On the Coming New Year, Warmer Climates, Foundational Presuppositions, Personal and Blogging Resolutions, Etc.:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I went down Virginia, seekin shelter from the storm.
Caught up in the fable, I watched the tower grow.
Five year plans and new deals, wrapped in golden chains.
And I wonder, still I wonder wholl stop the rain.

Just as it was last year at this time, it is raining in Seattle as I put the finishing touches on the present posting. One of the plans for the new year (though not officially a resolution) is to figure out a way to live part of the year in a warmer climate. Seattle is fine about eight months of the year (and great about six of those months -particularly the summer months) but the first two and last two months of the annual cycle are the pits weather-wise. Adjusting my business to being almost completely mobile will help in that way -by the end of the month I should be able to run virtually everything by a laptop, cellphone, and fax machine. But enough griping about the weather and onto the main purposes of this posting.

To start with, there is probably little that I could add to what I noted last year at this time so I will refer the reader first to that thread as what I note here will essentially be more of an addition to that thread and development of some more implicit elements of that thread. Having noted those things, I should say that 2006 was a better year than 2005 overall -even if it did not end as well as the latter year. Nonetheless, I anticipate this coming year to be significantly better than last year overall for reasons too numerous to go over at this time even if I wanted to. And while the normal platter of postings will begin either tomorrow or the day after, at the moment I am content to continue the Christmas truce I mentioned on more than one occasion. Whether I carry this out past the eastern Christmas holiday (January 6th/7th) or not will remain to be seen.

As far as resolutions go, as I noted last year,{1} one thing I have not done as a rule is make resolutions similar to what most people do. But this year, there will be at least one that falls into the latter category: the resolution to lose some weight. By this time next year, I will be thirty pounds or more lighter presuming there is no serious injury or some other significant unforeseen development.{2} I intended to do that last year{3} and was on pace to but it did not happen. So unlike last year, the losing of weight will be an official resolution this year and it will happen. Moving on...

I anticipate the following year will involve a greater exploration into the realm of foundational presuppositions than I have done in years past -how much more I am not certain as of this writing. Or as I noted last year when discussing the subject on one particular occasion:

[A]s far as I am concerned, arguing for a position on its intrinsic merits or lack thereof utilizing the tools of reason and logic is a serious business and far too many of a sophistic bent either do not realize this or they fail to take seriously the principle that ideas are serious things. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 28, 2006)]

Much more was sketched out on that occasion than what was noted above but that gets to the root and matrix of what I was discussing. Ideas have been fought for and died over and that is and will always be the case as long as there are those who believe passionately that there is such a thing as truth. The problem is, most people do not take the time to attempt to assess whether what they hold as truth actually is or not -operating instead from an intellectual prison of solipsism to varying degrees.

It has been my goal over the years to try and move those I have spoken with towards reassessing their foundational presuppositions or the filter through which they strain all information that comes their way from divers sources. While doing this though, I have rarely done more than mention a few bits in passing about why I go about things this way but the long and short of it is this: it has the potential to save a lot of time and effort by cutting down on the ratio of useless discussion. This alone can help pave the way for much more potentially fruitful dialogue to take place. Plus, I simply loathe talking points approaches to subjects and always have{4} viewing such things as shutting off the thinking mechanism and creating an environment detrimental to the cultivation of one's intellectual capabilities.{5} But I do not want to get offtrack with these musings so I will refer to something written last year where I touched on the subject a bit:

I have not discussed in detail what I mean by the term foundational presuppositions but generally from the context in which I use the term, its general meaning should be evident. Nonetheless, I did find this thread in my archives from earlier this year where I explained the term by virtue of what a change in said foundational presuppositions would inexorably involve. To wit:

[O]ne has to consider from time to time not only if the arguments they use to advance their position are good ones or not but even if their position itself is actually correct. As all of this probably sounds more complicated than it actually is, I will use the analogy of stocks and options to explain it in brief.

Those who are familiar with how stocks and options have a symbiotic relationship know that one of the reasons many investors like options[...] is because a small movement in the stock results in a magnified movement in the underlying option. This is the potential power inherent in dealing with foundational presuppositions of an individual: small shifts there can result in magnified movements in the individual's weltanschauung though sometimes it takes a bit of time for working out the ramifications of such shifts.[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 28, 2006) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa December 13, 2006)]

One of my resolutions for the new year is to try and sketch these elements out in greater detail as circumstances may lend themselves to it. Of course that is the key really: events and circumstances have to lend themselves to discussing these matters and the treatment needs to be both contemporary to the subject matter and circumstance at hand as well as contain general principles which are timeless in their validity.

It is not always easy to properly mix the two but we certainly do what we can here at Rerum Novarum as part of an ongoing effort to cultivate reason and logic and help people come to see just how helpful those God-given natural lights really are. So another resolution for 2007 is to focus more on foundational presuppositions behind various philosophies as we run across them in the arena of ideas. Certainly more could be noted on this at the present time but I have neither the time nor the inclination to delve any deeper into these matters at the present time.

Notes:

{1} It has been a long time since I bought into the idea of "resolutions" for the new year...part of the reason I suppose is that they are treated as such a joke by the culture at large. I am not opposed to resolving to do better of course but there is too much making of resolutions by people which are constructed in a way that almost guarantees them failure. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 2, 2006)]

{2} I have had some of these in years past which is why I preface every resolution with some kind of "God-willing and the creek does not rise" kind of phrasing.

{3} Though I did not make a formal resolution to do it.

{4} Albeit I have at times put up with it as a bit of a price to pay in order to get along.

{5} Or as I noted when giving out some preliminary advice to neophyte apologists over four years ago:

[M]uch as all musicians have certain riffs or motifs that pop up in their playing you will cultivate certain "riffs" of your own after arguing a particular position enough times.

Try though at all times to find a new phrase if you will in each argument advanced. Meaning: try if possible to find at least one new element to add to the mix when arguing a point. It may be a concept, it may be a new way of phrasing an argument to make it stronger, etc. But try without forcing the issue to avoid a carbon copy of your last time arguing a given point - particularly if you and your dialogue partner have gone over this issue before.

It is not always possible to do this but it often is. I am not saying reinvent the wheel everytime as much as I am saying do not repeat the exact same argument to someone you have previously discussed a given subject matter with. Because if you are listening to them you will receive information that you should take into account before responding. After all, you may have a mea culpa of your own to give *particularly* if you have been using the "boilerplate" approach. Make sure however that to the extent you make the error that you correct it...

By doing these things you will be less likely to resort to "canned" arguments which shut off the thinking mechanism. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa November 1, 2002)]

Longtime readers who think I have somehow changed --either in my more explicit focusing in recent years on foundational presuppositions or my more recent explicit criticisms of common apologetics methodology-- can view what I wrote in late 2002 and notice that it is quite congruent with more recent developed writings. (Not to mention my approach towards certain parties who have failed in these areas: persons whom due to their experience should have learned this stuff a long time ago.)

"Auld Lang Syne" Dept.

Should auld acquaintance be forgot
And never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot
And days of auld lang syne?

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne.

And surely ye'll be your pint stoop
And surely I'll be mine
And we'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

We twa hae run about the braes
And pou'd the gowans fine
But we've wander'd mony a weary foot
Sin' auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

We twa hae paidl'd i' the burn
Frae mornin' sun till dine
But seas between us braid hae roared
Sin' auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

And here's a hand, my trusty fiere
And gi'e's a hand o' thine
And we'll tak a right good willy waught
For auld lang syne. [Attr. Robert Burns]

Points to Ponder:
(On New Year's Eve)

New Year's Eve is like every other night; there is no pause in the march of the universe, no breathless moment of silence among created things that the passage of another twelve months may be noted; and yet no man has quite the same thoughts this evening that come with the coming of darkness on other nights. [Hamilton Wright Mabie]

First of all, I hope everyone reading this post has a happy and prosperous new year.

Having noted that, I admittedly did not comment on the passing of Gerald Ford but certainly I hope the Good Lord rests his soul. I am thinking in the new year of addressing some asssertions about the late president which were made by one of the Lew Rockwell contributors. Though I am to some extent hesitant to spend time debunking the nonsense that so frequently permeates that site, occasionally it seems appropriate to deal with some of the stuff as an example of why generally speaking they are not worth taking seriously. That therefore is under consideration for the new year after other projects are completed (of course).

