Science and faith.

The natural sciences are often accused of being materialistic. I am thinking, for example, of physics, chemistry, biology, and the disciplines derived from them, not mathematics. These natural sciences are indeed materialistic, and this is because they study matter, matter, and the flow of energies. Natural science studies that which is measurable and repeatable. 
The natural sciences are methodologically materialistic: the natural scientist agrees quietly with other scientists in other laboratories of the world, before beginning his experiments, that what he is now going to investigate will have a material character, that it will therefore be measurable in some way. The scientist will, therefore, in his laboratory, he will not be interested in, for example, fairies or goblins unless these beings are visible and detectable by instruments. 
However, when the researcher returns home after work, you may be familiar with the relationship between matter and energy from Einstein’s most famous formula.
Although, there are difficulties with repeatability: no two places in the world and time are equivalent. But we shall now make some approximation and neglect some things; intuitively, we correctly intuit what repeatability is: simply, if a chemical reaction takes place under defined conditions in Brno, it should take place under the same conditions in a laboratory on the other side of the world or anywhere in the universe. As worldly as positivism is as a philosophy (in that it notices only part of reality), it is invaluable as a methodology. In Asia, the reason is intertwined and woven into myths, legends, dreamworlds, and magic, which can sometimes seem like a slight advantage, but at the same time as a shackling burden. In the fight against leprosy, tuberculosis, or malaria, Western medicine fares incomparably better than any of the treatments East. Similarly, the movements of the stars and the evolution of the universe correspond better to the ideas of Western astronomers than to those of their Asian colleagues.
According to his foundation, to believe or not to believe in the existence of supernatural beings is his business. Still, as long as he is in the laboratory, he must investigate what is measurable and repeatable, so goes the unwritten agreement. The results of the naturalist’s experiments must be repeatable. In biochemistry, for example, the way it works is that when you publish some profound discovery, there are always a few labs that don’t believe your results: because you have detailed the methodology in your paper of the experiment, these labs will easily repeat your experiment – and alas, if they come up with different results. If your results turn out to be wrong, it is evident that you have made a mistake somewhere, and your scientific credibility is lost. Because loss of prestige is the worst thing that can happen to a scientific team, every department is anxious to make sure that what it puts out into the world can be relied upon by others and that it’s appropriately verifiable and repeatable; otherwise,, you’ve just committed intellectual suicide.
Repeatability is also the scourge of telepathy, UFOs, dice throwing, moving pictures, predicting the future, and miraculous healing that so often excites our imagination: “So show me again,” says the naturalist, precisely according to his methodology. And because all these things are desperately unrepeatable, the naturalist takes his hands off them (and rightly so). In a vast universe, we can imagine a dimensional sphere of matter and energy in which we live; this is the space he explores in natural science. Around this sphere are angels and other immaterial, non-spatial, and ageless spirits: these are of no interest to the naturalist, for they are not measurable. An entirely different science deals with their study; let us say it is theology.
When the naturalist returns from his work (if he is therefore not constrained by the methodology of his science), he may be inclined to one of the positions: for example, be a materialist. Photo m will say that the only world that exists in the known world of matter and energy, which he has been researching in the morning in the laboratory; there is no other world; the world of angels and fairies is an illusion. There is neither God nor angelic choirs; in the discussion, the researcher replies stereotypically: show them to me, and I will believe. Not Albert the Great, but the Apostle Thomas, should be the patron saint of natural scientists. I think that, from the perspective of a believer, this attitude is mainly, to a large extent, justified by a specific professional distortion: when years or decades of dealing with measurable phenomena, you have tended to just let the unmeasurable phenomena out of your head, or at least to question their existence; they just don’t fit anymore.
Into your world. If you have spent your whole life looking at the earth and collecting and examining rocks, you will find it hard to believe that there is a sky above you and stars, especially if it’s always cloudy. You’re just not used to tilting your head and looking in a specific direction anymore. So, I can conclude: man is, and the number n (p í) is, but the word “is.” means an entirely different type of existence each time. So, Thomas Aquinas would say that God is non-spatial, non-temporal, and immeasurable. Yes, God is, but in a different way than man is. Yuri Gagarin declared that God does not exist after returning from space because he had not seen him in the room. Gagarin did not study Thomas and Aquinas.
Theology and natural science, or science and faith as we say, have never met; each lives in a world of its own, each explores a different part of the universe where there can be no collision because each one goes, as it were, on a different track. Problems in history have generally arisen when a researcher from one camp within his professional world has begun to take a position concerning the other world. When the natural scientist begins to interfere with theology while using the methodology of the natural sciences, or when a theologian starts to interfere with the natural sciences while using the method of theology, both usually end in a head-on collision there are many deaths. When a geologist examines Michelangelo’s statue of David, a philosopher, and a theologian, the geologist, after some analysis, gets up from the microscope and says: “Marble. ” The philosopher marvels at the power of the idea embodied in stone, and the theologian will see a glimpse of God’s beauty. Please note that all three are correct. It is much the same when examining the universe or living organisms.
This different point of view often leads to misunderstandings between natural science and theology. One of the usual arguments of atheistic biologists is to point to the complete randomness of evolution, that evolution doesn’t go anywhere on purpose. For example, the extinction of the dinosaurs loosened many ecological niches and allowed for the rapid radiation of mammals and the subsequent emergence of man. According to the more or less universally accepted
hypothesis, the dinosaurs’ extinction was caused by a meteorite impact on the Yucatán Peninsula and the subsequent climate change that the dinosaurs did not survive. What could be more random in the universe than a meteorite impact?
If fate had not favored the impact of this meteorite at the end of the Cretaceous, the Symphony of Fates would not have been created in 65 million years. However, for theologians, no such randomness is inconsistent with theology, the guidance of evolution. For God acts through coincidences. The Christian God is not an excellent throw near the philosophers, but the God present in the world and all the evolution events, coincidences, and meteorite impacts. In this context, I recall one of my terrible lectures on the Darwinian explanation of evolution: it was all happening on the campus of a theological college. I conscientiously talked about DNA, the four-letter genetic code, and mutations until one Dominic dean stood up and asked: But what about substance? Substance can’t change into cattiness; therefore, evolution doesn’t exist, species can’t change. In the following schizophrenic discussion, I talked about adaptations, mutations and selection intoxicated the environment, while the Dominicans (there were many) pointed out the impossibility of change of substance. We boxed each other in a different ring. But there are areas where biologists, philosophers, and theologians must come together. One such hot spot, for example, is the question of the origin of life on earth; another is the problem of understanding what love is, will, freedom, and what is our “I “or, if you will, soul. Philosophers rightly accuse biologists of being philosophically oriented in their texts. They have failed to notice that for almost two and a half thousand years, since the time of Aristotle, the brightest minds on the planet have been pondering the questions of the meaning of our existence on Earth. On the contrary, biologists rightly point out that philosophers have not kept up with current knowledge of how nature works and that they draw their biological knowledge from the study of Aristotle or Thomas and Aquinas, whose natural-scientific ideas are – to put it crudely – already outdated, and so living organisms behave markedly differently, then contemporary philosophers often mistakenly believe.
Therefore, the French philosopher Jacques with Maritain thought to form a team where biologists could “play at least a few songs on the keyboard of philosophy” and vice versa. However, the different ways of thinking and seeing the world of biologists and philosophers is an obstacle that should not be underestimated. Marxists say that religious belief is a matter for stupid people. In response, Catholics have printed a series of pamphlets on ‘The Faith of Great Scientists,’ quoting the wise sayings of renowned physicists and pointing out that these people believe in God too. Amazingly, they did not. It is not difficult to find such statements: many leading astronomers have been
genuinely and deeply religious. Conclusion for the reader: there are, therefore, also wise people who are believers. It is probably an encouragement that even universally respected figures and Nobel laureates believe in God for many Catholics. On the other hand, the strength of Christianity lies precisely in the fact that it goes my faith, which is not subject to the opinions of those around me. Even if they were all around me, atheists. I would believe.