I have been nursing a nagging suspicion that reason is not the well-spring of belief or non-belief. It is certainly of great importance, but I'm wondering if it is in fact the great decider?
When I was a christian I prided myself in always looking deeper, constantly trying to learn more and more - not because of lack of faith but because I love to learn. I had faith and believed that my faith was supported by reason and by a great body of evidence. However, I am no longer a christian (now agnostic) and I still feel that my lack of faith can be supported by a great body of evidence. I feel that it is reasonable for me not to believe. In either case I sought to stand upon reason - in either case I felt that I stood upon a good foundation. Did reason fail or is there more to the equation?
Reason is not only resting on the facts but upon the interpretive bias' of each individual. It is entirely reasonable for many christians to believe as they believe - reason/reasonable is not synonymous with true. Likewise it is reasonable for many people not to believe in the christian god . In neither case is it universally possible to claim absolute or dogmatic certainty. It is the perception of each individual that is the deciding factor - the 'facts' are interpreted through our own bias' and through a host of personal and environmental filters. We are not free but conditioned animals. Reason is a tool that is conditioned not only by the skill of the one wielding it but also by the material it is used on.
As a christian I always maintained that I could not convince someone of gods existence or of christian truth- only that I could strongly support that belief through reason and the evidence available. I believed that faith or lack of faith was beyond facts and reason alone. I wonder if that is any less true as an agnostic.
No comments:
Post a Comment