Science, Technology, and God

We hear a lot today about science, largely because of the pandemic and the calls from every quarter to “follow the science.” I could be wrong but I suspect the word science has been used by the media more during the past year than in the previous five years combined. There are people who actually check such things because other people apparently pay them to do so. I suppose they could discover if I’m right about the frequent use of the word science but I probably couldn’t afford to pay them. So I’ll just take a very unscientific approach, assume I’m correct, and move on. 

This, by the way, is not unlike the approach taken by many today who claim to speak for the scientific community. “Listen to the experts,” they demand, “they’re a lot smarter than the rest of us.” But if we’ve discovered one thing this year, it’s that the scientific community is not of one mind when it comes to science. Despite the president’s claim that no respected medical professionals disagree with his pandemic team’s draconian approach, so far over 32,000 medical doctors and other health scientists from around the world have signed a petition (the Great Barrington Declaration) against lockdowns put in place to curb the spread of COVID-19, saying the measures cause irreparable damage. The declaration is co-authored by Dr. Martin Killdorff, a Harvard professor and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease; Dr. Sunetra Gupta, an Oxford University professor and epidemiologist with expertise in immunology; and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford University Medical School professor and epidemiologist with expertise in infectious disease and vulnerable populations. I suppose the president doesn’t consider these folks respected medical professionals. Listen to the experts? Which ones?

As I mentioned in a previous post, regardless of the subject, the “science” is rarely, if ever, settled. Our understanding of the created universe changes constantly, and like the universe itself, our knowledge is always expanding. As for our knowledge of the coronavirus, it too has undergone much change. We know far more about this virus than we did a year ago, but there’s still much to learn. The problem, however, is that too many of our government officials, and even some of the experts themselves, seem unable or unwilling to apply this knowledge. Politicians just love to politicize everything, including science, because it provides a path to more power. Perhaps the most obvious example is the corrupt governor of New York who turned COVID-19 into a political and personal weapon that cost the lives of tens of thousands of elderly New Yorkers. But even scientists are susceptible because of one big, big reason: the money. Everyone tells us to “follow the science,” but in truth we would be better served to “follow the money.” For the new, improved Democrat Party, it’s all about power, and all that power is fueled by money.

Just consider what scientists — i.e. the “experts” — told us early last year and how their guidance has changed over time. “Don’t expect a vaccine for years,” we were told. Indeed, one expert actually claimed it wasn’t scientifically possible to develop and manufacture an effective vaccine in less than five years. But then President Trump kicked off Operation Warp Speed and within a year we had a selection of effective vaccines. Today tens of millions of Americans have been vaccinated and the numbers are growing by millions each day. This really bothers those who crave power and so they warn us against overconfidence, that things will likely get worse. 

Another example. Just a few weeks ago the ubiquitous but politically malleable Dr. Anthony Fauci told the nation that just because you’ve been vaccinated doesn’t mean you should relax your COVID protocols. Who knows? You might still spread the disease among your grandchildren. But then, on March 30, the director of the Center for Disease Control, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, stated publicly that "Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus or get sick.” She then added, “It's not just in the clinical trials, but it's also in real-world data." If this is true for someone like me who has been vaccinated — if I do not carry the virus and if I cannot get sick from the virus — then why do I still wear a mask? Is it just to make others feel better? Or maybe it’s to demonstrate the power of a government that’s been able to convince a majority of the population to do whatever they’re told. Perhaps it’s time for the people to reject politicized “science” and simply apply their common sense. 

On the same day the CDC director made her announcement, President Biden chastised governors who had relaxed their states’ mask and other protocols, even though these same states are experiencing significant decreases in COVID hospitalizations and deaths. Many have also demonstrated better “real world” results than states that have implemented the most stringent lock-downs. Yes, indeed, just “follow the science” once you’ve figured out exactly which science you’re supposed to follow.

But if want to see science run amok, turn to the People’s Republic of China, the official name of the country totally controlled by the Communist Party of China (CPC). Communist China is a country that takes its science seriously or, to be more accurate, it takes the science of other countries seriously through CPC-sponsored thievery. It steals everything and anything from anybody and everybody. And like all those on the political left, the CPC lies a lot. It has to because it celebrates policies of failure, policies it cannot defend with the truth...so it must lie.

Of one thing we can be certain, the CPC has no use for God. The CPC has expelled God not only from science but also from the very life of the Chinese people. They have removed Him from the law leaving behind the sham of a legal system with no moral foundation. Rejecting the limits of God’s natural and revealed law, their science and technology have become limitless, blind, and destructive. Today our technology leaders take much the same approach believing that because humanity has the capability to do something, it should do it. 

As for Communist China, the recent “investigation” into the origins of COVID-19, conducted by the Would Health Organization under the “guidance” of the CPC, demonstrated what we already suspected. The Chinese demanded and received veto power over the membership of the investigative team. They refused to share data from their Wuhan laboratory (the data that hadn’t already been destroyed) and controlled the team’s access. Their own researchers (the ones they hadn’t imprisoned for attempted whistle-blowing) were not allowed to speak with members of the team. There’s more, much more, but this is enough to prove to anyone but the most gullible that the virus not only originated in China but quite likely came from their Wuhan lab. Their guilt is as evident as their continued deception and lies. In the same way the CPC can justify its horrendous, genocidal treatment of the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities, and not fear reprisals from a world that has also forgotten God. 

We, too, are susceptible to these same societal sins when we accept the prevailing thinking that God is irrelevant to public life and try to construct a human community that excludes Him. Such attempts will fail because whenever a culture eliminates the “cult,” when it turns away from God, it self-destructs. And today, given the pace of change, such destruction will likely come quite quickly. 

You and I must continue to do our part but our battle is really against Satan, the father of lies. I accept that my small efforts will always be insufficient and have come to believe that the problem of the world’s agony must be left to our Creator. When we turn to the Old Testament we encounter many examples of a people who turned to their God in prayer and repentance when faced with threats to their very existence. Here’s a perfect example from the Book of Judith, at a time when the Israelites were threatened by a powerful army intent on destroying them:

“All the men of Israel cried to God with great fervor and humbled themselves...All the Israelite men, women, and children who lived in Jerusalem fell prostrate in front of the Temple and sprinkled ashes on their heads, spreading out their sackcloth before the Lord. The altar, too, they draped in sackcloth; and with one accord they cried out fervently to the God of Israel...The Lord heard their cry and saw their distress. The people continued fasting for many days throughout Judea and before the sanctuary of the Lord Almighty in Jerusalem” [Judith 4:9-13].

Perhaps today we, too, should devote ourselves to prayer and fasting, pleading with the Lord to save us from those who would lead the world away from Jesus Christ and His Church, and to save us also from ourselves. For faith is really the only alternative to the sinfulness of our age.

The Great Barrington Declaration

As someone who is now 76 years old -- and believe me. I really didn't intend to live this long -- I find myself thinking of the way our nation and much of the world has dealt with the COVID-19 pandemic. A week or so ago, just out of curiosity, I visited the CDC's website and took a look at generational deaths and death rates resulting from this virus. Their website provides a great deal of data covering the period from February through early October. One of the more interesting data sets includes the number of COVID-19 deaths by age group. Interestingly, the death rate among the young (under 25) is lower than that for both influenza and pneumonia. This morning I revisited the website and converted some of their data to a simple spreadsheet:

The following, which only reflects Feb 1 through June 17, shows the death rates associated with COVID-19. Due to the increased use of effective medications and other therapies, these rates have actually decreased substantially in recent months. Other differences reflect changes in how deaths are attributed to COVID-19.

The following data is from a Swiss team and shows worldwide death rates by age.

All of this got me thinking and I came to a rather unsettling conclusion. We have shut down major sections of our economy, put millions of Americans out of work, permanently destroyed hundreds of thousands of small businesses, and we have done all of this to protect people like me. Since the death rates for the young -- and that seems to include those under 60 -- are very low, lower indeed than many other causes of death, why have we punished them when us older folks are the ones at risk? Wouldn't it be much more sensible to devote all those trillions of dollars -- actually it would have cost far less -- to ensuring our elderly are protected from the virus, while permitting the rest of the population to get on with their lives? 

