It seems odd to be fasting in accordance to a Godly penance when I am not actually convicted there is even a God that exists. I don’t know for certain the real reasons why I’m fasting. Maybe the Lord knows better than I do. But somehow, I intuitively sense that this may be a right course. Vaguely, I sense that I might be using God’s ‘method’ to reach him (if he even exists).
Although, I fear also that this might be misguided. I cannot forget the story of heliocentrism and geocentrism. How each side insists that the other side cannot see the truth of their side because of a mistaken framework. i.e. using a heliocentric framework to view the world makes geocentrism invalid and vice versa. To complicate matters, each theory is actually perfectly viable within its own framework. That seems to me to defeat the point. I’m looking for a kind of meta framework that is the truth despite anything. Shouldn’t the truth be this way? Any other ‘truth’ contrived in its nature surely cannot be the Truth.
I’m afraid that in using God’s ‘method’ to reach him, I’ve tried to modify my framework to make its contents plausible. Daniel did make a good point that within a process that attempts to solve by a first assumption that God exists, it just means that the conclusion must be true in the end for God to exist. If not, then that first assumption is moot. It seemed to make sense on Sunday when I heard it. Now that I’m writing about it…it’s a little problematic. They have a name for arguments like that. Might be circular argument but I’m not sure. Believing this still brings us back to the original problem of heliocentrism vs geocentrism. Daniel did describe a possible scenario but did not address the original one.
The point is heliocentrism and geocentrism are both advanced enough to withstand the test of the first assumption thing. If you assume the implications of heliocentrism all true, it really does prove itself to be true. If you assume the implications of geocentrism all true, it really backs you up as well. My fear is, originally and untouched by the counter-scenario, that if you assume that God is real and consequently that his promises will come true, it might very well prove to be so. By way of Daniel’s counter, then we will have proved that God exists. (The reasoning behind is that if I assume God to be true, and in truth he doesn’t, all those implications of God’s existence will not come true and we can conclude that God does not exist.) What if it’s all more sophisticated than this (which I think it is). The ‘promises’ (implications of God’s existence) can all come true, leading us to believe our first assumption to be true. Yet in truth, it is not. In this sense, just like geocentrism. Or rather, to be precise, we can’t be sure which is ‘geocentrism’ and which is ‘heliocentrism’ in this analogy because nothing is conclusive.
Yet to the defence of the other side, I could see the most obvious proofs and still explain away God’s existence. So how can I be sure? I’m back to square one again. Is there any way out?
On a possibly related note, Buckminister Fuller said, “When I am working on a problem I never think about beauty. I only think about how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it wrong.”
Reaching a solution doesn’t necessarily mean that solution is a right one. Just as the ability to make geocentrism viable and consistent within itself doesn’t make geocentrism a RIGHT model. It has after all been proved wrong with advanced knowledge.
I sense the right answer must be beautiful. Yet, beauty is subjective.