Faith: Philosophical Journey from Agnosticism to Faith

Introduction

At the beginning of my philosophical journey, I was a theist; more specifically, an agnostic theist. I believed in the existence of God but regarded the basis of this proposition as unknown. In other words, I have faith that he exists, but I do not claim to know it. Presented with the arguments from the mystic perspective, I changed.

Look around the room: is there something that does not have a cause, and therefore a beginning? To say it this sequence goes on indefinitely leads to a logical dilemma. If there is no initial cause, it follows that there are no caused things. The only rational explanation is then an uncaused cause. As someone who was “bound” by the axioms of science and left God behind me when I entered the lab, the argument of causality was rationally and reasonably sound (232).

Personal Journey of Faith

The ontological argument, from Anselm, defines God as 'a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists'. This being must exist in everyone’s mind. A being that exists in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the idea of the mind. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something greater than God. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God, for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined (281).

I understand why “the Steven” who was on the start of his philosophical journey believed more in evidence than in the mysterious nature of God. Mysticism taught me that evidence does not need to be scientific. Mystics choose to believe “for reasons of the heart” even though they do not have conclusive evidence that the beliefs they have chosen to adopt are true beliefs. Science is based on arbitrarily chosen axioms, which are, by definition, not proven! I was an objective thinker. I had an intellectual, dispassionate, scientific posture toward life. I want to tell “the Steven” that there is a difference between “blind faith” and “faith based on logic and evidence”. I want to tell him that it is more unscientific to believe that everything exists out of luck than to believe that everything has a cause. I want to tell him that science needs faith as well. We should put our faith in capable hands, not on an unstable foundation. To me, faith is more than assenting with God’s existence. Faith is putting God first and in ultimate control.

Discovering Faith in Materialism

Studying Human Nature, I came across Materialism. Materialists argue that since only the physical world exists, then our mental processes are simply caused by the material body. From the scientific perspective, this intrigued me, but as I further analyzed its core ideas and questioned them, I realized that the world is so much more. I wondered, “Where is consciousness in materialism? Where is good and evil? Where is the meaning and purpose of human existence? Where is love?”.

Materialism abandons the more traditional view of our inner consciousness. It also doubts the idea of an immaterial soul. In the 1600s, Thomas Hobbes became inspired by the advances of science. He was curious about the world around and wondered if it was everything. From his work, principles like Reductionism came to light. Gilbert Ryle’s Behaviorism restricts the study of human nature to what can be observed rather than to states of consciousness (111). However, our behavior doesn’t always match our thoughts. when one acts as though he/she is in pain; one is not actually in pain, despite showing appropriate behavior. The Functionalist View from D.M. Armstrong states that “humans should be thought of as complicated computers” (113). According to Armstrong, mental states rely on linking our sensory stimulations to external behavior. This, however, leaves out the inner consciousness. Mental states are not reducible to inputs and outputs. Functionalism also loses sight of the human intuition (114). When we see something for the first time, what do we do? There is an inner entity within us that controls our decisions – a consciousness.

Defining God and His Existence

Since then, I have discovered the Traditional Western Religious View. I believe that humans are made in the image of God. Then God said, 'Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.' (Gen. 1:26 [New International Version]). Therefore, we are ultimately good, and God has endowed upon us the rational self-consciousness and an ability to love. Much like Aquinas, I agree with Aristotle that humans and all creatures have a purpose. The purpose, then, is to achieve happiness by using their reason to know God. Furthermore, according to the Traditional Western Religious view, what remains the same as the body changes is one’s immaterial soul (85). I believe our souls possess a free will. This will, however, is a double-edged sword. We can either do good and accept, love and serve God or we can reject him and pursue wicked desires. We must strive towards intellect and towards “the truth”. For this, we need God’s help to use our reason to tame our passions. Next, I disagree with John Locke’s proposition: what makes a self the same self over time is memory. I, like, Reid disagree with Locke’s idea. “Suppose at age 20 I remember myself at 10, and at 30 I remember myself at 20 but not at 10. Then on Locke’s view at 20 I am the same person I was at 10, and at 30 I am the same person I was at 20. So, at 30 I must be the same person I was at 10. Yet Locke’s view also says at 30 I am not the person I was at 10!” (104).

Moral absolutism is the beliefs that there are universal ethical standards that are irrespective of time, place, and situation. According to moral relativism, two different groups of people could disagree on the moral grounds of an action and both parties could be correct (Al). I do not believe in the principles of Relativism. Relativists say that there is no universal truth, which is, in and of itself, a universal truth. It holds that all moral principles depend on society. Relativism’s underlying principle that 'we should not impose our morality on others' is not societally dependent; in fact, it is an absolute. Moreover, if all moral principles are culturally relative, then we should impose our morality on others if it is moral.

Kant searched for ethical truth in rationality rather than divine authority. He believed that rationality was distinctive to humans and human duties are “categorical imperatives” (540). As rational beings, Kant claims that we are morally bound to follow them, so long as these imperatives are not contradictory. When choosing the morally right path, we must determine a rule that stands behind that action. If this rule applies to all people in all situations without contradiction, this is morally correct. I believe that a rational being who takes something as good has to accept that there is a reason that it is good.

Conclusion

When I started my philosophical journey, I found that from the darkness of the cave comes light. In search of this light, I lived my life through the innocent eyes of a child; not in blissful ignorance, but in the excitement of a universe of infinite possibilities. Much like a child, I learned that it is important to question widely held beliefs such as Materialism, Relativism and Agnosticism. Since then, I have become a more faithful Christian. Like the young child, in search of the truth, I try not to follow the path that attracts me the most, but the path that challenges me in my highest moments. 

References

1. Plato. (n.d.). Allegory of the Cave. Republic, Book VII. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/class/ihum40/cave.pdf