I try not to rant on my blog, if I can help it. Sometimes I read something and it frustrates me and I'll wait to blog on it so I can think on it a little more (hopefully reducing the chance that I'll write something I regret).
Other times I'll hear or read about something and not blog on it for whatever reason and it will eventually catch up to me and I can't help myself.
Such is the case with the idea of Christians needing to think for themselves. I'm all for the idea and applaud original thinking and the promotion of wisdom. Typically, however this particular assault is not on Christians who simply don't make the effort to utilize wisdom or think originally; it's on Christians. Period. Most of the time it doesn't end there but extends to anyone of any sort of religious persuasion (or any other persuasion deemed
superstitious by that community that lauds its own achievements on material grounds conveniently ignoring the non-physical [oops] processes and philosophical underpinnings of its own enterprise).
I understand that Jesus warned that the "world will hate you" and for us to remember that "it hated [Jesus] first" and to "bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse". So I'll not curse these people for persecuting Christians. I used to curse Christians worse than many of these people do so I can't really judge.
What I will fault them for, however is poor use of their own logic and academic arrogance that seemingly everyone but themselves is aware of except for those who take them at their word... which sounds an awful lot like taking a pastor's word for it, don't you think? After all, are the 'laypeople' really testing these theories and examining the peer-reviews and testing hypotheses or swallowing the textbook synopsis that seems to say: 'Trust us; we've done the research so you don't have to'?
Do I really expect people to run tests to prove everything the scientists say? Of course not. Do I expect a little humility on their part? You bet. After all, these are the very same people who demand a rigorous logic at work in all we do, or at least enough to hand-wave at anything that smacks of meta-physical flavor. You'd think That Community would want to educate its adherents a little more so they wouldn't make these kinds of
illogical statements, which sounds an awful lot like the same objection leveled at churches.
The so-called 'free-thinkers' are misnomer-ed like few are. I understand that they feel the title is quasi-justified on the grounds that they feel they are free from a particular tradition of thought or organized worldview system, but they aren't free. In fact, by their own evolutionary standards this is not possible. The social make-up doesn't allow for it. We are automatically bound to whatever social structure we are raised in and will develop according to that structure. Free-thinking is only free within certain bounds. It's like 'free-will'; you aren't totally free to do whatever you like. For example: fly. Not on a plane or anything else, just flap your arms and achieve lift-off and then glide somewhere far away. You aren't 'free' to do that because it's not something you're capable of doing. Likewise the 'free-thinkers' are not free to think however they like but must take all of the simple ideas thus far acquired and coordinate the compound ideas formed into structured thought, just like everyone else.
Now, the advancement is surely in the various ways the compound ideas are ordered; however, even those are bound by the simple ideas and rules for the coordination of compound ideas. This is why we know what 'nonsense' is: it is non-sense because there is no sense to it and it communicates nothing. Regardless of object, there is only so much communicable to each other, which brings me to my next point.
Those who loftily decry the stupidity of us superstitious folk (who are apparently extant only in the deep South where we still all ride horses to school and cling to religion because our accents force us to), have not been taught enough about their own logic. I doubt very many of them could give you sufficient ground as to why they accept the laws of logic that they do. Or
why we
should all think logically. Or what kinds of scientific tests could be run to demonstrate that only testable things are worth accepting. Or how testable these statements are. Or how it is they are able to think for themselves without ever having read anything written by someone else or talked to anyone else or been influence by someone else's ideas. Or how exhaustively they've researched the claims they make. Or how many things that they believe have been verified to the degree of certitude they demand of others. Or why they accept what the Discovery Channel or History Channel or National Geographic or science textbook says on...(ahem)...
faith.
Inevitably someone will misread this post. I will here make a couple of statements and if you've thought the point of this post was in contradiction to these statements, then you've misread the post.
I believe that God used processes that have moved His creation along in the manner loosely described by evolution.
I believe science is good (I've often been tempted to get a second degree in Biology because I love it so much--the Krebs Cycle excites me).
I believe scientists are good and useful contributors to society.
I love the North.
I believe that logic useful and good.
I believe in truth.
I don't think we have to operate in such a way that everything must be tested and verified in order for us to be justified in thinking that it's true.
I'm comfortable with the fact that I believe in things that are not scientifically testable, logically verifiable, or reduced to material processes because at least I admit it.
Another inevitability is that some reading this will think that I'm attacking all of this or that group (i.e. evolutionists, free-thinkers, scientists, &c.) but I'm not. I personally know a few who are very consistent and understand the weaknesses in their own system and thus do not apply those kinds of standards to those who are convinced of metaphysical realities; they have other reasons for rejecting those realities and that's fine. I'm not attacking their unbelief: what I'm attacking is the arrogance of those who place demands on others that they themselves cannot bear and turn a blind-eye to the glaring difficulties with such demands because those difficulties would affect their own systems. In this way I am defending science because it demands humility by its very nature. Postmodernism has made much headway in calling for true humility in philosophical circles (which was present in some aspects and disciplines but not to the degree necessary). It is time for science to do the same. Yes, religion has a bloody history, which has nothing to do with knowing Jesus, but let's not get stupid and pretend that only religious people have caused the world's problems. Let's also not pretend that secular assaults on religious people are not harmless because physical contact isn't involved (a cue many could take from Robert M. Price, who readily admits he has no desire to talk everyone out of their religion, which doesn't entirely make up for his battle against religious apologists but is still very commendable and demonstrates God's grace toward humanity working even through those who do not want to be partakers of that grace), the kind of language used, the videos on You Tube, the books written, the patronizing head-pats, the verbal abuse, the all-out commitment to getting rid of religion, and the demeaning and de-humanizing of those who are religious are all small steps from physical abuse and can even inflict more damage. Perhaps if honesty is the target then these might admit they are simply weeding out the weak members of the species (if there was a 'god-gene' we needed a long time ago but stopped using, right?) in order to make more room for the Advanced Ones who are better evolved and thus no longer needing reli... sorry:
supersition to live maximally. But no one says this.
Let's not conveniently ignore that, historically, true Christians whose lives have been truly changed by Jesus Christ have contributed significantly to the world. I find it sad that over the last ten years of Jesus changing my life and shaping my heart to be a more loving person (that I didn't want to be, by the way) who strives to put others first (which I am still resisting) and works to forgive and love enemies (which is incredibly hard but done by the power of the Holy Spirit) I can be attacked for what I believe. This is an odd thing indeed. 'Who cares what good Christians have done? We'll attack their beliefs. People who have called themselves Christians have done bad things so that means they are all bad'. That's a logical fallacy but apparently logic goes out the window when... um...you want to believe what you want to believe. Or does that only apply to religious people?
Post a Comment