For those who may be wondering what it was Goh said exactly (I referred to it in my last post):-
South China Morning Post
January 26, 2001
IAN STEWART in Kuala Lumpur
RELATED:
Meritocracy comes under attack
Book fuels mistrust of meritocracy
A NEW row between Malaysia and Singapore has underscored the racial tensions that have adversely affected relations between the Chinese-run island republic and its predominantly Malay neighbour since they became independent.
Singapore's Prime Minister, Goh Chok Tong, has angered Malaysian leaders by saying that Malays in his country do better educationally on a percentage basis than Malays in Malaysia, where they are aided by affirmative action programmes.
He also said a higher percentage of Singapore Malays held administrative and managerial positions, although Malaysia proportionately had more Malay doctors, lawyers and millionaires.
Hishammuddin Tun Hussein, head of the youth wing of the United Malays National Organisation (Umno), the dominant government party, accused the Singapore leader of "undermining, intentionally or otherwise" the achievements of Malays in Malaysia.
Other Umno officials said it was unfair to compare Malays in Singapore with Malaysian Malays because the island republic was small and had a higher per capita income than Malaysia.
Mr Goh's assertion, which was based on a government survey, goes to the heart of the different political ideologies of Singapore, which espouses meritocracy, and Malaysia, which rejects it.
He was responding to charges by Malays in both countries that their race was marginalised in Singapore.
Mr Goh said a book on the subject by a Singapore Malay writer "provided the excuse for Malaysian media interest in the fate of Malay Singaporeans".
Malaysian commentators said the book, Singapore Dilemma, by Lily Zubaidah Rahim, shattered the myth of meritocracy and vindicated Kuala Lumpur's policy of giving special privileges to Malays.
Mr Goh said that in Singapore, where admission into universities and polytechnics was on the basis of merit, the Malay community had made significant improvements in the number of passes at all levels.
He said that last year, 25 per cent of the Singapore Malay workforce had upper secondary or higher qualifications. In 1998, the latest year for which Malaysian statistics were available, the equivalent figure for Malaysian Malays was 14 per cent. The figures for Malays holding administrative and managerial or professional and technical positions in Singapore and Malaysia were 23 per cent and 16 per cent.
The affirmative action issue has recently been a hot topic in Malaysia, with the Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, blasting members of a Chinese community group as "extremists" for suggesting Malay privileges be abolished. But he also has scolded Malays for not doing as well as Chinese in schools and universities.
LawMan's Dogs
Killer Beasts Doing Breakfast
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Non Malays marginalised in Malaysia and Indonesia: why is this news now?
Lee Kuan Yew's comments about Singapore having to adopt (in effect) a "kiasu" stance towards Malaysia and Indonesia because these 2 countries systematically marginalise their Chinese communities have - it seems - caused a real ruckus in Malaysia.
This comes hot on the heels of Badawi's son in law's obviously bigoted, ignorant, racist, politically opportunist and completely non-factual anti-Chinese comments, for which he has not apologised and shown absolutely no intention of apologising.
Malaysia has asked Singapore's high commissioner to offer an explanation for Lee Kuan Yew's comments (reported on Channel News Asia, tonight 28/9/06 at about 9.20pm). Malaysia has further stated that Lee's comments count as interference in Malaysia's affairs and could incite racial trouble. Malaysia's foreign minister has said he wants an apology.
I'm surprised.
Lee Kuan Yew's fight for a Malaysian Malaysia is why (among other things, admittedly) Singapore had to leave the Federation. Lee has for the past more than 4 decades that he has been active in politics strongly opposed the idea of affirmative action for the majority ethnic group in this region. He has never minced his words about Malay rights as the concept is understood in Malaysia. Why is he being called to apologise or explain now?
It is **precisely** because of this - what Lee referred to as systematic marginalisation - that so many of my relatives and secondary school and other childhood friends have declined to join the civil service, or even to stay in Malaysia, and opted instead to live and work overseas, principally in Singapore and Hongkong / China, with Australia and Canada/US/UK coming close behind.
Many English-educated Malaysian Chinese now have PR in Australia, Canada or some other country, as an escape route for in case things get really ugly in Malaysia. Why do our great beloved leaders think they feel so insecure in what is, like it or not, their own country, the land of their birth?
When you have fantastic bigots like Khairy spouting anti-Chinese comments without being properly penalised, what do you expect those who are observing you to think?
Heck, Mahathir has never minced his words about Singapore either, come to think of it. Singapore has never asked Mahathir to apologise for anything he said about, for instance, the Malays' position in Singapore, even when what he said was manifestly inaccurate. Remember Goh Chok Tong's speech in reply to allegations by Mahathir that the Malays had been marginalised in Singapore? Yep, Singapore had fewer Malay doctors and lawyers, Goh said, but on almost every other measure of material and vocational wellbeing the Malays in Singapore were better off than their compatriots in Malaysia. The fact that Malays in Singapore are on average richer than Malays in Malaysia and have full and satisfying careers - after 4 decades of independence - should have given our beloved leaders in the good ol' Malaysian hinterland pause for thought, but hey, these guys are, going by their appearances, not interested in thinking. They're interested in politics, which in Malaysia is of course a whole different thing from actual, rational, thinking (and announcing it).
