Matt Fradd's Blog, page 49

Has Science Done Away With the Need for God?

Tweet

If you haven’t yet subscribed to Pints With Aquinas, you should do that here.

In today’s episode of PWA, I chat with my good friend Trent Horn about whether science has done away with the need for God. We hone in on one of the two objections St. Thomas sets himself for why God does not exist:

“Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God’s existence.”

Thomas responds to this objection by saying:

“Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.”

We get into this in much greater detail in the podcast.

PintsWithAquinas.com

The basic answer is no; and it is not within the ability of science to do so.

Science is a method that one can use to discover information about the natural world. It, however, has nothing to say about that which cannot be scientifically observed or tested.

Examining God’s material creation using a method which, by its very nature, is limited to the material universe cannot provide evidence against the existence of an immaterial God.

Even if science were to exhaustively describe the physical universe, it would still leave the question: Why does the universe and the laws that govern it exist?

The view that science can or should provide the answer to every question is known as scientism. It claims that we should not accept as true anything that we cannot prove scientifically.

This view is incorrect. There are a variety of things that the natural sciences cannot prove:

1. They cannot prove the laws of logic or mathematical truths. The natural sciences presuppose logic and math, but it cannot prove them.

2. They cannot prove metaphysical truths, like the reality of  the external world is real or that the universe did not simply spring into existence five minutes ago with the appearance of age, including our memories of a past that never happened. These are rational beliefs, but they cannot be proven scientifically.

3. The scientific method cannot prove or disprove statements of an ethical nature. Science cannot show whether helping a starving child is good or whether Nazi scientists in concentration camps did anything evil. Good and evil cannot be measured in a laboratory, and so moral principles lie beyond what science can prove. That includes a principle used in science itself: “It is wrong to fake your research findings.

So there are things that are worthy of belief that science cannot prove, such as the laws of logic and mathematics, metaphysical truths, and ethical truths.[1]

There is also this fact: If scientism is true then one should refuse to believe anything that cannot be scientifically proven. But this would mean that one should not believe scientism itself unless it can be scientifically proven.

Can it?

No, because the claim “You should not believe anything unless it is proven by science” is a philosophical claim that you cannot verify by experiment.

It expresses a value judgment–what one should choose to believe–and that puts in in the realm of ethics and morals, which we have already seen that science cannot verify.

Without the ability to do an experiment verifying or falsifying the truth of this moral claim, there is no scientific proof.

That means that scientism is not only false, it is also self-refuting, because it cannot meet its own test.

The Technology-Free Weekend Challenge—Read if You Dare

Tweet

 

I can’t wait until someone much smarter and better at writing than me writes what I’m about to here.

 

The Technology TakeOver

 

Technology is taking over our lives. False. Technology has taken over our lives. What was designed to save us time has spun us into a frenzy.

 

I wake up, I reach for my phone. I check Twitter. I check Instagram. I check my email. What am I looking for? Why can’t this wait? It can, of course; but I’m like an addict. I mindlessly open my phone and bounce around from app to app to app. I do it all day long. And then I see people on their phones and think, “how sad that they are on their phone in front of their kids.” . . . While I’m on my phone in front of my kids.

 

Going Nuclear

 

So. I’ve been doing something of late that’s been both terrifying and amazing. I’ve been giving up technology on the weekends. I don’t mean that I put my phone and laptop into a drawer and then not touch them all weekend—I do not have the self-control for that. I mean I throw my technology into a bag and drop it off at a friends house. I give it to him Friday afternoon and say, “do NOT give this back to me until Monday morning.”

‘Dude, isn’t that going overboard?’ Yes, but so is my compulsive need to distract myself from myself. From the mundane, from what annoys me, from what makes demands on me.

Today is Friday. So right now I’m feeling anxious. I’m giving away my drug for the weekend. As soon as I back out of my friends house, technology free, I almost always reach for my phone. I keep thinking of ‘brilliant’ tweets the world HAS to see NOW! Throughout the weekend I wonder how I will survive washing the dishes without listening to podcasts. Is it even possible?

