This space takes inspiration from Gary Snyder's advice:
Stay together/Learn the flowers/Go light

Wednesday, 26 January 2022

CST not CRT: understanding true values

Public policy needs to be built on values-based principles   Photo: Kelly L 

Catholic Social Teaching arises from close involvement with nations and institutions over the two thousand years of the Church's existence. In a very practical way it speaks from what it has experienced, but its social teaching has come into its own as a valuable resource for humanity since its withdrawal from the government of extensive territory under its own jurisdiction and its transformation into a partner of all those throughout the world dedicated to enabling the human family to thrive.

As well as reaping the fruit of its own experience, what the Church brings to human affairs today is what is written in each person's conscience, the natural law expressed by the Medes and ancient Greeks, and performed within cultures all around the world. The Church also learns from observing and, most importantly, by applying the guidance of God in identifying what is true, good, and just.

Therefore, even though the Church is vexed by the sins of its members and the metaphysically opposed forces at play in the world, as are other institutions, like them it encapsulates a set of basic values that can guide decision-making in the public arena.

How this can play out in the real world is the subject of a book by constitutional lawyer and former vice chancellor of the Australian Catholic University, Greg Craven. The author makes his point this way: 

Our own challenge is that we live in a world, particularly in the context of government, that literally is starving for basic values to guide policy choices. 

[...] It becomes soulless game-playing. I have been told to achieve a particular policy outcome, and you are trying to stop me. My objective is to beat you, regardless of the consequences. Usually, this tendency is accompanied by name-calling, and false characterizations: You are a leftie... fascist... lunatic.

Craven identifies four social values that the Catholic Church offers the world. These are the dignity of the human being; the common good; solidarity; and subsidiarity. 

Take the common good. It is not mere utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number. Of course, people should be fed, educated, have proper health care and be allowed to vote. Yet the common dignity of human beings is at the heart of Catholic social teaching, not in operative applications, however worthy.

All humans — however vulnerable or socially useless — remain human, and are to be valued as such. This applies to the elderly, the dying, the unborn, the sick, the poor and even criminals. As Catholics we are called to defend them. We cannot plead inconvenience or calumny as an excuse.

The notion of the common good is closely related to the value of human beings. In one sense, it is the generalization of the individual proposition, but the Catholic notion of the common good goes beyond the incidental adequacy of a society. It is moral, as well as a material proposal. People should live in a ‘good society’. 

From a Catholic perspective, a society acting in the common good cannot support abortion or euthanasia, however popular these causes may be. By debasing the moral quality of that society and its respect for life, these cannot be for the common good. 

Craven talks next of the importance of solidarity as a public value, a matter highlighted by the heat generated among some over Covid-19 public health regulations. Solidarity would put the needs of the community over one's own preferences, all things being equal with regards the rules being legitimately put in place. Craven says:

Ultimately, [solidarity] is about connectedness. The actions of every person affects, at whatever degree of remoteness, every other person. Therefore, we should act with the interests of other people firmly in mind.

The connection with the dignity of the human person and the common good are obvious, but solidarity goes further. It demands that we be with the poor, the sick and the dying, not merely around them. It requires an intimacy with suffering that many of us find emotionally very difficult. 

Subsidiarity is the final value considered in the book:

Subsidiarity demands that decisions be taken at the lowest possible effective level of governance. This reflects the inherent value of the human being, but also the common good, as decisions made at a local level are most likely to reflect local needs and values.

Subsidiarity as a principle is rather popular these days, as it is thought to encourage local experimentation and independence. But one needs to understand its inherent limitation: decisions should be taken at the lowest effective level. 

These values need to be at the forefront of public policy, but cannot be used just for good "optics". Each must be the foundation for comprehensive action. Subsidiarity, for example, can be abused by central government handing over to a lower authority an essential task such as housing or health, without giving the necessary resources to fulfil the responsibility.

Catholic Social Teaching is a body of work that is directed toward integral human development in solidarity, that lifts the individual and family to a protected status not possible under the morally handicapped market economy. 

Finally, just as only love can completely transform the human person, the Church holds love as the greatest social value because it respects others and their rights, requires the practice of justice and it alone makes us capable of charity to all in the sense of self-giving. Our relationship with God propels love's full effectiveness in human relationships and social relations, including public policy.*

*See Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church para 383

  • See also CRT values are an absolute fizzle* without love 
  •               CRT: The Church's teaching on how to reform society 
  • If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can   subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.
  • Wednesday, 19 January 2022

    Kanye West: surmounting the pain

    "This is not about me, God is still alive, so I'm free" ... rising above the turmoil

    In August last year Kanye West released Donda, an album named after his late mother, Donda West. Culture and arts commentator Nathaniel Hunter wrote at the time:

    It (mostly) successfully merges Kanye’s own musical history, his newfound identity in Christ, and the state of hip-hop at large to create a record worth listening to (and a few songs that might be some of the best Kanye has ever written). As far as I can tell, Donda is a model of what conversion ought to look like: messy, but also a process that draws one out of isolation into the larger body of Christ.