I say Lee Kuan Yew was right to say what he did, that he should continue saying it, and that Malaysian leaders who demand some sort of apology should be shown their own past record of misdeeds and asked to apologise first. Say sorry for denying hardworking non-Malays their due in Malaysia. Say sorry for dispossessing many of them of a disproportionate share of their wealth, to squander (ie. mis-spend, NOT just spend per se) on the majority ethnic group. Say sorry for the various racist slurs made by top Malay politicians in the ruling coalition over time - starting with the late Dato Harun of Selangor, and ending with the not-so-late Khairy J. Say sorry for mismanagement on a massive scale, measured both temporally as well as materially. Say sorry for everything. Then Lee can offer an apology in return, for telling the truth - it hurts, so I'm sorry, but it's true, and for that there can be no apology.
LMT.
This comes hot on the heels of Badawi's son in law's obviously bigoted, ignorant, racist, politically opportunist and completely non-factual anti-Chinese comments, for which he has not apologised and shown absolutely no intention of apologising.
Malaysia has asked Singapore's high commissioner to offer an explanation for Lee Kuan Yew's comments (reported on Channel News Asia, tonight 28/9/06 at about 9.20pm). Malaysia has further stated that Lee's comments count as interference in Malaysia's affairs and could incite racial trouble. Malaysia's foreign minister has said he wants an apology.
I'm surprised.
Lee Kuan Yew's fight for a Malaysian Malaysia is why (among other things, admittedly) Singapore had to leave the Federation. Lee has for the past more than 4 decades that he has been active in politics strongly opposed the idea of affirmative action for the majority ethnic group in this region. He has never minced his words about Malay rights as the concept is understood in Malaysia. Why is he being called to apologise or explain now?
It is **precisely** because of this - what Lee referred to as systematic marginalisation - that so many of my relatives and secondary school and other childhood friends have declined to join the civil service, or even to stay in Malaysia, and opted instead to live and work overseas, principally in Singapore and Hongkong / China, with Australia and Canada/US/UK coming close behind.
Many English-educated Malaysian Chinese now have PR in Australia, Canada or some other country, as an escape route for in case things get really ugly in Malaysia. Why do our great beloved leaders think they feel so insecure in what is, like it or not, their own country, the land of their birth?
When you have fantastic bigots like Khairy spouting anti-Chinese comments without being properly penalised, what do you expect those who are observing you to think?
Heck, Mahathir has never minced his words about Singapore either, come to think of it. Singapore has never asked Mahathir to apologise for anything he said about, for instance, the Malays' position in Singapore, even when what he said was manifestly inaccurate. Remember Goh Chok Tong's speech in reply to allegations by Mahathir that the Malays had been marginalised in Singapore? Yep, Singapore had fewer Malay doctors and lawyers, Goh said, but on almost every other measure of material and vocational wellbeing the Malays in Singapore were better off than their compatriots in Malaysia. The fact that Malays in Singapore are on average richer than Malays in Malaysia and have full and satisfying careers - after 4 decades of independence - should have given our beloved leaders in the good ol' Malaysian hinterland pause for thought, but hey, these guys are, going by their appearances, not interested in thinking. They're interested in politics, which in Malaysia is of course a whole different thing from actual, rational, thinking (and announcing it).
I say Lee Kuan Yew was right to say what he did, that he should continue saying it, and that Malaysian leaders who demand some sort of apology should be shown their own past record of misdeeds and asked to apologise first. Say sorry for denying hardworking non-Malays their due in Malaysia. Say sorry for dispossessing many of them of a disproportionate share of their wealth, to squander (ie. mis-spend, NOT just spend per se) on the majority ethnic group. Say sorry for the various racist slurs made by top Malay politicians in the ruling coalition over time - starting with the late Dato Harun of Selangor, and ending with the not-so-late Khairy J. Say sorry for mismanagement on a massive scale, measured both temporally as well as materially. Say sorry for everything. Then Lee can offer an apology in return, for telling the truth - it hurts, so I'm sorry, but it's true, and for that there can be no apology.
LMT.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Offensive cartoon on Al Jazeera SAYS IT ALL
This from the Al Jazeera website.
ERA OF THE NEW VATICAN- 17/09/2006
Shujaat
http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage
So, it appears that your friendly average Arab Muslim media rep is unwilling to make peace. Appears to me that even Al Jazeera is illiterate, and the entire staff of the Arab world's most popular Satellite TV station cannot comprehend the Pope's Regensburg address. Typical!
LMT.
ERA OF THE NEW VATICAN- 17/09/2006
Shujaat
http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage
So, it appears that your friendly average Arab Muslim media rep is unwilling to make peace. Appears to me that even Al Jazeera is illiterate, and the entire staff of the Arab world's most popular Satellite TV station cannot comprehend the Pope's Regensburg address. Typical!
LMT.
Pope must NOT apologize, Part II
So the intimidation, violence, and other forms of suppression of freedom of speech, life and liberty, continue. Such are conditions in majority Muslim communities for minority Christians. Sadly. Many Muslims are simply NOT interested in what the Pope actually said. They will read it their way no matter what is said or done. There is nothing we can do about it. We just stick to our line, and whether or not they choose to use their God-given brains to receive it is really entirely up to them.
Lawman.
Note: my own comments and asterisks added to the following:-
Catholic Palestinians downplay Muslim attacks on Christian churches
By Judith Sudilovsky
9/19/2006
Catholic News Service
JERUSALEM (CNS) – Christian Palestinians tried to downplay the significance of Muslim attacks on seven Christian churches in the West Bank and Gaza in protest of Pope Benedict XVI's remarks on Islam in Germany.
Just after the Sept. 16 shooting attack on St. John the Baptist Church in Nablus, West Bank, Melkite Father Youssef Saadeh, the parish priest, told a journalist Christians were no longer safe and would not be able to live in Nablus if the situation continued. The church's door was set afire in the attack.
