By Nikhil George Joseph
New Delhi, Jan 14, 2020: Jesuit Father Job Kozhamthadam is an award-winning historian and philosopher of science, who acknowledges the role of religion in the development of modern science and technology.
The 74-year-old priest is in the breed of scholars who specialize in the history and philosophy of science. He has journeyed from a nondescript town in the southern Indian state of Kerala to being acclaimed as a pioneer in the history of science and religion in India.
Kozhamthadam retired as a professor of Science and Cosmology at Jnana Deepa Vidyapeeth, Pune, India, ten years ago. He was previously a visiting professor in the History and Philosophy of Science at Loyola University, Chicago. He completed his doctorate in the History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Maryland, USA.
His first book, The Discovery of Kepler’s Laws: The Interaction of Science, Philosophy, and Religion was named Outstanding Academic Book of the Year 1994 by Choice Magazine. His other books include East-West Interface Of Reality: A Scientific And Intuitive Inquiry Into The Nature Of Reality (2003), Science, Technology And Values: Science-Religion Dialogue In A Multi-Religious World (2003) and Science, Mysticism And East-West Dialogue (2016). He founded the Indian Institute of Science and Religion (IISR) in 1999.
Nikhil George Joseph, a Jesuit theology student in Delhi, interviewed Father Kozhamthadam recently for Matters India. Excerpts:
MATTERS INDIA: Your scholarly work is dedicated to the advancement of science-religion dialogue and much has been achieved in creating common spaces and merging points between science and religion. What are your insights of working with scientists and intellectuals as a Jesuit-priest-scientist?
Fr. Job Kozhamthadam: I see a lot of good will among the youth. They have a creative dissatisfaction and uneasiness with the status quo but at the same a sincere search for fresh answers to age old questions. Modern science can help in answering these questions. So I want people to take modern science more seriously. This has been my experience from the scientific point of view. Coming to religion, I have a positive attitude. Religion must be fostered. Unfortunately, being around for millennia, religion has accumulated a lot of baggage. Some of them are good. Being a mixture of pure and impure things, religion needs pruning. And in this pruning process too science can help.
Pope John Paul II in one of his ground-breaking letters to Father George Coyne in 1988 has expressed this view. Many others too have said it. What is required is genuine science and genuine religion. Science which is realistic in its achievements, balanced in its claims, and religion which is faithful to its initial intuitions and insights and faithful to its fundamental teachings can do a lot of service towards removing the creative dissatisfaction and uneasiness. That is why science-religion dialogue is an attempt by us to bring together the latest findings of modern science and the deepest insights of religions to build up a better humanity, a better world and, for us Indians, a better India.
Science is often misconstrued as something diametrically opposite to the religious way. There is even the secularist tendency to tag the religious as biased, irrational and cultic. Please suggest some innovative ways to dialogue amid growing trends to compartmentalize science and religion?
For me, the institutionalized religion has two components — One God given and the other human made. Both are important. You can’t remain only with the revelation. As the Catholic Church puts it, tradition too is important. But when I see as a scientist, both cannot be put on the same status. The God-given is for all times, the initial intuition, the kernel of a religion, irrespective of nationality, gender, culture, time, civilization – it cuts across everything, it’s universal. On the other hand, the human made aspects are conditioned by human situation in which the religion finds itself and develops in its various aspects. And these things are revisable. They can evolve. Any rigid position with regard to this can create problems for religion and everybody. The conflict between science and religion must have come up because there has been a tendency by religions to overemphasize the human made aspects; particularly the authority-related and administrative aspects. The reason why religion is construed by scientists as opposing science is because they also look upon religion from the institutional point of view – the human made aspect of it. If religion were to emphasize the God-given aspects and be open about the human made aspects, there would not have been much tension between the two.
