Church & Science: Fr. Faura, Fr. Algue, & cyclones

Earlier this year, I heard a radio interview involving skeptics who took as gospel the idea that religion is simply an impediment to "progress" (a term not clearly defined by said skeptics). Following is another review of Catholic contributions to science.

One of the greatest scientists in the study of tropical cyclones was Father Jose P. Algue, a Jesuit priest (1856-1930). The Philippine Encyclopedia states:

A momentous meeting with the great Jesuit scientist Fr. Federico Faura [1840-1897] in 1889 changed the young Algue's life. He accompanied Father Faura to Italy and France to acquire scientific equipment for the famed Manila Observatory. It seemed that Father Algue was destined for a life of science in the tropics. To this end, his superiors sent him in 1891 to Georgetown university in Washington DC, for advanced studies in meteorology, seismology, and astronomy.

The priest is perhaps best known for his studies on tropical cyclones. Some of his works on the science of cyclones are available online. One of his books, The Cyclones of the Far East, offers detailed hour by hour accounts of various tropical cyclones, the cloud and barometer patterns that precede and accompany them, and includes methods for sailors to identify weather threats. For instance, he wrote:

In a general way, we may say that when the monsoon increases considerably above the sixth parallel of north latitude, or when the winds from east to north tend to freshen, without any increase of pressure, but with a steady or falling barometer, we may be certain that some atmospheric perturbation is passing or will pass by very low parallels. When this happens the currents in the Surigao Strait are very strong, and navigation is very dangerous for small boats close to the eastern coasts of Mindanao and even more so in the Jolo Sea, and the south of the China Sea. (Algue, The Cyclones of the Far East, p. 240)

After perusing Fr. Algue's book, I chose this excerpt because it contributes to dispelling the myth that the Church and science are conflicting enterprises. Fr. Algue's contribution to sea-faring safety incorporated the importance of empirical observation, the hallmark of scientific study.

The historical author Augstin Udías Vallina wrote in his book Searching the Heavens and the Earth: The History of Jesuit Observatories of how Fr. Algue's work was taken and utilized in the world of science, perhaps even by way of plagiarism:

Algué identified the zones of origin and average trajectories of typhoons. He discovered two basic types: trajectories of parabolic shape that moved around the annual center of high pressure in the North Pacific in a clockwise direction, and a second type of storm moving in a linear path westward from the Philippines to decay over southern China. In 1900 Paul Bergholz, director of Bremen Observatory, Germany, published under his own name what was really a German translation of Algué's book. This was recognized in 1903 in the journal Nature by R.H. Scott who made the revision of the English version of Bergholz' book. Bergholz was not satisfied with his appropriation of Algué's book, but in England also constructed an instrument under his name which was an exact copy of Algué's barocyclonometer. Bergholz's book and instruments were extensively used in German ships. (Vallina, Searching the Heavens, p. 152)

The history of the barocyclometer has a trail involving other priests. As accounted in the Manila Bulletin:

In 1869, the Spanish government put [Father] Faura in charge of the observatory in response to the need for advance warnings against typhoons. The Jesuit missionaries, who operated the observatory, later acquired the Universal Meteorograph, a device used for weather forecasting. The device was an innovation of Fr. Angelo Seechi [1818-1878] who headed the Vatican Observatory in Rome during that time. On July 7, 1879, Father Faura warned of a typhoon crossing northern Luzon. In November of the same year, he predicted a strong typhoon crossing over Manila. The accuracy of his warnings boosted the reputation of the observatory. ... With the success of the Manila Observatory, the Spanish government designated it as an official institution. Secondary stations were set up throughout Luzon. Faura designed the aneroid barometer and the most accurate weather gauge in the country.

According to a 1910 entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia, many lives were saved as a result of Fr. Faura's November 1879 warning:

At other ports, to which warning of the approaching storm could not be sent for lack of telegraphic communication, the destruction was enormous. Forty-two vessels were wrecked in Southern Luzon alone, and may lives were lost. (Finegan, P. (1910). Manila Observatory. In The Catholic Encyclopedia.)

