That's very interesting, but it's kind of ironic. Do scientists really need a patron saint? Is he really the patron saint of scientists?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
That's very interesting, but it's kind of ironic. Do scientists really need a patron saint? Is he really the patron saint of scientists?
They do if they know what’s good for them! 😁
Why do you say it's ironic?
I believe he’s referring to the fact that most scientists are not religious. In fact, the Church enabled most of the scientific progress throughout the ages. Even modern genetics can be traced to a monastery in Germany - not to mention the first creation of beer.
Oh, I know. Why is the question I always ask the skeptic. 999 out of 1000 times they can't give an answer past the fourth or fifth "why?"
*As a side note, I was listening to Fr. Mitch Pacwa one evening, and he stated that the Genesis account of creation, and God's revelation of himself made science possible in the first place. The reason is because the ancient pagan religions taugt that the forests, sun, sky, moon, earth, and every great thing in creation were gods. And if you were to scrutinize creation to closely, you would anger the gods. I haven't been able to find this anywhere else, so I don't use it in arguments, but Father Mitch has no reason to lie!
I love Fr. Pacwa - one of the few good Jesuits left!