Yesterday's fascinating column in the Wall Street Journal accentuates a long-standing problem in the history of science and religion.
Physicists Stephen Barr and Dermott Mullan recount the life and work of Giuseppe Piazzi (1746-1826), the Catholic priest and astronomer who discovered the dwarf planet Ceres in the early 19th century. Barr and Mullan are physicists at the University of Delaware. Barr is also the author of a superb treatment of religion and science: Modern Physics and Ancient Faith.
When he was 19, they write:
...Piazzi joined the Theatine Order of clerics, which supported his doctoral studies in philosophy and mathematics. At 34, he was asked to occupy the chair of higher mathematics in Palermo. Palermo had climatic conditions favorable for astronomical observations, and Piazzi decided to found an observatory there, the southernmost in Europe. He traveled to England to obtain the most accurate telescope then available. With its help he developed a catalog of almost 7,000 stars, the most extensive and accurate up to that time. L’Institut de France awarded it the prize for “best astronomical work published in 1803.”
This is a great tribute to Piazzi. And Barr and Mullan argue that he's just one of many outstanding cleric-scientists who disprove the notion that the Catholic Church and scientific discovery are not compatible. And indeed, several priest-scientists played key roles in expanding human knowledge in the fields of astronomy, chemistry, anatomy, geology.
But the problem is, the essay prompts an obvious question: what’s happened since the days of Piazzi? (And Gregor Mendel for that matter.)
For it’s clear that the number of Catholic priests who are also scientists has declined sharply over the past two centuries since those heady days.
Here’s a rough sketchpad assessment. If you go to the Wikipedia list of Catholic priest-scientists who made significant contributions — and plot a graph, you’ll find an overall decline in numbers since the start of the scientific revolution.
Sixty-two priests, who were also productive scientists, lived and died in the 17th century—the start of the Scientific Revolution. From the 18th, the number goes down to 46. From the 19th, the number holds at 45. But in the 20th, the number drops again, down to 30. As to priests working presently, the Wikipedia list offers only 4--but I know that's incomplete. (For example, biologist Fr. Nicanor Austriaco at Providence College is not listed.)
Bear in mind the steep decline between the 19th and 20th centuries took place as the number of scientists worldwide was climbing quickly: this, during the age of Darwin and Einstein and quantum physics.
So, even with this rough plot, based on an admittedly incomplete list at Wikipedia—the story of the Catholic clergy and science is disquieting.
The question is why. I’m sure there is not any one cause to blame. Various historical and sociological factors no doubt play a role. But if you're arguing that the Catholic Church and science are not incompatible, you'd like to see better numbers.
Now, I realize, as some of my readers have pointed out, the main job of the clergyman today is pastoral: preaching and celebrating the liturgy. But this still strikes me as a retreat.
Going back to the Middle Ages and the founding of the universities, it was also the task of the clergyman to be a naturalist—to explore the Book of Nature. That should still be the case: not for every man who enters the seminary, of course, but if the great tradition Barr and Mullan point to is to continue---there really needs to be an established career track for the seminarian who feels an affinity for science.
Indeed, as I argued in a recent polemic at Aeon, it’s about more than religion and science just being ‘compatible’. It’s about more than the Vatican just ‘accommodating’ evolution. It has to do a lot more than that.
Much has been made of the recent Pew Survey showing the continuing decline of the Catholic Church in the U.S. I would argue that one key reason is that the Church does not speak to the needs and concerns of people today in the language of our age, which is, for good or ill, heavily scientific.
There needs to be a return to the deep exploration of modern science so that the human spirit, the main subject of Christianity, can amount to more than just an add-on after the fact of evolution.
Follow me on Facebook and Twitter. Subscribe to my Vimeo Channel.