    In addressing his own difficulties, and political and social issues like gang violence, Kanye seems to surmount the pain with a call to God - "one struggles to find a verse on the album that doesn’t explicitly mention God", Hunter states.

    The lyrics of Come to Life, from Donda, give the measure of the man in a maelstrom:  

    Intro

    My soul cries out Hallelujah and I thank God for saving me

    I thank God for...

    Chorus

    Here go all your problems again (I thank God)

    Three, two, one, you're pinned (I thank God)

    Uncle now he back in the pen' (Hallelujah)

    Auntie shut down again

    Did she finally come to life? (Thank you, Jesus)

    Ever wish you had another life?

    Ever wish you had another life?

    Ever wish you had another life?

    Verse 1

    Don't you wish the night would go numb?

    I've been feelin' low for so long

    I ain't had a high in so long

    I been in the dark for so long

    Night is always darkest 'fore the dawn

    Gotta make my mark 'fore I'm gone

    I don't wanna die alone

    I don't wanna die alone

    I get mad when she gone

    Mad when she home

    Sad when she gone

    Mad when she home

    Sad when she gone (Loosen right now, the spirit that wants to run)

    Floatin' on a silver lining (In the name of Jesus)

    Yeah, you know where to find me, ridin' on a silver lining

    And my God won't deny me, tell the Devil, "Get behind me"

    And all the stars are aligned, lift me up every time

    You know exactly where to find me

    Interlude

    Hallelujah (Thank you, Jesus)

    Hallelujah (Yes)

    Hallelujah...

    Pre-Chorus

    Did those ideas ever really come to life?

    Make it all come to life

    Make it all come to life

    Prayin' for a change in your life

    Well, maybe it's gon' come tonight

    Chorus

    Sadness settin' in again

    Three, two, one, you're pinned

    Uncle right back in the pen'

    Tell me how auntie been

    Took your thoughts and penciled 'em in

    Should've wrote 'em down in pen

    And maybe they'll come to life

    And maybe they'll come to life

    Sadness settin' in again

    Three, two, one, you're pinned

    Uncle right back to the pen'

    Tell me how auntie been

    Thoughts, you had penciled 'em in

    Probably should've wrote 'em in pen

    And maybe they'll come to life

    They could finally come to life

    They could finally come to life

    Verse 2

    You know where to find me, they cannot define me

    So they crucify me, how so fazed when I leave?

    Come and purify me, come and sanctify me

    You the air that I breathe, the ultra-ultralight beam

    Brought a gift to Northie, all she want was Nikes

    This is not about me, God is still alive, so I'm free

    Floatin' on a silver lining, floatin' on a silver lining

    So when I'm free, I'm free

    Notes from the Genius lyric site offer these thoughts about this song:
    On Come to Life, Kanye sings about his desire for another life, wishing he had listened more to his ex-wife Kim Kardashian’s thoughts, dreams, problems, and aspirations. He shares his mixed emotions about her presence and absence, expressing how he does not want to die alone without her at his side. He sings about the silver-lining, which he latches on to during his darkest nights, which are his children. He treats his children as one of the most important things in his life and the one thing holding him together amid the divorce.

    This song was debuted during the finale of the third and final Donda Listening Party, held in Kanye’s hometown of Chicago, in which he was set on fire inside of a replica of his childhood home. He then reenacted his wedding to Kardashian, which could be interpreted as Kanye burning his past and bringing forth the life he has always wanted with Kardashian.

    With Kanye's mental health problems, and the distress that divorce tends to bring with it, we should pray for him, Kim and their children. 

      If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.

    Tuesday, 18 January 2022

    Joyful energy over Amazing Grace

    Good news to dance about
    Hyper Fenton is a rap singer among other things. His song on the theme of Amazing Grace certainly got the young video group moving. The Genius lyrics resource has this note on the song:
    Amazing Grace is an upbeat electronic song showing off Hyper Fenton’s energetic side. He sings about life and the uncertainty of death, with the chorus headlining that God is the only one who is certain, saving us through His “amazing grace”.

    The song was originally released as a single before being added to the Remembering Me tracklist. Spotify picked the single for their Top Christian playlist in the spring and summer of 2018, introducing Hyper Fenton to the playlist’s 1,000,000+ followers. As of August 2019, it’s both his and Moflo Music’s most popular song thus far, boasting over 450,000 plays on Spotify.
    Rap songs in particular are saying something. Check out Fenton's message:

    Verse 1
    Okay, look, I'd never forget that day
    In the 1990s, you know where to find me
    Bein' born, I'm a millennial
    Run for cover before he put you on Vimeo
    Or the Twitter
    C'mon y'all, get a grip
    I don't give a flip, I just wanna live but
    Better yet, I don't wanna die livin' a lie
    Does anyone even realize I'm alive?
    Chorus
    Like stop, wait, hold up the club
    I found somebody that I love
    Like stop, aye, hold up the grave
    I found somebody that can save
    Like stop, dance, come get your mans
    Bring 'em to the Man who atones for your sins
    Like stop, aye, hold up your praise
    Get a little taste of amazing grace like
    Breakdown
    Get a little taste of amazing grace like
    Verse 2
    Daddy, Daddy
    I'm inadequate to battle
    With the sadness
    Saddled with depression
    Misdirection of an addict
    I've been wishin' as a mission
    I would have somebody listen
    And be born again a Christian
    Maybe then they go the distance
    As a disciple
    Go and get your rifles
    Bang bang you're dead, and I lay in bed
    Wonderin' if you knew about Him
    And let Him inside for eternal life
    Last night woke up in a cold sweat
    With the same nightmare that I had an old friend
    Guess I should've told him that you never know when
    God is gonna blow in, hopin' y'all told him
    Chorus
    I said stop, wait, hold up the club
    I found somebody that I love
    Like stop, ayy, hold up the grave
    I found somebody that can save
    Like stop, dance, come get your mans
    Bring 'em to the Man who atones for your sins
    Like stop, ayy, hold up your praise
    Get a little taste of amazing grace like
    Breakdown
    Get a little taste of amazing grace like
    Chorus
    I said stop, wait, hold up the club
    I found somebody that I love
    Like stop, ayy, hold up the grave
    I found somebody that can save
    Like stop, dance, come get your mans
    Bring 'em to the Man who atones for your sins
    Like stop, ayy, hold up your praise
    Get a little taste of amazing grace like

    Monday, 17 January 2022

    God's sense of humour shows through

    Made in God's image. Photo by Mary Taylor

    Does God have a sense of humour? asks Denis O'Hagan.

    Some say “yes”. Some say “no”. Some say “I don’t know”. In a spoof he did about hell, comic Rowan Atkinson identified a group of inhabitants who were there because they laughed at the movie The Life of Brian. “No,” he admonished them, “God does not have a sense of humour”. On the other hand, a friend of mine had a large poster on her wall that proclaimed, “When God created man she was only joking”.

    Those with insight may by now realise that I have a quirky humour that is not universally appreciated. From time to time, people have admonished me for laughing inappropriately. So, let’s get profound and theological - can theology be anything but profound? In an anthropomorphic sense, God must have a sense of humour because God made me in his image in likeness and I have a sense of humour. The fact that some may doubt that I have does not weaken the argument. Human beings laugh.

    The gospels record that Jesus wept on three occasions. He was also familiar with laughter’s little sister, joy — there is no mention in the Gospels that he ever laughed. But I believe Jesus laughed every day. He could not have been the Son of God and the Son of Man if he did not laugh. Perhaps the evangelists just didn’t like his jokes.

    The ability to laugh is a beautiful gift. No other sentient being known to humans is capable of it although I suspect my cat is capable of a sly grin from time to time. As with all God’s gifts, laughter can be used or misused. We are capable of cruel and cynical laughter. We can make fun of people and cause them to feel bad.

    And, of course, there are times when mirth is inappropriate. There are seasons for weeping and seasons for laughing. But we don’t just laugh when we hear a joke. Reasonably frequently, we find ourselves laughing amid tears, not because something is funny, but because it brings relief. Tears and laughter are like identical twins; sometimes, we are not sure which is which.

    There are times when, for example, we are confronted with a compelling truth, that makes laughter well up from a deep cavern in our soul, a refreshing spring gushing forth to bring us life in the shadow of death. Laughter is not a denial of the pain and suffering. It is an admission of helplessness and our willingness to accept sadness, pain and suffering as part of creation without giving into desolation. “Well, all you could do was laugh”.

    Laughter can also be a form of prayer. A friend recently sent me an email attachment. “This short clip is for anyone who loves coloratura sopranos and parrots. Do watch to the end. It’s only 55 seconds”, she said. Well, a coloratura soprano is not my artist of choice; I prefer Queen and Pink Floyd. And divas, in general, are not funny; not intentionally so anyway. But to humour my friend I dutifully watched. The soprano lady was a bit scary, and to a philistine like me, somewhat unintentionally funny. But the parrot! The parrot! He or she performed the same piece of music and executed it to perfection. I was engulfed by a tsunami of delicious laughter.

    The first and obvious lesson to draw from this experience is that when you pray, don’t give up too soon. Jesus often keeps the best wine until last. The second, perhaps debatable lesson, is that laughter is a form of contemplation. It is a moment of ecstasy. Your whole person, mind, body, emotions and soul are enveloped. You don’t think,  “Oh, I am laughing”. You don’t say to yourself, "Something must be funny because I am laughing”.

    You have lost control of your body which heaves and shakes. Your mind is filled with light, and your heart is filled with joy. There is no self-analysis. The rest of the world is forgotten. You are lost in the moment, and that is contemplation; being utterly present to the present.

