Posted on 02/02/2005 7:47:16 AM PST by Lando Lincoln
Dear Sir: I read your article about Islam. It contains a lot of things that are not true? I have a question for you: is it ingorance or malice that prompted you to write these things? If ignorance, I believe you should write another article, apologizing for making these canards. If malice, I ask God Almighty to strike you with a malignant cancer within 3-6 months. If you don’t apologize within five days, I will pray daily and nightly for this punishment to befall you.--Khalid Amayreh, Jerusalem
This lovely e-mail was the response I received to an article entitled Coulter Wars, an article that points out some of the problems in Muslim theology. Now, to be fair, I have also written an article that praised aspects of Muslim theology. After all, their emphasis on prayer, fasting and almsgiving is quite laudable, and their respect for the Blessed Virgin Mary is immense. Still, Muslim theological law, called sharia, is simply an abomination, and it was both the history of Islam and the implementation of sharia that merited Khalid’s attempt at Islamic voodoo.
Now some of Khalid’s odd habits of conversation may be due to the simple fact that he claims to be a well-respected Muslim journalist. The combination of “well-respected journalist” and “Muslim” should certainly have been a warning for what was to come.
When I asked precisely what “canards” he had found, he gave the following list:
Khalid’s First Objection: “Children to be whipped to death for breaking Ramadan fast. This false, brazenly false. Children, as well as ill people, elderly people, traveling people, nursing women, and women having their menstrual periods, don’t have to fast. (surat Bakara). Also people working really difficult jobs don’t have to fast if this undermines their health. Besides, fasting is a private affair between man and God...”
My Response: Unfortunately for Khalid, some imams seem to disagree with him, as this story documented:
“A 14 year old boy died on Thursday, November 11th [2004], after having received 85 lashes; according to the ruling of the Mullah judge of the public circuit court in the town of Sanandadj he was guilty of breaking his fast during the month of Ramadan.”
Khalid’s Second Objection: Women to be beaten to death by their husband for the smallest infraction. This is brazenly false. In Islam, the death penalty is prescribed only in three cases, murder, adultery (for men or women) and apostasy.
My Response: Not according to this story.
Khalid’s Third Objection: Marriage by the age of six is alright: This is not true...No body in our part of the world is allowed to marry below the age of 17 for women and 18 for men. I challenge you to cite a single marriage of (six years or even ten) sanctioned by a Sharia court...all over the Muslim world. You wouldn’t find such a thing.
My Response: See the link above and this. In Gaza fully one-third of girls were married below the statutory “legal” minimum age of 17. Iran just recently RAISED the age of consent to 13 in 2002. It was 9 (and probably still is in outlying provinces) according to this story and this one.
Khalid’s Fourth Objection: The examples you refer to are not examples of true sharia.
My Response: Unfortunately, sharia is only loosely based on the Quran or the Hadiths (the sayings of Mohammed). It is primarily drawn from the opinions of Islamic scholars. Although Khalid knew that, he insisted that I provide Quranic verses to back up what I said. I pointed out that even his Islamic scholars couldn’t do that, since sharia is not strictly based on just the Quran. He didn’t respond. As one might imagine, what constitutes sharia varies wildly depending on exactly where you are and what court you stand in front of. The differences between imams – Shia, Sunni, Wahabbi, etc. – is essentially as different as the differences between Anglicans, Baptists, Unitarians and the like, with no one to say what is true Islam anymore than there is someone to say what is true Protestantism or evangelicalism. What you get from Islam depends on which imam you happen to stand in front of today. I asked him how he, as a journalist with no formal theological training in Islam, could prov e he had any authority to tell me what was and was not Islam. Again, he didn’t respond.
Khalid’s Fifth Objection: Sex with a child of nine is fine: Where are you reading these things? Are you alluding to the Prophet’s marriage with Aisha? There are different narratives about how old she was when she married. Some say nine, some say 10, but many say 15 years old. So, I would say she was probably 15 or sixteen when she married the Prophet, not nine. In Arabia a fifteen years old...or even 13 is quite a woman...Same thing in Africa!
My Response: Khalid, your own sources agree with me and you just said so.
Khalid’s Sixth Objection: Adoption is illegal, it is not the adoption itself that is illegal, it is naming the adopted after the adopter’s name...In other words, the adopted child ought to retain his identity, if it does, then everything is Ok.
My Response: Khalid, you are not telling the truth. Go here and here.
Khalid’s Seventh Objection: Prostitution to service soldiers is illegal. How could you say that, Islam is very very strict about prohibiting these things...unrepentant prostitutes are given the death penalty. Prostitution is strictly, absolutely and completely prohibited. It is one of the most disgraceful vice in Islam.
My Response: Not according to this woman.
When shown the links, he responded, “You are wrong about temporary marriages, this exists in Shia Islam, not in Sunni Islam. In Sunni Islam, marriage is a permanent bond between a man and a woman…” So temporary marriages – prostitution – exists and he admits it. He just doesn’t happen to be a Shiite so he doesn’t like it.
Khalid’s Eighth Objection: polygamy is allowed provided there is justice in treating the wives.
My Response: So there is no “canard” here.
Khalid’s Ninth Objection: A man can invoke divorce by simply repeating the word “divorce” three times. This is no longer valid, it has to be done before a Sharia court. Because the divorce invoked by an angry man, a drunkard, and one who is not in real control of his mental ability is invalid. Also, the divorce doesn’t occur in case of teasing, joking, jest, etc.
My Response: But a man CAN divorce his wife by simply repeating the word “divorce” three times. He does it in front of a sharia court, he’s divorced - you just agreed that what I said was correct, Khalid. And just because SOME sharia courts require the man to appear doesn’t mean ALL of them do, does it?
Khalid’s Tenth Objection: A woman’s testimony in court is not equal to a man’s ...This would depend on the nature of the case. In financial matters, yes, you are right. But in other situations, like maternal matters, sexual matters, her testimony equals that of a man...Some times, her testimony is given priority over a man’s testimony.
My Response: Her testimony is not equal to a man’s in sexual matters. To prove rape, her word is not good enough. Four Muslim men of “impeccable” character have to have witnessed the penetration (that’s what makes them impeccable – they can watch a girl get raped and do nothing). So, you aren’t telling the whole truth and what parts you do tell just show that I told the truth. Nothing to recant here - you said so yourself.
Khalid’s Eleventh Objection: She can be stoned to death for being raped? How could you say that? This is a colossal canard? the opposite is true...She should be protected and defended. She is the victim, and her rapist should be punished severely.
My Response: Sorry, but here’s the documentation and here is more.
Khalid’s Twelfth Objection: She can be raped in order to punish her relative for their infractions. Again this is another canard...How could say these things? This is nonsense.
My Response: Documentation here and here. Back in October, when this hit the front pages, it was pointed out that the only reason the men were prosecuted for rape was due to Western interference in the trial. It is, apparently, quite common for Pakistani villages to order retaliatory rapes of women whose relatives commit infractions within the village. Again, tell me that this is not permitted? How can you do this? Islam has no central authority who determines what is true Islam and what is not - just a bunch of competing imams.
Khalid’s Thirteenth Objection: Islam discourages slavery..and urges Muslims to liquidate it...It was rampant in the 6th-century Arabia...and Islam followed a step-by-step approach to eradicate it...There are no slaves today in the Muslim world as far as I know. (slavery is rife in the Bible).
My Response: Khalid, slave armies were still being used by Muslims in 1863. Check here and here.
Khalid’s Fourteenth Objection: Female circumcision is an old African custom..., it has nothing to do with Islam...
My Response: The World Health Organization estimates that 130 million women and girls, most of them in 28 African countries, have been subjected to genital mutilation. Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Somalia and Sudan account for 75 percent of the cases. Circumcision is practiced on young girls to a lesser extent in Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and India, which have sizable Muslim populations. The practice is believed to have started 4,000 years ago before the advent of organized religion. It is performed primarily, but not solely, by Muslims because of what many say is a misconception that it is required by Islam.
It may not have anything to do with Islam, but the fact is, most of the people doing it today are Islamic and THEY think it DOES have something to do with Islam.
Khalid’s Fifteenth Objection: The first dozen caliphs were assassinated, not true.
