Theological Dialogue 12: Are you a good person?

Recently, I experienced an interesting series of events that sparked a need to reenter the theological dialogue. Each one, by itself, would not have been particularly notable, but as I watched them unfold, one after the other, the desire to chalk them up to mere coincidence became increasingly more difficult.

The events were as follows:

1. I came across an article that was examining the truth behind the concept of being "cruel to be kind." This particular notion gained some notoriety with an artist by the name of Nick Lowe in an album titled Labour of Lust. In the song the artists is relaying a conversation that he is having with a "friend", seeking answers to why he is mistreated. The answer he receives is that sometimes we need to be cruel to be kind, at least in the right measure, and that, in fact, being cruel to be kind is a good sign, a sign that we are in love. Now the fact that there is an array of issues with this line of thinking is not lost on me; however, we don't have the time to unpack all of it here. If anything, it sounds to me like a justification for bad behavior that might be loosely translated "Yes, I treat you like trash, but it is because I love you." Which is ultimately not too far off from how a number of relationships function in today's day in age, hence the article. Interestingly enough though, the article seemed to actually favor this notion. Its main thesis was that every friend group seems to have one individual "who tells it how it is." That one person that doesn't hold back, even if it hurts our feelings. And furthermore, the article suggested that this "friend" should be commended for their honesty. If anything, we should be doing a better job of showing our appreciation. Brutal honesty is just another way to say "I love you." Right?

2. As I was getting ready to run a quick errand, I was stopped by a student who asked if we could talk. I sat down across from her and inquired as to what it was that was bothering her. Amidst the numerous things that high schoolers face today, both socially, and academically, she brought up one point that I found to be particularly interesting, especially in lieu of the article that I had just read. She told me that it felt as if right when she seemed to have a grasp on her identity, right when she felt like she had finally overcome some struggles and that she was being a good person, one of her friends never failed to use that time to tell her what a B*** she was. And in spite of what the article seemed to think was progressive behavior, this kind of thing totally devastated her. It drove her right back to a place where she didn't know who she was and how she should act. Her self-confidence was obliterated. It was here that I began to question why we feel, as human beings, that we are incredibly capable of highlighting one another's faults, when we completely lack the capacity for our own self-reflection. It always seems easier to try to fix other people than to fix ourselves. 

3. Moments after this conversation, I returned to my classroom and an absolutely scathing review of my sophomore theology class. Every trimester, students have the opportunity to evaluate their teachers, and this time around, I had one student who was apparently incredibly disappointed with my course. There were a number of complaints that appeared in the lengthy paragraph written on the survey. Amongst them was my lack of credibility when it came to complex theological concepts and the fact that my apparel is too feminine in nature. Furthermore, my vigilance when it came to things like dress code was yet another appalling behaviour witnessed throughout the trimester. I attempted to look at the comments objectively, searching for patterns that might help me to be a better teacher, but I genuinely struggled to get over the fact that the criticism was hardly constructive; it was just mean.

As I reflected on these three events and their quick succession, two questions immediately came to mind. How frequently are we criticizing one another's character? And, if it is as often as it appears, how are we possibly supposed to know whether or not we are being good people?

I think that the answer to the first question is relatively simple: a lot. The second question, however, is far more difficult. Theologically, we can talk about an adherence to the natural law. Psychologically, we can talk about the stages of moral development. And ultimately, there are answers that lie within these concepts. If we pursue the good for the sake of the good, and regardless of situation or circumstance, we treat others with dignity, then we will have accomplished something amazing. And if we do this collectively, we will actually make the aforementioned task far easier on one another. In other words, there would be no need to make exceptions for the breaking of the natural law if we all simply upheld it in the first place. This might be a little easier said than done though.

For this reason, I propose a slightly different approach that might be far easier, while still helping us accomplish the same goal. What if we stopped critiquing one another and the way that others act, and we began to focus solely on ourselves, and the way we acted toward others? You see, when our focus is outward, we are constantly highlighting the ways in which others fall short, but we are simultaneously failing to be mindful of our own actions, and it is the neglect of our own behaviour that is resulting both in our failure to uphold the good, but also the need of others to criticize our actions. Ultimately, it is a vicious cycle.

It is much like a game of capture the flag. If you dedicate all of your effort toward stealing the other team's flag, you will inevitably lose your own flag in the process. We cannot be mindful of our own actions if we are solely focused on the actions of others.

Theoretically, if we take care of ourselves, making sure that we are constantly in pursuit of the good, we will eliminate the need in others to criticize our actions. But that is only a small part of it. If everyone were to dedicate themselves to a similar goal, we would also no longer need to focus our attention on other people's behaviour because they are pursuing the same good. The cycle ends and the good rises out of it.

Of course, there is the slight issue of having to examine our own actions in light of an objective truth, and I realize that can be difficult. We could speculate that the real reason we are constantly critiquing others is because we do not want to look in the mirror; we do not want to come face to face with who we truly are because then we would be required to change. But remember, if we work toward this collectively, then love, not fear will persevere. If I am constantly working to better myself, and struggling in the process, then when I see others struggling as well, my natural reaction will not be one of judgment or criticism, it will be one of understanding as we both attempt to pursue this lofty goal.

So do you need to be cruel to be kind? I don't actually think so. In fact, the greatest act of love for another might just lie in one's attempt to become the best version of themselves, while also empathizing with another as they attempt to do the same.

Theological Dialogue 11: Can You Handle the Truth?

(Questions)
Dear Mr. Degitis,
I would like you to be informed that I do in believe in God. I was raised catholic. That being sId, there is a lot of religious strife in my family. I have mormons, Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, baptist and Church of England all existing in the same household. My anger or confusion with religion is not the confusion of the lord.
My question is this. If the lord of god is true than why is there so much debate. Why is there a religion who views the exact opposite of the Catholic Church and why do they both claim to be right? If god sent a message to Muhammad and to Joseph Smith, why are the two "words of god" so different. If god truly sent angels to portray his word, why is the word different. Why would God contradict himself? Why would a messenger lie about the word of god and create a religion?
 I guess what I'm saying is, his do we know the truth when the documented truth is different from other documents of the truth. One has to be wrong, how do we determine that?


(Response)

Thank you for your questions, they are very good ones. I'm even going to put them on the blog. ;)

As always, I will answer them to the best of my ability. What you choose to do with the answers is up to you.

First off, I'm glad to hear that amidst all the religious debate in your home, your confusion isn't about the Lord. That is some impressive clarity. However, as you well know, and appropriately pointed out for that matter, the world does not necessarily share in your understanding. There is still a great deal of debate. The reasons behind this debate are pretty complicated though. I think that, as humans, we are naturally confrontational when it comes to issues over who is right and wrong. If we were to truly speculate as to why, it probably stems from our innate survival mechanisms. We are hard wired to trust our instincts because, for much of our history, instincts are what kept the "fit" alive. From an evolutionary standpoint, if we were too easily swayed, then we were doomed to die with everybody else making terrible decisions. But if there is something inside of us, telling us to go our own way, then if we are right, we survive while others do not. Unfortunately, this internal sense of right has carried itself way beyond our survival mechanisms, and we have become a people that believe we are right about everything, no matter the circumstances. This is one potential reason for the amount of debate surrounding religion. 

The second reason for debate, and probably the more prominent one, at least in today's society, stems from the fact that we have grown accustomed to a mentality that supports our "right" to change whatever we do not like. Ultimately, following any religion has its complications and challenges, so in a number of circumstances we have sought out ways to fit religion into our lifestyle, not the other way around. Essentially, we live in a world where people have created new religions because they didn't like the ones that existed, or they have decided that they only believe in certain parts of currently existing religions because those are the parts that fit so nicely into their lives. They get to keep doing what they're doing because their "version" of their religion says it's okay. If we really looked at the foundation of every religion, there would be a lot less debate because they agree on a number of principles. The problem is that we have taken the liberty of manipulating those principles to better fit our lives and in the process we have created over 7 billion answers to one question (what is the truth???) so of course there is going to be debate.

Regarding the next question about opposing beliefs and messages to Mohammad or Joseph Smith, the answer is a little simpler. When two religions oppose one another, the only logical conclusion is that one of them is right or neither of them is right. They can't both be right. And since they can't both be right, we are left with the fact that only one of them (or neither of them) were actually divinely inspired. In other words, God did not send down contradictory messages. He only sent down one, and the other is a farce. It is made up. 

Now, as to why a messenger would lie, this is where things get a little bit more exciting. At the heart of the issue, the answer is that they probably didn't like their current options, so they created new ones. However, it is probably a little more complicated than that. In fact, there could be a whole slue of reasons why someone would lie and create a religion. They might do it for fame, notoriety, wealth, moral liberty, or even because they are crazy. And the truth of the matter is that being at the forefront of a religion provides you all these things. As human beings, we are constantly searching for something tangible to worship, and the inevitable result of that is that we often worship those who are supposedly leading us to the truth. It happens all the time. It is why pastors find themselves in trouble, why colt followings develop, and why the Israelites worshipped the golden calf. I think that we love God, but we really struggle with not being able to tangibly see Him on a daily basis. 

