A fellow professor and I meet once a week to discuss the world. It usually ascends to the topic of man, god, and the universe at some point. We essentially agree in the basic premise that we are ice cubes floating down the river. For him, that is all, he eventually melts. I, on the other hand, join his perspective with my own: “We are all ice cubes descending down the river to the sea.
In the above analogy, God is water and the ocean. Like all water on planet Earth, we all join the sea. Some of us go through glaciers, other rain. This joins with the metaphor of fate being the river, and agency being your choice whether to swim upward or downward, or to stay steady. Nonetheless, this week our conversation branched out into the philosophies included in this simple perspective.
We talked about contemporary authors Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. The former writes “God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.” (Hitchens, 2007) While the latter pens “The God Delusion.” (Dawkins, 2006). They each publish powerful critiques of religion and god respectively. Ironically, they are criticizing all art through examining finger painting.
What I mean by this, is that they take the definitions of god which come from the basic religions rather than detailing the deeper concept of the nature of reality. Put simply, God does not come from religion. These codifications and commodifications of God come from humanity as a way of organizing themselves. The Professor asked if I would eliminate all religion. I laughed and said of course not. These are two equally balanced and opposing forces, science and religion.
Ultimately science leads to utilitarianism, or the idea that justice is the most good for the most people. Religion leads to wars and slavery as well. Both are wrong at the extremes, just as heat is healthy but supernovae are unhealthy. True power comes from the balance, the sweet spot where the two poles balance and resist, where two magnets of the same pole resist each other.
Nonetheless, what is the core of what we are saying here? What we state is that God is the infinite and everlasting which is present in all places at all times. Some call this the energy of the universe, others the laws which govern it. Neither is entirely right. The Absolute infinite is where the concept of deity descended from. Intellectuals with the capabilities of Dawkins and Hitchens contrast the basic tenets of elementary spirituality with secondary school science.
A more powerful comparison comes from examining graduate science and graduate spirituality. When a thinker does make this level of investigation, he or she finds that the two fields intersect quite nicely. The gift of great minds is to find the bridge and the unity even if they must travel through division. It is easy to divide, difficult to unite. I was born and raised by avowed atheists and I deeply examine both perspectives. Once I found the bridge I found peace.
One thing Hitchens and Dawkins clearly show is that division is becoming too expensive on planet earth. It lies upon leaders to bring people together rather than to divide them. I hope to share my journey to peace. Although it is no milquetoast path, no worthwhile ones are.
Reference:
Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. New York: Houghton Miffin
Hitchens, Christoper (2007). God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Newy York: Hachette Book Group
“These codifications and commodifications of God come from humanity as a way of organizing themselves”
But ultimately, like old knowledge are they not a by-product of human superstition stemming from non-scientific approach to understanding of the world?
“These are two equally balanced and opposing forces, science and religion.”
They are not equal or balanced – science has way more credibility than religion because it relies on the verification of evidence.
“True power comes from the balance [between science and religion], the sweet spot where the two poles balance and resist, where two magnets of the same pole resist each other.”
I think to some extent this analogy is an oversimplification of a very complicated issue.
“The Absolute infinite is where the concept of deity descended from” I’m sure people worshipped the sun at some point – how can you be sure that the concept of the deity came from infinity (incidentally not an “Absolute”).
“When a thinker does make this level of investigation, he or she finds that the two fields intersect quite nicely. The gift of great minds is to find the bridge and the unity even if they must travel through division. Once I found the bridge I found peace.”
I would be interested to find out where pure belief and rigorously tested evidence intersect? On is rational and the other is not – where do you find the “bridge”?
“These codifications and commodifications of God come from humanity as a way of organizing themselves”
But ultimately, like old knowledge are they not a by-product of human superstition stemming from non-scientific approach to understanding of the world?
“These are two equally balanced and opposing forces, science and religion.”
They are not equal or balanced – science has way more credibility than religion because it relies on the verification of evidence.
“True power comes from the balance [between science and religion], the sweet spot where the two poles balance and resist, where two magnets of the same pole resist each other.”
I think to some extent this analogy is an oversimplification of a very complicated issue.
“The Absolute infinite is where the concept of deity descended from” I’m sure people worshipped the sun at some point – how can you be sure that the concept of the deity came from infinity (incidentally not an “Absolute”).
“When a thinker does make this level of investigation, he or she finds that the two fields intersect quite nicely. The gift of great minds is to find the bridge and the unity even if they must travel through division. Once I found the bridge I found peace.”
I would be interested to find out where pure belief and rigorously tested evidence intersect? On is rational and the other is not – where do you find the “bridge”?
As I said before, what is the only evidence that you can be sure of?
That you exist.
Everything else is just a projection of your consciousness. You cannot even prove that you exist. This is the only unbreakable absolute.
It is an absolute that you exist for there is nowhere you can imagine without the existence of the “you” which is congnizing or obeserving it.
Thus, even the so called greatest of scientific truths cannot even withstand this logic. It does not exist without you. Even I do not exist except as a conception in YOUR awareness.
The question, is where does this absolute intersect with the model of reality which you are acting from.
Great post.
Gouthum
Gouthum, thanksforyour reply.
“As I said before, what is the only evidence that you can be sure of?
That you exist.
Everything else is just a projection of your consciousness. You cannot even prove that you exist. This is the only unbreakable absolute.”
I’m afriad this is not valid argument for the pratcial purposes stated by this essay. Why? because to argue about a bridge between religion and science, you have to make the assumption that they both exist in the first place.
I understand the philosophy behind what you are saying and in fact by your very own argument you cannot prove that you exist either – since every thing – even your very own existence is subjective from your very own viewpoint. Conciousness can be postulated as an illusion too – but then when we start getting this objective, everything becomes meaningless and all arguments break down.
“Thus, even the so called greatest of scientific truths cannot even withstand this logic. It does not exist without you. Even I do not exist except as a conception in YOUR awareness.”
The whole point of science is to gain an objective understanding so that we can test if the same “truth” holds for multiple observers and multiple subjective entities. As the number of correlatory subjectice experiences tends to infinity, we get an absolute truth. That is why there are no universal objecitve truths in the first place – only theories and evidence. In that regard religion has no evidence and science relies upon it. Hope you understand the difference.
cheers for the reply 🙂
oh dear.I’ve just read that you are a “Reiki Master”, in light of this I shall have to end this debate.
I commend you on your inquiry and hope your own path of critical inquiry will lead you to a greater understanding of the difference between irrational and rational beliefs.
kind regards,
anon.
Two things:
1. oh dear.I’ve just read that you are a “Reiki Master”, in light of this I shall have to end this debate.
I commend you on your inquiry and hope your own path of critical inquiry will lead you to a greater understanding of the difference between irrational and rational beliefs.”
This is a veiled ad hominem attack by.
2. The point of the discussion is to find an absolute reference point. Even if consciousness is posited as an illusion, who or what is it posited by? The entity doing the positing is omnipresent. This is an absolute reference point.
Although the debate has descended into a character attack by some individual, I feel that we are in agreement more than disagreement. I feel that this person wishes to debunk “religion” as a whole, an extremely easy proposition.
What I seek to do is to find a common reaoning point. That point is the consciousness. Given that this exists, it can actually be used to find common ground between those that go by their “feeling” and those their “reason.”
I am not some slouch, I attended UC Berkeley and am both and Engineer and a Soldier by trade. First and foremost I am a scientist. I approach myself with the same detachment as any argument presented to me. This information has enabled me to see others’ points of view in a way that is useful.
As an example, the person who posted their attack above feels that something about me must be irrational if I am a “Reikimaster.” All I can say is that in my experience the treatment and modality works. By the anonymous argument above that comment, an objective result “validates” this method.
How, or why something works is not always as important as the fact that it does. I have not posted anything on the validity of Reiki for that matter. I leave it up to the clients. If it is psychological healing it does not matter.
Many experiments show that the mental aspect of healing is as important as the physical. I am not saying to use Reiki over a gunshot wound rather than to go to the emergency room, both of my parents are MDs for that matter. What I am saying, is that it does not hurt, and it often helps.
