I want you to take a trip with me to the future. It will be a trip filled with the fascination of joy or horror, depending on the way you think about things. If you believe that religion is religion and that science is science and never the twain shall meet, then stop reading right now. No matter what is written here will persuade you to think otherwise. But if you're like me, and you believe as Einstein did - that that God doesn't play dice with the universe - then, read on. This is your raison d'etre.

          Our trip begins somewhere in the near future - maybe 20 to 30 years from now - when a lot of us are getting ready to leave this mortal coil. Scientists will have answered many of the riddles of the universe, including how to fold space and a cure for liberalism. Our children and grandchildren will be genetically engineered out of most of the major illnesses. Genetically engineered into a slightly tanned, non-blemishing skin with green or brown or even blue eyes and chosen hair thickness, curliness, and color and thin or thick lips and noses. We'll chose to be chunky or skinny. Most importantly, we'll have some answers about what causes many biological and physical things to happen. Things that, today, we may call "miracles."

          What, then, shall we do with religion?

          It occurred to me, one winter night, not so long ago, that when it comes to religion, some of what we have today, may not be around then. I'm specifically talking about those religions which say that certain of their scriptures are antithetical to science. That you can't have both in the same reality.

          But let's take a look at that.

          Do we really want to believe the tenets of a religion which says that God operates in a world which is opposite to God's very nature? If we believe that God created the universe, and we believe that God cannot be bad, then we are bound to believe that God would not trick us. But, if we say that God's Universe is not as God has allowed us to find it, then we are saying that God is, for all intents and purposes, tricking us. Either God is stupid or God is malicious, by this definition.

          Well, there are a lot of people who believe that God or His Son, or His Prophet, or His Prophets, or his personas or his devas or whatever, has created the world in a way which does not allow us to discover the way He created this world. (or She, if you are so inclined. Frankly, I don't think God has sex - which is probably why He is always described as unhappy - at least with mankind.) Why would the Diety go to such lengths to confuse those who seek to know the stuff of the Universe? Whether God Did it, as the foot-washers say, to bring down the proud, or did it for only the best reasons, it makes no difference. In the end, it is a malicious joke and not worthy of the God of All Compassion. In this interpretation, God becomes G. Gordon Liddy, obfuscating the obvious to trick mankind into humility.

          But, God, by His very nature, cannot sin (and make no mistake about it, trickery IS a sin - bearing false witness). Would He, then, have a need for trickery?

          If the Q'urran or the Bible or the Holy Books of Moishes or the Baggavad Ghita or the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Scrolls of Moroni are meant to be the absolute inviolate historically accurate truth, we have another problem. If, instead, these are holy works by holy men, whether dictated by an angel or written by the finger of God and are great stories for the edification and creation of faith for humanity MIXED with history and many accurate truths, then they contain the truth. Containing the truth does not mean BEING the truth, however, and those who would insist on the latter are doomed to failure and, in the end, confusion and madness.

          I love it when my son visits from College and tells of his learnings in philosophy and religion. He has just studied some of the more profound Church fathers. He now is filled with the Aquinian knowledge of God. He now knows that God must be the three O's (Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent). St. Thomas Aquinas believed in a universe which made sense. It was an ordered universe. An Aristotelian Universe.

          For a long time - from the 20's to the 90's science thought they had proof that the universe was disordered. That everything was relative. Nowadays, that's not the case. We're back to an ordered universe of sorts. If matter is strings of energy vibrating a certain probability intervals, and gravity is a property of subatomics which stretches to every part of the universe, then all parts are connected. There are strange attractors - atom pieces which, when rubbed together once and then separated, can be stimulated and cause the other "attractor" to react, no matter how far away. React instantaneously. Some day, we could have strange attractor radio - so long xm! There may be an infinite number of universes - constant creation simply from choices made every instant, all leading back to one big bang.

          It has been said by several well known scientists that it is more plausible for one blind, paraplegic, deaf, poverty-stricken Irishman to win the South Carolina Lottery 15 times in a row, than for intelligent life to appear on Earth for any reason.

          There is a reality of apparent chaos that, when charted, looks like a big butterfly, and proves that the "chaos" is only apparent.

          St. Thomas would be in hog heaven today if he were a scientist. Why? Because science is proving the existence of a first mover. God, if you will. Meanwhile, the Bible, and by extension many parts of many holy books are being proven to be scientifically sound.

          So we're going to find ourselves in a Future which has solved many of the riddles of God.

          At that point, there will be those who say that we will not need God, because we know the secrets. It is at that point that those who believe that science and religion are at opposites will extinguish themselves.

          To argue for a survival of religion, let's turn to a simple medical truth: The eye.

          The eye sees. But because the eye sees does not mean that what the eye sees is not real. We know that the eye receives photons which are a wonderful example of strings of energy that often act like particles of matter. The photns are received by receptors on the retina of the eye and are turned into electrochemical information which is then carried to and processed in the brain. We see. Because we see dependable, repeatable information, we believe what we see is true. Philosophically, we can turn to Kant and Davies to rationalize that what we see is what we see.

          There is a part of the brain (the hypothalmus) which some scientists believe allow us to communicate with a different level of energy. Some parapsychologists claim we could be exploring Near Death Experiences. Scientists say that this is folly and that the hypothalmus is creating these images and messages and tunnels of light. Maybe. But if the eye can see, maybe the hypothalmus can receive. Maybe.

          I throw this idea into the mix because it is vital to the understanding of the role that religion will play in the future. If we do not allow for the rules of God in God's universes, then we are no better than the skeptical scientists who cannot see past their own prejudices, now. Science and religion are, as they were originally thought to be, one discipline. Science is the mechanics of the religious question. Science shows HOW God did it. Religion is the motive and the motif of WHY God did it. Religion is the causal mechanics of the scientific question.

          Or to put it simply, Science Discovers The Way God Does It.

          In the future, if religion cannot understand this and realize it is the basis for trust between God and His people, then there is nothing to believe and no place necessary to join together to celebrate that trust.