Scientist and Christian, An Excellent Combination

 By Metropolitan Chrysostomos III of Mani

(Homily Delivered on June 30, 2022)

The Holy Unmercenaries Kosmas and Damian, whom we celebrate today, came from Rome and lived in the 3rd century. By studying medical science, they cured many people and even animals from their diseases. They did not receive money as a reward. They were unmercenaries. However, they would tell the healed to believe in Christian teaching.

Both were martyrs for Christ. They were even called Wonderworkers because even after their martyrdom they performed many miracles for the sick. In the Protaton of the Holy Mountain there is a wonderful fresco of them, a work of Panselinos of the 15th century.

These Saints also show us the value of the cooperation of religion and science. They were doctors, but that did not prevent them from being faithful Christians. This is a beautiful ideal. A proper scientist and a conscientious Christian. An excellent combination.

Homily Concerning Those Who Consider Science Incompatible With Religion (St. Luke of Simferopol)

Homily on Science and Religion

By St. Luke, Archbishop of Simferopol and All Crimea

(Delivered on May 30, 1948)

 

"Considering modern science, as it was developed by Lamarck and Darwin, we find a direct opposite, an absolute inconsistency between the statements of science and the statements of religion in the field of basic questions of being and cognition. Therefore, an enlightened and consistent mind cannot recognize both at the same time. He needs to make a choice."

So wrote 65 years ago the famous German zoologist Haeckel, an ardent admirer of Darwin, in his then sensational book "The Riddle of the Universe", which, as it seemed, completely refuted religion. He says that all enlightened minds must choose between science and religion, reject one or the other. He considers it necessary to reject religion, for the enlightened minds of science will not be rejected.

Doctor of Physics at Stanford University Becomes Orthodox Monk in Crete

Hieromonk Athenagoras, 34, is a Doctor of Physics from Stanford University in California. Born in Heraklion, Crete, he studied at his hometown and came to the United States for postgraduate studies, where he worked as a researcher. In 2016 he returned home and finally resigned at the Monastery of Saint George in Epanosifi, and a year later, on November 3, 2017, he was tonsured a monk and ordained a deacon.

Faith and Science According to the First American Female Astronomer, Maria Mitchell

Maria Mitchell (August 1, 1818-June 28, 1889), the first American woman astronomer, was the first professor of Astronomy at Vassar College and the first director of Vassar's observatory. Honored internationally, she was one of the most celebrated American scientists of the 19th century.

Maria was the third of ten children born to Quakers Lydia Coleman and William Mitchell on Nantucket Island, Massachusetts. William Mitchell, an amateur astronomer, shared with his children what he considered to be the evidence of God in the natural world. Only Maria was interested enough to learn the mathematics of astronomy. At age 12 Maria counted the seconds for her father while they observed a lunar eclipse. At 14 she could adjust a ship's chronometer, a valuable skill in a whaling port. She preferred to stand on the roof searching the skies to gathering with the family or friends in the parlor.

God and Science (3 of 3)

...continued from part two.

Against Supernaturalism

The value of the Trinity thus described is wholly compatible with a scientific account of the world in which the lineaments and workings of natural processes in space and in time are accounted for without recourse to God as a direct causal agent. If, for example, we believed that hurricanes happened because God sneezed, then what would be the point and practical advantage of meteorology?

We must say rather that the lineaments and processes of the natural order are in and of themselves signatures of the divine. These signatures cannot be shaped by a calligraphy of intelligent design without invoking the capricious intervention of a episodically active god in an otherwise chaotic and frequently fragile and dangerous evolutionary process. Such extrinsic and invasive actions of a god from beyond the Cosmos—the classic form of supernaturalism—neuter both science and theology. The divine signatures are rather to be found in the beauty, elegance and fittingness of the natural operations themselves which are both emergent in their complexity and convergent in their function. Consciousness, for example, is a fluid and dynamic artifact of emergent complexity; physiological commonality a functional convergence of evolution. Neither is a deterministic process, but each nonetheless has its own teleology (that to which it tends), notwithstanding the chaotic and random factors involved. God, then, only acts “from beyond” when, ex nihilo, He creates space and time itself.

God and Science (2 of 3)

...continued from part one.

