Faith and Science: Contradictory or complementary meanings?

By Michael G. Houlis
Theologian, professor, special associate of the Holy Metropolis of Syros
Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries
More articles (in Greek) by prof. Michael G. Houlis can be found here: http://www.im-syrou.gr/poimantikes_drastiriotites/keimena/xoulis/

ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ: Πίστη και Επιστήμη: Έννοιες αντίθετες ή αλληλοσυμπληρούμενες;

 

Photo

Over the past few years, there has been an unnecessary return to essays and articles at the forefront of research, even by various positive scientists, on the old, misunderstood topic of the “enmity” between Science and Faith, or, Logic and Religion.

This phenomenon is being fuelled once again, mostly by representatives of the positive sciences, with quite a number of new and more heated books opposed to Christianity, but also by circles of the more conservative Protestants of America, who are opposed to the contemporary findings of Biology, Astronomy, Physics, etc. with their verbatim interpretation of the first Chapter of the Holy Bible (Genesis) and who are also against certain branches of Science with scientific and religious criteria.

We must make it clear from the very start, that Theology and Science do not oppose each other by nature, given that Science concerns itself with the structure and the functions of Nature, whereas Theology deals with God’s revealed truth and with the Holy-Spiritual meaning of Life.  Science can answer questions about how the world and the universe are made, but it cannot of course answer the questions of who created the universe and why.  These last questions are the business of Theology and by extension, of the Church.  The great contemporary scientist Stephen Hawkins had stated that “even if science could manage to explain everything that happened from the birth of the universe to this day, it will not be able to explain why.” (FOCUS magazine, vol.2, April 2000, p.80-84).

Science does not have the right to formulate methodologies by resorting to metaphysics (i.e., by accepting or rejecting God), regardless whether each and every scientist is personally faithful or faithless.  On the other hand, it is the duty of Theology to help us – from within the spiritual experience of the Church – to reach the (spiritual) heavens.  Similarly, Theology does not have the right to concern itself scientifically, either with how the “cosmic” heavens were created, or how Man appeared on Earth, because these are matters that preoccupy Science, not Theology.

The purpose of the first chapters of the Book of Genesis is to reveal that the entire universe has a Creator-God - that it did not just happen to appear, as though by magic - and also, that the heavenly bodies and all of Creation are not “gods”, as was the belief of the numerous idolatrous nations that surrounded Israel at the time.  The intention, therefore, of the divinely-inspired authors was not to project any kind of science but rather, a sublime theology, for which purpose they utilized the religious and scientific knowledge that existed at the time.  One cannot therefore regard the (purely auxiliary) scientific world-images of the divinely-inspired authors’ times as “divinely-inspired images”; only the theological message of the Bible is considered divinely-inspired. That is the ONLY sector of the Holy Bible that can be called infallible, and not necessarily the scientific knowledge that has been utilized therein.    We can therefore understand why the representatives of either side are not justified in their reactivation of situations and settings that had been contained over 100 years ago.  Given the above, one discerns how Science actually betrays itself, if and when it strives to discover the uncreated God through physical means, because by doing so, it is going beyond the boundaries of its own research.   But certainly Theology is also not obliged to accept each and every scientific theory that conflicts with the Christian world-theory on God and the world.

In this context, Atheism does not have the right to use Science as its vanguard against Christianity and religions in general, because when Science embarks on researching an absolute knowledge, it lacks the instrument, the object and the method respectively that can even come close to understanding the meaning of “God”, since the essence of God is beyond everything absolute and is entirely inapprehensible.  Atheist scientists, therefore, are not atheists thanks to any findings of their science, but on account of a specific, materialistic ideology that they believe in.

Faith and Logic, Religion and Science are not seen as conflicting, by well-meaning persons.  Only the erroneous placements of the representatives of each side are in conflict. Proof of this is the fact that eminent Christians, clergymen and laymen, as well as the major Fathers of the Church, were also well educated for their time and some of them – for example Saint Basil the Great – were also well versed in all the sciences.  Wasn’t the Belgian scientist Georges Lemaitre – the “father” of the “Big Bang” theory on the Beginning of the Universe – a priest?  Weren’t many of the Teachers of our Nation during the Turkish Occupation, such as: Eugene Bulgaris, Nikephoros Theotokis, Methodios Anthrakites, Benjamin of Lesvos, e.a., also the first teachers of positive sciences in our homeland, and at the same time priests?

On the other hand, there have been very important scientists who were also religious:  Keppler, Pascal, Newton, Leibnitz, Volta, Ampere, Gauss, Carrell, Faraday, Maxwell, Pasteur, Lister, Jung and so many others; all of them were exceptional scientists and at the same time people with deep religious faith.  Their science did not and does not negate their faith; in fact, one could say that it complemented it.  This is because scientists examine with their Science the natural and the empirical world, throughout Time, while with their faith and their prayers, they communicate with the “One Who Is” – the personal, Triadic God – and from Him, they draw their courage in their lives and their work.  When, in the course of his observations and his research, a scientist realizes the grandeur of Nature as a creation of Divine Providence, he does not necessarily have to respond with a display of conscience, crying out “How great are Your works, o Lord; You have created everything with wisdom” (Psalms). In view of this, the English Physicist Paul Davis wrote: “The fact that the natural laws of the universe have allowed the development of complex biological structures which have led to the appearance of conscience, to me constitutes obvious proof that there is something in nature that surpasses us. I am convinced that behind the miracle of the universe, there is a divinely-inspired plan”. (FOCUS magazine, as above)

The very significant scientist and studier of the human genome, Francis Collins, in his book “The Language of God” writes: “The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. He can be worshiped in the cathedral or in the laboratory." (http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0702/voices.html) -  Interview with John Horgan.

Furthermore, the English astronomer, prof. Smart, submitted the following thoughts: “When we study the Universe, we take into account its size and its regularity and are thence led to acknowledging a Creative Power and a Cosmic Purpose, which transcends all the boundaries of human comprehension.” (D.Kotsakis, “The astronomical Universe – Creation, or chance?”, Zoe publications, 1983, page 108).

But even the great mathematician Einstein wrote: “Every researcher of nature is overcome by a kind of religious awe in the presence of the order that prevails in nature, which cannot be a chance thing. The universe reveals to Man an unlimited superior intelligence.” (Ferdinand Krenzer, SYNOPSIS OF CATHOLIC FAITH, Spiritual Course Publications, p. 32-33).

The existence of the infinitely perfect God can in no way be proven by scientific means and much less can His essence be made known, because if that were the case, Man would have been perfect, and God imperfect.  God is not a cadaver laid out on an operating table for forensic examination; He is a Person – an actual, existent Person – with Whom we can come in contact and communicate.  The inability to logically prove the existence of God does not mean that God does not exist. It only means that our own intellect is not able to grasp the infinite God.  Intellectual logic functions under the same laws and the same infrastructure as Nature.  God, however, (as far as His Nature and His essence are concerned) is the “entirely Other”, when it comes to our cosmic laws. He cannot be comprehended with only our ideological and scientific capabilities. A scientist - devout or agnostic - but also every faithful Christian, can detect only the traces of His presence in the world; His Providence and His energies in Creation (His “circum-essence”), but not His essence per se – that is, His unfathomable depth.  God is not a unit, an individual atop a throne in the sky. He is the source of life; He is the meaning of “being” per se, and He is not revealed by anyone; instead, it is He who reveals Himself, through His uncreated energies, to the humble and the spiritually sound (=with a cleansed heart), in response to their prayers and their worship, whereas the self-opinioned mind usually requires God to adapt Himself to its own, personal theories, without that person displaying any humility whatsoever.  This is how an autonomized and obscured mind is, when it cannot see God’s things, because it is in a fallen state.  Obversely, salvation is attained through catharsis of the heart, through ascetic labor and the upholding of Christ’s commandments, through Whom and in Whose Person God revealed Himself and ever reveals Himself to the world.  Such is the experience of the Prophets, the Saints and the Fathers of the Church. And we Christians know in our hearts that this is the truth and the path that orientates us towards the personal, Triadic God.

