Scientific Paradigms In Dialogue With Theological Methodology In An Age Of Science.


Being an award winning International Essay authored by ANYANWU UGOCHUKWU STOPHYNUS, a final year Theology student of the prestigious BIGARD MEMORIAL SEMINARY, ENUGU-NIGERIA. This essay was adjudged outstanding in the Science in Seminaries Essay Awards of JOHN CARROLL UNIVERSITY University Heights • Cleveland, Ohio. On 5th January, 2016. website,

1.0 Introduction

 One of the bigger questions of the age is the theology-science dialogue and collaboration. This question is naturally a part of theological inquiry and pertinent to contemporary Christians who live in a world deeply influenced, if not dominated, by science and technology. Thus one of the significant features of contemporary times is the spectacular achievement in the natural sciences. Philip Clayton in the Foreword to the work, Science and the Search for Meaning; Perspectives from International Scientists, makes this succinct remark on the giant strides of the natural sciences and its implicit dependence on the transcendent:

Only in a few periods of the history of modern science – the Renaissance and the birth of modern science, the early responses to Galileo and Newton, the heated responses evoked by Darwin, and the early reactions to relativity theory and quantum physics – has there been such a clear opening for connecting science and the transcendent. And at no other point in the history of modern science have so many distinct debates converged upon a few central questions: Is the world studied by science the only reality, or does it point to a deeper reality? Is nature a random and chance process, or a project with a purpose? Can humanity be fully understood in terms of the natural sciences, or is there a transcendent dimension to human existence? It was certainly unexpected that the period of the greatest breakthroughs in the history of science would also expose the greatest limitations on the scope of scientific knowledge. Is it not ironic that the best verified equation of motion in the history of physics, the Schrödinger wave equation, would be connected with an inherent limit on knowledge of the quantum world?2

The spectacular achievement in contemporary science is revolutionizing our understanding of the universe and ourselves.3 However science by itself cannot explore

1 The author wrote this award winning International Essay as final year Theology student of the prestigious BIGARD MEMORIAL SEMINARY, ENUGU-NIGERIA. It was adjudged outstanding in the Science in Seminaries Essay Awards of JOHN CARROLL UNIVERSITY University Heights • Cleveland, Ohio. On 5th January, 2016. website,,

2 JEAN STAUNE ed, Science and the Search for Meaning: Perspectives from International Scientists (Philadelphia and London: Templeton Foundation press, 2006), p. vii-viii.

3 For more on this, see THIERRY, MAGNIN, Entre science et religion (Le Rocher, 1998).

the full complexities and richness of life, nor does it answer our search for meaning and values although it is having great impact on vocation and ministry.

In the light of the above, scholars are of the opinion that the current crisis in modern sciences may be partially resolved by merging of the theological wisdom with scientific vigour known for its openness and dynamic nature. Thus, this essay aims to show that both science and theology are essential for our existence and that it would be expedient to relate the two enterprises meaningfully. This study also takes into account the ways in which science and theology have progressed over the years through several paradigm periods. This work also probes into the various ways of relating science and theology, namely, the conflict, independence and the partnership models. I intend to pinpoint in this essay the import of the science-theology dialogue on my priestly formation.

2.0 Understanding Scientific Paradigms and Theological Methodology

 A scientific paradigm, in the most basic sense of the word, is a framework containing all of the commonly accepted views about a subject, a structure of what direction research should take and how it should be performed. In his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolution, Kuhn defines a scientific paradigm as: “universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide model problems and solutions for a community of practitioners.4 Scientific paradigms show how technologies which pervade our lives enrich human existence. On the other hand, theology is often defined as the methodological investigation and interpretation of the essence and content of faith.

Christian theology is based on the belief that God has revealed Himself  in  historical  events, the meaning of which has been conveyed in the scriptures. To use the traditional description, theology is faith seeking understanding (fides quaerens intellectum)  of  what has been revealed to us and of our overall experience of reality in the light of this revealed truths.5 For a better appreciation of the theology-science dialogue, we consider the expanding frontiers in both domains.

