Zero-Sum Games

A zero-sum game is a situation where only person or group can benefit from a relationship. In a zero-sum game, if I lose, you win, and vice versa.

Some situations, like a soccer game or a chess match, are naturally zero-sum games. If one team wins, the other team must lose. The success of one person group neccessitates the failure of the other.

But some situations are mutually beneficial to both parties. Trade is the prime example of a mutually beneficial agreement. Both parties give away something that they do not want to get something they do want, benefiting both parties. Marriage is (or at least should be) another example of two parties helping each other and accordingly benefiting one another.

However, many people tend to see all situations – and all human relationships – solely in terms of zero-sum games. In this view, one group’s success MUST come off the backs of other people. One man’s happiness MUST come at the expense of another.

Common examples of zero-sum games can be found in both the economic realm and the social realm.

Economic movements using zero-sum game thinking often involve forms of class warfare. The Occupy Movements are based upon the principle that the top earners in society are earning their wages off the backs of the common people. Marxist theory is the great historical example of zero-sum economic thinking – the bourgeoisie earned their money at the expense of the proletariat, and in order to improve their lot, they must destroy their tormenting class.

Social theories regarding zero sum games involve setting different groups of people against one another. Feminism is a zero-sum game – women’s gain is set at the expense of men. With this mentality, if women improve, men must decrease, if men increase, women decrease. Affirmative action, with its attempt to raise minorities up in order to atone for earlier racial injustices, attacks the status of certain races at creates a zero-sum game on that score.

But economic and social theories that see all transactions as zero-sum games reflect a foolish and unchristian mentality. For zero-sum games set men against one another. But rich and poor, men and women were not created by God to tear one another down. Instead, all people were created to help each other attain happiness, and should act accordingly.

The world is not composed of zero-sum games, and should not be ideologically twisted to make it seem like it is. People are social creatures, and are meant to help each other. Reducing the world to zero-sum games is a destructive philosophy, that in the end destroys the bonds that unite people and helps no one.

Intellect and Spiritual Difficulties

Intelligence is a wonderful gift, designed by God to allow man to understand the truths of salvation and to appreciate the gifts God has given him. But mere intelligence means nothing to a man’s salvation. Indeed, intelligence can be and often is a hindrance to the salvation of those who pervert it to suit their own ends.

Knowledge without the love of God, is worthless. St. Paul eloquently explains the emptiness of those who possess knowledge and do not love God: “If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.” (1 Cor 13:2)

For intelligence was created by God to help man to better know and love Him. Intelligence divorced from that purpose is useless – and can even become a snare to salvation. The man who relies solely on his intelligence is tempted to be unduly arrogant, and to be scornful of the spiritual realm which cannot be fathomed by the limited intellects of humans.

Despite this fact, many men and women rely on their own intelligence, seeking to fathom the mysteries of the cosmos with their limited understandings. Others use their intellects in an amoral search to gain power, fame, and influence. In a search for the goods of the material realm, smart people often ignore greater spiritual goods. 

The list of intelligent people who caused chaos by misusing their brilliance is long. Genghis Khan, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, and Napoleon were all brilliant men who used their intelligence to attempt to make themselves rulers on earth. Brilliant heretics such as Arius and Calvin misused their intelligence to deceive others into leaving the One True Faith.

People unskilled in intellect can still lead others to Christ. Saints such as John Vianney and Joseph of Cupertino were considered dunces – yet they managed to bring God’s light to many people, through their holy way of life.

This is not to say that Christians should cultivate ignorance and embrace stupidity. God gave men the gift of intellect to be used. But intellect is a gift, not the sum of existence. We are not to misuse intellect for our own ends. Instead, we must use our intellects to suit God’s purposes.

St. Paul tells us: “God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise.” (1 Cor 1:27) To be truly wise, we must look to our Creator, who understands all things and fathoms all mysteries.

An "Catholic" Piece So Ridiculous, It Inspired a Drinking Game

(Before I begin this piece, I wish to make clear: pray for the man I am about to write about. Mock the argument, not the man.)

Apparent Catholic Jeff DeGraff, in a piece on the Huffington Post titled “The New Mass as New Coke,” blasted the new translation of the Mass and lambasted the Church hierarchy, comparing the New Translation of the Mass to New Coke (a failed 1980's product). His piece is so riddled with errors and prodigious leaps of logic that it becomes painfully funny to read.

I could list all the errors in his argument, but the list would take me all night, and faithful Catholics could spot them easily. One example from his piece will serve to show the ridiculousness of his argument: “The Church doesn’t belong to the Vatican, Cardinals, or Bishops. It belongs to the people who are capable of interpreting the tenants [sic] of the faith for themselves.”

(The Church has spent 2000 years fighting against people seeking to interpret the Faith for themselves, and She has declared them to be heretics.)

And DeGraff’s piece gets worse.

Instead of listing his obvious errors, I propose something much better. In the spirit of Catholic levity and fellowship, I propose a drinking game based on DeGraff’s post.

Gather a group of friends together who follow the teachings of the Faith and a supply of your favorite alcoholic beverage. Then read the piece, out loud. Every time someone laughs out loud, that person has to take a drink.

And make sure that there are enough designated drivers around.

The famous anti-Catholic Enlightenment polemicist Voltaire once quipped that his only prayer was “Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.” Those inside the Church who make these arguments make themselves the answers to Voltaire's prayer.

The War for Humanity: Dueling Visions

There are two competing visions of the human person fighting for dominance in this world, which are quite literally fighting to define modern man’s conception of what the human person is. And the war between these two visions is the defining struggle of this generation, and its result with have enormous consequences for humanity.

The first, and newer, vision of humanity is based on a narrow view of equality. It holds that all men and women are essentially the same, and should be treated as such. Gender, race, and ability are all social constructs, and are therefore mutable. Since all people are the same, any two people can have a sexual relationship if they “love” (i.e., are physically attracted to) each other.

Equality, to one who holds this vision, is synonymous with sameness. Essentially, this vision of humanity is a form of social egalitarianism. It came into power with the rise of totalitarianism in other countries, and gained prominence in America with the rise of the sexual revolution. It has grown in power and influence ever since, and now, it is seeking to supplant the traditional vision.

The other, and traditional, vision of humanity recognizes that people are unique individuals with different abilities. According to this worldview, people are born with different strengths and different weaknesses, and must rely on each other to fully maximize their potential. Regarding marriage and relationships, this view holds that men and women are equal in dignity but complimentary, having different strengths and weaknesses inherent in their biology – and that both men and women are not interchangeable.

This is the traditional, Judeo-Christian understanding of the human person. It has been dominant since the rise of Christianity. But as the Judeo-Christian moral vision fades and moral relativism spreads, the new vision of humanity is mounting a challenge to the old, seeking to replace it. And what was initially a challenge has escalated into open war.    

These two visions of society are irreconcilable. And the war between them will last until one or the other is triumphant, and the other is destroyed.

(This post also appeared on New Agora. Check us out!)

A God without Limits: A Short Reflection on Time, Space, and the Maker

One of the common gibes of atheists against the efficacy of prayer is that God could not possibly hear the cries of millions of people calling to Him at the same time with their needs. They argue that God could not possibly listen to every single prayer of every single Christian – rendering prayer useless.

This belief reflects a fundamental misunderstanding common among many atheists – namely, the idea that any form of god must be limited by time and space, as humans are.

But God, unlike man, is not limited by time. He is outside of time – meaning that He does not have to listen to millions of prayers “all at once,” so to speak. Indeed, Christians believe that God created time itself, and is the master of time.

Even if He were limited by time (which He is not), that would not necessarily mean that He would be limited in His ability to hear the cries of millions. Christians also believe that God is omnipresent – he is everywhere at once. Such a God, present everywhere, could easily process the prayers of millions.  

