The Beginning of Wisdom
Warning! Aimless rambling to follow. If you are looking for a point or a conclusion you might not find it if you continue reading. You have been warned.
There are a lot of people, much smarter than I, that believe that there is no God and that I am wasting my life trying to discern and follow his will. I generally defer to those of great intellect and much learning. For example, despite what I would like to believe about global warming I fully accept the general scientific consensus that our world is heating up and that this warming is partly to be blamed on the vast increase in emissions of greenhouse gases. But in the case of the ultimate question I find myself continually drawn back to the story of an itinerant teacher that lived 2,000 years ago. I suppose I am a faith sufferer.
Why is it that I am fully convinced that Jesus bar Joseph of Nazareth is the actual incarnation of the creator of the Universe? It is, after all, a silly thing to believe. I don't particularly like being considered silly or foolish yet here I am. I am still a Christian despite what I believe to be honest and continuing examination of the alternatives.
I don't question my doctor when he tells me that I have a sinus infection and that I need to take an antibiotic. I see the diploma on his wall and I understand that he has studied and knows things that I do now know. I put aside whatever "feelings" I might have about medicine do what he tells me. When Richard Dawkins tells me there is demonstrable proof that belief in the supernatural is idiotic, I immediately start questioning him despite the diploma's on his wall and despite him absolutely knowing much more than I do.
Dawkins would say that I am deluded. Sam Harris would say that I am feeding the root of all evil by supporting a religion. I don't think I am deluded. I can see the leaps in "logic" that I have to make to believe that Jesus is the son of God. My eyes are wide open when it comes to my faith. No, I don't think I am deluded nor do I think I am suffering from a mind virus. I may be stupid but I am not delusional.
It boils down to this; I choose to believe. Of my own free will and despite what looks like absolute foolishness to many very smart people I choose to be a faithful and active Christian. But why, one might ask, would someone that is apparently not delusional choose to believe that an unseen God has created the universe and everything in it. Why would I believe in a loving God when there is so much suffering in this world. Why would one believe these unprovable things despite what very smart and learned people would say to dissuade such a belief. Well, that's kind of why I am writing this. I am sure it has a lot to do with my upbringing (though I don't believe a lot of things my parents taught me to believe) but ultimately I can't rightly explain why I really do love Jesus.
To say that it feels right to believe sounds a little trite and ultimately meaningless even though it does happen to be true for me. I do in fact, feel a connectedness to the divine just by being alive. There is also a large element of me wanting there to be a God and wanting the message of Christ to be true. These desires inform my choice to believe. Of course I also really want there to be a Santa Claus but that doesn't mean I choose to believe in jolly old Saint Nick. Reason does come into play when I think about why I believe. It does make a lot of sense to me to say that the incredibly complex systems found in the natural world have a creator just like the incredibly complex systems found in this computer or in my car. It also seems to me that a human's innate morality would not have arisen through an unguided evolutionary process (disclaimer: I consider myself a Theistic Evolutionist so I am not trying to say anything about the theory of evolution here, I believe that the process of evolution has occurred over billions of years).
So now what do I have here. The whole reason behind my belief system is that it feels right, seems logical, and satisfies some of my wants and needs. So, Is that it? Is that all? Is that enough? Shouldn't I rightly be considered a fool for surrendering my life to a belief system based on such a paucity of real physical evidence? I'll answer those questions as briefly as possible: Yes; Probably not, but it's all I got now; absolutely yes; maybe so.
So what can you take from my ramblings? For starters you should take from this post the fact that Kile can't articulate (even to himself) why he has chosen to believe in God. I struggle with my faith and this is one way I deal with the struggles by "talking them out". Probably the only point that I wanted to make is that in life we all have to choose what to believe. Every last one of us has to look at this world and decide what we think is going on. That is all that we can do. No matter how smart we are or how much we study we will never be able travel back in time to see or not see evolution in action or to see or not see an ex nihilo creation. So we have to choose. We choose based on the evidence, based on our feelings, based on our desires, based on what other smarter people have told us, based on what our culture dictates but ultimately we choose. I have chosen God and not the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I want to add just one more thing. We humans can make pretty dumb choices from time to time. We misunderstand things and make mistakes all the time. So I urge all of us to be humble and always be willing to examine the choice we have made. If you are a believer I think you should try to examine why you choose to believe. If you are a non-believer or are undecided then you should examine that choice as well. This post was just part of my self examination process.
There are a lot of people, much smarter than I, that believe that there is no God and that I am wasting my life trying to discern and follow his will. I generally defer to those of great intellect and much learning. For example, despite what I would like to believe about global warming I fully accept the general scientific consensus that our world is heating up and that this warming is partly to be blamed on the vast increase in emissions of greenhouse gases. But in the case of the ultimate question I find myself continually drawn back to the story of an itinerant teacher that lived 2,000 years ago. I suppose I am a faith sufferer.
Why is it that I am fully convinced that Jesus bar Joseph of Nazareth is the actual incarnation of the creator of the Universe? It is, after all, a silly thing to believe. I don't particularly like being considered silly or foolish yet here I am. I am still a Christian despite what I believe to be honest and continuing examination of the alternatives.
I don't question my doctor when he tells me that I have a sinus infection and that I need to take an antibiotic. I see the diploma on his wall and I understand that he has studied and knows things that I do now know. I put aside whatever "feelings" I might have about medicine do what he tells me. When Richard Dawkins tells me there is demonstrable proof that belief in the supernatural is idiotic, I immediately start questioning him despite the diploma's on his wall and despite him absolutely knowing much more than I do.
Dawkins would say that I am deluded. Sam Harris would say that I am feeding the root of all evil by supporting a religion. I don't think I am deluded. I can see the leaps in "logic" that I have to make to believe that Jesus is the son of God. My eyes are wide open when it comes to my faith. No, I don't think I am deluded nor do I think I am suffering from a mind virus. I may be stupid but I am not delusional.
It boils down to this; I choose to believe. Of my own free will and despite what looks like absolute foolishness to many very smart people I choose to be a faithful and active Christian. But why, one might ask, would someone that is apparently not delusional choose to believe that an unseen God has created the universe and everything in it. Why would I believe in a loving God when there is so much suffering in this world. Why would one believe these unprovable things despite what very smart and learned people would say to dissuade such a belief. Well, that's kind of why I am writing this. I am sure it has a lot to do with my upbringing (though I don't believe a lot of things my parents taught me to believe) but ultimately I can't rightly explain why I really do love Jesus.
To say that it feels right to believe sounds a little trite and ultimately meaningless even though it does happen to be true for me. I do in fact, feel a connectedness to the divine just by being alive. There is also a large element of me wanting there to be a God and wanting the message of Christ to be true. These desires inform my choice to believe. Of course I also really want there to be a Santa Claus but that doesn't mean I choose to believe in jolly old Saint Nick. Reason does come into play when I think about why I believe. It does make a lot of sense to me to say that the incredibly complex systems found in the natural world have a creator just like the incredibly complex systems found in this computer or in my car. It also seems to me that a human's innate morality would not have arisen through an unguided evolutionary process (disclaimer: I consider myself a Theistic Evolutionist so I am not trying to say anything about the theory of evolution here, I believe that the process of evolution has occurred over billions of years).
So now what do I have here. The whole reason behind my belief system is that it feels right, seems logical, and satisfies some of my wants and needs. So, Is that it? Is that all? Is that enough? Shouldn't I rightly be considered a fool for surrendering my life to a belief system based on such a paucity of real physical evidence? I'll answer those questions as briefly as possible: Yes; Probably not, but it's all I got now; absolutely yes; maybe so.
So what can you take from my ramblings? For starters you should take from this post the fact that Kile can't articulate (even to himself) why he has chosen to believe in God. I struggle with my faith and this is one way I deal with the struggles by "talking them out". Probably the only point that I wanted to make is that in life we all have to choose what to believe. Every last one of us has to look at this world and decide what we think is going on. That is all that we can do. No matter how smart we are or how much we study we will never be able travel back in time to see or not see evolution in action or to see or not see an ex nihilo creation. So we have to choose. We choose based on the evidence, based on our feelings, based on our desires, based on what other smarter people have told us, based on what our culture dictates but ultimately we choose. I have chosen God and not the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I want to add just one more thing. We humans can make pretty dumb choices from time to time. We misunderstand things and make mistakes all the time. So I urge all of us to be humble and always be willing to examine the choice we have made. If you are a believer I think you should try to examine why you choose to believe. If you are a non-believer or are undecided then you should examine that choice as well. This post was just part of my self examination process.
posted by Kile and Em at 4:04 PM
7 Comments:
There are also a lot of people smarter than you who believe that God is very real (e.g. Gerald Schroeder, Roy Abraham Varghese, etc.)
