Living for truth — of science and religion

I love science. I don’t know a whole lot about science, but I love the desire to know the truth about our physical reality. It’s similar to a desire I have to know the truth about our supernatural reality.

A story in today’s Washington Post titled “Physics rule broken? European scientists claim neutrinos traveled faster than speed of light,” illustrates why I love science. This finding may prove to be in error, but scientists are scrambling to find out. I love this quote:

“We’d be thrilled if it’s right because we love something that shakes the foundation of what we believe,” said famed Columbia University physicist Brian Greene. “That’s what we live for.”

This is the opposite of what you often get in the religious world. Religionists don’t like to have their foundations shaken. I would simply say this, our desire in understanding the supernatural world should be the same as science’s desire to understand the physical world. We should be seeking to know the truth, because, as Jesus said, the truth sets you free.

Pope Benedict XVI said this recently at the University of Regensburg in Germany on Sept. 13:

“The scientific ethos, moreover, is … the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit.”

Some religionists don’t like science, and the main reason is fear. Why? If we are confident in our faith, we have no need to fear what science will discover.

Obviously, science and scientists are not without flaw. Some people are basically science religionists. Science is their religion; it’s their god. Science and religion do not make good gods. Only God is God.

3 thoughts on “Living for truth — of science and religion

  1. Even though I come from a different direction (I know a thing or two about science; about religion, not so much), I agree with you. A true God will not be threatened by our attempts to understand the universe. Moreover, I do respect much more a God so incredibly wise, capable of coming up with a scheme to create matter with the eventual property to self- ornanize into something alive and eventually sentient, than in a mere magician who just says ” Let it be”.

  2. Well said, Baldscientist. I had never thought of this in the terms you used–“a scheme to create matter with the eventual property to self-organize into something alive and eventually sentient.” On the magician thing, it is amazing how much some people’s religion is more about magic than about reality. I think reality is amazing enough. Thanks for commenting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s