Ihere is another danger, emphasizednby Hugh Seton-Watson’s concludingnessay. The Soviets are overextended asnan empire; there is unrest in EasternnEurope, Islamic revivalism to theirnsouth, the Chinese confrontation, and anstagnant economy. Further, the Sovietsnknow that it is within the power of thenU.S. to regain strategic superiority if theneffort is made. Seton-Watson fears thatnthe Kremlin will make the same decisionnthat the German general staff reachednduring the crisis of 1914—^that it is betternto strike now than to wait, because tonwait means to become weaker in comparisonnto one’s adversaries:nDefeatists will say, we (the U.S.) loseneither way. If we don’t rearm andndon’t arm China, the Soviets wiUnsurely win all over the world If wendo rearm and arm China, the Sovietsnwill threaten force or use force whilenthey still have superiority. The realistnwiU say, we can survive and win… ifnwe use our resources, our brains andnour courage to good effect.nThe assumption that the Soviets will resortnto force rather than reform or makenconcessions is supported by recentnSoviet actions in Poland, Afghanistan,nand Indochina. This is not the time,nthen, to cut back our political or militarynpreparedness. The current situationsnare set to bring Great-power tensions tontheir peak. And as in the past, onlynstrength and resolve wUl pass the test. DnOf Saints, Scientists & SupermennLeszek Kolakowski: Religion: Ifnthere is no God …On God, the Devil,nSin and other Worries of the socallednPhilosophy of Religion,- OxfordnUniversity Press; New York.nKen Wilber: A Sociable God: A BriefnIntroduction to a TranscendentalnSociology; McGraw-Hill/New Press;nNew York.nby Bryce ChristensennScience is commonly regarded bynmodern commentators as a body ofntruths superior and antithetical to religion;nfew conceptions are more deeplynironic. Many astute scholars have concludednthat science is the outgrowth ofnimpulses fostered and defined by aJudeo-nChristian theology in which the materialnuniverse is celebrated as a beneficentnentity distinct both from the mortal mennwho inhabit it and fi-om the transcendentnGod who created and governs it. Whilenthe pantheists of the East were bemoan-nMr. Christensen is an editorial intern atnChronicles.nChronicles of Cttlturening the multeity of creation and tryingnthrough meditation to achieve a mysticalnunion with the All, Occidental religionistsnwere rejoicing in the diversity ofntheir Lord’s creation as they activelynexamined its wonders. Hence, as G. K.nChesterton observed, the “almost insanenhappiness in the eyes of the mediaevalnsaint” who is “separate from things andnis staring at them in astonishment” contrastsnsharply with “the sealed eyes” ofnthe Buddhist contemplative who believesn”there is really only one thing, and thatnbeing impersonal can hardly be astonishednat itself.” It is therefore only logicalnthat science and technology were chieflynof Western, not Oriental, origin and thatnmost of the principals in the scientificnrevolution—^including Copernicus, Kepler,nand Newton—were fervent (if notnalways orthodox) believers.nSince the time of Newton, though,nWestern religion has had more difficultynwith its heady ofispring than David hadnwith Absalom. Part of the blame for thisnestrangement belongs to religionists,nespecially those well-meaning Scholasticsnwhose synthesis of scriptural doctrinenand Greek thought was so thorough­nnngoing that scientists such as Galileonfound it virtually impossible to attacknthe errors of Aristotelian science withoutnappearing to attack Christianity itself.nBut far more culpable were thenadvocates of science who dogmaticallynsought to make themselves the sole purveyorsnand custodians of truth and tonestablish their empirical and mathematicalnmethods as the only legitimate avenuesnto knowledge. The eagerness withn^^dlich modem society seeks the opinionnof scientists on various nonscientiflcnissues—^including religious questions—nbespeaks the success of their endeavor.nSo while the Bible goes unread, magazinenracks bulge with “scientific” pronouncementsnon God, man, and immortality.nYet, as Leszek Kolakowski amply demonstratesnin Religion, the acceptancenof the lab coat as a substitute for clericalnvestments is profoundly problematicnand philosophically inconsistent. Thenpopular understanding is that sciencenrests upon a bedrock of knowledge andncertainty (the word science comes fromnthe Latin scire, “to know”) while religionnrests merely on faith. Careful examinationnof both attitudes reveals almost thenreverse. Because, as Kolakowski observes,nthe scientific method provides “no toolsnwhich enable us to perform a miraculousnleap from empirical data, howevernnumerous, to infinity,” its epistemologicalnresults are necessarily finite also:neven its zealous aposde Bertrand Russellnadmitted that science could never givencertainty, only probability. It is thereforenonly by an act of faith, faith in thenuniform and autonomous operation ofnthe physical universe, that atheistic scientistsncan posit the universal applicabilitynof those descriptive and predictivenmental constructs called physical “laws.”nThat such feith is repeatedly justified innspecific instances and thus is easy tonmaintain does not alter its fimdamentalncharacter: it is still faith, ineffable belief,nnot absolute knowledge. Categoric denialnof providential miracles, then, is rootednnot in any scientific “proof,” but rather,nas Kolakowski notes, in a stubborn faithn