Re(3): Re:When We Don't See Eye to Eye

Steven,

You have expressed some interesting commentary yourself. Comparing gravity to God is an analogy and like any analogy it suffers from its own limitations. The context that I was attempting to convey is that, despite the doubts—indeed, even through the doubts—a Christian's faith is shown to be based on a reliable reality that, up to the present moment, has proven every bit as dependable as gravity.

In some ways perhaps, gravity is more concrete than the unseen belief in God, and in others no more so. Everything we observe is first "mechanically" filtered through our sense organs, then interpreted by our brains, which is an act of perception. We can be reasonably certain, however, that gravity exists, because our own observations match the observations of others, just as we can be reasonably certain that Jesus Christ exists, because those of us who have placed our faith in Him report the same fruits of the Spirit and the same gentle guidance. At the very least, we can look at the utter (positive) transformation of so many lives as being the basis or starting point for our inquiry, as this would seem indicative that there might be more below the surface.

If we were to submit our faith to empirical scrutiny, another test we would have to perform on our hypothesis—that Jesus is real—should go beyond mere functionality. Just because a belief works, does not necessarily mean it is grounded in reality. Does our belief correspond to a reality on the other side, or is our faith itself alone able to explain the source of this seeming reality? We naturally would need to see if this faith is capable of standing up in instances where mere belief alone (without a reality on the other side) would let us down. In my own life and the life of other believers, there have been numerous instances where our prayer and our faith have brought about answers that would be difficult to explain any other way. (Note that in writing my first reply, I was presupposing I was talking to others who have experienced and agreed upon similar manifestations.)

I spoke of things difficult to explain any other way: Here are some real instances in my own life. When I was in the Job Corps center in Utah, I had very little money and access to resources. I was training in business clerical and was required to work for a month as "hands-on" credit toward my certificate of completion. While there, an employee who had been working for several years had another opportunity, and it happened to be her last day. She had brought me in a copy of God’s Word, Final, Infallible and Forever: Compelling Evidence for the Bible’s Inspiration and Preservation by Floyd C. McElven to look over, which she let me read for the day as my schedule permitted. It examined Mormonism versus traditional Christianity, and I found it very interesting. I read what I could, but had to return it to her, knowing I would never see her nor the book again—or not any time soon, anyway. (One never knows what the future may hold.) I was really taken with the book, because I was a young Christian and curious about Mormonism, which was very prevalent there in Utah. I simply prayed and asked God for a copy of the book and forgot about it. The very next day, I was eating in the cafeteria, and one of the RA's had begun attending our Bible Studies that myself and another Christian hosted sat down at the table with us. I told her of reading the book because I had found it so interesting and she said (in her sultry Spanish accent), "Oh, I have a copy of that book which I'll bring to you. I buy used books and give them away to students when I'm done." The next day, I was the proud new owner of a tattered, but intact, God's Word...

Now this is not conclusion proof, for there is always the possibility that this would have happened anyway. It wasn't like she just brought it to me without my asking. However, I had no idea where I might find a copy, I very rarely sat with her, would never have dreamt she had a copy, and this and so many other examples like it begin to stack together to form a pattern hard to ignore. Granted, there is such a thing as confirmation bias, but I, for one, would very much like to know the truth without naively clinging to something that doesn't exist, so I strive to play my own "devil's advocate," as much as is possible without driving myself completely crazy. :)

What of times that I have known something would happen before it did? Something as simple as knowing which drive-through at the bank would move the quickest or that I would be asked to work two rounds instead of one, soon confirmed when the supervisor came up to me? These things could be explained by intuition, but I maintain that the existence of intuition itself predisposes a strong probability of something beyond, if nothing more than the interconnectedness of all things. But why would all things connect if they were not joined by a central force?

As to measuring faith against non-faith, I feel uniquely qualified in that department. For years, I believed that there was nothing beyond, that there was no personal God with which to connect. My actions clearly demonstrated this, as you can read in my autobiography. I didn't feel there was any reason or point to the universe or to life. But I had a mystical experience (admittedly subjective—one can never prove for another the answers to life's deepest questions) that I could explain no other way, for I was told through no thoughts of my own that God was real. That was to mark the turning point of my life, when I went from being a drug-dealing agnostic to a born-again believer. I fought it at first, but there was no denying the truth. In sum, this is how I measure a faith in God's non-existence with a faith in His existence: I have sat on both sides.

Faith in God doesn't generally come through empirical evidence anyway. Everyone has to make up his or her own mind about things, and often we trust our intuition about things more than reason. An honest, thoughtful person will not deny that there are not times he or she feels that they simply "know" something. Some seek to verify it, others do not. I don't suppose it really matters, because arguments are rarely persuasive anyway. We tend to resist new views and ideas that don't agree with the viewpoints we have previously formulated. This isn't all bad, of course, for it keeps us from getting duped or suckered.

Another comment as well: you mentioned "any attempt to do so is attacking the process at which one arrived at his/her belief." This idea is at the heart of the deconstructivism of postmodern theory and quite true. I have written extensively on the subject in Centered in a Postmodern World. A quick summarization of this newsletter is found in that quotation I pulled from a statement written by student Benjamin Graves about French philosopher and pioneer of deconstruction philosophy, Jacques Derrida: "Derrida foregrounds the following paradox: any attempt to interrogate and destroy the center invariably causes the production of another center."

I suppose I have rambled long enough and even now I am not sure I have addressed your comments thoroughly. I also apologize for recommending so many links. It is just that the subjects are treated in much greater depth there, and to try to gloss them here and do them real justice would make for an even longer post. :) I welcome further comment, criticism, or thought. That's what this forum is for. Thanks for your contribution, Steven.

God bless,
Eric

• Re (4): Re:When We Don't See Eye to Eye - By Francis May 18, 2002 at 12:47:35 PM