eloquence is not reason

[sophiaserpentia]

In the last week there has been a storm in the mass media about controversy over some comments Pope Benedict made about Islam.

You can read a translated text of the lecture at the heart of the controversy here.

Reading this text, it is quite immediately obvious that the mass media -- surprise, surprise! -- is mis-portraying the essence of the controversy. Muslims are not just 'overly sensitive' and protesting the Pope's obscure quotation of a medieval emperor -- though certainly that quotation doesn't help.

This entire lecture is a diatribe about the superiority of Catholic "reason" over the explicit irrationality of Islam and the godlessness of secularism. And this came from the Pope.

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.

The violent actions of some Muslim protesters -- possibly including the assassination of a nun in Somalia (the perps gave no explicit motive) -- doesn't make it any easier for Muslim scholars to rebut Benedict's comments. (Nor, for that matter, does reality.)

But it would be nice to see the Pope demonstrate in what universe the Catholic Church has adhered to this lofty idea of Catholicism as a non-violent marriage of faith and reason. Not this universe, to be sure.

Catholics have been saying this about themselves since Thomas Aquinas. I've yet to see how it really works. Instead, what i see is an abundance of irrationality which is defended very eloquently.

Eloquence is not reason.

One more time: eloquence is not reason.

Reason demands full openness of discourse, inside and outside the organization. The Catholic Church does not have this. There is no recourse for dissenters or even, in some cases, for innovators; they are censured, cajoled by superiors to 'humbly reconsider' or to 'respect tradition,' forcibly silenced, denied participation in sacraments, defrocked, excommunicated. In previous eras, they were also tortured or executed.

Coersion of dissidents is defended with eloquent expositions, which are then described as "reason" because they are moderate and intellectual in tone.

If 'Truth' will truly prevail, then there is no reason to fear any line of inquiry. So why does the Church suppress any critique of doctrine? This is not a marriage of reason and faith. What kind of faith turns away from the truly difficult questions?

The Catholic Church is guilty of the same charge Benedict makes of Islam.

This Pope is fond of warning about dangers he perceives in secularism -- and i think he perceives the same danger i do, of meaning being driven out of our cultural discourse. I am an atheist and i can see the same dangers, but i do not think the solution is for humanity to seek refuge in the deafening echo chambers of religion or tradition.

Comments

Pope Offends Jews Too

[alobar.livejournal.com]

"...Pope Benedict has managed to antagonise two major world faiths within a few months. The current anger of Muslims is comparable to the anger and disappointment felt by Jews after his visit to Auschwitz in May. He gave a long address at the site of the former concentration camp and failed to mention anti-semitism, and offered no apology - whether on behalf of his own country, Germany, or on behalf of the Catholic Church. He acknowledged he was a 'son of the German people' ... 'but not guilty on that account'; he then launched into a highly controversial claim that a 'ring of criminals' were responsible for nazism and that the German people were as much their victims as anyone else. This is an argument that has long been discredited in Germany as utterly inadequate in explaining how millions supported the Nazis. Given his own involvement in the Hitler Youth movement as a boy, and his refusal to make a clean breast of the Vatican's acquiescence in the horrors of Nazism by opening its archives to historians, this was a shabby moment in Catholic history."

Full article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,1875791,00.html

[susiebeeca.livejournal.com]

[pooperman.livejournal.com]

I like to quote Cicero sometimes:

"If the truth was self-evident, there would be no need for eloquence."

Perhaps I should read the translation of Benedict's speech that you did, since the one I read was too mangled to be confused with "eloquent". The Germans have a way of being quite confusing when translated (although I admit it was easier to digest than a translation of Kant), I am not sure they are any better if you speak the language.

What struck me about the speech was its intellectualism, which seems to me to be a pretty big difference in style when one compares it to the more inspirational/spiritual tone of JPII.

I didn't get the same thing from the speech as you did, however. I imagine it was because I approached it differently. Benedict caught my attention with something interesting early on about the Septuagint and a comparison of Platonism to Cartesianism, as well as a contrast of these two against a neoplatonism/hellenism of the foundations of the early Catholic church (before the Greek/Roman schism).

Above you noted a subtle anti-semitism, which was interesting, because I did notice that in how the discussion of the Septuagint (Greek) OT and how it compared to the available Hebrew texts. I think there may be something in that, something I can't put my finger on at the moment.

I can't help but wonder if Benedict is a profound shift from JPII and this speech may be a good indication in that shift. Not an opposing shift, just a new tangent that makes Benedict unique and not simply a JPIII or something like that.

Not necessarily a good shift, but a shift, and an important one that may not be noticed for a few decades.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

So, why didn't he just say "reason is what I say it is." Woulda made the speech much less boring and less controversial - at least as far as insulting specific groups. Because really, that is what it comes down to.

[ulyart.livejournal.com]

I am an atheist and i can see the same dangers

This was a surprise to me. Because you discuss Christianity and Gnosticism so often in your journal, I had assumed you were engaging them from the inside.

Was this always your position or have you changed since you've been blogging here? I've often criticized religious dogma in my journal, because I think beyond a certain point they actually prevent us from accessing the divine.

[sassenach1970.livejournal.com]

"Jesus was said to have put an end to worship in favor of morality. In the end he was presented as the father of a humanitarian moral message. "

Did anyone see the irony in this?

It seemed to me like he wasn't just picking on the Muslims or Jews, that he was lumping the Religious/Political aspect of Christianity with that violence as well -- but he seems to be more of an amateur philosopher than anyone with any sense of how to deal with politics.... which is good in some ways, but probably leads to a lot of misunderstandings....

It reminds me of the bumpersticker/prayer: "Jesus, please protect me from your followers"