There is nothing strained or artificial about this. Natural facts do not have
to be invented or manipulated to accord with religious truth; they accord
naturally because the worlds they pertain to correspond.
Religious truth, abstract and universal, seeks concrete and particular
confirmations and applications on the natural plane. Conversely, scientific
knowledge needs the light of spiritual truth in order for its human meaning
and proper use to be perceived.
Science must be able to pursue its own truth in its own way, free from
religious dogma. I say “dogma” rather than “truth” because it would be foolish
to speak of science being free from any truth, religious or otherwise. There is
no freedom apart from truth and reason which is based on truth.
Genuine religion has no quarrel with science, and genuine science has no
quarrel with religion. But nothing is completely pure with man, and all human
thought, including religious and scientific, is subject to bias and errors. These
may arise from a literalistic interpretation of Scripture and false dogmas, or
from a biased selection of facts and misinterpreted appearances of natural
reality – not to mention the distortions resulting from the loves of self and the
world.
(WEO)
swedenborg the natural philosopher
The modern use of the words “science” and “scientist” to mean the scientific
method (based on empirical evidence) and those who practice it arose in the
19th century. We say Swedenborg was a “scientist” before he was called to be
a revelator, but in his day the study of nature was called “natural philosophy.”
I think this is a distinction worth noting because there is such a large
philosophical component in much of the science of our own time, especially
in the theoretical branch of physics, which involves astronomy, cosmology,
relativity and quantum theory. The philosophical implications and questions
raised by the “Big Bang,” for instance, are very significant.
Science seeks knowledge, but knowledge carries with it the question
of meaning. Subjects such as genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, or
the possibility (or rather, probability) of life on other planets, raise ethical,
philosophical, and ultimately, theological questions. And to deal with these
questions intelligently requires spiritual knowledge and enlightenment.
The tools that modern science has placed in our hands can be used for
tremendous good or tremendous evil – which it will be depends upon whether
we are spiritually mature and wise, or spiritually infantile and stupid.
How fortunate it is, therefore, that at the very dawn of the modern age of
science a new revelation of spiritual truth should have been given to guide us
261