The religious aspect of science and the rationality of faith

Introduction

Galileo1, aged 18, was present when one of the sacristans at Pisa Cathedral poured oil into a candle and let it sway. The phenomenon caught his attention. He studied it for 50 years and perfected the marvellous timekeeping instrument that is the pendulum clock.

On another occasion, he learnt that a telescope-maker from the Netherlands had presented Count Maurice of Nassau with an instrument by means of which distant objects appear closer and are seen by the human eye as if they were nearby. He investigated the phenomenon and invented the telescope.

It is certain that events such as these also occurred in the lives of other people; it is just that they passed them by without being impressed, and the event—the same for everyone—remained without any result.

Captain Brown was a bridge-builder. He wanted to build a bridge over the River Tweed, near which his home was situated. Whilst strolling through his garden, he spotted a spider’s web hanging across the road. It occurred to him that he too could build a bridge supported by wires or iron chains, and thus the suspension bridge was born.

Sir Isambert Brunnel 2 admits that he learnt his first lessons in tunnelling from a worm. He observed the creature and noticed that its head was equipped with a drill with which it bored into the wood, first in one direction and then in another, until it had made a complete passage. It would then coat the tunnel with a sort of varnish. By imitating this technique, Brunel achieved an engineering marvel of his time: the tunnel beneath the Thames.

Is this merely a coincidence? Or is it the eye of an intelligent observer picking up and decoding a message conveyed through an insignificant creature, addressed to everyone, but which not everyone takes notice of? To most people, a worm burrowing a tunnel through a tree is something so natural that it is overlooked. People are so superficial and caught up in the material aspects of life that they fail to notice nature, which embodies all of humanity’s wisdom and much more besides.

Apollonius of Perga 3 discovered conic sections. Twenty centuries passed between this discovery and their use as the basis of astronomy, to the benefit of the seafarer who could read the route to his desired port in the sky. When Franklin 4 discovered the connection between lightning and electricity, he was almost ridiculed by his contemporaries, who asked him: ‘What good is that?’ To which Franklin replied: ‘What use is a child? To become a great man’. Or: how many people have gazed at the Sun, the Moon and the stars? Yet only Copernicus deciphered their movements. Or: how many doctors have observed that food spoils? Yet bacteriology was discovered by a secondary school teacher: Pasteur.

He observes something created and interprets aspects of creation. He makes use of models drawn from the created world, for there is nothing that the scientist discovers or creates that has not already been created. The scientist differs from other people in the attention he pays to things that seem ‘insignificant’ at first glance, in his willingness to work, and in the reverence with which he approaches his work.

I use these examples to express the following idea: the scientist is not a Creator in the true sense of the word. He observes something that has been created and interprets aspects of creation. He makes use of models drawn from the created world, for there is nothing that the scientist discovers or creates that has not already been created. The scientist differs from other people in the attention he pays to things that are ‘insignificant’ at first glance, in his willingness to work, and in the reverence with which he approaches his work. Indifference is irreligious. ‘The love of science is a silent devotion: it is the recognition of the value of the things one studies and, by extension, of their causes. It is not merely a tribute paid in words, but a tribute paid through deeds. It is not respect expressed solely in words, but respect demonstrated through the personal sacrifice of one’s own time, thought and labour’5

Hard work and integrity are the two main attributes of a scientist. The greater a true scientist is, the more modest they are, for scientists “turn humbly towards the Almighty, Who has graciously endowed them with great intellect. As they became ever more learned, scientists came to understand ever more deeply the unseen power of the Unseen One’6.

At the same time, the scientist recognises and respects the laws imprinted in nature, for the study of phenomena leads him to observe that these occur within the framework of well-defined, stable laws, the fundamental law being that of the profound and unchanging connection between cause and effect.

Furthermore, the scientist, in the passion with which he devotes himself to investigating the mysteries of existence, is the first to reach the limits of knowledge and to realise the bounds of his own thinking. It is in this that we experience the frailty of human intelligence in the face of that which transcends it. Science may feel humbled when confronted with the impenetrable wall that shelters the unknown Absolute. Yet the scientist recognises—or ought to be the first to recognise—the perfection of the Creator of the world that lies beyond that wall.

It would also be worth recalling the case of Roger Bacon, the father of positivism, who, whilst searching for the philosopher’s stone and the elixir of life, discovered gunpowder. Bacon acknowledged that ‘superficial science leads to unbelief, whilst deeply cultivated science leads to faith’7). It is for this reason that all doctors or scholars in the natural sciences can be included on a list of believers. The Italian anatomist Gianbattista Morgagni confessed that: ‘the more I studied anatomy, physiology, pathology and pathological anatomy, the more I came to know God’.

