Time to Write!

When, at the end of February, I saw “Merry Christmas” on my last blog post, my first thought was that I am behind again. My life has almost always seemed that way, at least as I remember it. There is more in it than I can keep up with, and I’m not sure if that’s true for everyone or just some of us.

I won’t go into details, as all of us know how it is to grow up in an age where there is much to learn in school, much going on with relationships, much to cope with at work. I think some roll with situations quickly, where others want to reflect on them, which takes time.

I have been very blessed to have the necessities of life, although sometimes I had to work for them harder than other times. Even in the times I haven’t had a conventional type of job, there are many things I’d like to say (and write), and to read, and to do, but can’t do them all. 

I repeatedly go to the Lord to ask for discernment to put things in order of importance so that I can tackle what I can without being totally bogged down. Discernment itself can be difficult, but it involves faith that Jesus hears and helps. I believe He keeps me going even though my rate seems slower, most of the time, than I think it should be or that others have. Then I must develop the confidence that I am falling in step with God and not really behind at all.

God can provide the sturdy footing for each of us to find our best pace.

Discernment's Center

Why is it wrong for a Christian to claim that everyone is a child of God? After all, we believe one God (in the form of a Trinity of the Father, the Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit) created the universe and ultimately all humans. What many seem to be missing is that even though we are all created in God’s image, He gives a specific path for acceptance as His children. And this power is given through faith in the Son. Jesus Christ, Who came to the world, lived a perfect life, died and rose for our sins. God wants us to recognize that we sin and that our salvation comes through Christ. And God wants us to tell this to everyone we can--not to leave others in ignorance of Him.

In the Bible, the Apostle John says we are allowed to be children of God if we believe in the Word, Jesus Christ:

But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name…(John 1:9-12 NABRE).

In my opinion, this viewpoint can be seen only one way.

There are those who think God will accept everyone. Though we might think that persons who never heard of Christ may be allowed into His kingdom, we must remember that if we have heard of Him we have to evaluate our own faith. If you believe it doesn’t matter what religion other persons are, your own faith and therefore discernment are in trouble. Those who have the opportunity to know Jesus and shrug Him off as one of many choices are worse off than those who have never heard of Him. It is God’s business to decide who comes into His kingdom; it is our job to recognize that for those who do fully know about Him, belief in Christ is the only way to heaven.

This subject relates to another: many people want to see world peace, which we think of as certainly a worthy cause. Especially for those affected by war, it may seem of primary importance. Yet some Christians hold the importance of Earthly peace so high that their worldview seems to put it even above the centrality of Christianity. Here again we have the idea put forth that all religions have the same God, all are children of God. But if you believe Christianity as the only True answer, worldly peace is secondary to evangelization. We must carry the message so all can know Christ, even if it means worldly tensions.

As a Jesuit, Pope Francis claims to seek discernment. Discernment is a method by which a person determines his or her vocation, and also a life-long quest to seek God’s will. The Jesuits are a religious order founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola. In 1522-1524 Ignatius wrote recommendations for spiritual discernment in his book, The Spiritual Exercises (some background and description at Wikipedia HERE. Through this, the members make great effort to tune themselves toward discernment of God’s will.

However, it has been shown that sometimes those who believe they are experts of God’s will have been wrong in their discernment. For example, US Jesuits who ran Georgetown University in the 1800’s owned slaves and then sold these humans to plantation owners of the deeper South in order to financially save the school (Wikipedia HERE). Though slavery was legal at the time, it should not have been considered a moral choice by the Jesuits—those who claimed to know the will of the Lord. Even though the Bible mentions slavery, St. Paul was advising those who had to endure it due to outside influences, not endorsing it as a Christian institution. And the end--a solvent school--did not justify the means. Often when we are confronted with challenges, God will come through if we go to Him and wait for Him. They did not have to own or sell slaves.

Of course, we can't read their minds. Was the president of the university alone somehow deviated from the centrality of Christ? What about others then and there?

The secular Enlightenment was to eventually effect many so-called Christians in disbelieving Christ's miracles and even His divinity, reducing Him to a sage. And Christ centered-ness is just the first step to proper efforts in discernment. Also we can have problems with pride or stubbornness which keeps us from considering other points of view.

Pope Francis seems to want Christianity both ways. He speaks of the need for only Christ for salvation, reported by Ann Schneible,  "Pope: Jesus is the only door to eternal life," Catholic News Agency, April 18, 2016. But at other times he tells everyone that we are all children of God, we all have the same God, or similar phrases (example reported by Elahe Izadi,  "Pope Francis washes the feet of Muslim migrants, says we are 'children of the same God,'" Washington Post, March 25, 2016). The pope holds world peace very highly and wants to see all people get along. But this is simply not the same as putting Christ at the center. The view that it does not matter what you believe is called “Indifferentism” and at least sometimes seems to be held by the pope as well as many other Catholics.

Why is it central to being a Christian to believe in Christ for our Salvation? God gives us free will, and all humans have fallen short of perfection except for Christ. Our own sins should bring us to humility when we recognize them. The Father is just as well as merciful and the imperfection due to sins would keep the sinner ostracized from God's presence. The Father has chosen belief in Christ to be our doorway to Him. As stated above, Christ lived a perfect life and then died for our sins. Jesus should be given the credit for that, just as we want to be credited for our own achievements. But I believe some Catholics, as other Christians, are too casual about sins, the need for Christ for one’s redemption, and about faith in Him in order to go to heaven.

I believe that in order to have right discernment, the central starting point is belief in Jesus Christ as our Savior. Then we can be guided by God to wisdom in other areas. When we really believe this, our love for others should lead us to tell them about Christ, what He did for us, and that we all need to repent and believe that He, and only He, is our Savior.

First Matters

On his recent visit to Mexico, Pope Francis made a symbolic gesture at a memorial for persons who cross the border into the US, many of whom do it illegally. On the way back home, the Pope held a press conference in the plane, "Pope Francis' in-flight interview from Mexico to Rome,", Catholic World Report, Feb. 18, 2016. One reporter asked him about the US presidential candidate Donald Trump and his stand on building a wall to keep immigrants out. The Pope responded, “I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that.”

The statement by the Pope was, unsurprisingly, greeted by Trump with defensiveness. The Republican candidate for president called the remarks “disgraceful” but a little later, Trump was more conciliatory, saying the Pope was unaware of the drug and other problems on the border ("Donald Trump praises Pope Francis after US-Mexico wall row," BBC News, Feb. 19, 2016).

