Customer Reviews

What We Can't Not Know: A Guide

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Ever hear a moral position advanced at a cocktail party or on the TV, and thought, "I know there's something wrong with that.... but I just can't quite figure out exactly what?"
This book may help.

J. Budziszewski mixes systematic moral philosophy from a natural-law point of view with specific arguments on the life/death issues of our times (abortion, euthanasia) and on the state's interest in preserving privileges of marriage to one-man-and-one-woman couples. At times the effect is a little frustrating -- as a reader I sometimes found myself longing for the "pure" natural-law position-paper unencumbered by specific examples. However, it is clear from the book that the integrity of the author demands that he address these specific, most consequential moral issues of contemporary U.S. culture, as examples and instances of the general argument.

Most useful to me was the "conversational" chapter near the center of the book, in which Budziszewski answers various objections to Natural Law. One suspects this "conversation" is very like exchanges he has with his students daily. His ability to point out the flaws in various presentations of moral relativism was particularly satisfying.

Budziszewski himself says this book is not intended to convince the opponent or the skeptic, but rather to strengthen the "common sense" and natural conscience-awareness of the already convinced, and those who wannabe convinced. If you fall into the latter two groups, this book is worth a read.

I have read hundreds of books on religion, morality, and philosophy, but Budziszewski has taught me much that I did not know, or at least realize. C. S. Lewis' Abolition of Man is wise warning to an age in which we tinker with the formula for man: but Dr. B goes beyond Lewis. His work is like the anti-dote to a deadly pandemic.

In my book, Jesus and the Religions of Man, I asked, "Where did Marx go wrong?" I pointed out that Marxists created a three-fold hierarchy of moral values for "the classes, the masses, and the enlightened." They criticized capitalists for oppressing the poor, nagged ordinary people to work hard, don't spit, and take thought for comrades, and justified their own actions by a loose "end-justifies the means" code. The existence of these three systems side by side I found not only hypocritical, but ironic, since Marx himself said communism "abolishes" all morality. But I did not have an explanation for the phenomena, beyond noting that moral law seems hard to abolish.

Budziszewski does not say much about Marxism, but he does explain this, and similar, behavior. He argues that "deep conscience" exists in everyone, and that ultimate values -- neatly summarized by the Ten Commandments -- are indestructable. His writing is lucid and brilliantly (and perhaps deceptively) simple. Even though this book is chock-full of interesting ideas, it is easy to read.

I found two main weaknesses, one negative, the other positive. The negative weakness is that Dr. B's case would be not only easier to digest, but also stronger if he referred to non-Western cultures more. (Having lived many years in and studied several Asian cultures, examples that confirm his argument spring to mind.) The positive weakness is that Dr. B argues in too much the Ivan Karamazov fashion -- cherry-picking newspaper clippings of sordid acts, and holding them up to our noses as if they were "where the culture is going." His arguments about sexual promiscuity and abortion suffer less from this problem. And some of the stuff he dredges up is truly frightening.

One star reviews below may perhaps be explained by the fact that Budziszewski does not do what I just did -- critique an error in another culture -- but attacks the "culture of death" in the West. The reaction often shows more emotion than careful thought. Consider:

(1) "B gathers up all his personal prejudices and political opinions and declares them 'natural law.'" Not really. In fact, "B" focuses on the Ten Commandments, which was in existence well before any modern political party, and has close parallels in (for example) the Buddhist and Taoist traditions. (Including bans against killing babies in the womb.)

(2) "B's conversion to Catholicism demands that he opposes birth control and abortion." In fact he opposed abortion long before becoming a Catholic. Indeed, he joined the Catholic church the same year this book was published.

(3) The book "might be impressive for those who mistake religious superstition for reason." If the critic means Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, Kepler, and Lewis would love it, I think so, too.

(4) Two critics accuse Dr. B of "preaching to the choir." "Why write a book for people who are already convinced they are in the moral right because the Bible sys so?" As he makes clear, the Bible says NO ONE is in the moral right, including the choir. We can all benefit from Dr. B's work of making the logic of sin and rationalization clearer, because these are forces that work on everyone. Besides which, members of the choir live in a world where these forces go largely unchecked, and in which we are called to be "salt and light." Anyone, including skeptics, may benefit by thinking more clearly about right and wrong.

