As the existence of everything from SETI to Star Trek attests, our civilization is fascinated with the question of the existence of non-human intelligences. The Faith says that we already know of at least one such class of creature. It is called an “angel”. However, our culture’s response to the existence of the angelic is deeply confused.
Materialists have long scoffed at angels, but as is often the case, are now (unwittingly) making arguments that comport nicely with the ancient Christian picture of the universe.
It’s like this: the universe science is discovering is fantastically fine-tuned. If the strong nuclear force constant were not just so, either no hydrogen or nothing but hydrogen would form after the Big Bang. If the gravitational force constant were not just so stars would be too hot or too cold for life. If the electromagnetic force constant were not just so, chemical bonding for life could not occur. If the expansion rate of the universe were not just so, either no galaxies would form or the universe would collapse back to a singularity. And on and on this goes for over thirty different variables, all requiring fine tuning of such a degree that expressing the odds of getting them all right would require writing more zeros than I can fit in an 800 word article.
Because of the immense fine-tuning of the universe, sensible theists are rather understandably reminded of Paul’s remarks in Romans 1 that
Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.
But fallen man is nothing if not ingenious, so not a few materialists have lately attempted to lick this problem of the fine-tuned universe by positing what is known as the “Multiverse” theory. According to this evidence-free theory, the ultra-super-duper fine tuning of basic physical laws which strongly suggests that You Know Who might have a hand in Creation is just a statistical illusion. Based on absolutely no facts at all, some materialists insist the reason the universe looks ultra-fined for life is that we just happen to be lucky enough to live in the one-out-of-an-infinite-number-of-universes where all the physical laws happen to be fine-tuned enough to produce us. According to this theory, there are, in fact, an infinite number of other universes with other physical laws tuned to other variables. This is not the sort of thing that would keep you from getting shot in Deadwood, South Dakota in the 1880s (“Wal, pardner, I cain’t hep it if every hand I’m dealt is four aces. We jes’ happen to live in the multiverse where I always git four aces!”) but it is a consolation to those desperate to avoid You Know Who.
The problem is this: If, for the special purpose of getting rid of God, you can say there are an infinite number of “natures” out there, why can’t the Christian say the same thing? Because that, in essence, is what Christian doctrine has always done. And it is, in this, merely borrowing from Jewish (and indeed pagan) observations about the world.
Contrary to popular belief, Christianity does not really posit a three-storey universe (Hell, Earth, Heaven). It posits a universe with (potentially) any number of natures–a skyscraper universe, if you will–and even the reality that such natures can interact. In the Tradition, “Earth” refers to the creation we can see: not just the planet on which we live but the whole field of time, space, matter and energy to the furthest reaches of the furthest galaxy. Similarly, “Heaven” refers, not simply to God (the “Highest Heaven”), but to the realm(s) of the angels and even of the demonic “powers and principalities”. Such natures are “higher” than we are in the order of nature and so the angels are traditionally pictured in our art floating around in Heaven next to God. But, of course, there is an infinite gulf between the Creator and his angels just as there is an infinite gulf between the Creator and us (in the order of nature).
Revelation speaks of these “in-between” angelic realms and natures only insofar as it concerns us so we know only a little. The angels, which are pure intelligence without corporeal bodies, exist to praise God and to help us in our salvation. That’s the bit we have been told by revelation. Beyond that, we know nothing (though human imagination has not hesitating to fill in the blank spots on that map of human knowledge as it has eagerly done with all other blank spots.)
The demons are angels who have refused an affirmative to the fundamental law of existence: to worship the Triune God who is life, love, truth, goodness and beauty. They are the enemies of creation because they are the enemies of the Creator. That, likewise, is all revelation reveals about them, because, for the purposes of our salvation, all we need to know is that.
Unfortunately, the devil being a liar, we have been fuddled about a lot more than the mere question of the existence of such creatures. So merely rejecting atheistic materialism is not enough. Tomorrow, we will look at the opposite problem from atheistic materialism: the New Age tendency to love angels more than angels want to be loved.
Advertisement
17 Responses
Trying to imagine multiverses makes my head want to explode. One universe at a time, thank you. Perhaps Heaven and Hell are different universes or different dimensions? It’s all above my pay grade.
Regrading the Multiverse Theories, the basic idea is that our universe is just one of many, in the same way in which our sun is just one of billions of stars that are out there. And just like variance in a star’s composition and age resulting in different attributes like size and temperature doesn’t mean that each star has their own rules of physics, any discernable difference in the “physical laws” of different universes, would just mean that we would have to expand what we know about physics and its underlying mechanisms.
Its really not that much of a leap, and while much of it can be speculative due to the limitations of what we can observe, a lot of it is just extrapolating from what we already know. On that front, I’ve seen ideas floating around about how our universe might actually be the inside of a black hole.
When it comes to fine-tunning, you have the casualty completely reversed; that is, its not that the universe is fine tuned for life, but that life is fine-tuned for the universe. Its basic evolution: life adapts to the environment, not the other way around.
As far as non-corporeal intelligences go, the closest thing we can observe to that would be our current AI models. However, a lack of a physical body in the conventional sense does not mean disconnected from physical reality altogether. If we’re talking about a mind, we’re still talking about some kind of neural network, which needs to be made out of something. It still needs some way to transmit messages and store memories and interact with the physical world.
Postulating some kind of entity made out of “pure intelligence” just sounds like some undefined mumbo-jumbo. It would be like saying that there is a computer that is “pure programming”. It might sound “deep”, but its just nonsensical.
“As far as non-corporeal intelligences go, the closest thing we can observe to that would be our current AI models. However, a lack of a physical body in the conventional sense does not mean disconnected from physical reality altogether. If we’re talking about a mind, we’re still talking about some kind of neural network, which needs to be made out of something. It still needs some way to transmit messages and store memories and interact with the physical world.
