This article situates itself on the principle of opening the Church to the modern world seeking to understand and to be understood. It presents the relationship of science and theology in the sense that science can give epistemic support to theology and theology can be validated by experiments of science respecting each other’s difference of method.
It proceeds by giving example on this dialogue of science and theology at the beginning of twentieth century when Teilhard de Chardin showed the convergence of the science of evolution with the teachings of the Catholic Church. It was an attempt of bridging the gap by using analogous terms.
Turning to the category ‘presence’ the article first considers its place in Philippine culture as more meaningfully illustrated in the jeepney experience. From this experience he deduce the Filipino cultural value of presence that is not just about the usefulness but the concern for the person.
In the context of modern science presence means that we live in the same physical world as all physical bodies of masses. In line with this idea the author of this article made a connection to theology. By the assumption of the big bang theory we may say that at time zero all of material creation stands before God.
Presence is also nuanced in the traditional scholastic category of esse. Pre-esse literally means to stand before or in front of. From the first moment of creation all that exists or will exist exists in the presence of the Creator. This presence implies participation.
In trying to apply the system of hyperphysics, the lowest level of presence which corresponds to the lowest level of existence can be considered as the ‘prime matter’ that had to be energized by form. But after Einstein this is considered as the ultimate material dimension of the universe as of itself formless material energy with a built-in tendency to expand into quantitatively extended space. From this McNamara proceeds with his reflection forming a more meaningful category of science-theology discussion. Starting from the recognition presence, his reflection gives deeper appreciation of the other’s potential to grow and develop into the image of the divine person.
Going further the author’s intention of providing a useful tool in the modern dialogue between science and religion, I find a way to appreciate deeply my connectedness with the rest of creation. If I have to compare the elemental composition of my physical body with that of the earth, the quickest conclusion I could make is that there are common elements that we share. In the light of Genesis 2:7 which states that “the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground,” I could establish a closer relationship which I share with the rest of creation. This relationship makes me humble and guides me to have a proper attitude of taking care of the world. To be here on this earth is to be present and to be a part of the whole. What would be my participation? Or, how would I participate? This should be direct towards growth so that in effect I have also nourished my growth.
On the other hand, the article has contributed on the development of the dialogue of science and theology. This approach is much more beneficial than drawing a line of separation between the two. By now, theology must not be viewed as absolutely independent from science. But the discoveries of science can be a basis for further theological discussion of the reality before us. Conversely, science also could listen to theology in order to be guided towards a deeper understanding its present findings.
_________________
SOURCE: Jose Mario Francisco SJ and Roman Miguel de Jesus, ed., Science and Religion… and Culture in the Jesuit Tradition: Perspective from East Asia (Adelaide, Australia: ATF Press, 2006), 125-132.
No comments:
Post a Comment