With a sweat-beaded face and an urgent tone, the pastor slams his Bible down and denounces the evils of science: Whether it be Godless geological studies that claim the Earth is older than 6,000 years or evolutionary theories that dethrone the Creator God, modern science is a threat to the Christian faith!
In response, a “new atheism” has emerged. Holding high the banner of this evangelical anti-theism, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins use modern science and their characteristically British rhetorical skills to mock, expose and systematically dismiss these fundamentalist Christian arguments. Armed with a literal biblical interpretation on one side and a myopic view of scientific evidence on the other, the battle lines are drawn, the culture wars spawned, and before you even have a chance to think, you are asked to join a side.
And the Church says, “Wait.”
These two fundamentalist camps do hold a mutual and presupposed belief: Faith and reason are competitive. If you hold to faith, you must discard the intellect. If you hold to the intellect, you must discard the faith.
For those who are not familiar, a straw man fallacy is when one person mischaracterizes his opponent’s conclusion and attacks a more vulnerable version of their argument. Like a knight jousting against a straw dummy, the strategically neutered version loses its vitality and is easily overcome. The debate between Christian fundamentalists and the “new anti-theists” has engulfed our present culture and is presented in books, debates, documentaries, and even mainstream media. Yet, as Catholics are bombarded by this argument, we realize that not only is one side mischaracterizing the other, but the entire debate mischaracterizes the dialogue of faith and reason, of God’s self-revelation and science. The problem is that as straw man after straw man is subsequently offered and dismantled, it leaves observers — and much of our culture — with nothing but dry husks of the issues at hand. The true dialogue between faith and the sciences is not furthered, but is only further mischaracterized.
As Catholics, we hold to a harmony of faith and reason — a harmony between God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ and the Creator’s discernible mark upon creation. However, it is one thing to say Catholic theology and modern science can complement one another; it is another thing to understand how they do. To this colossal task, we turn to a colossal intellect.
Jesuit Father Robert J. Spitzer is the former president of Gonzaga University, founder of the Magis Institute, and author of the work New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Late Twentieth Century Physics and Philosophy. The deftness of Father Spitzer’s mind is wonderfully evident as he integrates 20th-century science with philosophy in service of theology. With the brilliance to boil principles down for the everyday reader, Father Spitzer attacks the heart of our present culture’s pseudo-faith-and-science debate: faith and science are not a threat to one another. Father Spitzer’s New Proofs for the Existence of God is an invaluable resource for anyone seeking to participate in the true dialogue of faith and science.
EWTN’s literary program Bookmark is delighted to host Father Spitzer and discuss the role his book plays in the dialogue between faith and science. The show will air on Oct. 9. The Register invites you to move beyond the straw men, and delve deep into the mystery of God and his Creation.
More Resources
Fr. Spitzer’s Magis Institute
EWTN’s Bookmark
Spitzer is a Genius
Men Behind the Magis Institute
Spitzer on Philosophy, Modern Physics and the Search for God
Comments
Post a Comment
“straw man fallacy” - nice term, I love it.
Not his term.
Straw man fallacy is one that’s been around for a long long time.
“These two fundamentalist camps do hold a mutual and presupposed belief: Faith and reason are competitive. If you hold to faith, you must discard the intellect. If you hold to the intellect, you must discard the faith.” - This is entirely wrong :-) The only problem here lies in the tactics of the church that many years ago have sticked, ungroundedly, with a statement here and there which have shown to be demonstrably false, and church does not know how to give them up (better, it gives them up after decades or centuries, but that is by far too slow for the modern world that requires an intellectual fix in weeks). Science gives its statements up all the time, and renews its worldview as often as evidence requires. THAT is the only problem between the science and the church and church somehow is not intelligent enough to get it.
“The only problem here lies in the tactics of the church that many years ago have sticked, ungroundedly, with a statement here and there which have shown to be demonstrably false”
Waiting for such a statement…....
Gjurno,
The Church is not about instant gratification. It’s about Truth. It ponders and internalizes information and comes to conclusions on it’s own timeline, not that of the world at large. It’s intelligent enough not to make rash decisions.
Science may say today that “A” is fact, then discover that “A” is actually “C” so now “C” is fact. The Church says “wait and see”. I think this approach is much more sound.
Saint Augustine couldn’t do it, but can someone else explain what kind of fruit Adam and Eve ate in the story? After 6000+ years I think we are all due an intelligent explanation. No guesses, opinions, or beliefs, please—just the facts that we know from the story. But first, do an Internet search: First Scandal.
Sadly, Science and Faith are mutually exclusive. If you believe in a personal god that works for you, that is testable. (more accurately, falseafiable). When science makes a mistake, i.e. the speed of light NOT being the real limit of speed, the scientists making the claim ask others to find their mistake.
“If you believe in a personal god that works for you…” he said, attempting to add another straw-man to the discussion. :P
“When science makes a mistake…, the scientists…ask others to find their mistake.” Except when they don’t. As, for example, when they distort the data to eliminate the historical fact of the Medieval Warm Period in order to keep the anthropogenic climate change dollars flowing.
Science vs. Faith
Science pretends to decipher the secret of Genesis with such complicated & unfathomable theories as “The Big Bang” or the “Darwinism” or…; when it is still incapable of giving the slightest explanation on those wonders done until today in The Name of Jesus-Christ; wonders that the faithful call “Miracles” but that medicine, when it is concerned, call “inexplicable healings” for the sake of scientific rigor.
As long as science cannot scientifically explain these extraordinary phenomena and find a solution to all sorts of “Evil” spreading among humans and to the unavoidable terrible Death, then it’s my obligation, my right and my duty to assert Loud & clear that Jesus-Christ is the mightiest and that there is no other salvation but through Him; in this mean ephemeral world and The other Eternal One!!!
“The Mad about Christ “
I pray…Therefore I live,
On This Holy Land of Eternal Lebanon
With The Help and Grace of The Almighty-GOD!!!
Lol…yeah, that’s a much more reasonable approach. First, claim that science is the only world view we can rely on, then state that it renews it’s worldview all the time. Now THAT is something to count on…
I’m just ribbin’ ya. The Churches “TRUTHS” were revealed to us by God. This is why they don’t change. Science is trying to decipher God using his OWN intelligence, hence all the mistakes and revisions.
Science is awesome. It tells us how the world that God created works. The Church is also awesome. It tells us how the unseen world works. What is TOTALLY awesome is when you use both together and get a glimpse of reality as a whole instead of the fragmented view that ScientISM provides. That, I’m afraid, is very unscientific.
God “created” science no need to choose
“The Mad about Christ” wrote:
Science pretends to decipher the secret of Genesis with such complicated & unfathomable theories as “The Big Bang” or the “Darwinism”
*****************************************************************
The Big Bang was first proposed by Monseigneur Georges Lemaître, priest and scientist. A Jesuit IIRC. He didn’t see any conflict between religion and science.
One of the main principles of the theory of evolution is that nature favors species that replenish their numbers, which agrees with God’s command in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply.
Johnno wrote:
Priests that practiced science (Lemaire, above, Mendel, etc.) would be excommunicated these days. Popes have always opposed science that contradicts the Church until it was overwhelmingly necessary to accept scientific facts or loose church members.
***********************************************************************************
Monseigneur Georges Lemaître lived from 17 July 1894 to 20 June 1966. He was member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. He became its president in March 1960. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître
Johnno has not kept up with modern science and the Catholic Church. Here’s another excellent scientist and priest of today, certainly not excommunicated: Father Tad Pacholczyk, Director of Education at the NCBC, who holds a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from Yale University, Fr. Tad did post-doctoral research at Massachusetts General Hospital/ Harvard Medical School. He subsequently studied in Rome where he did advanced studies in theology and in bioethics.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.