Chapter 19 SCIENCE AND FAITH: PARTNERS IN TRUTH

Trying to Fly with One Wing: Chapter 19

THE TRUTH SEEKING PRINCIPLE - PT 2
(Science and Faith: Partners in Truth)
(Logic 19)

PODCAST COMING
Subscribe at the top left.

No “Truth-Seeking” Intelligence

Ben Stein’s documentary, EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed, questions the truth-seeking motivation of some in the scientific community who attempt to debunk the overwhelming evidence of intelligent design in the observable universe. Everywhere you look, from sub-atomic particles, to the far reaches of space, to the flowers in your garden, to the functionality of your thumb, there is a complexity and sophistication that defies the explanation that the universe came about by chance without intelligent input.

EXPELLED also explores how secular scientists have applied a “strawman fallacy” in their attempt to debunk Christian faith by assuming that such faith is nothing more than an irrational, mental assent to some proposition, without any way to collect evidence one way or the other. A strawman fallacy consists of an opponent misrepresenting your position so that it is easier to attack. In this case, secular scientists claim that intelligent design theory is only the result of a religious faith that they define as irrational mental assent. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. For example, Christian faith is based on eons of physical evidence of a benevolent, Supreme Being who has interacted with the physical universe and left us myriad of physical, measurerable evidences upon which we put our trust. Christian faith is not a blind faith, but a eyes-wide-open, truth-seeking, evidence-based faith.

Empirical Challenge

It was a fine Spring morning as I jaunted across the campus of Greenville College, in Southern Illinois. I was a senior majoring in Physics on my way to give a lecture in an Introduction to Philosophy class taught by Dr. Royal Mulholland. I had been asked to play the role of an empiricist and challenge the faith of Christianity. An empiricist is a scientist that relies heavily on quantitative evidence (i.e. numerical measures) and, of course, the scientific method as the preferred method of discovering truth. (There are also social scientists that rely on qualitative evidence (i.e. psychological measures) to do their science.

Yes, I was a Christian, as were Professor Mulholland (see Chapter 18), and most of the students in the class, including the wonderful young lady that I was dating and would later marry. The uniqueness of the situation undoubtedly had something to do with my outspoken advocacy the explicit harmony between science and the Christian faith, as opposed to the often-ballyhooed conflict between science and religion. In my junior Physics Seminar I had been asked to write an essay that defended Christianity in the face of supposed contradictory discoveries in science. I didn’t see the contradictions. I saw incomplete theories on the part of scientists, and I saw arrogance on the part of theologians.

Later, in my understanding of how to explain truth, I would come to understand the relationship between nature and the Bible, and between science and theology. Cosmologist and Christian apologist Hugh Ross (evangelical) writes about how the conflict is not between physical nature and God’s Word, but between the disciplines that interpret those two sources of knowledge—science and theology. The proper Christian assumption is that physical nature and God’s Word both come from The Almighty, so they must agree, even if we cannot understand how. Rather than call apparent disagreements between science and religion “contradictions,” it would be more accurate to label them “paradoxes”—i.e. “apparent contradictions” about which we simply don’t know enough to explain.

Thus, science is the interpretation of nature (i.e. natural revelation), and theology is the interpretation of God’s Word (i.e. supernatural revelation). Where the interpretive tool in both disciplines involve humans (sometimes without the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit), we can expect there to be misinterpretation and error. [Hugh Ross’ The Fingerprint of God and The Creator and the Cosmos]

The Truth Seeking Principle

Now let me jump back a moment and remind us that this series of articles seeks to explain how reason must be used responsibly in the discovery of truth. Faith and reason are like "two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth." (John Paul II, Fides Et Ratio). Truth does not come to us by faith alone, nor does it come by scientific experimentation alone. To rely on one to the exclusion of the other, is to fly blind with only one wing, mostly in circles, before you crash and burn in a pile of irrational assumptions—as Ben Stein sees “big science” doing today.

This particular chapter (19), along with the previous (18), is about T. Edward Damer's The Truth Seeking Principle, the 2nd principle from his "Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion" [“T. Edward Damer. Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Wadsworth.”]

This principle encourages all the participants in a discussion to earnestly seek out the truth at all costs, regardless of discipline, presuppositions, perceived values, emotions, time, hurt feelings, - - did I leave anything out?… oh, yeah - - politics and religion. The Truth Seeking Principle demands that we listen humbly to opposing viewpoints with respect and diligence. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 11:7-8 suggests: “Before investigating, find no fault; examine first, then criticize…Interrupt no one in the middle of his speech.”

Christianity is Scientific

For several years following college with my major in physics, I was a test engineer in NASA’s space program. My job was to take particular theories of the engineer-scientists I worked for, and test them out in the labs. I was involved in the heart of practical science and the scientific method. What I was doing in NASA’s labs was pretty much what I was doing in Bible studies and my spiritual walk with Christ. I was testing out the theories proposed by Christian theology. The more my testing showed them to be true, the more I trusted them.

As a Protestant I studied the Bible fanatically (I didn’t have the security of the Church’s 2,000 years of magisterial engineering), and was taught week after week that it was by spiritual faith alone that we were saved and not by our physical actions. But the way we were taught to define faith as opposed to science and work became a disconnect or paradox. While the doctrinal explanations emphasized mental assent of faith alone, the emphasis on sermons focused on the mechanical, casual nature of Christian obedience. That is, when we studied the Bible or applied it to your lives we discovered how our thoughts and their resulting actions affected and effected our spiritual standing with God. There was a cause and effect, the heart of science. It was one thing to think something (as in the mental assent of faith), but it was an entirely different thing to do it (as in the physical action of works).

The Scientific Method

The new pagans and anti-Christian segments of our society would have the world believe that Christianity is not interested in truth, but only in blind embrace of an irrational faith. Just the opposite is true, and it can be easily shown that it is the pagans and atheists who are embracing irrationality. It is Christianity that relentlessly seeks truth, even if you consider the interaction between Copernicus, Galileo and a few Catholic prelates—a discussion I’ll save for another time. For it is out of the Catholic Church that the scientific method was devised.

The Scientific Method can be generally described as a sophisticated and somewhat controlled discovery of the relationship between certain causes the their effects. Specifically the scientific method can be described by these seven (7) steps: (1) Curiosity & Presuppositions, (2) Observation, (3) Hypothesis, (4) Experiment, (5) Theory, (6) Test, (7) Law. In spite of what many may think (even theologians, I dare say), that is exactly what the Christian Church has done from the time of Christ; and it is how Catholicism approaches the seeking of truth even today. (Yes, I admit, I’m a Christian empiricist.) Is that heresy? Hardly, because it fully embraces faith and supernatural revelation, in the same way that John Paul II tells us that reason reinforces faith, and, in turn, faith advances reason.

How can all this be true? Very simply, and in thousands of ways.

[Ed Question: “thousands”?

SW: Well, yeah…thousands. My hidden assumption here is that there is quantitative evidence for every human life that has ever graced the planet and how that life has, does, and will interact with nature and with God. Think of the many parameters, ways, and elements that a human being interacts with the physical world. It’s myriad, just in a single life. And so, okay -- I guess I have erred. In keeping with what I’m about to explain, I should not have said there are thousands of ways my premise can be proved, but billions upon billions upon billions. Stick with me and do a little interpolation on your own. This is cool stuff. So -- let me start again.]

How can all this be true? Very simply, and in xillions upon xillions of ways. Take the seven steps I listed above and lay them next to the history of man and the development of Christian doctrine. While there is definitely mystery, there is no magic, no sleight of hand, nor hocus pocus. What follows is the process of seeking truth you will find in both science and theology. (Notice that I have not included politics in that short list.)

SIDEBAR

There is an interesting correlation between theological doctrine and the telling of stories. If you’ve read my book The Moral Premise [Link: http://www.moralpremise.com] you may understand that all moral learning (and Christian doctrine) comes out of storytelling; and that storytelling is a form of the scientific method, listed above. In fact, take any popular story, and you’ll be able to overlay the seven steps of the Scientific Method and see the story’s structure in that light. That is, the protagonist (the main character) follows the seven steps in his discovery of truth and the pursuit of a goal.

Now, to briefly explore the relationship between Christianity and the Scientific Method here is an overview of each of the above steps with an explanation of how they apply to the development of Christian theology.

(1) Curiosity & Presuppositions.

Supernatural faith plays a role in each of these steps, but it is in this step that the correlation is most obvious. It is also in this step that even pagan scientists (unknowingly) access Christian faith to do their work of science. In fact, we could probably replace the words “curiosity and presuppositions” with “faith” and “supernatural revelation.” It is our curiosity that reaches out beyond ourselves and looks for answers and a structure or order to the universe. It is curiosity that asks “Why?” and “How?” Faith presupposes there is a God that can answer the prayer, “Why did that happen?” and “How can I better understand it?”

For example, if we ask, “Why does water run downhill?” we will discover that science helps to answer a theological question. Water runs downhill because of gravity, which pulls water into the ground and thus waters plants, that allows food to grow, which sustains life. Gravity also pulls water down through many layers of sentiment, which remove impurities, and then allows the cleaned water to collect in underground basins and in wells for people to drink, thus sustaining life. In fact, every scientific discovery throughout time points to something called the Anthrophic Principle— a theological significance concept that everything the universe (from far away galaxies to subatomic particles) was finely tuned to do one thing—sustain human life.

