THE CATHOLIC SHIELD
22.04.202508:02
FORGIVENESS
Misericordia et misera is a phrase used by Saint Augustine in recounting the story of Jesus’ meeting with the woman taken in adultery (cf. Jn 8:1-11). It would be difficult to imagine a more beautiful or apt way of expressing the mystery of God’s love when it touches the sinner: “the two of them alone remained: mercy with misery”.[1] What great mercy and divine justice shine forth in this narrative! Its teaching serves not only to throw light on the conclusion of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy, but also to point out the path that we are called to follow in the future.
[...] Mercy cannot become a mere parenthesis in the life of the Church; it constitutes her very existence, through which the profound truths of the Gospel are made manifest and tangible. Everything is revealed in mercy; everything is resolved in the merciful love of the Father.
A woman and Jesus meet. She is an adulteress and, in the eyes of the Law, liable to be stoned. Jesus, through his preaching and the total gift of himself that would lead him to the Cross, returned the Mosaic Law to its true and original intent. Here what is central is not the law or legal justice, but the love of God, which is capable of looking into the heart of each person and seeing the deepest desire hidden there; God’s love must take primacy over all else. This Gospel account, however, is not an encounter of sin and judgement in the abstract, but of a sinner and her Saviour. Jesus looked that woman in the eye and read in her heart a desire to be understood, forgiven and set free. The misery of sin was clothed with the mercy of love. Jesus’ only judgement is one filled with mercy and compassion for the condition of this sinner. To those who wished to judge and condemn her to death, Jesus replies with a lengthy silence. His purpose was to let God’s voice be heard in the consciences not only of the woman, but also in those of her accusers, who drop their stones and one by one leave the scene (cf. Jn 8:9). Jesus then says: “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?… Neither do I condemn you. Go your way and from now on do not sin again” (vv. 10-11). Jesus helps the woman to look to the future with hope and to make a new start in life. Henceforth, if she so desires, she can “walk in charity” (Eph 5:2). Once clothed in mercy, even if the inclination to sin remains, it is overcome by the love that makes it possible for her to look ahead and to live her life differently.
"Apostolic letter Misericordia et misera"
- Pope Francis.
#FORGIVENESS
Misericordia et misera is a phrase used by Saint Augustine in recounting the story of Jesus’ meeting with the woman taken in adultery (cf. Jn 8:1-11). It would be difficult to imagine a more beautiful or apt way of expressing the mystery of God’s love when it touches the sinner: “the two of them alone remained: mercy with misery”.[1] What great mercy and divine justice shine forth in this narrative! Its teaching serves not only to throw light on the conclusion of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy, but also to point out the path that we are called to follow in the future.
[...] Mercy cannot become a mere parenthesis in the life of the Church; it constitutes her very existence, through which the profound truths of the Gospel are made manifest and tangible. Everything is revealed in mercy; everything is resolved in the merciful love of the Father.
A woman and Jesus meet. She is an adulteress and, in the eyes of the Law, liable to be stoned. Jesus, through his preaching and the total gift of himself that would lead him to the Cross, returned the Mosaic Law to its true and original intent. Here what is central is not the law or legal justice, but the love of God, which is capable of looking into the heart of each person and seeing the deepest desire hidden there; God’s love must take primacy over all else. This Gospel account, however, is not an encounter of sin and judgement in the abstract, but of a sinner and her Saviour. Jesus looked that woman in the eye and read in her heart a desire to be understood, forgiven and set free. The misery of sin was clothed with the mercy of love. Jesus’ only judgement is one filled with mercy and compassion for the condition of this sinner. To those who wished to judge and condemn her to death, Jesus replies with a lengthy silence. His purpose was to let God’s voice be heard in the consciences not only of the woman, but also in those of her accusers, who drop their stones and one by one leave the scene (cf. Jn 8:9). Jesus then says: “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?… Neither do I condemn you. Go your way and from now on do not sin again” (vv. 10-11). Jesus helps the woman to look to the future with hope and to make a new start in life. Henceforth, if she so desires, she can “walk in charity” (Eph 5:2). Once clothed in mercy, even if the inclination to sin remains, it is overcome by the love that makes it possible for her to look ahead and to live her life differently.
"Apostolic letter Misericordia et misera"
- Pope Francis.
#FORGIVENESS
18.04.202513:47
CHASTITY AND MARRIAGE
"That shifting ground which is the feminine soul can only be explored by one who, with great patience, accepts the unceasing renewal of her efforts over many years. For what is constant in her is her inconstancy; she is always the same: that is to say, she is never the same. "It is left in the calm, it is found again in the storm," said Amiel. It is therefore necessary for man to be always on the move. However, such an effort requires great psychological courage, which, unfortunately, man is not endowed with by nature. He, who easily adapts himself to an equivocal situation, as long as it does not entail too many complications, soon gives up what he believes to be a game of hide-and-seek on the part of his wife. Wrapped up in his innate selfishness, he decides to suppress his efforts. Unfortunately for his wife... and for himself
It is therefore advisable for the groom to convince himself that it is absolutely necessary for him to put effort- whatever is required and whatever the difficulties that arise, and whatever the time he has to spend on it - to understanding his bride, today, and, later on, his wife. If not, there will come certain disunity, inner divorce, at the very least, and perhaps even outward rupture. A woman can live only with a man who understands her; only with him can she be united. Without her wanting it, this call to understanding springs from the depths of her being, to such an extent that it can stifle love when the other does not respond to this call. Man must therefore know how to shake off the natural indolence which inclines him to think that everything is going very well, so that he believes himself dispensed from all effort; he must overcome his selfishness, for it can prevent him from seeing that the being with whom he lives in the most total intimacy possible, is a disappointed and unhappy being; that he knows how to become psychologically strong enough to keep himself in a state of alertness and restlessness, always on the lookout for what can help him to understand better and, consequently... to love better."
"Courtship and happiness" - Paul Eugene Charbonneau
#CHASTITYANDMARRIAGE
"That shifting ground which is the feminine soul can only be explored by one who, with great patience, accepts the unceasing renewal of her efforts over many years. For what is constant in her is her inconstancy; she is always the same: that is to say, she is never the same. "It is left in the calm, it is found again in the storm," said Amiel. It is therefore necessary for man to be always on the move. However, such an effort requires great psychological courage, which, unfortunately, man is not endowed with by nature. He, who easily adapts himself to an equivocal situation, as long as it does not entail too many complications, soon gives up what he believes to be a game of hide-and-seek on the part of his wife. Wrapped up in his innate selfishness, he decides to suppress his efforts. Unfortunately for his wife... and for himself
It is therefore advisable for the groom to convince himself that it is absolutely necessary for him to put effort- whatever is required and whatever the difficulties that arise, and whatever the time he has to spend on it - to understanding his bride, today, and, later on, his wife. If not, there will come certain disunity, inner divorce, at the very least, and perhaps even outward rupture. A woman can live only with a man who understands her; only with him can she be united. Without her wanting it, this call to understanding springs from the depths of her being, to such an extent that it can stifle love when the other does not respond to this call. Man must therefore know how to shake off the natural indolence which inclines him to think that everything is going very well, so that he believes himself dispensed from all effort; he must overcome his selfishness, for it can prevent him from seeing that the being with whom he lives in the most total intimacy possible, is a disappointed and unhappy being; that he knows how to become psychologically strong enough to keep himself in a state of alertness and restlessness, always on the lookout for what can help him to understand better and, consequently... to love better."
"Courtship and happiness" - Paul Eugene Charbonneau
#CHASTITYANDMARRIAGE
11.04.202508:55
NON-SCIENTIFIC AFFIRMATIONS
8) Even more striking is the logical inversion of attributing the development of intelligence to the possibility of uttering articulate sounds: as if the possibility of language required having something to say: this is certainly not the case when a parrot speaks, although it can speak in several languages as a result of its training. Nor is syntactic structure something prior to language and its conceptual content; on the contrary, what is to be communicated determines the forms in which communication takes place. There are neither phonemes nor visual symbols that force a certain content of ideas, and the same ideas can be expressed in drastically different languages in terms of their grammatical and syntactic forms, although one language may be more appropriate for a specific scientific, philosophical or poetic content.
