Today is Saturday, June 8, and this is William Michael of the Classical Liberal Arts Academy. Recently, I posted a talk on understanding the Trinity. It was actually posted on Trinity Sunday, or shortly thereafter. I discussed the problems in modern society when it comes to discussing a Catholic doctrine like the Trinity. I explained how, for modern Catholics who don’t study scholastic philosophy, it’s almost impossible to comprehend the Catholic teaching because it was developed with the help of Aristotelian philosophy. In scholastic philosophy, where Aristotelian philosophy is studied and known, ideas are developed and defended using the ideas demonstrated in Aristotle’s philosophy. When Catholics are cut off from that tradition, it is like being cut off from a language itself, making it difficult to understand ideas or communicate effectively.
This is the problem we have among modern Catholics: we have doctrines presented to us in the creeds and catechisms of the church—doctrines developed in a specific philosophical context. Now, that context has been lost due to modern education, leaving Catholics unable to comprehend, explain, or prove the truth of traditional Catholic doctrines. These doctrines are so important that they’ve become part of the Church’s creeds. One main example is the Trinity.
I explained why modern Catholics, including modern priests, struggle to comprehend and talk about the Trinity. I warned that the doctrine of the Trinity is commonly criticized by modern skeptics. I’ve talked before about skepticism and what it looks like. Some people falsely suggest that skepticism is the same as agnosticism, which is simply a belief that nothing can be known about certain subjects that cannot be examined with the senses. Anything that cannot be examined experimentally or scientifically is simply unknowable. That’s agnosticism, and it’s another problem in modern society, leading to intellectual despondency among Christians.
But skepticism is different. For a good example of skepticism, I recommend reading David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, where he presents a discussion among different people, one of whom is a skeptic. Skepticism is a kind of intellectual hypocrisy. It objects to something probable and well-defended because it doesn’t provide absolute certainty. Skeptics pretend to have a high standard for truth-seeking but will not accept even well-defended arguments if they lack absolute certainty.
Aristotle explained in Nicomachean Ethics that moral standards can’t be discussed with the same precision as arithmetic or geometry. The subject determines the level of precision that is reasonable. When discussing morals, we sketch out general concepts because morality depends on circumstances. Different individuals have different strengths and weaknesses, so what’s good for one person might not be good for another. For example, an alcoholic might need to abstain from any alcohol, while someone without that struggle can drink moderately.
Similarly, in practical arts like carpentry, the level of precision required depends on the project. Building a fence or a barn doesn’t require the same precision as building a Formula One racing engine. Skeptics often demand an unreasonable level of precision for certain subjects, playing the hypocrite by asking for unnecessary precision in areas where it isn’t needed.
The more important problem with skeptics is that they don’t maintain the same standard in other areas of their lives. They are precise and argumentative about one issue but negligent and careless about another, often when it serves their pleasure. This is an intellectual hypocrisy, and Christians need to learn to identify and stop engaging with such insincere discussions.
Recently, I posted a talk on the Trinity, and in the comments, a Jewish man objected to the video. We discussed the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, and he raised some thoughtful objections. However, I noticed that no matter what I said, even if I shared answers from the Summa Theologica, he demanded immediate, on-demand answers. I realized he was being skeptical, making infinitely picky demands for explanations that he doesn’t maintain in real life.
To illustrate the inconsistency, I asked him about the Jewish Scriptures. Jews deny the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, so I asked him to explain the nature of God, the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit in the Jewish Scriptures. He explained that the Messiah is a human being, a descendant of David, but also mentioned that the line of David’s descendants can’t be traced anymore.
This presents a glaring problem: if the line of descent from David can no longer be known, the Messiah must have already come. Jewish genealogies in the Scriptures were recorded to prove the Messiah’s descent from David. This inconsistency highlights the intellectual hypocrisy I mentioned. When Jews criticize the Christian doctrine of the Trinity with precise scrutiny but dismiss obvious problems in their own beliefs, they strain out gnats and swallow camels, as Jesus said.
This example of intellectual insincerity is what I refer to as skepticism. It’s a fake scrutiny of the beliefs of others while maintaining double standards. Christians need to learn to recognize and stop entertaining such insincere discussions.
I recommend checking out the comments on the video “Understanding the Holy Trinity” on the Academy’s YouTube channel for a practical example of what I’m talking about. I hope this explanation is helpful.
God bless.
Mr. William C. Michael, O.P.
Headmaster
Classical Liberal Arts Academy
Enjoy this article? Take a moment and share it with friends.
