I.First Use . . .

          It is time that we faced the painful rift between science and theology in their understanding of the universe and try to bring about a dialogue between their approaches to human life. This rift is not just an issue of external data, but of interpretation. It enters deeply into the very fabric of our being and into all the aspects of our interpersonal relationships. This division affects all of our present culture. The human race has a great desire for integration. We need to discover a way of dialogue that satisfies scientists, theologians and the rest of humanity. Such a dialogue can benefit both science and theology. Eventually a reconciliation might take place that will benefit all humanity, individuals and communities (nations).

          Dialogue is more than discussion. It implies that both sides are content that their positions have been satisfied. A third standpoint surfaces. The contributions of both science and theology are acknowledged. Furthermore the contributions are seen as enhancing both disciplines. The importance of each to the human race is recognized. But it is also appreciated that the integrated knowledge and contributions are most important for both scientists and theologians and for the human race.

          My thesis is that the topic of creation which includes creator and creature, is the place to begin a dialogue to repair the rift between science and religion, scientists and theologians, to their enrichment and that of the human race. I hope this chapter will be of value in such a dialogue. I will begin with some material on the development of science and theology in recent years. Eventually, I intend to introduce the topic of spiritual creaturehood as an expression of rapprochement. But more on that later. First, some distinctions and definitions.

Distinctions/definitions:
          Scientists and theologians are united in the desire to know and understand the great phenomenon of the universe. For the scientist, the universe is a puzzle to be solved. For the theologian, the universe is a mystery to be understood. As I proceed in this article I would like to describe the work of the scientist and the work of the theologian. It is also important for this article that I distinguish both of these from spirituality although both science and theology flow into spirituality.

          The province of scientists has become matter alone as it exists in the observable universe. Their object is to investigate and understand matter through sensory data by observation, measurement and experimentation. They observe how material things move and interact. The province of theologians is to investigate and understand God and God's relationship with all that exists. Their material of investigation is the revealed information of sacred writings or the mental activity of sages, prophets, poets, etc. They consider the doctrine given by assemblies of learned people who consider the significance of sacred writings and insights of previous scholars for the present day. A good example of this is the document, "The Church in the Modern World," of Vatican II. Spirituality is somewhat different from both of these although it may contain insights from them. Science and theology are concerned about data external to the scientist or theologian, spirituality is a personal knowledge from the interior experience within the individual or within a community of people.

          Writers today speak of a new cosmology in reference to modern scientific discoveries. But it is important to know that three approaches are used in the study of the universe, i.e, cosmology, cosmogony and world view(Weltanshaft). John Haughey, SJ, describes them in this way: "A cosmology is a formal understanding of the nature of the cosmos. It can be mythic, religious, scientific, or a mixture of these. A cosmogony is an interpretation of how the world began. It, too, can be scientific, mythic, religious, or a mixture of these. A worldview (Weltanschauung) is a cosmic perspective that influences not only one's particular perceptions of the world but also of everything that happens in it."⁽⁷⁾ In this chapter on creation we will be dealing more with cosmogony than cosmology, that is, the origins of the universe rather than its size, make up and activity. For the most part we will use the word cosmology to refer to cosmology, cosmogony and world view.

Scientists' and theologians' past and present position about the universe.
          Since the enlightenment scientists began with the supposition that the universe and all that is in it is only physical matter, i.e., inanimate matter of molecules and atoms. They felt no need to consider the place of God in all this. In response to this, and increasingly as certain literalist beliefs had been shown by science to be absurd, theologians started on the "spirit" side of things. God was totally separate from the material world and humans were superior to material things.⁽⁸⁾ They said that the material world, and human bodies for that matter, were not significant. Only the spiritual soul of a human was of significance. Theologians focussed on the transcendence of God in their attempt to understand the wisdom of past generations.

          But in the last century both scientists and theologians started to express their knowledge in new ways. Scientists today hover on the edge of the spiritual when they speak of a consciousness in non-human beings whether of animals or plants or stars or galaxies.⁽⁹⁾ They recognize that the universe has a beginning (big bang theory) and a history. They have moved from a static understanding of the universe with eternal physical laws that follow necessarily to one that is constantly changing with new laws developing within it. Theologians have shifted from a disregard for the body to demonstrate the significance of the bodily, corporate, side of humans. Now they accept the significance of matter. They have moved from an aloofness that promotes human superiority over other creatures to one of relationship and dependency on the rest of creation. They recognize the many ways that humans are materially connected to animals, plants and stars. Today, they say that matter (the body) is the agent of communication and relationship with the rest of the universe. The immanence of God has gained great prominence in their writing.