I have been to Mexico a few times and to El Salvador and have seen some very bad living conditions. The poor are exposed to the elements and to those who would prey upon them. They may not even have a door for a secure lock, or may lack solid walls for windows.

But I want to move on to another point that comes from this short clash between Pope Francis and Donald Trump. That is, what it takes to be a Christian. The Pope has said some things about that lately that bother me though I can’t say I’m completely surprised. That is because those who are so intently focused on the poor often seem to veer off the straight and narrow of Christian beliefs. They look at the rest of the world and say to themselves that God wouldn’t send all these people to hell just because they don’t believe. So they set aside the prime necessity of believing in and evangelizing to the world about Jesus Christ.

The Pope always picks a subject for prayer intention for the month. In January, the first video made for a prayer intention was about inter-faith dialogue, reported by Elise Harris, "In first prayer video, Pope stresses interfaith unity: 'We are all children of God,'" Catholic News Agency, Jan. 7, 2016. Pope Francis seems to minimize the differences between the faiths and says right out that “There is only one certainty we have for all. We are all Children of God.” (And by the way, Pope John Paul II also said this.)

But this is not what the Bible says. In John, Chapter 1, verses 9-12, it states that only those who believe in the Word made flesh (Jesus Christ) are to be called Children of God.

But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name…(John 1:12 NABRE).

I’d like to see some changes in the Church. I’d like barrier contraception to be accepted, since right now it is regarded as evil on the basis of women having no intellect and being good only for reproduction (Thomas Aquinas). I’d like to see women become deacons of the church since the sacrament is denied to them and I don’t believe that is right. There are many Catholics who are progressive concerning changes about women and immigrants. I’d like to see conservatives more interested in these things. (It's interesting by the way that the extremes are labeled "left" and "right" which suggests each of them veering off from the "straight and narrow.")

BUT FIRST we must believe that Christ died for our sins and gives everlasting life with Him in that way. This is a serious matter and something to hold onto no matter what Pope Francis wants us to pray for and no matter what lesser changes in the Catholic Church we might like to see.

BY FAR the most important aspect of the Catholic Church is for every Christian to assume that belief in Jesus Christ is absolutely necessary for heaven and proceed in that manner. This includes telling others as well as we can about Jesus Christ and that He died for our sins and we need to believe in Him if we want everlasting life with Him.

Whatever else we do we must first be well-anchored in our faith.

Do You Believe?

My husband and I went to see the movie Do You Believe? (Pure Flix Entertainment, 2015) a few weeks ago, so I thought I’d make a few related comments (this is not a review since I won’t get into the details of the movie but a short description is at the link in the title). The movie, which I'll call DYB? was made by the creators of God’s Not Dead (GND), which was a small budget film that was very enthusiastically received by Christian audiences and did well financially. I had liked that film too and commented on it HERE. It is basically about people who are living out their Christian faith and also about the people whom the Christians are trying to materially help and spiritually convert.

I noticed that DYB? brought in about half the proceeds of GND the first weekend, but it did exceed studio estimates, so I guess they were happy. I liked DYB? well enough, but I know it will not be appreciated by everyone. The problem with trying to film the Christian experience is that it is the experience itself that brings the meaning. It’s like a story about a happening that was actually quite interesting but falls flat in the telling: you had to be there. When the understanding of God in an individual blooms, it is under the skin, so to speak. It is lived, not watched.

I can testify that the inner life is changed with Jesus Christ. I had been brought up in Church but did not understand the fullness Christ can bring. I dropped away for a while and in my 20’s I was miserable, even though I was well-educated and well-off by worldly standards. I felt no happiness and had no hope for the future. When I accepted Christ fully, all that changed. I had identity, purpose and joy (along with the many other benefits that come with belief in God). It was like night turned to day. And in coming back to the Christian community, I have heard many similar stories.

It is natural to want this for others. We try to evaluate who is really experiencing Christ and who is not, and some cases are pretty obvious. And we try to help them spiritually. (We also try to help anyone in material need, but that's a little different.)

Many Christians continue to live out our lives the best we can, trying to show others God’s love by what we do. When we tell people about Christ, many of us do it in a loving and concerned manner. Though we falter and sin, we go to God for help to do better. In the nitty-gritty of everyday life, we try to get the ideas across. Since Christians are human, we don’t always live up to the standard. We don’t always live the life and sometimes we accuse instead of encourage.

Unfortunately, those who are affected by bad experiences become cynical and group all Christians together. Then, even when Christians simply try to state the Truth as we see it, the words are taken as harassment. Add to this mix the tendency for those who are doing wrong to not want to hear about it. You get reactions to Christians that are not likely to be kind.

That leads to the other problem with the movie: the people who were helped were either relatively charming or easy to convince. I mean “relatively” in comparison to some of the real people out there that Christians are trying to help. My husband and I have had experience in that arena, and it can be an extremely difficult business.

This actually relates to Catholics right now in the leadership of Pope Francis. One of his main messages has been for Christians to get out among the poor and help them. Now, don’t get me wrong--I am very glad for his emphasis in this area. But he hasn’t really clarified the down side--that many people want help in one way (material), but not in another (genuine acceptance of God and life changes for the better). Still, it is better to be optimistic, and the Pope promotes God's mercy--the emphasis on God's love for us and His desire for us to reconcile with Him.

For a long time, I had continual feelings of failure in my relationships with those who would not accept God. Then as I was reading one of St. Paul’s letters in the Bible, I found peace. He was talking about people who said they followed either him or another apostle. Paul said it is ultimately Jesus Christ we should all be following (1 Corinthians 1:10-17 NABRE), A little later, Paul said he and other ministers only plant the seeds and water. It is God who really causes the growth (1 Corinthians 3:6 NABRE).

It is true from my own life and for many other Christians that it took years for the Gospel to really sink in, so why should it not take time for others? We can speak from our hearts about God, but it is God who ultimately interacts with individuals at the deepest level. And then it is between each person and God whether s/he accepts Jesus Christ as their Savior and repents from sin, or not.

Whether the movie, Do You Believe? is a critical or financial success, I think the production has been worth the effort. It will inspire many of the people who know exactly what it is like to try to live out a Christian faith. These persons know every attempt at urging people toward the true God is worth it, no matter the cost. And we have already experienced some of the wondrous transformations God can bring to us on the inside.

