<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:ent="http://www.purl.org/NET/ENT/1.0/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Curiouser and Curiouser! on rationality</title>
    <link>http://matt.blogs.it/</link>
    <description>RSS feed for topic rationality</description>
    <copyright>Copyright 2006 Matt Mower. Some rights reserved.</copyright>
    <generator>Squib/0.5.0.379</generator>
    <managingEditor>self@mattmower.com</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>self@mattmower.com</webMaster>
    <language>en-gb</language>
    <item>
      <title>Who'd have thought the Pope could make sense?</title>
      <link>http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002370.html</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:50:05 +0100</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I often find that I don't quite see eye-to-eye with Jeff Jarvis but his &lt;a href="http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/09/16/the-pope-wimps-out/"&gt;recent piece&lt;/a&gt; about the Pope's remarks, their context, and their consequence seems spot on to me.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;I think it's ironic that the Pope then goes on to try to expand the definition of reason beyond that accepted in the West because he wants to portray religion as reasonable.&lt;/p&gt;
    
    &lt;blockquote&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;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, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;/blockquote&gt;
    
    &lt;p&gt;And he seems to be arguing that there - under a larger umbrella of reason - there is a meeting point for the religions to meet. I would say that defines optimism in our age.&lt;/p&gt;
    
    &lt;p&gt;So the Pope's point was not to attack Islamic jihad but to use that as an illustration of fundamental differences. Still, he did attack violence in the name of religion. And I believe he should have stood by that firmly, for that is the discussion we must have. But instead, he wimped. And I believe that Islamic leaders should be standing firmly in the same spot, condemning violence - political violence, let's be honest - in the name of their religion. But instead, they whine.&lt;/p&gt;
    
    &lt;p&gt;Where the hell are the moral leaders for our age?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I'm not quite sure how one 'overcomes the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable'. Is religion metaphysics? Perhaps I should have been &lt;a href="http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2006/08/a_problem_in_mi.html"&gt;paying&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2006/08/defining_religi.html"&gt;better&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2006/09/atheist_religio.html"&gt;attention&lt;/a&gt; to Mr. Bateman recently (Chris?)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;But if I understand the broad sweep of his remarks I guess I agree with the Pope. Tie religion more closely to reason (since, apparently, not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature) and, with that in hand, through dialogue find a common ground.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Hrmm.. I don't find myself agreeing with the Pope very often either. I think I'm feeling a little faint, perhaps I'll go have a sit down.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002370.html</guid>
      <ent:cloud ent:href="http://matt.blogs.it/topics/">
      </ent:cloud>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
