Newmania – 8: “Christianity & Scientific Investigation”
The Idea of a University has Newman’s essay, “Christianity and Scientific Investigation.” Only a reading of the whole can do justice to the dialectical skills Newman here displays; but I can offer selections. The great statement of principle is often quoted, that the believer
is sure, and nothing shall make him doubt, that, if anything seems to be proved by astronomer, or geologist, or chronologist, or antiquarian, or ethnologist, in contradiction to the dogmas of faith, that point will eventually turn out, first, not to be proved, or, secondly, not contradictory, or thirdly, not contradictory to any thing, but to something which has been confused with revelation.
Perhaps less often noted are the principles that will guide the representative of the “imperial intellect” in his investigations:
If he has one cardinal maxim in his philosophy, it is, that truth cannot be contrary to truth; if he has a second, it is, that truth often seems contrary to truth; and, if a third, it is the practical conclusion, that we must be patient with such appearances, and not be hasty to pronounce them to be really of a more formidable character.
The principles stated in these two passages lie at the basis of the remarkable analysis which Newman then offers of the concrete process by which the human mind reaches the truth:
It is the very law of the human mind in its inquiry after and acquisition of truth to make its advances by a process which consists of many stages and is circuitous. There are no short cuts to knowledge; nor does the road to it always lie in the direction in which it terminates, nor are we able to see the end on starting. It may often seem to be diverging from a goal into which it will soon run without effort, if we are but patient and resolute in following it out; and, as we are told in Ethics to gain the mean merely by receding from both extremes, so in scientific researches error may be said, without a paradox, to be in some instances the way to truth, and the only way. Moreover, it is not often the fortune of any one man to live through an investigation; the process is one of not only many stages, but of many minds. What one begins another finishes; and a true conclusion is at length worked out by the co-operation of independent schools and the perseverance of successive generations. This being the case, we are obliged, under circumstances, to bear for a while with what we feel to be error, in consideration of the truth in which it is eventually to issue.
The analogy of locomotion is most pertinent here. No one can go straight up a mountain; no sailing vessel makes for its port without tacking. And so, applying the illustration, we can indeed, if we will, refuse to allow of investigation or research altogether; but, if we invite reason to take its place in our schools, we must let reason have fair and full play. We cannot use it by halves; we must use it as proceeding from Him who has also given us revelation; and to be ever interrupting its processes, and diverting its attention by objections brought from a higher knowledge, is parallel to a landsman’s dismay at the changes in the course of a vessel on which he had deliberately embarked, and argues surely some distrust either in the powers of Reason on the one hand, or the certainty of Revealed Truth on the other. The passenger should not have embarked at all, if he did not reckon the chance of a rough sea, of currents, of wind and tide, of rocks and shoals; and we should act more wisely in discountenancing altogether the exercise of Reason than in being alarmed and impatient under the suspense, delay, and anxiety which, from the nature of the case, may be found to attach to it. Let us eschew secular history, and science, and philosophy for good and all, if we not allowed to be sure that Revelation is so true that the altercations and perplexities of human opinion cannot really or eventually injure its authority. That is no intellectual triumph of any truth of Religion, which has not been preceded by a full statement of what can be said against it.
These brilliant paragraphs express a confidence in the truth of the faith and in the powers of reason that can without exaggeration be called heroic. It is true that they are preceded and followed by a careful distinction between the freedom that may be permitted with regard to dogma and that allowed with regard to other matters. But both the paragraphs quoted and the ones that follow, which develop the need for “elbow-room”, display an analysis, rare in its nuance and discrimination, both of the elements of intellectual inquiry and of the responsibilities of religious authority when such inquiry touches upon matters of faith. And the more experience Newman had in the course of his life of the absence of such nuance and discrimination in the face of unparalleled intellectual challenge, the more determined he became to resist the effort to restrict the “elbow-room” of Catholic philosophers, theologians, and scholars.
This is Newman at his best both in his grasp of the issues and in the elegance of his exposition. For anyone committed to the search for truth these are words to live by.
“It is the very law of the human mind in its inquiry after and acquisition of truth to make its advances by a process which consists of many stages and is circuitous. There are no short cuts to knowledge; nor does the road to it always lie in the direction in which it terminates, nor are we able to see the end on starting. ”
NANCY –
It seems clear that Newman is a saint for our times, and that includes you, dear Nancy. How can we not believe that he was sent to us because we need to hear his message. He sees so clearly that skepticism isn’t tenable, but, more important, that getting to understand more of the Truth which we have been graciously given is a slow, complex process involving errors and revisions along the way.
