What We Can't Not Know: A Guide

I have read hundreds of books on religion, morality, and philosophy, but Budziszewski has taught me much that I did not know, or at least realize. C. S. Lewis' Abolition of Man is wise warning to an age in which we tinker with the formula for man: but Dr. B goes beyond Lewis. His work is like the anti-dote to a deadly pandemic. In my book, Jesus and the Religions of Man, I asked, "Where did Marx go wrong?" I pointed out that Marxists created a three-fold hierarchy of moral values for "the classes, the masses, and the enlightened." They criticized capitalists for oppressing the poor, nagged ordinary people to work hard, don't spit, and take thought for comrades, and justified their own actions by a loose "end-justifies the means" code. The existence of these three systems side by side I found not only hypocritical, but ironic, since Marx himself said communism "abolishes" all morality. But I did not have an explanation for the phenomena, beyond noting that moral law seems hard to abolish. Budziszewski does not say much about Marxism, but he does explain this, and similar, behavior. He argues that "deep conscience" exists in everyone, and that ultimate values -- neatly summarized by the Ten Commandments -- are indestructable. His writing is lucid and brilliantly (and perhaps deceptively) simple. Even though this book is chock-full of interesting ideas, it is easy to read. I found two main weaknesses, one negative, the other positive. The negative weakness is that Dr. B's case would be not only easier to digest, but also stronger if he referred to non-Western cultures more. (Having lived many years in and studied several Asian cultures, examples that confirm his argument spring to mind.) The positive weakness is that Dr. B argues in too much the Ivan Karamazov fashion -- cherry-picking newspaper clippings of sordid acts, and holding them up to our noses as if they were "where the culture is going." His arguments about sexual promiscuity and abortion suffer less from this problem. And some of the stuff he dredges up is truly frightening. One star reviews below may perhaps be explained by the fact that Budziszewski does not do what I just did -- critique an error in another culture -- but attacks the "culture of death" in the West. The reaction often shows more emotion than careful thought. Consider: (1) "B gathers up all his personal prejudices and political opinions and declares them 'natural law.'" Not really. In fact, "B" focuses on the Ten Commandments, which was in existence well before any modern political party, and has close parallels in (for example) the Buddhist and Taoist traditions. (Including bans against killing babies in the womb.) (2) "B's conversion to Catholicism demands that he opposes birth control and abortion." In fact he opposed abortion long before becoming a Catholic. Indeed, he joined the Catholic church the same year this book was published. (3) The book "might be impressi

"By contrast with surface conscience, deep conscience cannot be erased, cannot be mistaken, and is the same in every human being. The only way to tamper with it is self-deception - telling myself that I don't know what I really do." ~J. Budziszewski Society seems to be unraveling in ways our ancestors could never have imagined. This unraveling seems based in a deeply rooted rejection of what we know to be true. In our struggle to survive physically, emotionally and spiritually, we confront an undeniable force that can at times make us consider our lives from a completely new vantage point. In order to defend our own right to pleasure, existence and absence of pain we may in fact make decisions that leave us living in the open grave of consequence. Half dying inside, half alive to the world, we may try to find our way back to what we have always known, that place where we can make the right decisions and experience a rebirth or a renewal of the mind. Can we ever find true happiness if we deny the natural law written on our hearts? Like an ancient warrior for truth, J. Budziszewski shows the way back to a world of true compassion. By drawing on his knowledge of wisdom traditions, he explores our deepest consciousness, the deeply held beliefs of all people and all cultures. He compares the thought processes of various philosophical traditions and then explains the significance of natural law in our modern culture and makes reasonable conclusions from startling evidence. He gives insight into modern art, explains the dangers of desensitization and laments the lack of true compassion. What is false compassion? What is the left hand of God? Why should feelings not become our masters? Is postmodernism a rebirth of Sophism? What is the real purpose of remorse, confession, atonement, reconciliation and justification? What will abortion and medical infanticide eventually lead to? What is the true goal of cloning? Why do people in some countries fear their doctors and need to carry cards to explain why they don't want to be killed if hospitalized? Why does guilt appear as depression and even suicide? Why do some people fail to feel guilty or is there a deeper guilt without feelings? While Budziszewski bases his logical thought processes on evidence and intense study of our culture and cultures before us, he doesn't not address the deepest emotional needs of human beings and how our need to be loved and accepted causes us to at times make very irrational decisions. (He covers reason perverted by passion in more detail in his first book.) These decisions could be the result of low self-esteem, abuse, choices between ending your life or finding meaning. He briefly discusses the ways in which human beings can become "ethically defective" or at least "become in need of realignment with natural law." His explanation of the biblical Decalogue succeeds in expanding our awareness of modern application. It is easy to say what should be, but not as

