Television On PBS, faith and reason get awfully
cozy
By RAYMOND A. SCHROTH
Theres a story, which may or may not be true, that Jesuits
tell about Jesuit physicist-astronomer George Coyne, director of the Vatican
Observatory in Arizona, who is the central figure in Faith and
Reason, the new PBS documentary on the emerging dialogue between
scientists and theologians.
In the 1960s, in the early days of the space program, George
approached his religious superior -- a man not known for the elasticity of his
imagination -- and asked permission to become an astronaut. Id like
to say yes, the superior replied, but I cant. If I let you go
to the moon, Id have to let everybody go to the moon.
On one level, the story represents a youthful visionary crimped by
an older mans caution; on another, it is a sign that the worlds of
religion and science had not yet fully come to terms with each other.
The news today is that representatives of the two worlds, which
share an often-misunderstood history of centuries of antagonism, have begun to
talk seriously. Its not completely clear why.
Perhaps recent discoveries in DNA and the possibilities of genetic
engineering -- cloned sheep and the theoretical possibility of a cloned human
being -- have given even otherwise materialistic scientists the whimwhams about
going too far. Perhaps they are reaching out to philosophers and
religious thinkers for reassurance.
More likely, the academic revolution within religiously based
universities over the past 20 years has made believers more scientifically
sophisticated. Forty years ago the brighter boys in Jesuit prep schools were
channeled into Greek, not biology; and there was no science requirement for the
A.B. degree in college. Today, the toughest courses and many of the brightest
students are in science or premed.
On Sept. 11 PBS interviews the leaders of this movement in one of
the more intellectually challenging hours TV has presented in a long time.
(Check local listings for broadcast time.)
Science writer Margaret Wertheim leads us to the Vatican
Observatory at Kitt Peak in Arizona to meet George Coyne, then to the Center
for Theology and the Natural Sciences in Berkeley, Calif., and the Divine
Action conference at Pope John Paul IIs summer palace in Castel Gandolfo,
Italy, where Coyne introduces each of his fellow scholars individually to the
pope. Shortly after the conference, we see John Paul come to his balcony and
admit to the crowds that the theory of evolution is more than a
hypothesis. In other words, its probably true.
It wasnt always that way. Although the church has made
enormous contributions to science and learning (Austrian monk Gregor
Mendels laws of genetic inheritance, formulated in 1864, strengthened
Darwinian theory), its public image has often been one of defensiveness.
Wertheims script, sympathetic to the dialogue, is also at
times almost too sympathetic to religion. She reminds us that the Galileo trial
in 1633 was not necessarily the terrible injustice we have imagined. His life
was never in danger and he was not in jail -- only under house arrest, which
gave him time to write. And Giordanno Bruno, who was burned at the stake in
Rome, was burned not for his scientific ideas but for his religious heresies.
Oh.
This strikes an oddly defensive note in an otherwise fairly
evenhanded program. It might have been a good moment to point out, as does
Fordham philosophy professor Dominic Balestra, in his essay in Philosophy of
Religion, edited by Dominican Fr. Brian Davies (to be published soon by
Chapman), that Galileo was in trouble partly because the church had yoked
itself, including its eucharistic theology, to an inadequate scientific theory
-- Aristotles natural philosophy. Galileo backed a Copernican world-view,
which could not fit with Aristotle and led inevitably to confrontations.
Faith and Reason works its way through several
contemporary controversies: Evolution, even though greater understanding of the
Bibles literary forms means that only the fundamentalists, or
creationists, continue to see a conflict with scripture; genetics, which, with
cloning, raises the issue of moral limits on research and experimentation;
cosmology, which asks, if there is no moment when time began, is there a need
for a Creator?; and finally, the issue of purpose in the universe.
On cloning, Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project
at the National Institutes of Health, is willing to draw the line. But Ted
Peters, a theologian at the Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary in Berkeley,
says that if we cloned someone, God would not reject the human
being we had created. Im not sure what we are to conclude from
that. It sounds like a go-ahead -- as if God were a grandmother, accepting,
though disapproving of, her daughters illegitimate children. Maybe She
is.
But the program is in danger of forgetting the statement of the
late astronomer and TV personality Carl Sagan that now that physics had
explained the universe, there was nothing for a Creator to do.
According to Newsweek, only 40 percent of American scientists believe in
a personal God.
Some of the programs sharper moments come from scientists
who simply dont buy into the faith-reason aggiornamento. Oxfords
evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene
(Oxford University Press), will have none of this guff. He respects the
believing scientists as individuals but cant understand
why they waste their time with this other stuff that has never added
anything to the store of human wisdom and never will.
There is something chilling in his claim that while his believing
colleagues are chasing divine wisdom, the rest of the scientific community is
working on building up a complete picture of the universe, everything in
it. Stephen Hawking echoes this sentiment when he says that since there
is no precise moment when time began there is no need for a Creator.
But then the religious camp reminds me of those devoted to the
Shroud of Turin -- although the evidence of carbon dating denies its
authenticity -- as if the Shroud somehow presents scientific proof
of the resurrection, an event theologians say is beyond history and thus beyond
scientific demonstration.
Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize winner in physics at the University
of Texas, Austin, demands some rigor in how we use language. It is misguided to
seek meaning in the universe and call that meaning God, he says,
when, the more we study the universe, the more it shows itself to be
impersonal, chilling and cold. God, he says, is not an abstract principle but
an interested personality. If we want to give meaning to the universe, we must
do that by creating works of art, loving others and making an island of
warmth and love in a cold world.
The hour ends where it began -- with George Coyne. He agrees that
the physicists god is not a personal god; its a
cosmological model, but it can lead to a quest beyond cosmology. His own
religious faith is not based on scientific proof, but his love of the world and
his study of the skies help him to pray better.
I can hold the hand of a dying friend, he says, and
see something science cannot teach about the point of human
existence.
From time to time the camera returns to George as he offers Mass:
May the Lord accept the sacrifice of our hands, for the praise and glory
of His name, for our good and that of all the church.
Wouldnt it be great if he could have said that on the
moon?
Jesuit Fr. Raymond A. Schroth is assistant dean of Fordham
College.
National Catholic Reporter, September 11,
1998
|