Newton felt the need to study theology and did so after the age of 63, after which he wrote about the Holy Apostles. Blaise Pascal, mathematician, physicist, philosopher and writer, spoke of the infinite in the following terms: ‘We know that the infinite exists, but we do not know its nature, just as we know that numbers are not finite, that there is an infinite number of them, but we do not know what it is like. In the same way, we can know that there is a God, without knowing what He is. We know only the existence and nature of the finite, for we are finite and not as great as He. We know the existence of the infinite, but we do not know its nature, for it has, like us, extension, yet it is not bounded as we are. However, we do not know the existence and nature of God, for He has neither extent nor boundaries. Through faith we know His existence. Now, we have shown that we can know the existence of a thing very well without knowing its nature’8

And philosophers, right up to Thomas Aquinas 9, held that God, being infinite, is unknowable. Moreover, created intelligence can know only that which exists; therefore, God, Who transcends all that exists, transcends the capacity of any intelligence. However, Thomas Aquinas is convinced that a created intellect can know God, for if this were not the case, the intellect would have only two options: ‘either it will never enjoy happiness, or the object of its happiness will be something entirely other than the Divine’10 Given that a being is knowable to the extent that it is in action, that is, performs an act, Thomas concludes that ‘God, Who is pure action, without the intervention of any other power, is therefore absolutely knowable’11

Through the senses, the essence of God cannot be known because, as Thomas Aquinas states, ‘through images belonging to a lower order, the powers that form part of a higher order cannot be known in the slightest’12 This can only be attained through the divine light of glory, ‘which strengthens the intellect and enables it to intuit the Divinity of which the psalmist speaks: “In Your light we shall see light” (Psalm XXXV, 10), for ‘the created intellect can perceive the essence of God only to the extent that God, in order to be known, bestows His Grace upon a created intellect’13 Some created beings can perceive the essence of God perfectly, others to a lesser extent. In Thomist thought, this differentiated knowledge occurs ‘not because the likeness of God is imprinted more strongly in one than in another, since this vision will not be through a representation’, but ‘because the intellect of one will have a greater capacity or faculty to see God than that of another’14. And this capacity does not belong to created intelligence, but to the light of glory ‘which has established intelligence in a God-like form’15

Nevertheless, the created intellect which attains to the vision of God’s essence does not perceive in it the whole of reality; it does not perceive ‘all that God does, or all that He is capable of doing’. No created intellect can fully comprehend God, for this would mean comprehending His power with the mind itself. But of the things that God does or is capable of doing, an intellect knows all the more the better it perceives God’16.

Romanian scholars on the relationship between science and religion

Dr Victor Gomoiu 17 (surgeon)

Dr Gomoiu considered that the greatest mistake made in a discussion on the relationship between science and theology by theologians, philosophers and doctors (that is, scientists) is that they confuse the ‘natural’ with the ‘human’ and regard the ‘superhuman’ as being the same as the ‘supernatural’. In other words, the mistake lies in the fact that the natural is not given due attention, whilst the supernatural is discussed—whether by affirming or denying it—without anything actually being ‘proven’. To relegate God the Creator to the realm of the supernatural is a profound error, which has been exploited over time, particularly by philosophers, but also by pseudo-science. Theologians have thus fallen into their own trap. This led to the separation of heaven from earth, and to a focus on horizontal development at the expense of vertical growth.

The mistake, says Dr Victor Gomoiu, stems from the notion that man is situated outside nature, whereas man is part of nature. Man is a small part of nature and is subject to the same laws (the need for food and sleep) and the same influences (cosmic, meteorological and terrestrial). It is an equally grave mistake to attribute only the supernatural to God, when, in reality, the whole of nature is His work and moves according to His laws. God is not merely ‘our Father Who is in Heaven’, but we must recognise Him in all the works of His hands. ‘We have seen Him as the Creator of the world and the Ruler of the stars; we discover Him in the life-giving rays of spring and in all the life that is reborn with it, as well as in all superhuman manifestations, whether heavenly or earthly, which we call ‘natural phenomena’. He being ‘the Creator of all things seen and unseen’, He alone ordains these phenomena, over which man has no power. He alone is the ‘All-Possessor’ and the ‘All-Maker’. He knows the purpose of man and of so many living creatures on earth, for no one else knows why they live and why they perish. Only God knows what lies beyond us; only God knows when and from where this Universe came into being, and when or how it will come to an end, if indeed it ever will’18

To relegate God the Creator to the realm of the supernatural is a profound error, one which has been speculated upon over time, particularly by philosophers, but also by pseudo-science.

