I decided to write this essay after reading Thomas Bürkhe’s book “Epic discoveries in physics – from Galileo to Lise Meitner”, when the idea hit me that (or I regretted) natural sciences, and physics in this case, had to separated themselves from theology, which persisted in being linked to poorly productive Aristotelian philosophy. Allow me to cite some sentences from this book (they are written in italics). For two thousand years natural scientists and philosophers were agreed that one only needed to observe nature to discover its laws. Experiments were regarded as unnatural and therefore not fit for this reason. Galileo was the first to find a natural law of physics by means of an experiment and give it a mathematical form. Galileo discovered that he could use experiments as a way of teasing out the hidden laws of nature and find their core. For him – and after him, for all natural scientists, experiments became the key to knowledge. Apart from his personal experiments, Galileo’s strong suits were his analytic reasoning and his talent in abstracting from natural events, as well as his ability to think up experiments. He was able to throw away the pieces of Aristotelian natural philosophy which prevented viewing things as they really were.
One could say that by using experiments to verify certain theories the natural sciences gained an enormous advantage over theology. By using feedback and a thorough search to resolve problems in harmony with experiments, the natural sciences and especially physics began an enormous boom. Maybe it will not be without interest to remind ourselves of certain details, which we could consider as fortuitous or not. Even the name Galilei can surprise some people. Galileo Galilei began his education in a Benedictine abbey. His father took him home before he completed his schooling when he learnt that his son wanted to become a monk. Then he received private instruction and he graduated at the age of seventeen from the University of Pisa. To study philosophy and natural sciences here meant learning the Aristotelian method. Experiments as a guide to discovering nature were absolutely inadmissible. Galileo had to leave Pisa after four years without finishing school because his father was unable to obtain a grant for him. He went to Florence and studied by himself and the fruit of this labor was his work on the center of gravity of solid objects, for which he became famous and could apply for a professorship. He succeeded in joining the department at the University of Padua. Here an atmosphere that was open to the world prevailed; Protestants could live and study here without difficulty. In the year 1592, when Galileo came to town, the city council of Giordano Bruno (allegedly because of the insistence of the Vatican) began the inquisition. I am writing this because I asked myself the question as to how God became engaged in these affairs. I wonder if He approved and supported this or if he pitied this to no avail or if He and another opinion or reason. Galileo was a believer. Galileo began to carry out experiments in the lab which resembled an idealized nature…. He tested to the nth degree the theory that smaller objects fall slower than heavier objects. In addition to the well-known experiments of stones dropped from the leaning Tower of Pisa, Salviati, alias Galilei, explains to his friend Simplicio in his essay Discorsi on the basis of his well-thought experiment that he highly doubts that Aristotle proved it in an experiment. Through his well-planned experiments, which can be called models, Galileo gave physics and the natural sciences a great gift. In another essay Dialogo he explains to Salviati Sagredo how moving parallel systems are undistinguishable from immobile objects. Galilei thought that one must always measure velocity in relation to a frame of reference. This Galilean principle of transformation lasted almost three hundred years as an undeniable truth until Einstein corrected and generalized it in his theory of relativity. This principle overturned one of the most important arguments of Aristotle’s disciples against the movement of the Earth. They considered it grotesque that our planet could travel at enormous speed around the sun, as predicted by a certain Mr. Copernicus and as promoted by other heretics, such as an astronomer in Prague, Johannes Kepler. These critics wondered how it would not be possible to see this speed. Galilei answered that this is possible because even this enormous speed is relative and therefore we are not aware of it. Salviati cleverly remarked: “If it is possible to obtain the same results if the Earth is moving and the rest of the universe is motionless or if the Earth is motionless and the rest of the universe is moving, who would believe that nature – which according to the generally accepted theory does not waste means when it can make do with little - would prefer to set in motion an infinite number of enormous heavenly bodies and to do so unimaginably fast, if it could obtain the same result by the motion of one body (the Earth) around its own axis.
