No, Correlation Really Does Not Equal Causation

This author's claims fall prey to his own suggestive criticism of theism. The reason that higher education in the sciences and philosophy purportedly reduces religious belief has as much to do with contemporary popular antitheistic indoctrination in those fields as any supposed increase in knowledge, much less baseline intelligence.

In other words, you send young, malleable minds away from their social/familial roots when they are wanting to strike out on their own and make their way as independent adults (i.e., college age), and you put those minds into environments openly hostile to religion as most secular academic settings are today, and it is no surprise that the result is the lessening of religious belief amongst those who come out of those institutions.

And because of this phenomenon, it is also extremely socially unpopular to be strongly religious amongst highly educated and intelligent people today (I should know). The amount of ignorant, bigoted treatment religious people get amongst educated colleagues is inversely proportionate to those aspiring irreligious folks who run is less educated, less secularized circles.

In both cases, the argument is fallacious, trying to establish suggestive causation where none exists. He even admits the argument is fallacious ("correlation does not equal causation") but nonetheless moves full ahead suggesting that it does in this case. I point it out in case someone finds the suggestions somehow compelling--the basis for the argument applies equally to its antithesis (i.e., the claims of indoctrination and the desire for social acceptance).

Further, the same can be said of his claims for why intelligent religious people defend their beliefs (i.e., because we want to rationalize what we already irrationally believe). That's just human nature, and it applies equally to whatever we believe/hold dear, be that theism or antitheism. At the end of the day, we are all human beings trying to grapple with problems bigger than we can actually fully grapple with. This means antitheist or theist, you will believe things without good reason, you will rationalize things you already believe, and you will make logical jumps and leaps of faith based on your existing understanding of life, the universe, and everything.

This article is all boring, boilerplate contemporary antitheist arguments that are chock full of both fallacies as well as healthy doses of ignorance and prejudice, and the only way they make sense is if you already agree with his conclusions.

All Dogs May or May Not Go to Heaven

Update 13 Dec 2014: Turns out I was right to seriously question the veracity of the story and its lack of credible sources: http://www.religionnews.com/2014/12/12/sorry-fido-pope-francis-not-say-pets-going-heaven/. Still, the points made below are valid. :)

----

There has recently been circulating that Pope Francis "broke from Catholic teaching" on whether animals will go to heaven. I have yet to be able to find a reliable reference that has the quotes in context. The closest I've found is this America Magazine article, but it cites the NYT article on the subject. I still can't find anything close to an official published text, but let's assume Pope Francis' words are being reporting in good faith. What does it mean? Does it really somehow definitively change Church teaching?

As the NYT and America article allude to, the short answer is no. The Pope made an off-the-cuff remark to comfort a child. He did not "declare" anything, much less define it infallibly (ex cathedra). I am typically not one to go around trying to reinterpret the Pope's words, but the brouhaha ensuing from so little substance here is just too much. (And also, a friend of mine asked me to share my thoughts on this blog.) So here you go. ;)

Doctrinal authority/certainty is a very nuanced topic in Catholic theology. There are degrees of certainty with regards to Church teaching. I try to summarize them in a prior post on this blog about theological grades of certainty. I really do recommend reading it, not because I think my writing is awesome but because I have used reliable Catholic sources to help summarize the subject. I won't restate it all here. If you read it, it will definitely help you understand where the Pope's remarks fall in our view of things.

Now back to the subject at hand.. Certainly we can hope and wish that we will somehow be reunited with our loved animals, but that is a far cry from making any kind of authoritative definition on the matter. Personally, I could see such a position being more plausible with regards to the General Resurrection than to heaven--because that is bodily resurrection, and it would fit better that some animals we love could be bodily resurrected (without implying that they have immortal spirits/souls, which I think is pretty indefensible from a Catholic point of view).

Many people get pretty sentimental on this topic, but sentiment is not a good way to discover and understand truth. Many say, "if my [pet] isn't in heaven, then it isn't really heaven, and I don't want to go there" or some such. I would suggest that these people ought to be more concerned that they themselves make it to heaven rather than worry about their pets. It is not a little presumptive to treat the question as if it were just a matter of what we would like our own personal heaven to be like. St. Paul cautions us to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling." We are not even assured of our own presence in heaven, so to make definitive pronouncements about the presence of our personal pets seems a bit off, to say the least.

