Comment (35)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
TechnoratiSpeaking to a secular age
Battles in the public square are won with words -- but which ones?
Recently, I had the privilege of giving an opening address at the 2008 Catholic Media Convention, "Proclaim it from the rooftops", held in Toronto. Here are some of the themes and issues I raised in my speech.
It’s possible to argue that the greatest advance in civilization is the change from fighting with weapons to fighting with words, and the most important of those word battles is in formulating our collective values, our "shared ethics". We are currently engaged in a major reassessment – which sometimes manifests as powerful cultural conflict – of what those values and ethics should be.
Words matter and, as "word warriors", you are the people who can give other people the words they need to formulate and communicate the ideas and concepts that will protect human dignity and the essence of our humanness, and our physical and metaphysical worlds - all goals that are currently under unprecedented threat. And it is not enough to protect these entities in the present; we need the words that will enable them to be held on trust for future generations.
Whom we are trying to persuade?
In choosing the language we use to discuss social-ethical values issues – whether abortion, euthanasia, human embryo stem cell research, same-sex marriage, or children’s human rights with respect to their biological origins and families -- we must ask ourselves whom we are trying to persuade. If each other, we can talk in our own cultural idiom or code. If others, we have to understand their idiom and identify where they and we have beliefs, principles and goals in common.
I am sometimes deeply dismayed by the language religious people use in the public square – it is alienating to those who don’t share their beliefs and sets up the religious people to be dismissed on the grounds that their views are simply religious ones not shared by non-believers and therefore, do not have to be taken into account in a secular society. Although this is wrong – all voices, including religious ones have a right to be heard in the democratic public square – nevertheless, it often means the views of those people are not taken into account in formulating public policy.
Moreover, if you want to persuade others who do not share your religious beliefs, you have to present good secular arguments for the positions you advocate. And this is often much easier to do than many religious people think. To some extent it depends on your choice of language. There is no point in quoting the Bible to a secularist audience, but you can communicate the same message in language they will identify with and accept.
Choice of language
Our choice of language can alter our and others’ perceptions of what is ethical and unethical. A good example of this is the euthanasia debate which is taking place in Canada and in many Western democracies. Its proponents contend that euthanasia is just a "merciful act of clinical care", the "last act of good palliative care", or "physician-assisted death" – they avoid the use of the word suicide as surveys have shown people are less accepting of that. Compare this euphemistic, soothing language with an equally accurate description: euthanasia is physicians killing their patients.
We use language to communicate to others what we know through using all our ways of knowing, including reason. But before proceeding, I feel that a few explanatory words are in order about the concept and role of reason in our public square debates on socio-ethical values issues.
Role of reason
The nature, worth, and valid role of reason are, collectively, often at the centre of strong disagreement in relation to ethics. In my view, reason is an essential but secondary verification mechanism. It allows us to check that we have not gone off course with using other ways of knowing, such as moral intuition, examined emotions or imagination in making ethical decisions. The problem is not the use of reason.
Rather the problem, as far as "doing ethics" is concerned, is the glorification of reason to the exclusion of all other ways of knowing. Richard Dawkins does that in The God Delusion. He dismisses the validity or indeed existence of any knowledge other than that provided by the use of reason in science. He limits how we can validly know to reason, and what we can validly know through reason, to science. In particular, Dawkins wants to dismiss what people of Faith believe.
Whatever our own views on those beliefs might be, we need to understand that science cannot prove or disprove knowledge gained, through Faith, just as Faith cannot give access to pure science knowledge. In short, neither can prove or disprove the other.
Faith and reason are not incompatible – as Richard Dawkins proposes and neither are science and religion incompatible. In positing these incompatibilities Dawkins, who is a fundamentalist atheist (atheism is a secular religion) and religious fundamentalists are similar.
Like all fundamentalists the neo-atheists want to impose their views on everyone else. And like all fundamentalists, they take an either/or approach – either my beliefs or yours; either science or religion, either reason or Faith -- when we need both. They then seek to reconcile what they see as the conflicts between the two elements that make up each of these pairings, by dropping one or the other of them. Dawkins’ call for the elimination of religion demonstrates such a choice on his part.
