Recently in Philosophy Category

Is this the end of belief in Darwinism? An interesting article called The Sunset of Darwinism at Tradition, Family, and Property suggests that this might be the end:

"What is left, then, in evolutionism, that is valid according to the scientific method? Nothing, actually nothing!" This is the conclusion of journalist Marco Respinti in his recent book Processo a Darwin (Darwin on Trial, Piemme, 2007). He continues: "Not one of his postulates can be verified or certified based on the method proper to the physical sciences. His whole claim escapes verification. Based on what, therefore, other than on strong prejudices of an ideological nature, can anyone affirm or continue to affirm that the evolutionist hypothesis is true?"

But the article continues by showing more and more scientists no longer believe that Darwinism is a scientifically provable hypothesis:

Francis Crick, who together with Watson discovered the structure of DNA, openly declared, "An honest man, armed only with the knowledge available to us, could affirm only that, in a certain sense, the origin of life at the moment appears to be rather a miracle," In the same wavelength, Harold Hurey, a disciple of Stanley Miller who made history with his failed attempt to recreate life in the laboratory from a so-called primordial broth, said, "All of us who studied the origins of life uphold that the more we get into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved in any way." Indeed, a lot of faith is required to believe in evolutionism, and it is precisely that faith, of a clearly positivist[1] mold, that is now beginning to weaken.

Go read the full article here, it's worth your time. If this is the sunset of Darwinism, then it's about time. There's lots of faith in Darwinism, but not much science.
 
God bless,
Jay

I'm sure there's controversy within some of the assumptions here, but I though this was pretty interesting. In short it attempts to show how the major world religions have spread through the bulk of the earth (our country was too easy - all blue).

██ Christianity ██ Islam ██ Hinduism ██ Buddhism ██ Judaism

Thoughts? Let us pray that the blue grows during our time, since that is our responsibility. Who is the last person you spoke with about Jesus Christ?

God bless,
Jay

Hat tip to Jerry's Blog who found it at Wikipedia.

 

I also wanted to throw out the New Year's Resolution that everyone should commit to this year: I will follow God wherever He leads me. This seems so simple, but I can remember a time God was leading me into the Catholic Church and I balked a bit. Thanks to the Holy Spirit, I did follow God into His Church, but it took a bit to overcome my protestant pride, so to speak.

Hope you all have a wonderful new year.

God bless,
Jay

I think the key in talking to non-Christians of all stripes is having a firm grasp of why we can believe what we do. By meditating on the actual reasons and working through the complexities, it forces us to constantly re-evaluate our viewpoints to insure they are coherent with the reality of what we believe.

By developing a framework that – in some ways – validates your beliefs, you can only strengthen your faith. Of course, Christianity requires faith; unbelief is not a logical problem that can be worked out. However, by having a logical background you can open up conversations with others that may have dismissed you initially. From a purely apologetic standpoint, it’s important to know exactly what you believe and why. This is my initial take at a Christian framework that justifies our beliefs in some way – your thoughts are appreciated. To start, a quote:

For history cannot in itself prove any spiritual truth beyond the shadow of a doubt. Christ is proved and accepted in far higher realms than the historian’s. Yet history has a vital part to play in approaching Him, for it was through history that He came to us; it is in the context of the historical evidence about Christ that we must make our decision about Him. - - Warren H. Carroll, The Founding of Christendom Vol. I

The Beginning of Religion
All religious belief must start with the belief in a divine being. This, actually, is a very logical belief and straightforward to justify. For those who don’t believe in God, I tend to ask what they do believe, specifically concerning where the world came from. Typically the answer is very scientific and almost always the same: the “Big Bang.” Which demands the question: Who started the Big Bang? It certainly didn’t start itself and ultimately requires an unmoved mover.

There are many proofs for a basic existence in some god that can be effectively used to create a basis: there is a God. If anyone is interested, I can post more details on the various arguments for His existence, but suffice it to say there are plenty of discussions that can lead one in the direction of believing at least in some God. I won’t spend much time here, but can come back in future posts.

