con·sen·sus
noun, often attributive \kən-ˈsen(t)-səs\Consensus of Definition
As someone who was raised in the social sciences with a hefty dose of the physical as influence, this is a mantra of mine when trying to engage with others in discourse. Most seem to agree that establishing some basic common definitions of the topic to be discussed is vital, if not rather important... then, there are those who refuse.
Most of those who refuse to find these base agreed-upon-points-that-are-to-be-used-to-develop-an-argument tend to fall on the side of our more nubilous intellectual pursuits. I mean that the topics are often about God, various aspects of religions (most usually western though I have had this happen in discussing eastern ones as well), and philosophy.
I realized today that many people take this whole area and come to it from faith and faith alone (or perhaps I should write Faith and Faith alone).
I really don't have a problem with Faith.
However, it is really hard to talk to people about Faith when they come to it from faith (and I don't, in the same fashion anyway).
I come to Faith from my background in science, and I must admit that there are really not a lot of us out there that come to that place through this means... but what it creates is an absolute problem when trying to discuss things like the idea of God as Being.
I am very intellectually happy where I am, in terms of where my place is in the world and how I fit in to a divine cosmos....but, I find it terribly frustrating to talk to those who seems to find it ridiculous that my mostly rudimentary understanding of biology, physics, microbiology and such are all things that bring me to Faith.
I think, though, that what surprises me the most is that once I arrive at the end... what I tend to worry about most is that the way I understand God is so completely off, that those others who believe and who also come to God somehow find me lacking.
Why do I care?
Because, I suppose I just want to feel like I can officially belong to a cohort that ends up in the same place as I do, and do so in a manner that does not make me feel judged. And also, because I am so humbled by the things that bring me to God, and that I find them so incredibly magnificent and fabulously amazing that I want to be able to share them, and one can't when one is considered a heretic at the start of a conversation.
We come from the same base. The question is one of definitions, both faith an science seek to fine THE ANSWERS but they use different languages. THe Faith corner uses mythos, the language of metaphor and poetry and science the language of logos. Nere the twain shall meet. A problem ensues when the faithful think that mythos is really logos, and take the poetry of faith literally and want it to be science and teach it in school. Interestingly, I have no problem using science to explain the divine. For example, what keeps an electron spinning around a nucleus? God? Who knows.
ReplyDeleteSee, I don't need science to explain Faith. Your postulated question about the electron is in the realm of science to determine... in religion that question is immaterial. The way that Science brings me to Faith in the Divine is that it is so amazingly perfect(and I include "warts and all" in how I see perfection; the food chain in which the lowest are brutally consumed, the fighting amongst all living beings, other such matters)... as we move through these discoveries we find ways in which this is all still so amazingly perfect, this kind of perfection is Divine.
ReplyDeleteGood blog today. I had a friend getting his masters in Philosophy. He was asked at a child custody hearing with his ex-wife, if he believed in God. I love his answer. He said, I don't know but I am obsessed in the question.
ReplyDeleteAnne Coe