The Enlightenment Culture and Creative Reason

Originally posted by cavan
sorry if i sound so down on your church, i just find high ground moralizing from men who have sex with children a little hard to except. i guess theres a million people who don't read the paper or maybe they just don't care

Please, if you want to discuss the sex-scandal you can open a new thread. This is clearly off-topic.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Let's hear more about this present ideology of freedom that the Pope assumes. As far as I can tell, people are free to do as they please within the limits of the law. Hasn't that always been the case? What am I missing?

Are his comments confined to Europe?

Bosse: "What am I missing?"

I don't know. It could be that you as many others have adopted the very ideology the Pope is criticising.


Bosse: "Are his comments confined to Europe?"

I don't think so. He's talking about Western culture as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
It could be that you as many others have adopted the very ideology the Pope is criticising.

Has his holiness described this ideology in detail at any point, for I am in the dark as to what it should be.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Has his holiness described this ideology in detail at any point, for I am in the dark as to what it should be.

We could take the lecture as a starting point.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
We could take the lecture as a starting point.

What do you suppose was the intended readership of this lecture?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
This lecture took place April 1, 2005 when Cardinal Razinger received the St. Benedict Award.

The present form of enlightenment culture, its internal contradictions and the rejection of the reference to God and the Christian roots of Europe in the new European constitution.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0143.html


On Europe's C ...[text shortened]... nts on this lecture by Pope Benedict XVI ?


EDIT: Only serious comments and thoughts please.

There is an error here concerning Kant. Contrary to the Pope's claim, Kant did not believe that moral behavior was impossible without the twin postulates of immortality and God. Kant thought that morality, in itself, had no need of religion. Kant did think, however, that religious belief may be necessary for many people, in order for them to be continuously motivated to act morally.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What do you suppose was the intended readership of this lecture?

Of course in the first place the people present , but in the end everybody.

Originally posted by bbarr
There is an error here concerning Kant. Contrary to the Pope's claim, Kant did not believe that moral behavior was impossible without the twin postulates of immortality and God. Kant thought that morality, in itself, had no need of religion. Kant did think, however, that religious belief may be necessary for many people, in order for them to be continuously motivated to act morally.

Benedict XVI: "Not even the truly grandiose effort of Kant was able to create the necessary shared certainty. Kant had denied that God could be known in the realm of pure reason, but at the same time he had represented God, freedom and immortality as postulates of practical reason, without which, coherently, for him no moral behavior was possible."


Since we cannot ask the author to react to your comments I want to ask you to illustrate your claims by some Kant quotes or precise references, if possible.

The author claims that Kant "represented God, freedom and immortality as postulates of practical reason, without which, coherently, for him no moral behavior was possible." ?


-Why is it Kant thought "that religious belief may be necessary for many people, in order for them to be continuously motivated to act morally." ?

-What is it the other people, who didn't have religion, had in order to be motivated to act morally ?

-Do you agree with Benedicts' claim that "Not even the truly grandiose effort of Kant was able to create the necessary shared certainty." ?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]oooh. adolescent were they? then that must mean it was ok to abuse them cause they're almost consenting adults.

No, but there is a difference.

i think i'd find it hard to find those true %'s cause the church does such a mighty fine job of covering these things up and they only come clean when they have to. and believe it or not al ...[text shortened]... excuse what they did?

No, but it explains why a million people can still turn up at WYD.[/b]

so what is the difference between sexually abusing children to sexually abusing adolescents?

and how does sexual abuse in the church explain why millions turn up for wyd... or maybe that is the reason?

yes, unfortunatly there is sexeal abuse in families which is disgusting but when that abuse comes from the church it's unforgiveable and exploitative. the church is supposed to be weaving the moral fabric of our society and leading by example just as christ did.

if we can no loger trust our spiritual guides and the church which hides their heinous and criminal acts, what hope is there for the rest of society to live a good, compassionate, caring and functional life.

i know there are good priests and i've have met some. but, as long as the chuch keeps covering up for the sexual predators none will be above suspiction and the church rightly tarnished.

a note to ivanhoe about being off topic,. what i think is off topic is catholic moralizing v's enlightenment culture and creative reason.two very distinct topics i should think.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Benedict XVI: "Not even the truly grandiose effort of Kant was able to create the necessary shared certainty. Kant had denied that God could be known in the realm of pure reason, but at the same time he had represented God, freedom and immortality as postulates of practical reason, without which, coherently, for him no moral behavior was possible."


