A Cynical Viewpoint!

In my reading preparation for Old Testament study, I came across a rather ‘tiresome’ reference to political correctness! One that I must admit, had never really crossed my mind before – and for good reason, I think!

Use of the term ‘Old Testament’ it has been said, is insensitive to our Jewish friends, relegating the Jewish scriptures as being somehow inferior to the New Testament and in many instances this terminology might be replaced by the term ‘Hebrew Bible’! As was correctly pointed out by the authors in their preface to the second edition of their book[1], this in itself is not correct as analogous for example to the English or German Bible it is more natural to accept the ‘Hebrew Bible’ as the bible written in Hebrew! (Rogerson, et al. 1998, x-xi) So the authors have retained the use of the terminology ‘Old Testament’ until an epithet comes along which is more suitable!

My view is that there is absolutely no reason to change the soubriquet ‘Old Testament’; far from being insensitive it merely depicts a reference point in the Christian ethos. The insensitivityapplied to this term is an artificial wrapping, applied in a world obsessed with discovering insensitivity and religious disquiet in every form of human interaction.

So what is the meaning of the word testament when considered contextually?

A very loose etymological record might describe the word as having derived from the Latin vetus testamentum (Old Testament) which came from the Greek palaia diatheke (Old Testament). The transliterated term ‘diatheke’ had a dual meaning in Greek of both covenant and a testament (or will) and has been referred to as a mistranslation (Harper 2011) – of I suppose the meaning.

In my view, the word ‘Testament’ in the terms Old Testament and New Testament, refers to the term ‘Covenant’ and could easily be re-stated as ‘Old Covenant’ and ‘New Covenant’. (Dictionary.com 2011)

It is therefore difficult for me to reconcile the supposed slight on the Jewish people, whose beliefs still reside in the original covenant with God and to the Christian ethos where the New Testament refers to God’s new covenant in Christ. Thus the Old Testament in Christian terms serves as a marker between the old and the new covenant. It does not make any derogatory inference regarding the books of the original covenant; indeed the Old Testament forms an integral part of the Christian holy scripture and I would indeed be surprised to find any true Christian making or inferring any deprecatory meaning to the term ‘Old Testament’.

No, I believe that this is an invention of the modern, secular world.

Works Cited

1. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com. 2011. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/testament (accessed December 12, 2011).
2. Harper, Douglas. Online Etymology Dictionary. 2011. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=testament&searchmode=term (accessed December 12, 2011).
3. Rogerson, John, John Barton, David J.A. Clines, and Paul Joyce. Beginning Old Testament Study. 2nd. St. Louis, Missouri: Chalice Press, 1998.

---

[1] Beginning Old Testament Study (Rogerson, et al. 1998)

Adam & Eve: Allegorical Progenitors?

When it comes to discussions over the origins of man, opinions can and do vary wildly. Literalists will limit themselves to the narrow confines of their own insular perspective, not allowing any thought that falls outside of their thinking; while the other side of the spectrum will, with an equally sectarian viewpoint, insist on a random beginning claiming that we evolved from the proverbial single celled amoeba, with no chance of any First Cause!

When considering the story of ‘Adam & Eve’, we first need to contextualize, putting the story into its own timeframe. The Book of Genesis could be dated to between 1446 BCE and 1406 BCE[i]. It is not hard to envision a tribal society, grounded in an agrarian lifestyle. The concept of origin would have to have been based on personal experience as well as the world around them; hence, if one were to use the postulation of Ockham’s razor, in the simplest of deductions, man would have been seen to originate from one pair! However, even the question – where did that first pair come from would have raised its head! Thus, perhaps, the early extrapolation of the creation?

Do we know the mind of God? How He set His plan or ‘design’ into action, man is slowly unravelling. Despite Humani Generis, the Church has come to accept what has proven to be scientific fact, its theology has evolved but its faith has remained constant. When it comes to Adam and Eve, the church has re-evaluated its view; looking at them as the embodiment of humankind and this is sensible given the advances in genetic understanding.

It makes sense that there would have to have been a large number of Adam & Eves (polygenism) to ensure the chance of survival of the species homo sapiens; the large variation within humankind today would, within my logic structure, demand a wider gene pool to start with than just one pair![ii] Yet, an alarming number of people still believe in monogenism, despite the contrary evidence or logic.

