Will Europe’s Youth Bring It Back to Christendom?

[inline:01]
My 16-year old son is off to the World Youth Day gathering in Cologne, where Pope Benedict XVI is addressing young people from all over the world next Saturday. He left by train from Brussels with a group of friends and will spend a week in prayer and meditation before the Pope’s address and also a week after. He clearly belongs to the generation that Time described last week as the “John Paul generation.” Says Time: “Young people today are more likely to attend mass weekly, pray daily and trust their church than their parents’ generation. More than 50% of young Catholics attend mass weekly, compared to 39% just a generation ago. Nearly 90% believe that religion is important, compared to 77% from the prior generation.”

Time was referring to the data in a study about young Americans. Europe is a far less religious society where only 15% of the people attend a place of worship once a week, compared to 44% of Americans. I have no figures to prove this, but, judging by my children’s friends, I suppose that on the old continent, too, young Europeans are more religious than their parents. Though young Christians in secular Europe clearly belong to a minority they have more openly Christian friends than my wife and I used to have in the 1970s. The cynicism of the previous generation – widely referred to in continental Western Europe as the “1968 generation” after the May 1968 student riots in Paris – seems to have worn off. The only example of this poisonous skepticism that I could find in the Time article was a mean remark by the cynical German Cardinal Karl Lehmann, the Bishop of Mainz, about the previous World Youth Day in 2004 in Rome where he said that “the girls in St. Peter’s Square who cheer the Pope have the pill in their pockets” (however would he know?), implying that these youngsters are hypocrites like himself.

Through my 22- and 20-year old daughters I happen to know some of these girls. And, no, I do not think that they have the pill in their pockets whilst they cheer the Pope. And, no, I do not think they are hypocrites on a par with Cardinal Lehmann and some other “princes of the Church.” The sourness of the latter is understandable. At the very time when they thought they could claim victory in the campaign to secularize the entire Western Church, young conservative Catholic laymen, in a resurgence of faith, begin to reclaim the Church from their grasp.

Newsweek, also, had a lead article in last week’s issue on the indications that we might be on the verge of a return of Christendom to Europe. The continent is “shaken by terrorism and almost existential social uncertainty” which may have a cathartic influence, making it receptive for the Church’s crusade against what Pope Benedict recently called “the cynicism of a secularized culture that denies its own foundations.” Conservative American Catholics, such as Michael Novak and George Weigel, observe this process of re-Christianization in modern Europe with particular interest. Society cannot exist without a shared set of moral values. Typically these are provided by religions. Failing this the state usurps the role of religion and governments will impose moral standards. We have been witnessing this phenomenon in Europe throughout the past three decades, during which governments aided by supra-national organizations like the EU and various UN organizations have begun to impose a doctrine of relativism and multi-culturalism.

European Exceptionalism

Since the demise of Christianity, the moral clash has been one between these secular “values” of the state and the morals of the millions of Muslim immigrants that began to flock to Europe when the religious vacuum created by the (near) suicide of European Christianity also led to a demographic implosion. George Weigel, who wrote biographies of both Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, the present Pope, says in Newsweek that the latter’s mission to re-Christianization Europe is very important for the United States, as America, according to Weigel, might follow Europe’s godless example. I do not know whether Weigel is correct in this particular fear. True, the worst enemy of the Church is active within its own ranks and the American episcopacy has its own cynics in the mold of the German Cardinal Lehmann. In America, however, these cynics must overcome the deeply entrenched religiousness of American society. America is not a secular society and hence secular clerics (though they have done – and are doing – a lot of harm) have not been able to cause as much havoc as in Europe.

“American exceptionalism” is the name which the American Catholic sociologist Father Richard John Neuhaus gave to the phenomenon of American religiousness (which, by the way, had already been perceived by the French author Alexis de Tocqueville  in the 19th century as the major difference between the “new” and the “old” continent). Unlike in Western Europe, religion “is in maddeningly diverse ways, vibrantly alive in America, despite the fact that America is a modern, perhaps the most modern, society.” Today, Neuhaus prefers to speak of European exceptionalism, or at least of Western European exceptionalism. “While Germany, France, and the Netherlands, among others, seem to be in thrall to a numbing secularization, around the world – in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere – there is a resurgence of religion, with all the cultural and political consequences that attend such a resurgence. This is the reality examined by Harvard’s Samuel Huntington in his much controverted, but I think essentially accurate, ‘clash of civilizations’ thesis. I am inclined to risk going a step further and say that, if the proverbial man or woman from Mars asked about the most important single thing happening on planet earth at the beginning of the twenty-first century, a very good answer might be the de secularization of world history.”

Europe’s American Roots

If Pope Benedict XVI, aided by the young generation currently assembling in Cologne, succeeds in re-Christianizing Western Europe he will at the same time be making it more similar to America. In an earlier article in The Brussels Journal I pointed out that “Europe should find its roots in America.” North America was colonized by freedom loving people. Many of them had left Europe because they longed for the freedom to live according to their own conscience instead of the conscience of the centralist absolutist rulers in power across Europe.

American traditions were rooted in the political decentralism of the late Middle Ages and the Aristotelian philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Aquinas [biography by G.K. Chesterton – warning: protected by copyright outside of Australia] and his followers, the Scholastics, reconciled reason to religion. Chesterton wrote that Aquinas’ contribution to theology “might be called the appeal to Reason and the Authority of the Senses.” “Reason,” Aquinas said, “has a right to rule, as the representative of God in Man.” Pope Benedict agrees with this. Last week’s Newsweek points out that “Ratzinger argues that reason and humanism are at the very core of Christianity, and that is precisely why, beyond the obvious historical facts, Christianity is the true foundation of European culture and values.” It is this foundation that has been preserved in a truer form in the United States than in Europe itself, where from 1789 (the French Revolution) onwards, the state has begun to replace God. It did so, ironically, by contrasting reason to religion. Reason was seen in this sense as the need to centralize and uniformize society.

Newsweek perceives in Pope Benedict a certain “nostalgia for the Middle Ages.” This is true where it refers to a longing for a Europe that does not cut itself off from its (medieval) roots but builds on them, instead of continuing the fallacy of 1789 that has led Europe along the path of the three “G”s – Guillotine, Gas chambers and Gulag (three phenomena which America has escaped, not by coincidence) – to the present abyss at the edge of which it teeters. It is time to walk away from this abyss and return to Europe’s roots. That is what the Pope will be saying later this week in Cologne. He could also say it in different words, which he will not employ because they would be perceived as too political, but which amount to the same message: If Europe wants to regain its freedom and its sanity it should learn from American conservatism.

Cynicism

...we might be on the verge of a return of Christendom to Europe. The continent is “shaken by terrorism and almost existential social uncertainty” which may have a cathartic influence, making it receptive for the Church’s crusade against what Pope Benedict recently called “the cynicism of a secularized culture that denies its own foundations.”

I guess I must be one of those old unreconstructed 1968 cynics, but I don't view the suggested return of "Christendom" to Europe with any enthusiasm at all. Which particular features am I supposed to welcome? The hierarchical church which facilitates the buggery of children? The belief in a "Holy Trinity"? The hypocrisy which pretends to follow a Jesus who said, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven"? The idea that beliefs should be developed by counsels of wise men and handed down to the populace? Are we to go as far as the bonkers Christians in America who want to chuck out Darwin and teach Creationism?

The sooner we can flush Christendom and Islam and all the rest down the toilet of history the better. And is the alternative a state-imposed morality? Of course not. The only revolution is the one within each of us, and the first precept is to face reality. And that reality is what? "Life is shit and then we die", as the saying goes, BUT we can do something about the shit.

Bob Doney

To Bob Doney and anyone else

To Bob Doney and anyone else who cares to read this

With all respect, I don't think you get it. At the very heart of Christianity lies the love-relationship that God has with each person individually (or can have, if you want Him to). Darwin or Creationism - whatever. It doesn't matter. The only thing that really matters is love. Christians believe that God loves us so much that He let His only Son (Jesus) die a cruel and undeserved death on the cross so our sins could be forgiven and our relationship with God could be restored. This relationship is personal. And it goes both ways. Why do almost a million young people from all over the world care to gather in one place every two or three years just to say mass on a patch of grass with an old man? I mean, it's not for the 'kick' is it? Because in that case they might as well save all that money and just go to the local popfestival... No, they go because they are one big family, the youth of the world gathered around the Pope. They go because it is encouraging to know that you are not the only one being looked down on by modern society. Because in spite of what the world tells us, faith is not childish and outdated. And because it is strengthening to be with other young people from different countries and cultures who all believe in and love the same God. It is something you cannot understand unless you experience it yourself.
And honestly, do you really believe those hundreds of thousands of young people gathered in Cologne right now are 'hypocrites who just PRETEND to follow Jesus'? I think not.

