Science has been a powerful tool for mankind. It has enabled us to compensate for the limitations of our mind.
Philosophers have pondered the mind and the nature of our existence for ages. Many philosophers were also theologians. Discourse on the nature of Gods and Human Existence have been intertwined in philosophical debates. Admittedly, this sometimes being the case because if an author of a work failed to do so they could expect to receive condemnation and osterization from the thinkers and institutions of their age.
And so it gets messy understanding old texts and old knowledge in comparison to what we have discovered in our more recent times through the application of the Sciences.
Particularly the Cognitive Sciences.
We know much about the brain now, and from that knowledge understand there is much we yet do not know. But overall our fields of study have grown to appreciate the nature of humans is one well modeled by a paradigm focused upon systems and their interactions.
One neuron’s action potential communicating to another neuron, initiating a sequence of events in that neuron to then communicate with other neurons, and each of those neurons branching dendritically to yet other neurons, becoming arranged into neural networks in which multiple action potentials and sequences of events occur and interact in response to past action potentials and sequences of events, and the interactions between one system of neurons to another forming developmentally and ongoing throughout life, which then produces skills, and knowledge, knowing and doing, and all of this process is modified by gene-environment interactions, wherein the Mind and it’s interaction with the stimuli of the World are in a recursive relationship that is ongoing and persistent and for which if it is ever fully disrupted the existence of either stops; “Perception is our Reality” and “The Self Must Perceive in Order to be Made Real” – it is a complexity that is mind-boggling.
Genes, a system of storing information, expressing conditionally based upon stimuli that occurs as part of the Systems of the World, which then influence how the Systems of the Mind develop, this then influencing how one’s self interacts with the Systems of the World, and that then influencing the Systems of the World, including how one’s self is a part of that World of Systems.
It’s ironic that our mind is limited in how well it can understand itself and we must devise tools and use assistive devices to accommodate our limitations and advance our intellectual understanding of what-it-is we perceive.
Our mind has an inherent limitation in understanding the way the mind works.
Part of knowing that limitation is understanding how people perceive. One aspect of which is that arguably no one can ever truly know something to be true or real other than that which Renee Descartes rightly posited, “I think, therefore, I am”.
Will the sun rise tomorrow? Will the Police respond to a Bank being robbed? Will People vote at this coming election?
No one can say with absolute certainty. Because the possibility yet remains such things can all be prevented by circumstance, ‘choice’, or other means.
What does it then mean when someone claims to know a “truth” about the world?
The mind operates to model it’s environment. It creates a working model of the events that take place in that environment. A model that predicts what will or won’t occur based upon likelihood. It’s a model that operates based upon weighted hypotheses that are created by an engine of pattern recognition.
No human has ever heard account of the Sun not rising nor witnessed it not rising and our understanding of the Universe is such that one would expect it to continue to ‘rise’, but nevertheless, the possibility remains, be it highly improbable, of events that suddenly cause there to be no Sun for which there would any rising of.
So, for the Sun rising, the mind ‘knows this truth’; or more precisely, there’s a 99.999999999% likelihood the Sun will rise, and for pragmatic reasons one ‘knows it will’ because to expect otherwise would not be conducive to the survival of the human organism and species.
It would be ‘crazy’ to believe the Sun will deviate from the observed pattern.
Except, if somehow the Nature of Human Existence and the time-scale of human consciousness was altered. What happens if what we perceive as being “a day” was not 24 hours, but instead was a duration of 10,000 years? Think of it as a form of Cognitive Time-Lapse if you will.
How long then until the Sun no longer rises because it is Red Giant that moves to swallow the Earth? Until the surface of the Sun rises to meet the surface of the Earth; the Sun then perceived as no longer rising and falling from horizon to horizon? What then happens to the weighting of our hypothesis “sun will rise” as the pattern of the Sun’s behavior changes; as we witness with each day the Sun moving to engulf us; it’s heat having boiled oceans and atmosphere?
When does our belief alter; when does the madness of what we had perceived as absolute submit to the reality of our circumstances?
Perception is reality. Even the phrase, “Rising Sun” and it’s denoted benevolence towards fostering life on Earth speaks to a bias in perception. An organism, a people, who thought themselves the center of things; who deign to think Nature accommodates to their need. A species whose reality struggles to extend past the Terra of their environment.
Our perceptions have often sheltered us from reality.
The sun does not rise. There is no ‘up’. There is only matter, space, gravity, orbits, quantum fields, and other things for which the only knowing we really have is that our model of the Universe is as yet incomplete and imperfect and requires us to admit to our uncertainties when attempting to form objective conclusions.
What is a black hole? What is dark matter? What is soul?
Having doubts or having absolute knowledge relies upon belief. And belief is in error when it tries to ascribe to being ‘absolute knowledge’, because it never can be absolute.
Perhaps the closest thing Mankind has in regard to sure knowledge is Mathematical Proofs, and yet even then, Math is merely an abstract conceptualization of real-world data. It’s a tool our minds can use to model the world further, but it is not what causes the world to operate, nor can it ever directly represent it, no more than our perceptions of objects directly represent the objects full reality.
Perception is always flawed; always not “that thing” for which we claim we are perceiving.
This is simply the nature of the world the mind can know.
You see an apple, you call it fruit, you think it sweet, it’s color red, but it is none of those things. It is merely a configuration of particles in space that your senses provide certain perceptions of. And despite those perceptions, it will remain simply a configuration of particles in space. Even it’s DNA, an instruction set whose conditional expression manifests that configuration of particles perceived as “Apple”, is no more than a configuration of particles in space.
One’s interactions with that configuration of particles is what make that thing perceptible and determines how it then gets defined by the configuration called “the self”.
The Apple’s redness is because of how the structure of the exterior membrane of it’s surface refracts photons that were generated 100,000 years ago or longer by fusion within our Sun, a Sun which is billions of years old, and yet despite it’s age the particles of matter comprising ourselves are even older, and it is with the configuration of particles known as the Human Eye that we detect those refracted photons, and this detection is then communicated to a system of neural networks, that then communicated to another network of neurons, and another, and another, each functioning as part of a system of neural networks we describe as “the self”; this cascade of interactions between systems then affording a human the perception “It Is Red”.
Is it red? What is red? Why does red exist? Is red a perception the mind generates? Does the existence of red have relevance to the external world? What is the truth of redness?
So the mind struggles to comprehend something as simple as our Senses, and yet some claim that their perception of a Higher Power can graduate to making claims of having Absolute Knowledge regarding that Power’s existence and reality.
To me such belief is a strange thing.
More so, considering that in religion the entire premise of Faith is based upon the premise of ‘choosing to believe despite not knowing’. Or to illustrate: ‘Does God need to have Faith in his own existence?’. I dare say not, as neither do we; “I think, therefore, I am”, and yet some people dare to say “I Know God Exists”. Which many a human has before then made identical claim for another God or Gods or DemiGod(s), or Extraterrestrial Life, or even the Color Red.
The nature of the human mind doesn’t allow such knowledge. It’s not how our brain operates. It’s not the nature of “the self”.
In short:
“I believe God Exists” – Factually Correct.
“I know God Exists” – Factually Incorrect.
Even if one presumes a God exists, the nature of that God is such that the limitations of the human mind prevent the human mind from perceiving that existence for what-it-is.
Much in the same way that our mind is too limited to fully model the neurobiological systems of the brain – for which only through assistance devices were we able to advance our understanding of the brain – humans are far too limited to perceive whether or not an entity is or is not God. We lack the capacity to qualify if something is or is not God.
Or in more direct terms: Can You Judge God? No? How then can you know he exists as he does without Judging him to exist as he does? Can you measure God’s Being in order to Know his Existence?
To my mind anyone claiming to have absolute knowledge of God’s Existence is by default illustrating they truly do not know him. They have a belief for which they do not even understand the nature of that belief; a belief that exists because one believes in the belief of it.
Despite my views I can freely speak to religion’s utility. That there’s wisdom in religious texts and teachings. Yet, far too often the interpretation of humans leads to a flawed application of those principles that then causes harm to humanity. I think this is because people are more focused on ‘knowing God’ than knowing oneself and how their actions then influence their environment; other humans being defined as objects of that environment with which one does interact.
I believe that people when they understand the nature of human existence are no longer able to entertain their actions can serve a ‘glorified and exalted’ purpose. One is instead burdened with a knowing of humans and their limitations and how those limitations then limit the system known as ‘humanity’ or ‘society’, ‘civilization’, etc.
Human Nature prevents the common good from being realized irrespective of whether or not one is ‘with God or without God’. For to do good in all things, would be…well it’s impossible; it would be like trying to breathe the vacuum of space.
We are limited by time and ability. It’s the old mental exercise of two groups of people on train tracks and someone must choose which group survives lest both groups die. There is no ‘good’ decision. And from there, one can begin to also understand what it then is to try to ‘do good’.
Such as when a group of people of faith work together in service to their community.
Whatever this group decides to endeavor upon will be what they work to accomplish and all those other things that they are not working to accomplish will not be directly attended to by that group; only indirect benefit may occur. And as I have found, when it comes to the Rights of Disabled Adults, no group is decided upon working to protect them within Tennessee and arguably most other regions of the United States. As a disabled adult I have also found that the indirect benefits derived from the activities of others are proving a woefully inadequate substitute for direct assistance.
So, if these Groups, these people of faith, those that are ‘with’ God, or more plainly those believing in the goodness of their actions, make the decision to clean parks, feed the impoverished, and perform other tasks in service to their community rather than working to protect Disabled Adults, are they doing good?
I mean, it’s incredibly disturbingly evil to be witness to Disabled Adults being neglected, abused, and exploited en masse by medical insurers and state governments, by employers and others, all of which is also against the Law, and people are more ready to clean parks and hand out sandwiches than deal with that.
Great Evil is done through people who claim that they do good, believe that they do good, and are perceived as doing good by many or even sometimes nearly all.
This phenomena occurring not simply by omission – saying “how could I have known?” – but by behaviors that support and perpetuate a system that we have for a very long time known to be unethical and immoral, but nevertheless choose to engage in rationalization regarding our participation in that system; a system one allows oneself to become acclimated to. And by such behavior one then becomes complicit to that system and the harms it does.
It is no secret that medical insurers act against the interests of the people they hold contracts to be of service to. It is a problem that has long been left to fester through willful and knowing behaviors. It is a wound to the injured parties and the collective soul of society; it’s an evil we have almost all contributed to or have allowed to continue almost unopposed.
In our broken medical system there are people claiming and thinking they do good. Some even people of great faith, who go to much effort to practice medicine that is in compliance with belief in a “higher power”. Yet, because they’re part of this health system, and don’t understand what their interactions within that system are doing, they and their peers, irrespective of any faith, regularly break the laws of man formed to protect those they assert that they care for; laws for which the ethical basis of their enactment is one humans have largely garnered consensus upon.
A consensus whose origins can regularly be found in theology and philosophy but can also be observed as merely Rules; Laws of Nature that govern how organisms – microbes, animals, plants – can interact in a manner that serves to achieve Mutual Benefit to the greatest number of organisms; to serve the greater good. A rule-set dictating the terms for ecological homeostasis.
I have observed for many years these ‘evils’, these failures to know self and what self is doing, while not knowing what I was observing other than that it did often cause me harm. But, by acquiring medical knowledge and legal knowledge, I now understand what has been and still is occurring.
And now I am burdened with that knowledge; my mind no longer afforded the luxury of knowing anything otherwise.
I have heard one rationalization after another from physicians, many of whom are persons of faith. I have also heard as much from those laymen who claim Faith is the center of their life and of the greatest meaning to them; who claim knowledge of God’s existence and his power and his glory and all those things that for them encourage and are perceived to validate their belief in God. Including a belief that the evil in the world comes from an Opposer to God, when in my observation, Evil’s occurrence doesn’t need Devils, it doesn’t even need to be known or identified, all it needs is humans seeking to achieve their perceived good. Such is the inherently flawed nature of a human beings perception of reality.
Evil isn’t caused by people doing evil, it’s just caused by people existing and going about their daily lives. Most of the evil in this world is done without anyone even understanding what it is when it’s occurring.
In fact, repeatedly I’ve observed groups that are convinced they are doing a good thing instead then contribute to those great evils. To where it seems the persons most aware of the ‘evil’ being done are the victims of it and even for them it can take great effort to correctly perceive matters.
