Emotion and Reason (and, no, they're not necessarily in Opposition)

I had a strange experience this morning. In response to a comment I made on Facebook supporting the distinction the Pope made against the misinterpretations of his words concerning responsible parenting, a couple of people took offense thinking the Pope and I were condemning “unplanned” pregnancies. It gave me a little insight as to what it was like to be the Pope when people start accusing you of saying something you did not say and never intended people to take away from what was said. These people were angry and because of their anger they were incorrectly judging what was said. It is a common problem that we need to be made aware of.

I think the problem is, Western society has moved away from rationally looking to understand what was actually intended and instead treats the emotions that arise from a statement as an infallible interpretation over truth or error. In other words, we see a statement that evokes a passion, and automatically assume that how we emotionally perceive it as being what the speaker or writer meant. The problem is, passions aren’t infallible. On the contrary, they are very fallible and easy to manipulate—that’s the entire purpose of propaganda. 

That’s not to say that we need to be like the Vulcans of Star Trek. Emotion, by itself is not good or bad. What makes them good or bad is what we do as a result of our emotions. The Catechism speaks about emotions in this way:

1768 Strong feelings are not decisive for the morality or the holiness of persons; they are simply the inexhaustible reservoir of images and affections in which the moral life is expressed. Passions are morally good when they contribute to a good action, evil in the opposite case. The upright will orders the movements of the senses it appropriates to the good and to beatitude; an evil will succumbs to disordered passions and exacerbates them. Emotions and feelings can be taken up into the virtues or perverted by the vices.

So, anger (for example) that rouses us to act for what is right is good. anger which rouses us to hate, judge rashly or attack others is bad.

But sometimes, emotions can be misapplied. If a person misunderstands something, it is easy to think something is when it is not, or is not when it is. In such cases, emotion can be misapplied. That’s how people can believe that a dictator has people’s well being in mind and follow him to destruction. That’s also how people can believe that Church teaching is based on hatred.

In fact, there’s a logical fallacy which is known as the appeal to emotion. It involves the association of a feeling with a claim. X makes us feel good, so X must be true. Y makes us feel bad, so Y must be false. But a skilled speaker can lead people to think in a certain way. They can make people think that marriage is about emotional happiness, and whatever interferes with that happiness must be wrong. As a result, the Church teaching on divorce/remarriage or same sex relationships is portrayed as interfering with emotional happiness, and therefore must be called “against love,” evoking negative emotions against the Church teaching.

I also see it happen in cases of fear. Let’s face it. There is dissent from Catholics, including open defiance of Church teaching by politicians who then insist they are good Catholics. That dissent is wrong, and it is an appropriate emotion to be angered to defend the Church—provided we do it in a morally good way. But the appeal to emotion can also be used here. If one attempts to manipulate emotion to treat a different way of expressing truth as if it were dissent, then people can be led by their emotion of anger to oppose a legitimate teaching of the truth. The teachings of Vatican II and the words of Pope Francis have been the target of angry Catholics who have been led to think of this as error fomenting dissent.

We need to realize that while emotion is not wrong in itself, it cannot be used by itself to form our reactions to things. We also need reason to help us find out what is true. Reason can be defined as the ability to “think, understand, and form judgements logically.” The Catechism speaks of reason as an important part of determining right and wrong:

1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection “in seeking and loving what is true and good.”⁷ (339; 30)

1705 By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an “outstanding manifestation of the divine image.”⁸ (1730)

1706 By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God which urges him “to do what is good and avoid what is evil.”⁹ Everyone is obliged to follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor. Living a moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person. (1776)

So, in determining right and wrong, it’s not enough to have emotions about what we see or hear or read. We need to use reason to see whether we understand properly what is going on, and accurately form judgments on these events. When we properly understand, our emotions can be a driving force to right wrongs, or care for others, or other good things. But when we don’t properly understand what we see, hear or read, our emotions can be like an angry mob which acts destructively.

So, it is good to use our emotions and passions to contribute to a good action. But we need our reason to avoid having them contribute to an evil action. It’s something that we need to remember. Emotions can be manipulated and they can be wrongly applied. So we must, by an act of will, control our emotions and not give in to any impulse that comes along.

None, Some, All

Read more »

Two Senses of "Religion" and the Danger of Denying Them

Introduction

There are two senses to the word "religion." The first sense comes from the belief that it is true. The second comes from the belief it is not true. The importance of being aware of both senses is important to avoid the loss of religious freedom.

The first sense of the word is the sense of the believer. A religion makes claims about the nature of reality that impacts everybody whether they believe it or not. For example, if God exists, then the atheist worldview (which denies the existence of any type of divinity) must be false. If Jesus Christ is God in the sense that Christianity believes Him to be, then logically the religions that claim He is not must be false. That's the law of non-contradiction at work. It lets us know that truth exists about the accuracy of religious claims—which means we can find out truth about religion if we choose to seek it. And once we find it, we live in accordance with it. That's a binding requirement of everyone, whether they believe in a religion or not.

The second sense is the sense of how one who does not accept a religion as true can approach it.  One can know about a  religion even if he or she does not accept it as true. In this sense we can know about religion as an organized understanding of how people believe the universe works and how they believe people should live in it. Whether or not you believe a particular religion to be true, one can understand what the beliefs are and not be jerks about not believing the claims. For example, if I invite Rabbi Cohen to dinner, I don't prepare a meal of ham. If I know it's Ramadan, I don't invite a Muslim coworker to meet over breakfast. I don't believe the Jewish dietary law and the Muslim fasting are binding on me, but it is respectful not to put the believer of a religion in a situation where he has to choose between his beliefs and his friends or business etc.

So in the first sense, Religion teaches us to conform to the reality it reveals. In the second sense, we are respectful of a religion we don't agree with because we recognize it has behaviors which members voluntarily take upon themselves because they feel obligated. Even when we believe their behavior is wrong (as opposed to a difference of opinion), we behave like civilized people in doing so.

The Failure to Respect Either Sense Leads to Persecution

Unfortunately, in modern society there is a growing tendency to reject both aspects of religion. Basically, there is no interest in seeking out the truth and no interest in respecting the conscience of believers. This has the result of doubly violating the freedom of religion.