Let me put it this way. Traditional Catholic teaching--which is founded in centuries of solid Scriptural, theological, and pastoral reflection and shouldn't be easily dismissed based on personal whims or desires--is such that 1) animals are different from us; they do not have immortal souls like we do, and 2) neither do animals have moral faculties (and so neither can sin nor need redemption, in the sense of from personal/original sin). 3) There is, to my knowledge, very little foundation in our Tradition to claim that individual animals (e.g., my pet cat Aelfric) will be part of the Resurrection, much less in heaven prior to that as some sort of spiritual being.

So anyone, the Pope included, who wishes to offer a theological opinion to the contrary, has a lot of work to do to provide support for such an opinion. And for it to be taken seriously, it has to be more than "because I want my pet" or "because it wouldn't seem fair" or "because it would make little Johnny sad" or anything like that. It has to be more than some vague belief in God's goodness or broad extrapolations from a phrase or two in Scripture. It should square and be reconciled with what we do know as definitively revealed (see theological grades of certainty) and ideally fit well even with less definitive teachings.

IN ANY CASE, characterizing the pope's off the cuff consoling remarks to a child as some dramatic change in Catholic teaching is nothing but absurd sensationalism.

As I said, while many would classify me as a conservative (though I see myself as a firm centrist), I am not one of those purported reactionary conservatives who feels threatened by Pope Francis. I love Pope Francis. I love his pastoral style. I love how he challenges my preconceptions and makes me reconsider them. I love how he leads by example. I love how he emphasizes Gospel witness.

I also love Father Benedict, and Pope St. John Paul's writings (especially Evangelium Vitae) were instrumental in my joining the Church. Despite ignorant characterizations to the contrary, the traditional Catholic position on this question of animals going to heaven or not (and related considerations) has absolutely zero to do with some kind of animosity towards creation, nor is it some weird desire to feel special/different/superior to the rest of creation. It is simply a matter of thinking through the consequences of what we know of Divine Revelation and nature itself.

On Encouraging Religious and Priestly Vocations

I have had an interesting experience with people over time as I've been a parent now for some thirteen years. Every once in a while, for some reason or other, I mention that maybe insert-name-of-child-here will be a sister or monk or friar or priest. And it is kind of surprising to me how often my Catholic friends are quick to tell me, "or they could be a parent!" Or they say more directly, "you shouldn't pressure him/her to be religious. Being married is equally good." Something like that.

I'm trying to wrap my head around why Catholic friends are so quick to downplay the value of religious and priestly vocations. I think these would be the same folks who would readily pray for vocations to the priesthood and religious life and generally be supportive of parish awareness/promotional type activities for these vocations.

Why would it be great and okay and no reservations to pray for and encourage these vocations in the abstract/general, but when applied to a particular parent and child, we are all too quick to downplay it and really push that being a mom/dad or single lay person is just as grand?

I have had one explanation a couple times--"you don't want to force them into it, not that I think you would ever do that [but still I felt I should tell you this because I probably am not sure that you wouldn't]."

What are we so worried about? What would be so terrible about encouraging a child towards a religious or priestly vocation? 

Let me say that I am not calling any of my friends out, and I do not intend to fault people for offering such a caution--it is a perfectly understandable concern to have, and I know they have good intentions. The reason I am taking issue is that I think we all need to second guess this tendency we have to make comments like this.

"Don't Pressure Them"

Part of their motivation seems to be extrapolating from the all-too-common story of parents wrongly pressuring their children to "follow in their footsteps" or discouraging them "from their dreams." I know that in our individualistic society today, such pressure from parents seems categorically wrong. It is certainly portrayed that way in popular media, over and over and over again. Whether it is choosing one's spouse or choosing one's profession, it's always the bad parent pushing against the freedom of the child.

Here's the thing, though. Not all parental pressure is bad. In fact, I'd say that the vast majority of it is good--when it is done for the good of the child. Even when parents can be mistaken about the good or go too far with the pressure, it would be a dereliction of parental duty to essentially wash our hands and say, "you do whatever you wanna do." Parents have a right and a duty to guide their children towards what is good for their children.

Granted, that doesn't mean that parents always know best nor that they don't sometimes mix up their own personal good with that of their children. Sometimes parents can't see past their own prejudices for the good of the child. Sometimes parents just don't know their children well enough to provide informed guidance.

But when it comes to religious or priestly life, I have a hard time seeing how we could go wrong in encouraging our children to consider pursuing it, especially if we think we see signs of such a vocation. If we see a tendency towards art, would we not consider encouraging them to pursue that? If we see a tendency towards engineering, would we not encourage them to consider that career path? If we saw them showing interest in become a fireman or doctor, would we not encourage that?

