Category Archives: Philosophy

Relativism and Natural Law

cropped-lake-sunset-2.jpg

“What is true for you may not be true for me”.

Is an axiom of today’s culture. It plays as a subliminal call for civility, tolerance and understanding. It is also the hallmark of a confused and decaying society, for civility, tolerance and understanding are meaningless in a worldview that forswears objective truth and embraces relativism.

Relativism is the idea that moral truth has no objective or absolute value. Relativism reduces moral truth to a subjective opinion that is variable and contingent on experiences and perspectives. This equivocation makes relativism an existential threat to any civilization that embraces its abnegation of objective truth because it undermines its moral foundation. The absence of objective moral truth subjugates morality to a consensus of opinion at best and at worst to the rule of the mob. In such framework rights are not indelible or universal. They are subjugated to the disposition of a society and subject to change. Thus, under relativism there is no ethical or moral framework upon which to condemn the slave trade or a legal justification to adjudicate crimes against humanity. For relativism disparage the notion that as rational beings, we can discern what is right, proper and just and condemn what is wrong, improper and unjust.

As Professor Peter Kreeft aptly puts it:

“But in fact it is only the believer in the old-fashioned natural moral law who could be a social radical and a progressive. He alone can say to a Hitler, or a Saddam Hussein, “You and your whole social order are wrong and wicked and deserve to be destroyed.” The relativist could only say, “Different strokes for different folks, and I happen to hate your strokes and prefer mine, that’s all.”

Peter Kreeft
A Refutation of Moral Relativism—Transcription

It was precisely the “old-fashioned natural moral law” that afforded the Dominican Friar Bartolomé de las Casas an intellectual framework upon which to argue against the slave trade of the 16-century and for the universality of human rights. He argued that every human being has an intrinsic and objective dignity and thereby should be universally respected. His arguments were not only based on his Christian faith but also on Natural Law. A fundamental principle in classical philosophy that states that there are objective and universal ethical principles that are inherent in all human beings and that these principles can be known through reason.

DefendantsHLSL

Moreover, the intellectual and judicial arguments against Nazi war criminals during the Nuremberg Trials were firmly grounded on Natural Law:

“When I say that we do not ask for convictions unless we prove crime, I do not mean mere technical or incidental transgression of international conventions. We charge guilt on planned and intended conduct that involves moral as well as legal wrong…It is not because they yielded to the normal frailties of human beings that we accuse them. It is their abnormal and inhuman conduct which brings them to this bar.”

Robert H. Jackson
Opening Statement Nuremberg Trials, 1945

Relativism begs the question whether the outcome of the Nuremberg trial was justifiable if the moral values of the tribunal were conditioned by the experiences and perspective of the Nazis. For under a relativistic intellectual regime, the slave trade and crimes against humanity are just a matter of opinion. The only logical conclusion under relativism is that such atrocities are only atrocity because we view them as atrocities. Not because they are intrinsically evil. They are just a value opinion. This is a devastating thought.

Yet the appeal of relativism is inescapable to a self-centered culture. That is obsessed with denying the nature of sin or wrongdoing. It is no wonder that Relativism is today’s most profitable currency in the economy of progressivism. It gives an effective, albeit intellectually unsustainable, framework upon which to justify anything. Its effectiveness in today’s culture is self-evident in its successful devaluation of human life to a commodity through its rationalization of abortion and euthanasia. The former led to an ongoing holocaust of countless generations of human beings whose life are ended by abortion and the latter provided the means to justify the cleansing of those that society considered to be undesirable, i.e. a burden. Its inhumanity is hidden behind the doors of abortion clinics and exposed behind the gates of Auschwitz.

To be continue…

Men without Chests

001862ba95bf951f_large

“We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the gelgings be fruitful”.

C.S. Lewis
The Abolition of Man

Civilization fall and rise depending on the health and integrity of the nuclear family. Today we have delegated the education of our children to the education specialists and them in turn give us men without chests.

Caleb

The Beautiful: The Theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar

I really didn’t know much about who Hans Urs von Balthasar was until I came across this video from Fr. Barron. I can’t help it but to learn more about this great 20th theologian of the Catholic Church in the near future.

Apart from the power of beauty in evangelization (which is a theme that I love) what I found most interesting about this video is Fr. Barron observation about Fr. Balthasar’s Christology and anthropology, which is centered on the very biblical idea that we don’t know our identity unless we know our mission.

What is our vocation? What is it that we are called to be? I think that our vocation is simply a tool that God uses to allow us to pour back the love that he has filled our hearts with, for the benefit and the building up of His Body. That is why it is so important to really listen to the movement in our hearts and follow that passion because we can truly change the world.

As St. Catherine of Sienna said:

Be who God meant you to be and you will set the world on fire.

Moreover, just as we can find our identity in our mission (as Abraham, Israel, Peter and Paul did), it also shows us the road towards sainthood. After all, as Leon Bloy once said:

The only real sadness, the only real failure, the only great tragedy in life, is not to become a saint.”

I still have such a long way to go. Keep me in your prayers.

Be a Saint!

A fine-tuned Universe: The extreme improbability of an anthropic universe.

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands”.

Psalm 19:1

The discovery of the Big Bang to be the beginning of our universe not only provides evidence to a point of creation, but also to the extreme improbability of an anthropic universe. That is a universe capable of sustaining life arising out of mere chance. The argument is based on at least two empirical findings: the probability of having a low entropy universe and the values of universal constants. Fairly recently physicists have empirically determined the value of a set of universal constants which govern all interactions in our universe. The range of the value of these universal constants that disallow for an anthropic universe is basically infinite, whereas the values that allow for an anthropic universe is very limited. This points to a fine-tuned universe that emerged out of the Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago. These findings lead to the question how our universe was fine-tuned?

Low Entropy Universe

penrose

Entropy is the measurement of disorder of a system. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system increases or remains constant. It is highly improbable for a system to spontaneously organize itself, just like a teenagers room it naturally tends towards disorganization. Our universe is fairly ordered with low entropy. Sir Roger Penrose, English physicist, estimated that the probability of a low entropy universe arising out of the Big Bang by chance is:

 1 in 10^10123

 That is 10 billion to the power of 123! This is an incredibly infinitesimally small probability that our universe emerged by chance with low entropy. Many apologists make the famous junkyard analogy that it is more reasonable to believe that a tornado assembled a 757 from a plane junkyard than to believe that a low entropy universe emerged out of chance.

Universal constants

Universal constants are fixed values that govern the law of physics in our universe. They are empirically determined. If any of their value were slightly different our universe would be a very different universe. The following are just three examples of universal constants that illustrate this point: 

1. The gravitational force constant (G= 6.67 x 10^-11)

If G the gravitational constant would differ from its actual value, (by even one part in 1050), the precise balance against A bare would be upset, and the structure of the universe would be drastically altered.

Davies 1982, as quoted from New Proof for the existence of God.

That is

1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

If G were greater than just 1/1050 of its value, then the universe would collapse into a single black hole.

If G were less than just 1/1050 of its value, then the universe would have expanded without the possibility of forming galaxies, solar systems or planets.

2. Strong Force Constant   gs = 15 (SI units)

The strong force is one of the four fundamental forces, it basically holds an atom together.

A 2% reduction from its current value will make the formation of elements heavier than Hydrogen impossible, i.e. no carbon.

That is if gs < 14.7 there would be no element heavier than hydrogen.

A 2% increase from its current value Hydrogen will be never be able to exist, making it impossible for water to exist and stars will have no long term fuel.

That is if the gs > 15.3 only elements heavier than Hydrogen could form.

Both of these deviations would have precluded life in our universe. Moreover, it’s far more likely to have values outside the range between 14.7 and 15.3 than fall between these values.

3. Weak Force Coupling Constant gw = 1.43 x 10-62 (SI units)

The weak force is responsible for both the radioactive decay and nuclear fusion of subatomic particle. If it deviates from its current value Carbon would not have been able to form bonds with each other making it impossible for the basic building block for life to occur.

Alternative explanations

The range of values that disallow an anthropic universe is far greater than the very narrow range of values that allows it. This strongly argues for a creator that fine-tuned our universe in order to allow life to develop. In order to avoid such conclusion, it is necessary to present alternative explanations/theories that invoke a practically infinite number of universes popping into existence. If the number of trials has now been infinite, then it is just a matter of time before one universe emerges with the right set of conditions that allows for life, independently how infinitesimally small those chances are.

As Fr. Spitzer points in his book “New Proof for the Existence of God”, the problem with these theories is threefold. First, they remain in the theoretical sphere of physics. At best they do not have any empirical data to support them or the ability to obtain empirical data in the near future is highly unlikely and at worst some are incongruent with the observable cosmology of our universe (Linde Chaotic Inflationary multiverse and the string theory landscape). Second, they violate the principle of parsimony that is they invoke borderline ridiculous number of universes in order to explain ours. Third, they failed to avoid the issue of fine-tuning (multiverse resembling those proposed by Linde and Susskind).

hoyle

Fred Hoyle, which moved out of atheism observed:

“… A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Hoyle 1981, as quoted from New Proof for the existence of God.

Concluding thoughts

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Remains an inescapable question that any serious thinker should not avoid. For Christian and Jews the answer resides in the great I AM from the Exodus 3:14…however, it is understandable for many other people to inquire and explore such an exhilarating mystery that is to be alive. The point of these series of posts was to provide evidence that it is more reasonable to believe that there is a Creator rather than to think that the universe and life are the result of a great cosmic dance of chance. That reason can point towards a creator and thereby that Christian faith is reasonable. I hope that my amateurish efforts sparked your curiosity to explore this subject in far greater depth that my poor abilities allowed me to do on this page.

I cannot help but to quote St. Augustine, the great Catholic theologian of the fourth century and father of the Church, when looking at creation asked the question: who made you?

“And what is this? I asked the earth, and it answered me, “I am not He;” and whatsoever are in it confessed the same. I asked the sea and the deeps, and the living creeping things, and they answered, “We are not Thy God, seek above us.” I asked the moving air; and the whole air with his inhabitants answered, “Anaximenes was deceived, I am not God.” I asked the heavens, sun, moon, stars, “Nor (say they) are we the God whom thou seek.” And I replied unto all the things, which encompass the door of my flesh: “Ye have told me of my God, that ye are not He; tell me something of Him.” And they cried out with a loud voice, “He made us.”

St. Augustine of Hippo
Confessions Book X

He made us.

God Bless!

 Note: I owed the inspiration for this post to Fr. Benedict Groechel talk, God the Father, which until recently could be found at EWTN for free download. The scientific and philosophical arguments were mostly taken from Fr. Robert Spitzer book: New Proof for the Existence of God.

And there was light: evidence for the origin of our Universe

“Then God said, “Let there be light”, and there was light”.

Genesis 1:3

The concept of creation out of nothing was a completely radical idea in antiquity. It was the Jewish religion that first introduced such a radical concept. Most, if not all, creation myths in antiquity parted from the premise that there was something before the formation of the universe. It is very tempting to point that such radical idea most closely resembles what today’s scientist call the Big Bang.

WMAP_skymap

The Big Bang theory states that the observable universe is the result of a massive explosion that occurred about 13.7 billion years ago. It was as if the universe obeyed God’s command “Let there be light,” and there was the Big Bang. Although the Big Bang theory is agnostic whether or not anything existed before the Big Bang, it clearly argues that our observable universe had a beginning.

Unknown

The idea of the Big Bang was not immediately accepted. The Aristotelian view of an eternal and static universe was accepted scientific theory up to the 1930’s. It was a Jesuit priest named Fr. George Lemaitre that first proposed the idea of a “primeval atom”, which today we called the Big Bang theory. Fr. Lemaitre based his theory on Einstein’s theory of relativity that, states the expansion of space and the discovery that galaxies are accelerating away from each other by astronomers Hubble and Humason in 1929. He argued that if galaxies are moving away from each other, then it follows that the further you go back in time the closer those galaxies are going to be and if you go far enough there is going to be a point where the size of the universe is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a sub-atomic particle: a “primeval atom”. Fr. Lemaitre succinctly explains his theory in the abstract for his 1931 publication in the science journal, Nature:

“SIR ARTHUR EDDINGTON states that, philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to him. I would rather be inclined to think that the present state of quantum theory suggests a beginning of the world very different from the present order of Nature. Thermodynamical principles from the point of view of quantum theory may be stated as follows : (1) Energy of constant total amount is distributed in discrete quanta. (2) The number of distinct quanta is ever increasing. If we go back in the course of time we must find fewer and fewer quanta, until we find all the energy of the universe packed in a few or even in a unique quantum”.