Christianity is not something you can 'flush down the toilet of history', and the reason for that is precisely because it is NOT a 'belief that was developed by counsels of wise men and handed down to the populace', but because it is a personal experience. Because God is Love and everyone needs love in their lives, no matter how modern or advanced our world may be.

Hope his clarifies matters. In any case now you've seen Christianity from my point of view :)

All very confusing

Why do almost a million young people from all over the world care to gather in one place every two or three years just to say mass on a patch of grass with an old man?

There's just been a very interesting series on our Channel 4 TV called "Hitler's children", about how the Nazis recruited and used young people in their pernicious cause. Mass rallies, needless to say, figured prominently. One man's joyous assembly is another's mass delusion. I wonder how many of those German children in the 1930s felt they had a unique personal relationship with their Great Leader? Funny old world, ain't it?

And last weekend the Pope didn't exactly seem to be encouraging free thinking and youthful, optimistic, sceptical inquiry, did he? He looked to me a bit like an old man handing down counsels, wise or not.

Bob Doney

Re: All very confusing

[Quote]
I wonder how many of those German children in the 1930s felt they had a unique personal relationship with their Great Leader? Funny old world, ain't it? [End Quote]

You seem to think history is repeating itself. So let me tell you something before you get prejudiced. Ofcourse everyone has a right to their own views and opinions, I'm not trying to change yours. I just want to share mine.
For one thing we (or in any case I) do not have a unique personal relationship with the Pope. The Pope is not our God. Please follow the link in the above article to the Time's website and read the last paragraph. It is not because someone is Pope that we will blindly do as he says. There have been bad popes in the past. The Pope is meant to be a shepherd to the community of Catholics all over the world. He should bring us closer to God and he should be a good example to us. Ultimately our only leader is God, and His teachings were known already way before you were born. If you want to know them I recommend you read the New Testament (esp. the Gospels, Acts and letters of the apostles). What's more, His teachings don't change. Therefore, following God is a personal choice to accept His teachings and to try to live by them. It is your own personal choice and His teachings never change, so you know what you're in for beforehand.

Also, if you read the New Testament, you will see that you need not fear a new Nazi regime. Just to name a few differences: Christianity preaches love and forgiveness, not hatred and terror; peace, not war; life, not death; charity, not greed and selfishness; acceptance, not racism. The Nazi regime was fundamentally unchristian, I hope you realize that. And btw. it is not because some people and organizations do bad things in the name of Christianity or Catholicism, that Christianity is bad. It is a sad fact, but it does happen quite often (eg. IRA and other terrorist organizations). Those people are not Christian and I'm sure you realize that that is not what the Pope is preaching. I myself have judged and accepted the Pope, and I will gladly travel to the ends of the earth once in a while to throw a great party for God, together with him.

Hope I haven't confused you even more,
a JPII-generation youngster.

More confusion

it is not because some people and organizations do bad things in the name of Christianity or Catholicism, that Christianity is bad.

No, but when so many bad things are done in the name of religion it might make you at least consider the possibility that there may be something intrinsically wrong with the whole idea of "received" wisdom.

I have, by the way, read the Bible. Hopefully you have read the history books which tell how the Catholic Church dealt with Hitler and the Nazis!

Bob Doney

Bob's frequent references to Hitler and Catholicism

:::: Hopefully you have read the history books which tell how the Catholic Church dealt with Hitler and the Nazis!::::::

Bob,
The theory that the Catholic Church could have stopped the rise of the Nazis was first put forth in the fifties by a German scholar who was an ex-Nazi propagandist. There is a memorial in Israel dedicate to Pope Pius by the Jews he helped hide during the War years. Take a glance at this book, written by a Rabbi.

I'm always amazed with

I'm always amazed with people who try to end an argument with Nazism. Comments such as, the Nazis got along with the Catholic Church, so therefore the Catholic Church = religion = Hitler. These statements are made during a lack of real argument and never make any logical sense, but still seems to be used each and every time to end a discussion.

Despite how one feels about the Vatican, and several well-documented and disgusting incidents in the Church, Catholocism has usually been the more humane institution of any named time period. It protested against corruption and the bloody arenas in Rome during its infancy, held the European continent together as an identity during the Dark Ages, and was a supporter of the Rennaisance.

We can argue about the excesses fanatics will take in the name of religion, but killers will always try to find some excuse to haunt civilized men. There has not been a replacement found that can replace religious morality. Society needs religion to create the basis of their moral structure. We could leave it to our wisest philosophers, and I'm sure our elitist intellectual class would love that opportunity. However, killing God has been tried before.

The atrocities done in the name of the French Revolution after the tearing down of the Church is a much documented case. The rape, torture, mutilations, etc., I will not go into detail about. Hitler's Nazism that you seem to enjoy bringing to the discussion was a grandchild of the Nihilist philosophy, a philosophy opposed to religion. The Soviet Union, China, and Warsaw Pact was home of the most famous Intellectual Religion, Communism, and we are still feeling the effects of that nightmare. The death toll under these regimes in the last century is estimated to be anywhere from 100 million to 500 million people, depending on who you talk to. And the corruption and crime rate are still inhibiting growth and decaying those once proud civilizations.

You see, civilization is only held together by morality and law. The root of morality and law is decided upon by the culture of the citizenship, and almost always taken from a religious basis. Kill God, impose a bunch of old philosophers to determine law, and chaos is the result. What young, free-thinking man would ever subjugate himself to the "wisdom" of an self-important elitist? A free man sees only God as his superior.

Killing God

I'm always amazed with people who try to end an argument with Nazism.

Why? I would have thought that Nazism (and Russian and Chinese Communism) give us pause for thought about crowd psychology, and how it can be used by the unscrupulous to manipulate unquestioning minds.

There has not been a replacement found that can replace religious morality... We could leave it to our wisest philosophers...

Well, you're a fan of logical argument, so you might agree that might be a good place to start.

You see, civilization is only held together by morality and law.

... and economic dependencies.

Kill God, impose a bunch of old philosophers to determine law

I'm against "imposing" anything. That's the point

A free man sees only God as his superior.

Fine-sounding phrase. Depends, I suppose, what you mean by "a free man", especially in the context of an all-powerful, omniscient God.

Bob Doney

Cogito

I am nevertheless afraid having seen hypocrisy - or error - at least in the Belgian group of 'Catholics', all with a rose in their hand, symbolising, unless I understood it wrongly, a 'socialistic christianity'. I think this is a false prophet, trying to bend the Church into accepting moral views from the Leftish Church and being, in essence, materialism.
So, will Europe's youth bring it back to Christianity? I think this may be the case, but great dangers may be ahead, showing a Church assimilating the Leftish morality dripwise and becoming a sort of religionised socialism, being an even greater threat to freedom than socialists themselves. The America's will have to play an important role in preventing this process from happening.

Interesting comment

Cogito:

I think Dof & the rest could be more convincing if they would address some of the problems with Darwin, such as the appalling lack of continuity from lower to higher life forms. Although this is not an issue that interests me much, I will look into the Gleick piece when I have time, and I thank you for it.

This issue seems to bring out the worst in people. Certain individuals cling to Darwin dogmatically because (and I speculate here) they are afraid of the consequences of concluding that there may be a higher being. An "intelligent designer," or a God. They don't seem to get it - burden of proof is on them if they want us to buy into Darwin. Thank God I live in America where we are free to accept/reject Darwin as we see fit.

That said, I found your comment interesting:

--------
I am nevertheless afraid having seen hypocrisy - or error - at least in the Belgian group of 'Catholics', all with a rose in their hand, symbolising, unless I understood it wrongly, a 'socialistic christianity'. I think this is a false prophet, trying to bend the Church into accepting moral views from the Leftish Church and being, in essence, materialism.
So, will Europe's youth bring it back to Christianity? I think this may be the case, but great dangers may be ahead, showing a Church assimilating the Leftish morality dripwise and becoming a sort of religionised socialism, being an even greater threat to freedom than socialists themselves. The America's will have to play an important role in preventing this process from happening.

------

Your perspective is, by no means, unique. Believe it or not Pope Benedict shows the same concern. Many, Benedict XVI included, have come to view modern Catholicism as phony, superficial, perhaps even a cynical attempt to mold the Catholic Church to fit into the modern times & ideologies more comfortably. The response to this seems to come in the form of traditional Catholicism. This WYD, for the first time, featured a "traditionalist" componenet, "Juventutem," which you should be able to find out and read about by searching on that word. Just as the young people will be the ones to restore Christianity to Europe, they appear to be the ones who are bringing the Catholic Church back to reality from nearly forty years of silly liturgical and doctrinal experiments. One witnesses this mostly in France and the US at the moment.

