AbbyNormative Ethics

Can there be a system of ethics without God? I've been curious about this question since I had a recent conversation with a professor who was a self-described secular humanist, and I couldn't understand what his view on right and wrong were. It really seemed as though he believed morals arose more or less out of cultural forces, much like any other natural phenomenon. But my view of things is simply different: I can't help but think, Well, are the naturally arising ethical systems right? I realize this question doesn't make sense if "right" only has to do with those evolving ethics. So, how do secular humanists arrive at ethics? There must be some goal, or central ideal (in my mind) to build upon, like love, or truth, perfection, technology, the ubermann,... something.

I Wish I Still Knew How to Play My Trombone

Marxism's Evilness

As someone who is sometimes critical of capitalism and enjoys telling people who hate Marxism that I’m a communist, I’ve heard many arguments about the EVIL of Marxism. This “evilness” usually has two major origins: Marxism’s atheism and its materialist view of history.

Let me take the latter first: I do agree that Marxism is based on the idea that the history of society should be read as a conflict between social classes and various production (labor, etc); in this way, it is materialistic. But that does not mean it is materialistic in the sense that it necessarily denies all spirituality. If Marx denied people have souls, that is tangential and not necessary to a materialistic view of history.

Let me give an example: Darwinism. Evolution is based solely on materialistic findings and foundations. Its conclusions do not take spirituality or human souls into consideration. However, this does not mean it is an argument against spirituality. At the time, people did think this was the case, though. Religious saw this scientific interpretation to biological history as problematic, since it didn’t offer us an interpretation of spirituality, nor did it seem to place God at the rightful head of the universe. Hopefully now most of us recognize that a materialist interpretation of something is not necessarily an argument against any or everything non-material.

As for the atheism “inherent” in Marxism: yes, if we’re discussing a type of Marxist interpretation that denies God, then it is anti-spirituality. However, it is my belief that Marx’s atheism was tangential to his material view of history, politics, and revolution. He may have desired the two to be interconnected, but that doesn’t mean they are.

Let me use Evolution again: Darwin, although initially spurred by a religious belief to reveal God’s Providence in nature, ended an atheist: he thought he disproved God and His Providence. But he wasn’t correct, just as Marx wasn’t, just as other people aren’t correct in trumpeting Darwin’s or Marx’s incorrect conclusions.

Hellooooo .... ? ?

A dry wind rustles through the weeds now spreading in the cracks in the streets and the sidewalks and at the edges of buildings. Here and there curtains drift out through open windows, as though the ghosts of the empty rooms were leaving...perhaps for good. Altogether it is a dry, empty place, not bereft of objects, buildings, furniture...but certainly bereft of life. It has the eerie emptiness of a place that was not always empty.
A lone traveler enters the town, the first sign of life in a long, long time. This place once held meaning for him, but all meaning is lost because no one visits here anymore. He writes a quick note down on a table in the place which was the public sphere of his companions...but he wonders if any will ever know that he wrote it...?

On Humanae Vitae

The Catholic position on contraception has posed an interesting dilemma for me in the last few years, although not within the usual context one finds dilemma in such things. For me the problem has always laid in inadequate responses. Numerous people of varying positions always failed to offer a reasonably coherent picture of the rationale that justifies NFP yet condemns any other form of Birth Control. I finally (a monument to my laziness) read through Humanae Vitae, and was not entirely surprised that the popular apologetic response of most Catholics “in the know” does not match the rigor and clarity of the Magisterium itself. The encyclical is wonderfully written and in my opinion far surpasses the earthy wisdom espoused by most people in an attempt to “dumb” down the theology to make it more suitable for general consumption. What arises from that is an almost distinct argument for “the common man” based around the precepts of naturalness, openness to life and intent. The problem lies in that reasonable response to the common man argument does not really amount to an argument against the true position of the Church.

In the common man argument I find no real strength. The idea of something being natural as a justification for a moral precept is silly given that the Church takes no further stance on other unnatural means, such as medicine. Openness to life lends itself to degenerate into a legalistic discussion of want qualifies as “open to life” to which I find the only reasonable standard being success rate of the method in preventing pregnancy. On that standard NFP is about as open to life as the pill and less so then other forms of contraception. Finally intent is problematic because it implies that the moral component is not intrinsic in the method. If NFP can be wrong given certain intentions why can’t others be right given the correct intentions?

