|
My personal stance in all this is somewhat removed from the debate. I am inclined toward a deconstructionist outlook, which basically entails an admission of the impossibility of affirming anything about the world based upon the failure of language and other sign systems to apprehend something as simple as an object.
However, despite my own tendencies towards a kind of permanent immobility in understanding the world, I have to ignore this impulse or else I would be unable to live my life at all, making day to day decisions and performing simple actions etc...
I can therefore see where people are coming from when they say that science has its own limits and we do come to an impasse on issues of existence that would lead to a search for some sort of explanation, a reach for faith or something similar. That said, as I have no choice but to accept the basic and flawed ways in which I can understand the world, the limited conclusions I come to all lead towards religion or a higher power as a type of transference for ignorance.
For me, to admit the existence of a God would entail a dismissal of all that I use to understand and act within the world. Considering the evidence available I might as well choose to believe that up was down and that when I closed my eyes the world vanished. As a thinking person I can only conclude that religion is a way to deal with the utter unknowability of existence, but a way that makes the least amount of sense considering the base tools we have.
|