Fr. Faura also founded the Manila Observatory, for which Fr. Algue would later serve as director. In his work, Fr. Faura invented what is now known as the 1886 "'Faura barometer'" [which] was offered to the public, and it passed immediately into general use among the navigators of the Philippine waters and the China Sea." The Catholic Encyclopedia article concludes:

[Fr. Algue] gave the public his 'barocyclonometer', an improvement on Father Faura's invention, by which storms may be foretold, not only in the Philippines, but throughout the entire Orient.

So that's just a light biography of these two Catholic priests, along with the above mentioned Fr. Seechi, who contributed immensely to the world of science.

On Church & science & Giovanni Maria Lancisi

A RADIO EXCHANGE ON RELIGION & SCIENCE

I listened to a recent podcast (March 2, 2012) of the radio show Coast to Coast in which host George Noory interviewed "skeptic" Guy Harrison about Guy's book on skepticism. During the interview was the following exchange between a caller and Harrison (emphasis mine):

Caller: [I] have a belief that religion is one of the main problems with the human condition, is the belief in the supernatural. We had 500 years of the dark ages that stopped science, basically. And so man is really behind 500 years of scientific knowledge. I'd just like to get his take on that.

Guy Harrison: Yeah, you know, I agree. I don't want to just pick on religion, but yeah, religion's been a source–– has been a big drag on progress. There's no denying that. And, not picking on any one specific religion––just sort of all them, if you lump 'em all together, they have been a drag on progress. ...

But it's also not just religion, I mean there's all sorts of sloppy thinking, you know, superstitious thinking, whatever you want to call it that is part and separate from religion, that has really harmed our progress. We could be, man, we could be two to three thousand years beyond where we are now. We could be beyond the solar system colonizing half the galaxy by now.

First, let me just comment on the above exchange. Neither man offered a single example of how religion "stopped science" for "500 years" or been a "big drag on progress." Science has never stopped. The caller's comment is delusional nonsense, perhaps fueled by a blind anti-religious bigotry.

Harrison went on to insist he wasn't picking on religion per se, that science, too, was sometimes wrong, but didn't accuse science of ever being a "drag on progress." He only cited "religion" and "superstition" as the evidence for the caller's self-labeled "problem." Even though science was sometimes "wrong," the exchange was clear: religion is bad for "progress," and science is good.

So, to point out the 800 lb. hairy gorilla of irony in the room, Harrison, the-skeptic's, principle to determine what is good for "progress" is itself a scientifically unverifiable principle. How does one scientifically measure if intergalatic travel is something to get excited about? How do you measure societal "progress" using the scientific method? How do you quantify in a laboratory a "problem"? What is the unit of measure for "sloppy thinking"?

In the opening of the final hour of the Coast to Coast interview, Noory asked Harrison if he thought the wonderful design of the universe was evidence for "somebody" who "put this together." Harrison denied that the universe was evidence for a creator of some kind. He said:

It's not proven. And simply because we can't explain every last detail and aspect of the universe or our own bodies is not in itself evidence of anything. It's just ignorance. ... [T]o simply say the concept of irreducible complexity––to look at a cell and say, you know, we just can't figure out how all this came together and how it happened, we just don't have the answers, therefore, it must have been a god or gods or some advanced alien species that created us. I mean that is jumping to an extraordinary conclusion that's just not warranted. You know, doesn't mean it's not true, doesn't disprove it, I totally admit that, but it's just not a valid conclusion based on ignorance. And it's anti-science. A lot of people say intelligent design is science. It's not. It's anti-science. It's giving up. It's saying it's too complex, we don't know the answer, therefore: magic. That's wrong. It's not a good way to think.

Notice two things in the above quote. He defends his own position, which clearly upholds "science" as the method by which truth must be derived. And yet in his opening, he defends the very science which he admits is insufficient to explain the reality in question. By his own account, he takes a position of faith. I could even agree with him that intelligent design is not by definition a scientific method. But so what. Science is not the only method capable of deriving a truth. Science can't measure "hope," "happiness," "love," "holiness," "progress," "sloppiness," etc... Science can't even measure that science is the only method to determine truth. Yet even skeptics, such as Harrison, cite these terms, these ideas, as realities.

A while back, I came across this quote from a scientist in response to the 2011 Stephen Hawking incident about a universe coming from "nothing."

