• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo

The Pope issues warnings


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 23 October 2006 - 03:44 PM


IN what has to be considered an example of a gloved challenge the Pope has made some comments concerning AI and humanities quest for advanced technology. What I find interesting is that to do so he didn't turn to scripture directly but to a parable of Greek mythology, Icarus.

So here is the article folks and let's engage the issue of competing *faith*.

I personally do not consider this about faith but I have noticed that some are trying to package the meme in that manner and it is problematic IMHO.

Nonetheless it does appear as if this Pope is throwing down the gauntlet.

Pope warns scientists not to risk fate of Icarus
Sat Oct 21, 11:28 PM ET

ROME (Reuters) - Pope Benedict told scientists on Saturday that by believing only in "artificial intelligence" and technology they risked the fate of the mythical Icarus, whose home-made wings melted when he flew too close to the sun. "Contemporary life gives pride of place to an artificial intelligence ever more enslaved to experimental tecnhiques, thereby forgetting that all science should safeguard mankind and promote his tendency to authentic goodness," the Pope said.

The German-born Pope, a theology professor and an enforcer of Vatican dogma before his election as pontiff last year, has voiced his concerns about some areas of scientific research that clash with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Like his predecessor Pope John Paul II, Benedict is against stem cell technology, which researchers say could help cure serious illnesses but the Church opposes it because it often relies on cells from embryo tissue.


The Vatican teaches that human life begins at conception.

The Pope reminded academics and students at a Catholic university in Rome of Icarus who, in the Greek myth, made wings with feathers and wax to escape captivity in Crete. Ignoring the warnings of his father Daedalus, he flew too close to the sun, resulting in his "ruinous fall and death," the Pope said. "Letting yourself be seduced by discovery without paying attention to the criteria of a deeper vision could lead to the drama the myth speaks of," he told the Pontifical Lateranense University at the inauguration of a new academic year.

#2 struct

  • Guest
  • 565 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 23 October 2006 - 04:57 PM

I thought Pope died? This must be another one.
Ooh man, so we will never have a day without Popes!? How about this pope, is he sick yet?

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#3 maestro949

  • Guest
  • 2,350 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Rhode Island, USA

Posted 23 October 2006 - 05:34 PM

Stem Cells is just a red herring but it is where religious institutions have chosen to draw the battle lines. For the first time in history science is on the verge of making significant progress into organized religion's market, the market of hope and suffering. If science can eliminate a significant percentage of suffering due to pathologies and death, is there a need for organized religion? Surely people will still choose to seek answers to metaphysical questions, choose to believe in a higher power and enjoy congregating for the worship of mythological dieties but when the pain associated with the loss of loved ones is diminished, so is the need to search for explanations.

AI, singularity, automation, medical technologies and therapies are not what we who want progress "believe in." They are simply the tools we us for making a better world. What we believe in is our own ability to transform our world into a better place to live and the opportunity to transform ourselves into a better species. One that is free of suffering and the fear of death. A world where we are also free from the tyranny of powerful institutions whether they be political or religious that prey on that same fear.

Let's call this out for what it really is - a carefully timed message intended to influence the American elections where several states have stem cells as one of the voting issues between candidates. e.g. Missouri.

The Intelligent Design push failed. The push to block advancing science will fail too. It may be delayed but the only result will be setting back humanity's progress.

Edited by maestro949, 01 April 2007 - 04:27 PM.


#4 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 23 October 2006 - 05:52 PM

Nicely said Maestro. I must say you echo much of what I feel. Especially this part.

AI, singularity, automation, medical technologies and therapies are not what we who want progress "believe in." They are simply the tools we for making a better world. What we believe in is our own ability to transform our world into a better place to live and ourselves into a better species. One that is free of suffering and the fear of death. A world where we are also free from the tyranny of powerful institutions whether they be political or religious.



#5 attis

  • Guest
  • 67 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Earth

Posted 23 October 2006 - 06:07 PM

I bet old Ratzinger would crap his pants if he knew that some biologists are trying to use proteins to make non-turing and turing AIs. :-P And to know the fact, that they're making headway on both designs.

#6 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 23 October 2006 - 06:17 PM

IN what has to be considered an example of a gloved challenge the Pope has made some comments concerning AI and humanities quest for advanced technology. What I find interesting that to do so he didn't turn to scripture directly but to a parable of Greek mythology, Icarus.


The greek mythology analogy was also the first thing I noticed. Kind-of a slip up I would say. You would think the Pope would keep other god-memes out of the picture for fear of revealing his own god to be mythological.

