My post is not a testament to any change of religious philosophy, but rather one of my studies strengthening my already-present religious faith.
At the age of seventeen, I am a reasonable, logical, devoutly faithful Christian. I imagine that many people who have changed their religious views after this age may be scoffing at me, but I will continue.
I have attended church since birth with my mother. My father, a scientist, is an agnostic. My devotion to religious faith came was always somewhat lukewarm and was never influenced by my mother. What set it alive was reading the novel Life of Pi, which led me to see science and religion as equally valid belief systems by which to understand fact.
The following quote by Ravi Zacharias sums up my life philosophy:
” ‘If the Big Bang were indeed where it all began [which one can fairly well grant, at least to this point in science’s thinking], may I ask what preceded the Big Bang?’ The scholars’ answer, which I had anticipated, was that the universe was shrunk down to a singularity.
I pursued,’But isn’t it correct that a singularity as defined by science is a point at which all the laws of physics break down?’
‘That is correct,’ was the answer.
‘Then, technically, your starting point is not scientific either.’
There was silence, and their expressions betrayed the scurrying mental searches for an escape hatch.
…But I had yet another question. I asked if they agreed that when a mechanistic view of the universe had held sway, thinkers like Hume had chided philosophers for taking the principle of causality and applying it to a philosophical argument for the existence of God. Causality, he warned, could not be extrapolated from science to philosophy. ‘Now,’ I added, ‘when quantum theory holds sway, randomness in the subatomic world is made a basis for randomness in life. Are you not making the very same extrapolation that you warned us against?’
Again there was silence and then one man said with a self-deprecating smile, ‘We scientists do seem to retain selective sovereignty over what we allow to be transferred to philosophy and what we don’t.’ ”
The all-too-common view is that religion/philosophy and science are distinctly and diametrically opposing systems, but when they seem to coincide toward a single explanation, what is suggested, a non-entropic, but intelligent design of the universe, is amazing.
religious philosophy in itself, being based on faith, is not intended to require scientific proof. many instances in our personal lives may require faith in something greater than ourselves, in order to overcome hardship.
when practicalities are involved, science and logic are my best friend. however, when scientific explanations have failed to explain my suffering, my personal God has given me the strength and solace to survive. this has practically saved my life and kept me sane more than once.
