Suche books:   





What We Can't Not Know: A Guide
J. Budziszewski

Spence Publishing Company, 2004 - 272 pages

average customer review:based on 14 reviews
view larger image
 for more information click here

   highly recommended  highly recommended





Wowie

Not brain candy. Nutrition for your head. I would recommend you read it, whoever you are.


What You Can't NOT Know

This book is a perfect example of the best in critical thinking. Intelligent and well focused on what we need to know to be human, made in the image and likeness of God.









 for more information click here


Common Moral Sense: indelible even if suppressed

It seems impossible these days to speak of a moral consensus. Even the most basic moral duties are increasingly seen as dispensible: honesty, promise-keeping, faithfulness to spouses. The idea seems to be that at issue is not moral right or wrong, only moral disagreement. But school shootings and desertion of minor children by fathers are some of the symptoms of the chaos that results from adopting as axiomatic that you shall not impose you morality on someone else. In fact to claim as the author is doing, that not only is there a common moral law that applies to everyone, but that it is also in a sense known to everyone, is to evoke feelings of outrage. "Never before," he asserts, "has vice held the high moral ground." Affirming the moral law is called "being judgmental" and "being intolerant", which means it has been judged and will not be tolerated.

The problem has largely been that Christians have been making their case from the Bible when speaking to an unbelieving culture. To be sure, the Scriptures are essential and we must not just put them aside; the question is when is it appropriate and wise to utilize them. Christians believe that God has revealed Himself not only in the Bible but also in nature, in our very design. When making our case we need to follow the example of the apostle Paul, who argued from the Scriptures when speaking to people who accepted them as authoritative. But when speaking to those who didn't know or accept the Scriptures, he argued from what they did know: their altar to an unknown god, and references to their own poets. We learn from Paul that because God has written his law in our hearts, not only is there a moral law that is right for everyone but at some level it is known to everyone, even if repressed and held down. What we call "the natural law", then, involves what we can't not know.

There are four ways that "what we can't not know" is known; these can be called "witnesses". The first witness is deep conscience, to be distinguished from surface conscience in that it cannot be erased or be mistaken. Deep conscience includes basic moral truths like "murder is wrong" and the concept of fairness. The second witness is the witness of "design as such", and this ties in with the first because only if our deep conscience is designed is there any reason to think that it is telling us truth.

The third witness is of the details of our design. Since we are designed, we see that some of the Designer's intentions for us are clear from the human blueprint. We speak, then, of the purpose of the various features of our design. This is important because recognition of that purpose is necessary if the designed feature is to function properly. Finally, the fourth witness is that of natural consequences. These are what result when we thwart the various aspects of our design. Consequences are not the reason a particular act, say, extramarital sex, is wrong; rather they function to point out the natural purposes of things. For example, "the natural link between sex and pregnancy is not just a brute fact to be circumvented by latex; it declares that sex serves the purpose of procreation, of having and raising children."

Having said all that, it does seem that, in a sense, what can't not be known has been forgotten. How could this be? "There is nothing wrong with the basic programming of conscience; the problem is in the interface, the human will." It is true that deep conscience cannot err, but in working out the remote implications, we can err, and worse we can lie to ourselves so that we create problems at the level of surface conscience. We rationalize our deeds, trying to make it appear that what we have done was actually right. When we do this we truly are set on a downward road, going from evil to evil.

A good example of this is the sexual revolution, which, to attain its goals, required getting rid of chastity. This in turn required destroying the privilege of limiting sex to marriage. As one thing led to another this required denying what sex is for: it was no longer for procreation but for pleasure, and pregnancy became an unpleasant byproduct. And so we continued downward, until we reached a point "when we legalized the private use of lethal violence against babies yet unborn. The justification of such staggering betrayal takes more lies than there are words to tell them."

And yet the author is confident that there is hope. The sexual revolution has not brought liberation but bondage. Many of those who have experienced its devastation firsthand are exhausted and disillusioned. Though they may have spent their whole lives repressing what they can't not know, "like crabgrass growing through the cracks and crannies of concrete slabs, the awareness of the moral law breaks even through the cracks of our denials." Christians must become skilled at gently helping the lost navigate through the maze of lies our culture has created. When that is done, a terminal point is reached where the moral law can go no further. It tells us that we need forgiveness, but it does not tell us how that is to be obtained. When people reach that point, then Christians need to utilitize God's other revelation, that written in Scripture. For there is One who is eager not only to forgive, but to make whole again, to bring our lives back into harmony with our design.

