The Pope's Faulty Thesis (in regards to Islam)

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.

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...

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.

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"

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

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 of
European philosophyii) It was the Enlightenment, and not the Catholic church (see
Gallileo) which should take credit for the blossoming of
rational thought in the modern ageiii) 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

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. 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-TimesThe 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

I'm not sure if I understood the bricks/chocolate/steel analogy. What I think you meant here is that chocolate is much more prone to melting and so wont be as good, so (I guess from the rest of your post) Islam is more analagous to chocolate and christianity to steel.The way I see it, Christianity and Islam can both be steel or both be chocolate - it depends whose hands they are in (hows that for a broken analogy?!)Fundamentally, neither of them are entirely compatable with reason because they posit the existence of a being or beings for whom there seems to be no evidence.There are, however, many people with religious beliefs - Christian, Jew, Wiccan, Muslim, Hindu and Zorroastrian -- whose beliefs barely come into conflict with rationality. These people accept what mainstream science has to say about the universe, and they accept that there are other people with other religious beliefs which rest on foundations of faith no more substantial than their own. There are also people whose beliefs -- Christian, Jew, Wiccan, Muslim, Hindu and Zorroastrian -- who reject science, reject the possibility that they might be mistaken, and in my view fail to empathise sufficiently with people of other or no faith.There is a continuum in every faith that stretches from the mildest moderate to the most vociferous radical. You agree with me here when you recognise that there are moderate Muslims and there are radical ones. What I reject is the main thrust of your post, which perplexes me. You seem to state that there is only one religion with a violence problem.Check out these bad boys (and yes, it seems as though Aum Shinrikyo are arguably Buddhists!)Religious terrorism - WikipediaAum Shinrikyo - WikipediaWith a quick search I can't find any decent looking links to Hindu terrorism/fanatics, but of course there are loads.So what are you saying? That Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, and Christian violence isn't a problem? That it doesn't exist? I don't think that these kinds of terrorism are better or worse than Islamic terrorism. I just think they are examples of militant fundamentalists - and every religion has its militant fundamentalists.If you consider Islamic fundamentalists to be significantly more of a danger to humanity than some other group, fair enough. I don't know how you would measure this comparative danger though. If, for the sake of argument you were to use death-toll to judge which group of militant nuts were the most dangerous then the results wouldn't necessarily single out Islamic nuts as the only significant danger to rational debate and secular principals.Edited by Tusko, : a missing word!Edited by Tusko, : Hidius spealingEdited by Tusko, : "dangerous THEN the results", not "THAT"

Ok. You don't think that the pope expresses any sympathy for forced conversion to any religion; neither do I.I'd be interested then to hear your interpretation of the quote I chose in my previous post from the speech, where he sets up a contrast between this Christian emperor's attitude towards forced conversion and Muslim teaching: To me that looks as though he is drawing a contrast between a religion that developed hand in hand with Hellenistic philosophy and rationality, and one in which rationality is of secondary importance after its God. Doesn't that sound like he is saying Islam is less rational?

I don't think that Islam is more compatable with reason. I think that fundamentalism of any religion is less compatable with reason, and moderatism (for want of a more nuanced vocabulary) of any religion is more compatable with reason.However, I think that agnosticism or weak atheism is more compatable with reason than the most tenuous religious belief.ABE: I don't think that your reasons why Catholics are rational and Muslims are irrational are very pursuasive: most days Muslims are kind to children and earn money and most days a Catholic murders someone in a fit of rage.Edited by Tusko, : No reason given.Edited by Tusko, : final paraEdited by Tusko, : No reason given.

Regarding the ID business, I stand corrected. I must have read that Guardian article or heard someone mention it.This quote from the linked article strikes me as a bit funny though... ...who believes in "evolutionism"? To me that sounds like one of those straw men that creationists use when they want to combine abiogenesis, evolution and the big bang into one super-enemy.But thats a side note though.Edited by Tusko, : A malapropism

I think you're right when you say evolution suggests abiogenesis.But I still think that its reasonable for a religious person to believe that God, in his infinite cunning, put in place the conditions that allowed everything, the universe and life to arise.I think that its a specific kind of theology that sees scientific enquiry as a threat. I think science and religious belief can be completely compatible.

I don't really know very much about the guy. I try not to base my opinions on the fact that he looks like the emperor out of Star Wars. I was just struck by what I considered to be a series of ironies in his speech, and by the fact that he must have known that what he said would be interpreted as insulting.After actually reading the thing, his argument struck me as weak. This struck me as odd coming from such an old pro, so I started to see Machiavellian shadows dancing on the wall. Perhaps I misinterpreted?Edited by Tusko, : No reason given.

I think this is off topic - so I'll try to keep it brief.I, like you, think that its reasonable enough for the pope to lump evolution and abiogenesis together for his purposes. He can do that if he likes. I also think that you are right that strawman might have been a poor word choice.I agree that some people might see God as an optional extra if they accept evolution and chemical abiogenesis to be true. But I disagree that this is necessarily the only course of action that a theist can take; personally, I think it would be a mistake. I don't think the existence of God becomes any less likely if we decide that life arose from natural processes at some point rather than god reaching down and shuffling carbon and hydrogen atoms like a magic trick. An omnipotent God who sets everything up and lets it roll is just as hands on as an interventionist god, because everything goes exactly according to plan.Those who didn't want to admit that the earth wasn't the centre of the universe saw heliocentrism as a challenge to their notion of the Almighty. Now as our notion of God has adapted, heliocentrism is largely an irrelevance.I'd argue that its similar with evolution and abiogenesis. These concepts challege people's notion of what God is and does, but there is still plenty of room for a pretty coherent notion of God that takes into account that life didn't necessarily originate with a Kazzam! one day when some omnipotent being felt like doing something a bit different.As I mentioned in the previous message, my hunch is that that if you play up the "preplanned" nature of the universe, God is made no more of an irrelevance than when earth just became the third rock from the sun.Of course I want to hear what you say in response, but I might just leave off responding myself unless I can see a way of tying it back into the discussion of the pope's recent speech. (Unless you can see a way.)Cheers, T x

Now that's a relevant point.The simple answer is that I don't know. All I can offer is this really: whether it was done on purpose or not, through this incident the standing of the pope has probably been done the world of good in the eyes of moderate, agnostic, and atheist Europeans. People, in other words, that he isn't usually able to reach out to at all. In this light it could be viewed as actually quite beneficial to the pope, rather than harmful.Here is Benedict, the voice of reason, being shouted down by lots of scary looking people on TV. People have been killed. If moderate Europeans were to be offered the choice between Christianity and Islam after this, and the cartoon incident, and plenty more to come, then they probably aren't going to go with the apparently foaming nutjobs.What I found ironic, and prompted this topic was that there seemed to be some weaknesses in the reasoning of the voice of reason.But back to your query. I'm not sure how you'd find out how this story was picked up by the world's media. If we could find out with a sufficient degree of certainty that it wasn't the work of the Catholic church but some shady pope-follower that the Vatican didn't know about, then that would shoot my admittedly very speculative argument down in flaming, smoke-belching ruins.