In denying freedom of religion in the first sense, it is believed that there is no binding truth, therefore no person can claim that there is an obligation to behave rightly when doing so goes against the edicts of the state. There is a right way to act, because truth exists (for example, if the fetus is a person then it can never be right to kill the fetus by abortion). But if one denies the obligation to live according to truth, then moral obligation is seen as nothing more than personal preference. Opposing the legality of abortion is seen as no more reasonable than not eating pork. So the person who believes abortion is wrong is accused of "forcing your views on people." Even if a majority of Americans should happen to believe Christian morality is true, trying to pass laws that reflect that belief

In denying religious freedom in the second sense, our nation has de-evolved to the bigotry we claim to have moved beyond. Who gives a damn if the Catholic believes he can't support paying for contraception? Who gives a damn about a Muslim or Jew believing he cannot eat pork? If your religious beliefs interfere with my whims, then your religious beliefs must be opposed!

Logical Errors that Lead to Ignoring the Consideration of Truth

Whenever the appeal to religious freedom is made, one common response is to deny that the obligation to live according to what is true has any binding force, and deny that practitioners of religious practices can believe themselves bound to such a practice. These denials root themselves in a belief that "Well I don't believe in what you think, so why should laws exist that tell me I can't do what I want?"

Another response is an appeal to fear. The Sharia is mentioned (for example the behavior of ISIS/ISIL). Or perhaps the Satanists want a monument to counteract the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse. The argument is, "You wouldn't want to give these things  authority over you. So don't try to put your own beliefs into law."

The problem is, both of these objections overlook the obligation of seeking the truth and living in accordance with it. Two hundred years ago in America, many people simply refused to consider the question of whether enslaving people was moral, even though 400 years before that, religious teaching had condemned it. In America, we know now that slavery is wrong—very few people think otherwise. But the fact is, if we go by the (lack of) logic that rejects a moral claim because of its religious origin (that's the Genetic Fallacy by the way), then we have to reject the opposition to slavery on the grounds that it is imposing a "religious view" on others.

Just because a person personally disagrees with a law because of they see a religious motivation, does not make that law merely a "religious law" that is unjustly imposed on others. The murderer, the rapist and the thief may think laws against murder, rape or stealing should not be imposed on them. Regardless of whether one believes that murder is wrong because of the Ten Commandments or for some other reason, it is reasonable for a law to exist that forbids and punishes murder . . . it doesn't matter whether you're a Christian, a Buddhist or an atheist. So when Christians believe abortion should not be legalized, the response is to ask whether their claim about the human person is true.

As for an appeal to fear like the imposition of the Sharia or the erection of a Satanic statue on the Steps of an Oklahoma Courthouse, what we have is the fallacy known as the Category Mistake. One thinks these are the same thing as the religious freedom and moral obligation Christianity calls for. But they are not the same thing.

The general objection to the Sharia is not the fact that it teaches that a thing is wrong, but the fact that it mandates punishments we consider unjust. There's a difference between saying "we must stone an adulteress to death" and saying "abortion kills a human person." Likewise, the reason we can reject the erecting of a Satanic statue is because the purpose of it is not the same as the erection of the Ten Commandments. The erection of the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse basically makes the statement that there is objective good and evil. It does not show preferential treatment for Christianity. But the Satanic statue, on the other hand, is erected to be confrontational—basically it's the same bad behavior as the cretins from the Westboro Baptist Church who show up at the funerals of people who died from AIDS or while serving in the Persian Gulf. In both cases, the presence is intended to distress people whose behavior or beliefs they disagree with.

Understanding the Implications

When we recognize religion in the first sense, it makes sense that people who share a sense of right and wrong will want to see the government reflect that sense. Provided they do so in a civil way, in compliance with the law and do not use coercion on others, they have this right under the First Amendment (Freedom of Religion and the rights "of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.")

Recognizing religion in the second sense means that when members of a religious minority believes they are obligated to avoid doing certain things that they believe to be evil, the elites in power do not force them to do these things.

Recognizing and respecting these senses of religion are the difference between a truly free country and one that is not free. Unfortunately, today, America is falling into that second category. I don't say that as an exaggeration. We behave differently than the cases of totalitarian nations, yes. But it is a difference of degree, not of Free vs. Not Free when it comes to religion.

Two Senses of "Religion" and the Danger of Denying Them

Introduction

There are two senses to the word "religion." The first sense comes from the belief that it is true. The second comes from the belief it is not true. The importance of being aware of both senses is important to avoid the loss of religious freedom.

The first sense of the word is the sense of the believer. A religion makes claims about the nature of reality that impacts everybody whether they believe it or not. For example, if God exists, then the atheist worldview (which denies the existence of any type of divinity) must be false. If Jesus Christ is God in the sense that Christianity believes Him to be, then logically the religions that claim He is not must be false. That's the law of non-contradiction at work. It lets us know that truth exists about the accuracy of religious claims—which means we can find out truth about religion if we choose to seek it. And once we find it, we live in accordance with it. That's a binding requirement of everyone, whether they believe in a religion or not.

The second sense is the sense of how one who does not accept a religion as true can approach it.  One can know about a  religion even if he or she does not accept it as true. In this sense we can know about religion as an organized understanding of how people believe the universe works and how they believe people should live in it. Whether or not you believe a particular religion to be true, one can understand what the beliefs are and not be jerks about not believing the claims. For example, if I invite Rabbi Cohen to dinner, I don't prepare a meal of ham. If I know it's Ramadan, I don't invite a Muslim coworker to meet over breakfast. I don't believe the Jewish dietary law and the Muslim fasting are binding on me, but it is respectful not to put the believer of a religion in a situation where he has to choose between his beliefs and his friends or business etc.

So in the first sense, Religion teaches us to conform to the reality it reveals. In the second sense, we are respectful of a religion we don't agree with because we recognize it has behaviors which members voluntarily take upon themselves because they feel obligated. Even when we believe their behavior is wrong (as opposed to a difference of opinion), we behave like civilized people in doing so.

The Failure to Respect Either Sense Leads to Persecution

Unfortunately, in modern society there is a growing tendency to reject both aspects of religion. Basically, there is no interest in seeking out the truth and no interest in respecting the conscience of believers. This has the result of doubly violating the freedom of religion.

In denying freedom of religion in the first sense, it is believed that there is no binding truth, therefore no person can claim that there is an obligation to behave rightly when doing so goes against the edicts of the state. There is a right way to act, because truth exists (for example, if the fetus is a person then it can never be right to kill the fetus by abortion). But if one denies the obligation to live according to truth, then moral obligation is seen as nothing more than personal preference. Opposing the legality of abortion is seen as no more reasonable than not eating pork. So the person who believes abortion is wrong is accused of "forcing your views on people." Even if a majority of Americans should happen to believe Christian morality is true, trying to pass laws that reflect that belief

In denying religious freedom in the second sense, our nation has de-evolved to the bigotry we claim to have moved beyond. Who gives a damn if the Catholic believes he can't support paying for contraception? Who gives a damn about a Muslim or Jew believing he cannot eat pork? If your religious beliefs interfere with my whims, then your religious beliefs must be opposed!

