Bice wrote an column called, "Science relies on confidence, strength of evidence, not faith" (SN 1/27). I felt compelled to comment.

We know that our life has meaning, at least to some degree, whether it is self-derived or bestowed from the heavens.

The source of this meaning is not concretely defined for us. We also know that we will be able to figure out how the universe works ? la the constant pursuit of scientific knowledge derived from the world around us. We have faith that the "how" and the "why" have answers.

Science is a surge of information blazing a trail through the unknown.

Religion, on the other hand, is perched precariously close to the edge of the unknown. For some, a simple nudge by a scientific fact will push them off of this edge into the abyss of the meaningless. This is a pointless concern.

In my opinion, religion is more relatable to language than science. There is no way to prove a language is the right one, but no doubt that it is necessary to bestow meaning upon everything around us. The past and present atrocities derived from religious beliefs, based on the "I am right" claim, make as much sense as forcing everyone to speak Latin. It is silly to say that I have the "right" language.

It is not necessarily silly that I might speak a language based on flapping my arms and tangential tongue movements.

We place meaning on everything, but the symbols used for definition have no inherent quality.

Jeremy Purcell
MSU employee