RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : The Pope vs. Islam: Who Stands for Reason?

Wednesday
September 20, 2006

The Pope vs. Islam: Who Stands for Reason? by Ed Hudgins

Islamists complain about the Pope's quote from an old emperor about their religion but they prove the quote correct in their violent, irrational reactions. But in the Pope's speech he fails to understand that it is putting faith above reason that causes such violence and is responsible for most of the world's problems today. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (15 messages)

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 5:25pm

Ed, I have a question about how you select titles and themes for your opinion editorials. Let me name two of them for examination:

1. Flushing the Koran or Reason Down the Toilet?
2. The Pope vs. Islam: Who Stands for Reason?

Given that I do not publish op-eds, you can take what I have to say with as much or little seriousness as you like.

The first quality that jumps at me about both these titles is the mix of conceptual common denominators as contrast objects in the titles. In the first one, the Koran is a concrete while reason is an abstract. In the second, the Pope is a person while Islam is a religion.

One quality I have noticed consistently in Rand's articles is her employment of contrasts at equal levels of abstraction, such as faith versus reason, force versus persuasion, producers versus destroyers, Attila and the Witch Doctor against the Businessman and the New Intellectual, and so forth. The ARI rightly employs this same technique in its op-eds effectively so readers can easily picture the abstract concepts in concrete terms.

In your published articles, the reader has a much harder time from the start because you attempt to contrast two opposing concepts at substantially different levels of abstraction. In the first one, a much more effective title and theme might have been:

1. Flushing the Koran or the Constitution Down the Toilet?

This instance would contrast two concretes with which we all have familiarity and which embody highly abstract concepts like faith versus reason in ways we can readily grasp. The alliteration of the two words also makes the title more memorable.

For the second one, perhaps you could have tried one of these:

2. Jesus vs. Mohammed: Who Stands for Reason?
2. The Pope vs. Osama bin Laden: Who Stands for Reason?

Even these contrasts of two religious nutters combined with an appeal to reason would have been tough. So I do not know what else to say to salvage the attempt.

I also challenge the idea of having a question as a title as I consider a forthright statement more powerful, but I could be wrong.

You can read other suggestions for improvement on the SOLOP site but this has bothered me for a while so I wanted finally to post it.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 5:30pm

Deleted

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 9/20, 5:31pm)

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 7:00pm

I enjoyed the article none the less.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 8:20pm

Which is Better? "!" or "?"

Luke, a rhetorical question induces the reader to draw his own conclusion and hence his own emotional reaction, whereas a declarative may simply present the matter predigested. Which is to be preferred depends on the context, but did Rand never use this method?

Ted

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 9:27pm

Natural Law and Human Happiness

My understanding of Catholic theology is that Natural Law, moral reasoning valid for all men based on human nature, does not depend upon revelation. Men can achieve a temporary (if ultimately inferior) happiness through right living based on reason. But the eternal happiness of salvation in the afterlife requires that those who have been told the Gospel accept baptism in Jesus and not die in a state of mortal sin. Being in a state of mortal sin (having, say, committed murder) will send any man, Christian or not, to hell, if he dies without true contrition. Absolution can be granted by a priest to a believer who commits an act of imperfect contrition. (That is, if he confesses not from regret, but from fear of hell.) A man, whether a believer or not, who is perfectly contrite (who knows he has sinned against God and his victim, and regrets his actions for their inherent evil not, from fear of punishment) may achieve salvation, at God's grace. (That is, we cannot know that he is damned.)

Happiness on earth is seen by the Scholastics as possible, yet inferior, given that one should know that one may spend eternity in damnation. (It has also been taught that men who will suffer eternal damnation may enjoy happiness on earth in compensation for the real but insufficient good they do on earth.) A saint may or may not live in a state of joy on earth. For a believer this would not be the most important matter, given the numerical incommensurability of eternity and our finite lifespan.

Catholicism sees happiness on earth as a real good. Happy men are less likely to sin, and a good man, given that his nature, as God-given, is good, will be happy if externalities do not prevent it. Reason and "revealed truth" cannot conflict, since both are the products of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. Catholic teaching criticizes Lutheran and Calvinist theology for, among other things, seeing man's nature as inherently corrupt. Catholicism sees original sin an accidental attribute of man, and criticizes Protestantism for seeing original sin as an essential part of man's nature. Luther's world is a veil of tears.

