I read recently of "true scientists" being criticised for not accepting an axiom without proof, when in fact, in mathematics and logic, the definition of an axiom is that it has no proof. Axioms are posited, and proofs of subsequent theorems are built on them.
Such conjecture, as a proof, can be applied to the probability of an asteroid striking the planet, or to the frequency of earthquakes in California, but not to the existence of God. The issue hangs on the balance of evidence. An example of this might be that of (Christian) children being taken to their local church, where they listen, sing, and otherwise participate in services. When they get home, they watch TV programmes extolling the virtues of weaponised aliens, werewolves, vampires, and other conjectural forms of life existing arguably outside the Grace of God. Would we regard these children as agnostics?
Clearly, the expression of religious tolerance in accepting a God not of your own belief - Shiva, for example, in the Hindu religion - although politically correct, is dangerous in respect of faith, in that by so doing you state doubt in your own belief. Islamic State, even now seeking to extend their Caliphate into near-southern Europe, retain a murderous focus on faith, and this faith is not contingent on the term of office of the President or Prime Minister, but on revolutionary zeal fueled by the conviction that their belief drives the universe, and that any opposition to this strategem is by definition agnostic.
This is of course just an example, but one that most people would recognise, albeit more in respect of Terror than Faith. There is beguiling comfort in assuming that such organisations will undermine and eventually destroy the societies they try to create, but this is an axiom. Subsequent proof is a creature of smoke and shadows.
No comments:
Post a Comment