#7 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 23 October 2006 - 10:30 PM

Like his predecessor Pope John Paul II, Benedict is against stem cell technology, which researchers say could help cure serious illnesses but the Church opposes it because it often relies on cells from embryo tissue.


Right!! And I am against food, because eating it often, sometimes makes you fat.

Seriously though. The Pope is a fool IMHO. A person his age should have realized by now that the world is not so black and white. Fortunately serious scientists and engineers already know their work have consequences. They don't need a reminder from a fool to guide them.

#8 advancedatheist

  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 24 October 2006 - 12:24 AM

Icarus died in a natural sort of accident, like a test pilot -- the gods didn't strike him down, in other words. If anything, the myth makes the case for learning from Icarus' mistakes and keep trying to do better at whatever inventive solution you seek.

BTW, doesn't Benedict's remark remind you of Leon Kass's use of mythological and literary sources to "prove" that humans shouldn't do such and such?

#9 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 24 October 2006 - 02:23 AM

(hanckconn)
Talk about coincidence... this is my 666th post O_O
haha!


Ahhh to be 666 again. [wis]

Youth is sooooo wasted on the young. ;))

#10 struct

  • Guest
  • 565 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 24 October 2006 - 02:40 AM

would 16 count!? 666 is so far away for me, may be when I turn 666 years old I'll reach 666 posts.

#11 jc1991

  • Guest
  • 61 posts
  • 0

Posted 24 October 2006 - 11:10 AM

I just noticed this, but wasn't Daedalus the one who actually designed and built the wings? From what I remember of the myth he made a successful landing too... (IE: Icarus didn't invent the wings, misused them, and died. All of which has absolutely nothing to do with what the Pope was trying to get across.)

#12 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 24 October 2006 - 11:14 AM

Exactly JC.

The Pope is claimed to be a scholar but he has actually misapplied the metaphor in this case. It is also the case that in a way it is as if he has tried to move the myth into scripture.

#13 maestro949

  • Guest
  • 2,350 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Rhode Island, USA

Posted 24 October 2006 - 12:29 PM

Talk about coincidence... this is my 666th post O_O


Mine was 667! An off-by-one error. Oops.

#14

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 24 October 2006 - 02:13 PM

I think he is trying to say not to allow essential human values to be laid aside in the quest for scientific advancement, a sentiment I agree with entirely. His use of Greek mythology to make his point is both courageous and erudite.

#15 kevink

  • Guest
  • 184 posts
  • 1

Posted 24 October 2006 - 03:06 PM

I think he is trying to say not to allow essential human values to be laid aside in the quest for scientific advancement, a sentiment I agree with entirely. His use of Greek mythology to make his point is both courageous and erudite.


That's also how I read it.

Personal opinion...
A society that creates technology strictly for the sake of science, will destroy itself.
A society without a strong underlying moral value (humility, compassion, etc.) will crush itself under the weight of its scientific achievement.

#16 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 24 October 2006 - 03:13 PM

Frankly Kevin and Prometheus that is not how I read it. I think he sees a competition for *faith* from the fools that treat issues like the singularity as religion. I do agree he is talking about values but not *basic human* ones in particular, as much as specifically religious oriented ones and he makes the correlation to stem cell research as well.

I also think it reflects fear and repressive thinking that the church has been consistently guilty of for centuries and the only difference is that now instead of being able to initiate obscene inquisitions (the office this Pope previously held ironically) the church is essentially a toothless tiger.

This is an old debate and I doubt it is the last chapter but the church has held back women and children's rights, science, public education and democracy by essentially all the same arguments since the Renaissance and the industrial revolution.

#17 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 24 October 2006 - 03:35 PM

The Pope is a fool IMHO

I think it would be more fair to label the Pope a dupe

I have no intentions on playing fair with a guy that tries to force his twisted morals on the rest of the world. This idiot is killing thousands of people by condemning technology that can save people *today*.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ope/4081276.stm
http://www.timesonli...2214066,00.html

If he is so wise, he should know that his words as a religious leader *will* be taken literally by his followers. I don't care how many books this guy has read, and how well he "understands" mythology. Mythology is interpreted at any given time, just like religious scriptures are. He is trying to justify his opinions with ancient rhetoric, supposedly universal truth because of it. Such a man should be condemned by an institution like the ImmInst, because killing in the name of morals is killing just as well.

This is not opposition to religion. This is opposition to an institution that preys on week peoples religion, killing them in the process. It is despicable that this "moral" leadership is taken seriously still. They sit in their comfortable towers of glass and stone, build on the suffering of their followers. The fact that this guy was educated in a democracy, given high stature as a "professor" of theology, is insane. Modern society should condemn this kind of institution, not feed it with new leaders.

