I am not sure why people have such difficulty with faith. By faith I mean trust without certainty, loosely speaking. To believe in something people it seems nowadays more than ever need evidence to justify that belief (or should I say our palates have become more refined/advanced in what we accept as evidence). I think this is the result of the advancement made in science and more particular the application of technology within science. People would like to think that because of the aforementioned advancement(s) that we are at a stage were if something exists then we should be able to prove it; as such, people are less likely to believe that something exists even through they have no evidence for it and refuse to settle until they have a scientific explanation for an event that at first glance seems to be unexplainable. This is no truer than the existence of God.
People seem to be determined that they need evidence to show God’s existence, rather than simply believe that God exists. This possibly is because as we have become more scientific the world has seemed to become less mystical and as such less is contributed to the Devine realm (as some other explanation is gained). This leads to either people questioning God’s existence or feeling the need for evidence for God’s existence: if those things that once were contributed to the Devine are now contributed to the scientific then what says there is a God at all. To say, before science (in particular its advancement) the evidence of God’s existence was in those things that where contributed to the Devine realm (i.e., there must be God as God was how we explained things). However, as science has not really been able to prove (or really disprove—even after considering the discredit of religious artifacts: just because an artifact is discredited does not necessary mean that God does not exist) God existence people have turned to other means to try to prove God’s existence.
People then turned to theology for evidence (or proof) of God existence, but quickly realized that theology is based on faith. Many have tried to combine theology and philosophy. By doing this partnership I believe they hope to replace those aspects of theology that are faith based with philosophy (usually of which basic root is that before believing something we should be certain/justified of it and if the belief is true we can/must be justified/certain of it). However, as I have said in pervious posts how can we prove God’s existence and as such how can we be absolutely be certain/justified in believing God’s exists. The problem is it is highly doubtful that we will every be able to absolutely prove God’s existence; thus, ultimately it boils down to not whether people are certain/justified in believing that God’s exists, but instead if people have trust without certainty that God exists (i.e., faith).
- issues-issues
- I am hoping that my blogs will be a means for people to share thoughts on various topics. Introducing "Blog of Funny Images". Please be aware that my blogs are not study tool sites, but are social and communicative networks. My "issues" blog is my main blog.
2 comments:
A few thoughts...
First, I think a "God-of-the-gaps" approach may be why many people feel an increasing need for evidence. As science develops and the gaps shrink, it makes it easy for God to seem to be less and less needed. Theologically speaking, I don't find that to be on good grounds- I would say God is essentially behind or involved in everything (at least in some form). So I wouldn't see a gap and say "well, that must be God and we just need to believe it on faith." That's bad science and bad theology. Instead, I would say "God is involved in everything, but we may be able to discover a scientific explanation that shows us to some extent how." That seems much more solid both scientifically and theologically.
Second, I am also somewhat skeptical of a "need for evidence." I think you can rationally have faith without evidence based on what you "know" or have experienced. That applies to a variety of things including faith in God. I also think that it would be impossible to "prove" the existence of God in a definitive or absolute sense. I do think, however, that good arguments can be made that defend the rationality of belief in God and perhaps even show that it is probabilistically true. So faith need not be uninformed, though an uniformed faith is not in and of itself invalid, if that makes any sense. I also don't think that "proven certainty" is necessary to believe or have faith in something. We don't have to be 100% certain of something to believe its true as long as we have valid reasons (which may or may not be on a philosophical level). That being said, I think some level of doubt can be healthy because we as humans can be wrong! Self-examination and thought on what we believe is more readily triggered by doubt, and that I think is a healthy process at times.
I would agree with you that it ["well, that must be God and we just need to believe it on faith."] makes bad science (as I said, it was the approach of people before science); I am not so sure though if it makes bad theology depending on the definition of theology being used (as theology from my perspective does not rely on science and perhaps at times not even evidence base). Ultimately a believer will need to have faith alone.
Post a Comment