I regularly find myself in the role of contrarian. When I'm with conservative Christians, I'm branded a liberal because of my beliefs about the Bible and social issues. When I'm with more liberal Christians, I'm looked at with dismay and confusion over why a seemingly educated and enlightened person such as myself would still believe in things like the divinity of Christ, the trinity, the resurrection, miracles and anything that smacks of the supernatural.The first group I've sort of given up on ever being able to explain myself to--rare is the conservative Christian who is willing to actually listen to my thoughts on when, how and in what way the Bible is or is not God's word, the necessity of science and critical thought, etc. I'm getting about to the same point with this second group--there's a certain hardness of positions that comes from the other end of the religious spectrum as well--at times, I'd say that some liberal Christians mirror fundamentalists in their refusal to consider anything beyond what their presuppositions allow them to consider. Neither extreme seems to acknowledge that they even have presuppositions.
Each in their own way require faith to believe what they hold to be true. The fundamentalist believes that God can act in any supernatural way God wants to at any time and with no limitations. Such things as the laws of physics, carbon dating, evolution, etc. all become threats to their presuppositions. On the other end, liberal believers espouse a God that mirrors that of the Deists--little more than a watchmaker--wind up the universe and let it go. Jesus was a wise teacher and prophet but in no way divine. His miracles were ordinary events that were viewed as supernatural So on and so on.
Although the conservative position could be charged with being stuck in a pre-modern universe, the liberal view could in the same way be charged with being stuck with a worldview that mirrors the Enlightenment values centuries ago. This "enlightened" or modern worldview privileges the scientific method and rational inquiry while at the same time looking with disdain upon anything that could be described as non-rational (as opposed to irrational) and cannot be explained by the laws of science.
Yet, all the time, scientists admit what they do not know and the best and most humble admit that some of those things may beyond our ability to ever know. I read a really nice example of this a little over a week ago in the NY Times. The author Paul Davies in his column "Taking Science on Faith," admits that the laws of physics may govern how our universe functions but such questions as "why are these laws the way they are?" and "what established these laws?" and "why these laws and not others?" remain outside of our ability to know. It's a prime example of scientists holding a certain view of the universe without any understanding of why things are the way the are.
In other words, based on their experience (albeit experience tested in laboratories and through mathematics, etc.) they have certain tenets they hold to be true. Based upon my experience, I still believe in a God that can and does act in human events. Can I prove it in a laboratory? No. But much that passes for scientific knowledge cannot be proven in a laboratory either.
None of this means that I am anti-science or threatened by the amazing breakthroughs in knowledge that occur everyday. All that it does mean is that I refuse to say only that which can be scientifically proven is allowed to exist. If that were so, much of what we humans cherish most about existence would be declared as unreal and foolish.
I'm glad to celebrate what we can know and hopefully some day in the future will know, while at the same time rejoicing in what remains unknowable or at least unexplainable.
Grace and Peace,
Chase
No comments:
Post a Comment