Jesus, the Foundation of Science

[patricius79]

Bumbilis, a geneticist, writes:

*Clue #1. The founders/fathers of modern science were shaped by a culture that was predominantly Christian.

The founders of modern science were all bunched into a particular geographical location dominated by a Judeo-Christian world view. I’m thinking of men like Louis Aggasiz (founder of glacial science and perhaps paleontology); Charles Babbage (often said to be the creator of the computer); Francis Bacon (father of the scientific method); Sir Charles Bell (first to extensively map the brain and nervous system); Robert Boyle (father of modern chemistry); Georges Cuvier (founder of comparative anatomy and perhaps paleontology); John Dalton (father of modern atomic theory); Jean Henri Fabre (chief founder of modern entomology); John Ambrose Fleming (some call him the founder of modern electronics/inventor of the diode); James Joule (discoverer of the first law of thermodynamics); William Thomson Kelvin (perhaps the first to clearly state the second law of thermodynamics); Johannes Kepler (discoverer of the laws of planetary motion); Carolus Linnaeus (father of modern taxonomy); James Clerk Maxwell (formulator of the electromagnetic theory of light); Gregor Mendel (father of genetics); Isaac Newton (discoverer of the universal laws of gravitation); Blaise Pascal (major contributor to probability studies and hydrostatics); Louis Pasteur (formulator of the germ theory). *ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

 

[OvrlapnMagstria]

True. Many of the founders of modern science were Christian. Science developed mainly in Europe that was at the time dominated by Christianity.

Similarly, algebra and a lot of mathematical concepts were invented by Muslims. Fireworks were invented by Buddhists. Though I wouldn’t call Mohamed the foundation of algebra nor would I call Guantama Buddha the foundation of pyrotechnics. The discoveries had little to do with the religions. Same with science and Christianity.

Or, am I missing the point you were making?

 

[Hastrman]

Fireworks were invented by Buddhists.

Fireworks were invented by Confucians/Traditional Chinese Religion practitioners, who were usually buried by Buddhist monks.

And Christ is the foundation of science because he is the incarnate mind of God, the eternal Logos. John 1:1 can, given all the things Logos means, be translated “In the beginning was Reason, and Reason was with God, and Reason was God.”

 

[OvrlapnMagstria]

Fireworks were invented by Confucians/Traditional Chinese Religion practitioners, who were usually buried by Buddhist monks.

And Christ is the foundation of science because he is the incarnate mind of God, the eternal Logos. John 1:1 can, given all the things Logos means, be translated “In the beginning was Reason, and Reason was with God, and Reason was God.”

Thanks for the clarification on the fireworks. I admit I was a bit hasty in making the assumption of Buddhism, but I figured my point would still stand.

I am sure that there are other religions that claim that their god is creator of reason (Heck, if a religion claims its god created everything, then that would include reason.) However, simply making a claim, doesn’t make it true. I am not aware of any Scriptural verses or church teachings that would give rise to the scientific method. Perhaps you know of something that makes the connection between Christ and science a little more solid?

 

[ricmat]

Perhaps you know of something that makes the connection between Christ and science a little more solid?

There’s a good short book called “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.” The point is made in that book that the Judeo-Christian revelation of God is that God is not “whimsical” (as other religions believe). This led to the general concept that the world - as a creation of a “dependable” God - would also be repeatable. For example, drop a rock and it falls to the ground. Other religions would say that “It fell because the god of gravity (or whatever) wanted it to fall this time. But he might not want it to fall the next time.”

This led to the concept of the laws of nature, which Western scientists investigated knowing that the laws wouldn’t change mid-stream into their investigations. Hence, there was more motivation to actually spend a lot of time trying to figure it out - in the West, but not in the East.

I read the book a while ago, so I’m probably not presenting the arguments very well.

 

[OvrlapnMagstria]

There’s a good short book called “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.” The point is made in that book that the Judeo-Christian revelation of God is that God is not “whimsical” (as other religions believe). This led to the general concept that the world - as a creation of a “dependable” God - would also be repeatable. For example, drop a rock and it falls to the ground. Other religions would say that “It fell because the god of gravity (or whatever) wanted it to fall this time. But he might not want it to fall the next time.”

This led to the concept of the laws of nature, which Western scientists investigated knowing that the laws wouldn’t change mid-stream into their investigations. Hence, there was more motivation to actually spend a lot of time trying to figure it out - in the West, but not in the East.

I read the book a while ago, so I’m probably not presenting the arguments very well.

Interesting. I’ve never heard that.

How do miracles fit into this, though? Miracles are, by definition, a suspension of the laws of nature by God. Normally, water sits relatively flat in the sea, but when God comes around, the waters part. This is something that is not repeatable; it only happens when God wants it to. How do we conceive of a dependable god, when miracles are a part of that gods nature?

I realize that you may not remember if you read the book a long time ago. I’m just wondering aloud.

 

[ricmat]

Interesting. I’ve never heard that.

How do miracles fit into this, though? Miracles are, by definition, a suspension of the laws of nature by God. Normally, water sits relatively flat in the sea, but when God comes around, the waters part. This is something that is not repeatable; it only happens when God wants it to. How do we conceive of a dependable god, when miracles are a part of that gods nature?

I realize that you may not remember if you read the book a long time ago. I’m just wondering aloud.

I don’t remember what the book said…but in general it seems that the laws of nature are repeatable, except when it’s a miracle. That probably isn’t the answer you were looking for. Miracles are, after all, defined as exceptions to the rule. And in general, “exceptions to the rule” don’t invalidate the rule.

“Dependable” is just the word that came to mind. I’m not even sure that it was the word used in the book. Perhaps God breaks the rules just often enough to let us know that he is indeed there. If he didn’t break the rules once in a while, there might be a tendency to think that the rules created themselves.

 

[patricius79]

armstrong writes

Among many other comments that could be produced along these lines, the Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Melvin Calvin (1911-1997), referring to the idea that the universe has a rational order, writes:
As I try to discern the origin of that conviction, I seem to find it in a basic notion . . . enunciated first in the Western world by the ancient Hebrews: namely, that the universe is governed by a single God, and is not the product of the whims of many gods, each governing his own province according to his own laws.* This monotheistic view seems to be the historical foundation for modern science.**(Chemical Evolution [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969], p. 258)*
socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/…l-role-in.html

 

[patricius79]

There’s a good short book called “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.” The point is made in that book that the Judeo-Christian revelation of God is that God is not “whimsical” (as other religions believe). This led to the general concept that the world - as a creation of a “dependable” God - would also be repeatable. For example, drop a rock and it falls to the ground. Other religions would say that “It fell because the god of gravity (or whatever) wanted it to fall this time. But he might not want it to fall the next time.”

This led to the concept of the laws of nature, which Western scientists investigated knowing that the laws wouldn’t change mid-stream into their investigations. Hence, there was more motivation to actually spend a lot of time trying to figure it out - in the West, but not in the East.

I read the book a while ago, so I’m probably not presenting the arguments very well.

I wonder too if it involved our faith that we are not offending God by seeking scientific knowledge.

in other words, that God want us to contemplate Him and know Him

 

[patricius79]

here’s an interesting article from the physicist John Polkinghorne:

*I think it is a very interesting and significant fact that there is quite a widespread feeling among physical scientists – and not just pious physical scientists like myself, but many physical scientists who stand outside any religious tradition – that there are aspects of the laws of physics which raise questions beyond physics’ competence to answer, issues that almost inevitably raise in the mind the feeling that there is more going on here that has met the purely scientific eye. I want to give two examples of that.

The first is a property of the physical world that is so familiar to us that we take it for granted. It is, in fact, the necessary basis of the whole scientific endeavor. It is this: that we can understand the world, that it is intelligible to us, that it is rationally transparent. Not only do we understand the world, but it is mathematics which is the key to the understanding of the physical universe. In fundamental physics one looks for theories which in their mathematical expression are economic and elegant, which are mathematically beautiful. Mathematical beauty is a very recognizable characteristic. There is an expectation – an expectation that has been justified time and again in the history of physics – that it is just those theories which have the character of mathematical economy and elegance which will prove to be the ones that explain what is going on in the physical world. If you have a friend who is a theoretical physicist, and you wish to upset them, you simply say to them, “That new theory of yours looks rather ugly and contrived to me.” They will be truly upset, because you are saying that it does not have the character which successful theory always has had. *
polkinghorne.net/action.html

 

[hecd2]

here’s an interesting article from the physicist John Polkinghorne:…

Of all the a posteriori arguments for the existence of God, including the ways of Aquinas and the more modern efforts such as the Kalam cosmological argument, all of which are flawed in my opinion, this argument from the intelligibility of the world stands out for me as being powerful and persuasive. Perhaps as we progress with the physics project, the argument will fail if we find that things are as they are from necessity, or that there is a anthropic explanation, or if we find that the beauty and intelligibility are a superfical facade on an unintelligible and disorganised reality. But from where we stand today, it’s a very good argument.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[JP2Admirer]

Of all the a posteriori arguments for the existence of God, including the ways of Aquinas and the more modern efforts such as the Kalam cosmological argument, all of which are flawed in my opinion, this argument from the intelligibility of the world stands out for me as being powerful and persuasive. Perhaps as we progress with the physics project, the argument will fail if we find that things are as they are from necessity, or that there is a anthropic explanation, or if we find that the beauty and intelligibility are a superfical facade on an unintelligible and disorganised reality. But from where we stand today, it’s a very good argument.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I’ve written a book on this topic (yet to find a publisher), but I too think this is the best argument for the existence of God – and indeed it stems from Aquinas’ proofs from motion.

I am with Newman in thinking that faith and non-faith are “probabilities” and that the evidence supports one of two probabilities – that of the existence of God in a universe governed by rational order and laws – or that of the non-existence of God in a universe of chaos and disorder in which the human mind imposes order on a chaotic reality.

I believe there are two philsophers, then, that demand rational assent – Nietzsche or Aquinas. I am Catholic because I believe the probability of Aquinas’ proofs for the existence of God are demonstrated by evidence moreso than Nietzsche’s haphazard becoming.

That is, either there is essentially linked causality in nature and law like generalizations are possible, or causality is accidentally linked and there is no rational order.

The existence of law-like generalizations suggests order and makes the proofs from motion valid.

This, indeed, is why I am so fascinated with Nietzsche, as he recognized in science the “ascetic ideal” and the intelligibility of nature as part of the Christian ethos. He had the audacity to stick to his principles and question science itself because he saw that if there was order in nature, then there would be a God. That is a lot more than can be said of modern “scientific atheists” whose conclusion of God’s non-existence are logically incoherent as they do not follow their principles to their proper conclusions. Nietzsche did that, which is why a revered place amongst the greatest philosophers ought to be reserved for him. He was much more of a thinker than the modern ‘scientific’ atheist. That said, I think he is wrong and Aquinas right, but I can at least see the probability of his theories.

 

[hecd2]

I’ve written a book on this topic (yet to find a publisher), but I too think this is the best argument for the existence of God – and indeed it stems from Aquinas’ proofs from motion.

Hope you get a publisher - it’s an argument that bears development, exposition and review. However, the argument as I see it does not stem from the First Way or any of the Aquinas proofs for God which are all fundamentally flawed as I see it.

I am with Newman in thinking that faith and non-faith are “probabilities” and that the evidence supports one of two probabilities – that of the existence of God in a universe governed by rational order and laws – or that of the non-existence of God in a universe of chaos and disorder in which the human mind imposes order on a chaotic reality.

Am cool with this analysis, except that I simply don’t believe in the ability of the human mind to impose order on a chaotic reality - since the human mind is the product of that reality, I don’t see how it can transcend it.

I believe there are two philsophers, then, that demand rational assent – Nietzsche or Aquinas. I am Catholic because I believe the probability of Aquinas’ proofs for the existence of God are demonstrated by evidence moreso than Nietzsche’s haphazard becoming.

That is, either there is essentially linked causality in nature and law like generalizations are possible, or causality is accidentally linked and there is no rational order.

The existence of law-like generalizations suggests order and makes the proofs from motion valid.

This, indeed, is why I am so fascinated with Nietzsche, as he recognized in science the “ascetic ideal” and the intelligibility of nature as part of the Christian ethos. He had the audacity to stick to his principles and question science itself because he saw that if there was order in nature, then there would be a God. That is a lot more than can be said of modern “scientific atheists” whose conclusion of God’s non-existence are logically incoherent as they do not follow their principles to their proper conclusions. Nietzsche did that, which is why a revered place amongst the greatest philosophers ought to be reserved for him. He was much more of a thinker than the modern ‘scientific’ atheist. That said, I think he is wrong and Aquinas right, but I can at least see the probability of his theories.

I think you are harsh on modern atheistic philosophers - as I said above, there are several ways in which the argument from intelligibility might be refuted and I’m sure the atheist philosophers can think of others. I fall on a different side of the conclusion from probabilities than you do, being an atheist, but I have to acknowledge the power of the argument from intelligibility which compels me to keep thinking. I would be interested in seeing your argument developed (although, to be honest, I really don’t think that it proceeds from or supports the First Way, which is an entirely different species of argument from the one that I, and I think Polkinghorne, have in mind).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Regarding the topic, faith is not a theory. Henceforth Jesus is not the foundation of Science. The Pope even mentions Dante. I really like what the pope has to say about the existance of God. Maybe someone would like to read it and tell me what you think. vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060123_cor-unum_en.html

 

[Pieman333272]

I’ve written a book on this topic (yet to find a publisher), but I too think this is the best argument for the existence of God – and indeed it stems from Aquinas’ proofs from motion.

I am with Newman in thinking that faith and non-faith are “probabilities” and that the evidence supports one of two probabilities – that of the existence of God in a universe governed by rational order and laws – or that of the non-existence of God in a universe of chaos and disorder in which the human mind imposes order on a chaotic reality.

I believe there are two philsophers, then, that demand rational assent – Nietzsche or Aquinas. I am Catholic because I believe the probability of Aquinas’ proofs for the existence of God are demonstrated by evidence moreso than Nietzsche’s haphazard becoming.

That is, either there is essentially linked causality in nature and law like generalizations are possible, or causality is accidentally linked and there is no rational order.

The existence of law-like generalizations suggests order and makes the proofs from motion valid.

This, indeed, is why I am so fascinated with Nietzsche, as he recognized in science the “ascetic ideal” and the intelligibility of nature as part of the Christian ethos. He had the audacity to stick to his principles and question science itself because he saw that if there was order in nature, then there would be a God. That is a lot more than can be said of modern “scientific atheists” whose conclusion of God’s non-existence are logically incoherent as they do not follow their principles to their proper conclusions. Nietzsche did that, which is why a revered place amongst the greatest philosophers ought to be reserved for him. He was much more of a thinker than the modern ‘scientific’ atheist. That said, I think he is wrong and Aquinas right, but I can at least see the probability of his theories.

HI JP2Admirer - I too am convinced by this argument, but one objection I haven’t been able to work through is that only a very small part of the universe is actually ordered in the human sense. I think I’ve read that over 95% of the Universe is incapable of supporting complex life forms - how can it be ordered by a being such as God when it varies so wildly from what conscious life, the very essence and purpose of the Universe, needs?

BTW, good luck getting published!

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

Thanks for the clarification on the fireworks. I admit I was a bit hasty in making the assumption of Buddhism, but I figured my point would still stand.

I am sure that there are other religions that claim that their god is creator of reason (Heck, if a religion claims its god created everything, then that would include reason.) However, simply making a claim, doesn’t make it true. I am not aware of any Scriptural verses or church teachings that would give rise to the scientific method. Perhaps you know of something that makes the connection between Christ and science a little more solid?

Hey Ovrlapn,
Someone suggested a book called “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” By Thomas Woods jr. I haven’t read the book but I watched his 13 episode series on the book
( youtube.com/watch?v=OhARNW4l13g ). In Wisdom 11:20, it says God has ordered all things according to measure, number, and weight". Starting at the Cathedral School at Chartres in the early middle ages, the Christian west emphasized this verse heavily because it claims that God made an ordered universe that is intelligible to human reason. Here are some quotes,

It is through reason that we are men. For if we turned our backs on the amazing rational beauty of the universe we live in we should indeed deserve to be driven there from, like a guest unappreciative of the house into which he has been received- Adelard of Bath, a Scholar at Chartres

I take nothing away from God. He is author of all things, evil excepted. But the nature with which He endowed his creatures accomplishes a whole scheme of operations, and these too turn to his glory since it is he who created this very nature-
Scholar at Chartres

In a period of fifteen to twenty years, around the middle of the twelfth century, a handful of men were consciously striving to launch the evolution of western science, and undertook every major step that was needed to achieve that end-
Thomas Goldstein, Historian

There were many important scientists in the Christian middle ages who paved the way for the scientific revolution like Father Athanasius Kircher, Father Roger Boscovic, Father Francesco Grimaldi, Father John Battista Riccoli, St. Albert the Great, and many more.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_scientist-clerics

 

[hecd2]

HI JP2Admirer - I too am convinced by this argument, but one objection I haven’t been able to work through is that only a very small part of the universe is actually ordered in the human sense. I think I’ve read that over 95% of the Universe is incapable of supporting complex life forms - how can it be ordered by a being such as God when it varies so wildly from what conscious life, the very essence and purpose of the Universe, needs?

From a physics point of view, which is Polkinghorne’s, the organisation isn’t to do with ordering to support complex life forms. The percentage of the universe that supports complex life is hugely, vastly less than 5% by the way. The argument from intelligibility is about the fact that the universe is “well-behaved”, that there are laws of physics, that the laws of physics are universal, that the laws can be formulated mathematically, that the mathematical formulations are relatively simple and beautiful (not so sure about that last one - renormalisation in quantum field theories is pretty ugly but gives good results), and that they can be understood by us. The argument is that only a universe intentionally created like that would have those properties. The order in the argument is physical and universal, not local and life-supporting.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[JP2Admirer]

Hope you get a publisher - it’s an argument that bears development, exposition and review. However, the argument as I see it does not stem from the First Way or any of the Aquinas proofs for God which are all fundamentally flawed as I see it.

That’s strange, because I am on the opposite end of the spectrum, in that I am yet to be convinced by anyone’s critique of Aquinas’ five ways. That is, I have yet to find an argument compelling that refutes it. I’d be interested to see why you are unconvinced by them – as I wouldn’t mind finding a reason to doubt them – not that I don’t want to believe in teh existence of God (I believe faith is a theological virtue, a grace), but because truth demands that we question our own presuppositions.

Am cool with this analysis, except that I simply don’t believe in the ability of the human mind to impose order on a chaotic reality - since the human mind is the product of that reality, I don’t see how it can transcend it…

I completely agree here. This is why I do not accept the existentialist philosophy. Order does not come from the human mind, but order is actually in things and therefore a posteriori realized. (This is why I cannot accept Kant, or any of his heirs, although, as noted, I am fascinated by Nietzsche.) Furthermore, I am of the opinion that if there were no order in nature itself, technological advancement would be impossible as reality would not conform to the machinations of our minds. That is, planes would not fly if rational order itself was not in reality itself, as physics would be limited to the movements of the human mind, i.e. it would be theory without practice.

I think you are harsh on modern atheistic philosophers - as I said above, there are several ways in which the argument from intelligibility might be refuted and I’m sure the atheist philosophers can think of others. I fall on a different side of the conclusion from probabilities than you do, being an atheist, but I have to acknowledge the power of the argument from intelligibility which compels me to keep thinking. I would be interested in seeing your argument developed (although, to be honest, I really don’t think that it proceeds from or supports the First Way, which is an entirely different species of argument from the one that I, and I think Polkinghorne, have in mind).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Again, I wouldn’t mind hearing a few arguments against the intelligibility of nature as proof for the existence of God.

As far as my argument goes:

Are you familiar with the Aristotelian terminology of “accidental causality” and “essentially linked causality”?

An accidental cause has no essential link to the effect – I think in the Physics Aristotle uses the example of “the sculptor being the son of Diares” or something to that affect. The fact that the sculptor is the son of Diares is accidentally linked to the sculpture – thus it could be that I or anyone else was the maker of the sculpture.

We could also use the Humean “induction” argument to demonstrate this. Every time a happens b follows. Therefore, I conclude that a is the cause of b. In reality, though, if I look away c might follow a, and so the regular occurence of b following a is merely chance and there is no essential link between a and b.

If it is the case that anything can follow the cause ‘a’, then all is the result of chance and there is accidentally linked causality. If this is the case, then all motion need not be reduced to one cause. Accidentally linked causes can be infinite and need not have a beginning. Thus we arrive at something close to the eternal recurrence of the same offered by Nietzsche.

If however, causes are essentially linked, i.e. a always causes b, then we cannot have an infinite regress because then there would be no beginning, and thus no now.

This, however, ties right into the intelligibility of nature because nature, if causes are accidentally linked, is fundamentally unintelligible – we should expect the unexpected, i.e. bears should birth birds, cars should suddenly be able to fly, in short we should imagine the impossible, but things with a good disposition happan always or for the most part. Which is why I think the existence of God is more probable than His non-existence.

One final note, I think that Aquinas has a further proof for the existence of God in his metaphysics that does not rely on essentially linked causality in nature. But that is a whole other topic. I actually think he offers an argument that is impervious even to “chaos theory.”

Anyway, that’s the argument in nutshell.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

I’m going to make it very clear that the following document states clearly ‘faith is not a theory’. Henceforth, Jesus is not the foundation of science. I noticed that Alec (hecd2)has an article on his website that has Benedict XVI. Therefore I think Alec agrees with the following unless he wants to state otherwise.

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO THE PARTICIPANTS AT THE MEETING PROMOTED
BY THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL “COR UNUM”

Sala Clementina
Monday, 23 January 2006

Your Eminences,
Your Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

The cosmic excursion in which Dante, in his “Divine Comedy”, wishes to involve the reader, ends in front of the perennial Light that is God himself, before that Light which is at the same time “the love that moves the sun and the other stars” (Par. XXXIII, v. 145). Light and love are one and the same. They are the primordial creative powers that move the universe.

If these words in Dante’s Paradiso betray the thought of Aristotle, who saw in the eros the power that moves the world, Dante nevertheless perceives something completely new and inconceivable for the Greek philosopher. Not only that the eternal Light is shown in three circles which Dante addresses using those terse verses familiar to us: “O everlasting Light, you dwell alone/In yourself, know yourself alone, and known/And knowing, love and smile upon yourself!” (Par. XXXIII, vv. 124-126).

As a matter of fact, even more overwhelming than this revelation of God as a trinitarian circle of knowledge and love, is the perception of a human face - the face of Jesus Christ - which, to Dante, appears in the central circle of the Light. God, infinite Light, whose immeasurable mystery the Greek philosopher perceived, this God has a human face and - we may add - a human heart.

This vision of Dante reveals, on the one hand, the continuity between Christian faith in God and the search developed by reason and by the world of religions; on the other, however, a novelty appears that surpasses all human research, the novelty that only God himself can reveal to us: the novelty of a love that moved God to take on a human face, even to take on flesh and blood, the entire human being.

The eros of God is not only a primordial cosmic power; it is love that created man and that bows down over him, as the Good Samaritan bent down to the wounded and robbed man, lying on the side of the road that went down from Jerusalem to Jericho.

Today, the word “love” is so spoiled, worn out and abused that one almost fears to pronounce it. And yet, it is a fundamental word, an expression of the primordial reality. We cannot simply abandon it, but we must take it up again, purify it and bring it to its original splendour so that it can illumine our life and guide it on the right path.

This is the understanding that led me to choose “love” as the theme of my first Encyclical. I wanted to try to express for our time and our existence some of what Dante boldly summed up in his vision. He tells of a “sight” that “was altering” as he “gazed on” it and was being interiorly changed (cf. Par. XXXIII, vv. 112-114).

It is precisely this: faith becomes a vision-understanding that transforms us. It was my aim to shed light on the centrality of faith in God; in that God who took on a human face and heart.

Faith is not a theory that can be personalized or even set aside. It is something very concrete: it is the criteria that determines our lifestyle. In an epoch where hostility and greed have become superpowers, an epoch where we support the abuse of religion to the point of deifying hatred, neutral rationality alone cannot protect us. We need the living God, who loved us even to death. And so, in this Encyclical, the themes “God”, “Christ” and “Love” are fused together as the central guide of Christian faith. I wanted to reveal the humanity of faith, of which eros is a part; the “yes” of man to his bodiliness created by God, a “yes” that in an indissoluble matrimony between man and woman finds its form rooted in creation.

And here it also happens that the eros is transformed into agape: that love for the other which is no longer self-seeking but becomes concern for the other, ready to sacrifice for him or her and also open to the gift of a new human life.

Christian agape, love of neighbour in the following of Christ, is nothing foreign to, situated alongside of or even against the eros; on the contrary, in the sacrifice that Christ made of himself for man he discovered a new dimension which, in the history of charitable dedication of Christians to the poor and suffering, it has developed all the more.

A first reading of the Encyclical could possibly give the impression that it is divided into two parts that are not very connected: a first part, theoretical, which speaks about the essence of love, and a second, which speaks of ecclesial charity and charitable organizations.

I was particularly interested, however, in the unity of the two themes that are well understood only if seen as a whole. From the beginning it was necessary to speak of the essence of love as it is presented to us in the light of biblical testimony. Starting from the Christian image of God, it was necessary to show how man is created for love and how this love, which initially appears above all as the eros between man and woman, must then be interiorly transformed into agape, into gift of self to the other; and this, precisely to respond to the true nature of the eros. . . .

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060123_cor-unum_en.html

 

[hecd2]

That’s strange, because I am on the opposite end of the spectrum, in that I am yet to be convinced by anyone’s critique of Aquinas’ five ways. That is, I have yet to find an argument compelling that refutes it. I’d be interested to see why you are unconvinced by them – as I wouldn’t mind finding a reason to doubt them – not that I don’t want to believe in teh existence of God (I believe faith is a theological virtue, a grace), but because truth demands that we question our own presuppositions.

I have very little time over the next two -three days, and this is a topic that I can’t rush; so this is just a holding note to say I’ll try to get back to it at some point.However, I am not a professional philosopher so don’t expect too much!

I completely agree here. This is why I do not accept the existentialist philosophy. Order does not come from the human mind, but order is actually in things and therefore a posteriori realized. (This is why I cannot accept Kant, or any of his heirs, although, as noted, I am fascinated by Nietzsche.) Furthermore, I am of the opinion that if there were no order in nature itself, technological advancement would be impossible as reality would not conform to the machinations of our minds. That is, planes would not fly if rational order itself was not in reality itself, as physics would be limited to the movements of the human mind, i.e. it would be theory without practice.

Agreed, although with the caution that the human mind has evolved to be a strong pattern recogniser and it is sorely tempted to impose structure where none exists.

Again, I wouldn’t mind hearing a few arguments against the intelligibility of nature as proof for the existence of God.

And again, I’ll come back to this, but I laid out some possible approaches in bare bones in my earlier post - will expand on them when I have time

As far as my argument goes:…

Again, will think about this in a few days time and try to get back to you.

Alec
evolutionpages.com