In the world today there’s many intellectuals with this parochial attitude shaped by a limited exposure to other disciplines outside their own craft. Then there’s the individual that is absent of higher education, suppresses the ego and is vastly open-minded for new knowledge. Our intellectual arguments for belief in God lie a fundamental cause of faith—we are hungry. We believe in God because we hunger for a world that is not structured randomness and mechanical by nature, but that is guided by a purpose. We have this predisposed elemental human hunger for purpose, virtue, and community. Our belief in God provides confidence that someone cares about us and because in our individual hearts, we want tenderness, love and a friend.

Some intellectuals will say that spiritual life is the result of evolution, and that this theory explains it all. I must say, Redwoods do not grow from spores; only mushrooms evolve from spores. According to evolutionists, Redwoods are somehow involved in spores to start with. So, following this line of reasoning in a world with spiritual life like the one we inhabit, we should accept an original world with spiritual life in it. According to evolution the evolved state must first of all have been involved prior to its evolution. Observe a seeker of God, they hold a spiritual life that’s unsatisfied without spiritual faith. This inclination shows us a clue about the spiritual life in us, it shows it must have been with us for quite some time, perhaps from the beginning—creation?…

God, being supernatural, infinite and omnipresent can never fully be comprehended by our imagination. Our intellect is motivated by a quest for deeper meaning, origin of creation and purpose. So, it is those who are not the seekers who must account for themself. As it stands there are fundamental questions concerning the existence and order of the universe that are unanswered across multiple disciplines.In Francis S. Collins work, The Language Of God, he states:

Altogether, there are fifteen physical constants whose values current theory is unable to predict. They are givens: they simply have the value that they have. This list includes the speed of light, the strength of the weak and strong nuclear forces, various parameters associated with electromagnetism, and the force of gravity. The chance that all of these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal. And yet those are exactly the parameters that we observe. In sum, our universe is wildly improbable.¹

 We shouldn’t be ignorant to the fact that all human minds are minuscule in knowledge with new possibilities imagined daily. Our knowledge being all that exists—there is no individual who knows more, and the unlimited possibilities beyond our understanding is not known by any other mind. We all can benefit in forming a world-view going beyond the particularities of our individual disciplines.

According to the Physicist John Polkinghorne, “The rational man is the credulous man – who trusts experience until it is found to mislead him – rather than the sceptic, who refuses to trust experience until it is found not to mislead him.”² The important question is how to distinguish a meaningful conclusion between the two. Throughout history there are those who deny true consensus which does not fit in with their world-view. I’m not advocating for either just merely stating an observation. The relationship of faith and truth is a complex and multifaceted issue with various perspectives grounded in objective truths and subjective experiences.

The truth seekers search is an intellectual adventure rather than the plain contentedness of traditional acceptance. Ultimately our search leads us to an understanding and our understanding leads to belief. Yet there’s still a curious crowd with ambiguity in their minds about general concepts, they may selectively gloss over knowledge that challenges their belief and are reluctant to acknowledge any divine activity within it. They will remain petrified and at a standstill in their unmature belief, believing their truth is the only truth.

Faith and Science

This discourse often revolves around how we understand the world. On one hand we have science emphasizing evidence and observation and faith on the other relying on belief and interpretation. What if we don’t delineate that science and faith should be in opposition? Under an unbiased observation they are simply different sides of the same coin in understanding the mystery of life.

A non-believer scientist or individual presents the scope of science with belief it can address questions of meaning and purpose, potentially challenging believer’s interpretations. Then believers may say that science is limited to explaining only the natural world. Both these persons may believe their stance as truth however the believer sees moral convictions not measurable in a laboratory. A brilliant demonstration by Fosdick,

We are certain that heat expands and cold contracts, and we can prove the fact and state its laws. But are we not also sure that it is wrong to lie and right to tell the truth? … Let us then set ourselves to prove our moral confidence by such methods as the physical laboratory can supply-with yardsticks, and Troy weight scales, and test tubes, and meters! At once it is evident that if we are to hold only such truth as is amenable to the demonstration of a laboratory, we must bid farewell to every moral conviction that hitherto has influenced our lives. God, banished because the physicist cannot prove him, will have good company in exile! ³

It appears that some convictions which we hold are not comparable to the sort of proof which a scientific laboratory provides. It is then evident that we are selective to which truths are demonstrated in a laboratory and which aren’t. Are we then mere hypocrites for selective exposure? Perhaps we should dismiss every moral conviction that has influenced our lives, since we can’t prove it?

