9 minute read
Dane Litchfield: “Scientia Theologiaque: On the Relationship
Dane Litchfield
Moments of sheer scientific wonder have been used either to prove or disprove religious claims, and this dynamic has only been emphasized and stressed throughout the modern era. In philosophers such as Descartes, Kant, and Nietzsche, one sees a departure from antique and medieval thought in the relationship between science and religion. In an increasingly secularized and scientific world, this dynamic must be properly explored to reclaim the truth which the antique and medieval eras held. Unlike what the contemporary world wishes to claim, the mystical view of the world in the humanities is not removed from the empirical view of science. But how do these seemingly polar opposites enemies relate, if they are not removed from one another and not in opposition to each other? The nature of knowledge and religious experience suggests an integrative and complementary approach. As Thomas Stapleford of the University of Notre Dame points out, the Latin root for the word “science” shows this, as scientia (knowledge) denotes development akin to theological imagination; it is not techne (craft), or the power-obsessed mastery one sees within contemporary science and the modern education system.1 Evidence for integration and rebuttals against other dynamics are found in Darwinian evolution, physics, the arguments for the existence of God, and bioethics. Through exploring these topics, one can not only reclaim the proper relationship between religion and science, but also understand the telos (final end) to which human knowledge and experience point. The age-old debate of Darwinian evolution provides an excellent springboard into the discussion of the relationship between religion and science. Since its conception, there has been a perceived clash between it and the theistic religions, specifically centered on the contrast between a personal God creating the universe and the origin of species from natural selection. To begin with, the very nature of this debate refutes independence as an option for the relationship between religion and science, as they come into very direct contact with each other. But is this contact necessarily conflicting? Must a follower of religion, especially one
1 Thomas Stapleford, “Sorin Fellows Faculty Seminar Series: Cultivating Faith in a Scientific Age with Dr. Tom Stapleford,” Sorin Fellows Faculty Seminar Series: Cultivating Faith in a Scientific Age with Dr. Tom Stapleford (March 24, 2021).
which professes divine creation, be a Creationist and deny Darwinian evolution?
To answer this, we must first establish what Abrahamic religions’ creation theology has to say on the interpretation of Genesis. The theology and philosophy of the Roman Catholic Church provides an illuminating path forward in this murk. As Joseph Ratzinger, who would later become Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, puts it, “Scripture would not wish to inform us about how the different species of plant life gradually appeared or how the sun and the moon and the stars were established. Its purpose ultimately would be to say one thing: God created the world.”2 Ratzinger means that a Catholic must distinguish between the literary style of Genesis and the content which it describes. On a literary level, the beginning of Genesis is reflected in the beginning of the Gospel of St. John, marked with the words “In the beginning.”3 Thus, the creation narrative’s message is precisely what Ratzinger asserts—that it is God who created the universe. In this way, it not concerned with the scientific development of species and the universal order. Pope Pius XII’s document on the topic of evolution, Humani Generis, especially highlights this point. [T]he Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”4
This shows that a faithful Catholic can believe in the scientific theory of Darwinian evolution and be in accord with the Church’s teaching on creation, insofar that one does not rely entirely upon the theory to explain the all of human existence. The presence of the rational soul within the human person points towards this dynamic, since such a rational soul cannot be explained through
2 Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, In the Beginning--: a Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2005), 5. 3 Ibid., 15. 4 Pope Pius XII, “Encyclical Humani Generis of the Holy Father Pius XII to our Venerable Brethren, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and Other Local Ordinaries Enjoying Peace and Communion with the Holy See Concerning some False Opinions Threatening to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine,” Humani Generis (August 12, 1950) | Pius XII (Vatican ), accessed March 31, 2021, http://www.vatican. va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html, para. 36.
