Is Catholicism Like Science?

What happens when you accept science as a source of truth in your life? First of all, you accept what previous scientists have settled on. Sure those findings are not really considered infallible but you can't credibly call yourself a science person if you think NASA faked to moon landing or dinosaurs walked the earth 6000 years ago. So practically speaking you have to accept a lot. What you are really accepting is not a bunch  of random facts but you are accepting the validity of the scientific method. That truth arrived at in the past through this method is going to be trustworthy. You also are accepting that truth arrived at in the future through this method will be trustworthy. So there is any number of facts science will discover and you don't know what but you plan to ascent to these as well because you think the method is sound.

Now nobody says that if you do so then you have made a choice to stop thinking. That you are just being told what to think and you no longer use reason or intelligence. We know that scientists use their intellect a lot. While there is a ton of accepted scientific knowledge there are many more questions that are not settled. We are not even close to having settled everything. Even if we did there would still be the matter of applying it to your life. We would still have to think a lot.

So what about Catholicism? When you become Catholic you accept the church as a source of truth in your life. First of all, you accept what Catholics have settled on. Sure those findings are not often considered infallible but you can't credibly call yourself a Catholic if you don't believe abortion is wrong or Jesus rose from the dead. So practically speaking you have to accept a lot. What you are really accepting is not a bunch  of random facts but you are accepting the validity of God revealing Himself through the church and specifically through the popes. That truth arrived at in the past through this method is going to be trustworthy. You also as accepting that truth arrived at in the future through this method will be trustworthy. So there is any number of doctrines future popes will teach and you don't know what but you plan to ascent to these as well because you think the method is sound.

Now you will get many people saying you have stopped thinking.  That you are just being told what to think and you no longer use reason or intelligence. Do those people think theologians don't use their intellect? You wonder. If you are Catholic you know while there are many theological questions settled there is much more that is still being discovered. Even if we settled everything there would still be the matter of each person applying it to their own lives. We would still have to think a lot.

I think the parallels are huge. You just have to get your mind around the idea that false thinking needs to be corrected. In one environment it is corrected by experimentation. In the other environment it is corrected by the church condemning false teaching. The rest works basically the same. Yet somehow people get this idea that one involves reason and the other does not. It is laughable to anyone who actually does theology. But it is not funny because such a lie blocks people from the great joys of Catholicism. Literally the greatest joy in this life and the next.

Soul Sex

I wrote a post a while back reflecting on Ted Seeber's language in talking about sex. I didn't let him know mostly because there were already some very long conversations with him going on at Patheos and my aim was not to start one more but to reflect a little deeper on one aspect of it. Well the topic just didn't go away. Strangely enough, about 9 months later it seems to have given birth to something. Ted got a chance to read my post and seems gung ho to use my terminology.my post ends with:

Really we need 2 words. One for good, Catholic sex that we want to use very positively. Then we need one for the opposite kind of sex. The sex that is not good enough and is therefore immoral. That can be a bigger challenge because you want to use this word negatively. You don't want to be insulting or judgmental but you do want to highlight a significant lacking in many sex acts that are not typically seen as lacking much. I am wondering whether to offer a suggestion. All I can think of right now is soul sex and soulless sex. There has to be something better.

Then Ted's response:

Oooh, I'm going to start using that. I wish I had found this last November.

Soul sex and Soulless sex- and the physical proof of that soul sex is 9 months later you have to give it a name and it won't leave until it's grown up and ready to get married itself.

Not sure where that will go but it should be an improvement over the language of rape that he has been using for quite a while now. I do think we need some good words to communicate the much misunderstood Catholic philosophy of sex.

There is another interesting fact. Micheal Sean Winters over at NCR wrote something on one line in the mass liturgy.  The word "soul" is part of the line and part of his reflection.

Our word “soul” does not capture the Latin word “anima.” And, our own word “soul” has now largely been displaced in our understanding of the human person by the word “mind,” as Edward Reed detailed in his extraordinary book of the same title, “From Soul to Mind: The Emergence of Psychology from Erasmus Darwin to William James,” a book that should be on every bookshelf.

“Anima” is our deepest self, our “I” if you will, which is why the previous English translation rendered the phrase “and I shall be healed.” But, “I” does not capture it either or, to put it differently, the “I” in the modern West has taken on its own trajectory and acquired a meaning that is too ridden with autonomy to capture what is meant by “anima.” "Anima" is something that unites the human race and the "I" is not understood that way. And, as noted, in the biblical passage, the phrase is “my servant shall be healed.” So, what are we to do? If there is no imperfect rendering of the word, let us at least try to excavate what is meant: In our deepest, darkest, most broken selves, the parts where we do not want to let the light shine, where we prefer not even to consider because it just hurts too much, Jesus can shine His light and bring healing. “My soul” or “I” is not the key, is it? The key is the healing.

Read the whole thing. It is very good. But the passage strikes me as getting at what we mean by Soul Sex. Something that really impacts us at a level that we don't even dare contemplate. That is so deep that only Jesus can get us into contact with that part of ourselves. Sex and marriage are powerful enough to let us connect with our spouse at that level. That connection is agape love which is the essence of God Himself. The same love that unites the 3 persons of the trinity into one God can unite man and woman into one flesh. That is soul sex. That is what we should be aiming for when we enter into the sexual embrace.

The Mind And God

Patrica Churchland has a new book on the Philosphy of the Mind. She makes a bunch of statements about religion. Mostly the same old errors. God of the gaps in reverse. Instead of arguing gaps in our knowledge prove God exists they assume a lack of gaps proves God does not exist. The argument does not work in reverse. A physical cause and effect and a spiritual cause and effect can both exist. One does not exclude the other. So when a farmer prays for rain and it rains he sees the spiritual dynamic of God answering prayer. A meteorologist might look at the same storm and see high pressure systems and low pressure system interacting and causing rain. They are both right. This is explained a bit more in point #1 here and here.

Then she says something truly interesting.

You begin your book, right off the bat, dispensing with the idea that human beings have a soul—some ethereal spirit that inhabits each of us.

It doesn't seem to be. It's hard to see how it could be given the dependency of personality, mood, memory and seeing and perception on the physical brain. Once that's gone, what's left? There really isn't anything left. Except one can still have a sense of continuity with the wider universe while recognizing that the continuity is very biological in its underpinnings.

You mean like "ashes to ashes, dust to dust"? 

Yes. I think some of the old boys had it right. Were there to be a resurrection it would have to be a resurrection of the body; but then, of course, it wouldn’t be quite the same body. It would have to a body that was glorified, and they're not quite clear what they mean about that, but it was obviously a better body than the one you died in.

The "what's left?" comment is the error about the physical cause and effect pushing away the spiritual cause and effect. But then she talks about the resurrection of the body. It makes a lot of sense in this context. Why does Christianity insist on a life after death with a body? One reason might be that a lot more of who we are is embedded in our body than we really think about. Our memories, our personality, our moods, the list seems to keep growing.  That does not cause a problem for Christianity because it teaches we will be going into eternal life with a body and a soul.

Many faiths do not say that. They see us as continuing without a body. It is one thing to imagine yourself without hands or feet but it it is a lot harder to imagine yourself without your memories or personality. In what sense are you still you?

It also makes more sense of the notion of purgatory. The idea of physical pain being associated with purging us of the stain of sin. If a lot of the brokenness of sin is physically in our neurons that control our thought patterns and subconscious reactions then why shouldn't we expect physical pain in repairing such things?

The Big Lebowski

I finally saw this movie. I have heard it referred to countless times on religion blogs. Makes you wonder. It is about a guy who just exists. He bowls. He uses the F word a lot. He is unemployed and not the least bit uncomfortable with that. Not working towards any goal. Not building anything. Not studying anything. Not looking for a marriage partner. Just being. In modern society we have a lot of men like that. They lack ambition. They lack drive.

This Lebowski dude is very frustrating in his lack of desire. He finds himself in a crisis situation. He does not really rise to the occasion. He shows a little concern but only in relation to his friend who is completely apathetic. He lets his friend do stupid things for selfish reasons and complains but never insists on a better course of action. All he has to do to be moral is to reject some truly bad ideas and he even fails at that. You wonder about a culture that has heroes like this. Someone who can confront all sorts of sexual deviancy and not show any trace of moral outrage. Someone who reacts to life and death situations by smoking more drugs. Someone who lets other people control him even when they are obviously morons.

You wonder how to evangelize a culture like that. It seems like the natural human desire to pursue what is true and beautiful and good has been dulled by sex and drugs and rock'n roll. I am reminded by a quote about our deepest fear:

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.

This is the fear that Lebowski seems to have conquered. He is totally OK being not very bright, not very talented and not very good looking. That is OK if there is some other way you are called to greatness. You need to be comfortable with the gifts you don't have. But Lebowski does not have some other greatness like the St Therese of Lisieux or even the Blessed Virgin Mary. He has nothing. He bowls a lot. He has many stupid conversations with his friends. He smokes drugs. There is no hidden greatness anywhere. We used to call people heroes because they did something great. Now we call people heroes for avoiding any impulse towards greatness.

The truth is we were made for something better. We know it. We are supposed to change the world. God created us to do that. If He created us for something then we are going to have the talent to do it. We are going to have the heart to do it and enjoy it. Ultimately, if we ask God's help, we are going to be successful. We don't have to marvel at how someone can let a bunch of immoral fools run his life and still end up happy. We can let God empower us to be true heroes and profoundly satisfied with life.

Prophet, Priest and King

When we are baptized we are given the 3-fold office of Prophet, Priest and King. This correlates well with what we often hear about the role of church leaders. People talk about how they are to teach, govern and sanctify. Teaching is the prophetic role. Sanctifying is the priestly role. Governing is what kings do. So we can see what that looks like in the clergy. But we are all called to be prophets and priests and kings. What does that look like? This is particularly relevant regarding the New Evangelization because a lot of what you see out there tends to emphasize one of these areas and imply that the others are less important. The truth is we need them all to succeed in the New Evangelization or any other spiritual endeavor.

Being a king involves governing you affairs in a holy manner. Think of the fruits of the spirit: love joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self control. When Catholics do these things they become magnets for lost souls. People want to know how to love authentically, how to have deep joy, how to be at peace with who they are, etc. Our role as laypeople is to show them that.

You look at the response to Pope Francis. What do people comment on? How he seems to really care about the poor and how he seems to be so real and so happy. It touches people. But we are all called to touch people with our holiness. Somehow society has associated holiness with being judgmental and boring. Whose fault is that? It is ours as lay Catholics. We have either not looked any different or the differences we have shown have not been clearly rooted in love and producing joy and peace. Obviously this is important for a bunch of reasons but it is also going to be the primary way to draw people to Jesus.

Secondly we have the priestly office. For laypeople that is prayer, fasting, alms-giving, and various other sacrifices we can offer up for the salvation of souls. How often do we do this? We are busy but a little can go a long way here. If we learn to lift up the struggles we face and turn them into an intercession for the soul of a loved one. That is what a priest does. He offers a sacrifice to God for another person. When we do that it not only aids in saving souls but it really sanctifies all of our life. It means we don't just pray when we have nothing else to do but we pray whenever we suffer. Way more often.

Lastly, being a prophet implies speaking God's word into a particular situation. Laypeople don't give homilies. Still they do need to know God's word and be able to communicate it. Many Catholics hate doing this. But the gospel is important. We need to understand it well, first of all, for ourselves, but also for other people. Yes we can draw people's interest with our actions and with our prayers. They are not going to respond to that by reading the Catechism or signing up for RCIA. What they are going to do is ask us questions. We need to be comfortable answering them. What is more we need to do it in a Christ-centered way. Don't just say "that is how I was raised" or give some other secular rationale for what you do. That is taking glory that rightly belongs to God and ascribing it to man. We believe the good we do comes from the grace of God. We need to say so both for our sake and the sake of the person asking.

For the New Evangelization to be a success we need to get all these things right. It is not a question of picking one and declaring it to be the key. We need them all. The good news is we don't need to start with a big group. The first evangelization started small. When we get it right it will grow. As long as it is growing it is only a matter of time before it transforms the church and eventually the world.

Faith Vs Empiricism

Over at Strange Notions they have an interview with Chana Messinger explaining why she is an atheist.. Here is a quote:

The strength of any epistemology relies in its ability to act differently in the face of true things and false things. Faith, as far as I can tell, does not do this. Empiricism and rationality do. I have never heard a conception of God that is both coherent enough to test by these methods and that passes these tests. Furthermore, it does not appear that the existence of a God explains anything I didn't know before.

There is a common mistake here. That we are faced with a choice. On the one hand we can know things by faith and religion and on the other hand we can know things by empirical observation and science. That is not actually the choice we are faced with. Christians don't reject science. They don't say we can't learn from empirical observation. In fact, that is the preferred method of learning. Christians love science. If there is science to be done on a question then Christians want it to be done and want to know the results. Why? We want to know the truth. Empirical observation is a great way to find truth. So do it. Learn as much as you can that way.

What Christians would say is not that we can't trust science. It is that science won't give us all the answers. There are some questions science is not helpful with at all. These are the questions addressed by religion and philosophy.  So we don't choose between religion and science. Science is just not in the game. It is a choice between thinking about religion or not addressing the questions at all.

Then there is reason. Where is reason used? In science? Yes, big time. In religion? Yes again. The difference between religion and science is not that one is rational and the other is not. They both use reason. They start with different data. Science starts with observation and reasons from there. Religion starts with revelation or alleged revelation and uses reason to arrive at truth.

Now Chana brings up something important here. Science has an advantage. When science uses reason to arrive at theories about the physical world it can test those theories by designing experiments and doing further observations. If the theory is wrong the experiment typically shows it. So we can have great confidence in science.

There is no way to design an experiment for religion. So there is no way to correct the false theories. So we end up with many theories and no way to choose between them. This is where Catholicism shines. It does have a way to choose. It teaches that God did not just reveal something about Himself and leave man to argue endlessly as to what is the best understanding of that revelation. He continues to lead His church and tells us when our reasoning has gone wrong. So we can have confidence in religion.

Consequentialism

Yvain made a comment over at Unequally Yoked about consequentialism.  Both Yvain and  Eliezer are associate with the Less Wrong community.

This is like that thing Eliezer said, where if you start arguing that we should reject consequentialism because it would have bad consequences you need to step back and think for a second.

On the surface of it it seems quite clever. People who argue against consequentialism do point out the bad consequences. Then the defender of consequentialism can always reply. Well you just didn't do consequentialism well enough. You didn't put this particular consequence into you calculation. If you had done that then consequentialism would give you the right answer.

The trouble with this is it takes the knowledge of hindsight and assumes it is always available as foresight. That is one of the main problems of consequentialism. We don't know all the consequences. We can foresee some of them. Even with those we tend to overestimate how accurate our predictions are. But there are a ton of consequences that we just don't foresee at all. Sometimes we can see them after they have impacted us. Often we don't even notice them then.

We tend to be much more likely to notice physical consequences. Not that we get even half of those right but we are horrible with spiritual, emotional, or philosophical consequences. How does this impact the way we view the human person? What will this do to my conscience? If everyone lives this way what will it do to human relationships or society as a whole? These questions actually get you into the whole idea of morality. Often consequentialism misses them entirely. That causes some to say consequentialism has nothing to do with morality. That is not quite true. Still it does seem hard wired to prefer lesser goods to greater goods. That is because lesser goods tend to be more immediate and more physical and therefore are much less likely to be missed.

Take an example of divorce. If someone is considering divorce then the positive consequence is going to seem huge. They can rid themselves of an obligation which they have come to resent. What about the negative consequences? Those are less immediate and less predictable. You break the most solemn promise you have made in your life. So what? What does that say about who you are? That is pretty hard to quantify. What does it do to marriage as an institution? Every broken marriage vow cheapens future marriage vows. Will it cause friends and family to have a harder time taking their marriage vows seriously? Hard to know. What about your relationship with God? How will that be impacted by your divorce? Not sure but it can't be good.

So you end up with skewing the process in favor of the most petty and pathetic considerations. What is more it assumes you are competent to weigh all the consequences. But we know people can get ideas in their heads that all their problems will go away if they could only get a divorce. Morality is supposed to protect us from our own bad mindsets. Consequentialism does not do that at all. It does not do any of the things morality should do. It does not value timeless principles. It is not oriented towards building inner virtue. It does not make you moral decisions more consistent.

In fact, what consequentialism does most often is make bad moral reasoning seem OK. It puts us in the center. What we see as important at this moment is important. What we don't see at all does not matter at all. But you feel like you have done some moral reasoning. Really what you have done is rationalized bad behavior. We trust our reason more than we should. Our minds can give us a very skewed picture. We should trust reason in general but look to tradition to guide our thinking.

Consequentialism also has a self-referential problem. It talks about which course of action has better consequences. But when you define morality you can't use words like "better." That is one of the concepts you are trying to define. So often consequentialism will become sentimentalism at the final stage of analysis. What is better is what seems emotionally better. So it is very changeable based on the picture you have in your mind.

We accept torture after 911 not because the moral reality has changed. Just because out sentimental picture has changed. We imagine the torture victim as a terrorist and the torturer as someone trying to prevent another 911 or worse. So we don't see one human person treating another human person in an inhuman way. We see a hero and a demon.  But then we try and tell the Syrian government that they should not torture. In our minds it is a very different picture but we have taken our minds out of the picture. Our analysis of the consequences does not matter. It is the thinking of the Syrian leadership that matters. We have nothing to say.