Category Archives: What is faith

My general thoughts on what faith is

Conflict zone: the laws of nature as part of religious belief

eten-en-gegeten-worden

From now we approach the issue from a religious point of view. There is a certain tension between the choice for the best solution to which even God finds Himself bound and God’s Omnipotence. Is it thinkable that even the best solution is only a choice for the Creator? We have growing knowledge of what the earth must have looked like several millions of years ago and acknowledge change in species of plants and animals and change in layers of stone and relief. Continents have shifted and weather conditions have changed. Remote stars have exploded millions of light years ago and two weeks ago space agencies have witnessed their supernovas. Therefore on the longer term we see the universe change, usually gradually, sometimes dramatically immediate. On the short term, however, we see a stable well structured natural and human environment. Each individual has its characteristics and variations within the species may and do exist, however, within the species very little difference and change occurs. Species feed from each other and need certain conditions in weather, soil, water presence and temperature. Whoever observes nature, notices a delicate balance between the many different living creatures, the elements they need for survival namely water, air, fire, earth and each other, and in the bigger environment the celestial bodies, light and darkness. As far as we know, these elementary basics behind nature have not changed. Celestial bodies move in the universe and certain forces, we now know to be magnetic and electrical fields, keep them apart and bind others to their orbit. These forces prevent those on their surface from being thrown off. Some of the celestial bodies cast light and others don’t, but they enjoy the benefits of this light.

Natural phenomena and the apparent rules they listen to may be a stimulant to religious beliefs among people and sometimes most emphatically not. However, the rules and systematic order in empirical nature are perhaps among the main issues of conflict between believers and non-believers of religion, but also among religious believers. To some believers laws of nature are a profane effort to belittle God’s Omnipotence. To others these laws are part of God’s delicate and immense creative genus. Atheists have a big problem with this first group; the idea of an omnipotent creator not bound to the laws of nature, is to them a sign of ignorant popular belief meant to frustrate or smother any empirical research. Research and development may be skipped as unnecessary in this approach. The idea that God alone creates when, how, whatever He wishes indeed answers any how to-questions with an easy skipping the how to’s.

How contradictory, however, is trying to answer questions about a creator within the framework of natural possibilities and the law of nature? When we think about God being omnipotent within the absolutely possible, it is not so contradictory. It is obvious that going back in time is not possible, division by zero neither so and that God exists within the existing. God cannot be in the non-existent. It is also obvious that the balance of nature is a consequence of practical possibility. Animals need to protect themselves from natural enemies and possess therefore certain colors, qualities or capabilities. The bigger question behind this is: why does the animal have an enemy, why is there a universe at all? This is a question that religious scriptures like to answer. For this reason, as said above, it is very appealing to combine the easier answer to the how to-question of how God’s might works in the universe, namely God creates whatever when and why He wishes with a traditional prophetic scripture explaining why we all were created. It is a very easy way out and never wrong to use these answers, this is why religious scholars for long used them in both popular works for ordinary followers and elaborate studies among their peers. But the answer is a shallow one and not satisfactory to more inquisitive minds, as the concept of unlimited divine omnipotence clashes with basic impossibilities as those mentioned above. Besides and last but not least, traditional scriptures differ between not only main religions but also between schools of thought within religions. How do we come to terms with that, if at all.

Especially in modern days, with empirical scientific knowledge having grown so extensive, it is necessary to now and then consider natural boundaries to divine omnipotence. However, ancient and medieval philosophers as Aristoteles and Ibn Rushd considered the laws of nature, not yet with this name, as an essential part of the universe. They believed in intermediary forces by which God works in His creation according the rules of the truly possible. It is therefore not possible that God works and resides in the non-existing, of course God resides in the existing, nor that He can create the existent from the non-existent and vice versa. If God is eternal, so must be the universe: an ever changing yet well-structured, fully obedient creation by the eternal God without first beginning. Like God Himself, matter and moving forces were always there.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under What is faith

Empirical or logical truth

fout-optellen-naar-boven-vallen

We don’t know what God looks like and don’t even know for sure if God exists and how He works in the universe. For this reason people say: every person his or her own truth. Empirical evidence for religious ideas is missing here. However, deduction makes clear that there should be one answer to the question what the divine power looks like, how it works. Maybe one day people will get the possibility to also observe God and gain empirical evidence.

Gathering empirical evidence is not possible for abstract concepts like numbers and time. They are universal standards that are unable to create or live for themselves, they are no creatures. But through deduction and arithmetics it is possible to distinguish even from odd, early and late or find the answer to two minus one. It is not possible to imagine another answer to these logical questions, so absolute logical truth exists.

There is a discussion, however, about alternatives to empirical truths. Is it possible to imagine miracles, in other words alternatives to the scientific fact that water boils when its temperature reaches 100 degrees Celsius or that every object can only fall down and never up or sideways? More scientific minds do not allow exceptions to scientific facts and will say that such an exception violates the absolute truth of the laws of nature. Some religious minds, however, say that God will make exceptions whenever He wills and some religious minds don’t even recognize the laws of nature, as they cannot dictate the Omnipotence of God. God is creator of these laws and can easily get rid of them. Is logical, absolute truth to be applied to the laws of nature? Gods Will cannot make three plus four nine, allow time to go back and drop objects upwards. Divine Allmight means that God can create anything within the limits of the absolutely possible.

Leave a comment

Filed under What is faith

Absolute truth is more than an abstract exercise

de-tijd

‘Everybody their own truth’ is seen as ultimate truth, but how about absolute truth: is it logically possible? Reading ‘Incoherence of the Incoherence’ written by the islamic philosopher Averroes, Ibn Rushd, brings absolute truth nearer to us as a more conceivable concept. It is true, that minus multiplied by minus, results in a positive. This is not merely a mathematical agreement to make arithmatics easier, the linguistic approach may display its true meaning. Saying ‘our neighbor never didn’t have a dog’ means that our neighbor always had a dog. This is a simple example. Truth says something about possibility. Is a certain phenomenon possible? It is not possible to divide a number by zero. Vice versa, multiply a real number by zero and then expect another real number other than zero as an answer. Possible? What do you think. Another example. Two plus three is five. Not four, not ten. Numbers are absolute eternal standards, they are not produced items with limited life span.

A more difficult next step would be considering existence versus non-existence. Do we ever consider what it really means: non-existence. Is it possible to create non-existence. It is possible to create a void, an empty whole, but this is not the same as not existing. Non-existence is the absolute nothing and such is not possible in combination with existence, because matter, space and form stand in the way as concrete, really existing phenomena. It is possible to change a fire into air, but not into entirely nothingness. Creation and non-existence do not match, creation and change of form and matter, however, do very well. Creation of empty nothingness means dissapearance of matter and form and this implies that these latter two have to move somewhere else. This somewhere else means an existing place or a new shape.

Averroes’ main opponent, the theologian Al Ghazali, believes that God’s will is enough to create non-existence and new existence alike and also that His will was enough to create the universe from nothing. His line of thinking has been followed by the majority of the Islamic world, however, also in the Christian world has he contemporary followers of his line of thinking. Modern thinkers consider the possibility of a ‘big bang’ as first creation of the universe by a Force that maybe called God. Other modern thinkers contemplate a possible intelligent design by a Maker that consciously and deliberately develops new species and landscapes, or even new galaxies. Al Ghazali saw no limit to Divine power, however, Ibn Rushd believed in absolute possibility versus absolute impossibility. Divine Omnipotence to Ibn Rushd does not mean creating the impossible, but abstaining from the impossible and being able to create everything that is possible.

