Proof of the Human Soul?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the human soul is the innermost aspect of man and the spiritual principle that separates from the body after death. The body then decays and the soul goes to meet God (CCC #363, #997). But is it possible to prove that the human soul exists?

Whenever someone asks for proof of something, especially something immaterial, I sometimes ask if it is possible to prove anything at all. This is not to be flippant; it’s a serious question.

Suppose you were told that last night while you slept your brain was taken by aliens and installed into an alien supercomputer. This supercomputer is now inputting all the correct electrochemical impulses into your brain to precisely simulate the world you are familiar with. You think you are reading a blog post right now, but it is actually the alien computer inputting the data directly into your brain—similar to the concept in the 1999 movie “The Matrix”. This might sound absurd, but you would simply have no way of proving that this artificial reality is false. If all the data you have is only virtual data being continuously streamed into your brain, you would have no outside system to use as a relevant basis of comparison.

For a less fantastic example involving “proof”, consider our criminal justice system. Have you ever been a juror in a criminal trial? I have; it was quite a rigorous exercise in reason with a bunch of perfect strangers—and it went on for two days. Proving someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt gets rather contentious when all twelve jurors cannot agree on when the threshold for a “reasonable doubt” has been achieved. It seems to me that when people try hard enough, they can always find a doubt that is reasonable…at least to them.

Here’s another case in point; suppose you and I see a cat running across the street. We agree that it was indeed a cat and we go forward with that premise. There is no doubt that we saw a cat; it is an unquestioned fact. We later receive more data that informs us that it was actually a funny looking raccoon. This is not so different from observations used in science. Once something is “proven” is the science settled forever? No; not if more data is found to question the previous thinking. Consider that Isaac Newton and centuries of Aristotelian logic held to the assertion that our universe and past time were infinite. Today many accept the premise that time/space had a starting point or Big Bang.1

There are many such examples about “proof” and I was reminded of these when discussing near-death experiences (NDEs) with someone as evidence for the human soul. Of all the unanswered questions in science, one of the biggest is “What is the biological basis of consciousness?” The hidden assumption in the question is (of course) that there must be a biological basis.

Consciousness can only be a product of a working brain; which is essentially a “meat computer” ultimately controlled by the universal and unchangeable laws of physics and chemistry. Therefore, NDEs must be manufactured in the brain. They are delusions produced by the brain under extreme duress, such as a lack of oxygen or being under the influence of powerful drugs administered during a medical emergency. Agreed?

For the strict materialist the paragraph above might be a satisfying answer, but like the example of the cat vs. raccoon, could there be more data to question the thinking behind NDEs and human consciousness? I believe I found such data in an article written by Fr. Robert Spitzer when I searched the Magis Center for Faith & Reason for NDEs.

Now, it is understandable to think that a priest writing something about NDEs could have a non-scientific and manipulative agenda about the afterlife, but the very opening paragraph shows the concern for scientific objectivity, “I cite the evidence of near-death experiences with some trepidation, because there are many books written on this subject which are not scientific…these nonscientific books have rather manipulative agendas, and some are quite cultic in character.”

The article goes on to summarizes three separate scientific studies on NDEs: The van Lommel et al Study, The Melvin Morse Study of Near-Death Experiences of Children and The Kenneth Ring, et al Study of Near-Death Experiences of the Blind. For me, the most interesting data that challenge the premise about consciousness being only a product of the brain are as follows:

Flat EEGs: People reported clear and lucid consciousness during the time in which there was no electrical activity in the brain cortex and no brain stem function either, evidenced by fixed dilated pupils and absence of the gag reflex. How can lucid conciseness continue when the brain is clinically dead?

Out of Body: People experienced an out-of-body state with sensorial capabilities. Out of body could even mean out of the room where they laid unconscious, going through walls, seeing things and hearing conversations which were later verified to be accurate. How does one experience this without a body, unless their consciousness is somehow “non-physical”?

Blind from Birth: Those blind from birth reported that they could see. If all our memories and knowledge are stored in our brain and our brain never received any visual inputs from our eyes, how does a blind person see during an NDE?

