Over the past ten years, which is not very long by the standards of scientific societies, the Society of Catholic Scientists has held annual meetings. I attended most of them. But how is being a Catholic Christian part of being a scientist? We believe that faith and reason are inseparable. We further believe that this is especially evident in the scientific study of nature. I wonder how this is important today, considering the pressures faced while pursuing a career in science.

Max Weber’s “Science as a Vocation,” published in 1919, is a famous text on what it means to be a scientist. Recognizing that many long for scientific insight into matters of meaning, he concludes with remarks on religious faith. He recommends it to those seeking such advice, yet says it has nothing to do with science. For him, faith is believing not only despite but even because it is absurd. “Credo non quod, sed quia absurdum est,” he misattributes to St. Augustine, who never said anything even remotely like it. Søren Kierkegaard might have, but Catholic Christians understand faith differently. We don’t see faith and reason in opposition. Instead, we find them mutually supportive.

In light of what he says about faith, it is unsurprising that Weber considers it the scientist’s duty to set aside any consideration of value and meaning, since these are inseparable from religious convictions. I think he would be mystified by the existence of a Society of Catholic Scientists.

But Wever, while still inspiring to read, was wrong in many ways. Hardly any philosopher of science still believes that facts and values are separable. Separating them is a very powerful methodological choice, but it is only that, not a statement about the ultimate nature of facts and values.

As any working scientist knows, contemporary science is driven by the need to be competitive. Scientists are part of the marketplace of competitive entrepreneurs, seeking buyers for their ideas and investors in their future, just like everybody else. Yes, such markets encourage new ideas and creativity. Much is accomplished by them. Nevertheless, can you believe this does not affect how science is done? Will scientists always follow the data, no matter where they lead, whether they advance them in this competition or not?

This is where being Catholic becomes important. Of course, I have no empirical evidence that being Catholic enhances a scientist’s integrity and trustworthiness. But being Catholic entails an approach to reason and faith, and to facts and values, that considers all created by God. This means much more than knowing God as the necessary prerequisite of contingent being. It means that all that scientists study is inherently meaningful and valuable, first for God and then for us, who seek to understand and act in alignment with the will of God. Being committed to such faith should help Catholic scientists to live with the pressures of the marketplace without being pushed off course.

If there is no empirical evidence for Catholic faith improving the way science is done, then maybe it is because we have not really tried to bring Catholic faith and values into the way we do science.