S ...[text shortened]... t even the truly grandiose effort of Kant was able to create the necessary shared certainty." ?

This is the opening passage of the Preface to Kant's Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone":

"So far as morality is based upon the conception of man as a free agent who, just because he is free, binds himself through his reason to unconditioned laws, it stands in need neither of the idea of another Being over him, for him to apprehend his duty, nor of an incentive other than the law itself, for him to do his duty. At least it is man's own fault if he is subject to such a need; and if he is, this need can be relieved through nothing outside himself: for whatever does not originate in himself and his own freedom in no way compensates for the deficiency of his morality. Hence for its own sake morality does not need religion at all (whether objectively, as regards willing, or subjectively, as regards ability [to act]); by virtue of pure practical reason it is self-sufficient."

Kant thought that many folk would be discouraged in acting morally given that there is no guarantee that acting morally will conduce to living happily or well. Postulating an immortal soul and God is supposed to provide for many the necessary guarantee.

What is this "necessary shared certainty" to which Benedict refers? Is it a moral certainty, a certainty of the existence of God, or what?

Originally posted by Beer n Pawn
so what is the difference between sexually abusing children to sexually abusing adolescents?

and how does sexual abuse in the church explain why millions turn up for wyd... or maybe that is the reason?

yes, unfortunatly there is sexeal abuse in families which is disgusting but when that abuse comes from the church it's unforgiveable and exploitati ...[text shortened]... ralizing v's enlightenment culture and creative reason.two very distinct topics i should think.

Beer: " ..... moralizing v's enlightenment culture and creative reason"

If you read the lecture thoroughly you will discover the author isn't moralising at all against enlightenment culture and certainly not against "creative reason". Please, check it out !

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Beer: " ..... moralizing v's enlightenment culture and creative reason"

If you read the lecture thoroughly you will discover the author isn't moralising at all against enlightenment culture and certainly not against "creative reason". Please, check it out !

Right, Benedict's point is that Western culture has substantially departed from Enlightenment ideals, and courted a dangerous and intellectually indefensible form of relativism. Sounds good to me!

Originally posted by bbarr
This is the opening passage of the Preface to Kant's Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone":

"So far as morality is based upon the conception of man as a free agent who, just because he is free, binds himself through his reason to unconditioned laws, it stands in need neither of the idea of another Being over him, for him to apprehend his dut ...[text shortened]... o which Benedict refers? Is it a moral certainty, a certainty of the existence of God, or what?

Tomorrow I will read the lecture again and I'll see if I can come up with an attempt to answer your question.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
We could take the lecture as a starting point.

This is ridiculously circular. Don't you ever get tired of the neverending ad verecundiam?

Originally posted by Beer n Pawn
so what is the difference between sexually abusing children to sexually abusing adolescents?

and how does sexual abuse in the church explain why millions turn up for wyd... or maybe that is the reason?

yes, unfortunatly there is sexeal abuse in families which is disgusting but when that abuse comes from the church it's unforgiveable and exploitati ...[text shortened]... ralizing v's enlightenment culture and creative reason.two very distinct topics i should think.

As ivanhoe points out, we are going off-topic, so this will be my last post on the subject in this thread.

so what is the difference between sexually abusing children to sexually abusing adolescents?

In the context of this discussion, very little. But, depending on where the discussion leads, it can be quite relevant.

and how does sexual abuse in the church explain why millions turn up for wyd... or maybe that is the reason?

You've clearly missed the Presidency analogy. Read over my earlier post.