Discern More Certainly

I've been talking about discernment the last few months, and I’d like to add a few more comments to the subject.

Many persons believe that they discern through the Holy Spirit. However, some of these people, including current members of the Church, don’t believe Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven, but that one religion is as good as another and eventually we’ll all go to heaven. In the opinion of many Christians, this is not what Christ and His disciples taught.

Jesus Christ's mission on Earth included instruction about our sins, His atonement for them, and the clear message that belief in Him alone, as part of the Trinity including God the Father and Holy Spirit, is the only way to living in spiritual freedom with God in heaven. Jesus talked to the disciples about sending His Spirit after He was gone. Then, on the day of Pentecost as told in the Bible, the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples and they could speak other languages (Acts 2:1-4 NABRE). They came to understand Christ better because of the Holy Spirit.

Later in the Bible, St. Paul writes quite a bit about the Holy Spirit (e.g. Romans 8 NABRE; Ephesians 1 NABRE). He links the Holy Spirit very strongly with belief in Christ.

Women and men who don’t have this faith are logically and spiritually incomplete. God can direct us in times when we are on the wrong path, and He often does so to bring the lost to His kingdom. Yet I believe the best way by far for us to commune with His Spirit is to believe in Jesus Christ as our Savior. If your belief is incorrect, your discernment can be mistaken.

Christians believe that the Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit: three persons of one essence. If you do not have proper relationship with one, you do not have proper relationship with the totality of God. If you think any religion is as good as another (the idea is called “indifferentism”), you are susceptible to being wrong about the thoughts you are following. Even true believers may not be perfect in discerning the Holy Spirit, but a false set of mind will muddy an already difficult process.

I’ve talked about women having personal callings from God about what to do with their lives. I wanted to add these further thoughts about discernment, because I’ve read and heard a lot of what I consider wrong thinking about the faith itself from many Catholic women leaders, such as theologians and religious sisters. Much as I want to see progress in the Church for women, it should never happen at the expense of Truth. Women (and men) who are not truly Christian may well be following the wrong voices down the wrong path. Yet all persons who understand Christ’s true message can and should lead others to Him.

I'd like to repeat here an aspect of discernment that is important in many situations. In the Bible, Paul says we should agree with each other (1 Corinthians 1:10 NABRE). This is very difficult for us. It seems we all have an opinion, and it is very natural to think our way is God’s way. So unless we have an open mind that God might want something different, it will be hard to listen for His direction.

Pope Francis has tried to tell those who are rigid in their opinions that we can be “surprised by God.” The hope is that, when we have conflict, God can bring us to fuller understanding and greater clarity. I believe God often uses life’s experiences in this way, and so it can take time. But if we persist with our hearts in the right place, it can be worth every bit of the wait.

And so our prayers for discernment together as Christians should continue whenever there is disagreement. And we must be sure to pray to the True Lord.

True Freedom

As I add this post, it is July 4 and I wish all of you a blessed Independence Day. It is First Friday as well, our monthly renewal of devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

This past Monday we had an important decision made by the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS), in the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. SCOTUS has ruled on this case brought up by Hobby Lobby and other companies against the Affordable Healthcare Act known as Obamacare. The company owners objected to supplying employee insurance which includes coverage of abortion and certain types of contraception. Actually, the Hobby Lobby ownership is not opposed to contraception as long as it has no possibility of aborting a newly formed embryo. Many see the SCOTUS ruling as about whether companies can claim religious rights in this country in the same way as individuals.

As you may know, the court decided that closely-held companies, such as those with family ownership, are not bound to supply their employees with benefits to items which the leaders of the company find morally objectionable. (Wikipedia description of the case is HERE).

This seems reasonable but things are not always as simple as they seem. I don’t know much about business law, and I just read an interesting perspective from Fox News Latino by Raul Reyes (2020 Update: link to article no longer accessible). He claims Hobby Lobby sells many items made by China, a country with enforced limits in the number of children a family may have. He brings up other interesting facts and links to Latina organizations who seek to maintain the coverage for contraceptives in order to help against poverty (and this includes millions of Catholic women).

A “yea” for the decision was also found at Fox News by Robert Jeffress, a prominent pastor. The link is HERE. He cites other cases and mentions the pertinent fact that Americans should not be forced into supporting abortions if it is against their religious beliefs.

Many objections to this ruling tend toward the question of women’s rights more than religious rights. Much as I support women’s equality, there seems to be a disregard for whether the embryo is killed or not. A better answer is needed and at the least women need better contraceptive products that will not cause abortion. But until then there are barrier contraceptives which are fairly cheap and though not as convenient as pills, a lot better in that sense than Natural Family Planning endorsed by Catholic leadership. Barrier contraception keeps the sperm from fertilizing the egg and therefore no abortion is involved.

When we evaluate political priorities, religious freedom in our country is one of them. It is how that works out for the best that is not always clear. Yet there is another even more important religious freedom, available to all individuals. Jesus Christ frees our bonds from the slavery to sin. Some may think that sounds strange, but those who have had this experience know exactly what I am talking about. Our humanity is imperfect, and though we can desire good things such as harmonious relationships, we also want many of the wrong things. We often seek to fulfill our desires to the detriment of others, want more than our share of money, and spend it on the things that purposely attract the envy of others. But when we surrender to Christ, we are released from these desires, and therefore feel the weight of needing these things fall away. Now, I am talking in general terms, and not all alcoholics are instantly released from their desire for alcohol (although I have heard that some are). People can become Christians and still have many faults. But some things do change right away, and I can tell you from experience it is plenty sufficient to notice the internal difference.

If, instead of turning to Christ, we persist in holding on to our personal shortcomings, we move on to the level of group failure when trying to work with other people of the same sort. This leads to never-ending strife. We start to wonder how we can find not only a common answer to each question but the right answer. Since Jesus Christ frees individuals from the bonds of sin when they repent, accept Him as their Savior, and give themselves to Him, does He also free human groups from collective sinfulness? I believe it is perhaps possible at some level, because the right answer is God’s answer. His is the true wisdom. This answer would be a spiritual one, though the political scene would certainly benefit. It would be enlightenment for loving our neighbors and enmeshing our various unique gifts for the benefit of all.