A Long-Overdue Weblog Update:

Well, I mentioned in late November that I was working on a weblog update bit by bit and it is now completed. Sorry for the wait folks but these things take time and I did not have much of it alas. But without further ado, here is what was added section by section (occasional comments interspersed):

Weblog Special Reports, Commemorations, Retrospectives, Miscellaneous Stuff, Etc.


A Tribute to Freddy King

For those who do not know of Freddy King, the thread can perhaps serve as an introduction to the late great "Texas Cannonball." (May he rest in peace.)

Miscellaneous Sports Predictions--An Audio Post

I posted this thread to show that despite being quite accurate with my prognostication overall, with sports subjects it is not there. I want to take this time to reverse my previous prediction and say that the Seahawks are going to lose in the first round of the playoffs...hopefully my streak of wrongness on sports picks can continue with that one ;-)

On Blogging in General, What is Blogged on Subject-Wise and Why, Etc.

Pretty straight forward. I cannot for the life of me figure out how anyone could have "nothing to write about" when it comes to blogging but then again, that is why as a rule{1} refusing to narrow my subjects of discussion is a wise approach to take.

2006 Holy Souls Memorial

"Excerpts From Classic Literature" Dept. (On the Cremation of Sam McGee)

Admittedly I am not sure how "classic" that poem is but it does take me back a long ways so that is good enough for me :)

On the Blues and Painting a Lyrical Picture of Reality (With Albert Cipriani)

I am reminded of Jesus' saying about the Centurion who had more faith than in all of Israel when I think of my friend Albert. As for the rest, it is more indirectly said in the post but presumably some of those I had in mind with the criticism are known to some of the readers of this humble weblog.

Reflecting on Chris' Passing One Year Later

God rest your soul Chris.

On the Christmas Season and Giving

The above thread was written to provide a Gospel lesson on giving that many who claim to be "lovers of the poor" do not get.

My Political/Social Musings

On Political/Social Subjects in General

On Another Example of Mainstream Media Lack of Basic Ethics and Other Tidbits

If all I wrote on were media double standards, there would be nothing else to write on. Nonetheless, on occasion a particular double standard interests me enough to write on and I will do it. The above one had to do with the 2006 National Intelligence Estimate dealing with the war in Iraq: a double standard I found of no small interest to put it mildly.

Revisiting and Reissuing the Challenge of Finding the So-Called "Neo-Con"

The challenge is still out there folks: I do not believe these so-called "neo-cons" actually exist!!! Why should I when those who refer to such fabled beings (and blame them for everything except bad breath) are unwilling to actually define their terms and tell me how a so-called "neo-con" is to be identified??? But I honestly do not expect those who prattle on using that term in a kind of cultic deadagenting fashion to explain themselves. The latter after all would require some intellectual fortitude and integrity which all too often the frequent users of that term (in a derogatory fashion) do not possess. Moving on...

On Flags of Our Fathers and the Late Indian Hero Ira Hayes

I really enjoyed the movie Flags of Our Fathers when I saw it at a pre-screening. It dealt well with many of the horrors of war in general and some of the excesses that were involved to keep the homefront focused on the importance of the task at hand. Basically, nothing new under the sun in other words. The post also has lyrics for a Johnny Cash tune about the late great Indian patriot Ira Hayes one of the featured characters in Flags. (May he rest in peace.)


On the US Constitution, the Fundamental Rights of Man, Etc.

Miscellaneous Musings on Rights (Real or Perceived), the Problems a Lot of Non-Theistic Evolutionist Proponents Have With Logical Consistency in Claiming Certain "Rights", Briefly on Bastiat's "Three Fundamental Rights" Theory, Etc.--An Audio Post

Basically, I winged the audio and covered a lot of stuff briefly in one recording.

On Capitalism, Economics, the Fundamental Rights of Man, Free Trade, Etc. (With Kevin Tierney)

One of my chats with Kevin Tierney which was blogged with his concurrence.{2}


On Political Election Topics

On the Election and the Attitudes of Self-Identified Conservatives

Self-explanatory. The above thread was blogged on the day of the election before the polls were closed.

Some Post-Election Humour

Courtesy of the greatest comedy series of all-time in my humble opinion.

A Synopsis of Our Overall Prescience Viz. the 2006 Elections

Yes my friends, we at Rerum Novarum were (as we quite often are) amazingly accurate overall in our prognostications as that dip into the blog archives and a few chat logs well testifies to.

On the Election, "Lost Causes", and Activism

Responding to an emailer after the election who took the results with no small degree of difficulty. For reasons noted in the posting, your host was not melancholy.

On the Incoming Senate Democratic Majority

Boy, it did not take long for one of our post-election observations to come to fruition to some extent.


On the Recent War and War in General

A Pearl Harbour Prayer for the Soldiers

Self-explanatory. I will be responding to a criticism of the prayer in one of the first postings of the upcoming new year.

Bridging Reason and Faith: My Philosophical/Ethical Musings

On Particular Philosophical/Ethical Subjects

Setting the Record Straight on Old Controversies

Much as I loathe historical airbrushing when it happens to the past and to others, I am particularly intolerant when it happens to me. The purpose of the above thread was to correct some attempted historical airbrushing from a party I shall not mention here.

Apologetics Provincialism In a Nutshell

Responding to a criticism of a post from August 5, 2006 dealing with problems of the apologetics methodology.{3} In a nutshell, the critic's modus operandi is that if someone who agrees with them acts unethically that it is okay but not those who disagree with them.

Miscellaneous Musings on Integrity

Continuing a line of thought from the previous posting on provincialism but in a more systematical fashion argumentationally.{4}

On David Armstrong's Tragic Mental Meltdown

The above post was originally supposed to be my bowing out of a drawn out dead-horse-beating but (unfortunately) was not to be.{5}

Miscellaneous Musings on the Importance of Vetting Sources--An Audio Post

The moral of the story: make sure your sources are reliable before you use them lest you be made to look foolish due to your own ignorance/negligence.

Points to Ponder on Apologetics Methodology (David Palm)

While I do not necessarily agree with those whom I quote in this blog feature, on this one David summarizes my view up quite succintly.

Miscellaneous Midnight Musings on Reason, Logic, Consistency, and the Importance of Scholastic and Ethical Integrity in Public Disputation--An Audio Post

Some audio musings on principles which are often sadly neglected today -even amongst those who oughta know better.

Miscellaneous Musings on Reason and Logic Revisited, Pope Benedict XVI, and Islam--An Audio Post

In a nutshell, me and the pope are simpatico on a significant subject matter that seems to be ignored by not a few who consider themselves "Catholic apologists."

On the Subject of "Refutation of a Theory or Thesis" Revisited

I find that the above post needed to be written to be as good a piece of evidence for what is wrong today as anything I can think of offhand. I mean, this is pretty basic stuff really but you would be surprised how many do not grasp what should be as obvious as the sun rising in the east at dawn. In a nutshell what is pointed out in the above thread is this: something is or is not proven false by objective evidences and cogent argumentation not by subjectivist criteria whatsoever it is and whomsoever says it. This is pretty simple stuff which anyone with a normal intact functioning brain can grasp without a problem. That there are many who cannot (or choose not to when it suits their agenda) is no small problem indeed but enough on that for now.

Points to Ponder on Faith and Reason (Pope Benedict XVI)

A healthy excerpt from the controversial Regensburg, Germany speech where His Holiness spoke on faith and reason far more eloquently than most people could.

An Open Note to the Participants on Dave Armstrong's Weblog on the Subjects of Apologetics and General Ethics

Self-explanatory.

Miscellaneous Musings on Basic Ethics Both Public and Private--An Audio Post

Again, how sad is it to have to explain what should be obvious to anyone with even ordinary intelligence.

On Torture and General Norms of Theological Interpretation Contra Certain "Apologist" Fundamentalist Hermeneutics (Parts I-III)

There were four posts on the subject of torture since the last update. The problem was figuring out how to classify them so I decided to put the three part initial posting in the section on ethics and the other three in the section of theological musings. Not sure if that is the best way to categorize them but oh well.

