The Council of Christians and Jews Victoria aims...

The Council of Christians and Jews Victoria aims to:• educate Christians and Jews to appreciate each other’s distinctive beliefs, practices and commonalities• promote the study of and research into historical, political, economic, social, religious and racial causes of conflicts between people of different creeds and colour• for the benefit of the community, promote education in fundamental ethical teachings common to Christianity and Judaism that relate to respect and understanding between people of different creeds.

Gesher ISSN 1037-2652Published by The Council of Christians and Jews (Vic) 326 Church Street, Richmond, Victoria 3121, AustraliaT/F: 61 3 9429 5212 E: [email protected] W: www.ccjvic.org.au

Design Marchese Design, 7 Carinda Road, Canterbury 3126T: 03 9836 2694 E: [email protected]

Disclaimer The views, opinions or conclusions expressed in this publication are those of their authors and not necessarily of the editors nor of the CCJ (Vic).

Gesher 2016Editor Walter Rapoport B. Econ.Walter Rapoport is a Past Chairman of the Council of Christians & Jews (Vic) and has been the Editor of Gesher for the 2013, 2014 and 2015 editions. He was the inaugural Chairman of the Interfaith Relations Committee of the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission. He also Co-Chaired the Steering Committees of the Commonwealth Government Living in Harmony Grants which oversaw the Building Bridges and the Embracing Youth programs.

Editorial BoardReverend Newton Daddow, Chaplain, Swinburne UniversityMr Martin Chatfield OP, Member, Executive Committee CCJ VicProfessor Linda Briskman, Professor of Human Rights, Swinburne Institute for Social Research Reverend Philip Murphy, Priest in Charge, the Parish of the Ascension, Burwood East

Our symbol is the gift of the late Louis Kahan to the Council of Christians and Jews. The shell is a symbol of eternity and of pilgrimage and contained in it are a number of things which are common to both faiths and traditions.

The motifs of the tree of life, burning bush, and flames of spirit stand at the centre of the design. Behind the tree can be seen the cup of blessing, and surrounding the whole is the rainbow, the symbol of universal peace and a reminder to God and us of the covenantal promise.

1Gesher 2016 Religion and Science: Fusion! Confusion!

Contents

Editorial Walter Rapoport 3

Messages CCJ Chairman 6 CCJ Patron, the Governor of Victoria From Her Excellency The Honourable Linda Dessau AM 6 Message from the Premier The Honourable Daniel Andrews MP 7 MessagefromtheLeaderoftheOpposition TheHonourableMatthewGuyMP 8 Message from the President Philip A Cunningham PhD 9

Foreword MessagefromthePresident,InternationalCouncilof Christians&Jews TheMostReverendDenisJHart 10 President,CouncilofChristians&JewsVic. TheMostReverendDrPhilipLFreier 11 President,CouncilofChristians&JewsVic. RabbiPhilipHeilbrunnOAM 12 President,CouncilofChristians&JewsVic. RabbiFredMorganAM 13

Chapter One At the Outset 14 ScienceisAboutExplanation: ReligionisAboutInterpretation JonathanSacks 16 ScienceandReligion:FriendsorFoes? OmerAErgi 18

Chapter Two The Atheist 21 Religion:SafefromScientificScrutiny BehindtheMagisterialVeil? JonathanRutherford 22

Chapter Three Headway 25 TheMythofHistoricalConflictBetween Science and Religion PeterHarrison 26 ScientistsandTheologiansEmbraceDiversity MerrillKitchenOAM 29

Chapter Four Evaulations 30 Judaism’sAttitudetoTherapeuticCloning RonnieFigdor 32 The Last Gasp Karen Wall 36 OrganDonation:TheJewishPerspective Yaakov Glasman 39

Chapter Five Text | Context 41 Talking About Science and Religion… GuyConsolmagnoSJ 42 BiblicalWisdomandtheQuestionofPurposeforScience TomMcLeishFRS 51 AboriginalMythology:AnEthicalFrameworkorLifeonEarth Janet Turpie-Johnstone 54

Chapter Six Fact | Fiction 56 Faith in Miracles and Science RachaelKohn 58 Considering Occam’s Razor ChaimCowen 61 AFruitfulEncounter Mark O’Brien OP 63

2 Gesher 2016 Religion and Science: Fusion! Confusion!

Contents continued

Chapter Seven Drilling Deeper 67 Science in the Service of the Eschaton SeanMcNelis 68 Metaphysics,MeaningsandMechanisms: Avoiding Confusions About Religion and Science Chris Mulherin 76 AQuestionofWorld-View StephenAmes 80 Donors 85

Membership 92


Editorial

Walter Rapoport

The Gesher 2016 theme, Religion and Science, was (somewhat warily) proposed during one of the last Editorial Board meetings we held to finalise the 2015 edition. Your Editor admits that he hesitated at the proposal, ruminated for months, and gamely yielded at the first meeting convened to prepare this new edition.

As Editor I overcame my trepidation intackling a topic somewhat controversial and beyond my familiarity compass, and we began our ambitious assignment – topresent the reader with what, we’re sure, is anundeniably stimulating subject,Religion and Science: Confusion! Fusion!

In wrestling with this theme, most of us, in attempting to be rational, will nodoubt experience a sense of confusion.Contradictions will abound. Cogentarguments will draw us one way, then another: some finding traction, otherslittle. We trust, that, after digesting thisedition, perceived paradoxes or firmlyheld scepticism might find themselvesevaporating– anda fusionofReligionandScience may supplant the reader’s initial,predictable confusion.

We navigate through the conundrums of Religion and Science and, by allowing each of our illustrious and learned contributors topresenttheirreasonedpositions,andtoshare with us their personal convictions,we hope Gesher’s expansive coverage of this subject might ultimately lead to agood measure of fusion–betweenthetwoseeminglycontraryfoundations.

Gesher, as readers will know, is the annual Journal of the Victorian Council of Christians & Jews, so, at the outset,notwithstanding the Council’s presumed disposition, letitbeclearlyarticulatedthattherewasnoulteriormotive inpresentingthis provocative subject. Any perceivedbiaseswerenotintended.Ourobjectivehereis not to induce an atheist to acknowledge a Creator, and similarly, we do not set out to provoke or rouse religionists to embrace scienceastheultimatetruth.

At the Outset,which is thetitle of our

opening chapter, we begin our discourse, and who better to distil our subject intobite-size chunks than Rabbi Jonathan Sacks who promptly tells us that “Science is about explanation. Religion is aboutinterpretation”. Does this help us throughthe labyrinth of further reading? Read on!In Friends or Foes, Omer Ergi also skilfully deals with the debate. Within a strongphilosophical framework, he posits that the universe and everything that exists within it had a beginning, and that this beginning wouldhaveneededacause.

It would have been remiss of us not to include avowed atheists’ perspective sowe invited one of themost internationallyprominent atheists to contribute (no names) but he was otherwise engaged (“apologies, a heavy schedule”). We present our ownhome grown doyen, Jonathan Rutherford who, with humour and without hesitancy, presents compelling reasons why science canconfidentlymistrustreligioustruths.Heasksthereader,“Why,ifthereisaGod…?”…Readon!

As we make Headway (the title ofour second chapter), Peter Harrison immediatelycutstothechase–thereisnohistoricalrivalry,only ‘complexity’.Doesheconvinceus?Ifso,thenwheredidthemythofaperennialconflictbetweenscienceandreligion originally come from? Read on!In making deeper Headway we’ll find thatMerrill Kitchen will also offer new sharedunderstandings.Shesubmitsthatliteralists’understanding of religious writings haverecently been convincingly challenged by scientific revelations, and she declarespositivelyso.

The fourth chapter, Evaluations, an applied analysis, examines perspectives

on therapeuticcloningandorgandonationfrom a Jewish standpoint, and this chapter also probes the quality and attributes ofend-of-lifecareinsocietygenerally.

Ronnie Figdor clearly distinguishesbetweentherapeuticcloning,whosegoalisto create an organ to heal people, and the conceptofcloninghumanbeings.Heissuesa sombre warning to the medical researcher –hecallsitthe‘snifftest’.

Organdonation,fromaJewishhalachic(legal) perspective, is exhaustively coveredin YaakovGlasman’s contribution, inwhichthe primacy of saving a life is scrutinisedwithall its caveats. Theendof life,on theother hand, is Karen Wall’s focus – is theChristian or Jewish faith, or indeed otherspiritual traditions, properly observed asdeath approaches? Are priests, rabbis andother faith leaders sufficiently skilled atpastoralcare?Canwetrustthatscienceandreligion can cooperate in “making informed choices”forthedying?Readon!

In chapterfive, intriguingly calledText/Context, we present contributors who are equallyathomedonningascientist’shatastheyarewhenwearingatheologian’sgarb.

Guy Consolmagno SJ, after 25 yearsat the Vatican Observatory, still revels intelling his listeners that “you can do science andstillgotochurch”.Heexplainshowhehandles his antagonists, and who else but Jesus himself does he invoke as an exemplar tosupporthispositions.Hisassessmentoffundamentalismiscompulsoryreading.

Continuing on in chapter five, TomMcLeish stands firm when barraged withthe inevitable “how can you reconcile your science with your faith” question? In aremarkable meander through the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, especially


Editorial continued

relishing the Creation story, McLeishinspires us to see “science itself at a deeper level”. And chapter five concludes withan indigenous Australian exhorting us tobe conscious of our finite resources, andinvitingustolearnfromancestralnarrativebasedphilosophy.

Fact/Fiction are unambiguously opposites, sowe’vechosenthisasthetitletochaptersix because our three essayists compel us to distinguish fact from dogma, fromimmutable truths, from theory, from the supernatural,fromscience,andmore–andtellonefromanother.

The intrepid Rachael Kohn scrutinisesmiracles, gives them modern countenance, expounds on contemporary interpretation,and argues that those with a mature faith will accept science as complementary rather thanincompatible.

What makes a theory true or false is the focusofChaimCowen’sarticle: shouldwe rely on the principle of Occam’s razor because it relies on fewer assumptions?Religion, he then declares, is not about fact or fiction, whilst science, he submits is …Readon!

MarkO’Brien, in the concluding articleinthechaptertitledFact/Fiction, launches a most assuring case in examining the Genesis accountsof creation,aswell as theeventsthatoccurred in theGardenof Eden. Theyhave, he explains, historically been analysed either through the prism of fundamentalist believersandtheologians,orbyrationalistic,analytical scientists. He advances a moreconstructiveandenlightenedposition, that–bothschoolsof thoughtmust learn fromthe other, both having the advantage of modernliteraryanalysis.Doweshunscienceandadoptstancesoffaithalone?Readon!

In chapter seven, we begin Drilling Deeper.SeanMcNelis,inscintillatingdetail,definesbothscienceandreligion,tracesthehistoricaldefinitionsofeach,andhowthey

have wrestled with one another throughout timespast.Heinsiststhat,whilstbothhavelimitations in cooperatingwith each other,thesearenotinsurmountable:asktherightquestion...Readon!

ChrisMulherincontinuesDrilling Deeper, and with a profound sense of convictionhe credibly distinguishes between scienceand (his own) orthodoxChristian faith.HisWorldview conception will surely resonateandthe‘Let’shaveacupoftea’dissertationwill assuredly clarify any confusion the readermayhave.

The Worldview template is further developed by Stephen Ames, who formulates two world views: one he calls ‘scientificnaturalism’, and the other he refers to as a metaphysicsofenquiry.Ames’finelytunedanalysis accomplishes, I believe, what he set out to do, that is, to heighten the quality of our human enquiry. Pivotal to his analysisarethetwoquestions,‘Isthatallthereis?,and, Is all there is, fully intelligible?’ It’s amostabsorbingcontestofideas.

We expect that many readers will have had a pronounced position wellbefore tackling this Religion & Science edition. Many readers may be testedwhen confronted by newly mounted ideas and concepts. After all is said and doneand read, may this Editor submit that even after assimilating all the information andviewpoints, it may just boil down to anunfussy prescription: it is either “In thebeginning God created the heaven and earth”, that the Mosaic Law and the TenCommandments were handed down at Sinai, that Jesuswas an Immaculate Conception,that he was resurrected, that Mohammed received the Koran, or any combinationorpermutationofanyoftheabove,orindeednone of the above, or irrevocably, that sciencereignssupreme.

Withthiseditioncompleted,myfourthasEditor,Ihandoverthebaton:weallhave

ausebydate.Anewvigourwillnecessarilyemergeto takeover thereins. In the2013edition, my first as Editor, we exploredMany Shades of Dialogue,the2014Gesher focused on Social Justice, and in last year’s editionwe celebrated and commemoratedAnniversaries. Gesher can now be read online: we have expanded our reach wellbeyond the steadfast readership of many years standing, and may we humbly submit that Gesher has indeed become an interfaith Journalbrand.Mayitcontinuetogrowfromstrengthtostrength!

I am highly indebted to my fellow Editorial Board members with whom I have worked these past four years. Wemust collectively share the acclaimswhichhave frequently come our way. I offer myappreciationtotheCouncil’sChairmenandtheir respective Executive Committees forentrusting me with the responsibility ofediting this esteemed Journal. It has beenaprivilegeandanhonour.Iamgratefulyetagain to Jo Marchese of Marchese Design whoabsolvesmeofallresponsibilityafterIdelivertoheracommonandunexceptionalUSBstick.Andfinally,tomywifeSandi,mythanksarebeyondmeasure.

Walter Rapoport


CCJ Chairman’s Message

Dr Philip Bliss OAM

This year’s Gesherlookstobeamostfascinatingedition.Itbringstogetherwriterswhohaveexploredthissubjectingreatdepthandprovidesuswithgreatinsights.

ThelaunchofthisneweditionprovidesanopportunitytoreflectonthebroaderworktheCCJundertakesonimportantsocietalissues,includingracismanddomesticviolence.

TheCCJVicheldanafternoonrecentlywithaformerchairmanoftheVictorianIslamicCouncil ofVictoria. Itmadeusallmuchmoreaware that the racismdirectedagainst thegeneral Islamic community is having a profoundly depressing effect on youngMuslims inparticular,making themall themorevulnerable.Wehaveoffered to joinwith the ICV tocreateawarenessofoppressiveracismincommunitiesofreligion.

We recently also held a workshop on family violence led by Dr Ree Bodde from the Anglican ThinkPrevent and barrister Debbie Weiner from Jewish Taskforce Against Family Violence.Thestatisticsarequitedepressing,butweagreedthatwemustworkcollectivelytocounterfamilyviolenceandchildabuse,andtotackleissuesofpoweranddomination.Untilwomen and kids can feel and be totally safe, our community must never believe the task is complete.Wemustallbemuchmoreawareofthetellingsignsofabuse,andarmourselveswiththeknowledgeonhowtoavert,andtoprotect,thevulnerable.

Inter-faith activity has never been more important or so demanding. With Christiancommunities in many parts of the world being targeted, anti-Semitic activities being sonumerous, and with the rise of racist acts against Muslims, we have to accept that racism is unacceptable no matter which groups are targeted. Our Council does not supportdiminishmentof18CoftheRacialDiscriminationActasitoffersprotectionagainstbigotry.

Back toour Journal. Iofferahuge thankyouandamazeltov toWalterRapoportandhisEditorialBoardforproducingthisexcellentedition.WalterissteppingasideafterhavingservedasEditorforthelastfoureditions.

We are blessed and honoured to have the (not so) new Governor of Victoria, Her ExcellencyLindaDessauAM,tolaunchthe2016Gesher.

Dr Philip Bliss OAM

The Council of Christians &Jews (Victoria) Inc

PatronThe Hon Linda Dessau AM Governor of Victoria

Honorary Life MembersGad Ben-MeirWilliam Clancy AMMichael S Cohen OAMRabbi Dr John Levi AMSrMaryLottonNDsDr Morna Sturrock AM

PresidentsRev’d Daniel Bullock Director Of Ministries BaptistUnionofVictoriaBishop Ezekiel of Dervis Greek Orthodox ArchdioceseThe Most Rev’d Dr Philip Freier Archbishop Anglican Archdiocese of MelbourneThe Most Rev’d Denis J Hart DD Archbishop Catholic Archdiocese of MelbourneRabbi Philip Heilbrunn OAM Chief Minister Emeritus StKildaHebrewCongregationRabbi Fred Morgan AMRabbi Emeritus, Temple Beth IsraelRev’d Greg Pietsch District Bishop Lutheran Church of Australia (Victorian and Tasmanian District)Rev’d Sharon Hollis Moderator U.C.A. Synod Of Victoria and Tasmania

ChairmanDr Philip Bliss OAM

Vice-ChairmanThilo Troschke

Hon. SecretaryAlbert Isaacs

Hon. TreasurerEdwinF.Carter

Executive CommitteeAdrian BartakTzippi BorodaKathryn BowdenMartinChatfieldRev’d Newton DaddowAlex KatsRev’d Graham McAnalleyRev’d Philip MurphyRysia Rozen OAM


Message from our Patron

From Her Excellency The Honourable Linda Dessau AMGovernor of Victoria

TheCouncilofChristiansandJews(Victoria)continuesitslongtraditionofcontributiontothecommunityin2016withthepublishingofitsannualJournalGesher.

Thethemeofthisyear’sJournalisonethathaspromotedstimulatingdiscussionacrosstheages–‘ReligionandScience’.Despitethemanyconflictsbetweenthesetwoconceptsthroughouthistory,theenormousimpactofeachisundeniable,andtheJournal’sillustrationsofbothperspectives,traversingtheAgeofEnlightenmentrightthroughtomodernism,willnodoubtbeengagingandthought-provoking.

IwouldliketowarmlycongratulatetheCouncilofChristiansandJews(Victoria)onitspublicationofGesher for2016. I amproud tobeyourPatron, andeagerlyanticipate theopportunitytoenjoythefinalproductofalltheCouncil’shardwork.

The Hon Linda Dessau AM


Message from the Premier

The Honourable Daniel Andrews MP

IamdelightedtosendmybestwishestoTheCouncilofChristiansandJews(Victoria)onthepublicationofthe2016editionofGesher.

ThisinstalmentoftheJournalexploresthechallengingandfascinatingthemeof‘ReligionandScience’throughouthistory.

AsarecognisedcontributortoourmultifaithState,IthanktheCouncilforitscontributiontointerfaithdialogue.BybringingtogetherrepresentativesofChristian,JewishandMuslimfaithgroups,yousendanimportantmessageoftoleranceandrespecttoallVictorians.

The Council also provides an important platform for celebrating the historical bondbetweenJewishandChristianpeople.

On behalf of the Victorian Government, I wish The Council of Christians and Jews(Victoria)asuccessfulyearahead.

The Hon Daniel Andrews MP


Message from the Leader of the Opposition

The Honourable Matthew Guy MP

ItgivesmegreatpleasuretoonceagainsendmybestwishestoTheCouncilofChristiansandJews(Victoria)andthe2016editionofGesher.

Sinceitsinception,TheCouncilofChristiansandJews(Victoria)Inc.hasbeenaforcefortoleranceandrespectinourcommunity.

OurStateisalreadyaleadingexampleofthemanywaysinwhichcultural,linguisticandreligiousdiversitycanenrichallaspectsofsociety,includingsocial,culturalandeconomiclife.

Inestablishingandmaintainingpartnershipswithkeyfaithandmultifaithorganisationsin Victoria, The Council of Christians and Jews (Victoria) Inc. continues to champion ourpositionastheleadingStateformulticulturalaffairs,themanybenefitsofourdiversity,andtopromoteharmonyandcohesionacrossVictoriancommunities.

IcongratulateTheCouncilofChristiansandJews(Victoria)Inc.foritsongoingmultifaithandinterfaithwork,anditscommitmenttoensuringthatourlivesandourattitudestowardsotherscaninfluenceustochangeourbehaviour.

IwouldliketothankTheCouncilofChristiansandJews(Victoria)Inc.foritswork,andwishyouallthebestforthefuture.

The Hon MatthewGuyMP


Message from the President ICCJ

Philip A Cunningham PhDPresident, International Council of Christians & Jews

Congratulations to the Editor of Gesher for devoting this issue to the fascinating topic of religion and science. Over time, both Judaism and Christianity have grappled in their respective traditions with the question of the relationship between empirically-derived knowledge (‘science’) and convictions based on claims of divine revelation or sacred authority (‘religion’). However, what is sometimes called the tension between ‘faith and reason’ was intensified with the rise of the scientific method in Europe, which some date to the publication in 1637 of René Descartes’ Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One’s Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences.

All branches of human knowledge were impacted by the gradual emergence of a culturalpreferenceforempiricallyverifiabletruth claims. It transformed not onlythe physical sciences such as astronomy and medicine, but also the study of the ‘humanities’, such as human literature,the human mind, and human cultures and political systems. Religious traditions have,ofcourse,alsobeen interactingwiththesedevelopmentsuptothepresent.

A particularly pointed challenge forChristians and Jews was the applicationof ‘scientific’ principles of literary andhistorical analysis to sacred texts, especially in the nineteenth century. Christianswerequicker to apply these methods to their ‘Old Testament’ scriptures than to the ‘New Testament,’ and did so in ways that frequently demeanedJudaismasmoreprimitivethanChristianity. Julius Wellhausen’s (1844-1918) ‘documentary hypothesis’ about thewritten sources behind the Pentateuchthreatened the traditional understandingthat the written Torah had been given byGod to Moses on Mt. Sinai, while criticalstudies of the New Testament called into question the idea that the Gospels hadbeenwrittenbyeyewitnessestothelifeofJesus.DifferentJewsandChristiansreactedinvariousways,withsomerejectingallnon-traditionalinterpretivemethods(‘Orthodox’Judaism; ‘fundamentalist’ or ‘evangelical’ churches) and others embracing them, sometimes with modifications (‘liberal’Jewish movements; ‘mainline’ churches, laterincludingCatholicism).

To expand on the last point, there is today a vigorous debate as to whether the Catholic Church is the friend or foe of reasonandscience.Thoseonthenegativeside can point to such episodes as the burning at the stake in 1600 of Giordano

Bruno, who had hypothesized that the stars were other suns that could have life-bearing planetsorbitingthem,andalsoquestionedthe divinity of Christ, the Trinity and other Catholic doctrines. Also notorious is theInquisition’s 1633 sentencing of GalileoGalilei to house arrest, and the banning of his books defending heliocentrism, something for which Saint Pope John Paul II wouldapologisecenturieslaterin1992.

On the other hand are those who argue for the essential compatibility betweenfaithandreason.TheypointtothefactthatEuropeanuniversitiesfirstdevelopedunderecclesiastical auspices out of cathedraland monastic schools, and by the latefourteenth century became self-governing communities of scholars and educatorswithclosetiestochurchstructures.Almostall higher education on the Continentoccurred in such settings for centuries,and produced important scientific figuressuch as the Jesuit priest Athanasius Kircher (1602-1680),whosurmisedthattheplaguewas caused by a microorganism; Jesuit-educated Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829), who was among the first to thinkof life in evolutionary terms; AugustinianFriar Gregor Johann Mendel (1822–1884),who is considered the father of genetics;and Belgian priest, Rev. Georges Lemaître(1894-1966), who appears to have beenthefirsttoproposethattheuniverseisinastateofexpansion.Itwouldbehardtoarguefora fundamental incompatibilitybetweenCatholicism and science given the examples ofthesenotables.

Catholicism holds that however human knowledge is derived – whether throughscientific experimentation or throughreligious activities – there must be anessential convergence, since all truth andultimate reality is rooted in God. This

Philip A Cunningham PhD

perspective is apparent, for example, in a1995 statement by Saint Pope John PaulII: “Today ... new knowledge leads to therecognition of the theory of evolutionas more than a hypothesis. It is indeedremarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence,neither sought nor provoked, of the results of work that was conducted independently isitselfasignificantargumentinfavorofthistheory.”Whileinsistingthataccordingtothebiblical witness, human beings are “in the image and likeness of God” and thereforeeachare“persons”called“intorelationshipwithGod”“theexegeteandthetheologianmust keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences.” Thisvisionofanessentialcompatibilitybetweendifferent fields of human endeavour ischaracteristic of the Catholic viewpointtoday.

In my own experience of interfaith dialogue with Jews, it would seem that this balanced approach resonates with mainstream Jewish thought as well. I lookforwardtoreadingthecontributionsonthistopic in this issue of Gesher, and encourage local dialogue groups to discuss what will surelybean increasingly importantsubjectintheyearsahead.


Foreword

The Most Reverend Denis J HartCatholic Archbishop of Melbourne

President, The Council of Christians & Jews (Victoria) Inc.

‘How many are your works, O Lord! In wisdom you have made them all.’ Psalm 104:21

In these words, the psalmist expresses the confidence that Christians and Jews have always had in the rationality of creation. This confidence grew out of faith in a Creator who is good and trustworthy. It is a confidence that enabled their heirs to embark upon the program of experiment and exploration that led to the remarkable scientific developments that characterise our modern Western society.

The falsenarrativeofantagonismbetweenfaith and science should no longer be allowedtostandunchallenged.Itistruethattheaffirmationsoffaithandscienceaddressvastlydifferentconcerns,suchthatitisnotpossible for a spaceship to travel to heaven or for a surgeon to dissect a human soul.Nevertheless, the history of the symbioticrelationshipbetweenscientificenquiryandreligious faith – once described by PopeBenedictasa“friendship”–mustonceagainbetold.

Among the great pioneer scientistswere Catholics such as St Albert the Great (c. 1200-1280), Roger Bacon (c.1214-1294), Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464)and Copernicus (1473-1543). Many moremodern names can be added to that list, including:GregorMendel (1822-1884), thefounderofthemodernscienceofgenetics;andGeorgesLemaître(1894–1966)whofirstsuggested the theory we know colloquially as‘thebigbang’.

Nor has the Church been the enemy of technology. The Vatican Observatory wasestablishedin1774,andin1931theVaticanwasamongthefirsttoadoptthenewradiotechnology establishing the Vatican Radiostation. Before Pope Pius XI spoke on thenew radio station, the inventor of radiohimself, Guglielmo Marconi, announced to theworld:

With the help of Almighty God, who allows the many mysterious forces of nature to be used by man, I have been able to prepare this instrument which will accord to the Faithful of all the world the consolation of hearing the voice of the Holy Father.

Of course, the story of the relationshipbetween science and religion also includes

the tragic case of the condemnation ofGalileo, although it must again be said that even around this story there is much misleading mythology. Pope John Paul IIrecognised in1989thatGalileo’sworkwas“imprudently opposed at the beginning”.But the Church had already long before its error, as Galileo’s book was removed from the Index in 1757. The Church learnedfromtheGalileoaffair,andbecameatoncemuch more cautious about reacting tonew scientific discoveries and much moreopen to the benefits of those discoveries.For instance, the Catholic Church did not condemn Darwin’s theory of evolution;rather,in1950,PopePiusXIIdeclared

the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter. (Encyclical Humani Generis §36)

On the other hand, people of faith rightly express concern when science degenerates into ‘scientism’ and oversteps the limits ofits knowledge and authority. Science is oneavenue of determining the truth about reality, but there is goodness and beauty in the world beyond the realms of empirical reality –accessible to art, poetry, music and (certainly) spiritual experience – which also lead toknowledgeoftruthsinaccessibletoscience.

Another concern is when scientificachievement is pursued at the cost of the well-beingofhumanbeingsortheenvironment.Noteveryscientific‘advancement’hasbeenforthebettermentofourworld.Wherethe

discoveries of science have led to poisonous toxins, destructive weapons and rampantconsumerism, people of faith who love the created world for the sake of the Creator needtobeabletocallout“enough”!

For this reason, Pope Francis has called for a “new dialogue” between faith andscience:

I urgently appeal, then, for a new dialogue about how we are shaping the future of our planet. We need a conversation that includes everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affect us all. (Encyclical Laudato Si’, §14).

The methodology of dialogue which we have so successfully employed over the last 50 years to improve the relationshipbetween Christians and Jews is thus alsoappropriately adopted to advance the relationship between religion and science.ItispartlyforthisreasonthatthePontificalCouncil for Culture conducts a program known as ‘The Courtyard of the Gentiles’.Taking its name from the precinct in the ancient Temple of Jerusalem that allowed a meeting place within the House of Godfor those who did not belong to his people, this program facilitates encounters between peopleoffaithandthosewhodonotbelieve.In this way it is hoped that a window may be opened to the world of contemporary cultureandscience.

For all these reasons, I congratulate Gesher, which has for so many years been an instrumentforpromotingdialoguebetweenChristiansandJews,fornowundertakingtoenter into this promising dialogue between religionandscience.


Foreword

The Most Reverend Dr Philip L Freier Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne and Primate of Australia

President, The Council of Christians & Jews (Victoria) Inc.

The supposed conflict between science and religion is a relatively new invention, stemming from the rise of the professional scientist in the 19th century. Before that much useful work had been done by clergy who had the inclination, intellect, discipline and time to pursue their fascinations.

This alleged divide has been widened vastly by the ‘new atheists’ of the early 21stcentury,suchasRichardDawkins,whotrenchantly define ‘faith’ as the oppositeof “reasonandevidence”. Theyare far toonegativeabout faith,and far toooptimisticaboutscience.

The new atheists say faith and ethics involve values and are subjective. Thereis an element of truth to that. But as thelate American philosopher Hilary Putnam demonstrated, science is not a neutral activitybutalsoinvolvescognitivevalues,andmustemployseveralunprovenassumptionsbefore it can operate at all. Such valuesinclude simplicity, the reductionism builtintotheatomisticapproach,andobjectivityitself.

Putnamshowedthattheharddistinctionbetween fact (science) and value (religion, aestheticsandthelike),belovedofscientificmaterialists,isactuallyafiction.AsSydneyphilosopher David McArthur put it in a recent tribute to Putnam, there is no value-free inquiry, because any inquiry is conditioned by its values, interests

and purposes. There can be no absolute,unconditioned conception of the worldbecauseconceptionisfromsomewhereandisalwaysconditionedbyhumaninterests.

But my point is not to denigrate science –notthatanyoftheaboveunderminesthescientific project. What it undermines isscientism.Thepointisthat–vitallyimportantandsuccessfulasthescientificenterpriseis–itisnottheonlyrepresentationofrealityorsourceoftruth.

The scientific method involves anhypothesis, amethodology for testing thathypothesis–forfalsifyingit,asKarlPoppersaid – and that methodology must berepeatable.

Our common theological tradition isbased on unique and unrepeatable events given to particular people, and at specifictimes,whetherintherevelationoftheLawofMoses,orforChristiansinthedeathandresurrectionofJesusChrist.Nomethodologycanexpecttorepeattheseevents.

Science is excellent at providing descriptionsandanalysinghowthingswork,and few human pursuits have improved

the human condition as much. However,as with religion, this has occasionally had its dark side, such as eugenics or biological warfare.But centralquestionsof intentionormotivation – the ‘why’ questions – arenot within the purview of science, along with many other aspects of vital importance to humans, such as values, meaning and morals.

Touseanoft-quotedexample,considerwaterboiling inakettle.Why is itboiling?A scientific answer might be because thetemperature of the water, and the air pressure surrounding the water, are such thattheliquidturnstogas.Anon-scientificanswer, but probably more useful and relevant,isbecauseIwantacupoftea.

Both science and religion are deeply complex social and cultural activitieswhich have changed enormously over the centuries, and there is no doubt this will continue.Despitehuman fallibilitieswithineachfield,theworldisimmeasurablybetteroffbecauseofbothofthem.


Foreword

Rabbi Philip Heilbrunn OAM President, The Council of Christians & Jews (Victoria) Inc.

From the Jewish point of view the traditional ‘rivalry’ between Science and Religion, or as it is described ‘Science versus Religion’, appears to be a more modern phenomenon. Indeed Judaism, with its origins in the distant past, arguably viewed and still regards them as two sides of the same coin, with Science and Religion representing the means by which humankind is to fulfil G-d’s charge to Adam and Eve in Genesis (1:28): ”be fruitful and multiply, fill the land and conquer (master) it”.

The Rabbis elaborate on the centrality of this fundamental commandment, which causes us to partner with G-d, so to speak, in the actsofcreation(Y’vamos63b),tomastertheworld and act as stewards in upholding its existenceandwelfare.Noahandhis familyare similarly commanded; “be fruitful andmultiply,andfilltheearth”(9:1).Jewishlawgoestogreatlengthstofosterfulfilmentofthischarge.Anunderstandingof theworld– nature, its phenomena and processes -are crucial to the detailed and intelligent fulfilmentofG-d’scommands.

Advances in science often appear tocontradict descriptions of Creation and ofnatural phenomena or occurrences. Theseadvances confront the Torah scholars, who view their task as seeking to understand discoveries, and to examine how they are to be understood and integrated, or synthesised,intoaheightenedappreciationand more meaningful fulfilment of Hiscommands.

A deeper understanding of nature and scienceheightensourappreciationofG-d’sgreatness, and serves to promote our faith andcommitmenttotheTorah.MaimonidesChapter2:2ofthe‘FundamentalsofTorah’derives from the rapturous verses of Psalm 8a setofguidelines leading to the loftiestaccomplishmentstowhichmancanaspire–theloveandfearofG-d.

What is the path to love and reverence for G-d?When a person contemplates Hisgreat and wondrous acts and creations,obtaining from them a glimpse of G-d’s endless wisdom which is beyond compare, then he will promptly love, praise and glorify Him, longing exceedingly to know the great NameofG-d: “Mysoul thirsts forG-d, thelivingG-d”(Psalms42:3).Whenthispersoncontinues toponder the subject in greaterdepth, he will be startled and recoil in fear withtherealisationthatheisnomorethana lonely, insignificant, obscure creaturepossessing a weak, minuscule intellect,

standing in the presence of You who is perfect in His wisdom. All this is as Davidsaid, “When I behold the heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the starswhich You have set in place; What is the frail humanthatyoushouldkeephim inmind?And what is the son of mortal man that you shouldcare forhim.” (Psalms8:4-5).Theseprofound words of Maimonides encourage the study of nature and our universe as a preferredwaytocometoloveG-d.

ThearticlesinthiseditionofGesher are strongly tobe commendedas contributingtotheexaminationofthewaysofourworldwhich ultimately lead to the fulfilment ofthe advice of our Bible, “In all your ways acknowledgeHim”(Proverbs3:6).

I congratulate the editors, contributors and all who have so generously offeredtheirtime,skillsandtalentstoproducethiseditionofGesher,the‘bridge’connectingusall.


Foreword

Rabbi Fred Morgan AMPresident, The Council of Christians & Jews (Victoria) Inc.

I believe he meant by this that neither Christianity nor Judaism can escape theimpact of religious scepticism and the‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ born of thescientific spirit. In a post-Kantian age, theauthority of our respective Scriptures ischallenged by the autonomy ascribed to our intellects and our historical and moral understanding.Withouttakingthesethingsinto account we cannot carry out a truly meaningfuldialogue.

There are several ways that this ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ is expressed.The most immediate is the apparent clash between scientific truths regarding thenatureoftheuniverseandthenarrativesofGenesis.Manycommentatorsdealwiththisby arguing that to read the Biblical accounts ofcreationasscienceistomakea“categorymistake”.TheBibleisnotabookofnatural

Dr Norman Solomon, British Orthodox Rabbi and keen exponent of interfaith engagement, has often argued that there is a third party who is generally absent at every instance of Jewish-Christian dialogue, and yet without whom the dialogue remains incomplete. The third party is the Secularist, the product of the European Enlightenment.

history but rather it provides an ethical prism through which we can view and understand theworldandhumanagency.

But this argument is in itself a product of theEnlightenmentoutlook.Itisanattemptto maintain the authority of both science andreligionbystatingthattheyfunctionindifferentspheres,butitisscientificanalysisandnotScripturalfaiththatarguesthis.

We can carry this further by recognising that the critical approach to the Bible is aproductofscientificreasoningandanalysis,as are current arguments surrounding the emergence of both rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity. There would be no non-polemical interfaith discussion at all without it taking place within a religiously neutral context, a spin-off of the scientific worldview.ContemporaryexpressionsofJudaismsuch as ‘Modern Orthodoxy’, ‘Liberal

Judaism’ and “‘Jewish Renewal’ are all responses to the scientific Enlightenment,as are the overwhelming majority ofpresent-dayexpressionsofChristianity.Theimpulse in many Jewish circles to undertake ‘Tikkun Olam’ and social justice initiativesalso rests on social-scientific, as well asreligious, premises. As Rabbi Solomoninsists, any dialogue that takes place today without acknowledging the importance of secularismandthescientificspiritisboundtomissthemark.

