> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLBD/BGM/SVM/SGM
[snip]
> Something similar has been bugging me for several years now. How can a
> scientist believe in the existance of a God? Any good scientist
> holds that a
> statement is only true when there is scientific evidence to prove it.
Good scientists (in fact, sane people in general) are not one-dimensional.
The kind of evidence necessary to support belief in one domain is not the
same as the next. In the spiritual realm, I don't require the kind of proof
I want in the stock market, for example. Similarly, when my daughter asks
for money for food, I don't require a high level of proof, yet I believe
her -- and not necessarily because of past experience or other hard
evidence. I believe in my daughter, although things seem often to point to
the contrary.
One of the contradictions the test showed for me was between my belief in
God and belief that it is wrong to let children suffer needlessly. As some
of you know, my best friend, who also is a believer, lost a baby son to a
brain tumor. And I was angry at God, most certainly, but not because I
don't believe, but because I don't understand. Who better than a scientist
recognizes that a lack of understanding is at the root of paradoxes? Take
Zeno's paradox, for example. With a concept of infinity, it was no longer a
paradox.
Notwithstanding evidence I might offer, God's existence seems paradoxical,
but I choose to believe that is a result of incomplete understanding, which
is not the least bit unscientific. As a matter of fact, it's hard to be a
good scientist without a deep appreciation for one's ignorance.
Nick
