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. 

Data Died on Election Night

No, not this Data…

I’m talking about polling data.

The previous post on this blog predicted that Trump would lose at about the same margin as Mitt Romney did in 2012, even though the candidates and the race itself were very different. No matter what electoral map you looked at in recent weeks, it was not reasonable to think that a blue state would magically turn red or a red state would magically turn blue. Even if Trump picked up one or two blue leaning states, he still would have needed all or most of the toss up states, which may have been about ten states depending on when you looked and with what map. If a toss-up is truly a toss-up, then it’s like flipping a coin. Flip a coin 10 times in a row and see if you get something like 8-10 heads. It’s possible, but actually try it and see if it happens. I’ll bet good money that it won’t.

If the polling data is wrong, then a prediction that flows from said data must obey the universal law of “garbage in, garbage out”. There was obviously a large group of people more interested in just voting for Trump than being polled about it. I suspect a lot of pollsters will be eating crow in the days to come with plenty of beaks and feathers to spare.

But can Trump make America great again? Depends on how we define greatness and what we are comparing it to. Maybe the economy will get better and the border will be less porous and maybe other nations and peoples around the world will “fear” us more, but is this true greatness?

Doing God’s will on Earth is what the Kingdom of God on Earth is all about and thus what greatness is all about. So what are the ways in which we do not do the will of God on Earth? Most dissent from Catholic teaching involves something to do with human sexuality and I’m afraid many of our newly elected or re-elected leaders care little about such things or all the data that surrounds them. Maybe these issues are seen as nothing to do with politics, but deep down they must know that politics and life are joined at the hip.

Abortion, homosexuality, contraception, fornication, marriage, divorce and remarriage all have an aspect of sexuality to them. Consequently, many, if not most, of the ills in our society can be traced back to these points of sexual confusion or dissension. What is the data surrounding all the unwanted pregnancies and the resulting increase in poverty and single parent homes? How about the number of unborn children being killed and that will be killed in the future? Think of the impact from broken homes due to divorce? Ignorance and dissent about the true purpose of sex also brings us pornography, sexual addictions, molestation, sexually-transmitted diseases and marriage confusion. The amount of emotional pain due to fornication is probably not considered by most as something that will impact the rest of the culture in any significant way, but think of the huge number of people bonding and breaking up with different sexual partners over and over again and how this impacts their character? How then, does their character impact everyone else around them?

The only way to make America great again, or great at all, is to actualize the prayer we say at every Mass. “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” So as the dust settles on this particular election cycle, let’s continue to pray for that.

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.

Religious Liberty & Analytical Problem Solving

One of the basic tenets of the analytical problem solving process employed by our company is to carefully compare what is perceived to be a problem to what is perceived to be OK.  The more closely related the two things are, the more relevant the comparison. From here one can fret-out distinctions between what is seen as OK and what is seen as a problem and use those distinctions to formulate possible causes, or to help determine if there is actually any problem at all.

This kind logic can be applied to the religious liberty debates going on right now. If refusing to sell goods & services for a same-sex marriage celebration because of one’s personal beliefs should be illegal, then other similar “refusals” to other similar “events” should also be illegal.

THIS ARTICLE from National Review does a good job of presenting some relevant comparisons. Here are a few of my favorites:

• Are we prepared to handcuff a feminist photographer who won’t take pictures at a strip club event?

We may not know whether or not the photographer hates the people in the club or loves them, she just does not want her business to be associated with this specific kind of event. Should she be punished?

• Do we respect a black jazz band’s choice not to perform at a Ku Klux Klan chapter’s “Negro Minstrel Show”?

Here again, the band members may not hate white people at all. They just do not want to be part of this performance in any way. Should they be punished?

• Do we respect a pro–gun control photographer’s right to choose not to snap pictures at a “Sharpshooter of the Year” banquet organized by the local chapter of the National Rifle Association?

It’s not that the photographer will never take any pictures of any NRA members at any event. It’s the meaning behind this particular event that is the concern.

• Do we respect a Jewish calligrapher’s right to choose not to produce hand-written invitations for a Hitler Day brunch organized by a local neo-Nazi group?

Once again, the ideology behind the brunch and what it represents is the problem.

The following would be a dissimilar comparison:

• A restaurant owner refuses to serve gay people because he personally believes all gay people are evil.

So what is distinctive between the first four examples and the last one? The focus of attention with the first ones is some event or celebration and the ideology behind it, not the actual person(s) involved. In other words, it’s about the principle, not the person. The difference is vast.

 

The more our society accepts transcendent things, like right vs. wrong, as only opinions, the more we will accept a kind of soft tyranny where the government takes on the role of “moral compass". They will tell us which way is just and which way is unjust, fair or unfair and you will obey or be punished. Religious liberty is a founding principle of the U.S. and watching its own citizens leading the charge against people of faith into this oppression may be the saddest part of the whole mess.

You will obey or be punished!