That’s why it is so important that the CCJ (Vic) devote the current issue of Gesher to the topic of the interface between scienceandreligion.Itwillbeveryexcitingto read the contributions and see wheretheyleadus.

Chapter One At the Outset

“Science and Religion are compatible but there are outrageous statements made by Atheists.” Lutheran Lady


Science is About Explanation: Religion is About Interpretation

Jonathan SacksRabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks was named the winner of the 2016 Templeton Prize in recognition of his “exceptional contributions

to affirming life’s spiritual dimension.” Rabbi Sacks is a frequent and sought-after contributor to radio, television and the press both in Britain and around the world. He served as the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the

Commonwealth for 22 years between 1991 and 2013.

What would we do for entertainment without scientists telling us, with breathless excitement, that “God did not create the universe,” as if they were the first to discover this astonishing proposition? Stephen Hawking is the latest, but certainly not the first. When Napoleon asked Laplace, two hundred years ago, where was God in his scientific system, the mathematician replied, Je n’ais besoin de cette hypothese. “I do not need God to explain the universe.” We never did. That is what scientists do not understand.

Thereisadifferencebetweenscienceandreligion.Scienceisaboutexplanation. Religion is about interpretation. Science takes thingsapart to seehow theywork. Religionputs things together to seewhat theymean. They are different intellectual enterprises. Theyeven occupy different hemispheres of the brain. Science – linear,atomistic, analytical – is a typical left-brain activity. Religion –integrative, holistic, relational – is supremely awork of the right-brain.

It is important for us to understand the mistake Professor Hawkinghasmade,becausethemutualhostilitybetweenreligionand science is one of the curses of our age, and it is damaging to religionandscienceinequalmeasure.

The best way of approaching it is through the autobiography of CharlesDarwin.Darwintellsusthatasayoungmanhehadbeenimpressed with the case for God as set out by William Paley in his NaturalTheologyof1802.Paleyupdatedtheclassic“argumentfromdesign”tothestateofscientificknowledgeasitexistedinhisday.

Find a stone on a heath, says Paley, and you won’t ask who designed it. Itdoesn’t lookas if itwasdesigned.Butfindawatchandyouwill thinkdifferently.Awatch looksas if itwasdesigned.Therefore ithadadesigner.Theuniverse looksmore likeawatchthanastone.Itisintricate,interlocking,complex.Therefore,ittoohadadesigner,whosenameisGod.

Darwin, in a simple yet world-transforming idea, showed how theappearanceofdesigndoesnotrequireadesigneratall.Itcanemergeoveralongperiodoftimeby,aswewouldputittoday,aniteratedprocessofgeneticmutationandnaturalselection.Sotheuniverse isnot likeawatch,or if it is, thewatchmakerwasblind.Q.E.D.

‘Religion is about interpretation. Science takes things apart to see how they work.’

Butwhoeverthoughttheuniversewaslikeawatchinthefirstplace? The scientists and philosophers of the seventeenth andeighteenth centuries. Newton. Leibniz. Laplace. Auguste Comte.What was wrong about Paley’s argument was not the theology but the scienceonwhich itwasbased.Good science refutesbadscience.IttellsusnothingatallaboutGod.

Professor Hawking has done something very similar, except that thistimeheplaysbothparts.HeisbothPaleyandDarwin,andwithgreatlegerdemainandpanache,HawkingII,thegoodscientist,hasbrilliantlyrefutedHawkingI,thepoortheologian.

Hawking I was the person who wrote, at the end of A Brief History of Time, that if we found science’s holy grail, a theory-of-everything, we would know “why it is that we and the universe exist.”Wewould“knowthemindofGod.”

This is so elementary a fallacy that it is hard to believe that Professor Hawking meant it. We would know how we and theuniversecameintobeing,notwhy.Nor,inanybutthemosttrivialsense,wouldwe “know themind of God.” The Bible simply isn’tinterestedinhowtheuniversecameintobeing.Itdevotesamere34 verses to the subject. It takes fifteen times asmuch space todescribinghowtheIsraelitesconstructedasanctuaryinthedesert.

The Bible is not proto-science, pseudo-science or myth masqueradingasscience.Itisinterestedinotherquestionsentirely.Who arewe?Why arewe here?How then shallwe live? It is toanswerthosequestions,notscientificones,thatweseektoknowthemindofGod.

HawkingIIhasnowrefutedHawkingI.Theuniverse,accordingtothenewtheory,createditself.(ThisremindsmeofajokeIheardasanundergraduateaboutasmugbusiness tycoon:“He isaself-mademan,therebyrelievingGodofagraveresponsibility”).Shouldyou reply that the universe must be astonishingly intelligent to have fined-tuned itselfsopreciselyfortheemergenceofstars,planets,life and us, all of which are massively improbable, then the answer isthatthereisaninfinityofuniversesinwhichallthepossibilitiesandpermutations are playedout.We struck lucky.We found theuniversethatcontainedus.


C H A P T E R O N E : AT T H E O U T S E T

I first heard this theory from that brilliant andwise scientist,LordRees,PresidentoftheRoyalSociety.Hetoo,asheexplainsinhis book Just Six Numbers, was puzzled by the precision of the six mathematical constants thatdefine the shapeof theuniverse. Sounlikelyisitthattheuniversejusthappened,bychance,tofitthoseparameters that he too was forced to suggest the parallel universes hypothesis.Ifyouholdaninfinityoflotterytickets,oneofthemisgoingtowin.

That is true,butnotelegant.TheprincipleofOckham’sRazorsays:don’tmultiplyunnecessaryentities.Givenachoicebetweenasingleintelligentcreatorandaninfinityofself-creatinguniverses,theformerwinshandsdown.

‘Given a choice between a single intelligent creator and an infinity of self-creating universes, the former wins hands down.’

Butletushailascientificgenius.ProfessorHawkingisoneofthetrulygreatmindsofourtime.Twothousandyearsago therabbiscoinedablessing–youcanfindit inanyJewishprayerbook–onseeingagreatscientist,regardlessofhisorherreligiousbeliefs.Thatseemstometherightattitudeofreligiontoscience:admirationandthankfulness.

But there ismore to wisdom than science. It cannot tell uswhywe are here or howwe should live. Sciencemasqueradingas religion is asunseemly as religionmasquerading as science. IwillcontinuetobelievethatGodwhocreatedoneoraninfinityofuniversesinloveandforgivenesscontinuestoaskustocreate,toloveandtoforgive.

ThisarticlewasfirstpublishedinThe Times (3September2010)andisreprintedwiththekindconsentofRabbiSacksandtheNewsSyndicationoffice.

Jonathon Sacks



Science and Religion: Friends or Foes?

Omer A Ergi Omer Ergi is General Manager of Islamic Studies Research Academy and a lecturer at Charles Sturt University.

He has a Masters in Islamic Studies and is a PhD candidate in Philosophy. He is the author of six published books.

The relationship between science and religion goes all the way back to classical antiquity when most philosophers addressed the two as if they were inseparable. There is also strong historical evidence that most scientific methods were developed by Muslim, Christian and Jewish scholars who were motivated by their beliefs which proclaimed that the universe was created by a Supreme Being, and that studying the universe would ultimately lead to knowing its creator better. The harmonious interaction between science and religion continued until the development of modern science during the 16th and 17th centuries.

With the progress of modern science in Europe, some scientists proposed thatmethodologically, science and religion were not compatible. This was the beginningof a conflict between science and religionthat continued to propagate, and perhapsreached its peak with the introduction oftheDarwinianTheoryofEvolutionin1859.1

Although Darwin’s hypothesis was based on theoriginofspeciesonearth–notontheoriginoflifeitself–itstillposedachallengeto religious beliefs through the concept of species being the product of chance or random events such as adaptations,naturalselectionandmutationsratherthancreation. Consequently, the gap betweenscience and religion continued to widenthroughout the last few centuries. It isimportant to note, however, that the debate ofcreationorchancewasnotrestrictedtoevolutionistsandreligiousfigures,astherewerescientistsonbothsidesoftheargumentas well. Seventeenth century philosopherWilliamPaleydisputedthenotionofchanceproducing complex organisms through the teleological argument, proposing the famous watchmaker analogy where he claimed “If I stumbled on a stone and asked how it came to be there, it would be difficult to showthat the answer, ‘it has lain there forever’, is absurd.Yetthisisnottrueifthestoneweretobeawatch.”2 Paley’s argument was based on the premise that a watch is a complex mechanismthatimpliesawatchmaker,justas the universe, which is more complex than any man-made mechanism, requires

‘ ...design cannot be the result of chance.’

a Maker. Consequently, Paley argued thatdesigncannotbetheresultofchance.

So the debate between evolutionistsand creationists continued, and continuestoday, as evolutionary biologist RichardDawkins responded to Paley’s claim, more than two centuries after the watchmakerargument was proposed, with his book The Blind Watchmaker.3 Dawkins claimed that Paley, although a passionate, sincere scholar of his era, was wrong because the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics.4

Many people today may assume that thedebatehasbeenwonbytheevolutionistcamp and that there is strong evidence supporting the evolution theory. However,this may not be the case as molecular biologist Michael Behe made a biochemical challenge to evolutionwith the irreduciblecomplexity argument.5 Behe claimed that irreducible complexity observed in many biochemical systems infer intelligent design rather than evolutionary process. Behearguedthatthebacterialflagellamotorisaperfect example of an irreducibly complex mechanism that could not have gradually evolved by means of natural selectionbecausethesystemfailstofunctionifanyofthe componentswasmissing. Evolutionaryscientistshavealsocomeupwithacounterargument to irreducible complexity, but the argument seems somewhat feeble as they focus on the structure of other bacteria to refute Behe’s claim of irreducible complexity. Behe argues that

evenasimplecontraptionsuchasamousetrap has irreducible complexity because removing anyof the essential componentsofthedevicewouldannulitsfunction.6 The inference is a complex biological structure, such as a bacterial flagellum, could nothave gradually evolved because the system fails to function in the absence of one ofthe essential components of the biologicalrotarymotor.

‘ ... science is a truth seeking tool and it should not be restricted by taboos.’Although the argument of creation

or evolution may not end anytime soon,we do come across many academics who prefer to stay away from the debate, as in a negativesenseitiseasytobebrandedasa‘creationist’intheworldofacademiathesedays. Imyselfhavewitnessedanumberofscientists,whowerebelievers,claimingthatGod should not be invoked in science because sciencecannotprovetheexistenceofGod.Ipersonally do not agree with the statement, as science is a truth-seeking tool and it shouldnotberestrictedbytaboos.Ifthereis a possibility that the universe was created, then what harm is there in investigatingall the probabilities? My claim could be



strengthened by an analogy proposed by William L Craig who argues, “If you were to come across a translucent ball lying on the forestfloorwhilehiking,wouldyounotthinkhowitcametobethere?Wouldyouclaimthatitjustexistsinexplicably?Now,supposethat the size of the ball is increased to the size of the universe, does the question ofhow it came to be there change?”7 Since there is overwhelming scientific evidencethat the universe had a beginning, is it not reasonableforscientiststo investigatehowit may have come into existence from a non-existentstate?

The empirical data provided by physicists indicate that space-time and matter cameintoexistencewiththe‘bigbang’.So,whatexisted before the ‘big bang’? Well, mostphysicists will tell you “nothing”. Thenthe next obvious question would be “cansomething pop out from nothing?” Sinceit is both scientifically and philosophicallyimpossible for non-existence to produce existence, it would be quite plausible to establish that the universe needs a cause.Theologians will tell you that this cause is God. Most scientists will tell you thatit is impossible to prove that God caused the universe. So, how do we solve thebiggestmysteryofscience:theoriginoftheuniverse?

Let us begin with the statement mentionedearlier,“existenceofGodcannotbe scientifically proven.” This argument ispartially correct but it is incomplete. Thecorrect statement would be: “both theexistence and non-existence of God cannot be scientifically proven.” In fact, it ismoredifficult to prove the non-existence ofsomething than toprove its existence. Thepremise that it is scientifically impossibleto prove the existence or non-existence of God is valid because science cannot test the supernatural. From a theologicalperspective, God cannot be tested with

the tools He has created. However,although non-existence of God cannot be scientifically proven, existence of God canbe argued through scientific philosophy.Classical Muslim theologians such as Farabi, al Kindi, Ibn Sina and Ghazali have proposed such arguments known as the kalam cosmologicalarguments.Interestingly,mostof these theologians lived more than a thousand years ago but their arguments are still used by modern philosophers both intheEastandtheWest.Moreover,thekalam cosmological argument is not only based on religious philosophy, but it also includes theoreticalphysics.Forexample,thehuduth (temporalregress)argumentstates:i) Everything that has a beginning needs a causeii) The universe had a beginning of its existenceiii) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existenceiv) If the universe has a cause of its existence then this cause is Godv) Therefore God exists

Arethesepremisesvalid?Well,allscientistswill agree that thefirst threepremisesarevalid.Thedisagreementwouldbegininthefourth premise as some would claim: “Onwhat scientific ground could we attributecausality to God?” The answer would bethat the universe needs a cause, and if it is notattributedtoGodthenthere isaneedforacauseotherthanGod.Theenigmaherewould be that a cause other than God would also need an explanation of its existence,therefore another cause. Since an infiniteregress is impossible, there needs to be a cause that is the cause of everything but doesnotneedacausetoexist.

Theonlyscientifictheorythatattemptstosolvethisproblemisthatthemultiversetheory. One of the main reasons for theproposal of this theory is that the present

models in particle physics and origin ofthe universe suggest that the universe is a massive impossibility.8 Since the existence of our universe with its precise physical laws and order is an improbability, some scientists argued that perhaps there aremany universes where by chance, one of them produced the perfect conditionsfor life. Unfortunately, scientists have notfound any definitive evidence to supportthe multiverse theory. Moreover, themultiverse theory does not solve theproblem of temporal regress or solve the problemofcausality.This isbecause,sinceinfinite regress is impossible, the need fora beginning, and thus a cause, would stillbe there, whether you have one or a billion universes.Oneofthemainreasonsforthisis that just as the universe or multiverseneeds a beginning and a cause, time itselfalsoneedsabeginning.Itisarguedthattimeitselfcannotbeinfiniteinthepastbecauseiftimedidnothaveabeginninginthepastthenwewouldnotbehere,inthepresent.The philosophical logic here is that if timewasinfiniteinthepast,itwouldmeanthatno matter how far we travel back in time(theoretically), we would never get to thebeginning of time, simply because there isnobeginning.Since itwouldbe impossibletogobacktothebeginningoftime,itwouldalsobeimpossibletoarrivetothepresent.

All of the above arguments indicate that the universe and everything that exists within the space-time continuumhad a beginning, and this beginning needs a cause. The cause of the universe needsto have necessary existence, otherwise it wouldrequireacauseforitsownexistence.Basically, this is what the kalam cosmological argument of huduth infers. This argumentreceives further support from the imkan (contingency argument) which states thattherecanonlybetwotypesofexistence:

‘ ...what existed before the big bang?’



i) Contingentexistenceii) Necessary existence

Contingent existence means that theexistence of something is only a probability, for it is equally possible that it will exist or notexist.9 This means that a property that has probable existence needs an external cause to exist, as contingent entities donot possess the power to determine the time, place, characteristics or features oftheir own existence. Since everything inthe universe, including the universe in its entirety, is contingent, there needs to bean agent that determines between the non-existence and existence of contingententities. This, in turn, means that there isa need for an agent whose existence is not contingentbutanecessity.Therefore,God’sexistenceisnecessaryexistence.Somemayclaim that the argument does not solve the problem, because if it is said that God is the cause of the universe, then what caused God?Thereisaseriousparadoxassociatedwith this argument, which is that if God needs a cause to exist then we would need to assume that God is also contingent.Having a contingent nature would meanGod also needs cause, and this would then bringaboutthequestion“whatcausedtheagentthatcausedGod?”

The lines of questioning would leadto the concept of infinite regress which isphilosophicallyunacceptable.Thefollowinganalogymayshedsome lightonto this: letus imagineaperson sittingona chair thathas its two back legs missing. Obviously,the person would fall back. In order toavoid falling backwards, he has placed another chair at the back of the chair he is currently sitting on. However, the secondchairalsohastwolegsmissingattheback.So there is another two-legged chair behind the second chair, that supports both. Theargument is, no matter how many two-

1 Darwin,Charles.1988.On the origin of species, 1859.New York University Press, Washington Square,

NewYork.2 Paley, William, Henry Brougham Brougham and Vaux,

CharlesBell,andAlonzoPotter.1840. Paley’s natural theology.Harper&Brothers,NewYork.

3 Dawkins,Richard.1986.The blind watchmaker. Norton,NewYork.4 Dawkins,Richard.1986.The blind watchmaker.

Norton,NewYork.5 Behe,MichaelJ.1996.Darwin’sblackbox:the

biochemical challenge to evolution.6 Behe,MichaelJ.1996.Darwin’sblackbox:the

biochemical challenge to evolution.7 Moreland,JamesPorter,andWilliamLaneCraig.

2003.Philosophical foundations for a Christian worldview.InterVarsityPress,DownersGrove,Ill.

8 Retrievedfrom:http://www.techtimes.com/articles/9131/20140626/our-universe-is-impossible-and-we-shouldnt-exist-higgs-boson-scientist-says.htm

9 Gülen,Fethullah,andLeeCrooks.2006.The essentials of the Islamic faith.TheLight/Nil,Somerset,NJ.

10Moreland,JamesPorter,andWilliamLaneCraig.2003.Philosophical foundations for a Christian worldview.InterVarsityPress,DownersGrove,III.

‘ ...non-existence of God cannot be proven through any scientific argument.’legged chairs are lined up to support each

other, thepersonsittingon thefirstwouldfall backwards unless there is a four-legged chair at the very back that supports all the chairsbutdoesnotneedsupportitself.Wecan further elucidate the argument with the analogy of the domino effect. Let us thinkabout an observer who is watching a long line of dominoes falling one after another.However, the observer is unable to see the beginningof the line. Is it possible for anyobserver to assume that the line of falling dominoes has no beginning, and that the dominoeffecthasbeencontinuinginfinitelyin thepast?Sinceanactual infinitecannotexist10 (that is, an infinite set of physicalthings that are not abstract like numbers), then one would have to conclude that the fall of the first dominowas caused byan agent that cannot be considered as a component of the effect. The conclusionwould be that the existence of an agent that created the contingent universe cannot becontingent. Therefore, it would be illogicaltoask“whatcausedGod?”

Arguments for God are not limited to the cosmological arguments, as there are also other arguments, such as the teleological, ontological, purpose, wisdom, providence and natural disposition arguments. Incontrast, non-existence of God cannot be proven through any scientific argument.It is for this reason, that the relationshipbetween theology and science should not be eliminated, and thus theological arguments for the origin of the universe should at least be investigated by open-minded scientists.From an Islamic perspective, religion andscience do not contradict; on the contrary, they complement each other. Islamictheologians believe that the great book of the universe is also a Divine scripture, a message from the all-Powerful Designer that needs to bestudiedjustastheHolyBooks.

OmerA.Ergi

Science and Religion: Friends or Foes? continued

Chapter Two The Atheist“Religion and Science? Ultimately both require some sense of commitment to believe. We have people like Richard Dawkins who claim it’s simply rational belief that underlies all. But no one can claim to fully understand assumptions that underlie the scientific enterprise. Science can be God like when it produces antibiotics. Science can be terrible like when it produces the ‘H’ bomb. Even Nietzsche as an Atheist feared the loss of the idea of god. I fear that science is becoming increasing nihilistic. How can we have a science of compassion? I am drawn to Buddhist ideal of compassion.” PK–describeshimselfasan‘EcumenicalAtheist’


C H A P T E R T W O : T H E AT H E I S T

Religion: Safe from Scientific Scrutiny Behind the Magisterial Veil?

Jonathan Rutherford Jonathan works as coordinator of the New International Book Shop in Melbourne. Growing up, he was an enthusiastic Christian

Evangelical but lost faith during his time at university, and instead has since found purpose and meaning in left-wing environmental politics and activism. He has co-authored a book with his Dad titled Beloved father, beloved son: A conversation between a bishop and his

atheist son which can be ordered from Morning Star Publishing (www.morningstarpublishing.net.au)

The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty.1 Stephen J Gould

It is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science’s turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims.2

Richard Dawkins

Stephen J Gould’s view that religion and science occupy two non-overlapping magisteria is a popular one. It’s an appealing view,not just for religiouspeoplewhowant to embracea scientificallyinformedworldview,butalso formany secular scientistswho, forvariousreasons,donotwishtosteponreligioustoes.Butdoes itstand up to scrutiny?Gould argues that religion deals exclusivelyin the domain of “morals and values”, an issue to which I willbrieflyreturn.But,asDawkinspointedout,religionactuallyoffersfar more than guidance on values and meaning. Religion also makes factual claims about reality, most obviously that certain supernatural entities i.e. God/s, spirits, demons, etc. exist, and(usually) interact with humanity. Indeed, whatever else definesreligion, a belief in supernatural agents who interact with humanity, plausibly constitutes a “minimal” definition applicable to all.3 The questionthenarises:whycan’t thesetruthclaimsbea legitimatestudy of scientific inquiry? Is there, as Gould implies, a kind ofmetaphorical ‘veil’ behind which the supernatural realm exists, but which the empirical tools of scientific investigation are powerlessto interrogate? My answer is negative: I think science, broadlyconceived,cancall intoquestionat leastsome, ifnotall,religioustruthclaims.

Before proceeding, a brief comment about what I mean by ‘science’.Here I have inmind abroaddefinition, such as theempirical investigation into thenatureof reality in theunendingsearch for truth. This includes what most people today thinkof as professional science, involving the testing of hypothesisvia controlled experiments, etc., but also the more informalaccumulationofempiricalknowledgewhichhumanityhasacquired,oftenbytrialanderror,fromobservationandengagementwiththeworldaroundthemsuchashowtobuildawell-designedhouse.It’salsoimportanttonotethatthesubjectmatterofmodernsciencegoeswellbeyondwhatisdirectlyobservabletothehumansenses.In fact, science is properly able to study anything that is, in some sense, detectable.TherecentdiscoveryofEinstein’slongtheorised

gravitationalwaves isagoodexample:nobodyhas seenorheardthese waves, they are only inferred from their impact on pulsars and black holes, and yet we can say their existence is well established byscience.

Usingthisdefinition,itseemsobviousthatmanyreligiousclaimsareopentoscientificscrutiny.Thisisbecause,iftheyweretrue,wewouldexpecttofindcertaindetectableconsequencesonoursideofthemagisterialveil.Inprinciple,thismeansmanyreligiousclaimscanbescientificallytestedandfalsified.Andfalsificationisthekey.AsEinsteinsaid,“noamountofexperimentationcaneverprovemeright;asingleexperimentcanprovemewrong”.Sotherealquestionis: can certain religious god-claims be tested and meaningfullyfalsified?

Clearly,notallofthemcan.Forexample,thedeistGod,whoisthought tohave created theuniversebefore retiring for a cuppa,seemsimpenetrabletoscientificdetection.Thesamecouldbesaidfor the pantheist God who is, more or less, one and the same with theuniverse.Thesemetaphysicalclaimsareindeedimpenetrabletoscience, although precisely for that reason they can be charged as meaningless,i.e.iftheuniversetheypredictiftrue,isnodifferentfromoneinwhichtheclaimsarefalse.Butnoneofthiscanbesaid,forexample,abouttheJudeo-Christian-IslamicGod–thatis,aGodwho created the universe, cares about humanity, answers prayer, and is all-loving, all-powerful and all-knowing. Surely science canconclusivelyruleoutthisGod-hypothesis?Why?BecausesuchaGodpredictsaverydifferentrealityfromtheonesciencehasrevealed.Letmebrieflyexplain.

‘ ... science...can call into question... religious truth claims ’



‘God, ...seems impenetrable to scientific detection.’If such a God existed, she would care deeply about life on earth,

especiallyhumans.Wecanthereforesafelypredictthatshewouldmake herself clearlyknowntohersubjects.ButGodissilent.Thisneednotbethecase.OnecouldthinkofmanywaysinwhichGodcouldmakeherpresencefelt,and inawaydetectabletoscience.A divine voice from a burning bush, Moses style (perhaps recorded onan i-phone!), is oneway–but, strangely, thatnever seems tohappen nowadays! In any case, in our scientific agemanywouldwant somethingmore definitive (manywould be rightly scepticalaboutallegedvoicesemergingfromaburningbush!).PerhapsGodcould reveal, via a dream, some as yet unknown piece of valuable scientificinformation,suchasthelocationofaplanetinourgalaxywhichharbouredlife.Ifcross-checkedandverifiedand,betteryet,continually repeated across history formanyother valid scientificclaims, then that would be powerful evidence of the divine. Buthistoryprovidesnosuchevidence.Alternatively,ifGodisthoughttocaremoreaboutourmoralconductthanscientificknowledge,shecould reveal clearly, for all, the right conduct for human beings, and empowerthosewithtruefaithtolivemorallyupstandinglives.Buthumans are, to put it mildly, confused about what God wants from usmorally,andnoreligioustraditionclearlyproducesmoremorallyunstainingconvertsthananyother.Needlesstoadd,theideathatGod’srevelationtohumanitycanbefoundviaancientscripturesisofnohelp.Ascriticalbiblicalscholarshiphasrevealedbeyondanyreasonable doubt, scripture looks indelibly human, reflecting the

ancientprejudicesandbeliefsofthepeoplewhocomposedit,andcontainingnarrativesforeverstainedwiththebrushofmyth,legendandhumanignorance.

AnotherwaythisGodcouldscientificallyrevealherselfissimplythrough answering our prayer – and prayer can be scientificallytested. The most comprehensive and rigorous scientific study ofprayerwascarriedoutbytheTempletonFoundation,aconservativereligiousinstitutesoinnowaybiasedagainstapositivefinding.Theylookedattheimpactofprayeron1,802patientsabouttoundergo

‘ ... prayer can be scientifically tested ’

coronaryarterybypassgraftsurgery.Buttheyfoundnonoticeableimpactonrecoveryforpatientsreceivingprayercomparedtothosewhodidnot.4

ItisclaimedthattheJudeo-ChristianGodcreatedtheuniversetonurture life, especiallyhuman life.But,perhapsboldly, I thinksciencecannegatethisideaaswell.Thefactisouruniverselooksnothing likewhatyouwouldexpectifthishypothesisweretrue.Tobegin with, science has shown that life on earth, in all its incredible diversity, was not the product of deliberate design but rather a blind, and brutal, process of evolution via natural selection. Of coursemostmodernreligiouspeopleacceptthis,butmaketheadditionalclaimthatGod,somehow,‘guided’theprocess.But,asA.C.Graylingpointsout,this‘thesis’isnotonlyredundantbutcontradictory:tosaythatlifeevolvedvianaturalselectionis,byextension,tosayitdid notevolvebydivinefiat.

Evolutionaside,doesn’ttheuniverselookasifitis‘finelytuned’toproduce life?Well, certainly, given thatweexist, theuniverseappearstobefinelytuned.Butthiscanbemisleading.A.C.Graylingmakesausefulanalogywithhumanancestry.5 None of us would existifourgreat-great-greatgrand-parents–all64ofthem–hadnot lived in exactly the right place, and had not done exactly the rightthings,soastoendupproducingus!Butnobodywouldclaimthat thiswas evidence of somemacro design – simply a chanceprocessthatluckilyresultedinus!Onamuchlargerscale,thesamecouldbetrueoftheuniverse.

Therealquestionis:doestheuniverselooklikeonethatwasdeliberately created and designed by a God who cared about humans? And the answer to that question is certainly “no”. Theuniverseis13.5billionyearsold.Ourtinyplanetrotatesaroundastar(thesun)thatisoneof100billionstarsinitsgalaxy(theMilkyWay), and thereare100+billion galaxies in the knownuniverse.Most of this vast area, as Richard Carrier points out, is made up of toxicradiationthatis,literally,lethaltolife.Infact,ifyoustuffedtheuniverse into a house, the area containing life would not even be as largeasasingleatom,invisibletotheeye!Andallthissupposedly,asA.C.Graylingquips,“aimedatproducingus,withourwars,ourdentistryneeds,andourfashionsense.”6Thequestionis:whydidGod(whocaresabouthumanlife)botherwithall this?!Afterall,shecouldcreateanyuniversesheliked:whynot,forexample,theuniverse described in Genesis, in which the earth was the centre of



atinyuniversegovernedby variousheavenlybodies?Thatwouldmakesense.Buttheuniversewehaveactuallydiscoveredthroughscience looks odd, and thus very improbable, on the God (who cares aboutlife)hypothesis.

But the most decisive nail in Judeo-Christian-Islamic God’scoffin, as critics have long pointed out, is the empirical reality ofneedless suffering. Put simply, a loving, all-powerfulGodpredictsa verydifferentworld from theonewefind,as itpredictsone inwhichthereisfarlessmisery,pain,andprematuredeath.Religiousapologists have to do endlessmental gymnastics (‘theodicies’) inordertoexplain(away)thisapparentdeepcontradiction.Whydoesa loving God do precisely nothing about, for example, lethal disease, deadly viruses, infantmortality, and calamitous natural disasters?Andnotjustnothingforhumanity!Spareathoughtforthe99%ofspeciesevertogracetheearth,butnowextinct,duetotheinevitablebrutalprocessofevolutionbynaturalselection–aprocess,weareaskedtobelieve,wasdesignedbythis‘benevolent’God!

Thesekindsofargumentsshowthatscientificthinking,broadlyunderstood,cancallintoquestioncertainsupernaturalclaimsaboutreality.IhavefocussedontheJudeo-ChristianGod,butdoubtlesslyotherGodclaimscouldbetestedandfoundwanting.

Let me conclude by returning to Stephen J Gould’s remark aboutthemagisterialveil.InotedthatGouldthinksreligion’smaincontributionisintherealmofmeaningandmorality.Isthisnotanareawherereligionisneeded,andscienceisoflittlehelp?

Much could be said in response, but spacedoes not allow it.In a sense, a lengthy response is not reallyneeded. The fact thatI can point to millions of happy, ethical atheists, including myself, who pursue variously rich and (for them) meaningful lives, should be evidence enough that religion has no monopoly on this domain either. Scientific knowledge, of course, while necessary, is notsufficient for the good life. But science is not our only resourceoutside of religion. We can find rich guidance in other ‘secular’domains such as philosophy, drama, story and poetry, not to mention the wisdom gained from other human beings. Perhaps,mostofall,viaourownmoralreflections,derivedfromourinnatehumancapacityforempathyandaltruism.Inshort,wehaveallweneedtolivegoodandmeaningfulliveswithoutreligion.

‘ ... Why does a loving God do precisely nothing about...’1 StephenJGould,“NonoverlappingMagisteria,”Natural History106(March1997),

p16-22.2 RichardDawkins,“WhytherealmostcertainlyisnoGod,”Huffington Post,May25

2011.3 DavidEller,“Isreligioncompatiblewithscience,”inThe End of Christianity,

PrometheusBooks,Amherst:NewYork,2011,p257-2784 H.Bensonetal.,“StudyoftheTherapeuticEffectsofIntercessoryPrayer(STEP)in

CardiacBypassPatient:AmulticenterRandomizedTrialofUncertaintyandCertaintyofReceivingIntercessoryPrayer,”American Heart Journal 151,no.4(2006),p934-42

5 A.C.Grayling,The God Argument,BloomsburyPublishing,London,2013,p79-806 Ibid, p79

Jonathan Rutherford

Religion: Safe from Scientific Scrutiny Behind the Magisterial Veil? continued

Chapter Three Headway

“Science is the new religion – people now worship Science where they used to worship God.” Health Care Provider


C H A P T E R T H R E E : H E A D WAY

The Myth of Historical Conflict Between Science and Religion

Peter HarrisonPeter Harrison is an Australian Laureate Fellow and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Queensland. Previously he was the Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford, where he also served as Director of the Ian Ramsey Centre. He has published extensively in the area of intellectual history, with a focus on the philosophical, scientific and

religious thought of the early modern period. In 2011 he delivered the Gifford Lectures at the University of Edinburgh.

Just over 400 years ago, on 25 February 1616, Galileo was enjoined by the Catholic authorities to abandon his teaching and defending of the Copernican hypothesis. The idea that the earth was in motion around the sun was declared to be scientifically ‘foolish and absurd’ and ‘formally heretical’. As is well known, Galileo was reluctant to renounce this new theory and eventually, in an infamous 1633 trial, was found guilty of suspicion of heresy and sentenced to house imprisonment.

ThetrialofGalileohasbecomeemblematicof a supposedly perennial battle betweenscienceandreligion.WhileGalileo’s fateatthe hands of the Inquisition might be themost prominent instance of this putativeconflict, there seems to be plentifuladditional evidence to support it: thereception of Darwin’s theory of evolutionby natural selection; contemporarycontroversies that swirl around young earth creationism and the teaching of evolutionin schools; religious objections to forms ofbiomedicaltechnologies;anddenunciationsof religion in the name of science issued by outspoken scientific popularisers. Allof these add to the common perceptionthat recent science-religion conflicts arejust the contemporary manifestation of alongstandinghistoricalpattern.

The Complexities of HistoryWhat do historians of science make of suchclaims?Notmuch,asitturnsout.Thehistorical relations between science andreligion have been the focus of much study over the past thirty years and the verdict is nowin:therehasbeennoenduringwarfarebetween science and religion. The presentconsensus among historians is that there is noconsistentpatternofhistorical relationsbetween science and religion. If there is asingle word that might characterise past relationshipsitis‘complexity’.

One reason for this complexity is that the disciplines were arranged very differentlyin the past. Until the 19th century, forexample, there were no clear cut boundaries between what we would now call ‘science’ andreligion.Medievalthinkersthustendedto classify theologyasoneof the sciences.

From their perspective, speaking of aconflictbetweenscienceandtheologycouldonly result from some kind of conceptual confusion, since theology was a science.Subsequently, in the 17th century, IsaacNewton (1642-1726/7) would declare thatdiscussion of God was an integral part of the businessofscientificinvestigation.

Newton’s position was not uncommonamong his scientific contemporaries, formanyofwhomthesystematicinvestigationof nature was motivated by religiousconcerns, or was seen as providing evidence of the existence and wisdom of God. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), whosepioneering discovery of the three laws of planetary motion provided the basis forNewton’s discoveries, once declared that “I wishedtobeatheologian;foralongtimeIwas troubled, but now see how God is also praised through my work in astronomy.”Robert Boyle (1627-1691), who lends hisname to Boyle’s gas law, contended that scientific study affords us “Rational andSolid Grounds to believe, admire, adore, andobeytheDeity.”Newtonhimselfwrote,concerning his discovery of laws of gravity that governed the cosmos that “this most

beautiful system of the sun, planets, andcomets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being”.

In addition to motivating scientificenquiry and furnishing evidence of God’s power, religious considerations could alsoprovidethefoundationsofparticularformsofscientificenquiry.Theveryideaofa‘lawofnature’,whenfirstproposed inthe17thcentury, was not a mere metaphor, but was regarded as a divinely authored rule that natural objects were compelled to obey.Robert Boyle expressed it this way: “ThemostWiseandPowerfulAuthorofNature...did at the Beginning of Things, Frame things Corporeal into such a System, and Settleamong them such Laws of Motion, as hejudg’dsuitabletotheEndshepropose’dtoHimself, inmaking theWorld.”Discoveringthe laws of nature, on this understanding, was really away of investigating themindofGod.

Theseinstancesofpositiveconnectionsbetween religion and science raise serious doubts about the claim that historical relations between them have beenuniformly hostile. But do these positiveexamples outweigh the better-knownhistorical episodes concerning Galileo and Darwin?

Revisiting Galileo and DarwinThefirstthingtosayabouttheGalileoaffairis that it was far from a straightforwardcase of science-religion conflict. Mostimportantly, during the17th century thereremainedsignificantscientificobjectionstotheCopernicanmodel.Addedtothiswasarivalnewtheory–theTychonicmodel-that

‘ ... that discussion of God was an integral part of the business of scientific investigation...’



foratimeseemedtobemoreconsistentwiththeempiricalevidencethanCopernicanism.(Tycho Brahe suggested that the other planets orbit the sun, which in turn orbits astationaryearth.)Thiswouldsuggestnota straightforward science-religion conflict,butastrugglebetweencompetingscientificmodels. Arguably, the Catholic Churchbacked themodel that hadmore scientificsupporters, even though in the long run that modelturnedouttobewrong.

It is also important to note that the Catholic Church, historically, had been the most prominent institutional supporterof astronomical research in the late medieval and early modern periods. Thecondemnation of Galileo was thus not atypical example of how the Church dealt withscientificmatters.

