A meeting of religion and science

By Th. Sumartana

YOGYAKARTA (JP): In his book One World, The Interaction of Science and Theology (Princeton 1986), John Polkinghorne raised several interesting points. Science and theology share many common things, such as scrutinizing aspects of reality. Away from this perspective, a discussion about the two might be productive. Misrepresentations are openly debated in both issues even though theology does not believe that God is a "tentative hypothesis".

In theology, the "ultimate concern" should be ethics and a criteria for human behavior should be found. This should not be restricted to men, but should include nature as well.

However, theology is also a science that recognizes criticism and is open for improvement. Polkinghorne also believes that religion and science could be related on grounds of historical assessment rather than logical evaluations. This will prove that the two have been undergoing development and change.

Polkinghorne also says we once thought the basic constituents of matter were atoms; then nuclei; then protons and neutrons; then quarks and gluons; next -- who knows what?

Each century is marked by a new theory related to the development of physics. "Scientific theories are corrigible, but the result is a tense grasp of a never completely comprehended reality."

Theology is tied to God, an invisible God. Polkinghorne said: "Theology, like science, is corrigible. There is nothing immutable in its pronouncements... every image of God is an idol which eventually has to be broken in the search for reality."

In other words, every dogmatic conception has been influenced by a historical environment, a certain situation applied to stress a religious commitment, or ethics. Symbolic signs and metaphoric forms were the best and most suitable languages. Nevertheless, symbols and metaphors could not wholly represent reality.

In the "theological process" God was represented as a logical concept that developed with time. God materialized through an evolutionary process in the history of man and throughout the creation of nature. This concept is different from the classical version of the Greeks who saw God as an unmovable perfection in eternity, separated from historical development. Hence, the activities of the theologian are as fallible and his theories as corrigible as those of any other scientist and any other theory.

Theology should be an inspirational impulse of moral decisions while every theological thought should be filled with ethical strength reflecting life's reality.

Nobody would cut down a large kepuh tree in Bali. In Java, nobody would think of damaging or replacing a large rock. There is wisdom in these words. And if someone would try to explain or look at it from a monistic view, he or she would go down in polemics because he failed to grab the wisdom of his grandfathers.

When all the trees were felled and all the stones flattened, nature would mete out penalties such as in the form of floods. Therefore, a new theological formulation was needed to understand religious attitudes of our forebears. This explains the rise of new styles as Panintheism, which appreciates the wisdom of environmental care.

Use of monistic expressions in the past indicated the arrogant stance of theologians. Panintheism would have been better suited in expressing basic concern, which was proclaimed "dead" in a material world. Monism is a prewar missionary term, which served as a means to eliminate primitive beliefs of an animistic nature. Monism was identical with fighting to subdue unconventional tendencies in Eastern religions. This sort of theology was molded in the colonial perspective.

It resembles theological arguments of the middle ages. Meanwhile, a ruined environment destroying man's domain and continuance, learned the "wisdom" of primitive beliefs. People remembered their forebears' convincing foresight. Rationalizing human egoism and a religious mandate to exploit nature resulted in environmental devastation which had never taken place in the history of mankind. It appears as if religion was alienated as another part of nature, as if it had never been a part of it. We might call it destructive dualism.

The church reacted in a childish manner in the case of Galileo and Darwin because of the gap between science and religion. Galileo said: "Nor is God less excellently revealed in Nature's actions than in the sacred statements of the Bible." This observation is more accepted today by theologians. Knowledge and theories progressed in meaningful ways. In this way, the formation of mental compartments which separated knowledge from theology, will in all likelihood be shed as a passing trend.

Sacerdotalism has been a large problem since the Middle Ages, the governing system whereby priests and men of religion wielded authority. Religious personalities wielded absolute power and quietened anyone who opposed their interests. Suspicion for science extended over a long period, starting with the teachings of falsehoods like exclusive salvation. Total freedom of opinion was also deficient.

Practical scientific steps were also hindered by the clergy until the second half of the 19th century.

Servetus, who lived in Calvin's time (16th century), for instance, was burnt alive because he said the land of Judea was arid, and not at all a land overflowing with milk and honey as described in the Bible. The science of anatomy was forbidden because it opposed the doctrine of life after death. Chemistry was regarded as a diabolic science, which was banned by the Pope in 1317. These incidents put science and general freedom of thought on the side of religion.

In the context of religion, science and heretic traits tend to unite, both fighting orthodox forms. For this reason, freedom of religion should become an integral part of freedom of thought and science which is liberated from the powers of religion. Science has been undergoing a period of enlightenment, as should happen with religious ideas too. J.B. Bury pictured them all in his book A History of Freedom Of Thought (London, 1957).

Albert Schweitzer was a thinker who reunited sectarian religious tendencies with science. "Theologic" suspicion which hinders science need not battle criticism about scientific exploration.

I presume that Liek Wilardjo's objections are against the concept of manunggaling kawulo lan Gusti which unites human beings with nature and God, due to the theologian concept he believes in. Monism, the scapegoat, is being crucified. In my opinion, monism in a certain context could be the road to salvation, and would at least save human beings from an environmental catastrophe.

Albert Schweitzer did not only break the arrogance of scientists, he also penetrated theology. He was not just an observer of theology, he created ideas which grew into new concepts. We should aim for balance between theological understanding and knowledge.

Learning from the disasters in the Middle Ages, science and religion should be liberated from narrow minded views and doubtful devotion. Religion cannot be freed of its own nor will it liberate. Quite the contrary, it is able to shackle its followers.

I would also like to suggest that Erasmus' works be translated in Indonesian. Desiderius Erasmus, despite his intellectual struggles, would inspire a productive connection between religion, knowledge and the freedom of thought. Enlightenment is needed and it's time to spawn ideas.

The writer is director at the Institute for Inter-faith Dialog in Indonesia, based in Yogyakarta.