Persuading people against euthanasia
But let’s return to the euthanasia debate. What do we have to do in practice to persuade people that legalizing it is not necessary and not a good idea because of the harm it would cause to our collective values? I’d like to suggest a few ways to make the public realize what a dramatic choice it faces.
Use all our human ways of knowing: I have often spoken about the need to use the full range of our human ways of knowing in "doing ethics". In the case of euthanasia, we need to listen to the wisdom of repugnance as a way of knowing. For instance, reason used alone could persuade us euthanasia is ethically acceptable, but our other ways of knowing would warn us it is not. Indeed, a relatively recent article in Nature, "The Moral Brain" (May 2007), gives us scientific evidence that supports my approach to how we can best "know" about ethics.
People with damage to the parts of their brains that process emotions, but who have intact centres for rational judgment, made ethically inappropriate decisions. To quote: "The study provides evidence that [good] moral decision-making is based on emotion as well as rational thought". An even more recent study, also reported in Nature, shows that people with damage to the front part of their brain – the cortex – have "an abnormally utilitarian pattern of moral judgments". So, paradoxically, science itself tells us that Richard Dawkins misses the point when he dismisses the validity or indeed existence of any knowledge other than that provided by the use of reason in science.
Identify and remove concealing devices. We need to take the medical cloak off euthanasia which makes it seem safe, ethical and humane. We should ask: "If we had euthanasia, who should carry it out?" Not physicians, because that makes people fear physicians, accepting pain relief treatment, and hospice and palliative medicine and care. We could consider having specially trained lawyers as they are educated to apply guidelines and safeguards strictly, and we’d want to ensure that. But even people who are euthanasia advocates are shocked and appalled by this proposal that we "would have lawyers killing people". But the same act is not described – or perhaps even seen – as killing when physicians do it.
Choose language that does not dull our moral intuitions: In a survey people who rejected physician-assisted suicide accepted physician-assisted death, so some euthanasia advocates have decided to use the latter term. They’ve also decided to take a graduated approach: to first get physician assisted death/suicide legalized and then move to euthanasia – they believe the public will go along with this incremental approach, but will reject euthanasia if that is presented now.
Be creative. Currently, people are very interested in spirituality and religion – to some extent we can thank the neo-atheists for that. But to maintain that interest and use it for good, they need to be surprised, for instance, with unexpected or new, non-clichéd insights. In particular, they will not respond to sledge-hammer, cookie-cutter predictable language or style of presentation.
Be charitable: We have a serious ethical obligation to avoid cynicism and nihilism in what we communicate or hubris or denigration in doing so. We need to be respectful, especially to those who are not respectful to us. That is to display strength not weakness. Mahatma Gandhi once said that the strongest man is the one who has the courage to turn his back and walk away from a fight – although that must, of course, be put in context.
Despite the fact that opponents of religion can be immensely disrespectful to religious people, I sometimes cringe when I see the way in which religious people attack their opponents. They mean well, but they can do more harm than good – including in terms of setting an example of mutual respect. They too often take a "holier than thou" approach or exhibit a childish glee in believing – usually wrongly – they have destroyed the arguments of their opponents. We need measured, careful arguments and debate if we are to convince others our positions are the preferable ones ethically.
Articulate retro-progressive values: I’ve been arguing for some time now that we make a serious mistake when we throw out old values and virtues simply on the basis that they’re old. What we need is to reconsider these values and decide whether they still offer us important foundations for our individual and collective lives and if so to integrate them with emerging ethical values.
To do that might mean our old values need to be dusted off, polished a little, and perhaps renamed more compatibly with contemporary language use. So, for instance, I call the old virtue of prudence "wise ethical restraint". Other principles, concepts or values that need re-exploring in the context keeping societal-ethical issues in a moral context include: conscience, compassion, courage – especially moral courage, confidence, hope, generosity and trust.
Be consistent about values: If you oppose euthanasia, shouldn’t you also oppose capital punishment? It’s ironic that pro-life conservatives who refuse to take all possible steps to outlaw capital punishment and prevent executions, do not see the contradiction in their stance: Failure to do so is to act contrary to a true pro-life position. It’s not just a matter of respect for an individual’s life, the life of the person to be executed, important as that is; but of respect for human life in general.
Learn from example: I was asked recently to write a "blurb" for the back cover of Jean Vanier’s new book, Our Life Together. It’s a collection of his letters, written over many decades, that describe his worldwide work and travels in establishing L’Arche, a refuge and life-long home for intellectually disabled people.
Jean Vanier is an outstanding model in terms of the power of "the word" when used selflessly, authentically, honestly and well. He does not romanticize disability, for instance, but he shows us how one can find hope, joy and love despite – or, perhaps, in part – because of it.
Here’s what I said in my "blurb":
As we move through Jean Vanier’s letters to his and L’Arche’s friends and supporters, increasingly he signs off with just "Love, Jean" -- the most simple and profound salutation. This book is a love story of a different kind. It shows the extraordinary flourishing of the human spirit that can occur when a certain kind of love – a truly unselfish, non-self-centred love – is made central to ordinary daily life.
Jean Vanier’s radical, counter-contemporary-culture message is that we "non-disabled" people are the losers in refusing to accept disabled people and rejecting the unique gifts they have to offer us as individuals and societies. He writes: "It’s not a question of going out and doing good to them; rather receiving the gift of their presence transforms us".
This unfashionable belief in the enormous value of what disabled people can contribute was summed up for me by a L’Arche assistant (a non-disabled person living in a L’Arche community) who said: "You have to understand, Margo, we’re not martyrs, saints or heroes; we do this because of the fullness of life it brings us."
Jean Vanier’s letters gently show that among the many gifts disabled people can offer us are lessons in hope, optimism, kindness, empathy, compassion, generosity and hospitality, a sense of humour (balance), trust and courage. But, as Jean Vanier recognizes, to do that disabled people must be treated justly; given every person’s right to the freedom to be themselves; and respected as members of our community. That requires us to accept the suffering, weakness and fragility we see in them, which means, as Jean Vanier emphasizes, we must first accept those realities in relation to ourselves. Most of us find that an enormous challenge and flee.
The ethical tone of a society is not set by how it treats its strongest, most powerful members, but by how it treats those who are weakest, most vulnerable and in need. This book is testament to an amazing example in the latter respect and, as such, deserves to be widely read and deeply contemplated.
Jean Vanier’s remarkable, uncommon "common humanity" shines through these letters. Not everyone will share his Christian tradition, but everyone can learn from him how to enrich themselves, others and our world through developing, experiencing and celebrating – to quote him - the "gifts of the heart" and putting into practice – again to quote him - a "little sign of love in the world".
So you must ask yourselves what are the "gifts of the heart" and what does putting into practice a "little sign of love in the world" require of you in your work in the media.
Let’s conclude
How can journalists place social-ethical issues in a moral context in public debates? It is a huge challenge and a huge opportunity. People need to be given the words in which they can express their ethical convictions. I so often have people contact me to say "What you said is what I believe, but I didn’t know how to say it." As journalists, this is your privilege and responsibility: to give others the words they need; to give them the words they need to speak their truth in a way that will fall on ears wide open.
Margaret Somerville is founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University in Montreal.
Fr. Gearhart, concerning your comments on the Eucharist, I wonder if you aren’t straying a bit from orthodoxy. Isn’t the bread said to be *literally* the body and blood of Christ? the Catechism section 1333 makes it sound like a pretty literal transformation.
If I understand you correctly, you suggest the Eucharist is just a guidepost to the true Bread and Wine, while remaining simple bread and wine on it’s own? Do I understand you correctly?
Fr. Gearhart,
In order for your talk of revelation to be valid, it has to be shown 1) that God does exist and 2) that whatever you claim is revelation actually comes from God.
You mention faith in a spouse. The difference between a spouse and a deity, however, is that the spouse is an obvious, physical entity. Hugging, kissing, holding hands, talking about the day’s events while sitting together… all of these things give you ample evidence that your spouse exists. You don’t have to have faith in your spouse’s existence. It is a fact, like the sun or the shoes you wear.
Imagine a spouse who never occupied the same room as you, never even showed herself to you. The only communication you have with her is a number you found in the phone book. She never returns your calls. She never visits you. You have no pictures of her, except the sketches you make of how you imagined her looking, and have never heard her voice, because the number you call is always silent, no answering machine, no reply, nothing. Just a blank line you talk to. Maybe--maybe--she sneaks into your room after you’re asleep, and watches you. Maybe she runs her fingers along the kitchen counter. Maybe she sits where you sat earlier. But she always leaves before you wake up. Maybe she listens every time you call her number, but she never so much as coughs, never so much as breathes loud enough for you to know she’s listening. You might as well be married to the air.
What kind of spouse is that? Clearly such behavior is unacceptable for a spouse. So why is it good behavior for a loving, caring god who worries about our eternal welfare and wants us to be in a sort of marriage with Him forever?
Alex Reichel, I don’t know what you’re trying to show. How does the bread and wine Jesus digested before being crucified relate to the bread that is consecrated during Catholic ceremonies today? I can see how what he is supposed to have said has relevance, but not the actual bread and wine he ate.
I can’t even figure out how you connect the two. Are you proposing some sort of platonic Form of Bread, which, by being digested by Christ, got combined with the Form of Christ, so that wherever a manifestation of Bread appears Christ appears also?
Maybe you could try explaining yourself again, because I don’t see the connection between current instances of the consecrated bread and wine and what Jesus ate at the last supper. At least, not based on what you wrote.
Alex Reichel said,
“But the truth of the doctrine is very simple. At the Last Supper Jesus had a Passover Meal, bread, wine, lamb etc. Due to immense suffering over the next night and day His food would have been completely assimilated to His own Body by nutrition.
Then the breakdown of His own body interiorly through suffering. His gut contained water mixed with blood. So transubstantiation is just Nutrition and Suffering.”
This is the most crudely materialistic explanation of the doctrine of Transsubstantiation that I have ever seen (beside being extremely one-sided.) Now I know what St Thomas Aquinas meant when after finishing a roasted lamb he said, “Consummatum est"… But seriously, what’s the point in such bending backward to find a supposed “scientific” explanation of a mystery of the faith? If religion were identical with science, it would be called science! And the most important question of all: WHY religion has to be compatible with science?
You mention the Eucharist, specifically. It is a misunderstanding to understand the classical term “transubstantiation” in the modern sense of chemical or biological transformation. In my humble opinion, the term, borrowed in a highly selective way from Aristotle’s hylomorphic theory. The term “substance” used actually derives from the Latin attempt to interpret the Greek term, ousios: essence or nature. The Latin term means “stand under”. To the Latins, the “essence” of a thing, as described by Aristotle, was its “basis” or “that which underlies it.” Hence, “stands under” it.
The real meaning of transubstantiation is nothing more that what Christ, himself, said, “This is my body… This is my blood.” I don’t think one needs to interpret what Christ said in a biochemical sense. On the contrary, it would be more helpful to understand it in an intentional and relational sense. Thus: Jesus intended us to regard the consecrated bread and wine as him. This intention goes both ways. He intended us to regard him as bread and wine, staples of nourishment, but in a much more important and spiritual sense. The identification is thus literal (and not merely symbolic) in a relational sense, but not in a biochemical one.
Kaltrosomos,
I think John Polkinghorne would put the connection between faith and science this way (if I may be permitted to simplify): science is about understanding repeatable phenomena, whereas faith is about revelation—phenomena originating from God, and not, in that sense, repeatable, apart from God’s own will. The same laws of reason can, and should, be used to assess both, with this difference: the lack of repeatability in revelation means that the theory that explains revelation cannot be directly verified by experiment. The theory can only be accepted on faith, even if only provisionally. The same is actually true of a scientific theory that has yet to be tested. Einstein once remarked that if Eddington’s measurement of the bending of the light of a star around the sun (as measured during a solar eclipse) did not agree with his (Einstein’s) theory, he would only feel sorry for God. That’s faith.
This doesn’t mean that faith cannot be tested at all. We have faith in our spouses (if we have one, and if they have been faithful). Since they have free will, their faithfulness is not determined, like the motion of the moon around the earth. Nevertheless, continued fidelity reassures us of our faith in them. In the same way, God’s response to our prayers can be a source of faith nourishment. Furthermore, the wisdom of Jesus and the prophets can be evaluated against our own life experience. The words of Jesus can also be assessed according to their overall coherence or internal logic. This was done, actually, by the Ecumenical Councils, which had the task of developing a language and a set of summary statements, or a theory, to explain these utterances and their claims.
I am sorry that I am coming to the discussion so late, but have enjoyed reading what has transpired so far.
I am a little surprised that I have not yet heard the opinion of Thomas Aquinas on the relationship between Faith and Reason as one, not of mere compatability, but of true harmony. As they both come from God, there can be no contradiction between them. Faith trusts reason to enlighten our understanding of nature, truth and revelation, then it builds upon it and perfects it. Faith delights in Reason, invites it to plumb the depths of understanding and challenges it NOT to find its end, ultimately, in Faith.
Truly, attempting any discussion, especially a moral one, that excludes divine knowledge, is frustrated from the outset since scientific knowledge is too limited to enlighten one’s moral understanding. (ie trying to explain belief in the Transubstantiation without being able to speak of the ‘testable’ - though not ‘tangible’ - evidence of spiritual fruits received through the Sacrament.) How can ‘goodness’ be measured without reference to the one who is ‘All Good’?
Dear Margo et al.
I think I have lost the plot. But I’m learning fast. I did not know until I had deleted 3 webmaster messages that there was a page 2. So I have probably ignored some friends in these exchanges. Please forgive!
First about biblical hermeneutics. Your treatise on Greek translations could be helpful if another insight into the meaning of a verse is called for in another context which is not relevant at the moment. However every development in understanding a given text (for which there could be seven or eight levels of meaning and all of them intended by the Holy Spirit)must be consonant with the level of understanding at which the truth is grasped ab initio. (Cardinal Newman). What is indispensable is that the truth of a verse must be “fleshed out” in the receptive holder of the the truth. Without the existential fleshing out of the text the Word becomes a dead letter. To remain powerful it must be expressed in the viscera.Or in the same way that Abraham knew Sarah.This is not a weakness of biblical interpretation but its very strength.The expressed Word does not return empty. Yes I think Phil.... is right. I am arguing for a prophetic voice. But he would be amazed to find out that it is only in academic circles that there is no hunger for prophetic voices. And in secular strongholds! In his country....?
To Kal.......:
You seem to find trouble with transubstantiation and as you rightly remark, it comes from Aristotle’s philosophy of Substance and Accident But the truth of the doctrine is very simple. At the Last Supper Jesus had a Passover Meal, bread, wine, lamb etc. Due to immense suffering over the next night and day His food would have been completely assimilated to His own Body by nutrition.
Then the breakdown of His own body interiorly through suffering. His gut contained water mixed with blood. So transubstantiation is just Nutrition and Suffering. It is this reality which is transmitted through time and space by liturgy.
Hello Margo,
You said,
“...I have one challenge to what you say here:
“However, apart from a lot of unwelcome implications of such literalness, the contrast - implicit in the comparison of serpents and doves - is lost here.”
I take the text as delivering a conjunctive not disjunctive message - that we need to be both wise and gentle at the same time and, quite precisely, that these are not contrasting characteristics, but complementary ones and our challenge is to realize that complementarity, in practice. At risk of once again getting out of my Biblical depth, it’s along the same lines as “lambs and lions (query wolves?)lying down together”.”
It is a conjunctive message delivered through a symbolic contrast. Are lions/wolves and lambs not opposites, too? It is all a bit like the ying and yang, or Jung’s “coincidentia oppositorum”. I took this meaning for granted (it is rather obvious) thus I did not mention it.
But I most definitely do not want to create an impression that I disagree with you on general matters (especially since, in this particular instance, we are both right.) I consider your work very important for bringing back some sanity to Canada and also to the world at large. I am always amazed at the lack of common sense among the “religious” people who, instead of uniting themselves against the common opponent, prefer to bicker about much less important differences among them. This is self-defeating silliness which wouldn’t be approved by either serpents or doves.
Best regards,
Mariusz Wesolowski
When I returned from work today I found eight messages from the webmaster. I thought I had thanked Margo for her contribution and made some further comments. Perhaps in my inexperience I have found it rather hard to keep up. I’ll try with the remaining seven messages.
To Margo
You’re so very kind! But first you do explain yourself perfectly well — I am just delighted to try to state the arguments for myself. Plus, it quite painful for me to write in English, and I wish I could match your lucid and articulate prose… Plus, I am somewhat troubled by the strong “anti-secularist” stance taken by some commentators, which is why I try to counterbalance them — in a rather quixotic way, I admit.
Those who are prone to quote the Scriptures adopt what I’d call the “prophetic voice”. I am sure that it is able to touch some people and make them think deeply. But as far as public debate is concerned, at least in my country (and arguably some others too), the prophetic voice is just out of place and strongly repellent to many. That’s why I stick to the aristotelian understanding of Rhetoric, which consists in arguing from shared premises. This way of arguing is part of the democratic ethos, one that is threatened by fundamentalistic claims, be they those of radical secularists or their religious counterpart.
Bottom line is: what we share in much, much more than what divides us.
To the moderators of MercatorNet: Please stop censoring my posts.
Margo, I’m not convinced. Mainly because faith and reason do conflict on a number of things, despite your claim that they cannot be compared.
We see this clearly in most religious dogmas. Take the dogma of transubstantiation. Catholics say a piece of bread transforms into Jesus. This should be a testable claim. The bread is physical. Changes in the bread should be detectable. Instead, the bread remains exactly the same. But Catholics create an elaborate explanation based on Aristotle and Aquinas for why the bread has really changed into Jesus without detectably becoming anything more than bread.
This tries to bypass the obvious fact that the bread is still, to all appearances, bread after it’s consecrated. There is a real conflict here, between the religious and scientific answers to this claim. There’s also a real conflict in the story of the virgin birth, and the raising of the dead, and other stories of the supernatural.
faith says one thing, and reason says another. If that’s not a conflict, I’m not sure what is.
Hi Alex Reichel,
Your erudite analysis of the Biblical text is fascinating. However I have one challenge to what you say here:
“However, apart from a lot of unwelcome implications of such literalness, the contrast - implicit in the comparison of serpents and doves - is lost here.”
I take the text as delivering a conjunctive not disjunctive message - that we need to be both wise and gentle at the same time and, quite precisely, that these are not contrasting characteristics, but complementary ones and our challenge is to realize that complementarity, in practice. At risk of once again getting out of my Biblical depth, it’s along the same lines as “lambs and lions (query wolves?)lying down together”.
Philarates:
You understand and articulate what I’m on about so well, I think I should just hand everything over to you to do the explaining. Thank you so much for your very valuable further expositions.
Margo
Continuation…
Faith and reason, as different ways of knowing, are miles further apart than apples and oranges. But the fact they cannot be compared does not mean that either is invalid.
Perhaps, the particle theory and wave theory of light might help me to explain what I’m getting at here.
Both theories inform us about true features of the nature and behaviour of light, but each show us different features not shown bt the other theory and neither fully explains what light is. The same is true when we apply Faith and reason to entities where each way of knowing has something to tell us about those entities, such as when we address questions like: “What does it mean to be human?” “What am I doing here?” and so on. We need both to give us as comprehensive a picture as we are able to obtain.
Margo
Dear Kaltrosomos,
I am certainly not meaning to ignore you, and my sincere apologies if I’ve caused you to believe that. In fact, I’m very grateful that as a “secularist” you are adding your perspective to this discussion. That is indeed important.
Re your comment “the author suggests that faith and reason are compatible. How is that so, if, as she says, neither can prove or disprove the other? Compatibility suggests an ability to connect. If faith and reason are so different that neither can prove or disprove the other, how can they possibly be connected, much less compatible?”
First, there is a difference between connection and the connected entities being able to prove or disprove each other. Faith and reason are connected in that, I believe, they are both valid ways of human knowing, but of entirely different natures which means they are not commensureable.
The concept of non-commensurabilty applies to entities that are so different in nature they simply cannot be directly compared. This concept is popularly captured in the saying “it’s like comparing apples and oranges” in order to communicate that any comparison is fraught with great difficulty, if not impossibility. (It reminds me of a saying about psychoanalysis: “Psychoanalysis is an impossible profession, and sometimes it’s more difficult than others.")
Continued.....
Page 1 of 3 : 1 2 3 >