While I'm waiting for the next episodes of my favourite TV shows to finish completing their transition, I'm going to blog. And because I'm a relatively boring person, theres nothing to blog about in my life.
My sister and I were having this discussion the other day, after she read my previous blogs. Actually, she refers to it an as argument, but I don't think I was really trying to argue anything, I was trying to understand something. Everyone seems to comment on hers like I'm the bad guy. Well fine, I'm the one who's going to hell by their standards, so whatever.
What I was trying to understand was the issue of faith. I had a lot of trouble trying to figure out why some people do make that 'leap of faith' and choose to believe in some higher being. The way I understand it now is that nobody actually understands God well enough to answer all the questions that seem to crop up about his existence. So in the void created by the lack of understanding, people have filled it with faith.
I don't think anybody really knows this, but sometime in year 12, when I was having one of those 'meaning of life' crisis, I went round to the local Christian gathering. This was about the time of the 9/11 thingy, so there were some flyers going around saying something like "Why did God let this occur?". So, procrastinating instead of studying for my exams, and trying to solve my rather bad state of depression, I figured I'd go and listen to what they had to say.
After a bunch of loud shouting (which seemed to be directed at me, I think I was the only gentile silly enough to read the flyer and attend), their arugment in a nutshell to explain the suicide flights was that God works in mysterious ways. I thought, omg, this sounds familiar. But nonetheless, I stayed behind to ask questions. Nothing they could come up with could actually go any further than that. Shouting at me doesn't really help the situation. I was after reason, not noise.
"We don't profess to know God's will." was their general gist of evading questions they didn't know how to answer. Well, neither do I, but I know that if I were God, the 'much greater good' would overcome the free will of a few suicide bombers who didn't really believe that I existed anyway. The sacred free will vs sacred humans lives thing. Maybe its because free will outlasts human life. That makes sense at least.
So I think that congregation still has faith that God let that happen because its all part of his plan. The preacher that night thought that part of that plan of sacrificing 4000 lives was to bring me into the fold. I guess he read that one wrong. There was another bloke who wrote this small book about God. It attempted to explain things. I read it, and it didn't really say anything I didn't already know (or hear about at least e.g. God loves us all awwwww *hugz*). I think I've still got that book somewhere.
Anyway, lets not get into the whole FW vs GP debate again, we've been over that.
So the hole that faith seems to fill is a big one for me. For others, its a matter of simplicity: God obviously exists, because He makes a big impact on my life. He creates a world where I'm mostly happy, and I have things which make me so. I should be thankful for the things He has done. Theres two problems (at least).
- One is in the explanation: They assume that God exists or that the scriptures tell the truth, and then use this to justify the events. Normally I'd like to infer things from other things which are quite likely to be true. E.g. Pens write, I have a pen, therefore I can use the pen to write. Whereas 'believers' tend to think, I can write, pens can write, therefore I must have a pen. You could have a bowling ball dipped in paint and roll it around a large piece of canvas, but I'm not sure if thats writing. Assuming the conclusion and then using the conclusion to explain things isn't a very good approach.
- Another is in the way they form the causal link between God and all the things that happen. Oh crap, I just realised this goes into all that FW and determinism shit again. Nup, screw that. Wait... I've got something. People pray to God asking for things. (E.g. "Please help me to do well on my exams...", "Help me get some more friends who are nice", or a more altruistic one: "Help me to help others") Let's see where I can take this without touching on determinism.
Theres a lot of conflicting views on how God is meant to be a part of your life. To some, he heals illnesses, solves worldly problems, and generally does nice things. To others, he's only a spiritual guider, supposedly leading people towards what they imagine he wants them to be. There are a lot of published instances where poeple have said that their belief in God has somehow allowed them to escape some life draining disease which the doctors said was terminal. Somehow, I don't see how they get to that conclusion. Don't rubbish me with that 'Oh it must be God, what else could it be?' thing. It could be anything. Maybe it was a misdiagnosis. Maybe the doctors don't actually understand the disease well enough to explain why it happened. We don't even understand how or why we develop different types of cells yet, so understanding the rest of the body could take a bit of doing. Jumping to a conclusion of a higher being, wayyyyyy beyond our level of understanding, imbuing one person with the ability to overcome a terminal disease, the silently retreating, isn't exactly rock solid. Maybe aliens landed during the night and transplanted their prostate while they weren't looking. I think thats got about as much of a chance as the God one.
Faith does not remove the need for reason and justification. It just bypasses it. When people talk about testing faith, I think they're referring to testing whether their rational thinking would overtake their somewhat hard to justify beliefs. I don't see why people resist. Unless reason is the devil, and heaven is the ultimate mindnumbing place where absolutely no rational thought takes place, I'd be inclined to go for reason.
Forgive me for being blunt, but I think faith is a layman's way of looking at the world. Its like saying... 'Oh I can't be stuffed figuring it out, I'll just go by what you said even though it doesn't really make sense'. Seeking to understand something, and having the ability to admit the lack of understanding in something is more wisdom than just having the faith to believe. I know I always say "Whatever you say" or just agree with most things, but a lot of the time its to reduce conflict. But for the things that really matter, I'll take a stand.
As for Fi's idea of listening, yeah, sometimes we're not always right.
"god's always listenin to mE i can vouch for that" (Fi, 2005)
"God exists because I say so" (The implcation?)
15 comments:
mmm what if there's no N dimension world at all?
eheh.. What about String Theory? They say theres like.. 11 different dimensions.
I still want someone to explain to me the jump between 'not understanding stuff' and 'god must exist'
For me, i don't think i really believe in anything. Every 'law' of physics might yet be wrong. I mean, they are already 'wrong' aren't they? We have the alternative quantum physics theories which basically say that everything we observe as 'normal laws of physics' are only a instances of quantum physics on a larger scale. Like on those theories, One thing CAN be in two places at once, it's just not very likely [and then there's problems about the interference between the potential paths but we'll just forget that for a moment].
My point is that it is impossible to really 'know' anything. The only thing i THINK i know is that i can think (yep, i think therefore i am). So making that leap of faith from 'i don't get this..' to 'so it must be God!' doesn't make much sense to me.
Yeah. Sorry if I didn't get that point across, but thats exactly what I'm trying to say!
hmmmmmmm, not being able to understand something doesn't mean we immediately infer that 'it must be God'
Don't get that idea out of hand. I don't understand my bilinear transforms and spectral transformations for infinite impulse responses where the region of convergence is smaller than the smallest pole situated inside the unit circle =p and i don't just go "oh the answer's God"
as Mulder said, God is God, humans are humans. The dimensions argument was quite valid =o
Anyhow....... if u've got heaps of time heheh maybe u can help me find a nice laptop of my specs =)
Lol sorry i didn't mean that you guys think 'everything we can't understand must be god'...
I was referring to mulder's point that 'because we're human we can't understand some things that happen'. How do you jump from that, to believing in religious stuff (or physics stuff for that matter)?
The point to me, is that we don't know. Our 'laws' of physics might be right. They might not be. We don't KNOW. To me, the same problem arises with religion..
The difference to me though is that on my limited level of personal experience, physics seems to explain the world to some extent - religion does not.
Is religion supposed to explain the world?
I've never felt that way about it, I don't know about others, but I leave science to explain why the world works as it does, and leave God to be the irrationality that makes us human (ohh mysterious).
On a somewhat unrelated note, I don't think science and religion can't co-exist. I think they are totally seperate fields. We shouldn't just say, "because I don't understand this, it must be God", because as we know, we are discovering new things all the time.
Actually I just thought of something. Just because science has an explanation for something (let's say, gravity), doesn't actually mean God doesn't have anything to do with it. Science is just a bunch of equations/theories that describe what happends in the world (the How, not the Why). It doesn't actually define the cause (if this was a philosophical post, that would be "meaning") of things. We can use those descriptions to predict what will happen, but that's different from it's cause.