The second issue is time. Creationist believers think that God in His Omnipotence creates within time. Time can be abolished and re-created by His will and time was created when the universe was created. However, is it possible to create the universe from the non-existing? Who would do that? An existing force: God. This means that absolute nothingness is impossible. If God is eternal and limitless, it is inconceivable that God should have originated from something or somewhere. God cannot exist in the non-existing of course, creation in the non-existing is equally contradictory. It’s a jolly idea, nothing further. In order to understand, it is better to consider the universe. Is the universe just our heavens and earths with their galaxies? What if there is another universe bordering ‘our’ universe, or that ours was preceded by an older one and will be followed by another universe. And a heavenly trash can for everything that has been destroyed by our Lord. This does not solve the main issue, namely that all this belongs to the same divine creation. Therefore it is impossible to conceive non-existence as a creation, as the difficulty of matter will stand in its way. For there will always be God left and the other parts of His creation. Considering all this, it is possible to conceive a destruction of the universe when it is preceded or followed by creation of something else. On a limited level it is possible to imagine non-existence. Time in all this is an objective standard and integrated eternal part of existence. Time measures the lives, temporary existences and movements of individual items in creation and it is no creation by itself, according to Ibn Rushd.

Al Ghazali, however, says that time was created when the universe was first created. At first sight it seems possible to invent a time zone for each planet, each galaxy, but that does not solve the issue of creation itself, existence as a whole. If there were more time systems possible in existence, it would be possible to imagine shift of universes in their order of appearance. An old universe could trade places with a future universe. The hereafter could trade places with the present life. This is not possible and it shows why it is not possible to imagine more than one universe or creation. Time and non-existence as a creation by God seems a nice exercise of thought rather than real truth to Ibn Rushd. There is only one universe and it answers to certain natural truths that we nowadays call laws of nature. Time dictates the order of events independently and equally for no matter which item or event in the universe. Like numbers, time ia an absolute eternal standard and not bound to any individual item with limited life span. Is this Divine will?

Leave a comment

Filed under What is faith

Orthodox or liberal faith

orthodoxe-of-liberale-visie

The difference between orthodoxy and liberalism in religion is about the appreciation of freedom and about the choice between your relation with your God on the one hand or with other people and everyday life on the other hand. Liberal religion however, does not necessarily correspond with more freedom, freedom is also an issue for orthodoxy. Orthodox religion emphasizes good knowledge of religious traditions and also obedience to them, because those faithful who sincerely want a relationship with their God, will do what He asks them to do in the ways as prescribed in the religious revelations. It would be arrogant not to do so and arrogance comes from lack of love. The next question is whether the orthodox believer takes the freedom to display his or her love for God to the rest of the world. If only his own wishes matter, this would just be an issue of honesty and self-discipline to fulfill the required rituals and wear or use the prescribed items. Honesty and self-discipline as a sign of humility and sincere love towards God. An orthodox believer will see a hiding of religious worship as an act of hypocrisy and self-deceit, but also as an act of disobedience to the foremost important authority we have: God. After all none of us have seen God and we cannot proof the non-validity of traditions and rules, we are small in the universe and don’t know much, God however is omnipotent and knows best what is good for us. In the orthodox view following traditions and rules is therefore in our best interest. However, the possibility to display orthodox religion is limited by other people and their beliefs. In a pluralistic society this is an issue still non-settled. Which religious practices can be allowed and where? So orthodox believers find themselves restricted in certain freedoms and they have to find emergency clauses in their religious systems that allow them to skip these acts of worship at a certain time and place.

Different is the situation where orthodox religion is mainstream and part of the political and legal system. In this situation it is natural and easy for the faithful to practice worship, sometimes it is even compulsory by law. Orthodox believers, however, do not necessarily disapprove of this compulsory character. They see their political leaders also as leaders in religion who should enforce practice of religious rules on society in order not to disintegrate and protect society and individual people from misbehavior. God after all commands the faithful to make sure His will is carried out as prescribed and let justice this way prevail. The society should be a reflection of Gods plan. Religion has to offer the issue of how to deal with minority thinkers. To what extend can they express themselves, occupy high positions and acquire land and also if it is possible to choose another religion. The attitude to minorities is an important bottle neck for the success of the orthodox religious state, because it is the community’s first display towards the bigger world.

Liberal faith prefers to emphasize the individual and his or her personal, self-developed faith. Traditions and rules still play a role as a historic reference worth to study and a collective asset necessary to bind the members of the community closer. They are considered teachings that form the identity of the individual and the community. But liberal faith does not prescribe strict obedience to rules and tradition. Liberal faith tends to emphasize our not knowing the value of religious sayings, we don’t know how much of them really is of divine provenance and we do know that many communities don’t follow our traditions and rules. In order not to offend those with other ideas, religious worship should not be enforced on people and not be practiced outside the own community. Secularism is therefore more often found among liberal minded societies, however, not exclusively nowadays.

At first sight liberal faith sounds more tolerant and open than orthodoxy, but this may be deceptive. Whether people are open and tolerant is a result of not fearing other ideas and people. Fear may smother broad mindedness in the core. Another factor necessary to keep an open mind is willingness to gain knowledge. Study of any book or profession or travel to other places may develop the mind and this attitude can be found among liberal and orthodox people. The opposite of fear is acceptance of others without loss of own identity and allowing public expression of other people’s ideas and ceremonials is a sign of open mindedness. It is best to admit that not every liberal or secular society possesses this tolerance.

Leave a comment

Filed under What is faith

Faith, philosophy and abstract concepts


Religion and philosophy have in common that they cover non-empirical thinking on life and the universe in general. Therefore philosophy is a non-scientific branche of thinking and at best, if practiced at an academic level, it may be seen as an art or humanity. Academic philosophy tries to answer the why- and how-questions of life in a how to-manner and tries to so through reasoning without judgement. Thought-experiments and reasoning are it’s main tools. Ideas cannot entirely be proven through empirical evidence, however, solid information through other philosophers’ literature and the media on political and other developments may give a philosophy more solidity. These developments can very well be objectively observed facts and through deductive or inductive reasoning lead to a valid conclusion.

Philosophy is, like religion, basically a non-protected discipline. Thinking is, like believing, free. No one needs permission to think, it is part of our innate nature, like breathing, walking and observing. Throughout the ages people, however, have tried to pose restrictions on the outcomes of thinking and observing. Every amateur may think and therefore talk, but will his or her words be seen as philosophy? In order to avoid the situation of re-inventing the wheel academic standards have been set for philosophical thinking and if you want to achieve academic status as a philosopher mastering the literature of your predecessors is usually seen as minimum requirement. We may call a theory a philosophy when it is possible to falsify it through deductive or inductive reasoning and then lead to a proved axioma, true statement. Trying to avoid re-inventing the wheel is not the only annoyance that scholars want to avoid, they also want to avoid ‘errors’ in thinking. This is a no-end area, because what is a mistake in thinking? How can we prove error? In deductive, logical, cause-consequence dominated thinking it is possible to expose errors, but the error may be restricted to the method and not to the truthfulness of the mistaken thinker’s idea. It is possible to decide that artist X does not belong to the Dada movement, but is it possible at all to deny X the artist’s status at all? Dadaism used a certain starting philosophy on which it based it’s creative methods, therefore we can say that X may called a Dadaist when we see him follow the Dada-philosophy and -methods.. To defy X’s artist status, we have to set creative standards and that is open for debate. When is a person’s creativity ‘big’ enough that he may be called an artist? This question loses its rhetorical status, as does philosophy, as soon as other interested people set certain minimum standards and in many cases economics are involved in the answers. Would you and other people spend money on the artifact and are there any similar artifacts already? So economics have a say in standards for a ‘good’ academic and artistic product, in so far that they decide the product’s value, but do not answer whether the product truly is good.

