Koan #40: Criticizing the Crusades

It is often the case that many Unbelievers and Misunderstanders, in their quest to discredit the Faith in any manner possible, criticize the Crusades as an example of Christian injustice and evil. Yet while it is both possible and true to criticize the actions of individual Crusaders with such a claim—and as all men are fallen sinners, which Catholicism preaches and teaches, such evil individual actions are not only not unexpected, but inevitable—the Unbelievers and Misunderstanders cannot justifiably criticize the Crusades as a whole with such sweeping claims. For it takes only a moment of historical study to realize that the Crusades were waged primarily to defend Christendom, through a strategic counter-attack, from hundreds of years of Islamic military expansion, aggression and murder—which, it might be added, would continue for many hundreds of future years—making the Crusades both just and necessary. And thus, in the same manner as one might criticize the actions of individual Allied soldiers during the Second World War as evil, but cannot justifiably criticize the Second World War as a whole as such—which was also waged primarily to defend the Western World from Axis expansion, aggression and murder—so too can the Crusades, as a strategic defensive action, not be so easily claimed as evil by anyone with a modicum of historical and moral sense.

Koan #38: Deceit and the Church

It is a most remarkable phenomenon to listen and read those that are deeply virulent and hateful in their attacks against the Catholic faith and the Church that protects it. Indeed, it is remarkable precisely because the attacks used are so often full of conscious distortions, exaggerations, misunderstandings, distractions, misinformation, half-information, dishonest omissions and at times, out-right and blatant lies; all of which are proven to be verifiably false with just a slight amount of investigative acumen. Yet what this fact raises is an even more fascinating point. For why, if the Catholic faith and its Church are such an easy target to defeat—as its opponents claim—must these distortions, exaggerations and falsehoods be employed? Why, if the Church and its claims and its teachings require no strong effort to crush, cannot the simple, plain and honest truth be employed in the task of doing so? Why is the extra tool of dishonesty used by all, from Unbelievers to Believing Dissenters, if the bare, pure and unadorned truth should suffice to discredit the Church? Perhaps—and an unwilling and unwanted explanation it will be for many—it is because this naked truth does not suffice to defeat the Church and what it teaches. Perhaps it is because if the full truth was actually spoken, it would bring people to the Church rather than push them away from it. And perhaps it is because the truth clings more tightly to the Church, than to any of its opponents. Thus in sum, these facts, if nothing else, show much concerning the “truth” that the opponents of the Church use, but even more, these facts show much concerning the actual Truth surrounding the Church herself.

Koan #35: The Self-Described Sceptic

A major problem with many self-claimed sceptics is that they tend only to be sceptical about the things that they wish to be sceptical about, which rarely includes themselves or their own beliefs, and which means, quite simply, that as opposed to actually being sceptical, they are just biased. Let no Believer therefore, be awed nor cower in the face of any man that calls himself a sceptic. For this trait of unconscious bias rather than real scepticism is more prevalent than not in any self-described sceptic, and until it is determined otherwise, such a suspicion should be the de facto position of the Believer towards any such sceptic. And let the sceptic who labels himself as such truly ask himself how far his scepticism reaches and whether it actually touches those things that he holds as desirable and wishful to him, for if not, then he bathes in an undeniable intellectual hypocrisy.

Koan #29: Desiring is the Key

The question of what is the most important ingredient in one’s faith is too often misunderstood by the unfaithful. For what the key to faith is, is hope (Hebrews 11:1). And what is hope but a desire for a thing? And this is indeed the key to faith, for it is the desiring aspect of one’s faith which is what God’s deeply wishes to receive from his creatures, not mere belief in Him nor simple knowledge of Him--for even the demons know and believe in the Lord (James 2:19). For it is only with a desire for God that one can wish to reach out in obedience to Him, for obedience is both the path to Him (John 15:10) and the requirement for God to make Himself known to the one desiring Him (John 14:21-23). Thus let any Unbeliever, or any wavering Believer who desires God but fears the loss of his psychological grasp of the faith, obey that which God desires and the truth shall remain with him.

Koan #26: The Argument from Atheist Converts

It is often said by the most fervent of Unbelievers that there exist no good arguments for why they should believe and follow the Faith, with all that the Faith entails and espouses. In the spirit of discourse and charity, it is, therefore, desirable to present such arguments, as has been done for millennia, to these most fervently unbelieving of Unbelievers in the hopes of achieving at least some reflection on both sides. And this is just such an attempt, although please note that it is an argument that is both audience specific and done with one’s tongue firmly in his cheek. Yet one must not digress. Thus, this particular argument for the Faith is known as the “Argument from Atheist Converts.” It carries forth as follows: 1. In recent years, and in western culture particularly, a rash of particularly vehement, ardent and evangelically vocal atheists have arisen. 2. These specific Unbelievers often claim that those that hold religious beliefs, and in particular Christianity, are the embodiment of a being that is irrational, emotive, unintelligent, non-“bright”, biased, unscientific, unreasonable, ridiculous, illogical and so forth (a further number of terms could be added, but the point is made). By contrast, the true Unbelievers of this age and culture are the embodiment of a being that is rational, un-emotive, intelligent, “bright”, objective, scientific, reasonable, serious, logical and so forth (again, a further number of terms could be added, but the point is made). 3. With this in mind, it follows that if anyone converts from unbelief to the Faith, then this conversion has great weight, value and assistive/authoritative proof for the strength, validity and worth of arguments made for the Faith, for how could an epitome of rationality, un-emotiveness, intelligence, “brightness”, objectivity, scientific literacy, reasonableness, seriousness and logicalness by converted by anything but the most powerful of arguments and evidence. By contrast, the conversion of a Believer to unbelief is nothing special, powerful or significant, for how could the conversion of an epitome of irrationality, emotiveness, unintelligence, non-“brightness”, bias, scientific illiteracy, unreasonableness, ridiculousness and illogicalness be significant or weight in favour of that particular view. It may, in fact, weaken it as it has been adopted by one with such weak mental facilities. 4. This means, therefore, that either the vehemently arrogant Unbeliever must concede the exponentially greater importance of the conversion of an Unbeliever to belief in contrast to the opposite, and thus the strength of the arguments, facts and evidence that converted such a Unbeliever, or the vehemently arrogant Unbeliever must concede that Unbelievers are not the hyper-rational, totally objective, extremely logical, etc. individuals that the latter so often claimed they are, but are rather subject to the same mental and psychological biases and issues that affect all persons. 5. This then naturally leads to the concession that the Unbelievers claimed objectivity and bias-free-truth-seeking focus in assessing the arguments for the Faith and its entailments are fallacious and unwarranted; they therefore hold no more weight than the Believer’s assessment of the same arguments. 6. Nor can this argument simply be dismissed by the Unbeliever through the claim that the converted Unbeliever simply became irrational and illogical instantly upon conversion, for how can one change so suddenly and momentarily from being the epitome of rationality and reason to its exact and extreme opposite. Such a claim is absurd and just demonstrates the emotional and mental protective barriers that such Unbelievers create for themselves to protect their psyches from the possibility that they are in error. Nor can the Unbeliever claim that the converting Unbeliever was never a “real” Unbeliever—entailing all the traits mentioned above—to begin with, for doing so commits the so-called “No True Scotsman” fallacy, a fallacy with Unbeliever so often use against those of the Faith. Let it therefore be realized, even though it must be granted that many already do, that the Unbeliever in no more rational or objective or logical than the Believer, nor do his assessments of the arguments for the Faith hold any more weight than the Believer’s.

Koan #23: Love Above Knowing

Remember that to our Loving Lord and Just Judge, there exists a chasm of difference between the man who states “I do not know if God exists, but I would not love Him if He does” and thus disobeys the dictates of his God-given conscience, and the man who states “I do not know if God exists, but I would love Him if He does” and thus obeys the dictates of that very same God-given conscience. For truly, the key is in the love, not in the knowing. Let both Unbelievers and Believers be aware of this fact and make their decision about its truth wisely.

Koan #22: Arguing with Straw

The creation of arguments from little but straw! It is something that every one of the Catholic Faithful must watch for, and must not commit himself, lest he be hypocritical in his quest to bring truth to others. Yet it is also a thing that is often seen in the arguments presented by Unbelievers for their denial of the divine and by non-Catholics for their denial of the Faith. All of these claim to be putting forth arguments of intellectual rigour and strength, but are often, when inspected closely and exactly, simply making arguments of straw. They subtly twist meanings, definitions, words and phrases in the most inconspicuous of manners in order to fallaciously bolster the effectiveness of their argumentation or they argue against the weakest formulation of the Believer’s argument rather than the strongest one. Thus they argue against illusions rather than reality. Let the Believer, then, be both aware and leery of this truth. And let him assess any argument against the Faith or its Lord slowly, methodically and precisely, for fear that if he does not do so, he may be caught unaware of a hidden and fallacious straw, which if missed, would give the argument more weight than it is due.

