Science, Religion and Theology The current discussions on this topic suffer from definitions. Fr. Ivo uses terms such as ³Truth¹ (capital T) and ³truth² (small t), ³objective truth,² Reality (capital R) ³greater reality,² without defining them.
Facts are not the same thing as reality (even in small r), and they are not the same thing as truth (even in capital T). Seeking meaning is an experiential exercise, which varies from individual to individual. The attempts to institutionalize meaning, particularly in contemporary culture, are an exercise in futility. Meaning is not the domain of science; most people seek to make sense of life and life-events. As long as we as human beings seek to make sense/seek meaning of life and life-events there will be religion. Victor Frankel has, to my mind, very eloquently, made a case for the search for meaning. I think science, and particularly neuro-science, will greatly illuminate this dimension of human life; but may not exhaust the understanding of the human quest for meaning. A respectful dialogue between Science and Religion is a sine qua non, because one illuminates the other. One does not replace the other. They are like two rivers, which flow parallel to each other; they may not meet, but they certainly influence each other. The conversation between the two rivers must go on respect to all parties involved. It is a conversation steeped in humility; but it is a vibrant conversation. For too long these two rivers were flowing far apart and almost in contempt of each other. Fortunately, due to pain-staking efforts of the scientists and "religionists" these two rivers are now two long last siblings, who still have to learn how to get along with each other. Science begins with the bits and pieces and moves towards an understanding of the whole, while religion begins with an understanding of the whole and assigns meaning to the parts. I consider both essential to any creative process and for majority of the people. What is religion? It is very difficult to define in a manner that would be universally accepted. Herbert Spencer defined as ³a hypothesis to render the universe comprehensible.² I. Kant would say that it ³the recognition of all our duties as divine commands.² Matthew Arnold defines religion as ³morality touched with emotion.² And Ames would say that religion is ³consciousness of the highest social values.² I find Clifford Geertz definition most comprehensive: ³ a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.² In the discussions on this topic it appears that each writer has his own understanding of what religion is. It would be very helpful if Fr. Ivo would let us know his definition of religion, thus his writings would give the reader a proper perspective. Sometimes there is a confusion between explaining and defining what religion is. Theology is not the same thing as religion. Theology simply serves a particular religious tradition. Theologies abound and evolve. Liberation Theology came out of a particular socio-political, economic, military, and cultural-historical context. It was provocative. Recently, Gustavo Gutierez, the father of the LT, reflecting on the LT assessed that the realities on ground have changed; however the poor remain poor, and therefore they call for a different theological reflection. Liberation Theology served a terrific purpose in waking up the oppressive powers, and giving a sense of dignity and purpose to the poorest of the poor, if not bread and butter; and now it has evolved into a theology of communion/solidarity. The perception that Bible is a book a science/facts/history is based in some reality. For centuries Bible has been presented as a book of fact and science (as understood then). Only in the last 50 years or so the Bible in the Catholic/Episcopalian/Lutheran Tradition is not being presented as a book of science or facts, but as Fr. Ivo indicated in one of his posts, as the book of the story (not history) of God¹s love to humanity. Only very recently the official organ of the Vatican, after many decades of the persistent efforts by the biblical scholars, recognized the value in the historico-critical method to study and understand the Bible. Basilio Monteiro