Blindness of Faith

There was a letter to the editor in today's OC Register that really caught my eye. To put it in more direct and descriptive terms, it blinded me with sheer locical idiosy. "Human free will and an all-powerful God are mutually exclusive... Religion is blindness because the harsh realities of life and death are just too much for many human beings to face." These two statements wounded my thought process and challenged my recent discoveries of faith. Quite frankly, the letter writer did not shake the foundation of my faith.

Mr. Miller believes that there is a contradiction in the belief that God has sovereign power and will yet allows his creation to be fully independent in their decision making. I would say that that is not the full story. God is both soveriegn and allows for freedom. Mr. Miller thinks that a being must be comprehendable in order to worship and trust. If we completely comprehended the all-powerful, why would we feel compelled to trust that same being? How could someone who created this wonderfully intricate universe be so plain that mortal men should fully understand Him?

We in the Western Modern World tend to view ourselves as the pinnacle of thought; whatever we do not discover does not exist. Typical scientific circles believed that there were no large ape creatures in the central Africa. They were proven wrong in the beginning of the Twentieth Century. Many people do not believe in Big Foot because of a lack of photographs, despite widespread testimony. Despite the precise of nature of the human heart, insect eyes and perfect planetary position, people believe that we arrived upon this planet through mere chance. Nevermind the connundrum with the origin of the matter that started the Big Bang.

He brings up the harsh realities of life as a defense against the plausibility of a just God. If freewill exists, then evil must be allowed for a time, until evil is rooted up (after people have decided on the existence of a higher being). Mr. Miller's argument is still incredibly weak. I would rebut and ask him about the problem of joy. If this world is [purely] Darwinistic in its form, then why is there beauty for the sake of beauty? Cultures are all relative, from pluralistic democracies to oppressive military juntas. Both forms of governments are the same! We are all beasts in the end, why even attempt to change society? Society can never be changed, because there are no absolutes. You shouldn't reform society or help the weak, because there is no reward. In fact, you could be hurting them, because who are you to decide what is best for other people?

Relativism is a cancer that can rot a society. Rejecting the necessity of an Architect has a potential to plague the moral courage and aptitude for taking on injustices. Evil philisophies based in Nietzche and hopeless Modern thought have showed what "realism" can do. One only has to look at a text book to see how fascism, Communism and despotism affected vast regions. That is why Mr. Miller is wrong.