My Response: This is the only point upon which you have me. The first four caliphs were assassinated. Abu Bakr died of poisoning, Umar was assassinated by a dagger-wielding assailant, Uthman was assassinated by a mob, Ali was assassinated in a mosque in Kufa. Mu’awiya died a natural death only because he barely survived a battle intended to kill him. His son, Yazid, avoided assassination primarily because he got to the knife first. He assassinated his rival, Hasain, and all his followers, including his infant son.
Khalid’s Fifteenth Objection: We Muslims are rational thinkers...we don’t follow blindly our imams..We have the Quran..the eternal word of God, the Last Testament to mankind...Read it ...maybe you will see the light..like the millions of American and European Christians who have reverted to Islam...
My Response: Khalid, you know perfectly well that there are at least a dozen different versions of Islam, all of which say they follow “the eternal word of God.. the Quran”. The fact is, none of you can agree on what it means. There is no caliph, my friend, and one interpretation is just as good as another. If Muslim theology encouraged rational thinking, Muslims would have invented science. You didn’t, even though you had at least a five hundred year head start on the West. You still can’t do science - you have to buy it from the Christians. In Christianity, science developed under the rationality of Catholic Faith. Christianity also has a supreme head: the Pope. True, not everyone listens to him, but he is there and has always been there. The office of Caliph doesn’t even exist anymore and will never be reconstituted. You don’t have a supreme voice, nor even the pretense of one.
Khalid: Does your negative attitude towards Islam mean that we have to increase the number of our nuclear weapons to defend ourselves?
My Response: Khalid, you can barely build one nuclear weapon, much less dozens. You’re Islamic, remember? You can’t do science very well. You can’t even figure out how to buy them from the former USSR on the black market. You aren’t very good at threatening people, are you?
Khalid: Is this how evanglical Christians think? war, holocaust, killing...crusades...killing people because you love them!!!
My Response: No, that’s how Islam thinks. Christians think we have to defend ourselves, i.e., keep anyone from imposing sharia on us or on anyone else. Sharia is evil, my friend, pure evil. And as for the Crusades, give it a rest. Islam conquered one-half of Christianity between 632 and 750. We didn’t call crusade. Islam cut off pilgrimage access to the Holy Lands. We started the stations of the Cross devotion in response. Only when Islam destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem was Crusade called, and that was only after 400 years of Islamic military provocation. Even then, we didn’t attempt to wipe out Mecca or Medina. We stopped when we got Jerusalem and the holy sites back.
Khalid: Muslims protected the Churches, they never destroyed any church as you claim. You are relying on questionable sources. That is why no respectable newspapepr would publish your article.
My Response: The fact that Muslims destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is common knowledge available in any encyclopedia. See this article, for instance:
In 1009, however, the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakin ordered the destruction of all churches in Jerusalem, including the Holy Sepulchre. Christians were forbidden to visit the Church’s ruins. It took almost forty years for the Byzantine Emperor to negotiate a peace treaty with al-Hakin’s successor that granted him permission to rebuild the Holy Sepulchre
Khalid: I have decided to translate your article into Arabic and will post it tomorrow in all the mosques in our area. I will also try to get it published in our Arabic language newspapers. Our peole have the right to know what Christians are plotting against them. I hope you don’t mind.
My Response: Whatever makes you happy, Khalid.
So, this how a self-described prominent Muslim journalist argues. First, he prays that you will get cancer and die. Then he brings forward objections that he knows are false. When you show him that you know he is a liar, he threatens to nuke your country and bring a fatwah, a death sentence, against you personally by posting your refutations in every mosque and newspaper he can reach.
And this is a moderate Muslim. Just think what the immoderate Muslims would do…
About the Writer: Steve Kellmeyer is a nationally recognized author and lecturer who integrates today's headlines with the Catholic Faith. His work is available through http://www.bridegroompress.com. He can be contacted at skellmeyer@bridegroompress.com.
And there is where you are mistaken. If they are fringe, why do they make up the official governments of: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Indonesia, northern Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia, PLO and many other states while counting in the majority in Algeria, Pakistan, growing in Turkey, Libya, etc. While supporting islamic insurgencies in: Russia, Yugoslavia, northern Greece, Makedonia, India, Phillipines, Malaysia, China, Israel, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Ivory Coast and a dozen other states?
If they are such a fringe, why do we not see anti-Fringe demonstrations? If you say it is out of fear, then obviously they aren't such a fringe and wield great power.
If you are a Christian, then your main doctrine is the New Testament, the OT is there to show that the prophecies of the Messiah were true, and to give us an idea of where the roots of our religion come from.
Comparing Samuel to Patrick is illogical, they lived in very different times. Why not compare a scientist of the 1st century to a scientist of the 20th century: they are both scientists, but theories and scientific method are very different.
You stated:And God *is* an angry and vengeful God, whether you are comfortable with that thought or not.
If that is your belief, I feel sorry for you, my God sent his only begotten son to die for us; not very angry and vengeful, is it?
"Islam is criticized as being evil because of the use by fringe elements of death in ways that shock us in the west, and they openly advocate death to those who they percieve as threatening their faith.
And because there is little to no hue and cry against it by "mainstram Islam", the silence if the Imam's and Ayatollahs is seen as tacit approval. BTW: aren't the Ayatollahs and Imams the ones who issue the FATWAS, religious edicts that order the death of people, and groups of people, seen as enemies/blasphemers?
And yet our Christian Bible tells us God commanded people at various times to utterly destroy man, woman and child different tribes; the Caananites and the Amalekites, for example. So for someone to make this argument puts them in a position of indirectly acusing our God of being evil. That is wrong and howver so gentle, it is blasphemous."
OK, now you have me somewhat confused as to what point you are trying to make her. First, there's that old OT hangup again; Second, as I said in my previous post, God's "command" is heard by one person, usually, and is interpreted as to what action to take. Why would God tell man to destroy other men (collectively) when God can easily do it without Man's help. He did just fine with Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot went in to try and save the people.
You seem to be painting the OT God as somewhat wicked with his orders for the destruction of innocents.
Perhaps you are taking the OT too literally. It was not written to be read by ALL, it was written to read by the priests and TOLD to the followers. It has also been translated many times and has changed that way: "Thou shalt not KILL." should read "Thou shalt not MURDER." but a translation changed that.
The lives of the prophets and their actions were written by others, and interpreted by many others. Since Man is a fallible creature, who knows what kind of bias may have crept in over the years.
I seem to recall that Slavery in the US was seen as acceptable because it was in the Bible...do we still feel that way?
So Samuel was evil in telling King Saul to kill the Amalekites and then to strip the kingship away from him because Saul failed to kill all the royal family as well as all the commoner Amalekites?
I can not say if Samuel was evil since I do not kow his motivation, nor do I know if the translation is exact. Again, the OT hang-up, and again, trying to compare it to modern morals and ethics. Saul and Samuel were "products of their times", as were the Amalekites and the Canaanites. Given the choice, neither would have hesitated to destroy the Israelites, because a destroyed enemy can not attack you again: it was COMMON PRACTICE at that point in history.
That's why the cities had big walls around them, and when a city was attacked, ALL able-bodied people helped to defend and support the defenders since they knew they would die if the city fell.
Oliver Cromwell, Puritan, massacred the Catholic citizens of Drogheda and Wexford (Ireland) in 1649, at the behest of his beliefs to destroy Catholics.
People's place in history depends on who writes the history books.
God is presented in the OT similar to the God you say you believe in: angry and vengeful. This is because an "angry and vengeful" God is one that keeps the people under control.
All prayers and requests have to go through the chosen intermediary: priests, imams, etc.
My God, the New Testament God, is not that way, because we are encouraged to read the words of the Lord, and to interpret ourselves, the language is easier to understand than the OT language.
Your comments and comparisons about "Slavery and Subjugation of women" are a bit beyond the pale and they really do not compare.
As for the sex industry in Thailand, it is a Bhuddist country and not Western, regardless of Westerners going there, along with reps from every other race and religion.
In the Islamic world women's status allows them to be raped and treated as sex toys, especially non-Islamic women.
Why go to Thailand when you can be a part of an Islamic rape-gang in Sydney, or Malmo, or Amsterdam.
But it is GOD who is the SOURCE of those laws and moral systems, right?
