An Interesting Flight (Part 1)

On 03/05/09 I embarked on a journey to visit one of my best friends. I do not have a lot of people I tend to call best friends, but he is indeed one of the few. Anyways, I had to take a plane in order to see my friend. On the last flight I would have to take I met a stranger that would come to challenge my thinking and my worldview. Out of all the people I could have met, this individual was the one I was destined to encounter on that day. He politely started the conversation on how his fishing trip to Florida had been ruined due to the storm that most likely killed two NFL players. He continued to tell me about how he loved to travel and see the world. We both came to the agreement that seeing the world enables you appreciate other cultures and different people. At that time I thought the conversation was over since we both became quiet, and so I pulled out one of my books.

He glanced over and saw that I was reading a book about philosophy. He proceeded to talk about existentialism and the works of Soren Kirkengaard. I acknowledged his statements and told him that I knew about Kirkengaard who in fact was a Christian. He showed skepticism towards Kirkengaard really being a Christian. He went on to tell me about the abuses of the Church and how powerful they were and still are. I pointed him towards any philosophical encyclopedia and/or philosophical resource(s) can verify to the fact that Soren Kirkengaard was a Christian philosopher. Yet, he still refused to accept the reality of Kirkengaard being a Christian. He went on to assert that Bacon, Newton, Galileo, etc. were really not Christians but were in fact victims of the Church.

I did not deny or cannot dismiss that the Church did actually hamper the scientific revolution that was brewing and taking place. However, some (in fact a lot) of these individuals were in fact documented as being Christians. If one wants to make assumptions on things that have no validity, then one can surely propose that position but it is something without substance (I explained). I also stated that I cannot deny that the Church did not have any abuses and/or that abuses do not happen; rather, I understand human nature will tend to show brokenness in things that it touches, which of course includes the Church. Do I then take the position in concluding that God does not exit, because the Church committed acts of evil? That would seem to be an emotional deduction, which at the very least puts burdens that we cannot fathom. We would have to prove that God has no business in allowing evil in the world and/or that freewill does not exist. Moreover, the assumption of evil actually existing means just that—evil exists. He on the other hand took the position that evil does not exist. Even more damaging to mankind is that postulation that morality is also not real which he actually accepted willingly. (The moral discussion continues later as the conversation shifted to faith.)

The conversation moved to the topic of faith. I told him that he had exercised some sort of faith when he got on the plane. He however did not agree that he had. He proposed to actually having confidence in the reliability of the plane being able to fly. My new found acquaintance postulated the ever fallacious position that gravity's testability is as solid as a plane flying. Now, I do not have a problem in accepting that planes have demonstrated to fly every time they go up, but this is assuming no malfunction or other possible contingencies will not affect the plane's flight. I can accept that humans have proven they can make planes that are able to fly; however, it has also come to pass that planes have crashed. Therefore, it can be said that I accept the reliability of planes being able to fly, but I refuse to accept notions which claim getting on planes does not require faith since at any given time the plane can crash given the right circumstances. So, his refusal to accept my proposition about him having faith does not hold water, I don't think.

cont.