ask anyone who knows. . . ."
Let me say it first! Let me say it this way: we recently caught a few minutes of a movie on TV. I think it was a middle-aged thug in "Last Tango in Halifax" who, in order to explain what had happened to his recent young, lovely toy thing: "She didn't know the songs!" So I shall say it: I listen to the Ink Spots.
Even though a few scientists, from time to time, demonstrate that the nagging of ego, the lure of temporary fame, the demands of academic tenure, or the pressures of producing on the job do cause them to lose sight of scientific honesty and objectivity, science as a whole is a magnificent achievement. It asks, "What do we know?".
Science isn't a religion or a philosophy. It simply wants to know what seems to be the case. So when scientists are asked about gravity, or time, or evolution, they try to explain what they know to be the case. And when people don't get it, scientists usually blame themselves for not having explained it adequately.
Unfortunately, that is not always the reason. I will use the obvious fact of evolution as an example: I say, "fact", not to avoid the technically useful term, "theory", only because the theory of evolution is so obvious and so unquestioned in its overall claims that "fact" is a helpful designation. But another "fact" is that a lot of people refuse to accept the theory; the fact that evolution is obvious and everywhere. Why? Very often because their religious beliefs deny it, and propose an Ancient Potter, or a Grand Watchmaker, or an Intelligent Designer. That is to say, the facts are beside the point. Clarity of fact will not change their minds. They have religious or psychological reasons for refusing to accept evolution. They have ideological reasons and needs that have to be protected.
That is why Pope Francis is so successful at speaking about things like global warming. Pope Francis is not a scientist, but he apparently has a religious point of view that allows plain facts to exist alongside of his religious beliefs. It is not that Pope Francis is somehow bridging religion and science, or patching a primitive worldview and a modern worldview together. It is not that religion and science have much to say to each other, but for Pope Francis, at least, his way of seeing the world allows both his religion and plain facts about things to say what they have to say.
Some of the fear is removed. So when the Pope says that we have to take global warming seriously, the family of Christians that he represents can relax a bit because he says it is all right.
It is still the case that science is not religion, nor religion, science. There is nothing in Genesis or the Book of Revelation that has very much to do with either the beginning or the end of the universe, if either exist. It is a kind of transition between an ancient and a contemporary worldview, but transitions are necessary, and slow, and messy, and useful.
Pope Francis is not abandoning his religion. He is making it possible for people not deny what is so obviously true: that human activity is causing the climate to change, and that the consequences are serious and dangerous. And what, after all, is to be gained by encouraging people to throw themselves in front of a fact-laden train?
Ask anyone who knows.
Comments
Post a Comment