This is the station that my train-of-thought has taken me. Join me here and I will fill you in on where I’ve been:

Firstly, I read a short story by science fiction author Harry Harrison. Some of the best science fiction will provoke discussion, and this story certainly provoked me to discussion (with myself). In ‘The Streets of Ashkelon’, an alien race (of the noble savage type) is visited by a Priest and a Trader (just a regular guy). The end result of the story is that in trying to understand what the Priest is teaching, the natives sin - spoiling their natural ‘purity’.

Now the argument of the aliens is that belief in God needs proof. Proof He exists, that He cares, that He is watching. And the priest gives the regular arguments that tend to be given by fictional characters in these situations. That “creation is proof” but that “belief needs no proof - if you have faith”. These arguments are not the point of this post. Better and smarter people whom I admire have argued both sides for longer than I have lived.

What got me thinking though was the insistence of the aliens that they needed proof. For many years I didn’t think I needed proof, for much the same simple reasons that the Priest gave. And for years I had the conflicting idea that I had the proof I needed anyway if anyone should ask - creation. The reason that this idea conflicts is that the proof was really for me. I never felt comfortable with blind faith - although the idea that anything but blind faith produces a sort of logical loop never occurred to me. That is, the two statements cancel each other out: by saying that ‘Creation is proof’, but that ‘Faith shouldn’t need proof’ you are fudging things a little.

Maybe to my credit, I was always looking for that one good moment that could finally give me ‘proof’ that God existed that I could share with the outside world. That it never really came is the reason I have so much trouble with religion now. See, I think I would like some proof after all. Faith isn’t enough to keep me going. I know this puts me back into my logical loop, but frankly I don’t know what else there is. Anyone that says they have pure faith is

  1. a better person than I; or

  2. lying; (assign to yourself as appropriate).

Everyone else that has faith but is willing to admit that they also have their own personal ‘proof’ can join me here in the loop. That my proof evaporates quicker under my own doubts is my own problem - congratulations that yours is stronger.

Now we are getting closer to the starting point of this post. Until now my parent’s, friends, and church’s proof was enough for me. Sharing someone else’s proof kind of helped in dealing with the loop for a while, as my faith was based on a watered down proof that I got elsewhere - making my faith seem to me a stronger faith ( stated-faith minus proof-needed equals actual faith ?). Anyway, now that my faith demands proof, I’m waiting for the sign from God. What this story made me realise is why I can no longer accept other people’s proof.

When other people tell me that this miracle occurred, or that that amazing thing happened I can’t help but be sceptical any more. There are so many people willing to tell you that they have the proof, but no way of knowing who can be trusted. I could trust Joe Regularguy, because he has a website that tells me that Jesus’ face appeared in a bar-stool. But then I might also have to seriously consider David Icke’s theories about shape-shifting lizard men (who knows?!). So the Internet and other popular media might be a little unreliable.

I could trust my family. I could trust my wife. But let me ask you - if the person you trust most in the world began talking about things you couldn’t believe in would you? Even though you trust them and love them? I know that if Mil declared one day that she had been following her horoscope for a month, and every day it came true - I still couldn’t believe it, and why should I trust her more about one set of proofs than another? In truth, she would never do this - part of why I trust her judgement - but honestly, I’m uncertain that I can accept any proof (of God) that I cannot claim to have witnessed myself.

So from this long thought-train I established some definitions. Now these are only my thoughts for today, so if you disagree, don’t berate me for being more than a fool - I’m still learning. I would define faith the same as the bible does - ‘being sure of things hoped for, and being certain of things unseen.’ I would then define religion as ’those things that are done to prove that faith is not misplaced.’ Maybe this is simplifying things, but think about it. All the rituals of religion couldn’t possibly be done for God’s benefit - and it says as much in the bible. Romans 4:3 ‘What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”’ All our rituals would mean little to God - what he seems to want is belief or faith. It must be man that needs rituals, to remind and to guide. We must need religion to keep giving us the proof we need, when we run out of our own.

I hope God can understand that a little extra proof could help, and if He never gives it, at least understand those of us who can’t dredge it up ourselves any more.