Logical Errors that Lead to Ignoring the Consideration of Truth

Whenever the appeal to religious freedom is made, one common response is to deny that the obligation to live according to what is true has any binding force, and deny that practitioners of religious practices can believe themselves bound to such a practice. These denials root themselves in a belief that "Well I don't believe in what you think, so why should laws exist that tell me I can't do what I want?"

Another response is an appeal to fear. The Sharia is mentioned (for example the behavior of ISIS/ISIL). Or perhaps the Satanists want a monument to counteract the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse. The argument is, "You wouldn't want to give these things  authority over you. So don't try to put your own beliefs into law."

The problem is, both of these objections overlook the obligation of seeking the truth and living in accordance with it. Two hundred years ago in America, many people simply refused to consider the question of whether enslaving people was moral, even though 400 years before that, religious teaching had condemned it. In America, we know now that slavery is wrong—very few people think otherwise. But the fact is, if we go by the (lack of) logic that rejects a moral claim because of its religious origin (that's the Genetic Fallacy by the way), then we have to reject the opposition to slavery on the grounds that it is imposing a "religious view" on others.

Just because a person personally disagrees with a law because of they see a religious motivation, does not make that law merely a "religious law" that is unjustly imposed on others. The murderer, the rapist and the thief may think laws against murder, rape or stealing should not be imposed on them. Regardless of whether one believes that murder is wrong because of the Ten Commandments or for some other reason, it is reasonable for a law to exist that forbids and punishes murder . . . it doesn't matter whether you're a Christian, a Buddhist or an atheist. So when Christians believe abortion should not be legalized, the response is to ask whether their claim about the human person is true.

As for an appeal to fear like the imposition of the Sharia or the erection of a Satanic statue on the Steps of an Oklahoma Courthouse, what we have is the fallacy known as the Category Mistake. One thinks these are the same thing as the religious freedom and moral obligation Christianity calls for. But they are not the same thing.

The general objection to the Sharia is not the fact that it teaches that a thing is wrong, but the fact that it mandates punishments we consider unjust. There's a difference between saying "we must stone an adulteress to death" and saying "abortion kills a human person." Likewise, the reason we can reject the erecting of a Satanic statue is because the purpose of it is not the same as the erection of the Ten Commandments. The erection of the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse basically makes the statement that there is objective good and evil. It does not show preferential treatment for Christianity. But the Satanic statue, on the other hand, is erected to be confrontational—basically it's the same bad behavior as the cretins from the Westboro Baptist Church who show up at the funerals of people who died from AIDS or while serving in the Persian Gulf. In both cases, the presence is intended to distress people whose behavior or beliefs they disagree with.

Understanding the Implications

When we recognize religion in the first sense, it makes sense that people who share a sense of right and wrong will want to see the government reflect that sense. Provided they do so in a civil way, in compliance with the law and do not use coercion on others, they have this right under the First Amendment (Freedom of Religion and the rights "of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.")

Recognizing religion in the second sense means that when members of a religious minority believes they are obligated to avoid doing certain things that they believe to be evil, the elites in power do not force them to do these things.

Recognizing and respecting these senses of religion are the difference between a truly free country and one that is not free. Unfortunately, today, America is falling into that second category. I don't say that as an exaggeration. We behave differently than the cases of totalitarian nations, yes. But it is a difference of degree, not of Free vs. Not Free when it comes to religion.

Thoughts on Reason, Catholicism and its Opponents

[3] To proceed against individual errors, however, is a difficult business, and this for two reasons. In the first place, it is difficult because the sacrilegious remarks of individual men who have erred are not so well known to us so that we may use what they say as the basis of proceeding to a refutation of their errors. This is, indeed, the method that the ancient Doctors of the Church used in the refutation of the errors of the Gentiles. For they could know the positions taken by the Gentiles since they themselves had been Gentiles, or at least had lived among the Gentiles and had been instructed in their teaching.

In the second place, it is difficult because some of them, such as the Mohammedans and the pagans, do not agree with us in accepting the authority of any Scripture, by which they may be convinced of their error. Thus, against the Jews we are able to argue by means of the Old Testament, while against heretics we are able to argue by means of the New Testament. But the Muslims and the pagans accept neither the one nor the other. We must, therefore, have recourse to the natural reason, to which all men are forced to give their assent. However, it is true, in divine matters the natural reason has its failings. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles Bk 1. Emphasis added)

I find it interesting that the Church is attacked as being irrational even though she recognizes the importance of using reason to dialogue with those who do not share any other sources of information in common. While the Church recognizes that the finite ability to reason by a finite human being can have its weaknesses, she still recognizes the importance of sharing the truth through means that both groups will accept.

Introduction

Nowadays, reason is a badly misused term. It used to be understood as holding one's views as "the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments logically." Now, it's used as a mark of ideological purity--where the views which go against that of the individual setting himself or herself up as a judge are deemed "irrational."

It's also abused in the sense of being redefined to only hold to certain kinds of knowledge. This abuse denies that religious knowledge is reasoning. It instead limits reason to judging only that which can be known by the human intellect. Any knowledge which goes beyond the level of what the human mind knows is deemed irrational.

Of course, there's a slight problem with that. The problem is that limiting of reason to what can be known by the human intellect alone cannot be proven by the human intellect alone. It is basically an assertion that there is no knowledge beyond human knowledge... but how can human knowledge know this?

It is the problem of making a universal negative: No knowledge above human knowledge exists. The problem is, one has to have all knowledge to know there is nothing more than human knowledge that exists. One has to have all knowledge to know there is no knowledge beyond human knowledge. In other words, such an allegation is a self contradiction because it asserts knowledge beyond what human knowledge can know on its own.

That's why the rejection of religious knowledge as irrational cannot be anything other than an ideology held by a person who believes--in the negative sense of "an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof."

Going Beyond the Name Calling to Seeking the Truth

Once one realizes this major flaw in the belief that no knowledge beyond human knowledge exists, one can understand that the majority of the attacks on the Christian faith and the moral obligations which come from this faith do not come from reason. They are essentially acts of name calling which avoids asking whether the Christian claims are true. If one merely slaps a label like irrational or bigoted on the Christian claims, then it is easy to refuse to look at what justification is offered for the claims. After all, who wants to look at an irrational or bigoted idea?

That is unfortunate. Especially when an individual seeking the truth  encounters a Christian with an irrational or bigoted outlook on life. But, just as it is wrong to presume all African Americans are felons because a person encountered one who was a felon, it is also wrong to assume that Christianity is irrational or bigoted merely because they encountered one with that attitude.

The truth is, Christianity--at least in the Catholic view (I will not presume to speak for the non-Catholic Christians, leaving them to explain their own understanding)--does see reason as an important part of the faith. If we did not, we could not try to come to a deeper understanding of what His commands require of us. If God forbids a thing and we know God is all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent and infinitely good, we can reason that the prohibition can be understood as more than something God arbitrarily decreed because He was in a bad mood.

Catholic theology is based on the understanding that God's will is reasonable. As Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once put it, while God's actions can be beyond reason, it is never contrary to reason. Thus when He issues His Ten Commandments, we can understand and reason from them that right behavior in our life has a basis on the proper use of things He created.

For example, when we see the prohibition of adultery, fornication, homosexual acts, etc., we can understand that it's not that we have an "anti sex" God, but that God intends the family to be an important part of His intent for how we live. Sins against His intent for the family break down how we are to live. We can reason both how they affect us at the human level (reducing family to a mere sexual union between two or more people based on the gratification of the individual leads to the breakdown of society) and in relation to Him.

The deeper one goes into the Catholic teaching on morality, the deeper and more well thought out the reasoning becomes. One learns that our belief that homosexual acts is wrong is not based on the fear or homosexuals or the "ick factor" so commonly invoked as the reason for our belief. Our opposition to contraception and our belief that Our Lord only called men to be priests is not based on a belief that women are inferior or good only for producing children.

The fact is, we absolutely deny the charges that bigotry is the motivation for our teachings.

Irrationality in the Condemnation of Catholic Teaching

There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues”; because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God”; because they say “indulgence is a permission to commit sin”; because the Pope “is a Fascist”; because the “Church is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do. (Archbishop Fulton J Sheen, Radio Replies)

Unfortunately, what we believe and the reasoning we use in holding our beliefs are not understood. We are denounced, not through reason, but through mere assertions that:

• Whoever does not hold X is bigoted [all A is B]
• The Catholic Church does not hold X [C is part of A]
• Therefore the Catholic Church is bigoted [Therefore C is part of B]

The problem is, the major premise (Whoever does not hold X is bigoted) needs to be proven. It assumes the cause and effect without considering whether it is possible to "Not hold X" without being bigoted.

If it is possible, then the major premise is false and the conclusion (Therefore the Catholic Church is bigoted) is not proven to be true!

So in reality, the charges of bigotry made against the Catholic Church have no basis in reason or logic. They simply come from the unproven assertion that disagreement with positions held by the elites of the society must be based on ill will towards certain groups of people.

The Remedy—Seeking, Finding, Following Truth

“To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true” (Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1011b25)

The remedy, recognized by the saints of all ages and the philosophers of ancient and medieval times, but forgotten by modern philosophers, is the recognition that truth exists. It must be sought after.  It must be found.  It must be followed.

The first step (seeking the truth) may seem obvious, but too many people simply don't take that step. The reason is because too many people don't realize that they don't know. They rely on what they have had repeated to them without asking if it is true. "Everyone knows that the Church is anti-women, anti-gay, etc. etc. etc."

But once you start asking questions about what everybody knows, you start to find that maybe everybody doesn't know and you have to go back to the beginning and see what is true, rather than what is thought to be true.

When it comes to finding the truth, we have to do investigations into claims. What is the basis for holding such a claim? Are the claims reasonable? But we also have to ask "Are my presuppositions true? Do I hold them reasonably?" If we hold presuppositions without examining them, they can lead us astray if they turn out to be false.

Following truth means that once we discover what is true, we are bound to live in accordance with it. Many people cite the old adage, Knowledge is Power, but that is only true if you act on it. To use an obvious example, If you know what tomorrow's lotto numbers are going to be, but don't bother to buy a ticket or at least share the numbers with someone, your knowledge is effectively worthless.

That's how it works with examining the claims of the Church. If you recognize the truth of the Church, but choose not to act on it, that knowledge grants you no power.

Conclusion

Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me. (Luke 10:16)

Thus, people need to recognize what the claims of the Church are and whether she reasonably holds them. If God exists, if Jesus is God and if Jesus chose to establish one visible, hierarchical and apostolic Church to carry out His mission while He protects her from teaching error, then it is reasonable to recognize that what the Church teaches is true and following it is not merely "good for you" like yogurt or green vegetables, but is vital to be heeded.

If the Church teaches something about what must or must not be done, and the Church was given her authority by Christ, it stands to reason that rejecting the Church is rejecting Christ. Once one understands that, the hostility to Church teaching is shown to be irrational and actually harmful.

Some may not recognize that the Catholic Church is that Church. Even so, that does not excuse anyone for seeking out the truth, always asking what is true about what is claimed and what is true about the preconceptions the seeker is carrying.

Thoughts on Reason, Catholicism and its Opponents

[3] To proceed against individual errors, however, is a difficult business, and this for two reasons. In the first place, it is difficult because the sacrilegious remarks of individual men who have erred are not so well known to us so that we may use what they say as the basis of proceeding to a refutation of their errors. This is, indeed, the method that the ancient Doctors of the Church used in the refutation of the errors of the Gentiles. For they could know the positions taken by the Gentiles since they themselves had been Gentiles, or at least had lived among the Gentiles and had been instructed in their teaching.

In the second place, it is difficult because some of them, such as the Mohammedans and the pagans, do not agree with us in accepting the authority of any Scripture, by which they may be convinced of their error. Thus, against the Jews we are able to argue by means of the Old Testament, while against heretics we are able to argue by means of the New Testament. But the Muslims and the pagans accept neither the one nor the other. We must, therefore, have recourse to the natural reason, to which all men are forced to give their assent. However, it is true, in divine matters the natural reason has its failings. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles Bk 1. Emphasis added)

I find it interesting that the Church is attacked as being irrational even though she recognizes the importance of using reason to dialogue with those who do not share any other sources of information in common. While the Church recognizes that the finite ability to reason by a finite human being can have its weaknesses, she still recognizes the importance of sharing the truth through means that both groups will accept.

Introduction

Nowadays, reason is a badly misused term. It used to be understood as holding one's views as "the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments logically." Now, it's used as a mark of ideological purity--where the views which go against that of the individual setting himself or herself up as a judge are deemed "irrational."

It's also abused in the sense of being redefined to only hold to certain kinds of knowledge. This abuse denies that religious knowledge is reasoning. It instead limits reason to judging only that which can be known by the human intellect. Any knowledge which goes beyond the level of what the human mind knows is deemed irrational.

Of course, there's a slight problem with that. The problem is that limiting of reason to what can be known by the human intellect alone cannot be proven by the human intellect alone. It is basically an assertion that there is no knowledge beyond human knowledge... but how can human knowledge know this?

It is the problem of making a universal negative: No knowledge above human knowledge exists. The problem is, one has to have all knowledge to know there is nothing more than human knowledge that exists. One has to have all knowledge to know there is no knowledge beyond human knowledge. In other words, such an allegation is a self contradiction because it asserts knowledge beyond what human knowledge can know on its own.

That's why the rejection of religious knowledge as irrational cannot be anything other than an ideology held by a person who believes--in the negative sense of "an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof."

Going Beyond the Name Calling to Seeking the Truth

Once one realizes this major flaw in the belief that no knowledge beyond human knowledge exists, one can understand that the majority of the attacks on the Christian faith and the moral obligations which come from this faith do not come from reason. They are essentially acts of name calling which avoids asking whether the Christian claims are true. If one merely slaps a label like irrational or bigoted on the Christian claims, then it is easy to refuse to look at what justification is offered for the claims. After all, who wants to look at an irrational or bigoted idea?

That is unfortunate. Especially when an individual seeking the truth  encounters a Christian with an irrational or bigoted outlook on life. But, just as it is wrong to presume all African Americans are felons because a person encountered one who was a felon, it is also wrong to assume that Christianity is irrational or bigoted merely because they encountered one with that attitude.

The truth is, Christianity--at least in the Catholic view (I will not presume to speak for the non-Catholic Christians, leaving them to explain their own understanding)--does see reason as an important part of the faith. If we did not, we could not try to come to a deeper understanding of what His commands require of us. If God forbids a thing and we know God is all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent and infinitely good, we can reason that the prohibition can be understood as more than something God arbitrarily decreed because He was in a bad mood.

Catholic theology is based on the understanding that God's will is reasonable. As Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once put it, while God's actions can be beyond reason, it is never contrary to reason. Thus when He issues His Ten Commandments, we can understand and reason from them that right behavior in our life has a basis on the proper use of things He created.

For example, when we see the prohibition of adultery, fornication, homosexual acts, etc., we can understand that it's not that we have an "anti sex" God, but that God intends the family to be an important part of His intent for how we live. Sins against His intent for the family break down how we are to live. We can reason both how they affect us at the human level (reducing family to a mere sexual union between two or more people based on the gratification of the individual leads to the breakdown of society) and in relation to Him.

The deeper one goes into the Catholic teaching on morality, the deeper and more well thought out the reasoning becomes. One learns that our belief that homosexual acts is wrong is not based on the fear or homosexuals or the "ick factor" so commonly invoked as the reason for our belief. Our opposition to contraception and our belief that Our Lord only called men to be priests is not based on a belief that women are inferior or good only for producing children.

The fact is, we absolutely deny the charges that bigotry is the motivation for our teachings.

Irrationality in the Condemnation of Catholic Teaching

There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues”; because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God”; because they say “indulgence is a permission to commit sin”; because the Pope “is a Fascist”; because the “Church is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do. (Archbishop Fulton J Sheen, Radio Replies)

Unfortunately, what we believe and the reasoning we use in holding our beliefs are not understood. We are denounced, not through reason, but through mere assertions that:

• Whoever does not hold X is bigoted [all A is B]
• The Catholic Church does not hold X [C is part of A]
• Therefore the Catholic Church is bigoted [Therefore C is part of B]

The problem is, the major premise (Whoever does not hold X is bigoted) needs to be proven. It assumes the cause and effect without considering whether it is possible to "Not hold X" without being bigoted.

If it is possible, then the major premise is false and the conclusion (Therefore the Catholic Church is bigoted) is not proven to be true!

So in reality, the charges of bigotry made against the Catholic Church have no basis in reason or logic. They simply come from the unproven assertion that disagreement with positions held by the elites of the society must be based on ill will towards certain groups of people.

The Remedy—Seeking, Finding, Following Truth

“To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true” (Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1011b25)

The remedy, recognized by the saints of all ages and the philosophers of ancient and medieval times, but forgotten by modern philosophers, is the recognition that truth exists. It must be sought after.  It must be found.  It must be followed.

The first step (seeking the truth) may seem obvious, but too many people simply don't take that step. The reason is because too many people don't realize that they don't know. They rely on what they have had repeated to them without asking if it is true. "Everyone knows that the Church is anti-women, anti-gay, etc. etc. etc."

But once you start asking questions about what everybody knows, you start to find that maybe everybody doesn't know and you have to go back to the beginning and see what is true, rather than what is thought to be true.

When it comes to finding the truth, we have to do investigations into claims. What is the basis for holding such a claim? Are the claims reasonable? But we also have to ask "Are my presuppositions true? Do I hold them reasonably?" If we hold presuppositions without examining them, they can lead us astray if they turn out to be false.

Following truth means that once we discover what is true, we are bound to live in accordance with it. Many people cite the old adage, Knowledge is Power, but that is only true if you act on it. To use an obvious example, If you know what tomorrow's lotto numbers are going to be, but don't bother to buy a ticket or at least share the numbers with someone, your knowledge is effectively worthless.

That's how it works with examining the claims of the Church. If you recognize the truth of the Church, but choose not to act on it, that knowledge grants you no power.

Conclusion

Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me. (Luke 10:16)

Thus, people need to recognize what the claims of the Church are and whether she reasonably holds them. If God exists, if Jesus is God and if Jesus chose to establish one visible, hierarchical and apostolic Church to carry out His mission while He protects her from teaching error, then it is reasonable to recognize that what the Church teaches is true and following it is not merely "good for you" like yogurt or green vegetables, but is vital to be heeded.

If the Church teaches something about what must or must not be done, and the Church was given her authority by Christ, it stands to reason that rejecting the Church is rejecting Christ. Once one understands that, the hostility to Church teaching is shown to be irrational and actually harmful.