Points to Ponder on Building One's Character (Mike Mentzer)

Highlighting a Key Problem With Common Apologetics Methodology (With Jimmy Akin)

Unfortunately, it seems Jimmy and his oligarch amigos are going to continue to pretend that the Emperor has clothes on. Hopefully that will change in the new year. I would like to leave that issue be but if things do not change, I will write more on this subject including (quite possibly) some stuff that apologist enemies of the Catholic apologetics oligarchy would love to get their hands on for an even further discrediting of the aforementioned oligarchy.


Points to Ponder on Combatting the Herd Mentality (Mike Mentzer)

Self-explanatory.

Some Additional Outlining of the Public and Private Double Standards of the Apologetics Oligarchy

"See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil", and the Double Standard of the Apologetics Oligarchy and Their Fawning Sycophants

Imagine that folks, I actually expect people to act consistent and not allow in their friends what they condemn in those who are not their friends!!! It is called respect for reason and logic and again, this should be something everyone is concerned with. But the nature of positional pundits is to try and defend their view no matter how illogical and inconsistent it happens to be.

We at Rerum Novarum tend to irritate pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists of various stripes because of an inherent refusal on our part to accept uncritically any position whatsoever. And in doing this, there is consistency on our part because when the present writer takes the time to set down a position, he expect those who are genuinely interested in ideas to weigh the position set forth by objective criteria and nothing else.

Unlike the lions share of people from various outlooks who set forth opinions in the public square, the present writer does not expect anyone to accept any of his statements as some kind of arbitrary out of context injunction simply because he says it. This would base the veracity or lack thereof of his statements on a subjectivist context and would imply that truth does not objectively exist.

If you learn to think in principles you learn to think logically. Principles make thinking a lot easier and one of the goals of your host is to focus as much on principles themselves and in how those principles are to be fruitfully applied. For that reason, we will continue to press certain parties who do not seem concerned with principles and logic -either wholly or on arbitrary subject matters- to reconsider their positions.

On the Intensity/Duration Equation, Physics, and Trying to Understand Engineering Majors (With Tim Tull)

The moral of this story is either (i) I do not well understand the language and terminology of the advanced physics, (ii) engineering majors who move too quickly to into advanced physics-speak need to get lives of their own, or (iii) some combination of the two.{6}

Of or Pertaining to 'Progressivist' Philosophies (Falsely So-Called)

On Historical Revisionism Surrounding the New Deal, History Since the New Deal, the 1984 Election, Etc. (Parts I-III)

This is a post that frankly is of no small importance because in it I debunk a fair amount of the mythology surrounding The New Deal, history since The New Deal, The Great Society, and the Reagan presidential years. All that is left essentially is to deal with the myth that the middle class was "created out of The New Deal" which is frankly laughable. The middle class as we knew it in twentieth century America was not a result of The New Deal but instead was a result of industry and a specific historical context.{7} But I will deal with that subject in the new year if I remember to. Moving on...

My Theological Musings

On Certain Controverted "Hotpoint" Theological Subjects

On Justification and Catholic Understandings Thereof (With Tim Enloe)

On Justification Revisited (Dialogue With Tim Enloe)

On Torture and General Norms (With Dr. Scott Carson)

More on Torture and the Problems With Trying To Discount the Historical Record Explicitly or Otherwise

On Torture, the Limitations of Dignitatis Humanae, Logic, Etc. (Dialogue With Dr. Michael Liccione)

On "Implicit Faith"

Revisiting the Subjects of Atheism and Rational Thought in General (With Beth Cleaver)

Recommended Articles on Various Subjects

To make it easier to update this weblog in the future -and also to not have to concern myself with adding and removing articles written by others from the side margin with each update- I have decided to inaugurate a new weblog specifically for articles written by others. The two divisions are socio-political and religious-theological. I may also go back at some point and add to that weblog scroll articles deleted from past updates (but left in this weblog's archives) if they were removed due to space constraints.

Anyway, having noted that, I transferred to the new blog the scroll of threads as it previously read and added to it these threads from "miscellaneous threads" installments -most of which were subsequent to August 16, 2006:

U.N. 'Peacekeepers' Rape Women, Children [>>>]

Iraq on the Verge of Nukes in 2002??? [>>>]

WMD's? What WMDs? (Greg Mockeridge) [>>>]

Sr. Benedict's Boxing Club: Join Now and Take Advantage of Summer Discounts--Only $19.95 Per Session (Fumare) [>>>]

Boer Farm Murders (The Right Perspective) [>>>]

Stop the Murders (The Right Perspective) [>>>]

Sr. Benedict's Boxing Club: Join Now and Take Advantage of Summer Discounts--Only $19.95 Per Session (Fumare) [>>>]

Added to the blogroll this time around was the blog called The Outlaw Republican.

Anyway, that brings it current through the end of 2006. Hopefully in 2007 I can do updates every two months because in the past year it has been in four month increments on the average. That is way too much stuff to review and figure out what to add and what to leave in the archives not to mention the formatting involved. At least by the next update I will not have to worry about the articles part of the update --inaugurating a new blog for just that makes those updates independent of the main weblog. And with beta, all updates are immediate rather than waiting five or more minutes for the adjusted template to take as we have had to do for going on two years now.

But anyway, it is done now (all things to the contrary notwithstanding) and I am looking forward to the coming year in more ways than one. Hopefully y'all are too :)

Notes:

{1} Of course it helps to be informed on a whole plethora of subjects also. Nonetheless, there are some subjects which I will discuss in private but do not feel I know enough about to handle in a public forum. Would that all people handled things this way but alas, that is not the case.

{2} I suppose technically I could blog it in accordance with this site's posting protocol but it was not an email correspondence so I decided to not assume in this case.

{3} The principles involved apply to apologetics in any sphere not just the religious one even if some of the particular applications noted are of a more limited basis.

{4} Yeah, that is probably not a real word but oh well.

{5} Basically, I allowed myself to be goaded into responding again about three weeks later.

{6} Just kidding Tim, it was cool to hear from you. (The email subject you chose to cover was refreshingly unexpected which is fine with me.)

{7} Indeed, to go into where the middle class as we knew it in twentieth century America actually came from would not make the proponents of The New Deal or various forms of socialist economics very happy for reasons which will be obvious should I actually discuss this subject in the new year as I would like to. (The handing over of at least the House to the Democrats --the Senate situation in question as per my notes from 12/07 --will provide a convenient historical circumstance with which to delve into this subject.)

"None Dare Call It A Zionist Conspiracy" Dept.
(With no apologies to Gary Allen)

With that title, we have a third installment of a thread started here. Apparently this guy is not going to "go gently into that goodnight" (cf. D. Thomas) as I had hoped he would.

Mr. McElhinney,

I hope you and your family's Christmas was a good one. Having said that, I am growing tired of your neo-connish rhetoric and obtuseness. It would not surprise me one bit if I found that you are connected with the bomb-shell I am soon to reveal. For those "in the know", the name of this Zionist collaborator will come as a shock! This neo-con American apologist has tried to distance himself from Zionism but he can no longer hide from the truth. The evidence is almost completely compiled now and it is ironclad, I assure you. Yet, there is a part of me that still expects denial from the likes of you, living the in the fools paradise that you inhabit.

Soon, all of your snide comments will be exposed for the stupid arrogance that they represent. And whether or not you print the evidence I will supply you with shortly, be certain of this: the evidence of the depth of this apologist's duplicity will come forth and I will not be silenced. I plan to contact two or three Traditionalist publications shortly and I ***know*** they will be interested. Somehow, I think you will suddenly find yourself mute, Mr. McElhinney. And all of those inane little comments will be silenced.

Look for this to be revealed in the new year. And when it is, the Zionist influence in the Catholic Church, the Novus Ordo Church, will be bright to light for all to see. So be prepared to scatter, little cockroaches!

Henrik Hassen

I wonder if this fella got his writing style from Stephen Hand ;-) Oh well, send me your stuff "Henrik" and we shall see.

To be Continued...

