So sorry to miss the episode yesterday! Here's an update on what's going on with me, and an apology for not keeping my schedule.
I've noticed a revival of pagan ideas and rituals that have caught on in numerous movements. The climate movement, racial movements (on both the right and the left), and other ostensibly secular movements have neo-pagan elements. In order to discuss this, I want to offer a definition for neo-paganism.
I'd define neo-paganism is an explicit or implicit belief that misattributes spiritual significance. These beliefs, coupled with a set of rituals, are what I call neo-pagan movements, even if the practitioners may think they're merely secular.
Merits of Neo-paganism
While I do not find these new pagan ideas convincing, I do understand where they're coming from. So, I want to be fair and offer my thoughts about what they get right.
Although I understand the motivations and think they're a step in the right direction, I think many have missed the truth that they seek. With that in mind, here are some of the errors I find the neo-pagans of today falling into.
Now that I've discussed where neo-pagans go wrong, and where they get things right, I want to discuss how to fix their ideas to comport with reality. If we want to channel this neo-paganism and move it toward the truth, here are a few things we could do.
Previous Episodes:
The postmodernist movement is a reaction to the ideas of the enlightenment, often referred to as modernity. Basically, it developed in the mid 20th century, largely due to the developments of the 19th and early 20th century. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about Postmodernism.
While postmodernist thought is far from perfect, it does raise good points. Here are a few valid claims postmodernists make:
Even though they raise valid concerns, postmodernist thinkers make mistakes. These are a few places postmodernism goes wrong:
In order to correct Postmodernism, we have to look at the core of it. The main issue I find is that it is concerned with things that exist, but they over-emphasize them or lend too much credence to those facets of their philosophy. For instance, there are power structures that influence our world. However, the way postmodernists look for these structures in every nook and cranny of human culture is disordered.
It also holds contradicting ideas like the universal truths of power structures and hierarchies alongside ideas of radical self-referentiality. Lastly, I judge a philosophy by it's fruits, and the fields that have been influenced by postmodernism have been corrupted. Many are hardly intelligible at this point.
Science is a tremendous gift, and has led to incredible human flourishing. The advancements we've seen due to science allow us to live radically more comfortable lives than our ancestors. Because of scientific inquiry, very few people experience the tremendous hardships our ancestors did. Furthermore, that number is decreasing more and more each year.
Additionally, science is a reliable method for learning the truth about the natural world. Through the scientific method, we can come to know more about the world around us, and we can do that with a common framework. One thing to remember, however, is that science is always tentative and prone to change due to new evidence.
The problem with scientism is that it lifts science up, and in the process, ignores other fields of inquiry. The word "science" originates in the word for knowledge, but now only applies to a narrow field of knowledge. I would argue that a philosopher who completely disregards science, and only accepts ontological proofs, is misguided. But in our culture, ontological proofs are discounted, and we act as though anything that can't be proven by the natural sciences is unfounded.
Scientism is wrong because it tries to use a tool for the wrong purposes. Instead of using science to inquire about the natural world, we try to apply it to other fields of study. Additionally, scientism poses a criteria for knowledge that is impossible to meet. We can never learn new things if we need hard, repeatable evidence for every claim we accept as true.
Lastly, scientism forces us to have an ever-shifting understanding of truths. In logic and mathematics, we know the truths are true in all times and places. But, in science, truth is gradually uncovered, and theories are regularly revised. In science, that is ok, but we should not apply that to all fields of study. Scientism applies that understanding of truth to all forms of inquiry, which is wrong.
What we can do to fix this is to keep in mind that science is a tool. Science is a method for learning about the world, and it isn't the supreme arbiter of truth. People who fall into this way of thinking over-emphasize the objective world. Often, they are materialists or naturalists, and they fail to take into account the spiritual part of the human condition. Instead, they act like we are merely chemistry sets or lab rats.
Next, we must not think that an epistemology that works for science will work elsewhere. Philosophy and math come to find truth in very different ways than science. So, we shouldn't make the mistake of needing experiments to come to mathematical truths. In other words, you cannot find all truth in a lab.
According to Wikepedia, "Materialism is a form of philosophical monism that holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist. This concept directly contrasts with idealism, where mind and consciousness are first-order realities to which matter is subject and material interactions are secondary."
At first, it seems to make sense. Much of what we encounter is material. Our food, light, furniture, etc. is all material. It would be easy at first glance to think everything boils down to what is material. But, does that really comport with what we experience and know?
Materialism leaves out a large chunk of the human experience. First, it fails, like naturalism, to fully account for the supernatural and the spiritual. And, in doing so, it denies free will and many other parts of our experience that are products of the spirit.
Also, materialism doesn't allow for the abstract truths we know to be. Moral truths, natural laws, beauty, and even some mathematical truths can't exist if everything is material. So, materialism fails to explain all that we know about the world.
There is more to the world than just the material. It doesn't fit with our understanding of the world. We experience more than just the material in art and music, as well as abstract concepts. We also experience the phenomenon of free will, which is impossible in a materialist world.
In order to fully comport with reality, we need to take into account more than material things. In order to fully experience the world, we have to take account for the non-material parts of our lives.
According to Wikipedia, Naturalism is "the idea or belief that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual ones) operate in the universe. Adherents of naturalism assert that natural laws are the only rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural world, and that the changing universe is at every stage a product of these laws."
In this episode, I'll take a look at some of the good points and valid concerns of Naturalism. Then, I'll discuss how it falls short, and what corrections it needs.
One of the good points of naturalists is that we can attribute most things to natural laws and forces. Every little thing that happens doesn't have to be a supernatural intervention. And, we know it isn't random due to the consistency of events.
There is a time in pagan cultures when everything was attributed to the supernatural. Even in the Judeo-Christian world much of the natural order was attributed to angel's intervention. I don't begin to say that I know how Heaven governs this world and it's laws. But it appears to me that there are natural laws and that God created the world with a discoverable order. When looking into that order, it is good to work within it's bounds, which is why we have science.
The cause of why I burn my tongue on hot coffee or the sun rises everyday can be naturally accounted for. But, the fact that all these beings exist as well as the laws that govern them, none of which fully account for the existence of the universe, has to have some other explanation. Naturalism cannot account for that. Instead, it seeks for a self-explaining cause that's within the natural order.
Furthermore, there are well-attested events that do not fit into the natural world. Inexplicable miracles are one. But, there are phenomena like love and beauty that we do experience. However, the naturalist cannot explain these fully by neurons and brain chemistry. We need a deeper, spiritual explanation if we want to cohere with our universal experience.
There is one major correction a naturalist needs to incorporate all truth into his worldview. That is a recognition of the spiritual. Miracles, religious experiences, emotions, and beauty aren't simply natural phenomena. Rather, they are true experiences of something outside of the natural order. To see this in art, read The Soul of the World, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, or Tolkien's Lord of the Rings to see how this plays out. They demonstrate that there is more to this world than the naturalist can explain. And, they do it both with philosophy and story-telling.
I've discussed the Golden Mean a number of times on the podcast and in various ways. Today, I want to reiterate what the Mean is and how we use practical wisdom to seek it. But, I'll be discussing that in reference to objective and subjective reality. Where are the excesses and defects in our understandings of these two ideas? That's what I'll dive into today.
Here are some of the excesses and defects I think take us away from the mean. You can listen to the episode above to dive deeper into the why and how.
Find out more: The Golden Mean for Understanding Objective and Subjective Reality
Today, I'd like to take a break from the series I've been rolling out to discuss patriotism in honor of Independence Day. We should always be grateful for our country and what it affords us, but I think the 4th of July is a great time to stop and reflect on that more deeply. So, I want to look at this topic generally, but also specifically in regards to my love of my country and my heritage.
It can be hard to offer a patriotism definition, largely because it encompasses so much. Basically, I look at it as a love for one's own country and a recognition of and gratitude for what his country offers. That is not normally how I find people describing it. We often misconstrue American patriotism, for instance, by limiting it to assenting to the values our founders described. While I think a patriot is one who does love the founding of his country, I think there can be room for criticism or dissent. Also, it encompasses more than just that - especially since many nations have been founded on different grounds.
I do think there's a difference between patriotism and nationalism, but it's nuanced. To understand that, I'd like to point to the American founding. A nation is "a relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country." (via The American Heritage Dictionary)
Justice demands us to love our country and be grateful to it. But, as we saw in early America, a unified people can fall apart. By the time of our founding, we were in many ways a separate nation, which is how our founders justified their separation.
In today's episode, I want to talk more about the marriage of object and subject in the human person, and what that means.
We experience the objective world and we have a subjective lens. In order to understand that, we must remember what I discussed in the last two episodes on objective reality and our subjective experience. We have bodies that are objects in the world, but we also have a mind and soul that allows us to relate to one another, think abstractly, communicate ideas, and create art.
It is possible to influence the world around us. Here are some of the ways we do that. We can:
This doesn't mean we can dictate everything around us. The laws of nature are beyond our control, although we can use them to our advantage. There are many things we cannot change or influence, and there are some that we have some sway over, but many are out of our control. That is something many subjectivists cannot admit: that our feelings about the world don't necessarily change it.
Related episodes:
147. Book Review | Fools, Frauds, and Firebrands by Roger Scruton
Last week, I discussed objective reality and why we can trust our intuitions that the world around us is there. And, we can come to know things about the world, even if limited. Today, I want to discuss subjective reality, or personal experience. This will help us see why just looking at the world outside doesn't work for us as people. Before I get into subjective vs objective, I want to also define what I mean by subjective.
This is part of my series diving into the issue our society has reconciling truth and experience. I recommend you go back and check out the first one if you're interested.
Full show notes here:
Grab your copy of the Symposium, Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo>>
More info: The Death of Socrates And What It Teaches Us Of Courage and Nobility
In his description of the imprisonment and death of Socrates, Plato gives us a look at who he was. In many of Plato's other works, Socrates is more of a character in the dialogue. However, in Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito, we see him for the man he was - his commitment to being virtuous in the most dire of circumstances
These three works detail the conversations of Socrates while he was imprisoned and awaiting his trial. The Apology details the trial of Socrates and the defense he put forward. Ultimately, his defense fell short and Socrates was sentenced to death by poison. However, it shows his incredible ability to get to truth and to make a defense for himself. Plus, it shows the injustice of his trial and his willingness to suffer in service of the truth.
The other two works detail conversations of Socrates while in jail. In Euthyphro, he discusses whether the holy are loved by the gods because they are holy, or if they are holy because they are loved by the gods.
The better of the two dialogues from prison is Crito, where Socrates explains why he's not going to flee and instead await trial. This dialogue shows his courage and nobility. He knew his fate was sealed if he went to trial, but he did so anyways. However, he didn't do it out of some suicidal mission, but out of love for truth and earnestness to do what is right.
Shownotes: What is Objective Reality?
A major problem I see in our society is that we've divorced objective reality and subjective experience. Instead of recognizing the world around us as it is and trying to relate to it, we do one of two things. We either fall into a Newtonian idea that we're determined and only science is real, or we rebel against this idea and recognize only our subjective experience.
I want to tackle this problem, so I'm going to walk through how I understand reality, as well as how I think we ought to relate to it. In today's episode, I start with what objective reality is.
Does objective reality exist?
My theory of truth holds that truth is based on objective reality. There is a world around us that actually exists. Our experience of the world is also real, and can be trusted, although it's not infallible. In this episode, I intend to demonstrate that we can trust our notions about the world. We see a world around us that is real - with which we can interact.Where do we see this most obviously?
Here are a few areas of our lives that we can look to in order to understand objective reality:
Does the fact that knowing the truth can be hard actually mean truth is changing or that it's relative?
As I mentioned above, we often hold two opposing ideas. One is that science is real truth, and objectively true. But at the same time, we reject any notion of objective truth when it comes to questions of morality. How can objective reality exists sometimes, but not others? I think what happens is that we confuse our experience of the world with the world as it is.
I wanted to start reading the Summa Theologiae by Thomas Aquinas - until I realized it was a multi-volume set. So, I despaired and looked for another option. And, I ran across A Shorter Summa, Peter Kreeft's work that helps introduce people to Aquinas.
Buy your copy of A Shorter Summa by Peter Kreeft here>>
Full episode: Peter Kreeft's Intro to the Summa Theologiae by St. Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas is a Dominican friar, Catholic Saint, and a Doctor of the Church. He was philosopher who helped the Medieval Church incorporate Aristotle and the Greek philosophers into the Catholic tradition. He was a spectacular thinker and writer whose impact on the Church is still tremendous. While he's best known for the Summa Theologiae, he also wrote numerous commentaries, the Summa Contra Gentiles, and much more.
Buy your copy of A Shorter Summa by Peter Kreeft here>>
Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae is his largest work. Aquinas wrote the Summa to be a beginner's guide to the faith. Today, we would think it is rather comprehensive and hard to grapple with. It argues in favor of belief in God and the teachings of the Catholic Church as well as speculate on moral and theological questions.
What I found helpful about Kreeft's summary of the Summa Theologiae is how he broke down the questions. Kreeft's offered insight and background to questions, but didn't talk down to the reader. I found his notes helpful in understanding the context as well as the methods and jargon used in philosophy. His glossary of terms helped me grasp the concepts because Thomas didn't write in a way we'd be familiar with. Unless you've read and studied Aristotle (which I barely had at the time), much of what Aquinas wants to say is muddled. By leveraging Aristotle's system, he took on his terms and methods. Kreeft translates that in the notes, helping the layman like myself make better sense of it.
"You're not a monk." That was the reaction I got from a priest as I confessed that I'd slipped in my prayer life. And it struck me. He pointed out that my duty is not to spend X amount of time in prayer, but to be a good husband. That comes first, and my prayer life should aid me in that endeavor. This happened within a day or two of listening to Catholic Stuff You Should Know's episode titled GOD IS "BEING WITH". What I want to do with this episode is explore how we live a life of love and service in our world of distractions, without compromising on our faith.
For the full show notes with verses, go here: You're Not A Monk | Unexpected Advice From a Priest
Other Resources:
Because I'm not feeling great today, I'm posting class 2 from my course on the Nichomachean Ethics. I wanted to still have something for you today. So, tune in to hear more from the class.
The importance of integrity cannot be overstated. If we want to be good, honest people, we have to act out of integrity. We must find a way to uphold our beliefs and act in accord with what we claim to be true. That's what I discuss below in today's episode, so listen here to learn more:
Get your copy of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience here >>
https://conversationofourgeneration.com/2021/05/28/suffering-for-the-truth-the-importance-of-integrity/
Civil disobedience is a popular way of changing laws without violence. This is an option when we can no longer use the normal channels like legislation or petitions to update our laws. If an unjust law persists on the books after all the usual means have been tried, this is a great option for changing the law. Today, I'll discuss why that's the case, and how we go about doing it properly.
Find out more:
https://conversationofourgeneration.com/2021/05/25/when-civil-disobedience-is-justified/
Civil Disobedience by Thoreau:
https://conversationofourgeneration.com/2020/04/17/109-book-review-walden-civil-disobedience/
What can we really know about human nature? I think one of the best ways to understand it is through stories. Sure, biology can tell us how our body works. But, only narrative, philosophy, and theology can help us understand our souls.