I hasten to add that this (emphatically) does not mean that there is no First Cause (God), only that as we progress in society, we need to adjust our thinking carefully and within the bounds of our faith, to adapt to apodictically proven theories.

For me, Adam and Eve represent the dawn of man unto God, where man was given sentience, a soul. “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.“[iii]

How we arrived at the point of sentience, defines the glory and magnificence of God’s creation, culminating in man, made in His image.

---

[i] (Zondervan 1992, 322 § Genesis) Genesis could also be a coalition of a number of smaller writings brought together at a later date.

[ii] This is only my belief and is not grounded in any scientific opinion.

[iii] Genesis 2:7

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Zondervan. NIV Nave’s Topical Bible. Hardcover. Edited by John R Kohlenberger and David J Jirak. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

The Sins of the Father

During a book launch held at Stellenbosch University’s Institute for Advanced Study, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu called for a ‘wealth tax’ to be imposed on all white South Africans. Tutu said that the effects of apartheid had left many black South Africans riddled with “self-hate” and was the raison d’être behind why some blacks commit acts of gratuitous violence – I don’t know if I agree with this, as it seems perverse to lay the blame for an iniquitous act on a sense of self-loathing! The intent to commit violence is a choice made and is wrong no matter against whom it is committed.

According to Tutu, it was also behind the defensive attitude of whites, a defensiveness which is apparently, underpinned by feelings of shame and guilt. The Archbishop also felt that ‘white South Africans’ had failed to acknowledge the magnanimity of the black people since the end of apartheid! The Business Day portrayed Tutu’s call as a ‘clarion call’[i]from a moralists point of view, calling on white South Africans to acknowledge their benefit under apartheid and to shoulder some responsibility for reversing its negative repercussions.

I thought that they had already done that?

As an initial response, one has to ask the question – has acceptance of this responsibility not already been acknowledged (willingly or otherwise), in many different ways over the last 17 years? It is my opinion that, the continued stigmatisation of the white sector as shameful characters with a shady past and who must now accept and reap the rewards of their ill doing, is not a healthy socialistic ideal! Is this the shame and guilt, the ‘defensiveness’ that Tutu alluded to earlier? Perhaps – perhaps not but I would surmise that this is contributing to the identical ‘self-hate‘ syndrome that Tutu ascribes to the black community in his initial address – in which case we have a problem, that is according to the Archbishop’s thinking! This reversal of roles, if you like, is in my opinion going to be the view of many average white South Africans going forward, consciously or sub-consciously, especially if finalisation of this tragedy is not forthcoming soon!

No one can deny the ills of apartheid and no sane person would argue the merits of such a repugnant system – it was an abhorrent practice and is patently indefensible. Joy is the memory of a free Nelson Mandela, a true icon of freedom and reconciliation – oh, that we would follow his gratuitous example of reconciliation and forgiveness, for he above most had every reason to be bitter! Easy to say I suppose, but reconciliation and that forgiveness, while it may have been gratuitous for Mandela, appears to come at a dear but necessary cost when applied to others within the black community!

As a start in our examination of this issue, I believe that it is significant in the scheme of things to acknowledge that during the referendum of 1992[ii]a full 68% of the white population voted for change. This, I believe, is indicative of a willingness to change. A tacit acknowledgement by the white grouping that apartheid was wrong, very wrong and that an inclusive change was urgently needed.

Tutu first raised the issue of a wealth tax on the white populace during the TRC [iii]hearings, even at that time there was a perception of ‘guilt tax’. This call was rejected by the government of the day, but did not negate that pervasive feeling within black society, that something was needed to reverse the ravages of the past. Given that economic power at that point was (and when all is said and done, still is) predominantly under white control, it naturally followed that this was where the remedy should lie!

How then, has this remedy played itself out thus far?

First there was the introduction of AA – affirmative action, the enforced preference of black over white in all spheres. From promotions to job selection – the derogatory dysphemism ‘only blacks need apply’ became common in job adverts and the like. It has contributed strongly to a perception that the previously advantaged are now the presently disadvantaged. That is perhaps understandable but we must accept that this is the correct course of action and very necessary if we are to reverse the imbalance of those many years of discrimination! However, a counter view, a caveat is raised; after seventeen years nearly two generations of white school leavers, who never knew apartheid, are facing what they see as an unfair disadvantage. They are rightly asking what they have done to deserve this – the proverbial sins of the father visited on the son! But how does the government differentiate without correcting at a macro level and conversely, for how long must AA be in place before all are considered on an equal footing?

A broader formalised corrective action was Black Economic Empowerment or BEE; a program designed to ‘redress the inequalities of apartheid by giving previously disadvantaged groups economic opportunities previously not available to them…it includes Employment Equity, skills development, ownership, management, socioeconomic development and preferential procurement.’ One cannot deny that this has worked and the country is now starting to reap the benefits in seeing many more of the black community move up the social class structure. There have and will always be critics of this means of redress and some of those criticisms are valid, with results that proponents will not readily admit to!

Legalised enrichment schemes, such as the much publicised subsidised share issues, to which many in the white community say they never had similar benefit of during their formative years (though they should remember the other advantages that they did have!) and together with other discriminatory actions against them, have forced many skilled white folk to emigrate to less discriminatory shores; this is an exodus that South Africa can ill afford. Angry proponents of the schemes do not help with their denigration of these migrating individuals because perversely it reinforces the migration syndrome; instead they should be encouraging them to stay and work together for a better solution.

In response to the criticism levelled at BEE, in particular that it favoured a few black individuals, the South African government introduced a much broader based policy termed BBBEE or Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment – its objectives are pretty much the same as before.

These and I suppose others I may be unaware of, form an indirect monetary penalty on the white populace – so why is another penalty being mooted? A cynical reason, alluded to in Tutu’s address, is the high level of fund maladministration – not enough of the collected revenue is reaching the intended beneficiaries – I do not suppose that this is the sole cause of poverty, but it certainly contributes directly and indirectly. It is for this reason that there is so much scepticism among the citizenry at large – black and white!

There is no doubt in my mind that there is still an unacceptable gap between rich and poor but understand that in a free economic society there always will be. This is not bad, providing that the playing fields are level; this, however, is where South Africa went wrong and where redress is required.

Steven Friedman, columnist to the Business Day gets it right when he posits the following:

“Appeal to our sense of justice, not to our guilt::THE way we say things may be more important than what we say. Nowhere is this truer than in this country, where saying things in certain ways ends reasonable discussion.”

I firmly believe that had this whole issue been approached differently, there would have been a far more compassionate response and a more serious intent toward serious dialogue. As it stands now, each side has retreated to their own corner and they have started ‘throwing stones’ at one another – not very productive!

Let us get round the table and debate as equals. Jacko Maree CEO of Standard Bank Group has shown the way with moral courage and leadership others would do well to emulate.

---

[i]My choice of words!

[ii](Wikipedia contributors 2011, § The 1992 Referendum)

[iii] The TRC was set up in terms of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No. 34 of 1995, and was based in Cape Town. The mandate of the commission was to bear witness to, record and in some cases grant amnesty to the perpetrators of crimes relating to human rights violations, as well as reparation and rehabilitation.

Bibliography

1. Business Day.

—. “Guilt tax offers no solution.” Business Day. Johannesburg: BDFM Publishers (Pty) Ltd, August 16, 2011.

—. “Maree’s lesson in how to spend it.” Business day. Johannesburg: BDFM Publishers (Pty) Ltd, September 06, 2011.

2. Friedman, Steven. “Appeal to our sense of justice, not to our guilt.” Business Day.Digital. Johannesburg: BDFM Publishers (Pty) Ltd, September 07, 2011.

3. Johns, Lynentte. “Wealth tax not about guilt – Tutu.” Cape Argus – Business Report.Cape Town: Independent News & Media, August 24, 2011.

4. Merten, Marianne. “Tutu explains ‘wealth tax’ comment.” Daily News.Durban: Independent News & Media, September 06, 2011.

5. The FW de Klerk Foundation. “Referendum – Speech by State President FW de Klerk – 18 March 1992.” Cape Town: The FW de Klerk Foundation, March 18, 1992.

6. Wikipedia contributors.

—. Affirmative Action. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. September 07, 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Affirmative_action&oldid=448886331 (accessed September 08, 2011).

