I cringe whenever I hear someone say, "I could never believe in a God that would [fill in the blank]."
<I'm going to use the pronoun "He" here for simplicity in writing. Your beliefs may differ.>
With the premise that God exists, then He is already defined. We cannot define Him any more than we can personally define what the chemical makeup of quartz is; we must discover Him. We must accept what He factually is. We cannot choose what God is.
The fact that, for example, innocent children suffer in this world is evidence that this tragic occurrence fits somehow with God's nature. God allows it for some reason. It may be difficult for us to understand, but once we discover Him and learn His nature and His Big Picture, we should be able to understand the "why's."
If you have an "I could never believe..." in your head, stop and think for a moment. Perhaps you're asking the wrong question. Perhaps you should be instead trying to find God, to discover Him.
As a scientist, I cannot prove scientifically that God exists. The supernatural is just that -- beyond science's ability to test, touch, experiment, and prove. And, by the same token, it is also impossible to prove that God does not exist. But as a man of faith, I know that I can prove to myself that God exists by praying to Him and, once I find them, putting His promises to the test. I can testify so to others and share my beliefs and experiences, but I cannot objectively prove it and transfer that knowledge to others -- it is a matter of personal faith. To discover God, you must exercise faith (knowledge/belief in something you cannot see). To find God without faith would be like finding a scientific fact without observation and experiment -- it cannot be done.
An interesting outcome of this essay is that not all religions could be fully "true;" that is, that all their teachings about God are factually accurate. They may be "good," and they may be close to reality, but if there really is a God, then God has one definition, one reality, one identity. It is up to us to discover whether those differences between religions matter to God!
The agnostic may dismiss my premise, but consider this: you cannot prove that God does not exist!
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
If Only You Understood!
There is a disturbing trend in today's politics to say, "If they just understood my idea, they would accept it."
This philosophical abomination is used across the political spectrum, but has been particularly prevalent in the Obama administration.
It is an abomination because it presumes that only one side of an argument is valid. That is almost never the case in the political arena. It dismisses the opposing ideas out-of-hand, giving them and their adherents no due respect. It presumes that opposing opinions are not valid, or are morally and/or intellectually inferior, while implicitly exalting the speaker's ideas. It is pure intellectual and moral arrogance.
Watch for this tactic, and see it for what it is.
This philosophical abomination is used across the political spectrum, but has been particularly prevalent in the Obama administration.
It is an abomination because it presumes that only one side of an argument is valid. That is almost never the case in the political arena. It dismisses the opposing ideas out-of-hand, giving them and their adherents no due respect. It presumes that opposing opinions are not valid, or are morally and/or intellectually inferior, while implicitly exalting the speaker's ideas. It is pure intellectual and moral arrogance.
Watch for this tactic, and see it for what it is.
Monday, February 2, 2015
Knowledge Gap
The headline goes something like this: "Wide gap between scientists and public on scientific issues."
Here's why this should be no surprise, and why the focus is on scientists rather than other kinds of experts.
Anyone who develops expertise in an area distances themselves from the average person's level of understanding in that area. Whether a carpenter or chemist, physicist or physical therapist, farmer or pharmacist, the expert develops a depth of knowledge on their topic that Joe Public will never attain. When detailed discussions ensue, Joe Public is quickly out of his depth; he cannot sustain an intelligent conversation at the expert's depth.
And so the headline should be no surprise, because there is a wide gap between public understanding and experts' understanding on almost any topic.
The problem is, no one doubts a carpenter or a farmer. Pharmacists are trusted implicitly, as are most personal physicians.
But something happens when an astrophysicist explains how old the Earth and the universe are, or a paleontologist explains how life forms have changed over time. These topics are suddenly not so close to Joe Public. They're not something the average person can relate to. The deep, technical details that the expert deals with daily are foreign to Joe Public, and so a distrust or skepticism develops. He doubts the experts. He doesn't doubt the scientists who make flight possible, and new medicines, and the internet, and electricity -- he is happy to use those without a second thought. But for some reason he doubts the experts on other scientific topics.
I think scientists are the target of public skepticism because many science topics are unfamiliar, hard to relate to, and abstract to the average person. The issues may have implications for public policy, and may contradict the world model Joe Public has set up for himself. But if we were to formulate a survey like the ones that create the headline, but instead survey people's understanding and trust of farmers or computer engineers or architects or accountants at deep enough technical levels, I think we may find the same kinds of gaps in understanding and trust.
Here's why this should be no surprise, and why the focus is on scientists rather than other kinds of experts.
Anyone who develops expertise in an area distances themselves from the average person's level of understanding in that area. Whether a carpenter or chemist, physicist or physical therapist, farmer or pharmacist, the expert develops a depth of knowledge on their topic that Joe Public will never attain. When detailed discussions ensue, Joe Public is quickly out of his depth; he cannot sustain an intelligent conversation at the expert's depth.
And so the headline should be no surprise, because there is a wide gap between public understanding and experts' understanding on almost any topic.
The problem is, no one doubts a carpenter or a farmer. Pharmacists are trusted implicitly, as are most personal physicians.
But something happens when an astrophysicist explains how old the Earth and the universe are, or a paleontologist explains how life forms have changed over time. These topics are suddenly not so close to Joe Public. They're not something the average person can relate to. The deep, technical details that the expert deals with daily are foreign to Joe Public, and so a distrust or skepticism develops. He doubts the experts. He doesn't doubt the scientists who make flight possible, and new medicines, and the internet, and electricity -- he is happy to use those without a second thought. But for some reason he doubts the experts on other scientific topics.
I think scientists are the target of public skepticism because many science topics are unfamiliar, hard to relate to, and abstract to the average person. The issues may have implications for public policy, and may contradict the world model Joe Public has set up for himself. But if we were to formulate a survey like the ones that create the headline, but instead survey people's understanding and trust of farmers or computer engineers or architects or accountants at deep enough technical levels, I think we may find the same kinds of gaps in understanding and trust.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)