For those who are interested, there is a two hour lecture that the author, J. Budziszewski (pronounced "Boo-jee-shef-ski") has given, with the same title, available from Stand to Reason, at their website. I have found it very helpful because it is a difficult book, and the lecture clarifies the central points.



 for more information click here






A Truly Golden Compass

In an engaging style, Professor J. Budziszewski argues powerfully and convincingly for the existence of a natural moral law, which is accessible to everyday people through right reasoning. Though we tell ourselves otherwise, most moral choices just ain't that hard! Our claim to difficulty in making a moral choice often just veils our difficulty in following through with the right choice: "When, despite considerable intelligence, a thinker cannot think straight, it becomes very likely that he cannot face his thoughts....Don't we lie to ourselves about ordinary right and wrong? The desire to know truth is ardent, but it is not the only desire at work in us. The desire not to know competes with it desperately, for knowledge is a fearsome thing. So it is that oftentimes we groan about how difficult it is to know what is right even though we know the right perfectly well" (pp. 11, 62)

"Certain moral principles are not only right for all, but at some level know to all....our common moral knowledge is as real as arithmetic, and probably just as plain....The classical natural law thinkers held that although there are broad moral truths which cannot be blotted out of the heart of man, there are others, more remote from first principles, which can all too easily be blotted out - and the usual way to blot them out is bad living....two universals are in conflict: universal moral knowledge and universal desire to evade it" (pp. 15, 19, 25, 28).

What is this natural moral law or "natural law" all about? Budziszewski tells us that "a great many more or less satisfactory summaries have been proposed. Perhaps the simplest formula was suggested by Thomas Aquinas: `Good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided'....Good in his view is richly differentiated" (p. 47).

Budziszewski argues that, "Everyone knows inviolable goods like friendship, formal norms like fairness, and everyday moral rules like `Do not kill' - though we can pretend not to know them, and we sometimes err in what we derive from them. Everyone recognizes that the universe is designed and that we are designed - though we can refuse to pay attention, or pretend we haven't noticed. Everyone recognizes the most obvious features of our design, for example the complementarity of the sexes and the spontaneous order of the family....everyone recognizes the most obvious inbuilt penalties of wrongdoing, for example that those who betray are not trusted....Not everyone feels guilty for murder, but everyone knows murder is wrong. Precisely because they have guilty knowledge, wrongdoers who lack guilty feelings show other telltales, such as depression, a sense of defect, a compulsion to rationalize, or a puzzling desire to be caught" (pp. 102, 118).



 for more information click here


Pure gold.

I have read hundreds of books on religion, morality, and philosophy, but Budziszewski has taught me much that I did not know, or at least realize. C. S. Lewis' Abolition of Man is wise warning to an age in which we tinker with the formula for man: but Dr. B goes beyond Lewis. His work is like the anti-dote to a deadly pandemic.

In my book, Jesus and the Religions of Man, I asked, "Where did Marx go wrong?" I pointed out that Marxists created a three-fold hierarchy of moral values for "the classes, the masses, and the enlightened." They criticized capitalists for oppressing the poor, nagged ordinary people to work hard, don't spit, and take thought for comrades, and justified their own actions by a loose "end-justifies the means" code. The existence of these three systems side by side I found not only hypocritical, but ironic, since Marx himself said communism "abolishes" all morality. But I did not have an explanation for the phenomena, beyond noting that moral law seems hard to abolish.

Budziszewski does not say much about Marxism, but he does explain this, and similar, behavior. He argues that "deep conscience" exists in everyone, and that ultimate values -- neatly summarized by the Ten Commandments -- are indestructable. His writing is lucid and brilliantly (and perhaps deceptively) simple. Even though this book is chock-full of interesting ideas, it is easy to read.

I found two main weaknesses, one negative, the other positive. The negative weakness is that Dr. B's case would be not only easier to digest, but also stronger if he referred to non-Western cultures more. (Having lived many years in and studied several Asian cultures, examples that confirm his argument spring to mind.) The positive weakness is that Dr. B argues in too much the Ivan Karamazov fashion -- cherry-picking newspaper clippings of sordid acts, and holding them up to our noses as if they were "where the culture is going." His arguments about sexual promiscuity and abortion suffer less from this problem. And some of the stuff he dredges up is truly frightening.

One star reviews below may perhaps be explained by the fact that Budziszewski does not do what I just did -- critique an error in another culture -- but attacks the "culture of death" in the West. The reaction often shows more emotion than careful thought. Consider:

(1) "B gathers up all his personal prejudices and political opinions and declares them 'natural law.'" Not really. In fact, "B" focuses on the Ten Commandments, which was in existence well before any modern political party, and has close parallels in (for example) the Buddhist and Taoist traditions. (Including bans against killing babies in the womb.)

(2) "B's conversion to Catholicism demands that he opposes birth control and abortion." In fact he opposed abortion long before becoming a Catholic. Indeed, he joined the Catholic church the same year this book was published.

(3) The book "might be impressive for those who mistake religious superstition for reason." If the critic means Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, Kepler, and Lewis would love it, I think so, too.