          So we see that there is change and growth in the understanding of the universe and its inhabitants in both science and theology. As the rigidness of positions is softened there arises the possibility of dialogue. Such a dialogue would begin by acknowledging the validity of the other one's position.

          This suggests that we can approach the fact of creation as a revealed truth as theologians do or from the data of the senses and expanses of space and time, from the data of existence such as growth and decay, life and death, etc. as scientists do. In a dialogue each can help the other within their own disciplines. Raimon Panikar distinguishes two kinds of dialogue, dialectic dialogue and dialogical dialogue. In dialectic dialogue there is a process of presenting positions for the sake of clarification and defence of one's position. In dialogical dialogue both parties are open to discover something new. The "I-Thou" becomes "We".⁽¹⁰⁾

          In a recent assembly the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) had this to say on dialogue between religions:

Dialogue reaches out to the mystery of God active in others…Our spiritual encounter with believers of other religions helps us to discover deeper dimension of our Christian faith and wider horizons of God's salvific presence in the world. Dialogue is a new way of being Church.⁽¹¹⁾

Creation: common ground for dialogue and integration
          The topic of creation, that is, the one that deals with creatures, creator and creation is a good topic to bring together the insights of science and theology. It is a common ground for science and theology. Both scientists and theologians are creatures first. Yet they approach the topic of creation differently. They both approach creation from a somewhat theoretical or objective position; science from a position of empirical data of the senses, theology from an examination of the historical expressions of sages and sacred writings.

          As scientists move from a non-historical (eternal) and law-controlled understanding of the universe to a historical and indeterminate sense of the universe they have developed a new cosmology, the universe is not predictable but constantly changing and expanding. Their experiments and measurements suggest that the universe began with an initial explosion of small particles (quarks, electrons, etc.). They speak of the Big Bang as the moment when the universe came into existence. Some scientists say that a: "Major discovery of the twentieth century is that the universe is neither immutable nor eternal, as most scientists believed in the past."

          Concerning the beginnings of the universe Reeves, De Rosnay, Coppens, Simonett, remark: "The universe has a history, it has constantly, endlessly evolved, become rarified, grown cold, become more structured. ... it was nothing more than a kind of thick puree, a formless, pasty soup, with temperatures in the billions of degrees. We have no knowledge of what preceded that event."⁽¹²⁾ Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time separates 'time' from the event of creation. According to John Honner, "Hawking thus concludes that the beginning of time needs no explanation."⁽¹³⁾ Honner quotes these words of Hawking, "There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time."⁽¹⁴⁾

          Terence McKenna also expresses some doubt about the big bang theory. He says, "One of the things that's always puzzled me about the Big Bang is the notion of singularity. This theory cannot predicate behaviour outside its domain, yet everything that happens and all our other theories follow from it. The immense improbability that modern science rests on but cares not to discuss, is the belief that the universe sprang from nothing in a single moment."⁽¹⁵⁾

          This new awareness by scientists gradually pervades our culture. So that as the scientists grapple with the issue of incertitude in the material universe, theologians have to grapple with the notion of incertitude in religious and spiritual life. All we can rely upon is the goodness and love of the Trinity towards us and the universe.

          Theologians continue to hold that creation is a mystery, i.e., something that can never be totally grasped, something that has been revealed to us. Like some scientists they have wondered in the past if the universe is eternal. J M. Quinn in an article on "Eternity" summarizes the discussion with these words: "One view, inspired by absolutistic metaphysic, holds that the nature of divine action necessitates an eternal world. ... An effect must be proportional to its cause ... that God generates the universe by natural necessity. ... According to a second opinion, popular with some scholastics, an eternal world is impossible. As God has revealed, the universe was in fact created in time. God so created without necessity and with reason."⁽¹⁶⁾

          For theologians the new cosmology of scientists has heightened this sense of mystery as they are faced with the new scientific discoveries as scientists describe their findings about the universe in terms of huge numbers (billions of light years between galaxies) and time (14-15 billion years old). Yet the question remains, "Does the new cosmology actually mean that the universe began fifteen billion years ago? Or that the Big Bang is really the origin of the origin? We have no idea."⁽¹⁷⁾ For theologians we are still within a mystery. The new scientific theories of the origin, size and expansion of the universe have brought the topic of creation into our awareness in a new way.

          What is meant by the creative act? Scientists use the big bang theory as an expression of the beginning and development of the universe. A question arises, "Where did the components for the big bang come from--from chance or from previous matter?" Theologians express the act of creating somewhat differently. The creative act that brings and sustains the universe in existence takes place by some force or energy beyond it. For theologians creation implies the existence of a Creator that is beyond the universe. They insist that creation is the act of a transcendent God. They rely on sacred writings to support their contention, such as: "For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counsellor? Or who has given a gift to him to him, to receive a gift in return? For from him and through him and to him are all things, To him be the glory forever. Amen." (Rom 11:36). From such writings Christians proclaim that the creator is a person, God the Father, or better a community of persons (the Trinity).

