Many of the traditions of the Easter season have less meaning for me, personally, than in previous times. In fact, as I have studied the New Testament, the importance of many "church things" has faded for me. (I don't mean "the-Body-of-Christ-is-the-Church" things, I'm talking about manmade religious rituals. There is a big difference, in many cases.)
I'm not suggesting anyone forsake dressing up in nice clothes to attend special services because I know there is great significance for many believers in those sorts of activities, and whatever draws us closer to God is good. But I also find no precedent in scripture suggesting any particular attachment should be placed on Easter, especially as Easter is not mentioned in the Bible at all and is historically associated with non-biblical practices. It seems more in keeping with the teachings of Jesus to find the same holiness, sacredness, in every day as in any holiday, even though finding joy in a celebration is a good thing.
During this time of year, I do, however, find myself considering my faith, reflecting on what I believe and why I believe it. In recent months, I have had several conversations with friends about the physical history of the world, discussions about creation and evolution, God and history. I have opinions which have changed over the years, quite honestly, opinions that early on in my journey I would have considered unshakable. I have also reached the conclusion that much of what any of us argue as fact, when it comes to certain issues, is merely opinion, as there are many things which are simply unknowable.
As it turns out, I'm fine with not knowing everything, and I spend a lot less time considering the past these days. Mostly, because every time I work through my questions about science and history, I reach the same conclusion: I don't believe what I believe because of what I know as much as because of what I don't know. To put it another way, many of the things I may accept as fact don't matter as much to me as does the infinite realm where God's love resides, where laughter, creativity, spontaneity and beauty are in abundance. Some things can be explained based purely on logic and reason, but many more things have no apparent explanation. I believe God is the author of the inexpressible truths written in our spirits. It is truth, along with the unknowable, which draws me to God.
As I thought: there are "inexpressible truths written in our spirits," and the author of these spiritual inarticulacies is something called "God." We've already established that nobody can define, describe, or characterize "God." We know that early science searched diligently for the human "soul," and finding nothing, deemed the word a mere metaphor. So: what is "spirit?" Is "spirit" natural or supernatural? Is it, like zeitgeist, a philosophical abstraction (spirit -- ghost -- of the Age, the times)? I'm unsettled by the invocation of words whose meanings are unknowable and indefinable. To say that inexpressibilities are "written" in our "spirits" by "God" is to utter sheer nonsense. That which is "written" is, by definition, expressible, having been thus expressed, since writing is expression. So "written" is just another metaphor. "God" and "spirit" are phantom words whose content is purely emotional and subjective. So it turns our you're merely saying "the world's beauties and wonders give me a warm fuzzy feeling" Hey, the same things give ME a warm fuzzy feeling. Not because I have a "spirit," and not because some supernatural abstraction designed me to feel that way, but BECAUSE I EVOLVED ON A PLANET, AND AMONG A SPECIES, WHOSE COEVOLUTION MADE IT INEVITABLE THAT I WOULD LOVE AND ADMIRE THAT WHICH GIVES ME LIFE AND MAKES LIFE PLEASANT. So did you. Would Nature -- could Nature -- produce an animal species which experienced itself and its surroundings as miserable and inhospitable? No: which is exactly why, when you cut down the virgin forest which is the only possible habitat of many species, those species go extinct.
ReplyDeleteDavid-You are correct when you say that early science tried to define God, but you are wrong when you say that a definition has not been reached. By definition, God is a spirit, which is a non-corporeal being. Not only that, but His self-revelation to mankind defines Him as the beginning and the end.. The Alpha and the Omega. The being from which all else originated.
DeleteBut again, the core definition of God is an all-powerful, omniscient, non-corporeal being.
You seem to be hung up on the concept of a spirit because early science could not accurately define it, apparently based on the fact that it is not tangible. This is an argument brought forth by many atheists, but the problem is, it's loaded with logical fallacies. Can we put our hands on our emotions? Can we place them on a scale? Can we weigh them, and meter them based on a set scale? No, we can't. Therefore, according to your logic, they must not exist either. According to you, those "inexpressibilities" (which, to the best of my knowledge is not a real word, though I get what you mean)which were written in us by God are sheer nonsense, but I posit to you that they are, in fact, medical science. Allow me to explain...
We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on listening stations scattered across the world, all pointed toward space listening for messages from other intelligent lifeforms. What would happen if we received an intelligible message from some distant origin? Could we possibly den that it came from an intelligent source? Of course not! If we have an intelligent message, it must've originated from an intelligent source. Now to my point...
I'm sure you've heard of DNA. It is the blueprint by which all living organisms are built, unique to the specific being. The DNA, much like a fingerprint, is unique to each individual, and therefore must be a form of a message. Now, how is it that it is irrational to deny the intelligent origin of the message from space, yet it is perfectly rational to deny the intelligent origins by which the DNA code came?
We do not enjoy these "warm fuzzy feelings" because of evolution, as that does not possibly answer why I enjoy some things that perhaps you don't. If evolution were the answer, then we'd all, by necessity, enjoy and hate all things exactly alike. That is not the case, however.
And this doesn't even BEGIN to scratch the surface as to what is wrong with your theory of evolution.
I think you totally missed the point of Terry's article. She was admitting her fallibility, and her finite understanding of life, the world, and how the two interact. And yes, I agree with her-there are some things in regards to both subjects that we simply cannot answer, and neither can science. Please remember that just a few hundred years ago, science said the Earth was flat, the stars were numbered at 1,200 in the entire sky, the sun revolved around the Earth, and bleeding out the sick would cure them of their "bad blood". Within the next few hundred years, they'll laugh at us and say, "they believed they 'evolved' from monkeys!" My point is, modern science is still so, so young. Why then, are we so confident to say that we know so much from it that we can totally write off such an important subject as the existence of God?
Oh, and I loved the article, Terry! Again, well done!
ReplyDeleteGood discussion.
ReplyDeleteYou know, David, you might think I'm trying to convince you and other non-believers that there is a God. I am not.
Thanks, Mike. You presented some great points. (I may have to borrow that sometime!)