A LOVE LETTER FROM THEOLOGY TO SCIENCE (Part 1)

The beauty and elegance of mathematics come from one main source: It does not require arguments to resolve an issue—no matter how complex the issue might be. It only requires calculations! This is the beauty that thrilled Bertrand Russel, and enamoured him to celebrate mathematics so eloquently:

"Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty—a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show[1]."

Russell’s words capture how mathematics has transcended the utilitarian scientific requirement, and philosophical aestheticism, to reveal its profound essence as the gemstone where the flawlessness and harmony of nature are engraved. It is a discipline that combines precision, logic, elegance, astuteness and dexterity that parallel what is required to produce the most exquisite work of art.

Despite its beauty and elegance, mathematics is detached, unbiased, neutral and without prejudice in every situation and circumstance. The world would have been a better place if were possible to replicate the honesty and beauty of mathematics, with its empirical framework, in every human discipline and endeavour. Think of the calm and harmony this could bring to the chaos of politics and theology, for instance. There wouldn’t be any need for arguments and contentions, as it would be the norm to resolve every issue empirically and transparently. Instead of raucous debates and boisterous arguments, people could amicably say, “Let’s calculate!” Sadly, that is not the way things stand at the moment.

During the early days of Western civilisation, science and Christian theology were close allies, working together to support and uphold the doctrines of the church and the Christian Bible. The roll call of notable scientists who were also theologians included the following:

1.??Blaise Pascal (1623-1662): A French mathematician, physicist, inventor, and theologian. He made important contributions to the study of fluids and probability theory. He also wrote extensively on Christian philosophy and theology.

2.??Isaac Newton (1642-1727): The renowned English mathematician, physicist, astronomer, and natural philosopher. He spent a significant portion of his life studying theology and biblical interpretation.

3.??Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716): A German mathematician, philosopher, and theologian. He made influential contributions to fields like calculus, metaphysics, and theology.

4.??Robert Boyle (1627-1691): An Anglo-Irish natural philosopher, chemist, inventor, and theologian. He is considered the father of modern chemistry. He also wrote on Christian theology.

5.? Galileo Galilei (1564-1642): The famous Italian astronomer, physicist, engineer, and philosopher. He was the man at the centre of the controversy that led to the split between science and religion. Despite his conflict with the Catholic Church, Galileo neither repudiated theology nor renounced his faith, as he insisted his work aligned with theological principles.

The feud between science and religion that led to their separation was neither pre-planned nor organised. The split was precipitated by one major event: The Catholic Church’s opposition to science-backed facts that established the Sun—not the Earth—as the centre of our solar system, and the subsequent Inquisition of Galileo Galilei[2] (the man, whose empirical observations confirmed the Copernicus’ heliocentric model of the solar system that placed the Sun at the centre of the solar system) for holding on to “heretical” (scientific) views. This event marked the beginning of the rift between science and religion.

It is important to note that the geocentric model of our solar system, which placed the Earth at the centre, did not originate from the church. This model, which was widely accepted for nearly 1,500 years, can be traced to the ancient Greek philosophers, starting with Eudoxus (in 380 BC), to Aristotle and Claudius Ptolemy, in the 2nd century AD. The church only adopted it and interpreted the Bible to align with what was already widely accepted as truth (even though no scientific data supported it).

However, in the early 16th century, the geocentric model was eventually found to be incorrect and was replaced with the?heliocentric model. The heliocentric model correctly placed the Sun at the centre of our solar system, with the Earth and the other planets orbiting the sun. Unfortunately, this was not good news for the Catholic Church, which had already interpreted the Bible to align with the earlier geometric model that placed the Earth at the centre of the universe[3].

The Catholic Church had reasoned that changing its position on the issue would amount to admitting that the Bible, and invariably, God are wrong. So, the church decided to use its dictatorial authority and power to outlaw this scientific truth, by classifying it as “heretical” and going ahead to prosecute those who subscribe to it.

This is when the gulf between science and the church started developing and continued to widen over the proceeding years and centuries. By the time the church began to reverse its stance in the 18th Century, it was already too late. The social and economic disruptions that accompanied the Age of Enlightenment (17th-18th centuries) and the Industrial Revolution (late 18th-19th centuries) combined to put the final nail in the coffin of whatever was left of the relationship between science and religion. These events ushered in a new beginning of active rebellion and confrontations with the church, as science began to view religion as a force of retrogression that must be exterminated to save civilisation. By the time people like Charles Darwin and Sigmund Freud came onto the scene, the main objective, for some people, was no longer the pursuit of science for development, but how to deploy science for the destruction and annihilation of the church and religion[4].

We must, however, acknowledge that the initial refusal of the Catholic Church to accept scientific truth, coupled with the Inquisition and the burning of innocent people at the stake for heresy, was cruel and heinous acts. These acts, apart from damaging the relationship between science and the church, have also sullied the church’s integrity and raised doubts about the sanctity of the Christian Bible. Even though the Catholic Church later accepted the heliocentric model of the universe in the 18th Century, it took about four centuries for the Catholic Church to officially and formally own up to its errors and apologise for the atrocities and brutalities it committed against innocent people during that period.

