In order to accurately understand the controversy, the following questions must be answered:
(1) What is the argument that Pope Benedict XVI made in his speech?
(2) Is his argument true? (or at least logically valid and potentially true in light of scripture)
(3) What was his purpose in making this argument?
(4) What was his purpose in including the quote from Manuel Paleologus that many Muslims found offensive?
(5) Was it prudent for the Pope to give the address as a whole, and to include the offending Paleologus quote?
The answers to these questions will indicate whether Pope Benedict acted properly in making the presentation that he did at the University of Regensburg. We will know if what he said is true (or at least could be true, or is worth inquiry), what his intent was, and whether he acted prudently as a practical matter. If his argument is true or worthy of consideration, his intent was good, and he acted with wisdom in giving his speech, he has no culpability. If defects can be found in any of these matters, then some level of criticism is legitimate and some degree of repentence for whatever mistakes were made is appropriate. The first step in making this determination is to understand what exactly the Pope said in his speech.
1. What is the argument that Pope Benedict XVI made in his speech?
- The topic of the speech is whether, "acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature...a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?" Paleologus argued that not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. Further, to use violence to compel faith does not make sense because human "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" Benedict states that Paleologus is correct in his contention that acting unreasonably is contrary to God's nature, backing up his position with John chapter 1 which states that in the beginning was the "word", which is the term logos--a term that means also reason and the word. As such, God is a rational, creative being that seeks to communicate with His creation. Benedict argues that God is not only rational, but also good, and that the right exercise of reason reveals what is good, or virtue. The history of Christianity's engagement with Greek philosophy then is an occurance that enables man to know God more truly and deeply, and also to know what it means to act virtuously.
- Benedict next discusses some trends in theology that he finds toubling because they have the effect of separating to at least some respect the joining of faith and reason. Benedict mentions the view that God's freedom means that he could have acted contrary than how he has, and the possibility that God's transcendance and otherness are so exalted that our own reason and ability to determine what is good cannot be relied on as a mirror of God's nature. Benedict states that these trends were strong in the Protestant tradition of "sola scriptura" which he states sought to find faith in its original form as found in the Bible, thus devaluing the the position of reason in faith. Eventually, this led to thinkers like Kant stating that he needed to set reason aside in order to make room for faith. When faith is divorced from reason, it can lead to the view that God transcends our senses of what is good and true.
- Benedict states that the Roman Catholic Church "has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language (cf. Lateran IV)." Benedict is stating that man can relate to and understand God (imperfectly but with a degree of accuracy leading to understanding despite our human limitations). However, in modern times (the 19th and 20th centuries) reason has been limited to where many believe it can only present truth in a limited sphere of inquiry. First, "only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific....Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity." Secondly, this method automatically excludes the question of God, and leads to the implication that the question is unscientific." Benedict states that this reduces "the radius of science and reason", a reduction that should be questioned. This reduction of the spheres in which science and reason may operate has grave consequences. If theology conforms to this definition of "scientific" the result is a reduction of Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. Additionally, man ends up being reduced, "for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by "science" and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective "conscience" becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate." Put another way, under this system we choose our beliefs and ethics based primarily on our life experiences and our conscience, without giving necessary thought as to whether our beliefs are true. A community that is concerned with questions of God and ethics and learns from one another is not teneble since the core of religious and ethical beliefs consists of experiences and the subjective conscience which others do not share.
- The Pope concludes by stating that reason must not be limited to empirically verifiable matters, nor should faith be divorced from reason. Pope Benedict closes with why it is important that reason is married to faith: "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...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.
- At minimum, I believe that the Pope's argument is logically valid, although one might question his premises and the conclusion he draws. Whether each particular point he makes or example he draws in the speech is likely debatable and worthy of debate. Within the sphere of Christian theology and philosophy, his argument certainly appears to have merit. If God is a God of reason, and we are made in his image, then it is certainly possible that he wants us to use our reason as a tool of knowing Him more truly. Equally so, to the extent that a religion or worldview states that God is wholly separate from man and essentially unknowable, then a Christian should question that worldview, as the Christian God is one who took on flesh, dwelt among us, and reconciles us to God, and in fact dwells in those who are reconciled to God via the Holy Spirit. In the matter of morals, it is certainly worth investigating whether our reason means that we can in some sense comprehend the God who is good, and thus have an understanding of what the good is in our lives and what God truly desires. For these reasons, I believe that Pope Benedict acted properly in raising these issues.
- If the Pope sought to actively insult Muslims, or to cause violence, then he acted wrongly. However, the text of the speech and the argument as a whole do not point towards this as the overarching purpose of his address. Instead, the purpose was to address the interrelation of faith and reason; to state that God is both rational and good, and that in order to both know God and know what good is (and thus God's will) we must exercise our reason. He also states that what is considered rational cannot be limited to merely questions that can be empirically answered, for to do so means to fail to engage questions regarding the purpose of life. These purposes are good and noble, and thus one should not find the Pope guilty of an evil intent in making his speech.
- I think that the quotation of Paleologus was introduced for the purpose of giving a concrete historical example of the danger that results from relying on force and not reason in doing God's will and spreading His word. Certain segments of Islam, and the leadership of many Islamic countries have accepted the use of violence as being God's will. Pope Benedict could have taken a specific modern example out of saystatements of Bin Laden, but in doing so, his point may have been considered limited to him. However, he did not want to impugn all of modern Islam and its adherents. Thus, he drew a historical example that explained why Manuel Paleologus was debating issues of faith and reason. Throughout much of Paleologus' reign, he was occupied with defending the remnants of the Byzantine empire and Constantinople from Muslim attacks. (One begins to understand why the Emperor was hyperbolic regarding Islam.) To the extent that adherents of any religion, but here specifically Islam, use violence to spread the faith and do God's will, they bring things evil and inhuman. However, where Benedict failed in his speech is in failing to explain the context of Paleologus' quote being from a man who was constantly defending his city against Muslim attackers. Also, the Pope should have been clear that Paleologus' quote that Islam has only brought evil was false. However, to the extent that the sword is used to spread the faith (in the name of any religion) then this is contrary to God's will and does lead to things evil and inhuman.
- I believe that giving the address certainly was prudent and acceptable, but that the Pope's failure to fully explain the context of the Paleologus quote was not prudent. Thus, the clarification that the Pope made stating that the offending quote was not his belief, and his regret that he offended some Muslims was appropriate. The rest of the speech is nothing that should be apologized for, and in fact the offensive quote provides an example (when understood in historical context) of the very real issue of using violence rather than reason and love to spread religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment