I can’t prove anything
Sean over at CosmicVariance recently posted a blog entry in response to a question posed a few years ago. The question was What Do You Believe Is True Even Though You Cannot Prove It?
This is something that I’ve thought about a lot since recently beginning to explore spiritual pathways. I stopped believing in God long ago; my scientific upbringing was such that the Christian idea of God didn’t fit, and since I had little exposure to any other idea of God, I believed it was likely that God didn’t exist at all. However my scientific upbringing also prevented me from being certain that God didn’t exist.
The common misconception is that science deals with proving things to be true. That’s incorrect, science can only prove a theory to be invalid, it can never prove a theory to be correct; there is always the possibility that a core assumption of that theory is incorrect, which could be revealed by new data produced by subsequent experiments and observations. The theory itself could also be flawed, and the flaw revealed by someone with a greater understanding, or clearer insight, than those who originally proposed and accepted the theory.
However, I think it is reasonable to believe in a theory if it agrees with all the data gathered through observation. There may be competing theories, but it is always the simplest one, which agrees with the greatest amount of data, which is commonly held to be the most accurate theory.
In the last year I’ve been exposed to many people, including Steve Pavlina, who believe that all of reality is a single consciousness of which we, and everything else in the universe, are an interlinked part. It’s a twist on solipsism which moves the solipsistic mind from a human individual to a universal entity, and incorporates all invididuals into that entity.
It’s a powerful belief because it places not only control of the individual in the individual’s hands, but control of the universe itself, via the universal consciousness. On the surface it seems a limitless belief because it defines everything as subjective, where the universal consciousness is the object, and everything within the universe is the subject, under direct control of the universe itself. Paradoxically this means object and subject are one; non-duality.
As empowering as this belief is, it’s one that I don’t uphold because it doesn’t match the data gathered through observation. There is no empirical evidence which demonstrates the existence of a universal consciousness. Thus the existing data doesn’t match the theory. Those who believe the theory’s accuracy cite personal experience as evidence. However personal experience can’t be quantified, can’t be verified, and thus can’t be used as valid data.
It’s a belief based on faith, not on science, and so it’s not a belief I can adopt without undermining the foundations of science. Mind you I would have no problem with undermining the foundations of science if there were rational cause to do so, as many scientists have done in the past by disproving previous commonly accepted theories.
It’s a challenging belief which is comparable to the matrix-style fantasy; bodies locked in cells in massive towers while the mind of each body is convinced, via an almost perfect simulation, that it exists inside a body in a real world. Unlike this fantasy, subjective reality proposes that we are not locked in a cell and that we have limitless potential just waiting to be realised.
It’s a dangerous belief because it could be easily misinterpreted to propose that we, individually, have limitless power. The ability to fly, if only we believed it completely.
Ultimately it’s a belief for which all the anecdotal evidence I’ve heard of can be explained by more rational and verifiable means which don’t require the existence of a God-like entity. Or, simply can’t be explained yet. The theory of subjective reality may be used as an explanation, but in terms of understanding reality, or of living my life, an explanation which can’t be verified is as useful as no explanation at all.
I believe in things for which there is no reasonable doubt. There’s no proof that the universe didn’t pop into existence 5 seconds ago, but there’s also no reasonable reason to believe that it did. The belief that the sun will rise again after setting tonight is another belief, there is no hard proof that it will happen, however, there is enough evidence of the sun rising every day in the past that it would be unreasonable to believe that it won’t continue to do so.
And I’ll continue to uphold these beliefs until the Flying Spaghetti Monsters come to prove them wrong.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
April 19th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Coming from a scientific upbringing as well but in a practicing Catholic household I have questioned the existence of God as well. The conclusion that I reached is that there has to be some higher power that created the Universe.
Scientists can continue to bombarb us with the Big Bang theory (which I wholeheartedly believe at that - being a physics minor with a concentration in astrophysics I had better believe in it :), but something had to create the spark that got the Bang started.
Unfortunately, this is the ultimate situation that we can believe to be true but never prove.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to make a tinfoil hat to prevent the Flying Spaghetti Monsters from reading my mind…haha.
April 20th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Thanks for your comment James!
I one sense I do believe in some higher power because you’re right, something caused the Big Bang. But I don’t believe it was a sentient being, god or otherwise. The higher power could be the interaction of vast energies in a dimension superimposing ours (which begs the question, “What created them?”)
I’m confident that we simply don’t understand what happened, but one day we will understand, and it probably won’t be anything we suspect now. A few millennia ago who would have thought that the sun was a huge ball of hydrogen atoms smashing into each other? Or that the Earth’s core is molten iron with a solid core?
I’m sure that in another few millennia we’ll have some fantastic capabilities bestowed by knowledge which we now would consider god-like.
April 20th, 2007 at 11:11 am
I can’t discount the idea of a collective unconscious because I do see some indications that one may exist, i.e. the symbolic language of dreams that is remarkably similar around the world or the parallels that exist in world mythologies from vastly different cultures.
However, I would have to argue that the view of a collective unconscious being portrayed by Steve and others seems very simplistic. Rather like Newton experienced an apple falling on his head - ah hah - gravity and then picking the same apple up off the ground and dropping it himself and thinking he now understood and had some control over gravity. Especially in light what we now know of the limitations of Newtonian physics.
I agree that some of the implications of the belief in unlimited personal power are troublesome.
April 21st, 2007 at 3:14 am
You were spot on with my thoughts when you posed a question to your own answer…”who created them.” That’s always been my limiting belief, that something in one form or another had to “create” the universe. I have a hard time accepting the belief that the universe just always existed. But you make a great point about the Sun. A few thousand years ago man couldn’t even begin to understand it, but we’ve made monumental steps since then. I guess its only a matter of time before we finally put the pieces together.
As for your argument Jenny, in terms of people like Steve’s view of the collective unconscious, I have a hard time getting on board with this as well. The Law of Attraction especially rubs me the wrong way. To me it appears the LoA takes the emphasis off doing the work and puts too much emphasis on “think positive and it will happen.” I’m all for the proper mindset, but it’s not a substitute for doing the work.
April 21st, 2007 at 8:17 am
Hi Jenny, thanks for your comment!
I’d certainly like to find out more about the origins of mythologies from around the world. Intuition tells me they’d be based on observed phenomena, and some phenomena would be very similar worldwide, but assuming that always the case, and that all myths come from such sources would be unfair and probably invalid.
I agree James, I know that some people will misinterpret LoA/IM as meaning they don’t have to do any work, and then will become disappointed and disillusioned when what they intended didn’t manifest.
April 21st, 2007 at 11:55 am
Okay science guys, a question. I’m not even sure how to word this so sorry if it is clumsy. When I hear the scientific process described as you do so eloquently in your post Mark (paragraph 3) I have to wonder how this is in any way different from how questions of spirituality are probed and answered? I don’t mean Sunday School or fundamentalist versions of Christianity, Buddhist, etc. but real questions of spirituality or god(s)?
Does personal experience have any role in science? In spirituality? Think of an enlightened Buddhist master who claims to have seen what is commonly referred to as god/Buddha but says description is impossible and compare him to Einstein who from what I’ve read had flashes of understanding that he would then work to make sense of. How are they different and can either science or religion thrive without the personal observations of a select few outside of the mainstream? Does objective observation even exist?
I’m truly not trying to be a smartass, I’m curious. Oh, and the “science guys” is a compliment just in case you weren’t sure.
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:33 am
Observations are considered to be objective if they are quantifiable, and gathered from repeatable experiments. I’m sure subjective realists would say that objective observation doesn’t exist, since by the nature of reality everything is subjective. Science doesn’t agree with this belief and considers something to be objective if it can be verified by an instrument, i.e., measured, quantified.
So the difference between scientific and spiritual questioning, is that science requires that answers don’t come from within, because it’s impossible to verify the source of those answers, or repeat the experiment that produced them. Spiritual questioning is subjective in the common understanding of the term.
The difference between the Buddist master and Einstein, is that Einstein’s flashes of understanding would have then been explored in the external world, while the Buddist masters would have been explored internally, or simply accepted (though in my understanding Buddhism does encourage questioning).
I’m not sure what you mean by science or religion requiring the observations of a select few to thrive. Could you clarify that?
Incidentally, there’s some known cases of subjective experience being misconstrued as science. The clearest example is Masaru Emoto’s experiments with the effect of words on water. The hypothesis was that the ‘energy’ of words is imprinted on matter, and this could be seen in the way crystals form in water after being exposed to certain words. So negative words, like ‘kill’ or ‘hate’ would create ugly crystals, and positive words like ‘love’ or ‘beauty’ would create attractive crystals. However, the crystals used to show the results of the experiments were chosen, not randomly selected. It’s quite likely that amongst all the crystals that formed after exposure to a certain word, some looked nice and others didn’t. But that wasn’t part of the experiment. Thus subjective opinion on what was attractive or not was used to judge the results, and that’s not science.
A group of uni students repeated the experiment will little success, though they did state that more research was necessary before any conclusive statement could be made. I didn’t follow up on it so I don’t know if any more experiments have been done.
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:17 am
Wow, Mark you covered a lot of ground in your response. Your explanations are very helpful.
Paragraph #1:
I guess my instinct has always been to say I’m on the side of the subjective realists but once I start considering what that means I doubt that I really am on that side, BUT I’m very unused to scientific language and not sure of my feelings about its rigidity either.
I am completely and honestly confused because I don’t know what I mean.
Let me ask you this as maybe this is the crux of where I get stuck – if something has not been quantified from repeatable experiments is it discounted or is it just considered unknown or currently unquantifiable? From your posts I gather that you don’t necessarily discount the things that can’t be quantified yet you feel (for the same reasons) that you are unable to count such things. Yes? If true, this would make sense to me but then why the general sense of distain from the scientific world for experiences religious/spiritual in nature?
Paragraph #2:
Okay, I can accept what you are saying here. It feels like something is missing from science though. Not all things can be verified, easy example, love. When you fall in love it comes from within but it exists. Do you get where I’m going? Science feels more than slightly flawed if it offers no understanding of HUGE, essential components of our lives. Granted, religion/spirituality seems to have similar huge flaws in other ways.
Paragraph #3:
Okay, point taken. So if thousands and thousands of people have explored a religious truth internally (through meditation or yoga for instance) and all report similar experiences over thousands of years it feels wrong (word choice?) to discount it because the exploration happened internally instead of externally. Again this is where I feel science falls short.
Paragraph #4:
Embbarassing to admit but unfortunately I have no idea…
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:18 am
ps. are these questions and my lame spelling errors making me look like a real dummy??
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:50 am
Rest assured Jenny, your spelling mistakes don’t hide your intelligence, and your questions make your thoughtfulness even clearer. I don’t see how anyone could consider you a dummy!
I suspect that many scientists are confused by spiritualists’ certainty in things for which there is little or no empirical evidence. And as you pointed out, lack of understanding can breed hate, which some scientists express as disdain. And religious fanatics do the same.
Yet famous scientists such as Newton and Einstein had strong beliefs in God, so science and religion are not incompatible.
You’re right, I don’t immediately dismiss things that I can’t objectively verify, but I generally don’t give them much thought in day-to-day life. I wrestled with the idea of SR for a while, and will continue to happily discuss it from all angles (heh, I wrote angels three times before my fingers decided to cooperate), but I live my life with the belief that the universe does have a physical reality.
In my understanding, if a theory can’t be verified objectively, then it is considered an incomplete theory; something about it is still not understood and it needs further refinement. Some theories are considered such a departure from our current understanding of the world that many scientists don’t think they’re even worth investigating. Some of those turn out to be valid theories
But if a idea can’t be tested objectively, then it is not a scientific theory. That all of reality is a projection of Universal Consciousness is such an idea; by definition objectivity is impossible. Some ideas aren’t meant to be verified through experiment, but they can be argued with logic, or examined through reason. Both SR and Objectivism are philosophies, not scientific theories.