So how do we find the truth? Well, we look at the history, we do the research, we follow our instincts, and we examine what is most reasonable. There are a lot of versions of "the truth" out there, but unfortunately, many of them are in direct opposition to one another. Consequently, you are completely right, only one of them can be correct, or the actual truth. Or none of them... we cannot forget that that remains an option. In lieu of this, all we can really do is dig deep into the research, establish what is most logical, and go from there. We won't know for sure, and that is okay; it doesn't mean there isn't an answer. And ultimately, if we follow the good, I think we will find the truth there. And if we remove ourselves from the equation, if we stop trying to manipulate everything to benefit us, if we step back and realize that we could be wrong, then we might just get that much closer to finding what is right. Seeking the truth is an ongoing process, but it is one that is worth while. Remember, the truth will set us free.

Thanks, and great questions.

MRD

Theological Dialogue 10: A Collective Soul? Maybe... But not in the way you think.

When the world comes to its inevitable end, and all human souls are judged by Jesus, does that mean that there is a set amount of human souls? Why do you think God would have made a certain amount of souls, but make His kingdom last forever? If the possibilities are endless, do you think there are infinite human souls, and if not, what limit do you think God would stop at?

Hey!

This is a particularly interesting question because there are a number of theories surrounding the amount of souls that exist in the world, but biblically, we don’t get a ton of evidence supporting one over the other. But ultimately, there are three schools of thought. One that suggests that the number of souls in the world is limited, one that asserts that only humans have souls, and a final theory that proposes that all things have souls (this was mainly Aristotle and his concept of the vegetative, sensitive, and rational soul, Reasons for the Faith A).

The implications of each are particularly fascinating. But in hopes of answering your question, we’ll look at Plato and his theory of limited souls. Plato suggests that there is a set number of souls, which inevitably leads to the notion that there are human beings walking around without souls, or at least human beings that are awaiting a soul. Christopher More wrote a really interesting book called “Dirty Job”, that discussed this very issue. The premise was that souls passed from human to human through death. Essentially, when one person died, his or her soul was released into the world and eventually landed with a new individual, the person meant to have that soul. There is a certain degree of romance in this. Our soul is literally meant for us, and shared by others. In a fascinating way, it is the soul that connects humanity.

However, the issue with this kind of theory is that it does not connect the soul to our humanity. In other words, we can be human without a soul, or as we are awaiting one. My problem with this line of thought is that I believe that the soul is intricately connected to our humanity. I do not think that we are human without it.

If we look back at the moment in Genesis when God makes man, He breathes a nashema (soul) into him. This, in a lot of ways, seems to be the differentiating factor. There is every reasons to believe that the world was inhabited by humanoid like creatures that existed prior to Adam, but they were, as Adam suggests, not man. They were something else in their entirety, and consequently, it was the soul (the imago dei) that separated Adam from these humanoid animals. Thus, the soul is what makes us human, and without it, we have no image of God, we are not a representation of the form and ultimately, we are not us.

In accordance with this notion, I would argue that there are an infinite number of souls in the world. Every human possesses one. And that is part of the beauty. We contain God within us, and yet we take nothing from Him.  And that is the very thing that allows for God’s kingdom to be eternal. It is not bound by space or time and consequently it can contain a limitless number of souls.

Another question : If God and heaven are eternal - or outside of time, timeless. Does that mean when we die and go to heaven, we will be able to see the souls of people who have yet to pass away on earth? For example, my grandfather who died when I was a baby would be able to see my soul in heaven as if I'd already passed right now.

 So this is ultimately a question of omniscience. And I do not think that when we die we necessarily inherit God’s understanding of time or His eternal vision. Obviously this is highly theoretical, but when we talk about time in regard to God, we must understand that He sees all things in the present. Your question reflects a good understanding of this notion, but I think it is important to know that heaven is not eternal in the same way that it is a permanent present. The grounds for this claim center on the fact that, biblically, we understand that the Kingdom of God is “…yet to come.”

Now, amongst the many theories concerning heaven, there are two that carry particular credence. Either heaven and the Kingdom of God are one in the same and we are at rest until Christ assumes His earthly throne, or heaven and the Kingdom are two distinct notions, and there are those who currently reside in heaven and those who have yet to come. The former of these two notions is problematic due to the fact that we see Christ ascend to “heaven” near the start of Acts, and we have reason to believe that Mary was assumed into heaven as well. However, Christ does not really offer us anything regarding the state of heaven, but He constantly references the Kingdom, claiming that it is an earthly Kingdom and that it is near. Consequently, we do not really know what happens to people after death. Be it the apostles, the saints, or anyone for that matter.

The Church of course teaches that some go to heaven and we can pray to them for guidance, but unfortunately, this isn’t really a scriptural notion, it is more of a theological one. Heaven is a very elusive concept, and appropriately so. In our fallen state, why would we assume that we can comprehend perfection?

On the other hand, if heaven is in fact separate from the Kingdom that Christ speaks of, then it is where He currently reigns while awaiting the end times. I think this type of thinking is far more satisfactory to most because we like to think that after death, we go to heaven and all is made well. But unfortunately what feels best is not always correct. But who am I to say? Maybe there is a golden gate and fluffy clouds, and maybe we do meet Christ face to face after we parish. That is certainly a beautiful way to think about death.

But wherever we end up, I do not think we are all there simultaneously. Maybe we wait for those who are to come, and maybe we even have the chance to guide them. Regarding your Grandpa, I think that he is waiting for you. Not in an anxious fashion, there is probably none of that in heaven, but in a wonderfully tranquil way. He knows you will arrive eventually and time is nothing there, so we probably do not feel the weight of it in the same way we do on earth.

Regardless of what it all looks like in the end, the one thing I can say with some confidence is this: In death, everything is illuminated. And only then are we made perfect in His truth.

I hope this helps to shed a little light on these topics. Your questions are fantastic ones, and not easy to answer. Thank you.

Theological Dialogue 9: Holy Days of Obligation

Why does the church have holy days of obligation? If our faith is what saves us, and not our works, how can we be obliged to do anything? Wouldn’t that kind of go against the teachings of the faith? I have also heard these days referred to as holy days of “opportunity”. Is that the same thing?

Thanks.

This is an extremely interesting question, and one that I do think warrants some explanation. First and foremost, the Church implements Holy Days of Obligation in an effort to celebrate significant moments in Christ’s ministry, Mary’s life, and church history in general. Essentially, these days are set aside so as to mark their importance outside our standard church going practices. In other words, the church wants to make them special, make them sacred, and thus they have been set apart, or dedicated, quite literally, which aligns directly with the etymological understanding of what it means to be holy (that which is separate).

Though it is somewhat of an elementary explanation, the Holy Days of Obligation are designed to pull us out of our standard routine in order for us to recognize that something profound is going on. From day to day and week to week, we tend to do much of the same thing, and sometimes that even includes going to church on Sundays (a Holy Day of Obligation by the way).  However, when a holy day falls on a Wednesday, or a Friday, it is equivocal to that moment when you are pulled away from your typical routine and asked to make time for something special, something worthwhile. The interesting part is that sometimes we allow ourselves to break from our consistent rhythm, and sometimes we do not. Whether or not our salvation depends on it is not so much the question, but why we refuse to find the time is actually extremely fascinating.

You are entirely right when you state that it is our “faith that saves us”. As for how that impacts the obligatory nature of holy days, I think it is important to recognize that these two issues are not cut of the same cloth. When the church declared the Holy Days of Obligation, it did not do so with the intention of tying them directly to your salvation. Much like the sacraments, that do not “save” you in and of themselves, but rather place you in relationship with Christ that you might be saved, the Holy Days of Obligation, and your dedication to them, speak to a lifestyle of salvation, they are not, in and of themselves, the saving mechanism.

You see, I think that we are afraid of this word obligation, which is in part why we have somewhat modified the title of these days to Holy Days of “Opportunity”. We have successfully maneuvered around our obligations, and instead created a situation in which we can now go to church and use it as an opportunity to grow closer to the Lord. The problem here is that, in opportunity, the entire dynamic has shifted. We are now celebrating these holy days for us. We have given ourselves the opportunity to say, “God, look how faithful I am. Look how I desire to be in relationship with you.” However, the reality of the matter is that on Holy Days of Obligation, and every Sunday for that matter, we are called to take time out of our day to worship the Lord. Not because of the benefits rendered, but because He is overwhelmingly deserving of that worship.

We need to no longer fear this notion of obligation and obedience, but rather embrace it. In Islam, the story of Abraham’s sacrifice is a very interesting one. Obviously, it is Ishmael and not Isaac under the knife, but the most fascinating part is that Abraham actually drives the knife into his son. However, when he opens his eyes, it is not Ishmael that lies dead beneath him, but a ram in Ishmael’s stead. Obviously the Catholic Church has a very different understanding of this particular sequence of events, but the motif, in a lot of ways, remains the same. Islam preaches faith and obedience, and in a lot of ways, Jesus does the same. But the interesting part is that faith and obedience in this sense are not separate entities but rather intimately tied to one another. In our faith, we will be obedient.

