|
|
Ask
Fr.
Spitzer
Previous (Ask Fr. Spitzer)
Questions
Can
you describe what it must have
been like right after the Big
Bang?
What
exactly is the Magis Center and
what part of the Christian Bible
do you deem as more important and
what are your
beliefs?
How
do we know that the direct
creator of the physical universe
is the unrestricted intelligible
reality and not a creation of the
unrestricted
reality?
What
would be a good introduction to
philosophy? A book or primer that
you could recommend to the
layman?
Is
there a way to picture reality
that’s not linked to time or
space?
How
do I reconcile an all-powerful
creator with the God of the
Judeo-Christian
Bible?
If
nothing can come from nothing,
where did "God" come
from?
Even
if there's cosmological evidence
for a creator, how do you make
the leap from that to
Christianity?
What
is the difference between
metaphysics and physics, and what
are the limits of
each?
Is
Divine intervention
possible?
Was
the story of Jesus actually
lifted from the Egyptian Horus
myth?
Are
the Bible and Darwinian evolution
diametrically
opposed?
What
would be the Church reaction to
aliens?
How
can we believe the universe is
billions of years old and still
believe the Bible,
too?
Can
a regular person even understand
physics and
math?
Ask Your Reason or Faith based Questions Here:
Can you describe what it must
have been like right after the
Big Bang?
Immediately after the Big
Bang, the universe was
exceedingly tiny, but if we had
instruments to detect and magnify
the effects of these first
moments, we would see the
following: first, assuming that
the universe came into existence
in a quantum cosmological state
with gravity being unified with
the other three universal forces
(electromagnetic, strong nuclear
and weak forces), then what we
would have seen first is the
separation of gravity from the
other three forces. When this
separation occurred, a space-time
field similar to the one
described by the general theory
of relativity (which is still
present today) would have emerged
to cause gravitational effects
(instead of quantum gravity). If
we could have seen into the very
tiny universe, with a very
slow-motion camera (because this
was all happening very quickly),
we would have seen a glorious,
symmetrical transition of physics
that is quite indescribable in
terms of its complexity, yet
simple emergence. This would have
been followed by the separation
of the strong nuclear force from
the unified electro-weak force,
which would have been similarly
magnificent, complex and
symmetrical. This would have led
to an inflationary state where
the universe would have expanded
from a very tiny size
(.0000000000000000000000000000001
cm) to about the size of a marble
or larger in a very small
fraction of time – far less
than a single second. This would
have led eventually to the
separation of the weak force from
the electromagnetic force, and
then to the emergence of quarks,
and then to hydrogen and helium
nuclei. From them came stars
which produced the other
elements. It would have been
orderly, complex, symmetrical
– and above all, quite
magnificent.
What exactly is the Magis
Center and what part of the
Christian Bible do you deem as
more important and what are your
beliefs.
The Magis Center of Reason and
Faith is dedicated to looking at
the evidence for a transcendent
being from the disciplines of
physics, philosophy, mathematics
and metaphysics. In order to
clarify issues concerning the
Bible, science, and evolution, we
will sometimes answer questions
about the Bible and Christianity.
We believe that the New Testament
is a broader, fuller revelation
of God which emerged from the
time of Abraham in 1800 BCE to
the time of Jesus Christ and
found its complete expression in
the death and resurrection of
Jesus, who revealed God to be
unconditional love. Biblical
exegesis is normally beyond our
scope, however.
How do we know that the direct
creator of the physical universe
is the unrestricted intelligible
reality and not a creation of the
unrestricted reality?
That’s an excellent
question. Your question reveals
that you have read Chapter 4 of
"New Proofs," which deals with
Lonergan’s proof for
God’s existence, and your
question logically flows from the
possibility left open by Lonergan
because an unrestricted
intelligible reality (UIR) could
have created a creator of our
universe. Lonergan’s proof
shows that the UIR must be the
ultimate creator of all that is,
however, it does not say that the
UIR has to be the proximate
creator of our universe. It only
has to be the ultimate creator of
our universe. Are there other
creators in between? There could
be, but if we operate by
Occam’s Razor (the
assumption that the most elegant
solution with the least number of
assumptions is the best one until
proven otherwise) then we might
assume that the UIR is both the
ultimate and proximate creator of
our universe. Longergan has shown
that there has to be one and only
one creator which is at once
timeless, and unrestrictedly
intelligible. I think Lonergan
has proven this quite well in his
book "Insight: A Study of Human
Understanding," Chapter 19. He
has asked anyone in the
intellectual community to
critique his reasoning and has
been met mostly with silence.
What would be a good
introduction to philosophy? A
book or primer that you could
recommend to the layman?
There are several good books that
can introduce you to philosophy
on a rather serious level. First,
I would recommend a book by
Jacques Maritain titled
"Introduction to Philosophy"
(currently $29.95 at amazon.com).
I would also recommend Joseph
Owens’ "The Clarity of
God’s Existence: The Ethics
of Belief After the
Enlightenment" (currently $25 at
amazon.com). I would also
recommend another little book by
Josef Pieper called "Leisure: The
Basis of Culture" ($9.99 at
amazon.com). If you want
additional books let me know.
Is there a way to picture
reality that’s not linked to
time or space?
No. The word picture – or
picture thinking – is a
component of the imagination,
which spacializes all constructs.
Hence you can’t have a
picture without space, therefore
if a reality transcends space
(and is not conditioned by
space), then it can’t be
imagined at all. However, one may
have a concept of such a reality,
and one does this in three ways.
First, by means of the negative
way, where one can think about a
reality (or power) which is NOT
conditioned by space. Second, by
analogy, where one can say that
God’s intelligence is LIKE
our intelligence, but not limited
by it spatial and temporal
conditions. A third method is
called hyperphatic, which is
saying that God is MORE than can
ever be imagined or sequenced,
etc. But unfortunately, the
transcendent God cannot be
reduced to a picture…
How do I reconcile an
all-powerful creator with the God
of the Judeo-Christian
Bible?
Dear Fr. Spitzer,
Okay, suppose I accept your
argument that there was a creator
of some kind. How do I reconcile
that creator with the God of the
Judeo-Christian Bible, which is
full of stories about vengeance,
pain and suffering. Why would I
believe in a deity who shows such
cruelty and inconsistency?
Sincerely,
Matt
Dear Matt,
This is not a new question, and
it’s one that many of our
readers ask us. I can see why
you might think the God of the
Bible is not loving or caring,
especially given that some
Christians say you must believe
the Bible literally – no
matter how many different and
seemingly contradictory views of
God appear in it.
Now, before I get into your
question, I need to point out
that this is beyond the scope of
the Magis Center of Reason and
Faith. We exist to explore
whether physics supports the idea
of a creator. Having said that,
there are so many people asking
this same question that we feel
it should be addressed regardless
of our limited scope.
The second thing I need to point
out is that to really answer this
question, you have to start with
the assumption that the Bible
contains true revelation.
Otherwise you’re entering
into an entirely different
conversation, which is whether or
not the Bible is simply a
collection of stories that have
nothing to do with any kind of
ultimate reality. That isn’t
the question I mean to answer,
however. Today I will examine how
the different sections of the
Bible can all be true, even as
they appear to contradict each
other.
Though it is fair to say that
there are many passages of the
Bible which seem to imply the
Judeo-Christian God can look both
irrational and tyrannical, it is
important to be aware of the
science of hermeneutics, which is
a well-developed historical
discipline in the employed by
academics world-wide. To attempt
to evaluate the Bible (or any
other historical text) without
knowing something about
hermeneutics (the science of
interpreting a text according to
the concepts, categories, and
mindsets of a particular time and
culture) is like saying that you
are going interpret modern
physics without knowing any math
or understanding the scientific
method.
Garbage in, garbage out.
So what are some important, basic
things to know about hermeneutics
before you get started?
First, if you assume that God
reveals himself to people
according to their cultural
concepts, categories and
mindsets, then you will see that
God’s revelation will have
to develop along with the
intellectual and cultural
capacity of human beings.
Throughout time, we have greatly
expanded our understanding of the
world, as well as our methods for
understanding our world –
and this is a good thing. But
people who had much narrower
approaches to the world also had
a right to receive revelation
from God according to what they
understood. Thus, it would not be
surprising to find that in 1800
BCE, polygamy was accepted –
in the Bible! Then six hundred
years later it is prohibited by
Moses – in the same
Bible!
Did God change his mind or did
human beings develop to the point
where they could understand
monogamy?
There is an old expression in
hermeneutics – "whatever is
received is received in the
manner of the receiver." What
that means is if you were just
learning to add and subtract and
I put a series of algebraic
functions on the board, you would
not be able to understand them
because you do not have the
categorical apparatus to
understand the intricacies of
algebraic equations. You’d
be looking for the numbers and
trying to figure out why there
are letters like “x” in
the middle of the math
problem.
In the Bible, God has the same
problem as the math teacher. The
Bible records revelations that
were made from 1800 BCE to about
90 CE. The Biblical authors’
view of the world (and I assure
you, there were many different
authors living in many different
times) broadened tremendously
during these eras. Israel moved
from a warrior culture battling
Philistines to a metropolitan
culture interacting with ideas
from Greece and Rome. Of course
the theology of the prophets
developed tremendously, until we
get to the time of Jesus, who
gives us the notion of God as
Unconditional Love.
This love is illustrated in the
character of the father in the
parable of the prodigal son (Luke
15, 11-32), who unconditionally
loves his son and forgives him
even after the man commits every
imaginable offense against
family, country, people and the
law – and rejoices in his
return. What does this have to do
with the hermeneutical method? We
might say that it illustrates
asymmetrical (one-directional)
hermeneutics. What does that
mean? It means that you can look
at older (narrower) revelation
through newer (broader and more
comprehensive) revelation, but
you can’t look at the newer,
more comprehensive revelation
through the lens of the older,
narrower revelation. The
narrowness of the older
revelation is simply too
constrained to allow the broader,
more comprehensive revelation to
have its full meaning.
If you try to fit the
Unconditional Love of God into
the categories of strict justice
(appropriate to the Torah in 550
BCE), you are going to get a
disconnect. In fact, you
won’t be able to do it. It
will seem like a contradiction
– or, as some of you have
suggested, that God changed mind,
or even his identity
altogether!
Jesus anticipated this, and
indicated that you can’t
pour new wine into old wine
skins. If you do, the new wine
will burst the old skins, and
both the wine and the skins will
be lost. To understand the
unconditionally loving God of the
New Testament, one has to allow
the new, broad, comprehensive and
full revelation to have its full
meaning, which means freeing it
from the constraints of a much
narrower worldview. Such a
worldview is to be expected from
a people who have far less
experience to draw upon.
If you look at it this way, God
is not changing his identity
every 200 years, but people are
capable of receiving the
revelation of God with
ever-increasing depth of
understanding and love every 200
years. One could argue that this
is just my personal
interpretation, but it actually
corresponds with good
hermeneutical practice –
namely that one should never
interpret an historical text
outside of its historical and
cultural framework.
If God has any common sense, then
he would not give a revelation of
himself that is outside of what
is comprehensible to a given
people at a given time.
What does this mean with respect
to some of the questions that
commonly come up about Biblical
literalism? Two things –
first, you cannot say "God in the
Bible says," because the notion
of God moves from the God of the
armies in 1000 BCE (a warrior God
with a strict law and a narrow
notion of justice) to a God of
unconditional love, compassion
and mercy (reflected by the
parable of the prodigal son in 30
BCE). Related to this, you
can’t expect the Biblical
author in 550 BCE to be writing
about science. Even if God wanted
to reveal science to the Biblical
author, he wouldn’t have
been able to understand, any more
than your average five-year-old
can teach calculus.
God had to wait until the
categories of mathematics and
method were appropriately broad
and complex to accommodate a
scientific worldview. When it
came, his revelation was
intrinsic to it. We don’t
need twist that evidence to find
God – he is writ large in
the equations of the Big Bang,
the physical evidence for a
beginning of the universe (even
if there were a pre-Big Bang
period), the second law of
thermo-dynamics (entropy), and
other clues. Indeed, if we find
that a multiverse requires as
much fine-tuning as the
phenomenon it is trying to
explain (say, in the slow roll of
bubble universes necessary to
prevent collisions), then there
will be even more clues about
God’s super-calculating
intelligence.
Secondly, if we respect
one-directional hermeneutics,
then we will want to first turn
to the newest (broadest and
comprehensive) revelation in the
Bible, which would include the
revelation of Jesus – that
God is "Abba," our affectionate
and trusted father. Just like the
father in the prodigal son
parable. Perhaps the easiest way
of applying this hermeneutic is
to first turn to 1 Corinthians
13:4, which I’m sure you
have heard at weddings:
"Love is patient, love is kind.
It does not envy, it does not
boast, it is not proud. It is not
rude, it is not self-seeking, it
is not easily angered, it keeps
no record of wrongs. Love does
not delight in evil, but rejoices
with the truth. It always
protects, always trusts, always
hopes, always perseveres. Love
never fails."
If God truly is who Jesus says he
is, then you should be able to
replace the word "love" with the
word "God," and you should be
able to absolutize every
adjective in the hymn:
"God is infinitely patient, God
is infinitely kind. God never
envies or boasts and he is not
proud. God is never rude, God is
never self-seeking, and God is
not easily angered. God keeps no
record of wrongs. God never
delights in evil and always
rejoices with the truth. God
always protects, always trusts,
always hopes and always
perseveres. God never fails."
If this is the starting point for
a definition of God in the Bible,
then all other previous
definitions will have to conform
to it – and not vice
versa.
I hope this answers your question
– next time we’ll move
back to questions of physics and
metaphysics.
Sincerely,
Father Spitzer
If nothing can come from
nothing, where did "God" come
from?
If nothing can come from
nothing, where did "God" come
from?
J. Ray
Dear J. Ray,
The problem of something coming
from nothing arises out of
realities which require at least
three kinds of realities which
require a cause for their
existence. One, realities that
have a beginning; two, realities
which are conditioned in their
existence (dependent for their
existence on something else
– the fulfillment of other
conditions); and three, realities
that are conditioned by time.
I am restricting my comments here
to realities which have a
beginning. If you are interested
in conditioned realities, read
chapter three of my book "New
Proofs for the Existence of God,"
and if you are interested in
realities conditioned by time,
read chapter five of the same
book.
Returning to realities which have
a beginning, if a reality –
say, our universe – has a
beginning, then that beginning
point represents the point at
which the universe came into
existence (including its physical
time). Prior to that point the
physical universe did not exist
– in other words, it was
nothing – absolute nothing.
Now HERE is where the problem of
something coming from nothing
appears on the scene. If the
universe was truly nothing, and
if from nothing only nothing can
come, then the universe needs
something beyond itself to cause
it to exist – to bring it
from nothing to something.
Without this transcendent cause
(Creator), the universe could not
bring itself from nothing to
something, because it was
nothing.
If a reality doesn’t have a
beginning, if it is not
conditioned in its existence, and
if it is not conditioned by time,
that reality does not have to
have a creator – it does not
have to have a cause for its
existence, because it was never
nothing (as our universe was
prior to its beginning) and it
was not dependent on anything
else for its existence. It is its
own existence – indeed, it
is existence or being itself.
Such a reality is not
contradictory – it is, in
the words of many philosophers,
necessary.
There is nothing in the world of
logic that requires every being
to have a creator or a cause. The
only beings that require a
creator or a cause, as I said
above, are those which have a
beginning, those which are
dependent on something else for
their existence, and those which
are conditioned by time.
Now let’s return to your
question. God is defined as a
being that does not have a
beginning, that is not dependent
on anything for its existence,
and that is not conditioned by
time, and so God does not need a
cause. Indeed, if you read
chapters three and five of "New
Proofs," you will see that God
must exist, because there must
exist at least one reality which
has no beginning, is not
dependent on anything else for
its existence, and is not
conditioned by time.
The short reason for this (which
is explained fully in the book)
is as follows: if all beings have
a beginning, then all beings will
have been nothing prior to their
beginning, but this means that
nothing will ever come into
existence. Why? Let’s say
our universe is nothing without
the existence of a prior reality,
but that prior reality is nothing
without the existence of another
prior reality, and so forth ad
infinitum. Then the whole of
reality is nothing without prior
realities, but we have no end to
the prior realities (which are
nothing).
In short, the sum total of all
the realities which are nothing
without other realities, which
are nothing without other
realities, which are
nothing… is NOTHING. Zero
added to itself an infinite
number of times is zero.
You can read the full explanation
in chapters three through five of
the book. If you do not have at
least one "reality which is NOT
nothing prior to a beginning"
(like God), then you have no
reality at all.
Now it just so happens that there
can be ONLY one reality that does
not have a beginning, is not
dependent on anything else for
its existence, and is not
conditioned by time. The proofs
for this are in the book, and it
will take too long to explain
them here. The ultimate
conclusion is there has to be AT
LEAST one "beginningless being"
– and there can be ONLY one
"beginningless being" – and
this is what we mean by
"God."
Now let’s return to your
question – the reason we ask
the question "why does the
universe have a cause?" or "why
do we have to explain how the
universe came from nothing to
something?" is because there is
an increasing amount of evidence
from physics, the philosophy of
mathematics, and metaphysics that
imply and even require that the
universe has a BEGINNING. You can
see some of this evidence on our
Physics FAQ (or chapters one
through five of "New Proofs")
– the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth
2003 theorem, entropy, the
Borde-Vilenkin 1993 theorem, etc.
These questions don’t come
up with respect to God because
there is not only NO EVIDENCE
that God had a beginning, or is
dependent on something for its
existence, or is conditioned by
time. Indeed, as noted above,
there must be at least one being
– and only one being (i.e.
God) – that does not have a
beginning, is not dependent on
anything for its existence, and
is not conditioned by time.
I hope this helps you with your
query. If you want a more
complete explanation, please read
"New Proofs for the Existence of
God" or our "Physics FAQ,"
available for download at
www.magisreasonfaith.org.
Sincerely,
Fr. Robert Spitzer, S.J.,
Ph.D.
Even if there's cosmological
evidence for a creator, how do
you make the leap from that to
Christianity?
Dear Father Spitzer,
So, I’ve read a lot of your
arguments, and it sounds to me
like you’re saying that
there is cosmological evidence
for a creator. I can understand
that. What I don’t
understand is how you make the
leap from that to
Christianity?
Lori
Dear Lori,
I was asked this very question on
a retreat by a graduate student
in chemistry when I was teaching
at Georgetown University. I
answered the question by means of
six other questions which bridge
the "leap" between the
transcendent creator and Jesus
Christ (Emmanuel – God with
us). The answer is evidently
concerned with love. Though one
may pick up implications of love
from the way in which the
universe is created, evidence
from physics really does not
concern the unconditional love of
God. This came to light through
revelation – a revelation
given to us by Jesus. Yet how do
we ascertain that Jesus is "God
With Us?" If you respond to the
questions below in a way similar
to the responses given here, the
"leap" may be quite
intelligible.
Six Questions Toward
Emmanuel
When I was teaching at Georgetown
University, I was privileged to
direct a physics and philosophy
student on an Ignatian retreat.
He was exceptionally bright and
good-willed, and had the capacity
to express what was on his mind
in a very straightforward way. At
the beginning of our first
conference he said, "Could I ask
you something very elementary
which has been bothering me for
several years? I don’t have
any real problem with the idea of
a Creator, because I believe that
finitude is intrinsic to time and
the origin of the universe will
ultimately have to have a cause
beyond a universal singularity.
