In Till We Have Faces, Lewis develops one of my favorite characters in all of his fiction, the Fox. On the scale between thin and thick religions, he falls on the thin side. He holds to rationality, rather than to superstition. Lewis says he is right, but not completely. Perhaps there are some things that happen in our world that defy logic and explanation.
But why? Why can't Lewis accept a wholly rationalistic view of the world? To quote Patrick Star, "The machinations of [Jack's] mind are an enigma." Half the time he's off concocting logical proofs about the nature of God, and the other half he seems to be throwing logic out the window.
Too often I feel as if Christianity is supported by saying God does all of the things we can't explain. This is referred to as the "God of the gaps" argument. This isn't a stable foundation to 'prove' God. As understanding increases, God diminishes. Because of this, the church has resisted intellectualism and inquisitiveness for centuries. Indeed, the church has consistently opposed advances in our understanding of the world. It's really incredible how ideas based on reason and observation have been shot down because they don't line up with what the Bible says. Heliocentrism, uniformitarianism, and evolution have all been opposed by the established church, and evolution is still "controversial" in evangelic circles.
I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to stop questioning when someone says they know the truth. "I believe because (blank) said so" is not my personal motto. Something like, "Do I have to believe that?" is much more fitting. Unfortunately this has brought me into conflict with many people I love. They see critical thinking as a sort of disease that corrupts the soul and leads a person away from the truth as they see it. The "thick" aspects of religion should be accepted at face value, and not explored to see if there is a "thin" explanation.
But what if there are "thin" explanations? If the faith community keeps setting itself up to be in conflict with scientific thought, it will continue to lose as it has in the past. As Stephen Hawking said, "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."
Spoken like a true biology major. I am extremly hesitant to say things like "the church has done this," or "the church has done that." Granted many sects of xianianity that have done aweful things. one only needs to look at Westboro Baptist church, molestation in the Catholic church and the burning of witches in the middle ages to see that "the church" is defeniatley blameness.
ReplyDeleteI see no problem in questioning the thick side of religion. Sometimes great things happen when we question our beliefs. But we are mistaken if we say that these questions are rational. My theological background was very liberal in its interpretation. Everything was questioned. As a result, I yearn for thickness. This thin buisness seems so materialistic, yet I have to realize that this is my own baggage and not the fault of the soup or the church.
Many chrisitans become frusterated when they feel like something has been hidden from them, when in reality, they are just changing classes.