Friday, September 15, 2006
Benedictine controversy misses the point
The reaction to Pope Benedict XVI’s supposedly offensive speech hasn’t, yet, reached the level of the cultivated hysteria meted out to the Danish cartoons, but Muslim representatives, both elected and self appointed, are in full outrage mode. Personally I agree with Andrew Brown, at The First Post, that context, both historical and textual, is key… and with Stephen Bates, at CiF, “if you cannot, as part of a lengthy and profound academic lecture, cite a 600 year-old text for fear of stirring the aggravation of noisy politicians half way around the world, what CAN you do?”. Although I’m less enamoured with Benedict’s attempt to equate, or entwine, religion and science.. which seems to be the actual objective of the speech, Meeting with the Representatives of Science Updated
For the record here’s the offensive paragraph from the speech
In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...”.
As Andrew Brown pointed out Constantinople fell 50 years later
But the later paragraphs, including Benedict’s conclusion, have been all but overshadowed in the controversy
In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world’s profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought - to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: “It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss”. The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. “Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God”, said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.
Updated A spokesman for Pope Benedict XVI has clarified his comments
The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful, and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions.
Indeed it was he who, before the religious fervour of Muslim believers, warned secularised Western culture to guard against “the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom”.
Perhaps scientists should burn a couple of effigies..?
And it wasn’t secular society that interpreted his address in that manner..
And Pope Benedict XVI has added
At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.
These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.
Yesterday, the Cardinal Secretary of State published a statement in this regard in which he explained the true meaning of my words.
I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect.
Pete Baker @ 02:30 PM
‘’Perhaps scientists should burn a couple of effigies..?’’
Perhaps they should Pete. But on the other hand would that not give the religious delusionists some sort of credibility? Exactly why would science wish to give creedence to such ravings?
Religionists are more than happy to fully utilise the rewards of scientific research—medical interventions, air travel, the internet, but as soon as science steps into the way of their beliefs, as in evolution, contraception, stem cell research etc, suddenly science is guilty of denying or challenging their notion of God.Should such nonsensical ideas be given creedence alongside proven scientific acheivements? Or should science quietly ignore the ramblings of the pontiff and the mullahs and plough it’s own furrow? Let the religionists fight their own battles amongst themselves and let the rest of us get on with the world of reality.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 08:16 PMGerry - the Pope would disagree with you when you say that reason and religion have nothing to do with each other. He is appealing to the Islamists to dialogue with reason.
I originally thought the Muslims were responding with emotion. But after sleeping on it, I think that the Muslim response to the Pope’s speech is actually cynical and calculating. The riots and mayhem appear spontaneous on the surface - but they started after Friday prayers, complete with English placards and pre-made effigies (where do they get these?) It seems to be yet another power play designed to further stifle criticism of Islam from the politically correct Judeo-Christian West.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 09:10 PM‘’the Pope would disagree with you when you say that reason and religion have nothing to do with each other.’’
No arguments there Patty. The Pope would disagree with me on a large number of issues.
I fail to see however, how reason can have anything to do with religious belief. By definition, religious belief is simply that—an irrational belief held with no evidence whatsoever—reason is not involved, merely blind faith and imagination.
I do agree with you regarding the highly organised Muslim outrage—we’ve seen similar, albeit much smaller, ‘spontaneous’ outbreaks of pre-planned outrage in our own little neck of the woods, with strings being pulled by those with larger, more sinister agendas. There was something particularly obscene about watching women in full burkas ‘protesting’ on the streets, defending a belief system which relegates them to the role of freak show.
It is vital that western governments and leaders do not give in to this form of hysterical protest. To do so would be to give Islam some sort of moral superiority over other faiths. All regimes and faiths are equally open to criticism and ridicule, and Muslims do not qualify for some sort of exceptional treatment. These people demand respect but show none for other faiths (how many Christian churches are tolerated in Muslim strongholds?), they reserve the right to provoke violence and issue death threats at the slightest offensive remark and twist their own scriptures to justify suicide bombings and the slaughter of the innocent. The west must not give in to this form of blackmail, and the Pope should not provide any further form of ‘apology.’Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 10:36 PMFanny
““..Swine and servant of the cross, worships a monkey on a cross, hateful evil man, stoned Satan, may Allah curse him, blood-sucking vampire.”
This made me laugh, substitute one word and it could fairly easily gave fitted into a sermon from the NI politician who gets the most votes. I always suspected there was a yawning gulf between western civilisation and the DUP.
Anyway, Benedict is obviously an intelligent and very intellectual man, but he was pretty stupid to say what he did on this occasion.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 11:39 PMPatty
“..complete with English placards and pre-made effigies”
It doesn’t really take that long to make a placard and an effigy - and don’t forget many Muslim countries are in the east, so they are few hours ahead of us here in the west.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 11:59 PMGerry: I couldn’t agree with you more. I really hope the Pope does not “apologize.” The West already lacks political leaders who will stand up for the right to criticize. The New York TImes is falling all over itself in a rush not to offend radical islamists. It’s pathetic.
