What is your life



Yüklə 0,55 Mb.
səhifə1/12
tarix07.04.2018
ölçüsü0,55 Mb.
#36481
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   12

Meaning of Existence, Direction, Values  by Helmut Schwab Princeton, 1998/2003-16

_____________________________________________________________________________________




Interpreting Our Existence:

Meaning of Existence, Personal Direction, Values
An Attempt at Unifying the Perspectives of

Science, Religion, and Personal Observation

tempered by



The Experience of Practical Life and Human Sensitivity

.

(My Legacy)



*

(see also the essays “Evolution: Understanding Our Physical and Mental Existence”,

“Theology, Astrophysics, and the SETI-Project”, also “Religion”,

and, mainly, ”Meaning of Life: Eternity Views Our Life on Earth”)

092609-110416

*
Abstract and Conclusions:


A new perception of “existence” occurs when one perceives the miracle of one’s own status of “existing” – as a human – within this grandiose, beautiful, but also quite cruel, universe and nature – at this time in cosmic and human history – for the short period of one’s own life.

Such a view can lead to fundamental questions: How can I understand and interpret cosmic reality and the natural world I find myself in? Is there a transcendental origin and control of existence? Can one perceive a meaning or purpose of existence? Mainly, what shall I do with my own life, what direction shall I pursue during the years of my existence?

Before proceeding, we should first study the various sources of insight available to us in the sciences, theology, philosophy, and our own observation.
Conclusions:

A meaning or purpose of existence cannot be discerned – and a transcendental essence of existence cannot be described in human, anthropomorphic terms.

It is the science-expected, ultimate total end or dissolution of all cosmic structures in giant black holes or ever-dissipating radiation that does not allow the discerning of a “meaning” or purpose of existence.

One can also not see a guiding or helping God in a world where each organism is attacked by diseases, parasites, predators (including humans), or natural catastrophes and the innocent by often terrible calamities.

The observation of human life does not indicate a God who judges fairly here on Earth.

A compensating, eternal life after death cannot be expected in a cosmic or natural structure that is meant to dissolve.

However, the end of personal life can be felt (as I once did) as a deeply peaceful, transcendental homecoming.



What remains is a limitless admiration for the most abstract and ultimate “Structure Providing Essence of Existence”, “Eternity”, God, or whatever name we give it, and for the unbelievably intricate functioning of the evolving world we participate in.

Nevertheless, one should not take away a deep-felt, comforting or uplifting faith from the suffering and striving in this world. – especially not, if such faith offers an ethically constructive and benevolent direction in life – as best formulated by Jesus in parts of the “Sermon on the Mount” (see the essay “Do the Biblical Beatitudes Have Meaning in Our Modern Lives?” on this website).


For us humans remains to do the best we can on, or for, this Earth, our common home – to reduce suffering, to increase opportunity fairly for all, and to bring some joy and light to whatever small area over which we have any influence – while being good stewards of nature.
What direction shall we take for our own lives?

Practicality indicates that we first should build and maintain an economic “support base”, to decently support ourselves and our family, while then, or in parallel, seeking fulfillment of life as described below – especially when striving for excellence in our occupation and somewhat succeeding.

The specific results of a fundamental inquiry may remain contradictory as to what one should do and what one wants to do.

An individual direction for us depends upon our starting conditions – or environment – and our natural capabilities, personality, or “character”. Furthermore, destiny or opportunities have a controlling impact.

Most importantly, prudent determination will make the difference.

In any event, one must keep a practical mind and human sensitivity.

One should accept overarching evolution, but along with faith in the individual human potential for impact or change.


The development of our personal potential is the natural goal in life for us all.

Any direction in life can lead upwards in struggle through three levels – supported by corresponding “values”. In other words, the human objective are ranked – there is the necessary fulfillment of the basic needs and desires of life, there is the vast majority of pursuits to secure, improve, and enjoy a comfortable life, and there is the striving for the higher aspirations of the human mind and soul. The human objectives relate to three different types of motivations in life: our own, personal development and well-being, our being part of a family and human society, and our abstract enjoyment of beauty in the arts or nature.

This results in the following matrix describing our goals in life:





Highest Level

Mental Growth

Personality Formation


Caring Service & Charity

Building a Better Society

Culture,

Aesthetics, the Arts


Median Level

Security and Dignity

Reserves, Freedom,

Wealth

Positive Significance in Society

Action Potential, Power


Entertainment

Basic level

Survival, Procreation

Family and Clan

Basic Aesthetics


On a basic level, often in misery but also in basic human harmony, is the struggle for the satisfaction of the fundamental human needs for food, clothing, shelter, and medical care – all of which, for far too many on Earth, are still inadequate. There also is the basic desire for procreation and search for the warmth of some human company in the family and with friends – even for some joy about artistic embellishment or music.