In that respect, if God is the cause of all things, then is science not just describing God?
Have you been following the intelligent design thing over in the states? I'd like to know what you think about that. Personally I don't think religion should be dictating what goes on in the science classroom, because as I stated above I think they are totally different fields, and I don't think science implies the non-existance of god. (If a science teacher were to state that there is no God, then they would not be teaching science, they would be teaching religion)
That should be:
"I've never felt that way about it, I don't know about others, but I leave science to explain how the world works as it does, and leave God to be the irrationality that makes us human (ohh mysterious)."
Note: why => how
nobody said anything about believing in science rather than God. adrian's argument was that in religion, there is a gap left in the initial failure to understand something i.e. 'why did this happen' to the conclusion that it must be god since he works in mysterious ways. in science when there is a gap, people try to work it out and they do concede that their theories are not perfect. but they're still working on it to try to explain things.
long time ago religious people thought that the world was square and they took it as the ultimate truth. the religious leaders went so far to persecute scientists like Galileo who argued otherwise. today everyone knows that the world is round and i doubt that there'd be religious leaders who would dare to argue that it's square. if religion failed in that aspect - what stops us from saying that what religious people to be the 'truth' might be completely different in the future? religion evolves and adapts itself to the environment that we live in. i wonder if it was really god, why is there a difference between religious teachings and the realities of life?
someone ought to read this book and tell me: http://sof.wellington.net.nz/sfbr0140.
quebeck, you go do it :)
oops:
http://sof.wellington.net.nz/sfbr0140.htm
Religion does attempt to explain the world. It attempts to give us meaning in our lives (serve God, repent for sins, go to heaven etc.) You can't have the literal meaning of Christianity compatible with science (at least in its current form).
I.e. God isn't predicted by science.
Btw, I don't think science actually explains gravity.
I wrote something on Intelligent design a while ago (I think). Take a look? You even got a mention in it.
Its not necesarily things that you don't understand get attributed to God, its ordinary things that happen. For example: "He was blessed with a friendly personality" or "God helped me through this troubled time". I'm saying that its hard to draw the conclusion that God had an effect on somebody's personality or your ability to make it through some harrowing situation so easily.
Okay to me there's two issues here, one that adrian semi brought up, and the other one.
The one I was refering to was adrians, and it fact it was only a specific part of it, ie the physical sciences vs god.
Anyway, I think what everyone else is debating is about 'why' things happen in like a 'social' sense (if your talking about a physical sense, see my previous post). Ie, why did this person dump me, why did this person lie to me, etc.
Is it God's doing that someone would lie to me? Is it God's will that bad stuff willl happen to me and that I'll be sad because of it? I would say no, it isn't, it's caused by other people because they have free will (refer to the previous post about my opinion about that) and they choose to do bad things to you.
Now, if you want to start talking about why people do bad things, then I think ez should do another post about morality (not corporate ethics :D), and we can all discuss that there. Because that's a whole other issue that would have to be tackled.
PS:
1) The world being round/flat thing, well, as you know the Catholic church has admitted that they were wrong about that. And I don't believe religion should even have had a say about it, because that's the realm of science. From what I can tell, religion likes to stick it's nose into science because the powers that be are threatened that if we can solve all problems, that we won't need God anymore. Re my post about science/religion to see how I think this is a falacy (and this whole thing is really just because humans aren't perfect and are insecure).
2) Does God help people through troubling ordeals, or does the belief in God help people through troubling ordeals? Does it really matter? If belief in something helps you to live and go on to do better things, does it matter if what you believe in isn't real? If your delusional but save a million lives, are you worse than the most pragmatic sceptic?
3) I'll have a look for that intelligent design post.
oh yeah sam if you get me that book, ill read it for you :)
In response to the first point by quebeck - if religious leaders did stick their nose into science in fear of losing their power and led the followers to sincerely believe that what they were believing was true although, in reality, it was far from it, could it be said that it was a true and righteous belief?
all i was asking was that.
oh and i am guessing that book has the answer LOL
Post a Comment