The reason I HATE some Catholic priests (some are great, however) is because they either deliberately and knowingly LIE to convince people that their "beliefs" are "true," or they simply refuse to admit that they are presenting their "flock" with biased and highly questionable reasoning and interpretation of evidence, which is often either the simplest of all possible explanations or is simply dead wrong. So even as they claim to ONLY ever be pursuing "truth," they make a mockery of the entire enterprise, just to save their job. Take the example of Fr. Robert Barron.
I just watched a clip on Word On Fire with Fr Robert Barron. Don't get me wrong, Fr. Barron is a likeable, affable, intelligent Catholic priest who follows his vocation perhaps to a fault, and all to convince the world, or maybe just himself, that science cannot prove, nor should it ever try to prove, that God does not exist. The problem, as Barron sees it, is that science cannot find God because God is not a scientific being. Science can only illuminate for us the what, while the "why" is reserved as the playground of Philosophy and Religion.
There are definable differences, obviously, between science, philosophy, and religion. Science is the means by which we try to know and understand what our universe, and our reality, actually is. Philosophy and Religion, on the other hand, are attempts to understand what it all means. In other words, philosophy and religion simply interpret what science discovers. But the "meaning" is exclusively our own, since no matter how much people like Fr. Barron reference some "holy bible" or a "god," there is no evidence that we are doing anything other than manufacturing "higher meanings" all on our own.
The difference between philosophy and religion, then, is that the former tries to arrive at that meaning by continually shedding the skin of its predecessors, while the latter often tries to do so by trying to put it back on. One tries to prove previous "traditions" of thinking are wrong, and why, while the other only ever works to preserve those "traditions" and ideas as right, even to the point that people are willing to die (and more often even kill) to preserve those traditions.
But the ways of yesterday have never been adequate to understand or even remedy the problems of tomorrow, for such traditions and ideas simply ignore the exponential changes that accompany the evolution of human understanding and technology.
To use another analogy, think of the family. Both philosophers and theologians can be thought of as families, who pass down and inherit from their fathers (and mothers) the DNA of their ideas and arguments. But philosophy is more ravenous and religion more reserved. Philosophy will eat it's young after sharpening its teeth on the bones of its elders, while religion often tries to nurture its young by protecting its elders. Indeed, philosophy is a cannibal while religion is a vegetarian. Philosophy is liberal while religion is conservative. Or, to use a Biblical reference, Philosophy is Cain and Religion is Able.
Fr Barron mentions the Greek phrase, "ex nihilo nihil fit: which means " from nothing comes nothing." This is an expression first argued by Parmenidies, according to Wikipedia. The Roman poet Lucretius also used a similar term in his work De Rerum Natura (On The Nature of Things). Wikipedia explains that "this term is associated with ancient Greek cosmology," and was not just "as presented... in the opus of Homer and Hesiod, but also in virtually every philosophical system - there is no time interval in which a world didn't exist, since it couldn't be created "ex nihilo" in the first place."
While Parmenidies accepted this idea as true, Lucretius rejected it as false. Many Christians have, and continue to, rely on this argument as the backbone of their reasoning for faith. But today, there are cosmologists, physicists, and even Christian theologians who actually agree more with Lucretius than Parmenidies.
REASONING FLAW IN EX NIHILIO CREATION:
Here's the first problem, as I see it, with the Ex Nihilio Creation Arguments that Fr. Barron seems to ignore or miss altogether: if the idea that "nothing comes from nothing" is an absolute law that somehow proves, or at least suggests, that God created everything, than where did God come from? If God was eternally there, as many Christians often reply, than whatever God "was" was there eternally as well. And if whatever "was" God was there just as eternally as God was there, how can we tell the difference between the presence of "God-like stuff" that was not God and God? Another way to put it is, how do we get from the idea that "something" created the universe from nothing to the idea that that "something" must of been God? And if nothing comes from nothing, than God could not have come from nothing, nor could he have created the universe out of "nothing" per se, both he and the universe would have to come from something.
But if we argue that God is the exception to the rule of Ex Nihilio nihil fit, and that indeed He (God) could create everything from nothing, then we are admitting there can be exceptions to the rule of Ex nihilio nihil fitt. Yet what we don't have is an explanation for why Fr. Barron is willing to accept a religious explanation that contradicts the rule he defends, but rejects numerous scientific explanations that defend the rule he willingly contradicts? And if there is at least one exception, as Fr. Barron is willing to accept, why can't there be others?
SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS AGAISNT Ex Nihilio Creation
In addition to the theological arguments agaisnt an Ex Nihilio Creation, there are some scientific explanations that propose that "everything" did not in fact come from "nothing" as Fr. Barron suggests. One explanation is the Zero energy universe, while another is called "quantum fluctuation."
The Zero- Energy Universe is "a widely supported hypothesis in modern physics ... which states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero." This is the only kind of universe that could come from "nothing," argues this hypothesis. "Such a universe would have to be flat in shape, a state which does not contradict current observations that the Universe is flat with a 0.5% margin of error."
A "zero-energy universe" is a universe in which the amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by the negative energy in the form of gravity." The FREE LUNCH Interpretation of a zero-energy universe says the negative gravitational energy that contracts is balanced with the positive energy that expands. The idea is that these two energies are constant and opposite, and thus "inflate" a flat universe. Such a view has been considered to be consistent with astronomical observations.
Additionally, there is also what is called a "quantum fluctuation." In this idea, "A gravitational field has negative energy. Matter has positive energy. The two values cancel out provided the universe is completely flat. In that case the universe has zero energy and can theoretically last forever"
Lastly, there are some Cosmological arguments suggested by "physicists Paul Steinhardt (Princeton University) and Neil Turok (Cambridge University), who offer an alternative to ex nihilo creation. Their proposal stems from the ancient idea that space and time have always existed in some form. Using developments in string theory, Steinhardt and Turok suggest the Big Bang of our universe as a bridge to a pre-existing universe, and speculate that creation undergoes an eternal succession of universes, with possibly trillions of years of evolution in each. Gravity and the transition from Big Crunch to Big Bang characterize an everlasting succession of universes.
.
These ideas do not prove there is no God, nor do they prove that everything did or did not come from nothing. They only show that there is more than one way of looking at the question of "where did everything come from?" and that we can answer that question without necessarily having to jump to the conclusion that God did it in the conservatory.
All of these ideas, as well as the ones that follow, can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo
And as always, I encourage readers to look deeper, and dig further, into what we believe.
THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST EX NIHILIO CREATION
In addition to the scientific arguments above, there is also opposition within modern Christian theology.
Thomas Jay Oord (born 1965), a Christian philosopher and theologian, argues that Christians should abandon the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Oord points to the work of biblical scholars, such as Jon D. Levenson, who point out that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo does not appear in Genesis. Oord speculates that God created our particular universe billions of years ago from primordial chaos. This chaos did not predate God, however, for God would have created the chaotic elements as well. Oord suggests that God can create all things without creating from absolute nothingness.
Oord offers nine objections to creatio ex nihilo:
So it is not just atheists and scientists that disagree with Fr. Barron. Even in Fr. Barron's home turf of religion there is disagreement with, and arguments against, the idea of Ex Nihilo, Nihil fit.
CONCLUSION:
Although these arguments do not necessarily prove who is right or wrong regarding this idea, it does prove that Fr. Barron is breaking his own rule. That is, for Fr. Barron, it is not that "from nothing comes nothing," but that "from nothing" comes his idea of God. The "nothing" that Barron says can produce "nothing" has in fact produced an idea, and that idea then fills the "nothingness" with itself. Fr. Barron, like countless others, then gazes upon that idea until he falls in love with it, never realizing it was merely a reflection. In this way, the Theist becomes Narcissus, and simply falls in love with himself.
In the end, I can only guess at the meaning of the reality around me, which is all that anyone can do. And this piece is not to show that Fr. Barron is flat wrong, so much as to those the ideas he touches upon are far more complicated, interesting, and unsettled, than Fr. Barron would lead us to believe. As such, the only defense we have against deceptions of every kind and degree, is to think for ourselves. And for anyone who took the time to read this, I certainly hope you will do just that.
I just watched a clip on Word On Fire with Fr Robert Barron. Don't get me wrong, Fr. Barron is a likeable, affable, intelligent Catholic priest who follows his vocation perhaps to a fault, and all to convince the world, or maybe just himself, that science cannot prove, nor should it ever try to prove, that God does not exist. The problem, as Barron sees it, is that science cannot find God because God is not a scientific being. Science can only illuminate for us the what, while the "why" is reserved as the playground of Philosophy and Religion.
There are definable differences, obviously, between science, philosophy, and religion. Science is the means by which we try to know and understand what our universe, and our reality, actually is. Philosophy and Religion, on the other hand, are attempts to understand what it all means. In other words, philosophy and religion simply interpret what science discovers. But the "meaning" is exclusively our own, since no matter how much people like Fr. Barron reference some "holy bible" or a "god," there is no evidence that we are doing anything other than manufacturing "higher meanings" all on our own.
The difference between philosophy and religion, then, is that the former tries to arrive at that meaning by continually shedding the skin of its predecessors, while the latter often tries to do so by trying to put it back on. One tries to prove previous "traditions" of thinking are wrong, and why, while the other only ever works to preserve those "traditions" and ideas as right, even to the point that people are willing to die (and more often even kill) to preserve those traditions.
But the ways of yesterday have never been adequate to understand or even remedy the problems of tomorrow, for such traditions and ideas simply ignore the exponential changes that accompany the evolution of human understanding and technology.
To use another analogy, think of the family. Both philosophers and theologians can be thought of as families, who pass down and inherit from their fathers (and mothers) the DNA of their ideas and arguments. But philosophy is more ravenous and religion more reserved. Philosophy will eat it's young after sharpening its teeth on the bones of its elders, while religion often tries to nurture its young by protecting its elders. Indeed, philosophy is a cannibal while religion is a vegetarian. Philosophy is liberal while religion is conservative. Or, to use a Biblical reference, Philosophy is Cain and Religion is Able.
Fr Barron mentions the Greek phrase, "ex nihilo nihil fit: which means " from nothing comes nothing." This is an expression first argued by Parmenidies, according to Wikipedia. The Roman poet Lucretius also used a similar term in his work De Rerum Natura (On The Nature of Things). Wikipedia explains that "this term is associated with ancient Greek cosmology," and was not just "as presented... in the opus of Homer and Hesiod, but also in virtually every philosophical system - there is no time interval in which a world didn't exist, since it couldn't be created "ex nihilo" in the first place."
While Parmenidies accepted this idea as true, Lucretius rejected it as false. Many Christians have, and continue to, rely on this argument as the backbone of their reasoning for faith. But today, there are cosmologists, physicists, and even Christian theologians who actually agree more with Lucretius than Parmenidies.
REASONING FLAW IN EX NIHILIO CREATION:
Here's the first problem, as I see it, with the Ex Nihilio Creation Arguments that Fr. Barron seems to ignore or miss altogether: if the idea that "nothing comes from nothing" is an absolute law that somehow proves, or at least suggests, that God created everything, than where did God come from? If God was eternally there, as many Christians often reply, than whatever God "was" was there eternally as well. And if whatever "was" God was there just as eternally as God was there, how can we tell the difference between the presence of "God-like stuff" that was not God and God? Another way to put it is, how do we get from the idea that "something" created the universe from nothing to the idea that that "something" must of been God? And if nothing comes from nothing, than God could not have come from nothing, nor could he have created the universe out of "nothing" per se, both he and the universe would have to come from something.
But if we argue that God is the exception to the rule of Ex Nihilio nihil fit, and that indeed He (God) could create everything from nothing, then we are admitting there can be exceptions to the rule of Ex nihilio nihil fitt. Yet what we don't have is an explanation for why Fr. Barron is willing to accept a religious explanation that contradicts the rule he defends, but rejects numerous scientific explanations that defend the rule he willingly contradicts? And if there is at least one exception, as Fr. Barron is willing to accept, why can't there be others?
SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS AGAISNT Ex Nihilio Creation
In addition to the theological arguments agaisnt an Ex Nihilio Creation, there are some scientific explanations that propose that "everything" did not in fact come from "nothing" as Fr. Barron suggests. One explanation is the Zero energy universe, while another is called "quantum fluctuation."
The Zero- Energy Universe is "a widely supported hypothesis in modern physics ... which states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero." This is the only kind of universe that could come from "nothing," argues this hypothesis. "Such a universe would have to be flat in shape, a state which does not contradict current observations that the Universe is flat with a 0.5% margin of error."
A "zero-energy universe" is a universe in which the amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by the negative energy in the form of gravity." The FREE LUNCH Interpretation of a zero-energy universe says the negative gravitational energy that contracts is balanced with the positive energy that expands. The idea is that these two energies are constant and opposite, and thus "inflate" a flat universe. Such a view has been considered to be consistent with astronomical observations.
Additionally, there is also what is called a "quantum fluctuation." In this idea, "A gravitational field has negative energy. Matter has positive energy. The two values cancel out provided the universe is completely flat. In that case the universe has zero energy and can theoretically last forever"
Lastly, there are some Cosmological arguments suggested by "physicists Paul Steinhardt (Princeton University) and Neil Turok (Cambridge University), who offer an alternative to ex nihilo creation. Their proposal stems from the ancient idea that space and time have always existed in some form. Using developments in string theory, Steinhardt and Turok suggest the Big Bang of our universe as a bridge to a pre-existing universe, and speculate that creation undergoes an eternal succession of universes, with possibly trillions of years of evolution in each. Gravity and the transition from Big Crunch to Big Bang characterize an everlasting succession of universes.
.
These ideas do not prove there is no God, nor do they prove that everything did or did not come from nothing. They only show that there is more than one way of looking at the question of "where did everything come from?" and that we can answer that question without necessarily having to jump to the conclusion that God did it in the conservatory.
All of these ideas, as well as the ones that follow, can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo
And as always, I encourage readers to look deeper, and dig further, into what we believe.
THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST EX NIHILIO CREATION
In addition to the scientific arguments above, there is also opposition within modern Christian theology.
Thomas Jay Oord (born 1965), a Christian philosopher and theologian, argues that Christians should abandon the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Oord points to the work of biblical scholars, such as Jon D. Levenson, who point out that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo does not appear in Genesis. Oord speculates that God created our particular universe billions of years ago from primordial chaos. This chaos did not predate God, however, for God would have created the chaotic elements as well. Oord suggests that God can create all things without creating from absolute nothingness.
Oord offers nine objections to creatio ex nihilo:
- Theoretical problem: One cannot conceive absolute nothingness. (Indeed, Fr. Barron simply assumes two things when he uses the word "nothing".
- That everyone knows, and agrees, on exactly what "nothing" means
- And that "nothing" means exactly the same thing in our existence of time and space, as it would in every other possible existence, even those without time and space.
- Biblical problem: Scripture – in Genesis, 2 Peter, and elsewhere – suggests creation from something (water, deep, chaos, etc.), not creation from absolutely nothing.
- Historical problem: The Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus first proposed creatio ex nihilo on the basis of assuming the inherently evil nature of creation, and in the belief that God does not act in history. Early Christian theologians adopted the idea to affirm the kind of absolute divine power that many Christians now reject.
- Empirical problem: We have no evidence that our universe originally came into being from absolutely nothing.
- Creation-at-an-instant problem: We have no evidence in the history of the universe after the big bang that entities can emerge instantaneously from absolute nothingness.As the earliest philosophers noted, out of nothing comes nothing (ex nihilo, nihil fit).
- Solitary power problem: Creatio ex nihilo assumes that a powerful God once acted alone. But power, as a social concept, only becomes meaningful in relation to others.
- Errant revelation problem: The God with the capacity to create something from absolutely nothing would apparently have the power to guarantee an unambiguous and inerrant message of salvation But an unambiguously clear and inerrant divine revelation does not exist.
- Problem of Evil: If God once had the power to create from absolutely nothing, God essentially retains that power. But a God of love with this capacity appears culpable for failing to prevent genuine evil.
- Empire Problem: The kind of divine power implied in creatio ex nihilo supports a theology of empire, based upon unilateral force and control of others.
Nor are such objections limited to Christians. The Vedanta schools of Hinduism reject the concept of creation ex nihilo for several reasons as well. For example:
- both types of revelatory texts (śruti and smṛti) designate matter as eternal although completely dependent on God—the Absolute Truth (param satyam)
- believers then have to attribute all the evil ingrained in material life to God, making Him partial and arbitrary, which does not logically accord with His nature
So it is not just atheists and scientists that disagree with Fr. Barron. Even in Fr. Barron's home turf of religion there is disagreement with, and arguments against, the idea of Ex Nihilo, Nihil fit.
CONCLUSION:
Although these arguments do not necessarily prove who is right or wrong regarding this idea, it does prove that Fr. Barron is breaking his own rule. That is, for Fr. Barron, it is not that "from nothing comes nothing," but that "from nothing" comes his idea of God. The "nothing" that Barron says can produce "nothing" has in fact produced an idea, and that idea then fills the "nothingness" with itself. Fr. Barron, like countless others, then gazes upon that idea until he falls in love with it, never realizing it was merely a reflection. In this way, the Theist becomes Narcissus, and simply falls in love with himself.
In the end, I can only guess at the meaning of the reality around me, which is all that anyone can do. And this piece is not to show that Fr. Barron is flat wrong, so much as to those the ideas he touches upon are far more complicated, interesting, and unsettled, than Fr. Barron would lead us to believe. As such, the only defense we have against deceptions of every kind and degree, is to think for ourselves. And for anyone who took the time to read this, I certainly hope you will do just that.
Comments
Post a Comment