This is the second installment in my review of Faith and Reason: Philosophers Explain Their Turn to Catholicism:
1. One question is what's the motivation to read this book? Why would a Catholic or Protestant or wavering Catholic or wavering Protestant or atheist or None to pick up this book? What, if anything, sets it apart from so many other books for Catholicism?
Presumably, the selling-point of the book is that all the contributors are trained philosophers. So the question is whether the arguments from Catholicism get better the higher up you go. When you move up the ladder from Catholic Answers to Catholics with doctorates in philosophy, do you find new and better arguments? Do they provide a more rigorous formulation of stock a regiments? Do they provide arguments that are different from the stock arguments for Catholicism?
When it comes to the chapters by Feser, Budziszewski, Cutter, Judisch, Kreeft, Gage, and the Clevelands, the answer is no. They recycle all the boilerplate arguments you encounter in Catholic apologists who are not trained philosophers.
The only exception is Bryan Cross, who offers an argument that's a variation on Kuhn's incommensurable paradigms. Vogler's chapter has no discernible argument for Catholicism–while the chapter by Koons is a narrowly framed comparison and contrast between Catholic and Lutheran theology. So that has no relevance to any reader who's not Lutheran, who doesn't use Lutheran theology as reference point.
The upshot, then, is that a reader gets nothing from this book that he can't find in the Catholic Answers apologetic. Except for Bryan Cross's unconventional argument, this book doesn't pose any new challenges to the Protestant faith. It doesn't improve on the standard fare that dime-a-dozen Catholic apologists churn out every year. It doesn't expose you to different arguments, or more sophisticated versions of traditional arguments. Instead, this is standard fare, marketed as "philosophers".
Ironically, then, the book is counterproductive. It's just another cliché-ridden case for Catholicism. The Catholic Answers apologetic is as good as it gets. Catholic philosophers have nothing to add to that. For Protestant readers already familiar with the hackneyed arguments for Catholicism, this is déjà vu. In that regard the book is an unwitting vindication of the Protestant faith. The contributors to this book don't have an ace in the hole. If a Protestant reader has answers to routine Catholic objections, then he will have the same response to what these contributors serve up. How often can you reheat leftovers before they become unsafe to eat?
2. The other thing I have to say is that some of the contributors find the doctrine of the real presence to be emotionally compelling. At that level, there's nothing to refute because it isn't based on reason, evidence, or exegesis, but felt-needs. Some people are drawn to Catholicism for temperamental reasons. People are wired differently. Some people have a deep yearning for things that other people don't yearn for. It's a personal, subjective preference–which is quite ironic given how Catholics attack Protestant "individualism".
//2. The other thing I have to say is that some of the contributors find the doctrine of the real presence to be emotionally compelling. At that level, there's nothing to refute because it isn't based on reason, evidence, or exegesis, but felt-needs. Some people are drawn to Catholicism for temperamental reasons. People are wired differently. Some people have a deep yearning for things that other people don't yearn for. It's a personal, subjective preference–which is quite ironic given how Catholics attack Protestant "individualism". //
ReplyDeleteI wrote some comments in the first of this series that hasn't (at least yet) been approved, which I think are relevant.
Bryan wrote:
//I found God to be present there in the beauty, reverence, and silence of the liturgy. Here was something that went beyond men’s opinions. I could not be cynical about the liturgy or critique it. This was not “man-talk”. It was nonpropositional; it was sacramental—that is, the Gospel embodied. It did not lend itself to rational evaluation or refutation. In that respect, this sacrament almost bypassed my intellect and went directly to my heart. In this sacrament, God was speaking to me not through words and propositions, but through a physical action, giving himself to me in a very intimate way. This was not something toward which I could take a critical, disengaged stance. I could only receive it and be grateful.
I realized that this is what my soul had been craving—to be fed on God. In the sacredness of the liturgy centered around the “Holy Eucharist”, my heart, which had been starved under a diet of mere propositions, was drawn anew toward God. The form of this aesthetic and liturgy clearly fit the serving of the bread of heaven. In the liturgy, my soul was drawn up to God by its majesty and beauty. When the priest said, “Lift up your hearts,” we replied, “We lift them up unto the Lord.” The form of the liturgy and the music helped us lift our hearts up to heaven. //
CONT.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAs I understand it Catholicism does NOT recognize the Anglican eucharist as legitimate. Christ is not transubstantiated in the elements of Anglican communion. Yet if Bryan can have such seemingly mystical experiences partaking of Anglican communion, then he should have realized as a Catholic that maybe his (and other) Catholic experiences might often (not necessarily always) also be purely psychologically and neurochemically based and originated. OR given his later Catholic letdown (where Steve quoted Bryan's comment on Stellman's blog), shouldn't Bryan have considered the possibility that Christ was more fully found in the Anglican eucharist than in the Catholic eucharist? Shouldn't he have considered returning to Anglicanism? Why wasn't that an option for him?
DeleteAbove I referred to how some mystical experiences during communion might OFTEN have a psychological and neurochemical etiology. I say often because I wouldn't be surprised if some experiences really are supernatural and are caused by either God or demons, both in non-Catholic and Catholic communion services. I include Catholic communion only because I think there's enough truth within Catholicism for someone to barely be saved, but so much error that I don't see it as a legitimate expression of the church.
Moreover, as a continuationist Calvinist, I have to point out that non-Catholics have strong spiritual experiences during communion too. For example, the late R.C. Sproul had often referred to how he sensed Christ's nearness especially acute during communion. That's why he so vigorously endorsed Keith Mathison's book, Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Also, it's not uncommon for charismatic and/or Pentecostals to have testimonies of physical divine healings occuring during their communion services. Many even teach that of the various ways to receive divine healing is via communion (in addition to anointing with oil, laying on of hands, prayer cloths, soaking prayer, worship etc.).
Typo correction:
Delete//Many even teach that [ONE] of the various ways to receive divine healing is via communion (in addition to anointing with oil, laying on of hands, prayer cloths, soaking prayer, worship etc.).//
If the true eucharist is not found among Protestants and non-Catholic continuationists, then Catholics need to explain why they too can have supernatural and mystical experiences via communion. Are they going to have to say they they are all demonic in origin? Isn't it a more plausible explanation to say that non-Catholic communion services are (or are also) genuine expressions of Biblical communion? Likely because the physical "Real Presence" view of Catholic transubstantiation, or the Orthodox view which is less defined, or even the Lutheran consubstantiation view (et al) are all false?
Delete