Science is a Higher Authority than Theology - sometimes

At this point, we are all familiar with the phrase “trust the science”.  Those of religious mindsets have frequently been charged with rejecting scientific research, as if their own faith rested upon certain verifiable, biological, and measurable facts being false.  Almost stereotypically, Christians are charged with this specifically when it relates to evolution or women’s equality.  Because of this controversy, history has held science up in atheistic regimes as the one study which could free mankind once and for all from the prisons of Religion, proving their Traditions false.  For Catholics, it is a simple thing to claim Tradition as prior to science; it is one of the tenets of our Faith.  Protestants seem to have a bit more of a hard time reconciling this, since more and more they have to rely on traditional interpretations of Scripture in order to reconcile apparent contradictions between Faith and Science.  Regardless, there is an uncomfortable truth we all have to deal with: the realm of science is not the realm of Tradition, and appealing to the authority of Tradition to refute (or in spite of) science is futile and erroneous.

The appeal to Tradition is, in short, an appeal to the “ancients”.  We do not look backwards at them simply because we have always done so, or they are older so they must be right, or any number of other reasons we might do so.  An appeal to the ancients only works if they are, in fact, ancient in reference to the exact thing we are talking about.  It is a very specific relationship we need to verify, or at least trust: the “ancients” are only ancient in relation to something specific truth that they were able to see most clearly and purely, because they were the first in line.  We see this in Apostolic succession: the Apostles were the first in line, and Revelation ended with the death of John.  They were the first in line.  They were most proximate to the revealed (or discovered, as is the case with the philosophers) truth, and as such are the authority.  Nothing can be added to their clear sight of the truth, and we must take care to preserve the truth as they saw it.  In this case, the Apostles were the ancients in reference to Divine Revelation.

However, this does not mean that the Apostles, or indeed any philosopher can be considered one of the “ancients” on any matter.  In matters of science, mathematics, biology, technological advances, the roles are reversed: we are in fact the ancients, compared to the relative infancy mankind found itself at the time of the Apostles.  The ancients of theology could never have imagined the theories, advances, and capabilities humanity experiences today, and some things we take for granted they might even denounce as witchcraft in their lack of understanding.  There are many scientific proofs or assumptions through early Christian thought that are simply not true, and disproven through modern science, but this does not therefore undermine the teaching authority of the theological ancients; rather, it highlights their individual realm of competency, and creates a framework in which we can relate to them.

A functional example of this is Aquinas’ question on the nature of woman.  Many hold Aquinas to be one of the oldest recorded misogynists because of his assertion that woman is a sort of defective man.  An honest reading of his whole document, however, reveals not only that Aquinas does not hold women to be inferior to man but that he also embodies an integrated understanding of the limitations of theology to comment on science - and the overall mutual submission both must have to the other.

I will not quote his entire question here; it is available on new advent’s website at this link: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1092.htm.  He specifically asks in this question whether man and women are equal to each other, in light of Aristotle’s assertion that woman is a malformed man, and her virtues are lower than that of the male.  Aquinas recognized Aristotle as the greatest philosopher of his time, and took for granted much of his scientific research.  Aristotle’s claim that woman was a malformed man was not the product of philosophical inquiry; it was as scientific as it got during that time.  This claim was based on Aristotle’s empirical observations of how sperm operate, and how the world he could encounter behaved.  So, for his day it was valid science - though wrong in its mechanics.  Everything about this assumption is undone through advanced scientific research, and we know that sperm do not tend towards male production: womanhood is not a defective manhood, brought about by some imperfection in the womb.  Aristotle, as ancient as he was in the world of philosophy, was one of the infants in science.

Aquinas accepts Aristotle’s scientific theory that womanhood is a birth defect.  He had no reason to deny it, because it was a scientific “discovery” of the day.  Aristotle was speaking in a technical sense, and then drew (elsewhere from his sciences) that woman was therefore lower in nature to man.  Aquinas had no authority to disprove or dissent to this technical discovery, unless he was going to do the experiments himself - and he did not do so.  However, Aquinas sees this assertion for what it was: a technical observation, and probably true in light of available knowledge.  However, Aquinas appropriately marries the science of Aristotle to the authority from Tradition held in the Christian Church.  His answer to this, in my own paraphrasing, is “Aristotle may be technically correct, but this technical truth is accidental to the metaphysical reality held by the Christian truth.  Whether or not the unborn child undergoes a defect of some kind to be created woman, God creates each human perfect and equal by nature.  The only way you can say woman is a defective man is according to the technical method God uses to create her; her equality to man remains the same”.  

Aquinas is one of the greatest minds in Christian Tradition, and is worthy of our reverence - in matters he is authorized to teach on.  Aquinas is in no way one of the “ancients” of science; he was demonstrably wrong to accept Aristotle’s premise that woman is a defective man.  Nonetheless, he is the ancient one matters of theology.  The teaching authority Aquinas has in this example is on the equality of woman and man, not in their biological creation.  In this particular matter, Aquinas submitted theology to science in one way, but submitted science to theology in another.  Aquinas did not reject what science told him was technically true; to this, theology had no say.  However, science must give way to theological tradition in its interpretation of consequential theories: Aristotle developed an erroneous theory about women without the teaching authority of the Christian faith.  Aquinas submitted science to theology in this regard.

The relationship between scientific and theological ancients is one important to remember in our day of magnanimous scientific discovery.  As Christians, we should not shy away from scientific theories of modern day, such as evolution: it may well be technically true.  What cannot be true in that theory is the development of personhood from non-personhood: theological ancients tell us that Adam was created directly by God.  How God did this is revealed through science, through every advance we are able to make.  Both theologians and scientists frequently try to assert their own authority in matters they have no teaching authority over, and rare it is to find a thinker who well embodies the balance required to appreciate either in its own lane.  Regardless of appearances, theology and science always go hand in hand and complement each other: it is simply a matter of holding each according to their respective authorities.