It might seem strange that the most dedicated scientists could also be the staunchest religionists. How is a balance between the two seemingly incompatible realms possible? The expectation is that the learned man, finally discovering and explaining how the world around him works, abandons religion and regards it as irrational and superstitious. For quite a number of scientists, however, science provides a venue to discover and understand, at a deeper level, divine revelation as manifested in creation. For some scientists, human DNA reveals God’s handiwork. So does the order of universe. God, as Aquinas said, is the uncaused cause.
Without denying the historical hierarchical hostility as in the case of Galileo, Christian scientists have in fact flourished, some of them under Church tutelage. As Kaczor notes, the Church has long supported astronomical studies and has institutions to support research, like the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The Church invented the university system in the western world. Europe’s towering cathedrals are in fact solar observatories used by scientists to obtain measurements and predict equinoxes, according to Thomas Woods. This is a worldview that has produced scientist-clerics like Copernicus, Mendel, and Bacon, and Lemaître.
Dr. Joseph Murray, Nobel Prize winner for Physiology/Medicine, is often quoted on the presumed opposition between science and religion: “Is the Church inimical to science? Growing up as a Catholic and a scientist — I don’t see it. One truth is revealed truth, the other is scientific truth. If you really believe that creation is good, there can be no harm in studying science. The more we learn about creation — the way it emerged — it just adds to the glory of God. Personally, I’ve never seen a conflict” (in Kaczor, 2010).
The valid question to me is whether Christian ethical norms are inimical to scientific research. Indeed, there are no-fly zones as far as research is concerned—embryonic stem cells, etc. In contrast, the Vatican is supportive of biotechnology and GMO research, which have the potential to alleviate hunger worldwide. The benefits must be weighed against the costs, and not just economic costs. Could this lead to some sort of commodification that dehumanizes in its quest to improve quality of life? Could there be an alternative to the destruction of human embryos? What kind of “progress” do we want?
As a nation with a supermajority of Catholics, is there a culture of science among Filipinos? The answer is manifested in the high regard or premium given by Filipinos to tertiary education. It could be that Filipinos are fatalistic. But they know the value of education, the importance of industry and earning a living. The diploma is the ticket to prosperity. The question, I believe, should not be conflated with the wider issue of why the country has not advanced economically. For this, economists Acemoglu and Robinson, in their book Why Nations Fail, do not cite culture or even weather and geography on why some nations are rich and why others are poor. The work is based on 15 years of research and the examination of historical evidence.
Acemoglu and Robinson contend that the most economically successful countries are those whose political and economic institutions have been “inclusive.” Left behind are those countries governed by “extractive” political and economic institutions. For instance, why is Botswana enjoying tremendous growth, and other African countries have yet to rise above violence and backwardness? (Acemoglu and Robinson)
As an extension of this question, why was the Philippines the second most developed country in Asia in the 1960s at a time when religious influence was in fact stronger? Is the Philippines backward because of a “damaged culture,” as claimed by James Fallows? Or is it because powerful political and economic interests have captured the system for their own narrow ends?
No comments:
Post a Comment