As I stated, I'm currently collecting a good amount of data for my research, but I seem to have a short amount of time here, and it has lead me to contemplate a few things.
Often times, I will find myself in a situation where I am discussing Liturgy and Church teaching with people. At some point, I'll be asked what I do as my career, and usually there's a good deal of shock when I explain that I'm a mechanical and aerospace engineer, working on a doctorate in said field. Now, I have to stop for a second. I am not trying to brag about my achievements, as there are many of you out there that are infinitely more intelligent than me. I am merely trying to segue into a point.
The opinion of many individuals tends to be that science, being the pursuit of knowledge and truth is opposed to religion, which is faith in the revealed truths passed down to us. Citing examples such as Galileo's trial, there is the general understanding of the two being at odds with each other by their very nature. In reality, this presents a false concept of the true natures of both science and religion. True religion understands that the mysteries of the universe, of God's creation, can be systematically studied in order to satisfy our innate and insatiable curiosity, which God created within us. Science understands that there are still truths that have yet to be discovered, and that there is error in measurement. For example, mathematically we have to start from a set of axioms that by their very nature cannot be proven, but we have to take as given. Without this, logical proofs cannot proceed. Obviously, Christianity also must contain a set of "axioms" from which Christian logic proceeds. In a nutshell, these axioms are the Nicene Creed, or Symbolum Nicaenum, which sets down what each of us as a Christian individually believes (unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium...one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, all things visible and invisible).
Now, if we toss out this axiom of belief, then of course everything else we believe disintegrates. I can't ask you to believe in the Real Presence if you reject this initial assumption of a belief in the existence of a Trinitarian Deity. You won't accept it! Likewise, in science, I can't prove to you that my measurement makes sense if my measuring device is called into question. Someone once said that you can have the most elaborate thermometer that ever existed, but if you're using it to measure pressure, then what good is it? But, if the existence of God is an axiom, then by definition you cannot even attempt to quantify or prove His existence.
All of this is the theology of the Eucharistic Liturgy. In the world of fluid dynamics, no set of equations are more important than the infamous Navier-Stokes and continuity equations, but even these require a series of assumptions to derive (such as assuming a Newtonian fluid). It is in this connotation that I use the word "assumption". If we assume that God exists, then as Christians we also assume that the Son of Man exists, along with the Holy Spirit. If we assume that the Son of Man exists, then we must also assume that His Apostles existed and that He taught them. If we assume all of this, then as Catholics (or Orthodox) we believe that He taught them a set of truths known as Sacred Tradition. As part of this Sacred Tradition, the priest offers to the Father the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of His Son, for our salvation. The Maronites express this concept beautifully by even referring to the Liturgy as the Holy Offering, or Qurbana Qadisha. This is the faith that many great scientists had, many of which were Catholic: Blaise Pascal, Gregor Mendel, Rene Descartes, Leonardo da Vinci, Nicolaus Copernicus, and many more.
No comments:
Post a Comment