Myers

Today PZ Myers of Pharyngula turns 50. It's no secret that I have my differences, and diametrical oppositions, to Myers; but as birthdays are to be celebrated, it seems fitting to highlight something that Myers, without any doubt, does exceptionally well. I'm reminded of a comment in a preface to an old science book:

Teachers in science are nearly equally divided into two classes ; those who know too much, and those who know too little. Those of the first class, overloaded with science, cannot admit the possibility of meeting with readers who have none ; and, therefore, their essays and introductions are so worded that it requires a tolerable proficiency to understand them. The teachers of the second class fall into the opposite error ; they curtail, garble, and popularize the writings of others without understanding them, forgetful that it requires a consummate knowledge of any science to abridge a work which treats of it ably and at large. The Author submits, with much humility, that both classes are in error: he submits also that introductory works should be written for those who know nothing of the subject on which they read, and by those who possess, in themselves, some practical knowledge of the subject on which they write.

[Edward Newman, The Grammar of Entomology (1835).]

Myers, when he decides to do it, is exceptional at doing precisely this: writing science for those who don't know it, without garbling or curtailing. It's a difficult skill to find -- many people who think they have it, don't -- and it's to be celebrated wherever it is found. And there are only a few in the blogosphere who are even in Myers's league on this point. A sample of some relatively recent posts of his on scientific matters that are worth reading:

Evolution of Vascular Systems
Evolution of the Mammalian Vagina
Basics: Gastrulation
Basics: Gastrulation, Invertebrate Style

Gregory of Nyssa

Today in some parts of the world is the commemoration for St. Gregory of Nyssa, one of the great Cappadocian fathers, brother of St. Basil the Great, one of the most brilliant minds in the history of the Church (although very bad at practical matters, by everyone's admission including his own and his brother's). His work On Not Three Gods, a tight and closely reasoned summary of the Cappadocian view of the Trinity, has been very big influence on my own view of the Trinity; if there are any theological works on the Trinity that I wish people discussing the subject would closely read first, they would be Basil's book on the Holy Spirit, Augustine's on the Trinity, and Gregory's on Not Three Gods.

Another important Nyssan work is his Life of Macrina, a spiritual classic. St. Macrina was the sister of Basil and Gregory, and although she left behind no writings, her mark on the world, known through her brothers, is significant. It is another work deserving wide readership.

One of his most important works, The Life of Moses, does not appear to be online. In it Gregory uses the life of Moses as a template for understanding spiritual progress. First we begin in the darkness of ignorance; then we find spiritual illumination; and this spiritual illumination leads us to the darkness of contemplation.

Hume Studies

I've received my copy of the most recent Hume Studies (April 2006 -- the issues are a year behind at present), and it looks to be a doozy. There's an article by Norton and Perinetti on the earliest review of volume 3 of Hume's Treatise, in the Bibliothèque raisonée. Jasper Reid, of whose work I'm a big fan, has an article comparing Jonathan Edwards and David Hume. And there's more. You can expect something or other on it over the next week.

Sic et Non

Once when teaching a class (a three-hour one), I threw everyone in the class for a loop by spending almost the first hour arguing in favor of David Hume's argument in the essay on miracles; the next hour, after the break, arguing against; and, after a second break, most of the third hour arguing in favor of it. At the end I took a poll of the class, asking whether they thought it worked. Then I put my own vote up; of course, I don't think it does. Some of the students thought I was deliberately being perverse. But, as I pointed out to them, some arguments are best understood sic et non.

(I didn't use that phrase, of course.)

Rough Jottings on Essence and Energies

Mike Liccione asked for a post on the distinction between the divine essence and the divine energies. I find that I actually don't have much to say about it. I'm a bit idiosyncratic in my view of the matter. As I've noted before on this weblog, I am, in at least a broad sense, a Palamist, so I agree that there is such a distinction. I'm also, in at least a broad sense, a Thomist, so I think God is wholly simple. There are occasionally attempts to hold that these two positions are mutually exclusive. This is fairly clearly not so. On Aquinas's account of divine simplicity, simplicity is noncomposition, where composition is union of two things as being in some way actual and (passively) potential. The particular cases he considers are:

1) quantitative parts (physical part & whole)
2) matter and form
3) nature and supposit
4) essence and esse
5) genus and difference
6) subject and accident

Aquinas is quite clear that he regards this as an exhaustive list. You will note that essence and energies are not on the list. This is scarcely surprising since the distinction between essence and energies is not -- and cannot be -- between two components one of which is actual and the other of which is potential. The essence is not actualized by the energies and the energies are not actualized by the essence. Further, one of the key points of simplicity understood in this way is that it is closely connected to immutability. Composition in terms of actual and passive potential means that the composite thing is, in principle, mutable; which no serious follower of Palamas or the Ecumenical Councils will concede.

Moreover, it is clear that (1) there is good reason to think that the distinction between essence and energies is really a distinction; and (2) there is good reason to think that the distinction is notional.

(1) The divine names are not synonymous. But denying the distinction between essence and energies in the sense Palamas makes it would commit us to saying that the divine names are, in fact, synonymous. One of Gregory's arguments for the distinction is that regarding 'nature' and 'things pertaining to nature' as the same leads to heretical confusions; we can't conflate nature, intellect, will, compassion, judgment, etc., because we make nonsense of Christian doctrine if we do. And he is exactly right. Nature and will are not logically equivalent, even in the divine case. But Aquinas's account of simplicity is not Descartes's; he does not make this confusion.

(2) However, what these terms refer to are not divided from each other in the Godhead. The divine nature is, as a whole, goodness; as a whole, wisdom; as a whole, justice; as a whole, power. And so forth. The terms are distinct, and necessarily so, but that to which they refer in God is one and the same. It's the unity that evades capture by human thought; we can obliquely refer to it, but we cannot understand it in itself, for refracting it into several non-synonymous conceptions, recognized not to be separable in the divine nature itself, is the only means we have of understanding such things. Thus they differ according to their mode of intelligibility; as does that in God which is incommunicable and that in God by which we participate in divinity.

But more to the real point, Aquinas himself insists that the gift of rapture is given to certain people; and that in this grace of rapture our light (the intellect) is strengthened with glory so that we become deiform so as to see divine light. He explicitly denies, for instance, that St. Paul when rapt to the third heaven, saw a merely created glory. He, glorified, saw God; in the rapture he was given a deifying gift. And God cannot be seen through any created means, but only through His own superabundant intelligibility. This is what is chiefly at stake in the dispute between the hesychasts and their critics, among which was the utterly confused and clueless Barlaam.

The point is not that Palamas and Aquinas agree on everything. It would be astonishing if they did. The point is that attempts to make the latter straightforwardly a contradiction of the former simply are showing confusions about Aquinas, and that, on the other side, the natural thing for a Thomist to do is to learn from Palamas. It can be done without ceasing to be Thomistic.

Of course, the point I really wish people would take away is that this is not a matter for polemics but for charitable doctrine. Say that I fail in my understanding of the account of the distinction between essence and energies, which is more than possible; it won't be conceded that the true account is less wonderful than the one I've suggested here. But the account I've suggested here, if true, suggests something so worthwhile that everyone ought to be told about it; no one should be attacked simply for not recognizing it as true, because that wastes precious moments that could be sent lovingly teaching them the truth. And if there is a better account, it is more worthy, not less, to be taught in such a way. For example, you can tell those Orthodox who truly believe the Palamite doctrine and those who merely uphold it through a party spirit. Those who truly believe it are excited about it; it charges them with love for their fellow man and an earnest desire that they, too, may know of this great and good truth, that God became man so that man might receive a deifying gift. They seek to convey it a thousand ways in the hope that those who do not understand might come to understand. Those who uphold it only out of party spirit conveniently forget that their acquaintance with it is not something they have due to their own intelligence or purity but simply and solely because God decided to bless them with the grace of being Orthodox. Because of this, they attack those who do not immediately recognize the doctrine as being stupid, or ignorant, or even corrupt. They spend far more time and effort criticizing other people for not believing it than they do teaching it; a sign of dangerous priorities. For the one the very doctrine is almost a prayer, and certainly a joy, itself; for the other, it is merely a line dividing the party of the Wise from that of the Foolish and the party of the Light from the party of the Dark. Here, as elsewhere, the true believers are marked out by a love for others and a concern for truth that the false believers lack. This is true even when the true believers criticize, which they sometimes do, and sometimes even do sharply. The difference from the mere partisans is palpable. Charity should rule all in all matters such as this.

Alas, it rarely does.

The Passion of Perpetua

Today is the feast of Perpetua and Felicity, two early Christian martyrs (they died in A.D. 203). One of the especially interesting things about Perpetua is that we have her own account of the events leading up to her martyrdom. Her summary of it was preserved in a section of The Passion of Saints Perpetua and Felicity. A portion of it:

Another day as we were at meal we were suddenly snatched away to be tried; and we came to the forum. Therewith a report spread abroad through the parts near to the forum, and a very great multitude gathered together. We went up to the tribunal. The others being asked, confessed. So they came to me. And my father appeared there also, with my son, and would draw me from the step, saying: Perform the Sacrifice; have mercy on the child. And Hilarian the procurator - he that after the death of Minucius Timinian the proconsul had received in his room the right and power of the sword - said: Spare your father's grey hairs; spare the infancy of the boy. Make sacrifice for the Emperors' prosperity. And I answered: I am a Christian. And when my father stood by me yet to cast down my faith, he was bidden by Hilarian to be cast down and was smitten with a rod. And I sorrowed for my father's harm as though I had been smitten myself; so sorrowed I for his unhappy old age. Then Hilarian passed sentence upon us all and condemned us to the beasts; and cheerfully we went down to the dungeon. Then because my child had been used to being breastfed and to staying with me in the prison, straightway I sent Pomponius the deacon to my father, asking for the child. But my father would not give him. And as God willed, no longer did he need to be suckled, nor did I take fever; that I might not be tormented by care for the child and by the pain of my breasts.

National Religious Campaign Against Torture

The National Religious Campaign Against Torture is devoted to obtaining passage of U. S. legislation prohibiting any and all U.S.-sponsored and -condoned torture, prohibiting any exemption from the U.S.'s adherence to human rights standards, prohibiting the existence of secret prisons for detainees, restoring habeas corpus protections for such detainees, and prohibiting the use of evidence derived from torture and degrading treatment in all cases where the guilt or innocence of someone must be determined.

You can donate to them online via a secure Groundspring service.

Previous Posts in this Series
GoodSearch
The Amazing Change