Science is a body of knowledge stemming from a process of experimentation. Scientific theories explain the phenomena being investigated. When something new is discovered, a new theory must replace the old one; hence science is never “settled” but always dynamic.
No scientific theory seems more well-attested than gravity. Everyone knows what gravity is: the attraction between any two objects of mass. Everyone knows that gravity is real; a common joke for people who describe some scientific finding as “just a theory” is to suggest they test the “theory” of gravity by jumping out a window. We can even calculate gravity’s effects with great accuracy and precision. For the longest time, scientists could do all these things without being able to show “how” one body attracted another. Many scientists searched (still do) for “gravitons,” invisible particles which moved between the masses to connect them. But they remain elusive.
Only in 1915 did Albert Einstein explain that mass distorts or bends “space-time,” causing smaller objects to move toward larger ones (i.e., gravity). Got that? Probably not. Most folks could spend a lifetime studying space-time and not quite get it. Mostly because it cannot be seen. We can measure how it works, see its effects in things like gravity, but the thing itself, space-time? Well, it remains elusive. But it does explain gravity, so we accept it.
What does that mean, that we accept it? It works, at least as far as we can tell. We believe it. We have faith in the scientists, the scientific method, and the theory.
Oh, there’s that word. “But, Pat,” you object, “we can prove it exists and works, so that’s not faith, it’s science!” Perhaps. But does gravity work the same way at the quantum level (very small) as it does on the cosmic level (very large)? Science still can’t tell if it does. But we trust in the scientists, the experimental results, because they represent what we can experience in real life: gravity. That trust, despite not being able to see gravitons or know exactly how space-time works? That’s faith, baby.
In a similar manner, consider mathematics, a pure art where truth is not abstract. Numbers are concrete things, and mathematical equations have a right and wrong answer. At the most basic level of math, there are equations and proofs which defy uncertainty. But the deeper you go in math, the fuzzier it gets. Get into algebra and physics, and you run into things called irrational numbers: numbers that can only be approximated, because the full understanding of the number is a non-repeating decimal sequence: √2 or π are irrational numbers. They are very real, but never exact.
Deeper still lie complex or imaginary numbers. What!?!? What is the square root of a negative number? Any negative times itself is positive, so the question in unsolvable without the creation of another axis (think of real plus and minus numbers being along a line) of numbers which have the identifier “i” added. Now the square root of negative four is two i (√-4 = 2i). Try to find these numbers in real life, and they remain (again) elusive . . . but important. Much of what we understand about electricity stems from working with imaginary numbers, and the same concepts are critical in calculus, necessary in so many other technological endeavors. The very name imaginary numbers points out the fact these can’t be seen, can’t be found, only theorized: believed in. Because they work.
“To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see.”
Hebrews 11:1
I frequently see friends on social media making derogatory statements about faith, of the sort, “I believe in reason, not faith,” “faith is blindly accepting some dogma or belief,” or “faith is unREASONABLE.” If faith were any of those things, I would agree with them. The truth is, faith is none of them, and the so-called reasonable people rely on faith, too. Religious faith is simply trust in God, a simple statement carried even on American currency (i.e., “In God We Trust”). Faith is not something we do, it is a gift, free to be accepted or rejected. The faithful receive the gift and trust the Giver, believing what God has said about how to live and what awaits those who do so faithfully. Those who reject the gift do not see (cannot see) what the faithful see.
Perhaps you have heard the phrase “for those with faith, no explanation is necessary; for those without faith, no explanation is possible” often applied to miraculous events. The faithful can simply accept what they see; the faithless can only question, but not explain. As is often the case, Saint Augustine of Hippo put it succinctly: crede ut intellegas, or “believe so that you may understand.” The faithful believe because it works: life becomes intelligible, even joyful, when one suddenly sees the world through the eyes of faith. Not carefree nor easy, mind you. But joy-filled. It just works.
What do we call people who refuse to believe something, even if it works? Some might be ignorant, simply unable to understand. Others might be delusional, unable to discern what’s real or what’s not. All of these folks deserve our empathy, as they face challenges no one would want to face. But what about people who know better, but still refuse to accept? That’s what I call un-reasonable!
Really love this one Pat—thanks!
Years ago, I watched an episode of John McLaughlin show, in which they were discussing Thomas Aquinas and his proofs of God’s existence in Summa Theologica. The discussion boiled down to one can’t “prove” God’s existence, or disprove it. McLaughlin, or one his guests said that you can, however, reason that God exists, which is what Aquinas had done.
My father, BTW, was a dyed in the wool Thomist as well as a one time Jesuit seminarian. His faith was very much centered in reason as a basis for faith.
One could observe that which seems miraculous and reason that there may be cause beyond understanding. The fact that we can’t explain or identify the cause doesn’t mean the thing didn’t happen. As we learn more, faith shifts but doesn’t dissipate. We know that evolution happened and happens still, which doesn’t mean we exist in an un-created universe. Rather, it means the story in Genesis is allegorical intead of literal. I always thought it interesting that the acts of creation, and sequence, parallel in broad fashion, the necessary elements of our planets present existence, starting with light; be it the big bang, or the frequency of solar radiation needed to trigger biological evolution.
In the ancient churches and religions, there remains a love of knowlege and learning and wonder that seems missing in what often passes for “faith” today. The defensive crouch that too many denominations assume in the face of doubt or criticism suggests they have lost faith in a belief in an omnipotent and loving God and replaced it with adherence to dogma and cant.
Excellent thoughts, Denis. You were lucky to have such an upbringing, and it shows! I sometimes muse aloud when we discover the next level of fundamental matter (atoms, then electrons/neutrons, then muons and quarks) that God smiles and says, “look what they found now! I wonder what they will think of the next level I prepare for them?!”
Pat . . . one of your better pieces. Reminds me of enjoying discussing theology with Jesuits as opposed to protestant evangelists. However, faith has never cured a disease though it has often calmed a troubled soul (if one believes in the soul). If ancient peoples were to see what we have learned from the scientific method, a good case could be made that their faith would be shaken; but per ATS III, absent facts about how ancient peoples processed facts, that’s an assumption and not a judgment. 😀 I’ll close by asserting that prior to the enlightenment, your argument would have caused you to be branded as a heretic, imprisoned, and likely tortured. And that illustrates how western liberalism has changed the perspective of faith-centered people in the last four hundred years. Keep the faith, but embrace measurable, scientific standards!
Thanks Bob! Not sure about the “faith never cured a disease” line in light of Lourdes, but of course we only have correlation there, not causation. As to the enlightenment, I would add I only would have been branded/imprisoned/tortured in the Monty Python version of history.