The conclusion reached by the Romanian medical scholar was as follows: ‘However learned we may be, we remain merely human and must not confuse our “human nature” with God’s “natural order”. What is human is only what we do without nature’s help, but what we achieve in this way is so little and so imperfect—or nothing at all! In contrast, everything that nature does—that is, the work of God—whether with or without our cooperation or will, and whether ordinarily or exceptionally, is ‘superhuman’; and this ‘superhuman’, I repeat, I shall call ‘natural’ rather than ‘supernatural’19

The scientist is the very first person who cannot deny the existence of God, the Creator of all things and all beings. This is because the scientist investigates God’s work, seeking to understand it and uncover its qualities, in order to put them ever more to the service of humanity—that is, to help perfect the Creator’s work. But, as I mentioned earlier, the scientist is not the Creator of things. For example, he investigates and discovers the effects of electricity. But what does he know about electricity apart from the fact that it is a force? But who has scattered it freely throughout nature? But what does this mean? To whom is it owed? To the mechanism that sets the motor in motion? To the motor itself? Or to the One who created it?

It is easier for man to think in complicated ways than in simple ones, as Father Dumitru Stăniloae used to say, ‘simple’ meaning ‘essential’. For example: a scientist can say a great deal about a mushroom or a cherry and can produce many different varieties of them. But who, then, can create a cherry or a mushroom? Man can hatch chicks in very modern, sophisticated incubators. But can he make the egg that produces the chick? Or: man ploughs the land, sows, and weeds, but the seed placed in the ground, even if treated in a laboratory and improved, is borrowed from nature.

All these natural phenomena are the work of the Creator, of God. The true scientist knows this perfectly well. That is why he approaches his studies with a true sense of reverence, sacrificing his own time and energy, devoting himself entirely to investigating God’s work in nature and the world. If he makes a discovery, he is delighted and marvels at the wonder of his discovery. If they do not succeed in making a discovery or deciphering the messages imprinted in nature, they are convinced that future generations will come after them who will achieve this. How much is a person permitted to discover? No one can know this.

All the natural phenomena discovered by science, all the natural laws deciphered by science, have existed since the beginning of time. Science has unravelled many of nature’s ‘mysteries’, but there are still many more to be unravelled. However, everything that lies beyond the power or ability of humankind to know does exist, and this must not be denied. What percentage of nature’s mysteries have been brought to light by scientists? What percentage remain a mystery to scientists? Who holds the key to all these ‘enigmas’? Who lies beyond scientific knowledge? The scholar knows Who He is and acknowledges His primacy as the Creator.

The guiding principle of the Romanian scholar’s thinking is as follows: man is not the master of nature, but a beneficiary and a participant in it. This relative mastery over nature is not due to man’s superiority, but to the Grace bestowed upon humankind by the Creator—more upon some, less upon others. The scientist, who is, after all, only human, was mistaken when he believed that he ruled over nature and relegated God to the supernatural realm; he sought Him there and did not find Him. This claim on the part of man, however, requires a major correction: the fact that one masters something does not mean that one is the creator or the owner of that thing. Scientists have shaped certain elements of nature and learnt to use them, but they do not master them because they are not their creators. It would be like claiming to be watchmakers simply because we use watches.

Prof. Dr Nicolae Paulescu 20 (physiologist and chemist)

I believe that no one could better ‘scientifically explain’ the existence of the Creator of life than a physiologist, physiology being defined as ‘the science that deals with the organic functions through which life manifests itself and which ensure the maintenance of individual life’21.

Trained in Paris at Prof. Lancereaux’s medical school, Dr Paulescu was to make the following confession: ‘I must confess, though I am mortified with shame, that at the age of 18, when I left secondary school, I too was an atheist and a materialist, for I had heard a philosophy teacher say from the lectern that God does not exist, that the soul is a mere fantasy, and that Nature is the mother of all beings and things in the Universe’22. Prof. Dr Trifu, his biographer, claims that Dr Paulescu discovered God under the microscope. A shocking claim. What did the studious atheist see through his microscope that brought about such a radical change in him?

By studying how living beings come into being and develop, Dr Paulescu came to recognise the existence of God, the perfect Creator. Here is what he says on this subject: ‘Right from the very beginning, we are left speechless by the beauty of the phenomena of creation. What could be more impressive and magnificent, what greater miracle, than to observe under a microscope, from the very first day, how a living being—a human embryo—is formed, develops and grows! From a single cell, through phenomena of rare beauty—which, in themselves, constitute an entire science, embryology—at a certain point, two cells are formed: each of these divides into two more, and so on, until thousands and millions of cells are formed, all of which arrange themselves with admirable regularity and precision, according to a plan that has been the same for every species of animal since they first came into existence’23

“From a single cell, as a result of phenomena of rare beauty—which, in themselves, constitute an entire science, embryology—at a certain point, two cells are formed: each of these divides into two more, and so on, until thousands and millions of cells are formed, all of which arrange themselves with admirable regularity and precision…”

This is followed by the question that the true scholar asks himself with wonder and humility: who guides the development and evolution of these organisms in such a marvellous way, since neither the mother nor the child is aware of what is happening to them and within them? Who causes the invisible egg to multiply and the billions of cells to arrange themselves consistently in the same order, forming the most marvellous structure that no architect in the world is capable of creating? What is the cause of these effects?

