Pope John Paul II, now deceased, was conflicted regarding the proper scope of science. He saw science as “a pathway in which many have traveled away from faith.” According to Monsignor Albacete, the pope urged us “to look beyond our intellectual ideas because reason, which limits man to the visible world, will kill faith.”
The extent of that ambivalence was revealed by an article released today by the Associated Press [1]:
Famed physicist Stephen Hawking said Thursday that Pope John Paul II tried to discourage him and other scientists attending a cosmology conference at the Vatican from trying to figure out how the universe began.
The British scientist joked he was lucky the pope didn’t realize he had already presented a paper at the gathering suggesting how the universe was created.“I didn’t fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition like Galileo,” Hawking said in a lecture to a sold-out audience at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. John Paul died in 2005; Hawking did not say when the Vatican meeting was held.
Yes, our sense of curiosity might ultimately destroy us, but do we know enough to know that to any degree of certainty? What is the true “conservative” position, unlimited science or limited science? If the scope of science should be limited, how should it be limited and by whom? By non-scientists such as the pope? If limited completely, what could serve as an alternative to science? We are naturally curious animals, you see.
Some people agree with the pope, that we should put specific limits on at least some fields of science. Many fundamentalists, for example, bristle at current successful efforts of biologists to study humans as a type of animal. Others (including me) believe that the cure for dangerous or disorienting) knowledge is always more knowledge and better knowledge. I believe quite strongly in my position. On the other hand, intensity of belief is never a good indicator of whether a belief is accurate.
It’s ultimately a bet it seems? There’s no way to answer this question with certainty. Any day now, a new strain of a laboratory virus might wipe out half of the human population. Science has already unleashed powerful forces (e.g., chemicals that poison our environment and nuclear weapons) that can damage bodies and minds. But history shows that numerous destructive superstitions have been peeled away thanks to the scientific method. Science has also taught us not to torture many kinds of sick people or accuse them of being possessed. Many of them can now be treated humanely. Science can be used for good purposes and bad. How will the next scientific discovery be used? We don’t yet know.
Religion also has it’s plusses and minuses . In additon to many awful massacres and persecutions religions have caused, religions have also inspired countless people to engage in innumerable acts of kindness and generosity. What should we do about anything that has such potential for great harm AND great benefits? And who decides?
I’m not sure what lesson is taught by this recent revelation regarding Pope John Paul II. I found it interesting that the Pope appeared to be afraid that we might be close to a point where we knew too much cosmology. I don’t believe there is such a point.
Here’s my question: Is there really a way to resolve this dispute or are these two positions merely two conflicting perspectives of faith?
Print this post [2]
[3]