Grieving over your teen/adult children/grands who left Catholicism? Click here! This page stays up so you can return here. But you MUST learn of a resource that does help and gets avidly read by the fallen-away… unlike apologetics & preachy novels. Tell Catholic friends to visit AuthorDan.com/aog so they can use it, too!
Three nonfiction short works are on this page.
The Secrets of Successful Financial Planning received the Catholic Writers’ Guild Seal of Approval. One fifth of SSFP is comprised of dramatic nonfiction (client names changed, etc.). Click the above link to learn more.
Feb 18, 2021: William Hemsworth M.Div’s fun “Coffee and a Book” podcast. William is an author, columnist at Patheos and Catholic Stand. Click here to visit William.
Click here to see interview.
If you were looking for fiction but got lost, please sample a pair of popular fictions (Millhaven Press’ Tales of Adventure 1/2019 & ChiRhoRadio.com): 
“The Dawn of Reason” & “From the Reliquary of Job” have a subtle Catholic perspective. These tales are spin-offs of Ancient Of Genes, which earned two awards (with reviews) at the CMA Book Awards. Click the logo above for the CMA announcement. Click here for the Press Release specific to Catholic media. If you’re not Catholic, you wouldn’t notice and certainly would enjoy them nevertheless. Listen in this order, or page down for nonfiction shorts:
This page, though, is for short narrative nonfiction:
1 of 3: “The Bear” was an article published in 2004 in Creative Loafing magazine, less the Epilogue and my original title. I steam when they do that! I was not then ready to share the Epilogue, also a true account, but there was no locution; poetic license had to be taken in order to convey the sense and meaning that came to me interiorly.
Click here to page down to item 2 of 3, an ‘ethics-only’ approach to the Reproductive Rights debate. There is a 2nd resource, a political handout (two per sheet) that you may download, edit, and distribute to help persuade people to consider voting Conservative in political races (click here or download below).
Click here to page down to item 3 of 3, a ‘reasoning-only’ approach to the question of whether God exists.
Bear, Humor, and Humility – in the Rough
by Dan Gallagher
I keep getting reminded: God is well able to deal with my bowhunting bravado. And He makes me see Him in diverse people and situations. Last fall He gave me a meaty, one hundred fifty pound buck with scrawny, six-point antlers to feed my family but not my ego. Just recently, He sent me what appeared to be a massive black bear that, despite its 20½ inch Pope & Young record book-qualifying skull, turned out to be considerably smaller than he looked when the bear and I “danced” alone for twenty minutes in the Canadian wilderness. So let me tell you of this wonderful but harrowing hunt, and offer a few lessons in humility. You see, at 41, I use my bow in pursuit of dangerous game in an effort to recapture the audacity and toughness of my youth. It’s a safer mid-life crisis outlet than chasing women other than my wife, and provides thrills I can share. So perhaps on my next hunt, I’ll parachute into grizzly country with just a bush knife. Uh, maybe not!
Modern bear hunting, especially guided bow or rifle hunting, is done from a tree stand over bait for safety (in bear country, anyway). The bait reduces time in the uncomfortable seat. The tree stand also cuts human odor while enhancing safety and view. But I needed to connect with the thrill of our primal past, when hunting parties of a dozen men used atlatls to propel spears into caribou, giant elk, and cave bears. I contracted Wolverine Guiding and Outfitting of Buffalo Narrows, Saskatchewan, to allow me to spot-and-stalk along routes to bait (or food sources discovered by scouting), and to use a portable ground blind. It was to be a late May hunt, full of trying weather and life-threatening encounters with a ravenous wolf pack, agitated bears, and a crazed moose.
The Sunday drive from Edmonton, Alberta, to Buffalo Narrows took almost 10 hours. Right off the bat, I felt like a doofus for not waiting to book a flight into Saskatoon, which would then have required only a six hour drive to the outfitter. I knew it would be well worth it, though, because the farther I made my way north, the more I saw true wilderness: I beheld stately elk, gigantic bison, and a plethora of other fauna and flora. Spring was but a few weeks into bloom and I felt an irresistible summons to stop at a church in a tiny hamlet along the way; to commune and celebrate with the Source of life, to gain more genuine strength in the Eucharist than that which I imagined was an attribute of my own character.