#SCIENCEANDFAITH
8) Even more striking is the logical inversion of attributing the development of intelligence to the possibility of uttering articulate sounds: as if the possibility of language required having something to say: this is certainly not the case when a parrot speaks, although it can speak in several languages as a result of its training. Nor is syntactic structure something prior to language and its conceptual content; on the contrary, what is to be communicated determines the forms in which communication takes place. There are neither phonemes nor visual symbols that force a certain content of ideas, and the same ideas can be expressed in drastically different languages in terms of their grammatical and syntactic forms, although one language may be more appropriate for a specific scientific, philosophical or poetic content.
#SCIENCEANDFAITH
05.04.202508:04
31.03.202508:01
CHESTERTON
[...] Man does not generally believe in miracles because of an aprioristic principle of deterministic thinking, and in some cases his disbelief is based on examination of the evidence. However, when he is told about the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, he is being told something that is logical, even if unnatural. Multiplication is a mathematical concept, and a crowd fed with miraculous fish is a less mysterious or monstrous spectacle than a man who says that multiplication equals subtraction. The story of the loaves and fishes does not convince a sceptic, but it makes a lot of sense. He can recognise the logical consequence even if he does not understand the logical cause. But no pope or priest ever asked you to believe that thousands of people died of hunger and thirst in the desert because they were abundantly fed with loaves and fishes. No creed or dogma ever declared that there was too little food because there were too many fish.
And that is the precise, practical and prosaic definition of the present situation in modern economic science. [...]
[...] It is not true that a man whose apple tree is loaded with apples will suffer from a shortage of apples ... But if he does not look upon apples as a product to eat, but always regards them as an object to be sold, he will be plunged headlong into another kind of contradiction. If instead of producing as many apples as he wants, he produces as many as he imagines the whole world needs, in the hope of monopolising the world trade in apples, then he may succeed or fail in trying to compete with his neighbour, who also wants all the world trade for himself. Between them they will produce so many apples that their market price will be no higher than that of pebbles on the beach. Then they will both find that they have very little money in their pockets with which to buy fresh pears at the fruit shop. If you had never expected to find fruit in the fruit shop, and had reached out and plucked them from your own tree, you would never have had this difficulty. It seems so simple, but at the root of all apple trees is something as simple as this. [...]
[...] What is at issue is not the fundamental reason for things, but a particular falsification, originating in a very recent trick which consists in looking at all things only in relation to trade. Trade is very good in a sense, but we have put trade in the place of Truth. Trade, which in its nature is a secondary activity, has been treated as a matter of priority, as an absolute value. The moderns, maddened by mere multiplication, have made plural what eternally has been and is singular, in the sense of unique. What the ancient philosophers called the Good, they have translated as "the goods". (...)
There is a limit to the number of apples that can be produced without eating them. But there is no limit to the number of apples that can be produced for sale, and then the producer becomes an aggressive, dexterous and successful salesman, and turns the world upside down. For it is he who provokes this enormous paradox, the pantomime with which this reflection began. It is he who causes a revolution more barbaric than the one triggered by the Adam's apple [...] And he does it by launching the supreme blasphemy, the heresy according to which the apple was made for the market and not for the mouth. This trick of considering that the market is the proof, the only proof, has brought us face to face with a total and astonishing irrationality [...] : the assertion that the more we produce the less we possess.
"Reflections on a rotten apple, Why I am a Catholic". Pag 634-643 - G. K. Chesterton
#CHESTERTONCASTELLANIANDJMPRADA
[...] Man does not generally believe in miracles because of an aprioristic principle of deterministic thinking, and in some cases his disbelief is based on examination of the evidence. However, when he is told about the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, he is being told something that is logical, even if unnatural. Multiplication is a mathematical concept, and a crowd fed with miraculous fish is a less mysterious or monstrous spectacle than a man who says that multiplication equals subtraction. The story of the loaves and fishes does not convince a sceptic, but it makes a lot of sense. He can recognise the logical consequence even if he does not understand the logical cause. But no pope or priest ever asked you to believe that thousands of people died of hunger and thirst in the desert because they were abundantly fed with loaves and fishes. No creed or dogma ever declared that there was too little food because there were too many fish.
And that is the precise, practical and prosaic definition of the present situation in modern economic science. [...]
[...] It is not true that a man whose apple tree is loaded with apples will suffer from a shortage of apples ... But if he does not look upon apples as a product to eat, but always regards them as an object to be sold, he will be plunged headlong into another kind of contradiction. If instead of producing as many apples as he wants, he produces as many as he imagines the whole world needs, in the hope of monopolising the world trade in apples, then he may succeed or fail in trying to compete with his neighbour, who also wants all the world trade for himself. Between them they will produce so many apples that their market price will be no higher than that of pebbles on the beach. Then they will both find that they have very little money in their pockets with which to buy fresh pears at the fruit shop. If you had never expected to find fruit in the fruit shop, and had reached out and plucked them from your own tree, you would never have had this difficulty. It seems so simple, but at the root of all apple trees is something as simple as this. [...]
[...] What is at issue is not the fundamental reason for things, but a particular falsification, originating in a very recent trick which consists in looking at all things only in relation to trade. Trade is very good in a sense, but we have put trade in the place of Truth. Trade, which in its nature is a secondary activity, has been treated as a matter of priority, as an absolute value. The moderns, maddened by mere multiplication, have made plural what eternally has been and is singular, in the sense of unique. What the ancient philosophers called the Good, they have translated as "the goods". (...)
There is a limit to the number of apples that can be produced without eating them. But there is no limit to the number of apples that can be produced for sale, and then the producer becomes an aggressive, dexterous and successful salesman, and turns the world upside down. For it is he who provokes this enormous paradox, the pantomime with which this reflection began. It is he who causes a revolution more barbaric than the one triggered by the Adam's apple [...] And he does it by launching the supreme blasphemy, the heresy according to which the apple was made for the market and not for the mouth. This trick of considering that the market is the proof, the only proof, has brought us face to face with a total and astonishing irrationality [...] : the assertion that the more we produce the less we possess.
"Reflections on a rotten apple, Why I am a Catholic". Pag 634-643 - G. K. Chesterton
#CHESTERTONCASTELLANIANDJMPRADA
26.03.202512:08
MIRACLES
"Since 1972, Jean-Pierre Bély, a married father of two children (...) began to experience dramatic symptoms, as an expression of the selective destruction of the myelin of the central nervous system. The diagnosis from the Neurology Department of the Poitiers University Hospital was clear: multiple sclerosis.
From 1984 onwards, Jean-Pierre began to walk with a cane, as his limbs could no longer support the weight of his body.
He had to give up his job for good.
In February 1985, the wheelchair became the only way for him to move around.
In fact, he lost the ability to stand up in 1986.
In 1987, Mr. Bély had a disastrous neurological condition, which justified the granting of a 100% disability pension.
According to "Lourdes Magazine", the official newspaper of the Pyrenees Sanctuary, the surprise occurred on 9 October 1997, during a pilgrimage to the Lourdes Sanctuary.
On that day, after confession the previous day, he received the sacrament of the anointing of the sick during a mass on the esplanade. At that moment, Mr. Bély experienced a powerful "feeling of liberation and inner peace" such as he had never experienced before.
At midday, when he was resting in the sick room, he experienced an increasingly strong sensation of cold to the point that it became almost painful. Then he was seized by an impression of warmth which also became more and more intense and penetrating.
He thus became aware that he was sitting on his bed and that he was beginning "to move his arms and feel the touch of the skin".
In the night that followed, Bély awoke rudely from a deep sleep and, at that moment, had the surprise of "being able to walk for the first time since 1984". The first steps were unsteady, but his walking quickly became normal.
In order not to stand out from his "fellow sufferers", Jean-Pierre left Lourdes in his wheelchair, as if he were still an invalid.
Arriving at the station, he finally decided to get on the train under his own power and to travel seated on his return to Angoulême.
Since then, he has regained all his physical faculties.
Objectively, his recovery, twelve years later, seems complete and stable.
Mr Bély has no neurological irregularities.
His physical resistance is excellent. The symptoms of sclerosis have completely left him.
[After many years of tests and medical examinations] on 8 February 1999, Dr Patrick Theillier, the doctor in charge of the Lourdes Medical Office, after the members of the International Medical Committee of Lourdes had voted in favour of the case, summarised the case as follows: "It is possible to conclude with a good margin of probability that Mr Bély has suffered from an organic affection of the nature of multiple sclerosis in an advanced stage. The brutal cure experienced during the pilgrimage to Lourdes corresponds to an abnormal and inexplicable event in terms of scientific knowledge. It is impossible to say anything more today from a scientific point of view. It is up to the religious authorities to pronounce on the other dimensions of this healing".
Then Monsignor Claude Dagens, Bishop of Angoulême, wrote: "In the name of the Church, I publicly recognise the authentic character of the cure from which Mr Jean-Pierre Bély benefited in Lourdes on Friday 9 October 1987. This immediate and complete healing is a personal gift of God for this man, and an effective sign of Christ the Saviour, brought about through the intercession of THE VIRGIN MARY [...]".
https://youtu.be/N1SKuyVIiOw
#MIRACLESANDPROVIDENCE
"Since 1972, Jean-Pierre Bély, a married father of two children (...) began to experience dramatic symptoms, as an expression of the selective destruction of the myelin of the central nervous system. The diagnosis from the Neurology Department of the Poitiers University Hospital was clear: multiple sclerosis.
From 1984 onwards, Jean-Pierre began to walk with a cane, as his limbs could no longer support the weight of his body.
He had to give up his job for good.
In February 1985, the wheelchair became the only way for him to move around.
In fact, he lost the ability to stand up in 1986.
In 1987, Mr. Bély had a disastrous neurological condition, which justified the granting of a 100% disability pension.
According to "Lourdes Magazine", the official newspaper of the Pyrenees Sanctuary, the surprise occurred on 9 October 1997, during a pilgrimage to the Lourdes Sanctuary.
On that day, after confession the previous day, he received the sacrament of the anointing of the sick during a mass on the esplanade. At that moment, Mr. Bély experienced a powerful "feeling of liberation and inner peace" such as he had never experienced before.
At midday, when he was resting in the sick room, he experienced an increasingly strong sensation of cold to the point that it became almost painful. Then he was seized by an impression of warmth which also became more and more intense and penetrating.
He thus became aware that he was sitting on his bed and that he was beginning "to move his arms and feel the touch of the skin".
In the night that followed, Bély awoke rudely from a deep sleep and, at that moment, had the surprise of "being able to walk for the first time since 1984". The first steps were unsteady, but his walking quickly became normal.
In order not to stand out from his "fellow sufferers", Jean-Pierre left Lourdes in his wheelchair, as if he were still an invalid.
Arriving at the station, he finally decided to get on the train under his own power and to travel seated on his return to Angoulême.
Since then, he has regained all his physical faculties.
Objectively, his recovery, twelve years later, seems complete and stable.
Mr Bély has no neurological irregularities.
His physical resistance is excellent. The symptoms of sclerosis have completely left him.
[After many years of tests and medical examinations] on 8 February 1999, Dr Patrick Theillier, the doctor in charge of the Lourdes Medical Office, after the members of the International Medical Committee of Lourdes had voted in favour of the case, summarised the case as follows: "It is possible to conclude with a good margin of probability that Mr Bély has suffered from an organic affection of the nature of multiple sclerosis in an advanced stage. The brutal cure experienced during the pilgrimage to Lourdes corresponds to an abnormal and inexplicable event in terms of scientific knowledge. It is impossible to say anything more today from a scientific point of view. It is up to the religious authorities to pronounce on the other dimensions of this healing".
Then Monsignor Claude Dagens, Bishop of Angoulême, wrote: "In the name of the Church, I publicly recognise the authentic character of the cure from which Mr Jean-Pierre Bély benefited in Lourdes on Friday 9 October 1987. This immediate and complete healing is a personal gift of God for this man, and an effective sign of Christ the Saviour, brought about through the intercession of THE VIRGIN MARY [...]".
https://youtu.be/N1SKuyVIiOw
#MIRACLESANDPROVIDENCE
post.reposted:
Nuestra Señora de la Cristiandad - España
21.04.202508:47
Nuestra Señora de la Cristiandad - España se une a las oraciones de toda la Iglesia por el eterno descanso del Romano Pontífice.
Réquiem ætérnam dona ei, Dómine, et lux perpétua lúceat ei.
Requiescat in pace. Amen.
Réquiem ætérnam dona ei, Dómine, et lux perpétua lúceat ei.
Requiescat in pace. Amen.
17.04.202508:22
NON-SCIENTIFIC ASSERTIONS
11) The last refuge of materialist reductionism is the assertion of blind confidence in future theoretical advances that will be able to explain consciousness and intelligence in terms of forces and particle structures at various levels: it cannot be shown that this will not happen in a way that is convincing to those who do not want to adhere to any scientific rigour. But it is clear that such a position actually hides a prejudice that denies the very methodology on which it claims to rest: it seeks to justify a position as scientific, without having any experimental data to prove it with known or foreseeable facts as an extension of any theory.
The materialist may say that not everything can yet be explained by the material, but that in the future it will be possible. He may even say that it will never be fully achieved, but that scientific progress explains more and more things, and that it is logical then to adhere to materialism. But it is important to note that these are promises that demand faith beyond the available evidence. And that, for the time being, materialistic explanations of intelligence and will are as insufficient now as they have always been. No one has so far been able to give a materialist explanation of intelligence worth considering, and authors like Karl Popper, while not sharing a spiritualist philosophy, readily admit that the "emergence" of human intelligence is a "miracle" that we will probably never understand. This position is at least respectful of reality as it is presented to us. On the other hand, those who claim that there is no difficulty in explaining intelligence now or in the future in terms of material processes, hold a thesis that goes far beyond the possibilities of the method of experimental science.
#SCIENCEANDFAITH
11) The last refuge of materialist reductionism is the assertion of blind confidence in future theoretical advances that will be able to explain consciousness and intelligence in terms of forces and particle structures at various levels: it cannot be shown that this will not happen in a way that is convincing to those who do not want to adhere to any scientific rigour. But it is clear that such a position actually hides a prejudice that denies the very methodology on which it claims to rest: it seeks to justify a position as scientific, without having any experimental data to prove it with known or foreseeable facts as an extension of any theory.
The materialist may say that not everything can yet be explained by the material, but that in the future it will be possible. He may even say that it will never be fully achieved, but that scientific progress explains more and more things, and that it is logical then to adhere to materialism. But it is important to note that these are promises that demand faith beyond the available evidence. And that, for the time being, materialistic explanations of intelligence and will are as insufficient now as they have always been. No one has so far been able to give a materialist explanation of intelligence worth considering, and authors like Karl Popper, while not sharing a spiritualist philosophy, readily admit that the "emergence" of human intelligence is a "miracle" that we will probably never understand. This position is at least respectful of reality as it is presented to us. On the other hand, those who claim that there is no difficulty in explaining intelligence now or in the future in terms of material processes, hold a thesis that goes far beyond the possibilities of the method of experimental science.