Of course, New York's Governor Cuomo did exactly the opposite. He and a handful of other incompetent politicians took inexplicable actions that ensured thousands of elderly would die. If the CEO of a private corporation had been responsible for anything similar, he'd be tried for mass murder.

Anyway, while pondering all the idiocy and evil in the world, I heard about a group of well-respected epidemiologists, scientists, and medical professionals who apparently have come to similar conclusions. Of course, their conclusions are based on solid science while mine are based on hunches and my firm belief that politicians are rarely correct. It is indeed rare when the personal ambitions of a lifelong politician also promote the good of the people. 

One thing we should all realize: science is never settled. As we learn more, the science always changes. It’s about time, then, for the politics finally to catch up with the science. Every American should read the Great Barrington Declaration, a statement drafted and signed by epidemiologists, and other doctors, medical professionals, and health officials from around the world. It states what the science has been telling us for months, and encourages government leaders to take those immediate steps that will both protect the vulnerable yet allow society to flourish once again. If you haven’t heard of the declaration, published on October 8, that’s probably because it doesn’t fit well with the idiocy pushed by mainstream and social media organizations. 

It’s not long but demands a read by anyone concerned for our nation’s health. Here’s the link: Great Barrington Declaration

Now, go ahead and enjoy your life. Be careful but don't be crazy.

God's peace....Faith over fear, always.

My Unsightly Pile of Books

During a phone conversation about a week ago, one of my friends, who knows me all too well, asked, “What’s in that stack of books on the table next to your easy chair?” He likes to know the books I’m reading so he can argue with me about them and their authors. He also knows that, at any given time, I’m usually reading about a half-dozen books. This is nothing to brag about; indeed, it’s a failing, a sign of a lack of focus. 

Sometimes, especially with good fiction, I’m enjoying a book so much, I hate the thought of finishing it. And so, I put it aside for a few days and return to it when I can resist no longer. Other books demand more than my aging brain can handle and must be read and digested in small bites. These call for more and deeper thought than I can usually conjure up as I read. So I set them aside, occasionally think about what they’re trying to tell me, and then return to them when my mind seems ready to dive into them once again. And then there are the books that simply conflict with whatever my current mood might be. These include poetry, short stories, or books of a certain genre, for example, science fiction, fantasy, mysteries, and what are often called, “ghost stories.” Yes, indeed, I enjoy all them all, but only if they’re well written and I’m in the mood. These, then, are the reasons for the “unsightly pile” (Dear Diane’s words) of books on my end table. 

What books now reside in this pile, and who are their authors? I’ll start from the top and work my way down. Here goes...

The Daughter of Time, by Josephine Tey (1896-1952).

Okay, in truth, I finished this book yesterday, so it shouldn’t still be in the stack with the others. After closing its cover, I just plopped it down on top of the pile, thinking I’d find a spot for it in a bookcase today. But I enjoyed it so much I just had to tell you a little about it. Anyway, my friend asked his question a week ago, so the book should still qualify as a true member of the current pile. 

Josephine Tey (a pen name of Elizabeth MacKintosh) was one of those classic British crime writers of the first half of the twentieth century, authors like Dorothy Sayers, G.K. Chesterton, Agatha Christie, Margery Allingham, E.C. Bentley, and so many others. The Daughter of Time (1951) is among the more unusual of her Inspector Grant of Scotland Yard mystery novels, in that Grant investigates a centuries-old crime from a hospital bed in which he is recovering from severe injuries. The crime? The fifteenth-century murder of the “Princes in the Tower” that historians and many others (including William Shakespeare) long attributed to King Richard III despite a lack of any real evidence. (Spoiler Alert!) Naturally, as a lifelong fan of Richard III, I agree with the good inspector’s ultimate conclusions. The real killer probably acted on orders from King Henry VII, the first of the Tudor monarchs, but really just another murderous member of that family. 

Richard, who lost his life and his crown 535 years ago (yesterday) at the Battle of Bosworth on August 22, 1485, has had his reputation restored by a number of current historians who actually examined the evidence. Among my favorite biographies of this misunderstood and mistreated king is Richard the Third, by Paul Kendall, first published in 1955, and still in print. 

The most recent news about Richard III involves the remarkable 2012 discovery of the king's body beneath a parking lot in Leicester, the site of what was once the Franciscan Grey Friars Church. It's a remarkable story and you can read the short version here: Finding Richard III. If you want the whole story by the woman who led the team of archaeologists who found Richard, read Philippa Langley's book, The King's Grave (another book in my current pile).

As you might suspect, I'm a bit obsessed with Richard, and have been for decades. This last great Catholic king of England was systematically defamed by his Tudor successors. The Franciscans had buried Richard in their friary church shortly after his death in battle. The friary church and Richard's tomb were demolished by Henry VIII in 1536 as part of his sacrilegious dissolution of the monasteries. To me, the final insult was Richard's re-burial in 2015 in the Anglican Leicester Cathedral. The Anglicans despised and defamed this good king for centuries, but now that he's fashionable, they lay claim to him. Thankfully, Vincent Cardinal Nichols, the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, celebrated a funeral Mass for King Richard at Holy Cross Priory in Leicester. 

Four Quartets, by T. S. Eliot (1888-1965). 

This poetry, by one of my favorites, was Eliot’s final major poetic work. Originally written in 1943, the year before I was born, Four Quartets applies equally to today’s confused world. Here for example...ponder these words from the third part, The Dry Salvages:

There is no end, but addition: the trailing

consequence of further days and hours,

While emotion takes to itself the emotionless

Years of living among the breakage

Of what was believed in as the most reliable — 

And therefore the fittest for renunciation.

I’ve read Four Quartets several times, as well as much of Eliot’s other poetry and prose. While he's sometimes unsettling and confounding, he never disappoints me.

On Islam: a Chronological Record, 2002-2018, by James V. Schall, S.J. (1928-2019). 

Father Schall, who died last year, was one of the few good things to come out of Georgetown University in recent decades. A prolific author -- all of his many books are worth reading -- and political philosopher, Schall takes a hard look at Islam during the years immediately following the 9-11 Islamist attack on New York City and the Pentagon. I found the book especially interesting because it covers those years through which we all lived, but does so by looking deeply into the very heart of Islam and its worldview. Few others, including many of the West's political, religious, and social leaders, understand Islam and its deep-rooted aims, leading to predictably ineffective responses. The book also includes a commentary on Hilaire Belloc's prescient writings on the nature of Islam, writings that, 50 years ago, had a major impact on the evolution of my own thinking on Islam.

Lord Peter, by Dorothy L. Sayers (1893-1957).

Back again to those British mystery and crime writers. Although Dorothy Sayers was also a Christian apologist and translator of Dante, she was best known for her Lord Peter Wimsey mystery stories. I've always believed if you truly like something, you might as well get it all. This book, then, is the "complete" collection of Lord Peter Wimsey stories, most written in the 1920s and 1930s. (It does not, however, include the many Lord Peter novels.) If you haven't read any of these stories, you might have watched a few of the TV adaptations produced by the BBC some years ago and aired on PBS here in the U.S. Short stories are far more easily adapted to the television medium, and the BBC actually did a fairly good job with Lord Peter. But no TV show will ever be as good as the original.

Lord Peter, though, isn't everyone's cup of tea. The English aristocrat and amateur sleuth is a bit odd, at least for American tastes, with his strange mannerisms, his monocle,  and his upper-class manners. But one grows to like him and his valet, Bunter, along with many other of the stories' recurring characters. Wimsey and Bunter served together in World War One and the latter's care for his "lordship," who suffered from what today we would call PTSD, adds more than a little touching poignancy to many of the stories. 

Unbelievable, by Michael Newton Keas (2019). This book's subtitle says it all: 7 Myths About the History and Future of Science and Religion. Published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), an organization that offers a wide selection of books, all worth reading. Keas, a historian of science and a senior fellow at the Center for Science and Culture has written a readable and well documented book addressing many of the most pernicious myths that have infected and distorted much of modern thought. Most of these myths (can we simply call them lies?) seem to have one goal: the undermine Christianity in general, and specifically Catholicism. This is one of those books that you should send to every high school and college student you know.