Koan #21: Too Little Suffering

It is always interesting to note that, in countless cases, those that use the so-called “Problem of Evil and Suffering” as their prime reason for unbelief in the Lord, are, by and large, the very same that live in regions of the greatest comfort, leisure and ease on earth, where their tangible suffering and pain is vastly minimized, sanitized and removed from the public eye. By contrast, those that are actually suffering in ways unfelt and likely even unimagined by the latter group have no uncertainties about the Divine Creator’s existence. Perhaps then, those that have such a problem with the Problem of Evil should, in fact, experience some truly hard evil to see just what their exact and full view on the question of God might be after such a practical and honest trial.

Koan #15: Too "Wise" to See God

All too often, it is only the “wise” intellectual who can confuse himself enough, and then rationalize this confusion, not to see the hand of God in this world.

Koan #8: Was Full Faith Ever There

It is often said by certain previously-faithful Unbelievers that their de-conversion was based on research, argumentation and evidence; that they were committed to the Faith until they, quite simply, could no longer maintain it in the face of what they knew. Now, leaving aside the point that Unbelievers are as subject to the same subjective and emotional biases that they so often accuse Believers of, it is cogent to wonder just how faithful these claimed Believers were to the Faith that they left? Though seemingly insinuating insult, what is actually meant by this latter question is that as the Catholic faith has never claimed that true, firm and preserving belief can be had solely by an exercise of the intellect or through intellectual argumentation, did these individuals actually practice the methods advised by the Faith to develop lasting faith? Indeed, although initial faith can be created solely in the intellect, the Faithful are taught that lasting faith must be cultivated through obedience, good works, prayer, use of the sacraments, charity, an ability to control one’s emotional deviances and so on and so forth. These are things that cannot be done or practiced if one is overwhelmed with pure sensory or philosophical argumentation at the expense such other critical elements. Thus it is a wonder if such things were truly and fully done by the aforementioned Unbelievers’ when they de-converted—and only they and God can know the truth of this—but if they were not, then how can they claim to have had the Faith in the first place? How can they claim to have de-converted when they never truly converted in the first place? For how can one call himself a “convert” or “faithful” when he does not faithfully convert his life in all its elements to the Faith and its prescribed ways? And lest the Unbeliever accuse the Believer of holding an anti-evidentiary stance when he raises the objection articulated here, it must be made clear that this is not the case, for evidence of the sensory and philosophical variety are admittedly necessary for faith, but they are by no means sufficient for it or its maintenance. Indeed, one may think of it in this manner: A man may consciously and intellectually love his wife, but he must also show his love in his actions, respond to her requests, demonstrate his affection in his words to her, sacrifice for her, accept the responsibility and guilt for the errors and faults committed against her, express this love visibly to others, make her a prime priority in his life, practice what he believes about her, spend time and energy on her, love her even when disagreement and disagreeability exists and so on and so forth if his love is to be true, stay strong and actually be love, rather than just a shadowy sentiment of it. A man who does not do such things, but still professes to love his wife in intellect, will soon have a wife who wishes for separation—as God very well might wish of one who “knows” of him, but does not show it or do what He asks—and a mind that wonders if he ever did truly love her to begin with. The Believer, then, can be no different if he is to have a true and lasting love with and for God.

Koan #5: The Ease of Accepting Deism

The fact that certain weak (in terms of the strength of their unbelief) Unbelievers are often willing to admit an ease at accepting a deistic god or divine force as opposed to an active-theistic one—as evidenced by so many that willingly self-identify as believing in the divine but being non-religious—tells one much concerning such Unbelievers’ real reasons for rejecting God as he is traditionally seen in the Faith...and it has little to do with philosophical considerations.

Koan #4: "Christianity" Defeated but Catholicism Untouched

While both understandable due to geographical and cultural considerations, yet still strange when considered, is the fact that numerous Unbelievers claim that they have lost their belief due to deficiencies and contradictions within elements of the “Christian” faith as a whole, while at the same time not realizing that what they have done is only discover deficiencies with the theological ideas and doctrines of certain Christian sects. And thus furthermore, they believe they have achieved this personal argumentative success against the totality of what is understood as Christianity without ever having investigated the doctrines, teachings and philosophies of Catholicism, the largest and oldest and original Christian denomination in the world, and yet they still believe that they have defeated Christianity as a whole. But does the boxing contender believe that he has become the champion after only defeating someone who is fifth or sixth in line to the belt, or does he only become champion after have defeated the champion? Of course the latter is true. Why then, do so many Unbelievers act like the former rather than the latter? It is thus a wonder if such an Unbeliever can truly believe that they have defeated Christianity with their partial and denomination specific arguments, or rather should they realize that they only have a right to think that they have defeated Christianity, when they have done nothing of the sort, as Catholicism still stands firm.