Among scientists, there are now few who still maintain that human beings arose through spontaneous generation, as a result of chance. It is accepted that everything that is alive in the world is the result of an intelligent cause, an agent who intended to achieve something for a specific purpose and who had at his disposal all the means necessary to carry out his will. This agent, who directs both the marvellous organisation and the evolution of every living being, and who governs the vital functions—that is, what we call ‘life’— this agent, which at a certain point disappears from the body, whereupon the body is transformed or remains mere raw matter, decomposing into the minerals from which it was made, which are then subject to destruction, this agent, which has not been given a name by scientists, has been recognised by humanity through intuition and has been called the soul. The soul is something immaterial that is beyond the reach of the senses. Scientists have discovered the existence of antimatter, which possesses the exact opposite properties of matter, and in doing so have acknowledged the existence of the soul and, by implication, of its Creator.

Dr Nicolae Paulescu wanted to help his young students and those who denied the existence of God to understand that there are forms of energy which cannot be directly perceived by us through our senses. But this does not mean that these forms of energy do not exist. It does not mean that the soul does not exist simply because we cannot perceive it through our senses. The existence of the soul is evidenced by its manifestations, by the effects it produces. Furthermore, the existence of the soul attests to the existence of God.

Between science and faith, says Dr Nicolae Paulescu, there is a harmonious relationship, because both lead to the same eternal truths. Pursuing the same goal, both must coordinate and assist one another.

Instincts are of divine origin, Dr Paulescu maintained. Vices are nothing other than ‘perverted instincts’. The instincts of nourishment and defence are acts of beauty that reach the sublime, for they are carried out without prior learning, irrationally and yet with admirable precision, towards a purpose which the living being neither knows nor reasons out, the purpose not having been conceived by the living being, but by its Creator. These instincts can be perverted, in which case they become vices, and these destroy the being 24. Social, family and ethnic instincts are also divine, just like the individual ones I mentioned earlier.

Dr Paulescu defined science as ‘knowledge through causes’ 25, whilst positivism “claims to prevent man from rising above sensory investigation, seeking to confine science to its preliminary stage, that of observation” 26.

Analysing the errors of materialism, the Romanian scholar reaches the following conclusion, which he affirms with firmness and professional integrity: ‘in short, the materialist doctrine is in serious breach of the most elementary rules of logic. It is incapable of explaining vital morphological and physiological facts. Thus, it cannot account for the formation, according to a pre-established plan, right from the very beginning of life, of organs that will not function until later; nor the evolution that takes place with a view to reproduction; nor the interconnection or coordination of vital phenomena towards a series of ends, the ultimate goal of which is the survival of the individual and the perpetuation of the species. On these grounds, in the name of scientific logic, we reject the materialist doctrine of ‘27’ from the realm of science. He drew the attention of his medical students to the fact that the materialist error is a pernicious doctrine, chiefly because, ‘by denying final causes and even efficient causes, and by asserting a priori the identity between inanimate bodies and living beings, this doctrine narrows the scope of scientific research; it blinds researchers and encourages them to idleness’28

The scholar Dr Nicolae Paulescu wondered whether the scientist would ever be able to know the whole Truth hidden within the elements of nature. His answer was: no. He explained: ‘The senses and sophisticated instruments may be able to detect certain transformations of matter and energy; yet, by their very nature, they are incapable of providing us with even the slightest understanding of the essence of these elements of nature’. The basic elements of human science are observation and reasoning. “If observation constitutes, so to speak, the body of science, reasoning represents its soul”29).

Speaking of the experimental method, Paulescu says that it “does nothing more than set in motion, in the pursuit of truth, the action of two faculties of the mind: the faculty of observation and that of reasoning. However, these faculties are innate. They can be cultivated and disciplined through the experimental method. They cannot be acquired by one who does not possess them from birth’27. In other words, God’s work continues in every human being who is born. Nichifor Crainic was to say in his inaugural lecture on Asceticism and Mysticism, which he delivered at the Faculty of Theology in Bucharest: ‘We do not know where the breath of the Creator Spirit comes from or where it goes, but we observe its overwhelming influence both in the superhuman splendours embodied in the lives of the mystics and in the splendours of the artistic masterpieces with which geniuses have enriched human culture. The divine act of creation from which emerged the cosmic miracle in which we live—and whose harmony the diabolical spirit seeks to disrupt—is not a chapter that came to a close on the evening of the sixth day. God creates ceaselessly through His great chosen ones, who are the elite of humanity and the living testimonies of His divine presence in the world”30.

