God spans fifteen billion light years across the known part of the universe. Googuls of particles. About 10⁷⁹ instances of electrons alone, never mind quarks or strings. Consistent, aware, and compassionate, all over, all at once, all the time. And these claims describe only the pieces of evidence that we know of. What might exist before and after, in smaller or larger forms, or even in the dimensions that some physicists, in their cutting-edge theories, have postulated?

                                 

Every idea about matter or space that I can describe with numbers is a naïve children’s story compared with what is meant by the word infinite. Every idea I can talk about in terms that name bits of what we call time has to be set aside when I use the word eternal. For many of us in the West today, formulas and graphs, for far too long, have obscured these points, even though most scientists freely admit there is so much that they don’t know. Newton said, “I seem to have been only a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”⁹

   

                                                                  (credit: Wikimedia Commons) 

The belief is no longer trivial in more personal ways as well. If I truly believe in the axiom on which my model of Science rests—that is, the constancy of natural laws—and also in the relevant models of reality that Science has led me to—that is, the “aware” nature of the universe and the values-driven, cultural model of human evolution—then to maintain my claim to being rational, in my own eyes, I must live my life in a moral way. I must choose to act in a way that views my own actions as rational, not as the mere wanderings of a deluded, self-aware, absurd animal. That absurd world view, truly believed and lived, would inevitably lead to madness or suicide. But we don’t have to accept it. There is an option that is just as rational and far more hopeful.

And the theistic view, when it is widely accepted in society, has large implications for the activity called “Science”. A general adherence in society to the theistic way of thinking is what makes sub-communities of scientists doing science possible. Consciously and individually, every scientist should value wisdom and freedom, for reasons that are uplifting, but even more because they are logical. Or rather, to be more exact, inspiring and rational, properly understood, are the same thing. Scientists know that figuring out how the events in reality work is personally gratifying. But much more importantly, each scientist should see that this work is done most effectively in a free, interacting community of scientists functioning as one more integral species in a larger social ecosystem.

Most of us in the West have become emotionally attached to our belief in Science. We feel that attachment because we’ve been programmed to feel it. Tribally, we have learned that our modern wise men—our scientists—doing research and sharing findings with one another are vital to the continuing survival of the human race.

Of all of the subcultures within democracy that we might point to, none is more dependent on the basic values of democracy than is Science. Scientists have to have courage. Courage to think in unorthodox ways, to outlast derision and neglect, to work, sometimes for decades, with levels of determination and dedication that people in most walks of life would find difficult to believe. 

Scientists need the sincerest form of wisdom. Wisdom that counsels them to listen to analysis and criticism from their peers without allowing egos to become involved, and to sift through what is said for insights that may be used to refine their methods and try again. 

Scientists require freedom. Freedom to pursue truth where she leads, no matter whether the truths discovered are startling, unpopular, or threatening to the status quo. 

Finally, scientists must practice love. Yes, love. Love that causes them to treat every human being as an individual whose experience and thought may prove valuable to their own.

Scientists recognize implicitly that no single human mind can hold more than a tiny fraction of all there is to know. They have to share and peer-review ideas, research, and data in order to grow, individually and collectively.

Scientists do their best work in a community of thinkers who value and respect one another, who love one another, so much as a matter of course that they cease to notice another person’s race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender. Under the values-driven, cultural model of human evolution, one can even argue that creating a social environment in which Science can arise and flourish is the goal toward which democracy has always been striving.