Science has also discovered that if a closed system is left alone without the intelligent input of energy, it will degrade and cease to function. This is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics or entropy. A car left outside without care will not just cease to run, but will eventually end up as a pile of rust. A garden left untended will be overrun with weeds. A baby left alone without care will die. But when continual, intelligent care (in the form of an intelligently controlled energy) is put into the system, sustained life and beauty result. “The heavens declare the glory of God…. (Ps 19:1-6)”

It is only because of an ordered universe, cared for continually by a benevolent God, that the world does not do as the car did. Even secular environmentalists are confounded when a major oil spill, or a volcanic eruption threatens to destroy a corner of the earth, and after a few years, the area recovers and brings forth new life. What we see in all this is physical evidence, scientific evidence of what supernatural revelation of our faith proclaims. There is an intelligent order, and sustenance at work to give life and maintain it. Science assumes this; that is, it is an act of faith in an ordered (not random) universe that supercedes knowledge. Science, by it’s “nature”, requires faith in a principle that itself cannot be proven by science. My editor, Dave Armstrong says: “Belief that the universe is orderly and uniformitarian is a non-scientific premise that is required to do science. Science reduces in the end to philosophy, which in turn requires axioms, and in many ways is not unlike theology.”

Now, space is limited, so we must move on. Notice how faith in what is not seen or understood is ubiquitous to each of the remaining steps. The secular scientist will not call it “faith” but rather a “wonder” or “awe” of what is there. I contend that the secular scientist’s wonder is a near equivalent to a Christian’s faith, if not the preliminary and necessary steps to it.

So, with that basis, let’s move quickly through the remaining steps of the scientific method.

(2) Observations. The Israelites and early Christians observe God’s behavior through physical signs, physical miracles and the physical words and actions of Jesus and the prophets. Note that these observations and experiences are a mixture of reason (observations in nature) and faith (prophetic proclamations).

(3) Hypothesis. The observers form hypotheses about what can be learned from the observations and what they have been told, e.g. “Obey God and you will live. Disobey and you will die.” Or, “have faith in God and you will be healed, and your sins be forgiven.”

(4) Experiment. Experiments are run to test the hypotheses. These are not always controlled experiments, although science loves such things. But science cannot always run controlled experiments. When an earthquake occurs there is nothing that we can control. Yet we learn from such events. In Joshua 7, Achan buries forbidden loot in the floor of his tent when he was told to destroy it. In Numbers 20, Moses angrily strikes the rock twice to produce water for the Israelites, rather than speaking to it in faith. In Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira lie about giving all their money to the Apostles. For all of these causes, there is an effect; and Christianity learns from such things. (As we should.)

(5) Theory. When Achan’s loot is miraculous discovered and his family stoned (with real rocks not street drugs), when Moses is prevented from entering the Promised Land because of his disobedience, and when Ananias and Sapphira drop dead – the hypothesis suddenly becomes trustworthy and we claim a theory exists. Scientists and theologians both look for patterns by which to predict future events. In both disciplines the theory is “developing.” Thus, there is both the development of scientific theory and the development of doctrine.

(6) Testing. But after centuries of testing, with the same results…

(7) Rules and Laws take the form of scientific predictability and theological doctrine and even dogma.

Yes, it is true that not all dogma can be tested. But what can be tested gives mighty good evidence that the extrapolations of prophetic utterances of Christ are fully trustworthy. Not everything is tested in science, but the extrapolation of rules and laws, allows us to send men to the moon and back, having never done it before.

Mulholland’s Introduction to Philosophy

In Mulholland’s Introduction to Philosophy class I began my lecture, presenting myself as an empirical scientist and argued that if God truly existed, and if Christianity was actually true, then the scientific method could be used to prove it. To my evangelical classmates, faith was not something that science could comment on—I must have sounded like a heretic (and perhaps I was). My future wife, who sat in the class, was unconvinced, and although everyone knew I was just play-acting, Pam says I was convincing enough to put our relationship on the rocks for a while.

I have a tendency to emphasize reason in these sort of arguments, and at times I probably still sound like a heretic. I apologize. It’s an overreaction to the faith-as-mental-assent emphasis of my Evangelical upbringing, and in reaction today to the same (strawman) claim by atheists as secular scientists. The reason and evidence of an intelligent designer is everywhere, it’s the pink elephant in the room you’re pretending to ignore. Like King David, I take solace in Psalm 8:4-5: “When I see your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you set in place—what are humans that you are mindful of them, mere mortals that you care for them?”

As one of my graduate professors reminded me, “Stan, you cannot prove anything. All you can do is bring evidence to bear on the argument, and make sure it’s good evidence.” Theologians and mystics will claim that God has written the truth of his existence on the hearts of all men. I believe that the physical universe provides such a strong testimony of his Supreme Intelligent Design that we cannot discern the difference between what is innate on our hearts, and what our physical senses declare to be obvious. It is not an either/or argument, it is an and/both proposition. What is written on our hearts is one and the same with what we experience.

Someone once said, “I only know two things: First, there is a God. And second, I’m not him.” (And along comes God and says, simply: “I am”!) May that be our motivation to know God in our hearts, and in our minds, as we marvel at the evidence in creation of God’s Supreme Intelligent Design, and do our utmost, at all times, in all places, to seek the truth at all costs.

Chapter 18 THE TRUTH SEEKING PRINCIPLE

Trying to Fly with One Wing: Chapter 18

THE TRUTH SEEKING PRINCIPLE - Part 1
(Logic 18)

PODCAST COMING
Subscribe at the top left.

During a recent televised presidential debate the journalist moderating the event asked candidate Fred Thompson to explain his solution for a particular vexing problem in the country, and reminded Mr. Thompson that he had but two minutes to answer. Thompson flatly refused to answer the question, and derided the moderator for suggesting that the problem, which had a long history, could somehow be solved, let alone explained, in two minutes. [“Bravo!” (Ed.)] Thompson, in so many words, declared that the bigger problem with society was illustrated by the stupidity of the question and the expectation that truth could be discovered so easily.

I might add that another big part of the problem is the refusal of journalism schools to require their students to successfully pass courses in a wide range of liberal arts courses like logic, statistics, basic science, literature, history, psychological and philosophy. It seems that sometimes the only courses some of these “journalists” took are “How To Pass Off Opinion As Objective Reporting,” “How To Remove Your Makeup Without Removing Your Arrogance”, and “Hiding Zits In A High Def Era.”

Thompson illustrated one of the great principles of seeking truth that our society has tragically lost—that truth must be sought after at all costs, even if that means talking through a commercial break, and that could cost the network thousands – and the candidate the election.

The Truth Seeking Principle

This series of articles is desperately seeking to explain how reason must be used responsibly in the discovery of truth. All humanity arrives at truth through the application of faith and reason, even if they claim to be atheists, rationalists, or agnostics. Faith and reason are like "two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth." (John Paul II, Fides Et Ratio). Truth does not come to us by faith alone, nor does it come by reason alone. To rely on one to the exclusion of the other, is to fly blind with only one wing, mostly in circles, before you crash and burn in a pile of irrational assumptions.

This chapter is about T. Edward Damer's The Truth Seeking Principle, the 2nd principle from his "Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion"

This principle encourages each participant in a discussion to earnestly seek out the truth at all costs, regardless of prejudice, presuppositions, perceived values, emotions, time, hurt feelings, political parties, - - did I leave anything out… oh, yeah - - religion. The Truth Seeking Principle demands that we listen humbly to opposing viewpoints and to demand good evidence with respect and diligence.

How hard can that be? Plenty! Just turn on your TV (…or don’t).

The O’Reilly Factor

Sound bytes, demanded by the mainstream media, are a condemnation of our society and its ability to discover what is true and what will bring us happiness. If the Fred Thompson example wasn’t enough, every night on TV the problem is reinforced by a top rated commentary program—The Bill O’Reilly Show.

Here is a man who claims to be a conservative, a Catholic, and has even named his show The No Spin Zone, which in the political vernacular of our day suggests that Bill O’Reilly is trying to apply The Truth Seeking Principle. But O’Reilly, regardless of his position on the issues, is a demagogue when it comes to seeking the truth, unless it’s his truth. O’Reilly also demands that his guests pander to his show’s fast paced format, explaining complicated positions or sophisticated concepts in seconds. Recently, O’Reilly’s guest was a Catholic priest whom O’Reilly seemed to enjoy intimidating by demanding that the priest explain the historical basis of a particularly involved Church teaching — in 30 seconds. It was an impossible task that no one could have achieved. Meekly, the priest began, only to be interrupted by O’ Riley 15 seconds later because the priest wasn’t going fast enough or in the right direction to fit O’Reilly’s pre-conceived opinion. The pope couldn’t have answered the question any faster, except to quickly tell Bill where he (O’Reilly) was heading unless he put The Truth Seeking Principle ahead of The Nielson Rating Principle. I’m imagining O’Reilly at the pearly gates. St. Peter says, “Okay, Bill, you’ve got 30 seconds to explain to me why I outta let you in. After 30 seconds of Bill’s hemmin’ and pawnin’ St. Peter stops him: “Sorry Bill, but times up, and this is the real “No Spin Zone.”

Religion and Talk Shows

Sean Hannity, another well-known talk show host who happens to be “Catholic”, is not so “Catholic” when it comes to certain topics like his embrace of artificial birth control under the fallacy of something called “false alternatives” where he assumes that women have one of two options: artificial birth control or abortion. He totally ignores the option of self-discipline and obedience to the whole moral law. He is a moral relativist on this position. March 9, 2008, Sean’s producer’s invited Fr. Thomas Euteneuer (Human Life International President) onto Hannity and Colmes show. Fr. Euteneuer challenged Hannity on-air for using the public platform for taking a position that was contrary to Catholic doctrine. In answer to a question about Hannity by Colmes, the Fr. Euteneuer said:

FR. EUTENEUER: One is not obligated to use their public platform for preaching the tenets of Catholicism, but one is simply obliged not to be a heretic in public. That's the point. If he [Hannithy] doesn't agree with his Church on that matter he should not be pronouncing on the matter as if he was the authority on that matter.

Colmes barely got in another word. Hannity, like an arrogant adolescent, railed at Fr. Euteneuer, interrupting him multiple times:

HANNITY: Reverend….You call me a hypocrite. You question the depth of my faith. Do you know anything about me and my religious beliefs? And my background religion? Do you know anything about me?... Judge not lest you be judged, Reverend. Maybe you ought to spend a little more time that our Church covered up one of the worst sex scandals and I wasn't involved in it…. You want to ostracize me? You want to excommunicate me? Do you know that I went to a seminary? Do you know that I studied Latin? Do you know that I studied theology? Do you know anything about my background? Anything at all, sir?... So I'm not a good enough Catholic for you? I'm not a good enough Christian for you?

For all the good that talk-commentary shows do in the pursuit of truth, this was a tragic moment. In this case Sean Hannity clearly had no interest in truth, but only in the defense of a misguided, heretical position. Any one of the questions he rhetorically flung at the priest, could have taken at least an hour to resolve in the Confessional, and perhaps long if Sean can be persuaded to get to Confession. Sean’s wife should be prepare to bring him meals for a few days, except a fast (for Sean) would be more important.

[To see the video and read Fr. Euteneuer's blogs on this incident go HERE.]

Come to think of it, wouldn’t it be great to see O’Reilly or Hannity come on some night, with a humble look on their face and in a quiet voice declare, “Ladies and gentlemen, I went to confession the other day, it was a long time—not just that I hadn’t been confession in a long time, but how long it took. And my penance is, well, - - I’m not sure how to say this, but – my penance is that I have to take my whole show tonight, and apologize for all the mean, hateful things I’ve said about people publicly over the last year, and say something nice about each of them, without qualification. If I don’t do this, as Fr. Larry Richards has said (publicly): “You’re going to hell.” So, here goes. If you don’t mind I’m going to read this so I don’t forget anything or anybody. - - To Mrs. Clinton….”

Lord, have mercy! As much as I don’t particularly care for Mrs. Clinton, I’d pay $1,000 to see O’Reilly do that, and at least $500 for Hannity. What about you?

Truth is about Deliberate Diligence

Seeking the truth requires diligence, slow deliberate discussion, and the sacrifice of sacred cows, the side-stepping of prejudices, and the demolishing of bully pulpits and soap boxes. Twenty years out of college, I telephoned one of my favorite professors, philosopher Dr. Royal Mulholland, and asked his advice about pursuing a Ph.D. in philosophy. Mulholland was an Evangelical Christian, and taught within the framework of Protestant denominationalism. I was not expecting the advice that he offered; it was contrary to everything we had been taught as Protestants. Among other things, he said, “Wherever you apply, Stan, my strong suggestion is that you go to a Catholic university. That is the only place you are going to get a solid foundation in philosophy. Because of Catholicism’s long history in critical thinking, and the great philosophers in that tradition like Augustine and Aquinas, they have much more figured out than anyone else.”

That was astounding advice, from a respected Evangelical philosopher. But it clearly revealed his willingness to seek the truth, regardless of institutional suppositions and denominational prejudice.

Pam, my beloved wife, points continually to Mulholland’s inadvertent shove of our minds toward Catholicism in his quest for truth. During his introductory philosophy course, which all students at Greenville College had to take, Mulholland posed a question to us about what constituted truth and, in the process, asked us to identify the essential ingredients of Christianity. He created a scenario that put us on a distant planet as space explorers, and there we observed what appeared to be intelligent life forms. Based on what we observed we were to answer two questions: How can we know if the life forms we observed had souls? And, how might we know if they were Christians?

Imaginary Friends and Martians

Over the weeks that followed, in our search for truth, we hid behind imaginary hills, rocks, trees, and bushes and watched our imaginary friends. What differentiated them from other animals, vegetables and minerals? Did they use tools? Did they plan ahead, and if so, how far ahead? Did they show signs of a moral conscience? Did they seem to possess sophisticated rules of living? Did they bury their dead? Did they practice what appeared to be ritual, and if so what would that tell you? Was there forbearance and forgiveness that you could observe? Did they demonstrate the ability to sacrifice for the good of others? What was their source of their truth, if you could know that? And most importantly, how could we know that the conclusions of our observations were true? That is, two observers could see the same thing but come to different conclusions; so, where was the check and balance of right interpretation?

The purpose of the exercise, that took the form of outside reading and classroom discussion, had really nothing to do with extraterrestrial life, but everything to do with terrestrial life, us, here on Earth, now. The real questions were: What is the truth of whether or not mankind is different from animals, vegetables, and minerals? And if we have souls, what distinguishes the Christian? Or, what is the meaning of human life?

Being raised Evangelicals, and graduating from a very good and rigorous Evangelical liberal arts college, Pam and I were indoctrinated to believe that we did have a soul, and that what made us Christians was faith in Jesus Christ, a mental assent in our minds and hearts that we were obligated to also proclaim with our lips. Our souls were the spiritual part of our being, which was fed by our faith (which was spiritual), and what mattered, for eternity, were these spiritual beliefs, ascents, and understandings.

Recounting this exercise now, reminds me of what Catholics may appear like to non-Catholics who are trying to figure us out. We talk and act like Martians who can’t decide if we want to sit, stand, kneel, bow, genuflect or lay prostrate. We kiss statues, crosses, rings, waving our arms in front of us, splashing water on each other fully clothed, are talk in some high-pitched gobbledygook language (that’s what Martians speak I’m told - - we call it Latin) and we expect them to think we’re human AND Christian. Are we naïve or what?

Where the Spiritual Meets the Physical

Mulholland, however, was after us to seek the truth on a deeper level, in a place where our spiritual faith rubbed up against the broken concrete and tectonic plates of the physical world here on Earth. He led us to a conclusion that what we observed in others, and thus what others observed in us, in the physical realm, had everything to do with our soulfullnes and our Christian faith. In other words, you cannot separate the spiritual and the physical realms. They are one, as the universe and all creation is one – as Christ’s divine and human nature could not be separated.

Without ever quoting Scripture, Mulholland reinforced Christ’s teachings from the Sermon on the Mount, which never once mentions the importance of faith, but reminds us time and time again, that the truth of our salvation lies in what we do in the physical realm: Our works. We may not come to justification through works, but without works — the behavioral proof of our internal conversion — we have no salvation.

Mulholland was encouraging us to seek truth, as opposed to blindly embracing ideology. What he showed us was that the physical realm mattered, because that is where the proof existed (that is what we could experience with our senses) about what was going on inside our hearts. Looking back, we believe that Mulholland was trying to change a heretical Gnostic perception in Evangelical Christianity that quietly held to a belief that physical matter (such as our bodies) was evil, and the spiritual soul was all that was good.

When Pam and I became Catholic, we looked back at our time with Dr. Mulholland and wondered why he wasn’t Catholic. To us, a critical difference between Catholicism and Evangelicalism, was Catholicism’s embrace of the physical realm as good, through the sacraments and the unrelenting emphasis on the Incarnation (God, a spirit, became Man, a physical being, through Mary’s cooperation). Evangelical’s embrace of the spiritual often excluded the physical.

In the end, the difference in Mulholland’s pursuit of truth was very similar to Catholicism’s pursuit. Whereas in Evangelicalism I was always trying to cram Bible verses into a set of ideological beliefs; it was somewhat like reverse engineering the Bible. Rather than starting from Scripture and forming religious belief, Protestantism started from a series of objections (about Catholicism) and in an effort to replace the Pope’s authority, settled on the Bible Alone (and a not of misguided interpretation) to reinforce their political suppositions.

What we discovered in Mulholland’s teaching, was that while we cannot avoid starting with presuppositions – there are no truly clean slates – we need to start with basic presuppositions rather than “front-loaded,” circular ones. Protestants – esp. Calvinists -- often include their theology in their premises without proof, leading to circular reasoning. But Catholicism works very hard at being open to all truth, working relentless to listen to objections and engaging participants in honest rational, slow, deliberate dialogue. In fact, the Catholic sense of reason fully embraces the scientific method, which it helped to establish through scientists such as Roger Bacon, Nicolas Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, and Blaise Pascal.

“What, what!” you say? “That can’t be! Faith and science are polar opposites. Faith is faith and it’s all about what you can’t see or observe. And science is only what can be observed. They can’t be the same, and there is no way that the scientific method and Christianity go together.”

Hmmm? Sounds like a good place to stop and pick up next time, when we examine in Part 2 of The Truth Seeking Principle, how science and Christianity are very much cut from the same mold.

Chapter 17 USE OF FLATTERY

Trying to Fly with One Wing: Chapter 17

USE OF FLATTERY
(Logic 17)

PODCAST COMING
Subscribe at the top left.

Thomas Edison was perhaps the greatest inventor of modern times. He was the man singularly responsible for ushering civilization into the technological age by producing devices that allowed civilization the widespread use of electricity, incandescent lighting, sound recordings, motion pictures, and to whom the U.S. government awarded over 1,000 patents.

It is said that Edison could be sitting with family or friends in the middle of a meal, a conversation, or a family celebration when suddenly he would rise, excuse himself, and go to work in his laboratory, not to be seen for days. I am sure this did not endear him to his wife or friends as he sustained criticism for his anti-social habits. When I try an E.D.T. (an Edison Disappearing Trick) my good wife, Pam, finds me working on some project in the shed or hiding under the stairs with my laptop. Promptly, she orders me back to the living room to sustain the flush of chit-chat and flattery with relatives about the past, their new car, or the pulchritude of our latest grandchild’s smile - - for at least another three hours.

After considering Edison’s accomplishments and his famous line about success is 1% genius and 99% perspiration (or perseverance), I concluded that what he accomplished for civilization was the result of a life that abhorred flattery and empty praise that built up his ego, and demanded real physical evidence that built up society. For Edison, accepting praise that did not result in success would have been flattery. Yes, he would accept accolades, but only for good reason. His life was at the service of humanity. Flattery had no room in his laboratory.

Appeal to Flattery

This series of articles is about the role of reason in the discovery of truth, particularly as it relates to faith. We arrive at truth through the application of reason and faith, which Pope John Paul II wrote are like "two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth, and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves." (John Paul II, Fides Et Ratio). Truth does not come to us by faith alone, nor does it come by reason alone. Reason reinforces faith, and, in turn, faith advances reason. To rely on one to the exclusion of the other, is to fly with one wing, mostly in circles, as we misapply the ordered rules of one or the other and introduce fallacies into our thinking. How that happens is the focus of this series.

This chapter briefly examines a fallacy called Use of Flattery, which falls under a broad category called Irrelevant Emotional Appeals. Use of Flattery occurs when compliments are paid out instead of objective evidence in order to persuade a group or a person to adopt a position or take an action. Undergirding the use of flattery are elements of selfishness, greed, egotism and a general lack of concern for what is true. For it is through flattery that people are manipulated for the benefit of the other.

Flattery is not chivalry, which is a combination of masculine virtues that includes courage, honor, loyalty, and consideration for others, especially of women. Flattery is selfish. Chivalry is selfless. Flattery is when you receive compliments without a rational basis. It is flattery when you are kind to someone else in order to help YOU feel good about yourself. Flattery is very close to doing the right thing for the wrong reason — when you are not serving out of selflessness, but are manipulating another for your own selfishness.

This is not an issue of being like more like Martha (the doer) than Mary (the adorer). Martha may have misunderstood Mary’s action, of sitting at Jesus’ feet, as flattery. But, Mary’s preoccupation with Christ was not rooted in a selfish desire to manipulate Christ for her benefit, but rather in a selfless awe of Christ as she prepare to serve Christ and those in her community. In that understanding we see the difference between building relationships that are true and right, and the use of flattery that is fallacious and wrong.

Insincerity

The giving and accepting of flattery is, at its core, a selfish act of insincerity and greed. In its most subtle form a person will use flattery to gain a social acceptance and hide insecurity. It happens when a person is critical of another’s life decisions behind their back, but to their face overflows with gracious compliments about insignificant accomplishments. One person in my life is convinced that in my conversion to Catholicism I’ve forsaken my Christian faith and am now worshiping idols. Yet, to my face she will give me gracious compliments about how she enjoys my articles—that defend Catholicism. At one moment she will tell me how smart she thinks I am, but behind my back she tells others that I brainwashed my wife into becoming Catholic. The paint in a room may be peeling off the wall with age, but a person given to superficial flattery will gush about how wonderful the new room color brightens your home.

Sexuality

I embarrassingly remember when as a young man I was smitten by the beauty (and, ah,… personality) of a young lady who was totally out of my class. By chance I found myself in conversation with her, and the only thing I could say to her, as I starred dumb-struck into her eyes, was: “You are so beautiful” over and over and over. I had no clue what else to say. I had no car, no money, and no idea why we should even be talking to each other, especially to me, a pimpled-face, naïve kid. She was in college, I was a freshman in high school, and well, the only tool in my adolescent arsenal was flattery. Today I shiver at the memory… and I can’t even remember what she looked like.

Unfortunately, some men never grow out of their dependence on flattery, even as women never lose their thirst for it. Taken to its tragic extreme a pornographer will use flattery to entice insecure women into the sex trade, and in turn it is flattery that the prostitute uses to seduce her lonely johns.

Beware of Charlatans Bearing Gifts

You’ve heard the adage, “Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts.” Whether the story is legend or true is debatable, but when the Greeks could not conquer the city of Troy (now in Turkey), they built a large wooden horse and filled it with soldiers. The Trojans being convinced it was a gift, rolled the horse into Troy, where, at night the Greeks let themselves out and slaughtered the city’s inhabitants. When someone gives you a gift and you can’t figure out the motivation, especially if the week before they were trying to take over your city, there’s probably a catch.

A couple of years ago my wife and I were at our favorite restaurant celebrating our wedding anniversary. We were in the process of complimenting each other on our successful marriage thus far (some 38 years at the time). Near the end of our dinner, into the room walked a nationally known Christian businessman and minister that I had a slight acquaintance with years earlier. With him was an attractive and much younger lady. This man had done me a big professional favor years earlier and I was indebted to him. I also had been thinking of asking his assistance again, and so I felt some form of “thank you” and “flattery” was in order. I greeted him by his table, told him how much a appreciated his work and ministry (which I knew very little about), and then, secretly, I paid for his dinner with the young lady that I thought was his executive assistant. I figured the cost of his dinner would grease the skids for my upcoming request. When, a few weeks later he ignored my attempts to get in touch with him I was curious, and wondered if I had offended him at my overt attempts to be nice. Was I too nice? Did I step over the bounds of propriety and had he seen through my flattery? Perhaps. But then I found out he was involved in a little overt flattery of his own. The minister was married, and the young lady was his mistress. Ooops!

Not too long ago, and it may still be going on, Venezuelan president Hugo Rafael Chávez, through his state-controlled oil industry, was heavily discounting heating oil to the residents of New York City’s Harlem and a few other economically depressed communities. Some evaluated Chávez’s actions are a form of flattery that attempted to manipulate U.S. public opinion against our Federal government’s political position and attempts to marginalize the dictator’s regime, and his control over a portion of oil reserves in this hemisphere.

If true, Chávez’s decision is similar to the ploy to the gangster’s “insurance” scam, where shop owners pay the mob for protection against the mob ransacking their shop. It begins with the collector’s flattery of the shop owner about how important his business is for the community and how they (the mob), wants to protect their good work. Right!

When Flattery Is Not

Sometimes it’s hard to detect when compliments and related actions are inappropriate and fallacious or logical and acceptable. At the heart of the matter is the difference between actions that are selfish or selfless; and whether or not the activity builds up a selfless relationship or is focused on building the ego of an individual. The key word in that last sentence is relationship. Our goal should be to engender good relationships out of substance (selfless kindness) and to avoid relationships out of connivery (selfless lust or greed).

Healthy and righteous relationships build up both parties out of an attitude of service and giving, not taking. Flattery subverts relationships by focusing on what it can get out of a relationship for the selfish needs of one of the parties. While the overt actions can often be seen for what they are—irrational, selfish flattery— the more important key to understanding the fallacy is hidden and unfortunately cloaked in sheep’s clothing and that wolves are behind it (Matthew 7:15). When Valentine’s Day rolls around and I buy my wife clothes (that I like to see her wear), get her flowers (that I dislike), a card (which I never do), and treat her like a queen… she may think it’s a wonderful thing, but the more important question is, “Why am I doing it?” Is it to build her up and our relationship through selfless service and admiration (on my part), or is it to break her down and fall into my arms for my own selfish interest, even if it is only once a year.

Okay, so I’m being a little sarcastic. Two decades ago I began writing a book titled Masculine Holiness: Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a Woman? I still have a file drawer dedicated to the research and incomplete drafts. I began writing it for therapy to improve my marriage after realizing that I did not understand something important about life that my wife understood all too well: That the natural law of peaceful co-existence, happiness and joy was based on the selfless establishment of relationships - - something women inherently understood and men did not. I was asking my reader (and there was only one—me) Why a man cannot give selflessly to his mate and forget about what he’s going to get in return. I’m sorry if the men reading this are not like that, but I am. And so, that book was trying to get me to understand that charming my wife had to be out of selfless service, and NOT other selfish “gain.” If what I did and said was for her betterment, I was being a gentleman. But, if what I said and did was for me, it was flattery.

Attacking the Fallacy

In the context of this discussion, if charm out of a deep appreciation for an individual is the opposite of shallow flattery, then how can we change our attitudes to be charming and to abandon flattery? For us men, one of the great things we can do is to study John Paul II’s encyclical Mulieris Dignitatem on The Dignity and Vocation of Women. The Great John Paul reminds us that man’s most intimate connection with God came through a woman, Mary, and her singular ability to put her relationship with others (mankind) and with God (her spouse the Holy Spirit) above herself. At the end of the document, John Paul writes:

The Church gives thanks for all the manifestations of the feminine "genius" which have appeared in the course of history, in the midst of all peoples and nations; she gives thanks for all the charisms which the Holy Spirit distributes to women in the history of the People of God, for all the victories which she owes to their faith, hope and charity: she gives thanks for all the fruits of feminine holiness.

This is not flattery. And neither is it flattery that I bought T-Shirts for my wife and business manager, the two women in my life, that on the front say “Feminine GENIUS” – which these two women are. (The T-Shirts are available from my friend Sam’s T-Shirt company at Total Catholic.) Men, this explains how our words toward a woman should be -- thick with appreciative charm for who they are and their lineage via Mary, the mother of Christ.

No, I don’t totally understand women, but neither do I understand everything about the holiness of God, Christ, or His Church. But it is in that “feminine holiness” that us men should be wanting to learn from women and in terms of their genius and holiness be more like them. That is not flattery, but it is what God, Christ’s Church, and our popes have called us to. All of that should be our mindset when we bestow compliments on a woman.

Now for women (and for men) here is another tip to guard against being taken in by flattery, and thus manipulated either by a greedy business associate or by a potential object of lust.

Ask yourself, “Is the compliment just, short and sweet?” If so, then accept it, humbly and say no more. But, if you did not earn the compliment, reward, gift, or if what you receive is over the top, be very suspicious and hold the person and their subsequent requests of you at arms length or even further. There is no need to insult the person, but be not hesitant to correct the person that flatters, for it is dishonest for you to accept a compliment that is unwarranted. Damer gives this advice: “Even if you are convinced that the praise was designed to manipulate a particular response, you could still thank the arguer for his or her remarks and then proceed to ask the questions appropriate to a careful evaluation of the merit of the view.” (Attacking Faulty Reasoning, T. Edward Damer, 4th edition, p. 76.)

Finally, a short story, that you should remember: Once a young preacher, just out of seminary, was greeting parishioners as they exited the church on a Sunday morning. An older man shook the young man’s hand and said with a sincere smile, “Reverend, that was an excellent sermon.” The young pastor, not taken to what he falsely considered flattery, was quick to correct: “Oh, sir, it wasn’t me, it was the Holy Spirit.” The older man’s smile quickly faded, and sternly he looked into the young man’s eyes and said, “Son, it wasn’t that good.”

Accept compliments with a humble and grateful heart, and do not praise yourself. But with flattery, be quick and gentle to correct.

Chapter 16 ARGUING IN CIRCLES

Trying to Fly with One Wing: Chapter 16

ARGUING IN CIRCLES
(Fallacies of Unacceptability)
(Logic 16)

PODCAST COMING
Subscribe at the top left.

I had just become Catholic and was intent to produce the grand television documentary that would reveal once and for all the great misunderstandings that had separated Protestants and Catholics for centuries.

To be fair, I figured we'd let both sides tell their story, and so I set out to interview, on camera, some of the leading Protestant theologians in the area. One was Rev. P.Z., a theologian and apologist for the Reformed Presbyterian Church. If "Reformed Presbyterian" sounds redundant, it wasn't to them. Indeed, this denomination didn't believe contemporary Presbyterianism was sufficiently Protestant, which they claimed had drifted from the "ideal" of John Calvin’s teachings. So they "resurrected" a theology that Reformed the Presbyterians. I had no idea what I was in for.

In my interview, I wanted to allow my guest sufficient time and latitude to explain what I could never figure out — how the authority of the Bible could provide answers about life's vexing questions, when so many Christian leaders seemed to disagree about what the Bible said. In short, this is how the interview went:

Me: In your denomination, when members have a theological disagreement between them, how do you resolve the difference?

PZ: We go to the Bible. It's the final authority in everything, about everything, for all time.

Me: So, what do you do when these members are both looking at the same verse in the Bible, and they're disagreeing about its interpretation?

PZ: Well, like I said they look to the Bible for the answer. The Bible interprets itself.

Me: But, that's what these two guys just did. They're looking at verses in the Bible about baptism, and to one guy one passage says you have to do this and the other guy clings to a another passage that says you have to do that. Who decides what is right?

PZ: In that case the church elders get together and decide.

Me: Sorry, I forgot to tell you that these guys, that are disagreeing, are the elders.

PZ: Ah. Well, again, we'd look to the Bible, our final authority.

Me: But that's where we started.

PZ: Actually, our pastor would be over the elders, and he would decide.

Me: So, what if the elders disagree with the pastor and want to start their own church?

PZ: They wouldn’t likely do that.

Me: Yet, there are over 20,000 different denominations that have. Is that what the leaders of all of those have done, all gone to the Bible?

PZ: Well, ah… yes.

Me: ?

Do you see the problem?

After several such interviews I put the project on hold. To put such dialogue on television would have been uncharitable, even through they revealed the problem of circular reasoning in that segment of Protestantism.

Begging the Question Fallacies

This series of articles is about the role of reason in the discovery of truth. We arrive at truth through the application of faith and reason, which are like "two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth." (John Paul II, Fides Et Ratio). Truth does not come to us by faith alone, nor does it come by reason alone. To rely on one to the exclusion of the other, is to fly with one wing, mostly in circles, as we misapply the ordered rules of one or the other and introduce fallacies into our thinking.

This chapter briefly examines one of those fallacies called Arguing in Circles, which falls under a broad category called Unacceptable Appeals, and more specifically under a group of fallacies label Begging the Question. Begging the Question fallacies occur when the conclusion of the argument is baked into the assumptions of the question. Put another way, these fallacies assume that some aspect of the matter, about which a question is being raised, have already been settled. A question is begged when a crime investigator interrogates a suspect with, "How did you kill him?" -- when there's no assurance or evidence that the suspect killed anyone. It's also begging the question when, Pam, my wife, asks me, "What did you get me for our anniversary, honey?" and she knows full well, as I sit engrossed in the Super Bowl, that I had totally forgotten that is was our anniversary. Begging the question language is slanted or prejudicial in nature. It is a form of unintended falsehood at best, or lying at worse. Begging the conversation, begs for a response contrary to what the facts may otherwise establish.

In politics, we see begging the question problems all the time. The reporter-with-an-agenda asks the governor, "The administration's mistake in approving the education plan has caused a budget shortfall in school districts across the state. How are you planning on reimbursing those districts for their extra costs?" If the governor answered the second question she would be agreeing to the presumption in the first statement, that signing the bill was a mistake -- and of course she doesn’t think it was.

Arguing in Circles is a type of Begging the Question fallacy, because imbedded in the question is the conclusion. Oftentimes arguments are long, and may be presented in book or chapter form, thus separating the assumptive premise, by some time and space, from the conclusion. A careful analysis of the argument may be necessary to discover the fallacy, if it exists. Simply put, Arguing in a Circle says: “A is true, because A is true.” Thus, the question asked of the Reformed Presbyterian about how they resolved theological disputes when parties interpret the Bible – cannot be referenced back to the Bible, without arguing in a circle. Interestingly, the Reformed Presbyterian theologian touched on the solution, which is to look to the authority of individuals in the Church to resolve such difficulties. But when pushed further about when those authorities disagree, his escape was to return to the issue under question as the answer to the issue. It makes me dizzy.

For the Catholic, the answer is indeed in the Bible. But interestingly the Bible points to a hierarchy of authority outside of itself, and in fact the same hierarchy of authority that established the Bible as an authority in the first place—The Holy Spirit inspiration of The Pope and Church as a whole. The Bible passages that do this remarkable thing are clearly stated in every Protestant Bible I’ve ever looked at, and in fact here are the verses from perhaps the most popular American Protestant Bible translation: Zondervan’s New International Version:

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:16-19; Matthew 18:18)

Catholicism holds that: (a) the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit and we thus trust them; (b) that fallible men wrote the infallible Scriptures under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that (c) fallible men also SELECTED the Scriptures infallibly, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The hierarchy was (1) the Holy Spirit working through, (2) fallible men, who then (3) wrote and selected the Scriptures. Then the Scriptures establish the fourth level, again, through the Holy Spirit, (4) the power to INTERPRET Scriptures and moral law infallibly. Here is the verse. Notice the Holy Spirit’s inspired involvement:

And with that he [Jesus] breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (John 20:22-23).

So, the Bible can be used to end the circular argument, but you have to be articulate about where the buck stops — not with the Bible, but with the Holy Spirit inspired leadership to infallibly interpret.

Related to this, a number of non-Catholics have taken me to task, and have argued against papal authority by saying: “I just don’t believe that.” When pressed they end up saying something like: “I just don’t believe that because, well, that’s not what I believe.” Unfortunately it is times like that when I destroy all opportunities to be reconciled with my brothers and sisters. Why? Because I yell at the top of my lungs: “ARE YOU NUTS!”

I’m sorry, but I have no other argument.

Reversing the Argument

As much as Catholics may pound Protestants for inconsistent thinking, Catholics are guilty too of this fallacy. Have you heard this critique? “Protestants are not good theologians because they interpret the Bible incorrectly.” That is a classic example of circular reasoning. There is no real evidence presented here. The only thing the statement establishes is the same opinion stated two different ways. The phrase “not good theologians” is the near equivalent of “interpret the Bible incorrectly.”

The problem with the current poor and fallacious condition of social communication is the lack of time to mount and establish good arguments. Broadcast news wants soundbytes. They especially like provocative headlines soaked in opinion and a lack of evidence. Here’s the main headline from CNN.com today: Haagen-Dazs: Vanishing bees could sting business. The article describes how Haagen-Dazs ice cream relies on bees to pollinate fruit to flavor 40% of its brands. The begging the question here is that the headline assumes bees are vanishing. While I’m not an expert on bees, I did spend some time a few months ago talking at length to the owner of a bee-keeping farm about the problem. He said, “There is no problem; the headlines are the fabrication of ignorant reporters who do not understand the natural fluctuation in bee population they read about in trade journals, and are anxious to create ‘news’ to sell papers.” Thus, a natural variability becomes a fallacious headline in the hands of an uneducated corps of reporters.

I recently read a very entertaining novel, about nuns and the mafia, that I had been requested to carry among our other Catholic products at Nineveh’s Crossing. [link: http://www.NinevehsCrossing.com] A Catholic nun who has a problem with the male hierarchy of the Catholic Church wrote it. Without going into the detail, the argument she posed in the otherwise good and entertaining story, was an argument that went something like this:

Premise A: The Church is composed, like the mafia, of cold-hearted patriarchal hierarchies.

