So you have probably noticed that I have not posted for some time here on this blog. I do apologize especially to those on my Twitter feed who have since stopped following me. Sadness. But a number of things have kept me away, and I wanted to let you in now that I have some time.
First, my Lenten promise to give up video games has sort of back fired on me. Initially my hope was to cut out the time spent on video games to pursue other projects. Like this blog for example. Instead I've found myself sapped of energy save for making Youtube videos of game playthroughs with my siblings. This requires very little work most days. Other than that I'm beat physically and emotionally.
Second, this is the busy time at work. My weeks are really unpredictable these days and I can't plan out my day like I used to because every day brings a surprise. I'm also spearheading a project at work that is taking a lot of time. This has left me with little energy and less focus (and for me that is saying something).
Finally, a number of personal items is taking my attention at home. I can't get into these but suffice to say I've been distracted by a variety of things that need attending to. So what might have been left for blogging after a hectic work day has been replaced with video editing which requires minimal input.
Sorry for the pity party. But I did want to let the few readers know that I haven't forgotten this blog. It's just that several things are in play and my attention has been elsewhere.
Having said that I do have some new ideas that I would like to incorporate into this blog. But I will save that for another post.
Showing posts with label Featured. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Featured. Show all posts
Monday, March 18, 2013
Friday, January 25, 2013
Biometrics and guns
Mark Shea has a post about his reactions to reactions about a proposed solution to add biometrics as a safety to guns. I find this proposal problematic for a number of reasons but will confine myself to technical issues as I have some experience with them.
I respect Mark Shea a lot. He's been instrumental in my thinking about the Bush administrations torture policies and the Iraq War. And major props to him for being virtually alone on our side of the political aisle in calling out Catholics who ignored or attempted to justify such evils (me being one of them). I owe him a huge debt.
So when I say he's wrong on this issue I say it with the understanding that I've been on the wrong side of an issue before with him. Having said that I have some background in tech stuff so I think I'm on more solid ground this time around. :-).
So here are my concerns:
The current state of biometrics - When I say current I mean as of the moment I'm writing this post. High end biometric readers are fine, but expensive. But the mass market manufacture still has a long way to go before I would trust my life to them. Which brings us to the second point.
Life or death software - Software is in two states right now I would say and will be for the foreseeable future. There is your general business software such as Google that if it fails you lose something "trivial." Search results, your last order, etc.
Life or death software is a whole different ballgame. If it breaks, people die. Therefore it cannot break. Or if it does, have some kind of backup. Biometrics on guns falls into this category. Which leads me to....
What happens when it fails? - Notice the bold. "When." Software/hardware is guaranteed to fail. Period. It is simply a question of time. What happens when the biometrics encounter an error? Does the gun lock up? Or does it release? In either case, the biometrics would have to be checked at regular intervals. The same is true for a gun, but the number of times increases quite a bit.
These are the concerns off the top of my head. There are plenty more that have to do with actual design issues relating to the mechanics of the gun and failure conditions. But just this list alone has me concerned about a digital anything that interferes with the mechanics of the firing of a gun.
I respect Mark Shea a lot. He's been instrumental in my thinking about the Bush administrations torture policies and the Iraq War. And major props to him for being virtually alone on our side of the political aisle in calling out Catholics who ignored or attempted to justify such evils (me being one of them). I owe him a huge debt.
So when I say he's wrong on this issue I say it with the understanding that I've been on the wrong side of an issue before with him. Having said that I have some background in tech stuff so I think I'm on more solid ground this time around. :-).
So here are my concerns:
The current state of biometrics - When I say current I mean as of the moment I'm writing this post. High end biometric readers are fine, but expensive. But the mass market manufacture still has a long way to go before I would trust my life to them. Which brings us to the second point.
Life or death software - Software is in two states right now I would say and will be for the foreseeable future. There is your general business software such as Google that if it fails you lose something "trivial." Search results, your last order, etc.
Life or death software is a whole different ballgame. If it breaks, people die. Therefore it cannot break. Or if it does, have some kind of backup. Biometrics on guns falls into this category. Which leads me to....
What happens when it fails? - Notice the bold. "When." Software/hardware is guaranteed to fail. Period. It is simply a question of time. What happens when the biometrics encounter an error? Does the gun lock up? Or does it release? In either case, the biometrics would have to be checked at regular intervals. The same is true for a gun, but the number of times increases quite a bit.
These are the concerns off the top of my head. There are plenty more that have to do with actual design issues relating to the mechanics of the gun and failure conditions. But just this list alone has me concerned about a digital anything that interferes with the mechanics of the firing of a gun.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Civilizations have two choices
Civilizations have two choices. They can either sacrifice for the future or they can sacrifice the future. There is no middle ground.
A healthy civilization is one that embraces children for the future. Children are an investment in the future. A civilization pours its hopes and dreams into their children. When a civilization focuses on its kids, the civilization shows that it wants to continue into the future. A civilization that prides itself on its children is a civilization with a future.
A healthy civilization knows its neighbors. It builds communities and creates personal networks that work toward the common future. It holds the natural rights of others as something to be pursued and cherished.
Civilizations are healthy when they plan for the future of their children. They live within their means attempting to put their children into a more stable future. They impart morals to their children to direct them to focus on their children's future. They teach discipline, virtue, and prudence.
A healthy civilization is one that values personal and community responsibility. It recognizes the need to participate in the needs of their fellow man in a personal way. It recognizes the direct responsibility of each and every citizen and respects that responsibility rather than relegating it to a few empowered individuals.
A civilization that is not healthy sacrifices its future for short term gratification. It does not impart the values of self-sacrifice but calls for others to sacrifice on its behalf. It attempts to avoid responsibility whenever possible.
An unhealthy civilization aborts its children, or attempts to avoid having them entirely. It regards children as a token of self fulfillment at best and a disease and plague at worst. It attempts to euthanize the old, to avoid having to adhere to the wisdom of the past and to avoid the reminder that all things in this life are transient.
An unhealthy civilization does not live within its means. It racks up huge amounts of personal and public debt to live a life at the expense of the future. It abandons the virtues and sense of personal responsibility or outsources it to charities or the state.
An unhealthy society fears its neighbors. It does not know the person down the street and mistrusts anyone who disagrees with them. It seeks to deprive the natural rights of others out of fear that the neighbor will misuse them. In turn, the neighbor who works to deprive such rights are distrusted.
Which kind of civilization are we? The question is left as an exercise to the reader.
A healthy civilization is one that embraces children for the future. Children are an investment in the future. A civilization pours its hopes and dreams into their children. When a civilization focuses on its kids, the civilization shows that it wants to continue into the future. A civilization that prides itself on its children is a civilization with a future.
A healthy civilization knows its neighbors. It builds communities and creates personal networks that work toward the common future. It holds the natural rights of others as something to be pursued and cherished.
Civilizations are healthy when they plan for the future of their children. They live within their means attempting to put their children into a more stable future. They impart morals to their children to direct them to focus on their children's future. They teach discipline, virtue, and prudence.
A healthy civilization is one that values personal and community responsibility. It recognizes the need to participate in the needs of their fellow man in a personal way. It recognizes the direct responsibility of each and every citizen and respects that responsibility rather than relegating it to a few empowered individuals.
A civilization that is not healthy sacrifices its future for short term gratification. It does not impart the values of self-sacrifice but calls for others to sacrifice on its behalf. It attempts to avoid responsibility whenever possible.
An unhealthy civilization aborts its children, or attempts to avoid having them entirely. It regards children as a token of self fulfillment at best and a disease and plague at worst. It attempts to euthanize the old, to avoid having to adhere to the wisdom of the past and to avoid the reminder that all things in this life are transient.
An unhealthy civilization does not live within its means. It racks up huge amounts of personal and public debt to live a life at the expense of the future. It abandons the virtues and sense of personal responsibility or outsources it to charities or the state.
An unhealthy society fears its neighbors. It does not know the person down the street and mistrusts anyone who disagrees with them. It seeks to deprive the natural rights of others out of fear that the neighbor will misuse them. In turn, the neighbor who works to deprive such rights are distrusted.
