On the Use of Philosophy: Three Essays [Hardcover ed.] 0313231990, 9780313231995

Citation preview

On the use of philosophy B2430.M33 05 1961

:

three essays 11949

Maritain, Jacques, NEW COLLEGE OF CALIFORNIA (SF)

9AM hKAWCISCO, CA 94110

:§^

ON THE USE OF

PHILOSOPHY

^ j$0

Ti&ra' Essays

ilk*

life 7f

V

BY Jacques Maritain

\

IT

*» PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS PRINCETON,

NEW

JERSEY

h

Copyright

©

1961 by Princeton University Press

all rights reserved l.c.

card: 61-12100

second printing

1

962

The first and second essays in this book, "The Philosopher in Society" and "Truth and

Human

Fellowship," were originally

given as lectures at the Graduate School of Princeton University. "The Philosopher in Society" also appears in

he Philosophe

dans La Cite, published by Alsatia, Paris, in i960. "Truth and Human Fellowship"

some extracts from Ransoming the Time\ copyright 1941 Charles Scribner's

contains

Sons.

Printed in the United States of America

To Sir

who

Hugh is

in

Taylor

many ways

responsible for this

Homage and

boo\

of gratitude affection

CONTENTS The Philosopher Truth and

God and

in Society

Human

Science

Fellowship

3 16

44

ON THE USE OF PHILOSOPHY Three Essays

THE PHILOSOPHER IN SOCIETY The Power

A

of the Philosopher

PHILOSOPHER

a

is

man

in search of wis-

dom. Wisdom does not indeed seem

to be an

exceedingly widespread commodity; there has never

been overproduction in scarcity of

what

The

this field.

the philosopher

concerned with, the more

we

is

greater the

supposed to be

feel inclined to

think

that society needs the philosopher badly.

Unfortunately there

is

no such thing

as the phi-

losopher; this dignified abstraction exists only in our

minds. There are philosophers; and philosophers, as soon

as

they philosophize, are, or seem to be, in dis-

agreement on everything, even on the

Each one goes

of philosophy.

his

first

own

principles

way. They

common assent, and their What can be expected from

question every matter of

answers are conflicting.

them

for the

good of

society?

Moreover the greatness of a philosopher and the truth

of

his

philosophy

are

independent values.

Great philosophers

may happen

Historians bestow

the honor of having been the

"fathers of the

to be in the

wrong.

modern world" upon two men,

l3l

the

first

whom

of

was

dreamer and a poor phi-

a great

namely Jean-Jacques Rousseau; the second a poor dreamer and a great philosopher, namely Hegel. And Hegel has involved the modern world losopher,

in

more far-reaching and

still

rors than

still

more deadly

er-

Rousseau did.

At least this very fact makes manifest to us the power and importance of philosophers, for good and for evil. (Aesop, if I remember correctly, said as

much

of that valuable organ

philosophy

a

is

plague for

good philosophy must be moreover, that

if

— the

society,

for

it!

tongue.)

what

it

of the

tian

Western

day, despite

To

look

St.

threats

and

things in a

at

kneels

Augustine was the father of Chris-

which the world

civilization, in

all

world

denies the superiority of the hu-

man person and the transcendence of God, and before history,

bad

Let us not forget,

Hegel was the father

of today insofar as

If

a blessing

failures,

more

still

of to-

participates.

analytical way, let

us say that in actual existence society cannot do with-

out philosophers.

Even when they a kind of mirror,

deepest trends

man mind are, the

mirror

at

wrong, philosophers are

on the heights

which

of intelligence, of the

are obscurely at play in the hu-

each epoch of history; (the greater they

more

is).

are in the

actively

Now,

since

and powerfully radiant the

we

are thinking beings, such

mirrors are indispensable to

us.

[4]

After

all, it is

better

human society to have Hegelian errors with Hegel than to have Hegelian errors without Hegel — I mean

for

hidden and diffuse errors rampant throughout the cial

so-

body, which are Hegelian in type but anonymous

A

and unrecognizable.

wrong those

like a

is

seamen:

reefs,

which

enables

men

beacon on the

me.

steer clear of

who have not been

He

says to

(at least

seduced by him) to identify

from which they

the errors

philosopher in the

great

suffer,

and

become

to

clearly

aware of them, and

to struggle against

This

an

society, insofar as society

is

is

essential

need of

not merely animal society, but society

persons

Even

endowed with if

intelligence

them.

made up

of

and freedom.

philosophers are hopelessly divided

among

themselves in their search for a superior and all-per-

vading truth,

at least

they seek this truth; and their

very controversies, constantly renewed, are a sign of the necessity for such a search. These controversies

do

not witness to the illusory or unattainable character of the object that philosophers are looking for.

witness to the fact that this object

cause

it

which culty

and

?

is

is

crucial in importance:

crucial in

is is

not everything

importance crucial also in

Plato told us that beautiful things are

that

we

They

so difficult be-

diffi-

difficult,

should not avoid beautiful dangers.

Man-

kind would be in jeopardy, and soon in despair,

if it

shunned the beautiful dangers of intelligence and reason.

Moreover many things are questionable and

commonplace

oversimplified in the

insistence

on

the

insuperable disagreements which divide philosophers.

These disagreements do indeed there

is

more

than in science. For a pletely

exist.

But in one sense

continuity and stability in philosophy

new

scientific

theory com-

changes the very manner in which the former

ones posed the question, whereas philosophical prob-

lems remain always the same, in one form or another.

Nay more,

have

basic philosophical ideas, once they

been discovered, become permanent acquisitions in the philosophical heritage.

They

even opposite ways they are :

are used in various,

still

there. Finally, phi-

losophers quarrel so violently because each one has

some truth which, more often than

seen

not, has daz-

which he may conceptualize

zled his eyes, and

in

an

insane manner, but of which his fellow-philosophers

must

also be aware, each in his

What At tion

in

:

point

this

what

itself,

Is the

is

philosophy

is

perspective.

Use of Philosophy?

we come

to the essential considera-

the use of philosophy

above

is

own

utility.

And

?

Philosophy, taken

for this very reason

of the utmost necessity for

minds them of the supreme

men.

utility of those

which do not deal with means, but with

men do

not

live

things

ends.

For

only by bread, vitamins, and tech-

nological discoveries.

which are above

It re-

They

time,

live

and

are

by values and

realities

worth being known

— own

for their

which

sake; they feed

on

that invisible food

sustains the life of the spirit,

and which makes

them aware, not of such or such means of their

life,

suffering,

—and

but of their very reasons for living

and hoping.

The philosopher in society

witnesses to the supreme

dignity of thought; he points to

man, and and

at the service

what

knowledge

stimulates our thirst for pure

disinterested

fundamentals

knowledge, for knowledge of those

—about

which are superior

we can make

to,

man

himself,

and independent

or produce or create is

and the

the nature of things

nature of the mind, and

our practice

eternal in

is

and God anything

of,

—and to which

appendent, because

we

all

think before

acting and nothing can limit the range of thought:

we take human thought is able

our practical decisions depend on the stand

on the ultimate questions to ask.

That

is

why

directed toward

have, as

I

on human

The

philosophical systems,

no

remarked

that

practical use

and

at the beginning,

which

are

application,

such an impact

history.

advocates of dialectical materialism claim that

philosophy does not have to contemplate, but to trans-

form the world: because philosophy praxis, instrument for action,

things. This

is

power

is

essentially

exercised

on

but a return to the old magical con-

fusion between knowledge and power, a perfect dis-

regard of the function of thought. Philosophy

l7l

is

essen-

toward truth

tially a disinterested activity, directed

loved for sake of If

its

own

philosophy

the

movement which

things.

That

is

why we need

and the changes that occur

of history

because philosophy, in

it is

its

primary

the metaphysical penetration of being,

is

on discerning and contemplating what

is

intent only

is

the truth of certain matters

which have importance

in themselves

and for themselves, independently

what happens

in the world,

that reason, exert

Two

it.

one of the forces which contribute to

is

in the world, task,

sake, not utilitarian activity for the

power over

an

and which,

essential influence

of

precisely for

on the world.

aspects of the function of the philosopher

in society have,

it

seems to me, special significance

They have to do with Truth and Freedom. The great danger which threatens modern societies

today.

is

a

weakening of the sense of Truth.

On

the one

hand men

become so accustomed to thinking in terms

of stimuli

and

responses,

and adjustment

to environ-

ment; on the other hand they are so bewildered by the

manner

vertising

in

which the

political techniques of ad-

and propaganda use the words of the

guage that they are tempted terest in truth: terial

finally to give

and

figures,

them, without internal adherence

The

up any

in-

only practical results, or sheer ma-

verification of facts

grasped.

lan-

philosopher

who

[8]

to

matter for

any truth

really

in pursuing his specu-

lative task

pays no attention to the interests of men,

or of the social group, or of the ciety of the absolute

state,

reminds

so-

and unbending character of

Truth.

As

Freedom, he reminds

to

society that

freedom

is

the very condition for the exercise of thought. This is

a requirement of the

society,

which

common good

disintegrates as soon

itself

of

human

as fear, supersed-

ing inner conviction, imposes any kind of shibboleth

upon human minds. The philosopher, even when he is

wrong,

lowmen

at least freely criticizes

many

things his

fel-

are attracted to. Socrates bore witness to this

function of criticism which

Even though

society

is

showed

inherent in philosophy. its

gratitude to

him

in

quite a peculiar way, he remains the great example of the philosopher in society. that

It is

not without reason

Napoleon loathed ideologues, and

that dictators,

as a rule, hate philosophers.

Moral Philosophy I

have spoken above

all

of speculative or theoreti-

cal philosophy, the chief part of

The name losophy,

which

is

metaphysics.

of Socrates calls forth another kind of phi-

namely moral or

Here the need

practical philosophy.

of society for philosophy,

and

for

sound philosophy, appears in a more immediate and urgent manner. It

has been often observed that science provides us

[9]

with means

—more

and more powerful, more and

more wondrous means. These means can be used either for

good or for

depending on the ends

evil,

The determination and genuine ends of human life is not which they

are used.

province of science.

philosophy

—and, to

wisdom

cal

it

tell

within the

within the province of wis-

It is

dom. In other words,

within the province of

is

the truth, not of philosophi-

alone, but also of

God-given wisdom.

Society needs philosophers in this connection. saints

On

needs

the other

hand the human

sciences

—psychol-

—afford us with invalu-

and ever-growing material dealing with the be-

able

havior of individual and collective basic

components of human

life

an immense help in our

world of man. But treasure of facts

all

man and

and

would be

with the

civilization.

This

effort to penetrate the

this material and this

of

no

avail

interpreted, so as to enlighten us is

It

even more.

ogy, sociology, anthropology

is

to

of the true

if it

immense were not

on what man

is. It

up to the philosopher to undertake this task of

in-

terpretation.

My sort

point

is

that society

is

in special need of this

of work. For merely material information, or any

kind of Kinsey report, on

human

mores,

is

rather of

a nature to shatter the root beliefs of any given society, as

long

as

it

is

not accompanied by genuine

knowledge of man, which depends,

Ci°:j

in the last analy-

on wisdom and philosophy. Only the philosophical knowledge of man permits us, for example, to distinguish between what is conformable to the nature and reason of man, and the way in which men sis,

do in

fact

conduct themselves, indeed in the majority

of cases; in other words, to distinguish between the

modes

of behavior

modes

of

which

are really

comportment which

normal and the

are statistically fre-

quent. Finally

when

it

comes

to

moral values and moral

standards, the consideration of our present world

authorizes us to

make

the following remark:

it is

great misfortune that a civilization should suffer a cleavage

between the ideal which constitutes

son for living and acting, and for which

and the inner

to fight,

people,

and which implies

tal insecurity

fact,

the

cast of

about

this

ideal.

from

its

rea-

continues

mind which

in reality

same

it

a

exists in

doubt and men-

As

a matter of

common psyche of a society or a civilization, memory of past experiences, family and comthe

munity

traditions,

and the

sort of

emotional tem-

perament, or vegetative structure of feeling, which

have been thus engendered, tical

conduct of

men

ards and values in believe.

may maintain in the prac-

a deep-seated devotion to stand-

which

their intellect has ceased to

Under such circumstances they

pared to

are even pre-

die, if necessary, for refusing to

commit

some unethical action or

dom, but they

for defending justice or free-

any rational

are at a loss to find

tification for the notions of justice,

behavior; these things

jus-

freedom, ethical

no longer have

for their

minds

any objective and unconditional value, perhaps any meaning. Such a situation

is

possible;

cannot

it

A time will come when people will give up cal existence those values

have any

how

last.

in practi-

about which they no longer

Hence we

intellectual conviction.

realize

necessary the function of a sound moral philos-

ophy

is

in

human

society. It

has to give, or to give

back, to society intellectual faith in the value of

its

ideals.

These remarks apply ticularly cogent

of free

men

to democratic society in a par-

way, for the foundations of a society

are essentially moral.

number of moral

tenets

There are

—about the dignity of the hu-

man person, human rights, human law, mutual

respect

a certain

and

kind and the ideal of peace

democracy presupposes

equality, freedom,

tolerance, the unity of

among men

common

man-

—on which

consent; without a

general, firm, and reasoned-out conviction concerning

such tenets, democracy cannot survive.

It is

not the

job of scientists, experts, specialists, and technicians, it is

the job of philosophers to look for the rational

justification

and elucidation of the democratic

In this sense

it

is

charter.

not uncalled-for to say that the

philosopher plays in society as to principles, as im-

portant a part as the statesman as to practical govern-

may Both may

they are mis-

ment. Both

be great destroyers

taken.

be genuine servants of the

good,

if

common

they are on the right road. Nothing

if

more

is

immediately necessary for our times than a sound political philosophy. I

my own

would betray

convictions

—given on the one hand

and division

itself,

on

did not

which the modern mind

in

the other

I

the state of confu-

add that sion

if

hand

finds

the fact that the deepest in-

centive of democratic thought

as

is,

Henri Bergson

observed, a repercussion of the Gospel's inspiration in the temporal order

—philosophy, especially moral and

political philosophy,

in our

modern

can perform

its

normal function

society, especially as regards the

need

of democratic society for a genuine rational establish-

ment

of

its

common basic

only

tenets,

if it

keeps

vital

continuity with the spirit of the Judaeo-Christian tradition

words,

and with the wisdom of the Gospel,

if it is

a

work and

effort of

human

tent

on the most exacting requirements

cal

method and

principles,

in other

reason in-

of philosophi-

equipped with

weapons and information of contemporary and guided by the

which Christian I

know

light of the

faith

the

all

science,

supreme truths of

makes us aware.

that the notion of Christian philosophy

controversial notion,

and rather complicated.

[13]

I

is

a

have

—

no intention of discussing the problem like

As

only to point out that

more

for myself, the

I

we cannot

here.

I

should

help posing

it.

think of the relationship

between philosophy and theology in the course of history, the

more

existence this

I

am

problem

is

convinced that in concrete solved in a

way

favorable to

the notion of Christian philosophy.

One

should be touched upon;

final point

limit myself to a

few remarks on

it.

the philosopher's attitude toward

I

will

has to do with

It

human,

social,

po-

litical affairs.

may set aside his pursuits and become a man of politics. a philosopher who remains simply a

Needless to say, a philosopher philosophical

But what of

philosopher, and acts only as a philosopher?

On

hand we may suppose, without

the one

fear of

being wrong, that he lacks the experience, the information, and the competence which are proper to a

man

of action

undertake to in the

But,

name

:

would be a misfortune

it

legislate in social

and

for

him

to

political matters

of pure logic, as Plato did.

on the other hand, the philosopher cannot

especially in our time

—shut himself

up

in

an ivory

tower; he cannot help being concerned about affairs, in

the

name

of the very values

and maintain.

He

of philosophy

itself

human

and by reason

which philosophy has

to

defend

has to bear witness to these values,

every time they are attacked, as in the time of Hitler

when

insane racist theories

mass murder of Jews, or of enslavement by

worked

to

provoke the

as today before the threat

communist despotism. The

philos-

opher must bear witness by expressing his thoughts

and

telling the truth as

cussions in the

a political action It is

he

domain

—

it is

sees

it.

This

of politics;

may have reper-

it is

not, in itself,

simply applied philosophy.

true that the line of demarcation

is

difficult to

draw. This means that no one, not even philosophers, can avoid taking stake,

command non

omittere, "these

Matthew

when

justice or love are at

face to face with the strict

is

of the Gospel

to leave the other 1

risks,

and when one

:

haec oportuit facere, et

ilia

ought ye to have done, and not

undone."

1

23:23.

[153

TRUTH AND HUMAN FELLOWSHIP quod ex vobis est, cum omnibus hominibus pacem habentes. Si fieri potest,

St.

If

it

be possible, as

Paul,

Rom.

much

you, live peaceably with

12:18.

as lieth in

all

men.

Absolutism and Relativism

O the

LIBERTY, how many crimes are committed in thy name!" Madame Roland said, mounting scaffold. O Truth, it may be said, how often blind

violence and oppression have been

name

let

loose in thy

in the course of history! "Zeal for truth," as

Father Victor White puts

it,

"has too often been a

cloak for the most evil and revolting of

human

pas-

sions.

As

a result,

some people think

that in order to

human existence free from these evil passions, and make men live in peace and pleasant quiet, the best

set

way

is

to get rid of

any zeal for truth or attachment

to truth. 1

Rev. Father Victor White, O.P., "Religious Tolerance,"

The Commonweal, September

4, 1953.

Ci6]

Thus

it is

and cruelty of wars

that after the violence

of religion, a period of skepticism usually occurs, as at

Montaigne and Charron.

the time of

Here we have only the swing

of the

pendulum

moving from one extreme to another. Skepticism, moreover, may happen to hold those who are not skeptical to be barbarous, childish, or subhuman, and

may happen

it

to treat

treats the unbeliever.

is

as

skepticism proves to be as

becomes the fanaticism of

it

of truth

to be particularly

societies;

important for

he

his

believes

together

Well, ask:

victions

each one of them endeavored

all his co-citizens,

easy, too easy, to

on

all

go a

sticks to his ?

the truth in

which

would not

living

is

obviously right.

step further,

own

and

to

convictions,

one endeavor to impose his

own

con-

others? So that, as a result, living to-

gether will become impossible

truth

me

where

religious or philosophical creeds

each one sticks to his

will not each

seems to

is

a great diversity of

own convictions and

on

it

this country,

become impossible ? That

it is

if

and

live together. If

impose

not the answer.

and human fellowship

men and women coming from

to

is

humility, together with faith in truth.

important for democratic

national stocks

as the zealot

—

a sign that skepticism

The answer is The problem

have to

badly

Then

intolerant as fanaticism

doubt. This

them

own

if

any

citizen

whatever

convictions and believes in a given

Thus

it is

not unusual to meet people

that not to believe in to

any

who

think

any truth or not to adhere firmly ,

assertion as unshakeably true in itself,

mary condition required

a pri-

is

of democratic citizens in

order to be tolerant of one another and to live in peace with one another. are in fact the

May

I

say that these people

most intolerant people,

for

if

perchance

they were to believe in something as unshakeably true, they

to

would

feel

compelled, by the same stroke,

impose by force and coercion

their co-citizens.

The

their

own

belief

only remedy they have found to

get rid of their abiding tendency to fanaticism cut themselves off od. It

is

would

would

condemn

is

to

a suicidal meth-

itself

which

lived

on

universal

to death by starvation; but

also enter a process of self-annihilation,

common

no democratic

society

can

live

practical belief in those truths

are freedom, justice, law,

mocracy; and that any jectively

That

truth.

a democratic society

the very fact that

out a

from

is

a suicidal conception of democracy: not only

skepticism it

on

and the other

from with-

which

tenets of de-

belief in these things as ob-

and unshakeably

true, as well as in

any other

kind of truth, would be brought to naught by the

preassumed law of universal skepticism.

In the field of political science, the opinion which I

am criticizing was made into a theory— the so-called

"relativistie

justification

c:

of

democracy"

is 3

—by

Hans

Kelsen.

It is

very significant that in order to establish

his philosophy of the

temporal order and show that

democracy implies ignorance

of,

or doubt about, any

absolute truth, either religious or metaphysical, Kel-

sen has recourse to Pilate

;

so that, in refusing to dis-

from the

tinguish the just

unjust,

and washing

his

hands, this dishonest judge thus becomes the lofty precursor of relativistic democracy. Kelsen quotes the

dialogue between Jesus and Pilate

— in which Jesus says: "To the world, that

and

I

end

am

I

come

into

should bear witness unto the truth,"

Pilate answers:

livers Jesus

this

— John, Chapter 18

"What

truth?" and then de-

is

over to the fury of the crowd. Because

Pilate did not

know what

truth

is,

Kelsen concludes,

he therefore called upon the people, and asked them to decide;

and thus in a democratic

the people to decide,

knows what

because no one

The ligious

truth

and metaphysical truth

solute truth," as

2

it,

ever

knows

if

its

any

own

truth, insofar as

sphere.

or claims to

solute justice"

up

— that

— "cannot be a

is

reigns,

it is

true,

argument

is:

were

Silving

"Who-

absolute truth or ab-

to say, truth or justice

simply

democrat, because he cannot and

2 Helen Silving, "The Conflict Iowa haw Review, Spring 1950.

[19]

re-

they call "ab-

As Miss Helen

know

to

is.

—what

the burden of Kelsen's

puts

it is

which Kelsen was speaking was

truth of

not absolute in

society

and mutual tolerance

of Liberty

is

and Equality,"

not expected to admit the possibility of a view different

from

own, the true view. The metaphysi-

his

cian and the believer are

nal truth

bound

to

the people without vision. Theirs of the one

know

impose

who knows

is

who

against the one

aware of our ignorance of what

we

call

It

the holy crusade

upon

is

does not

we Good may

Only

or does not share in God's grace.

are

is

their eter-

on other people, on the ignorant, and on

the

if

the people to decide."

impossible to summarize

more

accurately a

more barbarous and erroneous assumptions. If were true that whoever knows or claims to know

set of it

truth or justice cannot admit the possibility of a

view different from his true

his

own, and

is

bound

to

impose

view on other people by violence, then the

rational animal

would be the most dangerous

beasts. In reality

it is

through rational means, that

of is,

through persuasion, not through coercion, that the rational animal

is

induce his fellow claims to

know

because he trusts

bound by

men

his very nature to try to

to share in

what he knows

as true or just.

The

human

and the

reason,

or

metaphysician, believer, be-

and knows that "a forced hypocrisy hateful to God and man," as Cardi-

cause he trusts divine grace faith

nal

is

a

Manning put

it,

do not use holy war

to

make

their

"eternal truth" accessible to other people; they appeal to the inner

freedom of other people by offering them

either their demonstrations or the testimony of their

03

love.

And we do not call upon the people to decide be-

cause

we

are aware of our ignorance of

we know

good, but because

this truth

what

and

this

is

the

good,

that the people have a right to self-government.

no doubt, easy to observe that in the history mankind nothing goes to show that, from primi-

It is,

of

tive times on, religious feeling or religious ideas

have

been particularly successful in pacifying men;

ened

their conflicts.

makes

trouble,

always persecuted 3

On

have fed and sharp-

hand truth always

and those

"Do

:

peace upon earth;

sword."

to

the one

seem rather

ligious differences

I

re-

who

bear witness to

not think that

came not

I

came

it

are

to send

to send peace, but the

On the other hand — and

this

is

the point

we

must face —those who know or claim to know truth

happen sometimes the fact;

I

to persecute others.

I

do not deny

say that this fact, like all other facts, needs

to be understood. It only

means

that,

given the weak-

ness of our nature, the impact of the highest

sacred things liable to

is

its

upon

make

the coarseness of the

these things,

passions, as long as

genuine

love. It

is

fruit of religion.

it

and most

human

by accident,

has not been purified by

nonsense to regard fanaticism as a Fanaticism

is

a natural tendency

rooted in our basic egotism and will to power.

upon any noble

feeling to live

for religious fanaticism 3

Matthew

10:34.

heart

a prey to

is

on

it.

It seizes

The only remedy

the Gospel light and the

progress of religious consciousness in faith in that fraternal love

which

is

union with God. For then

soul's

itself

the fruit of the

man

realizes the

sacred transcendence of truth and of God.

The more

he grasps truth, through science, philosophy, or

more he

the

feels

what immensity remains

grasped within this very truth.

God,

either

by reason or by

and

human

faith,

to be

The more he knows

faith, the

more he under-

stands that our concepts attain (through analogy) but

do not circumscribe Him, and not like our thoughts: for

mind

of the Lord, or

who

that His thoughts are

"who hath known

the

hath become His counse-

4

The more strong and deep faith becomes, the more man kneels down, not before his own alleged lor?"

ignorance of truth, but before the inscrutable mystery of divine truth,

God

and before the hidden ways

goes to meet those

who

search

in

which

Him.

To sum up, the real problem has to do with the human subject, endowed as he is with his rights in relation to his fellow

men, and

the vicious inclinations

power.

On

which derive from

is

by

his will to

like to

impose truth by coercion comes

the fact that they shift their right feelings about

the object

from the

object to the subject;

think that just as error has no rights of 4

he

the one hand, the error of the absolutists

who would from

afflicted as

Isaias 40:13.

its

and they

own and

—

should be banished from the

means no

of the mind), so

rights of his

human

mind (through

man when

own and

he

the

in error has

is

should be banished from

fellowship (through the

means

human

of

power).

On make

the other hand, the error of the theorists relativism, ignorance,

who

and doubt a necessary

condition for mutual tolerance comes from the fact

human

that they shift their right feelings about the

—who must be respected even

subject

—from the subject to the object; prive

man and

human

the

adherence to the truth

if

he

is

in error

and thus they de-

intellect of the

very act

—in which consists both man's

dignity and reason for living.

They

begin, as

we have

seen apropos of Kelsen,

with the supreme truths either of metaphysics or of faith.

But science also deals with

science the discovery of a

often a previous theory true.

What

will

hold of what

moment ?

it

new

truth,

though in

truth supplants most

which was hitherto considered

happen

if

human

fanaticism takes

claims to be scientific truth at a given

Suffice

it

to look at the

the Stalinist state imposed cal, biological, linguistic,

on

manner

scientists its

in

own

which physi-

or economic truth. Shall

we

then conclude that in order to escape state-science oppression or science

and

ignorance

management, the only way scientific

truth,

?

C23]

and

is

to give

up

to take refuge in

which makes us humble,

truth, not ignorance,

It is

and gives us the sense of what remains unknown our very knowledge. In one sense only

dom

in appealing to our ignorance:

ignorance of those those

Be the

who

who know,

if

is

we mean

not the ignorance of

are in the dark.

man who

says:

"What

truth?" as Pilate did,

is

not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the

is

the

a question of science, metaphysics, or religion,

it

There

in

there wis-

is

real

is

human race. man

and genuine tolerance only when a

firmly and absolutely convinced of a truth, or of

what he holds to be

a truth,

and when he

time recognizes the right of those to exist,

and

to contradict

at the

same

who deny this

truth

him, and to speak

their

own

mind, not because they are free from truth but because they seek truth in their

he respects in them nity

human

own

nature and

and those very resources and

the intellect

way, and because

human

dig-

living springs of

and of conscience which make them po-

tentially capable of attaining the truth

someday they happen

to see

he

loves, if

it.

Can Philosophers Cooperate?

A particular application of the problem we are discussing can be found in the philosophical years

ago

I

was asked whether

in

field.

my opinion

Some

philos-

ophers can cooperate. I felt

rather embarrassed

by

t*4l

this question, for

on

the one is

hand

philosophy

if

is

not search for truth

it

nothing, and truth admits of no compromise; on

the other

hand

philosophers, that

if

dom, cannot cooperate, how

The

tion be possible?

seem

sions

will

is,

lovers of wis-

any human

coopera-

fact that philosophical discus-

to consist of deaf

men's quarrels

is

not

re-

assuring for civilization.

My

answer

is

that philosophers

as a rule, because

human

nature

any other poor devil of

as in

that they can cooperate ;

do not

is

as

cooperate,

weak

in

them

a rational animal, but

and that cooperation between

philosophers can only be a conquest of the intellect

over

itself

created

—a

and the very universe of thought difficult

it

conquest indeed, achieved by

tellectual rigor

and

and inevitably

lasting antagonisms.

justice

on the

has in-

basis of irreducible

A distinction, moreover, seems to me to be relevant in this connection. either

The

question can be considered

from the point of view

of doctrinal exchanges

between systems or from the point of view of the mutual grasp which various philosophical systems can have of each other, each being taken as a whole.

From

the

first

point of view, or the point of view

of doctrinal exchanges, each system can avail itself of

the others for

its

own

sake by dismembering them,

and by feeding on and assimilating what it can take from them. That is cooperation indeed, but in quite a peculiar

sense— as

a lion cooperates with a lamb.

Casn

Yet from the second point of view, and in the perspective of the

judgment which each system

other, contemplating

on the

it

whole, and as an

as a

object situated in an external sphere, it

justice,

passes

a mutual understanding

and trying

is

possible

to

do

which

cannot indeed do away with basic antagonisms, but

which may

though imperfect

create a kind of real

cooperation, to the extent that each system succeeds

(i) in recognizing for the other, in a certain sense, a right to exist;

and (2)

in availing itself of the other,

no longer by material intussusception and by borrowing or digesting parts of the other, but by bringing,

thanks to the other,

its

own

specific life

and principles

to a higher degree of achievement and extension. It is

would If

on

this

like to insist for a

we were

tually

genuine kind of cooperation that

moment.

able to realize that

most often our mu-

opposed affirmations do not bear on the same

parts or aspects of the real

and that they are of greater

value than our mutual negations, then

come

nearer the

first

we

should

prerequisite of a genuinely

philosophical understanding: that

come

I

better able to transcend

is,

we

should be-

and conquer our own

system of signs and conceptual language, and to take

on

for a

ner, the

moment,

tentative

man-

thought and approach of the other so

as to

come back, with

in a provisional

and

this intelligible booty, to

our

own

philosophical conceptualization and to our

tem

own

sys-

of reference.

Then, we are no longer concerned with analyzing or sorting the set of assertions peculiar to various sys-

tems in spreading them out, so surface or level in order to

or exchange of ideas they

inner structure. But

to speak,

on

may mutually allow

we

manner

in

do

and seeking the outside

From

justice to the other in

to penetrate

it

as

its

as a

own frame

of

taking a view of

it

an object situated on

—in another sphere of thought.

this standpoint,

two considerations would

appear all-important: the one the central intuition

which

is

the consideration of

lies at

the core of each

great philosophical doctrine; the other sideration of the place

cording to

examine

which each system, considered

specific whole, can, according to

reference,

in their

are concerned with taking

into account a third dimension, in order to

the

a single

examine what conciliation

its

is

the con-

which each system could,

own frame

ac-

of reference, grant the other

system as the legitimate place the

latter is cut

out to

occupy in the universe of thought. Actually, each great philosophical doctrine lives

on

a central intuition

tualized

which can be wrongly concep-

and translated into a system of

assertions

seriously deficient or erroneous as such, but which,

insofar as

of

some

it

is

intellectual intuition, truly gets

hold

aspect of the real. Consequently, each great

philosophical doctrine, once central intuition

its

it

has been grasped in

and then reinterpreted

in the

frame of reference of another doctrine (in a manner that

it

would

surely not accept), should be granted

from the point of view

some

of this other doctrine

place considered as legitimately occupied, be

some imaginary

we

If

against

we

try to

it

in

universe.

do

justice to the philosophical systems

which we take our most determined

stand,

both that intuition which

shall seek to discover

we must grant them from Then we shall benefit from

they involve and that place

our

own

point of view.

them, not by borrowing from them or exchanging

with them certain particular views and

ideas,

but by

seeing, thanks to them, more profoundly into our

own

doctrine,

tending

by enriching

principles to

its

it

new

from within and

fields of

ex-

inquiry which

have been brought more forcefully to our attention,

we

but which

shall

make

all

the

more

vitally

and

powerfully informed by these principles.