In my own case it took me over six years to understand I had legal rights that were being egregiously violated. These legal rights brought to my attention by a person who had been similarly pushed to extremes by a series of rights violations.
This person who informed me of the legal protections is a person of faith. But what binds us isn’t any belief in a higher power. It is that we both were confronted by the reality of the world. A truth learned through direct first hand experience.
That is how we found each other; that is what we share – my views are not their views, but we both see the law and the duties of fellow humans with respect to that law and the science we have regarding the diagnosis and treatment of disease in much the same light. And we both know and agree that the injustice being wrought upon us is illegal, unethical, and immoral, and too many that are witness to this sit and watch instead of act. That irrespective of what one believes regarding Higher Powers, we are duty-bound to work together to make such things cease-to-be.
Throughout history one can find instance after instance in which those persons so injured by misconduct and knowing their injury then voice cries of injustice which are then ignored, disqualified by biased opinions, trod underneath, and otherwise dismissed, and ironically, it is often by those claiming the strongest knowledge of God and who deign to believe that it is in compliance with God’s Law’s to disbelieve these people or to not act to assist them; that it is not their duty to acknowledge this evil and then act to curtail it.
I have personally entreated persons of faith with pleas for assistance. They will go and provide food to the impoverished and talk of their good works. They will do ‘service projects’ to help a member of the congregation move their possessions or receive food during acute sickness. They will volunteer their time to teach and instruct others.
But when it comes to more complex issues that require a more detailed understanding, I observe few even entertain taking action. Neither do I observe them to set out upon a judicious investigation that might then lead them to commit to taking action.
Yet, what I describe is a great and terrible evil. One which harms all of mankind. One for which even if we act immediately and decisively the harms will last for generations. Many claim to know God, and Claim to Know what is Evil, and yet fail to act.
Possessing beliefs on good and evil that then lead one to fail to act and prevent harm is not exclusive to people of Faith. It is one common to Humans in general.
Legally I can prove my core assertions related to our medical system, legal system, and system of governance. By a preponderance of evidence I can qualify what I claim. Yet even with such evidence offered for review I observe few have any interest in investigating the claims, fewer still elect to invest the time to assess those claims, and almost none act to curb this great evil. Why?
What spurs people to action doesn’t seem to be ‘facts’. It is belief. And for most people beliefs are formed in a biased manner. They do not wish to believe their conduct causes or directly contributes to the harms described. They do not wish to believe they are ethically and legally obligated to fight a fight that could be injurious to themselves and for which reward is unlikely and harm befalling them a possibility.
Or more precisely, the weighted hypotheses of their mind that operates as part of the grand learning engine of human cognition finds it unlikely my account of events is ‘true’, and even if true, their beliefs dispose them to not understand how it is in their interest to become involved. Nor to acknowledge how failure to become involved is not only harmful to myself and others, but to them as well.
That people struggle so greatly in understanding what is or is not Evil; what harms are being caused by our behaviors, cause me to find it incredible how some persons are audacious enough to claim to have absolute knowledge of anything, be it God, or otherwise.
We will each form our beliefs and live our lives. I suppose one can be relatively certain of that. Yet great uncertainty persists in defining what life is, what it should be, how one ought to behave. Instead of “shoulds” and “ought to’s” I think another perspective more beneficial.
What is the outcome of one’s actions. What can one expect to occur in our lifetime if we behave in a certain manner. Not a next life. Not another life. But this life; what can our living achieve, and what will those achievements do for later generations. Will it contribute to the species survival or destruction? Does it harm the Soul of Humanity, or Collectively Enlighten Us?
I think many people would agree that the commonality of phrases such as “leave the world a better place” suggest there is a general agreement that individually and collectively we desire to achieve a better world. And yet I encounter widespread misconduct. Evils that no one helps with. An evil for which neither intentions nor beliefs will ever change the outcome of. Only Actions will Change Outcomes. And in this case, the actions of people.
But, so long as people are so easily fooled by their own minds into thinking they have absolute knowledge when in reality it is a belief, they will struggle to ever grasp that thing we like to call “The Truth”. And with that struggle will come error; harm; evil done unto ourselves and others.