(5) Another complaint is about a "substantial section about ID" which the reviewer found "distant from a philosopher's roots" and "extreme." I have my doubts about ID. But I only found one long paragraph on the subject, the relevance of which was clear. Besides, I have recently read books by philosophers who made evolution a centerpiece of their skeptical philopophies -- what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

(6) One person is mightily distressed that Dr. B defines an agnostic as someone who "claims ignorance about God." He calls these "loaded words" that indicate a "weak and desperate intellect." But "a" means "not," and "gnostic" means "knowing" -- is "ignorant" so loaded a synonym for "not knowing?" In fact Thomas Huxley, who invented the term "agnostic," used the word "ignorant" himself to explain his view. But perhaps the reviewer was ig -- I mean, did not know that.

(7) Further: "An agnostic's contention that it is impossible to know whether there is a God is the most rock solidly honest viewpoint that any person can take." Really? This claim implies that the agnostic can somehow KNOW that God cannot possibly reveal Himself to man. How can anyone possibly know that? It seems to me simple confession of ignorance is far more reasonable.

(8) Finally, "Every sensible Christian is convinced they can't know they're right, therein lies faith." This reader is confused about how Christians understand faith. See the anthology in "Faith and Reason" on my web page, christthetao.com, for quotes by leading Christian thinkers down through the centuries.

It is not surprisingly that some nails complain when Dr. Bud hits them resoundingly on the head! But as the Proverbs say, "faithful are the wounds of a friend." Read this thoughtful, essential book, and see if people (including ourselves) act like that. Then pass it on to a friend.

BTW: For more on Dr. B's claim that God is known universally, see the chapter on "The Non-History of God" in my book, Jesus and the Religions of Man.

Over the last few years, I've been looking for a good book on Natural Law, and Budziszewski has written three of them (see also his 'Written On the Heart' and 'The Revenge of Conscience'); 'What We Can't Not Know' is the best, most complete, popular-level treatment I've seen.

Budziszewski emphasizes the Natural Law as 'built into' (or, more properly, 'designed into') the universe, and 'built into' our own human nature (ie, 'written on our hearts'). As such, the force of Natural Law doesn't depend on whether or not one 'accepts' it (this reminds me of Churchill's famous quip when told that Lady Astor had "accepted the universe" - "she'd better"). Transgressing the Natural Law has inevitable consequences, some of them quite unexpected, or with long time lags.

Budziszewski states at the beginning that he is writing for a Christian audience, which is fine, as far as it goes, but it leaves me waiting for his next(?) book, in which he states his case to those "outside the household of faith". It seems to me that Natural Law ideas could be very helpful for public discourse, at least insofar as they can show that Judeo-Christian moral reasoning doesn't depend solely on matters of faith or revelation.

No modern writer does a better job than Dr. J. Budziszewski in uncovering all of the excuses and dispersing all of the smoke screens that we create to deny the undeniable. In "What We Can't Not Know," J. Budziszewski will "dredge your Conscience" to remind you that you and everyone else really does know basic right and wrong.

But Budziszewski goes far beyond proving the reality of morality and our Consciences. He provides unparalleled insights into how our Consciences impact our behavior, particularly to what he calls the Five Furies: remorse, confession, atonement, reconciliation, and justification. His discussion not only has import to our personal lives, but also helps us understand what drives many modern political movements, especially those dealing with the moral issues of abortion and homosexuality.

The Q & A style in the chapter dealing with objections is also very helpful. One objection goes like this: "Maybe nothing has moral meaning." To which Budziszewski answers: "If you really believed that were true, then you wouldn't bother to argue with me."

This leads me to a comment about some reviewers who take issue with this book. Pay no attention--read the book for yourself. As an author myself, there is nothing more frustrating than a reviewer who has not carefully read the text or simply refuses to acknowledge plain facts. That's the case with at least one reviewer here who seems morally outraged that Budziszewski would allegedly misrepresent his worldview. Well, if Budziszewski's overall thesis about the existence and knowability of a true morality is incorrect, then the reviewer has nothing to be morally outraged about. There's nothing morally wrong with diliberately misrepresenting anything, so why is the reviewer bothering to argue? On the other hand, if Budziszewski's overall thesis is correct, then why is the reviewer ignoring that larger point in order to quibble about inconsequential minor details (which, by the way, are not even true)? It may be that the reviewer is doing exactly what Budziszewski writes we all do on occasion-- we attempt to deny the truth by kicking up a lot of dust in order to justify ourselves.

