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.

 

DADT Faith

Here is a recent post from The Catholic Thing that fits rather well with the general theme of this blog since we have several posts tagged with both “Reality” and “Professor Ratzinger”.

Burden? Really?

The article is about Cardinal Ratzinger reflecting on some comments made by a nameless colleague of his. The remarks were about being grateful to God that He allows so many unbelievers in “good conscience”. Since many would not be capable of bearing the burden of faith and all its moral obligations, they can still reach salvation going another way, as long as they do it in good conscience.

The comments disturbed the Cardinal and he expressed his dismay in the context of reality. Is no truth better than truth? Should we be grateful for a kind of blindness sent by God for the salvation of souls? In this view, faith is only for the strong. Knowledge would make salvation harder, not easier. The Truth will put you into bondage. Why bother to evangelize? Should we pass this burden on to others? In thinking about WWSD (what would Satan do?), this seems like a very clever and effective strategy for a new anti-evangelization that appeals to human laziness.

I convey this kind of misconception to my Confirmation students by comparing spiritual laws with physical laws. I ask the students if any of them babysit small children. Many respond, “Yes”. I ask if they would let the children play on the roof. They giggle a bit and reply, “No”. I ask, “Why not? The roof is a large open space with many inclines and slants to run up and down on. It would be great fun!”

The students understand the law gravity and how to live in harmony with it; the small children they are responsible for do not. Although small children are perfectly innocent, playing on the roof (even in good conscience) is bad for them and will eventual hurt or even kill them. So, is it best NOT to teach children about the danger of falling? Is learning about gravity only for the “strong”? Does knowledge of physical laws make life harder, like a kind of bondage? Of course not, the more mankind understands physical laws the better our physical life can be.

The same goes for spiritual laws. We are fully alive and most fulfilled when we attune our life and safety around the realities of moral law, natural law and divine law and there is no way to do this if we don’t know what they are. Fornication is a good example to use since most everyone thinks it’s “okay” as long as you “love” each other or perhaps just “lust” each other a whole lot.

The Church teaches that a serious or mortal sin against God’s laws has three conditions (CCC 1857):

• The object of the sin is of grave matter (sexual sins are always grave since they distort what it means to be made in the image of God).
• It is committed with full knowledge.
• It is committed with deliberate consent.

It seems the second point automatically excludes any unchurched non-believer from mortal sin, so shouldn’t we be happy for them? No, we should not. We should be disturbed, as if we saw small children playing on a roof.  The damage being done to their souls will need to be dealt with in this life or the next, just like damage to the body from falling needs to be dealt with, even if one is unaware of the law of gravity.

Is faith a gift from God or a burden? Do we believe it gives rise ultimately to joy, or do we believe what you don’t know won’t hurt you? Do we believe the Truth sets us free or are we living by the “DADT” faith policy? Don’t ask, don’t tell.

Which way?

Final Tribute to Professor Ratzinger

The origins of this blog came from a gripping desire to share what we have learned over the years about the seamless compatibility between faith & reason, and how this is realized in the Catholic faith as an accurate model of our world; our cup ranneth-over and spilled into this blog, so to speak.

For me, the cup’s tipping point came after I had read “Introduction to Christianity” by (then) Father Ratzinger. A series of posts based on insights from that book can be easily found by clicking “Professor Ratzinger” in the left column blog tags or HERE. Between you, me and the blogosphere, my personal favorite is “Professor Ratzingeron Modern Physics” (blew me away).

And now the Pope is resigning and we’ll need to say goodbye. I did not imagine that the first post, which was a tribute to B16 seven years on would not lead to a completed eighth year, but it is comforting to know that “seven” is a number that represents completeness or perfection in scripture. As one last post, here are a few quotes from that book that I double starred and highlighted, but never incorporated into a full post. Maybe I will someday, but for now I’ll just share them as a tribute to this amazing man.

Ø  On Christian Sacrifice:

“Christian sacrifice does not consist in a giving of what God would not have without us, but in our becoming totally receptive and letting ourselves be completely taken over by him. Letting God act on us – that is Christian sacrifice.”

Ø  On the Historical Method:

“It is quite often forgotten that the full truth of history eludes documentary verification just as much as the truth of being escapes the experimental approach. So it must be said that historical science in the narrowest sense of the term not only reveals, but also conceals history.”

Ø  On Reason:

“Reason can speak about God; it must speak about God, or else it cuts itself short.”

Ø  On Being a Christian:

“Let us be blunt, even at the risk of being misunderstood: The true Christian is not the denominational party member, but he who through being a Christian has become truly human; not he who slavishly observes a system of norms, thinking as he does so only of himself, but he who has become freed to simple human goodness.”

 

Thank you good & faithful teacher!

 

The Common Language of Doubt

Don't you doubt me.

This is a post from June 2012 that was re-published when I was changing some things on the blog. I honestly don't know what happened; it suddenly appeared as the most recent post. Maybe someone needed to see this post today.  If not a miracle, I must have hit "publish" by mistake. Oh well....enjoy.

Here is another insight inspired by Professor Ratzinger from his book Introduction to Christianity and the scripture verse, “When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted.” (Matthew 28:17).


I remember having a metaphysical discussion with a secular friend about morality. The question in play was, “Does morality actually exist?” He answered, “Yes, but it’s only a concept.” I paused a moment and said, “Are you comfortable teaching your kids that?” I could see the doubt creeping into his eyes as he answered, “No.”

Doubt is something we all relate to. From the Twelve who walked with Jesus, to some of the greatest saints, to the most orthodox atheist, doubt is a part of our reality. It would be very strange if a finite being with a finite mind never experienced doubt. In fact, I’d say having absolutely no doubts at all might be a clear sign of insanity.

Here are some thoughts paraphrased a bit from Introduction to Christanity, chapter 1, Belief in the World of Today…

Just as the believer can have reservations about his faith, the nonbeliever is troubled by doubts about his unbelief; about the real totality of the world he has made-up in his mind to explain as a self-contained whole. There is no escape from the dilemma of being man. Anyone who makes up his mind to evade the uncertainty of belief will have to experience the uncertainty of UNbelief.

The rivalry between doubt and belief, temptation and certainty exists for all of us. Perhaps this way of doubt, which saves both sides from being shut up in their own worlds, could become an avenue of communication. It prevents both sides from enjoying complete satisfaction; it opens up the believer to the doubter and the doubter to the believer. For one, it is his way of sharing in the fate of the unbeliever; for the other, the form in which belief remains a challenge to him.

Belief has an adventurous “risk-leap” about it and it is helped by our own effort and will. Like John the Baptist we ask, “Are you really He, or shall we look for another?” We pose the question not only out of intellectual honesty & reason’s responsibility, but also in accordance with the interior law of love, which wants to know more and more about Him to whom it has given its “Yes”, so as to be able to love Him more.

Are you really He?

Professor Ratzinger on Modern Physics

WARNING: I about fell out of my chair when I read this. Please be seated with seat belts fastened before reading.

This is the final post in a series paying tribute to Pope B16 seven years on. Below sums-up several pages of Introduction to Christianity, Part I, Chapter V, Belief in the Triune God.

Faith consists of a series of contradictions held together by grace. This expresses, in the realm of theology, a discovery that relates to the law of complementarities in physics. Here we meet the play between faith and modern thought.

The physicist is becoming increasingly aware that we cannot embrace given realities – like the structure of light or matter – in one form. From different sides we glimpse different aspects which cannot be traced back to each other. Only by circling round, by looking from different, apparently contrary angles can we allude to the truth, which is never visible to us in its totality.

E.Schrodinger promoted the structure of matter as "wave alone", thereby hitting on the idea of being that has no substance, but is purely actual, whose apparent “substantiality” is only from the pattern of movement from superimposed waves. This is an exciting allegory for God subsisting in a multitude of relations, which are not substances, but “waves” which form a perfect unity and fullness of being. This is already formulated for all intents and purposes in St. Augustine, when he develops the idea of the pure act–existence (particle–wave).

We know today that in a physical experiment, the observer enters into the experiment. Only by doing so can he arrive at a physical experience. This means that there is no pure objectivity in physics, and that even here, the result of the experiment (natures answer) depends on the question put to it.

He who tries to be a mere observer experiences nothing. Even the reality of God can only impinge on the vision of him who enters the faith experiment with God. Only by entering does one experience; only by cooperating in the experiment does one ask at all; …..and only he who asks shall receive.

“The scientist has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Robert Jastrow- Former leading NASA scientist.

It's a little slow, but science

finally seems to be catching-up to Catholicism.

Professor Ratzinger on "Hell"

WARNING: This post is “dark”, but darkness can be a kind of light if it helps you to see.

Below deals with the article of faith “He descended into hell” (Good Friday/Holy Saturday), being without God and the pain in the verse “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” It’s probably the best description of hell I’ve ever heard, not that I’ve heard many speak of it in detail.

Summarizing several pages from Joseph Ratzinger’s book Introduction to Christianity, in Part II, The Development of Faith in Christ in the Christological Articles of the Creed:

Loneliness is a region of fear, which is rooted in the exposure of a being that must exist, but is pushed out into a situation with which it is impossible for him to deal. In the experience of utter loneliness, a fear arises peculiar to man which is not fear of anything particular, but simply fear in itself. Man cannot overcome this kind of fear by way of reason.

Ø  Example 1:

A child walking alone in the dark woods is frightened even if convincingly shown that there is nothing to be afraid of. The child will lose this fear the moment there is a loving hand to take him and he experiences the fellowship of “Another”.

Ø  Example 2:

Someone keeping watch over a corpse will feel somehow “eerie” even when he knows perfectly well the dead body can do him no harm. In fact, there would be more possibility of danger if the person was alive, but logic is of no help. This fear will also recede like the child’s if he experiences the loving nearness of a “You”.

Man cannot stand alone; he needs closeness; he needs unity.  If man (and this is the true nature of sin) refuses to recognize his own limits and tries to “be like God”, standing alone on his own two feet, then precisely by adopting this attitude he delivers himself up to death. Scripture about the connection between sin and death is to be understood from this angle. Small wonder the devil wants us prideful. Pride naturally leads to isolation from God (and others), which will lead to a torment of anxiety. It’s the exact opposite of the life of the Trinity.

If a state of isolation were to arise that was so deep that no “You” could reach into it anymore, then we should have a total and terrifying loneliness; this is what theology calls “Hell”….. a loneliness which is as inescapable as it is dreadful!

Is it hot in here, or is it just me?

Professor Ratzinger's Law of Disguise

Continuing a tribute to B16 seven years on, here is another insight inspired by Professor Ratzinger in his book Introduction to Christianity, Part II, Excursus: Christian Structures.

The law of disguise relates to the idea of Christian paradox expressed in an interesting way. The Alpha of the universe appears as the Omega; the last letter in the alphabet of creation.

Ø  First there is the Earth, a mere nothing in the cosmos, which was to be the point of divine activity.

The Earth

Ø  Then comes Israel, a cipher among the powers of the world which was to be the point of His appearance in the world.

Ancient Israel

Ø  Then Nazareth, again a cipher within Israel, which was to be the point of His definitive arrival.

Nazareth

Ø  Then the Cross on which a man was to hang whose life had been a failure. A sure sign someone was NOT the messiah was if his enemies were to hang him on a tree; it only makes sense in light of the resurrection. God has come so near to us that we can kill Him and thereby, so it seems, ceases to be God for us.

The Cross

Ø  Finally there is the Church with its questionable history and the claim to be the abiding site of His revelation. Precisely when the Church believed, in all the glory of the Renaissance princedom, that she could cast off this hiddenness and be directly the “gate of heaven”, the “house of God”, she became God’s disguise, with God scarcely to be found behind it.

The Church

Like a clever warrior, God slips behind enemy lines in disguise; a divine camouflage so good that the secular eye sees nothing special. The spiritual eye can see only if it is awake and unhindered.

God seems to keep disappearing more and more and, precisely in this way, becomes more and more manifest as Himself.

The Law of Disguise

Professor Ratzinger on “Meaning”

Behold, I am scary-smart.

Continuing a tribute to B16 seven years on, here is another insight inspired by Professor Ratzinger.

Science tells us a lot about how something works, what it does or what physical attributes it has. The scientific method is frustrated, however, by questions related to “meaning”. Galileo hinted at this when he said, "Religion tells us how to go to heaven; science tells us how the heavens go." As a result, a secular answer to the question, “What is the meaning of life?” might be, “We make our own meaning.”

If you think about it, we really don’t understand what something is unless we know its purpose. Imagine you were to stumble upon a razor, but didn’t know what it was for. You will notice that it is very sharp. Let’s say YOU decide the purpose of the razor is to cut wood; what will happen? You will not cut wood very well and you will destroy the razor. Why? Because you did not know what the razor was really for. You did not know the intended purpose of its existence.

Professor Ratzinger addresses the question of “meaning” in the first chapter of his book, Introduction to Christianity. Here are some highlights paraphrased a bit:

Ø  Meaning is the bread on which man subsists. Everyone knows the situation of “not being able to go on” in the midst of outward abundance. How many have plenty in terms of health, food, clothing and shelter, but live quiet (or not so quiet) lives of desperation. It’s a problem related to “meaning”.

Ø  He goes on about two kinds of thought. Calculating thought is concerned with “make-ability”; reflective thought is concerned with “meaning”. We need both. In an age in which calculating thought is celebrating amazing triumphs, we are all threatened by thoughtlessness, a flight from reflective thought.

Ø  Meaning is not manufactured from knowledge. We can study the physical attributes of a razor for an eternity and never grasp its true meaning. Meaning, that is, the ground on which our existence as a totality can stand and live, cannot be made, but only received. Meaning that is self-made is in the last analysis no meaning.

Ø  The good professor also gives a clever analogy to self-made meaning; 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.”

Why am I not being uplifted?!?!



A very simple, but very good answer to life’s meaning can still be found in the Baltimore Catechism. Why did God make us? God made us to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in heaven. Theologian Frank J. Sheed said it in a simple way too; why did God make us?.......because we should like it.

“Eye has not seen nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man, what things God has prepared for those who love him.” (I Corinthians 2:9)

Tribute to B16 seven years on: Professor Ratzinger on “The Supreme Being”

It’s been seven years since Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope; so much for a transition papacy. Seven is often a number that represents completeness or perfection in scripture. I don’t think his pontificate is completed and he is not perfect in terms of impeccability, which is often confused with infallibility, but that is another post for another time.

I do, however, want to share insights from reading his book from the 1960’s called Introduction to Christianity. The title sounds deceivingly simple, but it’s a heavy read (for me anyway). I heard somewhere that this was a favorite book of JP2, and after reading it, I had to put our Pope into a category of people I like to call “scary-smart”.

What do you mean you disagree with me?
Do you know who you're dealing with?

It reminded me of reading Aquinas or Augustine. There were occasions when I may have known the meaning of each individual word in a paragraph and the grammar was perfect, yet somehow, I did not understand. Anyway, I understood some things and I’ll have a series of post to share in the weeks to come. This post is about “The Supreme Being”.

Paraphrasing from Part One, Chapter III…
The God of faith is personal, defined by the category of relationship. The God of the philosophers is “The Supreme Being” and tends to be impersonal.

In this view it seems an absurd idea that this Supreme Being should concern himself with man and his pitiful little world, his cares, his sins, and his non-sins. Oddly, this projects negative human characteristics of pettiness, arrogance and aloofness onto the Supreme Being. We thereby imagine him as a consciousness that will NOT embrace the whole.

By calling God “Father” and “Almighty”, The Creed has joined together the family concept and the cosmic power in one God; the God of faith and the God of the philosophers. This expresses accurately the whole point of the Christian image of God. The tension between:

Ø  Absolute power and absolute love

Ø  Absolute distance and absolute proximity

Ø  Absolute being and direct affinity

Ø  Maximum and minimum

Ø  The greatest and the least

Ø  The first and the last

Ø  BOTH/AND, not either/or

Not to be encompassed by the greatest, but to let oneself be encompass by the smallest – that is divine.

Stay tuned for more as I’m able to process it. As I mentioned, the good professor is “scary-smart”. If you don’t hear from me, you may assume my brain has exploded.

BRAIN-FREEZE
Always study Professor Ratzinger S-L-O-W-L-Y!