My belief, faith, hope, whatever it is, has run the full gamut. I even took a stab at atheism, at the end of which I had decided atheism is impossible. Now, thirty or so years later, I’ve come via observation to believe that it is not only completely possible, but maybe even common.
What got me thinking about this was recent social media experiences I’ve had. For the most part, I don’t bring up God in my posts. Following, I suppose, the lead of our founders who although deeply religious, did let it out in the Declaration of Independence, but kept it completely reigned in in the Constitution. Lately I’ve been slipping more and more into the hope that a belief in Christianity can be revived and so bringing it up more directly. One thing I’ve noticed is the opposition to it tends to be rather vitriolic, even hateful.
My level of faith is more based on hope than an actual belief. Even if it is a complete fantasy, is it not more conducive to happiness than is its opposition? While there are a lot of Biblical mysteries involving hate, the ringing core is unconditional love. It is said that God IS love (John 4:8). “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. / It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. / Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. / It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres (Corinthians 13:4-7). I like the sound of that, and if it’s based fairy tales, so what? (I rather think it’s not).
In any case, I can’t help but wonder why those who choose not to buy the concept of a higher power, are so opposed to those who do. There are questions which haven’t been anwered anywhere else, like creation. We know for a certainty that the Big Bang, as its taught in our schools didn’t happen. Probability is much more complex than it seems and there is a point at which a probability becomes impossible. For example the odds of flipping heads 100 times in a row is (½)10, however if you run coin tosses on a computer, in spite of the apparent fact that I could happen, it never will. In order for the Big Bang to have occurred as described requires a series of improbabilities each of which are in the level of 100 heads in a row (ain’t happinin’). The where did life come from question makes the big bang look like tiddlywinks.
At worst, intelligent design is just one more in a long string of attempts to answer the unanswerable. Whatever argument one chooses for the ultimate beginning, or for the creation of life. Even what life is, is impossible. At least intelligent design makes perfect sense, Still those who promote the impossibilities look down their noses at those who refuse to accept those impossibilities. and typically not in a kind way. There are those who attempt to sell their case in a logical fashion, which is interesting and appreciated, but their case comes equipped with the some old questions that it doesn’t answer. However a large number of respondents react in anger and or insult, or both.”You need to write less and read more;” “The Bible was written for the stupid;” “Bible Thumper;” “Cultist;” “If there is a God, you’re proof he has a sense of humor.” Which may be funny, but leads to nowhere.
One of the most interesting things I’ve noted of late was me having stumbled upon a social group on Facistbook, Critical Thinking Chiseling the Mind, I think it was. Motivated by memory of the time that critical thinking was more the element of higher education than the more modern, Marxist Critical Theory which has little to do with Critical thinking, other than the word, “critical.” I didn’t remain long a member, and during my time it seemed more a religious/anti-religious group, with the topic approached from a perspective much more relative to critical theory, which is simply a critique various social concepts. An “arts and humanities approach to identifying, critiquing, and challenging social dynamics and power structures within society” (Gary Drevitch). An apt platform for both ideologies, but for me the anti-religion perspective, rather than constructing a foundation for the scientific approach it was more of a “religious people are too stupid and lazy consider what is the only possibiilty.” A possibility that is impossible.
~Bacon
ibaconi 