Life is a Prayer.com

What follows below is a paper I wrote for my 'Philosophy of God' class -Jeff

Commit it to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
-David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (Sect. XII, Part III), concerning any volume of divinity or metaphysics

The notion of God and his existence has undergone many changes throughout the history of empiricist philosophy. While the great medieval philosopher Aquinas “felt that the most important concern of the philosopher was with the primary substance or God,” some modern philosophers “went so far as to say that any reference to things that transcend the senses is cognitively meaningless since there is no evidence on which such ideas can be either affirmed or denied” (Klocker, v-vi). God changed from being the philosopher’s main ally and object of thought to being, at best, a vague entity very much separated from philosophy. Two British empiricists, John Locke and David Hume, were fundamental influences on a turn away from the study of God and metaphysics in the course of empiricism, and their influence is still felt today. As the above quote proclaims, metaphysics, according to Hume, should be ‘committed to the flames,’ for it can only contain ‘sophistry and illusion.’ What brought about this radical change? This paper will explore views of God in early modern empiricism, especially that of John Locke and David Hume.

Historical Empiricism

Philosophical empiricism “refers to a philosophical approach that looks to this world, to experience, as the source of all knowledge. The empiricist turns away from rationalism and idealism, from innate ideas as well as from separated Platonic forms” (ix). The historical background of empiricism will help in our understanding of how later empiricists formed their own ideas of God.

Aristotle

The earliest and most widely recognized proponent of the empiricist approach is the ancient philosopher Aristotle. As a biologist, he saw the importance of objects in our experience and their importance in explaining the world in which he lived. Since its inception, “empiricism has always managed to ally itself with natural science and has seen itself as either a continuance of the scientific method or as a means of giving science a philosophical support” (Ibid xiii). Aristotle derived what transcended our world from the objects he experienced in the world. He looked at the ‘effects’ in nature, and applied to them his reason, seeking their cause. He states in his Physics, “The natural course is to proceed from what is clearer and more knowable to us, to what is more knowable and clear by nature; for the two are not the same. Hence we must start thus with things which are less clear by nature, but clearer to us, and move on to things which are by nature clearer and more knowable” (Ackrill 81). Aristotle looked at the two main approaches to reality, the materialistic and Platonic approaches, in the philosophy of his time, but was satisfied with neither, for the materialists looked too much to the world to posit any idea of something that transcends our world, and the Platonists looked to the transcendent forms almost exclusively, ignoring that which is in our world. Aristotle “wanted to establish a theory of reality that would allow both values and sense objects to be real” (Jones 216).

Aristotle stumbled upon a discovery that there must be some sort of transcendent being; if there are many changing things in our world, there must be a source of the motion that enables them to change. This ‘first mover’ is what we call god. In the words of Aristotle, “there must clearly be something that causes things that move themselves at one time to be and at another not to be” (Ackrill 127). Aristotle doesn’t completely abandon Plato’s ideas of transcendent realities; rather, “in his own objective and matter of fact manner, Aristotle has drawn from Plato’s demonstration the lesson it teaches concerning the origin of our philosophical notion of god. Men, Aristotle says, have derived it from two sources: their own souls and the motion of stars” (Gilson 32). Aristotle’s god differs greatly from the God of Christianity. The ‘prime mover’ is an indifferent and uncaring god, without any providential plan for the world. “The god of Aristotle… would be ‘transcendent and remote,’ and ‘indifferent to [lesser intelligences] if he were aware of them” (Jones 231). In the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas revived the work of Aristotle and applied some parts of it to Christian philosophy.

St. Thomas Aquinas

Aquinas approached philosophy in a fundamentally Aristotelian way, even though the philosophical and theological scholars of his day were against his doing so:

“At the beginning of his life, Greek and Arabian philosophy was just entering the Latin world; three years after his death, the large-scale condemnation of Aristotelianism in Paris by Bishop Stephen Tempier signalized what turned out to be a defeat for Christian thinkers in the presence of Greek and Arabian philosophers, Platonists and Aristotelians alike” (Pegis xi).

Aquinas is credited as saying, “Nihil in intellectu quod prius no fuerit in sensu,” that is, “nothing is in the intellect which was not first in the senses.” Aquinas follows Aristotle’s philosophical approach by choosing as his starting point the world of everyday experience. Aquinas was somewhat of a pupil of Aristotle, “to whom he owed his method, his principles, up to even his all-important notion of the fundamental actuality of being. Aristotle’s philosophy wasn’t enough, though: “St. Thomas breathed into Aristotle’s conception of the world a vision that the Stagirite himself had never known” (xxviii). Thomas had to rework some of Aristotle’s philosophical principles and entirely disregard others to make his system of philosophy work. As an empiricist, Aquinas was fundamentally opposed to the Platonic philosophical approach (the approach which begins with a transcendent reality), mainly because of the blatant dualism (separation of the transcendent and the real) of Plato’s philosophy. Aristotle’s “ultimate opponent was Plato himself… According to St. Thomas, [Plato’s] method succeeded in forcing Plato to have a dis-existentialized view of being, of man and of knowledge” (xvi, xviii).

St. Thomas, being the faithful clergyman he was, sought to use philosophy as a tool by which he could reinforce theology. For Thomas, “the supreme expression of wisdom was theology” (Gilson 75), and all other pursuits were secondary. With this understanding, St. Thomas presupposed “the proper object of theology is God, who is the highest conceivable object of human knowledge” (76). In Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas summarizes two of the arguments for the existence of God acquired from Aristotle and modified slightly for Aquinas’ purposes. The first and most recognized of his arguments is based on Aristotle’s argument from motion. “Everything that is moved is moved by another… This mover is itself either moved or not moved. If it is not, we have reached our conclusion—namely, that we must posit some unmoved mover. This we call God” (Aquinas 86). St. Thomas most famously describes the existence of God in his Summa Theologiae, through the ‘five ways.’ He argues from motion, from the nature of efficient cause, from possibility and necessity, from the gradation found in things and from the governance of the world (Pegis 25-27). All of Thomas’ philosophical arguments for the existence of God flowed from his desire to support the theology he lived. He knew that philosophy could not grasp the entirety of God’s existence—it could only touch some small hint at the infinite reality of God—but his main objective was to provide philosophical support for his theology.

Modern Empiricism

Many forces brought about the radical change in the focus of philosophy from the time of Aquinas to the time of the Modern philosophers. The governments and institutions of society were in flux, and many old ideas were being overturned. Philosophers were now mostly laymen: “Modern philosophy has been created by laymen, not by churchmen, and to the ends of the natural cities of men, not to end of the supernatural city of God” (Gilson 74). It was not that these modern philosophers were entirely unconcerned with the philosophical notion of God; rather, they were much more interested in the political crises of their time, and the human condition in general. “The transition from medieval philosophy to early modern philosophy is best illustrated by the change that took place in the social condition of the philosophers themselves” (74). God was no longer the primary concern of philosophy.

John Locke

“During his lifetime Locke witnessed some of the stormiest events in English history… in 1649, when Locke was seventeen, Charles I was executed” (Mayer 175). Oliver Cromwell and his Independent party ruled England in a dictatorial style for a time. The Restoration of Charles II occurred in 1660 (175). These and many other societal events forced John Locke to look at his world and explore political philosophy and human understanding from an empirical perspective, as opposed to earlier rationalist modern philosophers, who focused more on the knowledge prior to sense experience (a priori knowledge). Locke was an Oxford graduate who majored in physics and left with a distaste of physics and the classics, and a tendency towards liberalism (177). He wrote his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (containing most of his philosophical treatment of God) while he was a political exile in Holland, and published it in 1690. His Essay “remains one of the landmarks of modern philosophy” (176). In his Essay, Locke attacks the doctrine of innate ideas, speaks of how ideas are formed and where they come from, deals with confusion in words and semantics in general and analyzes the types of knowledge and the limits of human understanding (177).

Locke started with our world of sensible, changing things, following the tradition of Aristotle and Aquinas. Locke “begins with a rejection of the Cartesian doctrine of innate ideas and insists that the sources of knowledge are experiential” (Klocker 38). In his Essay, Locke states, “Whence has [the mind] all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, from experience” (The Empiricists 10). Locke denies any a priori knowledge using children as his example: “He that attentively considers the state of a child, at his first coming into the world, will have little reason to think him stored with plenty of ideas, that are to be the matter of his future knowledge” (11-12).

Locke added subjectivity to empiricism through his concept of ‘ideas.’ “What is experienced is nothing else but the ideas which result from sensation and reflection, and these become the data with which the new empiricism is forced to work. It is from such data that all knowledge of the external world is derived and from which any notion of a being transcendent to the world can be had” (Klocker 38). Locke’s ideas imply that there must be an external reality, because there must be a source for his ideas (which result from sensation and reflection). Locke further divides his ideas into complex and simple ideas. Simple ideas are direct sense experiences, (e.g. the hardness and coldness of ice). Complex ideas are groupings in our mind we make of two or more simple ideas (e.g. ‘ice’ is a smooth, solid and cold substance). However, because we are not sure that we know every simple idea, or primary quality of an object, we can never know the real essence of an object. “The word ‘god,’ then, is a term signifying more simply the entire collection of impressions produced by something or other outside the mind. This is the nominal essence of the thing as opposed to the real essence which we can never know” (Klocker 40).

Locke, however, has problems with his theory of knowledge. He wants to “reconcile a basic, commonsense realism” grounded in what we can clearly perceive in the external world of everyday objects with his “theory of knowledge which necessarily calls such a realism into question” (Ibid 42). How can there be a concrete, definite reality if we can only know that our ideas of this reality exist? Because of his troubles with this problem, Locke does not depend solely on his theory of human knowledge for his proof of the existence of God.

Locke also makes the distinction between intuitive and deductive knowledge. There is a difference in the clearness of our knowledge due to the different way the mind perceives the “agreement or disagreement of any of its ideas” (The Empiricists 78). Intuitive knowledge is that which occurs when “the mind perceives the agreement or disagreement of two ideas immediately by themselves, without the intervention of any other” (78). For deductive knowledge, “the mind perceives the agreement or disagreement of any of its ideas, but not immediately” (79). Deductive knowledge incorporates reasoning and demonstrative proofs to help the mind in its process of relating ideas to one another. Locke’s understanding of deductive knowledge “provides him with the starting point for any and all proofs, and it furnishes him with the possibility of transcending the basic experience from which all our ideas come” (Klocker 43). Locke’s theory of deductive knowledge necessitates a hierarchy of knowledge, with intuitive knowledge at its height, and muddled demonstrative knowledge below, with all other posited types of knowledge disregarded as faith or opinion (43).

John Locke applies his theories of knowledge and ideas to the metaphysical world in book four of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Before determining whether we have knowledge of the existence of a God, Locke determines that “we perceive [our own existence] so plainly and so certainly, that it neither needs nor is capable of any proof. For nothing can be more evident to us than our own existence” (The Empiricists 98). He also speaks about ‘immaterial spirits’ as justifiable objects of knowledge:

For putting together the ideas of thinking and willing, or the power of moving or quieting corporeal motion, joined to substance, of which we have no distinct idea, we have the idea of an immaterial spirit; and by putting together the ideas of coherent solid parts, and a power of being moved, joined with substance, of which likewise we have no positive idea, we have the idea of matter (59).

In a similar way to our discovery of ‘immaterial spirits,’ Locke’s “idea of God arises, as do all our other ideas, from either sensation or reflection. In this case it is more properly from reflection that the notion of God is derived” (Klocker 45).

Locke’s first treatment of God, through an idea, incorporates the ideas of existence, duration, knowledge power, and other enjoyable qualities combined with the idea of infinity (45). Even though this treatment of God is necessitated by Locke’s epistemology, it is inadequate, as God is only some sort of infinite ‘complex idea’ completed by many simple ideas.

Locke’s second treatment of God’s existence depends on our intuition. Only intuitive knowledge is absolutely true. Thus, all of our knowledge must in some way incorporate intuitive knowledge if it is to be legitimate. “If Locke hopes to build a true and certain demonstration for the existence of God, he must somehow ground such a demonstration in intuitive knowledge” (47). Locke himself states the following concerning the types of knowledge in relation to the entities known: “We have the knowledge of our own existence by intuition; of the existence of God by demonstration; and of other things by sensation… As for our own existence, we perceive it so plainly and so certainly, that it neither needs nor is capable of any proof” (The Empiricists 98). Locke ridicules any man skeptical of his own existence: “Let him for me enjoy his beloved happiness of being nothing, until hunger or some other pain convince him of the contrary” (100). Because there is nothing outside of ourselves that we can intuit and be certain exists, we must begin our demonstration of God’s existence with intuitive knowledge of our own existence.

