The rejection
It was my conversation with this friend of mine that reminded me that refusing to believe simply because it all isn’t convincing(by whatever means one came to that conclusion) is ok. It happens. We can Only hope that one day, the Truth shall find you or you shall find it.
However, there are those that completely reject the faith because they “discovered” they have been lied to. That because, it didn’t work out for them as they’d hoped, it therefore is a sham. They therefore endeavored to expose it as such.
They endow their “search for truth” with scientific facts and belittle any and everyone that believes or has faith in something they have no substantial evidence of.
More often than not, these “searches of truth” are widely read. Their academic prowess has enabled them to amass high and intimidating achievements.
They have a nark for all forms of literature that somehow proves the notion of God/gods worthless. A notion meant for a weak and primitive class of people that knew nothing better. A class of people that was meek in knowledge that needed something beyond themselves to hope on.
It is on these matters, that I make my own personal stand. In the debates with these “oh-so-brilliant, I have seen the light”, individuals, there is always the perception that I am defending the faith subjectively. That because I have staked my life on it, I’d say and do anything to convince myself, it is the truth… when in fact it is not.
First of all, there is a reason it is called faith or belief… this goes beyond facts and science. Having a hope and a faith in something greater than myself, is almost the same as having the faith that as a young man, one day I will get married, have children and be a great dad. (it is in fact , my friend who reminded me of this profoundness)
None of these statements can ever have or need scientific evidence to prove their occurrence. We hope, we believe, and we let time tell.
But on a more personal analysis , I have taken the time to ask myself if what I believe is true. I thought to myself, “ if it isn’t true, then how come all these people I respect and value could bet their lives on it.” How come they have the mot assured certainty of something that is highly likely not to exist?
Right from Albert Einstein to CS Lewis, to Billy graham, . From William Lane Craig to Ravi, Zachariah. Dr. Fransis Collins, to Dr. walt Brown.. They all have some of the most brilliant minds known to man, and yet still believe in what some would insinuate as folklore.
What is it? What could possibly damage their brains so badly that they could give room to an improbability of such magnitude? Didn’t they come into contact with equally brilliant minds that believed otherwise.. or that didn’t believe at all for that matter? What is it that made them either stay in or come to the faith in spite of the exposure and their own academic affluence?
The answers might be nebulous for most, but for me, it is simple! . There is a reason faith is not a science. Faith as aptly put by Paul in the scripture, is a certainty of hope placed in the unknown.
It is irrational to consistently insist on evidence of faith!
Eloquent Silences 
It is indeed irrational!!
LikeLike
What motivates smart people to believe in a delusion? Emotional attachment to it. It is human and therefore all humans, smart or stupid, rational or irrational will have irrational beliefs. This does not mean these beliefs are justified. Having faith is a human thing, but that doesn’t mean it is a good idea to believe things without evidence.
That said, i believe you are mistaken. Nobody asks fire evidence of faith. They ask for evidence for what you believe in. Having none, the response usually becomes “i have faith”. It is irrational to believe things without evidence. We all do it, we are all human, but it is still irrational.
There is also the matter of being selective. If it is all about faith i.e no evidence, then nobody should try to convince another that his belief system is true and the others false. That would open both belief systems up to an objective comparison that can only be decided by evidence; and we’ve already agreed that faith is above such petty concerns as validation by objective evidence. Therefore all faiths are either equally valid or equally ridiculous. I personally choose the latter.
Cheers.
LikeLike
Wejuli,
Again, I appreciate your candidness and honest pinion. I will address them as best i can. This is not to presume i know all the answers, but again, some of them will be addressed (hopefully) in my final post.
I will touch on a few of your concerns.
You said ” What motivates smart people to believe in a delusion? Emotional attachment to it. It is human and therefore all humans, smart or stupid, rational or irrational will have irrational beliefs.” There is some truth to it, however, there is no way of proving that it is a delusion except for saying there is no evidence that it exists. That is not enough to go by.
Also, reason and rational cut across even in the metaphysical. Not all may be answered by logic, evidence,rational, reason and such because lets face it, no one really knows it all. Not even the smartest, most rational or most logical of them all. Which takes us back to differentiating what really is delusional, from what is unknown. Faith comes into play in either of them but one is driven by reason and rational, and the other is driven by “as you aptly put it, emotions.
Is it irrational for me to believe U have a brain(as in the gray matter they keep telling me about) when I have never seen it? If it is, then it is ok to be irrational! I deduce from what i see and how it works then make an informed conclusion that you have a brain and not some mutated alien virus that took form of gray matter and gained control of your head! i know this is a tired argument but it still gets us back to a strike out. U have a brain even if i have never seen it because Brains work like that! There would be grave measures id have to take to prove without a doubt that what you have in your head is what everyone knows as a brain!
As for the matter of being selective, That becomes a theological debate that one considers on the premise that there is the “Uknown” to have faith in in the first place. before one crosses that bridge, it is frivolous and unmethodical to hold a discourse on theological matters.
LikeLike
[sigh]
Anyway interesting read as always. Keep ’em coming.
Cheers.
LikeLike
Sure thing bro.
Thank you for your in put. Much appreciated.
LikeLike