by Robert DePaolo
September 23., 2025. The St. Thomas Aquinas Lecture Series, Georgetown University, Washington DC
(Amidst the din of heightened expectations, a tall, slender man steps to the podium and attempts to enlist the attention of the crowd.)
“Ladies and Gentlemen.” However, the audience is caught up in scattered conversations about what they expect to be controversial commentary and are not yet focused on center stage.
The speaker taps the microphone and re-addresses the audience. “Please, please… ladies and gentlemen.” The audience quiets down.
“Thank you. and good evening. I am John Wheeler. Welcome to Thomas Aquinas Auditorium and this first series of debates sponsored by Georgetown University. The debate this evening focuses on the importance of science and religion in human experience. I am quite sure many of you have already formed opinions on this subject, which extends to the existence of God, whether all aspects of human experience can be explained through scientific inquiry and whether we will ever be able to reach conclusions about why we are here, what ultimately controls the natural world and why it is that we have this thing called morality.”
“Most importantly I imagine everyone in this room has at one time or another wondered if our existence ends with death, or whether there is something more… some place or some experience beyond that.”
“Tonight, we have two speakers who have studied and written about these topics extensively, although from different points of view. One is a scientist, the other a theologian. I hope and suspect their debate tonight will prove enlightening. With that in mind let me introduce two very accomplished gentlemen. Our first speaker is a professor of theoretical physics at MIT and author of the bestseller, Quantum Reality. Please welcome Dr. Stephen Herbert (The audience applauds mildly). “His opponent is a professor of theology here at Georgetown University. He has written his own bestseller — Meaning Beyond the Physical World. Please welcome Father Anthony Moretti.” (The audience applauds enthusiastically).
Wheeler continued: “The fact that both books flew off the shelves tells me the public is very much divided on questions of faith and science. Whether we can resolve that uncertainty tonight I hope the following discussion will prove to be interesting and thought provoking. Now let us begin. Dr. Herbert, you have the floor”
Herbert approaches the microphone. “Thank you, John. Well, let me begin by saying the success of my book has perhaps more to do with my editor’s capacity to get silk from a sow’s ear and the readers’ tolerance for my obtuse explanations. than anything else” (laughter from the audience).
“Let me first say that I believe in the value of religion. I think it serves many purposes — soothing, providing hope, ameliorating the fear of death through belief in an afterlife and of course providing human society with a moral foundation. We do have laws but as a defense lawyer friend of mine once told me (after getting a murderer off on a technicality) sometimes the law is not enough. (more laughter) However, I also believe the concept of God is, while woven into the mindset of humanity, rooted in ancient times, when there was no science per se, when due to the human need to explain the unexplainable, some thought process had to be developed to bring closure to an anxious species. Man is a primate and as such he (or she, with due respect to better half of the human population) requires a social pecking order and it seems to me the perfect alpha male or female is one who is so powerful that he or she can solve all problems, forgive all sins and provide comfort in an unforgiving world. So, while religion and God have been necessary to human existence over time, I am not ready to acknowledge that God exists or that there is any such thing as an afterlife — as hopeful a concept as that might be. It might be hard to accept that we live and die and that’s all there is to it, but I’m not convinced there is any proof otherwise. God once cured maladies, but now science does that. God once was responsible for predicting events, but modern mathematical systems can do that. We are not there yet, but I sincerely believe it is possible most of the concerns and uncertainties of ancient peoples will be eventually resolved through scientific inquiry.” (Scattered applause and booing emerge from the audience).
(John Wheeler steps to the microphone)
“Now to present a counterargument please Welcome Father Moretti” (General applause) (Father Moretti steps to the podium).
