How does one start when approaching a classic such as this? One starts with an overview, then proceeding on to the writer, for he is its source, style, content, and finishing up with commentary. At least this is the route that will be taken here. The book, Miracles: a Preliminary Study, in contemporary Christianity is championed as one of the greatest apologies of the miraculous ever penned. However, in reality, most patrons have never read it. There is so great a wind about C.S. Lewis�s memory that anything penned by him is at once slotted into the �one of the greats� category. There may be reason behind the wind, which we will get to in a moment, but it is interesting to note that the mass of Christians who recommend this book have not read a drop of it.

Continued…

Since Darwin’s publishing of the Origin of the Species, Christianity’s response has been as seemingly random as the supposed process of genetic variation that powers evolution’s steam engine. There were, and still are, strict creationists, progressive creationists, day-age theorists, theistic evolutionists, divine fiat proponents, old earth defenders, young earth defenders; coming in Evangelical and Fundamentalist flavors. When approached by a casual observer from the outside, these systems seem like a course of random objections to one of the prized theories of science. As it is the case with many things, a different picture emerges upon closer examination.

Continued…

Link to PDF version

In the wake of Hume�s works, Metaphysics, as an objective philosophical discipline, was left in chaos. When applied correctly, Hume striped causality of its power and prestige. Metaphysics, the study of the underlying nature of the world, heavily relies on the idea of causation being intelligible. Hume argued that all meaningful ideas came from the senses and because we could not actually sense the causation of an event, our idea of causality in each specific occasion is unfounded. It was this difficulty that spurred Kant to rethink Metaphysics in general.

Kant tries to establish a set of founding principals on which to rest the foundations of Metaphysics. In doing so, he establishes four types of propositions: a priori, a posteriori, analytic, and synthetic. The first two deal with the origin of the proposition. A priori propositions are known from pure reason, whereas a posteriori propositions are known from experience. The last two types describe the relation of the predicate and the subject of the sentence. Analytic propositions contain in the predicate, knowledge that is known in the subject. Synthetic propositions on the other hand add the idea in the predicate to the subject. There are four possible combinations of the four types of propositions: a priori analytic, a posteriori analytic, a priori synthetic, and a posteriori synthetic. A priori analytic statements and a posteriori synthetic exist; their very definition allows them to necessarily exist.

A posteriori analytic propositions are impossible, for each of the terms exclude the other. Kant believes that Math, Science and Metaphysics lie in the last type, a priori synthetic propositions. It is questionable that this class of propositions exists. If it is not possible, then Metaphysics, as a science, cannot exist. If Kant can demonstrate that the class of a priori synthetic propositions does exist, by letting Math in, then he can use the same principles to allow Metaphysics to exist through a priori synthetic propositions. Kant uses a priori intuitions for a priori synthetic propositions in his first remark in the first part of the Prolegomena. His argument for the validity of a priori synthetic propositions of space and time are as follows.

1. A priori intuitions are known outside of experience.
2. Pure Geometry is an a priori intuition of space.
3. Pure math is an a priori intuition of time.
4. (C1). Pure Geometry and Pure Mathematics are known outside of experience.

5. Pure Geometry and Pure Mathematics are known outside of experience.
6. Pure Geometry and Pure Mathematics are the form of our ability to experience space and time.
7. Objects of sense are bundles of our experiences of space and time.
8. (C2). Pure Mathematics and Pure Geometry refers merely to objects of sense.

9. Pure Mathematics and Pure Geometry can only have objective reality on the condition that it refers merely to objects of sense.
10. Pure Mathematics and Pure Geometry refers merely to objects of sense.
11. (C3). Pure Mathematics and Pure Geometry have objective reality.

12. Pure Mathematics and Pure Geometry have objective reality.
13. Pure Geometry is an a priori intuition of space.
14. Pure math is an a priori intuition of time.
15. (C4). Pure Geometry and Pure Mathematics are necessarily valid of space and time.

Is the conclusion, Pure Geometry and Pure Mathematics are necessarily valid of space and time, true? In Kant�s view, three-dimensional geometry, or Euclidean geometry, is only possible form of space. However, with the onset of Einstein�s Relativity, we have learned that our previous intuitions about space and time were wrong; space is really four-dimensional and does not follow rules of Euclidean Geometry. This demonstrates the conclusion of Kant�s argument to be false.
Where in the chain of reasoning is the error? It is located in the original intuitions. The a priori intuitions that give rise to Pure Geometry, otherwise known as Euclidean Geometry, are incorrect. Our reasonings of the structure of space and of time were incorrect. If the reasonings before experience about time and space are wrong, what prevents the reasonings, or a priori synthetic propositions, before experience about the nature of experience to be incorrect also? If the reasonings about the nature of experience are also incorrect, then one is unable to correctly interpret experience. Once the interpretation of experience is rendered baseless, the foundation on which to build the science of Metaphysics disappears.

