that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22We know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until the present time.Romans 8:22
I love Twitter.
Catholic twitter is regular twitter except for all the people you follow are Catholic. It is a happy place mostly. Occasionally you will get people riled up about something. I still have not forgotten the dancing priest outrage. Last month, an article, Nature Is Ensouled written by the Center for Action and Contemplation had people talking.
People were accusing Father Rohr of being heretical. Intrigued, I took a look. Skimming the article, my eyes fell on this statement,
I’m not saying God is all things (pantheism), but that each living thing reveals some aspect of God. God is both greater than the whole of our universe, and as Creator inter-penetrates all created things (panentheism). No exceptions.
Father Rohr seems to be suggesting Panentheism is compatible with Christianity. Now to the average person, what Father Rohr is saying may sound appealing even correct. I wasn’t so sure. Not satisfied I sought to research.
In my research, I learned that New Age focuses on harmony and communication with nature1. This sounds good on paper. Even I can understand the appeal. I have always felt that nature had a deep inner beauty.
I value knowledge.
Thus I understand the appeal of a lounging to discover some inner connectiveness. Yet there are three problems with this.
The Christian God is relational. God wants a relationship. If Father Rohr is correct then I need to “discover the soul in other things to live in union with the source of all being.” 2 Yet discovering some hidden soul is completely opposite of Christian values. I don’t need to become one with nature, rather, I need a relationship with Jesus Christ.
2. Searching in vain
The Bible is just one big love letter from God. The stories in the Old and New Testament show how God is pursuing humanity. I typically don’t give into romantic sentiment. Yet I love the idea of being pursued by the Divine creator. I don’t get that with new age religion. Rather New Age teaches that I have to search for the divine.
3. Who is God?
I am made in God’s Image.
I have a rational soul.
God is my creator.
Ultimately. New Age Mysticism challenges me to define these three fundamental truths. Yes, both New Age and Christianity believe animals do have souls. The difference is a matter of degree. In Christianity, animals have material souls. These souls decay and die. Yet New Age insists that animals and God are intertwined 3.
It is so easy to fall into error. It is easy to be taken in by the longing for interconnectedness. I understand the appeal of wanting a deeper connection with the divine. Yet I would not trade in a relational deity for an impersonal essence. I am sad that an institution with Catholic roots would fall far from the truth. The earth’s redemption may come (Romans 8:22), but let us focus on growing deeper with Christ.
So I stumbled on a Q & A video from Lizzieanswers. One of the questions asked Lizzie to share her thoughts on Relativism. She was asked at 5:15 of the video, why she did not believe in relativism and what was philosophically wrong with it? She answers that relativism is self-refuting. Is she correct? Perhaps relativism is not a truth claim at all, but rather a critique of how humanity comes to know the truth.
In the media and in society, you hear people say all the time, you do you or who am I to judge another’s belief. In fact, I used to be the same way. I embraced moral relativism in my undergrad philosophy courses. My chief reason was that different societies accepted different practices. Most people argue that murder is universally wrong. Yet there are tribes that practice ritualistic cannibalism. I had assumed that differences in morals across cultures meant that there was no objective moral truth. In those same courses, I wrestled with philosophers, who stood for objective truth.
Section II: What is Relativism?
Before I can explain whether Moral Relativism is true or false, I have to break down what relativism is. It turns out that relativism is much more nuanced then it first appears.
A. Global relativism
Global relativism is captured by the oft-repeated slogan “all is relative”. The claim is that all beliefs, regardless of their subject matter, are true only relative to a framework or parameter. This type of relativism first appeared in Plato. Greek philosophers liked to write as if they were having a debate with someone else. They create a pseudonym to represent an argument that they don’t agree with. Plato created this guy named Protagoras. He argued that all truth depended on the belief of individuals. Plato, being the smart individual that he is, pointed out that if all truth is relative to the individual then nothing is true. Protagoras cannot establish the truth of his claim. (Baghramian, Maria and Carter, J. Adam, "Relativism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/relativism/.)
B: Local relativism
Relativists have attempted to avoid Plato’s critique by still holding on to objective truth in certain areas. For example, they may wish to say that claims based on sensory information are still objectively true. Modern relativists typically target a self-contained area. For example, a modern relativist might say that the area of morals is relative to the individual. Being relativist about a certain area makes you a local relativist. As a local relativist, your arguments are not logically inconsistent. For example, the statement, all moral claims are relative to an individual, is not itself a moral claim. Thus it is not self-refuting. This statement can be defended objectively.
Section III: Arguments in favor
So why might someone want to be a relativist? I know for myself I was guided by the principle of tolerance. As the world gets smaller, you get to connect with some pretty awesome people. Yet these people may have a different belief system or a different set of values from you. Out of respect for them, you may be reluctant to think that their viewpoint is wrong. Thus out of respect, you may think, hey, maybe we are both correct. We just have a different framework.
Yet, does tolerance require us to accept all people’s opinions as correct? Perhaps we can respect each other without acknowledging all views as correct. Otherwise, why bother having disagreements at all.
Section IV Arguments against
A. Self refuting
Anytime relativism is brought up, the self-refuting argument is always mentioned. In fact, Lizzy makes the same argument in her video. The idea is that if all truth is relative, then the claim is not objective, but is also relative. If it is relative, then I don’t need to accept it. If it is absolute, then there are claims that are objective and not all truth is relative. Thus relativism is false. This argument works against global relativism.
In some cases, Local relativism may also fall into the trap of being self-refuting. Local relativism relies on frameworks. If local relativism tries to justify one framework over another, it runs into the same problem. So If you are a local relativist, you must either conclude that relativism is false or conclude that no framework is absolutely right.
B. The Other Problem with Local Relativism
Now, maybe you are fine with concluding that no framework is morally superior. Yet such a conclusion has philosophical implications. One of my favorite questions to study is why do we believe what we believe or what justification do we have for our beliefs. Yet if relativism is true, there would be no reason to ask these questions. The ability to provide good reasons depends on conceptual ties to a higher truth.
Disagreements are a part of human nature. When you and I disagree, we usually believe that the other is incorrect. We use assertions to persuade the other of our viewpoint. Relativism ignores this fundamental truth.
Relativism attempts to be tolerant of other cultures. Yet, what would happen if I was from two very different cultural backgrounds? I would have to choose the one I thought was correct. Relativism offers me no guiding principle. I will have to make an arbitrary choice.
If you know anything about me, you know that I love deep philosophical conversations. I love debating moral theology. Connecting with people different from you gives you a chance to rearticulate what you believe. It does not require you to abandon the pursuit of truth and declare everything is arbitrary. Yet, relativism requires exactly that. Otherwise, relativism becomes self-refuting.
In September I stumbled upon the writings of Mark Schaefer. I found an excerpt God is a metaphor. This excerpt is from The Certainty of Uncertainty: The Way of Inescapable Doubt and Its Virtue. This piece intrigued me and I began to think of ways to respond. I argue that Christianity locates God in a singular human being, Jesus. This avoids the metaphorical nature of God. Thus, if Schaefer is correct, without Jesus, humanity cannot understand God.
He opens with the question, “what does God mean?” Schaefer suggests that a person can only give descriptive statements when discussing God. For example, I might say God is the creator. Yet that only describes what God does, not who he is. Fictional characters act in a similar way. One can only mention Huckleberry in relationship to other characters. God, mathematical principles, and fictional characters all cannot point to actual individuals.
Schaefer differentiates between God and a person in the following scenario.
Imagine two Christians are having the following conversation about war. Christian A says that my God does not believe in war. Christian B says, no my God does support a war. Yet replace the term God with Steve and the sentences make no sense. Steve cannot both be in favor of and against war. Yet Christian A and B can use God interchangeably for contradictory ideas.
Schaefer concludes that God cannot be self-evident. In isolation, a person cannot understand God. Rather God is a metaphor for the ultimate reality of existence. How one understands this reality is up to the person. In other words, God is a metaphor for a yet unidentified process that effects some change in the world. How does this philosophical take on God fit the Christian framework of God?
