Customer Reviews

Belief or Nonbelief? : A Dialogue

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

In these beautifully crafted, philosophical yet clear letters, Cardinal Martini and Umberto Eco discuss the questions that have been raised by many peoples in many lands and in many cultures since philosophy began. They exchange views on the secular expectation of the apocalypse and our resultant consumer culture; on women in the church; on when life begins; and on how a secular man can ground his ethics.

The thorough Jesuit education these great minds received is as evident as their deep humanity. And, while a student of philosophy and ethics will no doubt be entranced by the clear and logical arguments Eco and Martini present, a less philosophically inclined mind may find comfort.

For in the end, Martini and Eco reassure us that, no matter whether you are secular or religious; no matter what your culture, there are universal values that are common to us all. It is a message well worth hearing in this relativistic and politically correct world.

The book is good. But the reactions of a variety of intellectuals in the SECOND HALF of the non english versions are as enjoyable. Why were they left aside in this translation? The whole purpose of the magazine that asked Martini and Eco to start a dialogue, was to open it. Why the trimming? Also, why was the title changed to a flashy style? The original could be better translated to "What do non believers believe in" or else. I can see other opinions on the book are produced by an incomplete translation or a misleading title.

In an age where civil conversation is at a minimum (where talking heads on TV interrupt and shout each other down, where the late Cardinal Bernadine's attempt to find common ground among polarized Catholics was rebuffed by other American Cardinals), how refreshing to see this interchange between a secularist writer and the Cardinal Archbishop of Milan on the topics of hope, the beginnings of life, the ordination of women and the secular basis of ethics. They are both mutually respectful and intellectual people open to hear another point of view. The idea and the example are both great and ought to be repeated elsewhere. If anything the book is too polite and far too short. There are hundreds of issues to be discussed and a little further give and take would be more enlightening. It is not really a confrontation, and there is only one go-around on each issue. The writers are courteous to a fault. Eco knows and presents the Catholic sided as if he were on it, and in reality he is not so much skeptical as merely incredulous about a number of things, a kind of crypto-Catholic. Both are capable of giving and taking a lot more pointed argumentation while still maintaining their mutual respect and amity.

In a time when academia and scholarly religion seems terribly at odds with the living Catholic faith, two men open a dialogue which is indeed a confrontation. They confront however, not each other, but the issues of apocalyptic perspective, abortion, women in the Church, violence and much more. These two men recognize these issues not as polemics to be tossed back and forth for endless bantering, but as fundamental to outlining a definition of "humanity." Both men are scholars and people of faith, aware of the cultural and social millieu around them. Although the paperback version claims "A Dialogue" it is most definitely a confrontation that forces the reader to make some decisions or at least consider issues that are all to easily relegated to consideration in a distant sphere rather than our hearts.

I loved this little book. Eco is one of my heroes, and I knew of Martini's reputation, since there's been much speculation that he is one of the favorites to become the next Pope.

What I liked most about the dialogue is that the two men clearly present their views and fully address the other's questions, without breaking down into the type of sensationalistic diatribe that passes for debate in the United States. Eco and Martini show respect for each other and each other's views, while clearly making a case for their own beliefs.

My sole complaint is that of several other reviewers - the book was too short. I would have enjoyed more Q&A from Eco and Martini. The reactions of other intellectuals that were apparently included in the Italian and Spanish versions would have also been interesting reading.

This book is well worth a purchase.

Eco is just about my favorite writer in the world, so anything he writes is of interest to me, including this slim (SLIM) volume. However, there is less debate than the cover and jacket promise-- Eco and the Cardinal present a few interesting views, but there is little actual dialogue of thought going on here. The two are too respectful of one another! Anyway, worth reading, but not necessarily worth the cover price.

In this small volume two of the best-known minds of Italy exchange letters trying to find a common ground and to clarify differences between the secular and religious worldviews. On the one hand we have Umberto Eco, an academic philosopher best known for his novel "The Name of the Rose", and on the other hand Cardinal Martini, one of the most intellectually gifted princes of the Catholic church. The format is questions and answers; Eco gets the first three questions, Martini the last one. In general I found the questions illuminating; they are clearly stated and challenge the other party to clarify its position. Neither Eco nor Martini give resounding answers though, and reading between the lines one feels a certain unease in both.

Eco's first question is not really a question but rather a commentary on the secular and religious ideas about history and the end of history. Both agree that history has meaning and direction and that the fears about a disastrous end can be vanquished by hope.