Prof. Dr Ilie Bădescu (sociologist)

To understand the truth of what Dr Paulescu said regarding the divinity of collective instincts, we turn to the writings of Prof. Ilie Bădescu 31, a sociologist and professor at the Faculty of Sociology in Bucharest, who highlights precisely this point: ‘Peoples are the external manifestation of a constant relationship between cosmic energies of an emotional nature. The fact that these are constant, transhistorical relationships between cosmic energies is a sign that they were planted by God in the world in the form of special communities, ethno-spiritual communities. Peoples are, therefore, the guarantors of a cosmic law in history, the foundation and framework that make the unity between the cosmos and history possible. Peoples embody a cosmic imperative of a transcendental nature, in that, through them, order and a sense of proportion are introduced into the world and into history, and thus into existence. For this reason, we regard peoples as both transhistorical and historical entities, levers of transcendence in the world. Through them, history is cosmicised and constantly brought back into the horizon of the good and onto the ontological edge of the divine logos. Without peoples, the good, as a transcendental function in the existence of humanity, would be blocked’32

Good customs are inherent to the very being of peoples, whilst bad customs stem from the aberrations of life and the tragic, absurd decadence of the ‘elites’ throughout history.

Professor Ilie Bădescu proposes, through the introduction of a theory of collective latencies, to revive the ‘Science of Peoples’, which is entirely distinct from the ‘psychology of peoples’. Spiritual latencies are defined as ‘energies stored within human nature’33 These energies underpin the transformation of humankind from a wretched being into the image of God.

Collective spiritual potentials are fully realised during festivals, says the Romanian sociologist. ‘The festival is a gift bestowed upon humankind by Providence, so that we may preserve and thus always recognise something of the primordial, paradisiacal spiritual grandeur, planted in the great Order and, at the same time, in the very being of humankind by God Himself. And not just in any way, but as a shared spirit, as supreme categorical tranquillity and as ethnicity. ‘If the festival had not existed, humankind would have lived in a sorrowful ignorance of its deeper self, within which the paradisiacal memory is preserved; it would have fallen into an obscure unawareness of the common soul, of its ethnic being’34 Because the festival is not merely an elevation of the ontological level of existence, but also an exceptional gnoseological opportunity, the author of the work from which we quote states that, ‘if one seeks to understand the ethnic identity of peoples as noological and spiritual realities, it makes no sense to look for any research framework other than the people’s festivals, namely their acts and deeds of faith. If you wish to stifle or even eradicate the science of peoples, and knowledge of them, you will tear down their ‘boundaries’ or noological frameworks; you will make them forget their festivals, myths, beliefs, legends, customs, saints and heroes, or to perceive all these in a distorted light. For where else will the customs of a people be revealed in all their transparency and fullness if not within the context of their festivals? Its customs—not those vices and lapses into which the hardships of life have driven it—good customs are inherent to the very being of peoples, whilst bad customs stem from the missteps of life and the tragic, absurd decadence of the ‘elites’ throughout history. Alienated or unworthy elites, who consume much and produce nothing in return, bring about decline and degradation in the lives of the peoples themselves’35

The physiologist Dr C. Mihăilescu, Dr Paulescu’s successor at the Department of Physiology of the Faculty of Medicine in Bucharest, had also said many years earlier: “It follows, therefore, that anything which opposes the fulfilment of these family and national instincts, or seeks to pervert them and divert them from their true purpose, commits an act of defiance against the order of nature, of defiance against the laws of nature, of rebellion against God’36.

And Dr Alexis Carrel 37 made the following point: ‘We must realise that man cannot act according to the whims of his imagination without risking failure. To succeed in life, he must conform to the immutable rules that depend on the very structure of life. We take a great risk when we allow a fundamental activity within us to wither away, be it physiological, intellectual or spiritual. For example, the unbalanced development of the body and day-to-day activities among some intellectuals is just as harmful as the degeneration of intelligence and moral sense among some athletes’38

It is very important to understand nature, to respect its laws and order. Order is an attribute of divinity, and the disruption of the natural order through human intervention can cause nature to deviate and turn against humankind. It was through disobedience to God and the violation of the divine commandment that our first parents, Adam and Eve, fell and lost their paradisiacal life, being given earthly life in its place. Another form of disobedience on the part of their descendants on earth is the failure to respect the laws governing nature, the order established by the divine creative power. What does man lose through this disobedience? He loses the earth. Where does he fall this time? Beneath the earth, into the world of darkness, ignorance and chaos. And it is not known whether, this time, God, the Creator Father, will still be willing to send him a Saviour.