“Dr. Herbert’s comments are interesting and rather ironic. He seems to be suggesting religion is necessary but somehow invalid, that the mind of man conjured up this belief system from some sort of primate cognitive template and ran with it for thousands of years, but that faith has always been an illusion. He further asserts that religion and the idea of God are nothing more than artificial ways to explain the unexplainable and that science has since filled the gap. Well okay — let’s examine that within the context of his own field of science. Has science been able to explain why Einstein’s theory of gravity and the principles of quantum physics are so incompatible? Seems to me physicists have been arguing about that for decades with no resolution. There have been a wide variety of scientific theories — for example that there are gravitons out there pulling things together in the universe. but no one has ever observed a graviton. Isn’t science about observation? A philosopher once said… if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there is to see it, did it really fall?”
“There has been speculation that the cosmos is made up of string-like elements, but that notion requires the existence of eleven dimensions, and no one has observed any more than three (plus time, I suppose). Has any of you ever seen a fifth dimension? I have tried to run, jump, sit, stand and drink beer in the fifth dimension but have never had much luck” (laughter from the audience). “One theory holds that there are multiple universes lining up millimeters away from each other and that occasionally they bump into one another to create a big bang. They call this M theory — sounds more like ahem theory to me.” (laughter from the audience) “You know, a few millimeters is pretty close and I hope the next collision occurs before my home insurance policy expires.” (More laughter). “So how come no one can prove any of this? Is it possible that science, particularly physics has lapsed (God forbid) into a belief system based on unproven and possibly unprovable assumptions — in other words — into articles of faith?” (More laughter from the audience).
“While science can explain how particles interact (even though no one has ever observed an atom) how enzymes cause protein synthesis and how the weak force causes decay, how does all that pertain to the human condition? Why do some people love while others hate and why can such feelings occur within the same person? Why do some inflict harm while others heal? And if evolution means survival of the fittest and man is superior to the apes why are there still apes and why are they all doing so well?” (More laughter) I do not reject science. Of course, if my child were ill I would allow him to be treated by the finest physicians using the latest methods — in fact I would insist on it. But science has been around since the time of Aristotle and there are still so many things we can’t explain — and might never explain.”
“But please understand. Not only do I respect scientific endeavors and advancements -as far as they go. I also believe there is a confluence between science and faith’ — a point where they not only don’t conflict but are in agreement.”
“Ladies and gentlemen, we are in an auditorium dedicated to a man who was not afraid to combine the rigor of science and the passion of faith into a theoretical concept. Saint Thomas Aquinas of course, was that man and as a kind of tribute to him, I would close with the following statement. Most religions espouse that life is everlasting, and that while our physical bodies die off, our soul continues on. Conversely, science espouses that all of nature has an endpoint — something they call the law of entropy. It is the idea that all systems eventually run down. But is this true — even within the domain of scientific thought? What about the principle of energy conservation? You see Einstein (who himself, expressed, albeit indirectly, a belief in God) proved the energy content of any given entity continues into infinity, that its content can only change form and will never run down to nothing. In that sense, even perhaps my opponent can acknowledge that the energy content of the body carries on. Is that constancy tantamount to the permanence of the soul? I cannot say it is, or that it isn’t, but I can say this principle allows for a possible merger between the tenets of science and the parameters of faith.”
“I would conclude by referring to Moses’ reflection after descending from Mt. Sinai. When asked to describe the deity he encountered, he could only say that what he witnessed was the “light of mind.” I believe we all, including scientists, biologists, and virtually all religious worshippers have held light, that magnificent gift from the sun, in reverence. Is the symbolism of light and of the stars and heavens an article of faith, of sustenance, a source of power and inspiration and life itself or is all of that just a hot ball of gas? I leave it to you to decide.” (Strong applause, and an amused grin from Dr. Herbert).
The debate ended with closing statements by both speakers and concluded around 10 pm. It was followed by a standing ovation.
