Comments on: Homily for the 5th Sunday of Lent, Year B: The Eyes of the Heart

By: Nicole

Nicole — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 21:39:48 +0000

How ironic that you used to be a physics major before the theology switch. (Stop making the rest of us look bad!) I was thinking about the humble part of it, & maybe Mendel stood a chance. His brilliant research was not recognized as ground breaking insight into genetics until after his death. & didn’t he take all those vows that are supposed to bring you closer to God & all that? I just think people are complex. We are more than any one trait, passion, or profession. & we are more than what others perceive. Also, certainly all things in the realm of God & religious belief are beyond the scope of science. They should revoke my science degree if I did not know that.

By: Nicole

Nicole — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 20:57:53 +0000

Oh good! hahaha

By: Aaron Pidel, SJ

Aaron Pidel, SJ — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:20:37 +0000

I agree that we can’t all be philosophers in the academic sense. However, I would say that–insofar as Pasteur and others were delving deeper into the “mystery” of “creation”, seeing its “beauty” and its “design”–they were going beyond what can be verified by the scientific method. In short, they, though scientists, were seeing as “philosophers” see. They were drawing conclusions not about some part of the world and its relation to some other part, but asking a question about the world as a whole (e.g., its origin and destiny). The point of my original comment was not that scientists can’t have faith or do God’s work; the point was that the could not do so if the only lens through which they viewed the world were the scientific method. In point fact, if one begins to apply a quantitative, scientific rationality to certain objects, such as Christ and his claim to divinity, one becomes instantly unscientific. True science is means applying a method suitable to the object under investigation. A psychologist using X-rays would be considered a quack, as would a theologian trying to evaluate Christ’s claims through stoichiometry. If the basic point you want to make is that scientists can also be good Christians, however, then we are agreed.

By: Nicole

Nicole — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 03:55:33 +0000

I don’t think they believed in Christ because the scientific method proved it to them (or else they were very seriously misusing the scientific method). But I do think that many scientists see the intricacies and beauty in the natural world that 1) their hearts recognize as design created by a designer 2) inspires them to delve deeper into the mystery of the world which so fascinates them, using their strengths (Did God provide the brilliant talents of mathematicians, physicists, engineers, biologists only as a test to see if they would resist using their God-given strengths & choose to explore their world in a more God-centric way? My dear friend, we cannot all be philosophers). I believe many were blessed with their strengths so they could do God’s work. And the fruits of their labors have greatly benefited society. Take Pasteur, his work paved the way for so many practical applications of modern science. Immunization & pasteurization have protected millions of people from unnecessary disease & suffering. But you are convinced his research proved to him God’s existence, & not that God’s existence inspired & propelled Pasteur’s scientific zeal? You are right, the Lord is seen in a completely different way than the seeing of science. But we are first God’s creations, not scientists. And I am optimistically hopeful for the ones who truly believe this.

By: Aaron Pidel, SJ

Aaron Pidel, SJ — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 21:57:05 +0000

Since the very days of Christ. This is not to say that scientists can’t also be Christians and “see” Christ, of course. It is simply to doubt whether Mendel, Pasteur and Galileo came to believe in Christ by means of the scientific method or a detached, “wait-and-see” attitude. Christ is seen by the humble and pure of heart, which means that the “seeing” of faith depends upon the condition of the “seer” in a different way than the “seeing” of sciencee.

By: Nicole

Nicole — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 23:15:53 +0000

The hearts of scientific observers and curiosity-seekers can’t see Christ? That is a bold statement you make. I wonder what the scientific observers and curiosity seekers of the world would have to say about that. What about Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Galileo? Since when does scientific observation and curiosity blind us to Christ?

By: Aaron Pidel, SJ

Aaron Pidel, SJ — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:06:32 +0000

I have to admit I don’t know much about the painting. I just thought it was beautiful…

By: Betty

Betty — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 08:51:53 +0000

Thanks for what you wrote: it will help me during this Holy Week.
Could you tell me all you know about the painting . who painted it and when? Thanks a lot Betty

By: Nan

Nan — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 16:56:46 +0000

I hope you’re “seeing” what I’m “seeing” in that painting.