We must use our perception and reason to provide certitude in our knowledge of God’s existence because we have no a priori knowledge of God (Klocker 48). As was shown earlier, “it is certain that man exists” (48). It is also intuitive that there must be an existing cause for anything that now is in existence; “Nothing cannot produce a Being; therefore something must have existed from Eternity… Nothing can no more produce any real being, than it can be equal to two right angles” (The Empiricists 100). Another way of saying is: for every effect, there is a cause (the same maxim upon which Aquinas’ first proof from motion rests). This being must also have been most powerful and most knowing, for the eternal being “must also have all that which is in and belongs to its being from another too” (100). Locke concludes, “There is an eternal, most powerful, and most knowing Being; which whether any one will please to call God, it matters not. The thing is evident; and from this idea duly considered, will easily be deduced all those other attributes, which we ought to ascribe to this eternal Being” (101). From this demonstration of God’s existence, Locke believes he is more certain than of any proof “our senses have not immediately discovered to us” (100).

Locke seems to be diverging from his original theory of ideas “to a more realistic theory of knowledge that can make immediate contact with at least one thing — the existing self” (Klocker 52). Locke diverged slightly from his theory of knowledge for this proof of God because of its insufficiency in dealing with reality and true existence. If all that we are certain of are our ideas, then how can we be certain that any of our ideas transcend themselves and point to an external world? “It may be that in this case his common sense was better than his philosophy, but [Klocker doesn’t] think Locke would admit he had given up his previous conclusions that ideas are all that we know.” One other problem with Locke’s argument is the fact that it cannot escape the ideal world and apply to reality. “The argument, despite Locke’s best efforts, falls back into an ontological argument” because “the whole argument moves on the ideal level and never really gets into the existential order” (53). Besides these problems, Klocker points out that “Locke asserts more” than the simple truth “whatever is caused is caused totally by an agent which must possess in itself whatever we find in the effect” (54). In the way that Locke phrases his causal proposition (“every effect demands a cause”), there is no implied perfection or idea of infinity in the cause.

Although “Locke thought he had established the reality of something outside the human mind” (57), it was not very convincing to David Hume, who decided to take Locke’s skepticism and develop it further.

David Hume

David Hume is regarded as “the last of the great triumvirate of ‘British empiricists’” (Morris 1). He was a student at Edinburgh, in England, and loved philosophy, even though his family wanted him to enter law. He decided to go to France to write about many different topics. His Treatise of Human Nature dwelt on epistemology, man’s emotions and morality, but was not well received. Another work, Essays, Moral and Political (published in 1741) gained him more exposure, but his greatest claim to fame during his own lifetime was his History of England. Hume was involved in many political happenings in France and Britain, and was “especially famous in France” (Mayer 213). For a time, he lived with French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, but this relationship ended quickly because of Rousseau’s lack of appreciation and persecution mania (212-214).

Hume’s ideas of God and metaphysics left a very bad taste in the mouths of those who still studied rationalism or scholastic philosophy, but his main intent was to “develop a more scientific method in philosophy” (214). In his Treatise of Human Nature, Hume distinguishes between impressions and ideas. Impressions are “vivid and lively perceptions,” and ideas are “faint images of these [impressions] used in thinking and reasoning” (Klocker 58). Hume’s impressions are the same as Locke’s simple ideas. Substance, according to Hume, is that which is composed of many impressions. However, Hume takes the skepticism of Locke further. “Hume is not willing to go so far as to assert the actual existence of such substances… If all we know are impressions or ideas, how can we affirm the actual existence of anything except the impression or the idea?” (58). Hume proposed that existence added nothing to meaning because the mere thought of something is the same as the thing existing. But Hume’s problem was: “Can we get beyond meaning?” (58).

We have an opinion that things in our perceptions have a continual existence, and this opinion is from our imagination (not our reason or from our senses), because our senses do not continually perceive the things in question, and reason confirms this. Hume writes in his Treatise of Human Nature,

“Our memory presents us with a vast number of instances of perceptions perfectly resembling each other, that return at different distances of time, and after considerable interruptions. This resemblance gives us a propension to consider interrupted perceptions as the same… [It] makes us believe the continued existence of body… ‘Tis a false opinion that any of our objects, or perceptions, are identically the same after an interruption; and consequently the opinion of their identity can never arise from reason, but must arise from the imagination” (Hume 208-209).