3.0 Expanding Frontiers in Science

 Thierry Magnin, affirming the great feats in the sciences avers that:

It is now generally accepted that the development of the hard sciences in the 20th century (in particular in the areas of Mathematics and Physics) has led to a reappraisal of traditional philosophical notions of reality and meaning. In the area of the epistemology of science, the emergence of a new vision of complexity in the fields of quantum physics, thermodynamics and

4 THOMAS KUHN, The Structure of Scientific Revolution, 3rd edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996). p.10.

5 SAROJINI HENRY, Science Meets Faith; An Interdisciplinary Conversation (Mumbai: St Paul’s Press, 2009), p. 98.

cosmology has resulted in the redefinition of the word, reality, perceived in scientific research as the relationship between subject and object.6

From the above insight, science seems to be advancing at an astounding speed and more and more natural phenomena succumb to scientific explanation. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Einsteinian physics introduced a revolution in science challenging the Newtonian cosmic machine which seemed to be deterministic, causal and realistic. Instead, the universe became more open, evolving, emergent and interdependent.7 By the middle of the same century, molecular biology began to occupy the center stage. While the new physics has given us an expanding universe, molecular biology is promising to affect our lives in the most intimate manner. Added to this is the growth of information technology which shot up into prominence in the latter part of the twentieth century changing our culture in significant ways.

In the area of Genetics, the Human Genome Project (HGP) was one of the great feats of exploration in history, providing an inward voyage of discovery. This has resulted in an international research to sequence and map all of the genes – together known as the genome – of the members of our species, homo sapiens. The venerable edifice of physics in the twentieth century, namely, quantum physics and relativity theory, have also undergone some changes. The basic particles of atomic physics are no more protons and neutrons and electrons. We now have quarks (up-quarks and down-quarks) and masons, and many more.8

While the three dimensional universe is the norm of the Newtonian physics, string theory9 is offering us more dimensions. String theory also promises to resolve the tension between the two theories, namely, quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity, which are now taken to be incompatible. Such a theory would also resolve Einstein’s quest for a unified theory of physics, one that would interweave all of nature’s forces and material constituents into a single theoretical tapestry. Einstein however, failed in his quest. Today, string theory claims that Einstein’s elusive unified tapestry can be restored. This would mean that all the wondrous things happening in the universe can be written as the reflection of one grand physical principle, one master equation.10

The most complex scientific experiment ever undertaken, is the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) particle accelerator, which can accelerate sub-atomic particles to nearly  the speed  of light, and smash them together. Its 9300 magnets will guide the particles through a vacuum at minus 271 degrees centigrade, recreating conditions in deep space moments

6  THIERRY MAGNIN, “Moral Philosophy; A Space for Dialogue between Science and Theology”, in Science and the Search for Meaning: Perspectives from International Scientists, Jean Staune ed, p. 137.

7 PAUL DAVIES, God and the New Physics (New York: Penguin Books, 1983), pp.100-195.

8 See, BRIAN GREENE, The Elegant Universe (New York: Vintage Books, 2000).

9 String theory claims that our universe has many more dimensions- dimensions that are tightly curled into the folded fabric of the cosmos.

10 SAROJINI, Science Meets Faith; An Interdisciplinary Conversation, p. 26

after the Big Bang. This experiment was conducted on Wednesday 9th September, 2008, at the French headquarters of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN). Scientists believe that with the LHC, we are heading towards an era of new discovery which will help us to understand better the makeup of the universe.11 Similarly, the exploration in the space has filled us with wonder and awe. Since the beginning of space exploration in 1957, we have come a long way in space exploration and scientists have devised new telescopes, different types of spacecrafts etc. More than thirty years after Neil Armstrong12walked on the Moon, a new generation of astronauts are now going round the Earth, living in the International Space Station and conducting experiments. The aforementioned are some the breakthroughs recorded by the scientific community that is shaping human thinking.

