82 – St Joseph of Arimathea, dies.

432 – Celestine I, Italian Pope (422-32), dies and ends his reign as Catholic Pope.

916 – Kliment/Clemens van Ohrid, Bulgaria bishop of Ohrid/saint, dies.

1101 – Koenrad, RC-German king (1087-98), dies.

1230 – Treaty of San-Germano between Emperor Frederik II & Pope Gregory IX.

1298 – Roman Catholics German King Albrecht I von Habsburg installed.

1501 – Copernicus formally installed as canon of Frauenberg Cathedral.

1549 – Jesuit priest Francis Xavier’s ship reached Japan.

1833 – Bartolommea Capitanio, Italian monastery founder/saint, dies at 26.

1953 – Vatican disallows priest holiday work in factory.

1993 – Mafia bombs historical buildings in Rome/Milan/Vatican City, 5 killed.

(Source: HistoryOrb.Com, Copyright 2000-2010)

The reality of God existing in three Persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit can be effectively compared with the three states of the substance “water.” Water comes in three states: solid, liquid and gas. But despite of whatever states it’s in, the essence or, for want of a better term, its chemical composition which is a composite of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, remains essentially and chemically the same.

On the other hand, we cannot infer that just because water comes in three states then we conclude that there are “three waters”. In the same way, that the mystery of the trinity of God: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit cannot be taken to mean as there are three distinct Gods. Like water in its manifold states: solid, liquid and gas, the trinity of God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, may not, after all, be at odds with human reasoning. Since, it has found its validation through the events in nature in the light of natural reason.

Sex education per se is not bad. There is no harm done when the intention is to educate in the right way and at the right time. Like it or not, everybody needs to be educated on something, somehow, someway – even sex education included. The Church takes no issue of sex education by itself. It is only against when it is taught in the wrong way and at the wrong time. Teaching sex education with the kind of graphic representation like showing visually how sexual intercourse is done, in front of curious, innocent and wary eyes of students in the classroom, is out of context and inappropriate insofar as the teaching and learning situation, is concerned. Teaching this kind of education on this particular level is not for the school to teach but rather the job of a sex guru. On the contrary, sex education can be equally and effectively taught without necessarily resorting to graphic and visual representation. After all, the real thing is something that comes out of instinct. No sex guru or teaching manual is required.

In educational psychology, there is such a thing as the right time to learn. According to Edward Lawrence Thorndike in his first psychological laws of learning which is the law of Readiness it states thus: no amount of effort that can force the individual to learn to begin with, if he is not yet mentally prepared and ready to take up such learning task. In this particular case, sex education at a tender young age like in the primary level is not advisable.

Reality check! Look what happen in countries where liberal sex education is the norm? What have they become? It got the worst of them. They become nothing but liberated, licentious, libertine, even promiscuous, pervert and what not? Even Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) like Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) are most prevalent.

In the end, good always triumphs over evil!

The Reproductive Health Bill is a house bill authored by Rep. Edcel Lagman, et. al. and filed in the 14th congress. Its Full title is: House Bill No. 5043 “An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Development and for Other Purposes. ” Its shorten title is: the “Reproductive Health And Population Development Act of 2008″ But it is more widely known, so to speak as the Reproductive Health Bill.

By and large,  the human reproductive health bill intends to protect and uphold the rights and interests for the benefit of the greatest welfare for the greatest number insofar as the reproductive health of women is concerned.

In an article “Reproductive Health Bill: Facts, Fallacies “written by Rep. Edcel Lagman for the Inquirer.net in 3rd of September 2008, he underscored the following salient points about the bill:

“The reproductive health (RH) bill promotes information on and access to both natural and modern family planning methods, which are medically safe and legally permissible. It assures an enabling environment where women and couples have the freedom of informed choice on the mode of family planning they want to adopt based on their needs, personal convictions and religious beliefs”.

“The bill does not have any bias for or against either natural or modern family planning. Both modes are contraceptive methods. Their common purpose is to prevent unwanted pregnancies”.

“The bill will promote sustainable human development. The UN stated in 2002 that “family planning and reproductive health are essential to reducing poverty.” The Unicef also asserts that “family planning could bring more benefits to more people at less cost than any other single technology now available to the human race.”

“Coverage of RH. (1) Information and access to natural and modern family planning (2) Maternal, infant and child health and nutrition (3) Promotion of breast feeding (4) Prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications (5) Adolescent and youth health (6) Prevention and management of reproductive tract infections, HIV/AIDS and STDs (7) Elimination of violence against women (8) Counseling on sexuality and sexual and reproductive health (9) Treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers (10) Male involvement and participation in RH; (11) Prevention and treatment of infertility and (12) RH education for the youth.” (Copyright 2001-2010 INQUIRER.net, An INQUIRER Company)

At first sight, it seems there’s nothing wrong with the ”Reproductive Health Bill” at least on the outside. The authors must have done a great job in carefully choosing the right words that tends to evoke a conditioned positive response. On the surface, it seems innocent and harmless-one would not even think that it poses a threat to morality. But underneath lurks a hideous intention to undermine the foundation of morality which has the potential to create havoc and disorder insofar as the state of moral order is concerned. When the bill that has the potential to become a law threatens to infringe or cross the line on the hallowed grounds of morality, then it is deemed warranted to draw the lines, and ascend into the moral high ground.

No amount of euphemism or positive phrasing can change the fact that the reproductive health bill is an affront to the absolute and universal moral ideals of man.

What are the moral issues involved behind the reproductive health bill? The human reproductive health bill, among other things,  is a legislative measure set to  contain population growth with the use of all means necessary to arrest the growth of the population. The underlying premise as alleged by the proponents is that unchecked population growth is the cause of poverty. But it would do well to note, for the record  that this working assumption is highly debatable. Although, it is not within the parameter of this writing that such issues shall be dealt with.

On the one hand, the reproductive health bill presents and teaches the natural method on family planning, but on the other, it also endorses the use of  morally questionable method for preventing pregnancy, (e.g. the artificial method on family planning). This includes the use of: condoms, tubal ligation, vasectomy, pills and among others. Although, in the end, it is the person who decides which method to subscribe.

The use of artificial method on family planning is not only a sin against the law of God: because it transgresses the very commandment to procreate, but, at the same time, it is also a violation against the law of nature itself. Since the perpetuation of the specie is also a biological need. Hence, any artificial means to prevent it is deemed a violation of the natural processes of the law itself.

Man is a stuff of nature, hence, he is at the mercy or under the confines of its laws. The perpetuation of one’s own kind is one such law. Even the morality of the action of man is subject to the natural law. Should an act be not in accord with the natural processes of  the law, then there are  equivalent consequences to be meted out. According to the law of interaction, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

God being the one who sustains nature, maintains the delicate balance of life and death over living things. While God giveth life, He also taketh away. Thus fertility balances itself with mortality. Athough, the trend now is that fertility is much higher than mortality. But, in the end, the rapid rise of fertility is checked and interrupted by mortality from man-made (e.g. wars, accidents, genocides, etc.) and natural dissasters (e.g. calamities, diseases, epidemics, etc.). This effectively restores the balance of things.

