When tradition is not Tradition

Posted on February 23, 2012 by

‘The Church, in the course of centuries, tends perpetually towards the fullness of divine truth,” says Vatican II of the Tradition of the Apostles (Dei Verbum 8). Nothing to frighten the horses there, but the passage has its critics – not for what it says but what it doesn’t say. Broadly, the critics claim that no proper distinction is made between the essential core of Tradition (capital “T”), and the traditions which the Church develops from time to time. Thus there is no slot for such secondary traditions which remain open to reformation.

An example of these is the tradition that unbaptised infants cannot ipso facto get to heaven, and so Limbo is the solution. That tradition started roughly with St Augustine and lasted until – well, yesterday.

It is not the length of the tradition but its relationship to Tradition which counts. And this sometimes cannot be clearly discerned until the repudiation of a tradition confirms that it must, after all, have been tangential.

We cannot dismiss these critics as the gadflies who love to point out the Church’s blemishes. Among them is the late Cardinal Albert Meyer, the acknowledged intellectual leader of the American hierarchy. He was a member of the commission drafting the document. A second was the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches (1963). A third was a certain Tübingen professor, Joseph Ratzinger – writing in 1969.

At least so Professor Francis A Sullivan SJ, from Boston University, tells me in his paper “Catholic Tradition and traditions” in The Crisis of Authority in Catholic Modernity (OUP), into which I have been dipping on your behalf from time to time.

Sullivan looks at two representative cases. The first is slavery. The subject was covered in this newspaper on March 23 2007, and can be roughly summed up by the Holy Office Instruction of June 30 1866: “Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons.”

There have, of course, been many strictures on the abuses of slavery, but Sullivan argues that the principle was never condemned directly; it was only with the Church’s deeper understanding of human dignity – as expressed in the Catechism and in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2003) that it was manifestly, yet still only implicitly, thrown into the bin.

The second issue – the rights of human beings to the exercise of their own religious belief, and acceptance of its potential salvific value – is another doctrine which was only able to emerge with the growth in the Church’s own understanding of the human condition. It is a doctrine of significance to this newspaper which fought, in effect, a running battle with much of the clerical establishment during the 1950s to promote this insight.

Unlike slavery, whose condemnation was largely a done deal in the minds of decent people by the 20th century, the belief that “error has no rights” (a statement strictly without meaning) was actively promoted.

The latest concordat giving special privileges to the Catholic Church under Franco was only signed in 1953. Its dismantling took some 20 years following the Council, and much dragging of feet. There are those who believe that the tendency of the Church to colonise via secular power is so deep laid that, even now, it would snap back in place at the drop of a mitre.

Sullivan cites, as an example of a tradition which potentially might be reformed, the application of celibacy as the norm for the secular priest. I find this example too slight; I think there is more meat in the Church’s tradition that telling a lie can never be excused. Again, we are thinking of a long tradition: St Augustine was more than clear on the subject. And the Catechism (2482 ff) is explicit: “To lie is to act or speak against the truth in order to lead someone into error.”

But this was a revision of the position taken in the previous edition, which read: “To speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth.” Those last nine words make a difference of substance. I will argue that the previous edition was correct. That is, the teaching should not be based on structure of speech (“the purpose of speech is to communicate the known truth to others”) but on the relationship between persons, and what is owed by one to another. By definition one cannot owe truth to someone who has no right to it.

But how do mere laymen dare to suggest that a revision of the Catechism may be wrong? This brings me to Sullivan’s last point. There is no such thing as mere laity. Just as we are innately able to recognise the moral law through reason so we are able through faith to cling to the Word of God, penetrating it more deeply and applying it more thoroughly to life.

So says Vatican II, and Aquinas tells us that the divinely infused light of faith enables the faithful to assent to what accords with this faith and to reject what does not (references on Secondsightblog.net) We may not be a democratic community, but we are a witnessing community.

And though my light of faith may be as small as a mustard need, it may still be bright enough to discern this question. Tell us what you think.

The reference to Aquinas (above) is: ST 2a 2ae, q.2, a.3, ad 2

Posted in Catholic Herald columns, Church and Society, Moral judgment | Tagged , , | 13 Comments

The beam in the eye

Posted on February 16, 2012 by

Our old friend Advocatus Diaboli has been in touch with me again. And, as usual, I submit his ideas to you for comments. Is he talking through his hat, or does he have some worthwhile points? Here he goes.

