Does it bother anyone else, the ease with which secular scientists talk about the "boundary" between knowledge and faith?

Knowledge is what science does, you see. Faith, well, that's the domain of religion and philosophy. Knowledge, see, we can actually know. Faith? Not so much.

So, of course, it's better to know stuff rather than just believe, and that's why people should let science tell us what we need to know and keep philosophy and religion, you know, kind of at the level of hobbies.

I guess I've been reading too much of this clap-trap lately, so an interview with Rolf-Dieter Heuer, director of the European Organization for Nuclear Research, who oversees the CERN labs in Switzerland, sort of pushed me over the edge (The European, 5/17/11).

Dr. Heuer seems like a very intelligent, serious, and gracious man. He knows a lot about particles and dark matter and so forth. And he works at this really big and important lab, which stretches over miles and miles. Dr. Heuer acknowledges that it is the thirst for knowledge that sets human beings off "from other creatures." And he would also tell you that science is our best bet for serious knowing.

After all, only in science can you do experiments: "Belief or philosophical thought cannot be examined through experiments." So, of course, belief and philosophical thought are not real knowledge.

Yet scientists are having to face up to the fact that a lot of what they're doing, many of the decisions they're making and the protocols they're following, are based on "theory" (science-talk for "belief") which has not yet been proven. Asked about one such area, what existed before the Big Bang, Dr. Heuer demurred saying, "here we are crossing the boundary between knowledge and belief."

And, of course, we mustn't do that. Especially not us religious or philosophical types. Science depends on belief and theory and all kinds of faith stuff, all the time. But religion is just belief, not real knowledge, and so while it's OK for science to borrow on beliefs and theory and faith, it's not OK for religion to presume to have anything to say about knowledge.

Dr. Heuer is open to a "dialogue" with religion and science: "Since we are struggling with the limits of knowledge, maybe philosophy or theology struggle also with our research. I think it is important that we open a constructive dialogue."

About knowledge, of course, making science, therefore, the arbiter of what counts as a relevant contribution to any such "dialogue."

But there is no boundary between knowledge and belief. Every worldview and every approach to knowing is based on beliefs and works from those beliefs toward reliable knowledge.

So if we want the best knowledge, we have to be willing to look at one another's beliefs. Are they consistent? Comprehensive? Congruent with the way things actually work? Or do they have to borrow from beyond their worldview in order to make that worldview make any sense at all?

Start looking at science like this, and you'll see (1) that science as an enterprise is inseparable from belief, and (2) many of the basic beliefs secular scientists propound do not actually work (the dominance of chance and chaos, for example) and so must be propped up by truths actually believed and taught within the Christian framework of knowing (an orderly and knowable universe).

Don't sit silently by when people talk about "boundaries" between knowledge and faith. If enough of us begin challenging that nonsense, winsomely but forcefully, perhaps we'll actually be able to help our unbelieving friends examine their own beliefs to see whether or not the faith convictions they profess can be counted on to produce reliable truth.

Additional related texts: Proverbs 14.12; 26.4, 5; Matthew 22.12-19; 2 Corinthians 10.3-5

A conversation starter: "You know, most people simply aren't aware of how powerful a role belief plays in their lives. Do you think that could be true of you?"

T. M. Moore, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.