 

The Upside

 

But here’s why I do it: I get to be play with my children without there being a part of my brain wanting them to go play by themselves so I can see how many people on Twitter like me. I get to read books. The one’s with paper, without hyperlinks. I get to pray. I get to feel bored. The days are longer. I ask in the mornings, “what should we do today?” It’s great. It’s scary. It’s more great than scary.

 

The Challenge

 

Give up your technology this weekend. And then on Monday, tell me about your experience in the comment section below.

 

Ps, if I tweet or post to FB this weekend it’s an automated thing I use. Not me. Before you all judge me like good Catholics.

3 Ways Theology can Benefit from Philosophy

Tweet

Subscribe to Pints With Aquinas here. Or, if you’re an android user, listen here. And if you’re especially awesome, get this!

A scene from Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy in which Boethius is . . . well, being consoled by philosophy.

In his commentary on Boethius’ De Trinitate Thomas Aquinas reminds us why the truths of philosophy and the truths of theology are not in competition and why one cannot contradict the other. If a truth of philosophy/science contradicts a truth of theology, you’ve either god bad philosophy/science or bad theology.

 

Listen to my podcast above to get the whole context as well as my thoughts on what Thomas says. But here are three reasons Thomas gives as to how and why theology can benefit from philosophy:

 

1. First, to demonstrate those truths that are preambles of faith and that have a necessary place in the science of faith. Such are the truths about God that can be proved by natural reason—that God exists, that God is one; such truths about God or about His creatures, subject to philosophical proof, faith presupposes.

 

2. Secondly, to give a clearer notion, by certain similitudes, of the truths of faith, as Augustine in his book, De Trinitate, employed any comparisons taken from the teachings of the philosophers to aid understanding of the Trinity.

 

3. In the third place, to resist those who speak against the faith, either by showing that their statements are false, or by showing that they are not necessarily true.

What Thomas Aquinas Said About Women Priests

Tweet

Subscribe to Pints With Aquinas here. Or, if you’re an android user, listen here. And if you’re especially awesome, get this!

Here is what St Thomas has to say regarding the ordination of women (listen to the podcast above to get my commentary on his thoughts).

Objection 1. It would seem that the female sex is no impediment to receiving Orders. For the office of prophet is greater than the office of priest, since a prophet stands midway between God and priests, just as the priest does between God and people. Now the office of prophet was sometimes granted to women, as may be gathered from 2 Kings 22:14. Therefore the office of priest also may be competent to them.

I answer that, Certain things are required in the recipient of a sacrament as being requisite for the validity of the sacrament, and if such things be lacking, one can receive neither the sacrament nor the reality of the sacrament. Other things, however, are required, not for the validity of the sacrament, but for its lawfulness, as being congruous to the sacrament; and without these one receives the sacrament, but not the reality of the sacrament. Accordingly we must say that the male sex is required for receiving Orders not only in the second, but also in the first way. Wherefore even though a woman were made the object of all that is done in conferring Orders, she would not receive Orders, for since a sacrament is a sign, not only the thing, but the signification of the thing, is required in all sacramental actions; thus it was stated above (Question 32, Article 2) that in Extreme Unction it is necessary to have a sick man, in order to signify the need of healing. Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order. Some, however, have asserted that the male sex is necessary for the lawfulness and not for the validity of the sacrament, because even in the Decretals(cap. Mulieres dist. 32; cap. Diaconissam, 27, qu. i) mention is made of deaconesses and priestesses. But deaconess there denotes a woman who shares in some act of a deacon, namely who reads the homilies in the Church; and priestess [presbytera] means a widow, for the word “presbyter” means elder.

Reply to Objection 1. Prophecy is not a sacrament but a gift of God. Wherefore there it is not the signification, but only the thing which is necessary. And since in matters pertaining to the soul woman does not differ from man as to the thing (for sometimes a woman is found to be better than many men as regards the soul), it follows that she can receive the gift of prophecy and the like, but not the sacrament of Orders.

 

What Thomas Aquinas Said About Muhammad and Islam

Tweet

Subscribe to Pints With Aquinas here. Or, if you’re an android user, listen here. And if you’re especially awesome, get this!

Here’s what St. Thomas had to say about Muhammad and Islam

“[Muhammad] seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men.

As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity.

He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.

What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning. Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms.

Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law.

It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly.”