Science also branches into other fields which cover other non-physical elements of the universe. Psychology and sociology for example. The study of human behaviour is a scientific field, and within it are many many ideas of what love is. But as you said, it can’t be verified, hence all those different ideas
(but it can be studied, and we can gradually form a better understanding of it)
I’m not sure, but perhaps your feeling that science is flawed stems from the idea that science is supposed to provide clear answers? I used to think that, but now I see that science, much like spirituality, simply tries to make things clearer, but doesn’t guarantee perfect clarity.
So I have to disagree, science does offer some understanding of the essential components of our lives. But they’re either incredibly complex, or ambiguous, or abstract, and so they defy total understanding.
I meditate regularly, and practice yoga, but I don’t think of them as spiritual practices. They were developed by spiritual people, but I practice them purely for their physical and mental benefits. However, I don’t think science discounts them, it would just consider them from an empirical point of view. So those thousands and thousands of people wouldn’t be ignored completely, they just wouldn’t be considered part of an attempt to understand yoga or meditation from a scientific point of view (unless they wanted to participate in a study).
But just because thousands of people report similar experiences, doesn’t mean their interpretation of those experiences is an accurate interpretation of reality. Throughout history there are examples of mistaken beliefs perpetuated for millenia, including scientific beliefs. So I guess science says that thousands and thousands of people are probably not wrong, but not necessarily right; let’s check it out.
Science itself can’t fall short, science is about investigation, exploration, analysis, striving for greater understanding. Something does fall short when personal opinion comes into play. People who have preconceived ideas about certain things, i.e., spirituality, and allow those preconceptions to lead them astray…
PS: Thanks for your thought provoking questions. They’ve giving me a great opportunity to clarify some things for myself, and see where I’m not being clear in my explanations.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Reading this turned my cheeks bright pink and I have a huge grin. Jeez, if you are 1/2 this smooth in person you are dangerous to the ladies!
Seriously.
April 24th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Smooth as a babies fundament, that’s Mark
I reckon that the universe is god and it looks like a big, squished upsidedown pudding. When you take a cross sectional slice of this and apply a fermian transformation to the data, it’s deliciousness can be in no doubt.
That being said, regardless of the truth or correctness of the belief or theory, if it proves to be that which makes you a functional human bean, then that is a thing of beauty. If something else comes along that serves a better purpose or works better, go with that.
History is full of grasping onto ideas/religions/beliefs that have grown so large, have a gravity all their own and even though something more functional and more worthwhile comes along, they dare not fly in the face of society and tradition.
In my many years of reading New Scientist magazine and looking into experiments that took my fancy it seemed to me that the chief use of science (though many useful and important discoveries have come from it) is to say…
The universe works like this….. no… this… no… hang on, like this! no…. wait… like this!
Oh… and to get tenure.
“In fact, everything we encounter in this world with our six senses is an inkblot test.
You see what you are thinking and feeling, seldom what you are looking at.”
Shiqin
April 25th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Spot on as always Julian-san, though I’m not sure I’m keen on a comparison with a baby’s behind :p
Constant re-evaluation as new data comes to light. I like that because I enjoy indulging my curiosity, and I wouldn’t be able to do that if I wasn’t willing to be steered in new and ever more interesting directions.
That’s a great quote btw, and if you don’t mind I’d like to use it in my next post.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Mark, thanks for the heads up on the rss comment feed. Nice quote Julian. I’m not much concerned at the moment with whether science or religion is right, just curious to find out a bit more about a world (science, that is) that I haven’t spend too much time in.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Hi Mark,
I just came across your site via StevePavlina.com. An interesting article here (and comments).
I never felt comfortable with the idea of God pushed by many religions. And yet as I reflect on how our bodies work, the wonder of nature and the universe (to pick just a few things!) I find it hard not to think that there is something greater out there that our human mind cannot comprehend.
Maybe the idea of the Infinite captures what I believe in. Unlike God, no one can claim to own the Infinite (thank you Eckhart Tolle).
April 26th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Thanks for your comment Peter.
There truly is so much out there that we don’t comprehend. It’s my hope that one day we will.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:02 am
This conversation continues to intrigue me. I’ve been thinking about what you’ve written and want to make sure I understand before commenting any further. Shorthand Version…
In a Nutshell:
Religion: You just don’t understand the way I think. I guess you never will. You’re going to hell!