Beyond this level, on a lighter level of life but also in the pursuit of false values, it is natural, and serves progress, to pursue some wealth for reserves – but this too often remaining a purpose in itself. Within social groups, there is the natural struggle for social rank and power, even empire building – for action potential, but this too often merely serving self-aggrandizement. Complementing these two directions, there is the pursuit of basic entertainment, in sports, TV, and lesser pleasures. All of this characterizes the wide middle level of society – more easily reached when the threshold of satisfaction is lowered, as by admirably modest people or by dropouts.

On the highest level of cultures, however, offering the most light in the fulfillment of life, one finds a striving for accomplishment in not one but three distinct dimensions of human existence:

(1) in personal mental growth (in exploring knowledge, in deeper understanding, in personality formation, and in the development of useful skills), combined with

(2) dedicated service to others (to reduce suffering and increase opportunities fairly for all), service to society, and care for the natural environment – and, added to these,

(3) participation in the artistic joy over the beauty in our culture and this world – a mysterious gift of existence (as is humor).

A balanced accomplishment – on all three levels and in each of the three dimensions – can lead to the positively felt fulfillment of the precious period of our very limited existence in life.


Factual results count, but “value” is attributed by emotions. Therefore, the definition and pursuit of our “values” is significant. These values are related to

the sensing of fulfillment in growth and exploring (with the values of freedom, truthfulness, openness, and striving),

the all-excelling warmth of love from close human contact and dedicated service (with the values of empathy, selfless help, responsibility, leadership, and trustworthiness),

and the light of artistic joy in culture and nature (with the values of aesthetic beauty, elegance, and positive affection).


In symbolic expression, the “value” of our lives results from our growth and how we bring some more clarity, light, and warmth into this world – wherever we can – accepting the positive in our own lives with gratitude – possibly with joy.
*

.
Table of Contents



page

1.




Introduction: A New Awareness of Existence

5













2.




The Fundamental Questions of Existence

7













3.




Sources of Insight

8




3.1.

Observation and Science







3.2.

Religious Faith and Theology







3.3

Contradictions Between Religion and Science







3.4.

Reason and Philosophy







3.5.

Intuitive Thought, Meditation, and Feeling







3.6.

Practical Experience and Human Sensitivity
















4.




Contradictions and the Decision-Making Process

31













5.




More Comments on Observation and a

Religious Interpretation of Our Existence

33




5.1.

Observed Cosmic Reality, the Natural World, and the Human Mind







5.2.

Religious (transcendental, spiritual) Understanding of Existence



6.




About the Meaning, Purpose, and Direction in Existence –

The Path of Our Life

76




6.1.

About the Meaning, Purpose, and Direction in Existence







6.2.

The Path of Our Life
















7.




My Personal Position – and Conclusions

82













A.




Appendix

89




A.1.

The Practical Conduct of Life







A.2.

The Course of Society







A.3.

Summary of Prevalent Views and Their Proposed Expansion
















B.




Corollary Thoughts and Comments

104




B.1.

Creative Steps in Evolution







B.2.

Abilities or Capabilities







B.3.

What do Death and Suffering Mean to Us?







B.4.

Afterlife, Continued Existence of the Soul?







B.5.

Contradictions in Direction







B.6.

Decision-Making, Implementation







B.7.