Religion and science are seekers of truth which has also been traditionally expressed by both the religious people and scientists. For instance, from the time of St. Augustine, there is a good insight into God’s revelation, that is, God has given us two books, the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature. The astronomer Johannes Kepler left his desire to become a Lutheran pastor because he believed that astronomers are priests of the Almighty serving the Book of Nature. Therefore, there is no need to become a traditional priest of religion. If looked at this way, there is no need for compartmentalization. There is more of convergence than divergence.
Today theology is largely contextual and it explores ways of getting rooted in the human condition. Technological and scientific advancement transform the face of the world at a geometrical pace, perhaps even influencing the human evolution in unknown ways. How could we do theological contextualization in this scenario?
First of all we should have a positive attitude towards science. It has to be made a reality, a part of our culture today. This positive attitude means that the Church leaders should be sufficiently informed about the developments in science and technology. They need to take pains to understand them. They should not assume, or much less, presume that they know it all. They simply do not. The clergy is very poorly informed about scientific developments despite their long years of training. Some are disappointed by the years they have spent in formation and the disproportionate knowledge they have of scientific developments. This has to be changed. To meet this formidable scientific challenge Catholics need visionary and charismatic leadership. Our present leadership often is bureaucratic and traditional. At certain levels this may be necessary, but not to meet this challenge. This situation therefore is a serious lacuna in our leadership and something has to be done to resolve it.
We also need to take the Vatican II seriously. It offered many insights into our dealings with science and technology. The vision it could give for the Church regarding science and Catholicism is greatly charismatic and futuristic. It has often been sadly neglected by the Church leadership. The Vatican II and the General Congregation 31 of the Jesuits (GC 31) have to be seriously studied and their insights have to be taken responsibly if we wish to constructively respond to the scientific challenge.
Acknowledging science-religion dialogue to be a crucial mission of the Church today and particularly of the Jesuits what are some issues we encounter today and how are we to respond to them?
I had written an article some years ago about scientific developments and how to respond to them. Some of the challenges coming are that science has developed so much that it can determine not only what we have and wish to have, but what we are and wish to become. The role of science earlier was only to provide some gadgets or technology, but today it has become highly capable and influential, and it has moved deep into our lives. It plays a significant role in setting and shaping our value system, worldview, and expectation levels. This would mean that we should look at science differently now.
Secondly, many things done by religion earlier have been found to be within the purview of science. For instance, earlier people thought that life span, skin complexion, intelligence, and other matters depended on God, but today science is in a position to deal with these things, and it says it has answers for them. We don’t have to go to God for this. Religion has to face this change in the role of religion creatively and constructively. The challenge now is to redefine the role of religion in the context of the developments in science and technology.
At such a juncture, religion should not impede scientific development. Some say science leads us to atheism, secularism, and so it has to be stopped. But there is no way of stopping scientific development, whether religion approves it or not. So, the role of religion is to move with the flow of the times, and guide this flow in the right direction. It will be its primary role. Be with the flow but don’t allow it to go in its own course, but guide it in the right direction by the time-tested values of religion.
Coming to the specific issues, today’s understanding of the human soul in the light of neurological developments needs revision. The traditional idea came from Plato which were modified and Christianized by Saints Augustine and Aquinas. But that was when neuroscience was non-existent. In the light of today’s tremendous developments we need to have a modified understanding of what the soul is and the soul-body relationship. Of course, such serious matters should be done under the guidance and approval of the appropriate authorities in the Church. As Pope John Paul II in 1988 wrote to Father George Coyne, SJ, this requires theologians to be in touch with scientists and sufficiently informed about the developments.
Another example is the Aristotelian cosmology with its emphasis on celestial/terrestrial distinction, and its religious counterpart spiritual/material distinction. For Aristotle and his medieval followers there was a great gap between the celestial and the terrestrial and in the religious sphere between the spiritual and the material. Today in cosmology this gap is becoming thinner and thinner in the light of scientific developments. It seems to me that contemporary theologians with sufficient knowledge of scientific developments should seriously reflect whether this finding of cosmology call for a new look at spiritual/material distinction. The Book of Genesis at least 6 times says concerning the material universe: “And God found it good.” Modern science and scientists would want to give the material universe and related matters a more positive merit and value than traditional Christianity has been giving.