Shuggie: you say the Pope was stupid on this occassion, but don’t you see that it really doesn’t matter what exactly or when exactly the Pope says something. The Radical Islamists seem to be playing chess while we are playing pick-up-sticks. In other words, they pick their fights, are well prepared, have media lined up and have very rapidly and thoroughly spread the messagage that it’s not ok to criticize the Muslims. I believe this is intentional. Once we all decide to shut up and not criticize, Radical Islamists can continue promoting their goal, which, I guess, is the spread of Islam, world-wide. Meanwhile, we delicately move around them trying not to offend.
Tell me I’m paranoid. Because I wish I were. But I’m afraid I’m not.
Posted by on Sep 17, 2006 @ 12:07 AMPatty
You’re not.
Posted by on Sep 17, 2006 @ 06:26 AMGerry, perhaps religion sounds irrational to you simply because they make their case. The more you make your case, the more you are open to that charge.
How - created.
OK, by whom and when - God 13 billion years ago.OK, what’s he like, what has he done, where does he live, what is his relationship to us etc etc without end.
The more questions you answer the more questions there are, the more you are open to the charge of irrationality because you get down to questions like ‘how many angels on a pin’ and ‘who is the guardian angel of the blogosphere’.
As i’ve said before here, there are two possibilities - creation or natural process. Both have to make their case through reason. This is part of the invitation to dialogue by the Pope.
If we don’t want to be charged with irrationalities then we should all be agnostics. The problem with agnosticism though is that it doesn’t get you anywhere. It doesn’t progress thought, it just says ‘i don’t know’.
If you want to progress the thought you have to pick one of the two unproved theories and explore that, carefully dividing your core beliefs from those you are less certain of.
If you look at the atheists that actually try to make their case, ( unlike the great majority of atheists who appear to me to lazily assume that science will work it out, and it will somehow concur with themselves ) then there is a lot there to describe as irrational also.
Hawkings 11 dimensions, universal planes bouncing off eachother creating big bangs, parallel worlds being created at every instant, knots or strings in other dimensions etc etc.
The same situation applies, the more questions you answer the more you are asked and the more sillier it looks, and of course they all contradict eachother.
It is interesting that the atheistic scientists ( together with religious ones) all now have one thing in common - they are talking about other dimensions (beyond our universe) when trying to answer the big questions.
They are all retreating into other dimensions to try and explain the underlying process for our own reality. One problem with this is that the proofs for any of these more serious attempts will be found beyond science by definition of science itself. The reason they are retreating is that scientists have gotten down to the most basic components of matter and it’s behaviour is not ‘cause and effect’ in this universe.
A generation or two ago the attraction of atheism was that you didn’t have to retreat to other realms to explain existance or the logic of the universe, it was thought you could do it through science by studying ‘cause and effect’.
That attraction is now looking mis-placed.
There is no doubt there is much irrational in religion. As explained above, it almost has to be by definition, the same as the atheistic attemps above. Yo have to constantly change and re-assess your thoughts and go down certain paths before realising your mistakes. Above all you need to be guided by reason.
The Pope is calling for a dialogue based on reason and i for one think he is right to do so, both with Islam and the secular west.
Posted by on Sep 17, 2006 @ 08:03 AMAbucs, that’s a very well-reasoned piece. My compliments.
John Fogerty fans take note.
Posted by on Sep 17, 2006 @ 09:23 AMAbucs—you appear to be basing your arguments here on the notion of creationism vs evolution. I personally don’t subscribe to either theory (though evolution at least has some scientific merit). I’m in that boring camp you mention above as agnostic ‘don’t knows’. It stands to reason that we cannot, at least in our current state of human progress, know with any certainty how or even if the universe was created. Entertaining theories such as ‘The Matrix’ seem as likely as any other notion. There are over 500 known creation myths adhered to in the world today—the biblical one (or is that two?) is a solitary example that happens to have the backing of a particularly vocal section of humanity.
Sadly there is precisely nothing to recommend creationism over any other theory, other than blind faith in one particular myth.I watched ‘The Doomsday Code’ on Channel 4 last night, with a growing sense that I had been born on the wrong planet. The amount of delusion on display as regards biblical prophecy, raptures and tribulations suggested nothing more than a government sanctioned Star Trek convention, yet millions of seemingly intelligent people take this stuff seriously.
Your argument appears to be that if we don’t know what created the universe, then God must have done it. Just because we don’t currently understand something does not make it a given for a supernatural explanation.