Christ establishes Himself as “the way, the truth and the light”. Essentially, at the foundation of this notion is the idea that Christ is our guide. He is the one that we should follow. And if we believe that, then following carries with it a certain degree of obedience.

In a world where we have become so accustomed to doing what we want (an issue I struggle with continuously) we have lost sight of the fact that sometimes we are called to sacrifice, to do something outside the normal order. In other words, we are called to be obedient. And not because our obedience will gain us our salvation, that’s not how this game works, but because our obedience stems from our love for God.

At the end of the day, and in a funny way, there is an opportunity here. An opportunity to be obedient: Obedient to the teachings of the church. Obedient to the commandments of Christ. And obedient, for once, to something other than ourselves.

So what is a Holy Day of Obligation? Ultimately, it’s our chance to admit that we aren’t running the show, and it’s our chance to revel in that fact.

Theological Dialogue 8.5: A Brief Commentary

*This response was written by one of my students as commentary regarding the previous post: Theological Dialogue 8. It is some well thought out work, and I wanted to share it. My answer to his response follows.

Dear Mr. Degitis,

I read your responses to the questions and have some responses of my own. Enjoy.

1.

If you are going to argue that an animal such as a panda abandoning its young is excusable because of the lack of a soul, then how is the one child policy and the killing of female children in China in favor of male children in order to provide more opportunities for their children explainable? This would be an extremely wicked act and thus, based on the panda example, would mean that morality isn't innate or that humans don't have souls. Alternatively, this could mean that pandas have souls.

I think the ease people have in denouncing the possibility of animals having soul lies in the ignorance of human cruelty. Humans are the only creatures which would enslave an entire species (chickens) and force them to spend their lives immobile, crammed together, inside a building perpetually filled with around 3 feet of their own fecal matter, and then using them as nothing more than food. This really isn't any less cruel than what the wasp does. And yet this behavior feeds millions and greatly helps to sustain the species (similar to the wasp). Additionally, from an outsiders perspective the human race would be seen as mere beasts considering we are the only species which kills its own kind on such a grand scale (through war, terrorism, etc). These actions could all be seen as a means of survival of the race but not as moral actions.

2.

You stated that you believe evolution was not totally random, but this was already common knowledge because random evolution contradicts the very process of evolution through natural selection which is the most common type. Evolution is the gradual selection of beneficial traits to the continuation of a species. In some rare occasions evolution can be random when there is little to no competition whether it be from predators, resources, or other members of the species. Several sources tell us that this could not have been the case during the process of the evolution of the human race. With this knowledge, we can tell that evolution's lack of a random pattern is explainable by the natural course of evolution rather than a puppet master controlling it. Additionally, the genes in a single celled organism are not useless, they provide the information for the creation of the organelle within the cells and the ability of cellular reproduction. Genes also have a use in multicellular organisms, but aren't useless in single celled organisms. Finally, how did God not correct his plan if he created humans without souls initially and then gave them souls? Why not create them with souls initially if that was actually his plan?

You stated that God perfectly timed the creation of life, but life in the form of single celled organisms were around for millions (and possibly billions) of years before they began to evolve. This would suggest that God's timing was not so perfect after all, because life had to wait for quite some time before it could really start evolving. Additionally, if God didn't set things up from the get-go, why does the bible pretty plainly state that he did? If it is because the Genisis story is not to be taken literally but figuratively instead, why then should we take the gospels for their word directly?

The statistical probability of each person as an individual existing is very low even if we just look at the process of conception. However this low statistical probability is just the result of an evolutionary advantage. In terms of life existing as a whole, it is maybe not so unlikely as it may seem. With the vast amount of matter existing within the universe it is likely that there is life elsewhere in the universe, and with recent research showing the relative ease with which life can spontaneously be created, it is probable that life does exist elsewhere.

Thanks.

As I noted in class earlier: This is the critical thinking that I am looking for. Impressive. However, I think you have somewhat misunderstood my commentary on the amoral nature of... nature. I don't know that I am so much excusing the actions of the Giant Panda because that would require that the actions needed to be excused, but instead, I am noting that based on the fact that morality does not seep into nature, these action are neither moral or immoral, they are without morality in their totality. The panda, the wasp, the fungus, none of these things need be justified because they are not held to a moral standard. Their job is to survive, and they are doing simply that. And there in lies the difference. Humanity is held to a moral standard. For this reason, China's choice to implement a strict one child policy, and the wickedness that stemmed from that, is absolutely unacceptable. Yes, in some ways, the laws were put into place with survival and the preservation of resources in mind, but, as noted in an earlier response, we have evolved beyond that. We are no longer mere animals contending for survival, so actions that are entirely driven by that notion are not necessarily acceptable. Ultimately, the two events (pandas and people in china) are not analogous.Furthermore, just because humans do not behave morally, that does not mean that morality is not innate, nor does it indicate that humans do not have a soul. We commit horrible actions in spite of these things. There exists a deep seated knowledge of right and wrong; we just do not always succeed in choosing right. Animals outside of the human race do not operate along the same lines. Their limited free-will does not center around right and wrong but rather survival or the lack thereof. 