The essay “Dialogue about both world systems–the Ptolemaic view and the Copernican”, which was published in 1632, signaled a change in the development of the natural sciences, and even in the whole cultural development of mankind. Nevertheless, a year later, on the 22 of June 1633, under pressure from the Inquisition, Galileo recanted his theory in the Benedictine monastery of Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome, in the same place where 33 years earlier Giordano Bruno heard his death sentence. In the year 1835 the Catholic Church removed his writings from the list of proscribed books. In October 1992, almost 360 years after the judgment of the Inquisition, Pope John Paul II rehabilitated Galileo. Why did everything take so long? We have to ask ourselves if we have analyzed thoroughly enough the reasons behind this lack of understanding (maybe unwanted understanding? Similarly, Pasteur, Semmelweis, etc., met with a lack of understanding from their learned opponents. Today we know that in all these cases it was a matter of basic knowledge, which does not cause the slightest problem to school-age children. Some opponents were blind, others were vain, and others were so satisfied with themselves that they were unwilling to acknowledge basic facts, which were easily verifiable. But how many human lives did this cost? Acknowledgement of one’s mistakes is very important. But in order to find the right attitude, the right way of using information and of making sure something similar (in a different area, or on a different scale) does not happen again one must carry out an analysis of the causes. And for this the natural sciences have a recipe which is called experiment – the analysis of an experiment- theory- the scope of applicability of a theory. Natural scientists realized that it is not good to make up dogma. If God made the earth, he gave us excellent experimental material to probe how He works. How else can we train ourselves to think logically and to test the rightness of our thinking than on matter? It obeys its own laws regardless of my wishes. It is neither a “blind” servant, nor a master, but if I understand its laws, it can be my partner and I can use it. In this spirit should we not interpret the text (Luke16, 9) “Make to yourselves friends out of the mammon of unrighteousness”?
I will allow myself to cite one more thing from the above-mentioned book: Newton’s secretary stated that his master was perhaps not a human being. He did not allow himself any rest, and he considered every hour that he did not devote to study wasted. He rarely left his room. .. He was so engrossed in his experiments that he often forgot to eat. He did not sleep more than four or five hours. Could we not call this a valuable fast? Isn’t this what the disciples should have done , when they could not heal the boy (Matthew 17,14-21) He always discussed difficult mathematical problems with Halley, who always urged him not to give up. In April 1686 the first part of his great work appeared and in spring of the next year the work was finished. With the book Principia Newton created the work of the century. It is known that Newton was a strong believer. This noteworthy behavior of the Sun, the planets and the comets (via gravity) could only come from order and from a knowing and all-knowing Being….If each galaxy is the center of a system similar to our own, then the whole which bears the marks of the same aim must be subordinate to a single ruler. Newton also devoted himself to the study of the Bible. He knew the Bible by heart and he tried to read the future in the coded writings that he found in it. So when he calculated the year in which the Jews would again enter into the Promised Land, he came to the year 1948, when the state of Israel was really founded.
The relationship between theology and philosophy is always stressed. Why? Without a doubt it is necessary to work through the Bible and the New Testament. But is philosophy its right partner? The Renaissance came, a new way of thinking. Against the old theory that the sun revolves around the earth a new way of thinking emerged, that the earth revolves around the sun. Nicolas Copernicus stated this and the Church was strongly against it. Galileo performed experiments and had new observations and he was forced to give up proclaiming what he learnt. The Church wanted to keep its position, but ended up shaming itself. Before there was an interest in religion, but the battle with Galileo boosted the atheist position and religion became a thing of tradition. In the time of the Renaissance, Christianity came into contact with real thinking. Concretely there was a meeting with physics. (the contact between Aristotelian metaphysics and Galileo’s physics). The Church had great power, but it did not fulfill the demands of the time. It “successfully” silenced Galileo, but by this it gave the opposition a weapon. After a long time the writings of Galileo and Copernicus were taken off the Index, but “the battle was already lost”. The Church lost much of its prestige. Then Darwin was put on the index and after a time taken off again. The same goes for the writing of Teilhard de Chardin. There were several such late acknowledgements.
The Catholic Church was not able to formulate a complex insight into what the New Testament said and therefore it completed its teaching with the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. It was derived from Aristotelian philosophy. It solved new problems with the help of theological and philosophical “fillings”. This corresponds with the unceasing fall and the inability to solve problems and the inability to return to a renewal. Jesus says (Mark 9, 12): “Elijah does come first and restores all things.” Certainly it will not be Elijah personally, just as it was not John the Baptist to them, but somebody like Elijah. It has to be a self-learner, because it lies in the ability of a person and undoubtedly a trainer who will be able to form other people to resemble Elijah, so that a decline does not ensue again.