From here we must start looking at how we know which religion has the correct God.

Interacting with the Divine
As Christians, we believe the Jews were specially chosen by God who gave them intimate knowledge of His reality. But how do we know this? Here the discussion takes on an interesting new perspective: couldn’t the Jews have simply invented their version of “God”?

A fascinating study is to examine the various gods that were worshipped during the several thousand years before Christ. What stands out immediately is the difference of the Jewish faith. Other gods were selfish and had very human weaknesses. Often they saw humans as merely playthings. But the Jewish God communed with His people and had very different desires for them. In addition, the reality of this God is not one people would traditionally “invent,” so to speak.

On a Scott Hahn tape he points out that the “Christian God is not a god that people would invent for their own reasons.” He is omnipotent, omnipresent, and all-powerful. He requires more of us than any of the other gods we see created by man. This is also true of the Jewish God (same god as us would have the same qualities). If you look at the Jewish people – a small tribe initially – it is worth asking, “How did they become as influential as they did over time?” I would argue that it required divine intervention (this statement of course requires faith). However, there are many questions like this that tend toward separating this religious belief from others.

In the Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli take the time to create philosophical arguments explaining what we can know about God. They prove that we can know:

1. God Exists Absolutely. This means that God is the only being whose existence does not depend on something outside of Himself. Our existence requires God, our parents, etc. God’s doesn’t.
   
2. God is Infinite. There are no limitations on God. When we talk about age or size then we suggest there are limitations. However, this cannot be true about God.
   
3. God is One. There can only be one supreme, infinite being in the universe. More than one would suggest differences between the two, which means limitations.
   
4. God is Spiritual. In other words, God is not a material being, which would mean change and limitation, again.
   
5. God is Eternal. Because of His very nature, God cannot be limited in any way including time or size.
   
6. God is Transcendent and Immanent. God is not part of the universe, but He is part of everything in the universe. He is both greater than and wholly in all of creation.
   
7. God is Intelligent. There are several ways to explain this, but the easiest involves creation. It would require great intelligence to create a world that interacts the way ours does.
   
8. God is Omniscient and Omnipotent. This means there are no barriers to God’s knowing or acting, which makes sense since He created everything. He must even allow anyone acting against His will (free will), which is another argument for His omnipotence.
   
9. God is Good. This is a little more complex, so let me quote the book: “God, as we have just seen, is the source of all we recognize as good. Now let us go a step further. God is the source of all being. Therefore God cannot be evil in any way, for whether an evil is moral or physical, it is properly understood in terms of what should be there but is not. A thing is good of its kind (and that qualification is important) if it succeeds in being that kind of thing to the fullest. It is bad if it fails. Now there can be no question of failure on the part of the creator; God is to the fullest. And insofar as goodness is one with perfect being, God is the perfect good.”
   

These characteristics are only visible in the Jewish God of those times. And without the philosophical framework that humans have developed, it would have been difficult to simply “invent” through imagination a god with this nature. Not even Aristotle made it this far, although he did go in the correct direction.

But at this stage, it’s more important to simply be able to separate the Jewish faith from other religious beliefs, because there is a way of then proving out Christianity.

In order to approach this topic, it is essential for us to understand what we mean by the term relativism.

Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. This means that all moral positions, all religious systems, all art forms, all political movements, etc., are truths that are relative to the individual. Under the umbrella of relativism whole groups of perspectives are categorized. In obvious terms, some are:
cognitive relativism (truth) - Cognitive relativism affirms that all truth is relative. This would mean that no system of truth is more valid than another one and that there is no objective standard of truth. It would, naturally, deny that there is a God of absolute truth.
moral/ethical relativism - all morals are relative to the social group within which they are constructed.
situational relativism - that ethics (right and wrong) are dependent upon the situation.

Within the ranks of both Catholicism and Protestantism we find the effects of relativism, particularly in terms of morality. In other articles we have discussed moral relativism, so I won't make that the main focus of this article. I want to look at how relativism has affected Catholicism specifically and Protestantism as a whole.

Odd title, I know, but it fits something I’m hearing more and more. That’s the philosophy that everyone is really okay and as long as they are happy, we shouldn’t worry about it. I can’t tell you the number of times that someone has suggested this type of philosophy to me. I call it the “live and let live” way of Christian thinking. Is this a reasonable philosophy? Sure, if you don’t believe in heaven, hell, Christ, or right and wrong.

Essentially this is the end result of moral relativism. We should never point out to anyone their errors, if they are happy. This kind of ignorant bliss enlightens us to those who are ignorant of Scripture. Did Jesus simply come and die to “live and let live”?

Matthew 10:34-38. "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
" ‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.’
"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”

Moral relativism suggests that what is bad for one can be good for another, but this is not true, it is simply false. It assumes there is no absolute truth, no good which is universal and good for all. Another incorrect assumption. True love means telling someone the truth, which may save their soul, though they hate you for it. True love means offering another the Truth that may set them free.

Furthermore, we have an obligation to offer others the truth:

Matthew 19:16-19. Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
"Which ones?" the man inquired.
Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.' "

If we truly love someone, would we allow them to wither in sin and possibly not attain heaven? No, we would try to consistently show them the truth of God and man in order that they may be saved. Christ orders us to “love our neighbor” as ourselves, which involves an honesty about heaven, hell, Jesus, and salvation.

What I’m getting at is that we have an obligation to help others get to heaven. This is part of loving another as we love ourselves and it requires us to tell others the truth. They may not want to hear it, but sometimes they have to. The philosophy of “live and let live” is disastrous for those who need to hear the Truth.

God bless,
Jay

“Our consciousness is the One consciousness of all mankind, past and present.” - - Raymond Karczewski

As many of you know, we’ve been plagued by an odd kind of theologian on our site: one who has invented his own theology. Based on energy, a general problem with authority, and a terrible understanding of how the mind functions, Karczewski simply invented a theology, which judging by his site hasn’t been accepted by many. He has also unloaded a barrage of almost impenetrable hogwash on several areas of this site. So, I decided to visit his website in an attempt to see what Mr. Karczewski believes – he could never articulate an actual belief in his posts on our site.

As everyone can testify, we’re living in the age of reason. Rational though triumphs everything – science is the new god of truth and knowledge. After all, it isn’t real if it cannot be scientifically proven, right? Someone said to me the other day, “If only we lived in a world where miracles happened all the time, where whales swallowed people, blindness could be cured, and fire lowered slowly onto the heads of the faithful.” This is an interesting sentiment. What should be the reply?

Actually, we are not living in the age of reason. We’re living in the age of miracles. My reply, “I have a different point of view. I believe more miracles happen now, it’s just difficult to step back and realize it when you’re in the middle of everything. For example, every week at Mass bread turns into the flesh of God. In addition, we have the Mother of God appearing on earth; bodies being found that haven’t decomposed through hundreds of years; a small woman performing miracles to the poorest poor on earth.”

Despite the intelligentsia pushing an analytical mindset that ignores the spiritual realm, we are living in an age with more incredible miracles than any other time on earth. We have the power of the Eucharist and supernatural prayers like the Rosary to lead us. This is far from an age that will be characterized by scientific fact and reason, this age will be known as the Age of Miracles for that is more accurate.

In daily life we often ascribe miraculous events to “good fortune” (luck) or the inevitable. This is a mistake. Take the time to realize what God is doing for you, even during the humdrum activities that are necessary to life. It’s often as simple as a protestant friend asking the right question that leads to a discussion of Christ. Or the flat tire that seems terrible but really saves you from being in a terrible accident five miles up the road. I’ve heard the suggestion that we will never realize the miraculous events in our lives until we look back from heaven. While this may be true, we should take the time to examine the ordinary and understand some of the miracles God does for each of us. In other words, don’t be so quick to assume that luck is at work – it’s probably another small miracle in your life.

Jay

From The American Chesterton Society:

The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because they are generally the same people.


The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.


Puritanism was an honourable mood; it was a noble fad. In other words, it was a highly creditable mistake.


If there were no God, there would be no atheists.


Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it.

Jay