Happy Feast, Dear Sister!

Today (for three more minutes) is the feast of St. Maximilian Marie Kolbe, the great Franciscan martyr commonly called the Saint of Auschwitz. If you are unfamiliar with the great saint, you can read about here.
 

I mention him because, since it is his feast day, it is also the patronal feast or name day of my dear friend Sr. Maria Kolbe O.P. I first met Sister in early 2011, she had just moved to Australia from the United States. She ministered to students at the University of Sydney and University of Technology, Sydney, for two and a half years before being transferred back to the U.S. At the end of last semester.

I had the honour of giving a speech at her going away party. One of the things I said about her was that she was, above all things, a religious sister, which made her a bride of Christ. This was one of the most notable things about SMK (as several of us, affectionately called her) she was a woman deeply in love with her divine spouse, who then helped to radiate and share that love with others.
 

I went on to say that, while that much was true of any religious sister, in SMK's case, it manifested in a specific way because she was not just a religious sister but a Dominican religious sister. As such, her sharing of God's love was reflected through the Dominican charism of preaching. Sister is a true preacher, not in the sense that she would get in people's face or brow-beat them, in fact she is usually very gentle, but she was constantly bearing witness to the faith that is hers. She is a very friendly person, open to everyone. Whether the person she was protestant, atheist, Muslim or whatever, she always showed a willingness to listen, a curiosity about the person and his or her beliefs, but also a strength in speaking about her own beliefs and the reasons for them.
 

She is a true daughter of St. Dominic, I am very proud to call her my sister and my friend, and I miss her very much.

Science, Philosophy and God

Noted Christian philosopher, Dr. William Lane Craig and atheist scientist, Prof. Laurence Krauss, will be debating at Sydney Town Hall tonight. I will be there. Richard Schumark, of the Centre for Public Christianity has written this piece, in anticipation of the debate.

I think Schumark (if you read this, forgive me, is it Mr. or Dr.?) makes some excellent points. For example, he points to the stupidity and downright intellectual laziness of imagining science and philosophy to be in competition. Science relies upon philosophical conclusions, you cannot, for example, perform an experiment unless you take the laws of logic as given, and those laws could not possibly be scientifically proven, they rellie on philosophy.

I think, however, that Schumark makes some arguments about the relationship between philosophy and science, that are more than a little wide of the mark. He writes:

“In the same way Craig’s claim is necessarily scientific in the sense that he marshals arguments for how all the available evidence points to the likelihood of there being a divine designer and creator.”

That may be true of some of Craig's arguments, but not of most of them. Take, for example, Craig's signature argument, the Kalam Cosmological Argument (not, I must stress, and argument I'm a fan of). While Craig does sometimes use scientific claims the bolster his second premise, the argument is not scientific at all. Schumark suggests it is because Craig “...marshals available evidence...” but marshalling evidence is not peculiar to natural sciences but to any rational activity.

Science is based on testable hypotheses. You put forward a scientific theory and then expect the world (or the particular part of the world you are experimenting on) to act one way if your theory is true and a different way if your theory is wrong. Classical theists don't claim the world would act differently without God, we claim that the world wouldn't exist without him. Our claims are no more subject to scientific testing than the laws of logic are.

Schumark, goes on to say that he doesn't think God's existence can be proven with full scientific rigour. If he means that God can't be proven by the scientific method, he's right, however, the claim of classical theists is that God's existence can be proven philosophically, and that these philosophical proofs are more, not less, certain, than scientific ones.

Schumark, however, seems to think that a God whose existence can't be certainly proved is plus for Christianity. He suggest that a God who left “hints” of his existence but no certain proof is more in keeping with a “personal and relational God.” He even quotes, with approval, philosopher Paul Mosser and arguing that this is exactly what we would expect of a God who values relationships first and foremost.

I have to say, I can't see why we would think that. I'm personal and I place a high premium on relationships and when I want a relationship, in either the friendly romantic, or any other sense of the word, with someone, I don't leave cryptic hints that I might exist lying around for that person to find. If possible, I generally walk up to them, say hello and introduce myself, thus, unless they have some reason to fear they are having a psychotic episode, they are generally left in no doubt of my existence.

