Persuading to Believe? (Updated and corrected from 1/4/2016)

Are science and religion compatible?  Some would say 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 even I have faith in some of what I don't 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.  Science will also prove 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, yet, scientists find it hard to give religion a pass.  This may be confusing to the pure scientist, who insists the universe can always be explained with science.  The scientist has no concept of why the faithful can see God's hand working 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 the majority of science doesn't consider the hand of God, aren't they guilty of not considering everything in their work?  Couldn't one claim the lack of considering everything 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

Science will never be able to disprove the existence of God as long as all the proof they deny continues to accumulate strength in that belief there is 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, as an aside, is currently playing out in radical Islamic sociopathic philosophy.

One cannot be persuaded to believe unless they have a desire to do so. 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.  The 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. I would bring up Adam and Eve, but...

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 see that God puts 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 Islamic heretics cutting five-year-old children 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 righteous?

So, what factual persuasion are we left with?  What scientific persuasion should we rely on?  In the case of evil infecting our world, will 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." Is this 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.

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?  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 view any more right or wrong than the other. Opinion, presented in this context, is a way of inciting others to think and, hopefully, to form their own opinions, if they haven't already done so. This is also why, occasionally, I will present an "opinion" just to stir an emotional pot. Where it may sound like I agree with the statements made, I'm more interested in getting others to consider an alternate viewpoint.

I fervently hope that we keep open and active minds when reading opinions while engaging in peaceful and constructive discussion in an arena of mutual respect concerning those opinions offered. After twenty-three years of military intelligence, I believe that engaging each other in this manner, and in this arena, is a 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 learn from the experience... and what we do afterward.

Pastor Tony spent 22 years with United States Air Force Intelligence as a planner, analyst, briefer, instructor, and senior manager. Following his service career, he spent 17 years working with the premier and world-renowned Western Institutional Review Board, helping to protect the rights of human subjects involved in pharmaceutical research. He also served 8 years on the Board of Directors for the Angela J. Bowen Foundation.

Ordained in 2013 as an "interfaith" minister, he founded the Congregation for Religious Tolerance in response to intolerance shown by Christians toward peaceful Islam. As a weapon for his war on intolerance, he chose the pen. He wages his "battle" in the guise of the Congregation's official online blog, The Path, of which he is both author and editor. "The Path" offers a vehicle for commentary and guidance concerning one's personal, spiritual path toward peace and the final destination for us all. He resides in Pass Christian, Mississippi, where he volunteered as the lead chaplain at a regional medical center.

Feel free to contact Pastor Tony at: tolerantpastor@gmail.com