Nature has its own way to trim and populate itself. For example, life exploded in the cambrian period bringing about different kinds of species, but then it was punctuated from one massive extictinction to the other. The most recent of which, happened 65 million years ago, when most of the living organisms, including the dinasaur was wiped out in the face of the earth, but then again, life found its way to populate the world, until to date.

To digress, there is a dictum in law that what is legal may not necessarily be moral. While the law is designed and made to protect and uphold the rights and interests for the greatest benefit of the greatest number of people, but the law does not care so much and distinguish or even concern itself between what is right and wrong. The law is founded on utilitarian principles which means that the welfare of the greatest number of people is considered as the greatest good. It does not recognize the moral fact that the goodness of an act is intrinsic and inherent into the thing itself.  Therefore, it does not subscribe to the fundamental principle of morality that the end does not justify the means. Irregardless of the means, whether it is bad or good as long as it brings  about the desired end, then the law could only care less.

But what shall become of the law if it clashes with the ideals of morality? Then such a law is doomed to lose the so called moral high ground. Hence, the spirit of the law ceases to exist, and so does the law itself.

Man is endowed with a universal moral grammar. Even without learning it, he can tell outright, out of instinct, what is right from wrong? It seems, he has an embedded or built-in mechanism to automatically identify and distinguish between right and wrong.

The Church made it certain through the tools of rational inquiry and the agency of philosophy to embrace the in-depth and intensive study of morality under its province. Thus, the Church leads the way in the pursuit of the ultimate goodness of things. The Church then becomes the beacon of morality. It is the measure and the standard in which to judge whether an action is right or wrong.

On the contrary, morality can never be arbitrary that are only based on the whims and caprices of some people. Morality is absolute and universal. Had it been that morality becomes subjective, then there’s no morality to speak of in the first place since morality becomes relative and everyone therefore shall have its own standard measure of right and wrong.

Why the reproductive health bill is an affront to morality? There is no better way to answer it except to cite the fundamental law of morality: The end does not justify the means!

The Church, since its incipient days until now, has been beset from almost all kinds of scandals: imagined or real. Among them are as follows:

In New Testament times, Judas Iscariot betrayed, when he conspired with the people wanting to have Jesus killed. In the end, he led the way for the crucifixion of Jesus on Mount Calvary. Also, but of minor consequence, Peter, when asked if he knew Jesus, denied on three occasions of having had an association with Him.

In the Middle Ages, the Church-sanctioned Holy Crusade where Christian Monarchs in Europe were brought to the task to reconquer the Holy Land, had cost the lost of innocents and unnecessary waste of lives. Alongside, the Church had been accused to have killed and burned in the stakes by way of the establishment of Inquisition Court to purge out heretics from its flock in order to safeguard the integrity of its doctrines and teachings. Sometime also in the middle ages the Church was accused to have elected a female Pope named “Joan.” But now as agreed by scholars and historians we came to know that all this is nothing but stuff of legends.

Moreover, the general inclination of the Church in the past to meddle in the political affairs of the states, had led to a life of corruption and unholy collusion to the powers that be. At its height, this brought about the Investiture Controversy where the Church had challenged the authority of Monarchs over the power of appointment of church officials.

Not to mention that there are also erring Popes, like Pope Alexander the VI born Rodrigo Borgia which was notorious for debasing the papal standards. There was also the so called “Avignon Popes” or otherwise known as the “Babylonian Captivity” where French and Roman contenders alike had contested for the Papal throne. Among others, this led the rebellious Anti-Popes who, after going against the authority of the Church to elect the Pope, ended up electing themselves as the self-proclaimed Pope.

Of course, not to be excluded in the list are: The scientific persecutions, which were systematically undertaken by the Church in order to conform with its accepted position on the knowledge of the natural world: notable of which was the case of Galileo for his position that the Sun is the center of the solar system and the Earth and other planets revolve around it, rather than vice versa.

In the aftermath of World War II, the Church was accused of the seeming inaction and disregard to condemn the German NAZI persecution of the Jew in the holocaust, which costs around six million innocent lives.

Today, the Church has been shaken with a new kind of scandal, one that calls into question and threatens the integrity of its servants: the Priest. Of late, the Church has been hit with sex scandal after the other, one that involved the molestation and abuse of children and illicit relationships with their parishioners. But the way that the Church has handled and dealt with it discreetly, has drawn severe criticisms from almost all sectors of society.

In retrospect, in March 12, 2000, the late Pope John Paul the II had  issued a public apology: “Mea Culpa” asking for forgiveness for all the wrongs and lapses (i.e. the commission and omission of the same) that the Church had inflicted to humanity throughout all history. On the contrary, the Pope clarified that it is not the Church (being the Mystical Body of Christ) per se, that had committed such wrongdoings but rather the sons and daughters of the Church (being all too human, therefore, frail and fallible), who were behind its hierarchy and administration.

In the same way, we should not tend to forget that a Priest, though a servant of God, is also a human being like us who equally share each our weaknesses and tendency to make mistakes. There is no better way to put it, in the words of Alexander Pope: “To err is human, to forgive divine.”

On the other hand, human cloning belongs to reproductive cloning whereby the whole organism is copied from a single cell. A classic example is “Dolly the Sheep” which was cloned by Ian Wilmut at Rosenberg Institute at Edinburgh, Scotland sometime in 1997.

Its Shortcomings And Downsides…

It’s way too dangerous to go over the edge in the quest for human cloning and such other morally sensitive cloning method like embryonic stem cell  owing to human fallibility and frailty.

To illustrate my point:  

“Embryonic cells splendid ability to metamorphose into various type is also their own limitation: not surprisingly, bladders infused with bone from stem cells gone awry aren’t clinically useful, says Jason Hipp, one of some 60 institute researchers working on how to keep the cells from going haywire.”(National Geographic.Com/Magazine July 2005: The Power to Divide (p.p. 6-22) by Rick Weiss)

“One of the greatest challenges  in this work is to harness and direct cell differentiation,” says Harvard cell biologist Douglas Melton. To tell one stem cell to form blood, another skin, and another liver tissue-what’s  nature’s secret? Complex combination of growth factors and chemical and genetic signals drive the process, which researchers are only beginning to pin down. Until they do, embryonic stem cell therapies won’t make the leap from lab mice to humans.” (National Geographic.Com/Magazine July 2005: The Power to Divide (p.p. 6-22) by Rick Weiss)

“Critics point to worrisome animal research. Showing that embryonic stem cells sometimes grow into tumors or morph into unwanted kinds of tissues-possibly forming, for example, dangerous bits of bone in those hearts they are supposedly repairing…Some countries, such as Germany, worried about a slippery slope toward unethical human experimentation, have already prohibited some types of stem cell research. Others, like the U.S., have imposed severe limits on government funding but have left the private sector to do what it wants.” (National Geographic.Com/Magazine July 2005: The Power to Divide (p.p. 6-22) by Rick Weiss)

Seoul National University is the center of operation for Woo Suk Hwang, the South Korean scientist who made headlines in May 2005 when he announced that his team, using Dolly the sheep techniques, had created 11 human stem cell lines perfectly matched to the DNA of human patients, a giant leap beyond anything any other lab has achieved Hwang does not want his work in therapeutic cloning to be confused with reproductive cloning which he deems “unsafe and unethical”. He thinks cloning fully grown humans may be biologically impossible, given the many miscarriage and genetic anomalies that have bedeviled attempts to clone animals.” (Time Almanac 2006: The Revolution in Therapeutic Cloning (p. 569) by Alice Park)

Although, as per verification and peer review in the following year, South Korean Scientist, Woo Suk Hwang work: the first to successfully produce human stem cell lines, had been discredited as hoax.

