Growing Young

I’m coming to believe that human thought goes through three phases on individual and societal levels.  Humans begin in intellectual childhood.  They believe the things they’ve been told.  They are limited by rules and driven by fear.  Some societies and individuals remain in childhood.  Often they do this because those entrusted to lead them seek only to exploit them.  Whether it’s a communist government or a denominational board, codependent leadership must jealously defend the naiveté (pronounced “orthodoxy”) of their constituents.

Beyond childhood, humans can develop into adolescence.  Those in this stage break out into individual thought and personal gratification.  They rely on peers and mistrust established authority.  They rabidly question assumptions and delight to liberate “children” from them.  While more aware than children, intellectual adolescents have their own blind spots especially to the limits of their own perspective.  For minds to progress they must go through some form of adolescence.  Sadly, some people remain in adolescence indefinitely.  One example would be Richard Dawkins and his sympathizers.

Should a person somehow find the humility to continue learning past adolescence, he or she will move on into intellectual adulthood.  At this level, a person has faced struggles and had the rough edges knocked off.  More than once, he or she has had to admit that much of what they were told while in childhood was in fact true though misunderstood or misinterpreted.  Intellectual adults have discovered a world outside their own minds where others’ ideas and needs disallow the luxury afforded to the critic.

My prayer for all of us is that our minds can grow up.  After all, Jesus told us to love God with our minds as well.


  1. Good.

    Kind of like Jean Vanier’s 3 (major) phases of entering into community;

    1. “These people are so wonderful, so spiritual, so smart.”

    2. “These people (same as in 1.) are a bunch of lazy sinners and must be demon possessed.”

    3. “I think I’m just like these people.”


      1. Higgs boson is very really, very tangible, it’s been observed and has been verified. In time more answers will be discovered and the myth of religion will be shown for what it really is, folklore and fables.

        1. Hey HH, I’ve looked into it and I agree. It seems that Higgs boson is a real particle. That’s very cool. I celebrate the discovery along with you. Of course, I’m going to reserve judgement on its existence a little longer since scientists are still a bit tentative about it saying that while they have discovered a new particle they’re as yet unsure as to whether it is the one proposed by Peter Higgs. Either way, Higgs boson has zero potential of nullifying the existence of God since, if it exists, He created it. Ha! On the other hand, it seems to me that the existence of elementary particles gives further indication that there are more things in heaven and earth than fit into our philosophy. As scientists discover more about our universe, they will further confirm the existence of the God of the Bible. “The heavens declare the glory of God.”
          Truth has nothing to fear from inquiry. So go for it! If you want to talk about old superstitions which have been disproven by scientific discovery, I suggest you take a look at Darwinism.
          The fact that you find a dilemma between the existence of Higgs boson and God suggests that your concept of God is too small.
          That you think mere humans can disprove God indicates that your god is too small.
          That you place your hope in an infinitesimal particle, makes your “god” very small indeed.
          Higgs boson proves that there are unseen realities with ultimate significance. Buy in, my friend!

  2. Great reply SS, I love the fact you are open to things even though you have your own take on matters. I guess scientists are being tentative as you say, Higgs boson is confirmed but they are blowing whistles and banging gongs, much more research needs to be carried out but it seems they now have a platform and evidence in which they can move forward. All science is based on theory until proven which is why I find the trial and error process interesting, for the record I was awful at science at school, I was more your Art, History and dare I say it Religious studies student, though I only studied the latter for one year, the tutor was quite upset when I didn’t continue.

    Again on theory, and it does annoy me when people who have studied psychology seem to instantly become an authority on how people behave, most psychological theories are just that – a theory.

    As for you saying confirming god and the bible, well we can confirm the bible though we cannot verify vast amounts of its content and many of it clashes with external history. Much of the early bible was edited during the Constantine era, it was he who used the cross as symbolism and his standards, it was Constantine that burnt other books and purged pagans, during his reign we also get much imagery of christ and saints. Constantine is a key figure worthy of a blog on his own, so I’ll leave this thread here on that on.

    Confirming god? Hmmm well what ever I say here you will probably retort with ‘look around, god is evident etc’ because that’s what you believe, A Jainist, Muslim, Sikh or Pagan would have their own outlooks, all of course differing to ours.

    I’m not sure referencing the particle ‘as my god’ is that valid, I’m excited about it sure but I’m by no means revering it as a god.

    Do I think in due course man will disprove god or gods, a resounding yes. Do I think people will stop believing in gods, a flat no.

    Man needs science to progress and survive, whether it is a cure for cancer, discovering new fuels or new surgery techniques, the list is endless. If we relied on god all the time, as the past 2000 years has demonstrated, if he does exist then he’s continually let us down.

  3. Hey HH, great to hear back from you. Great conversation. I love learning new things and hearing the ideas of others. Facts don’t lie and they don’t contradict. People disagree over the way they organize the facts into paradigms. I think you and I would share common disdain for Constantine but we would interpret his significance in different ways. We need our paradigms to help us make sense of the world but they are bound to our biases. That’s why we need to pay attention to the perspectives of others. Thanks for sharing your perspective. Now, how about you look into some evidence which may challenge your paradigm. Check out George Muller
    I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Comments are closed.