Search Results

This chapter discusses Cusanus's emphasis on experiential learning and piety. It discusses his key notion of the concept of coincidence of opposites, which is linked to learned ignorance, and his concern with interreligious harmony and peace. Cusanus was also known as Nicolaus of Cusa, and was considered the first modern thinker in the world.

This chapter explores the meaning of “learned ignorance” as understood by the unusual fifteenth-century scholar and Cardinal of the Catholic Church, Nicholas of Cusa. Building on the writings of ancient authors and Thomas Aquinas, it explains the meaning of Nicholas' statement that we do not know how God is, but only how God is not. Nicholas wrote not only at a time when the Latin Church was especially interested in re-establishing a better relationship with the Greek Church, but also when it feared the advance of Muslim armies along its eastern borders. With regard to Islam, Nicholas studied the Qurʾan to which he applied a pia interpretatio, that is, a faithful interpretation of Islam's sacred book—an interpretation that he believed would help Christians purify incorrect thinking about the Trinity and the Incarnation. Nicholas emphasized that not-knowing actually resulted in a valuable kind of knowing: “the more we are instructed in this ignorance, the closer we approach the truth”.

This introductory chapter briefly sets out the book's purpose: to demonstrate one facet of what might be described as one of the best things of our own time: serious and sustained interreligious dialogue. The chapters in this volume represent the ongoing effort of the Institute for Advanced Catholic Studies at the University of Southern California to break new ground in interreligious dialogue. They are actually the fruit of the third interreligious conference organized by the Institute. The chapter then discusses the concept of learned ignorance; preparations for the trialogue held at the Tantur Ecumenical Institute in Jerusalem in June of 2007; global events that have advanced serious interreligious dialogue; and new Muslim initiatives for dialogue.

This chapter draws explicitly on the thought of Nicholas of Cusa to shed further light on often unexplored dimensions of interreligious dialogue. It firsts describes the link between learned ignorance and interreligious conversation. Next, it describes the author's own experience of an interreligious conversation between Jews, Christians, and Muslims that took place during a course at the Cardinal Bea Institute in Rome. It then analyzes that encounter on the basis of Jewish exegetical interpretations of the sensory experience of Israel at Mt. Sinai.

Voetius’ insistence on the integration of biblical criticism and science rests on a moral valuation of knowledge derived from the first commandment: ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me’ (Ex. 20:3). Scripture is normative also in secular areas such as nature, history, and law. Voetius encouraged applying biblical texts to natural philosophy, medicine, and so on. This continuity between biblical interpretation and science also implied that theologians should have an extensive knowledge of history, philosophy, and languages. Though he opposed an approach in which human rational judgement saw itself as normative, Voetius did not renounce textual criticism as such. The first commandment encourages scholars to avail themselves of all secular knowledge relevant for a comprehensive study of Scripture. In certain cases, the correct attitude is that of learned ignorance: a thoughtful acknowledgement that there is neither sufficient evidence nor enough mental power to decide an interpretive problem in one way or another.

This chapter offers a theory of inhabitation. It clarifies the meanings of being diasporic and being at home. It presents a series of concepts that facilitate the understanding of “nativity” as a general human condition. How do the alienated regain solidarity with the world? How does the opaque object that a subject struggles “with” become a transparent equipment the subject is fluent “in?” The chapter delineates the acquisition of “learned ignorance” (Bourdieu) or “inconspicuous familiarity” (Heidegger) that is at the heart of inhabitation. It lays out the ethical elements of the intricate process through which the diasporic stranger becomes a native citizen. As such it is an invitation to further thinking on the often neglected notions of appropriation and inhabitation.

Chapter 10 analyzes the thought of Semen Frank who intended to expose the absolute priority of theology and “justify” secular branches of knowledge using theological tools. For him the relationship between science and theology is nothing other than a part of the question of religion as such, the correlation between the transcendency and the immanency of God. Frank was deeply concerned about the atheistic propaganda in the Soviet Union. In particular, he objected to the alleged conflict between science and religion. In his works Frank intended to unmask the falsity of this conclusion as well as to propose such a model of the relationship between these spheres which would be in accordance with a Christian worldview.