Posted by on Sep 17, 2006 @ 09:24 AM‘’If you want to progress the thought you have to pick one of the two unproved theories and explore that, carefully dividing your core beliefs from those you are less certain of.’’
You don’t ‘’have’’ to pick either of these theories Abucs. After all there is precisely zero evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, for creationism, so there is absolutely no reason why you can’t propose your own theory.
How about this one: Approx. 20 thousand years ago, some super-intelligent beings landed on a barren planet called earth. They reckoned it might make a good holiday / sports retreat for their own people, and so, using advanced ‘seed’ technology, they populated the planet with animals for sport and hunting, plants for cover and decoration and humans for more entertaining sport. Having completed this task, they returned to their home planet only to discover their entire species had been wiped out by a mystery virus, which also killed them. No-one ever returned to the ‘sport’ planet, and the more intelligent species on the earth were left to forever wonder what they were there for.
I dreamt up this ‘creation’ scenario in my coffee break—it has just as much ‘evidence’ as the notion of God creating the universe from nothing, putting his ‘most important’ creation on the equivalent of a grain of sand in the Sahara and reserving an afterlife for just one of over 10 million species he lovingly created. It’s entirely indefensible in the world of logic and reason, but why let that stop you?
Unfortunately Abucs, this being the sabbath, I’m off to the football, but I’d be more than happy to debate with you during the week.
Posted by on Sep 17, 2006 @ 10:10 AMThanks Fanny.
Hi Gerry.
I don’t make any comment on evolution here. Evolution is a big subject with differring branches of adherants interpreting fossil records and the different nature of genetics and what changes genes etc. I am not against evolution because it is at least a contributing factor IMHO.
I think Gerry that agnostics are fair enough. Personally, i think that we should all have a healthy dose of agnosticism. But only a dose. We can only really learn if we have an open mind, but i wouldn’t want that open mind to be an unenquiring mind that assumes there is no creator. In that way one would be choosing a ‘natural creation’ without really thinking about it much the same as the people presented on channel 4 as not enqiring.
I wouldn’t say there is a creator because we don’t know how certain things work.
I just look at the evidence and think a creation is more likely and rational than a purely natural process. I’m not talking exclusively about life here but about the universe itself. Certainly i agree with the current scientific notion that our reality is based ‘somewhere else’.
Again i ask the question - will man be able to create a self sustaining environment that brings forth life.
If no then it doesn’t make much sense to say it can be created out of nothing by chance.
If yes, then we can’t preclude the possibility that someone has created us and our universe.
People with an enquiring mind will look at science and use their own rationality and logic and experience on what they think is the most likely scenario. People will do that and come up with different answers.
When i look at our universe and its laws it looks like a creation. After that i’m into the irrationalities of answering the long list of questions that man has tried to answer for thousands of years. But i know whichever path i choose there are irrationalities. To my mind i have to choose, and i choose the less irrational path IMHO but am always open to change.
Posted by on Sep 17, 2006 @ 10:10 AMGerry,
that alien creation story still doesn’t answer the question of where our universe came from. The same would apply if we were the alien race that created life and then blew ourselves up. The question of the origin of our universe would remain.
It’s interesting that the book of genesis talks about creation in an almost off hand manner. God created this and that and then it’s all over. The main emphasis of the genesis book seems to be to relate man to God by the Adam and Eve story rather than a sensible discussion on the origins of the universe. Other than to say - twas God that did it.
Posted by on Sep 17, 2006 @ 10:18 AMPope Benedict XVI has added
At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.
These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.
Yesterday, the Cardinal Secretary of State published a statement in this regard in which he explained the true meaning of my words.
I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect.
Posted by on Sep 17, 2006 @ 03:39 PMThe reaction from the muslim world shows he had nothing to apologise for. Don’t they see the paradox of their position ‘We’re going to kill you because you said our religion is based on violence’. Hmmmm…
Posted by on Sep 17, 2006 @ 09:23 PMFascinating that the ‘muslim’ media does not seem to see the weakness of their position. ‘Ask fifty illerate goat farmers what you have been told to say to outrage the infidels’ and you have a story. Did they read the speech? freedom of speech and access to media are in most muslim countries ‘regulated’.
Refusal to accept apolgies, burning of of christian churces in the west bank, murder of an itialian nun in mogadishu, the continuing genocide in Darfur, the denial of freedom of speech, religious belief, and democracy would not seem to help the islamic view that they are a movement for peace. Why dont they comment on those issues?Posted by on Sep 17, 2006 @ 11:55 PMharvey: In the West, we look to our media to report events as they unfold, and expect an exchange of ideas and opinions. In the East, Radical Islam is waging a war against us, using their media - and its propoganda value - as one of the fronts in the battle. The cynical “outrage” that we are currently witnessing unites muslims in the Middle East around hatred against the West and through intimitation prevents Westerners from criticizing the radical islamic movement.
