Most Reverend Everard de Jong

Science and Christian Faith: Two Methods, Two Complementary Truths and Certitudes

Bishop Everardus Johannes de Jong is Auxiliary Bishop of Roermond (Netherlands) and Titular Bishop of Cariana. He is also Apostolic Administrator of the Military Ordinariate of Netherlands. Bishop de Jong studied electronics before entering the seminary. After his ordination to the priesthood, he studied two years of philosophy at the Angelicum in Rome, and three years in Washington, DC, at Catholic University. He did his doctorate on the scientific methodology of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), comparing his early Notebooks, dealing with Aristotle’s Analytica posteriora, with the writings of the Paduan Aristotelian philosopher Giacomo Zabarella (1533-1589). He is planning to open his Edith Stein Centre for Faith and Science soon (see: https://www.edithsteincentrum.nl).

Abstract

One of the tasks of a philosopher is to reflect on the meaning of terms. In this case, faith and science are two interesting concepts, which, when analyzed and laid bare, deliver some remarkable possibilities of contrast, complementary perspective, and overlap. The perceived meanings that seem to split them apart are that faith is associated with belief and opinion, and science with sigma 5 certitude. The latter is certain, the former not.

Science indeed progresses through intersubjectively verifiable experiments and mathematical models. What is more sure than that? However, scientists cannot but accept certain first principles – that they believe in – of the particular science that they study, and upon which the certainty of their whole scientific endeavor is built. These principles themselves are, within their particular science, not demonstrable (cfr. Aristotle and Gödel) but taken as evident. Saint John Henry Newman (1801-1890) saw this evidence based on the illative sense: a more or less unconscious process. Many scientists, moreover, think science is always developing, thereby implying that the present knowledge, as a basis for a future science, is not certain at all.

On the other hand, faith is often associated with belief in the sense of opinion, which is regarded as not certain. This association might be quite questionable, too. There are far more saints that have died for their faith than scientists for their science. The certitude of their religious knowledge of another spiritual world was far greater than their trust in physical facts (their biological death). Of course, there are various religions. And not all do have the same truth value. Some are based on myths, with deities that do not really exist, others on philosophical insights that are questionable. Of course, there can be only real certitude when we are convinced of true propositions. Christianity has an exceptional basis of this truth and certainty, because of both sensory perceptible miracles and inner supernatural experiences on the one hand and a logical coherence at the other. Even if we know that not everyone will be able to grasp the supernatural meaning of miracles, and inner experiences can be deceiving, both can be perceived as revelations of a higher reality through grace. As Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), in his Pensées, said: there is enough light for those who believe, and darkness who do not want to…

In the end we can conclude with Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica) that there are two types of sciences: the natural and the supernatural. Both have their own method. The first being based on natural experience and reason, the second founded on divine revelation. Both can be true. Sometimes they correct, sometimes they overlap and strengthen one another (cfr. archaeology, medicine, astronomy). And if so, they cannot contradict each other (cfr. St. Pope John Paul II, Fides et Ratio). Philosophy can often bridge the seemingly insurmountable differences, e.g. in case of proving the presence of teleology in nature as a bridge between the (quantum)mechanically described world of science and the perception of providence in the world of Christian faith.