The matter of worldview is another important point. Catholicism in some ways is still wedded to traditional, Thomistic worldview which is static and non-evolutionary. In some aspects the Church is still stuck in the static worldview. Today evolution has become a scientific fact, certain unexplained and controversial aspects. My understanding of dynamic does not deny continuity – there are certain core values and beliefs that do not change, but there are also elements that change. Evolution is not the same as revolution. Revolution means that the old ways have gone away and the new have been put in. On the other hand, evolution implies that there is certain kernel that is continuous and unchanging, but the expressions of that kernel changes. So the fundamentals of Catholicism will not change. But as Pope John XXIII, while inaugurating the Vatican II, said, the fundamental faith and teaching will remain the same, but the way it is understood, presented and communicated, needs to be changed. This approach will render the fundamental faith more meaningful and relevant to humans who are part of the evolutionary process. This point too needs to be taken up by competent, scientifically informed theologians and other thinkers, under the guidance of appropriate authorities.
Does quantum mechanics, with the emergence of concepts like quantum superposition, and entanglement, offer ways to accommodate a certain unknown into itself?
Quantum mechanics and theory of Relativity are revolutionary theories. They have helped science-religion dialogue immensely. They made the dialogue not only possible, but necessary and fruitful. These theories and some other more recent ones have forced scientists, especially the atheistic-minded scientists, to desist from any absolutization of science or scientism. Einstein’s idea of interconvertability of matter and energy has been a tremendous development. It showed us that energy is in a way matter and vice versa. That’s why it is said that with these theories the gap between spiritual and material realms has become narrower.
David Bohm, another important contributor to quantum theory, says that our reality is more than what Einstein has discovered. From energy and matter duality it should be expanded further, and consciousness or spirituality also has to be brought in. Therefore he says that reality is tripartite – matter (mass), energy and consciousness or spirituality. He could not develop this idea much because of certain circumstances, but this is something worth developing. Consciousness has to be taken seriously with the developments in artificial intelligence. Many things that were attributed to the spirit or soul in us may come under aspects that can be tackled by science and it is happening already. Sophia, the humanoid, produced by the Hong Company is a great example for that. It may be noted that this robotic Sophia has been given citizenship by Saudi Arabia. Bohm had said that he had developed theories where this dimension of spirituality had been analysed. It seems to me that the human soul could be subjected to a study in light of all these developments, particularly in Artificial Intelligence and Neurology, giving us better understanding of it although I am inclined to think that this spiritual dimension will never be fully understood by science. There is always a distinction between matter and spirit, but in the past we made too much out of it, but it needs to be revisited.
There are certain individual or collective experiences that are often explained as something metaphysical or mystical in religious parlance. In the scientific arena there exists a quest for the knowledge of the ultimate ‘why’ of existence which could also have been an impetus to seek for the theory of everything. What could be some of the similarities and differences in the way of science and religion that seeks to find the cause and core of all seeking?
Earlier science was thought to deal with the how questions and religion and philosophy with the why or the big questions. But today there is more of a convergence of search than divergence. Now, mysticism is not foreign to science. Many scientists were and are mystics. Mysticism is an area of the human mind to enter into a world where discursive reasoning and empirical science cannot enter. Today science is giving us more and more evidence that the world we live in is much more than what the senses can perceive. Some examples are gravitational wave, God particle and most importantly dark energy and dark matter. They tell us that the physical world is no more limited to the empirical expertise. Mysticism should therefore be looked at as an effort of the human mind to enter the trans-rational and trans-empirical. From this point of view Einstein and Newton were all mystics.