Cloning is an arduous process that requires great patience and almost ends in failure as cells burst, tears, or suffer damage to their DNA.” (National Geographic.Com/Magazine July 2005: The Power to Divide (p.p. 6-22) by Rick Weiss)

Reality Check

What is there in the real world is that the issue of human cloning and such other morally questionable technique or method of cloning, is a constant source of division and discord. The following excepts mirror such reality:

“But research on embryonic stem cells has been a subject of heated debate, since their extraction destroys the early stage embryo from which they are derived.” (The World Almanac, 2005: Science and Technology (p.332) by William A. Macgeverran, Jr.)

“It will be difficult to do an end run around the ethical quarrels”, says bio-ethicist Tom Murray, president of the Hastings Center in New York. We’re now having to confront subtle distinctions about life’s beginnings that have enormous scientific and religious implications.” (National Geographic.Com/Magazine July 2005: The Power to Divide (p.p. 6-22) by Rick Weiss)

Moral High Ground

There is no better way to put it, George W. Bush’s in an earnest political statement exemplifies what the moralist called the moral high ground:

“I am very concerned about cloning, “President Bush said in response to the news. I worry about a world in which cloning becomes accepted. Critics of the embryonic cloning contend that because it involves the destruction of an embryo it is tantamount to murder. As President Bush put it “he objects to promoting science which destroys life in order to save life.” (The World Almanac, 2005: Science and Technology (p.332) by William A. Macgeverran, Jr.)

Proper Perspective

Without proper perspective, one is at a loss to determine the real issues that lead us to better appreciate the valid and sound arguments in a given discourse.

Going back to the issue. There are those who claim that science itself is amoral, viz., that it is neither moral nor immoral. They say: it is not science that makes such act as either moral or immoral, but the man (scientist) behind it. Well, that may be granted in the interim. But this is a misplaced argument. This point is already moot. The more relevant point is: Should science by itself be able to regulate such action?

Value Judgment Outside From The Province of Science

Science, therefore, has no business telling us what is right from wrong? According to standard and objective sources:

“Without an operational definition (observable and measurable description), the scientific method cannot be employed. Science cannot, for example, tell us whether or not a biblical heaven or hell exists. Such metaphysical concepts are generally not reducible to operational terms. They lie outside the realm of observation and are best left to the areas of religion and philosophy.”

“Besides metaphysical questions, questions of values and ethics also lie outside the domain of science.”

On the other hand…

“The scientific method can be further understood by distinguishing it from other ways of knowing, such as philosophy…Philosophy, on the other hand, often makes its inquiry outside the empirical world, investigating values, meaning, existence, and so on.” (p.p. 196-200 Critical Thinking, 2000 Chapter 10: Scientific Thinking by Gary R. Kirby, Jeffry R. Goodpaster and Marvin Levine)

“Today, philosophy is used to signify the critical evaluation of facts of experience. The key word in this definition is evaluation, rather than critical. This is so since philosophy differs from the positive sciences, especially assigns values to human experience. Scientists, though they must be concerned about truth and validity of their work, nevertheless, do not, as scientists, make value judgments. Philosophy has been reserved the right to render value judgments.” (Logic For Filipinos, 1994 Chapter 2: The Nature of Philosophy (p. 10-11) by Prisciliano T. Bauzon)

Definition of Terms

It is imperative to define the terms involved in order to have a meeting of minds on key points of this discourse. Among the terms in need of operational definitions are:

“Philosophy”(Greek philosophia “love of wisdom”)” the rational and critical inquiry into the basic principles.” One of the main branches of philosopy is ethics, “the study of the nature of morality and judgment”

“Morality is a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.” (The American Heritage Dictionary, 2004 (p. 551) Margery S. Berube

“Ethics comes from the Greek word ethos which in the plural means character. Ethical actions may be right or obligatory, or disapproved of because they are bad, wrong, undesirable or evil. In philosophy ethics is the study of moral principles . A traditional philosophical question is whether right and wrong are inherent in the nature of things and therefore absolute, or mere conventions, and thus relative to time and place.” (The New Desk Encyclopedia, 1993: Ethics (p. 427) by Robert A. Rosenbaum)

Furthermore: “Ethics is the science of morality, also called moral philosophy and seeks to discover consistent principle by which human actions can be judged. Until about a century ago, ethics aimed to be a guide to human conduct. Now it is more descriptive , attempting to discover how moral decisions are actually made.” (Oxford Concise Encyclopedia, 2004: Ethics (p.313) by Alan Isaacs and Jonathan Law)

Conclusion

Cloning per se is not downright immoral. What makes it so is when it degrades the dignity of man (his unique identity and individuality) in the case of human reproductive cloning, where the whole organism is copied genetically from a single cell. And, when it takes out other life, in the case of embryonic stem cell cloning. Even though, it (embryo) is still in the incipient stage of development. But one  should not lose sight of the fact that the procreation of a human being is a process. Hence, it should be taken from the point of its origin or beginning: from the fertilization stage (when the sperm fertilized the egg cell) to its ultimate end: death (complete cessation of life). On the contrary, there should be no discrimination in between such processes: whether or not when can a human being be called as such. A process is taken from the point of its beginning up to its end, otherwise, it ceases to be a process. It is taken as a whole, not by parts.

Human reproductive cloning, either as byproduct of embryonic or adult stem cell cloning is and always will be considered as inherently evil insofar as ethics is concerned. This also includes embryonic stem cell cloning, however, good is its therapeutic applications. On the other hand, therapeutic cloning which makes use of adult stem cell cloning, may, after all, be free from the so called moral restraint.

Bottom line is: what is scientific may not necessarily be ethical. The fundamental principle of morality still holds true: “the end does not justify the means.” No matter how ennobling and good the intentions of such actions are? But if the the means of achieving it are wrong, then it is downright immoral and inherently evil. No ifs and buts. On the contrary, the principle of double effect (both undesirable acts, but the good act is intended, while the evil one is not intended), may not apply in the case of human reproductive cloning and embryonic stem cell cloning. Since, in the first place, the very act itself precludes the willing of good intention.

