Both families have Christian roots.  The Duggars have a more explicit Christian presence (www.duggarfamily.com ), but on the Gosslin’s show Scripture verses can be seen taped to the end of John and Kate’s kitchen cabinets, and John has been seen wearing T-shirts with Scripture references on them.  But I saw a huge difference in these families, and recently the difference has become a news item on just about every news show and website.  I’m speaking about the breakdown of John and Kate’s marriage, and the very public playing out of the conflict on national television.  The news media would have you believe the problem is the stress of success by having a hit show to which ten million tune in weekly.  And indeed that is probably a contributor.  But I noticed something early on.  Did you?  There has always been a romantic detachment in John and Kate’s relationship.  They look at each other as if there was no romantic relationship between them whatsoever.  They are like romance zombies… the romantic walking dead.  You could never tell by their non-verbal or interactions that these two people love each other as husband and wife.  They could be complete strangers thrown together in a reality show where they’re trying to get along, but it’s a strain.  I have always felt sorry for them because of that.

But, if you watch the Duggars, the difference is startling.  Now, the Duggars don’t have 8 kids to deal with, they have 18.  Let’s say that again: THEY HAVE EIGHTEEN!!!  And have you ever noticed the nonverbal between Jim Bob and Michelle?  It’s like “love at first sight.”  When Jim Bob talks and Michelle’s within sight her eyes are on him as if he was the most wonderful man in the world.  She is totally in love with this guy.  And when she talks, Jim Bob watches her affectionately.  His eyes never wander.  The love and respect is palatable, even through the silly, flat TV screen.

Why the difference?  Did you ever wonder?  Well, Paul VI could have told you, as well as John Paul II, and a few others.  And while I don’t want to be labeled a judge of people, I can’t help but take note of one particularly public difference between the sexuality of these two couples and Catholic teaching about natural law.  In the case of John and Kate Gosslin, all eight of their babies were conceived via intrauterine insemination, which involved implantation of Jon’s sperm via a catheter.  Kate compares the procedure with in vitro fertilization, (but) “there are no eggs removed or put back, as with IVF.”

Now consider the Duggars.  While I’ve found no specific reference to how their children were conceived, (and there wouldn’t be if they were natural) their frank discussion of how they came to give up the contraceptive pill and let God have his total will with their lives and how many children they would have, explains that the Duggars, while not Catholic, have come to understand and apply natural law for all their pregnancies.  On their website is a FAQ where they discuss how God told them to give up the contraceptive pill.

Through these two high-profile network reality shows we see the impact that natural vs. non-natural fertilization methods have.  Catholic teaching is founded on natural law.  When we follow what is natural, husbands and wives are drawn close together in a natural and supportive love.  In the sexuality of marriage, when we reject what is natural, we enter the danger zone: a separation between the unitive and procreative nature of marriage.  Paul VI writes “By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man’s most high calling to parenthood” (Humanae Vitae, 12).

This all become very real for me recently as I’m in the midst of producing a pro-life Catholic television drama on in vitro versus natural fertilization.  The project is titled TIGER’S HOPE, a co-production of the Diocese of Lansing and my production company, SWC Films, with seed funding from Our Sunday Visitor.  We hope to shoot it this fall in Michigan.  Through the power of story, this short movie will give an accurate picture of the state of both in vitro technology with its health hazards, its low probability of success, and its health effects on children and mothers.  All that will be dramatically contrasted with natural methods that have no side effects, almost no cost, and a success rate that is 300-400% greater than in vitro.  The cultural ramifications of separating the conception of children from the martial act will also be revealed in light of the Church’s teachings on marriage and the dignity of each human being.  The differences between the Duggars and the Gosllins dramatically underscore the need for a clearer understanding of natural law, and why Church teachings are so vital for healthy and happy marriages.  TIGER’S HOPE is designed to reach television audiences world wide with that message in a dramatic, movie format.  If you’d like to be involved in this unique international film project, or know someone who would, visit the project website at www.TigersHope.com.

Reason alone and its virtuous twin, logic, however, are not always the best solution. That is the conclusion I arrived at over the past year while writing my series on the role of reason as the partner to faith titled Trying to Fly with One Wing. In Chapter 23, Why Logic Doesn’t Always Work, I lamented that a person’s will can lead to moral decisions contrary to what is logical, reasonable and true.

What came roaring back to my memory was this passage by St. Paul from 2 Timothy. Make note of this; its context comes up later and points to a way out of this mess:

For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to lies (1 Timothy 4:3-4).

During much of this election season, when moral truth tried to stand up and wave its tiny hand, it was unappreciated and shunned like a spent fuel rod from a decommissioned nuclear reactor. At one time truth had the capability to illuminate a whole city, but not often is it considered toxic waste.

The issues of this past season were considerably beyond former efforts at negotiating a common ground and shared vision among various social and economic issues. The calls to unite the country were, by some, scoffed at, and rightly so. Some proposals and candidates campaigned loudly for policies that are intrinsically evil and are devastating life and society. That such a large segment of the populace (let alone Catholic) could support as “normal and good” abortion, euthanasia, same-sex-marriage, homosexual civil rights, embryonic stem cell research, and a host of related policies and proposals proves to me that reason has lost its influence and that the truth, righteousness, grace and forgiveness of Christianity have truly been forgotten.

For decades I’ve advocated the commissioning of Christians to work on the frontlines of the culture as missionaries and influencers for all that is good, true, and beautiful. I’ve encouraged mature Christians to take leadership roles in film, broadcasting, journalism, and politics. But, it hasn’t worked. Christians are either hiding in parish basements, choir nooks, or avoiding the Church altogether and allowing their consciences to be formed by pagan ideologies. Even Church leaders, not wanting to be an offense to the lost that Christ loves, have been afraid to defend the truth and, instead, by their silence, have communicated to the world that the Church is ready to tolerate evil. One bishop recently confessed: “There are many times when fear impedes me from acting with what could be called holy boldness… The most serious threat to my well being, for acting with greater boldness, has been an intimation that I will be rejected, hated, ridiculed, rendered ineffective, deprived of financial support, judged to be insensitive, misunderstood, or verbally vilified.” Society again has been left to the pagans.

Where is the Moral Ballast?

Today, in the shadow of the 2008 Presidential campaign, the moral prognosis of the United States is bleak as it tips on the precipice of hell. In every discipline, from economics to human rights, Christianity has been the moral ballast that has anchored and the fuel that has propelled the United States to world leadership. But Christians in America have been lured away from the safety of Christian truth by the country’s declaration and incessant promotion of personal independence and so-called “rights” without regard for personal responsibility and accountability for the common good.

Rather than forming their consciences correctly, in order to be salt and light to the culture, too many Christians in general, and Catholics in particular, have wallowed in the spice and shadows of bodily self-indulgence rather than the sanctity of the heart. Without spiritual revival, conversion of hearts, and an incessant renewal, the destruction of life will continue and the destruction of America is inevitable.

The problem and the solution have been well documented by Catholic Bishops:

For although the Catholic Church has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace, yet its members fail to live by them with all the fervor that they should, so that the radiance of the Church’s image is less clear in the eyes of our separated brethren and of the world at large, and the growth of God’s kingdom is delayed. All Catholics must therefore aim at Christian perfection and, each according to his station, play his part that the Church may daily be more purified and renewed. (Vatican II, 1964, Decree on Ecumenism, 4.6)

Many Catholics seem “lukewarm” in faith (cf. Rev 3:14ff.) or have a limited understanding of what the church believes, teaches, and lives. Others may know about the gospel message but have not personally experienced the risen Christ. Still others are indifferent to the Church’s guidance or see the Church’s teaching in a negative light (USCCB, 1999, Our Hearts Were Burning Within Us, 35).

Catholics have been mistakenly taught to keep their faith private and not bring offense to others. But this advice can easily be interpreted as hiding one’s Christian witness under a basket, and being so tolerant of others that even evil is tolerated — a sin, in and of itself. Instead of being salt and light to culture, Catholics have been taught to blow out the candle and take the salt off the table.

At lunch during a recent Catholic conference I arrived late at a banquet table with my plate full of food. As I sat down among the other attendees, who were well into their entrées, I bowed by head, crossed myself, prayed silently over my food, and crossed myself again. As I began to eat a woman at the table asked “Do you do always that in public restaurants?” That referring to my public display of crossing-myself-and-prayer. She continued, “I’ve never seen anyone do that before in public.” Remember? I said that this was at a Catholic conference. I replied to the lady that I was trained as an Evangelical Christian to publicly profess Christ, and that if I didn’t I could be assured of going straight to hell when I died. Her eyes got big.

I thought: Another prime example of how Catholics and other Christians have abdicated society to the pagans. It’s no wonder we’re in the current cultural mess.

A Solution to the Mess

What’s left?

Actually, something every important.

We might call it simply faith. Or, if we want to be more insistent, we can call it renewal. But I think a more proper word, considering the times we are in, is — revival. Let me put it this way: REVIVAL!

If I’ve learned one thing recently, it is this: The Church and country will not be saved through economic, social, or political processes, but only by the conversion of hearts to Jesus Christ and the pursuit of holiness. In short, the Catholic Church in America needs a good ole’ fashion, holiness revival…followed up with an intense dose of on-going renewal.

The revival I’m talking about is not what the Church refers to as an “on-going conversion” — something that takes a lifetime and so people are constantly pushing it back. I’m talking about a cataclysmic life event, the earlier in life the better, where suddenly the scales of darkness fall off a person’s soul, and in a moment they “see,” with startling insight, the truth of Christianity. In a very short time, with fresh clarity, they understand the love of Jesus for them, and begin to pray and worship ceaselessly. With such a conversion comes a deep and abiding enthusiasm for the things of the Word of God and the teachings of the Church. Such a conversion suddenly finds people putting aside selfish desires, politically correct language, and an embrace of faith and reason with vitality.

Revival may be akin to a shotgun start, but it is no quick fix. While a revival can make people suddenly aware of the awesome gift of their faith, it will take a generation to truly inculcate a fresh, relevant faith into the culture. A spiritual revival of a fresh commitment to Jesus Christ would remove the basket that hides our witness, and allow the light of truth to shine on society. Sin cannot stand the light of truth. And when vibrant, vigorous Christians are embedded as salt in society, things will change for the good.

How best might we pursue a spiritual revival within Catholicism? Let me suggest three overlapping steps.

First: Fast and pray for a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the form of a spiritual revival among the faithful. Make fasting and prayer for this intention a continuous pattern for your life (Is 58).

Second: Conform your lives to righteousness and holiness. Make a continual effort to live under the grace of poverty, chastity, and obedience, seeking God’s kingdom here on earth (Mt 6:33).

Third: Be accountable to your responsibilities to properly form the conscience of those under your influence. Launch a faith-wide initiative that I’m calling Best Practices of Faith Formation.

Best Practices of Faith Formation

It is in this third step that I think we need the most work, although efforts at Step 3 without Steps 1 and 2 will be for naught.

The Scripture passage from 2 Timothy above, that so aptly describes the current moral condition of the United States, is surrounded by St. Paul’s explicit charge to Timothy to do something about it in regards to forming the faith of those under Timothy’s influence — and indeed, I believe St. Paul’s words are aimed directly at the Church today:

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power: proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching… be self-possessed in all circumstances; put up with hardship; perform the work of an evangelist; fulfill your ministry (2 Timothy 4: 1-2,5).

Paul is charging Timothy and the elders under his leadership to form people in the faith. Notice the character of these words — persistent, inconvenient, reprimand, convince, with all patience, with hardship, fulfill your ministry, perform. Those are not the words used to describe a feel-good week long Vacation Bible School with fun and games or adult Bible Study Fellowships where stomachs are stuffed rather than hearts. Those are words that describe due-diligence and hard work, over a lifetime.

That is my challenge. I invite you to read the entire proposal for a project whose mission is to discover, develop, demonstrate, and promote the best practices of faith formation to facilitate a spiritual revival and renewal of the Catholic Church in America so that the Church overflows with vitality and becomes the salt and light in society that Christ intended.

Read the proposal here: www.ninevehscrossing.com/BestPractices/index.html and please send me your comments at sdw@stanwilliams.com.

Most of this series has been about the problems we face during informal arguments when we use fallacies for the superstructure of our position. Recently I was asked to tutor a group of middle school home-schoolers in formal logic, which is about the foundations of logic. It has been years since I was exposed to these basic concepts, and I felt chagrined at not including them earlier in this series of articles. So, I’m going to take time to dig some deeper footings. The problem I hope to point out is that when the foundations of our arguments are weak, we are like an architect who uses a sandy beach as the foundation for an elaborate beach house. Even if we use steel for the superstructure, poor footings and a vulnerable foundation will weaken its ability to withstand a storm.

One of those foundational concepts is how we define the essence of things; that is, we need to make sure we’re taking positions about things that are true and not false. We need to be arguing on the side of substance and not non-substance. We need to be FOR something, and AGAINST nothing.

Something or Nothing?

On the popular DVD interview titled Common Ground [link http://www.CatholicProtestant.com], Protestant Pastor Steve Andrews interviews Catholic priest Fr. John Riccardo about the theological issues that bring them together. A great deal of the discussion centers on correctly defining terms, and identifying the essence of things. One of the theological issues that separate Christians is the concept of “justification.” Reaching back to the Protestant Reformation, some Protestants think Catholicism teaches that a person can be justified by the merit of his own works, without God’s grace, while some Catholics (and possibly some of the bishops attending the Trent Ecumenical Council), believed that Protestants entirely discounted the necessity and high importance of works performed in cooperation with God’s grace. It was this confusion that gave rise to the concept, within Protestantism, that a person can be saved by “faith alone” and not by works.

In the Common Ground dialogue, to a question by Andrews about whether or not Catholics believe they can work their way to heaven, Riccardo begins his answer by saying, “We [as Catholics] can say…that we’re saved by ‘faith alone,’ so long as we understand what we’re talking about by faith.” At first, it sounds as if Riccardo has just sided with a heresy. But, as he continues, we realize he’s about to each us something important — that at the level of faith’s essence Protestants and Catholics agree. That is, when properly defined, when identified truthfully and fully, Protestants and Catholics agree on what it means to be saved by faith — that faith is an action that involves our acceptance of Christ’s work and God’s grace, followed by our obedience. Faith is not the simple mental ascent to a concept, but rather, as Fr. John says: “Faith is clinging to Christ…it’s His action on the cross that saves me, which I have to respond to. I’m saved by His work alone, period. But I have to cooperate with that. I’ve got to welcome (Him) into my life and I got to do it every day.”

It took 30 years of dialogue, but the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) agreed in 1998 that the essence or the crux of the Protestant Reformation no longer exists. What changed was the groups’ agreement on how to define justification. They defined their terms, and realized they never really disagreed at all.

The Crux of a Thing

The definition of things is the crux of philosophy, logic, and truth. But just how do we go about deciding what something is? How do we decide if a statement is true or false, or if a thing is real or not? How do we decide if we are contending with “something” that demands our attention, or if what we have is  “nothing” — which demands our disinterest?

To many people, such a question makes no sense, and asking it is a waste of time. If we have nothing then how can we ask anything about it? If it’s nothing, shouldn’t we ignore it? Only if it’s something should we pay attention. (Dave Armstrong suggests that atheists might heed this advice.) Unfortunately that’s not what is happening around us. Our society is filled with “things” that are “nothing,” and judgments that are “false” and toward such things men and women hurry with abandon — chasing, ogling, and genuflecting.

Political Proposals

As I write this, it is three weeks before the 2008 national election — a particularly intense political season. Everyday in print, on the radio, on television and on bumper stickers we hear many claims that the other party is embracing concepts that are “nothing” or barely “something.”

In California, where I have plenty of acquaintances, Proposition 8 is on the ballot. Prop 8 defines the concept of “marriage” as the union between one man and one woman. The proposal’s language would add this sentence to the state constitution: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Citizens collected signatures to put Prop 8 on the ballot, in response to rulings by some judges who decided that natural law and mother nature were being unfair to homosexuals. (That’s sarcasm). So, with a stroke of the pen and a rap of the mallet, the justices proclaimed that gay couples should be allowed to procreate. God’s curious how that’s going to work. (More sarcasm.) Such is an example of the irrationality among supposedly the wisest human beings on the planet. It is a case of “nothing” being called “something.”

In the State of Michigan, where I live, the airwaves are filled with commercials about Proposition 2, which, if passed, would allow unrestricted embryonic stem cell research and subsequently the cloning of human embryos. Both are grave sins in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

One particular ad claims the other side is against “all stem cell research,” and that stem cell research offers our best hope for curing illness and disease. They claim that their political opponent has voted both FOR stem cell research and AGAINST it, and therefore cannot be trusted. What they don’t tell you, in any of the multiple ads, is that there are TWO kinds of stem cells and consequently two kinds of research. One type of research uses ADULT stem cells: It does not threaten a life, is legal everywhere, is morally acceptable to Catholic teaching, is supported by all parties, and has produced dozens of usable therapies that are alleviating suffering among thousands of people. The other type of research requires the destruction of EMBRYOS to harvest stem cells, takes a human life, is contrary to Catholic teaching, is not supported by all parties, is illegal in most places, and has produced NO usable therapies but only unusable mutations. The ads falsely claim that “nothing” is “something.”

Porphyry’s Tree

The attempt to describe or label something correctly goes back to Plato and his descriptions of reality and shadows, Aristotle and St. Thomas in their work to categorize being (the study of ontology), and many other philosophers and scientists like Carl Linnaeus, a Swedish botanist, physician and zoologist, who created the schema that we use today to label any living thing.

In the third century, Porphyry, a Greek philosopher who reportedly wrote 15 books against the Christians (only fragments can now be found), devised a useful device to help identify things. The Porphyrian Tree, simplified in Figure 1, forms the basis that allows us to begin to answer the old quiz show question: “Is it animal, vegetable, or mineral?” The tree allows things to be classified into five bi-polar divisions: substance or non-substance (e.g. reality or not real); material or non-material (physical or spiritual); living or non-living (organic or mineral); sentient or non-sentient (consciousness or plant-like); rational or non-rational (moral reasoning human or instinctual brute).

The traditional way to use a tree of this type, and it’s still used today and taught in traditional logic courses, is that if something requires classification along one of the “non-” branches, the classification dead-ends. Thus, a chair is a substance that is material, but non-living (Stop). That sounds okay, just as a human can be described as a substance that is material, living, sentient, and rational.

But how do you classify an angel? Per Porphyry, an angel is a non-material substance (Stop). It is not, nor can it ever be material, living, sentient (conscious) or rational.  While Christians might not have a problem with an angel being a non-material spirit, they would have a problem declaring it is also non-living, non-sentient, and non-rational, which is what the tree suggests by truncating the definition of its essence as non-material spirit. This probably didn’t concern Porphyry so much because he was against Christianity. But then again perhaps he designed this paradigm to aid his anti-Christian, materialistic arguments.

The problem Porphyry’s Tree presents is basic: It demonstrates that even when a seemingly rational schema is presented to us, unless we are particularly insightful, or particularly silly, we can find ourselves trapped in a disagreement without knowing how to get out of it. (Way out hint: Remember the story of the maiden, and her parents who sat crying under the ax stuck in the ceiling of the cellar worrying about how if she married the gentleman that had come calling on her, and they had a boy, and the boy should come down into the cellar, and if the ax would fall on the boy’s head and klll him, how terrible it would be? Well, Prophyry’s tree is like that.)

Change the diagram (See Figure 2). Use the same terms, but restructure the schema’s relationships to align more closely with reality (See Figure 2, and Footnote 1).

Thus, a chair is still a non-living, material, substance, and a flower is a non-sentient, living, material, substance. But now we can properly describe, name, and identify an angel as a rational, sentient, living, non-material, substance.

Remember, however, that this diagram is nothing more than a bunch of lines on a computer screen (or paper if you print it out). Reality is a lot more complex. The reality we know as Christianity is filled with mystery that simple diagrams and the complexity of science will never unravel. Fr. Mitch Pacwa yesterday morning on EWTN suggested that even when we get to heaven and understand a great deal more, we will still not understand the mysteries of God; for if we did eternity would be boring.

Okay, so we’ve solved one problem by removing the ax from the ceiling. But using only the Porphyrian Tree and our powers of observation to determine the essence of a thing has its limits. To the observing scientist, the day-old human embryo is only substance, material, and living. We cannot recognize, until about week five of gestation a heartbeat, and we cannot measure electrical activity produced by the brain until about 6-12 weeks. Even some measures of sentient consciousness (recognition of self in a mirror), will not be recognized until months after birth, as well as signs of rational thought and moral reasoning.

Using either schema and only direct observation, therefore, does not provide us with a human being until months after it is born, and some would argue that we don’t have a fully developed human until the child has developed language skills. That could take years. Using such a reasoning chain alone is also problematic when sickness and disease strike. When consciousness and language skills disappear for a period of time due to accident, disease or old age, does human life cease to exist? On what basis, then, is a conclusion about human life made? When does a thing cease to be the thing it was? When is a thing that was something no longer that something and now suddenly nothing [Footnote 2]?

There are many ways to define something; what is described here is only one. But the problems illustrated above can be found in every other rational schema or device known to man that attempts to accurately define what something is, except for one.  And that one method is faith — God’s Word carried to us through the life and words of Jesus and the prophets. Here we are introduced to and reminded of things that reason alone cannot explain, but which reason does enlighten and support.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you” (Jeremiah 1:5).

“Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1: 42-43).

What happened in the case of my friend’s stories about the angels of North America? It turned out that he had just finished reading a particularly long and exciting story by a Christian novelist about Biblical angels involved in 20^th century America. While the essence of Biblical angels indeed is that of substance, the essence of the characters and situations in my friend’s novel were non-substantive or unreal. So good was the writing, however, and so true to the natural character of real angels, that it became difficult to tell the difference between stories of 4,000 years ago, and the fictional stories today.

My friend’s situation seems impossible, but it demonstrates just how easy it can be to believe in something that is not true, and why reliance on faith, diligent study, prayer, and the teachings of the Church are so critically important in our pursuit of truth and the good of all humankind.

[Footnote 1: Some of you who are familiar with the discipline of assigning the essence of something with the Porphyrian Tree may disagree with my seemingly arbitrary revision, with lines going every which way, and my apparent lack of discernment. My reasons for the diagram cannot be entirely defended, but I'll try. (1) Such lines on a paper can only help us define the essence of being in a crude way. Reality is far beyond what we will ever understand and thus I put lines every which way to remind us of our limited understanding. (2) Can something be non-living and sentient? Depends on how you define "sentient". If you limit the definition to things that can "sense" then most scientific measuring devices (sensors) are such things. (3) Can something be "non-sentient" and "rational"? Not that I know of. But then I know very little.]

[Footnote 2: Science and the Church both recognize that human life begins at conception with the formation of a human embryo. This discussion casts no doubt on that fact, but only on the limitations of using certain philosophical arguments to determine what is true.]

Abbott: Well, let’s see, we have on the bags, Who’s on first, What’s on second, I Don’t Know is on third…

Costello: That’s what I want to find out.

Abbott: I say Who’s on first, What’s on second, I Don’t Know’s on third.

Costello: Are you the manager?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: You gonna be the coach too?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: And you don’t know the fellows’ names.

Abbott: Well, I should.

Costello: Well, then who’s on first?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: I mean the fellow’s name.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy on first.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The first baseman.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy playing…

Abbott: Who is on first!

Costello: I’m asking you who’s on first.

Abbott: That’s the man’s name [Footnote 2].

Man’s Search for Truth

The humor of the routine is based “soundly” on linguistic fallacies such as equivocation, question-begging definitions, ambiguity and others that we’ve been studying. Equivocation occurs when a name like “Who” is defined by Costello as an interrogative pronoun, and by Abbott as a declarative noun — the player’s name. Question-begging definition occurs when,”accidentally”, Costello asks questions that do not define “who” in the same way Abbott is defining the word. Ambiguity is involved because the known player’s names are also confused with what is unknown.

But it’s an “evergreen hit” because it plays off humanity’s deepest desire — to know the truth — and how easily the truth is obstructed, not by maliciousness or evil intent, but simply by faulty communication and reasoning.

Such is the guts of the human condition in the presence of sin. God has placed us here on Earth to know Him (the way, the truth, and the light), but sin continues to throw obstacles in our path.

To help us find and use truth successfully, God left us the Church and the pairing of faith and reason. As John Paul II writes in the opening paragraph of his encyclical Fides Et Ratio:

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth — in a word, to know himself — so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.

John Paul the Great then dutifully references a number of Bible verses, which hopefully everyone looked up, read and studied; i.e. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2. (Catholics, open your Bibles pleas, or if you’re like Steve Ray, “Turn on your G3 iPhone.” Last night at a local apologist party, hosted by Gary and Chris Michuta, Steve showed me how he uses his iPhone to access his Bible and the daily readings — for any date plus or minus 100 years — on his iPhone. So, if you see Steve at Mass staring at his PCD ["Portable Communication Device" -- we're beyond simple PDAs -- "Personal Data Assistants"], you’ll know he’s probably reading his Bible… or at least that’s his story.)

Argument Structure

All arguments, which are discussions whose purpose is to discover truth, take on the form of presenting evidence, piece after piece, until enough of it is compiled to lead us to a conclusion.

Evidence A
Evidence B
Evidence C
Evidence D
etc.
———————-
Conclusion

This is what happens in a court of law, as well as in the myriad stories and movies that are structured around a moral premise to lead us to a conclusion about how to live our lives [Footnote 3]. The individual pieces of evidence, how they’re presented, upon what they’re based, and the synergy they produce when juxtaposed, all have to be true in and of themselves, if the conclusion they lead us to is going to be properly supported.

Principles of Knowing with Reason

I must remind us all that reason, without the supernatural revelation of faith, is half blind or flies with a clipped wing. What follows are rules or principles for using reason. While we could say they have nothing to do with truth given to us by faith, that is not true. Why? It is because faith and reason are part of the same system of knowing. You can’t have one without the other. In fact you cannot read a book about faith without using your powers of reason, which allow you to read in the fist place.

The process of compiling the evidence, keeping it focused on the intended conclusion, and the methodology of the argument, works best when we also conduct ourselves rationally. To help us do that here are brief descriptions of the principles of a good argument. Twelve are from Damer [Footnote 4] with my own additions and comments. (Several of these principles we’ve discussed already, and the others will be covered in more detail in later articles.)

The first three principles (Fallibility, Truth-Seeking, and Clarity) are standard practice for all serious intellectual inquiry.

Principle 1. Fallibility Principle.

Let humility be your guide. Realize that even though you’re smart, well-read, a world class theologian, and have lunch with the pope (or at least read one of his books during lunch), you’re not infallible. It just may be that something is wrong with your logic and facts. The same may be true of your opponent. Agree beforehand, that both of you may be wrong. (See Part 14 in this series for more.)

Principle 2. Truth-Seeking Principle

In any discussion both parties need to make truth, not their personal perspective of truth, their goal. Their perspective may be wrong. Everyone involved in the discussion should be willing to examine the various positions and be willing to have others rebut their own position. (See Parts 18 & 19.)

Principle 3. Clarity Principle

Every part of any discussion needs to be clear and understood. Do not hesitate to scrupulously apply every one of these principles, be sure to define all of the key terms of the debate so every term is understood the same way by all parties, and avoid all fallacies.

Principle 4. Burden of Proof

A position must be defended by the party holding that position. The proof or disproof of a position by someone antagonistic against or ambivalent toward the position does not lend the position credibility, and in fact, can indicate subterfuge.

Principle 5. Principle of Charity

When restating the position of an opponent, you should restate the argument in the best possible terms, giving your opponent the benefit of the doubt. Never marginalize the argument of another (unless they have done so as part of their best shot). You can only arrive at the truth without prejudice or distortion.

Principles 6 through 9 represent the four evidentiary criteria of a good argument. (See Part 4.)

Principle 6. Relevance

When arguing in support of or against a position, only use evidence that is relevant. If you don’t, you open yourself to committing fallacies of irrelevance.

Principle 7. Acceptability

When arguing in support of or against a position, only use evidence that is acceptable to all parties, both those that are for and against the position. The term “acceptable” does not mean the evidence must be infallible, but should be reasonable and possible. When antagonists refuse to accept certain evidence you present because they disagree with your presuppositions you’ll have to work harder to find acceptable bases for your discussion.

Principle 8. Sufficiency

When arguing in support of or against a position, use evidence that is sufficient in number, kind, and weight to support the conclusion.

Principle 9. Rebuttal

When arguing in support of or against a position, provide evidence that challenges the best and strongest arguments against your position.

Principle 10. Resolution

A position should be accepted if it meets the evidentiary criteria requirements of relevancy, acceptability, sufficiency, and mounts a credible rebuttal against its best challenge. If the opposition cannot demonstrate how the argument fails to meet these four criteria, the position should be accepted. If some elements of the four criteria of a good argument cannot be mounted by either side, the position with the best argument should be accepted as valid until more evidence can be presented.

Principle 11. Suspension of Judgment

This principle complements the Resolution Principle. If neither argument can mount satisfying evidentiary criteria to achieve some level of resolution, then the argument (its evidence and conclusion) should be tabled until more evidence can be found. If a decision must be made due to urgency, then the best position is the one that provides the strongest evidence, even though it’s less than ideal. (See Part 7.)

Principle 12. Reconsideration

All arguments will conclude under the terms of Principle 10 or 11 — until additional, unconsidered evidence is discovered, or some of the previously presented evidence is discovered to be false or invalid — at which time the argument should be reconsidered and all the evidence again weighed in light of what is now known.

Principle 13. Forgiveness Principle

Truth needs to be pursued even when arguments become heated and one or more of the first 12 principles are sidelined. The Forgiveness Principle comes in handy when one of the parties forgets The Fallibility Principle and dons the mantle of omniscience. For the discussion to continue, forgiveness needs to be sought and offered. Or, if the discussion is terminated because one or more of the parties throws a frying pan through the discussion, shattering the relationship all over the landscape, then the situation has to be restored before discussion can continue. (See Part 15 in this series for more.)

Homework Assignment

As I work toward the manuscript that will incorporate these articles into a book, I will be adding student exercises at the end of each chapter. Here’s one that you may find of some interest now, and one that will also motivate you to open your Bibles, or PCD.

Each of the above principles can be found in the book of Proverbs. For each of the 13 Principles of a Good Argument, cite, quote, and explain the related Proverb. (That should keep you busy for a while.) When you’re done, send me your results for a grade. (Actually, with your permission, I’ll probably use your work in an upcoming chapter.)

———–

Footnote 1: This routine was not entirely original with Abbott and Costello, although they perfected it and made it popular. It descended from earlier burlesque sketches like “The Baker Scene” and “Who Dyed”. “In the 1930 movie Cracked Nuts, comedians Bert Wheeler and Robert Woolsey examine a map of a mythical kingdom with dialogue like this: “What is next to Which.” “What is the name of the town next to Which?” “Yes.” (Ref. wikipedia.org.)

Footnote 2: The entire WHO’S ON FIRST routine is posted on my blog, HERE.

Footnote 3: See www.moralpremise.com.

Footnote 4: T. Edward Damer (2001). Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments, 4^th Edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.

Dr. Robert Fastiggi, a theologian at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, agreed to an interview about this problem and the prevailing attitude that going to Mass and taking the Eucharist is all anyone needs to lead a solid Christian life. Here is an edited version of our conversation. Consider this the second half of that earlier article, the part that tells us what to do about certain aspects of ambiguity in the Church.

Williams: Dr. Fastiggi, Catholic pastors communicate a great deal about the importance of just showing up and receiving the Eucharist, regardless of the parishioner’s disposition. Isn’t it true that taking the sacraments unworthily is a sin?

Fastiggi: The sacraments are instituted by Christ so it’s not as though we should deemphasize the sacraments. Especially the Holy Eucharist. These are wonderful gifts and there’s no more powerful way of drawing close to our Lord than receiving the Holy Eucharist in this life. So, I don’t think the emphasis on taking the Eucharist whenever possible is misguided.

Williams: But, where do you think…

Fastiggi: …the problem lies? I think that some people are not well catechized in terms of the need for a preparation beyond just showing up to receive the Holy Eucharist. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians that we are to “discern the body and blood of our Lord” when we receive…we are to examine ourselves and make sure we are in a state of grace…

Williams: In paragraph 1127 of the Catechism, the very first phrase says, “Celebrated worthily in faith the Sacraments confer the grace that they signify.” So, people have got to want to be there, don’t they?

Fastiggi: Exactly, exactly. While, I suppose, it might be better for them to be there just in body rather than also in heart, there is a difference. It’s what we call in theology the difference between ex opere operato and ex opere operantis. In the first, the body of Christ becomes present if the sacrament is done in the proper form with the proper matter and the proper intention and with the proper minister.

But in the second, ex opere operantis, if the person takes the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin, the person receives the body and blood of Christ only sacramentally, not interiorly. That is, such a person does not have a spiritual benefit because they are unworthily receiving.

Williams: Apologist Marty Barrack writes, “Our good disposition determines the amount of grace we obtain”…even in sacramentals. “Praying a Rosary will give little or no grace if we make no effort to focus on the mysteries or if we simply pay no attention to what is going on” (footnote 1). That’s what the Catechism means when it says that the fruits of the sacrament depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.

Fastiggi: Exactly. Spiritually there has to be a preparation. As the Council of Trent said — and it has been repeated numerous times — after the consecration, the whole Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity, is really, truly and substantially contained in the outward appearances of bread and wine. That’s what we’re talking about. That presence is there even if someone were to receive the Holy Communion unworthily.

But to receive both, as the Council of Trent said, sacramentally and spiritually there has to be proper preparation: spiritual preparation. This is one reason why minimally one should fast from solid foods and liquids other than water at least one hour. Now, when I was growing up it was 3 hours. And my parents would remember when it was from Midnight the night before so that one was really spiritually prepared. Something we don’t like to mention is that, in the 16th Century, it was in the catechism of the Council of Trent that married couples should abstain from conjugal relations several days before receiving Holy Communion. That was considered a pious practice.

Williams: Several days before?

Fastiggi: Three days.

Williams: No sex for three days before receiving Holy Communion?

Fastiggi: Yes. It was very difficult to enforce. But, that is what was specified in the Roman Catechism in 1566. That is what was taught. It was a sense of the awesomeness that one made a great spiritual preparation to worthily receive our Lord. Now in the present Catechism of the Catholic Church, there’s just some beautiful but very brief admonitions:

To prepare for worthy reception of this sacrament the faithful should observe the fast required in their Church. Bodily demeanor, (gestures, clothing) ought to convey the respect, solemnity, and joy of this moment when Christ becomes our guest (CCC 1387).

So we are to dress modestly.

Williams: Someone should tell that to the folks at our church who come in beach wear, and we’re nowhere near the beach. I think it’s pathetic. I think this is one of those things where, although the Church is teaching the right stuff, Catholic parishes should take a lesson from Evangelicals. My mother would refuse to sit next to me during Evangelical services if I wasn’t wearing a suit and tie in the dead of summer.

Fastiggi: In the warmer months this is an issue. Even though our outward bodily appearance should convey the respect, there should be an interior preparation. This is where I would recommend that part of John Paul II’s great encyclical, the last encyclical he wrote before going to the Lord, Ecclesia De Eucharistia (On the Eucharist in Its Relationship to the Church), where he talks about learning in the School of Mary and developing a Eucharistic demeanor in the School of Mary. Because she held the living God in her womb for nine months, so she can help us to receive the Lord into our bodies for that brief period of time where the outward appearances remain. So, I think that the Church is trying to cultivate that interior sense and those who say, “Well, the Catholic Church teaches externalism” really have not taken the time to read the sources.

Williams: But the typical lay person is never going to read an encyclical. You have to because it’s your job as a theologian. But how do we help the common person understand what’s supposed to go on inside of them?

Fastiggi: There are so many ways that we can improve the catechesis. One way of beginning is teaching people about the proper atmosphere at a church. Their actions should convey that sense of awesomeness of what is going on. There is great power in the words of the Eucharistic Prayer. Gestures mean a lot. We’re told to make a sign of reverence before the Eucharist before receiving like a small bow. This is not, I think, taught well enough. And also to genuflect, or, if one is not able to do that, to bow when going past the tabernacle because of the Lord’s presence there.

Williams: Today during the Eucharistic prayer I heard a noise coming from the Eucharistic chapel, which is at the front of our church to one side. I looked up, and there was a mother letting her small toddler run around between the kneelers, while she stood with her back to the tabernacle. Finally, the father came and took the kid to the back of the church and sent the mother back to the pew. But never did any of them show any reverence to the Tabernacle or even hint that they knew Who was there.

Fastiggi: I just heard this last night from Fr. Groeschel — the chit chat that goes on during Mass. It should not be. People should not be reading the bulletins or so on. There should be teaching and preaching about these things, not just on Corpus Christie, but on other Sundays encouraging people to become spiritually prepared.

Williams: What does taking the Eucharist mean practically for my day to day life? If we can be idealistic for a moment: I take the Eucharist every Sunday. What should that do to my life practically in terms of what people see in my life?

Fastiggi: Well we have to ask ourselves what is the Christian life all about? It’s growing closer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It’s growing in the love of God and the love of neighbor. So receiving the source of grace into our very bodies — Christ, the source of our life, of Grace, our sanctification — catches us from sin and really cleanses us from venial sin. Now it doesn’t cleanse us from mortal sin. Iif one is conscious of grave sin, you go to sacramental confession before receiving. But these non-mortal sins, these venial sins, these weaknesses we have — the receiving worthily of Holy Communion not only purifies us of those sins but it strengthens us, strengthens our character so that we are less likely to commit these venial sins in the future. So if we worthily receive our Lord in the Eucharist we grow in the knowledge and love of God, we become more like Christ, it’s the process of becoming divinized.

Williams: Or becoming the body of Christ.

Fastiggi: Yes, that’s right.

Williams: As an extraordinary minister, I hold up the Host, and I am conscious, so much of the time, that when I look past the Host and look in the person’s eyes and I say ‘the body of Christ,’ I am holding and presenting the body of Christ literally and substantively in my hand, but I am looking to the person that is the body of Christ as well. And when they are united they should become more like Christ in every way.

Fastiggi: Well that is paragraph 1596 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: that those who receive the Eucharist are united more closely to Christ. Through it, the Eucharist, Christ unites them — all the faithful — in one body, the Church.

Williams: But it does take their conscious effort to become like that. As I look into people’s eyes I sometimes wonder if, in spite of the Real Presence, if taking Christ internally is really going to change some people. It doesn’t happen magically without their will.

Fastiggi: No, no. It becomes much more fruitful with their will. We do have to judge by appearances but we have to realize that even our human judgment is sometimes flawed. Man judges by appearances and God looks at the heart, as the book of Samuel tells us. We keep that in mind, yet on the other hand we do pick up clues in terms of body language and facial expressions, and you as an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion see this and you wonder “Well, what’s going on?”

Williams: I’m always praying that they get it.

Fastiggi: This is the living God. This is the Creator of the universe you are going to receive under the form of what seems to be bread and wine but it is the living God. It is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It’s the same Christ that Thomas bowed before or prostrated before and he said “My Lord, and my God.”

Williams: But how do we inculcate that? How do we help people understand?

Fastiggi: This is where Eucharistic adoration, even if it is for a couple of hours a week or one day a week, helps the whole parish, and then we should get people to participate in Eucharistic Congresses.

There’s this group called Generation Christ in Ann Arbor, young adults 18 to 35. They give up an hour of Sunday night to spend in Eucharistic adoration, hear a little reflection and then socialize afterwards. What better place to meet someone, even a prospective spouse, someone who loves the Eucharist?

Williams: What a great date night!

Fastiggi: There’s so much more that could be done. We have the right teaching but we just don’t live up to it.

Williams: Yes, we have the right teaching but there’s not enough of it or people aren’t exposed to it. In some of my other writing I’m trying to encourage Catholic parishes to start thinking about adult faith formation more like evangelicals do, where there’s Sunday school for all adults every Sunday for an hour — an hour of instruction before worship, every Sunday, all year long. The evangelicals do a better job at this. And, of course, evangelicals pile on top of that Bible studies during the week that a lot of people go to, and then there are the 45-minute homilies, with Bibles open in every lap.

Fastiggi: Wow! There’s a lot we could do. He wants to give us His very Self. He wants to give of Himself all that He is — body, blood, soul, and divinity — and to enter into us so we can become more like Him, because that is what is preparing us for our eternal life, where we are transformed and transfigured after the pattern of our Lord’s resurrected Body.

Williams: Let me ask you this one last question. One of the characteristics of Gnosticism is the rejection of the physical realm’s association with grace. That is, the physical realm is evil, and the spiritual realm is good. Is there a name for this opposite kind of Gnosticism that says “All I gotta do is show up for Mass, and what goes on inside doesn’t matter”? Is there a name for that?

Dr. Fastiggi: Hmmm. How about superficialism?

Williams: Superficialism, that’s it. The new heresy. You heard it here first, folks.

Dr. Fastiggi: I think what needs to be stressed is if one is conscious of grave sin, one is not to receive Holy Communion. I know a priest in Ann Arbor — of a homily that he gave where he stressed this and apparently some people got up and left. They said “I’m worthy to receive. Who’s he to tell me?” But I saw him afterward and he told me: “I heard many wonderful confessions after that homily.” So, there’re some people who just don’t know if you’re cohabitating and you’re not married and you’re having conjugal relations when you’re not entitled to them, you shouldn’t be receiving Holy Communion.

Williams: That’s good.

Fastiggi: Mother Teresa’s sisters spend an hour each day in Eucharistic adoration and then they go serve Christ and the poor. Some people set one against the other. It’s not Eucharistic adoration against the poor. It’s both. This is the Catholic faith: that we have to emphasize both. If we’re not rooted in Christ then social action could just be some kind of secular activity. We need “to be animated by the love of Christ,” as Pope Benedict so beautifully put it.

Williams: Dr. Robert Fastiggi, thank you so much.

Fastiggi: Thank you Stan, and may God bless you.

Williams: God Bless you too.

Fastiggi: Pray for us.

Williams: And for us.

[Footnote 1: http://www.secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/exopereoperantis.htm]

Rebels All

There was the war in Vietnam which some had reasons for claiming was unjust and unnecessary just as others claimed, with reason, the opposite. There are always good reasons for marriage, but others had other reasons to replace it with “free love.” Not satisfied with the paper-thin reasons for a bar on every corner (prohibition was part of the forgotten past), many argued in favor of laws legalizing (and rationalizing) dope and marijuana — the new symbols of the pursuit of happiness, always ending with a crash.

It was a time of irrationality that would later morph into various regrets, paranoia, and psychoses. We’re paying the price today, with practically everyone forgetting the role of good reasons and logical arguments, in favor of their selfish, stupefying will. The current political season should shake us awake. Last night I heard both a liberal and a conservative commentator say of both presidential candidates: “They’re lying to us.” And yet we’re going to vote one of them into the most powerful, temporal job on Earth. What we sow, we reap.

The Pursuit of the Will

I attended, with my future wife Pam, Greenville College (G.C.) in Greenville, Illinois. It was a small Evangelical School associated with the Free Methodist Church of North America. The school was located in Bond County, which at the time was “dry.” That means prohibition was still the rule of law. There were no bars; it was illegal to sell alcohol in the county. That helped to keep the riff-raff out, and the student “rebellions” to a minimum. Actually, although we read about such craziness at state universities, we were dolefully ignorant and naïve… and I mean that in a good way. We did, however, experience a little unrest. I’ll tell you of two events, both of which will help illustrate why logic doesn’t always work.

One spring our otherwise very strict administrators contracted with The New Christy Minstrels, a touring folk singing group of a dozen or so individuals, to put on a concert — a Hootenanny — at the school. The event was “big” for our small school of 800 students. In our mind the Pharisees (as we nicknamed the administrators) were going to open the gates of the “Holy City” and let us brush up against barbarians of the real world. We were excited. It was our opportunity to “rebel” — as much as we knew how. For my rebellious part I “rationally” skipped a week of classes and worked on promoting the event. The specifics of my promotional effort have totally escaped my consciousness, but I’ll never forget the consequences of skipping classes. I had my reasons and logic, but there were stronger reasons that I ignored. My will temporally trumped reason. It was the first week of Integral Calculus — something impossible, for me, to catch-up on. I flunked the class and had to retake it during summer school.

The concert went off without a hitch, but not without conflict behind the scenes. In order to get paid, the Minstrels were told they could not sing certain songs in their repertoire. The reasons were given. Certain songs, which we had all heard on the albums in our dorm rooms, made light of certain behavior that, although in keeping with the 60′s, were not in keeping with the moral standards of an Evangelical Christian college. The songs were not sung — but the locker room the group used for a dressing room was trashed. The school’s reasons for avoiding certain ideologies were proven true by the group’s reasons for singing them. The trashed locker room made physical the dangers of irrational, rebellious ideologies. Not only was the group not invited back to Greenville, but word was passed to other small colleges, and The New Christy Minstrels found it difficult to get dates in other similar venues.

From both perspectives, personal wills were confronted by reasons. Will always wins in the short haul, reason always wins in the long.

I was given good reasons about the dangers of skipping so many classes, but there was something more important at stake, for me, at that time — it wasn’t The New Christy Minstrels, it was my will. I rebelled against natural law and there were consequences to be paid. The reason of natural law, and the reason for my attendance at college were replaced by the reasons that fed my ego, my will, my pride. The Minstrels similarly discovered that there is a logic in a capitalist society that demands respect for business agreements.

Hair Line

The 60s had had their impact on G.C. and the campus saw several “radical” changes. When I first arrived, the Pharisees had effective control of the rebels in our midst, with the attentive cooperation of parents who were spending a lot of money sending their charges off to a private school. The control was enacted by parental backing. Modesty was the norm and shorts of any kind, even knee-length Bermuda shorts were not allowed outside the dorm. In 1969, my senior year, the Bermuda Shorts Resolution was accepted by the administration and Bermuda Shorts could be worn on campus after 6 PM. Supposedly by that time, all the older, rich, patrons of the college would be off campus and not take offense at our scandalous attire. I know, this does not sound “radical” as the topic sentence of this paragraph “promised.” Times change. I have a letter written in 1941 by my missionary grandmother, Edith Willobee, who at the time was in India. She wrote to my mother and her sister (my aunt) in Michigan where the two had just landed teaching jobs. To celebrate they put on their best teaching attire, took a picture and sent it to their mother. Edith’s letter, in response, is awash in scandalous language because of her daughter’s worldly and immodest attire — the girls were showing too much skin in their elbow-length sleeved blouses. Their will temporarily trumped their mother’s reasons… until my mother had kids of her own, and suddenly modesty was all the rage… as it should be, although burkas for the male wrestling team seemed a bit much.

After I graduated from G.C., Pam and I were married and then rented an apartment in town as she finished up her last year of college and student teaching. It was now 1970, and the student leaders at Greenville College decided that the rebellious 60s were better late than never. Another rule that was still in force was that students were forbidden to wear facial hair. When I was a freshman the rule was no hair below the ear-lobe. Half-way through college the standard was “lowered” and hair would not be allowed to the upper lip. Mustaches suddenly became vogue, and pictures of me during this period show my sideburns were strangely connected to my mustache, as I shaved down along a straight line from my upper-lip.