    In an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times published in 1978, to celebrate his 75th birthday, Malcolm Muggeridge offered 25 propositions. The tenth one states: “Mystical ecstasy and laughter are the two great delights of living, and saints and clowns, their purveyors, the only two categories of human beings who can be relied on, to tell the truth. Hence, steeples and gargoyles side by side on the great cathedrals”.

    Why do so many people find it necessary to wear their Sunday face to church? Like the divas as mentioned earlier, religiously minded people are not primarily remembered for their cracking sense of humour.

    Pope Francis is a dazzling exception to the rule. It is not disrespectful to call him a clown –“one of only two categories of human beings who can be relied on, to tell the truth”. I have a photograph of the laughing Pope on the wall.

    Laughter is a foretaste of what is to come. No need for harps to play and clouds to sit on. Heaven will be one long laugh.

    💢 Denis O'Hagan is a Marist priest and lives in New Zealand. This column, and family-friendly jokes, can be found here.

    💢 An afterthought: Variations on a theme:

    If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.

    Sunday, 16 January 2022

    Tips on how to achieve joy in life

    Something for January to start us off in the new year with an idea of where we find that higher form of happiness, joy. As the makers of this video say, "Joy is what makes life beautiful. It's what gets us through challenges and allows light in to illuminate the shadows. Joy heals our wounds and fills our souls with goodness." They have created a series that offers many riches drawn from life experience. We are not on our own in life! The path is well worn. Therefore, we can benefit what others have found to be true.
     

    Friday, 14 January 2022

    Where evolution meets Christian life

    Beeple continues the human trait of artistic exploration - NFT detail

    Ruth Schuster is a senior writer on archaeology and science at the Haaretz newspaper in Israel. She had an interesting opening paragraph on a story this week about the news just out that a key set of human-like skull bone fossils is now reckoned to be thousands of years older than first thought. She begins:

    When did modern humans begin to evolve? And from who? Once upon a time it was thought that, OK, we began from a monkey but then there was a linear progression to the wonder that is us, starting about 200,000 years ago. It is now abundantly clear that we are mongrels, admixing merrily with other human species until they all died out, and now an early modern human previously found in Ethiopia has been redated with the help of a volcano to 233,000 years ago. 

    The previous date for the human ancestor referred to as Omo 1 was 197,000 years ago.

    Schuster quotes one of the leaders of the study that produced the new dates as saying:

    In my opinion, Omo 1 is the oldest unchallenged fully modern specimen, the oldest Homo sapiens as we morphologically define the species nowadays. This is why this new dates are important. They may not tell us much about how modern humans evolved, but they tell us that before 200,000-230,000 years ago, hominins that are by our current standard recognizable as Homo sapiens, were already present in Eastern Africa.

    That leader is Professor Aurélien Mounier, a paleoanthropologist with the Museum of Mankind in Paris. His comment that there was still a lot unknown "about how modern humans evolved" underlines the still rudimentary state of knowledge concerning human prehistory. He goes on to discuss the doubts and debate arising because of  "the complexity of the evolutionary processes which gave birth to our species". 

    Dark areas in this reconstruction show the Omo1 fossils found by Richard Leakey in Ethiopia over 50 years ago. The Natural History Museum, London
    The main body of Christianity accepts evolution in general and of the human species. Pope John Paul II declared presentation to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 that evolution is more than a mere hypothesis or theory – it has significant arguments to commend its truth. However, as Pope Pius XII had noted in 1950 in his encyclical Humani Generis, physical evolution is not all there is to the story.

    To explore the unique feature of human evolution, I pick up the examination of this issue by Robert Spitzer PhD, an American Jesuit priest who has written extensively on scientific matters.  I like reading his writings because he believes in giving proofs for his statements. In giving a Christian context to the study of human evolution, he states:
    A pure physical, organic evolution is only part of the truth of human origins because God has given every human being an individual and unique transphysical soul  – something that is not reducible to physics or to a physical evolutionary process.

    [But] there is considerable evidence from all these rational domains [science, medicine, anthropology] to corroborate the existence of our transcendental souls. 

    Spitzer provides evidence that, added to the physical element of human evolution, which can leave fossils across the hundreds of thousands of years, is the spiritual element, which he refers to as "transphysical". Therefore, the only thing about evolution Christians cannot accept is "a pure reductionistic physical evolution which precludes the existence of a unique human soul".

    At some stage of human evolution God intervened and endowed the human species, through our first parents, a spiritual capability. However, Spitzer points out that the woman geneticists call “Mitochondrial Eve” was probably not the first woman (biblical Eve) having a soul – a non-physical capability – necessary for free choice and moral decisions , and the man geneticists call “Y-Chromosome Adam” was probably not the first man (biblical Adam) having a soul capable of free choice and moral decisions. 

    Evidence of the spiritual ability in the human person comes from a scholarly work: 

    There is a new book from the foremost linguistic theorist in the country, Noam Chomsky, and an MIT professor of computational linguistics and computer science and engineering named Robert Berwick, entitled, Why Only Us (published by MIT Press in 2016).