As for Galileo, all of the evidence suggests that he remained a committedCatholic to the end. His life was neverseriously in danger, and his last days were spent not in an Inquisition dungeon butin the relatively congenial conditions ofhouse arrest in a villa outside Florence. Itwas here that he continued to receive thecounsel and support of members of Catholic religiousorders. Indeed, as alreadyhinted,virtually all thekeyfiguresof the scientificrevolution were devout Christians. Mostwould have found any talk of an inevitable

science-religion conflict deeply puzzling,andcertainlynonespokeinthoseterms.

The situation with Darwin’s theory ofevolutionthroughnaturalselectionisalittlemore complicated. Certainly, the theorydidprovoke significant religiousoppositionwhen Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859. Religious conservatives wereconcernedthatnaturalselectionthreatenedthe uniqueness of human beings and their possession of an immortal soul, and that it eroded the foundations of morality.Moreover, even those religious figuressympathetic to Darwin were concernedby the randomness of the evolutionaryprocess and its apparent lack of purpose and direction.

For all that, Darwin did have religious supporters.TheHarvardBotanistAsaGrey,a sincere Presbyterian, was Darwin’s most staunchadvocateinAmerica.GraybelievedthatGodwas“thesourceofallevolutionarychange”.Thiswas consistentwithDarwin’sown suggestion of evolutionary lawsthat “may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator”. In England,Darwin’s ideas received the backing of a number of highly placed clergymen, including the historian-novelist Charles Kingsley.ComparingthedoctrineofspecialcreationwithDarwinianevolution,Kingsleyconcluded that the latter represented amoreloftyconceptionoftheDeity.FrederickTemple was another clerical adherent of Darwinian ideas, and his appointment as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1889 meantthat themosthighprofile religiouspost inthe land was occupied by a supporter of evolution.Templewrotethat the“doctrineof Evolution is in no sense whateverantagonistic to the teachings of Religion.”Darwin’s burial in Westminster Abbey offers the final indication of the Church ofEngland’ssanguineattitudetoevolutionarythought.

Yet tensions undoubtedly remain.Twentieth centuryUSAwaswitness to theemergenceofanewformofoppositiontoevolutionary theory in the form of floodgeology and young earth creationism.For a time, these instances of ‘scientificcreationism’ were restricted to NorthAmerica.Butthe21stcenturyhasseentheexport of the movement to Islamic countries and Christian populations in Africa, SouthAmerica, and elsewhere. Young earthcreationism continues to be the mostconspicuousmanifestationofcontemporaryconflict between one form of scienceand one form of religion. However, at thesame time, it is important to rememberthat Roman Catholics and most mainline Protestantdenominations,whilelessvocal,haveanapproachtoevolutionthatreflectstheAnglicanChurch’searlyaccommodationtothatscientifictheory.

The Origins of the Conflict MythIfreligiouslymotivatedresistancetoscience(andspecificallyevolution)isprimarilyalatemodern phenomenon, where did the myth ofaperennialconflictoriginallycomefrom?

Wecanidentifythreerelatedphasesinthe development of the idea of an ongoing battle between science and religion. Inthe 17th century, Protestant apologistsfirst implied that the Catholic Churchrepresented a significant regressive force,and one that had a history of routineresistance to new ideas. The example ofGalileo was seized upon as a prime example of this. Here then, the opposition was setup not between science and religion, but science (broadly defined) and the CatholicChurch. Subsequently, this tactic backfiredwhen that opposition was broadened toincludeallformsofreligion.

A second phase came with the emergence of the idea of progress in the 18th and 19th centuries. History came to

‘Darwin’s own suggestion of evolutionary laws that ‘may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator’.’



want tobelieve in.Much to thechagrinofhistorians, then, the myth of a perennial conflict between science and religion islikelytobearoundforsometime.

Further ReadingJohn Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (Cambridge, 2014).

Thomas Dixon, Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction(Oxford,2008).

RonaldL.Numbers(ed.),Galileo goes to Jail, and other myths in the history of science and religion(Harvard,2011).

PeterHarrison(ed.),The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion (Cambridge,2010).

Peter Harrison, The Territories of Science and Religion (Chicago,2015).

*AnearlierversionofthisarticleappearedonthewebsiteDialog:Theologie und Naturwissenschaften.

be understood in terms of stages in which the human mind progressed from an early period of tutelage, to superstitious andreligious ideas, to a more rational age ofscientific enlightenment. Conflict was theinevitable result of religious resistance to this inexorable historical process. As theEnlightenmentfigureNicolasdeCondorcetexpressed it in his Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Spirit (1795): “the triumph of Christianity hadbeen the signal for the complete decadence of philosophy and the sciences.”Now thatsciencewas in theascendency,Christianitycontinuedtoexertitstraditionalreactionaryrole.

Finally, the late19thcenturywitnessesthe explicit formulation of the conflictnarrativeintheworksofJohnWilliamDraperandAndrewDicksonWhite.In1874,Draperproduced his History of the Conflict between Religion and Science in which he declared that the history of science was nothing otherthan“anarrativeoftheconflictoftwocontendingpowers”.Whitefollowedsuit inhis History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). Draper’sworkcontinuedthetraditionofanti-Catholicpolemic, while White sought, not always successfully,toidentify‘dogmatictheology’asthekeyobstacletoscientificprogress.Butcursory readers of these works took home

the message of an historically inevitable and unqualified conflict between scienceand religion. Moreover, Draper andWhitebetween them compiled many of the now standard historical examples of a supposed conflict between science and religion thatcontinue to feed themyth. As subsequenthistorical research has demonstrated, many of these instances are simply false, and others are far more complicated than unambiguous instances of science-religion conflict.

Whydoesthemythpersist?Onereasonis that it seems to be consistent with contemporary instances of science and religion conflict. The myth is thus fuelledon one side by religious conservativeswho oppose evolution, and on the otherby Darwinian fundamentalists who think that science and religion are intrinsically incompatible.Amongstthelattergrouparethose who believe, sincerely but mistakenly, that science is the solution to religiouslyinspired violence and to the ‘clash of cultures’. The myth also confirms a beliefin our own intellectual superiority, and the conviction that we are more advanced ineverywaythanoursuperstitiousforebears.Finally, the myth makes for good stories.Conflict sells better than concord, andaccounts such as the trial of Galileo provide inspirational scientific heroes that we

Peter Harrison

The Myth of Historical Conflict Between Science and Religion continued



Scientists and Theologians Embrace Diversity

Merrill Kitchen OAM Rev Merrill Kitchen has had a successful science career, has worked overseas as a missionary, and has had an outstanding teaching career

as a theologian. She was President of the Melbourne College of Divinity, served for 10 years as the Principal of the Churches of Christ Theological College, and is currently a Fellow of the University of Divinity and Chair of the Whitley College Council.

The human search for understanding and meaning has initiated, informed and challenged religious entities over millennia. Some see religion and science in conflict with each other, while others see them as “complementary, rather than antithetic disciplines.”1

Early human curiosity about the meaning of lifewasstimulatedby theireveryday livingexperiences. In particular, the observationof regular cosmic movements became the basis for both religious and rudimentary scientific understandings. Based on theirlogical observation at the time, someancient Hebrew and Assyrian writers described the sky as a transparent solid plate, situated in the midst of waters that allowed the stars above it to be seen from the earth. Others described these stars asmessengers or divine soldiers in service to a heavenly divine overseer or to a range of powerwieldinggods.

Cosmic symbols reflecting the annualtwelve cycles of the months of the year are evident on the floors of aminority ofrecently excavated ancient synagogues dating from the first to fourth century CE.Pagan zodiac imagery is predominant, but rather than each month being represented by a pagan god, these synagogue zodiacs point to the Twelve Tribes of Israel. Oftenthe central zodiac image is surrounded by four sections representing the seasons ofthe year, another observable and important realityinthelivesofthecommunity.Similarmotifs can also be seen in the artisticdecoration of the ceilings of some earlyChristian churches. The twelve sections inthesebuildingsdepictthetwelveapostles.2

Building on some ancient Greek theories, itwas not until the 15th centurythat a Polish Catholic mathematician andastronomer postulated a new cosmic hypothesis.NicolausCopernicuschallengedthe prevailing assumption that the earthwas the centre of the universe around which allelserevolved.Thisnewtheoryresultedinwidespread disgust from both Catholics and Protestantsat thetime,whodescribedhis

assertion as “absurd” and “light-minded.”A century later, after the invention of thetelescope, Galileo Galilei supported and substantiatedtheCopernicustheory.Hewassentencedtodeathasahereticand,inspiteofpubliclyretractinghisassertion,washeldindetentionbypolitical-religiousauthoritiesfortherestofhislife.3 Atthetime,religionand science were seen to be in direct conflict. These new theories threatenedreligious groups who insisted that their Holy Scriptures were the sole basis of divinely inspired truth, and consequently the only basisforanyscientificunderstanding.

Over the centuries, simplistic literalistunderstanding of religious writings hasbeen challenged by scientific revelationssuch as Einstein’s theory of relativity, thedevelopment of electronic microscopes, and the more recent insights of quantum mechanics. As a result, religious writingsbegan to be read through a range of contextual lenses recognising nuances in linguistics, literary expressions, andinterpretative techniques that are notnecessarily anti-scientific. Poetry andliterarymetaphorsexposedifferentaspectsof human experiential realities that, whilealways open to scientific exploration, willalso have the capacity to reveal truth in a differentlanguageformaltogether.

The idea that human beings employ multiple intelligences in their searchfor understanding has become widely embraced.4 While science seeks to discover how things happen and function, religionreflectsonquestionsofvalueandpurpose.Along with processes of critical analysis,integration between science and religioncan offer new shared understandings thathave the power to enhance indiscriminately all of our human community. Respect for,

and acclaim of, our commonalities anddifferences emerge as we release ourunderstandings from parochial controls to freelyavailablepossibilities.

Many of our human differences arebased on social and cultural influencesratherthanscientificdeterminants.Geneticstudies reveal more commonalities thandifferences between ethnic groups. At thesametime,ourancienthistoricalnarrativesare cherished for the ways in which they affirm our differing religious frameworksof understanding. Both scientists andtheologians embrace diversity and stand in awe of evolutionary realities. Bothscientistsandtheologiansareopentonewunderstandings, with the possibilities ofdiscoveringmore life-giving revelations forourfuturegenerations.

1 JohnPolkinghorn,ScienceandCreation.The Search for Understanding.London:SPCK,1988,xii.

2 For example, the ancient Israeli synagogues excavated in Hammath Tiberias, Beit Alpha Na’aran and Zippori, alongsidetheArianBaptistryinRavenna,Italy.

3 Hilliam, Rachel Galileo Galilei: Father of Modern Science.TheRosenPublishingGroup,NewYork,2005,p96.

4 Howard Gardner, Multiple Intelligences. New Horizons.Basicbooks,NewYork,2006.

Merrill Kitchen OAM

Chapter Four EvaluationsI guess I don’t do much thinking about this even though they are both an important part of my life. But this is not a big issues for me. Science is my career and also the way I see the world. I appreciate the scientific method as a way of viewing the physical world. My spiritual side is different I guess. I don’t see a problem with that. I do approach spirituality fairly rationally as well but it is also what I believe in. I have had many experiences over life that are significant that I can’t fully explain and I am comfortable with that. MH–describeshimselfasascientistandpersonoffaith.

I guess I don’t do much thinking about this even though they are both an important part of my life. But this is not a big issues for me. Science is my career and also the way I see the world. I appreciate the scientific method as a way of viewing the physical world. My spiritual side is different I guess. I don’t see a problem with that. I do approach spirituality fairly rationally as well but it is also what I believe in. I have had many experiences over life that are significant that I can’t fully explain and I am comfortable with that. MH–describeshimselfasascientistandpersonoffaith.


C H A P T E R F O U R : E VA L U AT I O N S

Judaism’s Attitude to Therapeutic Cloning

Ronnie Figdor Rabbi Ronnie Figdor has a BSc majoring in pathology and pharmacology, and undertook his MSc in the Department of Medicine in the Austin Hospital. With a Grad DipEd and a Sen Ed (Hebrew University), he has been teaching Jewish medical ethics for almost 20 years.

Tissues and organs have been cloned in the past but ‘Dolly’ was the first cloned sheep (Nature 385:810 1997). An unfertilised egg cell was denucleated (the nucleus with the genetic material – DNA – was removed) and then replacement nuclear material was inserted from a mammary cell. That nucleus had the DNA genetic material of a full-grown animal. The egg was then implanted into a surrogate sheep and ‘Dolly’ was brought to term (after 277 unsuccessful attempts) as a clone of the sheep from which the nuclear material was originally taken. The technique has since been successfully used on cattle, mice, goats, mule and horse (Nature 407:86, 2000; Science 300:1354, 2003).With that briefest of backgrounds, our discussion turns to the halachic(Jewishlegal)ramificationsofcloninghumanbeings.

Jewish PrecedentAlthoughthetechniqueofcloningisrelativelyrecent,theconceptofartificiallymakinghumanbeingsisnotentirelynew.Indeed,RabbiJudahbenBezalel Loew (theMaharalofPrague) is the subjectofthelegendaboutthecreationofagoleminthemid-16thcentury,acreaturemadeoutofclaytodefendtheJewsofthePragueGhettofrom anti-Semitic attacks, particularly the blood libel. Not knownto have been a specialist in cloning per se, he is said to have used mystical powers based on the esoteric knowledge of how G-dcreatedAdam.Thoughthisauthorcannotascertaintheveracityofthestory,theearliestknownsourceforthestorythusfaristhe1834book Der Jüdische Gil Blas by Friedrich Korn. True or not, Praguetourism today thrives on the story and I stayed in a Prague hotel some years ago that had a large golemfeaturedinitsgarden.

Even prior to Rabbi Loew, the Meiri (Rabbi Menachem Meiri 1249-1310, a famous Catalan rabbi, Talmudist andMaimonidean)already in histimestated(onSanhedrin 67a) that “whatever is done bynaturalmeansisnotincludedin(theprohibitionof)witchcraft.Even the production of beautiful creatures without the matingofmale and female is permitted sincewhatever is natural is notwitchcraft.”

However, in his seminal text Nishmat Avraham (p304-306),DrAbrahamSAbrahamstatesthatRabbiShalomEliashiv(10Apr1910-18Jul2012)saidthattheMeiri could not be cited as evidence for permittingcloningforthelatteronlyaddressestheissuesassociatedwiththeprohibitionofwitchcraft(Ex.22:17;Deut.18:9-12)butdoesnotrelatehisdiscussiontoanyotherproblematicareas.

Some have cited the Tiferet Yisrael on Mishnah Yadayim 4:27 (Rabbi Israel ben Gedaliah Lipschitz, Danzig, 1782–1860)whose general attitude was “whenever we do not find a reasonfor prohibiting something, it is automatically permitted, for theTorahdoesnotmentioneverythingthat ispermitted,onlywhatisprohibited”.Whilethisputstheonusonthosewhotakeissuewithhumancloningtofindareasonablecausetoprohibitit,hisdictumalonecannotbeusedtopermitcloning.

ProhibitionJonathan R Cohen (“Cloning in Jewish Thought” in The Human Cloning Debate, edited by Glenn McGee, Berkeley Hills, California, 2002, p251-267) proposes that a reading of the creation text inGenesis (including that “the heavens and the earth and all their hosts were complete” (Gen. 2:1) and that humans are created“inG-d’s image” (Gen. 1:27))would seem to indicate thathumancloningwouldbewrong.Thetexts,onfacevalue,appeartoindicatethatCreationhasbeencompletedandthatwecannot,andshouldnot,playaroleinfurthercreation,particularlythosebeingscreatedin“G-d’simage”.Indeed,interferingwiththisCreationisexpresslybanned,asdemonstratedbytheprohibitionofsexbetweenhumansand animals, and between two men (Lev.18:22-24,20:12,15-16),asisthecrossbreedingofanimals,andplantingafieldwithdifferenttypes of seed (Lev. 19:19; Det. 22:9).Nature has a structure thatdarenotbetamperedwith.

DrAbraham,inaninterviewwithRabbiEliashiv,findsthatthelatterhasanissuewithhumancloningasfollows:

The Ramban (Lev.19:19),concerningtheprohibitionofkila’im (mixingofspecies)writesthatonewhograftstwospeciestogetherchangesanddeniescreationasifhebelievesthattheAlmightydidnot complete His world and He should have and therefore wishes to helpHim inHiscreationbyaddingnewspecies.Rabbeinu Bachya (BachyabenAsheribnHalawa,1255-1340,Spain)alsowritesthatitisasifhefeelsthatthecreationsoftheAlmightyarenotenoughandhe wishes to use his intelligence to add new beings, over and above thosetheAlmightyalreadycreated.

…or not?ButRabbiEliashiv’sreasoningistroubling. Inthesametext,RabbiEliashivstatesthat“thiscannotbecomparedtogeneticengineering

‘ ... the Torah does not mention everything that is permitted, only what is prohibited.’



and treatment where no new species is created, but where an abnormalsituationdiseaseiscorrectedtoconformtothenormal.”Tofurtherquestioning,theRabbi Shlitaaddedthatcloningtissuesororganswouldbepermittedifdonefor“thebenefitofmankind.”Surely,inthecloningofhumans,thereshouldbenosuggestionthatwearecreatinganewspecies.Rather,wearecreatinganidenticalversionofanexistingpersonwithinanexistingspecies.Iftheonlyissue then, is that we should not be seen to try to improve on G-d’s creation,thentherapeuticcloningshouldbetreatedwithnomoreconcern than any other therapy for which medical advances have recentlybeendiscovered.Isthisnot,afterall,ourmostsophisticatedattemptatbringingahumanbeingintotheworldintheabsenceofthe sexual act, something thatwehavedonenow for sometimethroughassistedreproductivetechnologies?

Even Jonathan R Cohen (p255) opens up the possibility thattheopening versesof the storyofCreationwhen readas “At thebeginningofG-d’screationofheavenandtheearth…”,allowforthestorytobeconstruednotasacompletedactbutasatransformativeprocess.Afterall,G-dHimselfdescribessomeofcreationas“good”andsomeas“verygood”.And,isitpossiblethatifwearecreatedinG-d’simage–theimageoftheultimatecreatorex nihilo–arewenotthereforecreatedintheimageofalsobeinga“creator”?

In his testimony before the National Bioethics AdvisoryCommission (NBAC) on 14 March 1997, Rabbi Moshe Tendlerdeclared “Show me a young man who is sterile, whose family was wipedout intheHolocaust,and[who] isthe lastofageneticline[and]Iwouldcertainlyclonehim.”

But cloning will certainly raise issues on the following Talmudic text (Sanhedrin37a):

For this reason was man created alone, to teach you that whoever destroys a single soul of Israel, Scripture imputes (guilt) to him as though he had destroyed a complete world; and whoever preserves a single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes (merit) to him as though he had preserved a complete world. Furthermore, (he was created alone) for the sake of peace among men, that one might not say to his fellow, ‘My father was greater than yours’, … [and] to proclaim the greatness of The Holy One, Blessed be He: for if a man strikes many coins from one mould, they all resemble one another, but The Supreme King of Kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, fashioned every man in the stamp of the very first man, and yet not one of them resembles his fellow.

The previous text refers to both the pricelessness and the uniqueness ofeachindividual.Ourabilitytoclonehumanbeingsshakesthosetwo fundamentals to their very core – that humanbeings are nolonger priceless or unique, for they can be ‘manufactured’ at will and‘mass-produced’.Althoughtheabovetextcannotbeseenasanhalachicinstructionagainsthumancloning,thetechnologycertainlymakes us revisit what the text sees is the very essence of humanity andG-d’suniqueroleinourverybeing.

But even this notion is challenged by Rabbi Shraga Simmons(Cloning,Aish.com):

But it is a fallacy to think that “genetically identical” equals an identical human being… Consider also the example of identical twins - who are genetically identical -but often grow up with vastly different personalities. This can be attributed to: 1) unique souls, and 2) different life experiences. So too, the cloned being has a unique soul, and different life experiences. (The only difference between twins and a clone is that twins are the same age, while clones are separated by one generation, or to be more exact, the age of the cell-donor.)

Another Talmudic text (Kiddushin30b)wouldbeaffrontedbyhumancloning:“There are three partners in the creation of a person: G-d, the father and the mother”.Where are thesepartnerswhen justamedical team is required to clone a humanbeing fromexistinggeneticmaterial?Atbest,a‘surrogatemother’isrequiredtobringthis human to term, leaving out what appears to be two parts of thetriad.Butwhoknows? In the future,wemaybeable toevendispensewiththesurrogate.

Ethical ConsiderationsIntheabsenceofclearhalachicguidelines,ourconsiderationsturntothemyriadofethicalquestionsthatarisefromtheabilitytoclonehumanbeings.DrFredRosner(Modern Medicine and Jewish Ethics, Ktav, 1986, p177) summarises our concerns:Are we encroaching on the Creator’s domain? Is man allowed to tamper with his very essence in an attempt to duplicate himself in creating an ‘artificial’ man? Is man permitted to alter humanhood or humanity or both by genetic manipulations? Some horrifying thoughts come to mind, eloquently expressed by a popular writer:

‘ ... that cloning tissues or organs would be permitted if done for the benefit of mankind.’



Professional athletic organisations might well be attracted to the idea of making direct multiple copies of their basketball stars…military leaders with billions of dollars available for research might well be interested in mass-producing humans high in endurance, strength, or proneness to obedience…If a husband and wife were in deep distress because a greatly beloved child was dying, they could arrange to create another child that would be genetically identical…

People interested in personal immortality could assure themselves of at least a start. They could arrange, through cell banking, to have persons of their exact genotype live on…There would be problems right from the start. Who could decide what individuals were to be mass-produced by cloning? Would it be left to the free enterprise market mechanism? Or would the state take over? If so, there would probably be black-marketing. Or would a nervous world set up the International Commission for Genetic Control to license clonists? A new set of human ethics would seem to be required. (V. Packard, The People Shapers (Boston: Little, Brown, 1977), p141).

Thereaderofthisarticlemaydowelltoreadthechapterentitled“IfEthicsWon’tWorkHere,Where?”byArthurCaplaninThe Human Cloning Debate, edited by Glenn McGee (Berkeley Hills, California, 2002).

RichardV.GraziandJoelB.Wolowelsky(“OnCloning”,inAmit 70(3),Summer1998)whilefirstespousingthegreatpotentialthathumancloningoffersforinfertilecouples,thenoutlinesomeoftheethicalissues:

The first problem is the human status of the born child. One might argue that if the technology eventually allows for a cloned embryo reaching viability in a completely artificial womb, the resulting child would be some sort of golem (the mythical android of the Maharal of Prague). As a golem lacking human standing, it arguably might be killed at will. (Indeed, one could probably argue that current secular definitions of personhood might yield the same conclusion.) The technical arguments here might be theoretically convincing, but the bottom line is so repugnant that it is hard to imagine any posek (or secular jurist) accepting it on a practical level. Certainly any cloned child born to a human mother would have full human status. No one would maintain that natural identical twins – nature’s clones, so to speak – lack distinct personal identities,

and there is little reason to argue that artificially-created cloned identical twins are not distinct persons.

There seems to be little fear of the child having the halachic status of a mamzer (an illegitimate child which is the result of a prohibited relationship such as adultery or incest), as most poskim hold that mamzerut can result only from actual physical forbidden intercourse. Thus, artificial insemination or IVF can never produce a mamzer, and cloning all the more so.

The most problematic issue is that of who is the parent – a problem halachah shares with the secular courts and legislators. We are served well here by the dominant position that in cases of donated ova the birth mother is the halachic mother. But the issue of who is the father is much more complicated, especially if no male is involved (as when the child is cloned from the cell of a female).

One might hold that the halachic conceptualization of the father is he who deposits his seed into the environment for growth provided by the mother. In this scenario, the father is the person from whom the DNA has been taken, whether the person be male or female. While the notion of a “female father” sounds strange, it can be understood as nothing more than a legal expression of our visceral aversion to, say, allowing marriage between the natural siblings or children of the DNA donor and the cloned child.

Of course, there is another entirely opposing possibility: the child has no halachic father (as, for example, when the genetic father is not Jewish). A minority of poskim hold this to be the case whenever fertilization is effected outside the woman’s body (i.e., in vitro fertilization); they certainly would apply it here. In such cases, the kohen or levi status of the child might follow that of his maternal grandfather, a position maintained by the late Rabbi Shelomo Zalman Auerbach, one of the major halachic authorities of our generation, in the case of IVF with gentile sperm.

Michael J. Broyde (Cloning People and Jewish Law: A Preliminary Analysis, www.jlaw.com) discusses the issue of who is a clonee’sfamilyatlengthwithoutclearresolution.Intheend,weraisemoreethicaldilemmasthanwewilleverbeabletoresolve.

Judaism’s Attitude to Therapeutic Cloning continued


Ronnie Figdor

The ‘sniff’ TestUltimately,ourdiscussionmaycomedowntowhethersomething‘feels’ right or not. I have taught Jewish ethics classes for twodecades, and a point I have regularly made in these classes is “act today as if what you do will be on tomorrow’s front page of the newspaper”. In the context of human cloning, wemay ask “howwill the next generation judge us on our endeavours on humancloning?”While this sort of exercisemaynot hold swayover thehalachic purist, this reasoning DOES have an halachicbasis.Considerthefollowing:• Weareenjoinedtodowhatisgoodanduprightintheeyesof

the Lord (Deut.12:28),thatis,withoutspecificity,todowhatwethinkwouldbecorrectandgood.Ibelievethatitcomesfromthemoral compass with which we were imbued by the Divine upon ourcreation–and he blew into his nostrils the soul of life (Gen.2:7).ItwasthatpartoftheDivinethatwearetocarrywithinusuntiltheendofdays.

• The Chizkuni (writtenaround1240byaFrenchrabbiHezekiahbenManoahandprinted inVenice in1524)onGen.7:21,andthe Ramban (Rabbi Moses ben Nachman – “Nachmanides”,1194-1270)onGen.6:13,say that thegenerationof thefloodwas punished, despite not having yet been given a list of Divine commandments, because G-d expects us to reason some laws andrulesofourown,evenwhennotspecificallycommanded.

• The Rambam (Moshe ben Maimon – “Maimonides”, 30 Mar1135-12Dec1204) inGuide for the Perplexed3:17writes thatone will also be rewarded for following the dictates of reason, andfordoingwhatisrightandhonourable.Hewillbepunishedfor any deed that he understands to be improper, even if not specificallystatedasoneoftheTorahcommandments.

• A similar theme can be found in Rabbenu Nissim Gaon (Rabbi Nissim ben Yaakov, Talmudic commentator and leader of the JewishcommunityofKairwan,Tunisia,990-1062)inhisprefaceto Tractate Berakhot, and Sefer Chassidim (Rabbi Yehudah “HaChasid”benShmuelofRegensburg,betweenthe late12thandearly13thcenturies)inchapter153.

SummaryThere appear to be no clear halachic or ethical guidelines from which wecanunreservedlyfindananswerwhetherhumancloningshouldor should not be undertaken. Those involved in this cutting-edgetechnologyshouldtreadcautiouslyandatalltimesconsider“howwill my work be judged by those who come afterme?” Perhapsthen,themedicalresearcherwilltakepauseforthought.

‘ ..how will the next generation judge us on our endeavours on human cloning?’



The Last Gasp

Karen Wall Karen Wall is a lay Pastor of the Uniting Church in Australia. Her ministry placements have been in large quaternary hospitals as

Chaplain at The Royal Melbourne Hospital and The Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne. Karen’s interest in science led her to study pharmacy and to become a community pharmacist, which she did for twenty-one years. During those years Karen became acutely aware

that science did not hold the answers to all of life’s questions. In 2010, Karen graduated with a Masters of Divinity (Hons.) from the Melbourne College of Divinity and has embraced pastoral ministry as her vocation.

Medical science has delivered many wonderful advances for the health and well-being of Australians in our life-time, with the treatment of pneumonia being an example. In the days before antibiotics, pneumonia could quickly kill a vulnerable child or an elderly person. Today, we can immunise against a vast array of potentially deadly pathogens, we have an impressive arsenal of pharmaceuticals at our disposal, the technology exists to synthesise blood, and organ manufacture is shaping up to be a possibility rather than a fantasy. In addition medical science can offer an extraordinary range of imaging and testing techniques to determine, right down to the cellular level, what is happening in our bodies. There are also surgical interventions such as intubation, haemodialysis and organ transplants which save people’s lives in our hospitals on a daily basis. Advances in medicine and public health are a major contributor to the average life-expectancy at birth in Australia, stretching to 84.4 for women and 80.3 for men.1 But nevertheless each of us will die eventually.

In all spheres of life we are faced with far more choices than ever before. End-of-lifecare and the manner of our dying is no different.Thechallengeofourtimeistobeadequately informed to make good choices in our living and in our dying. This articleseeks to encourage readers to seriously consider the sort of death they hope to have and to explore some of the theological issueswhichmayinfluencedecisionmakingatend-of-life.

As well as a proliferation of decision-making over an extended life-span, modern timeshavealsoseensignificantchanges inhow death is understood and the ways in whichdeathoccurs.InVictoria,whilemostpeople express the wish to die at home, only 14%doso,withmostdeathsnowoccurringin a hospital, hospice or nursing home, whereas not so long ago, people mostly died intheirownhome.2 Death has in the most partbecomemedicalised.

Optimum medical practice activelystrives to provide care consistent with a patient’svaluesandgoals,whilerecognisingthe faith tradition in which these areembedded. Many hospitals now havepalliative care, pastoral care practitionerspecialists on their Allied Health staff toassessspiritualneedsofpatientsandtheirfamilies, and to liaise with care providers from a diverse range of religious and cultural backgrounds.Butalltoooftenpatientsslipthrough ‘the system’ and their religious needs are only identified at the point ofdeath, if at all. There can be insufficient ‘Death has in the most part become

medicalised.’

time to call for a Priest or Rabbi, let alonefor the patient to have the opportunity tovoice the manner in which they would like to be accompanied and supported in the periodapproachingdeath.Inmyevaluation,“LastGaspMinistry”doesahugedisservicetopatientsandtheirfamiliesanddiminishesthe significance of their faith or spiritualtradition asmuch as it diminishes them aspeople.

Meet ‘Frank’ (a fictitious characterfor illustrative purpose). Frank is well intohis ninth decade of life, having lived with chronic illness for the past fifteen years.He knows his life is nearing its end, and can say with confidence that he’s led agood life. His family want him kept aliveas long as possible, so Frank faces further investigationsandpossibleenlistmentinanexperimental clinical trial. But Frank careslittle forpursuingevery lastclinical tool forkeepinghimalive.He is tired; all hewantsis to go home and have some beers with his brothers. Beers and cheers for last time’ssake, then he would be ready to die in peace surrounded by people he loves, and people wholovehim.

For someone like Frank, good medicine respects the patient’s wishes. People withchronic illnesses are encouraged to have ‘Advanced Care Plans’ which state their wishes for their goals of care should there be

atimewhentheyareunabletohaveavoiceintheirhealthrelateddecision-making.

At present many people die without an Advanced Care Plan in place. In someinstances, when family members clearly understand their loved one’s wishes, appropriate decisions aremade. But thereare also instances where inappropriate intervention takes place. This can befor a number of reasons. Sometimes anAdvanced Care Plan has been made, but due to a transfer of care facility, its contents are notmadeknowntothenewtreatingteam,or its existence is not readily determined; or it can happen that family members are frightened that reducing medical interventions isparamount to ‘killing’ theirbeloved father or grandfather. There is avery large gap of knowledge about end-of-life in the community. To past generationsdeath was familiar, but today it is largely out of sight and, in the absence of knowing what todo,anxietycanparalysedecisionmaking.In such paralysis, a lack of decision can cause excruciatingandunnecessarysuffering.

Things can get even more complicated when religion is invoked. All religionshold that life is sacred, but there is much confusion as to the practicalities of whatthatmeansatend-of-life.Say,forexample,Frank’s family insisted that Frank receive haemodialysis because his kidneys could



no longer do their job. They might arguethat God has given us all these resources tokeeppeoplealiveforaslongaspossible.They might also demand that Frank be given foodwhenhecannolongerswallowsafely.It is a huge dilemma for treating teams.They want to honour Frank’s wishes, and they want to support Frank’s family in their roleincaringforhimatend-of-life.Buttherealmofreasonablenesscansometimesbeunclear. Calling a CodeGrey for aggressivebehaviours is humiliating for familymembers, besides being very distressing for staff.AndGod,whereisthepeaceandloveofGodinallofthis?

Frank is very appreciative of prayerswhich invoke peace and love for himself and for his family, of prayers for blessings uponthemall,andthanksforthegiftsandgracesofthemedicalstaffwhohavecaredfor him. If he is from the Roman Catholictraditionhewillexpectthe‘anointingofthesick’ formerly called ‘the last rites’ from his ParishPriestinhisfinaldays.Theextendedfamily may be well connected to the same tradition,butnot always, andwith varyingdegrees of connectionwith their relative’stradition. InFrank’scasehissonsmayonlyhave a Sunday-school understanding of theirfather’sfaithtradition.Theywillwantto do the right thing, but don’t necessarily knowwhatthat is.Theymaybemisguidedinto thinking that their tradition demandshanging onto life at all costs, even if that causes further suffering. Can you imagine:Frank finally dies peacefully, and thensomeone starts to do Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation(CPR)onhim?Pleasedon’tletthathappentome!

Prayers around the bedside can be a beautifulandlife-givingtimeforthepatient

and their family and dearest friends. Butfor Frank’s family, they may be confused about prayer, and think that if they pray hard enough God will intervene and extend Frank’s life longer. They may think theirprayers are failing because they have not beenfaithful.Itisessentialthatpeoplewhohave any connectionwith a faith traditionhave a suitably qualified pastoral carepractitioner to guide them through theirtheologies and forming of meaning. If afamily has their own Priest or Rabbi, they are encouraged to invite them in for guidance, supportandritual.Itistobehopedthatthefaith leader is well educated in the medical science of end-of-life care, and skilled in the provision of pastoral care at this precious timeoflife.

It sometimes comes to my attentioninstances of where the family of a dying person is in conflict with the treatingteam in the hospital where their loved one is seriously ill. It is not unusual that apatient has not sharedwith some of theirfamily members that their life is coming toward its end. It can come as an awfulshock that there are no further treatment optionsappropriateforDad.Thisshockisincomplete contrast to the false premise that many hold that medical science can guard against death. And it can get even morecomplicated when people use their religion as a tool to argue against the doctors and treatingstaff.Withdrawalofactivetreatmentisnotthesamethingaswithdrawalofcare.At end-of-life, medical teams endeavour to provide the most appropriate care, keeping foremost in their thinking the best interestsofthepatient.Conflictariseswhenthere are communication deficits whichare complicatedbygrief,whichoftendoesnot allow vital information to be heard orabsorbed.

The scenario becomes even more complexwhen people of a particular faith

have a medieval worldview that understands an all-powerful God who can save them from death, if only they could be faithful enough and prayerful enough. They might insiston keeping their daughter on life-support waiting for God to perform themiracle ofcuringherirreversiblebraininjury.Boththeclinical staff and the parents wantwhat isbestforthepatient–buttheyareatpolaropposites in their comprehension of the injuriousnatureofkeepingsomeoneonlife-support indefinitely. In suchcases,medicalteams insist on limits to the provision of life-support, in an attempt to honour theparents’ religious framework but also honouring the value of the daughter’s life, and refusing to inflict further damage bywayofexcessiveintervention.

Indifficultcasessuchasoutlinedabove,clinical consultation may be sought withclinicalethicsconsultants.Thebestinterestsof thepatient remainparamountand if allattempts at clear communication fail andimpasse remains, an urgent court ruling maybesought.It is importanttonotethatreligion has a place at the table in ethics consultations and Clinical Ethics Reviewprocesses. A representative of a majorfaith, usually Christian, will be welcomedas a member with a well-considered moral compass. If sanctity of life is at risk ofdishonour, there is opportunity for the voice ofreligiontointervene.Iamconfidentthatend-of-life decision making in the hospitals I haveworkedinarewhollyrespectfulofthesanctityof life, givingcareful considerationwhethertooffer,notoffer,orceaseadiversearrayofmedicalinterventions.

