This page is an archive from the previous version of The Row Boat, which is why it doesn't look and work the same as the current version. However, these archives are fully functional and integrated with the new system.

Why does this site permit advertising?
Click here to discuss.

The Row Boat

"Had we but world enough, and time..." *

Benedict at Regensburg

9/17/2006 11:02:35

I've been reading the text of Benedict's deeply controversial remarks at Regensburg - I think it a little ridiculous that people are responding as they did... it is really beside the point in the context of the talk, though he certainly should have been careful enough originally to set it apart from modern thinking. I am surprised he didn't. But what Muslims should've been responding to is B's claim that their idea of God is incompatible with reason. That is by far the more virulent than the stray quotation, and more directly expressive of his own position. Furthermore, this is exactly what he is inviting and welcoming them to do:

"Not to act reasonably (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.

He is trying to initiate a dialog within the confines of reason. Which is the last thing that ended up happening. The way the clerics are reacting seems to me depressingly trigger-happy. Like they were looking for an excuse. He was calling for dialog and they start riots. And I am sure, when talking in passing, many of them would hardly be any more charitable in reference to Christianity. And this is fine. Religions have a right to disagree with each other, though the disagreement must be within bounds. With the language of "reason," this is a part of what Benedict argues for in his speech.

Basically, I think B should have qualified his reference better. But this reaction is senseless and entirely unnecessary. I think we can only watch it with fear and trembling and compassion because it reflects the desperation of people's lives in places like Palestine and Lebanon, where people struggle for power by inciting violence and any stray spark can be used to light a fire.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

re:Benedict at Regensburg - 9/17/2006 22:51:15
Posted by BT

What's amusing to me about R.'s talk is that he's obviously presuming that the "inquiry into the rationality of faith" that he's advocating, to "broaden" the realm of reason, will somehow end up in . . . Catholic doctrine. I'm sure it could, but it could also just as well result in Islamic doctrine -- that is, if one's going to simply redefine reason to include religious faith, then the outcome can be very "broad" indeed! I'm all-for engaging the whole "breadth of reason" (& I agree with R. on the issue of scientific positivism inherently pointing to broader questions outside its own scope), but I don't see how simply expanding one's sense of reason will guarantee better inter-religious dialogue per se, since it's basically just redefining reason to include, or be open to, (a particular) faith. I guess for me it would make more sense to clearly base inter-religiious dialogue on a broad sense of reason that can inherently co-exist with a genuine & explicit religious pluralism, by fully acknowledging the qualitative difference between reason and faith (not pretending one can explain or couch the other), especially if the scope is limited to monotheisms, and R.'s address seems to imply? As it stands, it seems to me R. wants to "stack" the "dialogue" toward Christianity, just using "reason" as the pretext.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

re:Benedict at Regensburg - 9/18/2006 01:00:10
Posted by nathan

I agree with what you say here a great deal, and in this little post I neglected to discuss my own reservations about Benedict's "stack" - the assumptions that underlie his sense of what reason is. This is as true here as in his careful but not welcoming enough evaluation of liberation theology vis a vis "Catholic tradition." Nevertheless it is dialog that he proposes, and which nobody seems to be discussing.

It is a funny job being pope. I wonder if one can go on being the same old philosopher, toying in distinctions and presenting examples, when one implicitly claims to be an organ of the voice of God.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

re:Benedict at Regensburg - 9/18/2006 23:10:40
Posted by BT

...Nevertheless it is dialog that he proposes, and which nobody seems to be discussing....

Irshad Manji is notorious for being a U.S. apologist and a theological lightweight, but she took up the dialogue point on the CBS news tonight: "Best-Selling Muslim Author Says Pope Was Calling For A Dialogue With The Muslim World".

If R. had taken the initiative to stress the "Nostra Aetate" resolution ("Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom..."), maybe the reaction to his talk would have been quite different?

I may be too cynical, but without an acknowledgement of a genuine religious pluralism (at the metaphysical level) it's hard for me to see what a dialogue about reason in relation to faith could ever really accomplish...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

re:Benedict at Regensburg - 9/22/2006 21:21:30
Posted by nathan

Well I definitely follow your skepticism. And the Pope probably does too. But when we place religion as a historical, political, and psychological thing rather than metaphysical (as we sometimes have to), the need for dialog of some sort is strong. It is unavoidable and despite ourselves we will come to understand one another better.

It reminds me of a conversation I once had with a roommate of a different religion. While living together, we had a lot of wonderful spiritual talk. And at one point I was trying to identify why we were able to share so freely, isolating the source of our agreeing frameworks and so on. But he stopped me. He said no, we were able to share because we were stuck in a room together and because we wanted to get along. I think he's right.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

re:Benedict at Regensburg - 9/23/2006 10:03:54
Posted by

...But when we place religion as a historical, political, and psychological thing rather than metaphysical (as we sometimes have to), the need for dialog of some sort is strong. It is unavoidable and despite ourselves we will come to understand one another better.

I agree, it just seemed to me that the Pope was premising the whole dialogue on accepting a Catholic understanding of reason, which doesn't necessarily seem like the best way to start a dialogue about faith and reason in another faith? I just feel he could have made the same point about "Catholic" reason while still framing the dialogue about faith and reason in a more open-ended way.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Printer-friendly version

The Row Boat basks under a liberating Creative Commons license