The Nothing of the Gaps

You may be familiar with the phrase “The God of the gaps”; it might be used when Christians (or any deists) use gaps in scientific knowledge as evidence for God’s existence. I can remember a comedian mocking believers by using a childish voice to answer “God did it!” to some ultimate questions of science.

Q: What caused the Big Bang?

A: God did it!

Q: How can a spontaneous “Big Bang” give us a highly fine-tuned and intelligible universe?

A: God did it!

Q: How can ordered, but dead matter & energy become alive?

A: God did it!

Q: How can something alive become self-aware?

A: God did it!

As science closes gaps between what we know and what we don’t know about the material world, will the god that lives in those gaps eventually be squeeze out of the minds of people? I should think that for every gap science closes several more gaps open up, but whatever the gaps are, is the more rational and intelligent answer to say “nothing did it”?

 

Any thinking Christian will, of course, acknowledge the many secondary causes that exist in all of reality, but God as the first cause of all things material and immaterial is a non-negotiable dogma. Likewise, a strict materialist or strong atheist will recognize secondary causes, but do they not essentially defer to “nothing” as the ultimate answer to certain gaps? So we end up with "the nothing of the gaps".

 

Nothing to see here...
Move along...

The Gap from Meaning:

Q: If we come from nothing for the purpose of nothing and are going back to nothing, what is the meaning behind it all?

A: Nothing.

One might strongly object and answer, “We make our own meaning!” Making our own meaning in life may be compared to multiplying a number by zero. No matter how huge the number, multiplying by zero always makes it zero. No matter what you achieve in life, when you decay to nothingness it becomes “zero”. No matter how many future generations you help, each one is “multiplied by zero” as the universe marches on indifferently.

Meaning is received, not made. Professor Joseph Ratzinger (future B16) gives a clever analogy to self-made meaning in his book Introduction to Christianity (2004 edition, pp 73). Imagine a man trying to pull himself out of a bog by his own hair. This is the absurdity of the statement, “We make our own meaning.”

Little help!?!

The Gap from Goodness:

Q: What is the ultimate source for the good, the beautiful and the true?

A: Nothing.

One might object and answer, “These are merely human opinions & concepts that evolve over time, so the ultimate source is human.”  And what is the ultimate source of humans? The answer would still come back to nothing if we truly come from nothing intelligent and with no intended purpose.

The Gap from Intelligence:                                                                  

Q: Since the universe is highly intelligible, where did its intelligibility come from?
A: Nothing.

Many atheists can gladly agree that the known 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 be a “big-banger”. They may even go so far as to agree that the big banger (whatever caused the big bang) must be something outside the known universe, but no matter how much consensus there is, it seems to stop at the gap of “intelligence”.

No matter how incredibly fine-tuned things are, like the universe, our planet, our minds & our bodies, their origins must be “dumb”. No matter how much evidence of design there is it can only be by chance. The thinking of the past was that a highly ordered and intelligible universe must clearly have an intelligent creator. Today’s “progressive” thinking is that a highly ordered and intelligible universe must clearly come from mindlessness…clearly. One might call this having an irrational "faith" in chance.

If we insist on “nothing” to fill the gaps for the most important question in life, then the effect of original sin that dims the intellect is easy to see.

“Those who run after nothing become nothing”

– Pope Francis

In the last analysis it's either all or nothing.

 

Religious Liberty & Analytical Problem Solving

One of the basic tenets of the analytical problem solving process employed by our company is to carefully compare what is perceived to be a problem to what is perceived to be OK.  The more closely related the two things are, the more relevant the comparison. From here one can fret-out distinctions between what is seen as OK and what is seen as a problem and use those distinctions to formulate possible causes, or to help determine if there is actually any problem at all.

This kind logic can be applied to the religious liberty debates going on right now. If refusing to sell goods & services for a same-sex marriage celebration because of one’s personal beliefs should be illegal, then other similar “refusals” to other similar “events” should also be illegal.