The natural sciences should be a required subject during studies in theological faculties. With matter one must play a fair game and that teaches him to be fronimos and pistos (taken over from the Greek translation, fronimos were in Jesus’ parables, for example the bridesmaids that had oil in reserve or the cheating steward.) These two basics parameters can then be used in our relationship with God. The spirit is in coexistence with matter. The soul works together with the body. The body does many functions. It gives me a brain. The question is how it will be after death. It is possible that new memories, that are hidden now, will be opened. The coexistence of the soul with matter is analogous to the co-existence of a person with Jesus. A person is put into nature. It has its own laws and I have to respect these laws. God “made” nature and a person has the opportunity to choose what the Creator offers. But I can have “my opinion” and it carries its effect. Biology prepares us to understand the difference between the first type of life and eternal life and enables us to model the function of the Eucharist. Physics, chemistry, and biology and everyday life enable us to find the correlation between phenomena. This way we begin to understands similarities, models and understand the parables. Chemistry and mainly physics teaches us to create a complex picture and to work with an unseen reality. They show us that an unseen reality exists, which can be known with experiments and conclusions, while we do not see them directly. To someone it may appear heretical, but just as in the natural sciences, a Christian should “experiment” and probe for mistakes and deficiencies in one’s faith (however honestly and using fair play) so that he can find the best relationship to God and get to God’s promised land. That is why the first criterion in the relationship to God is to learn how to think right. Our thinking is deformed in many ways. If we allow that God exists then we have to play a fair game with him and not close our eyes before vague problems and know how to say “I don’t know.”
It is a paradox that it was the priest Bohumil Bily who clearly understood how Jesus’ way of teaching was modern and began the program “Heureka” where many teachers of physics in elementary and middle schools begin the heuristic way of teaching (see http://kdf.mff.cuni.cz/Heureka). While classical teaching, that is, informative gives pupils via explanations the acquired knowledge of previous generations and thus dampens a spirit of inquisitiveness, in the heuristic model the pupil experiments , then discovers again, then gives information about his findings and grades himself. Personally several years ago at a crystallographic congress I took part in a reception with eight Nobel Prize winners and all answered to the question as to how they found their way to science that they had their own laboratory at home and they experimented and individually undertook heuristic trial. The lessons acquired during heuristic learning, clearly show that the discovery of knowledge is better than the best explanation. On the basis of learning from heuristic teaching even in the realm of training of knowledge one comes from the precept (Jer 31,34) brother will not teach brother. This is very unusual for many people, because they would rather sit and wait for an explanation. But the one who decides to experiment himself will see the fruits of his labor. The students who had a heuristic education are critical to themselves as well as to others, are capable of independent thought and are not afraid to deal with problems, that they understand as a call to further growth. Isn’t this the ideal prevention against drugs and an unproductive life? Without discoverers, we would still life in a “pre-Stone Age era”. For the development of mankind it is necessary that “discoverers” should live. It is also necessary to stress that users also have their worth. Not everyone can discover new things, while they can do tried and tested things well. If everyone tried to discover something new, but the previously tested things were not done and re-tested, chaos would ensue. Therefore both types are useful. The heuristic method of teaching religion and reading the Bible was tested with great success by brother Bily.
When we look at the texts of the New Testament we find that Jesus used parables (models) when he preached about key topics the same way or similarly as it is now common in the natural sciences. The parables (models) do not block the acquisition of new and the expulsion of bad information or knowledge and they allow continual growth. That would mean, however, that the natural sciences “discovered” a method which was already discovered, but was not used and was therefore “forgotten”. Jesus talked to people using comparisons. Why? It was because the audience was “blind” and “deaf”. In private Jesus explained everything to his disciples. The parables could have awakened somebody to think about the topic and through the use of parables the audience could be sorted. How is it with us? Some parables are explained, some are not. So we are somewhere in between. The parables could have awakened a curiosity in people, as it is in young children if their thinking is not dampened by their upbringing or school. The text “The heavenly kingdom belongs to children (Mt 18, 14)” can be example for us. “If you do not change and become like little children, you will not enter the heavenly kingdom” (Mat18, 3). Peter “walks on water” (Mt 14, 22-33) and no one wants to try it after him; he even does not want to do it again, something every kid would do.
The Gospels are a document which contains very important information. That is obvious on first glancing at the Bible. However, a very important matter is whether I have a correct translation in my hands because a badly translated version can block my understanding of Jesus. As an example I will cite one example out of many: Matthew 16:23 which is translated as “get out of my sight Satan” or as the very different meaning “get behind me Satan”. An example of a creative attitude towards Biblical translation is the work of Claude Tresmontant as written in the books “The Hebrew Christ”, and “Language and the age of the Gospels”. It seems that thanks to his experimental attitude, he has come upon a number of essential discoveries. Allow me to cite from this book: “A crowd, or more correctly, crowds of people gathered around Jesus who did not know how to read or write in order to follow him and listen to him. The Lord also had knowledgeable pupils (one of whom is the author of the fourth Gospel), who knew how to read and write and were people of the Book. It is out of the question that these students, who knew how to read and write and spent their lives studying sacred texts, would not write notes, would not mark down what the Lord said and did, because the sayings of previous prophets was noted and conserved and because for these learned pupils and the others, the Lord represented someone much more important than one of the previous prophets. That is why it was all the more important to write down what he said, what he taught and what he did. The opposite theory is nonsensical and cannot be allowed. … A close analysis of the variations of the three translations , with which we have occupied ourselves, the delving into various Greek words, which the Gospel of Mark, Matthew, and Luke use to translate one and the same Hebrew word, show that in the background of these three Greek texts three written texts in Hebrew existed. … Linguists work like zoologists and paleontologists. Only a comparative method enables is to work on the history of languages. At the present in all known and systematically studied language groups it is possible to compare different languages if we postulate the existence of a beginning proto-language… In order to claim that a common proto-language existed, we need to find specific characteristics of this language in the compared languages, if they are still there. …The hypothesis about the texts originally written in Hebrew , which forms the basis of the four Gospels, seems to be verified and even certain since only this hypothesis can clarify the data we have at our disposal and that represent the four Gospels, as we know them today, when we can read them in Greek. The opposite hypothesis of a long oral tradition, a long verbal announcement of the joyous news, which preceded the later written record of the four Gospels, is given the priority for more than one hundred years by most exegetes. This theory a prior seems absurd to us if we take into account the society in which the Lord lived and taught. …. If there is a unity of teaching and thinking in the Gospels all the way to the molecular level, it is because there is a unity in the source of information. It is because there was on source of information. ….The four Gospels are undeniably the literal translations of four Hebrew originals. These originals come from the ordinary remarks that certain learned scholars of the Rabbi Jesua made… Their Greek translations could not arise a lot later because the brothers of the oldest Christian society, which originated in Jerusalem, were in a hurry to tell the Good News to the Greek-speaking brothers in the Mediterranean diaspora.” The results of Claude Tresmontant’s scholarship, which are (just as it is in the case of the natural sciences, still a hypothesis backed by strong arguments should prod modern translators to re-evaluate their methods. Again the question persists as to why after 2000 years we do not have the correct translation of the Bible. Independently of Claude Tresmontant, father B. Bily commented for several years that we should have carried out a reconstruction of the catechism of our Lord (see e.g. the Kingdom of God or the Heavenly Kingdom). So instead of the original catechism we now have the deformed practices of many Christian Churches handed down over generations and because of the lack of witnesses to Jesus Christ, we have the witnesses of martyrs.
Let us not be afraid of revolutionary thinking. But let us ask for proof. An honest attitude is essential. We often live in fear of a loving God. God wants us to take the initiative, to develop in our Christianity, so that we can partake of our salvation to the fullest. Sadly he has to “push’ us to it, often via an unpleasant way through suffering. It is very important to know how to differentiate a person’s sphere of competence and God’s. Where we can check out things ourselves or where things lie in our own sphere of competence, we will not get proof from Jesus (Matthew 16:1-6), but where we cannot prove it, Jesus is willing to give us the proof. (Matthew 9:2-8, Mark 2:3-12, Luke 5:17-26). It is only logical that witness without proof is not lawful. Yes, Jesus allows the “testimony of John” (John 5:33-36), i.e. testimony of a lower quality, so that they may be saved. But then here was only one “official Church”, and now we have hundreds. In response to the argument of the opposition: “You are testifying for yourself and therefore your testimony is not valid”. Jesus answers: “In your Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is valid. I am he who testifies about myself and my Father, who sent me, also testifies to me“ (John 8:13-18). We have to realize and not close our eyes that today’s Church (and other religions) testify about themselves without proof. The duty of a disciple of Jesus is to act like a “natural science researcher”, not to close one’s eyes to unpleasant texts and to prove the value of the Gospel in its full capacity, to prove that not one line from the Law will be omitted. Taken logically, this means that we can reject the teaching of Christian churches because they do not have proof or the acts of Jesus Christ. Their testimony is the testimony of people. In the same way, the sayings of the Gospel and the Bible as a whole, even if they are truthful, are not binding because the manuscript by itself is a testimony of the type “written, but not sealed”. The same goes for the two thousand year old tradition confirming its rightfulness, which is also the testimony of people. It is necessary to ask for proof of the teachings or proclamations. It is especially so if someone promises us something, offers us something, or wants us to do something. Everybody should ask the church about testimony from God. Without proof from Jesus Christ there cannot be one flock. Catechism without proof is fertile soil for false prophets and sects. It unrightfully closes itself to criticism and relies on its authority (“You must believe…”).