Premise B: People more easily pour out their hearts to compassionate mother figures than father figures.

Conclusion: Women would make better priests because they are not male.

Apologist, Dave Armstrong points out that Premise “B” is likely a true premise for most people, which helps the fallacy succeed, because there is some truth in the argument. “The fallacy lies more so in making compassion the sole component for the priesthood.”

Regardless, the essence of the circular argument is summarized in the above conclusion. Elsewhere, the circular reasoning is cloaked under the anecdotal, and unrelated evidence, that the mafia is a male hierarchy over which we have no control, and women are generally more compassionate. That is, the nun argues, the male patriarchal groups are evil, and women would make better confessors. Never mind that Jesus was male, that the apostles were all male, and that it is Jesus (a MAN) and God the FATHER that Catholicism teaches are more merciful, compassionate, and gracious than imagination can conjure. And while God’s merciful character does not mean that, as a whole, men are as or more compassionate than women, it suggests that perhaps, in God’s eyes, too much compassion isn’t good for the confessional. I have seen more than one mother, for instance, sympathize with a disobedient child, and not correct their behavior, allowing the child to sink further into sin and “Gimme! Gimme!” .

Nineveh’s Crossing will not be carrying that book.

Lastly, I had a discussion with a friend who was a supporter or a current political candidate. The friend was a Christian, and the candidate advocated abortion on demand. Our discussion went like this (here summarized because it went on over several e-mails.)

Me: Why do you believe (your candidate) has the characteristics to be the president?

Her: Because (my candidate) is credible.

Me: Why is (your candidate) credible?

Her: Because the current president lied.

Me: How does the current president’s actions relate (your candidate’s) character?

Her: Because I trust (my candidate) totally, implicitly.

This last example is perhaps more indicative of the kind of discussion you’re likely to get into. In the actual case, the back and forth was perhaps five times lengthier and the circular reasoning was harder to spot. In the end, the EVIDENCE for the candidate was the same as CONCLUSION, just sated in different words—“My candidate is credible and would make a good president because I trust him totally.”

The Blockade

The underlying problem was my friend’s inability to address the candidate’s stand on abortion. She knew I was right about the abortion issue, and she had no other “evidence” other than her dislike of the current president -- and another unmentionable reason, that had she mentioned it, would have unraveled her credibility. She was not willing to bring up the unmentionable trait, and I wasn’t going to bait her, so she was forced to embrace the only thing left, circular reasoning.

I had contacted a well-known Evangelical historian about my documentary project mentioned earlier. After a little dialogue he wrote me, “The reasons I am not Catholic are entirely personal.” Let these examples be a warning to you. Often, you will find yourself in situations like these where your opponent will not be forthcoming about the real, underlying reasons for their position. No amount of logical persuasion will convince them. They are blockaded by a combination of fear of the unknown, family tradition, deep-set prejudices, and pride – all of which conspire to hold them just out of reach of real truth.

All you can do is smile, be gracious, and say a silent prayer for them. You can’t convince them. That will have to be done by the Holy Spirit, and perhaps not until they come within sight of the pearly gates.

Guarding Against Circular Reasoning

Here are some tips about how to avoid being swept up in such circular reasoning:

1. Be sensitive to the “evidence” presented in all arguments, and be sure it’s just not the conclusion stated another way. It is easy to hide such circular evidence in arguments that are long and connected by a convoluted series of “logical” connections.

2. When you recognize the circular thinking, try politely to point out to your opponent how their “evidence” is in fact also their “conclusion.” Try not to yell. Don’t be like me. Remind them that it’s not a good idea to use in the definition the very word they’re trying to define.

3. If your opponent seems to be open, but can’t seem to grasp the concept of circular reasoning, offer to work with your opponent and write down on a piece of paper their “evidence” in an agreeable short hand; and then do the same with their “conclusion.” Line up the evidence phrase with the conclusion phrase, one above the other, and try to point out how they are the same, and thus no evidence has been presented.

4. Remind your opponent that a person’s opinion, without outside objective evidence, is hardly convincing evidence that something is true or false. Try to encourage them to find the real evidence for their position, give them time, and see what happens.

5. Finally, be enlightening, try not to force a change in conviction. Your job is not to convince (leave that to the Holy Spirit) but to simply provide good evidence. The change in their mind must come internally, and will take time for their mind to sift through and assimilate what is true and false. When people come to conclusions on their own the resulting conviction is much stronger.

Yes, we may persuade some people. Indeed, we sometimes do.

Chapter 15 THE FORGIVENESS PRINCIPLE

Trying to Fly with One Wing: Chapter 15

THE FORGIVENESS PRINCIPLE
(Antidote to Fallibility)
(Logic 15)

PODCAST COMING
Subscribe at the top left.

God forgets, they say. I hope so. It was about 30 years ago, so I guess I can be excused for forgetting. But the temporal effects stick around. I do remember the physical consequences of my behavior — a broken kitchen window. Pam and I were arguing. Or should I say I was arguing and Pam was cooking -- in two ways, on the stove and in her mind. Back then I was intense, passionate, and I knew everything -- about all places -- about all people -- about all time. I was omniscient. Today I'm less intense, less passionate, and omniscient only occasionally.

There we stood in the small kitchen of our house, me by the window and Pam by the stove. (She was cooking, remember?) The argument ensued, and I remember picking up something -- maybe it was a fry pan that Pam was threatening to bong me with -- and I flung whatever it was through one of the small double hung windows over the kitchen sink. Did I mention this was an old house? I'm looking for excuses here.

What a mess! Oh, sure, there were glass and wood splinters everywhere, and a bent up pan on the driveway. Luckily it missed the car's windshield. Not sure if my car was covered for collisions with UFOs, (Used Frying Objects).

The real mess, however, was not of a physical nature, but of a psychological one. I might as well have flung that fry pan through the fragile glass of our marriage.

The Fallibility Principle Antidote

This series of articles is about the role of reason in the discovery of truth. We arrive at truth through the application of faith and reason, which are like "two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth." (John Paul II, Fides Et Ratio). Truth does not come to us by faith alone, nor does it come by reason alone. To rely on one to the exclusion of the other, is to fly with one wing, mostly in circles, as we misapply the ordered principles of good argumentation, or we introduce fallacies into our thinking, and throw things through windows.

The last chapter introduced us to T. Edward Damer's 1st Principle of the "Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion" — The Fallibility Principle. That principle encourages us to begin all arguments (assuming we're entering such arguments calm enough to think of the principles) with the awareness that we could be wrong. (It's amazing to think that we could be wrong, isn't it?) Nonetheless, The Fallibility Principle means our position could be wrong. Even if the conclusion of our argument is correct, the evidence we present to support our position may be invalid or fallacious in some way.

The second half of The Fallibility Principle (not mentioned by Damer) is what I call The Forgiveness Principle, a process that involves three elements: (1) Willingness to Forgive, (2) Remorse and Restitution, and (3) Restoration.

Willingness to Forgive is something the victim offers up to the aggressor, whether or not it is asked for by the aggressor. Remorse and Restitution is something the aggressor offers up to repair the psychological and physical damage. Restoration is what happens in the process, when both parties recognize in the other a sorrow and meekness that reflects the dignity of God's image.

Although restoration of the relationship (and I suppose the discussion) is the goal, it may not be easily achieved because either the victim refuses to reject bitterness and forgive, or the aggressor fails to show remorse and make restitution. What is encouraging about this natural process is that either party can take their respective step toward restoration without the other party's participation. That is, the bitterness that the victim experiences because of the aggressors' actions can be rejected and replaced with a spirit of mercy without the aggressor asking for forgiveness or even being sorry. And the aggressor can make right the sin by seeking forgiveness, doing penance, and repairing any damage that was inflicted, without the victim asking for it.

Yes, it does help the victim to forgive if the aggressor demonstrates remorse, but it's not necessary. Christ demonstrated this spirit of forgiveness (not actual sacramental forgiveness) on the cross when he said, "Forgive them Father, for they do not know what they do."

Notice that the soldiers and the Pharisee priests did not ask for forgiveness. In fact, they were in the midst of murdering Jesus and gambling for his cloak. Nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to show mercy toward someone only when they show remorse for their aggression toward us. In fact, the prayer Jesus taught his disciples commands us to "forgive others as we want God to forgive us." There is no qualification on our merciful attitude that requires someone to first say, "I'm sorry."

Nails Leave Holes

The Forgiveness Principle however does not necessarily remove the temporal effects of the initial transgression. Forgiveness, Restitution and Restoration, even when done with great sincerity of heart does not easily remove all the effects of what happened.

The son of a farmer had developed the habit of lying to his father. The lying became so bad that the father drove a large nail part way into the barn door each time he caught his son in a lie. Soon the barn door was covered with nails protruding. When visitors to the farm would ask the farmer about the now very obvious collection of nails, the father explained that every time his son lied, another nail was added to the door. After a while the son became so embarrassed that he changed his ways, and having proved himself over time asked his father to remove the nails from the door. His father gladly removed the nails and gave them to his son. But the boy, looking up at the door, was disheartened. The door was covered with nail holes, never to be erased. Such is the character of our temporal life on earth. Heaven offers a solution, but here on Earth there are consequences to all our actions.

The nail story should remind us that even after The Forgiveness Principle is followed, we should not expect the restoration to be made perfectly whole. Many people, after living with bitterness for years toward an aggressor, expecting the restoration to be made whole without stain or scar, discover that their bitterness has become a ball, chain, and padlock to which only they possess the key.