From my observations, patients areplaced at risk from excessive interventionwhendifficultconversationshavenottakenplacewhentheyshould.Whenapersonwitha complex medical history has a precarious hold on life, such that one adverse event might be sufficient to kill them, it is good

‘ ...good medicine respects the patient’s wishes.’



clinical practice for a General Practitionertohave frank conversations, andassist thepatient to develop their Advanced CarePlan. This is a statement which informsothersof thepatient’swishesandgoalsofcareatend-of-life.TheAdvancedCarePlanisacommunicationtooldesignedtobeusedwhenthepatient isunabletohaveavoicewhentheircareplansarebeingdiscussed.

A patientwho has an Advanced CaredPlanmaynothavesharedthat informationwiththeirspouseorotherfamilymembers.Its legal status is not binding, and can be overridden by family members who may beactingintheirowninterestsratherthantheir family member. There are calls forAdvanced Care Plans to have a binding legal statusinorderthatthewishesofthepatientcanbelessreadilysubverted.

Forpeopleof faith, it ismycontentionthat end-of-life is more readily accepted as part of the natural cycle of things, being the partnerofbirth.Birthanddeatharesacredevents, andwill have rituals andparticularcelebrations attached to them. As end-of-lifeapproaches,peoplewhopractiseafaithtraditionwill surround thedyingperson inlove and prayer. These prayers will oftenmake reference to healing, with an openness andtrustinGod’swisdomandpower.“MayyourhealinghandbeuponReuben”leavesan openness to the movement of the Spirit tomoveheartsandmindsintransformativeways. I once prayed with a woman, andguidedhertoreadachapteronmeditationand forgiveness. She was then able topray for the courage to ring her estranged friendsandasktheirforgivenessforshuttingthemout of her life.With forgiveness andreconciled relationships, this woman diedwith much healing having taken place in her spirit.

Prayer at the end-of-life is oftenmisunderstood by clinicians in a medical setting. In wards of intense clinical

intervention such as ICU (Intensive CareUnit),thereisoftenthemisconceptionthatreligion is for the misguided who resort to an all-powerful supernatural being who can performmiraclesathisorherdiscretion.Forsomethisistrue,butformany,thepracticeofreligionisfarmoresophisticatedthanmostmedicalclinicianswillallowcreditfor.Forallof us it is vitally important to know that we are loved.For thedying, this isevenmorecritical. Prayers so that the dying personknows how much he or she is loved, that he or she experience peace in their heart, that they be nourished by the presence of family and friends, and that they be treated with dignity and respect in dying and in death, areallworthwhileandappropriateprayers.As discussed earlier, prayers for healing are notoutofplaceinthissetting.Prayersatthebedside will usually extend to the immediate andextendedfamilyofthepatientheadingtowardsend-of-life.Prayerswillbeextendedinviting courage and strength, and for thecapacity to share their thoughts and feelings withoneanothersothattheymaybebetterable to support each other. Such prayershave as their goal to enable the family to better love,comfortandsupportthe lovedonewhoisdying,andeachother.

It ought to be matter of course for amedical institution to ask patients theirreligion or faith affiliation in order thatappropriate spiritual care be provided. Thisisoftenthecase,butnotwhenapatient isunable to be asked, such as when they have arrivedunconsciousinanambulance.Itisnotunusual for a ward to call urgently for a Priest forapatientlistedas‘NotSpecified’religionwho is about to die. Had this informationbeen obtained earlier, the urgency for a Priest at end-of-life would have been averted with lessstressforeveryoneconcerned.

We can’t really know what happens beyond death, but what we do know is that death is inevitable. If all ofus can thinkof

death as a human event rather than a medical failure,thendeathcanbetterbeembracedas an essential part of life. Both medicalscienceandthereligioustraditionsarewellplaced to educate people to make informed choices throughout the course of their dying. It will assist hospitals and hospicestoappropriatelycareforpatientsifpatientsand family members can make known the religionorfaithtraditionthattheypractise.With greater investment in palliative careresourcesandbettereducationofcliniciansand faith leaders, it is hoped that end-of-life care can be provided to all who need it, featuring good communication and co-operativeand trustingpartnerships. Forallthedifficultdecisionsaheadofus,mayGodblessusallwithmuchwisdom!

1 AustralianBureauofStatistics,November2015.2 Inquiry into end of life choices, Parliament of Victoria,

LegalandSocialIssuesCommittee,June2016.

The Last Gasp continued

‘Withdrawal of active treatment is not the same thing as withdrawal of care.’

Karen Wall



Organ Donation: The Jewish Perspective

Yaakov GlasmanRabbi Glasman is senior Rabbi of the St Kilda Hebrew Congregation. He is a past President of the Rabbinical Council of Victoria and

Vice President of the Organisation of Rabbis of Australasia. In 2012, Rabbi Glasman presented oral evidence to the Legislative Council as part of the Victorian Government’s Inquiry into Organ Donation. This article is based primarily on that submission.

Organ donations can be grouped in two general categories: Live organ donations and cadaveric organ donations.

Liveorgandonations,namelythedonationof an organ from a living person in order to save the life of another person, is permissible according to Jewish Law and is in fact viewed as an act of great piety.Dr Avraham Steinberg, author of the Encyclopaedia of Jewish Medical Ethics, identifies the four requirements necessaryforethicalliveorgandonation:1)Surgerytoremove the organ must not be dangerous; 2) thedonormustbe able to continuehisor her life normally after the donation; 3)the donor must not require prolonged and chronic medical care; and 4) the success rate of the recipient must be high. Theseare the general requirements necessary.However, it is strongly recommended that those in the Jewish community considering live organ donations should consult theirrabbioranalternativecompetentauthorityin Jewish Law for a ruling on the specificformofdonationtheywishtomake,aseachcasemaydifferandnoblanketrulemaybeappliedtoallcasesofliveorgandonation.

Thesecondcategoryoforgandonations,namely cadaveric organ donations, isfar more complex both in terms of the ramifications of Jewish Law and tradition,aswellasthemoralandethicalimplicationsassociatedwithit.Ontheonehand,savinglives is paramount, and one who saves a life is considered to have saved the entireworld. On the other hand, saving oneperson’s life may not be achieved through taking life away from another, irrespectiveof the latter’s quality of life or the limitedamountoftimeheorshemayhavelefttolive. It is clear in Jewish Law that ‘Chayei

Sha’ah’(lifethatcanonlycontinueforabriefperiodoftime)isalsoconsideredlifeworthsaving,andisnodifferentfromthelifeofapatientwhohasmanyyearsaheadofthem.Accordingly, if a potential organ donor isalive, even if he or she has only minutes left,heorsheisnottobeconsideredasanacceptablesourceoforgans.

It is within this context that all modern authorities on Jewish Law have evaluatedthe questions of cadaver donations. Thequestion isnot whether or not saving lives is important, as for this there is no debate – saving lives is paramount. Rather, thequestionrelatestothestatusofthepotentialdonor:ishe/sheindeeddead,inwhichcasehis/herorganswouldindeedbeavailablefortransplantaccordingtoJewishLaw;orishe/shestillalive,andtoremovehis/herorgans,oreventohastenhis/herdeathinordertoharvesthis/herorgansafterdeath,wouldbeconsideredanactofbloodshed?

This concept may be most troublesome for much of modern society in that one patienthas,atbest,hoursordaysleft,withabsolutely no ‘quality of life’ as definedby societal norms, while the recipient patient may be granted many healthy andproductiveyearsifgiventhetransplant.Thisis indeed amost painful issue. However, ifin fact thepotentialdonor isalive,orevenpossibly alive, the voice of Jewish Law and ethicsspeaksloudlyandclearly–hisorherlife, too, is a life, and it may not be taken, evenforthemostnobleofreasons.

The issue, therefore, becomes one of determining the precisemoment of death.AnalysisofthisquestionfromaJewishlegal

perspective requires thorough requisiteknowledge of the medical science available to us, as well as an in depth understanding of the Jewish Laws associated with end-of-life decisions. Factors will include determiningwhether the precise moment of death occursatthepointofcompletecessationofcardio-respiratory function, or at the pointofbraindeath,thelatteritselfneedingtobedefinedastherearevariousdegreestowhichbraindeathcanoccur.Theserangefromanirreversiblecessationofallfunctionsoftheentirebrainbutwhere residualcellular lifein the brain still exists, through to virtualdecapitation, which refers to the death ofevery cell in the brain. One needs to takeinto account both the extreme complexity of the vital organs, and the varying opinions within the medical community as well as amongstauthoritiesinJewishLawwhoareexperts in the field of medical ethics andknowledgeable in the science available. Itbecomesextremelydifficult, andwouldbein my view grossly reckless and irresponsible to attempt to convey clear and definitiveguidelines in a short informative piece,especially in light of the fact that each and everycasemaydifferintermsofthemedicalstatus of the potential donor. Indeed, theRabbinical Council of America published on thisvery issue,apaperwhich is110pagesin length, in order to provide its members with the information they would need torespondtothequestionorcadavericorgandonationsfromaJewishlegalperspective.

It should be noted that in instances where Jewish Law permits cadaveric organ donations,namelywhenthedonorisdeadfromtheperspectiveofJewishLaw,hisorherorgans may only be harvested for immediate useoftransplanttoapatientinneedofthatspecificorgan.Organsmaynotbeusedforresearchasthisconstitutesadesecrationof‘ ...one who saves a life is considered to have

saved the entire world.’



the dead body that once housed the soul, as opposed to the act of directly saving a life. This desecration is considered a gravetransgression in Jewish Law, as evident from the fact that Jewish Law strictly prohibits, for example, cremation instead of burial,and requires the utmost respect and honour affordedtothedeceasedbodybetweenthetimeofdeathandtheactualburial.

On a personal note, I am a member of HODS – the Halachic (Jewish legal)Organ Donor Society. HODS provides tomembers of the Jewish community who wish to register as potential organdonors,twogeneraloptionsas towhatconstitutesdeath, afterwhich point his or her organs

may be transplanted. These options are:(a) irreversible cessation of autonomousbreathingasconfirmedbybrain-stemdeathand (b) irreversible cessation of breathing(from a medical perspective, the latteroption limits the number of organs thatmay be recovered). Both of these viewsare supported by Jewish legal authoritiesheld in the highest regard. I opted for theformer option and carry a card detailingthis.OfcriticalimportanceisthatAustralianJews who have registered as potentialdonors through the HODS program will have instructed their families to consult with the Sydney Beth Din (Jewish Court) to liaise with the relevant doctors to determine the point

of death from a Jewish legal perspective.The Sydney Beth Din is well placed to advise on suchmatters, and has itself provided apositionpaperonthisissuetotheAustralianGovernment, which can be viewed here:http://www.donatelife.gov.au/position-statements.

‘ ...the question relates to the status of the potential donor.’

Yaakov Glasman

Organ Donation: The Jewish Perspective continued

Chapter Five Text | Context

“Science must be backed up by facts whereas Religion may be myths, such as Noah’s Ark, may be a myth but may also be fact.” Male Home Help Carer


C H A P T E R F I V E : T E X T | C O N T E X T

Talking About Science and Religion…

Guy Consolmagno SJBrother Guy Consolmagno SJ is the Director of the Vatican Observatory. A native of Detroit, Michigan, he studied planetary sciences

at MIT and the University of Arizona, studying meteorites and asteroids. Along with more than 200 scientific publications, he is the author of several popular astronomy books.

I was recently asked to give a talk on ‘Frequently answered questions on science and faith, and the answers that satisfy’. I tried to fulfill the promise of the title… but I found that I don’t always have answers that satisfy. I don’t even have all the questions.

What I do have is a lot of experience dealing with the public, 25 years at theVaticanObservatory,servingasanexampleas tohowonecanbebotha scientistanda person of faith. And, given the interestI saw in the talk I gave, I can see that I am not alone in that position. There are lotsof us who are good church-goers who also work (or play) in the rich fields of scienceand technology. You don’t have to be aprofessionalscientisttobeinthatposition.You might be an amateur astronomer, a bird-watcher, a weekend archaeologist, a gardener,acomputerhobbyist.Butifyou’veever been in a positionwhere someone isstartled to learn that you ‘do science’ and go to church, then you know what those questionsfeellike.

Asithappens,someoneinmyposition,averypublicscientistandaJesuit(workingattheVatican,noless)islikelytofindhimselfunderattackfromtwodifferentsides.Thereare,of course, the skepticswho think thata real scientist must reject religion. Theytendtobesuspiciouseitherofmyscientificbonafides or, even worse, of my religioussincerity.(“He’sfiguredoutacleverwaytoget funding for his research”, I overheardone fellow comment.) But even moreproblematical in my experience are thosepeople who think they are being devout Christiansbyrejectingmyscience.

So, how do I answer tricky questions,especially questions from folk whom Iconsidermy scientific colleagues or fellowbelievers? I don’t claim to be a masteror exemplar on the matter…but I know

someonewhowas.WhatdidJesussay?Hespent three years of his life wandering the Holy Land, engaging both the ultra-devout and those outside religion, in the temple and inthemarketsquare.Howdidhehandlethequestionshereceived?

Of course, unlike Jesus, we don’t meet in the temple or the market square, or even theparishhall,todebatepointsoftheology.But that’s not to say we don’t have such debates. The difference is, nowadays youfind these kinds of conversations online.In fact, the verse-by-verse way that these stories are told in the New Testament reminds me of the conversations I see onTwitter…

I can just see the Scribes tweeting:“Imagine 7 brothers; the 1st married, died childless; his widow marries his brother; the 2nd did the same, also the 3rd, down to the 7th. 1/2”

Thentheytweet:“Last of all, the woman herself died. In the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For all of them had married her. 2/2 #gotcha!”

But Jesus tweets back: “You know neither scripture nor God’s power. In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”

Andhisnexttweet:“Re: resurrection of the dead – haven’t you read ‘I am God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob’? He is God not of the dead, but of the living. #notsofast”

Noticewhat Jesus does. First of all, hedoes not hesitate to engage those who wouldtrytotraphim.There’satimewhen

it’s better not to ‘feed the trolls’; thereare other times, however, when the trollsmust be confronted. When they bringthe argument to him, he is not afraid to respond.That’shis jobandhe’sgoodat it.(That doesn’t mean that all of us must do that;wemaynotbeasgoodatitasheis.)

Next,justasonTwitter,heisawarethathehastwoaudiences.He’sspeakingtohisopponents, but he is also speaking to the wideraudiencethatislistening.Sometimeswe tweet (or argue) directly with the person talking to us and forget that each of us has a hundred or a thousand followers, with morewhomightfindtheretweets,andthataudience may not know the backstory to our argument.Arewefriendsbantering,familiarwith each other’s sense of humor, or are we strangers speaking rudely to each other?Andeventhoughwemaybeconfidentthatthe person we’re talking to knows scripture, or science,we can innowaybe confidentthat the other thousand followers (we should be so popular!) get the references.Wehavetospellthemout.

Even worse, of course, is playing only to the audience in our tweets, and forgettingthat the poor person who first asked thequestion,whomightbesincere,hasmerelybecomethebuttofourclevercuttinghumor.Weforgetthattheytoocanbleed.

Finally, notice how Jesus wins thisargument. He changes the grounds. Hedoesn’t attack the logic of the Scribes andPharisees–thesearesmartpeople,theycanreasonascloselyasanyonecan.Butinstead,heattackstheassumptionthattheymade.Who says the widow has to be anyone’s wife?Indeed,mostargumentsarebasedonassumptions made without even realizingtheyarebeingmade.‘There are... the skeptics who think that a

real scientist must reject religion.’



Then,hepullsbackfromtheconfinesoftheargumentitselftothelargerframe.Thequestionoftheresurrectionisnotaboutwhogetstobemarriedtowhom.It’salotbiggerquestion:it’saquestionaboutthenatureofGod.Who isGod?Whodoes scripture saythatGodis?Ifyourconclusionrunsagainstsomething as fundamental as that, then all theclevernessintheworldwon’tsaveyou.You’vemadeamistakesomewhere.

But notice another thing aboutencounters like these. For the most part,Jesus gets grief not from those who have lost faith, but rather those who think they’ve already got the faith and don’t have to look anyfurtherforit.

This parallels my own experience.Hostility from scientists does still happen,of course, andwe’ll talk about thatbelow.But except for a few ageing white males (theytendtobebiologists,andBritish)whoarefoundmoreoftenonTVthaninthelab,in my experience the scientists who don’tfollow a faith are more likely to be quietly amused by my odd behavior than to show anyoverthostility.Forexample,thehostofthe recent Cosmos TV show, Neil de Grasse Tyson, is hardly a friend of religion; but he’s afriendofmine.Andheisn’tafraidtosharethatfriendshipinpublic.

Instead, Ifindthemost troublingplacewhere the science/faith debate occurs isin the pews. Our problems start with the‘pharisees’ of our own faiths who want to securetheirownsanctitybyheapingabuseonscience.

Andthatmakesmenoticeaninterestingaspect in the example of Jesus engaging his Pharisees.Thatwasariskythingforhimtodo,andheknewit.Hedidn’thavetotalktothem.Therewereplentyofreligioussectsofhistimewhoseparatedthemselvesfromthegeneral run of society and its authorities,and hid out in monasteries in the desert.Likewise it would be easy just to let the

anti-science faithful of our own faith findtheir own way, to let them continue withtheir foolishpreconceptionsaboutscience,as long as they don’t bother us. But Jesusdidn’tdothat–neithershouldwe.

For one thing, that sort of prideful scorn is incrediblyinsultingtoalargesegmentofour fellow believers. They deserve betterthanthat.Butit’salsoincrediblydangeroustousandthesciencethatwesolove.

Dangerous? Recall that science is acommunity of people that operates within a larger community.Wemustnever forgetthat larger community of people who make oursciencepossible.Idon’tjustmeanthatthey pay the taxes that let us have our fun, thoughthat’scertainlytrue. It’sevenmorethanthat.

Once I gave a talk at the College of Charleston, a beautiful campus inCharleston, South Carolina, and after thetalk an undergraduate came up full of enthusiasm. “Iwant tobea geologist!”hetoldme.

I could understand that. After all, myundergraduate degree is in geology, and it’sagreatfieldfullofgreatpeople.There’sallsortsof funstuffyoucando ingeology,from the practical side of finding mineralresources, determining the safest and most respectfulwayoftreatingourplanet,tothepurejoyofjustknowinghowthosemineralsand rocks and mountains were formed. Ifyou choose the right corner of geology, you can wind up working outdoors in some of themostbeautifullocationsonEarth.Ifyouchooseplanetarygeology,myfield,youmayeven wind up some day walking on another planet.

“Soundsgreat”,Itoldhim.“Yeah…”hesaid.Andthenhisfacefell.

“But…whatdoItellmymom?”South Carolina. He was from the

Bible Belt. In the culture where he grewup, studying geology with our ideas of

billion-year-old rock formations directlycontradicted the way he had been taught about the Bible. To be a geologist, forhim, would be like declaring war against his religion, his home, his family.Hismomwouldbeashamedofhim.

Scientistsarepeople.Wehavefamilies;we have desires. Like every human being,we are a mixture of reason and heart, with hearts that have ‘reasons that reason does notknow.’Andlikethatstudent,wehavetoanswer not only those desires inside us, but also the desires inside the people whom we love.Ifourstudentscomefromfamilieswhoaren’t proud of them studying science, they won’tstudyscience.

After all, consider this: there’s a lot ofmountains and snow in India, and more people live in India than in Switzerland or Norway or Colorado (or indeed in all of the USorEuropecombined).ButIndiahasneverwon any medal in the Winter Olympics.Winter sports at that level just aren’tsupported by Indian society. For whateverreasons, there are very few mothers in India who dream of their daughter winning the goldmedalinfigureskating.

If the society you live in doesn’t think that doing science is the sort of thing that will make a mother proud, you’re not going tofindverymanykidswhochoosetostudyscience,muchlesspersevereintheirstudy.Youalsowillhaveahardtimefindinganyonewho can teach you how to do it, much less anyone who’ll want to learn from you what youhavetooffer.

Remember that when you think about under-representedminorities in academia.I remember when a buddy of mine in grad school hit a rough patch, like every grad student does, but where my family gave me the confidence and the expectation that Iwould see it through, his mom just wroteback saying, “come home to Buffalo, Cliff!YoucangetagoodjobrepairingcolorTVs!”



To a Catholic like me, from the urban north of the United States, South Carolina evokes images of those terrible Southern Baptistfundamentalists.It’sreallyeasyandtemptingmerely todismiss suchpeopleasignorant.Tooeasy.Tootempting.

For most of us, the failures of fundamentalism are so obvious that it’s actually boring even to talk about them.I remember one time, during the 1990s,whenIwastravelingthroughItalybytrain.As an American I’d gotten a rail pass thatlet me travel in first class. Of course, theonly other people onewouldmeet in firstclass were other Americans also traveling on rail passes. As it happened, in the carwith me was a couple from Cambridge, Massachusetts,homeofHarvardUniversityand MIT, and all they wanted to talk about wasAmericanpolitics.IwantedtolookoutthewindowandseetheItalianscenery.TheywantedtogripeabouttheReligiousRight.

Now,I’dlivedinCambridgefor15years.I’d studied at MIT, and taught at Harvard.There wasn’t a thing they were saying that Ihadn’theardamilliontimes.AndIalreadyagreed with most of it. How boring! Sohow could I shut them up? Since I knewtheirculture, Iknewjustwhattosay. Iputon my most serious face, and intoned, “You realise that the Religious Right have been marginalized by the intelligentsia in America...”Oh!Amarginalised minority!

Itdidshutthemup. Italsoshutmeup,because as soon as I had said it, I realised that actually, it’s true. And those of uswho arebleedingheartliberals–Iamaproudmemberof that tribe–needtorememberthat,andtreat the fundamentalists with the same care we’dtreatanyothermarginalizedpopulation.Withrespect.Withcarefullistening.Withtherecognition that, nomatter how ‘primitive’their strange rites and rituals may seem to us, maybe we could learn from them some thingswe’velostinourselves.

Notice an important element of thatstory.IknewtheattitudesoftheCambridgecouplebecauseIwasoneofthem.ButIwasalsodifferent fromthem.Asa result, Iwasactually very hesitant to dare to express, in that small space on the train, anything that Iknewwouldbearedflagtothem–likemyownreligion.Ididnotwanttobeostracized.I liked Cambridge. I liked living there, Iadmired the people whom I met there. Iwanted to be identified as one of them.That’s why I tried to divert their circularly endless discussion with what I had thought wasajoke.

It turns out that that sort of cultural identity is an important element in anyconversation we have with people whoseideas about anything, much less about scienceandreligion,aredifferentfromours.

Yale University’s law school hosts The Cultural Cognition Project. They have anexcellent website exploring how cultural values shape public policy arguments and decisions. When they look at the greatpolarizationbetweenpoliticalgroupsandthewaydifferentgroupsdealwithquestionsofscience, they come up with some surprising results.

First of all, we’ve all seen how some peopletendtobendscientificevidencetofittheirownpreconceptions.By‘somepeople’wegenerallymeanthosewedisagreewith.Andit’sabsolutelytrue, ithappens.But it’snottheresultofsomesortof‘conservativepenchantforauthoritarianism’–liberalsdoit too. It’snotacaseof somepeopleusingtoo much ‘emotion’ instead of ‘rationality’when they approach these issues. In fact,one really surprising result from the Yale study was that the more ‘rational’ yourthinking, the more likely you are to take a polarizedposition.

In fact, such bending of the facts comes about precisely as a result of reading the evidence rationally but entirely in the light

of your previous assumptions. We see allevidenceasawayof validating thatwhichwe already believe, or want to believe, because it is a marker of the social group withwhichweidentify.

Actually, that’s exactly what we do in science all the time. We couldn’tdo science without doing that. Forexample, we scientists know the laws ofthermodynamics,which are now a part of the set of assumptions that make up ourscientific cosmology. So when someonebringsusa ‘perpetualmotionmachine’weknowit’sfake.Ourfirstrationalreactionistofigureoutwheretheextraenergyiscomingfrom. When we devise an experiment ofour own, it already has built into it many assumptionsaboutwhatsortofresultwe’relikelytosee.Ifwedidn’thavethatideawewouldn’t know what to look for, or how to recognise itwhenwe saw it. All data istheory-laden.

But more than that, we all use these data as a way of reinforcing our identitywith our colleagues who hold the same worldviewthatwehave.Astheresearchersfrom the Yale group wrote, “Ideologically motivatedcognitionisaformofinformationprocessing that promotes an individual’s interest in forming and maintaining beliefs thatsignifytheirloyaltytoimportantaffinitygroups.”

Now, I truly believe that fundamentalists

‘ ...the more ‘rational’ your thinking, the more likely you are to take a polarized position.’

Talking About Science and Religion continued



are wrong. Wrong in their science, wrongin their religion. But my belief is so firmthat I have to recognise it derives in no small part from the community of scholars, both scientists and educated Catholics,who hold the same beliefs asme. I rarelybother questioning the wrongness offundamentalism, any more than as a scientistIbotherworryingabouttestingthelawsofthermodynamics.

And I have to recognise that the fundamentalists believe they are right, for equally strong affinity-group loyalties. It’sreally important for that kid in Charleston to be able to go home to a mom who will beproudofhim,justasitisreallyimportantfor me to be able to go back to MIT without hearing people whisper behind my back aboutmyreligion.

So how do you get around this conundrum? How do you communicateacross different affinity groups? The Yalegroupsuggeststhatthewaytodoitistofindareas of common viewpoints between you andthoseyouwouldarguewith.Jesusrelieson scripture when speaking to the Scribes, but he doesn’t when he speaks to a Roman centurion,elsewhereintheGospel.

Of course, it might seem tricky to use religion or science as our common points, since those are the very points under dispute!Butinfact,thosemightbetheverygroundsthatwecanactuallyshare.

Back in 2000, my colleague at theCollege of Charleston who had invited me tospeakthereinthefirstplace,sentoutanSOS. It seems that the state school boardwas about to vote on a new set of science standardsforalltheschools,Kthrough12,in the state of South Carolina, curricula that good educators had worked over for more thanayear.Theyincludedallthethingsthatevery well-educated adult needs to know something about, from evolution to theBig Bang. But my colleague was worried.

The chair of the State Board came from Greenville, South Carolina, home of Bob Jones University, a school so right wing that students there were even forbidden from dating Catholics at one time. My friendwas really worried about the vote. So sheassembledagroupof colleagues toattendthemeeting and show our support. CouldI come, with my clerical collar and my MIT ring?

We drove up from Charleston to Columbia, past the Confederate Flag flyingat the Capitol Building, and it was like a bad joke(aProtestant,aCatholicandaJewinaVWminivan)andIfeltallthetimelikeIwasin enemy territory, behind the Berlin Wall, surrounded by people who hated me justbecause of my collar (and maybe my MIT ring).

The time of themeeting came.We allintroduced ourselves, who we were and where we came from, and that we were present in support of the proposal. Wedidn’tsayanotherword.Wedidn’thaveto.Thestandardspassedunanimously.

And then the chair, the woman from Bob Jones land, came up to me and told me howgratifiedshewasthatIwasthereand,indeed,justtoknowthattheVaticanhaditsownastronomicalobservatory.Iwon’tsayitmelteda lifetimeofprejudicesonmypart,butitsureputadentintothem.

In fact, it’s interesting to know thateven though Bob Jones University espouses young earth creationism, it does dedicatesome serious resources to the teaching of science. Likewise,we’veprobablyallheardaboutthe‘creationscience’museum,we’veprobably all made fun of it, but think of what it means that they have such departments, that they build such museums: they wantscience.

Perhaps this love for science is a common ground where we can meet. Acoupleofyearsago,theVaticanObservatory

hosted a group of scholars from Iran at the Vatican Observatory. This followed avisit that our director at the time, Fr. JoséFunes, had made to Iran. Even thoughour approaches to science and religion questionsareverydifferent,thesimplefactthatthesemeetingstookplacepointsoutafundamentalfact:amongpeopleofdifferentreligions, our common love for science is in fact a place where we can begin to engage each other, to learn to understand, trust, andeventuallyevenlikeeachother.

People of every religion actually love science.Theyrecognisethesamejoyswedoat the beauty of a nebula in a telescope, or the intricacyofa living cell.However, theywant to be able to learn science from people who do not threaten their core identity,and, let’s face it, most of the public faces of science on TV or the other media today arealsopubliclyatheists,whooftenexpressspecifichostilityagainstreligion.

Now, Neil de Grasse Tyson is a friend of mine.StephenHawkingwasafriendofthelate Father Bill Stoeger, an astronomer at the VaticanObservatory–theywereclassmatesatCambridge–andhe’saproudmemberofthe Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Theseare not evil people. And if they have verynaive views of religion and philosophy, well, sodomostpeople.Butalltoooftenthewaytheypresentscienceisindeedanattackonreligion. No wonder the fundamentalistsdon’t trust them.On suchmatters, I don’ttrustthemeither.Opposedtosuchapointof view, I guess I am on the same side as the fundamentalists.

And I admire the faith of the fundamentalists, the commitment that they have in the face of strong societal pressure to holdfasttotheirfaith.Thoseareadmirablethings.Sowhydon’tIjointhem?WhyamInotafundamentalist?

It’s not that fundamentalism is ‘provably wrong’.Scienceisnotintheproofbusiness

‘ ...most of the public faces of science ... are also publicly atheists. ’



(a point both fundamentalists and atheist scientists often forget). A thousand yearsfrom now, who knows what our science will look like? What if some new way ofunderstanding the laws of physics suggests theworldreally is just6000yearsold!Notlikely,butIcan’truleitout.

But even if that were to happen, it wouldn’t mean that the fundamentalists were right. The problem withfundamentalism isn’t that it gets this fact orthatfactofsciencerightorwrong.(Igetvariousfactsofsciencewrong,allthetime.That comeswithbeing a scientist.) Rather,the real fault in fundamentalism is that it insists that its set of ‘facts’ is unassailable and, unlike real science, it leaves no room forgrowth.

Science must always say, ‘I may know nature pretty well, but I can always knownature better.’ Religion must always say, ‘ImayknowGodprettywell,butIcanalwaysknowGodbetter.’Bothrequiretheabilitytoadmit the need to grow. Both require thestrengthtoadmitwhenwearewrong–or,more commonly, when we were right but weonlyhadpartofthestory.

The problem with fundamentalism is not thatit iswrong;Iamusedtobeingwrong.Theproblemisthatitiscertainit’sright.

Think about that.Nowask yourself: towhat extent is each of us fundamentalist, in ourownways?

That’s worth remembering when we encounter fundamentalism. We are allfundamentalists.Andit’snotentirelyabadthing.WhenIencountersomeonewhohasa‘perpetualmotionmachine’,Idon’tthrowinto doubt my understanding of the law of conservation of energy, but I do assumewithout question that there’s somethingfishy with his device. It takes somethingextraordinary to violate conservationof energy: until we find out, in nuclearreactions, that things are a little more

complicatedthanoursimplelawsuggested.Fundamentalists have great confidence

in their religion because, in their day to day lives,itworks.Itdescribesrightandwrong,good and evil, how to live and how to die, farbetter(intheiropinion—andmine,too)than our modern penchant for making it up as we go along, taking our cues for life from pop music and Hollywood movies. Theyhave no reason to doubt it any more than we have reason to doubt conservation ofenergy.Whentheyhearthingsfromusthatattempt to challenge those beliefs, we’rethe ones who have the burden of proof… both that what we say about creation istrue, and that it in no way violates what Scripturesaysaboutcreation.Scripturesays,in many different ways, in different bookswrittenatdifferenttimes,thatGodcreatedtheUniverse.Oursciencemerelytellsus(inmany different ways, in different theoriesdevisedatdifferenttimes!)howhedidit.

If we remember that at a certain level wearen’tsodifferentfromfundamentalists,we might be able to talk to each other and, heavenforfend,evenlearnfromeachother.Thatwouldn’tbesuchabadthing.

In that spirit, then, let me pivot and make an equally startling statement for thoseofuswhoarepeopleoffaith.Justasthescientistis,insomeways,notsofarfromthe fundamentalists, we believers must also remember that we are also almostatheists.Bybelieving intheoneGodofChristianity,there are many, many other versions of Godthat Idonotbelieve in. Indeed, Ionlybelieve in one more God than Stephen Hawkingdoes.

Though I have met many friends over the years who call themselves atheists or agnostics, itwasatoneparticularmomentwhen it suddenly hit me how much I had in commonwiththeatheists.

Remember Comet Hale-Bopp and the crazy Heaven’s Gate cult that promoted mass

suicides triggered by the comet as a route throughtheEndTimes?Inresponsetothem,an astronomer friend decided to deal with this craziness asonly an intellectual could:he organized a conference about comets and religion, through an organisation hebelonged to called the Democratic SecularHumanistsofAmerica.

The conference had a series of hour long talksaboutcometsandphilosophy–Igaveoneofthem–withafewhundredgoodfolksintheaudience.Ihadlunchwithanumberoftheattendees.Theywereyoung,maybemid-30s,intellectuallycurious,veryfriendly.Not surprising given their ages, the lunch conversation soon turned to families andschools and the problems of raising kids.What I remember most was one of the moms complaining, “It’s really hard to raise good atheist children nowadays because oursocietyissosaturatedwithreligion.Itiseverywhere!”

I don’t remember what I had for lunch; Iwastoobusybitingmytongue.Howoftenhad I heard almost the exact same words, with one slight twist, from my evangelical friends?

Thatafternoonmyfriend,whoteachesastronomy at the local community college, scheduled himself to give his standard hour long ‘BigBang’ lecture.Hestartedbyasserting that there areonly threedistinctand, of course, mutually exclusive ways of understanding the universe. There’s


‘ ...the real fault in fundamentalism is that it insists that its set of ‘facts’ is unassailable...’

‘ It’s really hard to raise good atheist children nowadays because our society is so saturated with religion.’



religion,butweallknowreligionisabsurd.(Theaudiencenoddedinagreement.)Thenthere’s philosophy, but philosophy is only abunchofnonsensewords. (Theynoddedsomemore.) Then, finally, there’s Science!Smilesandgrinsallaround.

But as he started outlining what Science could tell us about the origin of the universe, thesmilesstartedtofadeand,bythetimeofthequestionandanswerperiod,muchoftheaudiencewasoutraged.TheBigBang?Relativity?Noneofthatmadeanysensetothem, it sounded as much like gibberish as philosophy did. And whenmy friend triedto point out that the best scientists andmathematiciansofthedaywerebehindtheBig Bang, they were outraged even more.He was arguing entirely on an appeal toauthority!

The split between speaker and audience illustratesaninterestingdivideintheskepticmindset. There are skeptics who reject allreligion precisely because they reject allauthority.Andthereareotherskepticswhoreject all religion because in their mindsit’s a rival to the authority that they accept instead:theauthorityofscience.

Even science depends on authority.We can’t possibly derive every equation,produce every data point, define everyterm anew by ourselves. (I wouldn’t trustmyownworkenoughtoeventry.)Wetrustthe giants whose shoulders we, like Newton, muststandupon.

Those of us in science are familiar with authority, and we respect authority, precisely because we are authoritiesourselves.It’sanattitudefamiliartousfromthe story of the Centurion’s Servant, as told inMatthew’sgospel:

A centurion came up to Jesus, asking for help. “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.” Jesus said to him, “Shall I come and heal him?”

The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that very hour.

It’s a lovely illustration of how someonewho is used to authority can understand and appreciate authority in others. Jesus“teacheswithauthority”wearetoldinmanyplaces in the Gospels. That understandingof authority is a common ground between JesusandtheCenturion.

He speaks to the Centurion in a very differentwaythanhespeakstotheScribesandPharisees.Hedoesn’t cite scriptureorarguepointsof theology.Healsodoesnotreject the Centurion just because he is aRoman.HetakestheCenturionforwhoheis, meets him where he lives; indeed, even literallyofferstogotowheretheCenturionlives.

Notice also, once again, how Jesus isvery aware of both the person he is talking toandtheaudienceoverhearingthemboth.

He uses the opportunity to teach the crowd, making it clear that the outsiders like the Centurion are closer to the Kingdom than the self-righteous in the audience. That’ssomething for us to think about, because it may well be that our closest allies in the long runaretheskepticsandtheatheists.

(Also notice one last, but importantthing.InalltheteachingthatJesusdoesatthe moment, he does not ignore the concern athand–hedoesgetaroundtocuringtheCenturion’sservant.)

With this in mind, I want to go back to the thesis of my friend’s talk to his fellow ‘secular humanists’. He assertedthat our understanding of the universe can be divided into religion or philosophy or science as distinct ‘non-overlappingmagisteria’.Thatphrasewascoinedby thesympatheticskepticStephenJayGouldinhisbook Rocks of Ages, which tried (and failed) to reconcile his understanding of science withhisunderstandingoffaith.Ithinkthatdesire for separate, non-touching realms of science and belief is at the root of a lot ofmisunderstandingbetween skeptics andbelievers.

