Cardinal Ratzinger's Thoughts on Evolution An Excerpt From "Truth and Tolerance"

Zenit.org ^ | ROME, SEPT. 1, 2005 | Cardinal Ratzinger

[Forgiven_Sinner]

Cardinal Ratzinger's Thoughts on Evolution An Excerpt From "Truth and Tolerance"

ROME, SEPT. 1, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Cardinal Christoph Schönborn's July 7 editorial in the New York Times entitled "Finding Design in Nature" provoked a flurry of reactions, both supportive and critical.

Requests have begun to arrive in Rome for Benedict XVI to make some sort of clarification on the Church's stand regarding evolution.

The following text, delivered in 1999 as part of a lecture at the Sorbonne in Paris by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (the future Benedict XVI) and subsequently published in the 2004 book "Truth and Tolerance" (Ignatius), can give some clue as to the Holy Father's thoughts on the question. The length of the paragraphs was adapted here slightly for easier reading.

* * *

The separation of physics from metaphysics achieved by Christian thinking is being steadily canceled. Everything is to become "physics" again. The theory of evolution has increasingly emerged as the way to make metaphysics disappear, to make "the hypothesis of God" (Laplace) superfluous, and to formulate a strictly "scientific" explanation of the world. A comprehensive theory of evolution, intended to explain the whole of reality, has become a kind of "first philosophy," which represents, as it were, the true foundation for an enlightened understanding of the world. Any attempt to involve any basic elements other than those worked out within the terms of such a "positive" theory, any attempt at "metaphysics," necessarily appears as a relapse from the standards of enlightenment, as abandoning the universal claims of science.

Thus the Christian idea of God is necessarily regarded as unscientific. There is no longer any "theologia physica" that corresponds to it: in this view, the doctrine of evolution is the only "theologia naturalis," and that knows of no God, either a creator in the Christian (or Jewish or Islamic) sense or a world-soul or moving spirit in the Stoic sense. One could, at any rate, regard this whole world as mere appearance and nothingness as the true reality and, thus, justify some forms of mystical religion, which are at least not in direct competition with enlightenment.

Has the last word been spoken? Have Christianity and reason permanently parted company? There is at any rate no getting around the dispute about the extent of the claims of the doctrine of evolution as a fundamental philosophy and about the exclusive validity of the positive method as the sole indicator of systematic knowledge and of rationality. This dispute has therefore to be approached objectively and with a willingness to listen, by both sides -- something that has hitherto been undertaken only to a limited extent. No one will be able to cast serious doubt upon the scientific evidence for micro-evolutionary processes. R. Junker and S. Scherer, in their "critical reader" on evolution, have this to say: "Many examples of such developmental steps [microevolutionary processes] are known to us from natural processes of variation and development. The research done on them by evolutionary biologists produced significant knowledge of the adaptive capacity of living systems, which seems marvelous."

They tell us, accordingly, that one would therefore be quite justified in describing the research of early development as the reigning monarch among biological disciplines. It is not toward that point, therefore, that a believer will direct the questions he puts to modern rationality but rather toward the development of evolutionary theory into a generalized "philosophia universalis," which claims to constitute a universal explanation of reality and is unwilling to allow the continuing existence of any other level of thinking. Within the teaching about evolution itself, the problem emerges at the point of transition from micro to macro-evolution, on which point Szathmary and Maynard Smith, both convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, nonetheless declare that: "There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens."

The question that has now to be put certainly delves deeper: it is whether the theory of evolution can be presented as a universal theory concerning all reality, beyond which further questions about the origin and the nature of things are no longer admissible and indeed no longer necessary, or whether such ultimate questions do not after all go beyond the realm of what can be entirely the object of research and knowledge by natural science. I should like to put the question in still more concrete form. Has everything been said with the kind of answer that we find thus formulated by Popper: "Life as we know it consists of physical 'bodies' (more precisely, structures) which are problem solving. This the various species have 'learned' by natural selection, that is to say by the method of reproduction plus variation, which itself has been learned by the same method. This regress is not necessarily infinite." I do not think so. In the end this concerns a choice that can no longer be made on purely scientific grounds or basically on philosophical grounds.