Ironically, after reading "What We Can't Not Know," you'll know what other people already know even though they deny they know it! The book will help you dredge that knowledge up from the Consciences of your friends who are in denial.

So if you want to be reminded about what you already know, gain tremendous insights into why people do some of the things they do, and have many of your questions answered about moral issues, then study "What We Can't Not Know." If you'd rather remain in denial, then avoid this book. Certainly don't try to refute it. Off-target attempts to refute it may prove Dr. Budziszewski's point!

Budziszewski combines his talents as philosopher and psychologist in this deep yet eminently practical analysis of the natural law. His basic premise is that natural law is what it is--an inescapable fact of life whether we accept it or not, whether we like it or not. To the extent we deny or defy the natural law, we consciously or unconsciously fall prey to all manner of psychological and spiritual corruption--denial, rationalization, overcompensation, etc. He describes many "real world" examples of how this plays out, often describing various responses to the issues of abortion and homosexuality. As I read, I found myself continually thinking, "Yes--that is how I responded to that," or "That really is what people do." His arguments, supported by powerful appeals to common sense and written in plain everyday English, are very persuasive. If you are having trouble comprehending the seemingly incomprehensible positions people take with regard to issues of life and faith, this book is for you!

Fantastic book that makes a clear case for natural law and our deep conscience. Worded very clearly and powerfully. If you are believer in relativism, read this book... because people like myself will use it to argue against it! The philosophical writing in the book is quite sound, without being too dry and technical for most readers. The book includes stories from the news and personal anecdotes to keep things revelant to today.

The book does draw from the Judeo-Christian tradition, but I would think that people of other faiths would not have any problem with Mr. B.'s perspectives.

If you get frustrated with the talking heads on TV and the rampant relativism in our culture, this is like a drink of cool, refreshing drink of water.

If you have kids or teach kids, I especially implore you to read this! Kids need to - and *want* to - hear that there are truths we cannot not know!

Best regards,
-- Joe

It seems impossible these days to speak of a moral consensus. Even the most basic moral duties are increasingly seen as dispensible: honesty, promise-keeping, faithfulness to spouses. The idea seems to be that at issue is not moral right or wrong, only moral disagreement. But school shootings and desertion of minor children by fathers are some of the symptoms of the chaos that results from adopting as axiomatic that you shall not impose you morality on someone else. In fact to claim as the author is doing, that not only is there a common moral law that applies to everyone, but that it is also in a sense known to everyone, is to evoke feelings of outrage. "Never before," he asserts, "has vice held the high moral ground." Affirming the moral law is called "being judgmental" and "being intolerant", which means it has been judged and will not be tolerated.

The problem has largely been that Christians have been making their case from the Bible when speaking to an unbelieving culture. To be sure, the Scriptures are essential and we must not just put them aside; the question is when is it appropriate and wise to utilize them. Christians believe that God has revealed Himself not only in the Bible but also in nature, in our very design. When making our case we need to follow the example of the apostle Paul, who argued from the Scriptures when speaking to people who accepted them as authoritative. But when speaking to those who didn't know or accept the Scriptures, he argued from what they did know: their altar to an unknown god, and references to their own poets. We learn from Paul that because God has written his law in our hearts, not only is there a moral law that is right for everyone but at some level it is known to everyone, even if repressed and held down. What we call "the natural law", then, involves what we can't not know.

There are four ways that "what we can't not know" is known; these can be called "witnesses". The first witness is deep conscience, to be distinguished from surface conscience in that it cannot be erased or be mistaken. Deep conscience includes basic moral truths like "murder is wrong" and the concept of fairness. The second witness is the witness of "design as such", and this ties in with the first because only if our deep conscience is designed is there any reason to think that it is telling us truth.