mere Darwinian evolution. In this integrative relationship, one can deny the premise that Darwinian evolution is inherently contradictory to the Abrahamic creation narrative. The use and implementation of physics within Thomistic and intelligent design arguments for the existence of God provide an excellent argument for integration between religion and science.5 Particularly within the Thomistic arguments, physics provides certain proofs of God’s existence that leave no room for chance. The arguments from motion and causality within Thomistic proofs show this. Furthermore, the importance of physics impacts the intelligent design arguments through the Big Bang theory and the fine tuning arguments.6 Beyond an allegorical or symbolic relationship, physics and religion are concretely intertwined, as the very nature and laws of physics support these proofs of God. As Pope St. John Paul II puts it, “There is thus no reason for competition of any kind between reason and faith: each contains the other, and each its own scope for action.”7 This illustrates the interwoven nature of religion and science that one sees in physics.8 The study of bioethics incarnates the relationship between science and religion. The dynamic is not one of mere theory or pure reason, but one which finds itself in the lives of each person on this planet. Rather than suggesting a perceived gap between the two or a weak link that only threatens the structure of the relationship, the bond between bioethics and religion suggests a relationship that is complementary and integrative. If religion is to be a worldview with an eschatological and soteriological purpose, then science must be integrated into the worldview by necessity. The study of bioethics, like that of ethics more broadly, owes quite a debt to religious ideas and sentiment. Religious principles surrounding bioethical issues are often the most clearly guided and
5 Intelligent Design is the theory that the universe exhibits such complexity that a logical conclusion can be drawn that there must be some sort of designer behind the rich complexity. Fine-Tuning is the theory that the universe is structured in such a way that it appears “fine-tuned” for the vitality of life on Earth, which philosophers have claimed as evidence for the existence of a Creator. If the criteria needed for life to exist were not met, life would not form. Earth fulfills these. 6 Chad V. Meister, Introducing Philosophy of Religion (London, UK: Routledge, 2010), 66–67. 92–106; 7 Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Fides Et Ratio, of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II: to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Relationship between Faith and Reason (Boston, MA: Pauline Books and media, 1998), para. 17. 8 As an aside, the study of contemporary biology heavily supports Aquinas’ teleological argument and the intelligent design arguments as well, as biological phenomena not only inspire his proof, but deepen its examples through the advancement of biology. Chad V. Meister, Introducing Philosophy of Religion (London, UK: Routledge, 2010), 92–106.
fulfilling courses of action. For example, the Catholic Church’s teaching of human sexuality can be regarded as ethically correct, as it prevents the dehumanization that comes from sex addiction and the health dangers of contracting STDs. Within the Abrahamic traditions, the understanding of the human person created in the imago Dei enforces the principle of human dignity. This guides professionals such as doctors, psychologists, counselors, and more. Science and religion are not in conflict, but rather multiple perspectives on life that claim religious truths are in conflict with one another. The proper question is not concerned with science, but rather the primacy of truth within one religious viewpoint. Through examining Darwinian evolution, physics, and bioethics, one can see this integrative and complementary relationship between science and religion. As Stapleford argues, it is important to note that scientia denotes a teleological orientation of the academic discipline of science. It is concerned with the ends of things, much more than with the means by which one does these things.9 Thus, it does not aim towards an explanation of why things are ordered the way they are; it only asks how. By reclaiming true scientia, one can see the integrative relationship between science and religion. As ex-atheist and psychologist Kevin Vost remarks, “What modern atheists seem to forget is that we are men and not gods, let alone God. Our powers, though great, are not limitless and infallible, and this includes our powers of reason, and even of the scientific method.”10 Ironically then, Enlightenment overconfidence in human reason only darkened the intellectual senses to the depths of theology and science; by conquering this pride that Vost describes and reclaiming the humility of the interpretation of the world, we can experience true fulfillment in the wonder and awe of Creation.
9 Stapleford, “Sorin Fellows Faculty Seminar Series: Cultivating Faith in a Scientific Age with Dr. Tom Stapleford.” 10 Kevin Vost, From Atheism to Catholicism: How Scientists and Philosophers Led Me to Truth (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 2010), 146.
Bibliography
Benedict XVI [Pope Emeritus], In the Beginning...: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2005. Meister, Chad V.
Introducing Philosophy of Religion. London, UK: Routledge, 2010.
John Paul II [Pope], Encyclical Letter, Fides Et Ratio, of the Supreme
Pontiff John Paul II: to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Relationship between Faith and Reason. Boston, MA: Pauline Books and media, 1998.
Meister, Chad V. Introducing Philosophy of Religion. London, UK:
Routledge, 2010.
Pius XII [Pope], “Encyclical Humani Generis Of The Holy Father
Pius Xii To Our Venerable Brethren, Patriarchs, Primates,
Archbishops, Bishiops, And Other Local Ordinaries Enjoying Peace And Communion With The Holy See Concerning
Some False Opinions Threatening To Undermine The Foundations Of Catholic Doctrine.” Humani Generis (August 12, 1950) | PIUS XII. Vatican . Accessed March 31, 2021. http:// www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/ hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html.
Stapleford, Thomas. “Cultivating Faith in a Scientific Age.” Sorin
Fellows Faculty Seminar Series. Lecture presented at the
Sorin Fellows Faculty Seminar Series: Cultivating Faith in a Scientific Age with Dr. Tom Stapleford, March 24, 2021.
Vost, Kevin. From Atheism to Catholicism: How Scientists and Philosophers Led Me to Truth. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 2010.
7
