Can Scientists Find God?

 

Warning: I am not a quantum physicist, nor do I play one on TV!!!!!!

I have always been a strong believer in the scientific search for the origins of the universe. While I fully understand that many scientists do not believe that their scientific quest has anything to do with God, I trust that any honest endeavors in this matter will eventually end up with God. As the creator of the universe, God established “the science” of this world and how it works — biology, chemistry, astronomy, zoology, and physics. Today, I want to look at some basic physics. While I am the farthest thing from being a physicist, I have come to understand some very basic physics concepts that may help unravel the mysteries of creation and, at the same time, help us better understand our Bibles. 

Many times, students of the Bible get bogged down with theology as they read. Theology comes with its own restrictive paradigms that limit us in truly understanding God. I am going to try to make a small attempt to set us all free from theology and help us understand the word in terms of science, namely quantum physics. 

Quantum physics is a fundamental theory that describes nature at the smallest scales of energy levels. Basically, it is a theory about things we can’t see. Quantum physicists believe that there is something that brought everything into existence and sustains everything in the universe, but it is unseen. They are constantly in search of that unseen instigator of all things.

Being the consummate quantum physicist, God tells us that we are to always consider the unseen world. 

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal. – 2 Corinthians 4:18

By faith we understand that the worlds were formed by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are seen. – Hebrews 11:3

Clearly, the Bible supports that idea that there are things that we cannot see but do exist, nonetheless. And even more, these unseen things are the originating source for those things we do see.  

Determined physicists are looking for these unseen things.  

The European Organization for Nuclear Research, known as CERN, is a research organization that operates the largest particle physics laboratory in the world. From the CERN website: “Physicists and engineers at CERN use the world’s largest and most complex scientific instruments to study the basic constituents of matter — fundamental particles. Subatomic particles are made to collide together at close to the speed of light. The process gives us clues about how the particles interact and provides insights into the fundamental laws of nature. We want to advance the boundaries of human knowledge by delving into the smallest building blocks of our universe.”

Physicists have long speculated about the existence of an unseen energy field that permeates the universe and gives mass to everything. In other words, this field “creates” things in the universe. For years, scientists at CERN searched for a sign of this field. On July 12, 2012, they found it: the Higgs boson, or Higgs force. The Higgs boson particle (named after physicist Peter Higgs) is important because it signals the existence of the Higgs field, an invisible energy field present throughout the universe that interacts with matter particles and gives them mass. After an interaction, the field leaves behind a telltale sign: the Higgs boson particle. In 2012, CERN scientists found evidence of this particle. 

Do you know what the scientists’ nickname is for this Higgs boson particle? The God particle. 

According to these scientists, if the Higgs field didn’t exist, particles would not have any mass. For those of us who believe in God, I will translate this into Bible-eze: Without this energy field (I’ll call this field God), creation would not exist. 

In a previous article posted to Ricochet titled “Did God Really Say That?”, I wrote about the science of waves, frequencies, and vibrations and how God spoke into existence everything in the universe and that it is the continued vibrations of this cosmic speech that keep the universe from collapsing. 

Did the CERN scientists confirm that God’s word (known to them as the Higgs field) created and sustains the universe? They may not admit it yet. But I’m patient. I’ll just wait for them to catch up with the premier quantum physicist. 

Check out my blog, my podcast “Torah Talk Podcast,” and my books @ www.torahtalk21.com.

Published in Religion & Philosophy
Ricochet editors have scheduled this post to be promoted to the Main Feed at 6:55AM (PT) on January 20th, 2022.

There are 121 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Victor Tango Kilo Member
    Victor Tango Kilo
    @VtheK

    The Higgs boson particle (named after Physicist Peter Higgs) is important because it signals the existence of the Higgs field, an invisible energy field present throughout the universe that interacts with matter  particles and gives them mass. 

    Ahem. 

    Ben Obi-Wan Kenobi : The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It’s an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.