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

Over the last few years, I've been looking for a good book on Natural Law, and Budziszewski has written three of them (see also his 'Written On the Heart' and 'The Revenge of Conscience'); 'What We Can't Not Know' is the best, most complete, popular-level treatment I've seen. Budziszewski emphasizes the Natural Law as 'built into' (or, more properly, 'designed into') the universe, and 'built into' our own human nature (ie, 'written on our hearts'). As such, the force of Natural Law doesn't depend on whether or not one 'accepts' it (this reminds me of Churchill's famous quip when told that Lady Astor had "accepted the universe" - "she'd better"). Transgressing the Natural Law has inevitable consequences, some of them quite unexpected, or with long time lags. Budziszewski states at the beginning that he is writing for a Christian audience, which is fine, as far as it goes, but it leaves me waiting for his next(?) book, in which he states his case to those "outside the household of faith". It seems to me that Natural Law ideas could be very helpful for public discourse, at least insofar as they can show that Judeo-Christian moral reasoning doesn't depend solely on matters of faith or revelation.

No modern writer does a better job than Dr. J. Budziszewski in uncovering all of the excuses and dispersing all of the smoke screens that we create to deny the undeniable. In "What We Can't Not Know," J. Budziszewski will "dredge your Conscience" to remind you that you and everyone else really does know basic right and wrong. But Budziszewski goes far beyond proving the reality of morality and our Consciences. He provides unparalleled insights into how our Consciences impact our behavior, particularly to what he calls the Five Furies: remorse, confession, atonement, reconciliation, and justification. His discussion not only has import to our personal lives, but also helps us understand what drives many modern political movements, especially those dealing with the moral issues of abortion and homosexuality. The Q & A style in the chapter dealing with objections is also very helpful. One objection goes like this: "Maybe nothing has moral meaning." To which Budziszewski answers: "If you really believed that were true, then you wouldn't bother to argue with me." This leads me to a comment about some reviewers who take issue with this book. Pay no attention--read the book for yourself. As an author myself, there is nothing more frustrating than a reviewer who has not carefully read the text or simply refuses to acknowledge plain facts. That's the case with at least one reviewer here who seems morally outraged that Budziszewski would allegedly misrepresent his worldview. Well, if Budziszewski's overall thesis about the existence and knowability of a true morality is incorrect, then the reviewer has nothing to be morally outraged about. There's nothing morally wrong with diliberately misrepresenting anything, so why is the reviewer bothering to argue? On the other hand, if Budziszewski's overall thesis is correct, then why is the reviewer ignoring that larger point in order to quibble about inconsequential minor details (which, by the way, are not even true)? It may be that the reviewer is doing exactly what Budziszewski writes we all do on occasion-- we attempt to deny the truth by kicking up a lot of dust in order to justify ourselves. Ironically, after reading "What We Can't Not Know," you'll know what other people already know even though they deny they know it! The book will help you dredge that knowledge up from the Consciences of your friends who are in denial. So if you want to be reminded about what you already know, gain tremendous insights into why people do some of the things they do, and have many of your questions answered about moral issues, then study "What We Can't Not Know." If you'd rather remain in denial, then avoid this book. Certainly don't try to refute it. Off-target attempts to refute it may prove Dr. Budziszewski's point!