As the title of this blog post might lead you to believe, I have been thinking about rationality and spirituality lately. Between the ridiculous show piece that was the Ham vs Nye debate, listening to an audio book version of A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking I got from the library (curiously enough, you can find the exact version of the audio book I'm listening to on YouTube as well though I'm not sure if it is a legal version), reading an assortment of essays on the Einstein's Theories of Relativity and Gravitation by James Malcolm Bird, and a discussion I had with my small group about the topic, it's easy to see why science and religion has been on the forefront of my mind.
I've debated whether or not to talk about this on my blog. I think there are certain subjects that must be carefully treaded when discussing them and I don't want anyone to lose faith because of the manner in which I discuss them. So, if you are reading this, please read through to the very end before drawing conclusions, either positive or negative, about the implications of this post. With that being said, I feel like I can freely say the following fact about myself:
Were it not for my personal experiences, I would be agnostic.
That's a packed statement so let me unload a few of the pieces.
I cannot conceive of a world in which I would ever be an atheist.
Earlier today, I read an article entitled Is Atheism Irrational?. The mere title of the article was clearly meant to invoke a response (at the time this post was written, the number of comments on the article was reaching 1000) and I don't agree with all of the arguments the interviewee put forth but the general argument against atheism in favor of agnosticism I agree with. If you don't feel like reading the article (or potentially read the arguments in a different way than I did), the argument between atheism and agnosticism is argument between whether or not there is sufficient evidence suggesting that no God exists or, rather, that the leap of faith from agnosticism to atheism relies on believing (a) the absence of evidence of the existence of God is conclusive enough to point to evidence of God's absence and (b) there is enough evidence of God's absence to conclusively point to His non-existence. From an intellectual standpoint and were I agnostic, I cannot conceive of a world in which someone could argue well-enough to convince me of point (a) let alone point (b). I'm sure plenty of my atheist friends will gladly point me in the right direction though.
Intellectually, I can conceive of a world in which the governing laws of nature produced our physical universe without supernatural help.
Quite obviously based on my reading of recent days you can see where this is could be coming from. However, I have long held this belief. There have been many times in my life when I struggled to acknowledge this fact to myself but, in the end, I feel like I cannot abandon my intellect to blind faith. Did God create the world in 7 days? Did He use evolution to do it? Was He there at all? Where does morality come from? Why is there evil in the world? Why didn't Noah swat those two mosquitoes when he had the chance? Silliness aside, there are a lot of deep metaphysical, philosophical, and theological questions that I have wrestled with and heard arguments on and I must say that, from a purely intellectual standpoint, I find the arguments for and against the existence of God as made evident in the world around us to be just as convincing.
From an experiential standpoint, I cannot deny the existence of God.
Recently, I was listening to a set of lectures on Kierkegaard's Relevance to the Contemporary Church by Stephen Evans and there was a particular point of Kierkegaard's works that Dr. Evans brought to my attention that I think is of relevance here: Kierkegaard viewed most modern men as being emotionally underdeveloped.
What does that mean? When hearing the term "emotion," I think most people think of a fleeting feeling or some other transient state of being. However, according to Dr. Evans, the claim that Kierkegaard is making in his works is speaking to deeper emotions like Love (not infatuation), Hope (not wishful-thinking) or even, if I may be so bold, Forgiveness (not willful-ignorance) in an almost incommunicable way, a way that can only be fully understood when experienced. Kierkegaard is of the opinion that modern man has placed too much effort on the advancement of the intellect to the subjugation of personal identity and humanity.
This analysis speaks volumes to me. As much as my mind may like to separate from my soul, it lives its existence intertwined with it (and, I believe, it is all the better for it). Time and time again, I know that God has touched my life. Now, you may call me crazy for saying that or you may try to explain it away with something about neurological impulses triggering responses in my brain and, were I purely an intellectual being, I might believe either explanation. However, there is something there that I cannot fully explain in words that makes me believe that it cannot just be my physical brain playing tricks on me.
It's these personal moments that drives my belief in something greater than myself, in God Himself. It's not something that can be proved or argued but I something I just know to be.
So, for all of you who sit on the fence of agnosticism, I'll pray for you, for God to touch your life the way He's touched mine and for you to be truly open to experiencing Him. For all of you who truly believe that there is no God to pray to, I'll pray even more for you to experience what God can offer and I truly hope your soul can be as open as your mind.