#SCIENCEANDFAITH
10.04.202508:13
UNSCIENTIFIC ASSERTIONS
7) The upright posture, by avoiding the compression of the brain against the spine, allows its development and thus leads to intelligence: the logical flaw of attributing intelligence exclusively to greater brain complexity has already been exposed, but we see a second flaw in the obvious fact that animals that could have freely developed brains (for example the ostrich) did not, or that do have large brains, but are not intelligent, such as the dolphin and the elephant, both of which have larger brain mass than man. There is no correlation between size and intelligence in the human race; even the average cranial capacity of Neanderthal Man is considered larger, and the trend over the last few thousand years in Homo sapiens is towards a decrease in brain mass, which is not accompanied by any indication of lower intelligence. Even cases of hydrocephalus, with minimal mass in the cerebral cortex, but without any decrease in intelligence, are a clear indication that a different explanation for human rationality must be admitted.
#SCIENCEANDFAITH
7) The upright posture, by avoiding the compression of the brain against the spine, allows its development and thus leads to intelligence: the logical flaw of attributing intelligence exclusively to greater brain complexity has already been exposed, but we see a second flaw in the obvious fact that animals that could have freely developed brains (for example the ostrich) did not, or that do have large brains, but are not intelligent, such as the dolphin and the elephant, both of which have larger brain mass than man. There is no correlation between size and intelligence in the human race; even the average cranial capacity of Neanderthal Man is considered larger, and the trend over the last few thousand years in Homo sapiens is towards a decrease in brain mass, which is not accompanied by any indication of lower intelligence. Even cases of hydrocephalus, with minimal mass in the cerebral cortex, but without any decrease in intelligence, are a clear indication that a different explanation for human rationality must be admitted.
#SCIENCEANDFAITH
04.04.202508:09
UNSCIENTIFIC ASSERTIONS
4) "Neurobiology conceives of nervous systems as collections of cells capable of mediating between an environmental stimulus and the organism's motor response": conceiving of nervous systems as collections of cells capable of mediating between an environmental stimulus and the organism's motor response is a bit like the mechanism that makes a bell ring when a button is pressed. However," says W. Nauta, Professor of Psychology at MIT, "what is evident in the human nervous system is its ability to elicit behaviours that are not at all predictable. Obviously, something has to get in the way of the ringer mechanism". No doubt this scheme can explain processes such as sleep, tiredness, growth and many others. But would a similar explanation be sufficient for human behaviour? Does human life respond in its entirety to the biochemical cause-effect scheme?
Did Einstein's neurons decide to study physics and propose the theory of relativity? Did Michelangelo's neurons paint the Sistine Chapel? If so, let us admire the biochemical processes in their brains, but let us not recognise any kind of genius in their owners. And if Hitler's behaviour was exclusively a consequence of his neuronal chemistry, the Jews have no reason to hate him, or is there a reason to hate neurons? Is the Nobel Prize awarded to a man of merit or to his meritorious neurons? Are the prisons full of murderous and thieving neurons? Can neurons be righteous, ignorant, brave, timid or dangerous? Are we to admire the pictorial genius of Velázquez's synapses, the literary mastery of Shakespeare's axons and the exquisite sensitivity of Garcilaso's dendrites? If neurons totally move man, then man is the puppet of his brain. Unless man himself gives orders to his own brain and establishes with it a double relation of dependence and domination: my feet lead me home, but in reality it is I who lead my feet home; without them I would not walk, but they would not walk either without my decision to walk, and that decision does not come from them.
Sometimes we hear that neurons think. And it is argued that without a brain, or with a severe neuronal lesion, one cannot think. But this conclusion is as quaint as concluding that tethered dogs become deaf, because they do not come to the call of their masters.
To those who claim that neurons think, Leibniz proposes this thought experiment: if we enlarge a human brain to the point where we can walk around inside it, will we come up with a single idea?
We insist, thanks to my brain I think, but my brain thinks thanks to me: I use it to think, as I use my feet to walk. I depend on them, but they depend on me. The orders that the brain receives come from a free will, which can order this or that, now or later. Is it the neurons that originate this free will, and therefore give orders to themselves? At the basis of free decisions we will certainly find biochemical processes, but freedom and intelligence do not seem to be biochemical processes, nor effects of the biochemical, just as the light that enters the room is not the effect of the open window. If knowledge is reduced to a question of neurons, it is necessary to explain why it has taken so many thousands of years for neurons to know themselves. Incidentally, it should also be explained how it is that the neurons of many people can think that it is not they who think, but a metaphysical principle. Many neurobiologists think that the self is a phantom, a philosophical superstition that we cannot fall into. Then they are the first to contradict themselves when they constantly fall into the "I think, I propose, I want"...
#SCIENCEANDFAITH
4) "Neurobiology conceives of nervous systems as collections of cells capable of mediating between an environmental stimulus and the organism's motor response": conceiving of nervous systems as collections of cells capable of mediating between an environmental stimulus and the organism's motor response is a bit like the mechanism that makes a bell ring when a button is pressed. However," says W. Nauta, Professor of Psychology at MIT, "what is evident in the human nervous system is its ability to elicit behaviours that are not at all predictable. Obviously, something has to get in the way of the ringer mechanism". No doubt this scheme can explain processes such as sleep, tiredness, growth and many others. But would a similar explanation be sufficient for human behaviour? Does human life respond in its entirety to the biochemical cause-effect scheme?
Did Einstein's neurons decide to study physics and propose the theory of relativity? Did Michelangelo's neurons paint the Sistine Chapel? If so, let us admire the biochemical processes in their brains, but let us not recognise any kind of genius in their owners. And if Hitler's behaviour was exclusively a consequence of his neuronal chemistry, the Jews have no reason to hate him, or is there a reason to hate neurons? Is the Nobel Prize awarded to a man of merit or to his meritorious neurons? Are the prisons full of murderous and thieving neurons? Can neurons be righteous, ignorant, brave, timid or dangerous? Are we to admire the pictorial genius of Velázquez's synapses, the literary mastery of Shakespeare's axons and the exquisite sensitivity of Garcilaso's dendrites? If neurons totally move man, then man is the puppet of his brain. Unless man himself gives orders to his own brain and establishes with it a double relation of dependence and domination: my feet lead me home, but in reality it is I who lead my feet home; without them I would not walk, but they would not walk either without my decision to walk, and that decision does not come from them.
Sometimes we hear that neurons think. And it is argued that without a brain, or with a severe neuronal lesion, one cannot think. But this conclusion is as quaint as concluding that tethered dogs become deaf, because they do not come to the call of their masters.
To those who claim that neurons think, Leibniz proposes this thought experiment: if we enlarge a human brain to the point where we can walk around inside it, will we come up with a single idea?
We insist, thanks to my brain I think, but my brain thinks thanks to me: I use it to think, as I use my feet to walk. I depend on them, but they depend on me. The orders that the brain receives come from a free will, which can order this or that, now or later. Is it the neurons that originate this free will, and therefore give orders to themselves? At the basis of free decisions we will certainly find biochemical processes, but freedom and intelligence do not seem to be biochemical processes, nor effects of the biochemical, just as the light that enters the room is not the effect of the open window. If knowledge is reduced to a question of neurons, it is necessary to explain why it has taken so many thousands of years for neurons to know themselves. Incidentally, it should also be explained how it is that the neurons of many people can think that it is not they who think, but a metaphysical principle. Many neurobiologists think that the self is a phantom, a philosophical superstition that we cannot fall into. Then they are the first to contradict themselves when they constantly fall into the "I think, I propose, I want"...
#SCIENCEANDFAITH
29.03.202510:51
25.03.202509:12
SPIRITUAL PERFECTION
"We want to approach God, but by dint of our fists (...). With our confidence in ourselves and in the dynamism we have, especially in our youth, with the confidence we place in our intelligence, we say: "My God, I am in charge of the work; just make it work out well for me". This pride in asceticism is obviously a great obstacle, self-confidence in ourselves greatly vitiates our activity and certainly diminishes its effectiveness. We know theoretically that it is God who does everything, but we want to do everything ourselves, we put ourselves in God's place (...).
