ANDREW FIALA: Philosophy, the pope and interfaith
dialogue
The furor over Pope
Benedict XVI's recent use of a text that appears to condemn Islam is a
fascinating example of what happens when ideas are taken out of context.
I'm not Catholic. But as a
philosopher, I have an interest in defending free-ranging philosophical
discourse.
Indeed, philosophers have
often been misrepresented and maligned by those who are more interested in
power than in truth.
Socrates was killed when
his ideas were taken out of context and used against him. The same callousness
and ignorance is now being directed at Benedict.
Now, one might argue that
since Benedict is the Pope, he is not free to engage in philosophical discourse
and that he must be more careful with his words. There is some truth to this.
But when one looks at the
lecture that is the focal point of this controversy, it is clear that Benedict
was doing philosophy. He was engaged in a free-ranging consideration of a very
large and complicated problem.
In the space of several
pages, Benedict quotes the Bible and the medieval text that appears to condemn
Islam. He also refers to Socrates, Augustine, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Islamic
theologian Ibn Hazn and Kant. And he discusses more recent developments in
philosophy, theology and the natural sciences.
The remarks about Islam
are really tangential to the larger theme of his lecture.
It is unfortunate that
this larger theme is not the real focus of current discussion, because it is
truly important for creating interfaith dialogue.
Benedict's general thesis
is that the serious study of theology is the key to interreligious dialogue.
Substantial knowledge of the history of philosophy, theology and religion is
required to unpack the arguments that are made in support of this thesis. But
the basic argument can be summarized as follows.
First, Benedict claims
that God is reasonable. It is in this context that he claims that God would not
approve of holy war. A reasonable God wants humans to use reason — not holy war
— to defend him.
Second, Benedict claims
that the modern world has forgotten this basic claim about the reasonableness
of God. Benedict claims that modern culture puts reason in opposition to faith.
He lays much of the blame
for this on the German Enlightenment philosopher Kant. But he also blames the
modern sciences for the idea that the empirical method is the only method for
finding the truth.
Third, Benedict claims
that the only true basis for ethics or for a genuine human community is an
approach that allows for a synthesis of both faith and reason. This synthesis
is grounded in faith in a benevolent God who gave human beings the capacity to
discover the truths of ethics.
Benedict's lecture
concludes with the claim that a more serious effort at combining reason and
faith is the key to intercultural dialogue.
These are important ideas
that require careful and extended reflection. I should admit that I do not
agree with all that Benedict says. But philosophical disagreement must engage
an argument directly without misrepresenting it.
Unfortunately, respectful
philosophical debate does not serve politicians and the media, who focus on
provocative claims in order to create a stir.
This controversy reminds
us that Benedict is right about the fact that reason is required to make
progress in a world of diversity.
We need to give up holy
war and focus on creating mutual understanding. We need fewer sound-bites and
more reflection; less contention and more conversation.
Andrew
Fiala, Ph.D., is an associate professor of philosophy at California State
University,