I see that Baroness Warsi is visiting the Pope. And her pathetic message is that “aggressive secularism” is well on the way to pushing religion into the side lane of private behaviour, and out of the public domain. How do you guys feel about being represented by a Muslim? These are the very people you have brutally slaughtered in the past, and – even today – you secretly hate and fear.

But she has got the wrong end of the stick. The fact is that religion in public life is a source of great damage. It creates prejudice, bigotry and intolerance. Here are some examples.

Catholic adoption societies didn’t do a bad job of work but, quite extraordinarily, they refused to consider homosexual couples as potential adopting parents. The, democratically supported, law is quite clear that civil partnerships are legal – and there is no evidence to suggest that they cannot make perfectly good parents. How dare you deny young children the possibility of being adopted by such people on the basis of an alleged moral rule written down by superstitious people thousands of years ago? Or, deny the rights of those who wish to adopt?

What about that boarding house which turned away a respectable same-sex couple on the grounds of their unlawful prejudice? How would you feel if you turned up at a bed and breakfast with your wife and the owner refused to accept you because he disapproved of heterosexual couples? Absurd! you think. Yes indeed – just as absurd as the other way round.

I know that Catholics are taxpayers too. But a Catholic parent has the whole range of state education to choose from while the non-believer is either excluded from, or severely disadvantaged, because 30% of schools are in the faith sector. I see no reason why Catholic doctrine should not be taught outside the school, or in schools which are completely church funded. And now you’re whining because some councils in these straitened times are cutting back their subsidised expenditure on travel to Catholic schools. The parents choose Catholic schools so why should their neighbours subsidise their choice? Perhaps you would prefer the councils to save money by reducing their services to the old and poor.

Now everyone is moaning about Bideford town council because they can’t have prayers on their formal agenda. The judge said there was no problem about having prayers before the formal agenda. So what’s the difficulty? Imagine that you have been elected to your town council, and you discover that you are supposed to take part in prayers interceding for the introduction of Sharia law, or perhaps a satanic celebration, or perhaps a bit of “new age” tree worship. Would you be being intolerant or aggressive if you went to the law to protect you from such superstitions being celebrated at a public meeting?

It seems to me that you are very active in defending your, frankly imaginary, beliefs and weird religious practices, but aggressively intolerant to those who believe that our public life should be free of such overt, and often offensive, nonsense.

Posted in Church and Society, Quentin queries | Tagged , , , , | 109 Comments

The harmony of God

Posted on February 9, 2012 by

I am a mathematical flirt. The Jesuit who taught me was far too clever to understand that I needed my sixth-form mathematics explained in words of one syllable, and preferably in terms of apples and oranges. But I was fascinated by a discipline which could not only describe the world yet could discover otherwise undetectable truths.

Are mathematics inherent in reality, or just our human grasp of the fundamental order of creation? I do not know, nor, as far as I can tell, does anyone else. But today I just want to highlight examples of the mathematics which I find especially appealing.

I am now about to give you the details of my credit card. It measures 55mm by 85mm. That means that Euclid and Plato would have approved, and so would the designer of the Acropolis, for these proportions are the key to its structures. The ratio of approximately eight to 13 is known as the golden ratio or, as Pacioli in the 15th century called it, the “divine proportion”. And that is a good name because that ratio is manifest in so many areas in art, mathematics and nature, suggesting its relationship to creation. If heaven has gates they will certainly satisfy the divine proportion.

Take a line and bisect at the point where the proportion of the original line to the longer section is the same as the proportion of the longer section to the shorter (got that clear?) and you have the divine proportion.

The human eye finds that proportion aesthetically satisfying. A look at Renaissance and traditional painting will show in how many ways the artist uses it to achieve a pleasing composition which draws our attention to where he directs us.

Take a line of numbers. This one is called the Fibonacci sequence. Here, the following sequence is discovered as the sum of the two preceding numbers. Thus: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, etc. Only of casual interest? Not quite. Notice 8 and 13 – which is once more the ratio of the divine proportion. Indeed, successive Fibonacci numbers confirm this.

And it turns out to be everywhere. It appears in DNA and the hornplates of a turtle, the anatomy of a spider and the breeding of rabbits. It is the ratio involved in the division of tree branches and in the polyfurcation of veins. It is as if the mind of God, the structure of creation, and the mind of man were all connected by a single principle of beautiful harmony which lies at the heart of all existing things.

