|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Pope's Faulty Thesis (in regards to Islam) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 121 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
In the pope's recent address, Faith Reason and the University, he appears to outline a thesis that Christianity through its relationship with classical philosophy has developed in a way that makes it much more compatible with the notion of reason than a religion like Islam.
As you probably know, considerable umbridge has been taken by Muslims worldwide. I don't believe this was a miscalculation by the pope. It seems laughable that anyone, especially someone with as many advisors could not realise what reaction they would provoke. Indeed, it seems laughable that anyone who merely watched television pictures of the Islamic crowds angered by the Belgian cartoons of Mohammed could not realise the reaction they would provoke when they claimed that Mohammed's teachings were faulty. He knows exactly what he is doing, and he is acting to inflame and enrage: to bypass the very reason and discussion he wants to align himself with. His thesis in his recent speech was that Islam isn't able to combine reason into its theology as well as Christianity. I believe this thesis is contemptible and plain wrong for reasons I will elaborate later, but I don't believe Benedict is aiming to be right. I think he is aiming to polarise opinion and to make Europe Christian again. He knew he could rely on devout Islamic people to make a big fuss and look crazy to Europeans on TV. They did exactly as he hoped, as he knew they would. In acting as they did, the appeared to help prove his flawed thesis. In addition, he knows that if his visit to Turkey is cancelled because of a danger to his person, then his lecture's thesis appears to be further confirmed (and as he would wish, strikes a blow against the secular European project to integrate Turkey into the EU) Pope Benedict assertion that Islam is less able to integrate reason than Christianity is ironic because the preservers of classical western thought were the Islamic scholars of the middle ages. It is ironic because Christianity has only been able to truly embrace reason as a result of The Enlightenment, which has acted to mitigate Christianity's anti-rational beliefs. It is ironic because the pope himself appears to be an enthusiastic proponent of Intelligent Design - a mystical belief which has no means of engagement with rationality. So his actions I believe were to strike a blow against his most hated enemies - those who promote the idea of a secular Europe in which the Catholic church becomes an increasing irrelevance. He is playing a long game and he doesn't care how many lives are endangered because of his inflammatory rhetoric. At least, that's what I'm fearing. What do you think? Edited by Tusko, : Inexcusable misspelling of Mohammed. I plead dyslexia. Edited by Tusko, : I've added an opening paragraph that I hope makes everything make more sense. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : "Added the "(in regards to Islam)" part to the topic title.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminQuetzal Inactive Member |
Where would you like this to go, Tusko? Comparative Religion? Let me know and I'll promote it.
ABE: You may wish to consider a topic title more on the lines of what the OP is about - this one is a bit weak, since you haven't actually mentioned the thesis the Pope is supposed to be putting forward. Edited by AdminQuetzal, : clarification "Here come da Judge" - Flip Wilson Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: Important threads to make your stay more enjoyable:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Have you actually read the transcript of the speech or are you simply going by news reports?
If you have not read the transcript it is available here. A second link with the greek characters included is found here. It seems that there are two possible directions that can be taken, one relating to the speech itself, the other related to the speech as perceived. You may want to pick one of those and explain why you wish to explore that aspect. Edited by AdminJar, : add second link Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 121 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
I suppose Comparative Religions would be perfectly reasonable. I don't have any strong feelings to be honest, as long as its somewhere I can hear what people think.
As for the title, perhaps if I add a little by edit to the OP explaining what I see the pope's thesis is, then it will make more sense. Let me do that now...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 121 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
Cheers Jar,
I had previously only read commentary on his speech but have now read it and still believe what I wrote was relevant enough to the topic in question. I hadn't thought of dividing this discussion either into a discussion of the substance of his speech or the the reception of the speech. I suppose I want to discuss the substance of his speech and what I percieve to be the central ironies of his claim, as outlined in the OP. I wrote an opinionated OP in order to provoke discussion but I'm not necessarily decided on his motivations. I'm just highly suspicious and think that if his argument is as flawed as it seems to me then questions are raised with regards to his agenda.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminQuetzal Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What else is the Pope supposed to do? Islam is his #1 competitor. Obviously he can't just come out and say that a religion his religion says is idolatry is just as good.
The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, and the position of the Church is that the only God is the God of the Bible. What else is possible from that but conflict? This is why secularism exists, people. It's the only way to run governments in the face of religions who all mutually disavow the legitimacy of the others. Secularism is religious neutrality. It's the only way different religions can co-exist in the same society, period.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Reading the speech I simply do not see the support for that. It was an unfortunate example but I do not see any attack on Islam.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 121 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
I'm not sure if I see an overt attack on Islam either. What I THINK I see is something a bit more insidious than that: I think I see a thesis (that Christianity is somehow more compatable with rationality than some other religion) supported not by pursuasive evidence, but instead by a cynical provocation.