The student body leaders (always very conservative and devout Christians — the elections always seemed rigged) decided that there was a double standard about this hair business, and that the constantly changing rule (once in two years) about where hair could appear and not, seemed duplicitous. It wasn’t that the Pharisees or the professors were sprouting rebellious beards, but the walls were covered with pictures of the college’s founders and Christianity’s founders and they all had beards, in fact, the more important these individuals seemed to be, the more facial hair they had. For God’s sake, Jesus had a beard in every picture ever painted, mounted, and displayed of Him.

The G.C. student body president was Glen Snyder, the son of a well-known missionary doctor to Africa, as Glen and his wife would eventually become for short medical missionary stints. Always well-groomed, with his thick black hair trimmed neatly, no lower than the bottom of his ear lobe, Glen was the epitome of convention and cooperation. Consequently, Glen and the other student officers (3 of which were male) were always trotted out to meet VIPs and benefactors that came regularly to visit the campus. College funding depended on such “show and tell” events.

I’m not sure who decided that the 60s rebellion was better late than never, but suddenly, one Monday morning, Glen and the student officers showed up for a meeting with the college president and the Board of Trustees. That morning, the “pursuit of happiness” as defined by the will of the Board of Trustees took a hit by reason. The three guys had shaved their heads. Behind the three students, hanging on the wall were three paintings of men the college held up as role models: Jesus, Free Methodist founder, B.T. Roberts, and college founder John Brown — all with full beards.

The Board of Trustees had willed that beards were a sign of rebellion and were not to be tolerated. And in the short haul, such strong wills can prevail… at least until some infallible and embarrassing reason is unavoidable. By the end of the year, half the professors and every male student who could grew a full beard.

The moral premise of these stories is this: Selfish will and a false pride lead to embarrassment and insecurity, but the selfless portrayal of truth leads to virtue and solidarity.

This article is a series about right reasoning and the way logical and linguistic fallacies confuse communication and often lead us to embrace things that are false. The series is inspired by Pope John Paul II’s letter to the church about Faith and Reason (Fides Et Ratio) and why both are necessary to arrive at truth. John Paul II writes in the very first words of the letter: “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.” Using one without the other is like flying with one wing, circling relentlessly before we get dizzy and crash.

There are all sorts of presumptive baggage in a question like, “How could a good Christian like you ever become a Catholic?” — or, I should say, how the question presumes to redefine the term “Catholic,” which to such folk is not “Christian” but rather some pagan cult. My non-Christian acquaintances, who asked me that question, perceived Christians as forgiving, gracious people, but saw Catholicism as strident, judgmental, and willing to burn pagans (like them) at the stake. (I guess they felt guilty — judgment’s a’ comin’, gang.)

My Protestant acquaintances perhaps defined Catholics as “saint idolaters.” I’ve heard them say:

Catholics are always kneeing before statues. (Yeah they are…we seen ‘em in the movies.) Sure, I’ve been in Catholic churches, (once) and there’s these statues of saints all over the place; they even got a dead Jesus on a cross. So they’re surrounded by these idols, and I’m sure they never even read the Bible because you never see Catholics take a Bible to church. That’s because their priests won’t let ‘em know what being a Christian is really about.

By redefining “Catholic” in terms of what is occasionally observed, and incessantly rumored, rather than investigating What Catholics Really Believe, non-Catholics can easily and unknowingly redefine terms and come to erroneous conclusions. Thus, the Question-Begging Definition fallacy leads to confusing conversations. The best way to answer such questions is not to answer them at all, but fling a question back at your accuser, perhaps a question like: “What defines a Christian?” Getting a straight answer, and one that can be found in the Bible, may take a while, but at least you’ll be discussing an important concept and helping to defuse the fallacious assumptions built into such questions.

What is a Christian?

In 2001, Evangelical pollster George Barna claimed that from 1992 to 2001 “the percentage of Catholic adults who have accepted Jesus as their savior [i.e. were Christian] has grown from 16 percent to 24 percent.” It marked a revival among Catholics he claimed. Now, it may come as a shock to Catholic leadership that in 2001 only one-fourth of Catholics are “Christian” and that in 1992 the numbers were much lower.

I did a little digging and found the questionnaire that Barna had been using to ask people about their religious beliefs and how he decided if a person was a Christian or not. There were three questions that were critical to understanding what he was asking. In one he asked if the person had a “personal relationship” with Jesus Christ. In another, he asked if they were to die today, they “had the security” they would go to heaven; and in a third he asked if they were “born again.” If you were a well-bred Evangelical Christian you would have answered “yes” to each of those questions. But if you were a Catholic your understanding of those questions could be quite different. Not that you were less of a Christian, but you defined those key terms differently that your Evangelical counterparts. What Mr. Barna had discovered, from 1992 to 2001, was how the jargon of Evangelicals had begun to be understood by Catholics. That is, in 1992 Catholics defined those key terms in the questions much differently than they did in 2001.

Unfortunately, these statistics were widely reported in the Evangelical community, reinforcing the misunderstanding that very few Catholics were Christians. Dave Armstrong notes that defining Christians the way Barna does would exclude most Lutherans and traditional Anglicans. And no sane person would argue that a Lutheran is not a Christian. My big problem with Barna is that he uses his 8^th grade Catholic religious education (he was born and baptized Catholic) to propogate now, as a adult pollster, a false theology, quickly absorbed by poorly educated Evangelicals and Protestants. Thank you, George Barna for that fallacious bit of question begging-definition and the resulting propagating of false conclusions, thus further dividing Christianity.

Saved by a Protestant

Recently, another person challenged me, because I am a Catholic, with this question: “When are you going to get saved?” With this question my inquisitor is defining “saved” in Protestant terms, which limits God’s saving grace to a spiritual act without the broader Catholic definition that includes the physical person as well. The person is also assuming that any grace that flows through physical means, such as the sacraments, is contrary to Christian principles. By redefining salvation as something that can only happen through spiritual means, because the physical world is evil, they embrace one aspect of the first century heresy of Gnosticism.

As I was pondering how to write this particular chapter, I was “saved” by my anti-Catholic email pen-pal D.N. He is becoming a regular to this column and soon I’ll have to give him “by-line” credit. Last night he wrote:

Hi Stan, I heard Mother Angelica on EWTN the other day talking about how The Archangel Micheal (sic) is ‘the Prince of Heaven’. Im (sic) having trouble locating that in the Bible; is it in your Catholic Bible?

Let’s see how good you are at spotting the fallacy in the question (pun intended). This is not real obvious, but give it a go. Can you see D.N.s’ question-begging definition?

Here’s the answer. While, in fact, the Archangel Michael is in the Bible as one of the great angelic princes of heaven (Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1), D.N. is making reference to Michael being the prince of heaven, possibly as the Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret these references to Michael as indicating he is Jesus. While I didn’t hear the specific words he says Mother Angelica used, I am certain that Mother recognizes that our Lord Jesus and the Archangel Michael are not the same person. The context of D.N.s other missives to me indicate that he is redefining the word “Bible”. Where Catholics see the “Bible” as “an” infallible source of knowledge, D.N. sees the Bible as the “only” infallible source of knowledge.

I wrote back:

Dear D.N.: There are a lot of things you believe…that are not in the Bible. You’re not in the Bible, for instance; Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible; the Apostles Creed is not in the Bible; and the list goes on.

Reading between the lines, I was challenging D.N.’s assumption that since he was not mentioned in the Bible he must not exist. But putting facetiousness aside, I hoped at least that he might try to find where Sola Scriptura was in his Bible — even his Protestant Bible.

But, all of that must have flown over his head. He wrote back asking: “Are the following in the Bible?” and then he tacked on a numerical list of 60 ideas that he claimed are not in the Bible, things like:

1. Is Mary sinless in the Bible?

3. Salvation through a Church?

7. Baptism necessary to erase original sin?

24. Doing works of penance…?

53. Baptizing of infants?

Most of the 60 things D.N. mentioned are in the Bible, provided he were to define key terms in the same way the Church has defined them throughout history. But D.N. redefines “sin,” “Church,” “salvation,” “baptism,” “penance,” in perverse false ways, and thus attacks a strawman fallacy — thus committing another fallacy. A strawman fallacy is an argument that both sides would agree is false. In this way D.N. skewers the truth. Dave Armstrong adds:

Protestants like D.N. are usually unaware of the biblical arguments that exist for all these things. They often dimly comprehend at best, deductive arguments, analogies, and anything beyond what to them is a bald, obvious, unassailable “proof text.” They also misuse and miscomprehend different literary forms and idioms in Scripture. Thus, there is more in play here than just fallacies.

The Way of a Maid in the Arms of a Man

Solomon marvels at the mysteries of how a man can be manipulated by a woman. But I have it figured out. It happens nearly everyday to me. Pam, my endearing wife, is always asking me questions, questions that often include terms with definitions different than those with which I’m familiar.

For instance, she’ll ask me, “When are you going to wash the dishes?” The explicit question sounds perfectly legit, and you might think the question should elicit an immediate response from me like: “In five minutes, honey, as soon as I finish shaving the cat.” (Don’t laugh!) But, in fact, from my perspective, the explicit question buried within it is an implicit, unstated question, with an assumed response: “You are going to wash the dishes, aren’t you?” Actually, I wasn’t. It’s summer and for 3 months that’s your job, remember? The key word here that is being redefined is “YOU”.

Or, the most famous question-begging definition around our house is when Pam asks me, “When we take the grandkids [there are 8 of 'em, each under the age of 5] to the zoo, which car do you want to take?” The term that is being redefined in that one is the plural pronoun “we.” She has a different definition than I do.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I love taking the grandkids to the zoo. It’s just that when we’re ready to leave I have a hard time distinguishing them from the leopards and other wild animals.

Williams’ impulsive missionary zeal, however, was not to be denied. Inquisitive natives greeted their landing even as children played at the edge of the nearby forest. After some efforts at communication and giving gifts to the natives, the missionaries noticed that there were no women present — it was an unambiguous sign that mischief was afoot.

Pioneering missionary efforts, such as the one led by John Williams, are difficult. Communication with groups with unknown languages are problematic to say the least. Avoiding ambiguity is nearly impossible and often the results are tragic.

Ambiguity, Tropes and the Gospel

This installment, about the fallacy of ambiguity, is part of a series on the role of reason in the discovery of truth. Ambiguity occurs when a word or phrase is used that can be understood in more than one way and the speaker (either on purpose or unavoidably) does not make clear what specifically is intended.

Even in a culture where there is a common language, ambiguity is difficult to avoid. It is particularly difficult for evangelists and religious educators who communicate about the things of God — things that cannot be seen. Efforts to circumvent such communication problems often involve “figures of speech” or tropes where uncommon, invisible things are explained with words that refer to common, visible things. For example the idea that Christ is our spiritual food (something invisible) is related to bread that is physical food (something visible).

Unfortunately, the effort by linguists to clarify the meaning of tropes is almost as ambiguous as the concepts they try to explain. You may be familiar with common tropes such as simile and metaphor, but the natural confusion that such language creates has spawned a cottage industry of “clarifying” terms — terms like synecdoche, metonymy, paronomasia, malapropism, euphemism, and idiom. I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that the effort to avoid ambiguity has only created more of it.

Let’s face it. We’re ambiguous. Perhaps it’s because we’re unsure. You’ve heard the adage, “When in doubt, mumble.” Mumbling is similar to ambiguity, and both are extensively used in our age of sound bytes and political correctness. I contend however, that while “ambiguity” may have the ring of “generosity” or “humility” it is not a virtue, as John Williams and his colleagues were soon to find out.

After dividing up a bolt of cloth among the natives who had come to greet them, the natives suddenly disappeared. So, the missionaries wandered down the beach and around a bend in the foliage, out of sight of the ship’s captain and crew. Williams must have been wondering if he had properly communicated this party’s benevolent intentions, or if their gestures, unintelligible words, and the gift of cloth, had been too ambiguous and thus misunderstood. The natives on Errogmanda, he had been warned, were possibly cannibals, and an old language lesson may have come to Williams’ mind about the little girl who comes into the kitchen where her mother is cooking dinner and asks, “What’s for dinner, Mom?” The mother knows what her daughter means, but lurking by the stove is the girl’s cannibalistic uncle who may take the question differently.