The human mind, then, cannot prove that any things exist apart from our perceptions of them. “Hume is sure that he has perceptions. He is not sure of their source” (Klocker 60).

Hume denied “any philosophical justification or demonstration for the existence” of any objects outside the mind, but he “never denied [their] actual existence” (61). Hume speaks of causality with the understanding that there are, in fact, objects existing outside the mind. “He speaks of causality as the only possible way to establish the existence of anything” (61). Hume questions the rationalist principle of causality, which states: whatever begins to be must have a cause (61). Hume finds, though, that the only way to establish cause and effect is from experience; we must relate ideas gained through experience to one another in order to determine a cause and effect. Hume also explores the rationalist principle of necessary connection, and determines that “there is never any experience of necessity,” and thereby we cannot say that any cause has a necessary effect. Hume highlights the problem of induction, which states that a person may not rationally apply a result found in a limited set of experiences to any and all possible experiences. In doing so, one would be moving from the observed to the unobserved, which would be irrational. “Any inference from experience is based on the supposition that nature is uniform—that the future will be like the past” (Morris 9), but there is no reason to believe in uniformity in nature, according to Hume. In the words of Klocker, “There is not in our experience any certitude that one thing is the cause of another.”

According to Hume, there can be no arguments grounded in causality. He “has literally destroyed ahead of time any argument from effect to cause,” thus negating the arguments of most empiricists before him (including those mentioned in this paper). How, then, can Hume speak of God’s existence? There are two parts to Hume’s theory of God’s existence, and both, to a certain degree, deal with causality.

Hume denies the validity of the Cartesian notion of God as the ‘prime mover’ (Hume 159-160), for we cannot derive our idea of God from sense impressions (i.e. motion). He also denies that any a priori argument for God’s existence can be used, for “whatever is may not be, and there is nothing in the intelligibility of any being which indicates necessary existence” (Klocker 65, emphasis mine). We must, then, use experience for our proof of God’s existence. But Hume realizes that there are very narrow limits to our reason—it struggles to go beyond the ordinary world of sense experience. Hume further denies the popular argument from the order in nature of his day; since nothing is perfect in nature, we could never argue for a ‘highest’ being, who would contain all qualities possessed in nature, but only for a ‘superior’ being (67). Hume also speaks of the notion of God in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. In it, he suggests a skeptical approach (that of the character in the Dialogues named ‘Philo’) to the existence of God is most manageable. All the popular arguments for God’s existence have some problem or another, and we cannot ever reach any certifiable conclusions about God’s existence, except that there most likely is a God. “Hume’s ‘skeptical solution’ limits our inquiries to common life, where no sophisticated metaphysical arguments are available and none are required” (Morris 10).

Hume is an ‘academic’ (mitigated) skeptic, proposing that reason alone is not the way in which man can live and discover truth rather than a radical (Pyrrhonian) skeptic, who would deny any sort of truth. In addition to his distaste for rationalism, Hume dislikes religion: “Since religion is not universal in the way that our non-rational beliefs in causation or physical objects are, perhaps it can eventually be dislodged from human thinking altogether” (Morris 16). No one can summarize Hume’s thoughts concerning metaphysics and theology better than Hume himself:

Divinity or Theology, as it proves the existence of a Deity, and the immortality of souls, is composed partly of reasonings concerning particular, partly concerning general facts. It has a foundation in reason, so far as it is supported by experience. But its best and most solid foundation is faith and divine revelation… If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion (Hume 165).

“Hume’s treatment of the arguments he knew for the existence of God had its influence on later empiricism… Hume’s criticism tended more and more in the years to come to restrict the validity of demonstration to the area of the physical” (Klocker 76). After Hume, the significance of God and His existence were all but removed from philosophy and from the study of science. Although not a complete atheist, Hume “supplies the approach for the naturalistic mentality that sees the world as sufficient for itself and the possibility of a morality without God” that becomes more popular in later years.

