I am reading what I am already beginning to consider one of the greatest books I have ever read. It is "Transformation in Christ" by Dietrich von Hildebrand. It really is remarkable.
I am currently on chapter 3 which is self-knowledge. He quotes St Augustine who says, "could I but know Thee O Lord, and I shall know myself".
This is an interesting quote and one I think plays great relevance to the modern world.
Dr. von Hildebrand denounces self-analysis. He sees this constant looking inward as contrary to our nature but that, instead, we must continually look out of ourselves to see what is wrong, which in my opinion is deep within the tradition of the thought of JP II.
Anyways, he states that we only get to know ourself more the more we know God, as per the quote of St Augustine, and this is a position I have always held, but I just held it, I had no reason to hold it, it just seemed right.
But this book opened my eyes to come to a deeper understanding.
By experiencing God, we realize that we are created for Him to be at the center of our life. We are not supposed to look at the past or the present to figure out our problems, and we cannot look into our future experiences because they, as of yet, do not exist. To look at ourselves we are only revealed our weakness and sinfulness, we cannot depend completely on ourselves, we need redemption.
But if we come to experience God as the center of our life, our self-knowledge takes a fundamental shift. In Thomistic language, God is the Final Cause of our actions. According to both Aristotle and Thomas, the Final Cause is the cause par excellence because it gives the reason for all the other causes and for all things for all things are meant to be perfected and they are only perfected if they reach their final goal. Thus the final cause is the cause par excellence because it is the cause that gives the basis, the roots, for perfection.
Bringing this to God, we see that through our experience that we are created for God, that by coming to know God perfection is brought in us. So, by knowing God as the end of all our thoughts and actions, we experience our true purpose in life, which is to grow closer to Him. By doing so, we are fulfilling our nature and living according to our dignity as persons created in God's image and likeness.
But what does this exactly have to do with self-knowledge?
By realizing that God is at the center of our life and that we are meant for Him, that creates our raison d'etre. Through our experience of God, we experience our imperfection and grow in knowledge that we haven't quite reached the goal of perfection yet, that we have further repentance to live in our life and that we have further change to have happen. But it is central that God be at the center of our human experience for through that, and only through that, do we come to our true self understanding. For, as St Paul says, "it is no longer I that live but Christ in me". Only when Christ is the source and summit, only when Christ is the One in Whom I subsist for all assistance, only then can I become who I am called to be. I am called to be united to Christ, and I can only do that by growing to know God more. The more I know God, the more I have experienced Him and the greater my understanding becomes in what I am lacking and plead God for His mercy to rain down upon me so that I may become who He has created me to be.
-Harrison
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Hermeneutics of Continuity
Rocco at Whispers in the Loggia reports about the Mass of the Baptism of the Lord tomorrow at the Vatican.
Whispers in the Loggia
The interesting note is, of course, that the Pope will be celebrating Mass ad orientum. This will of course get many reactions, I am sure, by various Catholic outlets determined to ensure the Church knows what the "spirit of Vatican II" is all about.
But despite the impending negative press by people of such a view, I see it as a hopeful sign.
I love the Liturgy. I am blessed to be in a parish where the Liturgy is celebrated in solemnity and reverence. I know, too, that the general state of the Liturgy hasn't quite reached its fulfillment yet (I shouldn't say I know, but from the studying I've done, it seems the liturgy still has some "balancing out" to do).
I am very happy with Msgr. Marini as the new Papal MC. He is doing many things on a step by step basis, and is someone who seems much more within the mindset of B XVI. I too, I think, am more within the tradition of thought that BXVI proposes.
And I think the basis of this is his understanding of the hermeneutics of continuity.
Essentially, the hermeneutics of continuity is a study of the idea of continuity within the Church's 2000 year-old tradition from the perspective of which it is proposed throughout the history of thought.
Now, I think BXVI's beef is with the fact that we seemed to lose the idea of continuity in the Church, which is an attack not only on the central nature of the Church, but an attack about the effects the Incarnation has on the world. The denial of continuity for Benedict is, surprise surprise, a Christological denial. We of course know that Benedict is not a fan of the denial of Christ's importance, nor, of course, should any Catholic.
I think the tremors of afterquakes from the Council were to be expected. It is the nature of councils, and, in a certain sense, at least initially, it had to do with the excitement that is attached to the experience of a council. Everyone wants it disseminated immediately. This is where human frailty comes into the equation. The Church does things in years, not months, and so the idea of quickly implementing everything on the part of bishops and the lay people could easily be seen as a mistake.
The Council, just as all authoritative statements and decrees from the Church, must be read in the light of the Church's total experience. This is where the "spirit of Vatican II" began. They no longer look at the Church and the totality of her experience, but only what the "spirit of the council" has to say, as if the Council is the only authority in the matter of our lives. This is contrary, though, to the nature and experience of the Church.
So, the Liturgy was obviously effected by such a mindset, and, I think, the Liturgy shows us the direction of the Church, since the Liturgy is the work of God. And this is the error that has entered into our understanding of the Liturgy: It is the work and expression of man's encounter with God. In reality, though, it is the other way around. If the liturgy is the work of God, then more properly is it the expression of God's encounter with man, for it is the work which Christ has guided, and it is in the Liturgy that Christ reconciles us with the Father. Thus to speak of the human dimension of the Liturgy as primary is an essential error, it denies God's principle and primary role as the true Celebrant of the Liturgy.
