God, the Observer, continually creates the universe!

[Anselm33]

That’s one of the reasons why I’d say observation has nothing to do with anything. When I learned the basics of QM, and I mean only the basics, we were taught that elementary particles are imaginary constructs used to further the math, and that wave/particle duality plus the absence of gravity from the theory pointed to some loose ends. That wasn’t to criticize QM and may have be bad teaching, but it left me with the impression that all current interpretations are more likely wrong than right.

On a different tack, there’s an entertaining one hour lecture for generalists (at an atheist conference, so keep your sense of humor) by Lawrence Krauss on cosmology (if you don’t want to watch it all, there’s an interesting aside for Catholics starting at minute 11). His conclusions are little more than turtles all the way down, preaching to his choir, but along the way he makes a reasonably convincing case that the energy in visible matter plus dark matter equals dark energy, hence the overall energy in the universe is and always has been zero. Thoughts?

You’re following the QM dogma (doctrine?) set forth by Roger Penrose, at least in the absence of gravity. I don’t agree that quarks are “imaginary” particles; their presence can be inferred from scattering experiments and in that sense they are no more imaginary than neutrinos or electron or protons or positrons… The dark matter estimate is a reasonable one, estimated from the mass required to keep galaxies rotating as they do; the dark energy estimate is, as near as I can figure out, that set up to get a flat universe. See Roger Penrose’s “Road to Reality” pp. 776,777. and is therefore, a bookkeeping device.
And thanks for the reference I’ll have a peak when I’m in a tranquil mood.

 

[Anselm33]

Science is teleological, so what it comes up with is useful insofar as it includes predictability. So if a model is constructed mathematically that can be used to predict events, it is useful to that extent, even if it is not complete in covering every instance. It just means it’s not done yet. The Universe being infinite, it is not likely that science will ever get it all on paper. It can’t, as the small container of mind can’t contain the Allness of God.

And since science deals in the subject/object quale of experience, there are areas it will never approach, except perhaps hypothetically or by inference. So while aspects of awareness play into science, Consciousness as Principle does not, with perhaps exceptions that are labeled as “energy” of different sorts, especially the cosmological constant.

I’d disagree strongly that science is teleological (i.e. includes purpose as one of the categories on which to evaluate and interpret theories). This neglect of teleology–Aristotle’s fourth cause–is one reason so many scientists want to dismiss Intelligent Design. Once you start including purpose, then you implicitly include value judgments, and scientists shy away from those.

 

[Tuno]

Intelligent design is mechanistic materialism of a low order. The whole Christianist paradigm, in fact demeans both God and man into a retarded part of Man’s awareness potential. It can be said with equal accuracy that the Universe has/has not Purpose. Both are true. God is not Aristotelian, Newtonian, or Christian. No arguments from any of these factions suffice to “prove” God, which is uncategorizable and unnamable.

 

[Liinus]

34,37,39

Guess I’ll have to read our Catechisms more. Just found an excellent presentation of God’s existence, His creation of the universe, and His continued creative action in sustaining all creation in existence and His creative action in all the movements and actions in every aspect of His creation. See the Roman Catechism (eg. " We are not, however, to think that the works of God, when once created, could continue to exist unsupported by his omniptence. As they derive existence from his supreme power, wisdom and goodness, so unless they were preserved continually by his superintending providence and sustained by the same power which produced them ( his creative action: my incert), they would instantly return in to their original nothingness…Futhermore, God not only protects and governs all things by his providence: also by his power, which is internal to each one, he impels to motion and action whatever moves and acts, and this in such a manner that on the one hand he does not exclude the action of created causes, and yet on the othe hand he dominates and governs the actions of these secondary causes…," pg 33.)

The lesson here is obvious. When confronted with the assertions of science we should let the Deposit of the Faith, be our guide, which will not only keep us from error but will also point to the path of futher study and truth. This is a great comfort to me personally. For I know and firmly believe that the Church proposes for belief absolutely nothing contrary to or embarassing to reason.

 

[Tuno]

The lesson here is obvious. When confronted with the assertions of science we should let the Deposit of the Faith, be our guide, which will not only keep us from error but will also point to the path of futher study and truth. This is a great comfort to me personally. For I know and firmly believe that the Church proposes for belief absolutely nothing contrary to or embarassing to reason

Yes, and then we can move on to realize that what is valid within a limited context, say an archaic belief paradigm, is not necessarily Universally true.

 

[Liinus]

Yes, and then we can move on to realize that what is valid within a limited context, say an archaic belief paradigm, is not necessarily Universally true.

Of course many, perhaps most non Catholics would agree with you. However, the " belief paradigm " is not archaic to Catholics. If you would get a copy of the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma ( Dr.Ludwig Ott, 1960), the Catholic Catechism ( John A. Hardon, S.J., 1981), or the Roman Catechism ( Robert I Bradley, S.J. and Kevane,1968), you will see that the Church does not propose anything for belief which is repugnant to reason. The reasons the Church gives are based on Revelation ( as expressed in the Scriptures and as intrepreted by the Church) Tradition ( as handed on by the Fathers of the Church and the constant teaching of the Church and the practice of the Faith by the faithful), by the official doctrinal pronuncements of the Church as found in the Councils, etc, and as supported by reliable Theologians and Philosophers of the Church. My purpose in going to some depth on this point is to encourage Catholics and other Christians and even non Christians when confronted with the esoteric reasonings and invalid philosophical inferences of some scientists ( especially in physics). This is not to say that the reasons offered by the Church will convince everyone. The Church is convinced however that minds open to truth and grace will accept as true what she offers. And the Church believes with the certitude of faith that what she offers is universally true. Note that the Church is not teaching science and she does not intend to do so. However, when an inference drawn by " science " is contrary to the Deposit of the Faith, the Church is bound to point out how these inferences are in error. I will add that it is incumbant upon science to make certain that its science is correct and true and not pass off as true in reality what is mere theory or speculation and open to wide dispute.

 

[Tuno]

Of course many, perhaps most non Catholics would agree with you. However, the " belief paradigm " is not archaic to Catholics. … The Church is convinced however that minds open to truth and grace will accept as true what she offers. And the Church believes with the certitude of faith that what she offers is universally true. Note that the Church is not teaching science and she does not intend to do so. However, when an inference drawn by " science " is contrary to the Deposit of the Faith, the Church is bound to point out how these inferences are in error. I will add that it is incumbant upon science to make certain that its science is correct and true and not pass off as true in reality what is mere theory or speculation and open to wide dispute.

Linus, Thanks for the encouragement. But what made you think I was referring necessarily to the Church? It was included, yes, but by no means the sole paradigm I had in mind, whatever it’s importance and effect in history.

And you ought to know, if you haven’t read it elsewhere, that I was a very well catechized, highly devoted and proselytizing RC at the time of my departure from the Church. I thereafter maintained my friendship with several priests, none of whom could deal with my questions, a deficiency I have found consistent with any cleric these past 45 years. Same holds for the books you mentioned (thanks) and a large library of others. This is not a matter unstudied by me either by interview, scholarship, or experience. Given enough time and similar experience, I have little doubt that anyone else past stage 4 awareness would come to a different conclusion.

The chief word of importance in all your statements is “belief” along with “faith.” Belief, as I am sure you know, is not equatable to knowledge, and certainly not to Knowledge, that coming from mystical insight, such as St. Thomas Aquinas gained near the end of his life, and as Sts Catherine of Sienna, and Theresa of Avila and some others acquired by hard work. And you know what he said about his own work at that point. It is not dissimilar to what other Sages have said about their own recorded work, and with good reason, as I hope you find out.

As for science, it has a limited scope of operation relative to what we currently perceive as relationships in matter and energy as well as descriptive work concerning the the “natural” world. Those in that field sometimes take their work to be evidence either for or against Deity. That is their fantasy life in either case, as God is not a matter of evidence.

And I did not attack the reasonability of the Church. It is completely valid within itself as a valid structure given the acceptance of its beliefs. I cannot, based on experience and study, accept those as they stand in the Church except as deteriorations of Jesus actual Teaching, given that He actually might have walked. So while it is valid, the Church may not be necessarily True.

There is even some doubt about Jesus, as you know, but likely won’t assimilate. And for people like yourself, it is a good thing that you have your faith in the mild form that you practice it, so blessings on you. But there is a way from belief, and some have found it. My remarks are usually addressed to those who are there or at the border of such a profound discovery, or at least interested in such possibility. In the mean time, for such good as the Church gave me, I am very grateful.

Nice chatting with you. Blessings and Best