At the expedition jump-off point, I met the man in charge: Napoleon Chartier, a man who, it was rumored, actually was a bear but who was shaved weekly by his wife so as to fool the wildlife officer. Yes, up here at the Narrows, iron men mine uranium, cut and work timber, kill their meat, and don’t stick jewelry in their flesh or bleach their hair to attract mates. Even the town was tough, studded with one- and two- story saloons, liveries, wagons, and one of each necessary store. After signing a liability release necessitated by my particularly dangerous hunting method, we gulped Nap’s powerful pan-cooked coffee. I got acquainted with Nap, his brother Leonard, their brother-in-law Peter Desjarlais, and their colorful French-Indian dialect of English as we loaded the boat.
“Mind if I ask why you guys and so many guys I saw in town have one or two teeth missing?”
“Hockey,” grinned Nap.
“Like a thing you do when you’re young and full of yourself, eh?” joked Peter.
“A good racking or a body slam.” Leonard interjected. “God gave us testosterone, but we gotta use it the right way, yah? Like hockey and hunting. We play rough but it’s all in good humor, eh?”
I gazed ashore for a moment as the evening sun transformed into brilliant white the aging two-story disk that is St. Leo the Great Catholic Church. “He inspires humor, rough and genteel,” I replied, contemplating the term ‘salt of the earth’ as I returned to their weathered eyes. “An important thing to remember, Leonard. Thanks.”
So began my two hour motorboat voyage with these three earthy yet likeable woodsmen, north through cold sprays toward the Wolverine Outfitters hunting cabins on icy Frobisher Lake. As the few people and horses on shore receded from view, we outdistanced canoes and keelboat-like barges to catch sight of moose, a bear, and enormous cranes. Geese and cormorants by the hundreds graced the water labyrinth, while yard-long bone-armored mackerel leaped at fist-sized dragon flies. I was amazed that such a thick birch and shaggy pine forest, could flourish on the bed of glacier-abraded boulders revealed beneath black loam and blue-green moss along every shore. It seemed as if we were voyaging back through frontier times, then further back, to the end of the Pleistocene epoch. My three hosts shared intriguing lessons of life and the hunt.
“These bears most never seen humans, you know? You don’t need that pill or camo. They come in to eat you, and most don’t scare away, eh,” Nap warned as we approached shore near camp.
I thought for a moment in silence, then Karate-chopped the air. “That’s what we want! That’s my plan: The bear won’t be able to see, smell, or hear me. I’ll ambush him when he goes for Leonard.” Pausing, brow raised in a wry smile, I slowly growled, “Leonard’s the bait!”
Leonard didn’t flinch, but continued to stare darkly into the approaching forest.
“Good plan, eh?” said Peter, “So the bear can’t see you, or smell you, or hear you. But you know that bear, he can sure taste you, eh?”
As we reached the dock, Leonard tethered the boat and got out with his rifle, scanning the green and birch-white interior. We offloaded and made our way over a hill to the cabins, whose steel mesh-covered windows and sills bore claw marks, some six inches across.
We settled into the humble yet efficient camp. Nap prepared a wonderful meal of caribou, beans, and coffee, while I unpacked and strolled around camp in the increasing chill. Man, this place is as cold as a well digger’s butt in the Klondike, I mused as I stepped from the cabin and seconds later got partly mooned by seeing Peter and Leonard bent over, digging a new latrine. Hey, who do I look like, anyway, Rodney Dangerfield? I tell ya I don’t get no respect. I guess you had to be there for the full “smirk effect” of the sight.
With the camp finally prepared, Nap produced a supper of caribou burger and whiskey. The feast was no sooner on the table than it was being chewed. Peter raised his hand to his forehead, and I began to bless myself. Peter back-handed Nap in the chest and all eyes popped open widely as the other two gulped and hurriedly blessed themselves, grunting laughs.
“You guys Catholic?” I asked.
“Used to be,” masticated Nap. “Most everybody’s a ‘used-to-be-Catholic,’ eh?” Leonard frowned, and they all nodded. “I mean I know Christ died for me and stuff like that,” Nap appealed sheepishly, “but we don’t need to be going to church and all stuff like that. So, you know what I’m saying, why bother?”
“I’d like to say I go to church because I recognize that, if Christ did die for me, I owe him that expression of appreciation, even love. But that’s not really why I go.”
“So why, then?”
“Going to Mass isn’t my ‘return favor’ to Christ; it’s God who does the giving. He feeds me there. And He calls me to ‘supper’ at odd times; just ‘shows up’ in people like you, Nap, all three of you. I’m like you. In the Infantry I didn’t bother with church, let alone confession and the rest. I just wanted God to leave me on my own in the forest to face bears – or whatever life threw at me – alone, so to speak. But after a while I could actually sense that He was right there with me, calling me – like whispers or impressions not from me – every so often in situations and people. Like He knows the phone number inside you, and He doesn’t care how expensive the call is. Everybody experiences that… don’t you?”
There was silence for over a minute, and I could tell from reddened faces that all three had experienced such moments. Nap began to nod. “Maybe. Sometimes, yes. I have to think about it.”
Supper quietly consumed, we all retired dreaming of growling bears and howling wolves; perhaps even more.
On Monday morning I was impatient for the 40 minute boat ride farther north to the extreme limit of Frobisher Lake. I tested my bow, and checked my bush knife and survival gear. I secured a compass and other critical items to my waist pack or jacket with lanyards. Thus readied, Leonard and I set off while Nap and Peter did carpentry to improve camp buildings.
Leonard brought me to four bait sites, cutting the engine each time well before reaching shore. We entered the woods slowly, and listening warily, so as to avoid rapid and painful weight loss. Silently we restocked bait barrels and stealthily inspected trails and bear “tunnels” in the foliage for fur, scat composition (an indication of favored food sources), scat moistness (a measure of time since the bear passed through), tracks, and clawed bark. Being among the most intelligent animals, bears try to walk in each other’s footprints, which were mostly found in the vast beds of thick, sound absorbing moss. I was tempted to use cans on trip wires. One site was a half-mile from the shore and, seeing signs of the recent near-total consumption of what had been a deer with no bear sign nearby, we began to suspect that there were wolves about – until we heard them bark and rush through the forest some hundred or more feet in. Sign of a very large bear at the nearby bait barrel was at least two days old, and we concluded that the bear would return if the wolves were leaving. We stopped stalking and I set up a blind of bushes and sticks while Leonard sat in the tree stand. But when darkness descended, there were still no visits from anyone with a fuzzy nose and big teeth.
On the way back, Leonard spotted a moose on a densely forested island. My hunt was over for the day, so he could legally hunt it. We headed straight for it and he jumped from the boat, aimed and fired several times, wounding it and forcing its retreat into the interior. Leonard pursued, entering the woods 50 feet to my right – with just three bullets left. I could not hunt it, but I was concerned that it might trample him. I grabbed my bow since one never knows what may be in these woods, and trudged into the forest to scare it toward the west end of the island where it could be better observed. Suddenly, a gargantuan brown figure rushed from my right to just 10 feet in front of me. The adolescent bull had the beginnings of antlers on a massive head that reached seven feet off the ground, set upon brawny shoulders and measuring about 10 feet long. He’s gonna charge! It’s him or me, I thought, determined, as I snapped to full draw. He stared momentarily at me, then bolted west.
“Leonard,” I gasped, “he’s headed west past me!”
The guide made not a sound but rushed past me toward his quarry. Two more shots rang out as I rushed toward the end of the island. From out of the thick came Leonard, grinning with victory.
“You’ve got one bullet left in case of bear!”
“That’s plenty. The others can dress him in the morning,” he said, breathing heavily.
“He’s a pretty big job,” I replied. “You guys drop me off at one of the stands in the morning so you can all tackle the task, then come back and you and I can ground hunt bear in the afternoon.”
That night we enjoyed another wonderful meal, for which Nap timorously led the prayer, as two bears provided entertainment through the picture window. A small bear came in to sniff, dig, and roll around until a medium-sized one ran it off.
Tuesday morning turned freezing and dark. It rained and then snowed. All four of us headed out at 9:00 a.m. through choppy waters an hour north to one of the baited sites where I climbed to the slowly icing stand and secured myself and my equipment. Although slipping from the stand could have been the greatest danger that day, I learned that there are over a hundred bear attacks reported by hikers and tourists in the province yearly. That number undoubtedly understates the situation, because hunters don’t usually report these attacks unless they lose the confrontation. I mean, can you imagine a hunter breathlessly lisping to the mounty, “Arrest that bear, officer! He accosted me and I’m simply beside myself”? I don’t think so.
“We’ll be back in two hours,” Nap said, “and don’t worry if they climb the tree. Just drip water in their eyes. The really big ones never climb, only the ones under three hundred pounds, eh.”
“Whenever; whatever. See you when you return, unless the bear gets me!” I agreed, waiving the noisy non-camouflaged humans off.
As they departed, I thought that rising snowy gusts had rendered my listening device useless, until I realized that the batteries were dead and the replacements were the wrong size. I shivered to have lost early warning, then again from the precipitously plummeting temperature. I wished that I had not indicated to them that they should return “whenever” because it dawned on me that bears, being intelligent creatures, would not be out in weather like this… and perhaps I’m not smarter than the average bear! The cold made me so hungry I could have eaten ear wax. Luckily, I had canned food. I exchanged the wool inserts in my gloves for dry ones. The huge tree I was in began to sway such as to prevent good placement of an arrow should a bear come in. Then the gusts became so violent that I thought I would be tossed out of the tiny stand. I began to sense something creeping up from behind, and checked below frequently. As three o’clock arrived and departed, the dark sky began to clear, then fill again with violent storm. In marched human figures, Leonard and Peter with rifles, and Nap without, since he could outwrestle bears anyway.
“I think the bears have more sense than I do,” I mourned, “because they’re probably dry and cozy in their dens, intending to eat one dopey American when the storm clears.”
We returned to camp for the night. Again, I ate well and dreamed of the next day’s hunt.
Daybreak brought gloriously clear, cool weather. Leonard and I stuffed eggs and oats in our faces, left the others to their carpentry, and sped off toward what literally became a life and death contest with the bear.
We selected a third site that we had previously baited; where I had left my ground blind. We returned to find it half-eaten, an observation that was food for thought for anyone who would rather not be food for bears. Another bear calling card at this site was the quarter-inch chain holding the barrel to a tree. The chain had been broken, and the barrel carried downhill toward the water! We both gulped fear to see this, replaced the barrel, baited it, and set up. Set up this time was more extensive, because bear tracks – big ones with oversized scat – were found in every direction. Multiple big bears and, oh by the way, this was mating (translate fighting mad) season for bears. I selected a ground stand site along a likely avenue of approach and cleared brush with my bush knife. I set the knife in the tree beside me, as a last-ditch measure of defense, should the bow, and then pepper spray fail me. Pepper spray, though, has been found to repel bears only half of the time; mace even less. Indeed, even Leonard did not have a clear shot to my position from his tree stand, only to points five or more feet from me. I had the only big tree for quite a distance, and decided to accept this gap in Leonard’s field of fire. After camouflaging my blind with foliage, I sat upon the bait pail and waited.
Those who hunt from tree stands recommend not shooting the first bear, but waiting until a larger bruin inevitably runs off the junior bear. One could do the same when hunting from the ground, but vanquished bears are known to be dangerously bellicose, often attacking trees and other bears as they retreat, and also often returning to wait out the victor at the food source. This presents a dangerous choice to the ground hunter, and the bowhunter in particular: Hope that a large but vanquished bear will not notice you on his way out, and not return to where you are, or face two or more bears with a slow-reloading weapon.
Suddenly a crane’s whoop gashed the lazy hum of bugs, along with canine yelps and multiple angry barks and growls. Eighty feet away down the hill, a wolf pack was disciplining one of its members. Big timber wolves. As abruptly as this had begun, the pack dashed away westward, leaving me breathless and some crane chicks motherless. The wary calm resumed.
Within minutes of the wolves’ departure, a black form dominated the hill above me. He was big, but Leonard had told of bigger ones here, even a white and a blonde bear in this area. No need to abandon this site to spot-and-stalk. This was a marvelous pitch black specimen over three feet tall at the shoulder, and with a stubby, brawny neck, an indication that it was a male. I dared not risk this beast getting chased off by a bigger one, then having to tangle with them both. I decided to take this bear; the contest was now. But just then, he stared straight ahead of him, at Leonard in the tree. Slowly, and still eyeing Leonard, the bear walked behind a stand of saplings. Then, keeping the saplings between himself and Leonard, the bear walked into deeper woods. What astounding intelligence, to use the saplings that way!
“He’s the one a hunter wounded last week,” called my guard.
I paused a moment in prayer for my decision, and the instruction I was about to give.
“Leonard,” I called in a loud whisper, “Get down and take the boat out until the motor can’t be heard, then row back and approach my blind using the ravine where the wolves were.”
At this, Leonard shot me an incredulous look and silently departed as if in prayer for my safety.
