The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle believed Nature hotwired human beings to inquire “What is this?” because their quest across the generation is to know “What this is.”
At the time, science was a branch of philosophy. The purpose subdividing philosophy in this way meant that getting from the question “What is this?” to its ultimate answer “What this is” required thinking about what “this” may be, formulating theories about what “this” likely may be, testing those theories, and then judging the data derived from those tests. Developing these intellectual powers would enable human beings, Aristotle asserted, to ascertain what is and is not “fact.”
This was how science was conducted not only at the time but also for at least the next fifteen centuries.
That’s when Francis Bacon came along and extended this approach by calling for controlled experimentation. Bacon’s reform eventually became known as the “scientific method” which most of us learned in elementary school science classes. More importantly, the scientific method has provided the foundation for much of the scientific-technological progress made over the past one if not two centuries. This method is also how most people across the globe today believe is the best, if not the only way to ascertain not just fact but to establish truth with certitude. Only recently, for example, many if not all of us were told by experts to “follow the science” when the question concerned how best to contend with the effects of COVID-19 and its subsequent variants. To the chagrin of many, what was propounded as fact—inoculated people would not get the virus—was understood to be truth.
For most people today, there’s an important distinction that seems to have been lost: A fact is not necessarily a truth. Socrates noted this more than 2300 years ago in The Meno when he observed that what most people believe is a “truth” is, in reality, an opinion they’ve “tied down,” that is, use to make judgments. Think of a balloon filled with helium. Socrates noted that people of his day easily because upset when they were exposed for holding an opinion they’ve tied down and based their life upon as “fact.” Humiliating as that experience can be, worse yet is when people are exposed for holding what Socrates called a “wrong opinion” which they’ve tied down. Metaphorically, when someone unties that helium balloon—courageously and skillfully revealing in public the wrong opinion for what it is—and the balloon ascends skyward until it explodes and comes crashing down to earth, those holding that wrong opinion which they’ve tied down and based their life upon as “truth” grow irate. They may even demand that the individual who untied that wrong opinion be put to death...as Socrates and Jesus found out.
Concerning the scientific method, it’s not a “wrong opinion tied down” but its factual conclusions aren’t necessarily truths. Francis Bacon knew this which is why his method calls for testing and replicating hypotheses numerous times before they are validated as theories and hundreds if not thousands of times before they are called “laws.” But, a scientific “law” isn’t a scientific “truth” and that’s something we also were taught in elementary school science classes: Science doesn’t establish truth but provides evidence for facts and always at a predetermined level of probability of error (that is, of being incorrect).
The release of atomic power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.
Einstein knew the power atomic energy could be used to promote the good. Yet, what Einstein feared more was an unintended negative consequence of his theory: The use of that power to promote evil. Isolating the scientific method and its products from ethical and religious critique, Einstein noted, “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”
Einstein was correct, of course. While science can identify what’s factual as human beings can measure Nature’s creations, science cannot measure what’s true.
For example, when a human being sincerely states “I will love you with all my heart all the days of my life,” all that science can measure are the behaviors supporting (or failing to support) that statement. Quantifying the variables science has associated with love, it can offer a percentage—a spouse’s “love quotient”—identifying precisely just how much that person’s statement accurately identifies the degree to which that statement has been factual. Examining the love quotient of all spouses throughout history would likely identify that every human being who has professed his or her love “with all my heart” and “all the days of my life” has fallen short of demonstrating this in fact.
However, that fact doesn’t annul that truth. The reason is simple: Human beings are imperfect and fallible. Science cannot measure evil or its power, only its effects and only in retrospect because one goal of science is to be able to make a future prediction which may or may not become fact depending upon the influence of confounding factors. Hence, the spousal “love quotient” ranging from 0.0 (“no love”) to 1.00 (“perfect love”) which confirms in all likelihood that no spouse in the future will achieve a 1.00 on his or her love quotient. Anywhere in between those two extremes is the fact—reality not truth—identifying how well a spouse loves “with all my heart” and “all the days of my life (so far).”
About evil, Einstein observed:
Evil does not exist…or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.The real problem is in the hearts and minds of men. It is not a problem of physics but of ethics. It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man.
Einstein was 100% correct because Nature teaches humanity this lesson: There’s no darkness without light and there’s no hot without cold. Taking a cue from Aristotle, the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines evil as the “privation of the good.” That is, evil only exists to the degree that good is first present. Where there is no good, there is no evil.
What Einstein was observing concerned how the focus of science and religion differ and what each attempts to discern differs. Science attempts to discern facts in the bold attempt to identify material reality and make predictions. Religion attempts to discern truths in the bold attempt to identify immaterial reality and humanity’s final destiny. Yet, it must be observed, science and religion aren’t exclusive of each other and neither are they inclusive of each other. Instead, science and religion have their distinctive methods that are complementary of one another in much the same way Nature has made males and females biological complements of each other.
Faith and reason are like two wings upon which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart the desire to know the truth—in a word, to know Himself—so that by knowing and loving God, men and women can come to the fullness of the truth about themselves.
As Einstein rightly noted, the problem arises when human beings divorce science from religion—“faith from reason,” as the Church describes it. Removing the guardrails from the pathway of life, human beings run the risk of pridefully basing what they assert—those “wrong opinions tied down”—as factual (based upon science or “reason”) or true (based upon religion or “faith”). Stubbornly refusing to subject those “wrong opinions tied down” to critique, human beings then entrench themselves in their positions becoming ideologues. Over time, they then judge anything other than what they believe and anyone holding a heterodox view as unworthy of consideration and to be ridiculed. Ultimately, they decide that dissenters should be dismissed from the community—excluded—if not burned at the stake as heretics. This “attitude of superiority,” Pope Francis has called it, aims at domination—to take first place at the banquet of thoughts, opinions, and ideas—by prevailing in the contest to control the lives of others not to learn truths about themselves.
