The Pope

I don't know if that question is appropriate or not (as Chris noted). However, how about a scientific question on the subject?

How many of you have read or heard the speech in its entirety?

After all, any good engineer/scientist would first consume all of the facts, then reach a conclusion. My hypothesis is this; I would bet that less than 0.01% (1 in 10,000) of those that have formulated an opinion on this subject has not read the speech in its entirety.

I have read it, but I will not render an opinion to your question. Rather, I would like to stimulate thought on how we formulate opinions, both in our technical arenas and civil lives. Do you find, upon reflection, that you sometimes reach a conclusion without gathering all of the facts or relying on hearsay? How many times do you catch yourselves or worse, realize afterward that you mislead yourself by forming an opinion or hypothesis too early or with faulty data?

I find this (junk or pathological science) an interesting subject. Historically we have reached some grievous errors due to this. As scientists and engineers we train to spot and avoid this type of thinking, but it happens more often than we care to admit. Sometimes it leads to catastrophic results.

What dou think?

I think it's ok to form an opinion without all of the facts, after all, how often do we have all the facts? However, I do think that people should revisit their opinion when something or someone contradicts it. I think too often people become emotionally invested in an idea so that a discussion is less about understanding and more about winning an argument. As long as someone is willing to be wrong and learn, it's ok to have an opinion without the facts. It's just hard to be willing to be wrong (I'm speaking from experience, I hate to be wrong and it happens too often).

Good post, Roger.

I'll confess to occasionally "going off half-cocked" without having taken the time to gather information and assess the facts first. I usually end up regretting it.

The pope portrayed Islam as a religion tainted by violence and irrationality... but every religion has sponsored a lot of war, death, distruction because of the inability to accept anothers truth as a possibility. Although considering the "insulting" of Islam and the Prophet Mohammed is breaking a law is completely insaine. Speak what you want but words of opinion should not impose one religious view upon others nor should it have been taken with anger from muslims. If a different culture was offended... one should rize above the other and debate this openly and with heart, especially since its from a religuos perspective!

I was under the impression the pope simply was saying that there is never a religous justification for war, but perhaps I should read the whole statement as was suggested above. Does anyone have a link to the speech?

"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," Pope Benedict quoted. hmmm doesn't dogmatic law make his statement true?

but then he later said this in his apology "This was a quote from a medieval text which does not express in any way my personal thoughts." the text was from the 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus

That was a small part of the speech, I'd like to know the whole speech. For instance, did he mention that he was quoting a 14th-century text at the time or did he say it like it was his idea. That text itself doesn't tell me.

All,

Here's the full text of the Pope's address.

Here's the full text of the Pope's apology.

Moose

Thanks Moose, that was helpful

Now we know what we are talking about.

It sort of doesn't matter whether it's his personal belief. He chose that particular comment about that particular religion to put in his speech. Why?

Read the last couple of sentances of the Pope's speech and you will see why he used it.

what do you feel about his words on science?

"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."

"... 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: 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" and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. "

Clearly he dosen't agree with applying the empirical method to all aspects of science. He's just trying to say that emprical science became the norm because of greek philosophy, and that some disciplines, like theology don't fit this empirical "frame", because they are beyond "scientific" argument and experimentation.

your right Steve from Traditional

After reading the speech, it's given me a new perspective on this. The speech he was giving was in regards to reason, specifically that reason is not the enemy of religion. The passage that was chosen to coincide with his Hellenistic theme. Ironically, after reading the speech I've done a 180. I no longer think the medievel text was bad, given the fact that it was a debate and also that the man writing the debate down was currently under siege by a vast Islamic force. However, I do think the pope showed poor judgement in choosing to include that particular passage and nothing else from the text.

I thought that the media may have taken the popes words out of context, and they did in their effort to get the story to fit a 2 minute sound bite, but the pope took the text out of context by not including:

a. The Persians Response

b. Any other sections of that medievel text that might better explain that statement.

All that said, do I think he should have to apologize? I don't know. I don't think the man is under some obligation to protect the feelings of the Islamic world. I think he made a poor decision in what and how he chose to quote, but I see no evidence it was a calculated antagonistic move. They all can't be Pope John Paul II, that guy was a great guy.

I think the pope sets the right context for his quote by saying about Manuel II Paleologus that "he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely" offering that comment.

I would say, even the pope was surprised by Manuel's comment about Islam.

Easy. Have you read the whole speech?

After reading the Pope's speech I must conclude that he was only trying once again to express to those who have not met the Living God, that those of us who have are only trying to reach the rest. Not to force ,but to persuade them of the eminent reasonableness of an acknowledgment of the place of the Creator in the lives of His creation. God Himself says in His word that He wants to reason with us. To show us, from a rational perspective, all that there is to be gained from worship of Him and obedience to Him. All of creation is given into our hands to be examined, explored, investigated, what ever we want to do in it. The Pope, while I do not completely agree with him on many doctrinal issues, does make the point that faith and reason, rather than being in conflict, compliment each other to the point that both af these aspects of our humanity are greatly enriched by their presence, together, in our character, and that when either of the two is missing, our appreciation of the one remaining is greatly diminished. Faith without reason is bland and and empty. Reason without faith is shallow and futile. The one question, in my mind, which most clarifies the issue is:"If your life ends when your body dies, what was the point of anything you did?"

Not as articulately put as the Pope's speech, but I know what I believe. I don't believe it because I've blindly swallowed what has been spoonfed to me. I believe it because I've researched it and examined it and in light of all the evidence I've found, concluded that what I believe is the absolute truth. Whether or not I'm right is not for anyone else to say. What they need to consider is whether or not they are right. In the end what each of us believes will ultimately have the most effect on ourselves, so we must be sure. I am.

