I believe that many aspects of the sciences have lost the sense of wonder that they grew from. Among my peers, so few seem to be truly fascinated by what they study: instead, they work for the grades, and then for the money, but they don't love what they find. I think that the wonder of science never went away, people only stopped wondering at it.
Many scientists, engineers, and especially people who don't actually know much about the sciences, seem to look at modern science from the perspective that we know so much now that it makes notions of God or spiritual things obsolete—as though we have somehow, by learning more about the workings of the universe, dispelled all that hokey spiritual mumbo-jumbo. But there was once a time when many of the greatest minds believed not that science disproved God, but that science was a way of revealing His majesty. I subscribe to that older school of thought, because it still holds true. When I look at the minute particles that make up everything, I see the glory and wonder of God: The more we learn, the more we realize just how complex and finely tuned the universe is. We once thought that the smallest unit of matter was the atom. Then we found that each atom was made up of smaller parts. And then that the parts had parts. And we keep crashing things together in particle colliders, only to discover more parts that we had only guessed at. Then I can look up and see the enormity of the sky, and realize that all of that enormity is put together in exquisite detail down until beyond where we can see even with microscopes; that the universe, enormous beyond comprehension, is detailed beyond comprehension.
Our world is a wonder. But even the bigger things are taken for granted. We just assume that the sky must have been that perfect blue. We just assume that human life, so ridiculously improbable, must have happened. We just assume that it's no big deal that rivers flow with water, or that grass is green, or that we can be so like chimpanzees and yet so completely different. But it didn't have to be that way. One of the mistakes of the Roman Catholic Church was to oppose some scientific discoveries, out of fear that it would make humanity seem less special, less providential I think it is an equally big mistake for science to try to downplay the ways in which our world really is special. The more of the universe we find, the more we discover just how unique our planet really is.
How can we look at what we've learned without being awed by the wonder of it all? When did men become so arrogant that they'd think this is all normal? It's incredible! It's like we're seeing this vast, unbelievable machine. It has a polished, beautiful exterior. But when we figure out how to open up the panel, and see that the works are infinitely more complicated than we imagined, instead of being awed by the brilliance of it all, people act as though, since we figured out how the panel works, the whole thing is not that big a deal. We've still only scratched the surface. I think the real problem is that people don't want to believe in a God—it scares them. And maybe, a little, it should. God is not safe—but he's good. I look at what science has revealed, and I see the wonder of God's creation: exquisite, brilliant, and good.
I'd disagree that the Catholic Church opposed scientific discoveries for the reasons you mentioned - they certainly accepted the work of Copernicus, Mendel, Newton, and Lemaître. The Church never proclaimed the Earth to be six thousand years old (that was James Ussher, of the Church of Ireland), and it in fact kept science alive through the Dark Ages.
ReplyDelete"It baffles me why anyone should believe that the Earth is the only planet in the universe, or that it is only six thousand years old, because of their religion. They believe that since the Bible says that there are only two parts to the universe - heaven and earth - and because the Bible says that Earth was created in six days, that no other explanation is necessary or possible. They believe that any further examination of those aspects of the universe would be diminishing the glory of God. But, regardless of circumstance, a diamond is still a diamond, whether it lies in a pile of mud or a pile of diamonds, and is not a pile of diamonds more impressive than a pile of mud? It is said that, before the Earth was fully known, many missionaries would venture out into the unexplored, not just to spread the gospel, but to more fully grasp the magnitude of God's creation. If that is true, then how much more magnificent would a million, million Earths be, each with its own backdrops and ambiance and climate, each with a different atmosphere and sun and sky, many with features and views not truly imagined by any human who has ever lived? If looking upon the splendours of this Earth was enough to inspire so many of the artists and poets and philosophers of old, then who could look upon the far vaster universe and fail to get a glimpse of the glory of God?"
I was thinking of Galileo, who's discoveries in astronomy were not particularly welcome (he was ordered to recant his work), and if I recall correctly, Copernicus had quite a hard time too.
ReplyDelete