Science and faith

This sentence by Louis de Wohl freshly preserves many of its statements; However, in recent decades this, like many other apparent securities, has been dismantled, some resoundingly, others without hardly realizing it. About fifty years ago one heard people say: “We know a lot; In a couple of generations we will know everything…” Today it is stated: “We know very little and the more we know, the more we understand how many things we still need to know…”. And, although it may seem paradoxical, today “we know more and more… and less and less.”

What is the image of the science-faith relationship today? Does this image correspond to reality?

Newsweek magazine, in its July 1998 issue, reported on a survey conducted in the United States, according to which “at least 60% of high-level American scientists believe in some form of God.” These figures may perhaps be flattering to the ears of some. However, in the Newsweek report there is a phrase that subtly reflects the background of the current way of thinking: “in some form of God.”

Given the sophistry of contemporary language, when someone confesses or denies God, we must ask ourselves which God is the one who confesses or which God is the one who denies; the God who created folklore and secularism, or the God revealed in Jesus Christ; the God that many turn into a fetish or an amulet; or the God who bets on man, who comes to meet him and impels him not to a servile act but to a response from his own freedom, something that constitutes a specificity of the Christian faith: being a free response of man to the initiative of God who comes to meet him.

Albert Einstein stated: “I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures or who possesses a will of the type that we experience.” However, he did not hesitate to object: “The man of science must be deeply religious…”, “the law of the cosmos reveals an intelligence of such superiority that compared to it all human thinking is insignificant…”, “nature is the realization of the mathematical ideas of God.”

Without going into Einstein’s theological considerations (sometimes somewhat pantheistic), could we classify him as a man of faith or as an atheist?

Let’s look at his words: “It is enough for me to reflect on the wonderful structure of the Universe and humbly try to penetrate even an infinitesimal part of the wisdom that is manifested in nature…”, “in this way we manage to obtain the statistical formula to know approximately the position of an electron at a given instant. But, personally, I don’t believe that God plays dice.”

The above makes it clear that the God that Einstein denies is not the Transcendent, Creator, Omniscient and Eternal God, but the deformed and mutilated image of a God totally alien to man, who only acts, rewards and represses at whim from his lofty celestial abode. . And yet, that is the image that faith is for many, a childlike fideism devoid of any vestige of reason.

Therefore, what is currently on the table, as the Newsweek survey corroborates, is not so much whether or not God exists, but rather what divinity those who call themselves atheists are denying, and what divinity those who call themselves believers confess. . And many times the expressions of faith of many are out of date with their psychological and intellectual development, sometimes they are children within a personality that has matured and developed in other aspects. Hence the urgent call made by Pope Paul VI: “Religious illiteracy must no longer exist.”

That is why it is appropriate to remember that the Catholic Church rejects both rationalism that only accepts what can be “proven” empirically, and fideism that despises reason, and claims that faith is “a leap into the void,” without no reason for credibility.

Fideism is absurd because it wants us to believe in God without having a rational basis for faith, forgetting that if faith did not have any rational motivation it would not be free, responsible, or human. This is why Catholic theology defends man’s natural capacity to come to know the existence of God with the light of reason. In this regard, the First Vatican Council (1869–1870) specifies in its Constitution “Dei Filius”:

Therefore, when in some strata it is stated: “science and faith represent two different perspectives… the eventual conflicts between them

FROM CERTAINTY TO RELATIVISM

Modernity taught us to look at science not so much as a sublime and exceptional achievement of human reason, but as an institutionalized activity, with the potential to even have a conclusive impact on human life. This has had the consequence that on many occasions science has been seen not so much as an activity related to reason, to human knowledge, of which it is an excellent fruit, but as something autonomous, with the possibility of standing in the foreground, even above man, and whose influence is understood to other dimensions of human life as the “only truth.”

However, the crisis of Postmodernity has been translated by many as the crisis of the “concept of truth”, as the “dictatorship of relativism”, in the words of Pope Benedict XVI. This reminds us of an expression that Umberto Eco puts into the mouth of one of the characters in his novel The Name of the Rose: “The only truth consists in learning to free oneself from the unhealthy passion for the truth.”

With this we fall squarely into the relativism that dominates a wide spectrum of contemporary thinking. But what is the cause of this relativism that invades the most dissimilar fields of knowledge?

It is difficult to try to give a simple answer to this question. Its background is nourished by the sap of various and nuanced conceptions about man, the Universe and society. With regard to the topic at hand, the relationship between science and faith, we could fathom its origins in the rationalist and mechanistic philosophy that preceded the canons in force today, in which science, one of the privileged fruits of human reason , was presented as something “absolute” and “independent”, with the power to transcend its own creator, to, beyond any restraint or ethical consideration, stand, like Dr. Victor Frankenstein in Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’s novel, not only against natural law but also on man and in front of him.

That is why we cannot forget that neither science nor faith, as human frameworks, are abstract or unconnected entities in themselves. We cannot speak of them as a primary or causal reference. The first reference is man, the only being on earth endowed with the ability to transcend his environment, to transcend himself, through reason, through will.

SCIENCE OR SCIENCES?

Man, unlike other living organisms, does not limit himself to adapting, inhabiting and subsisting in the environment that surrounds him, but rather tries to understand it, reason about it, dominate it…, to respond to its “how”. It is precisely from the answers to these “how” that the so-called empirical or applied sciences arise, and we make the specification “empirical or applied”, since, if we are faithful to the meaning of the term “science”, it encompasses all human activity that has The objective is the constitution and foundation of a systematic body of knowledge.

By definition, “empirical sciences” are those that deal with rational knowledge of the material world, which attempts to explain and predict through observation, experimentation and inferences from observed facts, and then organize them into hypotheses, theories and laws. Among these empirical sciences we could mention Physics or Biology.

But man is not limited only to observing and defining empirically observed facts in hypotheses, theories and laws, but he tries to make them “translatable” to his reason, to his intellect. This is where the so-called “formal sciences” emerge, those whose conceptual forms, research and demonstration methods, will distance themselves from those used in empirical sciences, to base their study method not on the observation of facts, but on systems. conceptual concepts, forms, calculations and reasoning.

Among the so-called formal sciences we have, for example, Mathematics, which, in itself, constitutes an abstract system, a creation of the human intellect that, objectively, in its purity, does not exist, but is invented and created. by man to make the environment around him accessible to reason.

In this regard, Galileo Galilei stated: “Philosophy is written in that great book of the Universe, which is continually open before us for us to observe. But the book cannot be understood without first learning the language and the alphabet in which it is composed. It is written in the language of mathematics and its characters are triangles, circles and other geometric figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single one of its words. Without that language, we navigate a dark labyrinth…”

That is why the first and most notable difference between the so-called formal and empirical sciences is that the former study “ideas”, “concepts” and the latter study “facts”. Mathematics, as a formal science, does not refer to a specific “object” and, therefore, cannot use the hypothetical-probative method typical of empirical sciences for its validation, nor resort to a laboratory to validate its statements. Physics, in contrast, when referring to specific “facts” that occur in our environment, has to appeal to experimental practice as the ultimate criterion of veracity of its statements.

However, despite the difference in methods and objects of study, is it possible to develop physics, an empirical or applied science, (and therefore experimental), without the help of Mathematics, a formal science, based on algorithms? “invented” and developed by human reason and not in facts?

The answer to this question is obvious, what’s more, on many occasions the “scientific truth” is primarily more mathematical than physical; It is enough to mention two paradigmatic examples of contemporary Physics: the Theory of Relativity or the Theory of Superstrings. However, it is still paradoxical that Mathematics, the creation of reason, of the human intellect, is really the key to studying the nature that surrounds us, which is meticulously structured in a mathematical way. Hence our “human creation”, Mathematics, is not only a necessary instrument, but also “essential” to be able to study the physical nature of things, to put those things at our service, to use nature through technology.

The astrophysicist Brandon Carter, paraphrasing Descartes’ famous phrase: “I think, therefore I am”, suggests in this regard the statement: “I think, therefore the world is as it is.” This, the coincidence between objective and subjective reason, constitutes, in the words of Pope Benedict XVI, an enigma and a great challenge because we see that, ultimately, there is one reason that unites them both: our (subjective) reason does not could discover the other (objective), if there were not an identical reason at the root of both. In other words: there is a single reason with several dimensions.

Now, if applied sciences such as Physics seek knowledge of the world through “causal laws” and formal sciences through “conceptual references”, there are questions that they cannot answer. From Physics we can answer “how” the Universe has evolved, but not “why” the Universe has evolved. From Biology we can answer “how” the human brain has evolved, but not “why” this masterful machinery has evolved that, even in the 21st century, the most brilliant minds exploit at less than 10% of their capacity. .

These “whys” or these “whys” are answered by man from the so-called “human sciences”, those that seek knowledge of the human fabric through the study of what, using expressions from Hegel’s dialectic, are considered products of the objective spirit, say History, Psychology, Sociology, Philosophy or Theology.

This “Subject” that Saint Thomas refers to can be recognized through reason. The so-called rational or natural Theology deals with this. However, if reason can constitute the first step to approach what Saint Thomas Aquinas calls “natural theological truths”, man’s assent to the act of faith is not carried out solely through reason, intelligence, but which must also be accompanied by the assent of the will. And this is where positive Theology comes into play: Revelation.

And the reasons to believe are sufficient, but not evident as an axiom. The faith is sufficiently obscure that adherence to it is totally free; and, at the same time, clear enough to make adherence to it reasonable. In this regard, the philosopher Jostein Gaarder, in his work The World of Sofia , puts this example in the mouth of little Sofía: the above is “more or less like we can know that there is a storm both by seeing the lightning and by hearing the thunder… Even if we are blind we can hear it thunder. And even if we are deaf we can see the lightning. The best thing is, of course, to see and hear. But there is no contradiction between what we see and what we hear. On the contrary, the two impressions complement each other.”

RATIONALITY

At this point, following the examples of Physics, Mathematics and Theology, we have three courses: the “facts”, the “ideas” and the “Subject”. These courses allow us to appreciate the existence of an objective rationality and a subjective rationality that do not contradict each other but rather (like the thunder and lightning that Sofía refers to), visualize a coincidence between what we have thought and the way in which it is carried out and implemented. nature behaves.

Pope Benedict XVI, in a meeting with the young people of Rome and Lazio, told them: “the great Galileo affirmed that God wrote the book of nature in the form of mathematical language. He was convinced that God has given us two books: that of the Holy Scriptures and that of nature. And the language of nature (and this was Galileo’s conviction) is Mathematics, therefore, for him, Mathematics is the language of God, of the Creator.”

Is postmodern man incapable of listening to God in Creation as Galileo did?
In a conference addressed to representatives of the world of science at the University of Regensburg, Pope Benedict XVI recalled just a few months ago the “modern self-delimitation of reason.” The Pope said: “The modern concept, on the one hand, presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, and its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and how to use it efficiently. This basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature. On the other hand, it is about the capacity of nature to be used for our purposes, in which only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation provides the decisive certainty.

”This entails two decisive basic orientations for our matter. Only the type of certainty derived from the combination of Mathematics with Empirics can be considered scientific. Any discipline that would like to claim science status must be measured by this criterion. Hence, human sciences, such as History, Psychology, Sociology and Philosophy, cannot conform to this canon of scientificity. “A second important point for our reflections – continues the Roman Pontiff – is that the method, as such, excludes the question about God, making it appear unscientific or pre-scientific. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction in the radius of science and reason, which must be questioned…, because if this alone were the totality of science, it would reduce even man himself, since the properly human questions about our origin and our destiny, questions about Religion and Ethics, no longer find a place in the space of common reason delimited by the so understood ‘science’ and must be relegated to the space of the subjective…” (Up to here the Pope ).

Where do we want to go? Because we cannot reduce intellect, reason, science, to what is empirically demonstrable.

That is why the apparent conflict between science and faith, between faith and reason, should not be sought either in science or in faith, but in the dominant scientific and sociological paradigms in society, even more so, within each man in particular. , since society is nothing more than the sum of each of them as individuals.

It is in the concrete man where we must primarily look for the “conflict” (even on the existential level). Let us not forget that faith is something that involves not only reason, intelligence, but, together with it, requires the assent of the will not in the God “something” of the philosophers, but in the God “someone” of faith, the One in whom the man of faith trusts in a full, total and radical way. In this regard, a “phrase-prayer” from Saint Therese of Lisieux is recurrent: “Lord, I do not understand you at all, but I believe everything, because I trust in You.”

CRISIS OF IDEOLOGIES

This is why Stephen Hawking’s theses about the “imminent end of physics”, or Francis Fukuyama’s statements about the “end of history”, consolidate many in the conviction that we have reached a special phase of the development of humanity in which the fact that the old exaltation of progress, of science, of rationality, has been replaced by skepticism, a kind of disbelief regarding any absolute truth, all of this in full conformity with the relativism of the moment, as well as with the denial, typical of the Enlightenment, of faith in intelligence and in the privileged position of man in the world.

Pope Benedict XVI has specified in this regard that this is a dangerous situation for humanity, as we can see in the threatening pathologies of religion and reason, which necessarily arise when reason is reduced so much that the questions of Religion and Ethics no longer correspond to him. What remains of the attempts to construct Ethics based on the rules of evolution or psychology is simply insufficient.

Hence the need to be clear about what is true science and what is true faith; of people of science who know how to give reasons for their faith, and lead a life of commitment in their profession. And of people of faith, competent and lucid in the scientific work they do.

The challenge before us is in no way the empirical demonstration of God, but the discovery of the truth about man and human knowledge. Experimental science is an activity in which we establish a dialogue with nature; and this dialogue is only possible thanks to the peculiarities of the human being. Indeed, nature does not speak; It is manifested only through facts. But, for science to exist, it is necessary to “create” procedures that allow us to question nature and also allow us to obtain answers. This is what is obtained through the experimental method.

The hypotheses, theories and laws of science are constructions of the human mind. They are not the simple result of observations, nor are they obtained using purely automatic procedures. If not, why did we have to wait until the 18th century for Isaac Newton to define something as obviously obvious as gravity? Or did the apples begin to fall to the ground only after one of them accidentally fell on the head of the English genius?

Experimental science is possible thanks to the creativity and argumentative capacity of the human person. It is beyond all doubt that there is an objective natural order, independent of our consideration; But, if we want to progress in our knowledge, we must resort to constructions and arguments that are generated by human reason. And this, scientific creativity, is going to constitute precisely one of the main manifestations of the uniqueness of the human being in the face of the Universe that surrounds him.

The bridge between science and faith is based, therefore, on the rationality and intelligibility manifested in nature and on the intelligibility and intrinsic rationality of man. In this regard, a phrase from Victor Hugo is concurrent: “Man, do not fear, nature knows the great secret and smiles.”

PHYSICS OR META-PHYSICS?

The maturity achieved by the sciences today provides a worldview that greatly facilitates the overcoming of old misunderstandings that were based on an insufficient understanding of science, its assumptions and its achievements. And words, like song lyrics, allow for different music. The good listener perceives the appropriate register, while for the less expert any register is valid for any letter.

This is the reason why the nature that fascinates Galileo Galilei and Albert Einstein with the beauty of its mathematical description, appears to Stephen Hawking stripped of all types of beauty; For Jacques Monod it will be just a cosmic game of chance and necessity; while for Gottfried Leibniz or Alfred Whitehead it will be the field of the intriguing harmony of events.

These appreciations that exceed the physical: “beauty”, “beauty”, “chance”, “necessity”, “harmony”…, (some of them contradictory to each other), are valid in the mouths of the previous luminaries of science, always and when they are understood for what they are, metaphysical considerations that exceed their “field of study”: physics. This must be taken into account given the temptation of many to want to cover everything and outright exclude everything that does not fall within their scope of study.

In the same situation there are questions such as the cause that makes the Universe exist, its purpose, its fine legality, its contingency, its harmony… its rationality; These elements are not translatable into mathematical language, nor are they the result of what was observed in laboratory test tubes. Pope Benedict XVI in his conference in Regensburg pointed out that this attempt at self-criticism of modern reason does not at all imply the idea of having to go back in time to the era before the Enlightenment and discard the convictions of the modern age. The greatness of the development of the modern spirit is recognized without reservation. We are all grateful for the great possibilities that it has opened to men and for the progress in humanity that has been given to us. This is not about going back, nor about negative criticism, but rather about expanding our concept of reason and its usefulness. Since along with all joy for the new possibilities of man,

THE MAN

When today one hears lamentations about the elimination of man, about the subjugation of man by technology, about the fact that man is being reduced to just a kind of particle of that great machine that is society, one forgets a basic fact: this weakening of man and his position in Creation, this depreciation of the human condition, is the necessary consequence or the other side of the medal of the elimination of God from the world around us. Dehumanization is the price paid for the expulsion of God from society.

And this, that capacity to “contemplate”, that capacity to possess an abstract thought that allows us to transcend mere subsistence, the mediate, the material, the temporal, to go out in search of the timeless, the eternal,…the Absolute, It is only held by the human being, who is created in the image and likeness of the Creator, of the creative Reason, of the Eternal Logos who was in the Beginning, who was with God and who is God (Jn 1, 1); the Logos who in the being of Jesus becomes flesh and takes up his abode among men (Jn 1, 14); and that manifests itself in Creation and transcends it to be not only the First Cause and motor, but the ultimate Reason why the Universe is and is as it is; and man, the work of his hands, his most excellent work, the only creature capable of seeking and finding him from reason, and to serve and love him from the will, because, as Saint Augustine stated, we were created by him and our hearts will be restless until I rest in Him.

References:
– A design with a Designer?, Nelson O. Crespo Roque, Espacio Laical, No. 2, year 2, 2006.
– Benedict XVI, Meeting with the Youth of Rome and Lazio, L’Osservatore Romano, 4/14/2006.
– Benedict XVI, Meeting with representatives of science in the Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg, 9/12/2006.
– Science and faith: new perspectives, Mariano Artigas, Spanish version of: M. Artigas, “Science et foi. New perspectives”, in: Après Galilée. Science et foi: nouveau dialogue, sous la direction du cardinal Paul Paupard, Desclée de Brower, Paris 1994.
– Evangelization of the world of science, Nelson O. Crespo Roque, Espacio Laical, No. 3, 2006.
– Science and faith: Do they confront each other?, Hugo Jorge Muro Lemus, Aciprensa.
– The laws of nature and the immanence of God in the evolving universe, Mons. Józef Zycinski, Scripta Theologica, 1998.
-To Save You, Catholic Encyclopedia, P. Jorge Loring, sj, Edibesa, 2000.