Additionally, I couldn't agree more. If viewed from the outside, humanity's actions would be absolutely horrifying. Wars, terrorism, these are misguided actions that can not be justified. That is not to say there isn't reason for them, but the two notions are not one in the same. 

Furthermore, in response to you last assertions, you are somewhat arguing semantics. Evolution as a whole may not be "random" in that it is based on mutations favored in a particular habitat, but even that notion requires a random mutating of genes, and not any genes, but genes that will help a species thrive in particular environments. If you look at the statistics required for that type of mutation and the fact that even the slightest variation of the mutation would instead result in the death of the animal, it becomes abundantly clear that these mutations occur by design, not simply random chance. The statistical evidence is staggering. You can contend that overall, evolution is not random, but if you remove the presence of design, then you are actually still relying quite heavily on random chance. Furthermore, I realize that genes in general are not useless in single celled organisms, but the theory of the latent library suggests that there are certain genes that are not used in any way whatsoever. The later realization (and consequent use) of these genes in multi celled organisms suggests that the genes were always there with evolution in mind.

Regarding God's timing, the fact that life had to "wait around" is not indicative of any fault in the timing of events. Who says that life had to start rapidly? What if earth was preparing during that time to sustain more complex life. The connections between the two concepts are not exclusive. Perfect timing can still take a long time. For example, if you were to meet the girl that you are supposed to marry when you are in middle school, you would have to fight through a lot to eventually tie the knot. However, if you met her when you were 25, you might be ready, and face far fewer obstacles in the process. In that respect, the amount of time it took to meet her (in the latter scenario) would have been longer, but perfectly longer and perfectly timed nonetheless.

Lastly, your suggestions regarding the statistical probability of life are interesting ones, especially in regard to the immense amount of matter. However, I feel the need to remind you that we are talking specifically about human life. And maybe they will find more of that somewhere in the universe, but from what we know now, the amount of factors that needed to come together in order to  sustain human life leave us with a massive statistical improbability. Additionally, the research does not show us the relative ease with which life can be created. There are components that suggest that life could have spawned randomly, but even this research is incomplete. We have yet to prove anything of the sort. And we certainly have no way of showing how we have gotten to the point at which we've arrived. Again, random chance is not a good enough defense.

As always, your thoughts are so fascinating. Keep them coming. 

Theological Dialogue 8: The "A"morality of nature

This response has been a long time coming, so I apologize for that. Hopefully I can provide you with some interesting insight that will make the wait worthwhile though. We'll see.

(Question)

A follow up question to my follow up question. You said "Most likely, it [Morality] was given to us when God bestowed the soul upon man." In reference to the origin of morality.

When you say this are you also consequently also saying that humans i.e homosapiens are the only animals with souls and morality? If so how can you explain animals taking care of young that is not their own? These appear to be moral actions. 

(Response)

Your questions, as always, are interesting ones. I'll try to take them on one by one and see if I can do them any justice. For starters, yes, ultimately I do think that humans (homosapiens) are the only animals with souls and a sense of morality. From a biblical perspective at least, humans are the only animals into which God breaths life, or the nashema (soul), which we've talked about in class. The other animals that inhabit the earth are not created in the same fashion, at least not according to Genesis. Furthermore, humans are the only animals to have developed to the extent that we have. Part of this is obviously due to our capabilities, but part of it is also due to our innate sense of morality, or at least that is my belief. 

But you present a good point when you talk about the seemingly moral actions conducted by animals other than humans. And your example is a good one. However, I think that we are mistaking instinctual actions for moral ones and that is what makes the difference. Using the example that you provided, when we look at a mother taking care of "babies" that are not her own, we are not so much witnessing a moral act, but the execution of both a survival tactic and the animals instinctual tendency to nurture. In other words, the animal isn't doing it because it is the right thing to do, rather they are doing it because innately they know that it will contribute to the survival of the species, but also because they, at least in some circumstances, can not help it. They are designed to nurture, so that is what they will do. I offer a counter example to further my point. When it comes to giant pandas (an animal you know that I love) in the wild, when a mother gives birth to twins, she will abandon the weaker one for the stronger one, nurturing it and allowing the other to die. I bring this up in order to show that if we are going to claim that the mother who takes in young that are not her own is performing a "moral action" then we must also claim that the giant panda is performing a terribly wicked one. But in reality, she is not. She is simply acting in accordance with her survival instincts.

