Strange Notions: 10 Best Posts

#10
Im a Muslim But Heres Why I

Admire the Catholic Church
Tamer Nashef
First, allow me to start this short article with what might be deemed a
startling confession: I am not a Catholic, nor am I even a Christian. In fact, I
am a secular Muslim and an avid reader of philosophy and history with an
unswerving commitment to the unmitigated truth no matter where it is
even, nay especially, if it runs counter to commonly held beliefs.
I have spent the last few years researching the history of Christianity,
especially the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, and was shocked to
discover that almost everything we had been taught about Catholicism was
erroneous and apparently affected by anti-Catholic bias. In contradistinction
to what most people both in the West and Middle East think, the Catholic
Church and Church Fathers did not suppress science, reason, and
knowledge. Quite the opposite, in many cases they even encouraged the
acquisition of secular learning and the pursuit of science, and placed a high
premium on mans rational faculties. I was also astonished to discover that
the dark" Middle Ages were not intellectually barren after all. This period
was not one of utter stagnation, superstition, or the persistent persecution of
natural philosophers. In fact, the universitieswhere unhindered scholarly
and intellectual debates were heldwere founded in Europe during the High
Middle Ages. In addition, 12th- and 13th-century Catholic scientists, who
were committed both to their Christian faith and the scientific method, laid
the groundwork for the Scientific Revolution. It is becoming more and more
evident that this revolution, which began with the publication of Nicholas
Copernicus' On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres and Andreas
Vesalius' On the Fabric of the Human Body, was not an abrupt outburst of
StrangeNotions.com
Reason. Faith. Dialogue.
creativity but a continuation of intellectual headway reached in previous

centuries, namely the High Middle Ages. What is equally stunning is the
importance medieval Catholic theologians and philosophers attached to
human intellectual capacities, and their relentless pursuit to create a
synthesis of reason and faith. In a nutshell, years of intensive research have
made me respect and even admire the Catholic Church even though, as I
have said earlier, I hail from a secular Arab family that has taught to
investigate all issues without any pre-conceived dogma and to accept the
truth even if it turns out to be incongruent with generally accepted views.
I feel utmost respect for the work of Catholic monks and monasteries in the
Middle Ages. Their intellectual activities are one of the brightest chapters in
the history of the Catholic Church. The monasteries played a positive role as
centers of teaching, learning, and scholarship, and they can be aptly
described as "proto-universities" (Trombley 58). These monasteries taught
grammar, logic, rhetoric, and later mathematics, music, and astronomy, and
they were "among the most important libraries in the history of Western
thought because they copied, transcribed, and stored valuable texts (58).
While the Catholic Church is persistently accused of destroying classical or
Greco-Roman culture, the fact is that the monasteries should be credited for
"the careful preservation of the works of the classical world and of the
Church Fathers, both of which are central to Western civilization" (Woods
42).
Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular could not have
stifled or destroyed Classical learning because it emerged in a Greco-Roman
environment and as a result it had to have assimilated Greek philosophical
notions, such as Logos, synderesis, the idea of a rationally ordered and
mechanical universe operating according to fixed and consistent laws, etc.
This enabled Christianity to live in peace with Greek/pagan philosophy and
rationalisma crucial accomplishment that Orthodox Sunni Islam has
unfortunately failed to make following the suppression of Mutazalite
thinking (this topic in itself requires a long and thorough study).
StrangeNotions.com
Sometimes I wonder out loud: if the Catholic Church had indeed snuffed out
the Classical tradition, as many scholars claim, then how come many early
and medieval churchmen were conversant with Classical writings? Indeed,
many monks and churchman commanded immense knowledge of classical
texts, especially those by Virgil, Cicero, Pliny, Ovid, Horace, Plato, etc. These
churchmen include, to name but a few, Alcuin (one of the architects of
Emperor Charlemagnes intellectual project), Lupus (805-862), Abbo of
Fluery (950-1004), Desiderius (one of the greatest successors of St Benedict
as the abbot of Monte Cassino and later served as Pope Victor III),
Archbishop Alfano (a monk at Monte Cassino), Gerbert of Aurillac, Saint
Hildebert (Woods 40-41). Clement of Alexandria (150-215), whom Pope
Benedict XVI has described as "one of the pioneers of the dialogue between
faith and reason in the Christian tradition" (16), stressed that the study of
Greek philosophy was not only permissible but necessary for Christian
believers (Kenny 95). In addition to viewing it as "instruction which
prepared for Christian faith", Clement of Alexandria elevated Greek
philosophy to the domain of revelation and compared it to the Old
Testament (Pope Benedict XVI 18). In fact, God had given philosophy to the
Greeks so as to ensure humanity had reached intellectual maturity by the
time of Christ's arrival (Kenny 95). Justin Martyr (100 165) held the Greek
philosophical tradition in high regard as well, viewing it as a legitimate
property of Christians. Both the Old Testament and Greek philosophy are
two paths leading to Christ and therefore there can no contradiction
between Greek philosophical ideas and the gospels (Pope Benedict XVI 910).
To go back to the valuable monastic activities I was discussing, I would add
that in addition to copying and preserving texts, the monks, especially
Cistercian ones, were known for their technological sophistication and
ingenuity. They used waterpower for all kinds of activities (including
crushing wheat and tanning), demonstrated knowledge in metallurgy, and
devised sophisticated clocks. In 996, Gerbert of Aurillac, later known as Pope
Sylvester II, is believed to have built the first clock for the German town of
Magdeburg. For his part, the Benedictine abbot Richard of Wallingford
StrangeNotions.com
designed in the 14th century an astronomical clock, the most sophisticated

one for the next two centuries. Monks also engaged in manual activities that
brought benefits for their human surroundings. For example, they cultivated
lands, drained swamps, cleared (and at other times preserved) forests,
planted trees and vineyards, bred and reared animals, and introduced new
crops, etc. They also produced wine, beer, champagne, and cheese, and
stored up water for distribution in times of draught. They taught irrigation
to peasants in places like Lombardy, and "were the first to work toward
improving cattle breeds, rather than leaving the process to chance" (Woods
31).
The Middle Ages "offered some important antecedents to the Italian
Renaissance," including the Carolingian Renaissance of the 8th and 9th
centuries; the 10th-century Ottonian Renaissance, and 12th-, 13th- century
Renaissance (Trombley 85-86). One of the important intellectual figures of
the Carolingian Renaissance is the Irish Neo-Platonist John Scotus Erigena
(810-877) whom I admire very much. Erigena was well-versed in Greek and
conversant with the writings of both Western and Eastern theologians,
especially St. Augustine, Maximus the Confessor, and Denys the Areopagite.
Erigena translated the writings of Denys the Areopagite into Latin, thus
enabling later medieval theologians, such as St. Bonaventure, to become
familiar with the Greek philosophers work.
What is truly remarkable about Erigena is the high status he accorded
reason. He stressed the harmony between faith and reason because of their
common source, namely God, and encouraged its use to shed light on the
Scriptures and the writings of Church Fathers. In fact, he seems to have seen
reason as an arbiter of the validity of any authority including sacred one:
"Any type of authority that is not confirmed by true reason must be
considered weak...Indeed, there is no true authority other than that which
coincides with the truth, discovered by virtue of reason, even should one be
dealing with an authority recommended and handed down for the use of the
successors of the Holy Fathers" (Pope Benedict XVI 187). He adds: "Let no
authority intimidate you or distract you from what makes you understand
StrangeNotions.com
the conviction obtained through correct rational contemplation. Indeed,

authentic authority never contradicts right reason, nor can the latter ever
contradict a true authority. The one and the other both come indisputably
from the same source, which is divine wisdom" (187). Commenting on these
brilliant passages, Pope Benedict says: "We see here a brave affirmation of
the value of reason, founded on the certainty that the true authority is
reasonable, because God is creative reason" (187). Erigenas emphasis on the
harmony between faith and reason anticipates the philosophy of 11th-, 12th-,
and 13th-century theologians such as Saint Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Peter
Abelard, and others.
I need to say a few words about Gerbert of Aurrillac whom I mentioned
earlier as the maker of a sophisticated clock. He is one of the key figures of
the Ottonian Renaissance and the most erudite scholar in Europe at the time.
His encyclopedic knowledge spanned a broad range of topics, including
mathematics, astronomy, philosophy, logic, Latin literature, music, and
theology. He secured his place in the history of the scientific development of
the West by introducing the abacus or counting board and the Hindu-Arabic
numerals (Huff, The Rise of Early Modern Science 50). He also is credited for
being "the scholar who first brought Arabic science to the West," as he spent
three years in Spain where he may have acquired knowledge of Arabic
scientific work, and "traces of Arabic influence" are manifested in his
astronomical and mathematical texts (Zuccato 192-93). Two years before
becoming a pope, Gerbert received a letter from the German Emperor Otto
III requesting his services and pleading with the great scholar to educate him
and explain a book of arithmetic. Gerbert complied with the request, and
stressed to the emperor that the Holy Roman Empire had a legitimate right
to claim Greek and Roman wisdom as its own (Woods 23).
Like Erigena before him and many church figures after him, Gerbert of
Aurrillac underlined the need to combine faith with learning, knowledge,
and science. He is reported to have said that "[t]he just man lives by faith,
but it is good that he should combine science with faith" and that [t]he
Divinity made a great gift to men in giving them faith while not denying
StrangeNotions.com
them knowledge," adding that "those who do not possess it [knowledge] are
called fools" (23). It is this profound commitment to reason that has made
me admire Catholic philosophers and theologians.
Another Christian scholar and philosopher who has commanded my respect
is Saint Anselm (1033-1109), the Archbishop of Canterbury. Anselm has
been described as "the father of the Scholastic tradition" (Stokes 48) and "the
most important philosopher of the eleventh century" (Kenny 119). His
balanced commitment to faith and reason is evident in a saying attributed to
him: "It seems to me a case of negligence if after becoming firm in our faith,
we do not strive to understand what we believe" (Watson 330). Rather than
accept Gods existence purely on the basis of faith, Anselm sought to devise
rational arguments for the existence of God, one of which is known as the
Ontological Argument. He also came up with a rational argument for the
Christian doctrine of Incarnation. Like Aquinas after him, Anselm saw
reason as a legitimate tool for defending and justifying the faith.
Anselm's basic definition of God, which he says both the believer and nonbeliever would agree on, is the foundation upon which he constructs his
ontological proof. He defines God as "a being than which nothing greater
can be thought." God is a perfect being and the greatest entity imaginable or
conceivable. It follows that such a being has to exist because existence is a
necessary attribute of perfection. If God didn't exist, He would not be perfect
and this would contradict the premise of the argument. Something that
exists is surely greater than that which does not. If God is the greatest entity
possible then He must exist because otherwise He wouldn't be. In other
words, "the existence of God would seem to follow necessarily from the
definition. For it would be a contradiction to suppose that God is on the one
hand something than which nothing greater can be thought of and on the
other hand does not exist" (Stokes 49).
Anselm's argument drew a response from a Benedictine monk called
Gaunilo who claimed that one could conceive of the greatest island
imaginable and, if Anselm's reasoning were correct, it would follow that the
StrangeNotions.com
existence of such an island is necessary because otherwise it would not be the

greatest island imaginable. Gaunilo charged that Anselm's argument
"licenses the existence of all sorts of imaginary objects and must therefore be
faulty" (49). Anselm responded by saying that his definition only applies to
God and therefore it cannot be used in relation to other beings or objects.
The exchange or debate between Anselm and Gaunilo suggested that
nothing lay outside the realm of intellectual inquiry including the issue of
God's existence; it "assumed that one could talk about God in terms that
were 'reasonable', that God could be treated like anything else..." (Watson
368).
Anselm also set out to justify the Incarnation or the central Christian idea
that God became incarnate in man. Adam's original sin was an offense
against God and the scale of atonement had to be congruent with the
severity of the offense. Man as a finite being could not by dint of his own
efforts expiate the infinite sin against God and therefore needed divine
assistance or intervention. Kenny explains: "Satisfaction can only be
adequate if it is made by one who is human (and therefore heir of Adam)
and one who is divine (and can therefore make infinite recompense). Hence
the incarnation of God is necessary if original sin is to be wiped out and the
human race is to be redeemed" (121).
No essay on the rational tradition of the Catholic Church and the place of
reason in the West can skip the thought of Dominican theologian and
philosopher Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). His importance lies in the bold
attempt to stand up to the challenges Aristotelian thought supposedly posed
to Christianity (especially the idea of an eternal universe) and to dispel the
fears Aristotle's philosophy had instilled in some ecclesiastical quarters.
Aquinas sought to reconcile reason and faith, Christianity and Aristotle, thus
incorporating Aristotelian elements into Christian theology. Not only did
Aquinas establish common ground between Christianity and Aristotle, but
he also found Aristotelian logic a useful tool for defending the Christian
doctrine. Like his teacher Albertus Magnus, Aquinas admired Aristotle,
seeing that the Greek master's philosophy was "the greatest achievement of
StrangeNotions.com
human reason to be produced without the benefit of Christian inspiration"

