these days

Two important things happened to me this week.  One... I got engaged!  Baaam!  How's that for starters. ;)  Getting engaged is pretty fun too!  So excited!  Will talk more about this later.  :)  Two... I think that I've linked up two different strings of thought within my brain about faith and beauty; and/vs. logic and reason.  Here's some of the notes that I've jotted down throughout last week.  Note:  much of these thoughts comes from the background of reading Michael Polanyi, Stephen Weinberg, and Etienne Gilson. 

"We are made in such a way that we are attracted to what is beautiful."  Is what is beautiful a reflection of what/how we think things should be?  Is beauty an indication of what is true?  Why is it that what is true is beautiful and not merely logical? Weingberg, a famous quantum physicist and staunch atheist, says that beauty is one of the indicators that leads theoretical physicists in uncovering the fundamental laws of physics.  So, why then should we expect this?  Why is it that beauty points us to truth?"

"Ought we to seek after the worldview/philosophy that is most beautiful and desirous?  When we do this does it seem to lead to more truth? beauty? joy? freedom? love?  Those things that we believe to be desirous and worth living for?  What about the various philosophies that promise or suggest this?  One must ask themselves whether living in these philosophies truly fulfuills the above criteria?  And if not, have they either truly sought to understand the extent of their philosophy, or if they have, do they feel as though following their philosophy to its end would be devastating? unfulfilling?"

"As Weinberg states about the final unified theory, that in the end we may discover that the final theory was not the only logical representation of how our universe works, but it will be logically isolated.  In the same way, Christianity may not be the only logically inevitable philosophy but the one that is logically consistent AND most beautiful!"

"Though I understood in college that logic was necessary yet not sufficient for discovering/evaluating truth the question remained how to evaluate b/n different worldviews so as to determine which was correct.  Christian apologetics has traditionally moved in the direction to evaluate merely one of the necessary conditions, that of logical consistancy.  This was especially so, once it came under attack in the modern age to prove itself reasonable.  However, it has left some of the other conditions alone - livability, beauty, personal judgment, risk, fulfillment of love, freedom, compassion, grace, etc.  Evaluating from both conditions allows us to determine both the rationality and the integrity/beauty of the views.  They may all be livable, but does one stick out?  Does one stand above all?  The scientific worldview may be logical and livable and many have CHOSEN to believe and live in it.  Yet it is a risky and not altogether beautiful or fulfilling view.  In the end, evaluating is not a matter of merely trying to logically isolate one view - there are more conditions no less important."

"If beauty can help us in answering the question 'what?' (science) could it not also help us in answering the question 'why?' (philosophy, theology).

some days when I am left to myself I tend towards certain ways of operation.  Many times I turn into a philosopher, devouring whatever book I can.  Other times I become an engineer.  This evening I was an engineer.  In both I operate with precision and intensity often times for extended periods of time, content in my world that I have created.  So many things are possible.  Intensity - often at the expense of shutting other areas of my life out.  I must find the solution!  Intensity- which may drive me towards anti-social norms.  Intensity - I cannot explain the reason or source.  I am simply intense.

Can anyone deal with my intensity?

I feel like I have been starved from the intense, thorough thoughts on philosophy and engineering that I used to prey on.  Too much going on.  I want to follow up now.  I want to continue on!

I have a friend who is a naturalist.  Now when I say naturalist, I mean that he is a true hard-core naturalist.  He believes that everything is a part of nature, even God (if he exists).  There is nothing which happens or exists which does not have a cause, and if it has a cause then it is a part of the natural universe.  Even if other worlds, other universes exist, they exist as a result of the natural order of the ultimate series of causes.  Yet, one thing is really left unanswered, "What is the cause of the law of cause-and-effect?"  If nature is everything, and there is truly an infinite regress of causes, why is there such a thing as cause, or put another way, how can this law exist outside or on its own?  But perhaps you could ask the same thing of God.  My friend would say that there is no more logical fallibility in believing in an infinite regress of causes as there is in believing in a final, or beginning cause - unless of course the beginning Cause is capable of existing outside the law of causality.  If everything is a part of the result of the law of cause and effect, then everything can be explained by this law or subsiquent laws, i.e. physical laws.  Even the nature of our universe would ultimately be explained through simply tracking this infinite regress of causes with no end in site.  And many scientists simply ignore or don't see that they have simply assumed an infinitely causal universe without evidence.  Even though we see the law of cause and effect in action today does not give any logical evidence that the universe has always been so.  Because we would have to assume causality (that the universe acts today the same as it did in the past) in order to prove that the universe is and always has been causal.  And we know that isn't how science works - or is supposed to work.  Science is supposed to be free of any speculation.  Science uses laws and facts to discover knowledge.  There is no interpretation, only facts.  There is no faith, only facts.  And yet so many in science simply can't see that they rely so much on assumptions, risks, best guesses.  Explanations can only be given in terms of the natural order of the universe.  There can be no explanation apart from this, and to do so means that we simply don't understand enough of the universe yet.  These thoughts are simply the result of an ultimate assumption - that the universe is merely natural - and that is an assumption that cannot be proven but is taken by a faith commitment.  Science has its place.  The natural order of causality has its place.  But these can only answer questions of "How?" and even then it cannot answer all of them (and it is mere speculation to believe that they will be able to do so in the future).  They cannot answer the questions of "Why?"  These questions are the work of different methods.

"When the will of God crosses the will of man, somebody has to die."  Addison Leitch

"It is in giving that we receive, it is in pardoning that we are pardoned, it is in dying that we are born to eternal life."  St. Francis