(4) Two critics accuse Dr. B of "preaching to the choir." "Why write a book for people who are already convinced they are in the moral right because the Bible sys so?" As he makes clear, the Bible says NO ONE is in the moral right, including the choir. We can all benefit from Dr. B's work of making the logic of sin and rationalization clearer, because these are forces that work on everyone. Besides which, members of the choir live in a world where these forces go largely unchecked, and in which we are called to be "salt and light." Anyone, including skeptics, may benefit by thinking more clearly about right and wrong.

(5) Another complaint is about a "substantial section about ID" which the reviewer found "distant from a philosopher's roots" and "extreme." I have my doubts about ID. But I only found one long paragraph on the subject, the relevance of which was clear. Besides, I have recently read books by philosophers who made evolution a centerpiece of their skeptical philopophies -- what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

(6) One person is mightily distressed that Dr. B defines an agnostic as someone who "claims ignorance about God." He calls these "loaded words" that indicate a "weak and desperate intellect." But "a" means "not," and "gnostic" means "knowing" -- is "ignorant" so loaded a synonym for "not knowing?" In fact Thomas Huxley, who invented the term "agnostic," used the word "ignorant" himself to explain his view. But perhaps the reviewer was ig -- I mean, did not know that.

(7) Further: "An agnostic's contention that it is impossible to know whether there is a God is the most rock solidly honest viewpoint that any person can take." Really? This claim implies that the agnostic can somehow KNOW that God cannot possibly reveal Himself to man. How can anyone possibly know that? It seems to me simple confession of ignorance is far more reasonable.

(8) Finally, "Every sensible Christian is convinced they can't know they're right, therein lies faith." This reader is confused about how Christians understand faith. See the anthology in "Faith and Reason" on my web page, christthetao.com, for quotes by leading Christian thinkers down through the centuries.

It is not surprisingly that some nails complain when Dr. Bud hits them resoundingly on the head! But as the Proverbs say, "faithful are the wounds of a friend." Read this thoughtful, essential book, and see if people (including ourselves) act like that. Then pass it on to a friend.

BTW: For more on Dr. B's claim that God is known universally, see the chapter on "The Non-History of God" in my book, Jesus and the Religions of Man.


 for more information click here


reviews: page 1, 2, 3



J. Budziszewski?s newest book is about the lost world of common truths?about what we all really know about right and wrong.

We are passing through an eerie phase of history. The things that everyone really knows are treated as unheard of, and the principles of decency are attacked as indecent. Exposing the emptiness of contemporary moral fashions, Budziszewski explores the rules of human conduct that we can?t not know.

Budziszewski?s purpose is to "bolster the confidence of plain people in the rational foundations of their common moral sense." There are certain moral truths?"as real as arithmetic"?that are part of the equipment of a rational mind. He describes the basic principles of morality known to all men, explains why those principles are under attack, and demonstrates that we do in fact know what we think we know.

Addressing "the persuaded, the half-persuaded, and the wish-I-were-persuaded," Budziszewski shows Protestants, Catholics, and Jews the unanimity of their traditions on the common truths. And what about the unpersuaded, those who deny the reality of a moral law? They are on the other side of a dispute over the basic norms for human life. Civility, Budziszewski insists, does not require denying the unprecedented gulf between the two sides. What?s needed are both charity and clarity, which Budziszewski provides in abundance.

"A few times in a generation, if we are fortunate, moral intelligence finds a voice as lucid, engaging, and relentless as that of J. Budziszewski," says Richard John Neuhaus, publisher of First Things.


 for more information click here



hot or not?    What's your opinion?     Write a review and share your thoughts!



recommendations

Recent Moral and Political Philosophy, Natural Law, Economic
Readings for Serious Christianity
More books from Spence Publishing
Christian books to consider
Moral law




guide

Kaplan GRE Exam 2009 Premier Program (w/ CD-ROM) (Kaplan Gre Exam ...
StrengthsFinder 2.0: A New and Upgraded Edition of the Online Test ...
The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment
The Official Guide for GMAT Review, 11th Edition
Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association



what

Law of Attraction: The Science of Attracting More of What You Want ...
Rich Dad, Poor Dad: What the Rich Teach Their Kids About Money--That ...
What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture ...
What Got You Here Won't Get You There: How Successful People Become ...
The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crash of 2008 and ...



know

Reiki The Ultimate Guide Learn Sacred Symbols & Attunements plus ...
MY UTMOST FOR HIS HIGHEST - UPDATED
Eagle Strike.
The Andalite Chronicles (Elfangor's Journey, Alloran's Choice, An ...
Tom Patire's Personal Protection Handbook: Absolutely Everything You ...



search for books
what we can't, can, guide, know, not, what


Impressum / about us


Suche books: