Featured Image

U.S. citizens: Demand Congress investigate soaring excess death rates

(LifeSiteNews) –“There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.” – Albert Einstein 

The laws of mathematics and physics are reliable to the point that some feel that faith is superfluous. However, the revolution in physics over the last two centuries has yielded to strange and unpredictable surprises that are intuitively foreign to our common senses. These surprises are a result of the fact that mathematics and physics are reliable, and therefore predictions made based on them – no matter how bizarre – must be taken seriously. 

How do we interpret reality? The “common” reality is that to which we are accustomed, and is limited to the four dimensions of length, height, width, and time. Is it possible that these four dimensions are an inadequate representation of reality? Our entire perception of this reality is processed by a mere five senses: sight, sound, taste, smell, and touch. Is it possible that perception of the reality we know, let alone the reality outside of the four dimensions, is limited? Modern physics would certainly answer affirmatively to both questions, and assert that there are more dimensions outside our grasp, ones we cannot perceive with our limited senses. Recent “string theory” mathematically predicts in the range of a dozen different dimensions outside our grasp. For us to fully understand these dimensions is likely even more futile than it would be for a blind man to understand different colors. The fascinating theological questions that arise are endless (e.g. did we lose our gifts of interpreting and sensing some of these dimensions after the fall in the Garden of Eden?). 

Mind-boggling metaphysical and philosophical possibilities  

Could it really be that the realities of our faith are as true – or even more true – than the realities of daily living, and exist just beyond the grasp of our senses? If 100 blind men cannot see a mountain with their senses, does that mean the mountain is not there? Does the mountain need to “prove” to the blind men that it exists, or is its existence completely real and completely independent of whether the blind men acknowledge its existence? Isn’t the presence of the mountain an absolute “truth” regardless of whether the blind men acknowledge that truth?  

The list of un-intuitive scientifically proven realities that would previously not even have been dreamed of goes on and on. From time travel to dark matter to black holes to what Einstein referred to as “spooky” telepathic information transfer is just the tip of the iceberg of the scientifically “unknown.” A seminal event in the development of these revolutions occurred with Einstein’s special theory of relativity a century ago. The theory is deceptively simple, i.e. the laws of physics are the same, regardless of one’s location and motion. The speed of light is measured as exactly the same by all observers, regardless of their positions or velocities relative to one another. If one observer is stationary and another observer is in a rocket moving at half the speed of light toward the stationary observer, and a beam of light is emitted from the speeding rocket toward the stationary observer, then the intuitive answer is that the stationary person would measure the light as traveling 1.5X the speed of light (rocket speed + speed of light). But this is not the case. Rather, both observers measure the speed of light emitted from the speeding rocket as being exactly the same. To get the same value of the speed of light (distance/time), the two observers would have to disagree on not only the distance the light travelled, but the time it took. The completely un-intuitive reality is that length, time, and mass are relative, depending on one’s motion with respect to a given frame of reference. Time does not “seem” to change – rather the very reality of time itself changes. 

The genius of Einstein was that he rejected what ordinary senses tell us. His mind was open to the possibility that nature may work outside our intuitive five senses. He postulated that – of all things – time itself could change. Nature, it turns out, works far differently than anyone but Einstein could possibly have imagined. And this openness to at least considering the possibility, if not probability, that realities exist outside our realm of intuitive understanding was extended by Einstein to issues of faith and God as well. 

What happens when an object travels faster and faster? The dimensions of time and space literally change. Specifically, the faster one goes, the “slower” time passes, relatively speaking, and the “shorter” the object becomes. So, what happens at the speed of light? Physics seems to indicate that time stops. As a hypothetical example, if one twin flies off in a spaceship traveling at the speed of light, and the other twin remains on earth, then 20 years later the twin on earth would have aged by 20 years. But the twin returning from space at the speed of light would not have aged at all. Therefore, for the twin in the spaceship, “time travel” into his future would literally have occurred. And this hypothetical example is more than mere scientific fiction, since such calculations are used routinely for very practical applications. GPS devices are among endless such examples. 

Black holes are another bizarre reality. A black hole is a region of space with such a high gravitational pull that nothing can escape it – not even light. Thus, if a spaceship is approaching a black hole, it will travel faster and faster, and the gravitational pull of the black hole will make time slow for the spaceship. For an observer on earth, the spaceship will appear to be traveling slower and slower. For the person in the spaceship, time will seem to be passing completely normally. But for the observer on earth, the spaceship will seem to be going slower and slower, so slow that the observer on earth will be long dead before the spaceship is seen to enter the black hole.  

