On the Primacy of Religious Faith to the Existence of God
By Glenn Plastina
If the question on the existence or non-existence of God is not provable, what makes faith meaningful?
The case for the evidence of God is perhaps the most elusive case man has to face. It is just like looking for fingerprints in the surface of the running water. Philosophy has tried to cross the river, but only the shallow part that created the raucous verbiage war. Some great minds struggled with a case never won in arguments but only in faith. While some fideists swam themselves to the abyss of God’s mysteries, their rational and non-rational arguments and experience can no wise win the case. Some of them lost themselves in the ocean and remained silent. Some came back to attest to the experience in rational terms but they seem to talk non-sense to the rational atheist.
This case, for me, is a unique one for both parties, the fideists and the atheists, are all acquitted, in a sense that their defense are all counted to be reasonable and intelligent—only to certain degrees. No one is guilty; it’s a win-win situation. Or is it? Via negative, if ever God does not exist and the atheist philosopher is right, what does it profit him? To some extent, his philosophical quest is admirable in that the exercise to cultivate a rational thinking pattern has been developed. At least, the contribution to the development of mankind’s ability to think is perceived. What about the fideist, does it profit him to believe in something that does not exist? If ever God does not exist, does it make a faithful a fool? Perhaps he is. But on what standard? In failing to exercise his philosophical capacity? Perhaps! But for me, a man who trusts in God has nothing to lose if ever God does not exist after all, it is not even a mistake. He just followed his intuition.
Via positive, if ever God does exist, what does the atheist philosopher gain? Does it make him a fool? Not so. As a man with freedom to decide for his own, he is just true to himself or held strong to what he perceives as it is. He could even convince himself that God did not show more evidence for his existence. Is God to be blamed? Who knows? But to the fideist, if God does exist, that man’s faith is rewarding. Why is that so?
Primarily, the person who has faith is just a recipient of something he does not seek to prove. It is something believed upon even in the midst of uncertainty and paradox in reality. He may have developed his philosophical understanding but his faith is never overruled by rational and empirical senses but by heart. This does not mean however, that philosophical quest is heartless. It is just that the person with faith is not manipulated or enslaved with open-ended arguments. After all, knowledge of truth is never final to the extent that there is no more to discover and explore. At least, the person who believes is free from philosophical systems that do not prove faith in the existence of God as inferior.
As of now, there is no other better alternative to philosophical quest and religious faith than the synthesis of two—possessing faith and yet cultivates rational explanations of faith, not just for personal nurture but helping others understand the nature and significance of the their faith in a rational way. Faith does not have to be irrational to prove itself spiritual, neither philosophy of religion to be totally rational to prove itself intelligible. After all, both faith and reason can coexist and can make way to connect to each other, to make the bond of life more meaningful and reasonable to the subject and its observers. I’ll take faith that seeks understanding.
If the question on the existence or non-existence of God is not provable, what makes faith meaningful?
The case for the evidence of God is perhaps the most elusive case man has to face. It is just like looking for fingerprints in the surface of the running water. Philosophy has tried to cross the river, but only the shallow part that created the raucous verbiage war. Some great minds struggled with a case never won in arguments but only in faith. While some fideists swam themselves to the abyss of God’s mysteries, their rational and non-rational arguments and experience can no wise win the case. Some of them lost themselves in the ocean and remained silent. Some came back to attest to the experience in rational terms but they seem to talk non-sense to the rational atheist.
This case, for me, is a unique one for both parties, the fideists and the atheists, are all acquitted, in a sense that their defense are all counted to be reasonable and intelligent—only to certain degrees. No one is guilty; it’s a win-win situation. Or is it? Via negative, if ever God does not exist and the atheist philosopher is right, what does it profit him? To some extent, his philosophical quest is admirable in that the exercise to cultivate a rational thinking pattern has been developed. At least, the contribution to the development of mankind’s ability to think is perceived. What about the fideist, does it profit him to believe in something that does not exist? If ever God does not exist, does it make a faithful a fool? Perhaps he is. But on what standard? In failing to exercise his philosophical capacity? Perhaps! But for me, a man who trusts in God has nothing to lose if ever God does not exist after all, it is not even a mistake. He just followed his intuition.
Via positive, if ever God does exist, what does the atheist philosopher gain? Does it make him a fool? Not so. As a man with freedom to decide for his own, he is just true to himself or held strong to what he perceives as it is. He could even convince himself that God did not show more evidence for his existence. Is God to be blamed? Who knows? But to the fideist, if God does exist, that man’s faith is rewarding. Why is that so?
Primarily, the person who has faith is just a recipient of something he does not seek to prove. It is something believed upon even in the midst of uncertainty and paradox in reality. He may have developed his philosophical understanding but his faith is never overruled by rational and empirical senses but by heart. This does not mean however, that philosophical quest is heartless. It is just that the person with faith is not manipulated or enslaved with open-ended arguments. After all, knowledge of truth is never final to the extent that there is no more to discover and explore. At least, the person who believes is free from philosophical systems that do not prove faith in the existence of God as inferior.
As of now, there is no other better alternative to philosophical quest and religious faith than the synthesis of two—possessing faith and yet cultivates rational explanations of faith, not just for personal nurture but helping others understand the nature and significance of the their faith in a rational way. Faith does not have to be irrational to prove itself spiritual, neither philosophy of religion to be totally rational to prove itself intelligible. After all, both faith and reason can coexist and can make way to connect to each other, to make the bond of life more meaningful and reasonable to the subject and its observers. I’ll take faith that seeks understanding.
posted by GlenPlas @ 12:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home