Monday, June 4, 2012

If faith is blind, then so are you

This is by no means earth-shattering, but it is a thought that has crossed my mind as I was reading the title [here]: "Faith obeys, without knowing how." (I do not consider this great literature as it poses thesis' in an unnerving tone)

Now while I certainly believe the statement, it got me wondering about the creation / evolution debate, a.k.a the religion vs science debate. Now the latter title is clearly wrong, there is not a distinct line separating the two - you can have religious science, and you can have a scientific religion (I am one of the former).

But what I want to speak of is this: faith knows not HOW. This is interesting if you actually stop to think about it. While atheists and the like will childishly stipulate that not knowing HOW is the reason why they do not believe in God, they miss the point entirely. Knowing all the internal mechanisms is not an answer to the bigger questions. I think God gave us what we need 'at base level' in the bible, and has left the joy of discovery of the rest of it up to us. But the bible does not put all the answers to HOW things come about.

And then the question is: is this reasonable? Can we truly believe in a God who expects an acceptance without knowing HOW? I think the absence of HOW is exactly that: faith. Which then categorizes evolution very nicely into the religious sphere. In fact, a lot of science then falls into this sphere. I will not pretend to know so much as others, but the purpose of science is to divulge that of a earthly nature, the purpose of Christianity is to expose that of a spiritual one, using the same mechanisms.

The fact is, all science and human knowledge is based on faith. For example, what is the smallest thing in the universe? Atoms can be broken down into... what? And further than that? And further than that? Can you ever PROVE you have reached the smallest thing ever? You can't because FAILURE is not a definitive answer. And yet we have entire branches of sciences in these fields expecting things to work consistently, regardless of their blind faith. A way to demonstrate this would be to argue: Do you believe that things that happen in nature happen according to rules? Why do you believe that? Are there ever exceptions to these rules? Can you explain all of them? If you can't get any smaller, how do you know that? These questions initially seem to be the rantings of an annoyingly energetic toddler, but they reveal the ugly truth - that at some point, all people are willing to stop and say 'I have gone far enough in terms of understanding this thing.' That, is faith. If you have ever put down a topic even for a moment, being quenched for a period. You just exercised faith.

That is kind of 'micro' faith. But what about belief of big things? Can we know something for sure on the 'macro' scale? Not entirely. For example: You are either a biological evolutionist or a geographical one. You cannot be both. I would argue that you don't know everything in your field, but I certainly lack the ability to question you within your field. I can say, however, that you would have very little at your disposal in evaluating the discoveries of those who exist within the field opposing yours. So how do you develop an infallible system? Well, you don't. You develop a system in which TRUST forms a major role. I would call it a 'hazy' truth (the term fuzzy is taken). A truth that you promote even though you lack the necessary tools to fully grasp it yourself (You may even misrepresent these truths from time to time). Hmmmm, sounds an awful lot like Christians (Who just happen to be people too). So basically you can argue that two branches of science agree on a truth, but there is no way you can absolutely sure they correlate (e.g. Age of the earth with respect to both the evolutionary 'timetable' and the geological), unless you get an experts in all fields.

So just because Christians have more experience with 'hazy' truths, does not mean we have established all the truth there is to define, nor does it mean we are better at truth than that of others. We have the same struggles as all men do. We are no better off 'logic-wise' than other people. But we have completely different goals. Our goal is not necessarily to see you understand the mysteries of the universe, it is too see the one who put it there. For some people the worst possible thing that could happen to them is death. I disagree, I believe the worst thing is after death for those who have not known Jesus Christ as saviour and Lord. That puts scientific discovery after theology in importance.

Here is the big question: since I claim to know God, why can't I show Him to you? I can show you all the bible I want, all the history I want, but why can't I prove not only the existence of God, but of the Christian God. Ah, you see, that is not the reason I have been put on this earth. My purpose as a Christian is not to explain the HOWS of God, but rather the NEED for God. You must understand that God must reveal Himself, as I believe He did to me. HOW? Well, the only way is to truly humble yourself before Him. But even here I cannot help you. It is within my system of belief that there is NOTHING you can do to force / coerce God to reveal Himself to you, but it is in the realization THAT there is nothing you can do to save yourself, that God has promised to prove your faith worthwhile.

No comments: