Vulcan's Mercy

DOES GOD ANSWER OUR PRAYERS?

The media has recently reported on a scientific study that calls into question the efficacy of intercessory prayers for the sick.  When I heard about that, I wonder how such a study could even be controlled to produce reliable results (beyond the obvious problem of dealing with God's inscrutability).  The American Phoenix has written a fine piece on just that topic and notes some of methodological issues to be considered, among other things:

There are also, of course, several scientific limitations to studies of this type that should not be ignored, including:

• The difficulty of obtaining "pure" control groups in such research.  For example, in prayer studies, particularly those involving very ill patients, the controls who are not being experimentally prayed for or sent healing intentions as part of the study are likely to nonetheless receive prayers and positive mental intentions from friends, loved ones, and others. The same is also true for the prayer group, in addition to the control group.
• Insufficient sample sizes in the studies to date.  Most of these studies have been conducted with only a few hundred volunteers.
• The lack of controls for psychological factors such as depression, anxiety, sense of control, and self-efficacy which are known to be factors in physical outcomes.
• The lack of an appropriate objective measure to determine the degree of a person's religious convictions.

In addition to the scientific limitations, there are also philosophical/theological limitations to such studies.

• It cannot be known how or even whether God will act in a particular situation.  If we assume that God answers every prayer, aren't we turning God into some automaton who does our will and not His own?
• A negative outcome may not necessarily mean that a prayer has not been answered.
• The assumption that a benevolent God would respond only to the prayers of or on behalf of persons in the treatment group, when many persons in the control group will probably pray for themselves and will be prayed for by friends and loved ones.  Most Christians don't believe that God cares only for those who pray.
• The assumption that a compassionate God who intends the well-being of all humankind responds only to the needs of those who pray or are prayed for.  In the Christian milieu, atheists are also children of God.  God's grace is not distributed only to Christians.
• These studies only concern intercessory prayer - prayer as a request.  They do not cover the prayer of the Eucharist, prayers of adoration, prayers of thanksgiving or any other type of prayer.  Thus, notions of prayer as contained in these studies are extremely limited.

Read the entire article.  It's well worth it.

SCIENCE ISN'T EVERYTHING

Science gulls us into trusting it as the only explanation we need of the world because that part which it does explain, it explains brilliantly.  So brilliantly in fact that we have come to ignore the rest of the world that science cannot explain.  Or if we can't quite ignore it, we dismiss it as either nonsense that only the ill-educated or feeble-minded take seriously or a black hole of subjectivity that permits only opinion and no knowledge.

The Real Physicist, Lawrence Gage, argues in this essay for us to remove the blinkers that we have let our love affair with science blind us to the full realm of causation in the universe.  He points out how by common sense we should recognize that the ancient Aristotelian four-fold scheme of causation more completely explains our world than modern science's reduction of everything to matter and mechanics.

Gage concludes with this sound advice:

"It strikes me that today's Christians shouldn't fall into the trap of letting the secular world dictate the terms of discussion. Instead of letting God be boxed into the Enlightenment's one-dimensional notion of causation, modern Christians should reclaim their ancient patrimony in which God (through Jesus Christ) is the atemporal cause of all that is temporal, the reason by which anything is intelligible, by which everything is, and for which it exists."

Indeed.

THE DANGERS OF APPETITE

Yesterday I rambled long in "The Inauthenticity of Authenticity" about the postmodernist embrace of appetite and impulse as the path of self-discovery that is in fact the route to self-destruction.  David Klinghoffer in a recent "National Review" article touches upon my theme, but, among other useful insights, frames it more as a perennial struggle of man to transcend his animal nature to become fully human as God intended him to be.  Quite true, as I will later explain how the postmodern man's virtue of authenticity is related to Original Sin.

THE UNCAUSED CAUSE REDUX

[Note:  Correspondent Ryan G. posted an interesting response to my “Uncaused Cause” article.  This prompted further consideration of the subject by me that I think is better presented here as a new article rather than in the comment section.]

Ryan,

My “Uncaused Cause” article was an empirical approach to the kalam cosmological argument, which states that everything that begins has a cause.  I expressed this in terms of the natural (all that begins) and the supernatural (an eternal creator of the natural).  Implicit in this distinction vis-a-vis the kalam cosmological argument is that a natural (that is, physical) entity that has no beginning would give rise to special pleading:  All of nature requires a cause except that which is necessary to rule out the existence of the supernatural.  Because that is specious, we can infer from the kalam cosmological argument the distinction I made between natural entities (they must have a beginning because they are uniformly subject to the laws of our universe) and a supernatural creator (who as the creator of those laws need not submit to them).

THE QUESTION REMAINS

With this in mind, let’s consider what you had to say.  I am not disputing the lack of dimensionality featured in the conventional models of quantum mechanics and the Big Bang.  I also don’t dispute the astounding dimensionality of the string hypothesis which, if proven, would knock a lot of holes in those models.  The science regarding the foundation of the universe remains unsettled, and my argument does not rest upon these particulars.  It rests upon the indisputable scientific observations that our universe is finite in space and time.  As such, it has a cause.

If I understand you correctly, Ryan, you argue that our universe did not have a beginning because it existed as a timeless, spaceless singularity, a dimensionless void containing all the matter of our universe, “before” it exploded as the Big Bang.   OK, let’s say that’s true.  A cause was still needed to change that matter from a formless singularity into the form of our universe.  So, your argument does not eliminate a first cause, at least in relation to the form of our universe.  That still leaves us with the question of whether that cause was natural or supernatural.

A WORD ABOUT THE SUPERNATURAL

Before we go further, let me be clear about what I mean by supernatural.  I do not mean the superstition of New Age frippery or Halloween spooks.  I mean that which is superior to nature in the same manner in which a creator is superior to his creation.  A creator transcends his creation by bringing to it function thus form that the mere matter composing it can never bring about itself.  A creator is independent of his creation, whereas the origin of his creation is entirely dependent upon his will.  For example, a sculpture cannot exist without and prior to its sculptor, although the sculptor can surely exist without the sculpture.

DEAD ENDS

Now let’s consider what a natural cause of our universe, at least its transformation from a singularity, would entail.  It would have to be either internal or external to the singularity.  If it is internal and the singularity is timeless, then as a physical – therefore deterministic – entity the singularity could not exist in any state except that which was necessary and sufficient for that internal cause to bring about the event of the Big Bang.  If so, because no time exists to separate the events that would allow the development of a cause internal to the singularity, then the singularity could not exist except as the Big Bang.  Thus, the singularity and the Big Bang would be identical; it could not exist apart from that event occasioning the beginning our universe.  So, a natural cause internal to the singularity leaves us treading water.  We’re still in the same place when it comes to inquiring into the uncaused cause of our universe.

If the natural cause were external, then all the singularity would need to possess is the potential to explode as the Big Bang upon its interaction with the necessary outside forces.  Having only potentiality, it could exist in a state distinct from the Big Bang.  However, because all the known laws of physics break down in the singularity, it is nothing but sheer speculation as what the physical structure and mechanics of this existence would be.  Nevertheless, I think there is a reasonable metaphysical statement we can make about a natural cause of the Big Bang that is external to the singularity:  Either that external cause is part of a finite series of events culminating in the creation of our universe or it is a link in a chain of infinite regression.

I think you’ll agree that if it is the former, then all that has happened is that we punted the uncaused cause to another point.  Nothing is resolved by positing a natural cause of the Big Bang in this manner.  Similarly, if it is the latter, we are back to the flaw I cited in the naturalist’s argument:  The law of causation, which is ironclad in its application to all physical entities we have observed in nature, is contradicted by the existence of a physical entity (either the singularity, the structure within which it exists, or both) without a cause.  This is but one of the perversities that arise from reifying infinity, which is nothing more than a mathematical concept.  Mathematics is an entirely mental construct.  It is, like language and logic, a method to obtain knowledge but has no physical aspect.  Infinity is no more a quality of nature than the word “cat” is actually a cat.

A KNOWN DIMENSIONLESS PHENOMENON

Of course, Ryan, infinity is moot if a dimensionless singularity exists subject to a structure capable of acting upon it that is also without dimension.  But then we must acknowledge that a structure capable of effecting so fundamental a change in the singularity as to turn it into our universe is superior to it.  Furthermore, each and everyone of us knows of a dimensionless structure that is capable of manipulating nature:  The consciousness each of us possesses.  Therefore, we needn’t argue from ignorance that the timeless, spaceless structure external to the singularity that caused it to explode as the Big Bang must be a physical entity, because there is no other rational explanation.  We can reason that consciousness – a known dimensionless, non-physical, indeed immaterial, phenomenon – is that structure.

Such a consciousness would be supernatural in the sense previously described, because it would be superior to all nature (at least all nature that we can know from the evolution of the singularity into our universe) by causing that nature to exist.  Furthermore, as a consciousness it could act as an agent, free of the deterministic restraints that rule physical entities.  By that I mean it would possess the volition to act that is not dependent upon preceding conditions – i.e., it would have free will.

THE RELEVANCE OF FORM

Therefore, in the same manner that a sculptor can freely choose whether or not to fashion formless clay into a sculpture, this consciousness would have the power to freely choose whether or not to fashion a formless singularity into our universe.  Moreover, we can comprehend how this consciousness could bring the form of our universe to the void of the singularity just as the sculptor brings the form of his artistic vision to a lump of clay.  By the form of our universe I mean the precise fine-tuning of dozens of physical constants (i.e., the anthropic principle) and the fortuitous arrangement of matter (i.e., the “Rare Earth” hypothesis) that have made possible the existence of human beings.

Where else could this form come from?  How can form arise from within the formlessness of the singularity?  It cannot.  It must have imbued with form from without.  We know of no physical process except chance that could have produced the form of our universe.  Furthermore, as form implies function, we have no reason to believe that any purely physical process could have devised the form of our universe for the purpose of functioning as a habitat for human beings.  Yet, once again, we know of the one thing that can produce extremely complex form in service to function – consciousness, a mind.  Of course, it is this mind, this structure external to the singularity that exploded as the Big Bang and inaugurated our universe, that Christians, Jews, and others recognize as God the Creator.

In conclusion, reason leads to the belief that the uncaused cause of our universe is supernatural.  That supernatural cause, the mind of God, explains the physics, form, and function of our universe.  It is non-contradictory and applies known phenomena.  However, a natural cause either does nothing more than push the question elsewhere or results in apparent contradictions to which the only appeal is to ignorance – i.e., we don’t know how now, but we’ll figure out a naturalistic explanation someday.

Thanks, Ryan, for your remarks that prompted this discourse.

Regards, Bill

CALLING IT SCIENCE DOESN'T MAKE IT SO

A regular correspondent of mine at the Local Area Watch website, Steve Goulet, had a comment about this article in which I criticized the media's coverage of the recent announcement by the National Academy of Sciences that appeared to support the notion that global warming is threat to humanity.  He disagreed with my contemptuous dismissal of the herd's consensus on this issue by stating, "While I don't claim any expertise in this domain of science, I do put my trust in the global consensus that has grown out of peer reviewed scientific due process."  He thought I would do well to do the same.  I demurred ...

Steve,

It is a matter of thinking for yourself. No one disagrees that the Earth has been in a warming trend since the last ice age. No one disagrees that this trend has occurred in the form of warming and cooling cycles, lasting about six or seven centuries. No one disagrees that the last warming peak was in the Middle Ages (the Medieval Climate Optimum) and that the last cold spell (the Little Ice Age) bottomed out around 1700. No one disagrees that there has been a less than one degree Celsius increase in average temperature over the past one hundred years, and most of that increase occurred before 1940.

So, the fact that we are presently in the upswing of an established climate cycle is unremarkable. We may even be near the peak if the cycle holds. Furthermore, the increase in temperature that has actually been measured is mild to say the least -- less than one degree Celsius over the past century.

Moreover, people overlook that the average RANGE of temperatures over the same period is huge in comparison. Heck, the difference between night and day alone is usually ten degrees or more. In other words, the normal variation in temperature from year to year has not produced disaster. So even if the scaremongering models of global warming are correct (and they're not, because they cannot even replicate what has historically happened within a factor of ten), we have no reason to believe that the results will be adverse to us.

And you don't have to take my word for it. Read all of the peer-reviewed works of scientists receiving grants or salaries from governments and organizations who have, a priori, determined global warming is a threat. Note how their conclusions are hedged. There is a reason why so few make firm statements about this phenomenon as a threat. They really don't know.

And this brings me to my final point. Scientists may practice science, but they are also human beings. There is no valid reason why I should not apply my knowledge of human nature to what they do to evaluate the reliability of their work. Calling it science doesn't make it so. It is the responsibility of the layman to consider such things critically and not just take the word of the authorities.

Regards, Bill

SPRING HAS SPRUNG

I saw my first robin of the new year.  Here at the edge of the great northern forest that's the official sign that spring is here.  (So, I'll gas up the snowblower for the blizzard we can expect this weekend. ;)

THE PROBLEM WITH INFINITY

When a person who gives serious thought to things states a reasonable belief contrary to my own, I often pause to reflect upon it.  After all, I can’t correct my mistakes, if I never entertain the possibility of error.  Such an opportunity for reflection arose in a recent discussion I had with Regi Firehammer, a student of Objectivism, about the existence of God.  I stated my belief that God existed as the creator of our universe.  An important basis for that belief is my observation that the universe is finite.  Regi firmly disagreed:  The universe is infinite.

Is it?  Well, I also had thought it was infinite for a long time.  Why did I think that?  I realized that my belief in an infinite universe had been predicated upon a confusion between infinity and very large numbers.  However, Regi is a careful thinker with an enviable precision in the concepts he expresses.  He wasn’t making the blunder I had in my callow youth.  So I began to mull over what would constitute a reasonable basis for the belief that the universe is infinite.

To my surprise (and to my satisfaction), this wasn’t easy.

First of all, the attribute of infinity is not one any of us has experienced.  No one has ever perceived either the boundless or the eternal.  And this is not just a function of our own finite nature that blinds our perception of infinity.  We experience boundaries and duration in all things, either directly or indirectly (with one profound exception discussed below).  Everything we have observed is finite – including the universe.  The discovery of a pervasive cosmic background of microwave radiation indicates both a size and an age for the universe, at least in its present form.  We are unable to peer beyond this cosmic wall and science presently offers no prospect that we ever will.

Thus, knowledge of an infinite universe is not empirical.  Indeed, our exploration of the universe itself reveals boundaries in both space and time.  But are these the boundaries of the universe, the realm of all that has existed, does exist, and will ever exist?  Are they instead the boundaries of only that portion of the universe we occupy, either spatially or temporally?  If that cosmic wall of microwave radiation only partitions the here and the now from the boundless and the eternal universe, how does anyone obtain true knowledge of that infinity?

Through reason?  A common argument for an infinite universe is that very existence of a boundary assumes the existence of time (in the case of an origin) or space (in the case of a cosmic wall) external to it that must logically lead to the conclusion of either an infinite progression of boundaries or an unimpeded infinite expanse.  The fallacy here is the reification of time and space.  These are relationships between existents, nothing more.  If nothing existed before the origin of the universe or if nothing exists beyond the cosmic wall, there exists no time or space to fill.  In other words, there are no temporal or spatial relationships to connect something – i.e., the universe – to nothing.  So the argument of infinite progression fails as proof that the universe cannot be finite.

But the failure of that argument does not settle the issue in favor of a finite universe.  The law of conservation appears to run contrary to it, at least in terms of time.  We know of no process that can either create or destroy the fundamental physical constituents of the universe.  However, there are any number of processes by which matter changes to energy and vice versa, and by which the entropy of matter and energy in a system increases or decreases.  In short, form can be created or destroyed, but not substance.  So if the law of conservation is inviolable, how can there be a creation event?  Nonetheless, the law of conversation does not imply an infinite universe.

It should be obvious that conservation can be true of a finite amount of matter and energy.  Any finite number of entities has a finite number and magnitude of spatial relationships.  Therefore, a spatially infinite universe cannot be concluded from the law of conservation.  But what about an eternal universe, one that is temporally infinite?  What does it mean to say that an entity, or group of entities, has always existed in relationship to itself?  How can this self-referential temporal relationship be identified?  The law of identity requires a difference between one existent and another, but where is the difference that permits the identity of the attribute of eternal existence for each and every quantum component of the physical universe?  The conclusion of an eternal universe requires conservation to trump identity.

Let’s say that is the case when it comes to the fundamental physical constituents of the universe.  The law of conservation remains inapplicable to the durability of any particular form the universe takes.  Even if the physical quanta of the universe have existed forever, conservation does not drive the conclusion that the present physics and structure of the universe are eternal.  There is still the finitude of form, even on the grandest scales, that is entirely consistent with everything we actually experience about and within the universe.

A finite universe accords with experience and reason.   A spatially infinite universe is not presently supported by scientific observation and would lead to the same breakdown in the law of identity as a temporally infinite universe does, except that there is no rationale – e.g., the conservation of matter and energy – to salvage a reasonable belief in unbounded space.  If the law of conservation does supplant temporal, if not spatial, identity and the universe is eternal, none of that requires the conclusion that its present form is eternal.  (Nor does it foreclose upon the possibility of a closed loop in time.)  At the end of the day, we must reckon with a universe in the here and now that empirically and rationally appears to be finite.

Existence exists is axiomatic, but it does no more than require the acknowledgment that an entity or any collection of entities occupies a certain amount of time and space.  It does not demand a belief in the infinity of all existence.  But what if it does permit the belief despite the empirical and rational objections I have raised?  What if the universe were infinite in time and space?  What are the implications?  What cannot happen in an infinitely capacious universe unbounded by either time or space?  What could not develop from such unlimited resources?  How many bountiful oases like Planet Earth would there be?  How many times could intelligent beings spring from these unnumbered gardens of life?  Can it be certain that from the multitude of intelligent beings birthed by an infinite universe, none in turn planted his own garden?

In short, how does a belief in an infinite universe logically preclude for the atheist the existence of God as the creator of man?

Such are the problems with infinity.