) and might say "there may be an absolute truth, but we may or may not know what it is."

Applied to morality, subjectivism becomes moral relativism.  As far as moral judgments are concerned, an act's moral goodness or badness depends upon the perspective of the people involved.  

One argument in favor of moral relativism is that one culture may consider an act to be good and another culture may consider it to be bad.  Here is the argument:

1. If an act is good for one culture
2. And the same act is bad for another culture
3. Therefore the act's moral value is relative to the culture

The premises of this argument can be shown empirically by looking at two cultures that have different values about a particular act.  For example, cannibalism or killing the elderly are variously considered good and bad among different cultures.

Let's look more closely at those premises.  Premise 1 is "If an act is good for one culture."  What makes an act good?  In this case, the culture must consider it to be good.  That is, the culture's opinion of this act is what makes it good or bad.  Isn't this hidden premise begging the question?  That is, if the culture's opinion of what makes an act good or bad actually makes it good or bad, that is a restatement of moral relativism.  The argument assumes what it is trying to prove.

Here is a restatement of the argument for clarity

1. If an act is considered good for one culture
2. And the same act is considered bad for another culture
3. And an act's moral value is determined by the culture (hidden premise)
4. Therefore the act's moral value is relative to the culture

You can now see that the new, third premise is equivalent to the conclusion.

This new premise is very interesting in that it means that one should never disobey one's cultural morality.  Whatever the culture considers right is, in actuality, right.  In essence, relativists can never object to the law.  They can only be status quo conservatives and therefore moral absolutists are the only ones that can be progressive and radical!   Only a moral absolutist has a trans-cultural standard by which to judge actions and can say to Hitler or Saddam Hussein, "what you are doing is wrong and must be stopped."  Relativists can only say, "different strokes for different folks, I happen to disagree but that's all."


It’s amazing how the public perception of these roles are the exact opposite of what I have just outlined.  Moral relativists are typically depicted as the liberal agents of change, while moral absolutists are supposed to be conservative dogmatists.  We can now see that moral relativists are secretly dogmatic and moral absolutists are radical and agents of change for good in the culture!

Those of us who understand that there is an absolute standard of right and wrong are agents of change. To settle into a comfortable conservatism is a surrender of the moral leadership that is required and expected of us. The reversal of the relativist and absolutist roles in the culture today will be addressed in Part Two.

Thanks to Peter Kreeft for much of the material for this post 

Transcendent Morality - Part II

As you last recall….
Two Catholic Men dissected a video that explained how morality should not be based upon any sacred text or other divine or religious authority; it should be based upon things like: Improved Education, Valid Reasons, Relevant Differences, Sufficient Justification and of course the all-important, “Doing what is right and not what we are told to do”. But there are no details provided on exactly who will determine these things and how.

There is mention of science, but science does not give us morality. Show us the scientific data or formula that proves murder is wrong, or stealing, or rape, or racism. What scientist discovered it? Are all people really created equal? Isn’t there data to show that some are stronger and smarter than others? Doesn’t this data prove scientifically that some people are superior to others? How about a more frequently debated topic? Doesn’t the study of evolution teach us that homosexuality is “wrong” in terms of propagating a species? Shouldn’t it be seen as a kind of “defect” in scientific terms?

G.K. Chesterton says that science can only be used either as a tool or as a toy. As a tool, it helps us live better lives, like understanding electricity or development of medicine. As a toy, it helps develop things that are interesting or entertaining, like a video game.




Science comments only on physical reality, not spiritual reality. The Catholic world view includes both the physical & the spiritual. Catholics will speak of physical laws that are universal & unchangeable and spiritual laws that are just as universal & just as unchangeable (Catholic means universal by the way; Greek word katholikos). Morality stems from the spiritual laws. One can act morally without knowing God, but there is no morality without the existence of God, since God is ultimately the first cause of every part of reality, whether it is something spiritual or physical.
 
Any atheist should have no problem with the existence of physical laws (like the law of gravity), but would they not regard spiritual reality or spiritual laws as only delusory opinions? If so, the following logic should flow nicely:

1. Spiritual laws (moral law/natural law/divine law) are only man-made “concepts”.

 

2. Concepts are like opinions; thoughts in the mind. 

3. Thoughts in the mind are electrochemical impulses that have evolved over millions of years to help us survive.

 

4. The electrochemical impulses in one person’s brain can be different than another’s. For instance, the mind of Adolf Hitler was different than the mind of Mother Teresa; not good or evil, just different. This gives me a great idea for a new book! Check it out!!!

