On Science and Wonder

I believe that many aspects of the sciences have lost the sense of wonder that they grew from.  Among my peers, so few seem to be truly fascinated by what they study: instead, they work for the grades, and then for the money, but they don't love what they find.  I think that the wonder of science never went away, people only stopped wondering at it.  

Many scientists, engineers, and especially people who don't actually know much about the sciences, seem to look at modern science from the perspective that we know so much now that it makes notions of God or spiritual things obsolete—as though we have somehow, by learning more about the workings of the universe, dispelled all that hokey spiritual mumbo-jumbo.  But there was once a time when many of the greatest minds believed not that science disproved God, but that science was a way of revealing His majesty.  I subscribe to that older school of thought, because it still holds true.  When I look at the minute particles that make up everything, I see the glory and wonder of God:  The more we learn, the more we realize just how complex and finely tuned the universe is.  We once thought that the smallest unit of matter was the atom.  Then we found that each atom was made up of smaller parts.  And then that the parts had parts.  And we keep crashing things together in particle colliders, only to discover more parts that we had only guessed at.  Then I can look up and see the enormity of the sky, and realize that all of that enormity is put together in exquisite detail down until beyond where we can see even with microscopes; that the universe, enormous beyond comprehension, is detailed beyond comprehension.  

Our world is a wonder.  But even the bigger things are taken for granted.  We just assume that the sky must have been that perfect blue.  We just assume that human life, so ridiculously improbable, must have happened.  We just assume that it's no big deal that rivers flow with water, or that grass is green, or that we can be so like chimpanzees and yet so completely different.  But it didn't have to be that way.  One of the mistakes of the Roman Catholic Church was to oppose some scientific discoveries, out of fear that it would make humanity seem less special, less providential   I think it is an equally big mistake for science to try to downplay the ways in which our world really is special.  The more of the universe we find, the more we discover just how unique our planet really is.

How can we look at what we've learned without being awed by the wonder of it all?  When did men become so arrogant that they'd think this is all normal?  It's incredible!  It's like we're seeing this vast, unbelievable machine.  It has a polished, beautiful exterior.  But when we figure out how to open up the panel, and see that the works are infinitely more complicated than we imagined,  instead of being awed by the brilliance of it all, people act as though, since we figured out how the panel works, the whole thing is not that big a deal.  We've still only scratched the surface.  I think the real problem is that people don't want to believe in a God—it scares them.  And maybe, a little, it should. God is not safe—but he's good.  I look at what science has revealed, and I see the wonder of God's creation: exquisite, brilliant, and good.

On the Foundations of Ethics

Before you ask an ethical question, you must establish the foundation of your ethics: before you can say with conviction that anything is wrong, you must first ask why anything is wrong. If you cannot answer that simplest of questions, how can you answer an ethical one?  It is essential to establish a foundation for ethics.

But then, where does one find the foundation of ethics?  Considering the "scientific" perspective is irrelevant, because science makes no comment on whether something is right or wrong: science is a method of acquiring knowledge, but makes no claim on what we do with it. It is science that created the nuclear bomb, and science that makes water filters for third world countries. The only thing that we might get from science is natural selection, which has no ethics at all:  only victory and defeat.  

In fact, the only way a real ethical standard can exist is if there is a universal law; if there is not a universal law, then how can anyone judge if something is right?  Without a universal law, there can be no ethics. If your only answer can be subjective opinion (with no law, that’s all that is left), then no one has the right to judge something right or wrong.

Thus, Atheism also must necessarily have no ethics:  If there is no one to create a universal law, then how can there be one?  Without a universal law, everything is relative, and the only factor is the consequences. It no longer becomes a question of right and wrong, but instead a question of practical or impractical. The only ethics one might then speak of are whether something causes harm (and the only reason to follow them, self-preservation).  Now, I do not say that Atheists themselves have no ethics.  Only that Atheism cannot support ethics.  The Atheist may argue that he is ethical, but how can he really explain why without admitting the existence of a higher law?  (As G.K. Chesterton wrote, the modern skeptic “is always engaged in undermining his own mines.”)

Then, there is the Christian perspective: that there is a divine law, and that breaking it is always wrong.  The Christian perspective provides an absolutely concrete foundation for ethics: it is based on the existence of a totally just and good God, who has ordained a law, which defines good and evil. 