However, in a Sept. 18 telephone interview, Father Saadeh made light of the situation, saying things were quiet, although it was impossible to know what would happen.
Father Saadeh skirted a question about fear that the attacks had instilled in the Christian community and instead pointed out that Muslim religious leaders and municipal leaders had visited Christian churches to signify solidarity.
No arrest had been made in connection with the attacks aimed at four Nablus churches, he said.
"Now we want to be strong and quiet," said Father Saadeh. "We don't know how it will be in the future, but like all people Muslims and Christians hope (the problems) are finished here."
His daughter, Rita Saadeh, who was at the church during the incident, was shaken up by the attacks and spoke out more strongly.
"When we saw the fire and smoke at the door we were afraid. The inside of the church is wood and we didn't have the key. We had no way to put out the fire," Saadeh, 33, said in a telephone interview. She described how the gunmen tried to kick down the door and ignited it with gasoline, then shot bullets into the church as she and her brother watched in terror.
She said she was not sure whether the violence had ended.
*** She added that the Muslim reaction was "very wrong" and carried out without having knowledge of what the pope actually said. ***
In an address Sept. 12 to scholars in Regensburg, Germany, Pope Benedict quoted a medieval text, a historical criticism of Islam, which he later said did not reflect his personal opinion.
*** "Why if the pope ... says this ... must we pay? We are angry at what has happened here. It is not clear until now what the pope said. He was comparing knowledge and faith in religion," she said. "If (Muslims) say anything about the church we don't do anything (to them.) They also say we are terrorists, but we never react in the same way." ***
She said she was more relaxed two days after the attack and was able to go to work, where Muslim colleagues tried to put her at ease and reassure her.
Meanwhile, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh condemned the attacks.
Church officials were careful in their wording about the incidents, and no official condemnation was issued against the attackers.
Christians make up less than 2 percent of the population of about 3 million in the Palestinian territories and generally talk of unity and brotherhood. However, privately some Christians complain about tensions between the two groups.
A group of Muslims also meant to attack Holy Family Catholic Church in Nablus, said the parish priest, Father Jalil Awwad, but mistook a nearby door as the church's entrance and threw firebombs at it instead. (o my goodness, these guys can't even pick the correct door to attack. Talk about dumb and dumber...)
Anglican and Greek Orthodox churches in Nablus also were attacked, as were Greek Orthodox churches in Gaza, and Tulkarm and Tubas in the West Bank. No attacks on churches were reported in Israel.
"It is not scary, they didn't hurt anybody; they did only damage to material things," said Father Awwad. "Nobody agrees with these actions, not even Muslims."
He said there has been more security around churches following the attacks.
Latin-rite Patriarch Michel Sabbah of Jerusalem, accompanied by Lutheran and Anglican bishops, attended a prayer service at a Nablus Anglican church Sept. 17.
In a Sept. 15 statement, the patriarch said Pope Benedict used the quote by Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus to "explore the question of faith and the mind."
The pope's remarks were only partially quoted, Patriarch Sabbah added, and whoever brought the remarks to the attention of the Arabic press may have had the intention of bringing strife between the Muslim and Christian communities.
"Our reaction (to the comments) must be according to the concepts of the lecture (which) was only about faith and mind and not about Islam," he said.
In the statement Patriarch Sabbah expressed hope that the recent shock waves through Islamic communities would serve as a catalyst to put Christian-Muslim dialogue on a new track and would lead to greater understanding on both sides.
Father Majdi al-Siryani, director of the patriarchate schools, said area Christians were "not frightened ... even if a couple of incidents happened here or there."
"There are bad people and good people," he said. "The bad people are a very small minority. When we talk to our people we are not happy about it, and the large majority of Palestinian Muslims and Christians are not happy with what was said (or with) what the reaction has been."
"I know this is not what the pope meant. When he commits a mistake we (forgive) him. He is a human being after all. It happened but he was humble enough to apologize," said Father al-Siryani. "He won't be a politician. He will be a Christian and we will find a way to mend it."
He said several processions honoring Mary in largely Muslim villages Sept. 16-17 were not disturbed.
- - -
Copyright (c) 2006 Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
Member of Catholic Press Association
Lawman.
Note: my own comments and asterisks added to the following:-
Catholic Palestinians downplay Muslim attacks on Christian churches
By Judith Sudilovsky
9/19/2006
Catholic News Service
JERUSALEM (CNS) – Christian Palestinians tried to downplay the significance of Muslim attacks on seven Christian churches in the West Bank and Gaza in protest of Pope Benedict XVI's remarks on Islam in Germany.
Just after the Sept. 16 shooting attack on St. John the Baptist Church in Nablus, West Bank, Melkite Father Youssef Saadeh, the parish priest, told a journalist Christians were no longer safe and would not be able to live in Nablus if the situation continued. The church's door was set afire in the attack.
However, in a Sept. 18 telephone interview, Father Saadeh made light of the situation, saying things were quiet, although it was impossible to know what would happen.
Father Saadeh skirted a question about fear that the attacks had instilled in the Christian community and instead pointed out that Muslim religious leaders and municipal leaders had visited Christian churches to signify solidarity.
No arrest had been made in connection with the attacks aimed at four Nablus churches, he said.
"Now we want to be strong and quiet," said Father Saadeh. "We don't know how it will be in the future, but like all people Muslims and Christians hope (the problems) are finished here."
