Why?

Why is it that we do not ask ‘Why?’ more frequently, more persistently, and more deliberately? The world abounds with self-evident truths and is filled with axioms upon which to launch our opinions and convictions and from which to test the validity of our beliefs. Even the most simple-minded human is capable of grasping the lions share of these axioms and truths and to recognize the fundamental wisdom inherent in each. Why is it that so many ignore the stark reality of a self-evident truth in order to embrace a myth or superstition that flies in the face of logic and reasoning and collapses in the face of honest investigation?

Do we not have an obligation to our natural curiosity and insatiable thirst for truth to subject the accuracy and validity of any belief to the rigorous scrutiny of personal investigation and do we not have an obligation to this same curiosity and thirst for truth not to blindly accept a belief, tradition, dogma, or ritual, simply because our ancestors or because someone we hold in high esteem does so?

We have an obligation to our own selves, to our conscience, and to the integrity of our soul, to acquire knowledge and to tenaciously cling to its verities but only after we have first, through our own efforts, determined that these verities will not collapse and vanish in a puff of smoke when subjected to the harsh reality of a probing mind, an inquiring intellect, and an inflexible logic that refuses to accept as valid that which is in defiance of it’s reason.

Socrates, Galileo, and Copernicus, along with countless multitudes, are serious examples and victims of the confrontation between reality and superstition who have, even though they are the crowning point of God’s creation, been sacrificed upon the altar of ignorance and stupidity for no other reason than to maintain a concept, belief, or philosophy that has crumbled in the face of self-evident truth. Religion is the co-equal partner to science but to be true unto itself it must act in consort with science not in defiance of it. Religion, as it is often presented, is not always correct nor is its counterpart science. Each is but a half of a whole and it is only when they unite in partnership that the ark of knowledge that they sail upon the ocean of humanity will chart a safe journey to the shore of truth.

Humankind lives in two worlds simultaneously. The physical world of science and the spiritual world of religion and philosophy and it simply becomes less than human when it pursues one to the exclusion of the other. Both are necessary to healthy development and each provides the essential balance by which the other is restrained from descending into the ruthless pit of excess. Science without the morals and ethics of religion will, without these regulating guidelines, wander into the ruthless and brutal arena of contempt for the rights of the individual who it will mercilessly sacrifice in the name of the pursuit of knowledge whereas religion, without the logic and reason of science will, without the sanity of these virtues, descend into the reproachable pit of superstition and myth from which it will perform acts that stain the mirror of the human soul so that it is no longer able to reflect those attributes by which it is in the ‘Image and Likeness’ of God.

Why, since they are clearly two halves of a single whole, do not science and religion walk hand in hand as do any two betrothed’s when dedicated to the same destiny and committed to serving the same Master of their union? Why do they not extend to each other the respect deserved by each?

Why can they not perceive in each other the autonomous arena in which each is gifted with its unique expertise and which should be welcomed and embraced by the other and without which each is diminished and left wanting?

Why does each immediately reject out of hand that which does not, in appearance or perceived substance, conform to its own strongly held views without extending to it the simple courtesy of a receptive ear, a discerning eye, an open mind, and an appraising intellect?

Perhaps the answer may reside in the deep rooted fear and suspicion that the other may be more correct than they wish to admit and, if admitted, would demand that they scrutinize their own beliefs more deliberately and honestly and be forced into the insecure position of relinquishing a portion of the firm foundation upon which their life perspective had been established. A scary position indeed! Perhaps even a position so intolerable to their emotional and spiritual equilibrium that rejection and denial becomes the only recourse and, hence, ethics and morality are deemed of secondary importance and must be sacrificed upon the altar of emotional security and sanity. A sad indictment of our standards and code of conduct that they are so fragile and frail that we must seek to exterminate anything that differs for fear we will be ensnared in its brambles and drawn into its differences.