“Lecture to the representatives of science”
by the (Roman Catholic) Pope Joseph Ratzinger
University of Regensburg, 12 September 2006.
 
 Thesis: 
Purely empirical studies are insufficient to arrive
at scientific truths. One needs Reason + Faith.

"The intention here is one of ... broadening our concept of reason and its application. [...] 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. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences."

 Yes 

2. In science today, quantitative methods* prevail;
    qualitative methods** are almost a “non science”.

"Only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements [is currently] 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."

*    QUANTITATIVE METHODS: not “numbers” (discrete units imposed on experience)

**   QUALITATIVE METHODS: not “subjectivity” (inter-subjectivity)

*** “HUMAN SCIENCES” = “SOFT SCIENCES” = “MORAL SCIENCES”, from mores
      or “wilful human conduct” (John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic, 1843) .

 Yes 

3. Quantitative research that does not proceed from
    initial qualitative reasoning can generate monsters.

"...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."

*CREATE A COMMUNITY (OF VALUES) -- Yes, “create,” not “conform to”

 No 

4. The initial qualitative reasoning must be faith-based.

[The lay scientific 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." [...]

*To WIDEN THE RADIUS, must we raise “the question of god”?
 Not at all – there is a “lay” alternative:
          Inter-subjectivity, rigorously validated, as a source of knowledge.

IN ADDITION, what does raising “the question of god” mean?
 

"For theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding."

 No 

5. Islam, for example, cannot offer insights, for it is irrational.

"On the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, [the Emperor asked]: '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, after having expressed himself so forcefully*, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable... and... not acting reasonably („σὺν λόγω”)** is contrary to God's nature. [...] But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality."

* nachdem er so zugeschlagen hat > forcefully > Italian pesante (“heavy-handedly”)

** REASONABLY > „σὺν λόγω” > RATIONALITY in the Greek-Roman tradition only

The ideal world for the Pope:
That of Ancient Greece where Reason and Faith coexisted, where philosophers discussed questions of mathematics and of theology applying the same epistemological principles.

A world of Reason (not of irrationality as in Islam),
but Reason broader than that recognized by modern science, able to embrace transcendency and which submits to the dictates of Faith.

Our reply:

We intend to establish our claim to “knowlege”
--of what culturally different interlocutors mean,
--of their cultural and personal frames of reference,
--of our own identities, etc.
 
through a validation process broader than that recognized by modern science today, able to embrace inter-subjectivity but which submits to the limits of human knowledge.

 
How do we validate our cultural knowledge  today  
and how can we broaden that  validation process? 

A priority: otherwise our studies of intercultural communication are:
--narcissistic studies of how those objects seem to us.                    
--studies of "ourselves as touched by Otherness" (never known)     
and Ratzinger's accusation of unhuman research is true.                 

Quantitative approaches

• G. Hofstede: sociometrics of culture

• H. C. Triandis: psychometrics of culture

• D'Andrade & Strauss: cultural cognitive schemas

Fragmentary glimpses of possible meanings:

1. Valid data (explicit premises, replicable methods)

2. Questionable models (correspond to the cultural object?)

Qualitative approaches

Meaning as the product of context

• Malinowski's cultural functions: the teleological* relationship between an object and its environment
  (*it accomplishes some social ritual);

• Geertz's symbolic implicatures: the object's implicit values confer a specific symbolic value;

• Gadamer's eidetic reduction: the purely contextual attributes of an object are eliminated to arrive at its essence.

11

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

In all 3, MEANING is the product of INTERPRETATION

• Malinowski & Geertz: meaning is given to objects through empathetic intuition

• Gadamer: meaning is subtracted from objects by bracketing them

In no case is meaning “found” in objects (an illusion).
 
Thus
-- qualitative knowledge is the product of acts of will
-- validating that knowledge is primarily volitional

   Not cognitive nor affective but “volitional reprogramming”
            -- Earl Stevick, Memory Meaning and Method, 1976

Conclusions:

1. Knowledge is willed into being – even in quantitative studies.

2. Knowledge is a social construction, variable in time and space, a response to a “need and will to know” of a specific community.

3. Not superficial relativism ("any knowledge supposedly worth any other"), often criticized. There is a “best” in scientific production.

4. That (relative) "best" knowledge is determined by authentic engagement with the “need and will to know” of one's specific community, by dislocating oneself into multiple other learning communities, while maintaining one's personal integrity.

5. Decentering (they key to intercultural communication) is also the key to scientific research.

Thus the response of scholars of intercultural communication to the call for faith-inspired science:

Offer our discipline
as an example of how optimal understanding can be achieved through decentering, i.e. through undergoing multiple transformations of consciousness and will,
the kind we theorize, describe and teach in our work.

<<<>>>

Thank you.