What I Believe

The recent attempt at a dialogue with a Bible-only commenter hasn't borne fruit, yet. That's ok, not everyone is into discourse.

Perhaps what is needed is to first establish the common ground that we have. To effectively disagree with someone you must first have something you both agree on. Otherwise you have no common terms or concepts which you can both appeal to. The debate ends up being two unrelated soliloquies interrupting each other. So what, potentially, do I have in common with most Bible-only Christians?

First and foremost, we have Jesus Christ, Lord and Saviour. No one and nothing takes precedence, once you have recognized Him. As a Catholic I feel obliged to point out that this includes, logically speaking, the Bible. Not that they are opposed to each other or in tension somehow. Rather, that the Bible only stands–directly and indirectly–on Jesus Himself:

“[S]cripture cannot be broken”


(John 10:35 RSV)

And I find the ancient Roman baptismal formula (via Tertullian) to be an excellent summary of Christian beliefs about Jesus:

We,...believe that there is one only God...that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her-being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead.

Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (ANF III; Accordance electronic ed. 9 vols.; New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885), n.p.

This testimony [circa A.D. 213] is an early example of the ancient belief of those who eventually defined for us the canon of Scripture. Of course the remainder of the formula will refer to "the Holy Church". And examining what the First Christians meant by that may well divide us.

Second, we have the Scripture, though my Protestant brethren have a truncated version. We will both profess, I hope, verbal plenary Inspiration of Scripture. For the meaning of this the Wikipedia gives a good summary:

This view gives a greater role to the human writers of the Bible, while maintaining a belief that God preserved the integrity of the words of the Bible."[18] The effect of inspiration was to move the authors so as to produce the words God wanted.[17] In this view the human writers' "individual backgrounds, personal traits, and literary styles were authentically theirs, but had been providentially prepared by God for use as his instrument in producing Scripture."[18]

Admittedly that might actually separate me from some Catholics today but it doesn't have to. This language is generally associated with Evangelicals but is fully compatible with orthodox Catholic thought.

If my interlocutor avers the Dictation Theory of Biblical Inspiration then we must part ways and begin our conversation there.

Is that enough to begin with?

Reasoning & Informal Logic

Informal logic frequently focuses on identifying fallacies. Sometimes that is where an argument stops: "You are guilty of fallacy x, so your argument is invalid." But some claims of fallacious reasoning may need to be examined more closely:

Philosophical Folklore and the Reification Fallacy:

Among the many things worth studying, one of the most interesting is what I call ‘philosophical folklore’.  Folklore, of course, consists of micro-traditions passed down within communities as part of the ordinary ways of life of the people in those communities. We usually think of these micro-traditions as artistic, but much folklore is philosophical in character. Studying this kind of folklore, often fascinating in its own right, can be quite illuminating.

Read the whole thing.

(Via First Thoughts.)

Monsignor Teaches Logic

Our inability to communicate with one another when there is significant disagreement may arise in part because of faulty thinking. I'm particularly struck by the observation that a kind of skepticism supported by an unreasonable demand for perfect proof paralyzes dialogue. If you enjoy this the follow-up post is here.

Thinking About Thinking – A Reflection on some of the Modern Pitfalls and Logical Fallacies that Hinder Us
By: Msgr. Charles Pope

- - - - - - - - - - - A Logical Fallacy

A lot of breakdown in modern communication comes down to logical fallacies and cognitive distortions that have us talking past each other. Perhaps, as the new year draws near, we might spend a little time reflecting and “thinking about our thinking.”

All of us fall into these traps. I have spoken before on the blog of the problem of “all or nothing thinking” and also our tendency today to take everything personally, to be thin-skinned. Perhaps some of the following reflections on the nature of our knowledge and how we both argue and reason, may also be instructive, since, as a group, we tend today to be ver

Read the whole thing.

(Via .)

The Two Iron Laws of HIstory

according to Mark Shea are:

1. What could it hurt?

followed by,

2. How were we supposed to know?

And so I give you the contemporary mantra: "Gays are people just like us and should have the right to marry and raise children just like us."

But Nature is only mocked at someone's expense. So we're entering phase two of the Gay Marriage debate already. And the children are the ones to suffer.

Dialogue: Answer to Example Number One's Question

Lo and behold, Obama does not want to reduce the number of abortions. He just wants to increase the use of contraceptives. Oh yeah, there's a common ground for him to work with the "Spirit of Vatican II" Catholics: they both reject Humanae Vitae. Guess where the rest of us are left?

Key Obama aide: "It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions.”:

The goal, as reportedly stated by Melody Barnes, who is the President’s Domestic Policy Adviser and the Director of the Domestic Policy Council, is to "reduce the need for abortions."

And what has been Obama's preferred method of "reducing the need for abortions" in the past?


Each of these prominently features the use of contraceptives as an essential means of reducing abortions.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog.)

Dialogue, Part Four

Here's a link to some analysis about what dialogue should be:

stages in dialogue:

Father Robert Barron of Word on Fire has written a thoughtful article on dialogue, in wake of the speeches given at Notre Dame's commencement cermonies last Sunday. A snip:

It comes down to that slippery little word “dialogue.” I realize that to say that one is against dialogue is akin to saying that one is impatient with motherhood, patriotism, and sunny days. But the point is this: one should,

Read the whole thing.

(Via The Weight of Glory.)

Dialogue: Example Number One

Does the President want to reduce abortions? Or just the need for them? Is he ok with unneeded abortions? (Which pro-lifers will happily identify as all abortions currently being performed.) Enquiring minds want to know:

...and we're off:

Wendy Wright of Concerned Women of America writes in Human Events of the specific nature of the conversations that have taken place in the Obama - administration-sponsored meetings about abortion, seeking to find common ground:This meeting took place two days...

Read the whole thing.

(Via Via Media.)

Dialogue, Part Three

It's not an endearing trait, but some things I approach with an air of deep suspicion. Calls to "dialogue" on abortion is one of those things. What does "dialogue" mean to the speaker? What does he want to change about the present state of the controversy? Is the possibility of reaching an agreement on a moral truth even exist for this person?

To get a possible answer to some of these questions start with the link below to Professor Beckwith's CRI article "Deconstructing Liberal Tolerance":

I’ll be on Hugh Hewitt and the Bible Answer Man next week, May 26 and May 28:

 I will be a guest on the Hugh Hewitt and Bible Answer Man programs on May 26 and 28. On the former I will be talking about my new book, Return to Rome: Confessions of An Evangelical Catholic (Brazos Press, 2009). On the latter I will be discussing a chapter I contributed to the new book published by Christian Research Institute, What is Truth?: The Best of the Christian Research Journal (CRI, 2009). The chapter, “Deconstructing Liberal Tolerance” was originally published in 2000 in the Christian Research Journal.

(Cross posted on Return to Rome and What’s Wrong with the World)

(Via Southern Appeal.)

Dialogue, Part Two

I'm consciously rejecting the "debate is bad, dialogue is good" idea right off the bat. Debate is a form of dialogue and arguably it's purest form. If dialogue is a search for truth by two or more parties, then debate is the potentially the best structure for that search.

But then I don't mean simply arguing to "win". Rather I mean supporting a position contrary to your interlocutor's with the conviction that it is true. And this with the fallibility principle: the recognition that no matter how convinced we are we may still turn out to be wrong. Properly understood as a search for truth in an adversarial fashion, debate in this sense aims to bring the opponents together in a better understanding of the truth.

I'm concerned that "dialogue" is for some a code word for talking pleasantly with no intention of pursuing the truth or even a conviction that we can know the truth. When the President announces the abortion positions are irreconcilable I'm concerned he means something like the above: "Let's talk, but don't expect me to engage what you have to say as if it really meant something to me." Or, as Foghorn Leghorn used to say, "Don't bother me with the facts, son, I've already made up my mind."

Enough already: here's another source for discussing "dialogue":

the dialogue about abortion:

Over at Via Media, Amy's started a discussion about dialogue.1) Who are the parties in the dialogue?2) Where is this dialogue situated?Should be an interesting conversation.To take things a step further, what are the necessary ingredients/principles in dialogue? What does dialogue look like in practice? I've made some efforts in the past to grapple with the concept of dialogue on my blog.I know

Read the whole thing.

(Via The Weight of Glory.)

Dialogue

is a popular word. But what does the speaker mean by that? The two Presidents' possibly facile invocation to dialogue provokes questions. Some among the so-called Pro-choice movement has declared debate off limits for years now. When the President says the positions are irreconcilable he may have this idea in mind.

Amy Welborn has challenged both ideas: that debate is counter-productive and that only "dialogue", whatever is meant by that, is appropriate between the two camps. She is challenging those imagining they are champions of dialogue to begin doing so. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, comes of this.

But if words are only instruments we use to extend our will, then dialogue is an attempt to at least prevent another from imposing their will on me and at most an attempt to impose my will on my "partner". If people take this attitude then dialogue is not an attempt to arrive at the truth, but an attempt to project one's one will, truth notwithstanding. Beware entering that kind of "dialogue".

So here are some more eloquent words about this issue:

Some things to consider when it comes to the "D" word:

Christ said that He would send His disciples among men as "sheep among wolves." This suggests that they would not find their activities only in debating forums, academic chairs, or gentle dialogues. Indeed, they were told that they would be persecuted. They would be told how to answer magistrates, almost as if it was not their words that were being rejected. This realization brings up the limits of dialogue. Argument can be rejected not merely because it is illogical or inconsistent, but also because it is true. Of course, it will be rejected in the name of some other truth, or apparent truth. But the fact is that much modern thought, in its intellectual inconsistencies, is ultimately not rooted in reason but in will.

[snip]

...Chesterton remarks that the purpose of argument or dialogue is not ultimately to disagree but to agree. The purpose of disagreement is in the end to agree. That is to say, dialogue is intended to achieve something beyond itself. It is well that we do not agree before we understand why we should agree. On the other hand, it is also true that we refuse to argue or agree to philosophic positions because we are afraid of where the argument leads, if it leads to a coherence in the universe between reason and revelation.

