More Visual Bull
|
The Challenge to Christian Faith - Part two
As we saw in part one of our examination of "Faith" the entire notion of what exactly defines the concept is not well thought out. In part two we examine the challenges to Christian faith.
A true notion of faith essentially ended in the 20th Century. Prior to the recent natural explanations of phenomena such as the origin and development of species coupled with increased knowledge about the age and nature of the universe, it was possible to hold faith. Faith roughly defined is a belief in the absence of evidence (see part one for the broader explanation). Scientific progress; however, has eliminated "the absence of evidence" from the equation. What exists today among the religious is a belief in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. In order to maintain a semblance of what religion would call "faith" four tactics can be employed. The first is to deny that this contrary evidence exists, or at least deny that it is overwhelming to leave room. Doubt, in turn, leaves room for faith. The second tactic is to reconcile with this evidence and develop a view that keeps God a possibility within the naturally explained world. The third is to change the nature of God as a concept. The final tactic is more political. "Teaching Evolution Diminishes Respect for Human Life." This may very well be true for people that want to believe in the uniqueness of humanity and its ties to the image of God. It doesn't make it true, though. It is just means that it might be better to teach a falsehood than expose children to possibly unpleasant truths. This is a political or philosophical question but it does not change our concept of "faith."
In denying the natural explanations of the world believers in the Divine succeed only in convincing the ignorant. A survey of "Christian responses to evolution" reveals an almost childlike ignorance of the theories and explanations and even more infantile responses: (a good example of these childlike attempts can be found here)
1. Evolution is so dominant in scientific teaching that they are closed to opposing views. (evolution is dominant because it is so accurate. It grew into this dominance because of the evidence, not in spite of it. Mathematicians are also dogmatic in their belief that 2+2=4).
2. Science does not have all the answers therefore there is room for faith. (While scientific knowledge has "evolved" there is not a single piece of new knowledge that point to a weaker case for evolution or to a stronger case for God).
3. Science may be accurate but Scientists are not always as they have their own biases and financial considerations. (While it is true that scientists have been wrong the process of science itself accounts for and dismisses these biases and biased individuals. This is what is meant by verifiable evidence).
4. There are also a myriad of challenges to the evidence such as missing links, complexity in nature, incomplete fossil evidence, etc. (This is exactly what the scientific method is all about: Producing verifiable and deniable hypotheses in order to expand the knowledge base. If everything were already known there wouldn't be a need for science. You don't see anyone writing a doctoral thesis explaining that the Earth revolves around the Sun).
While I'll discuss the reconciliation of religion and science and the changing nature of God in part three, I want to detail the implications of the above viewpoint with regards to faith. The definition of "faith" seems to fall apart in the face of all the contradictory evidence but what does this say about the faithful? Quite plainly, it says that they are either ignorant or foolish. Like the story of the Pied Piper, an ignorant flock can be lead anywhere. The problems for a society arise, not because science diminishes the meaning of life, but because this ignorant flock also has guns and ballots.
(on a personal note, I first began to challenge my fundamentalist Christian perspective when I picked up a pamphlet, known as a tract - which gave the Christian response to evolution. It was so childish and inaccurate that I began to question how I could actually hold these belief.) - Edmund Ross
|
