Articles

Modern theologians act like the New Testament writers were ignorant and superstitious. For example, they will say that the Bible records epilepsy as being caused by a demon because people simply didn’t understand science back then. People at that time were not ignorant on many laws of science or clueless about the concepts. These modern skeptics within theology have given into the fear of being scoffed at by atheistic scientists, whose approval they seem to esteem and desire for some mysterious reason. Fear is deeply linked with worship, so it wouldn’t be altogether wrong to say that caving to atheistic pressure is a form of worship. No one should desire a fool’s approval, empty promises, or even threats. Science is concerned with how things happen, but theology with why. Just because a thing happened naturally, doesn’t mean it wasn’t caused by a supernatural being. Job was afflicted with natural disasters by the direct intervention of Satan and permission of God. Just because a meteor probably destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah doesn’t exclude the possibility that the meteor was guided to earth by an angel or demon, out of God’s justice.

Evolution may be how the body of Adam was formed, but the body of Eve seemed to have been directly created by a miracle.

I can remain inconclusive about the Big Bang and Evolution theories. I don’t have an obligation to investigate the data behind either theory and come to any conclusion. Neither have been confirmed as absolute facts. Both have variations that are compatible with the infallible facts put forth by Catholicism. Those that insist that a conclusion must be drawn, are they who only want to use this to disprove the existence of God. But if I investigate whether Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead as an objective and historical fact, and if I conclude that he did, I now open the path to believing in Christianity and the supernatural. The only reason anyone would insist that I still investigate other scientific questions is to try to persuade me to abandon my conclusion about Jesus in favor of the other questions. But even then, I wouldn’t need to, since they can be reconciled. As long as there’s a possibility of reconciling them, then the Big Bang and Evolution are useless to disprove Christianity.

I have long given up a natural desire to pursue the advancement of science. Science is not inherently a net benefit to mankind; it’s neutral at best, and often enables far more evil than good. Every form of science can be used for either good or deeply destructive evil. With antibiotics came narcotics. With the internet came countless addictions to gambling and pornography. With cars came child sex trafficking. With airplanes came islands of abuse. Science merely changes circumstances, allowing greater good or evil to occur. And the evil seems to always outweigh the good. Saints use science to help others. Atheists and bad people use science to help themselves, to further their own comfort and ease, to make a false paradise on earth. That’s why they always get excited about new technology. It truly is cultish behavior to hype children up into thinking that advancing science is the best possible thing they could do with their time and talents throughout their lives.

STEM is based on an atheistic understanding of intelligence and reason. Reason comes from God, who is called the Logos in John 1:1. The logos can be translated word, reason, or logic. Being made in the image and likeness of God partly means we all have words, reason, and logic. Animals have these also, just as they have life and movement, but they possess these aspects of God in an almost infinitely lower degree than we do.

Sin is the primary thing that makes it difficult for us to reason, not lack of education. Intelligence is something each person has to different degrees, distributed by God’s choice. Intelligence is orthogonal to reason. Only Darwinistic racism considers having higher intelligence a virtue, or something that makes you a better person. But intelligence is like height, it’s neutral. Taller people are simply more responsible for reaching things off the higher shelf to give to shorter people, that’s why they’re given height. People with more intelligence are simply more responsible to people with less, to take ideas off the higher shelves of human knowledge, and make it more accessible to everyone else. This is exactly the opposite of what modern academia does, which exalts itself and tries to make you think you need them, just so that they can get your money.

Wisdom is not intelligence and foolishness is not a lack of intelligence. The most naturally unintelligent person could still be the wisest person on earth, and the person with the highest intelligence could be the greatest fool the world has ever seen. Wisdom means being connected with the logos in our hearts through our morals. It means seeing things from God’s perspective, the eternal, infinite perspective of the infinitely perfect God. Intelligence is nothing more than an ability to hold and dissect thoughts. But without looking at these thoughts through God’s eyes, the thoughts themselves are useless, and nothing useful can be done with them or brought out of them.

We never do anything without some reason. Even if we can’t articulate the reason, or aren’t fully aware of it consciously, the reason is still present. Intuition is a valid form of reason, it’s the unspoken word. Just as Sacred Scripture is the written Word of God, and Sacred Tradition is the unwritten Word of God, and both are needed and complement one another, Reason is the written Word in our hearts, intuition the unwritten Word. For some years now, people have been teaching their children from a very young age not to trust their intuition, especially boys. This creates people of the Spock stereotype, who have a very specific but useless kind of intelligence, because they lack other forms of it. After they’re trained to be like this, they’re then diagnosed as essentially incapable people, and treated accordingly, with a condescending and unjustified pity. It’s like poisoning someone to paralyze them and then pretending they were paralyzed from birth, for the sake of having someone to take care of in order to become the virtuous maternal hero of the story. This is in large part why there are so few capable and just men today.