Some may look to scientists and the specialized thinkers as the authority of knowledge. But we should be wary of the overzealous pride some carry and separate the ignorance from the science. If we examine the specialist, we may notice they habitually think intensely of nothing but that specialized discipline, with this their ideals can be easily speculated. A classic case of interest in one thing shutting out interest in others. In our society it’s almost by default that an expert in one discipline must be listened to with esteem in all subjects. Now their judgment on their specialty is highly valuable but to carry that admiration across multiple disciplines seems rash. If one abandons faith because of a specialist in another discipline rejecting it, it just highlights a naïve mindset. As Manning puts it, “Jesus Christ will always be a scandal to the murky, immodest theory-making of the intelligentsia, because he cannot be comprehended by the rational, scientific, and finite mind.” ⁴

Science and scientists are the detectives of our world. The scientific problems are not a matter for faith, it is a matter for investigation. Science can observe phenomena and explain its occurrence with the scientific method while faith can deal with the soul, spiritual meaning and divine purpose of this world. Some science will enter the territory of the world’s unknown mystery and suppose that by scientific observation and inference alone they can project the absolute truth of life. It’s quite common to see Laws or Evolution positioned as the makers and builders of the world. Law is only a statement summarizing our observations and experimental results in which things precisely occur. Law and Evolution have not created anything they just describe a mechanism and says nothing about the nature of its author.

An individual should lead their exploration with the heart, the mind, and the soul. One’s mind must find a way to embrace both realms. Science’s territory should be to explore nature. God’s territory should be the spiritual world, a realm not possible to explore with the tools and methods of science. We all have arrived at a stable worldview likely from sciences ability to explain the natural world. However, science is ineffective to answer our deep profound questions like “what is the meaning of life?” As humans we seem to process this deep desire to search for truth. It’s best if we bring the perspectives of both the scientific and spiritual experiences to grasp both what is seen and unseen. Some information is likely to challenge our fundamental worldview but if we’re intellectually honest and integrate both these views we can achieve a deeper understanding of the mysteries of life.

Ever since we have labeled ourself educated and “academics” we all too often look to science to solve the riddle of our lives. A view from Neil Postman on scientific authority:

In the end, science does not provide the answers most of us require. Its story of our origins and our end is, to say the least, unsatisfactory. To the question, “How did it all begin?”, science answers, “Probably by an accident.” To the question, “How will it all end?”, science answers, “Probably by an accident.” And to many people, the accidental life is not worth living. ⁵

In the past it wasn’t faith that created believe in God, it was the default world view. Fast forward to the present-day people appear more lost, confused and lacking purpose than past generations. If we listen to the way people present their thoughts and opinions, we’ll likely hear at the start or to finish a sentence “but that’s just the way I see it.” It looks as if we are lacking courage and conviction to stand in the gap and have strong willed beliefs. Please don’t interpret this as me saying anything against science, I am only saying what its role has seem to become and its effect on us.

Keep the faith,

Notes:

(1) Francis S. Collins, The Language Of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief (New York: Freepress, 2006), p. 74.

(2) John Polkinghorne, The Faith Of A Physicist (Minnesota: Fortress Press, 1996), p. 31.

(3) Harry Emerson Fosdick, The Three Meanings: Prayer, Faith, Service (New York: Garden City Books, 1951), pp. 109-110.

(4) Brennan Manning, Ruthless Trust (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2000), p. 55.

(5) Neil Postman, Science and the Story That We Need (First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life. The article appears in issue 69; 1997)