Skip to main content

Faith and Evidence

 

            I have developed the habit of reading stuff that I don’t think I will like.  The reason for this is so I can grow in my knowledge.  Secondly, if I only read stuff I like or that is close to what I already know, then my chances of learning new things and being innovative are about nothing.  In this I do not think I am normal.  My experience is that most folks have developed their own party line---about religion or politics or anything else.  And once that development takes place, it becomes cement-like!  It would take a jackhammer to make any changes.

            My experience with cement is it seldom changes and never transforms.  When you pour cement, you can shape it as you wish.  It is moist and pliable.  Comparably, that is like our youth.  Through parents, education and so on, we are molded.  Once cement sets, change is over.  While that analogy does not hold true for all people, it is true enough to describe many folks.  Hence, my commitment not to become like cement has me reading things I am not sure I agree with or will like.

            And so it was when I was reading one of a few papers I look at each day.  This particular article was in the business section, which one might guess that someone with my training would skip.  My eye spotted an intriguing title: “Belief, Facts and Money.”  I saw the article was written by Paul Krugman, whom I know and find knowledgeable.  So I clicked and began reading.

            Krugman is intrigued by divisions that exist in many arenas---theological, political and others.  For example, we all know within religion circles there are liberals and conservatives and, even, fundamentalists.  This is not a Christian thing.  The whole Middle East is struggling with similar divisions among Muslims.  And Jews in Israel have comparable divisions.

            The most important part of his article is the distinction he makes between evidence and what people want to believe.  He uses as an example the idea of evolution.  For scientists and many people, the evidence is in: the world evolved over billions of years.  That becomes scientific fact based on the evidence.   Now we all know that not everyone believes that.  Some folks would deny evolution evidence and deny, therefore, it as a fact.

            This brought me to a telling sentence in Krugman’s article.  He observes,

“Confronted by a conflict between the evidence and what they want to believe for political and/or religious reasons, many people reject the evidence.”  I winced a little when I read that sentence.  It seems true enough to me.  But I also realize there have been times when I did experience that conflict between evidence and chose what I wanted to believe.  That probably happens quite a bit in romantic situations!

            This is an important point for all of us to ponder.  It certainly is an important point for folks who claim to be religious.  But it is also a good point for people who have no faith or are avowed atheists.  We need to be clear about what we want to believe.  Of course, in this country we can believe anything we want to believe.  We can believe kooky things if we want. 

            However, we should not confuse what we believe with evidence.  They may be one and the same.  Or there may be no connection at all between evidence and what we want to believe.  Those are the places that Krugman calls “wishful thinking.”  I know I have been guilty of that!  I want something to be true; I want evidence.  When the evidence is not there, I can create my own version of “wishful thinking” that convinces me there is evidence.

            So where does this leave us?  What is spiritual in all this musing?  The important point for me is to be clear between faith and evidence.  I know that faith and evidence do not have to be polar opposites.  It is not either/or.  Let me put it my way.  Evidence is one form of knowing.  For example, there is evidence that at some temperature ice melts and becomes water.  I don’t even need faith to “believe” that.  Sometimes faith operates as another kind of knowing.

            I can have faith in something for which there is no evidence.  That means there is no evidence either way: no evidence for nor evidence against.  For many of us, that is exactly the place we have faith in God.  I have faith in God.  But I also cannot say to you there is indisputable evidence there is a God.  Some of us think there is evidence for God, but that is disputed.  So I am comfortable with my faith in God.

            My faith is powerful and positive.  It gives me life meaning and directs my purpose.  In many ways it is central to who I am and what I am doing in this world.  I am content with the fact that it is faith.  Finally, I am ok there is not indisputable evidence that God exists.  Even if God does exist, that does not mean it is the God in whom I have faith.  My God is loving, forgiving and blessing.  I know there is not always evidence in that.  But I have faith nevertheless.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I-Thou Relationships

Those of us who have read theology or, perhaps, those who are people of faith and are old enough might well recognize this title as a reminder of the late Jewish philosopher and theologian, Martin Buber.   I remember reading Buber’s book, I and Thou , when I was in college in the 1960s.   It was already a famous book by then.   I am not sure I fully understood it, but that would not be the last time I read it.   It has been a while since I looked at the book.             Buber came up in a conversation with a friend who asked if I had seen the recent article by David Brooks?   I had not seen it, but when I was told about it, I knew I would quickly locate and read that piece.   I very much like what Brooks decides to write about and what he contributes to societal conversation.   I wish more people read him and took him seriously.           ...
13 comments
Read more

Spiritual Commitment

I was reading along in a very nice little book and hit these lines about commitment.   The author, Mitch Albom, uses the voice of one of the main characters of his nonfiction book about faith to reflect on commitment.   The voice belongs to Albom’s old rabbi of the Jewish synagogue where he went until his college days.   The old rabbi, Albert Lewis, says “the word ‘commitment’ has lost its meaning.”    The rabbi continues in a way that surely would have many people saying, “Amen!”   About commitment he says, “I’m old enough when it used to be a positive.   A committed person was someone to be admired.   He was loyal and steady.   Now a commitment is something you avoid.   You don’t want to tie yourself down.”   I also think I am old enough to know that commitment was usually a positive word.   I can think of a range of situations in which commitment would have been seen to be positive.   For example, growing up was f...
20 comments
Read more

Inward Journey and Outward Pilgrimage

There are so many different ways to think about the spiritual life.   And of course, in our country there are so many different variations of religious experiences.   There are liberals and conservatives.   There are fundamentalists and Pentecostals.   Besides the dizzying variety of Christian traditions, there are many different non-Christian traditions.   There are the major traditions, such as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so on.   There are the slightly more obscure traditions, such as Sikhism, Jainism, etc.   And then there are more fringe groups and, even, pseudo-religions.   There are defining doctrines and religious practices.   Some of these are specific to a particular tradition or a few traditions, such as the koan , which is used in Zen Buddhism for example.   Other defining doctrines or practices are common across the religious board.   Something like meditation would be a good example.   Christians meditate;...
10 comments
Read more