I won't be reading web pages for a while - classes start this week. Contact me at [email protected] for further discussion.

Dave

Freedom USA

Thank God I live in America where we are free to accept/reject Darwin as we see fit.

That's the American way, I guess. Pick 'n mix your ideas off the Maccadee's menu. Make mine a double Hume-burger with Darwin relish. And supersize. Yum!

I'm going to write to Tony Blair today asking why I can't have the same freedom as you Americans. He'll be back from his secret holiday in Barbados any time soon.

Bob Doney

playing by the rules

As a college professor, you should know that the best way to discredit a theory is to come up with something better, i.e. something that generates predictions of HIGHER accuracy. The evolution from Aristoteles -> Copernicus -> Newton -> Einstein took place not because people "believed" their theories were convincing, but because their theories offered better predictions of celestial mechanics.

But somehow, whenever evolution comes up, people calling themselves scientist feel free to attack it WITHOUT bothering to provide a replacement theory that is at least of the same quality as evolution theory.

If you are a religious nut, you can disbelieve evolution theory, no skin of my nose.

But if you cal yourself a scientist, you have to play according to the rules. if there are gaps or problems in a theory (and missing fossils are a VERY weak argument) it may be a reason to prefer ANOTHER theory, but only if that theory has an equal or smaller amount of gaps or problems.

But that is not the case, is it? Intelligent design is just a figleaf for introducing theism in science classes. It can't be bothered with real scientific issues, such as replacing our current taxonomy of species, which you no longer have if you throw away Darwinism.

Bob - as a college professor

Bob - as a college professor and mathematician, let me point out to you that your Darwinian theory is completely and totally discredited. There is no basis for considering it anything other than a theory - and an interesting but unlikely one.

When you can, in a lab environment, create a life form out of nothing but elements/molecules in test tubes then we can begin to give Darwin's theory serious consideration. As it is, science has led us to the search for a better explanation.

You really should get up to date on the subject.

Dave

Professing

Bob - as a college professor and mathematician, let me point out to you that your Darwinian theory is completely and totally discredited. ...
You really should get up to date on the subject.

I would suggest that college professors and mathematicians should not be exempt from the normal rules of polite and reasoned discourse.

Bob Doney

Bob:Forgive me, but I was a

Bob:

Forgive me, but I was a bit surprised by your comments directed toward those who are doubtful of Darwinism. You must understand - "Sola Darwin" is no longer mainstream thought in the U.S. In other words, it's no longer common to refer to it as the exclusive explanation for the development of life on our planet.

Thanks to "Cogito" and "dof" for the kind comments and questions. I'm doubtful of any explanation of something as complex as the human eyeball that is based on Chaos Theory. But, as you point out, this is a possible explanation of "how life...could grow spontaneously." Normally a demonstration that "X could have happened" is not considered as proof that "X happened." Think of it. "X is possible -> X" Proof by blatant assertion? We only witness this type of proof when we hear from Darwinists (elderly, graying, balding, increasingly angry....) The younger generation of scientists is far more open minded. That's what the intelligent design theories are increasingly given a place in academia. It has to do with reason, not Christianity, although a Christian loves the truth and has the courage to challenge those around him and put his reputation on the line for the sake of the truth. It is for that reason that a disproportionate number of the scientists challenging Darwin are Christians.

Cogito - you know that Cardinal Christoph Schönborn recently commented on this - it appears that he doesn't even see that the Darwinean version of the theory is compatible with being a Christian. I would tend to agree. http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=2416

"dof" - To answer your question, yes...we should continue to explore, examine fossils, and see what we can determine. The younger, more open-minded generation of scientists is capable of recognizing that there are gaps in "human evolution," and there way too many missing links between lower and higher life forms. That said, we should continue looking for them and discover what we can.

With respect to the dating and timelines, a colleague of mine (a chemist) enjoys surprising people by creating coal out of a piece of wood, such as a dowel, in less than two weeks. How? The right amount of heat and pressure. Right here...in this building...let me know if you would like to ask him questions, and I'll put you in touch with him.