God in the Old Testament
God first introduces himself to Abram (Genesis 12:1). God never gives a name, but rather introduces himself based on promises he makes. He tells Abram that he will make him a great nation. After Abraham has kids, God continues to speak. God greets Issac as the God of Abraham (Genesis 26:24). Once again, God references himself in relation to someone else. This continues throughout the Bible until Moses.
The Burning Bush: Exodus 3:2-14
In this iconic scene, Moses encounters God. Moses receives a call from God to free the Israelite people from Egyptian slavery. Once again God introduces himself as the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. This fails to satisfy Moses. Moses wants to know God’s name. God then says that his name is “I am who I am” (Exodus 3:14). Yet I am is not a proper name. Rather it merely indicates an entity that exists. According to Catholic study bible, the I am name refers to the cause of all things to be. The lack of a proper name for God changes at the incarnation.
Unlike God, Jesus is a historical person. We can point to and know of Jesus. Jesus is not a metaphor but is flesh and blood. Jesus is the person that encompasses the metaphorical conception of God. Some have argued that the historical Jesus is not the same as the metaphorical God. Yet there are certain events in the Bible that point to Jesus as God. I’m not interested in proving the Bible reliable. I merely wish to show how Jesus could equal God and fix the metaphorical conception problems. Jesus’ authority over nature, sin, and death strengthens his claim of divinity.
Authority Over Nature
He got into a boat and his disciples followed him. Suddenly a violent storm came upon the sea so that the boat was being swamped by waves; but he was asleep. They came and woke him, saying, “Lord, save us! We are perishing!” He said to them, “Why are you terrified, O you of little faith?” Then he got up, rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. The men were amazed and said, “What sort of man is this, whom even the winds and the sea obey?” Mathew 8:23-27
Here in this story, Jesus demonstrates his control over the wind and waves. This act amazes the people in the boat. They know that a mere man cannot control nature. Now a common criticism is that this story never happened. Yet when the Bible was written, people close to the original sources were consulted. St. Paul writes, “After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.” (1st Corinthians 15:6). Most historians would consider St Paul’s writing as authentic. They were letters written to the early church. Historical letters are considered primary sources. St Paul suggests that witness to Christ were still around. The church would have consulted these witnesses. They would have corroborated the later gospel accounts.
Authority Over Forgiveness
When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Child, your sins are forgiven.” Now some of the scribes were sitting there asking themselves, “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming. Who but God alone can forgive sins?” Jesus immediately knew in his mind what they were thinking to themselves, so he said, “Why are you thinking such things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, pick up your mat and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth”— he said to the paralytic, “I say to you, rise, pick up your mat, and go home.” He rose, picked up his mat at once, and went away in the sight of everyone. Mark 2:5-12
Here Jesus forgives the sins of a paralytic man. The scribes rightly recognize that this authority over sins belongs to God. Jesus also heals the man in response to their doubt. The healing occurs to demonstrates that Jesus had the authority to forgive sins. This bolsters his claim to be God.
Authority Over Life and Death
Jesus, perturbed again, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone lay across it. Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the dead man’s sister, said to him, “Lord, by now there will be a stench; he has been dead for four days.” Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believe you will see the glory of God?” So they took away the stone. And Jesus raised his eyes and said, “Father, I thank you for hearing me. I know that you always hear me; but because of the crowd here I have said this, that they may believe that you sent me.” And when he had said this, he cried out in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” The dead man came out, tied hand and foot with burial bands, and his face was wrapped in a cloth.” John 11:38-44
Here Jesus calls God, father. He also says that the father sent him and hears him. He wants the crowd to believe that God sent Jesus. Furthermore, Jesus proves his relationship with the father by raising Lazarus from the dead. Having authority over life and death is commonly thought to be a characteristic of God.