As the audience filed out, Dr. Herbert approached Father Moretti. They shook hands and Dr Herbert offered praise to his opponent. “Father, that was a wonderful presentation. I did not agree with most of it, but it made me think.” Dr. Herbert paused and then looked down — seemingly a bit maudlin. Father Moretti noticed the change in expression. “Stephen, are you ok?” Herbert paused, then spoke. “I am a man of science, as you know, but as we debated, I found myself reflecting.” “About what,” asked the curious priest as a tone of sympathy cropped up in his voice? “My wife passed away last year from cancer,” “I’m so sorry,” interjected Father Moretti. The priest continued: “Look there is a cafeteria down the hall. Why don’t we get a cup of coffee and talk a bit?” The men headed down to the food and drink area and sat down. Dr. Herbert resumed his conversation.
“Well, you see when she was getting worse — in stage four, I did all I could to research various treatments. I spoke to several oncologists to get second and third opinions and even pondered going to Europe with her to seek alternative treatments. Unfortunately, her condition declined rapidly and after all that delving into optimism and hope and studying the cellular properties and genetic aspects of the disease I reached an impasse, collapsed and broke down. My ‘faith’ in science (pardon the irony) diminished and at that moment I was in a psychological no-man’s land. My heart….do you mind if I say… my soul?” (Father Moretti nodded in the affirmative) was empty. I did not know what to do. Do you understand?”
Father Moretti nodded again. The priest then asked: “So, where are you now” Herbert said: “Still nowhere — at least until tonight after hearing your remarks.” “I don’t understand:” said the priest. “Well, the principle of energy conservation, the idea that part of us never dies, at least our energy signature. It made me think.” “About what:” asked the priest? “About everlasting life — about Moses’ light of mind.” “I’m afraid you lost me:” said Father Moretti.
Then a look of urgency came upon the scientist’s face. “Never mind:” said Dr. Herbert. “This has been wonderful, and I thank you for listening, but I have to go” “Okay:” said the confused priest and they got up and left.
Dr. Herbert walked to his car, got in, started the engine and before driving off he reached for a tape recorder in the glove compartment. Fearful of losing his train of thought, began to dictate ideas for a paper he decided might be suitable, (if somewhat controversial) for publication, He spoke into the recorder: “The electrical energy of the body remains constant even after death according to the conservation principle. Mankind has an aversion to death, and experiences devastating sadness over the loss of loved ones. His only recourse over the course of human history has been to find ways to keep the person somehow alive — through memory, in elaborate tombs, in songs, poems, and other memorials. And only time has been able to soothe that pain. Meanwhile, all that suffering.”
“We have never found a way to merge faith and science by creating a version of everlasting life. Yet one of the tasks of both science and faith has always been to alleviate suffering. I wonder if it would be possible to sustain life by transforming its energetic properties into a tangible, physical form that does indeed continue and can resume in actual time and place in the life of those who would otherwise be adrift in mourning? I wonder if this can be done by transforming the energy components of a deceased individual into a series of electrons and photons to produce an ergonomic transformation from death to light — with the undying energy of the person being redirected to another useful, arguably spiritual form. Hasn’t light always been a source of worship? Does it not give and sustain life? Is not light, whose speed cannot be surpassed, which has no mass and obeys no time restraints the closest thing to a spirit? Does it not in itself integrate the scientific and religious worlds? The soul does not die but neither does the photon. It is the only component of nature that cannot decay.”
Each deceased individual could be converted by the laws of physics and the imagination of Moses into light — that is. into a special kind of lamp or reflecting device to obviate the need for burials and cremations, which are a waste of energy, and thereby convert sadness into something eternal, useful, visible and accessible.”
The car came to a stop at a red light. Then the traffic light turned green, Dr. Herbert put pedal to the metal and gathered himself. “Alright then, contact the morgue, obtain permission from the families, develop a grant proposal… yes! The first experimental body will become more than a vessel — it will become a sacred laboratory, part spiritual, part physical, part past, part future. Then it’s simply a matter of heating and cooling clusters of electrons to change their orbits and gather the resulting photons into a solid container — it can be done! Moses would approve, Einstein would approve, I dare say, if there is a God He would approve as well. Time to construct a magnificent bridge between finality and eternity. No more absolute version of death, just an extension from one form of energy to another — from a corporal existence to the light of mind. I must get home. There is much work to do.”