Science Was Born of Christianity

by Stacy Trasancos

  The history of science shows that all great creative advances in at least the physical sciences were made in terms of an epistemology which also underlies the classical proofs of the existence of God. These two themes were given a detailed presentation in Prof. Jaki’s Gifford Lectures, The Road of Science and the Ways to God. Prof. Jaki also believed that historically, this theistic perspective of science emerged from what he called the repeated stillbirths and the only viable birth of science. The former occurred in all great ancient cultures, whereas the latter is intimately tied to medieval Christianity. It was Christianity, and especially its dogma about the divinity of the Incarnate Logos, that gave a special strength to the biblical notion of a coherent universe, fully ordered in all its parts, an idea indispensable to the emergence of Newtonian science. All these themes were set forth in his Science and Creation and The Savior of Science books.[417]

  It is easy to understand why non-Christians would reject a thesis that claimed “science was born of Christianity.” It is not so easy to understand why people who profess faith in God the Creator of all things visible and invisible would reject such a claim. Jaki, like Duhem, did not have doctoral degrees in history, but they were, and still are, both recognized as historians of science for the quality and quantity of work–work that indeed changed the received view of the Christian Middle Ages. They were both physicists who made contributions to their fields as well. The most likely reason Jaki’s work has not been better appreciated could be that there are biases against accepting his thesis or that it is still not well-understood. The former will not likely resolve, but time and effort can fix the latter.

  Jaki will probably be best remembered as a theologian, which is why his insight into the theological history of science will be valuable. As mentioned in the beginning, Jaki’s works take commitment and considerable effort to assimilate. The bulk of his critics, especially the most modern ones, tend not to actually criticize his work, and instead refute a mischaracterization. As Haffner put it, “any critic of Jaki’s position automatically incurs the burden of proof in the debate, a burden hardly ever assumed because of its unusual weight.”[418]

  Personally, I have spent a great deal of time finding Jaki’s sources and verifying his claims as it relates to this aspect of his work, and I found his commentary and conclusions to be accurate, reliable, and insightful. The most difficult task is often in deciphering his subreferences. Entire essays can be written about a single Jaki sentence, so packed with nuance and information are some of them. Reading Jaki’s work can be difficult but rewarding. Hopefully this book has presented the reward while easing the difficulty, for it is a sifted compilation of what I found most compelling.

  This consideration of Jaki’s critics cannot conclude without confronting what seems to be the most negative criticism. In Efron’s essay, cited in Wiker’s book, offense was obviously taken from the claim that “science was born of Christianity.” Efron did acknowledge the “claim that Christianity led to modern science captures something true and important.”[419] But then he expressed suspicion:

  When boosters [Jaki and others] insist that “Christianity is not only compatible with science, it created it,” they are saying something about science, they are saying something about Christians, and they are saying something about everyone else. About science, they are saying that it comes in only one variety, with a single history, and that centuries of inquiries into nature in China, India, Africa, the ancient Mediterranean, and so on have no part in that history. About Christians, they are saying that they alone had the intellectual resources-rationality, belief that nature is lawful, confidence in progress, and more-needed to make sense of nature in a systematic and productive way. About everyone else, they are saying that, however admirable their achievements in other realms may be, they lacked these same intellectual resources. Often enough, what these boosters really mean to say, sometimes straight out and sometimes by implication, is that Christianity has given the world greater gifts than any other religion. Frequently, they mean to demonstrate simply that Christianity is a better religion.[420]

  […]

  This anything-your-religion-does-mine-can-do-better attitude jiggers one part condescension with two parts self-congratulation, and one wonders why some find it appealing. Yes, Christian belief, practice, and institutions left indelible marks on the history of modern science, but so too did many other factors, including other intellectual traditions and the magnificent wealth of natural knowledge they produced. Assigning credit for science need not be a zero-sum game. It does not diminish Christianity to recognize that non-Christians, too, have a proud place in the history of science.[421]

  Although Efron misrepresented Jaki’s work almost entirely, his reaction is instructive. The claim that “science is born of Christianity” could sound as chauvinistic to a non-Christian as the claim that “science was born of atheism” could sound to any believer, and the statement likely will lead critics to criticize without making the effort to understand the full argument. The power of analogy sometimes cuts both ways.

  Jaki wrote in an addendum to his autobiography in 2009, a few weeks before his death, that he asked himself, “What is the point to work hard on a topic, though only to see in the end that what one tried to transmit on the basis of decades of hard work runs like water off a duck’s back?”[422] His disappointment is understandable, but Jaki’s hard work has not been wasted. Maybe it ran like water off the back of a duck for some people during his lifetime and maybe there will always be people who do not make the effort to understand his work, but others see Jaki’s legacy as a wellspring, an ongoing source of insight and information into the distinctly human activity we call science.

  Chapter 5 – What Now?

  Chapter 5 – What Now?

  In conclusion, it is proposed that if Jaki’s thesis is to receive wider acceptance, the way to expand and further his work is to develop a way to communicate it without using language that could seem, from the onset, offensive to other religions. This will require, however, considerable work on the part of the communicator. It will not be enough to agree with Jaki’s argument. It will not even be enough to know the essence of it. To communicate the argument, an underlying knowledge of the history and theology must be understood, as well as an ability to defend the definition of science that Jaki used. The effective persuader may summarize and argue only from the surface of the argument, but if the one who seeks to convince does not pull from a depth and breadth of knowledge on the matter, the argument cannot be articulated to adjust to the audience. Any effective educator is aware of the need for flexibility.

  Just as Aquinas used the authority of the Old Testament when writing for the Jewish people, the authority of the New Testament when writing for the Christians, and the employment of universal reason when writing for the Muslims, so too should modern evangelists be prepared to tailor their arguments. Some may say the truth is the truth and anyone offended by it should just deal with it, but any parent or teacher knows that such an approach will fail to teach, and most likely will alienate. Such approaches do not consider the human person in the greater context of his or her life in a personal way. Pope Francis recently said in an interview with America Magazine, “We must always consider the person.”[423] Although he was speaking about homosexuality, this seems to be good advice for presenting any argument, especially a potentially contentious one, if the real goal is communication.

  The claim that “science was born of Christianity” puts well-meaning non-Christians in a difficult position to either dismiss the research summarily or to risk denying deeply held beliefs possibly rooted in childhood or personal traditions. In other words, perhaps there should be an ecumenical consideration, and anyone who knows what ecumenism means also knows it first and foremost does not mean that truth should be compromised. It means truth should be communicated better. There is arguably no truth exempted from the human pursuit of better communication.

  For now, Catholics can be assured
that Jaki never implied that Christianity created science any more than he would have argued that a mother created her own child. Acknowledging the difference between the Creator and His creatures was a central theme in Jaki’s arguments. He argued that Christianity provided the nurturing psychology most compatible with the sustained discovery of physical laws and systems of laws. To again quote the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Jaki argued that the viable birth of science is “intimately tied” because of its “dogma about the divinity of the Incarnate Logos” to “medieval Christianity.” Jaki also never denied the contribution of ancient cultures, something a quick perusal of his three hundred and seventy-seven-page book Science and Creation will reveal. One could possibly make a distinction between a strong claim that science could only have been born of Christianity and a weaker claim that science was born of Christianity because the Christian worldview aided the breakthrough. Both claims are valuable in looking to the future of science.

  His is not an easy thesis to grasp, to be sure, but then again, neither is the process of gestation, birth, and sustained life to which he compared the development of science. To grasp this complexity is to grasp why Jaki also compared the salvation of science to the Saving Birth of Christ, the central point of salvation history. Jaki’s thought requires a broader thinking than a single discipline can provide; it requires a systematic approach where one puts the story together piece by piece in a logical order, but never forgets how each piece fits into the whole picture, a picture that includes science, society, religion, history, and maybe more. Complex as it may be to assimilate, once understood, it is eloquently simple. For now, the oscillating of both the definition of science and the birth of science will probably continue, which is not at all a negative thing. Controversy, if it is ordered, is necessary for ideas to find their place. This book is intended to be used as a reference, which is why the chapters and sections form an outline for easy access. If a reader gains anything from this book, let it be that one may confidently say that Catholic dogma positively and directly influenced the Scientific Revolution.

  I encourage you, in closing, to reflect on the implications of this knowledge. It should instill in young Catholics courage to pursue scientific fields of study with the assurance that Catholics have a legitimate and significant place in the development of science. It should assure any Catholic that the assertion that science and religion cannot ultimately conflict with one another is an assertion that infuses more freedom in intellectual pursuits than restriction. Indeed to do science well, one may say that a working knowledge of Catholic dogma is beneficial. To know what directly contradicts the dogmas of revealed religion and to make such distinctions offers guidance to the scientist, as was shown by the accomplishments of the medieval Catholic scholars. Jaki’s claim about the birth of science demonstrates the axiom, “Truth cannot contradict truth.”

  Consider how the clarity given to us by Fr. Jaki allows a more appreciative approach to evolution. There is much to be appreciated, studied, and developed in the exact science of it. There are possible cures to be found by studying how genetic mutations affect populations. There are possible benefits to animal populations to be found by understanding how those populations evolve. There are lifetimes of work to be done in studying the exact science of evolution. The contradictions in evolutionary theory arise in the grafting of a materialistic ideology onto that science, which both a Catholic and a scientist should avoid.

  Consider the implications in neuroscience. So much of the findings are taken as evidence for materialism, when in fact they can never be such. That does not mean that the brain is not a significant influence on the mind, and there is no contradiction with Catholic dogma to study the brain so long as the soul is not denied. Perhaps if it were better understood that neuroscience belongs to the realm of the physical, and psychology belongs to the realm of both body and soul, then better advances could be made in medicine and treatment that heal the whole person.