Conclusion

            There is a great difference between Hume’s skeptical notion of God and Aquinas and Aristotle’s taken-for-granted ‘prime mover,’ and this difference can only be accounted for by changing times in which the philosophers lived, in addition to changing philosophical outlooks. What was important to the philosophers of each time period was the main subject of each philosopher’s thought. For Aristotle, it was the source of the natural things he studied, and for Aquinas it was theology, but for Locke and Hume, it was the ever-changing political landscape and a philosophical rationalism that was failing to aid society in making a perfect world. Through his definition of ‘idea,’ Locke inadvertently changed the course of modern empiricist philosophy by adding a strong dose of subjectivity. Hume further expanded this subjectivity to form a skeptical view of things outside our own impressions, especially those having to do with metaphysics or theology. Because of this, modern empiricist philosophy’s view of God is quite different than that proposed by earlier philosophers.

Works Cited

Ackrill, J.L. (ed.). A New Aristotle Reader. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1989.

Aquinas, St. Thomas. Summa Contra Gentiles Book One: God. Trans. by Anton C. Pegis. Notre Dame: Notre Dame Press, 2003.

Gilson, Étienne. God and Philosophy. London: Yale University Press, 2002.

Hume, David. A Treatise on Human Nature. L.A. Selby-Bigge (ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1888.

Jones, W.T. The Classical Mind: A History of Western Philosophy (Second Edition). United States: Wadsworth, 1980.

Klocker, Harry R. God and the Empiricists. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1968.

Markie, Peter. “Rationalism vs. Empiricism.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2004 Edition). Edward N. Zalta (ed.). November 28, 2005. <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2004/entries/rationalism-empiricism/>.

Mayer, Frederick. A History of Modern Philosophy. New York: American Book Company, 1951.

Morris, William Edward. “David Hume.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2001 Edition). Edward N. Zalta (ed.). November 28, 2005. <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2001/entries/hume/>.

Pegis, Anton C. Introduction to St. Thomas Aquinas. New York: The Modern Library, 1948.

The Empiricists. Richard Taylor (ed.). New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1961.

Recently someone emailed me (in good spirit), encouraging me to outline the Church's response to abortions in case of rape, incest, grave danger to the mother's life, etc., and so I shall oblige.

One must understand, as I have come to understand, that abortion is evil. Abortion causes the death of a human being—a living person (that I believe is endowed with a soul given by God at the moment of conception, although that is debatable). Even though the person may not be completely able to live on his own yet, he is living, with his own cell structures, DNA, genetic code, etc., and should be given all the God-given rights any other human person has. Abortion, the immoral killing of a human being in a mother's womb (and sometimes outside the womb), is wrong. Our society seems to be stuck on saying 'NO' to life; why can we not begin to accept the great gift of life God has given to us?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2270):

"Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life."

A lot of the right-to-life problems have stemmed from a distorted view of sexuality and 'theology of the body' in our society. Many people blindly accept what organizations such as Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and other pro-abortion agencies tell them: artificial contraception is good, premarital sex has no moral consequence, moral and ethical relativism is fine, etc. The Catholic Church's view of the sanctity of sexuality, the body, and human life stems from it's belief in the 'natural law', "the divine law written in our hearts and knowable by human reason." (credit: Catholic Update). Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body and Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae are two of the most comprehensive works on these issues.

Pope Paul VI explains the sanctity of God's natural design of human sexuality:

"The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.'' (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life."

Pope John Paul II explains why artificial contraception is an impediment to true marital love:

"For those who are filled with the Holy Spirit, contraception is simply unthinkable. They know it replaces the true language of the body with a lie. And lying within the heart of marital intimacy has a ripple effect, as does speaking the truth. Spouses who strive to speak honestly in the nuptial embrace also strive to be open and honest with each other in the other areas of their married life."

A profound respect for life must begin with a profound respect for sexuality and our bodies. After we understand these gifts from God, we may move on towards developing greater respect for the main result of the marital act: a new creation. From Catholic Update:

"We should all respect human life from the moment of conception. And you might say that a bottom-line minimum for respecting human life is not killing it! As our Holy Father puts it, the first right that everybody has is "the inviolable right of every innocent being to life" (Donum Vitae). Everyone has, in other words, a right not to be killed. This is a moral principle held, if not always applied, through the ages and across the globe. When it is violated, there is almost always an outcry."

Now, concerning abortion in cases of rape and incest:

"Many question why the Church won't make specific exceptions for abortion when unborn children are conceived in rape or incest, or are disabled. They also feel that the Church is being unduly hard when it makes no exceptions for situations in which a mother will have her mental or physical health taxed as a result of carrying a baby to term and/or rearing the child. But consider the implications of making such exceptions. It would send them the message that people's value depends upon their physical condition, the circumstances of their conception or others' perception of them."