His daughter, Rita Saadeh, who was at the church during the incident, was shaken up by the attacks and spoke out more strongly.
"When we saw the fire and smoke at the door we were afraid. The inside of the church is wood and we didn't have the key. We had no way to put out the fire," Saadeh, 33, said in a telephone interview. She described how the gunmen tried to kick down the door and ignited it with gasoline, then shot bullets into the church as she and her brother watched in terror.
She said she was not sure whether the violence had ended.
*** She added that the Muslim reaction was "very wrong" and carried out without having knowledge of what the pope actually said. ***
In an address Sept. 12 to scholars in Regensburg, Germany, Pope Benedict quoted a medieval text, a historical criticism of Islam, which he later said did not reflect his personal opinion.
*** "Why if the pope ... says this ... must we pay? We are angry at what has happened here. It is not clear until now what the pope said. He was comparing knowledge and faith in religion," she said. "If (Muslims) say anything about the church we don't do anything (to them.) They also say we are terrorists, but we never react in the same way." ***
She said she was more relaxed two days after the attack and was able to go to work, where Muslim colleagues tried to put her at ease and reassure her.
Meanwhile, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh condemned the attacks.
Church officials were careful in their wording about the incidents, and no official condemnation was issued against the attackers.
Christians make up less than 2 percent of the population of about 3 million in the Palestinian territories and generally talk of unity and brotherhood. However, privately some Christians complain about tensions between the two groups.
A group of Muslims also meant to attack Holy Family Catholic Church in Nablus, said the parish priest, Father Jalil Awwad, but mistook a nearby door as the church's entrance and threw firebombs at it instead. (o my goodness, these guys can't even pick the correct door to attack. Talk about dumb and dumber...)
Anglican and Greek Orthodox churches in Nablus also were attacked, as were Greek Orthodox churches in Gaza, and Tulkarm and Tubas in the West Bank. No attacks on churches were reported in Israel.
"It is not scary, they didn't hurt anybody; they did only damage to material things," said Father Awwad. "Nobody agrees with these actions, not even Muslims."
He said there has been more security around churches following the attacks.
Latin-rite Patriarch Michel Sabbah of Jerusalem, accompanied by Lutheran and Anglican bishops, attended a prayer service at a Nablus Anglican church Sept. 17.
In a Sept. 15 statement, the patriarch said Pope Benedict used the quote by Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus to "explore the question of faith and the mind."
The pope's remarks were only partially quoted, Patriarch Sabbah added, and whoever brought the remarks to the attention of the Arabic press may have had the intention of bringing strife between the Muslim and Christian communities.
"Our reaction (to the comments) must be according to the concepts of the lecture (which) was only about faith and mind and not about Islam," he said.
In the statement Patriarch Sabbah expressed hope that the recent shock waves through Islamic communities would serve as a catalyst to put Christian-Muslim dialogue on a new track and would lead to greater understanding on both sides.
Father Majdi al-Siryani, director of the patriarchate schools, said area Christians were "not frightened ... even if a couple of incidents happened here or there."
"There are bad people and good people," he said. "The bad people are a very small minority. When we talk to our people we are not happy about it, and the large majority of Palestinian Muslims and Christians are not happy with what was said (or with) what the reaction has been."
"I know this is not what the pope meant. When he commits a mistake we (forgive) him. He is a human being after all. It happened but he was humble enough to apologize," said Father al-Siryani. "He won't be a politician. He will be a Christian and we will find a way to mend it."
He said several processions honoring Mary in largely Muslim villages Sept. 16-17 were not disturbed.
- - -
Copyright (c) 2006 Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
Member of Catholic Press Association
What the Pope Actually Said
For those of you who are wondering just what the Pope actually said and how, when and where he said it, the full text of the speech is here, republished without any permission whatsoever from the copyright holder:
APOSTOLIC JOURNEY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO MÜNCHEN, ALTÖTTING AND REGENSBURG
(SEPTEMBER 9-14, 2006)
MEETING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SCIENCE
LECTURE OF THE HOLY FATHER
Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg
Tuesday, 12 September 2006
Faith, Reason and the University
Memories and Reflections
Your Eminences, Your Magnificences, Your Excellencies,
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a moving experience for me to be back again in the university and to be able once again to give a lecture at this podium. I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn. That was in 1959, in the days of the old university made up of ordinary professors. The various chairs had neither assistants nor secretaries, but in recompense there was much direct contact with students and in particular among the professors themselves. We would meet before and after lessons in the rooms of the teaching staff. There was a lively exchange with historians, philosophers, philologists and, naturally, between the two theological faculties. Once a semester there was a dies academicus, when professors from every faculty appeared before the students of the entire university, making possible a genuine experience of universitas - something that you too, Magnificent Rector, just mentioned - the experience, in other words, of the fact that despite our specializations which at times make it difficult to communicate with each other, we made up a whole, working in everything on the basis of a single rationality with its various aspects and sharing responsibility for the right use of reason - this reality became a lived experience. The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the "whole" of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. 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 (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. 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...".
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 Hazm 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 practise idolatry.
At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the λόγος". This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, σὺν λόγω, with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.
In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and simply declares "I am", already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates' attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy. Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: "I am". This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature. Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria - the Septuagint - is more than a simple (and in that sense really less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act "with logos" is contrary to God's nature.
In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God's voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God's freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazm and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God's transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions. As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which - as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated - unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, "transcends" knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul - "λογικη λατρεία", worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).
This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history - it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: this convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.
