He said, ‘No, Father Abraham; but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’

This story from the Bible is known as the Rich Man and Lazarus or sometimes Dives and Lazarus with “Dives” generically meaning a rich man. It was a particularly popular passage during the medieval period because it is a rare description in the Bible of the afterlife. The Greek word used is “Hades” which was the Greek term for the underworld. In later English translations it becomes “hell,” but the notion of any afterlife was a relatively new idea in First Century Judaism.

There is some commentary that in this passage, the rich man was actually Caiaphas, the high priest himself. In this way, it would not be a parable using generic characters to teach a lesson, but it was on some level a critique, even satire, of the time in which Jesus was living. Of course, it is just one theory. What evidence do we have to that supporting the theory? The rich man wore purple clothing, a sign of being wealthy and also a color used by the priests. Caiaphas also had five brothers, actually brothers-in-law, so it fits the pattern. Finally, Caiaphas was a member of the Sadducees, a faction within the Temple priesthood that did not believe in an after-life. The other major faction, the Pharisees, did believe in life after death and Jesus’ teachings are generally more in line with their ideas.

Abraham is cast as being the one waiting for you in heaven. That role in modern expressions is often ascribed to Saint Peter waiting at the pearly gates, but this is one example of that job being assigned to Abraham. What does Abraham say in response to the rich man’s request?

He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'”

Now this jab at the rich man has many elements to it. One, the rich man and his brothers would not listen to even Moses and the prophets because life was good. There was no reason to listen. This is a standard refrain from the Hebrew scriptures in which the prophets are frequently criticizing the wealthy for failing to care for the poor, like Lazarus suffering and dying at the gate. You failed to offer water to Lazarus in life, so why should he or anyone in hell grant you such comfort?

And then there is the comment about even if someone rose from the dead, still such people would not listen. This is a likely a foreshadowing of the death of Jesus and the reluctance of people to believe what he had to say before or after the resurrection, like the high priest. In other words, no matter how hard you try, no matter how persuasive your arguments, there are times when no one is going to listen to you.

Today is another installment of my sermon series about days that changed the world. And the day in question is one that some of you might remember. In fact, one that you might remember exactly where you were and what you were doing. It was July 16, 1969. And that was the day that the Apollo 11 astronauts launched from Cape Kennedy on the mission that put the first human beings onto the moon. Neil Armstrong would be the first onto the moon on July 20^th and would famously say “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” And that statement alludes to what changed to that day.

Walking on the moon was important. Obviously, no one had ever done so before, so it was a first. But there had been many other firsts. The first person to take flight, which was actually not one of the Wright brothers. People had flown in balloons and early dirigibles in the 18^th and the 19^th centuries respectively. But developing the ability to fly and the building of rockets and other technologies were necessary steps on the way to the accomplishment of Apollo 11. Science builds up to that moment,

The event was important, but more so than the actual event was the effect it had on human imagination. Setting down on another planet had greater meaning than the technological achievement. It was reaching past a previously unreachable horizon. Something was done by human beings that signaled a fundamental change in perspective. We could make the unbelievable possible by going to the moon – what other unbelievable barrier could we overcome next? Was anything now possible?

Now there was a context to this achievement. The United States was in the midst of the Cold War with the former Soviet Union. And science was one of the battlefields upon which that conflict was fought. I could just as well have chosen October 4, 1957 as the day that changed the world, the day that the Soviets launched the Sputnik satellite. I could have done that, but I am enough of an American patriot to focus on my own country’s achievements over the country that served as the existential threat of my childhood.

Of course, that preference is a form of narrow-mindedness on my part. It’s like watching the Olympics and only caring about how the Americans are doing. And when that sort of competition comes about, we tend to focus on the home team. But what does the home team mean when it comes to the advancement of human knowledge?

The fact that the United States put the first man on the moon is historically important, as was the Soviet Union launching the first satellite into orbit. But those victories obscure far more important achievements, the development of technology and the expansion of our understanding of the world around us.

Seven years before the moon landing, then President John F. Kennedy gave a speech at Rice University. He used his remarks to announce the plan to send human beings to the moon for the first time. It was a plan made in the shadow of the Soviets space program and was arguably a way to “one up” them in the race for space travel. President Kennedy described the project in this way:

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war.

There are multiple layers to these words. We are striving to discover new knowledge for the progress of all people. There are new rights to be one, which I interpret as rights to govern what was going on in the space around the Earth. And science has no conscience of its own, and so it can be a force for good or for ill. And the difference between whether it will be used for good or for ill depends upon whether the United States would control this new frontier of space.

As an American, that reasoning had a strong resonance when I was growing up and it still suggests to me a choice to use science for the good of humanity rather than as a means for inflicting violence upon the world. But a lot has changed in the world since 1969.

A lot has changed since the end of the Cold War. I could spend hours going through the differences, but I wanted to focus on one for this morning: many Americans do not have the same confidence in science. Instead, some Americans think of science as just another set of opinions, a personal philosophy that a person can choose to live by that you can either accept or reject.

For example, over the past few years, we have seen growing social conflict over science, particularly whether public health officials have the best interests of citizens in mind. Fights about wearing masks, about limiting people gathering in public, about which medicines work, and about if new vaccines are safe and effective.

In this very church community, I am guessing there is a range of opinions on such matters, but probably a tighter range of opinion than across the whole United States. Some still are wary of Covid, understandably. Some are venturing out in public with greater frequency. Some have questions about what will happen next with the virus, while some think we are pretty much over it. Wherever you are in the mix, honestly, I find it all understandable.

Because there are plenty of things we do not know, plenty of things we do not understand. When the virus hit the United States back in early 2020, the public had no idea what was going on. So, who did we turn to? The government, which reliance however was at times complicated by the political messages lumped in with the public health information.

Political preferences pushed people one way or another when it came to taking advice about the pandemic. Political preferences made it more or less likely that you would listen to someone, like the local health department or federal officials in Washington.

This was and is a problem in our country. Of all things, public health and confidence in the related science should be topics of common purpose. Whose science is correct?

That is a fascinating question because it makes the assumption that science can ever be correct, meaning being right, meaning covering every contingency. Which of course is not what science is about.

Over the centuries science has been interpreted in many ways. As a form of heresy, as with Galileo claiming that the Earth revolves around the Sun. As a form of certainty, as with the great confidence in science and industrial progress during the 19^th century. As a form of politics, as with the struggle between the Americans and the Russians during the Cold War. And as a form of personal belief, which is where we find ourselves today.

Galileo was imprisoned for his contention that the Earth revolved around the Sun. That notion conflicted with Biblical teachings and the traditions of the medieval Catholic church. It wasn’t until 1992 that Pope John Paul II suggested that the theologians at the time were wrong, never however really declaring that Galileo was right.

Over the centuries, perspectives shifted as science took on a more prominent role. But it was often the practical applications that helped build confidence in science. You had railroads and the telegraph, automobiles and airplanes, antibiotics and anesthesia. Science was no longer dense theory but everyday reality.

What is science? It is often referred to as an abstract concept, but in reality science is a process, it is a tool. It is a way of trying things out in a controlled fashion and then seeing what works. Science is a way of asking questions and narrowing down the answers. But it is not a monolithic way of thinking.

Implicit in the scientific method should be a sense of humility, of being willing to conclude that something you have been trying to prove is wrong. That you were wrong. That the conventional wisdom was wrong. But that is not always how science is treated by scientists and it is not how science is treated by the public.

But the value of science has more to do with the collective understanding of a subject more than the perspective of any one person. Science’s strength comes from many people working together. Working their way toward a body of knowledge that can be assessed and repeated. Science is built on mistakes and course corrections rather than one miraculous discovery out of the blue. Stumbling upon an answer happens but making sure that answer is the right one takes time. Science in this way is anything but miraculous, Instead, science needs to be meticulous.

Think about our reading this morning. It is in some ways a standard reading about the callous rich man suffering for his sins while the righteous poor man finds comfort in heaven. But the part that intrigued me this morning was the declaration by Abraham: ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'” Moses and the prophets have for many centuries been telling the people that the rich must care for the poor. Again and again, a never-ending refrain from prophets who rise up every time the people forget what was important. Do this not that. And yet the rich man did not do so.

If we follow the theory that this is a story about the high priest Caiaphas, we also have an understanding as to why that would be particularly bad. When the high priest himself is more concerned with money and power than the moral health of his people, is it any wonder that the rich would ignore the needs of the poor regardless of what the prophets say? It is convenient not to listen. Why? Because I get to be rich – yay! I get to ignore those fussy prophets and do what I want. Who do they think they are interfering with my freedom?

And the same could be said for someone who chooses to ignore the best scientific advice available. Not the correct scientific advice. Not the final word on the coronavirus or any other scientific kerfuffle. Because science is not about being right but about finding the best answer we have right now.

Yes, vaccines do not work perfectly, because nothing does. Yes, wearing masks and limiting public gathering was a limitation on personal freedom, but any effort to help other people will involve trading same aspect of personal freedom for greater collective responsibility. And yes, when we look back over the advice given during the pandemic, some of it was wrong.

We did not need to douse our groceries in bleach. We did not need to wash our hands as much as we needed to maintain social distances and wear masks. Science is not about being right in every moment. Science is about moving toward better and more correct answers over time. And we did not have a lot of time, so some of the early answers did not work. Many of them did, however.

We are still living with the virus. But for most of the public the virus is no longer deadly because there are vaccines and treatments that did not exist. Those did not spring up out of nowhere. They were developed using study of viruses over time. They relied upon theories from decades past. Science is a process of building upon past knowledge, testing it in new situations, and drawing connections over time.

Think about the ancient prophets. No one prophet stood alone, but they relied upon the wisdom of the ages. And when things started to go wrong, someone spoke up and said this is not right.

And the same could be said for science, though I would add that the scientific method also should not get hung upon on traditions. The scientists once declared that our knowledge of physics in the 19^th century was pretty much complete and just needed to be tidied up around the edges. And then came Albert Einstein who messed up all that certainty and perfection.

He was more right than his predecessors, but it has taken many decades and the work of countless scientists to verify that he was closer to the mark than everyone else. Because unlike the Bible, science is not about taking anything on faith. It is about stating a proposition and then testing if it is true. Over and over. Science is an open book. And it must be proven in public.

If it cannot be proven, it’s not science. It is preference. It is opinion. And as we have seen these past few years, it can be someone trying to make a quick buck from people scared and confused about their health.

Science is more than a mindset about how the world works. It is a way that everyone can look at the same questions and see if they can come to the same conclusions. Now that we have been to the moon, anyone should be able to do it, with a few billion dollars. Now that we better understand how the virus works, scientists around the world should be able to study it and find better treatments and better ways to protect people.

But like the space race and the pandemic, these efforts can become something else. They can become excuses for trotting out political agendas and ideologies. Like the Sadducees and the Pharisees, it can be about competing social agendas and theologies.

In the story about the rich man and Lazarus, we should not just focus on what happens after the men died but what they should have done while they were still alive. No rich man should ignore the poor man starving at the gate. Forget what happens in heaven and hell. Worry about what is happening here and now.

And the same is true when it comes to science. Science is not about certainty, it is not about guaranties. Science is about people working together to figure out what is going on and what can be done with that information right now. That can take us to the moon. That can heal the sick and feed the hungry.

But the answers are more than the opinions and preferences of society or the scientists. It is about a shared understanding of the knowledge available and a dedication to finding the best answers to open questions.

And it is about having the humility to accept being wrong. If the rich man’s brothers could figure that out, they would be with Father Abraham in heaven. And if we as a society can figure it out, we can get beyond our pointless bickering over personal freedom and instead concern ourselves with making this a better, stronger, and more reasonable nation.

To do that we need to be open to new information. We need to be ready to learn new things. And we need to be prepared to say we have made mistakes and will do better next time. That may not be how we get into heaven, but it is how we will get beyond our suspicions of science and people who only want to help.

Amen.