The problem in my own approach to these arguments is that while they may be (and I think they are) correct they do not honestly approach the position espoused by the Encyclical. They are however honest derivations of the original logic and I still think that some of the arguments may still work. This is however the first time I am working through the issue starting with Humanae Vitae as the primary source. I propose to follow each of the common man precepts back to the encyclical itself in order to effectively elucidate the position therein.

Let us ignore naturalness for the time being and head straight into openness to life. I believe the openness to life argument for the justification of NFP is truly off base in regards to the encyclical’s own logic. It seems to have evolved from talk about the two necessary components to the “marriage act” the unitive aspect and the procreative aspect. The Churches view of sex maintains the essential nature of both of these components and to remove one would be to strip the very meaning and efficaciousness of the intended act of love/union. From this position very reasonably stems the prohibition on contraception in that it clearly destroys the procreative aspect of sex. This leads to my problem in general which is how then can NFP be justified.

Here lies the germ of the “openness to life” precept. The church considers the taking advantage of an infertile period in that the couple “rightly use a faculty provided them by nature” whereas in the case of contraception it is an intentional obstruction of the natural process. I believe that the notion of NFP being “open to life” evolved from the idea of it is in accordance with the natural functioning of the generative faculties whereas other method are not. I suppose that that argument could be made, however, I see no fruitful outcome in following that road. It must eventually require suitable means of qualification of “openness to life” that degrades into a comparative study of statistics of success rates among the various methods of contraception. I propose to drop the idea completely from the argument choosing, instead, to focus on the “naturalness” precept which in its pure form retains the “spirit” of the argument from openness to life.

The “naturalness” precept arises in part due to the same passage above. However, I think the common man arguments have made the mistake of misinterpreting the Churches’ talk of what is natural. Natural here does not refer to intentional use of devices or chemicals in anything more then a superficial way. “Natural” is being confused with “Natural Law” which is a gross error. The Church decries something as unnatural in that it offends the conception of natural law: more or less the essential components of us as humans to which the denial of would make us less then human. Condom use is not unnatural in the sense that medicine is unnatural. Medicine uses artificially created compounds to render specific changes within the body to encourage health. Condoms are said to deny one’s humanity as an embodied spirit.

There is not much to be said in disagreement on this point without a much larger critique of the Churches natural law ethic, which would disrupt far more then just the prohibition on contraception. There is one smaller contention or worry I would raise, which leads into a discussion of intent. If NFP practiced with the full intent to avoid a child (how one could do it without that intent I have no idea; by accident?) then how is it much different from any other method? It would seem that the church is ok with a denial of the procreative aspect of sex, which must be “inherent” in sex as long as there is a means to do so provided by naturally occurring biology.

The precept of intent is probably the most reminiscent of its originating idea in the encyclical. Correct intent must be present, what disqualifies other forms of contraception despite correct intent is that regardless of the intent it still offends natural law. “To intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order and which therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual,” i.e. one cannot do evil for the sake of a good. Furthermore it is intent, or rather lack of intent that justifies the use of hormonal birth control methods (the Pill) for the sake of medical reasons not related to wanting or not wanting to bear a child.

Here ends my current explication on the subject, most of this was wrote in order to clarify the intertwining components of Humanae Vitae in my mind. I still believe that there are issues to be made with the argument and justifications I just have yet to really work through them, I’m sure I write more then that happens. Nonetheless this was an interesting exercise in tracking down really prevalent ideas with our circles and tracing them back to the source (a source?) and seeing how they have evolved from the original—one final point as a sort of digression.

I have always used the Pill as my main go to example of mainstream birth control to contrast against NFP in an attempt to show why it would fit into all the same justifications for NFP (a condom has a really strong “wrong” feel about it by nature of its brute simplicity). I have recently learned that one of the three effects the Pill may have is that it makes the implantation of a fertilized egg difficult by causing a thinning of the endometrium along the uterus. As far as I can gather scientists are still in contention over whether this mechanism actually exists, but if it does then the Pill in some cases acts as an abortifacient. I feel constrained to reject any use of the pill until the matter is settled, I do not think it is morally responsible to play Russian roulette, even if the presence of a bullet is unclear; I am not taking that chance. I do think that people could make some level of argument on the subject and tend to place this one in the “primacy of conscience” corner. However, it places an interesting spin on the use of the Pill for medical reasons if the patient is also in a position to be having sex. Should it be allowed for therapeutic concerns in this unknown stage? Even if the matter is settled that it may cause miscarriage?

Christianity in Light of Modern Media

I land from the world of ideas, thoughts, and the abstract --- into the unforgiving and tenacious world of the practical.

When it comes to modern media --- I am thinking mainly of movies, TV Shows, and music --- where is the fine line between “I don’t promote all of that, but it’s fine to watch” and “I shouldn’t watch that”? I’m not naïve enough to think that we’ll come up with an exact line, but I thought it would be an interesting and worthwhile attempt to apply Christian principles to everyday life.

PS I realize the answer might depend on the person. However, are there no universals we can make about all Christians?

PPS I feel as if the “frog in the pot” analogy could affect simple answers that favor the side of liberality.

Poem break

A Bad Poem

Truth is not always Beauty

This is a poem, by Steve Gazzo as I remember him reading it. I don't know why I like it so much but I do, alot. Nor do I have any idea why I felt the need to most it...

Augustine and his method: or Frivolous Flings on Founding Fathers part 1

“Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand.”

I thought that since we all seems to be deep in discussion about paradigms of thought it would be an interesting idea to examine someone else’s method in light of the recent discussions. I also thought that why not start with a “founding father” of the Catholic Church, Augustine. It is very interesting to me how these paradigms of thought—each persons way of understanding and categorizing the world at its most basic level, deeply and profoundly affects the sort of thought that arises. Above is a quote from Augustine, and a difficult one at that, given the sheer amount of ways of interpretations it. I’d like to give my spin on it and hear from others their interpretations as well. OK let’s jump into it.

I thought the above quote offers a very interesting look at two of the options available to us when we go to try and judge which method of thinking is most effective or even correct. We’ve had a lot of talk about the nature of our access to truth, and the variable ways of trying to grasp hold of it. I have previously tried to point out my own worry about our possible connection to the Objective given the epistemic quagmire we all seem to be firmly situated in as humans. From that sort of a perspective Augustine’s words ring of truth, as it does sort of entail the necessity to just deal with our epistemic situation, rather then to dissolve it. This of course could be done by allowing belief to inform the understanding.

Now, I won’t be so quick to burden the quote down with my own reading of it, since much I want I kind of want it to say doesn’t have any amount of justification. Certainly it is not saying (at least I can’t imagine it could be) that belief comes without reason, and then the reason is supplied. We all need a reason to believe something, regardless of the nature of the reason. We don’t just believe something. And as a convert Augustine I would imagine would understand that better than most, since he actually needed to switch beliefs. I do think though that we is pointing to a difficult truth about belief, that it does inform the understanding. Especially something like religious belief, which speaks more to the being of a person then their way of thinking or even doing. The Atheist theologian understanding of Catholicism is very different from the True believer theologian. And that, I think, stems from the fact that religious belief does not, and cannot be confined solely to the understanding (knowledge) but demands a much more holistic understanding—the whole of a person participates in “understanding” the belief, not just the mind, etc. Augustine I think may be pointing to that sort of idea, that belief stems from a whole person understanding and insomuch as that is true must to some extent be believed in order to obtain that.

I think that idea sounds wonderful, but is certainly not without pitfalls. The first of which comes from the rationalist corner, which can, very reasonably, point out that if belief informs understanding what ground do we have for judgment of belief. Understanding from belief will be formed by the belief, and the question that I wonder is one this model won’t every belief, be confirmed by the understanding? How can a catholic belief inform an understanding that does not support it, for example. Then what standard are we left with to judge beliefs by? Now, I know everyone will jump up and explain that, that is only the case if we take the quote literally as an unassailable dogma, true. I’m sure Augustine, isn’t trying to say that understanding cannot inform belief as well, there is probably some sort of mix of the two, when dealing with minutia, and petty examples, etc, etc. Sure, but past all that, that is the problem with that end of the spectrum. I bring it up just because It will be important later.

Augustine was a disciple of Aristotle, as much as he was one of Christ. Logic, and reason were of no little importance for Augustine, and his understanding of their role went heavily into his method of thought. Now, Aristotle was one to beautifully craft a logical understanding of the world. This framework began from some observations which was its conception, but sent most of its time gestating in the womb of theory, growing larger and more robust, until it was born back into the world. The problem is that at this point, what began grounded in the world has grown and changed so dramatically in its long absence from it that it doesn’t really fit in anymore. Aristotle, rather than seeing a need to revaluate it, by nature of this mismatch, instead tried to force the world into the framework. In the end we have a beautifully coherent story of the world, that doesn’t really match the world it is trying to talk about. We have a story that we can say, yeah that would be wonderful, except it is really not like that…

To me, I think Augustine commits the same error in his thoughtful machinations. Augustine, as a believer gathers up all the revelation, and scripture he must believe, and creates a framework to respond to it, but ends up wrong, by nature of trying to force a fit that doesn’t exist. In the City of God, Augustine tells us a wonderful tale of the history of mankind, from Adam, to Fallen Adam, to the eventual New Adam in Christ. And in his explaining of these basic bits of the Christian faith, establishing the nature love, the effect of Pride, the salvation of Christ, we get a theory that explains them in this elegantly coherent manner, but doesn’t actually fit the world.

Augustine’s theories on sex illustrate this beautifully. Augustine’s view demands the very negative opinion of sex. Sex must be the “transmitter” of sin, because it must, by his model, necessarily be wrapped up in lust; sex is always a sin, albeit a necessary one for procreation. Interestingly enough from these theologies arise many more that are now veritable Catholic “duhs” such as the importance of the virginity of Mary, even beyond the birth of Christ. What we get is something that really doesn’t sound right but makes perfect logical sense (ok yeah I’m reading my intuitions back into it, but I think I can to a degree but don’t really have the time to justify it here). On a different note, even Purgatory, stems from a logical necessity of Augustine’s model, which allows for death before the ‘purification of the soul process’ is complete in this life, and therefore demands a means to getting into heaven. All of this stems from one theory on the nature of the types of love we have.

Ok what do this mean for our original quote above? I think it offers a deep and unintentional look into what I perceive as a major flaw in Augustine’s method; belief of his theory, and of the unassailability of the logic that created and defended it, built a very specific understanding. One that doesn’t really match up to what the initial goal was. It also illustrates how easy it can be to actually fall into the rationalist critique that seems so obvious, and petty.

Ok, my goal here is not to disprove or discredit Augustine, my critique only applies to the method used and not to the validity of the content gathered through that method, although I could but let’s just stick to the method rather than to the consequences at the moment. Nor is my critique even put me into a position of correctness or incorrectness on the matter. I am really only trying to say, gee that doesn’t look like the best method, the costs are fairly high. Why maintain a really intuitively wrong notion of sex (one that demands sin in order to practice virtue, ie procreation) when one should really have just reworked the original thesis. Just because the logic demands it? Now critique aside, I want to return to my original position that yeah, belief must, to some extent, inform understanding. I wonder, if the recognition of the epistemic consequences of that position must also be demanded of the person; moving us soundly into the realm of fun existential paradoxes, but that is not for this post.

Why one should go to bed early

It’s 3.30 am, and I smoke a final cigarette as a bookend to the day. But like all good late night smokes it does not silence thought but encourages it. The day I sought to finalize refuses to die, and difficult questions bombard my mind in a frenzied whirl. My mind is not centered on the specific—tired thoughts do not tend towards the finely grained. They have a habit of calling forth in large sweeping stokes a bigger picture. No monster in the closet, but in its place stands the monstrous thoughts that are hidden from view by the minutia of the day. When all the specific concerns fade, holding no bearing this late, I see the looming giants on the horizon of the mind.

