Like all the rest of us, I want to believe that we can and eventually will know the fullness of reality. I desire to really know things! So what if that proves or disproves my belief in the Risen Christ?
My stance, I know, contradicts in one direction and is seen as conflictual in the other. My faith in Christ, I know, has no deductive proof. The chance that there is something out there which is god, as my best friends, who are Evangelical Atheists, say is too small to be even taken in faith. Yet, I see both sides deeply conflicted with their own positions.
I see my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ as deeply conflicted as I see my friends who see the religious as grossly repressive. My view rests on a simple issue. How are any of us to go about assuredly distinguishing between inductive and deductive established stances?
Almost to a person, my fellow believers in the crucified Christ, will nearly yell that they have no conflict with Him in whom each trusts. If that were true, why then do they argue among themselves about whose faith is properly structured?
I may, very well, get a perplexed look from my equally faith structured friends who call themselves atheists. On what does each of them rest their point? It is built on a deeply inductive stance that as we come to finally see the whole of reality such will demonstrate that the ideas of religion will be excluded.
On what does their position rest? First, it rests on a shared belief that the spiritual is incongruent with reality. Of itself such a stance rests a belief that there can be no relationship between the two. I take the stance that the lack of relationship between the two rests on the incompleteness of our current knowledge base.
Second, which rides on the first point, in time people will see the fullness of reality. It is this point of which I am deeply critical. How am I to deductively know that the human is truly capable of taking in the whole of reality? Taking the stance that reality is congruent does not serve as proof that we will finally see the whole thing. What isn’t addressed is whether the human both within what we are evolving into and have yet to accomplish is capable of absorbing the whole.
Such is an inductive stance. I’m yet unaware of any means for deductively establishing any of these positions. Do we know that what we have yet to discover will fit within the framings we’ve accomplished so far? Do we know that humanity is truly capable of grasping the whole of what is real?