Catholic Answers Live on Elements and then a Wokeism Conference
I'm going to San Diego to do a radio show and give a talk on Wokeism.
I’m taking a short trip over the weekend to San Diego. First, I will be on the set of Catholic Answers Live (live) on Friday to do a faith and science hour. I am going to talk about my recent thesis adventure on the elements. (See Engaging Atheism home page for the series.) It may not seem like the most exciting endeavor in the world to ask whether Thomas Aquinas’s view of elements and their blending still applies to the elements as we understand them today on the periodic table, but I argue that it is exciting! I’m not on a mission to prove that Aquinas was right just because he is a saint and doctor of the Catholic Church, although that is very important. My interest is, like many natural philosophers, related to the hylomorphic view of nature, one where bodies are matter and form composites. Aquinas adopted Aristotle’s view because he thought it was right.
The way I see it, if this is the right view of nature, then there must exist the most fundamental bodies that are prime (formless) matter and form. And these bodies must combine to make up every other more complex body. The question is: how? How do they combine but remain retrievable? I find the whole picture, which was the work of my thesis, very strong and very close to modern chemistry.
If you are an atheist, you may also have surmised that my interest is also because Aquinas assiduously brings Aristotelian philosophy into his theology. If bodies are matter and form, in a hierarchy of complexity, then we need to name where the form comes from? For believers, hylomorphism gives insight into God’s divine action in the world, God as the form-giver. I don’t see how the whole system works without God. So, the question is relevant to how Catholics engage with atheists. If not hylomorphism, then what? Enough of that.
Call in to the show! Most of the hour is open mic. I’ll be on Friday, June 28, at 3pm PT, 4pm CT, 5pm ET. The number to call into the show is 1-888-31-TRUTH. Here is the website: Catholic Answers Live. I’d love to hear from you.
The next day, I am speaking at a conference called, Withstanding Wokeism: A Catholic Response. (You can register to watch online.) There will be a forum after the talks where participants can ask questions. I am, obviously, speaking on the scientific aspects, known as “woke science.” This was an interesting study. People use the word “woke” as synonymous with truth.
What is “woke science”? Well, science is a search for objective truth, but woke science imposes ideology onto science so that conclusions are predetermined, questions are suppressed, or new ideas forbidden. There are plenty of examples, but the one that caught my attention was in an article by Jerry Coyne and Anna Krylov in the Wall Street Journal, “The ‘Hurtful’ Idea of Scientific Merit.” (April 27, 2023). They liken the current situation in the United States to that of Lysenkoism, a pseudoscientific doctrine propagated in 1900s Soviet Union.
Trofim Lysenko was a biologist who rejected Mendelian genetics in favor of Lamarckian inheritance, the idea that acquired traits can be passed on to offspring. If an individual changes during its lifetime, for better or worse, those changes can be inherited by offspring. He claimed plants and animals adapt to their environment in a single generation, contrary to established scientific understanding. We now know this is not true, but Lysenko held significant influence with Stalin and, therefore, over Soviet agricultural policies. His theory justified Stalin’s socialist policies; healthy citizens beget healthy citizens. When Lysenko’s ideas were applied to agriculture, however, there were disastrous consequences because he was wrong. Soviet agriculture suffered crop failures, and the people suffered food shortages. Although scientists who disagreed with Lysenko were persecuted and legitimate research suppressed, by the 1960s his theories were discredited in the global scientific community.
Coyne and Krylov say in their WSJ article, “The crux of our argument is simple: Science that doesn’t prioritize merit doesn’t work, and substituting ideological dogma for quality is a shortcut to disaster.” With Lysenko, merit was ignored. Jerry Coyne is a biologist and outspoken skeptic of religion, so I was surprised to read his article. He has written the blog, Why Evolution is True, for as long as I remember blogs existing. He writes against Intelligent Design (as do I). I agree with him and Krylov on this point though. Scientists should not be published, funded, and hired based on their record of supporting social policies but instead on their scientific merit independent of any other views. This is one reason a lot of scientists, me included, will tell you they love science. It doesn’t matter who you are: data is data. Deal with it. Truth over fashion.
This is also why I think atheists and believers alike should be able to find common ground on science. The truth of how the world works is a grand mystery, no doubt, but that truth has a way of imposing itself on scientists even when they derail themselves with ideology. The history of science is full of that little blade of grass popping up through the crack in the concrete. Hello, quantum mechanics.
In the Catholic world, I have a history of pushing back on our own version of wokeism. I’ve spoken up against exaggerated scientific claims that seem to support what we ought to hold in faith. I’ve co-authored a book criticizing the way investigations of Eucharistic miracles are conducted and reported. I wrote in Particles of Faith that Catholics should trust the science experts, roll up their sleeves, and try to understand what scientists do in their own terms. I even teach a course for seminarians, philosophers, and theologians on how to read scientific papers for yourself. (If I can learn to read Aquinas, they can learn to read science.) Anyone who is a truth-seeker does not need to fear what science reveals, and when it doesn’t seem to jive with tenets of faith, it’s not because the two are at odds. It is because we don’t know everything. Science, philosophy, and theology are all a search for objective truth, and that is why I am drawn to all three.
I hope to hear from you on Catholic Answers Live. Lots of Catholics call in with questions. Atheists also frequently call in too, and I appreciate it when they do. I’ll make a deal with you. If you stump me, I’ll send you cookies.