Christianity calls on the Bible, but it is not “one flock”, it has many denominations. How is this possible? There are many reasons. The New Testament is a collection of writings, which itself indicates that it is not the only source. But it is the source of information for all Christian denominations. There are contradictions in the New Testament. These will not facilitate the formation of a common teaching. The Kingdom of God (KG) is not the Kingdom of Heaven (KH), the ancestry of Jesus Christ varies, the catechism of Jesus Christ varies in many instances with the catechism of Saint Paul. When there are deviations from the original teaching of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, it is necessary to find or reconstruct the original teachings of Jesus Christ. The same goes for other Christian Churches. They read the New Testament they take only some parts from it, which they fill in to get a framework, which they then proclaim. This selection from the New Testament enables a framework to be formed, which is a tradition of that church. If someone wants to use the whole framework of information in the New Testament, then he will not be successful. In the New Testament, we see written the catechism of Jesus Christ and the deeds of the apostles, the good as well as the bad. For example, in the Gospel the apostles reject the prediction of the death of Jesus Christ. The Acts of the Apostles narrates the behavior of the apostles, which is not always in unity with Jesus’ teaching. Differences exist between the teaching in the epistles and the catechism of Jesus Christ. But even the individual Gospel differs (for example the family tree of Jesus differs). If we pick out only the things that Jesus taught, even that differs, as for example the use of the term the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God in the same situation. According to Matthew, the sentry from Capharnaum talks with Jesus in person, while according to Luke he sends envoys to Jesus. That is why it is not easy to form a unified set of teachings from the New Testament. That is why it is necessary to make an analysis from the New Testament. If the written Gospel is, as we know, God’s plan, this is a great opportunity for the “disciple-natural scientist”. Maybe the Gospel is written as a programmed text and one can understand the Gospel according to the principle “a brother will not teach a brother”. One can deduce that the complete gifts of the Holy Spirit will not be given to those who do not know the correct teaching and also to them who remain at a well-received initial talent and are not able to develop their knowledge. That is they are like the disciples who received the order to cure all diseases, but did not cure a boy (Matthew 17, 17) and earned the reprimand “Unbelieving and perverse generation….”
What caused the deformation of Christianity and deviations of the catechism of the Church from the original catechism of Jesus Christ, which has persisted throughout history? The main reason is a psychic blindness, and the correlating attitude “we see”. Blindness is a parameter, which is well known in the natural sciences. Unfortunately in the Christian catechism it is forgotten even though it one of the primary parameters. That psychic blindness exists is commonly known and everybody has heard about “professional blindness”. How many times does one say: “How could I not have seen it?” And what about an eye’s blind spot? We are not aware of it even though it can easily be detected. Thus, a blind spot can be our model as to how many psychic blind spots we have. A scientist during his research acts like a blind person. He tries, he improves things, and he thinks a lot about what he is researching. It is a question of development; in religion a person can grow if he wants to. “Blindness” (I am thinking of psychic blindness) is a very serious matter in religion. It is necessary to think through “The Father shows the Son his deeds…” (John 5:20). By rights we can ask ourselves questions like: “Is blindness described in the Bible? What does the Bible say about blindness?” Jesus’ statement: “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin, but you say “I see”, therefore your guilt remains” (John 9:41). Isaiah also warned (Isaiah 29:9): “….blind yourselves and be blind”. Therefore, closing one’s eyes to an uncomfortable truth will play a very important role. Another of Jesus’ proclamation is: “If a blind man leads a blind man, they will both fall into a pit” (Matthew 15: 14). What can we deduce from these sayings? In the first place, that we ourselves are responsible for the fact that we are blind. It is not an arbitrary choice of God, but it is in our field of competence and we caused by our own thoughtlessness, laziness, or blindness and God will not fix it for us. It is necessary to take the problem of blindness very seriously. Saint Peter and the other apostles had it and we would give ourselves too much credit if we said that we did not have it. To redress the deficiencies in the church it is necessary to know the problem of blindness. It is also necessary to point out to people when they have erroneous views. The blind heading the Church cannot lead the sighted. A Church of blind people cannot have gifts. If the audience listened with a critical ear, then they would not believe those in the Church who taught badly. Jesus Christ did not explain blindness and also did not explain how atonement is done. That was in the area of competence of John the Baptist, his predecessor, that is, someone from the people. Now it is also in our area of competence. The Church is therefore blind and we as members of the church also.
