Note: If you have not read Evenhanded Pursuit of Truth by Leaven, then please read before continuing below. This is continuation of the conversation that began there.

In reading Leaven’s post, I think almost exclusively of the debate between science and religion most obviously exposed in the evolution vs. creation arguments. I think Science (emphasis on capital S) has made this the crux of all discussion of the nature of religion. Meaning that if one does not accept a Darwinistic view of the beginning of life on Earth, then one is a “Creationist” and therefore ignorant and backwards. Unfortunately, many people who espouse to be religious are ignorant and backwards, so they become easy prey for the teeth of logic.

However, I do not believe that the creation argument is the penultimate discussion of Truth or Faith vs. Fact, as if those things were actually mutually exclusive. Instead, I think that Science wishes to make this the battle because it is one they feel comfortable winning. They can point to a history of religion making mankind the reason for all creation instead of its current conclusion. They can point to fools who thought the Earth was the center of the Universe and scoff.

However, it is their mind that makes these judgments as if their mind was able to appoint itself judge. They miss that religion realizes that the Universe if beyond mankind and acts in accordance with this. Man is not the judge in any religion. In fact, that would by definition be blasphemous.

Consider the leaves in the Autumn. They turn brilliant shades of color that create a hue that would be otherworldly if we did not see it so often. They do this in death. In death, they create beauty. It always seemed strange to me that an evolutionary purpose was hard to find for this beauty—not mind you that it was needed for life by the trees, but that I found it beautiful.

The autumnal trees serve me no purpose, in fact they cause me hardship (raking), but I love them. It is their beauty that reminds me of the Creator. Though I am sure that others would find not intelligent design but the amazing adaptability of life, most would agree that the trees are beautiful nonetheless. This appreciation of their beauty is such a leap that I cannot understand how it does not point to a Creator desire. Art in its many forms is not explained adequately by Science, neither is Conscience or Consciousness or Love. But Truth explains all of these.

This is why I am a faithful person. Although exposed early to Christianity, I have done my best to question and disregard it. I cannot leave it behind me. I have encountered many people whose professing of said faith did not agree with their actions, but their contraction, or my own, does not make the Truth any less abiding.

I have heard the well-known atheist, Christopher Hitchens, argue that religion is bad or wrong because of the enmity it creates. He seems to say that wars would be no more without this foolish your-god-my-god nonsense. (If this is oversimplification, then I apologize. I may not have been able to fully understand as I was distracted by the angle of Mr. Hitchens’ nose as he spoke down to me.) Of course Genghis Kahn was a well-known missionary, as was Alexander the Great, and of course Hitler.

It is circular thinking to argue that because some people have used religion for their own basest motivations, then Truth is wrong. People now use the lack of Truth for the same conclusions. Anyone can twist anything to his/her own purposes given a short amount of time and high need for excuse. As Leaven so adeptly displayed, Truth is not defined by how mankind interprets it. If it was, then it would not be Truth.

I could continue with a diatribe about how relativity and post-modernism are the downfall of our civilization, but I don’t think that is true; although many times I am tempted to feel this way. I think that when others say there is no Truth, people will always want to prove them wrong. So I think people will seek it no matter the consequence. I also believe Truth is seeking them out as well. But of course that is my faith talking.

One final thought, I see lots of wars going on between figurines on the back of cars. One is a simple fish declaring to other motorists the car’s inhabitants’ religious preference. Another is offered with legs sprouted and Darwin emblazoned inside, a polemic to the Christian display. I am not sure why we need to declare this in such a way, but I want to say something to those who feel they must display the Darwin tag. I say this with all sincerity and in full seriousness.

I’m sorry. I’m sorry for whatever pain someone who called him/herself a believer did to you or your family. If you believe so wholeheartedly in Science that you must display an emblem on your car regardless of your motivations, then I must assume that you have a hard disagreement with someone who did not act the way they profess to believe. This is a tragedy. S/He should have acted better than s/he did. You deserve better.

And to Mr. Hitchens (as if he would ever read this): Thank you for making me think. May God be with you as you battle your illness. I hope you approve of my snarkiness. I think we might be kindred separated from each other in the woods of our thoughts.