Which kind of civilization are we? The question is left as an exercise to the reader.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
The moral law ain't arbitrary
One of the clubs that the secular folks try to beat on us with is this notion that God is a petulant child who doesn't like it when people don't do what He says. And because He is all powerful, He gets to be a big bully and torture people for eternity for not bowing to His arbitrary wishes.
This infantile view of God and morality is reinforced when well meaning but misguided Christians that lack a proper grounding in philosophy and theology (mostly because the non-denominations have jettisoned anything resembling theology) appeal to how society should be ordered "because it is God' will". What they don't realize is that this plays right into the arbitrary feel of God's will.
The annoying part is that this whole line of thinking is a non-starter. Morality is not simply a list of rules to live by. Morality goes to the very heart of who we are as humans, and our relationship to God. The very nature of morality ultimately goes to not just our own benefit, but our true destiny.
All good, joy, and happiness leads to God. God is literally good. The Divine Attributes and the Divine Essence are one and the same. When we chase good, we are chasing God.
An atheist will protest this on the grounds that they can be good without God. But this is begging the question. And aside from this, we are talking about the consistency of the Theistic viewpoint.
If God is good, separation from Him leads to misery. Torture at the loss of Joy Itself. A life without Joy, or even the hope of Joy, is an existence too terrible to comprehend. Yet this is precisely the existence that we choose if we cast God out of our lives.
In my own experience I first started to follow the moral law because I feared Hell. This is not uncommon.
But as my faith grew I realized that I should follow these rules because they are good for me. They conform to our true nature. And we grow in a relationship with the One whom we love.
Like a small child we obey our parents not out of some pure love for them but because we don't want to get punished. As we grow we may at times disobey them and are punished for it. As we get older and their influence wanes, we may strike out on our own and reject their advice. And the world smacks us for it. In those moments we realize that our parents were teaching us "rules" because they loved us and wanted us to be the most we could be. And what they taught us was how life works, and what we must do.
God's will is even more important because the moral law goes right to our very nature. It describes who we are, and what we are meant to be. Ultimately it is oriented toward God, and how we are to treat one another. What it ultimately reveals is that we are meant to be beings of Love, as God is. When we reject his will we turn inward, and in doing so cut ourselves off from Love.
We are meant to be followers of the moral law because it is who we are. The "rules" point to our true human nature. This is why the Psalmist proclaims that we find joy in His law. We owe it to ourselves, our fellow man, and most importantly to God to discover His will and to follow. Only then can we find the Joy we all seek.
This infantile view of God and morality is reinforced when well meaning but misguided Christians that lack a proper grounding in philosophy and theology (mostly because the non-denominations have jettisoned anything resembling theology) appeal to how society should be ordered "because it is God' will". What they don't realize is that this plays right into the arbitrary feel of God's will.
The annoying part is that this whole line of thinking is a non-starter. Morality is not simply a list of rules to live by. Morality goes to the very heart of who we are as humans, and our relationship to God. The very nature of morality ultimately goes to not just our own benefit, but our true destiny.
All good, joy, and happiness leads to God. God is literally good. The Divine Attributes and the Divine Essence are one and the same. When we chase good, we are chasing God.
An atheist will protest this on the grounds that they can be good without God. But this is begging the question. And aside from this, we are talking about the consistency of the Theistic viewpoint.
If God is good, separation from Him leads to misery. Torture at the loss of Joy Itself. A life without Joy, or even the hope of Joy, is an existence too terrible to comprehend. Yet this is precisely the existence that we choose if we cast God out of our lives.
In my own experience I first started to follow the moral law because I feared Hell. This is not uncommon.
But as my faith grew I realized that I should follow these rules because they are good for me. They conform to our true nature. And we grow in a relationship with the One whom we love.
Like a small child we obey our parents not out of some pure love for them but because we don't want to get punished. As we grow we may at times disobey them and are punished for it. As we get older and their influence wanes, we may strike out on our own and reject their advice. And the world smacks us for it. In those moments we realize that our parents were teaching us "rules" because they loved us and wanted us to be the most we could be. And what they taught us was how life works, and what we must do.
God's will is even more important because the moral law goes right to our very nature. It describes who we are, and what we are meant to be. Ultimately it is oriented toward God, and how we are to treat one another. What it ultimately reveals is that we are meant to be beings of Love, as God is. When we reject his will we turn inward, and in doing so cut ourselves off from Love.
We are meant to be followers of the moral law because it is who we are. The "rules" point to our true human nature. This is why the Psalmist proclaims that we find joy in His law. We owe it to ourselves, our fellow man, and most importantly to God to discover His will and to follow. Only then can we find the Joy we all seek.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
"I'm offended" and other feelings
I find it rather very depressing when, after going through a long and painstaking post about very fine points of philosophy and theology, the response to the challenge is "I'm offended." That's it. No rebuttal. No reason why I'm wrong. Just a blurb of emotion, usually followed by an insult.
This to the other side seems to be a proper counter and the feeling of offense provides justification for disregarding another's opinion. This projection occurs way too often in our society. The rush of emotion that validates a person's view that the other is wrong, simply by being offended.
Another is the dubious evidence claim. Claims that because homosexuals pair up and pretend to be wed somehow validates the notion of same-sex "marriage". When pointed out that this "evidence" is nothing of the kind, the "I'm offended" non-argument followed by an insult is usually trotted out, with the same effect as before.
Then there is the "That person wrestled with it for a long time". "It" being some horrible crime such as abortion. Apparently torturing oneself before performing some heinous act turns the act from evil to good. It doesn't seem to occur to people that the opposite is in fact true.
Feelings are important, but they are not an argument. Emotions help to drive our ability to live our life according to reason. But they are not a substitute for reason. The inability of most it seems to realize that "I'm offended" does not mean that offense is valid is suffocating our ability to exchange ideas. Just because one feels offended does not mean you have a right to be offended.
We live in a strange time where reason is confused for emotion and we are proclaimed to be the "Age of Reason." From what I can tell we excel in being offended and angry. We excel in feeling that our ideas are worthwhile simply because we feel like they are worthwhile.
This to the other side seems to be a proper counter and the feeling of offense provides justification for disregarding another's opinion. This projection occurs way too often in our society. The rush of emotion that validates a person's view that the other is wrong, simply by being offended.
Another is the dubious evidence claim. Claims that because homosexuals pair up and pretend to be wed somehow validates the notion of same-sex "marriage". When pointed out that this "evidence" is nothing of the kind, the "I'm offended" non-argument followed by an insult is usually trotted out, with the same effect as before.
Then there is the "That person wrestled with it for a long time". "It" being some horrible crime such as abortion. Apparently torturing oneself before performing some heinous act turns the act from evil to good. It doesn't seem to occur to people that the opposite is in fact true.
Feelings are important, but they are not an argument. Emotions help to drive our ability to live our life according to reason. But they are not a substitute for reason. The inability of most it seems to realize that "I'm offended" does not mean that offense is valid is suffocating our ability to exchange ideas. Just because one feels offended does not mean you have a right to be offended.
We live in a strange time where reason is confused for emotion and we are proclaimed to be the "Age of Reason." From what I can tell we excel in being offended and angry. We excel in feeling that our ideas are worthwhile simply because we feel like they are worthwhile.
Friday, January 4, 2013
Natural Law without God
One of the strategies employed in apologetics is the attempt to work from premises that the opponent holds. This makes sense from a tactical standpoint. If the opponent doesn't believe that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God, appealing to the Bible's authority is a moot point.
Sometimes however in an attempt to do this Catholic apologists commit a different fallacy. Oftentimes with atheists we attempt to argue about issues using Natural Law. One can see this with the debate surrounding marriage.
One of the fallacies I've noticed (and am guilty of myself) is the attempt to employ Natural Law without the existence of God as a premise. This I have concluded to be faulty, and causes unnecessary confusion.
It makes sense at first. One can note the directed nature of entities in existence (i.e. final causes) without necessarily noting that such "directedness" only makes sense with a "Director". Thus since atheists reject the notion of God one can at first appear to argue Natural Law without invoking God.
For the record, this is not "God" in the sense of how the Catholic Church views Him (though there are a lot of similarities.) This is the God of the Greeks, or the God of "classical theism." The God whose attributes are discovered through human reason.