What could now be regarded as a formal apology from the Catholic Church came in the year 2000, when Pope John Paul II, in his address as part of the Catholic Church's "Day of Pardon" during the Great Jubilee, expressed deep regret for the errors and infidelities of the Church throughout history, including the actions of the Inquisition. The Pope went on to ask for forgiveness "for the judgments of the Inquisition" and other forms of intolerance carried out in the name of the Catholic faith. This, coming after several centuries of nonchalance and criminal silence, was too little too late.

Centuries of cruelties and abuses, by the Catholic Church, followed by a long period of snobbish silence, are not things science is in a hurry to forget. Unfortunately, and regrettably, science has allowed its resentment of the church to become institutionalized in the form of prejudice that perceives Christianity as anti-science and anti-reasoning. The situation, however, is made worse by the sanctimonious arrogance and hypocrisy of some church leaders, who are quick to demonize and stigmatise those who do not share their religious views. I follow Neil deGrasse Tyson[5] on Facebook. From his posts, I can always feel his indignation and disdain toward religion from his parodies and epithets. I understand his anger—it is justifiable—but his method is wrong. Perhaps, he can accept what I have written here as a personal apology from me.

Theologians and pastors have no divine right to arrogate to themselves the omniscient power that belongs to God. The Word of God remains infallible, but man’s interpretation of God’s Word is not, and will never be. I come across errors by prominent men of God regularly. Some of these errors are not intentional, but some are products of fear, greed or pride—three of the greatest human weaknesses. Theologians need to emulate scientists by being humble enough to say, “Okay, we may have interpreted this one incorrectly…”

Acknowledging mistakes in the interpretation of God’s Word will not subtract anything from the church. It will only make everyone aware that we are all humans. That will also make theologians and pastors more circumspect and humbler in their pronouncements. Theologians and preachers keep giving the wrong impression that they are omniscient and infallible. That is why they find it so difficult to acknowledge their errors and accept corrections. It also makes it difficult for people to ever trust or forgive them when their errors become palpable and untenable.

To be continued…

This article is an excerpt from my book, THE MATHEMATICAL FRAMEWORK THAT UNDERPINS THE TRINITY, RAPTURE AND OTHER END-TIME EVENTS.

NOTES

[1] A History of Western Philosophy, by Bertrand Russel.

[2] The heliocentric model of the solar system, which correctly placed the Sun at the centre of the solar system, was first proposed by Nicolaus Copernicus in the 16th century. However, it was Galileo’s observation with the Telescope in 1610 that provided empirical validation for the Copernicus heliocentric model. In 1632, Galileo published a book called "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems," which directly compared the Ptolemaic (geocentric) and Copernican (heliocentric) models. The book presented a compelling case for the heliocentric model, drawing on Galileo's own observations and scientific reasoning. Galileo's support for the heliocentric model brought him into conflict with the Catholic Church, which favoured the geocentric model. In 1633, Galileo was put on trial by the Roman Inquisition and forced to recant his support for the Copernican system, but he refused. Galileo Galilei died on January 8, 1642, at the age of 77 in Arcetri, near Florence, Italy, while under house arrest after being convicted of heresy by the Roman Inquisition for his support of the heliocentric model of the solar system. The cause of his death was said to be fever and heart palpitations.

[3] Even though the geometric model of the solar system (which placed the Earth at the centre of the solar system) did not originate from the church, the Catholic Church cited the following scriptures to support the geometric cosmology: Joshua 10:12-13: In this passage, Joshua commands the sun and the moon to stand still during battle: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.” Deuteronomy 4:19: “And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.” Psalm 104:5: “He established the earth upon its foundations, so it will never move.” Job 26:7: “He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.” Isaiah 40:22: “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.”

You can see that none of these scriptures explicitly states that the Earth is the centre of the solar system. Everything was based on human heuristic interpretation. However, we must admit that Joshua's statement in Joshua 10:12-13 gives a strong indication of a geometric solar system. We must understand that Joshua was speaking based on his limited knowledge as a human being, but God did not treat his demand technically. God knew, from Joshua’s heart, what Joshua needed, and He granted him that, despite the technical flaws in Joshua’s.

The lesson the church should learn from this is that there is a difference between the words spoken by God directly or through His prophets and the ones spoken by human beings in the Bible. We should not place the two on the same equal pedestal. God’s words are infallible, but anything outside that should be subject to scrutiny and validation. We could achieve such validations by finding out how many times such words or phrases appear in the Bible and how consistent they are with each other. I must also express my fear of the inherent danger of stretching this arbitrarily too far. People like the Apostle Paul, who operated under a special mandate and anointing from God, should be placed on the same pedestal with the prophetic and inspired words from God.

[4] Some scientists openly predicted how increased scientific knowledge would bring Christianity and religion to an end. Here are some of the famous gloomy predictions: "Christianity will be buried and forgotten"—Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900), German philosopher; "Christianity has become irrelevant and will collapse under the weight of modernism"—Sigmund Freud (1856 - 1939), Austrian psychoanalyst; "The increase of scientific knowledge will inevitably displace religious belief"—Bertrand Russell (1872 to 1970), British philosopher.

[5] Neil deGrasse Tyson is an American astrophysicist, planetary scientist, author, and science communicator. He is a prominent science communicator and popularizer, known for his ability to explain complex scientific concepts in an engaging and accessible way to the public. He has written several best-selling books, including "Astrophysics for People in a Hurry" and "Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution".

?