Science is the Real Target

​​The pope's lecture amounts to a defence of European Catholicism as a faith grounded in rationality. For Pope Benedict, this is a rationality that absolutely must include both religion and reason, and not reason by itself.

In the course of building his case, he takes few prisoners. There is of course the example of his belief that Islam is an inherently irrational faith. The pope is similarly critical of those Christians who want to reduce his own faith to no more than a guiding framework for ethics and morality, sans worship and sans theology.

Religion's claim on reason

On both these counts, the speech ignores any evidence that might weaken the arguments being put forward. But these are diversions on the road to the pope's main point, which is his critique of the relationship of science and religious belief.

Moreover, this is aimed, not at Muslims, or Christians, but at the non-religious in the scientific community. Indeed, a deep irony is that the pope's reading of the state of science/religion relationship today will find many, if not most Muslims in agreement with his views. But what are these views?

Pope Benedict finds himself at odds with the current consensus among scientists, which is that the scientific method, through its tools of hypothesis, experimentation, verification, or falsification is unsuited to investigate that which cannot be measured. High on any list of such things is the question of whether God exists.

For most scientists of the rationalist tradition, the existence of God is a matter of belief, it cannot be proved, nor can it be disproved. Many scientists are believers; others are not. With a few prominent exceptions, both camps are happy to live and let live. Scientists who believe understand that if the existence of God were to be opened to scientific inquiry, they need to be open to the idea that God may not exist. As this is not an option for any believer, the question is best left alone.

For Pope Benedict, however, this amounts to something of an evasion. The fact that scientists have decided among themselves that some questions are not worth asking amounts to questionable "reduction in the radius of science and reason". His broader concern here is with what he sees as the increasing primacy of empiricism, and the degree to which this way of viewing the world is also now affecting humanities subjects such as history, philosophy and sociology.

The implication is that if only empirical knowledge is worth knowing, then this automatically closes the door on theology and spirituality as sources of knowledge. Pope Benedict regards all of this as being a dangerous state of affairs for humanity. He writes: "The world's profoundly religious cultures see the exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions."

Catholics and Muslims: a common outlook

Among the many ironies here is that Pope Benedict's speech could just as easily have been written by a Muslim, because it accords with mainstream Muslim views on science and faith. Many Muslims believe for example that faith should be integral to reason and knowing.

Moreover, they believe that ethics and morality should include both faith and science as a frame of reference. Indeed, Catholics and Muslims at the United Nations are often on the same side during debates on issues such as how to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids. In addition, Muslims in common with Pope Benedict also believe that it is right to use reason to be able to understand God and creation.

Pope Benedict has wisely apologised for the offence that his speech caused. He chose not to say sorry for the content of what he said. Doing so would have made little sense as the target of his criticisms was science, and not Islam.

Confusingly, however, the pope also now says that his speech was in fact a call for dialogue between cultures. It was in fact a call for dialogue between people of science and people of faith. But this chapter must now be closed. A more careful reading of his text by leaders of Muslim nations and by the media would have saved us all from the tragic events of the past weeks.

© Ehsan Masood/openDemocracy 2006

This article was previously published in an unabridged version by openDemocracy.

Ehsan Masood is project director of The Gateway Trust. He is the editor of two books published in 2006: Dry: Life Without Water (Harvard University Press) and How Do You Know: Reading Ziauddin Sardar on Islam, Science and Cultural Relations (Pluto Press, 2006). He also writes for New Scientist and Prospect magazines and is a consultant to the Science and Development Network.