Photo credited to commons.wikimedia.org.
News is now widespread that the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, the world’s most powerful particle accelerator shared by France and Switzerland, has generated a high-energy reaction which provides convincing evidence for the existence of the Higgs boson, known in contemporary circles as the “God particle”. The Higgs field is a theoretical medium that attributes mass to all non-zero-mass particles, where mass is the substance of all matter. To put it in layman’s terms, it gives matter its matter-like property. And the Higgs boson, which is believed to be the new particle discovered in the CERN experiment, is the smallest possible (quantum) disturbance or excitation of this field, providing direct evidence of its existence.
The particle has been given the “God particle” nickname because of its tie to what is believed to be this fundamental property of all matter. The universe is comprised of matter and energy (which Einstein proved to be interchangeable) and the medium in which they exist (space-time). All large-scale matter in the universe interacts primarily through gravity, which drives the formation of stars and planets. Without gravity, neither the earth nor life on it would exist.
All fine and dandy, but what does it have to do with Catholicism? Well, before the Middle Ages, humanity was at a loss to explain the physical phenomena that engrossed it. The earth was flat. Pagan gods caused the sun to rise in the east and set in the west. The stars were immutably fixed on a sphere hovering above the earth. Plagues, floods and earthquakes were directly caused by the displeasure of deities with the works of people. All causes were attributed to mystical or supernatural forces for lack of the foundation for a better explanation.
All this was changed by the scholastics of the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas being a prime example. They combined the philosophical insights of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, together with the theological insights provided by the Church Fathers. In doing so, they were able to achieve a level of comprehension of the workings of God and His creation as had never been done before.
One of the primary fruits of these efforts was a better understanding of causality. When something happens, people tend to wonder why and how. “Why A?” “Because B.” “Well why B?” “Because C.” Eventually one comes upon what’s known as a self-evident truth, one or more truths that cannot be rationally proven but must be believed for all other knowledge to stand. This applies not only to religion, but also to science, politics, and all other types of knowledge.
The truth that proceeded from the scholastics and formed the foundation of modern science is that the universe contains an intelligible order – it can be understood through the faculty of reason. The scholastics saw the existence of mind in the universe – that of every human person – and concluded that intelligence could only exist through the agency of an intelligent Creator. This Creator desires to make Himself known to his creatures in part through reason. Thus the rationality we observe in the order of the universe points beyond itself to the rationality of the Creator.
There remain worldviews that deny this principle. Fr. James Schall, SJ, notes in his book “The Order of Things” (chapter “The Order within the Godhead”) that the lack of Muslim aid for the 2004 South Asia tsunami was primarily due to the belief that natural disasters are believed to be a direct punishment from God. Thus intervention would be akin to blasphemy. Weather reports have been frowned upon in Muslim nations due to the presumption that humanity, through their own power, could predict God’s “miracles”.
There are widespread movements within this age to deny the base principle that the universe is intelligible because it sprang forth from an intelligent Creator, using scientific evidence as proof. However, it is impossible for science to prove or disprove these self-evident principles since they do not arise from reason, as explained above. The best that can be done is to substitute an alternate philosophy that denies this principle, putting in place its own base principles. This is what goes on behind the scenes.
Nevertheless, science, when pursued properly, does provide a greater understanding of God’s creation along with profound contributions to the common good. The work of the physicists at CERN is to be heralded as a truly praiseworthy step in unlocking the mysteries of the universe.
Sorry in advance for the long comment. I have my own thoughts on the possible discovery of the Higgs Boson, but I wanted to look specifically at this part of your post:
‘One of the primary fruits of these efforts was a better understanding of causality. When something happens, people tend to wonder why and how. “Why A?” “Because B.” “Well why B?” “Because C.” Eventually one comes upon what’s known as a self-evident truth, one or more truths that cannot be rationally proven but must be believed for all other knowledge to stand. This applies not only to religion, but also to science, politics, and all other types of knowledge. The truth that proceeded from the scholastics and formed the foundation of modern science is that the universe contains an intelligible order – it can be understood through the faculty of reason.’
First, on the questions “why” and “how” (and for that matter “what”) can be divided 4 ways: these are Aristotle’s Four Causes (Material, Formal, Efficient, and Final). Physicists since the time of (I think) Francis Bacon have largely attempted to limit themselves to the study of material and efficient causes, with a little caveat. That caveat is that the efficient cause was by Aristotle considered to be an agent (personal or impersonal) only, whereas most physicists (or scientists and engineers) try to remove any such agents (actors) from the analysis of their experiments, preferring to focus on mechanisms instead. Thus, Aristotle would say that the earth efficiently causes objects to fall, the physicist would say that gravity is the efficient cause of falling.
The physicist has, in other words, done his best to divorce “scientific phenomena” from external actors wherever possible (cf. quantum systems, effects of observers on). His efficient causes are thus forces and energies and momenta (even if the conservation of these latter two might be classed as a type of final cause). Therefore, it is true to say that he has a better understanding of the mechanisms of causality, and perhaps of the intricate details of material cuases (e.g. material properties) and efficient causes (given the caveat of a difference in definition), but he has done so at the expense of the (more important) formal and final causes, which are ultimately necessary to explain material and efficient causes (a matter needs form, and laws need to reference ends if they are to be obeyed).
Second, the Higgs Boson is more of an effect than a cause. But yes, the possible discovery of the Higgs Boson is a nice step forward for physics, and does provide us with a better understanding of God’s creation.
It’s hard to establish myself as the Gilderoy Lockhart of the Austin Catholic community when there are people of your academic stature here to expose the man behind the curtain.
In all seriousness, I’m glad you chimed in. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re giving me too much credit in the presupposition to your comment. I may have fumbled on the delivery, but my intention was to claim nothing for the discovery of the particle except that it’s a significant advancement for science, and nothing for modern science except that it derives from the (self-evident, I believe) principle that the universe is intelligible. The “efforts” that led to advances in causality from which the principle of intelligibility was derived are those of the scholastics, not the scientists. This I took on the authority of Christopher Dawson (“Progress and Religion”, chapter “The Rise of the Religion of Progress”), as I tend to do with his every word.
I see my role in the new evangelization as that of often pointing out elements of significance from the astute writings of Catholic philosophers and theologians along with a few thoughts of my own. If I can understand them then so can anyone in this audience, if I can explain them well enough. The chapter “Science and Philosophy” in Jacques Maritain’s “Scholasticism and Politics” centers on the scientists’ focus on physical and mathematical phenomena at the expense of all other apprehension. I very much want my next science-focused post to center on this topic, but after four reads I have yet to get my mind around Maritain’s argument (it’s like trying to drink from a fire hose). However, your comment has given me some much-needed insight, so I think it’s time for another attempt. The average reader (myself included) owes much to those of you who have made an art out of drinking from fire hoses.
Anyway, feel free to shoot me an e-mail at mjssco@yahoo.com. I’d love to compare notes if our schedules allow.