We so easily confuse holiness with heroism! ... We want to be heroes, that is to say, we want to ensure the triumph of our physical or intellectual forces; in any case, of human and natural forces. In combat, the hero is the one who wins; the saint is the one who lets God triumph in combat; that is the difference. We are saints when God does everything in us; we are perfect children only when God directs us, enlightens us, when we give Him complete submission.
At the beginning of the spiritual life, precisely because of the experience we have of our own strengths, because of the pride that impels us to flaunt them, we tend unconsciously towards heroism (...) It is almost inevitable. Saint Therese of the Child Jesus herself began by wanting to imitate Joan of Arc. Then she understood that this was a temptation and she overcame it by not wanting to be anything more than a totally weak and powerless girl. "My God, it is you who are going to do everything," she says."
"Your love grew with me" (St. Therese of Lisieux) - Father Marie Eugene of the Child Jesus.
#SPIRITUALPERFECTION
"We want to approach God, but by dint of our fists (...). With our confidence in ourselves and in the dynamism we have, especially in our youth, with the confidence we place in our intelligence, we say: "My God, I am in charge of the work; just make it work out well for me". This pride in asceticism is obviously a great obstacle, self-confidence in ourselves greatly vitiates our activity and certainly diminishes its effectiveness. We know theoretically that it is God who does everything, but we want to do everything ourselves, we put ourselves in God's place (...).
We so easily confuse holiness with heroism! ... We want to be heroes, that is to say, we want to ensure the triumph of our physical or intellectual forces; in any case, of human and natural forces. In combat, the hero is the one who wins; the saint is the one who lets God triumph in combat; that is the difference. We are saints when God does everything in us; we are perfect children only when God directs us, enlightens us, when we give Him complete submission.
At the beginning of the spiritual life, precisely because of the experience we have of our own strengths, because of the pride that impels us to flaunt them, we tend unconsciously towards heroism (...) It is almost inevitable. Saint Therese of the Child Jesus herself began by wanting to imitate Joan of Arc. Then she understood that this was a temptation and she overcame it by not wanting to be anything more than a totally weak and powerless girl. "My God, it is you who are going to do everything," she says."
"Your love grew with me" (St. Therese of Lisieux) - Father Marie Eugene of the Child Jesus.
#SPIRITUALPERFECTION
21.04.202508:04
FATHER LEONARDO CASTELLANI
"The "parties" do not really unite. They unite artificially. They do not add, on the contrary, they subtract and divide as their very name indicates.
The great social classes of today, Capitalism and Communism, unite a minority and divide it against all the others. They instrument the parties to that. And their tendency is to destroy all other social forces; and to turn the people, already turned into a mass, into a herd, and themselves into their shepherd-mercenaries.
What naturally unites men is the family, the commune, the guild, the province, the region; and the particular estates, the army, religious groups, intellectual groups.
It is on these "intermediate bodies" (as they are called today) that the graded structure of a genuine nation can be built. Without them, the necessary result is slavery and despotism".
Revista Jauja, nº 6, June 1967 - Father Leonardo Castellani
#CHESTERTONCASTELLANIJMPRADA
"The "parties" do not really unite. They unite artificially. They do not add, on the contrary, they subtract and divide as their very name indicates.
The great social classes of today, Capitalism and Communism, unite a minority and divide it against all the others. They instrument the parties to that. And their tendency is to destroy all other social forces; and to turn the people, already turned into a mass, into a herd, and themselves into their shepherd-mercenaries.
What naturally unites men is the family, the commune, the guild, the province, the region; and the particular estates, the army, religious groups, intellectual groups.
It is on these "intermediate bodies" (as they are called today) that the graded structure of a genuine nation can be built. Without them, the necessary result is slavery and despotism".
Revista Jauja, nº 6, June 1967 - Father Leonardo Castellani
#CHESTERTONCASTELLANIJMPRADA
16.04.202508:04
NON-SCIENTIFIC AFFIRMATIONS
10) There is only what can be detected experimentally: we have already discussed this: thought (not the activity of neurons when we think) cannot be detected experimentally; the same must be said of the possible value of an idea when writing poetry. Neither the literary value of a book nor the artistic level of a painting can be demonstrated experimentally. The same applies to our family relationships, our sense of duty, our social concerns: everything that truly constitutes human life and culture is impossible to detect and quantify by strictly empirical scientific methodology. We can detect the presence of tiny currents in the brain during periods of intellectual activity, but no measurable parameter indicates the truth or beauty value of an idea.
There are even bolder ones who go so far as to claim that they only believe in what they see. With this form of argument we should deny the existence of the electron, since we can neither perceive nor imagine it: it has no sensory referent. No scientist represents it, as had become popular, as a very tiny ball. We can only describe its behaviour by means of a complex mathematical function. There is nothing we see or touch that resembles an electron. The electron cannot be touched, heard, seen, smelled or tasted. We know of its existence by the effects it produces in the fog chamber, just as we know that an aeroplane has passed - without seeing it - by the trail it leaves in the sky.
The behaviour of the electron is, moreover, completely paradoxical and does not fit in with common sense. It acts complementarily as a particle and as a wave and can be simultaneously in two places at the same time. It does not seem to occupy any situation in space because its position can never be determined together with its energy. The existence of the electron must be deduced, must be proved from the behaviour of matter. We believe that there are electrons because otherwise such and such phenomena cannot be explained. But no one has seen the electron - nor can it be seen. No one has imagined the electron - nor can it be imagined.
Jan Oort realised in 1932 the existence of dark matter, when he observed that there was not enough known matter in the universe to prevent stars from shooting out of the sky. He called this absence of matter dark matter and claimed that there must be five times as much dark matter as visible matter. The problem is that it cannot be seen, which is an added difficulty in analysing it. One hypothesis about its composition is that it is composed of neutrinos, tiny elementary particles with very little mass and no electric charge, which originate from the thermonuclear reactions of stars. Who sees or touches electromagnetic waves, gravitational fields, protons or neutrons or neutrinos or any of the "elementary particles" at different levels? Of course, these realities exist and act upon us, but we do not see or touch them.
Finally, I invite you to read a short text from Plato, taken from the "Sophist", in the form of a dialogue between Theaetetus and a Stranger:
"- Stranger: Some [materialists] transfer everything from heaven and the invisible world to earth, as if all that exists were rocks and trees that can be touched and felt with one's own hands. And so, stubborn that all things are of this kind, they maintain that only what can be seen and touched exists, thus identifying being with the body in their very definition. And if anyone dares to assert that there are also things of another kind, and that they are incorporeal, they end by despising him and no longer wanting to hear anything more from him.
-Theaetetus: You speak of terrible men indeed. I too have had occasion to meet a great many of them" (Sophist 246a-b).
#SCIENCEANDFAITH
10) There is only what can be detected experimentally: we have already discussed this: thought (not the activity of neurons when we think) cannot be detected experimentally; the same must be said of the possible value of an idea when writing poetry. Neither the literary value of a book nor the artistic level of a painting can be demonstrated experimentally. The same applies to our family relationships, our sense of duty, our social concerns: everything that truly constitutes human life and culture is impossible to detect and quantify by strictly empirical scientific methodology. We can detect the presence of tiny currents in the brain during periods of intellectual activity, but no measurable parameter indicates the truth or beauty value of an idea.
There are even bolder ones who go so far as to claim that they only believe in what they see. With this form of argument we should deny the existence of the electron, since we can neither perceive nor imagine it: it has no sensory referent. No scientist represents it, as had become popular, as a very tiny ball. We can only describe its behaviour by means of a complex mathematical function. There is nothing we see or touch that resembles an electron. The electron cannot be touched, heard, seen, smelled or tasted. We know of its existence by the effects it produces in the fog chamber, just as we know that an aeroplane has passed - without seeing it - by the trail it leaves in the sky.
The behaviour of the electron is, moreover, completely paradoxical and does not fit in with common sense. It acts complementarily as a particle and as a wave and can be simultaneously in two places at the same time. It does not seem to occupy any situation in space because its position can never be determined together with its energy. The existence of the electron must be deduced, must be proved from the behaviour of matter. We believe that there are electrons because otherwise such and such phenomena cannot be explained. But no one has seen the electron - nor can it be seen. No one has imagined the electron - nor can it be imagined.
Jan Oort realised in 1932 the existence of dark matter, when he observed that there was not enough known matter in the universe to prevent stars from shooting out of the sky. He called this absence of matter dark matter and claimed that there must be five times as much dark matter as visible matter. The problem is that it cannot be seen, which is an added difficulty in analysing it. One hypothesis about its composition is that it is composed of neutrinos, tiny elementary particles with very little mass and no electric charge, which originate from the thermonuclear reactions of stars. Who sees or touches electromagnetic waves, gravitational fields, protons or neutrons or neutrinos or any of the "elementary particles" at different levels? Of course, these realities exist and act upon us, but we do not see or touch them.
Finally, I invite you to read a short text from Plato, taken from the "Sophist", in the form of a dialogue between Theaetetus and a Stranger:
"- Stranger: Some [materialists] transfer everything from heaven and the invisible world to earth, as if all that exists were rocks and trees that can be touched and felt with one's own hands. And so, stubborn that all things are of this kind, they maintain that only what can be seen and touched exists, thus identifying being with the body in their very definition. And if anyone dares to assert that there are also things of another kind, and that they are incorporeal, they end by despising him and no longer wanting to hear anything more from him.
-Theaetetus: You speak of terrible men indeed. I too have had occasion to meet a great many of them" (Sophist 246a-b).
#SCIENCEANDFAITH
09.04.202506:59
NON-SCIENTIFIC ASSERTIONS
6) Intelligence is explained by a fifth ‘force’ already present in elementary particles, capable of growing in complexity as the material system grows: Such an assumption changes the definition of matter beyond the limits acceptable in the physical sciences. To postulate the ‘emergence’ of intelligence from matter can only mean that it was present, submerged, in previous stages, and is a gratuitous assertion, without physical or philosophical support, for there is no theoretical reason or experimental basis for it within science, nor is it compatible with the principle of sufficient reason when the proper reason is given for what we mean by ‘matter’.
It is said on other occasions that matter makes itself conscious in the brain, and this statement is clearly false: no one knows that they have a brain, or what is in it, without studying anatomy, which must be done in the case of man with the same experimental methodology of dissection and microscopic studies that are needed to study the brain of any animal. Nor is anyone aware of what neurons do when they think, or of any other internal activity; in vision, we are aware of the external object we see, but not of what happens in the retina, the optic nerve or the visual area of the brain.
#SCIENCEANDFAITH
6) Intelligence is explained by a fifth ‘force’ already present in elementary particles, capable of growing in complexity as the material system grows: Such an assumption changes the definition of matter beyond the limits acceptable in the physical sciences. To postulate the ‘emergence’ of intelligence from matter can only mean that it was present, submerged, in previous stages, and is a gratuitous assertion, without physical or philosophical support, for there is no theoretical reason or experimental basis for it within science, nor is it compatible with the principle of sufficient reason when the proper reason is given for what we mean by ‘matter’.
It is said on other occasions that matter makes itself conscious in the brain, and this statement is clearly false: no one knows that they have a brain, or what is in it, without studying anatomy, which must be done in the case of man with the same experimental methodology of dissection and microscopic studies that are needed to study the brain of any animal. Nor is anyone aware of what neurons do when they think, or of any other internal activity; in vision, we are aware of the external object we see, but not of what happens in the retina, the optic nerve or the visual area of the brain.
#SCIENCEANDFAITH
03.04.202508:05
NON-SCIENTIFIC ASSERTIONS
1) "Man is nothing more than a biochemical mechanism driven by a combustion system that gives energy to computers": although presented in different ways, this statement and all its variations boil down to the same pseudo-philosophical thinking. It is called mechanicism and is held by some authors who start with the philosophical prejudice (not an empirical scientific truth) that only matter and its processes can exist. Mechanicism considers organisms as mechanisms in which there is nothing more than a pure set of physico-chemical elements and forces. Such an explanation might be sufficient in a strictly empirical approach, but the true scientist knows that reality is not exhausted at that level. Plato had already made Socrates pronounce himself in this sense: "I admit that if I had no bones or muscles I could not move, but to say that they are the cause of my actions seems to me a great absurdity".
Therefore to assert that "man is nothing but a computer", is a boldness that can only be justified by ignorance or by suspicious extra-scientific motives. Biochemistry does not explain thought: it explains what happens between chemical bodies when one acts on another, but it has nothing to do with thought
#SCIENCEANDFAITH
1) "Man is nothing more than a biochemical mechanism driven by a combustion system that gives energy to computers": although presented in different ways, this statement and all its variations boil down to the same pseudo-philosophical thinking. It is called mechanicism and is held by some authors who start with the philosophical prejudice (not an empirical scientific truth) that only matter and its processes can exist. Mechanicism considers organisms as mechanisms in which there is nothing more than a pure set of physico-chemical elements and forces. Such an explanation might be sufficient in a strictly empirical approach, but the true scientist knows that reality is not exhausted at that level. Plato had already made Socrates pronounce himself in this sense: "I admit that if I had no bones or muscles I could not move, but to say that they are the cause of my actions seems to me a great absurdity".
Therefore to assert that "man is nothing but a computer", is a boldness that can only be justified by ignorance or by suspicious extra-scientific motives. Biochemistry does not explain thought: it explains what happens between chemical bodies when one acts on another, but it has nothing to do with thought
#SCIENCEANDFAITH
28.03.202509:12
CHASTITY AND MARRIAGE
"The nature of woman (...) makes (...) difficult to understand. There is indeed in woman a mystery of mobility and her soul acts in her like the tides that ebb and flow in the sea according to certain constants, but always in the unexpected. "Everything in a woman is an enigma", (...) In this formula crystallised all the protests formulated since Adam by the generations of men who have been confronted with the soul of woman. This grievance is reborn, in fact, every time a man of good will fails to elucidate the mystery of femininity in his wife and despairs that he will never discover it. It is not uncommon for men to renounce happiness, and sometimes love, by shutting themselves away and giving themselves up to incomprehension, simply because their wife seems to them as enigmatic as the Sphinx to the travellers of Egypt - perhaps a little more so! There is some truth in this. But as complex as the woman is (complex enough that she sometimes finds it hard to understand herself) it would be an exaggeration to say that she is incomprehensible to the point of being impenetrable to her husband. The absoluteness of the judgement with which men hasten to regard women as indecipherable enigmas is as unjust and questionable as the absoluteness of the female judgement according to which all men are systematically and irremediably selfish (...) we must say (...) how exaggerated is the position of men who take it for granted that woman is an enigma, and then infer the easy consequence that it is useless to try to understand her. Too easy a consequence! Because it often rests on that form of selfishness which can be laziness (...) it is often because men are too lazy that they fail to understand their wives".
"Courtship and happiness" - Paul Eugene Charbonneau
#CHASTITYANDMARRIAGE
"The nature of woman (...) makes (...) difficult to understand. There is indeed in woman a mystery of mobility and her soul acts in her like the tides that ebb and flow in the sea according to certain constants, but always in the unexpected. "Everything in a woman is an enigma", (...) In this formula crystallised all the protests formulated since Adam by the generations of men who have been confronted with the soul of woman. This grievance is reborn, in fact, every time a man of good will fails to elucidate the mystery of femininity in his wife and despairs that he will never discover it. It is not uncommon for men to renounce happiness, and sometimes love, by shutting themselves away and giving themselves up to incomprehension, simply because their wife seems to them as enigmatic as the Sphinx to the travellers of Egypt - perhaps a little more so! There is some truth in this. But as complex as the woman is (complex enough that she sometimes finds it hard to understand herself) it would be an exaggeration to say that she is incomprehensible to the point of being impenetrable to her husband. The absoluteness of the judgement with which men hasten to regard women as indecipherable enigmas is as unjust and questionable as the absoluteness of the female judgement according to which all men are systematically and irremediably selfish (...) we must say (...) how exaggerated is the position of men who take it for granted that woman is an enigma, and then infer the easy consequence that it is useless to try to understand her. Too easy a consequence! Because it often rests on that form of selfishness which can be laziness (...) it is often because men are too lazy that they fail to understand their wives".
"Courtship and happiness" - Paul Eugene Charbonneau
#CHASTITYANDMARRIAGE
24.03.202508:22
VARIOUS ARTICLES
"As a Catholic I recognise that among these separate Protestant denominations there are many Christians who honestly believe they are in the truth; excellent people who seek to worship and serve God from the heart. I recognise them fraternally as brothers in the Lord and Christians, but they are victims of a system that has deceived them and uses them to recruit more proselytes who propagate the same errors in a vicious circle. As Archbishop Fulton Shenn said, the vast majority do not hate the Catholic Church, but what they mistakenly think the Catholic Church is. We also recognise that in Protestantism, still divided into numerous ecclesial communities and sects, there are very good things, but all that is good and holy that can be found in them has belonged and belongs to the heritage of the Catholic Church, beginning with the Bible itself (...)".
"Compendium of Catholic Apologetics" - José Miguel Arraiz
#VARIOUSARTICLES
"As a Catholic I recognise that among these separate Protestant denominations there are many Christians who honestly believe they are in the truth; excellent people who seek to worship and serve God from the heart. I recognise them fraternally as brothers in the Lord and Christians, but they are victims of a system that has deceived them and uses them to recruit more proselytes who propagate the same errors in a vicious circle. As Archbishop Fulton Shenn said, the vast majority do not hate the Catholic Church, but what they mistakenly think the Catholic Church is. We also recognise that in Protestantism, still divided into numerous ecclesial communities and sects, there are very good things, but all that is good and holy that can be found in them has belonged and belongs to the heritage of the Catholic Church, beginning with the Bible itself (...)".
"Compendium of Catholic Apologetics" - José Miguel Arraiz
#VARIOUSARTICLES
20.04.202508:02
Surrexit Dominus vere! Alleluia!
14.04.202508:25
NON-SCIENTIFIC AFFIRMATIONS
9) Human intelligence has appeared by chance: chance is not a physical agent, it is not a measurable parameter of matter, as are mass and electric charge. It cannot be introduced into an equation as a factor (although a concept related to chance, "probability", is used to calculate an expected result). In a more direct way of speaking, one could say that "chance" is the educated way of saying "just because". Why does a particular squirrel cross in front of my car today and get run over and killed? There is no reasonable way to establish a predictive correlation between my journey and the squirrel's constant scampering, and so I reply that the animal's death under my car is a result of chance. The same must be said of a cosmic ray, with a particular energy, hitting a particular chromosome in a cell of an animal and causing a mutation. From the point of view of science, it is chance alone that appears as a reason, and in this sense, chance is a constantly present element in our life and in most of the independently occurring events in the Universe.
But every interaction of matter is a necessary consequence of the properties and forces present at any given moment: there is no room in science for any kind of "spontaneity" or "creativity" which would logically assume a degree of free will even in the most basic particles of matter. To claim otherwise would not only be totally gratuitous, but would make it impossible to predict outcomes - even macroscopic ones - with certainty, and science would be impossible.
Chance is nothing but the result of wanting to establish relationships between truly independent objects or events. That is why it is never a sufficient explanatory reason, nor can it be a cause of constancy or order or structure to attribute to chance what manifests the highest degree of complexity and order, such as abstract human knowledge (which includes all kinds of science, art, philosophy ....), means truly renouncing rationality and ending up saying that the greatness of human culture can be explained with a puerile "just because".
Voltaire, not without sarcasm, said: "Fill a sack with dust and throw it into a barrel: shake it vigorously for a long time and you will see pictures, violins, vases with flowers and rabbits coming out of it". Victor Hugo described chance as "a dish made by fools for fools to eat. And Darwin in "The Origin of Species" says: "I have spoken as if variations were due to chance. It is no doubt an entirely incorrect expression, but it is used to confess frankly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation."
#SCIENCEANDFAITH
9) Human intelligence has appeared by chance: chance is not a physical agent, it is not a measurable parameter of matter, as are mass and electric charge. It cannot be introduced into an equation as a factor (although a concept related to chance, "probability", is used to calculate an expected result). In a more direct way of speaking, one could say that "chance" is the educated way of saying "just because". Why does a particular squirrel cross in front of my car today and get run over and killed? There is no reasonable way to establish a predictive correlation between my journey and the squirrel's constant scampering, and so I reply that the animal's death under my car is a result of chance. The same must be said of a cosmic ray, with a particular energy, hitting a particular chromosome in a cell of an animal and causing a mutation. From the point of view of science, it is chance alone that appears as a reason, and in this sense, chance is a constantly present element in our life and in most of the independently occurring events in the Universe.
But every interaction of matter is a necessary consequence of the properties and forces present at any given moment: there is no room in science for any kind of "spontaneity" or "creativity" which would logically assume a degree of free will even in the most basic particles of matter. To claim otherwise would not only be totally gratuitous, but would make it impossible to predict outcomes - even macroscopic ones - with certainty, and science would be impossible.
Chance is nothing but the result of wanting to establish relationships between truly independent objects or events. That is why it is never a sufficient explanatory reason, nor can it be a cause of constancy or order or structure to attribute to chance what manifests the highest degree of complexity and order, such as abstract human knowledge (which includes all kinds of science, art, philosophy ....), means truly renouncing rationality and ending up saying that the greatness of human culture can be explained with a puerile "just because".
Voltaire, not without sarcasm, said: "Fill a sack with dust and throw it into a barrel: shake it vigorously for a long time and you will see pictures, violins, vases with flowers and rabbits coming out of it". Victor Hugo described chance as "a dish made by fools for fools to eat. And Darwin in "The Origin of Species" says: "I have spoken as if variations were due to chance. It is no doubt an entirely incorrect expression, but it is used to confess frankly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation."
#SCIENCEANDFAITH
07.04.202508:27
UNSCIENTIFIC CLAIMS
5) Intelligence, love, loyalty, solidarity, compassion or friendship are "nothing but defence mechanism and reaction formations" as it appeared in the American Journal of Psychotherapy: this statement is basically an attempt to explain intelligence from man's needs. But man invents the arrow because his intelligence discovers the opportunity offered by the branch, not because he feels hungry. Hunger only drives to eat, not to make arrows: they are two very different things. The cat also has this need and does not invent anything. That is why it is not correct. Man does not need intelligence, he simply has it. And thanks to it he is not just another animal. Thanks to it he gets from reality, by intelligently squeezing it out, what no animal can get. With this way of thinking it is also difficult to explain why so many men have died for defending these values.
#SCIENCEANDFAITH
5) Intelligence, love, loyalty, solidarity, compassion or friendship are "nothing but defence mechanism and reaction formations" as it appeared in the American Journal of Psychotherapy: this statement is basically an attempt to explain intelligence from man's needs. But man invents the arrow because his intelligence discovers the opportunity offered by the branch, not because he feels hungry. Hunger only drives to eat, not to make arrows: they are two very different things. The cat also has this need and does not invent anything. That is why it is not correct. Man does not need intelligence, he simply has it. And thanks to it he is not just another animal. Thanks to it he gets from reality, by intelligently squeezing it out, what no animal can get. With this way of thinking it is also difficult to explain why so many men have died for defending these values.
