A short while back somebody commented on Facebook that
somebody [else] had quoted the Quran in a forum devoted to discussing Christian
issues. This seemed to the commentator to be the
camel’s nose under the tent, possibly the first step in an electronic Jihad or
something. This, we felt, was silly in
more ways than one, especially in a discussion on matters relating to the
natural law “written in the hearts of all men.”
Frankly, the natural law is the one place where ecumenism
and true interfaith dialog can really take place. All you have to do is keep in mind the
different roles of faith and reason. All
religions can agree on matters based on reason and discernment of the natural
law. So can atheists, for that matter. The natural law is based on our observations
concerning human nature and what humanity has, in all times and places,
considered “good.” (We won't get into
the deviations; Aristotle handles the case of when people think something that
is evil is good, but let's stick to the main point.)
Where the different faiths and philosophies differ in
matters of natural law is in the application thereof. For example, “murder” and “theft” have always
and everywhere been regarded as evil. Is
human sacrifice, however, murder? Is
stealing or redistributing wealth when some are deemed to have “too much”
theft?
Restrict interfaith dialogue to this sort of thing, and a
great deal can be accomplished. This is especially
so among the three great Abrahamic religions.
Thus, in matters relating to the natural law, all faiths and
philosophies can find value in others as different expressions of truth.
It’s when we get into matters of faith that the trouble
starts. Faith is based on our
willingness to believe and is not based on reason. It does not and cannot contradict reason, of
course, and faith and reason complement and support each other, but you cannot
subject matters of faith to the same process as matters of reason. They cannot be proved either inductively or
deductively.
The recent (i.e.,
over the last 300 years or so) history of thought reveals an extremely
disturbing trend, however. More and more
matters that pertain to reason are based on faith, and matters that pertain to
faith are rejected because they are not susceptible of proof. As Mortimer Adler put it, people have
confused knowledge (which is always true) with opinion (which may or may not be
true), and reason has come out the loser.
For example, I have a friend who publishes occasional papers
periodically. Usually these attract about
as much attention as my books. Recently,
however, he came out “against” the theory of evolution of religious
grounds. People actually took notice of
this and posted comments.
Why waste your time?
As far as the Catholic Church or any other religion is concerned,
whether the theory of evolution is true or false is completely irrelevant. God made the world and everything in it. How He did so is a nice intellectual point,
but, ultimately, whether Genesis is literally true, or whether we are to take
it metaphorically or mythically (in the good sense), makes no difference. The problem the Catholic Church has with
evolution is not with evolution, but with those learned and semi-learned dolts
who insist that because evolution is “true” (actually, it has not been proved
in scientific terms), then the account in Genesis is not literally true, and
therefore God does not exist (and similar arguments).
Bull. Any honest
atheist could pick out the many logical flaws in such arguments, e.g., how can you prove or disprove the
existence or non-existence of an immaterial Being by material means?
So, as long as the cites from the Quran or any other holy
book — or any book, for that matter — are consistent with reason, there is no
reason why Catholics or anyone else cannot use them with profit. You should, however, be sound enough in the
precepts of your own faith to be able to discern what is good in others without
endangering your own.
#30#
