Pagan Inspiration in C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien

I asked ChatGPT to summarize pagan influence in the work of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, and below is the result.  I'm very familiar with both of these authors, and, as I suspected would be the case, ChatGPT's summary is very helpful and accurate.

There are rays of truth in all human religions and cultures, and a Catholic Christian worldview encourages us to approach various cultures and religions with a nuanced perspective, recognizing elements of incompatibility and difference, but also recognizing and appreciating elements of truth and beauty.  I think the works of Lewis and Tolkien provide an excellent example of such nuanced appreciation, and how Christians can derive inspiration from paganism.  I've discussed this more here, here, and here.

I should note that neither Lewis nor Tolkien advocated an uncritical acceptance of pagan ideas.  They were critical of certain aspects of paganism, particularly where pagan ideas conflict with Christian beliefs and values.  There is a lot of diversity in paganism, as I discuss in this post.  But what I want to emphasize here is the positive value they found in pagan myths, themes, motifs, and practices, as they appreciated them from a Christian point of view.

I should also note that, while Tolkien's fictional works were influenced profoundly by his Christian worldview, he did not see his works as allegories referring to Christian themes but as myths and stories with their own unique integrity as "sub-creations" (see below).

The analysis below was generated with the assistance of OpenAI's ChatGPT sometime in August (with just a little bit of editing by me).

C.S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis, renowned for his profound Christian writings and imaginative fiction, intricately wove pagan motifs, themes, aesthetics, practices, deities, and magical elements into his works. This synthesis was not merely artistic but stemmed from his belief in the intrinsic value of myth and its role in pointing toward deeper truths. Lewis saw pagan myths as echoes of a universal longing for redemption and truth, which he believed were ultimately fulfilled in Christianity. This integration showcases how Lewis reconciled pagan elements with his Christian worldview, using them to enrich his narratives and convey spiritual truths.

Incorporation of Pagan Elements in Lewis's Works

1. Mythological Creatures and Deities:

   • The Chronicles of Narnia series is replete with creatures from Greek and Roman mythology, such as fauns, centaurs, dryads, naiads, and satyrs. For instance, Mr. Tumnus, a faun, plays a pivotal role in "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe."
   • In "Prince Caspian," Bacchus and Silenus, figures from Roman mythology associated with revelry and nature, appear and participate in the narrative, symbolizing liberation and the restoration of rightful order.

2. Pagan Practices and Rituals:

   • Lewis incorporates festivals and celebrations that echo pagan rituals. The joyous romp led by Bacchus in "Prince Caspian" mirrors ancient rites celebrating nature's bounty and the gods' favor.
   • The emphasis on deep magic and ancient laws in Narnia reflects a world governed by timeless, mystical principles reminiscent of pagan cosmologies.

3. Aesthetic and Thematic Elements:

   • The natural world is sacralized, embodying a living, enchanted universe where trees and rivers possess spirits, akin to animistic beliefs in pagan traditions.
   • Themes of sacrifice, rebirth, and redemption are explored using pagan symbols, such as the dying-and-rising god motif, which parallels Aslan's sacrificial death and resurrection.

4. "Till We Have Faces":

   • This novel is a retelling of the Cupid and Psyche myth from Greek mythology. Lewis delves deep into pagan religious practices, exploring themes of love, jealousy, and the human longing for the divine.
   • The protagonist's journey reflects a spiritual pilgrimage from ignorance to understanding, using the framework of a pagan myth to explore universal truths.

Relation to His Christian Worldview

1. Myth as a Precursor to Truth:

   • Lewis viewed pagan myths as "good dreams" given by God to humanity, preparing the way for the ultimate truth revealed in Christianity.
   • He believed that these myths contained fragmented reflections of the same truths fulfilled in the Christian narrative of Jesus Christ.

2. "Myth Became Fact":

   • In his essay "Myth Became Fact," Lewis argues that myths are expressions of profound truths and that Christianity is the true myth that became historical fact.
   • By incorporating pagan elements, Lewis bridges the gap between myth and history, showing how ancient stories find their culmination in the Christian gospel.

3. Redemption of Pagan Elements:

   • Pagan motifs are not presented in opposition to Christianity but are redeemed and integrated into a Christian framework.
   • The presence of pagan deities and creatures in Narnia acknowledges the validity of their symbolic meanings while subsuming them under the sovereignty of Aslan, the Christ figure.

4. Imagination and Faith:

   • Lewis championed the role of imagination in understanding and experiencing faith. Pagan myths stir the imagination, opening hearts to spiritual realities.
   • He used pagan imagery to make Christian truths more accessible and resonate deeply with readers' innate sense of wonder and longing.

Lewis's Theological Perspective

1. Natural Law and Deep Magic:

   • The concept of "Deep Magic" from the dawn of time in Narnia represents a moral order inherent in the universe, akin to the natural law tradition in Christian theology.
   • This reflects Lewis's belief in a universal moral code that transcends cultural and religious boundaries, which pagan myths also touch upon.

2. Common Grace and General Revelation:

   • Lewis acknowledged that truth and beauty in paganism are a result of God's general revelation to all humanity.
   • He believed that God imparts wisdom and glimpses of truth even outside the specific revelations of Christianity.

3. Transformation and Fulfillment:

   • Pagan elements are transformed within his stories to serve a higher purpose, illustrating the fulfillment of human myths in divine reality.
   • This aligns with his view that Christianity does not discard pagan truths but fulfills and elevates them.

