Posted by
The Secular Conservative on Friday, January 26, 2007 5:34:30 PM
A common refrain from believers to non-believers like me is that my non-belief/athiesm/secularism is just as dogmatic as their belief. Who am I, in fact, to argue about faith when my belief in scientific evidence, logical thinking, and the natural over the supernatural takes just as much faith?
Those who offer this argument think they are being very clever, and assume that I have been trapped in my own logic. In fact, this rudimentary argument sounds effective, but means nothing. Unless we think understanding is equivalent to faith, thinking is equivalent to feeling, and cognition equivalent to belief, this is a non-argument.
My understanding that there are satellites revolving above the earth is not the same as a believer's faith that Jesus sits at the right hand of God in heaven above us. My knowledge that humans are frail and mortal is not the same as a believer's faith that Jesus can rise from the dead. Both of these examples contradict what I know about the world.
If, some day, I learn of a scientific explanation (read: can be verified and replicated) for a dead person coming back to life, I will believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. But at that point, it is no longer a miracle, except to those without knowledge of the scientific explanation. Until then, I will continue to believe that either Jesus never really died and was buried too soon or, more likely, that his followers developed the miraculous story after his death in order to spread the "christ-ian" message to the Gentile world.
You see, the things that I believe are self-evident or verifiable or scientifically provable. As such, they are open to criticism and can withstand criticism because the evidence is clear to those willing to see it. Faith and belief, on the other hand, are immune from criticism. I am open to contradictory evidence and can simply accept a new and better explanation without undermining my very soul. Religous believers, on the other hand, have been told that what they believe is handed-down from God, so a change of belief based on contradictory evidence puts your very soul in jeapordy.
If God is real, if God created the universe, then God created the scientific principles that govern our lives. If God inspired the Old and New Testaments, would he allow the men who wrote it to incorrectly document events that contradict logic and His own scientific principles? Did the sun really stop in the sky? Did the earth really darken in the middle of the day? Did Elijah really ride a chariot into the sky? Did Jesus really walk on water? Or are these the musings of men who did not understand the universe and attributed mysterious events to God.
Don't let your faith be immune from criticism. Hold it up to the light; turn it over, open it up, and examine the many pieces. Why believe in supernatural explanations when natural explanations are sufficient? If God is really up there judging you, don't you think he'll appreciate that you're trying to better understand your faith and His mind? Won't he appreciate that you can't be fooled by someone with a miraculous story and that you test your faith every day against what you know about His universe?
-tsc