Or to rephrase with some of that old wisdom:
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Defend The Disabled 
First of all I am sorry for your experience with the healthcare system. I think many would agree that this world is full of injustice, voices of suffering people being ignored, the persecution and abuse of different people groups and so forth. It is evident from your article that you have seen and experienced several injustices, specifically with the system that is supposed to care and look out for vulnerable people groups such as the group of disabled adults.
With that said, I would just like to express some comments on parts of your article regarding truth. What is truth ? In your article, you say that “Perception is our reality” and “The self must perceive in order to be made real”. There is a presupposition here which I would just like to point out. By making these statements, you presuppose that the only way humans gain knowledge and information is by perception and I have to disagree with this. For one, you cite mathematical proofs as merely abstract conceptualization of real world data where it seems you are taking away from the “truth” that these proofs contain. But mathematical proofs and mathematical equations, such as 1+1 = 2 and 2×2 = 4, are more appropriately described to be self-evident truths or beliefs. Perception can not account for everything and is not the only means by which we can know things. In your article, you constantly used reductionism to point out that everything is merely a configuration of particles floating around in space, thereby citing colors such as red and tastes such as sweetness to support your concept of perception. Perhaps you are trying to know the cosmic significance or relevance of these but that can be for another conversation. You say that the term “rising sun” speaks more of bias in perception of humans wherein we consider ourselves as the center of things. I don’t consider this to be a bias in perception but more so of a way of describing things relative to us. When the term “rising sun”, it does not necessarily mean that the sun rises in the cartesian sense but that relative to our position in space it does. You also discuss the uniformity of nature and how even though for the whole history of the universe it has behaved the way it is, there is still this miniscule probability that some deviation from the observed pattern will happen. Thus you conclude that what we consider as absolute is not really so. If you hold to a worldview where “perception is our reality” and “the self must perceive in order to be made real” then it would seem that absolute truth might not be possible after all because as you say, bias of perception has blinded us from reality. But what makes you think for this worldview to be true ? That our perception is all that we have and because of its flawed nature, we can not trust in it completely ?
You claimed that the entire premise of faith is based upon “choosing to believe despite not knowing”. You also differentiated and claimed that the statement I believe God exists is factually correct as opposed to the “factually incorrect” statement of I know God exists. I would like to point out that there are rational beliefs and irrational beliefs. Your main reason is your claim that the human mind is not capable of allowing such knowledge of a higher power because of our limited capacities of perception and therefore you say that it is audacious for anyone who claims so. In this it seems you are making an absolute claim or a truth claim with regard to the complexity of the human mind. I definitely agree that the human mind is a complex thing and I also speak, as your fellow human, for the limited capacities of the human mind. But there are other faculties aside from our sense perception which we use and these are logic and the ability to know something because it is innate. You used logic when you wrote your article. You use logic when making decisions. You use logic in doing mathematics. All of these are truths that I think you would not deny. But we also have innate truths. A very good example is given by the philosopher Alvin Plantinga. In his book, God and Other Minds, he pointed out that all of us has this innate belief of relating to other minds. That is, when we see another person, similar in form, we assume that the person is a thinking, self-reflecting person just like ourselves despite not being able to observe their mental states and from what we perceive, not being able to logically come to a belief in their mental states. This belief in other minds is something that appears to be common to all people and is therefore considered to be innate. These innate beliefs are the group which he also considers belief in God to be a part of. John Calvin, the 16th century theologian, wrote this about the innate nature of the knowledge of God in the first chapter of his magnum opus, Institutes of the Christian Religion,
“ We regard it as beyond dispute that there is in the mind of man, by natural inclination, a certain feeling for divinity, so that no one should seek refuge by claiming ignorance. The Lord has instilled in everyone some understanding of his majesty, so that all, having learned that there is one God and that he is their Creator, should be condemned by their own testimony because they have failed to honour him and to devout their lives to doing his will. To be sure, if we look for evidence that men have existed who were unaware of God and who had no knowledge of him, nothing could very likely be found except, perhaps, among the most ignorant of peoples who are furthest removed from civilization and humanity. Yet, as even the heathen admit, there is no nation so barbarous, no race so wild that it does not have a heartfelt impression that there is a God. And those who in other areas of their lives seem scarcely to differ from brute beasts, nevertheless preserve some seed of religion, so rooted is this universal concept in every mind, and so firmly fixed in every heart.”