Cosmologists sometimes claim that the universe can arise ‘from nothing’. But they should watch their language, especially when addressing philosophers. We’ve realised ever since Einstein that empty space can have a structure such that it can be warped and distorted. Even if shrunk down to a ‘point’, it is latent with particles and forces – still a far richer construct than the philosopher’s ‘nothing’. Theorists may, some day, be able to write down fundamental equations governing physical reality. But physics can never explain what ‘breathes fire’ into the equations, and actualised them into a real cosmos. The fundamental question of ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ remains the province of philosophers. (Martin Rees (astrophysicist & cosmologist), Just Six Numbers)

All that being said, the Church has historically been an ally of science since ancient times, despite what the current stereotype says. The two arenas, Church and science, are not opposed. Certain modern philosophy assumes as much, but such is not the case––at least if we try to scientifically demonstrate that Church is a "drag."

Why did neither the caller, nor Harrison, argue that science, which has been "sloppy" and "wrong" time and time again throughout history, has been a "drag on progress"? The world is flat, then it's round. Smoking is good for you, now it's bad. Chocolate went from good to bad to good, depending on the study. The divide among scientists on antiseptics in the early days. Salt, coffee, the height of this or that dinosaur, what the "face on Mars" really looks like, etc...––all these and more could be viewed as scientific "errors" or contradictions I've read over the years. Should science itself then be considered an impediment to "progress"?

In the same way, prominent members of the Church have been instrumental in the development of scientific fields throughout the centuries. Today's culture tends to turn a blind eye to this reality, perhaps due to poor historical teaching, or perhaps due to the false notion that Church and science must be opposed.

Dr. Stephen Barr's book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith describes numerous priests, religious, and other members of the Church and their scientific contributions over the centuries. He writes:

Long before Galileo, and continuing to the present day, one can find examples in every century, not merely of church patronage of science, but of important scientific figures who were themselves monks, priests, and even bishops. (p. 8-9)

Barr goes on to cite a few notable examples (see p. 9-10).

GIOVANNI MARIA LANCISI

I want to take a moment to profile one such Catholic scientist I recently researched. Giovanni Maria Lancisi was born in Rome in 1654.

Britannica.com says he was a "clinician and anatomist who is considered the first modern hygienist." One of his most famous works was called On Sudden Death, a project done "at the request of [Pope] Clement XI to explain an increase in the number of sudden deaths in Rome." The encyclopedia entry ends by saying the above treatise along with one called On the Motion of the Heart and on Aneurysms "markedly contributed to knowledge of cardiac pathology."

Citing the Dictionary of Medical Eponyms, the Wikipedia entry on Lancisi reads: "He was given the lost anatomical plates of Bartolomeo Eustachius by Pope Clement XI. ... Lancisi edited and published them in 1714 as the Tabulae anatomicae."

A pubmed.gov biography of Lancisi says: "Arguably, Lancisi's most notable medical contribution was the anatomical description of the medial longitudinal striae of the corpus callosum, in addition to other documents he wrote in the field of neurology."

Here's an excerpt from a 2010 issue of the Italian Journal of Public Health:

In 1714 Giovanni Maria Lancisi, doctor to Popes Clement XI and Innocent XI, Head of the Santo Spirito and Teacher of Anatomy, donated his library to the hospital and ordered that the library materials be catagorised as follows: grammar, rhetoric and poetry, history and politics; philosophy and mathematics, experimental physics, natural history, veterinary medicine, pharmacopoeia and chemistry, anatomy and surgery, Greek and Arabic medicine, medicine of the Ancient Latin, Latin modern medicine, miscellaneous, councils and church history, Bibles, as well as economic and civil law.

A 1911 article reprinted at OldandSold.com reads in part:

At his death Lancisi left his fortune and his library to Santo Spirito Hospital, on condition that a new portion of the hospital should be erected for women. There is no doubt that he belongs among the most distinguished of contributors to medical science, and Hirsch declares that anatomy, practical medicine, and hygiene are indebted to him for notable achievements. His books are still classics. The one on Sudden Death worked a revolution in the medical diseases of the brain and heart. His work De Motu Cordis et Aneurysmatibus has been pronounced epoch-making, and his suggestion of percussion over the sternum in order to determine the presence of an aneurysm, made him almost an anticipator of Auenbrugger and prompted Morgagni's famous book De Sedibus et Causis Morborum, which appeared after his death.