Conclusion

C.S. Lewis masterfully integrates pagan motifs into his works to enrich his storytelling and to highlight the universal human quest for meaning, truth, and redemption. By doing so, he demonstrates how pagan myths are not antithetical to Christian belief but can be harmoniously woven into a Christian narrative that fulfills the deepest longings expressed in those myths. Lewis's approach reflects his conviction that all myths and stories find their ultimate significance in the Christian story, where the myth becomes reality, and the ancient hopes of humanity are realized.

Through this synthesis, Lewis invites readers to explore the depths of their own imaginations and desires, guiding them toward the spiritual truths he cherished. His works stand as a testament to the power of storytelling to bridge cultures, epochs, and beliefs, revealing a tapestry of divine truth threaded through the diverse expressions of human longing.

J.R.R. Tolkien

J.R.R. Tolkien, best known for his epic works The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogy, was a devout Roman Catholic whose deep faith profoundly influenced his writing. However, his works are richly infused with pagan motifs, themes, aesthetics, practices, deities, and magical elements drawn from Norse, Celtic, and other mythologies. Tolkien's intricate blending of these elements serves to create a mythopoeic world that explores universal themes such as good versus evil, sacrifice, and redemption. This synthesis reflects how Tolkien reconciled pagan elements with his Christian worldview, using them to illuminate spiritual truths and moral principles.

---

Incorporation of Pagan Elements in Tolkien's Works

1. Mythological Creatures and Beings:

   • Elves and Dwarves:
     • Tolkien's Elves and Dwarves are heavily inspired by Norse mythology. Elves (Álfar) and Dwarves (Dvergar) in Norse myths are supernatural beings with their own realms and cultures.
     • In Middle-earth, Elves are immortal, wise, and possess a deep connection to nature, while Dwarves are skilled craftsmen and miners, echoing their mythological counterparts.
   • Ents and Dragons:
     • Ents resemble the tree-like beings found in various mythologies, symbolizing the personification of nature.
     • Dragons like Smaug draw from European dragon legends, embodying greed and destructive power.
   • Valar and Maiar:
     • The Valar and Maiar are god-like beings that govern the world, similar to pantheons in pagan religions. They represent various aspects of creation and natural forces.

2. Pagan Themes and Motifs:

   • Heroic Quest and Destiny:
     • The narrative structure follows the classic hero's journey found in mythologies, where characters embark on quests that shape their destiny.
   • The Cyclical Nature of Time:
     • Tolkien's world operates in ages, reflecting the cyclical concept of time present in pagan cosmologies.
   • Fate and Prophecy:
     • Prophecies and predetermined fates play significant roles, akin to the Norse concept of fate (wyrd).

3. Aesthetic and Cultural Elements:

   • Runes and Languages:
     • Tolkien, a philologist, created languages like Quenya and Sindarin, inspired by Finnish and Welsh. The use of runes echoes ancient writing systems like the Futhark runes.
   • Cultural Practices:
     • Rituals, songs, and storytelling within the cultures of Middle-earth reflect pagan traditions of oral history and celebration.

4. Magic and Supernatural Elements:

   • Magic as a Natural Force:
     • Magic in Middle-earth is an inherent part of the world, wielded by beings like wizards (Istari) and Elves. It is not "supernatural" but a natural aspect of existence.
   • Artifacts and Relics:
     • Objects like the One Ring, swords like Narsil/Andúril, and the Silmarils hold immense power, reminiscent of enchanted items in myths.

5. Creation Mythology:

   • "The Silmarillion":
     • Tolkien presents a creation story where Eru Ilúvatar (the One) creates the world through a great musical theme sung by the Ainur, paralleling creation myths in various pagan traditions.

6. Nature and Respect for Nature:

   • Reverence for the Natural World:
     • Tolkien's works exhibit a profound respect for nature, reflecting pagan animism where natural elements are imbued with spirit and agency.
     • Forests like Fangorn and Lothlórien are depicted as living entities with consciousness and memory.
   • Harmony with Nature:
     • Characters such as the Elves live in harmony with their environment, embodying a deep ecological wisdom and stewardship over the natural world.
   • Environmental Themes:
     • The destructive impact of industrialization is personified in characters like Saruman, whose defilement of Isengard represents a violation of the natural order.
     • The scouring of the Shire highlights the consequences of environmental neglect and the importance of restoring balance.

---

Relation to His Christian Worldview

1. Sub-Creation and Reflection of Divine Creation:

   • Concept of Sub-Creation:
     • Tolkien believed that humans, made in the image of the Creator, have the innate desire to create (sub-create). His myth-making is an act of sub-creation that reflects divine creativity.
   • Moral Order and Providence:
     • Despite the pagan elements, the underlying moral order in Middle-earth reflects a Christian understanding of good and evil orchestrated under divine providence.

2. Redemption and Sacrifice:

   • Christ-like Figures:
     • Characters like Gandalf, Frodo, and Aragorn embody aspects of Christ's journey—sacrifice, resurrection, and kingship.
     • Gandalf's fall and return as Gandalf the White mirrors resurrection.
   • Self-Sacrifice:
     • The willingness of characters to sacrifice themselves for others aligns with Christian virtues.

3. The Fall and Corruption:

   • The Corrupting Influence of Power:
     • The One Ring resonates with the idea of sin and the corrupting nature of power, reflecting the Christian concept of original sin and temptation.
   • The Fall of Races:
     • The decline of Elves and Men echoes the Fall of Man, a central theme in Christian theology.

4. Hope and Eschatology:

   • The Triumph of Good Over Evil:
     • The ultimate defeat of Sauron reflects the eschatological hope in Christianity that good will prevail.
   • The Undying Lands:
     • The Elves' journey to the West can be seen as a metaphor for the soul's journey to the afterlife.

5. Integration of Pagan Elements into a Christian Framework:

   • Universality of Truth:
     • Tolkien believed that pagan myths contain fragments of the true light, which Christianity fulfills.
   • Christianity as the True Myth:
     • Concept of the True Myth:
       • Tolkien viewed Christianity as the "True Myth"—a myth that is also a historical fact. This concept suggests that the story of Christ is the fulfillment of the truths and archetypes expressed imperfectly in pagan myths.
     • Discussion with C.S. Lewis:
       • Tolkien played a pivotal role in C.S. Lewis's conversion to Christianity. In their famous conversation, Tolkien explained that myths are not lies but convey profound truths.
       • He argued that the pagan stories of dying and resurrecting gods are echoes of the ultimate truth realized in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

---

Tolkien's Theological Perspective

1. Free Will and Moral Choice:

   • Emphasis on Choice:
     • Characters are defined by their choices, highlighting the Christian belief in free will and moral responsibility.
   • Resisting Temptation:
     • The struggle against temptation, as seen with Frodo and the Ring, underscores the spiritual battles described in Christian theology.

2. Suffering and Providence:

   • Purpose in Suffering:
     • Suffering leads to growth and fulfills a greater purpose, aligning with the Christian understanding of redemptive suffering.
   • Hidden Providence:
     • The unseen guidance of a higher power reflects the Christian belief in God's providential care.

3. Community and Fellowship:

   • Importance of Fellowship:
     • The unity and cooperation among diverse races symbolize the Christian ideal of community and the Body of Christ.
   • Hospitality and Generosity:
     • Acts of kindness and hospitality are recurrent, echoing Christian virtues.

---

Conclusion

J.R.R. Tolkien masterfully weaves pagan motifs and elements into his works to create a rich and immersive mythological world. While deeply rooted in various pagan traditions, his narratives are imbued with Christian symbolism and themes, reflecting his faith. Tolkien does not reject the pagan myths but reinterprets them, integrating their universal truths into a Christian framework.

Through this synthesis, Tolkien explores profound themes of creation, fall, redemption, hope, and the sanctity of nature. His works emphasize the intrinsic value of the natural world, advocating for a harmonious relationship between humanity and the environment. This respect for nature aligns with both pagan reverence for the natural world and Christian stewardship of creation.

Central to his integration of pagan elements is the concept of Christianity as the "True Myth." Tolkien believed that while pagan myths express fundamental truths about the human condition and the divine, these truths find their fullest and most concrete expression in Christianity.

His stories invite readers to ponder the complexities of good and evil, the significance of free will, and the possibility of redemption. By harmoniously blending pagan elements with his Christian worldview, Tolkien's narratives resonate with a timeless appeal, offering both an epic adventure and a reflection on the spiritual truths that transcend culture and time.

---

References to Key Works:

• "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings": Exploration of heroism, sacrifice, the battle between good and evil, and the deep connection to nature.
• "The Silmarillion": Detailed mythology of Middle-earth, including creation myths and the history of its peoples.
• Letters and Essays: Tolkien's correspondence and writings provide insight into his intentions and the theological underpinnings of his work, including his concept of Christianity as the True Myth.

By delving into the rich tapestry of Middle-earth, readers encounter a world where pagan and Christian elements coalesce, offering a profound reflection on the human condition and the divine narrative that Tolkien believed encompasses all of history. His emphasis on respect for nature and the idea of Christianity as the True Myth serves as a reminder of the interconnectedness of all creation and the ultimate fulfillment of human longing in the Christian story.

Published on the feast of St. John of Capistrano

Rituals

This page is a follow-up to this article, where I have laid out a plan for personal religious practice.  I gave there an example of a general, regular ritual.  I thought I'd also create a page where I could post additional rituals that I'd like to share as I develop them.  I've gotten into a pattern of having ideas, using AI (ChatGPT) to turn them into an outline and fill in some specific elements, and then editing the outline in various ways.  It's a very helpful partnership!

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

I did this ritual yesterday at the Shrine of Our Lady of Sorrows In Starkenburg, Rhineland, MO.  It combines a commemoration of several saint days and the festival of Lughnasadh/Lammas.  The focus, drawing from themes connected to these festival days, was especially on holy wells and pilgrimage.  I took a pilgrimage to the Shrine at Starkenburg where there is a holy well.  My experience of the ritual was enhanced by the fact that a thunderstorm occurred while I was doing it (which significantly intensified certain lines about water, lightning, etc.!  Just try reading St. Patrick's Breastplate and St. Francis's Canticle of the Creatures in a thunderstorm!).  I altered the ritual a little in light of my location at the Shrine - I didn't light a candle or incense and I added a rosary (Glorious Mysteries).  It was a wonderful experience!

Ritual at a Local Holy Well with a Focus on Travel and Pilgrimage

Opening:

Begin by standing near the holy well. Take a moment to center yourself and become aware of the presence of God.

Anointing and Symbolic Acts:

• Making the Sign of the Cross

• Anointing with Holy Water: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. I ask for Your blessing upon this sacred space. May it be a place where Your presence dwells, O God."

• Lighting the Candle (or Burning Incense): "I light this candle (or burn this incense) as a symbol of Your presence with me, O Lord. May my prayers rise like incense before You."

• Praying the Our Father, the Hail Mary, and the Glory Be: "Our Father, who art in heaven..." "Hail Mary, full of grace..." “Glory be to the Father . . .”

• St. Patrick's Breastplate: "I bind unto myself today..."

Acknowledging God's Presence in Nature:

• Earth (Salt): "Blessed be God who formed the earth."

• Water (Water): "Blessed be God who gave us water."

• Fire (Red Stone): "Blessed be God who created fire."

• Air (Feather): "Blessed be God who gives us breath."

• Plants, Animals, Ecosystem, Sun, Moon, Stars, etc.: "Blessed be God who created the vast diversity of life and the universe. May we always marvel at Your creation."

• Canticle of the Creatures (St. Francis of Assisi): "Most High, all-powerful, good Lord..."

Acknowledging Saints and Spiritual Figures:

• "I welcome the saints, especially [mention any specific saints or the saint of the day], and all who have gone before me in faith."

• "I honor my Confirmation/patron saint, St. Thomas More, and others who have inspired and guided me."

• Prayers for the Departed and Intercession: "I pray for those who have died, [mention names if desired], and ask for the intercession of all the saints in heaven."

Acknowledging Art and Symbolic Stories:

• "I welcome the myths, symbols, stories, and art that have deepened my understanding of You, O God."

Invocation of Saints:

• St. Sidwell: "St. Sidwell, who was martyred near a holy well and whose name means 'holy spring,' pray for us."
  Brief bio: St. Sidwell was an Anglo-Saxon virgin and martyr from Exeter, England, who was beheaded by her stepmother. She is remembered for her association with a holy well in Exeter, which bears her name and is believed to have healing properties.

• St. Juthware: "St. Juthware, who found comfort and healing at the holy well after your martyrdom, pray for us."
  Brief bio: St. Juthware was an Anglo-Saxon virgin martyr, known for her piety and charity. She was beheaded by her stepbrother and is associated with a holy well in Halstock, Dorset, where miracles were reported after her death.

• St. Brigid of Kildare: "St. Brigid, who blessed the wells and springs with your prayers, pray for us."
  Brief bio: St. Brigid of Kildare was an early Irish Christian nun, abbess, and founder of several monasteries, including Kildare. She is one of Ireland's patron saints and is renowned for her miracles, including those associated with healing wells and springs.

• St. Winifred: "St. Winifred, who was resurrected at the holy well and whose waters have brought healing, pray for us."
  Brief bio: St. Winifred was a Welsh virgin martyr whose story involves her being decapitated by a rejected suitor and then miraculously restored to life by her uncle, St. Beuno. The well where this occurred, Holywell in Flintshire, Wales, is a famous pilgrimage site known for its healing waters.

• St. James the Greater: "St. James, patron of pilgrims, who was the first apostle to be martyred and who inspires the Camino pilgrimage, pray for us."
  Brief bio: St. James the Greater was one of Jesus' twelve apostles and the first to be martyred. He is the patron saint of Spain, and the Camino de Santiago (Way of St. James) is a famous pilgrimage route leading to his shrine in Santiago de Compostela.

• St. Christopher: "St. Christopher, patron of travelers, who carried the Christ child and helps us on our journeys, pray for us."
  Brief bio: St. Christopher is a popular saint, venerated as a martyr who is often depicted carrying the Christ child across a river. He is the patron saint of travelers and is invoked for protection during journeys.

Reading and Reflection:

• Scripture Reading: John 4:13-14 - "Jesus answered, 'Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.'"

• Reflection: Reflect on the significance of holy wells as sources of physical and spiritual nourishment.

Special Focus of the Day - Holy Wells, Travel, and Pilgrimage:

• Prayer for Blessing the Water: "Blessed are You, Lord our God, Creator of the universe. In Your mercy and love, You have provided us with the waters of the earth. We ask Your blessing upon this water, that it may be a source of healing and grace. Through the intercession of St. Sidwell, St. Juthware, St. Brigid, St. Winifred, St. James, and St. Christopher, may this water bring us closer to You and remind us of Your ever-present love. Amen."

• Water Ritual:

• Dip your fingers into the holy well's water and make the sign of the cross on your forehead.

• Sprinkle the water around the well while reciting: "May this water bring blessings, healing, and protection. Through the power of God and the intercession of the saints, may it cleanse and sanctify this space."

• Pilgrimage Reflection:

• Reflect on the significance of pilgrimage in your spiritual journey. Consider how pilgrimage is a journey towards God, marked by steps of faith and devotion.

• Give thanks for the protection and guidance of St. James and St. Christopher on all journeys, both physical and spiritual.

• Lughnasadh/Lammas Reflection:

• Reflect on the connection between holy wells and Lughnasadh, a time of thanksgiving for the first fruits of the harvest. Consider how water nourishes the earth and enables the growth of crops.  And consider the bread that comes from the earth to sustain us, and which also becomes the Bread of Life for us in the Eucharist, as the wine becomes the Precious Blood.

• Give thanks for the blessings of the harvest and the sustenance provided by the waters of the earth.

Singing and Chanting:

• Sing or chant hymns or songs that celebrate water and pilgrimage, such as “All Who Are Thirsty,” from John Michael Talbot.

Closing:

• Bidding Farewell: "I bid farewell to this sacred time of worship and to all whom I have welcomed into it. May I carry Your presence with me always, O God."

• Salve Regina or Anima Christi: "Hail, Holy Queen..." "Soul of Christ, sanctify me..."

• Final Prayer for Blessing: "May your blessing, Almighty God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, come upon me and remain with me always. Amen."

