|
. |
. |
|
“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:
Valid data (explicit premises, replicable methods)
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.
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:
Knowledge is willed into being – even in quantitative studies.
Knowledge is a social construction, variable in time and space, a response to a “need and will to know” of a specific community.
Not superficial relativism ("any knowledge supposedly worth any other"), often criticized. There is a “best” in scientific production.
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.
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.