GIGO means Garbage In, Garbage Out. Wise words for many endeavours but not necessarily true. If you can remember how, solve this equation: i2 = −1 by taking the square root of both sides. The answer is i =  √−1. Only it can’t be resolved because any number multiplied by itself is positive; it cannot be negative. √−1 is an “imaginary” number. But before you throw it away as garbage, just check on your digital camera. You will find that the equation which compresses the pixels contains such imaginary numbers. It has been discovered that many equations, almost too complex to be solved directly, can be simplified quickly by such numbers. Many of the operations in the modern world depend on using imaginary numbers.

Of course the answer would be useless if it contained √−1. But it doesn’t. In lay terms, imaginary numbers act as a scaffold brought on to assist, and then quietly removed. You and I know that the scaffold was there, we just didn’t see it.

What proportion of Catholics, at given ages, go regularly to Sunday Mass? Because I can never investigate them all I will have to use a sample. Leaving aside the (fascinating) issue of choosing the right sample and working out how the information will be obtained, I will still have to measure the accuracy of my answers. It may help me to go for an average, remembering that mean, median and modal averages may each be different. But I will also need to have a measurement of whether the distribution is broad or narrow. The standard deviation, which tells me that, will also indicate how my accuracy relates to sample size.

I may need to check my correlations, too. For example, is there a strong or weak correlation between age and Mass attendance? There is a calculation which tells us that, too.

I know that mathematics cannot give certainty in such matters but I am thrilled at the thought that we can calculate our degree of uncertainty. And when people say to me: “But they only asked 1,000 people. That can’t give a reliable answer.” I merely tap my nose and say: “It all depends.”

Yet ultimately all mathematical bets are off. Kurt Gödel may be one of our few contemporary personalities who will be remembered in 1,000 years. He showed that any formal system of mathematics that includes a modicum of arithmetic is incomplete, and there will always be true statements that cannot be proved within the system. Gödel died in 1978 of “malnutrition and inanition” caused by “personality disturbances”. Which shows that mathematics can drive you mad.

But the journey can be fun. I gave The Math Book and The Physics Book (by Clifford A Pickover and published by Sterling) to two grandsons (sixth form and undergraduate). They have reported with enthusiasm on these beautifully illustrated books – sufficiently interesting to them to be permanently at the bedside, and I pass on their firm recommendation to you.

Posted in Catholic Herald columns, Philosophy, Spirituality | 77 Comments

Homo Sapiens Artificialis

Posted on February 2, 2012 by

Here is an interesting issue to examine: what moral judgment would you make about the use of three parents to one child? This is not a science fantasy but a genuine question which could lead to a change in the law.

It concerns mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Both ova and semen carry mtDNA but, at conception, only the female version is passed on. So, unlike nuclear DNA, it is not altered with every new generation – but is inherited complete. The reproduction is so accurate that it can identify the remains, say, of close relatives. It is frequently used in forensic investigations.

Unfortunately mtDNA can get damaged – and a child inheriting damaged mtDNA can suffer from very major problems. In theory (and, in some non-humans, in practice) it is possible to take an egg from a mother with healthy mtDNA, remove her nuclear DNA and replace it with the DNA of the would-be mother. The egg would then be fertilised by the prospective father’s sperm.

Since mtDNA can pass identically from mother to child and so on, it cannot be regarded as personal in the sense that nuclear DNA is unique to an individual (or identical twin).

In looking at the moral questions raised, some considerations arise.  Is this is a legitimate interference with the dignity of the natural process of conception? Is introducing a third progenitor into a process, which is normally confined to father and mother only, legitimate? And, if this methodology should be introduced, will it be a further step which will be used as a precedent for more questionable manipulation of the procreative process?

All these questions are important because they relate eventually to synthetic or artificial biology. Suppose that you want a substantial amount of spider silk thread. It’s not practical to use spiders, so you insert the thread-making gene into a goat which then makes spider thread, which can be extracted in quality from their milk. You could call it a goat-spider.

Last year, Craig Venter – a pioneer in genetic matters – succeeded in creating a living cell with the help of DNA constructed by a computer. And indeed you can purchase, at a high price, the building blocks of synthetic biology, and string them together as you wish.