This black bear – no, with due respect, Mister Bear – appeared atop the hill in less than a minute after Leonard left the stand. I can handle this alone, I mused, ‘cause I’m ‘bad news for bears’… but I’m not really alone, am I, Lord? As the awesomely muscular beast approached my blind to within twenty yards, I heard the boat motor start. When his head turned toward the sound, I brought the 61 lb. bow excruciatingly, painfully slowly to full draw and held. My heart skipped several beats. Does he see me and know I’m alone? Oddly, I sensed the rosary weight heavily in my right trouser pocket. The bear veered to my left, circling the barrel and looking warily about everywhere except at me. He doesn’t know I’m here. He approached the tree Leonard had used, sniffing, then standing to scratch and gnaw the trunk. I gaped, intimidated but ready, at his carnassials, over an inch beyond his blood red gum. I knew that it was his two-inch claws that would rip me open if I were left with only the bush knife. He crept closer now on all fours with firm steps, as if he were confidently locating the lone human rather than timidly seeking safety. His path arched to my left until he turned and eyed me directly, now a panic-tempting 18 feet away; yet my confidence grew. Lord, let me take him quickly for his sake and mine! It seemed as if Mr. Bear were holding eye contact, though the obscuring effect of my leafy over-garment made that unlikely. He spread his front paws, perhaps to leap.
He knows I’m here. He’s deciding whether to circle, then attack, or just attack immediately.
The confrontation was now passing a full minute as he began to sniff the air and bare his teeth.
If he raises a paw, it’s an attack. Shoot through the breast plate. God, let it penetrate!
He shifted his weight right as if to raise a paw. Then he shifted his head right, eyes still trained.
Taking another view of me, or is he about to leap?
The bear extended his head now left, shifting his lean the same way; then slowly back to center.
Bears don’t study things for over two minutes without attacking. I must shoot now, but at this distance, he’ll be on me before I can nock another arrow! Yes, shoot, then grab the pepper spray with my left hand; the knife with my right. Pulling slowly on the arrow release…
The bear lowered his head and sniffed the ground. He turned his head to his left and slowly lumbered to my right, toward the barrel. Apparently a bush to him, I loosed the bow to rest. Walking around the far side of the barrel, the bear stood to arch over it and lick the molasses, exposing almost enough of his left side for me to make the twelve yard shot. ‘Almost’ lasted another dozen minutes.
Where is Leonard? Are there other bears near?
I scanned my surrounds by spinning slowly. In that way, the bear sees the same profile while I turn; nothing moving across his field of vision. Even so, the time he was out of my vision was harrowing but necessary. No others, at least that I could see. I watched for my shot as Mister Bear enjoyed his molasses and oats.
A branch broke, then another, behind me.
Probably Leonard. Assume nothing, or die in agony. Draw behind the pine, and shoot now!
The bear alerted, standing straighter, puffing his fur and muscles even more as his hips rose on straighter legs two thirds of the way to the top of the 55 gallon drum. He looked immense as he clawed the air and turn toward me, exposing a gray patch in the center of his chest…
Will Dan survive this unscathed? What’s creeping up? What spiritual occurrence soon give crucial meaning to this trip? To complete this tale,
Click to experience these & other Adventures & nonfiction: Get Dan’s fiction & nonfiction online or in-store: Amazon, Barnes & Noble’s NOOK & more!
2 of 3: Pro-life essay & related resource
The following two items are the only items that may be reproduced from this web site.
A. The Pro-life essay following the introductory paragraph below, and
B. its accompanying distribution piece. Click here to download item B’s MS Word file: Ethics-only Pro-life 4 copies
The following essay was submitted in briefer OpEd form to several liberal newspapers, such as The Charlotte Observer in 2003. Faith informs more completely than logic, but this “ethics-only” argument cannot be refuted. It undermines the anti-religious position on abortion. It may be a way to start the conversation with loved ones who are fallen away. This is because of the Left’s replacement of morality (God-given) by rationalist philosophy (human constructs). As for my OpEd, it is important to note that it was not only rejected, but that no OpEd of its type (summarized or long-version) was ever published by any newspaper despite numerous submissions of both versions! That is, effectively, censorship. One can confidently infer that it, and similar ethics-only arguments, have been screened away from publication because these non-religious approaches are effective at undermining the Left’s position. It’s screened away also because the “ethics-only” argument solidly contradicts the Left’s snide dismissal of the Pro-life position as “forcing religion upon others.” Paul Ryan was set up by question phrasing (How does your faith influence your position on abortion?) to offer just the religious argument in a vice presidential debate. Had Speaker Ryan used a summarized version of this argument, he would not have been trapped into making the Pro-life legal thrust appear, as VP Joe Biden characterized it, “… pushing… religion upon our legal system.” The version below is worded for those who seek an effective way to undermine acceptance, in the law, of abortion in its many guises.
Helping People Respect Human Life
Op Ed Submission by Dan Gallagher
Have you ever wondered how to help people, even those of no faith, see the dangers of abortion, artificial birth control, fetal stem cell harvesting, and in vitro fertilization? Have you ever wondered whether there is an “ethics only” argument against these practices, as distinct from arguments that are faith-based? Let’s examine some facts and conduct a “thought experiment”.
Debates over abortion are usually incomplete, ignoring the unseen abortions that are induced by artificial birth control (ABC) methods. Consider the fact that all chemical and most mechanical contraceptives shrivel the womb, such that “breakthrough fertilizations” cannot implant. Breakthrough pregnancies occur in at least 2% of cycles for sexually active women using contraceptives. According to The Study of Abortion Deaths by an ad hoc commission of medical doctors, research scientists, and clergy, U.S. mothers unknowingly experience 6.6 million abortions of breakthrough babies per year because of ABC (source: Infant Homicides through Contraceptives, pp. 41 45, order: 502-348-3963). Many physicians inadequately disclose this danger. Furthermore, the womb remains impaired for 3 months after discontinuing ABC; so use may actually doom an intended pregnancy.
Now armed with this understanding, please consider the following ethical examination:
Few disagree that the destruction of a human just after birth is murder.
But what of the day before birth? The ethicist cannot deny that it remains so.
Two days prior? The same conclusion is inescapable, for maturation is gradual.
Consider the question, counting back day-by-day to conception. One can find no moment when the life can be identified with certainty as not human. The baby can only be identified as a human exhibiting a continuum of maturation. This is the “ethics-only” Pro-life argument.
Many will claim that the days when it cannot survive outside the womb are the days when it is not human. But remember, the issue is whether it is human, not whether it can survive without the help of the mother’s body. (Many adults cannot survive without various forms of help, from kidney machines to being fed by nurses. Does the fact make them not human?)
Some will claim that Pro-life activists push their religion upon our nation through the force of law. Such people and their political leaders may even claim that they, personally, are Pro-life, but they are also “ethical immaculates” because they oppose pushing their personal Pro-life views through law. The foregoing argument is fallacious, even disingenuous, because the ethics-only argument above cannot be refuted and because the minimum ethical standard – yes, duty – of lawmakers, the law, and anyone prideful of employing ethics rather than religion is this: They have an ethical duty to protect what at least could be a human, microscopic or late-term.
Therefore, if the examiner cannot determine a moment when the flesh becomes human, he cannot find the moment when its destruction is not murder. Similarly, creating a doomed fetus to “harvest” his/her stem cells is no different than “harvesting” organs from a newborn. Likewise, with in vitro fertilization, multiple fertilizations create genetically complete humans, and most are knowingly doomed. Some say that harvesting stem cells from already aborted babies is not murder. True, but it creates an incentive to abort for cash, plus a rationalization that confused mothers may use to justify an abortion.
So here is the challenge for those readers who pride themselves in guiding their lives by ethical reasoning: Will you dismiss this argument because it is unpopular, inconvenient, or because it demands that you distinguish between “rights” and what is “right”? Will you dismiss this argument because the odds of a breakthrough pregnancy are low, or because the abortion that will eventually be caused by the use of ABC is usually unseen? Or will you respect human life enough to refrain from practices that inevitably result in the killing of what you cannot validly deny is (or at the very least could be) an extremely tiny person?
In a so-called “politically correct” world, the shameful fact is that many people will reject this logic, and are even indignant at such reminders as this writing.
What political actions does this imply? One might think that birth control pills and devices should be outlawed, but that does not logically follow from this ethical and moral explanation. The reason is that birth control pills and devices risk destruction of a human being (possible human, if you recognize only the ethical argument), whereas abortion itself is the certain destruction of a human being (possible human, if you recognize only the ethical argument). The cause of the pregnancy makes no difference: Why should a baby be killed merely because he/she was conceived from a rape; does that make the child any less a human? The decision to use pills or devices for pregnancy avoidance is evil (and unethical) because it elevates the risk of destruction of a human being (microscopic size notwithstanding). But, to place that decision in perspective, consider an analogy in which human life is made more at risk by eating while driving. Both decisions are venial but significant sin (“inappropriate behavior” to the politically correct) to the degree the risk is known, but at least there is no decision to kill. Hence, only abortion (early-term chemical and later term surgical), fetal tissue harvesting and in vitro fertilization – in contrast to Pills and devices – are overt acts of knowing destruction which must be outlawed. This ethical argument is just one of many that contradicts the Health and Human Services mandate that the left is attempting to force upon religious institutions and faith-based businesses.