The other three questions are ethical and are much more interesting. After a short and delightful investigation about what human life is, Eco asks about abortion, and specifically about when human life begins. Martini explains that there are different kinds of human life and that the kind that counts is not physical life but rather spiritual life which is part of God's life. Being a cardinal, he cannot but answer Eco's question with the Church's official position, which is that human life begins at inception. He reasons that this is so because at the inception a person's genetic identity is fixed. To me this argument sounds rather superficial. After all a seed fixes the identity of the tree that may grow out of it, but that does not mean that the seed is a living tree. Surely, if, while eating an apple, I inadvertently swallow a seed, nobody will claim that I have just eaten an apple tree. To be fair, Martini is only stating that human life starts at inception, not that a fertilized human egg is a human being. But in this case then we get the equally strange claim that human life is present in something that is not a human being.

The third of Eco's questions is about the ordination of women. He argues that there are not really any dogmatic impediments for women becoming priests and, also, that common sense dictates that half of humanity should not be excluded from serving God in any capacity. Martini's answer here is very problematic. He starts on a fine note stating that we should not impose our morality on others: "Any external imposition of principles or religious behavior on the nonconsenting violates freedom of conscience." Exactly two paragraphs later he contradicts himself writing that "religious bodies can try to democratically influence the tenor of laws they find do not correspond to an ethical standard that might indeed derive from religious practice". He concedes that ultimately there are no good arguments for denying the priesthood to women, but that nevertheless this must be denied them because it is God's will, according to the opinion of those "who by Episcopal succession have received the power of truth".

The fourth and final question is Martini's, and now I think it is Eco's answer that sounds strained. Martini asks what the foundation is for an atheist's moral principles, up to documented extremes where atheists gave up their lives trying to do what they thought right. Implicitly in this question one reads the presumption that the foundation of morality can only be a transcendent religious awareness. Eco starts, interestingly enough, explaining that there can be no true atheists because even though nobody has found a convincing proof for the existence of God, neither has anybody found a convincing proof for the nonexistence of God. He responds to Martini's question explaining that moral ideology is a result of the requirements of our cohabitation in close proximity. He recognizes that this standard explanation for morality does not explain the phenomenon of secular people offering a personal sacrifice comparable to that of Christ, so he ventures that the reason here is that people have a deep need to give a good example, to leave a message to others, sometimes even if it costs their life. He does not explain how this instinctive need to communicate good has evolved with human life and culture, so he is merely transforming the original question into a different one.

Ultimately, Eco and Martini do not really connect, and it would be too much to expect such a miracle. I think that the religious and secular world views can only touch and derive worth from each other if each side abandons beliefs that are deeply felt but not really central to the respective world views. Secular people should stop talking about "meaningful life", "universal harmony", a "higher power", or "the other" and simply give it a name and call it God. Religious people should recognize that the origin of truth is not in books of revelations or leaders who "have received the power of truth" but God alone with no intermediaries. When secular people accept that truth comes from somewhere, and religious people accept that where truth comes from we can go ourselves, then the foundations of a very meaningful dialectic will have been set.

One star less than the deserving five, because the English edition omits the commentaries by several other authors which were included in the original edition.

My main problem with this book is its size. I wish the two men had exchanged more letters! The book will not convince anyone to be a believer or non-believer; that is not its purpose. What it does do is provide a model for a respectful dialogue on fascinating, controversial, and difficult subjects. I think that this book is best seen as a model, and as a starting point for the reader's own thoughts and further study.

This exchange between Umberto Eco, an expert philosopher and secularist and a Cardinal of the Catholic Church is nothing short of enlightening. The two have obvious disagreements, but the exchange, which covers topics such as the apocalypse, the right to life, and where morals come from, is nothing short of sincere and well meaning on both sides. This is how a dialogue between believers and non believers should be! It is much more worthwhile than some "Dawkins vs. random fundimetalist" type deal.

Eco and the Cardinal don't really answer any of the questions in as much detail as I would have hoped, but I guess that was the limit of only allowing one reply.

While I appreciate the sentiments of the two participants, and I enjoyed the dialog, the problem with these kinds of interactions is that almost nobody will be swayed but the other side. Each side has its own beliefs, and the conversation amounts to explaining to each other what that entails. I do think that this is important, but the recent spate of books trying to get everyone to see each others side is a little tiresome. This is especially true in the science world. The last chapter was the only one that had any real confrontation, and unfortunately it was the last correspondence. The plesant tone that each side took however was refreshing. It was a very cordial discourse, it only needed to last a few hundred more pages before it got really interesting.