SCG 1, 6, 4.

5 Steps to Tasting Beer Like a Connoisseur

Before we get underway, a few words about Matt Fradd’s new book, Pints With Aquinas, 50+ Deep Thoughts From the Angelic Doctor.

Beer is easily loveable. But medieval monastic philosophers? They can easily be intimidating, even though they shouldn’t be.

In this short, pithy book, Matt Fradd makes arguably the greatest mind in the history of the church as easily accessible as your favorite beer. You’ll laugh, you’ll say “Aha!,” and ultimately, you’ll discover that this old school philosopher’s wisdom is very much fresh and relevant to the problems and questions of modern man.

Do yourself a favor and get a copy of this enlightening little book. Then pour a frothy pint and dig in. You’ll be glad you did!

Okay, onto the article.

For the past few years, I’ve been on what I like to call a beer adventure, meaning I’m trying as many different beers as I can. As I try different styles and breweries, I’m always amazed that four ingredients—water, yeast, malt, and hops—can produce such a wide variety of flavors.

 

Anyway, the more beer I’ve tasted, the more I’ve realized that there are degrees of appreciation. Sure, you can gulp down a beer mindlessly, completely ignoring the careful craftsmanship that went into its production. But chances are you won’t enjoy it nearly as much as someone who patiently takes the time to examine the many facets of its character. It’s only recently that I’ve started to take the latter approach, slowing down and seeking to appreciate the complexity of the many excellent beers out there.

 

Today, I’d like to share five tips that can help you enjoy and appreciate beer more fully.

1. Smell

Tasting anything always starts with the nose, and if you’ve ever tried to enjoy good food when you’re congested, you’ll know that being unable to smell can make even the most delicious food bland.

When it comes to beer tasting, smelling the aroma of the beer is the first step. The word nose is used to describe both the aroma of the beer as well as the process of smelling it. If you wanted to be ironic, you could probably get away with saying, “I nosed the nose of the lager.”

It is important to realize that, unlike other alcoholic beverages, beer has a very fleeting smell. Nose the beer immediately after pouring, before the aroma has a chance to evaporate. Agitating the beer will also release the aroma more fully.

As you nose the beer, look for familiar scents. Some beers may smell like bananas, others like pine needles, citrus, pepper, etc. Discovering these scents will help you further appreciate the taste of the beer.

2. Color

After you’ve determined the aroma of the beer, glance at the color. Keep in mind that there is no one right color for a beer, as there are hundreds of beer styles, and each style’s color will vary slightly. Still, a beer’s color is part of its character, so it’s worth noting.

Is the beer black? Is it amber? Is it filtered or unfiltered? Of course, these questions aren’t absolutely essential to tasting, but they are good reference points for future tasting.

3. Taste

Now for the fun part. Take a sip of the beer, but don’t swallow right away. Swish the beer around in your mouth, paying attention to what flavors you experience. Is it salty, spicy, sour, bitter, sweet? A good beer will have a complex mixture of flavors, so it may take a couple of sips before you discover them all. Take it slow and don’t be in a hurry.

Here are some common beer descriptors: roasted, sweet, spicy, fruity, bitter chocolaty, caramel, toffee, sour, coffee, malty, tart, subtle, piney. Of course, there can be many other flavors in beer.

4. Aftertaste

After your initial taste, don’t take a big bite of pizza. Allow the beer to linger in your mouth, seeing if the flavors change at all. In many good beers, you will notice new flavors emerging in the aftertaste, also known as the finish. The finish of a beer has a lot to do with the overall enjoyability of a beer, so don’t skip this step.

5. Feel

Like any beverage, beer has a peculiar feel in your mouth. Some beers are watery and thin, while other beers are thick and heavy in your mouth. This quality of beer is referred to as its body. Light beers, like Miller Light for example, have a very light body, whereas beers like Wee Heavy Scotch Ale (unsurprisingly) have a heavier, fuller body. Beers with more carbonation generally feel lighter in the mouth, while an unfiltered, less carbonated beer will likely feel heavier in the mouth.

It’s all about you!

When people first look into tasting beer, or any other beverage for that matter, they are often intimidated by the vocabulary and the impression that you have to taste “correctly.” But this simply isn’t true. Beer, like anything, is a matter of personal preference, and the ultimate criterion for any beer is, “Do I like it?” it’s all a matter of what you prefer.

