I wanted to state why I believe it is important to have reasoned faith, I thought I would post it here as well. Maybe some of you who know me think that I argue for the sake of aruging, which I know has been true in the past. But as I told one of the posters on the forum, when I debate or 'argue' with someone I always learn something. I learn more about the person I am debating with, I learn more about the topic being debated and I always learn a little more about myself. I will admit, what I learn of myself is not always something good, but I try...
Anyway, here is a copy of the post on the forum.
I don't want to give anyone the impression that I am 'arguing' for the sake of 'arguing' or that I need to do this in order to hold to a belief system. I think it is important to have reasons to hold to a belief system. I think it is important to be able to explain that belief system to others, for the sake of testing and refinement. I think it is important to be open minded, but not so much so that your brain falls out...
Let me tell a story. When I was a boy, my father and I would have lengthy conversations about a great many things in a wide variety of topics. One such conversation was about my Grandfather (my Dad's Dad) and some of the wisdom that he had. He (Grandpa) often would say, "Beware the man who has only read one book. He thinks he knows everything!" When my dad related that quote to me, I didn't understand it. I was only about 11 yrs old then. So he explained to me that true understanding and knowledge couldn’t be gained by only investigating one source on anything. A person who does this has only one perspective and by default their understanding is subjective. Then he told me the story of the six blind men standing around an elephant and the different conclusions they came to, based upon the part of the elephant they were touching.
He then said that if we don't thoroughly examine something from as many 'angles' as possible it is likely we will only come up, like the blind men, with a wrong conclusion, or at best, only a partial understanding. He said that I should never believe anyone based solely upon their word, but instead take what they say and disassemble it and try to 'wrap my brain around it.' To approach it from as many angles as I could and then see if what the person told me was the most logical conclusion.
He then told me of Ockham's Razor which basically says that we should make as few assumptions about a hypothesis as possible, 'shave off' or eliminate the assumptions that make no difference of the observable prediction. That if two equally valid explanations exist, we should chose the less complicated of the two. If we were to apply Ockham's Razor along with critical thought then we should be able to come to a correct conclusion.
That all sounded nice and fine to me but it also sounded tiresome and boring, so I told him so. I asked him why it was so important to know things in the way he was talking about, and why was it so important to think things through the way he was telling me I should. What did Grandpa really mean by that quote?
He looked at me as said something to the effect of:
"Son, if you don't know why you believe what you believe then any con man in the world will be able to sell you a bill of goods that you never ordered. People will be able to lead you around by your good intentions and take advantage of you, and you won't know they are. You might even thank them for it. Whether it be politically, psychologically, socially, or spiritually, there should be a reason, a good reason, that you believe it. If you have examined it and understand it to the point that you are fairly certain it is correct, it will be hard to change your mind about it. You won't be led astray easily, if at all. This doesn't mean you will never be wrong, but if you do it right, you won't be deceived easily."
I still didn't understand the enormity of it all, but the older I get, I understand it better. He told me to question everything that someone told me, not just to believe what I'm told. Even by him. What I realize now is that he was trying to teach me how to think for myself.
Today, as an adult, I see so many people who make their beliefs up as they go along, or try to meld two belief systems together that don't match up, or they try to take bits and pieces of various systems of thought/belief and mesh them together. It just doesn't make sense to me. Most, if not all, which do this don't realize that they are ascribing to 'blind faith'. I don't want to have 'blind faith' I want a reasoned faith. There may be some things (a lot) that I don't yet understand, but there are many that I do. Those that I do understand and believe I have a REASON to believe, not just wishful thinking.
When it comes to spirituality...
If there is someone/something in the cosmos that caused things to be created/made, then it stands to reason that we should find scientific evidence of such event.
If that someone/something wished to communicate to us that he/she/it/they existed and was responsible for the cosmos, then it stands to reason that he/she/it/they would have communicated it to us.
If he/she/it/they are the ultimate absolute in the cosmos, then, (like it or not) it stands to reason he/she/it/they, not us, make the rules. Period.
If he/she/it/they set up the rules and also set up the consequences of disobeying the rules, then it only stands to reason that we have no choice (except whether or not to obey them) in their validity (i.e. our idea of fairness or to whom they apply).
If all of this is true and there is evidence to support the creation/making of the cosmos, if there is evidence of a communication to us, if there is evidence that he/she/it/they is/are absolute, if there is evidence that there are consequence to the rules and that we cannot avoid the consequence to the rules, then it stands to reason that any belief system that speaks of he/she/it/they and claims to have a copy of the ‘rules’ is a belief system worth investigating.
If the belief system we investigate thoroughly (from all angles) holds up ‘under fire’, then it stands to reason that we should endeavor to live by what the belief system states.
If there are competing, differing, antithetical belief systems that claim to have knowledge of he/she/it/they, then it stands to reason that they cannot all be right. It stands to reason that only one can be totally correct.
If it is possible that all of the above is true, it stands to reason that questions and answers concerning the above topics are of utter importance and are worthy of being investigated.
If one belief system stands the tests of argument, debate, scientific testing, continuity, etc., then it stands to reason that this one belief system is worth believing. It stands to reason. It isn’t blind faith. It stands to reason. It’s Reasoned Faith.
Blind Men and the Elephant
(by John Godfrey Saxe)
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“ ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“ ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
4 comments:
Good post Mark. I saw something the other day on TV, I believe it was Jimmy Swaggart, that hit home for me. He pointed out that if Israel falls then the Bible is false. Your opinion?
I enjoyed reading your post and I understood what I read!!! Good Post.
Jen, I don't know how much weight I would put in everything anyone, like Jimmy Swaggart, says. However, I tend to agree to a point. I depends upon the definition of 'falls'. At some point during hte 'ends times 'the Bible talks about 'Jacob's Troubles' (Jacob had his name changed by God to Israel) and Isarael standing alone against the whole world. That could be defined by some as falling. Now, if Israel were destroyed, then he's got a point. Also in Revelation it says that if God didnt' interviene, that the whole earth would be destroyed. I'd have to do more research before I would want to be definitive about a statement like that.
Thanks Sara! I'm glad you could undestand it. I hope that doesn't mean that my other posts arent' understandable...? ;-)
Post a Comment