    Without delving into the complexities of their analysis, I will give their main point – that between 60,000 to 70,000 years ago, human beings developed a capacity for abstract, syntactical, and universal communication that no other species – not even our most proximate ancestors – developed.

    First, there is no known or probative biological or genetic explanation for this unique development in human beings, [which provokes] the questions, “What caused it?”, and “Was this cause physical or transphysical?”

    Second, it seems that the progeny between mitochondrial Eve/Y chromosome Adam (200,000 years ago) and their progeny who were invested with this abstract and syntactical linguistic ability (70,000 years ago) did not seem to do anything more significant than use stone tools, live in community, and hunt in tandem – and then suddenly, after 130,000 years, an explosion of language, discovery, religion, symbolism, art, and geographical exploration. What happened? And what caused it?

    It seems that our genetic ancestors did convey a genetic-biological-physical profile to us, but they did not give everything to us that makes us human.

    Something else was added 130,000 years after them (70,000 years ago) that gave rise to the explosion of universal syntactical language, religion, art, mathematics, and the precursors to complex civilization.
    I would submit that this “something” is a transcendent soul, and that such a soul is the condition necessary for all of the above powers and characteristics – syntactical language, abstract mathematics, religion, symbolic art, and the free choice and moral awareness necessary for law and civilization.

    First, Spitzer looks at what Noam Chomsky and Robert Berwick have to say about "the sudden and unique occurrence – explosion – of universal syntactical language".

    Thus, very small children can understand the difference between “dog bites man” and “man bites dog” – and even see the humor in it.

    But no chimpanzee – which can learn 200 individual signs in American Sign Language – can make this distinction.

    They simply do not have the capacity for abstraction (necessary to relate distinct objects to one another in various categories) required to differentiate between subjects (in general) and objects (in general).

    Chomsky and Berwick believe that there might be a physical explanation linked to a special genetic switch affecting the brain, but they are far from showing how such a genetic switch or a patterning of brain modalities could give rise to the power of abstraction (necessary for relating objects to one another in various categories).

    The ability to distinguish that some things are in a relationship with each other and to apply the questions why, how, how many, what, where, and when show the power of our (spiritual) intellect.

    These big general ideas could not have been abstracted from experience or from wiring or patterns in the brain, and this is what has caused philosophers like Bernard Lonergan, or the Nobel Prize winning physiologist, Sir John Eccles, to declare that they must have a transphysical status and origin – a soul.

    The universality of the uniquely human capacity to pass the syntax test comes next:

    What is remarkable about human beings is that we could take a child from an African culture which has a rather unique way of expressing syntax and grammar, and place him, say, in a Chinese culture which has a totally different way of expressing syntax and grammar, and that child will be able to learn the syntax and grammar of that completely different language almost immediately – as if there were a universal syntax underlying every particular expression of it which young children understand from birth!

    No other primate, no matter how sophisticated, has ever crossed the syntax threshold according to the studies of not only Chomsky and Berwick, but also Herbert Terrace and a variety of others.

    Along with this capacity for universal syntactical abstraction (and universal abstract language), humans received five other capacities/tendencies as well. The first was the spirit of discovery:

    What explains this radical transition from a rather sedentary human community on the border of Namibia and Angola, to world exploration? Was it simply a lack of food? Simply a desire to escape tribal enemies?

    Though this may have been part of the reason, it does not explain the rapid and world-wide expansion of the human population even on the oceans to Indonesia and even Australia.

    I would submit that there is something more than simple need – there was a “spirit” of curiosity and adventure – something absent in our most proximate ancestors – that engendered the spirit to discover and explore.

    Burial of the dead is another feature of this period about 70,000 years ago:

    Something else also happened in this period: human beings started burying their dead, treating the remains of their deceased with respect, and burying them with rituals and objects indicating a belief that they would survive their physical death (see, for example, a burial site with these objects from this period in the Skhul cave at Qafzeh, Israel).

    If humans did not believe in their spiritual nature or life after death, we might ask, “Why did they bother to bury their dead with great respect – and with rituals and objects?”

    And if they did have an awareness of their spiritual nature and life after death, we might ask the further question, “Where did they get this awareness from?”

    After all, 130,000 years of ancestors did no such thing – and then suddenly, human beings seem to be doing it as a universal practice.

    Did this spiritual awareness – this awareness of something beyond the physical world also come from our transphysical soul?

    An additional quality that makes us human is the desire to express ourselves through what we call art, and symbolic representation:

    There are cave drawings dating back to at least 35,000 years ago (see Jo Marchant in Smithsonian January 2016) that have been more recently dated at 44,000 years ago (see Ewen Callaway in Nature December 2019) on the island of Sulawesi in Indonesia.

    Many scholars believe that the animal drawings have sacred and cultural symbolic significance (see Ghosh, Pallab, “Cave paintings change ideas about the origins of art”). 

    We come to numbers, which play a big part in human life:

    There is no evidence of abstract numeration in any other species except human beings. Did this originate from our heuristic notion of “how many?” – And can this innate heuristic notion (standing at the foundation of all quantitative relationships) be explained by programming of the brain?

    It is quite unlikely. For it is one thing to program a brain (or computer) to count, but quite another thing to understand counting itself and its significance.

    It is these abstract concepts that elude mere programming or patterning of the brain. As Gödel's theorem reveals, humans do mathematics very differently from computers.

    The latter follow programs while the former invent them. The former have an abstract understanding of numeration itself in all of its permutations, while the latter lack all such understanding.

    The development of advanced social norms is also on our list of attributes anthropologists have noticed in our human ancestors from about 70,000 years ago:

    Human communities having durable structures, some specialization of labor and commerce, and a sense of social norms began to arise as a result of migrations, differentiated linguistic systems resulting from those migrations, and the ability to barter and exchange on the basis of counting and tallying.

    It seems that as migration occurred, some groups stayed behind while others continued to migrate. Those who stayed behind used their linguistic and numeric capacities to specialize labor, and their religious instincts to solidify basic social norms and rules.

    Evolution within the physical world is one thing, but as we have seen here, our human experience makes a compelling case that there is more to the human person than the blind outcome of various environmental stimuli.

    However, there is harder evidence for God's intervention at a point in the development of human ancestors, a historical point in time that stands alongside the original spark of creation launching the universe on its way, and the overwhelming arrival of God in our midst in Jesus, God uniting with the human as a single person.

    But, please, pursue these issues by either going to Robert Spitzer's text, The Soul’s Upward Yearning: Clues to Our Transcendent Nature from Experience and Reason (2016) or the article that gives a fuller  account than what is possible here of what science tells us about how modern humans are uniquely different from the rest of the natural world. Go here for Spitzer's article.

    💢 See also: What about similarity to Chimpanzees?

    If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published. 

    Wednesday, 12 January 2022

    That religion-science 'conflict' is nonsense

                                                                                                                                               Photo Word on Fire.org
    Christianity is not in conflict with science, and that is one reason why those preaching hardline atheism fail to make headway in winning converts. This is true even in societies where there is a growing tide of disaffiliation with Christianity.  But the point is that reality can be encountered in different ways, a fact that materialists do not always appreciate but everyday people do.

    Scientific endeavour that limits itself to only what can be counted and measured will remain blind to the state of pleasure or joy or bliss that are the product of art and music and friendship. These feelings are generically different from more ordinary psychical outcomes.

    For example, people have always seen evidence that a Supreme Being exists and that there is more to our existence than meets the eye. Roy Abraham Varghese, an author the subject of science and religion, has written*:

    While primitive animism and nature deities can be easily explained as attempts to personalize the forces of nature, the same cannot be said of the concept of a Supreme Being. It is entirely abstract and with no physical or imaginative correlate; and yet it came naturally to humans throughout history.

    Scholars call this intrinsic awareness the numinous. It is the experience of the "uncanny" and the "awe-inspiring", which can have a positive impact on our lives. See this article on the BBC website that explores how intentionally seeking the feeling of awe can improve memory, boost creativity and relieve anxiety. 

    The interest in what might be called "neopaganism" and in the occult also reflect how people recognise that a "creature-feeling" that causes a "shudder" in their self-consciousness can give those people a sense of the true nature of their place in existence, and that "the feeling of personal nothingness before the awe-inspiring object directly experienced", as Rudolf Otto described it,  can be related to the Christian understanding that "God is near us, that we can possess and apprehend Him, and that [each person] is His image and likeness".

    But let's look at the way "science" is thrown at Christianity, and religion as a whole, as a kind of grenade in the hope of disabling belief in God, the transcendent, the holy, and perhaps (for some atheistic proselytizers) the hope of undermining the morality common to religions.

    "The number one reason young people say they disaffiliate from religion," says Bishop Robert Barron of the Los Angeles archdiocese, "is that religion is in conflict with science. And in that conflict, science wins." He continues:

    They have great reverence for science; religion's out of step with it; therefore, religion has to go. The warfare between religion and science is kind of assumed by a lot of young people who disaffiliate today.

    And just think of the rhetoric that you'll pick up all over the culture. People just say “Galileo",  and right away you think, "Oh, there's obscurantist, oppressive religion standing in the way of the advance of the sciences."

    The idea of there being conflict between religion and science is a relatively recent phenomenon, as Church scholars had largely laid the foundations of modern science. The rift arose particularly in the 1800s:

    For the first roughly three centuries of the natural sciences, most of the great figures—Descartes comes to mind, Galileo himself, Gregor Mendel, so many others, Newton—were all devoutly religious people. So it's a relatively recent conceit that somehow religion and science are at odds, but it's certainly gotten into the minds of our young people.

    Of course, there is the embarrassing refusal of some fundamentalist Christians to accept the evidence of evolution, preferring to hold to Luther's view that it is the "historical sense alone which supplies the true and sound doctrine” (LW 1.283) when reading the Bible, and also being entrapped by his emphasis on literal interpretation. 

    However, presenting an accurate picture of the role of science vis-à-vis Christian belief, Barron delves into Matthew's infancy narrative of the foreign "Three Kings", or Magi, coming to pay homage to the newborn Jesus having studied the stars to learn place and time.

    He relates how Matthew uses magoi in the Greek and that word covers astronomer, astrologer, wise man. He then develops how their scientific status is held up for admiration, their knowledge being so advanced that even the experts in nearby Jerusalem were unaware of what was going on:

    In the Chaldean culture of that time, there was a pretty advanced culture of stargazing, and it probably involved, by our standards, a combination of both astronomy and astrology. But wise people, using their analytical reason, would look up into the night sky, and they would measure and they'd calculate the movements of the planets, and the positions of the stars.

    [This is] in a very scientific spirit, but also something else. They would have recognized in these beautiful intelligibilities a sign of the intelligence who put them into existence. They would have looked at the stars and planets, and they would have delighted in understanding them more fully, but behind it, they would also have been discerning the will and purpose of the divine.

    I think if you had said to these Magi, "There's a conflict between religion and science." They wouldn't have known what you were talking about. If they had said, "Hey, there's a tension between what you're doing, looking up at the night sky, and what people of faith are doing," I think they would have just looked at you with puzzlement.

    No, they saw both/and: looking analytically into the night sky also brought to mind the will and purposes of God.

    And so, this beautiful image—and we've got it from a thousand Christmas cards, but hold that in your mind— of these wise men, astronomers, call them if you want scientists, who on the basis of their scientific investigation are now journeying to find this newborn King of the Jews.

    At the end of their journey, they present him with their gifts. They opened the coffers of their wisdom and riches before him.

    In other words, their science didn't lead them away from God and the things of God, but precisely toward God and the things of God.

    We Christians understand why this is true, and I'm going to rely here on the great work of Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict, [who] said that in the Gospel of John, Jesus is referred to as the Logos.

    “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God." And through that Logos, “all things came to be”.

    I'm keeping it on purpose there in the original Greek, because I want to give this richer sense of what that word means. We say “Word”, in a fair enough translation. But think of Logos as the logic, the mind, the pattern—the intelligent pattern that was present to God from the beginning—and again, given God's simplicity [unity] was God from the beginning.

    God is this primal patterning intelligence that lies behind all things. So nothing came to be, unless it was touched somehow by the Logos.

    The world is not dumbly there for Christians—just there in a sort of chaotic, random manner. No, no; it's been spoken into being. Logos can mean tongue too.

    When Aristotle referred to the human being as the zoon logikon, the rational animal, but what he meant was the animal with a tongue, and that knows how to use that tongue for language, for speech.

    In the beginning was intelligent speech, and through that intelligent speech, all things came to be.

    A further step in Barron's analysis of the supposed conflict between religion and science is this:

    What do scientists look for? I mean every scientist up and down the ages, from the ancient philosophers and researchers, up through the modern scientists.

    They're all looking in some way for Logos. They're looking for some patterned intelligibility in things. This or otherwise, science wouldn't get off the ground. If the world were simply a chaotic, random mess, science wouldn't work because there would be no objective intelligibility that corresponds to an inquiring intelligence.

    Just think for a second, the way we name the sciences: psycho-logy, logos, the logos about the “psyche”, about the psyche. Physio-logy, the logos about the body. The sciences have that suffix of logos because they have to do with objective intelligibility.

    "Where's that come from?" Barron asks. Further, does it strike you as a reasonable position if someone were to say that the world is a wild cosmic accident, but "every nook and cranny of the physical world is marked by patterned intelligibility"?

    On the contrary. This very objective intelligibility, which is the ground for all science, leads one to acknowledge the existence of this Logos, which has spoken all things into being.

    Now, go back to the Magi: good scientists looking up into the night sky, looking at the patterned intelligibilities in the stars and the planets. Where did it lead them? To a gross materialism? “That's all there is: just matter in motion.”

    It's silliness; it's nonsense. They were quite right in intuiting that these patterned intelligibilities [would] lead them to the great intelligent Logos that has brought all things into being.

    And so, beautifully, they go in search of this Word made flesh. What had they heard about in the ancient prophecies? That that Word, that Logos, the Creator God was becoming a king in the form of this little baby. Science led to faith; it was not repugnant to faith.

    Where did I first learn science? And then philosophy, which I came to love? At Catholic schools, at Catholic University in Washington, at the Institut Catholique in Paris.

    The Catholic faith at its best has never stood opposed to reason. No, no; it loves and embraces the sciences, loves and embraces philosophy, loves and embraces all expressions of rationality.

    Where did I first study the great novelists and the poets, those who explore the objective intelligibilities within human experience, within the human mind? I learned all that in Catholic schools.

