Virtue is Magic

Mild Spoiler Alert

It's a little over a week now since the screening of "Twilight's Kingdom", the two part, season four finale of My Little Pony: Friendship: is Magic. I'm inclined to regard season four as the best season yet and I'll certainly go to the mattresses to defend the view that this was the best season finale so far.

Why do I love MLP;FiM? I could give a great many reasons: I love the witty dialogue, I love the animation, I love the songs. Having said all that, there is one reason, above all that I love this show. I love My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic because it is a show about virtue.

Virtue has, oddly enough, become a little bit of a dirty word in the modern world. For many, the word virtue suggests a world of chastity belts, repressed desires and people walking about looking po-faced and serious and never, ever doing anything fun. The ancient Greek Master, Aristotle, however, and the tradition following, him, took a different view of things. For Aristotle, and the tradition following him, virtue describes those habits which tend to lead to greater human flourishing. For the Aristotelian school, there is a happiness the properly follows from human nature lived to its fullest and the virtues are the habits which promote the best chance of that happiness.

This is, in my judgement at least, what MLP:FiM is all about. Throughout the series, the mane (misspelling deliberate per fan convention) six ponies (and their dragon sidekick) learn a variety of life lessons which lead to them developing those qualities of character which lead to a free, happy and fulfilled life. I have no idea whether any of the writers or producers of the show have actually read Aristotle or not, but, whether consciously or unconsciously, they have produced a profoundly Aristotelian parable for life.

So, what was so great about season four? To back track, at the beginning of the first season, the mane six discovered that harmony is maintained in their kingdom of Equestria through six "Elements of Harmony". Through various trials, each of these six becomes mystically linked to one of the six elements: Apple Jack to honesty, Fluttershy to kindness, Pinky Pie to laughter, Rainbow Dash to loyalty, Rarity to generosity and Twilight Sparkle (my personal favourite) to the element of magic.

At the beginning of season four, each of the ponies, to prevent Equestria being over-run by chaos, the ponies had to sacrifice their connection to the elements. In response to their sacrifice, a magical trunk with six key-holes was revealed. Over the course of the season, each of the six mane ponies faced a situation in which she was tempted to act contrary to the element to which she was formerly linked. In each case, the pony in question overcame the temptation, acted in accord with her element and learnt a valuable lesson about the nature of her element as well as a lesson about life more generally.

In the season finale, Equestria faces a new danger, worse than anything it has faced before. The solution to the crisis turns out to lie in the chest revealed at the beginning of the season and the keys to the chest turn out to be linked to the lessons each pony has learnt about her element.

This is why I love this show. At the end of the day, it's show that send the message that the world can be saved and we can all live happy lives by following the path of virtue. Nothing else compares.

 

"Knowledge" About Mark's Gospel

 

As the old cliche goes, “A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.” This is true for a 

number of reasons. One reason is that, when we half know or half understand something, 

we tend not to just accept that we half know or half understand it, but to 

make up “knowledge” to fill in the gaps and convince ourselves that we understand 

more than we do. 

 

As an example of what I’m talking about, there seems to be a growing misconception 

among a number of atheists concerning the longer and shorter endings of the Gospel 

According to St. Mark. The misconception its self, isn’t a huge problem, but the fact 

way it seems to have formed in some people’s minds is. Let me hasten to had that, 

while, for this example, I’m picking on my atheist friends, I have little doubt that many 

examples of similar folly could be found on my own side.

 

For those unfamiliar with what I mean by longer and shorter endings of St. Mark; St. 

Mark’s Gospel has sixteen chapters and the final chapter has twenty verses. The 

vast majority of scholars, however, would consider that only the first eight verses 

were part of the original gospel with the remaining twelve being added by a later 

scribe. The shorter ending of St. Mark does not contain any description of the risen 

Christ appearing to His followers. This fact makes it unique among the Biblical Gospels; 

the longer ending, as well as the other three Gospels all do contain such narratives. 

It is important to note, however, that the shorter ending, does clearly affirm the 

resurrection happening. The shorter ending describes a group of women coming to 

the tomb of Jesus, early on Sunday morning, finding the tomb empty and being told 

“You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth. He is not here, he is risen.”

