Speeches are given every day, every where and quite frankly most of them don't really amount to all that much, even given by great leaders and thinkers.
Once Speech that I do think bears a look back, that still in its basic question of the relationship of "Faith and Reason", is a relevant reminder for our day. The speech was given in the Medieval town of Regensburg in Germany. The setting in and of itself gives us pause, a town untouched by the scars of War, traditional in its outlook, yet like much of the Western World it looks and acts in the context of a Secular Western Culture.
The Speech was given 12 of September 2006 at the University of Regensburg. It was a reflection giving by Pope Benedict the XVI at the university, who would have known the reaction would have included public protests, death threats, burning of epithets' of his. The reaction struck a nerve and to me, even though the dust has settled it was one of those speeches that still should strike a cord in us today.
First, what was it he said that sparked such controversy, such outrage, especially in areas of the world where Islam is the guiding principle of their culture? The main area of the speech was directed at a dialogue in 1391 of Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam and the truth of both. Benedict stated on the relationship of religion and violence in general. These two were having a back and forth states this;
"Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood and not acting reasonably to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul not the body." He goes on the decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature." (Pope Benedict XVI, Regensburg address. p. 2 of 8)Benedict goes on to comment on Professor Theodore Khoury (Muenster), where he talks about at the time the emperor would have been shaped by Greek Philosophy and this statement would have made perfect sense, yet for a Muslim, believing that God is absolutely transcendent they might not be bound, in fact possibly shouldn't be bound by categories of any kind, that including rationality.
The rub for many was that they felt the Pope was accusing those of Islam of spreading the faith by violence, and acting in unreasonable ways. Ironically the way some chose to react was through action and chants of violence to be done in retaliation. To be fair most didn't react in this way but it sparked a great question both in the western world, who has in many ways crowned Reason to be the champion and others, that Faith is the only lens to see the world in.
One of the questions we must all ask is; what relationship does faith have to reason and should it matter? As the United States and others in the West are winding down two conflicts that have lasted over a decade, this question was one that probably should have been considered in the engagements of each culture. From a Western context where one engages; "Reason and Faith", it is unfathomable that someone could fly a plane into a building and claim that this could be from God. For some in the world of faith there has always been this healthy tension with Anselm of Canterbury coining the popular phrase "fides quarens intellectum" or "faith seeking understanding". Even within the Muslim world there were times that they held a philosophical basis of their own faith, especially of Avaicenna and Averroes, whom without might not have had Aristotle's thoughts introduced into the West.
A second point steaming from this speech is that it in our political culture how do we integrate these two themes into society. Especially as in the west pluralism is a reality and at what point does faith and reason come in harmony and at what point to do we say there must be some separation. Such as the idea of "Separation of Church and State", not only as that relates to official "State Religions", but as to where items of faith as relates to public policy. We can point to countless examples as the debate came about for health care reform, currently what does an individuals belief have to with engaging with people they might deem "sinful" or at least some of their actions. In other countries of the West the context has come with barely a mention of God in the European Constitution, though I would argue to those of faith, that the constitution itself, though few words are there about the evident past of faith bringing the Europe to where it is today, the structures and statements are an outward sign of the play of faith and reason. (That would be a topic for another day). The context of fighting for or denying certain civil rights. This speech by Benedict has real meaning in many of the debates of today.
The other philosopher that Benedict mentions that might have had more influence in our current zeitgeist of the West, especially thinking in an enlightenment context is Immanuel Kant who anchored faith into pure or maybe practical reason and thus for many became one of the foundations for people to separate reason from faith, again another source of context of how this interesting mind has shaped our Western world in ways most of us don't even realize.
As a person who does not believe that faith and reason have to be in conflict, I realize the tension that is always and will always be there. This is the same as it then relates to the most practical area that of faith and science. Too often these realms are in conflict, though they shouldn't be and at times in Western Culture haven't been. I would say that both faith and science need to shed aspects of themselves that tend toward mythology rather than reality. Faith is too afraid of advances in science and therefore holds on to too much mythology.
This was hammered home to me at a speech I was at with Christoph Schönborn, the Archbishop of Vienna and Dominican thinker. He challenged an audience of faith on this very subject and it was amazing to me how many of the people there either thought he, a cardinal in the catholic church, was off base. A few participants thought these ideas were an attack on faith itself. Until people have this conversation, faith's growth will continue to be stunted. The same goes for those in the science community, some zealots, like those on the opposite end of the spectrum, don't give any consideration to the possibility of faith. Thus I believe some on that end too need to shed some of their own "mythology". Science is great at the "how" of life, not always at the "why" of life.
I would also make the arguments that in a pluralistic society it can be dangerous, not only to the society but to the faith's that are defending their values to enforce these on the whole of the population, it is better to win with the words of the 14th century Emperor:
"Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats...To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death..." (Controversy VIII, 3b-c: Khoury pp.144-145, Foerstel vol. I, VII Dialog 1.6, pp. 240-243.)It doesn't need to be physical violence to separate faith from reason it often shows itself in self righteous actions that cloak themselves in religiosity, but are no way rooted into the core of the faith some people proclaim to be defending. Others would say they are defending "Religious Freedom". For too many who are decrying in the western world that their "Religious Freedom" is under attack, I would first argue that it is a slap in the face to the many who do and are and have truly felt attacks on their religious freedom. Do not cheapen a real right, for which I and many in Western Culture deeply believe in, for the argument of a political policy.
How will we engage "Faith and Reason"?
No comments:
Post a Comment