Sign of the Cross: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

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

Published on the feast of Sts. Martha, Mary, and Lazarus

Persevering Towards the "P"

This article focuses on theological dialogue between Calvinists and Catholics on doctrines relating to predestination, efficacious grace, and related issues.  If you are not familiar with these issues, I would recommend you read these two articles (here and here) before reading this one.  I am going to be making a lot of assumptions and using specific terminology that you will want some background for before diving into this subject.

In a previous article, I compared Catholic theology with the famous Calvinist TULIP doctrines.  I concluded that, if we take the soundest versions of both theologies, they are actually mostly in agreement.  The one area where there seemed to be an irreconcilable difference in substance was in the P of TULIP - the Perseverance of the Saints.  But even here, there was a lot of agreement.  Here is how I summarized the agreements and the area of disagreement in my previous article:

I think we can distinguish three parts to the Calvinist doctrine of the perseverance of the saints:  1. All those whom God has elected to eternal salvation will certainly persevere to the end and attain eternal salvation.  2. There is a fundamental difference between the elect and the reprobate.  Considering each in terms of the whole course of their existence (as opposed to one isolated moment in their lives), the elect receive a victory over sin that the reprobate never receive.  Whatever repentance and holiness the reprobate attain by God's grace in this life, they are eventually conquered by sin and die in a state of enmity with God, in which they are confirmed forever.  So only the elect are ever the children of God in the fullest sense.  The reprobate may receive some temporary benefits from God's grace, but they are never possessers of the full, eternal aspects of justification, sanctification, or adoption.  3. All those who are brought to faith and repentance in any real sense at any one moment in their lives will certainly be given the gift of final perseverance by God and so will attain to eternal salvation.  In other words, only the elect ever actually come to any real faith and repentance.  The best the reprobate ever attain to is a kind of partial repentance which leaves them in the depths of their heart in a continuing state of rejection of God.

Catholic doctrine agrees with the first two of these three points but rejects the third.  The Catholic Church does not teach that all who are in any real sense regenerated or brought to faith and repentance at any moment in their lives are certainly elect and will be given the gift of final perseverance.  Catholic doctrine allows for the idea that God may give a temporary regeneration, a temporary faith and repentance, to some of the reprobate but withhold from them the gift of final perseverance, granting them a temporary taste of the life of Christ in this world but not the fullness of eternal life in Christ.

I would like to propose a possible reconciliation between Catholics and Calvinists on this point of disagreement.  Calvinists typically grant that there can be a kind of limited and temporary conversion that can happen to the non-elect.  They can come to be attached to God in certain ways and to turn away from some sins.  There can be a limited faith and repentance.  What distinguishes this temporary conversion from real regeneration is that regeneration is more universal.  That is, in real regeneration, the sinner comes to love God above all things.  Of course, he is not completely consistent in this supreme love, for he falls into sins on a regular basis.  But he eventually repents of his sins and moves towards holiness.  His fundamental life choice is for God supremely and all created things are subordinate to God, so that the overall trajectory of his life is towards God and towards holiness.  In temporary "pseudo-regeneration," on the other hand, although the sinner moves towards God in some ways and may turn away from some sins, he never really loves God supremely.  There is always some created thing that is higher in his value system.  So long as his limited obedience to God is consistent with his pursuit of that which he values more highly than God, he may act in a way that is indistinguishable, to outsiders at least, from a truly regenerate person.  But once his highest love comes into conflict with his obedience to God, as it must eventually, he will show his true colors by falling away.  (Think of two cars on the same highway, going the same direction, but having two different ultimate destinations.  You won't be able to tell the difference between their destinations until they have to take different paths to get to their diverse destinations.  But, eventually, they will have to take different paths, and so their different destinations will become apparent.)

So the question is:  Can this Calvinist view be reconciled with the Catholic position which holds that people can be truly in a state of grace temporarily without having the gift of final perseverance and so eventually fall away?

Perhaps a reconciliation can be reached if we think of an individual person in terms of their overall life narrative instead of considering only what they are experiencing at a given moment.  Consider a person who is in what Catholics would call a state of grace but who is not elect (and therefore will not receive the gift of final perseverance).  Does this person love God supremely?  Yes, considering the options they have before them in their current experience of reality.  Looking at the things they are aware of, they want God above all else.  But, if they will not end up persevering, we know that there is something down the line in their future that they will end up loving more than God.  God has not given them efficacious grace to resist all alternatives to God, though he has given them the grace to choose God above all currently experienced alternatives.  On the other hand, the elect person (considered in terms of their whole life narrative) has been granted by God a grace that will prove efficacious universally - that is, it will, eventually, bring them through every temptation so that they will end up choosing God above all things and will arrive at a state of moral perfection (after this life is over) and remain there permanently.

So is the converted, non-elect person ever truly regenerate?  It depends on how you define the concept of "regeneration."  If by "regenerate," we mean that, given all currently-experienced alternatives, the person loves God above all other things, then yes, he is regenerate.  But if we mean that he has been given by God a grace that will prove eventually victorious over all alternatives to God so that he will have the will to choose God above all things absolutely in all conditions that will come to him during the course of his entire life narrative, then no, he is not regenerate.  So if we look at the elect and the non-elect (even the converted non-elect) from a God's-eye point of view, considering their identities as bound up with all that they have been, are, and will be, and all that they have been granted by God from eternity, there is a fundamental and eternal difference between them:  The elect have been given by God a grace that overcomes all obstacles of will and will effectively cause them to love God perseveringly through all temptations, while the non-elect have been given a grace that is more limited and temporary - it will get them through some temptations, but not all, for it will eventually fail.  Therefore, if we define "regenerating grace" as a grace that has the power to effectively bring a person through all obstacles into heaven eventually, the non-elect never have it.  They have a more limited and temporary grace that falls short of overcoming all temptations.

