the middle ground less taken.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_our_queer_universe.html

just saw the video and comments on the above link, and it is indeed very thought provoking. and saddening. saddening because people tend to like to put up their old favourite dart boards and take pot shots at "the other side". saddening that religion in europe and america has been relegated to be seen dogmatic and senseless, thoughtless and brainless. saddening that the same people who ask for humility from theists to consider the evidence for atheism don't apply the same humility to themselves. saddening to see that christians walk straight into the dogmatic mode that has created such a public perception of the faith. saddening to see that atheists refuse to consider the position of a christian and the reasonability of it. sad, and perhaps, i might be expecting too much from a world of imperfect humans trying to grapple with a theory of existence that extends beyond what the human mind is wired to consider.

the juxtaposition of faith and reason is one that holds much middle ground, yet, ironically, the middle ground is the ground least trodden. and rightly so, for it takes a great mind to hold the tensions apart yet in tandem, and perhaps this middle ground is where the truth lies. what is a faith that deals solely with the after life and supernatural? what is a faith that deals with salvation as a monetary transaction? what is a faith that is unchanging, unmoving with the times? some forms of christianity, unfortunately, but only some forms, blessedly.

it is easy to take the bible literally as the whole literal truth. it is easy to take reason and science as the perfect antecedent. yet, if faith is to believe in the unknowable because of what is known, then the christian has much to consider and grapple with in the bible. if reason and science is to know what is, then there should also be a humility to ponder what if.

a theist and an atheist are diametrically opposite, and it will be impossible to reasonably ask any of them to cross over, because it is "natural". rather, we must consider the reasons for the existence of the position in the first place, and seek to see the reason for it. it is partially historic. it is partially sociological. it is partially philosophical. it is partially scientific. it is partially experiential. it is partially a matter of faith. and this applies to both sides.

as a christian, the side that i think we must constantly watch out for, is to see how the bible is still relevant and consistent. there is a reality there that is for us to grasp. and if it were found to reliable in some things, then perhaps, there will be more reason to trust it in the things that are not knowable now.

as a thinking person, it is important to not extrapolate the detail to become the metanarrative, and it is similarly important to not minimize the metanarrative into every single detail. there is room for observation, empirical evidence. it is also important to understand that, reason as a means of access to the whole universe, is also an article of faith. and faith is reasonable.

question is, are we making the effort to see how our particular faith is still reasonable?

C. S. Lewis once said that in the past, God was the judge and all men approached Him in fear. in the modern day, Man has become judge, and God is in the defendant's stand. sadly, it seems that many of the modern day judges give a verdict before the accused has a chance to present His case. Let the christian jury also not make the same mistake of passing a "not guilty" judgement before considering evidence.

many thinkers considered evidence and passed a guilty verdict on the religion. i believe my God is big enough, and true enough, for me to also consider the evidence, and declare Him as Lord and Saviour.