In 1615 C.E. the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany received a letter from a friend of hers. The letter sparked off one of the great confrontations between the thinkers of religion and those of science. It was one of the major battles between two ideologies that had been diametrically opposed since their respective conceptions. At least that was the way it was seen for many years afterward. Such a view is called the Conflict Theory:”(Wilson, David. The Historiography of Science and Religion. Science and Religion. 2002. John Hopkins University Press. p.14)”:. It states that religion and science have always been opposed to each other’s ideas and are in a state of perpetual conflict. The Trial of Galileo was only a flash point in an old, unending war between two veins of thought. However, if one looks deeper into the issue, a different interpretation is waiting to be found.

Up until its contact with the ideas of Aristotle, the Church had assumed that the world was created by God only a few thousand years ago, sat in the center of all creation, was driven by God�s will. The Church�s attitude towards science can be best characterized by what is known as the Hand Maiden theory. In this view, Scripture was considered as the true representation of reality. Science was seen as something that could bolster Scripture, help explain what Scripture was silent about, but never would it contradict Scripture. This was impossible because Scripture was truth and truth could never contradict truth. Humans were imbued with reason that mirrored God’s, but because humans were tainted with original sin, our reason was prone to failure. Therefore, it was assumed that when reason ventured so far away from Scripture that it conflicted with it, the Church simply dismissed it as necessarily erroneous.

Once the Church was confronted with the ideas of Aristotle, it ran into several serious problems. Aristotle’s world view made wonderful sense. So wonderful, in fact that it seemed to be the only explanation of the natural world. Despite all of its appeals, it came to several logical conclusions that were unacceptable for the Church. In the Aristotelian framework, the universe was completely self contained and eternal, even the prime mover was contained within the system. In the Christian view, God was the creator of the system and stood outside it. God himself was seemingly rendered impotent. God was assumed to be the most perfect being. The most perfect being must have the most perfect thoughts. Therefore, the only thing that God is allowed by logic to think about is Himself. This stood in stark contrast with the personally involved god of the Christian scriptures. Similar disagreements arose on the topics of the soul’s essence and the naturalistic vs. providential view of history.

At first the Church tried to trim down the Aristotelian worldview. In 1231 pope Gregory IX issued a papal bull that warned against the errors contained in the Aristotle’s natural philosophy:”(Lindberg, David. Medieval Science and Religion. Science and Religion. 2002. John Hopkins University Press. p.66)”:. It requested that the errors be trimmed out and then the parts that aligned with the Church�s interpretation of scripture could be taught. This approach never panned out because the �Aristotelian philosophy was simply too valuable to relinquish.�:”(Ibid, 67)”:

Instead the philosophy was taught across the board and attempts were
made to Christianize Aristotle. The most successful in this undertaking was Thomas Aquinas. He was able to successfully mesh the philosophy of the Church and of Aristotle. The accommodation went both ways, parts of Christianity were aristoteleanized and parts of Aristotle were christianized. The Church seemed to have found the balance in the well rationalized philosophy of Aquinas. His was a system that explained reality and theology in a way that was almost perfectly harmonious.

So convincing was Aquinas’ work that a few hundred years later, at the Council of Trent, a terrible thing occurred. It was a well intentioned mistake, but a mistake never the less. Martin Luther, in 1517, first openly challenged the authority and doctrine of the Catholic Church:”Wikipedia(Luther: The Indulgence Controversy, 2/18/2005)”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther. His challenge sparked the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. The Church responded in several ways. They tried refuting, repressing, and responding to the challenges that Protestants laid before them. One of the responses of the Catholic Church was its own counter reformation. The Council of Trent, held in several sessions starting in 1545 and ending in 1563, shored up the Church’s position on several topics, such as the sale of indulgences and the nature of salvation. The issue of importance to the Galileo trial was the formal induction of tradition in to the cannon. The Church said that the Holy Spirit had not only spoken though the Apostles, but also the Church Fathers and the Church Doctors. The interesting part is that the Church gets to decide who the Church Fathers and the Church Doctors are. Once a person is named a Church Father or a Church Doctor, their works are considered to be inspired. As expected, Aquinas was named placed into this category. This philosophy became not only the official Church stance, but also viewed to be inspired. As a consequence of Aquinas’ worldview being inducted, the geocentric worldview of Aristotle was also viewed to be inspired. The Council of Trent also declared that only the Church could interpret scripture.