A piece of visual art or a stage performance is a tangible item, however, philosophy also involves in abstract concepts like freedom and permission to others to spread their ideas and products at all. In that case it is a lot more complicated issue to set boundaries to expressions. One may say that a publication is not good enough to ‘allow’ it a place in art and literature, but is it possible to forbid publication at all? This last question has philosophical aspects that may have political implications. The various peoples on this planet set their own boundaries to philosophical freedom.

Abstract topics are philosophy’s main field of interest. What is time and what is its function in history, movement and space, what is morality and what function does and may it have in society and what are the boundaries to freedom and choice. What is art, what is beauty, what is knowledge, what is existence and when do things exist. Faith in a god or creative force is part of philosophical thinking. A more imperative dimension appears as soon as people include philosophical teachings in their legal and political systems, but also in their daily life and this is not confined to religious systems only. The ideal of democratic thinking and decision making and the ideals of freedom, equality and solidarity for each member in society is not necessarily a religious ideal. What’s more, in western culture most people say that these ideals can only be achieved in a non-religious system. Democracy is in modern westerners’ thinking not possible in a system where a god reigns supremely over society, because God’s power is seen as an invented yet unlimited force with no boundaries and no free space for human beings. Philosophy in other words plays a role in setting boundaries to freedom. It tries to set standards for acceptable ideas and behavior based on reasoning. Philosophy also tries to look beyond the visible truth of observation and give this or these invisible truth(s) a place in society. Again setting boundaries is important: what place and what authority do we give these truths and how does society deal with transgression of these truths’ territories? This is a question with big political implications, because it deals with real people and their fostered ideologies that they even fight for.

Learning, gaining knowledge from other thinkers is greatly appreciated in philosophy as an academic discipline and it appears to be absent in religious faith. To some faith is logically speaking the most simple discipline there is and yet the hardest to live by. However, among religious people even the first part of this sentence is not true: true faith requires knowledge of a revealed truth from the deity and therefore also knowledge of the prophets’ lives and sayings as they were the mediums between God and the people. For this reason most religious communities value the opinions of academic scholars who gained important detailed knowledge of the religious traditions. They are the people who set the standards and make compulsory religious decisions, sometimes for individuals and sometimes for the entire community. However, how far their power may reach, remains a source for heated debate between communities and also within them. As long as the religious community has faith in the validity of traditions, they tend to lend them and those who gained academic knowledge of them, more weight. In Christianity’s community the thought that tradition may not be truthful and reliable, has gained prevalence. In the Islamic community, however, the faithful consider their tradition reliable enough to trust them as authoritative. Maybe it is about time to take this Islamic claim seriously. The Islamic umma needs not be discarded as silly to believe in its own tradition and valid proof to reject Islamic tradition should be found and if not then outsiders should make an effort to at least respect its status as reliable. It is not without good reason that the Islamic umma still follows its tradition. The first step towards tolerance of other people’s ideologies is honest and respectful treatment of their contents, even if one does not believe or follow them.

Leave a comment

Filed under What is faith

When religious scriptures and the wonders of nature meet

The metaphysical world of divine revelation in the scriptures and nature as a divine creation, are two fields that touch each other and it is a known fact that descriptions of natural phenomena and historic events in religious scriptures not only were proved to be truthful by scientists and archeologists, this match between both worlds is also a big inspiration for those in search of religion. Others, those who will never accept religion to be truthful, make it their life’s work though to prove that there is no link between divine revelation and science, that scholars in the ancient days had enough scientific knowledge to write a truthful religious scripture like Bible and Koran on their own.