The question is whether reason, or rationality, stands at the beginning of all things and is grounded in the basis of all things or not. The question is whether reality originated on the basis of chance and necessity (or, as Popper says, in agreement with Butler, on the basis of luck and cunning) and, thus, from what is irrational; that is, whether reason, being a chance by-product of irrationality and floating in an ocean of irrationality, is ultimately just as meaningless; or whether the principle that represents the fundamental conviction of Christian faith and of its philosophy remains true: "In principio erat Verbum" -- at the beginning of all things stands the creative power of reason. Now as then, Christian faith represents the choice in favor of the priority of reason and of rationality. This ultimate question, as we have already said, can no longer be decided by arguments from natural science, and even philosophical thought reaches its limits here. In that sense, there is no ultimate demonstration that the basic choice involved in Christianity is correct. Yet, can reason really renounce its claim to the priority of what is rational over the irrational, the claim that the Logos is at the ultimate origin of things, without abolishing itself?

The explanatory model presented by Popper, which reappears in different variations in the various accounts of the "basic philosophy," shows that reason cannot do other than to think of irrationality according to its own standards, that is, those of reason (solving problems, learning methods!), so that it implicitly reintroduces nonetheless the primacy of reason, which has just been denied. Even today, by reason of its choosing to assert the primacy of reason, Christianity remains "enlightened," and I think that any enlightenment that cancels this choice must, contrary to all appearances, mean, not an evolution, but an involution, a shrinking, of enlightenment.

We saw before that in the way early Christianity saw things, the concepts of nature, man, God, ethics and religion were indissolubly linked together and that this very interlinking contributed to make Christianity appear the obvious choice in the crisis concerning the gods and in the crisis concerning the enlightenment of the ancient world. The orientation of religion toward a rational view of reality as a whole, ethics as a part of this vision, and its concrete application under the primacy of love became closely associated. The primacy of the Logos and the primacy of love proved to be identical. The Logos was seen to be, not merely a mathematical reason at the basis of all things, but a creative love taken to the point of becoming sympathy, suffering with the creature. The cosmic aspect of religion, which reverences the Creator in the power of being, and its existential aspect, the question of redemption, merged together and became one.

Every explanation of reality that cannot at the same time provide a meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics necessarily remains inadequate. Now the theory of evolution, in the cases where people have tried to extend it to a "philosophia universalis," has in fact been used for an attempt at a new ethos based on evolution. Yet this evolutionary ethic that inevitably takes as its key concept the model of selectivity, that is, the struggle for survival, the victory of the fittest, successful adaptation, has little comfort to offer. Even when people try to make it more attractive in various ways, it ultimately remains a bloodthirsty ethic. Here, the attempt to distill rationality out of what is in itself irrational quite visibly fails. All this is of very little use for an ethic of universal peace, of practical love of one's neighbor, and of the necessary overcoming of oneself, which is what we need.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

This is the first time I've read the Cardinal Ratzinger's (now Pope Benedict) thoughts on evolution and I found nothing with which to disagree.

I will enjoy seeing what the creationists and evolutionists at FR have to say. Please make only factual statements. No personal attacks.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

Ping to you Patrick. It's nice to turn the tables for once!

[Right Wing Professor]

I will enjoy seeing what the creationists and evolutionists at FR have to say. Please make only factual statements.

This is what I have to say. Use the search function before you post!

[RedStateRocker]

My personal belief has always been:
Science = How
Religion = Why.

[Jaysun]

Yet, can reason really renounce its claim to the priority of what is rational over the irrational, the claim that the Logos is at the ultimate origin of things, without abolishing itself?

Very good. Everything is as it is because it found the rational way, yet there is no such thing as rational.

I'm with the Pope on this one. He's a brilliant man.

[hgro]

Once again, the pious expounding by the Pope while the ship is sinking is a wonder to witness.

[Old Seadog]

"AM I MY KEEPER'S BROTHER?"

[Forgiven_Sinner]

"This is what I have to say. Use the search function before you post!"

Sorry about that. :(

[TheGeezer]

Since the pure evolutionist must assert that accident preceded purpose (and, indeed, that accident attends purpose as an instrument of at least microevolution), the pure evolutionist asserts irrationality as the basis of existence.

Since irrationality dictates perception as subjective, reason cannot exist in irrationality. No conclusion can be concluded positively since perception is always accidental by nature. If irrationality is the cause of existence, reason is impossible.

One might assert this dilemma to be a consequence of evolution, but it is an argument against it, as well, since reason does exist. Only if one asserts that reason does not exist can one resolve reason with an accidental origin, which is absurd.

Is this a tautology?

