| If Only I Had Faith... (part 2) |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Arron Bergeron |
| Tuesday, 11 August 2009 19:00 |
If Only I Had Faith...(part 2)In my previous columns I highlighted a perfect example of practical existentialism; it is a blind leap of faith to find and create our own meaning in what is solely a material universe. Put more simply, if all there is in the universe is molecules interacting, then “what is, simply is.” In response to the “sodden ashes” which result in mixing the “fires of faith and the icy waters of calculationi”, Duncombe states… “Can belief and skepticism, rationality and faith, be reconciled? I don’t think so, for each cancels the other out. Belief is an edifice built upon ephemeralities like hopes and dreams. Rationality demands a firm foundation that is constantly tested through inspection and deconstruction.”ii And… “Yet every day I carry this warring opposition within me. I know, for instance, that I am determined by my biology, history and ideology, yet I act as if I were fully responsible for my actions… I think the trick is to possess both belief and skepticism, simultaneously, without trying to reconcile the two.” This is a classic example of the absurd. God is thrown out as a possible foundation for life, and we degenerate into philosophies of life that are unlivable. Better yet, we should use the term beliefs which are unlivable. Being determined by biology is ridiculous. In this view no one could ever be said to be right or wrong about anything; no one does or can live this way. This is separate from the issue that there is no proof of this belief, which is precisely why it is belief. What’s more, if the chemical reactions in the brain are responsible for this thing of which Duncombe says “I know”, then he doesn’t really know it at all. A slight tweak in the chemical composition would become something else which he would “know” so concretely. History can inform our understanding, as can learned ideologies, but to state one is determined by them denies the record of such history. The free love and drug culture of the sixties is a prime example. No one was teaching that ideology to their kids. It was a decisive break from the ideologies of the parents, and even more so a decisive break from the historical tangent people found themselves on. The sixties were a direct result of the existential teachings which came from academia, and filtered down into the ordinary world. The sole truth we can get from Duncombe on this matter is that what we belief will dictate our actions. Between the three ways in which the author says we are determined, they all may have a hand in the process of life, but all three are easily transcended, which should point to something more than he is willing to accept. How then do we respond the challenge that faith and reason can’t be reconciled? If the foundation for rationalism is constantly being “deconstructed”, how then can it be said to be a firm foundation, especially if it is undermined by the determination of one’s biology? More absurdity! To use the mind to attempt to rationalize something should be a dead give away; one has to trust reason by faith before they can trust its results. Every person in the world must start at faith before they could get anywhere else; the scientist trusts by faith that the scientific method is a valid tool of investigation; the atheist believes in the non existence of God, because if He didn’t exist He couldn’t leave any proof; the skeptic must believe in questioning before he questions everything. From this point, the leap of faith of searching for and creating one’s own meaning is absurd. Whatever one would pick will inevitably cease to satisfy. Only God can give us enough to satisfy, while simultaneously having more to chase after, both here and in the afterlife. Only something firm can be suitably used as foundation. The infinite God is as firm as it gets. |