And, from Catholic Answers:

"An unborn child is an innocent human, regardless of the circumstances of his conception. Though tragic, the crimes of rape or incest are only exacerbated, and the woman's torments are only intensified, by the additional sin of abortion. Since... the unborn is human, regardless of the "caliber" of his pre-born life, no alleged deficiency in his "quality" of life can justify the taking of that life.

The same applies to the so-called "either/or" dilemma: The mother's life is supposedly in danger, and there is a chance she might die; to ensure her safety, it is said, it is necessary to kill the child. Yet one is never justified in doing evil that good may come of it (Rom. 3:8). What is at issue here is homicidal intent.

[Some people allow] for abortions when the mother's "health" is in jeopardy. But what health? Physical only, when there is a likelihood of her death? Physical only, when there is no real likelihood of her death? Emotional? Besides, what is the definition of "jeopardy"? All mothers know that pregnancy inevitably brings "health" problems, if nothing more than nausea, varicose veins, and additional weight. The "mother's health" loophole is the greatest entree to abortion."

More resources:

• Priests for Life
• National Right-to-Life Committee
• Pro-Life Action League
• American Life League
• Catholic Answers - Ethics and Morality

While growing up, I've tried a variety of craft projects, and one of my favorites has always been making knot Rosaries. I find making knot Rosaries to be very condusive to silent prayer and reflection, and you can do many great things with the Rosaries you make.

Knot Rosaries are very durable (when made properly), they feel great while praying the Rosary, the Divine Mercy Chaplet or other devotional prayers on them, and they look very nice. So far, none of the Rosaries I've made and given away or sold have had any problems falling apart, even after a few years of use! As an additional benefit, they are not very hard to make, and the supplies you will need do not cost very much at all!

Getting Started - The Supplies

I've always purchased the nylon twine for my knot Rosaries from FNT Industries, as they offer a great selection of colors, sizes and lengths of cord. My favorite cord to purchase is #36 Solid Color Nylon Twine; you can purchase a 500 ft. spool (good for about 25 rosaries at 5 yards per Rosary) for only $8, plus shipping. You can purchase white twine and dye it yourself to make interesting color combinations (click here for instructions). You can also usually find a few different sizes of this nylon twine in a local hardware store.

You don't have to use #36 twine, but I find that the beads look best with this size (#21 makes a much smaller rosary, but it might be better for younger, smaller hands).

For the crucifix/cross and the Marian medal, you have many different options. For a simple cord Rosary, you can make both parts completely from the nylon twine. For a more traditional look, with a Miraculous Medal and a metal Crucifix, you can purchase them separately (usually about $1 per rosary) and affix them to the Rosary using special knots. See the section 'More resources' at the bottom of this page for more suppliers for these parts.

PDF Guide for Making Knot Rosaries

For instructions, I will refer to the PDF guide from www.RosaryArmy.com, but I will add some of the tips and tricks I've learned here.

Step 1: Practice Making Knots

It may seem very hard to make a knot at first, but after five or so, you'll get the hang of it, and soon you'll be able to make knots without even looking most of the time! The key here is patience. Keep working until you have made a few knots in a row on a piece of practice cord (about two feet long).

Follow RosaryArmy's instructions for steps 1-5, then for step 6, hold on to the first loop (the one that controls the tightness of the loop) and last loop (the one that controls where the knot is) of cord, and control how you tighten the knot by pulling a little on the first loop, then 'messaging' the last loop and the string, then pulling the first loop again, until you've made the knot almost where it needs to be. Then 'message' the knot to exactly where you want it using your thumb and index finger. This is VERY important for making evenly and tightly spaced Hail Mary knots.

To see what exactly I mean, I have provided a video (about 700 KB for speedy downloading!) which requires QuickTime 7 or later to view. To watch the video, click the 'Play' button.

Step 2: Making Your Rosary

Note: Many people have been asking me about how, specifically, they can make a knotted cross so the whole Rosary is, truly, a 'knot Rosary.' Here are some simple directions:

For the crucifix, you basically make a bunch of Our Father knots, making sure to space them well. You make one Our Father knot after the last Our Father knot that is on the Rosary (the first one prayed), then you leave about 1/8" of a gap, and make two Our Father knots right up next to each other. Then, cut off the extra string and burn (or superglue) the end.

Take the string you cut off (or use some more string if the sting you cut off isn't long enough), and tie it in a simple knot around the gap you left. This will form the crossbar. Tie one Our Father knot on each side of the small knot you just tied, making sure the Our Father knots are tied very close to the center of the cross. Then cut and burn or superglue the string coming out of these Our Father knots. There you have it!

RosaryArmy's instructions are very good for making a complete rosary, but I'll offer a few extra tips here, and explain a few things in more detail.

• You can begin your Rosary either eight inches or so from the beginning of the cord or in the middle of the cord (this way is a bit faster). If you start from be beginning of the cord, make 10 Hail Mary's (1st Decade), then an Our Father, then another 10 Hail Mary's (2nd Decade), etc., in order from the 1st Decade to the last. If you start from the middle: make an Our Father, then 10 Hail Mary's (the 3rd Decade), then an Our Father, 10 Hail Mary's (4th Decade), an Our Father, and 10 Hail Mary's (5th Decade). Finally, start again from the middle, working in the other way, to complete the 2nd Decade and the 1st Decade.
• After you complete the 5 Decades, you can make the bridge (or 'centerpiece') in three different ways:
  • 1. Make a simple 'Centerpiece Knot' following Rosary Army's instructions. You can make this with one, two or three loops of both cords, depending on how large you want the knot to be (I generally make a three loop knot here).
  • 2. Make a 'Centerpiece Knot' with a Miraculous Medal (or other Marian medal). This is pretty easy to do, as you simply place a medal on the cord after your knot.
  • 3. (Trickier) for the first and last Hail Mary's in the rosary, and the 1st Decade's Our Father, make an 'Our Father Knot with a Crucifix' (from the RosaryArmy guide) for each one, substituting a Marian Rosary centerpiece for the Crucifix and tying each end of the cord into it.
• There are many different ways you can do the crucifix. I usually make a completely knotted cross and Rosary, because this is typically most durable, and it is generally a little cheaper to do it this way. But you can also purchase wooden or metal crosses or crucifixes to finish off your knot Rosary.
• Instead of burning the cord to take off the excess (either when your finished or when you're cutting the cord to the proper length), you can cut it with a sharp scissors and either use superglue to prevent fraying and separation, or use a cool product called 'Fray Check' that can be found in most fabric/craft stores.
• I find that I can vary certain aspects of the process (such as the distance between knots and the size of the knots) and make my Rosaries more unique and interesting. Feel free to make small changes here and there to make the best Rosaries you can.
• Your first rosary will probably take a few hours, if not a few days, to complete, but don't be discouraged! I can usually finish one (and pray on it) in about 20-25 minutes now. You'll quickly get much better at making these Rosaries!

Praying On the Knot Rosary

After making a hundred or so of these knot Rosaries, I've gotten into the habit of trying to pray the decades of the Rosary as I make them. If I am making the Rosaries for a certain purpose, I will pray with the intention of that purpose in mind, and perhaps reflect on certain aspects of that mystery that have to do with the intention. You need not say the Rosary while you make it, though—sometimes, I simply listen to music or talk with some friends while making a Rosary!

Check out New Advent's guide (with Biblical verses for reflection) for praying the Rosary. There are hundreds of great explanations and guides for praying the Rosary, as well as many different books, booklets and pamphlets with meditations and reflections on the 20 mysteries. Search Google or look through a local Catholic retailer to see some!

What to Do with Completed Knot Rosaries

There are many things you can do with your completed knot Rosaries. You can give them to friends and family members as gifts, you can donate them to many different Catholic organizations (such as a local parish) for distribution to those who don't have Rosaries, you can donate them to www.RosaryArmy.com, you can give them to soldiers in the military, you can sell them for fundraising, you can use them to help evangelize...

The sky's the limit! The Rosary is a great tool for prayer and meditation, and it's an easy sacramental to make. Start making some today, and perhaps your love for Mary, the Mother of God will deepen as mine has!

More Resources

• FNT Industries - Knot Rosary Supplies
• How to Make a Knot Rosary (from RosaryArmy.com)
• RosaryArmy.com
• Information Concerning Rosaries for those in the Military
• New Advent's Guide to Praying the Rosary
• Medjugorje.org's Guide to Praying the Rosary
• Pro-Life Rosary Meditations