Innocent Ambiguity

Back in the states, Dr. T. Edward Damer writes about leaving an evening banquet with an acquaintance. It was late and it was raining. Damer asks his friend, “How about a ride home?” His friend said, “Sure.” After walking to the parking lot, they both realized that neither of them had driven a car to the function. The friend thought Damer was offering a ride, although Damer was asking for a ride. Ambiguity is heartless.

When I was an Evangelical we were always being told to “Invite Jesus into your heart.” In our materialistic world such a figure of speech or spiritual jargon is strange. Do we mean to submit to open-heart surgery and stick a miniature statue of Jesus into our heart? That sounds absurd, but not any more ambiguous than what ran through Nicodemus’ mind when Jesus told him no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is “born again.” Nicodemus asks, “How can a man be born when he is old…? Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born?” (John 3).

The little girl who is asking her mom about dinner is not going to be ambiguous because Uncle Lecter is in jail — the context makes the question clear. On the other hand, Damer and his friend simply needed to use more words to make their request and acceptance less ambiguous and save themselves a walk through the rain on a dark night. But to make clear what Christianity is really all about, i.e. to make the faith less ambiguous and less reliant on jargon, requires a bit more effort. This is especially true when Catholics are talking about the sacraments, which are like tropes that help to make visual that which is unseen. But unfortunately, without clear instruction, even the physicality of the sacraments can be ambiguous and misunderstood.

Ambiguity and Catechesis

In John 6:60-66 we have the record of one of Jesus’ missionary outings among the local natives, which perhaps spawned the first occurrence of Protestantism. The miscommunication occurs, we might surmise, due to a combination of hard-heartedness and ambiguity. A group of Jesus’ disciples became upset with Christ’s Eucharistic teaching that in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood. To some today, Jesus appears to have been ambiguous to these disciples who had been watching way too many Hannibal Lecter movies and thought that Jesus was promoting cannibalism, a practice strictly forbidden in Jewish law (Footnote 1).

The importance of the Eucharist cannot be overstated. But just as there is an ambiguous problem with not taking Christ’s words about His physical Presence literally, so ambiguity also plays a role in taking the teachings of His Real Presence so literally that we miss their full meaning.

For example at Mass, when children take their first communion, Catholics may be reminded by their priests of the importance of the Eucharist with words like these spoken to the children:

Heather and Michael, from now on, every Sunday, when you come to church, you’ll be sure to always come forward and take the body of our Lord, won’t you? Because, that is what makes us Christians. When you take Jesus inside of you, you’ll be like Him and become good Catholics.

What the priest says is true, but that is not the full teaching of the Church. The deeper purpose of the Eucharist is to transform our substantive nature much like the grain and grapes are transformed into bread and wine, and then the bread and wine are transformed sacramentally into Christ’s true body and blood. When we receive the Eucharist properly, with the right disposition of mind and heart, we are transformed spiritually. But that does not happen without clear instruction about how we should approach the Eucharist with a humble faith and determined obedience.

John Williams and his colleagues faced this problem on the Erromanga beach. Like many Catholic homilists, they had but 10 minutes to explain some life-sustaining concepts — not about the Eucharist or anything so complicated, but simply who they were and why they had come. Like the natives that left Williams and his companions on the beach after a short encounter, they have questions, like: “Is that all there is? Is that all these strange people have to offer?”

As a former Protestant (and now as a Catholic) I criticize many “Catholics” for their surface understanding and practice of Christianity. It was not surprising to me then, nor is it now, that many Catholics who are seeking a deeper relationship with Christ leave Catholicism because they do not understand the faith they have left behind. And how can they when there is little in-depth catechesis or time given to avoiding the ambiguity?

Ambiguity vs. Hard Work

Instead of staying an extra hour after Mass for Sunday School or Bible study every Sunday throughout the year, or coming an hour before Mass for classes, most Catholic leaders are content to get parishioners to simply show up for Mass and receive the Eucharist. I’ve been told “But that’s all people will do. You can’t tell them to do more.” Such comments are excuses for embracing the ease of ambiguous “knowledge”, and avoiding the hard work required to develop and maintain an on-going religious educational program that lasts a lifetime, like Evangelicals do so well. Consequently, Catholic leaders should not complain when the inevitable occurs. What, inevitability, you ask?

Deep in many parishioners’ hearts is the thought that there has to be more than simply showing up and going through the motions, which is inadvertently but explicitly taught in many Catechism and RCIA classes, and pronounced in homilies. I’ve witnessed it more than once, and dozens have lamented the problem to me in phone calls and written comments responding to my writing. This past week I watched a video of a well-meaning priest discussing the Miraculous Medal:

The miracle of the Medal is that it brings the power of God in our life at that moment. And there is nothing more powerful, more miraculous than the power of the divine life of God present in our life. When we touch that Medal we bring all of salvation, all of the divine life that God offers and gives us, to that present moment. That’s the miracle (Footnote 2, emphasis mine).

I would hope that faith in God and obedience to Him, and not the literal trust in a medal, plays a role in what this priest is trying to convey. But as it stands, this statement is ambiguous at best, and superstitious at worst. Yet, it demonstrates how much of Catholic religious education teaches us that “just showing up” is the bedrock of our salvation, and why many Catholics and Protestants rebel.

Here is how Dr. Peter Kreeft, former Protestant and now Catholic philosopher and apologist, explains the problem of poor catechesis in his talk (available on-line) on Ecumenism and his explanation of why a few years ago in South America, in part, Protestant, Evangelical, and Fundamentalist sects were expanding, and Catholic numbers were declining:

Why is this happening? I think the ultimate reason is because God is love. Because God wills to draw all men to Himself. Because of that spiritual gravity, because nature abhors a vacuum, spiritually as well as physically, and because the Catholic Church has been so remiss in giving God’s children the fullness of the spiritual food that God has given the Church to give out, therefore the children have been going elsewhere to eat it. And God has allowed this because God is a good father. And a good father would rather see his children go away from home and live, than stay home and die. Of course, things are not that simple. Of course motives for leaving the Church and joining the sects are many and mixed and some are simply bad. But still I think the main force driving these events in the realm of the Spirit is the Spirit. When these sheep find little or no Christ in the Catholic Church, whosever fault that is, and find Christ more “really” in a sect, more “really” objectively and not subjectively, certainly not just emotionally, then they are moving closer to and not farther from the fullness of the Catholic faith.

They may have left the Eucharist, the real presence of Christ in the Catholic Church, and that is the fullest presence of Christ in this world, but they did not know the person Who is present there, and Whose body they ate with their bodies and not with their souls. When these starving sheep leave home to find Christ in the [Protestant] sects, they are learning lesson one that they should have learned as Catholics but didn’t. And that lesson one is the only possible lesson for lesson two, and three, and four, and that is the fullness of the faith the Catholic Church has…

As Catholics these people may have gotten Christ in the real presence of the Eucharist, but they didn’t get the real presence of Christ in their hearts and in their lives. They got the upper stories of the Catholic skyscraper, but not the foundation. Not the faith and the hope and the love relationship with Christ as Lord and Savior. Therefore, in order to become good Catholics they must first become good Protestants. God pulled them out of the Catholic Church and put them into a Protestant sect because God is spiritual gravity and God pulls us towards Himself, like a massive sun. If His rays are blocked in one place, we must go elsewhere to find them. For find them we must. They draw us, they give us life. They are a matter of life or death, not a religious shopping mart (Footnote 3).

So that I am not ambiguous, I am suggesting that repeated ambiguous statements by those who teach us the faith in place of in-depth, weekly, continuous catechesis (e.g. the model used in Evangelical Adult Sunday School), leads to poor understanding, misunderstanding, and a weak Church (Footnote 4).

Piecemeal Salvation

Recently a Protestant wrote us at Nineveh’s Crossing complaining about what Dr. Ray Guarendi teaches on the Eucharist in our television series “What Catholics Really Believe“. D.N. wrote:

What the RCC [Roman Catholic Church] does by expecting Jesus to jump into a wafer and (wine) millions of times per day around the world is a travesty. You don’t get Jesus into you by ingesting him; he is received spiritually by Faith alone in the finished work of Christ’s one time atonement. To assert the Eucharist is necessary as a piecemealed salvation handout according to the CCC [Catechism of the Catholic Church], is a heresy and serves only to hold people in bondage to returning time and time again thinking they are getting closer and closer to salvation (Footnote 5).

In spite of D.N.’s gross misunderstanding of Catholic teaching, there is substance in his complaint — he does not see Christ in the sacraments. Yes, that is, in part, due to his closed-mindedness. But it could also be due to the ambiguity of the Church’s instruction or lack of it among typical Catholics. D.N.’s misunderstanding, I believe, is the result of not seeing Christ’s presence in the Catholics around him. It is a real problem, and one I witnessed as an Evangelical growing up in a Catholic neighborhood.

As Peter Kreeft says in the same presentation quoted above:

Protestants will not and should not stop protesting against the Catholic Church until they see the totally Christocentric character of Her and of all Her teachings.

I contend that Protestants will continue to protest until Catholic leadership is determined to eradicate the ambiguity of the faith that only one short homily a week creates among the “faithful.” Let me say it another way: the biggest obstacle to uniting the Church is the poor understanding by Catholics of their faith, significantly as the result of a lack of good teaching.

Attacking the Fallacy

Here are three suggestions for avoiding ambiguous communication:

1. In everyday communication, attacking the fallacy of ambiguity requires that both sides work hard to clarify the meaning of terms and evidence. If someone says something to you that doesn’t sound quite right, be bold enough to ask for a clarification, even if they look at you strangely. And be careful not to claim someone is being ambiguous when there really is enough information to understand, if you apply common sense.

2. With respect to religious education, especially regarding our participation in the sacraments, we need to demand of ourselves, our educators, our priests, and our bishops that time and effort be given (in an Evangelical way) to what it really means to be a Christian — and just showing up for Mass is not the answer, as important as that may be.

3. If the person or author is not present to ask such a clarifying question, examine the context of what he or she has written for hints and clarification.

Back on the Beach

My missionary ancestor, John Williams, was a bit slow examining the ambiguous context of his encounter with the Erromanga natives. In his log of the tragic events of that day, Camden Captain Morgan writes:

The next minute I turned round to see Mr. Williams and Mr. Cunningham running — Mr. Cunningham for the boat and Mr. Williams straight for the sea, with one native close behind. Mr. Williams fell backwards, the beach being stony, and at that point the native struck him with a club. A second native also struck him and another put arrows into the body. We were unable to retrieve the body as the natives were firing arrows at the boat. The body stayed on the beach for quite a time before the natives dragged it off the shore (Footnote 6).

James Harris had been martyred further up the stream bed, which the three missionaries had followed out of sight of the Camden. A report by the captain of a British man of war that came to collect the missionaries’ remains and investigate the incident established that the natives believed the three missionaries and their sailing ship were more of the same foreigners who had previously come to their island to cut sandalwood and, in the process, had murdered hundreds of Erromangoans. For John Williams and his companion James Harris, a missionary in training, ambiguity was deadly.

Over the years since, seven British ships that served Polynesia were named in honor of John Williams. Today there are chapels throughout Polynesia dedicated to his memory. In Leone, American Samoa, there stands before the large beautiful Siona Chapel a monument dedicated to John Williams, Apostle of the Pacific; and a few miles to the West on the Samoan island of Upolu, in the Congregational Church you’ll find the clean-picked bones of my beloved ancestor. Indeed, the Erromangoans were cannibals.

__________________________________________________

Footnote 1: Hannibal Lecter is a fictional character made famous by actor Anthony Hopkins’ portrayal of the cannibalistic villain in a series of movies, the best known of which is The Silence of the Lambs for which Hopkins won an Academy Award in 1991. In 2001, Hannibal Lecter (as portrayed by Hopkins) was voted by The American Film Institute to be the most memorable villain in film history. The movies are based on a series of novels by author Thomas Harris, the first of which is titled Red Dragon. And as much as some would like to, this time we can’t blame the Jews’ rejection of Christ’s words on Hollywood. Dang!