There is however one huge problem with ignoring the existence of God. It is worthwhile to note the intended nature of things given their directed nature. But without God the question remains, "Assuming such things as final causes exist, why conform to them?" It is the same question we pose to atheists, "Why be good?"
Natural Law at its heart is the study of entities and their directed nature. Natural Law states that entities are directed to an end. That end is intended by that which directed it, i.e. God. Since God is pure Good, the natural end of entities are in fact good. And it is good to work toward those natural ends, and evil to frustrate them.
Without God the whole reason for acting toward the intended end of an entity goes out the window. The fact that an entity might be oriented toward a particular end is nice and all. But God is what makes the system moral. Otherwise we have entities of a directed nature that while interesting in principle have no justification for following them.
Both the material atheist and the Natural Law philosopher say that morality can be determined by observation and reason. But without God the atheist is in a pickle as to why this morality should be followed beyond self-centered reasons. When we as apologists try to exclude God from the conversation we run into the same problem.
Clearly a better understanding of Natural Law and how it relates to classical Theism as a whole is necessary. The Catholic laity is undergoing a revival of these long neglected yet timely principles. But we'd best be careful not to cherry pick. Like the doctrines of the Faith, Natural Law philosophy has a lot of pieces and they are there for a reason.
Sometimes however in an attempt to do this Catholic apologists commit a different fallacy. Oftentimes with atheists we attempt to argue about issues using Natural Law. One can see this with the debate surrounding marriage.
One of the fallacies I've noticed (and am guilty of myself) is the attempt to employ Natural Law without the existence of God as a premise. This I have concluded to be faulty, and causes unnecessary confusion.
It makes sense at first. One can note the directed nature of entities in existence (i.e. final causes) without necessarily noting that such "directedness" only makes sense with a "Director". Thus since atheists reject the notion of God one can at first appear to argue Natural Law without invoking God.
For the record, this is not "God" in the sense of how the Catholic Church views Him (though there are a lot of similarities.) This is the God of the Greeks, or the God of "classical theism." The God whose attributes are discovered through human reason.
There is however one huge problem with ignoring the existence of God. It is worthwhile to note the intended nature of things given their directed nature. But without God the question remains, "Assuming such things as final causes exist, why conform to them?" It is the same question we pose to atheists, "Why be good?"
Natural Law at its heart is the study of entities and their directed nature. Natural Law states that entities are directed to an end. That end is intended by that which directed it, i.e. God. Since God is pure Good, the natural end of entities are in fact good. And it is good to work toward those natural ends, and evil to frustrate them.
Without God the whole reason for acting toward the intended end of an entity goes out the window. The fact that an entity might be oriented toward a particular end is nice and all. But God is what makes the system moral. Otherwise we have entities of a directed nature that while interesting in principle have no justification for following them.
Both the material atheist and the Natural Law philosopher say that morality can be determined by observation and reason. But without God the atheist is in a pickle as to why this morality should be followed beyond self-centered reasons. When we as apologists try to exclude God from the conversation we run into the same problem.
Clearly a better understanding of Natural Law and how it relates to classical Theism as a whole is necessary. The Catholic laity is undergoing a revival of these long neglected yet timely principles. But we'd best be careful not to cherry pick. Like the doctrines of the Faith, Natural Law philosophy has a lot of pieces and they are there for a reason.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Monday, December 31, 2012
My New Year's Resolutions
Well it is time for that yearly tradition to cite New Year's Resolutions. I'm pretty sure the definition of "New Year's resolution" is:
A promise you make to yourself that you pretty much know you aren't going to keep.So instead of simply saying quietly to myself what I intend to do I'm going to put all of mine out there. This way I can at least be honest and upfront and we can all share in my failure.
- Pray more: I found a book on Dominican Prayer that I have yet to pick up and try. Starting in the New Year I will keep on this blog a daily journal (as the book suggests to keep a journal) of my experiences with such. Should be interesting.
- Go cold turkey on video games during Lent: I'll have to wait until Lent on this one, but I have decided that the only way to cut back on video games in Lent is to do it completely. This includes Sundays. Readers will remember that my last attempt to limit my time was an epic disaster. So this year I'm going all out. I have the local insane asylum on speed dial just in case.
- No commenting for three months: I have come to realize that comment boxes are little more than an occasion of sin. The very rare case where an intelligent conversation can occur is eclipsed by the far too numerous incidents of flame wars that I routinely get sucked into. I'm convinced that people who post in comment sections of Facebook posts to lash out in empty-headed fashion are working through emotional issues that logic and reason have no way to touch. I am tired for my part and have no interest in contributing to such a toxic environment. So for the next three months I refuse to post comments anywhere.
- Learn the Korean language: I have been flirting with this for far too long. But this year I will finally jump this hurdle and learn the Korean language. Or at least I hope so.
So there they are. The die is cast. The gauntlet has been thrown down. Life, I challenge you to a duel.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
In the stillness of the night
So Christmas at our house was quite subdued. It was a little depressing honestly but I think I am the better for it. But first a little background.
My wife and I have been battling a cough that has persisted after a cold for the past month or so. It has been quite annoying to say the least. We had recovered sufficiently to decide to carry on with our planned trip to New York.
We were there until Christmas Eve and we had a lovely time. Not without cost however. My wife's cough came back with a vengeance and she had quite a bit of trouble sleeping on the trip. When Christmas Day came she was so ill we didn't even make it out to Mass that day. This we will be confessing later, not that we think we did wrong by missing Mass due to illness but like missing any big event you still want to apologize to your host for missing a party you wanted to go to.
So there I was late at night with my wife finally able to sleep and eating McDonald's, I began to feel lonely and depressed. It was the first time I could remember not being around family on Christmas.
As I sat though I began to think about Christmas for the first time. To simply sit and meditate on the awesome nature of God who became Man. In the stillness of the night I found the true meaning of Christmas. There is such a thing.
It is more than hope. It is the new reality. The night that the battle had been joined by God to win Man back. It impressed me in that quiet how the true meaning of Christmas shines forth and the modern world seems hell bent on distracting us from that truth.
The work of the Cross and Resurrection begins at Christmas. In fact one could say that evil was defeated on Christmas day. In that singular moment the defeat of darkness was sounded. A new day was dawning.
Christmas has one true meaning. The coming of the Christ. It is the defining moment in the history of the world.
In a night just like the night I experienced all was still on the earth. But on the spiritual plane a cannon shot went out. The first salvo of return fire from the Lord of Hosts against the Enemy.
Though it wasn't how I intended to spend Christmas I learned quite a bit from my forced silence. To drink in the true mystery that is the coming of God into the world. History pivots on that moment. For this realization I am thankful.
My wife and I have been battling a cough that has persisted after a cold for the past month or so. It has been quite annoying to say the least. We had recovered sufficiently to decide to carry on with our planned trip to New York.
We were there until Christmas Eve and we had a lovely time. Not without cost however. My wife's cough came back with a vengeance and she had quite a bit of trouble sleeping on the trip. When Christmas Day came she was so ill we didn't even make it out to Mass that day. This we will be confessing later, not that we think we did wrong by missing Mass due to illness but like missing any big event you still want to apologize to your host for missing a party you wanted to go to.
So there I was late at night with my wife finally able to sleep and eating McDonald's, I began to feel lonely and depressed. It was the first time I could remember not being around family on Christmas.
As I sat though I began to think about Christmas for the first time. To simply sit and meditate on the awesome nature of God who became Man. In the stillness of the night I found the true meaning of Christmas. There is such a thing.
It is more than hope. It is the new reality. The night that the battle had been joined by God to win Man back. It impressed me in that quiet how the true meaning of Christmas shines forth and the modern world seems hell bent on distracting us from that truth.
The work of the Cross and Resurrection begins at Christmas. In fact one could say that evil was defeated on Christmas day. In that singular moment the defeat of darkness was sounded. A new day was dawning.
Christmas has one true meaning. The coming of the Christ. It is the defining moment in the history of the world.
In a night just like the night I experienced all was still on the earth. But on the spiritual plane a cannon shot went out. The first salvo of return fire from the Lord of Hosts against the Enemy.