Catholic lay evangelist Bill Wegner tells the story of a close Christian friend who made a pass at his wife, and how Bill carried with him for a long time a deep bitterness and hatred toward the man, which destroyed Bill's work habits and was significantly eroding other relationships. Finally, Bill (the original victim) confronted the man (the original aggressor), and asked the man to forgive him for the hatred, bitterness, and slander that Bill had committed against the man out of a feeling of revenge. The man's response at that confrontation is not important for the moment. What is important, and what Bill learned, was the immediate and immense peace that flooded his own body, mind, and soul. Bill gave the man “forgiveness” without the man ever showing an ounce of remorse, resulting in Bill's work and personal life being restored. Bill's spirit of forgiveness toward the man did not alone restore the relationship with the man, but it did restore Bill and his ability to work and carry on a normal and peaceful life.

The Logic of Forgiveness

Why is forgiveness part of a discussion on logical reasoning and discussion? The reason is simple. The Forgiveness Principle allows the discussion to continue -- hopefully in a rational way, and speed both parties on to the discovery of truth. That is, if the discussion is terminated because one or more of the parties throws a frying pan through the discussion, shattering the relationship all over the landscape, then the situation has to be restored before discussion can continue.

The Forgiveness Principle comes in handy when one of the parties involved in the discussion forgets to practice The Fallibility Principle. In other words, some aspect of the Forgiveness Principle will probably be needed soon after we take on the mantle of omniscience and tell our friend, our boss, or (more dangerously) our spouse: "I know ALL about this, and you don't have a clue." And our opponent starts thinking, "What kind of "god" pill did he take? (A thought that Pam has had on more than one occasion -- well, maybe it was only once.)

This is true even if you're alone and debating with yourself, it is very easy to think you know it all. I do it all the time. When I'm driving around town I often find myself -- yes, I'm frequently lost -- rehearsing hypothetical conversations with a phantom adversary. If you were hiding in the back seat and heard me, it would be obvious that I was the intelligent, omniscient party and my opponent the ignorant, know-nothing party. (Please stay out of my backseat.)

Hopefully you've noticed that this series has a great deal to do with "fallacies" and "principles." The "principles" are the things that help us to avoid "fallacies." Fallacies are rational mistakes; they represent the "sins" of reason. If you sin, you need forgiveness, and possibly you also need to make restitution, before the discussion and the pursuit of truth can be restored. The whole point of reason is buried in the title of this series -- the discovery of truth. If we're going to discover truth, then reason, in partnership with faith, needs to move forward. When fallacies are committed the process stops; or it gets shoved down a path that isn't going to lead to truth. The Forgiveness Principle gets us back on track.

An Historical & Current Example

I've mentioned this in an earlier chapter, but perhaps the more significant historical example of the need to apply both The Fallacy Principle and the Forgiveness Principle occurred during the Protestant and Catholic Reformations. (Yes, there were two of them – well, sort of.) We might date the first false “reformation” with Martin Luther's Halloween trick (yes, this all started on the day before All Saints Day), tacked to the Wittenberg Church doors, in 1521. What he started then did not reform the Church but created a revolt from it. The second, and true Reformation, came a quarter of a century later, in 1545, when Pope Paul III convened the Council of Trent that eventually curbed the abuses within the Church that had significantly triggered the revolt.

But in that time, both sides committed more than a few fallacies of understanding. The writers of the documents found in the Book of Concord (the Lutheran Confessions) attack straw-dogs, or misunderstandings of Catholic teaching. They condemn concepts that were never true.

The writer’s of the Catholic Trent documents were careful not to mention any particular group, and held up a list of heresies about justification and faith alone (sola fide), that today the Church proclaims as accurate, and with which many Protestants groups agree. The most famous of these were Trent's anathemas against what the Trent writer’s presumed were Protestant beliefs regarding the doctrine of justification. These were the 36 Justification Canons that came out of Trent’s Sixth Session (January 13, 1547). As an example, the first canon states:

CANON I.-If any one says, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

That articulates what Catholics understood to be the crux of the Reformation. But Protestants don’t all believe the same. While the Catholic Trent Council played it safe by not mentioning names, and accurately condemn some Protestant positions, it is likely that Trent misunderstood the subtleties of exactly what the Lutheran position was attempting to articulate. Thus, after 451 years, in 1998, the Lutheran World Federation and the Vatican admitted that the anathemas (that both groups had pronounced toward the other) no longer applied, and that the crux of the Reformation was null and void.

Huh!?

Well, they’re right. It's just hard to believe that it took "intelligent" men 451 years to figure it out. The 1998 document that did this “remarkable” thing is called “JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION” and you can find it on the Vatican and some Lutheran websites.

Section 41 of the joint declaration states:

Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.

What happened here is that both sides asked for forgiveness and opened the door to further discussions (hopefully rational) as Christians work toward unity of mind and heart. Today, we understand that we are actually closer to each other than both sides have believed these past centuries.

Restoring the Window

Recall the UFO through the window? How can I forget. Actually, the story has a good ending. Yes, I asked Pam to forgive me -- and she did. But before there was true restoration, I had to make true restitution.

We lived in an old house, and the single pane, double hung windows positioned over the kitchen sink were ugly and drafty in the winter, with wide casements that hid the view of trees out the window. We did not have air conditioning, so we had to crack the windows for ventilation, and opening the windows was difficult because they were old, often stuck in their jams, and we had to lean awkwardly over the sink for leverage.

I decided that instead of repairing the windows I would replace them with a custom design that went beyond a simple repair. I ripped out both windows, cleaned out the resulting opening, and installed oak sill, jambs, and head. I then found a large piece of thermopane glass (a small picture window) that fit the opening and yet allowed me to create beneath it, a six-inch high vent that when flipped open created an extra wide shelf for small plants. I even custom formed a Styrofoam insert that filled the vent during the winter against the cold. I stained and varnished the wood, and for many years after that, we looked through the beautifully, restored window of our restored marriage and the effects of The Forgiveness Principle.

Chapter 14 THE FALLIBILITY PRINCIPLE Part 1

Trying to Fly with One Wing: Chapter 14

THE FALLIBILITY PRINCIPLE - Part 1
(Logic 14)

PODCAST COMING
Subscribe at the top left.

Precocious and Stubborn

Annaliese is our precocious and self-made two-year old granddaughter. I call her "Ellen MacArthur" after the petite but determined British Dame who in her teens and 20s raced 70-foot sail boats single-handedly across the stormy North Atlantic beating brawny men three times her age and experience. When Annaliese was one-year old we took her and her family (e.g. her parents and older sibling brothers) sailing for a week in the open waters of the Great Lakes and Canada's North Channel. In the process we braved gale force winds and storms.

Family Ties, our Islander Freeport 41' ketch, is a sturdy and safe ocean going vessel, but such weather always brings a heightened level of anxiety and tension to the captain (me) and crew (my wife, Pam) -- especially with three young grandchildren aboard. Yet, during such weather, with the large boat seemingly at the mercy of high winds and waves and occasionally plowing the bow into an on-coming wave, was the only time "Ellen" was happy. I'm told she never learned to walk. In one week she went from sitting-up to a full gallop.

Annaliese considers herself already grownup and in full command of the universe. Although she's spent her entire life in the United States, she has that distinct British spirit—stiff upper lip, adamantly independent, and stubborn omniscience. (Omniscience is an attribute of God that means “all knowing.”) Recently Annaliese has potty trained herself. As soon as she poops in her diaper, she trots to the bathroom, pulls off the self-made mess, and casts the whole kit-and-kabula into the toilet, running stark naked, with a smelly and dirty fanny but a big toothy grin to the living room where mom is serving tea to her ladies Bible study. She takes after her grandfather.

Last week we were "watching" "Ellen" for the evening. You can let her brothers read and play by themselves for hours without worry. "Ellen" however, requires two adults, a tow-line, and a backup GPS locator. My wife, Pam, clever woman that she is, got "Ellen" involved cutting out cookies with cookie-dough. "Ellen" felt so grown up — playing with messy stuff and sharp objects in exotic shapes (the tin cookie cutters).

"Ellen" was happy -- until I came along, scooped up some of the scraps from her cutting enterprise, flung them into my mouth and started to happily chew and savor the sugary cookie dough. "Ellen's" face turned sour and became deeply concerned; and when I apparently swallowed the mass, her eyes bulged out at me like I was something indeed strange. She had no interest in the cookie dough as food; and when the cookies came out of the oven and we offered her one of the warm, succulent treats, she ran away and hid behind her mom and dad, who had just arrived to take her and her brothers back home. What was her problem, we wondered?

As it turned out, "Ellen" was suffering from rejection of the first principle of a good argument: "The Fallibility Principle."

The Fallibility Principle

This series of articles is about the role of reason in the discovery of truth. We arrive at truth through the application of faith and reason, which are like "two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth." (John Paul II, Fides Et Ratio). Truth does not come to us by faith alone, nor does it come by reason alone. To rely on one to the exclusion of the other, is to fly with one wing, mostly in circles, as we misapply the ordered principles of good argumentation, or we introduce fallacies into our thinking.

This chapter is about T. Edward Damer's 1st Principle of the "Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion" — The Fallibility Principle. This principle encourages us to begin all arguments with an awareness that we could be wrong. The Fallibility Principle means our position could be fallible. Or, even if the conclusion of our argument is correct, the evidence we present to support our side of the discussion may be invalid or fallacious in some way. The Fallibility Principle reminds us that we are not omniscience (all knowing). We should, therefore, approach all discussions with an air of humility and not a self-made arrogance. Indeed, in terms of Christian virtues, The Fallibility Principle is closely related to humility. That is, a humble attitude opens the ears of our opponents and reduces obstructions in the hearts of our opponents to the evidence we present.