THIS ARTICLE from National Review does a good job of presenting some relevant comparisons. Here are a few of my favorites:

• Are we prepared to handcuff a feminist photographer who won’t take pictures at a strip club event?

We may not know whether or not the photographer hates the people in the club or loves them, she just does not want her business to be associated with this specific kind of event. Should she be punished?

• Do we respect a black jazz band’s choice not to perform at a Ku Klux Klan chapter’s “Negro Minstrel Show”?

Here again, the band members may not hate white people at all. They just do not want to be part of this performance in any way. Should they be punished?

• Do we respect a pro–gun control photographer’s right to choose not to snap pictures at a “Sharpshooter of the Year” banquet organized by the local chapter of the National Rifle Association?

It’s not that the photographer will never take any pictures of any NRA members at any event. It’s the meaning behind this particular event that is the concern.

• Do we respect a Jewish calligrapher’s right to choose not to produce hand-written invitations for a Hitler Day brunch organized by a local neo-Nazi group?

Once again, the ideology behind the brunch and what it represents is the problem.

The following would be a dissimilar comparison:

• A restaurant owner refuses to serve gay people because he personally believes all gay people are evil.

So what is distinctive between the first four examples and the last one? The focus of attention with the first ones is some event or celebration and the ideology behind it, not the actual person(s) involved. In other words, it’s about the principle, not the person. The difference is vast.

 

The more our society accepts transcendent things, like right vs. wrong, as only opinions, the more we will accept a kind of soft tyranny where the government takes on the role of “moral compass". They will tell us which way is just and which way is unjust, fair or unfair and you will obey or be punished. Religious liberty is a founding principle of the U.S. and watching its own citizens leading the charge against people of faith into this oppression may be the saddest part of the whole mess.

You will obey or be punished!

 

 

Got Salvation?

I remember the first time I read Philippians 2:12. St. Paul’s instructions rang a bell, and once a bell rings it can never be un-rung.

“…work out your salvation with fear and trembling.”

In terms of salvation, “work out” implies some sort of process (not something that is instantaneous) and “fear and trembling” reminds us that it’s something that can be lost during said process. It seems St. Paul had a rather catholic understanding of salvation. But how does one receive salvation and eternal life? Is it really by faith alone as some might claim?

 

Perhaps the Bible alone will clear this up. St Peter’s speech at Pentecost made it clear as we read in Acts 2:38. After receiving the Holy Spirit, Peter said to the crowd “Repent and declare Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior and ask him to come into your heart and you will receive salvation this very instant with no possibility of ever losing it.” Well, that’s not exactly what St. Peter said in the Bible, in fact, it is not written anywhere in the Bible.

So, are you saved?

How does one get saved?

What must we do?

What does the Bible teach?

 

Must you repent and be baptized, right?

“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 2:38

 

How about just baptism alone?

“This prefigured baptism, which saves you now...”

1 Peter 3:21

 

Belief in Jesus alone?

“Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved.”

Acts 16:31

 

Belief in God alone?

“…whoever hears my word and believes in the one who sent me has eternal life and will not come to condemnation, but has passed from death to life.”

John 5:24

 

Words alone?

“I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before others the Son of Man will acknowledge before the angels of God.”

Luke 12:8

 

“By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” Mt 12:37

 

 Works alone?

“Who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works”

Romans 2:6-7

 

“See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

James 2:24

 

“…those who have done good deeds to the resurrection of life, but those who have done wicked deeds to the resurrection of condemnation.”

John 5:29

 

Grace alone?

“On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus in the same way as they.”

Acts 15:11

 

Obedience alone?

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.”

John 3:36

 

“But if the wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed, if he keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live. He shall not die!”

Ezekiel 18:21

 

Eating alone???

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life...”

John 6:54

 

Given all this, how can anyone claim, using the Bible alone, that salvation is by one thing alone? None of the above items can be dismissed as part of our salvation process, nor can any one item be emphasized at the cost of the others.

As a side, does the Bible really teach, or do people teach? If it is people who teach, it does beg some questions about who should teach, and by what authority, and would God provide for any such authority? The answer lies in the Church that teaches the fullness of faith as well as salvation in its fullness.


You're kinda lost without it...

Let’s now get back to the mother of all questions:
Are you saved?
 

Think of a man sinking in quicksand that wants to be saved and sees a rescue team on the way. He has every confidence that he will be saved and shouts “I’m saved!”, but he is not actually saved until he’s out of the mud. It’s this same with us as we “work out” our salvation as part of the Church militant on earth with great confidence that we will one day be members of the Church triumphant in heaven.

Much of the preceding post was inspired by a book called "Crossing the Tiber" by Stephen Ray; a former non-Catholic Christian turned Catholic apologist.

 

The Obligation to Live and Give

A recent post on this blog dealt with the potential creep of the Right to Die movement  morphing into the "Obligation to Die" via four distinct stages of "progress". I recently found a glimmer of hope to share, but first a brief review of the four stages.

Stage 1: Voluntary – Passive

Once legal, physician assisted suicide is voluntary, but not applauded. This first stage would have been unthinkable many years ago and no one should be coerced into suicide, because that would be unthinkable today...but unthinkable things can always be "re-thought" tomorrow.

Stage 2: Voluntary – Active We need to think of what is best for everyone. We live in a free country and no one can force you to do anything, but as a society we have an obligation to encourage what is “right” and actively promote the common welfare.

Stage 3: Mandatory – Passive
As our population ages and health care costs consume ever larger amounts of money, at least some legislation must be considered to help address the root cause. Just a few carefully worded laws to help guide people through their final stage of life and their final obligation to the society just makes sense.

Stage 4: Mandatory – Active
Physician assisted suicide need not be limited to only desperate pain. The very old, very sick and severely physically or mentally handicapped should all be considered for legal and mandatory euthanization once the quality of life has been properly assessed by health professionals. We must actively promote the common good and do the “right thing” no matter how difficult it may seem.

Now here is the glimmer of hope that kicks in after stage 1 and during stage 2 to slow or even help reverse the direction. Check it out.

 

Stage 2 above is all about actively persuading public opinion to accept euthanasia as "good" and "normal" and don't think for an instant it cannot be done; consider cigarettes.

It is perfectly legal for people over 18 to smoke cigarettes today, but anti-smoking campaigns, legislation and taxation have done a good job of breaking the will to smoke over the years. The same can be done to break the will to live.

The video does the opposite. It presents euthanasia as a companion for quitters. The message is that true dignity is in living, to live & fight and not to surrender. That is dignity. God is the author of life and we are not free to take it, but we are free to live it and give it to others.

My favorite take from this clip?
The way a story ends changes the meaning of every page.

Live and give to the end.

 

Religion & Science ARE Opposed

“Religion and science are opposed . . . but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything.”

- Sir William Bragg

 

 

Faith & reason together is what helps us to “grasp everything”. Saying “everything” may be akin to saying “all of reality” and we can think of reality as having two parts, material or physical reality and immaterial or spiritual reality.

Physical reality has certain laws like…

• Laws of motion
• Laws of matter
• Laws of energy

These laws are universal and unchangeable. Not knowing, not understanding or ignoring these laws will hurt our bodies. The more we learn about, understand and adapt our life to these laws the more we can live in harmony with the world around us and be happier. In a certain sense we never really break physical laws, they break us!

Spiritual reality has certain laws like…

• Divine Law
• Moral Law
• Natural Law

These laws are universal and unchangeable. Not knowing, not understanding or ignoring these laws will hurt our souls. The more we learn about, understand and adapt our life to these laws the more we can live in harmony with the world around us and be happier. In a certain sense we never really break spiritual laws, they break us!

For the strict materialist, spiritual realities do not exist, at least not like physical laws. Things like morality, justice or goodness can only exist as concepts that evolve over time and different people have different concepts about how the world ought to be. With this logic of moral relativism one cannot grasp the most important parts of reality just like one cannot grasp a football without an opposing thumb. Our concepts of right vs. wrong are tied up in something that ought to be or ought not to be. For that concept to make any sense, you actually need an “ought”!

In a worldview with no spiritual reality, we may say that a group like ISIS has a certain concept of how the world ought to be that is likely different than yours or mine or Mother Teresa’s. Their concept cannot be objectively wrong because there is nothing to make it wrong (no outside system). A compass points north because an outside system (the earth’s magnetic field) makes it point north and there is only one north, not many “norths”. It does not matter what direction a group of travelers believes is north because the magnetic field is completely independent of the minds of the travelers.

What happens if a large group of interdependent travelers refuse to use the compass? They will go “somewhere” based on their beliefs and experience about traveling.  They may split up into smaller groups, but even the smaller groups need to decide what to do. The strongest will rule eventually, whether by physical force or via other kinds of peer-pressure, coaxing or bullying. It’s the same in societies. Even for the most stubborn and independent of individuals, the strongest will rule eventually, whether it’s a dictator by physical force or just a majority via laws and lawyers.

If we convince ourselves that spiritual laws do not really exist, we will live life on our own terms as much as we can get away with. This means we cease to be truly free and alive which is how we “ought” to be. We become small souls, locked in the prison of our ego and victims of a great lie.

 This post started with a notable quote and so it will end with another:

"Growth in faith is growth in the right perception of all reality."

– Thomas Keating

 

The Obligation to Die

“On the morning of February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the law against assisted suicide was unconstitutional. Canada now joins a small, elite group of madly progressive countries in abandoning the most fundamental principle in all of nature.” – From THIS article in Crisis Magazine

It’s an overgeneralization, but I’ve always regarded "The Culture of Death" as simply employing death as "The Final Solution" to the problem of life. Could the right to die ultimately become the obligation to die? Of course, this is just a slippery slope argument and I was once told that slippery slope arguments are automatically invalid. If I let my kids play with matches, it will lead to a fire, which will lead to property damage, and someone getting hurt, and someone dying, but this is just more nutty logic from a slippery slope.

Regardless, euthanasia could head down the following slippery slope and finally hit rock bottom via four distinct stages.

Stage 1: Voluntary – Passive

(Completely voluntary, but not applauded)

Canada joins a small group of “enlightened” countries in stage 1. This stage would have been unthinkable many years ago, but doctors may now lawfully help competent adults to kill themselves if they are terminally ill. Certainly, no one would be forced to do it, because that would be unthinkable. There should be no coercion either, since it’s such a personal choice between patients and their doctor.

Stage 2: Voluntary – Active

(Completely voluntary and encouraged)

We need to think of what is best, not only for ourselves, but for our immediate families and the common good of society. We live in a free country and no one can force you to do anything, but as a society we have an obligation to encourage what is “right” and promote the common welfare. The “right to die” can now slowly morph into the “obligation to die”.

People are still free to smoke cigarettes today, but anti-smoking campaigns, legislation and taxation have done a good job of breaking the will to smoke. The same can be done for those who insist on living for no good reason. Persistent pressure to do the “right thing” will break the will to live.

Stage 3: Mandatory – Passive
(Mostly voluntary with some exceptions)
As our population rapidly ages and the health care costs consume ever larger proportions of government budgets, at least some legislation must be considered to help reduce the source of rising healthcare cost. Laws to guide the old and terminally ill through their final stage of life and their final obligation to the society just makes sense.

Of course, such laws would be very limited in their scope and only apply to the most desperate cases. In fact, such laws are not likely to even be enforced much, like some immigration laws or gun laws today, so there is certainly no cause for alarm.

This won't hurt a bit.

Stage 4: Mandatory – Active

(Mostly required with some exceptions)

Physician assisted suicide need not be limited to only desperate pain. The very old, very sick and severely physically or mentally handicapped should all be considered for legal and mandatory euthanization once the quality of life has been properly assessed by professionals.

 

Again, we must be mindful of the common good and do the “right thing” no matter how difficult it may seem. Why allow these poor people to suffer for no reason, even if they choose to suffer. Those in favor of such legislation will be called progressively “pro-health”. Those opposed will be said to have radical “anti-health” agenda.

We have been watering down the meaning and dignity of human life for decades and the stages above could take many decades more, but a slippery slope need not be as fast as the metaphor implies. A lava flow can be slower than 1km/hour, but will destroy everything in its path.

STOP!

 

Abortion via Exception

I’m not a real Republican, but I play one on the blogosphere. Out of all the organized political parties that exist, which one is most likely to pass anti-abortion legislation? I always like to go where the data leads and the data for this question would lead to the GOP. Democrats have enough political power, but no will; in fact they will the opposite. There may be a third party (or parties) out there with plenty of will, but they are impotent in terms of political power.

Speaking of will and power, the Republicans had the political power early this month to pass a bill that would have basically banned abortion past 20 weeks of pregnancy, but dropped the bill in a shameful display of cowardice in the face of some protests. How many pro-abortion bills have ever been dropped by democrats due to pro-life protests?

Some of the objections to the bill revolved around the rape/incest exceptions according to this article. The bill would have offered an exception for rape victims who already reported the crime to authorities. “But some Republicans, including female members of Congress, objected to that requirement, saying that many women feel too distressed to report rapes and should not be penalized…We have to be compassionate to women when they're in a crisis situation." What about the babies facing a pending abortion? Isn't that a crisis situation for them?

You may be familiar with common argument fallacies like in the graphic below, but I wonder if accepting legal abortion based on exceptions is a kind of exception fallacy.

Some small percentage of pregnancies are from rape or incest, therefore we must be able to legally kill ALL unborn children? The objection to the house bill seems to take this kind of exception to a new level. Some small percentage of pregnancies are from rape or incest, and some small percentage of those women are too distressed to report the rape, therefore let’s drop this bill and continue the status quo killing just as we do today.

This arguing via exception fits well for those who want to make us think they are pro-life, but are really pro-choice.

• Premise: Killing unborn children is wrong.
• Exception: Some women become pregnant via rape or incest.
• Conclusion: We should be able to legally kill all unborn children.

If this makes sense for abortion, it should make sense for other things too.

• Premise: Stealing is wrong.
• Exception: Some are starving and they have a right to food.
• Conclusion: It should be legal to take food without paying when you feel you need to make that choice.

 

• Premise: Killing is OK in self-defense
• Exception: Some feel too distressed to report they were attacked and should not be penalized. We have to be compassionate to those in a crisis situation.
• Conclusion: It should be legal to kill whenever you feel you need to make that choice.

Those who display their pro-choiceness without deception will hide behind the made-up, non-scientific and nonsensical term of “non-person”. Scientifically, human life begins at conception as an objective fact. To say the first stage of one’s life or “personhood” begins at some other threshold of viability or consciousness is subjective; a matter of opinion. To declare something as important as this on something subjective is irrational (and devious), especially when an objective and observable beginning point clearly exists.

Basing common law on exceptions is incongruous and becomes diabolical when done to justify killing. To say unborn children MUST be declared “non-persons” because of certain exceptions is like saying oranges must be declared “non-round” because we have found some oval shaped ones.

As a side, one wonders how supposedly educated people can be BOTH pro-choice AND acknowledge science, reason & human rights all at the same time.

 

Baby at 20 Weeks
We have to be compassionate to BOTH women AND babies
when they're in a crisis situation.