Based on the violent response by some Muslems across the world, I do not think that an apology from the Pope is necessary. The evidence strongly supports the comment. It seems to me that non-Muslems are for the most part cowering in fear and are generally, afraid of calling on radical Muslems to account for thier irresponsible and immature behaviour in perpetuating violence and vehemently voicing treats against innocent civilians.

If the pope was so wrong about the violence associated with muslims then why did they 1) Shoot a nun in the back? 2) Threaten to kill all eastern christians that do not conform to there ways. I could go much deeper than this however this is not the forum for such discussions. I fully agree with the posts that point out that much of the time we do not gather all the information before rendering a conclusion. We as a society have become entrenched in negative thinking. We need to focus on the positives of our lives. Everyone claims the world is all screwed up I beg to differ.It is the people that are screwed up. If you want to change the way things are- begin by changing yourself.

Because, they didn't read his speech.

The pope was never wrong and should not have wasted his time apologising.

Yes, the popular catholic belief says the pope is never wrong (although the actual catholic dogma makes a difference between the pope speaking as a normal person and the pope speaking in his office as the voice of God).

But note that in his appology he never said he was wrong, he just said he was misunderstood.

I don't think the situation attacks pope's authorithy among catholics. It will strengthen it, because many christians have secret/innocent anti-muslim sentiments.

Even Pope's apology and comments were as it were, I would qualify that useless to whom was said. Any Christian's voice is actually ridiculous for muslims ears and obviously my question arousing from this fact is: - Where are their educated enlighted powerful, modern and strong character people, still behind their "traditional masks"?

Hey Dumitru,

You've got a point. Pope's initial speach was in a christian university. He was using western philosophical language and concepts hard to understand even by your average christian. I think most of the muslims protesting out there won't have a clue of what he was talking about if you make them read the whole speech. That way of thinking is completely strange to their culture.

That speech wasn't targeted to muslim ears first of all, so no blame for the pope. But for a true dialogue between 2 cultures you need to find first a common language.

(Dumitru? interesting name; sounds familiar; reminds me of home)

I think the real issue is not with the Pope's words or with their subsequent interpretation (or misinterpretation). The issue is with the reaction from certain Muslims. So far as I'm concerned the Pope could have said "I hate all Muslims, all Muslims are evil" and my opinion of the event in its entirety would not have changed.

The Pope has every right to express his beliefs without fear of violent retribution. Just because he has been propped up as the representative of Catholocism does not make his words an attack on Islam.

As far as the Muslims who attacked Catholic churches and supposedly killed a Catholic nun (this has not been proven to be a related event as far as I can tell, although in all liklihood it is); if the Pope's words were actually intended as they interpreted them then it seems to me that they did their very best to prove the truth of their own interpretation.

Their reaction shows that they are not angered over the Pope's words, but with his very existence. They do not oppose other religons viewing their's as evil, they oppose other religons in and of themselves and will seize any oppurtunity to attack those religons.

Of course, I do not mean to imply that every Muslim holds these beliefs.

I have read others' views from many. Why is it so hard to understand, if you have some kind of faith, that there is nothing wrong with the God's message - be it Torah, Bible, or Quran - none of them condones violence. Basically, the "people" are screwed up and those can be from any background. By the way - how many of those who agreed with Pope have read the Quran? I am just curious because if you do, where do you find the evil message? Salam (Peace be on you). Thanks

How about if we would not rely our feelings to each others based on Corran, Bible, Torah, etc. but instead relying our feelings on the reciprocal respect for the values added to humanity, loving each other and share our cultural diversities. I hate to think that one day I can lose my Arab friends, that our kids would hate each other because prouldy some idiots made history by their mistakes. The international scientific community should take act on this fact and make a common front against the whole bunch of sick politicians manipulating at their discretion the peoples opinion.

"how many of those who agreed with Pope have read the Quran? I am just curious because if you do, where do you find the evil message?"

I've read bits, it sounds no better or worse than the bible in my opinion.

The message isn't in the Quran, but in Islam's history. Islam had a violent birth, which is what the passage is referring to. Now personally, I agree with you, I think all the screaming has little to do with religon and much more to do with frustration of the poorer countries with the wealthier ones (rightfully so). Still, the anger we see now, the manifestation of this frustration, can appear arbitrary and at times overdone, but this is simply from our perspective.

From your posts you seem to be pretty rational Roger, so I don't think you fully realized the implications of everything you said in this post. The "manifestation of this frustration" you spoke of often takes the form of bombed buildings and headless journalists. Do you, in fact, think these actions "can appear arbitrary and at times overdone, but this is simply from our perspective"?

I noticed you mentioned bombed buildings. We have bombed many more buildings then they have. We have raped, tortured, and killed muslims, and not all of them were terrorists. They have tortured, beheaded and bombed Americans, and each other.

So yes, I think to a point our perspective is skewed. I think that we label all of them animals and all of us heros and I think neither is true.

Don't get me wrong, some of them are criminals that deserve to be locked up, but I believe that to be a small minority. The vast majority, the ones who go in the street and scream hate and burn american flags, they don't murder, they don't bomb, they don't kill. They just protest, they just scream because of their frustration. They're screaming because they feel powerless to stop the violence around them. So we see the screaming on the news and we think to ourselves, these are the guys that behead, these are the guys that bomb innocent people, and we hate them.

They believe all american soldiers are evil because of the atrocious acts of a small minority, they blame all soldiers just as we blame all of them. We know that most of our soldiers there are good people just trying to do the right thing in a terrible situation. The same is true of them.