Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
I’ve recently read an essay posted at, The View From Fanling, that I found to be quite provocative and stimulating entitled, Knowledge or Certainty. About religion, it’s author, Dennis Hodgson, states “that atheism is the default rationalist position”, and uses the essay to present a cogent explanation of his views on religion and faith. He presents a rationalist retort to faith and dogma and contrasts it to scientific reason. While he directly challenges Christianity, he maintains a respectful discourse and does not resort to any name calling. As I continue to evaluate the fundamentalism that I practiced for many years, I found this essay raised a couple of points that I could take to heart.
One point he makes is that the Bible is not the inerrant book fundamentalist make it out to be. He uses two illustrations, the first of which reminded me of a conversation I had with a friend about the very text he uses. The text is Genesis 1:3-5, 16-19;
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
…
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
…
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Genesis 1 (Authorized Version)
The obvious difficulty is that in this account of creation, light was created before it’s source was. Rationally, this seems untenable. My friend thought the same. He’s a Biblical literalist and after reading these passages found himself conflicted. How could the Bible be inerrant and contain such a contradiction? I said something along the lines that if he was to consider the possibility that the author didn’t mean it literally, perhaps he meant it figuratively, that it might not be as difficult to comprehend. To a Biblical literalist, this is not a sufficient answer. We later revisited the subject after he consulted his pastor. The rationale for this account not being a contradiction lay in that we assumed there was no other light source before the creation of the heavenly bodies, that we had not considered the “light of the world,” God as the light source. Although it takes some Biblical chicanery to come to this conclusion, it was sufficient enough to answer the contradiction and allow my friend to continue to believe in Biblical literalism.
This leads me to my next thought raised by Mr. Hodgson’s essay. He says that dogma;
“is a denial of the human spirit, a closing of the mind against questioning, against adventure, against discovery, against knowledge. Dogma would turn us into a regiment of ghosts, a tortured host of manipulated automatons.”
I say; “Amen, brother, preach on!” And I hate to say it, but my friend’s response to the challenge of the Biblical text mentioned above is an example of what Mr. Hodgson says about dogma. Instead of allowing the difficult text to lead him to inquire about his faith, he acquiesced to the default of Biblical literalism. It seems all inquiry is limited by the pretext of one question; “will I go to heaven or hell?” When fear is the prime motivation of one’s faith and religious practice, all systematic challenges will be seen as “unorthodox” and rejected. Dogmatic positions seem to allow the fundamentalist a sense of certainty in the face of fear. Unfortunately, the resulting dogmatism stigmatizes the fundamentalist and they come across as close minded and unwilling to consider any position beyond the bounds of orthodoxy. In essence, unable to be reasonable. That is sad.
People of faith should not be afraid to challenge their beliefs. Science challenges itself constantly, sometimes changing long held laws and axioms as new discoveries immerge and further studies are conducted. There are new discoveries in the field of religious studies everyday, and those discoveries should not be shunned or discounted because they don’t fit long held dogma.
Fundamentalists should not be afraid to challenge the truth claims of their faith. People of faith should always be willing to challenge their beliefs. At the very least, they would have a better understanding of what it is they believe, and that’s always a good thing. And I think fundamentalists could learn a thing or two from Mr Hodgson. It appears the view from Fanling is clear and panoramic and stands in stark contrast to the myopic view of many of the fundamentalists I have known over the years. And that’s not a good thing.
You can view the entire essay, Knowledge or Certainty, by clicking here.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar