Louis Caruana

This paper proposes a novel way of exploring the interaction between science and theology. Situating the investigation at the level of cognitive dispositions and mental habits, it examines how and why modes of explanation can be, and often are, transferred from one area of intellectual work to another. Drawing from the work of Ernan McMullin on imagination and retroduction, the paper extends his ideas to determine how cognitive dispositions can change. Three examples are studied in detail: one dealing with styles of reasoning, one dealing with determinism, and one with the logic of self-involvement. These examples indicate not only the way in which cognitive dispositions partly determine what we imagine but also how such dispositions can change. The paper’s overall result shows how agreement or disagreement between science and theology can arise from such deep-seated, cognitive dispositions of which we are sometimes unaware.

Putnam holds that there can be equally coherent but incompatible conceptual schemes which fit our experiential beliefs equally well. On the other hand however, especially when discussing values, he wants to avoid total relativism because, for him, our choice of values can be considered constant even though our notion of truth varies. I argue that the apparent tension between these two views does not show that the internal realist position is self‐contradictory. The way internal realists like Putnam can hold on to both claims is to emphasise the fact that all inquirers, by the very fact that they are classified as inquirers, must be assumed to have a common cognitive faculty. There is flexibility when it comes to conceptualization, but a certain minimal amount of sameness as regards the evaluation of beliefs. In basic everyday practice, all inquirers have the same doxastic attitude towards some basic propositions. The set of all such universal doxastic attitudes constitutes the non‐plastic aspect of the mind.

Current philosophical literature about the future often explores fast technological development and its social, political, and cultural implications. What is typically missing in such literature is an attempt to address the following question. Is the future going to mean the emergence of a super humanity with the rest of the biosphere left behind? This paper explores this issue critically and proposes some answers to it that derive from an interdisciplinary approach. It builds upon the work of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, especially on the way he deals with two key topics: cephalization and socialization. The paper argues that Teilhard’s work in these areas can be extended to show how the human responsibility associated with being the head of the biosphere entails accepting a kind of communitarian progress that includes other species. The paper concludes by proposing some innovative concepts to articulate what is at stake in such responsibility.

Many commentators have analyzed the Papal Encyclical on the care of the environment entitled “Laudato Si’” from various angles but relatively few have written on the philosophical presuppositions that inform the overall stance of the encyclical. It is becoming increasingly evident that, to appreciate the full impact of this work, we need to uncover its ontological and epistemological commitments. This paper makes a contribution in this neglected area by focusing on the nature of life. Two main points are explored: the way all lifeforms depend on other lifeforms, implying that the biosphere often functions like one single unit of life, and the issue of the intrinsic value of each living thing. By situating the encyclical’s arguments within the history of ideas on the nature of life, the environment, and ecology, this research helps to better appreciate the originality of this document.

Are science and religion completely independent of each other? Can scientists work exclusively in the scientific domain without being influenced in any way by their own religious or other commitments? These questions have been treated in a number of ways in the course of history. In recent decades, advances in physics and biology have raised new possibilities for a deeper understanding of the issue and for a clearer picture of the right kind of interaction between science, religion, and moral values.

This paper argues that philosophers can live a deep spiritual life of a certain kind, spirituality being understood here in line with the Christian tradition. The first step in the argument distinguishes between two kinds of philosophy: the representational kind and the sapiential kind. Representation is often associated with scientifically inclined philosophers while wisdom is associated with philosophers whose inclination is to show others how to live a good life. The paper then proceeds by showing that this distinction reflects a similar one in the realm of Christian spirituality. One can distinguish between a Thomistic view and an Ignatian view, the former characterized by a certain caution as regards interacting with the world, while the latter characterized by a certain heuristic courage as regards such interaction. This latter mode of spirituality is called experiential because of its appreciation of experience as a source of insight. The upshot is that the intellectual life in general, and certainly philosophy in particular, can leave its beneficial imprint on the person as a whole, including body and soul, thought and feeling, contemplation and action.

Theology, philosophy, and science have been in mutual conversation for centuries, but the major debates have nearly always dealt with explanations rather than ways of living. Over and above explanatory or theoretical issues, there are other boundary issues that can be called practical. These are often neglected because they do not deal with what scientists or theologians say. They deal rather with what scientists and theologians do. As recent work in the history of the natural sciences shows, it is a mistake to see scientific theories as timeless entities totally detached from the philosophical, theological, and cultural environments in which they are born. A cultural paradigm affects, and is in turn affected by, the discovery and formulation of any given major theory. Moreover, cultural paradigms affect individuals not only in their thinking but also in their living. This paper explores the neglected dimension of how the conversation between theology, philosophy, and the natural sciences impacts on existential concerns. I will do this by first determining two key areas of this practical dimension, and then, in section two, by considering and eventually blocking some objections. I will conclude by drawing some concrete proposals on how to take this discussion further.