Edited by lightowl, 24 October 2006 - 03:54 PM.


#18 maestro949

  • Guest
  • 2,350 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Rhode Island, USA

Posted 24 October 2006 - 05:30 PM

A society that creates technology strictly for the sake of science, will destroy itself.


What does this even mean? Can anyone even think of an example of someone creating technology for the sake of science? Technology is the development of tools based on accumulated scientific knowledge. Surely we can destroy ourselves with it but then again, we could destroy ourselves with rocks, sticks and are bare hands if we work hard enough.

A society without a strong underlying moral value (humility, compassion, etc.) will crush itself under the weight of its scientific achievement.


So the Pope is suggesting that we should halt scientific progress out of fear that we can more rapidly destroy ourselves? Or is it rather that the "love of science" is eroding humanity's moral values?

I agree that it's important to not swap one temple for another. Worshipping science fiction or putting your faith in the notion that fantastic future advancements will solve all humanity's problems is just as pointless as trying to predict good fortune from the alignment of the stars and planets.

#19 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 24 October 2006 - 08:13 PM

What is being addressed is also a distinction of technology versus science, The pope fallaciously conflated the two and so do most people. They are not the same thing nor have they ever been the same thing regardless of the fact that technology depends on science and to some extent science can be dependent on technology at the experimental level.

Technology is driven by markets for necessity and desires much more than directly by pure science. Pure science is still driven by the passion and necessity for knowledge.

What the pope is blaming science for is actually the abuse caused by misuses of technology and that is not really the fault of science as much as society and individuals. The issue of ethics does not really depend on an appeal to an absolute as much as Natural Law and that is also an area of dispute since the Church wants to be the final arbiter of what is Natural Law rather than science..

#20 Centurion

  • Guest
  • 1,000 posts
  • 19
  • Location:Belfast, Northern Ireland

Posted 24 October 2006 - 10:43 PM

I believe he might be saying so in the negative sense. Courageous in that it is bound to invoke criticism such as is seen here and erudite in its older sardonic sense of an attempt at a high brow remark made for reasons other than articulate expression.

#21 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 25 October 2006 - 04:01 AM

I wonder why the pope fears AI. What's wrong with computer technology?

#22 amar

  • Guest
  • 154 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Paradise in time

Posted 25 October 2006 - 04:42 AM

Religious people demonize a lot of things. They don't trust that people aren't soulless vampires. I'm a bit supersticious myself because I've known spiritual hells, but honestly, us people need to be cut a bit of slack.

#23 MichaelAnissimov

  • Guest
  • 905 posts
  • 1
  • Location:San Francisco, CA

Posted 25 October 2006 - 01:02 PM

BTW, this comment wasn't actually about real Artificial Intelligence... according to George Dvorsky's blog, the Pope meant scientific thinking, which he regards as unflexible and spiritually devoid.

#24 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 25 October 2006 - 02:24 PM

QUOTE  (MA)
BTW, this comment wasn't actually about real Artificial Intelligence

(hank)
the sad part is that people needed to be told this


I hate to disagree with George but that is not my read at all. I think the Pope was being deliberately ambiguous. While he is obviously referring to ultra-Darwinism, synthetic reasoning and strict materialism I think he knew exactly how his comment would be read by the post Terminator series and Spielberg *commoner*.

Make no mistake about this he is intelligent enough to know we are on the verge of creating synthetic life both biologically and electronically and he considers this playing god. Whether it is in 5 years or 20 he considers it under his watch that these things are happening and he is moving to block them under the penumbra of the Right to Life movement.

For years the idea that "life is too difficult to create" was bulwark of the theist argument. Building life and/or self aware consciousness challenges the church in a more profound manner than Copernicus did and while many here might not see it that way I have little doubt that the Pope does see it that way and only wishes he had the power of Torquemada to do something about it. He doesn't but he is competent enough to move in a modern political manner and manipulate the media to prepare his *minions* for a conflict.

IMHO this was merely the first volley of a serious social conflict that is moving from regional skirmishing in the courts and legislatures of the developed world into not only the mainstream, but the politics of the Third World. Another example of the growing conflict between fundamentalists and progressives.

#25 mitkat

  • Guest
  • 1,948 posts
  • 13
  • Location:Toronto, Canada

Posted 26 October 2006 - 12:14 AM

http://en.wikipedia..../George_Dvorsky

George in my most personal capacity is the president of the Toronto Transhumanist Association, and someone who I agree with on this issue. He's also a fairly snappy dresser.

