Dr. Jeff Millers ( Bio – Article – Email ) | August 26, 2022
When I watch nature shows, I sometimes get annoyed by the constant remarks that “nature” did this and “nature” did that. It’s as if “nature” is someone’s name and starts with a capital N. This is a measure of how afraid people are to talk about God. Our modern material culture is much more comfortable, at least in the short term, and refuses to investigate beyond the surface of things.It is easier to live in denial of ultimate reality.
Paradoxically, if the latest data and conclusions from the physical sciences were to spread as rapidly and powerfully as the little-developed theory of evolution about a century ago, the typical schoolchild would: would have learned:
- As far as we know, the universe began distinctly about 13.8 billion years ago, apparently exploding from a super-compressed core, but its origins cannot be explained by scientific research. That’s why I live in
- completely rely on random In the evolutionary interpretation (i.e., completely undirected evolution), that length of time would have been the most complex, cohesive, interdependent, and successfully combined life as we know it today. Not even a little is enough to explain the development of the body. Probability statistics essentially rule that out.
- Our planet seems to be attuned to the so-called “Anthropic Principle”. Although dramatically different from other planets for which we have information, planet Earth exhibits a vast array of environmental factors, all of which are so finely tuned that biological life is possible. can (at least as far as we know) survive and evolve. The chances of the necessary combinations of factors occurring by chance are astronomical, even in a fictional cosmic multiverse consisting of thousands upon thousands of different “universes.”
Of course, I’m only scratching the surface. But rather than pretending that modern scientific research has somehow eliminated the need to look to God to explain anything, a truly scientific culture would, on a daily basis, positively answer God’s questions. You will probably run into the need to answer In any case, philosophical arguments that explicitly suggest the existence of God are as powerful as ever, even if educational institutions prefer to ignore them. It’s still easy to recognize the five classic ways to grasp the presence of God, put together.
escape from unforeseen circumstances
My personal favorite is the argument from contingency (the bullet point above fits very well). This discussion begins with the realization that everything we encounter in what we call the natural world depends on something else. It does not exist independently.rather all accidental to something else. This is as clear for oxygen molecules and rocks as it is for humans. But if this is true, nothing can exist unless there is a non-accidental existence somewhere that we do not see, and everything else ultimately depends on its existence.
Arguments from contingency, like the arguments about primary causes and dynamics, draw the necessary logical conclusions from our own experience and those of those who have observed or studied something in this universe for thousands of years. Proceed to Of course, the necessary non-contingent being must be a being whose essence is existence itself, simply an impossible being. No exists and is logically the only such being of that type: in other words, the extraordinary “I am”, i.e. God.
Developments in science, especially physics, over the last few generations strongly suggest (but of course cannot prove) that the universe cannot be explained without the existence of God. Regarding the materialistic prejudices and desires of our wealthy “elite”, these scientific conclusions apply “intellectual organization” to our understanding of God’s existence in the same way that nineteenth-century evolutionary theory did. I made it clear that I didn’t return it. It was used in very immature infancy to drive the “intellectual system” into denial of God.
But, of course, God’s existence has always been within man’s ability to intuit from normal internal and external experience. So we always find that rejection of such a fundamental vision of reality is shrouded in selfish indulgence and a desire to put off all thoughts of judgment. Turning to the highly developed (and, incidentally, God-revealed) religious experience of ancient Israel, two almost identical psalms (14 and 53) are both almost certainly about 2,600 years old. Composed before, it expresses the following insights:
Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” They are corrupt and do abominations. No one does good…. They all turned away. Together they are corrupting…. Don’t you know, all the evildoers who devour my people as they eat bread and who do not call on the Lord?
deeper
The psalm’s perspective offers remarkable insight into the social and spiritual factors that roll together in how we answer God’s questions. It is the desire for immediate gratification through the seductive allure of evil that compels our degenerate modern culture to flee in the opposite direction. Jesus Christ, who had a keen psychological insight, expressed the same problem: “He who does evil hates the light” (John 3:20). The polar dominance poses great obstacles in the course of those who, as our Lord said, “turn and are forgiven” (Mk 4:12).
Of course, physical science cannot prove the existence of God. The essence of any discipline is the use of tools and methods appropriate to its subject. There is no research area available to prove any conclusions about anything beyond that scope. Of course, this fallacy is based on the premise that all ranges are suitable for a particular field. In those early days, when the study of material things was not very advanced and specialized, the educated man could not understand what each discipline was for and how they all fit together. I got a strong sense of how I can gain more knowledge through of all reality. Today, it is so specialized that too many scholars tend to try to elevate their disciplines to universal tools that can offer universal explanations.
But they can’t. When we begin to think that our academic (or personal) preconceptions encompass everything out there or important, we become intolerably narrow-minded. We become more and more hostile to those who raise questions about which our own interests and fields of study have nothing to say. We live in a culture that is almost absolutely, and certainly prejudiced, dependent on turning a blind eye to sexual realities. is literally alive.
For if any more light was allowed in, people would begin to realize that not only the emperor, but imperial culture itself was completely naked and horribly exposed. We believe that material satisfaction is the essence of life and that essentially temporary distractions are the only source of happiness.More than ever, we must live counterculturally. . The only options left are despair and Jesus Christ.
Jeffrey Millers I have a Ph.D. He holds a PhD in intellectual history from Princeton University. He is a co-founder of Christendom College and a pioneer of the Catholic Internet He Service. He is the founder of Trinity Communications and he is CatholicCulture.org. See full bio.
Sound off! Supporters of CatholicCulture.org will participate.
All comments are moderated. To ease the editorial burden, only current contributors are allowed sound off. If you are a current contributor, please log in to view the comment form. Otherwise, please support our work. Sound Off!
There are no comments for this item yet.
