|
True religion and true science, recognizing the limits of the sphere
of their competence, can never have contradictions between then. If such
contradiction occurs, it means that either religion or science betrayed its
principles and became pseudo-religion or pseudo-science.
Faith and
knowledge in their very essence are inseparable. It is impossible to surmise
that a believing person did not think about the object of his faith and did not
know what he believed in; it is impossible that a philosopher or a scholar,
while investigating, did not believe, at least, in his intellect.
Knowledge is as
necessary and lawful for religion as faith is for science. Faith can be indispensable
where knowledge is inadequate and helpless. Anything learned through faith
should not enter into contradiction without knowledge. True, a contradiction is
often imagined. Christian Apologetics, therefore, does engage in resolving
these imaginary contradictions between religion and science.
The more deeply
and thoroughly man studies the sciences and knows the limits of their
competence, the more philosophical and theological culture man possesses.
Likewise, the more deeply his religious faith is developed, the fewer the
imaginary contradictions between faith and knowledge and between religion and
science. Of course, faith plays a decidedly greater role in religion than in
science. But this is explained primarily by the different objectives of
religion and science, each demanding different methods of study. The objective
of science is exceptionally elementary in comparison to the objective of
religion. Knowledge of the chemical composition of a rock, and knowledge of the
meaning and aim of the life of the world and of man, have
a different meaning for us.
Religion answers
the highest and most intricate inquiries of man’s spirit, which science is
absolutely helpless in answering. The more highly developed religion is, the
more it nurtures a love for knowledge; not, of course, vain knowledge, but true
knowledge, which is called spiritual wisdom.
The ancient
Fathers and teachers of the Church attached great value even to pagan philosophy.
In the words of Clement of Alexandria: “Ancient philosophy was the world of
godly foresight [in the history of the preparation of the ancient world for
Christianity]. It was a necessity for the Greeks as a guide to truth … a
child-guide of the Hellenes to Christ, reflecting in itself
the truth even if obscurely and not completely, but in part.”
St. Basil the
Great, who was a scholar, philosopher and a theologian, said: “In philosophical
teaching there was a shadow of revealed truths, a pre-portrayal of Truth shown
in the Holy Scripture, a reflection of the light of Christ’s truth, similar to
the reflection of the sun in water.” Of the relationship between faith and
knowledge, St. Basil the Great also asserted: “In science faith precedes
knowledge.” This is profoundly true, since everything most fundamental and initial
in scientific knowledge is impossible to prove and is accepted as a basic
principle by an act of faith.
St. Gregory the
Theologian wrote: “I think that everyone having intelligence will recognize
external learning as good, even though many Christians, because of poor
understanding, abhor it as an evil art causing a remoteness
to God.”
If the great
Fathers of the Church regarded honest scientific and philosophic knowledge with
such deep respect, then, in their turn, the greatest scientific scholars
regarded religious faith with deep esteem and reverence. True knowledge is
incompatible with pride. Humility is an indispensable condition in the
possibility of perceiving Truth. Only a humble scholar, like a humble religious
thinker, always remembering the words of the Saviour Without Me you can do nothing (John 15:5), and I am the way and the truth and the life
(John 14:6), is capable of going in the correct way (method) toward perceiving
Truth. For God resisteth
the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble
(James 4:6).
It is of great
significance that on the church of the Moscow University
shone the words: “The Light of Christ enlightens all.”
Religion
acknowledges miracles. But some scientists reject the possibility of miracles,
regarding them as contradictory to the laws of nature. Often such scholars
assert that miracles appear to be either fiction, fraud or a phenomenon which
science cannot at present explain, but will certainly be explained
scientifically later on. What is unintelligible today might be intelligible and
explainable tomorrow.
Science, setting
for itself the problem of an exact, objective proof of phenomena investigated
experimentally, is fully correct in approaching miraculous phenomena in an
attempt to scientific enlightenment. It is without doubt true that often
so-called miraculous phenomena prove to be not at all miraculous. A fiction or
deceit in such cases is lawfully revealed through a scientific method of
verification. It is also undoubtedly true that many phenomena, not understood
at the present time, may be scientifically explained at some future time. But
the problem of a miracle is not fully explained by this.