Also, while Schumark doesn't explicitly say, I assume, given where his article is posted, that he is a Christian. In that case, I have to say that the God he believes in, the one leaving us with hints but no definitive proof of His existence, does not sound to me at all like the God revealed in the scriptures. In, for example, the first chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, it is declared that God's existence is clearly revealed in creation, leaving unbelievers “without excuse.” It is to this clearly existing God that traditional Christian philosophy points.

I Have Some Cool Friends....

... And some of those cool friends write interesting, thought provoking stuff on blogs. So, in no particular order:

My fellow Campion graduate and philosophy nerd, Alexander Westenburg, has just started a blog. I don't always agree with him (he is, unfortunatly, a Platonist) but he always has something to say that's worth considering. I really like his first post, found here, and hope he will continue blogging.

Monica "MonJon" Johnson, is a theology student at Notre Dame and, in my opion, a very good writter. She's been writting a serise of posts on the rosary and I found her latest post particularly worthy of note.

Last, but by no means least, Laura McAllister is a fellow convert with whom I became friends as a result of reading her blog after MonJon posted some links to the same on FaceBook. Laura has, in my view, really good instincts, for all things Catholic. Her latest post on the liturgy is a must read.

Oh, and, speaking of Campion people who are, unfortunatly, Platonists, but who write cool stuff anyway, I really loved this piece, by Dr. Matthew Tan.

The Death of Christ Means Everything!

So, it's been a while, hasn't it? There are a few reasons I haven't blogged in a while, most of those having something to do with the fact that my health has not been the greatest of late. I've been spurred to blog again by this article, written by Islamic apologist Ijaz Ahmad, responding to remarks by Protestant apologist, James White. The article deals with one of the most important topics imaginable, the death of Christ.

For those unfamiliar with some of the relevant theology the Catholic belief, shared by Protestants and most of the Eastern Churches, is that Christ is one person but with two natures, these natures being the divine and the human. A less formal way of saying this, might be that in Jesus, there are two what's (God and human) but one who (the God-man Jesus Christ). It's important to understand that these natures were not, somehow mixed together, the divine nature remains eternally divine and the human nature is fully human, but these natures are united in a single person.

It is also important to understand that, according to Catholic belief (and again this Catholic belief is shared by protestants and others) the death of Christ was a death that affected the human nature, that is to say that His human soul was separated from His body. However, and this is absolutely crucial, while the death effected His human nature, it is not a nature which dies but a person. In this case, the person who died was God. Therefore, while the divine nature was not directly effected by the death, it is theologically accurate to say that, when Jesus died on the cross, God died.

It has to be said, Ahmad does a poor job of understanding this basic Christian teaching.

Ahmad quotes from The Catholic Encyclopedia, as distinguishing three, position, the Catholic, Nestorian and Monophysite views on the incarnation. I found it annoying that he did not tell us which article in said encyclopaedia (or even which edition) he was citing; doing so would have made it easier to check the context of his citation. He then tells us that in this context “Catholic” means “Trinitarian Christian.” This is quite wrong, both Nestorians and Monophysite's were Trinitarians as well; their heresies don't touch on the question of the Trinity.

Ahmad continues to write: “Christ has two natures, his divine nature known as the Son and his human nature known as the flesh and blood of the Christ. If he died a physical death and this what is being claimed, then the flesh and blood of Christ died, that is the human nature died.”

This is very wide of the mark. “The Son” is not a name of the divine nature but of the whole person. The Bible affirms in numerous places that the man, Christ is the Son of God (Mark 15:39 being a good example). Further, the human nature is not merely flesh (that would be a variant of the ancient heresy of Apollinarianism) but a fully human soul as well.

Once this misunderstanding is made clear, much of Ahmad's argument can be seen to be off-base. For example, his claim that, since only the human nature died, John 3:16 is disproven, since the Son, he thinks, does not die, is shown to be a radical misunderstanding.

Also, Ahmad's claim that death would mean the breakup of the union between God and man are shown to be based on a misunderstanding. At death, the human soul separated from the human body but this involved no separation between the divine and human natures and only Ahmad's failure to grasp actual Catholic teaching obscures this.