Science: Yeah, well you are illogical and stupid! You are incapable of a rational conversation. I just can’t talk to you.
Views of the World –
Religion: Deals with truth and ultimate realities taking the position that are basically unknowable and/or their truths have been experienced by a tiny few and those few are authorities and provide the masses with the information they find pertinent although truth and ultimate reality can differ from person to person (subjective reality). Usually religions decree that their theory is the only correct theory despite any/all evidence to the contrary.
Science: Deals with truth and ultimate realities taking a position that the only road to discovery is through direct observation and these observations have to have the same outcomes upon repetition (objective reality). In science is either valid or incomplete but valid is not the same as truth or ultimate reality because the underlying assumption is that there might be a better theory which just hasn’t been observed and replicated. An incomplete theory is not necessary false it just means that it hasn’t been observed and replicated yet.
Both are Misunderstood by the Public at Large –
Religion: General public assumes that religion and spirituality are similar and/or the same. Christian practices for instance are often quite different from Christian theology.
Science: General public assumes that science proves things right or wrong when in fact it validates or finds specific theories incomplete and science can have more than one valid theory for the same problem.
Mark, am I understanding you correctly? If so, I have a couple of other thoughts to run by you. Just let me know if we are in agreement first.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Yup, spot on, as far as I can see. I’m no expert :p
The ‘nutshell’ views of religion and science are the extreme views. There are many shade of grey in between.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Yeah, upon re-reading the “nutshell” views were/are a little harsh.
I was just frustrated by something I heard on the news and projected a wee bit I guess…
You know what? After re-reading all of your comments (yours also Julian) I realized I don’t have anything more to say. I have a few questions but want to give myself time to think everything over.
You are very eloquent and what you say packs a lot of meaning. You’ve helped me tremendously in making sense of a few things that have never made sense to me before and for that I thank you Mark.
Talk to you later!
Jenny
April 28th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Thank you Jenny, I’m glad to be of whatever help I can
April 30th, 2007 at 4:31 am
Hah, hah was at Steve Pavlina’s forum today and a thread totally made me think of what you wrote about Masaru Emoto’s experiments!! Wonder if they are referring to this experiment, kind of sounds like it…
(http://www.stevepavlina.com/forums/spirituality-consciousness-awareness/6509-what-bleep.html)
April 30th, 2007 at 6:45 am
Yup, the very same.
May 29th, 2007 at 5:15 am
Okay, I’m back to this post again.
First I don’t want to get into some huge discussion about God/the Divine or whatever term is being used. I’m fine with either one of two assumptions:
Okay?
1. That God doesn’t exist; or
2. That God exists and is unknowable and indescribable.
I don’t ultimately feel your conclusions or mine matters much in this conversation and doubt either of us are going to suddenly have some flash of realization and change our minds.
I’m starting to wonder if the central flaw in all of the science/spirituality conversations is tied to the attempt to explain or perhaps more appropriately justify spirituality within a framework that just doesn’t fit. Any time a conversation is started based upon the need to justify one’s position rather than explain it the cause has already been lost.
The precision of scientific language when compared to the current imprecision of spiritual language will win a debate every single time. All this does is make the people with spiritual beliefs nuts because deep down they know it was an argument that couldn’t be won but they’re not sure why. But in my mind these wins in no way diminish the importance of spirituality in an individual or a society seeking to understand life and the world around them. It does make me wonder however if there are alternative frameworks that could be used to frame spiritual experiences.
Perhaps one such alternative would be to seek to understand it from a perspective of spiritual “maturity” or spiritual “intelligence”. Heading down a spiritual path is so often described as seeking spiritual growth, well wouldn’t maturity and/or intelligence be one of the side effects of such growth? There is a lot of material that could help to at least identify a starting point for speaking of spiritual maturity or intelligence. Perhaps this is also the intersection between spiritual growth and personal growth? I think there are very few things in life that are sacred but growth and development is one of them, in both an individual and a society. This certainly wouldn’t be a unique way of framing these types of discussions but it hasn’t been explored very deeply that I am aware of (Covey maybe in his proposed “centersâ€? and certainly that book Emotional Intelligence).
I also wonder about the possible interconnections between spirituality and emotion; maybe both somehow tie to the origins of self-awareness and isn’t self-awareness what makes us thinking and potentially moral beings?
PS. Where did the Flying Spaghetti Monsters thing come from, you?
May 29th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Heh, yes, I’m happy to not try to prove or disprove God. There are plenty of other more enlightening things to discuss.
I agree, attempting to frame spirituality in the language of science is the proverbial square in a round hole. I’m sure spirituality’s clarity would benefit greatly from appropriate framing. Metaphors that are specific, symbols that are unambiguous. But is that the most appropriate path to take? Can spiritual maturity and intelligence be fostered through more precise language while still encouraging introspection?
I think that depends on why we’re encouraged to look inside for answers to spiritual matters. Why are we often told that we already know the answers to the questions we ask? Is such a personal focus any more than just an aspect of the personal nature of spirituality? If so, is that nature diminished at all just through discussion with others? If you use language that is spiritual in nature, but is readily understood and unambiguous, yet still thought provoking, are you any worse off than if your message was less clear? How is growth fostered by confusion? …but I’m probably preaching to the converted so I’ll stop now.
In terms of understanding spiritual experiences through their contribution to spiritual maturity/intelligence, I think this is a great way to provide meaning to those experiences, but I also suspect that the subject would not need any more meaning for something they’ve already experienced. And non-believers would probably just wonder how spiritual maturity/intelligence is different from the regular variety. Hell, I’m wondering that!
But yes, I think discussing spirituality from the point of view of its contribution to spiritual growth would be far more worthwhile than attempting to meld a spiritual experience with scientific explanation.
I also wonder how that would affect discussions of God, but I agreed not to go there :p
Hmmm, I think spirituality would not exist without emotion and self-awareness. To be able to say, “I exist for or because of something greater,” you need to know what “I” is, and you need to feel that there’s something greater. Many have tried to use logic to argue in favour of their spiritual beliefs, but as you said, that’s a lost cause, and I think that’s because emotions can be very illogical, particularly unexamined ones. However in examining emotion we often find they have a logical basis. As you did when you considered how you formed your intuitive impressions of people you briefly encountered.
Does that mean that if you examine the feeling of the existence of some higher power (or at least something greater than the mundane), will it have a logical, mundane cause? In general, I have no idea, but in some cases it apparently is logical, but not mundane. I’ve never had that feeling so I can’t examine it, and while I’ve seen others experience that feeling, and spoken to them about it, I still haven’t empathised.
Interestingly self-awareness and emotion are also what make us moral beings. We consider something wrong because it feels bad, and through empathy we can know it feels bad even if it happens to someone else. Even more interestingly our morality is one of the arguments for the existence of God.
Ahhh no, but I wish the Flying Spaghetti Monster was my creation. But then I’d be God.
(Sorry, couldn’t help myself)
May 30th, 2007 at 7:30 am
You say, “…but I’m probably preaching to the converted so I’ll stop now.”
Why stop? Seriously, give it to me. If I’m already going to be pondering answers don’t hold back and send me back and forth a zillion times let me hear the entire thing. Otherwise I’ll just feel like you’re playing with me…
You’re definitely way ahead of me but eventually I’ll catch up, of course you might be long gone by that time but (selfishly) at least I’ll be amused and have clarified my own thinking.
May 30th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Hehe sorry, I stopped because I was starting to rant and I didn’t think that was necessary. But then I never think ranting is necessary. But the point I was getting at was that spiritual practitioners often use language that is deliberately ambiguous. And I don’t mean they simply use metaphors that are not understood, but they use metaphors in ways that can’t be understood without also being told the meaning, yet the listener is expected to digest it on their own, to reach their own understanding.
I fail to see why those particular practitioners don’t encourage discussion as well as introspection. Or why any discussion is done in a manner which is deliberately ambiguous. I understand the need to arrive at one’s own conclusions, and to develop one’s own meaning, but I fail to see how unambiguous discussion of alternate understandings or meanings interferes with that.