 

A large number of atheist, however, seem to have heard this fact, but only partly 

grasped it. The upshot of this is that, in past few months, I’ve had several atheists 

inform me that Mark’s Gospel, as originally written, contains no mention of the 

resurrection and, at least one of them, as gone so far as to conclude from this that, 

at the time of the Gospel’s writing, belief in the resurrection was not part of Christianity. 

I’m pretty sure that none of these people are lying; they believe what they are saying. I 

think that, what has happened, is that they have heard it said (truly) that most scholars 

believe the original version of Mark’s Gospel contains no accounts of appearances of the 

risen Christ and, not fully grasping the important distinctions, concluded that this means 

that it contains no mention of the resurrection.

 

This error, by itself, would be harmless enough. The problem is that many will then 

go on to claim something like “people who think the original gospels contain an 

account of the resurrection obviously aren’t aware of modern scholarship like I am.” 

Even when, I point out to such individuals the fact that, actually, the shorter ending of 

St. Mark, the one universally recognised as being part of the original gospel, does include 

the clear affirmation that "He is risen.", this is sometimes dismissed as "Silly Christians
not even knowing what scholarship says about your own book." Actually, quite a few of
us do know. The difference is we are interested in knowing the details of what that
scholarship says, not just a few points we can cherry pick.

 

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.

You Can Do Better Than This

Those of you who have read my blog for a while will know that I'm something of a fan (for a certain value of fan) of the T.V. Show “The Atheist Experience”. While I obviously have big disagreements with the people running the show, I like the way in which they openly engage in dialogue with all comers. It has occurred to me that, if any of them saw the light, some of these guys would make good Dominicans. I also appreciate the fact that most of the hosts make an effort to fairly represent the views of those they are arguing against.

One of the exceptions to that rule is Don Baker, who co-hosted the most recent episode. Mr. Barker does a semi-regular section on what he calls “the failures of Christianity.” I've seen a number of these sections and quite frankly, he makes no serious effort to understand what Christians are actually saying.

His most recent section is on “The Failures of Scripture” and is found here. He spends most of his time reading from Thomas Paine's “The Age of Reason” and suggesting that this pamphlet presents unanswerable arguments against scripture.
 

Among these arguments is the claim that God wouldn't have given revelation in ancient Hebrew because words change their meanings so some of the words in the Hebrew Bible now mean different things than they once did. Yes, that's true, that's why we have translators and scholars. We are also told that it's ridiculous to believe in an Old and New Testament, since this implies that an all-knowing God changed His mind. Not the slightest effort is made to interact with the Christian belief that it was always God's plan to deal with humanity in successive dispensations. We are also told that, if Jesus of Nazareth had wanted to found a new religion with new scriptures, He would certainly have written it Himself or at least made sure it was written in His lifetime; how this is known, we are not told.

A somewhat better argument comes when it is pointed out that there was a human process, after scripture was written, of discussion and debate to determine which books would be accepted into the canon of scripture. This is a slightly more valid point; the process referred to was a real one, but Don Baker seriously suggests that anyone who believes the Bible is God's word must be ignorant of this process. This is simply false. For a Catholic, who believes in the authority of the Church, the role of the Church in canonising Scripture is frequently appealed to as an argument for the authority of the Church. Even among our protestant friends, while I disagree with them on this issue, it is simply not true that anyone with a knowledge of the history of this project lose their belief.

 

The silliest part of the whole argument, however, comes right towards the end. Mr. Barker quotes, uncritically, Paine's assertion that the New Testament could only have been written by people who believed the earth was flat. I really thought this particular piece of silliness had been thrown on the scrap heap long ago. The spherical nature of the earth was well known long before the time of Christ and was universally accepted throughout the Greco-Roman world by the time the New Testament was written. For Mr. Barker to recycle this rubbish is a sign of how lacking his critical judgement is when it comes to any argument against Christianity.
 

I can imagine some readers will suggest this rubbish is not worth the time to refute. In response to this, first, these guys have a substantial following and are worth responding to. Second, I like this show and want to like these guys and I actually expect better from them.