This attitude is rather widespread today and it works against building up the common good in marriages families, and nations, too, by destroying what the psychologist Abraham Maslow identified more than seven decades ago as one of four pre-potent factors to achieve self-actualization—that is, “belongingness” within a community. This attitude manifests itself today in false forms of “inclusivity” which generally mean “we accept you as long as you accept what we believe is truth.” That is, “Anyone asking ‘What is this?’ need not apply.”
Jesus addressed this malignant attitude in today’s gospel, warning his disciples never to take the first place among others. It would be better for a disciple not to speak and allow the real frauds to pontificate than to take first place at the banquet of thoughts, opinions, and ideas and allow the truth of the gospel to be mocked as a demonstrably indefensible “wrong opinion tied down.”
By selecting the lowest place, not asserting one’s eminence above others, and allowing others to advocate what they believe is fact, Jesus taught, is when a disciple can and should ask questions or relate parables concerning that fact, presenting in all its splendor the truth of the gospel. “What is this?”, disciples ask and then pursue that question to discover “what this is,” namely, the truth illuminated by reason and faith. Others will be amazed by the splendor of truth—even a very painful truth—not by the disciple’s eminence. This is how Jesus taught—a carpenter’s son who spoke with “with authority”—in contrast to the teachers of the law (Mark 1:22; Matthew 7:29).
What Jesus challenges us to consider today is the pathway of humility—the most genuine pathway to build relationships that are rooted in truth irrespective of what the facts may be. Yes, the simple fact is that, due to human fallibility, no spouse’s “love quotient” has or will ever achieve a perfect 1.00. So, people shouldn’t get married believing the “wrong opinion tied down” that they will live “happily ever after.”
But that doesn’t negate the spouse’s statement “I will love you with all my heart all the days of my life.” True humility—not feigned humility—doesn’t exclude those who fall short of sanctity from the community—from marriage or family, for example—but recalls the truth of the gospel, nurtures and nourishes that truth for richer or poorer, in good times and in bad, and in sickness and n health until the “splendor of truth” is finally revealed in its fullness and accepted for what it is, as St. Pope John Paul II described this achievement. And that will take place, as Jesus taught his disciples in today’s gospel, “at the resurrection of the righteous.” It’s not going to be found in this imperfect world.
Jesus’ teaching about humility contradicts today’s social, political, and yes, religious ideologies that are nothing more than “wrong opinions tied down.” When humbly expressed, the truth of the gospel always manifests the logic of God the Father. Furthermore, the reward of living this logic isn’t measurable but immeasurable, not material but immaterial, and isn’t experienced in transient happiness but eternal joy because this logic is not of human but divine origin. There’s absolutely no quid pro quo that can negate this logic and render the truth of the gospel a negotiating point in a contractual exchange because the truth of the gospel is God’s covenant—not a contract—with humanity.
That’s the truth of the gospel as Jesus taught it.
Humility requires selfless generosity that’s freely given and provides the necessary guardrails which keep imperfect disciples on the pathway leading to abiding joy. Sharing in this world in the love of God, reason and faith teach that God is awaiting them at the heavenly banquet not some earthly banquet filled with thoughts, opinions, thoughts, and ideas and which neglects the truth of the gospel. As Pope Francis expressed this concept, he said:
To fly from the pride of being first, there is only the path of opening the heart to humility, to humility that never arrives without humiliation. This is one thing that is not naturally understood. It is a grace we must ask for.
That represents this week’s challenge from scripture: To speak the truth of the gospel as Jesus taught.
Of course, the question is “How am I to do this?”
Try conducting this memento mori each day this week: As people express their “wrong opinions tied down,” listen patiently and with understanding. To put it bluntly: “Shut your yap?”
Here’s the test: Don’t allow what’s being said to generate feelings of hostility, antagonism, and anger—which lead only to exclusion, division, and ultimately, the death of relationships. Instead, realize how the voice of this world—the power of evil masquerading as “truth”—has extended its grasp into the mind and heart of those expressing those “wrong opinions tied down.” Don’t allow those feelings to develop into hostility, antagonism, or anger. Instead, feel pity and then pray “Father, forgive them for they know not what they are doing.”
That’s the first step in a much longer process of learning to teach as Jesus did—to proclaim the truth of the gospel humbly—and, as Jesus taught, to “do this in memory of me.” Humility doesn’t signal agreement with the many wrong opinions tied down that are expressed today. No, humility signals that, as a disciple, there’s another and much better way to promote the common good, one that builds up and strengthens the community in truth. It’s not by bickering and arguing about disputable facts. No, as the author of the Letter to the Hebrews reminded us, this is the discipline which perfects charity—which may include being humiliated before others, as Jesus was—and is how “the spirits of the just are made perfect….”
This week, as we conduct that memento mori, let’s keep in mind what Sirach reminded us about in today’s first reading:
My child, conduct your affairs with humility, and you will be loved more than a giver of gifts. Humble yourself the more, the greater you are, and you will find favor with God. What is too sublime for you, seek not, into things beyond your strength search not.
Doing “this, in memory of me” is how we gradually will arise from our slumber and no longer be “sleepy” Catholics. Then, given time and a whole lot of practice over a whole lot of time, we will gradually learn how to question and relate parables about the truth of the gospel humbly as “WOKE” Catholics and experience the fulfillment of the promise made to us on Christmas Eve: “They shall name him ‘Emmanuel,’ that is, ‘God is with us’.”
Comments
Post a Comment