Summary Comments



A personal footnote, “The History of this Essay”, can be found at the end 121


* * * * *
1. INTRODUCTION: A NEW AWARENESS OF EXISTENCE
During the late hours of a long journey through life, one would like to pause and, as a parting contribution to the struggle of fellow travelers, possibly leave some useful advice, encouragement or comfort. How does one dare to do that, especially when the vision of life is not just a rosy one and some basic observations do not bring comfort? How can one dare to present a critical view and, thereby, take comfort away from burdened fellow travelers? My life had good and difficult periods. I received assistance from others. Now, I would like to contribute assistance to others – to my close relatives, to my friends, to the strangers among my fellow travelers who happen to read these words. How can one do that? By lifting one’s eyes to the greater structures one was able to perceive in this existence and by learning from the smaller details of the path through life. Fundamentally, one searches for valid knowledge about this existence we find ourselves in. This should lead to the efficiency of our effort. The valuation of our experience of living, however, comes from our emotions, diverse as they are, from materialistic satisfaction to the most noble sentiments. In either case, we run intellectually and emotionally into the unsolvable contradiction between striving for the greatest good for the most and for the respect for the rights and needs of the individual. What actually occurs is mostly a result of our mental formation and processes. This writing shall contribute to those. Here it is:
Many people have a rather clear concept of the world they live in and of their personal lives. I envy them – if they have really thought about it and are sincere. For some of us, though, the concepts of the world and life are not quite so clear. We cannot grasp the ultimate forces behind destiny, history, nature, and the universe. We see too much that cannot be understood and too many contradictions between the various philosophical, religious, and political tenets we are expected to accept in our diverse cultures. We are not at all sure about the meaning of our lives or the right course to pursue. As we grow older, neither our childhood faith nor our adolescent philosophy of life is as clear or solid as it used to be. As our lives progress, we experience and observe the reality of practical life and participate in a wide spectrum of human experiences. Even then – or, even more so – the results of our intellectually trained thoughts and the (hopefully) matured emotions of our hearts do not suffice to answer our questions; nor are they unequivocal.
Upon further reflection, I concluded that my own perceptions of existence and life were formed largely by my upbringing, the books I read, the people I associated with, my environment, and the communities and countries I have lived in. Are these subjective perceptions objectively tenable and sufficient? What other perceptions would I have arrived at or chosen if I had lived somewhere else or if I had been totally on my own in this world?
An interesting thought occurred to me one day: What if I had just come into existence on that day, at that age, totally on my own? What if I had no knowledge of any prior cultural influences, of any prior perceptions, commitments, or habits of thought? What if I were not settled in my deep respect for Christian values and in Western suburban life? At first, wouldn’t I be amazed that I exist? Wouldn’t I ask many questions? This new attitude of looking at existence in a new light, in an attitude of unencumbered new exploring, is what I want to call the “Awareness of the Phenomenon of Existence”. The resulting attitude of mental freedom is the thread through the thought process in the presentation that follows.
What thoughts came to my mind when this new awareness of existence occurred to me? First, I was startled by existing! I was startled by having been given a body, a mind, a personality, and the chance to be where I was for a limited period of time called “my life”. I accepted the factual knowledge that I, together with billions of other individuals, was on a rather small planet of one among billions of stars in a galaxy, at a point about 30,000 light-years off its center. I accepted as fact that there are billions of other galaxies of billions of stars in the universe, all having already existed for billions of years. This sets an interesting scale for the small significance of my own limited existence – which lasts only for a few decades.
Here I am now. How do I proceed from here? As is typical of human nature, I have questions of origin, meaning, purpose, and, mainly, direction to pursue during my existence. After some reflection, I arrive at my main question: Is there a creative and controlling force in the universe, a God, or merely a vague “Structure Providing Essence of Existence”? And what, if anything, can one rightly know or believe about this God if there is one, or about this “Essence”? Why do I and the world around me come to exist – is there any purpose in existence? Is there an order behind the evolution of existence in time? If so, what brings that order about, and how is that order structured? What are the objectives of any evolution, if there actually are any objectives at all? Can I or anyone else have any meaningful contact with the force or essence behind existence, with God? In other words, is there a personally reachable and responding God? What would it mean to me if it were found that God had not given directives to the human race, would not judge individuals or nations by their moral actions, and was not reachable by prayer? What would it mean to me if there were no active spiritual force, no God, and, mainly, no purpose in cosmic existence? What significance or, mainly, direction and guiding parameters (values) can I establish for my own life under either scenario for the limited time span of my existence?
There are many other probing questions. First, however, a problem consists in defining a suitable approach to the finding of some answers to all those questions. Other people have thought about these or similar questions. Their answers diverge over a wide range of religions and philosophies, from primitive to sophisticated, from Western to Oriental. Then, in the course of history, science occurred and added a modern intellectual perspective. Finally, there are one’s own observations and thoughts, one’s own practical experiences and respect for human sensitivities. How does one proceed from here in venturing out in this new “awareness of existence”?
This is the proposed sequence of steps:

  • A formulation of what I call the “Fundamental Questions of Existence”

  • The definition and analysis of various acceptable and promising sources of insight

  • An analysis of the mental (intellectual and emotional) decision-making process

  • A review of the scientifically observed reality in this world and of the proposed spiritual beliefs or interpretations

  • The synthesis: Answers to the “fundamental questions about existence”, including considerations of practical life, human sensitivity, and personal observation

It is not surprising that, in the end, I could not arrive at objective, provable, and universally valid answers to all of the “fundamental questions”. However, in the course of this attempt, I did accomplish some clarification for myself – and, possibly, for others.