Children who ask why about everything are the best philosophers. Out of the mouths of babes and infants thou wilt draw perfect praise, said Jesus. Science deals with how, but religion answers why. Why is far more important than how. If there is no reason behind creation, then there’s no reason behind anything, and everything is essentially arbitrary. I was in college when I first heard someone, a sociology professor, say that it was after the medieval ages when people transitioned from saying an apple is red because of the blood of Christ, to it being red because of scientific reasons. I had never heard anything like that in my whole life, that God made apples because of the blood of Christ, and it opened up a new way of looking at things that never left me, and probably helped me become Christian. People who deny the Logos are always unhappy at the end of the day.

A significant amount of scientific news is simply a reliving of the events of Eden, in which experts declare that some new discovery or information proves that God was wrong all along. Like the dragon, they make themselves the experts of reality, casting doubt on God’s divinely revealed truth by using lies, misinformation, subtle logical fallacies, and the false hope that the moral responsibility that God commanded of us no longer applies.

Environmentalists, which are pretty much always atheists in their morals if not also in their actual beliefs, panic about climate change and rightly recognize that the world is ending. Conservatives, who also generally have a very incorrect understanding of God, scoff at them, as if this life will continue indefinitely, and as if God’s plan is for us to have paradise on earth forever. Both are gravely wrong and misguided. This life is finite and temporary, for each of us, as well as for all of us collectively. Our resources are finite, and we have to make appropriate use of them. God is merciful and patient with our ignorance and sinfulness, but he will not be infinitely patient. He will let us use up all the oil and other non-renewable forms of energy, and allow us to fall back to 17^th^ century means of energy such as manpower and animal power. We have no inherent need for electricity, and I don’t see any reason God would prevent us from running out of most or all of it.

Why do college degrees give credibility? People with the same exact degree and qualifications often disagree with one another, so how do we know which one is right? Who has the objective authority to decide which of the two is more correct? When it comes to religion, God alone has this authority, and entrusted it to his Church on earth. So the Church’s Councils for example are infallible in their declarations, the world having God’s promise that the Holy Spirit will protect Councils from pronouncing error or anything false. But outside theology, there is no official arbiter of truth. God never promised to give declarations of infallibility in the fields of medicine, biology, economy, or politics. The only guarantee of correctness outside theology is simply success. If it works, then the principles behind it must be true. If a scientist’s experiment works, then he’s apparently authoritative. This is also true with moral theology. If the moral teaching produces saints, then it’s a good and useful teaching. But in the secular world, there’s no reason to blindly trust anyone simply because they wrote a book or have a PhD. Such qualifications can be a useful heuristic to narrow down which of the 8 billion voices we should consider listening to, but there are quicker and more reliable ways to filter this down. Lately, such degrees prove nothing except that a person has the time, money, and perseverance to obtain the degree. At the end of the day, when a person makes a claim, the reasons and evidence behind the claim are all that matters. If the reasons and evidence correctly prove the claim, then the claim is worthy of belief. This means that each individual person has to judge for themselves which conclusions to believe, and not simply trust experts because they are called “experts” by anyone.

Where is Heaven? Jesus has a physical body, and so does Mary, yet they’re not on earth. It seems that after the Resurrection, St. Peter says that all creation will be burned up, and St. John seems to imply that this burning will be a transformation into the final form of the eternal paradise. But in the meantime, where is Heaven? Where is God’s throne where Jesus sits and grants for us to sit with him? Where is this house with many rooms that he’s preparing for us right now? I’m guessing it’s where Jesus ascended to: the very literal heavens. In other words, everywhere else in the universe besides earth. All the planets will be ours to explore together for endless time, in an infinitely growing universe. But there’s probably one special planet that has God’s special Palace. Colonizing Mars or any other planet is a dream and a delusion, and its attempt and failure is probably going to initiate the very end times, causing fire to rain down on earth purely by the scientific fault of prideful unrepentant humanity, like a new tower of Babel being struck down by inevitability, because the only way to the heavens is through being morally upright by God’s standards. Hell is probably the inside of the earth. It says that those damned to hell forever will ask the mountains to fall on them and the hills to hide them.

The first humans really did live for up to nine hundred years, give or take. This is not a scientific impossibility. Nothing in science absolutely proves that humans always aged the way we do now, and that it starts when it does now. Scientists barely understand the aging process itself, or why we even have to age. The fact that they’re trying to prevent aging from happening in the first place is proof that it is genetically possible, which ought to silence their scoffing when we say that it actually did happen for the first few generations of humanity. And why wouldn’t God allow the beginning of the human race to live longer, in order for older generations to more easily pass on knowledge to younger generations without having yet invented written language?

If I had to live in a world with only art or only science, I’d absolutely choose art. Art elevates the soul, inspires the heart, reflects beauty, and encourages us toward heroic and noble virtues. Science merely changes the neutral circumstances of our lives. Instead of learning how to domesticate and ride horses, we build and maintain car factories. The amount of work we do with all these scientific advances hasn’t truly changed, it’s just become different, more tedious, less fulfilling, and made the world a duller place.