As We bid you welcome in this
house, whose doors have always been opened wide to those who cultivate the
arts and sciences, We desire also to express to Your Excellencies, Members
of Our Academy, Our lively satisfaction.
Your life, consecrated as is
to the study of natural phenomena, enables you to observe every day more
closely and to interpret the wonders which the Most High has inscribed on
the reality of things. In very truth, the created world is a manifestation
of the wisdom and goodness of God, for all things have received their
existence from Him and reflect His grandeur. Each of them is, as it were,
one of His words, and bears the mark of what We might call the fundamental
alphabet, namely those natural and universal laws derived from yet higher
laws and harmonies, which the labour of thought strives to discover in all
their amplitude and their absolute character.
Created things are words of
truth. In themselves, in their being, there is neither contradiction nor
confusion. Rather, they always cohere one with the other. Sometimes they
are difficult to understand because of their depth, but always, when
clearly known, they are seen to be in conformity with the superior
exigencies of reason. Nature opens up before you like a mysterious but
astonishing book, which must be turned page by page and read in an orderly
manner, with the aim in mind of progressing ceaselessly. In this manner,
every forward step is a continuation of the preceding ones, corrects them,
and climbs continually toward the light of a deeper understanding.
The mission confided to you,
therefore, ranks among the most noble, for you should be, in a sense, the
discoverers of the intentions of God. It pertains you to interpret the
book of nature, to describe its contents, and to draw the consequences
therefrom for the good of all.
First of all, you are the
interpreters of the book of nature. It is, then, necessary that you fix
your gaze on each line, and be ever most careful not to pass over any
detail. Set aside all personal bias, and accommodate yourselves with
docility to every indication of truth which comes to light.
We are aware of the
exceptional importance of the epoch through which science is passing at
this time, an importance which not all succeed in appreciating. In fact,
there exist, in regard to scientific problems, three different attitudes.
Some, and they are the majority, are content to admire the extraordinary
results obtained in the technical realm and, it would seem, believe that
these results constitute the sole, or a least the principal, aim pursued
by science.
Others, better informed, are
capable of appreciating the method and efforts required by scientific
research. They can thus follow and understand its remarkable advances, its
successes and checks. They observe with interest the ceaseless perfecting
of mathematical methods, of experimental procedure, of instrumentation.
They follow passionately the working out of hypotheses, the establishment
of conclusions, the intellectual labour of harmonizing data, schematically
modifying previous considerations, formulating new theories that will be
subjected to verification. These multiple aspects are well understood by
all those who, for various motives, interest themselves in the work of
scientists.
As for the most essential
problems of scientific knowledge, or those whose amplitude embraces its
entire realm, the minds which perceive them are, it seems to Us,
relatively few in number, and We rejoice at the thought that you are among
them. Has not science arrived at the point of demanding that our vision
should penetrate readily the most profound realities and rise to a
complete and harmonious view of these in their wholeness?
1. A little more than a
century and a half ago, by starting from rational bases, the first
hypotheses were formulated concerning the discontinuous structure of
matter and the existence of very minute particles, which were considered
the final constituents of all bodies. From that time until our day,
molecules have been counted, weighed and analyzed. Then the atom, at first
considered indivisible, was split into its elements. It was examined and
attacked in its innermost structure. The elementary electrical charge was
determined, as well as the mass of the proton. The neutron, the mesons,
the positron and many other elementary particles were identified and their
characteristics determined. Means were found to guide these particles, to
accelerate them, to shoot them into atomic nuclei. But it was especially
by utilizing neutrons that man succeeded in producing artificial
radio-activity, nuclear fission, the transformation of one element into
other elements, the production of enormous quantities of energy.
Theories and ingenious
representations of the world have appeared; new mathematical methods and
new geometries have been created. We can only mention here the special
theory of relativity and the general theory of relativity, quanta, wave
mechanics, quantum mechanics, recent ideas on the nature of nuclear
forces, theories on the origin of cosmic rays, hypotheses concerning the
source of stellar energy.
All this permits us to
glimpse the depths into which science has moved, and one readily realizes
the problems of an intellectual nature which will arise. It should be
taken into consideration, moreover, that, while the bold band of
conquerors ever opens new breaches in the citadel of nature, the rest of
the army is spread over numberless other fields of knowledge: and this is
the point of view of extension, which must be added to that of depth. One
would wish to be able, like the bold climber arriving at the summit of the
mountain, to take in the entire spread of the panorama with a single
glance.
If it were possible for Us,
We should like to show you the most advanced position in the various
sectors of science, so that there might appear before your eyes a general
view of the present situation.
See how astronomy, by means
of instruments recently placed at its service, succeeds in unveiling
entirely new mysteries in the heavens and, with the help of the physical
sciences, has set out on the road which will perhaps lead it to elucidate
the source of stellar energy. See how geology determines the absolute age
of rocks by means of radioactivity and isotopic correlations:—a
beginning has even been made towards determining the age of the earth!
In mineralogy, crystalline
structures are yielding up their secrets to powerful analyses using
radiations of very short wave-length. Inorganic and organic chemistry is
solving the complex problems of the structure of macromolecules: it is
successfully building huge molecular chains and, by the resultant
applications, is transforming whole sectors of industry. Radio technique
has succeeded in producing electromagnetic waves which approach the limits
of luminous radiation of greatest wave-length. The earth is delved into so
that its hidden treasures may be discovered, the highest strata of the
atmosphere are being explored, genetics is bringing to light, in certain
particular cellular complexes, new aspects of the power of life.
Physiology and biology,
starting from bases achieved by chemistry, physical chemistry and physics,
daily encounter unsuspected marvels and daily interpret, explain, forecast
new facts and bring them to realization.
The domain of the virus is
giving way to the assault of the electronic microscope and of the
electronic diffraction technique. The mass spectrograph, Geiger counters,
radioactive isotopes, all such instruments facilitate the progress of
science as it faces the greatest enigma of all visible creation: namely,
the problem of life.
In synthesizing all this
knowledge it is philosophy which, with its broad concepts, states
precisely the distinctive traits of vital factors, the necessary character
of the underlying principle of unification, the internal source of action,
of growth, of multiplication, the true unity of the living being. It
shows, too, what matter, in some of its fundamental aspects, must be in
order that there may be realized in the living being the characteristic
properties which constitute it.
These are, without doubt, the
domains that will give most work to the science of tomorrow.
2. But the feeling of elation
engendered in one's soul by results like these is dampened by an
impression of confusion and anguish existing among those who, with a sense
of their responsibility, are following the unfolding of the facts. This
anguish and confusion are to. be understood in the most elevated sense, as
sign of an aspiration toward an ever greater clearness in perspectives.
For the triumphs of science are themselves at the origin of the two
requirements to which We alluded above.
a) The first task is to
penetrate the intimate structure of material beings and to consider the
problems connected with the substantial foundation of their being and of
their action. The question then arises: "Can experimental science solve
these problems by itself? Do they belong to its domain? Do they come
within the field where its research methods can be applied?". One must
answer in the negative. The method of science is to take as its starting
point sensations, which are external by their very nature. Though them, by
the process of intelligence, it descends ever more deeply into the hidden
recesses of things. But it must halt at a certain point, when questions
arise which cannot be settled by means of sense observation.
When the scientist is
interpreting experimental data and applying himself to explain phenomena
that belong to material nature as such, he needs a light which proceeds in
the inverse direction, from the absolute to the relative, from the
necessary to the contingent; a light which is capable of revealing to him
the truth which science is unable to attain by its own methods. This light
is philosophy, namely, the science of general laws which apply to all
being and therefore are applicable in the domain of the natural sciences,
above and beyond the laws discerned empirically.
b) The second requirement
springs from the very nature of the human soul, which seeks a coherent and
unified view of truth. If one is satisfied with a juxtaposition of the
various subjects of study and their ramifications, as in a kind of mosaic,
one gets an anatomical composition of knowledge from which life seems to
have departed. Man demands that a breath of living unity enliven the
knowledge acquired. It is in this way that science becomes fruitful and
culture begets an organic doctrine.
This raises a second
question: "Can science with the means which are characteristic of it,
effect this universal synthesis of thought? And in any case, since
knowledge is split up into innumerable sectors, which one, out of so many
sciences, is the one capable of realizing this synthesis? ". Here again We
believe that the nature of science will not allow it to accomplish so
universal a synthesis.
This synthesis requires a
solid and very deep foundation, from which it derives its unity and which
serves as a basis for the most general truths. The various parts of the
edifice thus unified must find in that foundation the elements that make
up their essence. A superior force is required for this: unifying by its
universality, clear in its depth solid by its character of absoluteness,
efficacious by its necessity. Once again that force is philosophy.
3. Unfortunately for some
time past, science and philosophy have been separated. It would be
difficult to establish the causes and responsibilities for a fact so
detrimental. Certainly the cause of the separation must not be sought in
the nature of these two ways, each of which can lead to truth. Rather, it
must be sought in historical contingencies and in persons who did not
always possess the necessary goodwill and competence.
At one time men of science
thought that natural philosophy was a useless weight, and they refused to
allow themselves to be guided by it. On the other hand, philosophers
ceased to follow the progress of science, and they halted in certain
formal positions which they could have abandoned. But when, as We have
shown, there arose the inevitable necessity of a serious work of
interpretation, as also of the elaboration of a unifying synthesis,
scientists fell under the influence of the philosophies which the
circumstances of the time placed at their disposal. Many of them, perhaps,
were not even clearly aware that their scientific investigations were
being influenced by particular philosophical trends.
Thus, for example,
mechanistic thought guided for a long time the scientific interpretations
of the phenomena observed. Those who followed that philosophical trend
believed that every natural phenomenon was reducible to an ensemble of
physical, chemical and mechanical forces, in which change and action were
solely the result of a different disposition of particles in space and of
the forces or displacements, to which each of them was subject. It
followed that, in theory, one could foresee with certainty any future
effect whatsoever, provided one knew beforehand the geometrical and
mechanical data. According to that doctrine, the world was merely an
enormous machine, composed of an innumerable series of other machines
joined together.
Further progress in
experimental research showed, however, the inexactitude of those
hypotheses. Mechanics, deduced from the facts of the macrocosm, cannot
explain or interpret all the phenomena of the microcosm : other elements
come into play which defy any explanation. of a mechanistic nature.
Take, for example, the
history of the theories of the structure of the atom. At the beginning
they were based essentially on a mechanistic interpretation, which
represented the atom as a minute planetary system, made up of electrons
circling around the nucleus according to laws entirely analogous with
those of astronomy. Quantum theory later imposed a complete revision of
these concepts and produced interpretations which were ingenious,
certainly, but also unquestionably strange. In effect, there was conceived
a type of atom which, without eliminating the mechanistic aspect, made the
quantum aspect more prominent.
The mode of behaviour of the
corpuscles was thus explained in different ways: electrons which, although
revolving about a nucleus, did not radiate energy when, according to the
laws of electrodynamics, they should have been radiating it; orbits which
could not change continuously, but only in jumps; the emission of energy
which occurred only when the electron passed from one quantum state to
another, producing photons of a definite frequency determined by the
differences in energy levels.
These hypotheses, as points
of departure, were later stated precisely after the birth of wave
mechanics, which fitted them into a more general and coherent mathematical
and intellectual framework from which the traditional mechanistic ideas
have vanished.
Then, spontaneously, the
question arises: "How can it be that the macroscopic world, although
composed of elements which all belong to the microscopic world,
nevertheless obeys different law?". Science answers, first of all, with
the following observation: when the number of elements in question is very
great (billions upon billions of particles),
then the statistical laws
deriving from the behaviour of these different elements taken in their
entirety, are considered to hold strictly in the world directly observable
by us.
But if the statistical method
is satisfactory for the purposes of science, it reveals also how false
were certain philosophical hypotheses which were limited to external
evidences perceptible to the senses and then extended arbitrarily to the
entire cosmos.
Confirmation of this is found
in the theories of modern nuclear physics. In reality, the forces which
hold together the nuclei are different from those which are discovered
when studying the macrocosm. To understand them it is also necessary to
change the customary manner of conceiving the corpuscular particle, the
wave, the exact value of energy and the rigorously precise localization of
a corpuscle, as also the foreseeable character of a future event.
The failure of the
mechanistic theory has led thinkers to hypotheses entirely different—characterized
rather by a kind of scientific idealism—wherein
the consideration of the active subject performs the principle role. For
example, quantum mechanics and its fundamental principle of indeterminism
with the challenge to the principle of causality which it supposes, appear
as scientific hypotheses influenced by currents of philosophical thought.
But because these hypotheses
themselves do not satisfy the desire for complete clarity, many
illustrious thinkers have been brought to skepticism when confronted with
the problems of the philosophy of science. These claim that it is
necessary to be satisfied with the simple verifying of facts and striving
to have these included in formal presentations-synthetic and simple-in
order to foresee the possible developments of a physical system from a
given initial state.
This state of mind results in
the abandonment of that conceptual introspection and in the loss of all
hope of producing grand universal syntheses. We do not, nevertheless,
believe that such pessimism is justified. We rather think that the natural
sciences, in permanent contact with a philosophy of critical realism, such
as was always that of the