Grab your copy of Lord of the Flies here >>
Rousseau said that people were inherently good. I don't think that's the case. In The Lord of the Flies, we get a glimpse of what might happen if we were thrust back into nature. And, it doesn't look good. However, I think it is much more accurate than the naive hope Rousseau seemed to have.
However, I don't think people are inherently bad either. I think being itself is good, so in that respect we're all good. With regards to whether or not we're all morally good, I'd say we have a mixed bag. And, it depends on the day for each of us. I've had good and bad days (sometimes back to back).
Society influences people, but society doesn't dictate our nature. Instead, I think a mixture of our temperament, societal influences, chance, and our choices influence it. We are in control of who we are and how we handle what's thrown our way. That, I think, is the only way to look at human nature honestly, pragmatically, and truthfully.
Find out more - https://conversationofourgeneration.com/2021/05/21/human-nature-in-stories-lessons-from-the-lord-of-the-flies/
The Supreme Court is taking up a case that could seriously limit abortion. Mississippi banned abortion after 15 weeks, and now the Supreme Court is considering the case. While I have fears this may not turn out how I'd like it to, I want to make the case for why America should ban abortion. So, I am going to take a look at the reasons why it should be banned as well as how to go about it. Hopefully, by looking at some other examples, we can see how this can be accomplished.
This is the first question we must address if we want to decide whether or not it should be illegal. Until we know what an act is, we cannot judge whether it should be illegal or not. Abortion is the purposeful killing of a human being in the womb. If that is the case, then I would argue it ought to be illegal - just like murder. Basically, the difference between a procured abortion and murder is the location of the victim. This is the central issue for having a discussion about abortion
There are many reasons why we should to ban abortion. But, as I discussed above, it is important that we don't allow people to murder others. If abortion was simply taking out a parasite or a part of the woman's body, we'd think differently. However, because it is the direct killing of a human being it should not be allowed. I see no reason why this should be allowed and murder be illegal
What you'll find is that more conservative states have stricter abortion laws and more liberal states are more lax or even encourage it. Ballotpedia has a resource where you can dive in further. The problem is that the Supreme Court has shot down many restrictions on abortion over the decades since Roe vs. Wade.
Because we are a republic and a union of sovereign states, America has many different abortion policies. And, I think our laboratories of liberty are generally good. However, when lives are at stake (in the hundreds of thousands per year) I don't want a diversity of policy. Instead, I want a unified front against this heinous crime.
While I'd like to see us ban abortion all at once, I doubt it'll happen that way. So, I think the best course of action is to take any step toward restricting abortion possible. Furthermore, we should find ways to restrict abortion completely. But, we have to change people's minds on the issue. In order to do that effectively, we have to find a way to make the reality of abortion plain.
In addition, we have to do it within the law as it is. We should seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, but that can't be the only thing. We should fight in states where we can get laws passed to restrict abortion as hard as we can. By doing that, we could try many different policies to see what is effective as well as what is palatable to the public. In a nation like America, we have to convince people that our policies are right. It can't be forced on anyone, but has to be chosen by the voting public.
https://conversationofourgeneration.com/2021/05/18/why-america-should-ban-abortion/
Libertarianism is a fractured and somewhat incoherent political camp if you look at libertarians as a whole. But, there are many sharp libertarians who know what they believe and why. Today's book review looks at some of the arguments in favor of liberty from a libertarian perspective, while exposing some of the problems with libertarianism.
In this book, you get 9 different arguments for liberty from libertarian philosophers.
166. Election Thoughts, Libertarianism, ACB and More with Sean Boston
Is Libertarianism An Ideology?
The Most Beautiful Place I’ve Ever Been & More Mailbag Questions
Conservative Libertarianism: An Answer To Today’s Political Problems
Political Action and the Call to “Do Something”