Dr Alexis Carrel drew attention to the poor quality of the individuals in his society, due to the weakening of their fundamental spiritual, moral and ethical activities 39. He stated: ‘In fact, the spiritual realm proves to be just as necessary to a successful life as the intellectual and material realms’27

Religion and science. From the Church Fathers to the present day

The question of the relationship between faith and science (see culture) was raised by Saint Paul the Apostle: “For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the knowledge of the learned I will set aside!’” ‘Where is the wise person? Where is the scholar of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of this world foolish?’ (1 Cor. 1:19–20). The Church Fathers of the early centuries consistently addressed this theme. Educated in secular schools and well-versed in Hellenistic culture, they adopted either a strict stance, regarding Hellenistic culture as a threat to salvation (see Tatian, Tertullian, Arnobius), or a moderate or even enthusiastic stance (Justin the Martyr and the Philosopher, Clement of Alexandria, Origen). They believed that Greek philosophy, in particular, had prepared people to receive the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, taught them to recognise unseen truths, to discover the inner reason behind things, and to acknowledge that there are truths which lie beyond sensory knowledge. ‘The fullness of time’, the moment deemed by God the Father to be the right time to send His Son into the world, is linked to humanity’s preparation to receive the divine message 40.

From the very beginning, Christianity found itself in the position of having to set its system of faith and morality against the systems of ancient philosophy, which had long since established their dominance over human thought. To this end, the early Christian thinkers saw fit to establish catechetical schools, particularly in centres dominated by Hellenistic culture. This explains the emergence of the great catechetical schools of Alexandria, Antioch and Cappadocia. It was an urgent necessity, on the one hand, to combat the contempt of the Greeks, who regarded Christianity as a religion for simple folk, and, on the other hand, to preserve and spread the true teachings of the faith, given that this was a time of rapid proliferation of sects.

Thus, in Rome we find the school of Justin, whose lectures were attended by Tatian, who was to succeed him as head of the school; in Lyon we find the school of Irenaeus, whose pupils included Caius and Hippolytus; followed by the schools in Caesarea, Jerusalem, Palestine, Edessa, Antioch and Constantinople. Most of the Church Fathers were learned men, educated at the finest secular schools of their time, where students studied not only philosophy but also mathematics, geometry, astronomy, history, and theoretical and practical medicine.

Most of the Church Fathers were learned men, educated at the finest secular schools of their time, where students studied not only philosophy but also mathematics, geometry, astronomy, history, and theoretical and practical medicine.

For example, Saints Basil the Great, John Chrysostom and Gregory of Nazianzus had as their teachers renowned scholars of their time: Himerius, Proherius and Libanius41 The historian Sozomen notes that the latter, a leading figure in fourth-century pagan oratory, is said to have remarked on his deathbed that he would have wished to leave John in charge of his school, ‘had the Christians not carried him off’42

St Basil the Great’s homilies clearly reveal his knowledge of and appreciation for the scholarship of his time. Scholars regard the Commentary on the Hexameron as: ‘if not an encyclopaedia of the knowledge of the time, then at least a compendium of the scientific knowledge possessed by the great hierarch, which extended beyond theology, into cosmogony, meteorology, astronomy, natural history, geography, botany and medicine, with a particular preference for the latter science, namely medicine’43

St Basil the Great recommends how to make use of the knowledge provided by secular science in his famous Address to Young People, concerning how to derive benefit from Hellenic writings. The idea is that we must be familiar with the secular sciences, but we must be mindful of what we take from them, so as not to be deceived and swallow ‘poison mixed with honey’44. Or ‘we too must partake of the writings in the manner of bees: they do not approach every flower in the same way, taking only what is useful to them for their work, and leaving aside what remains’45; or: ‘let us receive those writings which urge us towards good things’46, and ‘let us not pour into our souls, through our ears, unseemly songs’47. These ideas are also found in the other two Fathers of the fourth century: science and culture must not be ignored; on the contrary, they must be thoroughly understood so that we may draw from them what is useful. This is the path that Eastern theology has followed over the centuries.

In the West, Scholasticism made the grave mistake of attempting to patronise the natural sciences, claiming for itself the status of ‘sacred science’. ‘Based on an outdated cosmology of Antiquity (Ptolemaic), which it confused with biblical cosmology, scholasticism forced Galileo Galilei to recant his theory, based on observation, that the sun revolves around the Earth, thus provoking the famous conflict between religion and science that has persisted over the centuries’48”.

This was followed by the Age of Enlightenment, which emerged as a reaction against medieval scholasticism. Now the autonomy of reason was proclaimed, a reason that no longer wished to have anything to do with God. Through reason, man believed he could attain a complete understanding of reality. Knowledge of God was abandoned in favour of knowledge of man. In this way, ‘Paradise will no longer be a gift from God, but the final triumph of Enlightenment science on earth’49). The development of scientific research in all fields was emphasised, and astonishing progress was made in improving human life. The effects of this progress have not all been to humanity’s benefit. ‘Science has achieved victories beyond the expectations of the Age of Enlightenment, but the world that has resulted from this does not seem to be any more rational than the one we knew in previous centuries. More and more people in the most developed and powerful nations on earth feel helpless in the grip of irrational forces that are turning their lives into a living hell’50

The spiritual regression of humankind during the centuries dominated by science has led to an inner imbalance. The fierce battle waged by science against religion was to turn against humanity itself. The earthly paradise that science sought to offer in place of the heavenly paradise was to turn into ‘hell on earth’ (as exemplified by wars, including nuclear ones) and hell within people’s souls (an enormous number of mental disorders). It is essential to restore harmony between science and religion. This is why Malraux made the statement that has come to define humanity since the year 2000: ‘The 21st century will be religious or it will not be at all’. The state of conflict between science and religion is a constructed one and, as such, is subjective in nature.

Theology is a science like all other sciences. It has an object of study: the supernatural; and a method: faith. We have seen that science acknowledges that not everything can be reduced to visible realities and the cognitive power of human intelligence. Reality is far more complex than what we perceive through our senses. Dr Alexis Carrel asserted that science, being a product of the intellect, represents only one aspect of it. Yet there are areas ‘off-limits’ to science, into which the intellect cannot penetrate. Thus, the fundamental question: ‘Where does the world come from and where is it going?’ cannot be answered by science 51.

Professor Teodor M. Popescu explored the theme of the science of theology. He pointed out that there is a natural reality, which is the domain of science, the instrument of investigation being reason; but there is, beyond the former, a supernatural reality that uses faith for its ‘scientific investigations’. ‘Reason alone sees only as far as the eyes; its visual power is enhanced by faith, which is itself a capacity of the human mind, a privilege of reason, for without reason man could not believe. Faith is the greatest power of reason, of human intelligence. It is a function of reason and, therefore, a means of knowledge for reason. Faith itself is a matter of reason; it is what theology does’52

Conclusions

‘The harmonious order of the cosmos’ of which Saint Athanasius the Great spoke is based on divine reason, that is, the very internal rationality of the universe. This lies at the heart of the dialogue between God and humankind. Humankind desires to know God, and this calling is an inner one; it is like a longing that torments them and from which they cannot escape. This knowledge is attained either through supernatural Revelation, for the religious person, or through natural knowledge, by careful observation and the keen, fervent study of nature, characteristic of the scientist. Scientists do not deny God, but recognise Him in the subjects of their studies, without being able to define God’s essence. Theologians deal with this aspect of knowledge, following a different path of inquiry, without sophisticated equipment or instruments, through the careful work of the self and the constant vigilance of the ‘image’ in order to attain likeness to the Creator. There are two paths towards achieving the same goal. ‘It is shameful to pray,’ wrote Nietzsche. Dr Alexis Carrel comments on the German philosopher’s statement as follows: ‘In fact, it is no more shameful to pray than to eat, to drink water or to breathe. There is no doubt that a successful life requires the full development of each of our physiological, intellectual, emotional and spiritual activities. The spirit is both reason and feeling. We must, therefore, love the beauty of science and, likewise, the beauty of God’53’.

• 1

  Italian physicist and astronomer (1564–1642). He discovered the law of isochronism in the small oscillations of a pendulum and the laws of falling bodies, and formulated the principle of inertia and the law of the composition of velocities. He built one of the first microscopes and, in 1609, constructed the telescope with which he discovered sunspots, the surface features of the Moon, Jupiter’s moons and the phases of Venus.

• 2

  Sir Marc Isambard Brunel belonged to a renowned family of English engineers of French origin. He lived from 1760 to 1849. His greatest engineering achievement was the tunnel under the Thames, which was built between 1824 and 1842.

• 3

  Greek astronomer and mathematician (c. 262–180 BC)

• 4

  Benjamin Franklin, American statesman, physicist and publicist (1706–1790). The inventor of the lightning rod. When he was conducting his research into lightning, he used a kite made from a silk handkerchief stretched over two sticks arranged in a cross.

• 5

  H. Spencer, On Intellectual, Moral and Physical Education, Chapter I.

• 6

  G.G. Longinescu, Science and Faith.

• 7

  Roger Bacon, English philosopher and scholar (1220–1292). He was regarded as one of the greatest scholars of the Middle Ages. He was the first to point out the error in the Julian calendar; he also highlighted the weaknesses in Ptolemy’s system and was the first to speak of experimental science.

• 8

  Quoted in Florica T. Câmpan, God and Mathematics, Iași, 1994.

• 9

  Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), an Italian by birth, was a Dominican friar; his theological thought is set out in the Somme Theologique (1266–1273). The central idea is that of a harmony between faith and reason.

• 10

  Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae. On God, trans. Gh. Sterpu and P. Găleșanu, with an introductory study by Gh. Vlăduțescu, Edit. Științifică, Bucharest, 2000, p. 153.

• 11

  Ibid., p. 152.

• 12

  Ibid., p. 155.

• 13

  Ibid., pp. 156 and 160.

• 14

  Ibid., p. 165.

• 15

  Ibid., p. 166.

• 16

  Ibid., p. 170.

• 17

  Dr Victor Gomoiu (1882–1937) was a renowned surgeon. He wrote over 300 papers in the fields of surgery, obstetrics and the history of medicine. He was elected an honorary member of the Paris Academy of Medicine (1936) and of 17 other medical academies around the world.