Nature 127, 706 (9 May 1931)

penzias_wilson-2

Ironically, his theory was considered to be too religious by some since it pointed towards a beginning and in doing so it pointed to a creation. The Big Bang was confirmed by the finding of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation by Nobel laureate recipients Penzias and Wilson in 1964 (Picture). Cosmologists Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman predicted this radiation in 1948 to be the remnant radiation of the Big Bang. Its temperature is exactly the temperature that physicists estimated it should be if it was from the Big Bang. Moreover the total amount of helium estimated to be present in the universe could only be accounted by the Big Bang because not enough time has passed for it to be produced by nuclear reactions inside of stars.

There is much speculation as to what happen before the Big Bang. At least two theories propose possible scenarios in which the Big Bang is not the beginning of the universe: eternal inflation and ekpyrotic models. It is not the scope of this post to explain in detail these purely mathematical theories other than to make readers aware that they are current working hypothesis. However, independently whether or not these theories are accurate an elegant mathematical theorem, developed by Borde, Vilenkin and Guth (BVG Theorem), demonstrates that any universe that has a Hubble expansion constant greater than zero has to have a beginning:

“We made no assumptions about the material content of the universe…The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small. This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible”.

Vilenki 2006, p 175 (Taken from “New Proof for the Existence of God”)

In other words, any universe or multi-verse has to have a beginning and since according to the principle of sufficient reason any beginning must have a cause, the question remains what caused the universe to begin?

In my next post, I will discuss, how science demonstrates the infinitesimally small probability that the observable universe was caused by random chance. Taken together the evidence from modern physics and philosophical/metaphysical arguments, it is reasonable to believe that God created the universe, out of nothing.

God Bless!

Please note:

I owed the inspiration of this post to Fr. Benedict Groechel talk, God the Father, which until recently could be found at EWTN for free download. The scientific and philosophical arguments were mostly taken from Fr. Robert Spitzer book: New Proof for the Existence of God.

I hope that I did not do any disservice to their work by my poor abilities to articulate it.

Also note, that there is a third hypothesis that states that the Big Bang is the result of an ongoing cycle of expansion and contractions, each one producing a new big bang and thereby a new universe. I did not include this hypothesis for the sake of brevity and the fact that it has been discredited by the observation that galaxy are moving irreversibly away from each other at an increasingly faster pace. Making it impossible for the predicted Big Crunch to happen. Moreover, evidence from the law of thermodynamics clearly indicates that even in this bouncing universe scenario, it must also have to have a beginning.

First principles: The Principle of Sufficient Reason

I opened in my previous post with a question: why is there something rather than nothing? It is a fair question that emerges from the commonsensical notion that everything has a cause: nothing can come out of nothing. Philosophers refer to this as the principle of sufficient reason. We understand this intuitively because everything around us has a cause. Rain does not magically fall from the sky, but is the result of an atmospheric process that is dependent on many different factors from atmospheric pressure to temperature. These factors, in turn, depend upon other factors for their causation. However, we cannot follow the chain of causation ad infinitum. Something has to be the first cause; otherwise nothing would have come into existence because nothing can come from nothing.

Three of the great religions of the world, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, identified this first cause as God. As I discussed in my previous post, St. Thomas Aquinas, defines this first cause, as an uncaused cause. A cause that is completely independent of anything for his existence, an unconditioned reality. Any alternate explanation cannot violate the principle of sufficient reason.

In the upcoming post, I will discuss scientific evidence that indicates that our observable universe or any universe had a beginning; a point in time where everything began to exist. Some people may disagree about its cause or may hold judgment until new evidence arises, but the fact that our universe had a beginning begs the question what cause it into existence, one worth pondering about.

God Bless!

If you are interested in reading a far better explanation for first cause arguments, please read the following essay by Prof. Peter Kreeft: The First Cause Argument.