Truth Cannot Contradict Truth

by Professor John Delos

Many people think that there is an irreconcilable conflict between religious views and the theory of evolution.  Actually most of the large denominations of Christianity and a large number of Jews see no major conflict.  Only those who think that the Bible provides a precise scientific account of pre-history have a problem.  It is worthwhile to examine the statement of Pope John Paul II.  Within Christianity worldwide, Catholics constitute the largest group, and unlike some other denominations, for better or for worse, the Catholic Church often speaks with one voice.  Moreover the Vatican sponsors an Academy of Sciences that regularly considers issues of science and religion.  Below is a speech made by Pope John Paul II on October 22, 1996 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.  The speech is followed by some commentary.

Truth cannot contradict truth

With great pleasure I address cordial greeting to you, Mr. President, and to all of you who constitute the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, on the occasion of your plenary assembly....

1. In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the academy's refoundation, I would like to recall the intentions of my predecessor Pius XI, who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research, and thereby to assist him in his reflections.  He asked those whom he called the church's "senatus scientificus" to serve the truth. I again extend this same invitation to you today, certain that we will be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the church and science....

2. I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the church, since revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth.... During this plenary session, you are undertaking a "reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium," starting with the identification of the principal problems created by the sciences and which affect humanity's future. With this step you point the way to solutions which will be beneficial to the whole human community. In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications give rise to new questions. The better the church's knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact. Consequently, in accordance with her specific mission she will be able to offer criteria for discerning the moral conduct required of all human beings in view of their integral salvation.

3. Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the...church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence.... In his encyclical "Humani Generis" (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation.... It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say.

4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical "Humani Generis" considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally rescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as something more than just a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.

And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.

5. The church...is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29).... This doctrine...is pivotal to Christian thought.... [M]an is "the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake".... In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created.... But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ.... It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God.... Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.

7. In conclusion, I would like to call to mind a Gospel truth which can shed a higher light on the horizon of your research into the origins and unfolding of living matter. The Bible in fact bears an extraordinary message of life. It gives us a wise vision of life inasmuch as it describes the loftiest forms of existence.... [I]n St. John's Gospel life refers to the divine light which Christ communicates to us. We are called to enter into eternal life, that is to say, into the eternity of divine beatitude. To warn us against the serious temptations threatening us, our Lord quotes the great saying of Deuteronomy: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Dt 8:3; cf. Mt 4:4). Even more, "life" is one of the most beautiful titles which the Bible attributes to God. He is the living God.

I cordially invoke an abundance of divine blessings upon you and upon all who are close to you.

Commentary

The Pope's statements such as “New knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as something more than just a hypothesis” are carefully formulated.  It is not the business of any church to declare a scientific proposition to be true or false.  The theory of evolution by natural selection is, of course, a theory, but it is a very well-supported theory.  The Pope is saying that the theory has a solid observational foundation, but he properly stops short of making a papal declaration that the theory is true.

Obviously there is a conflict between observations supporting evolutionary theory and current attempts to interpret the Bible as literal scientific truth.  But the real, intellectually interesting conflict is between traditional Jewish and Christian perspectives and the philosophical views called “scientific materialism” or “naturalism”.  These latter views hold that the material world is all that exists, and that science provides the only possible type of knowledge about the material world.  These views are emphatically rejected by the Pope.

“If the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God....”  The Pope again avoids making a scientific proclamation and instead makes a theological proposition.  This sentence brings out the dualistic philosophy that is part of traditional Christian thought.  This view holds that we have a body, which is subject to laws of chemistry, physics and biology, and which can be studied by scientific means.  However, it holds that each of us also has a soul, which is distinct from the body, and which is not accessible to scientific study:  “The . . . transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of [scientific] observation.”

A portion of this perspective is, I think, indisputable.  Every person engages in many actions that are manifestations of qualities which are not subject to scientific measurement.  We show courage, love, generosity, fortitude, friendliness, patience, loyalty, and many other virtues and their opposites.  None of these virtues are subject to laboratory measurement, but few people would therefore deny their existence.  The virtues have some kind of existence that transcends the world of atoms, molecules, masses and forces.  It may be appropriate to think of them as elements in a world of “spirit”, or (in Plato’s theory) projections of spiritual entities into our physical and material world.

There is an unsolved problem with this dualistic perspective.  How are the material world and the spiritual world connected?  If we comfort a crying baby, and feel that “we acted out of love”, how did the thing in the spiritual world (love) connect with and move the actin and myosin in our muscles?  The forces between atoms have been studied in great detail...  There is no room in scientific descriptions of any motion (such as picking up a baby) for descriptions of spiritual entities (such as love).