The Mitral Valve website contains several screenshots of his printed writings and details some of his medical contributions.

So these are just a few historical notes on a great Catholic scientist in history, supported by Popes, who contributed immensely to the field of medical science. As this was prior to the so-called "Enlightenment" closer to the 1800s, perhaps it falls within the original caller's 500 year window of when science "stopped" because of religion. Either way, perhaps I will do more Catholic scientist profiles in the future.

If your football team loses, it doesn't mean God doesn't love you

Yesterday, the Chicago Bears, for whom I was fully rooting, lost in overtime to the Denver Broncos whose quarterback is outspoken Christian Tim Tebow. The Broncos were down 10-0 late in the fourth quarter. The Bears went into what is known as the "prevent defense" which makes it easier for the other team to advance the ball, but prevents a "big play" because so many of the defenders are deep. Denver took advantage of the Bears unwise strategy and marched right down the field in medium chunks for a touchdown. Still up 10-7, the Bears got the onside kick and started to run the ball to waste the remaining 2 minutes or so. Unfortunately, Bears running back Marion Barber ran the football out of bounds on one of the plays, which stopped the clock. This ended up leaving more time for Denver to come back the other way after the Bears punted. Without Barber's error, Denver would only have had a few seconds. At any rate, Denver got the last-second field goal to tie the game. And in overtime, they took advantage of a Barber fumble on 3rd down, which would have otherwise lead to a Bears field goal attempt to win the game. Instead, Denver kicked the winning field goal.

Dan Bernstein, radio host of 670 the Score here in Chicago and CBSChicago.com senior columnist, wrote scathingly about this game in his column today. He was not mad about the Bears prevent defense. He was not mad at Marion Barber.

He was mad at God.

The headline? Tim Tebow’s God Is Mean.

Normally, I might find Bernstein's rant against God to be a bit of sarcasm, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, because the outspoken Christian's team won the game thanks to at least a couple favors the Bears gave them rather than earning the advantages themselves. But Bernstein has been hostile against Tebow on his radio show in the past. I have heard him mock Tebow in a caricature of a voice crediting God for his situation.

Bernstein's column yesterday is no different. The tone is condescending, angry, and anti-Christian. It bears the fury of Dracula in the face of a crucifix. His irrational reaction is not just about Tebow. He includes some standard secular criticisms: "We knew the Old Testament god was kind of a jerk – that’s well established" (lowercase "god" appears as original in Bernstein's article).

To a secularist such as Bernstein (who offered all but zero sports analysis in his sports column), it seems that the "goodness" of God is directly measured by "how often I get what I want." The premise of his article is to mock the goodness of God if Bears fans suffer. God is measured by temporal rewards only.

He shows no concept of the eternal promises of Christianity, verses the suffering that even Christians will endure. To educate those who do not understand the "Biblical God" very well, the Catechism responds and anticipates the difficulties of the human condition in the face of any suffering (even if it's being mad over one's football team).

CCC#272 Faith in God the Father Almighty can be put to the test by the experience of evil and suffering. God can sometimes seem to be absent and incapable of stopping evil. But in the most mysterious way God the Father has revealed his almighty power in the voluntary humiliation and Resurrection of his Son, by which he conquered evil. Christ crucified is thus "the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." It is in Christ's Resurrection and exaltation that the Father has shown forth "the immeasurable greatness of his power in us who believe".

Suffering itself is ordered toward the resurrection. Christ leads the way, accepting suffering in perfect innocence, showing us that if we join him, we will be raised to glory. St. Paul writes: "Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory." (Rom. 8:17)

The Christian's view of suffering, or even the afflictions suffered by those in the Old Testament by the permission of the "god" that Bernstein calls a "jerk," is totally alien to the secularist understanding of goodness. After all, if Christ indeed paved the way, and taught us that the way to an eternity of joy is to suffer with Christ, then God isn't a jerk, He's a leader. And He loves you. If a father tells his child the importance of learning math, but the child isn't at a stage yet where he can understand why, the child's perspective doesn't trump the father's.