This brings us to the hermeneutics of continuity. According to this study of continuity, we see that it is essential in the Church's tradition of God's seeking of her. God has constantly sought us and it is in the Liturgy that this profound encounter happens at its most perfect level. To thus take away things from the Liturgy because they are "pre-Vatican II" is contrary to the Church's experience. The way the Liturgy can be expressed, its form, can of course change over the centuries. This is part of the Church's experience and is expressed in various liturgical decrees. But to say that the Novus Ordo has no connection with the extraordinary form of the Mass and all other forms of the Mass is to be contrary to the principle and experience of continuity in the Church.
Thus, Benedict is simply affirming Christ's central role in the Church and the Church's nature. What Benedict with the help of Msgr. Marini have been doing is attempting to re-establish the centrality of continuity, because this puts Christ back into the equation. And to remedy the "spirit of Vatican II" problem, Benedict understands that there must be dialogue with the past, because the past, by virtue of Christ's Incarnation, is always able to be made present to us, in a certain sense, the past never ceases to exist, and so it is proper to have a dialogue with it so that continuity is properly expressed in all the Church says and does so that we can put Christ back at the center of our lives.
I am currently working on an essay on this topic with further and deeper research with the hopes of having it published somewhere.
-Harrison
Whispers in the Loggia
The interesting note is, of course, that the Pope will be celebrating Mass ad orientum. This will of course get many reactions, I am sure, by various Catholic outlets determined to ensure the Church knows what the "spirit of Vatican II" is all about.
But despite the impending negative press by people of such a view, I see it as a hopeful sign.
I love the Liturgy. I am blessed to be in a parish where the Liturgy is celebrated in solemnity and reverence. I know, too, that the general state of the Liturgy hasn't quite reached its fulfillment yet (I shouldn't say I know, but from the studying I've done, it seems the liturgy still has some "balancing out" to do).
I am very happy with Msgr. Marini as the new Papal MC. He is doing many things on a step by step basis, and is someone who seems much more within the mindset of B XVI. I too, I think, am more within the tradition of thought that BXVI proposes.
And I think the basis of this is his understanding of the hermeneutics of continuity.
Essentially, the hermeneutics of continuity is a study of the idea of continuity within the Church's 2000 year-old tradition from the perspective of which it is proposed throughout the history of thought.
Now, I think BXVI's beef is with the fact that we seemed to lose the idea of continuity in the Church, which is an attack not only on the central nature of the Church, but an attack about the effects the Incarnation has on the world. The denial of continuity for Benedict is, surprise surprise, a Christological denial. We of course know that Benedict is not a fan of the denial of Christ's importance, nor, of course, should any Catholic.
I think the tremors of afterquakes from the Council were to be expected. It is the nature of councils, and, in a certain sense, at least initially, it had to do with the excitement that is attached to the experience of a council. Everyone wants it disseminated immediately. This is where human frailty comes into the equation. The Church does things in years, not months, and so the idea of quickly implementing everything on the part of bishops and the lay people could easily be seen as a mistake.
The Council, just as all authoritative statements and decrees from the Church, must be read in the light of the Church's total experience. This is where the "spirit of Vatican II" began. They no longer look at the Church and the totality of her experience, but only what the "spirit of the council" has to say, as if the Council is the only authority in the matter of our lives. This is contrary, though, to the nature and experience of the Church.
So, the Liturgy was obviously effected by such a mindset, and, I think, the Liturgy shows us the direction of the Church, since the Liturgy is the work of God. And this is the error that has entered into our understanding of the Liturgy: It is the work and expression of man's encounter with God. In reality, though, it is the other way around. If the liturgy is the work of God, then more properly is it the expression of God's encounter with man, for it is the work which Christ has guided, and it is in the Liturgy that Christ reconciles us with the Father. Thus to speak of the human dimension of the Liturgy as primary is an essential error, it denies God's principle and primary role as the true Celebrant of the Liturgy.
This brings us to the hermeneutics of continuity. According to this study of continuity, we see that it is essential in the Church's tradition of God's seeking of her. God has constantly sought us and it is in the Liturgy that this profound encounter happens at its most perfect level. To thus take away things from the Liturgy because they are "pre-Vatican II" is contrary to the Church's experience. The way the Liturgy can be expressed, its form, can of course change over the centuries. This is part of the Church's experience and is expressed in various liturgical decrees. But to say that the Novus Ordo has no connection with the extraordinary form of the Mass and all other forms of the Mass is to be contrary to the principle and experience of continuity in the Church.
Thus, Benedict is simply affirming Christ's central role in the Church and the Church's nature. What Benedict with the help of Msgr. Marini have been doing is attempting to re-establish the centrality of continuity, because this puts Christ back into the equation. And to remedy the "spirit of Vatican II" problem, Benedict understands that there must be dialogue with the past, because the past, by virtue of Christ's Incarnation, is always able to be made present to us, in a certain sense, the past never ceases to exist, and so it is proper to have a dialogue with it so that continuity is properly expressed in all the Church says and does so that we can put Christ back at the center of our lives.
