Reason and Revelation

The Magis God Wiki: Reason and Revelation

Does Reason Need Revelation?

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

Thus far, in the Magis Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith, we have concerned ourselves with the methods pertinent to reason. These methods are described in UNIT F (Section I) and in NPEG Chapter Six, Section I. In brief, reason proceeds from two kinds of publicly accessible evidence: (1) a-posteriori evidence (empirical evidence—that which can be experienced through the senses of many individuals and thereby publicly corroborated) and (2) a-priori evidence (evidence coming from the principle of non-contradiction which gives rise to the methods of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics). These two kinds of evidence can also be combined through logical syllogism.

Four Sets of Evidence

We have discussed four major sets of evidence for the existence of God (defined as a transcendent intelligent Creator):

1. The evidence for an intelligent Creator of our universe from physics (UNIT D),

2. The evidence for “an absolutely unique, unconditioned, unrestricted, absolutely simple creator of all else that is” necessitated by a logical proof (UNIT F, Section II),

3. Evidence for a timeless Creator of time from a proof coming from the philosophy of mathematics (UNIT G), and

4. Evidence from near-death experiences and five human transcendental desires that indicate a transmaterial human soul implying a transcendent creator of that soul (UNITs B&C).

These four sets of evidence are very different in their origin and nature, and so they corroborate one another.

1. The evidence from physics begins with empirical observations but makes its conclusions through space-time geometry proofs, entropy, and anthropic coincidences.

2. The evidence from the logical proof for God begins with the necessity for at least one unconditioned reality (which cannot be denied without simultaneously denying the existence of everything including oneself), and then proceeds through a series of deductions to the unique, unrestricted and continuously creating attributes of this unconditioned reality.

3. The evidence from philosophy of mathematics begins with the analytical contradiction that infinite past time reduces to an achieved unachievable or a completed non-completeable (intrinsic contradictions), and then concludes that actual infinities (C Infinities) cannot be applied to dynamically aggregating real time because this would negate the efficacy of its non-contemporaneous separation of contradictory states (e.g. the cat alive and dead).

4. Near-death experiences give an experiential and verifiable evidence of survival of human self-consciousness after bodily death which frequently includes encounters with a transcendent being (implying a trans-material soul). This transmaterial soul is also implied by five human transcendental desires.

When these four sets of evidence are summed up in their mutually corroborative relationship, it makes the conclusion about Gods existence quite strong for even if one set of evidence is found to be weak (which I do not believe is the case) the other three sets of evidence would still substantiate the conclusion. John Henry Newman called this coincidence of evidence, “an informal inference,” by which he meant “a strong probability arising out of the convergence of several different antecedent probabilities.”

These four sets of evidence are not only mutually corroborative, but also complementary and aggregative – that is, they add to a more complete picture of the transcendent intelligent Creator.

1. The data from physics indicates a Creator of our universe (or any multiverse in which it might be situated) as well as a supercalculating superintellect which can fine-tune the constants of our universe on the smallest microscopic and largest macroscopic scales;

2. The evidence from the logical proof indicates a unique, absolutely simple, unconditioned, unrestricted, continuous Creator of all else that is;

3. The philosophy of mathematics indicates a timeless Creator of all time; and

4. The near-death experiences and transcendentals indicate a Creator of a transmaterial soul and imply that this Creator is also good and loving.

If we combine all of this, we could conclude that “a unique absolutely simple, super intelligent, timeless, unconditioned, unrestricted, good, and loving continuous Creator of all else that is” exists.

If reason can conclude to all of this, why would we need revelation? Why would God have to reveal Himself in some special way to us? After all, it seems that all of the pertinent characteristics of a transcendent being can be discovered through the evidence and methods of reason. Is there any need for belief or faith? Any need for God to give us some special revelation of Himself beyond reason? The inescapable answer is “yes.”

There are five major reasons why we need God’s special revelation to go beyond the remarkable power of reason:

1. The need to probe the heart of God.

2. The need to know how to pray and worship.

3. The need for specific revelation in the area of dogma and ethics.

4. The need to know the specifics of God’s inspiration, guiding providence, and redemption of suffering.

5. The need for sacred community.

With respect to the first need (the need to know God’s heart), we must go beyond what reason can reveal. Though we may be able to affirm God’s love and goodness from the transcendentals and near-death experiences, there are many unanswered questions. For example, is God’s love unconditional? How does God define “love”? Does that love entail responsibilities? Is it commensurate with our freedom? Does God have feelings of empathy? Affection? Compassion? If so, how do these characteristics manifest themselves?

With respect to the second need (the need to know how to pray and worship), we will want to know how best to respond to the heart of God. If we assume that God has a heart – particularly a heart of unconditional love – then we will want to know how we might open ourselves to Him. If persons are truly interpersonal, then we can never become fully alive, have full meaning, or even be fully aware of ourselves, without being in relationship with other people. The same holds true for God. Yet how can we be in relationship with Him so that we might find full meaning in life and come alive through Him? If prayer is the context for a relationship with God, then we will want to know how to pray – how to pray privately, publicly, how to meditate, contemplate; how to relate to one another through God, and how to relate to God through one another. These matters go far beyond the domain of a-posteriori or a-priori evidence and so if we are to understand them, we will need some form of revelation.

With respect to the third need (the need for specific revelation), there are certain dogmas and ethical precepts that are beyond the domain of reason. There are many doctrines that can be known by reason – the uniqueness and unrestrictedness of God, the transmateriality of human beings, and the importance of love for the meaning of life. Though reason can take us a long way, it cannot probe more specifically and deeply into the divine essence. For example, in Christianity, the Trinity, the Incarnation of the second person of the Trinity, and the Eucharist cannot be proven by assembling a–posteriori and a-priori evidence. These truths are simply beyond our empirical world, our experience, and even the domain of the principle of non-contradiction. Yet these inspired truths are important because they tell us about God’s interpersonal nature and interpersonal love, and this view of God can have a profound effect on the way we view ourselves and the way we live our lives.

Furthermore, inasmuch as ethics flows from the essence or heart of God, then inspired dogmas about God will shed light upon ethics and morality. Though reason can go a long way in the domain of ethics (probing what is good and how to achieve it), it cannot reach the fullness of ethical truth by itself. This can be seen with respect to the four cardinal virtues of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle (prudence, justice, courage, and temperance). Though they are remarkable in their power to guide and discipline human thought and action, they do not reach the level of self-sacrificial and compassionate love (agape). This most important ethical precept comes to Christians through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, though reason can come to a partial definition of “love,” it falls quite short of the beatitudes, which are revelations (of Jesus).

Finally, there are a host of ethical precepts that follow upon this definition of love, and go beyond the domain of natural reason (such as the golden rule). We may see this in the context of the silver rule: “do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you, that is, avoid unnecessary harm to others, but if a harm is unavoidable, minimize it.” The silver rule probably comes from natural reason because it is to be found in virtually every culture, religion, and secular legal system. The silver rule is considered ethical minimalism because it is the foundation for all other ethical precepts, and furthermore, if someone does not believe it, they are likely to lack conscience (and be sociopathic).

The golden rule goes far beyond the silver rule and is considered ethical maximalism (or altruism) because it declares, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you; that is, do the good for others that you would want done unto you.” This good goes far beyond merely avoiding harm. This rule does not come from a philosopher or poet, but rather, from Jesus, who considers it to be an extension of His teaching about the primacy of love. How could Christians have known that this was the fullest expression of ethics – unless they linked ethics to love? And how could they have known to link ethics to love – unless they knew that love was the highest commandment, and that this highest commandment reflected the very essence of God? And how could they have known this fundamental truth? By reason alone? I do not think so. Ethical reflection over hundreds of years was incapable of discovering either the primacy of love, the altruistic definition of love (the beatitudes – agape), or even the golden rule. Without the revelation of Jesus Christ, it seems doubtful that this essential fulfillment of ethics would have ever been discovered.

This need for revelation continues to the present day, for we need to know how the ethical issues we confront with modern technologies and circumstances can be resolved in light of the beatitudes, the primacy of love, and God’s unconditional love. This is not the domain of reason and it is not the domain of simple intuition or feeling but rather the domain of God’s inspiration working through our minds and hearts – the domain of revelation.

There is one other ethical dimension of revelation that should be considered, namely, the binding nature of moral or ethical precepts. The problem that John Locke elucidated in Reasonableness of Christianity was that the reflection of all moral philosophers throughout the ages does not have any moral authority to bind our minds or consciousness. This binding authority, this sense of ethical duty, needs to have a divine source, and for this reason, without divine authorization, the sense of obligation or duty seems to dissipate. Once again (as Locke discerned) we seem to be in need of revelation, and without this revelation, our responsibility to do what is good, and even our awareness of what is good seems to be significantly diminished.

The fourth need (specifics about inspiration, providence, and suffering) is beyond the domain of reason. Though reason can point to the existence, goodness, and love of God, it cannot derive from this how God works to inspire us, guide us, and redeem our suffering. These areas are essential for the way in which we view ourselves and live our lives. Does God bring good out of our suffering – for us, others, or the community? How does God work? What is His ultimate goal in redeeming suffering? Is suffering inconsistent or consistent with God’s love? Is it devoid of meaning or does it us lead us to deeper virtue, meaning, and love? Does God inspire us? Does He give us interior experiences of Himself – His joy, home, or love? Does God guide us? If so, how does He guide us? What are the signs of that guidance? How can we best follow those signs? Does He guide us in conjunction with others? Does He form a “conspiracy” of grace around us? All of these questions are beyond the domain of reason – they cannot be experienced from the world or deduced from first principles. If we are to get answers we will have to turn to a source of revelation, and put our faith in it. When we do, the proof of the pudding should be in the tasting; for authentic teaching in this area should bear fruit – in the long term.

With respect to the fifth need (the need for religious community), there is considerable evidence that religious community supports the faith and worship of individual members, forms a common ethos through which God can act and teach, and creates a common “face” through which the group can interact with the world. Yet how can a religious community do all these things without making reference to the other four areas of revelation mentioned above. Now inasmuch as these other four areas of revelation are integral to religious community, and inasmuch as they are beyond the domain of reason, then there will be dimensions of religious community which can only come from a common source of revelation. This common source will have to set up structures, authority, and designate the custodians of the group, its ethos, and its common teaching (doctrine). Evidently, joining a religious community has a very significant impact on the way we view ourselves and live our lives. If we have faith, this decision will be one of the most important we make, and is likely to shape our journey into the eternal.

The above five needs go beyond the scope of reason. Even if one affirms the goodness and love of God in the transcendentals and the specifics of near-death experiences, (e.g. encountering a loving white light or Jesus), one still does not have a clear sense of any of these five important areas of knowledge. Yet each of these areas is exceedingly important in living an authentic, good, and loving life.

We might say that these five areas (the domain of revelation) tell us who God is, and in light of this, how we ought to live, however, the domain of reason cannot go this far – it can tell that God exists and what His attributes are, but it is quite vague on who God is and the how of life. Reason can point to Gods goodness and love. It does not create empathy with God, feelings for God, or an awareness of God’s healing and guiding “hand.” Though reason can give us natural ethics (e.g. the four cardinal virtues), it leaves the specific interpretation of these natural precepts to us.

This gives rise to a fundamental question. If the five areas of revelation are essential to living a life of full meaning, love, and efficacy, and these five areas cannot be known by the light of reason alone, then would a loving God deprive us of this vital information? Even Christian deists (such as John Locke) affirmed that a loving God would not deny to us what we need to live a full, meaningful, and loving life. It would be inconsistent with His love, and inconsistent with reason itself.

What does this mean? If God would not leave us without the essential revelation of himself, then that revelation must be available and accessible to us in some form, and if it is, then it is incumbent upon us to discover it and its proper interpretation so that we might complement the truths of reason and allow ourselves to live a life with the fullest horizon of meaning, love, and efficacy. Failure to do so would be like relegating ourselves to a life of incompleteness and superficiality which would be at best a partial waste, and at worst, a betrayal of self.

So what can we do to avoid this? We must once again use the critical tools of reason, and also the intuitive tools of the heart, to find the source of revelation which fits the requirements of both.

Where can we begin such an enterprise? I would submit that it could begin with exploring the nature of love; for as will be seen, this one power holds out the possibility of being purely positive, the meaning of life, the source of peaceful coexistence with others, and the fulfillment of human authenticity and joy. In my view, there is no other power or virtue which holds out this potential, and so I believe that it can lead us to the source of revelation and the heart of God. In order to explore this great potential, we will want to begin with probing its essential characteristics.

A Definition of Love (Agapē)

We might begin by distinguishing the four Greek words for love that have been the subject of volumes since the time of Plato: storge, philia, eros, and agapē. Storge may be translated as affection. It is a spontaneous emotional response to someone or something we find to be outwardly lovable, delightful, or cute. Children immediately elicit affection (when they are in a good mood). The smile of a cherished friend or even a pet can elicit this spontaneous emotional response. This response can be quite fleeting or, in the case of parents, enduring. It is fundamentally emotional, lacks depth, does not necessarily result in action or commitment, and may not elicit the same response from others. It is dependent upon mood, and a perception of the lovableness, delightfulness, cuteness, or need of another. As will be seen, agapē is quite different from affection. Though affection may accompany agapē, agapē is not dependent on it.

Philia (friendship) expects mutuality or reciprocity, and when it occurs it is open to various degrees of commitment and depth. So, for example, if I commit myself more to my friend (perhaps through time, shared concern, physical energy, psychic energy, or even my future) it acts as an invitation to my friend to make a commitment on a similar level back to me. If reciprocal commitment occurs, the friendship grows in depth. This depth reaches its natural limit only when both parties have committed themselves totally to each other, but depth can increase only as much as each party is willing to reciprocate.

A certain state of being occurs conjointly with increased depth of friendship. There is a sense of caring and being cared for, a sense of being completed by the other and completing the other, a sense of being at home through the other and the other being at home through oneself, a sense of intimate connection which carries with it a sense of stability and well being. Feelings of alienation (not being at home in the world or with oneself) can be alleviated. This degree of connection requires considerable sensitivity and work, and therefore might be punctuated with lapses giving rise to disruption, outbursts, frustration, and even dashed expectations.

Notice that philia has an in-built reward. I like being cared for by, committed to, completed through, and at home with the other. Even though my participation in the friendship requires effort and discipline, the friendship yields an essential benefit and reward. I am not saying that one pursues friendships merely for the reward; one can pursue them out of the recognition of the goodness of the other, that is, out of a sense of natural attraction and generosity. Nevertheless, the reward is there and it is intrinsic to the mutuality of friendship. Agapē is different from friendship in this last respect.

Eros is concerned with the romantic, and the romantic is concerned with gender difference, complementarity in that difference, libidinal or sexual feelings, the apperception of beauty/desirability, and a sense of adventure amidst it all. Naturally, eros may be accompanied by storge and philia. When it is accompanied by an ever deepening philia, it leads to exclusive commitment. Romantic feelings can drive philia to deeper and deeper reciprocity, while this deeper reciprocity gives meaning, a sense of “home,” and a sense of mutual completion to the romantic feelings of eros. As philia drives eros and eros drives philia, a couple eventually arrives at a point where they cannot increase their commitment to one another any further. At this point, they have made one another their number one priority. Since one cannot have more than one number one priority (logically), the combination of eros and philia ends up being exclusive (i.e., unrepeatable with another), as happens in marriage.

If eros is not combined with philia, and as a consequence becomes an end in itself, it can become quite reckless and aggressive, because the couple will try to seek the satisfaction of the deepest imaginable philia through romantic sensibilities alone. When romantic sensibilities fade (as they must, because by themselves they cannot produce a totally committed philia), impatience, frustration, and even aggression can result. Libidinal or romantic feelings alone are not sufficient for the discipline, work, commitment, reciprocity, and resultant mutual care which is intrinsic to totally committed philia. When eros is not connected to totally committed philia, it is generally the source of great pain, emptiness, disillusionment, and aggression. As will be seen, agapē can be involved in the connection between philia and eros, but it does not need to be accompanied by philia or eros; it can stand quite alone.

We may now proceed to the subject of this section, namely, agapē. Agapē may be initially defined as the kind of love which does not require feelings of affection (storge), the mutuality of philia (being cared for, committed to, complemented by, and at home with the other), or the romantic/libidinal feelings of eros. Agapē does not require a feeling, reward, or a return (mutuality). It is a love which arises out of an empathetic recognition of and connection with the unique, intrinsic dignity, goodness, and mystery of the other. The unique, intrinsic dignity of the other may be captured in a benevolent glance, a conversation, or a sense of the other’s unique presence. Once captured, it provokes an awareness of the intrinsic value, worth, or goodness of the other, and this, in its turn, provokes a desire to help, protect, and enhance this intrinsically valuable, good, mysterious other. A connection, a unity, then forms, whereby doing the good for that unique other is just as easy if not easier than doing the good for oneself. Notice that when the unity occurs, one will naturally work for the good of the other without feelings of affection, for awareness of the unique, intrinsic goodness and value of the other does not depend on the perception of delightfulness, cuteness, or adorableness. Similarly, this awareness does not depend on the anticipation of mutuality (being cared about or committed to by the other). Finally, this awareness does not depend on romantic feelings arising out of a perception of beauty/desirability. It depends only on an empathetic connection with the unique, intrinsic goodness, value, and mystery of the other.

Human beings have a most remarkable capability – we can become directly aware of the unique dignity and value of another through an act of empathy. We can even become directly aware of the unique transcendental and eternal value of the other. This remarkable capacity enables us to connect with the intrinsic goodness of the other, giving rise to the desire to help, protect, and enhance the other solely because of her intrinsic value, that is, who she is in herself. This desire does not need affection, mutuality, or romantic feelings in order to arise. There need be nothing in it for me. The intrinsic value of the other (pure and simple) is sufficient to make agapē occur. Once it occurs, a unity arises, whereby doing the good for the other is just as easy (if not easier) than doing the good for myself.

This capability to connect directly with the intrinsic goodness of another is the source of compassion, forgiveness, self-sacrificial love, and care for the marginalized. Agapē’s independence from the rewards of the other three kinds of love enables it to be the source of these four special qualities.

For example, it would be virtually impossible to forgive another if one has to have affectionate or romantic feelings for the one in need of forgiveness. Feelings of affection and romance are generally absent from such occasions. Similarly, the sense of mutuality is likely to be at its low point when the need for forgiveness is high. Therefore, forgiveness has to spring from a direct connection with the unique, intrinsic, transcendental worth of the other, which makes the well being of that other desirable in itself.

The same can be said for compassion (suffering with another). When others are in need of compassion, they are generally in states of weakness and vulnerability. As such, they do not tend to provoke feelings of delight or cuteness. Neither do they provoke romantic feelings. Similarly, they are less capable of responding with deep mutuality because their needs probably exceed their capacity to give at that time. Something else must motivate the desire to be compassionate. Once again, the motivator appears to be the direct empathetic connection with the unique, intrinsic dignity, goodness, and mystery of the other which makes the well-being of the other (irrespective of the other’s capacity to look good or respond) intrinsically desirable.

The same can be seen with self-sacrificial love and sympathy for the marginalized. Marginalized people generally provoke little affection or romantic feelings. Their vulnerability means that they are almost incapable of responding with deep reciprocity. Again, it is the direct connection with their unique, intrinsic, transcendental dignity, value, and mystery which provokes one to see the tragedy in the common underestimation of their worth and mystery, and so concomitantly provokes one to work for their well being as if it were an intrinsically desirable objective. In brief, agapē is an unselfish form of love provoked by the intrinsic dignity, goodness, and mystery of the other, which is directly apprehendable in a moment of empathy.

Acts of agapē produce joy for both the giver and the receiver. One might cynically say that the giver’s joy is nothing more than egocentricity (“I feel so much more messianic today after stooping down to help this poor wretch.” Or “I feel so much better about my life after seeing and alleviating the inferiority of this other’s life.”). However, anyone who has genuinely entered into an act of agapē knows that the “joy” of agapē is not an egocentric, contemptuous, or even comparative kind of joy. Rather, it is the joy of knowing that a “little eternity” was not subject to ruin, or that that “little eternity” was vouchsafed into her eternity, or that the world was preserved from a tragic loss. When one gazes into the face of the other and picks up the “gem of great price” and is able to make the gem shine for the benefit of itself and all those around it, one instinctively feels joy in actualizing that individual’s (and the world’s) inestimable positivity.

Thus, agapē produces an authentic happiness arising out of positivity and enhancement for the intrinsically dignified “little eternities” who deserve this positivity in and of themselves. It is a recognition that they are worth love in themselves, and I am happy that their worthiness has been recognized and actualized (if only in a very finite way). Notice that I am not happy that “their worthiness has been actualized through me,” but rather, that “their worthiness has been actualized in and of itself.”

This joy of agapē is therefore contingent upon real humility and detachment from ego and all of its feelings (anger, resentment, vengeance, harboring of grudges, contempt, pursuit of comparative advantage, and fear of ego-deprivation). This “precious detachment” so essential to human growth, happiness, and even joy (and so necessary for justice, peace, and the common good) may well require help from Unconditional Agapē. For this reason, faith could well be integral to the fruition and optimization of agapē. If it is, then faith is also essential to the meaning, purpose, and fruition of every human being.

In sum, agapē holds out the promise of completeness in fulfillment, creativity, unity with others, human community, individual transcendentality, and even interpersonal transcendentality. It cannot be grasped through concepts alone, for it has contents that can only be revealed through human intuition, feeling, and desire (i.e., the domain of the heart), through concrete experiences of the lovability of others and the limiting nature of one’s ego, through human suffering, and through worship and God’s self-revelation.

Six Questions Toward Emmanuel

When I was teaching at Georgetown University, I was privileged to direct a physics and philosophy student on an Ignatian retreat. He was exceptionally bright and good-willed, and had the capacity to express what was on his mind in a very straightforward way. At the beginning of our first conference he said, “Could I ask you something very elementary which has been bothering me for several years? I don’t have any real problem with the idea of a Creator, because I believe that finitude is intrinsic to time and the origin of the universe will ultimately have to have a cause beyond a universal singularity. God is not a question for me. But it’s this Jesus thing. I’m not sure I see the need for Jesus and I’m not sure I really get it. Can’t we just stick with a ‘Creator outside of space-time asymmetry’?”

I thought about it for a couple of minutes and said to him, “The ‘Jesus thing’ is about the unconditional Love of God. It is about God wanting to be with us in a perfect act of empathy; about God wanting to save us unconditionally and to bring us to His own life of unconditional Love. A Creator alone, indeed, even a Creator with infinite power, could be tantamount to Aristotle’s God. Once he has fulfilled His purpose of ultimate, efficient, and final causation, He is detached from the affairs of rather base and uninteresting human beings. The God of Jesus Christ is about the desire to be intimately involved in the affairs of human beings made in His image and destined for His eternity – and that makes all the difference.”

He said in reply, “This all seems a bit too good to be true. I would like the Creator to be the God of Jesus Christ, but do you have any evidence that this is not just wishful thinking – evidence showing that this is really the way God is? Is there any reason why we would think that God is loving instead of indifferent?” I responded by noting that it would be better for him to answer six questions rather than have me give an extended discourse, because the six questions could reveal not only what was in his fine mind, but more importantly, what was in his heart – what he thought about love, life’s purpose, others, and His highest imaginable state of existence. If he answered these six questions (from his heart) in a manner commensurate with “the logic of love,” then the unconditional Love and divinity of Christ (i.e., Jesus being Emmanuel – God with us) would be self-evident.

I give you, the reader, these six questions and some points to guide your reflection, so that you might be able to see more clearly the logic of love and its consequences for an “unrestricted Creator outside of space-time asymmetry” (God).

1) What is the most positive and creative power or capacity within me?

At first glance, one might want to respond that this power is intellect, or artistic creativity, but further reflection may show that the capacity to apprehend truth or knowledge, or to create beauty, in and of itself, is not necessarily positive. Knowledge and beauty can be misused, and therefore be negative, destructive, manipulative, inauthentic, and thus undermine both the individual and common good. There is but one human power that contains its own end of “positivity” within itself, one power that is directed toward the positive of itself, and therefore one power that directs intellect and artistic creativity to its proper, positive end. As may by now be evident, that power is love (agapē – see Section I above). Love’s capacity for empathy, its ability to enter into a unity with others leading to a natural “giving of self,” forms the fabric of the common good and the human community, and so seeks as its end the good of both individuals and that community.

As implied above (Section I), love by its very nature unifies, seeks the positive, orders things to their proper end, finds a harmony amidst diversity, and gives of itself in order to initiate and actualize this unifying purpose. This implies that love is naturally oriented toward perfect positivity and perfect fulfillment.

Furthermore, love would seem to be the one virtue that can be an end in itself. Other virtues do not necessarily culminate in a unity with others whereby doing the good for the other is just as easy if not easier than doing the good for oneself. Thus, courage, left to itself, might be mere bravado or might lead to the persecution of the weak. Self-discipline, left to itself, might lead to a disdain for the weak or a sense of self-sufficiency which is antithetical to empathy. Even humility can be overbearing and disdainful if it is not done out of love. Even though these virtues are necessary means for the actualization of love (i.e., authentic love cannot exist without courage, self-discipline, and humility), they cannot be ends in themselves, for they can be the instruments of unlove when they are not guided by the intrinsic goodness of love. Love seems to be the only virtue that can be an end in itself and therefore can stand by itself.

Now, if you, the reader, affirm the existence of this power within yourself and further affirm that it is the guiding light of both intellect and creativity, that its successful operation is the only way in which all your other powers can be guided to a positive end, that it is therefore the only way of guaranteeing positivity for both yourself and others, and that it therefore holds out the promise of authentic fulfillment, purpose in life, and happiness, then you will have acknowledged love to be the highest of all powers. You will then want to proceed to the next question.

2) If love is the one power that seeks the positive in itself, and we are made to find our purpose in life through love, could God (perfect Being), who created us with this loving nature, be devoid of love?

If the Creator were devoid of love, why would that Creator create human beings not only with the capacity for love, but to be fulfilled only when they are loving? If the Creator is devoid of love, why make love the actualization of all human powers and desires, and therefore of human nature? If the Creator is not loving, then the creation of “beings meant for love” seems absurd. However, if the Creator is love, then creating a loving creature (i.e., sharing His loving nature) would seem to be both intrinsically and extrinsically consistent with what (or perhaps better, “who”) He is. Could the Creator be any less loving than the “loving nature” He has created? Furthermore, if a Creator were perfect Being, wouldn’t that perfect Being also be capable of the one power and virtue which can be an end in itself, that is, Love?

If you, the reader, can reasonably affirm the love of the Creator from the above, then you may want to proceed to the third question.

3) Is my desire to love and to be loved conditional or unconditional?

It may do well to pause for a moment here and give some background about our desire for love which has occupied the writings of many philosophers since the time of Plato.

We appear to have a desire for perfect and unconditional Love. Not only do we have the power to love (i.e., the power to be naturally connected to another human being in profound empathy, care, self-gift, concern, and acceptance), we have a “sense” of what this profound interpersonal connection would be like if it were perfect. This sense of perfect love has the positive effect of inciting us to pursue ever more perfect forms of love. However, it has the drawback of inciting us to expect ever more perfect love from other human beings. This generally leads to frustrated expectations of others and consequently to a decline of relationships that can never grow fast enough to match this expectation of perfect and unconditional Love.

The evidence of this desire for perfect and unconditional Love manifests itself in our frustrated expectations within relationships. Have you ever had this experience – where you thought a relationship (or friendship) with another was going quite well until little imperfections began to manifest themselves? In situations like these, there might be slight irritation, but one has hopes that the ideal will soon be recaptured. But as the fallibility of the beloved begins to be more acutely manifest (the other is not perfectly humble, gentle, kind, forgiving, self-giving, and concerned with me) the irritation becomes frustration, which, in turn, becomes dashed expectation: “I can’t believe I thought she was really the One.” Of course, she wasn’t the One, because she is not perfect and unconditioned.

This gives rise to the question, “Why do we all too frequently expect our beloveds to be perfect and expect ourselves to be perfect to our beloveds if we did not have a desire for perfect and unconditional Love in the first place?” The reader must now apply this question to him or herself. If you did not have a desire for perfect and unconditional Love, why would you be so dissatisfied with imperfect and conditioned manifestations of love in others (even from the time of childhood)? If you sense within yourself an incapacity to be ultimately satisfied by any form of conditioned or finite love, then you will have also affirmed within yourself the intrinsic desire for unconditional Love, which leads to the next question.

4) If my desire for love can only be ultimately satisfied by unconditional Love, then could the Creator of this desire be anything less than Unconditional Love?

A simple response to this question might run as follows: if we assume that the Creator does not intend to frustrate this desire for unconditional Love within all of us, it would seem that His creation of the desire would imply an intention to fulfill it, which would, in turn, imply the very presence of this quality within Him. This would mean that the Creator of the desire for unconditional Love is (as the only possible fulfillment of that desire) Himself Unconditional Love. The reader here is only affirming the inconsistency of a “Creator incapable of unconditional Love” creating a being with the desire for perfect and unconditional Love. This is sufficient for affirming the presence of unconditional Love in the Creator.

A more complete explanation might begin with the origin of the desire for perfect and unconditional Love. The awareness of unconditional Love (which arouses the desire for unconditional Love) seems to be beyond any specifically known or concretely experienced love, for it seems to cause dissatisfaction with every conditioned love we have known or experienced. How can we have an awareness of love that we have neither known nor experienced? How can we even extrapolate to it if we do not know where we are going? The inability of philosophers to give a purely naturalistic answer to these questions has led them to associate the “tacit awareness of unconditional Love” with the “felt presence of Unconditional Love Itself.” Unconditional Love Itself would therefore seem to be the cause of our awareness of It and also our desire for It. Inasmuch as Unconditional Love Itself transcends all conditioned (and human) manifestations of love, it might fairly be associated with the Creator. The Creator would then be associated with our human awareness of and desire for unconditional Love. Therefore, it seems that the Creator would have to be at least capable of unconditional Love.

5) If the Creator is Unconditional Love, would He want to enter into a relationship with us of intense empathy, that is, would He want to be Emmanuel (“God with us”)?

If one did not attribute unconditional Love to God, then the idea of God wanting to be with us, or God being with us, would be preposterous. A God of stoic indifference would not want to bother with creatures, let alone actually be among them and enter into empathetic relationship with them. However, in the logic of love, or rather, in the logic of unconditional Love, all this changes.

If we attribute the various parts of the definition of agapē (given above in Section I) to an unconditionally loving Creator, we might obtain the following result: God (as Unconditional Agapē) would be unconditional empathy and care for others (even to the point of self-sacrificial care). As such, God would expect neither repayment for this care, nor any of the affective benefits of the other three kinds of love. Hence, God would not need the affection of storge in order to love us, though He would have unconditional affection for us; He would not need the mutual commitment and caring of philia, though He would be unconditionally committed to us in friendship; and He would not have need of our romantic feelings, even though He would grace such feelings in the human endeavor toward exclusive love. God would seek unconditionally to protect, defend, maintain, and enhance the intrinsic dignity, worth, lovability, unique goodness, transcendental mystery, and intrinsic eternity of every one of us.

Recall that love is empathizing with the other and entering into a unity with that other whereby doing the good for the other is just as easy, if not easier, than doing the good for oneself. This kind of love has the non-egocentricity, humility, self-gift, deep affection, and care which would make infinite power into infinite gentleness, and would incite an infinitely powerful Being to enter into a restrictive condition to empathize more fully with His beloveds. In this logic, “Emmanuel” would be typical of an unconditionally loving God. This would characterize the way that Unconditional Love would act – not being egocentrically conscious of the infinite distance between Creator and creature, but rather being infinitely desirous of bridging this gap in a perfect unity of perfect empathy and perfect care. It would be just like the unconditionally loving God to be “God with us.”

The following consideration might help to clarify this. If God is truly Unconditional Love, then it would not be unreasonable to suspect that He would be unconditional empathy; and if He were unconditional empathy, it would not be unreasonable to suspect that He would want to enter into an empathetic relationship with us “face-to-face” (“peer-to-peer”) where the Lover and beloved would have a parallel access to the uniquely good and lovable personhood and mystery of the other (through empathy). A truly unconditionally loving Being would want to give complete empathetic access to His heart and interior life in a way which was proportionate to the receiving apparatus of the weaker (creaturely) being. It would seem reasonable (according to the reasonings of the heart), then, that an unconditionally loving Creator would want to be Emmanuel in order to give us complete empathetic access to that unconditional Love through voice, face, touch, action, concrete relationship, and in every other way that love, care, affection, home, and felt response can be concretely manifest and appropriated by us. If God really is Unconditional Love, then we might be presumptuous enough to expect that He might be Emmanuel; and if Emmanuel, then concretely manifest in history. If this resonates with the reader’s thoughts and feelings, you will want to proceed to the next question.

6) If it would be typical of the unconditionally loving God to want to be fully with us, then is Jesus the One?

As reasonable and responsible as the answers to the above questions might be, they can be considerably strengthened through historical corroboration, that is, through experienceable data which concretizes the reasoning given immediately above. What kind of experienceable data could accomplish this corroboration? Data which at once manifests (1) God in our midst (Emmanuel) and (2) God as Unconditional Love. It so happens that a remarkably powerful experienceable event did at once manifest and synthesize these two corroborating data, and showed the above reasoning about the unconditional Love of God to be both reasonable and experienceable, and to be mutually corroboratable through concrete experience and the logic of love. This remarkable experienceable event is Jesus Christ.

So can this incredibly good news, this historical corroboration of our reasoning, this complete access to the heart of God be brought into focus so that it can be seen clearly to be at once the truth about God and our destiny? I believe it can, because the life of Jesus and the Church He initiated is filled with clues that synergistically connect the mind to the heart and the heart to the mind.

The rest of this book will be devoted to showing the remarkable similarity between the above reasoning about God’s unconditional Love and Jesus’ appearance in our midst. The reader will then have a background to better answer the question, “Is Jesus the One? Is Jesus Emmanuel – the Unconditional Love of God with us?”