There is an essay called "Amoral Nature" that is quite dense, but it deals with this topic specifically. To save you the time, essentially the drive of the essay is to show that nature (and the animals within it) is/are without morality. Its primary evidence revolves around a particular wasp that has a stinger fashioned like a large syringe. When the female is ready to lay her eggs, she finds a nice, plump, caterpillar, and paralyzes it with her stinger while simultaneously depositing her eggs, which will soon turn into hungry larvae. The caterpillar remains paralyzed by the poison administered in the initial injection while the larvae proceed to feast on the caterpillar's insides, all the while growing stronger. What is particularly horrific/fascinating/phenomenal depending on how you view this event, is that the larvae begin with the non-vital elements of the interior, not moving on to the vital organs until they are ready to burst forth from their pseudo womb. The consequence of this extremely strategic growth pattern is that the caterpillar remains alive until the very end, providing its very self as the perfect host for the larvae. In other words, it is eaten from the inside out until it finally experiences what I would imagine is a long awaited death. All of this is simply to show that if nature in fact does have some sense of morality, it is without question the most wicked and terrible place imaginable. Did you know that there is a fungus that grows inside ants that actually tricks them into returning to their colony so that it can spread? Entire civilizations (???) are decimated by this fungus, and it uses the very species that hosts it in order to accomplish these ends. And these are simply a couple examples! Nature is a horrifying place. But not intentionally so. In each one of these cases, these species are simply doing what they have always done, fighting for survival. We can not pick and choose events and say that some a moral and others are not. Either nature is a moral place, far more wicked than humanity could ever be, or it is without morality. Most likely it is the latter. Action in nature is driven by instinct and surveil, that is all. 

(Question)

If evolution is in fact true as many people believe and that it was kickstarted by something. Why would God let nature run its course entirely until humans. Why even have evolution if he could've simply made humans from the "get go".

Stemming from my previous question and discussions in class. What makes us both in the human sense and us as individuals the desired outcome? You say we are walking arguments for the existence of God but aren't we just random biological chance? Any one person has an extremely low chance of existing but if all the same events were to happen in our ancestors time line with exceptions in the sperm and egg of an individual's parents. Someone else would exist. Not nobody. 

(Response)

To address this initial question, I think that we first need to discuss this notion of allowing nature to "run its course". In a way, your phrasing suggests that God simply let things run randomly until He decided to get involved and breath some life (and probably a soul) into what we now know as human beings. I think that this notion is somewhat inaccurate though. While I do not contest that the species that occupy our planet evolved over time, I would content that their evolution was not in fact totally random. I think you got my last email, but in it, I briefly discussed the notion of the latent library. Essentially, the existence of a latent library (the presence of genes that are entirely useless to single celled organism that nonetheless appear in their genomes and then are later activated in more complex species) proves, in a lot of ways, that evolution was not running a random course, but rather a designed one. Like Aquinas suggests in his fifth way, the arrow was always headed toward the target. It did not end up there on accident. And furthermore, God did not simply correct it's course at the last minute.

As for why God would not just create humans immediately, I do not entirely know. But what I do know is that the Earth underwent a series changes, it too evolved and prepared itself to sustain life. Could God have simply set it up from the get go? Of course. But that isn't how He chose to do things. He created in the fashion that He did because it was best (for reasons beyond our understanding) and thus His timing was undoubtedly perfect when it came to the creation of humanity as well. He did not create us before we were ready. When it comes to God, His timing is impeccable. 

Regarding our status as the desired outcome, the only viable explanation is simply that God designed it that way. The notion is objective in nature. There isn't a "because" followed by a long list of qualities and traits that make us worthy or deserving of this status, we are simply the desired outcome because God chose us to be. He wanted to be in relationship with us, and created us for that purpose. 