"But Marriage is Equally Good"

It seems there is another underlying motive behind these kinds of comments. In the past, there has been a sense in the Church that downplayed the value of lay vocations. To counter that, there has been a concerted effort since Vatican II to promote the value of lay vocations and, in particular, lay participation in the life of the Church. I get that. It is good and right.

But I can't help but feel that we are not somehow overreacting and in our eagerness to promote the value of lay vocations, we feel we must somehow downplay the value of religious vocations. Or even say that they are equally good.

Interestingly enough, both our Lord (Matt 19:10-12) and St. Paul (1 Cor 7) indicated that unmarried life for the sake of the Gospel is superior to married life--for those who can accept it, for those who are called to it. The Council of Trent put it a bit more forcefully, and definitively (Session XXIV, Canon X):

If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.

Saints have also noted that religious life, in particular, is a better way. (Several are mentioned in this article.) As that author notes, even recently Pope St. John Paul II said in his apostolic exhortation Vita Consecrata: “it is to be recognized that the consecrated life… has an objective superiority.” St. Thomas expounds at some length the interrelationship between the state of religion and perfection.

The constant teaching of the Church is indeed that a life of consecration to God is more excellent than that of the lay life because of the very many graces and helps it provides towards perfection in charity. She also teaches that for those who are called to it and can accept it, they should. Strictly speaking the married state is not equally good, from an objective point of view.

At the same time, this does not deny the value of lay life, nor lay contributions to the Church, much less lay contributions to the world, which is our proper sphere of activity and responsibility. More importantly, not every person is called to consecrated life. This means that for an individual, it may or may not be better for him or her to choose consecrated life--it depends on what God has called them to do.

We Should Encourage Vocations to the Priesthood and Religious Life

As the author of the article referred to above ("Sacrificing Religious Life on the Altar of Egalitarianism") points out, though, we cannot expect religious vocation to be obviously desirable in our contemporary culture. It is a way of total renunciation of worldly goods. In our fairly hedonistic, consumeristic, materialistic society, it is in many ways far more difficult to appreciate the good of religious and priestly life than it is to appreciate the good of lay/married life. Not only that, it is considered "normal" for people to get married and have kids and enjoy the good things of this life.

For children to even consider consecrated life, I propose that we actually do need to actively encourage it more so than lay/married life. We do at least need to clearly teach our children that it is an objectively better way of life. We do need to encourage them to seriously consider it and seek God's will to know if he is calling them to that life, and even more so when we see signs of such a call in them ourselves. Any inclination and willingness to look into it should be met with lots of encouragement.

We need not worry much about pressuring our children towards consecrated life for the wrong reasons. For most parents, having a child pursue such a life--especially if they have few children as is common today--is also a kind of sacrifice and renunciation for the parent. You are renouncing the good of grandchildren and, potentially, "the carrying on of the family name." You are renouncing the potential that they will "follow in your footsteps." You are renouncing the chance that they can take care of you when you are old or infirm. In many ways, all the toil of raising the child becomes a gift to God and the Church.

Granted, there is some small danger for pride to slip in, but I'd say that it's generally much easier to just go with the flow and let your children be "normal" and that we have far more wrong reasons to hope that they do not pursue such life. So if we need to be on guard against anything, it would be against apathy towards consecrated life, against a false sense of egalitarianism, against our own natural desires for our children to have the many good things in this life that they would have to renounce should they choose consecrated life.

We humans need help to participate in God's grace, and choosing consecrated life is no different. God may be calling many people to it who are not responding because they are too caught up in this world, because they never seriously considered it, or because their parents and friends didn't even mention it much less encourage them in it.

Similarly, parents need encouragement to encourage their children in this way. What they don't need is to be made to feel wrong or bad or defensive for encouraging religious and priestly vocations in their children.

Not only that, other adults in children's lives need to offer this same kind of encouragement. When children see what their parents teach them confirmed by others in their lives--especially others that they respect or perceive to be wise or authorities in some sense--then it can only help them to feel freer to consider this as a good and viable option for themselves. But above all, they need their parents' support and encouragement.

So the next time you hear a parent being thoughtful or wistful or excited or (especially) worried about their child considering religious or priestly life, I suggest that you encourage them rather than dissuade or warn them. And if you know the child, by all means, encourage him or her, too!

---
Some notes for the nit-picky..

1. I realize there is a distinction between religious and priestly life. That is why I have tried to be careful about my terminology here and mentioning both despite its repetitiveness. That said, they both involve degrees of renunciation of worldly goods and are countercultural, so I think the discussion here applies to both.

2. I know first hand that marriage and parenting in particular (especially for large families) require many sacrifices that also help us on our way towards perfection in charity. I am not devaluing that here; however, I do maintain with the Church that religious life offers a more sure path towards perfection in that it requires more absolute renunciation of worldly goods.

3. This is written primarily about Catholics and to Catholics, even though it is on my public blog. So this is not the time or place to discuss how crazy consecrated/religious life may sound to non-Catholics. If such comments are made, they will be deleted. You can contact me personally if you want to discuss that.

The Myth of Science vs. Faith

"Right here we have the major lie at the heart of modern anti-religious scientific propaganda: the war between faith and science." (see and also this for more on the historical facts about Bruno)

Yup. That about sums it up. It's a real shame, too, because I love science, and especially as it pertains to cosmology, and I really wanted to enjoy the obviously well-produced Cosmos. Plus, I like many others it seems have an odd fondness for Neil deGrasse Tyson, so it pains me to see him promote rubbish. :-/

It's high time we are done with the myth that religion is antithetical and antagonistic to science. It's time the Galileo type mythology be laid to rest and the actual history be rooted in its historical context, where it belongs. Even if you refuse to accept the historical facts and to take the time to understand the historical context around the cases like Galileo, you can't refute that these things happened 3-400 years ago. Talk about beating a long-dead horse..

The reality is that "religion" (a broad term indeed, and hard to generalize about) is not inherently antithetical to science, and specifically, Catholics and the Catholic Church are pro science. And it is because of our religious beliefs that we are pro science, not in spite of them. God is the very foundation of truth, of reality, and science is a way for us to discover and understand more about this reality, which again, is ultimately rooted in God.

Science and faith are two, complementary paths to discover truths about this reality we find ourselves living in. They work together and can only ever be complementary when understood with clarity and honesty--because they both illumine the truth.

One of my own patrons, St. Albert the Great, was a well known natural scientist in his time (the 1200s), and the historical facts are that many, many scientists (among them some of the most notable) were Catholic (and are today), including many priests and vowed religious. Ask yourself how it could be that there are and have been so many faithful scientists if faith and science were so incompatible as some would have you believe.

It is a historical fact that the very idea of the university came out of Christendom, at the very height of medieval, Christian, Catholic culture. That's right, those supposed "dark ages" brought about the birth of the university, of hospitals, and of most of the notions that imbue our current conceptions of the "common good." Even the so-called "Enlightenment" came out of this "dark" Christian past, and it wasn't in spite of it but because of it. The notion of "progress" itself, of a dogged pursuit of self-improvement towards an ideal of perfection--that, too, is a fundamentally Christian notion.

Furthermore, our contemporary notion of natural science as a pursuit in itself also has its Christian roots. It is a fact that the scientific method was formalized and popularized in the West by a Catholic bishop (Grosseteste) and a Franciscan friar (Bacon). None of this is to imply (obviously I hope) that the practice of science is inherently dependent upon Christianity; the point here is to simply recognize that historically science grew from Christian roots (remembering that this is contra the myth that the two are somehow antagonistic).

It is also a historical fact that the proposer of the Big Bang theory that laid the groundwork for a lot of modern cosmology was a Catholic priest (Lemaître). It is a historical fact that the father of modern genetics was a Catholic monk (Mendel). The list goes on and on.

It is a historical fact that many popes have made pro-science pronouncements and sponsored, supported, and established many scientific institutions. It is a historical fact that our official, most authoritative doctrinal documents are pro-science (e.g., the Catechism).

Despite the overwhelming weight of historical and doctrinal evidence, many atheists and even some theists continue to foster the delusion that faith and science are incompatible. This is either inexcusable ignorance or dishonest malice. There is no good, honest reason to perpetuate this myth. If you up to this point believe this myth, please educate yourself.

Surely we do have enough real disagreements to sort out without manufacturing and perpetuating patently false ones.. let me suggest something--the core issues that drive our real disagreements and is the true driver behind a lot of this myth and its popularity. It is twofold: 1) the relative value and trustworthiness of knowledge that comes from faith versus the knowledge that comes from science/reason and 2) the propriety of constraining scientific inquiry.

It is my hope to cover these two topics in upcoming posts. Stay tuned. ;)