Understanding the Hierarchy of Knowledge

Resident Genius

Recently in a combox at Called to Communion, Dr. Mike Liccione (who blogs at Sacramentum Vitae) made this comment. Instead of leaving my comment there and muddying up the dialogical waters, I thought I would just share my thoughts here.

Mike said:

That’s because truths of faith are supernatural, not natural, so that by definition they cannot be shown to be factual by any method of human reasoning, no matter how reliable that method may be. For that reason, our epistemic access to the revealed truths of faith must ultimately rely on authority–specifically, divine authority. And given as much, the central task for the apologist is to show that accepting some agency’s claim to divine authority is reasonable, even though he cannot prove, by human experience and reasoning alone, that such a claim is actually true.

Bravo! I think I have tried to make this point a thousand different ways. This is the crux of the matter. What is interesting is that I understood this distinction before I converted -- in fact -- before Catholicism was on my radar. Then, it was Catholic apologists who showed me that it was reasonable that such a claim (the authority of the Catholic Church) was true (apologists like, Blessed Newman, Scott Hahn, Jacques Maritain and Edith Stein, to name a few). Before their efforts, I nearly despaired the possibility of theological dogma.

Notice that theology doesn't even make it on this "chart"

You guys really messed
this up

Let me just add, and for the benefit of the interested reader (not Mike), that in the history of philosophy (the history of ideas, even), theology used to be at the top of the epistemic pyramid -- the hierarchy of knowledge (scientia). It (theology) was that for which we could be most certain. Through a laundry list of historical, philosophic moves, that pyramid has been turned on its head, and today, men think that the natural sciences give us the most certain knowledge (which used to be at the bottom of the pyramid). Thus, I'm led to believe that many brush aside Mike's distinction because they have no tacit, visceral, or even primitive grasp of what is at stake. "Of course we know the earth is round," they say, "but of theology, we know not what." To the modern ear, this sounds right. However, to the Christian of times past, this is profoundly wrong, since the knowledge of theology rests upon God's movement toward us -- not man's movement toward God. So, while the tentative nature of other species of knowledge is acceptable, such should not be the case for the divine science. If there is anything that God wants us to know, it is that for which he has made known in His Son. That is why His Son promised, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." (John 14:26)

Who is getting taught "all things"? Is it John Calvin? Jimmy Swaggart? Me? I can hear the immediate objection:

"Brent, don't you believe that God speak to the hearts of individual Christians?"

You bet, I do!

However, that is not the Catholic question. The Catholic question is to whom is God speaking to speak on behalf of Him to His Church? Has the voice of the prophet died -- a gift given by Christ at His ascension? We cannot have faith unless we hear, and hear unless someone is sent. Are there no "sent ones" anymore? What is the relationship between faith and the Church? Which is why I ask all my Protestant brothers and sisters to look at their theology and realize that cessationism -- the doctrine that the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased with the death of the last Apostle -- is cart-for-the-horse with Protestantism. That is why any non-Reformed, non-cessationist Christian must come home to the Roman Catholic Church. Now. Before Protestantism destroys your faith or you become a total and complete heretic and give up all Christian dogma in favor of some inner light.

That is where the train is chugging. 

Why Did Protestantism Make Sense...

Dr. Feser

...in the 15th and 16th century forward, and not in any preceding centuries? Read this to get a glimpse of what I studied when I was at the University of Dallas trying to "fill in the gaps" on my journey into the Catholic Church. The article is by the fabulously talented Dr. Edward Feser, so get over there and read it and give yourself an education! In brief, the ontological/epistemological "flip" in early modern philosophy made Protestantism possible. We might call this current era the era of "theory" --  of the concept, à la Protestantism here we come.

On a side note, my talk that was scheduled for Thursday evening has been moved to tonight (Monday). So, if you were planning on coming Thursday, try to make it tonight. I will put this talk up on the blog!

A Blog You Probably Don't Know I'm Reading

Blessed John Duns Scotus

The Smithy

In his own words:

"A mediaevalist trying to be a philosopher, a philosopher trying to be a mediaevalist, and a friar in a medieval order writing about theology, philosophy, scholarship, books, the middle ages, and especially the life, times, and thought of the Doctor Subtilis, the Blessed John Duns Scotus."

The author, Lee Faber, is a graduate student at Notre Dame.

On a personal note, I studied Scotus's De primo principio at the University of Dallas with Dr. William A. Frank, and I found Scotus to be dense, intellectually and spiritually penetrating, and worthy of attention for any serious academic interested in mediaeval thought or metaphysics. Thus, my interest in this blog (as a semi-serious, academic-type). As a Jacques Maritain fanboy, I'm hardly shy about my Thomistic leanings. Nonetheless, I don't like myths, and the myth that Scotus is some kind of proto-Luther, gateway to all bad thinking is just that -- a myth. Lee does a good job of pointing out both how misunderstood Scotus is and how wrong most of his critics are.

A Protestant Pastor Becomes A Catholic Deacon

This is a video of my friend's first sermon as a Catholic deacon. He was a pastor for 33 years in an evangelical, Protestant denomination.  

I also encourage you to check out his blog, Heart for God.

Enjoy!

19 Days to 366

One of the downsides
of being online: fake cake

That's right.

In 19 days, my blog will be 1 year old.

I know. You noticed I had some posts in 2009. Ignore those. The blog started last year, last Lent. The 2009 posts were some random ramblings that amounted to next to nothing.

So, for the next 19 days, I'm going to try to post some things I've learned about the blogosphere, Catholic apologetics, online communication etc.

First lesson in my 19 day random sage-fest:

Stay offline if you can. 

If you don't have a mission for being online, life is lived much better in the real world. Conversations ALWAYS are better in person. Cake always tastes better off-line.

Yet having a charitable conversation online, or attempting thereof, can be an opportunity to develop virtue. In person, sometimes we hide. Online, our dark-side can come out. We are not afraid because maybe we hide behind a gravatar or screen name that allows us to "exercise our demons". Maybe we lose our inhibitions because that guy who might punch us in the face for being a jerk is nowhere to be found.

This is dangerous.

Yet as much danger as it portends, it can also be an occasion to allow the Holy Spirit to work in you. That's where I am right now. Not that I'm a jerk online, but rather I am learning to gain balance. I'll admit that this year has been a struggle. For all of my life, I stood against blogging. I felt that it was narcissistic, exhibitionistic, and could lead to digital voyeurism. I still feel this way, in part, but I've come to realize that with a real mission, real good can be accomplished.

Though, it takes a mission. And with any mission, priorities must be set. You cannot be everything to everyone. A genuine mission requires an identifiable target (mine is the tag-line in my header), and an identifiable target means you aren't shooting your blog-bullets all over the place. Get a private journal for that.

In other words, don't just add to the noise. It's loud enough, already.

With your online activity, do something that adds to someone else and only consume the digital media that adds to your growth as a person. Don't be afraid to stop reading my blog, "un-follow" someone or even unplug all together. I won't be offended. If God is leading you there, go.

Either way, just go wherever God is leading you.

Is it the Catholic Church?

Peace to you on your journey

Consider subscribing to Almost Not Catholic. Click here to make it happen.

You Must Read These Blogs (1 of ?)

I've tried not to turn this blog into my personal sound-off. I do that over here. Instead, I've tried to focus this blog on apologetics, or namely the reasons I am Catholic. Many blogs I visit do a much better job than me, telling others about great blogs. In fact, I've been the fortunate recipient of many of those blog-love-a-thons.

Thusly, I feel compelled to share with you a number of blogs I read rather religiously. If you don't find your blog on this list, please understand that as a father of 4, a full time employee, etc., I simply do not have time to religiously read all of your wonderful blogs. I do, read, however, the blogs that I mention in the "Blogs I'm Reading"; and I also try to stay up on the blogs in my "Blog Roll". In no particular order:

I read this blog because (1) it's charitable, (2) Brandon has been a great new media guide for me (I was a luddite of sorts before), and (3) Brandon reads so many darn great books. He really is a bibliophile, but I imagine he will have to slow down when he has more kids. By the way, the guys going to be on the Journey Home on Monday.

Pat is...crazy. In a good way. This blog is not (1) warm and fuzzy, (2) ecumenical or (3) ecumenical. Okay, it's a little warm and fuzzy. Did I mention that it is not ecumenical? He will also break you. Seriously.

In the words of the czar, this is the holy grail of conversion websites. Chuck Norris has this website blocked through his web filtering service. It's that dangerous. This blog actually gave me the courage to blog. That's right. After writing blog-post size responses in the comboxes, I thought to myself, "I guess I have something to say". I should start my own blog. Here I am.

Not because this guy needs any more publicity, but who cares when its good. Marc Barnes is what happens if the gene pools of Bill Maher and G.K. Chesterton were mixed by an archangel, thereby making it a supernatural act and thus licit. By the way, I'm hoping to do a book with him and a few others soon...(more about that later: this is the first leak...sshhhh) 

This guy needs no introduction. Taylor Marshall is a former Anglican priest, now zealous Catholic layman, theologian, philosopher, husband of 1, and father of 6. Not to mention author of two great books found here and here (and another forthcoming). He gave my blog love when no one did.

Devin Rose: convert, author, father, author, apologist, author, and blogger. You want to read this blog because it's thoughtful and charitable. Don't be fooled, though. He's on the attack.


There are so many more blogs I could talk about. I will. That's why this is installment 1 of ? for "You Must Read These Blogs".

Have a lovely weekend. Monday's post is going to be fun. 

Did you like what you read? Add me to your RSS feed or "join the journey" in the sidebar to your right. You can also follow me on Twitter or Facebook.