Whether or not on this side of heaven's gate we come to a full understanding of suffering is not enough to dismiss the example first set by God incarnate. Now, no doubt, many secularists deny that Christ is the God-man. But the fact remains, if Christ is indeed God incarnate, and He implores us to unite to His body to join Him in the heavenly banquet, then the secularist is completely wrong. Only if the man known as Jesus the Christ was the greatest con man in history could rants like Bernstein's be accurate. But unfortunately, he did not have the space, or perhaps not the consideration to articulate to his audience why that might be the case.

So, I can only invite Bernstein and others who believe a "good" God is one who "makes your sports team win," to refrain from shooting poison darts from your tongue, and give matters of the faith a sober analysis. You don't even have to "like" Tebow's open style of evangelism. And I'm sure there are unbelievers who feel they have given the faith due consideration, and yet do not become furious when their football team loses to opponents with Christian players. Approaching any claim with such emotional staccato can hinder an objective analysis. Rather, give pause, do otherwise, and see what the Church has to offer!

See also the March 11, 2011 article Should earthquakes shake faith in God?

Should earthquakes shake faith in God?

First, let me offer sympathy and prayer for those suffering as a result of the recent Japanese earthquake and subsequent tsunami. Their trial is severe, unimaginable, and horrific. I do not want my attempt to address a theological issue here to be incorrectly seen as a selfish insensitivity to that reality.

That being said, I want to Scripturally and philosophically address a reaction that invariably is made by skeptics whenever a tragedy dominates the headlines. And I would like to remind any reader that this is not an exhaustive explanation of death and suffering. There are many resources I would encourage anyone to explore such as Padre Pio's Secrets of a Soul, Dr. Peter Kreeft's Making Sense Out of Suffering, C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain, or any of Fr. John Corapi's talks on suffering.

Anyway, I read two skeptical posters at the Catholic.com forums make similar comments today. I remember back in the day watching the South Park movie (not a good example for kids by the way!) hearing the same basic line in the face of disaster: "Where is your God when you need him?"

Along with sympathy for the victims of the tragedy, I do have sympathy for the skeptic's reaction. It is no easy thing for a human being to feel at a loss while simultaneously believing God loves him. Even a faithful Christian might feel unsettled by the innocence afflicted by such a disaster.

The reason I think this reaction is common is because in the human mind, there is often an equation of suffering or death with evil. If God permits an innocent person to suffer, He therefore must not love that person.

I think some strains of Christianity, such as those who espouse a "prosperity gospel" have an inadequate response to tragedy and God's love. However, I think Catholic theology can make sense of such suffering.

First, as apologist Jimmy Akin once wrote on his blog:

[God] gives all of us an infinite amount of [the gift of life] because, once we are created, we will endure forever. After the resurrection, we will all--every one of us--have an infinite amount of physical life ahead of us. What we are discussing, therefore, is whether some of us receive an infinite amount of physical life plus a varying amount of finite physical life as well.

When someone dies to the terrestrial, temporal universe, it is by no means the last word. If the Catholic truth that eternal life awaits those who lived faithfully to the divine movements in their hearts, then no amount of measurable, temporal punishment can possibly compare to an eternal reward. The temporal suffering is obliterated by an eternal life with no suffering.

So why is there suffering at all, even if temporal? Catholics understand suffering to have value for the soul as well as humanity itself. Catholics believe that the path fallen man must take to be reunited with God in eternal joy is through Jesus Christ who opened this door for humanity through his suffering on the cross. Thus, if Jesus Christ was truly God incarnate, and if he willingly permitted himself to endure suffering at the hands of his own creatures, then even if we do not fully understand the scope of suffering, we can see a great testament from divinity himself that there is purpose to suffering.

In Catholicism, we believe suffering is a means to be united with Christ's salvific work on the cross. St. Paul teaches about the salvation of mankind with the included caveat: "provided we suffer with him" (Rom. 8:17). Temporal suffering, as Christ experienced on the cross, is a sequential prerequisite to resurrection into eternal life. That would include even infants who must undergo temporal death despite never having committed "actual sin."

As well, in Catholicism, suffering is seen as a mechanism of cleansing a person of the effects of sin, conforming him to the spotless being he shall be in the next life. This takes place as an extension of the singular sacrifice of Christ (see CCC#1473 and preceding). A non-Catholic who does not believe in the temporal consequence of sin will not recognize the value of suffering in this way.