          Modern scientists do not get involved in the idea of a creator from outside the universe, especially a personal creator. They wish to deal with the empirical data that is within the universe to explain the origin on the universe. They propose a coincidence or chance situation resulting in the Big Bang. Theologians have difficulty with the scientists starting point.

          Believers in God as Creator tell this story: "Some scientists approached God and stated that they could create a better human than God. God says, OK. Let's start. God reaches down and gathers some mud and begins shaping a human. The scientists also gather some mud in order to begin analysing and reorganizing it. Then God says, 'You guys get your own mud!' " Still, the two positions can be the basis of a dialogue on the origin of the universe. Both disciplines begin with the existence of things beyond themselves.

          Both are seeking answers about the origin of the universe. Both can grow in their own disciplines whether they approach creation as a mystery to be appreciated or as a problem to be solved.

          Fundamentally, theologians say that God created from nothing (ex nihilo). Scientists are not interested in the created act but in how to relate to what is in existence. Theologians see the mystery of creation to flow from experience rather than an objective set of data to be solved by mathematics. Thomas McGonigle writes that, "Mystery centres on the experiential acknowledgment of the absolute transcendence of God whenever one encounters the divine salvific activity within human history. Awe and reverence in the presence of the divine mark all the revelatory experiences that the world's great religions see as crucial to the Creator-creature relationship."⁽¹⁸⁾ Rudolph Otto in his innovative book The Idea of the Holy writes on the experience of Moses before the burning bush. Otto speaks of this as an experience of the numinous that brings awe and fascination, it is the experience of abasement, overwhelmed by one's nothingness before the Supreme Above All.⁽¹⁹⁾ A variation of this sense of wonder is also in the heart of the true scientist.

          In Christianity the basic revealed texts on creation are found in Genesis and in the Psalms. In seven days the Lord God created the heavens and the earth, plants, animals and humans, "In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. ... God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good." (Gn 1:27-31) In Psalm 96 we read: "Come, let us kneel before the Lord our Maker ."(Ps 96:6) St Paul speaks of the knowledge of the Creator given by the things made: "For what can be known about God is plain … because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made."(Rom 1:19-20)

A New Approach to Materials outside the Observer
          The new cosmology includes the theories of the origin of the universe, e.g., the Big Bang Theory, the Theory of Evolution, the New Sense of History--age of the universe, of earth, of human race, the new sense of connectedness between the earth and the universe. A Cisternian monk, Bede Griffiths considering the changed understanding the universe writes:

According to David Bohm, the whole is present in every part. Using the analogy of a hologram, what we see is not the reality itself, but the reality reflected through our senses and the instruments which we use to further the senses, interpreted by the observing mind. ... the world cannot be understood apart from the mind. We ourselves are part of the field of energies which we observe; energy and consciousness, mind and matter are interdependent.⁽²⁰⁾

          In an article on creation, Dennis Carroll writes "Teilhard de Chardin's lifelong search was for synthesis: of reason and authority, of matter and spirit, of science and faith. This shows itself in his exigence of continuity: between matter and spirit, between past, present and future, between body and soul, ... despite its pain, failure and apparent absurdities, creation is destined to share the life of the Trinity. For Teilhard the goal of the universe discloses its meaning. ... Teilhard speaks of a "within" to all things, operative even at the atomic level. It is a force for convergence, cohesion and unity."⁽²²⁾

Difficulties with such a dialogue
          There are difficulties in dialogue between scientists and theologians. This does not have to do with the basic data presented in both disciplines but rather in the different approaches to knowledge itself. It could be that the real dialogue revolves around the questions: "What is true knowledge?" "How is it attained?" This might be summarized under the topic Objective and Subjective knowledge.

          In a dialogue between scientists and theologians, we have to be aware of two basic derivations of knowledge. The scientists consider knowledge as the activity of understanding things in themselves, independent of the one knowing, whether outside or inside oneself. This is commonly named objective knowledge. Theologians would also include the knowledge that is interiorly known by persons (subjective knowledge) that come to us through witnesses. For example, there is no so-called objective evidence on the Resurrection of Jesus but only the witness of the Apostles. The observations of scientists such as Bohr and Heisenberg mentioned above has put into doubt any independent objective knowledge. The past experience of the observer and the very presence of the observer influence both the observed and the interpretation of it. Yet, even interior experience is treated in a materialistic, objective way. There is little credence given to data given by the evidence of witnesses in the scientific world. Without actual analysis and experimental measurements the scientific community does not accept such evidence. Whereas, in the Christian theological community witness is of prime importance.

