We take a break from the series on freedom to address some questions on the Mother of Jesus, since the month of May is traditionally dedicated to her.
Pole this one went way over the standard word limit.
Q. Yo! If God has no beginning, why do you call Mary the “Mother of God”? Mothers give birth to babies, babies are the beginnings of people... of adults... God is eternal, He has no beginning. I can take her being called the “mother of Jesus” but not the “Mother of God”. That, for a believer like yourself, should be both blasphemy and heresy.
A. And who is Jesus to you?
Q. A man who claimed to be the Son of God.
A. "Claimed"? Is "proved" the word you're looking for?
Q. Nope. Claimed.
A. Ok. Fair enough. Were his claims true or false?
Q. False.
A. Because...
Q. Because science has proved there is no God thus a non-existent God can't have an existent son.
A. Which science proved this? When?
Q. Modern, demonstrable, reliable, evidence-based science since the Enlightenment.
A. So a scientist carried out some modern, demonstrable, reliable, evidence based scientific experiment to prove this?
Q. Nooo! Not in that sense!
A. Oh. My bad... Then in what sense?
Q. The God you and other believers profess is imaginative, surreal, fake, non-existent.
A. Because science proved Him to be fake?
Q. Yes!
A. Which scientist proved this?
Q. I said science not scientist.
A. But science has to be carried out by a scientist, right?
Q. Ok... Many scientists.
A. And these anonymous scientists proved Him to be fake?
Q. Yes.
A. Was it a scientific proof?
Q. Yes.
A. After following the scientific method?
Q. Yes.
A. The same scientific method that requires the scientist to test his theory on observable data from his test object?
Q. Yes.
A. And the test object is God?
Q. Yes.
A. Who does not exist?
Q. Yes.
A. So a non-existent God cannot have an existent son but can have existent data for science to investigate? Do you see some contradiction there?
Q. What are you driving at?
A. That you are contradicting yourself. If God is really non-existent, then science cannot test Him much less prove whether He exists or does not exist. How do you test for existence? How do you measure it? What S.I. units do you use? Does a fat man have more existence than a thin guy?
Q. Whatever... But if science can't prove God doesn't exist then that's a double edged sword because as you said that would also mean you can't scientifically prove that He exists.
A. Correct.
Q. And you're OK with that?
A. Yes.
Q. Really!?
A. Yes. The Church has never claimed you can SCIENTIFICALLY prove God exists.
Q. But you can prove it non-scientifically?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that even count? Is it even possible?
A. Of course!
Q. What science cannot tell us mankind cannot know. That's my motto.
A. Really?
Q. Most certainly!
A. And is that statement itself a statement of science?
Q. What do you mean?
A. What branch of science led you to that conclusion? Was it biology, nuclear physics, mechatronics, biochemsitry, genetics?
Q. Does it matter what branch? What matters is that it is true.
A. Is it really? "What science cannot tell us mankind cannot know." Is it a scientific statement? No. So we cannot know it. It's what we call a logically incoherent statement: if it's true, it's false.
Q. Wait. What!?
A. Take your time. Think about it.
Happy Pentecost Sunday!
15thMay 2016