How to Read Buildings, by Carol Davidson Cragoe (2012). Now, this is a book that falls well outside my usual interests, and represents a field of study about which I know far too little: architecture. Although I've traveled extensively during these almost 76 years, and seen a lot of buildings from many historical periods, I haven't always been able to identify one architectural style from another. Yes, I can tell the difference between Gothic and neo-classical, but when does Romanesque end and Gothic begin? What unique features really separate the two? How did one evolve from the other? And did you know that there are many different kinds of buttresses in those Gothic cathedrals? Can you identify the various kinds of columns or arches or vaults? Assuming you, too, are plagued by an inability to answer these questions, and would like to be able to answer them, this is the book for you. Given its subtitle -- A Crash Course in Architectural Styles -- this was one of those bookstore impulse purchases I couldn't resist because it offered a quick, down and dirty overview of building architecture as it has developed over the centuries. It's enabled me to sound much more broadly educated than I really am. It's also well illustrated and published in a very handy size that I can take with me on my travels -- a wonderful little book.
____________________

That's the extent of the current "unsightly pile" of books. It will no doubt undergo major changes in the days to come.

Are We Alone?

The bookcase in our guestroom contains perhaps 100 books, split almost evenly between fiction and non-fiction. I place them there under the assumption that some of our guests might actually enjoy turning the pages and reading a real book in this day of eBooks and Kindles. Apparently some do. A few years ago a guest appeared at breakfast with one of my books in his hand -- a book of Irish poetry. He then noted with some surprise that I had included quite a few science fiction novels among the fiction in the bookcase. "I've never understood the attraction of science fiction," he said. "It's all so bizarre, far too weird to take seriously -- all that outer space stuff and monsters and strange planets. Nothing real. Nothing human."

Nasty Aliens on the Attack

He apparently assumed I was far too cultured to allow such "literature" to pollute my personal library and asked, "I suppose you have a few friends who actually read it?"

The question, of course, was meant to appease me, to offer an escape hatch so I could claim no personal interest in the genre. But in a rare display of honesty I replied, "No, I include them because I like them. I believe that some of today's best writing can be found in science fiction. Read almost anything by Gene Wolfe and you'll see what I mean. And don't forget, several of the famed Inklings, Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and Charles Williams, were all writers of what today would be called science fiction or fantasy."

Our conversation, which had started with such promise, seemed to deteriorate from there. My guest's real stumbling block was his refusal to suspend his disbelief: "How can you believe all that stuff? Do you really believe in UFOs and a universe filled with weird creatures in flying saucers?"

He was even more surprised when I answered, "No, not at all. In fact, I believe we humans are unique, completely alone in God's universe. Don't you agree?"

"Well," he began, tossing me another bone, "I suppose it's possible..." Then he got serious, sounding very much like the late Carl Sagan: "But not at all probable. When you consider the vast size of the universe -- billions of galaxies, each containing billions of stars -- there must be countless planets that support life, even intelligent life."

"No," I said, "I believe we're the only ones. I think God created everything else just to remind us who He is."

That ended the conversation, and allowed Dear Diane to begin a new one: "Who wants waffles, and who wants eggs?"

Waffles and Eggs: A fine product of life (chickens & wheat) on earth

I found it extremely interesting, and puzzling, that I, who believe we humans are alone in the universe, should enjoy science and fantasy fiction, while my friend, who accepts the probable existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life, abhors science fiction. My excuse is that I simply enjoy a good story with interesting, well-developed characters. I also appreciate the literary challenge of creating worlds and cultures that bear little or no resemblance to our own. And yet I believe that science fiction is also fictional science. As for my friend, I can't speak for him or explain the apparent contradiction between his beliefs and his literary tastes. I never got around to asking him.

Interestingly, most scientists would agree with my friend. How can a universe so mind-bogglingly vast contain only a single planet populated by intelligent beings? Indeed, there's a group of scientists engaged in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) that has spent years scanning the universe with radio telescopes searching for signals from other civilizations. Their search is based on their belief, like that of my friend, that the universe must contain many earth-like planets on which intelligent life has evolved.

