Faith, among other things

This page serves as the starting point for my discussions and writings on religion, a large, meaningful, and complex part of my life.

Personal Testimony

My mother took my brother and I to Catholic church as young, and we were altar boys and the like, but never really serious. I wasn't baptised until I was four, even (so John Paul II was my first pope). Around 16, I came to the conclusion that if I was to call myself Catholic and Christian, I should take the deal seriously, or else stop. Since I'm writing this page, you should be able to guess how that turned out. As an undergraduate, I was involved in both the Catholic Club and an evangelical club associated with InterVarsity, a situation that caused tension in both groups. I wrote some more on this subject on this page.

After undergraduate days, I maintained membership in Catholic churches in suburban Virginia, but their gigantism, conservatism, and family focus stunted my experience. I read more spiritually in that time, especially when I could pack a book or magazine into my travel bag. When returning to university, I joined the community at Calvert House, the university Catholic chapel right next door to the Statistics Department. I've worshipped there, assisting as a lector and Communion minister.

I describe myself as a evangelical-friendly progressive Catholic. Starting from the back, Catholic refers to Latin rite Roman Catholicism. I am a practicing Catholic as well, unlike about half of Americans who describe themselves as Catholic, so that narrows ground. Progressive refers to both my politics (I voted for Nader) and my practice within the Church. Evangelical-friendly means that I deal with, converse like, and take ideas from the more pressing wings of Christianity, without maintaining active affiliation there, and I also stress the .


[---]

Writing About Faith

I'll keep a couple of pieces on this page, and link to the remainder.

Faith and Reason

One of the more common discussions I have with agnostics and atheists deals with the concept of basing much of your life about something that cannot be "proven". I had such a talk at a party a few years ago, with the roommate of a friend; he was happier that I saw the possibility that I might be wrong than the probability that he might be wrong. I keep trying.

Distilled to one sentence, the concept of Christianity is something close to the following: A being exists that can bend at least some of the rules of time and space, and an incarnation of said being lived as human around 2000 years ago, was killed, and then reappeared in physical form. The standard attack I hear denies the first point, not the second, since the first point is nonfalsifiable. I can't violate the rules of physics, and I'm unable to deny that ability in others. If I were to witness such a demonstration, contradicting the established rules, I would have to conclude that such a being, a God, exists. Thus the common song "I want to see the Kingdom of God", and common wishing for what we call miracles. I don't consider this the best approach, not merely because I don't like physics. We just go around in hypothetical circles.

Instead, I start from the second claim, that a form of God existed on Earth, in human form with human characteristics, was crucified, then two days later exited the tomb and appeared to people in the Jerusalem area. The definition of "falsifiable" is that an event or claim can be verified not true. The Christian claim, about a man named Jesus, is what I call "time-space falsifiable", meaning the event occurred within our time and space. Unlike potential miracles, we know where and when this happened. If we had a time machine, we could roll back, and check the tomb. If false, then Christianity as a belief system ceases to exist. Really! Christianity rises or falls on the Resurrection.

On the other hand, if the claim of the tomb is True, then someone broke one of the basic rules, death means death; the being exists. We can (and Christians have) quibble about the form of the being, or the types of worship needed, but the fact remains that God exists! But alas, I don't have such a time machine. Thus, still maintaining our idea of rationalism, a basis in reason, we look at the evidence both for and against the claim. I have neither the time nor the energy to elucidate the entire debate, so I'll summarize. The case for the Resurrection, in historical belief and historical act (especially in the early communities, the closest evaluators), is stronger than the case against.

So I believe. Contrary to what some say, my belief is not irrational, because nobody has shown the Resurrection false. If the scenario wasn't true, then I'd be wrong, remember? I call it faith, confidence in the event. Just because I can't use mathematical proof doesn't mean irrationality. All people, even so-called rationalists, rely on faith: belief the bus driver knows the route, the car ahead isn't going to suddenly stop, the server at Starbucks didn't slip rat poison into a double mocha cappa latte. What we call faith, religious belief, begins where reason ends: my theorems and proofs cannot hold. A lot of my coworkers can't deal with this shortcoming, or want to ignore everything outside the world of surveys and lemmas. That's a shame, and I do my best to both speak in that mindset and maintain Christian faith. My practice shows the two noncontradictory.


[---]

Updated April 2005, eliminating RQ Forum, which no longer exists. I still have Protestant friends, though.

[Home] [Stats] [Me] [Writings] [Musings] [Hobbies]