    • #1
  2. Lawst N. Thawt Coolidge
    Lawst N. Thawt
    @LawstNThawt

    I arrived at the conclusion some time ago that without God I would simply fly apart and at the time was thinking my being would separate into atoms or particles, but recently decided I would simply cease to exist and just poof into nothingness.  This may have eked into my thinking from the line in Rich Mullins song All the Way to Kingdom Come:

    If He let go of us we’d all blow apart

    • #2
  3. Old Bathos Moderator
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Strongly recommend Is Atheism Dead by Eric Metaxas.  There are detailed discussions about insights from science that are fascinating.

    • #3
  4. Hammer, The (Ryan M) Member
    Hammer, The (Ryan M)
    @RyanM

    “Science,” as we know it, exists as the direct result of Man’s desire to find God:

    • #4
  5. WiesbadenJake Coolidge
    WiesbadenJake
    @WiesbadenJake

    Your question, Can Scientists Find God, is a fascinating one. I am retiring this year after 31 years of teaching high school Chemistry and Physics; I have a number of graduate hours in both subjects. Graduate courses were much more interesting to me, not just for the subject matter but the more personal interaction with the professors. My undergraduate and graduate hours are from enormous state universities, so a secular context. 

    As a person of faith (Nicene Creed adherent Christian) I can only think of one physics professor that I interacted with who gave me the impression that faith was important to them. I had a number of physics professors who were very overt in their hostility toward a faith-based understanding of the universe. I never felt intimidated by their aggressive atheism; I had an advantage, I think, in that I worked for 14 years in critical care medicine prior to going to the university–being older and having experienced the intersection of life and death makes me more comfortable with paradox and mystery. 

    I think it is difficult for someone to ‘find’ God in science when their minds have been disciplined in what I would call a bounded set of knowledge and interpretation. I believe that the entrance to faith for many will come through another inroad or avenue that can then build a bridge that allows them to integrate their faith and scientific knowledge. This is based, of course, on a rather limited set of interactions that I have had–perhaps their are some scientists who are part of the Ricochet community that could offer experiences of coming to faith personally, or of others they know who have come to faith directly as a result of their understanding of scientific phenomena. 

    I find your posts fascinating; thank you!

     

     

    • #5
  6. Kathy Mardirosian Coolidge
    Kathy Mardirosian
    @KathyMardirosian

    WiesbadenJake (View Comment):

    Your question, Can Scientists Find God, is a fascinating one. I am retiring this year after 31 years of teaching high school Chemistry and Physics; I have a number of graduate hours in both subjects. Graduate courses were much more interesting to me, not just for the subject matter but the more personal interaction with the professors. My undergraduate and graduate hours are from enormous state universities, so a secular context.

    As a person of faith (Nicene Creed adherent Christian) I can only think of one physics professor that I interacted with who gave me the impression that faith was important to them. I had a number of physics professors who were very overt in their hostility toward a faith-based understanding of the universe. I never felt intimidated by their aggressive atheism; I had an advantage, I think, in that I worked for 14 years in critical care medicine prior to going to the university–being older and having experienced the intersection of life and death makes me more comfortable with paradox and mystery.

    I think it is difficult for someone to ‘find’ God in science when their minds have been disciplined in what I would call a bounded set of knowledge and interpretation. I believe that the entrance to faith for many will come through another inroad or avenue that can then build a bridge that allows them to integrate their faith and scientific knowledge. This is based, of course, on a rather limited set of interactions that I have had–perhaps their are some scientists who are part of the Ricochet community that could offer experiences of coming to faith personally, or of others they know who have come to faith directly as a result of their understanding of scientific phenomena.

    I find your posts fascinating; thank you!

     

     

    I certainly agree that secular-minded scientists have their own self-limiting paradigms that may make it difficult for them to “find God.”  I, with you, would love to hear from some scientists on this matter. 

     

    • #6
  7. Old Bathos Moderator
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Kathy Mardirosian (View Comment):
    I certainly agree that secular-minded scientists have their own self-limiting paradigms that may make it difficult for them to “find God.”  I, with you, would love to hear from some scientists on this matter. 

    There are all kinds of reasons why people do or don’t have religious beliefs or experiences. The narrower issue is the silly conceit that more scientific knowledge proportionalely precludes religious belief. 

    In the Metaxas’ book I cited above, he has a lengthy exchange with a prominent genetic scientist who pointed out that for many, the 1955 Miller-Urey experiment (in which electricity in a container of chemicals procured an amino acid) was somehow a final proof that life was a chemical accident.  However, in the seven decades since, nobody has generated any chemicals more sophisticated abiotically.  Our knowledge of the complexity of cell structure and biochemistry has vastly increased in that same time so that the likelihood of an origin story of a lightning bolt in the swamp hypothesis is increasingly silly. Even if the lightning bolt made a whole protein, there would still need to be a system for replicating it.

    This does not mean that a bearded old guy in a white robe must have continually tweaked stuff.  The point is that so many physical and chemical features of the universe like the big bang (which, by the way, could not have happened if the total mass of the universe varied by more than a couple of grams) and a dozen other really convenient outcomes do seem as if the universe was tailored to make us possible.  No evidence of a divine intervention other than the fact that more we learn, that which was already built-in is amazing.

    If there is no sense of wonder, then one is cognitively or aesthetically defective. What one does with that experience of awe and wonder can easily be a spiritual adventure, if not an expressly religious one.  A reductionist bah humbug is no way to go through life.

    • #7
  8. Kathy Mardirosian Coolidge
    Kathy Mardirosian
    @KathyMardirosian

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Kathy Mardirosian (View Comment):

    @oldbathos  If there is no sense of wonder, then one is cognitively or aesthetically defective. What one does with that experience of awe and wonder can easily be a spiritual adventure, if not an expressly religious one. A reductionist bah humbug is no way to go through life.

    Beautifully said. 

     

    • #8
  9. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Strongly recommend Is Atheism Dead by Eric Metaxas. There are detailed discussions about insights from science that are fascinating.

    My homeboy Andrew Loke writes books about this stuff.

    • #9
  10. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat
    @drbastiat

    Kathy Mardirosian (View Comment):
    I, with you, would love to hear from some scientists on this matter. 

    For what it’s worth, I’ll share my experience

    • #10
  11. GlenEisenhardt Coolidge
    GlenEisenhardt
    @GlenEisenhardt

    Believing in science isn’t believing in much. Science can create an atomic bomb. Science can’t tell you it’s wrong to genocide people with it. Science can’t prove the good. Science can’t access beauty or art. No experiment can prove Shakespeare was a beautiful writer. Science can’t even prove itself with the scientific method. We just have to assume and hope the method gets us somewhere some of the time. So will science find God? I highly doubt it.

    • #11
  12. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    GlenEisenhardt (View Comment):

    Believing in science isn’t believing in much. Science can create an atomic bomb. Science can’t tell you it’s wrong to genocide people with it. Science can’t prove the good. Science can’t access beauty or art. No experiment can prove Shakespeare was a beautiful writer. Science can’t even prove itself with the scientific method. We just have to assume and hope the method gets us somewhere some of the time. So will science find God? I highly doubt it.

    • #12
  13. GlenEisenhardt Coolidge
    GlenEisenhardt
    @GlenEisenhardt

    Percival (View Comment):

    GlenEisenhardt (View Comment):

    Believing in science isn’t believing in much. Science can create an atomic bomb. Science can’t tell you it’s wrong to genocide people with it. Science can’t prove the good. Science can’t access beauty or art. No experiment can prove Shakespeare was a beautiful writer. Science can’t even prove itself with the scientific method. We just have to assume and hope the method gets us somewhere some of the time. So will science find God? I highly doubt it.

    LOL

    • #13
  14. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    As I’ve written elsewhere, I’m generally skeptical of the wisdom of seeking evidence for God in science — or even of admitting that such a thing might be worth seeking.