4.0 Expanding Frontiers in Theology

 Christian theology is conceived far more broadly in contemporary times than at any period in its history. Over the years, theology, the reflection on the religious experience and faith, has been shaped and developed in the context of and in critical tension with the prevailing philosophical systems. As Huyssteen states:

Theology is a dynamic enterprise and research in every sub- discipline of the field continues to provide considerable data for rethinking and reformulating earlier positions. Theology is, at its best, a self- critical, reflective undertaking that can be open to new insights, including those emerging from the evolving scientific themes.13

A new trend in theology that has immensely facilitated the conversation between science and faith is that of process theology. Under the rubrics of process thought, Alfred North Whitehead had taken scientific data as a major component of both philosophy and theology. It is significant that process thought had succeeded in providing a philosophical account of the universe in accordance with the scientific facts about the universe. Barbour reports that Whitehead wanted to construct “a system of ideas which bring aesthetic, moral and religious interest into relation with those concepts of the world which have their origin in natural science.14 Whitehead’s effort to generate a new metaphysics which would unify the different ways in which we understand the world

11 Ibid., p. 27

12 On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin walked on the Moon. These astronomers were the first to see the beauty of the Earth as a blue and white gem spinning in the vastness of space.

13 J. WENTZEL VAN HUYSSTEEN, Essays in Postfoundationalist Theology (Cambridge: William B. Eardmans Publishing company, 1997), p.221.

14 IAN G. BARBOUR, Religion in an Age of Science (London: SCM press Ltd, 1990), p. 221.

has been immensely successful and has been creatively employed by theologians to establish the basic ingredients of contemporary process theology.

A factor which has played a significant part in moulding contemporary theology is the emergence of a new cultural phenomenon, namely, postmodernism. Postmodernism is closely allied to deconstruction and these two philosophical insights mark the final dissolution of foundationalism. To understand postmodernism, we have first to identify modernity, the scientific view of the Enlightenment period. The main tenets of the enlightenment paradigm are excessive confidence in reason (apotheosis of reasons), a naïve endorsement of universal truths, and an optimistic anthropocentric worldview.15 Postmodernism is fast emerging and has vastly enhanced our critical abilities and powers. It is characterized by its emphasis on hermeneutics, the science of interpretation. Thus in this postmodern age, there have sprung up many new radical theologies. The feminist theology and liberation theologies have brought a sociological perspective to the study of theology. While feminist theology is universal with the male as the oppressor, liberation theologies are distinctive for their location. 

Models of Theology-Science Relationship

 We briefly consider here the conflict, independence and partnership models in championing the course for the dialogue between the two domains.

The Conflict Model: Galileo Galilei and Charles Darwin Instances

Given the perspicacity of scientific paradigms and theological methodology, interaction between them over the years portray a complex history in which the divisions cut across disciplines with scientists and theologians expressing a variety of viewpoints. One of the popular viewpoints refers to the belief that science and theology have been for a long time in a state of perpetual conflict. The confrontation between Galileo and the Catholic Church is typically recalled as a classical example of the confrontation between science and faith. Galileo in the 16th century, endorsed the Copernican astronomy in which the earth and the planets revolve around circular orbits around the sun. For the Church authorities during Galileo’s time, biblical passages such as ‘the sun rises in the east and sets in the west’ seemed to support the Ptolemaic view, according to which, the sun and the planets moved around a stationary central earth. This geocentric model was theologically construed as placing humanity, the crown of creation, at the center of the universe.16 Nicholaus Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium( On the Revolution

15 DAVID BOSCH, Transforming of Missions: Paradigm shifts in Theology and Mission (Maryland, NY: Orbis Books, 1991), p. 355. He further points out in this book the utter bankruptness of the rationality of the modern period. Enlightenment culture-science, philosophy, education, sociology, literature, technology-has misinterpreted both humanity and nature, not only in some respects, but fundamentally and totally.

