The ‘proof’ epiphany

 

The epiphany that I had last week has created a whole new mindset for me. The spontaneous evaporation of the constant burden of ‘finding proof’ has mean that not only can my mind relax and just ‘be’ for a while, but also that I don’t have the fear of having to explain myself to people. I have this worry that if I come out of the closet as a religious person, people will instantly bail me up and demand that I explain my rationale; which ultimately both they, and I, will find lacking.

Now, though, I don’t worry about that. It’s just no longer part of the equation.

I can see now why most of the books on apologetics that I have read just haven’t rung true. Some of them have been too vague (yes, C.S.Lewis, I’m talking to you)  and some just wildly and insultingly innacurate (irreducable complexity does have a fairly simple expanation, but you wouldn’t know that, given the way that it’s used as irrefutable proof of creation). Essentially, apologetics is trying to prove the unprovable; which is what I’ve been so concerned about, but they are going about it in a more Christian-approved, legitimate way.

I’m sure that we all collect bits and pieces that are going to help us bolster out own personal arsenal of faith; at the moment, the ( later) work of Anthony Flew and writings by Francis Collins are ringing true for me. The faith journeys that we take are so personal that a one-size-fits-all approach would be inappropriate and ineffective.

So, I feel more freedom now to dip in and out when I feel the urge, but I don’t feel the driving imperative to discover the undiscoverable any more. I can listen to my heart more, and let my head read Dostoyevsky (or watch the Rachel Zoe Project).

 

5 thoughts on “The ‘proof’ epiphany

  1. This was a major breakthrough for me, too. And a very important one! I’ve read my share of thick theology and apologetics. Plowing through such stuff can be useful to discipline thinking. But, it seems to me, all that effort is devoted to putting God into a nice, neat box. People build comfy religions around these boxes. That’s not necessarily bad until the boxes become more important than what they were intended to signify. Then, we have what Christian Scripture calls “idolatry”. God is, by definition, greater than any box anybody can construct to hold Him/Her/It/Whatever. Realizing this, as you’ve put it, “I don’t feel the driving imperative to discover the undiscoverable.” On the contrary, I’m free to allow the Undiscoverable discover me. I still plow through some theology (Lewis is a minor favorite), but I’m no longer looking for a “proof” or spiritual secret that I haven’t been able to figure out. I’m open to inspiration—literally, an “in-breathing” of spirit. And, again as you’ve indicated, this comes through the heart (in the sense of your total being) as opposed to just the intellectual “head” part.

  2. I’m a new reader who is enjoying your honest journey. May I suggest The Reason for God by Timothy Keller? I enjoy him because of the way he really respects the reader. He’s persuasive, but always acknowledges the faith element required to believe. On the other hand, he points out how faith is needed for other belief systems (or a lack of one.) Anyhow, I thought you might enjoy it.

    Here’s the link!
    http://www.amazon.com/The-Reason-God-Belief-Skepticism/dp/1594483493/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332194618&sr=1-1

Comments are closed.