All too often in everyday life, one has to make decisions without knowing all the answers – all the facts, or all the consequences. In many situations, life demands that we take a stand, that the conduct of our life be consistent with the ground rules we give preference to. Only by taking a stand can we give some measure of direction and character to our own life, though not necessarily to the lives of others. Only such taking of a stand gives strength and clarity to our actions, if not our convictions.
I want to point out a specific problem that occurred to me in writing about religion. I was trained in the sciences and have led a professional life in industry. Consequently, my perspective in writing about religious matters is too easily that of an intellectual observer. Does such a perspective do justice to the human emotional concerns of the “soul” – especially in situations of suffering, compassion, or loneliness – and to the searching mind’s domain of theology? Religion, however, must relate to this world. Religious insight must also relate to the nature of the universe and the conduct of human life. On the other hand, what we really look for in our religious thoughts and emotions are the concerns of the “soul”, however defined. May these not be too easily overlooked? The ultimate human reality is in our minds and emotions of our “hearts”.
An interesting side effect can result from the proposed inquiry into the new attitude of awareness, even a marveling at existence. This side effect is an attitude of increased curiosity, a spirit of inquiry, sometimes contentment with limitations, feeling at home on Earth. The effect also should involve more of a caring attitude toward fellow beings in existence. But it also may bring some insecurity, for some even fear, in any case great awe regarding the dimension and complexity of existence and the greatness of whatever order and forces are acting in it.

2. THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS OF EXISTENCE
In the new “awareness of existence”, I first ask about the observed realities, the scientific view of the world around me, about the ultimate substance, structure, and functioning of existence. The resulting questions are:




  • Regarding a deeper and possibly transcendental (searching beyond physics) understanding of existence:

    • Is there a controlling force behind the existing world – God, Deus, Allah, the Great Spirit, an unnamable transcendental essence, “X”?

  • What could the observation of the creation of the universe indicate about the creating force, the Creator, God?

  • Is God really the always and still active ruler of evolution and history?

  • Is God personally reachable by human prayer? Does God ever respond?

  • Is God the ultimate judge of human behavior? Is there continued life for the “souls” (if there are any “souls”)?

  • What is the image one can have of God when considering all the evil, injustice, cruelty, and waste of lives in the world (the question of “theodicy”)?

    • Is there any meaning or purpose to existence?

    • Is everything predetermined, or is there freedom of will and action?

    • If there is no God or no controlling and compassionate force in existence, is there still any meaning or purpose in existence and for our lives?




  • In view of the conflicting interpretations of existence by various religions and philosophies, what is my own position? What is the meaning, purpose, and direction to follow in the course of existence? From such a personal position, what shall I do with my life?



3. SOURCES OF INSIGHT
The fundamental questions concern some of the very basic, but also the most complex and most mysterious aspects of existence. Therefore, it is proper to first investigate what sources of insight and understanding are available to the human mind before attempting to find answers to the fundamental questions.
Generally, people just accept the perspectives on life of the culture they grow up in, and pursue the values of that culture, often largely formed by some outstanding missionary personalities and religious traditions.
The approach of science is different. Science looks for objective and generally valid truth. Historically, science began by providing practical benefit, as in astronomy or geometry. In the course of time, however, scientific work resulted not only in some benefits but in totally new interpretations of existence – for example, that the Earth is not at the center of the universe, that there is biological evolution driven by excess propagation (beyond replenishment needs or means of support), genetic diversity, and selection of the fittest, that there is some natural, genetically anchored, proto-ethical, social behavior, and that all life on Earth and, actually, the whole universe as we know it will come to a complete end within a calculable time.
Philosophy is different. It appeared as an intellectual pursuit somewhere between religion and science in the attempt to achieve insight through analysis of acceptable concepts, assumptions, or hypotheses and subsequent rational thought.
Most decisions in a person’s life, actually, are based not on thorough thought but, rather, are arrived at intuitively or emotionally. What, then, is intuition? Can one trust emotions?
People in practical life have little time for speculation and only limited resources for investigation. They are under pressure to decide and act – and they often mistrust speculation. They derive their orientation from their life’s experience, often tempered by human sensitivity.
This leaves us with the following, common sources of insight:

  • Observation and scientific inquiry

  • Religious faith and theology

  • Reason and philosophy

  • Intuitive thought and emotional feelings, including:

  • Practical experience and human sensitivity

Some further comments:



Observation and science: In the scientific approach, insight from observation of the world and life around us is reached through the formulation of theories and the evaluation of their validity through experiments or predictions, preferably in the form of objective and reproducible measurements.