In conclusion: “The Pillars of Hercules, (the classical and medieval symbol for what lies at the edge of the known: Ne plus ultra-No further) for modern science may become moral and spiritual. Scientist-and society-will have to decide…whether to tinker with the very genes that make us human.” (p. 2 National Geographic Vol. 196, No. 4 October 1999: Science-Asking Infinite Questions by Joel L. Swerdlow, 1999)

Why the Roman Catholic is the true church founded by Jesus Christ? Here are a brief survey of related literature both in biblical history and general history:

Biblical Backdrop: Old Testament

The fall of man signals the breach of his relationship to God. Man was fallen out of grace, when he transgressed the laws of God (i.e. by eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). But God, being all-merciful and all-good, did not actually forsake him. Throughout salvation history specifically in the Old Testament, God guides and helps him through the voice of His prophets and through Divine intervention, whenever necessary.

Divine Paradigm Shift: New Testament Times

On the contrary, since God is all-loving, he cannot bear the thought of a estranged relationship between Him and man. So in later times (i.e. the New Testament) He resolved to intervene in the course of history, and send His only begotten Son into the world to redeem and save mankind from being damned. This effectively restores the bond of man to God.

On the other hand, God is a Spirit. Hence, as it was before, His dealings to man is manifested through spiritual contacts (e.g. direct divine intervention or miracle) or third persons (e.g. prophets). But now God wants something for a change…(a change for the better). He wants his presence to be felt physically—to be in direct contact with the crown of His creation (i.e. man). This is the ultimate expression of His love to mankind.

In John 3:16 we read thus:

“For God so love the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but have eternal life.” (p. 1193, The New American Bible, 1987)

Divine Incarnation

And, in John 1: 1-3, 14, we behold the physical incarnation of God:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be… And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.” (p.p. 1189-1190 The New American Bible, 1987)

Then, finally, the realization of it all: the fulfillment of the incarnation of God in Jesus in Matthew 1: 18-23:

“Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit. Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly. Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him “Emmanuel,” which means “God is with us.” (p. 1063 The New American Bible, 1987)

Jesus Divine Ministry on Earth

When Jesus reached the age of wisdom (between 30-33), he began his Divine ministry in the physical world. Note that this ministry is very physical and not at all spiritual like as it was in the Old Testament. Among the many, only few are chosen: So he chose 12 followers to be his disciples. He taught them all there is to know and everything they need to know about living the righteous life and most importantly imparted with them: the rudiments of salvation—that eventually forms part as the teachings and doctrines of the Christian Church.

Divine Foundation of the Church Through Peter

Along the course of Jesus ministry, He made a point to found a church. The Bible makes it explicit that Jesus indeed build a church. Thus we read in Matthew 16:18:

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” (The New American Bible, 1987)

One Church

Note that he (Jesus) did not mean or intend to build ”churches”. As a matter of fact, he desires that his church must only be one. In John 10:16 we read:

“I have other  sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock,one shepherd.” (p. 1205, The New American Bible, 1987).

Footnotes: The sheep here is a poetic word referring to the faithful or ”Christians”. The same with the ”fold” or “flock”, it refers to the “church”. While, the “shepherd” refers to the “head of the church”.

Christ: Head of the Church

This is so since he (Christ) is the head of the body, which is the church. In Collosians 1:18, we read the following: “He is the head of the body, the church…”

Furthermore, in Ephesians 4:3-6 we read: “…striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (p. 1333, The New American Bible, 1987).

Petrine Foundation of the Church

Most importantly, let the fact be underscored that Jesus built his church through Peter, which means the rock, as the foundation or cornerstone of his church clothed and vested with authority.  In Matthew: 16: 18-20, we read that this is so:

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.”

You will note also that the tense used in the clause “I will build my church” is in the future mood, so the actual and the physical part of building the church through Peter, has to come later. Moreover, Jesus prophesied that his church will endure forever, protecting it (the church) at all cost through His (Jesus) Divine Power. In Jesus words: “…and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”

Peter: Bishop of Rome

And, rightly so, (true to Jesus words), Peter later on built his church in Rome. In 1 Peter 5:13-14, this clearly attests to that fact:

“The chosen one at Babylon send you greeting, as does Mark, my son. Greet one another with a loving kiss. Peace to all of you who are in Christ.”

Footnotes: “5.13: The chosen one: feminine, referring to the Christian community (ekklesia) at Babylon, the code name for Rome in 14.8; 17, 5; 18, 2. Mark, my son: traditionally a prominent disciple of Peter and co-worker at the church in Rome.” (p. 1407, The New American Bible, 1987)

Extra-Biblical Sources

By implication, it can be reasonably inferred from extra-biblical sources through biblical archeology and scholarship, the existence of a Christian church in Rome which was led by the Apostle Peter himself as the head of the church:

“In 58 A.D. however Paul intended to prepare for his visit to the Romans by writing them a letter.” (p. 581 Epistle to the Romans The New World Dictionary Corcordance to the New American Bible, 1970)

“The existence of a Christian community in Rome antedates Paul’s letter there When it arose, likely within the sizable Jewish population at Rome, and how, we do not know. The Roman historian Suetonius mentions an edict of the Emperor Claudius about A.D. 49 ordering the expulsion of Jews from Rome in connection with certain “Chrestus,” probably involving a dispute in the Jewish community over Jesus as the Messiah (“Christus”). (p. 1261 The Letter to the Romans The New American Bible, 1987)

It is an established historical fact that the Apostle Peter founded a church in Rome and he was its bishop:

“The peace and unity of the Pax Romana made it easier for Paul and other missionaries to carry the message of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. As a Roman citizen, Paul had certain privileges and protection anywhere in the empire. Moreover, travel was easy between cities, and a common language, Greek, was spoken in most countries in the eastern Mediterranean”.

“By about A.D. 57 there was a group of christian in Rome itself led by Peter, Bishop of Rome and one of the original disciples of Jesus. Paul wrote to this congregation expressing his hopes to travel as far as Spain” (p. 128 A History Of The World Revised Edition Marvin Perry, et. al., 1989)

The World Almanac cites that the Roman Catholic Church is founded by Jesus Christ:

“Traditionally,  founded by Jesus Christ who named St. Peter the 1st Vicar, developed in early Christian proselytizing, especially in the 4th cent.” (p. 688 , The World Almanac, 2009 by C. Allan Joyce, Pleasantville, NY)

Further, it also cites that St. Peter was the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church:

“The Roman Catholic Church named the Apostle Peter  as the founder of the church in Rome and the first Pope. He arrived there c. 42, was martyred there c. 67, and was ultimately canonized as a saint.” (p. 685 The world Almanac, 2009 C. Allan Joyce)

“Peter, St. (died c. 64 AD) originally named Simon, the leader of the Apostles who followed Jesus Christ. Jesus named him “cephas (Aramaic ‘rock’; Greek petra, ‘rock’) to signify his key role in establishing the early Christian church. After the death of Jesus, Peter was the undisputed leader of the church, preaching, and defending the new religious movement. He was the first to accept Gentiles (non-jews) into the church. It seems certain that Peter spent the last year of his life in Rome and was probably crucified during Nero’s persecution of 64. The papacy traces its origins back to Peter and the Roman Catholic Church identifies him as the founder and first Bishop of the church of Rome.” (p. 499 Oxford Dictionary of the World History, 2006: Peter, St., Oxford University Press, New York)

Humble Beginnings of Christianity

On the other hand, the Merriam Webster Collegiate Encyclopedia writes about the humble beginnings of Christianity:

“Christianity was originally a movement of Jews who accepted Jesus as the messiah, but the movement quickly became predominantly gentiles. The early church was shaped by St. Paul and other early christian missionaries and theologians; it was persecuted under the Roman empire but recognized by Constantine I in 313. During the centuries since Jesus death, Christianity has subdivided into numerous sect that continue to proliferate; the major subdivisions are Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism” (p. 341 Merriam Webster Collegiate Encyclopedia, 2000, Mark A. Stevens, Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A.)

Other equally objective source tells us that:

“Christians are persecuted. Generally tolerant of different religions, Roman authorities did not at first interfere with Christianity. As more and more people turned to Christianity, however, Roman officials began to see it as a threat to their rule. The Christians did not accept the Roman gods or celebrate their festivals. Although, they obeyed Roman law, they refused to worship the Emperor as a god, which was seen as an act of disloyalty to Rome. The Romans found some Christian ways strange. Christians stayed away from the gladiatorial contests and at times refused to serve in the army. When fire swept through Rome in A.D. 64 the emperor Nero blamed it on the Christians and began the first official persecutions. Property belonging to Christians was seized, and they were imprisoned, executed, or sent to face wild beats in the arena. Several later emperors, particularly Diocletian and Marcus Aurelius, ordered widespread persecutions. Although some Christians abandoned their religion or practice it secretly, persecution failed to stop the spread of Christianity. Many Romans were impressed by the heroism and devotion of those who became martyrs by dying for their faith. The dedication of these martyrs inspired many people to convert to Christianity.”

Rome Converted to Christianity

“Christianity is accepted in the Empire. The invasion and unrest of the third century A.D. brought more converts and new strength to the Christian Church. The persecutions ceased, and Christianity became one of the many religions allowed in the Empire. In A.D. 312 the Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, becoming the first Christian emperor. He issued a law allowing Christians to practice their religion freely and became a strong supporter of the church. In 380, during the reign of Theodosius I, worship of the old gods was declared illegal, and Christianity soon became the official religion of the Roman Empire.” (p. 129 A History Of The World Revised Edition Marvin Perry, et. al., 1989)

Christ Shepherd-ship Entrusted to Peter

As Jesus Christ is the head of the church as pointed out in the passage of the Bible in the New Testament, thus in the remaining days of his earthly ministry, before he ascended in heaven, he (Jesus) wanted that his flock will be physically guided by a leader, so he made a point to entrust or delegate his responsibility as shepherd of his flock to his disciple Peter.

According to the gospel of John in chapter 21, verses: 15-19:

“When they had  finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes , Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”

He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John,do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” [Jesus] said to him, “Feed my sheep. Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and led you where you do not want to go.” He said to this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him “Follow me.” (p. 1221 The New American Bible, 1987, The Gospel of John)

Commissioning of the Disciples

Notwithstanding, and without prejudice to the fact that he (Jesus) also commissioned his disciples to preach the gospel: In Matthew 28: 16-20, we read:

“The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them. When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted. Then Jesus approached and said to them. “all power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

One Christian Church

Throughout history until the schisms, it is a well established fact that the Christian church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. That means no denominations or sects to boot. It (the Split,) that brought about those multifarious denominations, only began on those so called schisms. If at all, before those schisms, there was only heretics, but still remained one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

Great Schisms

It all started with the break of the East and the West called “East-West Schism” or “Eastern Schism”:

“The separation of Christian Churches of the East from unity with Rome. The schism was centuries in the making and finally became fixed in 1054, when the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius (died 1054), was excommunicated by the papal legates for opposing the use of leavened bread by the Latin Church and removing the Pope’s name from the diptychs or lists of persons to be prayed for in the Eucharistic liturgy.” (p. 121  Pocket Catholic Dictionary, 1985 by John A. Hardon, S.J., Image Books Doubleday, New York, U.S.A.)

As other historical source puts it: “Great Schism. The term is used of: The breach between East and West, traditionally dated 1054, when Cardinal Humbert excommunicated Michael Cerularius and the latter excommunicated the Western legates.” p. 250 Oxford Concise Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2006 Revised Second Edition by Dr. E. A. Livingstone, Oxford University Press, New York)

Protestant Reformation

The next split occurred in 1517, when Martin Luther, a rebellious Agustinian monk, posted his 95 thesis in protest of the alleged church’s excesses and abuses. This ushered the age of reformation that ended in the establishment of Protestant churches.  Although, the grounds of Luther’s protest was valid, but it was his impatience that got the worse of him. Personally, Luther did not desire to break with the church, since he only meant that immediate reforms be instituted. But, he fell prey as a victim of politics of German princes in his time. Hence, the supposedly unwarranted split with the Church. There could have been no Protestant churches, had Luther opted to wait for the Church to address his grievances. As it turned out later, the Church came up with the resolution that ushered the movement of Counter reformation. This was spearheaded among others by the Society of Jesus better known as the Jesuits founded by St. Ignatius De Loyola and St. Francis Xavier.

Protestant Church In England

Also, which is of minor consequence,  another break took place in 1533, when “King Henry VIII of England broke with the Roman Catholic Church and established the Anglican Church” due to political reasons as he desperately sought for a divorce with his wife, Catherine of Aragon, from the Roman Catholic Church to which the Pope refused in order to uphold morality.

Reality Check

After one schism to the other, it exponentially grows to hundred of thousands of denominations, (and worst it shows no sign of stopping), which can only be taken to mean as a work of Satan as he loves to create divisions so as to sow confusion among the children of God. But, despite all this the Roman Catholic Church has remained One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, which is forever true and faithful to Jesus Christ prophetic words. Besides, from St. Peter to the reigning Pope Benedict the XVI, no other Christian churches maintain this kind of apostolic succession which the Roman Catholic Church upholds until now and forevermore.  Nothing beats the original! Long Live the Roman Catholic Church!!!

The Limits of Science

Going by the scientific consensus, all are in agreement that:

“Science does not always provide final answers, nor it is always a search for ultimate truth.” It stressed that “If an idea cannot be tested, it may not be wrong, but it isn’t a part of science.”

Science may have the best of all possible answers and the best tentative explanation to offer as far as our view and knowledge of the natural world is concerned:

“But some questions cannot be answered by the methods of science. No physical or chemical test will tell us whether or not the painting is beautiful, nor can any test be devised that will tell us how we are to respond to it. These questions are simply outside the realm of science. In fact, the methods of science are not the only way to answer many questions that matter in our lives.” Such fundamental questions are  the pillars of Hercules for science: “Ne Plus Ultra” (no further).

