Updated: March 4, 2000

The other night, as I was showing the heavens to the teens of my parish, one of the teens peppered me with questions about how to reconcile his faith with modern science. Questions that inevitably get asked in today's world: about evolution, creation, the Big Bang, science, God, intelligent life in the universe, and so on. The same questions routinely pop up on the only sane newsgroup on the Usenet that I read, sci.astro.amateur. Since I have no desire to engage in the "Holy Wars" on the Internet (been there, done that), I thought I'd try a different approach.

Thus, the idea for this page. My intention is not to proselytize those who do not profess the Christian faith, but merely to show how modern man can integrate faith and science rationally and reasonably without resorting to fundamentalism, be it of the religious or scientific variety. Nor do I intend to engage in polemics or caustic debate (all too easy to do on the Internet). My hope is that these questions will simply help those who are seeking after the truth with the wisdom that two thousand years of Christian thinkers can offer (minus all the polemics, mischaraterizations, and controversy). People have been debating these issues for centuries, consider this a brief introduction.

Finally, while my training is in science and theology (I even teach a course on fundamental theology), I consider myself an amateur at both. Thus, in my answers below, I will rely on the writings of people much wiser than I. While I will summarize and quote where I can, I urge you to follow the links to more in-depth reflections on these matters.

Feel free to e-mail me with any other questions that you would like to see addressed here.

Can science prove the existence of God? Short answer: no, if by "prove" you mean with emperical methods (those accesible to the human senses). Science, by definition deals only with that which can be known by experience and can be observed and measured. God, by definition, transcends mere human experience, and any personal experience of him is a gift, Grace, which cannot be measured or quantified. Thus, in the popular mind, the two are incompatible. But many great philosophers, theologians, and indeed scientists have "proved" the existence of God through human reason alone. St. Thomas Aquinas' famous "five ways" are just one example (Here's a good summary in syllogistic form, and here it is straight from the ox's mouth in Summa Theologiae Ia, q. 2, a. 3). One example will suffice: "Aquinas' Second Argument, Causality: (1) Some events cause other events. (2) If an event happens, then it must be caused by something outside of itself. (3) There can be no infinite cause/effect chains. (4) So, there is a first, uncaused cause. (5) Therefore God exists." Now, one can object to this argument by questioning its premises, but the argument itself and the truths deduced from it are not irrational or unreasonable, nor does it require "religious faith" to accept them.

But isn't it reasonable to reject anything that can't be proven scientifically? Quite the contrary, to reject purpose, design, or cause to the Universe would be to reject reason itself, as Pope John Paul said "To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements, and such a marvellous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be an abdication of human intelligence which would thus refuse to think, to seek a solution for its problems." (7/10/85) In other words, to seek the "purpose of it all" starting with the premise that "it's all chance" would a priori limit one's investigation. A scientist should at least be open to the idea of purpose, design, cause or transcendence, which as Fr. Stanley L. Jaki has pointed out, is the premise that gave birth to Western science in the first place. This is why the Pope said, "The scientist's condition as a sentinel in the modern world, as one who is the first to glimpse the enormous complexity together with the marvellous harmony of reality, makes him a privileged witness of the plausibility of religion, a man capable of showing how the admission of transcendence, far from harming the autonomy and the ends of research, rather stimulates it to continually surpass itself in an experience of self-transcendence which reveals the human mystery". (7/17/85)

More to come if anyone is interested!

Main What's New? About Dome Maps Lunar Planets Comets Deep Sky North Georgia Astro Links Faith and Science? Other Links