—. Black Economic Empowerment. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. September 06, 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Economic_Empowerment&oldid=448782307 (accessed September 08, 2011).

—. Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. April 22, 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Broad-Based_Black_Economic_Empowerment&oldid=425255097 (accessed September 08, 2011).

—. South African referendum, 1992. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. June 28, 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_African_apartheid_referendum,_1992&oldid=436761927 (accessed September 08, 2011).

—. Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa). Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. August 24, 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_(South_Africa)&oldid=446493109 (accessed September 08, 2011).

7. Williams, Murray. “Tutu calls for wealth tax on whites.” The Pretoria News.Pretoria: Independent News & Media, August 12, 2011.

Notes

---

[i]My choice of words!

[ii](Wikipedia contributors 2011, § The 1992 Referendum)

[iii] The TRC was set up in terms of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No. 34 of 1995, and was based in Cape Town. The mandate of the commission was to bear witness to, record and in some cases grant amnesty to the perpetrators of crimes relating to human rights violations, as well as reparation and rehabilitation.

Man’s Gadarene Folly

There is an interesting school of thought in which it is hypothesized that the accommodating stance of European democracy has become the seed of its own destruction! The Christian roots of Europe are undeniable, a culture where its Christian values were considered absolute and righteous – to the extent that the Crusader wars were fought to defend them; that was in the 11^th to the 13^th century. What happened to those values? The 17^th century perhaps provides some form of clarity; in that century came what I would laconically describe as the ‘apostasy of man’ – the abandonment of his religious (and some might say, his moral) values – this was the century which saw the birth of the Age of Reason, the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment. It was, to my mind, the beginning of man’s descent into what can only be described as ‘self-adulation or idolatry’, the induction of a way of life in which anything goes so long as it suits man’s own over-inflated ego! The dawn of relativism! Don’t get me wrong, I do not think it is wrong to think, to reason, to endeavour to fathom what the meaning of life might be – that is, after all, the purpose of my writing! But what iswrong is the abdication of moral responsibility by filing it away as irrelevant under the guise of relativism!

This rather insidious turn of events originated in the middle 17^th to early 18^th century in a period that was known as the ‘Enlightenment’, an appropriate colophon to the ‘Age of Reason’. Born out of the need to ‘promote intellectual interchange and opposition to intolerance and abuses in Church and state’, which of itself is admirable but left unchecked and without moral grounding, has led to the destitution of moral values! Polemic, perhaps, but where the thinkers and philosophers of our world determine that moral values are relative and are only of consequence within the context they find themselves, at thatpoint a vast distinction is created between the exercise of moral values and an immoral and self-absorbed society whose judgement is based on mere whim!

Demosthenes once said: “Nothing is so easy as to deceive oneself; for what we wish, we readily believe”.[i]

At this point one might ask “That is Europe, not the rest of the world!” Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your standpoint, European culture is the basis of many societies throughout the world mainly through colonisation but also through European migration to the new worlds. As such her culture, her ways of life have been disseminated to most of the world at large! So when talking of Europe, we are also referring to other societies to a greater or lesser degree.

Society’s gadarene rush toward destruction has become frighteningly real; one can see this reported in the media. Riots, anarchy, looting – in countries hitherto thought of as the bastions of law and order, those pillars of Westerndemocracy – Britain and America! But I would like to posit that these and other actions, as repulsive and alarming as they themselves are, they are nonetheless, conceivably, only the beginnings of a physical manifestation of something more sinister and more frightening! Something that could and, in fact, already has started to significantly weaken the global community!

This brings me back to the main thrust of this short essay, a discussion on the loss or forsaking of external moral oversight for internal moral opportunism; more particularly I would like to talk about ‘greed’, the true ‘root of all evil’! ‘One man’s greed is another’s profit’ or so a cynical turn on a well know idiom would have it! Although greed has always been with us, it has never been as prominent or as blatant as it is today. It used to be that society had a universal moral grounding, a baseline against which decision and oversight was judged – but no more! Since the advent of man’s ‘emancipation’ from the strictures of the church and to a lesser degree the state, the determination of enlightenment theory and relativistic thought states that there can be no such thing as a ‘universal moral grounding’, an absolute against which society in general can evaluate their behaviour and determine a correct moral standpoint. Is this not exactly the dilemma behind the current market woes prevalent in the world today?