16 SAROJINI, Science Meets Faith; An Interdisciplinary Conversation, p. 183.

of the Heavenly Spheres) which introduced the heliocentric theory was published a few years before his death. It was only after Galileo started to treat the heliocentric arrangement as a real description of the cosmos, did Copernicus’ book begin to have a revolutionary impact. Galileo thus claimed that the purpose of scripture is not to teach scientific theories or natural philosophy and that issues of faith and science should be kept separate and settled on different grounds. Galileo’s trial in 1633 marked the beginning of what has since then become proverbial, an idea that science and faith must inevitably be in conflict.

The second case of conflict is the debate over Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution proposed in the 19th century. Darwin had argued that all living organisms – which were always seen as the most obvious example of God’s creative power – only evolved through the mechanism of natural selection operating on random variation across enormous time spans. For many biologists, Darwin is believed to have completed the Copernican revolution by drawing out for biology the idea that the living biological world is also governed by natural law. In Darwin’s time there were varied responses to his theory of evolution. Many nonscientists opposed Darwin’s theory because they thought it would upset theology and morality. Even those who saw the rationality of the theory  of  evolution, wanted to have a specific origin of the humans. Sarojini avers regarding these scientists:

They believed in God’s intervention for the creation of the human soul. For them, humans were unique and not the accidental by- products of blind material forces. For the biblical literalists, there could be no compromise with Darwin’s evolutionary theory which contradicted the biblical view of a six-day creation as divinely dictated in the book of Genesis.17

The debate between Bishop Samuel Wilberforce and Thomas Huxley, often called Darwin’s bulldog, during an Oxford meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1860, reflects the mood of the times because it was a sarcastic one.

Considering these conflicts, what is evident is the adamant manner in which both scientists and theologians can overreach in their arguments. The atheistic scientists and fundamental theologians are not able to recognize the blind dogma that drives their pursuit. By being self- centered and dogmatically entrenched in their own views, these scholars have only excluded the possibility of understanding other valid sources of truth. Ted Peters appropriately points to ‘an important theme in the work of John Marks Templeton, namely, ‘humility.’ Peter continues, ‘Templeton along with his colleague Robert L. Hermann, seek humility in the face of new knowledge for both domains, for

17 Ibid., p.185

both theology and science.’18 The humility that Templeton so ardently seeks, will certainly help scholars in both fields to acknowledge the limited range of their ideas and theories and to be willing to abandon the pretense to infallibility, even about their own cherished convictions.

Independence Model

Scientists and theologians who emphasize the differences between theology and science rather than their common traits tend to adopt the independent model in which science and theology are taken to be totally independent and autonomous. The proponents argue that scientific paradigms supply the technical knowledge of a limited kind, while theology nay religion offers a whole philosophy of life. Scientific paradigms with its experiences and logic tries to understand the order in the universe whereas theological methodology aims to comprehend the purpose and meaning of human existence on earth. For Barbour, these two fields are independent if they are ‘ autonomous enterprises, each asking a distinctive type of question, employing distinctive methods and serving distinctive functions in human life’19 Albert Einstein’s oft-quoted remark, ‘science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind20 is often seen to emphasize the relationship between science and faith. However, he seems to have felt that each has its own area of specialization. In a Symposium on Science, Philosophy and Religion, held in New York, Einstein had remarked: ‘For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be. Religion and theology on the other hand, deal with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot speak of facts and relationship between facts.21 This captures the specificity of both endeavours.

Partnership Model

 Niels Gregersen and Wentzel van Huyssteen have argued, “ contrary to popular misconceptions, the dialogue between theology and the sciences is rarely about conflict and dissensus: those who actively participate in this dialogue are in fact mostly deeply committed to both faith and science as two of the most dominant and shaping forces in our culture.”22 Beside their independence, there is the growing impetus of rethinking and remodeling the dialogue between science and theology under the challenge of a growing cognitive pluralism.23 The most fruitful frontier of the science –theology interaction is the

18 TED PETERS, “Science and Theology: Toward Consonance”, in Science and Theology: A New Consonance, ed. Ted Peters, pp.18-19.