Something from Nothing

The Jews did not know God because they philosophised about Him, but rather because they had entered into a relationship with the One who had made a friend with Abraham and the patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. His ways had been made known in salvation and judgement; and this required from them faithfulness and love, repentance and hope. The expression of this relationship was a personal and existential knowledge of the Creator, utterly transcendent to anything created—literally the Uncreated One. This transcendent Being they came to know as above and beyond infinity, space, time, created reality itself, was so sacred that even his Name could not be spoken. Later in Israel’s history, and particularly after the emergence of the Wisdom writings in the post-Exilic environment of Hellenism, the people of God began to reflect more thoroughly on the presuppositions and implications of their faith in an utterly transcendent Creator. There is then a marked progression and refinement in understanding for example between Genesis, which only considers creation from the starting point of pre-formed matter (1:2), and 2 Maccabees 7:28, which follows the received faith to its logical conclusion, namely that the Cosmos was made out of nothing (ex nihilo) or rather, more properly, out of that which had no being.

God and Science (1 of 3)

By Archpriest Gregory Hallam

It has become a truism for many in the West that faith and science belong to two conflicting world views. An atheist will say that science is rational, based on empirical observation and self-correcting as new theories eventually modify or replace old out-dated ones. Faith, on the other hand, is held to be irrational, defined by static religious texts and immovable religious authorities, which can be neither challenged nor revised.There is another view that regards this conflict as a needless clash of two Titans of similar breed: fundamentalism in religion and triumphalism in science.

Rather than a genuine standoff between two antagonists we have instead a phony war based on a cartoon version of both disciplines and, therefore, a misunderstanding of the true purpose of each. These two approaches to Reality—science and religion—are actually complementary, this other view holds, and not at all mutually exclusive. Orthodox Christianity shares a common platform with these more positive voices, but with its own distinctive approach. A perspective from history will help.

Gallup Poll Shows Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low in U.S.

A new Gallup poll released Monday shows some exciting developments in the faith and science conversation. In a question used since 1982, Gallup asks U.S. adults to choose between the following views of human origins:

1. Human beings developed over millions of years, but God guided this process.

2. Human beings developed over millions of years, but God had no part in this process.

3. God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

Why Science Does Not Disprove God

Amir D. Aczel
Apr 27, 2014
TIME Magazine

A number of recent books and articles would have you believe that—somehow—science has now disproved the existence of God. We know so much about how the universe works, their authors claim, that God is simply unnecessary: we can explain all the workings of the universe without the need for a Creator.

And indeed, science has brought us an immense amount of understanding. The sum total of human knowledge doubles roughly every couple of years or less. In physics and cosmology, we can now claim to know what happened to our universe as early as a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, something that may seem astounding. In chemistry, we understand the most complicated reactions among atoms and molecules, and in biology we know how the living cell works and have mapped out our entire genome. But does this vast knowledge base disprove the existence of some kind of pre-existent outside force that may have launched our universe on its way?

Orthodox Faith and the Natural Sciences

By Protopresbyter Fr. George Metallinos

1. In Orthodoxy, the antithesis – and the conflict – between faith (or theology) and science is not something self-evident. It is only a pseudo-problem, because Orthodoxy in its authentic expression and realization is likewise a science, however with a different cognitive subject.

Orthodox Theology is a science and in fact a positive science, because it has a cognitive subject and it also implements a scientific method. In Orthodox tradition, two kinds of cognition or wisdom are discernible (from the Apostle Paul, James the brother to Christ, through to Gregory Palamas and Eugenios Voulgaris etc.). There is the cognition of the Uncreated (God) and the cognition of the created (the world, as something fashioned or created). The cognition of God (“theognosy”) is supernatural and is attained through the synergy of man with God. The cognition of the world is natural and is acquired through scientific research. The method for attaining the cognition of the Divine is the “nepsis” (soberness) and “catharsis” (cleansing) of the heart (Psalm 50:12 and Matthew 5:8). Theology, therefore, is the gnosiology and the cognition of the Uncreated. Science is the gnosiology and the cognition of the created. In the science of faith, cognizance is called “theosis” (deification) and is the sole objective of Orthodoxy. All else is only the means to that end.

