Credibility & Scandal - Free write on the feast of St. Thomas

 One of the commonly held misconceptions is that faith and science are opposed. Is this true?

 Let’s take a very simple, real-world example and go from there.

 If I were to do an experiment which involved liquid nitrogen (let’s say, to turn magnets into superconductors), I would go to my closet of elements and pull the metal canister with the label “Liquid Nitrogen.” I would then do my experiment.

 What I wouldn’t do is: test whether or not the “stuff” in the metal canister is liquid nitrogen; nor would I test whether or not the Scientific Method is a valid method for achieving measurable results.

 I trust that the label placed on the metal canister was placed there by someone who already validated that the element is nitrogen; likewise, I trust that the Scientific Method has similarly be validated. I trust those things because, implicitly, I trust those people behind those things – even though I have never met those people.

 If I had rampant skepticism, I would never be able to do the experiment at hand. I would have to personally validate every single scientific “fact” that was given to me, from the element, to the method, to the balance of the scales, to the basics of magnetism, and so on. And since I would be wasting all of my time on that and not on the experiment at hand, I would never progress scientific knowledge.

 Doubt is such a waste of time!

 In order to be a good scientist, I must necessarily trust so much of what has come before me. I must stand on the shoulders of those who have come before me. So, I need to trust them. Or, to put it another way, in order to do science, I must have faith in what has come before.

 The Catholic religion is very similar.

 Like scientists that don’t have to re-validate the Scientific Method, I don’t have to prove the validity of the Resurrection. The “scientist,” Thomas the Apostle, already did the experiment. As did ten others who were in the room. And another five-hundred a few weeks later. Thomas (though he was quite incredulous at the time) actually touched and he saw and he heard – and his results were validated by others who were equally surprised by this new knowledge. The atom can be split? Death can be overcome? Who would have thunk it!

 Their results were published.

 The problem – and here is where science and Catholicism separate a little – is that scientists, if they wanted, could still do the experiment on the most basic assumptions, whereas Catholics cannot. On a practical level, scientists and Catholics are very similar in that we all presume on that previously-attained knowledge; none of us has to re-do the experiment. But on another level, we are different in that Catholics cannot re-do the experiment.

 So, although science and religion do share a commonality – that is, trust, or faith – they do differ in that religion, unlike science, has as an essential component: credibility. Catholicism doesn’t simply say, “I believe your results.” Catholicism also says, “I believe… you.”

 This is why Thomas’ personal battle is so instructive.

 He didn’t just simply disbelieve in the Resurrection. (That could very well be understood at the time, given its extreme novelty). But what Thomas also disbelieved were his friends – the very men and women whom he had lived with for years and whom he had trusted all that time. In this moment, he wasn’t just doubting the extreme results of an experiment they had already done, he was forgetting everything that made them – his friends and their results – credible.

 Credibility: the “stuff” that makes a person trustworthy; the ability to trust another.

 And not only that, be had also forgotten the other miracles: the loaves and fishes, the walking on water, the raising of Lazarus, etc. Wasn’t it plausible that the man, Jesus, whom they had witnessed do these miracles also could do this particular miracle of the Resurrection?

 Faith is not a blind leap or a leap in the dark. There are reasons to believe; there is credibility behind the trust. And Thomas had every reason to believe.

 So, why didn’t he believe at his first hearing of the Resurrection?

 Simply: scandal.

 He had been scandalized by the crucifixion. He had been hurt by it, disillusioned by it. A seed of doubt was planted in his mind: “maybe I have been duped.”

 This happens all the time. We grow up from the children’s stories – Santa Claus – and then we hear that some of them were made up. As we see revealed the light behind the curtain in Oz, all else is cast in the dark shadow of doubt. This confuses us. Hurts us, even. Who can we trust? We are truly lambs among the wolves!

 Catholicism over its past century, it would seem, has lost a lot of its credibility; the scandals, the lack of holiness, the lack of “results.” The scandal of the Cross – oftentimes, self-inflicted – tempts us, like it did Thomas, to throw the baby out with the bathwater, to forget something so essential to both science and Catholicism: the foundations.

 Thomas’ disillusionment and hurt are healed when he touches Jesus – and not just Jesus’ side, but all the way up (through the hole created by the lance) to the heart itself. This is why Thomas cries out in surprise “My Lord and my God!” What has happened? He touched Jesus’ heart, literally, and found that it was beating. Jesus was really alive.

 In that moment, Thomas’ incredulity and disillusionment disappeared. His friends were vindicated. And he was taught: “Thomas, blessed are those who do not see and yet still believe.”

 While this final line of Jesus’ teaching exhorts us, there is more to it than that. Jesus is telling Thomas: “Thomas, your disillusionment was healed because you got to see and to touch. Not everyone is going to get that opportunity. So, how will people believe what you saw? And when they believe – often because of the credibility gained by the new life you are about to embark upon – will you not realize how miraculous that will be?”

 How miraculous it is when someone has gone through the Cross of scandal and disillusionment – and still comes to believe.

 For me, I came to believe because of the logical, the reasonable – I see the results of Catholicism’s first experiments, its foundations, as entirely credible. I trust what Thomas (and others) experienced because I know the results of that eroding doubt that comes from distrusting what others have experienced and not affording the benefit of a doubt, especially when the something claimed is so extraordinary. I trust them, too, because, psychologically, it is impossible to have so many people experience the same “hallucination.” I trust, too, because this did change his life. Not in the radical I-will-blow-myself-up kind of way, but in radical kill-me-if-you-must-I-will-not-doubt-again kind of way.

 That may not be enough to assuage the weight and splinters of the crosses that others carry. It may require an encounter with aesthetic Beauty – in the Cathedrals, the art, the music, the liturgy – or the moral Beauty not only in the saints (and they are inspiring!) but also in the current day and age. I love being around someone who loves God and others well.

 I am convinced that if Catholicism in the present era has lost some credibility, it isn’t because the Resurrection isn’t true, it’s because her members haven’t lived out the results of the first experiment and the beauty of that has been hidden. The First Experiment shows the impact that faith has. Until that enters in, we are like scientists who are trying to re-do every experiment instead of basing the present life-experiment on the results of those who have come before. Instead of progressing in faith, many spin their wheels in doubt. The effect is a cultural rot where a mob of individuals rules the day.

 And that affects both religion and science.

 +