August
Kekulé described the eureka moment when he realized the structure of
benzene:
I
was sitting, writing at my text-book; but the work did not progress;
my thoughts were elsewhere. I turned my chair to the fire and dozed.
Again the atoms were gamboling before my eyes. This time the smaller
groups kept modestly in the background. My mental eye, rendered more
acute by the repeated visions of the kind, could now distinguish
larger structures of manifold conformation: long rows, sometimes more
closely fitted together; all twining and twisting in snake-like
motion. But look! What was that? One of the snakes had seized hold of
its own tail, and the form whirled mockingly before my eyes. As if by
a flash of lightning I awoke; and this time also I spent the rest of
the night in working out the consequences of the hypothesis.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros).
Ever
“defend your faith”? How well did you do? How could you give a
better answer for the hope you have (1Pe 3:15-16)? Serendipity
Bible 10th Anniversary Edition, page 1385).
Instead,
you must worship Christ as Lord of your life. And if someone asks
about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it. But do this
in a gentle and respectful way. Keep your conscience clear. Then if
people speak against you, they will be ashamed when they see what a
good life you live because you belong to Christ. Remember, it is
better to suffer for doing good, if that is what God wants, than to
suffer for doing wrong! (1Pe:15-17 NLT).
As
an American I speak with special privileges. In America we have
freedom of speech which is a law that ultimately derives from respect
and empathy for all (for if I desire freedom of speech for myself, I
must desire it for others). Therefore, I will discuss my faith in
this spirit—with due respect and regard for the nonbeliever.
First
I will point out the last sentence in the above Scripture verse:
“Remember, it is better to suffer for doing good, if that is what
God wants, than to suffer for doing wrong!” Suffering is a common
condition of mankind, and it is for us to decide not whether we will
suffer, but for what cause will we suffer.
The
second thing I will identify is the most persuasive approach that one
can take in American—and that is pragmatism. Americans are
interested above all in what works. You may counter that this is
clearly not the case. Americans devised the Bill of Rights before definitive proof was in that this approach is best. I
agree with you totally. They looked at the lessons of history and
proceeded not with abject proof, but with a measure of faith.
I
believe that love is the better way—not because I have abject proof
that it is, but because of experience as well as a measure of faith.
The key component of a rationale for faith is reliance on a
time-line. That is, as a measure of suffering is part of the human
condition, I must never say that faith is a way to avoid all
suffering. I can only say that faith in a context of love gives
meaning to suffering and in the last analysis brings upon us less
suffering in the long run. In the short run one can defend almost
anything with only a modicum of rationalization. But faith always
looks for the greater good in the long-run (ultimately, in the realm
of eternity). Thus, for example, one can rationalize almost any
short-run approach for raising children. But only the
disciplines of nurturing love will reap abundance of life for the
child in the long-run—and while this statement is based on
experience, it depends as well on a heaping measure of faith—as surely
as instituting and implementing the Bill of Rights takes on a measure of faith. That
which is truly pragmatic must always encompass the long-view, so
paradoxically pragmatism must always look beyond the here and now and
what is demonstrable into the future filled with uncertainty and the
exigencies of faith. Thus, in a sense, pragmatism functions as an
ouroboros. Like faith, it always entails a measure of circular
reasoning. Or, as the God of Love stated—I am that I am.
Print Page