          Science is only about measurement, it has nothing to say about the non-material. If there is no physical sign, science must be silent. That is why science says there is no evidence about angels, not there are no angels. Scientism is a position that says only science speaks authoritatively about what is true. At root it is a religious position (like communism). Only the material is real.

          Since the 1930's the subject to object approach has undergone great changes even among physicists. John Haught recognizes that Whitehead, Teilhard and Polanyi express the need for subjectivity in all beings in the universe. "It has always been a mark of modern science to leave out of its purview the whole realm of subjectivity… we have every right to ask, with Whitehead, why there is no room in science's understanding of evolution for the emergence of the most obvious experience any of us has, namely, the sense of our selves as experiencing subjects." ⁽²³⁾

          Concerning the need for subjective knowledge Haught writes: "Teilhard, like Whitehead, argues there is a subjective element that runs throughout the whole of evolution in varying degrees of thickness. There is always a "within-ness" that corresponds by degrees to the outward complexity of all beings…To followers of both Whitehead and Teilhard there can be no meaningful theology of evolution that seeks to relate the notion of God to a cosmos from which all strains of mind, inwardness, or subjectivity have already been wrenched arbitrarily."⁽²⁴⁾ Teilhard was convinced that there was a purpose, a direction, an end (teleology) to the universe and he promoted the awareness of evolving consciousness in the universe as the basis for his argument.

          For Teilhard, Christ was the beginning (Alpha) and the end (Omega) of this grand process. John Haught writes that Teilhard would surely endorse, "Jurgen Moltmann's reminder that in the biblical view of things the word "God" means, before all else 'Future'." Insuch a metaphysics of the future, all things are drawn by an act of attraction to the end.⁽²⁵⁾ This is somewhat like the Aristotlean "final causality", for example, getting a goal in soccer or ice hockey is the final causality. Final causality draws the ball or puck to its destination. Rupert Sheldrake connects this image of attraction given by the mathematician Ralph Abraham to entelechy. Aristotle called this entelechy "the end that attracted toward itself the process of change." These attractors in mathematical view "seem to imply a pulling from in front rather than a pushing from behind… [Such] an idea of an attractor [is significant] for the entire cosmic evolutionary process." ⁽²⁶⁾

          Both scientists and theologians can deal with objective and subjective data. The objective data of the scientist are immediately present to the senses, whereas the objective data of the theologian are the materials remembered by historical witnesses. These are the written documents and practices passed on from past generations. Subjectively, scientists continue to experiment with the data outside themselves until they are interiorly (subjectively) satisfied that the solution fits all the concerns. Theologians also study documents until they are satisfied with their explanations of the meaning of the documents they have at hand. It is important that the understanding of knowledge combine both objective and subjective knowledge.

          To facilitate dialogue it is important to realize that full knowledge demands a subjective knowledge of the objective, that is, experience of the external and an objective knowledge of the subjective grasp of the experience. Lonergan believes that the difficulty of dialogue is found in an incomplete understanding of how we come to know things exterior to ourselves and interior to us. There is a tendency among all of us to consider knowledge as, "Seeing that which is already out there now real." He insisted on a dynamic of Experience, Reflection, Judgment, Decision (and Love). From this he suggests that true objectivity is subjective and true subjectivity is objective.⁽²⁷⁾

          Emotion (affect) is the critical difference between data and knowledge. Knowledge distinguishes from data precisely in that it at once creates and confirms belief. Belief, by its very nature, has an affective element. We create knowledge when our perceptions ignite a response in or strike a chord with what we care about through our heart. Truth is about something that matters, Jesus died on the cross is data. To the believer it is a truth that governs one's life.

          Theologians can give scientists images, horizons, and perspectives to inspire them in their understanding of and experimental efforts with physical nature. Rupert Sheldrake recalls his Christian background in many instances as he tries to explain natural phenomena.⁽²⁸⁾ It is also true that natural scientists can assist theologians with their images, horizons and perspectives as this applies to spirituality. As to images, horizons, and perspective Lonergan points out:

To learn is not just the sensation of seeing or hearing or touching or the like. To learn is to perceive, and to perceive is to complete that hypothetical entity, the raw datum, with memories, associations, as structure, and one's emotive and expressive reactions. It is the difference between sensation and perception ... not only can one describe what one really sees, but also one really sees what one can describe. It led a chairman of a department of chemistry to remark to me ... that theoretical developments in chemistry during the previous five years had enlarged enormously the field not of knowledge, but of data. I would not upset the adage, Seeing is believing. But there is also some truth in the inverse statement, "Believing helps you to see it." ⁽²⁹⁾