I have had experiences where I’ve sought His answer and things happen that are not only clear but ingenious and joyful. It is hard to describe but the way forward is opened up, at least until the next challenge arrives, where I again seek His wisdom. 

Remember the Bible verse:

“…if then my people, upon whom my name has been pronounced, humble themselves and pray, and seek my face and turn from their evil ways, I will hear them from heaven and pardon their sins and heal their land (2 Chronicles 7:14 NABRE).

Like political freedom, spiritual freedom isn’t always easy, for individuals and groups as well. It is a long journey to get to the right place and we can be on the right road for a while but sometimes take dead-end detours. If we seek Jesus, He gets us on track. Though Church leaders and members are sinners, with Christ our whole outlook and our very being can change. Individual inner freedom is a glorious thing. It would be great for all Christians to get together and seek it for the collective body.

Courage for the Gaps

In my previous two posts I talked about some of the ways we look at nature, whether it seems simple or complex, and how we can consider everything Created by God.  In “Salt and Earth” I discussed how simple things are well designed.  In “GAPS” I showed how low probability, complex things should be considered designed.  In other words, we believe design instead of proving it.

But there is still knowledge to be gained by realizing that the complexity of biology is not answered by the physical laws as we know them right now.  For example, random chemical reactions do not explain the genetic codes within our DNA.  That can alert us to God’s intervention and perhaps help others to notice it too.

People worry that believers foil scientific inquiry.  But Christians recognize an atom as an atom and understand electromagnetic radiation as well as unbelievers.  In fact, it was a brilliant Christian, James Clerk Maxwell, who wrote the equations to explain electromagnetism in the first place.  There is nothing to keep Christians from researching diseases and genetics except the appropriate ethical considerations.

What Christians shouldn’t accept are vague stories of molecular evolution not backed by facts.  It’s just as logical to think the totally materialistic evolution story won’t ever sufficiently explain biological complexity as to think it will.

That’s because the complexity of biological life goes against the physical laws such as thermodynamics.  Though some would claim the order in living cells comes from the sun’s energy, it does not come directly from that any more than cars are directly made by electric current through wires.  A lot has to happen in between.

Some are afraid that if we say “God directly made the cell” someone will come along and prove that a natural force suffices. There may be those who are afraid they will be mocked as ignorant, but I think many are concerned about letting God down if we are wrong. I don’t think He will be displeased if we indeed believe He intervened supernaturally within His Creation to create life.  He knows we hold to faith as well as reason, and this conclusion works for both.

I pray all of you may have a blessed Christmas and very happy New Year. If you have time, please hear and contemplate this Christmas song, Manger Throne, by Third Day with Derri Daugherty and Julie Miller.

No Matter What They Say

There have to be people out there who are beginning to realize that biological life is too complex to have come about by random physics and chemistry, no matter what evolutionists say. Many critics of the Intelligent Design Movement (ID) insist the ID advocates are Creationists who are trying to hide their real identity.  The IDists say they are simply scientists who are evaluating the telltale signs of design in biology.  The critics ask who the designer is and the IDists say the Designer has intelligence but “could be anyone” or “could be anything.” They give a characteristic of their theoretical designer, but not an identity.

But I’m happy to answer Who the Designer is.

I believe that God made Creation and He has revealed Himself through the Bible.  He has also made Himself known through nature itself.  There are Scripture verses often quoted by those who link science with religion.  One of them goes: "Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made..." (Romans 1:20 NABRE).

Design does not have to be proven in the scientific way in order for people to see and appreciate it. The far more puzzling question is why people aren’t seeing it. How can they even pretend these biological systems are not designed?

Perhaps it is because they are told they are not designed. But more and more information is coming out that contradicts what evolutionists and most scientists are saying.  At some point we have to judge for ourselves, just as a jury has to evaluate whether someone is being truthful or lying about a certain event. Juries evaluate motives, and we are called upon in the case of evolution theory to analyze agendas.  Though many deny it, biological evolution is tied to questions of value of life. 

Besides being Creator, God interacts with people personally. But you may have no idea how to connect with Him.  I’d like you to be aware of these 5 ways to develop spirituality.  Start with any and try to work up to all of them.

1. Worship, preferably within a Christian Church.
2. Read the Bible, starting with the New Testament (Book of Matthew, and be sure to read the Book of John).
3. Pray, even if you don’t know what you are doing.  God does and will hear you. 
4. Make quiet time for yourself at regular intervals. 
5. Speak to members of the Christian community, including the pastor, about your thoughts and questions.  If you are not comfortable in the first conversation, please try again.

Maintain this effort even if you don’t detect any change at first. Persistence pays. If you have resisted belief in God, it may be difficult.  But I hope as you read the Bible and do the other spiritual exercises you will sense a difference in your thoughts and your life.

I believe God exists and that biological life and the world around us are evidence of such.  It can be most fulfilling to learn more, in different ways, of both the Creation and the Creator.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My husband had surgeries in August and the beginning of Sept. to help in his fight against the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease.  By God's grace, he is recovering well from the surgery. 

I want to thank our church family at St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Muskegon for their emotional and spiritual support and the wonderful staff at Mercy Health St. Mary’s and Hauenstein Neurosciences in Grand Rapids.  You are all very, very special.  Often people are asked why Catholics stay in the Church with all the bad going on in it.  Of course we believe in Jesus Christ and His real presence in the Eucharist. Beyond that there are good works Catholics say they would not want to abandon.  You are all proof of the good.

First Friday

As I said before, I have found myself too busy at this time to plan for a weekly post, but will try to enter one at least once a month. I attend church on First Fridays of the month when the Litany of the Sacred Heart of Jesus is repeated. I thought that putting the actual devotion in my post would be a good way to start this attempted schedule.

Here is the Litany to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. The reader’s part is in regular text, and the response of the group is in italics. Due to not wanting to take a lot of time figuring out formatting, I have them on separate lines without indentation. Several prayers, said by all, follow.

LITANY OF THE SACRED HEART

Lord, have mercy on us.
Christ, have mercy on us.
Christ, hear us.
Christ, graciously hear us.
God, the Father of Heaven,
have mercy on us.
God the Son, Redeemer of the world,
have mercy on us.
God the Holy Spirit,
have mercy on us.
Holy Trinity, one God,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, Son of the Eternal Father,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, formed by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mother,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, substantially united to the Word of God,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, of Infinite Majesty,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, Sacred Temple of God,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, Tabernacle of the Most High,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, House of God and Gate of Heaven,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, burning furnace of charity,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, In whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, in whom dwells the fulness of Divinity,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, In whom the Father was well pleased,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, of whose fulness we have all received,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, desire of the everlasting hills,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, patient and most merciful,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, enriching all who invoke Thee,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, fountain of life and holiness,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, propitiation for our sins,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, loaded down with opprobrium,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, bruised for our offences,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, obedient unto death,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, pierced with a lance,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, source of all consolation,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, our life and resurrection,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, our peace and reconciliation,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, victim of sin,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, salvation of those who trust in Thee,
have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, delight of all the saints,
have mercy on us.
Jesus meek and humble of heart,
Make our hearts like unto thine.

LET US PRAY

Almighty and Eternal God, look upon the Heart of Thy dearly beloved Son, and upon the praise and satisfaction He offers Thee in behalf of sinners, and being appeased, grant pardon to those who seek Thy mercy, in the name of the same Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who lives and reigns with Thee, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, world without end, Amen.

CONSECRATION OF THE HUMAN RACE TO THE SACRED HEART OF JESUS

Most sweet Jesus, Redeemer of the human race, look down upon us, humbly prostrate before your altar. We are Yours and Yours we wish to be; but, to be more surely united with You, behold each one of us freely consecrates himself today to Your most Sacred Heart. Many indeed have never known You; many too, despising Your precepts, have rejected You. Have mercy on them all merciful Jesus, and draw them to Your Sacred Heart. Be King O Lord, not only of the faithful who have never forsaken You, but also of the prodigal children who have abandoned You; grant that they may quickly return to their Father’s house, lest they die of wretchedness and hunger. Be King of those who are deceived by erroneous opinions or whom discord keeps aloof, and call them back to the harbor of truth and unity of faith, so that soon there may be but one flock and one Shepherd. Grant, O Lord, to Your church assurance of freedom and immunity from harm; give peace and order to all nations, and make the Earth resound from pole to pole with one cry: “Praise to the Divine Heart that wrought our salvation! To it be glory and honor forever!” Amen.

PRAYER TO ST. MICHAEL

St Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, cast into hell, Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Gain Application Probability

Statistics are being used in the arguments about biological origin and evolution. Advocates of Intelligent Design Theory (ID) are prominent among those attempting to link probabilities of events with mathematical proofs of biological information but they are not the only ones. This post, though dated 12/5/12, is an update (8/27/13) and a new compendium, called Biological Information: New Perspectives, was just released and can be read online HERE.  The book is an overview of the work being done to align biology with information theory which uses probabilities in trying to understand biological systems. Its authors are both ID and non-ID advocates. 

I have a new theory that I present here, but like all new theories, it needs some more work.  In fact, I've come back to re-write this post several times and instead of re-writing it another time, I'm going to eventually post about it again. But, if you are so-inclined, read on.  Then catch up with a newer post called GAP Theory that should appear Nov. 2013.

Mathematics can be applied to reality. Probabilities in thermodynamics and chemistry predict quantities and actions of energy and mass. They exist and behave in a certain way that can be measured.  But human judgment and mathematics are two different things. People rely on their own judgments about many subjects without being experts in probability theory.

It's pretty hard to imagine converting all of nature into strict mathematical terms.  Evaluating a pattern is done by humans and therefore has subjective elements.  Perhaps Information Theory does and will reveal certain hidden secrets about biology.  But I doubt if even chaos theory could give all the answers.

Some examples might be helpful.  A straightforward one goes like this:  someone "blindly" picks all red balls from a bag which contains equal numbers of red and black.  After about 20 times a pattern emerges that is different from the expected 1:1 ratio.  One might suspect the red and black balls have unique surface features which allow discrimination.  Maybe the red surface is more sticky.  But in another example, consider a different type of situation. For a while my husband and I went to the store and they didn’t have any fresh grapefruit. The produce people could not answer our questions of why they were not there, so I looked on the Internet to understand. I found that some of the Southern US produce had been damaged by storms, and Mexico had droughts that affected their exports. What was the probability that a grapefruit would be available by the next time we went to the store? Wouldn't even the experts in distribution have trouble being precise due to the unpredictability of long-range weather? Even though they have their formulas, in certain circumstances they still incorporate judgments.  It is of a different nature than pulling balls from a bag at a particular place and time. 

Included in human judgment is the sense that the extreme complexity of  biology is improbable and not random. (Some would argue here that neo-Darwinian evolution is not random due to “natural selection of the fittest,” but nature needs something worth-while to select first, which is claimed to come from random mutation.)   And yet there exist many things with very low probability, including every hand you get in a card game.  This is where critics come in and say low probability doesn't prove design. Design advocates then refer to "specificity," meaning that specific molecules are needed to perform biological tasks and that the exact combinations of these molecules are extremely improbable.

Specificity implies different values placed on equally probable outcomes. As in the grapefruit example above, I don't think we can always know exact probabilities.  And yet the concept of probabilities still might give us some insight to whether nature itself could have come up with biological function and complexity. In some cases, an evaluation of probability can affect how a person judges an event.  I'd like to talk about putting value on similar probability outcomes.  I'll call it “Gain Application Probability” (GAP).

If you have only one second to toss a coin and it takes 1 second to toss it, you will either get heads or tails (no edge landings or double half-second flips allowed). Each outcome has a probability of one half, and one of the possibilities will occur. In this example, nothing is special about either unless one outcome is assigned to a prize. If a football team calls heads and the coin lands heads, they get to choose whether they receive the ball now or later. If I say I’ll give you a hundred dollars if it lands heads, you will perceive the difference in the outcome.

Now we move on to a dice. You have only one second and it takes one second to throw. I’ll give you a prize (say, 100 dollars) if you get a 1, but not on any other number. Each outcome has one chance in six, but there is still a difference in what happens if the number 1 comes up as compared to the others. The award or denial of the prize is in a related way a measure of the outcome.

Then we take a full deck of cards. We shuffle them fairly and put them face-down on a table. You have only one second and it takes a second to draw the top card. I tell you I’ll give you a prize if the top card that you draw is an Ace of Diamonds. But now you only have one chance in 52 that the card will be the Ace of Diamonds. Is this different than tossing a coin and getting a prize if you get heads? Which would you pick to take your chances?