Calvinists recognize that the elect can fall away temporarily (the example of David committing adultery and murder in the Bathsheba affair and continuing unrepentant for a time is often cited in this context).  But they have a grace granted them by God that will always keep coming back to bring them eventually to repentance, and, in the end, it will be victorious over all sin.  This is all part of how Calvinists think about the idea of "regenerating grace."  Here is the Westminster Confession (Chapter 17) on these matters:

I. They, whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved. . . .

III. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein: whereby they incur God’s, displeasure, and grieve His Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.

So even though Catholics typically speak as if non-elect persons can really be in a state of grace, albeit temporarily, perhaps we can say, using Calvinist terminology, that the grace that these people have is not "real regeneration" because, although it turns them towards God and away from all the alternatives to God that they currently have experience and awareness of, it does not give them the strength of will to turn from all alternatives to God that they will eventually encounter and will not give them final perseverance.  Again, Calvinists typically grant that "non-regenerate" people do experience many effects similar to regeneration.  They can truly be turned away from many sins and come to cling to God in a number of ways.  There is certainly a robust concept of "temporary and limited conversion" in Calvinist thinking.

But is all this enough to truly reconcile the two views?  I'm not entirely sure.  I think it will depend on how broadly Calvinists want to construe the possible effects of "temporary, non-regenerate conversion."  If the elect can have periods of time where they are not pursuing God as their supreme end and yet, during that very time, they are still considered to possess efficacious grace and be regenerate, perhaps the non-elect could be imagined to have periods of time where they are pursuing God as their supreme end (at least considering all currently-experienced alternatives), and yet, during that time, they are not regenerate because they do not possess grace which would preserve them in that state through all future temptations.  If Calvinists could grant something like that, I think we might be able to bridge the gap between Calvinists and Catholics on this point.  However, if Calvinists want to say instead that the non-elect never love God supremely at any given moment of time even considering all currently-experienced alternatives - that is, if the non-elect are always in a state of loving some currently-experienced created reality above God - then I don't think a full reconciliation can be reached.  Honestly, I'm not entirely sure at this moment which scenario is actually the case.  This would be a great point for further dialogue between Calvinists and Catholics.  (I should note, however, that even if full reconciliation on this particular point could be reached, there would still, I think, be a substantial difference in terms of the doctrine of assurance - for Calvinists seem clearly to want to say that elect persons, as such, in principle at least if not always in practice, have the ability to know if they are elect, while the Catholic Church has made it plain that certain knowledge of one's election cannot ordinarily be had in this life.  But, even here, perhaps further dialogue will reveal more possibilities than I can currently imagine.)

Published on the feast of St. Mary Magdalene.

In Defense of Rationalist Epistemology

Below is a compilation of material I have written up in various contexts in my theology and philosophy classes defending a rationalist (or broad empiricist) over against an empiricist (or narrow empiricist) epistemology.  (For those more familiar with the theological meanings of these terms than the philosophical ones, I am using the words in a more philosophical sense.  Basically, the difference has to do with whether or not the logical analysis of concepts is a source of knowledge in addition to more direct sense experience.)  See here and here for more on this subject.

"How can the analysis of concepts give us categorical/universal knowledge of reality?"

Our concepts are derived from our observations and constitute the very foundation of all our ideas.  Reality itself is a concept derived from our observations.  So when we examine concepts to see what belongs to their essences, we can make universal/categorical claims regarding them.  For example, we can know that all cats are mammals (even cats we will never have particular experiential contact with), because the essential definition of a “cat” involves being a mammal.  If it isn’t a mammal, it isn’t a cat by definition.  Or a “triangle,” by definition, has three sides.  If a shape doesn’t have three sides, it’s not a triangle.  So we can know that all triangles everywhere will always have three sides.  Or we can look at the concept of “being” and see that it excludes “non-being” as part of its essential definition.  Therefore, we can know that all beings will exist and not not-exist, and they will be what they are and not what they are not.  This is the law of non-contradiction, which is the basic essence of logic, and so we can know that all reality is logical in nature.

"How would you respond to the objection that, when we analyze concepts, we are really only learning about things in our minds and not things in the real world?"

The distinction between our concepts and “the real world” is an illusory one, because reality itself is a concept derived from our observations/experience.  So when we talk about “reality,” or “real things,” or “the real world,” or whatever other synonyms we want to use, we are bound to the concept of reality.  It is that concept that we are talking about.  To wonder if “the real world” matches our fundamental concept of reality is like wondering if there are red things out there somewhere which aren’t red.  It’s meaningless gibberish.  There are lots of things about reality that we don’t know, but we do know that reality will be like reality.

"According to you, what was Kant’s fundamental error?"

Kant’s fundamental error was that he made an illusory distinction between “the real world” and the concept of reality, thus binding himself to the erroneous impression that all our knowledge relating to our concepts has nothing to do with “the real world” outside of our concepts.  This mistake bound him to the very skepticism he was hoping to escape.

"Rationalistic arguments are nothing more than an analysis of concepts in our minds, without checking that analysis against the real world as encountered in the empirical data, and so they are nothing but word games or mind games and tell us nothing about reality.”

