According to Bishop Robert Barron, in an article published, May 22, 2022 [1], the major reason that many young people are disaffiliating from the churches is the supposed conflict between science and the faith.
. Fifty years ago, St. josemaria Escrivá commented: “Every now and then, monotonously sounding like a broken record, some people try to resurrect a supposed incompatibility between faith and science, between human knowledge and divine revelation. But such incompatibility could only arise—and then only apparently—from a misunderstanding of the elements of the problem.
If the world has come from God, if he has created man in his image and likeness (Ge 1:26) and given him a spark of divine light, the task of our intellect should be to uncover the divine meaning imbedded in all things by their nature, even if this can be attained by dint of hard work, and with the light of faith, we also can perceive their supernatural purpose, resulting from the elevation of the natural order to the higher order of grace. We can never be afraid of developing human knowledge, because all intellectual effort, if it is serious, is aimed at truth. And Christ has said, ‘I am the truth.’” (Jn 14: 6) [2]
Nevertheless, it is true that the dialogue between science and religion has sometimes been problematic, always challenging, and never easy to accomplish. Spanish priest, philosopher, physicist and theologian, Mariano Artigas (1938-2006), in his profound and original book, The Mind of the Universe: Understanding Science and Religion [3], recognizes that there is a methodological gap between science and theology, but what I find particularly convincing is the approach he takes to bridge this gap. For him, only philosophy can offer the needed bridge. [4] Even if science does not make assertions about ultimate questions, it provides what John Polkinghorne has called “boundary questions.” Hence, professor Artigas focuses his analysis on one kind of boundary question: the presuppositions and implications of scientific progress and the feedback of scientific progress on its presuppositions.
There are three kinds of presuppositions: 1) Ontological, there is evidence of a natural order, that is, intelligibility and rationality in nature. 2) Epistemological, the ability of human beings to know the natural order. 3) Ethical, which encompass the search for truth, intellectual modesty, cooperation, objectivity, service to humanity, etc. Artigas key argument is that there exists feedback from scientific progress on these presuppositions because the progress of science retro justifies, amplifies and refines them.
And what does scientific progress tell us about these presuppositions? From an ontological perspective, our current worldview informs us that there is order in nature and this manifests itself as natural dynamism, patterning, information, and self-organization, all of which is most coherent with the existence of God and a divine wisdom. From an epistemological perspective, the progress of science points to a human being who is part of nature but transcends it through his creativity, reasoning, and interpretation (all signs of spirituality) and certainly, this creature (co-creator) is most coherent with a God and a divine wisdom. Finally, from an ethical perspective, empirical science is at heart a human enterprise in which ethical values such as cooperation, objectivity, intellectual modesty, and above all, the search for truth and the service to humanity, play an essential role. Therefore, man, this spiritual and free being, the discoverer and creator of science, who is also capable of ultimate questions about himself and the world, is most coherent with the existence of a God, a divine wisdom, and a divine plan.
I have no doubt that professor Artigas has been successful, and persuasive in discovering in science, with the aid of philosophy, an objective and solid foundation for a true and fruitful dialogue between science and religion. After reading Artigas’ book one is bound to conclude that religion could never have an enemy in science, but it does in the pseudoscientific philosophy that goes by the name of “scientific materialism.” Also, the only way that religion could be opposed to science is when it oversteps its boundaries. [5]
Egberto Bermudez
[2] Christ Is Passing By. Princeton: Scepter, 1973.
[3] The Mind of the Universe: Understanding Science and Religion. Philadelphia: Templeton Press, 2000.
[4] Bishop Robert Barron in his keynote address at the Wonder Conference on the Harmony of Faith and Science (January 13th & 14th, 2023) also proposes three philosophical paths beyond scientism and as a bridge between science and religion. The three paths are: intelligibility, immateriality of the knowing mind and the inescapability of metaphysics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb14rsp12ec&t=6s
[5] Parts of this article were originally written as a review of professor Artigas book for Amazon in 2007 under the pseudonym Seeker of Truth.