Some may not recognize that the Catholic Church is that Church. Even so, that does not excuse anyone for seeking out the truth, always asking what is true about what is claimed and what is true about the preconceptions the seeker is carrying.

Christians Behaving Badly? A Logical Reflection

Read more »

Christians Behaving Badly? A Logical Reflection

Read more »

Tablet Thoughts: Burden of Proof

Read more »

Tablet Thoughts: Burden of Proof

Read more »

Tablet Thoughts: Thoughts on anti-Catholic attacks

Introduction: The Form of the Attack

One of the attacks against the Catholic Church, whether from non-Catholic believers or from unbelievers is the citation of certain texts to prove their claims. Whether it is a case of citing Scripture to argue Church teaching contradicts it or whether it is the citation of a Church document from a previous century to portray the Church in a bad light, we have cases where the anti-Catholic tries to use texts as proof of their claims.

Begging the Question

There's a problem however. That the cited text actually means what the anti-Catholic claims it means. Or that the Church teaching being attacked is actually what it is accused of being. To be a valid challenge, we need two conditions met:

1) The text cited must be taken in context, and
2) The belief challenged must actually be what the Church teaches.

Unless you have both, you don't have a case.

So the problem with these attacks is that they assume they are showing proof when they actually need to prove they met these conditions.

These attacks are an example of the begging the question fallacy.

The Personal Interpretation Assumption

One of the red flags is when someone assumes that they have the ability to know the meaning of a text written centuries before in a different language in an entirely different culture just because of the "plain sense" they claim they see.

It's actually a bad mistake to assume that people of a previous century always think in the same way as 21st century Americans. We have an entirely different political structure, technology, cultural influence etc. Things seen as serious attacks on society then seem harmless now (and vice versa).

The result is things can be expressed in one era in a way which is harder to understand in another because we don't share their experiences. It is then foolish to presume that just by reading the text without seeking to understand context can give us a proper understanding of what is meant.
Context please?

This is why I tend to roll my eyes when an anti-Catholic slings quotes, whether from the Bible or from Church documents. The problem is not that things were said. Rather the problem is whether the citation actually is properly understood as intended and properly cited against Catholic beliefs.

For example, it makes no sense to try to cite the Biblical texts forbidding the worship of images against the Church because Catholics don't worship images. A person who worships a statue of Mary or a crucifix sins in the eyes of Catholic teaching.

Understanding What One Opposes

The attempts to attack what one opposes cannot do any good unless one understands what one opposes. This means that the person who would denounce the "evils of Romanism" needs to understand the Catholic teaching, not merely denounce what he or she thinks it means.

We can also ask the challenger to prove what level of authority the Church authority intends to teach. Not everything the leaders of the Church say is made as an infallible statement (free of error). So one can't claim that two Church teachings contradict and disprove infallibility unless they can demonstrate both statements were intended to be infallible -- and it is the Church (not an indivifual) which has that authority to declare what they intended to teach.

Conclusion

The important things to remember in all this are:

1) the anti-Catholic person is not an authority when it comes to what the Church intends to teach in one of her documents.

2) the anti-Catholic person has an obligation to prove his or her accusations are true and not just expect us to accept it as proven.

3) accurate knowledge of what the Catholic Church teaches is required before any attack on that teaching can be accepted as true. Not hearsay and rumor.

I write this article because it is so common to see attacks on the Catholic Church where Scripture is taken out of context, Church documents are taken out of context, Church teachings are grossly misrepresented -- and the resulting mess is presumed by the attacker to be proved... when the mess needs to be proven in the first place.

We wouldn't tolerate uninformed people to make uninformed statements on law or medicine. Why should we tolerate these uninformed statements when made about our faith?

Tablet Thoughts: Thoughts on anti-Catholic attacks

Introduction: The Form of the Attack

One of the attacks against the Catholic Church, whether from non-Catholic believers or from unbelievers is the citation of certain texts to prove their claims. Whether it is a case of citing Scripture to argue Church teaching contradicts it or whether it is the citation of a Church document from a previous century to portray the Church in a bad light, we have cases where the anti-Catholic tries to use texts as proof of their claims.

Begging the Question

There's a problem however. That the cited text actually means what the anti-Catholic claims it means. Or that the Church teaching being attacked is actually what it is accused of being. To be a valid challenge, we need two conditions met:

1) The text cited must be taken in context, and
2) The belief challenged must actually be what the Church teaches.

Unless you have both, you don't have a case.

So the problem with these attacks is that they assume they are showing proof when they actually need to prove they met these conditions.

These attacks are an example of the begging the question fallacy.

The Personal Interpretation Assumption

One of the red flags is when someone assumes that they have the ability to know the meaning of a text written centuries before in a different language in an entirely different culture just because of the "plain sense" they claim they see.

It's actually a bad mistake to assume that people of a previous century always think in the same way as 21st century Americans. We have an entirely different political structure, technology, cultural influence etc. Things seen as serious attacks on society then seem harmless now (and vice versa).

The result is things can be expressed in one era in a way which is harder to understand in another because we don't share their experiences. It is then foolish to presume that just by reading the text without seeking to understand context can give us a proper understanding of what is meant.
Context please?

This is why I tend to roll my eyes when an anti-Catholic slings quotes, whether from the Bible or from Church documents. The problem is not that things were said. Rather the problem is whether the citation actually is properly understood as intended and properly cited against Catholic beliefs.

For example, it makes no sense to try to cite the Biblical texts forbidding the worship of images against the Church because Catholics don't worship images. A person who worships a statue of Mary or a crucifix sins in the eyes of Catholic teaching.

Understanding What One Opposes

The attempts to attack what one opposes cannot do any good unless one understands what one opposes. This means that the person who would denounce the "evils of Romanism" needs to understand the Catholic teaching, not merely denounce what he or she thinks it means.

We can also ask the challenger to prove what level of authority the Church authority intends to teach. Not everything the leaders of the Church say is made as an infallible statement (free of error). So one can't claim that two Church teachings contradict and disprove infallibility unless they can demonstrate both statements were intended to be infallible -- and it is the Church (not an indivifual) which has that authority to declare what they intended to teach.

Conclusion

The important things to remember in all this are:

1) the anti-Catholic person is not an authority when it comes to what the Church intends to teach in one of her documents.

2) the anti-Catholic person has an obligation to prove his or her accusations are true and not just expect us to accept it as proven.