[JasonC]

Usefully shows his views, which are essentially philosophic, not challenging science on its own ground nor properly speaking standing on any point of theology, sensu stricto. Instead the platonic philosophy he holds and sees at the basis of Christian metaphyics is the basis of his position. He does not regard it as a scientific but as a philosophic position, himself. I note his statement -

"there is no ultimate demonstration that the basic choice involved in Christianity is correct."

At the level of evidence, he means. This admission amounts to the statement that the Christian position in the matter rests on faith and not on knowledge. Which is a perfectly respectable position, both intellectually, and as a matter of historical theology. It remains to address his philosophic argument in favor of that faith, which as I see it has two prongs, one logical and one practical.

The logical prong tries to reason from philosophical consistency, as follows -

"can reason really renounce its claim to the priority of what is rational over the irrational?"

And he thinks the answer is no, to embrace an irrational origin to rationality is to undermine rationality as an authority or as a standard.

While there is an obvious intuitive sense in this argument, it does not actually follow. The missing minor is that one's reasons for adhering to a standard or following an authority must and shall attached to or be dependent on its origin. And this statement is not in general true.

Suppose a government is founded unjustly and this is widely known. But then it is exercised with moderation and justice, over a long course of years. Surely men's rational attachment to that government is not them undermined in any decisive sense by its imperfect origin. For their need for it does not stem from those origins, or from any special virtue adhering to them and transmitted from them, but on their present need for moderate and just governance.

One can see the same point by considering the virtues or vices involved in claims advanced about a rationality, presumed to be ruling and justly so, at present. To insist that its origins are high, pure, and good, is to boast. It is a variety of pride. To admit past shortcomings, limitations, faults, a low origin, is to honestly confess. It is a variety of humility. Surely if Christianity taught us anything new in morals it was that humility was a virtue, and pride both a vice and a weakness.

Do you further the just claims of rationality by boasting of its high origin? Does it need such boasts to benefit mankind? Is the touchstone of pure origin an infallible guide to moral worth? Or is that not rather part of the error we detect in the grosteque excesses of irrational social darwinists and their ilk? Isn't it the Christian position that none are infallible regardless of origin, no, not one; that Peter himself denounced his Lord three times; that the only place one could find real virtue in the greatest moral crisis was in one condemned malefactor (the thief on the cross, image of a Christian) who knew his own unworthiness, but also knew injustice when he saw it?

I think that disposes of the argument from consistency. It is not in fact morally required of any claimant to authority that he boast. Reason founded on unreason can simply be a humble admission, not a debunking. Indeed, pragmatic faith can be justified on the same grounds, eschewing any claim to all-knowing consistency, and instead simply and honestly confessing one does not know, but hopes.

Next he advances an argument from morals, that the platonic conception linked the rule of reason with the primacy of the good, while the evolutionary picture is "red in tooth and claw". It is certainly possible for evolutionists to read a red past as a justification for a red present. But doing so commits the same fallacy just denounced, above. The good can be granted all the supremacy morality requires, while being positioned in the eschatological future, rather than the primordial past. If the good operates teleologically in the manner Plato held, as drawing all things toward itself in longing, then no claim about origins can reach it.

I thus maintain that there is no irrationality or inconsistency in humbly seeing reason as based historically on unreason, nor in seeing morals as anchored in our aspirations rather than in our past. I therefore see no necessary conflict between full admission of all the claims of evolutionary theory as to origins, without adandoning any point philosophically needed for reason, faith, or morals.

One man's opinion...

[ops33]

I totally agree. I have always believed that there cannot be any contradiction between science and religion. The same God who designed the DNA molecule is the same God who wrote the 10 Commandments. Any contraction we see between science and religion is only apparant, it is because of gaps in our knowledge and understanding.

[adiaireton8]

Instead the platonic philosophy he holds and sees at the basis of Christian metaphyics is the basis of his position

Why do you think the Pope holds a platonic philosophy?

-A8

[JasonC]

Because I've read him. Plato's metaphysics and Augustine's theology, that is his basic position. He is also trained in modern phenomenology and idealism, like his predecessor, but he has always been far more of a traditionalist in such matters.

[JasonC]

Otherwise put, he knows the church fathers thoroughly enough that he knows how Platonist they were...

[Getready]

Or MY Brothers Keeper?

[Getready]

Nice way of putting it....
another way might be this....

If my "reason" is caused by the submicroscopic movements of
quantum particles, and not by any outside agency, how do
I know if my "reason" is not an illusion (macromolecular example: LSD makes one hallucinate, can the brain chemicals make me hallucinate "reality" also?)

I have never seen anyone ever address that issue, other than hope that all scientific studies which give the same
"hallucination" must be correct since the law of averages
would argue against the same hallucination in all experiments. The problem is, the argument presupposes the
existence of the "experiment" and the "law of averages" all
of which are accepted as universally occuring "realities",
but there is no way to accept that those realities since they have been "determined" TRUSTING what we are observing is real,and not a hallucination.
Therefore, you are proving there is no such thing as a proof, which is semantically, philosophically, and practically absurd.
It is really a matter of who one wants to put their faith in, a Supreme Being, or some randomly and weakly weeded out group of arranged molecules (which are disrupted quite often (see TIA, CVA, blunt trauma, toxicology, pharmacology, PVD)

[mdmathis6]

"Nice way of putting it....
another way might be this....

If my "reason" is caused by the submicroscopic movements of
quantum particles, and not by any outside agency, how do
I know if my "reason" is not an illusion (macromolecular example: LSD makes one hallucinate, can the brain chemicals make me hallucinate "reality" also?)

I have never seen anyone ever address that issue, other than hope that all scientific studies which give the same
"hallucination" must be correct since the law of averages "

Rene Descartes was way ahead of you in his Discourse on Reason. He wrote of the problem of the "evil genious" that may be filling your head with "visions" that may be in conflict with true reality..."so how do we know anything at all?"

He coined the phrase "Cognito Ergo Sum"! Thinking therefore Being or "I think therefore I Am" You can doubt everything that exists but you can't doubt the fact that you doubt, and therefore you can't doubt your own existence. As for reality, he relies admittedly on tautology..."God guarantees knowledge!"

[Forgiven_Sinner]

"While there is an obvious intuitive sense in this argument, it does not actually follow. The missing minor is that one's reasons for adhering to a standard or following an authority must and shall attached to or be dependent on its origin. And this statement is not in general true."

But is it true in this specific case?

"Suppose a government is founded unjustly and this is widely known. But then it is exercised with moderation and justice, over a long course of years. Surely men's rational attachment to that government is not them undermined in any decisive sense by its imperfect origin. For their need for it does not stem from those origins, or from any special virtue adhering to them and transmitted from them, but on their present need for moderate and just governance."

I do not accept your counter example. A rational attachment to the government is based on its current behavior and habit. To say rational thinking cannot come from irrational processes is an entirely different class of argument.

"One can see the same point by considering the virtues or vices involved in claims advanced about a rationality, presumed to be ruling and justly so, at present. To insist that its origins are high, pure, and good, is to boast. It is a variety of pride. To admit past shortcomings, limitations, faults, a low origin, is to honestly confess. It is a variety of humility. Surely if Christianity taught us anything new in morals it was that humility was a virtue, and pride both a vice and a weakness."

The motivations of the argument are irrelevant to the argument itself. Does rationality come from irrationality? I'm not aware of any example.


"Do you further the just claims of rationality by boasting of its high origin? Does it need such boasts to benefit mankind? Is the touchstone of pure origin an infallible guide to moral worth? Or is that not rather part of the error we detect in the grotesque excesses of irrational social Darwinists and their ilk? Isn't it the Christian position that none are infallible regardless of origin, no, not one; that Peter himself denounced his Lord three times; that the only place one could find real virtue in the greatest moral crisis was in one condemned malefactor (the thief on the cross, image of a Christian) who knew his own unworthiness, but also knew injustice when he saw it? "

Our humility is based in our weakness of character--we all have sinned. We (humankind) have plenty to be humble about intellectually too, having made many erroneous judgments about both science (Piltdown man, Aristotle's epicycles, ether) and Biblical doctrine (justifiable slavery, geocentric astronomy) to name a few. Finally, we ought to humble about our state of knowledge, for the sum of human knowledge is limited to what we have discerned from this earth, an infinitesimal fraction of the universe.

The original of rationality is a relevant scientific and philosophical question and the theory of God creating it is not necessarily prideful.

"I thus maintain that there is no irrationality or inconsistency in humbly seeing reason as based historically on unreason, nor in seeing morals as anchored in our aspirations rather than in our past. I therefore see no necessary conflict between full admission of all the claims of evolutionary theory as to origins, without abandoning any point philosophically needed for reason, faith, or morals."

The irrationality I see is that we have no evidence irrationality producing rationality in all of human record or prehistoric record.

Another man's opinion.