St Andrews Seminary - Mapav Yearbook (Rochester, NY)

Page 33 text:

1 9 3 9 The Church and Science Catholics have so frequently heard the denial of the existence of a conflict between the Church and science that, in some cases, they regard that denial as based upon the authority of the Church. They forget that this is a reasoned conclusion based upon the validity of human reason, and not upon faith. Science is a knowledge of things in their proximate causes. It is founded on experience and generalizations and deductions drawn from those experiences. Scientific experiment demands accuf rate instruments and most careful observation and under such conditions the possihility of error is minimized. Therefore we must admit that facts proved by sciencific experiment are not to be def nied nor the logical conclusions drawn from them. When these conditions are fulfilled we say that the science is true v- it represents things as they are. Now, on the other hand, we have the Catholic Church, founded by Cod and guided by Him, Who is the source of all truth. To deny that such a Church teaches truth would deny the truth and goodness of God and the validity of human reason by means of which these attributes can be discovered. It is very evident that there can be no conf flict between true science and the true Church because they both represent reality-things as they are. In this way if the Church makes a state' ment, science cannot contradict Her and still ref main true. True science is reasonable for it is built upon logical reasoning from observed facts. The Church is reasonable, for none of her doctrines is contrary to reason and many of them can be proved by reasoning upon the knowledge of ex' perience. So, if we were to admit that there can exist a conflict between Church and science, we must deny the validity of human reason with vtihich each is in perfect harmony. If we deny the validity of reason, we wipe out science and there' fore, the conflict. That is all very well, it may be objected, JosEPH LYNCH, '39 but it is not to be denied' that the Church has come in conflict with the teachings of scientists. Does not that give the lie to your conclusion? You must remember that we defined science as a certain knowledge, and it is with this definite knowledge that the Church can have no conflict. However, in the scientihc method there is one step which, while it is a perfectly logical step to take, does not proceed in a logical manner. This is the step in which scientific theories are formed and it is with these theories that the Church occasionally has difficulty. We said that this step does not proceed logic' ally. It lies more in the field of fancy and imag ination than in the field of strict logic. The scien tist tries to picture in his mind what is taking place in reality. He does not proceed slowly and surely, step by step, but draws a mental picture of what he thinks may possibly be occurring in nature. He is like an artist who here and there gets a brief and somewhat hazy glimpse of his model. He fills in the blank spaces with what he thinks is probably truly there, but as these points cannot be demonstrated, they remain merely a guess and, possibly a very pretty picture. We also stated that a man is logical in taking that step, and he remains so as long as he rememf bers that the result of his labor is a theory and not certain scientiic knowledge. Man is naturally interested in mechanism g he always wants to know how and why a thing works. So it is rea' sonable that he should seek to explain natural phenomena. The purpose of science is utilitarian and so, if this step yields practical application, and it does, a scientist is perfectly logical in using it. However, the theorist ceases to be logical when he forgets that he is theorizing and treats his picture as a scientific fact and demands for it the respect that demonstrable facts command. When he comes upon a fact with which his theory does not agree, if he is logical, he revises his theory, if he is illogical, he tries to get around the fact. In the same way, when he comes in conf twentyfjive

Page 32 text:

S A T O R the work means something to you, when you see in it a reflection or extension of yourself, when it becomes an outlet for you, you will be anxious to know the details of the author's life. We cannot lay down any definite rules for reading. The principal rule is to find the writer or writers, the book or books, that enrich our thinking by interpreting it. Sometimes the right book startles or warns us, sometimes it takes issue with us, sometimes it reveals new hidden powers, but in all cases it reveals something in common with us. Literature gives the most service to those who feel the need of a spokesman-who have something to say but lack the ability to say it. Wheiiever we read, we ought remember that we are developing our own personalities and that the book or story is only an extension of ourselves, an outlet for our thoughts and feelings. .Q , Ja. .HEL-Q Q J,iD?- ,- fQ.11s-.K fa d ' M 1 . To His Lasting Fame Adapted from an ode of Horace More enduring than bronze is the monument I have conceived, And more lofty than tombs that the kings of great Egypt once reared. For not beating of rain, nor the power of wind from the North, Nor the cycle of years in their endless swift course, not the flight Of the ages, may lessen it, carry away, or destroy. My demise incomplete e'er will be, for the part of my works That shall scape the fell clutches of Death's hungry goddess is great. On and on shall I grow, ever fresh with the husbandry, praise Of the time that shall after. As long as some priest shall ascend, Midst the hush of the virgins, the height of the Capitoline Shall my name still be heard,-- where the Aufidus wild and untamed In its course flows protestingly by, and where Daunus, a king Of a parched estate and a monarch, the lowly of birth, Over peasants for subjects once ruled,f as the first to adapt The Aeolian meters to measures Italian in form. O, accept this proud honor, my Muse, which by merits of thine I have won, and Phoebus' bright laurels of bay, may thou deign In thy pleasure to bind and encircle the brow of thy bard. twentyffowr CHARLEs LANGWORTHY, '40

Page 34 text:

We might close with a quotation from Har' S A T O R flict with the teaching of the Church, if he is logical, he revises this theory, and if illogical, he persists in error, saying with those whom Arnold Lunn calls infalliblists : I feel this to be true - therefore it is truesl declare it so. Some may say that the Church teaches doc' trines which cannot be demonstrated, and there' fore is just as illogical as is the theorist. Now, the acceptance of doctrine as fact, though it can' not be demonstrated, depends upon faith. In the case of the Church it is faith in a doctrine ref vealed by God and dependent upon His Good' flict with the truths of the Church, even those truths which cannot be demonstrated, the reason' able man, the true scientistis forced by his own reason to yield to the teaching of the Church. Therefore there can be no conflict between the true Church and true science. However, there will always be discord between the pseudofscienf tist and the theories which he would make true by declaration, and the Church which finds fault with science only because that science is un' scientific. ness and Truth. In the case of the scientist, it is a doctrine revealed by a man and dependent upon his own sentiment regarding what is true. There can be no doubt as to which type of faith is the more reasonable and the more scientific. nack, speaking about the philosophic system of the Church: Scholasticism is simply nothing else hut scientific thought and it is merely perpetuat' ing an unwarranted prejudice when it is thought that this part of the general history of science When the theories of science come in con' should be designated by a special name. I SON OF GOD Son of God - With all His goodness, Shining forth In all His fullness. Son of Mary - Man in perfectiong Showing forth His tender affection. Sun of justice - The hope of the sorry, Shining forth In eternal Glory. GEORGE HYNES, '40 twentyfsix