#26 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 26 October 2006 - 01:43 AM

You really need to study the other side more Hank. And Mitkat I usually agree with George too but this is not a contradiction as much as nuance. I am simply saying that the Pope is intentionally ambiguous. He happens to be another in a line of academic Popes that have been the Post WWII strategy of the Church.

He also just happened to have been Hitler youth and Infantry and he really did hold the office of Inquisitor and Defender of the Faith. He later became the closest advisor to the previous Pope John Paul for most of that Pope's office.

He is in fact one of the more educated Popes in relation to the sciences in quite some time and comes from the real Jesuit tradition. He didn't really misspeak, he is recovering from a recent gaff (his comment about Islam) and now is fine tuning his manipulation of the media and diverting attention by carefully vilifying high tech with his *flock*. He sees a battle for *faith* brewing and I am serious about how they see the impact of creating artificial sentience or synthetic biological life.

http://en.wikipedia....pe_Benedict_XVI

One of the best-known theologians since the 1960s and a prolific author, Benedict XVI is viewed as a defender of traditional Catholic doctrine and values and of their importance in the survival of Western civilization. He served as a professor at various German universities, and was a theological consultant at the Second Vatican Council before becoming Archbishop of Munich and Freising and Cardinal. At the time of his election as Pope, Benedict had been Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (curial heads lose their positions upon the death of a pope) and was Dean of the College of Cardinals.

During his papacy, Benedict XVI has emphasized what he sees as a need for Europe to return to fundamental Christian values in response to increasing de-Christianisation and secularisation in many developed countries. For this reason, he has identified relativism's denial of objective truth - and more particularly, the denial of moral truths - as the central problem of the 21st century. He has taught about the importance for the Catholic Church and for humanity of contemplating God's salvific love and has reaffirmed the "importance of prayer in the face of the activism and the growing secularism of many Christians engaged in charitable work."

****

Before becoming Pope, Benedict XVI was one of the most influential men in the Roman Curia, and was a close associate of the late John Paul II. As Dean of the College of Cardinals, he presided over the funeral of John Paul II and over the Mass immediately preceding the 2005 conclave in which he was elected. During the service, he called on the assembled cardinals to hold fast to the doctrine of the faith. He was the public face of the church in the sede vacante period, although, technically, he ranked below the camerlengo in administrative authority during that time. Like his predecessor, Benedict XVI maintains the traditional Catholic doctrines on artificial birth control, abortion, and homosexuality while promoting Catholic social teaching.

As well as his native German, Benedict XVI fluently speaks Italian, French, English, Spanish, Portuguese and Latin. He can read Ancient Greek and biblical Hebrew. He is a member of a large number of academies, such as the French Académie des sciences morales et politiques. He plays the piano and has a preference for Mozart and Beethoven.

****

Following his fourteenth birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was enrolled in the Hitler Youth - membership being legally required after December 1936.[2] -, but was an unenthusiastic member and refused to attend meetings. His father was a bitter enemy of Nazism, believing it conflicted with the Catholic faith. In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a child with Down syndrome, was killed by the Nazi regime in its campaign of eugenics. In 1943 while still in seminary, he was drafted at age 16 into the German anti-aircraft corps. Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry, but a subsequent illness precluded him from the usual rigors of military duty. As the Allied front drew closer to his post in 1945, he returned to his family's home in Traunstein after his unit had ceased to exist, just as American troops established their headquarters in the Ratzinger household. As a German soldier, he was put in a POW camp but was released a few months later at the end of the War in summer 1945. He re-entered the seminary, along with his brother Georg, in November of that year.

*****

Ratzinger became a professor at the University of Bonn in 1959; his inaugural lecture was on "The God of Faith and the God of Philosophy." In 1963, he moved to the University of Münster, where his inaugural lecture was given in a packed lecture hall, as he was already well known as a theologian. At the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), Ratzinger served as a peritus or theological consultant to Josef Cardinal Frings of Cologne, Germany, and has continued to defend the council, including Nostra Aetate, the document on respect of other religions, ecumenism and the declaration of the right to freedom of religion. (Later, as the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger most clearly spelled out the Catholic Church's position on other religions in the document Dominus Iesus (2000) which also talks about the proper way to engage in ecumenical dialogue). He was viewed during the time of the Council as a convinced reformer, cooperating with radical Modernist theologians like Hans Küng and Edward Schillebeeckx. Ratzinger himself admitted he was, and partly continues to be, an admirer of Karl Rahner, a well-known academic theologian of the Nouvelle Théologie who was in favour of church reform and who proposed new theological ideas. In 1966, Joseph Ratzinger was appointed to a chair in dogmatic theology at the University of Tübingen, where he was a colleague of Hans Küng once again. In his 1968 book Introduction to Christianity, he wrote that the pope has a duty to hear differing voices within the Church before making a decision, and he downplayed the centrality of the papacy. He also wrote that the Church of the time was too centralized, rule-bound and overly controlled from Rome. During this time, he distanced himself from the atmosphere of Tübingen and the Marxist leanings of the student movement of the 1960s that quickly radicalised, in Germany, in the years 1967 and 1968, culminating in a series of disturbances and riots in April and May 1968. Ratzinger came increasingly to see these and associated developments (such as decreasing respect for authority among his students and the rise of the German gay rights movement) as connected to a departure from traditional Catholic teachings. Despite his reformist bent, his views increasingly came to contrast with the liberal ideas gaining currency in theological circles.[3] During his years at the Second Vatican Council and Tübingen University, professor Joseph Ratzinger publicized articles in the reformist theological journal Concilium, though he increasingly chose less reformist themes than other contributors to the magazine such as Hans Küng and Edward Schillebeeckx.

*****

On November 25, 1981, Pope John Paul II named Ratzinger Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly known as the Holy Office, the historical Inquisition. Consequently, he resigned his post at Munich in early 1982. He was promoted within the College of Cardinals to become Cardinal Bishop of Velletri-Segni in 1993, was made the College's vice-dean in 1998 and dean in 2002.

In office, Ratzinger fulfilled his institutional role, defending and reaffirming official Catholic doctrine, including teaching on topics such as birth control, homosexuality, and inter-religious dialogue. During his period in office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith took disciplinary measures against some outspoken liberation theologians in Latin America and Jesuit priest



http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/0826413617

#27 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 26 October 2006 - 01:56 AM

BTW it is also well known that this Pope writes all his own speeches, his comments are never *accidents* or simple confusions.

#28 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 26 October 2006 - 10:34 AM

Hank the Church doesn't credit the idea of a singularity as possible because they believe god is essentially the singularity from their perspective. If they consider it anything at all it would be that the very idea of a man-made singularity would represent consummate evil as an affront to their god.

I suspect having studied their arguments for years that the problem revolves around the twin aspects of the definition of life; biology and sentience. Biology is one avenue and artificial intelligence is the other in this quest and the problem is that for years they said it was IMPOSSIBLE to create life, either biological or in terms of true AI. They suspect that if the theist argument unravels this could be very damaging to the credibility of the Church in much the same way they moved to suppress Copernicus because of how they had built their philosophical framework around Ptolemy.

The issue is also about power, who has it, what is it and how it should be wielded.

BTW, this Pope recently created an outcry by trying to reconcile Darwinism with ID. He does advocate standard evolutionary thinking but promotes the idea of God as the initiator. He also recently gave a speech in which he tried to unite moderate Muslims and Christians in fear of technological trends.

In the speech that got him in trouble with the world the brouhaha caused most people to overlook the actual theme of the speech.

http://www.opendemoc...cience_3918.jsp

Pope Benedict XVI: science is the real target
Ehsan Masood
19 - 9 - 2006

A deeper reading of Pope Benedict's Regensburg speech suggests a message that Catholics and Muslims can share, says Ehsan Masood: that modern science must make room for theology.
 
At the University of Siena in Italy, the Pontignano conference on the future of Europe's universities on 15-17 September 2006 was in full flow when word began to circulate that Pope Benedict XVI was in trouble over a lecture he had given to scientists in Germany. His 12 September speech on faith, reason and universities was being seen as an attack on Islam.
(excerpt)


BTW here is the text of the previous speech.

http://www.guardian....1873277,00.html

In it he says:

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.

(the next few passages caused the uproar in the Islamic world. I am taking them out to get beyond them. Go to the link for the entire speech)

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.



****

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.


Edited by Lazarus Long, 26 October 2006 - 03:19 PM.


#29 maestro949

  • Guest
  • 2,350 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Rhode Island, USA

Posted 26 October 2006 - 10:56 AM

A deeper reading of Pope Benedict's Regensburg speech suggests a message that Catholics and Muslims can share, says Ehsan Masood: that modern science must make room for theology.


There's plenty of room for theology but a clear line must be kept between fiction and non fiction.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#30 Centurion

  • Guest
  • 1,000 posts
  • 19
  • Location:Belfast, Northern Ireland

Posted 26 October 2006 - 10:15 PM

Do you kiss your wife with that mouth? :) !!




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users