Both science and theology involve philosophy. They both involve reasoned argument, evaluation of possible explanations, clarification of concepts, ways of interpreting experience, understanding the present significance of what has gone before us, and other such eminently philosophical tasks. They both involve philosophy, especially when they enter into dialogue with each other. In fact, they involve philosophical thinking even when they may not be aware of it. In this paper I will explore a specific area of philosophy that is particularly important as a bridge between theology and science. I am referring to the area of meaning. Questions regarding meaning are fundamental because whatever is said about the nature of life, by scientists, by theologians, or by anyone else, must be expressed in meaningful words. Meaning is like the ground we walk on. It constitutes what we need to proceed with our activity. Without solid ground under our feet, we cannot go anywhere.

It is often assumed that the suppression of the Jesuits in 1773 meant an abrupt dissipation of Jesuit intellectual culture and science. Recent interest in this period, however, indicates that Jesuit theologians, philosophers, and scientists constituted a heterogenous group and that the suppression affected them in various ways. This paper builds on this research and deals with the following question. What can a micro-historical approach, focusing on individuals rather than on general cultural trends, reveal about the effects of the suppression? The paper focuses on five Jesuit scientists who lived through the suppression and who represent different lines, or forms, of philosophical and empirical inquiry. After this first section, the argument shifts to more general considerations, referring to some counterfactual situations, in view of evaluating the cultural and scientific cost of the suppression.

St. George Mivart (1827-1900) was a prolific writer on biological evolution and on its relevance to the Christian faith. His initial support for the evolutionary ideas put forward by Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley would eventually turn into heavy criticism of these same ideas, evident in his 1871 book "On the Genesis of Species". This short paper critically evaluates the origins and development of his thinking that led to this book. It examines his paper "Difficulties of the Theory of Natural Selection", published in 1869, and argues that, even though some of his technical observations about the theory are outdated, some of his philosophical arguments are still relevant today.

Max Jammer has recently proposed a model of God’s eternity based on the special theory of relativity, offering it as an example of how theologians should take into account what physicists say about the world. I start evaluating this proposal by a quick look at the classic Boethius-Aquinas model of divine eternity. The major objec-tion I advance against Jammer refers to Einstein’s subtle kind of realism. I offer var-ious reasons to show that Einstein’s realism was minimal. Moreover, even this min-imal realism has been undermined by recent experimental work. If Jammer is sug-gesting that theologians should take Einstein’s physics seriously because it de-scribes the world, his argument is unconvincing because it doesn’t address the cru-cial question of Einstein’s realism, which makes all the difference.

This collection of original papers, entitled "The beginning and end of the universe: scientific, philosophical, and theological perspectives", derives from an interdisciplinary conference, that had been organized jointly by the Pontifical Gregorian University and the Vatican Observatory. The conference consisted of two sessions of one day each, held at the Pontifical Gregorian University during the academic year 2014-2105. The first day focused on scientific, philosophical and theological questions concerning the beginning of the universe and the second day on questions concerning the end of the universe. The richness of this book derives not only from the variety of academic perspectives but also from the different heuristic methods adopted by the researchers. For the book’s final version, more contributions were added, the entire collection was reviewed by all authors for constructive criticism and mutual evaluation, and the style and content of each contribution were adjusted to ensure that the book presents a satisfactory degree of unity. After a survey of what some current astronomical theories say about the beginning and end of the universe, the philosophical topics treated include the idea of first cause, the finality of the universe, and the Heideggerian idea of world. The theological topics include some current accounts of "creatio ex nihilo", and the relation between theological eschatology and the results of the cosmology of the far distant future.

In recent years, disagreement as a philosophical topic has started to attract considerable attention, giving rise to rich debates not only on the logical nature of disagreement but also on specifically political and religious forms of it. Moreover, in some recent documents of the Catholic Church, we see corresponding attempts at understanding religious pluralism, dialogue among religions, and doctrinal tensions that sometimes arise within various parts of the Church itself. In such debates, many assume that the realm of the humanities is clearly distinct from that of the natural sciences and, as a consequence, the dynamics of disagreement within the two realms is distinct as well. This paper challenges this assumption. Sociological studies of science are undermining the idea of a strict dichotomy between the dynamics of disagreement within the sciences and that within other areas of inquiry. Engaging in comparative methodology, this paper critically evaluates the dynamics of ecclesial disagreement and the associated idea of doctrinal authority by comparing them with what happens in the sciences.

One of the aims of the encyclical "Laudato Si’" is to help us “marvel at the manifold connections existing among creatures”, to show how we are also involved, and to motivate us thereby to care for our common home. Are there new dimensions of beauty available to us today because of recent advances in biology? In this paper I seek to answer this question by first recalling the basic criteria for beauty, as expressed by Aristotle and Aquinas, and then evaluating their applicability as regards three ways in which some prominent twentieth century philosophers of biology have sought to overcome the limitations of reductionism. The overall argument refers especially to the works of Jakob von Uexküll and Georges Canguilhem. The results indicate that harmony, proportion, and integrity in the natural order should be more evident than ever before, especially as regards the way the organism and its environment codetermine each other. This insight allows a deeper appreciation of the message of "Laudato Si’".

Working from within the Lakatosian framework of scientific change, this paper seeks to gain a deeper understanding of the Jesuits’ role in the scientific revolution during the years of Galileo’s trials and the subsequent century. Their received research program was Aristotelian cosmology. Their efforts to construct protective belts to shield the core principles were fueled not only by the basic instinct to conserve but also by the impact of official prohibitions from the side of Church authorities. The paper illustrates how these Church restrictions were not as paralyzing for Jesuit intellectuals as has often been thought. They left considerable space for maneuvering. The paper shows how, within this space, Jesuits were engaged mainly in the indispensable task of exhausting all the potential of Aristotelian cosmology. They did this primarily by trying to build intellectual bridges to ensure coherence between three realms of the cosmological imagination of the time: the received Aristotelian view, the new empirical data, and the realm of everyday experience.

This paper seeks to clarity the extent to which we can legitimately apply evolutionary explanation to the realm of moral and social behavior. It evaluates two perspectives, one dealing with purely philosophical arguments, and the other with arguments from within the Catholic tradition. The challenges faced by evolutionary ethics discernible from the secular perspective turn out to be practically the same as those discernible from the religious perspective. Whether we discuss the issues in terms of intentional states or in terms of freedom of human beings created in the image of God, the result seems to be the same: evolutionary explanation turns out to be useful to some extent but not across the board. It leaves out the distinctively moral aspect of individual and social behavior.

For decades, much literature on causality has focused on causal processes and causal reasoning in the natural sciences. According to a relatively new trend however, such research on causality remains insufficient because of its refusal to accept a certain degree of pluralism within the concept, a pluralism that is evident in how we use ideas of cause and effect in everyday life. I will build on work in this latter trend, following philosophers like G. E. M. Anscombe and N. Cartwright. I explore the limits of the concept of causality by determining the extent to which our ideas can remain consistent as we stretch this concept along two dimensions, one concerning the maximizing of the effect and the other the maximizing of explanatory depth. Dealing with the cause of the universe, such an investigation touches upon some issues in current empirical cosmology and revisits some classic arguments regarding philosophy of religion and the Platonic notion of participation. The results indicate that the use of current conceptual, logical and analytic tools can deliver new insights that are useful especially for those interested in how causality in the natural sciences links with causality in everyday life.

The clash between Galileo and the Catholic Inquisition has been discussed, studied, and written about for many decades. The scientific, theological, political, and social implications have all been carefully analysed and appreciated in all their interpretative fruitfulness. The relatively recent trend in this kind of scholarship however seems to have underestimated the fact that Galileo in this debate, as in his earlier debates, showed a particular style marked by overconfidence. If we keep in mind the Lakatosian account of scientific development, it is of course perfectly understandable that scientists at times stick to their convictions by producing auxiliary hypotheses as buffers against contrary evidence. And elements of this are detectable in the arguments of both Galileo and his opponents. But one still needs to ask: To what extent did Galileo depend on auxiliary hypotheses? How insecure did they render his position? And how ad hoc were they? These are important questions because Galileo’s particular way of dealing with auxiliary hypotheses can throw light on the broader question of when and how auxiliary hypotheses are needed within scientific practice in general. It can even indicate some way of conceiving degrees of ad hocness. In this paper, I explore this issue by comparing two important debates in which Galileo was involved: one about the nature of water and buoyancy, the other about cosmology. I revisit not only the scientific content of these debates but also the cultural context in which they took place, especially their dependence on patronage and their theological repercussions. The results indicate that scholarship on Galileo can still be useful in clarifying currently relevant aspects of scientific practice, and is thus still far from its expiry date.

This coherent collection of original papers marks the 150 year anniversary since the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species (1859). Although the area of evolution-related publications is vast, the area of interaction between Darwinian ideas and specifically Catholic doctrine has received limited attention. This interaction is quite distinct from the one between Darwinism and the Christian tradition in general. Interest in Darwin from the Catholic viewpoint has recently been rekindled. Endorsement: “As this volume shows, any notion of intractable conflict between faith and reason is an extremist fantasy. The true depth of religious thought on Darwin's great idea not only shows respect for science, but a deep appreciation for the esthetic beauty of evolutionary thought. These challenging and enlightening essays demonstrate not only the power of scientific reasoning, but a continuing Catholic commitment to the ultimate unity of knowledge.” — Kenneth R. Miller, Department of Molecular Biology, Cell Biology, and Biochemistry, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.