What We Can't Not Know: A Guide

Rating:
Summary: Every parent and teacher should read this....
Review: Fantastic book that makes a clear case for natural law and our deep conscience. Worded very clearly and powerfully. If you are believer in relativism, read this book... because people like myself will use it to argue against it! The philosophical writing in the book is quite sound, without being too dry and technical for most readers. The book includes stories from the news and personal anecdotes to keep things revelant to today.

The book does draw from the Judeo-Christian tradition, but I would think that people of other faiths would not have any problem with Mr. B.'s perspectives.

If you get frustrated with the talking heads on TV and the rampant relativism in our culture, this is like a drink of cool, refreshing drink of water.

If you have kids or teach kids, I especially implore you to read this! Kids need to - and *want* to - hear that there are truths we cannot not know!

Best regards,
-- Joe

Rating:
Summary: If it were only possible to give a book 0 stars
Review: J. Budziszewski laughably begins this "guide" by stating that he is writing for the "convinced, the almost convinced, and the would-be convinced", a practice commonly known as ¡°preaching to the choir¡±, and an exercise widely understood to be a complete waste of time. The reviewer from Publisher¡¯s Weekly has it right when he/she states that Dr. B. egregiously misrepresents a number of opposing viewpoints in making his case.
Going even beyond his misrepresentation of utilitarianism is his definition of an agnostic as one who "claims ignorance about God". Now, it¡¯s OK to disagree with agnosticism, but intellectual integrity demands that in attacking it¡¯s weaknesses that you must accurately represent it first. Using loaded words like ¡°ignorance¡± in what should be a dispassionate explanation exposes a very weak and desperate intellect indeed. Astonishingly Dr. B. attacks what he says is agnosticism¡¯s claim of ignorance as ¡°self-deceptive¡± on the grounds that it concedes ¡°the unknowability of God¡±, and therefore isn¡¯t ignorant at all. Great, the only problem is that¡¯s not what an agnostic believes. In truth, I submit that an agnostic¡¯s contention that it is impossible to know WHETHER THERE IS A GOD is the most rock solidly honest viewpoint that any person can take and it utterly castrates the good Dr¡¯s criticism. Even sensible Christians concede that they can¡¯t KNOW they¡¯re right, for therein lies faith. But not Dr. Budziszewski, HE KNOWS and his utterly unfounded belief that we all know is taken for granted in his arguments to prove it! If you¡¯re a member of the ¡°choir¡± who already agrees and to whom this book is pitched, I urge you to read it with an open and honest heart. Don¡¯t simply agree that opposing viewpoints are wrong because they don¡¯t claim to speak from God. But rather, employ your God-given capacity for rational and critical thought and see that this book does your cause a great disservice by linking it with, faulty reasoning, and intellectual fraudulence.

Rating:
Summary: You can't not know that Budziszewski is right!
Review: 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!

Rating:
Summary: Best introduction to Natural Law that I've seen
Review: 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 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. 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.