|
Imagine being
one of the early humans raised without memory of Eden and without
exposure to the revelations given to men like Abraham and Moses. Then
imagine how you would have experienced the natural world! Death,
birth, thunder, lightning, solar eclipses, the power of the seas --
these things must have inspired wonder, confusion, and, most
importantly, awe. Early man attributed such phenomena to preternatural
powers he thought he saw in them, sometimes seeing the
phenomena themselves as gods and worshiping such things as the stars
and fire as deities in their own right. His in-built religious
impulse caused him to imagine gods -- many, many gods. Gods of thunder,
of rain, of harvest -- an almost endless variety of gods populated the
ancient world, and the stories told about them shaped cultures and,
later, civilizations. The ancient Mesopotamians had their pantheons of
gods, as did the Greeks and Romans that followed.
Then, around 600 years before Lord Christ was born, certain Greeks
began speculating about the nature of nature in itself, as itself, as
opposed to considering the natural world solely in terms of the random
doings of their capricious gods. While still honoring those false gods,
their questions changed in kind, going from the likes of "which gods
move things?" to "of what are things made?" and "are there patterns to
the way things change?"
Thales is the first individual known to history to have begun
systematizing such thought, thereby becoming the father of natural
philosophy. Of him, St. Augustine wrote, in "City of
God," Book VIII:
Thales was
distinguished as an investigator into the nature of things; and, in
order that he might have successors in his school, he committed his
dissertations to writing. That, however, which especially rendered him
eminent was his ability, by means of astronomical calculations, even to
predict eclipses of the sun and moon. He thought, however, that water
was the first principle of things, and that of it all the elements of
the world, the world itself, and all things which are generated in it,
ultimately consist.
St. Augustine goes on to describe the successor of Thales, a man called
Anaximander, who "did not hold that all things spring from one
principle, as Thales did, who held that principle to be water, but
thought that each thing springs from its own proper principle. These
principles of things he believed to be infinite in number, and thought
that they generated innumerable worlds, and all the things which arise
in them."
Then came Anaximenes, who thought all was made of "infinite air." He
was followed by a line of thinkers who continued to theorize on the
nature of things and which of the elements was primary: Anaxagoras,
who, St. Augustine says,
taught Diogenes, who taught
Archelaus. Of their ideas, St. Basil wrote in his "On the Hexaemeron":
The philosophers
of Greece have made much ado to explain nature, and not one of their
systems has remained firm and unshaken, each being overturned by its
successor. It is vain to refute them; they are sufficient in themselves
to destroy one another.
Theirs was the problem of infinite regress, one that Fr. Joam Fenicio,
S.J. wrote of many centuries later, after his encounter with a Hindu
Brahmin in 1583 1:
[S]ome say that
the earth rests upon the horn of a bull, while others (whose opinion is
looked upon as a more probable one) say on the back of the cobra Ananta; and when I asked him:
"Well, upon what does that cobra Ananta
support itself?" he answered me: "On the back of a tortoise." "And,
pray, upon what does that tortoise rest?" He answered: "On top of
eight elephants." "Well, and those eight elephants?" But then he smiled
and told me not to ask any more, as he did not know how to answer.
The Greeks, though, found a way out of the so-called "turtles all the
way down" problem of infinite regress: one of Archelaus's students was
Socrates, who taught Plato, who taught Aristotle.
These last three not only collectively formalized deductive reasoning,
developed
the Socratic method, and began to hypothesize about Forms, substance,
essence,
potential, etc., they, most importantly, finally discerned that there
must be a transcendent First Cause, a Prime Mover that supercedes the
natural world and brought it into being. They went beyond the physical
to the metaphysical, and
in all this, prepared the world for a deeper understanding
of nature and of a concept the Greek
philosophers honored: logos -- i.e., reason and
divine order. St. Augustine says of the Platonic philosophers that
they "recognized the true God as the Author of all things, the Source
of the light of truth, and the bountiful bestower of all blessedness."
And in the meanwhile, as the great thinkers of Greece came to recognize
the logical necessity of the Uncaused Cause, the
Sibyls prophesied
of the coming of His Son, Jesus Christ.
Then, in the year 1, God took on flesh
and was born in Bethlehem. After the Babe
became a man, suffered, was crucified, died, and conquered the tomb,
St.
John wrote of Him in his Gospel:
In the beginning
was the Word [Logos], and the Word [Logos] was with God, and the Word
[Logos] was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things
were made by Him: and without Him was made nothing that was made. In
Him was life, and the life was the light of men... And the Word [Logos]
was made flesh, and dwelt among us...
In the beginning
-- when time itself began -- was the Divine Mind, and this Mind brought
an orderly creation into being, ex
nihilo.
The notion that all that
exists in the natural world reflects this truth is an approach that is
momentous and unique to Christianity among the world's religions.
Hinduism sees the world as illusion; Islam sees God as irrational and
capricious; orthodox post-Temple Judaism is so
self-focused that the natural
world in itself is ignored; Buddhism sees our perception of reality as
the false result
of the belief that we are separate from other things. And on it goes.
And none of
these belief systems is conducive to science.
But the satisfaction of
man's religious impulse and rational nature come together in
the true Faith, and that Faith recognizes two "books" by which Truth
can
be known. The first is Sacred Scripture, a book -- rather, a collection
of books -- that reveals truths
that can only be known by divine revelation and which are
accepted by faith on the authority of the Church; the second is the
natural world, a "book" that reveals truths that can be known
through the senses and reason. And never can there be any conflict
between these two books if read correctly.
Sacred Scripture is full of verses that teach that there is, in
essence, a second "book" for us to read. One of the most explicit of
these is Wisdom 13:1-5:
But all men are
vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good
things that are seen, could not understand Him that is, neither by
attending to the works have acknowledged Who was the Workman: But have
imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle
of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods
that rule the world. With whose beauty, if they, being delighted, took
them to be gods: let them know how much the Lord of them is more
beautiful than they: for the First Author of beauty made all those
things. Or if they admired their power and their effects, let them
understand by them, that He that made them, is mightier than they: For
by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the Creator of
them may be seen, so as to be known thereby.
The writings of the Church Fathers and other early Christians are
replete with this concept. Socrates Scholasticus, in Book IV of his Ecclesiastical History, recounts
that St. Anthony of the Desert responded with these words to a
philosopher who asked him how he can live without books:
My book, O
philosopher, is the nature of things that are made,
and it is present whenever I wish to read the words of God.
The theme is continued by St. Augustine, in a sermon on Matthew 11
(Sermon 68):
[Some], in order
to find God, will read a book. Well, as a matter of fact there is a
certain great big book, the book of created nature. Look carefully at
it top and bottom, observe it, read it. God did not make letters of ink
for you to recognize Him in; He set before your eyes all these things
He has made. Why look for a louder voice? Heaven and earth cries out to
you, "God made me." You can read what Moses wrote; in order to write
it, what did Moses read, a man living in time? Observe heaven and earth
in a religious spirit.
Origen, in the first Book of De
Principiis, explains why this approach to God is appropriate to
man:
Our eyes
frequently cannot look upon the nature of the light itself — that is,
upon the substance of the sun; but when we behold his splendour or his
rays pouring in, perhaps, through windows or some small openings to
admit the light, we can reflect how great is the supply and source of
the light of the body. So, in like manner, the works of Divine
Providence and the plan of this whole world are a sort of rays, as it
were, of the nature of God, in comparison with His real substance and
being. As, therefore, our understanding is unable of itself to behold
God Himself as He is, it knows the Father of the world from the beauty
of His works and the comeliness of His creatures.