• 18

  Dr Victor Gomoiu, The Church and Medicine, Institute of the History of Medicine, Bucharest, 1940, pp. 151–152.

• 19

  Ibid., p. 153.

• 20

  Some of his works: The Spontaneous Generation and Darwinism; Finality, Materialism, the Soul and God; Social Instincts, Passions and Conflicts; Treatises on Medical Physiology (the first three volumes were written in collaboration with Prof. Dr Lancereaux, the latter ones on his own).

• 21

  Larousse Selection, Vol. I

• 22

  Nicolae Paulescu, The Hospital, The Qur’an… Supplement, p. 5.

• 23

  Nicolae Paulescu, Philosophical Physiology, Royal Foundation for Literature and Art, Bucharest, 1944, p. 133.

• 24

  Nicolae Paulescu, Instincts, Passions…, Anastasia Publishers, Bucharest, 1995.

• 25

  For his part, the philosopher Nae Ionescu offered the following definition of this ‘knowledge through causes’: ‘Knowledge through causes is an extension of our metaphysical personality into the universe’, The Theory of Knowledge, published by Anastasia, Bucharest, 1996, p. 196.

• 26

  Ibid., Philosophical Physiology, p. 97.

• 27a27b27c

  Ibid.

• 28

  Ibid., p. 102.

• 29

  Ibid., p. 168.

• 30

  Prof. Nichifor Crainic, ‘The History of Modern Ecclesiastical and Religious Literature’, inaugural lecture, in Theological Studies, IV (1933), Bucharest, p. 15.

• 31

  Ilie Bădescu is a lecturer at the Faculty of Sociology, University of Bucharest. Here are a few titles from his writings: The Sociology and Geopolitics of theBorder (editor and contributor), 1995; Contemporary Sociological Theories, 1997; The Theory of Collective Chains, 1997; Romanian Political Ideas and Sociological Systems, 1998; Major European Sociological Systems, 1999; The Ethno-Political Encyclopaedia of the Romanians in the 20th Century. Vol. I: Bessarabia, CD-ROM, 1998; Noology – Knowledge of the Spiritual Order of the World. A System of Noological Sociology, 2002; The Geopolitics of European Integration, 2002; Noological Sociology, 2005.

• 32

  Ilie Bădescu, The Theory of Collective Latencies: Contributions to the Study of Peoples, published by ISOGEP-EUXIN, Bucharest, 1997, p. 194.

• 33

  Ibid., Introduction.

• 34

  Ibid., p. 76.

• 35

  Ibid., p. 77.

• 36

  Dr C. Mihăilescu, Romanian Youth and the Problem of Youth Education, Bucharest, 1938.

• 37

  Alexis Carrel (1873–1944), a French surgeon and physiologist. He is the author of important discoveries relating to tissue culture and the survival of tissues outside the body. His best-known work is L’Homme, cet inconnu, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1912.

• 38

  Dr Alexis Carrel, ‘La Priere’, in Journal de Genève, 1941, Romanian translation, 1993, p. 26.

• 39

  Alexis Carrel, ‘La Priere’, in Journal de Genève, 1941, Romanian translation, 1993.

• 40

  See the study by Rev. Prof. Ioan G. Coman, ‘The Three Holy Hierarchs and the Culture of Their Time’, in Studii Teologice, XIII (1961), no. 1–2.

• 41

  See Ioan G. Coman, ‘The University Studies of the Cappadocian Fathers’, in Studii Teologice, VII (1955), no. 9–10, pp. 531–534.

• 42

  Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, trans. Iosif Gheorghian, Bucharest, 1897, p. 317.

• 43

  Rev. Prof. Ioan G. Coman, The Three Holy Hierarchs and the Culture of Their Time, p. 58; St Gregory of Nazianzus, Funeral Oration in Honour of St Basil the Great, 23, trans. N. Donos, Huși, 1931, p. 142.

• 44

  St Basil the Great, Address to Young People, trans. Al. Horhoianu, Rm-Vâlcea, 1938, p. 12.

• 45

  Ibid., p. 14.

• 46

  Ibid., p. 20.

• 47

  Ibid., p. 28.

• 48

  Rev. Prof. Dumitru Popescu, Theology and Culture, EIBMBOR, Bucharest, 1993, p. 100.

• 49

  Ibid., p. 101.

• 50

  Lesslie Newbigin, The Other Side of 1984, WCC Mission Series, Geneva, 1983, p. 17, quoted by D. Popescu, p. 102.

• 51

  Alexis Carrel, Man, the Unknown.

• 52

  Prof. Teodor M. Popescu, ‘Theology as a Science’, in Theological Studies, VI (1933), p. 11.

• 53

  Alexis Carrel, op. cit., p. 29.