It's a miracle!

Hmph! Okay, I take back what I said about our Philo teacher. He just gave me 100% for my philo paper on a-morality! That paper was done on a rush. I thought it was just a five-page pure rambling about just one decision in my life. I can't believe he'll mark it "An Excellent Paper!"

My friend also got the same grade. But her paper just occupied two and a half sheets! It's like I have to write more to get a good grade. She posted her paper on her blog: phengpheng.i.ph

Now I'm going to post mine too. Our teacher asked us to be creative with our title. So I had "Believe Him or Not," inspired from Ripley's Believe It or Not. Honestly, it's a corny title but I have run out of ideas. What matters is the content...

Believe Him or Not?

They say that God is magnified to the greatest during the two extreme points in a person’s life – childhood and aging. The innocence of a child makes the idea of a powerful and generous God attractive to him. An old man’s awareness of impending death brings himself closer to God’s mercy and forgiveness. However, during the growing years, faith usually wanes. Perhaps it is because at this stage, teenagers learn to reason more. They attempt to challenge the doctrine of God with principles of science. They may also question their own religion about the necessity of its structure and tradition. Or perhaps they are just very curious about everything. Whatever it is, it certainly leaves one question pending: Should I believe in God or not?

I admit that I have asked this question myself. I started having doubts during high school. Science, for me, was the reality. It reasonably explained to me about everyday things – weather, people, environment, my hunger, my emotions, and innumerable others. In the existence of man, for example, I inclined more to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution compared to Creationism. So in my outlook in life, I left a little place for God. I rarely attended mass. Prayers were only said when I needed something, like a miracle, which in the first place I didn’t really believe in.

I kept on bringing this meager spiritual faith until my second year in this university. It was on the fateful second semester of that year when I was introduced to Philosophy 101. Some have warned that your philosophy class will replace your God with logic and reason. But ironically, it worked the other way around for me. Philosophy has also taught me to doubt science. Basic philosophy questions reality in general. It struck me when I discovered Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am). The only thing that is certain to exist is the doubter. Therefore, everything else outside him may be an illusion, not only God, but also the environment that science explains.

So there came a major personal decision to be made: live with a God or purely depend on reason and science? I finally decided to agree with the proven scientific explanations and, at the same time, believe in an omniscient God who guides me anytime and anywhere. So why did I settle on such a decision?

First let me discuss the non-moral factors: spiritual habit and security in afterlife. I was raised in a Catholic household. My parents sent me to a religious elementary school. So my faith was strong. I learned to genuinely pray to God just like talking to Him. When I need something badly, I pray hard. When good things happen, I thank Him. When I sense danger, I ask for his protection. I felt He was always there. That’s why, in high school, when I tried avoiding my habitual prayers, it was difficult. I felt alone and vulnerable. As my faith weakened, my fears grew. It was hard to shift faith from God to myself alone. I had less trust in myself than in Him. So I returned to God and to my spiritual habits to stop all these insecurities.

I also thought about the afterlife. I wasn’t sure if there really was. But knowing my Philosophy 101, I am not also certain that there isn’t an afterlife. So I played safe when I evaluated my beliefs. Let’s say that I don’t believe in God. When I die and discover that there in no God, then I would feel good that I haven’t wasted time on prayers. But if there is God, then I might go straight to hell, which is, according to my religion, a terrible state for the soul.

Now let us consider believing in God. If I die and meet God, then I would be right. He might reward me a place in heaven given that I did well on earth. But what if there was no God? Yes, it would mean I have wasted moments in prayers. However, the important thing is I did good things and believed in values. That is what matters to me. There is morality involved here. But I considered security in afterlife a non-moral factor because this was based on fear – a fear of the pains of hell if I died with no belief in God.

Now the other two are desire for the truth and desire for goodness, which I have considered as moral factors. Truth is always moral in itself. Therefore it is moral to seek the truth. I want the truth. The only problem is the impossibility of finding the truth of what is real. I can’t have a tangible proof of God’s existence because He is meant to be vague and mysterious. His existence would depend on one’s faith and not on reason. Science, on the other hand, explains what we explicitly see. But what we see may all be illusion. If it is, this illusion might be powerful enough to keep us fooled by our senses. So in both cases, it’s impossible to disclose the truth.

So my desire for truth was not satisfied. But I would still consider it as a factor. It’s because in the process of seeking the truth, I found it impossible, and therefore, I made a decision to settle instead on what I already know. Science may be an illusion, but it may also be true after all. God may not be existing, but He might also be real. Nothing is certain except the doubter. So I decided to stick with the things I have believed in and stop complicating my life.

The most important factor for me is my desire to be good. Afterlife or no afterlife, I still want to be good to others. However, it would be easier to be good if I believed in a God. That way, I am motivated. Atheism may threaten my goodness. If I would know there is no God, then I would assume there is no afterlife where He will meet the departed souls. If there is no afterlife, I would not value life at all. That means I would not see others as people who should be respected. Instead, I would only think that they would just die and be absolutely nothing after death. I would even think that in fact I would be doing myself a favor if I commit suicide. What’s the point of living a long, meaningful life if there is none after death? That mentality would make me evil. And I don’t want it. So it is a big deal for me to believe in God. I don’t want to hurt others as much as I don’t want to hurt myself.

Now let us see how the two types of factors performed in making this major personal decision. In terms of influence, my desire to be good, a moral factor, was the strongest. Actually, this factor would always be considered in every decision I make. I always have this feeling towards the good. And I believe that this feeling is innate in every person. God really did design human beings to be good. I can testify to that.

However, this wasn’t the first desire I have experienced when I was confronted with this problem. It was the desire for truth. In fact, this factor also caused this dilemma between God and science. After that philosophy class, doubts were on both sides. So my first instinct was to seek the truth. However, it was impossible, as I’ve mentioned.

It seems that the moral factors were prioritized in this decision. But the important factors are those that have influenced the decision significantly. My desire for truth, although it came first, was not a great factor. So I cannot say that this decision was mostly based on morality.

Before, I thought that this decision involved more moral concerns. This is about my faith in God. God is inseparable from morality. But looking at the decision alone, it concerns more of myself. The desire of goodness, a moral factor, was the most important. But the two other non-moral factors also greatly pressured this decision. I am one of those people who find it hard to stop a habit. My habits include my compulsive prayers. My fear of hell was also greater than my desire for truth.

If you look at it, making this decision may exclude moral concerns. Changing my beliefs isn’t anyone else’s business but mine. No one is involved here. Personally, something is immoral for me if it hurts others. So if this decision doesn’t basically involve anyone, then this may not hurt others. Therefore, whatever my decision would be, it can’t be immoral.

However, with a deeper reflection, we can see that somehow, it could affect how I deal with others. My faith is concerned here. It seems personal but it can be outgoing. It could affect others. How? My faith defines my perspective in life. This perspective affects how I deal with people. Thus, my beliefs can influence my actions towards others. So making a decision involving my beliefs will concern morality.

No matter how decision-making looks harmless, there would somehow be morals involved. They should be considered even if these morals are concerned to a little extent. On the other hand, one shouldn’t also be too fanatic with morality. Besides, life cannot be reduced to a set of morals. My desire for goodness has done well with my decision. But what if I also paid too much attention with the other moral desire, which is to find the truth? If I did, I might have not settled on a decision yet and written about it in this paper.