SETI Hunting for Smart Aliens

This search for extraterrestrial life was spearheaded by Frank Drake of the SETI Institute, predictably founded in California back in the 1960s. Drake devised what came to be called the Drake Equation, used to this day by those engaged in the search. Interestingly, the equation, although used by many claiming to be scientists, is highly non-scientific. Speculative at best, it is based on a series of highly subjective best guesses, all leading to even more unlikely conclusions. The "equation" estimates the number of stars in the universe, how many have planets, the number of these that could possibly sustain life, the likelihood that life will form on these habitable planets, and the probability that intelligent life will evolve...and on and on.

Based on all this guesswork, Drake and the SETI folks estimated that in our galaxy alone there are probably 10,000 or more planets supporting intelligent lifeforms that are sending signals out into space. Many of the scientists involved believe it's inevitable that we'll detect these signals from other worlds very soon.

There are a few problems, though. The SETI estimates may well be very wrong. For example, we have no idea what percentage of stars actually have planetary systems. And we certainly don't know how many planets have what could be considered habitable environments with solid surfaces, an atmosphere, and water. We don't know because we've never found one.

Most disturbingly, though, the SETI folks assume that if a planet has what they consider to be a habitable environment, then the likelihood of life forming is 100%. The thinking is that the scientific laws that govern our planet are the same throughout the universe. Since life formed on earth, it must also form on any planet with a similar environment. Recent research, however, seems to argue that the possibility of life on other planets, even those that might be most hospitable to its formation, is very low. The research is based on the premise that life on earth began very early, and it took nearly four  billion years for intelligent life to evolve. If you're really interested in all this, you can read the paper written by two Princeton astrophysicists here: Life Might Be Rare -- but to read and understand it, you might first want to pick up a doctorate in astrophysics.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... [Gen 1:1]

We know for certain that life exists in only one small place in the entire universe: Earth. And yet we have scientists who call themselves exobiologists, those who study extraterrestrial life, despite the fact that so far they have nothing to study. Sounds like a pretty easy job to me. There also remains much speculation about the initial formation of life on earth, because scientists really don't know exactly how life came to be. And so they search the heavens for signs of intelligent life and try to create life here in the lab from scratch. To date both efforts have been futile. Through it all they struggle mightily to avoid any mention of God who will no doubt have the last word, just as He had the first Word.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men." [Jn 1:1-3]

Kinda sums it all up, doesn't it?

More on Science, Man and God

Yesterday I criticized Stephen Hawking for trying to eliminate both philosophy and God, but it was really more of an off-the-cuff response and didn't offer much in the way of serious objections. My criticism actually centers on science as a vehicle in the pursuit of knowledge and its limitations as it engages in that pursuit.

It's important, first of all, to realize that science has been the source of humanity's expanding knowledge of our material world. But in accomplishing this science is essentially deterministic. Science accepts that all activity within the material world is determined by material causes and that these causes and their resultant activities can be expressed as "laws". Isaac Newton's legendary apple, for example, fell down and not up because of the law of gravity.

The problem arises when science attempts to apply its determinism to human thought and activity. Indeed, when a scientist like Hawking states that philosophy is dead he's also saying that human life in all its variety is subject to the same kind of deterministic "laws" that affect galaxies or falling apples. If we believe this then we must believe that free will is illusory, and such concepts as good and evil or justice and truth are meaningless. The focus of human intellectual life must then shift from the contemplation of these and similar concepts to an examination of the merely pragmatic, of what works. Human life loses its unique value (and without God, its sacredness) and has no more inherent worth than anything else in the universe.

The effect on society of such thinking is predictably horrifying. It results in the kind of society depicted by Orwell or Huxley, a society in which government becomes the master and the individual becomes a slave.  We've already tried several versions of this society in fascist Germany and in Marxist experiments over the past hundred years. All have failed or are on the road to failure.

What the totally deterministic scientist doesn't seem to realize is that much of his knowledge really doesn't apply to human beings. Problems that center on human behavior are not scientific problems but moral problems, problems that cannot be resolved by his deterministic laws.

Scientists do wonderful things as long as they stick with science. When they try to put God and man in a "black box", or worse, when they try to eliminate our uniqueness and His omnipotence, they always fail.