3) accurate knowledge of what the Catholic Church teaches is required before any attack on that teaching can be accepted as true. Not hearsay and rumor.

I write this article because it is so common to see attacks on the Catholic Church where Scripture is taken out of context, Church documents are taken out of context, Church teachings are grossly misrepresented -- and the resulting mess is presumed by the attacker to be proved... when the mess needs to be proven in the first place.

We wouldn't tolerate uninformed people to make uninformed statements on law or medicine. Why should we tolerate these uninformed statements when made about our faith?

Thought for the Day: Inconsistent and Illogical Denial of Absolutes

Ever notice how some people claim there are no moral absolutes, but reject a claim that some things (like racism, genocide, rape or murder) can ever be justified?  The problem is these two positions are absolutely contradictory.  To say that there are no moral absolutes is to say that nothing is wrong all the time.  But to say that some things are always wrong means there is something about an action itself which makes it wrong regardless of the circumstances.

If we can know it is always wrong, it means we can look at understanding what it is about the act that makes it wrong and apply it to understand moral standards on our obligations to other persons.

That means those activists who stand up for a cause against injustice, yet deny morality when it comes to their own behavior are behaving inconsistently.  After all, they are insisting others follow absolutes while they will not follow absolutes in their own lives.

To put it in a syllogism:

• If [no Moral absolutes exist], then [everything is permissible]. (if A then B)
• Not [everything is permissible] (Not B)
• Therefore not [no moral absolutes exist].  (Therefore Not A)

Since "not [no moral absolutes exist]" is another way of saying that moral values DO exist (the negative is required to keep the syllogism consistent) we have a syllogism where the premises are true and the argument is valid.  It means the statement "moral absolutes exist" is proven to be true.

Christianity, in particular Catholicism, offers explanations on why the moral obligations must be drawn where they are.  If a person should happen to reject these explanations, they are obligated to offer their own explanation as to why the line should be drawn differently.

But because they can neither create the justification for a different dividing line, nor refute the Christian arguments of morality, the usual result is to just go ahead with the illogical claim that there are no moral absolutes.

Thought for the Day: Inconsistent and Illogical Denial of Absolutes

Ever notice how some people claim there are no moral absolutes, but reject a claim that some things (like racism, genocide, rape or murder) can ever be justified?  The problem is these two positions are absolutely contradictory.  To say that there are no moral absolutes is to say that nothing is wrong all the time.  But to say that some things are always wrong means there is something about an action itself which makes it wrong regardless of the circumstances.

If we can know it is always wrong, it means we can look at understanding what it is about the act that makes it wrong and apply it to understand moral standards on our obligations to other persons.

That means those activists who stand up for a cause against injustice, yet deny morality when it comes to their own behavior are behaving inconsistently.  After all, they are insisting others follow absolutes while they will not follow absolutes in their own lives.

To put it in a syllogism:

• If [no Moral absolutes exist], then [everything is permissible]. (if A then B)
• Not [everything is permissible] (Not B)
• Therefore not [no moral absolutes exist].  (Therefore Not A)

Since "not [no moral absolutes exist]" is another way of saying that moral values DO exist (the negative is required to keep the syllogism consistent) we have a syllogism where the premises are true and the argument is valid.  It means the statement "moral absolutes exist" is proven to be true.

Christianity, in particular Catholicism, offers explanations on why the moral obligations must be drawn where they are.  If a person should happen to reject these explanations, they are obligated to offer their own explanation as to why the line should be drawn differently.

But because they can neither create the justification for a different dividing line, nor refute the Christian arguments of morality, the usual result is to just go ahead with the illogical claim that there are no moral absolutes.

The Fallacy of Special Pleading

One thing that routinely comes up on the arguments on the HHS Contraception mandate and the arguments of abortion is the fallacy of special pleading.  Special Pleading is a fallacy that argues that because a person lacks a certain set of experiences, their views on an issue are of no value and can be disregarded.

Special Pleading can either be accusative ("What right do you have to be opposed to abortion?  Men can't even get pregnant!") or defending a view("While I'm personally opposed, I don't think we can judge somebody who has an unexpected pregnancy").  Either way, it is used as an excuse to reject testimony.  It is one thing to say that because of a certain factor, you might not be able to fully empathize with my position.  It is quite another thing to say that your opinion is worthless and without merit because you are/are not part of a certain group. While a person who is/is not part of a certain group may not be able to fully emphasize with the turmoil the suffering person is going through, but that does not change the fact that his or her argument may have merit.

Unfortunately, Modern America is rife with this fallacy.  The entire so-called "War on Women" label is based on it.  The premise is that women need "reproductive freedom" and therefore should have contraceptive and abortifacient coverage.  Thus we see arguments that men who oppose this coverage can be ignored because they can't relate to the woman's need to be free of the consequences of unrestrained sexual activity.  We also see the argument that a Church "run by celibate old men" can't understand why women need contraceptive and abortifacient coverage.

The problem with such an argument is that if contraception goes against the nature of the sexual act or if abortion destroys a human life, then it does not matter what gender or religion the person is who makes the statement.  Reality does not depend on sharing a similar outlook on life.  If it did, then it would be impossible to judge anything.  Could you imagine somebody saying we should not judge the members of the SS working in the extermination camps because we can't imagine what their situation was like?  Or in a less extreme example that a person who practices sobriety has no right to judge the alcoholic?

Right and wrong are independent of faction, and that is why this tactic is nonsense.  Unfortunately a lot of people buy into this tactic, which is why the schools would be serving America better if they taught logic to help immunize people from falling for such misleading tactics.

The Fallacy of Special Pleading

One thing that routinely comes up on the arguments on the HHS Contraception mandate and the arguments of abortion is the fallacy of special pleading.  Special Pleading is a fallacy that argues that because a person lacks a certain set of experiences, their views on an issue are of no value and can be disregarded.

Special Pleading can either be accusative ("What right do you have to be opposed to abortion?  Men can't even get pregnant!") or defending a view("While I'm personally opposed, I don't think we can judge somebody who has an unexpected pregnancy").  Either way, it is used as an excuse to reject testimony.  It is one thing to say that because of a certain factor, you might not be able to fully empathize with my position.  It is quite another thing to say that your opinion is worthless and without merit because you are/are not part of a certain group. While a person who is/is not part of a certain group may not be able to fully emphasize with the turmoil the suffering person is going through, but that does not change the fact that his or her argument may have merit.