The third witness is of the details of our design. Since we are designed, we see that some of the Designer's intentions for us are clear from the human blueprint. We speak, then, of the purpose of the various features of our design. This is important because recognition of that purpose is necessary if the designed feature is to function properly. Finally, the fourth witness is that of natural consequences. These are what result when we thwart the various aspects of our design. Consequences are not the reason a particular act, say, extramarital sex, is wrong; rather they function to point out the natural purposes of things. For example, "the natural link between sex and pregnancy is not just a brute fact to be circumvented by latex; it declares that sex serves the purpose of procreation, of having and raising children."

Having said all that, it does seem that, in a sense, what can't not be known has been forgotten. How could this be? "There is nothing wrong with the basic programming of conscience; the problem is in the interface, the human will." It is true that deep conscience cannot err, but in working out the remote implications, we can err, and worse we can lie to ourselves so that we create problems at the level of surface conscience. We rationalize our deeds, trying to make it appear that what we have done was actually right. When we do this we truly are set on a downward road, going from evil to evil.

A good example of this is the sexual revolution, which, to attain its goals, required getting rid of chastity. This in turn required destroying the privilege of limiting sex to marriage. As one thing led to another this required denying what sex is for: it was no longer for procreation but for pleasure, and pregnancy became an unpleasant byproduct. And so we continued downward, until we reached a point "when we legalized the private use of lethal violence against babies yet unborn. The justification of such staggering betrayal takes more lies than there are words to tell them."

And yet the author is confident that there is hope. The sexual revolution has not brought liberation but bondage. Many of those who have experienced its devastation firsthand are exhausted and disillusioned. Though they may have spent their whole lives repressing what they can't not know, "like crabgrass growing through the cracks and crannies of concrete slabs, the awareness of the moral law breaks even through the cracks of our denials." Christians must become skilled at gently helping the lost navigate through the maze of lies our culture has created. When that is done, a terminal point is reached where the moral law can go no further. It tells us that we need forgiveness, but it does not tell us how that is to be obtained. When people reach that point, then Christians need to utilitize God's other revelation, that written in Scripture. For there is One who is eager not only to forgive, but to make whole again, to bring our lives back into harmony with our design.

For those who are interested, there is a two hour lecture that the author, J. Budziszewski (pronounced "Boo-jee-shef-ski") has given, with the same title, available from Stand to Reason, at their website. I have found it very helpful because it is a difficult book, and the lecture clarifies the central points.

"By contrast with surface conscience, deep conscience cannot be erased, cannot be mistaken, and is the same in every human being. The only way to tamper with it is self-deception - telling myself that I don't know what I really do." ~J. Budziszewski

Society seems to be unraveling in ways our ancestors could never have imagined. This unraveling seems based in a deeply rooted rejection of what we know to be true.

In our struggle to survive physically, emotionally and spiritually, we confront an undeniable force that can at times make us consider our lives from a completely new vantage point. In order to defend our own right to pleasure, existence and absence of pain we may in fact make decisions that leave us living in the open grave of consequence. Half dying inside, half alive to the world, we may try to find our way back to what we have always known, that place where we can make the right decisions and experience a rebirth or a renewal of the mind. Can we ever find true happiness if we deny the natural law written on our hearts?

Like an ancient warrior for truth, J. Budziszewski shows the way back to a world of true compassion. By drawing on his knowledge of wisdom traditions, he explores our deepest consciousness, the deeply held beliefs of all people and all cultures. He compares the thought processes of various philosophical traditions and then explains the significance of natural law in our modern culture and makes reasonable conclusions from startling evidence. He gives insight into modern art, explains the dangers of desensitization and laments the lack of true compassion.

What is false compassion?
What is the left hand of God?
Why should feelings not become our masters?
Is postmodernism a rebirth of Sophism?
What is the real purpose of remorse, confession, atonement, reconciliation and justification?
What will abortion and medical infanticide eventually lead to?
What is the true goal of cloning?
Why do people in some countries fear their doctors and need to carry cards to
explain why they don't want to be killed if hospitalized?
Why does guilt appear as depression and even suicide?
Why do some people fail to feel guilty or is there a deeper guilt without feelings?

While Budziszewski bases his logical thought processes on evidence and intense study of our culture and cultures before us, he doesn't not address the deepest emotional needs of human beings and how our need to be loved and accepted causes us to at times make very irrational decisions. (He covers reason perverted by passion in more detail in his first book.) These decisions could be the result of low self-esteem, abuse, choices between ending your life or finding meaning. He briefly discusses the ways in which human beings can become "ethically defective" or at least "become in need of realignment with natural law." His explanation of the biblical Decalogue succeeds in expanding our awareness of modern application.