There’s a temptation to divide ourexperience into the separate categories of faithversusscience,emotionsversus logic.Butit’safalsedivision.Realhumansarenotjustamassoffeelingsorjustcoldreasoningmachines, like the ‘Star Trek’ characters KirkandSpock.(Heck,evenKirkandSpockwere not really just Kirk or Spock.) Ourunderstanding of logic was developed by the scholastic theologians of the MiddleAges, and as Gödel’s theorem show, all logical systems must begin with assumed axioms. What’s more, scientists rely onhunches–wecallit‘experience’–todecidewhich possible theories to explore or which experimentstodo.GalileowasaconvincedCopernican fifteen years before he everevenheardofthetelescope.



So why do skeptics (or indeedfundamentalists) think that hunches and reason are mutually exclusive, non-overlappingways of viewing the universe?Oddly enough, itwas a conversation I hadwithCaptainKirkthatgavemeaninsight.

How I wound up talking to William Shatner, the actor who played Captain Kirk … it’salongstory.ButwhenIdescribedmyselfas a Jesuit scientist, hewas flabbergasted.“Wait a minute, wait a minute!” he said.And as we talked further, it was something so obvious to him which suddenly became cleartomethatIhadnevergraspedbefore.Hesawreligionandsciencenotjustastwoseparate domains, but as two competing setsoftruths.Twobigbooksoffacts.

And what should happen if the facts in onebookcontradictthefactsintheother?

Of course. If you think of science orreligions as big books of facts, then you couldimaginethatkindofconflict.

But I know that science is not a big book offacts.Theorbitsoftheplanetsarefacts.You can describe their paths by Ptolemy’s epicycles or by Kepler’s ellipses, and both descriptionscanbetweakedtogiveequallyaccuratedescriptionsofthoseorbits.Theseare the facts, but only Kepler’s ellipses will leadtotheinsightofNewton’slawofgravity.

Science is not the facts of the orbits, rather it is what you do with those facts, the conversation you have about thosefacts,theinsightsthatcomefromthefacts.Doing science also means being open to the realization that Newton’s laws, too,are not the last word. Not even Einstein’sGeneralRelativity,themodernreplacementforNewton, is the lastword. I suspect the

scienceof3016willlookverydifferentfromwhatwe’reteachingtoday.

In the same way, our faith is not based on rigid certainties that all fit in a book.I had surprised William Shatner with the phrase that Anne Lamont famously used to describe faith:“theoppositeof faith isnotdoubt; the opposite of faith is certainty.”That was completely the opposite of what hethoughtfaithwasabout.

He’d heard the phrase ‘blind faith’ and thoughtthatmeantacceptingsomethingascertain without looking or, worse, closing your eyes to the facts and proceeding on emotion. But that’s not faith at all. To thecontrary, remember what Moses says to his people after giving them the Tabletsof theLaw: “Donot forget the thingsyoureyes have seen or let them fade from your heartaslongasyoulive.Teachthemtoyourchildren and to their children after them.”It’snot“closeyoureyes”butrather“teachwhatyouhaveseen.”

Blind faith is not walking with blindfolds, blinding ourselves to truth. It’s proceedingafterwe’ve done everythingwe can do tosee,andstillcan’tseeeverything.Alloflifeis making crucial decisions on the basis of inadequateinformation.

When it comes to understanding atheism, its roots and its escape, I’d like to reference twobooksbytheJesuitFr.MichaelJ.BuckleySJ.At the Origins of Modern Atheism is his great work, widely read and widely quoted, and justly so. The other, Denying and Disclosing God, is a later and thinner book, but in some ways more approachable and with some key insights that I will borrow here.Irecommendthemboth.

One of Buckley’s key insights is that “To be an atheist one must have a clear idea of theGodonedoesnotbelievein.”

I remember seeing a photograph of one of the world’s most famous atheists, the elderly British biologist Richard Dawkins,posing with a smirk on his face in front of the advertisinghehadputonthesideofLondonbusesasapublicitystuntafewyearsback.The sign on the bus read ‘There’s probably noGod.Nowstopworryingandenjoyyourlife.’Toshowwhathemeantbyenjoyinglife,hehadanattractiveyoungwomandrapedaround his shoulder, and her tee-shirt bore thesameslogan.

NoticetheideaofGodthatheassumes.To Dawkins, God is primarily a source of worry, someone who would get in the way of youenjoyingyourlife.Andalsonoticethathisideaofenjoyinglifeistohavea‘babe’onhis shoulder, and her idea is having a famous sugar daddy. There’smore than one bit ofadvertisinggoingoninthisphoto.

But why does the popular culture, which Dawkins and his friends embrace and exploit,equatesciencewithatheism?Afterall, while Kepler and Newton had prettyodd ideas of theology, neither one of them would have accepted or appreciated being calledanatheist.BothwerestrongbelieversoftheirownversionsofGod.

Buckley attempts to answer thatquestionhistorically.Hearguesthatmodernatheismcanbetracedtotheveryattemptstousethenewcertaintiesofmodernscience(thestuffwenowrecogniseisn’tsocertain)asameanstoprovethatGodreallydidexist.

For example, Newton’s laws ofmotionand gravity described the motions of theplanets around the Sun in a way no one had ever been able to do before, but he couldn’t explain why they didn’t disturb each other with their own gravities. Instead, he usedthe obvious stability of the solar system as evidenceofGod’sbenevolent interference.


‘ I suspect the science of 3016 will look very different from what we’re teaching today.’



When the French mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace developed a far more advanced mathematical description ofplanetary orbits, a hundred years later, that ‘proof’ofGod’sactionwasmademoot.

Likewise, when Plato argued that motion in theuniversedemandedaPrimeMover, theologians happily identified thatPrime Mover with God. Newton happilykept that idea, insisting only that oncethe universe was set in motion, its lawsinexorablydescribeditsfuturecourse.Sucha picture of God, the Deist view, no longer saw God personally involved in the lives of individual humans but rather as merely the ‘prime mover’ in Plato’s sense, as well as someone responsible for bridging the gaps inourunderstandingofphysics.

But this God of the Gaps, Buckley argues, is preciselywhat led to atheism. Ifyour proof of God is the existence of such gaps,thenoncethegapsarefilledbynaturallaws, you wind up showing that in fact there isnoneedforGodafterall.Thus,atheism.

But notice, the god that was lost wasalready not much of a god because he’d already been reduced to just one forcealongside all the other forces in nature.Rather than being supernatural, outside space and time, existence before thebeginning, before the ‘before’, this kind of god was back to being a sort of pagan nature deity.

Remember Buckley’s insight: “To bean atheist one must have a clear idea of the God one does not believe in.” CarlSagan, the noted American astronomer and popularizerofmygeneration,putitanotherway...oneofhisgradstudentsoncetoldmeshe’d heard him say, “An atheist is someone whoknowsmorethanIdo.”

Given that most scientific ‘atheists’have rejected a Deist god that is far fromtheChristianGodinanyevent,wecanask,what is religiontoaskeptic?Doesoneofmy

skepticfriendshave itrightwhenshesays,“Religion is just a behavior modificationsystemtogetpeopletoactgood”?

My experiences with my techie friends suggests that this ideaof religion,definingit in terms of its function, is much morewidespread than outright atheism. And itassumes an axiomatic kind of agnosticism.They assume that they can never find thetruth about whether or not there is a God, and so to them the only honest response is tothrowuptheirhandsandmoveon.Theabsence of evidence may not be evidence of an absence, but it sure is no proof of a presenceeither!

Butweareallscientistsnow,inWesternculture. Even the fundamentalists claimto be scientists. We all look for evidencefor everything. The fundamentalists fallback on all the bits of science that they can’t understand (how does life evolve?)as proof of the need of God; the skeptics,rightly, reject such arguments. But we areneitherskepticsnorcreationists.Whatistheevidenceonwhichwecanbaseourfaith?

It is not the orbits of the planets, or the positionoftheSunortheMoon.Itisnottheauthority of ancient sages, either saints or scientists.Instead,inhislaterbook,Buckleysuggestsaverydifferentsortofevidence.Hequotes a 20th century philosopher, RaïssaMaritain, who came to Christianity late inlife.Sheencountered,inherstudyofhistoryand inherownlife,the livesofsaints.Theessential data point for her was what shecalled‘thefactofsanctity’.

Holiness exists. Any theory of theuniverse that fails to take into account that existence,isincomplete.

When I spoke to the student in South Carolina who wanted to know how to tell his mom he would be studying geology, we both came to the conclusion that no sound bite would do for an answer. Instead, if hewasgoing to be a geologist, he would also have to beagood,upstandingperson–theeffortofalifetime.Onlythatwouldconvinceher.

And how did Jesus convince people?I doubt that any of his clever arguments changed any minds among the Scribes and Pharisees.Noonehaseverbeenconvertedbyasyllogism.

But instead, consider how Jesus converts the Woman at the Well, described in Chapter 4 of John’s gospel. It startswhenJesusmakesthefirstapproachtotheSamaritan woman, asking as a supplicant foracupofwaterfromher.Hesoonoffersherthe‘livingwater’ofeternallife.Thoughshe’s a Samaritan, and someone who’s been marriedfivetimes,she isovercomebythefact that Jesus knows all about her and still loves her. She ismoved by who Jesusis, what he tells her about herself, and his obvious sanctity. And thatmakes her starttoquestion the cosmology thatup tonowshe’s lived inside. It’s the first step towardconversion.

Which leads me to ask, finally, justwhat kind of success is it that we hope to accomplish in our conversations aboutscience and faith? What conversionexperiencedowehopetotrigger?

Once more we return to the master, in thisfinalGospelstory,fromMark12:28-34:

One of the Scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?”

‘An atheist is someone who knows more than I do.’



Guy Consolmagno

Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Then the Scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that ‘he is one, and besides him there is no other’; and ‘to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength,’ and ‘to love one’s neighbor as oneself,’ – this is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” After that no one dared to ask him any question.

Once again, Jesus succeeds by changing the groundofthediscussion–inthiscase,fromlawtolove.Andforonce,hegetstheScribetoagreewithhim.Butthestorydoesn’tendthere.Infact,thefinalsuccessoccurswhenJesusagreeswiththeScribe.

We know we’ve won the argument when we can acknowledge that the other sideisright.




Biblical Wisdom and the Question of Purpose for Science

Tom McLeish FRS Tom McLeish is Professor of Physics, Durham University. His research interests include issues of theology, ethics and history of science. He has published over 180 scientific papers and reviews and is regularly involved in science communication with the public, including

lectures and workshops on science and faith. He has been a Reader in the Anglican Church since 1993.

Try Googling ‘Science and Faith’ – the first questions in the ensuing list is ‘Are Science and Faith Compatible?’ and ‘Has Science Disproved God?’ When I was asked with others to participate in this year’s Cheltenham Science Festival Debate in the UK, the panel was given the by-now-predictable title of ‘Can Science and Faith Co-exist?’ Do I sound a little tired already of facing the continuous barrage of these questions? Or rather of the same question posed in a thousand different ways? I admit that I am somewhat enervated as well, for they are so monotonously posed that I believe that in faith communities we have now been persuaded that this is the only question that one can ask about science.

Furthermore,thequestionassumesthatJewish,Christian,Muslim(and other religious) belief is prima facie inconflictwithscience,andthatouronlyrealtaskistheapologeticoneoffightingbackfromtheropes,ifweareluckystilltobeonourfeet.Thequestiontakesforgranted that science is a threat to Biblical belief, and that our faith isathreattoscience.Noneofthisturnsouttobetrue–neithertheassumptionsbehind thequestion, nor theprimary significanceofthequestionitself.HereIwouldliketoexploreanotherapproach,much more relevant and urgent, but also in the company of some of thedeepestandmostsignificantwritingsinBiblicalliterature.

For a long time I have wanted to think about a much moreimportantquestion.AsbothaChristianandascientistsincemyearlyadultlife,the‘canyoureconcile…’questionhassimplybeenanon-starter–onthelevelofthe‘haveyoustoppedbeatingyourwife?’sortofquestion–becauseitsimplybeginswiththewrongassumptions.I have personally experienced the humbling human ability to do science, to uncover and understand something of the inner structure of theworld,asGod’sgift,amongthemanyothergifts that followfromhissupremeone.Formetherewasalwaysadeeper,andmuchtruer question to ask: ‘What is Science Forwithin the Kingdom ofGod?’Or,inotherwords,withinGod’sgreatproject,sharedwithusbyrevelation,ofcreation(incarnation)1redemptionandtherenewalofcreation,whatpartdoesthegiftofscienceplayandtowhatpurpose?

If we are continually embroiled in the apologetic defence ofthe (within the family of faith) non-question of conflict, then wenever allow ourselves the space to dig deep into Biblical material, theological reflection,andcriticalevaluationofourexperiencethatneedstobethemarkofpeople,asthatfirstcenturyPhariseeSaulofTarsusreferredto“transformedbytherenewalof[our]minds”(LettertotheRomans12:1).Perhapsthatisalsowhythe‘scienceandfaith’debate isso littleengagedwithawideresourceofscripture.Thereis a lot saidabout thefirst chapterofGenesis, tobe sure,butnotasmuchstemmingfromclosereadingofthemanyothernarrativesofcreationthroughoutTorah,Wisdom,Prophetsand,forChristians,theNewTestamenttoo.Hereseemstobearatherdifferentproject:whatdoesthewholetestimonyofscripturesayaboutthepurposeofscience, and what would be the consequences of such an exegesis for thepracticeoffaith-basedandscientificcommunitiestoday?

Of course, consulting a concordance for theword ‘science’ isnotagreat idea.Thatdoesnot,however,meanthatourquestionisanachronistic,butitdoesurgeustothinkthroughwhatscienceitselfsignifiesatadeeperlevel.Fortunately,wedonotneedtolookback very far for clues, for only a century and a half ago I would nothavebeencalleda ‘scientist’buta ‘naturalphilosopher’–or,unpacking the Greek etymology, a ‘lover of wisdom to do with nature’.Beforegoingany further, youcouldeven try thisonyourscience-suspecting friends and colleagues. Replace the impliedknowledgeclaimof‘scientist’(aLatin-derivedclaimerofknowledge–‘scio’– I know)withthesofterGreek,andyoumightfindthatmorepeople warm to the idea that we might be engaging with nature in asearchforwisdomwithinthecontextoflove.Morepeoplewarmtothatnotionofwhatsciencemightbe.Furthermore,thehistoricaltruth that science emerges from love and wisdom for nature speaks of it as a relational activity. So, rather than look up ‘science’, letus ask where in scripture we are asked to think about the human relationshipwiththecreatedmaterialworld.Immediatelythetextspourforthlikeariver.

Thefirstthingtonoticeisthefrequencywithwhichthecreationstoryistoldandretold.RecallwherescripturalnarrativerefersbacktoGod’sactofcreatingtheworld:Proverbs8,Psalm19,Psalm33,Psalm104,Isaiah40,Isaiah45,Jeremiah10,Hosea2;andintheNewTestament,John1providesasalientexample.Thesearejustafewoftheplaceswheredifferentlanguage,arichvarietyofmetaphor,orfresh pictures are used to remind God’s people that it was their Lord wholaidthefoundationsoftheEarth,separatedthelandandthesea,spreadouttheheavens.Totaketwoexamplesalittlefurther:thedelightfulandplayfulcreationaccountinProverbs8amountstothestoryofwisdom’sbirth–hereshe(Sophia)isalittlegirlatthefeetoftheCreator,playingwiththeriversandmountains.

The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old;I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.When there were no oceans, I was given birth,

when there were no springs abounding with water, before the mountains were settled in place, before the



hills, I was given birth, before he made the earth or its fields, or any of the dust of the world.I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, when he gave the sea its boundary so that the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.Then I was the craftsman at his side.I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind.

The Lord is certainly in the background, but centre-stage is the fleeting,dancingcharacterofwisdomwhoweavesherselfintothecomponents of the physical world, responding to their coming-into-being with joy. Although very old, this complex passage alreadycontains several themes that reappear in, or lie closely below the surfaceofalongskeinofcreationliteratureintheBible.Atitsheartit embeds a sort of ‘formula’ for describing the world’s creationthat concentrates on establishing boundaries: “… marked out the horizon…established the clouds above …gave the sea its boundary … marked out the foundations of the earth…”. Thevital aspectofcreation in this tradition is not so much the naked existence ofmatter,butitsorder:theskyabove,theseaseparatedfromtheland,andthedepthsoftheearthbelowourfeet.The‘taming’oftheseaisespeciallyimportant–adangerousandalienmediumiskeptatbayalmostasonewouldatetheredbeast.

The profound prologue to John’s Gospel contains a deliberate echoof suchcreationstories,butcombines themwithanexplicitreferencetoGenesis1–‘inthebeginning’,andinabrilliantstrokeofpropheticinsight identifiestheHellenisticcreativeandorderingprinciple of logoswith the incarnatemessiah. Just as in Proverbs8,thecreationisanorderingprocess,theembodimentofa‘word’.

More is true: creationstoriesareused toapurpose.Creationstories, wherever they occur in scripture, tend to form bridges from apositionofhopelessnessandlost-nesstoarenewedhope.Sothegreat recapitulation of creation in Isaiah 40 leads directly to theannouncementoftheOnewhowillcometoredeemIsrael.Psalm33 takes a (brief) journey through the creation of the cosmos totakethepsalmist fromdespair tohope.Blinkandyoumiss them.Someof theseaccountsarevery short,which in turn tellsus justhowdevelopedthetwoGenesiscreationstoriesare(inchapters1and2:bydifferentauthors,usingdifferentlanguageandmetaphor),

butbrevitydoesnotimplyinsignificance.Humanrelationshipwiththe physical creation is also a growing theme in these recurrentmotifs– thecelebrationof thewisdomof the farmerwhoknowswhichseedstoplantatwhatseasonisthefocusofIsaiah28.Peoplearenotcalledtositbackandcontemplatephysicalcreation,buttoengagewithitfruitfully

Perhaps the most profound of all the wisdom scriptures in its description of the human relation with the natural world, is theenigmaticBook of Job. I have never tired of losingmyself in thiswonderfulbooksinceIfirstfellcaptivetowhatmustsurelybethegreatest poem of natural wisdom in all ancient literature, the so-called ‘Lord’s Answer’ of chapters 38-42. Here, for the first timesincethebook’sprologue,theLordfinallyappearstoJobinanswertohis repeateddemands for vindication,and forGod’sadmissionthathissufferingisunjust.ButratherthantacklingJob’scomplaintshead-on,Yahwehtakesthemanonajourneythroughallofcreation,and at every waypoint asks him a question:

Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea?...Where is the way to the abode of light?......From whose womb comes the ice?......Do you know the laws of the heavens?And can you apply them to the earth?

ScientiststowhomIhaverecommendedthereadingofthesechaptershave always come back astonished – for here are the foundationquestionsofthescienceswenowcall‘meteorology’,‘oceanography’,‘cosmology’, ‘astronomy’, ‘zoology’. More than that, as all workingscientists know, the vital step in all successful science is not thefindingofthecorrectanswer(inspiteoftheyearsofscienceschoolingthatwouldhaveusbelieve so)but the formulationof the creativequestion.Einsteinandmanyothercreativescientistshavenotedthis.Heisenberg, for example, wrote “In the course of coming into contact with the empirical method, physicists have gradually learned how to poseaquestionproperly.Now,properquestioningoftenmeansthatoneismorethanhalfwaytowardssolvingtheproblem.”

Strangely,the‘Lord’sAnswer’hasreceivedsometoughcriticismin the scholarly literature. On the one hand, it is charged withirrelevance–Jobisconcernedwiththemoralissueofthesufferingoftherighteous,nottheprovenanceofthesnoworthelightning.Ontheotherhand,God isaccusedofthepetulantput-down–ofsuggestingbyhislistofunanswerablequestionsthatJobisignorantandshouldceasehiscomplaining.However,neitherobjectionholdsonclosereading.Foronething,theentireBookofJobisrepletewithnatureimagery.Alltheanimals,plantsandphenomenareferredtoin the ‘Lord’s Answer’ have already been invoked in the three cycles

‘So the great recapitulation of creation in Isaiah 40 leads directly to the announcement of the One who will come to redeem Israel.’

‘ Book of Job... the greatest poem of natural wisdom in all ancient literature... ’

Biblical Wisdom and the Question of Purpose for Science continued



ofdiscoursesbetweenJobandhisfriendsoverthefirst37chapters.Job’scomplaintisinfactadoubleone:heaccusesGodofallowingchaostoreigninthenaturalworldjustasmuchashedoesinthemoralworld:

What he destroys will not be built, whom he imprisons will not be freed.He holds back the waters, there is drought; he lets them loose, they overwhelm the earth. (Ch. 12)

Here we meet an example of the nature imagery that threads throughoutthebook–chaoticfloodsintroducedherereappearinthequestioning‘Lord’sAnswer’.ItistherebecauseJobaccusestheLordofcreatingphysicalchaosintheworld,ashecreatesmoralchaosinJob’ssuffering.AsforthereasonforGod’sappearance,farfromdiminishingJob, he is invited to ‘stand up’ and debate on Yahweh’s level, as in acourtroom.Thevitalcontextforthelongquestioningpoemistheearlier ‘intermission’ to thecycleofdiscourses inchapter28,oftencalledthe‘HymntoWisdom’.Mysteriouslybeginningundertheearth,down a mine, it follows the miners as they ‘dangle and sway’ on their ropes, looking up at the earth from beneath. The authorwondersthat, of all the creatures, only human eyes are able to see the inner structuresoftheearthinthisway.Noteventhefalcon,‘withhersharpeyes’, can see right into the structure of the rocks that are open to the eyesoftheminers.Thenthedepthsofearthandseaarequestionedonwherewisdomcanbefound–withoutavail.TheHymnendswithidentifyingwisdomasadivinewayofseeing:

But God understands the way to it; it is he who knows its place.For he looked to the ends of the earth, and beheld everything under the heavens, So as to assign a weight to the wind, and determine the waters by measure,

Ifindthepictureoftheminer’seyespeeringintothedeepstructureof the world from the glimmer of a lamp to be a faithful metaphor for science itself,being thatpartof culture thatdevelopsourgiftofseeingbeneaththesurfaceofphenomenainthelightofobservation,imaginationandreason.ComingfromDurham,whereIwork,thehymnisalsoparticularlysignificant–theformerminingcommunitiesaroundthecity still know Job28as ‘theminers’prayer’–and itappears instainedglassinEasingtonCollieryparishchurch.Butthereismore,forthisendingofthechapterindicatesthatitisinjustthisabilitythatweare made in the image of God as regards Wisdom, for this ‘deep seeing’ intotheworldiswhatWisdomis,andwhattheCreatordoes.

Seen through a New Testament lens, a calling to heal a broken relationship with the world, by replacing ignorance

with understanding, fear with wisdom, and mutual harm with fruitfulness, indeed looks like the fruitsof a renewed relationshipwiththeCreatorhimself.StPaulwrotetotheCorinthians(2Cor5:7):

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ – new creation;The old has gone, the new has come!All this is from God, who reconciled himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:That God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ

The ‘ministry of reconciliation’ or, more simply, ‘healing brokenrelationships’iswhatthegospelannounces.It’sagreatsoundbitefor what any Abrahamic faith means, because everyone knows about brokenrelationships.WeareabletoparticipateinGod’sministryofhealingbecausetherelationshipuponwhichallothersdependhasbeenhealedby the re-creativeactsof theCreator thatChristiansidentifywithJesus’incarnation,deathandresurrection.Inthisheis‘reconciling the world (kosmos) to himself’, being the physical and naturalworldaswellasthepeopleinit.Oneofthemostsurprisingand glorious aspects of the whole Biblical story is that God calls us toparticipateinthiswork.Perhapsthemosthumbleofallbrokenrelationshipsisthatbetweenhumanbeingsandthenaturalworld.Likeother cases, it shows itsflawsbybeginning in ignoranceandfear, and in the propensity for mutual harm (we have long known that nature can harm us, but it is only in the last century that we havediscoveredjusthowmuchwecanharmnaturetoo).

TaketheancientinvitationtoJob,andtherebytoallwhofollowhim, to engage in a deep and questioning way with the naturalworld, together with the other Biblical ministry of reconciliation,andperhapswehavethebeginningsofananswertothequestion,‘What is Science forwithin theKingdomofGod?’ In a smallway,mendingourrelationshipwiththecreationisjustwhataredeemedandlovedcreaturemadeinGod’simagemightbeexpectedtodo.Seen in that light, far from being a threat to faith, science becomes oneofthemostholyministriesonecouldimagine.

1 IbelievethatforJewish,ratherthanChristian,readers,onlythiswordofthelistmightrequirebracketingout–buttobehonestI’mnotevenquitesureofthat.However,IwishtobesensitivetothemajorityofthereadersofthisJournal.

Tom McLeish FRS



Aboriginal Mythology: An Ethical Framework for Life on Earth

Janet Turpie-Johnstone Aunty Janet Turpie-Johnstone is an ordained Anglican Priest in Victoria, and the Indigenous Equity and Pathways Officer,

Jim-Baa-Yer Indigenous Higher Education Unit, Australian Catholic University.

There have been many moments of cultural and societal significance in the generations of humans on earth but one stands out as truly revelatory, and in the context of this work I see it as being of cataclysmic importance to us all. This event was the first time humans who left the planet in the 1960s were able to look back at their shared place of residence.

In the photographs taken on those firstflights, all of us could see our home as anentity in the vastness of theMilkyWay, aswell as a presence in the universe itself.Thatviewstillincitesfeelingsofaweforme.The humility is for us humans, as we are confronted with the reality that this planet is the one and only home which we share with an immeasurable array of other life forms. I keep a picture inmy office of theplanet as it sits in the surrounding dark of its environment.Nomatterwhetheranimalorvegetable, this is where we have been born havelived,loved,warredanddied.Howcananyusoftakethisforgranted?

What is more amazing is that some of our fellow humans look at this as an excuse to avoid facingourowndestructivenessbysaying “If we muck up this planet we can look for another place to move to”, or bymaking plans “to mine asteroids or even other planets!” for the resources that fuelthe industries that make the products for our capitalistic world. We are consumingour home in ever increasing and ‘monstrous’ amounts.Insomesciencefictionnarratives,the earth is imaged as having just peopleand buildings living high above ground level, struggling for balance and validity as creatures. I can almost guarantee that,withouttherelationshipswehavewithothercreatures, whether vegetable or animal, humanswillbecomeextinct!

In the last 65 years, humankind has become a force of geological and biological change. This change, now calledthe Anthropocene epoch, has forced all existence into a new geological era. TheAnthropocene epoch is estimated by sometohavebeguninthe1950s.Withcollectionof data over the past century or so, it was

observed that, directly after the SecondWorld War, human activity has set globalsystems on a trajectory where change nolongeremanatesfromnatureherself.Thesehuman activities are rapid industrialisationand nuclear activitiy, chemical supremacy(agricultural) and the production of plasticwaste, and the vast mountains of non-biologicalwaste. Inepisode threeofDavidAttenborough’sGreat Barrier Reef program, it was chilling to hear him say that human consumption and activity on Earth hasdisabled the earth’s processes to such a degree that she no longer has time torespond1. The 11,700-year-old Holoceneperiod finished sixty plus years ago,controlled by the intellect and arrogance of oneof Earth’sown creatures.Herewearetwo-thirds through 2016 and already wehave used a full year of earth’s resources to feed us, warm us, cool us, clothe us and entertainus.Wehavetakenfromourhome,the one we share with so many other life forms, so much that we are now in debt to ourplanetthatisbeyondrepayment.

This is not the last of the bad news.Ourdestructionofecosystemsforhousing,industry and entertainment, has decimated species by “accelerating extinction”2 and leaving us “biologically impoverished”.3

This mass decimation of the animal andvegetable kingdoms is the sixth majorextinction4. “The dawn less night ofextinction is also descending upon rivers,lakes, estuaries, coral reefs, and even upon the open sea.”5We have forgotten that inthecreationof theEarth,weandallotherlife “evolved here, one among many species, across millions of years, and exist as one organic miracle linked to others.”6 This earth, our natural environment, was “our

cradleandnurseryandourschool.”7 We are intimatelywovenintotheweftandwarpofher “special conditions…adapted ineveryone of the bodily fibres and biochemicaltransactionsthatgiveuslife.”8 Yet we treat it with “unnecessary ignorance” and witha “reckless disregard”9 for its long term impact, due to our continued need fordiversions such as sport, politics, religionandprivatewealth.10

Can we say it is important that we have separatedourselvesfromthisweftsoastobecome autonomous creatures, separate from the warp, able to know ourselves as distinct?Orisitourconflictbetweenshort-termandlong-termvalues?11

For millennia our Palaeolithic heritage lived attending to short term gain(sustenance, sex, etc.)within a small circleof relatives and friends.12As we enter the 21st century, we continue to live out thisheritage with very little public critique. Infact, the pathos of this century is that the capitalist enterprise promotes and supports a short term vision of ourselves, ensuring earthly life has a sense of itself only in terms of its immediategenerationsand thenext.Perpetuity in our law amounts to just 99years, with remarkably short-term values that mostly only encompass immediate linearfamilymembers.

In my Higher Degree Research (HDR) studies, I am looking into precolonial Australiaand investigatingwhetherwecanlearn from the ancient, mythic, narrative-basedphilosophyofmyancestors.Ibelievewithin this tradition lies the voice of theland and its waters, and the myriad of voices of the realms of creation. No, this is notme sitting listening to the land (althoughI think that isnotabadambition). It is an



explorationofaselectionofthesenarrativeslooking for a pattern or patterns of howmy ancestral people knew themselves as integral within the land and water scapes of their‘country.’

For us, this side of the newly emerging Anthropocene epoch, I am sure there lies a livedwisdomwhichwillstirustorethinkwhoweareashumansandourrelationshipwiththe planet Earth. From this I am planningto create an ethical framework or a set of values that will enable us to transform how we live with, and on, our common home.Thiswill includeour relationshipswithALLotherlifeontheplanet.

My work will focus around the ‘Bunjil’myths of south-eastern Victoria.Bunjil is the meta mythic cycle that wasused by those tribal groups along the coast of Victoria and as far into the state as the mountains. Bunjil, for us, is representedby theWedge Tail Eagle. I have titled thework,‘BunjilWeavesPastandFutureinthePresent’13. I am looking at the story cyclesthat change as groups change across the country and waters, but each cycle meets up with others to form a woven net across thewholecountry.14This is the geography of thepeople and the stories. Therewill alsobeareflectionontime–AboriginaltimeisvastlydifferentfromEuro-AmericanCentriclineartime.Weknowtimeassomethingwemove backwards and forwards into, and in my research I am returning back into the future15to meet up with the ancestors, to participate in their cycles and to feel theirwisdoms for our times. In this, I believewe may be able to ascertain a model of connected stories, and connected ways of being, that again place humankind back into theland/waterscapes.Itwillchallengetheanthropomorphismsofourtimes.

I understand it is not as simple as I have spoken of, which is why I have located this work in the humanmess of our century. I

havelittlefaithinmyfellowcreatureswho,as already mentioned, have little capacityto gather together and work for what is common and good for the planet and all her floraandfauna.Inthiscountryweliveaspartof a long, long history that is itself part of the deeptime16oftheplanet.Wehavelosttheability to feel ourselves alive in our lands and waters, to know ourselves as woven into the earth, her cycles, her rhythms and her ways; tounderstandthatatdeathwecontinuetocontribute to the welfare and well-being of our common home; to sing with country and dancebythecampfiresinthestarlitnightsof ceremony, which is to know ourselves as trulyhuman.Letme finishwith thewords of awisdomman:

“Well I’ll tell you about this storyabout story where you feel … laying down.Tree, grass, star …Because star and tree working with you.We got blood pressureBut same thing … spirit on your body But he working with youEven nice wind e blow … having a sleep …Because the spirit e with you.”17

‘ I can almost guarantee that, without the relationships we have with other creatures, whether vegetable or animal, humans will become extinct!’ 1 Attenborough,David,Great Barrier Reef(2015TV

Series), Directed By Michael Davis, BBC One, Episode 3 Survival; Wilson, Edward O, The Future of Life, Abacus,2003,p09-99

2 Wilson, The Future of the Life,p1503 Wilson, The Future of the Earth,p1514 Kolbert, Elizabeth, The Sixth Extinction, An Unnatural

History,HenryHoldandCo.,February2014.5 Wilson, The Future of Life,p986 Wilson, The Future of Life,p407 Wilson, The Future of Life,p408 Wilson The Future of Life,p409 Wilson The Future of Lifep4010 Wilson The Future of Lifep4011 Wilson The Future of Lifep4012 Wilson The Future of Lifep4013ThisPhDisaCreativebyWorkresearch.Itwillbe

framed by four large Art Works that will partner the wordsjustlikethesongsofourAncestors.IamanHDR student at ANU

14Mowaljarlai,David;Malnic,Jutta,Yorro Yorro. Everything Standing Up Alive,MagabalaBooks,1993–generalref.buthedrawsamapofthecriss-crossingofstoriesandtheirconnectionsacrosscountry

15 Watson, Irene, Aboriginal Peoples, Colonialism and International Law; Raw Law, Indigenous Peoples and the Law Series,Routledge,2015,p16

16 McGrath, Anne; Jebb, Mary Ann, Long History Deep Time Deepening History of Place, ANU Press, August 2015–generalref.Iwishtoacknowledgethisworkasinspirationalformyownstudies.

17Neidjie,Bill, Story About Feeling, Magabala Books, Broome,1989,p2

Janet Turpie-Johnstone

Chapter Six Fact | Fiction

“Time in the Bible is flexible and should be seen as parallel to Science, as Religion is a matter of Faith and Science deals in facts.” ChristianLady

“Time in the Bible is flexible and should be seen as parallel to Science, as Religion is a matter of Faith and Science deals in facts.” ChristianLady


C H A P T E R S I X : FA C T | F I C T I O N

Faith in Miracles and Science

Rachael Kohn Producer and Presenter of The Spirit of Things on ABC Radio National, Dr Kohn has authored many articles and two books,

The New Believers: Reimagining God (2004) and Curious Obsessions in the History of Science and Spirituality (2007). This article is partially adapted from ‘Encountering God Through Jewish Eyes’ in Encountering God: Face to Face with the Divine

edited by Nigel Leaves (2014).

Every Jew who reads the Torah is immediately aware that encountering God is what our ancestors experienced in mundane, mighty, and miraculous ways. Noah beheld God in the flood and also in the dove’s olive branch and Abraham conversed with God, who at a crucial moment on Mount Moriah provided him with a ram for a burnt offering. Sarah laughed when God told her she would bear a child in her late age. After beholding Him in a burning bush, Moses was in non-stop communication with God, who worked miracles up to and culminating in the spectacular crossing of the Red Sea and the revelations on Mount Sinai. And that is just the beginning. The Torah is largely made up of encounters like these, and they are so familiar as to be almost unremarkable.

Except that encounters with God do not happen like that for most Jews today, if indeedtheyhappenatall.Althoughreadingand re-reading Biblical accounts of the lives of the patriarchs and matriarchs, the kings andjudges,andtheprophetsandwisesagesconstitutesa regularand importantpartofbeingJewish,thebeliefinaninterventionistGod who defies the laws of nature andperforms nissim, miracles, has largely disappearedfromtheJewishexperience.

Nevertheless, the rabbis’ singular task today, as in centuries past, is to interpret the meaning of the miracles that punctuate the stories that are read in the synagogue each week. Discovering the significance ofmiraclesasinstructiveisfarmoreimportantforJewsthanaffirmingthemassupernaturalhistoricalfacts.

It is perfectly true, however, that for HasidicJews,whoareaninfluentialalthoughsmall minority of the Jewish people, the miraculous works of Ha’ Shem (‘the Name’), which is the circumlocutory way of referring toGod,iscentraltotheiroutlook.Inaddition,theirtradition,embodiedinthemysticaltextThe Tanya, published in 1779 by SchneurZalman of Liadi, the founder of Lubavitch Hasidism, is believed to have miraculous properties, able to cure illnesses andmake

barren women fertile. But Hasidism’sdistinctiveness is a consequence of, if nota reaction to, the dominant or normativeJewish experience in Europe, which did not cultivate or look for God’s miraculousinterventionsindailylife.

On the contrary, the shoe was on the other foot. It was human interventions ineverydaylifethatconstitutethepurposeofJewish life. These interventionsmanifestedthrough living according to the precepts laid out in the Torah’s written and orallaw, as given to Moses on Mount Sinai and deciphered and explained in subsequent generations of learned rabbis’ discussions,and recorded in the Talmud and its later commentaries.ThatconstitutethepurposeofJewishlife.

For, unlike Christianity, the Jew’s life isnot a quest to be ‘saved’ or ‘gathered up into heaven among the saved’, because as Jews they are already God’s people, who are inreceiptofhisgreatestgift,TheTorah.Asthe ninth century Jewish theologian Saadia ben JosephGaon (882-942) asserted, “Ourpeople exists only because we are the bearersofGod’sTorah”

This focus on carrying out God’s will rather than awaiting His worldlyinterventions was especially apt after the

Holocaust left six million Jewish civiliansdead at the hands of a network of European regimes, which conspired to expel and murder en masseitsJewishcitizens.

Even if the majority of Jews believedthat God could still work miracles to savethem from their enemies, that hope was obliteratedbytheHolocaust.Andforthosewhose idea of God actually depended on such miraculous acts of rescue, the Holocaustprovedtheundoingoftheirfaith.Many books were published on this theme, starting with Richard Rubenstein’s After Auschwitz(1966).

Science and BeliefThe unravelling of belief in an all-powerful God was not however a uniquely Jewish phenomenon, and was already underway in European civilizationwith the proliferationof scientific critiques of the miraculousclaimsof faith.Whether itwas theBiblicalcriticism that owes its beginnings to theDutch 16th and 17th Century thinkers,such as Desiderius Erasmus and Benedict Spinoza, respectively), the 18th centuryEnlightenment, the 19th century Germanhistorical critical schoolbased inTubingen;orthe20thcenturybiblicalcriticsassociatedwith the Westar Institute in California,the miraculous has been gradually de-emphasised, if not denied altogether, in the foundationstoriesofourWesternreligioustraditions.

While this was primarily a philosophical and historical exercise, scientists joinedthe Biblical historians to provide their own naturalistic versions of the great stories of

‘Discovering the significance of miracles as instructive is far more important for Jews than affirming them as supernatural historical facts.’



scripture,suchasthefloodstoryofGenesisand the parting of the Red (Reed) Sea ofExodus. Their intentions are usually not tolend veracity to the faith, but to undo its supernaturalfoundations.

A recent example of this is Steve Jones, who explains the Bible’s stories, as well as many other ancient and modern religious beliefs,asbutnaïveattemptstomakesenseof natural phenomena. In The Serpent’s Promise (2013), Jones assembles a widerange of cases and relates them to probable scientificexplanations.

For example, Jones proffers the Nilerecords on the rise and fall of the river levels, because ‘they are the longest running records of data ever gathered.’He speculates that they are the basis of Joseph’sinterpretationofPharaoh’sdreamsin the Book of Genesis, and his predictionof seven years of plenty followed by seven yearsoffamine.1

Many such ‘explanations’ of the Biblenarratives exist, but all they offer areprobable accounts of natural phenomena.Was this, as Steve Jones presumes, the purposeandvalueofthesestories?WastheBible, in fact, a primitive almanac, a naïveefforttoexplainthenaturalworldbypeoplewhowereignorantofitsworkings?

TheBibleasprimitivescience,however,haslittletooffertheworldoffaith.Infact,adifferentviewisemerging,whichhasariseninJewishandChristiancircles, ironically,asaresultofthehistoricalcriticalwayofstudyofreligioustexts.

Theskepticismofdivinerevelation,andthe widely accepted view that the Bible is a human creation produced by manyhandsoveralongperiodoftime,stillraisesthe question of why it was written usingdeliberately mysterious and provocativelanguage.

What were the ancients talking about when they saw God in a burning bush ‘that

was not consumed’ or like Job heard His voiceinthewhirlwind?Weretheynaïvefolkcharacterized by magical thinking and prone tohallucinations?Orweretheyperceiving,interpreting,andbelieving inaGodwhosemanifestations were far more subtle thanwasheretoforerecognised?

Are we ‘moderns’ the ones who have reducedtheBiblicalnarrativetomagicalfairystories by reading them literally, when in fact they were intended to be metaphorically rich legends that conveyed deeper truths about the human encounter with the Divine? If this possibility is entertained,then the rabbinic commentaries given to extrapolating meaning from the Biblicalrecord,arethenaturalconsequence.

God is EverywhereRabbi David Lyon, who is a senior rabbi at CongregationBeth Israel inHoustonTexas,takes the view in a lucid and engaging book, God of Me, that the presence of God is everywhere, and therefore can be perceived notonlybythemysticsagebutalsobytheordinaryperson.First,however,whatneedstobelaidasideisapreoccupationwithGodas a personality, be it a forbidding father figureorrescuingangel.

Instead, Lyon goes back to the medieval commentary, the midrash Exodus Rabbah 11:5, where a heathen asks Rabbi JoshuaBen Korchah, “Why did God choose a thorn bush fromwhich to speak toMoses?”Therabbi’sreplyistwofold:first,hesays,“Wereit a carob tree or a sycamore tree, you would have asked the same question; butto dismiss you without any reply is not right so Iwill tellyouwhy.Toteachyouthatnoplace is devoid of God’s presence, not even athornbush.”2

The point of the teaching, therefore, is not only that God is found in nature, but is found in its forbidding parts (the thorn bush) just asmuch as in its attractive anduseful

parts(likeasycamoreandcarob).Likemostrabbinic observations, it opens the doorfrom the particular instance to a wider,generalizableprinciple.AndhereRabbiLyondiscoversanopeningto‘findingGodintherubble’ which, in his local community and experience,referstothedevastationofNewOrleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Human stories of compassion in the midstofsufferingfollow,andthisisthetruevalue of faith, that is, its ability to muster the bestinustoserveothers.TheabilitytohearGod’svoiceinallthedifferentsituationswefindourselvesin,fortunateandunfortunate,iswhatdistinguishesamaturefaithfromanaïveone.

Faith and ScienceThere is another feature of a mature faith, which is demanding ever more attention,and that is, its embrace of knowledge, particularlythescientificdiscoveriesofourworld and beyond. Indeed, today’s mostinfluential theologians regard nature in allitsmanifestationsasconstitutiveoffaith.

This is not a new position, but wasanticipated by Augustine of Hippo in thethird century, when he spoke of the Book of Nature as authored by God. Severalmedieval Jewish philosophers held to the view that the natural world and the Torah were never in conflict. This was mostauthoritatively stated by the 12th centuryJewish philosopher, rabbi and physician, Moses ben Maimon, known as Maimonides, who said that if the understanding of Torah and the knowledge of the natural world wereinconflict,thenitwasbecauseeitherthe science or the Torah was not properly understood.3

Today, numerous ministers of religion, manyscientists,andmostpeopleoffaithintheWesternworldfindnoconflictbetweentheir beliefs and knowledge of the natural

‘The unravelling of belief ...was already underway in European civilization with the proliferation of scientific critiques...’



world. Perhapsmost famously, the devoutChristian who became a particle physicistat Cambridge University and an Anglican priest, Canon John Polkinghorne, has been on a relentless quest to discover how God mightbesaid toact innature.Heaccepts,forexample,evolutionofthehumanspeciesanddoesnotholdtoaliteralinterpretationofGenesis.

Other scientist-theologians here inAustralia, such as the late Charles Birch, a biologist, saw God as “a persuasive force” inside nature that imbues it with“responsiveness” and propels it forward.Similarly, Ceri Wynne, a geneticist andAnglican minister based in Brisbane, sees Godintheintricaciesofthehumangenome.In her essay, ‘Encountering God in the Genome’,4 she writes about the God who is alwaysinrelationship–

Would not such a God, who we also affirm as Creator, create a world whose essence is also relationship? At the level of the genome, it would also appear that there is the sense of relationship (of the non-coding portion to the gene-coding portion) at the core of its expression, which at present is little understood.

Clergy today embrace scientific discoveriessafe in the knowledge that they do not risk losing their belief in God but actually deepen it. When Sister Elizabeth Johnsonwrote Ask the Beasts (2014), whose titlecomes from the Book of Job, she had read Darwin’s Origin of Species nine times.5 The book’ssubtitle,Darwin and the God of Love, summarizesherviewthatevolutionisinfactGod’s intrinsic working of love and grace in theworld.

Similarly,theinfluentialCatholicthinker,SisterJoanChittister,whoisprobablyoneofthe only nuns to give a TED talk, addressed

the issue of believing in God in the face of scientificdiscoveries.

This old world begins to weaken a little under the challenges of science, it’s true. But science is also enabling us to see new dimensions of God. What are they? Let’s look at the kind of theology of life that is emerging through evolution…God here is the God of ongoing creation…

We have a responsibility to the ongoing creation of life and we share that with our humble God who is accompanying us right now, here, with you and me, not monitoring us, not abandoning us, not out to catch us, but to say to us, ‘I’m with you, I’m with you, you did great yesterday, we can match it today.’ This God is a summoning God, saying don’t stop now, don’t stop growing now, don’t close your mind now, don’t stop your soul now, I have so much more you can find if you just look.6

Sister Joan Chittister, author ofmore thanfiftybooks,turned80thisyear,andshehasneverstoppedlooking.Norshouldwe!

Indeed,eventhelateElieWiesel(1928-2016),whowasthemostprofoundwitnessto faith after the Holocaust, through hismemoirs and theological writing, made apointofrelentlesslyquestioningGod.WhenI asked him why, he said it was simply the result of his belief that after all “life is aquest.”7

‘ ...today’s most influential theologians regard nature in all its manifestations as constitutive of faith.’ 1 Steve Jones, The Serpent’s Promise: The Bible Retold

as Science(London:LittleBrown)2013:215-216.2 David Lyon, God of Me: Imagining God Throughout

Your Lifetime(Woodstock:JewishLightsPublishing2011:11).

3 Moses ben Maimon, Guide for the Perplexed, Book II, Chapter25.

4 Page 94 in Encountering God, face to face with the Divine (2014:89-103).

5 http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/spiritofthings/god-and-evolution/5499290

6 TheEvolutionofSisterJoanhttp://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/spiritofthings/the-evolution-of-sr-joan-chittister/7585862

7 http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/spiritofthings/elie-wiesel:-life-is-a-quest/7573118

Rachael Kohn

Faith in Miracles and Science continued



Considering Occam’s Razor

Chaim Cowen Chaim Cowen is the rabbi of the Elsternwick Jewish Community and Head of Jewish Studies (Secondary) at Leibler Yavneh College. He

studied rabbinics, psychology, law and education at various seminaries and universities around the globe, and is currently a doctoral student. Rabbi Cowen resides in Melbourne with his wife, Chaya, and his three children.

Was Adam really the first man? Is the world less than 6,000 years old? Did it take six days to get from nothingness to humanity? Were life spans once ten times as long as they are today? Was humanity destroyed in a flood some 4,000 years ago?

For many scientists, the answer to all theabovequestionsisaresounding‘no’.Butisthatanswerscientific?

The origin of the word ‘science’ is found in the Latin word scire meaning ‘to know’. Science is, by its very definition,knowledge,whichGoogledefinesas ‘facts,information, and skills acquired throughexperienceoreducation’.While‘knowledge’would appear to be a straight-forward notion, epistemologically one can neverclaim to know anything with certainty.Some philosophical schools challenge the principle of causality, while others point out that one cannot ascertain with certainty that anything has an independent existence outside one’s brain. That being said, suchspeculation is disregarded by the averageperson who accepts their observations ofreality as fact. Thus, aside from extremephilosophicalpositions, fewpeopledisputetheveracityofscientificfact.

The realm of scientific theory appearsto step outside the bounds of what can be strictly classified as knowledge. To take amathematical example, scientific theory isanalogoustodeterminingagraph’sequationbasedonknowledgeofanumberofplottedpoints, which represent the observable scientificfacts.Theemergenceofanewsetof coordinates which don’t comply with the proposedequationwouldnullifythetheory,forcingone toproposeanewequation,orsomehow distinguish the new coordinatesfrom those upon which the original theory was based. To put it bluntly, theory is notfact, and even though it is derived from fact, itcanneverbeconsideredonparwithfact.

Thisdifferenceisexpressedinthedegreeofdebateonefindsregardingfactscomparedto theories: few people (philosophersandpsychotics) debate facts,most peopledebate theories. Moreover, while onewouldexpecttheoriestochangeovertime,facts are expected to remain unchanged.As such, the term ‘scientific theory’ takenliterally (i.e. a theory one can claim asknowledge)isanoxymoron.

BertrandRussellwritesinhis‘ScepticalEssays’ that “science does not aim at establishing immutable truths and eternal dogmas; its aim is to approach the truth by successive approximations, withoutclaimingthatatanystagefinalandcompleteaccuracyhas been achieved.”Bydivorcingscience from ‘immutable truth’, Russell interprets the word ‘science’ not in its pure form, as knowledge or facts, but rather as theory,whichreflectstheadoptedmeaningoftheterm‘science’inmodernsociety.Assuch,aconflictbetweenreligiousbeliefandscience is not a conflict between religiousbelief and knowledge (per the literal interpretation of the word ‘science’), butrather a conflict between religious beliefandtheory.

Digging deeper within the world of scientific theory, what constitutes anacceptable theory vis-à-vis an unacceptable one? What, by contemporary scientificstandards, constitutes a ‘good’ theory asopposed to a ‘bad’ theory? Every set ofdatacanallowaninfinitearrayoftheories,much like any amount of coordinates on a Cartesian plane can be plotted into aninfiniteamountofdifferentequations.

‘To put it bluntly, theory is not fact...’

‘ among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected’

A classic way of distinguishing betweentheories is by using the concept of Occam’s razor, namely that ‘among competinghypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected’. Inmathematical terms, when two points(representing the observed data) areplotted on a Cartesian plane, the equationrepresenting the straight line joining thosetwo dots would form the most plausible theory,onthebasisofOccam’srazor.Whilea parabola, ellipse or hyperbola could easily contain each of the two points, they

necessarily involve the incorporation ofmore assumptions than does the straightline. As such, put simply, a ‘good’ theoryis one that provides a general rule for the data which involves fewer assumptionscomparedtoits‘bad’counterpart.

Thequestionthatneedstobeaskedinthe context of religious belief and science isnot‘whatmakesatheorygoodorbad?’,but rather ‘what makes a theory true or false?’ A good or bad theory is amore orless probable theory which remains outside the realm of truth and falsehood. As isevident in the investigationofacrime, the



most straightforward explanation of theevidence doesn’t always lead one to the true perpetrator. Truth stands outside theworld of probability; a bad theory may be true,andagoodtheorymaybefalse.Whilea good theory may have a greater likelihood of being true, that does not equate to it beingtrue.

Returningtothequestionsaskedinthefirst paragraph, science cannot provide acategorical answer of either ‘no’ or ‘yes’ to thesequestions.Observabledatacanpointusinthedirectionofananswer,aplausibletheory, but not provide us with immutable truthsinthisregard.

From a religious standpoint, however, the question is not one of probability butone rooted in the search for Truth, and based on tradition. Occam’s razor mightnot lead one to the conclusion that the world was created with an apparent age (in the same way that Adam is described as a walking, talking adult from the moment of his creation), but such a possibility isnot ruled out just because it entails moreassumptions–itonlybecomeslessprobablefrom a contemporary perspective. Thus,

settingasideOccam’srazor,thequestionofwhether the data could be reconciled with Biblical account requires a close analysis of thedata,acleardistinctionbetweentheoryand fact, and themotivation to search fora theory which embraces the facts of one’s belief without ignoring the data discovered todate.

A proper understanding of both religion and science eliminates the possibility of conflict between the two. Religion dealswith true and false, whilst science (in terms of its theories) deals with the probable and improbable. The notion of ‘conflict’dissolves with the understanding that what is probable may well be false and, conversely, that which is improbable, though possible, maywellbetrue.

Chaim Cowen

Considering Occam’s Razor continued



A Fruitful EncounterBible Accounts of Creation Meet Modern Science

Mark O’Brien OP Mark O’Brien is Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies at the University of Divinity, Melbourne.

He teaches at two campuses of the University, Catholic Theological College and Yarra Theological Union.He is an ordained member of the Roman Catholic Dominican Order, also known as the Order of Preachers (OP). This year the Order of

Preachers is celebrating 800 years since Pope Honorius III gave it the approbation to Preach throughout the world

For much of the common-era, Jews and Christians in general believed the book of Genesis described creation as it actually happened: that it took place in six days, that God rested on the seventh day, and that Adam and Eve were the original historical couple. On the basis of chronological information provided in the Bible, the Irish Bishop James Ussher proposed that creation began on 23 October 4004 BCE. Modern scientific discoveries in geology and evolution have, of course, shown that this could not have been the case, and only extreme fundamentalists would still think it was that so. But did the biblical authors themselves think it was the case and, given one’s belief they were inspired by God to produce the Bible, is God ultimately the one responsible for propagating a view of creation that modern science was obliged to expose as false? In other words, were biblical authors and readers sold a pup by the divinity? One might respond to this by arguing that God inspired them to ‘reveal’ a view of creation that was suitable for that time, but this is in danger of portraying God as rather condescending or patronizing, and the ancients as incapable of understanding what moderns take for granted.

I would argue that the biblical text itself indicates quite clearly that none of the above was the case. The first chaptersof Genesis (1–3) contain two differentaccountsofcreation.Thefirst, in1:1–2:4a,portrayscreatingtakingplaceoversixdayswith one day of rest, and the human being (maleandfemale)isthefinal,onecouldsay,ultimateworkofGod’screation.Moreover,this account operates on a cosmic scale.The second account, in 2:4b–3:24, takesplace in one day, with the human being as thefirstlivingbeingcreated,anditisaboutlife in a garden that goes wrong. Anotherdifference is that thefirstaccountportraysa transcendent God who is clearly outside creation, whereas the second account hasa God who is intimately involved in it, animmanentGod.Inthesecondaccount,Godshapes clay into a human being, breathes life into it, plants a garden and takes a stroll in it to catchtheeveningbreeze(3:8).Eitherthosewhoproducedthefinaltextwereincrediblynaïveanddidnotseethedifferences,whichishighlyimprobable,orthedifferenceswereretained because each provided an angle oncreationthatwasregardedasimportantfor readers and listeners. This impressiongains further traction when one considersotherbiblicalportrayalsofcreationsuchasProverbs8, Job26and38,andPsalm104.Theseprovideevidenceofmuchrationalandcriticalreflectiononcreationinresponsetovarioussituationsandchallenges.

Modern science has provided another situation and challenge. It prompted Jewsand Christians to examine the biblical textfrom an angle other than the accepted ones, and to reassess what the biblical authors were on about. This does not mean, ofcourse, that we should dismiss the work of ourJewishandChristianforebears.Likethebiblical authors, their critical attentionwasshaped in part by the pressing challenges of theirtimes,beingcompetingviewsofGod,andofhumanityanditsplaceintheworld.In responding to these challenges they were just as rational, critical and creative as weliketothinkwearetoday.Buttheywerenotdrivenby thesamequestions thatmodernscienceraised.Onthebasisof thebookofGenesis, as well as other biblical and non-biblical sources that were available in their day, they developed a rich theology of the relationshipbetweenGodandcreation,andbetweengoodandevil.Muchofthisstillhascurrencytoday.

In discussing the relationship betweenReligion and Science, we need to keep in mind that the term Religion effectivelyhas two contemporary meanings. Onecan study Religion, or a particular religion,as a sociological, cultural, and historical phenomenon, and in this sense such study is part of the scientific enterprise, oftencalled ‘thehistoryof religions’.However, ifone believes the texts of a religion convey divine revelation, then thepicturechangessomewhat. While faith does not rule out

scientificstudy,itaddsanotherdimensiontoit in that the text is not just an interestingancientartifactbut the livingwordofGod.My comments on the biblical text are made within this context of faith, being a perspective that also seeks to be attentivetothemodernscientificone.Ibelievebothperspectivesgainfromthisencounter.

Inmyjudgment,thejuxtapositionoftwodifferentaccountsofcreationindicatesthatthose responsible for thefinal text did notintend either to be taken literally. Rather,each offers an angle on what is amysterythatisnotfullyaccessibletohumanbeings.As an inspired text, it reveals important aspectsofcreation,andhumanity’splaceinit.But,indoingso,italsorevealsorteachesthat we can only know this in a way that is appropriate to the human being. We donotknowitfullyasGodknowsit.Arelatedcomment is that biblical authors were aware,inacriticalsense,ofthelimitationsoflanguageanditsliteraryforms.Aparticularform, whether it is a carefully structured

‘While faith does not rule out scientific study it adds another dimension to it...’



‘what is implied in the Genesis account of creation... presents quite a challenge to modern secular thinking...’

chronicle of creation (as the first accountseems to be), or a dramatic story (as thesecond account seems to be), can only bear somuchcontentwithout fragmentingasaliteraryform.

This results in the use of two quite different forms in Genesis 1–3. Nowadayswe employ footnotes to extend the reach of texts without disturbing their forms, but this facilitywasnotavailabletoancientauthors.Nevertheless, according to critical analysis,they developed other ways of expanding themeaningoftexts.Onewastojuxtaposedifferingor competing versions inorder toprovide more than one angle on something, as is thecase inGenesis1–3;anotherwastoincorporatevariantsoroptionswithinanaccount that enabled users to present it in more than one way in oral performances.Inrelationtothisit isworthnotingthat,inbiblicaltimes,textswerenotreadsilentlybutproclaimedaloud,andinasuitablydramaticmanner. Depending on the audience andsituation, the garden story could be toldwith or without the tree of life alongside the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, with or without the woman as partner of the man, and with or without expulsion from thegarden (only themanfeatures in3:22-24,thewomanisnotmentioned).Giventhelimitednatureof thisarticle, theseoptionscannot be explored here because my focus isthepresenttext.

Theclearemphasisof thefirstaccountis that all creation comes tobeas a resultof the divine decree or command (‘let there be’),anditisthiscreativewordthatbringseachpartofcreationintobeing,establishesitsdynamicrelationshipwithGodandwithother parts, and enables all of them to perform their divinely decreed functionwithin creation. While the text obviouslydoesnotspeakofevolution,itdoeshaveadynamicviewofcreation.Onecouldsaythateach part of creation is seen as endowed

by God to be creative in themanner thatis appropriate to each. The imageof a skydome above the earth, and waters below, is a common feature of ancient Near Eastern (ANE)cosmogonies.Manyscholars identifythe first account as a work of the priestlycaste, and that it was probably written inthe wake of the Babylonian exile of the sixth century BCE. Granted thiswas the case, itwould seem to be a carefully constructed piece to counter key elements of Babylonian andotherANEcosmogonies.

Contrary to the claims of the superpower of the day, the biblical text asserts that the Godofatinynationthat itconqueredandexiled, is in fact the creator. Contrary tobelief in a pantheon of gods and heavenly beings that rule over creation, the biblicaltext makes the outrageous claim that the human being is God’s appointed viceroy to rule over creation. Given Israel’s aniconictradition(noimagesofGod),thebestwaytoreadthestatementinGen1:27–thatGodcreated the human being (male and female) intheimageandlikenessofGod–isthatitistoruleovercreationinawaythat‘images’theruleofGod.Thatis,thehumanbeingistoworksixdaysforthegoodofcreationandto rest on the seventh or Sabbath Day, as the text statesGoddoes inGen2:1-3.What isimplied in theGenesis account of creationis made explicit in the reason given in Exod 20:11forthecommandtokeeptheSabbath.This presents quite a challenge to modern secular thinking that sees commands and laws as impeding rather than enabling creativity. Incontrast, theBibleclaims thatthehumanbeingisatitsmostcreativewhenit does asGoddecrees.Aswill bepointed

out below, this is also a key point of the second creation account, the ‘garden ofEdenstory’.

By the same token, our biblical authors were realists, and had to provide an explanationfor,andaresponseto,theeviland chaos associated with the conquest of Judah and Jerusalem, and the subsequent exileofmanytoBabylon.Inanothercounterto many ANE cosmogonies, the biblical text claims that the kind of disorder and evil experienced during this period, or indeed any such period, is not due to wars between rival gods but is primarily the result of human sin, that is, disobedience of the commandsoftheoneGodofcreation.This‘explanation’ is presented in the dramaticstory of the sin of the human couple in theGardenofEden,and itsconsequences.A limitation in the biblical account is thatit does not address the question of whatis called ‘theodicy’, namely, the defence of God as good in the face of natural evils suchasearthquakes,disease,anduntimelydeaths.Itsfocusisratheronmoralevilanditsimpact.

According to many commentators, Gen 2:4b–3:24maybeanoldertextthanthefirstcreationaccount,andwasutilisedtoaddressmatters that could not be incorporated inthe first onewithout serious disruption toitsliteraryform.ThestoryformofGen2:4b–3:24,with itsplotanddramatic interactionof key characters, was an ideal vehicle for portrayingsin,evilandtheirconsequences.Witness the popularity in modern media of news items, movies and other forms of communication that dealwith such topics.Modern critical analysis would classify the

A Fruitful Encounter continued



storyasamyth,notinthepejorativesenseinwhichthis term isoftenused inpopulardiscourse, but in the technical sense of a storytelling way of dealing with universal issues, such as the relationship betweenGodandcreature,betweengoodandevil.Insuch stories the human characters and the rolestheyplayoftenembodyandillustratekeyhumantraits.

The trio of key characters, God, man, and woman, and the relationshipsbetween them, are introduced in a way that anticipatesandpreparesfortheroleofeachinthesubsequentstory.Inlinewiththefirstaccount, God is creator of plant life (the garden)andanimallife,andtherelationshipof the human being to each of these is fundamental for the plot of the story. Theimportance of the relationship betweenman and woman is signaled by having them created separately, yet intimately related,so that the woman is introduced as a helper who ‘corresponds to the man’, an ishah (woman) who is taken from ish (man). Ifthe woman corresponds to the man, a key aspect of the man’s life is to leave mother and father, and ‘cling’ to his woman/wife(Gen 2:24). The Hebrew verb used hereconveys a strong sense of dependence and commitment.Thehuman’srole–bothmaleandfemale– inthegarden is to ‘till/serve’and ‘keep/guard’ it, with the followingpermissions,andoneprohibition,outlininghow this task is tobe fulfilled. Thehumanbeing may eat from any of the trees except thetreeoftheknowledgeofgoodandevil.The combination expresses an essentialfeature of being human, in that one lives within a context that fosters creativity butwithinlimits(thehumanbeingisnotGod).Breachoftheprohibitionrendersoneliableforthepenaltyofdeath.Careofthegarden–whichrepresentscreation–isamatteroflifeanddeath.Theseelementsofthestoryarehardlyarchaicorprimitive.

The relationship of the human beingto other living creatures is nicely captured bythewaytheaccountof theircreation is‘framed’ by that of the human couple, and by the way the human being names each animal.God’sbringingeachcreature tobenamed by the human implies a God-given sovereignty over the animal world, akin to the dominion decreed in the first account(Gen 1:28). In an intriguing and, dare onesay, perceptive take on the animal world,the text also states that it has its own intelligence.Theserpent,afourth‘character’in the story, is described as ‘more craftythan any other wild animal that the Lord Godhadmade’.Thisimpliestherelationshipbetween the human sovereign and the animal world is somewhat analogous to that between the divine sovereign and the human being. Either can be creative ordestructive, depending on how each partytotherelationshipconductsitself.

The high point in the story is the successfultemptationofthewomanandthemanby the serpent.One shouldnote that3:6b clearly states that the man was withthe woman throughout this episode and so is justas involved–and isnot reporteduttering a word! The encounter revealsan incisive perception of humanity by itsauthor(s). The reader/listener has beeninformed that the human being shares in an appropriately human way the knowledge ofGod– thename it gives toeachanimalisitscorrectname.Moreover,themanandwoman look on each other naked and are not ashamed.TheyseeeachotherasGodseesthem.Yetsuccumbingtothetemptationoftheserpentresultsinadistortedperceptionof reality, no longer seeing and knowing ‘like’ God.Whatwas divinely decreed andaccepted as an appropriate boundary within which human beings can flourish – noteating from the tree of the knowledge ofgoodandevil–isnowperceivedasdenying

one something to which one should have accessbyright(beinglikeGod).Thisleadsinturntoadistortedperceptionoftheother,as the man and woman become ashamed of oneanotherandhidebehindfigleaves,andthe God who was their friend is now their enemy, from whom they seek to hide among the trees of the garden. There is, in myjudgement,atouchofhumourinthemotifof the fig leaf clothes. They would haveappeared ludicrous to an ancient Israelite audience, a truly distorted perception ofclothing, and the good God does the decent thing later in the story by opening a leather shopandkittingthemoutindecentclobber(3:21).TryingtohidefromGodinthegardenis also ludicrous, given that God planted the gardenandknowseveryinchofit.1

With this portrayal of humanity, we are not far from the inveterate boundary violator orvoraciousconsumerofthemodernworld.As God is presented observing perceptivelyin3:22, thehumanbeingcannotnowstopand will inevitably ‘reach out his hand and take from the treeof life’. Theremustbe unlimited supply to meet unlimited demand.Topreventfurtherdisorder‘he’isexpelled from the garden and a new guard (the ‘cherub’) installed in his place. In thesubsequent story of Israel in the Torah, a fair amount of divine instruction aims toteach Israel how to be a good guardian of God’s land to which it is promised entry and occupation.

Another feature of the story that resonateswithourtime,andindeedwithanytimepastorfuture,iswhatiscalledtheact-consequence dynamic or connection. Thisis the conviction thatgoodactshavegoodconsequences,andbadactshavebadones.It is a sociological version of the physical law ofcauseandeffect.However,unlikephysicallaws,eachconnectiongenerallydependsonhuman judgement rather thanexperiment,andthiscanbedisputed.Inordertoresolve

‘Trying to hide from God in the garden is also ludicrous, given that God planted the garden and knows every inch of it.’



dispute,asocietywillultimatelyappealtoanauthorityfiguretomakeapronouncement.In a religious society, God is believed to make thejudgementviaahumanagent(prophetorpriest)orsomesign.Inthegardenstory,theact is theeatingof theforbiddenfruit,and the consequences, their reaction, thatis, distance from one another in their hiding behind clothes, and distance from God in theirhidinginthegarden.

These disastrous consequences lead to another feature of the story that draws on an important biblical notion, one thatprovides food for thought for our modern world. God is portrayed intervening torestore order via the trial scene in 3:9-19.The boundary that God established – theprohibition of eating from the tree ofknowledgein2:17–hasbeentransgressed,and so God now establishes new boundaries thatserveaspenaltiesfortransgressionandalsoasremindersoftheoffencecommitted.In this way each penalty serves as an instruction or torah. In ANE thinking, oneofthemosteffectivewaysofestablishingaboundary, that is, of declaring someone or something to be separated from the rest, was to pronounce a curse. The penaltiesthat God pronounces begin and end with acurse.Thefirstonereferstotheserpent.The clear implication is that the boundarybetween serpent and woman (human) will not be crossed again (“I will put enmity betweenyouandthewoman”).Thesecondcurse is the one pronounced on the ground (Adamah) and which affects the humanbeing’s(Adam)relationshipwith it. Insteadofenjoyingfreeaccesstoallitsfruitbarone,themanwillnowfindeveryaccessblockedorhinderedbythornsandthistles.Aratherdifferent boundary is the one decreed forthemanandwoman.Beforetransgression,the difference or boundary between themenhancedtheirperceptionoftheotherandthe relationship between them (ishahfrom

ish, “bone of my bones, and flesh of myflesh”). Now it will be marked by rivalryandcompetition,an ironicallusiontotheircompetingwithGodfordivinestatus,andapainfulreminderofit.

The text claims that these penalties orboundariesarethejustdecreesofGod.Thesituationofthecoupleandtheirrelationshipto the animal world (symbolised by the serpent), and to the garden, cannot simply returntowhereitwas.Thiswouldtrivialisethe transgression, and compromise the theology of the God of justice (imaginea law court that imposed no penalty for crimes committed). But to bepenalisedorpunishedistobeinan‘abnormal’situationthat ismeant to last for a particular time,afterwhichoneisrestoredtothe‘normal’.The text does not spell out when this might be but one could suggest that whenever husband and wife come to love God fully, and each other as equals, they have regained somethingofthesituationbeforesin.

What the text is more explicit about is therelationshipbetweenjusticeandmercy–thejustGodisamercifulGod.Thedeathpenalty for the transgression in the garden is notenacted.Furthermore,thecoupleretainstheircreativepower.Thewomanwillcreatehuman beings, but with the pain of childbirth to remind her of her transgression; the man will create bread from the produce of the ground, but with toil and sweat to remind himofhistransgression.Humanbeingsareonly fully creative as human beings whenthey operate within the boundary or context established by God. Willful transgressionof appropriate boundaries damages their relationships with God, with one another,andwithcreation–averytopicalpointforourworld.As literary forms, thesedecreesare often classified as ancient etiologies,that is, popularmythical-type explanationsof a condition or situation. Within thecontext of the garden story however, they

claim that God is as present to the couple in suchdecreesasinthedecreeto“befruitfulandmultiply”(Gen1:28).Theimplicationinthis is that, if God is so turned to the sinner despite the sin, then the sinner should turn to God in repentance, and he/she will beforgiven.

Modern readers owe scientificanalysis a vote of thanks,because it freed the Bible from the burden of having to serve as scientific discourse and accuratehistorical record. It could once again playits role as theological discourse which, for believers, is divine revelation. Moreover,critical literary analysis has enhanced ourappreciationof biblical literary forms: howthey communicate their meaning, and how ancient authors wrestled with the limitations of any literary form: or way ofcommunication. But the traffic is far fromoneway.Analysisof the formand contentof an ancient text, such as the Genesis accountsofcreation,showsthatsuchtextshavebeencarefullyandartfullyconstructed,andchallengeanumberofourprioritiesandacceptedwaysofthinking.

Mark O’Brien

1 Whilethepatriarchalbiasof3:16bisevident,theHebrew term translated as ‘desire’ can carry the sense of‘desiretomaster/dominate’(cf.itsoccurrencein4:7).Thewomanseekstodominatetheman,andheher;thiscompetitionisplayedoutinanumberofthesubsequentancestralstoriesinGenesis.

A Fruitful Encounter continued

Chapter Seven Drilling Deeper

“The story of Creation in the Torah is correct and Adam was the first man. MasortiJewishman


C H A P T E R S E V E N : D R I L L I N G D E E P E R

Science in the Service of the Eschaton

Sean McNelis Dr McNelis is a housing researcher at Swinburne University of Technology. He has over 30 years’ experience in housing: as a housing

manager living on a high-rise public housing estate; as a housing policy worker and advocate for low-income housing; and as a housing researcher. In 2014 he published Making Progress in Housing: A Framework for Collaborative Research (Routledge) which draws on the

writings of Bernard Lonergan. It presents a new approach to housing research, one that is relevant to all the social sciences.

If one is not to affirm reason at the expense of faith or faith at the expense of reason, one is called upon both to produce a synthesis that unites two orders of truth and to give evidence of a successful symbiosis of two principles of knowledge… But if [we] have endeavoured to establish the synthesis of the objects and the symbiosis of the principles of reason and faith, it also is true that [our] effort has been embarrassed continually by the instability of the pronouncements of scientific reason. From the nature of the case the initiative seemed permanently in the hands of those who invoked science against religion, and… the defenders were left in the unenviable position of always arriving on the scene a little breathlessly and a little late.(BernardLonergan[1957]1992,p754-55)

IntroductionIn wake of the triumph of science and its manifest achievements, we, the people who are awed by the Mystery at the heart of the cosmos, findourselves arriving ‘a littlebreathlessly anda little late’ asweseek to integrate thediscoveriesof scienceand their implicationsfor who we are or want to be; for our understanding of this Mystery; and for the realisationof that unknown future, theeschaton, i.e.theunknowndestinyofhumanity/theuniverse,withinwhichweareseekingourrole.

Inthepopularimagination,religionandscienceareinoppositiontooneanother. The twain shall notmeet.Weonlyhave to recallthe popular understanding of the great chasm between Galileo and theCatholic Church in 16th century.What is sooftenoverlookedisthatGalileo,aswithmanyotherscientists,wasdeeplyreligious.Wikipedia, for instance,has listsofChristianand Jewishscientists(Wikipedia2016a,2016b).

Notwithstanding,thehistoryoftherelationshipbetweenreligionand science is litteredwithmisunderstandingandmisconceptionsas to what is science and what is religion. While some seek tocharacterise the difference as the irrational beliefs of religionversustherationalityofscience,othershavesoughttoresolvethedifferencesbyproposing thateachoperates inadifferentdomain–religionoperatesinthemoraldomainwhereasscienceoperatesin the factual domain–or, that religionproposes that everythingis designed for a purpose and explains things by referring to an intelligent designer (teleology), whereas science seeks to explain thingsinrelationtotheevidence.

Much of the misunderstanding hinges on just what eachprotagonist understands by science and religion. What, then, isreligion?What is science?Neither question is straightforward: toaddressthesetwoquestionsisfarbeyondthescopeofthisarticle

‘ irrational beliefs of religion versus the rationality of science ’

(andmycompetence).However,IdowanttopointtowhatIhavecome to understand as the fundamental issues that need further exploration.

The Fundamental ProblemBeforewestarttryingtoanswersuchquestionsas‘whatisreligion?’or‘whatisscience?’wefaceaninitialproblem:howdowegoaboutansweringawhat-question?

We could appeal to how these terms are being used, and turn to adictionary.Wecoulddefinethembydescribingthecharacteristicsofeach.Buteachofthesemethodsdependsonthecircumstancesoftimeandplace,howreligion/sciencehaveimpactedonaparticularculture,thepurposeoruseofreligion/scienceinthatculture,andthe attempts by supporters of each to exercise their power andaggrandisetheirversionofeach.Inshort,thesetypesofdefinitionget caught up in the time and place associations of a particularculturalandreligioustime.

Peter Harrison, for instance, in The Territories of Science and Religion,tracesthechangingusesofthewordsreligionandscience.Indoingso,hepicksupthedescriptivedefinitionsof thesetermsand theirvarioustime-placeassociations.Suchanswers,however,are not adequate answers to what-questions. Indeed, the factthat Harrison does trace their changing use presupposes some understandingof these termsacrosstime.Howelsewouldhebeabletofocushisinquiryonparticularpeopleandparticulartexts?He is not tracing the changing meaning of religion and science, but ratherthechangingassociationsbetweenreligionandscienceandthe technological, economic, political and cultural environmentwithinwhichtheyareoperating.

Ifwearetodiscusstherelationshipbetweenreligionandscience,thenweneedadefinitionofeachthatspansculturalandreligiousdifferences across time and across continents. If we are going toexplore the developing relationships or conflicts between them,weneedadefinitionthatisapplicableatalltimesandplaces.Thisdefinitionwillincludethesignificant,relevantandessentialelementsandtheirrelations,thatconstitutereligionandscience.Itwillbeanexplanatorydefinition(Lonergan[1957]1992p31-37;McNelis2014p85-93).Assuchitwillbeuniversalandabstract.Amorecomplete



definition will also explain the differences between religions atdifferenttimesandplaces,andbetweenscienceatdifferenttimesand places with reference to the totality of technological, economic, politicalandculturalrolesitplays.(McNelis2014,Ch.5).

Without answers to these two questions, ‘what is religion?’and ‘what isscience?’,weareunable totracethedynamicof thehistory of each and the history of their relationship. Identify thefundamental conflicts between the two, andwork towards somenew integration of them whereby we could work out how eachcontributes to the development of a society and, indeed, to the realisationoftheultimatedestinyofhumanity/theuniverse.

The following seeks to make some contribution to acontemporary answer to these questions: ‘what is religion?’ and‘whatisscience?’.Itbeginsbyexaminingoneofthecommonmythsabout religion, and then points to some fundamental issues that need further exploration if we are to reach an understanding ofreligionandofscience.Inthefinalsection,Ioutlinesomecriticismsof the current understanding of science, and propose a new understanding that includes the different sciences, natural, socialandreligious.Iconcludebynotingacurrentchallenge,whichistorelatethesedifferentsciencestoeachother,suchthattogethertheyconstituteawhole.

Rationality and BeliefOne common myth contrasts science based on reason with religion basedonirrationalbelief.Yet,beliefisafundamentalconditionforhumancollaborationandforprogress.

Our actions are virtually always contributions to a wider communal or social project involving others. Action is seldom action in isolation. Most usually our acting is co-operating. Our initiatives are contributions to joint projects, tuned to fit in with the contributions of others, fashioned as links within wider chains of actions which bring societal projects from inception to implementation. (Melchin1994,p23)

Our technology, our economy, our ways of making decisions, our legal,medical,educationalandgovernanceinstitutions,ourculturalmeaningsandvalues,dependuponourworkingwithothers.Beliefenables us to learn from the accumulated knowledge of others through history. It provides a foundation upon which we canfurtherbuild.Indeed,“toappropriateone’ssocial,cultural,religiousheritageislargelyamatterofbelief”(Lonergan[1972]1990,p41).

Not only is belief a fundamental condition for society, it isfundamental to the scientific enterprise. Collaboration withinscience, as in any economic, social and cultural enterprise, is based

on belief. The education of students in science presupposes thepassing on of important doctrines, whether that is a division of thesciences,thecoreunderstandingsofaparticularscience(suchas theperiodic table in chemistryorgeneral relativity inphysics),andhowtogoabout investigatingsomephenomenaorquestion,i.e. scientific method. Without some system of belief, scientistswouldbeforeverre-inventingthewheel.Ascientistdoesnotcheckeverything they use or every belief passed down from others.Rather, it is when these beliefs prove inadequate in a new context that they are questioned and open up a shift to a new scientificparadigm(Kuhn1970).

While we may be more or less disposed to believing what has been handed down, we cannot do so uncritically. Our heritageconsistsofnotonlycommonsensebutcommonnonsense.Beliefdoes have its conditions. The first step, taken by the personwhom we believe, is they report only what they have come to understandandaffirm.Thesecondstepisthegeneralaffirmationthatbelievingisworthwhile,asitfacilitatescollaborationandthedevelopmentofasociety,andofknowledge,asdifferentpeopledodifferentthingsandcontributetothewhole.Thethirdstepisaparticularaffirmationaboutthepersonwhoistobebelieved,thatis, whether they are trustworthy and competent, whether they are out to deceive, or are riven either consciously or unconsciously by prejudice.Thefourthstepisadecisiontobelieve.Thefifthstepistheactofbelieving,toaffirmsomethingtobeso,notonthebasisofmyowninquiry,evidence,thinkingandaffirmation,butonthebasis of what another reliable, trustworthy and competent person says. It isnotsomething Icanaffirmformyself,yet it isalsonotinconsistentwithwhatIalreadyknow(Lonergan[1972]1990,p44-47;[1957]1992,p725-740).

Science – Discovering our Capacity to Understand and Transform the WorldThe history of science is the history of discovering our capacity to understandandtransformtheworld.

The starting point for this history begins with the practicalintelligence which not only discovered and introduced new technologies such as hunting instruments, the wheel, the fishingnet,theploughandthecultivationofseeds,butalsoadivisionoflabour, ways in which groups can make decisions, and the meanings, mores,artefactsandaestheticsofaculture.BetweentheeighthandthirdcenturyBCE,thereoccurredaworld-wideshiftinreligiousandphilosophic consciousness and a new self-understanding (Jaspers 1953).IntheWesternworld,thiswasfollowedbytheGreekdiscoveryofmindandoftheory(Snell1953),thediscoveryoftheimportance



Science in the Service of the Eschaton continued

ofempiricalobservation,experimentandinductionofgenerallawsinthe17thcentury,andformulationofempiricalscientificmethod(Bacon [1620]2005 andMill [1882]2009) alongwith the scientificendeavours in astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology. In the19thcentury,CharlesDarwin’sOn the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection presented an evolutionary perspective ofworld process and, thereby, a new understanding of ourselves as developing humanbeings, both collectively and individually, hasbecome embedded in our consciousness. The 19th century alsosaw the introductionof anew scientificapproach to thehumanperson and to society, with the emergence of the social sciences, and a new approach to history through the German historical school.

The history of science has, however, left its legacy. First,most notably the discoveries of science were accompanied not justbyaquest forunderstandingbutalso thediscovery thatwecould control natural processes, even to the extent that we seek tocontrolanddominateotherpersonsandsocialprocesses. So,theintroductionofnewtechnologiesbroughtabouttheindustrialrevolutionandtransformedeconomicproduction.Italsobroughtwith it the attempts to remake society. Second, the success ofscientificdiscoverieshasnowleftuswithnotionsofsciencethatarelargelydominatedbythenaturalandformalsciences.Scienceis “knowledge derived from the facts of experience” (Chalmers1999,p1).Moreformaldefinitionsofsciencerefertoitsstatementof universal laws, its status as a privileged way of knowing, its objectivity,precisionandrigour,anditsmethod(Lindberg1992).

While science in the 16th to 18th centuries was dominatedbythediscoveryofsystematicrelationsbetweenevents(classicalmethod), the 19th century was dominated by the discovery ofrelations between events over time (geneticmethod). The 20thcentury, in the wake of quantum mechanics, has become obsessed by chaos, uncertainty, probability, individuality and the time-placeassociationbetweenevents(statisticalmethod).Moreover,in thewakeof themastersof suspicion (Ricoeur1970:32–35)–Freud,MarxandNietzsche–thecertaintiesofthepasthavebeenundermined. There appears to be no legitimate framework forpersonalandsocialresponsibility,andcritiqueismerelyarbitrary,simply a matter of our inheritance, of the family, group andculture intowhichwewereborn.Wecanno longerassumethatwearebutinnocentbystandersand,inmostsituations,itistobeexpectedthatthereissomeexerciseofdominatingpowerandself-aggrandisement. Individuality rather than person in community,diversityratherthanconformity,thenewandthedifferentratherthan tradition, critique rather than appreciation, change rather

than progress become the accepted norm. And thus, in ourcontemporarysituation,weneedtodiscoveranewtransculturalunderstanding of ourselves, we need to discover a method which recycles and learns from the best of past, and we need a method which not only appreciates the achievements of the past, and critiquesthispast,butcanalsoreachfornewintegrationsofthispast(dialecticmethod).1

Religion – faith as knowledge born of loveThestartingpointforreligionisthediscoveryofoneselfasbeing-in-love,andadecisiontoactonthisdiscovery.Thisisapersonaldiscovery;Ihavetomakethisdiscoveryformyself.Itisadiscoverythat I am loved and in love with the Mystery that is at the centre of theworld. It is a discovery based on evidence, not the usualevidence that is available through the measurement of events that can be seen, heard, touched or smelt (the data of sense), and that thenaturalsciencesappealto.Rather,itisevidencethatisinternaltoeachperson(thedataofconsciousness).Yetitisalsoadiscoverymade in the face of incomprehensible and inexplicable evil, and in thefaceofbadthingshappeningtogoodpeople.Itisadiscoverythathasitsprecursorsinanenablingandsupportivecommunity.

Faith is knowledge born of this love as we try to understand itsmeaning and its ramifications for our living. This knowledge,therefore, finds different expressions in different religioustraditions. Drawing on the work of Friedrich Heiler (1959),Bernard Lonergan notes how this personal discovery of being-in-love underpins the seven areas which are common to the world’s religions – Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrian Mazdaism,Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. Briefly, these seven areas are:the reality of a transcendent Other; a transcendent Other who is immanent in each person; this transcendent and immanent Other is for humanity the highest truth, goodness and beauty; this transcendent and immanent Other is ultimate love, mercy andcompassion; the way to this transcendent and immanent Other is through repentance, self-denial and prayer; this transcendent and immanent Other is the way to love for others; and that love is the most superior way to union with the transcendent and immanentOther.Thesecommonalitiesthatimplicitlydrawonthediscovery of being-in-love not only provide the basis for dialogue betweendifferentreligions,butalsoprovideamorefundamentalunderstandingofwhatismeantbyreligion.(Lonergan[1972]1990and1996).

Just as discovering that I am in love with another person is transformative of my life, my relationships, my values, myactivities,myunderstandingofwhoIamandwhoothersare,and

‘Christianity, Judaism, Islam while distinctive, is bound by some common shared meaning.’



my understanding of the world, so, too, the discovery of myself as being-in-love is transformative – it involves a conversion intoanewwayofliving.Ittransformsourunderstandingofourselvesandwhoweare,andsotransformswhatwedo.Indoingthis,weseek some way in which to express this discovery, such as in how we live, in how we develop our understanding of this discovery and inhowweexpressitinritual,songandreligiouspractices.

While the discovery of being-in-love is at the heart of religion, this finds different expressions in different religious traditions.Each is distinctive in its various expressions – in beliefs, rituals,prayers, dress, songs, chants, etc. Each develops its own cultureas it integrates, adapts to, or opposes the local culture in which it operates.Indifferentculturesdifferentaspectsofareligionaremoresignificantthanothers,sothatChristianity,Judaism,Islametc.finddifferentexpressions indifferentpartsoftheworld.Nevertheless,eachreligion,whiledistinctive, isboundbysomecommonsharedmeaning.

Atthesametime,wecanshieldourselvesagainstthisdiscovery.Wecanrejectit,skewitsmeaning.Itcanbeanawesomeorterrifyingevent which demands a radical change that we are not prepared tomake.Wecanblockorlimitthisdiscovery,refusetoacceptthatI am not the centre of the universe. As a result, it can overflowintomyth,magic and superstitionaswe seek tomaintain control,orsomesemblanceofcontrol,overour lives.So, themeaningofthis discovery becomes intermingled with personal or communal myth,magicandsuperstition,andwithallsortsofperversionsandparodies.Toidentifyreligionwithitsvariousexpressions,then,istomissthecentralityofreligion,thatis,faithbornoflove.

If religion is to sort out what is authentic in the variousexpressions of a tradition and distinguish itself frommyth,magicand superstition, it requires critical reflection. Just as the naturalsciences can provide a better understanding of the naturalenvironment (and our impact on it), and the social sciences can provideanunderstandingandcriticalreflectiononasetofeverydaypractices,orawayoflifeandthesetofmeaningsandvaluesthatinformit,sotheroleoftheologyistoreflectonreligion.Theproblemwecontinuallyfaceisworkingoutthebestexpressionofbeing-in-love,workingoutitsimplicationsforourhumanliving.Therefore,acriticalappropriationofourreligiousheritagerequirestheologyasascience.Suchatheologyinquiresintothemeaningofourcurrentreligiouspractices,seekstotracethesemeaningsthroughhistory,seeks to critically appreciate the past, and seeks to propose newwaysinwhichtoexpressnewdiscoveriesaboutbeing-in-love.

Towards an integration of scienceCurrent debates between science and religion presuppose certain understandings of each. Whether these understandings areadequatecouldalsobematterfordebates.

Here is not the place to undertake a critique of science andscientificmethod, or a critique of religion, but rather to point tosomeofthelimitations/challengeswithineach.

Itisonlybyconfrontingtheseissuesinbothscienceandreligionthat we will be able to develop an integrated understanding of the domains of the physical, living, social and religious sciences, the role of science generally, and the role of each science in realising the ultimatedestinyof humanity. It is important tonote thatwhat isneeded is an integrated understanding of these domains,that is, an holisticunderstandinginwhichtherelevant,essentialandsignificantpartsaredistinguishedandrelatedtooneanotherandconstituteawhole.Inthisway,theywillnotbeoverlappingdescriptiveelements.

While we understand something about who we are, and while ouractionsarefundamentallyaboutcreatingwhowewanttobe,weareultimatelyamysterytoourselves.Ourdiscoveryofbeing-in-loveisthestartofalongjourneyinwhichwearecontinuallycomingtoknowourselvesandourcapacities,comingtoknowtheMystery at theheartofouruniverse.Different religionshighlightdifferentaspectsofourrelationshiptothisMystery.

While religion in the West has been the fostering ground for science, sciencehas continuallypresenteda challenge to religion.Any new discovery in any area of science is also a deeper discovery of who we are, about our capacity to understand, to create a worthwhile technology, economy, society and culture, and about ourcapacity to loveandbe loved.Thus, science (as indeedmanyother aspects of our lives) challenges our current understanding of who I am and who I want to be, who we are and who we want to be, andhowweliveoutthatdiscovery.

‘ science has continually presented a challenge to religion.’As examples, the discoveries of Copernicus, Kepler, Brahe and

others in astronomy, moved us out of our own world into a solar system,agalaxyandauniversebeyond.ThediscoveriesofNewtonand Einstein, Mendeleev and Meyer, Watson and Crick, gave us a newappreciationoftheworldofphysics,chemistryandbiology,and




of thebasic structuresofourbodies. Thediscoveriesof Lamarck,Darwinandothersinbiologymovedusoutofastaticworldintoanevolutionaryworld.ThediscoveriesofBohr,Heisenbergandothersmovedusoutofadeterministworldintotheworldofprobability.Thediscoveriesofnewworldswithdifferentkinshipsystems,withdifferenteconomies,politics,culturesandreligion,sbroughtanewsenseofcultureasempirical,ashistoricallyevolving.

Evenassciencehasfacilitatedthetransformationofourworld,thistransformationisthreateningitsverysub-stratumasournaturalandhumanresourcesarebeingmindlesslyexploited.Wenowfacesomemajorenvironmental,economic,politicalandcultural criseswhichareongoing, complex,globalanddifficult to resolve.Whiledifferentsciencesareverygoodatanalysinganddiscoveringnewthings about our world and how it works, and can propose ways forwardandsolutions forparticularproblems, thesesolutionsarepiecemeal,unrelated,uncoordinatedandevencontradictory.

In the face of increasing complexity, science has specialised.As specialisation has continued apace, fields and disciplineshave divided into sub-fields/disciplines and into sub-sub-fields/disciplines.Whilethissub-divisiondealswithincreasedcomplexity,it also fragments the academy. In the first chapter of his bookWholeness and the Implicate Order, the quantum physicist (and philosopher)DavidBohmlamentsthefragmentationofindividuals,societyandtheacademy:

…fragmentation is now very widespread, not only throughout society, but also in each individual; and this is leading to a kind of general confusion of the mind, which creates an endless series of problems and interferes with our clarity of perception so seriously as to prevent us from being able to solve most of them.

Thus art, science, technology, and human work in general, are divided up into specialties, each considered to be separate in essence from the others. Becoming dissatisfied with this state of affairs, men have set up further interdisciplinary subjects, which were intended to unite these specialties, but these new subjects have ultimately served mainly to add further separate fragments. Then, society as a whole has developed in such a way that it is broken up into separate nations and different religious, political, economic, racial groups, etc. Man’s natural environment has correspondingly been seen as an aggregate of separately existent parts, to be exploited by different groups of people. Similarly, each individual human being has been fragmented into a large number of separate and conflicting compartments, according to his different desires, aims, ambitions, loyalties, psychological characteristics, etc., to such

an extent that it is generally accepted that some degree of neurosis is inevitable, while many individuals going beyond the ‘normal’ limits of fragmentation are classified as paranoid, schizoid, psychotic, etc.(Bohm2002:1–2)

Yet, as Bohm also goes on to note, finding a solution to thisfragmentation is not easy. The sciences havenot been very goodat synthesising material across disciplinary boundaries, and we desperately need a new unifying framework, one which includes not only the natural sciences but the social sciences and other areas of human scholarship.We need a unifying framework which willdeal with complexity, yet more effectively promote collaborationamongscientistssuchthat theycanfindsolutions toourpressingsocialproblems.Thiswillbeanewwayofunderstandingscience,anew way of specialising and dealing with complexity, a new way of dividingupthework.Sciencecannolongerbeunderstoodsimplyas knowledge to be wondered at (the traditional understandingthat originated with Aristotle). The larger scientific enterpriseincorporates not only scientific understanding but also theapplicationof that understanding.Weneed a newunderstandingofsciencewhichlinkstheoryandpractice,researchandpolicy,andlocalandglobalneedsanddemands.

I would suggest two future directions for science that willprovideanintegratedunderstandingofthedifferentdimensionsofourliving,beingphysical,biological,socialandreligious:first,anewunderstanding and doing of science; second, an understanding of howthedifferentsciences(natural,socialandreligious)arerelatedtooneanotherandtogetherconstituteawhole.

A new understanding and doing of scienceA history of science as the history of discovering our capacity to understand and transform theworld, is instructive. It not onlyreveals the changing understanding of science and the differentmethods used, it raises questions about the significant, relevantandessentialelements,andtheirrelations,thatconstitutescienceand, thus, our need for an explanatory definition of science thatincorporatesallthesciences.

HereIwanttosuggestthatinsteadofthinkingaboutscientificdisciplines, their products and their particularmethods,we thinkabout the starting point of all science, asking and answeringquestions, and distinguish (i) the types of questions that emergespontaneously from a curious and inquiring mind, (ii) the types of answersthesequestionsanticipateand,(iii)thedifferentmethodsbywhichwereachanswerstothesequestions.Suchquestionswillbecommonacrossthewholerangeofsciences.



Somenatural scientistsmayobject to suchaprocedure.Theymay proclaim that their methods focus primarily on proposing hypotheses, making empirical observations, collecting data andprovingtheirhypotheses.However,asthehistoryofscienceshows,thismethodisnottheonlyscientificmethod.Indeed,asKuhnandothershaveshown,themajortransformationsinscienceoccurnotsimplyinfollowingthismethod.Here,wedonotwanttoarbitrarilydismissothermethodsorlimitthescopeofscience.2

Inoureverydayliving,weaskallsortsofdifferentquestions.Wearepuzzlers,andquestionsemergeasexpressionsofourdesiretounderstand and to solve problems. They reveal something aboutour dynamic orientation towards understanding and responding.They emerge in response to something that we are interested in or careabout.Ifwegoontoconsidertheprocessofmovingfromthecurrentsituationtoimplementingsomethingnew,wecanidentifyanddistinguishdifferenttypesofsignificant,relevantandessentialquestionsthatemergeinthisprocess.Further,wecandiscoverthatthesequestionsare related tooneanother, and that thisprocessis constituted by eight different types of questions: four of thesequestions relate to understandingwhat is or has happened, fourrelatetolookingtothefutureandtoimplementation.Thecompleteorderedsetofinter-relatedquestionsthatconstitutescienceare:anempirical question, a definitional question, an historical question,anevaluative/criticalquestion,atransformative/visionaryquestion,apolicyquestion,astrategicquestionandapracticalquestion.Eachquestion representsone stage in theprocessofmoving from thecurrentsituationthroughtoimplementingsomethingnew.Thisisacompleteorderedsetofinter-relatedquestions-therearenootherquestions.

As noted above in regard to a definitional question, however,thepriorquestion is aquestionofmethod.Howdowegoaboutanswering each of these questions? The data collectionmethodsoffieldresearchgatherempiricalevidence,time-placeassociationsbetween data; interpretativemethods seek to grasp/define whatconstitutes different elements or values, i.e. theory; historical/genetic methods grasp what is going forward; dialectic methodsdealwithfundamentalconflictsandintegratethebestofthepast;foundationalmethodsworkoutthebestbasisformovingforward;policymethodsworkoutthebestdirectionforpromotingprogress;strategic or systematicmethodsworkout how this best directioncan be integrated into a larger technological, economic, politicalandcultural framework;andpracticalmethodsworkout thebestsetactivitiesinthistime-place.Thesemethodscontinuetodevelopovertime.

‘ If we are to find solutions... we need to recognise that one-dimensional solutions are not adequate.’Thiscompletesetofinter-relatedquestionsandtheirrespective

methods constitute science, andare inclusiveof both thenaturalsciences and the social sciences (Lonergan [1972]1990; McNelis2014).3

If we ask these questions within a theological context, wecouldaskaboutourcapacityforaskingsuchquestions. Inseekingsatisfactory answers to our questions, we (and here we can alsoinclude scientists) presuppose that “the universe is intelligibleand, once that is granted, there arises the question whether theuniversecouldbe intelligiblewithouthavingan intelligentground”.(Lonergan[1972]1990,p101).Inaskingjustwhathappenswhen,onthebasisoftheevidencepresented,weaffirmsomething, indoingsoweare affirming that this somethinghasmet all the conditionsforitsoccurrence.Inreflectingonthenatureofreflection,afurtherquestionarisesastowhetherthereisanythingthathasnoconditionswhatsoever. In deliberating about whether our deliberations areworthwhile, whether our drive to create something worthwhile is compatiblewiththelargerworldinwhichwelive,wecanfurtheraskabouttheirultimategroundofvalue.(Lonergan[1972]1990,Ch.4)

An integrated understanding of the sciencesIfwe think about implementing something, for example, creatinga home, then we might recognise that its achievement depends upon thecoming togetherofa rangeofdifferent typesof things:the soundness of the structure of the building, the structure and properties of matter and how they change, the adaptation ofthe building to human biology, the know-how that goes into the constructionofthebuilding,theprocesseswherebywetransformnature into products and services, the processes whereby we reach agreement about the location, design, size and type of building,the cultural preferences that are incorporated into its design and occupation,thepersonalpreferencesthatstampthebuildingasmyhome,andeventhereligioussymbolismthatisincorporatedintoit.

In creating a home, we are creating a unified whole bybringing togetherdifferent typesof activities.Nevertheless, theseactivitiesarenoteasilybrokendown intodifferentdomains– thetechnological, the economic, the political, the cultural and thereligious. Indeed, they cannot be separated in thisway. Even themosteconomicactivitieshavetechnological,political,culturalandreligiousdimensions.Eventhemostreligiousactivitieshavephysical,chemical,biological,technological,economic,political,culturalandpersonaldimensions.

If we are to move beyond a descriptive definition of thesevarious dimensions (as in the above example) to an explanatory definitionofthem,thenwearefacedwithamajorchallenge.Such




a definitionwill determinewhat is unique about each dimensionbydistinguishingandrelatingtherelevant,essentialandsignificantelementsthatconstitutethem,butwillalsograspthemasawholeby relating these different dimensions to one another.4 Such a synthesis will also provide an understanding of the role of religion in relationtotheotherdimensionsofhumanliving.

However, such a synthesis seems beyond the confines of thecurrently fragmented sciences, yet such a synthesis is not only important to the future of the sciences and their understanding of theirrelationshiptooneanother.Ifwearetofindsolutionstosomeof our most profound and complex problems such as climate change, global economic breakdown, poverty and inequality, religious persecution,etc.,thenweneedtorecognisethatone-dimensionalsolutionsarenotadequate.Noonesciencehastheanswertothesecomplexproblems.

Thereligiousdimensionplaysarole inallouractivities. It isarolethatdependsupontheachievementofotherdimensions.Eachscience, insofar as it has a role in understanding one dimension, not onlyservesthecreationofabetterworldbutindoingsoservestheeschaton.Asareflectiononthereligiousdimensionofouractivities,theologyalsohasarole.Itisarolewhichbringsahigherperspectiveonworldprocessbutassuchdoesnotover-ridetheothersciences.Rather, it depends upon them to achieve their role in creating abetterworld,andthenbuildsonthis.

ConclusionScience is integral to our understanding of the world and our commonhumanity, tomaintainingourenvironment, tocreatingabettersociety,tohumanliving,topersonalrelations,tofindingwaysin which to express our love for one another and for the Mystery at theheartofthecosmos,andtobringingabouttheultimatedestinyofhumanity/theuniverse,theeschaton.Itseekstoprovideuswithadevelopingunderstandingoftheconditionsforeachofthesebyexplicatingwhatconstituteseach.Itseekstounderstandthecurrentdynamic movements in history, to evaluate these movements so thatwecanlearnfromthebestofthepast,toprovideafoundationforthefuture,andtocreateabetterfuture.

1 Onabroaderdiscussionofthefourmethodslistedhere–classical,statistical,geneticanddialectical–seeLonergan[1957]1992and[1972]1990.

2 Surprisingly,veryfewscientistsreflectonthequestionstheyask,anditisrarelytalkedaboutinbooksonmethodorphilosophyofscience(McNelis2014).

3 Itisnotpossibleheretoelaboratemoreonthefullimplicationsoftheseeightquestionsandtheirrespectivemethods.Foramorecomprehensivediscussionofthesequestionsandtheirrespectivemethods,seeMcNelis2014whichdiscussesthemwithinasocialsciencecontext.Or,morefundamentally,seeBernardLonergan’sground-breakingpresentationoffunctionalspecialisationasanewunderstanding of the science of progress, originally presented within a theological context(Lonergan[1972]1990).SeealsoShute2015aand2015b,orthebestexponentoffunctionalspecialisation,McShane2002,2004a,2004b,2005.

4 Itisbeyondmeheretogoonandproposeanadequateexplanatorydefinitionofthevariousdimensionsofouractivities,otherthantosuggestthatitwillbeaparticulartypeofhierarchy,amutualhierarchyofsystematicandnon-systematicrelationshipsinwhichlowerandhigherlevelsmutuallyconditiononeanother-thelowerlevelprovidestheconditionsforthehigherlevel,thehigherlevelorderstheparticularityofthelowerlevelsuchthatthishigherlevelisachieved(Lonergan[1957]1992;Melchin1999;Shute1994,McNelis2014).

5 InthisarticleIhavebarelytouchedonsomefundamentalissues.Thereadermayhave noted the references to the Canadian philosopher, theologian and economist, BernardLonergan.Iwouldsuggestthatmuchcanbelearntfromhisthoroughcriticalappreciationofthepast.Hisworldviewofemergentprobabilityproposesanalternativeviewofworldprocesstothatofdeterminismandindeterminism,andhighlightstheinadequaciesofthereligiousproponentsofintelligentdesign.Thisapproachpicksupthebestinscienceandintegratesthesystematicandnon-systematic.Hismajordiscoveryoffunctionalspecialties,whilelargelyarticulatedinatheologicalcontext,answersthequestion,‘Howdowebringaboutprogress?’,andso,proposesanewunderstandinganddoingofscience.Hisdiscussionofreligionpoints to its grounds in religious experience, an experience that is common to all peoples.Ifanyofthisarticlesparkssomeinterest,Isuggestthatthereaderfollow-up these more competent expressions of these fundamental issues and the role of scienceintheserviceoftheeschaton.

Sean McNelis



ReferencesBaconF[1620](2005)The New Organon or True Directions concerning the Interpretation of Nature Constitution SocietyAustin,viewedMarch10,2011,http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htmBohmD(2002)Wholeness and the Implicate Order Hoboken, RoutledgeChalmersAF(1999)What is This Thing Called Science? University of QueenslandPress,St.LuciaDarwinC[1859](2007)On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural SelectionProjectGutenberg,viewed1August2016,http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22764HarrisonP(2015)The Territories of Science and Religion University of Chicago Press, ChicagoHeilerF(1959)‘TheHistoryofReligionsasaPreparationfortheCooperationofReligions’inThe History of Religions, Essays in MethodologyeditedbyM.EliadeandJ.Kitagawa,UniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago,p142-153JaspersK(1953)The origin and goal of history Yale University Press, New HavenKuhnTS(1970)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions University of Chicago Press, ChicagoLindbergDC(1992)The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 B.C. to A.D.1450 University of Chicago, ChicagoLonerganBJF([1972]1990)Method in Theology (Collected Works of BernardLonerganVolume14),UniversityofTorontoPress,TorontoLonerganBJF([1957]1992)Insight:A Study of Human Understanding (Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan Volume 3), University of Toronto Press, TorontoLonerganBJF(1996)‘TheFutureofChristianity’in A Second Collection: Papers by Bernard Lonergan (Collected Works of Bernard LonerganVolume13),editedbyWFRyanandBJTyrrell,UniversityofTorontoPress,Toronto,p149-163McNelisS(2014)Making Progress in Housing: A Framework for Collaborative Research Routledge, AbingdonMcShaneP(2002)Pastkeynes Pastmodern Economics: A Fresh Pragmatism Halifax, Axial PressMcShaneP(2004a)Sofdaware: A Series of 8 Essays, viewed 29January2015.http://www.philipmcshane.org/sofdaware/McShaneP(2004b)Quodlibet: A Series of 21 Essays, viewed 29January2015http://www.philipmcshane.org/quodlibets/McShaneP(2005)“TheOriginsandGoalsofFunctional

Specialization”,20th Annual Fallon Memorial Lonergan Symposium, March31st-April2nd2005,LoyolaMarymountUniversity,LosAngeles,viewed1August2016http://lonergan.concordia.ca/reprints/mcshane/McShane_Functional_Specialization_2004.pdfMelchinK(1994)‘Economies,Ethics,andtheStructureofSocialLiving’ Humanomics 10(3)p21–57MelchinKR(1999)History,Ethics,andEmergentProbability:Ethics, Society, and History in the Work of Bernard Lonergan, The LonerganWebSite,Toronto,viewed1August2016,http://www.lonerganresource.com/pdf/books/6/Melchin,_Kenneth_-_History,_Ethics,_and_Emergent_Probability.pdfMillJS[1882](2009)A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive, Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence, and the Methods of Scientific Investigation Project Gutenberg, viewed March9,2011,http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27942RicoeurP(1970)Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation Yale University Press, New HavenShuteM(1994)“EmergentProbabilityandtheEcofeministCritiqueofHierarchy”inLonergan and Feminism edited by C S W Crysdale, UniversityofToronto,Torontop146-174ShuteM(2015a)‘FunctionalCollaborationastheImplementationof‘Lonergan’sMethod’:Part1:ForWhatProblemisFunctionalCollaborationtheSolution?’Journal of Macrodynamic Analysis,vol.8,p67–92ShuteM(2015b)‘FunctionalCollaborationastheImplementationofLonergan’sMethod:Part2:HowMightWeImplementFunctionalCollaboration?’Journal of Macrodynamic Analysis,vol.8,p93–116SnellB(1953)The Discovery of the Mind: The Greek Origins of European Thought Blackwell, OxfordWikipedia(2016a)List of Christians in science and technology, viewed30July2016,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technologyWikipedia(2016b)List of Jewish scientists and philosophers, viewed30July2016,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_scientists_and_philosophers



Metaphysics, Meanings and Mechanisms: Avoiding Confusions About Religion and Science

Chris Mulherin The Rev. Dr Chris Mulherin is locum senior minister at St Jude’s Anglican Church in Melbourne with a background in engineering,

philosophy and theology. He also works for ISCAST – Christians in Science and Technology.

The so-called ‘conflict thesis’ – that science and religious belief are fundamentally at odds – has been thoroughly debunked by both historians and philosophers of science, and yet it lives, having been revived in the last decade by an alignment of special interests. These interests include the media’s hunger for conflict, as well as other provocateurs who have little respect for either serious history or philosophy. I am thinking of a 21st century breed of would-be public intellectuals such as Professor Richard Dawkins, the high priest of the New Atheism, or Professor Lawrence Krauss, the US cosmologist and ‘universe from nothing’ man who spends much of his time in Australia.

It is true that history records conflictsbetween representatives of science andreligion, but these historical examples of disagreement do not amount to philosophicalortheologicalincompatibility.The only conflict thesis worth takingseriously would be if there were a necessary and fundamental contradiction betweenscienceandreligion.Inthisarticle,Isuggestthat rumours of this sort of irreconcilable difference are untrue, and that they arebased on confusions, principally about the nature of science but also about the nature offaith.

For the sake of the argument, I will lay my Christian cards on the table: I am noexpert on Judaism or other religions so I willconfinemythoughtstotherelationshipbetween science and orthodox Christianfaith. I leave it to the Jewish believer,or any other for that matter, to discernthe relevance of what I say to their own convictions.

Confusion #1 – Science and Religion are like Apples and OrangutansOne of the dangers of referring to the ‘science-religion relationship’ is that thisdescription appears to set up a symmetrybetween two comparable entities: scienceon the one hand, and faith on the other.People assume it’s like comparing apples with apples, or perhaps with oranges.But science and Christian faith are likeapples and orangutans: they are notdirectly comparable, mainly because a comprehensive religion like Christianity isa worldview, while science is not and never canbe.

A worldview is a set of ideas and beliefs thatoffersacoherentframeworktointerprettheuniverse.It’sasketchofthe‘bigpicture’.Itanswerssuchquestionsas:howshouldwelive?whatisahumanperson?howdiditallbegin?whathappensafterdeath?doesGodexist?

Asaworldview,Christianbeliefincludesa ‘supernatural’ creator, God, who made the universeandeverythinginit.ForChristians,the centre point of history is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and forChristians history is linear, running fromcreation through to final consummation.Christianity also includes anunderstandingof the purposes of humanity, which is made forarelationshipwithGod.

One implication of this description oftheChristianworldviewisthatitdealswithquestionsaboutmeaning,andnotquestionsof mechanics. It is about the purposesand not the particles of the universe. SoChristianity is not directly comparable toscience because science is not a worldview and, my second point, Christianity is notscience.

Confusion #2 – Christianity is not ScienceThe natural sciences (think of physics or biology or astronomy) search for the mechanisms and laws of the universe in the hope of answering what we might call the ‘how’questions. They look for thephysical causes and constituents of whatgoesoninourworld.However,Christianityas a worldview is, on the one hand, much more encompassing than science because it answersthebigquestionsreferredtoabove.On the other hand, Christianity has littleinterest in ‘how’ questions. For example,while the Scriptures speak of the theological meaning of the Christian church andoffer some general principles, there is nodescription of themechanics of setting uptheperfectlocalchurch.Intheareaofmoralguidance, while the Bible offers a generalfoundation,itdoesnottellushowtorunacountryorhowtoorderourfinances.