He’s going to be beatified next month. Surely he can be trusted about this.
Ann — ??? Was there some post by Nancy that got deleted? Or were you just initiating a discussion with her?
By the way, one thing that strikes me about Newman’s writing (anything by Newman, not just this) is the complexity of the prose, and how much sustained attention and mental energy it demands of the reader: you cannot skim it, at least not unless you’ve already read it in the past, and you’re now simply reviewing it again, perhaps after marked it up with a pencil, underlining and circling things, writing comments in the margins, etc. (Actually, this is true of the writing of any theologian, or any academic in the humanities, though it’s particularly the case with Newman.) And it strikes me how sadly unaccepted, dismissed, ignored, and incomprehensible this is to “non-academic America,” so to speak, particularly “the media.” Can you imagine what would happen if the media (the cable news channels, the newspapers, etc.) were given something like this by the White House, or a member of Congress? How they’d try to find some sound-byte, some headline? (Actually, this is what’s often happened with encyclicals.)
On my list of things I wish the president would do just for the heck of it and to have fun confounding people, I’ll add this — giving press releases written in the style of Newman, or even giving speeches written in the style of Newman. That list also includes the following:
1) Refusing to dress up, and attending everything in shorts and a t-shirt — and deciding he couldn’t care less what anyone says about it.
2) Deciding to become nocturnal, thus requiring the entire Washington apparatus to work from 9pm to 5am. Major announcements will be made at 3:00 in the morning.
3) Adopting the practices of some religion or an extended period of time, but refusing to comment on it or explain it, or even declare that he’s converted, and just sitting back and enjoying the flabbergasted firestorm. E.g. — start keeping all of the worship patterns of Islam, maybe even grow a long beard and start wearing a turban, saying “Allah” instead of “God” (“Allah bless America”), attending a mosque, etc. Then, after a few months, start attending daily Mass, publicly praying the rosary, holding press conferences with a holy-card style picture of the Blessed Mother behind him, etc.
Brendan –
I”m just trying to start a conversation with Nancy. Have been trying for years. Nancy seems to be deathly afraid of making an error. Newman might help her to see that an honest error is OK, and even helpful when we’re trying to get at The-Truth-in-Depth.
Brendan: Let’s keep this focused on Newman, please.
But Newman is not always up to the standard he sets, and rightly sets. Consider this statement:
“It would be a great mistake in such a one to propose his philosophical or historical conclusions as the formal interpretation of the sacred text, as Galileo is said to have done, instead of being content to hold his doctrine of the motion of the earth as a scientific conclusion, and leaving it to those whom it really concerned to compare it with Scripture.”
Note the “is said to have done”. Here Newman either has not taken the trouble to be better informed, or did not have the opportunity, which is still no excuse; or he is taking on the role of the controversialist rather than that of the scholar.
Indeed his treatment elsewhere, in the piece cited, of Copernicanism and of the attitude of ecclesial authority toward it is less than candid.
Hi Ann, I have not read much of Newman’s work, but thanks to Father Joseph, I have become a member of the Newmania club. Thank you, Father Joseph. I think Cardinal Newman would agree that although there are no shortcuts to knowledge, all knowledge leads us to God because all truth comes from God. There is a difference between those who, when searching for truth, pursue all intellectual inquiry in relationship to God, and those who believe that truth is relative. This difference makes all the difference.
For another take on the subject of peaceful coexistence between religion and science, see:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html
“If he has one cardinal maxim in his philosophy, it is, that truth cannot be contrary to truth; if he has a second, it is, that truth often seems contrary to truth”
ANN,
Insert what you wrote to Nancy here.
Interesting that Darwin’s ‘Origin of the Species’ was published in 1859 — one year after the publication of this work (if I’ve read the frontspiece correctly).
Newman on Darwin (http://www.disf.org/en/documentation/Newman_Walker_eng.asp) — a well-meaning attempt to reconcile evolutionary science and religion (although it’s not clear whether or not Newman had read Darwin at this point).
John Henry Newman to J. Walker of Scarborough, May 22, 1868
The Oratory Bm May 22/68
[Birmingham, May 22, 1868]
My dear Canon Walker
I got Smith on the Pentateuch at once on your suggestion, and have been much interested in what I have read of it — but have not read enough to get into it as a whole [W. Smith, The Book of Moses or the Pentateuch in its Authority, Credibility, and Civilisation, London 1868]. Mr Beverly’s work too has come, but with no supplemental chapter. Pray convey my acknowledgement to the unknown author [The Darwinian Theory of the Transmutation of Species examined by a Graduate of the University of Cambridge, London 1868]. It is a careful and severe examination of the theory of Darwin — and it shows, as is most certain he would be able to do, the various points which are to be made good before it can cohere. I do not fear the theory so much as he seems to do — and it seems to me that he is hard upon Darwin sometimes, which [sic] he might have interpreted him kindly. It does not seem to me to follow that creation is denied because the Creator, millions of years ago, gave laws to matter. He first created matter and then he created laws for it — laws which should construct it into its present wonderful beauty, and accurate adjustment and harmony of parts gradually. We do not deny or circumscribe the Creator, because we hold he has created the self acting originating human mind, which has almost a creative gift; much less then do we deny or circumscribe His power, if we hold that He gave matter such laws as by their blind instrumentality moulded and constructed through innumerable ages the world as we see it. If Mr Darwin in this or that point of his theory comes into collision with revealed truth, that is another matter — but I do not see that the principle of development, or what I have called construction, does. As to the Divine Design, is it not an instance of incomprehensibly and infinitely marvellous Wisdom and Design to have given certain laws to matter millions of ages ago, which have surely and precisely worked out, in the long course of those ages, those effects which He from the first proposed. Mr Darwin’s theory need not then to be atheistical, be it true or not; it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill. Perhaps your friend has got a surer clue to guide him than I have, who have never studied the question, and I do not [see] that ‘the accidental evolution of organic beings’ is inconsistent with divine design — It is accidental to us, not to God.
Most sincerely yours in Xt John H Newman
P.S. Why is not the principle of generation atheistic, if that of development is? Did we not know the fact that species and races are drawn out in succession from one couple, we might say that it was a theory inconsistent with the doctrine of creation. And à fortiori, it might be urged, ‘here the accidental meeting and marriage of two persons, or the sinful intercourse, will oblige the Almighty to create a soul at any moment.’ Therefore (not only not the body, but) the soul is not created, but is the accidental consequence of the human will, etc. etc.
Nancy –
I”m so glad you’ve discovered Newman. I met him in my secular college where parts of The Idea of a University were required reading, and I was most impressed. Not that he’s right about *everything*, mind you . . . :-)
It seems to me that Newman is better in his take on Darwin than in his approach to Galileo, but then the Holy Office had not condemned Darwin and so it had left Newman free to be Newman, or so I would like to think.
If Cardinal John Henry Newman were alive today, I think he would enjoy this website:
http://www.rtforum.org/
From the website:
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt100.html
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt144.html
Nancy –
Do go back and read the letter from Newman to the gentleman in Scarborough that was quoted recently here. Newman thought that Darwin’s theory was quite consistent with Church teaching. The notion that evolution contradicts Biblical truth is a fundamentalist Protestant development which, unfortunately, some Catholics also latched on to. Be careful.
If Cardinal John Henry Newman were alive today, I think he would enjoy this website
Nancy,
I think you have drastically underestimated Newman’s intelligence.
David, I think you are mistaken.
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt141.html
P.S. David, now that we know that once Conception has occured, nothing is added to the DNA of a Human Being, I imagine Cardinal Newman would argue that, although each and every Human Individual is unique, every Human Being is fully Human.
Nancy,
Given your own admission that you have not read much by Newman, isn’t a little presumptuous of you to be telling us what web sites he would enjoy and what arguments he would make if he knew 21st century molecular biology?
The web site you recommend is borderline crackpot.
David, it is presumptuous of me, and perhaps I am mistaken, but then, who detemines what is bordeline crackpot, when there is no mandatum?
P.S. Fom what I have read so far, this site has many words of wisdom.
No reputable Catholic Biblical scholar would go to the lengths of finding six different explanations of how the genealogies of Jesus could be literally true, and write something like this: “If, for family reasons, the Blessed Virgin Mary was married to her uncle or her first cousin, as conjectured in solutions five and six, would not this strengthen the belief that there had been a prior agreement never to consummate the marriage?”