God is not a question for me. But
it’s this Jesus thing.
I’m not sure I see the need
for Jesus and I’m not sure I
really get it. Can’t we just
stick with a ‘Creator
outside of space-time
asymmetry’?"
I thought about it for a couple
of minutes and said to him, "The
‘Jesus thing’ is about
the unconditional Love of God. It
is about God wanting to be with
us in a perfect act of empathy;
about God wanting to save us
unconditionally and to bring us
to His own life of unconditional
Love. A Creator alone, indeed,
even a Creator with infinite
power, could be tantamount to
Aristotle’s God. Once he has
fulfilled His purpose of
ultimate, efficient, and final
causation, He is detached from
the affairs of rather base and
uninteresting human beings. The
God of Jesus Christ is about the
desire to be intimately involved
in the affairs of human beings
made in His image and destined
for His eternity – and that
makes all the difference."
He said in reply, "This all seems
a bit too good to be true. I
would like the Creator to be the
God of Jesus Christ, but do you
have any evidence that this is
not just wishful thinking –
evidence showing that this is
really the way God is? Is there
any reason why we would think
that God is loving instead of
indifferent?" I responded by
noting that it would be better
for him to answer six questions
rather than have me give an
extended discourse, because the
six questions could reveal not
only what was in his fine mind,
but more importantly, what was in
his heart – what he thought
about love, life’s purpose,
others, and His highest
imaginable state of existence. If
he answered these six questions
(from his heart) in a manner
commensurate with "the logic of
love," then the unconditional
Love and divinity of Christ
(i.e., Jesus being Emmanuel
– God with us) would be
self-evident.
I give you, the reader, these six
questions and some points to
guide your reflection, so that
you might be able to see more
clearly the logic of love and its
consequences for an "unrestricted
Creator outside of space-time
asymmetry" (God).
1) What is the most positive
and creative power or capacity
within me?
At first glance, one might want
to respond that this power is
intellect, or artistic
creativity, but further
reflection may show that the
capacity to apprehend truth or
knowledge, or to create beauty,
in and of itself, is not
necessarily positive. Knowledge
and beauty can be misused, and
therefore be negative,
destructive, manipulative,
inauthentic, and thus undermine
both the individual and common
good. There is but one human
power that contains its own end
of "positivity" within itself,
one power that is directed toward
the positive of itself, and
therefore one power that directs
intellect and artistic creativity
to its proper, positive end. As
may by now be evident, that power
is love (agape – see Section
I above). Love’s capacity
for empathy, its ability to enter
into a unity with others leading
to a natural "giving of self,"
forms the fabric of the common
good and the human community, and
so seeks as its end the good of
both individuals and that
community.
As implied above (Section I),
love by its very nature unifies,
seeks the positive, orders things
to their proper end, finds a
harmony amidst diversity, and
gives of itself in order to
initiate and actualize this
unifying purpose. This implies
that love is naturally oriented
toward perfect positivity and
perfect fulfillment.
Furthermore, love would seem to
be the one virtue that can be an
end in itself. Other virtues do
not necessarily culminate in a
unity with others whereby doing
the good for the other is just as
easy if not easier than doing the
good for oneself. Thus, courage,
left to itself, might be mere
bravado or might lead to the
persecution of the weak.
Self-discipline, left to itself,
might lead to a disdain for the
weak or a sense of
self-sufficiency which is
antithetical to empathy. Even
humility can be overbearing and
disdainful if it is not done out
of love. Even though these
virtues are necessary means for
the actualization of love (i.e.,
authentic love cannot exist
without courage, self-discipline,
and humility), they cannot be
ends in themselves, for they can
be the instruments of unlove when
they are not guided by the
intrinsic goodness of love. Love
seems to be the only virtue that
can be an end in itself and
therefore can stand by
itself.
Now, if you, the reader, affirm
the existence of this power
within yourself and further
affirm that it is the guiding
light of both intellect and
creativity, that its successful
operation is the only way in
which all your other powers can
be guided to a positive end, that
it is therefore the only way of
guaranteeing positivity for both
yourself and others, and that it
therefore holds out the promise
of authentic fulfillment, purpose
in life, and happiness, then you
will have acknowledged love to be
the highest of all powers. You
will then want to proceed to the
next question.
2) If love is the one power
that seeks the positive in
itself, and we are made to find
our purpose in life through love,
could God (perfect Being), who
created us with this loving
nature, be devoid of
love?
If the Creator were devoid of
love, why would that Creator
create human beings not only with
the capacity for love, but to be
fulfilled only when they are
loving? If the Creator is devoid
of love, why make love the
actualization of all human powers
and desires, and therefore of
human nature? If the Creator is
not loving, then the creation of
"beings meant for love" seems
absurd. However, if the Creator
is love, then creating a loving
creature (i.e., sharing His
loving nature) would seem to be
both intrinsically and
extrinsically consistent with
what (or perhaps better, "who")
He is. Could the Creator be any
less loving than the "loving
nature" He has created?
Furthermore, if a Creator were
perfect Being, wouldn’t that
perfect Being also be capable of
the one power and virtue which
can be an end in itself, that is,
Love?
If you, the reader, can
reasonably affirm the love of the
Creator from the above, then you
may want to proceed to the third
question.
3) Is my desire to love and to
be loved conditional or
unconditional?
It may do well to pause for a
moment here and give some
background about our desire for
love which has occupied the
writings of many philosophers
since the time of Plato.
We appear to have a desire for
perfect and unconditional Love.
Not only do we have the power to
love (i.e., the power to be
naturally connected to another
human being in profound empathy,
care, self-gift, concern, and
acceptance), we have a "sense" of
what this profound interpersonal
connection would be like if it
were perfect. This sense of
perfect love has the positive
effect of inciting us to pursue
ever more perfect forms of love.
However, it has the drawback of
inciting us to expect ever more
perfect love from other human
beings. This generally leads to
frustrated expectations of others
and consequently to a decline of
relationships that can never grow
fast enough to match this
expectation of perfect and
unconditional Love.
The evidence of this desire for
perfect and unconditional Love
manifests itself in our
frustrated expectations within
relationships. Have you ever had
this experience – where you
thought a relationship (or
friendship) with another was
going quite well until little
imperfections began to manifest
themselves? In situations like
these, there might be slight
irritation, but one has hopes
that the ideal will soon be
recaptured. But as the
fallibility of the beloved begins
to be more acutely manifest (the
other is not perfectly humble,
gentle, kind, forgiving,
self-giving, and concerned with
me) the irritation becomes
frustration, which, in turn,
becomes dashed expectation: "I
can’t believe I thought she
was really the One." Of course,
she wasn’t the One, because
she is not perfect and
unconditioned.
