|
Dear Befuddled,
You said:
- What, in your opinion, separates us from beasts?
The theological answer is:
We have a
soul and we are made in God's image.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in:
tells us:
2. Science and Technology
At the Service of the Human Person
God created man in his own image and likeness: "male and female he
created them" (Genesis 1: 27), entrusting to them the task of "having
dominion over the earth" (Genesis 1:28). Basic scientific research and
applied research constitute a significant expression of this dominion
of man over creation. Science and technology are valuable resources for
man when placed at his service and when they promote his integral development
for the benefit of all; but they cannot of themselves show the meaning
of existence and of human progress. Being ordered to man, who initiates
and develops them, they draw from the person and his moral values the
indication of their purpose and the awareness of their limits.
It would on the one hand be illusory to claim that scientific research
and its applications are morally neutral; on the other hand one cannot
derive criteria for guidance from mere technical efficiency, from research's
possible usefulness to some at the expense of others, or, worse still,
from prevailing ideologies. Thus science and technology require, for
their own intrinsic meaning, an unconditional respect for the fundamental
criteria of the moral law: that is to say, they must be at the service
of the human person, of his inalienable rights and his true and integral
good according to the design and will of God.(7) The rapid development
of technological discoveries gives greater urgency to this need to respect
the criteria just mentioned: science without conscience can only lead
to man's ruin. "Our
era needs such wisdom more than bygone ages if the discoveries made by
man are to be further humanized. For the future of the world stands in
peril unless wiser people are forthcoming".(8)
Numbers in () represent footnotes. View them on either the Vatican or EWTN page at above. |
You said:
An atheistic classmate of mine says that we are animals but we
have simply evolved very, very complex brains and thus we perceive what we
call concepts of consciousness, morality, and time.
I think he is jumping to
conclusions and putting too much arrogant faith in science, yet his thoughts
make me wonder.
In reference to the arrogant faith in science, since I
am a scientist, I have
to take offense at the accusation. Science is nothing if not supremely
humble. No scientist ever claims to have found truth — only facts. Scientists
collect data and see what happens when you tweak the conditions.
As a consequence,
there is no scientific evidence for or against God's existence (or the
existence of a soul in humans) that anyone would rationally stake his reputation
on. Proofs, if one can even use the term when dealing with science, of
a negative occurrence are virtually impossible
as some evidence may turn
up at a later time. There is no proof that bigfoot does not exist —
of
course there are no bones or body parts existing to the creature that have
ever been found either.
Now, in the case of something like bigfoot, we would expect to find some
sort of evidence as there are people claiming to have seen the living creature.
- If such a species exists then why don't we find dead carcasses, bones,
etc?
Well, the jury will always be out on that unless and until it is proven
to exist — somebody brings a legitimate pelt or carcass in for biologists
to examine — thus: science will not ever say something does not exist unless
it is intrinsically impossible.
Intrinsic impossibility consists of a paradox. The nature of the universe
is such that a paradox can not exist. Thus something cannot be all blue and all red at the same time since the definition of all blue excludes
the possibility of any red, or other color, never mind it being all red.
Something cannot both exist as completely Uranium 238 and at the same
time exist as completely iron. This is where scientists begin to question
the Holy Eucharist. Please read this web posting for
an explanation of why the Holy
Eucharist will, in all scientific terms, appear to be bread but is, in
fact, the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. If I remember correctly, I actually
contributed to that discussion.
In reference to the soul, the same document:
goes on to tell us:
I. Respect for Human Embryos
Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring
us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions
of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for
discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of
this first appearance of a human life:
- How could a human individual not
be a human person?
|
Now, from a scientific point of view, there are virtually uncountable quantities of synapses in the brain. These
are not the controller of man, they are its slave. Our
bodies are not our controllers, they are:
- for us
- for our use, and
- controllable
by us.
As I said earlier, we are not a slave to instinct. Every other
animal on this planet is. We can overcome
our instincts — and we can choose to overcome them without external stimuli.
(e.g. without somebody telling us to get our act together.)
- It is rare for an affirmed atheist to accept the idea that God can exist
if there is no scientific evidence for Him, however, how could there possibly
even be any scientific evidence?
That would, in some respects, be rather
unreasonable. God is not contained within this universe. He created it,
so he is certainly external to it as well as within it.
- How could a line
understand anything of a plane on which it is contained?
- How can a two-dimensional
object have any real knowledge of a three-dimensional item?
There might
be shadows or echoes but on the whole, scientific evidence from those
points of view would never prove nor disprove the existence of their greater
shapes. God is beyond, above, more complete, more complicated, et. al.
than our universe. We could only find echoes or hints of His existence.
- Are there echoes or hints?
I would argue that there are loads of them.
(Jesus being a good example).
- What about scientific echoes?
Well, I notice
that the universe appears to follow mathematics rather nicely (on the
whole). If the universe were a randomly created and controlled place,
I would expect chaos, but I find order. That is a semi-reasonable
argument that something intelligently created the place. It is by no means
definitive, but then as I pointed out before, you cannot find such definitive
evidence anyway.
Our brains are far too complicated for anyone or anything to be able to
predict what we would do given a given stimulus.
- If you are hungry and
there is food placed before you, will you eat it?
Maybe, then again, if
it belongs to someone else you may not (even if you have no fear of retribution).
Your soul will tell you that taking the food is wrong if it belongs to
someone else.
If we are here only for our own enjoyment and existence
then everything that would support that existence would seem correct to us.
- Why have diverse cultures come up with many of the same basic laws?
- Don't
steal.
- Don't murder.
- Don't commit adultery.
- Honor your parents.
— these
are shown out in every culture. There are exceptions to the rules only
in the act being defined differently, not in the act of being okay.
- The Aztecs went on a killing rampage whenever Venus was in a certain point
in the sky. They ate some of their captives (to gain an enemy's strength), yet murder was still an illegal act in their culture!
- The Eskimos needed
divergent gene pools and so it was common for a man to offer his wife
to a visitor. Nevertheless, taking your host's wife without his permission
was considered abominable.
Our souls make us different from the other animals. We have God's law
written on our hearts.
We can choose to disobey that law, but we still
have it. You rarely, if ever, hear someone suggesting that goodness has
no real meaning. When someone kills another, he will usually
come up with
some excuse as to why he should be excused from doing so (assuming he considers
himself innocent).
- When do you hear such an individual suggesting,
To
hell with your standard?
These laws are not just herd instinct or the
survival of the majority or the best. Often the correct moral judgment
involves that which would potentially harm society, the herd, or the most
fit. (e.g. Upholding the right of an owner to keep his land even though
he chooses to not use the land for planting or other endeavor).
Science simply collects data, collates it, and sometimes, comes up with scientific laws that demonstrate or explain the phenomena we happen to
see.
- Why do (most) scientists believe that life evolved over hundreds of
millions of years?
Because that is what the vast majority of data suggest
to us.
- Why do we believe that the Earth revolves about the sun? — (actually
the center of mass of the two bodies — which is located within the sun
itself, very near the center.)
Because that is what the measurements and
mathematical formulas tell us.
If somebody shows a Heavenly (meaning space) body that behaves differently
than the 1/R2 universe, we will begin to search for a reason for the anomaly.
So far, all Heavenly bodies behave the same way and according to the same
physical laws put forth.
Nobody is going to find evidence that something does not exist. They may
find no evidence for its existence, but a negative proof is intrinsically
impossible (other than when a paradox would have to exist, as mentioned
above).
Your friend does not have proof that humans do not have free will.
I can, however, show you that a dog will follow instinct unless specifically
trained to do something else (and then it is following its instinct still
as I would use another of its instincts to overcome the one in question).
To claim that we will only follow what we are programmed to follow . . . in
the same way a fish's movement in water throughout
its lifetime is pre-programmed and determinable, is both ludicrous
and decidedly unscientific.
I suppose I could probably go on with this discussion for several volumes.
In
the end, if your friend persists in the belief that Science has anything
to say about truth, I would suggest ceasing to throw your pearls to swine. (Matthew 7:6)
I hope this helps,
Robert P. Coutinho
B. S. in Chemistry from Framingham State College
Disabled due to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalitis
|
