C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity attacks the issue at the end of part 3 at some levels in his section on Faith. An interesting comment made by this author, "...I am not talking of moments at which any real new reason against Christianity turn up. Those have to be faced and that is a different matter. I am talkinig about moments wehre a mere mood rises up against it. Now, Faith in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your chaing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes." provokes a red flag for me in my modern day Chrisian experience. Although not the main point in this quote, Lewis is implying that faith is not an absolution from reason as I discover new evidence for or against my belief system. He is arguing that this new evidence must be sincerely addressed or considered regardless of my perception of its validity. He is basically claiming here and in the rest of the book that Christianity will stand up to the reason, but allows for the possibility that it may not. His message is not to invoke faith when reason fails to tell us what we want to here.
I am trying to say that I believe faith or the word faith at least has been perverted into something that allows me to push aside reason when things 'just don't make sense'. I believe that I hear these types of questions frequently. "How can this or that be if God is this or that?" is just one example. Instead of giving real answers or reasons to these questions I am often met with responses such as well I don't know, just have faith that God will work it all out". I believe that the literal interpretation of the Bible is often times the limiting factor in this crutch response. Another possibility is when I ponder on a question or concern until its initial impact feels less polemic as it dissipates over time and is forgotten about after never really being addressed.
I believe that I should accept and expect reasonable answers and that if I can't find the reasonable answer that can coexist with my belief in God then I shouldn't believe in God. Right now, I do believe in God and Christ. I believe--at some levels--I would be committing heresy if I ignored reason and pretended as if a question was not there anymore just so I could continue to believe in God. At that point I would be building my God and faith on an edifice of fickle sand that will wash away, especially when my mood is just not right. This is the faith of which Lewis speaks; faith is not letting mood (good or bad) ruin your reason. I see his writing as saying that we should have faith that our belief is reasonable and should not be swayed by moments of irrationality, inconvenience, or moodiness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I accept that the scientific method in the lab is fine. But, when you are speaking of God, the origin of the universe, or faith, don't you think that might be exceeding the limits of the scientific method?
The presupposition of science is that we have the ability to judge the results of our experiments. Placing yourself in the position of Judge in these matters is to exalt the science above God.
This is folly.
I have described that I believe that faith is not antithetical to scientific reasoning, but rather is the trusting of that reason, regardless of the mood--good or bad--that one finds itself in that moment.
From the point of view that I believe God is the cause of this universe it follows easily that God also would have caused the method of reasoning which we utilize so fully now. If this is the case then God as he has manifested himself on Earth in the natural world should stand up to reason and judging would not exalt one to the position or superpostion of God.
To follow the reasoning that somehow being a judge is sinful would lead one to make no judgements in life. To add this at what point is one in a "lab". The idea of lab being a room is just too simplistic and reductionistic. The world is the lab in which we make judgements all of the time. We may not see them that way because we don't take the time to analyze the metacongition that goes into everyday decisions. Why would we?
At what point would one be the sinful judge or the judge that is exalting itself over God? During the decision of which toothpaste to purchase based on data showing which fights plaque the best? This may sound like it is simplyfying the idea of being a judge, but at what point does the Judging begin? It doesn't have a starting point or an ending point. So to condemn science in this way also condemns the very nature by which we carry on many activities in our lives.
If I am judging which to
I didn't address part of your first statement in regards to God and origins, which is a great question. I believe that science is only applicable to nature and the universe. Therefore, if a religion relates that God has interacted with nature in some way, the truth of these claims should stand up to reason. For example if God really interacts with nature via prayer from his followers then evidence should show that prayer does just this.
So science is a way of knowing and that method--when trying to understand nature--requires tools utilizing nature itself. Science would only be within the limits of studying the supernatural in two circumstances: 1. The supernatural somehow becomes natural or literally interacts with nature in a natural way and 2. Scienctists have supernatural tools through which to observe the supernatural and that those tools are agreed upon by the scientific community as a whole. Number 2 is not a possibility I believe exists or ever will.
I believe that the cause of the origin of the universe(s) and the existence of God are not testable by science. They are plenty of fun to think and postulate about but that is all it can be, as I see it.
One last comment. The spirit of this blog is that it is a safe place to post beliefs. The rules and guidelines are posted to the right of the blog and the mission of this site is reflected in the very first blog posted for this site.
So typically I encourage people to not use words or desribe other people's ideas as folly as one perceives them. This takes practice but I will always do my best to keep monitor this mission. Thank you for your comment.
Post a Comment