We know that an absence of God in the lives of brothers and sisters can lead to bad consequences. Some of this absence can be traced back to the successes found in science prior to the so-called Enlightenment. At that time, man was tempted to believe that only those things that can be measured are objectively true. Things (Persons) like God and questions like ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’ were relegated to the realm of subjective opinions, and not considered important. Science was the arbiter of “truth”. Consequently, morality was thought to have no basis (not if God himself was now subjective). Philosophers like Rene Descartes tried to recover the basis for morality. Unfortunately, they tried to do so without consideration for God – as if right and wrong were determined by man – supposedly at the top of all that exists, of all being. They failed in this endeavor century after century since the Enlightenment even until today. They failed because they did not recognize that man has a telos, a reason for being. Rather, he is “designed” with attributes not only physical, but metaphysical. Failing to recognize this, man cannot determine what is right and wrong. What is good and bad appears subjective or based on popular opinion. Furthermore, understandings like Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am”, compounded man’s confusion. Descartes confuses man, leaving him to wonder whether he is a being created by God, or is the master of his own destiny – and the latter by obstinately willing it. The result? Ideas falsely become synonymous with who we are. They cannot be separated from our being. Then, in this false understanding, if I do not like your ideas, it follows that I do not like you, or am threatened by you. In fact, I can be so threatened that I must defend myself even by killing. However, to see a difference of ideas (but a common substance) as an opportunity for dialogue is a positive path forward. With humility, one can then assess whether or not one’s ideas are merited.