This gives rise to the question,
"Why do we all too frequently
expect our beloveds to be perfect
and expect ourselves to be
perfect to our beloveds if we did
not have a desire for perfect and
unconditional Love in the first
place?" The reader must now apply
this question to him or herself.
If you did not have a desire for
perfect and unconditional Love,
why would you be so dissatisfied
with imperfect and conditioned
manifestations of love in others
(even from the time of
childhood)? If you sense within
yourself an incapacity to be
ultimately satisfied by any form
of conditioned or finite love,
then you will have also affirmed
within yourself the intrinsic
desire for unconditional Love,
which leads to the next
question.
4) If my desire for love can
only be ultimately satisfied by
unconditional Love, then could
the Creator of this desire be
anything less than Unconditional
Love?
A simple response to this
question might run as follows: if
we assume that the Creator does
not intend to frustrate this
desire for unconditional Love
within all of us, it would seem
that His creation of the desire
would imply an intention to
fulfill it, which would, in turn,
imply the very presence of this
quality within Him. This would
mean that the Creator of the
desire for unconditional Love is
(as the only possible fulfillment
of that desire) Himself
Unconditional Love. The reader
here is only affirming the
inconsistency of a "Creator
incapable of unconditional Love"
creating a being with the desire
for perfect and unconditional
Love. This is sufficient for
affirming the presence of
unconditional Love in the
Creator.
A more complete explanation might
begin with the origin of the
desire for perfect and
unconditional Love. The awareness
of unconditional Love (which
arouses the desire for
unconditional Love) seems to be
beyond any specifically known or
concretely experienced love, for
it seems to cause dissatisfaction
with every conditioned love we
have known or experienced. How
can we have an awareness of love
that we have neither known nor
experienced? How can we even
extrapolate to it if we do not
know where we are going? The
inability of philosophers to give
a purely naturalistic answer to
these questions has led them to
associate the "tacit awareness of
unconditional Love" with the
"felt presence of Unconditional
Love Itself." Unconditional Love
Itself would therefore seem to be
the cause of our awareness of It
and also our desire for It.
Inasmuch as Unconditional Love
Itself transcends all conditioned
(and human) manifestations of
love, it might fairly be
associated with the Creator. The
Creator would then be associated
with our human awareness of and
desire for unconditional Love.
Therefore, it seems that the
Creator would have to be at least
capable of unconditional
Love.
5) If the Creator is
Unconditional Love, would He want
to enter into a relationship with
us of intense empathy, that is,
would He want to be Emmanuel
("God with us")?
If one did not attribute
unconditional Love to God, then
the idea of God wanting to be
with us, or God being with us,
would be preposterous. A God of
stoic indifference would not want
to bother with creatures, let
alone actually be among them and
enter into empathetic
relationship with them. However,
in the logic of love, or rather,
in the logic of unconditional
Love, all this changes.
If we attribute the various parts
of the definition of agape (given
above in Section I) to an
unconditionally loving Creator,
we might obtain the following
result: God (as Unconditional
Agape) would be unconditional
empathy and care for others (even
to the point of self-sacrificial
care). As such, God would expect
neither repayment for this care,
nor any of the affective benefits
of the other three kinds of love.
Hence, God would not need the
affection of storge in order to
love us, though He would have
unconditional affection for us;
He would not need the mutual
commitment and caring of philia,
though He would be
unconditionally committed to us
in friendship; and He would not
have need of our romantic
feelings, even though He would
grace such feelings in the human
endeavor toward exclusive love.
God would seek unconditionally to
protect, defend, maintain, and
enhance the intrinsic dignity,
worth, lovability, unique
goodness, transcendental mystery,
and intrinsic eternity of every
one of us.
Recall that love is empathizing
with the other and entering into
a unity with that other whereby
doing the good for the other is
just as easy, if not easier, than
doing the good for oneself. This
kind of love has the
non-egocentricity, humility,
self-gift, deep affection, and
care which would make infinite
power into infinite gentleness,
and would incite an infinitely
powerful Being to enter into a
restrictive condition to
empathize more fully with His
beloveds. In this logic,
"Emmanuel" would be typical of an
unconditionally loving God. This
would characterize the way that
Unconditional Love would act
– not being egocentrically
conscious of the infinite
distance between Creator and
creature, but rather being
infinitely desirous of bridging
this gap in a perfect unity of
perfect empathy and perfect care.
It would be just like the
unconditionally loving God to be
"God with us."
The following consideration might
help to clarify this. If God is
truly Unconditional Love, then it
would not be unreasonable to
suspect that He would be
unconditional empathy; and if He
were unconditional empathy, it
would not be unreasonable to
suspect that He would want to
enter into an empathetic
relationship with us
"face-to-face" ("peer-to-peer")
where the Lover and beloved would
have a parallel access to the
uniquely good and lovable
personhood and mystery of the
other (through empathy). A truly
unconditionally loving Being
would want to give complete
empathetic access to His heart
and interior life in a way which
was proportionate to the
receiving apparatus of the weaker
(creaturely) being. It would seem
reasonable (according to the
reasonings of the heart), then,
that an unconditionally loving
Creator would want to be Emmanuel
in order to give us complete
empathetic access to that
unconditional Love through voice,
face, touch, action, concrete
relationship, and in every other
way that love, care, affection,
home, and felt response can be
concretely manifest and
appropriated by us. If God really
is Unconditional Love, then we
might be presumptuous enough to
expect that He might be Emmanuel;
and if Emmanuel, then concretely
manifest in history. If this
resonates with the reader’s
thoughts and feelings, you will
want to proceed to the next
question.
6) If it would be typical of the
unconditionally loving God to
want to be fully with us, then is
Jesus the One?
As reasonable and responsible as
the answers to the above
questions might be, they can be
considerably strengthened through
historical corroboration, that
is, through experienceable data
which concretizes the reasoning
given immediately above. What
kind of experienceable data could
accomplish this corroboration?
Data which at once manifests (1)
God in our midst (Emmanuel) and
(2) God as Unconditional Love. It
so happens that a remarkably
powerful experienceable event did
at once manifest and synthesize
these two corroborating data, and
showed the above reasoning about
the unconditional Love of God to
be both reasonable and
experienceable, and to be
mutually corroboratable through
concrete experience and the logic
of love. This remarkable
experienceable event is Jesus
Christ.
So can this incredibly good news,
this historical corroboration of
our reasoning, this complete
access to the heart of God be
brought into focus so that it can
be seen clearly to be at once the
truth about God and our destiny?
I believe it can, because the
life of Jesus and the Church He
initiated is filled with clues
that synergistically connect the
mind to the heart and the heart
to the mind.
Lori, I hope this is helpful.
There are many other people who
have the same question.
Sincerely,
Father Spitzer
What is the difference between
metaphysics and physics, and what
are the limits of each?
Dear Fr. Spitzer,
What is the difference between
metaphysics and physics, and what
are the limits of each?
Emily
Dear Emily,
You ask a very interesting
question but it may involve some
complexities which may, in turn,
compel you to read this answer a
few times and then consult a book
like my new one – New Proofs
for the Existence of God:
Contributions of Contemporary
Physics and Philosophy.
Physics is the study of nature,
and more specifically, of matter,
energy, change, motion,
elementary constituents, space,
and time within the universe. It
proceeds from an empirical or
observational starting point, and
uses measurement and quantitative
analysis to discover the
equations of physical force and
energy which describe the laws of
nature. It is restricted to data
from our universe, and
specifically what can be observed
and falsified in our universe.
Since we cannot know whether we
have discovered everything which
would affect our theories of the
universe, all such theories are
perpetually subject to
modification or change.
Nevertheless, physics attempts to
corroborate the evidence behind
its various theories by
discovering multiple data sources
and evidence sets through
mathematical correlation. When
this correlation is found, the
theory becomes more rigorously
established, and carries with it
considerable probative force
(even though it may one day have
to be modified). See Chapter One,
Section II of my book New
Proofs).
Metaphysics, on the other hand,
is the study of ultimates –
such as the ultimate grounds and
causes of existence. It probes
the whole of reality – not
just reality in our universe or
reality which can be observed.
Thus, it seeks to discover
whether there is a reality
outside of our universe (such as
a Creator) and whether there is
an unconditioned reality, an
infinite reality, an absolutely
simple reality, a completely
intelligible reality, and a
spiritual reality.
In order to do this, metaphysics
uses a methodology of proof which
is distinct from that of physics.
Physics proceeds from observation
through hypothetical-deductive
reasoning to a conclusion which
can be modified. Alternatively,
metaphysics uses a methodology
called reduction to absurdity
(which shows that a hypothetical
proposition is equivalent to an
impossible state of affairs,
which means that the opposite
proposition must be true). There
are three general forms of
reduction to
absurdity:
1.
Reduction to a contradiction
(where one shows, for example,
that a proposition such as
"past time is infinite"
implies "an achieved
unachievable" which is a
contradiction. This implies
that past time is not
infinite, and is therefore,
finite – see Chapter Five
of my book New Proofs);
2. "Reduction to the
non-existence of everything"
(where for example, one
demonstrates that if
everything in all reality is a
conditioned existent, then
nothing would exist –
which is clearly not the case.
This means that there must be
at least one unconditioned
existent in all reality –
see Chapter Three of New
Proofs); and
3. Reduction to an infinite
regress (where, for example,
one shows that an infinite
number of conditions has to be
fulfilled for something to
exist – which means that
it won’t exist because an
infinite number of conditions
– an unlimited number of
conditions – is
unfulfillable. See Chapter
Three of New Proofs). These
three proofs are explained in
Chapter Six of New
Proofs.
Physics
is limited to the data of this
universe – and specifically,
to what can be empirically
observed and falsified, but it
does not specifically treat what
is beyond our universe. It can,
however, give considerable
evidence for a limit to the
universe (such as a beginning)
which brings it to the threshold
of metaphysics because a
beginning marks a point at which
the universe came into existence.
At this point, physics passes the
baton to metaphysics which
considers the idea of absolute
nothingness (physics does not do
this because absolute nothingness
does not exist in our universe or
anywhere else). It is here that
metaphysics reveals the need for
a Creator because if the universe
was nothing before its beginning,
then it could not have created
itself (because from nothing,
only nothing comes); therefore,
something other than the universe
must have created the universe as
a whole. This is what is meant by
a "Creator."
Metaphysics can prove a series of
absolute propositions through its
specific methodology. For
example, it can prove that there
must be at least one
unconditioned reality, and that
this reality must be unrestricted
and unique (see Chapter Three of
New Proofs). It can also prove
that there must be at least one
completely intelligible reality,
and that this reality must be
unrestrictedly intelligible and
unique (see Chapter Four of New
Proofs). Metaphysics can also
prove that aggregative structures
(such as past time) cannot have
an infinite number of constituent
parts, and therefore, that past
time must be finite (see Chapter
Five of New Proofs).
Though metaphysics can
demonstrate absolute and
universal truths (which can be
shown to be either impossible or
necessarily true through the
proofs described above), it
cannot use those proofs to
demonstrate the existence of
particular, contingent, factual
truths about our universe (e.g.
the invariant speed of light in
our universe is 300,000
kilometers per second).
Contingent, factual truths are
neither impossible nor necessary,
and so they cannot be
demonstrated by the above proofs;
they can only be verified through
observation and measurement.
Thus, physics has its domain of
observable, contingent, factual
truths about our universe and
metaphysics has its proper domain
concerned with absolute and
universal truths which can be
demonstrated through proofs which
lead to the impossibility or
necessity of those truths. These
methodologies, though distinct,
can be complementary and mutually
corroborative, and when they are,
they can reveal the richness, the
beauty, and even the transcendent
dimensions of reality.
Sincerely,
Fr. Spitzer
Is Divine intervention
possible?
Dear Father Spitzer,
Is it possible for there to be
Divine intervention in our
universe? I have seen what you
had to say about Hawking’s
theory of a self-creating
universe. What I want to know is
your response to the theory of
Hawking’s that if God did
create the universe that he
doesn’t break the laws that
govern it. And if that is true
how can there be things like
Divine intervention? (ex: Jesus
walking on water defying the law
of gravity, or the Resurrection).
If such things occurred how does
it not break those constants that
you talk about that give us a
life sustainable universe?
Sincerely,
Neil
Dear Neil,
You cannot disprove God or an
attribute of God from anything
within the universe. God is
independent of the Universe, but
can affect it any way he wishes.
Thanks for your question.
God bless,
Fr. Spitzer
Was the story of Jesus
actually lifted from the Egyptian
Horus myth?
Dear Father Spitzer,
The Jesus myth is almost entirely
lifted from Horus, the Egyptian
God of the sun. Born of a virgin
on Dec. 25, had 12 disciples,
healed the blind, raised a man
from the dead, crucified, rose
again three days later, and was
…savior… all thousands
of years before the New Testament
(and a larger part of the Old, as
I recall) was written. Although I
have never doubted that a man
named Jesus existed and taught,
calling him the messiah seems
extremely pretentious.
