On the Theology of Science

My education has been almost purely technical since I began as an undergrad in Physics. Studying a Science, Engineering, or the like is quite intensive, and thus leaves little (if any) room for studying non-technical subjects. Even a tech school has general education requirements; I had 21 credits of humanities and social sciences, but there were not too many choices, and thus I took courses like "The Philosophy of Physics" and "Sociology of the Sciences". These brief introductory statements are meant to be an apology to all of the non-technical types who have a much better education in the field than I.

I read a book last year called "The new physics and a new theology" by Fr. Michael Heller, a priest and physicist who works at the Vatican Observatory. In it, he lays out a brief history of science and scientific thought, especially from the view of natural philosophy, and the history of relations between theologians and scientists up to today. In it he makes many good and interesting points, of which I will not discuss here. He ultimately proposes that a new branch of Theology be developed, which he terms the Theology of Science, to complement scientific inquiry and the philosophy of science.

I have had some time to reflect on such things recently, and, as such, will attempt to expound on this idea. Science asks the question: what is the universe like, and what rational laws with predictive power can we develop to help explain and understand what we observe in the universe? The philosophy of science, however, addresses a different area of thought, asking what methods are valid for scientific inquiry, how can we evaluate scientific claims, and what sort of Truths can we derive from these claims, that is scientific epistemology.

Theology asks further questions, and the theology of science would ask questions like: why does the universe seem to obey rational, mathematically elegant laws? What makes the form of Creation we have observed "good"? What does Creation, and the (scientific) knowledge we gain from observing it, tell us about the Creator? Save the last question I mentioned, the others are still a bit specific rather than general, and fail to capture or define the full scope of the field, but they at least form a starting point to attempt to interact with it.

Attempts to do this have, for the most part, fallen short of actually establishing a field, and I think I agree with Fr. Heller that attempting to stick these ideas into existing theological structures could be doomed to fail, or at the very least will likely prove inadequate in the long run. The problem, he says, is partly language: scientists and theologians surely do not speak the same language. This is made somewhat clear when considering attempts at discussing a theology of creation have been made. As a scientist reading Cardinal Schonborn's book Chance or Purpose? and other things he has written, he misunderstands some scientific statements, and perhaps more fundamentally, he seems to mis-represent (unintentionally, of course) the way that scientists actually think about science. This, says Fr. Heller, is attributable to the middle ages and the age of Aquinas. At the time, Aristotle was all the rage, especially among a certain class of the elites: enough so that some bishops evened banned the reading and teaching of Aristotle. Although the nascent "scientists" of the day were indeed attracted to this philosophy, it did not take too long for them to realize that to make real scientific inquiry would require Platonic (or indeed Archimedean) thought. In the mean time, however Thomas Aquinas "baptized" Aristotle and Theologians have been hooked since, thinking they were now on the same page as the scientists. In fact, Fr. Heller even postulates that your average Thomist today would still think his theological approach was "scientific" and similar to a scientist's approach to his craft.

Now, I don't pretend here to have actually defined the field of Theology of Science, but merely start to reflect on what it might contain, and of what use it might be. I, for one, am most interested in the last of the questions I have posed, namely, what we can learn about the creator by studying His creation. This will be left for another day.

The Design Argument

Today, I attended a lecture sponsored by the Center for Ethics and Culture by Stephen M. Barr, entitled The Argument from Design for the Existence of God and the Laws of Physics. He also wrote the book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith and writes occasionally for the Journal First Things. I was turned on to his writing by my Pastor (who also attended the lecture) and have started reading his book.

He started his talk by contrasting his views with the intelligent design view. He had recently wrote an article on the First Things internet site critiquing the Intelligent Design position. The idea is that intelligent design and atheism both see God and science an in competition. Intelligent Design relies on arguments from biology, whereas the Bible and early Christian writers (of which he quoted maybe 6) focused on astronomy and natural order, rather than on biological arguments. The idea is that order in the universe implies a lawgiver. Also, he pointed out that monotheism really ends in an expectation of a natural order, and that Judeo-Christian views have been positive to a scientific explanation of the world.

He then went on to define the three different types of design argument for the existence of God. The three were Cosmic, Biological, and Providential. The Cosmic argument relies on the beauty, order, and structure of the universe to argue for a creator. The Biological relies on bio-complexity. The providential is a midpoint between them. It sees order in the world as moving toward the "good" of creation. It sees and argues from a purpose in the universe and relies heavily on the anthropic principle. Both the cosmic and the biological can be weakened by arguments from atheists relying on simple Darwinism.

The rest of the talk focused on the "Cosmic" argument for the existence of God. Essentially the cosmic view sees the mathematical beauty of the physical world to point toward a creator. The theist would say that seeing an arrangement implies an arranger, aka God. The Law, that is the physical law, does not explain the necessity of the Law. It just is. Consider walking into a room, and seeing a room with a neat arrangement of chairs. Would you assume the arrangement occurred spontaneously or was deigned by some intelligence? The chairs follow a "law" but that is not a necessary law (they could have followed some other law/had some other arrangement). Some laws, however, are necessary; the fundamental laws of mathematics (1+1=2) and logic (a statement cannot be both true and false) are both examples.

The postulate was put forward that order cannot emerge if order is not already extant. If a bunch of hard spheres (marbles, for instance) are put in a box, they will settle into a hexagonal close packing arrangement. This arrangement has less symmetry than an individual sphere. Thus, order at higher levels, which we observe (think, crystals) emerge from even stronger order at deeper levels. All of this comes down from the symmetries we observe in nature, which drive the development of modern fundamental physical laws.

He concluded by critiquing Richard Dawkins. The argument of Dawkins and his ilk is that order builds up from disorder, a bottom up approach. This, Prof. Barr claims, is an illusion (rather than a delusion) which comes from a superficial understanding of science. A simplistic understanding of Science, as a zoologist might have, might think that this is the way the world works. Physics claims that lower order, which we observe, stems from a higher symmetry principle, which may or may not be part of our direct experience.

I was impressed. I have enjoyed the things I have read by Prof. Barr, and this talk beat expectations. I don't need a Cosmic design argument for the existence of God; I am a believer. Even ontological arguments, like that of Anselm, I don't need, but it is at least an idea which can be used to defend the reasonableness of the Theistic position. I look forward to finishing his book.

ADDENDUM:
The above was taken mostly from my notes, but I have been reflecting on this and have a couple more thoughts to add. Professor Barr is a Physicist, this is important to remember. With this in mind, think about what a tough job he has. As a believer, he might be in the minority in his field. At the very least, the most vocal physicists in the question of Faith are the nonbelievers. Then, when he gives talks like this, as the Q&A session bore out, he will be attacked, or at least challenged/questioned on his philosophical and/or theological grounds. He's not a philosopher, nor is he a theologian, so to respond to those points will often be unfulfilling to those groups. He's not alone, but he is almost alone.

Benedict on Science

Again, from Benexict XVI's address to the Bishops, we have another gem.

It is easy to be entranced by the almost unlimited possibilities that science and technology place before us; it is easy to make the mistake of thinking we can obtain by our own efforts the fulfillment of our deepest needs. This is an illusion. Without God, who alone bestows upon us what we by ourselves cannot attain (cf. Spe Salvi, 31), our lives are ultimately empty.

And, this is the ultimate problem today. Science and medicine seem like they can, or soon will be able to, do anything. We control our environment to the point where doubting in the existence or necessity of God is almost a foregone conclusion.

Scientests say Pope is Anti-Science

A group of scientists at an Italian University is raising a fuss over an upcoming visit from the Pope. They say that the Pope is anti-reason and anti-science, and should not be honored in an academic setting. (Full Article)

To bolster their position, the 67 protestors cite a 1990 speech in which then-Cardinal Ratzinger defended the Church's disciplinary action against Galileo in 1633. In that talk, the future Pope cited the verdict of the agnostic scholar Paul Feyerabend, who said: "The Church in the age of Galileo clung to reason more than Galileo himself did." He found that the heresy verdict against Galileo was, by the standards of the times, "rational and just."

Although he did not endorse Feyerabend's conclusion-- Pope John Paul II (bio - news) had already acknowledged that the Church erred in condemning Galileo-- Cardinal Ratzinger did stress that the Church was not hostile to science, and in fact Galileo continued his investigations, with support from the hierarchy, even after his trial.

It's Regensburg all over again. At least these scientists won't be blowing up Churches or burning the Pope in effigy. Why is it that they, who insist on "reason" being so important, can't even use a quotation properly? The author of the article gets it right:

The protests against the Pope's visit to La Sapienza have echoed that hostility toward religious faith, claiming that the Church today still suppresses scientific progress. Ironically, to protest that alleged restraint on free inquiry, the group asks university officials to prevent a speech by the Roman Pontiff. Vatican Radio, describing the protests as unworthy of academic life, questioned whether the professors were displaying the "tolerance" that they proclaimed.

This just emphasizes the fact that these scientists, like the militant atheists and the anti-Catholic fundamentalists, don't care to be reasoned, but prefer to just spout their opinions. I compare it to how the Catholic Church can be portrayed as "homophobic" for opposing the disordered lifestyles of that crowd of people, whereas these scientists (or anyone really) are "reasoned" or "enlightened" by opposing the Church, and what it teaches. The university will have an interesting response to the visit.

The dean of the university has said that he will not cancel the Pope's visit. But protests at the school are planned throughout the week, with critics posting anti-clerical slogans around the campus and organizing a "homo-cession"-- a parade of homosexuals and lesbians-- to protest Church teachings.

Of course, the good old "homo-cession". This makes the clearest statement about what this opposition to the visit is really about. It has nothing to do with the Pope's or the Church's supposed opposition to scientific progress. This is about the Church teaching what it has always taught. People still don't like the Church, Jesus promised that it would be that way.

Still, if the Pope told these scientists that they needed to stop doing this or another research, would they? I doubt it. This means he isn't a threat to them. And, there really is no denying that he is perhaps the foremost theologian in Europe right now, which makes him an academic. I'm not sure what the Pope will be talking about there, but it may well touch on the moral obligations of science, which these scientists need to hear.

Chimeras in real life

I first was aware of the term "Chimera" from some Anime that my roommate used to watch. The idea of an animal-human hybrid lives in the realm of fiction, and seems to have no place in reality.

Enter England. The English parliament has been considering removing a ban on creating such a being, but requiring that such an embryo must be destroyed within a couple weeks. Needless to say, many people worldwide are very much opposed to such legislation, the Church in particular.

Then, I read today that the position of the English Bishops is that if such a hybrid is produced, it should be given the rights of a human, and should be even allowed to be carried to term.

Human embryos injected with animal cells, or chimeras, should be accorded human status under proposals to be considered by the British Parliament in the fall, said the Catholic bishops of England and Wales.

They also said politicians should reconsider a proposed ban on the implantation of chimeras into women.

"In particular, it should not be a crime to transfer them, or other human embryos, to the body of the woman providing the ovum, in cases where a human ovum has been used to create them," the bishops said.

"Such a woman is the genetic mother, or partial mother, of the embryo; should she have a change of heart and wish to carry her child to term, she should not be prevented from doing so," they added.

In their submission, the bishops said that most of the procedures covered by the bill "should not be licensed under any circumstances," principally on the grounds that they violate human rights.

However, they said, "at very least, embryos with a preponderance of human genes should be assumed to be embryonic human beings and should be treated accordingly," they said.

Wow. I have no idea why anyone would even want to do such a thing, but I applaud the Church for taking the safe position. I haven't been reading news like I should, but I wonder if there has been something come out about cloning. I see cloning as little different than identical twinning, though wrong to do, it doesn't make the clone any less human. I heard a protestant apologist once say that he believes a clone would not have a soul. I would think the clone would have a soul, and therefore is fully human. A chimera would be at least part human, but I would think that it would not be truly human, maybe to the point of not gaining an eternal soul. But, we don't know, and really can't know, so must treat such a being as human, with all the dignity deserved.

I just hope we never have to find out.
-JG

Animal Human Hybrid in England

The British government has recently announced that they are lifting their ban on creating an Animal-Human hybrid, which has alarmed many. (Article)

"The creation of a hybrid animal-human embryo has been banned by everyone in the biotechnology field, until now -- and not just by religious groups," Bishop Sgreccia said. "This is because human dignity is compromised and offended and monstrosities will be created from these inseminations.

"It is true that these embryos are suppressed and the cells taken out, but the creation of an animal-human being represents a natural border that has been violated, the most grave of violations."

In an interview with Vatican Radio, he called for a complete moral condemnation of the practice, "in the name of reason and in the name of justice and science, which must be maintained for the well being of the person and respect for human nature."

He goes on to discuss why there is really no need for this. I can't imagine why we'd want to do this. Those who have no concerns of morality are willing to destroy human embryos, and people who do care about morals have adult stem cells to work with. What is the point here anyways?

-JG

STOQing up

The Science, Theology and the Ontological Quest (STOQ) recently has announced they will be publishing their first four volumes on the integrations of science and theology, Zenit reports.

"These publications overcome one of the most common and deeply rooted stereotypes about the Church in today's mentality, which says the Church has a lack of interest in science, and is even averse to science," the cardinal said.

Two of the volumes each had a single author: "Some Mathematical Physics for Philosophers," by Michael Heller, which offers a panoramic view of the mathematical methods used in physics; and "Life and Organisms," by Pietro Ramellini, a collection of historical-critical definitions of living organisms recorded in the last two centuries, since biology became a science.

I totally want to read these books, especially the physics one. This has long been an interest of mine. I bet these won't be available on the internet any time soon, though. No matter, I'm sure a library will have them, or something.

-JG

Global Warming

This article came out a bit over a week ago, but I've been meaning to talk about it. It is a bit off topic, but still valuable.

Scientists might not have human behavior to blame for global warming, according to the president of the World Federation of Scientists.

Antonio Zichichi, who is also a retired professor of advanced physics at the University of Bologna, made this assertion today in an address delivered to an international congress sponsored by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

The conference, which ends today, is examining "Climate Change and Development."

Zichichi pointed out that human activity has less than a 10% impact on the environment.

He also cited that models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view. The U.N. commission was founded in 1988 to evaluate the risk of climate change brought on by humans.

Zichichi, who is also member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, showed that the mathematical models used by the IPCC do not correspond to the criteria of the scientific method.

He said that the IPCC used "the method of 'forcing' to arrive at their conclusions that human activity produces meteorological variations."

This is something I've been saying for a long time. This doesn't mean that we can now burn fuels and pollute to our heart's content, we are still the stewards of God's creation, but we don't necessarily need to worship at the altar of this polliticized aspect of global warming and human behavior.

Faith and Science Not Incompatible

A new book compiled from discussions between the Pope and some of his former students has recently been published. This group has apparently met every year since 1978 to discuss matters of faith and science. (Article)

What was important, he said, was "the interplay of different dimensions of reason, an interplay which opens up into the road to faith."

The pope argued that Christianity was a religion of reason, but a reason that was wider than the limited scope of modern science.

For the pope, science reaches its limits when its assumptions can no longer be tested.
...
However, Pope Benedict said, God cannot be used simply to explain away the problems.

"It's not as if I wanted to stuff dear God into these gaps," he said. "He's too big to fit into such gaps."

Pope Benedict also took a firm stand against science books' tendency to suggest that things came about by nature and evolution.

"The question has to be asked: What is nature or evolution as (an active) subject? It doesn't exist! If one says that nature does this or that, this can only be an attempt to summarize a series of events under one actor which, as such, doesn't exist," the pope said.

Nature and evolution are made up of many individual steps, and the guiding hand -- the active subject -- is God, he said.

I wish leaders of other Christian faiths could just see this.

-JG

Science is not the only way to Know

Cardinal Daly has lots of good things to say about the relationship between Faith and Science in a recent article about his upcoming book.

The extraordinary successes of science carry with them the danger of thinking that only scientific knowledge is verifiable, said Cardinal Cahal Daly.
...
"We live, thank God, in an age of science," the 89-year-old prelate said. But "outside of science, it is claimed, there is only irrational belief, including religion and various other kinds of superstition. One can justly use the term 'scientism' to describe this view.
...
Cardinal Daly explained, "French and German philosophers have been to the fore in questioning this view. Merleau-Ponty said that the philosophical mission of the 20th century is to 'explain the irrational' and to 'integrate it into an enlarged reason.'

"I reject the term 'irrational' and I suggest the term 'meta rational' as a more fitting term for what Merleau-Ponty was exploring."

The cardinal argued, "Philosophical traditions, different ways of doing philosophy, obviously have some merit, but they carry the risk of becoming self-serving. They can become closed to other ways of doing philosophy, other insights and other influences."

Concerned about the direction philosophy has taken, Cardinal Daly said: "There is great need for dialogue between the various national or linguistic traditions in philosophy.

"The Thomistic tradition, free of what Wittgenstein might call the cultural 'cramps' of modern philosophies, is now proving to be a valuable participant in contemporary philosophical dialogue."

There is but one Truth, and neither Science nor Philosophy alone can reach that Truth. Termed "Scientism" here, the idea that Science gives one all the Truth one seeks is perhaps the most irrational of all positions to hold. An honest, thoughtful scientist cannot hold the position that Science can discredit religion, and a knowledgable Catholic cannot hold the position that religion can oppose right scientific thought.

-JG