While we’re talking of cards, it is true that each combination in a game hand has the same probability.  But with a good grouping according to the rules of the game you are playing, you can win the hand. You might win money if there is a pot. You therefore gain with the good combination (if you play it well) more than with the bad.

Amino Acids are molecules that make up the various proteins. They have 20 different forms in our bodies and their various properties make their different combinations unique. The chances for one amino acid combination to occur might be the same as another, but if only one in 10^70 will help to break down a food molecule to produce biological energy while the others in that number don't do anything biologically active, then to me that one protein is different from the rest. If there is function for the few molecules among so many, I would apply a value of gain to those which can carry out biological tasks.

These examples demonstrate, in my term given above, Gain Application Probability. To say there is no difference between certain low probability events is to ignore the possible results. We can deliberately attach an extra benefit to an outcome or we may observe a benefit which comes naturally. We can evaluate events of low probabilities in relation to the gains they bring.

I think we can reasonably say that some improbable outcomes have more value than others. And the lower the probability and the more we gain, the greater the value. One might also be able to apply loss and neutrality to probabilities (LAP and NAP). After all, there is a losing side to a football coin toss, and many improbable events have no appreciable effect. And I suppose that zero times GAP is ZAP.

You might say Gain Application Probability is as subjective as other biological information theories (if you are a critic of these theories).  But I’m not claiming to entirely eliminate chance. I don’t even want to quantify the values of gain and loss. I think there is worth in acknowledging that values can be applied differently for different probabilistic events even when they have similar probabilities. And some outcomes are so valuable that our human judgment can take over to tell us they did not happen by chance.  So it is with functional biological materials made from combinations of molecules.

The value put upon the probability outcomes is a dimension above the science of nature.  When you have faith, you can still be scientific and yet not get bogged down by needing all-encompassing mathematical and scientific proofs.  Faith is given to us as a gift (Ephesians 2:8-9 NABRE).  This is a mystery which transcends our understanding.

Re-Evangelization All Over Again

In one of the recent newsletters of Our Sunday Visitor (Jan. 15, 2012), a column by Msgr. Francis Mannion (pg. 19) answered questions about the reality of hell. Now, he believes there is one. But he also says that anyone who has loved or been loved will not end up there. He said he heard this idea "about 1970" and has believed it since then.

It doesn't surprise me this idea circulated in the 70's. All you need is love, right? This has been a pervasive idea among Christians. Of course love is a wonderful reality, an amazing characteristic of our Divine God. But we must also remember that Jesus Christ came to Earth for our redemption because of our sins. He is our true hero, for He overcame a terrible ordeal to win the victory. And he asks us to believe in Him so we may have everlasting life with Him (John 3:16 NABRE).

The idea that all religions are the same is called "indifferentism." Evangelicals kept free of this ideology for a while, but mainstream Protestants and many Catholics subscribe to the idea that one spiritual path is as good as another. Some theologians subscribe to "universalism," in which we are all acceptable. A part of this group may say this is due to Christ's redemptive act which included everyone, but some would not even go so far as to say we needed Him, but that God simply loves all of us and we are all just on different journeys to the great universal oneness of love we will all eventually experience. However, indifferentism is not new and was mentioned by Pope Gregory XVI in 1832. He quoted St. Augustine from an even earlier time (born 354 AD): “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit is the form, if it does not live from the root?” (20. St. Augustine, in psalm. contra part. Donat.)

A Church document called "Nostra Aetate" (proclaimed by Pope Paul VI in 1965) says though there may be some parts of truth in all religions, the whole Truth culminates in Jesus Christ. If you know Him, there is no reason to follow another religion. To me, Christianity is a combination of being able to read the Truth in the Scripture and experiencing it with Christ.

Love is a wonderful thing, but many people have loved some people and hated others. Criminals have loved. Did past tyrants and dictators love their children? Probably, at least to some degree. Are they prepared for or worthy of heaven? Remember, heaven is perfect.

There must be a way we are able to be righteous in heaven, and we are told how that can be. The Apostle Paul tells us: 20...no human being will be justified in His sight by observing the law; for through the law comes consciousness of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets, 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; 23 all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God. (Romans 3:20-23 NABRE),

John Paul II and Benedict XVI have called for a re-evangelization of the Church. I went through a time of doubt and even disbelief myself, influenced by these kinds of theology I have mentioned. Yet it is really worth thinking about the afterlife. The more I read the Bible and prayed, the more I believed you really do have to believe in Jesus Christ, that He was God, and that He came to save us from our sins to enter heaven. God the Father made Him the center of our lives and our hope, and He truly is.

People say a good God would not let people who never heard of Him go to hell. It is God's business how to handle that and should not be used as some excuse to not believe. Christians have faith that God is just, and things would not come out right if there was no justice. But He is also merciful. Each human being who has heard about Christ and has the opportunity to learn must work on their own soul to believe. Hopefully, they will come to do so, and then can help others do the same. The idea that we don't need to believe in Christ to get to heaven, which in my opinion is implied by Msgr. Mannion, is the very reason we need evangelization and re-evangelization.

Faith First

This past week a certain cartoon mentioned evolution and how it is supposedly the basis of all understanding of biology. The cartoonist is wrong. One of the foundations of biology is the biological cell and we find more of how its amazing structure works every day. It is truly irreducibly complex, as the people who promote Intelligent Design Theory say. Another, more important, foundation for biology is that God created it.

The cartoon is part of the cultural world at work. A prevailing cultural idea is that science rules. Or in a variation of the preceding, science gurus say if you must have faith at all, it should be separate from scientific inquiry. I'm becoming more and more confirmed in my belief that faith comes before science.

Persons who espouse Intelligent Design Theory (ID) say that religion has nothing to do with their work. They look only at the science, and design can be determined in a scientific way. This may be true, but there is a philosophical problem at the core. If certain (many) scientists refuse to allow the possibility that some things such as the biological cell may have been created supernaturally, the scientists will never give up looking for a totally material cause. Then the ID people have no chance of sharing their ideas in the scientific community. This, in fact, is what is happening and ID people seem to be unaware that their position of leaving religion out leads to just as much frustration as it would be to state their faith.

Another problem is that "intelligence" is itself not understood. Scientists want to reduce consciousness to the material brain, but it doesn't work. There is a thing known as "qualia," the state of consciousness that scientists can't deny if they are honest with themselves. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines qualia HERE. But how can ID proponents base their scientific theory on something that is itself not understood in scientific terms?

