Posted on 03/08/2003 7:04:29 AM PST by Lessismore
Suddenly, religion is back, just as “progressive“ people were rejoicing that heads of government could be sworn into office without any reference to God, and just as some Europeans presented a first draft for a European Union constitution in the belief that no allusions to “Christian roots“ or “religious values“ were needed. But now European politicians and people around the world are confronted with a U.S. president who starts his cabinet meetings with a Bible reading and prayer; one who believes he knows what the Christian God is demanding and what is good and evil. At the same time, a frightening Islamic fundamentalism is emerging to challenge the rich, technologically superior “kingdom of Satan.“ Are we about to witness an unprecedented apocalypse of religious origin?
After centuries of painful experience, the “old“ Europe has banned religion from its laws and constitutions. The separation of church and state is complete. So why do others not follow this teaching? Some believe the Islamic states and people only need a little bit more time. After all, they say, Islam is six centuries younger than Christianity and has not yet undergone an Enlightenment. Just as modernity forced churches and confessions in Western societies to agree to reforms, Islam, too, will realize that religion must not be a reason for war. And now this - a return to the Middle Ages.
In fact, the Middle Ages left Europeans with the precious heritage of two golden rules: One holds that worldly and spiritual power have to be separated; the other demands that we unite reason and faith.
Europe has fared well with these rules, and it would have fared even better if it had followed this advice more closely. Much has gone awry in Europe since pure reason concluded it could do without the power of faith, could even deride it, and then created an all-powerful state.
The Enlightenment eliminated all flawed expressions of faith and excesses of the church so comprehensively that it also threw out its positive elements - such as the conscience - with the bathwater. The impact of the godless ideologies of the 19th centuries was far worse than that of religion, which was replaced by the worshipping of the state, a race, an economic class or a nation. The resulting catastrophes have taught us that man is not all reason.
The “old“ Europeans can become young again if we manage to rediscover a balance of reason and faith - if we counter the exuberance of Christian zealots in the New World with the wise insight of their history, and if we fight the inhuman excesses of Islamic extremism rather than showing cowardly tolerance.
But anyone who wants to talk religion with religious people has to have a religion. Mar. 7
Anybody else notice the attempt at equivalence here?
Yes. In rhetoric this is known as 'tu coque' (you're another).
And so, Western Civ has become neurotic trying to appease these two principles. Neurotic because it supposes these two principles to form a fundamental dualism that can be balanced scientifically -- statistically if you will -- and form the basis of a political science. It's a grand joke, it's a tragic fallacy. It is false because the dualism is not fundamental. It's a false dichotomy.
Don't get me wrong: the tension is very real. What is wrong with this view is the illusion that a civilization can be strong because it is neurotic.
I'm sure the FAZ writer means well. But his return to the good old days merely complicates the issue. His return is subsumed in the neurosis of our civilization. Only by recognizing the fundamental religious motive of this tension does one recognize that the tension is an attempt to deny history. The FAZ could have told us that "what the Middle Ages left the Europeans" is thoroughly bound up with the Enlightenment ideal of reason, which is a faith that rivals faith. The dichotomy of faith and reason is actually the competition of faith and faith: faith-in-the-face-of-insufficiency and faith-in-the-sufficiency-of-reason. If you think that is confusing, don't blame me. It's our neurosis.
Just mark the longest running contemporary debates and it will become clear that we Americans don't need a return to this. We are thoroughly immersed in it. Perhaps Europeans are more honest in giving it up. My guess is that our neurosis will rather drive us to become contemporary Europeans
What the FAZ writer fails to inform us is why the Middle Ages "left us" in such a conundrum. Could we say Augustine had a hand in it? Historically, Augustine's City of God first understood the problem in its clearest form. St. Paul gave it its first footing. Socrates understood it first.
And what about the Middle Ages that birthed the Renaissance? Between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance we have the types of the extremes. And we are supposed to now have a civilization combined of the two?
What moves a civilization to simultaneously adopt two principles as fundamental? It's the conception of freedom. The appeasement of freedom is more fundamental than the labels given in the cliche of "faith and reason." First, because that cliche obliviates the motive of faith operational in the opposition. Second, because the ideal of freedom supercedes the motive of reason. The Enlightenment period understood this well. Witness the contest between Rousseau and Kant.
This counts for Western civ in general. It counts for the world. Human beings are incorrigibly religious.
The war with Islam and the Orient will test the stability of our neurotic civilization.
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.Faith and reason, then--right reason understands its own limits. Reason is conducted after all in language--and though you may (imperfectly) learn a foreign tongue by reference to textbooks written in your native language, you must first have acquired your native language--which you did not acquire apart from tradition.It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.
The appeasement paid to reason in this happy pair is quite evident in the predominance of neo-Kantian thinking in both Catholicism and Protestantism.
If you were to drape a banner across the twentieth century, there would be two words on that banner that sum up everything:
Nuda Ratio...naked reason.
It wouldn't even have been that bad, if the "reason" had actually been reasonable. Instead it has been "reason" in quotes--false logic founded in wishful and grandiose thinking. But then, what else is to be expected of the mind which is sure it knows more than the traditions out of which it was formed?
Pardon me... your comment was not addressed to me, after all... but my church sponsors an international missions team based in Austria. They've made several mission trips through the former ComBloc nations, and Austria itself.
So you're not the only one who has considered the question of U.S. missionaries to Europe.
I'm a bit puzzled as to what you mean by: The appeasement of freedom is more fundamental than the labels given in the cliche of "faith and reason." First, because that cliche obliviates the motive of faith operational in the opposition. Second, because the ideal of freedom supercedes the motive of reason.
Would you explain what you mean by "appeasement of freedom" and "ideal of freedom supercedes the motive of reason"?
Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.