19 BARBOUR, When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners? (San Francisco: Harper, 2000), p.47.

20 ALBERT EINSTEIN, Ideas and Opinions, ed., Carl Seeling, trans. Sonja Bergman, p.46.

21 Ibid., p.45.

22 NIELS GREGERSEN AND WENTZEL VAN HUYSSTEEN, “ Theology and Science in a Pluralistic World: An Introduction” in Rethinking Theology and Science eds. Niels Gregersen and Wentzel van Huyssteen, p. 1.

23 Ibid., p.3

search for consonance. With the term consonance, we are looking for areas of correspondence or connection between the understandings of the world as God’s creation discerned theologically. Scientific knowledge should inform and sharpen theological truths. In recent times, Christian theology has already developed a great deal in response to the input and challenges posed by the sciences. Theologians have also come to the believe that scientific research offers them a new context for research and learning. According to many scientists and theologians, partnership between science and religion is necessary since neither fields provides a complete understanding of the nature of reality. It is interesting that even in the 19th century, liberal theologians had agreed that the rational temper of the scientists ought to be appropriate in theological inquiry, although these two domains remain separate in their scope and approach. Thus the Church and the scientific community are increasingly poised to always engage in this dialogue and partnership. The Church finds this dialogue expedient in the training of priests.

6.0 The Church on Science Theology Dialogue

 The Church’s hope that the scientific advances of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries would aid mankind in finding solace and peace in this world was high at the Second Vatican Council and remains high as the Church enters the third millennium of Christianity.24 In the last fifty years, the Church has reached out in dialogue to the scientific community in order to expound the Gospel message and to learn of real scientific advances. This ongoing dialogue led Popes Paul VI and John Paul II in 1976 and 1986, respectively, to update the statutes of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which has its origins as far back as 1603. Moreover, in 1994 John Paul II established the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences to help the Church in her vigilant dialogue with the social sciences. The Church desired a dialogue with the sciences on many levels, but there was a particular aspiration that the inculcation of an understanding of the sciences would help priests in their apostolic endeavors to speak as men of a “Church in the modern world.” But the undergirding question here is: how does a dialogue with science influence the ongoing formation of the clergy?

Addressing this issue Gaudium et Spes states in part ‘Advances in biology, psychology, and the social sciences not only lead man to greater self-awareness, but provide him with the technical means of molding the lives of whole peoples as well’25. The council throws a caution in regard to this advance thus: “recent research and discoveries in the sciences, in history and philosophy bring up new problems which have an important bearing on life itself and demand new scrutiny by theologians.”26 Without question, the Church has

24 MICHAEL F. HULL, Formation of the Clergy and Dialogue with Science, July 1, 2005

25 SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World,

Guaduim et Spes, no.5

26 Gaudium et Spes, no. 62.

made efforts to be in close contact with the world, particularly with the scientific community.

7.0 The Place of Science in Priestly Vocation and Formation

Optatam Totius (Decree on the Training of Priests) and to a lesser extent Perfectae Caritatis (Decree on the Up-to-Date Renewal of Religious Life) reflect the Council fathers’ desire for scientific advances to be made known and used in the formation of priests. This thinking was augmented by Paul VI’s own apostolic letter Summi Dei Verbum. Optatam Totius maintained that “the desired renewal of the whole Church” depended upon priestly ministry27, that such formation requires a Christian education “supplemented by the latest findings of sound psychology and pedagogy”28, that seminarians should have a “literary and scientific education”29, that seminarians know of “recent progress in the sciences…”30 Without a doubt, it has been a major effort of the Church since Vatican II to intensify the clergy’s understanding of science.

