Science and religion in Czechia and Slovakia
The field of “science and religion” (for lack of a better term; to denote that it is a single notion, we shall use the abbreviation “S&R”) has a (relatively) long history in Czechoslovakia, Czechia, and Slovakia.
The census of 1910 shows that the Kingdom of Bohemia was 95 % Roman Catholic. By 1921 the proportion had fallen to 82 %, to 79 % by 1930, and 27 % by 2001, with only 4 % actually attending Sunday Mass (according to headcounts conducted by the Church in 1999 and 2004 on random Sundays). The majority of the people leaving the Church declared themselves as having “no religious confession” in subsequent censuses. The situation in Slovakia is vastly different. In 2001 there were 73 % Catholics, 13 % with “no confession”, 7 % Lutherans, and 2 % Calvinists. Without discussing the reasons, let us simply say that the Czechoslovak Republic, founded in 1918, adopted as a part of its national myth the idea that the Hussite Czechs had suffered under the Catholic Hapsburgs for 300 years, President Masaryk being hailed as the Liberator. Whereas until 1918 it was considered eccentric to be atheist or agnostic in Bohemia, after 1918 it became very much the bon ton. The different situation in Slovakia is linked with the fact that the Slovak version of the Czechoslovak national myth was based anti-Hungarian sentiments rather than on anti-Catholic/anti-German ones.
The Communist coup in February 1948 led to the adoption of “Scientific Atheism” as a part of the state ideology, and to strong religious persecution. Practicing Christians became second class citizens, were not allowed to teach, and their children were denied higher education, especially in the arts and humanities where no independent thought was tolerated. The schools of theology were under firm control of the political police. Few people wanted to enter the heavily politicised fields of philosophy, history, sociology, economics (the only authorised variety had to be “based on Marxism-Leninism”), etc. Gifted people, if they were allowed higher education, studied mostly science and engineering or medicine.
Paradoxical consequences of religious persecution
The consequences of these policies were paradoxical. First there is the "Academic Anomaly": Unlike in most of Europe (France or Italy being clear examples), the centre of gravity of the Czech & Slovak academic elite has shifted firmly towards Science. A second consequence is that the proportion of practicing Christians among research scientists is somewhat higher than in the rest of the population. What is more, the concerted atheist propaganda has led to the development of a strong psychodynamic resistance in many critically thinking people.
There has been, therefore, a marked interest in the relationship between science and religion. The Christians among research scientists naturally felt a need to defend their faith against mostly rather crude propaganda. Most did so in private, while some spoke out in public. Simple apologetic arguments drawn from the religious instruction of their youth sufficed for the most part in confronting the “scientific atheism”. Over the years, it became increasingly obvious to many of these Christians and scientists that the old apologetics was insufficient, and that a new synthesis was called for. And so it may be said that the S&R of the 1950’s took place in prisons and labour camps with a defence of the faith being its primary concern, first recycling and developing the arguments constructed against interwar anticlericalism, and later focusing on refuting “scientific atheism“, the S&R of the 1960’s occurred in covert discussion groups, and strived for a more positive approach.
Once again it may be said that ideological persecution bore some surprisingly rich fruit because many a seminal thought arose from the interaction among independent thinkers of various hues brought together willy-nilly by their jailors, and when the regime decreased the ferocity of its pressure somewhat in the 1960’s a wave of underground activity broke up.
The regime still controlled its borders very tightly, however, effectively isolating the country not only from the West, but also from the fellow-vassals within the Soviet Empire. New books from abroad were precious, and only a few arrived. The thirst for at least some exchange of ideas was so great that the Soviet journal Voprosy filosofii was coveted and closely read.
Some texts of Teilhard de Chardin found their way through the Iron Curtain and generated an enthusiastic interest. A translation of La Place de l’Homme dans la Nature was one of the first books to appear during the short-lived Prague Spring of 1968 . It has to be said that serious understanding of Teilhard’s thought was not forthcoming at the time, undoubtedly due to the very narrow selection of texts available. If nothing else, though, the broad vision of the French Jesuit palaeontologist became an inspiration demonstrating that the time was ripe for a radical rethinking of S&R.