I am currently working on an essay on this topic with further and deeper research with the hopes of having it published somewhere.
-Harrison
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Can The Past Be Infinite?
I had an interesting conversation about the nature of time today with a friend. I also just saw a post on a blog about the possibility of the infinite nature of time. This got me thinking about things a bit, and so I would like to do a bit of philosophical exercise which may stride on into a theological exercise.
Definition of Terms
Infinite - When I use the term infinite, I use it in the Aristotelian sense. Now, Aristotle uses two possible ways in which the infinite can exist, as a potential and as an actual. Aristotle argues that an actual infinite cannot exist, but this shall not be dealt with here. My concern is with the potential infinite. A potential infinite is said to be something that is measurable, but is unable to get to the end or beginning, or both, of a set.
For example. Let us take a number set between 1 and 10. Everything within that finite set of numbers (1 and 10) is infinitely divisible. It is not possible to reach a limit in divisibility. No matter how hard you try, it will never get to an end. Once you are "within the set", it can be potentially impossible to get to the end, for there is a potentially infinite series of numbers that one would have to "cross" in order to get to one. A potential infinite is also measurable, no matter how small it is.
Time - That which is the current state of reality in the present.
Discussion
St Augustine famously said "if you ask me what time is, I don't know what it is, but if you don't ask me, then I know". He is also famous for his discourse on time. He states that the past and the future are not real, for they no longer are in existence, but have ceased to be, or have not come to be. The only time that exists is the current moment. This leads to a very interesting view of reality itself, but I shall not get into it.
My question, though, is whether or not the past can be infinite in a potential manner. If Augustine is right and it no longer exists, then the question is pointless to ask for it makes no sense to talk about a reality that is no longer in existence.
However, and this is where philosophy and theology tango, Christ brings an interesting perspective into the idea of time. The infinite (in an actual and real sense, not in a potential sense) comes into contact with the finite, all in the Incarnation. As Ratzinger says, time and eternity are united. If this is the case, that eternity and time come into one contact, then it brings a sense of the eternal into the temporal world and a sense of the temporal world into eternity. This is a logical implication of the Incarnation.
Now, that means that each moment of existence, because of the Incarnation, is touched by the eternal and so, in a certain sense, is grafted to eternity to become an ever present reality. Thus, and I hate to say this, I think Augustine is wrong in his understanding of time because of the understanding of the Incarnation. I would like to point out that I am not giving a complete description of how time and eternity (that is, all instances of time) become eternal because that involves a much deeper understanding of the Incarnation that I wish not to get into at the moment.
My point is, though, that the past takes an a certain eternal character, which means it exists forever, as an everlasting moment, just as every moment in time, because of the fact that eternity and itself have been grafted to each other. Now, this gets me into the nature of the past as at least potentially infinite.
Taking my example from the definition earlier of a finite set that has infinite divisibility, I can apply this to time. Let us say that the set of the past is the total moments from the first instance in time to the present moment. If we look within that set, there is an infinitude of moments in which we can examine, breaking them down more and more into more minute moments. Thus, since the past is nothing more then a finite set of moments, and a potential infinite can be examined within that set, it makes sense to say that the past is, in a certain sense, infinite in the order of potentiality.
-Harrison
Definition of Terms
Infinite - When I use the term infinite, I use it in the Aristotelian sense. Now, Aristotle uses two possible ways in which the infinite can exist, as a potential and as an actual. Aristotle argues that an actual infinite cannot exist, but this shall not be dealt with here. My concern is with the potential infinite. A potential infinite is said to be something that is measurable, but is unable to get to the end or beginning, or both, of a set.
For example. Let us take a number set between 1 and 10. Everything within that finite set of numbers (1 and 10) is infinitely divisible. It is not possible to reach a limit in divisibility. No matter how hard you try, it will never get to an end. Once you are "within the set", it can be potentially impossible to get to the end, for there is a potentially infinite series of numbers that one would have to "cross" in order to get to one. A potential infinite is also measurable, no matter how small it is.
Time - That which is the current state of reality in the present.
Discussion
St Augustine famously said "if you ask me what time is, I don't know what it is, but if you don't ask me, then I know". He is also famous for his discourse on time. He states that the past and the future are not real, for they no longer are in existence, but have ceased to be, or have not come to be. The only time that exists is the current moment. This leads to a very interesting view of reality itself, but I shall not get into it.
My question, though, is whether or not the past can be infinite in a potential manner. If Augustine is right and it no longer exists, then the question is pointless to ask for it makes no sense to talk about a reality that is no longer in existence.
However, and this is where philosophy and theology tango, Christ brings an interesting perspective into the idea of time. The infinite (in an actual and real sense, not in a potential sense) comes into contact with the finite, all in the Incarnation. As Ratzinger says, time and eternity are united. If this is the case, that eternity and time come into one contact, then it brings a sense of the eternal into the temporal world and a sense of the temporal world into eternity. This is a logical implication of the Incarnation.