This major effort has led to a vast increase in the use of science in priestly formation: an increase in the number of courses taught in the physical or “hard” sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc.), as well as in the social or “soft” sciences (psychology, sociology, economics, cultural studies, etc.), and the omnipresence of psychological consultation in the personal, interpersonal, and spiritual lives of seminarians and priests. All existing programs of priestly formation, whether for seminarians or those long ordained, pay close attention to modern scientific acumen. We are a “Church  in  the modern world.” As such, we need to be fully aware of scientific discoveries, scientific principles, and scientific vocabulary as means to help us understand our universe, our Creator, and ourselves. Yet a hopeful Church in the modern world is not a Church blind      to the perils of the world, the perniciousness of error, and the glamour of evil.

8.0 Implications of the Theology-Science Dialogue to the Researchers formation

 In my formation I have come to the appreciation of the fact that our contemporary scientism cannot become the norm—or even a viable option—for my priestly formation. This scientism recognizes neither the created nature of man and his world nor his ultimate end in the beatific vision. Instead, this culture is dominated by variegated forms of relativism. Relativism in its many forms fosters a distorted understanding of the creature and often leaves no room for the Creator. For this reason, I am cautious of being attentive in my formation especially with the scientific breakthroughs along with the

27 SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree on the Training of Priests, Optatam Totius, no. 1

28  Optatam Totius, no. 11

29  Optatam Totius, no. 13

30  Optatam Totius, no. 15

technique to deal with them in my own life, in the counseling of the faithful, and in my overall spiritual development.

Thus this interdisciplinary approaches to the study of science and theology has shown how the study of ourselves, our planet, and the universe helps me understand my place as spiritual being within God’s universe.31 I have learnt as a guide for my formation from this investigation that a broad and developed understanding of physical science is a staple of any higher education in the 21st century, one of the prerequisites to an accurate assessment of contemporary society and culture. The influence of science in my vocation helps me become acquainted with the discoveries and principles of modern science—as do my contemporaries within and outside the Church—and therefore come to be familiar with the jargon of modern science. Such acquaintance and familiarity enable me now and later as a priest preach, teach, and govern effectively. The scientific feats challenge me to be up-to-date and prepared to respond to questions that science may pose in its advancement. I am also vigilant about the fact that in terms of the physical sciences there is some danger that excessive attention to things natural may lead to a loss of attention to things supernatural. Hence I guard my faith by balancing the two domains adequately.

The breakthrough in information technology is of great importance in my formation; it helps me to furnish myself with vital information and updates as regards priestly ministry and vocation. Thanks also to it, I can access Church documents in their original form as well as engage in intellectual camaraderie with my peers from across the globe, something that was difficult for our forebears. It is due to scientific advances that I can engage in an essay competition as this from the seminary where I am studying in Africa far away from the location of John Templeton Foundation. This is a great sign of enrichment in my faith and priestly formation. It grants me wide exposure about innumerable issues. In my country, Nigeria, the youths are getting rife with the feats of science and technology like their peers across the globe. My acquaintance with the scientific disciplines is of great aid for me in my pastoral encounter with them in communicating the message of the Good news. I consider it a new agora and Areopagus that has opened up for ministry.

Similarly, I appreciate from this investigation the age-old truth that there is no opposition between faith and science but rather respect of the autonomy of each domain. This study reminds me that one who peers into secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are. From this fact, I came to a theological interpretation of Darwin’s evolutionism that is aiding my spirituality, that is, the idea that a person naturally is good and progressive – one is destined to become better and better until he or she becomes completely configure in God. My critique of Darwinism that is helping me in my relationship with persons is that human being can be subhuman; he/she can sink to the

31CHARLES L. HARPER JR. Spiritual Information: 100 Perspectives on Science and Religion (Templeton Foundation press, 2005).

level of beast, but he/she never loses the imprint of human dignity. The divine image with which he/she was stamped is never destroyed. It is merely defaced. Human being did not evolve from the beast; but can devolve to the beast by actions. He/she did not rise from the animal level; but falls to the animal level through unruly behavior. Similarly, I see the evolutionary theory giving credence to the theology continuing creation by God, since He continues to sustain the universe and provide for it. This imparts on my faith in my appreciation of God’s providence in the events of life.