I, for one, loathe IPAs (India Pale Ale for the uninitiated), and I’ve never understood the mania over them. While one person may taste an IPA carefully and savor the intense, bitter flavor of pine needles, I can think only of Pine-Sol floor cleaner. No thank you.

The point is, don’t get caught up in liking the “right” beer. There is no such thing, even though some people might try to convince you there is. The best way to drink is to try a wide variety of beer styles, perhaps using a notebook to keep track of your experiences, and find what you like best. Think of it as an adventure.

Happy drinking!

What are your favorite beers? Do you have any tasting tips?

About the Author

Sam Guzman is the founder and editor of the Catholic Gentleman. He’s the husband of a beautiful woman and the father of three precious children.

He lives in the Milwaukee area of Wisconsin, the beer capital of the USA. He is also the marketer at Covenant Eyes.

The Assumption of Mary: Why She Didn’t Need Breathing Apparatus

On 1 November 1950 Pope Pius XII defined the dogma of the assumption of Mary:

“By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory” [1].

 

How Did She Breathe Up There?

I wanted to take a moment to address a concern some people have about the assumption of Mary. The concern is that it sounds silly. What happened exactly? She just started floating up towards heaven like Superman (or Supergirl, I suppose)? Isn’t this just an example of the early Christians holding to a erroneous cosmology where Heaven is up there somewhere? Where did she go? Into outer space? How did she breathe up there?

First, it should be said that all of these questions could be asked of Christ’s ascension into Heaven, and so if one is willing to accept that by faith, it really isn’t a stretch to accept the assumption if we have good revelatory grounds for believing it. Secondly, it doesn’t follow that just because we don’t understand something, or that a thing seems silly to us, that it is therefore false (consider the double-slit experiment, or the platypus).

No Ordinary Cloud

Thirdly, and this is the main point I want to make in this post, the cloud that Christ was taken up into was not an ordinary cloud.

In Witnesses of the Messiah, Stephen Pimentel writes:

“Jesus was taken up not into the clouds of the sky but into the cloud of glory that manifests the presence of God. This was the cloud that descended upon Mount Siani, accompanied Israle in the wilderness, and filled Solomon’s temple. This was the cloud that overshadowed Jesus during the transfiguration and from which the Father spoke (cf. Lk. 9:34-35). Thus, Paul describes Jesus as having been ‘taken up in glory’ (1 Tim 3:16). Within the cloud of glory there is found the cloud of God, and from the Ascension onward Jesus is seated on this throne at the right hand of the Father.”

If this was true of Christ, then it may have been true of his mother.

This doesn’t necessarily make the assumption less mysterious, but it does answer the question, “how did you breathe in outer space?” Namely, that’s not where she went.

To learn more about the Assumption, here’s a blog by my mate, Tim Staples.

Do we need faith to know that God exists?

Subscribe to Pints With Aquinas here. Or, if you’re an android user, listen here. And if you’re especially awesome, get this.

 

The following is from the Summa Theologica 1. Q 12. A 12. 

Objection 1

It seems that by natural reason we cannot know God in this life. For Boethius says (De Consol. v) that “reason does not grasp simple form.” But God is a supremely simple form, as was shown above (Question 3, Article 7). Therefore natural reason cannot attain to know Him.

Objection 2

Further, the soul understands nothing by natural reason without the use of the imagination. But we cannot have an imagination of God, Who is incorporeal. Therefore we cannot know God by natural knowledge.

Objection 3

Further, the knowledge of natural reason belongs to both good and evil, inasmuch as they have a common nature. But the knowledge of God belongs only to the good; for Augustine says (De Trin. i): “The weak eye of the human mind is not fixed on that excellent light unless purified by the justice of faith.” Therefore God cannot be known by natural reason.

On the contrary,

It is written (Romans 1:19), “That which is known of God,” namely, what can be known of God by natural reason, “is manifest in them.”