Existence of God is not a Scientific Question

“While science will provide us with a way of tackling questions about the physical world, such as how it works and how we can shape it to our needs, many questions – some would say the most important questions – lie beyond the scope of science and the scientific method. Some of these questions are deeply philosophical: what is the meaning of life? Why does the world hold so much suffering? Is there a God? … these are not questions that can be answered by a cycle of observations, and testing. For answers, we turn instead to religion, philosophy, and the arts”.

Case in point:

“A symphony, a poem, and a painting, are not, in the end, objects to be studied scientifically. These art forms address different human needs and they use different methods than science.” (p.p.  7, 9 General Science by Gil Nonato C. Santos and Jorge P. Ocampo, 2000 Rex Bookstore)

In addition, “Without an operational definition, the scientific method cannot be employed. Science cannot, for example, tell us whether or not a biblical heaven or hell exists. Such metaphysical concepts are generally not reducible to operational terms. They lie outside the realm of observation and are best left to the areas of religion and philosophy.” (p. 199 Critical Thinking, 1999 Gary R. Kirby, Jeffrey R. Goodpaster, Marvin Levine, Prentice Hall, Inc. Pearson Education Company, New Jersey, U.S.A)

Science Can’t Prove Beyond All Doubt

Accordingly, science is not without its inherent limitation being a human construction in the first place:

“When a powerful yet simple model makes predictions that survive repeated and varied testing, scientists elevate its status and call it a theory. Some famous examples are Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, and Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity.”

“Despite its success in explaining phenomena, a scientific theory can never be proved true beyond all doubt, because ever more sophisticated observations may eventually disagree with its predictions.” (p.p. 70 & 71 The Essential Cosmic Perspective Third Edition by Jeffrey Bennet et. al., 2005 Person Addision Wesley, San Francisco)

Seeming Conflict with Science and Religion

On the other hand…

“the same can be said about religious faith. Strictly speaking, there should be no conflict between science and religion, because they deal with different aspects of life. Conflict arises only when zealots on either side try to push their methods into areas where they aren’t applicable.” (p. 10 General Science by Gil Nonato C. Santos and Jorge P. Ocampo, 2000 Rex Bookstore)

Scientists are not Necessarily Nonbelievers or Atheists

To digress, it is a misconception to think that most, if not almost all, of the scientists are necessarily atheists just because they are able to provide natural explanation to the workings and wonders of the world. However, given such orientation it does not cancel out their belief in God.

According to an intensive study:

“Throughout modern history, science and religion have often been portrayed as irreconcilable opponents, continually locked in a struggle over the meaning of the truth. Scientists themselves are often characterized as fundamentally anti-religious or atheistic. In 1916 a survey of 1,000 scientists and mathematicians in which they were questioned regarding their religious belief, revealed that roughly 40 percent of respondents believed in a God who communicated to humankind and to whom it was possible to pray “in expectation of receiving an answer”. Forty-five percent of the respondents stated that they did not believe in God as defined in the survey, and 15 percent answered that they were either agnostic or did not have a definite opinion on the question. In 1997 the same survey was conducted again and the results nearly mirrored those of 81 years earlier. The only large variation in the 1997 results came from respondents who did not believe in a God as defined by the questionnaire – three percent more.”

“Scientists felt this way in 1997. In both surveys, approximately 400 of the scientists who received the questionnaires did not respond. The results of the survey seemed to debunk the general caricatures of scientific intolerance for religion. The 1997 study seemed to indicate that beliefs, at least among scientific community, had remained stagnant.” (p. 102 Compton’s by Encyclopedia Britannica by Elliot Mitchell Volume 21, article on: Science, 2007)

In Perspective

Now, that we have the right perspective in which to make our case for the existence of God, I would like to begin by underscoring the aforementioned excerpt:

“…Is there a God? These are not questions that can be answered by a cycle of observations, and testing. For answers, we turn instead to religion, philosophy, and the arts.”

So here let us turn our attention to religion and philosophy or more appropriately philosophy of science. Incidentally, I will still be citing scientific sources as indirect evidence, but only as means to an end, in order to build a cumulative proof on the case for God’s existence.

The Belief of God is Universal

According to the scientific study of human cultures which is in the field of Sociology, in general, and Anthropology, in particular, and more specifically under the discipline of Ethnology, it is a fact that there are no human cultures since time immemorial that had not held a belief in gods or God. Or, a belief of a supreme being often conceived possessing with supernatural powers.

The prehistoric period attests to this fact: when it found that caveman dwellers like the Neanderthal (then contemporary specie of early homo sapiens)  and Cro – Magnon (early form of Homo Sapiens) had some kind of religious beliefs, especially a belief in the afterlife. Through the relics they left behind, they were known to have practiced of burying their dead.

Throughout history, human cultures became fertile grounds for various religious beliefs, especially belief in gods or God. This status quo (state of affairs) was unchallenged until the renaissance, especially during the period that ushered the age of enlightenment. The chief expression of this period which was known in history as the movement of free thought, was deism. Deism is a belief that God created everything in the world and the universe, but after that left its own mechanistic laws to operate, and never interfere since then. It was mainly championed by John Locked, Voltaire, Denis Diderot, and Thomas Paine. It may have had challenged the Church authority in matters of doctrines and dogmas. But even so, their belief in the existence of God, remained steadfast and unwavering. Although, some of them like Denis Diderot may have turned atheist in later life, and others of their kind may have followed suit, but all of them included, do not constitute a human culture.

All things considered, even though, all human cultures embody a belief in gods or God, this, however, does not prove that God exists. On the contrary, this just tries to establish the fact that the belief of the existence of God is universal. Going by the apothegm: “against a fact no argument can prevail”.

“God Part of the Brain”

Latest finding in the field of Neuroscience and Psychology tends to upheld this fact. It found out that belief of gods or God is something inherent or built-in in the human brain. It concluded that there is definitely a “God part of the brain” than otherwise… meaning “without a God.” So that explains the universality of the belief in God.

Atheism is not a Human Culture System

In contemporary times, atheism, however, hard it tries to push the limits can never become a system of human culture. A culture is a way of life where such practices and customs become institutionalized. Culture as defined in standard dictionary is:

“The behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought, especially as expressed in particular community or period. [<Lat. cultura, colere, cultivate].” (p. 213 The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 2004)

By and large, atheists are deluded into thinking that just because traditional proofs of God (e.g. ontological argument, teleological argument, cosmological argument, argument from design, etc.)  are debunked, and demolished the corollary popular conceptions and the subjective ideas of God, then they disprove the objective and independent existence of God. But this is not the right line of thinking. The truth of the objective existence of a certain thing such as God is not contingent to the subjective perception of the observer.

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence

On the other hand, atheists are wont to say that if it can’t be proven, then it does not exist. If it (presence) can’t bring about an effect on the natural world, then it is not real. On the contrary, this line of reasoning can easily be invalidated. After all, it is a fallacy in logic that just because one cannot prove the case (e.g. the existence of God) as true, then it follows that the other side (e.g. nonbelievers and atheists) automatically proves it false. It does not follow that the case is false, since the other side has not proved it true. This fallacy is called an appeal to ignorance.

