God of the Gaps

Scientific pursuits reveal answers to many questions mankind asks. While fresh facts are amassed by seconds, it is arguable whether science has brought us closer to the truth.
What is truth? Back to the ancient philosophical question.
A Christian scientist once remarked that scientists are climbing their way to the top of a mountain. They overcome the obstacles one by one - but when they are about to remove the last obstacles near the summit, they find theologians have been sitting there for centuries awaiting them.
Assuming that science is bringing us closer to the truth, the peak of the mountain, they may never reach it since at the summit it is God - and God is not supposed to be comprehensible since He is God; Christian philosophers would say.
While this speaks about the greatness of God and such, scientists then may counter it with the accusation that Faith is simply filling out the gaps that science has not yet been unable to fill. This may be true to both believers and scientists but the problem lies in whether Science is eventually able to fill those gaps?
If it is able to, then Faith turns out to be a deception and is merely a temporary filling of the gaps, waiting for Science to push it out of the gaps and replace it.
If it is not, then Faith is valid; it explains the unexplainable - it is supposed to be.
Yet another problem arises: How would we know whether Science is able to fill those gaps?
Exactly. We wouldn't know. We don't even know whether we are at the right track to approach the truth in the first place.
On this issue pure scientists and believers are still divided. Yet many people simply embrace Science and Faith. Indeed, if seen another way, the two can be thought as complements. One explains the explainable and the other explains the unexplainable. I personally think that Science can only done up to a limit and the rest it is up to faith. Science is human tool after all. Humans are limited. It follows that so is Science.
On another note, the concept of 'god of the gaps' is sometimes misused. At times things unexplainable are quick to be dismissed as part of divine knowledge. It is true that we are limited but where that limit is we are still uncertain.
So we have to be aware that it is a spectrum. You just have to choose where to stand. The wise will of course choose "everything in moderation".

Paradox of the Trinity

In rhetoric, prominent contradictory figures of speech are: paradox, oxymoron and antithesis. Lesser known are contradictio interminus and anachronism.

Let's focus on paradox.
Many dictionaries don't define paradox properly. Let's see one:
par·a·dox (pār'ə-dŏks') Pronunciation Key
n.

1. A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true: the paradox that standing is more tiring than walking.
2. One exhibiting inexplicable or contradictory aspects: "The silence of midnight, to speak truly, though apparently a paradox, rung in my ears" (Mary Shelley).
3. An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises.
4. A statement contrary to received opinion.

"paradox." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.

The key points to the meaning of paradox are 'seemingly contradictory' and 'nevertheless true'. However, how it is it true but contradictory? In my own understanding, the contradiction in a paradox lie on different planes (Yes, Margaret Atwood again, context is all). Thus, they are only 'seemingly' contradictory but they cannot be compared in the first place because of different contexts. For example consider my last post titled 'Paradox'. The paradox is obvious: I hate you but I love you. At a glance, the conflict is glaring - but if you think deeper it is fairly obvious that when the hatred arises hypothetically, when the person addressed were to disappear or the like.
So how about the paradox of the Holy Trinity? Three in One, One in Three.
From literary and philosophical point of views, again we can argue that the conflicting elements belong to different planes, different contexts. There are many famous analogies concerning the Trinity. I shall list some and also explain the limitations of each:
1) The father, the driver and the businessman
So imagine your father. When he is driving a car he is a driver. When he is dealing with his business, he is a businessman. Filially, he is your father. Voilà! Three but one, ain't it?
No.
In fact, for theologians, this is considered one of the weakest or even misleading analogy.
This is because it is wrong. 'Father' is one person while the Trinity is three different entities. When Jesus was baptised, Holy Spirit came down in the form of a dove and there was a voice from the heaven. So there are three persons. However, this analogy is correct in saying that there are different roles in in the Trinity (But, isn't this obvious? There are three Persons, of course three different roles).
2) The Shamrock leaf, a triangle
Three leaflets but one leaf. Three sides but one triangle. Though depicting the separateness and equality of the three entities, it doesn't highlight their distinctiveness.
A triangle might be more favourable since the concept is more coherent. If one sees a broken Shamrock leaf, he can tell that it is a broken Shamrock leaf. But once a triangle, say lose one of its sides, you can't call it a triangle, can you?
3) Three lines stacked
Draw a line. Draw another line of the same length superimposed with the first one. Draw a third line also superimposed. So how many lines now? Three or one?
I like the third analogy because it best reflects the confusion caused by the paradox. In (1) and (2) the contradictions are not so obvious anymore and the paradoxical meaning disappears.
In any case, the confusion is what should be at the conclusion. Jastrow once said something like this: scientists have reached the summit where they have to remove the last obstacle to the highest peak and they are greeted with the theologians already sitting there for centuries.
What I mean is that God is incomprehensible, that's why He is God. If we can comprehend God, then He is not God at all. So the final obstacle is the incomprehensible God.
So let's see a paradox from a theological point of view.
Ever heard of dual behaviour of light or electron? Light and electron both behave as waves and particles. If you understand physics, this is clearly a paradox. But the important thing is that the contradiction is there because of our current knowledge is limited to comprehend it fully. The light or electron in itself do not have contradicting elements or else they would not exist.
So it is with God. To us the Trinity seems like a a paradox but it is so because our human knowledge is limited to fully comprehend God.
So: If you are trying to fully comprehend the incomprehensible God, you are being paradoxical.

