Explain, please

[Serious]

… what does the phrase “laws of nature” mean? The catechism says (and the dogma concurs) that God keeps the world in existence every second (also actively participating in all of our actions). As I look at posts (especially the ones about the frequency of miracles) I see that a huge majority of the posters asserts that God must continuously maintain the world in existence. Without this constant sustaining activity the world would simply “disintegrate into chaos” or simply “cease to exist” (I did not see it specified).

So what does the expression “laws of nature” mean in the Catholic parlance? To the “uninitiated” it would mean that there are some innate “laws” of the physical universe (maybe “put” in place by God) but from there on, the universe simply “runs” it course. Some of these laws are deterministic (like gravity), others are stochastic (like the second law of thermodynamics). But the usual assumption is that the random movement of molecules is sufficient to maintain the even pressure within a closed container, and God is not needed to “tinker” with the motion of every molecule to maintain that even pressure. I wonder what the Catholic scintists would say about this?

I also see a very small minority of the posters, who assert that these laws are meaningful in the sense that God does not need to “bother” with sustaining the universe.

Can anyone clarify this confusion? Why would one need to assume that there are self-sustaining laws of nature, if God must actively sustain the universe and prevent it from disintegrating? One of them is not necessary, and as a matter of fact one makes the other meaningless.

 

[Joe_5859]

I see a few things going on in this question.

First, we need to be cautious about falling into a deistic notion of God as simply the Divine Watchmaker who created the universe (with all its laws), wound it up, and now contentedly watches from the sidelines as the watch tick-tocks on and on without any further assistance from Him. That is not the Catholic view.

Second, what you have stated about God holding all existence together every moment is a popular image that I’ve seen make its way through Catholic circles and popular catechetical and apologetics materials. But as far as I know, it isn’t the official Catholic articulation of God’s role as Creator. I do not believe I have ever heard things articulated in such ways in any magisterial documents.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the image is a good one and it’s not wrong. But I wouldn’t get overly hung up on the particulars of the image. It’s more or less to make the point that God is involved in every aspect of our lives and of all creation. He is not distant. Since He is Creator of all, every created thing draws its existence from Him. If that were not the case, He wouldn’t be the Creator of all but only the Creator of some of the Creator of most.

Does that make sense? Sometimes I ramble…

 

[Serious]

I see a few things going on in this question.

First, we need to be cautious about falling into a deistic notion of God as simply the Divine Watchmaker who created the universe (with all its laws), wound it up, and now contentedly watches from the sidelines as the watch tick-tocks on and on without any further assistance from Him. That is not the Catholic view.

Second, what you have stated about God holding all existence together every moment is a popular image that I’ve seen make its way through Catholic circles and popular catechetical and apologetics materials. But as far as I know, it isn’t the official Catholic articulation of God’s role as Creator. I do not believe I have ever heard things articulated in such ways in any magisterial documents.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the image is a good one and it’s not wrong. But I wouldn’t get overly hung up on the particulars of the image. It’s more or less to make the point that God is involved in every aspect of our lives and of all creation. He is not distant. Since He is Creator of all, every created thing draws its existence from Him. If that were not the case, He wouldn’t be the Creator of all but only the Creator of some of the Creator of most.

Does that make sense? Sometimes I ramble…

Unfortunately no. First, is there an official view stated somewhere? And what is the difference between the offical one and the “popular” one? And finally, you did not explain what does the term “law of nature” mean?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Without viewing the specific catechism generally “laws of nature” is referring to science which is morally neutral. The term is used to differentiate science from *Natural Moral Law *which the church also writes as Natural Law, which is the moral law written in to the hearts of men.

Moving to the issues of whether “laws of nature” hold the universe together endlessly or must be maintained? I doubt that information is inside man’s knowledge. Same for whether all motion is random*, or individually directed. I think the catechism is referring god as creator of all levels.

The third issue which you imply only is why today’s science understanding does not allow us to understand why the universe is where it is or how it works. For example science would predict matter evenly distributed throughout the universe to minimize pressure, however we see the opposite. Science would predict all matter in the lowest energy state but again we see energy states all over the place to include many high energy states, why, etc.? In summary the teaching is god created all levels whether moral or not, whether in revealed or unrevealed.

‘* There is actually considerable reason to believe random and directed movement maybe one in the same. In those theories random are statements of knowledge.

hope that helps

 

[Joe_5859]

Unfortunately no. First, is there an official view stated somewhere? And what is the difference between the offical one and the “popular” one? And finally, you did not explain what does the term “law of nature” mean?

If you want “official” Catholic teaching, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is the best bet. For this issue, you might want to look at the section in the CCC on God’s role as Creator: CCC 279-324.

What I mean by the difference between “official” and “popular” is that it is is quite common (throughout Church history) for us to try to “break open” Catholic teaching through images, metaphors, analogies, and simpler language. This anecdote about the fact that if God ever stopped thinking about us for even a nanosecond we would cease to exist is an image I have heard from Catholic speakers and teachers. I have seen it in articles in Catholic magazines. But I have never heard it articualted in just such a way in a Church document.

As I said, that doesn’t make the image wrong. St. Patrick famously used the image of a three leaf clover to illustrate the Church’s teaching on the Trinity. That is a very famous analogy that has been used by teachers for many, many centuries. But that is not how the Church articulates the Mystery of the Trinity in the CCC. Teachers need to be able to break things down in terms that their students will understand.

As to “laws of nature”, I think that phrase could mean several different things depending on how it is used. The Church has a long philosophical tradition surrounding the “natural law” (i.e., the law written on our hearts). Is that what you’re talking about?

 

[Serious]

Without viewing the specific catechism generally “laws of nature” is referring to science which is morally neutral. The term is used to differentiate science from *Natural Moral Law *which the church also writes as Natural Law, which is the moral law written in to the hearts of men.

I am only talking about the concept of “laws of nature” - physical, chemical, biological laws… nothing else.

Moving to the issues of whether “laws of nature” hold the universe together endlessly or must be maintained? I doubt that information is inside man’s knowledge.

According to the catecism it is stated very clearly and explicitly that God maintans the universe every “second”, and also states that God actively participates in every one of our actions. (This one is really mind-boggling, because it says that God is an active participant in every rape and murder - but that is the topic of a different thread.)

 

[Serious]

If you want “official” Catholic teaching, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is the best bet. For this issue, you might want to look at the section in the CCC on God’s role as Creator: CCC 279-324.

Thanks. I did a long time ago. Cannot expect you to do my homework for me, right? The trouble is that the catechism is vague. It states a “one sentence proposition”, and leaves the “meat” out. It does not explain the “how”.

As to “laws of nature”, I think that phrase could mean several different things depending on how it is used. The Church has a long philosophical tradition surrounding the “natural law” (i.e., the law written on our hearts). Is that what you’re talking about?

Obviously not. I am only talking about the physical, chemical etc… laws of nature. If God must / needs to maintain the all the particles - otherwise they would “disintegrate”, then there is no need to speak of independent “laws”. If there are intrinsic laws of physics (etc…) then there is no neeed to “maintain” the universe, the “laws” will do the job.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I am only talking about the concept of “laws of nature” - physical, chemical, biological laws… nothing else.

According to the catecism it is stated very clearly and explicitly that God maintans the universe every “second”, and also states that God actively participates in every one of our actions. (This one is really mind-boggling, because it says that God is an active participant in every rape and murder - but that is the topic of a different thread.)

Maybe or maybe not. The extent to which god intervenes into our physical world is unknown, as is the extent to which god intervenes into our actions. This is covered in the second causes aspect see paragraphs 306-309. So does god create the wind directing each gust or is it a second cause from god’s creation of the earth, sun, and relationship of the two?

 

[Richard320]

Certain things just ARE. Those are Laws of Nature.

I am guessing you mean something along the lines of when you see “You cannot legislate against the Laws of Nature…”

Here’s about the most basic you can get: people defecate. Always have, always will. Therefore, accommodation for this must be made. You cannot pass a law that forbids using the toilet between midnight and noon. It’s impossible.

You need a right shoe and a left shoe to make a whole pair of shoes. Two left shoes together is not a pair, it’s two left shoes. You need a man and a woman to make a married couple. Two men together is not a married couple, it’s two men.

 

[Serious]

Maybe or maybe not. The extent to which god intervenes into our physical world is unknown, as is the extent to which god intervenes into our actions.

Of course it is unknown. But the wording is clear, and unambiguous. God maintains the physical universe in existence - which makes the concept of “laws of nature” an unexplained (and unnecessary) concept. That is what I am asking about. If you would say that the phrase is meaningless, that would be quite acceptable. There are many, highly qualified catholic scientists out there. I wonder if they consider the “laws of nature” a chimera, or just a “cover story” to hide the fact that God’s constant maintenance is needed to keep the universe from disintegrating?

This is covered in the second causes aspect see paragraphs 306-309. So does god create the wind directing each gust or is it a second cause from god’s creation of the earth, sun, and relationship of the two?

The meaning is clear: the maintenance is needed every second (or every Planck’s time )

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Of course it is unknown. But the wording is clear, and unambiguous. God maintains the physical universe in existence - which makes the concept of “laws of nature” an unexplained (and unnecessary) concept. That is what I am asking about. If you would say that the phrase is meaningless, that would be quite acceptable. There are many, highly qualified catholic scientists out there. I wonder if they consider the “laws of nature” a chimera, or just a “cover story” to hide the fact that God’s constant maintenance is needed to keep the universe from disintegrating?

The meaning is clear: the maintenance is needed every second (or every Planck’s time )

I am not sure you are taking this in the proper context. It would seem you’re a proponent of no medicine, snake handling, etc… additionally, no sin exists as everything is done by god, so we can do whatever? I would suggest the teaching means god created what we call science, and god is not absent, this is clearly covered in paragraph 285.

 

[Serious]

I am not sure you are taking this in the proper context. It would seem you’re a proponent of no medicine, snake handling, etc… additionally, no sin exists as everything is done by god, so we can do whatever?

That is not what I am saying… that is the meaning of the words in the catechism. If God is an active participant in every act, without whose active participation nothing would happen, then you have only two choices: 1) God guides or hands, or 2) we force God to do these things. Pick your choice.

I would suggest the teaching means god created what we call science, and god is not absent, this is clearly covered in paragraph 285.

That is still not an explanation. If God is needed to maintain the physical universe, then the phrase “laws of nature” is meaningless.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

… what does the phrase “laws of nature” mean? The catechism says (and the dogma concurs) that God keeps the world in existence every second (also actively participating in all of our actions). As I look at posts (especially the ones about the frequency of miracles) I see that a huge majority of the posters asserts that God must continuously maintain the world in existence. Without this constant sustaining activity the world would simply “disintegrate into chaos” or simply “cease to exist” (I did not see it specified).

So what does the expression “laws of nature” mean in the Catholic parlance? To the “uninitiated” it would mean that there are some innate “laws” of the physical universe (maybe “put” in place by God) but from there on, the universe simply “runs” it course. Some of these laws are deterministic (like gravity), others are stochastic (like the second law of thermodynamics). But the usual assumption is that the random movement of molecules is sufficient to maintain the even pressure within a closed container, and God is not needed to “tinker” with the motion of every molecule to maintain that even pressure. I wonder what the Catholic scintists would say about this?

I also see a very small minority of the posters, who assert that these laws are meaningful in the sense that God does not need to “bother” with sustaining the universe.

Can anyone clarify this confusion? Why would one need to assume that there are self-sustaining laws of nature, if God must actively sustain the universe and prevent it from disintegrating? One of them is not necessary, and as a matter of fact one makes the other meaningless.

A law of nature (aka physical law or scientific law, = LN) is an empirical generalization that describes the way nature or objects in nature operate on a regular basis. They deal with objects that are observable or can be functionally defined and are frequently described mathematically. Examples would be Boyle’s Law, Charle’s Law, Snell’s Law.

A LN is an observed regularity.

In the Classical and Medieval worlds and in Christian theology from the beginning God is the rational ordering principle for the universe. In Christian doctrine and the Medieval worldview God both created and rationally governs the universe. Hence observed regularities were seen as rooted in God’s creative and providential will. He is therefore the law maker.

The individual objects in reality are held in existence by God not directly but by secondary causes. E.g., God holds me in existence at each moment by all the well-known necessary conditions for human life. The idea is a hierarchical series of natural causes operating simultaneously (observable and describable by science) all ultimately resting on God as the primary sustaining cause of existence (grasped by the intellect philosophically). Take an e-mail message as an example. For that message to exist I had to have pressed the send button while simultaneously my software is working, the software running the internet is working, the electrical power is working, the hydroelectric turbines are turning, the water is flowing, the sun is shining, gravity is working, the wire is present, etc, etc, through all the links with all of creation till we get to God ordering and sustaining all of it in existence.

God can suspend these regularities and work a miracle if He so chooses. By definition a miracle is not a regular happening.

In the wake of the Enlightenment this clashed with subsequent materialistic and atheistic worldviews that emerged. As a result LNs were seen philosophically (not just methodologically in science, but philosophically) by some as self-perpetuating, self-sufficient, self-enclosed, and unbreakable, purely-naturalistic and deterministic “laws.” I put laws in quotes because it raises the question of a law giver or law maker which some eschew. Miracles are impossible.

The scientific method =SM] is empirical, mechanistic, naturalistic, and quantitative. It yields perfectly true scientific results. By definition science cannot pronounce on the subject of God or His action on the physical world since He is not physical and therefore outside its purview. A Catholic scientist has no trouble employing the SM while philosophically and/or theologically understanding the role of God. The only trouble is when one absolutizes the SM claiming (in self-referential inconsistency I might add) it is sufficient for all knowledge.

 

[Serious]

A law of nature (aka physical law or scientific law, = LN) is an empirical generalization that describes the way nature or objects in nature operate on a regular basis. They deal with objects that are observable or can be functionally defined and are frequently described mathematically. Examples would be Boyle’s Law, Charle’s Law, Snell’s Law.

A LN is an observed regularity.

Very well. I certainly accept this definition. But a regularity of “what”? Of God’s second-to-second activity? If God would not “pay attention” (so to speak), then a pebble released from one’s hand would suddenly float “upwards” or “sideways”, or move randomly in some unspecified direction? The question I am presenting is this: why posit God’s alleged second-to-second “sustenance”, when it is more than sufficient to say that God created the laws of nature, and then allowed those laws to do the “dirty work”. Many Catholics - and especially the catholic scientists hold that position.

In the Classical and Medieval worlds and in Christian theology from the beginning God is the rational ordering principle for the universe. In Christian doctrine and the Medieval worldview God both created and rationally governs the universe. Hence observed regularities were seen as rooted in God’s creative and providential will. He is therefore the law maker.

A very profound and revealing observation. So the “medieval” and “classical” (AKA ignorant) theologers - who had absolutely no idea of “how” nature works - had this idea that the universe would “disintegrate” if God would not pay attention. Why would anyone take them seriously (a little pun is intended) these days, when we know much better?

The individual objects in reality are held in existence by God not directly but by secondary causes.

That is not what the second-to-second sustenance says.

E.g., God holds me in existence at each moment by all the well-known necessary conditions for human life.

Again, this is not what the dogma says: God must maintain each and every atom in your body in order to preserve you.

God can suspend these regularities and work a miracle if He so chooses. By definition a miracle is not a regular happening.

Right on. And now we reach the very interesting “conclusion”. The proponents of theism point to the alleged miracles and proclaim: “look! a miracle! surely that is a proof of God!” … and a few minutes later point to a regularity in nature, and proclaim: “look! no miracle! surely that is a proof of God!”. Sorry… you cannot have your cake and eat it, too. No matter how delicious and satisfying it would be.

In the wake of the Enlightenment this clashed with subsequent materialistic and atheistic worldviews that emerged. As a result LNs were seen philosophically (not just methodologically in science, but philosophically) by some as self-perpetuating, self-sufficient, self-enclosed, and unbreakable, purely-naturalistic and deterministic “laws.” I put laws in quotes because it raises the question of a law giver or law maker which some eschew.

Sure. There is no point to posit a “law maker”. The laws are simply regularities. They can be adequately explained (if one is interested) by the logical law of identity: “things are what they are”. An electron is what it is. A proton is what it is. Since they have equal but opposite electrical charges (and the opposite electrical charges attract), the hydrogen atom is stable on its own right. There is no need to posit that God needs to consciously “maintain” the stability of a hydrogen atom - because without this attention the atom would simply “disintegrate” or maybe blow up into a supernova.

Miracles are impossible.

Not really. “Miracles” are unobserved. There are no people walking on water these millenia. There are no people raising from the dead. The Sun subbornly does not stop on the sky.

The scientific method =SM] is empirical, mechanistic, naturalistic, and quantitative. It yields perfectly true scientific results.

Yes. And those results work. They produced the internet, the wonderful drugs, and the zillions of “wonders”. They produce tangible results. As the Bible says: “by their results you shall know them”. And those results are a “legion”.

By definition science cannot pronounce on the subject of God or His action on the physical world since.

Also true. Science does not care about those questions.

He is not physical and therefore outside its purview. A Catholic scientist has no trouble employing the SM while philosophically and/or theologically understanding the role of God.

Sure. The Catholic scientist qua scientist uses the “atheistic” method of discovery. He does not presume that God somehow interfered with the pebble dopping down, when released from the palm of the experimenter.

The only trouble is when one absolutizes the SM claiming (in self-referential inconsistency I might add) it is sufficient for all knowledge.

Since no one (I know of) proclaims that science is sufficient for ALL knowledge, you are right, but you are banging on an open door.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

The bottom line is your fears about the impact of the Catholic doctrine in question on science are unfounded because you misunderstand the doctrine. See below. But first.

Since no one (I know of) proclaims that science is sufficient for ALL knowledge, you are right, but you are banging on an open door.

Perhaps I could have been clearer. Absolutizing the SM is the claim that the SM is sufficient for all knowledge that involves true or false statements about reality.

“What science cannot tell us, mankind cannot know.”
–Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) in a BBC broadcast.

also see
pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html

Very well. I certainly accept this definition. But a regularity of “what”? Of God’s second-to-second activity? If God would not “pay attention” (so to speak), then a pebble released from one’s hand would suddenly float “upwards” or “sideways”, or move randomly in some unspecified direction? The question I am presenting is this: why posit God’s alleged second-to-second “sustenance”, when it is more than sufficient to say that God created the laws of nature, and then allowed those laws to do the “dirty work”. Many Catholics - and especially the catholic scientists hold that position.

Your characterization of the doctrine is inaccurate. Read the #s 306-308Catechism of the Catholic Church

“For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other…” CCC, #306]

A very profound and revealing observation. So the “medieval” and “classical” (AKA ignorant) theologers - who had absolutely no idea of “how” nature works - had this idea that the universe would “disintegrate” if God would not pay attention. Why would anyone take them seriously (a little pun is intended) these days, when we know much better?

If I may respond in kind, your comment reveals a profound ignorance of Medieval philosophy and history of science. Classical and Medieval philosophers/scientists had an insatiable appetite to discover the workings of nature and their efforts, discoveries, and methods laid the foundation for the Scientific Revolution in the 17th c.

If you are really interested in honest exploration of these issues and the contributions made in the Middle Ages, I suggest beginning with these:

Colish, Marcia L. Medieval Foundations of the Western Intellectual Tradition: 400-1400. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997. --in the Yale Intellectual History of the West series.
Grant, Edward. Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages. NY: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Lindberg, David C. The Beginnings of Western Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Lindberg, David C., ed. Science in the Middle Ages. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press., 1978.

That is not what the second-to-second sustenance says.

But the fact that “The individual objects in reality are held in existence by God not directly but by secondary causes” is what Catholic doctrine teaches.

Again, this is not what the dogma says: God must maintain each and every atom in your body in order to preserve you.

Yes, it is what the dogma teaches…and what Medieval philosophers and theologians taught. You misunderstand the doctrine.

Right on. And now we reach the very interesting “conclusion”. The proponents of theism point to the alleged miracles and proclaim: “look! a miracle! surely that is a proof of God!” … and a few minutes later point to a regularity in nature, and proclaim: “look! no miracle! surely that is a proof of God!”. Sorry… you cannot have your cake and eat it, too. No matter how delicious and satisfying it would be.

Your cake is in reality a red herring here. I was explaining the doctrine and miracles within it as you requested: not offering a proof for the existence of God.

Sure. There is no point to posit a “law maker”. The laws are simply regularities. They can be adequately explained (if one is interested) by the logical law of identity: “things are what they are”. An electron is what it is. A proton is what it is. Since they have equal but opposite electrical charges (and the opposite electrical charges attract), the hydrogen atom is stable on its own right. There is no need to posit that God needs to consciously “maintain” the stability of a hydrogen atom - because without this attention the atom would simply “disintegrate” or maybe blow up into a supernova.

As I tried to show: the Catholic Church DOES NOT posit God as an explanation in the SM, nor does it teach the doctrine as you characterize it. There should be no problem with what the the Catholic Church actually teaches re science unless one is attempting to absolutize the SM.

Not really. “Miracles” are unobserved. There are no people walking on water these millenia. There are no people raising from the dead. The Sun subbornly does not stop on the sky.

I think not. There are fully documented medical miracles at Lourdes: there is no scientific explanation for those cures. Either way the definition of a miracle in no way interferes with the work of science: what would happen as far as science is concerned would simply be unexplainable at present. It would only present problem if one is attempting to absolutize the SM.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Yes. And those results work. They produced the internet, the wonderful drugs, and the zillions of “wonders”. They produce tangible results. As the Bible says: “by their results you shall know them”. And those results are a “legion”.

Of course. The SM yields perfectly valid and true scientific results. So what’s the problem with the actual doctrine re science? Unless you are absolutizing the SM.

Also true. Science does not care about those questions.

Right. So what’s the problem? Unless you are absolutizing the SM.

Sure. The Catholic scientist qua scientist uses the “atheistic” method of discovery. He does not presume that God somehow interfered with the pebble dopping down, when released from the palm of the experimenter.

Right! There need be no problem.

 

[Serious]

Perhaps I could have been clearer. Absolutizing the SM is the claim that the SM is sufficient for all knowledge that involves true or false statements about reality.

I still do not know anyone who would seriously suggest that. There are innumerable propositions about reality which are outside the realm of scientific investigation. Example: “that picture is beautiful”. It is a statement about reality, and it cannot be scientifically investigated, because it is an opinion. However a hypothetical statement of “there is an invisible, intangible, magical dragon in my basement, which is responsible for maintaning the pile of firewood also stored there” - would not be an opinion, it would be a statement about the ontological reality - and as such it is subject to investigation.

Your characterization of the doctrine is inaccurate. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church #s 306-308

“For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other…” CCC, #306]

Very well, but that does not address my question. Is the person’s physical existence contingent upon God maintaining the particles that the person consists of? The trouble with the cathecism is that it is vague.

If I may respond in kind, your comment reveals a profound ignorance of Medieval philosophy and history of science. Classical and Medieval philosophers/scientists had an insatiable appetite to discover the workings of nature and their efforts, discoveries, and methods laid the foundation for the Scientific Revolution in the 17th c.

Sure they had the appetite, what they lacked was knowledge. I do not blame them, they worked with what little knowledge they had available to them. So they speculated. They believed in astrology, they practiced alchemy… Eventually from these endeavors true science evolved. However, none of this is pertinent. Their speculations about the nature os reality cannot be taken seriously these days.

But the fact that “The individual objects in reality are held in existence by God not directly but by secondary causes” is what Catholic doctrine teaches.

Which seems to point to the proper laws of nature. The hydrogen atom does not need constant tinkering by God to stay stable, the laws of nature are sufficient to explain the stability. I would have no problem with this, but if you look at the overwhelming majority of the posters, this is not what they say.

Yes, it is what the dogma teaches…and what Medieval philosophers and theologians taught. You misunderstand the doctrine.

And here you contradicted your previous proposition. Cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

I think not. There are fully documented medical miracles at Lourdes: there is no scientific explanation for those cures.

Are there? Where is that “full documentation?”. There are some vague anecdotes, nothing else. The only “miracle” I heard of was this joke: The priest is travelling home from Lourdes, and at the border crossing he is stopped for investigation. The customs officer looks at a bottle and asks: “what is in that bottle?” The priest says: “a miraculous water from Lourdes”. The officer opens the bottle, sniffs at its contents and says: “but that is not water, it is a fine cognac”. The priest exclaims: “Glory be! A miracle happened!”.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I still do not know anyone who would seriously suggest that. There are innumerable propositions about reality which are outside the realm of scientific investigation. Example: “that picture is beautiful”. It is a statement about reality, and it cannot be scientifically investigated, because it is an opinion. However a hypothetical statement of “there is an invisible, intangible, magical dragon in my basement, which is responsible for maintaning the pile of firewood also stored there” - would not be an opinion, it would be a statement about the ontological reality - and as such it is subject to investigation.

I gave examples of scientism; numerous people have held it.

The example you gave of a proposition outside of the realm of scientific investigation (an opinion) is also outside the realm of “true or false statements about reality.” It expresses a taste or experience. It doesn’t count in the question. The second example does make a truth claim about reality.

So we’re back to the issue: absolutizing the SM is the claim that the SM is sufficient for all knowledge that involves true or false statements about reality. You’ve said nobody suggests it, but they do. You also have not shown why you think it is false. If indeed you do.

Very well, but that does not address my question. Is the person’s physical existence contingent upon God maintaining the particles that the person consists of? The trouble with the cathecism is that it is vague.

I already answered your question.
(1) Me: “The individual objects in reality are held in existence by God not directly but by secondary causes.”
(2) Your response: “That is not what the second-to-second sustenance says.”
(3) I gave an example: “E.g., God holds me in existence at each moment by all the well-known necessary conditions for human life.”
(4) You: “Again, this is not what the dogma says: God must maintain each and every atom in your body in order to preserve you.”
(5) Me: “But the fact that ‘The individual objects in reality are held in existence by God not directly but by secondary causes’ is what Catholic doctrine teaches.”

The CC does not teach direct second-to-second sustenance.

Sure they had the appetite, what they lacked was knowledge. I do not blame them, they worked with what little knowledge they had available to them. So they speculated. They believed in astrology, they practiced alchemy… Eventually from these endeavors true science evolved. However, none of this is pertinent. Their speculations about the nature os reality cannot be taken seriously these days.

Prescinding from historical questions, I certainly agree that any scientific proposition asserted in the Middle Ages must meet the rigors of the SM as held today for us to consider it scientifically true.
But your characterization of medieval science is simplistic. It’s way more complicated than that. I would encourage you to read the works by the internationally recognized historians of science I recommended if you really want to speak knowledgeably on the subject.

Which seems to point to the proper laws of nature. The hydrogen atom does not need constant tinkering by God to stay stable, the laws of nature are sufficient to explain the stability. I would have no problem with this, but if you look at the overwhelming majority of the posters, this is not what they say.

Perhaps the posters are misinformed or imprecise. There is no conflict with science or contradiction in the actual Catholic doctrine. The LNs are empirical generalizations re how nature functions as I said before. And, according to the doctrine, God works through them as secondary causes to sustain the universe and everything in it in existence given that He created the universe to work according to them. God does not, according to the doctrine, directly and constantly tinker with all individual entities to sustain them.

Investigation of that domain of reality amenable to the SM yields perfectly valid scientific results including discovery of the LNs. The LNs themselves are ultimately empirical generalizations that describe the properties and functions of nature. They explain individual events, but the explanation really entails showing how the event falls under the description in the law.

The reality of God is beyond the scope of the SM and investigation of His relationship to the physical world is on the plain of philosophical analysis which accepts the LNs and integrates them into a broader set of questions analogous to the way a hydrogen atom in my body retains its inherent properties while being integrated into the bigger picture of a human body.

And here you contradicted your previous proposition. Cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

See (3) - (5) above. My reference is to the example I gave in (3) which is the Catholic dogma involving secondary causality. No contradiction. It may have been unclear what I was referring to. It was not to direct tinkering. If so, apologies.

Are there? Where is that “full documentation?”. There are some vague anecdotes, nothing else.

Yes. See below.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau

uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080706072708AAtyohL

The only “miracle” I heard of was this joke: The priest is travelling home from Lourdes, and at the border crossing he is stopped for investigation. The customs officer looks at a bottle and asks: “what is in that bottle?” The priest says: “a miraculous water from Lourdes”. The officer opens the bottle, sniffs at its contents and says: “but that is not water, it is a fine cognac”. The priest exclaims: “Glory be! A miracle happened!”.

The miracle would be if they let him get away with it.

 

[Serious]

I gave examples of scientism; numerous people have held it.

Why should I care? I am not a 'logical positivist" or an adherent of “scientism”, so what is you point in pursuing it?

The example you gave of a proposition outside of the realm of scientific investigation (an opinion) is also outside the realm of “true or false statements about reality.” It expresses a taste or experience. It doesn’t count in the question.

Why not? It is a proposition about reality. To say that some picture is beautiful or ugly, or to say that a weight is heavy or light are all about cetain aspects of reality. To say that X is “deeply” in love with Y is also a proposition about the reality. Yet they are not subject to scientific study.

So we’re back to the issue: absolutizing the SM is the claim that the SM is sufficient for all knowledge that involves true or false statements about reality. You’ve said nobody suggests it, but they do.

I really don’t care what other people suggest, even if they happen to be atheists. Why don’t we talk about what I say?

You also have not shown why you think it is false. If indeed you do.

Simply because not everything can be measured, and I have no problem with that. Can you drop this irrelevant line?

I already answered your question.
(1) Me: “The individual objects in reality are held in existence by God not directly but by secondary causes.”
(2) Your response: “That is not what the second-to-second sustenance says.”
(3) I gave an example: “E.g., God holds me in existence at each moment by all the well-known necessary conditions for human life.”
(4) You: “Again, this is not what the dogma says: God must maintain each and every atom in your body in order to preserve you.”
(5) Me: “But the fact that ‘The individual objects in reality are held in existence by God not directly but by secondary causes’ is what Catholic doctrine teaches.”

The CC does not teach direct second-to-second sustenance.

Maybe it does not. Of course it does not teach the opposite either. Looking at the dogmas, the phraseology is sufficiently vague:

1. God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
2. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)
   You choose to interpret it one way, I do it differently. In many threads the posters assert that God is no the “deistic” god. They say that God actively participates in every action or facet of life. And yes, the most certainly assert that God must maintain every particle in existence. If you don’t agree, that is a welcome assertion on your part.

Of course it woul be even more welcome if you would say that God created the regularity in nature, and therefore there is no need to interfere (except in some alleged miracles).

Perhaps the posters are misinformed or imprecise.

No kidding.

Yes. See below.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau

uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080706072708AAtyohL

Oh brother. Is that the documentation? Come on. Some anecdotes. It is a well known fact that doctors (just like anyone else) make mistakes. The sad thing is that the medical community will cover up these mistakes, and yes, they might even claim a “miracle”.

Here is an actual instance where a “miracle” was claimed. In a small community there was a teenage girl, who could “read” with her fingetips, and this fact was declared a bona-fide miracle. Many well-meaning witnesses testified that the girl’s eyes were covered, that there was “no way” she could have seen the text, and yet, she was able able to read the Bible. Then the community made a “mistake” by inviting a a well-known debunker of the hoaxes (James Randi). In about 5 mins he dicovered the trick. The girl’s eyes were not properly covered, and she was able to look down close to her nose where there was a tiny opening. There was no “miracle”, it was just another hoax. So far, so good, almost not worth to mention. The interesting part was the reaction of the congregation, especially the girl’s mother. They were upset that their “miracle” was debunked. They wanted to have a miracle.

The point is that many people want to have “miracles”. They are not willing to have professionals to investigate. I would be interested if there are “miracles” where professional invetigators are involved - especially stage magicians. They are trained in seeing through the flimm-flammary. Their testimonals would be taken seriously. But your little atricles are not.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I am not a 'logical positivist" or an adherent of “scientism” . . . not everything can be measured, and I have no problem with that. Can you drop this irrelevant line?

OK.

There’s some stuff in your next paragraph (omitted) but we can revisit it later if we have to.

Maybe it does not. Of course it does not teach the opposite either. Looking at the dogmas, the phraseology is sufficiently vague:

1. God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
2. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)
   You choose to interpret it one way, I do it differently. In many threads the posters assert that God is no the “deistic” god. They say that God actively participates in every action or facet of life. And yes, the most certainly assert that God must maintain every particle in existence. If you don’t agree, that is a welcome assertion on your part.

Of course it woul be even more welcome if you would say that God created the regularity in nature, and therefore there is no need to interfere (except in some alleged miracles).

Alright then, let’s focus on this set of questions.

(1) I did say that God created the regularity in nature, sustains individual things in existence through secondary causality, and does not have to directly second-to-second sustain an individual thing in existence, and that this is the faith of the church. I repeat and reaffirm it here.
A few examples:
“The LNs are empirical generalizations re how nature functions as I said before. And, according to the doctrine, God works through them as secondary causes to sustain the universe and everything in it in existence given that He created the universe to work according to them.”
And from my very first post: “Hence observed regularities were seen as rooted in God’s creative and providential will. He is therefore the law maker.”

(2) I cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says the same thing unambiguously.
Let me add an oft-quoted text from the Old Testament addressed to God: “But you have disposed all things by measure and number and weight. (Wisdom 11:21)

(3) Sententia communis (“common opinion”) is the next lowest grade of theological certainty out of 6. You can find that on p. 10 of Ludwig Ott’s book which you quote above. Anyway what 70 above seeks to avoid is deism: which asserts, in essence, that God created the world as a perpetual motion machine which He does not sustain or guide in any way and He went off to do something else.

(4) I would encourage you to study Aquinas’ Summa Contra Gentiles III, 65-70. It discusses God as the primary creative and sustaining cause of existence through secondary causes.
Chapter 69 is entitled “On The Opinion Of Those Who Take Away Proper Actions From Natural Things.” He begins: “From this conclusion [that God sustains things in existence] some men have taken the opportunity to fall into error, thinking that no creature has an active role in the production of natural effects. So, for instance, fire does not give heat, but God causes heat in the presence of fire, and they said like things about all other natural effects.”
After outlining this “error” he begins in article 12 to refute it and concludes in 13: “But, if created things could in no way operate to produce their effects, and if God alone worked all operations immediately, these other things would be employed in a useless way by Him, for the production of these effects. Therefore, the preceding position is incompatible with divine wisdom.”
He goes so far as to say: “So, to detract from the perfection of creatures is to detract from the perfection of divine power.” (15).

Oh brother. Is that the documentation? Come on. Some anecdotes. It is a well known fact that doctors (just like anyone else) make mistakes. The sad thing is that the medical community will cover up these mistakes, and yes, they might even claim a “miracle”.

Oh please! Did you even read the Wikipedia article? An international medical board composed of doctors and other experts, use of the latest medical tests and technologies, strict criteria—what else does rationality and science require? and all they do is pronounce the cure to be “medically inexplicable.” Go back and read the section “Investigation of apparent cures.”

Here is an actual instance where a “miracle” was claimed. In a small community there was a teenage girl, who could “read” with her fingetips, and this fact was declared a bona-fide miracle. Many well-meaning witnesses testified that the girl’s eyes were covered, that there was “no way” she could have seen the text, and yet, she was able able to read the Bible. Then the community made a “mistake” by inviting a a well-known debunker of the hoaxes (James Randi). In about 5 mins he dicovered the trick. The girl’s eyes were not properly covered, and she was able to look down close to her nose where there was a tiny opening. There was no “miracle”, it was just another hoax. So far, so good, almost not worth to mention. The interesting part was the reaction of the congregation, especially the girl’s mother. They were upset that their “miracle” was debunked. They wanted to have a miracle.

The point is that many people want to have “miracles”. They are not willing to have professionals to investigate. I would be interested if there are “miracles” where professional invetigators are involved - especially stage magicians. They are trained in seeing through the flimm-flammary. Their testimonals would be taken seriously. But your little atricles are not.

I’m all for exposing frauds and delusions.