Anybody read Dan Brown's book Angels and Demon's? I'm only about half way through it, but seems like such a cool book. He exaggerates a lot and takes some liberties, but its just a really exciting book. How come nobody talks about what a great message Angels and Demons has? I haven't reas the Da Vinci code, and I know there are some pretty shady massaged in that book, but Angels and Demons seems pretty harmless and even helpful for the relationship between Science and Faith.

By the way, is it true that it was really a Catholic monk who first came up with the "Big Bang theory?"

Tom

-- Tom (BookFan@hotmail.com), August 02, 2004

Answers

Hello Tom,

Someone just posted about this in Catholic Answers' "Ask an Apologist" forum. Here is the link: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=9921. I had never heard of the book before, but based on the response there from Apologist Michelle Arnold, I would be cautious if I were you.

God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 03, 2004.

“is it true that it was really a Catholic monk who first came up with the "Big Bang theory?"

Actually a Belgian Catholic priest, Father Georges Lemaitre. One of the long line of priests, monks, and other committed practising Catholics who made so many original contributions to scientific knowledge, giving the lie to those who claim the Church and “science” are in conflict.

Fr Lemaitre's theory was at first very unpopular with atheist scientists, who correctly saw that the Big Bang posed the obvious question "Where did the energy to explode come from?" with the only possible answer being "God". They favored a theory that the universe has always existed and will always exist as it is today (hmm that sounds like a "religious" belief), but accumulating observed evidence convinced Einstein and other cosmologists that Lemaitre was correct. He died before his theory was universally accepted, and others took the credit, and the Nobel Prize.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 03, 2004.

Fr Lemaitre's theory was at first very unpopular with atheist scientists, who correctly saw that the Big Bang posed the obvious question "Where did the energy to explode come from?" with the only possible answer being "God".

Why is God the only possible answer? It seems to me that God is an invention of man to try to make sense of things that we do not understand.

-- Disillusioned Catholic (skeptickk@yahoo.com), August 03, 2004.

What we do understand is that nothing material can exist unless it comes into existence, that is to say unless it has an origin in time, and that nothing in time happens without a cause. Therefore the existence of the universe and all of its component parts ultimately must be due to a cause which is distinct from the universe, which predates the universe, and which is outside of time itself. If you don't like calling this logically necessary entity "God" then you'll have to think of a name that suits you. But God by any other name will still be God.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 03, 2004.

If you insist on calling the first cause "God" then be my guest. But that doesn't mean that it has to be an intelligent being, let alone the all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present being who judges us and demands our obedience and worship, which is what we generally mean when we speak of God. Besides, since the first cause has already done its job, there is no reason to believe that it even exists anymore. Why couldn't it have been destroyed in the big bang?

But I don't think that we know enough about time, energy, and matter to support the first cause argument in the first place.

-- Disillusioned Catholic (skeptickk@yahoo.com), August 03, 2004.

In fact, the first cause argument actually supports my statement that "God is an invention of man to try to make sense of things that we do not understand."

-- Disillusioned Catholic (skeptickk@yahoo.com), August 03, 2004.

"But that doesn't mean that it has to be an intelligent being"

A: It doesn't? Seems to me it would require an extremely high level of intelligence - certainly far superior to any human intelligence - to DESIGN matter and energy, to DEFINE what it will be BEFORE the fact of its existence, and then to bring it into existence from NOTHING.

"since the first cause has already done its job, there is no reason to believe that it even exists anymore. Why couldn't it have been destroyed in the big bang?"

A: At least you concede the logical necessity of a first cause. However, logic further demands that the first cause be an uncaused cause. Otherwise it would not be the first cause. Therefore the first cause would have to be eternal. Eternal means timeless, having no beginning and no end. Something eternal cannot be destroyed. Also, since the Big Bang, or whatever mechanism contributed to the early development of the universe, occurred in time and space, it could not have any effect on something/someone which/who exists outside of time and space.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 03, 2004.

“If you insist on calling the first cause "God" then be my guest. But that doesn't mean that it has to be an intelligent being, let alone the all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present being who judges us and demands our obedience and worship”

Yes it does actually. We humans are the only creatures intelligent enough to see that God exists and to from that deduce certain characteristics which God necessarily must have – those you mention. God does not “demand” our obedience and worship so much as that we know that we OWE God our obedience and worship because of what human reason tells us about God’s nature.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 03, 2004.

To Paul---

At least you concede the logical necessity of a first cause.

No, I don’t. That’s why I ended my post by saying, “But I don't think that we know enough about time, energy, and matter to support the first cause argument in the first place.” I was simply engaging you on your own turf.

I do NOT concede the logical necessity of a first cause for two reasons:

First, there is so much more that we need to learn about the natural world that it is premature to say that nothing comes into existence without a cause.

Second, the first cause argument contradicts itself. You start with the premise that everything that exists needs a cause and you end with the conclusion that there exists something (which you call God) which does NOT need a cause.

Your logical “solution” to the existence of the natural world is to invent an entity that is not bound by the laws of nature or logic. It’s no solution at all. It’s a cop-out.

However, logic further demands that the first cause be an uncaused cause. Otherwise it would not be the first cause.

That’s true by definition.

Therefore the first cause would have to be eternal.

Why? Just because it has no beginning doesn’t mean that it can have no end.

Eternal means timeless, having no beginning and no end. Something eternal cannot be destroyed.

