I am in mind of a discussion between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. Ken Ham is president of Answers In Genesis. He's a Young Earth Creationist. Bill Nye is, of course, the Science Guy. From their discussion it became evident that they were not speaking the same language. Nye, and science folks in general, ask the question, "What do the physical phenomena tell us? What is the best explanation for what we find?" The reply from the creationists: "We have evidence! We have Genesis!!" They sail on with this, either unaware of, or ignoring, two separate and, at some points, conflicting creation accounts in Genesis. Just to make it more interesting, there's a third creation account in the Bible, in the first chapter of the Gospel According to John.
One would think that, if the Bible were meant to present a unified idea of creation, the writers would have settled on just one. The writers of the biblical accounts were, of course, not equipped to do this. They weren't aware, as we are, of the fossil record. They did not have carbon dating available to them. So there are questions that science can examine. How to explain dinosaur fossils? How to explain that, in the fossil record, simplest organisms are the oldest, and the farthest down?
How do you have a discussion when the people discussing aren't speaking the same language? Ken Ham says his evidence is Genesis. That, however, is not evidence. It was a result of a tradition that did not have the scientific tools to explain creation.
Where a I in all this?
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth,
Of all things visible and invisible.
I do believe. Since the God in whom I believe is eternal, it matters not at all to me if God chose to use a Big Bang to start it all, if God chose to use geological processes that required billions of years, if life as we know it involved evolutionary processes. I'm not bothered at all by that. And this would imply the existence of an intelligent Designer. But I am fully aware that one cannot teach creationism, or its disguised cousin, intelligent design, as science. There's no science in them.
I believe in the existence of God. But neither I nor anyone else can prove such existence. On this topic I've said that I am far more Kierkegaard than I am Thomist. (Gee, I must be a terrible Catholic.)
Centuries ago St. Thomas Aquinas proposed five proofs for the existence of God. The best known is probably the Prime Mover argument. It sees creation as a chain of causes and effects, of movements thus created. Because this chain cannot be infinite, it has to have a beginning, an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover. That is God. The fallacy: what if the unmoved mover was a tiny particle of infinite heat and pressure that exploded? Is that particle God?
The evidence I see of God's existence are in nature, in the trees and flowers right around the house; in any AA meeting; in Church (when it's at its best. It's at its best often enough to keep my attention. It's not there all the time, though.) When I walk into any AA or NA meeting, I can point to a dozen walking, talking miracles, people who no longer had a life to speak of, and who have been given their lives back. I can't attribute that to a particle.
Be still, and know that I am God.
I pray daily. Sometimes, in the early morning silence of my front porch, I can almost hear, I can feel the interior movement.
Still, I can't prove in any scientific way the existence of God. The issue for those who would argue against the existence of God is, you can't prove your position, either.
For me, this is where Kierkegaard enters. He maintained that one can't prove the existence or non-existence of God. No matter how much evidence you compile for either position, it does not constitute proof.
Yes, there was a Mother Theresa, a Thomas Merton, a Daniel Berrigan, a Dorothy Day. Does this prove the existence of a God that intervenes for good in human life? No.
Yes, there was a Spanish Inquisition, and the Papacy was so degraded in the 9th century that it was referred to as a pornocracy, and the sexual abuse of children by priests was real. Yes, believers have insulted and dehumanized and demonized all who are not exactly the same way they are. Does this prove the non-existence of God? No.
There is a term, "Leap of faith." It's a Kierkegaard term. At some point one runs into the limits of what reason and evidence can provide. Eventually, one must make a decision - the decision is inescapable - and everyone faces that decision based on incomplete information. You decide t believe, and it's a decision of faith, and you know that. Or, you decide there is no God. That decision is also based on incomplete evidence, and it's also a decision of faith, although the atheists seem less aware that they have made such a decision.
I've made my decision:
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth,
Of all things visible and invisible.
Thanks for hanging out.
No comments:
Post a Comment