  Consider the implications of Jaki’s work in the fields of physics and cosmology. Perhaps the multiverse theory is not a complete contradiction of Catholic dogma. To the extent that it hypothesizes the possibility of the existence of other worlds, it is consistent with the Condemnations of 1277. Proposition 27 asserted that God can make as many worlds as He wills by rejecting the statement, “That the first cause cannot make more than one world.” These are the reasons I find Jaki’s work exciting. By providing clarity, his conclusions offer direction and encouragement for the student of science, not just Catholics, but all students.

  Should my work in this matter be continued, I, a Catholic convert from pagan feminism, a mother of thirteen children—seven of whom were born and six of whom died in the womb—and a former industrial senior research scientist with a doctorate in chemistry specializing in nanometer-scale materials, propose a further development to Jaki’s thesis. To achieve a more ecumenical approach, perhaps the theological history of science can be presented with a Marian character, which is a reasonable extension of the “birth” and “stillbirth” analogy already. How might this be done? I think it begins with education. It begins be instructing students in the exact, hard, and quantitative sciences without overlaying ideology onto them from either side, religious or atheist. Physics, chemistry, and even biology should be taught strictly as hard sciences. A believer, just as the Biblical people, the early Christians, the scholars of the Middle Ages, and Christians today, will see the exact science as the handiwork of God. The non-believer may not, but then again, he may be awed by the order and discover the design in it for himself. Science, exact science that is, ought to be a place believer and non-believer alike can come together as thorough materialists. After all, a believer and a non-believer could cook a meal together and sit down to enjoy it together too, even if the believer thanks God for the gift of food before eating.

  In more theological terms, this approach could be developed by considering 1) how the Holy Church is a Mother herself, guiding and encouraging, vetoing what is wrong for her children and proposing a better way for the human family through friendship; and how 2) Christians even of the first century said that the “world was created for the sake of the Church.”[424] The past is past. What counts in the study of history is where the instruction leads the next generations, and Modern Science—mature and independent as this child of the human intellect may seem—is desperately in need of its Mother.

  Bibliography

  Aaboe, A. “Scientific Astronomy in Antiquity.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A. 276, no. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences (1974): 21-24.

  Adams, James. The Republic of Plato: Edited with Critical Notes, Commentary, and Appendices. Second. Vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963.

  Aertsen, Jan A., Kent Emery, Andreas Speer, and Walter de Gruyter. Nach der Verurteilung von 1277 / After the Condemnation of 1277: Philosophie und Theologie an der Universität von Paris im letzten Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts. Studien und Texte / Philosophy and Theology at the University of Paris in the Last Quarter of the Thirteenth Century. Studies and Texts. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter GmbH& Co., 2000.

  Agnihotri, V. K. Indian History: With Objective Questions and Historical Maps. India: Allied Publishers Private Limited, 2007.

  Albiruni, Athar-ul-Bakiya of. The Chronology of Ancient Nations: An English Version of the Arabic Text “Vestiges of the Past.” Translated by D. Edward Sachau. London: W. H. Allen & Co., 1879.

  Alexandria, Clement of. The Exhortation to the Greeks, The Riches of Man’s Salvation, and the Fragment of an Address Entitled To the Newly Baptized. Translated by G. W. Butterworth. London: William Heinemann, 1919.

  Alfred North Whitehead – Biography. The European Graduate School. http://www.egs.edu/library/alfred-north-whitehead/biography/ (accessed October 30, 2013).

  Anonymous. Leucippus (5th C. BCE). n.d. http://www.iep.utm.edu/leucippu/ (accessed October 30, 2013).

  Antonio Spadaro, S.J. “A Big Hea
rt Open to God.” America Magazine, September 30, 2013.

  Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica, Latin-English Edition, vol. 1. NovAntiqua, n.d.

  —. “De Motu Cordis, Translated by Gregory Froelich.” The Dominican House of Studies. n.d. http://dhspriory.org/thomas/DeMotuCordis.htm (accessed November 10, 2013).

  —. Summa Contra Gentiles. Translated by Anton C. Pegis. n.d.

  Arendzen, John. Manchianism. The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent. 1910. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09591a.htm (accessed October 20, 2013).

  Aristotle. “Categories.” n.d.

  —. Metaphysics. n.d.

  —. On the Heavens. n.d.

  Augustine. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, St. Augustine, The City of God, Volume II. Edited by Philop Schaff. Grand Rapids: William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956.

  —. Sancti Aureli Augustini De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim, in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinoram. Edited by J. Zycha. Vol. Volume XXVIII. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1894.

  Bacon, Roger. Medieval Sourcebook: Roger Bacon: On Experimental Science 1268, The Early Medieval World, 369-376. Fordham University. Edited by Oliver J. Thatcher. Vol. V. Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co., 1901.