At first glance, this might not seem to be such a large problem. After all Aristotle did such a marvelous job of explaining reality. As a matter of fact, the Church was quite tolerant of other theories to explain the workings of the world. However, one needs to understand the meaning of the word �theory� at this time. The word conveyed a sense of simply �saving the phenomenon�, not explaining reality. That is why Copernicus’ system was used by the Pope to reform the calendar. It was seen by the Church simply as a good method of calculation, not a depiction of reality, and Copernicus, despite his true feelings, did not press the issue as reality.

Galileo did not take the same path as Copernicus. Galileo saw that the Church was attached to geocentricism, a theory that was increasingly being recognized as being fundamentally flawed. He was worried that as the general populace realized this, they would abandon the Church. Being the good catholic that he was:”(Alioto, Anthony. Columbia College. Class Lectures Fall 2004-Spring 2005.)”:, he sought to convince the Church the error of their ways and thus aid in the saving of the rolls. In his above mentioned letter to Christina he declared that the Copernican view did represent reality and that scripture should be reinterpreted to follow the findings of science, namely, the Copernican theory. The Church was not up to his challenge. Both of these ideas: the claim of reality of the Copernican model, and the elevation of science over scripture were unacceptable to the Church; as the Council of Trent had permanently excluded them from acceptance by the Catholic Church. Thus began the Trial of Galileo.

Science had been embraced by religion in the form of the acceptance of Aquinas as a Church father. Once they had embraced Science, the Church latched onto its, then, current form and attempted to cast it in the concrete of dogma. Instead of leaving science in it natural dynamic state, always seeking the truth and being open to change; the Church, at the Council of Trent, created a dogma that it was unable to back away from when pressured by Galileo and the Protestants.

Is there a God? This is one of the most fundamental questions ever put forth in the history of humanity. Within this question and its follow-ups lay the greatest fears and hopes of mankind. It is a universal question. It is a question that every single human has asked himself at one point or another. Three basic answers have been put forth; there is a God, there is not a God, and one cannot know if there is a God or not. These answers really deal with the two following topics. First, can one know if God exists? Secondly, does God, in fact, exist?

Before one can tackle the question, �Does God exist?� it must be known whether or not that is an answerable question. The principal topic in the discussion is the gulf between the mind and the outside world. If that gulf is bridgeable, then there is hope, however if the void is too wide, then one is left floating in a sea of subjectivism. How is one to know if the gulf is bridgeable? For starters, the senses would have to be able to correctly perceive the world. Secondly, the mind would have to be able to make sense of the perceptions and match them with the realities of the physical world.

Are the senses to be trusted? The answer is yes. As evidence of this all one must do is conjure up the memory of the morning walk from the bed to the shower. Think back and replay the events of this morning. How was this great feat of navigation accomplished? Surely one did not simply flow to the shower from the bed like water down plumbing. Nor did one constantly bump into obstacles until the destination was stumbled upon like a blind man fumbling for his cane. Instead, the sensory input from the real world was taken in by the eye, skin, and nose and the mind was able to translate this input into information and in turn was able to direct itself to the shower. The above example gives us proof that the mind has at least a window in to the world.

Can the mind make sense of reality? Again the answer is yes. Wipe away the previous image of the trek to the shower. Instead imagine a man preparing for a Civil War reenactment down on some grassy field in Georgia. Our man observes a cannon being shot and makes observations of how far the ball lands each time it is shot. He takes measurements of the distance the ball was thrown and amounts of powder used in the shot. He infers a relationship between the two and begins to plot out a way to represent that relationship. He comes up with a formula that should predict the behavior of the ball being blasted out of the cannon. Upon testing his hypothesis he notices that there are variances between his predictions and the results obtained. One by one he isolates variables such as, air resistance, wind, density and size of the ball, rotation of the earth, and so forth until he is able to make accurate and precise predictions of the behavior of the ball. Not only has our man been aware of what was happening; he is able to understand the principals behind what was happening. He is able to predict the future behaviors of certain objects. These objects, our man labels �natural objects�, objects that do not have a choice in what they do, but instead follow a set of rules. In doing so, our man demonstrates that the human mind can indeed make sense of this universe it is trapped in.