Abstract phenomena like time, good and evil or the afterlife are are topics that typically fit in the religious outlook on life. Their abstraction makes them an important field of interest for philosophy too, as philosophy has a certain common ground with religious thinking. Philosophy usually confines itself to the ‘how to-questions’ behind abstract phenomena like time or morality, when religion also tries to answer their ‘why-questions’. Natural phenomena best lend themselves to¬† not only pondering about how a possible creative and operating force makes them tick, but also to research them in a more scientific manner. The meeting between scientific knowledge, even the knowledge of ancient or nature oriented animistic peoples, and religious¬† systems is often a fascinating and spectacular one, because natural phenomena are used to enforce the latter ones with natural empirical evidence and many peoples have reached great creative and scientific achievements on this path. Some societies mastered astronomy remarkably well in an early stage of history, such as the Persians, ancient Egypt and Greece. The Persian astronomers kept detailed and accurate records of the night skies that historians even today refer to. Belgian author Robert Bauval thinks that ancient Egyptians knew enough about astronomy to use their knowledge of the Orion belt’s course and constellation for the design of their king’s graves in Gizah. In 1995 he published his book ‘The Orion Mystery’ about this topic and about the role the Orion belt may have played in ancient Egypt’s religion. It seems very likely that there is no truthful combination possible between ancient Egypt’s poytheism and islam’s strict and abstract concept of only one God who has no resemblance with anything we know. Yet it is true that the position of the Gizah pyramids is an exactly calculated copy of the Orion belt, it is also true that their constructors valued astronomy in their religious concept and Bauval had noticed that one of Orion’s stars and the star Sirius precisely lit the narrow corridor in the Cheops pyramid leading to respectively the King’s and Queen’s Chamber. The function of these chambers has never been discovered, since there were no graves and mummies present. Therefore many people have thought that the bodies were stolen from the chambers. However, it is also known that ancient Egypt used to bury it’s dead in the earth, which isn’t present in these chambers either. Under the watchful eye of main custodian dr Zawi Hanwass a range of archeologists and television stations speculated over the possible purpose of the pyramids. The door to the air shafts between the King’s and Queen’s Chambers and the outdoors were first discovered by robot engineer Rudolf Gantenbrink. Dr Robert Bauval, however, thinks as a result of investigation into these air shafts that the pyramids were no mausoleums and that they had a broader religious worship function in which the Orion stars and Syrius may have represented both the supreme god and goddess, Osiris and Isis, and the country’s king and queen and the future of their dynasty, plus that in his opinion, no king could afford such extravagance in his personal grave monument.

However, religions offer different tales about the origins, structure and movement of the many creatures in the universe. This is an awkward aspect of religious thinking that may leave the faithful dumb and numb in face of the atheist claim that religious thinking is untrue. There is no proper scientific answer to that issue: why do the creation stories of religions differ. The popular answer is that the various ancient peoples who lacked much of the sophisticated knowledge that we have now, invented their own answers to life’s problems and to the philosophical questions of why we are here and what destination our lives have. No matter the awkwardness of issue: there is usually no hard evidence of such fabrication. What’s more, the majority of the stories cannot be exposed in an empirical, scientific way. It may very well be true that religion has its own truth parallel to that of science; we may believe in it, or reject it, but we cannot discard it as a set of lies. Those who came up with them are no longer with us and we have no hard evidence. Yet this should give us no reason not to enjoy the benefits and wonders of their connection to valuable cultural heritage or practical use of ‘holy’ items in everyday life. A holy plant used by a traditional Brazilian shaman may thank its holiness to proven medical qualities, qualities which in modern times have been rediscovered by reputed multinational drug manufacturers.