Thanks again,

Dave

Coal out of wood

Coal out of wood in two weeks doesn't invalidate the practice of geochronology at all. Especially not since carbon based dating methods are only one of several techniques used. Which by the way give remarkable consistent results thereby validating each other. Allow me to seriously doubt your credibility in this field (math professor or not)

Dave, it's strange you

Dave, it's strange you mention openmindedness in the same post where you are avoiding answering my questions.

I'm very much interested in you stating your case, hence my request for information.

What is that you mean when you say Darwinism is discredited?

Also, if you throw away Darwinism, what is left?
What do you believe the age of the Earth is? Do you believe in Wegener's theory of continental drift? Do you believe the halflife of U238 is 4.5 billion years?

What is to replace our current taxonomy of species? Clearly the term "monophyletic" has no meaning to someone who thinks Darwinism is discredited.

Cogito

Dave, arguments like those of Dof and many other similar ones bring me to accept evolution of life. The theory of deterministic chaos or complexity conveys possible mechanisms of these processes far beyond what we could have presumed a decennium ago.
If you have not read much yet about Chaos Theory, read the standard eye-opener "Chaos" by James Gleick.
As an agnost, I am 'privileged'. I can take the viewpoint of a religious person, switch to that of the atheist and vice versa.
From the viewpoint of the Christian in me, I can be perfectly happy with evolution, without this meaning that Gods claim to be the creator of the Universe and man be diminuished. My point is that God can have conceived matter, of which we don't know so much yet, and of which even quantum mechanics are a layer on top of deeper ones as can be suspected, much more complex than we presume now. With capabilities of self organisation in which He laid the capability for the development of extremely complex entities such as eyeballs. So if you could have a talk with God and ask Him how he ever could have allowed darwinism to be true, He might answer something like "Not only did I allow for darwinism to be true, I conceived the idea of evolution Myself and designed matter with precisely those features that would make the spontaneous creation of life inevitable, and also the eventual emergence of a being capable of having a relationship with Me".
I know, this is a very personal view, I did not encounter this anywhere else as a thought and I seem to be alone with it. It is also a very conceptual idea and does not answer millions of other emerging questions.
Still this:
As a Libertarian, and with the viewpoint of the Christian in me, I think God is a libertarian - and not a conservative. The freedom he gave man to choose for evil, and the respect he showed for man allowing him to choose wrongly, shows this. Such a Libertarian does not conceive top-down 'centralised' creation methods. He conceived it as a completely bottom-up system. He reigns from underneath, not from above. That is what puts Him above all.

some effort required.

Dave, why are you, as a college professor and mathematician, resorting to "argumentum ad verecundiam"?

If you want to attempt discrediting Darwinism, then by all means go ahead, just don't expect us to take your word for it.

Could you also enlighten me what you think about fossils and extinct species, such as dinosaurs. And what about decay-rates of radioactive isotopes, are they also "discredited"?

Furthermore, If we throw away Darwinism, what theory is left that correctly predicts what fossils are commonly found in the same strata? Or should we altogether stop examining fossils?

Creationism?

Dear Professor,

A Catholic or Christian wants to believe in God as creator.

They can still do so, even if Darwin and his successors prove to be right.
The message of the Scripture never needs to be found falsified by scientific facts, reasonings, theories or conclusions - it does not have the pretention of being a scientific report of how it all was conceived.

It might well be possible that God - for those who believe in Him (I myself am a skeptical agnosticus - but not an atheist) conceived matter in such a way that spontaneous generation of life, eventually producing a being, capable of searching for God and knowing Him, was possible without the need for Him to do anything more than push the Big Bang Button. That would still leave Him as creator of man and all the rest and leave the Scripture intact.

As a matter of fact, the relatively recent science of (deterministic)Chaos, or complexity, or, since you are a mathematician, non-linear physical phenomenons, shows us a stupefying capability of self-organization in matter, physics, chemistry etc...

Here lie explanations of how life, with its much lower degree of entropy, could grow spontaneously out of a system with much higher entropy, in a Universe where every next moment is distincted from the former one by its increased entropy.

and, but off topic, the sociological implementation of the 'Chaos theory' is Libertarianism. The true liberal/tarian trusts in the organic, self-organisational capability of a human society and economy, without the need for (much) central government.
In fact, the invisible hand of Adam Smith was an early glimpse of the now scientifically being investigated fenomenon of self-organisational principles in complex systems.

God created the Universe bottom-up, not top-down. It characterizes Him.

Read also Gilbert De Bruyckere's article on libertarian.nl:

Complexity, self-organisation and design