Furthermore, just because there is absence of evidence does not mean that it is an evidence of absence.

To illustrate my point:

Supposed no evidence is found as yet that a certain specie exists. Does that mean that no such specie exists? Of course not! So there! Absence of evidence does not necessarily mean as evidence of absence. Since, science is always behind the trail in the game of discovery. Soon a specie of said kind may be discovered. Like in the case of Darwin’s moth, the one with a long vacuum tube used for sucking of nectar. In Darwin’s time, there is no evidence that such specie exist, but after a long time, a specie of that kind is discovered somewhere in Indonesia.

To See is to Believe

Yet, some other atheists would say” to exist is to be perceived with the five senses (e.g. sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch), plus scientific instrumentation otherwise, such object of perception or belief is just a figment of imagination. They reason out that since God is beyond sense-perception, then it necessarily follows that He (God) does not exist. According to them (practical and rugged and even hardcore atheists), if God exists, so where is He?

The Concept of God

To arrive at an objective and proper understanding, one must have to analyze first the very concept and nature of God. First and foremost, God is an intelligible concept. Hence, it must be conceived in the mind through the process of logical abstraction. A logical abstraction is a process by which the mind grasp the existence of an object through logical reasoning (i.e. to deduce the existence of the object based on the known or given effect).

This is how we arrived at the logical and scientific conclusion that exotic and virtual particles of matter especially dark matter and dark energy (i.e. otherwise known as invisible matter and mysterious force, respectively) objectively exist in the real world despite the absence of direct observation. We deduced its objective and independent existence through the traces they left behind or through the effect they create. Though, we do not yet know its nature, composition, and structure, but we are certain that they objectively exist because of the effect they exerted on the observable universe. The fact of their existence is established by scientific consensus.

“Scientists who study the smallest units of nature have learned that this vacuum is actually seething with activity at the subatomic levels as particles pop in and out of nothingness. Though these are virtual particles, laboratory experiments have shown that they have real and predictable effects.” (p. 33 National Geographic October 1999  Vol. 196 No. 4,  Kathy Sawyer)

Going to the core of the matter: the case for the existence of God is not a demonstrable fact  which means that the evidence of His existence cannot be demonstrated by means of sense-perception.  Since, God is an intelligible concept the fact of His existence can be established through methodological reasoning using scientific principles specifically the philosophy of science.

Coup de Grace

The proof for God’s existence is predicated on the big bang event. The big bang describes that the universe has a definite beginning in the past. It states that matter, energy and even space and time are created in the big bang. It implies then that before the big bang there was absolutely nothing:

“Before the universe as we know it existed, there was no space or time. The big bang and its associated theories try to explain or describe the moment of change from nothingness and no time to the existence of the universe filled with space and marked by time. Many physicists  describe this event as an explosion, or flash, hence the name big bang. ” (p. 399 Time Almanac 2006 Borgna Brunner, Person Education, Boston)

“Big Bang theory holds that everything in the known universe – all time, space, energy, and matter – was once contained in a point of singularity. Scientists leave the “why” of that state of affairs to priest and poets.”  (p. 20 National Geographic October 1999  Vol. 196 No. 4,  Kathy Sawyer)

If that is the case, so what causes the big bang? According to the fundamental law of science which is embedded in the law of causality: nothing can come from nothing. For something to exist there must have been something to cause its existence to begin with. Therefore, it is a logical necessity to posit the existence of God as the cause of the big bang. Otherwise, everything will not make any sense: the law of causality, which is the bedrock of science, will be broken, and consequently logic will fall prey as its first casualty. Thus there must be an ultimate cause to account for the effects as the product of the chain of causes that brought about the existence of order and hierarchy of beings in the natural world as we know it.

“By definition, there can be nothing outside the universe to collapse the whole cosmic panorama into concrete existence (except God, perhaps?).” (p. 116 God and the New Physics by Paul Davies, 1983, Simon and Schuster, New York)

Moreover, according to Sir Isaac Newton’s third law of motion which is the law of interaction: it states that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. This implies then the logical necessity of the existence of a certain cause or action that is equally integral and crucial to explain and account for the effects or reaction (e.g. the unfolding of the universe) we observe today.

Beyond the Physical World Order

However, The big bang is delimited by the plank time which is 10 to the power of -43 fraction of a second. Before this prescribed limit, it can go no further. Beyond this boundary of space-time, all the laws of physics breaks down, since the so called known condition of this event impedes and defies observation and measurement in the absence of an operable scientific definition and a viable scientific theory.

Pillar’s of Hercules: The Plank Time

“Once upon a timeless, most cosmologists believe, all that is our universe was incredibly small and dense. Neither space nor time as we know them existed. Nothing is known of this instant. Scientists use the term big bang (1) to describe this moment of creation. Somehow the universe – all matter, energy, space and time – exploded from the original singularity. Because time did not yet exist there is no way to measure this event, but scientists have agreed to start the universal clock at the Planck time (2) – a moment defined as 10 -43 second, which is a decimal point followed by 42 zeroes and a 1.” (p. 12 National Geographic, January 1994  Vol. 185 No. 1)

“Scientists acknowledge that they have no way of proving any theories about what happened less than 10 (-43) of a second after the big bang began. Known as Plank time, or 10 to minus 43, this is the first fraction of a second in which the laws of physics apply.” (p. 25 National Geographic October 1999  Vol. 196 No. 4,  Kathy Sawyer)

“No one knows – and we may never know of our current understanding of physics is correct, all history of that initial infinitesimal slice of time is irretrievably lost.”

“Ordinary matter did not exist under those conditions. Our familiar laws of physics did not apply.” (p.p. 33-34 National Geographic, January 1994  Vol. 185 No. 1)

The Unity of Faith And Reason to Affirm the Existence of God

The following are selected excerpts in an article : Have Astronomers Found God? written for the Reader’s Digest on August 1980 by Robert Jastrow, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and professor of astronomy and geology at Columbia University, he is also the author of Red Giants and White Dwarfs, Until the Sun Dies and God and the Astronomers:

In The Beginning…The moment of Creation

“The essence of these developments is that the universe had a sharply defined beginning-that it began at a certain moment in time. Was the creative agent one of the forces of physics, or was it, as the Old Testament Apocrypha says, “thy almighty hand, which created the world out of formless matter.”

“The essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: The chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly  and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”

“Some scientists are unhappy with the idea that the world began in this way. Until recently, many preferred the steady-state theory, which holds that the universe had no beginning, and is eternal. But astronomical evidence makes it certain that the big bang really did occur.”

“Now that evidence pointed to the fact that the universe had a beginning, a few scientists dared to ask, What came before the beginning?” Some, even bolder, asked, “Who was the Prime Mover?” The British theorist Edward Milne wrote a mathematical treatise on kinematic relativity, which concluded by saying, in the context of the expansion, “The first cause of the universe is left for the reader to insert. But our picture is incomplete without Him.”