“That is why it is false to assert, as some do, that religion was forged in olden times by the craft and cunning of a few, in order to keep common folk under control, even though those who urged others to honour God had no concept themselves of deity. Now I freely admit that some sly and scheming individuals among the heathen invented a good many things in religion, intimidating ordinary people and filling their minds with scruples so as to make them more obedient and docile. However, they would never had their way if men were not already firmly persuaded that there was a God. This is the reason men were so ready to believe whatever they were told about him. Not should we think that those who, on the pretext of religion, deceived the more ignorant, were themselves quite devoid of the idea that God exists. For although in former times there were some, and today many, who deny the very notion of deity, they must continually sense, whether willingly or no, what they prefer not to know.”
Lastly, with regard to your discussion on good and evil, I affirm your statements that people can do something they believe to be good yet unknowingly be participating in some form of evil. The world truly is filled with corruption and injustice. Unfortunately, people of faith are not immune to being part of these actions, maybe because of ignorance or apathy. The main factor here is sin, “For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)”.As Christians, because we are still living in this world, there is still this constant battle between the flesh and the spirit. Although we are being sanctified by God’s grace, we can still commit sin. I pray that the church would be able to overcome apathetic behavior towards those who are in need of care and protection. I agree that the church may have not been doing enough for people in their communities. But most importantly, I pray that you would not let the behavior of people who profess faith to be your basis on how you view God and religion. Finally, because you have witnessed evils and the effects of human corruption, I pray that you would also be convicted of your own sins in life, for just as what Romans 3:23 said, none of us are innocent if we are to present our lives to God. I pray that you would not only see evil as being done through complex injustice brought about by faulty medical systems, but also in what many people consider to be “small” or “insignificant” moral lapses which includes basically lying, lust, covetousness, and pride. The good news is that Jesus Christ had lived the perfect life that you, I and every human in history should have lived and at the cross, He died to receive the just punishment that we deserve and on the third day, He rose again signifying that death has been defeated. I pray that your eyes would be opened to this truth and that you would live a life of freedom.
LikeLike
First of all I am sorry for your experience with the healthcare system. I think many would agree that this world is full of injustice, voices of suffering people being ignored, the persecution and abuse of different people groups and so forth. It is evident from your article that you have seen and experienced several injustices, specifically with the system that is supposed to care and look out for vulnerable people groups such as the group of disabled adults.
With that said, I would just like to express some comments on parts of your article regarding truth. What is truth ? In your article, you say that “Perception is our reality” and “The self must perceive in order to be made real”. There is a presupposition here which I would just like to point out. By making these statements, you presuppose that the only way humans gain knowledge and information is by perception and I have to disagree with this. For one, you cite mathematical proofs as merely abstract conceptualization of real world data where it seems you are taking away from the “truth” that these proofs contain. But mathematical proofs and mathematical equations, such as 1+1 = 2 and 2×2 = 4, are more appropriately described to be self-evident truths or beliefs. Perception can not account for everything and is not the only means by which we can know things. In your article, you constantly used reductionism to point out that everything is merely a configuration of particles floating around in space, thereby citing colors such as red and tastes such as sweetness to support your concept of perception. Perhaps you are trying to know the cosmic significance or relevance of these but that can be for another conversation. You say that the term “rising sun” speaks more of bias in perception of humans wherein we consider ourselves as the center of things. I don’t consider this to be a bias in perception but more so of a way of describing things relative to us. When the term “rising sun”, it does not necessarily mean that the sun rises in the cartesian sense but that relative to our position in space it does. You also discuss the uniformity of nature and how even though for the whole history of the universe it has behaved the way it is, there is still this miniscule probability that some deviation from the observed pattern will happen. Thus you conclude that what we consider as absolute is not really so. If you hold to a worldview where “perception is our reality” and “the self must perceive in order to be made real” then it would seem that absolute truth might not be possible after all because as you say, bias of perception has blinded us from reality. But what makes you think for this worldview to be true ? That our perception is all that we have and because of its flawed nature, we can not trust in it completely ?
You claimed that the entire premise of faith is based upon “choosing to believe despite not knowing”. You also differentiated and claimed that the statement I believe God exists is factually correct as opposed to the “factually incorrect” statement of I know God exists. I would like to point out that there are rational beliefs and irrational beliefs. Your main reason is your claim that the human mind is not capable of allowing such knowledge of a higher power because of our limited capacities of perception and therefore you say that it is audacious for anyone who claims so. In this it seems you are making an absolute claim or a truth claim with regard to the complexity of the human mind. I definitely agree that the human mind is a complex thing and I also speak, as your fellow human, for the limited capacities of the human mind. But there are other faculties aside from our sense perception which we use and these are logic and the ability to know something because it is innate. You used logic when you wrote your article. You use logic when making decisions. You use logic in doing mathematics. All of these are truths that I think you would not deny. But we also have innate truths. A very good example is given by the philosopher Alvin Plantinga. In his book, God and Other Minds, he pointed out that all of us has this innate belief of relating to other minds. That is, when we see another person, similar in form, we assume that the person is a thinking, self-reflecting person just like ourselves despite not being able to observe their mental states and from what we perceive, not being able to logically come to a belief in their mental states. This belief in other minds is something that appears to be common to all people and is therefore considered to be innate. These innate beliefs are the group which he also considers belief in God to be a part of. John Calvin, the 16th century theologian, wrote this about the innate nature of the knowledge of God in the first chapter of his magnum opus, Institutes of the Christian Religion,
“ We regard it as beyond dispute that there is in the mind of man, by natural inclination, a certain feeling for divinity, so that no one should seek refuge by claiming ignorance. The Lord has instilled in everyone some understanding of his majesty, so that all, having learned that there is one God and that he is their Creator, should be condemned by their own testimony because they have failed to honour him and to devout their lives to doing his will. To be sure, if we look for evidence that men have existed who were unaware of God and who had no knowledge of him, nothing could very likely be found except, perhaps, among the most ignorant of peoples who are furthest removed from civilization and humanity. Yet, as even the heathen admit, there is no nation so barbarous, no race so wild that it does not have a heartfelt impression that there is a God. And those who in other areas of their lives seem scarcely to differ from brute beasts, nevertheless preserve some seed of religion, so rooted is this universal concept in every mind, and so firmly fixed in every heart.”
“That is why it is false to assert, as some do, that religion was forged in olden times by the craft and cunning of a few, in order to keep common folk under control, even though those who urged others to honour God had no concept themselves of deity. Now I freely admit that some sly and scheming individuals among the heathen invented a good many things in religion, intimidating ordinary people and filling their minds with scruples so as to make them more obedient and docile. However, they would never had their way if men were not already firmly persuaded that there was a God. This is the reason men were so ready to believe whatever they were told about him. Not should we think that those who, on the pretext of religion, deceived the more ignorant, were themselves quite devoid of the idea that God exists. For although in former times there were some, and today many, who deny the very notion of deity, they must continually sense, whether willingly or no, what they prefer not to know.”
Lastly, with regard to your discussion on good and evil, I affirm your statements that people can do something they believe to be good yet unknowingly be participating in some form of evil. The world truly is filled with corruption and injustice. Unfortunately, people of faith are not immune to being part of these actions, maybe because of ignorance or apathy. The main factor here is sin, “For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)”.As Christians, because we are still living in this world, there is still this constant battle between the flesh and the spirit. Although we are being sanctified by God’s grace, we can still commit sin. I pray that the church would be able to overcome apathetic behavior towards those who are in need of care and protection. I agree that the church may have not been doing enough for people in their communities. But most importantly, I pray that you would not let the behavior of people who profess faith to be your basis on how you view God and religion. Finally, because you have witnessed evils and the effects of human corruption, I pray that you would also be convicted of your own sins in life, for just as what Romans 3:23 said, none of us are innocent if we are to present our lives to God. I pray that you would not only see evil as being done through complex injustice brought about by faulty medical systems, but also in what many people consider to be “small” or “insignificant” moral lapses which includes basically lying, lust, covetousness, and pride. The good news is that Jesus Christ had lived the perfect life that you, I and every human in history should have lived and at the cross, He died to receive the just punishment that we deserve and on the third day, He rose again signifying that death has been defeated. I pray that your eyes would be opened to this truth and that you would live a life of freedom.
LikeLike