If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning — just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning. Similarly, the fact that eyes exist suggests that light must exist. And the the fact that we have spiritual longings … the fact that we even have a meaningful category of thought and speech called spirituality … Suggests that there is some corresponding reality out there which we have the capacity to “sense”. That capacity would be called faith, and that reality, God.
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1943, p. 46)
The skeptic doubts one set of propositions because he believes another. None of us live with absolute, unassailable certainly about anything; we all live by faith. What someone thinks or feels absolutely certain of is really relative certainty. It’s certainty based on faith that they are right. The fact that they are certain is proof that they possess great faith. Likewise, one who doubts yet believes also demonstrates that some degree of faith is inescapable and runs through all that we claim to know.
Albert Einstein once said that there is no knowing without believing.
As far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
The supreme task of the physicist is the search for those highly universal laws from which a picture of the world can be obtained by pure deduction. There is no logical path leading to these laws. They are only to be reached by intuition, based upon something like an intellectual love.
The mechanics of discovery are neither logical nor intellectual. It’s a sudden illumination, almost a rapture. Later, to be sure, intelligence and analysis and experiment confirm (or invalidate) the intuition. But initially there is a great leap of the imagination.
— Albert Einstein
Faith isn’t something you either have or don’t have, but something that ebbs and flows in the life and soul of every individual. Doubt isn’t the opposite of faith. It’s an element of faith. Where there is absolute certainty, there can be no room for faith.
Like every human being, I’ve tried to make sense of things. I’m not sure I succeeded. I’m not sure anyone can.
Isaac Newton thought the universe functioned like clockwork, a well-oiled machine. That’s a comforting vision — neat, orderly, predictable. Unfortunately, it’s a vision that’s pretty much been shot to pieces by relativity, quantum mechanics, and the other bugaboos of twentieth century physics.
The universe is weird! We break our teeth developing theories, equations, systems. And where does it all leave us? “A system is like the tail of truth, but truth is like a lizard. It leaves its tail in your fingers and runs away, knowing full well that it will grow a new one in a twinkling.”*
* Chunovic, Chris-In-The-Morning
— Chris Stevens, CBS Television Show Northern Lights
Where has the wonder gone? I’m not talking about wonder as a verb… A question… As in… “have you ever wondered about…” or “I wonder what…”.
I’m interested in rediscovering Wonder as a noun… of finding that fascination and feeling of overwhelming joy when one encounters something marvelous…. Something extraordinary; or beautiful; or just … Wonderful. As paraphrased from Arthur C Clarks 2001 Space Odyssey…
Something’s going to happen. Something wonderful.
In this context, wonder isn’t something we do. It’s not an action. It’s a state of being… an experience… an observation of a state of reality.
In a way, this distinction is similar to the one we find ourselves in when we consider the state of the “scientific” within the Christian and other faith traditions.
Why does a debate between creation and science exist?
The debate itself doesn’t make any sense to me because I think that science is a gift that helps us to experience wonder, and though that gift to experience God. It’s not about proving whether or not God exists. It’s about finding the wonder in our physical existence and understanding that our physical existence itself is of God.
Sometimes scientific minds make the mistake of thinking we’ve figured it out and therefore there is no reason to explore further. However, if we continue to dig and go deeper we uncover more mystery… More wonder. When we manage to internalize that experience, we transform and have the opportunity to experience God.
The English physicist Sir William Bragg once said…
Sometimes people ask if religion and science are opposed to one another. They are — in the same sense that the thumb and fingers of my hand are opposed to one another. It is an opposition by means of which anything can be grasped.
What a brilliant analogy! Experiential paradox! It is only through the opposition that we can understand and grasp the wonder. It is only through the experience of pain and suffering that we can grasp the meaning of pleasure and joy. It is only through the experience of birth and the certainty of death that we can grasp and understand the wonder of our spiritual birth and timeless spiritual existence.
When I think about wonder, I begin to see that I frequently fall into the trap of thinking that God is a God of actions. That the concepts we attribute to him are concepts explained in language through the use of verbs.
God loves us… God forgives us…
Yet we struggle to accept this. We don’t understand how we can possibly be good enough for God to love us. We don’t understand how God can forgive us when we have done so much wrong in our lives and continue to do wrong despite good intentions. We struggle because we feel that if we fully accept God’s love and forgiveness… if we fully accept God’s grace… we will no longer have a reason for trying to live up to any type of standards. Why try if God will love us and forgive us no matter what?
The problem is that we are thinking of God’s love and forgiveness as actions that God does. And with an action that God would do, we assume that God must choose to either do it or not.
I think the mistake here is believing that God’s existence includes relating to us through the actions of loving and forgiving. Perhaps instead… God exists in a state of loving and forgiveness. God is love. God is forgiveness. He doesn’t chose to love us or forgive us. He simple is love and forgiveness, and because He wants relationship with us that relationship must exist in a state of love and forgiveness, because God exists in a state of love and forgiveness.
So, how do we manage to love God? Why do we need to do anything good, moral and right if God’s forgiveness is already there?
