One of the things that some of the more hard-core atheists pride themselves on is being firmly placed in reality. The argument is that because theists choose to believe in something not verifiable by modern science, they are delusional. A delusional person is not in touch with reality. There are atheists who use this as a reason to argue that they are superior to theists. If by reality they mean “only that which is verifiable by modern science,” it would seem that they are correct. However, reality is more than just what is observable.
There is a great deal that can be experienced in the natural world that cannot be measured or verified by the scientific method. Just as much as the ground under you feet, your dreams, thoughts, and feelings are aspects of reality. Artwork, fiction, poetry, music, and acting each can illuminate truth that cannot be defined empirically, but can be felt. In our dreams and within any works of artistic endeavors there is a sense of “realness” that is immeasurable.
Reality is fluid - it takes the shape of the container in which you place it. The shape of your reality’s “container” is dictated by your paradigm. A paradigm is a filter through which you experience reality; it is the accumulation of preferences, prejudices, and protocol shaped both by physical ability and experience. Language is a key factor to an individual paradigm, as is childhood memories.
In the same way your paradigm shapes your reality, it also limits your reality. One bucket full of water is not an accurate representative of all the forms which water can take; in the same way your paradigm is not representative of the fullness of reality. Every paradigm is flawed or missing some aspect of reality. However, this does not mean that every paradigm is equal. To continue my metaphor, Lake Michigan is a lot closer to representing all the forms of water than a bucket of water. Broader paradigms, although still limited, are more accurate than narrow paradigms.
Science attempts to utilize one of the broadest paradigm possible by including only those ideas which can be tested and verified by a community of peers. However, this is still a paradigm, as it is limited to the scope of our ability to perceive the physical world, and does not include those phenomena that are immeasurable. One day science may progress so far as to be able to measure and understand even those phenomena which are currently outside its paradigm. However, to reject the fundamental reality of those things which remain untestable simply due to one paradigm’s limitations is short sighted.
The Divine is one of those aspects of reality which does not fit so neatly into every paradigm. It is so often reinterpreted and misunderstood as a result of our individual paradigms that no single broad paradigm can reach consensus with a majority of people. As a result, it is often easier to exclude that concept from our mutual paradigm. Could this be because the Divine truly does not exist? Is the Divine nothing more than myth?
It is true that one of the reasons why the concept of the Divine has not reached consensus could be due to the Divine not being real in a universal sense, but rather be real a limited individual sense. If this were the case, non-theists would have a valid argument against theism in all forms. Still, when the whole of human history is looked at in an honest manner, you cannot help but notice the consistency in which the Divine manifests itself in every culture. There is another possible reason why the Divine remains so consistent in human cultures, yet is so subject to individual opinion; it could be that when we talk about God or the Divine, we are really referencing to the ultimate reality which no single paradigm can adequately explain.
Might I be wrong? Of course, but I don’t think that is adequate reason to not expand my own paradigm beyond that provided by modern science. Albert Einstein had once said “All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man’s life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.” Limiting our paradigm to one branch of reality or another limits us as individual human beings and as a species. It is worth risking being wrong.
Temple Photo by Neal McQuaid. Blue Liquid Photo by Anticline. Bar Plaque Photo by Bruno Girin.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
February 8th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Yeah well, Ok. I sort of get your point. You do seem to suggest that science rejects ’spirituality’ as not real i some way and I don’t think that is true at all. Science accepts such things as love, art, poetry as having a ‘reality’. Science knows that when we feel fear or jealousy, it is ‘real’. But these are abstract concepts and yes, their reality is a personal thing - a response of our own psyche. Are you saying that religion is such? Simply a construct of the mind? I would agree with that but that ain’t what most religions claim. They claim a real God. A entity that exists and can cause physical effects on earth. Not an abstract idea that only exists in the eye of the beholder. All cultures have members that feel love, hate, fear and can behold the beauty of a sunset. But that doesn’t make emotional responses tangible or ‘real’. They are just things we feel. I suggest God is nothing more than that, a funny feeling we get when we contemplate our existence on a beautiful but insignificant planet.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
The problem here is that ‘objective’ and ’subjective’ are understood in a silly way. Objective can’t mean independant of human thought - how would we process it or even know about it?
The idea that beauty or taste are subjective doesn’t mean that the painting and food aren’t ‘objectively’ real - neither does our subjective response to god prove that god doesn’t exist.
I think It is important in this discussion to understand that people are talking about something when they say ‘god’. Differences can be disguised by one word (consider all the colours covered by ‘green’). To move forward I think we need to start examining and clarifying our experience - what we mean when we say ‘god’.
As to real effects, miracles or what have you. The most convincing are those which are distinctly individual and not replicable in a lab. A for instance: a friend of mine knew who was phoning them before they picked up the phone, he did this reliably hundreds of times and would say “hi” to the person before they had spoken. (He stopped doing this because it freaked people out.) These kinds of things are well outside the province of the lab but I find personally convincing. Rupert Sheldrake has tried testing these kinds of things (though he calls the reality a “morphogenic field” or something rather than ‘god’). The other part of the story is that many theist regard ‘god’ as part of the process and not exterior to it - ‘god’ suspending natural law works with outmoded ideas of ‘god’ and science.
Let’s move the discussion on to what our experience is, what our words describe, what we mean when we say ‘god’. I hope this comment can help to do that.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Hi John,
I’ll say up front that I had trouble reading this from your first couple of sentences. I’m a non-theist. I don’t feel that theists are delusional - they just have a different sort of faith than I do. I don’t feel “superior” to them, I’m just in a different space. And, yes, I do have a concept of the Divine that works for me most of the time - I just don’t call it God.
Having gotten that out of the way, I think you’re right about there being an ultimate reality - but I would suggest that the concept of the Divine is not consistent across cultures. There are differences that aren’t always analogous to the Western “Judeo-Christian heritage.” I’m also concerned about the apparent science vs. religion slant here. Are you meaning to suggest that science and religion are fundamentally opposed because the operate on different paradigms? If so, I would disagree - I think both are ways of seeking truth (small ‘t’) and need not be in opposition.
February 10th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Hello Dave,
Yes, I am saying that religion is construct of the mind. I am also saying that “God” is a concept that has basis in the “real”. I don’t tend to believe in a Divine Source that takes the form of an old man shooting lightning bolts from his arse, but I do believe in something greater than ourselves that gives meaning and purpose to our lives. I would argue that emotional responses are no less “real” to the human psyche than rational thought… but that is yet another discussion all together. My point is, no one has a monopoly on the truth.
Hello Evan,
You… said a lot there that I’m still digesting. I may even write a post about it. I don’t think I’ve ever thought of this issue in that way. Thank you - I will definitely be thinking about what you said.
Hello Earthbound Spirit,
Um… yeah, I made a mistake. I used a blanket statement when I shouldn’t have; I’m sorry. I will change that. In regards to treating Science and Spirituality as opposites, that wasn’t the point I was trying to get across. What is seen as being in opposition to each other under one paradigm can be seen as being two halves of one harmonious whole in another. It all depends on the size of your paradigm.
Namaste To You All.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Hi John.
Looking forward to more about this. I think it is a very important issue for our culture.
April 15th, 2008 at 7:01 am
[...] John Crovis is a young man, sharing his spiritual insight and journey into ministry on his blog, The Pageless Book. If you enjoyed this article, please subscribe to his feed or read one of his other articles such as The Nature Of Reality. [...]