NDEs and Children: Wouldn’t it be foolish to believe a child? Maybe sometimes, but if you’ve spent time with children you know they can be very unbiased and matter-of-fact. Small children do not know what an NDE is and are not motivated by cultural or religious agendas, so how likely are they to purposely report data to help these agendas?

Low Percentage: Not everyone reports an NDE. In the van Lommel study only 18% reported an NDE, but 100% of them suffered a shortage of oxygen, were given morphine-like medications and were victims of severe stress. If an NDE is just a biological reflex of a dying brain, shouldn’t it be closer to 100%? If endorphins were suddenly and unexpectedly released into the brains of 100 people, wouldn’t about 100 of them report “good feelings”?

Do these objective aspects of subjective near-death experiences prove the existence of the human soul and the afterlife? Perhaps not, but beware of willful ignorance and having qualms with an agenda. As in the criminal trail example above, people are good at raising “reasonable doubts” for just about anything. Should consciousness without a physical brain be considered a real possibility? As with the most basic principles of reason, when many clues point in a certain direction, we do well to explore that direction seriously. In the grand scheme of reality these studies are additional data points (and there are many) that concur with the Catholic worldview.

1. Thomas E. Woods, How Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Washington D.C: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005), p. 91

Contemplating the Particles of Faith

I recently had the opportunity to review a new book before its release. The book is called Particles of Faith by Stacy A. Trasancos; it’s an ideal stocking stuffer (and it’s not too early to think about stocking stuffers) for the college student who just left home for the very first time to study the sciences, and perhaps, stopped going to church for the very first time as well. Many struggle with how to reconcile faith and science. This book will show you how science can only be properly understood in the light of faith.

The author is a Catholic scientist herself, so who better to write on the topic. Read it and learn all about…

• The chasm that faces every scientist
• How scientists know very much about very little
• The “System of Wills” and the interlocking system of reality
• The Battleship of Scientism: Can you trust a ship that does not know where it is going or where it came from?
• How the story of evolution is itself evolving
• How to answer that question that annoys so many, especially in a big election year. “When does human life begin?”
• How leaves on a tree, flapping mindlessly in the wind, helped bring a scientist to faith

This book reminded me a lot of something mentioned a few times on this blog called “The Weak Eye”1. It’s an allegory I often elaborate on from lay apologist Frank Sheed. It goes like this…

We have two physical eyes. There are also “two eyes” when looking at life; a secular eye and a spiritual eye. Our secular eye can refer to not only our bodily senses, but also all the practical things we study and learn about to help us function in our communities, homes, and jobs. This would include all the sciences as well. The spiritual eye is about how we all ponder things like the Good, the Beautiful, the True and the meaning behind it all. This eye is focused on spiritual reality. Many Catholics end up with a weak spiritual eye simply because they don’t know or exercise their faith.

What happens if we have one weak eye? There is lack of focus; we cannot see reality clearly. This can explain how those who are highly trained and educated in science can lack spiritual common sense. We can even be educated out of our faith as the secular eye gets stronger and stronger, while the spiritual eye is ignored and grows weaker and weaker. No exercise.

Once we find that reality seems unclear, what can we do? We can either close the weak eye and forget it entirely or exercise it and build its strength. But how? Think of a child that has a condition sometimes called “lazy eye”2. A doctor might recommend a way for the weak eye to start working harder. If this isn’t done, there is a good chance one eye will always be weaker than the other eye. As a result, the brain favors the stronger eye. The weaker eye tends to wander. Eventually, the brain may ignore the signals received from the weaker eye. One eye will always be blurry, one always sharp.

It’s the same thing in the spiritual life as the author alludes to in her book. She began to follow what the Church teaches (as an act of the will) by attending Mass, praying daily, consciously pursuing virtue and avoiding sin, all of which gave her spiritual eye the opportunity for exercise. If we don’t do these things, we will always favor the secular eye due to poor vision in the other spiritual eye. The weaker eye will tend to wander (spiritual wandering). Eventually, you may ignore the signals received from the weaker eye. One eye will always be blurry, one always sharp. “Whoever has ears ought to hear.” (Mt 13:9)

In terms of proof, the author tested the principles of the faith in the laboratory of her life and found them to be true, but in the end aren’t all proofs like a glass of water?

“You can purify that water and set it down in all the fine crystal you want, but you cannot force a person to drink it.”

—Stacy Transancos

Particles of Faith, page 69

Pre-order your copy today!!

Released date Oct. 10th

1.     Frank Sheed, Theology for Beginners (Cincinnati: Servant Books, 1981) p. 185.

2.     Mayo Clinic Staff, Mayo Clinic [Website], “Diseases and Conditions Lazy eye (amblyopia) Definition” (3 July 2013), Site address: http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/lazy-eye/basics/definition/con-20029771

4 Big Bangs?

I’m currently reading a series of e-books by Robert Kurland, physicist and blogger at Reflections of a Catholic Scientist. The latest installment, Science Verses the Church, starts with “ways of knowing” and the limits of science, and continues on with a brief history of the Church and science and then into topics of cosmology, anthropology, evolution and much more. Each topic is presented with a plethora of perspectives from differing scientist, including the author himself, and it’s all related back to the perspective of the Church.

As is often the case, reading good books can trigger insights and connections to other related items I’ve come across in the past. Case in point is this video about 4 Big Bangs and the existence God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIorXcloIac&t=10s

Bang 1:  The Cosmological Big Bang:

This is the one you might be most familiar with. Both believers and non-believers might gladly agree that the universe began some 13.7 billion years ago and that every effect must have a cause, so if there was a Big-Bang there must also have been some sort of “Big-Banger.” In other words, something outside of the known universe that was a necessary condition for the existence of the known universe. It might even be called a “creation event”. Does this prove the existence of God? I think not, but I do think it is relevant data to include in any discussion about a reality that is unconditioned by time, space, matter and energy…and what a curious thing that would be.

In his book, Robert cautions that even if the physical universe is infinite, it does not contradict Catholic teaching. “If we believe God is the author of all, a First Cause, then He can create an infinity of universes, as in the bubble universe hypothesis of Linde or in the parallel worlds given by some interpretations of quantum theory. Economy of effort is not required of God.”1

Bang 2:  The Abiogenesis Big Bang:

How did dead stuff become living stuff? No one really knows. Robert was clear about this in his book. “There are a variety of theories—one might better call them speculation—but until a model is produced that can be empirically verified, it will remain a mystery.”2

An evolutionary process of natural selection and/or survival of the fittest cannot be used to explain how the first living thing came to be. The very first cell (or proto cell) had no parent(s), no genetic ancestors to evolve from; to say it came about through the random jostling of matter and energy might be a kin to saying a running computer could come about through the random jostling of electricity and electronic parts. Whether a living cell or a computer, it’s not just a matter of the right parts being in the right physical location; the parts need to be both integrated and interdependent for anything meaningful to happen. There is no reason for a keyboard, a mouse and a screen to be carefully integrated together with software and electricity unless there was some intention behind it. Could we not say the same for the parts of a living cell?

Bang 3: The Biological Big Bang:

This is about the huge diversity of life on earth and why are there such big differences between bacteria, plants, animals and humans. An atheist might say “Evolution did it!” just as quickly and mindlessly as a Deist might say, “God did it!” Neither answer is intellectually satisfying by itself, but we can still draw some inferences from the facts.

For example, the human brain appeared on the scene in a geological instant and it seems to be evolutionary excess in terms of only needing to survive and reproduce. Bacteria, trees and chimps survive just fine on this planet. There is no need for a life form to be so much more intelligent than them, let alone a species capable of producing individuals like Newton, Einstein and Shakespeare. So what’s the real reason? Is it an intentional purpose or no purposeful reason at all?

