Kent Newsome has commented (thanks, Blogger Web Comments) on my post about anti-intellectualism, a few days ago. And I feel I must comment on one of his comments.
[...] I feel compelled to point out that I don’t buy the fact that intelligence and learning are inconsistent with religion and faith.
The essence of faith is to believe what you cannot prove. If you question it, if you can make the argument that it is logically impossible, yet you still believe it- that is faith. The more capable you are to question it, the stronger your faith is when you conclude that you believe it anyway.
True, that is faith. But how is that different from beliving in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?
If faith is knowing that something cannot logically, rationally, be true, and, yet, still believing in it… then why stop at one rationally impossible thing? Why not believe in anything that suits your fancy? Why not believe that all pink objects are alive and sentient, for instance?
If your mind and your reasoning tells you there probably isn’t a god, your eyes see no traces of a god, science explains more and more, up to a point that what is left for God, even if nothing further was explained by science, isn’t really that much… and you still believe there is a God… why? Why is that? What is the source of your belief?
Wishful thinking? A “feeling you can’t describe”? The need for “something greater than yourself”? Indoctrination?
And why “God”? Why not someone or something else, equally supernatural, unknowable and untestable? Why not several things at once? The existence of the supernatural already contradicts science and observation of reality, so why not believe – with all your heart, of course – in two different supernatural beings whose existence contradicts one another, as they are both supposed to have created the universe, at different times, and in different ways? After all, “faith is knowing that it is logically impossible, yet believing in it”… right?




