God's Judgments - How Strict? How Lenient?

God's Judgments - How Strict? How Lenient?
-------------------------------------------------------




By Jim J. McCrea
---------------------


If we confine ourselves to Catholics faithful to the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church (the Magisterium), there is a debate as to how strict or how lenient God's judgments are. There are some who say that the vast majority will be saved and go to heaven, while others say that few are saved.

People like Fr. Barron and Pope Benedict VXI tend to the former; while people like Michael Voris (of ChurchMilitant.tv) and Ralph Martin tend to the latter. It is also the opinion of most of the classical saints and Church fathers that few are saved.

How do we resolve this?

What I say is that the proportion of saved to lost is a mystery of predestination that will not be fully known until the General Judgment.

Philosophers such as Peter Kreeft have suggested that Jesus saying that few finding the road to salvation and many following the road to damnation (Matthew 7:13-14) means that He is not talking like an accountant but like a loving Father. Even a few lost is many for God's love, and even most saved is few.

But I think the definite message here is to strive to enter the narrow gate and work assiduously for the salvation of others - we must evangelize as if people's salvation is a stake.

Jesus did not give us any answers as to proportions so that we will be induced to strive. For if we knew that only a small minority were saved we might give up in despair. And if we knew the vast majority were saved we might become lax. The right attitude is always to strive with our eyes on the finish line (1 Corinthians 9:19-27).

But this brings us to a theoretical theological question: what determines the rigour or leniency of God's judgments?

It would not be something He would arbitrarily decide upon. He does not decide where to set the bar so more or less people are saved depending upon where He decided to set it.

At the General Judgment, when we will know everything, we will see that it is in accord with an ultimate logic, that is rooted in the Ultimate Logic who is God Himself - we will then see that it must be that way and not otherwise.

In God, there are coincidences of infinite opposites.

God's judgment then will be the coincidence of infinite rigour and infinite understanding.



For more on infinite opposites in God: Quintessential Divine Attributes


A longer article describing how God judges is here saying that He is infinitely hard on real guilt, but totally understanding with human weakness.


Jim McCrea


----
----
----


 

Quantum Mechanics and Christianity

Quantum Mechanics and Christianity
--------------------------------------------
 
 
 
----------------------
By Jim J. McCrea
 
 
Quantum Mechanics has what is known as the "uncertainty principle."

With that, at subatomic scales, the position and the momentum of a particle cannot both be known precisely at the same time. The more precise the knowledge of one, the less precise the knowledge of the other.

An analogy may to help understand this if the uncertainty principle worked on macroscopic scales. If you were playing soccer you could know exactly where the ball is, but you would not know how fast it is going - or - you could know how fast it is going, but you would have no idea where it is.

Now this principle works on subatomic scales.

As an example, consider an electron around the nucleus of an atom. In its normal state we know the energy of the electron, but rather than circling in a neat orbit around the nucleus (as we were taught as school children), the position of the electron is uncertain. Rather than being at a given location, as a planet is around the sun, it exists at an unknown location somewhere within a probability cloud around the nucleus. If the atom is probed with another particle, the energy of the electron becomes uncertain, but it appears at a definite random location somewhere within the probability cloud.

Now the position that it appears is completely random in that there is no way that the laws of nature can predict it. It has been demonstrated mathematically that there are no hidden variables - that there is nothing happening in a deterministic manner, at a deeper level, that explains where the electron would appear.

For the electron to appear out of a probability cloud like that is what is known as the "collapse of the wave function." But even though nothing in nature causes it, there must be something determining that the wave function collapses in one way rather than another.

This something must be outside of space and time, which we call God, since it has been demonstrated that the cause cannot be within the finite laws of nature.

God causes the wave function to collapse the way it does.

This is one manner in which He governs the universe.

Something known as "chaos theory" holds that a very small change in initial conditions can produce a huge effect later on. For example, a butterfly flapping its wings can determine whether or not a hurricane develops two weeks later.

God's omnipotence and omniscience, in controlling the collapse of every wave function (as quantum mechanics governs the physical world at subatomic scales), provides the initial impetus' for the resultant macroscopic physical events that He foresees and wishes to bring about. 


Also see The Metaphysics of Chance

----
----
----
 

The Abhorrence of Liberalism

The Abhorrence of Liberalism

--------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

-----------------------

by Jim J. McCrea

 

 

*Liberalism,* whether religious or secular, is based upon *self,* in the satisfaction of one's own pride and concupiscence, regardless of the consequences to others, to the Church, or to society. That is why liberalism as an ideology is so abhorrent.