In essence, the “present” of the space traveler becomes any observer on earth’s “infinity.” One person’s “present” time becomes another observer’s “infinity.” Mind boggling. As Peter says, “…with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” Suddenly, rather than time being an absolute, it becomes plastic, a construct, an invention, a creation, and anything other than absolute. And this obviously has metaphysical and philosophical implications for the reality of the relationships of the Eucharist, Calvary, the Last Supper, Mass, and Heaven – although in ways that are not obvious, and we would not dare to pretend to understand. Was there “time” before the so-called “Big Bang” 13.7 billion years ago? Apparently not. But what was there? There was the “I Am” – there was God. 

On the cross at Calvary, the nature of reality itself was forever altered 

The un-intuitive implications of modern physics seem to become more and more bizarre with each passing year and each new discovery. The mysteries only seem to deepen. Of all the matter in the universe, only 20% is visible; 80% is invisible, not able to be seen, but existing nonetheless! This so-called “dark matter” is apparently the glue that holds the universe together. What is it? No one knows. Is travel to different dimensions possible through a “wormhole” communication between a black hole and an existence outside of our universe? Modern physics affirms such a theoretical possibility (although anyone or anything passing into a black hole would be physically destroyed, defying practical application). 

But just when you think science can’t get any weirder, it does. A type of information transfer/telepathy exists with a type of “entanglement” predicted by quantum physics. This action-at-a-distance is the interaction of two objects separated by vast expanses of space with no known mediator of the interaction. Einstein was so confused by it that he called this quantum entanglement as “spooky action at a distance.”  

Science confirms that time is not absolute or immutable. It is a part of God’s creation; it is an invention of God. To rigidly hold God to a seven-24-hour-day creation timeline – in human “days” as we know them – would seem presumptuous. Time did not always exist, and there will be an ultimate “end of time.” The reality of God and the world God exists in works perfectly well without “time.” Without reducing the impenetrable profundity of Christ’s gift of the Eucharist to a mere physical phenomenon, isn’t that what Catholics say happens at every Mass? Isn’t the sacrifice of the Mass the same sacrifice – a “re-presentation” – of the sacrifice of Calvary, outside the boundaries of time? Doesn’t our “present” thus become fused with eternity? At Mass, in addition to being spiritually present at Christ’s sacrifice 2,000 years ago, we are somehow there in a way – not physical as we know it – but in a way that is outside the four dimensions and that defies our five senses.

But it’s real nonetheless. And can we possibly say that the consecrated Host can be the physical Body of Christ, no less than the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Almighty God? How our senses interpret the limited dimensions we have naturally available does not determine what truly exists. Rather, what truly exists – what is supernaturally available – is that which lies beyond our senses of time and space, and is no less than the life of God Himself. Scripture reminds us that these things are veiled from our senses, but when the veil is lifted, we will see Him as He is; it is, as it were, that “senses cannot grasp this marvel; faith must serve to compensate,” as the hymn eloquently states.  

A prominent evangelical minister once debated Father Benedict Groeschel on the Catholic belief in the physical reality of the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. If Catholics really believed the Eucharist is Jesus of Nazareth, then was the consecrated bread held by Jesus in the institution of the Eucharist on Holy Thursday Christ’s body before the Passion, or was it the suffering Christ, or the resurrected Christ? Groeschel, true to form, said that the problem with the question in the first place was its lack of familiarity with the concept of “mystery.” How true – we need to conform to the mystery, the mystery need not conform to us. In dimensions independent of time – and surely the institution of the Eucharist was among such dimensions – the direct answer to the question might be yes, yes, and yes. Perhaps the Eucharist should be considered Christ, period, independent of time. Christ resurrected, Christ in His Passion, Christ as a young man, as a child, as an infant, as an embryo, as a zygote, for all eternity and before time began.  

Albert Einstein concluded in his later years that our perception of past, present, and future is actually one undivided reality. He rejected the illusion we experience as the moment of “now,” and instead stated that “…physicists believe separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one.” 

What happened on the Cross at Calvary? The nature of reality itself was forever altered. No longer would eternal suffering be the unavoidable result of our fallen natures. Rather, in the reality that is outside the realm of our present limited senses, the gates of Heaven itself and the life of God Himself would be made available to those who chose it, a gift of total compassion and love. Calvary changed the future, the present, and the past; in the Apocalypse John’s vision was that of Satan already defeated. Was John’s vision one of the future, or the past? Or both? How can the Blessed Virgin Mary be the Mother of God, who is timeless? Does what we do on earth in the here-and-now determine what has always been before the beginning of time? In the imponderable world that exists absent time, it may not be completely ridiculous to think of it in this way.  

What visions did Sister Faustina Kowalska, Bernadette Soubarous, and Catherine Laboure witness? What happened during the visions at Fatima in 1917, with a miracle witnessed by 75,000 people on October 13 that year? Were they, for a moment, given the gift of having their senses glimpse dimensions outside of time and space hidden from our natural comprehension? What did the apostles witness on Mount Tabor during the Transfiguration? Over the centuries and millennia, were authentic visionaries and prophets, before and after the birth of Christ, given the gift of sensing realities otherwise veiled by time and space? What is the nature of stigmata? Why are exhumed bodies of saints incorrupt?  