Now that you understand the foregoing, you might ask, “What to do? What is licit?” First, consider Natural Family Planning. It works by reliably identifying days for attempting pregnancy, and is as effective as “the pill” when used to avoid pregnancy; all without drugs or devices! Please: have the courage to spread the word about it to friends and employees. Second, ask yourself whether anyone can validly claim that, to get more stem cells than adult tissue provides, the use of aborted or cloned human fetuses is anything other than providing an incentive to abort babies or to create doomed fetuses. Third, contemplate your ethical (dare I say “moral”) obligation at the voting booth and in organizational communications, especially in future elections.
END
By the way: The Catholic News-Herald is a great way to keep up with Catholic happenings, especially in North Carolina. Click here to read an article by Kimberly Bender on page 13 about my own writing that I try to make helpful to people of all faiths, especially those struggling or on the journey. Many thanks!
3 of 3: Is God real? Is the question important?
Does God exist, and why should we investigate the question?
by Dan Gallagher
Brendon Vogt’s online video, “The Best Reason to Believe in God,” discusses the Kalam Argument for the existence of God. I interpret it in three enumerated items below; then ask, “So what?”
First, the Kalam Argument proves that there was “something or someone” before the universe began:
Premise 1: Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause
Premise 2: The universe began to exist
Conclusion: The universe has a cause
Second, let’s discuss this whether this argument itself is valid. “Begins” is the key word. It is important to explore the beginning of existence, rather than merely the existence. Why? That phrasing distorts the meaning of the premise; replacing it rather than dealing with it as stated. A phrasing that addresses existence, rather than the beginning of existence, focuses on what now exists, rather than the beginning or inception. Premise 1 is what it is; let’s examine it for what it actually states. Premise 1 is also obvious; self-evident: Prior to physics discovering that ALL evidence about the universe points to a beginning, and not the misassumption that the universe always existed. These discoveries are why contemplation of “inception” or beginning is so essential.
One might as, in intentional or unintentional avoidance of Premise 1 as stated, “If God made the universe, then what made God?” Though worth discussing, this question avoids examination of the inception, the beginning itself and the possibility that, although all beginnings have causes, there might be a cause without a beginning. That is, while the universe is known to have had a beginning, and that beginning was caused, these facts about the universe do not imply anything logically about the cause of its beginning. The assumption underlying the question is incorrect because it assumes that “if the universe had a beginning, God must have had a beginning” and this conclusion does not follow from its premise. Again, this question has an incorrect but unstated assumption in its phrasing: that a cause must itself have a beginning. That assumption is fallacious because it ignores the possibility that a cause might well have existed outside of time (alternatively, before the inception of time) even though the universe did have a beginning.
We also know from scientific inquiry that there is no exception to both premises. That is, all that began must have had a cause in order for there to be any beginning process. In other words, we have discovered a fact, that the universe has not always existed but actually had a beginning; we also know that all beginnings have causes. Premise 1 is therefore inescapably valid: Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause. As noted above, there are no empirical findings in science to contradict the understanding of Premise 2; only an immense collection of findings that do rise to proof of premise 2: The universe did begin to exist; previous to that beginning it did not exist. Thus, if everything that begins to exist has a cause and the universe began to exist, then it has a cause. But, does this prove the existence of God? No. But it does prove the existence of a cause existing prior to the beginning process of the universe (alternatively, independent of or prior to the existence of time).
Third, let us consider only the obvious, the necessary, attributes for such a cause. As we examine these necessary attributes, we will shortly conclude that there is at least substantial reason to believe that the cause was God. Let’s examine the necessary attributes for the cause of the beginning of the universe.
Because things cannot cause themselves to begin to exist, the first attribute is that the cause was (almost certainly) not a thing. In other words, a cause prior to the universe existing is more at least as likely to have been a sentient being with intention as the possibility that the cause was non-sentient. We need more exploration, though to conclude that the cause was sentient, with will of decision. Clearly, the cause must be immaterial (beyond matter, space and time) because the universe is material. Even the outlandish supposition that some action in another universe was the cause of the universe beginning to exist is fallacious. Why? Because the issue remains even if there are other universes; if they exist or existed, they had beginnings. Since all beginnings have causes, the cause must transcend anything material. So, we search for the cause of the inception of any and all universes; any and all things material. The first attribute of the cause is, logically, transcendent of the material world.