It is necessary,
therefore, first of all, to define what in religion is called a miracle. A miracle
is a phenomenon which is unexplainable not only at the present time but, in
general, can never be fully explained merely from a scientific point of view.
The philosophical exploration of a miracle, therefore, arrives at the question:
Is a miracle possible? In other words, is such a phenomenon possible which
cannot be explained from the point of view of science?
Very often
atheistically and materialistically inclined scholars say that every phenomenon
of nature and every event occurring in the world can be explained by the laws
of nature alone, without the help of God or of miracles. This is not correct.
At least two cases are not explainable by the laws of nature alone: 1) the very
existence of the world or nature and 2) the laws of nature themselves. Therefore,
the existence of the world and its laws are miracles.
Who created the
world and the laws of nature? There are not and there cannot be any logical
obstacles for the belief that the cause of the world and its law is God.
The English
philosopher Berkeley (1685-1753), gave this reasoning concerning the above. The laws of
nature, he said, are those means through which God governs the world, and the
actions of these laws of nature are actions of God Himself. As a result, where
God finds it necessary according to His intentions or plans, He can change
these constant methods of His activity in the world so that a phenomenon will
occur which is not explainable by the laws of nature alone; that is, an actual
miracle will occur. Almighty God can, whenever He chooses, even change “the
order of nature.”
Very often we
may happen to hear it said that a miracle contradicts the laws of nature, but
the word “contradicts” is out of place here. We will try to analyze this
question carefully.
Let us suppose
that on earth everything exists except man and his consciousness. In such a
world can a steam engine appear? Of course, it is impossible! But why? All the component parts of the steam engine exist
in the world (steel, copper, iron, wood, water, etc.). Is it possible that by
accidental motion of the particles of which a steam engine is composed, over a
long period of time (millions of years), that a steam engine could fabricate
itself just by chance? No, this is impossible. Actually, for a steam engine to
appear, the intelligence of the man who designed and made it is a necessity.
Without the aid of consciousness, the steam engine is a miracle, even though
all its components exist in nature.
As it is, this
miracle (the appearance of an engine) does not contradict the laws of nature.
All the laws of nature remain inviolate. But they — the laws of inert
unconscious nature — are overcome by a new factor, consciousness. In order to
explain the miracle of mechanics, a recognition of a
“higher factor,” consciousness, is necessary.
Now we turn to
consciousness itself. Can consciousness be explained by inert unconscious laws
of nature? If these laws could not create a steam engine, they would have even
less of a chance to create something incomparably more complicated —
consciousness. (Such nonsense is assumed only by materialists who regard
consciousness as a product of evolving matter.) Even consciousness cannot
explain itself. Consciousness can create a steam engine, but it cannot create
itself. It follows, then, that consciousness is also a miracle. To explain this
miracle it is necessary to accept an even more complicated, higher and more
complete principle, which causes such phenomena as consciousness. This higher
cause of consciousness (a higher Intellect) is God, faith in Whom
is not impeded by anything found in science of philosophy.
If man’s
consciousness, intervening with inert and unconscious nature and overcoming it,
can make such things (miracles) as steam engines, then the higher divine
Intellect, having created man’s consciousness and inert nature, directly
intervening in inert nature and overcoming it (by powers unknown to us of His
creative, divine Intellect), can create phenomena even more greatly
complicated, for instance, to transform water into wine or to resurrect the
dead. In these phenomena the laws of nature are not violated; a miracle does
not contradict the laws of nature, but overcomes them by means of higher forces
unknown to us.
When scholars
came to Newton and expressed perplexity in regard to his belief in the future
resurrection of bodies, he answered in the following manner: Taking a pile of
copper and steel filings and mixing them together, he offered to separate the
steel from the copper. Then he took a large magnet and with its help he quickly
separated the steel filings from the copper. The Lord God evidently has forces
which are more complicated and unknown to us (special magnets), with the help
of which He can perform a resurrection of the bodies of all the dead at the
future fearful Judgment. Nothing interfered with Newton’s belief in
this.
|