Lastly, your assertion that the existence of someone consequently increases the statistical likelihood of someone else (not necessarily you) is somewhat accurate, but not entirely. When I said that you are a walking proof of the existence of God, I was asserting the fact that you, specifically, are a miracle. The statistical likelihood of your existence is outrageously low. Furthermore, the statistical likelihood of humanity in general, and the fact that there are so many of us, is even lower. You see, the chances of a random generating of life are nearly impossible and for that random spark of life to have led to us is a claim that is simply outlandish, to put things lightly. Maybe you could assert that you specifically are biologically random (and even if that is the case, your existence in my opinion still proves the existence of God, whether you are supposed to be you, or not), so all that would then suggest is that there is no purpose for you, specifically. And that is a claim you are entitled to, but it is a bleak one. There is no question that humanity did not end up here by random chance. You won't find any viable argument for that. However, whether humanity has a purpose, now that is a question that is slightly more difficult to answer. We most likely do, but that is more a question of faith than statistics. All I can say is that the design seems to point toward us, which would suggest that there is a reason everything moved in this direction, and if there is reason, there is purpose. 

I promise to get to your last question soon. I miss having you in class!

MRD

Theological Dialogue 7: Prayer and The Plan

(Questions)

How are we supposed to pray? If God is truly all-powerful, and He has a plan for us, doesn’t that make our prayers kind of pointless? Or even a distraction from the goal at hand? Should we just let life unfold in the way it is supposed to and stay out of the way?

(Response)

These are questions that I have actually wrestled with for a long time. It isn’t easy to figure out how to pray, and considering that most of the time we only do it when we are in need, it makes things increasingly more difficult, consequently making these questions all the more prevalent.

First and foremost though, I think that it is important to remember that prayer is not designed solely as a petitioning of the Lord. If we only look at it that way, we truly might be asking for the wrong things, and worse yet, we might be fighting, although probably in vain, the Lord’s plan for us.

When it comes to prayer, the best basis we have, by far, is the Lord’s Prayer given to us by Christ. However, I think that Jesus’ words in these moments are often times misunderstood. He tells us what we shouldn’t do, and then goes on to tell us that if we pray, we should pray like this:

 Our Father in heaven,

hallowed be your name.

Your kingdom come,

your will be done,

on earth, as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread,

and forgive us our debts,

as we also have forgiven our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation,

but deliver us from evil.

What is often missed is that Jesus is not simply implying that when we pray, this is the only prayer we should make. Instead, he is actually providing us with a “template” of sorts as we pray. When we look at the first couple of lines, it becomes readily apparent that all prayer should begin by worshipping the Lord. This is vitally important because before all else, we need to acknowledge that God is the great “I am” and we owe all things to Him. Then you’ll notice that the next component of the prayer enlightens us to the fact that we should be praying for God’s will to come to fruition. Both the nature and the placement of this are important. Next, we will petition to the Lord, but before that ever happens, it is essential to put His will above our own. In this way, if they align, fantastic, but if they do not, we are placing priority on the will of the Lord. As noted above, we are then given the opportunity to ask the Lord for our “daily bread” and probably the “daily bread” of others ;) But it is important to remember that Jesus does not, in the famous words of my old priest, tell us that we should be asking for cake. I believe that “daily bread” is meant to imply the things we need, not simply the things we want, which are not always easy to separate. After that, the end is pretty straightforward. We ask for forgiveness, we ask for the strength to forgive, we ask that He keep us from temptation, and we ask that He keep us within His protection. All of these things are things that we should ask for on a daily basis if not multiple times per day.

So what does this all mean regarding the sovereignty of God and whether or not we will interfere with “the plan” with our numerous petitions? To this I would say that ultimately our prayers do not have the potential to alter the course of God’s plan, but they do have the capability of allowing us to play an active role in that plan. You see, when we pray, we are establishing a bond with the Lord. We are actively pursuing a relationship with Him. And our involvement in this relationship will inevitably involve us in God’s plan. Prayer allows us to be both privy to God’s work in our lives, but it also helps us to be okay with it.

At the end of the day, God’s Kingdom will be established here on earth. We cannot stand in the way of that, but we can certainly play a role in making it a reality. Our prayer is an essential component of that. The more you seek to align your will with God’s, the more active He will be in your life. Sure, you can sit idly by and let things unfold around you, and they most certainly will, but you can also take an active roll. Either way every piece of the plan will fall together perfectly, the only question then becomes whether you did anything to help it along. You do have that power.

In closing, I want to share with you something that I heard at retreat this week that I think sheds some interesting light on these questions. It is a simple prayer, and it goes like this: “Lord, for everything that has happened, thank you. For everything to come, yes.”

Now I understand that this can seem a little dreadfully all-encompassing. I actually think that our first inclination is to fight this, how can we offer our gratitude for everything that has happened in our lives? I could give you all the theological arguments surrounding this question, but that isn’t what I want. All I will say is this: This week I met young men who have been through the darkest of storms and still manage to offer overwhelmingly powerful gratitude for the lives they have been given. If they can find this gratefulness in their hearts, then I too can say, “Lord, for everything that has happened, thank you.”