But this is just a gripe with some practitioners, not spiritualists as a whole. Mainly just self-styled gurus.
May 30th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Oh, you didn’t have to apologize. I thought your “rant” questions were actually quite interesting.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Mark,
I’ve been re-reading these comments and think I figured out where I was getting stuck with this entire discussion. I have also come to some surprising realizations about my own (previously not very well examined) beliefs.
God
First, I realized the reason I didn’t care to try to prove or disprove the existence of God is because in my mind the word has always been a placeholder not an actual all-knowing, punishing, rewarding, conscious (or not) being. I guess the best I could do as far as a definition is the source of all things (know and unknown) and absolutely indescribable. New knowledge about the universe, beginnings of earth, humanity or timelines for life on earth are interesting and not threatening as it doesn’t prove or disprove the existence of God. The concept of God (again as a placeholder word) isn’t challengeable by science instead it is discoverable. I also don’t particularly care if other people decide to use a different word than God as their placeholder, it just works for me.
Spirituality and Religion
Even with all that said about God I still would describe myself as a spiritual person. I would not however describe myself as a religious one and now I can explain why. As discussed briefly here I truly believe spirituality and religion have two different intents and roles in both society and one’s own life. Where I’ve been stuck is trying to explain just how spirituality fulfills its role. The problem was I was making too big of a jump – going directly from spirituality to metaphor and symbolism while completely missing the role of myth as link.
Here’s how I see the difference between spirituality and religion:
Religion = theology = doctrines & dogmas
Spirituality = mythology = metaphors & symbols
Religion focuses on giving its followers truth through the development and teaching of basically unchanging (or at the very least very slowly changing) theology, doctrines and dogma. It is very hierarchal in nature and its theologies tend to be written/shaped by members of the dominant culture. A large portion of religion is culture or society specific to insure the passing down of social norms from one generation to the next.
Spirituality focuses on personal or small group experiences and understanding through myth, metaphor and symbolism. There are many myths that are common throughout time and around the world (such as origin myths or flood myths) although they tend to adjust to the local culture and times. I think you were correct above in suggesting that they would be based upon observed similar phenomena worldwide. (When you brought that up it was so foreign to my thinking the question didn’t even make sense to me but now I am pretty sure I understand what you were saying/asking.) Spirituality has some enduring aspects but changes depending upon the time, culture and even the individual. It is not hierarchal in nature and tends to be shaped primarily by the outsiders of a culture. While much of it is culture or society specific it tends to pass down “shells� of its questions/insights not set-in-stone truths and definitely not social norms.
Up through this point I find myself basically agreeing with all you’ve said in earlier comments which is fine as your words were a great arrow pointing a direction that I needed to explore for myself.
Myths
The essential element of spirituality to me is that of myth. They are what pull me to spirituality. Myths have played an essential role in all cultures (that I’ve heard of at least) throughout time. In a nutshell a myth is a story about deep and reoccurring human concerns or conditions. As a story universal myths are told differently dependent upon the time and culture. They are open to interpretation, in fact interpretation is essential to understand a myth (if they do not need to be interpreted then we are talking about something different such as a fact, fiction or dogma). The details in a myth are sketchy for a reason, the god or gods involved aren’t the primary focus instead it is the question that is the focus. Myths don’t provide a “pat� answer instead they act as a flashlight showing the way.
Myths provide a map for our imagination and help us (as a society as well as individuals) make meaning in an otherwise random world. Through them we can discover purpose, direction and learn how to respond to the world and people around us. A living myth is both timeless and timely addressing an aspect of the human condition in general and our individual lives in particular. Their ultimate purpose is to unveil – to guide us in seeing both ourselves and humanity in ways not normally visible to us (to think outside the box), to help us see our daily struggles in a different context, to show us what we are capable of being and doing. Tools of mythology include metaphor and symbolism. I think at the core myths are about revelation…
Myths are not; theology (they are not tied to doctrine nor do they claim absolute truth), history (history is a reporting of actual events, again myths are stories), or science (science gives us facts about the world and explains how, while myth searches for why and for purpose).