It is easy to say what should be, but not as easy to address what is. To live a moral life, you almost have to deny yourself all that you know will harm you in the future. One of the problems with life as we know it is that we obviously do not always comprehend the consequences of our actions. There is a delicate balance that must be formed to create harmony and until we can create this harmony in ourselves, there is little hope for peace in the world.

What We Can't Not Know is a beautiful awakening to what "should be" and "how we can bring our soul back into an alignment with natural law." To love our neighbor may very well mean we have to increase our own self-esteem or increase our knowledge about how our actions will affect our fellow human beings. To do anything else is to live blindly and to allow those fueling our deception to lead us blindly. The power in J. Budziszewski's writing is how it awakens what can be suppressed, hidden and denied.

The search for truth then becomes a search for what we already know to be true. We can then no longer say a person is not a person if we see human life as a gift from God or that we are created in God's image. The very basis of this book is a belief in God, although the concepts are very logical because they are based on real-life experiences. Are atheists really rejecting what they truly know? Do they rather wish there wasn't a God than know there isn't a God? How does denial play itself out in our lives and how do we overcome our immediate impulses to do the wrong thing when it feels right?

The logical thought processes will in no doubt appeal to anyone who is searching for the very basics of how to live and once those elements fall into place, there is a new understanding of every challenge presented. One of the most enlightening moments in this book was understanding how we all convince ourselves that we don't know what we truly do know.

You may also wish to read "The Revenge of Conscience" and "Written on the Heart" before reading this map leading the way out of destructive thought processes and moral neutrality.

~The Rebecca Review

In an engaging style, Professor J. Budziszewski argues powerfully and convincingly for the existence of a natural moral law, which is accessible to everyday people through right reasoning. Though we tell ourselves otherwise, most moral choices just ain't that hard! Our claim to difficulty in making a moral choice often just veils our difficulty in following through with the right choice: "When, despite considerable intelligence, a thinker cannot think straight, it becomes very likely that he cannot face his thoughts....Don't we lie to ourselves about ordinary right and wrong? The desire to know truth is ardent, but it is not the only desire at work in us. The desire not to know competes with it desperately, for knowledge is a fearsome thing. So it is that oftentimes we groan about how difficult it is to know what is right even though we know the right perfectly well" (pp. 11, 62)

"Certain moral principles are not only right for all, but at some level know to all....our common moral knowledge is as real as arithmetic, and probably just as plain....The classical natural law thinkers held that although there are broad moral truths which cannot be blotted out of the heart of man, there are others, more remote from first principles, which can all too easily be blotted out - and the usual way to blot them out is bad living....two universals are in conflict: universal moral knowledge and universal desire to evade it" (pp. 15, 19, 25, 28).

What is this natural moral law or "natural law" all about? Budziszewski tells us that "a great many more or less satisfactory summaries have been proposed. Perhaps the simplest formula was suggested by Thomas Aquinas: `Good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided'....Good in his view is richly differentiated" (p. 47).

Budziszewski argues that, "Everyone knows inviolable goods like friendship, formal norms like fairness, and everyday moral rules like `Do not kill' - though we can pretend not to know them, and we sometimes err in what we derive from them. Everyone recognizes that the universe is designed and that we are designed - though we can refuse to pay attention, or pretend we haven't noticed. Everyone recognizes the most obvious features of our design, for example the complementarity of the sexes and the spontaneous order of the family....everyone recognizes the most obvious inbuilt penalties of wrongdoing, for example that those who betray are not trusted....Not everyone feels guilty for murder, but everyone knows murder is wrong. Precisely because they have guilty knowledge, wrongdoers who lack guilty feelings show other telltales, such as depression, a sense of defect, a compulsion to rationalize, or a puzzling desire to be caught" (pp. 102, 118).

This book far surpassed my expectations for the depth of scholarship and adherance to truth. It is not a 'coffee table' book but one for study and contemplation of the deep and significant subject matter. This clear reasoning is sorely needed to find the right path through the 'relativeistic' cultural attitudes which immerse our country and have gradually erroded those precepts that made us a truly noble and graet nation.