There is a fundamental difference between “playing word games” and making a logical analysis of concepts.  Here’s a good example of a word game:

A. No cat has eight tails.
B. One cat has one more tail than no cat.
C. Therefore, one cat has nine tails.

This argument is obviously fallacious.  It does indeed play games with words.  It uses equivocation—that is, it changes the meaning of words in the middle of the argument so as to reach a fallacious conclusion.

But what I am doing in my arguments for God is something fundamentally different.  I am examining concepts derived from experience and exploring their logical implications.  It might be objected that concepts are not the same as objective facts in the world, and so the examination of concepts is nothing other than examining things that aren’t real.  But this objection fails to grasp what concepts really are.  They are categorizations based in our experience, and so long as we are using words that relate to concepts and have definite meaning, we are bound to the meaning of the concepts and words we make use of.

For example, if someone asks whether or not an infinite past is possible, well, this question refers to words and concepts, like “infinite” and “past."  These words have definite meanings.  Without such definite meanings, language is impossible.  It turns out that the essential idea of “infinite” includes within it the idea of “untraversability."  That is, an infinite cannot be “got through."  That’s just part of its meaning, like “having three sides” is part of the definition of “triangle."  And “past” refers to “that part of time that has already happened, that has already been got through.”  So the concepts of “infinite” and “past” are inherently contradictory.  These two concepts inherently exclude each other.  Does that mean that an infinite past cannot exist?  Yes, because “existence” is also a concept.  “Reality,” “being,” existing thing,” etc., are all synonyms of the same basic concept, and it has definite meaning.  For one thing, inherent in the idea of “being” is that it excludes “non-being."  Every particular claim of being inherently excludes its opposite.  So “red," for example, excludes “non-red," “up” excludes “down," “can fly” excludes “can’t fly," etc.  To use language with meaning, our propositions must exclude their opposites.  So logic—A is not non-A and therefore excludes non-A—is an essential component of “being," and so contradictions cannot “exist."

This is not a word game.  This is simply to use words meaningfully and to not equivocate in our ideas and arguments.  Sure, we can redefine words if we want to.  You are free to redefine “infinite” to mean “pickle” if you want to.  But you’d better make that clear to others if you want to have a productive conversation, because that’s not what it usually means.  It is not a word game to hold people to the meanings inherent in their own words and concepts.  If someone wants to consider the possibility of an infinite past, they have to deal with the fact that “infinite past” is a contradiction.  If they want to assert that contradictions can exist, they have to deal with the fact that “being” excludes “non-being” and that therefore “contradiction” is incompatible with “existence."  If someone wants to assert that there may be small, red, reptilian, egg-laying kangaroos in the Andromeda Galaxy, they have to face the fact that “small, red, reptilian, egg-laying” excludes “kangaroo," and therefore their proposition is meaningless and absurd.  If someone wants to assert the existence of four-sided triangles at the heart of the planet Mars, they will have to deal with the reality that “four-sided” and “triangle” exclude each other and that therefore a “four-sided triangle” is meaningless gibberish and can’t exist.  If they wish to keep on using these concepts, they are necessarily bound to their essential meanings.

Ironically, it is the empiricist who feels himself unbound to the meanings of his own words and concepts whose argumentation most resembles the “word game” example I gave above.  It is not I, who insist that we remember what we mean by “infinite” and “past” when we discuss the possibility of an infinite past, but the empiricist who feels free to ignore the inherent meanings of his own words and ideas and to draw conclusions based on ignoring these meanings, who is committing the “word game” fallacy of equivocation.

Therefore, logical argumentation rooted in analysis of concepts is a perfectly valid way of learning about “reality”—which is also a concept.  So arguments of this type cannot simply be dismissed on the grounds that they are not sufficiently “empirical” in nature.  The argument, “It is inherent in the nature of a triangle that it has three sides, and therefore all triangles have three sides wherever they may be found” is a different sort of argument from “sea turtles lay eggs because I’ve seen them doing it," but both are valid, and the former argument cannot be rejected merely on the ground that it is not the latter sort of argument.  I have just as much right—that is, no right at all—to dismiss empirical arguments merely on the grounds that they aren’t “abstract” or “rationalistic” enough.

In fact, the validity of empirical argumentation depends on the validity of rationalistic argumentation.  If we cannot make universal, categorical claims—even something so basic as “A always excludes non-A”—based on logical analysis of concepts, then no empirical claim could ever have any foundation or even any meaning.  Every proposition is only valid to the extent that it excludes its opposite.  If “There is an apple on the table” does not exclude “There is not an apple on the table” (assuming we’re not equivocating on the meaning of the words), then it has no meaning at all and therefore can establish no knowledge.  But you can’t prove the universal validity of logic empirically (that is, by simply observing it with your senses).  Rather, logic is a precondition for even being able to derive any knowledge from one’s senses or to form any propositions rooted in the evidence of one’s senses.  So if you reject the rationalistic method of reasoning as invalid, you must, to be consistent, reject all claims whatsoever as ungrounded and meaningless.  To put it bluntly, the empiricist's epistemology, to the extent that there is any validity in it at all, is parasitical upon rationalism.  And when the empiricist rejects rationalist epistemology, he rejects any possibility of any validity in his empirical claims.

