• Strange Notions Strange Notions Strange Notions

Science and Faith: Two Paths of Knowledge

Two paths

Catholics acknowledge many paths which the human mind can traverse. One of those paths, the one that leads to knowledge of the natural universe, is called natural science, and another, the one that leads to knowledge of God and spiritual realities, is called faith. Both paths can be described as “thinking with assent.” That is, both are the use of reason by which one reaches a conclusion about reality—“thinking.” And both of them involve an assent to truth, an insight about what is discovered, a response of “yes, this is true.”

Beyond the fact that they can be defined in the same way they are truly very different paths. What makes them different from each other is the order in which thinking and assent occur. In natural science, thinking occurs first and makes assent possible and even necessary. But in faith, assent and thinking walk hand in hand; they occur simultaneously and balance each other. St. Augustine points to the difference when he says “Everyone who believes, also thinks; thinks in believing and believes in thinking.” (PL 44:962-963)

Why the difference between them? The key can be understood if we recall one essential element of spirit: the element of freedom. In natural science, reality is explored through the use of strict demonstration, involving experimentation and repeatability. Once a scientific possibility is convincingly shown to be the case, however, the honest person must assent to it. The will is forced by the obviousness of what is demonstrated by science; we are not free to refuse it and remain honest with ourselves.

But in knowing a spiritual reality we are always dealing with another free, intelligent person. Here one may search and strive and get a little knowledge, but only if the other person “opens up” a way for us, and only if we assent freely to his/her invitation, is true and profound knowledge of that person possible. In this kind of knowing, the will is not forced. It is invited by another will; and if my will responds to that invitation, then I can advance in knowledge. This is exactly how love between two persons “works”—one can be drawn to another by beauty or by what one perceives of the person through his or her words and actions. But only if the two wills are mutually open can knowledge progress to a deep intimacy.

So natural science reveals knowledge of things that do not have freedom in how they are known and does so in a way in which the evidence compels us to assent to certain conclusions. But knowing another intelligent, free person—a spiritual reality—involves a constant openness to know and an openness to being known. In the latter, at each and every step, thinking and assent walk hand-in-hand in an act of trust.

Here we see that these two paths of knowledge are not in opposition to each other. They are simply different, as different as analyzing a tissue sample is different from knowing a friend. In the words of Blessed John Paul II, “Truth is one. However, it presents itself to us in a fragmented manner along the many paths that lead us to approach it in a differential way. Thus it is man’s greatness that he dedicates himself unwearyingly to penetrate all the dimensions of truth.”

Do the two paths ever meet? They do—the human person is truly the crossroads of science and faith. Our bodies are physical and subject to the laws of nature, and yet we are also spiritual, intelligent, free persons. Human beings are intrinsically natural and spiritual—in the material universe but not entirely of the material universe. Therefore, to be a human being is to be a knower and a lover of nature and spirit, because to be human is to be both. Another place they meet is in the discipline called philosophy, in which reality is considered in those characteristics that nature and spirit have in common.
 
 
Originally posted on The Pelican Briefly. Used with author's permission.
(Image credit: A Path Not Taken)

Dr. Christopher Baglow

Written by

Dr. Christopher Baglow has a B.A. in Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville, an M.A. in Theology from the University of Dallas, and a Ph.D. in Theology from Duquesne University. In July 2009 he began a full-time position at Notre Dame Seminary, where he now serves as Professor of Theology and Director of the Master of Arts Program in Theological Studies for lay students. Dr. Baglow’s first book, Modus et Forma: A New Approach to the Exegesis of Saint Thomas Aquinas, was published in the Analecta Biblica Series of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome in 2002. His second book, Faith, Science, and Reason: Theology on the Cutting Edge, was published by the Midwest Theological Forum in 2009. Follow Dr. Baglow through his blog, Pelican Connection.

Note: Our goal is to cultivate serious and respectful dialogue. While it's OK to disagree—even encouraged!—any snarky, offensive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Before commenting please read the Commenting Rules and Tips. If you're having trouble commenting, read the Commenting Instructions.

  • > In natural science, thinking occurs first and makes assent possible and
    even necessary. But in faith, assent and thinking walk hand in hand;
    they occur simultaneously and balance each other.

    Better would be to say that, in scientific thought, assent is given in proportion to the weight of the evidence. In faith, assent is given before the evidence, out of proportion to the weight of the evidence, and often in opposition to the direction the evidence. The critical flaw in faith is that it looks and works exactly the same whether you have faith in something real or something imaginary.

    “The instant you hear about anything whatsoever that varies between a
    spy and a nonspy, you should immediately think of exploiting it to
    distinguish spies from nonspies. Similarly, to distinguish reality from
    lies, you need a process which behaves differently in the presence of
    truth and falsehood – that’s why ‘faith’ doesn’t work as a discriminant,
    while ‘make experimental predictions and test them’ does.”

    — spoken by Harry in Eliezer Yudkowsky’s “Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality”, Ch. 86. See http://www.hpmor.com.

  • Every day we each make decisions based on what we expect to happen. Some make decisions on faith. I let my friends and family know that I am not a person of faith, and so they ask about how can I go on? I tell them that I use "reasonable expectations based on prior evidence."

  • physicistdave

    Very poetic.

    Let's be less poetic: faith is fantasizing, guessing, or make-believe.

    Always.

    Some people had faith in Communism, some in the Fuehrer, and some in a make-believe God who planned on torturing the vast majority of the human race for all eternity in Hell.

    Which of those faiths is the most evil?

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

  • Michael Murray

    Once a scientific possibility is convincingly shown to be the case,
    however, the honest person must assent to it. The will is forced by the obviousness of what is demonstrated by science; we are not free to refuse it and remain honest with ourselves.

    Can we paste this somewhere on the site in bold letters. It would save a lot of discussion.

  • kimberly43523@mail.ru

    You describe successfully the relation science and faith. I find more interest to read the article and i really happy to see a well decorated article in here from you.