That’s true by definition. But you haven’t shown why the first cause must be eternal.

Also, since the Big Bang, or whatever mechanism contributed to the early development of the universe, occurred in time and space, it could not have any effect on something/someone which/who exists outside of time and space.

This is pure fantasy. If the Big Bang could not have any effect on something that exists outside time and space, then how could something that exists outside time and space have any effect on the Big Bang?

You are going beyond the first cause argument and are now claiming the simultaneous existence of two separate worlds. It’s possible that the first cause could exist ONLY in a timeless, uncreated world, all of which came to an end with the creation of the natural world. The first cause argument does not support the simultaneous existence of two separate worlds. You’ll have to find a different argument for that.

To Steve and Paul---

The argument for an intelligent creator is not supported by the first cause argument but, instead, by the watchmaker argument. The existence of a watch, which has an intelligent design, implies the existence of a watchmaker, who is an intelligent designer. Atheists claim that it has been refuted but I’m not so sure. I think that it’s a good argument. However, I see two problems with it.

First, every part in a watch serves a purpose. But I don’t see that in the natural world. What purpose is served by all the dead planets? And here on earth there are many plants, animals, and insects that do not appear to serve any purpose, either. So that argues in favor of a random, mindless creation.

Second, the existence of a watch implies only that a watchmaker once existed. It does not imply that he continues to exist. So it is with the natural world. At most it can only imply that an intelligent creator once existed. It does not imply that that creator continues to exist.

-- Disillusioned Catholic (skeptickk@yahoo.com), August 04, 2004.

Disillusioned,

You stated, "And here on earth there are many plants, animals, and insects that do not appear to serve any purpose, either. So that argues in favor of a random, mindless creation."

I guess you see no credence in the food chain theory? Ya know, small plants and insects being eaten by small animals and on up the line till you get to us big mammals. Or is it that YOU see no value in the tiny bug, thus it has no value.

I am thankful that God weaves an intricate web that only he understands. He’s got a purpose for each of his creations, you are just ignorant of it’s value. I do not mean ignorant in a disrespectful way – I just mean that you do not have a purpose to know such details – but God does. And because it is so intricately interwoven, that does not quite sound like random, mindless creation.

Your argument is weak.

God Bless,

Jennifer

-- Jennifer (jrabs@jrabs.com), August 04, 2004.

Disillusioned:

Your claim that something that exists outside of time and space may not have an effect on something within time in space is false and almost childlike. We use concepts everyday that are outside time and space. Language, is untouchable, unseeable, ungraspable. Yet we use it all the time and it has an effect on us. That which we have come to know as virtue is outside time and space, yet we strive for it all the time.

Certain ideas and concepts are not simply human created. Language, though given its form by human beings, manifests concepts that we discover through human reason. They are discovered, yet are not tangible.

Of course things that are outside time and space and have an effect on things within time and space!

Brian

-- Brian (Brian@Brian.com), August 05, 2004.

"The argument for an intelligent creator is not supported by the first cause argument but, instead, by the watchmaker argument."

A: The watchmaker analogy offers additional evidence of the intelligence of the Creator, but the first cause argument by itself offers absolute proof for the necessity of a Creator.

"First, every part in a watch serves a purpose. But I don’t see that in the natural world."

A: Possibly because watches or airplanes or computers are mere trinkets which were devised by the limited human mind, and can therefore be understood by the limited human mind. The fact that the human mind cannot comprehend the purpose of every component of a universe designed by an infinite mind doesn't mean that each component doesn't have a purpose. It simply means that our chances of understanding the purpose of every component of the universe are about the same as the chances of an earthworm understanding every component of a watch or computer.

"Second, the existence of a watch implies only that a watchmaker once existed. It does not imply that he continues to exist."

A: In fact, it cannot imply that the watchmaker continues to exist, because we know for a fact that watchmakers are part of the finite universe, and are therefore not eternal. A watchmaker simply rearranges pre-existing materials into a new physical form. Birds and wasps do the same thing in constructing their nests. There is no comparison between such simplistic, temporal activities vs. bringing the universe into existence from nothing. Makers of watches and nests are necessarily temporal and finite. The source of the universe is necessarily eternal and infinite. No valid comparisons can be drawn between the two. We are not even capable of understanding the concepts of "infinite" and "eternal", much less making comparisons beween such concepts and our own limited temporal existence. Any such attempt would be as meaningless as trying to compare "4" with "infinity" in mathematics.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 05, 2004.

Paul:

Thank you. I agree. But I'd like to just say that there is a danger when we say that we cannot even comprehend things that are infinite and eternal. If you mean by the word "comprehend," complete and total understanding, then yes, we can never completely understand things that are eternal. But I like to think that we CAN have a knowledge of things eternal, and are able to recognize them and point to them. If not, then we aren't exercizing the gifts God gave us to talk about him and his precepts.

Brian

-- Brian (Brian@Brian.com), August 05, 2004.

Yes we can recognize and point to and discuss and even create limited definitions of things that are eternal, once they have been revealed to us by the One Who is eternal. But we cannot really understand things which are far beyond the scope of human experience. That, I believe, is what Paul was saying when he wrote "what eye has not seen and ear has not heard and what has not entered the heart of man, God has prepared for those who love Him" (1 Corinthians 2:9) Once we do actually experience such things we will have a far greater understanding of them, but still most likely not a perfect understanding.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 05, 2004.