As a free offer of wisdom to quiet the disturbance in my awareness, I want to say that humanity needs all of its critical thinking skills. I try to remind myself not to criticize the individual person rather the methodology or faulty reasoning that leads him or her to violate his or her OWN principles.
“1) 2. The point of the discussion is to find an absolute reference point. Even if consciousness is posited as an illusion, who or what is it posited by?
for an explanation The entity doing the positing is omnipresent. This is an absolute reference point.””
This is not a requirement for conciousness, rather a human longing (leading to the artificial creation of a deity). Let’s make it clearer: You are postulating that an omnipresent entity for which there has never been any evidence for in the entire history of the earth and which we can prove is an interpretation of a subjective experience is to be used as an absolute reference point.” I’m sorry, but that postulation is inherently flawed on many levels.
“All I can say is that in my experience the treatment and modality works. By the anonymous argument above that comment, an objective result “validates” this method.”
The reason I wrote that the debate was over was because, if you believe in Reiki, you might as well believe in anything. Just because you believe in Reiki does not mean you are ignorant or uneducated. I have seen your scientific credentals. But I can see that you have not applied the scientific method to Reiki itself. All I said in post is that this will come, in time, and is your journey. I am not insulting you and have found your essay interesting and well written.
There is not an objective result for Reiki and that practice has been scientifically proven to have no effect over placebo. There isn’t even a sound hypothesis based on any evidence of efficacy to accompany the practice. But, I’m not going to argue with you over Reiki as I feel I would be wasting both our time. One thing I learnt is that many scientists with analytical minds can compartmentalise their beliefs so you can often find incredibly intelligent people who have quirky beliefs which don’t follow the same rationality as their chosen science field. As I said, before, I commend your inquiry and in time, you’ll dig deeper into your supernatural beliefs and find new realisations.
I wish you all the best,
regards,
Anon.
I agree to disregard the Reiki for it is anecdotal. Although no mention is made in the response above about my statement that it may be “psychological.”
Furthermore:
“This is not a requirement for conciousness, rather a human longing (leading to the artificial creation of a deity). Let’s make it clearer:
You are postulating that an omnipresent entity for which there has never been any evidence for in the entire history of the earth and which we can prove is an interpretation of a subjective experience is to be used as an absolute reference point.”
-I’m sorry, but that postulation is inherently flawed on many levels.”
The omniprsent entity is YOU, not some outside imagined deity. It is impossible to posit any experiment any idea or any so called results without your own subjective experience. Thus by definition, EVERYTHING is subjective.
Thus one must take account of his or her own inherent biases. For example, this post’s statement is biased toward imagined physical results. It is simple to see how everything that occurs in our external senses, to include repeatable experiments, are only aspects of our perspective.
Very simply if I remove your hearing are you still you? What about your sight? What about sense of taste, touch or smell? This entity that drives the senses, what is this thing? This is the source of all of our so called obeservations.
Hence, what I am saying, is that YOU are the absolute. In fact from your point of view, I do not even exist. I am a swirling bunch of probabilities which your awareness chooses to see as some genius typing on the Internet.
Thus, we cannot say that the world existed before us or will after us with any certainty. All we can say for sure, is that our awareness is here now. Your birth, death, parents, you name it, NONE OF THEM EXIST WITHOUT YOU TO COGNIZE.
I have no supernatural belief stronger than the belief that the physical world is real at all. Each moment in time is an arbitrarily chosen point. For example is water liquid, solid, or gas? Neither or all three, for each is time conditioned.
Again, as I said, Reiki may be psychological, and your consciousness is not based upon any longing. Remove any desires and sit quietly. This quiet entity, this is you, this is an absolute, meaning that there is no way to posit anything without its existence. If it does not exist, who did the positing? Even when no thinking or reasoning is present there is still an awareness of some sort.
This is the study of consciousness, the source of all sprirituality, which is really just philosophy applied to the subject, you, versus the object, what you perceive outside of this self.
Thank you for the fun this weekend. I would have responded sooner, but my spam blocker has been snagging comments.
G