Nowadays, Man has succeeded in placing Nature in his service through Science and Technology, which has given him the impression that this has made the presence of God redundant.  But the fact that someone can utilize electricity does not mean that he has actually created it.  For someone to solve a mathematical problem, he must follow the correct mathematical method for solving problems.  In order for an experiment to succeed in Chemistry, we must combine specific materials in correct proportions. In order for a piece of equipment to work, it must have the instructions of its manufacturer.  For someone to learn to dance, it is imperative that they follow the teacher’s steps.  To learn how to play a musical instrument, we need to understand the notes and acquire dexterity in our hands.  Thus, in order for one to attain faith, but also the state of seeing God (which is the only perfect, divine miracle), it is imperative that he follow, step by step, the guidelines of the Church (Christ’s guidelines), Who is the only one that can responsibly show us the way: that is, through humility, acts of love, sacramental living, ascesis and the orientation of one’s will towards God.  It is futile to ask “cerebrally” if God exists, if we haven’t first embarked on the road that leads directly to His own revelation of Himself.

Science mainly provides knowledge and the technological implementation of that knowledge, for the health and the well-being in people’s lives, while Theology –and especially the Church- provides psychosomatic therapy and salvation, sanctification and deification (theosis), through ascesis, sacramental life and love. The work, therefore, of the Church has a much broader spectrum than Science. And the genuine scientist or intellectual does not reject the miracle – should he encounter it in his life – because neither Intellect nor Science blocks the paths and the means of research, nor do they stagnate and crystallize into irrevocable recipes and solutions. Everyone has a right to declare himself an agnostic, however, he is betraying his quest and his very self, if he declares himself an atheist.  The truth may exist in the future of Science, but Christ always comes from the future as well - in some bend of our existential road - and never from the past. 

These two supreme magnitudes in people’s lives – Faith and Science – we can therefore discern as not being in conflict, but rather, that they are in a harmonious collaboration for mankind’s benefit.  In other words, they most definitely complement each other – especially in our day, when the problems that rear their heads are multilateral and in need of a multilateral handling.  If mankind wants to survive, it needs to be in a phase of synthesis and reconciliation, and not in a phase of unproductive confrontation and division. The future of our planet and our universe should concern us, and not the pseudo-advantageous pursuits of various representative individuals.

It is a fact, that wherever Religion is attacked by Science, that is where certain representatives of Science respond with ideological and metaphysical -and not scientific- warfare.

Science is neutral in its research. It should have no materialistic or theistic presuppositions during its search for the objective truth.

Hence, wherever Science’s work is made difficult by religious representatives of various confessions, that is where the role of Religion has become misunderstood and unorthodoxically interpreted.

Of course, it has by now become clear to scientists that each Science is not a kind of magic with unlimited potentials, nor does it claim to possess –without any weaknesses whatsoever- the extreme certainty, in an absolute knowledge, based on its findings.  Natural reality has many aspects, just like a building. And it has now become part of our conscience that the scientific view of the world and nature indicates only one of the many functions of the world.  Besides, the source of every knowledge is undoubtedly the faith in the potentials of that knowledge, even when our basic scientific beliefs are as yet unproven. Furthermore, every world theory is –deep down– an esoteric and religious one.  You begin from the point that you believe in, deep down inside you, and you continue on, with faith in the result.  Philosopher E. Block mentions:  “There are some knowledges that we cannot acquire, except only if we desire to” (Ferdinand Krenzer, as above, page 31). We must not forget that all scientists, during their work, daily put their trust in the positions and the research of others, of colleagues who have preceded them, without trying to prove everything, from the very beginning.  (see Chorepiskopos of Arsinoe George: RELIGION AND SCIENCE IN OUR DAYS, A Homily at the Union of “Friends of Saint Menignos the Cloth-dyer”, patron saint of Chemists, Athens 23.11.2003).

Given the above, collaboration is becoming evident in our day, on every level, between Science and Religion, and especially for us, between Science and Christianity.  Without Religion, Science stands only on one leg. This is because “every science, separated from virtue, appears as cunning and not as wisdom”, according to Saint Gregory the Theologian. In fact, humility is the only thing that can save Science from its self-sufficiency and its isolation, when it finally admits that it is aware of its boundaries and its limitations, and that it does not always have a ready answer to all the problems and questions in life.

Nobody can live with scientific knowledge alone.  Morality, meaning and quality of life, the perception of beauty, of sanctity, of everything lofty and just are equally necessary.  When the Third World and millions of our fellow-men are living below the levels of mere survival, they are most assuredly not interested in chromosomes, DNA, or the number of protons and neutrons that comprise the nucleus of their cells.  When someone is dying of hunger, he will not satisfy his hunger with quarks and sub-atomic particles. Christianity, Science and Technology are, for that reason, the servants and the deacons for the benefit of the world, especially in view of the rapid development of the bio-sciences and bio-technology, in the wake of the critical impasses that are encountered. The German Physics Nobelist, Max Planck, actually states that: “the paths of science and religion move parallel to each other, and they meet in the vast infinity, in other words, God.” (SCIENCE AND CHURCH, Archmandrite Timothy Kontoyannis, www.imlarisis.gr).

Subsequently, “Science and Technology are both instruments given by God, which, if used properly, will extend our potentials for the better… it is the misuse and not the temperate use of Science that causes harm. If, on the other hand, there are those who from the standpoint of Science…present themselves as atheists, they will need to remember that their atheism cannot be founded in Science, but will continue to be simply an existential placement on their part.... The relationship between Christianity and the Positive Sciences is a relationship of a common course, because all the factors that shape it are positive ones.” (Chorepiskopos of Arsinoe George, as above)

The dilemma therefore of “Science, or Faith?” is a pseudo-dilemma.

“Science and Faith” is the answer, for all time.

Translation by A. N.

You can see also the tags

PAGANISM

ATHEISM

 

PHILOSOPHY

 

‘When they kill the priests, I will tell them not to kill Papa-Nicholas. And not only will I say it, but I will defend him...’: a short story form Athens about a simple priest, who spoke with saints, animals, and children...

'The Simple Shepherd'—St Nicholas Planas

Three photos of st Nicholas Planas, from here

Logismoi

ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ: «Όταν θα σκοτώσουν τους παπάδες, εγώ θα πω για τον παπα-Νικόλα να μην τον σκοτώσουν. Και όχι μόνο θα πω, αλλά θα τον περιφρουρήσω!»

 

  Today, 17 February on the Church’s calendar (March 2nd), we commemorate St Nicholas Planas, the simple priest of Athens who served the Divine Liturgy daily for 50 years. Although his parish began with only eight families, he inspired and attracted others to him with his childlike simplicity and faith and his zeal for the liturgical cycle of the Church, for as the publisher, Alexander Papademetriou, has written, ‘sanctity has never ceased to attract, to captivate, and to guide the Church’s faithful children in Her true path’ (‘Prologue of the Publishers of the Greek Edition’, Papa-Nicholas Planas (1851-1932): The Simple Shepherd of the Simple Sheep, by Nun Martha, trans. Holy Transfiguration Monastery [Boston: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 1981], p. xix). Indeed, in the case of St Nicholas, Papademetriou continues on the same page:

It can be said that, in our cold and ungrateful times, the service-loving synodia of vigil-keepers of Papa-Nicholas Planas—from Alexander Papadiamantis, Alexander Moraitides, and Father Philotheos Zervakos, to the women, who though little-educated, were yet pious and zealously dedicated to the traditions of the Church—were by the good will and blessing of God, a continuation of the Kollyvades.

In his ‘Foreword’ to the book, the ever-memorable Photios Kontoglou also refers to the beautiful relationship between St Nicholas and this synodia (p. xxviii):

He considered his synodia as his children, the sons and daughters of Christ, a blessed fellowship which had in its midst the innocent Elder as guide—the good shepherd, who guided his flock to the good and refreshing pastures of the Orthodox Faith. The entire care and concern of the Elder was the salvation of the flock. He felt pain for them, since he was not the hireling who abandons the flock and leaves (cf. John 10:13).

Anyway, I thought that rather than trying to give an overview of St Nicholas’s life, which would be rather an imposition upon the material in this book by Sr Martha, I would simply give my own favourite episode, which is number 42, ‘The tamed beast’, on p. 48:

At the family’s where Father often went, their space inside the courtyard had been rented by a certain cobbler who was a mainstay of the Communist party. The hatred which he felt toward all, and especially toward priests, knew no bounds. There, while he worked, he would talk to himself, raving about where his comrades would begin slaughtering the priests. And he would say, ‘First of all, we’ll slaughter the priests of the Life-giving Spring.’ And he would go on dealing in turn with the others also. As I said, he worked inside the court. Father, in his kindness went up to him and said, ‘Good evening, my child.’ Without lifting his head from his work, he mumbled something.

The next Saturday Father went again, ‘Good evening, my Luke.’ He answered, ‘Good evening,’ again without lifting his head.

On the third visit, Father said to him again, ‘Good evening, my Luke; how are you doing, my child?’ He deigned to say, ‘Well, Father.’

Father would visit him continuously there where he worked, until the ice was broken. He got up from his work, he kisssed his hand with reverence, and he told us, ‘When they kill the priests, I will tell them not to kill Papa-Nicholas. And not only will I say it, but I will defend him.’ Afterwards, whenever Father used to come, he would hasten to meet him and kiss his hand. Father neither knew his inclinations, nor did he have any conception of communism, nor did he notice his transformation—we supposed. Who knows how he saw with the clairvoyance of his soul? Well, no matter how many sermons that Communist might have heard, no matter how many admonitions they might have given him, none of these would have been able to have any influence on his hardened soul as the goodness of this white-haired little old man, who used to pay him a standing visit each time—indifferent as to whether he had been scorned at the beginning. With Father’s little greetings and good wishes he repented. And when a short time afterwards he fell ill from a disease (paralysis of the lower extremities of his legs) and died at the age of thirty years, he reposed as a good Christian and . . . without having killed anyone. Such was the influence that the personality of Father had on all who knew him. Because of this, he had no one as his enemy. Only Satan, but even him he would bring to nought with the grace of the Holy Spirit, who had come to dwell in his soul.

Icons from the life of St Nicholas Planas, from here

There was a good article on St Nicholas in "Orthodox America"; it is available here. But one really ought to read Sr Martha's book, for as Kontoglou writes, 'this book also is restful and peaceful, because it was written by a soul who, though simple, yet is full of that humble wisdom which is granted by God to those who love Him above all things' (p. xxii).

 
Adout St Nicholas Planas in Google

ST. THOMAS SUNDAY (ANTIPASCHA) - BELIEF AND UNBELIEF

St. Luke, Archbishop of Crimea
Orthodox Metropolis of Zambia and Malawi

It was very, very, extremely hard for the apostles to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ had risen.
They considered the words of the Myrrh-bearers who brought them this news to be lies.
When they went to Galilee, to the mountain as Jesus had commanded them, and saw Him, some fell down and worshipped Him while others stood petrified and did not believe their own eyes.
When Jesus appeared to all of them in the upper room in Jerusalem, they thought that they were seeing a spirit.
Strongest of all was the unbelief of the apostle Thomas, who had to place his fingers on the wounds from the nails on the Savior’s hands and feet and his hand on His side before he would believe.
Why did the apostles believe even their own eyes with such difficulty? After all, they were witnesses to the Lord Jesus resurrecting the son of the widow of Nain, the daughter of Jairus, and even Lazarus, the four days dead.
But after all, these were the acts of a very great Miracle Worker, and the dead did not resurrect of their own strength; but to believe in the possibility of a dead body coming back to life by itself, of its own power, was immeasurably more difficult.
Thus, it was extremely difficult for Christ’s apostles to believe even what they saw with their own eyes.
But for us who have seen neither the living nor the resurrected Jesus—is it harder or easier to believe what we read in the Gospels and in the writings of the holy apostles? Oh, of course it’s easier, much easier—for the great multitude of historical facts and events convince us beyond a doubt of the truth of Christ’s resurrection.
What is there to say about the fact that the preaching of unlearned Galilean fishermen and their successors over the course of just a few centuries won over the entire inhabited world of the time—not only cultured Greeks and Romans, but even half-wild Germans, Galls, and Celts, and dealt a fatal blow to paganism?
Could this have been possible if Christ had not risen? Wouldn’t have any preaching about the Crucified One as the Son of God been met everywhere only with mockery?

The martyrdom of st apostle Thomas, in India (from here)

Would it have been thinkable that tens of thousands of holy martyrs would have gone to horrifying tortures and terrible deaths if they did not believe in the Resurrection of Christ and were not on fire with love for the Conqueror of death?
Would the hard ascetic labors of fasting and prayer of numberless anchorites and monks for the sake of knowing the Lord Jesus Christ and for the acquisition of the mind of Christ have been possible?
Millions upon millions of people of all ages and sexes were true Christians, especially during the first fourteen centuries since the Birth of Christ.
However, no matter how enormous was the power of preaching and the works of Christ, no matter how the Son of God’s death on the Cross and His Resurrection from the dead shook the world, not all believed in Him.
Already among the Lord Jesus’s and His apostles’ contemporaries even the majority of God’s chosen Jewish race did not believe in Him.
Unbelief, which has crashed like a huge wave over our modern nations of Europe and America, all formerly Christian, is ever growing and spreading. It began of course not during the Renaissance era of science and arts, not from Voltaire and the other Encyclopedists, but incomparably earlier, already during the first century after the Birth of Christ.
What does this mean? It means that our Lord and God Jesus Christ does not forcibly draw people’s hearts to Himself, something He of course could do with His divine power, but looks for voluntary love and faith.
Not every heart joyfully accepts His great commandments. Proud and domineering people laugh at the commandments of poverty of spirit, meekness, and mercy; they do not even think about God’s higher and eternal truth, they only want to hear about the rightness of social relationships, and they consider only proper relationships between nations to be the highest ideal.
Do many want to be persecuted for righteousness sake, to be reviled and slandered for Christ’s sake?
Do many enter through the straight gates by the narrow path, so that at the end of their difficult road they might hear the blessed call: Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world (Matt. 24:34)?
What will the scientist say to you if you try to preach Christ to him? Of course he will reply with annoyance, “Don’t bother me, I am busy with my science, because for me all truth is in it.”

The apostle Paul speaks in his epistle to the Corinthians about the wise and prudent who have rejected faith in God for the sake of science: For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are (1 Cor. 18–28).
Even during His earthly life, our Lord Jesus Christ called those who believe in Him His “little flock”.
Do not be disturbed by this, but rejoice. And know that belonging to this flock throughout the ages and until the present day are very many quite important scientists, scholars, and philosophers, who were able to combine their belief in science with their higher faith in God and His Christ. And of those who reject religion based upon scientific data, the vast majority in fact have nothing to do with science and talk about it only on hearsay.
And for you, simple, unlearned people, let the words of Christ be a strong support: Except ye be converted,[1] and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 18:3).

See also

In the Steps of the Apostle Thomas - The Orthodox Church in West Bengal, India 
The Lord’s Pascha
The Way - An introduction to the Orthodox Faith 
Father Moses Berry: From Hippie Bad-Boy Cool-Cat to Humble…

A Different Light: Youthful Travelers in Contemporary America 

Klaus Kenneth, the spiritual traveler   
Strange, Yet Familiar: My Journey (by Bishop Kallistos (Ware), Bishop of Diokleia)
Jamie Moran, “The Daemonic God”, “Earth Wisdom”, “The Battle for Person in the Heart” 

The ancient Christian Church - About Orthodox Church in the West World...

Road to Emmaus

ATHEISM