Teilhard’s ideas together with cybernetics were the main influences upon Felix Maria Davídek, the charismatic leader of Koinotes, a particularly interesting group among the clandestine Catholic circles. As with many others, it was Teilhard who assisted his transition from neothomism to positions more philosophically open.
The 1970s and 1980s
The situation in the 1970’s and 1980’s was marked by the huge setback, a veritable time-bubble, created by the brutal suppression of the reformist Communist attempt to give “a human face” to the regime. The disillusion was great, especially among the believing Marxists. After August 1968, very few Party members actually believed in the regime’s positions. Inane ideology, hypocritical formalism, and pragmatic opportunism became the rule even among the most high-ranking apparatchiks.
A shift occurred regarding the search for Western literature. Whereas in the 1950’s and 1960’s other countries of the Communist Block served chiefly as mere transit routes, in the 1970’s and 1980’s translations, mainly Polish, came to play an important role. Thanks to the linguistic proximity, many Czech and Slovak intellectuals had little trouble in reading Polish, and the translations were somewhat easier to obtain than the originals. In the 1980’s many publications of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Cracow, including its journal Zagadnienia filozoficzne w nauce, were read by quite a few.
Apart from the undercover seminars held in private apartments by people who were not allowed to pursue a professional career in their field of choice, the novelty of the seventies and eighties was the emergence of a gray zone tolerated by the regime. Several non-Marxist intellectuals were allowed to work in academic institutions, especially if they had no contact with students. Some informal “institutions” have been quietly established.
The S&R groups in this gray zone developed several widely differing positions. Koinotes with its combination of Teilhard and cybernetics has already been mentioned. A very influential group in Prague soon established itself as the think-tank of Czech postmodernism with its New Age tendencies (syncretism bringing together medieval Jewish kaballah, ancient hermetism, gnosticism, etc. with the history and philosophy of science).
The present: after 1989
Mentioning these two groups in particular is an anticipation of the events after 1989. In fact, today only these two can be clearly identified as having a circle of young adepts ensuring the continuation of their tradition. The recent history of a third centre may serve as an example of the great challenge to the continuity of this field. After its re-birth in 1991, the (Catholic) Faculty of Theology of the University of Southern Bohemia in České Budějovice, became an important hub with several key figures actively interested in S&R. Alas two very important ones died recently, and it remains to be seen how this will affect the school.
As was said in the previous paragraphs, during the Communist era, S&R enthusiasts were not allowed to devote their main efforts to this area of research. Rather, they were obliged to focus on other fields, and at best, dabble in S&R in their spare time. After 1989, these very same intellectuals were called upon to help restore normality to Czech & Slovak academe, taking important responsibilities of University administration over from Communist apparatchiks. S&R remained an activity for spare time. Sixteen years later, younger people are able and willing to shoulder the burden of administrative tasks, and many of the original S&R enthusiasts feel that the time has come to focus on S&R; many more are too tired to engage in a serious effort.
One of today’s main challenges is therefore that of passing on the interest for S&R to a new generation of researchers. In order to do this effectively, the field has to be recognized as an academic discipline, and national and international networking has to be developed further. If only the two groups mentioned above show a real promise of continuity, and other traditions and currents are likely to be lost, there are, however, two or three centres, where S&R is approached from alternative perspectives.
On the whole, the current situation is promising. There are several associations focused on S&R to a varying extent. Several journals publish regularly and often articles on S&R. There are S&R courses and seminars offered as subsidiary subjects at various Universities. A successful S&R further education programme for teachers ran over a period of several years in Slovakia. Many conferences were held over the years, discussions took place in public gatherings as well as in books and periodicals. A number of translations have appeared in print, as well as several collections of original articles. Some S&R (or S&R-related) monographs have also been published.
Another remarkable sign of hope has been the Czech and Slovak participation in John Templeton Foundation’s GPSS programme. In the first round (Summer 2004), 12 preliminary proposals were received from Czech researchers in particular, five out of which were invited to elaborate their projects, leading to two of them receiving fellowship awards. Along with the one fellowship award going to Slovakia, this represented 1/6 of the whole GPSS programme.
There is, therefore, potential for S&R in Czechia and Slovakia. It is to be hoped that the local traditions, both endemic (ranging from Neubauer to Davídek) and more main-stream, continue to develop and enter into a productive dialogue with the international S&R community.