A twentieth-century attempt to reconcile scientific materialism with spiritual concepts is the philosophical school called “ordinary language analysis”.  In this theory, when a material system reaches a certain level of complexity, then different types of description can become appropriate.  A circuit engineer and a website designer talk about a computer screen in very different ways.  They have little language in common, and one might not even understand the other, but both of their descriptions may be correct.  Similarly, for humans, we can give very different types of description of an event: “I picked up the baby by exerting a force somewhat larger than that of gravity” or “I just wanted to comfort him”.  Both may be true, neither is the whole story.  In “ordinary language analysis” it is legitimate to talk about a person’s “spirit” or “soul”, but not as a separate, immaterial entity – not as a ghost in the machinery of his body.  Instead, when we use such words, we are fundamentally talking about the person’s characteristic patterns of behavior.

The Pope has a limited toleration for this perspective.  “[T]heories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth.”  The core word here is “mere”.  The statement “She is one of the most loving people I ever met” might be connected to the molecular structure of her body by the statement “Her neurons have a high density of oxytocin receptors”.  However, the Pope insists that reduction to chemistry as the final correct description is “incompatible with the truth”.  He is expressing the traditional Christian view that love may have chemical correlates, but it has an existence separate from and independent of any particular embodiment.  Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote that Jesus expressed the same concept of permanent existence of spiritual essences: “Heaven and Earth may pass away, but my words will not pass away.” 

The Pope does not address the problem of connection between matter and spirit, but seems to be comfortable with traditional Platonic Christian dualism, and in that framework he emphasizes the spiritual dimension.  He encourages us to seek “a wise vision of life”, and to habitually engage in actions leading to “the loftiest forms of existence.”

Further Reading:

God’s Utility Function, Richard Dawkins, Scientific American

Dogmatic scientific materialism by “Darwin’s Rotweiler”.  Dawkins’ claim that “only the scientifically ignorant” think seriously about ultimate purposes to life is contrary to observed fact.

The Concept of Mind, Gilbert Ryle

A scientific materialist comes to terms with spiritual language by thinking of it as a different level of description.  Ryle is the original source of the philosophical school called “ordinary language analysis.”

Plato’s Republic

In the allegory of the cave, Plato postulates the existence of another kind of reality, of which we see only shadows.  This idea was integrated into Christian thought by the first century theologian Origen.

First Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 13

In this passage, "love" does not mean romantic love (which is also sorely lacking in our society).  The Greek word "agape" means the frame of mind that Buddhists call "mindfulness", or "loving-kindness" -- active caring and helpfulness in the lives of others.  You can read about it in Thich Nhat Hanh's Living Buddha, Living Christ.  So forget philosophy – these writings tell us how to live.

by Marynn Skelton

I saw you today. I knew you because you whisper to me, your voice echoing behind printed text or on the wind. I can’t really see you – I’m not fast enough – but you call for me to follow your voice.  The draw is like that of running water or true North.  Sun light in the morning announces your triumph and the stars boast of your magnificence. Their silver glittering amidst tree branches tells me that you are creative, a master jeweler, to so bedeck the leaves and twigs with diamonds that outweigh the very earth we walk on.

When the goose by the pond sung out in a minor key, I heard your music fly. And I thought I heard you smile when my sister woke me from a noon nap with pop tunes belted at the top of her lungs. Your song plays on through silence and the bustle of the market square. Even in the thunder of the train track or roar of a crowd, waves rushing to be pounded by the wind against the shore, your piece plays along and far above the hum. Gently, as on strings, now proclaiming, like the brass, Joy! Joy and Light and Love and Calm not matched or overwhelmed by any other sound. Singing it, dancing it, speaking it,

Joy! (it echoes twice)

The King, the King has won!

He comes (an echo here)

He loves (crescendo there)

He lives!

and all the voices rise and fade as my attention wanders. But then, they aren’t singing just for me, now, are they?

I thought I saw your hand, felt it, even, the day my heart was sick and my shoulders sore from holding in the pain. It was you, wasn’t it, who sat with me on that cold, hard, dirty floor while I sobbed, and rubbed my back until the trembling ceased? Didn’t you dry my eyes, lift my chin and tell me not to fear? Well, no. I know the name of that girl; I recall her face. But you were there. How else could she have known?

You are more subtle, sometimes, than even the wind.  I see a breeze by what it’s doing; a gale both by what it does and what it leaves behind. Only years and weeks and days later do I know you by your actions. "What was then?" and "where is now?" and "how in the world did I get here from there?" begin to shadow cast your presence in my day to day. I laugh to think about the paths you didn’t let me take, and the ones you had to trail-blaze when my own choice went awry.  You always seem to know exactly where I am, and how to get me back to what is better.

I glimpsed you tonight when my eyelids shut gently and the world wasn’t all on my shoulders. For the thousandth time I heard you whisper “Rest well,” and drifted off, knowing that you stood near me.

Holy is the Lord

by Stephen Dause

Recently at a showing of The Secret Garden by Sinfonicron, I read a statement in the program about the play’s portrayal of life after death.  As the director stated it, their version of the play promoted the concept that people live after death as spirits, and those who wish to interact with them can.  Implicit was the notion that those who do not believe in them simply do not see them.  This caught my attention.  Her decision to believe in ghosts seemed somewhat similar to my belief in God.

The two decisions are similar on three levels: a philosophical level, an emotional level, and a spiritual level.  On the philosophical level, both the decision to believe in God and the decision to believe in ghosts do not explicitly reject reason but do not always seem to hold it in very high regard.  After all, unless you believe what some tour guides in Colonial Williamsburg tell you, there is no evidence of ghosts.  Maybe I should watch “Ghost Hunters” on the Sci Fi channel and be proven wrong, but let’s assume that such evidence of ghosts is merely evidence of the fallibility of human perception.  Then philosophically, there is a choice to be made:  to believe in the existence of something for which there is no verified evidence either way.

Similarly, on the grounds of empirical evidence, God’s existence is hard to prove.  Arguments from religious experience can be countered with assertions of simple gullibility and wishful thinking.  Of course, there are other philosophical reasons to believe in God. To my knowledge, that is not the case with ghosts.  The existence of human suffering and evil in the world is often used as part of a philosophical argument that God does not exist.  Some people assert that one or more of those arguments are sound. Others argue that they are fallacious.  I will not go into them here.  Instead, I will simply note that the two decisions are similar on a philosophical level in one way:  direct evidence is lacking.

Not all choices are made with reason alone, however.  To the chagrin of people like Socrates, emotion also plays a part in many a human decision.  In The Secret Garden, one of the main characters believed that the spirit of his dead wife continued to exist, at least in spirit form.  He certainly wanted her to exist; he missed her very much.  And it might be that if he did not want her to exist, she could have existed anyway, and he wouldn’t notice.  Or it could be that he was seriously delusional.

Similarly, the idea of an all-loving, all-knowing God appeals to billions of people.  They want it to be true because the idea is comforting.  It gives them hope and a reason to live.  If you believe in absolute truth, then God’s existence is either real or it is not.  Either those people are deceiving themselves or they have discovered an awesome truth of which those who believe otherwise are ignorant.  Yet it must be acknowledged that the emotional factor of a decision, while it is interesting to consider, has no bearing on actually knowing the truth.

The third level on which a belief in ghosts and a belief in God are similar is the spiritual level.  This is, I believe, different from either the rational or the emotional aspect of belief.  It easily leads to the discussion of notions such as a soul and the essential difference between animals and humans.  I know some people who believe in ghosts.  They have no personal evidence that would point them in that direction.  They have not given me a sound argument, convincing me of their existence.  As far as I know, they are not in an emotional state in which a belief in ghosts would be of any benefit.  Yet they still do.  They have, as it were, faith in ghosts’ existence.

The story of Job in the Bible is somewhat similar.  The man had enjoyed many years of wealth and a great family.  Then tragedy struck, and he lost everything.  Moreover, he was in extreme physical pain.  He previously believed in a good, loving God—something that was not hard to do, given his luxurious and satisfying life.  Yet, even after all of this was taken away from him, he still believed.  He did not consider himself comforted by this belief. In fact, he was very angry at the God in whom he believed.  Perhaps he was really comforting himself with hope that his situation would change by God's hand; perhaps it was his upbringing; or perhaps he was just stupid—yet for whatever reason, he still believed.  This is a portrait of faith, a spiritual decision to believe in something for which there is little to no empirical evidence.  Emotion and reason are certainly factors, but I believe that the spirit of a person also determines a great many of their decisions.

So, what of it?  Do I believe in ghosts?  No.  I simply don’t have faith in them, and I think they’re silly.  Do I believe in God?  Yes.  What’s the difference?  Well, as I mentioned earlier, there are arguments for the existence of a God, and they persuade me.  Yet that is not the point of this article.  Even though I recognize that these arguments cannot convince very smart people and they are at times less convincing to me, I still have faith.  My spirit inclines me to believe in God.  Perhaps what I call faith others may call my emotional need disguised by another name.  There have been times, however, when I was not very convinced of arguments for God’s existence and I believed that I would feel great emotional release if I could stop believing.  Yet I didn’t.  It is impossible for you or me to know the actual reason I continued to believe at that point.  Yet my experience leads to me call it something other than a poor philosophy or an emotional delusion.

I have quite briefly discussed three different levels on which one believes or disbelieves in God.  Sometimes all three coincide, and sometimes one agrees on one level but is unconvinced on another.  Yet when discussing reasons to believe or not believe, I think it important to clarify as much as possible what is being talked about.  Belief is a profound thing, and it should be taken seriously.

2 Poems

by Lauren Bleam

Coffee Shop Conversation

 “All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full.” –Eccl. 1:7

I have coffee, you have tea.

All streams flow into the sea.

Knees jostle under the table,

yet the sea is never full.

You say nothing comes free,

as I ask you to pass the brie.

You are caught up in your own navel,

yet the sea is never full.

There is much we need to be—

 our talk comes to null.

All streams flow into the sea,

yet the sea is never full.

 Sunday Morning

 Glory be to the Father

I get up and call my father,

who is graying over economies,

over money lost, change

that slipped through the cracks.

“Wine lifestyle on a beer budget.”

and to the Son

The sun is just rising

and the morning is chilly.

It is my brother’s birthday

but I am not at home.

I pull my sweater closer.

and to the Holy Ghost.

I burn my toast—

put jam on it anyway,

eat off the plate

with a crack in the shape

of a question.

As it was in the beginning

I look out my window:

sun radiant on dew.

But I am drained.

A day to rest

with no rest.

is now and ever shall be,

I drink coffee and worry

about making ends meet—

joining two sides of me:

“passion and perfectionism”

so the seam can’t be seen.

world without end.

Sometimes it seems this will never cease:

I will bite my fingernails for eternity.

But after sunrise,

I find new lines

tucked behind my dresser.

Amen, Amen.

I step out of the shower,

wet hair and cold feet.

Today I will dry in air.

 by Andrew Wilcox

 You don’t have to look long or hard to find someone who dislikes or struggles with mathematics.  Whether it is algebra, geometry, or calculus, math seems to be one of the most disliked subjects in our education system.  However, if you can look past the struggles, you will see a subject covered in the fingerprints of our creator.  Math continually point us to our God and maker in its parallels with our faith as well as its remarkable fit in how the world works.

So often, the world we live in feels complex and complicated.  Everything feels uncertain and it seems impossible to see how our lives will turn out.  Isn’t this how a math problem starts out?  At first the task looks complex and complicated and the solution seems very distant.  However, in every math problem there is a solution that is never going to change.   No matter how many times we perform the calculation, two plus two will always equal four. A square will always have four sides, and the derivative of X² will always be 2X.  The laws of mathematics are unchangeable. No matter how complex a problem is, the laws can always be used to find the correct answer. 

But life isn’t a math problem, right?  While it may be a stretch to compare life to a math problem, we can still learn about ourselves and life in general from reflecting on our mathematical intuition.  While the world is uncertain with ever changing rulers, nations, and laws, there is one set of laws -- God’s laws -- which remains constant.  Just as mathematicians find peace in knowing there is a solution to their complex problem, we can find peace in God’s constant laws and never-ending love in a life that is often complicated.  Jesus promises: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”  We can rest in the fact that this condition is always true, it is never changing!

Math is also a perfect fit for the world that God created.   In physics, mathematical equations describe physical phenomenon. In chemistry, mathematical ratios determine the chemical makeup of a compound. In biology, rates and differential equations explain how a population will grow.  How is it that the position, speed, and acceleration of an object can be represented in a few simple kinematics equations?  Why do populations grow in such a way that they can be mathematically modeled?   These are just a few examples of how mathematics fits this universe like a glove.

The rules of motion are another example.  One of Newton’s laws states that an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.  This law allows us to mathematically describe what will happen to the speed of every object not acted upon by an outside force.  But why?  If the universe was formed out of completely random natural causes, then why should the entire universe’s motion be governed by this law?  Why should mathematics be able to explain it?  The idea that the formation of the universe was random doesn’t fit the evidence around us.  As the physicist Eugene Wigner said, “The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics to the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve." 

            It seems as though every time man discovers something new, the new phenomenon can be modeled or explained by our existing mathematical knowledge.  On the rare occasion that it cannot be explained, we don’t have to wait long before a new branch of mathematics, consistent with all of the mathematical laws before it, is discovered to explain the phenomenon.  So why is mathematics such a perfect fit for the universe we live in?  I am sure some will say that it is just coincidence, but that seems like a great leap of faith considering the evidence around us.  It takes a much smaller leap of faith to say that the reason math fits the universe like a glove is because the universe has an intelligent creator.  It is not a coincidence that the universe works in such a mathematical way. It is the perfect creation of the ultimate mathematician, God himself.