Balancing Reason and Faith

Share

I ran the gauntlet at work today over the notion that I am both a man of science as well as a man of faith. People in academia, but in science in particular, seem to find it not only odd but contradictory that I could be a member of both camps. They seem prone to deal in absolutes, that “if, then” or “if not, then”, and I even got to hear someone project behavior onto all people who believe in a supreme being even though she hasn’t even met a majority of believers. Science and Religion are complimentary.

Done correctly, both science and religion both arrive at the same end using different methods. Science deals with the empirical, the measureable, the visible. I do not need to go into the historical evidence from Talaro’s Microbiology book on how the Germ theory evolved and was solved only once van Leuweenhoek developed the first microscope. Just because we cannot see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or isn’t true. Religion bridges the gap between what we observe and cannot explain and what we understand. It takes on faith things that are unseen and poorly understood but which are still true.

The problem with both pursuits is that they’re both handled by men. Men of faith are by definition fallen, and as soon as you put another person between you and the divine, you introduce error into the communication. Also, we know that most communication isn’t verbal, but most of the scripture to which we have access is just words. God, like my dog when he shows me he’s happy to see me, or the plants out front, does not communicate by calling me up, emailing, or sending me texts. He communicates with me without talking with me, via impressions, feelings, and thoughts. Men of science likewise often get in the way because they are not looking for truth. I have been saying for some time that most people are not interested in truth as much as they hope that the truth will happen to corroborate that in which they already believe. So, they bend facts to fit theories, project things and jump to conclusions. I have been telling my students for years that “Science doesn’t prove anything. It removes all other possibilities until only the truth remains.” Since we are limited in our ability to conceive all possibilities and test those of which we conceive, we have arrived at very little truth.

Far too many people are not interested in truth. They are interested in rule by men, rule by opinions. Too many religious people try to speak for God, dictate to Him, and order Him around the universe rather than seeking the truth from Him and submitting to it. They want God to agree with them. When the rules are just, the wicked man changes the rules to fit his behavior and the righteous man changes his behavior to fit the rules. Science tries to bend facts to fit theories. They begin their experiments trying to prove their hypothesis rather than finding evidence to reject the opposite notion. Far too many scientific conclusions jump the shark, but when something is disproved later, there is very little hubbub, and nobody loses their PhD when their work is debunked.

The different camps of Reason and Faith could be in cooperation. Members of the camps compete, usually because they believe they are absolutely correct and because they take it as a personal assault if they are proven to be incorrect. I am happy to be proven wrong. In fact, there are several instances that come to mind where I would have rather been wrong. However, Reason and Faith are actually in cooperation, being two different ways in which we search for truth. The degree to which you are open to truth determines how well you tolerate members of the camp in which you spend the least time.

Different people react differently to visits from the other camp. I have one atheist friend who gave me the secret to this. He told me that he keeps in mind the words at all times, “I might be wrong”. Since he is willing to admit that he might have something to learn, we are able to communicate and have meaningful discussions. However, a lady I know compared me to the Son of Sam today when I told her that God communicates with me. “Do you mean to tell me that the only two people you know on earth who claim God communicates with them are a serial killer and me?” She was absolutely convinced she was right and was completely unwilling to entertain anything I had to say. In fact, she demanded that I prove there was a God, but she holds herself to no obligation whatsoever to prove that she is right. Doubtless she will take that as proof that there is no God that I couldn’t prove His existence to her satisfaction. That sounds like a logical fallacy to me…

I find it interesting how many people who claim to base things on facts and logic take to so many emotional positions. In order for either science or faith to work, the people who practice them MUST be actually searching for, open to, and accepting of truth when they find it, especially if it challenges what they believe right now. My closest friend, despite affirming that he follows the example of Spock and bows to reason over emotion, takes quite a few emotional stances or takes a stance for emotional reasons. As human beings, emotions play a part in all of our decisions, but when I make decisions while riddled with emotion, I make irrational decisions, and I suspect that is true of most people.

Being a member of both the Science and Faith camps is actually quite easy. As a professor, I have given exams with multiple choice questions where sometimes the answer was more than one of the above. Why must it be either Science or Faith? Why can’t it be BOTH? I do not need evidence to believe in God. If I knew He existed, that would be knowledge and not faith, but that would benefit nobody because you would probably think I was bonkers. I have nothing to lose. If I’m wrong, we’re all dead when we die and nothing matters, but because I am right, I have another existence to which I look forward in which I will be rewarded for choosing to believe. Besides, if others mock you for faith, you’re in good company. Even Leonidas and his 300 did what they did for faith, family, and freedom. It was completely irrational, but the logicians point to him as a hero. His faith and his logic led him to die on that field, and if I die on this one, it will be my victory, for I will have been true to the truth, or at least that portion I was willing and able to receive and wisely use.