After forays into Islam and Andre Dubus, I’m back to Balthasar and volume five of his trilogy (I’m still working on that Swiss math). Here he is talking about the thinking of Martin Heidegger. Heidegger was a German philosopher who turned philosopher after rejecting theology and Catholicism. Balthasar describes his thoughts on suffering. The philosopher can’t leave the path of Christian thought before taking some fork in the road that leads back to the main Christian highway.
“In the cycle of grace and homage to grace, everything is structured towards a dominant … love …. This dominant love is groundless self –giving, self-expending. … the simplicity of the one thing necessary … the need that is fulfilled in the freedom of sacrifice. Sacrifice … is raised above all compulsion because it emerges from the depths of freedom. In sacrifice there occurs a concealed act of giving thanks. Therefore sacrifice can tolerate no calculation, by which it can be judged only in terms of usefulness or uselessness, whether its aims are noble or base. … The self-giving of Being unquestionably has no justification but that alone which it derives from itself.”
The philosopher Heidegger prefers the term “Being” rather than the theological term “God”. The byway of Christian thought is clear however. In his writings, Heidegger quotes lines from Angelus Silesius, a 17th century Catholic mystic and poet.
The rose has no why and wherefore:
It blooms because it blooms,
And has no regard for itself, and does not ask
If it is being looked at.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
Love Pure and Impure
What with the sexual scandals of various leaders (Schwarzenegger, the IMF assistant director, etc.) one might ask, can we come up with better advice than "keep your pants zipped." I offer this from the first letter of Peter (1:22): "Since you have purified yourselves by obedience to the truth for sincere mutual love, love one another intensely from a pure heart."
So the recommendation (command) is purity, and then love can be real and even intense. May we all accept this advice!
So the recommendation (command) is purity, and then love can be real and even intense. May we all accept this advice!
Thursday, May 19, 2011
A Conserver of All Things
To listen to Stephen Hawking, one would have to conclude that it is necessary to choose between reason and faith. The two means of understanding our position in the world point in two directions. This is not the Church's view. Quite the opposite. The Church argues that truth can never contradict truth. Here is what the Catechism teaches at Sec. 159:
"Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."
A conservator is defined in the American Heritage dictionary as "Someone who conserves or preserves from injury, violation, or infraction; a protector." In law, a conservator is "a guardian, a keeper."
So both the scientist and the person of faith rely on the protecting hand of God for the success of their ventures. The pain and suffering of life may tempt us to turn away from seeing this. But as is written in 2 Peter at v. 19: "[We] will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in [our] hearts."
"Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."
A conservator is defined in the American Heritage dictionary as "Someone who conserves or preserves from injury, violation, or infraction; a protector." In law, a conservator is "a guardian, a keeper."
So both the scientist and the person of faith rely on the protecting hand of God for the success of their ventures. The pain and suffering of life may tempt us to turn away from seeing this. But as is written in 2 Peter at v. 19: "[We] will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in [our] hearts."
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
More on Hawking
It is worth commenting further on Hawking's approach to reality. I would like to describe it as "reductionistic" and reference an interesting review article of the work of another mathematician describing this approach and why it is erroneous. The mathematician is Gian Carlo-Rota, and his book is called Indiscrete Thoughts. The review article is by Robert Sokolowski. Here is what Sokolowski writes:
"Another theme developed by Rota is that of 'Fundierung.' He shows that throughout our experience we encounter things that exist only as founded upon other things: a checkmate is founded upon moving certain peices of chess, which in turn are founded upon certain peices of wood or plastic. An insult is founded upon certain words being spoken, an act of generosity is founded upon something's being handed over. In perception, for example, the evidence that occurs to us goes beyond the physical impact on our sensory organs even though it is founded upon it; what we see is far more than meets the eye.
"Rota gives striking examples to bring out this relationship of founding, which he takes as a logical relationship, containing all the force of logical necessity. His point is strongly anti-reductionist. Reductionism is the inclination to see as 'real' only the foundation, the substrate of things (the piece of wood in chess, the physical exchange in a social phenomenon, and especially the brain as founding the mind) and to deny the true existence of that which is founded.
"Rota's arguments against reductionism, along with his colorful examples, are a marvelous philosophical therapy for the debilitating illness of reductionism that so pervades our culture and our educational systems, leading us to deny things we all know to be true, such as the reality of choice, or intelligence, or emotive insight, and spiritual understanding. He shows that ontological reductionism and the prejudice for axiomatic systems are both escapes from reality, attempts to substitute something automatic, manageable, and packaged, something coercive, in place of the human situation, which we all acknowledge by the way we live, even as we deny it in our theories."
Certainly, as Hawking points out, our life is built upon a foundation of our body, which includes our brain. But as Sokolowski explains, reductionism is the inclination to see as "real" only the foundation, the substrate of things, and to deny the true existence of that which is founded. Hawking seems to be doing exactly that when he claims that our minds are simply a function of our machine-like brain. Luckily, reality is much fuller, and more mysterious, than Hawking will admit. And the philosophical analysis provided by Carlo-Roti, as explained by Sokolowski, should give us some assurance that Hawking's views are much too constricted to be accepted as true.
"Another theme developed by Rota is that of 'Fundierung.' He shows that throughout our experience we encounter things that exist only as founded upon other things: a checkmate is founded upon moving certain peices of chess, which in turn are founded upon certain peices of wood or plastic. An insult is founded upon certain words being spoken, an act of generosity is founded upon something's being handed over. In perception, for example, the evidence that occurs to us goes beyond the physical impact on our sensory organs even though it is founded upon it; what we see is far more than meets the eye.
