The pope's speech: in the name of reason?

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
To me, the line: “Pope Benedict XVI fears the decline of reason in the West” is eyebrow-raising. What I’ve seen of Benedict doesn’t make me think he’s a champion of reason. Granted, I pay very little attention, and would gladly accept correction if he is.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=intention]
I gotta confess … having the man who is the main upholder of virgin birth, saints, statues that weep blood, various miracles, and divine infallibility when speaking ex cathedra paint himself as the defender of “reason” is absolutely delicious …

w.
[/QUOTE]

What you need to understand is that despite the contradiction we in modern times (having benefited from the age of reason and enlightenment) see when the Pope or anyone religious champions reason, it was in fact the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church who were in large part responsible for preserving learning and knowledge through the Dark Ages.

Yes, much was gained from the work of Islamic scholars in the East who inherited the old Greek and Roman works and kept them alive, no question there. But much of our way of rationalizing and using logical deduction is a result of scholars of faith struggling to come to terms with the seeming contradictions between blind faith and what they can see. Throughout European history, the Church was the leading source for reason, knowledge and learning until the Renaissance opened new doors and universities broke the Church’s hold on them. So the Pope is in essence continuing a dialogue that has been going on since Roman times.

Of course, I’m no expert, so I may have missed something in there.

22

Of course, to be fair most of that reasoning done by men of faith was trying to reason out their faith.

23

[QUOTE=Magiver]
It’s all about freedom of speech. Feel free to make the same snide comments about Mohammed and let your next of kin tell us what happened. Maybe you can get it on film in time for Jackass-4.
[/QUOTE]

No, it’s not about freedom of speech. It’s about a man whose life is bound by faith, who wants to lecture me about reason.

I don’t mind him believing all of that stuff, that’s what faith is about, believing things for which there is no reasonable explanation.

But he can’t have it both ways.

w.

PS — I can’t make the same comments about Mohammed, because he at least knew religion was a matter of faith and didn’t bother trying to lecture me about reason.

24

[QUOTE=scule]
it was in fact the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church who were in large part responsible for preserving learning and knowledge through the Dark Ages.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure about the Orthodox Church, but saying the Catholic Church did is somewhat like saying that the leaders of China are preserving Champagne and Mercedes through the Communist era…

25

[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
I’m not sure about the Orthodox Church, but saying the Catholic Church did is somewhat like saying that the leaders of China are preserving Champagne and Mercedes through the Communist era…
[/QUOTE]
A fairly silly analogy that seems disconected from actual history.

Given the fall of Rome, what do you think Europe would have looked like in 1200 or 1500 had the church not maintained libraries, laws, lines of communication, or the knowledge of the past that actually did survive?

Feel free to criticize their methods or the specific failures they suffered–they had enough, (although historically accurate examples would be appropriate if you do), but simple dismissal smacks of nothing more than the sort of anti-papist propaganda favored by Puritan apologists through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries or the sort of “they thought the world was flat” nonsense falsely spread by Washington Irving.

26

[QUOTE=scule]
What you need to understand is that despite the contradiction we in modern times (having benefited from the age of reason and enlightenment) see when the Pope or anyone religious champions reason, it was in fact the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church who were in large part responsible for preserving learning and knowledge through the Dark Ages.

Yes, much was gained from the work of Islamic scholars in the East who inherited the old Greek and Roman works and kept them alive, no question there. But much of our way of rationalizing and using logical deduction is a result of scholars of faith struggling to come to terms with the seeming contradictions between blind faith and what they can see. Throughout European history, the Church was the leading source for reason, knowledge and learning until the Renaissance opened new doors and universities broke the Church’s hold on them. So the Pope is in essence continuing a dialogue that has been going on since Roman times.

Of course, I’m no expert, so I may have missed something in there.
[/QUOTE]

You will be pleased to know (I am sure) that the current pope agrees with you.

He goes a step further: the Enlightenment period originated within christianity and this was not an accident. He thinks, to tell you the truth, that this is where the RC fucked up, though I don’t know that he would put it exactly that way. The failure of the RC in the Enlightenment period was in failing to give voice to the values and principles it had always held, because it had become “against its nature, unfortunately the tradition and religion of the State”. That is, it chose power over service to the truth.

In essence, he has repeatedly acknowleged the RC’s fault in failing “to live a faith that comes forth from the Logos, from creative Reason, and which is therefore also open to all which is truly reasonable”.

He is a really interesting thinker, to me anyway. However, he does suffer from the theologian’s error of expecting other people to actually think about what he has to say. I no longer believe any article written about anything he says but go hunt up the text as he is really very often misunderstood and misquoted. It is to be hoped that as pope he’ll see fit to simplify a bit.

I mean, subtlety is good; communication is better.

Quotes from here.

27

[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
So as I understand it, the pope was quoting a Paleologus, Byzantine ruler, who first accused Mohammed of turning from peace to violence to spread his religion, and then argued (that is, Paleologus argued) that violence is never a way to spread faith (like the Spanish Catholics did in the Americas in the 16th and 17th centuries.) And the pope basically was saying, “I agree with what Paleologus was saying.” Do I have that right?
[/QUOTE]
Because nobody else has: no, this is not even close. He neither nor supported nor refuted the quote.

Read the speech.

28

Trumped up controversies based on a single quote taken out of context seem to be much in the vogue lately. To me, it sometimes looks like over-the-top overreactions form various ehnic and religious groups (not all of whom live in far-away countries) is the latest kind of reality TV entertainment. In the future, I predict that all speeches will be spin-doctored to total blandness to avoid this, and even fewer people will pay attention.

I don’t think the loss is very great - speeches are a thing of a past era in civic debate, and, in this modern age, a single soundbite recorded for the cameras, along with a statement posted on one’s web site, will suffice. Besides the practice of public speech has been sullied by masters of the art using it for ends that were nefarious to say the least - perhaps sullied beyond repair.

29

[QUOTE=intention]
No, it’s not about freedom of speech. It’s about a man whose life is bound by faith, who wants to lecture me about reason.

I don’t mind him believing all of that stuff, that’s what faith is about, believing things for which there is no reasonable explanation.

But he can’t have it both ways.

w.

PS — I can’t make the same comments about Mohammed, because he at least knew religion was a matter of faith and didn’t bother trying to lecture me about reason.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. Unless you were compelled to listen it wasn’t a lecture directed at you.

The ability to express oneself without fear of retaliation is the essence of free speech.