Persuading to Believe?

Are science and religion compatible?  Some would say that if your religion happens to be science, then yes, they are.  I'm not a scientist, yet I see a great need for science in the evolution of humanity.  I'm also not a great theologian, and yet, even I have a faith in what I do not see; a faith in something, some power, greater than myself, greater than all of us and everything.  I think, one day, science will find proof of the forces of darkness and light, of good and evil in our universe.  I think science will also prove that we have the ability, through our faith, or lack thereof, to draw these forces into our realm and to strengthen or weaken those same forces, or to banish either from our lives.  

For the spiritual among us, Saint Augustine defined our ability to step up in the face of science's lack of required proof by explaining, "Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe."  Science and faith are not mutually exclusive.  Science continually validates our faith in a power greater than ourselves.  This may be confusing to the pure scientist that insists the universe can always be explained with science and has no concept as to why the faithful can see God's hand at work in all things.  

I wonder if it ever occurred to science that putting the hand of God into their equations might make more sense than leaving it out.  Science is supposed to consider everything in the search for truth, yet if science doesn't consider God, aren't they guilty of not considering everything in their work?  Couldn't one claim the lack of considering everything as poor scientific method, even if part of that being considered is itself unproven?  How many times has science said impossible just to have that same "impossible" sneak up from behind and bite them in the ass?

"...credibility is one of the most useful tools a Christian has in trying to persuade those skeptical of the Christian faith."

-- Dr. Jeff Zweerink, astrophysicist

Science will never be able to disprove the existence of God as long as all the proof they continue to accumulate strengthens the belief that there is, in fact, a supreme power at work in the universe.  What name science gives this power is of little consequence to the true person of faith who will simply smile and say, "Yes, you are correct.  This is a power we, of faith, call God."  I disagree with Dr. Jeff Zweerink when he states "credibility is one of the most useful tools a Christian has in trying to persuade those skeptical of the Christian faith."  I disagree with it for only one reason; it presupposes people of faith should be trying to persuade skeptics.  You cannot persuade a skeptic that does not want to believe, any more than you can save the poor from their poverty if they don't want to work.  There will always be poor and skeptics among us.  Persuasion has a nasty tendency to morph into demanding or involuntary compliance, which is evidenced throughout history and is currently playing out in radical Islamic sociopathic philosophy.

One cannot be persuaded to believe unless they have the desire to believe.  It is a fundamental truth that you can enslave a free body but you can never enslave a free mind, as long as that mind is able and willing to exercise the ability to choose.  We can choose to be slaves, or we can choose not to be.  We can choose to believe and we can also choose not to.  Credibility of an argument to persuade is only as good as the data, and the interpretation of that data, being presented.  Any factual data on faith, religion, God, etc., has little meaning if the faith in one's interpretation falls on deaf ears.  Radical Islam produces an interpretation of "facts" (scripture) for which they have great faith, yet one does not need to have great knowledge of the Qur'an to know that any loving God would not condone the outright slaughter of innocence put on this world by that very same God.  This is tantamount to a religion admitting God makes mistakes.

How can we ever hope to persuade when we have scripture rife with angels delivering messages to mankind admitting mistakes that God wishes man to make right?  Mistakes?  Wouldn't we have to suppose God's plan went a tad askew if God wants man to straighten something out?  Wouldn't it make more sense to just see that God put innocence in the world and expects man to protect it at all costs?  Wouldn't it make more sense to point out to the followers of evil that, perhaps, their interpretation of the simple desires of God might, as usual, have been screwed up by mankind?  How much persuasion is necessary when you can show any mother the film or photos of five year old children being cut in half?  When motherhood accepts the slaughter of innocence, what possible argument, credible or not, can ever convince this kind of evil their path is not a righteous path?

So, what factual persuasion are we left with?  What scientific persuasion should we rely on?  In the case of evil infecting our world, do the "good" of mankind take up arms against the "evil" and do as one network news contributor recommended, "kill them all, kill them all again, and then kill their dog," because that is the only solution evil will understand?  When does scientific fact bow to a philosophy of faith in the battle of good and evil?  It would seem we might want to consider that, even philosophically, there is room for good scientific process tempered and assisted by righteous spiritual faith as much as there is room for the same good scientific process to prove belief in that very same spiritual faith.

I guess one needs to ask why in all our religious and spiritual philosophies, scientific endeavor is allowed a role, yet science denies the existence of a power that might just help provide essential proof for some complicated theory?  I think, if we were to ask a scientist, we might find an equation where a symbol has been used to cause a theory to make sense, to make the theory probable, if not possible.  Gee, all we would have to do is persuade the scientific community to name that symbol, that particle if you will, God.

Persuade science to name something a God particle?  Wouldn't hell freeze over first, that is, if science concedes to hell's existence?  Well, it would seem we're spending billions of dollars in a scientific search of the very element, the being of which many in the scientific community would deny the existence of, and probably deny it many more than three times.  Maybe we should have a little faith.  Heaven only knows, the Answer might just present Itself.  Wouldn't that be something?  What could it hurt?

Just saying... 

Editor's Note 

(re: disclaimer cum "get out of jail free" card) 

Before you go getting your panties in a bunch, it is essential to understand that this is just an opinion site and, as such, can be subjected to scrutiny by anyone with a differing opinion. It doesn't make either opinion any more right or wrong than the other. An opinion, presented in this context, is a way of inciting others to think and, hopefully, to form opinions of their own, if they haven't already done so.

It is my fervent hope that we keep open and active minds when reading opinions and then engaging in peaceful, constructive, discussion and debate in an arena of mutual respect concerning the opinions put forth. After over twenty years as a military intelligence analyst, planner, and briefer, I have come to believe engaging each other in this manner and in this arena is the way we will learn tolerance and respect for differing beliefs, cultures, and viewpoints.

We all fall from grace, some more often than others; it is part of being human. God's test for us is what we do afterward, and what we learn from the experience.

Frank Anthony Villari (aka, Pastor Tony)

Pastor Tony is founder of the Congregation for Religious Tolerance and author/editor of the Congregation's official blog site, "The Path."