Exploring the Unseen: Navigating the Intersection of Science and Religion

Some of the early scientific explorers were people of faith.

As we make strides in better understanding our universe, we cannot help but be confronted by profound questions. Religion attempts to tackle some of these questions, offering insights into purpose, morality, and existence. Science attempts to explain how things work, not necessarily their purpose or inherent meaning. This dynamic interplay prompts us to consider that while these two domains are often viewed as distinct, they do not have to be mutually exclusive.

The Historical Context

Today, many consider religion and science entirely distinct realms. Yet, historically, this has not always been true. Many legendary scientists, such as Galileo, Newton, and Copernicus, were also deeply faithful individuals. For instance, Galileo famously said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

Isaac Newton is often quoted by both naturalists and Christians as a champion for their cause. Although I personally wouldn't subscribe to Newton's theological framework (often viewed as a non-trinitarian Arian heresy), he wrote extensively on Biblical truths such as the fact that Jesus is the Messiah and is coming again.

In his main body of work Principia, Newton extols the significant role God plays in the universe: "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being... This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all... The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect."

The Age of Enlightenment brought a shift in thinking about religion. As reason was injected into faith, many embraced a religious perspective known as Deism, which minimized the idea of God actively intervening in human affairs. As scientists began to accept only empirical evidence in their search for truth, a rift was formed, leading to an ongoing struggle between observation and belief.

The Core Issues

At the core of the science-religion debate is a crucial difference in approaches. Science leans on observation, experimentation, and evidence-based results. For example, the theory of gravity is confirmed through extensive experimentation and can be demonstrated with precise calculations. Or you can test it yourself and observe the results. In contrast, religion depends on faith, tradition, and personal belief. It may focus on subjective experiences, such as answered prayers, or it could include the fulfillment of prophetic revelations as indicated in the scriptures.

I've always been curious about the oft-quoted definition of faith in the Bible. From Paul's letter to the Hebrews, in the eleventh chapter, it states, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Isn't that circular reasoning? The Oxford Dictionary defines faith this way: a strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. In other words, a belief in something even when there is no proof. Faith is even at odds with the dictionary, it seems.

For many years, I had a hard time reconciling these two seemingly contradictory definitions until a revelation dawned on me (or the Holy Spirit opened my eyes). Faith is so much more than a belief. Faith is an action. I'm sure there are tons of theologians and Bible scholars who would say, no kidding. Duh! After studying the rest of Hebrews Chapter 11, I read about Old Testament saints from Abel to Abraham, Moses, and Gideon who all had been gifted with a faith that led them to take action which pleased God. All of them were flawed humans, yet their actions were deemed noteworthy and faithful.

Another verse that has haunted me is James 2:19: "You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!" Believing in God is not enough; if we claim faith in the Christian doctrine of salvation and eternal life, we must live it out in our daily lives. In other words, we must live as though God's words are true.

This divergence raises important questions: Can scientific observations sufficiently explain existential queries? Conversely, do religious insights hold up when tested against scientific methods? Is this a requirement for belief?

Attempting to Bridge the Gap

Prominent figures, such as Francis Collins, a geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, advocate for a union of faith and science. Collins supports the idea of theistic evolution, positing that evolution may be the process through which a divine being orchestrated life. This view seeks to align scientific discovery with spiritual understanding, suggesting that both areas can deepen our comprehension of existence.

Bible-believing Christians with a fundamental foundation may have a problem with Collins's view. This has led to extensive debates in Christian circles as to the way the Bible should be best interpreted. If the literal interpretation is accurate, scientific theories such as evolution do not seem to fit.

Limitations

The truth is, both science and faith have their limitations for explanation. There are certain qualities of the known universe that are quite complex and could be considered, if not contradictory, then significantly limited by human observation and understanding (e.g., is light a wave or is it a particle?). The advancement of scientific achievements throughout history demonstrates that the more we learn about our world, the deeper and more complex it gets. In my humble opinion, scientists who endeavor to explore these unknowns should be equipped with the proper foundations for discovery. To put it bluntly, if one's view of the world is atheistic, all of the underlying assumptions regarding scientific discovery will be based on the premise that there is no God. What if that foundational premise is wrong? Does that not impact the entire framework?

Contractor 1: Let's build a tower!

Contractor 2: Yes, we will start with the foundation.

Contractor 1: We don't need one.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? What about the perceived inability of religion to comport with certain known scientific principles? Did God really stop the sun and moon in the sky to give Joshua's army more daylight to fight their enemies? The more liberal theologians will write this off as hyperbole or poetry, an assertion that it was an ancient text with limited means to explain natural occurrences. Perhaps. Although if there is a God and He is indeed omnipotent, could He not suspend physical laws to accomplish His goals?

The Unknown

What about UAPs and aliens? In Maskirovka, I attempt to reveal one particular perspective: a unification not only of the spiritual and the scientific, but of mainstream religion as a key component in the mix. It is not intended to be a slight on the church, but rather one perspective on humanity's potential response to uncertainty and the demonstration of hidden powers.

Perhaps I've got it all wrong. Great. If this were a scientific experiment, we would then know which answer it isn't. Honestly, I hope I am wrong, because the implications of my story are far more frightening than any horror movie could portray. Maybe that's why I wrote it. As they say, truth can be stranger than fiction. I'm just trying to rule out the bad options.

Embracing the Journey

As you can see, I'm coming down heavily in favor of faith in this essay. I'm not a theologian, nor am I a scientist. I'm just an observer and a sinner who knows the depths of God's mercy and love. I know that miracles can happen, although not necessarily when and how we want them to. In a way, my life is a walking testimony to both the mercy of God and the miracles of modern science.

In 2010, I had a massive heart attack that should have killed me. The cause of this was a mystery. I was in good health, with a consistent workout routine and a healthy diet. I don't smoke, nor do drugs. When I was rushed into the ER on that fateful April morning, cardiologists discovered my LAD artery was completely clogged. They call a clot in this particular artery the "widow-maker" because so few survive. The nurse told my wife that they were doing all they could to save my life, but it didn't look good. My wife and friends prayed, and a wonderful cardiac surgeon used modern science to save my life.

Over that past fifteen years, I know of at least three people who had a similar experience, but were not as fortunate as me.

My life right now is a miracle. I shouldn't be here. I am thankful for the wonders of modern medicine, but I also know that there was a reason I survived an ordeal so many others have not. I intend to use whatever is left of my life, whether it is a single day or many years, to give glory and honor to my creator, the maker of the universe and, most importantly, my Savior Jesus Christ.

The ongoing dialogue between science and religion does not have to be a battlefield; rather, it can become an opportunity for growth and understanding. Each domain offers unique insights into the human experience, encouraging us to contemplate our beliefs about existence. In my view, the bottom line when it comes to both science and religion is that we as humans do not yet have all the answers.