Off the Subject--

I am answering a personal response question for another of my classes. I tried to give this response in class, but was experincing the flu, and when I went to speak, only stupidity and grunts followed. So here is my salvation to the question "What is your view of God and the universe -- How are they connected?" I have so many competing views of God that it is almost impossible to pinpoint a coherent view. It logically follows for me that the universe likewise has various views, each of which I partially subscribe to. As I was saying in class last week, I think that paradox is the only way for me to truly hold all of them together. My mind has never questioned whether God exists, but rather, what difference does it make if God exists. I believe the universe is too complex for there to be any other alternative than it being created. Exactly how, well, I’ll leave that up to people who study science. I have read Debski’s book on Intelligent Design, no conclusions. I took a course on astronomy and the anthropic principle, and have more questions than solutions. I believe in the Big Bang theory and that the universe is expanding and will eventually run its course. However, my thoughts are only on these things when asked “what do you think about the universe?” (Otherwise, I am thinking about the philosophy of the Big Lebowski) Paradoxically, I think that man is an anomaly. That within structures of almost infinite size and complexity, there lies a very simple, yet equally complex person. (The movie Powers of Ten by the Eames’ is a good example of this) To look at man in this scope is jaw-dropping for me. I am at a place right now which is all at once profound, yet childishly simplistic. How are these competing views of science/universe/man able to co-exist? Christ. So instead of throwing science out for religion, or religion for science, or humanism for science and religion, I conclude that they are connected. Truths are not built upon foundations, but a sort of web, such as Thomas Kuhn defends, in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in which he presented the idea that science does not evolve gradually toward truth, but instead undergoes periodic revolutions which he calls "paradigm shifts." I think this is also the case for practical truth in our lives and our worldviews.