Islam teaches that faith brings success. (Read the billboard on the NJ Turnpike, that same Turnpike from which the Towers are no longer visible.) But I know of no muslim philosophy or theology that praises reason or Natural Law. What little muslim philosophy there had been was attacked by Al-Ghazali as contradictory to the Butcher's teachings. Al-Ghazali said that the arguments of the skeptics showed that all philosophy was self defeating, and so, ultimately, decadent.

I had mentioned before that I felt that Christianity, while obviously not based on reason, is, in its sense of life, more compatible with Western Civilization than any of the other Semitic faiths. Jesus' refusal to initiate force in order to establish religion, and his acceptance of a separation between religion and state stand in bold contrast to the Butcher's explicit teachings and acts. When it has had secular power, Christian Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism have all had their tyrannies. Yet it was from within the Scholastic system, which admitted of reason, that Natural Law theory was (re)born. The religion of submission is certainly not compatible with reason in any form of which I am aware. It is for his followers to show that the Butcher taught anything new other than death and the sword.

Ted Keer, Sep 21, 2006, NYC

Thursday, September 21, 2006 - 12:13am

Ted: That was a fascinating disquisition on Natural Law and Catholicism. In an odd and elaborate way, their religious theories at least somewhat make sense. I wonder if this is the product of (mainly) Aquinas? A lot of these medieval religious guys -- such as Dominicans, Fransicans, and Jesuits -- really were pretty scholarly historically. The reason, I think, is religion in the Dark Ages in Europe basically killed off most other institutions -- including normal schools -- so the only decent substitute 'universities' were the big city churches.

Catholics also seem quasi-logical in the constant, if tiresome, way they consistently refer to "the laws of god and man" or some such. They evidently always couple these two since no-one can know the laws of a non-existent entity, but they can know the elaborate common sense of Catholicism's version of Natural Law. And it's always beneficial to make their arguments doubly powerful and persuasive by offering claims partially based on the nonsense of "god" and partially based on the reality of physical and intellectual truth i.e. Natural Law, reason, etc.

Thursday, September 21, 2006 - 8:14am

I agree; that was fascinating, Ted. I always thought that Catholic faith emphasized Original Sin as a fundamental trait of human nature. I do remember reading that Martin Luther was vehemently opposed to reason, in contrast to Aquinas's brand of Catholicism. In fact...

"But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest whore."

-Martin Luther, from wikiquote

And special thanks to Andre for introducing me to a new word!

disquisition - a formal inquiry into or discussion of a subject

Thursday, September 21, 2006 - 9:04am

Good summary Ted! The Catholics did focus on Original Sin under the influence of Augustine but the influence of Thomas Aquinas allowed them later to contrast themselves with early Protestants on this issue.

Even though Catholics are wrong on many things, I try to foster and encourage the rational elements that are found in their traditions. In his speech the Pope discusses Christianity as coming out of the Hellenistic tradition and says, "The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit." While I could argue with him about that, I'm glad when people take up parts of the right approach. I think that rather than corrupting reason, reason will undermine the irrational in religion. After all, that has been the effect of Thomistic thought on the world over the centuries. (And for those of you who are impressed by appeals to authority, Rand had the same view of Thomas's impact.) That's why I don't simply dismiss the Pope out of hand as disingenuous, etc. but point out when he's right and criticize him when he's wrong.

Thursday, September 21, 2006 - 9:09am

Catholics aren't always logical. I know because I used to be one. But Ted's comments are quite valid.

Who is going to be the Aquinas for the Islamic world? Is there anyway to bring that about? When is it going to happen? Is there anything that Objectivists or Americans can do?

Thursday, September 21, 2006 - 10:21am

Gee Luke, this is the first time I've had commentary on my commentary titles! (But who knows, there could be whole SOLOPassion threads on the evil of Hudgins headlines.)

I actually considered for a few seconds whether I could come up with better parallelism in my title, so I'll give you a considered response. A couple of points:

Editors routinely change titles so I don't pay too much attention to their logical subtleties, which editors and probably most other readers would miss anyway. For example, my "Starbucks Served Up a Fat Cup of Trouble" became "Lattes and Lawsuits? Ridiculous!" in one paper. And my July 4 piece on "Are Americans Really Free and Equal?" became "Birthday Blips."

Rand was a master at philosophical contrasts in her titles and works, faith versus reason, for example, as well as using symbols like Attila. But, the more philosophical or academic a title sounds and the more removed it is from any news hook, the less likely newspaper editors will even read it -- a problem for me since I write about philosophical stuff.

I tend to employ a couple rules of thumb for titles.

First, I tell the editor (and, I hope, the reader) immediately what the piece is about. So if it's about the Pope's speech, the reaction in the Islamic world to it (the news hooks), and my contention that reason vs. faith is the central theme on which people should focus, the title might become "The Pope vs. Islam: Who Stands for Reason?" Or when flushing the Koran down the toilet was a hot topic and I wanted to argue that the Islamists and the Koran are irrational, the title became "Flushing the Koran or Reason Down the Toilet."

Second, I try to do twists of phrase or wording that will get editors' or readers' attention. So my piece on the inventor of the air conditioner had "cool capitalist" in the title -- I also like alliteration -- a variation of which was used by editors. Since Starbucks was being criticized for fat in its products, "Starbucks Served Up a Fat Cup of Trouble" seemed appropriate. Or when France was having riots because of its labor policies, "France Labors at Folly" worked well and was used by The Washington Times.

Third, questions in titles often peak the curiosity of readers. "That's interesting! What's the answer?" If I just say "The Pope and Islam/Islamists are both irrational," then you know the conclusion and might be less likely to read the piece. I did the same thing with "Are Americans Really Free and Equal?"

But sometimes declarative statements work well for titles too, especially if you're taking an unexpected or very unconventional position. I'm working on a TNI piece right now called "Hate Thy Neighbor." You know nothing of the piece but the title probably got your attention.

Well, that exhausts my thoughts on op-ed titles. Think I should write an op-ed on this? "Consistently Contrasted Categorical Pairs vs. Mixed Conceptual Common Denominators: I Favor the Former!"

(Edited by Ed Hudgins on 9/21, 11:09am)

Thursday, September 21, 2006 - 10:26am

Ted: Your question "Which is Better? "!" or "?" " misses the supreme importance of the semi-colon, which I, great writer that I am, use liberally in my pieces but admit to never using in my titles!

Actually, George Will once wrote a whole column on the semi-colon and he did this review on a book about punctuation, linked below. Enjoy! :
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511220013

Thursday, September 21, 2006 - 10:34am

George Will often has a unique take on things.

Thursday, September 21, 2006 - 2:10pm

The Rise of the Universities

I must say, I was surprised by, and appreciate the interest in my little post. For those who are interested, Aquinas'
Treatise on Happiness is reviewed on and available from Amazon. I should neither be taken as an authority on him, on Catholic theology, or on the Scholastics.

I do occasionaly watch EWTN, the Catholic Eternal Word Television Network, when they have shows on intellectual issues. My explanation of the difference between Catholic and Lutheran and Calvinist teaching on original sin is based on a discussion I saw there recently, but it fits with what I remember from a graduate level course on the Reformation. While the political effects of the Reformation, in leading to a pluralistic West, were critical, this pluralism was only achieved at the expense of a century of rampaging warfare to the point of exhaustion. The philosophy, theology and politics of the Protestants were almost always a retrogression. Political liberalism can be credited to Spinoza and the much later Enlightenment, which repudiated Calvinism and the "divine authority of kings" with equal force.

One of the ironies of history is the fact that reason was reborn in the West under Christianity, only once Christianity had so destroyed every trace of the Classical past that it had forgotten what the "enemy" was. The suppression by the Church of heretical sects and books was so total, with most of Greek philosophy surviving only in the East, the cities having been left to rot, and heretical sects having been exterminated and their texts having been burnt, that knowledge of who the "enemy" was seems to have disappeared. The Universities which arose in renascent Western population centers were a place for the capital of the Church to be invested (in such high-tech things as wineries and scriptoria) and for the excess human capital of the intelligent misfit and the disinherited second son to pursue their happiness.

Where does the intelligent misfit and second son of islam go? To the bomb maker.

Ted Keer, Sep 21, 2006, NYC

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 9/21, 2:17pm)

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 9/21, 2:21pm)

Friday, September 22, 2006 - 10:03am

This is the short way of saying what my long op-ed said:

Friday, September 22, 2006 - 11:58am

Very [ahem] to the point....;-)