#SCIENCEANDFAITH
02.04.202508:34
VARIOUS ARTICLES
"I am reminded of Leo Moulin, the Belgian scholar and author, among other works, of a cultural-religious history of gastronomy, who was convinced that the art of cooking, like any other kind of art, was a revelation of the unconscious of the people. He told me: "The gastronomy of Catholic Poland is of the highest quality. How is that possible when the climate and raw materials are the same for Poles and Germans? But everywhere in the world, the cuisine of Catholics is superior to that of Protestants and occupies a much more important place in the lives of Protestants. When did you ever see people sitting at the table in Western films? On the other hand, there is no Italian, French, Spanish or even South American film in which a restaurant does not appear sooner or later. In Anglo-Saxon films there is only the pub or the saloon; people drink but don't eat, except occasionally meat and beans and such barbarities, gobbled down in a hurry. Protestant England and Protestant America have brought us many things, but no gastronomy." Was it not Oscar Wilde who said that hell "is a place where the cook is English?"
"The Challenges of Catholicism" - Vittorio Messori
#VARIOUSARTICLES
"I am reminded of Leo Moulin, the Belgian scholar and author, among other works, of a cultural-religious history of gastronomy, who was convinced that the art of cooking, like any other kind of art, was a revelation of the unconscious of the people. He told me: "The gastronomy of Catholic Poland is of the highest quality. How is that possible when the climate and raw materials are the same for Poles and Germans? But everywhere in the world, the cuisine of Catholics is superior to that of Protestants and occupies a much more important place in the lives of Protestants. When did you ever see people sitting at the table in Western films? On the other hand, there is no Italian, French, Spanish or even South American film in which a restaurant does not appear sooner or later. In Anglo-Saxon films there is only the pub or the saloon; people drink but don't eat, except occasionally meat and beans and such barbarities, gobbled down in a hurry. Protestant England and Protestant America have brought us many things, but no gastronomy." Was it not Oscar Wilde who said that hell "is a place where the cook is English?"
"The Challenges of Catholicism" - Vittorio Messori
#VARIOUSARTICLES
27.03.202509:00
JUAN MANUEL DE PRADA
"The Australian Peter Singer, in his work 'Animal Liberation' (1975), has postulated that resistance to recognising animal rights is comparable to such reprehensible historical phenomena as racial slavery or sexual discrimination. Singer opposes what he calls "specism"; that is, that a living being should be entitled to rights merely because it belongs to the human species.
For Singer, all beings capable of suffering should be treated with equal consideration; hence, in his view, the life of a foetus or that of a brain-damaged child is no more valuable than the life of a chimpanzee. This is why almost all animalists are more or less enthusiastic supporters of abortion. [...] Animalism would thus be based on a radically empiricist ethic, which makes any being with the capacity to suffer a subject of rights, regardless of whether or not it is rational. We will not discuss here whether suffering as we humanly understand it can be experienced to the same degree without rational consciousness; for it is clear to no one that an instinctive reaction to pain (which is what an animal can experience) is nothing like the suffering of man, who makes pain a moral experience. The philosophical flaw of animalism is much more obvious: only those who possess a correlative capacity to bind themselves can be the bearers of rights. When we proclaim that man has an inalienable right to life, we are also proclaiming that he is bound by the duty to respect the lives of other men; when we defend the right to property, we are condemning theft, and so on. Every right demands a correlative obligation; and animals, as beings devoid of reason and freedom, cannot be subjects of rights and obligations. This does not mean, of course, that animals should be left outside the sphere of legal protection. Man has the right to 'rightful dominion' over nature, since he is the only being who can make rational use of its resources; at the same time, he has the duty to protect nature and the living beings that inhabit it. Here it can be argued that even pregnant children or mentally handicapped people cannot assume obligations. But in them we recognise members of our species whom we cover with the same mantle of protection that we grant to fully conscious humans. For Singer this is "specism"; and, from a purely materialist logic, his reasoning is congruent. For what animalism ultimately seeks (using very cleverly compassionate alibis for the suffering of animals) is to deny the uniqueness of human beings, who are seen as the random result of natural evolution, and to erase the distinctive features that make them a unique creature, mysteriously singular, among all the creatures that populate the earth. It is this uniqueness that enables the righteous man to look at the animals that populate the earth and discover that they are 'good', and consequently strive to protect them; this uniqueness is called the soul.
When this uniqueness that exists between man and the rest of creatures is eluded or hidden (almost always because of human complexities and respects), it is impossible to fully defend certain causes; for materialistic logic ends up imposing itself, implacably. For fear of defending the existence of the soul, the battle against abortion, for example, has been lost; and for the same reason the animalist thesis will inevitably be imposed".
Article "Animalism" - Juan Manuel de Prada
#CHESTERTONCASTELLANIJMPRADA
"The Australian Peter Singer, in his work 'Animal Liberation' (1975), has postulated that resistance to recognising animal rights is comparable to such reprehensible historical phenomena as racial slavery or sexual discrimination. Singer opposes what he calls "specism"; that is, that a living being should be entitled to rights merely because it belongs to the human species.
For Singer, all beings capable of suffering should be treated with equal consideration; hence, in his view, the life of a foetus or that of a brain-damaged child is no more valuable than the life of a chimpanzee. This is why almost all animalists are more or less enthusiastic supporters of abortion. [...] Animalism would thus be based on a radically empiricist ethic, which makes any being with the capacity to suffer a subject of rights, regardless of whether or not it is rational. We will not discuss here whether suffering as we humanly understand it can be experienced to the same degree without rational consciousness; for it is clear to no one that an instinctive reaction to pain (which is what an animal can experience) is nothing like the suffering of man, who makes pain a moral experience. The philosophical flaw of animalism is much more obvious: only those who possess a correlative capacity to bind themselves can be the bearers of rights. When we proclaim that man has an inalienable right to life, we are also proclaiming that he is bound by the duty to respect the lives of other men; when we defend the right to property, we are condemning theft, and so on. Every right demands a correlative obligation; and animals, as beings devoid of reason and freedom, cannot be subjects of rights and obligations. This does not mean, of course, that animals should be left outside the sphere of legal protection. Man has the right to 'rightful dominion' over nature, since he is the only being who can make rational use of its resources; at the same time, he has the duty to protect nature and the living beings that inhabit it. Here it can be argued that even pregnant children or mentally handicapped people cannot assume obligations. But in them we recognise members of our species whom we cover with the same mantle of protection that we grant to fully conscious humans. For Singer this is "specism"; and, from a purely materialist logic, his reasoning is congruent. For what animalism ultimately seeks (using very cleverly compassionate alibis for the suffering of animals) is to deny the uniqueness of human beings, who are seen as the random result of natural evolution, and to erase the distinctive features that make them a unique creature, mysteriously singular, among all the creatures that populate the earth. It is this uniqueness that enables the righteous man to look at the animals that populate the earth and discover that they are 'good', and consequently strive to protect them; this uniqueness is called the soul.
When this uniqueness that exists between man and the rest of creatures is eluded or hidden (almost always because of human complexities and respects), it is impossible to fully defend certain causes; for materialistic logic ends up imposing itself, implacably. For fear of defending the existence of the soul, the battle against abortion, for example, has been lost; and for the same reason the animalist thesis will inevitably be imposed".
Article "Animalism" - Juan Manuel de Prada
#CHESTERTONCASTELLANIJMPRADA
22.03.202510:22
Показано 1 - 24 из 47
Войдите, чтобы разблокировать больше функциональности.