The Freedom of Science Part 7

Or, do they seek to save themselves by a.s.serting that a divine revelation and the founding of an infallible Church are _impossible_? Very well, then, let them prove it. On this the question hinges. If they can prove it to us, that very moment we shall cease to be faithful Catholics, and Christianity will have been the most stupendous lie in history. But if the reverse is the case, then all declamations in the name of free research fall to the ground.

This impossibility, however, could only be proved by the aid of a presumption. This presumption is _atheism_, which denies the existence of a personal G.o.d, or at least doubts it. If it is admitted that there is a personal G.o.d, then it is self-evident that He can give a revelation, and found an infallible Church, and can oblige all to believe. But herewith collapses also the liberal principle that, in reasoning, one may reject an external authority. Hence the principle of liberal freedom in science can only then be taken seriously, when one advances to atheism. Then, of course, they will say with _Nietzsche_: G.o.d is dead; long live the transcendental man!

Our a.s.sertions are proved by experience. At the end of the eighteenth century the enlightenment began by excluding all revelation; but it was desired to retain the rational truth of G.o.d's existence. Since then, liberal science has been aiming at atheism in philosophy, whether open or masked. And if we follow up the career of men who have left their faith, we shall soon find that if they do not seek peace in the sheltering harbour of thoughtlessness, they have reached the terminal station of atheism. There is no stopping on this incline.

Since it is the express fundamental principle of the liberal freedom of research, that science is not bound to any external authority, it is evident that it is nothing else but the refusal to submit to G.o.d's authority, hence, also, to submit to truth if it appears as revelation.

For, either it is admitted that if there is a divine revelation, we have to give it our a.s.sent-and in this event liberal freedom of science would have to be abandoned,-or this liberal freedom is adopted in real earnest-then it must be admitted that it is tantamount to _radical apostasy and defection from the truth_. If a man wishes to be a faithful Christian and at the same time to uphold the liberal freedom of science, then he has never made clear to himself what he wishes.

_Ecce ancilla Domini._ Thus spoke the Mother of the Lord, when she heard the message that she was to receive the Word of the eternal Father in her bosom. This word of humility and submission was the condition under which she could receive in herself the eternal Wisdom of the Father.

Behold, the Handmaid of the Lord! This word of humility and submission to G.o.d must also be spoken by the creature's intelligence, if it desires by faith to share in G.o.d's truth. Without humility of mind a faithful attachment to G.o.d is impossible; pride and arrogance lead to desertion of G.o.d, faith, and truth. _Multum errant, quoniam superbi sunt_, says _Augustine_ of the erring companions of his youth. Only if there is humility does G.o.d's wisdom cross the threshold of the creature's mind, only if there is humility can it be said of man: _Et verb.u.m caro factum est et habitat in n.o.bis, plenum gratiae et veritatis_.

Chapter II. The Authority Of Faith And The Free Exercise Of Research.

Preliminary Remarks.

We must not stop at what we have just said in general about the relation between the freedom of research and the obligation to believe. We must go further into detail, in order to give a more exact explanation of how and where the authority of faith clashes with research and restrains it. Is it true that the believing scientist cannot move freely in his research, that there are barriers on all sides which he may not overstep? Is it true that the Church may prescribe for the Catholic scientist what he is allowed to defend and approve, what he ought to refute and reprove, suppress or advocate, so that his eyes must ever be turned towards Rome, to inquire and ascertain what might there be approved? And what a chain of proscriptions of free thinking is attached to the name of Rome! Index, Syllabus, _Galileo_-link after link is added to this chain of miserable slavery!

We shall say something more about this chain later on. First we must consider the princ.i.p.al question: Where and how do faith and science come in contact? And what we are going to say we shall condense into four points. Thus freedom of science will be more precisely defined; it will be shown what freedom revelation, and especially the guardian of revelation, the Church, offers to science: there can be no doubt that its natural freedom of exercise must be left to science intact.

We shall deal in the first place with the _profane sciences_, and, at least for the present, leave aside the discussion of theology, since it is clear that theology, being the science of faith, must a.s.sume a peculiar position in regard to the authority of faith: theology, moreover, is a special mark for attack; accordingly we shall deal with it particularly later on. However, the principles to be cited, being of a general nature, refer also to the science of faith, and for this reason we shall have occasion to refer to them.

1. Authority of Faith and Private Authority.

We often meet with the most inconceivable notions. We are told quite seriously that the Church teaches, and that the Catholic has therefore to believe, that the earth is a flat disc surrounded by the sea, as the ancients believed; above it is a vault, below it h.e.l.l-fire; that the earth stands still and the sun and stars revolve about it, just as _Ptolemy_ of Egypt taught; that G.o.d created the whole world just as it is now in exactly six days of twenty-four hours each; that He made the sun and moon, just as they are now illuminating the skies; that the strata, just as they now look when bared by the geologist's hammer, even the coal-fields and petrified saurians and fossils-all were made, just as they now are, well nigh six thousand years ago. The Scriptures teach this, the Fathers of old and the theologians believe this: and that is where the Catholic must get his science. And then they are astonished, and consider dogma retreating before science, when they see other notions prevailing, when they see Catholic scientists defend without prejudice the evolution of the solar system, and even the system of the whole universe, from some primitive matter, or a.s.sume an organic evolution, as far as science supports it (cf.

_Braun_, Ueber Kosmologie u. Standpunkt christlich. Wiss., 2d ed., 1906, etc.). They would be still more astonished perhaps to learn that similar ideas had long ago been proposed by _St. Augustine_ and _St. Thomas_ (cf.

Summa c. G. l. 3, c. 77; _Knabenbauer_, in Stimmen a. M. Laach xiii, 75 _seq._).

A distinction must be made between the teaching of the Church and the private views of individuals, schools, or periods. Only the teaching of the Church is the obligatory standard of Christian and Catholic thought, not the opinion of individuals. Hence not everything that Catholic savants have held to be true belongs to the teaching of the Church. Only when theologians unanimously declare something to be contained in the deposit of revealed truth, or the teaching of the Church,-only then is their teaching authoritative; not because it is the teaching of theologians, but because it is contained in revelation or the teaching of the Church. Else the maxim holds good: _Tantum valet auctoritas, quantum argumenta_. Nor is all that which a former age found in Holy Scripture, therefore to be believed as revealed truth, to the exclusion of all other interpretations.

The foregoing may be elucidated by the examples given above. When Holy Writ describes in figurative language and Oriental, demonstrative style, how G.o.d created the heaven and earth, the sun and moon, the sea and its contents, it means to teach us religious truths: that G.o.d is the First Cause of everything, and hence that the sun and moon, for instance, are not uncreated deities, as the Egyptian believed them to be. The narrative need not be taken in a literal sense, as if G.o.d immediately formed everything in the exact condition as it now appears to us; it may be interpreted in the sense that G.o.d let the present condition of things gradually grow out of the forces and materials and plan of nature He created, the result of a lengthy evolution. When our Lord tells us in the gospel that His Father in heaven feeds the birds of the air and clothes the gra.s.s of the field, we know that this is to be understood as a mediate action of G.o.d, which He exercises through the instinct of animals and through natural forces which He created for the purpose. Now when former ages, reading the narrative of Genesis, generally understood an immediate creation of the world, because the knowledge of nature at the time did not admit of any other interpretation, it is by no means necessary to conclude from it that every other interpretation must be rejected as against the Bible, or that the Church herself has prescribed this literal interpretation as the only correct one. As is known, _St. Augustine_, the greatest Father of the Church, had another very liberal explanation of the Genesis narrative, and the Church has never censured him. (He taught that the whole world had been created at one time, and that the six days of the Mosaic narrative were the logical divisions of an account of the various orders of creatures.) And now the interpretations vary greatly. The pa.s.sages in Scripture, in which, according to popular modes of expression, the sun is said to rise and set and revolve about the earth, the latter standing in the centre of the world-these, too, were interpreted literally in the days of the Fathers: there was no cause for interpreting them otherwise; but it was only due to defective knowledge of nature at the time. These temporary errors remained till corrected by research in the field of the natural sciences: had the discoveries been made sooner, the errors, too, would have disappeared sooner.

