Creation of the Universe: Who, How, and Why?

[Benedict_Broere]

Greylorn,
I think I have perfectly set out my case, while your way of responding to it, just seems to be a display of bias or ignorance.
And if you don’t know this, discussion is based on argumentation and questioning, not just displaying arrogance. When things seem strange, unfamiliar, you ask for explanation, or you present critique, with arguments.

 

[tonyrey]

I imagine that this excerpt from nature is offered as an example of imperfection in the universe, a lesson in guided cynicism. What a curious take on biological life, which seems to have been living on other biological life since shortly after the invention of algae.

You’ve picked the wrong bunny to throw into a briar patch. This one finds the caterpillar wasp a nice way to get rid of tree-infesting worms, never was a fan of Disney style anthropomorphism, and doesn’t believe in a personally attentive Creator who even notices, much less cares, when I break a body part or get kicked in the groin, or when His creations blow one another up in His behalf.

The Creator in Whom I believe is not the God in whom you and other atheists disbelieve.

I suspect that He engineered the universe for more interesting reasons than a need to be loved by me and believed in by you, and if the bloodletting proclivities on this planet are any indication, He might not be the kind of entity which faithful Christians would label “kind.” .

Please practice your childish moralizing on someone gullible.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m a big fan of those wasps that lay their eggs inside caterpillars. The larvae hatch and feed on the caterpillar’s insides, taking control of the caterpillar’s body and primitive nervous system, forcing it to gorge itself and to act as bodyguard until the larvae consume the caterpillar and metamorphose – simply exquisite.
(You know what they say cruelty to animals is a sign of…)

If you can design a superior universe why don’t you provide us with a blueprint?
If you fail to do so your sarcasm rebounds onto yourself… You take great delight in condemnation and destructive criticism but I bet you wouldn’t prefer not to have been born…

 

[DavidHume]

I imagine that this excerpt from nature is offered as an example of imperfection in the universe, a lesson in guided cynicism. What a curious take on biological life, which seems to have been living on other biological life since shortly after the invention of algae.

I merely offered it up for what it is, lest someone take your paean to creation the wrong way.

I suspect that He engineered the universe for more interesting reasons than a need to be loved by me and believed in by you, and if the bloodletting proclivities on this planet are any indication, He might not be the kind of entity which faithful Christians would label “kind.”

And I think we understand each other well, then.

 

[DavidHume]

You are missing the point entirely. Matter and energy are not different names for the same thing.

Either take a calculus-level physics course or stop pretending that you know something about physics. Guys like you have made philosophy a meaningless exercise in wordmongering. Must you spread your verbal pollution into science?

Thank you for calling me out on this.

 

[DavidHume]

If you can design a superior universe why don’t you provide us with a blueprint?
If you fail to do so your sarcasm rebounds onto yourself… You take great delight in condemnation and destructive criticism but I bet you wouldn’t prefer not to have been born…

As I wrote to greylorn, I merely offered the example up for what it is. If you have some negative feeling about those particular aspects of the perfect universe, then perhaps you should look deeper into those feelings and your reactions to them.

 

[reggieM]

With your remarks we finally arrived at the notion ‘beauty’, but this is only a sub-sub-sub-aspect of the point I was making. And sofar I haven’t seen any reaction on that. In a discussion that is very unusual.

I didn’t understand or recognize the point you were making, and I suspect others didn’t see it either. It may help to restate it.

In his speech at Regensburg Pope Benedict spoke of the necessity of converging science with theology. And with that he implied that dogmatic notions as that of the perfect God aren’t that dogmatic any more.

I just quickly re-read the Regensburg address and I did not see this implication. If Pope Benedict stated or implied that God is not perfect, that would be known much more publicly by this point. In other words, I don’t think I would first discover this overturning of dogmatic teaching by a reigning pope here on CAF. The Catholic world would have mentioned it elsewhere by now.

While with this you also see an attempt to converge these different cognitive abilities we have, with on the one hand this investigative, dissecting, skeptic approach, and on the other hand this religious, holistic, but also sometimes dogmatic way of thinking.

I think it has always been the Catholic way to synthesize rational thought with the embrace of revelation.

 

[Geremia]

You are dead wrong on this. Energy, not matter, is the central stuff of the universe. Whatever philosophers propose otherwise are in sore need of education, in physics.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

This use of form (Aristotle’s μοφή or εἶδος) and matter (ὕλη) is a metaphorical extension of their popular use. In ordinary speech, a portion of matter, stuff, or material, becomes a ‘thing’ by virtue of having a particular ‘form’ or shape; by altering the form, the matter remaining unchanged, we make a new ‘thing’. This language, primarily applied only to objects of sense, was in philosophical use extended to objects of thought: every ‘thing’ or entity was viewed as consisting of two elements, its form by virtue of which it was different from, and its matter which it had in common with, others.

 

[Geremia]

I had a type in the last post. μοφή should be μορφή.

 

[tonyrey]

If you have some negative feeling about those particular aspects of the perfect universe, then perhaps you should look deeper into those feelings and your reactions to them.

You are assuming that the universe must be perfect. There is every reason to believe it is impossible for a finite system not to be imperfect in some respect. The philosopher whose name you use acknowledged this.

 

[greylorn]

I think it has always been the Catholic way to synthesize rational thought with the embrace of revelation.

I was about to ask you if you think that Galileo would have agreed with you, until I perused your statement and realized that while it sounds pretty classy, I’ve not the slightest clue as to its meaning.

Help us out, please. Focus on the notion of synthesizing something with an embrace.

 

[greylorn]

"Originally Posted by Benedict Broere:

With your remarks we finally arrived at the notion ‘beauty’, but this is only a sub-sub-sub-aspect of the point I was making. And sofar I haven’t seen any reaction on that. In a discussion that is very unusual.

I didn’t understand or recognize the point you were making, and I suspect others didn’t see it either. It may help to restate it.

Roger that! Give it a shot, Mr. Broere. Rewriting is a constructive and humbling experience.
"Originally Posted by Benedict Broere:

In his speech at Regensburg Pope Benedict spoke of the necessity of converging science with theology. And with that he implied that dogmatic notions as that of the perfect God aren’t that dogmatic any more.

Thank you for that information! My disenchantment with the Church had precluded me from checking Pope Benedict out. I have a newfound appreciation of this man, thanks to you. I knew there was a reason for joining CAF.

I just quickly re-read the Regensburg address and I did not see this implication. If Pope Benedict stated or implied that God is not perfect, that would be known much more publicly by this point. In other words, I don’t think I would first discover this overturning of dogmatic teaching by a reigning pope here on CAF. The Catholic world would have mentioned it elsewhere by now.

I just finished my own quick read of the Pope’s address, and was impressed. The following section is worth perusing in the context of your statement. (The text is as I culled it from a website but the highlights are my doing.)

While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also

see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask

ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only

if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the

self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and

if we once more disclose its vast horizons. **In this sense theology

rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue

of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the

human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the

rationality of faith. **

Clearly there is nothing here that jumps out in direct support of Broere’s assertion that the perfect-God dogma is open to question. The Pope is politically as well as philosophically erudite. But as someone who has long promoted the concept of a logic-limited, thinking Creator, here’s my opinion: While the Pope did not exactly fling the door to reconsidering the God-concept wide open, he has quietly unlatched a long-rusted deadbolt.

In effect, the Pope implied that previously dogmatic beliefs are open to reconsideration in the light of science and reason. There is much more to his address, of course. Not all Church dogma is on the table. But considering the full context, I would agree with Broere (can we get a pronunciation tip?). The key word in his statement is “implied.”

Of course, other items of dogma are included under this implication.

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn,
I think I have perfectly set out my case, while your way of responding to it, just seems to be a display of bias or ignorance.
And if you don’t know this, discussion is based on argumentation and questioning, not just displaying arrogance. When things seem strange, unfamiliar, you ask for explanation, or you present critique, with arguments.

I apologize for treating some of your comments in a manner you don’t like and which you find arrogant. That personal fault has often been reported. It may explain a lack of friends, but I’m here to exchange ideas, not buddy up.

Personally, I believe that when someone says something which seems strange or unfamiliar, the only intelligent response is to request an explanation. Do you expect me to jump up and clap and acknowledge your sagacity when I cannot figure out what you are trying to say? If so, I’d rather that you hold that expectation for the rest of my life, rather than disappoint you. My real name is not Pelosi.

Indeed I do present critique, with arguments. I wish you would do the same, so we could have a useful discussion. And while you’re about it, the repetitive name-dropping comes across to me as a tad pretentious— I had enough of that in academia, and found the habit to be a reliable clue that I was dealing with someone who did not really have anything to say. I trust that you do have something to say, however, so cut the blather and get on with it.

Your first clue that your case might not be presented as effectively as you opine (neglecting the fact that I cannot determine what your case is) is the underwhelming response about which you’ve been whining. Hello?

Tonyrey’s clear, direct, and pithy remarks offer a fine conversational model to which both of us might profitably aspire.

Best regards, really.

 

[reggieM]

I was about to ask you if you think that Galileo would have agreed with you, until I perused your statement and realized that while it sounds pretty classy, I’ve not the slightest clue as to its meaning.

Help us out, please. Focus on the notion of synthesizing something with an embrace.

Galileo was a Catholic. He synthesized rational thought in a scientific method (with calculations and analysis). He also embraced revelation – meaning that, by faith, he accepted the divine teachings that God has given to mankind. He disagreed on a specific application of reason versus divine revelation but that is part of the on-going tension that has been part of the Church since the earliest councils, at least, and back to the apostolic age. The Nicene definitions on the Trinity are an example. The debates on the Biblical canon are another example.

Did that give you a slight clue to the meaning of what I said?

 

[reggieM]

Quoting Pope Benedict:

While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also

see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask

ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only

if reason and faith come together in a new way, **if we overcome the

self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable**, and

if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology

rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue

of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the

human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the

rationality of faith.

It’s interesting because I found just the opposite of what Greylorn and Broere observed. I highlighted a different statement.
Pope Benedict is writing against scientism here – against materialistic-atheism. He rightly points out that reason should not be limited to the empirically verifiable (as many evolutionists, etc. claim it must be).

What we might expect from this is a follow-up where the Pope states that theology should not be limited to divine revelation alone. There’s no reason for him to say that because Catholic thoelogy has never been limited to revelation. Theology is faith seeking understanding. The understanding comes from rational thought.

But in this address at Regensburg, Pope Benedict was confronting two extremes:

1. Atheistic scientism (materialist-evolution, etc)
2. Irrational fideism (Islam)

This is the speech that got him into big trouble in the Muslim world, as we know. But he also directed his aim at those who reduce human experience and knowledge to merely the superficial aspects of matter and energy alone (which is irrational in itself).

In any case, greylorn – I’m very glad to see your appreciation of Pope Benedict’s words. I think you’ll find his to be a creative thinker.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

science cant answer the question because it only deals with empirical observable phenomenon. anything you can observe is contingent cause. nothing physical can cause itself, ergo, science cant tell you anything about creation, just about its observable after effects.

there is no physical process capable of self creation. science therefore can offer no answers.

i know ive said it before, but it seems a truth which excludes any theology of science type arguments, its in effect an attempt to worship the creation, not the creator.

if one truly believes in empirical science cannot draw from it theological principles, thats the basis of many alien loving cults, think gate of heaven.

its poor philosophy based on a desire for empirical evidence of specific theological principles. its like deciding, where you want to go, before you know if your destination actually exists.

 

[Benedict_Broere]

Well, what a discussion!
And this while I merely or actually ostensively was pointing at the neurological and psychological context out of which statements on reality arise. And this referring to Nobel-price-crowned science done by Roger Sperry. Subsequently I pointed at the Pope’s speech at Regensburg, in which he stresses, by way of reactualising the view of Thomas it seems, the need of modern theology to interact with science and vice versa, in order to improve our view on the world in general. But while doing this he also embraces the investigative and questioning mind behind science, thus implicitly distancing himself from too hardnosed dogmatic thinking - Roger Sperry would point here at the two main ways of cognitive understanding we have: for instance investigative versus loyal.

In other words: when embracing science and its questioning approach to everything, the notion of a perfect God becomes shaky. And this also because at the time the notion of the perfect God was invented, they didn’t knew about evolution, Tyrannosaurus Rex and all that. Ergo, we don’t know exactly what is meant by ‘God’. We can argue His or Her’s or Its existence, but we don’t have an absolute view on this, and we only can speak indirectly on it from this complex fusion of science and revelation. And within this, out of these two main ways of cognition, the discussion of course will continue on which we value more. But nevertheless, science is there and can hardly be ignored. As says the Pope.

I know all this is complex, but I would stress the notion that with Sperry speaking on reality has become not just speaking on reality but also speaking on us speaking on reality. Immanuel Kant already made this turn, but Roger Sperry has given it a real scientific basis. We cannot anymore speak on religious matters by just looking at tradition, because hard scientific facts are pointing elsewhere. To be taken seriously. As says the Pope. Not just as the scientist he also is.

 

[Benedict_Broere]

Rereading Pope Benedict’s speech at Regensburg I see this:

“And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: We are all grateful for the marvelous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which reflects one of the basic tenets of Christianity.

The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them.

We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.”

catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=3650&section=Featured+Today

To me its clear he expresses the desirability of this fusion of science and religion.
And in the end he expresses why:

“The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur – this is the program with which a theology grounded in biblical faith enters into the debates of our time.

“Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God,” said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.”

 

[Benedict_Broere]

Greylorn,
My name ‘Broere’ in English goes like in (Pat) Boone.
While the same in Dutch probably would give you a fit.

 

[reggieM]

An imperfect god is not worthy of being worshipped.