The law controls such procedures when applied to human beings, and the triple parent approach described is banned. But currently the question of it being permitted in future is under discussion. So what comes next? The capacity to modify home sapiens radically is already possible theoretically, and will certainly come within practical reach – and maybe quicker that we think because digitising biological processes cuts many corners. But each step of the way there will be sensible arguments, often based on compassion, just like the need for healthy mtDNA. And the law will accommodate.

So should we stop right now? Is it possible to stop right now? If we do not stop right now at what stage of manipulated human biology will we stop?

There is a good account of the consultation on triple parents and mtDNA to be found at, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7382/full/481410a.html

And,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_disease

will tell you about the damage done by faulty mitochondria.

 

 

Posted in Bio-ethics, Moral judgment | Tagged , , | 71 Comments

Remodelling salvation history

Posted on January 26, 2012 by

No one can read Fr Jack Mahoney SJ’s remodelled scenario of salvation history without the respect owed to a learned and distinguished theologian. Nevertheless, I regret the premature publication of his Gresham lecture which was given in December. A theme which breaks the spine of salvation history as taught by the Church offends against the Vincentian canon of “that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all”. It is premature because such radical treatment requires more digestion and explanation at a professional level if its appearance is not to risk it either causing scandal or being rejected out of hand. Neither is appropriate.

If I describe it as a theology which fundamentally questions Original Sin, the “fall” from divine friendship, our fallen nature, human concupiscence, as well as the doctrine that Jesus atoned for humanity’s disobedience by offering himself as a propitiatory sacrifice to God, I am just putting down markers – largely in Fr Mahoney’s own words. Below, I provide you with a link to the lecture; this will give you context within which to judge his argument. I will just comment on some of the issues which he raises.

His approach is founded on our new evolutionary understanding of altruism. We now recognise the apotheosis of this altruism as it is shown to us in the mutual generosity of the Trinity. This is orthodox, though we should bear in mind that altruism at the base evolutionary level is morally neutral, even in humans, and explicable in terms of species survival. While we may experience it as a beneficial instinct towards our own group, it is also the source of conflict with “outsider” groups. We are bred to be hostile to strangers. As an ex-Catholic friend of mine once remarked: “It is unique to Christianity to require us to love our enemies.” And “love” seems to me the more precise word than “altruism”, at the supernatural level.

That death should be seen as a punishment for Adam’s sin, is, Fr Mahoney tells us, a primitive explanation. Evolution has taught us that, far from death being caused by humanity’s own fault, it is in fact “recognised as part of the process of ongoing creation through the survival of the fittest”. Interpreted in this way, we see Christ’s death not as a propitiation for sin but as a means of freeing death from its finality and drawing us into a new existence of divine altruism which is the “evolutionary destiny of human existence”.
On his way to this conclusion he examines the doctrines of Original Sin and its redemption by Christ. He notes the inherent difficulties of the traditional doctrine which have given rise to tortuous and unsatisfactory solutions over the centuries. And necessarily he adverts to the notorious mistranslation of Romans 5:12, which resulted in the false interpretation that we have all sinned in Adam. It is unfortunate that Trent makes much of the mistranslation but I do not think that the mistake nullifies the essentials of the doctrine.

I cannot find a better solution to this doctrine which is consistent with either Trent or the 1994 Catechism. But I am confident that our own inherent tendency to sin, sadly so often confirmed by our choices, is evidence of our imperfect nature and provides sufficient matter for Christ’s redeeming actions to be necessary. Why else does Matthew tell us of his blood shed for many “for the forgiveness of sins”? But, although Fr Mahoney argues that we have had a tendency to sinfulness from the beginning, he holds that Christ’s death is not atonement for sin but simply undergone to save humanity from individual death and meaninglessness.

Nor does he shy from the doctrinal consequences of his interpretation. Out goes the Mass as sacrifice; his reading of Scripture finds it to be “an inspiring, community ritual” celebration, and not the propitiatory sacrifice “as the Council of Trent maintained against the Reformers”. But this change would release us from the constriction of the priest acting as alter Christus at Mass – thus removing an obstacle to women providing the leadership within the community. All this would contribute to ecumenical co-operation. Indeed, it would.