The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a dehellenization of Christianity - a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age. Viewed more closely, three stages can be observed in the programme of dehellenization: although interconnected, they are clearly distinct from one another in their motivations and objectives.
Dehellenization first emerges in connection with the postulates of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system. The principle of sola scriptura, on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this programme forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole.
The liberal theology of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries ushered in a second stage in the process of dehellenization, with Adolf von Harnack as its outstanding representative. When I was a student, and in the early years of my teaching, this programme was highly influential in Catholic theology too. It took as its point of departure Pascal's distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In my inaugural lecture at Bonn in 1959, I tried to address the issue, and I do not intend to repeat here what I said on that occasion, but I would like to describe at least briefly what was new about this second stage of dehellenization. Harnack's central idea was to return simply to the man Jesus and to his simple message, underneath the accretions of theology and indeed of hellenization: this simple message was seen as the culmination of the religious development of humanity. Jesus was said to have put an end to worship in favour of morality. In the end he was presented as the father of a humanitarian moral message. Fundamentally, Harnack's goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ's divinity and the triune God. In this sense, historical-critical exegesis of the New Testament, as he saw it, restored to theology its place within the university: theology, for Harnack, is something essentially historical and therefore strictly scientific. What it is able to say critically about Jesus is, so to speak, an expression of practical reason and consequently it can take its rightful place within the university. Behind this thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant's "Critiques", but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural sciences. This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology. On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and use it efficiently: this basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature. On the other hand, there is nature's capacity to be exploited for our purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation can yield ultimate certainty. The weight between the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, shift from one side to the other. As strongly positivistic a thinker as J. Monod has declared himself a convinced Platonist/Cartesian.
This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.
I will return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology's claim to be "scientific" would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: if science as a whole is this and this alone, then it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by "science", so understood, and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective "conscience" becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.
Before I draw the conclusions to which all this has been leading, I must briefly refer to the third stage of dehellenization, which is now in progress. In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was a preliminary inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures. The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not only false; it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed. True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself.
And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is - as you yourself mentioned, Magnificent Rector - the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.
Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought - to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: "It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss". The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. "Not to act reasonably, not to act 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.
***
NOTE:
The Holy Father intends to supply a subsequent version of this text, complete with footnotes. The present text must therefore be considered provisional.
© Copyright 2006 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana
APOSTOLIC JOURNEY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO MÜNCHEN, ALTÖTTING AND REGENSBURG
(SEPTEMBER 9-14, 2006)
MEETING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SCIENCE
LECTURE OF THE HOLY FATHER
Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg
Tuesday, 12 September 2006
Faith, Reason and the University
Memories and Reflections
Your Eminences, Your Magnificences, Your Excellencies,
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a moving experience for me to be back again in the university and to be able once again to give a lecture at this podium. I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn. That was in 1959, in the days of the old university made up of ordinary professors. The various chairs had neither assistants nor secretaries, but in recompense there was much direct contact with students and in particular among the professors themselves. We would meet before and after lessons in the rooms of the teaching staff. There was a lively exchange with historians, philosophers, philologists and, naturally, between the two theological faculties. Once a semester there was a dies academicus, when professors from every faculty appeared before the students of the entire university, making possible a genuine experience of universitas - something that you too, Magnificent Rector, just mentioned - the experience, in other words, of the fact that despite our specializations which at times make it difficult to communicate with each other, we made up a whole, working in everything on the basis of a single rationality with its various aspects and sharing responsibility for the right use of reason - this reality became a lived experience. The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the "whole" of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. 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 (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. 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...".
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 Hazm 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 practise idolatry.
At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the λόγος". This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, σὺν λόγω, with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.
In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and simply declares "I am", already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates' attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy. Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: "I am". This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature. Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria - the Septuagint - is more than a simple (and in that sense really less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act "with logos" is contrary to God's nature.
In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God's voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God's freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazm and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God's transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions. As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which - as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated - unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, "transcends" knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul - "λογικη λατρεία", worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).
This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history - it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: this convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.
The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a dehellenization of Christianity - a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age. Viewed more closely, three stages can be observed in the programme of dehellenization: although interconnected, they are clearly distinct from one another in their motivations and objectives.
Dehellenization first emerges in connection with the postulates of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system. The principle of sola scriptura, on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this programme forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole.
The liberal theology of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries ushered in a second stage in the process of dehellenization, with Adolf von Harnack as its outstanding representative. When I was a student, and in the early years of my teaching, this programme was highly influential in Catholic theology too. It took as its point of departure Pascal's distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In my inaugural lecture at Bonn in 1959, I tried to address the issue, and I do not intend to repeat here what I said on that occasion, but I would like to describe at least briefly what was new about this second stage of dehellenization. Harnack's central idea was to return simply to the man Jesus and to his simple message, underneath the accretions of theology and indeed of hellenization: this simple message was seen as the culmination of the religious development of humanity. Jesus was said to have put an end to worship in favour of morality. In the end he was presented as the father of a humanitarian moral message. Fundamentally, Harnack's goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ's divinity and the triune God. In this sense, historical-critical exegesis of the New Testament, as he saw it, restored to theology its place within the university: theology, for Harnack, is something essentially historical and therefore strictly scientific. What it is able to say critically about Jesus is, so to speak, an expression of practical reason and consequently it can take its rightful place within the university. Behind this thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant's "Critiques", but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural sciences. This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology. On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and use it efficiently: this basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature. On the other hand, there is nature's capacity to be exploited for our purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation can yield ultimate certainty. The weight between the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, shift from one side to the other. As strongly positivistic a thinker as J. Monod has declared himself a convinced Platonist/Cartesian.