Brad (as commented on the Magis
Center Facebook page)
Dear Brad,
Thank you for your question. I
think you will eventually want to
answer it in a much larger
context taking into consideration
some of the outstanding scholarly
works of historical exegesis
concerning Jesus Christ (see
below). These works address the
historical questions which have
been raised by scholars who have
extensive knowledge of the
Semitic world and literature at
the time of Jesus. I can give you
a brief answer to your specific
question. To be quite frank, the
history of Jesus of Nazareth, is
not derived from the myth of
Horus. As you know, Horus is said
to be the god of the sky (and
therefore to contain the sun and
the moon). His divine origin is
from Isis, who is said to have
been impregnated in various ways
(she was by no means a virgin).
Horus did not have a single
incarnation (e.g. born on
December 25 of a virgin), but
rather multiple incarnations in
all of the pharaohs, and is
thought to be the source of
Pharaonic power. When one Pharaoh
died, Horus would assume a new
incarnation in the next Pharaoh
and the deceased Pharaoh would
assume the presence of Osiris. To
be honest with you the
differences between Horus and
Jesus are so vast that it does
not seem reasonable to believe
that a "Jesus myth" could have
been developed from it.
As noted above, there is a vast
literature of serious historical
scholarship about Jesus. I would
like to recommend to you two
series which are both recent and
rigorously peer reviewed. First,
a four volume series by John P.
Meier entitled, A Marginal Jew.
The first volume addresses the
historical apparatus and
methodology used not only in
Meier’s volumes but also in
the vast literature of serious
historical Jesus research that
has been done in the last 100
years – particularly in the
last 40 years. The other three
volumes specifically address
questions surrounding Jesus’
ministry, death, and
resurrection. Meier uses several
well known techniques in
historical method to ascertain
the most primitive strands of the
New Testament narratives and then
applies historical criticism to
them to derive the most probable
historical conclusions. Each
volume is about 800 pages of
extensive research with hundreds
of footnotes to outstanding
scholarly journals.
I also recommend the three volume
series of N.T. Wright,
particularly the second volume,
Jesus and the Victory of God, and
the third volume, The Resurrection
of the Son of God. Though these
titles indicate conclusions,
Wright has used a rigorous
exegetical and historical method
to come to those conclusions, and
his work is again heavily
supported by hundreds of
footnotes to outstanding
scholarly journals.
Again, thank you so much for your
question. I hope this is
helpful.
Fr. Spitzer
Are the Bible and Darwinian
evolution diametrically
opposed?
QUESTION: Are the Bible and
Darwinian evolution diametrically
opposed?
Chuck
ANSWER: Perhaps the best way of
answering this question is to
begin with the bible and
evolution (without your important
qualifier "Darwinian"). The
Church has taught, since the time
of Pius XII, in two encyclical
letters that
(1)
the bible is not a scientific
document, but rather, a
theological one (Divino
Afflante Spiritu – 1943)
and
(2)
that evolution is compatible
with both the bible and Church
teaching (Humani Generis
– 1950)
Let
me briefly explain each of these.
With respect to the first point,
the Church has long recognized
that divine inspiration is not
divine dictation. When God
inspires a biblical author, he
does so through the biblical
author’s human powers,
capacities, and categories. This
means that when God inspired the
author of Genesis 1:1, He would
have used categories familiar to
a person about 2,800 years ago.
These categories were decidedly
not scientific. Empirical,
mathematical science was
initiated around the late 16th
century by Francis Bacon and
others and has developed since
that time. The formal mathematics
that we use in contemporary
physics (the calculus in
particular) was developed by
Newton and Leibnitz after that
time. This means that God could
not have meaningfully given a
scientific account of the
creation or the development of
the natural world to the biblical
author, and therefore, we cannot
try to make the biblical account
be scientific in the strict
sense.
So what was the biblical author
doing? He was doing theology. He
is inspired to respond to the
accounts of creation implicit in
the myths of his day (e.g. the
Gilgamesh epic). These creation
accounts speak about many gods,
and associates natural objects
(such as the sun and the moon)
with gods. They also imply that
the gods are capricious and
frequently unjust and that
creation can be intrinsically
evil. The biblical author is
inspired to redress these
theological problems by creating
a story which has one God. This
one God creates the sun, the
moon, and the stars, and all
other natural objects (hence,
they are merely creations).
Furthermore, God is just and good
(not capricious) and creates
things that are good.
Therefore, the biblical
author’s use of "seven days"
is to be taken as a theological
context for the story and not as
an attempt by God to suggest
scientific fact. The same holds
true for the age of the universe
which physics has very well
established to be at least 13.7
billion years old (since the big
bang). One cannot assert as
scientific fact that the universe
is a little over 5,000 years old
(by summing the generations in
the bible as if the creation of
human beings is coincident with
the creation of the universe
itself), because the creation of
human beings on the seventh day
is part of the theological
context of the story. This was
never meant to be a scientific
fact, and it should not be
treated as one.
With respect to the point about
evolution, "Humani Generis"
allows Catholics to believe in
natural evolutionary processes.
This would allow for evolution on
a large scale. However, "Humani
Generis" is very careful to
specify that the human soul is
not a product of mere material
evolution. Certain features of
the human body may have evolved
from other less developed
species, but the human soul is
not matter, and it therefore
could not have arisen from a
merely material process.
There is considerable evidence
for the immateriality of human
beings besides our Catholic and
biblical belief in a human soul.
For example, there are excellent
scientific studies of near death
experiences which indicate the
survival of human
self-consciousness after bodily
death – E.G., in the
prestigious British medical
journal, "The Lancet," (see van
Lommel, MD, van Wees, Ruud;
Meyers, Vincent; and Elfferich,
Ingrid. 2001. "Near-Death
Experience in Survivors of
Cardiac Arrest: A Prospective
Study in the Netherlands." The
Lancet. Vol. 358, Issue 9298, pp.
2039-2045). There is also
evidence of a soul from the
transcendental nature of human
understanding, conscience, love,
beauty, and spiritual awareness
(see for example, my book New
Proofs for the Existence of God:
Contributions of Contemporary
Physics and Philosophy. This kind
of evidence (along with our
belief in a soul) indicates that
God created the human soul and
that this creation of the soul
cannot be explained by evolution
(which is a material process).
Even if the human body arose in
its early, middle, and late
stages from an evolutionary
process, it would have been
transformed by an infusion of the
soul in its final state.