Bang 4: The Anthropological Big Bang

Beyond being able to manipulate their environment better than any other living thing, humans are self-reflective, have free will and like to ask “why”. Besides the aforementioned, The Anthropological Big Bang is about man’s moral and aesthetic sense about the Good, the Beautiful and the True. Can all these traits be explained by merely seeking biological opportunities, or by avoiding biological dangers?

Chapter 7 of Science versus the Church is called “Who Has a Soul?” and covers the relation between soul, mind and consciousness. Perhaps one way to define having a soul might be the capacity to wonder where we came from, what will happen when we die, who or what made everything and why. Some philosophers take the materialist position that the soul is merely the brain, and the brain is just a “meat computer”.

The author takes the view of philosophers who believe that consciousness is a phenomenon that can never be fully understood scientifically because our understanding is limited by our own consciousness. There are things we cannot experience or “know” in terms of consciousness. If we cannot know it, how do we study it? If we’re born blind, we can never know what seeing color is really like, even if we know all there is to know about the physical aspects of light reflecting off matter and the physical process it would take to see it. An even better example is from an article by Thomas Nagel called “What’s it like to be a bat”. Unless you are actually a bat, you can never have the same experience as a bat using echolocation no matter how much you study sound waves as a human.3

According to the video linked above, none of these 4 Big Bangs show evidence of gradual development over time. That’s why they’re called “Big Bangs”. Since evolution does not explain them in terms of survival of the fittest with slow changes over time, what can we say about them with intellectual honesty? It doesn’t seem like a far stretch to say there must be something beyond "the physical" which caused "the physical" and that there is a purposeful design behind it. Even with no absolute empirical proof and no faith, this becomes a reasonable and responsible position to hold given all the data from all 4 Big Bangs.

Simply put, the end result is more than mindlessness can do for itself.

1. Robert J. Kurland, Top Down to Jesus Book 3, Science verses the Church (Robert J. Kurland, 2016), e-book, PDF pg. 61.

2. Kurland, Top Down to Jesus Book 3, Science verses the Church, PDF pg. 80.

3. Kurland, Top Down to Jesus Book 3, Science verses the Church, PDF pg. 105.

Splendid...

It seems to me that just about any science documentary will express a kind of "Alice in Wonderland" amazement about nature. This often goes hand in hand with a kind of unconscious dogma of meaninglessness, which holds that all things in the end come from nothing intelligent and with no intended purpose, regardless of how brilliantly it is put together. The unspoken premise is that the finely-tuned universe, our planet, and the first life forms just magically appear by themselves given enough time for matter and energy to jostle around. Once life creates itself, it evolves thoughtlessly into many things including us. It seems mindlessness can create things better than the human mind can.

For once, I’d like to see a science or nature documentary on main stream television with a different and more rational premise; one that presupposes “intelligence”. If you know of one, let me know. In the meantime, below is a link to a new and splendid article in the Catholic Herald by John Beaumont about science, faith, reason and Fr. Stanley Jaki.

My favorite part…
A fellow philosopher announced that he didn’t believe in free will. Fr Jaki responded, “Did you say that freely?”

Does science disprove God? A great philosopher-priest showed that it couldn’t

 

Month of Mary - Month of Mothers - Month of Life

I wonder if the March for Life in January each year might be more conducive to its ultimate end in the month of May, since May is the month of Mary and the month of mothers and the month of life. As new life springs up in the northern hemisphere and we forget all about the cold and dead winter, could thoughts about the sanctity of human life flow more naturally in the month of May?

In any case or in any month we can always say that human life beings at conception as an objective fact. My blog partner Joe recently sent me this link from Lifenews.com about 41 quotes from the medical profession that prove human life begins at conception. Here are a few of my faves:

• “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.” Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

• An embryology textbook describes how birth is just an event in the development of a baby, not the beginning of his/her life. “It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.” F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi

• “Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.” The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth edition, Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, page 1 

• National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/medlineplus/fertilization. The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.”
   
  

• “….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council 

• Scarr, S., Weinberg, R.A., and Levine A., Understanding Development, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1986. page 86 “The development of a new human being begins when a male’s sperm pierces the cell membrane of a female’s ovum, or egg….