We seek to live our lives authentically and truthfully. No sane person holds on to an obviously wrong opinion or belief. The search for truth demands this evaluation and disposal. Here lies the basic call, to live by truth and reject what is false, but how. If there be an objective truth, an unequivocal right and wrong; one that stands whole and complete even if the world around it collapse and only the cockroaches are let to bear witness, we sit in dire straits. None of us hold truth in it completeness; none of us may stand before the rest and claim that they bear no single falsehood. In that lies the unsettling thing, we are all wrong in some sense. What remains is to identify and purge that falsehood. Who am I to judge? By what right do I declare what is right and wrong? If this were even possible then how could I be ignorant of my own falsehoods? No, by myself there can be no progress. So then I must turn to a standard, a guide. Let it then be my Christian faith, in her lies a path to enumerating what is false, and the wisdom to purge it. So I have stepped back from myself, into a larger perspective in which to judge. But, what of another step back? Doesn’t the very path I choose to let judge me, stem from just that, my choice? I believe that this Faith is correct, I do not know it. Some would say that yes we do know! If so it is a different ‘know’ then required. I do not ‘know’ it to be true, like I know that chair to be there, or like 2x2 is 4, or even like I know my thoughts are troubled. I know through faith, through belief. Don’t I come to that belief in the same way the Hindu or Muslim came to theirs? Not in the practical sense of course, for each life is different, but in the sense that the same epistemic facilities bestowed my belief that gave the other theirs.

Objective truth is hard. Not because it is held fast through existence, but because I am not equipped with the tools to grasp it in pure clarity. I am always preaching of the solid ground from a raft afloat. Objective truth is black and white, but we can only ever with any certainty say that something is grey. Every time I go to declare that finally I have black. I must, if I am honest, recoil by the fact that my reasons can stand on the same grounds as my doubt! I don’t think relativism is appealing because it saves me the discomfort of saying someone else is wrong. It is not appealing because of anything I may say of others, but what it saves me from saying about myself. Objective truth demands a deep pride of me, which proclaims, “I AM RIGHT!” if I cannot proclaim that, then I must say that I am wrong, and dispose of the belief. What way but of arrogance lets me say that? When every belief I have is tainted by subjectivity how am I supposed to apprehend the objective, and so truthfully and without pride claim “I am right!” It is not enough to be convinced, to be persauded, but that is all we seem capable of. I do not want to be convinced, I want to be right.

“He will give you the desires of your heart:” Is God tricking me?

I always took/take courage in Psalm 37’s proclamation: “Trust in the LORD and do good…Delight yourself in the LORD; And He will give you the desires of your heart” (3-4). If I trust God, delight in Him, and do good, He will give me what I desire.

Then one day I reread the sentence differently. [Of course, not knowing the original language and words in Hebrew is problematic here; arguing semantics via translation isn’t too scholarly. But I think that my point remains.] If I trust God, will He give me the object of my desire, or will He give me simply the desire? To make a silly example, if I desired a car, would God give me the car, or would He give me the desire to want a bike instead of a car?

I know this may sound like a silly discussion, but I think it has consequences for how we view ourselves as Christians and humans. When Basil and I were talking one bright day, we came up with a potential answer; but I’m interested in what other people think before I blab on about my own ideas.

It's Easier Just to be Calvinist

Last year, the recently deceased Avery Cardinal Dulles, SJ wrote an interesting survey of the evolving Catholic understanding of the possibility of salvation for non-Christians.

Fun quote: Augustine’s disciple Fulgentius of Ruspe exhorted his readers to “firmly hold and by no means doubt that not only all pagans, but also all Jews, and all heretics and schismatics who are outside the Catholic Church, will go to the eternal fire that was prepared for the devil and his angels.”

Call me Ignorant and a Heretic, And I'll call you a Pessimist

Well it's been awhile and it's time to get this blog rollin again. I've been thinking and talking alot about a certain issue which has been convicting me more and more, and I think its time for me to write it down and face the critics. I promise not to get upset if you poke fun at my idea; I'll just stop talking to you...nothing personal. So without further ado, here is my first shot at writing down my idea. I will try to be concise and unambiguious with my choice of words, though we all know how hard that is, especially to the philosophically ignorant, i.e. me.


If I had to give my idea a thesis statement, it would be this: Man can follow almost any religion and find salvation. Note: I am not saying that "Man through almost any religion can find salvation." I don't believe that. And for the sake of brevity, I will just say that I don't believe that because I don't think one finds salvation due to the inherent truths of most religions; that would be a hard position to justify. Rather, it may be by the nature of the person's search for truth in which they find salvation, and there are alot of people out there with a lot of different beliefs. And yes, they can all find happiness together somewhere upon the clouds in the afterlife, together; peace and love.


So the first thing I need to address is Truth. I believe in objective truth, that is, there is an absolute right and God is probably the only one who knows it. Man, as subjects, live as moral agents, therefore follow subjective truths. (I'll find better wording for that later). But to make it all clear, I will rely on my proven artistic talents. I've supplied you with a stunning, elaberate visual which will hopefully help as I move along.

1. Indicated by the finely detailed column in the middle (shame the shrunk size makes it only look like a slightly thicker black line...oh well), that is Objective Truth, the foundation of our moral existence.

2. All the other smaller lines represent man's attempt to capture this truth, some closer and some farther (which ones contain 'more' truth is not really the point)

3. There are some hell-in-a-handbasket religions out there where those who follow it never really come close to finding objective truth being that the religion is such an overwhelming hinderance, like the followers of Stephanie Meyer. Twilight is retarded and if you're reading this blog, I pity your soul.

4. For all you Shintoists reading this, my sincerist apologies. You can hang out with Steph, there's some room over there.


Now that we've efficiently and thoroughly defined objective and subjective truth, let's move on. The one thing I believe with my whole heart is that we must follow our our conscience first and formost above all else. The Catechism agrees with me so I don't feel too alone way out in left field. However, this freedom comes with the great responsibility of forming our conscience as best we can; maybe the greatest burden we as humans endure. Incidentally, this is why the Church believes that those who are not believers can be saved. How unfair would God be if he expected an isolated human to figure out the mysteries of the Church all by his lonesome, never even hearing of Christ.


Lastly, I would like to use my faith (Catholicism) as an example, but for the sake of argument, you can simply use your own (if your religion allows for that), and now I will come across really narrow-minded to prove a point. I believe that Roman Catholic Church is synonomous with objective truth, that is Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Therefore, I as a subject, am in a position to discover much of the this Truth since I am on the truest path, giving me the best chance of doing what's right, and achieving salvation. However, even as a Catholic (assuming it really is objective truth), I am still prone to doing wrong, and consequenatially, my will could never perfectly be God's will. Therefore, me as a person, and just because I am human, have already slipped off the afore mentioned finely detailed column. Damn. But we as limited moral agents will never fully discover and understand everything, and even the holiest of people have done wrong, however miniscule it may be. So the main point here is that what matters most (though not exclusively) is how much we try to find truth. (PS: I'm sorry if I've way over-simplified the Church's process of salvation. My bad.)


Now given what I've written, I am following Catholicism because I believe it is Truth, but I will be judged not by necessarily what I believe in, but rather that fact that I believe it is Truth! This means that the faithful Hindu could be better off than I am (and I admit from personal experience this may be true...). Because in the end, if one seeks Truth with their whole heart, I believe God will certainly reward them no matter how much they got right. And for those who seek truth, in the end, one will strip themselves of any pride and will see and accept Truth itself in whatever Objective Form it really is. So if the real Truth turns out to be Buddha, than my search for Truth even in the Catholic faith will have prepared me and formed my subjective conscience enough to know the objective Truth when I see it when the veil is pulled back, i.e., when I'm dead.


By the way, I'm not taking credit for the this idea and think it's original lol. I just don't know who exactly has written something like this. I'm told Kierkegaard has written something similar....

Anyway, I'm sure you have an objection here or there, but I would like to pose the first. Given what I have said, and I admit it could be explained better, an objection can be made regarding sincerity of seeking truth. In other words, it seems plausible to say that if someone truly is seeking Truth (let's assume the Church is still #1 ...not that I'm biased or anything) and came across the Church and her teachings, how could they not see it at some point in their lifetime? It seems odd to say a genuine truth seeker could stand right in front of what he's looking for, turn away from it, but still find salvation and reconcile later. Hmm, good question. I have my opinion, but I'd rather here yours.