Now
Once again, I believe that the opportunity for a point-to-point critique of the Pope's speech has been lost as the world at large is more interested (regardless of the religious background, though one can tell which group has the largest fervour) in old-school style of mass-mob revolution rather than critical engagement. This is what should had been done,
Firstly, there are so many points in the speech which would had been very interesting departure point to rethink the historiography of secularism and theology, and I have to agree when the Pope says that the point of his speech is completely missed, even if I might not altogether agree on the same things as he. Even those with more intelligent answers to the Pope's speech had unfortunately completely ignored the gauntlet thrown down by the Pope, which is his framing of reason, his critique of certain philosophers use of reason, his argument against what he considered to be the 'dehellenization' of Christianity, targeted at none other than the Protestant groups and Fundamentalists who seek to return to what they consider to be "the simple word of Faith/God" and his contention with particular others who intend to frame/reduce Christianity into a religion that is scientifically answerable (though he failed to take into account the active debate in the past decade concerning the sociology and epistemology of scientific knowledge that had waged across the two cultures of science and humanities). Hence, I (mis)quote Feyerabend (a anarchic philosopher of science) in saying that not everyone is born of a sublime spirit (though he was actually using this quote to frame his argument against the humanists and philosophers whom he considered as having been so caught up in masturbatory theorising that they've lost credibility and connection with the world at large. I agree with most critics that there is nothing groundbreaking in what he said (a lot of the points he brought up had come in many other forms through the decades, if one were to follow the debate of on the epistemology and culture of knowledge and intellectual history closely, particularly that in the West). From his speech, we gather that he was formerly a theologican and academic at the Universty of Regensburg and his training had acquainted him closely with the secular tradition of the German philosophers, though unfortunately, it has not led to a closer reading. But then, this is just a short speech after all and when one makes oration, one pick and select points to provoke the audience in the way you want them/hope for them to react.
1. Firstly, his sources on Islam were gained from Theodore Khoury, noted for his work on Islam. But, it is possible that he had selectively quote this sources and then turn it around, via his own interpretation and reasoning, to make it seem that there is something pernicious in the way Islam is practiced or preached (though from the actions of the disciples of this faith, it has unfortunately provided live parody to the Pope's misapprehension). He seemed particularly keyed up about Ibnu Hazm intepretation of religion and how the former separates it from reason. I personally do not know much about Hazm and would welcome anyone who know more about the work of this guy (beyond that mentioned in Wikipedia) to please disect more on this matter, by writing to me or adding to the comments in this blog. But I would definitely now be searching for more works by him. Also, I found that R Arnaldez has done some work on Ibn Rusyd and Al Ghazali.I hope to find a translation of his work, failing that, I'll have to wait til next year, or year after when I can read French at a higher level. :/
However, let me state, obviously, that it is not uncommon among even Western philosophers during the age of Enlightenment and after to find themselves divided when it comes to reasoning about faith, and this is shown in Descartes's Meditations, as he ruminates on the reconciliation between the faith he was brought up in and his study of human/natural sciences. I can't quite comment on Kant right now since I've yet to read properly his "Critique of Pure Reason".
2. Here is the part about Islam that I think may have irked some Muslims and other detractors, but I wonder if some had understood the full weight of what is said. "The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion.” It 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 Koran, concerning holy war.
Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels,” he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: “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 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 is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably (”syn logo”) 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….” [Islam Today actually had a comment on this statement]
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 Hazn 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 practice idolatry."
Prior to the above statement, the Pope had qualify by stating that the speech of the Emperor is reported more fully than that of the Persian Muslim, the former's interlocutor. Hence, there is already a biased in that much is assumed of the mostly "silent" educated "Persian" (and could it even be Hazm himself?) and I have not been able to find Muslim sites that rigorously look into the scholarship mentioned and to critique as to why the Pope is wrong in his selective reading (Bearing in mind, selective readings and misappropriation is the common practice among all, whether religious apologists or academics, though the more honest ones will admit to 'purposeful misappropriation'). And the statement made by the Pope on how the statement of the Surah was set at a time when the Muhammad S.A.W. was deemed powerless is not contested. It has to be faced that no religion of the Book is freed from warfare and violence (and the Pope is right in linking the historical continuity between the Old Testament, New Testament and the Quran)and denying it is akin to historical revisionism. But what is needed is a reasoned look at the war, the human actors and the conduct of these human actors during the War and how God is used as justification for war and their subsequent actions during the war and after. And Jihad is a feature in the Quran (violent or not), like it or not, and though Christianity's Crusade has more to do with the political view of the "Christian" government that the advocacy of the New Testament, their role in the play of violence is implicit in any study of religious history. There is a need to address this issue more clearly, especially when it is buried under all the polemic of violence as justification by radical/extremist sects. If one were able to read writings in languages other than English or that of Modern Europe, one can be appall by the amount of invective, hatred and call for violent wars against the Western "Other", even if the other segment of the Muslims decry such acts. This issue has been ongoing since Sept 11 2001 and I believe it is time for a rigorous and clear deconstruction of the concept of Jihad.
3. I find that the Pope's concept of Logos (the Word) to be Hellenic-inspired and this is argued in detail in Jacques Derrida's book "Dissemination", where there is a lot re-examining of the contemporary age and philosophy of Plato, his predecessors and his peers.And the Hellenism of Christianity he talks about is very much a part of the Roman Catholic tradition that has been propaged by the Scholastics, and is the source of contention by many eminent European philosophers between the 17th to the 18th century as being too rigid and subject to falsification (my term) as well as by more conservative elements within the Roman Catholic church such as St Bernard of Clairvaux.
I suspect, to a certain degree, the Pope is possibly attacking the "positions" of Islam and Protestant/Reformed Christianity, as well as that of the adherents of scientism, through methods of Scholasticism.
4. The Pope's understanding of Science has strong Heideggerian (and of course, influences of a number of German philosophers, the positivists among them) who hold science in a high moral ground which is culture/value free, a principle that does not question the sociological and epistemological construction of science, but is based on the a priori belief that scientific theories are based on objective and logico-deductive reasonings that are beyond philosophical interference.
5."The vision of St. 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.". While he is at it, the Pope did not quote the section Acts 17 that give the reader a glimpse into what Paul actually thought of the philosophical culture of the Greeks, even if he did mention what the Greeks thought of the Christians. Of course, you can either do a literal or between the lines reading of this chapter.
Some of you may have read the news on Robert Redekerand how he had to go into hiding ala Salman Rushdie following the publication of his writing on Le Figaro, the French, right-wing, newspaper owned by Serge Dassault, on September 19, that criticises the Quran. There is more about him in Le Figaro itself, provided you can read French. See notes below.
Maybe, when I've time, I'll do the research needed to write a more comprehensive article on the issue of faith and reason in various religions, and how this area is contested by various scholars, as well as the hermeneutical/academic arm twisting employed by intellectuals,pseudo-intellectuals, scholars and theologians on this issue. For now, this is my short dissection on the matter. And as one googles further, one will find more on this. And I challenge my readers to properly dissect the issue at hand rather than employing the general going around the bush condemnation or examination that seeks to actually mask one's ignorance of the matters raised just to sound "credible" or get one's "piece of mind" into the "borderless" cyberspace.
More notes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,1875800,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1886814,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,1875726,00.html
"Menacing Teachings in the Text Of the Quran" (my translation, corrected as of 11:35pm, 5th Oct)
http://www.lefigaro.fr/france/20060929.FIG000000050_un_enseignant_menace_pour_un_texte_sur_le_coran.html
"Redeker's Affair: On democracy, debate and self-control" (my translation)
http://www.lefigaro.fr/debats/20061005.FIG000000096_affaire_redeker_en_democratie_le_debat_ne_se_controle_pas.html
No comments:
Post a Comment