Robert Verrill OP meets Carlo Rovelli, the Italian theoretical physicist whose latest book latest book challenges monotheistic faith.
It seems obvious to me that throughout history there have been several conflicts between science and religion. But rather than seeing these conflicts as an indication of their fundamental incompatibility, I believe that through dialogue, we can find enough common ground for science and religion to coexist together. Therefore, I was glad to meet the celebrity physicist Carlo Rovelli, in anticipation of the launch of his new book, Anaximander.
Carlo Rovelli is a pioneer in a branch of physics called loop quantum gravity, a theory that addresses one of the great unresolved problems of the last hundred years, that of reconciling general relativity which deals with the very large, and quantum physics which deals with the very small. But it is through his bestselling books that Rovelli’s fame has spread well beyond academia.
I began our interview by asking Rovelli about his Catholic background. Rovelli now describes himself as an atheist, but he was baptised a Catholic as a child, and he did explore the Faith before deciding to reject it. For instance, in his adolescence, Rovelli went to meet Frère Roger at Taizé and was greatly impressed by how Frère Roger spoke of his relationship with the divine in a very personal way. But what led Rovelli away from the faith was firstly that he was unconvinced by what he was being taught to believe, and secondly, he thought that if the people who were teaching him about the Catholic faith really believed what they were teaching, they would live in a completely different way.
When Rovelli was 20, he went on a long trip in Canada for several months. This was a time of soul searching, and when he was alone in the mountains, he would ask himself what was his religious experience? He admitted that he believed in a spiritual life, he believed in moral values, and he shared these values with religious people, but he didn’t share their religious beliefs.
Since then, Rovelli has remained an atheist, but he describes his relationship with the Catholic Church as one that oscillates. Although Anaximander is his most recently published book, he actually wrote it 15 years ago at a time in which he felt very distant from the Church. But right now, with a different pope and a different historical moment, he feels very close to many Catholics, and that his system of values is close to that of the Catholic Church. When Pope Francis talks about war, when he talks about nature, when he talks about climate problems, and when he talks about poverty, Rovelli is full of admiration and is very glad that Francis is pope. Nevertheless, the views Rovelli held 15 years ago are likely to upset many Catholics.
Anaximander, the subject of Rovelli’s book, was a pre-Socratic philosopher who Rovelli sees as a key figure in the development of scientific enquiry. What so impresses Rovelli about Anaximander is not just his naturalistic accounts of phenomena such as lightning or his speculations about the cosmos, but rather, how Anaximander engaged with his mentor, Thales, who is often credited with being the first Greek philosopher. Anaximander didn’t simply embrace the theories that Thales proposed, but neither did he completely reject them. Instead, Anaximander took a middle path, that of questioning and critically evaluating these theories. For example, Anaximander agreed with Thales that there was one principle out of which everything was made; he just disagreed with him over what it was: Thales thought it was water, whereas Anaximander thought it was something else which he called the indefinite. By this kind of critical engagement, Rovelli believes Anaximander put Greek thought on a trajectory that would eventually develop into modern science.
But the part of the book that is likely to upset many Catholics is where he argues that the Church was responsible for holding back this development. As Rovelli puts it, “the anti-intellectual violence of the Christianised Roman Empire managed to suffocate almost every development of rational thought for many centuries”. However, speaking 15 years after writing this, Rovelli is willing to admit that the situation is far more complicated than presented in his book, and he wants to distance himself from the idea that Christianity is the antithesis of intellectual endeavour. Rovelli’s more nuanced view today is that there have been recurring clashes between rational enquiry about nature and religious thinking, and this is because there is a part of the religious world that is afraid of its religious beliefs being criticised.
But this fear of criticism is very far from characterising the whole of the religious world. For instance, Rovelli admitted that, historically, of all the people on earth who are constantly questioning the nature of things, the Jews are preeminent. Furthermore, it was within Christendom that the scholastic method of disputed questions gained prominence, a method which proved so important in the emergence of the medieval universities. So it is very much to Rovelli’s credit that he confessed to making a mistake in his book by suggesting that religious belief was incompatible with critical thinking – Rovelli himself is certainly not afraid of criticism.
Concerning Rovelli’s brand of atheism, it is not the strident sort that claims all questions about reality can be answered by science. On the contrary, Rovelli believes there are many mysteries to reality which are beyond the scope of scientific enquiry. But he doesn’t believe we should call these mysteries God. Rovelli recalled a discussion he had with Cardinal Ravasi in which he explained to the cardinal why he was an atheist. Rovelli told the cardinal that he could see there was mystery, he could see there was a marvellous order in nature, he could see beauty, he could see the moral law within us, he could see the power of love that drives us, he could see the intensity that unites a community when they share their being together, and he could feel the power of silence when he was alone.
But he didn’t believe we should call any of these things God. He didn’t want to believe that things were good or that they were beautiful just because God made them. Rather, he wanted to believe this because they are good, because they are beautiful. Cardinal Ravasi’s response to Rovelli was that “if this is what it is to be an atheist, then I’m an atheist”. In saying this, perhaps the cardinal was also mindful of the fact that many Christians in the early Church were called atheists when they refused to worship the Roman gods.
For the time being, Rovelli is not willing to make any concessions to those of us who identify God with the First Cause of existence and who has been divinely revealed to us to be a Trinity of persons. Nevertheless, my overall impression of Rovelli after having met him in person is far more positive than it was after only reading his book. Although there remain significant disagreements, I hope that any future engagements Rovelli has with the Catholic Church will reassure him that there is enough common ground for science and religion to coexist together.
Carlo Rovelli’s Anaximander (Allen Lane, £16.99) is out now.
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.