I was at the final Advent Service within the month of preparation for Christmas. The pastor preached about belief and unbelief, and therefore I have decided to borrow some of his teachings from scriptures, and also address some of my own thinking and reflections about the above topic. My real concern is focused on the rather extensive but emotive form of belief’s expression found in much of Malaysia, but maybe also within much of Asia. Why is this so?
First, it often appears that we as a people-group have not thought about, studied, or understood the concept of “knowledge” in any serious way. But nevertheless, we pretend that we are experts on the subject. Such ignorance (absence of gnosis ; the root word for knowledge) becomes obvious because we cannot really define the concept of knowledge in very precise terms.
The word knowledge is a very serious and pregnant word. In fact the older versions of the Bible states: Adam “knew” Eve and they begot children.
If we start in scriptures, the word “knowledge” and its pregnancy of meaning is very real. It results in children. I do not think that the Bible translators were either naive, or did not know what they are doing, but instead, maybe they knew more than our scientists who assume that knowledge is simply value added information.
But value-added information is only limited to the head-knowledge and has very little or nothing to do with the heart-knowledge, including convictions and therefore engaged actions to solve problems. To me, if we draw inspiration from this word based on the Genesis script, Adam and Eve’s knowledge of each other begot their children.
Therefore, when we appreciate knowledge of any subject matter, it must lead to both; convictions and action regarding the subject matter. It cannot be limited only to head, or heart alone. Action, as in sexual intimacy related to married couples, does produce effects of creating children, God willing. Yes, creating children is both choice and responsibility. It cannot ever be reduced to simple or blind but irresponsible consequences of such sexual intimacy.
In Christian theology such intimacy is always within the context of a Christian marriage. Aborting an unborn baby is directly related to “killing of creative lives which God has willed”. Moreover, within Christian theology, marriage is always considered a sacred institution. Civil unions, to our mind and hearts, should simply remain as that; but never considered “marriage with the sacred meaning of the creative institution originally designed by God”.
Is belief non-rational?
My father-in-law had a game which he played with children about answering the “why” question. But, as anyone who has played this word-based game knows, at some point in answering that question, whether one is at home or in college, there is a point at which the ultimate answer remains; “I do not know!” It is same with professors or fathers. That is the point at which rationality ends and faith or belief begins.
But, all such belief is not simply non-rational or irrational. Rather, such reason is beyond faith or belief. But, it is never unreasonable even if some aspects cannot be reasoned or rationally concluded. It is often then deployed through faith or belief argued through one’s system of logic in faith which I have called “worldviews”.
Rene Descartes first argued such rational possibilities, to re-establish faith of the then-Catholic Church which had been defeated as a result of the Galileo and Copernican revolution against the so-called faith of the Church and their hypothesis that “the world was the centre of the universe!”
Rational science had deployed their scientific tools to establish “that the sun was the centre of the universe and not the earth! Thereby the Universal Church fell “under judgment and rationality of the scientific method!”
The recovery of the rationality of faith happened, to my mind, when Heisenberg, and later Einstein, through science established the theory of relativity. What is called the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle today defines all science also as subjective, and therefore, not objective science.
Unbelief and rationality
The pastor used the word “conflation” in church to describe two untruths (or half-truths) which when merged is used to masquerade as truths. In Luke’s narrative of the birth of John of Zachariah and Jesus of Mary, there is an intriguing conversation between Angel and humans:
First Narrative
“And Zacharias said to the angel, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is well advanced in years.”
And the angel answered… But behold, you will be mute and not able to speak until the day these things take place, because you did not believe my words which will be fulfilled in their own time.”
Second Narrative
“Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
“And the angel answered and said to her, the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Highest will overshadow you… For with God nothing is impossible.”
Who had trust, and who did not, in these narratives? If we rely on scripture, we have to conclude that Mary had blind trust and faith in what was prophesied of her, whereas Zacharias had only unbelief, or only self-trust, or knowledge relying on his own human logic systems. Both children were born as the angel predicted; one became John the Baptiser and the other Jesus of Nazareth.
In life, we have to learn to trust others and move on with living. It is not easy to trust others; because the verifying difference is always truth. But, truth whether we like it or not, comes in varying colours, and forms. It is not always easy to know truth or put faith in the unknown, or in the unknowable.
Faith is forsaking all I trust Him (or God). It is our rational capacity to disregard the obvious circumstances surrounding our lives and learning to let go of human knowledge in complete trust of the “Other”; that is both invisible but knowable.
Let us have a Blessed Christmas thorough our knowledge of Him. God Bless.