Metr. Kallistos of Diokleia on Science and the Theory of Evolution

By Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia

Religion and science are working on different levels and are following different methods, and using different kinds of evidence. And, indeed, what each is saying is relevant for the other, but we mustn’t confuse these two levels of discourse. The scientist is working from the evidence of our senses, the theologian, the religious thinker, is using the data of revelation, scripture. So here are two different forms of evidence, and two different ways of arguing. As I see it, there need not be any conflict between religion and science, if each is properly understood, because they are answering different kinds of questions. The scientist is telling us what there is in the universe, and he is also saying, as far as we can discover, how the universe came to exist in the form which it now has, by what stages it developed. In the religious sphere, we are asking why was the world created, and what is the purpose of our life on earth. Now, in my view, those are not strictly scientific questions, and the scientist does not claim to answer them, though what he tells us about how the world is and how it came to be the way it is may help us to answer these religious questions. Some scientists would say that the question: Why is there a universe? Where did it come from? What existed before the Big Bang? some scientists would say that these are simply non-questions, which shouldn’t be asked. But in fact these are questions which as human beings we want to ask and need to ask. But I don’t think the scientist, simply on the basis of his scientific discipline, can answer them.

Patriarch Kirill of Russia: "It is naive to read Genesis as the textbook on anthropogenesis"

August 2, 2016

Interfax

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia believes science and religion do not contradict each other, as they respond to different questions, and there is no sense in searching an answer to spiritual questions in works on Physics or Biology.

“We can say that science, religion and art are different ways of examining the world and man, of examining the world by man. Each of them has its own instruments, its own methods of learning. They respond to their own questions,” the primate said at his meeting with scientists in Sarov.

Science and Faith (Neil deGrasse Tyson)

The astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson debunks the notion that scientists cannot be believers.

Faith and Science: Contradictory or Complementary Meanings?

By Michael G. Houlis,

Theologian, Professor, Special Associate of the Holy Metropolis of Syros

Over the past few years, there has been an unnecessary return to essays and articles at the forefront of research, even by various positive scientists, on the old, misunderstood topic of the “enmity” between Science and Faith, or, Logic and Religion.

This phenomenon is being fuelled once again, mostly by representatives of the positive sciences, with quite a number of new and more heated books opposed to Christianity, but also by circles of the more conservative Protestants of America, who are opposed to the contemporary findings of Biology, Astronomy, Physics, etc. with their verbatim interpretation of the first Chapter of the Holy Bible (Genesis) and who are also against certain branches of Science with scientific and religious criteria.

We must make it clear from the very start, that Theology and Science do not oppose each other by nature, given that Science concerns itself with the structure and the functions of Nature, whereas Theology deals with God’s revealed truth and with the Holy-Spiritual meaning of Life. Science can answer questions about how the world and the universe are made, but it cannot of course answer the questions of who created the universe and why. These last questions are the business of Theology and by extension, of the Church. The great contemporary scientist Stephen Hawkins had stated that “even if science could manage to explain everything that happened from the birth of the universe to this day, it will not be able to explain why” (Focus magazine, vol.2, April 2000, p.80-84).

Orthodox Christianity and the Role of Science

By John Tachos

1. The Christian distinction between Science and Faith

In his homily on creation titled Hexaemeron (“On The Six Days”), where he analyzes the Old Testament narration of Creation, Basil the Great promptly stresses that the narration purposely lacks many details, in order to exercise and sharpen the readers’ minds, so that with the few details provided, they might seek out the rest (PG 29, 33B). He furthermore stresses (and this is more important) that, even if mankind discovers the way in which God created all things wonderful, it would in no way diminish our admiration of God’s grandeur.

Basil the Great here introduces two basic principles, as prerequisites for interpretation: (a) the freedom of scientific research, which is also an exercise of the mind and (b) the distinction between WHO made the world and HOW the world was made. In other words, it is one thing to theologically “know” that God created the world, and a totally different thing to “seek” the ways that all these wonders came to being. In the second instance, we acknowledge scientific “seeking” as the means to describe and analyze the data of all created things, and of course not the means to describe or analyze the uncreated divine energy.

The Three Hierarchs and Modern Atheism

By Metropolitan Euthymios (Stylios) of Achelous

(A sermon delivered to scientists in 1971)

"You boldly defeated heresies."