I would even wager that there are many people smarter than Dawkins and Harris who believe likewise.
Kile,
I'm right there with you in many ways. As I've pointed out before, no matter which way you turn it over or slice it, it all comes back to a choice.
Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins look at the human genome and choose randomness. Antony Flew (former atheist) looks at it and chooses deism and a first cause. Francis Collins, another former atheist, looks at it (plus the argument from morality) and calls it The Language of God.
So, there's certainly not always a direct correlation between IQ and unbelief. Hitchens, as articulate and persuasive as he sometimes be, still had his hands more than full with this guy. And I've met not a few atheists who were, as the great philosopher Ulysses Everett McGill once remarked, "dumber than a bag of hammers."
We're reading a book right now, as a favor and intellectual exchange, by Joseph Campbell (certainly not of the Alexander Campbells). J. Campbell is a mythologist who believes in something akin to Buddhism, but he essentially says that all humans are tuned into some spiritual truths moving toward "transparency to the transcendant," and that all myths, incluing the Christian myth, derive from and point toward these truths.
This has provoked some good self-examination in our house, and I have decided that I can appreciate his observations, not his conclusions. While he says Christianity is really a diluted form of all these other common myths, I and we tend to say that all the other common myths point toward and confirm the truth of Jesus Christ.
I believe that Jesus Christ is God's son, and you are right in saying that it all begins with choosing what to believe. As we go on, however, do we not amass and continuously evaluate new evidence? Do we not question and consider this foolish decision against the marketplace? We should.
As for me, the evidence that piles up most strongly these days, is the existence of a thriving, lovely complex of relationships that spans generations, cultures and races among believers. Although believing in Christ is foolishness to this world, very much of the world, from the lowest to the highest, have claimed him. This community, our community, sustains, or is sustained, despite the foolishness. Perhaps this sort of community, with its attendant hospitality, exists in other traditions, but I am hard pressed to find another tradition and religion that can transcend time, ages and culture as do the beleivers in the way. For me, this second incarnation confirms the first and shores up my faith.
Here's a nice quote, vis-a-vis Christianity and myth, from C.S. Lewis & Narnia for Dummies (I kid you not):
"On September 19, 1931, Jack (CS Lewis) had dinner with friends J.R.R. Tolkien and Hugo Dyson at Magdalen College, Oxford. Later, while walking the grounds of Magdalen, they discussed myths. Lewis told the others that he loved myths as stories but dismissed them as having any validity. Tolkien disagreed with his friend; he said myths almost always have a grain of truth in them, although the truth is usually skewed and distorted. The difference between Christianity and other myths, said Tolkien, is that Christianity is a particular myth that just happens to be true — God really did come to earth as a man and died so that those who believed in him could receive salvation.
As Tolkien spoke, Lewis suddenly felt a strong breeze come over the threesome as they walked along the path, giving him the sensation of a message from God. Ever the rationalist, Jack didn't want to make too big a deal over this event, but the impeccable timing gave him goose bumps."
Mike: "...no matter which way you turn it over or slice it, it all comes back to a choice."
Perhaps, but it is a choice to accept or reject the objective truth, not simply an option to see what you want to see.
It does not require reason, but it does not reject reason either. In my view, it's a matter of both will and intellect.
I appreciate all of your comments. It was not my intention to equate IQ and unbelief. I am a big fan of Francis Collins and his book.
I am, however, oftentimes intimidated by the mass of intellect that falls on the unbelievers side. I realize I shouldn't be. I also realize that this does indicate a lack of faith on my part.
I am working on that.
Kile,
I am reading Blum's book on DuBois who states "DuBois said a great deal about religion without indicating what he genuinely believed. A Cuban priest asked DuBois whether he was a believer in God and his opinion about the Lord Jesus. DuBois' response simultaneously revealed and concealed his thoughts on God and on Christ. DuBois states: If by being a believer in God, you mean a belief in a person of vast power who consciously rules the universe for the good of mankind, I answer No.
On the other hand if you mean by God a vague force, which in some uncomprehensible way, dominates all life and change, then I answer, yes. If you wish to call it God, I do not object."
This, according to Blum, is the faith of probably the greatest intellectual thinker of the early 20th century about God.
Post a Comment
<< Home