A letter to an online news website, headed ‘Eroding personal freedoms’ bemoans the fact the writer is by law forced to adhere to certain rules. That he is required to wear a helmet on a motor bike or seatbelts in a car or that suicide is deemed illegal (read: immoral!)[ii]. The whole thrust of his argument, as far as I am concerned, surrounds the fact the he alone determines what is right or what is wrong analogous to his own circumstance. This is the essence of a relativistic attitude and a prime example of what we have been discussing – ‘woe is me’ to quote the Bard from Hamlet!

The fictional character Gordon Gekko from the 1987 film ‘Wall Street’, a representation of unrestrained greed, phrased it well when he said “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good”! This epitomises an attitude which is bereft of external moral oversight and sadly, it seems, is common in the business world of today; attitudes where morals, if any, are determined by the profit which might be gained!

“The most grievous kind of destitution is to want money in the midst of wealth” – so said Seneca.[iii]

Is making a profit intrinsically evil, inherently immoral? No, else we would all be living in penury! Profit in and of itself is not greed and is not immoral but when it becomes perverted by individual or corporate avarice, when it is knowingly twisted to become the prime reason for existence, when moral judgement is willingly clouded to the truth then it becomes greed, an idol to self-indulgence! Persons who are motivated by ever increasing levels of profit, driven by the need to meet targets or to make more profit no matter the cost to humanity, directly or indirectly, are guilty of more than one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

The mythic Greek hero, Philoctetes once said “The love of money is the parent of all wickedness”.[iv]

Although each individual trade (bar those extra-ordinary ones) may not seem to affect any one person or group of persons in particular and although you personally may recoil at the sight of this affirmation of greed, it does not affect you personally and so, most often, you let it pass you by. But it is the cumulative effect of these small individual actions which can aggregate into another animal entirely, that colossal and ugly monster called avarice; this is where external moral oversight has such an important role to play. This monster is the consequence of man rejecting the notion of universal moral values in favour of anything which suits him!

However, let us not forget that this attitude is one engendered, to a large extent, by the doctrine and dogmatic of relativism. When an individual is faced with a large potential windfall, moral conviction and universal moral values are probably furthest from his mind. This makes appeals to relativistic moral determination the easy option, assuaging that nagging moral doubt! Relativism is the key ingredient in the on going moral turpitude prevalent within society today! Some contemporary examples of this avaricious behaviour can be found in the Credit Crunch and the US Debt Crisis.

So what’s to be done? Do we throw up our arms in resignation and despair? Do we acknowledge that this is the only way of life, that there is nought to be done but to accept it? For what it’s worth, I believe that every small bit counts, it starts with us and our own moral behaviour. In just the same way as small acts of greed aggregate into an avaricious monster, so small acts of humility and humble moderation, of moral rectitude will aggregate into a re-generation of moral normalcy.

But it all starts with you….remember, ‘A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Take it.’[v]

Bibliography

1. John Hunt Publishing Limited. The New Encyclopedia of Christian Quotations.Hardcover. Edited by Mark Water. Hampshire: John Hunt Publishing Ltd, 2000.

2. Joseph Ratzinger & Mercello Pera. Without Roots – The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam.Paperback. Translated by Michael F. Moore. New York: Basic Books, A member of the Perseus Book Group, 2007.

3. Ratzinger, Joseph. Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures. Hardcover. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006.

Internet Sources

1. Wikipedia contributors, “Relativism,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Relativism&oldid=441983638(accessed August 23, 2011).

2. Wikipedia contributors, “Crusades,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusades&oldid=445986741(accessed August 23, 2011).

3. Wikipedia contributors, “17th-century philosophy,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=17th-century_philosophy&oldid=439522116(accessed August 23, 2011).

4. Wikipedia contributors, “Age of Enlightenment,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_of_Enlightenment&oldid=445592654(accessed August 23, 2011).

5. Wikipedia contributors, “Western world,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_world&oldid=446147553(accessed August 23, 2011).

6. Wikipedia contributors, “Gordon Gekko,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gordon_Gekko&oldid=443788396(accessed August 23, 2011).

7. Wikipedia contributors, “Wall Street (1987 film),” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wall_Street_(1987_film)&oldid=445044343(accessed August 23, 2011).

8. Wikipedia contributors, “Demosthenes,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demosthenes&oldid=446679161(accessed August 27, 2011).

9. Wikipedia contributors, “Philoctetes,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philoctetes&oldid=443577945(accessed August 27, 2011).

10. Wikipedia contributors, “Seneca the Younger,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seneca_the_Younger&oldid=444967009(accessed August 27, 2011).

11. Wikipedia contributors, “Credit crunch,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Credit_crunch&oldid=446170198(accessed August 29, 2011).

12. Wikipedia contributors, “United States debt-ceiling crisis,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_debt-ceiling_crisis&oldid=447305988(accessed August 29, 2011).

13. Wikipedia contributors, “Seven deadly sins,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seven_deadly_sins&oldid=445745022(accessed August 29, 2011).

14. 24.com. MyNews24. Edited by Jannie Momberg. Geoff Cohen. 2011. http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/YourStory/Eroding-personal-freedoms-20110825 (accessed August 23, 2011).

---

[i](John Hunt Publishing Limited, 2000, p. 262 § Deception)

[ii]MyNews24 201108/26 09:05 (Brackets: My emphasis)

[iii](John Hunt Publishing Limited 2000, 451 § Greed)

[iv](John Hunt Publishing Limited 2000, 677 § Morality)

[v] http://academictips.org/blogs/one-step/

Veneration versus Idolatry

A letter from Tony Meehan (Southern Cross August 17) highlights an important distinction between anamnesis and the idolatrous and sometimes hedonistic beliefs of paganism. He is right when he says that statues, crucifixes, relics and the like are material things, which unto themselves are nothing, incapable of the “magic” so often attached to them in idolatry! It is the memory or deep down recollection of truths which makes veneration so important, not the object itself; for if the focal point of veneration were the object itself, then that act of veneration would indeed be idolatrous.

In a recent pilgrimage to the Holy Land, following the steps of our Lord, there were many places where we stopped, letting the memories related to that place flood in! At times those memories became so emotional, they evoked unavoidable tactile responses. For me, perhaps the most emotional place was the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on the apex of Golgotha; I kissed and touched the piece of rock beneath the alter – I was overcome with the memories and emotions of God’s revelation. Was I practising idolatry – no; did that piece of stone evoke memories, images and love – it most certainly did and thus the veneration! The recollection of the actions that occurred on that ‘holy hill’, who was there and what the actions on that fateful day meant – that was the focal point of my veneration!

Of course, the intentions of the individual are not always plain for us to see and, as individual members of the Body of Christ, it behoves us to behave and think in a manner which is not idolatrous. We need to examine ourselves and ensure that our veneration of something is just that – veneration!

Darwin’s Contribution to Humanity – Reply to a letter!

A letter in the 10 to 16 August edition of The Southern Cross (a South African Catholic newspaper) from Pat Dacey of Johannesburg entitled ‘Darwin’s contribution to humanity’, expounds the virtues of Charles Darwin. It really would be interesting to learn what prompted this contribution – unfortunately that important piece of information was not revealed. That’s a pity because knowing what was on Pat’s mind would clarify WHAT contributions these were, other than the anti-religious hypothesis on the origin of man!

I don’t know what it is about Darwinism that has such a hold over contemporary society; perhaps man’s innate and prideful desire to be master of his own destiny? Don’t get me wrong, in my Thomistic mind evolution in some manner or form is the means by which creation has moved forward, that much is evident in scientific fact! Evolution from the propitious result of a ‘First Cause’, if you like. Unfortunately, Darwinism posits, a priori, that there is NO God; that a god is irrelevant in the greater scheme of things! In fact, it becomes such a priority to enforce this starting point that empirical standards, so prized in the scientific world, are at best compromised and in many instances, completely disregarded.

Pat does, however, aver to a basic truth which, regrettably, is ignored by many writers and academics in an effort to promote their own agendas! Science describes the material world; it must not and cannot describe the metaphysical. It cannot answer the ontological questions, ‘Why are we here?’, ‘How did we get here?’ and so forth – these are questions reserved for investigation in the realm of the philosopher. Likewise, philosophers must steer clear of the exactitudes of science where empiricism rules! When one discipline tries to engage in the proficiency of the other, then misunderstanding reigns! Put simply, philosophy deals with questions that cannot be answered by observation or experiment. Science is the systematic method of acquiring knowledge based on observation and experiment and as the saying goes, “Never the twain shall meet”.¹

If, as Pat puts forward, Charles Darwin was acting purely as a scientist and had no metaphysical agenda, then Darwin would be true to his calling – unfortunately I don’t think this is the case.