Again, as we ask these questions we slip into thinking about love and forgiveness as the relate to God, as actions rather than states of being. Perhaps what needs to happen, is that we need to experience transformation… to move from a place where we understand our love relationship with God as an action to a place where our love relationship with God is a state of being…. We move from a place where our faith relationship with God is no longer an action… we no longer act faithfully. Instead we are faithful. We transform our faith from action to state of being. We transform our love for God from the act of loving to living in a state of love.
In a similar way, we transform and stop trying to experience wonder within our existence. Instead we begin to live in wonder as a state of being.
Search the interweb and you’re bound to find posts regarding the Wachowski brothers 1999 film The Matrix and it’s theological underpinnings. Some have suggested that the movie carries hidden themes that are Christian, others say it’s Buddhist, and still others insist it’s pagan throughout. When asked about it the Wachowski’s have managed to allow everyone to believe what they want. Which is a great way to hype the film of course.
I was pondering the nature of spirit the other day — yes, it’s actually something I ponder — and for some reason made a connection to the Matrix story. I don’t think the authors had my thoughts in mind when they wrote it, but it turns out it serves as a good metaphor for what I’ve been turning over in my head.
Through many of my musings on this blog I’ve taken some time to explore the paradox we can find built into so many aspects of creation. We need look no further than our human existence for one example.
Most people I’ve talked to, regardless of their particular belief in an afterlife, do believe in the concept of the soul. I’ve even come across some who say they don’t believe in an afterlife at all, yet to do believe in a spirit life — hauntings, residual engeries – that sort of stuff.
I’ve long believed that our nature as humans was dualistic. Both physical and spiritual – each with it’s one view of existence. I think that most people today can easily relate to the physical being. The world we live in has a physical rhythm that is difficult to ignore. But, at the same time I feel that we are at our root spiritual beings.
From time to time I ponder a particular question in this regard: I acknowledge that I’ve lived my life from a physical viewpoint and perspective first with spiritual second. What would it be like if I were able to flip those around and live from a spirit first perspective? What would the world look like? What would life look like?
While thinking about this it occurred to me that I could use a concept from the Matrix movie as a metaphor for this idea.
What if …
My real existence – true reality – is spiritual rather than physical. The physical world, and consequently my humanity is designed as a container for my soul. The physical world becomes my matrix. If I manage to “unplug” from the physical, everyday world around me, I enter the world of spiritual first – a world where every thought and action is derived from a completely different point of view.
Like Neo, I choose the red pill. I choose to go down the rabbit hole. To try and be spirit aware foremost and to pass every conscious thought through that filter. It occurred to me just now as I was writing this that there may be other evidence that this is the real state of existence. Could dreams, dream states, extremely intense sessions of creativity, and other “altered states” be windows into the truth that we are meant to be unplugged from the trap that the physical world keeps us in. Certainly we have to still acknowledge it as long as we are breathing, but do we have to put it first? I don’t think so.
It also just occurred to me that Altered States is another movie that might have some metaphorical value when contemplating the paradox of my existence in this world.
I continue to be a little confused by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow’s book, The Grand Design.
Following from their work in this book Stephen Hawking uses their theories to explain why it’s possible for the universe to have begun spontaneously, created from nothing. From this basis Hawking postulates that being able to use the laws of physics and nature to describe how the universe could have sprung into being is sufficient to explain that it could not have been created by God.
I’ve long had a problem with this idea because it seemed to ignore the questions of what came before and how this could be. Yet I figure out a way to explain why it wasn’t sitting right. I understood what my issues with the theory were, but I couldn’t find appropriate language to explain it.
I recently read a response by Gerald Schroeder which I feel goes a long way toward explaining why I felt something was seriously wrong with Dr. Hawking’s conclusions. The paradox is that Mr. Hawking has demonstrated very eloquently that the laws of nature must have existed prior to the big bang and the creation of the physical universe. In my view, there is no difference between “laws of nature” and God. The “laws of nature” are God and God is the laws of nature. Thus, Mr. Hawking has provide us with a theory supporting the existence of God (nature) by showing us how nature (God) could have caused the physical universe to spontaneously spring into being.
In “The Big Bang Creation: God or the Laws of Nature” Schroeder explains it best…
The Grand Design breaks the news, bitter to some, that … to create a universe from absolute nothing God is not necessary. All that is needed are the laws of nature.
there can have been a big bang creation without the help of God, provided the laws of nature pre-date the universe. Our concept of time begins with the creation of the universe. Therefore if the laws of nature created the universe, these laws must have existed prior to time; that is the laws of nature would be outside of time. What we have then is totally non-physical laws, outside of time, creating a universe. Now that description might sound somewhat familiar. Very much like the biblical concept of God: not physical, outside of time, able to create a universe.
My opinion is simply stated. Being physical, we know and relate everything to our physical world. God is alien to us in this regard. Being spiritual and not physical we cannot and should not try to fit the experiential possibilities of God into the constraints of our physical world. Understanding this, it follows that if we can track the evolution of our physical world back in time to a singular point where it all began, and we base our understanding of this beginning on the laws of nature and physics that we observe to govern our physical world, that we must conclude that something occurred to bring about the laws of nature and physics and were necessary to bring about the physical world. If the laws of nature and physics are not physical in and of themselves, perhaps we can think of them as spiritual. If the laws of nature and physics are spiritual then perhaps we can think of them as God.
What do you think?