Spectrum

Humans are complicated. Since there are so many variables involved, things are oftentimes not clear-cut.
The most prominent example would be good and evil. What about the grey areas? Most ethical issues are difficult to categorise into either one, if possible at all.
However, we often like to separate things into two polar opposites for convenience. In Secondary level Chemistry we are taught that three distinct types of bonds: ionic, covalent and metallic. But in tertiary education, we are taught that they are just the tips of three triangles, thus they are not distinct but a three-ended spectrum. For convenience, students are taught a simplified concept then the concept is built up.
But again, since everything can be considered a spectrum to some extent (if you understand, pardon the pun), that consideration can be abused. For example, I once heard a speaker talking about how everyone is crazy. Of course this was shocking, but once he explained that everyone is crazy to different degree, you understand that he is talking about sane-insane spectrum. Everyone is placed between the two ends and if you take the perspective from the insane end of course everyone is insane, right? So his statement was justified, but for what purpose? The only purpose is to make people realise that things lie in spectra but the talk that time had no such philosophical context. <*Sigh*> Context is all, Margaret Atwood says.
So I already give you two ends of a spectrum: one end is the ignorance that things are spectra and the other end is the full realisation that everything is a spectrum and overuse of this realisation.
So? Pick your place in that spectrum. Don't forget the advice of the wise - everything in moderation.

Reciprocation

So
When I hold them in
the feelings I mean
I thought
"What about
the other end?"
Can't imagine you
Going through the same pain
the same longing?
Or none at all-
Although I never hope
It's impossible
-again, why you?-
but on the back of my mind
there is always
desperate hope
of reciprocation

Narcissists

Discussing about vanity with a friend reminded me of a curious story of Narcissus in the prologue of The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho, a very entertaining bildungsroman. Here it is:

Prologue
The Alchemist picked up a book that someone in
the caravan had brought. Leafing through the pages,
he found a story about Narcissus.
The alchemist knew the legend of Narcissus, a youth
who daily knelt beside a lake to contemplate his own beauty.
He was so fascinated by himself that, one morning, he fell
into the lake and drowned. At the spot where he fell, a flower
was born, which was called the narcissus.
But this was not how the author of the book ended the
story.
He said that when Narcissus died, the Goddesses of the
Forest appeared and found the lake, which had been fresh
water, transformed into a lake of salty tears.
"Why do you weep?" the Goddesses asked.
"I weep for Narcissus," the lake replied.
"Ah, it is no surprise that you weep for Narcissus," they
said, "for though we always pursued him in the forest, you
alone could contemplate his beauty close at hand."
"But..... was Narcissus beautiful?" the lake asked.
"Who better than you to know that?" the Goddesses said
in wonder, "After all, it was by your banks that he knelt each
day to contemplate himself!!"
The lake was silent for some time.
Finally it said:
"I weep for Narcissus, but I never noticed that Narcissus
was beautiful. I weep because, each time he knelt beside my
banks, I could see, in the depths of his eyes, my own beauty
reflected."
"What a lovely story," the alchemist thought.

Paradox

Hate you
when I see you
my heart skips a beat
Hate you
your smile
it just
renders me defenseless
Hate you
those sleepless nights
thinking about you
Why
has it to be you?
When we meet
those silent moments
do you realise
how much I'm looking forward
to them?
When we part
that sight of your back
feel like
reaching out a hand
hold you in my arms
never to let go
Really, really
hate you
because you make me feel this way
(They say
hate and love
differ by one seventh of a hair's breadth)