As it is now, I am on pace to have the weblog update completed before the end of the year -possibly as early as tomorrow afternoon. Once that is completed, I will resume work on the other projects I noted in this post were to be completed soon.

Points to Ponder:

History has a way of catching up to public liars. [T. Fleming]

On the Christmas Season and Giving:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

In lieu of a proposed Christmas truce spoken of earlier, I am not going to talk about a lot of the subjects and mentalities that I would normally discuss. That can be done later and indeed I intend to not resume discussion on those subjects until at least Tuesday of next week possibly later. In the meantime, I wanted to note a few things on Christmas and the subject of helping other people in need.

Too often we hear of those who like to call themselves "peacemakers", "lovers of the poor", or whatever they choose to call themselves who seem to want to raise that concern of theirs in every conversation. Giving to others in various ways is something that should happen everyday of the year in some form or another and for many people, it does even if this does not go reported by themselves or by others. Christmas is certainly a season of more than the normal giving of assistance to others in need -of this there is no question. What is not generally reported is that charitable giving is usually greatest amongst those who do not blow trumpets and call attention to themselves and those who do the latter usually give less. Nonetheless, the Scrooge myth is often perpetuated by the latter sorts who show no small degree of ignorance of (i) the facts of reality{1}, (ii) how an economy actually works{2}, and (iii) ignorance of the very Judeo-Christian tradition on giving to others. Or as Jesus noted in Matthew's Gospel:

Take heed that you do not your justice before men, to be seen by them: otherwise you shall not have a reward of your Father who is in heaven. Therefore when thou dost an alms deed, sound not a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be honoured by men. Amen I say to you, they have received their reward. But when thou dost alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doth. That thy alms may be in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee. [Matthew vi,1-4]

Take care to remember that the Gospel injunction on giving to others is very clear that it has no reward if you draw attention to yourself in doing it. And remember my friends: those who try to make themselves look the most compassionate among us usually give less than those who give in silence without others knowing about it. And because they draw attention to themselves in doing so, they have already received their reward as Jesus said. Do not be like them. Do not draw attention to yourself when helping other people. Keep it between yourself and God. But by all means, help out however you can in accordance with your means to do so. And have a blessed Christmas my friends -see you sometime next week.

We consider Christmas as the encounter, the great encounter, the historical encounter, the decisive encounter, between God and mankind. He who has faith knows this truly; let him rejoice. [Pope Paul VI]

Notes:

{1} We will revisit these themes after Christmas as celebrated in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. (No slight to my eastern brethren who celebrate according to the Julian calendar but I do not intend to hold the truce for three weeks time.)

{2} See footnote one.

On Capitalism, Economics, the Fundamental Rights of Man, Free Trade, Etc:
(With Kevin Tierney)

The following chat is from a fifteen minute block of time yesterday a few days ago when I was taking a break from work. The parties involved will be marked by name, all timestamps removed, and any really egregious spelling goofs on either side fixed. Without further ado...

Kevin: I think what is needed is someone who can criticize the capitalism at all cost mentality without being a marxist or a populist

me: sadly, conservatives are as liable to avoid critical interactions as the liberals they criticize for not allowing them a lot like the apologists in the oligarchy

agreed and without shilling for that illogical drivel known as "distributivism (aka "distributism"). I think a lot of marxist sorts use that as a shield to hide their true views.

Kevin: here's a quick step in the right direction, in free trade agreements, insist on a "no slave labor" clause

me: nice...and insist on the freedom of labour unions to assemble and barter for the workers if the workers want them...why not drive up the cost of labour down there lol

Kevin: hahaha

me: that was a half-serious comment -obviously I do not want people shafted who toil at labour

Kevin: it would be a popular move, those who hate "wallmart slave labor" would support it, unions would support it, protectionists would support it recognizing that unions help out, etc

me: frankly, the only ones who would oppose it are those who believe that business is not requiring of any checks on industryand that would smoke them out

Kevin: since it's a matter of national trade, this is the purpose of the state, one of the areas they do have a right to intervene

me: yes indeed...the problem is, those who want to try and do away with nationalism do not want it

Kevin: and it says that those wishing to trade with America, to acquire her wealth, should also have certain standards

me: oftentimes they are the same people who want to put recourse in faceless bureaucracies who are incapable of getting anything done secularly in the UN...ecclesially those who want to see bishops conferences handle everything...birds of a feather

Kevin: that would do much to help regulate free trade right there, without the need of protectionist tarrifs and the like since we are sending a message that yes we want to trade with the world, but that America will refuse to profit off the exploited

me: yep, amazing how we hash out another major point of civilizational contention in a matter of minutes

Kevin: lol

me: which is why the bureaucracies would not want to hear from us...btw...I am planning to contact Tim Eyman (a major initiative pusher in our state) and suggest to him my rider reform proposal for the Washington legislature... it is almost three years old now but I see nothing in it that needs revising at this time

Kevin: i think people need to also understand the difference between the capitalist mindset and the consumerist mindset...today they are one and the same, but Adam Smith would be abhorred by it

agreed...I just emailed you my rider reform proposal

Kevin: today's economics are rather that of John Stuart Mill than of Adam Smith...Mill believed in liberty absolute

me: yep...

Kevin: whereas the founders and men like Smith believed in a liberty that had it's limits

me: Bastiat believed in liberty constrained only by the fundamental rights of man -and that law's purpose was to safeguard those rights...and that those rights precede all manmade legislation as they are God-given{1}

Kevin: such as Madison's viewpoint that capitalism and America need morality to survive, to them morality was part of that restrainer...probably the only naievete in the founders was thinking that this could be achieved without a strong robust religious body closely monitoring the state

me: well, they had experience of a religious body in that position and it was not a nice situation...and being aware of the historical clashes of church and state probably preferred an environment that was conducive to religious expression without requiring religious profession

Kevin: well the only problem there was the religious body was under the control of the state...a strong independent church is normally within the state's best interest

me: of course the popes have long appreciated the US's approach to religion when it suits their own interests...I have in mind Gregory XVI's famous statement "in no place do I feel more like the pope than in the United States"...Gregory was not a fan of democracy by any stretch but he appreciated I am sure that his encyclicals and other writings were allowed to freely circulate in America in a way other nations did not (even some catholic ones)

Kevin: why for example I would love to have a president one day invite the main religious leaders and remind them that it is their job to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, not Washington's and use the bully pulpit to rally them to that job, secular charities as well Bush's "faith based initiave" was anything but that, rather it used the power of the purse to attempt to make churches move. Many rightly saw that as unconstitutional not to mention dangerous for churches

me: what you propose is very congruent with the Constitution. The Founders did not want a state church but they did want morality and religion to have an important and influential role in the nation...going so far as to view the Constitution as unfit for a people who were not moral and religious. No law can suffice in the absence of a general approach that sets solid public standards regardless of what people do privately: a subject I have discussed before and which bears reiteration at least in link form in lieu of what you just noted.

Note:

{1} Readers can review the side margin of this weblog and peruse the archives for threads I have written on the fundamental rights of man if they are interested. (More will be touched on in this area in the new year.) I have not only merely reiterated Bastiat as several others have or applied it to modern situations but even developed the theory further in light of contemporary realities.

As the aforementioned theory (when properly applied) would fix so much of what is wrong with our society, it is my sincere hope that others can brought to see the wisdom involved and that it may provide them with solid reference points for the cultivation of the natural lights of reason and logic. For people with conservative intuitions, it can put them on a solid and consistent foundation in their arguments to better persuade those of good-will. For those who are espousing various forms of socialism, hopefully it will help them to see where that mentality inexorably leads if they are consistent in their application of it.

To revisit briefly a publicly noted checklist of stuff I wanted to tend to as per earlier this month...

--A reader wrote me asking about the concept of "implicit faith." I have been working on a thread to post pertaining to that subject which should be ready soon.

Done.

--Due to some feedback on yesterday's brief exposition on the hypocrisy of the apologetics oligarchy, I will be responding to at least one piece of email received on that subject within the next week or so.

The text is done but I will wait until after Christmas to blog it.{1}

--The last thing I expected was a criticism of my prayer for the soldiers blogged yesterday but indeed I got some from a former soldier. A response to those criticisms will be forthcoming.

