Taking it on Faith

I really like reading Paulius' blog. He's sharp and witty, but more importantly he makes people think. A couple of days ago, he wrote another rant against the recent rise of Christian pseudo-science. For the most part, I agree with what he's got to say. I believe that our universe is millions or billions of years old, not a few thousand. I believe in evolution. I believe in science.

But I also believe in God. Just as science has provided me with ample proof of certain fundamental laws, God has offered me sufficient evidence of His existence. I cannot scientifically prove His existence, and it's certainly not something tangible. But that's what faith is all about. Faith, by definition, is a belief that is not based on proof. I have faith in God. But I've also got faith in science.

Faith in science may seem a little contradictory. It is. After all, science is based on theories... physical evidence... laws. Isn't that proof? Uh, yeah. Proof is simply the existence of enough evidence to establish something as true. By that definition, God has given me sufficient indication of His existence to establish truth. I am taking this evidence on faith, just as I am taking the aforementioned scientific evidence on faith.

How do I reconcile these wildly different beliefs? I don't always succeed here, but the first step in meshing these divergent doctrines is to realize that the Bible was written by men, not by God. Since man is inherently fallible, the Bible cannot be error-free. God speaks to a man, and the man writes the word. The simple translation from divine inspiration to written word is prone to mistakes because it has passed through the mind of a creature with a limited understanding of the universe.

This same thing applies to science. Certain fundamental "laws" of science have been proven completely inaccurate over time... the earth is flat... "bleeding" sick patients... you get the idea. In the end, the best I can do is acknowledge that I don't have all of the answers. But I do have faith that one day all will be revealed.

One area where I completely agree with Paulius though, is that fundamentalist Christians who refuse to believe science are complete crack-pots. Just because the Bible says it's error-free does not make it so. Heck, the Catholic Church (I'm not Catholic by the way) believes in the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, yet that same church has had popes overturn previous popes' infallible statements. How can this work? One infallible entity cannot claim that another infallible entity was wrong while maintaining the perfection of both. It simply doesn't work. Besides, I can claim to be infallible as well. That doesn't make it so. This is one area where science has an edge on religion.

Science on the other hand, requires definitive proof for everything. If I can't provide sufficient evidence of a given belief, my idea isn't good enough. Science doesn't allow any room for faith. This is where religion has an edge. Religion without science is an ignorant existence, and science without religion is hollow. The zealots on both sides of this argument need to realize that there's room for both doctrines. It is arrogant of an atheistic science to refuse to acknowledge the existence of God simply because His existence cannot be "proven." Likewise, it is ignorant of the religious right to ignore the demonstrated laws of science. I'm taking it on faith that there's room for both disciplines.