There is, however, also a field between natural science and abstraction that may have religious aspects and that may be psychology and the humanities. We see their results and those are, as said earlier, suited for a scientific or medical approach, but they are invisible abstract concepts. It is a statistically proved fact that young healthy people think differently about how to spend their money than senior citizens in a nursing home. There is according to most religious scriptures a soul, but no one has ever seen it. The same can be said about emotion and preference. The book of Islam, the Qur’an, says the soul resides in the heart, however, a scientist will say that the heart is no more and no less than an muscular pump for our blood. Difference between individuals and communities leads to different scientific theories, but only in natural sciences their validity can be fully proved. In humanities this is not always possible, because they deal with these abstract invisible concepts. Customer satisfaction can be measured, but only partly it may be predicted and interpreted. Why people behave and think the way they do at a certain moment, is not easy to predict either. Or to interpret, sometimes. This is why different theories on economics or psychology do not necessarily lead to a best solution and may continue to co-exist. Communism has been rejected as not useful, however, its offshoot socialism still exists in a diluted form in economic and political systems. So does Milton Friedman’s liberal market system. Yet the different economic thinkers have used religion in their ideas, sometimes in a rejective fashion and sometimes quite the opposite. Something similar can be said about different approaches to psychology: behaviorism is not the same as introspection and both are still applied.
Read on Robert Bauval’s web address.

Leave a comment

Filed under What is faith

Other sources of belief

Until now written sources of religious belief have been mentioned, but there are other sources that are of less traditional nature. Scriptures have some scientific basis, as some of them have been proved true either in content or thanks to archeological findings, which is one of the reasons why religious scriptures haven’t completely lost their authority over the leading groups of society. The other reason is the fact that their information can be openly shared by everybody. It is still considered acceptable to involve the clergy in social events like weddings and in many countries people may even in court or parliament pledge their allegiance on an important religious book or in God’s name.

Other phenomena, however, usually cannot be shared by more than one person or group and appear only once. Yet unusual events that apparently contradict the laws of nature, have great impact on people. Some of them, for instance baby Jesus talking to the people from the crib, have been written down in religious scriptures (in this case the Bible) and have been used as an example to people of how God may defy the laws of nature to show His power, or His mere existence. Other phenomena like God’s name written on fish, corn circles, crying Madonna’s and Hindu Ganesh-statues drinking milk, are recorded by the media and cause quite a stir among believers – and skeptics. The first obvious question is: is this true or a setup? The second question may be: what is their message and who sent it? Is it God’s way to manifest Himself to man, is it something else? These are fascinating phenomena, yet we shouldn’t call them divine revelations as their origin is unknown. Believers can call those phenomena that have been written down in their scripture a phenomenon of divine origin meant to be a sign to mankind. Therefore… a divine revelation. Where provability is another issue.

These mysterious events and phenomena have a non-religious aspect too. Some people possess qualities like clairvoyance and sometimes even detectives of police use their services. This is however a danger area, as many people have commercially exploited their ‘gift’ when there was none, especially the medical care sector seems prone to people who use obscure tactics instead of scientifically acknowledged methods. For this reason several religions, Islam for instance, have forbidden the use of magicians, so does the law in many countries in most, necessarily protected, fields of interest, however, religion and society don’t deny the existence of ‘supernatural’ phenomena either. There is a big difference between a magician or a quack on the one hand and supernatural phenomena on the other, but since we usually can’t prove their difference when we need it, only in retrospect, prudence is the best way to deal with the subject.

The most important source of belief other than the scripture and supernatural events, however, is life itself. Our planet with all its inhabitants, the earth, water, sky and not to forget the other celestial bodies. Believers see nature and its delicate system as enough proof of God’s existence. Only a careful and highly skilled planner and creator could produce such an immense system as nature and universe. The miracle of birth and the fact that each human being is made within the same complicated structure that we still don’t fully comprehend, is proof of God’s existence and power, they say. This is an abominable concept in non-believers’ eyes. Nature is a power in itself of which we will finally gain full academic knowledge and then we shall see that all those gods and scriptures were inventions of politicians. The idea that one of the many scriptures might be more truthful than others, is not very tempting to non-believers. To many people, also some who belief in God, religious scriptures are nothing but man made legal and political works. Religious scriptures are a necessary prerequisite to proper belief to some and to others they are a mere jammer. Indeed the wonders of nature are enough inspiration to some to believe in a divine creator.

Leave a comment

Filed under What is faith