Why not read Newman’s own work, or something else recommended by Father Komanchak or Father Imbelli? I am sure either one of them would be happy to recommend enough books to keep you busy for years.
Good Heavens, David N.! That text about the Neo Patristic scholars is enough to give them a bad name.
Maybe some of the conservatives here could recommend some rational conservative sites for Nancy.
Nancy, do you know First Things? It is well regarded by many rational people. It’s at; http://www.firstthings.com/
David, nor would any Catholic site claim that same-sex marriage is rational.
David, nor would any Catholic site claim that same-sex marriage is rational.
Nancy,
Is your implication that any site that calls itself Catholic and condemns same-sex marriage must be a good Catholic site? Then I can recommend the web site of The Society of St. Pius X, which condemns homosexuality and same-sex marriage and also has an interesting article titled The New Catechism . . . Is It Catholic? The answer is NO.
Please, please, please, Nancy et al. Let’s keep this focused on Newman and not on what he would have thought or said. Bernard Lonergan recalled once the many dissertations done in the 1940s and 1950s on what St. Thomas Aquinas would have said about various thinkers or thoughts, e.g., “The Educational Philosophy of John Dewey Judged in the Light of the Principles of the Angelic Doctor.” Lonergan remarked: “What this came down to was what St. Thomas would have said to John Dewey if St. Thomas were the author of the dissertation!” A problem made all the more acute when one is dealing with a genius, as in the case of Aquinas and Newman.
Sorry, Father
No doubt, Cardinal Newman was a genius with a special gift, but when he stated that, “He first created matter and then He created Laws for it”, Cardinal Newman was mistaken. In order for matter to exist, The Laws of Physics must exist, to begin with.
Fr. Komanchak,
If someone (like me) had read very little of Newman, what would you suggest as a starting point? Something about Newman, like a biography, or one of Newman’s own works? And if one of his own works, which one?
Apologies for going off topic.
Nancy: I incline to think that what comes first is the divine idea of the order of the universe he creates, with individual creatures then being created as dynamically inter-related elements or constituents of that order. Matter, on the Thomist view, is pure potentiality, and it exists only as formed, that is, as having a specific nature and purpose. What you call “the Laws of Physics” are what they are because of and for the sake of the order of this concrete universe. Other universes, with other laws of physics, are, of course, possible.
David Nichol: I think a good biography is the place to start. Fortunately, there are several to choose among. The first good one is the two volumes of Wilfred Ward, in the classic late-Victorian mold, constructed, as Newman thought biographies should be, in good part on the basis of Newman’s letters. More recently, Ian Ker and Sheridan Gilley produced fine works within a year or two of each other. Ker’s abounds in quotations from Newman’s correspondence, diaries, and other writings, which sometimes slows down the narrative. In that respect, Gilley’s work is preferable, a better story. You can find my Commonweal review of Gilley at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_n20_v119/ai_12911801/
Most recent, and very well received so far, is John Cornwall’s Newman’s Unquiet Grave, which devotes appropriate attention also to his major works. I would choose either Gilley or Cornwall.
With all due respect, Father, The Universe refers to “the totality of matter, energy, and space including the Solar System, the galaxies and the contents of the space between the galaxies”. And yes, it is true, that the purpose of The Universe is what God intended, for without The Will of God, there would be nothing rather than something.
Fr. Komonchak,
Thanks for the book recommendations. I ordered both Gilley and Cornwall. I see both volumes of the Wilfred Ward biography are available for reading online, not that I would undertake to read anything of that length sitting at my computer.
Nancy,
Look up “multiverse” and “many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics” for starters. Do you honestly think God can create only one universe? “Is it by your wisdom that the hawk soars, and spreads his wings toward the south?”
Nancy: Your definition of the universe is within quotation-marks. What is the source? I don’t think the universe is adequately described, much less defined, by simple referring to its contents, because its contents are ordered, and according to an order intended by God. I don’t see in what respect your last post responds to mine about the order of the universe.
I know that there have been people who think that what comes first is the nature of a thing, and that then God tries to concost an order in which each of these natures will have a place and a role. I think St. Thomas’ view was that things are what they are (have a particular nature) because of their place and role in God’s ordered universe. And as God could have created other universes, so he could have created other “natures”.
The source of my definition is the dictionary. Perhaps a better definition would be to add, and all that is seen and unseen. The essence of the word “universe” and “nature”is an ordered, unity of elements that in their totality are one.