I answer that,

Our natural knowledge begins from sense. Hence our natural knowledge can go as far as it can be led by sensible things. But our mind cannot be led by sense so far as to see the essence of God; because the sensible effects of God do not equal the power of God as their cause. Hence from the knowledge of sensible things the whole power of God cannot be known; nor therefore can His essence be seen. But because they are His effects and depend on their cause, we can be led from them so far as to know of God “whether He exists,” and to know of Him what must necessarily belong to Him, as the first cause of all things, exceeding all things caused by Him.

Hence we know that His relationship with creatures so far as to be the cause of them all; also that creatures differ from Him, inasmuch as He is not in any way part of what is caused by Him; and that creatures are not removed from Him by reason of any defect on His part, but because He superexceeds them all.

Reply to Objection 1

Reason cannot reach up to simple form, so as to know “what it is”; but it can know “whether it is.”

Reply to Objection 2

God is known by natural knowledge through the images of His effects.

Reply to Objection 3

As the knowledge of God’s essence is by grace, it belongs only to the good; but the knowledge of Him by natural reason can belong to both good and bad; and hence Augustine says (Retract. i), retracting what he had said before: “I do not approve what I said in prayer, ‘God who willest that only the pure should know truth.’ For it can be answered that many who are not pure can know many truths,” i.e. by natural reason.

Does Theology Retard One’s Ability To Do Philosophy Well?

Pope Leo XIII wrote a marvelous encyclical, Aeterni Partis, which has to do with the restoration of Christian philosophy.

In it he responds to the objection that one’s commitment to theology hampers one’s ability to do philosophy well. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard people try to discredit St. Thomas Aquinas in this way: “Thomas was under the thumb of the Church and so we can dismiss his work as a philosopher.”

Not only does this commit the genetic fallacy (where one seeks to invalidate a conclusion based solely on how it originated), it’s actually not necessarily true that theology inhibits philosophy.

Here’s what Pope Leo XIII has to say on the matter:

We know that there are some who, in their overestimate of the human faculties, maintain that as soon as man’s intellect becomes subject to divine authority it falls from its native dignity, and hampered by the yoke of this species of slavery, is much retarded and hindered in its progress toward the supreme truth and excellence.

Such an idea is most false and deceptive, and its sole tendency is to induce foolish and ungrateful men willfully to repudiate the most sublime truths, and reject the divine gift of faith, from which the fountains of all good things flow out upon civil society. For the human mind, being confined within certain limits, and those narrow enough, is exposed to many errors and is ignorant of many things; whereas the Christian faith, reposing on the authority of God, is the unfailing mistress of truth, whom who so followeth he will be neither enmeshed in the snares of error nor tossed hither and thither on the waves of fluctuating opinion.

Those, therefore, who to the study of philosophy unite obedience to the Christian faith, are philosophizing in the best possible way; for the splendor of the divine truths, received into the mind, helps the understanding, and not only detracts in nowise from its dignity, but adds greatly to its nobility, keenness, and stability.

 

See my new podcast, Pints With Aquinas

The Bedrock of the Spiritual Life

Lately I’ve been beginning my daily prayer in the following way. I imagine myself before God the Father. He asks, “who are you?” And I respond, “I am yours.”

This is the foundation of the spiritual life. We are his. He loves us. Not “us” like a blob of humanity. He loves you. You! Awkward, anxious, wounded, beautiful you. But you don’t believe that. Not as much as you should.

We live in a turbulent times, don’t we? And all of us are looking for a foot hold, a tribe, a place we can belong. Whether that be youth group, the gym, or an atheist forum on Reddit. But as Christians, who we are in Christ is (or should be) the bed-rock of our lives.

Here’s a great quote I read recently from Fr. Ken Barker mgl:

“The self-help therapies of popular, humanistic psychology books would suggest that we can attain self-realization and self-fulfilment through our own efforts. They present a false gospel. The truth is that we will find the fulfilment intended for us only by turning to Christ Jesus.

Self realization will elude us if we try to attain it without Christ.”

So here’s a suggestion for you. The next time you sit down to pray here are three things you might say to our Lord:

Tell me you love me, Jesus, and do not stop until this wounded heart believes you.
I am yours and you are mine, Jesus.
Who am I to you, dear Jesus?

Bless you, friends.

If you haven’t already, check out my new podcast, Pints With Aquinas.