Though it wasn't how I intended to spend Christmas I learned quite a bit from my forced silence. To drink in the true mystery that is the coming of God into the world. History pivots on that moment. For this realization I am thankful.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
The "Real" Problem of Evil
I originally planned to post this on Friday, but in the wake of the school shooting in Connecticut I found myself drained from the news. I typically don't react in such a way to such news but for some reason I could not bring myself to post. After sifting through my thoughts I began to realize why.
We have heard of the problem of evil. As one of the only two good arguments against the existence of God, the existence of evil continues to this day as a stumbling block to Faith. How can an all-good God exist when there is such suffering in the world?
The logical side of the problem of evil has several answers actually. In fact according to Aquinas the only way evil can exist in the first place is if God is goodness itself. The argument from the point of reason is answered in a variety of ways.
The real problem of evil is that the answers are not "satisfactory" when a soul is hurting. Evil wounds us. We see the horror, pain and death that evil causes. It pierces our minds and souls. We react with sadness, confusion and anger. However right the reasons may be they are of little comfort when we ache.
That is what evil is though. Irrational. Damaging. We make justifications for it in our own lives even as we know it damages us. We accept the twisted and irrational framework necessary to do evil. In our more honest moments, we try to work ourselves out of that evil.
But when confronted with the horror of the shooting in Connecticut, the glamour and rationalizing of evil falls away. It grieves us. It confuses us. It turns a world of reason and order into irrationality and chaos. The anger, hurt and pain that we feel is another product of that evil.
This is the way we should react to all evil. Evil is foreign to this world. We recognize this when we first encounter it. We accept it as part of life, but like any invader we'd like to kick it out.
Blinded by pain and anguish, we being to question good. Is it worth it? We begin to question God. Is He there? Like any powerful emotion the hurt and anger begin to derail our reasoning.
This is not to say the emotion isn't worth something. It is. This is how we should react to evil. Evil SHOULD repulse us. It SHOULD hurt us. We should avoid it at all costs.
What we cannot allow it to do is to damage our Faith and reason. Evil by its very nature is irrational. And it encourages us to think irrationally. To allow it to crush our reason is simply to perpetuate evil.
This is the real problem of evil. Our souls react quite rightly at the horror of evil. In that grief we can question how such a God could allow such things. And the explanations appear hollow in the face of our pain.
But given the power of that reaction we can blind ourselves to the truth. Past the pain and the anger we know what the truth really is. And the choice presented to us is to embrace or reject the True Comforter. And like any choice between good and evil, we can choose either the true source of comfort or allow the grief to define us. This is the choice everyone will face at some point.
We have heard of the problem of evil. As one of the only two good arguments against the existence of God, the existence of evil continues to this day as a stumbling block to Faith. How can an all-good God exist when there is such suffering in the world?
The logical side of the problem of evil has several answers actually. In fact according to Aquinas the only way evil can exist in the first place is if God is goodness itself. The argument from the point of reason is answered in a variety of ways.
The real problem of evil is that the answers are not "satisfactory" when a soul is hurting. Evil wounds us. We see the horror, pain and death that evil causes. It pierces our minds and souls. We react with sadness, confusion and anger. However right the reasons may be they are of little comfort when we ache.
That is what evil is though. Irrational. Damaging. We make justifications for it in our own lives even as we know it damages us. We accept the twisted and irrational framework necessary to do evil. In our more honest moments, we try to work ourselves out of that evil.
But when confronted with the horror of the shooting in Connecticut, the glamour and rationalizing of evil falls away. It grieves us. It confuses us. It turns a world of reason and order into irrationality and chaos. The anger, hurt and pain that we feel is another product of that evil.
This is the way we should react to all evil. Evil is foreign to this world. We recognize this when we first encounter it. We accept it as part of life, but like any invader we'd like to kick it out.
Blinded by pain and anguish, we being to question good. Is it worth it? We begin to question God. Is He there? Like any powerful emotion the hurt and anger begin to derail our reasoning.
This is not to say the emotion isn't worth something. It is. This is how we should react to evil. Evil SHOULD repulse us. It SHOULD hurt us. We should avoid it at all costs.
What we cannot allow it to do is to damage our Faith and reason. Evil by its very nature is irrational. And it encourages us to think irrationally. To allow it to crush our reason is simply to perpetuate evil.
This is the real problem of evil. Our souls react quite rightly at the horror of evil. In that grief we can question how such a God could allow such things. And the explanations appear hollow in the face of our pain.
But given the power of that reaction we can blind ourselves to the truth. Past the pain and the anger we know what the truth really is. And the choice presented to us is to embrace or reject the True Comforter. And like any choice between good and evil, we can choose either the true source of comfort or allow the grief to define us. This is the choice everyone will face at some point.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
How Gay Marriage will destroy our Society
Alright I admit that the title is link bait but hear me out. I have been quite ill getting over a cold that I suspect I'm not quite done with yet. My head is swimming in medications. Yet somehow I managed to get sucked in yet again in a "discussion" about gay fantasy, otherwise know as gay marriage.
Now I will reiterate my disclaimer about this topic yet again. I find gay "marriage" as an issue to be appallingly dull. I see it simply as the latest degradation of marriage in this culture. Why I wind up getting sucked into such debates is that appalling bad arguments are routinely brought forth in support of this fantasy. And since I am drawn to bad arguments like a moth to a flame, once again the subject took up far more of my time than I'd care to admit.
Particularly striking about this encounter was my opponent's insistence on having to justify "banning gay marriage" from a legal basis. Never mind that my entire argument was that gay marriage is an oxymoron and so "banning" it is a non-starter. Never mind that I pointed out that having the discussion in purely legal terms was also a non-starter as I was maintaining it was a moral issue. The counters to my points ranged from "You are wrong! Period!" to "You are a liar for disagreeing with me still!"
Now wiser people would have realized by now that trying to conduct a civilized discussion during what was quickly becoming a pissing contest would have recognized the situation and backed out. But no, oblivious to the signs I soldiered on.
Coincidentally this exercise has demonstrated to me another hazard of online apologetics. Given that I've been insulted so much I've more or less become completely immune to it. While good for my health and psyche I realized I no longer recognize when the discussion has simply broken down and nothing further can be accomplished. When your opponent is outright calling you a liar and a hypocrite, the only thing one can accomplish is looking like a particularly savvy liar and hypocrite.
Anyway, what I was stuck by was this blind insistence that I must come up with a legal reason to ban gay marriage. Given that the entire framing of the issue was based on principles that I was directly challenging, I refused, and stated why. This was taken as a sign of surrender, and the tap dance in the endzone of this absurd game was conducted.
It was this discussion that finally led me to realize why gay marriage is so dangerous. Understand up till now I understood the danger purely at a theoretical level. I understand that morality is important and a society that drifts from the true nature of man will collapse under its own dead weight. But this discussion has finally allowed me to break through the intellectual barrier so to speak.
A society that allows for gay fantasy to be enshrined in law is completely vulnerable to a tyrannical takeover. When our thinking is reduced to "can we come up with a legal argument for it" regardless of the moral soundness of or even common sense, to the point of forbidding discussing from any standpoint other than a legal one, we are in trouble.
Think about it for a minute. The exclusion of a moral discussion about our laws allows for a state to usurp total control so long as the law can be tortured to justify it in some sense. This is why the state claims the right to torture terrorists. This is why it has executed a citizen of the U.S. without trial. So long as the state can exclude the moral component from the legal one, genocide is perfectly fine so long as a legal justification can be made.
When one pretends that the moral and the legal exist in separate worlds the state no longer recognizes any boundaries. As long as it can rip bleeding from the text what they want, there is no way to stop it. We live in a country of lawyers and judges that redefine life to suit the whims of those in power. And we as a people have surrendered the weapons of justice and integrity to avoid conflict.
As I reflected on this last night I could not help but admire the cunning of the Enemy. Had it gotten as bad as it is I would never have seen the connection. Well played, Satan. Well played.
Now I will reiterate my disclaimer about this topic yet again. I find gay "marriage" as an issue to be appallingly dull. I see it simply as the latest degradation of marriage in this culture. Why I wind up getting sucked into such debates is that appalling bad arguments are routinely brought forth in support of this fantasy. And since I am drawn to bad arguments like a moth to a flame, once again the subject took up far more of my time than I'd care to admit.
Particularly striking about this encounter was my opponent's insistence on having to justify "banning gay marriage" from a legal basis. Never mind that my entire argument was that gay marriage is an oxymoron and so "banning" it is a non-starter. Never mind that I pointed out that having the discussion in purely legal terms was also a non-starter as I was maintaining it was a moral issue. The counters to my points ranged from "You are wrong! Period!" to "You are a liar for disagreeing with me still!"
Now wiser people would have realized by now that trying to conduct a civilized discussion during what was quickly becoming a pissing contest would have recognized the situation and backed out. But no, oblivious to the signs I soldiered on.
Coincidentally this exercise has demonstrated to me another hazard of online apologetics. Given that I've been insulted so much I've more or less become completely immune to it. While good for my health and psyche I realized I no longer recognize when the discussion has simply broken down and nothing further can be accomplished. When your opponent is outright calling you a liar and a hypocrite, the only thing one can accomplish is looking like a particularly savvy liar and hypocrite.
Anyway, what I was stuck by was this blind insistence that I must come up with a legal reason to ban gay marriage. Given that the entire framing of the issue was based on principles that I was directly challenging, I refused, and stated why. This was taken as a sign of surrender, and the tap dance in the endzone of this absurd game was conducted.
It was this discussion that finally led me to realize why gay marriage is so dangerous. Understand up till now I understood the danger purely at a theoretical level. I understand that morality is important and a society that drifts from the true nature of man will collapse under its own dead weight. But this discussion has finally allowed me to break through the intellectual barrier so to speak.
A society that allows for gay fantasy to be enshrined in law is completely vulnerable to a tyrannical takeover. When our thinking is reduced to "can we come up with a legal argument for it" regardless of the moral soundness of or even common sense, to the point of forbidding discussing from any standpoint other than a legal one, we are in trouble.
Think about it for a minute. The exclusion of a moral discussion about our laws allows for a state to usurp total control so long as the law can be tortured to justify it in some sense. This is why the state claims the right to torture terrorists. This is why it has executed a citizen of the U.S. without trial. So long as the state can exclude the moral component from the legal one, genocide is perfectly fine so long as a legal justification can be made.
When one pretends that the moral and the legal exist in separate worlds the state no longer recognizes any boundaries. As long as it can rip bleeding from the text what they want, there is no way to stop it. We live in a country of lawyers and judges that redefine life to suit the whims of those in power. And we as a people have surrendered the weapons of justice and integrity to avoid conflict.
As I reflected on this last night I could not help but admire the cunning of the Enemy. Had it gotten as bad as it is I would never have seen the connection. Well played, Satan. Well played.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
A few thoughts on the last election
Now that people have beaten to death the results of the election and my allergies are starting to clear up I've decided to offer a few thoughts about the last political fracas.
First and foremost, while the electoral college paints a bleak picture (suddenly it is the friend of liberals everywhere and not the bogyman of 2000) the polls reveal a divided nation right down the middle for the most part. Also worth mentioning that the Republicans offered quite possibly the only candidate that could lose to Obama and decided that he was their guy. A most impressive display of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
That's all for inside politics. The fallout however for Catholics faithful to the Church is more positive. While the election itself is a disappointment for those of us who cherish liberty and religious freedom it has begun a great deal of soul searching amongst us. Several things we learned this November, and a lot of people are taking the lessons to heart.
First and foremost the landscape of ideas are against us. This has been true for some time but there was always this notion that if things were bad enough the fictitious "Moral Majority" would rise from slumber and oust the current rabble of politicians. This election has demonstrated that such a majority does not exist, and it is wishful thinking to suggest that people who don't vote are going to suddenly participate in a system that they feel is broke.
The second is that we need to have a serious conversation with ourselves about how best to explain why freedom and especially religious freedom is so important. The tide is against us as people simply don't seem to care that religious liberty in this country is under attack. The "War on Women" propped up by the Left, ridiculous as the view was, worked. People either fell for it or simply didn't care. Neither explanation holds hope for the future of our country.
Finally one thing is for certain. Evil is now out in force. The world has decided it is time to put the screws to the followers of Christ.
It happens in every age. Evil, when it is weak, seeks accommodation Then when it is powerful, it seeks submission to itself. It is a refreshing honesty, to be told that the State will not abide any other contenders for the title of King. The naked use of force that the government is using to break the will of the Faithful is now a matter of routine. Obviously it is not at the level of killing us for sport, but the march to marginalize, exclude, and shame believers into second-class citizens is in full swing.
Things will likely get worse from here on out. The continuing trend of secularists to ignore and deny any attempt at accommodation is increasing. The notion of conscience rights and the dignity of the believer is rapidly disappearing. We are already being told that outside the home or Church we are not allowed to practice our Faith, either in business or politics. And this line of thought is not open to cross-examination.
But the question is not if the Church will survive, but the State. Should the State continue this self-destructive course it will only shatter to pieces against the Rock the Church is built on. And then the Church will be there to pick them up. The only real question is how much suffering will the Faithful have to undergo before the State collapses under its own dead weight.
First and foremost, while the electoral college paints a bleak picture (suddenly it is the friend of liberals everywhere and not the bogyman of 2000) the polls reveal a divided nation right down the middle for the most part. Also worth mentioning that the Republicans offered quite possibly the only candidate that could lose to Obama and decided that he was their guy. A most impressive display of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
That's all for inside politics. The fallout however for Catholics faithful to the Church is more positive. While the election itself is a disappointment for those of us who cherish liberty and religious freedom it has begun a great deal of soul searching amongst us. Several things we learned this November, and a lot of people are taking the lessons to heart.
First and foremost the landscape of ideas are against us. This has been true for some time but there was always this notion that if things were bad enough the fictitious "Moral Majority" would rise from slumber and oust the current rabble of politicians. This election has demonstrated that such a majority does not exist, and it is wishful thinking to suggest that people who don't vote are going to suddenly participate in a system that they feel is broke.
The second is that we need to have a serious conversation with ourselves about how best to explain why freedom and especially religious freedom is so important. The tide is against us as people simply don't seem to care that religious liberty in this country is under attack. The "War on Women" propped up by the Left, ridiculous as the view was, worked. People either fell for it or simply didn't care. Neither explanation holds hope for the future of our country.
Finally one thing is for certain. Evil is now out in force. The world has decided it is time to put the screws to the followers of Christ.
It happens in every age. Evil, when it is weak, seeks accommodation Then when it is powerful, it seeks submission to itself. It is a refreshing honesty, to be told that the State will not abide any other contenders for the title of King. The naked use of force that the government is using to break the will of the Faithful is now a matter of routine. Obviously it is not at the level of killing us for sport, but the march to marginalize, exclude, and shame believers into second-class citizens is in full swing.
Things will likely get worse from here on out. The continuing trend of secularists to ignore and deny any attempt at accommodation is increasing. The notion of conscience rights and the dignity of the believer is rapidly disappearing. We are already being told that outside the home or Church we are not allowed to practice our Faith, either in business or politics. And this line of thought is not open to cross-examination.
But the question is not if the Church will survive, but the State. Should the State continue this self-destructive course it will only shatter to pieces against the Rock the Church is built on. And then the Church will be there to pick them up. The only real question is how much suffering will the Faithful have to undergo before the State collapses under its own dead weight.
Monday, November 26, 2012
The breakdown of the conversation
We see it all the time. A particular group of people will believe something, and by virtue of believing that something believe that they are superior to those who disagree with them. Simply by virtue of disagreeing with them.
Mark Shea writes a post about evolution as a metaphysical fig leaf. While he is talking about another issue with New Atheism I notice a continuing trend in this us vs. them mentality that is exhibited by adherents of Darwinism. The belief (seriously, belief is the word they use) in evolution that distinguishes the intelligent from the dangerous and unenlightened.
This coloring of people who disagree with them is not a new invention. People have been doing it as long as there have been opinions (and for that matter people). What is particularly striking is the fear and hatred that is being fomented now against those who don't hold evolution as the be all and end all of explanations.
As we become more polarized and continue to isolate ourselves from the opinions of those we disagree with, two effects begin to emerge:
Mark Shea writes a post about evolution as a metaphysical fig leaf. While he is talking about another issue with New Atheism I notice a continuing trend in this us vs. them mentality that is exhibited by adherents of Darwinism. The belief (seriously, belief is the word they use) in evolution that distinguishes the intelligent from the dangerous and unenlightened.
This coloring of people who disagree with them is not a new invention. People have been doing it as long as there have been opinions (and for that matter people). What is particularly striking is the fear and hatred that is being fomented now against those who don't hold evolution as the be all and end all of explanations.
As we become more polarized and continue to isolate ourselves from the opinions of those we disagree with, two effects begin to emerge:
- We become less able to defend our own ideas
- We begin to fear the ideas that we disagree with
The first effect is due to laziness. We only hang out with those who agree with us. We only read that which we agree with. Like Obama in the first debate, when you are surrounded by yes-men and sycophants you get soft. Your ideas are not challenged. You perceive yourself to be smarter than you are.
This leads to a horrible inability to defend one's ideas. The intellectual shallowness gives way to an emotional defensiveness that relies on ridicule and derision rather than engaging an actual position. The ideas one holds become a part of one's identity. Without a rational basis to defend such ideas, the adherent feels that they are being personally attacked when a disagreement arises.
The second point is more obvious. If one cannot defend one's own ideas logically, it makes it almost impossible to understand let alone argue against the ideas of another. This ultimately is why dialogue in this country is dead, and the ability to have an intelligent conversation as well.
Understanding another's views requires a deep understanding of one's own ideas and how they contrast with others. This is something we are unable to do in modern discourse because we are not used to thinking about our own ideas very deeply. The points of conflict where people disagree requires an exchange of diverging ideas, and often the core of the disagreement is rather up the chain of reason rather than the immediate disagreement.
We face a time where the ability to defend the rationality of the Catholic Faith is all the more important. Presenting rational ideas to an irrational world may seem like an exercise in futility. The human mind longs for reason even if our fallen natures would convince us to reject reason for the sake of immediate gratification. This is why we labor to explain, defend and propose the Faith.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Lazy minds
It is a strange thing that most modern conversations resemble fighting with strawmen rather than the actual exchange of ideas. Most exchanges resemble attempts to defend one's own view rather than the attempt to exchange intellectual goods. As a result the insulation of ourselves from ideas that are not our own continues and worsens.
Intellectual shallowness is nothing new but it has reached critical mass in the modern age. People don't know honestly why they hold the ideas that they do. Look at any discussion and see who if anyone is actually defending their ideas vs. attacking ideas that are not theirs. The lopsided trend toward the latter is obvious.
I know the reason why this is. I do this all the time. The reason why this is the case is because it is easier to attack an idea than it is to defend one.
Shooting down an idea requires no compromise on our part. Nothing is at stake for the attacker. All it requires is the ability to find holes in another's position. It is a stance that requires nothing of us nor does it threaten to destabilize our view of the world if the attack fails.
Denying objective truth or its know-ability requires no cost to any of our ideas. When one denies that truth can be knowable all one has to do is to destroy how people came to know the truths that they hold. It is in short a way for a lazy mind to think it is thinking when all it is really doing is casting down others.
And to be honest this is what I do far too often, so I should know. When I am preoccupied with what others are doing I am not doing what I should be doing. Instead I am distracting myself from the work I should be doing.
So I will get back to that.
I think it has a lot to do with the intellectual shallowness that we moderns have with ideas. Most of the arguing is a hyper-reflexive response to the fact that someone is challenging the ideas that one holds. While we are used to our ideas challenged we are far more preoccupied with the opposition than with examining our own ideas.
I find this tendency exhibited in myself. I am preoccupied at times with New Atheist shoddy arguments and complete inability to see religion beyond what Michael Flynn terms "Bill and Ted's Most Excellent Bible Shack." They are completely incurious to the fact that most of their arguments aren't even on the same planet compared to what people actually believe.
But yet I find myself on occasion going to atheist sites or reading atheist arguments despite the fact that the only new things out there are just new distortions about religion in general, by which they usually mean Christianity, and Catholicism in particular. Why would I do such a thing if I was convinced that these ignorant and usually vile people have nothing to offer?
I read my friend JC Sander's piece about reality and Hell for Ignitum Today and found this:
The conformity of the mind to reality is knowledge, and it is an innate desire. It is how the intellect responds to truth, which is in a sense the response of the soul to Truth, that is, to God. Truth, like reality, is something which transcends us—both truth and reality are among the transcendentals That is, they are things which are outside or above and beyond us, things which are “more” than us, and thus which we can grasp only in part and not in whole.I began to think about how it seemed to me that while we do desire to be right modern thought seems to go about this not by finding the best argument for one's view but by going out and destroying the competition. Our preoccupation these days is not "Am I right?" but "others are wrong, here's why."
Intellectual shallowness is nothing new but it has reached critical mass in the modern age. People don't know honestly why they hold the ideas that they do. Look at any discussion and see who if anyone is actually defending their ideas vs. attacking ideas that are not theirs. The lopsided trend toward the latter is obvious.
I know the reason why this is. I do this all the time. The reason why this is the case is because it is easier to attack an idea than it is to defend one.
Shooting down an idea requires no compromise on our part. Nothing is at stake for the attacker. All it requires is the ability to find holes in another's position. It is a stance that requires nothing of us nor does it threaten to destabilize our view of the world if the attack fails.
Denying objective truth or its know-ability requires no cost to any of our ideas. When one denies that truth can be knowable all one has to do is to destroy how people came to know the truths that they hold. It is in short a way for a lazy mind to think it is thinking when all it is really doing is casting down others.
And to be honest this is what I do far too often, so I should know. When I am preoccupied with what others are doing I am not doing what I should be doing. Instead I am distracting myself from the work I should be doing.
So I will get back to that.
Monday, November 12, 2012
When Your Train of Thought is a Runaway
My mind works in overdrive sometimes. Some days my mind will just continue to go on and on with no respite. It interferes with my sleep and concentration can be difficult or even impossible.
Initially I thought in arrogance that this was just how geniuses thought. A genius to my mind was simply someone who refused to let go of a problem until it was solved. And so I just went with the flow even if that meant stress and anxiety over whatever I was pondering.
At this time I was also dealing with depression. While I was working through the ideas and issues that caused me to be depressed I was finding that my mind still held on to thought patterns despite my best efforts to think in different ways. Perceived slights from others and feelings of loneliness still haunted me regardless of the evidence in my life that such things were not true.
After much "pondering" I seemed to be out of ideas. My mind continued to spin as I tried to find the answers to these riddles that kept turning over in my mind. They appeared to be riddles without answer, and still I couldn't escape the conclusions that my mind reached.
But the grace of God at times will cut through the noise our minds make. I don't remember exactly when it happened. I cannot recall the exact moment. But at one point I was presented with irrefutable evidence that my mind was not processing events properly. The question finally emerged: What if my mind is just not disciplined?
I came to realize that my thinking was not thinking at all. There was to be sure "reasoning" to some degree. But my thoughts always went down one track, as if it thought on its own and I was simply along for the crazy ride. Because of my previous lack of discipline, I could not steer my mind to the truth. It would not process new evidence, only reinterpret evidence to fit the existing view.
My mind was stuck on a one way track. And it was a runaway train. I had no control over it. It thought, and I simply let it run roughshod over any and all evidence to whatever I saw.
The mind requires discipline. Not just in terms of learning how to reason and follow a train of logic, but also to know when to quiet the mind and absorb information. To learn when to relax and to learn when to engage. Like our physical bodies the mind requires tempering and the will to train it properly.
Most importantly the discipline to know when to use the mind. The mind requires rest like anything else. A restless mind is just as bad as a lazy mind if not worse. A lazy mind may perceive that it is lazy. A restless mind is usually not aware that it is so.
Our thoughts and workings of our "brilliant" minds are not as impressive as we think they are. Often they are a result of a lack of discipline. Our digital age only aggravates this situation with instant access to information in bite sizes. Darting from one thing to the next we don't take the time to process and digest what we have learned, if anything.