Footnote 2: Rev. Carl L. Pieber, C.M. in video clip at http://www.thefaithfultraveler.com/video/MMSpotweb.mov. I recommend, however, the videos of U.S. Shrines at this website. They are informative, interesting, and well-produced.

Footnote 3: Dr. Peter Kreeft’s talk on Ecumenism.

Footnote 4: Dave Armstrong suggests here that I distinguish between liberal-type ambiguity (which I am not referring to) and confusion resulting from ambiguous speech (which I am referring to) vs. plain lack of any teaching or nominalism or lack of spiritual interest on the part parishioners (which I am willing to include because I think ambiguity has a way of putting people to sleep).

Footnote 5: Personal Correspondence.

Footnote 6: Modern Missionaries: Their Trials and Triumphs by Robert Young.

Ah, the joys of family communication. Or, should I say the joys of question begging and leading questions. They’re very popular and widely used forms of communication — albeit fallacious.

Question Begging and Leading Questions

This series of articles is about the role of reason in the discovery of truth. We arrive at truth through the application of two disciplines — faith and reason, which are like “two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.” (John Paul II, Fides et Ratio). As we discussed earlier in this series, truth does not come to us by faith alone, neither does it come by reason alone. To rely on one to the exclusion of the other is to fly with one wing, mostly in circles, as we misapply the ordered rules of one or the other and introduce fallacies into our thinking.

This chapter briefly examines two of those fallacies that fall under the broad fallacy category Unacceptable Appeals and a sub-category called Begging the Question. They are Question Begging Language and Leading Questions. These fallacies occur when the question assumes a foregone conclusion, before the question can be investigated. In Chapter 16 we defined and gave several examples of this broader classification and so I will assume you understand the fundamental principle that is being violated. Therefore, in this chapter, I’ll drill down into some additional examples.

In a moment I’ll deal with my daughter crying, and my wife’s “dead-man” questions. But first, let me deal with the more obvious example from that first paragraph — my agreement to listen to the reasons my daughter wanted to go on a stupid retreat with her dumb friends. What was going on before I rudely opened the door to our conversation was a “discussion” that purported to ascertain if the retreat and her commingling with her “friends” was good or bad for her character. My explosive “agreement” was not an agreement at all, but a rejection of her premise by my prejudiced use of the words stupid and dumb in my question. By speaking that way, I rejected any presentation of evidence (by her) that might contradict my “infallible” opinion.

Clearly, the messages we want to communicate cannot be sent with just words. They use many non-verbal cues. Some linguists claim that 80% of our messages are communicated non-verbally. So, my daughter’s crying, facial contortions, and body language were part of the message; and in so doing, her crying begged the issue. Translating her emotional response into words here’s what she was saying: “Since you don’t want me to be sad and ruin your weekend by pouting, you’ll let me go on the retreat, right?”

Hmmm? Many times arguments take on form of multiple fallacies and semi-conscious manipulations. My daughter’s question also took the form of two fallacious emotional appeals we covered earlier called “appeal to pity” and “exploitation of strong feelings.” Regardless of what else was involved, the question is laced with the foregone conclusion that makes it more difficult for the responder to answer directly and honestly, without encountering other communication problems.

Do You Like Me Now?

Similarly when my wife asks about her new hair-do, or new dress, the unsaid is often more important that what we hear. Men of my age and martial status have learned (somewhat) that the real question, the unspoken begged question, is “Do you like me… still?” If we’re not stupid or dumb, we’ll always answer such begged questions with the utmost diplomacy: “Honey, you looked great, last week and this. I love you more all the time.” Yes, I know, it sure does not seem to answer the question, but believe me, it DOES. [Ed: But, Stan, in that case, it is a necessary nicety. Stan: It is? Uh...okay, it is.]

Begging Mary?

We should all beg Mary, but when non-Catholics do it with question such as, “Why do you Catholics worship Mary?” the question begging or leading question issue is seen even more clearly. If you have been asked that question before, you may already understand it’s a question that cannot be answered directly, because it assumes something false — that Catholics worship Mary. Dave Armstrong points out that we need to be aware of false presuppositions of our opponents, which helps us to get at the root of the miscommunication.

A conversation between Patty and Kathy might go something like this:

Patty: Why do you Catholics worship Mary, Kathy?

Kathy: We don’t worship Mary, Patty. What gives you that idea?

Patty: Well, you’re always praying to her.

Kathy: Naturally.

Patty: Well, what’s the difference?

Kathy: Difference between what?

Patty: That’s what I want to know.

Kathy: I have no idea what you’re talking about.

Patty: Between worship and prayer. Don’t you worship God when you pray to him?

Kathy: Naturally.

Patty: There, don’t you see?

Kathy: See what?

Patty: You’re an idolater.

Kathy: Because I pray to God?

Patty: No, because you pray to Mary.

Kathy: But, we don’t worship Mary.

Patty: But you pray to her.

Kathy: Naturally.

(pause)

Patty: Is this where I say, “Who’s on first.”

Kathy: What?

Patty: No, What’s on second.

Kathy: I don’t know.

Patty: He’s on third.

Kathy: Naturally.

(RIM SHOT)

You think I made that up, don’t you? Sorry, but that conversation happens several times a day between Protestants and Catholics.

The begged question, of course, is: “Why do Catholics worship Mary?”

It’s a kind of begged question that is also a good example of layered fallacies, which makes such questions all the more difficult to answer. Not only does the question assume something false, but it involves two other fallacies, one stacked on the false assumptions of the other. The two secondary fallacies I refer to here are equivocation, and distinction without a difference or what I term “difvocation.” These are important fallacies that we will define and explain from time to time.

Equivocation and Difvocation

Difvocation involves the use of two terms that sound different. The problem occurs when one of the parties defines the two terms the same, and the other party defines the two terms differently. In this case the two terms are “prayer” and “worship”. Something is difvocal (they sound different, or they have DIFferent VOCALizations) if the same meaning is applied to the different sounding terms. Patty defines “prayer” and “worship” as if they are the same. But Kathy defines them differently — “worship” is “adoration” reserved for the Trinity alone. But “prayer” is not worship per se, but a description of a method available to us in order to communicate to those in the supernatural realm. Thus, we can ask (e.g. pray to or intercede with) a saint in heaven to ask (e.g. pray to or intercede with) God for something through the one mediator, Jesus Christ.

Overlaying that confusion is an equivocation, which involves the use of two terms that are equivocal (they sound the same, or they have EQUal VOCALizations) but have different meanings. That is, difvocation occurs when two terms have the same meaning, and equivocation occurs when two terms have different meanings. In this case the two terms are spelled the same, e.g. “prayer”. We say there are two terms (even through they are spelled the same) because Patty defines “prayer” as “worship” or “adoration” directly to God, but Kathy defines “prayer” as “a response to God’s goodness” which can be through an intercessor.

Once both Patty and Kathy understand these difficulties, they can more accurately unwrap the begged question by first defining the term “prayer” (and “worship”). To the Catholic prayer and worship are not the same, and so, Catholics do not worship Mary when they ask her to intercede before Christ for us.

Dave Armstrong suggests that here we might explain the three factors that Catholic Kathy missed as opportunities to better explain her faith. She might have said:

• “Praying to Mary” means basically, “asking Mary to intercede.”
• Doing this presupposes that we are going through Mary to God, Who alone answers prayers. Mary is not the source of the answer as “praying to Mary” implies to an Evangelical or Protestant mind.
• Evangelical and Protestants assume that such prayer is worship because their culture teaches them there are only two categories of beings that we can communicate with: Humans here on earth, and God in heaven. Thus they collapse all non-human communication into the “worship” catagory. But there are other creatures (including the angels) in heaven with whom we can communicate.

Abortion Begging Language

If you are engaged in an argument about whether or not abortion is murder, one aspect of the argument may be whether or not the fetus is a human being. In such a situation, we may state: “Abortion is murder because the fetus is human” without providing significant evidence that would justify the claim of why the fetus is human. When we do that we beg the issue, and we fail to advance our position.

This takes us back and reminds us, when faced with an opponent, first clarify the exact issue. In this case, the issue is not abortion, but what constitutes humanity for a fetus. In so doing we can appeal to science and philosophy using commonly accepted premises, rather than the Bible, which the non-Christian will not accept. The scientific argument from the nature of genetics is compelling. The philosophical argument involves ethical discussions about the nature of rights and who has them.

Attacking Begging Fallacies

The first step in attacking a begging fallacy is to try to get your opponent to realize they are begging. In the case of my crying daughter, she might simply say to me: “Dad, the issue isn’t the retreat is it? It’s whether or not my friends that are going on the retreat are a good or bad influence on me? Is that it?”

If I answer “yes” to that question it’s entirely possible we might come to a resolution about whether the retreat is a worthy use of her time.

If, however, the issue is so emotionally laden, like the abortion issue often is, and neither you nor your opponent can be objective about the issue, you may have to just walk away. Christ tells us in each of the Gospels that if someone will not listen to the truth, to leave the home or town, and shake off the dust from your feet (Mt. 10:14). The upside of this tactic is that you might be able to persuade someone else, with whom you will have more credibility than you do with your current, unmovable, opponent.

Recently, an anti-Catholic EWTN viewer of Dr. Ray Guarendi’s DVD and television series What Catholics Really Believe wrote us and let off some steam about his “understanding” of Catholicism, including this:

The reason [the Eucharist] IS only a Memorial is because Christ was sacrificed ONCE for all of mankind’s sin and the real Atoning Sacrifice was TOTALLY SUFFICIENT. Please refrain from ‘re-presenting’ Christ on RCC altars, as it is a total mockery of the ONLY ONE TIME sacrifice for all of mankind’s sins, just as the book of Hebrews explicitly says.

Obviously, there are several fallacies at work here, including equivocation, difvocation, and begging the issue. I responded with a suggestion that the writer refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church rather than the book he had cited written by an anti-Catholic. In a second email, after he responded with the same false claims, I carefully and objectively laid out the fallacies that were at work in his statements, pointing to the CCC as a truer representation of Catholic belief.

Usually my attempts at this sort of apologetics bear little fruit, and I have to just walk away, or hang up after 20 minutes of run-on sentences by an angry caller. But in this instance, the writer showed some openness to re-examining the actual teachings of the Church. We’ll see what the future holds.

In any event, as with all fallacious communication, it is important that you first recognize the fallacy for what it is, and then attempt to enlighten your opponent as to why you think a fallacy exists. Unless, of course, it’s a crying daughter or your wife has just bought a new hat to cover the hair she doesn’t think you like. In such cases, all bets are off, and it’s you who needs to do the begging.

God bless.

P.S. You can leave written comments below, or audio feedback on my Podcast Voice Mail: 248-679-8816. In future chapters and podcasts I may incorporate your questions and comments. The podcasts, as I get them done, are available at the blog and podcast site: Trying to Fly with One Wing.

EXPELLED also explores how secular scientists have applied a “strawman fallacy” in their attempt to debunk Christian faith by assuming that such faith is nothing more than an irrational, mental assent to some proposition, without any way to collect evidence one way or the other. A strawman fallacy consists of an opponent misrepresenting your position so that it is easier to attack. In this case, secular scientists claim that intelligent design theory is only the result of a religious faith that they define as irrational mental assent. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. For example, Christian faith is based on eons of physical evidence of a benevolent, Supreme Being who has interacted with the physical universe and left us myriad of physical, measurable evidences upon which we put our trust. Christian faith is not a blind faith, but a eyes-wide-open, truth-seeking, evidence-based faith.

Empirical Challenge

It was a fine Spring morning as I jaunted across the campus of Greenville College, in Southern Illinois. I was a senior majoring in Physics on my way to give a lecture in an Introduction to Philosophy class taught by Dr. Royal Mulholland. I had been asked to play the role of an empiricist and challenge the faith of Christianity. An empiricist is a scientist who relies heavily on quantitative evidence (i.e. numerical measures) and, of course, the scientific method as the preferred method of discovering truth. (There are also social scientists who rely on qualitative evidence (i.e. psychological measures) to do their science.

