Saturday, May 17, 2014

Geometry Incorporated into Discussions

This is an essay which I wrote some time ago on the geometric approach to discussion.  It lacks a concluding paragraph, but for the purposes of this blog I think it aptly presents its idea.


"In today’s world, it is becoming increasingly necessary for Catholics to be able to defend and explain their Faith; it is becoming harder and harder to hold an efficient approach in this, as the general moral standards of society decline rapidly from generation to generation.  All too often, a non – Catholic leaves from a discussion of Catholicism not enlightened as to what the Church teaches, but even more confused.  The cause of this is generally due to an erroneous pre – conceived notion on the part of the non – Catholic as to what the beliefs of Catholics really are.  As a consequence, it becomes harder for a Catholic to give a brief, simple, yet effective answer to a non – Catholic’s question.  A prerequisite to answering such questions is, naturally, a clear understanding of the truths of the Catholic Faith; yet even the most scholarly and well – versed Catholic will stammer at a simple question without a proper approach.  This approach is what I have come to refer to as the “Geometric approach to Catholicism”.

Almost every person in high school has taken some form of geometry.  Perhaps the most widely known process in geometric reasoning is known as “proofs”, in which an already proven or accepted fact is given, whereby the mathematician is to prove a different fact to be true.  The mathematician, in order to arrive at the desired conclusion, makes use of other facts which naturally follow from each preceding one.  Although this process can, at times, result in a very long train of facts before it reaches the desired conclusion, it is a fool – proof method of proving a point.  The key to it is the fact chain: every fact “proved” by the preceding one is true simply because the previous one is; it necessarily follows from it.  This is the “geometric approach”: the building a proof of something upon consecutive proofs.

This “geometric approach” to proofs is not only easily transferrable to Catholic Apologetics, but is in fact the basis upon which it must rest; no discussion or explanation is possible between two people who hold no common ground.  For example, an explanation of the honor paid to Mary is impossible to a person who denies Christ’s Divinity, for it is precisely this that gives her honor.  Thus, before any sort of explanation or discussion can take place, common ground must be sought; a “given” must be found.  The levels of common ground are very varied; therefore, a well – versed Catholic must be prepared to begin with a “given” of “I am alive, and I live in a world in which there are certain constant laws of science”, and be able to prove the infallibility of the pope.  Although this hypothetical “proof” would probably be a rare occurrence, it is nevertheless beneficial to be prepared to prove it.

Now, as the last example illustrated, the “geometric approach” can be a very long discussion, even escalating into subject matter for a lecture.  However, the leisure time needed for this discussion is nearly non – existent; almost all questions posed to an ordinary Catholic are in common places where a quick answer is critical, such as the workplace.  The “geometric approach” is nevertheless not excluded from these explanations; indeed, as we have already seen, it is the necessary basis upon which rests all discussion.  A “given” must first be established upon which to build.  For most ordinary questions about the Faith, a common belief in the infallibility of the Bible is usually enough.  To illustrate this, I put before the reader a hypothetical “proof” on why Mary is honored as Queen of Heaven:

 “Given: Scripture is the Word of God.

Prove: Mary is Queen of Heaven.

1)      Scripture is the Word of God – Given.

2)      Jesus was born of Mary – Scripture is very clear on this point.

3)      Mary was a Jew – Again, Scripture tells us this.

4)      Jesus was a Jew – Scripture tells us this, and it stands to reason that being born of a Jewish mother, He would be raised in that religion.

5)      Jesus is God – Scripture tells us that Jesus Himself made this claim, and that He proved it by miracles, ultimately by His Resurrection.

6)      Jesus is King of Heaven – Scripture tells us that Jesus claimed Kingship of a Kingdom which was not of this world; we call this Kingdom Heaven.

7)      Mary is the Mother of the King of Heaven – Proved in point number 2.

8)      Mary is the Queen of Heaven – It is a historical fact, which is referenced in Scripture, that a Jewish king would have many wives.  Therefore, it was customary that the king’s mother would be his queen, in order to eliminate the potential problem of many queens.  Scripture backs this tradition by references in Jeremiah, 13;18: “ Say to the king and to the queen mother, ‘Come down from your throne; from your heads fall your magnificent crowns.’”, and in First Kings 2;12-21, in Solomon’s court.

From this example, beginning with a common belief in Scripture, we can easily explain our honor of Mary.

The last illustration of a hypothetical proof demonstrates yet another aspect in this geometric system of proof: the use of Historical fact.  Historical facts are very useful (and, as we have seen, sometimes necessary) in explaining one or another doctrine of the Church.  The origin of its usefulness is disclosed in its very name: historical fact, because it is just that, a fact.  In themselves, historical facts need no proof or explanation; they just are, and whether someone wishes to believe in it or not does not change them.  Their proof does not lie with the apologist; by the time an apologist calls on them they have already been proven.  The fact that Jewish kings traditionally had as their queens their mothers needs no proof; it can easily be substantiated.  Facts of history are extremely powerful tools of the apologist."

Now, I acknowledge that Historical facts can be disputed and there is a lot of gray area in our history, but I think that this is a topic for another essay. 
           

No comments:

Post a Comment