Consider what this means with regard to the Beauty of God! The
loveliness of nature is known to anyone with eyes, and it's so often
truly -- quite literally -- breathtaking. But to move one's eyes from
the gorgeousness of the sea's
waves crashing on the shore; or from a Moon in a sky adorned by Taurus,
Orion, and the Pleiades; or from a lush forest, thick with
life -- to move the eyes from any of these to the Face of God Himself
would be like looking away from a gentle ray of light streaming through
your kitchen
window, and then at the blazing Sun itself. What beauty is in store for
the
righteous! St. Robert Bellarmine captures this truth well in his
"Mind's Ascent to God":
In this world
then which comprehends the universality of things, there are many
things which are altogether wonderful, but what doth more especially
call for our admiration is their greatness, multitude, variety,
efficaciousness, and beauty. All which being attentively weighed and
considered (God enlightning the eyes of our understanding) will help us
to a sight of a Greatness, Multitude, Variety, Power, and Beauty of
such immensity that our souls will be ravished into transport and
ecstasy in admiration of them, and when we shall sink to ourselves
again, we shall look upon all
things, but God, as mean and inconsiderable.
St. Augustine, in his Confessions,
writes about how God's creation inspires virtue as well as knowledge.
In particular for him, it is the Book of Nature's chapter on the
heavens that brings him to
his knees in humility:
Let us look, O
Lord, upon the heavens, the work of Your fingers; clear from our eyes
that mist with which You have covered them. There is that testimony of
Yours which gives wisdom unto the little ones. Perfect, O my God, Your
praise out of the mouth of babes and sucklings. Nor have we known any
other books so destructive to pride, so destructive to the enemy and
the defender, who resists Your reconciliation in defense of his own
sins. I know not, O Lord, I know not other such pure words which so
persuade me to confession, and make my neck submissive to Your yoke,
and invite me to serve You for nought. Let me understand these things,
good Father. Grant this to me, placed under them; because You have
established these things for those placed under them.
From the Book of Nature we can gain insight to the beauty and nature of
God, and be inspired to goodness. So pay attention to His works, and
praise Him through your gratitude for
them. As St. Bonaventure tells us
in his The Mind's Road to God:
He, therefore,
who is not illumined by such great splendor of created things is blind;
he who is not awakened by such great clamor is deaf; he who does not
praise God because of all these effects is dumb; he who does not note
the First Principle from such great signs is foolish. Open your eyes
therefore, prick up your spiritual ears, open your lips, and apply your
heart, that you may see your God in all creatures, may hear Him, praise
Him, love and adore Him, magnify and honor Him, lest the whole world
rise against you.
I encourage Catholics to go out into nature and to be mindful of it, to
observe it, and to glorify God for it -- i.e., to be grateful to the
One Who made it. And I more
than encourage Catholics with children or grandchildren to take those
kids with them when they do. Because most children are being raised in
urban settings and with an inordinate amount of attention-grabbing
digital technology, the lessons from the Book of Nature are being
ignored. Gone, too, are the health benefits -- physical, intellectual,
and psychological -- from spending time in nature. This is a tragedy.
Take the children in your life to a place that is beautiful and quiet,
and read to them the gorgeous words of the 43rd chapter of
Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) or the hymn of Daniel 3:52-90, prayed by
Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago in the fiery furnace.
The more you know about something, the more you can appreciate it,2
so learn about what you see when you go outside. Get field guides to
the flora, rocks and minerals, birds, reptiles, insects, and other
animals of your area. Learn about the lives of the living creatures,
which of the flora are edible, how to track the animals, etc. Teach
your children: to notice and know the names of the Winds, at least the
cardinal ones (buy or make a weather vane!); to tell time from the
position of the Sun; to be able to
orient themselves in space according to the Sun and stars3;
to observe and understand the Moon's phases and the way the stars move.4
Maybe select a window through which you have a
good view of the Sun, and have your kids mark on the glass where the
Sun is at various times of a day so they
can see how it moves and arcs across the sky. Trace with them the
routes the creeks and
rivers near you take on their way to the ocean.5 Plant a
garden with them (especially a Mary Garden),
or, if you don't have land, grow plants in pots, from
seeds -- especially edible plants. Talk to them about the food you eat,
the farmers who grow it, the men who drive trucks and trains to deliver
it to stores, where meat comes from and how the animals are raised,
etc., so they'll have a deep sense of where food really comes from and
how much labor and sacrifice are involved in it all. Teach them
about the modern
elements and the classical elements
(Earth, Water, Fire, Air). Even better, perhaps before outright
teaching them
certain things -- for ex., about the Moon's phases -- you can have them
look and record their own observations, as if they're early natural
philosophers determining for themselves the patterns they see over time.6
Make up games and challenges to keep them really observing.7 Celebrate
the Church's four Embertides and Rogation Days.
