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. 

Book Update II: The Contract!

And so…I now have a contract in hand from a Christian publisher for the book based on the blog. There is still work to be done in terms of revisions, formatting, cover design, title debates, etc., but I’ll keep you posted (literally). I'm an "outsider" as a book author, so maybe I’ll be the Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders of Catholic book writing.  ;-)

The book is about Catholic faith and reason with a unique twist. The twist I speak of relates to the rational process we use where I work for problem solving and decision making. I'm also certified to teach the method to our technicians and engineers. This kind of reasoning has helped to see the clear thinking found in Catholicism and I wrote a book about it with this in mind.

Over the weekend I ran across the meme below, which reminded me of the impetus for this project. What’s wrong with this picture?

Do you see it?  ALL people have a belief system or a “philosophy”, a set of values, or a world view. ALL people believe things that they can’t necessarily prove, at least not empirically or via a scientific method. Where do they get these belief systems from? They come from other people. It doesn’t need to be from their parents necessarily. It could be from their friends or teachers or community or others. It’s part of the human condition, yet we can and should explore how reasonable the base premises are for particular ways of thinking and how well they stand up when pressed under deliberate questioning.

That’s what the book is about, and you will see how Catholicism stands up rather well.

Of Restrooms and Reason

Recently, the topics of gender and restrooms came up where I work during some required “diversity training” sponsored by our Human Resources department and the companies’ legal team—I was inclined to call some parts of it the “comply or be punished training”.

There are currently no transgender employees in the building I work in (that I know of), but as a policy our company will allow any such individuals to use whatever restroom they best identify with. One of the presenters said something to the effect of “Just deal with it. You’ll have your own private stall anyway”. I thought, “Why can't the transgender individual just deal with it (“it” being the restroom that best matches their body)? They’ll have their own private stall anyway.”

The situation reminded me of a book called Ten Universal Principals; A Brief Philosophy of the Life Issues by Fr. Robert Spitzer and how the first three principals can be used on just about any topic. Regardless of the situation, some things can be universal to any thinking process and can proceed without invoking any specific belief system. The first three principals are the “Principles of Reason,” and they underscore the universality of rational thought.

The Principle of Non-Contradiction (Plato & Aristotle)

Valid opinions or theories have no internal contradictions.¹

If I said I was a married bachelor and we were clear on the meaning of “married” and “bachelor”, then a married bachelor is an internal contradiction. There would be no need for you to investigate my life to see if my claim was true or false. It would be the same situation if I said I could draw a square-shaped circle. If we are clear on the definition of these shapes, then we know that drawing a square-shaped circle is not possible. No further probing required.

So if I’m a man, saying I’m a woman and using the ladies room would enter into the realm of contradiction, right? Not really; if we simply change the definition of gender to exclude (or make subordinate) any physical aspect of the human body, we can avoid this embarrassing conundrum. But don’t definitions need to make sense to be accepted as true? No; consider pro-choice thinking. If we can accept that a person in his or her first stage of life ought to be lawfully referred to as a “non-person”, we’ll accept any incoherency about the human condition.

The Principle of Objective Evidence (Plato & Aristotle)

Non-arbitrary opinions or theories are based upon publicly verifiable evidence.²

Data accessible only to you is subjective. Data accessible to everyone is objective. If I say I’m a man, what objective and publicly verifiable evidence can I show to support my theory? There is genetic data, hormone data, size/shape and also physical body parts that can be publicly verified…hopefully in a way that will not violate public nudity laws. But here again, it comes down to “definitions”. Words are important! Revenant data cannot be sorted from irrelevant data without first defining categories clearly. If gender is defined as primarily existing “between the ears”, then a note from my psychologist saying that I truly believe I’m a woman may suffice to comply with this second principle of reason.

The Principle of Complete Explanation (Socrates, Plato & Aristotle)

The best opinion or theory is the one that explains the most data.³

Are all opinions equally valid? No, some are more valid than others. If my explanation is better than your explanation, it is more valid. Simply put, “better” means being able to explain the most facts using the fewest and simplest assumptions. I would argue that a restroom is a physical place in which we do physical acts, ergo the restroom we choose should best match our physical bodies. If this is coherent, then there should be a certain universality about it. If I go to the gym (physical place) for a workout (physical acts) the equipment I choose should match, or be adjusted to match, my physical body.

Of course, if not for the urinals all the restrooms would be physically the same, but such is not the case where I work and in most places. Even if they were the same or if a person had a full sex-change operation, reflect upon explaining who we are based on whatever we self-identify with in terms of public policy.

The philosophy that says “I think, therefore I am” makes the reality of our being dependent upon our mind. If my mind determines my being, then the old saying follows that “perception is reality”. If this is true, then there should be a certain universality about it. If I think I am a cat, then I am a cat. But who thinks that? Let’s be practical; if a Caucasian man was raised by African Americans in an African American community and he also self-identifies as an African America, then this is the reality. He is an African American and should have access to any and all affirmative action benefits. Agreed?

 

Always remember that perception is not reality; it only informs our response to reality.

In God we trust…all others bring “data”.


1. Fr. Robert J. Spitzer, Ten Universal Principles (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011), p. 11.
2. Spitzer, Ten Universal Principles, p. 14.

3. Spitzer, Ten Universal Principles, p. 9.

 

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

 

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

 

Beware the Boy MOST of All

“This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom…”

- Ghost of Christmas Present

Many of us may reflect on The Christmas Carol this time of year. We are given an ominous warning about “our business”. Mankind is our business, the common welfare, charity, mercy, forbearance and more. We are to help “the girl”, but our doom seems to stem ultimately from “the boy”. Why? Because what we know directs what we do.

If God is Truth, then Truth should direct the will. If love is an act of the will, then to love or judge something, we need to know it. The primacy of the intellect is important in order to love and judge things in the right way. If we are ignorant of what is true, how will we direct our will? What is our criterion for judging, other than our own desires?

Scripture gives us a subtle warning on the topic. “My people are ruined for lack of knowledge!” (Hosea 4:6). If we chose to ignore “the boy”, then doom will engulf us all, because it all starts with ideas, and ideas have consequences. “Sow a thought and you reap an action; sow an act and you reap a habit; sow a habit and you reap a character; sow a character and you reap a destiny.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

In the 25th chapter of the Gospel of Mathew we hear, “For I was hungry and you gave me food”. This is certainly about physical food, but also about the spiritual work of mercy to feed the intellect. One can think of the truths of our faith as a kind of health-food for the mind.

The seeds of God’s image & likeness are in every person, so we have a natural hunger for truth/knowledge. Stop and contemplate “hunger” for a moment. What happens to people if they are hungry enough, for long enough? They’ll eventually eat something; they’ll eventually eat somewhere, but will it be good food or will it be garbage? Will they care where the food comes from as long as it gives some satisfaction?

The Fall of Man has dimmed the intellect and weakened the will; as a result the human soul easily grows flabby and tired. In other words it is natural for us to be spiritually stupid and lazy. We then default to our animalistic sensibilities and have the habit of replacing God with other masters since it seems to save us so much trouble.

We all like to think of ourselves as independent thinkers, but people are like sheep and everyone eventually sits at the feet of a master. Who will feed our intellect about the right to life, human dignity, the nature of marriage, just war, capital punishment, etc.? Will we sit at the feet of Jesus through His Church or will it be some politician or political party, a celebrity or talk show host, a television evangelist, your favorite college professor, or will it simply be the always "infallible" majority? Who is your master?

Whoever it is, be prepared to give an account for what you believe. “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will render an account for every careless word they speak.” (Mat 12:36)

 

Homosexuality, Evolution & Deviation

The last post on this blog mentioned an evolutionary “magic wand” used to explain just about anything humans do. Survival of the fittest can illuminate everything about the human condition if one tries hard enough.

An example of moral consciousness was used. Survival of the fittest seems to explain human selfishness well enough, but what about the sense of guilt we feel when we fail to help another. How can Darwinism explain a strong desire to help others or the feeling of guilt if we fail to be charitable? The answer I was given was that since humans live in communities, we evolved an instinct to take care of others in our tribe which increases the chance of our own survival. Seems natural selection conveniently explains both selfishness and self-giving in one fell swoop.

 

 

In yet another discussion on another not-so-catholic-friendly forum, the topic of homosexuality came up in terms of evolution. The conversation was sparked by me comparing homosexuality to a “deviation”. This was not a moral dialog about good vs. evil or right vs. wrong, but about facts vs. design. I work with teams of engineers and technicians and whenever a product/system concern comes up we ask a question; “Is there a deviation?” We understand the design and its natural process variation; therefore we understand when an observed variation is normal or abnormal to the design. If abnormal, we call it a deviation or non-conformance or just “a problem”.

 

If we observe the design of the human body in terms of sexuality and then we note the facts about homosexual sex (without going into too much detail), we can say that it is abnormal to the design or a “deviation”. It would not matter if one believes we were designed by almighty God or by almighty evolution. Homosexual sex is deviant to the design, just like any number of sexual acts that won’t be listed here (see CCC paragraph 2357). The same goes for infertility or impotency. They too can be called deviations or non-conformities without any discussion about morality or the intrinsic value of the person involved.

As you might imagine this was met with disdain. Suddenly people became “spiritual” about human sexuality, saying that we cannot reduce ourselves to a mere physical design like some kind of biological machine. We are sexual beings, and who is anybody to say what is “normal” or “abnormal”. There are only opinions; facts are unrelated or can be explained away, unless of course, the facts support a certain agenda.

Leaving observable facts & observable design aside, how can evolution explain homosexuality in terms of a species surviving and reproducing? I was given a clear answer. Having a certain homosexual percentage in the population prevents overbreeding, and thus helps the species as a whole. So there you have it and it’s certainly difficult to argue with such a firm wave of the evolutionary magic wand, not to mention the magic wand of sexual relativism.

POOF!
All clear now?

 

 

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 De-Evolution of Thinking with Stanford Nutting

The last post on this blog included the photo below. I had also posted it on Google+ with a simple caption that read, “Although a lot could be said about this, I think the photo says it all.”

Kevin O'Brien as Stanford Nutting

I was surprised at some of the comments it received. Here were some thoughts from myself and a couple of acquaintances from Google+.

The Sweater

Perhaps a throwback to what a 1970’s CCD teacher might wear, or perhaps it stands for the square of truth you decide to take while choosing not to believe the other truths. Pick a color! Of course, we must be inclusive and accept every version of truth, so that all the colors of our world can come together like one giant ugly sweater. The sweater seems unified, but note the black chasm between each color.

1. What is “Truth”?

This is about questioning absolute Truth. It could be asked sarcastically, but many will sincerely contemplate this, really seeking what is true in terms of things like morality, justice, goodness, love, etc. Or perhaps seeking to answer what the nature of Truth is, rather than a particular truth of a particular matter. In this context, one can understand Pontius Pilate's identical question in the gospel of John 18:38, and of course the answer is a concrete one, Jesus Christ, the man standing before him.

2. What is?

Could this be a “fill in the blank” or just the beginning of whole new level of bewilderment? This question seems to no longer be asking about truth at all, but asking about existence. What IS? What exists? What is anything? But, if we go by the suggestion of the conclusion of the first question, we might say it more properly as "Who is?", and then we end up with God, the one whose name is "I AM", the one who “IS”, existence itself.

 

3. What?

One is confused or maybe surprised, but perhaps still searching coherently to some extent. The question is simply "What?" This is a common way of expressing concern, astonishment or mishearing, an attempt to confirm what has already been said. It is clear that something of significance has been mentioned in the two questions above, but comprehension has not been reached, so it needs repeating or perhaps just leaves one in shock

4. Wha?

One is now deep into the muddle. The question is no longer coherent; it remains unfinished. Imagine you walk into a room and say “Wha?” You realize something strange is going on in the room and say “never mind, I don't want to get involved".  Upon further examination of the previous questions, the answers are too large or out of reach, and one is left feeling both confused and maybe slightly stupid or in a state of extreme disbelief.

5. ?

Now there are no words at all, which means there is no more dialogue. If there is no more dialogue, we end up with the dictatorship of relativism. If you have your truth and I have mine, there is no point in even discussing any of the above. In this scenario, might makes right; you will agree or be punished. The purpose of life and the nature of man are lost in a fog, but there might be two paths forward…seek or despair.

One can desperately and blindly continue into the fog, or perhaps “?” can trigger a humble state. One is at a loss for words, a state of unknowing, not even knowing what to ask. One has encountered something so foreign that it is impossible to even guess at anything that would shed light on it. As if a stranger started speaking in a foreign language, you have no clue as to what is going on. This could trigger a proper state in which to receive God’s grace. There are no further questions, but one is open to the answers or instructions that may come. Assumptions are dropped, and one waits for whatever is given. Perhaps the awe of the Lord as a gift of the Holy Spirit is soon to follow this kind of “?”.

These are just some ideas as to the meaning of each question. What do you think? We know you’re out there.

WHAT SAY YOU???

The Outside System

It was around the age of four or five that our children began to speak to me and my wife on the topic of “fairness”.  The normal emphasis would be on the things they deemed unfair. As they explained themselves, I noted an astonishing correlation. All that they disagreed with also happened to be “unfair”. As we questioned them further, a second amazing correlation revealed itself; all which they agreed with also happened to be “fair”.

I’m afraid our children, if left alone, would determine right vs. wrong on their own via their own internal passions as opposed to any outside system. By the way, if you doubt the existence of original sin, spend some time with toddlers or small children. You will note that there is no need to teach them how to be “bad”. It just comes naturally.

Unless guided, children will not use an outside system to judge things and adults are not much different, other than perhaps they will more readily yield to the majority. For many, cultural consensus has become the guarantee of truth. If enough people told you that up is down and right is wrong, you’ll cave unless you have an outside system to refer to.

If this seems ridiculous, ponder the insanity of abortion. If educated people can actually be made to believe that an unborn baby is a “non-person” with no right to be alive, what else can they be convinced of? If said persons were to ask, “When did we become persons?” They would accept subjective thresholds of viability or conscience as dictated by the majority, instead of the observable and scientific point of conception. We often fail to live up to the edicts of the obvious.

Reflect on the unintelligibility of same-sex marriage as well. Too many have been easily duped into thinking that marriage has no rational basis in procreation; that marriage having been defined the way humans reproduce is somehow a trivial coincidence. If humans did not reproduce the way they do, marriage would never have been defined the way it has (male-female) around the world and throughout history…but back to outside systems.

Consider a Compass:

Allegories to a moral compass are just about perfect for describing a moral outside system. The compass uses the earth’s magnetic field to determine which way is north. It does not matter what direction a group of travelers believes is north. The way the magnetic field and the compass needle react to each other is completely independent of the minds of the travelers.

What happens if a large group of symbiotic 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 lawyers and laws.

Consider Industry:

If a customer complains that a product or system is not working right, one of the first questions the vendors support team should ask (internally) is… “Is there a deviation?” In other words, is the product/system working within its normal operating limits or not? There are many situations in which a product is working within in its established parameters, but the customer still doesn’t like it. Here we have a situation where the customer is saying “it’s wrong” and the vendor says “it’s right”. So what should they do? Is the customer ALWAYS right?

Many times they will refer to industry standards as the outside system (like ISO). The data comes via an outside body of industry experts. They establish widely accepted benchmarks which are independent of the opinions of both the customer and the vendor.

What of morality then?

If you’re a true a relativist, then this post is not really for you, since pure relativism cannot plant a stake in the ground for anything to be truly right or wrong; there are only opinions. For those of us who think right and wrong actually exist objectively, where do we look to? Should moral standards be left to some “body of experts” like in industry? If humans look to other humans to know what is moral for humans, I would say it is still an internal system, like the travelers looking to other travelers instead of a compass to find which way is north. Humans would need to look outside of humanity, but also higher than humanity, so animals would not suffice.

INTERESTING SIDE NOTE:

Bonobo chimps are most similar to humans genetically and are known for their sexual promiscuity. They do not seem to discriminate in their sexual behavior by sex or age. In addition, communal sex seems to decrease tension and keeps the peace. I’ve heard it argued that if we could be more like the bonobos, we would all be happier. Wanting to use animals as our outside system for sexual morality shows just how far the human intellect has fallen.

Shameful!

Many believe that God is the outside system for human morality. God would act as the unchanging magnetic field in the compass allegory, but what would act as the compass itself, the visible and universal thing that points the way?  Some may point to sacred writings like the Bible as a kind of travelers guide or map, but written words do not “interact” with people the way a compass interacts between the earth’s magnetic field and the travelers. A map would be an irreplaceable tool, but maps will not orientate you in the right direction like a compass will.

If God really does exist and really does care that we know “The Way”, it seems reasonable that He would provide a reliable compass that was visible and universal for each new generation of travelers to navigate life with. We call this “compass” the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. The idea of this kind of outside system is not new; the earliest Christian writers understood its importance…"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." (2 Tim 4:3)


Life without an outside system...

Stanford Nutting

 

 

The 5 Whys

The games we play as children can sometimes relate to what we do as adults. Did you ever play the “why” game growing up? It can start with almost any random statement from one person and then a second person asks “why?” using turnaround questions, which means re-asking the question based on the answer. The first person then tries their best to answer and it goes on for as long as it can be sustained. It can be fun to see where the questions take you and how far you can go until you get stuck in a kind of death loop.

Example: It’s cold in the winter.

• Why is it cold?

Because the sun's rays hit the earth at a shallow angle

• Why a shallow angle?

Because the northern hemisphere tilts away from the sun

• Why does it tilt?

It’s a law of physics.

• Why is that a law of physics?

I don’t know.

• Why don’t you know?

I can’t know everything!

• Why can’t you know everything?

I don’t know.

GAME OVER

(death loop - see previous “I don’t know”)

However immature that game may seem, it actually relates to one part of a problem solving methodology we use where I work. Although I don’t work for Toyota, some of what we do mirrors Toyota’s 5 Whys. The “5” in the name represents how far one might need to dig to get to the root of a matter. It’s not always 5.

Example: The vehicle will not start.

Why? - The battery is dead (1st why)
Why? - The alternator is not functioning (2nd why)
Why? - The alternator belt is broken (3rd why)
Why? - The alternator belt was worn beyond its limits (4th why)
Why? - The vehicle was not maintained according to the service schedule
(5th why - root cause)

An average mechanic might stop after answering the third why and then take an effective action. Once the broken belt is observed, it can be replaced and you’re back on the road. An exceptional mechanic however, will think beyond the fix and beyond himself. He will consider outside systems. Why did the belt break? Was it the wrong kind of belt? Was it the right belt, but installed incorrectly? Did other parts of the vehicle, like the alternator pulley, cause the belt to wear prematurely? What other belts are about to break on this car?

Of course, one can continue to ask why beyond the root cause; beyond the fifth why. Why wasn’t the vehicle maintained according to the service schedule? Are parts not readily available? Is it too expensive to maintain for the customer? Is the customer just lazy? These are all good questions, but in this case no more questions are needed beyond the fifth why for the mechanic to take superior action, beyond just an effective action. The maintenance question may be appropriate for the customer or maybe the design team, but no more information is needed for a mechanic to fulfill his or her duty at the highest level.

We can use this concept to help us understand why we do the things we do. People seek what is good, or at least what they think is good. As it relates to the human soul, we use our will in the pursuit of happiness or the pursuit of what is good.

 

Example: I took my medicine.

Why? – To kill my infection (1st why)

Why? – I wish to be healthy (2nd why)
Why? – So I can live well (3rd why)
Why? – Because life is good (4th why)
Why? – Because life is from God and God is good (5th why – the first cause)

One might answer the fifth why, “Because I like it”. This makes it subjective. One can “be” alive or “be” dead. You may prefer to be alive, but life itself would not be objectively good or bad. Those contemplating suicide would say life is bad (for them). If our final answer to ultimate questions is so self-centered as to respond “because I like it”, then the part of original sin that dims the intellect through pride is not difficult to see.

The fifth why in this case leads away from “self” and points to something more, an outside system, an irreducible “Good”. Of course, one can continue to ask why. Why is God good? This is a fair question, but like the superior mechanic, no more whys are needed for a human being to take the superior answer.

Along the same vein, people also seek what is true. I can’t imagine anyone in their right mind intentionally seeking out deception. As it relates to the human soul, we use our intellect in the pursuit of the truth.

Example: I’m traveling to Boston.

Why? – To meet a friend (1st why)

Why? – To resolve a problem (2nd why)
Why? – To learn the truth (3rd why)
Why? – Because the truth is good to know (4th why)
Why? – Because God is truth and God is good (5th why – the first cause)

One might answer the fifth why by saying the truth is good because that’s what I believe or that’s what I want, but again, like the exceptional mechanic that thinks beyond the fix, we should think beyond ourselves. What would make the truth objectively good? If lies made you happy, would that make lies good (for you)?

Surface Dweller

In a digital age of surfing, texting and tweets we are getting good at looking at many different things quickly, but in a shallow way. We are becoming “surface dwellers”. When we do dive down into the whys, it may resemble the childish and unsystematic “why game” demonstrated at the beginning of the post. For the ultimate questions about goodness and truth, coherent whys eventually point to something outside of ourselves; something intrinsic and transcending. We end up at the first cause, which is God.
 

Of course, we can continue to ask why as a sincere invitation to the mind, because there is always food for the intellect when it comes to the mysteries of God, but perpetual questioning is not needed for a person to begin or continue their journey home, and to ultimately fulfill their destiny.

“The principles are settled. Life is the pageant of men and women living up to them or failing to live up to them—and I think to-day, if we are to save ourselves, we need to close our minds, to take honour’s worth for granted and to escape back into certainty from the atmosphere of eternal questioning.”

—Christopher Hollis, Death of a Gentleman

So we need to close our minds? Aren’t we supposed to always have an open mind? Consider that if your mind is ALWAYS open your brain will eventually fall out. There comes a time to stop endless questioning.