God is the source of the 10 Commandments, man is the source of the punishments for breaking those commandments, saying that they are "speaking" for God; God is also the source of the "Greatest Commandment": "That you love one another, as I have loved you." The punisment for breaking that one is not going to Heaven.
Has GOD evolved in your opinion?
God cannot evolve, God IS.
Our views of God have evolved, our perceptions of what is expected of us. It is MAN that needs to evolve.
Words fail me, FD. You do our Lord proud.
Lando - that was excellent. Thanks for the post. I never heard of this author but he is certainly very thorough and I like how the links were added for further resources. If you get stuff like this in the future, please ping me if you can. Thanks.
Of course! These laws and moral systems are a fundamental part of the Old Testament.
God, the Father, could not look upon sin, and the punishment for sin in Deuteronomy and Leviticus was death without redemption.
God, the Father, didn't leave us hanging on the limb of eternal death, however. He gave us the Gift of His Son so that all might be saved.
Jesus said that the Law would not be changed, not one jot nor tittle, and it hasn't. The punishment for sin without the Redemption of His Son is eternal death in the fires of hell.
Mankind always has a choice. The Amalekites, the Caananites and the Philistines had a choice. They chose to serve a false god, and their punishment was eternal damnation.
The Law is a fundamental part of the Old Testament, but it is not the foundation of the Old Testament.
The foundation is the Promise which is prevalent throughout the OT.
The promise was fulfilled with the coming of Jesus Christ, and salvation is offered to all who believe.
Christians are obligated to spread the Gospel about the Redemption, but there is no order to kill those who refuse it.
Paul said that in the face of rejection to dust the dirt from the shoes and travel on.
Compare that with this quote from the Quran:
Quran: 033.061
YUSUFALI: "They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy)."
The poster was trying to point out that our scriptures are not all full of sweetness, light, and fluffy kittens either. Condemning the Koran for its violent attitudes whilst ignoring the same in the Old Testament is rather hypocritical.
#182
Best post I've ever seen. Great job!!!
Not really, we have stepped away from the violent past, they still embrace it in Islamist states that have Sharia Law.
Nice one TC.
Nicely done, Jan.
Thanks.
Bump!
First, you are wasting your time trying to "talk" to those who refuse to see.
Totally agree, and it's one of the reasons why I have not bothered wasting my day on this.
They choose to pick out Scriptures out of context and somehow justify the actions of Islam.
It seems that's all it's about. How anyone can defend Islam with it's bigoted core beliefs of gender and religious apartheid is beyond me.
Their energy would be better spent on the Islamic forums trying to convince the Islamofascists there to see the light and understanding their mentality than wasting time baiting folks here (who have not chosen to be their enemies) into a never ending argument.
Thanks, USF.
ONLY HALF IGNORED!
Wow, that's a BIG improvement.
Most of these guys don't want to learn anything, they already know it all.
I see a fatwa coming. The author has stones.
Remember that several cardinals were funding Copernicus' research into heliocentrism at the same time? Probably not, since that part of the story is always left out.
A fallible Church tribunal put Galileo under house arrest for his repeated demands that the Church teach heliocentrism dogmatically. Scientific teaching is outside the Church's sphere of competence. Additionally, the theory was unproven at the time, and the evidence that Galileo presented was faulty. Nevertheless, several other cardinals were funding Copernicus' research.
Finally, the birth of Western science followed on the Church's pronouncement of the dogma of "creation from nothing" as Stanley Jaki so brilliantly explains in The Savior of Science.
The Origin of ScienceHow is it that science became a self-sustaining enterprise only in the Christian West?
...as Whitehead pointed out, it is no coincidence that science sprang, not from Ionian metaphysics, not from the Brahmin-Buddhist-Taoist East, not from the Egyptian-Mayan astrological South, but from the heart of the Christian West, that although Galileo fell out with the Church, he would hardly have taken so much trouble studying Jupiter and dropping objects from towers if the reality and value and order of things had not first been conferred by belief in the Incarnation. (Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos)
To the popular mind, science is completely inimical to religion: science embraces facts and evidence while religion professes blind faith. Like many simplistic popular notions, this view is mistaken. Modern science is not only compatible with Christianity, it in fact finds its origins in Christianity. This is not to say that the Bible is a science textbook that contains raw scientific truths, as some evangelical Christians would have us believe. The Christian faith contains deeper truths-- truths with philosophical consequences that make conceivable the mind's exploration of nature: man's place in God's creation, who God is and how he freely created a cosmos.
In large part, the modern mind thinks little of these notions in much the same way that the last thing on a fish's mind is the water it breathes. It is difficult for those raised in a scientific world to appreciate the plight of the ancient mind trapped within an eternal and arbitrary world. It is difficult for those raised in a post-Christian world to appreciate the radical novelty and liberation Christian ideas presented to the ancient mind.
The following selection summarizes the most notable work of Stanley Jaki, renowned historian of science and Templeton Prize laureate.
How did Christian belief provide a cultural matrix (womb) for the growth of science? In Christ and Science (p. 23), Jaki gives four reasons for modern science's unique birth in Christian Western Europe:
1. "Once more the Christian belief in the Creator allowed a break-through in thinking about nature. Only a truly transcendental Creator could be thought of as being powerful enough to create a nature with autonomous laws without his power over nature being thereby diminished. Once the basic among those laws were formulated science could develop on its own terms."2. "The Christian idea of creation made still another crucially important contribution to the future of science. It consisted in putting all material beings on the same level as being mere creatures. Unlike in the pagan Greek cosmos, there could be no divine bodies in the Christian cosmos. All bodies, heavenly and terrestrial, were now on the same footing, on the same level. this made it eventually possible to assume that the motion of the moon and the fall of a body on earth could be governed by the same law of gravitation. The assumption would have been a sacrilege in the eyes of anyone in the Greek pantheistic tradition, or in any similar tradition in any of the ancient cultures."
3. "Finally, man figured in the Christian dogma of creation as a being specially created in the image of God. This image consisted both in man's rationality as somehow sharing in God's own rationality and in man's condition as an ethical being with eternal responsibility for his actions. Man's reflection on his own rationality had therefore to give him confidence that his created mind could fathom the rationality of the created realm."
4. "At the same time, the very createdness could caution man to guard agains the ever-present temptation to dictate to nature what it ought to be. The eventual rise of the experimental method owes much to that Christian matrix."
But what about the other monotheistic religions? Jaki notes that before Christ the Jews never formed a very large community (priv. comm.). In later times, the Jews lacked the Christian notion that Jesus was the monogenes or unigenitus, the only-begotten of God. Pantheists like the Greeks tended to identify the monogenes or unigenitus with the universe itself, or with the heavens. Jaki writes:
Herein lies the tremendous difference between Christian monotheism on the one hand and Jewish and Muslim monotheism on the other. This explains also the fact that it is almost natural for a Jewish or Muslim intellectual to become a patheist. About the former Spinoza and Einstein are well-known examples. As to the Muslims, it should be enough to think of the Averroists. With this in mind one can also hope to understand why the Muslims, who for five hundred years had studied Aristotle's works and produced many commentaries on them failed to make a breakthrough. The latter came in medieval Christian context and just about within a hundred years from the availability of Aristotle's works in Latin
As we will see below, the break-through that began science was a Christian commentary on Aristotle's De Caelo (On the Heavens).
So how did it all happen? Or fail to happen?
Fr. Paul Haffner writes:
Modern experimental science was rendered possible, Jaki has shown, as a result of the Christian philosophical atmosphere of the Middle Ages. Although a talent for science was certainly present in the ancient world (for example in the design and construction of the Egyptian pyramids), nevertheless the philosophical and psychological climate was hostile to a self-sustaining scientific process. Thus science suffered still-births in the cultures of ancient China, India, Egypt and Babylonia. It also failed to come to fruition among the Maya, Incas and Aztecs of the Americas. Even though ancient Greece came closer to achieving a continuous scientific enterprise than any other ancient culture, science was not born there either. Science did not come to birth among the medieval Muslim heirs to Aristotle.
....The psychological climate of such ancient cultures, with their belief that the universe was infinite and time an endless repetition of historical cycles, was often either hopelessness or complacency (hardly what is needed to spur and sustain scientific progress); and in either case there was a failure to arrive at a belief in the existence of God the Creator and of creation itself as therefore rational and intelligible. Thus their inability to produce a self-sustaining scientific enterprise.
If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation.
These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos.
The rise of science needed the broad and persistent sharing by the whole population, that is, the entire culture, of a very specific body of doctrines relating the universe to a universal and absolute intelligibility embodied in the tenet about a personal God, the Creator of all. Therefore it was not chance that the first physicist was John Buridan, professor at the Sorbonne around the year 1330, just after the time of the two above-mentioned statements of the Church's teaching office.
Buridan's vision of the universe was steeped in the Christian doctrine of the creation; in particular, he rejected the Aristotelian idea [in De Caelo] of a cosmos existing from all eternity. He developed the idea of impetus in which God was seen as responsible for the initial setting in motion of the heavenly bodies, which then remained in motion without the necessity of a direct action on the part of God. This was different from Aristotle's approach, in which the motion of heavenly bodies had no beginning and would also have no end. Buridan's work was continued by his disciple, Nicholas Oresme, around the year 1370; impetus theory anticipated Newton's first law of motion.
The doctrine that God created the universe out of nothing and that the universe had a beginning was later to be reiterated at the First Vatican Council, against the errors of materialism and pantheism which enjoyed a new vogue at that time. In addition, Vatican I stated the absolute freedom of God to create, and made clear (against fideism) the possibility of arriving at God's existence through a rational reflection upon creation. As Jaki states: ``The Council, in line with a tradition almost two millenia old, could but insist on the very foundation of that relation which is man's ability to see the reasonability of revelation, which in turn is inconceivable if man is not able to infer from the world surrounding him the existence of its Creator.
It is precisely the inability of many scientists to trace the grandeur of the Creator in His works that Jaki opposes with great skill. He challenges the atheistic positions of R. Dawkins in the biological sphere and of Stephen Hawking in physics. He shows that the best way to unmask the thought of non-believing scientists is to show how the basis for their reasoning cannot be proven scientifically. In an unjustified way they leave the realm of their own scientific disciplines and make a priori philosophical deductions against Christian belief. Again, one example of this is the pervasive ``chance'' or ``chaos'' ideology used to ``explain'' the coming into being of the material universe, of life and of the human person. Stanley Jaki has also refuted such approaches to the cosmos and creation in his masterly work, The Purpose of It All, published in 1990.
The originality of Jaki's thought also lies in the link which he describes between the dogmas of the Creation and the Incarnation. He shows how the development of the doctrine of creation out of nothing was ``connected with the conceptual refinements of the doctrine of the Incarnation around which raged the great inner debates of the early Church.'' Jaki then discusses how the Jewish position on creation underwent a change during the first few centuries of Christianity. Philo, a contemporary of Jesus, tried to interpret the first chapter of Genesis, but his view ``showed him closer to Greek eternalism than to Biblical creationism.'' The earliest midrashim ``showed that Jewish theologians were no longer willing to uphold the doctrine of the complete submission of matter to the Maker of all.'' In the Mutazalite tradition of Islam there was also a tendency to slide towards emanationism and pantheism, as a result of endorsing the pantheistic necessitarianism of Aristotle.
Jaki clearly affirms that in Christianity, a slide into pantheism was prevented because the doctrine of the creation was bolstered up by faith in the Incarnation. Pantheism is invariably present when the eternal and cyclic view of the cosmos prevails. The uniqueness of the Incarnation and Redemption dashed to pieces any possibility of the eternal and cyclic view; for if the world were cyclic, the once-and-for-all coming of Christ would be undermined. The uniqueness of Christ secures a linear view of history and makes Christianity more than just one among many historical factors influencing the world. The dogmas of the Creation and Incarnation mean ``an absolute and most revolutionary break with a past steeped in paganism,'' and the enunciation of these dogmas and their historical impact is ``an uphill fight never to be completed.'' ...
But the cosmos and all the specific laws which govern it do not form a self-explanatory system; they point beyond science and call for a metaphysical foundation in the Christian doctrine of creation. It is precisely this Christian doctrine of creation which, according to Jaki, was the stimulus for the unique viable birth of science. The Christian doctrine of creation finds its expression within the Church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.