Guise of Chance

 Computers cannot be constructed by random particles flying about for billions of years. The complete works of Shakespeare, nicely printed and produced in a handsome volume, did not result from a gigantic explosion in a cosmic print shop eons ago. Winds and rains and dust blowing over and upon a large piece of marble did not bring the Pietà into being. No normal person has the least doubt about these three statements. People know that chance can explain neither beauty nor intricate complexity.

Plain as all this is we can enhance the worth of our evaluation of chance "explanations" by getting a feel for the impossibly enormous numbers involved in assertions about randomness. Adding zeros to a digit increases numbers at a rapidly accelerating rate 10 , 100, 1000, 10,000, and so on. As the numbers grow with zeroes soon the rate of increase begins to boggle the mind. Thus with 26 zero We have the number of drops of water in all the oceans of the world. The visible universe , billions of light years in extent, measures about 1028 inches. In our visible universe of 50 billion galaxies, with several billion huge stars on average in each Galaxy, there are 1070 atoms. The numbers have outstripped our capacity to deal with them. Living plants and animals are so fantastically complicated that astronomer Fred Hoyle and astrophysicist Chandra Wickramasinghe have calculated that odds against life happening by chance one in 104000 -- and unspeakable impossibility.

Faith, Reason and Evil

Faith properly understood, does not contradict reason in the least; indeed, it is nothing less than the will to keep one’s mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it.

Pure reason can reveal to us that there is a God, that we have immortal souls, and that there is a natural moral law. Does belief in such a revelation go beyond reason? Is this where faith comes in? the answer is no, for the claim that a divine revelation has occurred is something for which the monotheistic religions typically claim there is evidence, and that evidence takes the form of a miracle, a suspension of the natural order that cannot be explained in any way other than divine intervention in the normal course of events.

Given that God exists and that He sustains the world and the causal laws governing it in being at every moment, we know that there is a power capable of producing a miracle, that is , a suspension of those causal laws.

The case for the resurrection of Christ doesn’t exist in a vacuum then; it presupposes this philosophical background. Pure reason proves through philosophical arguments that there is a God and that we have immortal souls. This by itself entails that a miracle like a resurrection from the dead is possible. Now the historical evidence hat Jesus Christ was in fact resurrected from the dead is overwhelming when interpreted in light of that background knowledge. Hence pure reason also shows that Jesus really was raised from the dead. But Jesus claimed to be divine, and claimed that the authority of His teachings would be confirmed by His being resurrected. So the fact that He was resurrected provides divine authentication of His claims.

Suppose you know through purely rational arguments that there is a God, that He raised Jesus Christ from the dead, and therefore that Christ really is divine, as He claimed to be, so that anything He taught must be true; in other words, suppose that the general strategy jus sketched can be successfully fleshed out. Then it follows that if you are rational you will believe anything Christ taught; indeed, if you are rational you will believe it even if it is something that you could not possibly have come to know in any other way, and even if it is something highly counterintuitive and difficult to understand. Reason tells you to have faith  in what Christ teaches because He is divine. That is what faith is from the point of view of traditional Christian theology: belief in what God has revealed because if God has revealed it, it  cannot be in error; but where the claim that He revealed it is itself something that is known on the basis of reason faith doesn’t conflict with reason, then; it is founded on reason and completes reason.

Summary of “Teleology And Transcendence: The Thought Of Robert Spaemann.” By Anselm Ramelow

Robert Spaemann (1927 - 2018) German Catholic Philosopher

                                                                

It explores the philosophical contributions of Robert Spaemann, particularly his focus on teleology (the study of purpose or design in nature) and transcendence (the idea of going beyond physical or material existence). The work reflects on Spaemann's critique of modern attempts to replace teleological perspectives with paradigms centered on self-preservation. It also delves into how Spaemann's personal experiences, such as his early life challenges and exposure to the dangers of the Nazi era, shaped his philosophical outlook. The text emphasizes Spaemann's belief in the interconnectedness of life's parts and their orientation toward an ungraspable whole.

Spaemann emphasizes the importance of teleology, the idea that natural entities have intrinsic purposes or ends. He critiques modern attempts to replace teleological perspectives with mechanistic or utilitarian views.

A central theme in his work is the distinction between "someone" and "something." Spaemann argues that all human beings, regardless of their stage of development or limitations, are persons with inherent dignity.

NATURAL LAW

 

The nature of a thing, from an Aristotelian point of view, is the form or essence it instantiates. Ex.: it is of the essence, nature, or form of a triangle to have three perfectly straight sides. 

In biological organs, we have things whose natures or essences more obviously involve certain final causes or purposes. Ex.: the function or final cause of eyeballs is to enable us to see. Objections: Ex.: if it is wrong to go against nature, then it is wrong to wear glasses. Again: If homosexuality is genetic, doesn’t that show that it’s natural too.?

To wear eyeglasses isn’t contrary to the natural function of eyeballs; rather, it quite obviously restores to the eyeballs their ability to carry out their natural function. The question of homosexuality’s genetic basis is quite irrelevant; it does not by itself prove anything about whether it is natural. The possibility of a genetic basis for clubfoot doesn’t show that having clubfeet is “natural”. It is obviously unnatural in the Aristotelian sense of failing perfectly to conform to the essence or nature of a thing. No one who has a clubfoot would take offense at someone’s noting this obvious matter of fact, or find it convincing that the existence of a genetic basis for his affliction shows that it is something he should “embrace” and “celebrate”.

Of course, that by itself does not show that homosexuality is immoral either. After all, having a clubfoot is not immoral, and neither is being born blind or with a predisposition for alcoholism.