Einstein knew that the reality of something may be other than what its physical appearance would indicate to our senses, that the “accidents” of something do not determine the “reality” of what it is. He was fascinated by the entire concept of transubstantiation and engaged priests in discussions on the subject. With obvious humility in his relationship with the unknown, Einstein commented, “The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious…A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms – it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude.” 

Atoms, molecules, DNA: Nature seems to cry out that it is the work of a Supreme Being 

With the new, strange, and seemingly inexplicable scientific developments, scientists diverge in their philosophies of a Divine Creator. One view is that science has the ultimate answer to everything, without the need to evoke a Creator as part of the explanation for our reality. The other, humbler approach is that each more confusing and un-intuitive development in science only proves how little we know about the true nature of reality, and it would therefore seem presumptuous to outright deny the existence of God. From mere observation of the complexities of nature, it would seem almost obvious that reality is not a product of random events. From the overwhelming intricacies of the subatomic world to the vastness of the cosmos, nature seems to cry out that it is the work of a Supreme Being. An atom is complex enough – but a molecule? And the molecules coming together to form enzymes and hormones and steroids and carbohydrates and other functional molecules – let alone DNA – in such a way as to form a single cell – with organelles like mitochondria and sarcoplasmic reticula and nuclei – in an organized way is mind boggling.  

But if that’s not complex enough, are we supposed to believe that DNA, and hence the cell, can replicate itself in a coherent and consistent way by a random event? Over and over again? But then these individual cells come together to form a more complex organism, and these organisms become ever more intricate, with specialized organ function like heart and liver and kidneys and whatever. And if that’s not complex enough, what of the human brain? And its search for meaning, and understanding, and love?  

And we are expected to believe all this is a random event, occurring from an electrical storm igniting a thick primordial soup full of rich molecules? The absurdity of the premise rapidly becomes exponential.  It is far more reasonable to believe that a high-tech computer – far less complex than a single cell (and not even required to reproduce itself) – could spontaneously arise from the primordial soup! I suppose in such a fantasy world it would also be possible to re-create precisely – given an infinity of time – the frescoes of the entire Sistine Chapel using randomly splattered paint against a wall! In this model, any absurdity becomes possible. In a world where something never comes from nothing, it is godless scientific rationalization, rather than ideas of a Divine Creator, which seems to be the stuff of fairy tales.  

There has been a recent spate of academicians who seem to have built entire careers (and bank accounts) touting professional atheism in the name of “science.” Often, the intellectual elite of the West embrace atheism with a curious lack of discernment. But how do the nihilistic grumblings of these charlatans compare with the broad and fresh vision of authentic scientists? I much prefer the worldview of Albert Einstein, who said, “I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand.”   

In his astonishing book “New Proofs for the Existence of God,” Father Robert Spitzer runs circles around career academic atheists in his elaborations on the contributions of contemporary physics in establishing the existence of a Supreme Being. Certainly the cadre of renowned scientists and physicians over the centuries who have contributed profoundly in the benefit of mankind without denying their faith is inspiring.  

The father of microbiology, Louis Pasteur, said, “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.” And Alexis Carrel, who in 1912 was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for developing the techniques of vascular surgery, wrote of a miracle he personally witnessed at Lourdes in 1902, involving a young girl cured of tuberculous peritonitis. Max Planck, awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918 as the father of quantum physics, expressed a searing condemnation of professional atheists. He stated with prophetic vision: “…it is no wonder, that the movement of atheists, which declares religion to be just a deliberate illusion…and which has for the pious belief in a higher Power nothing but words of mockery, eagerly makes use of progressive scientific knowledge and in a presumed unity with it, expands in an ever faster pace its disintegrating action on all nations of the earth and on all social levels. I do not need to explain in any more detail that after its victory not only all the most precious treasures of our culture would vanish, but – which is even worse – also any prospects at a better future. ”  

True science, with humble openness to unknown realities, digresses sharply from the rigid atheist who hides behind a false and shallow science. Nuclear physicist and Nobel Prize winner Werner Heisenberg eloquently said that “The first swallow from the cup of the natural sciences makes atheists, but at the bottom of the cup, God is waiting.” On this Pope Benedict XVI elaborated that “It is only so long as one is intoxicated by individual discoveries that one says ‘There can’t be anything more than this, now we know everything!’ But as soon as one recognizes the imponderable grandeur of the whole, one’s vision penetrates further, and the question arises about a God who is at the origin of all things.”  

It is indeed the mature scientist, appreciative of all that science has to offer – including its as yet veiled mysteries – who stands in humble and submissive acknowledgement before his Creator.

U.S. citizens: Demand Congress investigate soaring excess death rates