Interesting article.

The Pope says, "People in Africa and Asia admire our scientific and technical prowess, but at the same time they are frightened by a form of rationality that totally excludes God from man’s vision.” Well, I wouldn't include the hundreds of millions of Asian Buddhists in that. Furthermore, I remember the Dalai Lama once answering a question about what he would do if science were to prove any of his beliefs to be wrong. He said that, of course, he would then have to change his belief. Totally 'rational', and probably 'excluding God', yet also deriving from a spiritual vision.

To be fair to Christians, it is only within relatively recent history that there has been any fear of 'science' and 'reason' making us 'deaf to God' - if by that word you wish to speak of a numinous and transcendent element of existence. For Thomas Aquinas "reason" was "the handmaid of faith." Christians only find themselves in a dilemma to the degree that they try to hold on dogmatically to (scientifically) discredited non-essentials.

The present Pope seems to be achieving something that one would have previously thought impossible: making his predecessor seem like a liberal. John Paul II had a healthy respect for science which Pope Benedict appears not to share, and although your (sarcastic) comment that it would be great "if the Pope could just declare a Fatwa against anyone with the audacity to offer scientific proof that contradicts the Bible", seems a little sharp, it does usefully remind us just where the present Pope comes from as a former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (as the Inquisition has been rather charmingly rebranded).

The thing is that religion cannot compete against science, not for rational minds. The stories of Creation, of the Garden of Eden, of Noah's Ark, make no sense in the modern world.

Up to a point. I do though consider it to be completely rational to respect these 'stories' as a legitimate summary of religious understanding in the Late Bronze Age. This was an era in which people 'believed' in stories in a way that is probably lost to us now. Viewed as works of religious art, rather than scientific fact, I think that they still have something to tell us.

Chakgogka, thank you for commenting and you offer some good points. Viewed as a document based on the limited knowledge of people who never left a small geographical area and who were trying to explain natural events that surpassed their comprehension, the Bible still has importance. The Bible can be viewed as having moral and historical value. Bible literalism, however....where is the value in trying to hold to what is obviously not true? The world is older than 6,000 years, we have evidence of dinosaurs, there is overwhelming evidence of evolution and Noah did not have all the species in the world aboard his Ark.

But notice that the Pope's comments were about rationalism, a process, not a specific outcome of that process. This isn't about one finding, not about evolution or stem cell research or any one issue. It is more an acknowledgment that religion can't hold its own in a rational debate.

Why is that important? Because when you find that the Church is fallible, that it held to many "facts" that were subsequently proven to be wrong, you weaken the office of the Papacy.

The present Pope seems to be achieving something that one would have previously thought impossible: making his predecessor seem like a liberal. John Paul II had a healthy respect for science which Pope Benedict appears not to share,

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you.  I respect Pope Benedict for his role as my spiritual leader, but not for his views on non-religious issues.  And mixing the 2 does not seem to be his strong point.

Why is that important? Because when you find that the Church is fallible, that it held to many "facts" that were subsequently proven to be wrong, you weaken the office of the Papacy.

Which facts would that be?  The Official doctrine of the Catholic Church does not hold to the inerrancy of the bible, and there are few facts that are a part of that doctine.  The Divinity of Jesus, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary are some of the 'facts' that I can recall off the top of my head.  Yet, I do not see how science will ever be able to (or even wish to) debunk any of them, since they are something from the past that is not an ongoing phenomenom that can be tested.

The Church is fallible.  Any instituion of man is fallible, and Catholicism is no different.  We have already seen many examples where the church did not live up to its mission, yet none have caused its downfall.

I read, and re-read his speech, and I got a different impression out of it.  He was not condemning science for debunking religion, but he seems to think that for some people (and that is purely his opinion), science is replacing faith.  I doubt many would argue with the latter.  I accept it.  He is railing against it.  In a way, that is his job.  I dont think he was the Preacher that Pope John Paul II was, and that is his major Shortcoming.

Didn't I read about this in Dan Brown's Angels and Demons?
-=sigh=-

Hello,

I just thought I'd offer my perspective on the whole thing. First off, I'm a christian who came to faith through my rational mind so I find that the Pope making these comments is sad and sets up a false dichotomy that science and rational thought are some how opposed to faith. The very foundation of Christianity is based in historical evidence from what people have seen and touched- the very essence of science! There has never been a conflict between the message of the christian faith and science and rational thought. The conflict has come from adhering dogmatically to secondary issues on which the bible does not, in fact, speak. The example of Galileo is a case in point- the bible does say that the sun rises and sets and moves across the heavens- that's simply phenomenological language used from what we experience here on our planet. The bible does NOT say that the sun revolves around the earth, that idea was an Aristotleian construct that was added to church doctrine and held too closely.

People are fallible, God is not. I could go on about the Genesis account but I wouldn't want to bore anyone. I'll end with that I'm sad that the Pope is perpetuating the myth that reason and faith are at war with each other. Thanks for your time.

I don't think the fear here is really about God, and people's personal attitudes toward Him. The real fear here is the "Church" loosing God as their intellectual property. They now as they always have despise the idea of people seeking answers from anyone but them. They are no longer able to twist every fact of nature and puzzle of life to THEIR own ends.

I say their because throughout history the ends have not been bringing people to God, rather it has been expanding Catholic influence. Now through science people have an insight into the universe that they can't provide, and amazingly people are able to look deeply and find God there too, in a realm where the Church itself doesn't hold power. They see, as they always have, science as the hammer blow to their ability to dictate the relationship between mankind and God.

I respect Catholic people,and admire many aspects of their religion, but to me the Pope is a very nice man in a funny hat. His dictates, while not as hateful as Islamic fundamentalism, are similar in that his interest isn't simply the souls of the people who listen, but his religion's ability to proselyte them to like-mindedness. Were he simply interested in wooing people toward God, he'd not have a problem with science. Instead, he fears that people will find God outside of the Catholic church.

I don't think the Pope's fear is that people will look deeply into the scientific world and not find God. I think he's afraid that they WILL find God, and not come to the same conclusions he comes to. It's a sad state of affairs when one has to deny reality to hold to one's beliefs, but that seems inherent in all organized religions that can't change when faced with new data. It requires admitting that you are wrong, and religious authority seems always to consider itself perfect.

Great article and very considered responses. Nice. Food for thought Bakerstreet. Nicely reshaped. More please.

BakerStreet, I will agree with the respondent above. Thank you for commenting and your writing is just beautiful.