I’ve been thinking a lot about integration vs dis-integration. And then I saw this quote from Pope Benedict that explores this theme in relation to objective vs subjective knowledge:
“At the roots of being a Christian, there is no ethical decision or lofty idea, … but a meeting with the person of Jesus Christ,” said Benedict XVI. “The fruitfulness of this meeting is apparent … also in today’s human and cultural context,” he added, using the example of mathematics, a human creation in which the “correlation between its structures and the structures of the universe … excites our admiration and poses a great question. It implies that the universe itself is structured in an intelligent fashion, in such a way that there exists a profound correspondence between our subjective reason and the objective reason of nature. It is, then, inevitable that we should ask ourselves if there is not a single original intelligence that is the common source of both the one and the other….This overturns the tendency to grant primacy to the irrational, chance and necessity.”
November 15, 2006 at 3:42 pm
The Pope’s comments are intriguing. But, I believe that too much emphasis is put on proving Darwinian evolution wrong. Pure science cannot test the existence of God,. neither can it prove nonexistence of a thing. Therefore, science cannot ever disprove that God created the earth. All good science can say is “evidence suggests these mechanisms as the means of the world’s origin.”
Secondly, I question the comments of the Pope. In this short quote he does not explain how subjective and objective reasoning, which combined asks of an intelligent origin, is able to grant primacy to the irrational, chance, and necessity. In other words, how is it that “just because we ask” has the authority to overturn scientific rationale?
I am not arguing for science. I am trying to point out the flaws in our arguments towards science. The secular scientists I have spoken to do not buy intelligent design or creation science on the grounds that they are not true science: true science tries to explain why without assuming God.
Other disciplines, like philosophy, are not constrained and can prove God’s existence.
November 15, 2006 at 5:46 pm
I think the Pope’s comments must be taken in light of a larger dialogue that the Roman Catholic church has engaged with the scientific community throughout the 20th century as well as a conversation that has been going on in the philosophical community at least since Newtonian physics. I am not an expert in addressing all the intricacies of these conversations, so I hesitate to say too much.
But I am more of a fool than an angel, so I’ll tread lightly on these swirling waters. The Pope is not questioning Darwinian evolution directly but rather questioning the assumption that science via Darwin can rule out the place for an Intelligent Designer, a Creator. Unlike Christian fundamentalism, the Roman Catholic church in the last century has tried to engage science and accept scientific implications. At the same time, the current Pope may be concerned that the church has not aggressively addressed the tendency of science to overstep its mode of thought into both the philosophical realms and the theological realms. So that is one big issue. That I can only point to without fully articulating.
At the same time, there has been a disjunction in philosophy at least since Newton between the objective and the subjective. Newton’s physics reduced the world to cold logical principles at work in the world, leaving humans feeling cut off from a personal God (and this is a terrible form of reductionism). But the end result was that objectivity and subjectivity were separated. Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, and others are addressing this disjunction. This causes a split between immanence and transcendence.
The end result is that some entered into a totally subjective religion, which seemed completely separated from the objective world: science and faith split. The solution? Actually Thomas Aquinas had to face a similar split and his philosophy wrestles with this. Thus this may be a time for the reemergence of some form of Thomist theology. I am woefully ignorant of Thomist thought, but I have been deeply influence by Thomistic thinkers.
So when I read the Pope’s quote… there exists a profound correspondence between our subjective reason and the objective reason of nature. It is, then, inevitable that we should ask ourselves if there is not a single original intelligence that is the common source of both the one and the other……I see him addressing the disjunction between subjectivity and objectivity that sets up the whole argument between science and faith. While he doesn’t spell it out here, I assume he is implying Jesus Christ. Jesus enters into objective history. Revelation is objective and yet we couldn’t have anticipated it (or Him). But when He appears, we behold objective truth and are shaken by a subjective encounter. The revelation of Jesus holds the objective and subjective in unity.
Well, that’s enough. It is poorly state and does no justice to those who are far more qualified to address this but I hope it might shed light into the world behind the Pope’s quote, and at least it will shed light on why I posted it.