About 90% done. I hope to post it after Christmas and before New Years Eve.

--As several readers have sent me links to the Iraq Study Group recommendations as per yesterday's request, I will be looking them over and considering how to deal with them in the coming days. Right now, I am leaning towards listing them all in bullet form and noting which ones are practical or otherwise achievable and which ones are impractical or otherwise not worth taking seriously.

As few people seem to be taking this report as seriously as I initially anticipated, I may well not go ahead with my originally planned project. I mean, how seriously can I actually take a report with a recommendation such as this one:

direct US dialogue with Syria and Iran over Iraq and the Middle East.

If that group is incapable as a whole of realizing that we have already tried this and it has not worked, then I fail to see what more I can say about their "recommendations" other than I respect the humility of Lee Hamilton viz. the recommendations and despise the pompous attitude of James Baker pertaining to them.{2}

--I am working on a response to a friend who is critical of women being allowed to vote to be blogged when it is ready.

Done.

--Some "points to ponder" threads are planned from Allen Bloom, Herbert Butterfield, Mike Mentzer, Cardinal Ratzinger, Greg Mockeridge, Fr. John Laux, Albert Cipriani, Ayn Rand, and Stephen Hand among others.

Thus far only the one from Ayn Rand was blogged.{3} The others will be gotten to in good time.

--A weblog thread of miscellaneous links with assorted commentary is also in the works to be completed soon. (The hold up here is determining how many links to use and what subject matters to cover.)

I will try to finish this between Christmas and New Years Eve. Anyone with links they want me to consider, by all means send them to me.

--A weblog update is being worked on bit by bit to be posted within a week or so.

I am significantly behind on this -it will take up whatever freetime I have for this blog in the coming days and in the day or so after Christmas.

--Some administrative fixes are being made to make the weblog easier to operate from this end.

The beta update feature I had in mind is not available for this blog yet due to the number of posts we have in the archives. Ergo, the next update will be as ponderous as the previous ones to do but my readers are worth the time to get it done.


Notes:

{1} Consider this my own version of a "Christmas truce" if you will.

{2} For those who continue to ignorantly presume I am a shill for Republicans, Lee Hamilton is a Democrat and James Baker is a Republican.

{3} I did blog something from Pope Benedict XVI but the specific passage I have in mind with that series was from his pre-pope days.

On the Intensity/Duration Equation, Physics, and Trying to Understand Engineering Majors:
(With Tim Tull)

I find myself intrigued at times when considering the statements that have crossed my keyboard which receive reader feedback. As it is now, a statement I made in years past which encapsulates one of my own foundational presuppositions -and which has been reiterated a few times since in soem form or another-- was the subject of a recent email from amateur historian (and WW II expert), Guinness lover, onetime-soft-liberal-turned-ardent-conservative, engineering major, and general all-around renaissance man Tim Tull.{1} In responding to my reiteration of what has become practically a proverbial mantra of sorts in one of the blog posts put up on the eve of the November elections, I found an email containing several bits from Tim which included this one (my previous words in blue font, most recent ones in darkgreen font, and Tim's words in darkblue font):

"I remind you of the theories of motion as discovered by Sir Isaac Newton. If an object in motion will remain in motion, then attempts to stop that object will not succeed without a greater or equal force being involved."

Commentary: The unit of Force in the International System of Units (SI) is the Newton. Units on a Newton are kg-m/sec^2. In other words, it takes one Newton of force to accelerate a 1 kilogram mass 1 meter per second every second. And accordingly Newton's Second Law tells us that force equals mass times acceleration or the famous F=ma.

So if we apply 10 Newtons of force for one second to accelerate a stationary object to 10 meters per second, we can easily demonstrate how to declerate the object back to a stationary state with LESS "force" by applying a 1 Newton force on the object in the opposite direction for a period of 10 seconds or for that matter, any force less than the initial 10 Newtons for a sufficient length of time.

A force balance is only necessary if we are trying to prevent acceleration.

To put it in other terms, a wife can either get a garage cleaned in 3 months by nagging her husband for weeks on end or can achieve the same results in a quick time by clubbing him over the head with his TIVO box.

I am sure this is what George Orwell would have called physics-speak. As I was not sure if the email was a confirmation of my proverb or an attempt at refuting it,{2} I sent the following email to Tim.

In other words, my analogy was flawed???

To which Tim responded as follows:

The analogy was fine. It's basically correct. Essentially, any problem in aerospace engineering essentially can be solved from the equations expressing continuity of mass, momentum or energy. And those three equations all come directly from Newton's Second Law. So literaly, we owe a tremendous amount to that equations and at this stage in my education, we are still evaluating it on a daily basis in it's expanded forms. Its' good stuff.

Of course my approach to these matters were based on my indepth understanding of exercise science and its effects on the human physiology spanning fifteen plus years. Tim's was by the route of advanced physics which is one of the subjects he is studying for his advanced engineering degree. I am sure for those reasons there are differences in language and the usage of terms with our respective points of reference. But both underscore three fundamental factors which need to be accounted for at all times and they are as follows:

--One should never underestimate the importance of reason and logic when it comes to properly apprehending objective reality.

--Different approaches or schools of thought in the sciences will have different terms which may not necessarily mean the same thing; ergo taking this into account to avoid context-switching is important.

--One should make sure they do not rashly walk into a discussion of the natural sciences with an engineering major lest they find themselves confused by the latter's use of terms.

Thankfully in Tim's case, he will be finished with his engineering degree in one more year and can return to speaking normally again ;-)

Notes:

{1} For more information on Tim, see the guest editorial posted here for some tidbits.

{2} I thought it was an attempted refutation and I was all ready to point out by sound rational argumentation why this mantra is based on the laws of nature and thus immutable. But then I got the brilliant idea (since I was at best adequate with complex physics models back in the day) to simply ask Tim what he was saying.

Points to Ponder:
(On God's Existence and Reason)

[E]ither God exists or he doesn’t. There are only two options. Either one recognizes the priority of reason, of the creative Reason that stands at the beginning of everything and is the origin of everything – the priority of reason is also the priority of freedom – or one upholds the priority of the irrational, according to which everything in our world and in our lives is only an accident, marginal, an irrational product, and even reason would be a product of irrationality. In the end, one cannot “prove” either of these views, but Christianity’s great choice is the choice of reason and the priority of reason. This seems like an excellent choice to me, demonstrating how a great Intelligence, to which we can entrust ourselves, stands behind everything. [Pope Benedict XVI]

Revisiting the Subjects of Atheism and Rational Thought in General:
(Aka "'From the Mailbag' Dept.")

Having received a request from Beth over at Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to review a piece she wrote to an atheist, I sent her the following text in response on December 10th:

Hi Beth:

There are some spelling or grammatical glitches in the text but you can find those on a proofread. (As I make them myself at times so I am hardly going to be critical when other do it.)

Now, I don't subscribe to the belief that religion is the only thing that makes people compelled to good behavior (although it's certainly true for some), but it does give people inner peace, serenity, enlightenment, and often things like creativity and clarity in thinking.

I would change "it does" to "it can." I know not a few theists who frankly are lousy thinkers. But yes, if one accepts as a certain foundational presupposition that there is Infinite Intelligence (in some form or another) it can definitely assist with creativity and clarity in thinking because it defines a point of reference from which one can operate from. And as I am wont to say at times "definitions are the tools of thought."

On the whole the piece reads fine except it did not seem to me that you challenged the atheist while trying to defend yourself from his assertions. The following threads from my weblog may be of assistance in this area:

Musings on Atheism (circa August 15, 2003)

Points to Ponder on Atheism By Dr. Art Sippo (circa August 14, 2003)

Ultimately, atheism is arbitrary as both Dr. Sippo and I note in various ways. Because to be an atheist is to have an operative presupposition in your thinking that something was created out of nothing. I remember really pissing off atheists at the infidels board about six to seven years ago with pointing that out in various ways to a whole host of their presumed "arguments against God's existence." The beauty of it is that no matter how they slice it, that is what all of their attempts inexorably boil down to. Hope that helps.

I was considering blogging that email in standard anonymous format but since Beth blogged it to her comboxes, it seems appropriate to blog it as written here without alteration. She appended my email in the combox with this text:

Bingo. I had actually emailed him with a “help?!” after writing this post, because I had actually seen those pieces before, and as I said, he’s one of those people who can debate these issues far more thoroughly and knowledgably than I can. I would ask, encourage, Jeff and others to read those two pieces, at minimum. I assure you, you will have better answers there at his blog (Rerum Novarum) than I could ever supply. And in case you’re thinking you’ll encounter a fire-and-brimstone evangelist there, you’re wrong. I challenge you to read this extraordinarily rational, intellectual man’s work. (Isn’t that what an atheist would prefer hearing? Logic and reason?)

Thanks for your kind words Beth. It sure beats some of the baseless garbage that I have heard from fellow Catholics in recent years but then again, I suppose that is the standard tack taken by those addicted to the herd mentality who have no concern for building and maintaining authentic character.

I make no claims for wisdom beyond the objective validity of the arguments I advance on whatever topic I discuss. Logic and reason are not a special preserve of the self-proclaimed "intellectual class" but unfortunately, many people are content to consign us all to various totalitarian systems. These systems could be physical, intellectual, or whatever whereby only a self-anointed class of "experts" are presumed credible by virtue of something other than the intrinsic validity of their positions as ascertained by objective criteria.

The problem is, a lot of people are quite provincialist in their approaches to issues -judging the worth of an argument not on its merits but on who it is who is making the argument.{1} Certainly it happens in politics all the time and that is one reason I am an Independent voter and have been for ten years now.

In summary, yes I have an abiding respect for reason and logic and those who show an interest in these areas can count on respect from me even if I do not agree with them. Those who do not and who try to play games to skirt the rational faculties have nothing but scorn from me as they contribute not to the building up of civilization but to its tearing down however fine their motives may or may not be.

Note:

{1} This kind of atrocious double standard happens all the time -even in places where one may not suspect it. At bottom it is nothing but solipsism and implicitly undermines objective reality by denying that the latter actually exists or is possible.

"Do Not Count Your Chickens" Dept.
(On the Incoming Senate Democratic Majority)

Readers of this humble weblog are aware that your host recently blogged a response to an emailer who was pessimistic about the majorities in the incoming congress. Among our response to them included these words:

As far as what the new situation is with the incoming Democrat congressional majorities, I am not that pessimistic actually. One vacancy in the Senate on the Democratic side -by death, scandal, or whatever- means the president gets to pick the replacement to serve out the term. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 7, 2006)]

I am unaware of anyone else who made this argument about the Senate{1} but we did so here at Rerum Novarum and at the moment, this observation may have been more prescient than we presumed when it was written. From the AP circa twenty minutes ago:

Sen. Johnson suffers possible stroke

Here is the pertinent part of the article:

WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson (news, bio, voting record) of South Dakota suffered a possible stroke Wednesday and was taken to a Washington hospital, his office said. If he should be unable to continue to serve, it could halt the scheduled Democratic takeover of the Senate.

Democrats won a 51-49 majority in the November election. South Dakota's governor, who would appoint any temporary replacement, is a Republican.

For some reason, I was under the assumption that it was the president who filled the congressional vacancy in such situations as I noted. Nonetheless, the substance of my observation remains intact and goes to point out why things are rarely as set in stone politically as many would presume. Senator Johnson being last elected in 2002 would be set to run for election again in 2008 so if I am not mistaken, the appointment to fill his seat would serve out the last two years of the term. Let me be the first to wish Sen. Johnson a solid long-term recovery. However, I cannot say that if in the short term he cannot continue to serve and his state's governor appointed a Republican to take his seat that I would be too disappointed.

On "Implicit Faith":
(From the Mailbag)

The emailers words will be in shale coloured font.

Hey Shawn,

I've been reading your blog for some time. I noticed that you're knowledgable in the Catholic faith.

I have some areas I know a lot about and other areas I do not know not as much about. Unlike most of those who consider themselves "apologists"{1}, I have the decency to let people know this in reality and not just in the abstract.{2} I suppose that is one of the benefits of not trying to make $$$ off of that endeavour XX{3}: being able to focus on what I do have knowledge in and at best{4} making a tentative statement on areas where I am not as well-informed. But enough on that and onto the contents of your emailing...

I have a question for you; Could you let me know what exactly does 'implicit faith' and 'explicit faith' mean in Catholic theology?

Explicit faith would by its very title have to involve some kind of visible manifestation of one's faith in whatever (or whomever) the faith is in. Such manifestation could involve (i) verbal or pictoral displays that make it clear what one has faith in (ii) syllogistic arguments in support of what one has faith in, etc. Implicit would mean either the faith is absent a corporeal point of reference or perhaps has said points of reference but they are not direct ones. Put another way, if one looked at a variety of factors in what a person said and what they did not say, one could conclude at least in outline where they probably were in their views.

For example, someone who makes no references to God but acted in a fashion that underscored a belief in certain immutable truths could be said to have "implicit faith." To the extent that they make no conscious movement in the converse direction or otherwise contradict their conscience, they can be said to be on the right track.

I know that Catholics don't draw the distinction between essential and non-essential doctrines, although there is a certian hierarchy of truths.

Yes, the hierarchy of truths refers to how they pertain to one another. It is a lot like dialogual approaches{5} when one views it as consisting of a series of concentric circles{6} with each circle being a more precise or direct understanding. Doctrines are like that in that some are more important than others -the Christological ones are obviously of paramount importance hierarchially speaking.

My impression is that the Catholic church teaches that the entire desposit of faith is essential in some sense. I am just not sure what this means in practise.

In practice it means one needs to have faith in all that has been revealed by God.

Are Catholics supposed to have implicit faith in all the doctrines that the church has proposed for belief throughout the centuries, even if they lack any understanding of the content of all these proposed doctrines?

Yes.

Is that what is meant by implicit faith in the church?

Yes. It also embraces the intuition that one will accept what is recognized later on as revealed of God and by their actions would conform themselves to it once they recognize it. (This is a tricky area also because the kind of recognition I am talking about is integral to the person.) Not all that is in what is called the "deposit of faith" is known at once because there is simply too much there. Some can be known directly whereas others take time to understand because they are not ascertained except by a more indirect path -building on information already possessed in the manner of any advancement of knowledge in the natural sciences.

Also, do you know of any internet resources which could help me to understand the distinction between implicit and explicit faith?

There are few that I put much stock in anymore for this kind of stuff. Part of the reason for this is we are taking about concepts that requires a lot more intellectual exercise than the lions share of "apologists" have any interest in doing -most of whom would not be able to adequately handle it anyway due to their own intellectual dependence.{7} But I will see if I can dig up some more material on it for you in the coming weeks as time allows for it. One that may be of assistance is this letter from the Vatican's doctrinal office issued in 1949. The passage particularly relevant to your question would be this one:

[W]hen a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

The concept of "invincible ignorance" is generally understood as a lack of knowledge that cannot be removed by what would reasonably be considered due diligence. This could vary from person to person due in no small part to the variety of foundational presuppositions{8} from which people operate. Hopefully this summarizes the concepts adequately and (in what is for me) a reasonably economical way.

Notes:

{1} I am a person who writes on a variety of subjects which are of interest to me at a given point in time who happens to be Catholic, not a Catholic apologist...I make this clarification because I have no small degree of annoyance at the garbage that so often passes for "Catholic apologetics"[...] and as a result I do not want to be affiliated with them in the slightest -at least not directly.[...] But enough on that for now. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa November 14, 2006)]

{2} I say "in the abstract" because all of them will admit that they are "not infallible" when it does not petain to a particular issue. However, in practice they defend with dogmatic insistence their views even on issues where they would be wise to refrain from discussing with the same tenor as they do issues where they may be able ot speak with relative certainty on.

{3} Those who wonder why your host has as a rule[...] not referred to individuals in his writings over the years and why that practice will remain intact in the future will now know the reason for that. In a sentence: to mention names generally distracts from the issues of discussion and introduces personalities into the mix. Once the latter happens, it is very difficult if not impossible to have an authentic dialogue if one of those parties is a grandstander or otherwise tries to draw attention to themselves.

Another way of saying it is this: the focus belongs not on the persons but instead on the arguments. That is the only way to try and check egos from coming into the equation and we all know what happens to any semblence of a decent discussion once that happens so no more needs to be said on that point. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 9, 2006)]

{4} I am also far more willing to direct people to those who know certain issues better because I am not in a position of having a financial stake in the process (and therefore try to "sell them" in a matter of speaking).

{5} Some Principles For Authentic Dialogue and the Proper Use of Sources in Papers (circa February 9, 2006)

The above thread was quoted in footnote one.

{6} In the understanding of relation to the Church in the form of concentric circles, the widest circle involves mankind in general and the Church seeks to promote that which is most authentically human. The summary of [Ecclesiam Suam] §97-98 is in the statement that without any temporal or political motive that Our sole purpose is to take what is good in man's life on earth and raise it to a supernatural and Christian level. Contingent on the latter is the moral values that the Church proposes which are of value to all people and are rooted in their consciences (cf. Rom. ii,11ff). [I. Shawn McElhinney: Excerpt from On the Intricacies of Dialogue - A Commentary (circa December 16, 2003)]

{7} Catholic apologists are oftentimes intellectually dependent. I say this because they demonstrate a serious lacuna in their ability to utilize the thinking mechanism. Their intellectual dependence is on what the Catholic Church's magisterium[...] says on issues. Where this authority speaks with a clear voice, they can wade their way into issues of discussion with a degree of comfort. However, where this authority does not speak[...], they are at a loss of what to do. This is where they flail around like a drowning man seeking to find anything they can remotely ascribe to a magisterial statement on the issue in question as their way of coping with a lack of such guidance which they so evidently need.

For it is easy to argue a position where there are definite guidelines of sorts and Catholic doctrine does provide certain principles which are able to be grasped. The problem is the areas where there is not the same authoritative guidance. Finding themselves unable to argue a position on the grounds of what is reasonable and what is logical[...], they seek to manufacture an intervention by magisterial authority in the hopes of avoiding accountability for the grey matter between their ears. This approach is (of course) not a properly Catholic one and any hope of convincing non-Catholics that their position is the correct one evaporates like dew on a hot summer morning. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 5, 2006)]

{8} I have not discussed in detail what I mean by the term foundational presuppositions but from the context in which I use the term, its general meaning should be evident. Nonetheless, I did find this thread in my archives from earlier this year where I explained the term by virtue of what a change in said foundational presuppositions would inexorably involve. To wit:

[O]ne has to consider from time to time not only if the arguments they use to advance their position are good ones or not but even if their position itself is actually correct. As all of this probably sounds more complicated than it actually is, I will use the analogy of stocks and options to explain it in brief.

Those who are familiar with how stocks and options have a symbiotic relationship know that one of the reasons many investors like options[...] is because a small movement in the stock results in a magnified movement in the underlying option. This is the potential power inherent in dealing with foundational presuppositions of an individual: small shifts there can result in magnified movements in the individual's weltanschauung though sometimes it takes a bit of time for working out the ramifications of such shifts. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 28, 2006)]

On Men and Woman, the Latter Having Any Positions of Authority in Society, Etc.
(Dialogue With Some Friends)

Should one of my friends not object to being named in this posting, I will reveal their identity. Their words will be in darkgreen font while the words of others will be in blue font.

Why do you think it is that men are overwhelming more drawn to apologetics than women?

Because men are more logical and rational than women.

As a rule this is true.

Women based decisions primarily on emotion ...which is why it is absolutely insane that we allow them to vote and have other positions of authority in our society.

Frankly XXXX, there are a lot of men who base their decisions this way too. I favour not gender exclusion from voting but some kind of test that shows that the person taking it can reason properly and not fall into solipsistic fallacies. I can think of not a few men who would fail that test along with most women. Some of them are even apologists -though I do not have you in mind with that criticism amigo :)

Any honest historian can see that society was more stable and healthy before we allowed such things.

Society was more stable when concern was more for the common good than for individual wants wherever the two conflicted. As it is, the rise of women voting happens to coincide with a societal shift in this area of no small problem...a subject for another time perhaps. But your assertion is far too simplistic and does not seem to account for a variety of factors which were involved in what happened.

Women were also much more happy and well-adjusted, because they knew precisely what was expected of them and were able to achieve their own excellence in society, which means that they were able to be a powerful civilizing influence as mothers and wives, etc. Women need conformity, and they seek conformity (e.g. "Oprah says it, so it must be true" or "one girl screams for some pop star, and all the others scream too")..

People in general are that way XXXX. One of the reasons the Founders were concerned about giving any branch of the government over to election by the populace is because of the problem with public opinion. Even Alexander Hamilton (the founder whose outlook most approximates my own incidentally) while he favoured the populace electing the House of Representatives, did not favour such things for the Senate. His rationale was as follows:

The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government... Can a democratic assembly who annually revolve in the mass of the people be supposed steadily to pursue the public good?

They are rarely (if ever) able to "think outside the box."

Again, that describes people in general.

Every advancement in human learning, technology, or art was made, not by a woman, but by a man.

That is a bit of a stretch XXXX.

This cannot be denied.

I just did and yes it can.

Did you ever hear the old saying that "little girls mature faster than boys." This is not actually true.

Really???

It's not that girls "mature" faster. Rather, girls CONFORM faster --that is, they look around at how things ARE (the status quo in a family, etc.) and adapt to it (and this, to a parent, is often interpreted as "maturity").

I know not a few non-conformist women XXXX. While this may be the case as a rule, there are certainly exceptions to it which could be noted.

Boys, on the other hand, retain an individualistic mentality, and this is what allows men to come up with new things and advance society.

Again, there are women inventors too. Not as many as men but I already disproved your universal negative so no more needs to be said about it.

It's also what allows us to think logically and rationally, whereas women are predominately the victims of their need to conform and to "nest" (that is, to maintain the status quo as they know it).

Again, this is a bit too simplistic XXXX.

This is why you will never win an apologetics argument with an Evangelical woman. She is not an Evangelical because of any rational decisions to be an Evangelical (although she will try to use supposedly rational arguments ["from the Bible"] to try and convert you. ;-)). Rather, she is an Evangelical because that's what her surroundings tell her she must be (her peers and/or family) and also because she is fed EMOTIONALLY by Evangelicalism, which is her only standard for truth.

It depends on how you define "winning." I "won" every apologetics argument I had with an Evangelical ex-ladyfriend. Lost the war in the process though -an important education that was for me but I digress. She was highly intelligent but had a foundational presupposition towards evangelicalism because that was how she was raised. This is hardly unique to women though as most people accept uncritically the religion their parents bring them up in, their family or locale's political beliefs, etc. And though (admittedly) there are more women than men who are intellectually dependent; nonetheless, this situation is not unique to one sex or the other.

You can rationally prove the Catholic interpretation of Scripture beyond any shadow of a doubt to her. But, it will have no effect. She will just ignore you and continue to spout the same nonsense.

I am having de ja vu in reading this.

And why? Because, in her mind, emotion is a greater gage of truth than local and/or reason.

Most people are that way unfortunately.

Now, please understand, there are illogical and overly-emotional men as well ...religion is 80% emotion and 20% reason anyway.

Agreed. That is why I have had greater difficulty with apologetics over the years: for all the pretenses towards being "intellectual" far too many of its practicioners are anything but that at all.

But, when it comes to women, hardly any (and I would even dare say: none at all) are converted to truth based on (reasonable) apologetics arguments.

Most apologetics arguments are too simplistic and hardly as "reasonable" as you presume XXXX.

Rather, just like in dating, they must be "wooed" to believe by appealing to their emotions.

That is generally the case with men too: if you get down to the nitty gritty, virtually no one changes their view on the basis of rational argumentation. Whatever of the latter is involved, it is always dwarfed by more personal or emotional elements. That is in some respects unfortunate but it is reality.

This is why so many women convert to Catholicism because they are exposed to our Marian devotions and similar things.

In most cases this is probably true.

