When we were recently in Lynda’s hometown, Meade Kansas, we went to a library surplus book sale. We don’t need another book in this house, but such a sale is an irresistible tractor beam, so we went. I picked up two used books for a quarter each. One was on the British romantic poets. The other was some correspondence of Bertrand Russell.

I knew nothing about Russell, other than the name and a vague idea he was an atheist, or an anti-Christian, but don’t know where I got that idea. I’ve read nothing he wrote, no biography of him, nothing. I suppose his name might have been in something I read, but if so, I don’t remember anything about him. But I knew he was an important man. I won’t go into a bio of “Lord” Russell in this post. Let’s just say I know more about him now than I did before, though not as much as I feel I ought to know. More research is needed. I’m only about 40 pages into the book.

In response to one letter to him dealing with his atheism, Russell replied (on 2 December 1964) with this statement.

I think that all religions consist at least in part of believing things for which there is no evidence and I think that in face of such beliefs loyalty to evidence should be substituted.

That got me thinking about religion and science. People are often categorized as being either of faith or of science. “He’s a man of faith,” is a statement frequently heard. Or, the converse, “He’s a man of science.” This latter statement is usually presented as science being exclusive of faith, while the former seems to be neutral on science, or so it seems to me. I guess my question is: Why can’t it be both?

Science is obvious, especially since the scientific method came into vogue. You observe, experiment, document, and conclude. The result is a snippet of information for which there is evidence. The moon is not made of green cheese. It’s made of rock. Barnacles don’t grow without parentage (i.e. via spontaneous generation) as once thought. They are spawned. Disease isn’t caused by evil spirits, but by germs.

We can’t see these germs with the naked eye, of course. It takes a microscope. I remember the fun in university science lab, where we looked at a wastewater sample under the microscope and a rotifer propelled itself across the part of the sample in view. Now that was exciting! While we haven’t seen the germs, we read that others have seen them, observed them, documented what they do, and conclude that germs are real. Faith isn’t required to believe in germs. Nor in atoms, nor the parts of the atom. Well, maybe a little faith that those who have done the experimentation/observation have accurately concluded and reported. But what with peer reviews, etc., not much faith.

Going out the other way, we now have powerful telescopes. They give us evidence of what stars are, how far away they are, the different types of stars, and a whole lot about them. They give us evidence of galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and the incredible distance from ours to others. Faith is not involved.

But where did it all come from? The most powerful space-based telescopes, seeing light from a long time ago, are starting to give us hints of the universe’s forming. But it really doesn’t tell us the why.

Science is constantly changing. I remember a college chemistry professor telling us what a professor of his had told him 25 years earlier. That prof had said, “Forty percent of what I teach you will eventually be proven untrue.” I think that prof was correct. As science advances, as more experiments are conducted and observations expanded, our knowledge changes. That’s not a negative. That’s a good thing.

But it does remind us that science, in general, is a moving target, constantly changing as knowledge increases.

On the other hand, there is faith, which for this post I’ll define as belief in something for which you don’t have evidence. Belief in God, in His sovereignty. That God created all that we can see and experience. How wonderful is faith! How wonderful it makes the world. How it expands on the enjoyment of all that is around us.

I suppose I get a bit irked when I see things such as “Evidences for God”. I don’t read them any more. I remember reading on-line the transcript of a debate between an atheist and a Christian. Both gave long opening arguments. Then they got into their main, prepared arguments. The Christian debater went to great lengths to prove mathematically that God existed. What? Who needs evidence? Who needs proof? I quit reading after a couple of paragraphs.

I prefer to believe in God by faith. I need no evidence other than that described by the apostle Paul in Romans 1.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

But that’s still a matter of faith, not of science. I’m sticking to faith, which enhances science. Does science confirm faith? Doesn’t matter. Faith needs no confirmation.

I’m going on in this life by faith. Come along with me.