Now, that means that each moment of existence, because of the Incarnation, is touched by the eternal and so, in a certain sense, is grafted to eternity to become an ever present reality. Thus, and I hate to say this, I think Augustine is wrong in his understanding of time because of the understanding of the Incarnation. I would like to point out that I am not giving a complete description of how time and eternity (that is, all instances of time) become eternal because that involves a much deeper understanding of the Incarnation that I wish not to get into at the moment.
My point is, though, that the past takes an a certain eternal character, which means it exists forever, as an everlasting moment, just as every moment in time, because of the fact that eternity and itself have been grafted to each other. Now, this gets me into the nature of the past as at least potentially infinite.
Taking my example from the definition earlier of a finite set that has infinite divisibility, I can apply this to time. Let us say that the set of the past is the total moments from the first instance in time to the present moment. If we look within that set, there is an infinitude of moments in which we can examine, breaking them down more and more into more minute moments. Thus, since the past is nothing more then a finite set of moments, and a potential infinite can be examined within that set, it makes sense to say that the past is, in a certain sense, infinite in the order of potentiality.
-Harrison
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Philosophical Geek Out!
I am currently in the process of reading Aquinas' commentary on Aristotle's metaphysics. It is really an amazing piece of work and the fruit of much thinking!
I am currently on Book V, Lesson 2, in which the discussion on causation happens.
For those that don't know, there are 4 causal modes in Aristotle's Metaphysics within 2 types of causation.
The 2 types are:
1) Intrinsic Causation - That which is generated from within (will give examples of this in a bit).
2) Extrinsic Causation - That which is generated from without (will, again, give examples of this in a bit).
Within Intrinsic Causation there are 2 modes of this type that can be called causes:
1.a) Material Cause - That which gives the matter for a thing to be. For example, a bronze statue has as its material cause bronze. The bronze does not come from without the bronze, but is part of the statue itself. Therefore it is intrinsic.
1.b) Formal Cause (Sidenote, this cause is both an intrinsic and extrinsic cause). That which gives a thing the form necessary for it to be what it is. For example, the form of a statue is from within. The form is that which gives "definition" to the matter, to make the matter knowable to the intellect.
Within Extrinsic Causation there are 3 mods of this type that can be called causes:
2.a) Formal Cause - When a thing is made in the likeness of another thing and thus receives its form from that thing though it cannot be that thing. This type of formal cause is of the imitative sort. To bring us back to our statue example, though within it it has the form of statue, and, let us say, it is made to resemble John Paul II, it receives the form of "John Paul II" from John Paul II, who is exterior to the statue and thus a cause for it to be a resemblance of him.
2.b) Efficient Cause - That which brings a thing to movement or rest. For example to throw a ball is to be the efficient cause of the ball, for its accidental properties (such as placement and movement) are changing. The catcher of the ball is also an efficient cause because he is again changing the accidental properties of the ball and bringing it to rest. In another sense, Efficient Cause is that which brings a thing into being, which involves motion.
There are 4 types of the type "Efficient Cause" which Aquinas gets from Avicenna; Perfective, Dispositive, Auxiliary, and Advisory. I will not go into that for now, but the distinctions truly blow the mind away!
3.b) Final Cause - That which is the sake for why a thing is done. To bring us back to the example of the ball, the ball is thrown in order for the other person to catch it. Thus, the final cause of the ball in that action is to be caught.
Now, within Final Causation, there are 2 distinctions; ultimate end and intermediary end. This is the reason for why I posted this post. The ultimate cause is the ultimate "raison d'etre" for a thing to act. Aquinas would say that the ultimate final cause of man is to spend eternity in loving communion with God. But intermediary final causes are things that are necessary in order for the final end, the ultimate final cause, to happen.
Now, to bring it back to the ball example, it would seem to me that Aristotle and Aquinas (if I recall correctly) would argue that intermediary final causes are infinite in nature.
Let me give you an example from Math. Let us say we have the numeric distance between 1 and 2. Between that finite set is an infinite possibility of division. One could never move past 1 to 2, for they could continually go further and further down the decimal scale.
The same in our ball example. When someone throws a ball, the ultimate end is for the other to catch it. But in order for that to happen, there must be an infinite set of motions within the finite set of the throw and the catch.
This would seem to make sense since Aristotle argued that the universe is what he calls a potential infinite. It is measurable, yet without any seeming point to measure. If we went within the set of numbers between 1 and 2, we could say the same, as if there were no beginning or end, though there is, but from within the set, it would be impossible.
It is interesting how this seems to logically follow from Aristotle's theory of the 4 causes and how this shows up within his discussions later on in regards to the infinite.
-Harrison
I am currently on Book V, Lesson 2, in which the discussion on causation happens.
For those that don't know, there are 4 causal modes in Aristotle's Metaphysics within 2 types of causation.
The 2 types are:
1) Intrinsic Causation - That which is generated from within (will give examples of this in a bit).
2) Extrinsic Causation - That which is generated from without (will, again, give examples of this in a bit).
Within Intrinsic Causation there are 2 modes of this type that can be called causes:
1.a) Material Cause - That which gives the matter for a thing to be. For example, a bronze statue has as its material cause bronze. The bronze does not come from without the bronze, but is part of the statue itself. Therefore it is intrinsic.
1.b) Formal Cause (Sidenote, this cause is both an intrinsic and extrinsic cause). That which gives a thing the form necessary for it to be what it is. For example, the form of a statue is from within. The form is that which gives "definition" to the matter, to make the matter knowable to the intellect.
Within Extrinsic Causation there are 3 mods of this type that can be called causes:
2.a) Formal Cause - When a thing is made in the likeness of another thing and thus receives its form from that thing though it cannot be that thing. This type of formal cause is of the imitative sort. To bring us back to our statue example, though within it it has the form of statue, and, let us say, it is made to resemble John Paul II, it receives the form of "John Paul II" from John Paul II, who is exterior to the statue and thus a cause for it to be a resemblance of him.
2.b) Efficient Cause - That which brings a thing to movement or rest. For example to throw a ball is to be the efficient cause of the ball, for its accidental properties (such as placement and movement) are changing. The catcher of the ball is also an efficient cause because he is again changing the accidental properties of the ball and bringing it to rest. In another sense, Efficient Cause is that which brings a thing into being, which involves motion.
There are 4 types of the type "Efficient Cause" which Aquinas gets from Avicenna; Perfective, Dispositive, Auxiliary, and Advisory. I will not go into that for now, but the distinctions truly blow the mind away!
3.b) Final Cause - That which is the sake for why a thing is done. To bring us back to the example of the ball, the ball is thrown in order for the other person to catch it. Thus, the final cause of the ball in that action is to be caught.
Now, within Final Causation, there are 2 distinctions; ultimate end and intermediary end. This is the reason for why I posted this post. The ultimate cause is the ultimate "raison d'etre" for a thing to act. Aquinas would say that the ultimate final cause of man is to spend eternity in loving communion with God. But intermediary final causes are things that are necessary in order for the final end, the ultimate final cause, to happen.
Now, to bring it back to the ball example, it would seem to me that Aristotle and Aquinas (if I recall correctly) would argue that intermediary final causes are infinite in nature.
Let me give you an example from Math. Let us say we have the numeric distance between 1 and 2. Between that finite set is an infinite possibility of division. One could never move past 1 to 2, for they could continually go further and further down the decimal scale.
The same in our ball example. When someone throws a ball, the ultimate end is for the other to catch it. But in order for that to happen, there must be an infinite set of motions within the finite set of the throw and the catch.
This would seem to make sense since Aristotle argued that the universe is what he calls a potential infinite. It is measurable, yet without any seeming point to measure. If we went within the set of numbers between 1 and 2, we could say the same, as if there were no beginning or end, though there is, but from within the set, it would be impossible.
It is interesting how this seems to logically follow from Aristotle's theory of the 4 causes and how this shows up within his discussions later on in regards to the infinite.
-Harrison
Saturday, November 24, 2007
The Principle of Non-Contradiction
The Principle of Non-Contradiction is a philosophical principle that has been around for a long time. Essentially, it states that a certain claim is either true or false, it cannot be both at the same time. For example, a fire is either hot or it is not hot, it cannot be both for that goes against the nature of temperature.
I have been listening to a variety of Peter Kreeft lectures as of late and have found them fascinating. The particular reason I have found them fascinating is the extent to which he uses this philosophical principle and how the great arguments of the past have also used this to principle to make their case.
For example, take Pascal's Wager. In it Pascal gives us a reality. God either exists or does not exist. It is a logical impossibility for there to be both. Now, there are 4 possibilities from this Sic et Non.
1) God exists and you don't believe.
2) God exists and you do believe.
3) God doesn't exist and you don't believe.
4) God doesn't exist and you do believe.
Now, he says the following for each statement.
1) If God exists and you don't believe then you're in trouble because He has loved you and you have failed to return that love or to care for the fact that He exists. Bad move. You have not lived for that which you were created for.
2) Good on ya! You believed and live a life to follow Him and pursue Him passionately! This adds not only a tremendous value to your life, but to others as well. This gives your life purpose.
3) Well, you were right. But because God doesn't exist, there is no value to life anyways, so what good did it do to not believe?
4) Well, turns out you're wrong, but at least you were able to live a life that was worthy of helping others and loving them.
Now, Pascal never makes the claim that these are arguments for the existence of God. No, he says that this is simply the first step among many. But he is making a point in that, well, what does it hurt to believe? Will life be miserable because you believe in God?
Now, what interests me in this argument is the principle of non-contradiction. You take the principle of truth and falseness and see where it leads you. We see here the 4 possibilities of True and False and a decision to be made in regards to one's belief in God's existence.
Looking back now, this is essentially how the Medievals worked. Thomas Aquinas' Summa is built in this manner. He says that, for example, Theology is either a science or not a science. He shows the positions for both, and then gives you the reason for holding the true position. It is very common sensicle.
I think we have lost this principle in our lives because of skepticism. Instead of saying "the fire is either hot or not hot", we say "well, how do we know that this idea of temperature is not just a projection of our consciousness? How do I even know what temperature is, maybe it's just a social construct".
Essentially, this skepticism is bound to destroy Western Civilization and is the roots of our relativistic leanings in society.
Al-Ghazali, a Medieval Islamic philosopher, once said in regards to skeptics (for he was once one himself) "Throw a skeptic in a fire and tell them to tell you that the fire is not really fire and that the heat is not really burning their flesh". Experience, practicality, and common sense, always win in the end.
-Harrison
I have been listening to a variety of Peter Kreeft lectures as of late and have found them fascinating. The particular reason I have found them fascinating is the extent to which he uses this philosophical principle and how the great arguments of the past have also used this to principle to make their case.
For example, take Pascal's Wager. In it Pascal gives us a reality. God either exists or does not exist. It is a logical impossibility for there to be both. Now, there are 4 possibilities from this Sic et Non.
1) God exists and you don't believe.
2) God exists and you do believe.
3) God doesn't exist and you don't believe.
4) God doesn't exist and you do believe.
Now, he says the following for each statement.
1) If God exists and you don't believe then you're in trouble because He has loved you and you have failed to return that love or to care for the fact that He exists. Bad move. You have not lived for that which you were created for.
2) Good on ya! You believed and live a life to follow Him and pursue Him passionately! This adds not only a tremendous value to your life, but to others as well. This gives your life purpose.
3) Well, you were right. But because God doesn't exist, there is no value to life anyways, so what good did it do to not believe?
4) Well, turns out you're wrong, but at least you were able to live a life that was worthy of helping others and loving them.
Now, Pascal never makes the claim that these are arguments for the existence of God. No, he says that this is simply the first step among many. But he is making a point in that, well, what does it hurt to believe? Will life be miserable because you believe in God?
Now, what interests me in this argument is the principle of non-contradiction. You take the principle of truth and falseness and see where it leads you. We see here the 4 possibilities of True and False and a decision to be made in regards to one's belief in God's existence.
Looking back now, this is essentially how the Medievals worked. Thomas Aquinas' Summa is built in this manner. He says that, for example, Theology is either a science or not a science. He shows the positions for both, and then gives you the reason for holding the true position. It is very common sensicle.
I think we have lost this principle in our lives because of skepticism. Instead of saying "the fire is either hot or not hot", we say "well, how do we know that this idea of temperature is not just a projection of our consciousness? How do I even know what temperature is, maybe it's just a social construct".
Essentially, this skepticism is bound to destroy Western Civilization and is the roots of our relativistic leanings in society.
Al-Ghazali, a Medieval Islamic philosopher, once said in regards to skeptics (for he was once one himself) "Throw a skeptic in a fire and tell them to tell you that the fire is not really fire and that the heat is not really burning their flesh". Experience, practicality, and common sense, always win in the end.
-Harrison
Sunday, October 28, 2007
An Amazing Website
It is called the "International Catholic University". Is the brain child of Ralph McInerny, who is a fellow at the Pontifical Academy of St Thomas Aquinas and is quite the well known Thomist. I encourage EVERYONE to check it out. Best of all, it's FREE online courses. There are some real gems in there (I am thinking especially of Janet Smith's intro the Sexual Ethics).
http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/icu3.htm
-Harrison
http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/icu3.htm
-Harrison
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Christopher Hitchen's and the Impossible Question
I recently listened to a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath. I would first like to say that Alister McGrath did a fantastic job and showing the reasonableness of Christianity. This debate was held by the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC. The debate was interesting to say the least.
One thing stood out to me in that debate and that was a question that Mr. Hitchens asks every group he talks to. He asks "can you show me a human action that is good and requires God's help, that is, a good action that cannot be done without God's help?" He follows that with "can you tell me of an evil human action that can be done in God's name." The point is simple. He seems to think that, in his view, no good action can be differentiated between the believer and the non-believer. He believes it impossible in fact and the first part of his question has never been able to be answered he states. He states that it is rather easy to come up with an answer to the second part of the question.
Unfortunately, Mr. Hitchens makes a logical leap. It is not my hope to attack his character (which seems to be so easy to be done in the Catholic blogosphere), rather, I simply wish to analyze his argument.
The problem is that Mr. Hitchens makes the presumption that every human act that is good is done out of the person's own accord without any divine help. Christian theology states that God's grace helps us in all our actions and that this grace is made available to all men (men in the sense of all human persons). Mr. Hitchens is taking the scientific route, of that which is only observable to the realm of the investigative. However, the problem is that, and Mr. Dawkins even agrees with this, it cannot be proven that God does not exist. In the end, Mr. Dawkins says, one is only dealing with probabilities. If such is the case, then, according to a true scientific method, Mr. Hitchens us not allowed to make the jump in regards to whether or not human actions are done by their own power or from the grace of God. Science deems to "wait until it is possible to observe". That, however, will not happen until one sits before the judgment seat of God. Only then will we see how God has worked through us in our lives.
I knew there was something wrong with Mr. Hitchens' question when I first heard it. I almost fell into his trap. His trap creates confusion of which the obvious easy answer for the second part creates a confusion in the individual to re-think his whole outlook on life. This brings about the easy possibility of denial based on an irrational position.
However, thanks be to God that I didn't fall into the trap. I thought to myself "well, everyone is capable of doing good acts. However, the problem enlies in the fact that we are making a presumption that the power to do that good act comes from us".
Science is unable to determine the root cause of where our ability to do the good act comes from. In fact, to determine good actions is outside the realm of science, as "good" is also something that is not scientifically observable. Finally, the act itself is the only observable thing, but the root and the moral value of the act are totally and completely unobservable.
So, Mr. Hitchens, I ask you this, show me how "the good" is observable in science, and show me, using your scientific technique (of which atheists are so fond of), how you can prove scientifically and without a doubt that your ability for doing good acts comes ultimately from you.
-Harrison
One thing stood out to me in that debate and that was a question that Mr. Hitchens asks every group he talks to. He asks "can you show me a human action that is good and requires God's help, that is, a good action that cannot be done without God's help?" He follows that with "can you tell me of an evil human action that can be done in God's name." The point is simple. He seems to think that, in his view, no good action can be differentiated between the believer and the non-believer. He believes it impossible in fact and the first part of his question has never been able to be answered he states. He states that it is rather easy to come up with an answer to the second part of the question.
Unfortunately, Mr. Hitchens makes a logical leap. It is not my hope to attack his character (which seems to be so easy to be done in the Catholic blogosphere), rather, I simply wish to analyze his argument.
The problem is that Mr. Hitchens makes the presumption that every human act that is good is done out of the person's own accord without any divine help. Christian theology states that God's grace helps us in all our actions and that this grace is made available to all men (men in the sense of all human persons). Mr. Hitchens is taking the scientific route, of that which is only observable to the realm of the investigative. However, the problem is that, and Mr. Dawkins even agrees with this, it cannot be proven that God does not exist. In the end, Mr. Dawkins says, one is only dealing with probabilities. If such is the case, then, according to a true scientific method, Mr. Hitchens us not allowed to make the jump in regards to whether or not human actions are done by their own power or from the grace of God. Science deems to "wait until it is possible to observe". That, however, will not happen until one sits before the judgment seat of God. Only then will we see how God has worked through us in our lives.
I knew there was something wrong with Mr. Hitchens' question when I first heard it. I almost fell into his trap. His trap creates confusion of which the obvious easy answer for the second part creates a confusion in the individual to re-think his whole outlook on life. This brings about the easy possibility of denial based on an irrational position.
However, thanks be to God that I didn't fall into the trap. I thought to myself "well, everyone is capable of doing good acts. However, the problem enlies in the fact that we are making a presumption that the power to do that good act comes from us".
Science is unable to determine the root cause of where our ability to do the good act comes from. In fact, to determine good actions is outside the realm of science, as "good" is also something that is not scientifically observable. Finally, the act itself is the only observable thing, but the root and the moral value of the act are totally and completely unobservable.
So, Mr. Hitchens, I ask you this, show me how "the good" is observable in science, and show me, using your scientific technique (of which atheists are so fond of), how you can prove scientifically and without a doubt that your ability for doing good acts comes ultimately from you.
-Harrison
Monday, October 08, 2007
A great post on Evangelization
http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2007/10/true-evangelization.html
-Harrison
-Harrison
Saturday, September 29, 2007
An Instrument of God
I am reading the new book of the letters of Mother Teresa. It is a God send, God did so much through her, and she realized that she was but His little instrument.
This affirmed something I've been praying about, how we are able to be "instruments of God".
It is first, necessary, to think about what an instrument is. An instrument (not in the musical sense only, but in any sense), is something that is used to reach a certain goal. For the sake of simplicity, I think the pencil is the best example.
In a certain sense, we are all called to be pencils in the hand of God. Sinfulness makes us pencils that are too big for God to use in His precious hand. God works with the smallest instruments for we wonder "how has He done such great things with such a small instrument". We wonder about such things all the time! We wonder at how computers are able to do so much with such tiny parts. The same is true with God. How is it that He is able to do so much with such small things?! It shows the greatness and awesomeness of His love.
So, we are called to be pencils in the hands of God. How is it, then, that we become smaller so that we can fit in His precious hands? Well, we must be shortened and scraped of all unnecessary excesses. If we have a love of self, then our pencil must thin out, all excess exterior must be stripped away. If our desire for other things is too extensive, then we must be sharpened so as to become as short as possible for God to work with us. We must become tiny instruments in His hands.
Now, God can do great work with such small pencils. He can draw a beautiful canvas of works done by His grace and love through us. We must become small to fit into His precious hands, though, in order for this to work. The smaller our pencil is, the more control He will have over us. We are able to be more attuned with His will when the excesses of pride and desires for things of the world are removed. Only then do we fit in His precious hands, tiny, insignificant, virtually nothing compared to the greatness of God. And yet, though almost nothing, it is only then that we become everything, for we become enveloped by His love shown to us by our being open to His will, which is His hands, guiding the pencil each step of the way.
But we must become small and insignificant, for it is only then that the beauty of God can be shown to the world. It is only in nothingness that we become Christ to others and are able to preach with our lives the love of God.
-Harrison
This affirmed something I've been praying about, how we are able to be "instruments of God".
It is first, necessary, to think about what an instrument is. An instrument (not in the musical sense only, but in any sense), is something that is used to reach a certain goal. For the sake of simplicity, I think the pencil is the best example.
In a certain sense, we are all called to be pencils in the hand of God. Sinfulness makes us pencils that are too big for God to use in His precious hand. God works with the smallest instruments for we wonder "how has He done such great things with such a small instrument". We wonder about such things all the time! We wonder at how computers are able to do so much with such tiny parts. The same is true with God. How is it that He is able to do so much with such small things?! It shows the greatness and awesomeness of His love.
So, we are called to be pencils in the hands of God. How is it, then, that we become smaller so that we can fit in His precious hands? Well, we must be shortened and scraped of all unnecessary excesses. If we have a love of self, then our pencil must thin out, all excess exterior must be stripped away. If our desire for other things is too extensive, then we must be sharpened so as to become as short as possible for God to work with us. We must become tiny instruments in His hands.
Now, God can do great work with such small pencils. He can draw a beautiful canvas of works done by His grace and love through us. We must become small to fit into His precious hands, though, in order for this to work. The smaller our pencil is, the more control He will have over us. We are able to be more attuned with His will when the excesses of pride and desires for things of the world are removed. Only then do we fit in His precious hands, tiny, insignificant, virtually nothing compared to the greatness of God. And yet, though almost nothing, it is only then that we become everything, for we become enveloped by His love shown to us by our being open to His will, which is His hands, guiding the pencil each step of the way.
But we must become small and insignificant, for it is only then that the beauty of God can be shown to the world. It is only in nothingness that we become Christ to others and are able to preach with our lives the love of God.
-Harrison
The Simplicity of Christ
I have been reflecting on many things as of late and one thing that has really touched my life profoundly is what John Paul II says is necessary to "fully realize what it means to be human".
To be human is to imitate Christ who "is the image of the invisible God". Christ reveals the Father to us, He reveals to us Who God is. Now, if the Letter of John says that "God is Love", then we have to ask ourselves where Christ shows us that God is Love in His life. There are, of course, many places, but the greatest place is on the Cross. God reveals His love to us through Christ's death on the Cross.
This is all good and dandy and easy to assent to intellectually. But how do we assent to it with our hearts? There is a joy in making an "intellectual assent" and this is a necessary step, but it is all pointless unless it causes us to desire to make the assent of our will, to say "I will live this truth in my life".
So, what is the truth that Christ reveals to us? That we are to love. And how do we love? By "dying on the Cross", by emptying ourselves for the sake of God. We say "no" to things of the world, not because they are bad, they are good! But God is better. We must make room in our souls for God, and that means taking out all the clutter that is in there. How do we take out the clutter? We take it out by dying to self.
This is a principle that is Biblical and consistent with the Tradition of the Church. Death to self is the means through which we become truly human. By emptying ourselves, we have more of our self to give to others and to give to God, and we thus also have a great glass to fill with the love of God.
I am convinced that this is essential for all Christians and especially for all Catholics to hear. Christ loves us and desires to be with us, He is giving Himself completely to us. We must, however, respond with love. The spear that pierced the side of Christ is symbolic of the wound we cause in Christ's Sacred Heart every time we deny Him and His will in our life. It is that wound that is the narrow gate to Heaven, and the only way to get there is by embracing the Cross Christ gives us so that we may serve God in all we do and so that we may come to receive more and more the love He wishes to show us.
This truly is the fullness of the Gospel "To love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your mind, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and to love your neighbour as yourself". This is the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets, and Christ shows us this fulfillment by His death on the Cross. There is no resurrection without the Cross, and there is no Heaven without death to self.
-Harrison
To be human is to imitate Christ who "is the image of the invisible God". Christ reveals the Father to us, He reveals to us Who God is. Now, if the Letter of John says that "God is Love", then we have to ask ourselves where Christ shows us that God is Love in His life. There are, of course, many places, but the greatest place is on the Cross. God reveals His love to us through Christ's death on the Cross.
This is all good and dandy and easy to assent to intellectually. But how do we assent to it with our hearts? There is a joy in making an "intellectual assent" and this is a necessary step, but it is all pointless unless it causes us to desire to make the assent of our will, to say "I will live this truth in my life".
So, what is the truth that Christ reveals to us? That we are to love. And how do we love? By "dying on the Cross", by emptying ourselves for the sake of God. We say "no" to things of the world, not because they are bad, they are good! But God is better. We must make room in our souls for God, and that means taking out all the clutter that is in there. How do we take out the clutter? We take it out by dying to self.
This is a principle that is Biblical and consistent with the Tradition of the Church. Death to self is the means through which we become truly human. By emptying ourselves, we have more of our self to give to others and to give to God, and we thus also have a great glass to fill with the love of God.
I am convinced that this is essential for all Christians and especially for all Catholics to hear. Christ loves us and desires to be with us, He is giving Himself completely to us. We must, however, respond with love. The spear that pierced the side of Christ is symbolic of the wound we cause in Christ's Sacred Heart every time we deny Him and His will in our life. It is that wound that is the narrow gate to Heaven, and the only way to get there is by embracing the Cross Christ gives us so that we may serve God in all we do and so that we may come to receive more and more the love He wishes to show us.
This truly is the fullness of the Gospel "To love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your mind, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and to love your neighbour as yourself". This is the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets, and Christ shows us this fulfillment by His death on the Cross. There is no resurrection without the Cross, and there is no Heaven without death to self.
-Harrison
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