    Consider the Higgs field, for example. You write: “Without this energy field (I’ll call this field God), creation would not exist.”

    Suppose science eventually deconstructs the Higgs field, revealing it to be an effect of some other process or phenomenon? What do you do when and if that field is no longer “causeless,” given that one of the signature characteristics of God as generally conceived is that He is without cause?

    It seems to me that attempting to conjoin science and faith diminishes both: to the extent that faith informs the science, it tends, in my opinion, to produce poor science. To the extent that science informs faith, it tends to make faith subject to continual revision. The standards of the two domains are different, and neither benefits from attempts to reconcile one with the other.


    Having said all that, I acknowledge that the universe is a beautiful, intricate, truly awesome thing. For a person of faith, it can certainly serve as a beautiful illustration of God’s wisdom and power.

    • #14
  15. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    To the extent that science informs faith, it tends to make faith subject to continual revision.

    Are any of us people of faith in here subjecting our views to shifting science? Anyone?

    Bueler Bueler GIFs | Tenor

    • #15
  16. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Kathy Mardirosian: Warning:  I am NOT a quantum physicist nor do I play one on TV!!!!!!

    Have you ever slept at a Holiday Inn Express?

    • #16
  17. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Kathy Mardirosian (View Comment):
    I, with you, would love to hear from some scientists on this matter.

    For what it’s worth, I’ll share my experience

    From your post link:

    “The patient comes back in six weeks, and the wart is gone. It’s called scaring a wart.” 

    Does this work with fat?  If so, I’d like to make an appointment . . .

    • #17
  18. Lawst N. Thawt Coolidge
    Lawst N. Thawt
    @LawstNThawt

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    As I’ve written elsewhere, I’m generally skeptical of the wisdom of seeking evidence for God in science — or even of admitting that such a thing might be worth seeking.

    Consider the Higgs field, for example. You write: “Without this energy field (I’ll call this field God), creation would not exist.”

    Suppose science eventually deconstructs the Higgs field, revealing it to be an effect of some other process or phenomenon? What do you do when and if that field is no longer “causeless,” given that one of the signature characteristics of God as generally conceived is that He is without cause?

    It seems to me that attempting to conjoin science and faith diminishes both: to the extent that faith informs the science, it tends, in my opinion, to produce poor science. To the extent that science informs faith, it tends to make faith subject to continual revision. The standards of the two domains are different, and neither benefits from attempts to reconcile one with the other.


    Having said all that, I acknowledge that the universe is a beautiful, intricate, truly awesome thing. For a person of faith, it can certainly serve as a beautiful illustration of God’s wisdom and power.

    Belief is the thought.  Faith is the power beneath the thought that is belief.  There is zero difference between faith powering the belief Einstein had in relativity or the belief the Moravians on John Wesley’s voyage had in God. Or at least this is my current view which may indeed change because I am just a scientist of divine things and have relatively limited knowledge of all things from my point of observation.

    • #18
  19. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    To the extent that science informs faith, it tends to make faith subject to continual revision.

    Are any of us people of faith in here subjecting our views to shifting science? Anyone?

    But of course that shouldn’t be our sole criterion for evaluating the wisdom of a course of action, right — that it not be harmful to us?

    My point is that when people purport to find evidence of God in science, people of marginal faith will find their faith strengthened by that purported evidence — will find it persuasive. And then, when and if the science changes, that faith will be correspondingly weakened.

    In my opinion, people should be encouraged to find their faith in things not vulnerable to scientific revision. There is a universe of ideas that transcend science, ideas of values and morality and purpose and meaning. Religion need not descend to the muddy playing field of science.

    Lawst N. Thawt (View Comment):
    Belief is the thought.  Faith is the power beneath the thought that is belief.  There is zero difference between faith powering the belief Einstein had in relativity or the belief the Moravians on John Wesley’s voyage had in God.