Introduction: The phenomenon of atheism appeared in the West and became a great and dangerous universal movement, which Western Civilization paid for dearly in the 20th century.

The phenomenon of atheism also appeared within the Western Church, as a reaction of scientists to the arbitrariness and cruelty of this Church (Holy Inquisition, etc.) In the East, however, there was never a problem in the relationship between scientists and the Church. And we owe our gratitude to the three great Hierarchs we celebrate today: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysystom.

On God and Science

Hearing these two words, God and Science (or Religion and Reason), most people think there is a contrast. But is it true that everything that has to do with God (or religion) violates the discoveries and achievements of science (or reason)? Or perhaps the opposite is true, where science contradicts and denies religion?

Certainly from a historical point of view we can see how many times frictions occurred when there was an encounter between the two. Unfortunately, to the point where there were bloody persecutions (from institutional religion) or severe and fierce denial which also had hideous bloody endings (on behalf of science, including philosophical currents).

"Will the World Return To Religion?": Clarence Darrow debates G.K. Chesterton (video)

This is a dramatic recreation of a debate between the Catholic thinker and writer G.K. Chesterton and Clarence Darrow, who was the defense attorney at the Scopes Trial, which took place in New York City on January 18, 1931 on the topic "Will the World Return To Religion?".

Ivan Pavlov Remembered the Easter of His Youth

By John Sanidopoulos

It appears that even atheists today have a hard time giving up on their former religious traditions, as it was reported this past week where they continue to see some of the benefits of Great Lent even after they have lost faith. In reading this report, I was reminded of another famous atheist who could not altogether abandon the religious traditions of his Orthodox Christian upbringing, especially that of Great Lent and Easter - Ivan Pavlov.

Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (1849-1936), a brilliant Russian physiologist, is most famous for winning the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1904 for his research in conditioned reflex. Before his rise to scientific fame, however, he was a Seminary student in line to be a priest from a devout Orthodox family of eleven children. For six generations, since the time of Peter the Great, the Pavlov men served the Russian Orthodox Church as clergymen. His father, Petr Dmitrievich Pavlov, and his two brothers, both named Ivan, all graduated from seminaries and served parishes in Russia. His father was a respected clergyman who served the Nikolo-Vysokovskaia Church in Ryazan, about 200 miles from Moscow, and his mother also was the daughter of a Russian Orthodox priest.

How the Myth of the Flat-Earth Dogma Started the Religion-Science War

Matt J. Rossano
September 16, 2010
The Huffington Post

Starting a war on false pretenses is nothing new. But when a few nineteenth-century academicians declared a science-vs.-religion war, they did us all a disservice.

John W. Draper (1811-1882) was born in England into a devout Methodist family. In 1832, he emigrated to the U.S., studied medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, and later became professor of chemistry and biology at New York University and head of the medical school. Along the way he rejected his family's religion and acquired an intense antipathy for Catholicism. Two factors were pivotal in shaping his attitude: the debates over Darwinian evolution erupting shortly after the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859, and the reactionary attitude of Pope Pius IX toward liberal progressivism encapsulated in his Syllabus of Errors published in 1864.

In 1874, Draper published The History of Conflict Between Religion and Science, in which he argued that current (nineteenth-century) events were reflective of the totality of Christian history. Christianity was currently opposing progress because it has always been an impediment to science, reason, and progress. An especially egregious example of this was the Church's insistence on a flat earth, a laughable dogma that stubbornly persisted until Columbus demolished it, bravely prevailing despite the ignorant protests of the Spanish cardinals.

Draper, with a little help from Washington Irving, thus popularized the "flat earth" myth, the idea that prior to Columbus there was a widespread, religiously-inspired belief that the earth was flat. Contemporary historians have squashed this myth, with Jeffrey Russell's book Inventing the Flat Earth probably being the most detailed account of how and why it arose. Historian of science David Lindberg summarizes the medieval understanding of the earth and cosmos in his book The Beginnings of Western Science: "At the center of everything is the sphere of the earth. Every Medieval scholar of the period agreed on its sphericity, and ancient estimates of its circumference (about 252,000 stades) were widely known and accepted" (p. 253).