The Pope Answers A Question

Many detractors of Christianity are critical not so much of the Faith but the faithful. Christians, you see, are regarded as being rather dumb. And indeed there are dumb Christians, just like there are dumb Muslims, Rastafarians, and graduates of Harvard. Dumbness is not unique to any one group other than that group which willfully chooses to be, in fact, dumb (call it the DeMensa Society). But there is nothing unusual or anomalous, or so I suspect, about the number of dumb Christians. Dumbness is shared equally, from atheist to theist. And even geniuses are occasionally known to stumble about stupidly.

But Christians (and other religious) are often dismissed as dumb not because they are intrinsically stupid but because they are deemed contra-rational. This is mostly a popular man-on-the-street sort of notion; professional academics know better. But the usual saw that is often heard is the one squeaking on about how Christians are all about blind faith, while the thinking and independent person is all about wide-eyed reason.

I will leave the debate for another time. Instead I turn to Pope Benedict XVI's recent response to a student's question about the mutuality of Christian revelation and scientific inquiry. Richard John Neuhaus, the eminent Catholic writer, brought Benedict's remarks to the attention of readers of First Things, Neuhaus' outstanding journal. Neuhaus reports that it is a rarity that a pope would answer questions in a question-and-answer forum with on-the-record replies. Please note two things: the thoughtfulness of the 17-year-old's question to which the Pope replies, and the erudition–and nuance–of the Pope's reply. Regarding the former, I know I could not have asked such a question at 17 years old; regarding the latter, I know I could never respond off-hand with such clarity, depth and reflection.

The following is clipped from ZENIT, a Catholic news organization based in Rome:

Holy Father, I am Giovanni, I am 17 years old, I am studying at Giovanni Giorgi technological and scientific secondary school in Rome, and I belong to Holy Mary Mother of Mercy Parish.

I ask you to help us to understand better how biblical revelation and scientific theory can converge in the search for truth.

We are often led to believe that knowledge and faith are each other's enemies; that knowledge and technology are the same thing; that it was through mathematical logic that everything was discovered; that the world is the result of an accident, and that if mathematics did not discover the theorem-God, it is because God simply does not exist.

In short, especially when we are studying, it is not always easy to trace everything back to a divine plan inherent in the nature and history of human beings. Thus, faith at times vacillates or is reduced to a simple sentimental act.

Holy Father, like all young people, I too am thirsting for the truth: But what can I do to harmonize knowledge and faith?

Benedict XVI: The great Galileo said that God wrote the book of nature in the form of the language of mathematics. He was convinced that God has given us two books: the book of sacred Scripture and the book of nature. And the language of nature -- this was his conviction -- is mathematics, so it is a language of God, a language of the Creator.

Let us now reflect on what mathematics is: In itself, it is an abstract system, an invention of the human spirit which as such in its purity does not exist. It is always approximated, but as such is an intellectual system, a great, ingenious invention of the human spirit.

The surprising thing is that this invention of our human intellect is truly the key to understanding nature, that nature is truly structured in a mathematical way, and that our mathematics, invented by our human mind, is truly the instrument for working with nature, to put it at our service, to use it through technology.

It seems to me almost incredible that an invention of the human mind and the structure of the universe coincide. Mathematics, which we invented, really gives us access to the nature of the universe and makes it possible for us to use it.

Therefore, the intellectual structure of the human subject and the objective structure of reality coincide: The subjective reason and the objective reason of nature are identical. I think that this coincidence between what we thought up and how nature is fulfilled and behaves is a great enigma and a great challenge, for we see that, in the end, it is "one" reason that links them both.

Our reason could not discover this other reason were there not an identical antecedent reason for both.

In this sense it really seems to me that mathematics -- in which as such God cannot appear -- shows us the intelligent structure of the universe. Now, there are also theories of chaos, but they are limited because if chaos had the upper hand, all technology would become impossible. Only because our mathematics is reliable, is technology reliable.

Our knowledge, which is at last making it possible to work with the energies of nature, supposes the reliable and intelligent structure of matter. Thus, we see that there is a subjective rationality and an objectified rationality in matter which coincide.

Of course, no one can now prove -- as is proven in an experiment, in technical laws -- that they both really originated in a single intelligence, but it seems to me that this unity of intelligence, behind the two intelligences, really appears in our world. And the more we can delve into the world with our intelligence, the more clearly the plan of Creation appears.

In the end, to reach the definitive question I would say: God exists or he does not exist. There are only two options. Either one recognizes the priority of reason, of creative reason that is at the beginning of all things and is the principle of all things -- the priority of reason is also the priority of freedom -- or one holds the priority of the irrational, inasmuch as everything that functions on our earth and in our lives would be only accidental, marginal, an irrational result -- reason would be a product of irrationality.

One cannot ultimately "prove" either project, but the great option of Christianity is the option for rationality and for the priority of reason. This seems to me to be an excellent option, which shows us that behind everything is a great Intelligence to which we can entrust ourselves.

However, the true problem challenging faith today seems to me to be the evil in the world: We ask ourselves how it can be compatible with the Creator's rationality. And here we truly need God, who was made flesh and shows us that he is not only a mathematical reason but that this original reason is also love. If we look at the great options, the Christian option today is the one that is the most rational and the most human.

Therefore, we can confidently work out a philosophy, a vision of the world based on this priority of reason, on this trust that the creating reason is love and that this love is God.

I know that there might be more than a few readers who will argue that the Pope is arguing just another form of the ontological argument for the existence of God (that ideas correspond with Being and must be caused by such), or even the cosmological one (from design, i.e. that subjective reason and objective reality coincide rather nicely). But the fact is this: Father Benedict has offered a very reasoned and intelligent reply to a very intelligent question. It may not be a right reply–I think it is–but it ought not be discounted as either thoughtless or dumb.

Peace and mirth.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Pope Benedict XVI, First Things, ZENIT, Richard John Neuhaus, Galileo, Cosmological Argument, Ontological Argument