Catholicism Is Not All Its Made Out to Be?

It is true the Church has committed kindly deeds along with cruel deeds throughout its 1,983 year history. As a student of the philosophies of both science and religion, Catholic theology, and Church history, I cannot count the instances that have occurred in my relatively short time engaged in the concomitant discussions wherein I find myself defending the Church against individuals of many creeds from false accusations of deeds that were never committed; or at the very least not committed to the extent common opinion would have you believe. It is well established – and I hope we agree – the victors write the history, so might I suggest the victors of the Reformation are no exception?

I’ve decided to keep this commentary short as to not sway the reader’s position, merely allow the reader to simply consider their position – whatever it may be. To that end, consider the following cases:

Galileo: “However, in 1623, his good friend, Maffeo Barberini, became Pope Urban VIII and Galileo, who assumed that the intelligent Pope would see things his way, asked the Pope’s permission to write a book showing the truth of the Copernican theory. Of course, the Pope refused and Galileo restated his request, asking for permission to argue both sides of the question, the earth-centered and the sun-centered theories. To this the Pope agreed and Galileo produced the Dialogo which was anything but an equal treatment of both theories.” Research more about it, and the relationship between the Pope and Galileo was very interesting.  (http://www.ou.edu/cas/hsci/files/gala/gala%20ORIGINAL/macro/galileo.htm)

“Fish on Friday”: “Funny enough, while the pope story is a fish tale, an official leader of a church did make fish fasting the law for purely practical reasons. For that story — and the lust our headline promised — we turn to a monarch known for his carnal cravings: Henry VIII.” (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/04/05/150061991/lust-lies-and-empire-the-fishy-tale-behind-eating-fish-on-friday)

Evolution: “Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.” (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19956961/#.UoqnFmTk9K4)

The Inquisition (and stuff): If you want to learn the facts about Quantum Mechanics, you ask a physicist. If you want to learn the facts about history, you ask a historian. If you want to learn what a group believes, you consult an authority of that belief system so to gain access to their expertise of the matter. If you want to learn what Buddhists believe about Tibetan Buddhism, you may ask (not Wikipedia) the Dalai Lama. If you want to learn what Republicans believe, you may ask John Boehner. If you want to learn what Democrats believe, you may ask Barack Obama. However, you would not ask any individual who would like to see the group under consideration undermined, as they have obvious bias and will most likely lead you to false conclusions. I say ‘most likely’, as it is more likely the proper authority in the group will be honest for reasons derived from Game Theory logic, on which I may expound in a following essay. Similarly, if you want to learn what the formal teachings/operations of the Catholic Church are, you may ask the Pope. Though you may never meet Mr. Boehner, Mr. Obama, or the Dalai Lama, you are fortunate enough to meet the Pope should you choose (in a sense). This is a 45 minute documentary about the Vatican and some aspects of it’s history, and operations, staring (drumroll please!…) Pope Benedict XVI!       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA686w0RpJ0

While the Church institution is one thing, what of the Clergy and other devout Catholics? Some names worth researching with a refreshed view:

Albertus Magnus (Patron Saint of the Natural Sciences)

Giovanni Battista Riccioli (Lived around the same time as Galileo and Newton, and work on similar things.)

Pope John XXI (Physician)

Gregor Mendel (Hereditary Genetics)

Monseigneur Georges Lemaître (Big Bang Theory)

There are hundreds of people like these, spanning research topics from astronomy and evolution, to cosmology and nuclear physics. Please note, I wrote this on a whim, and it is not meant to be a formal apology for the Catechism or the Church; it is just to inspire a new train of thought.

What is? Why is? How is?

The other day I, for the first time in my life, truly came to see how uncertain I am about everything. I realized something that I’m not sure too many actually apprehend. Most study either philosophy, or physics – others may dabble in one whilst studying the other – but very few, I’ve noticed, seriously study both in any great detail. I am close to completing a degree in both fields, and so I am beginning to see how profoundly empty they seem to be.

Physics studies how the world works; philosophy studies why the world works, and how ought it work. I’ve observed something rather constant in both professions: that when one profession does not know, they simple refer to the other, without any substantial understanding, in hopes that they can be comforted. Physics is about material existence, and practical being, so upon realizing the gaffs of physics, a physicist refers to the philosopher to provide a piecemeal explication of why things are the way they are; they shrug it off expecting philosophy can provide comfort for anyone with the time to bother with such impractical considerations. Similarly, philosophy is about immaterial existence, and simply being, so upon realizing the gaffs of philosophy, a philosopher refers to the physicist to provide some explanation of how the universe is stitched together; this allows a philosopher to understand that though “why” may not be so easily explicated, they can always turn to physics for a practical solution.

At first glance this seems to be an agreeable situation, however, for the unfortunate few who have a thorough appreciation for both of these fields of study, there has never been a case where they have not seriously doubted what is real. Consider Ludwig Wittgenstein; an engineer, a logician, and philosopher. There is a story that one night he was distressed and sleepless, he had a serious issue to deal with. So he went, at some obscene hour in the morning, to the home of his dear friend Bertrand Russell – one of the most influential logicians, philosophers, and peace activists in history – to seek counsel, as he was the only one who would understand Wittgenstein’s distress. Russell answers the door and sees his friend in utter distress, so he invites him in and offers him a drink. Wittgenstein frantically declines insisting he needs to be absolutely sober for this discussion; at this point Russell knows something serious is the issue! Russell asks, “What is the matter??”, to which Wittgenstein replies, “Prove to me, there is not a rhinoceros in this room.” Taken aback, Russell understands, as any philosopher would, in fact you cannot prove such a thing.

The point of the story is to illustrate that in philosophy something as simple as ‘what is real?’, simply cannot be proven; and someone with several degrees in engineering asking this question demonstrates that even science cannot help.

The closest philosophy has gotten to a solution is because of David Hume; that experience is capable of discovering that a priori reasoning (i.e. mathematics) is discovered in the world outside my body, if the world outside my body is real. This much does seem to actually be proven, but Hume is no closer than any other philosopher in 3,000 years to determine if the world outside my body is in-fact real.

Physics is no different. Physics sees the world at very large scales one way, and it sees the world at very small scales in a way that is radically different than the first. There are two very conflicting pictures of the universe. Physics has determined that at the fundamental level, the universe is void of matter, it exists only as probability. To ask “where” something is doesn’t make any sense, it is everywhere, it nowhere, and it is somewhere all at the same time. Sometimes matter is in one spot at one time, and the next instant it ceases to exist, only to flash back into existence the instant later. Matter even treats other matter as though it didn’t even exist, and this is all just the very beginning of the chaos that is found in quantum mechanics. It seems that matter isn’t usually the we perceive it. This has all been observed with the electron (and photon, but the photon isn’t matter), the matter of the electron is just the same as the matter of the book in front of me. The equations of quantum mechanics work at our size of matter as well, the weirdness I had described is just negligible and minuscule in size; but it seems to be there. There just isn’t anyway to reconcile our observation of everyday life with the calculations of quantum mechanics. (It’s difficult to explain.) But not once has quantum mechanics ever refuted observation, or made a prediction that was not then observed. It seems to describe how the world really is.

Given this understanding of physics, and of philosophy, I cannot say what is real, as nothing is, yet, reconcilable. Where physics fails, philosophy fails at least as equally – if not more profoundly; where philosophy fails, physics has no solution. This is why, now more than ever, I turn to religion. Without God I have absolutely no basis of reality. I have reached a point where I am beginning to strongly consider if the question, what is real, is even a question with coherent syntax. Perhaps, to ask what is real, makes as much sense as asking, what is the marital status of the number 5?

What have I gotten myself into?

Prudence is a Virtue, Temperance is Vital

We’ve all heard the adage “too much of a good thing,” but what does it mean really? Modern technology is a good thing indeed, perhaps too good. Before the technology of the 20th century was so abundant people were more appreciative, more conservative, and some would say more dignified. Consider something as simple as music; any time before 100 years ago people were lucky to hear their favorite song more than twice in their life. Now the number of hearings is limited only by the length of the song and the number of hours in the day. Far fewer people made food, stored it in a refrigerator, and then forget it for a time only to find it has spoiled, prompt then to throw it away. Far fewer people would say something as is so often cruel, humiliating, and insulting as most of what I read in Youtube and Facebook posts. It used to be expensive and time consuming to write, so arguments were had in person, not often through some impersonal medium. I come from a family who had grown up in that culture, and I assure you that it would prove difficult to find those who did not appreciate what they had more than most do now, those who did not waste as much as most do now, and even those who were so quick to indignify others without fear of consequence. 

Despite the often lethal travesties that have accompanied it, technology has proven to be a great thing. Though I understand it likely will not come to fruition, and is certainly not the sole cause of the detriment of society, I advocate for temperance as an attempt to minimize the deficiency of these values, and the products of this deficiency.