Just help your children and granchildren receive and retain the gift of
wonder and the ability to marvel at the complexity, beauty, and order
of the created world. Above all, help them acquire the virtue of gratitude
to God for all He's given
to us.
The Great Breach
The natural philosophy of the ancient Greeks and medievals, derived
from their observations of the Book of Nature, morphed into modern
science thanks to the efforts of men like the Franciscan friars Roger
Bacon, John Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham, the Dominican St.
Albert the Great, and many other clerics, religious, and seculars. The
scientific method -- observation, the formulation of a question about
what is observed, asserting a hypothesis about it, making a falsifiable
prediction, testing to possibly find support for the hypothesis,
logical analysis of the test's results -- each step of
which being fraught with assumptions,8 was
formalized over the centuries and came to be the standard tool for
manipulating and understanding the physical workings of the world of
nature.
But increasingly, beginning at the time of the so-called
"Enlightenment," many have come to see
that tool as not one among many, but as the only tool worth valuing --
our only real means of knowing anything. A great rupture came to be
seen between the Book of Nature -- open to the world of
science -- and the Book of Scripture -- the world of religion and
philosophy. Theology, once considered the "Queen of the Sciences," was
dethroned, as were metaphyics later; in their place stands the thinking
of Descartes, popularized by Isaac Newton. Spirit has been stripped
away, and all that's left, in the minds of some, are mechanistic
sub-atomic particles forming atoms forming elements forming molecules
and, sometimes, forming cells which specialize to form organisms.
This attitude, called "scientism," is unable to reckon with the most
important of all questions. While relying on science as the only means
of knowledge, too many are oblivious to the fact that science, by its
very nature, cannot answer
questions about the meaning
or morality of anything. What
is Beauty to someone who thinks this way? What is Love? Why do we exist
at all? What is our purpose? Where are we going? How should we behave? How, why, and for
what purpose can we, allegedly nothing but masses of atoms ourselves,
be conscious of and know anything? (To see how silly the scientism
mindset can get, read the satirical study, in pdf format, "Parachute Use to
Prevent Death and Major Trauma When Jumping from Aircraft: Randomized
Controlled Trial").
But something funny happened in the early 20th century: experiments
gave results that weren't in compliance with classical Newtonian
physics. Newtonian physics measures the world of objects larger than
atoms -- their motion and interaction -- and has given us formulae to
use to calculate such things as the speed at which a mass falls to
earth, or the momentum of an object of a given mass moving at a given
speed. But if we dig down deeply, past the level of the atom, this sort
of physics gives way to a strange world of quantum physics. There,
matter is replaced by probabilities -- potential that only comes into
existence at the act of measurement. In other words, there is no
"there" there at the sub-atomic level -- until it interacts with
consciousness. The world we perceive is made of -- nothing. At least
nothing that we can submit to science. It doesn't come into being "from
below" -- i.e., ultimately from smaller and smaller subatomic particles
forming atoms forming molecules; it comes into being from above. The Spirit that Descartes
stripped away from the world has been put back in by the discoveries of
quantum physics, and we find ourselves back at Plato, Aristotle, and
St. Thomas Aquinas.
That the world, at the quantum level, is quite literally made of
potential is interpreted by some to mean that the everyday world of our
senses doesn't exist. To them, the world is nothing but a dream, as the nursery
rhyme says,
Row, row, row
your boat, gently down the stream,
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream.