(Watson 330).
Like many theologians of his time, Aquinas advocated the unfettered and
free pursuit of knowledge. It is incumbent on human beings to pursue
knowledge wherever it leads because it reveals God's design and enhances
man's knowledge of Him (331). There are only three truths that must be
accepted because they cannot be proved rationally: the creation of the
universe, the Trinity, and Jesus' role in our salvation (370). Any other truth,
however, should not just be accepted, but it has to be demonstrated and
proved by reason. Osborne argues that Aquinas sought "to reinstate reason
as a legitimate and worthy element in human nature" (220). The conclusions
reached by human reason can never contradict or clash with the Christian
doctrine because they both emanate from the same source, God.
This Dominican philosopher also revived the ancient Greek idea that the
universe is imbued with order and purpose and that man is a rational
creature. God is a rational and just creator who laid down the rational order
of the universe and bestowed reason on man. Explaining Aquinas' thought,
Osborne says: "Since both order in the universe and reason in the human
mind were deliberate creations of God, it was a legitimate enterprise, indeed
a Christian duty, to use the gift of reason to explore the meaning of God's
creation" (221).
As evidence of his commitment to reason, Aquinas tried to prove God's
existence through rational arguments unaided by revelation, known as the
Five Ways (the last of which, the teleological argument, best demonstrates
Aristotle's influence). Stokes has described the Five Ways, which appeared in
the voluminous work Summa Theologica, as "the clearest and most succinct
attempt to prove the existence of God by means of logical argument" (51).
These five proofs show that Aquinas viewed reason as a legitimate tool for
proving what is arguably the most important article of faith.
In addition to Aquinas, Peter Abelard (1079-1142) is considered one of the
icons of rational Christian thought and one of the masters of logic. Huff
StrangeNotions.com
opines that "it is virtually impossible to pick up any major work on the
renaissance of the twelfth century dealing with law, logic, ethics, philosophy,
reason, and conscience, as well as the founding of the universities, that does
not give a major (and positive) role to the teachings and writings of Abelard"
(140). Abelard is primarily remembered for formulating dialectical logic
aimed at solving or reconciling what he saw as contradictions in Biblical
passages and statements by religious authorities. The dialectical method
consists of the following parts: (1) a questio presenting the contradictory
passages in a text (2) a propositio spelling out reasons and arguments in
support of one position (3) an oppositio stating reasons and arguments in
favor of the contrary view (4) a solutio or conclusio resolves the conflict
between the propositio and the oppositio (128). Abelard also emphasized the
unity of truth and the harmony of its diverse manifestations, saying: "Truth
cannot be opposed to truth" (141). His commitment to reason and logic did
not in any way detract from his faith as evident in his famous assertion: "I do
not wish to be a philosopher if it means conflicting with Paul nor to be an
Aristotelian if it cuts me off from Christ" (141).
The Unprecedented Translation Activity

Those who still insist on calling the Middle Ages a dark period in the
history of Europe choose to ignore the magnificent translation activity in
Spain following the expulsion of the Muslim occupiers. There is no doubt
that medieval Muslims, with the assistance of Nestorian Christian scholars
(such as Hunayn Ibn Ishaq, his son Ishaq, and nephew Hubyash, in addition
to Abu-Bishr Matta Ibn Yunus, Yahya ibn Adi' the Logician, Isa ibn Zur'a,
and many others), had preserved Greek texts that had been lost in the West
as a result of the Barbarian invasions and disintegration of the Western
Roman Empire. Also, many Muslim scholars such as Ibn al-Haytham (a
pioneer of the scientific experimental method), Kamal al-Din al-Farisi, Ibn
Sina, Al-Razi, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Ibn al-Rushd, and others had produced
excellent scientific and philosophical works. Following the liberation of some
Spanish territories, Latin scholars flocked to these areas and collaborated
StrangeNotions.com
with Spanish Christians (known as Mozarabics, those Christians who

adopted Arabic culture) and Jews, producing translations of Arabic and
Greek texts. In most cases, the Jewish and Christian scholars translated the
Arabic texts into Spanish and their Western counterparts in turn translated
them into Latin (Watson 279-80). This fruitful cooperation resulted in the
translation of Ibn al-Haytham'sOptics, the algebra of Al-Khwarizmi,
Euclid's Elements, the medical writings of Ibn Sina (Canon), Galen, and
Hippocrates, as well as Ptolemy's Almagest (Huff 181). This "unprecedented
translation activity" or monumental translation feat" eventually brought the
corpus of Aristotle and his commentators, as well as other Greek and Arabic
works, into Europe "in scarcely a hundred years" (180).
In Barcelona, Italian mathematician and astronomer Plato of Tivoli
collaborated with Savasorda (a Jewish mathematician, astronomer and
philosopher) in translating Arabic texts on astrology and astronomy
(Watson 279). The center of translation was Toledo, where Archbishop
Raymond spearheaded a major translation activity. Examples of productive
cooperation between Latin and Iberian scholars include Gerard of Cremona
and Gallipus (Ghaleb); as well as Dominicus Gundisalvi and the Jew
Avendeath, also known as Ibn Dawwud. Two Englishmen, Adelard of Bath
and Robert of Chester played a key role in this activity as well, as the former
translated Euclid and Al-Khawarizmi while the latter is "notable for
producing the first Latin version of the Qur'an and the first translation of AlKhawarizmi's algebra" (280). As a result of this translation activity, by the
close of the 13th century, the bulk of Arabic (and therefore Greek) science
had been transmitted to Europe (280). From the Iberian Peninsula, this
knowledge passed into southern French towns and from there to Liege
(among other places) and on to Germany and England (280).
The 12th- and 13th-century Renaissance

This translation activity had the ultimate effect of sparking or igniting what
is known as the 12th- and 13th-century Renaissance, which included brilliant
StrangeNotions.com
Catholic scholars and scientists, such as Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus,

Robert Grosseteste, Jean Buridan, William of Conches, Thierry of Chartres,
Peter Abelard, High of Saint Victor, Thomas Bradwardine, Witelo, and
many others.
What characterizes their thought is (1) the idea that the universe is a
rationally structured sphere or machine that operates according to
consistent, intelligible, and discernable patterns. In other words, there is
regularity, order, harmony, and purpose in nature. God is the ultimate or
primary cause, but there are secondary causes independent of God that man
is capable of discovering and understanding. The laws of nature operate
independently of God and on the basis of cause and effect (natural causality).
God is a loving, rational, and beautiful creator who does not interfere with
the laws He has laid down. In fact, it would be inconsistent with His nature
to tamper with these laws or to create randomness and arbitrariness in the
cosmos.
Hugh of Saint Victor, for example, perceived orderliness and unity in the
universe where all parts are somehow interconnected: "The ordered
disposition of things from top to bottom in the network of this universe...is
so arranged that, among all the things that exist, nothing is unconnected or
separated by nature, or external" (Huff 99-100). He espoused a mechanistic
view of the visible universe: "As there are two works, the work of creation
and the work of restoration, so there are two worlds, visible and invisible.
The visible world is this machine, this universe, that we see with our bodily
eyes" (100). For his part, Adelard of Bath hailed the "amazing rational beauty
of the universe" (Woods 87) while Thierry of Chartres (d. 1150) asserted that
"the world would seem to have causes for its existence, and also to have come
into existence in a predictable sequence of time. This existence and this
order can be shown to be rational" (Huff 100).
(2) God has endowed man with rational faculties, and as a rational creature,
man has the ability to decipher the laws of nature and to unravel the
mysteries of the universe. Adelard of Bath said that [i]t is through reason
StrangeNotions.com
that we are men, adding: "Although man is not armed by nature nor is he
the swiftest in flight, yet he has that which is better by far and worth more -that is, reason. For by possession of this function he exceeds the beasts to
such a degree that he subdues them...You see, therefore, how much the gift
of reason surpasses mere physical equipment" (102).
Man also possesses an innate moral faculty or agency that allows him to
reach moral truths, solve moral dilemmas, and distinguish between good
and evil unaided by revelation (106-108). Furthermore, man has the rational
capacity to understand the scriptures and to decipher their mysteries without
the aid of revelation (102).
The Catholic view of a rationally ordered universe shot through with
purpose and of man as a reasonable creature capable of predicting natures
operations encouraged medieval Europeans to engage in scientific activities
and paved the way for the Scientific Revolution.
It is also noteworthy that this mechanistic view of the universe leaves little
room for miracles. In contrast to the skewed belief that Catholicism is
riddled with nothing but superstitious beliefs and myths completely
detached from reality, here we have Catholic philosophers who seem to
believe that miracles are not a norm or a regular occurrence, but a departure
from the fixed laws of nature.Miracles do happen, but only against the
backdrop of regularity and order. For example, Adelard of Bath charged that
"we must listen to the very limits of human knowledge and only when this
utterly breaks down should we refer things to God" (87). On the
interpretation of Scripture, Andrew of St. Victor argued that the interpreter
"should realize this: in expounding Scripture, when the event described
admits of no naturalistic explanation, then and only then should we have
recourse to miracles" (Huff, Science and Metaphysics in the Three Religions
of the Book 189).
(3) a strong commitment to doubt, rationalism, and the unhindered,
unfettered search for knowledge, learning, and the "truth": Hugh of Saint
StrangeNotions.com
Victor encouraged his students to learn everything because later youll see
that nothing is superfluous (Watson, 330). He is reported to have also said:
Learn willingly what you do not know from everyone. The person who has
sought to learn something from everyone will be wiser than them all. The
person who receives something from everyone ends by becoming the richest
of all" (Pope Benedict XVI 220). Peter of Poitiers, chancellor of the
University of Paris, went as far as saying that "although certainty exists,
nonetheless it is our duty to doubt the articles of faith, and to seek, and
discuss" (Watson 367). The great logician Peter Abelard said the search for
the truth is founded on doubt: We seek through doubt and by seeking we
perceive the truth" (366). John of Salisbury, bishop of Chartres, saw reason as
central to understanding and knowledge: It was the mind, which by means
of the ratio, went beyond the experience of the senses and made it
intelligible, then, by means of the intellectus, related things to their divine
cause and comprehended the order of creation, and ultimately arrived at
true knowledge, sapentia (367).
(4) the harmony between the truths of revelation and truths of reason, as
both reason and faith originate from the same source, God.
(5) experimentation and observation as the basis for investigating the
physical world: Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus, and Robert Grosseteste can
be seen as the precursors or forerunners of the scientific method in the West.
These three scientists/priests embraced an empirical or experimental method
that prioritized empirical data over theory. Bacon stressed that "the strongest
argument proves nothing, so long as its conclusions are not verified by
experience" (Woods 94). He added: "Without experiment, nothing can be
adequately known. An argument proves theoretically, but does not give the
credence necessary to remove all doubt; nor will the mind repose in the clear
view of the truth, unless it finds it by way of experiment (94). Echoing the
same sentiments, Albertus Magnus said the aim of natural philosophy or
science is "not simply to accept the statements of others, that is, what is
narrated by people, but to investigate the causes that are at work in nature
StrangeNotions.com
for themselves" (95). In science "only experience provides certainty" (Watson

369).
For the sake of intellectual accuracy, I would have to add that the three
Christian scientists/theologians mentioned above were influenced by the
Islamic medieval tradition of scientific experimentation and observation.
Huff points out that "the scientific world of Islam was rich in experimental
ideas...in optics, astronomy, and medicine" (218). Ibn al-Haytham and his
successor Kamal al-Din al-Farisi performed experiments in optics while
.Avicenna's Canon, which held sway over the medical field in Europe for
centuries, laid down rules for testing drugs. Al-Razi refused to accept
statements that had not been validated or verified by experiments and
observations (216-18).
The experimental method of both Catholic and Muslim scientists stands in
contrast with the predominantly theoretical, contemplative, and abstract
approach of ancient Greek and Hellenistic scientists. Greek science was
founded on all-embracing or overarching theories, and instances that
challenged these theories were either brushed aside or forced to somehow
conform with these theories. One medical theory, which "would bedevil the
practice of medicine for more than two millennia" (Kriwaczek 199), claimed
that illness was a result of the imbalance of the four bodily humors: blood,
black bile, yellow bile, and phlegm. Aristotle had argued that an object twice
as heavy as another object would fall twice as fast if both objects were
dropped from the same height. This statement remained unchallenged for
centuries even though a simple experiment would have proved him wrong.
Though Aristotle collected empirical data for his studies on biology, he
"persisted in believing that natural philosophy could be based on purely
rational, as opposed to strictly empirical, investigation" (Woods 81). In The
Republic, Plato was even more committed to the theoretical and abstract
approach than Aristotle: "We shall approach astronomy, as we do geometry,
by way of problems, and ignore what is in the sky, if we intend to get a real
grasp of astronomy" (Freeman xvii). This Greek attitude to science may have
been influenced by Plato's idea of the Forms, namely that sense perceptions
StrangeNotions.com
do not convey reality and could only lead to opinion; what we see with our
eyes are mere shadows or images of their ideal forms which can only be
accessed through contemplation or reflection rather than observation.
Aristotle also made a distinction between two types of knowledge: "techne"
and "episteme. Techne is knowledge of recurring natural patterns or
knowledge derived from experience, such as that the sun rises every day,
clouds produce rain, etc. Aristotle defined episteme as knowledge that comes
from the application of reason and the search for causes (knowledge of the
"why" or "how" of things; knowledge of causes; how/why clouds produce
rain, why the sun rises every day, etc). In the Greco-Roman world, scholars
pursued the acquisition of episteme knowledge rather than techne (Osborne
285-6).
The Establishment of Universities

The establishment of universities in Europe during the Middle Ages is
sufficient to debunk the myth of the Dark Ages. The first European
universities were set up in Bologna (1088), Paris (1090), and Oxford (1096).
Subsequently, a spate of other universities cropped up, especially in
European cities such as Montpellier, Salamanca, and Cambridge. Certain
universities were famous for their instruction in particular subjects: the
University of Salerno was famous for its medical studies; Paris for theology
and logic; Bologna for civil and canon law (Irnerius and Gratian taught
there); and Oxford for mathematics and the natural sciences.
What is striking about these institutions of learning is that they incorporated
into their curricula the natural sciences and the newly discovered texts of the
Greek ancients and Arabs, especially Aristotle, Ibn al-Haytham, Euclid,
Ptolmey, and others. Science was deeply embedded in medieval university
education, and that is why Huff goes as far as saying that the medieval
universities laid "the foundations for the study of modern science" (180). In
other words, the study of science underwent a process of institutionalization
during the High Middle Ages, thus enabling its dissemination. What is also
StrangeNotions.com
interesting is that European universities were legally autonomous entities

that provided their students and masters with legal protection and
intellectual freedom to pursue their studies undisturbed. They created a
protected and autonomous sphere where scholars could freely engage in
intellectual and scientific inquiries. As corporate entities, the universities
enjoyed several rights and privileges, such as legal autonomy from the
church and secular rulers and the right to legislate their own laws and to run
their own affairs without outside interference. University scholars enjoyed
several privileges and prerogatives, such as exemption from civil duties, local
taxes, and the jurisdiction of the town in which the university was located.
They also enjoyed protection from the potential rage of the masses (Huff
234).
What struck me the most, however, is that the papacy in many cases played a
key role in the establishment of universities and in providing a free academic
environment. By the time of the Reformation, 81 universities had already
been set up, 33 of which had received papal charters and 20 had obtained
both imperial and papal ones (Woods 48). In 1254, Pope Innocent IV
conferred upon the University of Oxford the privilege to award degrees
without papal, imperial, or royal intervention. Pope Gregory IX issued in
1233 a document entitling students with a master's degree to teach anywhere
in the world, thereby "encouraging the dissemination of knowledge and
fostering the idea of an international scholarly community" (49). Two years
earlier, this same pope issued a bull protecting the legal and academic
autonomy of the University of Paris and giving students and teachers the
right to go on strike if their rights were infringed upon. Pope Honorius III
acted similarly when he interfered to protect the autonomy and
independence of the scholars at the University of Bologna. In other cases,
popes protected university students from the rage and abuse of the local
townspeople by granting them the benefit of clergy. This meant that they
had the right to have their cases heard in ecclesiastical rather than secular
courts. Popes like Boniface VIII, Clement V, Clement VI, and Gregory IX
are recoded to have intervened to pressure the universities into paying the
salaries of the professors (48-51). Pope Innocent IV hailed the universities as
StrangeNotions.com
"rivers of science which water and make fertile the soil of the universal
Church" while Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) described this institution as
"lanterns shinning in the house of God" (65).
It is worth pointing out that the Catholic Churchs sponsorship of scientific
activities persisted well after the Middle Ages and many Catholic priests
continued making significant and often trailblazing scientific contributions.
For example, Nicolas Steno (16381686) is considered the father of geology;
Athanasius Kircher (16021680) the father of Egyptology; Roger Boscovich
(1711 1787) the father of atomic theory; Gregor Mendel (1822 1884), the
founder of the modern science of genetics; and Francesco Lana-Terzi (1631
1687), the father of aviation. Giovanni Battista Riccioli (1598 1671) is
credited with computing the acceleration of falling bodies while Francesco
Maria Grimaldi (1618 1663) discovered the diffraction of light and
measured the height of lunar mountains and clouds. Father Nicolas Zucchi is
considered the inventor of the reflecting telescope and Father J.B.
Macelwane (18831956) introduced the first textbook on Seismology in
America. All this valuable information is taken from Woods highly
informative and well-researched book, How the Catholic Church Built
Western Civilization.
I have not written this essay to whitewash Catholic history. Nor am I
claiming that the Catholic Church has been nothing but infallible or that its
record has been immaculate. My aim was to express admiration for the
prodigious achievements that Catholicism and the Catholic Church deserve
credit forcredit that is not often given to it due to deep-seated bias and
firmly established myths.
StrangeNotions.com
#9
Stephen Fry, Job, and the Cross of

Jesus
Bishop Robert Barron
The British writer, actor, and comedian Stephen Fry is featured in a
YouTube video which has gone viral: over 5 million views as of this moment.
As you may know, Fry is, like his British counterparts Christopher Hitchens
and Richard Dawkins, a fairly ferocious atheist, who has made a name for
himself in recent years as a very public debunker of all things religious. In
the video in question, he articulates precisely what he would say to God if,
upon arriving at the pearly gates, he discovered that he was mistaken in his
atheism. Fry says that he would ask God why he made a universe in which
children get bone cancer, a universe in which human beings suffer
horrifically and without justification. If such a monstrous, self-absorbed, and
stupid God exists, Fry insists, he would decidedly not want to spend eternity
with him. Now there is much more to Frys rantit goes on for several
minutesbut you get the drift.
To those who feel that Stephen Fry has delivered a devastating blow to
religious belief, let me say simply this: this objection is nothing new to
Christians. St. Paul, Origen, Augustine, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton and
many, many other Christian theologians up and down the centuries have
dealt with it. In fact, one of the pithiest expressions of the problem was
formulated by St. Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. The great
Catholic philosopher argued that if one of two contraries be infinite, the
other would be altogether destroyed. Yet God is called infinitely good.
Therefore, if God exists, there should be no evil. But there is evil. Thus it
StrangeNotions.com
certainly seems to follow that God does not exist. Thomas thereby conveys
all of the power of Frys observations without the histrionics. And of course,
all of this subtle theological wrestling with the problem of suffering is
grounded, finally, in the most devastating rant ever uttered against God, a
rant found not in an essay of some disgruntled atheist philosopher but rather
in the pages of the Bible. Im talking about the book of Job.
According to the familiar story, Job is an innocent man, but he is
nevertheless compelled to endure every type of suffering. In one fell swoop,
he loses his wealth, his livelihood, his family, and his health. A group of
friends console him and then attempt to offer theological explanations for
his pain. But Job dismisses them all and, with all the fury of Stephen Fry,
calls out God, summoning him, as it were, into the dock to explain himself.
Out of the desert whirlwind God then speaksand it is the longest speech by
God in the Scriptures: Where were you when I laid the foundations of the
earth? Tell me, if you know.Who shut within doors the seawhen I made
the clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling bands? Have you
ever in your lifetime commanded the morning and shown the dawn its
place (Job 38: 4, 8-10)? God goes on, taking Job on a lengthy tour of the
mysteries, conundrums, and wonders of the universe, introducing him to
ever wider contexts, situating his suffering within frameworks of meaning
that he had never before considered. In light of Gods speech, I would first
suggest to Stephen Fry that the true God is the providential Lord of all of
space and all of time.
Secondly, I would observe that none of us can see more than a tiny swatch of
that immense canvas on which God works. And therefore I would urge him
to reconsider his confident assertion that the suffering of the worldeven
the most horrific and seemingly unjustifiedis necessarily without meaning.
Imagine that one page of Tolkiens Lord of the Rings was torn away and
allowed to drift on the wind. Imagine further that that page became, in the
course of several months, further ripped and tattered so that only one
paragraph of it remained legible. And finally imagine that someone who had
never heard of Tolkiens rich and multi-layered story came, by chance, upon
StrangeNotions.com
that single paragraph. Would it not be the height of arrogance and

presumption for that person to declare that those words made not a lick of
sense? Would it not be akin to someone, utterly ignorant of higher
mathematics, declaring that a complex algebraic formula, coherent in itself
but opaque to him, is nothing but gibberish? Given our impossibly narrow
point of view, how could any of us ever presume to pronounce on the
meaninglessness of what happens in the world?
A third basic observation I would make to Mr. Fry is this: once we grant that
God exists, we hold to the very real possibility of a life beyond this one. But
this implies that no evil in this world, even death itself, is of final
significance. Is it terrible that innocent children die of wasting diseases? Well
of course. But is it finally and irreversibly terrible? Is it nothing but terrible?
By no means! It might in fact be construed as an avenue to something
unsurpassably good.
In the last analysis, the best rejoinder to Frys objection is a distinctively
Christian one, for Christians refer to the day on which Jesus was unjustly
condemned, abandoned by his friends, brutally scourged, paraded like an
animal through the streets, nailed to an instrument of torture and left to die
as Good Friday. To understand that is to have the ultimate answer to Job
and to Stephen Fry.
StrangeNotions.com
#8
The Crusades: Urban Legends and

Truth
Doug Beaumont
Although many college students today are ignorant concerning the
Holocaust from only a generation ago, many seem to think they know
enough about the Crusades to use them as an argument for the evil of
religion. Like the tired refrain that religion is anti-science even though
only one example is usually offered (and it is mistaken), the Crusades are
often the example listed for the equally wearisome complaint that religion
causes more wars than any other factor (a laughable falsehood).
The Crusades are often pictured as a series of bloodthirsty religious wars
comparable to modern-day jihad terrorism. However, while there certainly
were misdeeds performed during the Crusades and these should be
remembered and judged accordingly the larger issue is whether or not the
Church in general or even the Crusades in particular were at fault for
such acts. Hitler and his Nazi state can be properly blamed for the atrocities
of the Holocaust, for these vile acts flowed directly from his teachings and
commands. But were the Crusades equally to blame for the evil performed
while they were enacted, or are they, like other Christian Urban Legends,
misunderstood and misrepresented?
Bad Press and Modern Myths
Thomas F. Madden, Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of
History at Saint Louis University, says that,
StrangeNotions.com
During the Middle Ages you could not find a Christian in Europe
who did not believe that the Crusades were an act of highest good.
Even the Muslims respected the ideals of the Crusades and the piety of
the men who fought them. But that all changed with the Protestant
Reformation. For Martin Luther . . . argued that to fight the Muslims
was to fight Christ himself, for it was he who had sent the Turks to
punish Christendom for its faithlessness. . . . It was in the
Enlightenment of the eighteenth century that the current view of the
Crusades was born.
Even after the Reformation / Enlightenment period, the Crusades were not
looked upon in a negative light. Even Muslims showed little interest in the
Crusades before it became politically expedient after the West declared
Israel a nation once again. Only in the last couple generations have the
Crusades became the whipping wars in anti-religion propaganda.
Crusade History
The Crusades generally refers to the set of seven distinct campaigns over a
150 year period (A.D. 1099 to 1254) that were enacted to liberate the Holy
Land from Muslim control. Since the birth of Islam under Muhammad,
Muslims had fought to bring the world under their control. Islam got off to a
weak start under Muhammad until violence became the modus operandi.
After a few centuries of conquest, though, Islam had spread to North Africa,
the Middle East, Asia Minor, and into Spain. By the 11th century, the Seljuk
Turks had taken control of Palestine and closed Jerusalem to both Jews and
Christians. The Muslim invaders attacked Constantinople (the capitol of the
Eastern Roman Empire and the Eastern Church), and were headed into
Europe, before the first Crusade was called by Pope Urban II in 1095 to
defend the Christian West.
The word Crusade was not actually used during this time, now was war
since these campaigns were considered more of a religious pilgrimage. After
StrangeNotions.com
the 12th century, the word was used to designate those fighting on croisade
a French term meaning the way of the cross." During the First Crusade,
Jerusalem was successfully recaptured. Crusader territories were established
that the Second Crusade (1147-1149) was called to reinforce. By 1191,
Jerusalem and many of these Crusader territories had fallen back into
Muslim hands, so a Third Crusade was called to attempt recovery. This led
to the famous clash between the Muslim leader Saladin and Richard the
Lionhearted (who was not able to regain Jerusalem from the Muslim forces).
The Fourth Crusade was launched in 1202, but, for various reasons, ended
up coming against Constantinople itself. This divided both Empire and
Church, and the East would never forgive the West for the atrocities that
occurred (which sadly mirrored previous atrocities from the East). The Fifth
Crusade started in 1217 in Egypt largely going nowhere. The Sixth
Crusade in 1228 was directed back toward Palestine. It was successful, but
short-lived. The and Seventh Crusade lasted from 1248-1254, with Islamic
forces destroying the remnants of the Crusader territories. Crusading came
to an end shortly thereafter.
Urban Legends
The major issues people cite concerning the Crusades (when they can cite
any at all) often involve some of the urban legends surrounding them. It is
thought that Muslims were the innocent party and the Crusades instigated
their hatred of the West, that Crusaders massacred innocent Jews and even
other Christians, that children were sent to war, and that all of this was done
to get rich. Perhaps worst of all, the Crusaders thought they would get away
with it because the Pope promised them forgiveness of any sin committed
while on Crusade. Like most urban legends, these falsehoods are based on
only barely true, mostly misunderstood or misrepresented grounds.
Aggression
The Crusades were not simply unprovoked aggression as noted above, they
StrangeNotions.com
were defensive moves to protect Christendom from Muslim invasion.

Muslims had been attacking Christians for more than 450 years before the
First Crusade. Further, the idea that the Crusades also sparked Muslim
hatred of the West is a historical falsehood. the Crusades did not do much
damage to the Islamic forces, and not much notice was given to the Crusades
by Muslims for several centuries. Muslims did not even seem to take active
interest in the Crusades until the early 20th Century.
Massacres
It has been said that when the Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099 they
massacred every man, woman, and child in the city until the streets ran
ankle deep with the blood. History and science show this to be poetic
hyperbole. A contemporary Muslim source has been discovered that puts the
number of the slain at three thousand. Was there violence? Absolutely. In
that time, a city that had to be taken by force belonged to the victorious
invaders including people. This barbaric idea actually helped lessen
damaging resistance (read Josephus for what happens when this goes wrong)
and so served something of a cultural purpose. Thus, while it was a tragedy
by todays standards (although one might wonder at what people in that
time might think of our war tactics today), it was not uncommon back then.
Further, Muslim cities that surrendered to the Crusaders were left
untouched, the people retained their property, and they were allowed to
worship freely.
Anti-Semitism
No Crusade was ever called against the Jewish people. Sadly, there were
unprovoked attacks on Jewish settlements by some rogue Crusaders, but the
Church actually spoke out against them and some local bishops, clergy, and
laity attempted to defend the Jews against them. Again, this is comparable to
modern warfare sometimes soldiers go off and commit horrible acts
during war but that is not an indictment on the legitimacy of the war itself,
StrangeNotions.com
nor of the ruling authority (provided it did not command nor overlook such
acts).
Riches
Christians did not go on crusade in order to plunder Muslims or get rich.
Becoming a soldier was extremely expensive, and claiming an enemys
treasure was the usual way of financing war in that day. Many crusading
knights ended in bankruptcy. The failure of the Fourth Crusade is often
claimed to have been caused by lack of funds. The Seventh Crusade
cost more than six times the annual revenue of the crown. Moreover, the
casualty rate for crusaders were very high some say as high as 75 percent.
The prospects for survival were low, much less getting wealthy.
Children
Ironically, the so-called Childrens Crusade of 1212 was neither a crusade
nor was it made up of children. Due to religious enthusiasm, some German
youth (most what 20th Century westerners would call adolescents)
proclaimed themselves Crusaders and began a march to the Mediterranean
sea. Fortunately for them, the sea failed to miraculously dry up to allow them
to cross over to the Holy Land for free. The Pope responded that he did not
call this Crusade, and told them to go back home.
Indulgences
Another famous urban legend surrounding the Crusades is even found
among Christians. Evangelical scholar Ergun Caner criticizes the Pope for
promising, If you go and kill the infidel, you will be forgiven immediately
Paradise, and concludes that, There is fundamentally, no difference
between bin Laden, in that case, and the Crusades. This is a gross
misrepresentation.
StrangeNotions.com
A Bull of the Crusade granted indulgences to those who took part in the
crusades for all penitential practices incurred by the crusaders provided
they confess their sins. These indulgences were similar to those that had
historically been granted to the faithful for helping to build churches,
hospitals, orphanages, and monasteries. Unlike the Muslims guaranteed
ticket to Paradise for dying in jihad, an indulgence is not a permission to
commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any
power. Indulgences cannot get anyone out of Hell. It is not the forgiveness of
the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven.* Rather,
indulgences are given for the remission of the temporal punishment due for
sin that has been forgiven but not yet expunged by penance. Thus it was the
temporal penances associated with forgiveness that were to be remitted.
The promise of ultimate forgiveness of sins required a contrite heart and was
offered ahead of time as an assurance that should a faithful Crusader die
while on Crusade, his final absolution (last rites) was already in place. The
characterization of the remission of temporary, purgatorial sufferings of an
already-forgiven and Heaven-bound Christian to the singular guarantee of
Islamic Paradise for a Muslim assassin who dies in Jihad is fundamentally
flawed. The Crusades were presented as penitential acts of devotion, not
get-out-of-hell-free cards.
Holy War?
To even tacitly admit that the Crusades were actions motivated by loyalty to
Christianity, rewarded by papal indulgences, and sometimes led by the
Church, may seem incredible to our modern Western mindset, but it was
not unusual at the time. The Church at that time had the political authority
and responsibility to protect the West. By the time of the first Crusade,
Muslims had already been attacking the Christian West for many centuries.
Something eventually was going to be done.
But were the Crusades really religious wars? Clearly not all battles between
religious groups are over religion, any more than they are battles over
StrangeNotions.com
language. Much like the Catholic-Protestant battles in Ireland, it simply is

the case that some territories are nearly coextensive with certain faith groups
(or linguistic groups, or racial groups, or political groups). If the Muslims
had invaded India, perhaps wed be discussing the Hindu Crusades but
they invaded the Holy Land and had their sites set on Christian Europe.
Religious motivation was involved in a big way, of course, but the Crusades
were not violent means of spreading religion they were responses to
Islams actions. Further, not all battles are wars. If a city gets attacked by
invaders, the people can protect themselves and their city, or help may be
sent from another city, without a formal declaration of war.
Just War?
Unfortunately, the Crusades are often simply lumped in with religious
wars and treated according to whatever standard one uses to judge such
events. Ergun Caner compares the Christian Crusades to Islamic Jihads. He
believes that there was a fundamental quantum shift that took place at the
calling of the Crusades. Up until the Crusades, we had operated under a just
war criteria. Caner complains that, unlike the Iraq conflict for example,
Pope Urban [II] crossed the line from a just war, in Latin bellum iustum
to holy war, or bellum sacrum. Caner goes on to criticize the Crusades for
not being called by a secular authority, not distinguishing between
combatants (he gives no justification for this claim), and for desiring to kill
the infidel instead of convert the infidel. This seems to be a flawed analogy
though, as the Crusades were a defensive act against an aggressor not a
formal war.
But even if one considers the Crusades wars, Just War Theory would not
necessarily rule against them. Augustines criteria for a just war are that it be
called by a right authority (Jus ad Bellum) and conducted in the right way
(Jus in Bello). These criteria were commented on by Thomas Aquinas, who
said the following:
StrangeNotions.com
First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to

be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare
war(Romans 13:4)and for this reason Augustine says, The
natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the
power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who
hold the supreme authority."
There is nothing here requiring a secular authority. Further, it should be
noted that the Pope, at this time in history, was not simply a religious
leader of some sect (like Osama bin Laden). The Pope sat at the head of the
Christian world a world that had been under attack for centuries and the
Crusade he called was to come to the defense of the Christian world (not
simply to attack infidels whom he happened to disagree with).
"Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked,
should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault.
Wherefore Augustine says, A just war is wont to be described as one that
avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to
make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has
seized unjustly.
It was appropriate for Christians to defend against attacks, and to try to
regain lands which their enemy had seized and desecrated. The Muslims
were the cause of this problem, and had been for centuries, and defense of
oneself or ones brothers is certainly just.
"Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful
intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the
avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says, True religion looks upon as
peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement,
or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evildoers, and of uplifting the good.
StrangeNotions.com
The Crusades might not have been called for the conversion of the infidel,
but they need not have been to be just. Defending ones life or land is reason
enough to fight and to the degree that that was intended by the Crusaders,
they were in the right.
Conclusion
Although many bad things happened during the Crusades, these were
not called for by the governing authority. Nor, as it is commonly claimed,
were sins committed while on crusade simply forgiven by virtue of their
being committed while on crusade. Evil acts were committed during the
Crusades because the Crusades were battles fought by fallen humans, and
bad things happen in such circumstances. The evil of misdeeds done in a
religious campaign might be more critically accounted, but they are not
necessarily more unusual.
Finally, no misdeeds can be properly blamed on religion unless, of course, a
given religion approves of such things.
StrangeNotions.com
#7
Einstein and God

Bishop Robert Barron
It was recently revealed that, toward the end of his life, Albert Einstein wrote
a letter in which he dismissed belief in God as superstitious and
characterized the stories in the Bible as childish. During a time when atheists
have emerged rather aggressively in the popular culture, it was, to say the
least, discouraging to hear that the most brilliant scientist of the twentieth
century seemed to be antipathetic to religion. It appeared as though Einstein
would have agreed with the Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harrises and
Richard Dawkins of the world in holding that religious belief belongs to the
childhood of the human race.
It just so happens that the revelation of this letter coincided with my reading
of Walter Isaacsons wonderful biography of Einstein, a book that presents a
far more complex picture of the great scientists attitude toward religion than
his late career musing would suggest. In 1930, Einstein composed a kind of
creed entitled What I Believe, at the conclusion of which he wrote: To
sense that behind everything that can be experienced there is something that
our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only
indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense...I am a devoutly religious man.
In response to a young girl who had asked him whether he believed in God,
he wrote: everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science
becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universea
Spirit vastly superior to that of man. And during a talk at Union
Theological Seminary on the relationship between religion and science,
Einstein declared: the situation may be expressed by an image: science
without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
StrangeNotions.com
These reflections of Einsteinand he made many more like them

throughout his careerbring the German physicist close to the position of a
rather influential German theologian. In his 1968 book Introduction to
Christianity, Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, offered this simple
but penetrating argument for Gods existence: the universal intelligibility of
nature, which is the presupposition of all science, can only be explained
through recourse to an infinite and creative mind which has thought the
world into being. No scientist, Ratzinger said, could even begin to work
unless and until he assumed that the aspect of nature he was investigating
was knowable, intelligible, marked by form. But this fundamentally mystical
assumption rests upon the conviction that whatever he comes to know
through his scientific work is simply an act of re-thinking or re-cognizing
what a far greater mind has already conceived.
Ratzingers elegant proof demonstrates that, at bottom, religion and science
ought never to be enemies, since both involve an intuition of Gods existence
and intelligence. In fact, many have argued that it is no accident that the
modern physical sciences emerged precisely out of the universities of the
Christian west, where the idea of creation through the divine word was
clearly taught. Unhappily, in far too many tellings of the history of ideas,
modernity is seen as emerging out of, and in stark opposition to, repressive,
obscurantist, and superstitious Christianity. (How many authors, up to the
present day, rehearse the struggles of Galileo to make just this point). As a
result, Christianityespecially in its Catholic expressionis often presented
as a kind of foil to science, when in fact there is a deep congruity between the
disciplines that search for objective truth and the religion that says, in the
beginning was the Word.
What sense, then, can we make of Einsteins recently discovered
letter? Given the many other things he said about belief, perhaps its best to
say that he was reacting against primitive and superstitious forms of religion,
just as St. Paul was when he said that we must put away childish things when
weve come of age spiritually. And what of his dismissal of the Bible? Here I
StrangeNotions.com
think we have to make a distinction. A person can be a genius in one field of

endeavor and remain nave, even inept, in another. Few would dispute that
Einstein was the greatest theoretical physicist of the last century, but this is
no guarantee that he had even an adequate appreciation for Sacred Scripture.
The infantile stories of the Bible have been the object of sophisticated
interpretation for two and half millennia. Masters such
as Origen, Philo, Chrysostom, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and John Henry
Newman have uncovered the complexity and multivalence of the Bibles
symbolism and have delighted in showing the literary artistry that lies below
its sometimes deceptively simple surface.
So I think we can say in conclusion that religious people can, to a large
extent, claim Einstein as an ally, though in regard to Scripture interpretation,
we can find far better guides than he.
StrangeNotions.com
#6
What Is the Difference Between

Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent
Design?
Jimmy Akin
Creationism, Evolutionism, and Intelligent Design are three of the major
positions on the question of how we got here.
Whats the difference between these positions?
That seemingly straightforward question proves surprisingly controversial.
Lets take a look at it . . .
The Basic Question

The basic question at issue in the contemporary origins debate is whether or
not the world was created.
It could be tempting to simply put participants in the discussion into two
groupscreationists and evolutionistsand leave it at that.
Some on both sides of the issue would like to do exactly that.
In fact, some of the people who most readily identify themselves as
creationists or evolutionists often speak as if these are the only two options.
Name Calling
StrangeNotions.com
Some creationists dismiss everyone who doesnt hold their view as an

evolutionist (using this term in a negative sense).
Some evolutionists dismiss everyone who thinks that the world was created
as a creationist (using this term in a negative sense).
When this happens, the two camps are using prejudicial language. Theyre
calling each other names, and that doesnt advance the discussion.
Theyre also distorting the issue, because there are clearly middle positions
on this question. In fact, theres a spectrum of them.
The Spectrum
Its possible to divide up that spectrum in different ways. In fact, its possible
to divide it into a mind-numbing array of fine-tuned categories.
That gets unwieldy, though, and it seems that, today, most participants in the
origins discussion would say that they advocate one of four major positions:
o
o
o
o
Creationism
Intelligent Design
Theistic Evolution
Atheistic Evolution
How can we describe these positions?
Creationism
The people most likely to identify themselves as creationists seem usually
to endorse some or all of the following claims:
o
There is a God.
StrangeNotions.com
o
o
o
o
The world was made in a period of six, twenty-four hour days.

The world is only a few thousand years old.
God specially intervened to create the life forms on earth, without
using prior, extinct life forms to do so.
The majority viewpoint in the natural sciences on the age of the world
and the origin of present-day life forms is mistaken.
Intelligent Design
The people most likely to identify themselves as advocates of intelligent
design seem usually to make the following claim:
o
The world (either the whole cosmos or just the life on earth) shows
evidence of a scientific nature that suggests it was intelligently
designed.
Most advocates also seem to hold the following proposition:

o
God exists and is the intelligent designer of the world.
This view, however, is not essential to their position.
Theistic Evolution
The people most likely to identify themselves as theistic evolutionists seem
usually to endorse some or all of the following claims:
o
o
o
o
There is a God.
The world developed over a longer period of time than six, twentyfour hour days.
The world is much more than a few thousand years old.
God used prior, extinct life forms to produce the life forms we see
today.
StrangeNotions.com
and the origin of present-day life forms is correct.
Atheistic Evolution
The people most likely to identify themselves as atheistic evolutionists
seem usually to endorse some or all of the following claims:
o
o
o
o
o
There is no God or, at least, we do not have good reason to believe

that there is a God.
The world developed over a longer period of time than six, twentyfour hour days.
The world is much more than a few thousand years old.
The life forms we see today arose from prior, extinct life forms.
and the origin of present-day life forms is correct.
Additional Positions
It is possible to carve out additional positions as well.
As with any spectrum, its hard to draw exact lines between them (e.g.,
where, exactly, on the color spectrum does red become orange?).
For example, some who would describe themselves as creationists (i.e., old
earth creationists) would hold that the earth is much more than a few
thousand years old but otherwise agree with much or all of the creationist
viewpoint described above.
And there are other positions yet, but most people in the present discussion
seem to advocate a variant on one of the basic four described above.
What Bugs Me
StrangeNotions.com
What bugs me is the way that advocates of these different positions often
dump on each other:
o
o
o
Creationists often dump on the other three positions as lacking a

sufficient appreciation of the Bible and as being either compromised
by or completely sold-out to faithless, atheistic evolutionism.
Atheistic evolutionists often dump on the other three positions as
lacking a sufficient appreciation of modern science and as being either
compromised by or completely sold-out to anti-intellectual
creationism.
Atheistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists sometimes dump on
intelligent design as being just a shill for creationism.
Advocates of intelligent design and theistic evolution, not wanting to
be identified with creationism, sometimes dump on advocates of that
view.
Creationists and advocates of intelligent design sometimes dump on
theistic and atheistic evolution as ignoring scientific evidence that they
believe undermines the idea that the world and life forms arose
without outside intervention.
Of course, each of these schools of thought is different from the others, and
people who hold different views inevitably have lapses in charity when
discussing each other.
But it seems that there is a huge amount of heat that is brought to this
discussion, and at times the origins debate seems to degenerate into a mutual
snarkfest.
Cant We All Just Get Along?

Of course, people coming from different viewpoints will not agree with each
other. Thats why their viewpoints are different.
StrangeNotions.com
Its also natural and healthy for advocates of the different views to make their
case and to cross-examine the positions of others.
Thats how we get at the truth.
But we can treat each other with respect and charity as we do so.
What would that mean in practice?
Recognizing the Differences

A first step is recognizing that there are, in fact, more than just two views
here.
Talking as if there are only two viewscreationism and evolutionismand
then using the name of the position that isnt yours as a swear-word does not
help the discussion.
It also does not respect the people youre talking about.
It fails to recognize differences in their positions and it lumps them under a
single, pejorative label.
Thats true whether its a creationist calling everyone else evolutionists or an
atheistic evolutionist calling everyone else creationists.
No Shoehorning
A related step is not shoehorning everybody into one of these four
categories.
If an old-earth creationist were to say, Please dont lump me in with the
young earth creationists, I would say, No problem! The categories I have
StrangeNotions.com
proposed here are purely for purposes of convenience. We can easily add
new categories, based on who is participating in the discussion. Tell me what
you believe and why and lets talk about it.
Similarly, if someone came from an entirely different religious perspective
and said, I dont believe in any of the four views articulated here. I think
that the universe was produced in a giant conflict between Apsu and Tiamat
and Marduk, my response would be the same.
The questions of how, when, why, and by whom (if anyone) the world came
to be are all separate questions and can be answered different ways.
There are, in fact, a vast number of possible views, and I want to treat
everyone with respect, regardless of their position.
The four positions articulated above are just four positions that happen to be
common in modern American culture. They are by no means the only
possible positions.
Good Will
Another step in treating each other with respect is presupposing each others
good will.
Its easy for people of different perspectives to suspect each other of having
bad motives.
Thats a tendency that we have to checkand check sharply.
It is inconsistent with the Golden Rule, because if we want others to presume
our good will, in spite of our disagreements, then we should presume their
good will as well.
Were All Human Beings
StrangeNotions.com
Something that may help us treat others with respect as we discuss the
question of origins is recognizing the fact that we are all human beings.
None of us are members of a master race because of our view of the origins
question.
There have been both geniuses and simpletons who have held each of the
positions weve looked at in this piece. Holding a particular position does not
make us innately superior or inferior to others.
Keeping that fact in mind can help us counter the tendency to look down on
others because their views are different.
Were All Fallible

Of course, we also all make mistakes, and thats going to happen in the
origins discussion as well.
We will, at times, use bad arguments, accept bad data, and have lapses of
charity toward one another.
Thats par for the course.
But if we want others to treat us with respect and charity in spite of our
lapses then we should strive to do the same for them.
What do you think?
StrangeNotions.com
#5
Is Atheism a Religion?
Jimmy Akin
At first, the claim that atheism is a religion might sound ridiculous.
It certainly can be a surprising claim.
And its one that many people, including western atheists, might initially
dismiss out of hand.
But theres more to the story here.
There is a case to be made that, in a very real sense, atheism is a religion.
A Word About Words

Words mean what people use them to mean. So whether atheism counts as a
religion will depend on how you use the term atheism and how you use the
term religion.
There is no single right way or wrong way to use terms. Their boundaries
can be drawn differently by different people, and their meanings can change
over time.
As a result, Im not going to be claiming in this piece that there is a single
right or wrong way to define our two terms.
In fact, I dont really care about the terms. What Im interested in is
the reality that the two terms represent.
StrangeNotions.com
My claim, therefore, is that the reality of what is commonly called atheism

has much in common with the reality of what is commonly called religion.
The two have so much in common that there is a sense in which atheism can
be seen as a religion.
Are You A Christian?

A prima facie or at first glance case for the claim that atheism can be seen
as a religion can be found in the answer an atheist might give to the question
Are you a Christian?
When presented with this question, an atheist may reply, No, Im an
atheist.
On the other hand, if he was instead presented with the question, Are you a
Jew? he might again reply, No, Im an atheist.
If he had been asked, Are you a Buddhist? or Are you a Muslim? or Are
you a Hindu? he might well give the same answer: No, I am an atheist.
This suggests that being an atheist is analogous to being a Christian, a Jew, a
Buddhist, a Muslim, or a Hindu.
And that, in turn suggests that atheism is analogous to Christianity, Judaism,
Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism.
In other words, atheism, too, can be seen as a religion.
Now lets ask a question that will let us go deeper into the subject . . .
Why?
Why is it possible to view atheism as a religion?
StrangeNotions.com
A good starting point is asking what the different religions have in common.
This is a potentially vast discussion, as the field of comparative religion
shows.
Many of the definitions of religion (and there are many) get into rather deep
and abstract waters (e.g., whatever your ultimate commitment is, etc.).
We cant go into all the possible definitions in a blog post, but I would like to
propose what strikes me as a commonsense, functional definition of religion.
It is a definition that will distinguish between the things we normally think
of as religions and those we normally do not.
Before we get to that, though, we need to define our first term . . .
What Is Atheism?
Atheism can be defined in different ways, but for purposes of this piece, I
will be using the term atheism to refer to standard western atheismthat
is, to the view that rejects the existence of God or the gods, that there is no
afterlife, and that the material universe is all that is real.
There can be and are other understandings of atheism, but this is the
paradigmatic version of atheism in the west, and its what we will be
considering here.
Also, for purposes of this post, we wont be going into the difference between
the God positively does not exist version of atheism and the I cant
positively rule out the existence of God, but I dont have convincing
evidence, so I dont believe in him version of atheism.
For purposes of simplicity, well treat them both as a rejection of the
existence of God/the gods.
StrangeNotions.com
Same thing goes for the afterlife positively does not exist atheism and I
dont have good evidence, so I dont believe in the afterlife atheism.
What Religion Is
In this piece, I will use the term religion as follows:
Something is a religion if it has a position on the divine and/or the
afterlife.
By the divine I mean God or the gods.
By the afterlife I mean the afterlifewhat, if anything, happens to us
after death.
A more technical definition could be proposed (e.g., X is a religion if and
only if . . .), but what Ive suggested is a functional definition that one works
fairly well for distinguishing the things we call religions from those we dont.
In what follows, for purposes of simplicity, well be looking at religions in
their classical forms, not every possible variant of them.
We will, however, take note of two notable historical variations, one of
Buddhism and one of Judaism, because they are fairly well-known and have
a bearing on our subject.
Things That Arent Religions

Things that arent religions under this definition include mathematics,
boatbuilding, the culinary arts, square dancing, and virtually all of the other
things we normally dont consider religions.
They dont have a position on the existence of the divine or the afterlife, so
theyre not religions.
StrangeNotions.com
Of particular note, belief in evolution is not a religiondespite the claims of

some Creationists.
One can believe in the existence of evolution without taking a position on
the divine or the afterlife.
On the other hand, belief in evolution can take on a religious dimension if,
e.g., it is proposed as a reason to either reject or accept belief in the divine or
the afterlife.
But then thats true of anything that is proposed as a reason to reject or
accept belief in the divine or the afterlife.
Now lets turn to viewpoints that do have a position on these matters . . .
Double-Positive Religions
Many religions assert the existence of both the divine and the afterlife. You
might call these double-positive religions:
o
Christianity asserts the existence of the divine (specifically, a single

God who created the world and appeared to Abraham) and it asserts
the existence of an afterlife (specifically, resurrection).
Islam asserts the existence of the divine (specifically, a single God who
created the world and appeared to Abraham) and it asserts the
existence of an afterlife (specifically, resurrection).
Hinduism asserts the existence of the divine (specifically, a pantheon
of gods who may, in some versions of Hinduism, be conceivable as a
single God) and it asserts the existence of an afterlife (specifically,
reincarnation).
Single-Positive Religions
StrangeNotions.com
It is possible, though, for a religion to assert the existence of only the

divine or the afterlife but not both. You might call these single-positive
religions:
o
Theravada Buddhism (the oldest form of Buddhism) does not assert

the existence of the divine. It does, however, assert the existence of an
afterlife (specifically, reincarnation).
Sadducee Judaism did assert the existence of the divine (specifically, a
single God who created the world and appeared to Abraham).
However, it rejected the existence of an afterlife.
It is important to note that we are talking about Theravada Buddhism

and Sadducee Judaism, because most other forms of Buddhism and Judaism
are double-positive, asserting the existence of both the divine and the
afterlife.
Double-Negative Religions
In view of the foregoing, it is possible to see standard western atheism as a
double-negative religion:
o
It does reject the existence of the divine (it either denies the existence
of God or the gods or it or it at least refuses to endorse their
existence).
It does reject the existence of an afterlife (it either denies or refuses to
endorse the existence of an afterlife).
In the former, it agrees with Theravada Buddhism, and in the latter, it agrees
with Sadducee Judaism.
One might wonder whether standard western atheism is the only doublenegative religion.
StrangeNotions.com
It might be, but I would want to do further thinking and research on that
question, because it strikes me that some views might reject the existence of
the divine and the afterlife without embracing the materialism that is
characteristic of standard western atheism.
I can imagine, for example, a viewpoint that would say that there is no God
and no afterlife and the material world we see around us is just an illusion.
The true world, on this view, might be some kind of spiritual reality that did
not entail the existence of either deities or survival beyond death.
Interreligious Groups
I should also mention the possibility of ecumenical and interreligious
groups.
Such groups can and do take positions on the divine and the afterlife without
requiring one to commit to a specific religion.
The Boy Scouts, the Freemasons, the World Council of Churches, and others
might qualify as groups of this type, expecting their members to take certain
positions on the divine and/or the afterlife, without requiring them to
commit to a single religion.
Such groups are not normally considered religions in their own right but as
groups open to members of particular religions.
To accommodate this fact, we would probably need to further refine our
definition, but this would take us too far afield for purposes of the present
post and how atheism relates to the things we ordinarily consider religions.
Atheism as Non-Religion
StrangeNotions.com
There is, of course, a marked difference between atheism and the other
religions.
One could easily revise the proposed definition for religion so that atheism
would be excluded. For example:
Something is a religion if it asserts the existence of the divine and/or the
afterlife.
This is a possible definition, and it can be used.
It has the advantage of the fact that it corresponds with the intuition we have
that atheism is somehow different than the other religions we have
considered.
It is. Its double-negative.
But this second proposed definition is not the only legitimate definition. The
one proposed earlier is also possible.
That one has the advantage that it corresponds to the intuition we have that
atheism is the same kind of thing, and thus can be put alongside, the other
religions we have considered. It does have a position on the divine and the
afterlife.
Thats why Im not interested in asserting only one legitimate definition of
either atheism or religion. Im interested in the realities behind the
terms, and the realities are such that atheism can be viewed as a religion.
It can also be viewed otherwise.
The question depends on how youre using the terms, but the realities
remain the same.
StrangeNotions.com
#4
Did Pope Francis Really Say All

Atheists are Redeemed?
Brandon Vogt
Yesterday, the Internet buzzed about some recent remarks from Pope
Francis. A headline at Huffington Post read: "Pope Francis Says Atheists
Who Do Good Are Redeemed, Not Just Catholics". A similar Reddit article
became yesterday's second most-shared piece.
But was the headline right? Did the Pope really suggest that all atheists are
redeemed? And if so, is this a shift in Catholic teaching?
To answer those questions we must first note the Gospel passage Pope
Francis preached on when he made the statement, Mark 9:38-40:
"John said to Jesus,
'Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name,
and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us.'
Jesus replied, 'Do not prevent him.
There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name
who can at the same time speak ill of me.
For whoever is not against us is for us.'"
Jesus' point here is that it's wrong to think people can't do good simply
because they aren't Christian. As Pope Francis explained, This [belief] was
wrong...Jesus broadens the horizon...The root of this possibility of doing
goodthat we all haveis in creation."
StrangeNotions.com
From this passage and quote we discover that Pope Francis was primarily
concerned with the possibility of goodness, not redemption. But then he
continued:
"[A]ll of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do
evil. All of us. But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.
Yes, he can..."The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the
Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! Father, the
atheists? Even the atheists. Everyone!...We must meet one another
doing good. But I dont believe, Father, I am an atheist! But do good:
we will meet one another there."
What should we make of the claim that "The Lord has redeemed all of
us...Even the atheists"? Well first, this is nothing new, and therefore hardly
"news." The Catholic Church has maintained for two-thousand years that
Christ's sacrificial death was for all (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:15and 1 Peter 3:18.)
As the Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that Gods
love excludes no one: So it is not the will of your Father who is in
heaven that one of these little ones should perish. He affirms that he
came to give his life as a ransom for many; this last term is not
restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique
person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us. The
Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men
without exception: There is not, never has been, and never will be a
single human being for whom Christ did not suffer. (CCC, 605)
However in Catholic thought, Christ's redemptive sacrifice on the Cross is
not the same thing as salvation. Salvation is the result of accepting Christ's
redemption and applying it to our lives. Catholics know that Christ died for
our sins but that we must receive that free gift by trusting in him, accepting
his proposal of love, and following him with our life.
StrangeNotions.com
So while it's true that Christ redeemed all people, even atheists, that doesn't
mean all atheists have accepted this gift or will be saved.
Perhaps an example will help clarify the difference between redemption
and salvation. Suppose you destroyed your friend's car causing $10,000 in
damage. You're taken to court, and the judge sentences you to five years in
prison for the crime. But then I burst in and tell the judge, "My name is
Brandon Vogt. I'm this man's friend and I want to pay his penalty. Whatever
it costs to fix the car and make things right, I'll pay it." The judge agrees.
Now even though I offer to pay the charge and "redeem" you, you still have a
choice. You can either accept my offer and become a free man or you can
reject my offer and choose to go to jail. The choice, of course, would be
yours.
Christ's redemption of all mankind is analogous to me paying off your
$10,000 charge (to "redeem" literally means "to buy back" or "to restore.")
Catholics understand that Christ paid the debt for every person, but we still
must choose whether to accept that act of redemptionit's not forced on
you. You make your choice by whom you give ultimate allegiance: God or
yourself, selfless love or self-imposed prison.
Finally, what about the last part of the HuffPost headline? Is it true that
all who do good are redeemed? The answer, again, is "Yes" since all people
are redeemed by Christ's sacrifice. Whether you live a good life is completely
irrelevant to redemption. As Mark Shea writes:
"All who do good, and all who do evil, and all saints, and all Nazis, and
pirates, and Communists and Mormons, Swedenborgians, and
Satanists, and plumbers, and students who are getting Fs, and little
kids and old coots, and profoundly brain-damaged folk and really
brilliant scientists, and tall, and fat, and short people, and Muslims,
and atheists, and Jews, and Buddhists and everybody else with a pulse
are redeemed. Stalin is redeemed along with St. Damien of Molokai,
Jack the Ripper and St. Francis of Assisi are both redeemed."
StrangeNotions.com
Catholics believe Jesus Christ died for every human being without
exception. This redemption has nothing to do with our goodness, and
everything to do with God's overwhelming generosity. Redemption is
universal, salvation is not. Redemption is a proposal we must accept and
salvation is the result.
StrangeNotions.com
#3
The Dark Age Myth: An Atheist

Reviews Gods Philosophers
Tim O'Neill
My interest in Medieval science was substantially sparked by one
book. Way back in 1991, when I was an impoverished and often starving
post-graduate student at the University of Tasmania, I found a copy of
Robert T. Gunther's Astrolabes of the World - 598 folio pages of meticulously
catalogued Islamic, Medieval and Renaissance astrolabes with photos,
diagrams, star lists and a wealth of other information. I found it,
appropriately and not coincidentally, in Michael Sprod's Astrolabe Books up the stairs in one of the beautiful old sandstone warehouses that
line Salamanca Place on Hobart's waterfront. Unfortunately the book cost
$200, which at that stage was the equivalent to what I lived on for a month.
But Michael was used to selling books to poverty-stricken students, so I went
without lunch, put down a deposit of $10 and came back weekly for several
months to pay off as much as I could afford and eventually got to take it
home, wrapped in brown paper in a way that only Hobart bookshops seem
to bother with anymore. There are few pleasures greater than finally getting
your hands on a book you've been wanting to own and read for a long time.
I had another experience of that particular pleasure when I received my copy
of James Hannam's God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the
Foundations of Modern Science a couple of weeks ago. For years I've been
toying with the idea of creating a website on Medieval science and
technology to bring the recent research on the subject to a more general
audience and to counter the biased myths about it being a Dark Age of
StrangeNotions.com
irrational superstition. Thankfully I can now cross that off my to do list,

because Hannam's superb book has done the job for me and in fine style.
The Christian Dark Age and Other Hysterical Myths

One of the occupational hazards of being an atheist and secular humanist
who hangs around on discussion boards is to encounter a staggering level of
historical illiteracy. I like to console myself that many of the people on such
boards have come to their atheism via the study of science and so, even if
they are quite learned in things like geology and biology, usually have a grasp
of history stunted at about high school level. I generally do this because the
alternative is to admit that the average person's grasp of history and how
history is studied is so utterly feeble as to be totally depressing.
So, alongside the regular airings of the hoary old myth that the Bible was
collated at the Council of Nicea, the tedious internet-based "Jesus never
existed!" nonsense, or otherwise intelligent people spouting pseudo historical
claims that would make even Dan Brown snort in derision, the myth that the
Catholic Church caused the Dark Ages and the Medieval Period was a
scientific wasteland is regularly wheeled, creaking, into the sunlight for
another trundle around the arena.
The myth goes that the Greeks and Romans were wise and rational types
who loved science and were on the brink of doing all kinds of marvelous
things (inventing full-scale steam engines is one example that is usually,
rather fancifully, invoked) until Christianity came along. Christianity then
banned all learning and rational thought and ushered in the Dark Ages.
Then an iron-fisted theocracy, backed by a Gestapo-style Inquisition,
prevented any science or questioning inquiry from happening until
Leonardo da Vinci invented intelligence and the wondrous Renaissance
saved us all from Medieval darkness.
StrangeNotions.com
The online manifestations of this curiously quaint but seemingly

indefatigable idea range from the touchingly clumsy to the utterly shocking,
but it remains one of those things that "everybody knows" and permeates
modern culture. A recent episode of Family Guy had Stewie and Brian enter
a futuristic alternative world where, it was explained, things were so
advanced because Christianity didn't destroy learning, usher in the Dark
Ages and stifle science. The writers didn't see the need to explain what Stewie
meant - they assumed everyone understood.
About once every 3-4 months on forums like RichardDawkins.net we get
some discussion where someone invokes the old "Conflict Thesis". That
evolves into the usual ritual kicking of the Middle Ages as a benighted
intellectual wasteland where humanity was shackled to superstition and
oppressed by cackling minions of the Evil Old Catholic Church. The hoary
standards are brought out on cue. Giordiano Bruno is presented as a wise
and noble martyr for science instead of the irritating mystical New Age kook
he actually was. Hypatia is presented as another such martyr and the
mythical Christian destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria is spoken
of in hushed tones, despite both these ideas being totally untrue. The Galileo
Affair is ushered in as evidence of a brave scientist standing up to the
unscientific obscurantism of the Church, despite that case being as much
about science as it was about Scripture.
And, almost without fail, someone digs up a graphic (see below), which I
have come to dub "The Most Wrong Thing On the Internet Ever", and to
flourish it triumphantly as though it is proof of something other than the
fact that most people are utterly ignorant of history and unable to see that
something called "Scientific Advancement" can't be measured, let alone
plotted on a graph.
StrangeNotions.com
It's not hard to kick this nonsense to pieces, especially since the people
presenting it know next to nothing about history and have simply picked
up these strange ideas from websites and popular books. The assertions
collapse as soon as you hit them with hard evidence. I love to totally stump
these propagators by asking them to present me with the name of one just one - scientist burned, persecuted, or oppressed for their science in the
Middle Ages. They always fail to come up with any. They usually try to
crowbar Galileo back into the Middle Ages, which is amusing considering he
was a contemporary of Descartes. When asked why they have failed to
produce any such scientists given the Church was apparently so busily
oppressing them, they often resort to claiming that the Evil Old Church did
such a good job of oppression that everyone was too scared to practice
science. By the time I produce a laundry list of Medieval scientists - like
Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, John Peckham, Duns
Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, Walter Burley, William Heytesbury, Richard
StrangeNotions.com
Swineshead, John Dumbleton, Richard of Wallingford, Nicholas Oresme,

Jean Buridan and Nicholas of Cusa - and ask why these men were happily
pursuing science in the Middle Ages without molestation from the Church,
my opponents usually scratch their heads in puzzlement at what just went
wrong.
The Origin of the Myths

How the myths that led to the creation of "The Most Wrong Thing On the
Internet Ever" is well documented in several recent books on the the
history of science. But Hannam wisely tackles it in the opening pages of his
book, since it would be likely to form the basis for many general readers to
be suspicious of the idea of a Medieval foundation for modern science. A
festering melange of Enlightenment bigotry, Protestant papism-bashing,
French anti-clericism, and Classicist snobbery have all combined to make
the Medieval period a by-word for backwardness, superstition and
primitivism, and the opposite of everything the average person associates
with science and reason.
Hannam sketches how polemicists like Thomas Huxley, John William
Draper, and Andrew Dickson White, all with their own anti-Christian axes
to grind, managed to shape the still current idea that the Middle Ages was
devoid of science and reason. And how it was not until real historians
bothered to question the polemicists through the work of early pioneers in
the field like Pierre Duhem, Lynn Thorndike, and the author of my astrolabe
book, Robert T. Gunther, that the distortions of the axe-grinders began to be
corrected by proper, unbiased research. That work has now been completed
by the current crop of modern historians of science like David C. Lindberg,
Ronald Numbers, and Edward Grant.
In the academic sphere, at least, the "Conflict Thesis" of a historical war
between science and theology has been long since overturned. It is very
odd that so many of my fellow atheists cling so desperately to a long-dead
StrangeNotions.com
position that was only ever upheld by amateur Nineteenth Century

polemicists and not the careful research of recent, objective, peer-reviewed
historians. This is strange behavior for people who like to label themselves
"rationalists".
Speaking of rationalism, the critical factor that the myths obscure is precisely
how rational intellectual inquiry in the Middle Ages was. While writers like
Charles Freeman continue to lumber along, claiming that Christianity killed
the use of reason, the fact is that thanks to Clement of Alexandria and
Augustine's encouragement of the use of pagan philosophy, and Boethius'
translations of works of logic by Aristotle and others, rational inquiry was
one intellectual jewel that survived the catastrophic collapse of the Western
Roman Empire and was preserved through the so-called Dark Ages. Edward
Grant's superb God and Reason in the Middle Ages details this with
characteristic vigor, but Hannam gives a good summary of this key element
in his first four chapters.
What makes Hannam's version of the story more accessible than Grant's
is the way he tells it though the lives of key people of the time - Gerbert of
Aurillac, Anselm, Abelard, William of Conches, Adelard of Bath
etc. Some reviewers of Hannam's book seem to have found this approach a
little distracting, since the sheer volume of names and mini-biographies
could make it feel like we are learning a small amount about a vast number
of people. But given the breadth of Hannam's subject, this is fairly inevitable
and the semi-biographical approach is certainly more accessible than a
stodgy abstract analysis of the evolution of Medieval thought.
Hannam also gives an excellent precis of the Twelfth Century Renaissance
which, contrary to popular perception and to "the Myth", was the real period
in which ancient learning flooded back into western Europe. Far from being
resisted by the Church, it was churchmen who sought this knowledge out
among the Muslims and Jews of Spain and Sicily. And far from being
resisted or banned by the Church, it was embraced and formed the basis of
the syllabus in that other great Medieval contribution to the world: the
universities that were starting to appear across Christendom.
StrangeNotions.com
God and Reason

The enshrining of reason at the heart of inquiry, combined with the influx of
"new" Greek and Arabic learning, launched a veritable explosion of
intellectual activity in Europe from the Twelfth Century onwards. It was as
though the sudden stimulus of new perspectives and new ways of looking at
the world fell on the fertile soil of a Europe that was, for the first time in
centuries, relatively peaceful, prosperous, outward-looking, and genuinely
curious.
This is not to say that more conservative and reactionary forces did not have
misgivings about some of the new areas of inquiry, especially in relation to
how philosophy and speculation about the natural world and the cosmos
could affect accepted theology. Hannam is careful not to pretend that there
was no resistance to the flowering of the new thinking and inquiry but,
unlike the perpetuators of "the Myth", he gives that resistance due
consideration rather than pretending it was the whole story. In fact, the
conservatives and reactionaries' efforts were usually rear-guard actions and
were in almost every case totally unsuccessful in curtailing the inevitable
flood of ideas that began to flow from the universities. Once it began, it was
effectively unstoppable.
In fact, some of the efforts by the theologians to put some limits on what
could and could not be accepted via the "new learning" actually had the
effect of stimulating inquiry rather than constricting it. The
"Condemnations of 1277" attempted to assert certain things that could not
be stated as "philosophically true", particularly things that put limits on
divine omnipotence. This had the interesting effect of making it clear that
Aristotle had, actually, got some things badly wrong - something Thomas
Aquinas emphasized in his famous and highly influential Summa Theologiae:
StrangeNotions.com
"The condemnations and Thomas's Summa Theologiae had created a

framework within which natural philosophers could safely pursue
their studies. The framework .... laid down the the principle that God
had decreed laws of nature but was not bound by them. Finally, it
stated that Aristotle was sometimes wrong. The world was not 'eternal
according to reason' and 'finite according to faith'. It was not eternal,
full stop. And if Aristotle could be wrong about something that he
regarded as completely certainly certain, that threw his whole
philosophy into question. The way was clear for the natural
philosophers of the Middle Ages to move decisively beyond the
achievements of the Greeks." (Hannam, pp. 104-105)
Which is precisely what they proceeded to do. Far from being a stagnant
dark age, as the first half of the Medieval Period (500-1000 AD) certainly
was, the period from 1000 to 1500 AD actually saw the most impressive
flowering of scientific inquiry and discovery since the time of the ancient
Greeks, far eclipsing the Roman and Hellenic Eras in every respect. With
Occam and Duns Scotus taking the critical approach to Aristotle further
than Aquinas' more cautious approach, the way was open for the Medieval
scientists of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries to question, examine,
and test the perspectives the translators of the Twelfth Century had given
them, with remarkable effects:
"[I]n the fourteenth century medieval thinkers began to notice that
there was something seriously amiss with all aspects of Aristotle's
natural philosophy, and not just those parts of it that directly
contradicted the Christian faith. The time had come when medieval
scholars could begin their own quest to advance knowledge .... striking
out in new directions that neither the Greeks nor the Arabs ever
explored. Their first breakthrough was to combine the two subjects of
mathematics and physics in a way that had not been done
before." (Hannam, p. 174)
The story of that breakthrough, and the remarkable Oxford scholars who
achieved it and thus laid the foundations of true science - the "Merton
StrangeNotions.com
Calculators" - probably deserves a book in itself. But Hannam's account

certainly does them justice and forms a fascinating section of his work. The
names of these pioneers of the scientific method - Thomas Bradwardine,
Thomas Bradwardine, William Heytesbury, John Dumbleton and the
delightfully named Richard Swineshead - deserve to be better known.
Unfortunately, the obscuring shadow of "the Myth" means that they
continue to be ignored or dismissed even in quite recent popular histories of
science. Bradwardine's summary of the key insight these men uncovered is
one of the great quotes of early science and deserves to be recognized as
such:
"[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth ... whoever then
has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics
should know from the start that he will never make his entry through
the portals of wisdom." (Quoted in Hannam, p. 176)
These men were not only the first to truly apply mathematics to physics but
also developed logarithmic functions 300 years before John Napier, and the
Mean Speed Theorem 200 years before Galileo. The fact that Napier and
Galileo are credited with discovering things that Medieval scholars had
already developed is yet another indication of how "the Myth" has warped
our perceptions of the history of science.
Similarly, the physics and astronomy of Jean Buridan and Nicholas Oresme
were radical and profound, but generally unknown to the average reader.
Buridan was one of the first to compare the movements of the cosmos to
those of another Medieval innovation - the clock. The image of a clockwork
universe which was to serve scientists well into our own era began in the
Middle Ages. And Oresme's speculations about a rotating Earth shows that
Medieval scholars were happy to contemplate what were (to them) fairly
outlandish ideas to see if they might work - Oresme found that this
particular idea actually worked quite well. These men are hardly the
products of a "dark age" and their careers are conspicuously free of any of the
Inquisitors and threats of burning so fondly and luridly imagined by the
fevered proponents of "the Myth".
StrangeNotions.com
Galileo, Inevitably
As mentioned above, no manifestation of "the Myth" is complete without
the Galileo Affair being raised. The proponents of the idea that the Church
stifled science and reason in the Middle Ages have to wheel him out, because
without him they actually have absolutely zero examples of the Church
persecuting anyone for anything to do with inquiries into the natural world.
The common conception that Galileo was persecuted for being right about
heliocentrism is a total oversimplification of a complex business, and one
that ignores the fact that Galileo's main problem was not simply that his
ideas disagreed with scriptural interpretation but also with the science of the
time.
Contrary to the way the affair is usually depicted, the real sticking point was
the fact that the scientific objections to heliocentrism at the time were still
powerful enough to prevent its acceptance. Cardinal Bellarmine made it
clear to Galileo in 1616 that if those scientific objections could be overcome
then scripture could and would be reinterpreted. But while the objections
still stood, the Church, understandably, was hardly going to overturn several
centuries of exegesis for the sake of a flawed theory. Galileo agreed to only
teach heliocentrism as a theoretical calculating device, then promptly turned
around and, in typical style, taught it as fact. Thus his prosecution by the
Inquistion in 1633.
Hannam gives the context for all this in suitable detail in a section of the
book that also explains how the Humanism of the "Renaissance" led a new
wave of scholars, who sought not only to idolize and emulate the ancients,
but to turn their backs on the achievements of recent scholars like Duns
Scotus, Bardwardine, Buridan, and Orseme. Thus many of their discoveries
and advances were either ignored and forgotten (only to be rediscovered
independently later) or scorned but quietly appropriated. The case for
Galileo using the work of Medieval scholars without acknowledgement is
StrangeNotions.com
fairly damning. In their eagerness to dump Medieval "dialectic" and ape the
Greeks and Romans - which made the "Renaissance" a curiously conservative
and rather retrograde movement in many ways - they discarded genuine
developments and advancements by Medieval scholars. That a thinker of the
calibre of Duns Scotus could become mainly known as the etymology of the
word "dunce" is deeply ironic.
As good as the final part of the book is and as worthy as a fairly detailed
analysis of the realities of the Galileo Affair clearly is, I must say the last four
or five chapters of Hannam's book did feel as though they had bitten off a bit
more than they could chew. I was able to follow his argument quite easily,
but I am very familiar with the material and with the argument he is making.
I suspect that those for whom this depiction of the "Renaissance," and the
idea of Galileo as nothing more than a persecuted martyr to genius, might
find that it gallops at too rapid a pace to really carry them along. Myths, after
all, have a very weighty inertia.
At least one reviewer seems to have found the weight of that inertia too
hard to resist, though perhaps she had some other baggage weighing her
down. Nina Power, writing in New Humanist magazine, certainly seems to
have had some trouble ditching the idea of the Church persecuting Medieval
scientists:
"Just because persecution wasnt as bad as it could have been, and just
because some thinkers werent always the nicest of people, doesnt
mean that interfering in their work and banning their ideas was
justifiable then or is justifiable now."
Well, no-one said it was justifiable, and simply explaining how it came about
and why it was not as extensive, or of the nature, that most people assume is
not "justifying" it anyway - it is correcting a pseudo-historical
misunderstanding. That said, Power does have something of a point when
she notes "Hannams characterization of [Renaissance] thinkers as
incorrigible reactionaries who almost managed to destroy 300 years of
StrangeNotions.com
progress in natural philosophy is at odds with his more careful depiction of

those that came before." This is not, however, because that characterization
is wrong, but because the length and scope of the book really do not give him
room to do this fairly complex and, to many, radical idea justice.
My only criticisms of the book are really quibbles. The sketch of the
"agrarian revolution" of the Dark Ages described in Chapter One, which saw
technology like the horse-collar and the mouldboard plough adopted and
water and wind power harnessed to greatly increase production in
previously unproductive parts of Europe is generally sound. But it does place
too much emphasis on two elements in Lynn White's thesis in his
seminal Medieval Technology and Social Change - the importance of the
stirrup and the significance of the horse collar. As important and groundbreaking as White's thesis was in 1962, more recent analysis has found some
of his central ideas dubious. The idea that the stirrup was as significant for
the rise of shock-heavy cavalry as White claimed is now pretty much rejected
by military historians. Also, his claims about how this cavalry itself caused
the beginnings of the feudal system were dubious to begin with. Finally, the
idea that Roman traction systems were as inefficient as White's sources make
out has also been seriously questioned. Hannam seems to accept White's
thesis wholesale, which is not really justified given it has been reassessed for
over forty years now.
On a rather more personal note, as a humanist and atheist myself, there is a
rather snippy little aside on page 212 where Hannam sneers that "nonbelievers have further muddied the waters by hijacking the word 'humanist'
to mean a softer version of 'atheist'." Sorry, but just as not all humanists are
atheists (as Hannam himself well knows) so not all atheists are humanists (as
anyone hanging around on some of the more vitriolically anti-theist sites
and forums will quickly realize). So there is no "non-believer" plot to "hijack"
the word "humanist". Those of us who are humanists are humanists - end of
story. And "atheism" does not need any "softening" anyway.
StrangeNotions.com
That aside, this is a marvelous book and a brilliant, readable, and

accessible antidote to "the Myth". It should be on the Christmas wish-list of
any Medievalist, science history buff, or anyone who has a misguided friend
who still thinks the nights in the Middle Ages were lit by burning scientists.
StrangeNotions.com
#2
How the Worlds Most Notorious

Atheist Changed His Mind
Dr. Benjamin Wiker
EDITOR'S NOTE: For the last half of the twentieth century, Antony
Flew (1923-2010) was the world's most famous atheist. Long before Richard
Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris began taking swipes at
religion, Flew was the preeminent spokesman for unbelief.
However in 2004, he shocked the world by announcing he had come to
believe in God. While never embracing ChristianityFlew only believed in
the deistic, Aristotelian conception of Godhe became one of the most
high-profile and surprising atheist converts. In 2007, he recounted his
conversion in a book titled There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious
Atheist Changed His Mind. Some critics suggested Flew's mental capacity
had declined and therefore we should question the credibility of his
conversion. Others hailed Flew's book as a legitimate and landmark
publication.
A couple months before the book's release, Flew sat down with Strange
Notions contributor Dr. Benjamin Wiker for an interview about his book,
his conversion, and the reasons that led him to God. Read below and enjoy!
Dr. Benjamin Wiker: You say in There is a God, that "it may well be that no
one is as surprised as I am that my exploration of the Divine has after all
these years turned from denial...to discovery." Everyone else was certainly
StrangeNotions.com
very surprised as well, perhaps all the more so since on our end, it seemed so
sudden. But in There is a God, we find that it was actually a very gradual
processa "two decade migration," as you call it. God was the conclusion of
a rather long argument, then. But wasn't there a point in the "argument"
where you found yourself suddenly surprised by the realization that "There is
a God" after all? So that, in some sense, you really did "hear a Voice that says"
in the evidence itself "'Can you hear me now?'"
Antony Flew: There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One
was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted
scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated
complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the
integrated complexity of life itselfwhich is far more complex than the
physical Universecan only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I
believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained
from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every
passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent
intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could
magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life,
it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best
confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue
in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky
chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I
did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.
Wiker: You are famous for arguing for a presumption of atheism, i.e., as far
as arguments for and against the existence of God, the burden of proof lies
with the theist. Given that you believe that you only followed the evidence
where it led, and it led to theism, it would seem that things have now gone
the other way, so that the burden of proof lies with the atheist. He must
prove that God doesn't exist. What are your thoughts on that?
Flew: I note in my book that some philosophers indeed have argued in the
past that the burden of proof is on the atheist. I think the origins of the laws
StrangeNotions.com
of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source.
The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.
Wiker: As for evidence, you cite a lot of the most recent science, yet you
remark that your discovery of the Divine did not come through "experiments
and equations," but rather, "through an understanding of the structures they
unveil and map." Could you explain? Does that mean that the evidence that
led you to God is not really, at heart, scientific?
Flew: It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the sciences. But
it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence. Scientists as
scientists cannot make these kinds of philosophical inferences. They have to
speak as philosophers when they study the philosophical implications of
empirical evidence.
Wiker: You are obviously aware of the spate of recent books by such atheists
as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. They think that those who
believe in God are behind the times. But you seem to be politely asserting
that they are ones who are behind the times, insofar as the latest scientific
evidence tends strongly towardor perhaps even demonstratesa theistic
conclusion. Is that a fair assessment of your position?
Flew: Yes, indeed. I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point of
dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the philosophical
implications of the scientific data.
Two noted philosophers, one an agnostic (Anthony Kenny) and the other an
atheist (Thomas Nagel), recently pointed out that Dawkins has failed to
address three major issues that ground the rational case for God. As it
happens, these are the very same issues that had driven me to accept the
existence of a God: the laws of nature, life with its teleological organization,
and the existence of the Universe.
StrangeNotions.com
Wiker: You point out that the existence of God and the existence of evil are
actually two different issues, which would therefore require two distinct
investigations. But in the popular literatureeven in much of the
philosophical literaturethe two issues are regularly conflated. Especially
among atheists, the presumption is that the non-existence of God simply
follows upon the existence of evil. What is the danger of such conflation?
How as a theist do you now respond?
Flew: I should clarify that I am a deist. I do not accept any claim of divine
revelation though I would be happy to study any such claim (and continue to
do so in the case of Christianity). For the deist, the existence of evil does not
pose a problem because the deist God does not intervene in the affairs of the
world. The religious theist, of course, can turn to the free-will defense (in
fact I am the one who first coined the phrase free-will defense). Another
relatively recent change in my philosophical views is my affirmation of the
freedom of the will.
Wiker: According to There is a God, you are not what might be called a "thin
theist," that is, the evidence led you not merely to accept that there is a
"cause" of nature, but "to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable,
immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being." How far away are you, then,
from accepting this Being as a person rather than a set of characteristics,
however accurate they may be? (I'm thinking of C. S. Lewis' remark that a big
turning point for him, in accepting Christianity, was in realizing that God
was not a "place"a set of characteristics, like a landscapebut a person.)
Flew: I accept the God of Aristotle who shares all the attributes you cite. Like
Lewis I believe that God is a person but not the sort of person with whom
you can have a talk. It is the ultimate being, the Creator of the Universe.
Wiker: Do you plan to write a follow-up book to There is a God?
Flew: As I said in opening the book, this is my last will and testament.
StrangeNotions.com
#1
Catholic, Gay, and Feeling Just Fine

Steve Gershom
I have heard a lot about how mean the Church is, and how bigoted,
because she opposes gay marriage. How badly she misunderstands gay
people, and how hostile she is towards us. My gut reaction to such things
is: Are you freaking kidding me? Are we even talking about the same Church?
When I go to Confession, I sometimes mention the fact that Im gay, to give
the priest some context. Ive always gotten one of two responses: either
compassion, encouragement, and admiration, because the celibate life is
difficult and profoundly counter-cultural; or nothing at all, not even a ripple,
as if I had confessed eating too much on Thanksgiving.
Of the two responses, my ego prefers the firstwho doesnt like thinking
of themselves as some kind of hero? but the second might make more
sense. Being gay doesnt mean Im special or extraordinary. It just means
that my life is not always easy. (Surprise!) And as my friend J. said when I
told him recently about my homosexuality, I guess if it wasnt that, it would
have been something else. Meaning that nobody lives without a burden of
one kind or another. As Rabbi Abraham Heschel said: The man who has
not suffered, what can he possibly know, anyway?
Where are all these bigoted Catholics I keep hearing about? When I told my
family a year ago, not one of them responded with anything but love and
understanding. Nobody acted like I had a disease. Nobody started treating
me differently or looking at me funny. The same is true of every one of the
Catholic friends that Ive told. They love me for who I am.
StrangeNotions.com
Actually, the only time I get shock or disgust or disbelief, the only time
Ive noticed people treating me differently after I tell them, is when I tell
someone who supports the gay lifestyle: "Celibacy?! You must be some kind
of freak."
Hooray for tolerance of different viewpoints. Im grateful to gay activists for
some thingsmaking people more aware of the prevalence of
homosexuality, making homophobia less socially acceptablebut they also
make it more difficult for me to be understood, to be accepted for who I am
and what I believe. If I want open-mindedness, acceptance, and
understanding, I look to Catholics.
Is it hard to be gay and Catholic? Yes, because like everybody, I sometimes
want things that are not good for me. The Church doesnt let me have
those things, not because shes mean, but because shes a good mother. If my
son or daughter wanted to eat sand Id tell them: thats not what eating is for;
it wont nourish you; it will hurt you. Maybe my daughter has some kind of
condition that makes her like sand better than food, but I still wouldnt let
her eat it. Actually, if she was young or stubborn enough, I might not be able
to reason with herI might just have to make a rule against eating sand.
Even if she thought I was mean.
So the Church doesnt oppose gay marriage because its wrong; she opposes
it because its impossible, just as impossible as living on sand. The Church
believes, and I believe, in a universe that means something, and in a God
who made the universe made men and women, designed sex and
marriage from the ground up. In that universe, gay marriage doesnt make
sense. It doesnt fit with the rest of the picture, and were not about to throw
out the rest of the picture.
If you dont believe in these things, if you believe that men and women and
sex and marriage are pretty much whatever we say they are, then okay: we
dont have much left to talk about. Thats not the world I live in.
StrangeNotions.com
So, yes, its hard to be gay and Catholicits hard to be anything and
Catholicbecause I dont always get to do what I want. Show me a religion
where you always get to do what you want and Ill show you a pretty shabby,
lazy religion. Something not worth living or dying for, or even getting up in
the morning for. That might be the kind of world John Lennon wanted, but
John Lennon was kind of an idiot.
Would I trade in my Catholicism for a worldview where I get to marry a
man? Would I trade in the Eucharist and the Mass and the rest of it? Being a
Catholic means believing in a God who literally waits in the chapel for me,
hoping Ill stop by just for ten minutes so he can pour out love and healing
on my heart. Which is worth more all this, or getting to have sex with
who I want? I wish everybody, straight or gay, had as beautiful a life as I
have.
I know this isnt a satisfactory answer. I dont think any words could be. I try
to make my life a satisfactory answer, to this question and to others: What
are people for? What is love, and what does it look like? How do we get past
our own selfishness so we can love God and our neighbors and ourselves?
Its a work in progress.
StrangeNotions.com

Strange Notions: 10 Best Posts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strange Notions: 10 Best Posts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

#10

Im a Muslim But Heres Why I

creativity but a continuation of intellectual headway reached in previous

designed in the 14th century an astronomical clock, the most sophisticated

the conviction obtained through correct rational contemplation. Indeed,

existence of such an island is necessary because otherwise it would not be the

human reason to be produced without the benefit of Christian inspiration"

The Unprecedented Translation Activity

with Spanish Christians (known as Mozarabics, those Christians who

The 12th- and 13th-century Renaissance

Catholic scholars and scientists, such as Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus,

for themselves" (95). In science "only experience provides certainty" (Watson

The Establishment of Universities

interesting is that European universities were legally autonomous entities

Stephen Fry, Job, and the Cross of

that single paragraph. Would it not be the height of arrogance and

The Crusades: Urban Legends and

were defensive moves to protect Christendom from Muslim invasion.

language. Much like the Catholic-Protestant battles in Ireland, it simply is

First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to

Einstein and God

These reflections of Einsteinand he made many more like them

think we have to make a distinction. A person can be a genius in one field of

What Is the Difference Between

The Basic Question

Some creationists dismiss everyone who doesnt hold their view as an

How can we describe these positions?

The world was made in a period of six, twenty-four hour days.

Most advocates also seem to hold the following proposition:

God exists and is the intelligent designer of the world.

This view, however, is not essential to their position.

There is no God or, at least, we do not have good reason to believe

Creationists often dump on the other three positions as lacking a

Cant We All Just Get Along?

Recognizing the Differences

Were All Human Beings

Were All Fallible

A Word About Words

My claim, therefore, is that the reality of what is commonly called atheism

Are You A Christian?

Things That Arent Religions

Of particular note, belief in evolution is not a religiondespite the claims of

Christianity asserts the existence of the divine (specifically, a single

It is possible, though, for a religion to assert the existence of only the

Theravada Buddhism (the oldest form of Buddhism) does not assert

It is important to note that we are talking about Theravada Buddhism

Did Pope Francis Really Say All

The Dark Age Myth: An Atheist

irrational superstition. Thankfully I can now cross that off my to do list,

The Christian Dark Age and Other Hysterical Myths

The online manifestations of this curiously quaint but seemingly

Swineshead, John Dumbleton, Richard of Wallingford, Nicholas Oresme,

The Origin of the Myths

position that was only ever upheld by amateur Nineteenth Century

God and Reason

"The condemnations and Thomas's Summa Theologiae had created a

Calculators" - probably deserves a book in itself. But Hannam's account

progress in natural philosophy is at odds with his more careful depiction of

That aside, this is a marvelous book and a brilliant, readable, and

How the Worlds Most Notorious

Catholic, Gay, and Feeling Just Fine

You might also like