Catholicism has nothing to fear from a science conducted within the bounds of its own mandate.

Notes:

1. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081008115436AAqmSwp

Our Ways are not God’s Ways

Try as he may, man cannot deny that he is a creature, a creation. He cannot put into action the prideful independence that he so covetously desires exactly because he will always be the result of some other first cause. Materialists will say that we are the result of evolutionary ‘blind chance’, while creationists will posit that we are the instantaneous result of God’s will. I say, with a fairly Thomistic motivation, that we did evolve and that this is evident from the facts available to us but I would qualify that statement by saying that we evolved from the propitious result of a ‘First Cause’.

It is most unfortunate that the a priori standpoint of evolutionary materialists is – There is NO God! This is not science but scientism - a pseudo ‘religious’ dogma pursued by those scientists whose basic premise has not stood up to scientific scrutiny and who cross over the ‘scientific/ontological’ divide to resolve their dilemma in another discipline’s domain – Darwinism falls into this category. George Sim describes this quite succinctly, when he said “…a scientist who takes the (often covert) position that because there is no God, any puzzling phenomenon can in principle be explained entirely by material causes, is also out of bounds.”1 In fairness, a creationist can be guilty of the same mistake, sticking God into the gaps of his knowledge without any metaphysical foundation! You cannot mix science and metaphysics; they describe very different aspects of man’s existence! I would venture that many a ‘would be’ scientist or apologist relies on this error to move focus away from their very thin hypotheses!

Science describes the material world; it must not and cannot describe the metaphysical. It cannot answer the ontological questions, ‘Why are we here?’, ‘How did we get here?’ and so forth – these are questions reserved for investigation in the realm of the philosopher. Likewise, philosophers must steer clear of the exactitudes of science where empiricism rules! When one discipline tries to engage in the proficiency of the other, then misunderstanding reigns!

However, it is not hard to see that scientism and materialism in particular seem to hold sway in today’s society and particularly within the scientific community (as broad a definition as that may be).

Why? Perhaps man’s reluctance to acknowledge that he is not always master of his own destiny plays a major role in denying the possibility of a Creator Being! I think possibly, that when man doesn’t understand the actions of nature, he would rather deny the existence of God and rely on his own faculties; similar perhaps to the mannerisms of a petulant child!

This is no less evident in the scientific world. Science deals solely with the physical or material, with so much being an unknown at present and not wanting to relinquish finite reason for the transcendence of God, science perhaps cannot risk losing its reasoned and apex position in society. And nor should it have to, after all whether there is a god or not is outside the purview of science – science deals in what is known to us, the world and universe around us!

This melee of academia is exactly what militant Darwinian evolutionist atheists2 require; it allows them to peddle their anti-religion agenda with verve using the cross discipline mistakes that so many people (scientist and philosopher) tend to make and rely on.

Yet the philosopher, whose job is to try and make sense of the greater scheme of things, the ontology and cosmogony of our existence, is probably faced with even greater unknowns and doubts. Their discipline is one of abstract thought and reason – in the end they can only come up with an ontological hypothesis as to the reason for being! With this amount of conjecture, it becomes tempting to stray into the exact realm of the scientist. The words of Isaiah sum this up better than I ever could:

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.”—Isaiah 55:8–9 (RSV.CE)

Notes

1. (Johnston 1988, §1:23)

2. (Wikipedia contributors 2011, Militant Atheism – §2)

Bibliography

Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain. The Holy Bible (RSV.CE). Catholic. 1 vols. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1966.

Wikipedia contributors. Scientism. August 03, 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientism&ildid=442832497 (accessed August 09, 2011).

Wikipedia contributors. Militant Atheism. August 08, 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&ildid=443678687 (accessed August 09, 2011).

Johnston, George Sim. Did Darwin Get It Right? Huntington, Indiana 46750: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc, 1988.