Science is confirming that all things material exist with dimensions of space as well as time; these are material attributes. So, the cause of the beginning of these attributes of dimension, materiality, and time are all three what we define as the universe. All three attributes of the universe had beginnings; the cause of all three beginnings pre-existed them. The cause of these is independent of and precedent to the universe. Therefore, we can easily conclude this: The cause is eternal (existing prior to or not within the constraints of time).
What other attributes, besides being transcendent of materiality and dimensions and being eternal (independent of time), are necessary for a cause of the beginning of any aspect of universes? Science has discovered patterns in reality (see NOVA’s “Great Math Mystery” aired March 30, 2016), even in the physical structure of the universe. These include, but are not limited to, the existence of logic, patterns within natural things assumed to be random, attributes of physical behavior and reality that change with the scale examined, a strewn-string-like structure to the distribution of matter including galaxies (perhaps of universes), anti-matter, dark matter, and even a pattern of increasing complexity and depth of emotion and self-awareness in life (from the simplest to sentient beings). What mindless natural process creates order even randomly created systems? Another obvious attribute of the cause is what might be called intelligent design or the two attributes of willful intent and intelligence as distinct from mindless randomness in causing the universe(s) to begin to exist.
So, we have evidence of willful intent and intelligence for the cause, but do we have evidence of the attribute of benevolence? We will leave the question of why any god would permit suffering for another discussion to focus on whether there is evidence for the “cause of beginning” being benevolent. Indeed, at the highest known level of life, humans, millions claim awareness of good versus evil on a moral and spiritual level — even testifying in the millions to experiences from the subtle to apparitions and miracles. How is this evidence of the attribute of benevolence? Clearly, the development in the universe of a species that can communicate with the cause of its beginning is evidence of an emotional reaching out to or responding to individual sentient human beings (perhaps sentient alien too; we’ll leave that one alone also). Why else would there be a species developed in the universe that can have these emotional experiences and testify to these en masse? There are so many examples of this that a true scientific mind has an ethical obligation to explore them before dismissing the idea of contact between the cause of the universe and a pinnacle species that is self-aware, able to examine moral good and evil, choose compassion over hate and be contemplative. These historical accounts, often leaving physical evidence of the encounter between the alleged cause of the beginning of the universe (or the emissaries thereof), are extremely numerous. For example, there are thousands of accounts of conversion of atheists as well as photos of miraculous events at Fatima and Zeitun. There are “the incorruptibles” and proof of suppression of carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin to around the year 33 (contradicting dating that was done with repair material added in the middle Ages). The supposed magnetic inducement of a sense of a spiritual presence is not the same as near-death experiences (and many of these have actual proof). The list is quite long. Though these evidences do not rise to proof individually, taken together they do rise to a preponderance of evidence that there is a God that seeks us and that billions of humans make a choice to seek. So, there is at least substantial evidence to assert that the cause of the beginning of reality also caused beings to exists who experience that cause as itself sentient and acts in lives as a merciful but judging and profoundly creative entity. In other words, to explain these testimonials and other evidences of the intervention by “the cause” into lives and into history there is only one conclusion: Another attribute of the cause is benevolence.
Finally, let us explore the question, “So what?”: None of the foregoing proves that there is a God. The discussion of why there is no proof is outside this discussion (do, however, contemplate this: if God presented proof to all of humanity at once, our love would not be a choice; not even genuine). But there is myriad evidence and logical inference pointing to that “cause” as being transcendent of the material world, eternal, and demonstrating willful intent, intelligence and benevolence. The evidence points to two conclusions: that any assertion that there is no God is not proven and it is far more likely that there is a benevolent God than not. This conclusion gives rise to a profound challenge: Would an ethical person continue to dismiss or not even explore the evidence? Perhaps so, but if so, then that person – the atheist – must admit the choice to avoid the investigation and admit an assertion that is inadequately supported. Would a person continue to admit that God may well exist, but that he/she does not care? Perhaps so, but if so, then that person – the agnostic – must admit a similar choice of laziness (possibly also intellectual dishonesty) to that of a continuing atheist: The choice is analogous to a person who suspects that his/her parents loves him/her and that he/she should respond, yet simply lacks the humanity to care. Which will you call yourself, if you are intellectually and emotionally honest; or will you take the challenge to investigate thoroughly the most important questions that exist?Click to experience these & other Adventures & nonfiction: Get Dan’s fiction & nonfiction online or in-store: Amazon, Barnes & Noble’s NOOK & more!