What It Means to Be Finite

In the past 20 months in this blog, we have asked questions about Christianity that are centuries old but which have never been adequately resolved.  One question deals with an aspect of the human condition that Christians do not want to deal with:  We are finite.  One reason might be this issue calls into question certain aspects of our theology.  For example:

  1. Being finite means we do not have the time or talent to learn everything we need to know about life, about ourselves, about God.  Being finite means we do not have access to all the information we need to make correct decisions.  Because of this fact, there are people in our world who will not believe in Christ because they either have not heard of Jesus or their culture and/or religion tell them Jesus is irrelevant.  How can God be a God of love and justice and yet condemn such people to hell?
  2. Being finite means God constructed our existence so certainty in regards to historical events is not absolute.  For example, while there is substantial evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, there will always remain an element of doubt.  So how can God condemn people to hell for not believing in something for which they cannot obtain certain proof?
  3. Being finite means that most of our beliefs are not under our control.  Our beliefs are mainly formed by the culture in which we were raised and by our experiences.  Another person with very different experiences and considering very different evidences could come to a very different belief system than a Christian would.  How can God condemn a person to hell because his/her life experiences are different?
  4. Being finite means, as William Lane Craig says in his book Reasonable Faith, Christianity can only be shown to be probably true. [1]  As my blogs of June 20, 2012 through July 11, 2012 show, that it is true in all areas of our lives.  Even our science cannot provide us with absolute proof on any topic.  We can only have certainty for things that occur within our space and time.  The problem Christianity faces is that it teaches we must believe in Jesus Christ or we will spend eternity in hell.  On an issue a crucial as our eternal fate, it would seem that God would give us more proof than mere probability

What the above questions demonstrate is that Christianity has failed to deal with the facts of the human condition (which is the way God made us).  If we are to be intellectually honest, we must deal with these facts.  In the next few blogs we will propose a solution that will deal with the facts of the human condition and also conform to Biblical teachings.


[1]   William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, Wheaton, IL:  Crossway, 2008, p. 55.

Posted in Reasons | Leave a comment

Theories of Life

In the last blog, I made the comment that our beliefs are like scientific theories and I would like to expand upon that topic in this blog.

Henri Poincairé in his book The Foundations of Science notes that experiments are the source of scientific truth; they are the foundation of science. [1[  He also notes that “a collection of facts [experiments] is no more a science than a heap of stones a building”. [2]  The stones must have some order if they are to be a building and our experiments must have some order if they are to be a science.  The reason is because our experiments can only examine a very limited number of almost infinite number of events that occur in our universe.  If we are to understand something about our world and universe, we must bring order to our limited number of experiments and facts by constructing theories.  These theories take the limited number of observation we have made and make sense of, or explains them and our world.  These theories also give us ideas on how to construct additional experiments which can either refute or support the theory and further expand our knowledge.

Our beliefs are no different.  As we stated in our blog of March 6, 2012, any person observant of the world around us recognizes that our choices are infinite.  Each day we make decisions that change our lives.  Our life is different because of the school we attend, the career we choose, the marriage partner we select, the friends with whom we associate.  Many of the decisions we face involve many unknowns.  So how can we make the right choices when our ability to gain all the needed facts is so limited?  To make these decisions, we must have some theory of how our world is constructed.  Our beliefs are our theories.  When we face situations where we do not have all the facts, we depend upon our theories of how our world, our life, is constructed to help us make the right decision.

While our beliefs can help us make the decisions we need to make, how do we know our beliefs are correct?  In the past few blogs, we have seen the difficulty of answering that question.


[1]   Henri Poincaré, The Foundations of Science (Lancaster, PA:  The Science Press, 1946), p. 127.

[2]   Poincaré, p. 127.

Posted in Reasons | Leave a comment

Beliefs and Theories

Our beliefs are our theories about how the world is constructed, about how life is structured.  In a way, our beliefs are like scientific theories.  Scientists take what knowledge they have about the natural world from the experiments they perform and construct theories to explain how the natural world works.  Sometimes new experiments change those theories; sometimes new experiments confirm old theories.  In the same way, our life experiences together with our rational self either confirm or refute our beliefs.