Not to limit this apologetic to Scripture or even exclusively Catholic theology alone, we can in some way grasp the idea that something once perceived valueless can be of the utmost value. As Dr. Peter Kreeft said in his talk Making Sense Out of Suffering a few years ago, if a baby in the womb could rationalize, he would say to himself, for example, why do I have feet? There are no sidewalks here! While the existence of feet in his current domain appears valueless, the next domain beckons their use and feet are of value.

Another example is one that is used as a Christian figure of God's relationship to mankind (although it is evident to anyone): The father-child relationship. Fathers (or mothers) discipline their children. Sometimes it can come in the form of letting a child touch a sharp weed so that the child will learn the danger of the action. The father could lovingly inflict or permit suffering for a variety of reasons including that the child misbehaved or did something detrimental to himself that the father did not want the child to repeat. The discipline is applied to the child for a) reasons the child does not understand, and b) for reasons that result in the improvement of the child's person. If we look at this example categorically, then we must admit not all infliction or permission of suffering equals evil or lack of love even if the recipient does not recognize value in the pain.

If a skeptic recognizes the love of a parent who permits his child to suffer for that child's betterment, then he must acknowledge God could similarly do the same. God's permission of suffering can rationally have an entirely loving motive behind it.

There's an animated science series featuring a "Dr. Quantum" that covers various topics including quantum physics and spatial dimensions. One of the videos is called "Flatland." In the video, Dr. Quantum exists in 3-dimensions just as any terrestrial human being does. He stands over a "flat" universe in which dwells 2-dimensional "Pac-man-looking" people. The 2-dimensional people understand only length and width. Depth is inconceivable to them. Nothing in their existence can be used to depict depth either. Dr. Quantum dips his finger into the 2-dimensional world. A 2-dimensional character only sees an expanding and shrinking circle as Dr. Quantum's finger passes into and out of the 2-dimensional surface. From her perspective, Dr. Quantum is a circle who varies in size. She cannot conceive of the reality beyond her 2-dimensional perspective.

The analogy can help us understand God's perspective. God as an eternal, extra-terrestrial being has a perspective and understanding of reality beyond that of terrestrial man. He may see more of suffering than we see.

In summary, if this world is not the final say, it is specious to measure the value of any divine action or permission based on man's temporal reaction. It is specious even for a skeptic to conclude that if suffering and death occur that God must therefore not love or perhaps not even exist. There are enough signposts in the terrestrial domain that show how suffering can have value.

Attempt to discredit Christ falls short

Last year, author Tony Bushby came out with a book called The Christ Scandal which was an attempt to disprove the existence of Jesus Christ among other things. It is billed on his website as "one of the most explosive books of our generation!"

I did not read the entire book. But I did read excerpts available online and I'll limit my response to a couple of the claims he made there. My purpose in this post is simply to show the erroneous way Bushby cited the Early Church Fathers in that excerpt.

On page 608, Bushby wrote, "Bishop Irenaeus, denied both a virgin birth and a resurrection..." However, St. Irenaeus, writing in the 2nd century, referenced the Virgin birth well over a dozen times just in Against Heresies III.21 alone. He also referred to Christ's resurrection multiple times in Against Heresies V.7, a discourse on rising from the dead.

Bushby also claimed on page 608 that the 2nd-3rd century Church Father Tertullian denied the crucifixion and instead believed Jesus was stoned. To support that claim, Bushby cross-referenced Tertullian's Answer to the Jews 9 which reads:

...which works not even you deny that Christ did, inasmuch as you were wont to say that, on account of the works you stoned Him not, but because He did them on the Sabbaths.

But this quotation is not a denial of Jesus' crucifixion. It is a reference to when the Jewish Pharisees actually went to throw rocks at Jesus (cf. John 8:58-59)!

Tertullian, of course, referred to Christ's crucifixion multiple times (e.g. On the Flesh of Christ 5, Of Patience 3, The Prescription Against Heretics 13, etc...)

If the rest of Bushby's book is anything like the above excerpts, then it is simply a 600+ page book of sloppy and false interpretations.