 

5. There is nothing above the human mind to judge what is moral or not; no “outside system”.

6. Therefore…..there can be no objective morality that applies to everyone. (I honestly did not plan this to be six points…weird how that happens. The number six is always interesting from a biblical perspective.)

So what can we conclude if we believe the six points above? How can we be “moral”? Well, a civilized society can vote and make human laws about what the majority thinks is right or wrong, but right & wrong do not exist in and of themselves….ONLY opinions.

It seems that too many people (including some Catholics) want their cake and eat it too. They want objective morality, but no source for it outside the human mind. This backs you into an intellectual corner. What they agree with is spoken of in objective terms, like saying every woman has a right an abortion; abortion rights are not something “relative”. What they disagree with is spoken of in relative terms, like saying every unborn child has the right to life; this would be only an opinion relative to those who believe it.

There is actually no need to appeal to scripture or any religious authority for these types of basic discussions that go back to the Greek Stoics. One needs only reason and the fact that science cannot answer questions about morality or meaning, only "how" questions. Galileo hinted at this when he said, "Religion tells us how to go to heaven; science tells us how the heavens go." Indeed to get “the heavens” at all, you need something outside the universe to do it, something outside the system, outside of space & time, something that needs nothing for its own existence, something out of this world. Need a word for that?  "Transcendent."  Nice.

Transcendent Morality - Part I

A while back, Joe (other one of The Two Men) sent me the video below and asked what I thought. The video argues that morality should not be based on any kind of sacred text or other religious authority; I found it intriguing in couple of ways. One is because of a logic method we use where I work, in which we scrutinize fact vs. opinion, vet-out relevant vs. irrelevant data, track assumptions and clarify over-generalizations. We do this to find the root-cause of a problem, in other words, finding the truth. Besides this, it’s amusing to hear a voice in a British accent using big words, sounding smart, but saying nothing new when viewed from a Catholic perspective.

If God & religion are out, on what should our morality be based? The video answers the question while describing 6 different societies (interesting that it is “6” from a biblical standpoint). The society types outlined serve as examples, but they are also distractions. The video is really about a long litany of opinions, assumed relevancy and over-generalizations. The list below is what they claim morality should be based upon. Some clarifying questions immediately came to mind.


Ø  Improved Education: How do we know it is improved? What one may call good education another may call indoctrination. 



Education makes me SMRT

 

Ø  Valid Reasons: What is valid or not? Who will decide “validity”? How will it be measured?

Ø  Prohibiting Needless Harm: What is needless? What is harm? Could killing a healthy unborn child possibly qualify as needless harm? What is your opinion?

Healthy baby 8 weeks after conception

 

Ø  Avoid Pointless Suffering (euthanasia): Don’t some hardships make us stronger or make others around us stronger? Who determines “pointlessness”? How is it defined?

Ø  Recognizing Relevant Differences: Who determines what is relevant and on what is it based?

Ø  Identifiable Harm: How can we identify emotional or psychological harm? Where is the threshold and who will judge it?

Ø  Sufficient Justification: When is it sufficient? Who says so?

Ø  Accurate Information: Is it? Are you sure? How accurate?

Ø  My favorite…..Doing what is right and not what we are told to do: How do we know what it is “right”? The sweeping statements above will tell us?!?

 

In fairness, I’m sure one could write-up a similar post against some “religious video”. This is easy to do if we over-generalize ALL religions as ONE thing. Over generalization allows us to pick & choose whatever examples support our premises best, and ignore examples that do not. For instance, Catholicism holds that the universe is a created thing that is rational and orderly (like the creator) and should be studied, not worshipped like some past religions have done. This kind of thinking led us to formal scientific disciplines during the middle ages and beyond. In many ways Catholicism was a top contributor to western civilization, but there is no place for these examples in the above video.

What if we were to over-generalize atheistic thinking? Is the thinking of Joseph Stalin the same as Richard Dawkins? Is the morality of Mao Tse-Tung the same as Christopher Hitchens? I guess the point here is to separate & clarify our thinking, ask questions, demand specific answers, and understand the power of our premises. It’s OK to disagree, but not when we are unclear on what we disagree about. Speaking for myself, there are times when I actually prefer clarity over agreement.

Stay tuned for Part II on this in a week or so…