On Evolution: the false dichotomy of Faith versus Science

[tmellin]

A false dichotomy: “(FALSE) Either science is correct or the Bible is (literally) correct” clouds many philosophical discussions about humanity and nature in this forum. Stemming from this intellectually-limited framework, science itself has, for some, become a “Science-religion”: a “rational alternative to God” that represents the totality of what we know or ought to reasonably believe.

Breaking this simplistic cycle–in which God is juxtaposed with (or defined by) Biblical literalism, and in which faith is the enemy of reason–requires an enlightened context for discourse, which the Catholic Church continues to espouse:

Here is what Pope John Paul II said in his Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences [October 3, 1981] (source: United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, p.60):

“The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but in order to state the correct relationship of humanity with God and the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God.”

Notes for non-Catholics: “Sacred Scripture”, as it is used here, is functionally equivalent to “the Bible” and “the world” equivalent to “the universe”.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USSCB) have made this more general statement concerning faith and science:

“Catholic philosophy and theology have traditionally held that the human intellect comes to know the truth through scientific discovery and philosophical reasoning and can even come to a knowledge of God and many of his purposes through an understanding of created realities.” -United States Catholic Catechism for Adults (p.57)

Notes for non-Catholics: “created realities” is functionally equivalent to “nature”, or “that which can be (scientifically) observed”. The Catholic Church, under the leadership of Pope John Paul II, acknowledged its own high-profile “science vs.religion” error by exonerating Galileo Galiei in 1992.

Relating to evolution, Pope Pius XII upheld the principle that there is no intrinsic conflict between science and religion in his encyclical (i.e. official publication that is believed to be free of error) Concerning Some False Opinions Threatening to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine (Humani Generis) (1950):

“The [Magisterium] of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of [people] experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter” (no. 36).

Notes for non-Catholics: “Magisterium” is a reference to the “authority” of the Church.

By “not forbidding” Catholics from participating in research and discussions in the field of evolution, Pope Pius XII essentially says here that the Catholic Church is open to evolution as an explanation for the origin of the human body. This will forever remain the position of the Catholic Church, unless scientists eliminate evolution as a possible explanation for the origin of the human body.

The USCCB is careful to say, though, that:

“The spiritual dimension of the human person is of a different order that is related to yet transcends the material world and that is not reducible simply to the physical aspects of our being, which can be more readily studied by the scientific method.”

In other words, there is more to a human being than can be scientifically observed. Our bodies are made of the same type of matter and energy found in stars, rocks, etc. but we can never, through the study matter and energy alone (i.e. through science alone), develop a complete description of or understanding of who we are.

 

[antroji]

Yes, it is a false dichotomy. Of interest in this matter are the words “… that the world was created by God” that you quoted from Pope John Paul II. I say that because though this is a philosophy forum I have not in my very short scanning of postings here* seen much about the question of that creation being subjective or objective. As Catholics we believe that it is objective, but it is fascinating that there is a whole stream of belief that has it subjective. Or maybe that difference is covered in non-Catholic religions. I will look.

*(I started at the last page and moved toward the present listings)

 

[R_Daneel]

Careful. This is topic is currently not allowed!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Careful. This is topic is currently not allowed!

I disagree. This is not a thread on the validity of evolution; although it is loosely tied to subject. In reality this thread is addressing the false idea that the Catholic faith is at war with science.

 

[rossum]

I disagree. This is not a thread on the validity of evolution; although it is loosely tied to subject. In reality this thread is addressing the false idea that the Catholic faith is at war with science.

I agree. The thread title might have been better phrased without the E-word, say " On the false dichotomy of Faith versus Science", but the subject discussed in the OP is far more general than just evolution.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

The really big problem with the faith versus science issue is that faith and science are so general that they are meaningless.

There are multiple faiths outside one’s own. Even within one’s own belief system, members are arguing about the meanings of their particular teachings and their own human nature. Science goes from archaeology to zoology. Which one is being referred to? There is a cloud of guesses when it comes to questions like how did we come to be who we are? Which science defines our nature?

By the way, there is a thread on science and theories where those familiar with science can present their case. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=478146

 

[antroji]

That is a very good point, Grannymh! Although it all sounds like standard English, we often use the same word to mean different things. Even if we mean the same thing generally, our particular experience of that word is unique. It also is significant whether our “experience” is experiential or an intellectual assertion. Further what our interpretation is, according to what standards or preconceptions we apply also has a bearing on our definitions. Unless we are dealing in maths, chemical equations, or such, there is a lot of interprative wiggle room that we use. Add to that the imense propensity of the human mind to need to be right at almost any cost, and the belief of most that the contents of their mind has a 1/1 correspondence with Reality!!!. How many faithful or non-faithful are self aware in the arena of how we process either faith or science? As some linguists assert, it is a miracle that we can communicate at all, even within ourselves!

There seems to be some consistency in this thread question with the difficulty within science itself to reconcile “big” and “small” physics. But since there is one Source, there is one Unified Field of what IS. Faith and science are but two facets of a diamond we look through to experience Divine Light. And whose diamond is completely and perfectly faceted or clean?