In the past people thought that if something could not be understood by the present human rational method, it must be hollow or an illusion. This idea has been challenged by science. Consequently, the view that whatever is mystical is unreal and illusory is. Most scientists were in the mystical world in their most creative moments. Think of Einstein, he could never have reasoned in the traditional scientific way into relativity because it is highly counter-intuitive, because our reasoning is based on premises, and premises are based on experiences but our experiences never tell us that time is relative or space is relative or the inter-convertibility of matter and energy. He could have done it only via some supra-sensory moment. Several other scientists like Arthur Eddington were also mystics in some ways. In the light of these considerations the pejorative tag that is put on mysticism will have to be revised. I would also give credibility to some religious mystics as well. Fritjof Capra talked about intuitions of eastern mystics. According to him, as given in his international bestseller The Tao of Physics, what the mystics foresaw thousands of years ago, the scientists are confirming today. The mind is capable of penetrating much deeper than empirical science.
It is also known that the medieval Christian-Islam theologies had their basis in Aristotelian Philosophy. Now, however, such a relationship seems to be often forgotten. Do you see ways today where science could act as a common ground for promoting inter-religious dialogue in India?
It is true that Islam and Christianity share a lot in common, not only culturally, philosophically, religiously but even to some extent theologically. In the Middle Ages Islam contributed immensely to the growth of the intellectual tradition as it preserved the Aristotelian heritage. My experience with them is limited and also my knowledge. So I do not wish to make any statements about this. Personally I think that Islam needs to reflect much more on modern science as some of their statements concerning the relationship between Islam and modern science are rather too general to be taken seriously by the scholars. In one of my published papers I argue that “science-religion dialogue can be a catalyst for effective inter-religious dialogue.” I say this because science is accepted and respected by both the religions. Also science does not get involved in too many controversies, and even if some arise there are ways to settle them because of the empirical backing in science. In science we can always find a common ground. It is not an agent but a catalyst. It can facilitate dialogue between different religions.
Coming to the Society of Jesus, why do fewer Jesuits now join scientific research and science-religion dialogue? How could we to respond to the crisis?
There are many reasons for this cooling down of interest in scientific research and dialogue among the Jesuits. One of the saddest aspects of today’s Jesuit society is the lack of awareness of the tremendous scientific heritage the Society has. Society was recognized by secular scholars as ‘the scientific order’ of the Catholic Church. This is absolutely true. Starting from the time of St. Ignatius, science was taken seriously by the Jesuits Order. St. Ignatius was not a scientist, but had a scientific temper and mind-set. His “Contemplation to Attain Love (Contemplatio ad amorem) is a beautiful example of genuine scientific spirit. This has been very strongly present for the first three centuries the Jesuit tradition. But slowly it began sagging. It’s still there now, but not given any prominence. I feel sad that GC 36 made no mention of the importance of science and technology in today’s world. It shows a sad ignorance or at least overlooking of the formidable scientific challenge the world is facing. The Jesuit society should have taken it earnestly. In my view, in the Catholic Church today our Jesuit Society is most prepared to meet this challenge. I also feel sad that the UAP (Universal Apostolic Preferences) also find no place for it.
The second reason for this apathy is due to the overemphasis on social activism. When Father Pedro Arrupe stressed social involvement by Jesuits it was never in his mind that this should be ‘the’ charism of the society. GC 32 Decree 4 has been overplayed much. The Society’s creativity and initial spirit were dampened considerably not because of the social apostolate, but due to the overemphasis on that. Too many talented people went into it and that has stifled the scientific aspect. Many congregations have taken the social apostolate seriously. I know of it from my over 40 years of full involvement in JDV (Jnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth), Pune, where quite many congregations and dioceses are represented. But there are very few people who engage in scientific research. Jesuits are one of the best candidates for that. Our contribution should be in all fields, “where others do not reach or find it difficult to reach.” Let social commitment remain where it is, but let more people take up scientific research as well.