—

Thus there is not tohration between systems a system cannot tolerate another system, because systems are abstract sets of ideas existence,

where the

and have only

—but there can be

has no part tice,

intellectual

will to tolerate or not to tolerate justice, intellectual jus-

between philosophical systems.

Between philosophers there can be tolerance and more than tolerance; there can be a kind of coopera-

and fellowship, founded on

tion

intellectual justice

and the philosophical duty of understanding another's thought in a genuine and fair manner. Nay more, there

no

is

intellectual justice

of intellectual charity. If

and

intellect of

shall

we

without the assistance

we do

another as intellect and thought,

take pains to discover

veyed by

it

not love the thought

while

it

what

how

truths are con-

to us defective or mis-

seems

guided, and at the same time to free these truths from the errors

them

we

to re-instate

an entirely true systematization? Thus

in

we

more than we do our fellow-philosophers,

love truth

but

which prey upon them and

love

and respect both.

Mutual Understanding between

Men

of Different Religious Faiths

At

this

point

it

tain observations

At

least

I

would

would be I

made

relevant to return to cer-

in the preceding chapter.

on the remark

like to insist

5

that the

constantly renewed controversies between philoso-

phers bear witness to the necessity of the search for a superior

and all-pervading

The more deeply we look more we realize that they

the

truth.

into these controversies, thrive

on

a certain

num-

ber (increasing with the progress of time) of basic

themes

to

which each newly arriving philosopher

deavors to give some kind of place 5

See supra, pp. 4-7.

L*9l

en-

—however uncom-

—

fortable,

sistency

more

and though acquired

at the price

con-

of.

—in his own system, while at the same time, on one

often than not, his overemphasis

themes in question causes

of the

system to be at odds

his

with those of his fellow-competitors

—and

with the

truth of the matter.

The

greater

and truer a philosophy, the more per-

fect the balance

between

all

the ever-recurrent basic

themes with whose discordant claims philosophical reflection has to do.

At

glance

first

previously

dom and

it

seems particularly shocking,

observed,

men

that

dedicated

as I

wis-

to

to the grasping of the highest truths

might

—which quite —but might display, as actually happens with saddening frequency, more mutual intolerance — be not only in mutual disagreement

is

normal

re-

fusing one another any right intellectually to exist

than even potters,

as Aristotle

put

or painters and

it,

writers with respect to each other. In reality this surprising, for

mutual toleration

is

not

relates essentially to

living together in concrete existence; and, as a result,

mutual toleration in theoretical ones.

a

man from

between an

a

fire,

atheist

is

easier in practical matters

When mutual

and

a question of rescuing

it is

toleration

and cooperation

a Christian, or an advocate of

determinism and an advocate of free matter of course. But

than

when

it

comes

truth about the nature of the

will, will

to

human

be a

knowing

the

will, the co-

operation between the advocate of determinism and

[3°;]

—

the advocate of free will will

become more

difficult.

We just

saw on what conditions and in overcoming what obstacles such cooperation between philosophers is

possible.

To tell

intolerant,

the truth, philosophers are naturally

and genuine tolerance among them means

a great victory of virtue over nature in their

same can be

theme was

said,

am

I

minds.

The

afraid, of theologians. This

particularly dear to Descartes,

who made

theologians (non-Cartesian theologians) responsible

wars in the world. Yet both philosophers and

for all

theologians are surely able to overcome the natural

bent

just alluded to,

I

respect for the

man

and

more more eager to

to nurture all the

in error as they are

vindicate the truth he disregards or disfigures.

Thus we come

to

our third point: mutual under-

—in uncompromising —between men of to truth as each one sees

standing and cooperation ity

it

ferent faiths:

I

do not mean on the temporal

for temporal tasks; ligious

that

fidel-

life,

human

of the

same

I

mean on

must bring together,

terrestrial

and

the very level of re-

knowledge, and experience. society

level

dif-

6

If

it is

true

in the service

common good, men belonging how can the peace of

to different spiritual families,

that temporal society be lastingly assured

the

domain

"See

(New

"Who

that matters Is

My

most

Neighbor?"

to the in

human

in

being

Ransoming the Time

York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1941

123, 124.

if first

),

pp.

116,

117,

and

in the spiritual

ships of

religious

cannot be established prefer the

I

a

domain

itself

—relation-

mutual respect and mutual understanding

number

word

?

"fellowship" to "tolerance" for

of reasons. In the

place, the

first

word

tolerance relates not only to the virtue of mutual toleration between

human

which

individuals,

am

I

dis-

cussing here, but also to problems which are ex-

traneous to

my

present topic. For instance, on the

one hand there

man

ance": has truth

Has

and

the

is

a

the

moral obligation

to cling to

Church

problem of "dogmatic

it

when he

a right to

sees

condemn

there

is

the

opposed

to

which she has

Yes indeed. And, on the other hand,

?

problem of

society respect the

from imposing

Yes indeed.

it ?

errors

the deposit of divine revelation with

been entrusted

toler-

to seek religious

"civil tolerance"

7 :

Must

civil

realm of consciences and refrain

a religious creed

by coercion ? Again,

yes indeed.

In the second place the

word fellowship connotes

something positive

—positive and elementary—in hu-

man relationships.

It

ling companions,

who meet

conjures

and journey through their differences 7

may be

See Charles Journet,

(London and 216, 283-284.

New

life

up

the image of travel-

here below by chance

—however

fundamental

—good humoredly, in cordial

The Church

of the

Word

York: Sheed and Ward, 1955),

Incarnate 1,

pp. 215-

solidarity

and human agreement, or

friendly and cooperative disagreement. the reasons

I

have

just

better to say,

Well

then, for

mentioned, the problem of

good fellowship between the members of the various religious families seems to

me to be

a cardinal one for

our age of civilization. Let

me

say immediately that this attempt at rap-

prochement might

be misunderstood.

easily

ground of any

therefore begin by clearing the

sources of misunderstanding.

Such

a

I

shall

possible

rapprochement

obviously cannot be effectuated at the cost of straining fidelity,

or of any yielding in intellectual integrity, or

what

of any lessening of

is

due

to truth.

Nor

any question whatever either of agreeing

is

there

upon

I

know not what common minimum of truth or of subjecting each one's convictions to a common index of doubt.

On

the contrary, such a

only conceivable

maximum

if

we assume

coming together

that each gives the

of fidelity to the light that

him. Furthermore,

it

is

shown

to

obviously can only be pure, and

therefore valid and efficacious,

if it is

arriere-pensee of a temporal nature

shadow of

is

free

from any

and from even the

a tendency to subordinate religion to the

defense of any earthly interest or acquired advantage. I

am

sure that everyone

conditions pass

on

I

have

just

is

agreed on these negative

enumerated. But as soon as

to positive considerations each

one

we

sees the

very justification and the very reason for being of t:

33 a

this

good fellowship between

believers of different

own

religious families mirrored in his

look and in his

own world

of thought.

particular out-

And

these out-

looks are irreducibly heterogeneous; these worlds of

thought never exactly meet. Until the day of eternity comes, their dimensions can have no ure.

There

no use

is

common

meas-

closing one's eyes to this fact,

which simply bears witness to the

up

of the systems of signs, built

internal coherence

in accordance with

on which human minds depend cognitive life. Fundamental notions such as

different principles,

for their

that of the absolute oneness of

meaning

for a

Jew

God

as for a Christian;

the same

meaning

nor has the no-

and incommunica-

tion of the divine transcendence bility

have not the same

for a Christian as for a

Mos-

lem; nor the notions of person, of freedom, grace, revelation, incarnation, of nature ral,

the

cident.

same

same meaning

And the "non-violence" of the Indian is not the justice,

doubt, as it is

it itself

instead of being

Ideas,

uses. It

is

I

just said

the privilege of

human intelligence to understand other

than the one if,

No

as Christian "charity."

apropos of philosophical the

and the supernatu-

for the Orient as for the Oc-

none the

languages

less

true that

men, we were patterns of Pure

our nature would be

order to absorb into our

own

to

devour each other in

world of thought what-

ever other such worlds might hold of truth.

But

it

happens that we are men, each containing C 34 3

—

within himself the ontological mystery of personality

and freedom: and

it is

in this very mystery of

freedom

and personality that genuine tolerance or fellowship

good fellowship among

takes root. For the basis of

men

of different creeds

tellect

and of

is

not of the order of the in-

ideas, but of the heart

and of

friendship, natural friendship, but first

mutual love in

God and

for

love. It

is

and foremost

God. Love does not go

out to essences nor to qualities nor to ideas, but to persons; and

it is

the mystery of persons and of the

divine presence within

them which

This fellowship, then,

not a fellowship of beliefs but

the fellowship of

The

is

men who

is

here in play.

believe.

conviction each of us has, rightly or wrongly,

regarding the limitations, deficiencies, errors of others

does not prevent friendship between minds. In

such a fraternal dialogue, there must be a kind of forgiveness

and remission, not with regard

ideas deserve

no forgiveness

if

they are false

with regard to the condition of him road at our all

men

side.

will be

What

who

—but

travels the

Every believer knows very well that judged

—both himself and

But neither he nor another ment.

to ideas

each one

is

is

God, able

all others.

to pass judg-

before God, neither the one

nor the other knows. Here the "judge not" of the Gospels applies with

judgment concerning

its

full force.

We

can render

ideas, truths, or errors;

good or

bad actions; character, temperament, and what apC 35 3

pears to us of a man's interior disposition. But

weaves his to

where the person day

own

and

fate

ties

to do,

and

what

love for our neighbor

I

after

day

the bonds binding

him

When it comes to that, there is only one

God.

that

should like to dwell a

and the

And

God.

to trust in

is

are

judge the innermost heart, that

utterly forbidden to

inaccessible center

we

that

prompts us

moment on

is

thing

precisely

to do.

the inner law

privileges of this friendship of charity, as re-

gards precisely the relations between believers of

dif-

ferent religious denominations (as well as between

and non-believers).

believers

I

have already made

is wrong to say dogma or exists in

it

sufficiently clear that it

that such a

friendship transcends

spite of the

dogmas those as

Such

of faith.

who

view

a

believe that the

inadmissible for

is

word

of

God

A

His unity or His transcendence.

which would be bought

would base

itself

is

as absolute

mutual love

at the price of faith,

on some form of

all

which

eclecticism, or

which, recalling Lessing's parable of the three rings,

would

say, "I love

because, after true faith,

all, I

and

cism and

am

that

ring," in so saying toric inheritance

him who it

my

faith

faith is

the

bears the device of the true

would reduce

and

relativity.

my

does not have

not sure that

seal

Such C

it

faith to a

with the

a love, for

36^

seal

mere

his-

of agnosti-

anyone

who

be-

lieves

he has heard the word of God, would amount

to putting

man

above God.

That love which first to

men

God, and then

contrary, goes

men, because the more

to all

God and

are loved in

on the

charity,

is

God, the more they

for

are loved themselves and in themselves. Moreover

born in faith and remains within

this love is

faith,

while at the same time reaching out to those

have not the same tic

faith.

That

is

of love ; wherever our love goes,

our

it

with

carries

it

faith.

Nor does

the friendship of charity merely

recognize the existence of others ter of fact

for

who

the very characteris-

here

is

make

us

—although as a mat-

something already

difficult

enough

men, and something which includes everything

essential.

other

Not only does it make us recognize that anbut it makes us recognize that he exists,

exists,

not as an accident of the empirical world but as a hu-

man

being

to exist.

who

exists before

God, and has the right

While remaining within the

faith, the friend-

ship of charity helps us to recognize whatever beliefs

other than our

human and

own include

divine values.

and of dignity, of makes us respect them,

of truth It

urges us on ever to seek in

them everything

that

is

stamped with the mark of man's original greatness

and of the prevenient care and generosity of God. It helps us to come to a mutual understanding of one another.

It

does not

make

us

C37]

go beyond our

faith

— but beyond ourselves. In other words,

it

helps us to

purify our faith of the shell of egotism and subjectivity in

which we

instinctively tend to enclose

inevitably carries with

tached as

neighbor

to the

condition

we

the heart at once to the truth

is

is

who

it.

also

It

a sort of heart-rending, at-

it

and

love

ignorant of that truth. This

is

even associated with what

is

called the

"ecumenical" bringing together of divided Christians;

how much more

is

it

associated with the labor of

bringing into mutual comprehension believers of every denomination. I

distrust

any easy and comfortable friendship be-

tween believers of ship of

which

is

all

denominations.

not accompanied, as

compunction

or soul's

it

sorrow; just

I

mean

a friend-

were, by a kind as

I

distrust

any

universalism which claims to unite in one and the

same

service of

God, and

—

in

one and the same

tran-

some World's Fair Temple all forms of belief and all forms of worship. The duty of being faithful to the light, and of always following it to the extent that one sees it, is a duty which cannot scendental piety

as in

be evaded. In other words, the problem of conversion, for

anyone

tent that

he

who is

feels the

pricked by

more than can be

And by

spur of God, and to the exit,

cannot be

cast aside,

any

cast aside the obligation of the apos-

the same token

I

also distrust a friend-

ship between believers of the

same denomination

tolate.

which

is,

as

it

were, easy and comfortable, because in

C38

3

would be reserved

that case charity

to their fellow-

worshippers; there would be a universalism which

would

limit love to brothers in the

same

faith, a prose-

lytism

which would

man

only in order

to convert

love another

him and only

insofar as he

is

capable of

which would be the Christianity of good people as against bad people, and which would confuse the order of charity with what

conversion, a Christianity

a great spiritual writer of the seventeenth century called a police-force order.

The

spurious universalism

which would make

dow display, and ple,

I

—and

just alluded to

have their stand, win-

all faiths

loudspeaker in a World's Fair

on the condition

that all of

them should

Tem-

confess

they are not sure that they are conveying the word of

God, and that none of them should claim to be the true Faith

—

is

sometimes advocated in the name of

Indian wisdom, which teaches a kind of transcendent liberal indifference

At

this point

First.

much

Such

less to

I

with respect to any definite creed.

should like to observe:

liberal

indifference

actually

applies

Indian than to non-Indian creeds, and

consequently resembles very

much an

illusory

theme

of propaganda. Moreover, as a matter of fact, "Right

view or right thinking the Buddha,

is

the

first

step in the path of

and the word orthodoxy

Greek equivalent. In the

is

precisely

Pali scriptures there

[39]

is

its

much

8

that reads like accounts of heresy trials." Finally,

not Buddhism, which was born

was

in India, persecuted

by Brahmanism and expelled from India ? Second. Indian wisdom, be

it

Brahmanist or Bud-

dhist, does not teach indifference to any supreme

truth;

and

this

be sure, sights

teaches undifferentiation of supreme truth,

it

ent that

rich with invaluable in-

is

seriously mistaken, in-

teaches that the supreme

it

differentiation,

ner,

is

and experiences. Yet it

sofar as

it

To

a definite metaphysical creed indeed.

is

Indian metaphysics

Truth

and the Supreme Reality

cannot be

known

in

is

sheer un-

so transcend-

any expressible man-

even through concepts and words which

himself used to reveal Himself to

on the one hand,

us.

God

This boils down,

to disregarding the intellect as such,

which can grasp through analogy divine things themselves,

and, on the other hand, to forbidding

right to speak.

Then

all

religious

and absorbed in a formless Third.

The Western

God

the

forms are embraced

religiosity.

or Westernized caricature of

Indian metaphysics, which preaches, in the

name

of

one "sophy" or another, indifference to any religious

dogma and

equivalence between

religious creeds

all

henceforth decidedly relativized, displays arrogant dogmatism, asking from ditional surrender of their

self-appointed prophets. 8

minds

And

its

believers

to teachers

n

a

most

uncon-

who

are

the kind of mysticism

Rev. Father Victor White, see footnote

[40

itself

i.

supposedly free from, and superior

dogma, which is

any revealed

to,

advocated by this cheap gnosticism,

is

but spiritual self-complacency or search for powers,

which make up

for the loss of the sense of truth.

True universalism, is

catholicity

implies

and

I

have insisted

all

through

just the opposite of indifference.

this chapter, it

as

is

The

not a catholicity of relativism

indistinction, but the catholicity of reason,

and

first of all the catholicity of the Word of God, which brought salvation to all the human race and to whose mystical body all those who live in grace belong vis-

ibly or invisibly.

9

and the certainties of faith

sense of truth

versalism of love faith

and

It is

which uses

;

it is

the uni-

these very certainties of

the resources of the intellect to under-

all

stand better,

True universalism presupposes the

and do

full justice to,

not supra-dogmatic,

it

is

the other fellow.

supra-subjective.

find a token of such a universalism of love faith but within faith, not

We

—not above

above religious and philo-

sophical truth but within religious and philosophical truth, to the extent to

which everyone knows

it

—in

the development of certain discussion groups between

Moslems and

Christians, for instance, or of certain

studies in comparative theology 9

and comparative mys-

See the chapter "Catholicite" in the remarkable book

Chemins de Vlnde et Philosophic Chretienne by combe (Paris: Alsatia, 1956).

Olivier La-

ticism.

a

I

would

book written

thors

10

an example the case of

like to cite as

ago by two Thomist au-

several years

on Moslem theology which proved

to be so

Moslem

as well as for Christian read-

ers that a professor of the

Al-Hazar University wished

illuminating for

to translate

As

to

into Arabic.

it

comparative mysticism,

parative only

if it

it is

genuinely com-

avails itself of all the analytical in-

struments provided by philosophy and theology. Ac-

cording to the principles of Thomist philosophy and theology,

it is

a fact that,

bears fruit in them,

if

divine grace exists and

men of good

will

who live in non-

Christian climates can experience the same supernatural mystical union with

known"

11

God "known

as Christian contemplatives do:

because mystical experience

is

as

it is so,

independent of

unnot

faith,

but because faith in the Redeemer can exist implicitly, together with the grace of Christ, in

know His name, and

this faith

men who do

not

can develop into

grace-given contemplation, through union of love

with God.

On

ticism have

the other hand, studies in natural mys-

shown

that the disciplines of the Yoga,

for instance, normally terminate in a mystical experi-

ence which 10

is

authentic in

its

own

sphere but quite

Louis Gardet and M.-M. Anawati, Introduction a la

Theologie Musulmane (Paris: Vrin, 1948). 11 Thomas Aquinas, Sum. contra Gent., in, 49. Cf. PseudoDionysius, Mystica Theologia, cap. 2.

different

from grace-given contemplation, and has

which

for

its

object that invaluable reality

its

pure act of existing, immediately attained through

is

the Self, in

the void created by intellectual concentration. that a Christian can

it is

do

full justice, in the Chris-

tian perspective itself, to mystical experiences

I

and he

and

respect

are dedicated to these experiences.

have given these indications only to

illustrate the

human

not jeopard-

fact -that

ized

genuine

—quite

truth, 12

who

of,

which

12

take place in non-Christian religious areas;

can develop genuine understanding for those

Thus

if

the contrary!

only love

is

fellowship

—

it

is

is

fostered by zeal for

there.

Cf. Louis Gardet, Experiences mystiques en terres non-

chretiennes (Paris: Alsatia, 1953).

[43]

GOD AND SCIENCE Preliminary Remarks

THE realm of culture, science now IN over human civilization. But at the same time

holds sway sci-

ence has, in the realm of the mind, entered a period of deep

and fecund trouble and self-examination.

Scientists

have to face the problems of over-specializa-

and

tion,

a general condition of

permanent

which stems from an extraordinarily of discoveries

and

to

modern

science.

have, in general, got rid of the idea that

human

to science to organize to supersede ethics

and

life

religion

crisis

swarming

and perhaps

theoretical renewals,

from the very approach peculiar

They

fast

and

it is

society

by providing

up

and

men

with the standards and values on which their destiny depends. Finally

am it

has

this

is

the point with

especially concerned in this essay

mind as

—and

of scientists regarding religion

—the

which

I

cast of

and philosophy,

appeared in the majority of them a century ago,

now

There

profoundly changed. are,

no doubt,

atheists

among

scientists, as

there are in any other category of people ; but atheism is

not regarded by them as required by science.

The

old notion of a basic opposition between science and

[44H

religion

tween them

many or

faith;

Robert Millikan declared. In

possible,

is

scientists there is

vague

less

No conflict be-

progressively passing away.

is

an urge

is

an urge,

toward more

toward definite religious

religiosity or

and there

either

too,

toward philosophical

unification of knowledge. But the latter urge

still

re-

mains, more often than not, imbued with a kind of intellectual ambiguity.

No

wonder, then, that the subject with which we

are dealing to

—what

is

the relation of

man's knowledge of

cate,

God

sometimes complicated

the ground,

knowledge peculiar

to science as

since post-Renaissance

upon

in

aware of I

of

has developed

it

procedures,

effort of reflection

more and more

explicitly

itself.

do not disregard

separate physics

the differences in nature

from other

sciences,

modern

sciences,

which, even

which

such as biology

or anthropology, for instance. Yet physics of

way

and post-Cartesian times and

our day, through an

own

its

deli-

analysis. In order to clear

concerning the characteristic approach and

become

science

begin with a few observations

shall

I

modern

—demands a rather

when

is

the queen

they cannot be

perfectly mathematized, tend to resemble physics to

one degree or another. So brevity

I

shall,

it

is

that for the sake of

while speaking of modern science,

have modern physics especially in view.

Modern

science has progressively "freed" or sepa-

[45H

—

rated

from philosophy (more

itself

specifically

from

the philosophy of nature) thanks to mathematics that

is

to say

by becoming

edge whose data are

a particular type of

drawn by our

facts

knowl-

senses or in-

struments from the world of nature, but whose

mathematical

ligibility is

intelligibility.

As

intel-

a result,

the primary characteristic of the approach to reality peculiar to science

may

therefore be described in the

following way: that which can be observed and measured, and the ways through

measurement are

to

which observation and be achieved, and the more or less

unified mathematical reconstruction of such data these things alone have a

meaning

for the scientist as

such.

The

field

of knowledge particular to science

therefore limited to experience (as

the word).

And when

uses derive

from concepts

mon

sense

is

Kant understood

the basic notions that science traditionally used by

and philosophy, such

com-

as the notions of na-

ture, matter, or causality, these basic notions are recast

and

restricted

field of

by

science, so as to apply only to the

experience and observable phenomena, under-

stood and expressed in a certain set of mathematical signs.

Thus

it is

that physicists

may

cept of antimatter, for example, for them, but not for the

construct the con-

which has

layman or

a

meaning

for the philos-

opher.

The expression

"science of

phenomena"

[46]

is

currently

employed

that the

modern sciences. Such an we realize, on the one hand,

to designate our

expression

is

valid only

phenomena

as physics

is

if

in question are (especially as far

concerned) mathematized phenomena,

and, on the other hand, that they are not an object separate is

from but an knowledge

oblique, in

aspect of that reality in se

Nature. Let us say that science

its

phenomenal

of nature;

it

attains reality, but

is

definable through observation

and measurement), and by the instrumentality tities,

"real"

especially

and

which

though

aspect (in other words, in the as-

which

pect of reality

a genuine,

is

mathematical

relate to

what

entities,

of en-

which may be

Aristotelian realism called

"quantity" as an accident of material substance, or

may be purely ideal

entities (entia rationis)

and mere

symbols grounded on data of observation and measurement.

Such

ideal entities are the price paid for a tre-

mendous

privilege,

namely the mathematical recon-

struction of the data of experience.

ment ago

I observed a momodern science has, thanks to matheitself from philosophy. At first mathe-

that

matics, freed

matics were used by the sciences of nature in the

framework of

sense experience only.

It

has happened,

however, that for more than a century mathematics themselves, starting with non-Euclidian geometries,

have been breaking

loose,

more

definitely

and more

completely than before, from the world of experience,

[47]

and

insisting

on the

possibility of

developing

—

in the

realm of merely logical or ideal being {ens rationis)

—an infinite multiplicity of demonstrably consistent systems based

on

freely chosen

and

utterly

opposed

"axioms" or postulates. Consequently the science of

phenomena pick out

became

(particularly physics)

among

able

to

various possible mathematical lan-

make

guages or conceptualizations, which to the mathematician,

and deal with

sense only

entities existing

only within the mind, the one most appropriate to

phenomena (while other sets of phenomena may be made mathematically intelligible a given set of

through quite another conceptualization). So

from the point of view of common

it is

that

sense everything

in the world capsizes in the highest

and most com-

prehensive theories of contemporary physics as in Chagall's pictures. its

feet

Modern

science of

phenomena has

on earth and uses its hands to gather not only and measured facts, but also a great

correctly observed

many notions and

explanations which offer our minds

real entities; yet

it

has

its

head in a mathematical

heaven, populated with various crowds of signs and

merely

ideal,

These

even not intuitively thinkable

ideal entities constructed

entities.

by the mind are

symbols which enable science to manipulate the world, while knowing

it

as

unknown,

for then, in

those higher regions where creative imagination

more

at

work than

is

classical induction, science is in-

C483

tent only

translating the multifarious observable

on

aspects of the

The

fact

world into coherent systems of

signs.

remains that the prime incentive of the urge to

scientist is the

know

reality. Belief in the exist-

ence of the mysterious reality of the universe precedes scientific inquiry in the scientist's mind, and a

longing (possibly more or reality in its inner

But

less

depths

as a scientist his

is

repressed) to attain this

naturally latent in him.

knowledge

is

limited to a

mathematical (or quasi-mathematical) understanding and reconstruction of the observable and measurable aspects of nature taken in their inexhaustible detail.

"Exclusive' Scientists and "Liberal" Scientists

A distinction must be made between two categories of scientists,

whom

hand, exclusive

I

would

scientists,

like to call,

and,

on

on the one

the other hand,

lib-

eral scientists.

This distinction has nothing to do with

science

for in both categories

itself,

with the highest but

it is

scientific capacities

quite important

men endowed can be found;

from the point of view

of

culture.

"Exclusive" scientists are systematically convinced that science

is

the only kind of genuine rational

man is capable. For them nothknown to human reason except through

knowledge of which ing can be

i:

493

I

the

means and

intellectual

clusive scientists

may

equipment of

consequently reject any religious

some kind

Ex-

science.

be of positivist persuasion, and belief, save

perhaps

of mythically constructed atheistic

reli-

gion, like Auguste Comte's religion of humanity,

which

high

its

priest conceived of as a "positive re-

generation of fetishism," or like Julian Huxley's "religion without revelation,"

which mistakes

a product of the "scientific method."

shun tific

positivist prohibitions,

knowledge

Or

may

they

and superadd

a genuine, even

for

itself

to scien-

deep religious

faith,

but which supposedly belongs to the world of feeling

and pure

irrationality.

In no case

is it

eyes, to establish the existence of

possible, in their

God with

rational

certainty.

To

tell

the truth, the assertion that there

valid rational

knowledge except

and measurable phenomena self is

is

self-destructive (it

it-

mere expression

of

quite another thing than a

inter-related

phenomena).

no

is

that of observable

No wonder,

consequently,

that in contradistinction to exclusive scientists, "liberal" scientists are ready to look for a rational grasp-

ing of things which passes beyond phenomena, and

even (when they are perfectly

liberal

scientists

—

think for instance of an eminent chemist like Sir

Hugh

Taylor, or an eminent physicist like

Leon

Brillouin) to admit the necessity of philosophy

of a properly philosophical

equipment

n5°;i

and

in order to

make such grasping

feasible,

and

complement

so to

knowledge of nature provided by the

the

Nothing is more

sciences.

rational than the kind of extension

of Niels Bohr's "principle of complementarity" im-

plied by the cast of

mind

extended, this principle

of these scientists. For, thus

means simply

ferent fields of knowledge, or at

our approach to

tinct levels in

two

two

that in

dif-

specifically dis-

reality,

two

different

aspects in existing things (the

phenomenal and the

two

different explanations

ontological aspect) call for (for instance

"Mans

cerebral activity

such or such chemical" and soul")

—which

since they jects to

are

stimulated by

has a spiritual

moreover perfectly compatible,

have to do with two essentially diverse ob-

be grasped in things (so the medical approach

to a person as a patient

the

"Man

is

same person

and the

as a poet are

aesthetic

approach to

both distinct and com-

patible).

Einstein belonged to the category of liberal scientists.

For many years

his notion of

God was

that of Spinoza. Yet, as recent studies have

came, with the progress of age and

reflection, to con-

sider the existence of that personal first

doubted

lends

as required by the

itself to

far

way

the rationalization of

erated by science.

from being an

As he atheist

said in

akin to

shown, he

God whom

he

which nature phenomena op-

in

an interview in 1950,

he "believed on the contrary

[50

in a personal

way

1

God." Such a conviction meant

that the existence of

God was

in

no

supposedly a con-

clusion established by science, or a principle of ex-

planation used by

God

is

it.

meant

It

that the existence of

a conclusion philosophically established with

regard to the very possibility of science. 3

2

Heisenberg and Oppenheimer are entists.

So was,

at least virtually,

was under the cloak of

it

philosophizing effort in

Max

also liberal sci-

Planck, though

science that every bit of

him was

concealed.

4

He

be-

an "all-powerful intelligence which governs

lieved in

the universe," but not in a personal God, and he

thought that other

.

.

.

we could and

should "identify with each

the order of the universe

by the sciences of nature and the

which

is

implied

God whom

religion

holds to exist." Such statements definitely transcend the field of experience

and measurable

data,

they remain inherently ambiguous: for

how

an all-powerful reason govern the universe not personal is

?

The God whom

a transcendent 1

Cf.

God,

who

though could

if it

were

religion holds to exist

causes the order of the

Karlheinz Schauder, "Weltbild

und Religion

bei

Albert Einstein," in Frankfurter Hefte, June 1959, p. 426. 2 Cf. Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, New-

York: Harper, 1958. 3 Cf. Robert Oppenheimer, "The Mystery of Matter," in Adventures of the Mind, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1959. 4 Andre George, Autobiographic scientifique de Max Planc\, Paris: Albin Michel, i960, pp. 14, 122, 215, 217.

C523

universe, but his philosophical "identification" with

order would

this

world, as the

Such

make him

God

of the Stoics was.

intellectual

ambiguity

have already mentioned the

now

a

more

little

guity in question

consubstantial with the

closely. I is

is

not infrequent.

I

fact.

Let us consider

it

would

say that the ambi-

essential in exclusive scientists, so

far as they take a step outside science

itself.

They

emphatically deny the validity of any kind of rational

As

knowledge of reality which

a result,

if

all

we

other words,

if,

and do not think that alone,

in

nomena

is

not science

itself.

they are not of positivist persuasion,

can

know

is

phenomena

recognizing that phe-

are but an aspect of a deeper reality, they

endeavor to go beyond phenomena, they do so

through an extrapolation of brilliant as

it

may be,

is

scientific

notions which,

essentially arbitrary; or, look-

ing for a "noetic integrator," they borrow

some kind of metaphysics unaware of guised as science

—and there

is

itself

it

from

and

dis-

no worse metaphysics

than disguised metaphysics.

As regards liberal scientists the picture is basically different. I would say that the ambiguity we are discussing can

still

most often be found

something accidental, not

mind;

in them, but as

essential to their cast of

so that, as a matter of fact, there are

grounds

to

hope that more and more of them

the process of time, free themselves

[53]

from

it

good

will, in

—when

more

philosophers will become

on

the sciences

more

entists

and learning

intent

on meditating

their languages,

familiar with the approach

and

sci-

and language

of philosophy (each one realizing at the same time that the language or languages of the others are valid

instruments only for the others' work). If a liberal scientist

undertakes to go beyond the

horizons of science and tackle the philosophical pects of reality, he too tation of

making

into the very prise.

The

is

liable to yield to the

the concepts

components of

trouble

is

worked out by

as-

temp-

science

his meta-scientific enter-

no more

that one can

philoso-

phize with non-philosophical instruments than paint

with a

flute

But such

or a piano.

a state of affairs

fact that scientists,

eryone

is,

is

however

only a side-effect of the

liberal, are

to over-value the intellectual

they have tested in their particular

handling of which they have scientists

do

and in the

competence. Liberal

more

deny the

appropriate, intel-

equipment; they are aware, moreover, of the

philosophical nature of their

upon

full

field,

equipment

not, for all that, systematically

validity of another, perhaps lectual

prone, as ev-

science

and

its

own

procedures

;

effort of reflection

and by the very

fact

they are, at least implicitly, prepared to recognize the rights of that purely or genuinely philosophical ap-

proach in which they

still

often hesitate to put their

own

trust.

That

which many tal

is

why

the ambiguity of the

them go

of

in for philosophy

is

way

in

acciden-

ambiguity.

Furthermore, being accidental, such ambiguity can be removed; the best proof of this actual existence

it

is

the fact that in

has been most explicitly removed

who, when

it comes to philosophical some scientists matters, do not mind using the strict philosophical

in

approach.

At

this point

of the Epilogue

Andrew God,"

in

I

am

thinking in particular

which the distinguished physiologist

"The Evidence

Ivy wrote for the book

which he

insists that

of

God's existence can

be rationally demonstrated with absolute certainty.

Though

a professional philosopher

have added a

5

would probably

few considerations on knowledge

through analogy and the non-restricted value of the notion of cause, these pages written by a scientist are, as they stand, a

remarkable piece of philosophy, which

enters with perfect intellectual frankness

and with the

appropriate intellectual equipment a sphere inaccessible to the

instruments of science, and which gives

to a truth intuitively

principle of causality

known its

to the intellect like the

full ontological bearing, so

as to recognize the necessity of a

absolutely transcends the

whole

Prime Cause

that

field of experience.

The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, }. G. Monsma, by forty American Scientists, with an Epilogue by Dr. Andrew Ivy (New York: Putnam, 1958). 5

Cf.

edited by

C 55 3

3

The The

Crucial Question

crucial question for

whether

our age of culture

is,

thus,

can be approached and known, not

reality

only "phenomenally" by science, but also "ontologically"

by philosophy.

This question

man

is still

than for the

more

crucial for the

common

For the impact of the hab-

scientist.

its

of thinking prevalent in an industrial civilization,

in

which manipulation of the world through

and technique plays the chief

of people,

who

tations are, the people of

no experience of

science,

naively that science

is

whom

and

is I

exclusive

and what

am

its

sci-

limi-

speaking have

they believe all the

more

the only valid rational approach

nay more, that science has

answers which

loss

number

of a large

Whereas

know at least what science

to reality,

a

are not scientists but grant rational

value to facts and figures only. entists

part, results in

minds

of the sense of being in the

science

human

life

all

the rational

can need.

Consequently, any rational knowledge of God's existence

—either

pre-philosophical

(by the simple

natural use of reason) or philosophical (by the use of

reason trained in philosophical disciplines) letter as far as

—

is

a dead

they are concerned.

Persons whose intellect has shrunk in this

way may

adhere to some religious creed and have a religious belief in

God

—either

as a gift of divine grace, or as a

[56

response to irrational needs, or as a result of their ad-

justment to a given environment. But they are atheists as far as reason ly

is

concerned. Such a situation

abnormal. Religious faith

is

is

utter-

above reason, but nor-

mally presupposes the rational conviction of God's existence.

At

this point

we must

lay stress

on the nature of

philosophy as contradistinguished from science, and

philosophy

insist that

which has

enough

to

its

add

own

is

an autonomous

discipline,

instruments; so that

to scientific

it

knowledge even

intelligent philosophical reflection

;

not

is

a

most

the proper philo-

sophical training and proper philosophical

equipment

are necessary.

Let us say that whereas science, or phenomenal

knowledge,

offers us,

with wonderful richness paid

for by revolutionary changes,

coded maps of what

matter and nature are as to the multifarious observa-

and measurable interactions which occur

in them,

philosophy makes us grasp, with greater

stability

ble

paid for by limitation to essentials, what things are in the intrinsic reality of their being.

common tially

sense

higher

them, and structive)

is

level,

philosophy

is

carrying

to an essen-

in continuity

with

based on the perceptive (not only con-

power of

the intellect as well as on sense

experience. In other words, being ject of

Though

and the natural language

philosophy, as

it is

of

157

1

is

human

the primary ob-

reason; and

all

worked out by philosophy

notions

are intelligible in

terms of being, not of observation and measurement.

As

a result,

we have

to realize that in the very uni-

verse of experience philosophy (the philosophy of na-

and explanations

ture) deals with aspects

science

still

is

not interested. Thus matter (that

substances)

terial

in

is

which is,

ma-

composed, in the eyes of old but

valid Aristotelian

hylomorphism, of two

ele-

ments: pure and indetermined potentiality {materia prima), and determinative form or entelechy (which, in

man,

is

spiritual soul)

(or mass, that

is,

;

a given

whereas for science matter of measurable data ex-

set

pressed in mathematical equations) certain particles,

ture,

composed of

most of them impermanent,

nized by nuclear physics. to bring into

is

some

It is

up

sort of unity

to

scruti-

philosophy to try

our knowledge of na-

not by making science's explanations parts of

its

own explanations, but by interpreting them in its own light.

In order to do

so, it

will have, in the first place,

to enlighten us about the procedure of science

which

itself,

constructs both ideal or symbolical entities

founded on actual measurement, and complex notions

where

reality

phenomenally grasped mingles

in-

extricably with these merely ideal entities. In the sec-

ond

place, philosophy will

have to determine what

kind of ontological foundation

may

such or such of these notions, or

sets

be assigned to of notions, pe-

culiar to science. In the third place, philosophy will

[583

—

have to point out each time

this

is

—and

needed

to

improve and

the truths of

have some connection with especially

with

assertions

which

its

re-adjust,

own which and

scientific theories,

the treasure of facts and factual

all

mustered and continually

is

in-

creased by science.

Being, furthermore, sense experience; cepts of reason

it

is

not limited to the field of

goes beyond.

And

the basic con-

which deal with being

though they apply

first

as such,

to the realm of experience,

—in an "analogical" manner—to

can apply too

which transcend experience. As

ties

ophy

(this time I

reali-

a result philos-

do not mean the philosophy of na-

mean metaphysics) can attain

ture, I

even

to realities

which

escape sense experience and sense verification, in other

words which belong sible" order.

to the spiritual or "supra-sen-

6

Let us remember at but

a

this point that

philosophy

is

superior stage in the natural use of reason, at

the level of a

knowledge which

is

not only knowledge

but wisdom, and which (in contradistinction to com-

mon

sense)

is

critically elaborated

and completely

articulated. Prior to philosophy, the natural use of

reason

is

natural in an additional sense (in the sense

of untrained 8

and merely spontaneous)

New

with philos-

The Degrees of Knowledge, new translaYork: Scribner, 1959; and Approaches to God, York: Harper, 1954.

Cf. our books

tion,

;

New

C59]

ophy

it is

perfected by reflectivity, fully mature, and

capable of explicit demonstration, aware of

its

own

validity.

by virtue of the very nature of

It is

human

reason

—either untrained or philosophically perfected—that the concept of cause

and the principle of causality can

beyond the

lead us

field of experience.

has rightly pointed out, of causality in asking

7

As Dr. Ivy

if

the child uses the principle

why

things exist, he does so not

by reason of the transitory peculiarities of "childish mentality," but,

on the

contrary, because he

ening to genuine intellectual

There

is,

life.

existence. It can be described as

from the primordial

and immediately perceiving ness, or things

being,

which

which could

is

liable to

intuition of existence,

that Being-with-nothing-

—my own —necessarily presuppose

possibly not be

death

Being-without-nothingness, that

is,

which causes and

subsisting Being, ings.

awak-

thus, a pre-philosophical, simply natural

knowledge of God's starting

is

absolute or

self-

activates all be-

This pre-philosophical knowledge can also be

described as a spontaneous application of the principle:

no

And

artifact

there

is,

a philosophical is

is

possible without a maker.

in the

realm of metaphysical wisdom,

knowledge of God's

able fully to justify itself

that proceed 7

with

and

uses

full rational rigor.

Cf. supra, p. 55, footnote

5.

:6on

existence,

ways

which

of arguing

The

Philosophical Proofs of

God's Existence

The sical

of

"five

ways" of Thomas Aquinas are the

example of the philosophical approach

which

I

just spoke. It

seems relevant to give

point some idea of them, at least of the last

first

clas-

God

at this

and the

two.

The There

way proceeds from Motion or Change. no fact more obvious here below than the

first is

through which a thing becomes what

fact of change, it

to

was

not.

But no thing can give to

itself

what

it

does

not have, at least in potency, and potency cannot pass to actuation is

by

itself alone.

motion or change (even

ing beings), there the change. ject to

Now

to

is

it

:

if

there

posited in existence. So

is

In the same ceeds

from

it

causing sub-

it

others

a First

Agent,

would never be

necessary to stop at a

uncaused, absolutely exempt from is

absolutely perfect.

manner

Efficient

the third way,

is

is itself

or activated by an-

were not

all

itself

which

liv-

impossible to regress from agent

it is

agent without end

any change for

else

moved

the reason for the action of

Prime Cause,

self-motion as in

the cause in question

change, then

other agent. But

if it is

something

is

if

Everywhere where there

the second way,

Causes

at

work

which pro-

in the world,

and

which proceeds from Contingency and

Necessity in things, lead to a Prime Cause without

C60

other causes would neither be nor

which

all

which

exists

with absolute

act,

and

necessity, in the infinite

transcendence of the very esse subsisting by

itself.

The fourth way proceeds from the Degrees which are in things.

It is

a fact that there are degrees of value

or perfection in things. But, on the one hand, whereever there are degrees

it is

necessary that there exist,

somewhere, a supreme degree and on the other hand ;

one thing

is

good and another

always be another

preme degree

is

better,

but there can

better, so that there is

still

no

su-

in the possible degrees of goodness, or

beauty, or finally being, of

which things

are capable.

Goodness, beauty, being are not in their fulness in

any one of the things we touch and

see.

The supreme

degree of goodness, of beauty, of being,

where, in a Prime Being which causes is

and being

of goodness, beauty,

all

exists else-

that there

in things, a First

Cause which does not have goodness, beauty, and being, but

is

self-subsisting

Being, Goodness, and

Beauty.

The

fifth

way

proceeds from the intrinsic Order

and purposeful Governance of the world. The very fact that in the material universe things are

in a system of stable relations

among them

exists

a certain order

and endures shows that they do

not result from chance. republic of natures

and that

engaged

A

which

purpose is

is

at

work

in that

the world. But such pur-

pose cannot proceed from the things which compose

[62n

and which are devoid of under-

the world of matter,

standing. This purpose or intention intellect

on which things depend

and natural

Thus

activities.

must

an

exist in

in their very essence

in the last analysis

it

is

necessary to recognize the existence of a transcendent Intelligence, the existing of tion, I

and which

is

the

which

is its

Prime Cause of

have summarized these ways

to

very intellec-

all

beings.

God

in

my own

language and in the briefest possible fashion, leaving aside all particular examples, accidental to the stration,

demon-

which were part of the imagery provided

to

Thomas Aquinas by the physics of his time. The ways in question pertain to the philosophical order. The notion of cause has here its full ontological import, which connotes productivity in being, in contradistinction to the

mere

relationships

between phe-

nomena which science considers and in which a given phenomenon is a dependent variable of another. Furthermore,

we

are led by rational argumentation to a

Prime Cause which scendent, and

is

absolutely

and

infinitely tran-

which the very concept of

cause, like

those of being, of goodness, of intelligence, tains only

what

all

"by analogy" or in the mirror of things:

these concepts

only similar to they

etc., at-

—but

mean with

don't grasp

it

mean with

respect to

basically different

from

God

—what

respect to things accessible to us;

in itself.

God

exists as

is

we

no other being

He is good as no other being is good, He knows

exists.

and It

no other being

loves as

must be noted

does.

that considered in their very sub-

Thomas Aquinas stand fast Modern philosophy has been

stance the "five ways" of

against any criticism.

in this connection the victim of a tragic misunder-

standing. Descartes believed that

from

the sole idea

of an infinitely perfect being the existence of this be-

ing necessarily followed (the so-called "ontological

argument"). Kant rightly stated that such "proof"

was no proof

—that

takenly

at all.

But he

also stated

plied the validity of the ontological rested

on

as a result,

it;

—quite

no

argument and

valid proof

was

possible.

And Kant's successors followed on Kant's heels. is

crystal clear that

start

Thomas Aquinas'

from the idea of an

five

;

tain facts, quite general

Yet

it

ways do not

infinitely perfect being; they

proceed in the opposite manner they

from

mis-

other proofs of God's existence im-

all

start

from

cer-

and quite undeniable; and

these facts they infer the necessary existence of

a First Cause fection

is

—which

at

is

infinitely perfect. Infinite per-

the end, not at the beginning of the

demonstration. Finally

than the

let

classical five

"sixth way." as

us add that there are other ways, too,

As

many ways

ways.

I

myself have proposed a

a matter of fact there are for

of

knowing

are steps forward for

that

him on

[64

God

man

exists as there

the earth or paths to his

:

own

heart.

For

all

our perishable treasures of being

and beauty are besieged on

and

Who

One

eternity of the

all sides

by the immensity

Is.

Sciences as Witnessing to

God's Existence

Among all these approaches to God, one particularly significant for the man of our present civilization is provided by science

itself.

—though they remain ence

—bear

The

sciences of

phenomena

enclosed in the field of experi-

testimony to the existence of

double manner. Here, as a question of

what

I

God

previously noted,

in a

it is

not

science itself tells us, but of the

very existence and possibility of science. In the there

place:

first

would be no

and absolutely try to

come

reach for

it

is

in

only insofar as

nature were not intelligible

intelligible;

to grips

in itself (that

if

Nature

science.

and the

with nature's

is

not perfectly

do not

sciences

intelligibility

the job of philosophy).

They

taken rather

an oblique fashion, dealing with it is

steeped in, and

masked

it

by, the

observable and measurable data of the world of experience,

and can be

telligibility.

Yet the

translated into mathematical inintelligibility

of nature

is

the

very ground of those relational constancies which are the

"laws"—including

that category of laws

deal only with probabilities

—to

phenomena submitted; and

it is

[653

which

which

science sees

the very ground, in

particular, of the highest explanatory systems,

all

all

and code languages they

the symbols, ideal entities,

employ (and with

with

them which

that in

in-

is still

complete, arbitrary, and puzzlingly lacking in har-

mony)

on observation and

that science constructs

measurement.

Now how

would things be

intelligible if they

not proceed from an intelligence ? In the a

Prime Intelligence must

lection first

and causes order

infinitely

ships,

pure

act,

to exist in

complex network

last analysis

is itself

and which

and

Intelis

Such an approach

Thomas Aquinas'

them, as well

way.

its

own

Its

merely figurative

rea-

way. is

a variant

impact was secretly

present in Einstein's famous saying:

play dice," which,

as

of regular relation-

to God's existence fifth

the

essences of

whose fundamental mysterious unity our

son dreams of rediscovering in

of

which

exist,

Intelligibility in

principle of the intelligibility

things,

an

and

did

"God does not

no doubt, used the word God in a sense, and meant only: "nature

does not result from a throw of the dice," yet the very fact implicitly postulated the existence of the divine Intellect.

But science

offers us a

second philosophical ap-

proach, which, this time, relates to man's

The

intellect.

the manner in which knowing and mastering nature they contrive ways of ceaselessly inveigling it into more and more presciences of

phenomena, and

—

C 66 3

and measurements, and

cise observations

ing

in sets of

it

signs

more and more

finally catch-

perfectly systematized

—give evidence, in a particularly striking man-

ner, of the

work

power

human

that

intelligence puts to

in the very universe of sense experience.

the intelligence of to use

man —imperfect

as

an irreducible multiplicity of types and per-

spectives of

knowledge

—

is

a spiritual activity

can neither proceed from matter nor be ing,

Now

and obliged

it is,

and therefore

limitless

higher source, of which In other words,

it

self-subsist-

and all-knowing.

it is

which

It

has a

a certain participation.

necessarily requires the existence

of a Prime, transcendent, and absolutely perfect Intelligence,

being

which

is its

is

pure Intellection in act and whose

very Intellection.

This second approach nas' fourth

To

is

Thomas Aqui-

a variant of

way.

conclude,

let

us

remark

that our

knowledge of

the created world naturally reverberates in the very

awe with which our reason knows

reverence and Creator,

and on the very notion, deficient

will ever be, that

By

we have

of

as

it is

the

and

His ways.

the very fact that science enlarges our horizons

with respect to

—though which

is

in

this

world, and makes us

an oblique way

the mirror in

— that

know

better

created reality

which God's perfections

[67:3

are

;

analogically

science helps our

minds

to

pay

God's grandeur.

tribute to

A

known,

number

of the most basic notions and explana-

modern science, especially of modern physics, recoil from being translated into natural language, or from being represented in terms of the tory theories of

imagination. Nevertheless a certain picture of the

world emerges from modern science; and (unification of matter

this picture

and energy, physical inde-

terminism, a space-time continuum which implies that space

but come

and time

gravitational fields of space

empty

pre-existing forms

and through things

which by reason

of the curvation

exempt gravitation from requiring any

ticular force,

mos

are not

to existence with things

and outwit ether and

of electrons and stars in

par-

attraction; a cos-

which the

stars are the

heavenly laboratories of elements, a universe which finite

is

but whose limits cannot be attained, and which

dynamically evolves toward higher forms of individuation and concentration) constitutes a kind of frame-

work or imagery more

suited to

many

positions of a

sound philosophy of nature than that which was provided by Newtonian science.

Furthermore, a

at the core of this

imagery there are

few fundamental concepts which, inherent

ern science and essential to

it,

in

mod-

have a direct impact on

our philosophical view of nature. In the

first

place

I

shall

mention

[68]

all

the complex

(presupposed by

regularities selves),

statistical

laws them-

and the mixture of organization and chance,

resulting in a kind of elusive, imperfectly knowable,

and

still

more

striking order, that matter reveals in

the world of microphysics.

makes our idea of the

It

order of nature exceedingly more refined and more astonishing.

And

order with

this

it

makes us look

still

reverence. In the

at the

author of

more admiration and natural of Job, Behemoth and Levia-

Book

than were called to witness to divine omnipotence.

One

single

as the

atom may be

called to witness too, as well

hippopotamus and the

declare the glory of

crocodile. If the heavens

God, so does the world

of micro-

particles and micro-waves.

In the second place comes the notion of evolution: evolution of the whole universe of matter, and, in particular, evolution of living organisms.

most general

tain

Like

tenets of science, evolution

cer-

is less

a

demonstrated conclusion than a kind of primary concept

which has such power

in

making phenomena

decipherable that once expressed impossible for the scientific

Now

if it is

mind

it

becomes almost

to

do without

true that in opposition to the

it.

immobile

archetypes and ever-recurrent cycles of pagan antiquity,

Christianity taught

as irreversible

then

it

may

and

as

men

to conceive history

running

both

in a definite direction,

be said that by integrating in science the

dimension of time and history, the idea of evolution

[69H

—

has given to our knowledge of nature a certain

with what the Christian view of things

ity

is

affin-

on

a

quite different plane. In any case, the genesis of ele-

ments and the various phases of the history of the heavens, and, in the realm of

velopment of an immense branches ("phyla"),

life,

the historical de-

diversity

of

evolutive

understood in the

all this, if it is

proper philosophical perspective, presupposes the

God

transcendent

as the

prime cause of evolution

preserving in existence created things and the impetus present in them,

superior forms

when man

is

moving them from above

may emerge from

to

appear

at the

so that

inferior ones, and,

peak of the

vertebrates, intervening in a special

way and

series of

creating

ex nihilo the spiritual and immortal soul of the

man and of every

individual of the

new

species.

first

Thus

evolution correctly understood offers us a spectacle

whose greatness and omnipresence of

universality

God

make

the activating

only more tellingly sensed by

our minds. I

do not

believe,

moreover, that science fosters a

particularly optimistic view of nature. Every progress

in evolution

is

dearly paid for: miscarried attempts,

The more detailed our becomes, the more we see, to-

merciless struggle everywhere.

knowledge

of nature

gether with the element of generosity and progression

which

radiates

from being, the law of degradation,

[70]

the powers of destruction voracity ter.

which

are also inherent in the

And when

vaded

as

he

is

and death, the implacable

it

comes

to

by a host of warping

while being essentially superior to

vision of the

world

which

suffice,

it is

that

when

however good

and

God-given energy

is

its

enlightened by science, the

is

that

kind are not destined a

of them, he

religious faith perfects realizes

better that nature,

does not

of the fact that,

all

the most unfortunate of animals. So

in-

psychology

forces,

and anthropology are but an account

intellect

world of mat-

man, surrounded and

if

in

own

its

order,

the deepest hopes of

to turn to

mockery,

better than nature

[71H

is

it is

at

still

man-

because

work

in us.