Mark Schaefer argues that God is nothing more than a metaphor. God represents the ultimate reality of existence. Thus one cannot understand God. One cannot have self-evident knowledge of God. Yet that changes when we accept that Jesus is God. In light of the incarnation, God ceases to be a metaphor and becomes a flesh and blood person. Just like any other person, Jesus doesn’t just stand for anything. Rather if two people claim to be followers of Jesus, they must confess the same beliefs. We know Jesus is God because of the authority he displays in the gospel stories. He has authority over life and death, nature, and sin. The bigger and more important question will you accept his authority?
For as long as I can remember my family has always been into sports. Destiny deemed it so. My mom was a high school cheerleader and my dad was a high school football player. They took me to college basketball games in an infant carrier. My dad coached little league football and dragged me to those football games. As my brother grew up, My parents would drag me to his baseball games. I never played organized sports due to my disability. My parents still instilled in me a deep appreciation for sports. Some of my favorite moments in college basketball involve a good Cinderella story.
I remember my dad and I watching the George Mason versus UConn game on March 26, 2006. We ripped up our very wrong brackets and rooted for George Mason all the way until their loss to Florida. The most memorable moment has got to be the VCU final four run in 2011. My parents are VCU alumni. They attend all the home games and took my brother and me with them. Thus my parents had traveled to Texas to watch VCU play. I remember the Florida State game, which set VCU up to face Kansas. At the time of the game, I was in the hospital alone. I had been suffering from back pain and numbness in my hands. Nobody could find out what was wrong with me. As I watch VCU play Florida state, It reminded me of humanity’s capacity to fight. I believe the appeal of sports touches our innermost belief that we can conquer all obstacles. We are obsessed with a good underdog story. This shows that we desire to see the little guy take on Goliath with nothing more than a slingshot and three stones. Sports remind us of human dignity.
What is Dignity
I have argued that the concept of dignity is multifaceted. Humans have inherent dignity by virtue of being members of Homo sapiens. Yet they also have a fuller dignity. This dignity comes from not who we are, but what we do. People refer to this definition when they say, “The person is behaving in a dignified way.” The Catholic Church agrees with me. The Catechism of The Catholic Church states,
The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God (article 1); it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude (article 2).
Humanity has dignity because humanity has God-likeness in them. Humanity receives their being directly from God,
then the Lord God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (Genesis 2:7 NABre).
God gave humanity his breath of Life. This means that we receive our being directly from God. Yet dignity is not inherently a religious concept, but a philosophical one.
A person can derive at the concept of dignity by asking what is the measure of a human being? At first, we refer to Aristotle and say that humanity is different due to our rational soul. However, we still consider vegetative persons human. Most people would concede that even babies born without rational capacity deserve respect. This respect forms the basis for our inherent dignity. Yet people also recognize that we lose something when we lose our ability to reason. What a person loses is the ability to fulfill their potential as human beings. This is what I mean by the term fuller dignity.
Is Autonomy enough
Steven Pinker in the article The Stupidity of Dignity wants to eliminate dignity all together in favor of autonomy. He says, “ because it [dignity] amounts to treating people in the way that they wish to be treated, ultimately it’s just another application of the principle of autonomy.”[^1] Pinker sees no difference between autonomy and dignity. I purpose the following thought experiment.
Imagine a world where every athlete has the option to take a drug that will make them stronger and faster. There are no side effects. They get put in a special league for people on the drug. Thus the competition is fair. Would you watch these sporting events?
Most people would not watch the league of super people because when it comes to sports we want to see human achievement. We want to see raw talent unaided by chemical processes. We intuitively feel there is something wrong with the special league of super people. Yet autonomy is never violated in the above scenario. Thus we need something more than autonomy to protect against unnatural enhancements. The concept we need is dignity.
One potential objection is that the drug is no different then external equipment. Yet in certain sports like swimming, the equipment is already regulated. Elite swimmer, Michael Phelps has spoken against whole-body polyurethane swimsuits because these swimsuits are, “distorting the sport.”[^2] Sports become distorted when it becomes more about equipment and less about human achievement.
Sports teach important life lessons. It teaches teamwork, good sportsmanship, and how to face defeat. More importantly, it shows us what humans endowed by their creator can achieve. We watch sports to see the capacity of humans. Human capacity matters because there exists something special about human nature. Catholics know that this specialness comes directly from God. We look up to athletes. They remind us that humans are amazing creatures destined for something greater. They remind us that every so often David can defeat Goliath. The next time you watch sports, let it remind you of the capacity for greatness that we all share.
[^1]: Pinker, Steven, “The Stupidity of Dignity” The New Republic (May 28, 2008), https://newrepublic.com/article/64674/the-stupidity-dignity
[^2]: Barrow, John D, “Why Ban Full-Body Olympics Swimsuits? A Scientist Explains Polyurethane” Daily Beast (July 25th, 2012), https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-ban-full-body-olympics-swimsuits-a-scientist-explains-polyurethane?ref=scroll
From 2008-2011, I studied at the University of Virginia. I majored in philosophy with a minor in bioethics. I fell in love with the discipline of philosophy. I loved asking deep questions. One summer, I drove my mom crazy. I had been reading these deep philosophical books. I desperately wanted someone to discuss these big ideas. For example, I read, Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro. This book tackles deep issues such as cloning, organ donation, and the meaning of life.
I never considered myself a good philosopher. Thus, I was completely shocked when I was nominated Most Outstanding Philosophy student. The award comes with a prize. The prize was a book titled The Retrieval of Ethics, by Talbot Brewer. I had promised to read his book. Yet life got in the way. The summer of my graduation I had neck surgery. Reading in a neck brace is no easy task. After my surgery, I entered law school and divinity school at Regent University. Needless to say, the heavy course work left little time for leisure reading. In 2018, I dusted off the book from my bookshelf and began to read. Admittedly, I struggled to understand the deeper philosophical arguments. Often I would re-read pages over and over underlining what I thought were the key points. In the end, Talbot Brewer says something interesting about our desires.
Three Dogmas of Desire
Brewer argues that modern philosophy needs to reconsider the nature of human agency. Brewer shows that the below argument is insufficient to explain human behavior.
Desires are attitudes towards propositions
Desires are distinguished from other propositional attitudes by the proper direction of fit between the world and mind
Can formulate a rational explanation of any action by tracing it to it a belief/desire pair consisting in a belief that action will bring the world into conformity with some proposition and a desire takes the same proposition as an object[^1].
Brewer calls these three statements The Dogmas of Desire. He denies that statement 3 is true. Belief/desire pairs are not necessary or sufficient to provide a rational explanation. Belief/desire pairs are insufficient. There may be some object in which it may be impossible to determine how it could be good or worthwhile[^2]. Likewise, desires are not necessary. It is possible for an object to be intrinsically good and not desired by the actor.
Propositionalism is the idea that all action is a species of production. Thus it cannot explain why an action might be chosen for its own stake[^3]. According to the third dogma of desire, all desire action is calculated. This calculation produces some state of affairs in accordance with the idea in the actor’s mind. For example, I desire a pumpkin pie. Thus my actions would be calculated to make pumpkin pie come into existence. Yet according to Brewer, there is a certain type of actives that do not fit this model.
Brewer coins the term dialectical activities. This term describes the type of activity propositionalism cannot easily explain. He defines dialectical activities as all those activities whose point lies in any intrinsic goodness that is opaque to those who lack experience[^4]. His first example is our desire for God or a divine entity
Desire for God
Brewer argues that desires are not merely a set of movements towards different goals. Rather there exists a unifying principle. Brewer states that “The most comprehensive dialectical activity is the activity of living a good life.”[ ^5]. He turns to Augustine’s Confessions. in order to support this statement. Brewer describes how Augustine’s earlier desires were not substituted by his longing for God. Rather all of his earlier desires were a futile attempt to fulfill the longing he already had. Thus Brewer concludes that dialectic desires exceed a desirer’s articulation of it[^6]. Yet a desirer may arrive at a fuller articulation after experience[^7]. Brewer coins this attribute as perfectibility.
Brewer furthers his argument with references to Gregory of Nyssa and Plotinus. The former described the desire for God as a memorizing attraction to a good wholly present[^8]. This cannot fit the propositional framework since the desire is directed at a person, not an object[^9]. Plotinus described the human encounter with the Good. It was not as an intellectual exercise, but rather the response to an attraction. Furthermore, Plotinus thought that goodness comes not from striving. Rather it comes from “a loving desire oriented towards a divine mind”[^10]. Brewer uses these examples to make a philosophical statement on human agency. Yet philosophy is not the only area which needs to reclaim dialectical activities. Religion also needs to emphasize the dialectical nature of a desire for God
Impact on Religion
If Brewer is correct, then our desire for God is best oriented towards encountering a person. We cannot desire God out of a desire to be good or a desire to be one with God. This has implications for religious formation. The church has emphasized programs and parish’s renewals. These help to stem the tide of those leaving the church. Yet these programs and renewals aim at education or community building. Very few programs offer opportunities to encounter God.
I volunteer with the youth. I can get bogged down with teaching the information. I forget that encounters with God are really important. Youth encounter God through the Bible, sacraments, and adult leaders. Faith formation programs need to show how God satisfies our the longing. They need to show why other desires will be futile attempts. Philosophically speaking, humans need an overarching desire to unify their life. If they cannot find it in the sacred, they will turn to the secular.
[^1]: Brewer, Talbot. The Retrieval of Ethics. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) 16.
One of my goals for last year was to meet new people. I achieved that goal by joining some meetups with random strangers. One of my favorites has been TAGS, Tidewater Area Gaming Society. They meet monthly and play strategy board games. Another favorite of mine has been the Philosophy club. I was a philosophy major as an undergraduate at the University of Virginia. When the leader of the philosophy club stepped down, I felt called to take over. Ancient Greek philosophers made me realize the commonality they have with Christian metaphysics. In fact, theology needs philosophy to defend and advance the theological positions. Until 1920’s logical positivism, philosophers created logical arguments for the existence of God.
Before I studied philosophy, I had never really grappled with the hard questions of life. I was generally agnostic regarding God’s existence. The class, History of Philosophy Modern, introduced me to ontological arguments. We as a class focused on Descartes’ ontological argument for God. This argument impacted me. It made me realize that belief in God can be logically justified. It opened me up to experience a real encounter with God. The latter made me the Christian I am today.
Descartes’ main purpose was to establish how do our minds know. He sought this information by crafting a thought experiment. In this experiment, Descartes asks the reader to imagine that an evil demon is tricking them. Thus everything that they sense is an illusion. What information would a person be able to know beyond their senses? Descartes concludes that beyond a doubt we possess an intellectual perception. This results in the famous phrase, “ I think, therefore I am.” In order for an intellectual perception to be true, it must be clear and distinct.
Descartes argues that he clearly and distinctly perceives God as an infinite being. This idea of God must have a cause. The cause must exist in objective reality. Thus God exists in reality. If God is infinite then he is also supremely perfect. A supremely perfect being would not deceive. If that is the case then God would plant the same set of innate ideas in all finite minds.
Why Ontological Arguments Are Important
Atheists typically object that the above argument does not endorse religious sentiments. I would agree. The logical arguments only proves that a supremely perfect being exists. For me, the notion that God’s existence is self-evident made me question my own denial. Philosophers caring about God made me ask why I did not question God’s non-existence.
When I enter divinity school at Regent University, I took systematic theology. I loved the class because it attempted to systematize theology in a logical way. The professor and I debated about whether a belief in God can come independent of experience. I do concede that faith is a gift from God. Faith comes from a radical encounter with the divine creator. Yet religious faith does need rational justification. We are not called to blind faith. Philosophical arguments can help provide a rationalization for faith experienced.
Meister, Chad. “Philosophy of Religion.” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN 2161-0002, https://www.iep.utm.edu/, 1/23/19