A few days ago, I watched a movie on TV entitled “Fog of War”  It was an interview with Robert McNamara and he was describing the lessons he had learned over his life time as a bombing analyst during World War II, as a business executive, and as Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War.  One lesson he learned was that “belief and seeing are both often wrong”.  Our beliefs about how the world is constructed are not always accurate because, as we stated in the last blog, our beliefs are based upon the society in which we live and our life experiences.  McNamara’s point was that we must be willing to reevaluate our beliefs and to question what we see if we are serious about knowing what is true.

I wish God had made it simpler.  I wish he had given us indisputable proof that he exists, that the Bible is his word to us, and that Jesus rose from the dead.  But he did not.  God has structured our existence so we are limited in our knowledge of both material and spiritual matters, in our ability to know good and evil, in our capacity to know what is true.  And we must deal with that fact.

Posted in Reasons | Leave a comment


As we have learn in the past year in the discussions we have had in this blog, given the current state of our technology and knowledge we cannot have certainty with regard to matters outside our space and time.  The implication for Christianity is that we cannot have absolute proof for the existence of God, for the Bible as the word of God, and for the resurrection of Jesus.  For many, this is sufficient reason to discard belief in Christianity.  The problem with this approach is that there is not a single belief system in the world, including agnosticism and atheism, which does not face the same dilemma.  No one can prove the validity of their belief system.  That is just the human condition.

Dr. James F. Sennett observes the various belief systems of the world have rational parity which means for every problem one raises about a particular belief, there is an equal and opposite problem for the opposing beliefs. [1] If we decide to change our belief system, we might resolve a few issues but we will acquire a different set of questions.  We will simply exchange one set of problems for another.

Dr. Sennett also points out another problem with beliefs:  Most of our beliefs are not under our control.  “We simply form beliefs as a direct result of experiences we undergo and evidence we consider.” [2]  Another person with very different experiences and considering very different evidences could come to a very different belief system than I would.  For example, I am taking a class in Business Ethics.  One of our assignments was to interview someone very different that us.  I chose to interview an atheist.  The person I interviewed was raised in the Christian community and went to a Bible college just like I did.  He told me he did not want to be an atheist but he was driven to that belief by rational thought.  In some ways he sounded like a Christian in quoting various people, in describing scientific results, and in citing history to support his point of view.  However, his different life experiences led him to a very different belief system than I had.

Another example of the fact that our beliefs are not totally under our control is the question of whether we can convince ourselves that Abraham Lincoln was never the president of the United States?  Can we convince ourselves that World War II never happened?  Much of what we believe is dependant upon the culture and age in which we live.  We simply cannot and do not control much of what we believe.

Given all the problems with beliefs, do beliefs matter?  Beliefs do matter.  In my interview with the atheist, he brought up the point that if you believe the world will end in 10 years, you will not be very concerned about the environment.  If you believe Allah will send you to heaven with 72 virgins if you kill infidels, then you will kill infidels and your belief system will matter, particularly to those who you kill.  William Clifford states that our beliefs eventually become our actions; our beliefs influence others and succeeding generations. [3]

While our beliefs do matter, it is apparent they are not what is ultimately important.


[1]   James F. Sennett, The Reluctant Disciple:  A Postmodern Apologetic (an unpublished book), chapter 3, pp. 1-2.

[2]   Sennett, chapter 3, pp. 12-13.

[3]   A. J. Berger, Editor.  The Ethics of Belief (Lexington, KY:  Self published, 2008

Posted in Reasons | Leave a comment

The Role of Religion

Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg note the importance of religion in the science fiction novel Nightfall. [1]  Nightfall is about a world that has six suns and has perpetual light.  All the people have a collective, instinctual fear of darkness.  An amusement park ride that placed people in darkness is shut down because so many experience such terror that they become mentally unbalanced and some die.  The dominant religion is the Apostles of Flame and they predict a coming darkness, the appearance of stars, and the world ending in fire.  Needless to say, the general population considers them to be, at best, eccentric.  But the astronomers on this world discover that every 2,049 years the five suns set, the remaining sun is eclipsed by another planet, and darkness descends on the world.  Archeology shows several previous civilizations that have ended in fire and the time between the fires is 2,049 years.  The book spends considerable time on the conflict between the scientists and religion.

The book is notable because it demonstrates that scientists have prejudices and assumptions (taking certain facts on faith) like religion does.  It also points out the problems with religion:  a tendency to be dogmatic and unwilling to change.  In the end, after the darkness and the catastrophe it brings, several scientists decide to join the Apostles of Flame because they decide it is the best way to rebuild their civilization and to prepare for the next darkness.

Nightfall asks how one should pass critical information down several centuries and suggests that religion is the best way.  This makes sense because religion codifies and preserved the values that God knows work best and previous generations have sought to preserve that knowledge.  This is why religion is sometimes seen as dogmatic and unwilling to change.  The values religion espouses should not change even though a particular generation would like to “bend the rules” for its own advantage.  The problem we face is to decide whether the values religion espouses are God’s values or if these values are simply human tradition that has been passed off as God’s commands.  However, as Nightfall shows, religion is timeless; it provides us with values that work even though at times it does not communicate those ideas well.  Each age needs people who can interpret the timeless concepts of religion for that age.  Each age need people who can express the values at the core of all of the world’s great religions:  belief in God, the golden rule, respect for life, the principles of life as set forth in the Ten Commandments.

Throughout history it has been the task of religion to teach us what is right and wrong, to teach us what values we should hold, to hold forth a vision of what our world should be like.  Durant in explaining Kant’s belief in religion states that “when mere creed or ceremonies usurp priority over moral excellence, religion has disappeared. . .Churches and dogmas have value only in so far as they assist the moral development of the race.” [2]   Will and Ariel Durant state:  “There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion”. [3]  In spite of all the criticism leveled at it (and it deserves some of the criticism), religion is the leading institution of our lives because it reminds us that the material world is not all that is and it addresses what our values should be.


[1]   Isaac Isimov and Robert Silverberg, Nightfall (New York:  Doubleday, 1990).

[2]   Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy (New York:  Simon and Schuster, 1953), p. 212.

[3]   Will and Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History (New York:  Simon and Schuster, 1968), p. 51.

Posted in Reasons | Leave a comment

Benefits of Religion

Given all the problems with religion we have discussed in the previous blogs, why should we take religion seriously?  There are several reasons.

First, the historians Will and Ariel Durant state:  “Even the skeptical historian develops a humble respect for religion, since he sees it functioning, and seemingly indispensable, in every land and age”. [1]  Religion has provided answers to humans about the ultimate questions of life for ages so it must offer something to humans for it to remain such an important aspect of our lives.

Second, the validity of our religious institutions is demonstrated by the experiences of people around the world.  Trueblood states “the only evidence that can stand alone, or nearly alone, is. . .empirical evidence”. [2]  Empirical evidence is defined as: “depending upon experience or observation alone”.  Our observations tell us that our religious institutions crystallize the first hand experience of millions of people over the ages and around the world who believe in the existence of God and the values he wants us to hold.  Are all these people suffering from delusions; are they mentally unbalanced? [3]  It would be absurd to make such a statement.  The truth is that religion works.

Third, C. S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man makes the argument objective values are built into the structure of our universe, just as certain physical laws such as gravity constitute the makeup of our physical universe.   The religions of the world recognize these natural values and have incorporated them into their teachings.  In the appendix Lewis lists several of these values:  Duties to parents, elders, ancestors, children, and posterity; justice, good faith, veracity, mercy, and magnanimity.  These natural laws, or the Tao as Lewis calls them, provide a common law of action that governs ruler and ruled alike.  “A dogmatic belief in objective values is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery.” [4]

Lewis maintains there is no example of a person who has acquired power and stepped outside the Tao who has used that power benevolently. [5]  The reason is because if a person steps outside the Tao, they have no basis on which to make decisions other than their own pleasure.  Any one who has studied the human condition recognizes that our tendency is to be selfish and we are not much bothered if our gain is someone else’s loss.  To combat this tendency, all religions teach us some form of the Golden Rule.

Fourth, after the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, where did people go to find meaning in these seemingly meaningless and horrific events?  Did they flock to governmental buildings, did they mass at our scientific institutions, did they meet at our business centers, did they inquire at our educational institutions?  Absolutely not!  If people want to know about the ultimate meaning of life, if they need instruction on the values we should hold, they know where to turn and that is to our religious institutions.


[1]   Will and Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History (New York:  Simon and Schuster, 1968), p. 43.

[2]   David Elton Trueblood, General Philosophy (New York:  Harper & Row, 1963), p. 220.

[3]   Ibid., pp. 216-217.

[4]   C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York:  HarperSanFrancisco, 1974), p. 73.

[5]   Lewis, p. 66.

Posted in Reasons | 2 Comments

Religion Is a Human Construct

What the errors we have discussed in the last few blogs demonstrate is that all organized religion is, to a large extent, a human construct.  Organized religion is the attempt of humans to codify a particular interpretation of God’s communication to us.  This is a worthwhile effort because as the human condition tells us we need to work with others to determine the truth of what God is saying.  What organized religion must understand is their doctrines are not the inspired word of God; they are just the feeble attempts of humans to understand an infinite God.

Catholic Church has its pronouncements from its councils and the popes that it claims are inspired by God just like the Bible.  The Jewish religion has its Mishnah and the Talmud and the Muslims have their Hadith and Sunnah.  Certain groups within these two religions also claim these books, which are interpretations of their holy book (the Torah and the Qur’an), are also inspired by God.  Claiming God endorses a particular interpretation of a holy book is the height of human arrogance.

Another example of the fact that organized religion is a human construct is the way religion reacts to threats to its existence—it reacts just like any other human institution or human being.  As Jeffrey Lockwood states:  “. . .all human organizations . . . have as their primary goal the acquisition and maintenance of power, not the search for and reporting of the truth” [1] and we find evidence of that in religion.  The Catholic Church is always criticized for its action against Galileo and the usual take is that this contest was religion against science.  That might not be the case.  The Catholic Church was in power at that time and it was very involved in the science of astronomy.  The Church did not dispute the observations made by Galileo and in fact they made the same observations.  What they disagreed about was the interpretation of those observations.  At that time the Church decided what was accepted as the truth and when this power was threatened by a young upstart called science, it reacted in very human ways to preserve its power.

Now that science has obtained a considerable amount of power in our society, we see science reacting in a similar fashion when its power is threatened.  It’s version of excommunication is to deny grants, deny scientists time on scientific instruments, deny tenure, and to prevent publishing research that is critical of its tenants such as the Big Bang theory, Darwinian evolution, and human caused global warming.  (For an example, read Seeing Red by Halton Arp.)

What all these problems and faults of religion tell us is if religion was the unadulterated message of God to us, we should see more God like actions by religious groups instead of the fallible human actions we have noted in the last few blogs.  Therefore, we can only conclude that organize religion is very human and should not represent itself as the infallible message of God.  To assert that we know exactly what God meant in his word to us is to ignore all we have learned about the human condition.  It is pride that causes religions to assert they know precisely the mind of God and to maintain they are the one and only true religion.

When Job and his friend were discussing the religious beliefs of their time (how God relates to people on earth and why Job had suffered so much calamity), God ends the discussion with the question:  “Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?  (Job 38:2).  While God did seem to side somewhat with Job and against his friends (Job 42:7), God still took Job to task for his beliefs (Job 38:1-2).

Job and his friends are no different than us today.  Each of us believes that we know exactly how God is working with everyone on this earth but because of our human condition, can we really claim to know the mind of God?  Our response should be like Job who stated:  “. . .Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know.”  (Job 42:3).


[1]   Jeffrey A. Lockwood, Six-Legged Soldiers (New York:  Oxford University Press, 2009), p. ix.

Posted in Reasons | Leave a comment

Coercion of Belief

In the last blog, we started our discussion about the various faults and problems organized religion has.  We will address three more of those problems in this blog.

Another fault of religion is that it has used and does use coercion to obtain belief.  Religion seems not to understand the concept of human free will and that violating someone’s free will is evil.  The Inquisition by the Christian religion is one example of this violation.  The Muslims who kill those who convert to another religion is another.  If God chooses not to force us to follow his teachings, why do the religions of the world feel they must do so?  Can we trust an institution that must coerce people to believe in its tenants?

One reason why religion used coercion to obtain belief and another error of religion is that each religion, denomination, and sect believes it is the one true religion and the ultimate source of truth for humans.  In the Christian religion we have the Protestants, the Catholic Church, and the Greek Orthodox Church to mention a few.  Within the Protestant branch there are a multitude of different denominations.  These different belief systems have arisen because people interpret the Bible differently and each believes their interpretation is right and everyone else is wrong.  However, they cannot all be right because of their conflicting belief systems.  Other religions have their sects and divisions as well.  God must look with amusement at all the different religions and denominations, each claiming to speak for him.  God must look with sorrow when, in the words of Mark Twain, he observes humans making “a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven”. [1]

The various scandals that have erupted in religious groups cause us to question the validity of religion.  How can they claim to speak for God when they act like the devil?  Leonard Pitts, Jr. lists several instances of scandal, hypocrisy, and even violence by religious groups. [2]  Now some will say that we all are sinful and people of faith will make mistakes.  The problem is when major elements of the church condone or do not speak out against sin or questionable practices, something is wrong with that institution.  Why did the Catholic Church try to hide the fact some of their priests were abusing children?  It is apparent many in the Church did not follow the teachings of Jesus when he stated that if one caused a child to sin it would be better for that person to have a millstone hung around his neck and be cast into the sea (Matthew 18:5-6).  There is something very ungodly in an entire organization to let this sin continue for years and to try to cover it up.

We have Christian leaders flying around in expensive business jets.  Christians were first called Christians because they imitated Christ.  Did Jesus purchase the latest chariot with a matching team of horses so he could better get around Palestine to spread his word?  Now most people would not have a problem with the use of a jet to further one’s ministry; a jet is just another tool like radio or television.  The problem is when we see TV evangelists “living like lords on the largess of the poor”. [3]  Does not the Bible say we are to help the poor?  Where in the Bible does it say it is alright to con the poor into supporting one’s lavish life style?  How many Christian leaders did you hear speaking out against such practices?  Why was the Christian church so silent?

Christians often speak of the power of God to change one’s life.  If that is so, why do we see so much corruption in organized religion?


[1]   Mark Twain, Letters from the Earth (Greenwich, Conn.:  Fawcett Publications, 1962), p. 180.

[2]   Leonard Pitts, Jr., Wake-Up Call for Organized Religion, March 14, 2009.

[3]   Pitts.

Posted in Reasons | Leave a comment

Religion and Science

In the past couple of blogs, we have chronicled the fact that science is not always a reliable guide when we search for what is true.  In the next few blogs, we will turn our attention to religion.  That religion has its problems and faults is without question and we will discuss four of them:  religion has not been a reliable guide of knowledge about our natural world, religion has a history of coercing belief, religion is dogmatic in that each religion believes it is the one true religion and all others are wrong, and religious groups do not always practice what they preach.

When it attempts to explain our natural world, religion has not always proved to be a reliable guide.  If religion has been given to us by God, why is it not?  I agree with Christians that the Bible is accurate in the science it describes but the problem is in how we interpret what the Bible says when it discusses scientific issues.  The prime example of this is the argument that erupted between Galileo and the Christian faith when he proposed the theory that the earth revolves around the sun instead of the sun revolving around the earth.  At that time, Martin Luther stated:  “The fool will turn the whole science of Astronomy upside down.  But as Holy Writ [Joshua 10:12-13] declares, it was the Sun and not the Earth which Joshua commanded to stand still”. [1]  Luther was right in what the Bible said, but by interpreting what the Bible said to fit in with his limited scientific knowledge, he provided generations of critics of Christianity an opportunity to condemn it for its backward thinking.  Luther was not alone in his thinking; the Catholic Church also used its heavy hand to stifle this new scientific revolution.  Christians should learn from this error when they propose any scientific theory they believe is taught in the Bible.  The Bible’s main aim is to lead us to God and God uses language that relates to humans and their imperfect nature.  God does not necessarily use the technical terms of science.  If Christians desire to prove a scientific point they must utilize the methods of science.  The Bible can give them guidance in deciding which hypothesis to test just like secular scientist use their belief system to guide them, but Christians must test that hypothesis to obtain scientific proof instead of just relying on what the Bible says.  That is the best way to determine if our interpretation of the science in the Bible is accurate.  Any other way is lazy and prone to errors.

Religion, of all our humans institutions, should understand we humans are finite and do not have all the answers to life at this time.  It seems that this fact should provoke a degree of humility on the part of religion and should keep it from taking unsupported positions in areas of science.  An example is creationism.  Those who hold to the creationist’s view of the beginning the world assume that God exists and that the Bible is the word of God.  We will grant the creationists both of these assumptions.  However, based on what they read in a couple of chapters in Genesis and a few other verses in the Bible, the creationists are prepared to tell us exactly what happened thousands, millions, or billions of years ago.  How can they do this?  They say the Bible tells them how the world was created by God but what does “create” mean?  Does it mean God did the work himself?  I am a businessman.  I say that I accomplished this or that, but did I do all the work?  Not necessarily.  More than likely, I created the plan and delegated it to someone else to do the work.  Could not God have done so as well?  Could not have God set evolution in motion and intervened occasionally to accomplish his ends?  Matthew 6:26 states:  “Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. . .”  Does God literally feed the birds?  No one would believe that; no one has seen God feed the birds.  If someone had, we would not debate God’s existence.  Instead God has created a system on this earth that provides food for the birds without his direct intervention.  So, in a similar fashion, could not have God set in place a system that evolves over time and produces our universe and world?  The creation story in Genesis 1 contains 751 words (in the NIV Bible).  Based on these 751 words can we really know all the detail of how God created this magnificent world?  I think not.  The Bible only states that God created the plan and made it happen in a certain sequence.  Anything else is sheer speculation.

This is not to say the theory of evolution is a fact.  Given the limits of the scientific method we discussed in the past couple of blogs, the only valid scientific belief for the beginning of the universe and life is agnosticism.  We simply do not have sufficient information to determine how the universe and life began.  We can have theories but we must remember they are only theories and not facts.


[1]  Colin A. Ronan, Galileo (New York:  G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1974), p. 29.

Posted in Reasons | Leave a comment

Science and the Unknown

Because scientists have had so much success understanding our material world, they at times are tempted to “explain” our spiritual side.  When analyzing the important issues of life such as who we are, what values we should hold, and the meaning of life, the answers proposed by scientists have no more proof that those of the religious community.  Scientists like to point to experiments which validate their point of view on these issues but other experiments accomplished tomorrow or next year might negate the conclusions offered today.  Do we change what we believe is true about our value system every time science comes up with a different experimental result?  How do we know that what science tells us today is valid if tomorrow it might change?  Do we really want to base what we think is true or our values on “facts” that might change tomorrow and of which we are uncertain?

Another limitation of science is that it must start with the known.  Unless science has some information on a phenomenon, it cannot investigate that phenomenon.  However, just because science is not aware of a particular phenomenon, does that mean it does not exist?  Of course not!  The history of science teaches us that in the past science was not aware of certain phenomenon that now we believe to be real.  Did atoms, meteorites, quasars, atomic fusion, and DNA exist before the scientists “discovered” them?  Of course they did!  Just because science has no proof for the human soul does not mean we do not have a soul.  Science certainly cannot prove we do not have a soul.  Science cannot prove God does not exist.  A fundamental rule of logic is that absence of proof does not necessarily mean the premise is false. [1]

Science, of all our institutions, should understand there is so much in our world that remains a mystery but because something is a mystery does not mean it is a delusion.  The arts seem to be ahead of science in this aspect.  In Shakespeare’s play Hamlet, Hamlet states:  “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” [2]  William Blake says:  “For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern” [3] and “. . .he only takes portions of existence and fancies that the whole”. [4]  The history of science itself teaches us that scientific knowledge is not all there is to human existence.

The principles of science have been of an enormous benefit to humankind.  However, Gopi Krishna notes that science has:

. . .no satisfactory explanation to offer for my individual existence or for the infinitely complex creation around me.  Confronted by a mystery, which grows deeper with the advance of knowledge, it [is] not yet in a position to be a source of illumination on issues admittedly beyond its present sphere of inquiry. [5]

It should be obvious that science is not a reliable guide for what our values should be, for the ultimate meaning of life.  David Parks, emeritus professor of physics at Williams College states:  “. . .if you want truth you have to go to a theologian, not a scientist. . .” [6]  Science has performed in an extraordinary manner in dealing with issues within our space and time but it says little about the issues that lie beyond.


[1]   Robert J. Gula, Nonsense (Mount Jackson, VA:  Axios Press, 2002), p. 43.

[2]   William Shakespeare, Edited by Cyrus Hoy, Hamlet (New York:  W. W. Norton & Company, 1992), p. 25.

[3]   Alexander Gilchrist, The Life of William Blake (Mineola, NY:  Dover Publications, Inc., 1998), p. 85.

[4]   Ibid., p. 86.

[5]   Gopi Krishna, Living with Kundalini (Boston:  Shambhala Publications, Inc., 1993), p. 80.

[6]   Dick Teresi, Lost Discoveries (New York:  Simon & Schuster, 2002), p. 395.

Posted in Reasons | Leave a comment