Liberalism is fundamentally an atomizing principle in which the unholy Trinity of "me, myself, and I" are at the center of reality.

In an "idea" liberal society, there would be as many gods as there are individuals. No common good is recognized to provide cohesion, harmony, and peace.

As we can know by merely logical principles, atomization is the disintegration of a thing. Liberalism causes both Church and society to disintegrate (if liberals get along with respect to some project, it is only a manifestation of what is known as *compatible
egotisms.* That states that "I will let your pride go so far, if you let my pride go so far." It involved a barter of various types of intellectual and psychological "goods." There is no true love involved)


Orthodoxy (right thinking) and traditional values, on the other hand, rest on the primacy of the fundamental metaphysical moment of the "other." Self is transcended to serve that which is other than the self and higher than the self.

We can see this in the old style Western ethic where one fulfilled oneself by serving family, neighbor, country, Church, and God. Getting out of oneself in that way made one happy, and made for peace and goodness in society.


But the old style ethic has been replaced by a new ethic in which *self* is the center. We can see this on mainstream TV, secular magazines, and men's and woman's magazines. Those are all about satisfying one's appetites and actualizing oneself. The "other" is only a means to that end and not an end it itself.

Such a thing is also bolstered in academia in disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology. In the modern secular variants of these disciplines, human action is reduced to fulfilling self (or to serving the species through autonomous instinctive mechanisms brought about by "natural selection"). There is no recognition of the virtue of *integrity* where one does what is good or right, simply because it is good or right.

This has resulting in all the terrible problems that have developed in society and the Church over the past 40 years. A total coldness towards neighbor, widespread psychological violence as one tries to build one's ego on the carcasses of another's (which sometimes degenerates into physical violence), is now the norm. It accounts for all the meaninglessness and emptiness that people experience today in a land of material plenty.


People today mistakenly believe that they can find happiness where it cannot be found - by having a fundamental self centered orientation (which our culture encourages right now).

Only by getting back to the older style values, in getting out of oneself to serve the "other," will happiness, peace, and prosperity return to society.


One who looks for their "rights" in the Church, precisely, by bucking Church teaching and discipline, or one who looks for their "rights" in society by demanding contraception, abortion, euthanasia, divorce (divorce outside of real necessity), fornication, alternate sexualities, can only create a hell for themselves in this world which will turn into eternal hell at death (if unrepentant).

It is simply *impossible* for happiness to emerge with such a selfist ethical orientation.

That is not because of arbitrary religious dogma or because of some decree that God has decided on, but because the very laws and design of human nature, when violated, brings of itself disastrous results. It is simply a matter of natural cause and effect.

 

 

Also see The Priority of the Objectively Important

 

and The Dynamics of Good and Evil

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------

Obesity

Obesity
---------


A Short Treatise on the Nature of Being
------------------------------------------------


By Jim J. McCrea
----------------------


The philosophers have held that goodness is a transcendental property of being. That means that being as being is good, so that goodness is simply another name for being.

With that, evil is not another type of being in addition to goodness, but is the absence of being or goodness where it is due.

Now obesity can be considered an evil because it is not the due or proper nature of the human body to be that way (not that obese people are evil, but obesity itself is an evil. Most overweight people see that as not a good thing).

Now one may object that obesity being an evil is obviously not an absence of being but is an excess of being, so this seems to belie the idea that evil consists of some sort of absence or lack.

But we have to know that being is not merely raw matter. Matter is what a physical thing is made of. It is a common intellectual error today to hold that a thing is nothing but what it is made of.  A physical being, however, has a component in addition to matter -  that is *form.* Form is how the matter is constituted to give that physical thing its proper nature and integrity.

With obesity the lack is not in the matter but is in the form, as the body of the obese lacks proper form. That constitutes the evil of obesity.

There is physical evil anywhere where the proper form of a physical thing is lacking that is supposed to give it its integrity and perfection.

** Endnote - Physical evil is not to be confused with moral evil. Physical evil is simply the state of something physically not being what it is supposed to be.


Also see Metaphysics: the Science of Being


----
----

 

Philosophical Truth

Philosophical Truth-------------------------

 

----------------------

By Jim J. McCrea

Published in the Iron Warrior in 1988, which is the Engineering Paper of the University of Waterloo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Republished with minor modifications.

