“Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger.” J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
“Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.” St. John Paul II, Letter to Rev. George Coyne, S.J., Director of the Vatican Observatory.
The spur for this post is, of course, the rumor that Pope Francis is about to issue an encyclical proposing that we in the Church get on the AGW bandwagon (Anthropic Global Warming). My views on AGW are given in a post on my blog, Scientific Integrity: Lessons from Climategate), so I don’t propose to debate that issue extensively here. Rather, I should like to put a more general question: What science should the Church pronounce as correct, and which should be left to the scientists?
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION
SAINT JOHN PAUL II’S INTERACTION WITH SCIENCE
The Church’s error in condemning Galileo was recognized by St. John Paul II, who made an apology and an explanation of the error. (This was just one of St John Paul II’s efforts to effect a rapprochement of the Church with science. ) A lesson to be learned here is that there need be no conflict between the teachings of the Church and science even though the Church should be knowledgeable about science that relates to ethical and moral issues intrinsic to Church teaching.
The ideal of Church/Science interaction is illustrated by St. John Paul II’s message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on evolution:
“…some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis….What is the significance of a theory such as this one? To open this question is to enter into the field of epistemology. A theory is a meta-scientific elaboration, which is distinct from, but in harmony with, the results of observation. With the help of such a theory a group of data and independent facts can be related to one another and interpreted in one comprehensive explanation. The theory proves its validity by the measure to which it can be verified. It is constantly being tested against the facts; when it can no longer explain these facts, it shows its limits and its lack of usefulness, and it must be revised [emphasis added]
…And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. [emphasis added] The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part because of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.
The magisterium of the Church takes a direct interest in the question of evolution, because it touches on the conception of man, whom Revelation tells us is created in the image and likeness of God. [emphasis added]… In other words, the human person cannot be subordinated as a means to an end, or as an instrument of either the species or the society; he has a value of his own. He is a person. By this intelligence and his will, he is capable of entering into relationship, of communion, of solidarity, of the gift of himself to others like himself… if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God (“animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides non retimere iubet”). (Humani Generis)
As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person. [emphasis added]. St. John Paul II, Message to Pontifical Academy of Science, 22 Oct. 1996.
What a fine example! St. John Paul II shows that he knows what science is about, that it requires empirical confirmation of hypotheses. Unlike many scientists, he distinguishes the scientific fact of evolution, the descent of species, from theories/mechanisms used to explain evolution (e.g. the neo-Darwinian model). And most important, he shows why and how the Church should be concerned with theories that impinge on its teachings. We cannot accept theories which “regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter”.
WHEN THE CHURCH SHOULD NOT PRONOUNCE ON SCIENCE
- First, it is not true that a “97% consensus” of scientists support the AGW / Climate Change proposition. See, for example the 97% myth. And in any case, scientific theories and propositions are not judged by majority vote, but by empirical confirmation. Before the Michelson-Morley experiment a majority of scientists believed in the ether as the medium for propagation of electromagnetic waves; afterwards, not many.
- Second, the extent of data massaging (“fudging”) revealed in the Climategate excerpts and (more recently) of fiddled temperature data from Paraguayan weather stations should cause one to regard reported temperature increases with more than usual skepticism.
- rising food costs for third world populations due to diversion to biofuels;
- replacement of rain forest by palm tree groves for biofuels;
- the loss of jobs by coal miners and utility plant workers;
- the risk of pollution by elements used in wind turbines and hybrid automobile batteries (there is a greater carbon footprint from mining lithium and shipping batteries than in the corresponding use of gas fuels);
- the despoilation of landscapes and loss in property values due to wind turbines;
- the decimation of migrant bird and bat populations by wind turbines;
HOW THE CHURCH SHOULD DEAL WITH SCIENCE
REFERENCES
Climate Change: The Facts. A collection of articles by various authors including Delingpole, Lindzen, Watts.
BioMedicine and Beatitude; an Introduction to Catholic Bioethics. Nicanor Austriaco, OP
15 thoughts on “Galileo Redux: Church Meddling in Science?”
Pingback: Catholic Guidelines for Science, Part 1*: The Church Should Not Judge Scientific Merit - Catholic Stand
Pingback: Catholic Guidelines for Science, Part 1: The Church Is Not a Judge of Scientific Merit – The American Catholic
Pingback: Catholic Guidelines for Science Part I - Exclusive Global News
Pingback: Catholic Guidelines for Science Part I – The Old Roman
Pingback: Catholic Guidelines for Science Part I – Your Bible Verses Daily
Pingback: Catholic Guidelines for Science Part I
Pingback: How should the Catholic Church interact with Science - Catholic Stand
for all: I’ve made a Lenten promise not to respond to comments on my blogs and not to comment on others–broken last Tuesday. What’s bad about such comments, that tempts me to make mean-spirited remarks, is that I don’t suffer those whom I consider fools or ill-informed gladly, So, until after Easter, even I though I read things that make my blood almost boil–no replies.
Pope Benedict respectfully disagrees with you about human caused climate change.
His encyclical ‘Caritas in Veritate’ shows his belief in human-caused climate change:
50 “… the protection of the environment, of resources and of the CLIMATE obliges all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet.”
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html
B16 also made the Vatican the world’s first carbon neutral state.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/02/130228-environmental-pope-green-efficiency-vatican-city/
You link attempting to refute the 97% consensus only attempts to refute Cook’s methodology. There are three other peer-reviewed studies using different methodologies which also come to similar conclusions about >97% of climate scientists who believe the earth is warming and humans are causing it. Less than 1% say no (often with links to fossil fuel interests) less than 2% are uncertain. https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
All National Science Academies (they know who the real experts are) who have expressed an opinion also say the evidence indicates the earth is warming and humans are causing it. Almost every scientific body competent to have an opinion on this matter agrees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
The only ones who are equivocal are those with large numbers of members paid by fossil fuel companies.
We have known from the 1850’s that CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. Venus, with its extreme CO2 concentrations, is the hottest planet in our solar system even though Mercury is much closer to the Sun.
Over millions of years, CO2 was slowly asborbed from the air and locked into huge coal, oil and gas deposits, but in the last 200 years we humans have released perhaps half of this into the atmosphere increasing CO2 levels from 300 parts per million to 400. For comparison CO2 levels varied between 175ppm in ice ages to 300ppm in warm periods in the last 800,000 years. Are you surprised we are changing the planet?
Climate models which include fossil CO2 are much closer to reality than models which exclude fossil AGW https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
There is an enlightening post on Matt Brigg’s blog dealing with this issue; he takes to task the Catholic warmest who misinterpret Church Doctrine. See
http://wmbriggs.com/post/15325/
Pingback: TUESDAY AFTERNOON EDITION - BigPulpit.com
In the 1960’s I thought the burning question to be answered by the pending encyclical, Humanae Vitae, was whether the use and action of the cocktail of hormones, the pill, was contraceptive. The encyclical did not address the question. It was only recently that it dawned on me that the biological action of the pill is a scientific matter, not one of faith and morals. My first reaction to the announcement of the prospective encyclical was to question the pope’s competence on the topic. Then I remembered Humanae Vitae and how important it proved to be pastorally. Consequently, I am confident Pope Francis will stick to the principles of our obligation as stewards, not wasters of the earth. He will probably note that prudence is to err on the side of caution, where practical.
The encyclical DID address that question. Prior to HV many theologians averred that the new “Pill” was NOT really a contraceptive, because unlike condoms, coitus interruptus etc. it did not involve any immediate and direct human interference with the conjugal act itself at the time of the act. Pope Paul definitively extinguished this objection with the central sentence of the encyclical:
“every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.
That quote addresses motive. It could have been written in 1768, rather than 1968. Appropriately, Pope Paul did not address the question of whether the pill’s action could be judged to be regulative rather than disruptive of a biological process. The biological action of the pill is a pharmaceutical, not a moral question. Appropriately, it was the pharmaceutical companies who judged it to be and marketed it as contraceptive.
As Bob Drury says, the encyclical did not address the science of the “Pill” but whether its use, like some other bio-engineering consequences of biomedicine (e.g. IVF), violates Church teachings.