The Church knows, and the holy Fathers knew, that it is not the purpose of Holy Writ to teach profane sciences, but to instruct in faith and morals; if it speaks of other matters, it is but occasionally, and then in the idiom of common life, which is not the same as the scientific language of the specialist. Indeed, the Bible does not intend to give scientific instruction in such matters, nor could it have done so at a time when men were not ripe for such enlightenment.

Thus _St. Augustine_ insists that the Spirit of G.o.d who spoke through the authors of Scripture did not intend to instruct men in matters which do not serve for salvation, and hence he objects to the Scriptures being taken literally in regard to such matters, because the Bible adapts itself to man's manner of speech: a distinction is to be made between letter and sense ("Multi multum disputant de iis rebus, quae majore prudentia nostri auctores omiserunt, ad beatam vitam non profuturas discentibus ... Breviter dicendum est, ... Spiritum Dei, qui per ipsos loquebatur, noluisse ita docere homines nulli saluti profuturas," De Gen. ad lit., II, 9, n. 20. Cf. De Gen. contra Manich. 1, 5, n. 3; 11, n. 17). He further cautions Bible students against putting their own interpretation upon obscure pa.s.sages and then claiming it to be dogma, because one may easily go astray and thus make the Scriptures appear ridiculous. "In rebus obscuris atque a nostris oculis remotissimis, si qua inde scripta etiam divina legerimus, quae possint salva fide, qua imbuimur, alias atque alias parere sententias, in nullam earum nos praecipiti affirmatione proiciamus, ut si forte, diligentius discussa veritas eam recte labefactaverit, corruamus, non pro sententia divinarum scripturarum sed pro nosctra ita dimicantes, ut eam velimus scripturarum esse, quae nostra est" (De genesi ad lit. I, 18 n.

37). "Plerumque accidit, ut aliquid de terra, de coelo, de ceteris mundi huius elementis ... etiam non christia.n.u.s ita noverit, ut certissima ratione et experientia teneat. Turpe est autem nimis et perniciosum ac maxime cavendum, ut christia.n.u.s de his rebus quasi secundum christianas literas loquentem ita delirare quilibet infidelis audiat, ut, quemadmodum dicitur, toto coelo errare conspiciens, risum tenere vix possit" (Ibid. I, 19 n. 39). Cf.

also I, 21. _St. Thomas of Aquin_ also expresses himself in this sense: "Multum autem nocet, talia, quae ad pietatis doctrinam non spectant, vel a.s.serere vel negare, quasi pertinentia ad sacram doctrinam ... Unde mihi videtur tutius esse, ut haec, quae philosophi communius senserunt et nostrae fidei non repugnant, neque sic esse a.s.serenda ut dogmata fidei, licet aliquando sub nomine philosophorum introducantur, neque sic esse neganda tamquam fidei contraria, ne sapientibus huius mundi contemnendi doctrinam fidei occasio praebeatur" (Opusc. X. ad Jo. Vercel. Proem.).

The doctrine of the _Church_ concurs with this, as laid down in numerous doc.u.ments, many of them quoting the above-mentioned words of _St. Augustine_. It also insists that the interpretation of the Fathers be only taken as a standard of the Church's explanation of the meaning of Scripture when they are unanimous on the meaning of a pa.s.sage relating to faith and morals; but not to other things (cf. Encycl. Providentissimus, Denz. 10 ed., n. 1947, 1944; Conc.

Trid., sess. IV., Conc. Vat. sess. III., c. 2, Denz. nn. 786, 1788).

Now if one simply opens Holy Scripture, takes up some pa.s.sage at random, explains it in its most literal sense, and then insists that this is the evident meaning, and goes on to a.s.sert with the same insistence that this is the interpretation of the Church, and a part of the faith of Catholics in regard to the natural sciences, then of course it is very easy to make out contradictions between faith and science: but such efforts cannot claim to be scientific. It is not necessary to know theology and the principles of Catholic exegesis; but it is not proper that those who are ignorant of these matters pa.s.s judgment on them, not even in the name of objective research.

Hence we may easily see what we should think of a writer who a.s.serts that the examination of the Christian-Catholic idea of the world leads to the following results: "The Books of Moses, inspired by divine revelation, are the golden key to the understanding of the whole history of creation. Other Scriptural pa.s.sages of the Old and New Testaments, the writings of the Fathers, etc., are to be considered as supplementary to these.

According to these authorities the earth is a flat disc, surrounded by the sea. Above it arches the firmament of heaven, with its great lights for day and night. Below it are purgatory and h.e.l.l. All this is not the gradual outgrowth of lengthy evolution, but was created by G.o.d out of nothing in a few days, about six thousand years ago, of which four thousand are reckoned before Christ and two thousand after Christ. Although modern science has long since established that the Biblical narrative is of no worth, nothing but an imperfect reproduction of older myths, the Catholic Church continues to teach it literally to this very day, spreading it broadcast by thousands and thousands of catechisms, and insisting on it being learned as a part of religious instruction in all schools, and to be accepted as the revealed truth" (_L. Wahrmund_, Katholische Weltanschauung und freie Wissenschaft, 1908, p. 14. The scientific value of this work has been considered by _L. Fonck_, Katholische Weltansch).

"Clericalism," we are told, "stands on a rigidly fixed view of the world, corresponding in part to the childhood of mankind, to the dawning of civilization.... Philosophy, built upon the results of progress, since it is unceasingly forcing its way ahead, cannot remain in accord with the notions belonging to a remote past, partly to Babylonian and Egyptian civilization, partly to the thought of nomadic times." It is then pointed out how this view of the world on which clericalism, that is, the Catholic Church, is based, has already been overthrown in many instances. "The geocentric position, the doctrine of our earth being the centre and man the ultimate aim of the universe, must needs be abandoned by the world of scientists, in view of the new system of Copernicus; the doctrine also of the earth being a disc must be abandoned in consequence of the voyage of Columbus, and subsequent discoveries, which make it certain that the earth is a globe"

(Prof. _K. Menger_, Die Eroberung der Universitaeten. Neue Freie Presse, Nov. 24, 1907). It is surprising what little knowledge suffices to warrant writing about theological matters in the name of "objective research."

These pa.s.sages, in regard to their scientific contents and manner, recall vividly an American work that appeared some time ago, and reached many editions. It is ent.i.tled, "A History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science," by _J. W. Draper_. The book was answered by a competent authority, _De Smedt_, S. J., "L'Eglise et la Science," 1877.

It seems _Draper's_ arguments have since become a pattern for many. He, too, maintains that Holy Writ has always been declared by the Church and the Fathers to be a source of profane science.

This, he states, is true especially of _St. Augustine_. We read: "The book of Genesis ... also in a philosophical point of view became the grand authority of Patristic science. Astronomy, geology, geography, anthropology, chronology, and indeed all the various departments of human knowledge, were made to conform to it.... The doctrines of _St. Augustine_ have had the effect of thus placing theology in antagonism with science...." "No one did more than this Father to bring science and religion into antagonism; it was mainly he who diverted the Bible from its true office-a guide to purity of life-and placed it in the perilous position of being the arbiter of human knowledge...." "What, then, is that sacred, that revealed science, declared by the Fathers to be the sum of all knowledge?... As to the earth, it affirmed that it is a flat surface, over which the sky is spread like a dome. In this the sun and moon and stars move, so that they may give light by day and by night to man.... Above the sky or firmament is heaven; in the dark and fiery s.p.a.ce beneath the earth is h.e.l.l...."

(pp. 57-63).

By reading again what we said above, especially the urgent admonitions of _St. Augustine_ not to look upon the Scriptures as a text-book of profane science, one will be able to appreciate the scientific quality of the book in question.

The fancy of this writer has distorted Christianity and the Church into a monster that has nothing more important to do than to tread down and crush science and civilization. A few examples will suffice to show how he proves the _contradictions between faith and science_. The Christian religion teaches that man is subject to death as a penalty for original sin: prior to that sin death had no power over Adam and Eve. It is claimed that this is a contradiction of science. But how? Long before Adam, thousands of animals and plants had died, the author a.s.serts. "The doctrine declared to be orthodox by ecclesiastical authority is overthrown by the unquestionable discoveries of modern science. Long before a human being had appeared on earth millions of individuals, nay, more, thousands of species and even genera had died" (p. 57). The author has completely missed the point. The matter in question is not the death of animals and plants, but the death of man. The infallibility of the Pope is refuted by the fact that he failed to foresee the result of the war between France and Germany.

"Notwithstanding his infallibility, which implies omniscience, His Holiness did not foresee the issue of the Franco-Prussian war" (p.

352, also p. 362).

How high his historical statements are to be rated is shown by the a.s.sertion that _Cyril of Alexandria_ had much to do with the introduction of the wors.h.i.+p of the Virgin Mary (p. 55); that auricular confession was introduced by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 (p. 208). He asks when the idea originated that the Pentateuch was written by Moses under divine inspiration, and he finds that "not until after the second century [of the Christian era] was there any such extravagant demand on human credulity" (p.

220). It would seem incredible that any one could write such stuff.

The author says in his preface: "I had also devoted much attention to the experimental investigation of natural phenomena, and had published many well-known memoirs on such subjects. And perhaps no one can give himself to these pursuits, and spend a large part of his life in the public teaching of science, without partaking of that love of impartiality and truth which philosophy incites"

(VIII-IX). We do not care to argue with the author about his experience in experimental research, nor about his love for the truth, but he himself has shown superabundantly that they have not sufficed to keep him clear from scientific shallowness and the grossest blunders. Nevertheless, it seems that his scientific ability obtained for him in the consideration of many the weight of an authority. _Haeckel_, in his "Weltraetsel," refers repeatedly to the book, and recommends "its truthful statements and excellent discussion" to his readers (Weltraetsel, 17. Kap., Wissenschaft u. Christentum).

Such is the fas.h.i.+on in which contradictions between faith and science, and the Church's hostility towards scientific research, are proved.

The result is that we must distinguish clearly between dogmas of faith and private opinions or interpretations. Of course it may frequently happen, and has happened, that the Christian savant is too timorous, and looks askance at the discoveries of science, and even thinks he ought to resist them, because he is afraid that religious truth might be opposed by them.

Nor can it be said that this timidity is altogether without excuse, for there was hardly one scientific discovery of the nineteenth century that was not immediately grasped and exploited by eager enemies of the Christian religion. Too often has science been made the menial of infidelity, and the a.s.sertion has been untiringly repeated that science and faith cannot agree. No wonder, then, that timid souls become suspicious, that they are p.r.o.ne to resist the whole theory of evolution in a lump, instead of trying to distinguish between what is of scientific value in it, and what is misused for the purpose of denying creation.

Nevertheless, such narrow-mindedness is strongly to be censured. It has often caused the reproach, that Catholics lack the freedom to admit scientific discoveries. They forget the wise admonition of the prince of mediaeval theologians, that it were advisable, in regard to scientific views which have nothing to do with religion, neither to set them down as truths of faith, nor either to reject them as contrary to faith lest occasion be given to think contemptuously of the faith. As long as men are and men think, narrow-mindedness will never be lacking. Hence if the believing scientist wants to know whether he is running counter to faith in any particular, he has to ascertain from theological text-books what the Church declares to belong to faith, what explanation of Holy Scripture is unconditionally binding, and not what is the individual opinion of theologians, much less what some pious nurse is telling the little ones.

This is the first rule concerning the relation between faith and science: it states what the scientist is _not_ tied down to.

2. Science Retains its Method of Research.

But when and how may the scientist be restricted? Here we come to the second point: the directions which faith may give to the profane sciences are in themselves not of a positive but of a _negative kind_; revelation and Church cannot tell the scientist what he is to a.s.sert or defend in the field of the profane sciences, but only what propositions he must _avoid_.

Thus every science is left free to pursue its own method of research. It is not difficult to understand this.