Introduction: "Christianity and the Crisis of Culture"

The Introduction to "Christianity and the Crisis of Culture" was written by Marcello Pera, and is further titled "A Proposal that Should be Accepted."

I found this introduction to be riveting in its own virtue and, as opposed to some introductions to books, very necessary to proceeding any further with Cardinal Ratzinger's essays. In this introduction, the author, Marcello Pera, creates the scene by which we can understand the rest of the book. In short, the introduction is a study on the Scripture and Science. He proposes the question of whether or not the two can coincide.

Galileo

He begins by looking through history to Galileo and his letter written to Don Benedetto Castelli on December 21, 1613. For the question of science and religion has been in debate for centuries. Looking at this pivotal moment in history Pera pointed out Galileo's two theories of science and religion.The first theory was that Scripture, correctly translated, agreed with science, and in his case astronomy. Galileo's second theory being that Scripture was completely separate from science.

Let's take these theories one by one. Galileo's first theory, that Scripture agrees with science predicates these presuppositions. That scripture, as an objective truth, cannot be accommodated to our understanding. Rather, we must bend our minds to understand the truths of scripture. In this same light, scientific observations cannot be called into question by scripture because they are also objective truth. For a truth to be objective, it cannot contradict itself. Therefore science and scripture can work hand in hand, both leading to truth about the world and humanity. In this theory science and religion cannot conflict because they both proceed from the Divine Word. They advance together, enabling the others pursuits in the light of truth. Because of this science is bound to religion for the sake of harmony.

Looking at Galileo's second theory, that Scripture is completely separate from science we see a different set of presuppositions. Science and religion have two very different ends. The point of science is to discover facts, whereas the point of religion is to gain Salvation. An example he uses is that "the Holy Spirit teaches us to go to heaven, not how heaven goes." (page 8, Pera, Marcello, "Cristianity and the Crisis of Culture".) This theory pits Science against Religion, thereby completely separating them as one being irrelevant to the other. Because the two are independent of each other the cannot conflict because one cannot have anything further to add to the other. He points out further that Faith cannot be seen as proper knowledge as it is based on belief and can become subjective, thus it must be kept separate from the objective truths proved by science. The outcome of this theory is that science is free of religion for the sake of progress, even if the progress is morally wrong. It was this great division between religion and science, made by Galileo, that faith and truth became opposed to science and fact.

Immanuel Kant

It was from this divergence that the philosophies propagated by Immanuel Kant, 1724-1804, came to be. It was Kant who proclaimed that the logic of separation was more powerful than that, which unified Science and Religion. Further he said that religion must accept what science puts forth, even when science excludes God from the equation. Due to this separation the moral action, which requires God, cannot hinder science.

Hopefully you can see the trend that was started by Galileo. That science without reference to morality advances for the sake of progress only, without any reflection on what the progress will do to humanity. 

That being said, Pera goes on to say that progress of science is good and the foundations that began the Enlightenment are good. Yet there have been no checks or balances to the growth and spread of secularism. Now there is a gap between wisdom and knowledge. Further, Pera points out that all men are called to live as if God existed. For if each man, regardless of his view of God, lived as if He existed our world and society would necessarily be elevated to the genius which founded it. Living as if God existed provides, at the very least, a moral baseline from which all progress can be measured.