A Church That Defends Science

Google Image

For 10 years at a regional newspaper, I wrote about medicine and health, despite having a rather weak background in science. The newspaper’s editor-in-chief believed I would well represent the majority of readers on that score and better be able to explain scientific topics to the average reader.

I don’t know if I accomplished that, but I tried. I wrote my articles with my dad in mind, an avid reader of the newspaper. He was a smart guy but had only a 10th grade education.

The job was a tremendous educational experience, so much so that I often thought – but never mentioned it to my bosses, of course – that I should be paying the newspaper instead of the other way around.

Everyday Exposure

During that time, I took some college courses on scientific subjects, but it was the everyday exposure to science and scientists that was most valuable. I wrote about medical breakthroughs; watched innovative surgeries; covered statewide, and sometimes nationwide, controversies about science and scientists; and lots about the economics of medicine and health, particularly how it’s paid for.

I'm certainly no authority on science, but I developed an appreciation for the “scientific method” and for the importance of evidence and rational thought, both of which I believe are under attack today, particularly in the U.S.

So, I was interested to see an article in a recent issue of the National Catholic Reporter by Jesuit priest and columnist, Thomas Reese. He wrote about a statement by the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences which defends the freedom of science.

Galileo
Google Image
“Around the world,” says the Vatican statement, “we are witnessing an alarming rise in attempts to discredit, politicize or suppress scientific knowledge. These developments not only endanger the integrity of science but also imperil the well-being of societies that depend on science to address their most pressing challenges, including poverty, pandemics, health care, climate change, and use of artificial intelligence.”

Many will be surprised by such a statement from the church that condemned Galileo Galilei, the famous 17th century Italian astronomer and physicist, because of his support for the idea that the Earth and other planets revolve around the Sun. That idea contradicted the long-held view endorsed by the Church, which placed the Earth at the center of the universe. 

Galileo has since been a symbol of the perceived contradiction between religion and science. But that was nearly 400 years ago, and today the Church is a staunch supporter of science.

“Still,” writes Reese, “the myth that good Christians must be anti-science gets repeated.” And I would add that the reverse is also true: the myth that a good scientist can’t be religious.

Fact is, the Church has been a supporter of scientific pursuits for well over a century. The Vatican Observatory was founded in 1891 by Pope Leo XIII. Religious people, including Catholic priests, have been responsible for many scientific discoveries and inventions. The church has long advanced the cause of textual criticism in the study of the Bible, using anthropology, study of ancient languages and culture, and archeology to better understand biblical texts.

Full-throated Defense

“…This new statement of concern from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,” writes Reese, called Protecting Freedom of Science and Preventing Distortion of Scientific Truth, is a full-throated defense of science, which it believes is ‘fundamental to the development of humankind’ and needs to be protected ‘from ideological or political interference.

“Science is sometimes portrayed as elitist or biased,” the Vatican statement says, “despite its self-correcting nature, that is, science moving forward often corrects established wisdom and always must be open to new insights.”

People searching for God must know that science and religion are both of God. Both are ways of knowing the world as it is.  

 

 

 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Gospel of The Little Prince

Image
  Attention all those concerned only with “matters of great consequence:” Is it possible that you’ve become someone you didn’t want to be, having strayed far from the innocence and simplicity of childhood? That’s the main question asked in The Little Prince, which Netflix, the streaming video service, has added to its repertoire of movies and TV shows. Though not a big fan of animated flicks, I was a big fan of the book, The Little Prince, back in the 1970s when it became extremely popular in the U.S. It was first published in French and English in New York in 1943 as a novella by French aristocrat, writer, poet, and pioneering aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupery , who disappeared while piloting a Free French Army plane the following year over the Mediterranean Sea. Nearly Two Million Copies “The novella is the fourth most-translated book in the world and was voted the best book of the 20th century in France,” says Wikipedia. “Translated into more than 250 language...
Read more

‘Spiritual but Not Religious,’ Revisited

Image
Google Image I’ve expressed several times in these blogs my skepticism about declarations by some of our contemporaries that they are “spiritual but not religious.” Much of the skepticism results from the false dichotomy this entails, as if the spiritual and religious are mutually exclusive. Spirituality, after all, is the whole point of being religious. With the exception of some forms of Buddhism, all the major religions aim to bring people closer to God, who is “spiritual.” St. Paul, among the earliest leaders of Christianity, wrote that he is imparting a teaching “not taught by human wisdom but taught by the spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.” But Daniel Horan, Franciscan priest, theologian and author, wrote in a recent edition of the National Catholic Reporter: “What if our starting point in thinking about what it means to be a person in communion with God, oneself and the world was not reduced to external expressions of institutional belo...
Read more

Relevancy and the Cult of Self

Image
Google Image I often criticize religion in these blogs for its lack of relevance. I believe many people agree, asking themselves “Why do I need it? I’m comfortable living my life as is. Religion has nothing to do with my life.” The trick for religion is making itself relevant without giving up its fundamental principles; otherwise, it has nothing to say to modern society. One way of doing this, in the case of Christianity, is by continual review of its fundamental principles – making sure they are in line with what Jesus taught - and speaking about them in a clear, “non-churchy” way. I realize, of course, that “relevance” is personal and subjective. For some people, it means isolating their thoughts and judgments from objective criteria. But many decide what is relevant mostly from what society currently approves and promotes. For them, being current is definitive in deciding what matters and what’s right and wrong. Their principal argument against religion is that it’s “old ...
Read more