So Christianity is not science, and it isamistaketo think that theScripturesofferapoliticaltreatiseoramounttoascientifictextbook. In fact,when itcomestobiblicalinterpretation, the Christian tradition hasalways recognised that there are various ways of reading Scripture, and that the Bible is made up of numerous types of literature. In short, to quote the words ofGalileoGalilei,thecentralfigureinthemostfamous so-called conflict between scienceand religion, “The Bible teaches how to go toheaven,nothowtheheavensgo.”

So, what about science? The nextconfusion to clarify is that science is not a worldview: it’s about mechanisms, notmeanings.

‘ ... science and Christian faith are like apples and orangutans: they are not directly comparable...’



Confusion #3 – Science is not a WorldviewPhysics and chemistry do not make claims about the purpose of particles or themeaning of molecules. That’s not whatthey’re about, and if we look to science to answersuchquestionsweexpectmorethanitcanoffer.

Let’s have a cup of tea to clarify this difference between a worldview and thepursuitofscience.IfIpointtothekettleandask “Why is the water boiling?”, the alertphysics student will talk about the raised energy levels of the molecules induced by the stove’s conversion and transfer of energy, to which I might reply by dipping my tea bag in a cup. The water is boilingbecauseIwantacupoftea.

So, why is the water boiling? Bothanswers are correct because the question,“Why is thewater boiling?” is ambiguous.It could be a question about mechanics –“Whatcausesthewatertoboil?”–oritcouldbeaboutmeaning:“Whatisthepurposeofthe water boiling?” There are many suchquestions. “Whyarewehere?”hasbothatheological and a scientific answer. “Whyis she crying?” has an answer in terms ofbrainchemistryandneuronalfiringsthatispastorallyunhelpful.

We have distinguished at least twosorts of questions which, as shorthand, Iam referring to as those about meanings and those about mechanisms. Becausescience is about mechanisms and not meanings, we can see that there are limits to science imposed by the nature of the sorts of questions it answers. This is myfourth point: science has its limits and, inparticular, science is constrained by thepresuppositions itmust accept in order todoitswork.

Confusion #4 – Science has LimitsAs a pursuit of knowledge about the world, the natural sciences cannot delve

into philosophical or logical or religious questions. These questions are not thesubjectmatterof science,but thatdoesn’tmean that science can leave such issues aside.

The life and breath of science lies in its rigorous approach to uncovering the truth of the natural world based on working assumptionsthatitdoesnotquestion.Thisrecognitionthatsciencedoesn’tstartfromablank slate, that science must assume some thingstoevengetofftheground,iscapturedby atheist philosopher Daniel Dennettwho warns of the risk of a naïve attitudeto science that fails to see its philosophical foundations.Dennettsays“Thereisnosuchthing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is takenonboardwithoutexamination.”

However, Dennett’s view is in directcontrast to cosmologist and atheist propagandist Lawrence Krauss who, when asked if there was a danger for a physicist wading into the depths of philosophy and theology, replied “There are no depths of philosophy and theology. They are veryshallow.…Youdon’tneedtoknowanythingaboutphilosophyortheologytodophysics.”LittledidKrauss realise that this statementjust quoted is a profoundly philosophicalclaim about the nature of science. As C SLewis explains in his excellent little bookMiracles, the philosophical questionsmustcomefirst.

One way of thinking about the philosophical assumptions of science isthat they are like tools of the trade that the scientist uses to produce results. Think ofthecarpenter’shammer:it’satoolthatthecarpenter uses, without questioning it, inordertodriveanail.Aslongastoolswork,carpenters don’t spend that much timethinking about them, they just use them.The focus is on the nail, and the hammer is takenforgranted.Itissimilarwithscience:

science takes for granted its foundationalassumptions but it cannot justify themscientifically.Nevertheless,theymustcomefirstbeforesciencebeginsitstask.Here,verybriefly, are someexamplesof foundationalassumptionsinscience.• Science can only be practised by

assuming that the universe is governed by laws. There are laws of nature which result in the possibility of repeatable experiments.Thismeansthat,inthelaboratory,thescientistmustassumethe results of an experiment are due to the laws of nature and not to supernaturalcauses.Thisassumptiongovernsthescientist’smethodsofgoing about science, but it is an assumptionthatcannotbeproven.

• This regularity or uniformity that science is based on is revealed in the way that science depends on inductive argument.Inductionistheprocessof observing repeated events or experience, and drawing the conclusion that future events will follow the same pattern.Forexample,ifIobserveonemillion swans and they are all white, I might conclude that all swans are white.Butasthiscaseshows,inductionisnotfoolproof.DarwinarrivedinAustraliaandfoundblackswans.So,althoughsciencereliesoninduction,ithasnowayofjustifyingthisconfidence.

• Science must assume that there is a world ‘out there’ that is independent of what any human being might think orsayaboutit.Itisnotoriouslydifficultto prove the existence of the ‘external world.Itissimplysomethingweacceptas true, and it seems absurd to demand proofs for what we take, without question,tobesoobviouslytrue.

‘ ...science is about mechanisms and not meanings...’



• Science must assume that human reasoning leads to truth. Why do we believe that our reasoning and memory andsensoryfunctionsaresound?Thisis another instance in which we cannot provethesepresuppositions,becausetheyareassumptionswemustmakeinordertothinkaboutanything.

These are some of the foundational butunprovable beliefs of science, with all being positionsthatsciencemusttakeforgrantedinordertogetonwithitsjob.

Confusion #5 – Scientism is not ScienceI turn now to the crucial issue of the relationshipofsciencetoaworldviewcallednaturalism. In the hands of New Atheistssuch as Richard Dawkins, naturalism becomes the ideology of scientism, which assumes that science is the only way to truth.WendellBerry,thefarmerandwriter,warns of the irony inherent in this sort of thinking: “whatever proposes to invalidateor abolish religion is in fact attempting toputitselfinreligion’splace.”

Naturalism is a worldviewNaturalism is a worldview which holds that there is no God or gods, and that the naturalworld,whichscienceinvestigates,isallthatthereis.Accordingtothenaturalisticworldview, reality is made up of only ‘natural’ components, such as matter and energy.In its cruder forms, naturalism equates religious faith to belief in fairies at the bottomofthegarden,orcelestialteapots,ortheflyingspaghettimonster.Expressedthisway, it is clear that naturalism is a worldview in competitionwithotherworldviews. It isabelief systemthatanswers thequestionsof meaning discussed above, although its answersareofthenihilisticvariety.

Science is based on methodological naturalismAt the heart of a good understanding of the relationship between science and religiousconviction is the difference betweenmethodological naturalism and naturalism (theworldview).Methodologicalnaturalismis not a worldview and is an essentialfoundation of science. It is a tool of thescientific method, a working assumptionof science. It is the assumption thatwhenwe do science there is no supernatural interventiontakingplace.

The role of science is quite appropriately to look for natural explanations. Thismeans that supernatural explanationsare ruled out in the laboratory and in scientific thinking. Like the carpenter’shammer, methodological naturalism is an instrument used in order to get on with the job. Therefore, although the scientist whouses the tool of methodological naturalism may be a religious believer, their religious belief plays no part in the way they do their experiments. However, herein lies anothermajorconfusion.

The success of science does not prove that naturalism is trueMuch of the claimed conflict betweenscience and faith arises from confusing the tool of methodological naturalism with a commitment to the worldview of naturalism.Thisisparticularlyevidentwhenpeopleaskaquestionsuchas“Butdoesn’tsciencedisprovereligion?”

It seems that what lies behind such thinking is an argument that goes something likethis:• Science is based on naturalism• Science is successful• So naturalism must be true• ButnaturalismandreligionX

(Christianity,forexample)arecontradictory worldviews

• SoreligionXmustbefalse

Now,thereisamajorflawinthisargument.There is sleight of hand, where the word ‘naturalism’ is used in two different ways.Wecanseethisifwerewritethefirstpartoftheargumentmoreclearly,asfollows:• Science is based on methodological

naturalism (God does not intervene in our experiments)

• Science is successful• So naturalism (there is no God) must be

true

Clearly, the conclusion doesn’t follow, because the conclusion talks about naturalism (the worldview) while the firstline talks about methodological naturalism whichisanotherthingaltogether.Insimpleterms, just because science assumes thatGod does not intervene in experiments (methodological naturalism), it does not mean that God does not exist (the naturalistic worldview). Therefore, thesuccess of science can only lead us to conclude that: if God exists, then Godnormally allows the laws of nature to take their course. In summary, science seekstruth about the natural world by using the tool of methodological naturalism, but scienceisnotcommittedtothenaturalisticworldview.

I turn now to scientism, which is anextreme, ideological version of naturalism andisanaberrationoftruescience.

Scientism is an aberration of scienceWe have seen above that there are many presuppositions of science that underliescientific practice but which cannot bearrived at by using science, that is, science cannot show that its own presuppositionsare valid. However, scientism ridesroughshodoverthesesubtleties.

Metaphysics, Meanings, and Mechanisms: Avoiding Confusions About Religion and Science continued

‘ ...naturalism equates religious faith to belief in fairies at the bottom of the garden...’



Scientism is a word usually used in aderogatory manner to describe a naïve,almost blind faith in science. It is the ideathatonly scientificknowledge is authentic,and any other sort of knowledge is meaninglessnonsense.

Thethinkingbehindscientismgoes likethis: if anaturalisticworldview is correct–that is, if there is no God or gods, and the naturalworld isall thatthere is–thentheonly possible knowledge we can have of anythingisscientificknowledge.Everythingthat exists, and everything that can be known, is verifiable or falsifiable throughthe scientific method. Whatever cannotin principle be analysed and measured by scienceisemptybeliefandfantasy.

In this way, science is held up as the absolute authority in every area of human lifeandthinking.Insteadofsciencebeingatool in the search for truth, it has become an ideology (some would say a quasi-religion) that constrains what sort of truths are allowed to exist. As one New Atheistphilosopher put it, “When it comes to facts, andexplanationsoffacts,scienceistheonlygameintown.”

What, then, is the problem with scientism? To put it bluntly, scientism is afaith (a blind faith at that), which boldly claims that science is “the only game in town”, or suggests that science can showthatanaturalisticworldviewiscorrect.

At the heart of scientism lies a logicalcontradiction. Scientism claims to berigorouslyscientific,andsaysthatweshouldbelievesomethingalongthefollowinglines:‘The only things you should believe are those things that science shows us to be true.’Let’scallthatthe‘S-thesis’.

Now read the S-thesis again. Amoment’sthoughtrevealsthecontradictionofscientism.IfwearetobelievetheS-thesis(thatis,thatweshouldonlybelievescientificclaims) then why should we believe the

S-thesisitself,whichisnotascientificclaim?In fact, taking the S-thesis seriously means that we should disbelieve the S-thesis! Inthisway,scientismseemstobeanattempttoliftitselfupbythebootstraps,ortomixthe metaphor, the S-thesis shoots itself in the foot, in which case the appropriate response to someone who says that only science can give us facts, is to ask simply “Is thatafact?”

There are many things we believe to be true that are not the result of science, and as we saw above, there are many presuppositions that science depends onbutwhichsciencecannotshowtobetrue.If science was the only game in town, then it wouldn’tevengettofirstbasebecausethegame of science depends on so many ‘non-scientific’beliefs.

However, as most scientists, religiousor otherwise, know well, science is not scientism, and scientism does not followfrom science. It is one thing to affirm thevalidity of scientific knowledge, but it isanother thing to say that all knowledge must bescientific.

Conflict? What conflict?For most religious people with a healthy respect for natural science, it comes as no surprise that science and religious belief need not be locked in mortal combat. Alltruth is God’s truth, and to use a metaphor usedbyChristiansoverthecenturies,boththe book of God’s works seen in creation,and the book of God’s word, reveal something of the architect of all things.Science and religion are neither in conflictnoraretheycompletelyindependent.Bothare needed to understand and make sense ofthehumanexperience.Intheoft-quotedwords of Albert Einstein, “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Chris Mulherin

This article is based on a fuller version published in God and Science in Classroom and Pulpit by Graham Buxton, Chris Mulherin and Mark Worthing (Mosaic Press, Preston, Victoria, 2012.)



A Question of World-View

Stephen Ames Stephen Ames lectures in ‘God and the Natural Sciences’ in the History and Philosophy of Science Programme at The University of

Melbourne. He has PhD in Physics and a PhD in Philosophy of Science. He is a Canon of St Paul’s Cathedral Melbourne.

A question of world-view comes to light when our accustomed ways of functioning in the world, and the associated understanding of the world, get jolted, perhaps by violence, or natural disaster, or by finding you are falling in love, or when ageing is felt anew, or the disruption due to some scientific discoveries, or new technology. We are moved to ask what kind of world we are living in. Sometimes a slight verbal change to a question can open up a question of world-view. For example, can personal action be understood within contemporary scientific models, theories and laws? There is no question that various sciences help us understand the personal action of athletes, as shown in sport sciences.

Whatifweaskwhetherpersonalactioncanbe wholly understood within contemporary scientificmodels,theoriesandlaws?Amongthemyriadofactionscarriedoutbypersons,we are asked to identify a contender foractionsthatmightnotbewholly understood withincontemporaryscience.Thequestionis only interesting if we could identifyactionsthatcouldnotbeunderstoodwholly within contemporary science. It wouldhave to mean ‘could in principle’ not be so understood. Amere temporary gap in ourscientific understanding of some personalactionwouldnotbeofinterest.

One possible contender is the set of personalactionstodowithhumaninquiry.These actions are necessarily ‘picked out’because any scientific account of personalactionmust include being able to supportan account of human inquiry, and must not block such an account, on pain of underminingitsclaimtobeknown.

I attempt tomeet this requirement byseeing if human inquiry can be understood wholly within the resources of contemporary sciences. This qualifies as a completelynaturalistic account of human inquiry. Myclaim is that such an account fails to meet this requirement. Iwill argue that a richerworld-view, that includes contemporary science is needed to properly understand human inquiry as crucial for understanding personal action. The rest of the paperindicates something of how this richer world-viewmaybeformed.Thequestionofgiving an account of personal action turnsonaquestionofworld-view.

Thepaper isnotaviewfromnowhere.IamanAnglicanpriest.Iunderstandmyselfas living and working from a view of the divine economy for the whole universe from creation to consummation,which I believehas lately been revealed in Christ. I amworking with people immersed in a culture saturated by science and technology and the market.We imbibeaworld-view, ‘scientificnaturalism’, which is commonly identifiedwith the natural sciences. For many thisrenders God invisible and unintelligible. Iam working for those immersed in such a culturetohearofarobustalternativeworld-viewandwayofliving.

This discussion is also informed by my lecturing in God and the Natural Sciences, a second year subject in the History andPhilosophy of Science Programme (HPS) at TheUniversityofMelbourne.Thestudentscomefromallovertheuniversity.About40%arecommittedatheists,40%arecommittedto various religious traditions,and 20% areagnostic.My colleagueswithwhom I haveco-lectured this subject are all atheists.Thereasonwestartedthis subject in2001was because we wanted to show that an intelligentpublicconversationaboutreligionwaspossible.

I am now going to introduce two world-views, both appealing to the natural sciences. One I have mentioned is‘scientificnaturalism’,andtheotherIcall‘ametaphysicsofinquiry’.

Whatisthisnaturalism?Scientific naturalism is the conjunction of naturalism – the claim that nature is all that there is, and, hence there is no

supernatural order above nature – with the claim that all objects, processes, truths, and facts about nature fall within the scope of the scientific method.1

Scientific naturalism is the sophisticatedsuccessor to old fashioned materialism.The most powerful form of scientificnaturalism is ‘physicalism’2. Itsaysthattheonlyway tofindout about theworld is touse the methods and epistemic standards of science (methodological naturalism), and makes the metaphysical claim that all there is, is what physics says there is, or complex configurations of the same.Physicalism comes in two main forms –reductive and non-reductive. Both allowfor the emergence of new powers through these complex configurations. Reductive physicalism expects that eventually there willbeexplanatoryreductionofeverythingto the terms provided by physics. Non-reductive physicalism rejects in principlethe general expectation of explanatoryreductionoftheseemergentpowers.

Scientificnaturalismiswidelyidentifiedwith the natural sciences. The philosophyinherits whatever cultural authority is giventothenaturalsciences.Thisiswidelyassumed ‘orthodoxy’ in English-speaking philosophy of mind and philosophy of science.

Culturally, it is carried by the power of the natural sciences and related technologies. Of special importance isthe seemingly totalising scope of digital technologies, that can become a taken-for-



‘ I will argue a richer world-view that includes contemporary science is needed to properly understand human inquiry...’granted‘firstphilosophy’.Itissupportedby

twodeepmessageswhichmany‘distill’fromthenaturalsciences:

the more we understand the universe the more pointless it seems;the personal (consciousness) is wholly produced by the impersonal (brain processes).

It is one of the sources of much atheism or agnosticism.3 Here is how I understand the move from the natural sciences to the philosophyofscientificnaturalism:

(I) Let us say that the natural sciences study A, B, C, … using methodological naturalism, which excludes all non-naturalexplanations.

(II) The natural sciences presuppose that whatoccursisintelligibleandrationallyexplicable(withoutprejudicetotheformsofintelligibilityandrationalitythatmaybecalledfor).

(III)Scientificnaturalismsays,whatthereis,is what physics says there is, or complex configurationsofthesame,andthatisallthereis.Thephilosophicalmoveiscarriedby(III).Itisanontologicalclaimaboutallthereis.Noneofthenaturalsciences,asscience,makethatclaim.Now we may ask,

(IV)Anopenontologicalquestion:‘isthatallthereis?’

(V)Whatcananswerthatquestion?Thenaturalsciences?No,becausethenatural sciences study A,B,C… but do notsay,‘thatisallthereis.’

After all, there may be some things that,logically, cannot be explained in terms of complexconfigurationsofwhatphysicssaysthereis.Friendsofscientificnaturalismwilldemandexamplesofthese‘somethings’.

Howto justify thechoiceofaworld-view?There are at least two requirements on this or anyotherworld-view.One is epistemic:arethereanyrationalgroundsforacceptingscientific naturalism? In particular, whatgrounds are there for accepting themove from (I) and (II) to (III)? The otherrequirement is ontological: the proposedontology, when combined with appropriate scientifictheories,mustyieldanexplanationof how inquirers have come into existence onthisplanet.Ifitcouldbeshownlogicallythat the proposed ontology prevented this requirement being met, it would fail as an ontology because it blocked an account for how inquirers have come into existence on theplanet. Itwouldtherebyundermine itsownclaimtobeknown.4

There are three standard justificationsfor scientific naturalism. The oldest andsimplest is induction. This is part of JackSmart’sseminal1959paper5.

There does seem to be, so far as science is concerned, nothing in the world but increasingly complex arrangements of physical constituents. All except for

one place: in consciousness … That everything should be explicable in terms of physics … except the occurrence of sensations seems to me to be frankly unbelievable

The comprehensive claim of scientificnaturalism is based on 450 years of thenatural sciences explaining more and more of the universe. The expanding success ofthe natural sciences provides the basis for a positive induction, viz., that everything,including human mental capacities, whichproduce physical effects, will offer noexception. This is a rational expectation,nomoreandno less. JackSmart (fromthe1959paper)saidabouthisownviewthatitis“largelyaconfessionoffaith”.

Thesecondjustificationisknownasthe‘Closure of the Physical’ or the ‘Completeness of the Physical’ (COP).David Papineau is astrongproponentofitspremise:“allphysicaleffects are fully determined by a purelyphysicalpriorhistory.”Papineauarguesthatif this thesis is correct, then “anything that has a physical effectmustitselfbephysical.Or to put it the other way around, if the completeness of physics is right, then there is no room left for anything non-physicaltomakeadifferencetophysicaleffects, soanything thatdoesmake suchadifferencemustitselfbephysical.”6

The COP is widely accepted, but is it correct? In support, Papineau offers twoarguments. “The first argument is that allapparently special-forces characteristicallyreduce to a small stock of fundamental forceswhich conserve energy.…. Sowhilewe ordinarily attribute certain physicaleffects to ‘muscular forces’, say, or indeedto ‘mental causes’, we should recognise that all these causes, like all causes of physicaleffects,areultimatelycomposedofthe few basic physical forces.” The secondargument is, that such as sui generis mental



causes, “could be expected to display somemanifestation of their presence. Butdetailed physiological investigation hasfailed to uncover evidence of anything exceptfamiliarphysicalforces.”7

Even according to Papineau this is not a ‘knock down’ argument for COP. As henotes, it is not taught in physics text books anditisnotconclusive.Allthatthephysicsrequires is that forces act to conserve energy/momentum,8 but as Papineau also notes, “conservation of energy as suchleavesopenexactlywhatbasicforcesexist.It only requires that, whatever they are, they operateconservatively.”9

Against the physiological argument I would say that mental occurrences cannot be specified more closely thanthehumanpersonasawhole.At theveryleast, it is unclear what evidence of mental occurrences we should expect to find inthe brain. Whatever the metaphysics,mental causesdoproducephysical effects,but must these causes appear as physical causes in the brain? Isn’t this a physicalistexpectation?Theexpectationofadistinctivemanifestation of mental causes could bemet by first person reports of acting for areason, or of thoughts and feelings that can be correlated with the activation of areasof the brain familiar in neuroscience. Thecorrelation is only evidence of causationwithinaphysicalistworld-view.

The third justification for a world-view comes from Quine: “it is rationalto be guided by the methods of natural sciences in deciding one’s metaphysical

commitments”and“asamatteroffacttheuse of such methods leads to physicalist metaphysics.”10 This is a strong claim.However,beforeacceptingthisjustification,we should notice that deciding one’smetaphysical commitments also needs to meet the ontological requirement above:the proposed ontology, when combined with appropriate scientific theories, mustyieldanexplanationofhow inquirershavecome into existence on this planet. If itcould be shown, logically, that the proposed ontology prevented this requirement being met, it would fail as an ontology because it could not account for how inquirers have comeintoexistenceontheplanet.Itwouldthereby undermine its own claim to be known. Many will judge this requirementcan be met via the many examples of emergenceinthe13.7billionyearoldstoryof evolutionary cosmology. Human inquiryrepresents a stunning example of such emergence.Caseclosed.

Butthatjudgmentneedstobetested.12

We need an accurate account of human inquiry. After all, this is what is to beexplained (the explanandum). Only thenshall we see whether the long story of evolutionary cosmology, powerful as it is,provestobeanadequateexplanation(theexplanans) of the phenomenon of human inquiry. As a general rule, we must notview the explanandum through the lens of the preferred explanans without any independentconsiderationofwhatistobeexplained.

Where shall we turn for an adequate

accountofhumaninquiry?Mythinkinghasbeen informed by B. Longergan13 and M.Polanyi.14On that basis, I think any account of human inquiry will include reference to normativity, rationality, presuppositionsof inquiry, first and second personperspectives, the community of inquirers,and the irrepressibleeruptionofquestionsrevealinganunrestricteddesiretoknow.15

HereIconsidernormativity,whichItaketo be both evaluative and regulative. Asevaluative,itsayswhataregoodargumentsand conclusions, good experiments and results. As regulative, it says that inquirersought to take into account those good arguments and experiments relevant to their field of inquiry. Appropriate actionsfollowthisepistemic‘ought’.

Scientific naturalism having all theresources of the sciences can say, with various degrees of confidence, what hasbeen, is, or will be happening, in a vast array of contexts. In principle, it logically cannotgive any account of what ‘ought’ to happen, including the epistemic ‘ought’ regulatinghuman inquiry. On this argument thenaturalisticontologyfails.

In order to understand the personal actionsthatshowup inhuman inquiry,weneed a larger context that includes, but goes beyond the models, theories and laws of the naturalsciences.Weneedaricherontologythan scientific naturalism provides. Whereshallwebegin?

Human inquiry offers a principledstarting point, since it resists beingcompletely naturalised under scientificnaturalism. In that context, what-there-isshowsupassomethingmorethancanfinda ‘place’ within a completely naturalisticview of the world – viz. human inquiry.Let’s use this as our starting point. I nowintroduce another world-view, which I call ‘ametaphysicsofinquiry’.

A Question of World-View continued

‘ ...any account of human inquiry will include... the irrepressible eruption of questions revealing an unrestricted desire to know.’



(i) Let us say that the natural sciences study A, B, C, ... using methodological naturalism, which excludes all non-natural explanations.

(ii) The natural sciences presuppose that

what occurs is intelligible and rationally explicable.

(iii) The metaphysics of inquiry says all

there is, is fully intelligible – without prejudice to what forms of intelligibility and rationality may prove to be needed .

(iv) An open ontological question: ‘is all there is, fully intelligible?’

(v) The natural sciences cannot answer

(iv) This is because the natural sciences study A, B, C … and presuppose that what occurs is intelligible and rationally explicable, but do not say that all there is, is fully intelligible. After all, the universe may be a brute fact.

I need to explain (iii), the claim that all there is, is fully intelligible. This claim does notentail that everything is fully intelligible to us now. It does entail human inquiry willnever be faced with a ‘brute fact’, a fact for which there is no explanation. Inquiryis not faced with an infinite regress ofexplanationsofthewaythingsare,forthenthe ‘fully intelligible’ is unintelligible and the questforunderstandingpointless.Theclaimabout inquiry can only be fulfilled if thereis something that explains the existence of everything else, whose very nature explains itsexistence.This istheideaofGodasthecreator of all there is ex nihilo, that is to say, not from pre-existing ‘stuff’. On thisview such a God would have complete understanding including, therefore, self-understandingofthedivinenature.

Comparing‘scientificnaturalism’and‘ametaphysics of inquiry’, we see that both are drawn from the natural sciences and, if successful, both inherit all their strengths/limits.Bothmakeageneralisingmoveaspartof their core beliefs. Scientific naturalismsays, ‘all there is, is what physics says there is, or complex configurations of the same’.A metaphysics of inquiry says, ‘all there is, is fully intelligible and open to rationalexplanation, but without prejudice to theforms of intelligibility and rationality thatmightbeneeded’.Bothfacethechallengesofanopenquestion.One’schoiceofworld-view is going to be informed by how well the various challenges they face, can be addressed.

This proposal faces the same two challenges as does scientific naturalism. Ithas to justify themove from (i) and (ii) to (iii); from physics to metaphysics. It alsofaces the problem of explaining how human inquirers have come into existence on planetearth.Againthiscallsforanaccountof human inquiry, and as before I think this means giving an account of normativity,rationality,mentalcausationandfirstpersonperspective,thatshowupininquiry.Anextrachallenge is that it should provide answers for at least two big questions arising fromtheclaimthatallthereis,isfullyintelligible:‘why is there anything at all?’ and ‘why isthe universe structured, and structured the way it is?’Thesearesubstantialchallengeswhich I can’t discuss here, though there are resources to help. For example, LawrenceKrauss17 explains why there is something rather than nothing, where by ‘nothing’ he means no space, no time, no energy andno matter. Yet the explanation draws onthe laws of quantum mechanics and so one wonders about Krauss’ ‘nothing’. Theistsmay consider these laws are in the mind of God, and so from Krauss’ explanation wemaygainasuggestionastohowGodcreates

the universe ex nihilo. The question aboutwhy the universe is structured the way it is, findsaparallelinthequestionaboutwhythelawsofphysicsarethewaytheyare.Intheirdifferentways,twophysicists,PaulDavies18

and Lee Smolin19,arepursuingthisquestion.I engage their approaches by drawing on the workofphysicistRoyFrieden.20 I have been working on all of these challenges, and will bepresentingmyresponseinaforthcomingbook, Human Inquiry an Icon of God.

I began by seeing if human inquiry can be understood wholly within the resources ofcontemporarysciences.Thiswasseekingan account of human inquiry in terms of scientific naturalism, a philosophy oftenmistakenly identified with the naturalsciences.Myargumenthasbeenthatsuchanaturalisticunderstandingofhumaninquiryfails, and so undermines its own claim to be known.Thefailureisnotduetoatemporarygap in our scientific understanding of theworldorofhumanaction.Itisaninprinciplefailure due to the inability of scientificnaturalism to account for the normativedimension of human inquiry. I arguedthat a richer world-view, that includes contemporary science, is needed to properly understand human inquiry, and this is crucial forunderstandingpersonalaction.Therestof the paper indicated how this richer world-view, which I call ‘a metaphysics of inquiry’, may be formed. The comparison betweenthe two world-views showed that, among other things, both inherit the strengths and weaknesses of the natural sciences, but while scientific naturalism makes nomention of God, a metaphysics of inquiryleads to the idea of God. I also listed anumber of challenges to this metaphysics ofinquirystilltobeanswered,andsothisisverymuchaworkinprogress.

There are at least two places where this discussion is relevant. One is therelationship between science and religion.



If this relationship is viewed within acompletely naturalistic world view, it willbe seen in terms of inherent conflict, anda completely reductionist and naturalisticaccount of religion. If the relationship isviewed within a metaphysics of inquiry, thenthepossibilityofamutuallycriticalandcreative relationship between science andreligion is openedup.21The critical note atleast concerns the quality of human inquiry practiced in the sciences and in religion.The second place of relevance is to our educational practise: what world-view isbeing communicated directly and indirectly bytheeducationofferedinourprimaryandsecondaryschools?

A Question of World-View continued

‘ ...contemporary science, is needed to properly understand human inquiry’1 E.B.DavisandR.Collins,‘ScientificNaturalism’inG.B.Ferngren,Science & Religion, A Historical Introduction, (The

JohnHopkinsUniversityPress,Baltimore,2002),p322.ForadifferentapproachtonaturalismseeL.Cahoone,‘AKindof Naturalism’, American Journal of Philosophy and Religion,Vol34,No.3,September,2013,p215-224

2 Stoljar,D.,‘Physicalism’,Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,http://plato.standford.edu/entries/physicalism/,2001;substantiverevision9March,2015.)(Accessed18March2015);DavidPapineau–‘TheRiseofPhysicalism’inM.W.F.StoneandJ.Wolf,eds.,The Proper Ambition of Science,(Routledge,London,2000).

3 Another source is the problem of ‘natural evil’, which I take up in a forthcoming book, On God, Beginning with the Problem of Natural Evil.4 See,independently,Haught,J.,Is Nature Enough?(CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,2006),p865 SmartJ.J.C.,‘SensationsandBrainProcesses’,Philosophical Review,(1959),p68,p141–156,p1436 Papineau,(2000),p1797 Papineau,(2000),p2028 Papineau,(2000),p2029 Papineau,(2000),p19610Stoljar(20015,Sect.17)11Morowitz,H.,The Emergence of Everything: How the world became complex, (Oxford University Press, New York,

2002);RolstonIII,H.,Three Big Bangs, Matter-Energy, Life, Mind,(ColumbiaUniversityPress,NewYork,2011).12ForcritiquesofscientificnaturalismseePlantinga,A.,Warrant and Proper Function, (Oxford University Press,

NewYork1993);Cunningham,C.,Darwin’s Pious Idea, Why the ultradarwinists and creationists both get it wrong, (Eerdmans,Cambridge,2010).

13Lonergan,B.,Insight,(DartmanLongmanandTodd,London,1958);Lonergan,B.,Method in Theology, (Herder and Herder,NewYork,1973).

14Polanyi,M.,PersonalKnowledge,Towards a Post Critical Philosophy,(RoutledgeandKeganPaul,London,1958).15Lonergan,(1958),4,9,74;Lonergan,(1973),p34-3516TheregulativeaspectofnormativityisincludedinepistemologyasdiscussedbynaturalistsEllis,B.,(1988),Truth

and Objectivity,(Blackwell,Oxford,1988),50-52;Lycan,W.,Judgment and Justification, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,1988);Lycan,W.,‘”Is”and“Ought”inCognitiveSciences’,Behaviour and Brain Sciences,4,1981,344;andPapineau,D.,‘NormativityandJudgment’,Aristotelian Society Supplement,Vol.77,1999.Buteachdidsobyintroducingahypotheticalimperative,strictlynotavailabletothemasnaturalists.ThispointwasacknowledgedbythenaturalistPapineau(1999,18,fn3).

17Krauss,L.,A Universe from Nothing, Why there is something rather than nothing? (FreePress,NewYork,2012).18Davies,P.,(2010),‘Universefrombit’,inDavies,P.andGregersen,N.H.,eds.,Information and the Nature of Reality,

From Physics to Metaphysics,(CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,2010).19Unger,R.,andSmolin,L.,The Singular Universe and The Reality of Time, A Proposal in Natural Philosophy,

(CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,2015).20Frieden,B.R.,Science from Fisher Information, A Unification,(CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,2004).21From Robert Russell, founder and director of Centre for Theology and Natural Science, seehttps://www.goshen.edu/news/pressarchive/03-24-05-sci-rel-folo.html

Stephen Ames


Donors

Dr Frank ArmerAnthony&GinaBaileyTonyBerger&MaritaQuinnBlessedSacramentCongregationGary D Bouma AMDina&TonyBurgessDr M E CalwellCatholic Parishes of Diamond Creek and Greensborough NorthWilliamClancyAM&CatherineClancyMary&MichaelCohenDr Julie ContoleA CowenClem DickinsonSusie EhrmannACebon-Glass&RGlassDorothyGraffJames&MaryGregoryS HellerJohn Francis HoganTony HoweJohn&LorraineD KorderDrRobert&MrsCarmelLeydonLarry&HelenLightArchdeaconBarryNMartinThe Rev’d Graham McAnalley

Dr Lawrence D McIntoshHerbert&FraukeMeesLarry Nemer SVDStephen NewmanNeil NyholmSr Stella O’DonnellGwen PallotMary Ann PayneMaureen PostmaDerek PrinsleyWalter&SandiRapoportWendy RosierRysia Rozen OAMJohn SafranPeter&JudiSchiffScottWintonInsuranceBrokersSisters of Our Lady of SionSt Bernard’s Bacchus MarshProfRonaldTaft

Inthespiritofthetraditionwhichacknowledgesthenobilityofanonymous donors, we also thank those who have donated but wish nottohavetheirnamerecorded.

TheCouncilofChristiansandJewsVicIncwouldliketothankJesuitCommunicationsfortheirgenerousassistanceandcommendtheirpublicationEurekaStreetonitsworkinSocialJustice.

The Council of Christians and Jews is grateful for the support received for Gesher from these generous donors






Caulfield Grammar School Genazzano FCJ College Melbourne Grammar School

Nazareth College Newman College

Camberwell Girls Grammar School Camberwell Grammar School Catholic Theological College


St Leonard’s College University of Divinity

Our Lady of Sion College Parade College Sacred Heart Girls’ College

Sholem Aleichem College Siena College St Columba’s College


Membership of the Council of Christians & Jews includes regular postings on all CCJ events and the annual Gesher journal. Membership links you with people committed to religious diversity and mutual understanding.

Individualmember $50 Individualconcession* $30

Couple $80 Coupleconcession* $45

Schools,Colleges,ReligiousBodies $80 *Concession–student,unemployed,pensioner,etc.

Please complete the form below and forward to:

CouncilofChristians&Jews(Vic),326ChurchStreet,Richmond,Vic.,3121.Tel+Fax:(03)94295212Email:[email protected]:www.ccjvic.org.au

Name

Address

Email

Telephone (Home) (Work)

I/We enclose a cheque (payable to CCJ) in the amount of $

formembershipoftheCCJ(Vic)in2017.Receiptrequired?Y/N

CreditCardNo:————————————————Expiry:/

Type:MasterCard Visa Amount:$

Direct Bank Transfer to:ANZAccount:AustralianCouncilofChristiansandJews

BSB:013345,Acc.No:353392038PleaselistyournameandCCJMembershipasthereference.

Donations

Donationsmadetothenationalbody,theAustralianCouncilofChristians&Jews(ACCJ)forthebenefitoftheCCJ(Vic)Inc.aretaxdeductible.

Enclosedisadonationof$payabletotheACCJforthebenefitoftheCCJ(Vic)Inc.(Receiptsfordonationswillbeforwardedautomatically.)

Assistance

I would like to help in the Council’s work in the following areas (e.g.membership,publicity,eventsprogramming,finance,publications,etc):

Council of Christians & Jews Membership

The Council of Christians and Jews (Victoria) gratefully acknowledges the continuing support of Gandel Group.

Date post:	19-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	7 times
Download:	0 times

The Council of Christians and Jews Victoria aims...

Documents