Posted by on Sep 18, 2006 @ 12:41 AM“Why dont they comment on those issues?”
Because, Harvey, in the Muslim Middle East the truth will set you free. Either your soul will be freed of its mortal coil or your body will be freed of its head.
Posted by on Sep 18, 2006 @ 12:48 AM‘’It’s interesting that the book of genesis talks about creation in an almost off hand manner.’’
Absolutely correct Abucs. Anyone who has read the bible can’t help but be struck by the anomaly that pages and pages are given over to who begat who or the exact dimensions of Noah’s Ark, but the original ‘creation’ is glossed over in an almost childlike manner. What this suggests is that the author / authors of Genesis didn’t have much of a clue about the size, nature or workings of the universe (why would they?), but were highly concerned with MAN’S relationship with his deity. I emphasise the word man because the Eden myth is merely a hatchet job on women, and the various holy books have been well used down the centuries to subjugate and demonise women, homosexuals, scientists, indeed anyone who doesn’t conform to the ‘God-given’ male ideal.
From the point of view of Genesis, the notion of a divine creator is entirely nonsensical. You correctly stated that my ‘alien’ story did not explain the origin of the universe, and of course the creation idea does not even attempt to explain where God came from, or how he managed to make something out of nothing.
The simple (agnostic) answer is that we have no way of knowing where the universe came from, and may well never be able to, but rather than accepting this, and allowing science to hypothesize to it’s heart’s content, the likes of the US Fundies insist on kicking up a stink about evolutionary theory being on the school curriculum. This makes no sense whatsoever, as evolutionary theory is taught in science class, and the vast majority of scientists accept it as the best available theory. Therefore the thoughts of the church are entirely irrelevant. Science does not seek to dictate what is taught in RE class and rightly so, so why not live and let live.
The point I’m getting at here is that religious belief is absolutely fine until it begins to infringe on such basic rights as free speech, contraception, sexual orientation and the right of a women to wear clothing of her own choosing. Once religion goes beyond the realm of fantasy, and attempts to ‘reason’, it begins to clash with the real world. I entirely fail to see why any airtime or attention should be given to the likes of the Pope or the mullahs bleating attempts to impose their delusion systems on the rest of us.‘’When i look at our universe and its laws it looks like a creation.’’
With all due respect Abucs, people much more intelligent than you or me looked at events such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and assumed them to be the wrath of God. We now see thses as natural global events. People of similar intelligence saw crop failures and cited witchcraft.
What may look to you ‘like a creation’ may well in fact be the result of entirely random events occuring over an immense period of time. It’s all a matter of perspective.Posted by on Sep 18, 2006 @ 03:32 PM‘Swine and servant of the cross, worships a monkey on a cross’
This strange insult is actually self-depreciatory as Islam recognize <a > Jesus </a> as a prophet and as God’s apostle.
It strikes me that the Islamic world has little understanding of the origin of their own faith. The prophet <a > Muhammad <a> led an army and engaged in bloody warfare. Despite Muslim leaders pinpointing bloody episodes from the history of Christendom, there is no parallel between the births of the two faiths. Christianity was founded on principles of self sacrifice and pacifism, Islam’s association with violence stems from it’s foundation.
Posted by on Sep 19, 2006 @ 02:58 AM“This strange insult is actually self-depreciatory as Islam recognize Jesus as a prophet and as God’s apostle.”
LL, I thought this myself, until I remembered a Muslim friend telling me that Jesus was never crucified.(Eyewitnesses notwithstanding, as well as the historian Josephus.)
From Qur’an 4: 155-159
“That they rejected faith: that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge.
That they said (in boast) “We killed Christ (Maseeh) Jesus the son of Mary the Apostle of Allah”; but they killed him not nor crucified him but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts with no (certain) knowledge but only conjecture to follow for of a surety they killed him not.
Nay Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power Wise.”So all the followers of Christ were FOOLED into thinking he was crucified!
Posted by on Sep 19, 2006 @ 04:25 AMThat would be news to the disciples who all died for their faith. Excepting Judas of course and John who was exiled to the isalnd of Patmos.
And of course there’s still that shroud thing hanging around.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4210369.stm
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 04:09 AMExcepting Judas of course and John who was exiled to the isalnd of Patmos.
Judas died for his faith in money, and of course John left us the magnificent manuscript referred to as Revelation, which was covered in alarming detail in the Channel 4 documentatry; ‘The Doomsday Code’ the other night.
The article on the updated shroud mystery is interesting. Perhaps Christ could be cloned from his DNA, thereby fulfilling bible prophecy and uniting science and religion? What a film that would make....
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 12:52 PMHush, Gerry! Spielberg may be listening.
You may just have thrown away a $500,000 pitch.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 01:13 PMDOH!
Posted by on Sep 21, 2006 @ 05:25 PM