There are ways to discipline thought however. This we will discuss later. For now, simply know that our modern minds are not superior simply because we are moderns. In fact, we could use some medieval thought discipline in our lives.
Initially I thought in arrogance that this was just how geniuses thought. A genius to my mind was simply someone who refused to let go of a problem until it was solved. And so I just went with the flow even if that meant stress and anxiety over whatever I was pondering.
At this time I was also dealing with depression. While I was working through the ideas and issues that caused me to be depressed I was finding that my mind still held on to thought patterns despite my best efforts to think in different ways. Perceived slights from others and feelings of loneliness still haunted me regardless of the evidence in my life that such things were not true.
After much "pondering" I seemed to be out of ideas. My mind continued to spin as I tried to find the answers to these riddles that kept turning over in my mind. They appeared to be riddles without answer, and still I couldn't escape the conclusions that my mind reached.
But the grace of God at times will cut through the noise our minds make. I don't remember exactly when it happened. I cannot recall the exact moment. But at one point I was presented with irrefutable evidence that my mind was not processing events properly. The question finally emerged: What if my mind is just not disciplined?
I came to realize that my thinking was not thinking at all. There was to be sure "reasoning" to some degree. But my thoughts always went down one track, as if it thought on its own and I was simply along for the crazy ride. Because of my previous lack of discipline, I could not steer my mind to the truth. It would not process new evidence, only reinterpret evidence to fit the existing view.
My mind was stuck on a one way track. And it was a runaway train. I had no control over it. It thought, and I simply let it run roughshod over any and all evidence to whatever I saw.
The mind requires discipline. Not just in terms of learning how to reason and follow a train of logic, but also to know when to quiet the mind and absorb information. To learn when to relax and to learn when to engage. Like our physical bodies the mind requires tempering and the will to train it properly.
Most importantly the discipline to know when to use the mind. The mind requires rest like anything else. A restless mind is just as bad as a lazy mind if not worse. A lazy mind may perceive that it is lazy. A restless mind is usually not aware that it is so.
Our thoughts and workings of our "brilliant" minds are not as impressive as we think they are. Often they are a result of a lack of discipline. Our digital age only aggravates this situation with instant access to information in bite sizes. Darting from one thing to the next we don't take the time to process and digest what we have learned, if anything.
There are ways to discipline thought however. This we will discuss later. For now, simply know that our modern minds are not superior simply because we are moderns. In fact, we could use some medieval thought discipline in our lives.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Monday, November 5, 2012
Heading toward the end
Mercifully the election will be over by this time Wednesday. Dear God it has taken so long. Yet if the trend continues the press will start wondering who is a viable candidate in 2016 before the swearing in ceremony.
Sadly neither outcome offers much solace. While I hope Obama loses I'm not entirely sure what that would mean. In theory it would mean that the HHS mandate would be killed before having to go through the lawsuits. Also it would depose someone who is hostile to religious freedom and replace him with someone who is at least ambivalent about it.
For myself I'm old enough to remember when candidates seemed to at least have some divergence in viewpoints. Nowadays that has all but disappeared. Different faces, same bad ideas. Yet one would think that we are worlds apart in this country.
It is tempting to give up on it all. Many have done so. Despite the "stakes" only half of voting age citizens vote these days. Not surprising then that people are so disillusioned with American "values."
I honestly think this is causing some soft of existential crisis. Chesterton said that America was the first nation to be founded on a creed. If that creed turns out to be false, then who are we?
Not that other countries aren't experiencing such crises as well. Islam's continued spiraling as it deals with its homicidal radicals in its midst while trying to figure itself out on the world stage is a haunting issue. Secularist are ahead of the game in crisis as they imagine theocrats attempting to take over the world.
Economic crises typically force us to reevaluate what is actually important. But I do wonder if we as a people have the knowledge to perform that reevaluation. Catholics emphasize reconversion. That everyday is a chance to recommit to Christ and the Truth. Lent is set aside for precisely that.
But what if you don't have anything to recommit to? Our culture has done away with God and truth. We wax poetic at times about family and "the important things in life" but we don't seem to believe it ourselves. We have severed our ties with the past, and in doing so seem to have crippled ourselves for the future.
I've always been far more of a pragmatist. I typically follow idealists and work to make the dreams come true. Idealists tend to not see the work ahead. For pragmatists, that's all we see.
There is always hope for Man, so long as he is alive. The same is true for a country. There is always time to turn around. Our problem is we don't know where to turn back to. We keep looking at the superfluous (relatively speaking). The economy. Jobs. Education. When all we are concerned is economic status, it isn't surprising that we cannot move forward.
To me the question is not how the election turns out but how will we as a country react. I think either way tough times are ahead and we'd do best to prepare ourselves. Personally I do not think that the average American citizen has the moral fortitude for tough times. But then again maybe that is the point. Through suffering comes strength, etc.
In any event, at least it will be over soon.
Sadly neither outcome offers much solace. While I hope Obama loses I'm not entirely sure what that would mean. In theory it would mean that the HHS mandate would be killed before having to go through the lawsuits. Also it would depose someone who is hostile to religious freedom and replace him with someone who is at least ambivalent about it.
For myself I'm old enough to remember when candidates seemed to at least have some divergence in viewpoints. Nowadays that has all but disappeared. Different faces, same bad ideas. Yet one would think that we are worlds apart in this country.
It is tempting to give up on it all. Many have done so. Despite the "stakes" only half of voting age citizens vote these days. Not surprising then that people are so disillusioned with American "values."
I honestly think this is causing some soft of existential crisis. Chesterton said that America was the first nation to be founded on a creed. If that creed turns out to be false, then who are we?
Not that other countries aren't experiencing such crises as well. Islam's continued spiraling as it deals with its homicidal radicals in its midst while trying to figure itself out on the world stage is a haunting issue. Secularist are ahead of the game in crisis as they imagine theocrats attempting to take over the world.
Economic crises typically force us to reevaluate what is actually important. But I do wonder if we as a people have the knowledge to perform that reevaluation. Catholics emphasize reconversion. That everyday is a chance to recommit to Christ and the Truth. Lent is set aside for precisely that.
But what if you don't have anything to recommit to? Our culture has done away with God and truth. We wax poetic at times about family and "the important things in life" but we don't seem to believe it ourselves. We have severed our ties with the past, and in doing so seem to have crippled ourselves for the future.
I've always been far more of a pragmatist. I typically follow idealists and work to make the dreams come true. Idealists tend to not see the work ahead. For pragmatists, that's all we see.
There is always hope for Man, so long as he is alive. The same is true for a country. There is always time to turn around. Our problem is we don't know where to turn back to. We keep looking at the superfluous (relatively speaking). The economy. Jobs. Education. When all we are concerned is economic status, it isn't surprising that we cannot move forward.
To me the question is not how the election turns out but how will we as a country react. I think either way tough times are ahead and we'd do best to prepare ourselves. Personally I do not think that the average American citizen has the moral fortitude for tough times. But then again maybe that is the point. Through suffering comes strength, etc.
In any event, at least it will be over soon.
Friday, November 2, 2012
I have no idea
My mind is a complete blank today. It might be that I am coming down with a cold that is making the rounds among work and family. Or it might be the late night XCOM video game binge that I stayed up till two playing. Yeah, that's probably it.
I find myself tired. Work is kinda slow as we are prepping for the Texas Legislature to start the 83rd session soon. I don't talk about my job too much as it is like every other programming job with some unique aspects of working for the state Legislature. But this is a unique aspect as we are gearing up for supporting session.
I think I'm just tired. Tired of the election. Tired of the HHS mandate. Tired of having to justify to hostile people that just because I believe in God doesn't mean I'm an idiot. And that those who say I am are usually more worthy of the moniker.
I guess the thing that is crazy is how much hate, anxiety, and fear that exists today. Everyone seems to have this impression that no matter what happens we are heading off a cliff. Things just seem too big, too broken, too much damage that has been done. We all seem to agree on this yet are at each others throats as to how to fix it.
In my mind it's because in order to fix it we have to give up how we live right now. I have had this nagging feeling for a long time that the wealth and prosperity of Western Civ is an illusion. The massive debt that we have seems to indicate that we have borrowed our children and our grandchildren's prosperity to keep the broken machine going just a little longer.
Sorry for the downer. I am typically a "worst-case scenario" planner. Not as a professional worrier (though I get that way when tired for long time) but that I derive comfort when having a plan based on how to react to the worst possible outcome. But lately I see no bottom for our society. Everyone seems to know that this society is going to go belly up yet no one knows what that actually means or what will happen when it does.
I've come to realize why Hope is a theological virtue. It is something that God has to bestow on us through grace. We can despair, and that is a sin. But Hope is something that only God can give us, and Hope in Him is the only logical response to such a mess.
If there is one thing that has always indicated to me the Truth of Christianity is the complete and utter wreck that is humanity when it divorces itself from the Divine. Our society has completely rejected God, and far from making us happy we are now in the midst of self immolation. The people who throw God out of their lives seem most often to be the ones who are most unhappy.
I take comfort in the fact that if it were not for God I would not be where I am today. Grace, when open to it, transforms lives. When closed, it corrupts. And like a person a nation, a culture, a society can close itself off to grace. This closing of the culture is now bearing the evil fruit.
But if Christ gave Himself on the Cross for us, He must have seen something worth giving His life to save. Christ did not offer His life out of a hopeless love, but one beaming with the Hope that is God. If Christ is willing to do that, then I have no right to be so down.
Here's hoping the weekend is nice and quiet.
I find myself tired. Work is kinda slow as we are prepping for the Texas Legislature to start the 83rd session soon. I don't talk about my job too much as it is like every other programming job with some unique aspects of working for the state Legislature. But this is a unique aspect as we are gearing up for supporting session.
I think I'm just tired. Tired of the election. Tired of the HHS mandate. Tired of having to justify to hostile people that just because I believe in God doesn't mean I'm an idiot. And that those who say I am are usually more worthy of the moniker.
I guess the thing that is crazy is how much hate, anxiety, and fear that exists today. Everyone seems to have this impression that no matter what happens we are heading off a cliff. Things just seem too big, too broken, too much damage that has been done. We all seem to agree on this yet are at each others throats as to how to fix it.
In my mind it's because in order to fix it we have to give up how we live right now. I have had this nagging feeling for a long time that the wealth and prosperity of Western Civ is an illusion. The massive debt that we have seems to indicate that we have borrowed our children and our grandchildren's prosperity to keep the broken machine going just a little longer.
Sorry for the downer. I am typically a "worst-case scenario" planner. Not as a professional worrier (though I get that way when tired for long time) but that I derive comfort when having a plan based on how to react to the worst possible outcome. But lately I see no bottom for our society. Everyone seems to know that this society is going to go belly up yet no one knows what that actually means or what will happen when it does.
I've come to realize why Hope is a theological virtue. It is something that God has to bestow on us through grace. We can despair, and that is a sin. But Hope is something that only God can give us, and Hope in Him is the only logical response to such a mess.
If there is one thing that has always indicated to me the Truth of Christianity is the complete and utter wreck that is humanity when it divorces itself from the Divine. Our society has completely rejected God, and far from making us happy we are now in the midst of self immolation. The people who throw God out of their lives seem most often to be the ones who are most unhappy.
I take comfort in the fact that if it were not for God I would not be where I am today. Grace, when open to it, transforms lives. When closed, it corrupts. And like a person a nation, a culture, a society can close itself off to grace. This closing of the culture is now bearing the evil fruit.
But if Christ gave Himself on the Cross for us, He must have seen something worth giving His life to save. Christ did not offer His life out of a hopeless love, but one beaming with the Hope that is God. If Christ is willing to do that, then I have no right to be so down.
Here's hoping the weekend is nice and quiet.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
It's Halloween!
No post today, cuz I am lazy. Have fun! And remember that Nov 1 is all Saint's Day! Holy Day of Obligation!
Monday, October 29, 2012
Prudential Judgement
One of the phrases that gets thrown about in the Catholic blogsphere with reckless abandon is "prudential judgement." This phrase when used properly distinguishes that which Catholics can legitimately disagree about. But often times it is used as a short hand for "I can believe whatever I want."
Prudential judgement comes from the virtue of Prudence, which is used when making decisions about everyday life in conformance with the Church's teachings. It is more than that however. It is also the virtue of determining the good and evil in things, and knowing what one ought to do and what one should avoid.
When used properly prudential judgement is a key virtue in living our lives. It allows us to live by the Faith in everyday actions and informs the decisions we make in order to derive the most good out of a given situation. It also allows us to discern what is good and what is bad, allowing us to make sense of situations where the good is hidden or evil that lies in wait.
What it does not mean is that decisions that are of prudential judgement cannot be either right or wrong. It means that unlike things that go against the Faith directly matters of prudential judgement require reason and discipline to find the good and avoid the evil. There is still good to be had and evil to avoid.
Prudential matters involve questions such as "what is a just wage?" and "how can we best improve the lot of the poor?" These questions are difficult and require understanding of the particular circumstances as well as the moral principles of social justice. As a result people of good faith can disagree about the answers to such questions.
What it does not mean is that there is not a right or wrong answer. There is such a thing as a just wage for our current circumstances. There is a right and proper way to help the poor. While these things are the subject of much debate, there are correct answers to them.
What all of this means is that while matters may require prudential judgement, it does not mean that matters of prudential judgement are places where relativism resides. We do not have the luxury of simply pretending that what we want to be true is true. Matters of prudential judgement still have a right and wrong answer. And it is our moral duty to discern the correct answers to such questions for our time.
It is one of the strange ironies that relativism has rendered discussions about prudential judgement as hostile as they are today. Relativism promises that there is no real truth. So we should not get so worked up over disagreements. Yet our political discourse is hotter than ever. This is because of two reasons. One is our pride and we hate to be wrong. The other is that deep down we know that these things matter even if we've forgotten why.
Prudence however is a virtue that reminds us of the importance of truth in our everyday lives. It calls us to use our reason and to discern the good in all decisions. We owe to to God, our fellow man, and ourselves to discern and work for the good that exists in all of our decisions.
Prudential judgement comes from the virtue of Prudence, which is used when making decisions about everyday life in conformance with the Church's teachings. It is more than that however. It is also the virtue of determining the good and evil in things, and knowing what one ought to do and what one should avoid.
When used properly prudential judgement is a key virtue in living our lives. It allows us to live by the Faith in everyday actions and informs the decisions we make in order to derive the most good out of a given situation. It also allows us to discern what is good and what is bad, allowing us to make sense of situations where the good is hidden or evil that lies in wait.
What it does not mean is that decisions that are of prudential judgement cannot be either right or wrong. It means that unlike things that go against the Faith directly matters of prudential judgement require reason and discipline to find the good and avoid the evil. There is still good to be had and evil to avoid.
Prudential matters involve questions such as "what is a just wage?" and "how can we best improve the lot of the poor?" These questions are difficult and require understanding of the particular circumstances as well as the moral principles of social justice. As a result people of good faith can disagree about the answers to such questions.
What it does not mean is that there is not a right or wrong answer. There is such a thing as a just wage for our current circumstances. There is a right and proper way to help the poor. While these things are the subject of much debate, there are correct answers to them.
What all of this means is that while matters may require prudential judgement, it does not mean that matters of prudential judgement are places where relativism resides. We do not have the luxury of simply pretending that what we want to be true is true. Matters of prudential judgement still have a right and wrong answer. And it is our moral duty to discern the correct answers to such questions for our time.
It is one of the strange ironies that relativism has rendered discussions about prudential judgement as hostile as they are today. Relativism promises that there is no real truth. So we should not get so worked up over disagreements. Yet our political discourse is hotter than ever. This is because of two reasons. One is our pride and we hate to be wrong. The other is that deep down we know that these things matter even if we've forgotten why.
Prudence however is a virtue that reminds us of the importance of truth in our everyday lives. It calls us to use our reason and to discern the good in all decisions. We owe to to God, our fellow man, and ourselves to discern and work for the good that exists in all of our decisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)