I think my point on ethics relates to something G.K. Chesterton writes in the opening chapters of Orthodoxy: that the man who goes insane is the man who is left with nothing but his reason. If one is to say that something is wrong, then he must be able to say why.  Religion is very clear on the why. But if you discount the spiritual, you are left with only the rational. And if you actually follow pure rationality (something which no one does, except a few madmen), then you cannot rationally justify any one side of an ethical question. If you ask the Christian why something is wrong, he can tell you immediately the root reason: God's law. It's concrete. But if you ask the atheist why something is wrong, he must resort to balancing it on a scale where he decides how much everything weighs. He can only say, "it is wrong because this or that might happen." Well, why does that make it wrong? You can keep following the question, "Why?" backwards until eventually (infuriating as that line of questioning would inevitably be) you must conclude that there is no objective reason behind it: one person could conclude one thing, and another completely the opposite, and both would have equally legitimate claims to being in the right.

The Atheist might perhaps argue that human compassion and cultural norms provide a foundation for ethics.  We all seem to recognize that human compassion is the right thing.  But why?  The Christian answer is that God told us to be compassionate. The atheist cannot answer: he has no way to know. To doubt God must, if you really take it seriously (few do), mean that you then doubt everything else. I argue that ethics is impossible without God, because God created right and wrong. It is His standard, nearly universally agreed on but very selectively understood.  If a man is murdered, then obviously the murderer did wrong.  But then, why? Why was what he did wrong? The Christian answer is that God said "do not commit murder." The atheist answer, “because it is wrong,” which is about as good as saying that a rock is a rock because it is a rock.  The Atheist can never answer the question, because he has already rejected the answer.  Ethics requires a foundation.  The only thing that can provide that foundation is a law, ordained by a higher power, such as the Christian God.

A Thought From Sitting in a Tree

When I sit and think, often my mind turns to humanity's relationship with the natural world.  Since the Fall, man has lived in spite of nature, which was once under our dominion, given us to rule.  Through cunning and mortal skill, we have partially remastered what was once ours to rule, when even the lions came forward to be named.  And when we grasp nature by the throat and twist it to our own ends--what we in our pride call improvement, or progress, towering structures and marvels of engineering--most often we create but a pale reflection of what God has already created.  We build our cold, hard structures and admire the works of our own hands, while nature shines in the glory God gave it, right beneath out gaze.  What would it look like if we were to live in harmony with nature? It is something that has not happened since the Fall, though some have done better than others.  While I think that because of the fall  it is impossible for the time being to live in complete  harmony with creation, yet, I think it would be to our benefit to respect and learn from nature, for God created it, and he thought it was good.

Our Wondrous World

Nature is the queen of beauty.  Every structure, every work of art, that we consider beautiful is a mere reproduction of nature.  Even our 'modern' architecture is but a reproduction of nature-  namely crystalline formations.  We are nature's most advanced members, yet even we are not capable of a natural level of construction.  Snow often looks ugly by the side of a road, or on a path, yet, that ugliness comes from us, not nature.  Where one animal walks, the snow is disturbed in an almost artistic way.  Where the snow is blackened and ugly, it is only by our own creations.  Nature is far beyond our comprehension and imagination.  No mere mind, no chance or fate could make this glorious creation.  Looking upon these amazing forms, one cannot help but conclude that nature is the master work of a hand beyond our comprehension.  So long we have lived on this world, one in a universe composed of billions of stars and planets, enormous beyond imagination, minutely and even mathematically precise, yet, we barely understand ourselves.  We cannot reproduce life, or even simulate it.  Even if we can eventually simulate life, we do not understand it.  We do not know why we feel emotion, or perceive beauty, or even why we bother to think at all.  We cannot produce anything even close to the flawless design of our own bodies. Yet, the leaders of our world, of our communities, of our schools, would have us believe that all of this happened by chance.  If there is any argument against evolution, it is that we can consider evolution at all.  We are far beyond any possibility of random creation.  The human brain is a structure of such minute complexity and simplicity of design that it is more advanced than our largest supercomputers.  The universe, is so precise as to defy any possibility of its formation by random chance.  We can observe it and be amazed by it, yet we don't truly understand it.  Take these mathematical principles:  The sum of a series of numbers (1+2+3+...+n) is equal to n(n+1)/2.  The sum of a series of cubed numbers is equal to that same formula, squared.  (n(n+1)/2)^2.  It just is.  There is no clear mathematical connection. The equation for the area of a circle is pi*r^2.  Pi is, as far as we know, an infinite decimal!  We can calculate it to hundreds of decimal points, and it just keeps going.  Our bodies are structured to be a perfect machine, from the individual molecules used in our bodies, on up to the structure of our skeleton and the unfathomable sophistication of the human brain.  We are still having trouble just simulating the motion of a human hip!  (For prosthetics, or robots.)  All of this, without an intelligent designer, makes no sense.  Our universe, which by the laws of physics tends toward disorder, is yet an orderly masterpiece, put together with such exquisite attention to detail as would take every human on Earth ever born, working together, millions of years to design.  We live in a world of wonder.  And all of it, when we finally look beyond our own conceit and self-importance, is beautiful.