So what does this mean about
"Darwinian evolution"? If this
term means pure evolution
implying those human beings are
merely material (and therefore
devoid of a soul and embodiment
which is influenced by a soul)
then it would be inconsistent
with Catholic teaching and also
the biblical account. However, if
it means something else, then
that "something else" would have
to be judged according to the
Christian beliefs elucidated
above.
One final point — is the
biblical account of creation
diametrically opposed to the
scientific account of creation?
It is not. There are many
parallels. Both accounts allow
for a creator transcending our
universe (and even transcending
time itself); both accounts see
stages in the unfolding of
creation; both accounts recognize
that the universe is fine-tuned
for the development of life and
even human beings; and both
accounts see human beings (and
human intelligence) as the
highest development in the
created order of the universe.
There are many other parallels,
but these are sufficient to show
a general consistency between
scientific and theological
accounts. We would not want to
make this general consistency
into detailed, specific
consistency because this would
force the biblical author
(writing 2800 years ago) to be
giving a scientific account.
I hope this helps if you have
other questions, please ask.
Fr. Spitzer
What would be the Church
reaction to aliens?
Father,
What would be the Church’s
reaction/response if intelligent
life was found on another planet
in the universe?
John, 8th grade
Dear John,
Thank you. You have asked a very
fine question.
There is certainly a possibility
that other life forms could be
discovered. These life forms
could be intelligent. Some
physicists believe that despite
the large number of stars in our
universe that the conditions
necessary for life (including the
right kind of stars, planets,
abundance of water, left-spinning
molecules, etc.) are so
improbable that intelligent life
forms besides our own are
unlikely. In any case, if
intelligent life were found, our
obligation would be to tell them
about Jesus Christ, and then, if
they are willing, baptize them
and start churches on the other
planet. I am sure that is how the
missionaries to the new world
felt when they first arrived on
our shores. My Christianity is
the product of their efforts.
God Bless you.
Sincerely,
Father Spitzer
How can we believe the
universe is billions of years old
and still believe the Bible,
too?
Hi Father,
I have been watching yourself and
Fr. Pacwa on EWTN discussing the
Big Bang etc. (in England by the
way). The truth is I didn’t
really follow all of your
arguments just the gist of them.
What surprised me was a throw
away comment of yours which was
to the effect that the Universe
is thirteen billion plus years,
old. Well for reasons I won't go
into I watch a lot of Christian
TV and have tended to become
convinced that Creationism and
the Bibles account of it is true.
This stance seems to be a more
non Catholic view.
My concern is that we Catholics
(and eminent intellectual
Catholics like yourself) seem to
accept creation as having
occurred Billions of years ago?
The reason I find this very
concerning is because it
undermines the very foundation of
Our Christian Holy Scripture
which says very definitely that
the Creation took place
approximately 6500 or so years
ago and this is supported
scientifically by such things as
only 4500 or so years of
accumulated silt at the mouths of
the worlds major rivers (Amazon,
Mississippi, Nile etc). That
would support the Flood being
True.
That of itself is not the
important issue. What is
important, is the undermining or
contradicting of the Bible which
we claim to be the inerrant WORD
of GOD. How can we justify saying
that Our Bible is GODS WORD but
not all of it is True?
Sincerely,
Peter
Dear Peter,
Thank you for your letter. I can
see why you are concerned about
the scientific account
undermining the biblical account,
but the Catholic Church has not
seen any problem with this since
the writing of an encyclical
entitled "Divino Afflante
Spiritu" by Pope Pious XII in
1943. Essentially the Church
holds that the Biblical author
was not doing science, but rather
theology. He was responding to
theological errors that were
manifest in the Gilgamesh Epic
and other popular creation myths
of the day. He wanted to tell his
Israelite audience that God is
one, that nature is not a god,
but a creation of God, that
God’s creation was good
– not evil, and that
God’s actions were just
– not pernicious. The
Israelite people in the seventh
and eighth century BC were
incapable of understanding the
mathematical physics of today,
and since the time of St. Thomas
Aquinas, the church has stated
clearly that "whatever is
received is received in the
manner of the receiver." In other
words, God is not going to speak
to a seventh century B.C.
Israelite in 21st Century
mathematical-physics terms. If
one does not try to make the
biblical author do science, the
two accounts have striking
parallels.
Thanks for your thoughts.
God Bless,
Fr. Spitzer
Can a regular person even
understand physics and
math?
Hi all - my name is Anne
Perrella. I teach science at a
Catholic secondary school, and
when it comes to the ability of
physics to shed light on whether
there is a God, the subject
triggers many questions. I
thought I’d share a few of
them that popped up for me when I
read the excerpt from “New
Proofs”:
First - I would really like to
understand whatever scientific
evidence there is that leads
scientists way smarter than me to
the conclusion that there is a
God. But how am I going to even
understand all the mathematics
involved? For me, space is here
and there; time is now and then.
What is space-time? Why is it all
one thing, as the theory of
relativity somehow says? Same
thing for matter and energy:
they’re interconvertible,
according to Einstein’s
formula E=mc squared, but what
does that really mean? Do these
things argue for or against the
existence of a creator?
One big argument concerns whether
time had a beginning or not, and
the work of a mathematician named
Hilbert is cited as evidence in
favor of time having a beginning.
This argument includes
Hilbert’s assertion that
infinities can’t be
contained within finite
structures (at least I think
that’s what he said). How
can I make sense of his argument
if I don’t have a deep
background in serious math?
Should I just trust
Hilbert’s statement, since
others say that he’s the
Father of Finite Mathematics?
What about the physicists who say
that time has no beginning, and
therefore there can be no
creator? Do they also have math
to back up their assertions? If
physicists disagree among
themselves, then how do I know
who to trust?
And while we’re at it, how
do we know that there are
ten-to-the-53rd kilograms of
matter in the universe? How is it
that we know that the
universe’s expansion is
accelerating? What did it look
like way back at the beginning,
if there was a beginning? If
there was no beginning, then how
did everything get here? Why is
there a smallest amount of time?
space? matter? Is it a
mathematically-derived thing? An
experimentally-seen thing? Why,
when you zap an atom, do you get
all those hundreds of wacky-named
subatomic particles? Why is there
no way to go faster than the
speed of light? Why is light a
particle and a wave at the same
time? Is that some kind of
contradiction? If I accept that
seeming contradiction, am I also
just somehow accepting other,
fancier contradictions?
Do I then just have to
have ‘faith’ in the
power of reason to prove the
existence of God?
The more questions I come up
with, the more that seem to
follow on them, so I think
I’ll just stop here. This is
plenty to think about for now.
Any comments?
|
|