-------------------------------------------------

The Purpose of philosophy is to discover the most fundamental aspects of reality. It includes, for example, metaphysics, which is the science of being as being; epistemology, which is the science of knowledge; and ethics which enables us to distinguish right from wrong. Some take the view that it is impossible to discover ultimate truth and the attempt to do so can lead one into an intellectual vacuum. A view, quite popular today, is that there is no objective truth but if you believe something it is true for you that is as far as it goes.

I hold, however, that there exists a monolithic truth independent of opinion and furthermore it is within the power of the human intellect to discover some fundamental aspect of it. A full validation of this will not be attempted here, for it is an extremely complex problem which goes far beyond the scope of this article. Some approaches will, however, will be stated.

II.

What are the ultimate constituents of reality and from what can we begin the search for truth.

Particle physicists say that we will know the ultimate constituents of reality when the ultimate particle is discovered and the four fundamental forces of nature are unified. Much of today's science is essentially *reductionist.* It attempts to achieve a better understanding of things by reducing them to their most basic components.

This, however, is a necessary but not a sufficient means of investigating material reality. This is because physical being has two aspects - a *material* and a *formal* aspect. To illustrate this we can conduct a thought experiment in which we analyze the essence of an automobile.

One can imagine two situations: in the first, there is an assembled automobile with its full complement of parts; in the second, the full compliment of parts is present but lying in a disassembled heap on the ground. Now if the essence of the automobile were simply reducible to its parts we could legitimately call the disassembled heap an automobile, which is absurd. Something in addition to the parts of a material being is needed to give it its being. This additional principle is the *form.* Form is the arrangement or inter-connectivity of the parts, while matter is the parts themselves. Both principles of matter and form are required to compose a material being. Reductionist science gives us an understanding of the material side of physical reality while neglecting the formal.

III.

One means of obtaining a better grasp of the true in philosophy is to understand the false. One means of discerning any philosophically false position is to know that when a certain truth is denied, that truth is implicitly used in the denial. Many philosophers have contradicted themselves in this manner. For example, some have stated that we cannot know that what our senses reveal to us is correct because we do not know how much the messages have been distorted by the senses and the nervous system. The fallacy of that argument is that it implies that we can know some aspect of objective physical reality (namely the senses and the nervous system) to deny that we can know any objective physical reality.

If we look at the denial, that the human intellect cannot know truth we can understand the statement to be false because it presents itself as a truth. If the person making the denial applies the principle of skepticism to the denial itself and states that we cannot even be sure of that, two observations can be made. The first observation is that he may be only stating his personal inability to arrive at truth and not necessarily that the human intellect cannot, per se, arrive at truth. The second observation is that he is refuting himself by inconsistency. If he applies a principle of skepticism to his denial he repudiates it because the degree that one is uncertain of a position is the degree that one departs from it. From this we can state the first law of epistemology: that truth exists and the human intellect can know some fundamental aspect of it. This principle is not arrived at through deductive reasoning but carries the evidence of itself within itself.

IV.

The search for philosophical truth brings us to the summit of natural knowledge, which is *metaphysics.* That is the science of being qua being, which is achieved at the peak of intellectual abstraction. It is at the summit for two reasons. First, it is the governor of all other sciences, for they must borrow from the principles of metaphysics to operate. Second, it is perfectly free: it borrows principles from no other science. Its principles are most certain and evident within themselves.

The ultimate first principle of metaphysics is the law of *identity,* which states that a thing is what it is. This is not a mere tautology but an assertion that, first, all things exist of a determinate nature, and therefore do not necessarily exist the way one thinks or wishes they do, and second, that in any attempt to reduce a thing to something else, one departs from that thing. It can be said that the most accurate description of a thing is that thing itself.

One of the first corollaries of the law of identity is the law of *non-contradiction,* which states that something cannot both be and not be under the same aspect at the same time. This is also a first principle of logic. Another principle is that of *sufficient reason,* which states that if something exists, happens, or is true it must have a sufficient reason for existing, happening, or being true. Something cannot exist happen, or be true for no reason or without an adequate cause.

It is necessary to have a supreme science with principles which are primary and most certain within themselves, because if what Bertrand Russell said is correct, that we can obtain only probable knowledge, one probable truth would depend upon another which would in turn depend upon another, ad infinitum, so that in the end we would not even have probable truth but pure irrationality (for a probable function to be true and intelligible, there must be absolutes that define its parameters). 

Also see: Metaphysics: the Science of Being


----
----