This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.
I will return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology's claim to be "scientific" would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: if science as a whole is this and this alone, then it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by "science", so understood, and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective "conscience" becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.
Before I draw the conclusions to which all this has been leading, I must briefly refer to the third stage of dehellenization, which is now in progress. In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was a preliminary inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures. The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not only false; it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed. True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself.
And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is - as you yourself mentioned, Magnificent Rector - the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.
Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought - to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: "It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss". The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. "Not to act reasonably, not to act 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.
***
NOTE:
The Holy Father intends to supply a subsequent version of this text, complete with footnotes. The present text must therefore be considered provisional.
© Copyright 2006 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana
Saturday, September 16, 2006
The Pope should NOT apologize for his remarks
There has apparently been a chorus of criticism of the Pope over what many in the popular press - especially the Middle-Eastern Islamic popular press - have been saying are "anti-Islamic" remarks.
The Pope should not apologize.
The reason is very simple indeed: his remarks have been totally taken out of context and mis-interpreted. And, going by the manner in which the out-of-context misinterpretations have been consistently performed especially in Islamic countries, quite deliberately so.
The Islamists have twisted the Pope's speech for their own ends; they WANT a "clash of (religious) civilizations" to develop; they WANT inter-religious strife and violence on the planet; and they KNOW that they will win in either one of two ways: if they can force an apology for what are essentially unprovocative remarks, they demonstrate their power to force unreasonable concessions from those who do not agree with them, and reduce their enemies' credibility; alternatively, they can hope to increase their standing as defenders of their faith against "aggressive", "unrepentant" infidels, where their more moderate colleagues have kept quiet and refused to respond to "provocation".
Since either way the Pope gains no ground, he should not apologize. He should simply clarify what he said, and repeat that clarification ad infinitum. Violence, subtle persecution, discrimination, and propaganda warfare against Christians in countries with majority Muslim populations is endemic. It has not disappeared and will not disappear until the Second Coming. The Islamists would have used something - anything - else, as an excuse to keep the anti-Christian bigotry burning even if the Pope had never made his speech.
It will not be a coincidence that the Islamists will always try to make comparisons between the spread of Islam by the sword and the spread of Christianity by the sword.
What the Islamists don't want to emphasize is that they picked up the sciences, much of their technology and some of their art from pagans and infidels. Essentially, a backward tribe in the desert conquered and appropriated Byzantine architecture as their own (that's why the domes and minarets look so similar in Moscow, Constantinople and Mecca); inherited the Greeks' knowledge of the sciences and mathematics - these fields of knowledge were not introduced to the world by Islam, but preserved and in some respects improved upon for the use of future generations - and failed to invent much that can be claimed as entirely their own that is of relevance to daily survival in the modern world.
Christian missionaries, at least, brought disease-fighting medicine and surgical techniques to the Third World, albeit on the back of what was admittedly much White Man's Burden racist prejudice. The Renaissance, the Enlightenment, basically all of the great social and scientific revolutions leading to the betterment of human society over the last 4 centuries - were Judeo-Christian, Euro- and North American-centric, not Islamic, in origin. These revolutions gave all of us residents of the modern world, Christian and non-Christian alike, such basic amenities as quick, motorized public transport and telecommunications, to name just 2 modern-day innovations that owe their existence to the very largely Christian, or at any rate non-Muslim, West. Now - this is going to sound inflammatory - but what has Islam given us modern-day Christians in return? I don't mean to bash, but it's time to stop making unfair comparisons. Christians took the Da Vinci Code reasonably well; it's time Muslims learnt to engage in rational debate and propaganda (as opposed to actual) warfare. It would do the world a whole lot of good.
END
The Pope should not apologize.
The reason is very simple indeed: his remarks have been totally taken out of context and mis-interpreted. And, going by the manner in which the out-of-context misinterpretations have been consistently performed especially in Islamic countries, quite deliberately so.
The Islamists have twisted the Pope's speech for their own ends; they WANT a "clash of (religious) civilizations" to develop; they WANT inter-religious strife and violence on the planet; and they KNOW that they will win in either one of two ways: if they can force an apology for what are essentially unprovocative remarks, they demonstrate their power to force unreasonable concessions from those who do not agree with them, and reduce their enemies' credibility; alternatively, they can hope to increase their standing as defenders of their faith against "aggressive", "unrepentant" infidels, where their more moderate colleagues have kept quiet and refused to respond to "provocation".
Since either way the Pope gains no ground, he should not apologize. He should simply clarify what he said, and repeat that clarification ad infinitum. Violence, subtle persecution, discrimination, and propaganda warfare against Christians in countries with majority Muslim populations is endemic. It has not disappeared and will not disappear until the Second Coming. The Islamists would have used something - anything - else, as an excuse to keep the anti-Christian bigotry burning even if the Pope had never made his speech.
It will not be a coincidence that the Islamists will always try to make comparisons between the spread of Islam by the sword and the spread of Christianity by the sword.
What the Islamists don't want to emphasize is that they picked up the sciences, much of their technology and some of their art from pagans and infidels. Essentially, a backward tribe in the desert conquered and appropriated Byzantine architecture as their own (that's why the domes and minarets look so similar in Moscow, Constantinople and Mecca); inherited the Greeks' knowledge of the sciences and mathematics - these fields of knowledge were not introduced to the world by Islam, but preserved and in some respects improved upon for the use of future generations - and failed to invent much that can be claimed as entirely their own that is of relevance to daily survival in the modern world.