“Nevertheless, the views of most physicists and astronomers were closer to that of the theologian who, when asked what God was doing before He created the materials of heaven and earth, replied, “He was creating hell for people who asked questions like that. ”

“Theologian generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind-supposedly a very objective mind-when evidence uncovered by science itself conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. A few years ago in a British Broadcasting Corporation film on cosmology, astronomer Philip Morrison of M.I.T. said, “I would like to reject the big bang theory, but I have to face the facts.”

“This reaction and similar responses by other astronomers have an odd ring of feeling and emotion. They come from the heart, whereas you would expect such judgments to come from the brain.”

“I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon that cannot be explained. There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes that every event in the universe can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event. This faith is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces we cannot discover. when that happens, the scientist has lost control. He reacts by ignoring the implications, or by trivializing and calling it the big bang, as if the universe were a firecracker.”

“Consider the immensity of the problem. Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks, What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter and energy into the universe? Was the universe created out of nothing, or was it gathered together out of pre-existing materials? And science cannot answer these questions, because, according to the astronomers, in the first moments of its existence the universe was compressed to an extraordinary degree, and consumed by the heat of a fire beyond human imagination. The shock of that instant must have destroyed every particle of evidence that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion. The scientist’s pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. ”

“This development was unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. But we scientist did not expect to find evidence for an abrupt beginning because we  have had, until recently, such extraordinary success in tracing the chain of cause and effect backward in time. We have been able to connect the appearance of man on this planet to the crossing of the threshold of life, the manufacture of the chemical ingredients of life within stars that have long since expired, the formation of those stars out of the primal mists, and the expansion and cooling of gasses out of the cosmic fireball.”

“Now we would like to pursue that inquiry further back in time, but the barrier seems insurmountable. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” (p.p. 87-91 Reader’s Digest: Have Astronomers Found God? By: Robert Jastrow, August 1980)

By now, it is firmly established how far science can carryout and pursue its scope and object of study. So here! The end of science is the beginning of religion. Or,for want of a better term: the end of reason is the beginning of faith. Although, it is not only with mere faith that we believe that God exists but it is with reasoned faith as we submit our trust or intellectual assent along the lines of logic and methodological reasoning in accepting the reality of the existence of God.  This is made possible since philosophy is the handmade of theology – by the way, “theology is the study of the nature of God and religious truth.” As such, the methodology of philosophical and scientific reasoning complement with that of the revealed truths of religion, in general and the deposit of faith in the Church, in particular.

But there is a problem with this line of thinking.  Even their leaders like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, though noted and notorious of being a hardcore atheists. But, still fall short of being a full fledged  atheists in the truest sense of the word in the absence of conclusive proof against the existence of God. Given this backdrop, they are constrained to admit that strictly and scientifically speaking they are only agnostics rather than atheists.

The following is an excerpt from The New Naysayers written by Jerry Adler for the Newsweek Magazine, September 25, 2006 issue: “Dawkins and Harris are not writing polite demurrals to time-honored beliefs of billions; they are not issuing pleas for tolerance or moderation, but bone-rattling attacks on what they regard as a pernicious and outdated superstition. (In the spirit of scientific even handedness, both would call themselves agnostic; although as Dawkins says, he’s agnostic about God the same way he’s agnostic about the existence of fairies.)”

In general, there is no conclusive proof for and against the existence of God. Since, reality (i.e. totality of existence and events) is in continuous flux, therefore, not all things are accounted for and validated so as to be certain of the existence and nonexistence of the same (God). Going by the logic, it necessarily follows that there is a room for uncertainty on both sides (religious believers and nonbelievers or atheists alike) whether or not God exists. But where religious believers and nonbelievers especially atheists differ is that the former has faith and reason based on revelation (biblical events) and the laws of nature or order of the natural world, respectively, to cling to in affirming the existence of God. Whereas, the latter (nonbelievers and atheists) engulfed with the cloud of uncertainty  against the existence of God ,  is forever tortured with the possibility that a God may in fact exist, since it is short of the required certainty to rule out the existence of the same (God) in the absence of a conclusive proof.

So what have we here? If nonbelievers and atheists lack the conclusive proof to deny the existence of God, as is evidently the case. Therefore, what is their business of being a nonbeliever and an atheist at that in the first place? This betrays the very cause of atheism and undermines its very foundation. But just the same they have nothing to boot but only their so called atheistic faith nothing more nothing less. Unwittingly, that problem flies over their faces! What a shame!

That bold pronouncement was made in the 20th century, especially when atheism was at its heyday or at its peak. But, at the close of the 20th century and the  dawning of the new millennium, there was no way to indicate as yet that such foreboding has come to fulfillment.

But, quite, on the contrary, religion has become vibrant and dominant and influential as ever, far from being a thing of the past and irrelevant as predicted. While, the ocean of believers over three – fourth of the world’s population, roughly around five billion people, has led their lives under the moral guidance of religion, and their faith and belief in God become more renewed each day.

In 1990 to 1993 atheists all over the world numbered on average around 239 million. In 1994, it slid to around 230 million. But, between 1998 and 1999, it went to an all time high ever to around 1.8 billion. In 2000, it sharply declined in a nose dive at around 200 million, and kept still at that numbers from 2001 to 2004. In 2005, it further precipitated at around 148 million. It rose at around 151 million in 2006, and barely went down  at around 150 million in2007 and 2008. In 2009, it rebounded to around 153 million, and stay around at that figures until to date. (Encyclopedia Britannica: Mega Census of Adherents of World Religions from 1990 to 2010)

On the main, the steep declined of the numbers of atheists around the world was mainly attributed to the downfall of communism in Communist Republic of East Germany, Union Soviet Socialist of Russia, and the Communist Republic of China late in the 20th century. Because communism embodies atheistic beliefs, as is evident by proclaiming atheism as its  official religion, so its downfall may have become the deathbed of atheism. In part, this was equally brought about by the advancement of knowledge in philosophy and science, especially in the area of scientific cosmology where atheistic underpinnings like the steady state theory which states that the universe is eternal: no beginning and end, are now greatly abandoned by authorities in the scientific community. As it is now, the widely accepted view by the scientific authorities, insofar as the origin of the universe is concerned, is the big bang theory: which states that the universe has a definite beginning in the past. The view that the universe has a beginning of its existence somehow tends to lean on the side of the theistic belief of creation. It seems atheism now is orphaned by the very foundation it stood and thrived in the field of philosophy and science.

Similarly, it is consoling to note that a book entitled The Twilight of Atheism by Alison Mcgrath was written to that effect…to herald about the imminent downfall of atheism in the 21st century.

Meanwhile, looking at the numbers of atheists above, it is very apparent that atheism is on the sideline, with only 2.3 percent of the current world’s population, rather than in the center stage as should have been the case as confidently foreseen by their leaders. It seems their own prediction about the demise of religion in the 21st century has backfired and got the better of them. Instead, it is now the predator that becomes the prey, and well nigh becoming threaten to extinction. Figures don’t lie!  The rise and fall of atheism!