    LNT, I appreciate that thought, but think that it, like SA’s comment above, misses my point. (I also think it’s simply wrong.) My point is not that people possessed of great faith and inclined to think deeply and abstractly about God and cosmology will be okay flirting with the intersection of those two (in my opinion) inherently disjoint realms. Rather, it’s that we do a disservice to normal people when we acknowledge a tension between science and religion. And that, unfortunately, is a necessary corollary to asserting a correspondence between the two.

    The long march of science has been a gradual crossing off of the quotidian effects for which people felt the need to invoke God as a cause. Whether thunder and lightning or the motion of the planets or the change of species or the development of seemingly irreducibly complex organic structures, aspects of the natural world once credited to divine intervention have been sequentially relegated to the more prosaic, albeit fascinating, domain of the natural sciences. Religion has taken a beating: the previously numinous has been revealed, too often, to be mathematically ordained.

    My point is simple: if you make science and religion terms in the same equation, people will, over time, recognize the greater predictive utility of the former. I don’t see the point in needlessly making faith harder for people by making it play by the rules of science — particularly when people are desperate for something that transcends what science can deliver.

    And yes: there is a difference between “faith” in science and faith in God. It’s a difference apparent to everyone who doesn’t deconstruct the entire concept of knowledge and perception down to its constituent atoms. Normal people don’t ponder the nature of flawed human perception and conclude that every single thing we do is based on an axiomatic faith in our senses, and so the value we place on observation, measurement, and experimentation is ultimately as much a leap of faith as is belief in God. Normal people conclude that there are things we can measure and things we can’t, and are inclined to think the former are real… while the latter are, in contrast, things to be taken on faith.

    • #19
  20. Doug Watt Moderator
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    There is so much that we don’t understand. Religious belief is not necessarily an impediment to science. Father Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic priest is one example of this. You can read his story here.

    The VATT (Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope) in Arizona is a partnership between the Vatican and the University of Arizona.

    The heart of the telescope is an f/1.0 honeycombed construction, borosilicate primary mirror. The VATT’s mirror is unusually ‘fast’ at f/1, which means that its focal distance is equal to its diameter. Because it has such a short focal length, a Gregorian design could be employed which uses a concave secondary mirror at a point beyond the primary focus; this allows unusually sharp focusing across the field of view.[1]

    The unusual optical design and novel mirror fabrication techniques mean that both the primary and secondary mirrors are among the most exact surfaces ever made for a ground-based telescope. In addition, the skies above Mount Graham are among the most clear, steady, and dark in the continental North America. Seeing of better than one arc-second even without adaptive optics can be achieved on a regular basis.

    • #20
  21. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Stad (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Kathy Mardirosian (View Comment):
    I, with you, would love to hear from some scientists on this matter.

    For what it’s worth, I’ll share my experience

    From your post link:

    “The patient comes back in six weeks, and the wart is gone. It’s called scaring a wart.”

    Does this work with fat? If so, I’d like to make an appointment . . .

    I remember reading a book on the mind-body connection and it mentioned someone who was hypnotized to do something on one half of his body (I don’t remember what) and the hypnosis didn’t work, but the warts all disappeared from that same side of his body.

    • #21
  22. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    To the extent that science informs faith, it tends to make faith subject to continual revision.

    Are any of us people of faith in here subjecting our views to shifting science? Anyone?

    Bueler Bueler GIFs | Tenor

    Science doesn’t inform faith.  That’s fallacious thinking.  Faith informs science.

    Here’s an example.

    • #22
  23. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    To the extent that science informs faith, it tends to make faith subject to continual revision.

    Are any of us people of faith in here subjecting our views to shifting science? Anyone?

    Bueler Bueler GIFs | Tenor

    Science doesn’t inform faith. That’s fallacious thinking. Faith informs science.

    Flick, as they say, embrace the power of and.

    There are people who attempt to find evidence for the existence of God in science, and to argue for faith based on that evidence. They write books about it. The Discovery Institute exists to do this. I think they’re misguided, and it’s a bad idea, for the reasons I’ve mentioned here and elsewhere.

    There are other people who attempt to find evidence for the non-existence of God in science. I think those people are even more misguided, because they’re presumably people who take science seriously and, if so, should recognize that science addresses the physical universe, not a hypothetical metaphysical universe.

    Stephen Meyer, in his book Return of the God Hypothesis, spends a lot of time giving us historical examples of men of faith who made important contributions to science. That doesn’t resonate with me, because I’ve never felt that science and faith are incompatible — any more than I think science and kindness are incompatible, or faith and the ability to play chess well are incompatible. They’re simply different ways of thinking about different problem domains, each with its own rules and standards. They’re not mutually contradictory.

    But I think prudent people of faith and prudent people of science would be wise to consider the two domains non-intersecting. I don’t think that they have much, if anything, to say to each other.

    • #23
  24. Kathy Mardirosian Coolidge
    Kathy Mardirosian
    @KathyMardirosian

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Kathy Mardirosian (View Comment):
    I, with you, would love to hear from some scientists on this matter.

    For what it’s worth, I’ll share my experience

    @drbastiat  wow!! warts and all. That was one of the greatest testimonials for the existence of God that I have ever read.

    • #24
  25. Kathy Mardirosian Coolidge
    Kathy Mardirosian
    @KathyMardirosian

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    To the extent that science informs faith, it tends to make faith subject to continual revision.

    Are any of us people of faith in here subjecting our views to shifting science? Anyone?

    Bueler Bueler GIFs | Tenor

    @saintaugustine     In some ways my faith does “shift” as I learn more about the “science” of the universe— it strengthens

    • #25
  26. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    To the extent that science informs faith, it tends to make faith subject to continual revision.

    Are any of us people of faith in here subjecting our views to shifting science? Anyone?

    But of course that shouldn’t be our sole criterion for evaluating the wisdom of a course of action, right — that it not be harmful to us?

    My point is that when people purport to find evidence of God in science, people of marginal faith will find their faith strengthened by that purported evidence — will find it persuasive. And then, when and if the science changes, that faith will be correspondingly weakened.

    And the problem there is that we didn’t pretend that some interesting and fallible but probably pretty good evidence wasn’t there?

    In my opinion, people should be encouraged to find their faith in things not vulnerable to scientific revision.

    Indeed.

    Normal people conclude that there are things we can measure and things we can’t, and are inclined to think the former are real…

    And that’s not trust?

    And trust isn’t faith?

    . . . while the latter are, in contrast, things to be taken on faith.

    To take them on faith is to take them as real.

    • #26
  27. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Kathy Mardirosian (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    To the extent that science informs faith, it tends to make faith subject to continual revision.

    Are any of us people of faith in here subjecting our views to shifting science? Anyone?

    Bueler Bueler GIFs | Tenor

    @ saintaugustine In some ways my faith does “shift” as I learn more about the “science” of the universe— it strengthens

    As vitamin pills I don’t really need might make me a bit healthier. I’m not subjecting my health to them.

    • #27
  28. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Here’s Frank Pastore’s PragerU video on the four big bangs that atheists need. (Yeah, that’s right, oh ye godless. You’re three short. Better get busy.)

    It is worth your time.

     

    • #28
  29. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat
    @drbastiat

    Kathy Mardirosian (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Kathy Mardirosian (View Comment):
    I, with you, would love to hear from some scientists on this matter.

    For what it’s worth, I’ll share my experience

    @ drbastiat wow!! warts and all. That was one of the greatest testimonials for the existence of God that I have ever read.

    Thanks – very kind of you to say!

    • #29
  30. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Plenty of scientists have been believers. When I was a kid in Catholic high school, our part of the Archdiocese awarded an Enrico Fermi medal each year. On this site, the best explainer of science to the rest of us is @hankrhody, who has strong religious faith. 

    But I have to disagree with “I trust that any honest endeavors in this matter will eventually end up with God”. If they don’t see it your way, they aren’t necessarily dishonest. 

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.