"And yet it moves . . .” These words are often
attributed to the Italian physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei,
who supposedly muttered them as he left the presence of Archbishop Piccolomini--after
he was forced to recant his claim that the Earth moves around the Sun.
Although it is highly unlikely that Galileo actually uttered the phrase,
this apocryphal episode has become emblematic of a long-standing tension between Faith and Science.
But, is such tension warranted? Is the perceived opposition between biblical faith
and science an actual problem? Do parts of the Bible need to be corrected by science?
In this video, we will examine the apparent conflict and attempt to answer these questions.
The “Deposit of Faith,” understood as a collection of beliefs rooted in the
Bible and taught by the Catholic Church, is often thought to be irreconcilable with an
ever-growing body of empirical scientific knowledge about the natural world.
It is not uncommon to hear advocates of secularism assert an absolute dichotomy between the two.
Thinkers such as Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins, though not scientific
experts, provide rhetorically charged arguments about the manner in which Faith, especially
biblical Faith, is inimical to the project of scientific inquiry and advancement, and therefore,
that it ought to be set aside. Furthermore, they argue that because the Bible does not describe
how things really are in the physical world, it cannot be considered to be “true,” and at most
should only be studied as a cultural artifact. In sharp contrast, the Catholic Church
has been consistent in her pursuit of Truth by correlating the findings of scientific inquiry
with the results of biblical research and interpretation — a project that is effectively
an extension of the Augustinian enterprise of faith seeking understanding. The Church proceeds
from the conviction that there is only a perceived opposition between biblical faith and science, and
that this arises only because of misunderstandings and misreadings of the biblical text.
As countless Catholics from St. Augustine to Galileo himself have recognized, some effort
needs to be expended before one can truly understand the message of a biblical passage.
It is somewhat unreasonable to think that one can read and perfectly understand the
Bible immediately upon a first reading. In this regard, Galileo once wrote:
“Because it is obvious that two truths can never contradict each other,
it is the task of wise interpreters to strive to find the true meanings of scriptural passages
agreeing with those physical conclusions of which we are already certain and sure from clear sensory
experience or from necessary demonstrations.” What I want to highlight here is that for Galileo,
there was a basic syllogism at work: the major premise is that two truths
cannot contradict each other; the minor premise is that biblical faith and science
both contain sets of true propositions; and the conclusion is that the Bible and science do not
contradict one another, even if there is work to be done in reconciling them with one another.
Although this abstract argument is conceptually coherent, it does not
address the specifics of how, precisely, this reconciliation occurs. The question persists:
how do we adjudicate the vast differences between the Bible and science regarding the
origin and operation of the universe? Do we need to somehow “filter” the Bible by always adjusting
its descriptions and truth claims so that they cohere with a modern, scientific worldview?
If so, are we supposed to conclude on this basis that the Bible needs to be corrected by science?
And, more basically, should we still look at the Bible as a valid source of truth?
In order to understand the way in which the Church addresses these questions surrounding
the Bible’s compatibility with science, we must first consider what “the Bible” is
and how we are meant to interpret it. Let us, then, turn to the teaching of the Church as
articulated in her most complete and mature statement on Sacred Scripture, the dogmatic
constitution from Vatican II entitled Dei Verbum. In this document, the Church reaffirms that the
Bible is indeed “the Word of God,” in that it has God as its author. On the other hand, though,
she acknowledges that the Bible is a collection of writings that are attributed to real human authors
living in different times and places. Thus, the origin of the Bible is to be understood in
terms of a twofold authorship: divine and human. The Catholic Church describes this relationship
between the divine and human authors in terms of “Inspiration.” On a subjective level,
“inspiration” refers to the fact that “God chose men and while employed by Him they
made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they,
as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted” (DV 11).
On an objective level, inspiration refers to the fact that the Scriptures—the texts produced
by the human authors—always remain conducive to God’s plan of salvation. In other words, Sacred
Scripture remains a fitting instrument through which God continues to reveal the saving truth
of his Word to human beings, even today. This is what Dei Verbum expresses when it teaches us
that “the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error
that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation" (DV 11).
Now, this theological framework—that is, the doctrine of twofold authorship and inspiration
of Scripture—is absolutely vital for interpreting the Bible properly because it means that the truth
of Scripture can only be discovered by examining both the historically-conditioned writing of
the sacred author and what we might call its supra-historical, transcendent significance.
Investigating the historical dimensions of any particular passage requires taking account of
the precise historical situation in which it was written as well as the genre that is being used.
Investigating the transcendent significance of a passage entails a process of theological
reflection whereby one relates the individual passage to the whole of scripture as well as
to the Deposit of Faith that is handed on by the Church. Only by investigating a passage in both
contexts—the historical context of the human author and the canonical context of the divine
author—can one hope to interpret it accurately and in the same spirit in which it was written.
Now that we have a solid theoretical grasp of the doctrine of inspiration and twofold
authorship of the Bible, we can turn in the next video to consider more specifically what
the Bible has to teach us about God’s creation of, and ongoing relationship with, the universe.
For readings, podcasts, and more videos like this go to Aquinas101.com. While you're there,
be sure to sign up for one of our free video courses on Aquinas.
And don’t forget to like and share with your friends, because it matters what you think!