Sounds good doesn’t it? Now, if I could just do it.

When I miss the mark, however, it doesn’t take long before I'm cheered up by meeting a devout and vocal atheist. Yes, they cheer me up. Here's why.

The "New" Atheism and The Fallibility Principle

I've recently had several discussions with proponents of what some are calling the "new" atheism, a psychological phenomenon deeply rooted in a rejection of The Fallibility Principle. There is nothing really new about these folks, except that the old atheists are dead. The new atheists still claim several things impossible to know.

First, their intellectual knowledge of the material world gives them the assurance that there is no God. This confidence comes off not unlike Annaliese’s omniscience about the cookie dough. They claim that all that is knowable exists in the naturalistic material world, or that what they do know is enough to support their claim. (It’s amazing, isn’t it, that their knowledge about the material world would impart so much knowledge about the metaphysical (non-material) world?)

Yet there is no proof that atheists or anyone that subscribes to materialism or naturalism knows or can know all there is to know. Ask them for material proof of their omniscient assertion. I hope you enjoy silence. Materialism or naturalism also does not tell us the purpose of matter or why there is something rather than nothing. The most meticulous examination of human tissue or a person's bodily functions does not explain the love or hate that can exist as part of their existence. Reason and science, per se, fails the all-knowing atheist on these points. They have failed the fallibility principle for they claim to know what they can't possibly explain.

Secondly, the "new" atheist claims omniscient knowledge about what makes religious faith, such as Christianity, tick. They claim that faith in God is a blind faith, or a faith that is without supporting physical evidence. Such a "blind faith" however is outside the experience of Christianity, and even Christians should ridicule such "faith" as superstitious and unworthy of adherence. True Christian faith is substantially based on evidence from the natural world; e.g. (a) historical evidence of people, places and events and the historically reliable records of the same; (b) the physical evidence of miracles both past and present; (c) the physical evidence of changed lives when moral principles (revealed by supernatural revelation) are applied, and (d) the benevolent and extraordinary structure, design and order of the universe. The atheists' claim, therefore, about Christian faith fails The Fallibility Principle.

Expanding that last point brings us to the third "omniscient" problem with the "new" atheism, and that is the reasonableness of it's omniscient claim that the "order" of the universe, which is the theist's primary evidence of intelligence behind creation, is actually not ordered, organized, structured, and cooperative, but rather random, the product of chance, and mindlessness.

The very claim that the universe is the product of mindlessness is mindless. Stringing a group of words and concepts together to form a sentence requires the use of a structured language and sophisticated intelligence above barks, purrs, and growls. Imagine if natural law adjusted the nature of our physical existence to correspond to our belief system—anyone whose thinking approached such a disordered conclusion would them selves correspondingly change into what they believed. Thus, if you believed the universe was not ordered, but randomly put together, would you morph into a quickly dissipating vapor? Could be interesting. But even such a law would have order to it.

Joking around like that actually substantiates the preponderance of evidence of an ordered universe. Trying to envision a disordered universe requires an ordered thought pattern -- and a law to govern the disorder. Naturally occurring turbulence is a great example. We see turbulence in whirlpools, tornadoes, wave action, and jet streams. Although the movement of particles in a turbulent flow is so complex that man does not have the computer power to predict the precise outcome, we can coarsely compute its effect. There is, an order to turbulence, it's just beyond our ability to reduce to a predictive formula. Science has given this observable order that is beyond our precisely predictive capability a quaint and ironic name—Chaos Theory or Fractal Structures. But don't be fooled. Chaos and fractals are anything but random chance. In fact, the name properly and elegantly bows its head to the grandness of God's elaborate design and embraces The Fallibility Principle.

Atheism fails to provide any physical evidence that the universe is NOT the product of an intelligent, ordered, benevolent power. When an atheist asks you for evidence of God, hold up your very functional thumb and wax eloquent on how the atheist's thumb nail profoundly demonstrates the physical evidence of a loving God. (That's a good essay, by the way, for your home schoolers…at any grade level. I call it the "Thumbnail Proof of God.") After you've lectured for an hour or so, ask them to provide evidence that the universe is without order, structure, and the product of chance. Is their evidence the complex and highly designed structure of their DNA? Boy, that should keep them busy for several lifetimes. Suggest they instead consider The Fallibility Principle and embrace some humility.

Perhaps the "holy grail" of science during the past 70 years has been the search of a single mathematical expression that shows the relationship between the four known forces that hold the universe together. Those four forces in order of strength are (1) strong nuclear, (2) electromagnetic, (3) weak nuclear, and (4) gravity. That very quest makes a grand assumption about which "new" atheists seem blind. In their grasping to explain the universe without a God, they embrace the very nature of God to explain it. That there is an order, and it can be known, but that in our finiteness, our smallness, our fallibility, we do not know, nor do we come close to understanding.

You might suggest to your atheist friends, that if they really want the omniscience they claim to have, they ought to become devout Christians. For as Christians, when we get to heaven, we will no longer see through a glass darkly, but then face to face. Now that's exciting for any scientist, even Stephen Hawking who has spent most of his agnostic lifetime looking for the single formula that explains the relationship between the four forces.

Common Applications of The Fallibility Principle

There are many common applications of The Fallibility Principle. A child learns that their knowledge is naturally fallible when they discover the correspondence between a parent's verbal warning not to run, and the child’s stubbornness to run anyway, with the subsequent trip, fall, pain, bruise and small cut. The lack of knowledge about the universe around us takes on greater consequence when we are warned not to dive into an unknown body of water (metaphor intended), or to avoid hanging around with peers that are habitually involved in immoral talk and deeds.

By extrapolation it shouldn't take much to understand how the rejection of The Fallibility Principle leads to arguments, divorce, many preventable diseases, suicide, bigotry, the use of drugs, murder, terrorism and war. A good exercise for students is to observe relationships around them and then write an essay about how an observed conflict often begins by rejection of this first principle of a rational, effective discussion.

It is written that Satan is the father of all lies. In the Garden of Eden, Satan's task was to convince Eve, if only momentarily, to disregard The Fallibility Principle — "You will be like gods who know...." Throughout history that is the great lie — reject the idea that you don’t know, and pretend you do.

Antidote and Preventions

In the physical realm, when we ignore The Fallibility Principle and jump off cliffs because we think we can fly, or run red lights because we think we're invincible, or eat too much sugar, or exercise too little -- there are doctors, medics, nutritionist and nurses that assist us back to physical health.

Likewise, in the spiritual realm, when we ignore The Fallibility Principle and participate in mental gymnastics and sin through our wrongful intentions, we can go to friends, counselors, shrinks and most importantly to Jesus and His priests to seek forgiveness and make penance and restitution.

Acceptance of The Fallibility Principle is one reason we go to school and get an education. We live more comfortably when we understand reality and live within its confines. The more we understand about nature and the supernatural we are better able to navigate past obstacles and get to where we have been called. When we disregard the importance of education, or learning about things we know little about, we embrace ignorance and the natural consequences of rejecting The Fallibility Principle.

The best education, of course, is experience. A baby often learns that things are safe or dangerous often by coming in touch with them. We wondered what Annalease had experienced to convince her that cookie dough and the baked results were an anathema. The answer was Playdough™ — earlier in her life she discovered that the salty substance was not that savory, and that grandpa had to be nuts to be enjoying it. What she didn't know was that the substance of real cookie dough was considerably different than the stuff used for play.

Annaliese's stubbornness reminds me about the interpretation of truth. Her interpretation of truth was not true. She was sincere and passionate, but sincerity and passion have never been good criteria for evaluating truth. She was convinced that the yummy sugar cookie dough was Playdough. That is similar to the confusion I experienced as a Protestant about certain aspects of Catholicism. To me Catholicism tasted like Playdough, and whoever enjoyed it, or swallowed it's "lies" was strange indeed. As a Protestant I had rejected The Fallibility Principle. I might acknowledge its value, but in practice, with regard to my religious faith, I was omniscient. I knew that the substance of Catholic communion was really just bread and wine. Never mind that if I had lived during Jesus' time and met him, all of my sensory experiences with Jesus would NOT have revealed his divinity. While Jesus' physical body was human, his substance was divine. Of course, examining Jesus' physical presence would never have revealed his purpose for being here. Only supernatural revelation and faith would have done that. Just as only supernatural faith reveals the true substance of The Eucharist.

Does Not Apply

There is, however, one place where The Fallibility Principle does not apply: when Jesus told Peter that upon him he would establish his Church, and "the gates of hell will not prevail against it…whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt 16:18-19) ...and the Holy Spirit would lead them into ALL (not some) truth. (John 16:12).

That means, in terms of faith and morals, that The Fallibility Principle, if we are to believe Jesus, does not apply to the Church. Not because the Church, per se, is so omniscient, but because the Holy Spirit, who inspired fallible human authors to pen the infallible Scriptures, likewise was promised by Christ to inspire the Church to infallibly interpret the Scriptures.

Good Cookies

Annaliese came to lean that the substance of cookie dough was very different from what she had first supposed. A week later, when the cookies came out of the oven, there was no holding her back from gobbling them up. May we all embrace The Fallibility Principle, humble ourselves, learn from our teachers, and gobble up truth.

Chapter 13 EQUIVOCATION Part 1

Trying to Fly with One Wing: Chapter 13