"Rota gives striking examples to bring out this relationship of founding, which he takes as a logical relationship, containing all the force of logical necessity. His point is strongly anti-reductionist. Reductionism is the inclination to see as 'real' only the foundation, the substrate of things (the piece of wood in chess, the physical exchange in a social phenomenon, and especially the brain as founding the mind) and to deny the true existence of that which is founded.
"Rota's arguments against reductionism, along with his colorful examples, are a marvelous philosophical therapy for the debilitating illness of reductionism that so pervades our culture and our educational systems, leading us to deny things we all know to be true, such as the reality of choice, or intelligence, or emotive insight, and spiritual understanding. He shows that ontological reductionism and the prejudice for axiomatic systems are both escapes from reality, attempts to substitute something automatic, manageable, and packaged, something coercive, in place of the human situation, which we all acknowledge by the way we live, even as we deny it in our theories."
Certainly, as Hawking points out, our life is built upon a foundation of our body, which includes our brain. But as Sokolowski explains, reductionism is the inclination to see as "real" only the foundation, the substrate of things, and to deny the true existence of that which is founded. Hawking seems to be doing exactly that when he claims that our minds are simply a function of our machine-like brain. Luckily, reality is much fuller, and more mysterious, than Hawking will admit. And the philosophical analysis provided by Carlo-Roti, as explained by Sokolowski, should give us some assurance that Hawking's views are much too constricted to be accepted as true.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Stephen Hawking on Heaven
I read in the paper this morning that Stephen Hawking said in a recent interview that heaven "is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." He believes that the brain is "a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken-down computers."
At the same time Pope Benedict is starting a new series of Wednesday audiences (May 5, May 11) on the subject of prayer. In the first he pointed to the universal religious nature of man at all times in man's history, quoting an ancient Egyptian prayer: "My heart desires to see you. . . You who made me see the darkness, create light for me, that I may see you! Bend over me your beloved face." The Pope continues, "That I may see you; here is the heart of prayer!"
The experience of darkness, and our yearning for light is, apparently, universal and deeply human. It is only the human being, it is said, who dies and knows that it dies. As the Egyptian prayer says, "You made me see the darkness." This brooding on death and the need to come to terms with it, is at the core of being human. Stephen Hawking, at 69, is no stranger to the topic. He remarked, "I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years." Still, like all of us, he wants to live: "I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first."
Is the religious longing for a "light in darkness" able to be fulfilled? Hawking may be right in saying no if he is right that we are essentially computers (machines), the parts of which eventually must break down. We know that computers don't last forever. Only something simple avoids that fate, because it has no parts to "de-compose." Is there such a thing? Our faith teaches that we can reasonably think of man as having a simple "soul" that makes us whole, makes us one, and that lives after the death of the body. That soul isn't man or nature-made, but created by God.
Who is right? Benedict elsewhere observed that medieval theologians sometimes described reason as having "a wax nose: in other words, it can be turned around in any direction." "Wounded by the Arrow of Beauty" in On the Way To Jesus Christ, p. 37. As a lawyer, that's my experience as well. You can make a really good sounding argument for almost anything. And the argument could be totally wrong.
As Christians we also have an example and a testimony in Jesus Christ, who died and was resurrected, as we celebrate in this Easter season. Is His promise of eternal life "reasonable"?
It seems the darkness of death cannot be penetrated by reason. No one can "see" to the other side. But one can trust, and trust in love. That move, it seems to me, is the only step that can penetrate the darkness, and transcend reason's impasse. It's very human to trust, and very reasonable, I believe.
At the same time Pope Benedict is starting a new series of Wednesday audiences (May 5, May 11) on the subject of prayer. In the first he pointed to the universal religious nature of man at all times in man's history, quoting an ancient Egyptian prayer: "My heart desires to see you. . . You who made me see the darkness, create light for me, that I may see you! Bend over me your beloved face." The Pope continues, "That I may see you; here is the heart of prayer!"
The experience of darkness, and our yearning for light is, apparently, universal and deeply human. It is only the human being, it is said, who dies and knows that it dies. As the Egyptian prayer says, "You made me see the darkness." This brooding on death and the need to come to terms with it, is at the core of being human. Stephen Hawking, at 69, is no stranger to the topic. He remarked, "I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years." Still, like all of us, he wants to live: "I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first."
Is the religious longing for a "light in darkness" able to be fulfilled? Hawking may be right in saying no if he is right that we are essentially computers (machines), the parts of which eventually must break down. We know that computers don't last forever. Only something simple avoids that fate, because it has no parts to "de-compose." Is there such a thing? Our faith teaches that we can reasonably think of man as having a simple "soul" that makes us whole, makes us one, and that lives after the death of the body. That soul isn't man or nature-made, but created by God.
Who is right? Benedict elsewhere observed that medieval theologians sometimes described reason as having "a wax nose: in other words, it can be turned around in any direction." "Wounded by the Arrow of Beauty" in On the Way To Jesus Christ, p. 37. As a lawyer, that's my experience as well. You can make a really good sounding argument for almost anything. And the argument could be totally wrong.
As Christians we also have an example and a testimony in Jesus Christ, who died and was resurrected, as we celebrate in this Easter season. Is His promise of eternal life "reasonable"?
It seems the darkness of death cannot be penetrated by reason. No one can "see" to the other side. But one can trust, and trust in love. That move, it seems to me, is the only step that can penetrate the darkness, and transcend reason's impasse. It's very human to trust, and very reasonable, I believe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)