9.0 Conclusion

 This essay is based on the belief that both science and religion are essential to our existence. The impetus for this research has been based on the impressive magisterial stand on the issue of science- theology dialogue and recently Pope Francis support for a recovery and reintegration of science in the seminary intellectual formation program. The importance of scientific literacy in seminary formation is not a new insight in the Roman Catholic Church but it has gained substantial momentum since  the  Second  Vatican  Council (1962-1965). As this dialogue progresses and as scientific advances make their in roll in the formation program, watchfulness is due. Pius XII was most prescient in reminding us to guard against too quick an adoption of ideas, ideas that may arise from both the physical and social sciences, without fully examining their  repercussions  and their consonance with the faith.32 Nor can the teaching of John Paul II in Fides et Ratio go unheeded. He lauds the advances in both physical and social science;  but  he  is nonetheless alarmed by a fashionable tendency to absolutize science.33 It is apt to state  that scientific instruction in the ongoing formation of the clergy, proper education comes about only when the physical and social sciences are enlightened by the queen of the sciences, theology, and its proper handmaid, sound philosophy34 . In the words of Albert Einstein, religion (theology) without science is blind. Science without religion is lame.

 32 PIUS XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, nos. 11, 12, 43.

33 JOHNPAUL II, Encylical Letter, Fides et Ratio, nos. 5, 9, 19, 45, 61, 69, 87, 88, 96, 106.

34 POPE LEO XIII, Encyclical Letter Aeterni Patris.



Pope Francis, Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, 2013.

Pope Francis, Encyclical Letter, Laudato Si’ , 2015.

Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Pastores Dabo Vobis. 1992.

Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Fides et Ratio, 1998.

Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Aeterni Patris,1879.

AUSTIN, F., Vatican Council II, The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents; Dublin: Dominican Publications, 1975.

Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, Ratio Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis, 1970.

The Congregation for the Clergy, Directory for the Ministry and Life of Priest


BARBOUR, I. G., When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners? San Francisco: Harper, 2000.

Barbour, I. G., Religion in an Age of Science, London: SCM press Ltd, 1990.

Bosch,,D., Transforming of Missions: Paradigm shifts in Theology and Mission, Maryland, NY: Orbis Books, 1991.

GREENE, B., The Elegant Universe, New York: Vintage books, 2000.

HARPER, C.L., Spiritual Information: 100 Perspectives on Science and Religion, Templeton Foundation press, 2005.

Huyssteen, J.W., Essays in Post foundationalist Theology, Cambridge: William B. Eardmans Publishing company, 1997.

NIELS GREGERSEN AND WENTZEL VAN HUYSSTEEN, “ Theology and Science in a Pluralistic World: An Introduction” in Rethinking Theology and Science eds. Niels Gregersen and Wentzel van Huyssteen

Paul Davies, God and the New Physics, Nnew York: Penguin books, 1983.

Prof. Michael F. Hull Formation of the Clergy and Dialogue with Science, July 1, 2005

Sarojini, H., Science Meets Faith; An Interdisciplinary Conversation, Mumbai: St Paul’s Press, 2009.

Staune, J., ed, Science and the Search for Meaning: Perspectives from International Scientists, Philadelphia and London: Templeton Foundation press, 2006.

Ted Peters, “Science and Theology: Toward Consonance”, in Science and Theology: A New Consonance, ed. Ted Peters

THIERRY, M., Quel Dieu pour un monde scientifique, Nouvelle Cité, 1993. THIERRY, M., Entre science et religion,Le Rocher, 1998.

THIERRY, M., “Moral Philosophy; A Space for Dialogue between Science and Theology, in    Jean Staune ed, Science and the Search for Meaning: Perspectives from International Scientists, Philadelphia and London: Templeton Foundation press, 2006.

Leave a Reply