Some Muslims somewhere can be relied on to burn the pope in effigy in the street, or flock around cameras chanting for holy war, and *this* will be the implicit support for the pope's argument. "Look at the crazies," is the implication, "they aren't rational. We are because... did I mention the crazies? Look at the crazies." He knows that they are helpless not to rise to even a veiled slight to the prophet, so he uses it to serve his agenda. It seems to me that he uses this provocation because he doesn't have much else in terms of rational argumentation. I think that for the reasons outlined in the OP, his attempts at rational justification for the claim that Christianity is more compatable with rationality than Islam are fundamentally flawed. That's my point really. So I don't know if I disagree with you - I'm not sure there is a overt attack on Islam in the speech. I think that the speech is cynical in that it relies on a provocation for support when the claim really needs a better argument. So what I'm wondering really is this: are the things that I consider ironies about his argument genuinely ironies, or am I misunderstanding something? Edited by Tusko, : I meant "not sure I see an overt attack" NOT "not sure I see a covert"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
What I THINK I see is something a bit more insidious than that: I think I see a thesis (that Christianity is somehow more compatable with rationality than some other religion) supported not by pursuasive evidence, but instead by a cynical provocation. Again though, reading the speech I simply do not see that assertion. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 121 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
You describe quite a depressingly consumerist approach to religion - but I don't have a problem with that because this is, after all, a hella consumerist society.
I guess what I see as significant is the fact that I don't think that this is something that the previous pope felt the need to do, just as the previous pope didn't feel a need to offer an olive branch to ID entusiasts. (Which is ironic considering he is the top dog of the religion that he procaims is the choice of the rational thinker, isn't it?) Of course every pope is likely to act to promote his own faith at the expense of all others. My point is that this pope has chosen what to me appears to be a cynical ploy disguised as a rational argument in order to support his thesis. I don't have a problem with his thesis if he can support it convinsingly; I just don't think he came anywhere near it here. Instead he relies on some crazies somewhere to support his point for him, once he stirs them up with the kind of "dog whistle" that will really upset some Muslims but will look innocuous to the rest of us. Thats cynical in my book. Of course, I could be wrong! Edited by Tusko, : I just changed upset Muslims to some Muslims
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 121 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
Okay - let's break it down...
1) Are we agreed that the pope says that he thinks that Christianity is more compatable with rationality than Islam? 2) If so, are we agreed that this is problematic for at least one of the following reasons? i) It was Muslim scholars who preserved many classical works ofEuropean philosophy ii) It was the Enlightenment, and not the Catholic church (seeGallileo) which should take credit for the blossoming of rational thought in the modern age iii) If he's so into rationality why does he support ID? 3) Are we agreed that after the cartoon saga it has become painfully obvious that there are plentiful crazies out there who love to do their crazy thing when someone is percieved to slight the prophet? 4) Are we agreed that to many people who hear about this story in the West, it won't be the questionable nature of the pope's argument that will be the thing that leaves a lasting impression, but instead the TV pictures of hardcore Islamists going crazy for the camera? That's why it looks cynical to me. Please let me know where you diverge from my take on the subject. PS I'm going to bed now, so that's it for me tonight. x
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
1) Are we agreed that the pope says that he thinks that Christianity is more compatable with rationality than Islam? No.
2) If so, are we agreed that this is problematic for at least one of the following reasons? i) It was Muslim scholars who preserved many classical works ofEuropean philosophy ii) It was the Enlightenment, and not the Catholic church (seeGallileo) which should take credit for the blossoming of rational thought in the modern age iii) If he's so into rationality why does he support ID? I think he would agree with most of what you said and I also have not seen where he supports ID.
3) Are we agreed that after the cartoon saga it has become painfully obvious that there are plentiful crazies out there who love to do their crazy thing when someone is percieved to slight the prophet? Yes.
4) Are we agreed that to many people who hear about this story in the West, it won't be the questionable nature of the pope's argument that will be the thing that leaves a lasting impression, but instead the TV pictures of hardcore Islamists going crazy for the camera? Yes. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 121 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
I think two of your points are addressed relatively easily - namely your querying of my point 1) in my previous message, and the fact that you hadn't heard about the pope's sympathy for intelligent design.
With regards to the first point I thought this was the key passage. The emboldened text is of course mine.
Pope Benedict writes: 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, Theodor 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. I see this as a clear indication that the pope sees Christianity as more compatable with the idea of the rational than Islam. See here for mention of the pope's remarks about intelligent design: Page not found - Chicago Sun-Times The final point that you raise is that the pope would probably agree that the church hasn't always been totally rational. This is a bit harder to address because I would have to make specific reference to his speech, but I'm pretty sure that one of the main points of it is to align the Catholic church with rationality. If there are some glaring contradictions to his claim to be found in history, then it becomes all the more important for him to support his claim with convincing evidence, which I think he singularly fails to do. I have so far not mentioned another irony, which is his casual mention of the evils of forced conversion. Crusades, anyone? Of course, I'm not holding him responsible for the evils of the church in the middle ages, or at any other time when he was not at the helm. What I am doing however is questioning his central claim - that Christianity is inherently more rational than Islam. I think books of European history refute his claim more eloquently than I ever could. Now I really am going to bed! Edited by Tusko, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
I think I see a thesis (that Christianity is somehow more compatable with rationality than some other religion) Not really. It would be like saying that bricks are more compatible with chocolate than steel. I don't know if that's a claim being made here or whether it's just your own personal speculation. Whatever the case, I think the important point here is that we don't see Buddhists crashing planes into buildings. In the worlds today, we have a violence problem. It doesn't involve ANY other religion, including Christianity. Therefore, the leaders must address that specific problem. Unfortunately for Muslims, there are people in the world with their belief system, who take a forceful and violent interpretation and proceed with that dogma. I agree with Crashfrog's remarks about secularism.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024