Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 20 December 2007 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2007.394
Column: Muse
Wise words from the Vatican
Popes are not noted for enlightened views on science and technology. But the latest papal statements are encouraging, says Philip Ball.
When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI in 2005, Christians and non-Christians alike feared that the Catholic church was set on a course of hard-line conservatism. But in two recent addresses, Benedict XVI shows intriguing signs that he is keen to engage with the technological age, and that he has a surprisingly thoughtful position on the interplay between faith and reason.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
I have to ask how closely you read Spe Salvi. Pope Benedict assuredly did not say that "eternal life" is a metaphor for 'an authentic and happy life on earth'. What he said in paragraph 12 was that 'eternal life' is, like any formulation in human language, an inadequate expression of Christian hope, one that sometimes confuses people. He says we should not understand 'eternal' as a perpetual succession of time as we now know it, but as something outside temporal succession. This idea is about as noncontroversial as it gets, going back at least as far as Boethius in the 5th century. It is irresponsible for you to distort the Pope's statements, especially in such a way as to portray him as betraying his own mission. You may believe that 'generations of earlier churchmen' have 'misled their flocks' about Christian hope, but to put your (unprovable) belief in Pope Benedict's mouth is absurd. I might add that your own religious beliefs are probably not the proper subject for a scientific journal?
Theology, unlike science, is all about interpretation. Garth Rose seems pretty certain of his (as theologians often are). Personally, I'm struck by the pope's comment in his Paragraph 11: "And what does 'eternity' really mean? There are moments when it suddenly seems clear to us: yes, this is what 'true' life is - this is what it should be like... ultimately we want only one thing - 'the blessed life', the life which is simply life, simply 'happiness'". Garth, like I say, I am no theologian, but I am used to reading theology (believe it or not, I have read Boethius too). I know that the language is intentionally imprecise, and while that can be frustrating (and sometimes worse than that), it is probably also necessary. I don't doubt that the pope never intends to imply for a moment that there is no 'entering into God' after death. But his focus on 'worldly authenticity' is not what one can easily read in much of St Augustine and St Bernard. Many generations of people in the West were taught and encouraged to worry about their fate in the afterlife, as well as that of their loved ones. That is not the message one now gets from Spe Salvi (I'm happy to say). And I don't feel I implied that the pope was 'betraying his own mission' - to my mind, he is discharging it surprisingly reasonably (in this instance; by no means always). This is simply your interpretaton. My own religious beliefs do not feature in my column. My historical beliefs do. These columns are editorials - they express opinions. That is what they are for. And they do not appear in any 'scientific journal.'
The Logic of Hope. You deserve enthusiastic applause for pointing out the "dubious ideology" of secular British tabloids. Please add "dubious reporting" of Vatican motives in recent articles in <The Independent>. But seeing your clearly presented, logical analysis in a science journal is refreshing. The Pope's views regarding ethics in science should be of abiding interest to science journals because his letters are carefully weighed, thoroughly researched papers on ethics. Scientists require <consistent> logic to convince them of the need for ethics, and of the good and evil that may result from their work. Can you identify any person who is specifically empowered by science to weigh the good and evil? Instead, science advances in knowledge like a blind beggar, walking down the street, hoping that the better nature of mankind will keep others from taking advantage of him. Scientists need logical guidance, and sometimes we must be prodded to action commensurate with a logical ethic. Your article would have seemed more consistent if you would have interpreted the Popes letter as an appeal for an "ethic of hope". Hope for the future is a theme common to both science and faith. In this sense, the purpose of ethical science is not to free us from labor, or protect us from all forms of death. Rather, science must allow us the freedom to labor, to protect life, in fact to build a "culture of life" that allows us to hope in our unlimited potential for living a <useful> life. How much happier would you be, if you had a glimmer of hope that your work would help to build a better future, a future that allowed others to achieve the same happiness from building a better future, ad infinitum. Scientists are rightly proud of seeing farther because they “stand on the shoulders†of others. It's only logical that we too must serve the same purpose in the hope of a better future. The Pope seems to be saying that this is a good, logical ethic, the “hope ethic" of science. Note: Your claim that 'eternal life' is the Pope's metaphor for a happy life on earth gives the appearance of materialistic wishful thinking. The Pope does state that happiness in this life is indeed what we pray for, but that utopia is not desirable. He says, "If there were structures which could irrevocably guarantee a determined —good— state of the world, man's freedom would be denied, and hence they would not be good structures at all." This logic is nearly a mathematical proof: Assume the premise is true; then show that it contradicts itself.
Garth Rose's point was that you had claimed that the Pope had said that Eternal life was a metaphor for an authentic and happy life lived on earth. Despite your pompous assertions about theologians (and for the sake of full disclosure I should say that I am not one), his point appears to be valid. While I agree that this is an opinion piece, the fact that it is presented in connection with the scientific journal Nature (if not in the scientific journal itself!), means that the readers demand at least a reasonably valid interpretation of the data you are presenting. If your opinion of the Pope's utterings is not based on the things he actually said, then it is a rather pointless opinion. I would say that it seems that your opinion is generally very generous to a Pope who has used quite a lot of words to say virtually nothing. Smoke and mirrors is nothing new when it comes to religion. That's my opinion!