Lots of folks today think and speak like Thomas, and they assume that this is the only accurate approach worthy of any modern-day thinking person. In this contemporary speech isn't this the scientific approach? But Jesus Christ says, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." It follows that there is, and was, another approach, another standard, another possibility. Yes, others may say, but that approach is old-fashioned and not rational; it's unscientific; it's for people who are backward; and since I'm a person in the modern world, "Unless I see, I will not believe."

You know observable experience, empirical data, is just one form of knowledge, the most elementary, and therefore the lowest form. Empirical analysis is useful and necessary, but to reduce all human knowledge to this one level is like trying to comprehend the beauty of a painting by a chemical analysis of the paint. What I call faith is at a second and higher level of human knowledge, without which, it can be claimed, man would be unable to live even a single day. Everyone believes in something or someone, so the only question is whose faith, whose vision, whose knowledge of this world corresponds more accurately to the richness and complexity of life. Remember that science itself religiously holds that, "If it can't be proven in the laboratory, it can't be accepted as truth or fact."

Is it really true that in the deepest part of your consciousness, away from all analysis, measurements and palpitation, you neither see nor feel an undying, radiant light, you do not hear the sounds of an eternal voice saying, "I am the way, the resurrection and the life...?

Is there any need to follow doubting Thomas any longer?