They come up with ideas like "multiverses" or the notion that we live
in a computer similation to escape the conclusion that Consciousness --
the Mind of God -- wills the universe into being (they do this, too, to
escape "problems" such as the fine-tuning of the universe that must be
for life to exist). Some abuse quantum
physics to come up with New Age, "we create our own reality" nonsense
(all those starving Africans and the folks being tortured in political
camps will be glad to hear about that, I'm sure), and to claim that the
moral and immoral are whatever we want them to be "because science!" 9
But that
illusory, amoral
world with no real foundation is madness. We experience the
world of the senses -- the world
of trees and cheese and doorknobs -- every day. We see an apple. We
smell it. We
taste it. We feel its texture. We hear the crunch when we bite into it.
The apple exists (and regarding anyone who says it doesn't "really"
exist:
throw it at his head with great force and ask "Does it exist now?").
But if we break the apple down into its very smallest components, we
eventually come to nothing but potential that requires Mind to bring it
into being. I'll let Rick De Lano explain. Listen
to this interview with him about the work of physicist and philosopher
Wolfgang Smith:
The point of all
this: The great rupture between the Book of Nature and the Book of
Scripture that's been posited since the "Englightenment" isn't real.
Catholics have nothing -- not one thing -- to fear from sound science,
and don't let any of the multitude of science abusers out there tell
you otherwise.
Another point to be made is this: when scientists go from making
scientific observations to advising on political or ethical matters, a
line has
been crossed. When they go from "is" to "ought," that "ought" is a
reflection of what they value, and values -- determinations as to what
is good and what should be -- are always religious in nature. As an
example, if, say, scientists were to determine that the population of
some butterfly is decreasing, and they posit that this decrease is
caused by X, the moment they propose a solution that should be put in
place by political policy, they are relying on a value judgment -- a
judgment that calls on their personal sense of the good. Imagine they
propose banning X, and that banning X would put Y number of people out
of work. What they are asserting is that increasing the population of
that butterfly is better -- is a greater good -- than keeping Y number of
people employed. And that assertion is a value judgment, not a
scienfitic conclusion. Find the religious statement inherent in policy
recommendations, evaluate them, and call out scientists for making them
without admitting they are making religious statements, and without
clearly stating what those religious statements are. Don't let them
assert that their recommendations are "the science" and not reliant on value judgments.10
I leave you with a quote about Louis Pasteur, from a book of Catholic
apologetics written in 1914:
It is only a few
years since Pasteur, a devout Catholic, closed his
illustrious career; and it was Pasteur that gave the memorable answer
to a pupil of his who had asked him how it was possible for one who had
studied and reflected so much to remain a believer in Christianity: "It
is precisely because I have studied and reflected that I have to-day
the faith of a Breton; and had I studied and reflected more, I should
have the faith of a Breton's wife." 11
See also these pages:
And see, too, these books
from
this site's Catholic
Libary (pdf format):
Footnotes:
1 A Treatise on Hindu Cosmography from the
Seventeenth Century, Jarl Charpentier, Bulletin of the School of
Oriental Studies, University of London Vol. 3, No. 2 (1924), pp.
317-342. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/607131
2 I'll share a personal anecdote about
this: I'd always been squeamish about spiders. They gave me the
heebie-jeebies. But then one year, I noticed a spider outside my
window, and I started to really look
at it. She'd come at the same time every night, almost to the minute, and build her web
just on the other side of the glass. I started to become rather
fascinated, to the point I'd actually anticipate her arrival. Then one
day, she was gone, and I was really surprised at how sad I was. I did
some research and learned she was an orb-weaver. I read all about them,
watched videos about them, etc., and developed a real respect for the
creatures. The next Summer, I found one on my porch, and watched again.
I'd leave the porch light on just so it'd help attract bugs to her web,
which I'd watch her build at night and take down in the morning. I even
named her. When she went away to lay her eggs and die, it was almost
like losing a pet. The next year, I had three spiders on my porch
(perhaps last year's spider's children), living out their little spider
lives, and all three got names. I saw them build, hunt, re-build, and
even mate. Over time, the animals that used to freak me out became not
only objects of fascination for me, but friends of sorts. My fear of
them was gone, and my appreciation for their place in nature grew
enormously. (I still don't want to touch one, mind you, or worse, have
one touch me, but they're welcome on my porch anytime. Most welcome.)
3 To find North during the daytime when
the Sun is out, drive a straight stick into smooth, even ground so it's
as upright as possible. Follow the shadow of the stick out to the very
end of the shadow, and place a marker -- e.g., a very small rock, a
small twig stuck in the ground -- at the exact point the shadow ends.
This point will mark West. Wait a while until the shadow moves. When it
does, mark the very tip of the new shadow in the same way you did
before. This point will mark East. Draw a straight line in the dirt to
connect the two markers you made. That line marks out the East-West
axis. From there, you can find the other two directions: with East at
your right side, stand with your toes against the line that marks the
East-West axis. Directly in front of you is North; behind you is South.
The only trick to this is remembering that the first shadow marker will
mark West; to remember this, remember "The West is the best," and, so,
comes first. Of course, you can use any already existing slim shadow of
an upright object to orient yourself in this way, but to have a Boy
Scout-like method is nice.
4 See this site's section on the Zodiac.
5 Using Google Maps can help you trace
rivers in this way. It really is interesting how the smallest of rivers
almost always find their way to the sea. For ex., the route of the
creek I grew up near in Indianapolis, Indiana has this path: Fall Creek
flows into the White River, the White flows into the Wabash River, the
Wabash flows into the Ohio River, the Ohio River flows into the
Mississippi River, and the Mississippi flows into the sea at the Gulf
of Mexico.
6 For teaching your children about the
phases of the Moon, one idea is to provide them with sheets on which
are placed 31 circles per month (some of which won't be used, of
course). Over the course of three months (maybe during Summer
vacation), have them go outside each night, observe, and color in the
Moon with a pencil according to the phase it's in. I provide a pdf of
three months' worth of "Moon circles" for you to use: moonphases.pdf.
7 Some ideas:
- While out
walking outdoors, challenge those with you to find various shapes in
nature -- for ex., things that look like faces, or the shapes of
letters (take pictures of your findings and see if you can collect the
entire alphabet).
- While outdoors,
periodically
stop, have everyone close his eyes and describe what he hears and
smells and otherwise senses.
- Before a hike,
get paint
swatches from the hardware store and cut them so you have pieces of
paper with one color on them. Jumble them up in a hat and have everyone
blindly select 5 swatches. While out, challenge them to find things in
nature that match the colors on their swatches. Photograph what they
find.
- Listen to the
birds' songs. What words do they seem to be saying? What human songs do
their songs most sound like?
- While on a hike,
challenge
everyone to find one of each of the following: annelid; arthropod;
reptile; amphibian; bird; non-human mammal; fungus.
- Have a list of
birds found in your area, and check them off as you spot them.
- Turn your outing
into a challenge as to who can take the most beautiful or interesting
photograph.
- Collectively or
individually write haiku about what you see as you go along (haiku
consists of three
lines, the first with 5 syllables, the second with 7, and the last with
5)
- "Make things
interesting" by having pools on when a member of the family will spot
the year's first daffodil, rainbow, flock of Northward-headed geese in
Spring; the first
hummingbird,
firefly, June bug, praying mantis, orb weaver, etc., of Summer; the
first yellow-orange colored tree, flock of geese heading South, etc.,
in Autumn; the first snowfall, icicle, animal tracks in snow, etc. in
Winter. Winner of a given pool gets
to
choose the
night's dessert or what have you. You could, beforehand, have everyone
guess the date the event will happen, and award a prize to the person
who gets that right, and then award a prize to the person who is the
first to spot the event happening. Some tables for you to hang on your
refrigerator to play this game with your family: Seasons Pool (pdf).
- Have your kids
draw maps of the land they walk and explore, including their own
yard/garden if they're blessed to have such. Have them label areas with
names they make up. Teach them how to orient maps so they know the four
cardinal directions, have them point out where the Sun rises and sets,
etc.
- Research what
your area looked like 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 1 million years
ago, etc., and teach your kids how the land has changed over time.
- Do what the town
of Rangeley, Maine did and build little "gnome homes" (or the
equivalent, such as "fairy houses," etc.) on trails throughout a forest
to interest kids in exploring. Set up enchanting little dioramas to
motivate children to explore an outdoor area.
- Hide things in
the forest that kids can find using GPS or, better, treasure maps.
- Arrange forest
scavenger hunts.
- Put up bird
feeders, bird houses, bird baths, bat houses, etc. in your yard. Invite
wildlife by planting flowers that attract butterflies and bees, trees
to attract squirrels, a little garden for the critters in addition to
the one for your family, etc.
- Get some
backyard chickens (during WWII, the American government recommended 2
chickens for every family member).
8 These steps are imperfect, and a scientific
obvservation or experiment needs to also be replicable. These days,
some think the scientific method includes peer review, which, in
reality, serves as much as political gatekeeper, and "Mean Girls"
method of blackballing the "uncool kids," as it does a guardian of good
science. Read Richard Smith's "Peer
review: a flawed process at
the heart of science and journals" (pdf) -- and know that papers
with research that's been replicated are cited 153 times less often on average than papers
that haven't been replicated, likely because they're more "interesting"
or suit the views of the academics citing them (see the pdfs Nonreplicable
Publications Are Cited More than Replicable Ones and Why Most Published Research Findings are
False). For a more
general look
at scientism and the problems with each step of the scientific method,
see Paul Feyerabend's "How
to Defend Society Against Science" (pdf). And listen to Dr.
William Brigg's lecture given at Hillsdale College in 2023 (mp3).
9
Revel in this bit of insanity -- "What quantum
physics taught me about queer identity" -- from the BBC
(source:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ideas/videos/what-quantum-physics-taught-me-about-queer-identit/p06ltbj1):
My name is Amrou
Al-Kadhi or Glamrou. And I have an identity that you might categorise
as intersectional. I'm British-Iraqi, gay, non-binary and also identify
as Muslim. And reading about quantum physics has really helped me
understand my queer identity.
Quantum physics is a beautiful, strange and glorious sect of
physics
that looks at the subatomic particles that govern our world. So, inside
the neutrons, electrons and the protons you're looking at the quarks,
leptons, bosons and the Higgs. Whereas classical Newtonian physics is
obsessed with the universal formula that govern our reality, it's so
fixed on resolute answers. Quantum physics reveals that there is no
fixed reality and it's full of beautiful contradictions. We can now
observe that the same sub-atomic particle can be in many places at the
same time. So if we fire an electron through a wall with two holes, for
instance, we should be able to see that it goes through one or the
other. But, on a quantum level when you observe what's going on, we see
that the same particle is actually going through both holes at the same
time. Multiple versions of the same event are happening all at the same
time.
What's so remarkable about quantum physics is the fact that
what's
happening on a subatomic level contradicts what we're actually seeing
happening in reality. It shows us that reality is itself a construct,
and what's going on internally on a subatomic level belies what we're
actually observing.
Quantum physics to Newtonian physics is, to me, what queer
theory is to
heteronormativity, i.e. looking for normative constructs of society
male, female, of gender, of race categorising everything in a neat,
rigid way. I am very comforted by this as a queer person with no real
fixed identity. It gives me immense hope that there's this model of the
world. This real physical, philosophical model which shows us that
reality is just a set of contradictions with no real fixed foundation.
It is in this model of space-time as a series of entanglements that I'm
able to piece together all of the fragmented sects of my identity being
able to identify as British and Iraqi, as queer and Muslim, as someone
of many genders and potentially no genders at all.
10 Whenever you hear "scientists say" or "the
science says," replace those phrases with "some scientists say." When
those phrases are followed by "should," "recommend," suggest,"
"ought," and other such words, look for the non-scientific values
judgment.
11 From "The Catholic's ready answer; a
popular
vindication of
Christian beliefs and practices against the attacks of modern
criticism," by Michael Peter Hall, available in this site's Catholic
Library. |
|