Postulating some kind of entity made out of “pure intelligence” just sounds like some undefined mumbo-jumbo. It would be like saying that there is a computer that is “pure programming”. It might sound “deep”, but its just nonsensical.”
This assumes that mind must have some sort of physical sub-stratus. That presupposes a view of reality that is, at bottom, physicalist. I understand that you are, in fact, either an agnostic or an atheist – and perhaps you think the only reality is physical (including things like space and time in the definition of ‘physical’). I would say that’s not obvious to all, and not only to followers of various religions.
jj
The problem is that “intelligence” is an emergent property that is the result of different underlying systems working in tandem, like memory retention, pattern recognition, reaction to positive and negative feedback and so on. So saying that something is “pure intelligence” doesn’t even begin to make sense; the term itself is nonsensical, regardless of what you might think about physical reality.
You would have to think that anything involved with “thinking” is some kind of essence or substance, instead of what it actually is, which is a process. Its a category error.
I’ll set aside the discussion about intellect and AI — fascinating as it is — and focus on fine-tuning. As you noted, life fine-tunes to the universe, not the other way around. Yet in our universe, with the constants we observe, life — at least as science defines it — could not have fine-tuned to alternative constants, because there would have been nothing to adapt to. I fully accept evolution, but it doesn’t seem to explain why life-permitting environments exist in the first place.
Our universe is only life-permitting to the life it has. If the universal constants were different then there could be no life at all; or there could a different manner or creature, reveling in the environment that was made just for them. And such a creature would look at our universe and consider it a completely hostile landscape, unsuitable for any life.
But ultimately, we don’t know if it could be any other way; so for all we know some kind of life emerging might be inevitable, just like the formation of stars and planets. And what makes our case so unusual is that we’ve lasted as long and gotten as far as we have.
@3vil5triker: again, that defines intelligence as an emergent property of an underlying system. Given that definition, then, yes, of course, ‘pure intelligence’ is like ‘pure colour.’
Perhaps there is a problem with using the term ‘intelligence’ as referring to ‘something.’ The term ‘intellect’ is actually the word that is more regularly used. ‘Intelligence’ is, I suppose, an attribute of a being – as ‘colour’ is an attribute of a being. To speak of ‘an intellect,’ however, is the way angels and such are usually referred to by that sort of philosopher.
Again, if definition of intellect or intelligence is that it is necessarily an emergent property, then, of course, ‘pure intellect’ is contentless – but it is so by the way you have defined ‘intellect’ or ‘intelligence.’
jj
Well, how else do you define an intellect or intelligence? Maybe the philosopher who initially referred to angels in such way simply didn’t have knowledge and language necessary to conceive of “intelligence” as anything other than something abstract, obscure and inscrutable.
@3vil5triker – well, what I am told that an intellect is is the ability to know but I’m not a philosopher. God – if He exists – and, of course, I think He cannot not exist – God is an intellect and God knows – but God, of course, cannot be physical – He is the source of the physical as well as the … well, non-physical.
@3vil5triker – my point is that to talk about whether a pure intellect is meaningful depends on your underlying understanding of what reality is. Just explaining that, on a theological point of view, the idea of a pure intellect is not meaningless.
@3vil5triker – FWIW, I should point out that, on the theological understanding, the human intellect is itself not an emergent property. It is non-physical. Our ability to know and our ability to love are said to be aspects of our spirit – which is not physical. That underlies the belief that a ‘spiritual being’ – one which can know and love – does not die.
Sorry about the long italics. I didn’t close my italics thing 🙂 And you can’t edit your post.
@John Thayer Jensen: I have no doubt that is the theological understanding, but I postulate that such understanding came about before we had developed our understanding of neuroscience, or neural networks, or learning models, or discovered that many of the defining characteristics of “intelligence” that we once considered to be unique in humans, were actually a conglomeration of separate attributes that exist in other creatures as well.
Back then, something like the human mind could not be conceived as anything other than coming from something otherworldly; beyond the physical realm. But now, even with our limited understanding, the mind is not as much as an inscrutable black box as in once was. That’s why throwing out a term like “pure intellect” hits differently in our current intellectual zeitgeist.
All I’m saying is that regardless of my own personal opinions on the matter, the theology needs to catch up and be expanded upon. Wouldn’t it be ironic if one day, AI came to be fully cognizant but were denied that acknowledgement because of Catholics? I know Mark says you guys have got it all figured out when it comes to dealing with extra-human intelligence, but maybe you don’t have it as locked in as you think.
@3vil5triker – sure, I understand that you think that it’s all a matter of what we know now. I don’t suppose I have anything in particular figured out – it’s a matter of presuppositions. Presuppose that somehow mind comes from matter and, of course, bodiless intellect is an oxymoron.
jj
@John Thayer Jensen: I think you’re getting too fixated on the “matter” aspect. Imagine that instead we were talking about “sight” or “listening” or “doing you taxes”. The problem with the idea of someone being “pure sight”, or “pure hearing” or “pure accounting” is not so much whether or not those those things require the physical world, as it is that they just don’t make sense conceptually. Those things could be considered attributes, actions, functions or things that you do, but they’re not something that entities are made from.
To be fair, we might be to some extent dealing with an anachronism. So our usage of terms like “mind” and “intellect” has expanded and evolved beyond what it was back then, to the point where describing an angel as a “pure spirit” as a way to distinguish from humans who are both “body and spirit” might be more in line with the original intended meaning within a contemporary context.
@3vil5triker – no doubt one problem is with the word ‘our’ in the phrase ‘our understanding.’ It presupposes a common underlying idea of what reality is.
I recall the old saying “I think therefore I am.” Or as my frat boy nephew would say: “I drink, therefore I am.”