Rossi, Ennio C.

English

epublications@Marquette

The Linacre QuarterlyVolume 33 | Number 3 Article 11August 1966Religion and ScienceEnnio C. RossiFollow this and additional works at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/lnqRecommended CitationRossi, Ennio C. (1966) "Religion and Science," The Linacre Quarterly: Vol. 33 : No. 3 , Article 11.Available at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/lnq/vol33/iss3/11In understanding our psychiatric approach to neurotic guilt and other neurotic symptoms, we must keepthe following factors in mind. Ourmodern teachings in psychiatryindicate that certain confHot-full im­pulses, feelings, memories and atti­tudes, often originating in childhood,can be repressed, forgotten or ex­cluded from the field of consciousawareness. They, however, canretain their emotional energy andforces, and at times can manifesttheir influences in the form of neu­rotic symptoms withourt the individ­ual realizing their relationship to t:heuncomfortable symptoms. Since theforces and conflicts are unconscious,or at a low level of awareness, theycan not be brought to light by super­ficial discussion and direct ques­tioning. An approach which is notoriented in depth psychology cannot reveal these forces or symptomproducing factors. Therapy is com­plex and symptoms can only beremoved by intensive psychiatrictreatment aimed at bringing thismaterial into conscious awareness,where the individual can then re­solve these conflicts by using reason­ing power and freedom of choice.These are natural phenomena andneed to be removed by natural psy­chological means. In the future wemust keep several things in mind.U continuing research and theoryin psychiatry is to be correct it250 truth of f, scien­in error ogma be valid, we .1tilize the e individ-must ,be in accord with t!· Catholicism. True, verif tific knowledge can ,not 1 nor can true Catholic erroneous. As both an must continually strive 1 services of each to help ual and mankind. We nize that psychiatry i� both facts and theori exercise some tolera1 interpretation of the c ust recog· mposed of We must as to the 1 vable facts of personality funct imperfect human be' 1g because crea,te the­;cts. If the .er research alidate the ories to explain the theory is correct, : and knowledge ,,,, theory to make it a and fact. If not cc is to be discarded made to determin' also keep in mir human beings te religion and in s::­difference of op· areas among thee.' remember that tb. may not always t clearly and co1 humans. This i··; as it is. d conclusion .. the theory urther effort }1. We must at imperfect the facts of cases we see ., in certain ns. We must hs of religion ·· een expressed!lv by merer�ality of lifeI am certain t religion and psychiatry will co. - Lle to find com· mon ground for r,; ' ,al understand­ing and cooperat · in the work of alleviating hum&·' . uffering and in the salvation of s", -�. LINACRE QUARTERLY Religion and ScienceENNro C. Rossr, M.D. Over .the centuries religion and science have had frequent, occa­sionally violent, arguments. Science viewed the church as a merciless oppressor while the church saw sci­ence as an immoral challenger who dared to question religious doctrine. However, the church survived the questions and science survived theoppression. Today we recognize that science never truly challenged reli­gion or faith in God. Instead, theseeds of conflict were sown when thechurch placed moral and religiousimplications where they were notrelevant. Thus an earth revolvingaround a stationary sun seemed a crushing defeat for chi:istianity (and possibly a day of glory for sun-wor­shippers) only for as long as wepersisted in the belief that celestialarrangements had moral or reli-- gious i!}lplications. All the "retreats"forced upon religion by the advanceof science have been equally incon­sequential. The central issue of the existence of God has never been attacked. Oniy suppositions con­cerning the material world which religious teaching invested withmoral implications have been forcedto give ground. Fortunately, time and intellectualenlightenment have dispelled muchand science. How,.c",Tr, this may notbe entirely true. Although openhostilities have ceased. conflict maystill exist beneath a facnrk of ami­ability. Certainly the ingredients forconflict are still there. \i\' hen reli­gious dogma contradict man's be�t organized obsen,ations, sciei1c::: ieel! set upon. And, when science exto.-­polates itself to a way of life e:d22r by assuming an intrinsic morn.Ii.-.- -'.:Jr denouncing morality as man-rn,,.-':, artefact, it is overmatching itseE s.nJasking for defeat. An indicator of unresolved issu :::­between religion and science nsi{r be the increasing number of J:)') 1, r.:. :::: c?ncerning sci�nc_e and_ rn,arn: v,, 1 •. ·':" smce the begmnmg or tne n;.i:::l, .. r age. Science has great);, ;nc•er, ,·u' man's ability to destroy. T.rn, y,c,  capability for destruction shcd:s c; :· moral sense and makt�s us c ·;;-; whether a science that le&.,\ ,•): ·-:} ends can be good. The fo u I,, of course, is not in science "but i·., ·=u,·­selves." To complain that .'.Ci·�nce is eroding moral values is like bian)irig the hammer for striking the thumb. Science is only a method for ob­taining knowledge an<l to inveigh against science because it may lead to catastrophy is as sensible as to inveigh against aulomobiles beca�se of our highway slaughter. Morality of �e mutual distrust that separatedreligron and science. Conflicts arelieiiig resolved by ,better understand-ing of both the limitations of science111d the particular relevance of reli­gion .. Indeed many would deny thatGllnfl1ct exists today between religionDr. Rossi received his B.A. in 1951 and his M.D. in 1954, both from the University of Wisconsin. He has been on the Mar­quette faculty since 1963 and at present is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Medicine. ST, 1966 251 is a quality of man not of science. There are many who feel that there is a dangerous moral laxness in modern man. This .issue rnised with frightening suddenness by the atomic explosions of World War II has been further aggravated by the nerve shattering changes in every day life brought about by our as­tonishingly successful modern tech­nology. Man has become impressed by his a•bility to change his envi­ronment. The pragmatic idea has reached full fruition and its success would appear to vindicate those who felt that epistemology and abstract philosophies have liittle importance. But before we criticize man for this sin of pride we must •realize that while he might be impressed by his success he is also frightened by it. His image of God no longer fits the world he knows. He is confused and frightened by those who say "God is Dead" because he is afraid it might he true. I submit that one of the reasons for this moral confusion is the per­sistence of religion -science conflict within individuals. It is an insidious, ephemeral conflict that does not arise from active rejection of either religion or science but rather from successful participation in one which seems to exclude the need for the other. Putting aside any compari­son between religious and scientific truth, we must nonetheless accept that both religion and science are equipped to satisfy certain needs of men. While we might prevent internal conflict by considering reli­gious and scientific pursuits as di­rected towards spiritual and material needs respectively, many men, par-252 ticularly members of the ' tellectual community, would syntb ,ize these two needs into a single c 1posite­the need to know. T n, unless religion and science ar effectively blended, such men rn 1t choose either the religious , scientific means of fulfilling thi! 1eed. Fre­quently their choice i letermined by early experiences. a man has had strong religious aining, he may be attracted rto r al and hu­man problems, and :1tific ques­tions may appear tfr . If, on the other hand, a mar 1s had the experience of answ .g his own questions by perfor 6 controlled observations, he ma- · attracted to problems that sub to such in-quiry, and dismiss ·al questionsbecause their anrn· 1re based on uninformed opinio. -:'hus religion and science compet, · man's mindand his need to knc Science will nevc to satisfy man's ne will always be m� accessible to scien this reason, the r pragmatic scientif, nied by moral cc, to lead to moral cceed by itself , know. There ques,tions in­inquiry. For itation of the a unaccompa­_1s was bound ,um. The scientific technological community has ( r rncted a world that is capable 0 iany benefi�i�l activities. Howe,· these capabili-ties have been acc. ,panied by con·fusion. Writers ..'ak of modern man's search fm ntity and won· der to what ex' t men will be . ,,.es. Intellectual replaced by mac and moral lead,• orry that open minded scientific ;,,quiry may be ap·plied to moral j,, .. .tcs and transform LiNACRE QUARTERLY moral values into a sea of gray. They wonder whether the line between right and wrong may become faded and encourage pursuit of the expe­dient. While skepticism is essential for scientific develcpment, uncer­tainty on moral ,issues may have de­leterious effects on spiritual health, and ·lead to confusion. Whether this confusion is due to the technologic and scientific community's lack of ooncern with moral questions, or to the religious community's lack of involvement in modern technological development depends, of course, upon one's point of view. In any case the fundamental defect seems clear. Technological development was not synchronized with restate­ments of moral values. Scientific leaders changed the world for no other reason than. because they oould, and moral lea'ders remained somewhat apart and distrusting. As a consequence we have indeed changed the face of the earth but . now we are groping for good pur­poses. In this country we fight poverty and consider establishing a minimum income per family. In other parts of the world, groups travel about healing bodies only to be. followed by other groups consid­ering methods for sterilizing those bodies. It would seem that moral lead� capable of synthesizing thepotentials of our modern techno­logical society with lasting moral values are badly needed. The Ecumenical movement pro-Atxrusr, 1966 vides an encour:1ging note for those who are anxious for the church to assume a more n,cmiricnt role in the course of m:-_:1's ('Vcryday life. However, Catholi.� education and particularly its irisL:utions of higher learning may have tn change to ac­complish this goal. Cath· 1 ic univer­sities must seek more than moral preparation of students if they wish to affect the moral tone of ou.r scien­tific and intellectual comnrnn; l i :, They must strive for student CX',.1 · lence in the scientific and tech. cc.I fields that are the coin of mo.:l•cn; man's realm. Without compro:n;s ing their teaching of morJl \ a;r,r:.0 they must encourage and dcvclc;. :1 their students the restless spirit tin .. makes man strive for ne·, ; i ,c \il · edge. Students who can deal cLec -tively with both scientifc a,.c: ;0 ·�· ·:,. questions may succeed in a ,re;, the conflicts that led tr_ the iEJ ,, · confusion we have toda1. I'. g-rrc,;. uates of Catholic univ�rsi,i,/ c,;, be prepared for, and assuTJ. ni;):- -prominent roles in scienliflc im•'.1. · tions, they may provide tl--,( s:.:1cp· · ·· and intellectual comm urn ty ,· · · 1 the moral leadership some fcc:. i; lacking. Our medical schools m pnr · ticular must be given greater oppor­tunities for scientific development. Medicine is the area where techno­logical capability and moral ques­tions are most frequently at odds. Here then also lies our greatest op­portunity to blend scientific ability and religious purpose. 253 \.\ ' 

Religion and Science

https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4285&amp;context=lnq

Religion and Science

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

epublications@Marquette