In light of the two above passages, it may be safely assumed that the pure skeptics wrong, and that humans have the natural ability to discover their universe and understand it. If humans are able to piece together the workings of their universe, then they should be able to determine if a God exists. Now the topic maybe turned to the second question: �Does God exist?� The word God is perhaps better termed numinous, for that word is a general term, more fitting to the journey of discovery being undertaken here. There are two possible routes a person could take at this stage of the journey. One could ask, �What would a universe look like that was created by a numinous?� On the other hand the question could be asked, �Do the properties of the universe we find our selves in necessitate the existence of a numinous?� The first approach shall be excluded; on the grounds that it lends too much towards an anthropomorphication of said numinous.

Our man from the field in Georgia staggered into the realm of science. In doing so he discovered for himself a set of rules that govern the universe. Having gone to a couple of civics classes in college, he also learned that the rules that govern our country were not arbitrarily set, but instead chosen and for the most part fit together into the machine of society. On his way home from the mock battlefield, his mind wanders from the honky-tonk seeping from his F-150 to the matters of the cannon balls and civic classes. He begins to wonder if there is the same connection between the laws of society having a framer and the laws of nature having a framer.

Is there an implicit connection between the natural laws that govern the universe and the existence of a numinous that actively frames the natural laws? If the connection can be shown then one can say with reasonable certainty that a numinous exists. Those that would favor an existing numinous would say that the fact that the natural laws operate and are balanced in such a way to allow the development of life is sufficient proof for an intelligent framer of the natural laws. However, some in the scientific community have replied to the previous statement with the notion of the Anthropic Principal. The Anthropic Principal states that the universe is the way it is because if it had any other configuration it could not harbor life. It is science�s way of saying that out of all the possible configurations of the universe, we are able to see this configuration because it allows our existence. It was a great coincidence that the current configuration was the right one. This seems to explain away in one fell swoop the necessity of a numinous. However, concerning the physical development of the universe science can only explain history up to the very act that created the universe: the Big Bang. What science cannot tell us is how this event happened. Events near the Big Bang cannot be predicted. Stephen Hawking states in his book, A Brief History of Time, that as one traces his way backward to the Big Bang there is a point where all the natural laws of the universe break down. Beyond this point science cannot predict what is happening because the foundation that science is based on is natural laws. Therefore, science leaves open to conjecture the opening pages of the universe�s history. It is at this point we can infer that there must have been a creative force to �jump start� the Big Bang. In addition, if there was indeed a force that created the ingredients necessary for the Big Bang, then it is highly likely that the same force crafted the natural laws to allow the existence of intelligent life.

The other main �proof� for a creative numinous is that of life. It is said that life is incredibly complex and configured and therefore must have had an intelligent creative force behind its development. Once again science has a rebuttal waiting in the wings. Its response is the theory of evolution. The theory states that �all the living things of today are the direct descendants of earlier, rather different, living things; that these in turn were descended from still earlier forms of life; and so on, all the way back to the first primitive organism � which in itself probably sprang into existence through the interplay of natural forces:”Creation and Evolution, Alan Hayward, p 4″: .� For a long time no one could figure out how the species made the changes from one form to another. Darwin was able to come of with a plausible solution to the problem. He proposed that mutations combined with the principal of natural selection were the driving forces behind evolution. With the theory of evolution we seem to have dispelled any necessity of a creator crafting life. However, the theory of evolution is not without its criticisms. A growing number of scientists have become unsatisfied with evolution�s claims:”Creation and Evolution, Alan Hayward Ch 2 & 3″: . They claim that the two fundamental principals behind evolution are unable to foster the dramatic genetic change that is necessary to bridge the species gap. Also, there is not a single workable theory explaining the start of life. Many theories have been put forth, but none have been able to yield verifiable results. In light of this, we find science missing another chapter in the history of the universe. It is possible that in the future science will be able to fill these holes. However, until this occurs, it seems to be more plausible that a creative numinous formed the first life forms and through successive creations formed life as we see it today.

We have shown that humans are able to accurately perceive and make sense of the universe. Through the discipline of science humans are able to discover natural laws that govern the universe. As grand as it is, science cannot explain how these laws came to be or why they are so precisely tuned to allow the existence of life. Our present scientific knowledge leaves only the creative acts of a numinous as plausible explanations to the mysteries of the origin of the Big Bang and of life. Therefore the numinous must exist. However beyond that not much else is able to be scientifically inferred about the numinous. This is another way of putting forth the Cosmological Argument for God�s existence. It does not have the weaknesses that Aquinas� first three ways have. Aquinas� formulation was fundamentally flawed. One cannot have the conclusion in validate one of the premises in one�s argument and expect it to stand.