toorsdenote | [Former] Vatican Observatory director connects science, religion

Here's an interview I did for The Valley Catholic way back in March 2001. Father Coyne is now retired as head of the Vatican Observatory. I enjoyed this interview and found the part about what the church can learn from the Galileo controversy particularly interesting.

Vatican Observatory director connects science, religion
By Marjorie Carlson

Jesuit Father George V. Coyne is the director of the Vatican Observatory, and astronomical research institute with headquarters in the pope's summer residence at Castel Gandolofo and a second research institute in Tucson, Ariz. Father Coyne's work takes him frequently back and forth between the two.

"I also have time to do my own research," Father Coyne said. "I have a doctorate in astronomy, so I try to keep up my interest in the field, doing research into binary stars. And I teach at the University of Arizona; I've been on the faculty there since before I went to the Vatican Observatory."

What drew you into the field of astronomy?

[Marjorie's note: as I recall, his first answer to this question was a guffaw and an explanation that a young Jesuit's field of study is chosen by the order, not by himself.]

As a young Jesuit I had a professor of Greek who also had a master's degree in mathematics, and he interested me in the sciences in general. Even in high school I leaned towards being interested in the sciences, but it was only in my first years of studies as a Jesuit that I developed that interest more. So the Jesuit superiors eventually sent me to study astronomy.

What is your interest in the relationship between science and religion?

It's rather natural for a Jesuit who's been trained through the seminary in philosophy and theology and then who does a doctorate in the sciences to have some interest in how all of these fields relate to one another. That comes naturally to someone with our education.

But for me, I particularly took an interest when I became director of the Vatican Observatory. I became director the same year Pope John Paul II became pope. (In fact, I was appointed by his predecessor, who only lived for a month and whom I never met, but who appointed me through Jesuit superiors.)

From the very beginning of his papacy, Pope John Paul II wanted to establish a vital and interesting dialogue between the world of science and the church. Within a few years he established a commission to investigate the Galileo affair. That stimulated my personal interest as well as the interest of the observatory.

As early as 1987 we started a series of conferences among scholars (not a layman's dialogue, though it has its influence on the life of lay people) to bring together scholars in philosophy, theology, and a particular field of science, to discuss issues that overlapped.

We discussed matters such as the beginning of the universe as scientists see it and as it is known from Scripture and theology; evolution; the nature of the human person and the neurosciences.

We had a series of five conferences over the past ten years concerning those topics, and there are five volumes that have been published as a result, containing papers by all of the participants.

What has been your involvement in the Galileo controversies?

The pope appointed a commission in 1988 to study the Galileo affair. I served on the group discussing the scientific and epistemological issues surrounding the controversy. I'm not a historian of science, but I became interested in the Galileo affair through that.

I did some study and organized some discussion groups with scholars in the area, and also served on the commission. We published a series of papers on Galileo: Galileo and the proofs for the heliocentric (or sun-centered) system, and so on.

What are some lessons the church of today could learn from the Galileo affair?

The lesson to be learned from the Galileo case is that there will be no productive dialogue between science and religion if ignorance dominates either one side or the other -- or both.

I think the church should learn, from the Galileo case and from other circumstances, that listening is as important as speaking. That is, hearing what scientists are really doing is as important as the church speaking out on many issues.

The church of those days was ignorant both of Scripture and of science, frankly. Galileo wrote his famous letter to the Duchess Christina, which anticipated by 400 years the church's statements on the interpretation of sacred Scripture: that Scripture is not a science textbook and that -- as Galileo said -- Scripture teaches us not how the heavens go but how to go to heaven.

The church should also learn from those circumstances to let scientific research mature before making a declaration about it. To declare that the heliocentric system was heretical because it contradicted Scripture was jumping ahead of the game.

What the church should have done in those days was nothing! No one knew enough to say anything yet.

There were no proofs for a sun-centered solar system, but Galileo was a renowned international scholar and he had persuasive evidence. Why not let it go on until conclusive evidence is found?

To cut off mature research being done by responsible and renowned intellectuals is wrong. There's a lesson the church can always learn: don't speak out when you don't have to speak out, and if you're going to speak out, base your doctrinal and moral statements upon good science rather than poor science.

What about scientific issues, such as genetic research, where there are ethical implications to what the scientific community is doing?

Those are much more difficult situations and I thank the Lord I'm not in them! Whether the universe is 15 billion or 12 billion years old has, I think, no ethical implications. But molecular evolutionary biology -- genetics -- certainly does.

The only general statement I can make, since I'm not in that field, is that the church should have people who can advise it on the best scientific knowledge available, so that ethical conclusions are based upon good science.

For instance, I think it is poor science to say that there is a magical moment when the human being comes to be. The generation of a human being is a continuous process, from conception through now. (Hopefully I'm still growing as a human being)

The whole process is sacred and a gift of God, from the faith standpoint. But scientifically, it's continuity. There is no magical moment when God steps in and says, "Now we have a human being."

The theological doctrine of God directly creating the human soul has to be rethought. I'm not saying denied or thrown overboard, but rethought in terms of modern science.

The meaning of God directly creating a human soul -- when that happens, if it happens -- they're difficult questions, but my point is that to do it ignorant of the best that science has to say is bound to create immense difficulties for the church.

[We then talked for a bit about their visiting scholars program -- irrelevant now.]

Why is it important for the church to be so involved in scientific research?

The church isn't "so" involved! It's a very minor involvement -- there are ten Jesuits involved. The observatory is unique; there's no other specific research institute sponsored by the Vatican. It's a tradition that has been established from the time of the reform of the calendar in the 16th century.

Why should the church do it? It may seem strange to say, this but because it has done it. The church has set up a long tradition of quality contributions to science, and that continues, in my estimation, to be a quality contribution. The observatory produces a great deal, both in science and in the dialogue between science and religion.

It's low cost, and it allows the church to be seen as seriously interested in the sciences, just as the Vatican museum shows that the church is seriously interested in the arts.

The church can't do everything -- it's a church! Its primary objective is to preach God's love and God's word. To the extent that we can share in that mission as scientists, I think it's a good thing to do.