The ID people say that "anyone" or "anything" could have designed life. They do this to emphasize that science alone can prove that random movements of chemicals will not form into the complex systems that form the biological cell. They also are accused of saying this to try to sneak Creation into the classroom. This is another subject and I've already talked about it, so I won't belabor it much more in my blog. But if we believe God created, then we have the right to believe inside the classroom as well as outside it. I grieve for the wrongs done to the ideals of freedom of religion in this country and for the citizens who suffer because of it.

If you have the faith that God did it, that "anyone" who designed is not just "anyone." It's better to just come out and state your faith. Not all ID people are Christian, and some even think the cell may have been made by aliens. But for Christians, we believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and Earth, of all things seen and unseen. At least those who call themselves Creationists are willing to state their creeds.

That's why faith is first. Many if not most people who don't believe in God will not even give the benefit of the possibility that life was formed by anything but totally material, random means. I give credit to ID people in that their biological analysis of the cell is very good, and some people actually eventually see the logic and realize that neo-Darwinistic (totally materialistic and random) evolution is a very poor substitute. But for the rest that refuse to see, there is a gap that won't be bridged by science alone. They will always be looking for the material explanation, and they will always be either disappointed or kidding themselves. For Christians, why not say where they believe life comes from? Then the others may finally come to the real Truth.

Children of God

I was at an immigration reform meeting yesterday (Oct 9,2010), and there was a short service before the speeches. We had the back and forth readings of the leader and the congregation, and the gist of the readings were that people should be treated with dignity even in foreign lands. The immigration situation is a mess, and I have sympathy on both sides of the issue. I think that the claims of immigrants that the jobs they take are not wanted by anyone else must be a bit of an exaggeration. Since I've been looking for work, I know how bad it is out there to find a job.

Yet, the people of Latin America have extremely little, and they become desperate enough to try anything for survival for themselves and their families. I've seen their living situations, so I know that end of it. In a perfect world we would all try to share fairly, but the unfortunate thing is that this is not a perfect world. There is crime in places where there could otherwise be people living peacefully. There are too many resources used by a small number of people. We are all familiar with the problems.

The point I want to make, though, is that in that small service we had, the last line was about all of us being Children of God. It was the kind of thing that you read because you are just reading along and haven't read through the thing before to see if you agree with everything that it says. But it bothers me afterward, because I didn't agree.

I have heard that expression used many times, but I don't know of anyplace it occurs in the Bible. I'm not a Bible expert, so maybe someone could point it out. But I do know where it says that is not true. Read the first Chapter of John. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Further down, you will see that the world was made through this Word. Then further still, the Word came to the world, but the world did not recognize Him. Though the world was made through Him, it did not receive Him. But to those who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to be called children of God.

This is what I believe. The other religions have creeds that are different than Christians. They do not accept Christ as Lord. This is not something we can ignore and make all things inclusive. This is something we each need to think out for ourselves and remember that much as we'd like other things like immigration reform, first things need to be first.

And next time, I'm going to be a lot more careful what I read out loud in any service.

To Keep On

I talked about love and joy and peace last post, and how these blessings are deep within a Christian. However, I want to make note that in hard times, it seems we can lose track of the blessings we have, even within us. In fact, inspiration seems to be needed on a regular basis, and therefore we may have to keep reminding ourselves or be reminded.

If this sounds like a mystery, it is. I have faith God provides spiritual gifts, but I seek His word for solace, and sometimes inspiration comes from unexpected sources.

The point I'm trying to make is when we are in despair from very tough times or when we see other Christians who seem to lose connection, we can't judge. But I'm urging everyone to hang on and seek God for He is good, and He can keep us going on Earth until the time comes for us to meet Him in Heaven.

Can Man Understand?

Can the human being really understand God? The verses from the Bible that come to mind are from Isaiah 55 (NABRE):

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD.
9 As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts.

This is not to say we shouldn't try to understand God in some way. It is not right to shrug our shoulders and say that if we can't know Him we might as well move on to some other interest (science, for example). We have to juggle a little, and not let a concept either dominate us or be immediately rejected. Pope John Paul II wrote a very interesting encyclical called Fides et Ratio. He describes the interaction between faith and reason, and it is worth reading.

I've been reading Church history about the reaction of the magisterium concerning evolutionary theory. Though I started in Darwin's time, the relation of science and philosophy to Christianity actually goes much further back and I'm becoming increasingly aware of its relevance to my interests. So I'll just give a very general overview here.

When philosophy began in the West, some 600 years before Christ, it was an attempt to understand things in terms of reason, not mysticism or mythology. It therefore included the study of nature which we now consider science. The first Greek philosopher was Thales of Miletus (Wikipedia biography HERE) who lived around 600 BC. The famous Greek philosophers followed in this order: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, who died in 322 BC. Aristotle worked out a "Natural Philosophy" in which the natural world was defined in terms of movement (in rather complicated interactions of place and time) .

Greek philosophy became known to scholars throughout the ancient world. It did not take very long after Christianity spread for someone to try to combine the understanding of Christ with this Greek thought. Frederick Copleston, in A History of Philosophy, Vol. 2, lists Maricanus Aristides (Wikipedia HERE) as one of the first to do so in about 140 AD. Then came Justin Martyr who used philosophy even more openly, and Clement of Alexandria, a scholar who lived in Alexandria, Egypt between 150 and 215 AD. He headed a school for teaching Christian theologians known as the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Pope John Paul considered St. Augustine, who elaborated on Plato's philosophy about 400 AD, to be the first to truly produce the "first great synthesis of philosophy and theology" (Fides et Ratio, Sec. 40).

St. Thomas Aquinas (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy HERE) combined Aristotle with Christian understanding in the 13th Century. Others disagreed with their speculations, and there has been wrangling throughout history on the importance of reason in contrast with faith. In particular, a monk named William of Ockham (Wikipedia HERE) placed more emphasis on faith than intellect in order to know God (as I understand it). Ockham, though, seems these days to have the reputation of cutting away faith altogether in favor of science, in which case he is misunderstood. He was concerned that Aquinas, in his effort to incorporate what Aristotle called Universals, limited the free will of God. (Universals were supposedly essences of things which existed outside physical things, such as "red-ness" for all things that look red.) If God could only create according to Universals, Ockham felt He would be limited in choice.

Well, philosophers and theologians have wrangled for centuries about God and our relationship to Him and how we understand Him. Of course, with the scientific revolution, people have wondered more and more if we could "cut away" God altogether and be left with nothing but the material world. Many indeed have done just that in their personal worldviews. But now biology is showing that some things cannot be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry, at least as we know them now.

Many think that physics and chemistry will never be able to explain the codes of DNA, and how the DNA is arranged in ways that resemble the computer systems created by human intelligence. Many, however, believe scientific research will eventually be able to explain everything.

This, in a very condensed version, is where we stand now.

Faith OR Reason?

I talked in the last post about Catholic philosophy and modern science. When persons claim that faith has more to do with belief than reason, they are often accused of being "fideists" (description at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy HERF). Some people seem to claim (in so many words) that if you have faith in God without studying philosophy, your belief is not adequate. That claim in itself is unreasonable.

People come to God in many ways. There are masses of faithful who live and die never having studied philosophy. These people can have as real a relationship with God as professors. Yet, others take the journey to God by means of reason. They may not have an emotional conversion experience, yet they convert all the same. There is a sense, though, in which the stress on philosophy can lessen the importance of relationship, and that is a mistake. We need some balance of both heart and head.

Faith is a mystery, a word which probably makes philosophy professors shudder. Yet the Bible gives us some beautiful passages about it to get us on track. One is Ephesians 2:8 (NABRE):

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God;
9 it is not from works, so no one may boast.

This means, for one thing, we need to get rid of all pride in order to believe well. God gave us intellect, and we are to use it. But we are so susceptible to making pronouncements that put us above others, we must be very careful. The focus is always on God Himself.

Another verse is from John 6:29:

28 So they said to him, "What can we do to accomplish the works of God?"
29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent."

These verses may seem contradictory, but I don't think they are. God teaches us by varying the approach. Unfortunately, we grab onto one idea or the other, then fight about it. I think the passages when contemplated together may mean that our work is at least in part reason because everyone thinks, but while you think, don't forget mystery. To give examples, if you simply as a child accepted Jesus as soon as your parents or priest told you about Him, perhaps it was because you trusted these authority figures, and perhaps an element of faith which is beyond our understanding also had a part. In fact, that part may be a factor in the learned professor's conversion though s/he is unaware of it. Yet to follow historical philosophical thought, to question and reach your own conclusion that God exists is certainly a help in strengthening that faith.

Modern science does not completely understand consciousness, even though they have learned much about the brain. My belief is that neither consciousness nor the soul will ever be understood completely by human beings. There will always be mystery, and for that reason we need faith.

Philosophy 101

They say life is what you do when you are planning something else. That happens with blogs, also. I had started reading about the history of the Church response to evolutionary theory and wanted to post about it, but got sidetracked. I hope to get to that subject, but while reading one of my favorite Intelligent Design (ID) websites, I read a post by Michael Egnor on Evolution News relating to philosophy.

Now, my expertise in philosophy is at the 101 level, but a lot of philosophy has been flying around in evolutionary circles, and I'm sure not everyone who speaks about it is an expert. So, I'll give my own opinion.

I won't go into the details of Michael Egnor's post, but he recommends a book about philosophy which addresses the New Atheist arguments. The book is by Edward Feser, The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism, (St. Augustine's Press, 2008). The New Atheists are people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett who are contemporary authors with various backgrounds. They argue that today's science has replaced religion and traditional religious (Catholic) philosophy such as that of St. Thomas Aquinas, who built his own system on that of Aristotle (the Greek philosopher).

The main point of Feser's book, to make a sweeping generalization, is that Aristotle worked out a philosophy that claimed to prove that change can happen in this world, but ultimately depends on an Unchanged Changer. And Aquinas built on Aristotle's work. as can be found in his five proofs of God, one of which depends on an Unmoved Mover.

Feser explains that today's scientific mindset tries to ignore Aristotle's metaphysics (which investigates the properties of reality, Wikipedia description HERE), and yet unconsciously uses it. For example, the New Atheists tell us that scientific experiment is the only way to understand reality, yet they take for granted the reasoning behind experimentation--that one thing is caused by another. In other words, they are missing a certain concept in their understanding. They take an alternative philosophy in which there are no Universals in the sense Aristotle means. (Universals are essences of things that occur in the world, for example, "red-ness" for things that are red and "human-ness" for humans.)

Feser makes very interesting arguments, but I have thought in my limited study of philosophy that he and other philosophers like him are also missing at least one fundamental concept. They talk about Aristotle's philosophy of change, where there has to be, by logic, something (or someone) that is First and causes change. But a person would still have believe that there is a source of change other than physical energy and matter to get to that point.

The equation above is for Gibbs free energy and it is important because it is used to calculate physical / chemical change. It comes to us courtesy of J.W. Gibbs (Wikipedia HERE), who is pictured at top right and lived from 1839-1903. The triangle is the symbol I learned in high school to designate change (the Greek letter delta). The G is called Gibbs free energy, the H is enthalpy, or the tendency of things to change from a higher state of energy to lower (such as water falls from a higher to lower state in a waterfall). T is temperature and S is entropy--the tendency of things to become more disordered. When you plug in the values for each situation you evaluate, you can tell whether a physical change, such as a chemical reaction, will happen or not (if Gibbs free energy is negative, it will happen).

If I understand Feser correctly, he would say it is a Prime Mover that causes change, at least the first in a long line. If we don't accept that, our reasoning is faulty. But I think that most scientists, especially materialistic ones (those who think the world consists only of matter and energy which are interchangeable through Einstein's equation E=mc^2), would look at the Gibbs equation and say it explains what causes change. This can go all the way back to the Big Bang (BB), that explosion being caused by a great concentration of energy, and even before the BB. To them, there is nothing sacred in the BB as far as the formation of the universe goes. It could be that energy forces and mass continue to alternate in various proportions endlessly (and in fact, this is what they think). Both Aristotle the philosopher and Gibbs the scientist assumed that change comes from a cause.

One either believes our universe is made of only mass and energy, or one believes there is a God. Feser does a good job in showing the ridiculous logical consequences of a materialistic mindset, but I don't think he fully gets to the bottom of what causes it. Though the materialist's reason may be faulty on some level, in my opinion the deeper problem is lack of faith.

Faith is a mystery, and I will talk more about it (I hope) next post.