Only a conception of God limited by time – namely, that he is constrained by time and space – could make the mistake that God would not hear millions of prayers “at once.” 

But Christians are not so credulous to believe in a humanized God made in man’s own image: we believe in a God without limits, maker of and master of time and space. Such a God could easily hear the prayers of millions, and listen to each one in their turn, as a loving father listens to his children.

The Ten Commandments of Football

The sport of football is fast becoming a new religion in America. People sacrifice enormous amounts of time and money to watch, cheer for, and represent their favorite teams, and Sunday has taken on quasi-religious overtones for the devoted football fan.

But every religion needs a set of rules for its followers to live by. Football does not yet possess these rules.

Out of the goodness of my heart, I have decided to compose a list of these commandments. Football fans everywhere, rejoice and take heed!

Here is a new list of football commandments, which shall henceforth be known as the Ten Commandments of Football:

1)      Thy team is the best team in creation. Thou shalt have no other teams before it.

2)      Remember not to cheer for any team other than thine own, except if the game has playoff implications for thine team.

3)      Thou shalt keep thine eyes fixed on watching football on the seventh day. Six days thou mayest focus on other matters, but devote thy full attention to football on the seventh day.

4)      Honor the star players on thine team, and curse with vituperation those who perform badly.

5)      Thou shouldst defend the honor of thy team with thine body, yea, even with thine life, if it is required of thee.

6)      Thou shalt not marry the forbidden fruit of a fan of a rival team.

7)      Thou shalt not steal thy neighbors’ flat screen TV for the watching of games; thou shalt instead buy thyself a bigger one.

8)      Thou shalt not attack a coach or player from thy team without just cause.

9)      Thou shalt not covet the forbidden fruit of a fan of a rival team of the opposite gender.

10)  Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors’ flat screen TV for the watching of games; thou shalt instead buy thine own.

(A special thank you to Benjamin Block, who inspired the idea! Check out his new blog, A Catholic Cowboy in Academia!)

Gender and the Blame Game

Defenders of traditional gender roles sometimes fall under the misconception that one gender alone is completely responsible for the current confusion in gender roles.  Bashing men for unmanliness and women for lacking femininity is commonplace, even among faithful Catholics.

This concept is based upon the modern misunderstanding that male and female can be understood apart from one another. But the truth is that the relationship between the genders is complimentary. When men change for better or worse, women are affected similarly. When women change for better or worse, the same is true. Men are rendered less manly if there is a dearth of good women. Similarly, women are made less feminine if there are few good men. Any attempt to examine difficulties in the relationship between men and women is rendered utterly useless if one gender is considered apart from the other.

Modern men have metamorphosed into half-men, focused only on gratifying their own desires. The spirit of self-sacrifice which defines manhood is in danger of extinction among secular men, discarded by men who instead selfishly pursue their own desires. They seek power without limit, companionship without love, and sexual pleasure without responsibility.

Modern women, goaded by feminists, have launched a vicious assault on womanhood, rejecting their own femininity in favor of power-lust. Modern women have become amazons, concerned only with hustling off to make their careers and indulge their dreams (or, more accurately, fantasies) of power and influence. They have rejected children and love as hindrances to their career.  

Whether men or women are initially to blame for this state of affairs is immaterial. Indeed, dwelling on this question leads to an unprofitable and destructive fixation on the faults of one gender.

The real question is not how the current confusion started, but what can be done to fix it. And the answer to that question is surprisingly simple. Both men and women need to take responsibility for their own part in perpetuating these flaws, and do their best to atone for them.

The complaints about there being a dearth of “real men” among women or “good women” among men reflect a lack of understanding of the salutary relationship between the two genders. Men will be inspired to embrace their masculinity, if women embrace their holy feminine virtue. Similarly, women will be inspired to embrace their femininity, if men act in a spirit of manly virtue.