Quoting from What We Can’t Not Know:
“A paraphrase of the Second Commamdment might be “You shall not use empty speech in connection with God.” … To say this is one of the things we can’t not know–that it belongs not only to biblical injunction but to natural law–is to say that we naturally understand certain things about the relation of speech to relaity, a theme to which we return in the Eighth Commandment. Even a liar’s speech expressing something true; it may not tell us the state of the world, but it tells us the state of his heart. What empty God-talk tells us is that where there ought to be God, there is emptiness.”
OR, ==> CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE EPISODE.
The Pat Flynn Show
If you enjoyed this episode, it would mean the world to me if you could subscribe to, and leave a review for, The Pat Flynn show on iTunes HERE or Stitcher HERE.
Reading your reviews and hearing your feedback is what keeps me fired up to make The Pat Flynn Show happen. Thank you!
…
PS – My wife also has a lovely series on the 10 Commandments over on her blog/podcast
What the Catholic Church Has to Say about The 10 Commandments
Pat, Your characterization of Platonism was regrettable at best… You created a straw man that had no binding or ‘clothes’, to hold all of the straw together. I know that Thomism resonates strongly with you , but it never should be a monolithic replacement for all that came before it in Christian theology that appropriated Plato. You really need to cultivate a more respectable appreciation of Patristics, von Balthasar, de Lubac… ken
Ken,
I’m disappointed: all that is merely assertion. Not an argument to be found in any of it. If you want to keep dialogue productive and charitable, then advance and support a position. Give me an argument, and I will respond and promise to do so amicably; indeed, I enjoy such exchanges. But don’t just throw personal attacks around, or I won’t bother engaging, at all.
Platonism, to keep it brief, should be rejected by all Christians, not just Catholics, and for the simple reason that the realm of forms presents an incompatible view with divine aseity. Platonists hold that there exists something (abstract objects, propositions, moral values and duties, etc) independently of God. Not only is this notion incoherent in terms of how we come into contact, or even comprehend, such a realm (especially when it comes to moral values and obligations), but puts down God as being over and above all. While there may appear to be superficial concord, there is, in fact, deep conflict between Christianity and platonism, and not just the scholastics, but also Aristotle back then, and many Christian philosophers/theologies (of all denominational backgrounds) today are right to reject it. But even at that, to reject platonism as a whole is not to reject platonism in parts. Of course there is much to be admired and respected in Plato and those who were influenced by him.
Pat, My intention was far from a personal attack, I am truly sorry if that is how you perceived it. Saying that no Christian or Catholic should be a Platonist holds true for Aristotelianism as well. Both of these philosophers were appropriated and made Christian by recognized and celebrated church leaders. You spoke of three distinct ways of approaching morality, the first of which was a belief in God and supreme attributes such as goodness, justice, Love. These are the same conclusions that the Patristic Fathers came to while appropriating Plaonic universal categories.This was all I was trying to relay in my message. I simply do not want people going away thinking that Patristics should be abandoned, and that there isn’t a modern Catholic Love of “going back to the sources” that are Christianized Platonism. Plato‘s notion of the contemplative life is clearly more Christian than Aristotle‘s, this may be one reason why am so strongly moved to object to your assertions. I feel that it is imperative that you communicate this as a Catholic.
ken
I appreciate the clarification here, Ken. The problem was with the remark along the lines of “you really need to read more on, X,Y, Z” implying that I’m somehow ignorant of those things or people. This isn’t the case. I’ve studied and gained many insights, for example, from Balthasar, and can gladly admit to doing so. But then I can just as well go onto say that I don’t accept some of his theologian positions, even if they fall within the realm of acceptable Catholic belief. Bishop Barron, if you’re interested, has quite a nice little course on the theology of Balthasar. I recommend it to many.
That said, I’ve never made the assertion that a Catholic should be an Aristotelian. Or that Christians should model Aristotle in their contemplative life. Or that patristics should be abandoned (which would be especially odd, since it was a study of patristics that caused me to convert to Catholicism in the first place; not Aquinas). If any of those slipped out, it was not of my knowing (nor my intention), and I’d like to have where I’ve said that identified so I can issue a correction. Otherwise you may be reading something into what I’m saying, that isn’t actually there. Because my belief is this: A Catholic should be a Catholic, outlined by what’s essential to the Catholic faith. And that’s what I am. Not an Aristotelian, nor a Thomist, but a Catholic. (Fundamentally, anyway. When a person asks what school of philosophy I subscribe to, then sure, I will respond that I believe something like A-T is correct.)
That said, when it comes to certain ways of seeing the world from a philosophical viewpoint–how, for example, to account for universals, or morality, etc–it’s important to realize there are certain worldviews which are compatible (moderate realism/scholastic realism, etc), and others which are incompatible (platonism) with the core of Christian belief, such as God over all. There are Christian Platonists, to be sure. Peter van Inwagen comes to mind. But this is baffling to me, for the reasons I described in my previous comment. Just as Plato had it, this viewpoints puts something over and above God, which is not only theologically problematic, but, as I would further argue, conceptually incoherent.
All that again to say there are, no doubt, countless, wonderful insights to be found in Plato (there’s much truth in the statement that “all of philosophy is a footnote to Plato”) and those influenced by him and considered Neo-Platonists. Let’s not forget that the person Aquinas references the most is Augustine. The Confessions were a critical work for me, and always will be.
I feel that the language that you use to refute relativism often bleeds over into the multiplicity within Catholicism. I wish that you would be more careful in your rhetoric. This is not for my sake, but for others that may be last secure in their faith.
Ken
Ken, my suspicion is there’s just a basic misunderstanding going on. Relativism requires refutation. It’s an incoherent philosophy supporting dangerous ideology. It not only undermines truth, but undermines itself. I make no apologies to being direct on my critiques of relativism; it’s not only a position that Christians should reject, but everybody who cares about truth, at all. That said, relativism has nothing to do with a multiplicity of beliefs/opinions on things. That’s just a differing of opinion, where each person argues for whatever believe is right. And that’s fine, and worth doing, and all very well and good. But that’s not relativism. Relativism argues that no position can be right, because there is no truth to be had (at the same time, ironically, making a claim that itself is either true, or false). It also differs from general agnosticism which admits to truth but argues that some truths cannot be known.
But to a larger point: All truth is offensive, because all truth is exclusive. (If A is true, then NOT-A is false.) There is nothing a person can say that won’t offend somebody, no matter how charitably presented. And I do my best to present my arguments charitably, and support them: I give reasons for why I believe the things that I do. That said, life is not a matter of not being a offensive. That is going to happen, no matter what. Ultimately, life is a matter of whether you’re going to be offense about the right things, or not.
Pat – Alas, I understand the difference between relativism and a multiplicity of beliefs… You frequently use the the label of “incoherent” for relativism. Do you really believe it is legitimate to apply the same label to Platonism (~14 min into podcast). I just don’t see how you can justify this characterization on the one hand, and on the other recognize a truth in the adage, “all philosophy is a footnote to Plato”, and rightly claiming a subsequent influence on Augustine. This is not to mention the countless Patristic theologians that used Platonism to try and explain Christianity to the Greek speaking world. They did this because it was particularly coherently to the vast majority of theologians and the people they were communicating to. This just doesn’t seem lik the right way to speak on your part, sorry… Now, I certainly understand not agreeing with the metaphysics, I don’t fully agree with the metaphysics of Platonism/Middle Platonism/Neoplatonism… This is what I meant by saying your language for relativism often bleeds into legitimate believes under the umbrella of Catholicism.
ken
Yes, I do, and for the reasons I’ve already given. Platonism–and we must be clear on what we mean by this–is the whole of the worldview which ascribes to a realm of forms with respect to universals. Again, to reject Platonism as a worldview, and to say it is ultimately incoherent, is not to write off the countless, brilliant contributions that Plato made to philosophy as a general field of knowledge. Nor is this to reject any of the very much significant and important theological works of the Neoplatonists, such as Augustine or Origen. NOR is it to say that the adoption/influence of Platonism upon theologians was not an effective evangelistic method at certain points in time. None of that follows from the critiques I’ve offered of Platonism; all of that is non-sequitur. My critique is purely one from a philosophical worldview. So, what a person would need to do, if they want to promote Platonism (especially in compatibility with Christianity) is explain two things to me: 1) How the theory of forms is coherent, first off. For example, how we come to know of, say, moral values and duties if they exist merely in some abstract (read: causally effete) Platonic third realm, and why, if any, we should be under any moral obligation to any such abstract objects? It seems far more plausible to reject the Platonic third realm altogether and adopt that universals are in some manner grounded directly in the divine, and once we have explained the concrete objects of the divine mind and all other minds aside His, then the “problem of universals” is solved. There is nothing left to explain. 2) Even more critically, how this (Platonism/realm of forms) does not promote a severe tension, if not an outright contradiction, with the God of classical theism, who is over and above all. A god that is himself below the forms and fashioning them or connecting them (such a Plato’s demiurge) is no god that Christians believe in, or can believe in.
That I can except. For I was always arguing for Platonism through Christian eyes, this was all I was trying to defend… and my only point was that your language sometimes seems to create collateral damage. I know it is nearly impossible to qualify every little thing that you say, so I am glad to hear your clarification in the comments. Maybe next time when you are claiming incoherency towards something that has such a strong foundation within Christianity, you can just quickly make a one sentence qualification to avoid this collateral damage. ken
Ken,
I am always happy to clarify my position when asked. But at the same time, I’d be impossible for me to anticipate every interpretation or objection a person might have. Which is why I leave the comments open. For discussions such as these.
By the way, I see wonderful coherence with a third level of abstraction… what is more good or beautiful than agape love, the ethos that comes with this, and the personal nature of the One God needed for this love?The third level was the level over the pantheon of polytheistic religion, quite relevant in my mind to the Judeo Christian tradition… ken
Wow Pat. I tuned in to hear about the 10 commandments and received a good overview of some philosophies (such as utilitarianism) besides the 10 commandments (coincidentally, I just finished watching the Charlton Heston “10 Commandments.” Thanks for explaining moral law and how it ties in with the concept of objectivity. Your Sunday School podcasts are a true blessing. I’ve never had someone explain the importance of being a Christian and not just a good person. Rejecting God is such a terrible thing to do and you did a terrific job explaining why we need to do more than just practice moral acts (of course the Bible also notes our righteousness is as filthy rags).
Pat, what are your thoughts on Aristotle’s concept of virtue for virtue’s sake (I’m paraphrasing). How would that differ from the concept of divine objectivity/doing what God asks because it’s for our good?
Virtue ethics is a nice lead in to natural law. In fact, to best understand Aquinas a person really should read Aristotle, if not first, at least simultaneously. My only contention would be is that virtue ethics isn’t sufficient as a moral philosophy itself.
Aristotle rightly recognizes that some things are good for us by our very nature, and that we ought to do what is really good for us (even if we don’t “feel” like it), such as developing virtue. This we can know merely by observing the types of creatures we are, and engaging in those activities that promote, rather than frustrate, our natural ends. All of this is very much the basis for natural law theory, as well. What virtue ethics, and subsequently natural law theory, further show, is that much of effective moral epistemology (how we come to know of good and bad/right and wrong) can be done without direct reference to God, the Bible, etc.
THAT SAID, just because we can figure some things out proximately (by looking at our human teleology, etc; which is the epistemological question) doesn’t mean we still don’t need some ultimate source from where this teleology comes from (which is the ontological question), is directed toward, and why, if any, we are under any real and binding obligation to follow through on this. And that’s where Aquinas steps in to finish the job, offering us (again, rightly, I would argue) God as the final end for all humans to come to know and love, as well as the ultimate, grounding source of all moral values (found directly in God’s essentially all-good and loving nature) and, indeed, God’s commandments/will serving as the foundation of our human moral obligation.
So virtue IS worth pursuing for virtue’s sake (God, of course, can only will what is really good for us being the kinds of creatures we are), because developing virtue is what contributes to human flourishing. Aristotle is right there, he just doesn’t go far enough. Had he been a Christian, however, I believe he would have. But still, we ought to give the man his due!