"I understand where you are coming from when you say that it seems obvious that, by definition, you can’t get something from nothing.  But, still, I don’t see how we can know, without empirical confirmation, whether our idea of nothing corresponds with reality.  We might think that 'nothing' implies certain things, but reality often surprises us, and we have to correct our concepts and definitions in response to new things we learn through empirical investigation.  For example, perhaps you have seen many cats, and you reasonably come to the conclusion that ‘cat’ involves the idea of ‘having fur.’  But then, after many years, you encounter your first hairless cat, and you have to adjust your definition to accommodate your new empirical experience.  It would be unreasonable to say that it is impossible that there could ever be a hairless cat simply because you’ve decided to define the word 'cat' in a certain way based on your limited experience.  Our ideas are always provisional and could be corrected by further evidence.  We can never claim anything as an absolute.  And therefore, when it comes to matters of ultimate reality outside the realm of our experience, an appropriate recognition of our epistemic limitations demands that we be agnostic."

I certainly agree that we can learn new things about reality.  And I agree that we might sometimes adjust the use of our terminology to better accommodate reality when we have learned something new about it.  The example of the hairless cat is a good one, potentially (though I’m not sure if there are any cats that are literally completely hairless, strictly speaking).  If you didn’t know about hairless cats before, you might have included in your definition of a cat the idea of “having hair.”  Using this definition, a hairless cat is not a cat.  But in official taxonomy, hairless cats are classified as real cats because they are the same species, the same branch of the evolutionary tree as it were, even though they have been bred to be unusual in the matter of hair.  It makes more taxonomic sense to classify hairless cats as cats rather than exclude them simply because of this unusual trait.  Of course, words and labels are a human invention, and we can categorize things however we like, so long as we don’t misrepresent what we are categorizing.  If we wanted to exclude hairless cats from the cat family and call them by some other name, we could.  It wouldn’t be objectively wrong, simply less taxonomically convenient and efficient.

In some cases, such as when labeling empirical creatures that we don’t necessarily know everything about, we might find it useful to shift our definitions from time to time in light of new information that causes us to revise our taxonomies to make them more efficient.  This is not likely to happen with things we know through-and-through - such as, for example, a triangle.  We’re not going to learn something new about triangles in the future that will cause us to want to reclassify them in some other way.  A triangle, unlike a cat, is a pure, abstract concept which we know thoroughly, so we will not have occasion to find some new kind of unknown triangle, as can be the case with animals we are continually learning more about.

But in either case, none of this has any effect on the validity of the rationalist epistemology.  Rationalism does not deny the fact that we can learn more about the world through empirical means, nor does it deny that sometimes it makes sense to revise our categories and definitions in order to better accommodate what we know.  We can do these things, but what we can’t do is ignore or forget the meaning of a word or a concept at a particular given time while we are using it.  Although we can change the meanings of our words, at any given time our words have particular meanings, and we are bound to the meanings of our words when we are using them unless we will be speaking utter gibberish.  Sometimes a definition can be open-ended to some degree.  (“Reptiles are cold-blooded, at least all the ones we’ve come across so far.”)  Sometimes exceptions can be built into a definition.  (“Mammals give birth to live young, except for duck-billed platypuses.”)  But still, while we are using a word, we are bound to its current meaning.  The fact is that the word and concept of reality (and all its synonyms), as it is used by people in general, includes in it essentially the idea of the exclusion of non-being.  If something exists, it doesn’t not exist.  If something has certain characteristics, it does not not have those characteristics, and it does not have other characteristics that exclude those characteristics.  (“Thngs are what they are and they aren’t what they aren’t,” as I like to put it.)  All of that is clearly included in the concept of reality as the word is ordinarily used.  And that is the law of non-contradiction, or logic.  So reality, by definition, is logical.  And that’s all we need to be able to make metaphysical arguments such as those commonly used in arguments for the existence of God.  So rationalism, and its usefulness in learning important facts about reality, is established.

Perhaps someone will say, “I want to give a different meaning to the concept of reality.”  Well, OK, but just make it clear how you are defining the term.  And don’t expect to win an argument simply by redefining words.  That’s the fallacy of equivocation.  For example, if you and I are arguing about whether or not there is an apple on the table, and, in the middle of the argument, you suddenly change the meaning of “apple” to have the meaning usually assigned to the word “mug,” and then you declare that there is an apple on the table because there is a mug on the table, you have not really proved your case.  You’ve cheated by redefining the word in the middle of the argument.  Similarly, if you want to redefine reality to mean something different from how pretty much everyone else uses it, fine, but make it clear what your new definition is, and realize that your new definition is probably going to be irrelevant to the conversation at hand which is about reality in the ordinary sense.  I claim that all reality is logical, using reality in the ordinary sense.  If you say, “Well, I’m defining ‘reality’ to mean ‘something that both exists and doesn’t exist at the same time and in the same way,’ and in that definition, reality is not logical,” you’re right, reality in your definition is not logical.  But reality in your definition also doesn’t exist in the ordinary sense of that word, because, in the ordinary meaning of exist, to exist includes not not existing.  So everything that we see around us that exists in the ordinary sense of that word isn’t reality in your new definition.  So your new definition is irrelevant to my claim that all reality (in the ordinary sense) is logical, just like redefining “apple” to mean “mug” doesn’t help at all in the argument about whether or not there is an apple (in the ordinary sense) on the table.

As I’ve mentioned in class, to talk about the difference between empiricism and rationalism, I like to use the analogy of receiving a package in the mail.  The empiricists are like a person who receives a package but doesn’t open it, content with just receiving it.  The rationalists are like a person who opens the package and explores its content.  We gain our concepts from our observations of reality, and then we learn more about reality by unpacking those concepts and their logical implications.  That’s how rationalism works.  Empiricism’s failure to unpack concepts to learn more is why empiricism is an impoverished epistemology that misses the most important things about the real world.

Published on the feast of St. Mary Magdalene.