Holdsworth says, “we sit back and want a perfectly, purely rational explanation and answer to all of our questions and objections. And if we don’t do that for all the other important decisions that we make in our life, isn’t that a bit of an indictment about our sincerity when it comes to the question of God?”
Why wouldn’t, or shouldn’t, we want to find a rational explanation and answer to all our questions and objections? Isn’t this concept faulty logic in which the premise is wrong and then, as if it is correct it is used as a standard for justifying something more absurd to follow? It seems that this line of thinking is an excuse for believing in anything at all, including the most ridiculous ideas; it’s an invitation to accept the most outrageous claims by surrendering your rational mind. I have seen this concept put to use with cult leaders and their members; it’s quite effective until and unless someone decides to figure out what’s going on, which is how and why things eventually fall apart.
It seems to me that Holdsworth’s entire argument is proof of one thing only, which is that people are capable of inventing any excuse to defend their beliefs. It doesn’t have to be true, it just has to be comfortable, self-soothing, reinforcing. Holdsworth is pointing the finger at those who have pride instead of humility, when the fact remains that both come from the same source — the limited human mind that is created from secondhand thoughts. He is chasing his own tail.
“Unless we can humble ourselves, we will continue to be blind to God,…” In other words, unless we just set aside our power to be logical and make sense of things then we will never believe in God. I agree with this. With this kind of thinking, as long as I admit to myself that purple dinosaurs live in my attic then they really do.
You wrote: “… it might be nice not to have to worry that millions of fellow voters aren’t privately a pack of wildly inconsistent lunatics who cherry pick rational standards in the performance of their secular duties while personally giving license to childish fantasies and flagrant fallacies.” I think this is exactly the situation that actually exists. Down on the street interviews with Trump fanatics, for example, prove this point, as their statements have nothing to do with reality, truth, compassion, or context. What’s even more insane in our current political climate is that these same Trump supporters pretend that their self-righteous ideas are based in the Christian faith. I am no religious scholar, but I'm pretty sure that there is nothing in the Christian texts stating that lying, ignorance, hate, racism, and belief are the best things a follower can use as a personal guidepost to get through life and relate to others.
In the end, what are we to do in a society full of people who are content (or pretend to be) to base their arguments and personal credos on outlandish ideas? It’s always been this way throughout the history of human beans.
I like this that you wrote: “Asking for the slightest sign that theistic religions aren’t wholly fallacious and preposterous is hardly the mark of arrogance.” Or we could say, Just give me something, something to tell me you’re not crazy.
Ultimately, it seems to me, if you want to believe in God or science then you have to personally enquire into them. This means you have to set aside all that you have been taught and come in with a fresh mind to see for yourself if either have merit. Science is much easier to do this with, because it has methods, measurements, and models. You do this, and then that is the result. Or you imagine what might happen and then you set out to prove whether it actually will. On the other hand, belief, such as the belief in God, requires a believer who never leaves the realm of belief to come to his conclusion.
Belief cannot exist independent of the believer, and this may be the crux of the issue. In the scientific environment, a scientist may be a believer, but he is obligated to put his belief to the test by seeing whether his belief is founded. If it is not then he must dismiss it and move on in a new direction. Religion has no such test, because the “proof” is itself a belief, including that an event — perhaps any event — is a sign of God’s existence.
It's not enough for billions of people to just say, "I don't know." Instead they turn to belief.