Unfortunately, Modern America is rife with this fallacy.  The entire so-called "War on Women" label is based on it.  The premise is that women need "reproductive freedom" and therefore should have contraceptive and abortifacient coverage.  Thus we see arguments that men who oppose this coverage can be ignored because they can't relate to the woman's need to be free of the consequences of unrestrained sexual activity.  We also see the argument that a Church "run by celibate old men" can't understand why women need contraceptive and abortifacient coverage.

The problem with such an argument is that if contraception goes against the nature of the sexual act or if abortion destroys a human life, then it does not matter what gender or religion the person is who makes the statement.  Reality does not depend on sharing a similar outlook on life.  If it did, then it would be impossible to judge anything.  Could you imagine somebody saying we should not judge the members of the SS working in the extermination camps because we can't imagine what their situation was like?  Or in a less extreme example that a person who practices sobriety has no right to judge the alcoholic?

Right and wrong are independent of faction, and that is why this tactic is nonsense.  Unfortunately a lot of people buy into this tactic, which is why the schools would be serving America better if they taught logic to help immunize people from falling for such misleading tactics.

Demagogues: American Morality by Mob Rule over Reason

Demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.

Psalm 29: If a wise person disputes with a fool, there is railing and ridicule but no resolution.

Christianity, to be precise Christianity that believes the moral commands have divine authority and are not merely customs, receives a lot of flak from a certain portion of the Western World, especially in America.  A certain segment of the population essentially denies some or all of the moral law as having authority. The portion of the moral law this group rejects is labeled as being nothing more than an innovation imposed on everybody by a small minority.  Those individuals who object to changes in the law based on this allegation are attacked as intolerant.

This allegation is that it is based on the claim: "There is nothing wrong with [X].  People who think there is something wrong with [X] are pushing their beliefs on others."

It rather reminds me of the definition of the term, Dramatic Irony:

a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the significance of a character’s words or actions are clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.

It is irony because the claim that "There is nothing wrong with [X]" is itself a statement of belief on morality.  Moreover, the disapproval expressed against people who "push their beliefs on others" is also a statement of belief on morality.  If pushing beliefs on morality on others is wrong, then it follows that condemning people for not sharing the denial that [X] is wrong… are wrong.

If [no values should be pushed on others] is absolutely true (true in all situations, times and places), then it follows that [tolerance] is a value  that cannot be pushed on others, because tolerance is seen as a value in modern America.

However, if one wishes to deny that tolerance cannot be pushed on others, that means that some values can be insisted on for all times, places and situations.  That means the person who wants to include the values they prefer and exclude the values they dislike must show the basis of their claims as to what criteria determine absolute values from mere opinions.  Otherwise these champions of "tolerance" are being hypocritical.

In a reasonable world, when there are differences in moral views, discussion and exploration into what moral views are true, and people of good will would all seek to follow them.

But this is exactly what doesn't happen.  Instead we see an assertion that [X] (such as abortion, homosexual acts, or contraception) is morally good or at least neutral.  When that assertion is challenged, the response is not a reasoned defense, but instead an ad hominem attack which accuses the questioner as being judgmental or bigoted.

That isn't a defense of the assertion or a refutation of the challenge.  That is merely the act of a demagogue, who seeks to sway the population by appealing to desires and emotions, committing distortions to sway the audience.  The person who attempts reason is usually mocked or attacked (verbally or sometimes physically).

Now consider who acts like a demagogue?  is it a Pope who speaks about how certain acts are contrary to what God calls us to be and are harmful to us if we practice these acts?  Or is the demagogue the person who spews out slogans like "War on women!", "Homophobe!", "Right Wing Extremist!" and the like?

The people who say it is the Pope who is the demagogue are a large portion of the problem in America today.  The rest of the problem comes from the people who accept what "feels" right without asking what is true.

Demagogues: American Morality by Mob Rule over Reason

Demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.

Psalm 29: If a wise person disputes with a fool, there is railing and ridicule but no resolution.

Christianity, to be precise Christianity that believes the moral commands have divine authority and are not merely customs, receives a lot of flak from a certain portion of the Western World, especially in America.  A certain segment of the population essentially denies some or all of the moral law as having authority. The portion of the moral law this group rejects is labeled as being nothing more than an innovation imposed on everybody by a small minority.  Those individuals who object to changes in the law based on this allegation are attacked as intolerant.

This allegation is that it is based on the claim: "There is nothing wrong with [X].  People who think there is something wrong with [X] are pushing their beliefs on others."

It rather reminds me of the definition of the term, Dramatic Irony:

a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the significance of a character’s words or actions are clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.

It is irony because the claim that "There is nothing wrong with [X]" is itself a statement of belief on morality.  Moreover, the disapproval expressed against people who "push their beliefs on others" is also a statement of belief on morality.  If pushing beliefs on morality on others is wrong, then it follows that condemning people for not sharing the denial that [X] is wrong… are wrong.

If [no values should be pushed on others] is absolutely true (true in all situations, times and places), then it follows that [tolerance] is a value  that cannot be pushed on others, because tolerance is seen as a value in modern America.

However, if one wishes to deny that tolerance cannot be pushed on others, that means that some values can be insisted on for all times, places and situations.  That means the person who wants to include the values they prefer and exclude the values they dislike must show the basis of their claims as to what criteria determine absolute values from mere opinions.  Otherwise these champions of "tolerance" are being hypocritical.

In a reasonable world, when there are differences in moral views, discussion and exploration into what moral views are true, and people of good will would all seek to follow them.

But this is exactly what doesn't happen.  Instead we see an assertion that [X] (such as abortion, homosexual acts, or contraception) is morally good or at least neutral.  When that assertion is challenged, the response is not a reasoned defense, but instead an ad hominem attack which accuses the questioner as being judgmental or bigoted.

That isn't a defense of the assertion or a refutation of the challenge.  That is merely the act of a demagogue, who seeks to sway the population by appealing to desires and emotions, committing distortions to sway the audience.  The person who attempts reason is usually mocked or attacked (verbally or sometimes physically).

Now consider who acts like a demagogue?  is it a Pope who speaks about how certain acts are contrary to what God calls us to be and are harmful to us if we practice these acts?  Or is the demagogue the person who spews out slogans like "War on women!", "Homophobe!", "Right Wing Extremist!" and the like?

The people who say it is the Pope who is the demagogue are a large portion of the problem in America today.  The rest of the problem comes from the people who accept what "feels" right without asking what is true.

Musings on Freedoms and Attacks on Freedoms

Read more »