If only I had faith... (part 3)

 by Arron Bergeron

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.” Any meaning one tries to derive from the atom and the molecule is hopeless out of place. It is this need to believe that drives us to live out of sync with the stark reality of a universe of random chance. It reminds me of something the Lord Jesus said the Saul of Tarsus; “It is hard for you to kick against the pricks”. We can’t fight the inevitable, yet many today try. I’d like to wrap up this mini series with a final example;

“We need to believe, but we also need to remember that we are the ones who have constructed (and therefore can deconstruct and reconstruct) the objects and rituals of our belief.

I find this type of reasoning fascinating. The incurable religiosity of mankind certainly points to the existence of something transcendent, doesn’t it? Every hunger upon which our survival depends has a means by which it can be satisfied. If we need to believe, there must be something which satisfies that need. But his answer to the despair and vanity of a material world in ignoring this fact enters the realm of the ridiculous. Firstly, if man constructs our own belief, it can’t possibly be transcendent, thus leaving us bloated on air rather than substance. It only postpones or delays more misery and despair. Secondly, if we have the power to construct and deconstruct our belief, we then have a rubber band in our hands which we adjust to suit ourselves. Belief becomes so relative, that Duncombe violates the laws of logic and reason, and has sawn off the branch upon which he sits when he mocks and belittles my faith so contemptuously. He who throws dirt loses ground. Lastly, if Duncombe is so certain of our need to believe, and that we need to know absolutely we are the constructors of said beliefs, than he needs to be reminded that this is already based upon his faith assertions. How can he ever be certain that this assertion isn’t just something which he constructed? What he knows with such certainty becomes completely dissolved in the “icy waters of calculation” which he worships.

“When I watch reality TV or visit Las Vegas, for example, I know that what I am seeing is a staged representation of real people or landmarks, but my enjoyment is contingent on my feeling as though they are real. I think the trick is to possess both belief and skepticism, simultaneously, without trying to reconcile the two. That is, to exist somewhere in between, resonating with both and yet never being wholly subsumed by either.”

We’ve already dealt with the supposed contradiction between faith and reason, but I need to add something else to this. The only way someone could ever be able to tell something is staged is if they already have a sense of the original to begin with, and this quote proves that Duncombe knows it too. The real has to exist in order for someone to make such a comparison. In application, there is no such thing as objectivity or rationality in a random irrational universe. The hope his foolishness offers is one of self deception. Lie to yourself, trick yourself into living in between the worlds of faith and belief. What an unpleasant fiction. What an absurdity.