The world is not divided merely by intellect and its understandings of things. It is more fundamentally divided by will, by the thesis that, as Benedict XVI said, "we want unlimited possession of the world and of ourselves." To accomplish this latter ambition, we have to lie to ourselves about ourselves and about the coherence of the world. To protect our self-generated view of ourselves, we have to develop a theory that justifies what we do according to our own wills. This is why, however useful, dialogue runs up against our wills that enable us to choose another view of the world but the one that is.

Read the entire essay.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog.)

Incomprehension

is what we sometimes encounter in others. This example is particularly well answered:

Spanning the Globe to Bring You the Constant Variety of Posts:

While reading blog comments this week, I've noticed that the same question comes up over and over from the other side: "Why does the right refuse to shut up about abortion?" Ooooooh, pick me! Pick me! For the same reason that the Jews refuse to shut up about the Holocaust. - Karen of "Some Have Hats"

Read the whole thing.

(Via Video meliora, proboque; Deteriora sequor.)

Read # 2

This one from Amy Welborn:

Alternative Reality: There is a lot of discussion in these here comboxes as well as all over the ‘net about the “failure” of the pro-life movement’s strategy over the past 35 years and the need for a new “strategy.”
Sometimes this assertion is made of the pro-life movement in general, other times of the Catholic bishops’ approach to [...]

Read the whole thing.

(Via Charlotte was Both.)

The notion that the effort to overturn Roe v. Wade has failed and should be replaced is at the heart of some "I'm personally pro-life, but I'm voting for a pro-abortion candidate" Catholics. That the effort has failed isn't the least bit obvious to me. That it has taken a long time and may well take a lot longer seems obvious enough, however.

How does the fact that it has taken 35 years to get to where we are justify abandoning the effort now?

Technorati Tags:
Catholicism, Life Issues, Politics, Bioethics, Debate

Argument, Discussion, and Debate

is a fine old text by Professor Craig Baird that I borrowed and luxuriated in for a couple of years or more. The civilized ideal of democracy is the forum of public debate and argument. But the era we live in doesn't have the energy to listen to two or three hours of patient, well-developed arguments. We want a fifteen-second sound bite. Alas, for us, the clever, unsound argument is more attractive than the hard work of thinking through the facts and the relationships amongst them. And so, Universities are becoming places to protect us from thoughtcrime:

Abortion Debate Cancelled by York University Student Union: "

PRESS RELEASE

For Immediate Release

March 1, 2008

Abortion Debate Cancelled by York University Student UnionThe York University Student Centre shut down an event entitled ‘Abortion Debate: A Woman’s Right or a Moral Wrong?’ at York University only a couple of hours before it was scheduled to take place late Thursday afternoon.

Margaret Fung, President of Students for Bioethical Awareness (SBA), one of the hosting clubs, describes what happened: ‘I was told in a meeting by members of the York Federation of Students that debating abortion is comparable to debating whether a man should be allowed to beat his wife. They said that there is freedom of speech to a limit, and that abortion is not an issue to debate. They demanded that the event not take place and shut us down.’

Present at this meeting in addition to Fung were Jeremy Salter, Executive Director of the York Federation of Students (YFS), Fuad Abdi, VP Operations of the YFS and also the Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Student Centre, and Amir Mohareb, President of the York Debating Society.

SBA, an official York University Student Club, worked with the York Debating Society to organize the debate. The debaters were Michael Payton from Freethinkers, Skeptics and Atheists at York for the pro-choice side and Jose Ruba from the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Awareness for the pro-life side. It was to be an organized debate moderated by the York Debating Society. Both sides were ready and willing to debate, but after it was demanded the event be shut down, dozens of students planning on attending the event were turned away at the door.

Commenting on her feelings about what took place, Fung continues, ‘The Student Centre has made sure that anyone with different views than theirs can’t express themselves, even if both points of view are represented. They don’t seem to understand that we live in a free, democratic society. A university is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas not a propaganda machine for political extremists.’

This action at York University comes in the wake of statements by the Canadian Federation of Students (of which the YFS is a part) comparing pro-life student groups to the KKK, and announcing their intention to support student unions who ban pro-life student clubs. ‘Salter also compared pro-lifers to the KKK,’ concludes Fung, ‘And such comparisons are incredibly ignorant and, quite frankly, hurtful’.

For more information, please contact:

Margaret Fung, Co-President, Students for Bioethical Awareness: (416)650-8870, mfung08@schulich.yorku.ca

Maria Smolkova, Co-President, Students for Bioethical Awareness: (647)654-6023, marienka@yorku.ca

The Leftist brownshirts no doubt think they have won a major ‘victory’ in suppressing free speech about abortion.  But the only thing they have shown us is that abortion is on the way out. Once you cannot intellectually defend your position but must resort to the jackboot to achieve some sort of perverse ‘victory’ for your side, it’s only a matter of time before public opinion against not only your tactics but your position itself begins to turn.

This is a very promising sign for pro-lifers.  It shows that there is a recognition that abortion simply cannot be defended in a debate and the pro-aborts must call in the union thugs to ensure darkness prevails on Canadian campuses.

Canadian universities have become nothing more than whores for the abortion lobby.

Pathetic.

"

(Via SoCon Or Bust.)