The New York Times, Time and many other news agencies have published stories today saying that the Pope has canceled a speech he was due to give at an Italian university. Apparently, there is much “opposition by professors and students who say he [the Pope] is hostile to science”.
According to the Times article, the opposition to Benedict’s presence stems largely from a speech he gave in 1990. Among other things, “In the speech, [then] Cardinal Ratzinger did not argue against the validity of science generally or take the church’s position from Galileo’s time that heliocentrism was heretical. But he asserted, as he has often since elected pope, that science should not close off religion and that science has been used in destructive ways.”
One of the leaders of the protest against Benedict’s visit stated that “his [the Pope’s] visit was ambiguous and an attack on the independence of culture and the university”.
Really? Unless there is something missing from the article, it would seem that Benedict’s arguments are best debated within a university setting. If his interpretation of the events surrounding Galileo is really as far from the prevailing one as others seem to think, then alternative arguments should be presented that demonstrate the limitations of Benedict’s perspective.
Shutting down those with whom one disagrees suggests an inherent lack of trust that the facts or the truth of a given matter will eventually come out. Even if the opposing sides of an argument possess different degrees of power – be it institutional or otherwise – both sides must always be willing to engage in dialogue with those who disagree with them. Suppressing the voices of those with whom we disagree is hardly a viable long-term solution if a healthy democratic society is what we say we want.
I do agree that one shouldn’t be prevented from expressing their point of view. Another question is – do you think that a meaningful discussion between church and science can ever take place?
I doubt so. Those two spheres are separate and should remain so: believing (religion) vs. the mind and science.
Hi Katya. I do think that meaningful discussion between science and the church can take place – indeed, it is happening right now, even if many scientists think that religion is inherently meaningless or vacuous. (Some of us have been discussing this issue at the Ecology and Evolution forum.) However, worthwhile conversation relies upon those involved being informed about both sides of the conversation, a fact that makes the process significantly more difficult.