• The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18: “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

Sounds pretty clear, but what do people who write medical text books know about anything anyway? From here the discussion may often turn to “personhood”. The unborn “entity” may be human, but it is not a person. I remember someone telling me that life begins when you’re born. I asked, “If your son was born yesterday at 1:00PM, what made him not a human being or not a person at 12:59PM? What would be the distinction other than time and/or the surrounding environment?” He could offer no clear answer because he was simply making-up a threshold of his own liking.
 

 

When pressed under questioning, one wonders how supposedly educated people can be both pro-choice and recognize science & human rights all at the same time. This is such a harsh contradiction that one can see a need for a diabolical force to help the pro-choice movement along.

As the Lifenews article shows, it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception. To say the first stage of one’s life or one’s “personhood” begins at some other threshold of consciousness or viability is subjective; a matter of opinion. To declare something as important as this on something subjective is irrational when something objective is clearly available. In fact, irrationality is not a strong enough expression; it’s more like an invincible blindness.

Sorry, I can't see your personhood.

 

 

 

 

Evolutionary Magic Wand Does Not Explain the First Cell

Continuing with one more reflection from a book called A Meaningful World; let us now turn our attention to “the cell”.

A few months ago the Two Catholic Men presented the following scenario that related intelligent design and physical size. Imagine you were walking in a forest with a friend when you both stumbled upon a log cabin. You would naturally assume that someone created it (a person or a group of people), even if there was no empirical evidence of a builder other than the cabin itself. Unless you had more evidence, you will NOT presume a specific builder by name, but the assumption of “intelligence” will become a base premise that is non-negotiable.

Now suppose your traveling companion said the cabin is just a result of the random forces of nature, matter and energy coming together over time to form the cabin. To accept your friend’s conclusion would be not only unreasonable, but also irresponsible.

• Now, just begin to increase the physical size of the cabin. Suppose it was the size of an Egyptian pyramid. You will not presume the builder must specifically be King Tut, but the same impartial assumption about an intellect remains.
• Now, increase the size of the cabin to the size of planet earth. Reason’s responsibility leads us to the same conclusion about intelligence, although you might drop the part about the source of it being human. Observing the planet earth itself and how it works points to the same assumption. Just because the earth is big and not made by us, why should we conclude it is a product of mindlessness?

This thinking & sizing process can also work in reverse.

• Suppose you observe a cabin the size of a single cell under a powerful microscope. To your astonishment, you observe not only the ordered structure of the building frame, but also indoor plumbing, electricity, a security system and a fully functioning HVAC system. Any reasonable person might ask, “Who built this?!?”
• Finally, consider a single living cell with a membrane, centrosome, cytoplasm, Golgi complex, lysosome, mitochondrion, nuclear membrane, nucleolus, nucleus, ribosome, rough ER, smooth ER and vacuole…all much more complex than any cabin. We reach the same conclusion. Intellectual honesty tells us that it’s all beyond what random mindlessness can do for itself.

“We know that even the simplest functioning cell is almost unfathomably complex, containing at least 250 genes and their corresponding proteins, each one extraordinarily difficult to produce randomly and none of which can function apart from the intricate structure of the cell.” (A Meaningful World, p. 201.)

The evolutionary magic wand of natural selection and/or survival of the fittest cannot be used to explain how the first living cell (or cells) came to be. The first cell had no parent(s), no genetic ancestors to evolve from; to say it came about through the random jostling of matter and energy might be a kin to saying a running car could come about through the random jostling of car parts. Whether a living cell or a running car, it’s not just a matter of the right parts being in the right physical location; the parts need to be integrated and interdependent for anything meaningful to happen. There is no reason for an alternator, an alternator belt and a battery to be carefully integrated together unless there was some intention behind it. It’s the same with the parts of a living cell.

The famous Miller-Urey experiment offered an explanation for the origins of life, but hardly a convincing one. The experiment involved passing an electrical current through gaseous methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water (all assumed to be in earth’s early atmosphere). The result was the formation of some carbon-based compounds. I can see at least three problems with this as an explanation.

• Carbon-based compounds are not living cells.
• The experiment was not “mindless”. The experiment demonstrates (rather ironically) how a precise set of intelligently designed conditions are necessary to from a “primordial soup”.
• There is no evidence of a primordial soup and atmosphere ever existing on earth as it did in the Miller-Urey experiment. “For materialists, in order for God not to exist, it was necessary for them to invent the soup.” (A Meaningful World, p. 209.)

The authors of the book also offered an interesting allegory about an intellectual blindness that can be found in regard to the first cell. Imagine you are invited to a science laboratory for a special demonstration. When you arrive you see hundreds of small magnets strewn about the floor and strung together with some wire. A scientist then pulls an electrical switch. Suddenly, the magnets come together to form an elegant shape and the new creation begins to clean-up the laboratory. When the last beaker is cleaned, dried and put way, the host scientist turns off the switch and all the magnets fall lifelessly to the floor. You are absolutely astonished and shout, “That’s amazing!” The scientist replies, “Why? It’s just a bunch of magnets.” A similar attitude might be taken in regard to first cell or cells on earth, “It’s just a bunch of amino acids.”

Such blindness finds its root in the sin of pride and the danger arises when we become more attached to our assumptions and over-generalizations than we are to reality. Our theories then become our idols.

“Our bringing up idolatry here is not a mere metaphorical device; rather it strikes to the very heart of the problem. Idolatry at its deepest is the worship of something that is human-made. In demanding that the universe must conform to human reason, to our theory, to what is simplest and easiest for us to understand, we are refashioning the universe into an idol.” (A Meaningful World, p. 246.)

INTERESTING SIDE NOTE:

Shortly after reading A Meaningful World I took note of a popular song on the radio that my kids always want to hear called “A Sky Full of Stars” by Coldplay. I’m often appalled by popular music lyrics or just left unimpressed, but on some occasions I’m touched, and even reminded of “Omnipresence”.

…'cause in a sky full of stars

I think I see you…

Such a heavenly view

You're such a heavenly view

I mentioned to my 12 year old son that the song reminds me of God.
He promptly replied…“Of course.”

 

 

                            

The Liquid of Life

Continuing reflections from a brilliant read entitled A Meaningful World by Benjamin Wiker & Jonathan Witt; let’s focus some well-deserved attention onto something taken for granted every day. Many instances of the extraordinary fine-tuning of our universe are outlined in the book, all of which point to purposeful design as opposed to mindless chance, but none of which are more amazing than water.

Someone with an atheistic worldview once told me that the fine-tuning of the universe is no more remarkable than a puddle of water. We can observe that water will perfectly fit the shape of the puddle hole. No one ever asks, “What are the odds of that particular amount of water fitting that particular hole so perfectly?” I responded something to the effect that the puddle is a conditioned reality like any other physical reality. What are the physical conditions needed for the water to fit the hole and why does it need to be that way? Why does anything need to be anyway at all? It relates to the metaphysical question of “Why somethinginstead of nothing?”

Besides being able to fit a puddle hole, water has a litany of amazing properties that no one could ever guess given only water; they are only discovered in the context of water as the liquid of life.

 

 

Simplicity: Earth, wind, fire and water are not basic elements as once thought, but water is as simple and plentiful as a compound can be. This simplicity made it easy to recognize the two basic elements of hydrogen and oxygen in a simple 2:1 ratio (H2O), which was an enormous intellectual leap for mankind.

 

What if our plentiful liquid of life was glycerol (CH2OHCHOHCH2OH)? In terms of learning about the reality of elements which led to the discovery of atoms, water acts almost like a simple ubiquitous tutorial, like learning to read using Dick & Jane instead of Shakespeare.

Freezing and Expanding: Every kid in science class learns that things expand when they get hot and contract as they get cold. Water contracts as it gets colder too, but to a point, that point being about 4°C, then a sudden burst of expansion occurs around 0°C. This makes ice float.

Liquid water must be readily available on the surface of the earth for life to exist. Ice that sinks would not only hinder the biological processes at the bottom of a large body of water, but also accumulate as solid ice under the murky water far from the melting rays of the sun.

Specific Heat: It takes a lot of energy to heat water. Water has the highest specific heat of any liquid except ammonia. 70% of the planet’s surface is water which is a good thing for us since it helps regulate the earth’s temperature.  Think of the hot sand on the beach on a hot day as compared to the cool water. What if water heated just as fast as sand? What would that mean for not only the earth, but for our waterlogged bodies as we generate metabolic heat?!? We all know how it feels if our body temperature goes up just a few degrees.

Latent Heat of Evaporation: It takes a lot of heat to evaporate water and when it does finally does evaporate it takes a lot of heat with it. Water is not only a remarkable cooling liquid for our bodies as sweat, but evaporation in tropical areas carries latent heat to colder climates which is released as it condenses. No other substance could absorb, store, transport and release so much heat.

Latent Heat of Fusion: An unusually high latent heat of fusion means that as water freezes in winter it releases the heat it absorbed the previous spring when it melted. Remember that the next time you complain a lake is freezing over. It would be even colder if water did not have this additional temperature stabilizing property.

A Powerful Solvent: Water is a powerful solvent that is also not highly reactive like other solvents; it releases minerals from rocks without attacking biological entities and is also a great circulator of its precious cargo, being that it remains a flowing liquid at the just the right temperatures. The expanding trick of water as it freezes opens the cracks and crevasses of rocks, releasing even more life giving minerals.
 

High Surface Tension: Surpassed only by liquid mercury, the surface tension of water is curiously high. Water can rise to great heights and if trees and other large vegetation could be thankful, I’m sure they would be, since no extra effort is needed to pull the water up. There would be no large vegetation on earth if not for this property, and what would that do to the planet’s ecosystem?  Additionally, clingy water will not just soak through to deep soil and underground streams. It grips to particles near the surface long enough for roots to soak it up.

Another Convenient Coincidence: The liquid of life just happens to exits in all three phases (solid, liquid, gas) within the same biological temperature range that carbon based life can occur.

Water is remarkably fine-tuned for life. One must accept the premise that all its properties are either a mindless coincidence or designed for a purpose; the purpose of life. Impartial reasoning accepts the principle that things which appear intelligently designed…are in fact intelligently designed. Things do not magically design themselves no matter how much we would like them to. A quote in the book by agnostic physicist Fred Hoyle points to how some are rediscovering this intellectual honesty.

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as the chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”

– Fred Hoyle

 

 

Contemplating the Savior of Science

Have you ever stopped to think about why modern science first arrived on the scene in Europe around the middle of the last millennium with scientists like Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Descartes and Pascal? Why not from other great cultures of the past? This question is explored with piercing detail in a book called “The Savior of Science” by Fr. Stanley Jaki. It was recommended to me by writer and scientist, Stacy Trasancos. It’s not the easiest read in the world if one is not familiar with certain scientists throughout history and their theories, but some parts of the book are easy to follow.

It’s very understandable as to why some cultures would not be so concerned with the great “whys” of the physical universe if they were constantly struggling for food, water and shelter or continually fending off attacks from their neighbors. Who cares how the sun goes up and down every day if I’m just trying to stay alive every day, but what about the peoples of cultures like ancient China, Japan, India, Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Persia, Greece and Rome? They all lived in organized societies with infrastructure; they had long periods of peace and talented citizens. They were also not greatly influenced by one another, as if we could say the superstitions about nature spread from one culture to all the rest like a virus. Of course, they had their achievements, like gun powder, papermaking and fixed-type engraved printing coming from China. How about the great architectural achievements of ancient Egypt, or the logic of the Greeks, but modern science never took root in any of these places. Why?

 Like any good problem solving, one should compare the place of interest (like Europe) and the characteristic of interest (like the birth of modern science) to other places that lack that characteristic. From here we can look for distinctions. By their fruits you shall know them, provided that scientific fruit or fruitlessness is looked for.

 

 The great non-Judeo-Christian cultures of the past had their premises about nature, existence and the universe. Perhaps it was the belief in eternal cycles that left a hopeless feeling when at the bottom, or a sense of complacency when on top (learn about Fortuna). How about the view of the universe as a kind of huge wild animal whose dangerous irrationalities needed to be appeased by some kind of human ritual? Others kept a wall of division between celestial and terrestrial matter that could never be penetrated. Given these kinds of worldviews, it’s easy to see why modern science could never take root. There also was no confidence in the abilities of a limited human mind to grasp the laws of nature, because nature was not subject to any rational mind or lawgiver that transcended it. King Brihadratha, the last ruler of the Mauryan dynasty, sums it up well for his culture as well as many others when he said “In the cycle of existence, I’m like a frog in a waterless well.” These kinds of mind sets seem to cry out for salvation.

So what was different about Europe? Fr. Jaki suggests that it was Christ that saved science from yet another “stillbirth” in Europe. The culture which grew out of Christendom was the distinction that provided the premises by which man could finally have a rational worldview, and the premises came from Catholic doctrine.

 

BRAIN FREEZE!!!

Now this is a hard teaching; who could accept it? Didn’t S.J. Gould get it right when he said, “Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview - nothing more constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to novelty.”  Isn’t the scientific progress that we still build onto today the result of the European enlightenment? Isn’t this when men shook-off their pious little fairy tales about god or gods? This finally freed men to use logic & reason for the very first time to explain the world around them, right?

Well, the Greeks and other cultures were known for their logic, but science was stillborn in those places. Additionally, the famous forefathers of modern science like Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Descartes and Pascal were all Christian. So if atheism or just raw logic does not explain the birth of modern science, what might explain it?

Fr. Jaki argues that salvation finally came for science because Christ and His Church built a Christian worldview with the following types of convictions….

• God is a rational being that is orderly and reliable; therefore, his creation is also rational, orderly and reliable.
• All matter, celestial & terrestrial, can be placed on the same basic level, since it was all created out of nothing (ex nilhilo). A pebble is no different than the earth, the sun, the moon, or a cow in terms of being a created thing that can be studied and dissected.
• Man is made in the image and likeness of God, therefore we can have confidence in human rationality to understand creation because our intellect was fashioned by God in his own image.
• Man can have full trust in a rational creator. This fosters the intellectual courage that can drive us to learn more about creation.

Regrettably, this intellectual courage also leads men to the sin of pride. In the book, Fr. Jaki cleverly compares the sin of Eve in the book of Genesis to the sin of atheistic scientists today who view the world as only material. After being tempted by the serpent, Eve became “scientific”, looking at the tree of life in a materialistic way. “The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eye, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it…” (Gen 3:6). The illicitness of the fruit and the tree was forgotten along with the Creator.

Many of today’s scientists seem to have flipped one of the Catholic based premises on its head. The science of the past may have said “We know the creator is intelligent, so we can go forward assuming the universe is intelligible.” Today it’s more like “We know the universe is intelligible, so we can go forward assuming there is no intelligence behind it.” It’s like saying we can see sunlight, but we should assume that there is no sun. This kind of dimming down of the intellect was expressed well using a paradox, “we are smarter than we are”.

“We are smarter than we are” is meant to express the notion that our minds have evolved much faster than our bodies. The human brain appeared on the scene in a geological instant and it seems to be evolutionary “overkill” in terms of only needing to survive and reproduce. S.J Gould was also quoted in the book as saying, “It does reinforce an ego that we do well to deflate.”

The statement is not about the Christian virtue of humility; it’s more about convincing you not to look any deeper than the material surface; we should forcibly deflate that natural part us that looks for spiritual truth. Paradoxes are normally meant to awaken the mind; in this case it is meant to suppress the mind. The mind’s eye is meant to see further and deeper than the physical eye, but we are told to deflate the part of us that cries out “There must be more!”  Should we deflate ourselves or should we continue to search for that which is more than we are?

Which will you choose?