Questions Worth Pondering

I'd like to share something with you that might challenge how you think about science and faith. Not to attack anyone, but to invite honest reflection.

https://daphne-loubser.com/Beggars-Borrowers.html

Sometimes we hold two different standards for what we're willing to believe - and we don't even realize we're doing it. Let's explore this together with genuine curiosity and openness.

The Foundation We Rarely Question

Picture a first-year university student opening their science textbook. On page one, they read about atoms, electrons, the speed of light, laws of thermodynamics. They've never seen an atom. They've never measured the speed of light themselves. They've never conducted these experiments.

So why do they believe it?

Because it's written in a textbook. Because their professor says it's true. Because thousands of scientists before them have accepted it. Because there's a system - peer review, academic institutions, established authorities - that they trust.

They move forward with faith that what they're reading is accurate. They assume it's true before they can personally verify it. This faith allows them to continue their studies, build on that foundation, and eventually contribute to the field themselves.

The Double Standard

Now, here's where it gets interesting.

That same person might say: "I don't believe in Scripture because it was written by people thousands of years ago. It's just stories passed down. It requires faith, not evidence."

But wait - isn't that exactly what they're doing with their science textbook?

Both systems ask you to trust written accounts from people you've never met. Both require a degree of faith to accept what's being claimed. Both invite you to test the claims through your own experience over time.

What We Call "Facts"

Here's another layer: much of what science calls "facts" are actually interpretations of data, not the raw observations themselves.

Science observes that species share similar DNA structures. The interpretation? Evolution. But that interpretation requires assumptions about the past that cannot be directly observed or repeated. It requires... faith in the interpretation.

The observation is real. The interpretation is a belief system built on that observation.

How many times have scientific "facts" changed as new evidence emerged?

The earth was flat, then round. The atom was the smallest particle, until we found quarks. Newtonian physics was absolute, until Einstein showed its limits. Pluto was a planet, then it wasn't.

These weren't just theories - they were taught as facts, printed in textbooks, accepted by the scientific community. Students had faith in them.

The Limits of the Tool

Science studies the material world through material instruments. This is its strength! It has given us medicine, technology, and deep understanding of physical processes.

But here's the crucial point: Science, by its very nature, can only detect and measure the material realm.

Can a microscope see love? Can a telescope measure hope? Can a lab test detect consciousness, meaning, or the human spirit?

No. Not because these things don't exist, but because they're outside the scope of what material instruments can measure.

So when someone says, "Science hasn't found evidence of God or the spiritual realm," the honest response is: "Science wouldn't be able to detect the immaterial even if it existed. That's not what it's designed to do."

A metal detector is excellent at finding metal, but terrible at finding wood. We don't conclude wood doesn't exist because our metal detector can't find it. We recognize we're using the wrong tool.

When Spirit Touches Matter

Let me share something personal. I experienced healing once - real, physical, measurable healing. My body changed in ways that doctors could have documented. The result was material.

But the source? That was spiritual. It came through prayer, through faith, through something beyond what any instrument could detect.

Could science study the healing? Absolutely. Could it detect the spiritual cause? No - because its tools aren't designed for that.

Does that mean the spiritual cause didn't exist? Or does it simply mean that reality is bigger than any single method can fully capture?

Perhaps we need multiple ways of knowing to understand the full picture: empirical observation for the physical, and spiritual discernment for the immaterial. Not either/or, but both/and.

The Real Issue: Protecting the Vulnerable

Here's what concerns me most. When we declare something a "scientific fact" with absolute certainty, and dismiss spiritual or scriptural truth as "just faith," we create a misleading hierarchy.

People who are searching, who are vulnerable, who want to know truth - they hear "Science says..." and assume it means unchangeable, verified, absolute reality. They don't realize they're being asked to have faith in a system just as much as any spiritual tradition asks.

The question isn't "which one requires faith?" - they both do. The question is: "Which faith is justified? Which framework actually corresponds to reality?"

And that's a question each person must explore honestly, without pretending one system is "faith-based" while the other is purely "evidence-based."

An Invitation to Honest Examination

I'm not asking you to reject science. The scientific method has revealed incredible truths about our physical universe, and I'm grateful for it.

I'm not demanding you accept Scripture or any particular spiritual tradition.

I'm simply inviting you to examine your own beliefs with the same critical thinking you might apply to anything else:

• Notice where you're placing faith in systems and authorities
• Recognize when interpretations are being presented as facts
• Stay open to the possibility that reality includes both material and immaterial aspects
• Apply the same standard of evidence and trust to all truth claims, not just the ones that challenge your current worldview

What if the wisest approach is intellectual humility - recognizing that we see through a glass dimly, that our current understanding is always partial, and that truth might be bigger than any single method can capture?

Science can teach us about the physical world. Spiritual wisdom can teach us about meaning, purpose, and the immaterial realm. Personal experience can verify both in ways that transform our lives.

Maybe we don't have to choose between them. Maybe we need all of these tools working together to see reality fully.

The Freedom to Question

Real truth isn't afraid of questions. It doesn't need to shut down inquiry or dismiss alternative perspectives. It invites examination from every angle.

If science is truly about following evidence wherever it leads, then it should be willing to acknowledge its own limitations and its own faith assumptions.

If spiritual truth is real, it should be able to withstand scrutiny and honest questioning.

The goal isn't to tear down science or elevate one belief system over another. The goal is honest thinking - recognizing our own assumptions, staying open to mystery, and pursuing truth with both intellectual rigor and spiritual openness.