Well, I’m happy that you are “all ears.” So, here goes.
To your article, I find me, from sentence to sentence alternately agreeing and balking. Your native intelligence shines; however, your acquired ideas stick out. In many ways, this should be expected of us. So many half truths and outright distortions are fed into our minds that to fend them off or rid our heads of them requires at least one labor of Hercules.
How many today write of faith when they have no visceral contact with the concept! When you write of faith you use a spray gun. I come from the Catholic — dare I say Thomist — notion of faith, which often bears small resemblance to Protestant views of the same; and Protestant views on everything alter from denomination to denomination. As I can say little of what faith is to a Hindu, I refrain from making claims. I can say in point of the Catholic idea of faith that you’ve stepped out of your area of expertise.
You write: “This is why there’s no point in using logic in an argument when one person has faith. Ultimately the faithful are unprepared to change their minds because they “believe.” It’s in their heart. Even if the proof seems overwhelming. That’s why it’s called faith.”
This “one person” to whom you refer is not I, and for one other, not John Henry Cardinal Newman, who wrote: “To live is to change and to be perfect is to have changed often,” and “Growth is the only evidence of life.” You see, we have faith because we have tested the world and found it wanting; we have tested the Faith and found it wise.
As you raised the subjects of science, evolution and global warming, I take your views on them as faith, just as we all take on faith (trust) many ideas that we layman cannot test. What do students know of the “science” of things? They are battered by scientism, not science, and opinions based upon political motivations dressed as facts.
It would shock many that science thrived under Catholicism. (I suggest “Seven Revolutions: How Christianity Changed the World and Can Change It Again,” by Mike Aquilina and James L. Papandrea, as well as “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization,” by Thomas E. Woods.) Personally, I have tallied a partial list of 236 scientists of historical note that were in religious vows, adding to this the ongoing Vatican Observatory.
If you wish to call “global warming” science, let us agree that climate change is, as you say, demonstrable; what is sheer postulation is anthropogenic climate change, an idea concocted in the 1970s at the Lubyanka and since touted as “settled science.” (Were this even a real theory, since when is science settled?)
Let’s take the atom. As Chesterton noted, the Greek word “…atom merely means a thing that cannot be cut-up.” Well, we’ve since cut up a few atoms. Science assured us that the atom was indivisible. Science also taught that blood did not circulate and William Harvey met with skepticism in correcting the notion. The most renowned physicians laughed at Sister Kenny, “an unaccredited Australian nurse,” and her unorthodox approach against poliomyelitis. One can go on.
As to “evolution,” it is laughable how so many “believers” have little or no idea what Darwin in fact put forth. Andy Rooney once remarked that he’d many times read “The [sic] ‘Origin of Species.’” (He ought to have read the title a few times.) Darwin has been co-opted, as in many ways has Jesus of Nazareth. Man is prone to fashioning idols from otherwise most useful elements.
You shine when you opine, “Just don’t expect my support until you have better evidence than Darwin, physicists, or 97% of the climatologists.” Now, that’s the ticket, I say!
Then it’s off the tracks again with, “If you want comfort, listen to priests, politicians or AM talk shows. If you want a better model of reality, listen to scientists and be prepared to change.”
Stop the presses! Priests are complained of for mongering guilt. Now it’s for hawking comfort. And how often do politicians bring solace? And the harshest critics of AM radio critics are too often like those that critique faith: they know nothing of it. As for scientists providing a “better model of realty,” it might be helpful to note how many billions of dollars are granted to scientists touting man-made climate change, and how funds have been rescinded or denied when contrary scientific views are posited.
Now, the control of electricity. “Yes, they’re just theories,” you state: “but they’re pretty damn reliable.” Some are. I once asked a master electrician why some glitch occurred at a radio station. The man has set-up and run stations from New York to California and is considered one of the leading technical experts in his field. He shrugged, and said: “Sometimes electricity does what it wants. Who knows?”
Yes, who does know?
By the by, if I may point to a minor error; perhaps a typo: homo sapien for homo sapiens.
Happy to have read your thoughts and wish to read more of them,
John Paul Morris