He tells us that this evolutionary approach could change our moral understanding, and cites the area of sexual relationships beyond marriage. This ignores the fact that human beings evolve rather slowly while circumstances continually change. And human flourishing, to which natural law points, results from an interplay between the two. For example, low infant mortality has changed the benefit equation between reproduction and the expression of conjugal love. Our society’s experience with sexual relationships beyond marriage does not suggest to me an evolutionary advantage or a greater flourishing.

I value Fr Mahoney’s concept that Christ’s death defeats death and opens the way to a fuller and eternal life of generous love – though I do not follow why an evolutionary approach is required; I have believed this from my mother’s knee. But I continue to see the deep fissure in human nature between the lower appetites and the higher aspiration. And this defect has been inherited from Adam, possibly literally, but certainly rooted in all human nature since, ultimately, by species we are ensouled apes, and all genetically related. I accept that Christ atones for our sins and makes us holy by proxy through his sacrifice – for “making holy” is what the word “sacrifice” means.

I have tried to be fair to Fr Mahoney within a brief space. But I would suggest that you listen to the complete lecture. You will find a link at Secondsightblog.net where I will be reproducing my column. On the blog we will have unlimited opportunity for discussion and debate.

Cut and paste this link to listen to the lecture or to download the text:

http://tinyurl.com/7auszov

Jack Mahoney SJ is the author of Christianity in Evolution: an exploration, Georgetown University Press.

Posted in Catholic Herald columns, Moral judgment, Spirituality | Tagged , , | 328 Comments

Justice and memory

Posted on January 19, 2012 by

Those of you who have watched Michael Sandell, celebrated for his on-line Harvard course on Justice, will know that he likes to work by describing  difficult, and sometimes extreme, situations. And then he follows this up by questions which enable his students to explore the principles of justice – and to defend their views. I am no Michael Sandell, but last week I met with the University of the Third Age local philosophy group which I moderate. I thought it might be interesting to share with you the, somewhat artificial, situation I proposed to them. You may like to put forward an answer, and see what other contributors think.

In this situation I imagine that I am an ex-dictator of a country. When I was in power I denied all human rights, I imprisoned, tortured and executed many of my innocent citizens. When unarmed crowds demonstrated against me I sent out my fully armed troops with order to crush the rebellion as speedily as possible. Unfortunately on the last occasion I was overthrown, captured and sent for trial at an international court, which had the proper powers to try and punish me.

Although the trial was thorough it was straightforward. There was abundant evidence of my evil deeds, the court found me guilty, and I was condemned to execution.

There was only one remarkable factor. When I was captured a hand grenade exploded and a splinter went straight into my head. While I am quite compos in the ordinary way, the splinter has caused me to have substantial and irreversible amnesia. My last memory is when I was 14 years old and living in my father’s palace. I of course have not, and will never have, the slightest recollection of my time or my deeds as a dictator.

Now you, individually, are the equivalent of home secretary, hearing an appeal for mercy. Prosecuting council simply states that my identity is established, my responsibility for my crimes is established, and death by execution is the condign punishment set by the court. Defence council argues that it is unjust and grotesque for me to be punished for crimes of which I know nothing. Although my identity remains the same in strict terms, I have the memory of an innocent 14 year old. I am, to all intents and purposes a different person from the dictator who committed the crimes.

Now, who will you go with: prosecuting council or defence council?

In order to prevent you from wriggling out of the issue, there are conditions imposed in this exercise. You must assume the following in your answer.

First, that I did actually and freely commit all the crimes of which I was accused.

Second, that this was actually proved in court although, for obvious reasons, I could contribute no evidence.

Third, that I do actually suffer from complete and irreversible amnesia.

Fourth, that the proper law stipulates capital punishment for the crimes I have committed unless it can be shown that I did not act freely. The evidence demonstrates that I did act freely. Whether or not you believe in capital punishment in real life, you do believe in it for this exercise.

Your answer is “yes” if you rule that punishment is appropriate in this case. Your answer is “no” if you rule that punishment is not just in this case.

When we have enough answers to work with, I will tell you how my philosophy group voted, and also what we might infer from “yes” and “no” answers (if you haven’t worked this out already).

(PLEASE TAKE NO NOTICE OF ANY ADVERTISEMENTS THAT MAY APPEAR ON THIS PAGE, I DID NOT PUT THEM THERE, AND I CANNOT PRESENTLY TRACE THEIR SOURCE. YOU CLICK ON THEM AT YOUR OWN RISK)

Posted in Moral judgment, Philosophy, Quentin queries, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 17 Comments

Multiplying the Universe

Posted on January 12, 2012 by

The Big Bang theory was first described, but not so named, by the French Jesuit Georges Lemaître in the late 1920s. His picture of the universe expanding from a single point was certainly controversial but has now become scientific orthodoxy. The exploration of its implications is today the preoccupation of many of the world’s physicists. I like to mention his name when I hear the Church being accused of opposing science.

But Big Bang theory has itself expanded in the most remarkable and bizarre ways; it is an interesting story.

The universe has from its first micro instant expanded with enormous speed and power. But there is a problem. In order for our universe to have developed there are, I am informed, some 25 parameters which have to be correct in order for our universe to support life. Gravity must be just right, the electron’s charge must be of the strength needed. The “strong nuclear force” requires the right level in order for there to be carbon or life, and so on. There is even a tiny “cosmological constant” without which the universe would not enjoy accelerating expansion.

The universe is supremely finely tuned. And that is a problem because it suggests a fine tuner. Embarrassment upon embarrassment: it seems to hint at God.

But resourceful physicists are not daunted. They argue thus: suppose there is a million-to-one chance against all these factors being exactly as they are. Then we only have to presume that there are a million different universes to make it reasonable to expect that one universe will have the characteristics to support intelligent life. And of course we happen to be that intelligent life. I am told that the chances are a great deal larger than a million to one. The figure is uncertain – even the exact number of parameters is uncertain. We would need many millions of universes to meet the challenge, and it just so happens that millions of universes are exactly what we have.

Where are they all? They are, in principle, beyond our capacity to detect because the universe is not only expanding, it is accelerating beyond the speed of light. Thus no information can ever get back to us. These further universes are, as they say, beyond our “event horizon”. However, it may be possible to make predictions of the effect of this extended cosmos, and then check whether these predictions are verified. There is now a growing speculation about universes existing before the Big Bang – if that actually happened, and even the idea that we are simply the construct of the inhabitants of a superior universe.

How many universes? That depends on which of the several multiverse theories you adopt. You could, for example, go for an infinite number of universes. And literally so – I am reproduced in them an infinite number of times, sitting at my computer typing this. In another I am being decorated with the VC; in yet another, I am shot for cowardice.

But that may be over the top. String theorists are content with worlds numbering 10 to the power of 500. This is a very large number, and I would have thought abundant for the task in question. String theory could be the backing for the “theory of everything”, which links quantum effects with gravity. And some believe that the fluctuations which take place at the quantum level relate through inflation to fluctuations on the cosmic scale.

Some observers take a cynical view of this profusion, but the physicists are busy developing their various models and trying to discover at least indirect ways of verifying them. We should take an interest in this search since the existence of multiverses about which we can by definition know nothing is apparently of little value to the man on the Clapham omnibus – who is ultimately funding the investigation.

Nor should we assume that this quest is solely to answer the possibility that there is a fine tuner responsible for our universe, although it may have been a motivation. There are great minds working away at this question, and reporting fruitful results. That the various theories suggest different models is only to be expected when the problem is so large and the evidence so far beyond us – and getting further with every second.

But one might at least ask whether this is a truly scientific discipline since science is concerned with hypotheses which can be tested through just the sort of empirical evidence, which is excluded in this case. It has been suggested that this is not physics but mathematics – where the only multiverse we can know is to be found in an equation.

But perhaps the most outstanding irony is that, while multiverses might obviate the need for a fine tuner, they do not address the question of creation ex nihilo. Indeed their existence could only lead to a deeper perception of God’s creative power. While belief in God is of a different order from a belief in reductionist physical theories, and indeed they can both be true in their own terms, I wonder why so many scientists who are incredulous of the former can be so childishly credulous of the latter.

I keep an open mind. I am untroubled by universes I cannot see. If there are duplicates, triplicates or infinicates of me, I can only think that to be a good thing. But mastering the Clapham omnibus is as much an intellectual stimulus as I need for the time being.

Visit Secondsightblog.net (which was visited 34,000 times, internationally, in 2011) and tell us about your universe.

New Scientist 28 November 2011 Ultimate Guide to the Multiverse

Scientific American August 2011 Does the Multiverse really Exist?

Posted in Catholic Herald columns, Church and Society, Philosophy, Quentin queries | Tagged , , | 155 Comments