Enough already, what do you think?
June 15th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
I think the placeholder concept of God is similar to the Agnostic concept of God, i.e., there’s something out there which can’t be explained. Another name for it which I came across recently is God of the Gaps. I.e., God is identified with those areas of understanding which science hasn’t yet dealt with.
I agree with you about the distinction between religion and spirituality except where religion’s use of mythology is concerned. While myths aren’t specifically religious in nature, they are used by religions fairly regularly. The Old Testament is *full* of myths. Though I guess many Christians do claim that the stories in the Old Testament are real accounts of historical events, not myths. I tell you, Noah should have swatted those two mozzies, and squished those two ants. As for the two cockroaches, well, we know he couldn’t have done anything to them. In fact they probably weren’t even on the boat…
I think I have more to say but I’ll have to come back to it.
June 15th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
God of the Gaps, beautiful.
Yes, I guess I wasn’t completely clear above as I’m clarifying some of this as I write.
Religions, as well as spirituality use mythology but in the case of Christianity I’d argue the very insistence upon a literal reading of its myths strips much of their power and over time slowly kills the relevance of the myth for worshippers. I’ve heard arguments that this death of living myth in Christianity is directly responsible for the decreasing attendance and belief worldwide… But, if you read many of the stories in the bible outside of the theology surrounding them they are quite deep as to their insights to human nature - they have good questions (Job for instance).
That said, there are living myths in the world right now, although the medium for spreading them has changed. One medium for creating common myth is film and television. I will give you four quick examples, three that have moved me and one that appears to have moved a lot of other people recently:
~The Matrix series (I only watched the first half of the Matrix so don’t want to speak on it to much but it definitely has had an impact on people’s thinking causing them to question many, many things) speaks to the nature of reality and humanity. I’d see the crazy volume of matrix type threads on some forums as people attempting through a small community to understand the relevance of this living myth in their own lives and world. Mind you, I didn’t say myth and all of the paths we mentally follow trying to understand them we logical I said they were revelatory or deeply meaningful.
Personally Moving:
~Buffy, The Vampire Slayer – creating new mythology for woman as to their role in the world; balancing sexuality with personal power, intelligence with emotion, etc, etc. Again, this series was much talked about in forums and several books have been published on its philosophies (by amazingly enough people in academia)
~Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind – mythology about much more than love, although that is a huge aspect, it touches on the very nature of what it means to be fully engaged in life (I’m not explaining this one well but that might just be because I don’t have the words as it was very meaningful to me…)
~The Shield – myth exploring good and evil on both a personal and societal level and the often slippery lines between them
A good book (easy read) on this subject is Film as Religion by John Lyden (spelling?). Hah, hah did you notice how it was much easier for me to summarize the only one that didn’t move me in any way?
June 15th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Damn, I wish I could go back and change my typos! No matter how carefully I try to edit I seem to make a huge one. Sentence right before wink I meant were logical not we logical.
July 5th, 2007 at 11:41 am
To me, all the discussions of The Matrix highlight our tendency to seek out comforting ideas. In the movie Neo was dissatisfied with his existence, feeling that something was “wrong” with the world. Most people can identify with that. However in the movie there truly is something wrong, but in reality believing in something more than our tangible existence could be the equivalent of taking the blue pill; willful ignorance because it’s more pleasant than facing the truth. And yet the firm believers say the same of not believing
I can’t really do Eternal Sunshine justice either. It made a huge impact on me because I could relate to it in many ways. The looping-car scene, where Joel can’t get from one end of the street to the other, was eerily similar to a panic attack I once had. I also like how the movie reflects life’s inherent ambiguity and lack of inherent meaning. The movie didn’t make it clear. Joel and Clementine could either work things out, or continue to play out a cycle of ending and reforming the same ultimately destructive relationship. It all depends on them and their willingness to work through their suffering.
Thankfully I haven’t been in such a destructive relationship.
I haven’t seen The Shield, though it sounds as if I should, nor have I watched much of Buffy, and don’t think I should lest I become addicted