And while there are female intellectual types (like Patty Bonds, etc.) who also honestly explore the reasonable arguments for Catholicism and are convinced by them, this is only to supplement and intuitive (read: emotion-based) sense that Catholicism is correct. They are not converted (as a man often is) because of the reasonable apologetics arguments themselves. This is an important distinction.

Rather than the complete dichotomy you postulate, it would be more accurate to state the above paragraph this way:

And while there are female intellectual types (like Patty Bonds, etc.) who also honestly explore the reasonable arguments for Catholicism and are convinced by them, this is quite often to supplement an intuitive (read: emotion-based) sense that Catholicism is correct. They are generally not converted (at least as often as a man can be) because of the reasonableness that apologetics arguments themselves can have. This is an important distinction.

Again, a little nuance goes a long way.

And, please understand .... Everyone is converted by the grace of God; and only the grace of God. Sometimes this grace appeals to the intellect, and sometimes it appeals to the emotions.

Agreed.

So, converting to truth because of an emotional conviction is not a bad thing. I'm not saying that it is. All I'm saying is that women are predominately converted (by God's grace) because of emotional factors, whereas men are far more open to reasonable, intellectual arguments, which is why they have a far-greater affinity for apologetics.

This is a much better explanation than the more simplistic "black and white" approach you tried earlier XXXX.

Apologetics is a "man's game" because it is based on reason. There is very little emotional content to it, and so women don't typically find it attractive because of that.

Well, there are more than enough problems which could be noted about the activity of apologetics XXXX: far more than I could possibly cover in a brief posting such as this. But that is all I will say on it at this time.

Points to Ponder:
(On Envy of Others and Insecurity)

[D]o you know the hallmark of the second-rater? It's resentment of another man's achievement. Those touchy mediocrities who sit trembling lest someone's work prove greater than their own - they have no inkling of the loneliness that comes when you reach the top. The loneliness for an equal - for a mind to respect and an achievement to admire. They bare their teeth at you from out of their rat holes, thinking that you take pleasure in letting your brilliance dim them - while you'd give a year of your life to see a flicker of talent anywhere among them. They envy achievement, and their dream of greatness is a world where all men have become their acknowledged inferiors. They don't know that that dream is the infallible proof of mediocrity, because that sort of world is what the man of achievement would not be able to bear. [Ayn Rand (circa 1957)]

To revisit a remembrance thread from last year:

Remembering Chris

While substantially reiterating everything I said in that thread, a few things come to mind which I have thought about at times since the posting of that thread. I want to note them in a brief paragraph before I forget to mention them so here goes...

I know Chris that you are absent this world now but it is my hope that you are in a place where there is no pain, only wonderous things beyond what we can imagine. Your sister told me in tears after reading a version of the material at the above thread that you had expressed some regrets in your last days: regrets about slights committed against others. Yes, there were some slights you committed against me, I need not tell you because you know what they are. But I assure you my friend, that stuff was minutiae in the grand scheme of things, that is all it was. Know that while I may not have said it explicitly, you were forgiven long ago. I consider myself far more culpable for my negligences towards you in recent years than anything I could recall from the less-than-stellar parts of our relationship: I held no grudge or ill-will, I simply did not do my full duty towards you. You will always be close to my heart my friend: always. May God rest your soul until (hopefully) we meet again in a much better place.

"See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

As things move quickly through the grapevine of the blogosphere, it was not long before a reader made me aware of a response of sorts from Dave Armstrong to the December 7, 2006 weblog thread on the hypocritical double standards of the apologetics oligarchy and also a Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG thread from November 27, 2006 where I defined explicitly the term apologetics oligarchy.

The decision to define the latter term occurred after I had drafted a post response to Jimmy Akin where I used the term. It made sense therefore to define the term so I could link to the definition throughout the aforementioned post response to Jimmy; ergo, that is what I did. So Dave seems interested in the term apologetics oligarchy and also the post from 12/7 of an email originally sent on November 14, 2006.{1} Dave as is his wont posted on those threads with a misleading title and premise:

Reports of the Death of Catholic Apologetics Greatly Exaggerated: Momentous Anti-Apologetics Manifesto Launched

All is not bad I suppose since (at the very least) he spared us all yet another attempt to disingenuously cut and paste bits from what I wrote to try and erect another cohort of strawmen for his rhetorical cornfield.{2} Nonetheless, the title he used with the pictures is quite misleading. For one thing, he tries to bring into the picture Dr. Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, and Pat Madrid as if they are necessarily being viewed by me in the same light as I do Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea, and himself. Secondly, Dave obviously is interested in playing this up in his predictable way{3} as an excuse to ignore my arguments as he has been doing for the better part of sixteen months now (on and off) since he came up looking quite bad on a subject matter I do not want to go into again at this time.{4} The title of the post basically sums his view up in a nutshell: if you are in any way whatsoever critical of any aspect of Catholic apologetics, then you are an "anti-apologist."{5} How else can it possibly be interpreted than that???

You read that correctly folks: there is no such thing as criticism allowed. PERIOD. Instead, you are to just close your eyes and pretend all is well. Oh and do not forget to tip your biretta, bow three times and uncritically incense what Dave and the others say. Oh and send your $$$ to the addresses they indicate while you are at it. But by all means, shut your yappers. Pay attention instead to the smoke and mirrors before you and do not inquire what is actually behind the curtain. Shut up, pay, pray, and obey essentially. And do not ask yourselves why you should do this either.

The same goes for standards too folks: there is one standard for them and one standard for others. Do not question it or else you will be labeled as a "hater of apologetics" because that is what it must be. So if you see them acting in the same way as those non-Catholic apologists they like to publicly screech about, do not even think of calling them on it in the interest of respect for non-contradiction. For if you do, you are an anti-apologist. Be afraid folks...be VERY afraid!!!

If anything, their whole way of responding to criticism conforms so precisely to my definition of what an apologetics oligarch is that no more needs to be said on it. These problematical sorts would rather protect one another and excuse their excesses while hypocritically chastising non-Catholic apologists for acting in the same way against them. I remind you all of the challenge advanced in my critical thread which was posted before the email itself:

[W]hile I am sure this will piss off some parties, frankly I do not give a damn. Furthermore, I challenge anyone who disputes my viewing of this matter to present a viable hypothesis of their own to explain the obvious double standards involved here otherwise their kvetching will be without merit to me. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 7, 2006)]

Dave and the others if they have any semblance of basic ethics should interact with my arguments on their merits. Of course I am perhaps a bit naively optimistic that these sorts have the cajones to actually do this but I generally like to think better of people than they often deserve. Dave even has a kind of "poll" at his site so people can "vote" on what I say. As if the veracity of someone's arguments are based on popular voting instead of properly being assessed by objective criteria which means using the tools of reason and logic, not emotional impulses. But to go over that with the detail it deserves would take more time than I want to devote to this posting so it will have to be put aside for another time perhaps.

The bottom line though is this: any attempts to oppose what I wrote with anything that does not deal with my arguments on their merits or lack thereof will reveal these people as grandstanding demagogues interested not in truth but instead in how they can protect their own backsides from legitimate scrutiny. And no matter how Dave, Jimmy, Mark, and/or their uncritical and fawning sycophants try to spin it to sound differently, that is the bottom line folks.

Notes:

{1} Which incidentally was referred to in the November 28th post to Jimmy Akin and previously quoted in my election synopsis thread of November 24, 2006.

{2} To post all of the posts at Rerum Novarum where I sought to get him to do this in the past would be to make this post overly long. I will however post here the last post in the sequence at this time:

Standing on Principles Vs. Public Demagogery and Historical Airbrushing--An Open Note to the Participants on Dave Armstrong's Weblog on the Subjects of Apologetics and General Ethics (circa September 21, 2006)

Many of the other postings preceding them can be found linked to it at some point or another.

{3} Dave has basically done everything he can including continually trying to to manufacture conflicts as people are naturally drawn to them much as they are to a trainwreck. Dave is also quite good at casting himself as the martyr. There will always be a certain large segment of humanity that is drawn to that sort of thing -even if only out of curiosity. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 16, 2006)]

{4} See footnote two for one such example and also this thread.

{5} This is a marvelous way to try and evade accountability and only highlights in spades why my reference to the apologetics oligarchy is so apropo.