Yes, I was a Christian, as were Professor Mulholland (see Chapter 18), and most of the students in the class, including the wonderful young lady I was dating and would later marry. The uniqueness of the situation undoubtedly had something to do with my outspoken advocacy of the explicit harmony between science and the Christian faith, as opposed to the often-ballyhooed conflict between science and religion. In my junior Physics Seminar I had been asked to write an essay that defended Christianity in the face of supposed contradictory discoveries in science. I didn’t see the contradictions. I saw incomplete theories on the part of scientists, and I saw arrogance on the part of theologians.

Later, in my understanding of how to explain truth, I would come to understand the relationship between nature and the Bible, and between science and theology. Cosmologist and Christian apologist Hugh Ross (evangelical) writes about how the conflict is not between physical nature and God’s Word, but between the disciplines that interpret those two sources of knowledge — science and theology. The proper Christian assumption is that physical nature and God’s Word both come from The Almighty, so they must agree, even if we cannot understand how. Rather than call apparent disagreements between science and religion “contradictions,” it would be more accurate to label them “paradoxes” — i.e. “apparent contradictions” about which we simply don’t know enough to explain.

Thus, science is the interpretation of nature (i.e. natural revelation), and theology is the interpretation of God’s Word (i.e. supernatural revelation). Where the interpretive tool in both disciplines involve humans (sometimes without the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit), we can expect misinterpretation and error.

The Truth Seeking Principle

Now let me jump back a moment and remind us that this series of articles seeks to explain how reason must be used responsibly in the discovery of truth. Faith and reason are like “two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.” (John Paul II, Fides et Ratio). Truth does not come to us by faith alone, nor does it come by scientific experimentation alone. To rely on one to the exclusion of the other is to fly blind with only one wing, mostly in circles, before you crash and burn in a pile of irrational assumptions — as Ben Stein sees “big science” doing today.

This particular chapter (19), along with the previous (18), is about T. Edward Damer’s The Truth Seeking Principle, the 2nd principle from his “Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion.” This principle encourages all the participants in a discussion to earnestly seek out the truth at all costs, regardless of discipline, presuppositions, perceived values, emotions, time, hurt feelings, — did I leave anything out?… oh, yeah — politics and religion. The Truth Seeking Principle demands that we listen humbly to opposing viewpoints with respect and diligence. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 11:7-8 suggests: “Before investigating, find no fault; examine first, then criticize… Interrupt no one in the middle of his speech.”

Christianity Is Scientific

For several years following college with my major in physics, I was a test engineer in NASA’s space program. My job was to take particular theories of the engineer-scientists I worked for, and test them in the labs. I was involved in the heart of practical science and the scientific method. What I was doing in NASA’s labs was pretty much what I was doing in Bible studies and my spiritual walk with Christ. I was testing the theories proposed by Christian theology. The more my testing showed them to be true, the more I trusted them.

As a Protestant I studied the Bible fanatically (I didn’t have the security of the Church’s 2,000 years of magisterial engineering) and was taught week after week that it was by spiritual faith alone that we were saved and not by our physical actions. But the way we were taught to define faith as opposed to science and work became a disconnect or paradox. While the doctrinal explanations emphasized mental assent of faith alone, the emphasis on sermons focused on the mechanical, causal nature of Christian obedience. That is, when we studied the Bible or applied it to our lives we discovered how our thoughts and their resulting actions affected and effected our spiritual standing with God. There was a cause and effect, the heart of science. It was one thing to think something (as in the mental assent of faith), but it was an entirely different thing to do it (as in the physical action of works).

The Scientific Method

The new pagans and anti-Christian segments of our society would have the world believe that Christianity is not interested in truth, but only in blind embrace of an irrational faith. Just the opposite is true, and it can be easily shown that it is the pagans and atheists who are embracing irrationality. It is Christianity that relentlessly seeks truth, even if you consider the interaction between Copernicus, Galileo and a few Catholic prelates — a discussion I’ll save for another time. For it is out of the Catholic Church that the scientific method was devised.

The Scientific Method can be generally described as a sophisticated and somewhat controlled discovery of the relationship between certain causes and their effects. Specifically, the scientific method can be described by these seven (7) steps: (1) Curiosity and Presuppositions, (2) Observation, (3) Hypothesis, (4) Experiment, (5) Theory, (6) Test, (7) Law. In spite of what many may think (even theologians, I dare say), that is exactly what the Christian Church has done from the time of Christ; and it is how Catholicism approaches the seeking of truth even today. (Yes, I admit, I’m a Christian empiricist.) Is that heresy? Hardly, because it fully embraces faith and supernatural revelation, in the same way that John Paul II tells us that reason reinforces faith and, in turn, faith advances reason.

How can all this be true? Very simply, and in thousands of ways. [Ed: "thousands"? SW: Well, yeah...thousands. My hidden assumption here is that there is quantitative evidence for every human life that has ever graced the planet and how that life has, does, and will interact with nature and with God. Think of the many parameters, ways, and elements that a human being interacts with the physical world. It's myriad, just in a single life. And so, okay -- I guess I have erred. In keeping with what I'm about to explain, I should not have said there are thousands of ways my premise can be proved, but billions upon billions upon billions. Stick with me and do a little interpolation on your own. This is cool stuff. So -- let me start again.]

How can all this be true? Very simply, and in xillions upon xillions of ways. Take the seven steps I listed above and lay them next to the history of man and the development of Christian doctrine. While there is definitely mystery, there is no magic, no sleight of hand, or hocus pocus. What follows is the process of seeking truth you will find in both science and theology. (Notice that I have not included politics in that short list.)

Now, to briefly explore the relationship between Christianity and the Scientific Method here is an overview of each of the above steps with an explanation of how they apply to the development of Christian theology.

(1) Curiosity and Presuppositions.

Supernatural faith plays a role in each of these steps, but it is in this step that the correlation is most obvious. It is also in this step that even pagan scientists (unknowingly) access Christian faith to do their work of science. In fact, we could probably replace the words “curiosity and presuppositions” with “faith” and “supernatural revelation.” It is our curiosity that reaches out beyond ourselves and looks for answers and a structure or order to the universe. It is curiosity that asks “Why?” and “How?” Faith presupposes there is a God that can answer the prayer, “Why did that happen?” and “How can I better understand it?”

For example, if we ask, “Why does water run downhill?” we will discover that science helps to answer a theological question. Water runs downhill because of gravity, which pulls water into the ground and thus waters plants, that allows food to grow, which sustains life. Gravity also pulls water down through many layers of sediment, which remove impurities, and then allows the cleaned water to collect in underground basins and in wells for people to drink, thus sustaining life. In fact, every scientific discovery throughout time points to something called the Anthrophic Principle — a theologically significant concept that everything in the universe (from far away galaxies to subatomic particles) was finely tuned to do one thing — sustain human life.

Science has also discovered that if a closed system is left alone without the intelligent input of energy, it will degrade and cease to function. This is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics or entropy. A car left outside without care will not just cease to run, but will eventually end up as a pile of rust. A garden left untended will be overrun with weeds. A baby left alone without care will die. But when continual, intelligent care (in the form of an intelligently controlled energy) is put into the system, sustained life and beauty result. “The heavens declare the glory of God…” (Ps 19:1-6).

It is only because of an ordered universe, cared for continually by a benevolent God, that the world does not do as the car did. Even secular environmentalists are confounded when a major oil spill or a volcanic eruption threatens to destroy a corner of the earth and after a few years the area recovers and brings forth new life. What we see in all this is physical evidence, scientific evidence, of what supernatural revelation of our faith proclaims. There is an intelligent order, and sustenance at work to give life and maintain it. Science assumes this; that is, it is an act of faith in an ordered (not random) universe that supercedes knowledge. Science, by its “nature”, requires faith in a principle that itself cannot be proven by science. My editor, Dave Armstrong, says: “Belief that the universe is orderly and uniformitarian is a non-scientific premise that is required to do science. Science reduces in the end to philosophy, which in turn requires axioms, and in many ways is not unlike theology.”

Now, space is limited, so we must move on. Notice how faith in what is not seen or understood is ubiquitous to each of the remaining steps. The secular scientist will not call it “faith” but rather a “wonder” or “awe” of what is there. I contend that the secular scientist’s wonder is a near equivalent to a Christian’s faith, if not the preliminary and necessary steps to it.

So, with that basis, let’s move quickly through the remaining steps of the scientific method.

(2) Observations. The Israelites and early Christians observed God’s behavior through physical signs, physical miracles and the physical words and actions of Jesus and the prophets. Note that these observations and experiences are a mixture of reason (observations in nature) and faith (prophetic proclamations).

(3) Hypothesis. The observers form hypotheses about what can be learned from the observations and what they have been told, e.g. “Obey God and you will live. Disobey and you will die.” Or, “Have faith in God and you will be healed, and your sins be forgiven.”

(4) Experiment. Experiments are run to test the hypotheses. These are not always controlled experiments, although science loves such things. But science cannot always run controlled experiments. When an earthquake occurs there is nothing that we can control. Yet we learn from such events.  In Joshua 7, Achan buries forbidden loot in the floor of his tent when he was told to destroy it. In Numbers 20, Moses angrily strikes the rock twice to produce water for the Israelites, rather than speaking to it in faith. In Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira lie about giving all their money to the Apostles. For all of these causes, there is an effect; and Christianity learns from such things. (As we should.)

(5) Theory. When Achan’s loot is miraculous discovered and his family stoned (with real rocks not street drugs), when Moses is prevented from entering the Promised Land because of his disobedience, and when Ananias and Sapphira drop dead — the hypothesis suddenly becomes trustworthy and we claim a theory exists. Scientists and theologians both look for patterns by which to predict future events. In both disciplines the theory is “developing.” Thus, there is both the development of scientific theory and the development of doctrine.

(6) Testing. But after centuries of testing, with the same results…

(7) Rules and Laws take the form of scientific predictability and theological doctrine and even dogma.

Yes, it is true that not all dogma can be tested. But what can be tested gives mighty good evidence that the extrapolations of prophetic utterances of Christ are fully trustworthy. Not everything is tested in science, but the extrapolation of rules and laws allows us to send men to the moon and back, having never done it before.

Mulholland’s Introduction to Philosophy

In Mulholland’s Introduction to Philosophy class I began my lecture, presented myself as an empirical scientist and argued that if God truly existed, and if Christianity was actually true, then the scientific method could be used to prove it. To my evangelical classmates, faith was not something that science could comment on — I must have sounded like a heretic (and perhaps I was). My future wife, who sat in the class, was unconvinced, and although everyone knew I was just play-acting, Pam says I was convincing enough to put our relationship on the rocks for a while.

I have a tendency to emphasize reason in these sorts of arguments, and at times I probably still sound like a heretic. I apologize. It’s an overreaction to the faith-as-mental-assent emphasis of my Evangelical upbringing, and in reaction today to the same (strawman) claim by atheists as secular scientists. The reason and evidence of an intelligent designer is everywhere, it’s the pink elephant in the room you’re pretending to ignore. Like King David, I take solace in Psalm 8:4-5: “When I see your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you set in place — what are humans that you are mindful of them, mere mortals that you care for them?”

As one of my graduate professors reminded me, “Stan, you cannot prove anything. All you can do is bring evidence to bear on the argument, and make sure it’s good evidence.” Theologians and mystics will claim that God has written the truth of his existence on the hearts of all men. I believe that the physical universe provides such a strong testimony of his Supreme Intelligent Design that we cannot discern the difference between what is innate on our hearts, and what our physical senses declare to be obvious. It is not an either/or argument, it is an and/both proposition. What is written on our hearts is one and the same with what we experience.

Someone once said, “I only know two things: First, there is a God. And second, I’m not him.” (And along comes God and says, simply: “I am”!) May that be our motivation to know God in our hearts, and in our minds, as we marvel at the evidence in creation of God’s Supreme Intelligent Design, and do our utmost, at all times, in all places, to seek the truth at all costs.