Transition among scientists and theologians
          As mentioned above Scientists today hover on the edge of the spiritual when they speak of a consciousness in non-human beings whether of animals or plants or stars or galaxies. They recognize that the universe has a history. They have moved from a static law structure of physical matter promoted by Newton to awareness of new laws constantly developing. For their part, Theologians now admit the significance of the body side of humans. Matter has become important in the spiritual understanding of things especially in communications. No longer are humans superior over other creatures. There is a communal connection between all things of the universe. Acknowledgment of the immanence of God in the universe is given high priority.

          So we see that there is change and growth in the understanding of the universe and its inhabitants in both science and theology. As the rigidness of positions is softened there arises the possibility of dialogue. This demands an acknowledgment of the validity of another's position so that eventually a third position agreed upon by both is accepted. In a recent Congregation of Jesuits they had to say concerning Dialogue with different religions: [135] "Dialogue reaches out to the mystery of God active in others. ... Our spiritual encounter with believers of other religions helps us to discover deeper dimensions of our Christian faith and wider horizons of God's salvific presence in the world. ... to grasp the deeper truth and meaning of the mystery of Christ in relation to the universal history of God's self-revelation."⁽³⁰⁾ So it is possible for scientists and theologians to work to the deeper truth about the mystery of creation--humans and the universe.

^7. Haughey, John, SJ: "World" in New Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality, Collegeville Press, Collegville, M. 1996. p.1057.

^8. The Deist position suggested that God was necessary for the creation of the universe. But after creation God was totally uninvolved with the universe. It was as if God the watchmaker had created and wound up a spring operated watch and then let it wind down until it stopped. This is known as entropy.

^9. This is a recent topic of discussion by scientists such as Rupert Sheldrake, Terence McKenna, Ralph Abram. See Sheldrake, McKenna, Abraham: Chaos, Creativity and Cosmic Consciousness, Park Street Press, Rochester, Vermont. 2001. p. 74.

^10. Cf. Panifar, Raimon: The Intra-Religious Dialogue, Paulist Press, NY, 1999. p.335-40.

^11. Documents of the Thirty-Fourth General Congregation of the Society of Jesus, Institute of Jesuit Sources., St. Louis, MO, 1996, p. 72.

^12. Reeves, De Rosnay, Coppens, Simonett, Ibid. p.16

^13. Honner, John: "Time, God and Cosmology," The Way, London. 1999. p.33.

^14. Hawking, Stephen, A Brief History of Time, Bantam, NY, 1988. p.136

^15. McKenna, Ibid, p. 6

^16. Quinn, J.M.: "Eternity," New Catholic Encyclopedia, McGraw Hill Book Company, NT, 1967. p. 565

^17. Ibid pp. 15-16

^18. McGonigle, Thomas, O. P.: "Mystery," The New Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality, Editor Michael Downey, Liturgical Press, Collegville, MN., 1993. p.677.

^19. Otto, Rudolph: The Idea of the Holy, Oxford University Press, NY 1950. Pp. 10.

^20. Griffiths, Bede: "Universal Consciousness and the Mystical Traditions," in Theology Digest, St. Louis, MO. #34:3 (Fall, 1987). pp. 246-7.

^21. Lazlo, Ervin: The Creative Cosmos; A Unified Science of Life and Mind, Floris Books, Edinburgh, 1993. p.33

^22. Carroll, Denis, "Creation," The New Dictionary of Theology, ibid. p.252.

^23. 21. Haught, John: God after Darwin, A Theology of Evolutions, Westview Press, Boulder Colorado. p.168

^24. Ibid, p178.

^25. Ibid p.84

^26. Sheldrake, McKenna, Abraham: Chaos, Creativity and Cosmic Consciousness, Park Stree Press, Rochester, Vermont. p.31.

^27. David Creamer gives a good summary of Lonergan's levels of conscious intentionality. See Creamer, David, SJ: Guides for the Journey, University Press of America, Lantham, MD 1996. p.67

^28. See books given in endnotes 13, 16....

^29. Lonergan, Bernard, S.J.:A Third Collection, Papers by Bernard, J.F, Lonergan , S.J., Edited by Frederick Crowe, S.J., Paulist Press, New York, 1985. p. 16-17.

^30. Documents of the Thirty- Fourth General Congregation of the Society of Jesus, Institute of Jesuit Sources, St Louis. 1995. [135] p.72