Christian missionaries, at least, brought disease-fighting medicine and surgical techniques to the Third World, albeit on the back of what was admittedly much White Man's Burden racist prejudice. The Renaissance, the Enlightenment, basically all of the great social and scientific revolutions leading to the betterment of human society over the last 4 centuries - were Judeo-Christian, Euro- and North American-centric, not Islamic, in origin. These revolutions gave all of us residents of the modern world, Christian and non-Christian alike, such basic amenities as quick, motorized public transport and telecommunications, to name just 2 modern-day innovations that owe their existence to the very largely Christian, or at any rate non-Muslim, West. Now - this is going to sound inflammatory - but what has Islam given us modern-day Christians in return? I don't mean to bash, but it's time to stop making unfair comparisons. Christians took the Da Vinci Code reasonably well; it's time Muslims learnt to engage in rational debate and propaganda (as opposed to actual) warfare. It would do the world a whole lot of good.
END
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Killing Time on my Time Off
For the first time in a very long time, I am actually on leave without too much having to worry about what is going on in the office. Ahhh, the joys of a career change.. not a moment too soon, and if I'd known it was going to be this enjoyable I might have jumped sooner!
One week off and then it's a slow return to work - not because I don't want to work, but because the work will be slow once I get back to it. Students won't be back; they'll still be on inter-semester holidays, those who are not working on IAP or ITP that is. Will have to start organising my second round of ITP visits.. drop in on the students, see if they're being used or abused ;-))
Managed to clear all my stuff from the old BI house into large, solid plastic boxes with lids - including wedding speeches and a wedding MC's agenda from 2000 (A&K), many many cards (brought back memories - especially cards from people with whom I have lost touch - maybe it's time to renew old ties!) - and an entire box of 5.25 inch floppy disks! Man, where am I going to get a PC old enough to read them? Just to see what's on them! The labels seem to indicate nothing important but one never knows...
Downloaded the Ratatouille (aha! guess how it's pronounced) teaser to my Palm TX; this should be a good one when it finally hits the cinema screens.
Yikes, got to run. Fogging operations require an urgent window- and door-closure exercise...
One week off and then it's a slow return to work - not because I don't want to work, but because the work will be slow once I get back to it. Students won't be back; they'll still be on inter-semester holidays, those who are not working on IAP or ITP that is. Will have to start organising my second round of ITP visits.. drop in on the students, see if they're being used or abused ;-))
Managed to clear all my stuff from the old BI house into large, solid plastic boxes with lids - including wedding speeches and a wedding MC's agenda from 2000 (A&K), many many cards (brought back memories - especially cards from people with whom I have lost touch - maybe it's time to renew old ties!) - and an entire box of 5.25 inch floppy disks! Man, where am I going to get a PC old enough to read them? Just to see what's on them! The labels seem to indicate nothing important but one never knows...
Downloaded the Ratatouille (aha! guess how it's pronounced) teaser to my Palm TX; this should be a good one when it finally hits the cinema screens.
Yikes, got to run. Fogging operations require an urgent window- and door-closure exercise...
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Global Warming? Nope.
This will not happen. I have faith in mankind's ability to terraform. Necessity is the mother of invention, and science will combine with technology and pressing need to produce a non-Doomsday scenario. Very many species may become extinct by the time action is taken and results are produced, and certainly nothing will ever be the same (were things ever "the same" to begin with, through time?) but Jurassic Park climatic conditions shall not return.
Global warming taking earth back to dinosaur era
Global warming taking earth back to dinosaur era
Thu Sep 7, 2006 10:23 AM ET
Printer Friendly | Email Article | Reprints | RSS |  | |
| | ||||||||||
NORWICH (Reuters) - Global warming over the coming century could mean a return of temperatures last seen in the age of the dinosaur and lead to the extinction of up to half of all species, a scientist said on Thursday.
Not only will carbon dioxide levels be at the highest levels for 24 million years, but global average temperatures will be higher than for up to 10 million years, said Chris Thomas of the University of York.
Between 10 and 99 percent of species will be faced with atmospheric conditions that last existed before they evolved, and as a result from 10-50 percent of them could disappear.
"We may very well already be on the breaking edge of a wave of mass extinctions," Thomas told the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.
Scientists predict average global temperatures will rise by between two and six degrees centigrade by 2100, mainly as a result of the heat-trapping carbon dioxide being pumped into the air from burning fossil fuels for transport and power.
"If the most extreme warming predicted takes place we will be going back to global temperatures not seen since the age of the dinosaur," Thomas said.
"We are starting to put these things into a historical perspective. These are conditions not seen for millions of years, so none of the species will have been subjected to them before," he added.
Thomas said scientific observations had already found that -- as predicted by the climate models -- 80 percent of species had already begun moving their traditional territorial ranges in response to the changing climatic conditions.
"That is an amazingly high correlation. It is a clear signature of climate change," he said.
Not only had the animals, birds and insects started to react, but there was evidence vegetation was also on the move.
For example, climate-triggered fungal pathogen outbreaks had already led to the extinction of more than one percent of the planet's amphibian species, Thomas said.
Not only would some species simply find no suitable space to live anymore, but there would be confrontations with invasive species being forced to move their territory. This would produce not just wipe-outs but species' mixtures never seen before.
And the changes would all happen at a faster rate than ever before in evolution.
