Note 2: Since this is my first attempt to really pound away at some important issues surrounding faith, I would appreciate a little understanding. I'm sure I'll get better at this over time and I'm sure I'll say some things people don't agree with. That's good. I just hope you'll take the time to respond and let me know where I'm wrong or where I've offended you. That way we both have an opportunity to learn and grow.
Let's get started...
=--------------------------------=
I can see why some people have chosen to reject faith.
Many of today's "moral" leaders are seriously screwed up. Most visible examples of modern religion are poisoned with intolerance, ignorance, and hate. Not that the followers are doing "the cause" any favors either. Some people, when they believe something and don't even really know why, end up using that ignorant righteous indignity to push others further away - maybe without even realizing it.
On top of all that, some of what is in the Bible sounds far removed from our modern, secular existence - even downright bizarre. How can a book used to inspire some of the worst human atrocities be divinely inspired? God seems so far away sometimes.
So any thinking human eventually wonders if God is just an invention of the human mind created just to provide a placeholder for the answers we cannot fathom. Isn't there more to faith than that? I think there is. For me, God is not just a band-aid for our lack of knowledge. I value science but I don't see that as a replacement for my faith. Otherwise, every time science offers another reasonable hypothesis for an unanswered question, my faith would be shaken... and yet it isn't.
For many faithful people, trying to accurately describe in words even the emotions surrounding God is difficult. Some might argue it's impossible, but I would disagree. Science, being a language-based phenomenon has its limitations as well. It is perfect for describing "how", but nearly useless at describing "why" other than to invoke the limits of Science itself. This is as "bogus" as proving the existence of God by quoting the Bible. The wonderfully freeing concept of hypothesis even allows educated people to guess at answers and have them generally accepted by other educated people. And yet Atheism is not merely defined by a replacement of God with science is it? Or is it? I won't be so presumptuous to assume the answer for that question.
So if the two concepts don't have to be in conflict, why so often are they? I know I easily fall into the trap of seeing my ideas as correct and other's as flawed - especially when our differences are personal. This can be true independent of your personal views of faith. I try to keep my blinkered, philistine pig ignorance at bay by remembering that within the next 20 years I'll probably look back and see how wrong I had been about something. If the current trend continues, it won't be something small either. The further away I get from today, the bigger and more important the flaws in the reality I so vehemently defended will become.
And yet my faith is stronger than ever. So what is the answer to the question I posed up front, "Is it better to think or believe?" I would have to say to exclude either is a mistake and the two are not in opposition. It's not a matter of one or the other. Both are essential and important to me and both compliment each other. Learning about this world strengthens my faith. Having faith allows me to stare into the wonders of science, soaking up the answers to "how" without worrying so much about the answers to "why".
I may not agree with everything my five senses experience in this world, but I'm struck by how often the process of acquiring knowledge reminds me of the most important commandments.
Version 1.0
No comments:
Post a Comment