    Very early on in the Christian tradition, there was a fellow named Tertullian—Church Father, great figure in many ways. But Tertullian said something and he expressed an attitude that the Church found repugnant.

    Tertullian said, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" And what he meant was: What do the speculations of the philosophers of Athens have to do with the revelation given to the Jews?

    Well, the Church repudiated that. The Church at its best, from the earliest days—think of Paul himself, all the way through Thomas Aquinas, and up to the present day—the Church at its best has said, "No, Athens and Jerusalem belong together." The questing mind of Athens should not be put to rest.

    No, no; on the contrary. Allow all of that rich intellectual energy to express itself as fully as possible—because, because, it's always seeking some form of Logos and, therefore, ultimately is seeking the source of that objective intelligibility. It's seeking the source of all of that patterned intelligibility in the great intelligence of God.

    Now, that's the Catholic tradition: faith and reason. John Paul II—one of his last encyclicals is called Fides et Ratio. That wonderful et: and... See, the Magi believed in reason, and faith; their reason brought them to faith.

    Since it was the last Sunday of Christmastime when Barron drew into his analysis the shepherds that attended the infant Jesus.

    In fact, shepherds were kind of seen as lowlifes. Their testimony wouldn't have been accepted in court; they weren't taken seriously. The angel appeared though to the shepherds. The simplest people come to Christ, and maybe they're the first ones really to hear the message [of God become man].

    But now think of the Magi. Now [...] we're dealing with the cultural elite; we're dealing with the philosophers and scientists in one of the most advanced cultures of that time. Christ has come to them too. And in fact, their very work leads them to Christ.

    You know, faith needs science to keep it from becoming superstitious. There's a danger of that. If you just block out reason, then faith can become superstitious. But the sciences need faith, so they don't become self-contained and self-referential.

    Pope John Paul's document Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason), which Barron refers to above, opens this way:

    Faith and reason 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.

    The document spells this out in more detail:

    [The Church teaches ] that the truth attained by philosophy [meaning science] and the truth of Revelation are neither identical nor mutually exclusive: “There exists a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards their source, but also as regards their object. With regard to the source, because we know in one by natural reason, in the other by divine faith. With regard to the object, because besides those things which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, cannot be known”.

    It refers to the Book of Wisdom, missing from some Protestant Bibles:

    There the sacred author speaks of God who reveals himself in nature. For the ancients, the study of the natural sciences coincided in large part with philosophical learning. Having affirmed that with their intelligence human beings can “know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements... the cycles of the year and the constellations of the stars, the natures of animals and the tempers of wild beasts” (Wis 7:17, 19-20)—in a word, that he can philosophize—the sacred text takes a significant step forward.

    Making his own the thought of Greek philosophy, to which he seems to refer in the context, the author affirms that, in reasoning about nature, the human being can rise to God: “From the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator” (Wis 13:5). This is to recognize as a first stage of divine Revelation the marvellous “book of nature”, which, when read with the proper tools of human reason, can lead to knowledge of the Creator. If human beings with their intelligence fail to recognize God as Creator of all, it is not because they lack the means to do so, but because their free will and their sinfulness place an impediment in the way. (para.19)

    In addition:

    Seen in this light, reason is valued without being overvalued. The results of reasoning may in fact be true, but these results acquire their true meaning only if they are set within the larger horizon of faith: “All man's steps are ordered by the Lord: how then can man understand his own ways?” (Proverbs 20:24). For the Old Testament, then, faith liberates reason in so far as it allows reason to attain correctly what it seeks to know and to place it within the ultimate order of things, in which everything acquires true meaning.

    In brief, human beings attain truth by way of reason because, enlightened by faith, they discover the deeper meaning of all things and most especially of their own existence. Rightly, therefore, the sacred author identifies [awe-inspired respect] of God as the beginning of true knowledge: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7; cf. Sirach 1:14). (20)

    Finally, it is the Church that finds itself in the position of defending reason:

    There are signs of a widespread distrust of universal and absolute statements, especially among those who think that truth is born of consensus and not of a consonance between intellect and objective reality. In a world subdivided into so many specialized fields, it is not hard to see how difficult it can be to acknowledge the full and ultimate meaning of life which has traditionally been the goal of philosophy [including science]. Nonetheless, in the light of faith which finds in Jesus Christ this ultimate meaning, I cannot but encourage philosophers—be they Christian or not—to trust in the power of human reason and not to set themselves goals that are too modest in their philosophizing. 

    The lesson of [20th Century] history [...] shows that this is the path to follow: it is necessary not to abandon the passion for ultimate truth, the eagerness to search for it or the audacity to forge new paths in the search. It is faith which stirs reason to move beyond all isolation and willingly to run risks so that it may attain whatever is beautiful, good and true. Faith thus becomes the convinced and convincing advocate of reason. (56)

    💢 Fides et Ratio can be accessed here    

    * The Christ Connection: How the World Religions Prepared the Way for the Phenomenon of Jesus (2011)

    If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.