"In geological terms 100 years is effectively instantaneous," Thomas noted.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
From THE SUN, Malaysia
The SUN, Malaysia, is Malaysia's fastest growing English language newspaper. It is chasing up on The Star, still Malaysia's most popular English language newspaper, and both are leaving the New Straits Times to bite the dust.
The Sun is independently owned and managed, ie. (in this context) no political party owns it. Any bias is therefore likely to be "apolitical", in a manner of speaking.
The Star is owned by the MCA, but takes a somewhat independent line. Good on the MCA! They know what makes the press really tick.
The NST is essentially an UMNO-owned and run mouthpiece. The Editor is a party man and toes the party line when he has to, just like any MP.
No prizes for guessing why it's slipping in circulation ;-))
LMT.
Keep up the watchdog role
The Sun is independently owned and managed, ie. (in this context) no political party owns it. Any bias is therefore likely to be "apolitical", in a manner of speaking.
The Star is owned by the MCA, but takes a somewhat independent line. Good on the MCA! They know what makes the press really tick.
The NST is essentially an UMNO-owned and run mouthpiece. The Editor is a party man and toes the party line when he has to, just like any MP.
No prizes for guessing why it's slipping in circulation ;-))
LMT.
Keep up the watchdog role
The congratulations that have been bestowed upon theSun are absolutely deserving, but it is the impact they have brought about that really matters.
theSun was able to expose the infractions of a state management that involved businessmen, politicians and the management of MBPJ, for the good of the public who being the stakeholders have given their trust to all the parties stated. It appears that theSun is committed to prove wrong the denials of the state administration.
Identifying, recognising and exposing the ills and malpractices of authorities is a task for one who has no fear or favour. theSun should continue its crusade without excuse to any quarter to spot and expose the violations of business ethics and help reduce the bureaucratic red tape in the public delivery system. theSun has exhibited this dedication and the public should rally behind it for their own good.
In relation to the billboard issue, we read with concern that no action will be taken against the officers involved in this fiasco. This is most improper and the MB can be construed as an accomplice to the violation of procedure. To create an atmosphere of fairness in the state administration, one in which rules and standards are equally applied, the principles of just cause and due process must operate.
Just cause requires that reasons directly linked with job performance be clearly established for disciplinary action or discharge.
Due process refers to fairness of the procedures an organisation uses to impose sanctions on employees. The state should uphold integrity of the due process and the MB should not influence the process or the outcome.
Let us all help Pak Lah with his National Integrity Plan and the state governments should be role models in executing actions to achieve this natio- nal agenda. Perhaps from time to time, Pak Lah should get the message across to his officers about integrity in the state administration.
Another brilliant score by theSun. Heartiest congratulations to Citizen Nades and his team.
Dr Zainal Abidin Abdul Majid
Director, Business Ethics Institute of Malaysia
Racist Malays
Racist bigots claiming to be Malay are at it again... every time it is inconvenient to explain or take the blame or admit any wrongdoing, wave the MALAY UNITY banner cynically, manipulate emotions, play on the Malay community's deep-seated inferiority complex, a.k.a. fear of being marginalised in their own country even though they control the politics, the military, the police and very large portions of the economy, and shout THE CHINESE WILL RIP US OFF IF YOU KEEP CRITICISING ME, YOUR FELLOW MALAY!
The amazing thing is how successful this ploy is even after so many years, at diverting attention from one's own wrongdoing, actual or perceived.
From The Sun:
Hishammuddin urged to lead moderate UMNO youth
The amazing thing is how successful this ploy is even after so many years, at diverting attention from one's own wrongdoing, actual or perceived.
From The Sun:
Hishammuddin urged to lead moderate UMNO youth
KUALA LUMPUR: The controversial remark by Umno Youth leader Khairy Jamaluddin that a non-Malay political party will take advantage of a weak Umno has not subsided.
Following the MCA annual general assembly last week during which Khairy was criticised, another BN coalition party Gerakan also expressed dissatisfaction over the matter.
At the party's 19th Wanita and Youth National Delegates Conference on Friday (1 Sept), Gerakan Youth chief Datuk Mah Siew Keong said although it is fair for someone to defend his own community, it should not hurt the feeling of other communities.
"If you want to play racial sentiments to gain political mileage, you are not a hero," he said, without naming names.
Khairy did not attend the convention. However, BN Youth and Umno Youth chief Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein was seated on the stage with other Gerakan leaders.
In his speech, Mah also urged Hishammuddin to continue taking care of all communities regardless of ethincity.
"We should clap to encourage him to lead a more moderate Umno Youth and to face the pressure of racism he faces," he said, to a round of applause.
On the same note, Gerakan Wanita chief Tan Lian Hoe said one should not forget the needs and sentiments of others.
"Respecting each other should not only extend to Umno but to other BN component parties," she said.
She said the situation is likely to split the BN and encourage criticisms from the rakyat, thus giving the opposition the opportunity to gather votes.
She noted that leaders of the component parties and leaders should abandon selfishness to prevent conflict which may weaken the coalition.
In a press conference later, Hishammuddin reiterated the issue will be resolved within the BN.
"When the temperature is lower, it's for my deputy (Khairy) to explain what the misunderstanding is. I think that is not a problem," he said.
He said the most important thing is the relationship of the top leadership.
"Nobody can exploit short term publicity for short term gain, this applies to other issues also...We need wisdom in doing this," he said.
He said inciting racial sentiments to gain popularity at the respective community will not last long.
"Their future will be tainted by the (racist) perception. This applies to all BN Youth," he said.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)