God and matter are always perfect partners. We do not have direct contact with God, but we do with matter, as for example in physics. Matter, mammon, is here (Luke 16: 9), a thing from which people can find their blindness, that is, their lack of equipment or unfair play. Justice is fair play. Then, if I should acknowledge something and I do not acknowledge it, I am a blind man for a given situation. For example, a reader reads the text of the Gospels and does not understand it. Compromise does not bring a solution, but the removal of psychic blindness does. I will allow myself to paraphrase Jesus’ statement on: “You are not only blind, but you say ´I see´ and that is why your problems persist”. Do we realize how often in the past and also now say, instead of saying “we do not understand” or “we are blind”, say “we know it the best, we ´see´”?
A Christian should have a healthy self-image with a concept of a God who is better than me, but offers me the opportunity to continue growing. As a rule a person is not used to this. So “I want to grow” is one thing and another thing is “I have to do something” and also “I have to watch myself”. In order to do this, I have to know the problem of blindness and find the blindness in myself. I have to see the faults in myself in order to find the blindness and what I am weak in. My goal should not be to be first at all costs. One can characterize Caesar’s mentality by the statement: “I would rather be the mayor in the smallest village than the second man in Rome.” My goal should be to have the same self-image as a researcher in a good scientific collective: “It is better to be a mere worker in an excellent research institute than a director in a bad institute”. A defective self-image is: “I am always right”. A healthy self-image is: “I want to know the truth and therefore I will seek it. I want to find out who is right.” A healthy self-image will open up a person to reality, to truth, and to God. In the case of a lack of clarity, a person should get into a discussion with God. He should not only beg, but also “knock”. But before he starts “knocking for God”, he has to be clear what is in God’s competence and what is in his competence. God has some demands as the Creator and a person can understand God more and more. Again it is the same situation as if we were working with matter. If we understand matter, we know its properties and laws, and then matter will do everything that we want. If we do not know them, then it won’t “obey”. A failure is a bidding to better oneself and open one’s horizons. If God does not hear us, it is not only a matter of “knocking”, but also an invitation to first do a generalized inventory of oneself. If we do not do the inventory and do not know what is in my area of competence and what I should do and am not doing, I will knock in vain. When one’s self-image is healthy, that is good. When one’s self-image is unhealthy (like Caesar), this leads to rejection. If Pasteur, Faraday, and others had not had a healthy self-image, the opposition would have silenced them. An example of a healthy self-image can be the parable of the widow and the judge (Luke 18, 1-8). If a person takes blindness into account and does something with it, he also has a healthy self-image.
What can I say in conclusion? The Gospel is an unproven source of information, but it allows us the reconstruct the information and eventually to verify it. In the Gospel there are elements which are universally applicable (e.g. Matthew16:1-3, Luke16:1-13, Matthew 15, 1-20, “censure factors”- Luke 12:39-48) and also statements which give facts that one must verify. Jesus Christ gives us the proof that he “has the power to forgive sins”(Luke 5:20-25) and he proves it by saying that “if someone does not do the acts of the Father, we do not have to believe him” (John 10:37). Jesus Christ bids his listeners to prove it to themselves (John 10:38). Taken logically, this means that even if the teaching of the Church was totally right, it is not our duty to believe the teaching of the church if it only has the testimony of people. Only a reconstruction of the catechism of Jesus Christ will enable us to find a true ensemble of information with the same content as the original catechism of Jesus Christ. A reconstruction of the catechism of Jesus Christ will enable us to change to a qualitatively higher level just as it developed in the progression of natural sciences. The catechism is not a solution. If I am God’s creation, hypothetically I have the right to find the proof.
Citations:
Thomas Bührke: Important findings in physics – from Galileio to Lise Meitner-ACADEMIA, 1999
Claude Tresmontant: Hebrew Christ: Language in the Age of the Gospel- Barrister and Principal, Brno 2004.
The author works as a researcher in the Nuclear Physics Institute of AV CR and he dedicates this article to the memory of his spiritual guide Bohumil Bily (22.9.1921-28.2.2002) a priest and excellent preacher in the church of St. Ludmila in Prague 2-Vinohrady. With the exception of the parts citing the books of Thomas Buhrke and Claude Tresmontant, the source of the other parts were memories of personal discussions with Father Bohumil Bily.