The Nature of Change

There are at least three ways to understand truth and consequently there are three ways to understand change. The three modes of truth include: 1) Statements that say, 'X is Y' and if X is Y then the statement is true, 2) The truth that if it ever was true will always be true, e.g. '2+2=4', 'God is tripersonal' etc. and 3) the kind of 'truth' of a hypothesis, 'If such and such a thing is true, then this and that will happen in a laboratory, this and that did happen therefore such and such is verified'; the law of scientific verifiability.

In the first instance, I can say 'The time is 10.45', and if the time is 10.45 then such a statement is true. The statement, 'It was 10.45, will always be true', but the statement 'The time is 10.45' will only be true when it is 10.45. Thus, the truth of the 'now' changes as things pass. So it is true that someone is reading these words at the moment, it always will be true that someone read these words, but after the person has finished reading these lines, it will not be true that they are reading these lines. This is the simply fact of change, change which is quite ordinary and which no one denies. This is why it is necessary to have conversations to the effect, 'What is happening in the economy today?', 'What is X doing today?', with the corresponding statement, 'The economy is booming today', 'X is in Paris today' and so on.

The second instance is the truth that never changes, cannot be subject to change. This is called eternal truth. The most simple form of eternal truth are those of mathematics. '2+2=4' say. If two plus two ever equalled four, it always equals four. One does not say that '2+2=4' was true for the Romans, or the Anglo-Saxons. One does not say, 'It is true that in Paris '2+2=4', but in London '2+2=5'. One does not say 'For Jones '2+2=4' but for Smith '2+2=5'. In other words, if ever it was true it is always true. It is truth from eternity, we (Man) do not make it true. God is another example, if ever God 'existed' he always existed and always will exist. Justice is another, one does not say 'For Margaret Murder is evil, but for Mary murder is good'. Murder is either evil or good, and if one or the other is always evil or good, for all. Such true imposes itself on man. He discovers that it is true and he cannot change its true. He does not make it true either, he does not say 'I feel "2+2=4" is true, or I make "2+2=4", I invented "2", "+", "=", and "4".' Put another way, it is truth that comes from above, eternally valid. Man may call it a mere tautology, but that would still not invalidate the fact that such a thing is always and absolutely true.

The third kind of 'Truth' is the most difficult and dangerous if misunderstood and misapplied. A hypothesis is posited, which is related to a problem. A test is set up in a laboratory to test if a hypothesis, the statement 'If X is true, then Y will happen under these conditions, Y did happen, therefore X can be verified'. These mean that while one might surmise that X is true one has not proved that such is the case, one has merely tested a hypothesis that has been verified favourably. Thus, hypothesises may change, become more complicated, have ever more complicated tests, and be superseded. This form of verified 'truth' can clearly change through time. No one accepts the early models of the atom as 'true', for they are indeed more primitive, likewise various new discoveries about molecular biology supersede older obsolete models. Scientific 'truth' however, presents probably the biggest problem for the concept of change, for it is the one area that the word 'progress' can be applied in the modern sense. It is undeniable for example that as a result of scientific advances we have more and more powerful technologies, more control over nature, and indeed the ability to almost invade the very 'stuff' of nature. Unfortunately it is also true that a scientific hypothesis can only be said to be true in so far as it has been verified. Even the law of gravity for example, can only be said to be a hypothesis which has been verified (quite convincingly we might say), but is not necessarily 'true'.

Change however, and progress in particular, are not a problem if a true understanding of the main modes of 'truth' is understood and how they may change through time. Scientism is a branch of the Enlightenment which, as we have said before, is most dangerous. There are wonders in the advance technology that is often coupled with a devotion to the Scientific Method. 'Science has discovered X', 'Science has created Y', 'Science has improved Z'. Yet with this comes a glaringly obvious fallacy, progress in technology, depth of knowledge in nature, the march of time to the 'old-age' of mankind, do not equate to a progress in society, depth of knowledge in general, or a repudiation of tradition and the so-called 'immaturity' of our ancestors. We may be 'in the modern age', in the 'now', we may have more 'stuff', and more kinds of 'stuff', and we may have highly complex hypothesises of the atom, the cell, a universe of strings, but none of this may be said to be progress in society in general terms. Real progress in society would be found in the moral field. Not just in an 'outer' culturally enforced morality, but in the inner true moral disposition of the soul. Progress in society would cultural, as well as moral, for the following of a cult is the only way to have a culture, and for a Catholic perspective the Cult of Christ would be followed. Christ, Saviour of all Mankind, would reign not only in public, but in private. Culture can develop on itself, improve itself, its expressions, not simply revolve perpetually. Culture would not be founded on fads and cycles, but on a real thing, the living person of Christ.

Cardinal Newman argued that without a knowledge of theology all other scientific knowledge was essentially empty. For theology, the Queen of all the Sciences, puts the others into their specific place. Since theology deals with God, the highest Being, the highest 'form', it is therefore the highest science, and all other sciences are subordinated to it, those which deal with lower levels of being, from the humane, right the way down to the lowest level of being, that of inanimate matter (the subject of physics). Making physics the highest, 'Queen of all Sciences', is like asking an atom to 'comprehend' an Angel (in fact anything that is ontologically higher than it), or like asking a one dimensional being to understand the concept of a X and a Y axis, never mind a Z.

This is rather a side point, the real point is that change, while a problem in psychological sense, is not really a problem actually. The fact that today I am in London, while tomorrow I am on the moon is no more important than the fact that one year I may be a pagan, the next a Catholic. What does matter is Eternity, and Eternal truth. One might look at the Catholic Church and say: 'You claim to hold to eternal, unchanging, immutable, infallible Truth!, yet you have 4-5 different confessions of faith! What gives?'. And this is where the difference between the 'religion of progress' and real development reside. A Truth may be truly stated, without being as developed, or as discerning. 'God is One and tripersonal', is a true statement, concerning a True thing. 'God is One, The Father, Son and Holy Ghost, the Son is Eternally Begotten of the Father, and the Holy Ghost precedes from both the Father and Son, Eternally', may be a more discerning statement of the same Truth. With the Credos of the Church each is a true statement of the unchanging deposit of the Faith, but they become more and more discerning, they express the same Truth more deeply. Rather than simply changing our 'truths' when new data arrives, or our passions change, or anything else, and denying the possibility of fixed truth, which is so often the case with the sons and daughters of flux.

The principle of development is quite simple when understood, and it is in fact the true principle of progress. For one can never progress, or even understand the notion of progress, unless one has a fixed standard, a thing to progress from. Since, Truth exists from eternity, logically, anything which brings us closer to that Truth, or is able to discern that Truth more accurately, is progress in itself. Does this mean that things do not change? Of course not, we still have truths changing. One can say here is an acorn one year, and here is an oak tree the next. Accidental qualities may be in a state of flux, but the fact that we may say 'Acorn to Oak tree' tells us that even in this world of fading, contingent, mutable, flux there are still 'substantial' realities to grasp. The 'stuff' the tree is still present, even if it all its accidental qualities have passed into memory. The same with a person: 'He is wearing green this season', 'He has this idea now', 'He was damaged by X experience', 'He now speaks German'. 'He' is still there, even if his accidental qualities may have changed, his soul, his being is still present; the very 'stuff' of himself, his 'I', are constant, if they were not then we would not be able to comprehend the changes in his accidental form. He, like the tree, may develop also, towards Truth. Thus, he may say the Apostles Creed one year, then the Nicene Creed the next, then the Tridentine Creed and finally the Credo of the People of God. All of them are True statements, all of the developments on the original Truths of the Faith, and he may have developed in his understanding of these same truths.

In a world of existential despair we feel very much that if we simply renounce our devotion to 'pure flux', to 'the nature of un-nature', to 'making ourselves, bringing ourselves in to being', to 'the immortality of time', to the 'now', and dedicate ourselves to eternity, to higher Truths, we may begin to correct not only societal ills, but personal ones as well. Let us look forward, but let us also look back. Let the 'democracy of the dead' have its vote, and then take it onwards and forwards and right the way into Eternity!