What We Can’t Not Know, or On Being A Theologian Of The Cross.

Name
Institution
Instructor
Date
What We Can’t Not Know by J. Budziszewski
Introduction-
Budziszewski presents a well-thought argument to those who believe that there is no law and that common sense of a person is what can be perceived as moral or immoral (Budziszewski 13). In other words, the group of persons has a strong belief that what they think is moral to them is the moral or accepted code of behavior and no specific law defines what is moral and immoral in the society. According to Budziszewski, there is a moral code of behavior and this moral can be learned if a person gets the knowledge about God. He believes that if a person knows God, that person will be able to see the real moral and immoral actions of the world as compared to how people judge these actions using their common sense. He goes ahead and categorized people into three different categories; the persuaded, the half-persuaded and the wish-that-were-persuaded. He calls the wish who were persuaded as those who are lost in the world, and they could go right back on track if they could accept and believe in the existence of God. Budziszewski argues that knowledge about God is “what we can’t know.”
Question 1
According to Budziszewski, there are fundamental moral foundations that guide religious activities, or that religion is based. He argues that the knowledge of God is the beginning of having a great conscience in judging what is moral and what is not. However, people claim not to know this because they believe in their common sense that is reasoned by science.

These people only believe in common sense to explain natural ways but not in God. They include the wish-that were partial believers (Budziszewski 37).
The effects of these fundamentals of moral foundations have led to the divisions and diversion of different people into different groups in the community. Those who believe in God as the correct way of finding the foundation of the moral are fallen into the believer’s group/category while there are those who partially believe in God and fall into the “half-believer group. The third and the last group are composed of the people who know about God but do not believe in Him. This group is known as the wish-they-were believers. In individuals, these fundamentally known precepts have changed the people who believe in them.
Question 2
In his description, Budziszewski gives details how “The Furries” of conscience has brought about torment to people. He gives an example of how unsound traditions make the modern community not to raise their children properly. The children end up indulging in bad behavior with undesired consequences. His assertion is correct and justifiable, as this is the case observed especially in our contemporary societies.
As Budziszewski explains, further consequences of these torments include the prolongation of adolescence where many children today take more time in the period between adolescence and adulthood (Budziszewski 48). Thus, they eventually grow up with huge sexual urges that result into them indulging into sex promiscuity. Likewise, these children use marriages as a way of finding sexual satisfaction meaning that they only marry for sex purposes. These effects had undesired effects in many marriages in the contemporary societies (Sullivan 19).
Question 3
This book is very relevant to people of all religious denomination as it demonstrates the existences and the abilities of God. The author was precise and to the point with his explanations and from my understanding and interpretation of the book, the author did not exaggerate on his views about God. Thus, I can assert that the Budziszewski did not overt in portraying his Christianity. His way of expressing his ideas did not affect his portrayal of God. Hence, reader who is not a Christian does not stand affected. However, if the reader is a non-believer, the ideas presented in the book must have an impact in their emotions and feelings.
Question 4
Which is the correct form of natural law? Is it based on God or the common sense of an individual?
Natural law is based on the knowledge of God and the assertion that God plans everything. In as much as our common sense tries to convince us otherwise, the only explanation that can make perfect sense in human is that God created human beings to respond to how they respond to their children. According to the author, Infants will soil their diapers and cause all kind of discomfort but no one knows how they will turn out to be in future. Similarly, these children will upset parents but parents will still love them no matter the circumstance. As Budziszewski asserted, this natural law cannot be explained by common sense but can be explained by the wonderful creation of God. Thus, the correct form of natural law is based on God and not on the common sense of a person. However, it is important to note that there are some factors of natural law that can be explained by common sense.

Works Cited
Budziszewski, J. What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011. Print.
Sullivan, Scott M. An Introduction to Traditional Logic: Classical Reasoning for Contemporary Minds. North Charleston, SC: Booksurge Pub, 2006. Print.