Religious faith and theology: Insight from religious faith is derived from the acceptance of inspirations or visions, teachings, and scriptural or hierarchic authority. Theology follows the philosophical approach but is based on religious premises, sometimes also involving intuition and emotional feeling.

Reason and philosophy: Insight from reason and the philosophical approach is derived through the formulation of acceptable premises and the deduction of conclusions through logic and conceptual thought. Moral philosophy comprises the analysis and normative formulation of ultimate values, right and wrong, and, in a general sense, unselfish behavior – based on the rational analysis of “moral” concepts or resulting behavior.

Intuition and emotional feelings: Insight from intuition occurs through subconscious thought processes, commonly called intuition – in ethical cases, through the referral to conscience (see the various essays in the section, “The Human Brain and Mind”, on the author’s website www.schwab-writings.com). In a more formal approach, intuition is derived by searching for clarity of mind through contemplation. The contribution of emotion is the attribution of value (valuation) to thoughts and actions – possibly resulting in a perceived “clarity” or peace of mind.

Practical experience and human sensitivity: Insight from practical experience is a form of pattern recognition in life’s experiences. Insight from human sensitivity results from putting oneself in the position of the other – but such insight does not always lead to corresponding “fair” judgment or behavior.
As one will find, each of these methods covers only a limited part of all the possible aspects of understanding existence and practical life. Furthermore, results derived from these different sources of insight quite often contradict each other. This will be discussed in the following paragraphs. Most important, all sources of insight, upon deeper penetration, end in uncertainty. Yet, it is amazing how well the human mind can operate under these circumstances.

3.1. Observation and Science
The term observation is understood in this context as the registration of phenomena, resulting in knowledge of existence and its functioning. Registration is, ultimately, the acceptance of perception in awareness, consciousness, and, finally, memory. This process, which occurs in the brain, requires clarification on a neurophysiological level. In this context, it is important to note that what a person perceives in observations is related to the associative linking of such new perceptions to preexisting memory elements (prior knowledge or prior interpretation of existence) and to the value which the observer associates with such new perceptions and their associations. This link-up of new perceptions to previously accepted and memorized perceptions results in the feeling of “understanding”. In other words, the usefulness of an observation is related to the associative structure and valuation process in the observer’s brain. Two people can observe the same event and register different impressions, as when a farmer or when Newton see an apple fall or when people with different experiences or convictions listen to a political speech.
In our times, science is presented as the leading source of insight. The elements of the scientific method are factual observation supplemented by inductive, “logical” thought leading to a theoretical concept or hypothesis. Both the prior observation and the proposed theory must be tested by reproducible, objective experiments or predictions, which can be verified at a later time. Thereby, science attempts to be factually correct, precise, and articulate.
It is important to note that penetrating observations in the field of physics ultimately reach the limits of uncertainty, as indicated by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and the random distribution of many phenomena of nature.
The value of observation and the scientific approach as sources of insight depends on the area of concern. Human concerns include not only the area of observation of nature, but also the concerns of human society, personal clarification, philosophy, and religion. In the areas of those concerns, however, observation and the scientific method are not easily usable. These are the reasons:

  • Many phenomena in society and in personal life are too complex, with too many players and too many variables

  • Many situations involve not easily graspable emotions or ethical and cultural values

  • In practical situations, there often is

  • lack of qualification (or personnel) for observation or scientific assessment

  • lack of funds for the above

  • lack of time under the constraints of practical life

Complex social situations hardly ever repeat themselves identically. In complex, repetitive situations, all one can do is hope to recognize patterns of relationships or probabilistic developments. Such patterns are expected to provide insight into causality and dynamics. In many endeavors, however, such as the study of history, observation and analysis can explain what happened and why it happened in the past, but they are incapable of predicting what will happen in the future, or when.


Quite often, observers must and do limit themselves to the selective observation of input information. Selective observation is the registration of certain parameters or patterns by some observers at some time. If theories or prescriptive rules are formulated from such limited observation, they cannot be expected to be generally valid at all times. Furthermore, selective observation all too easily leads to selective, subjective interpretation. Therefore, one finds oneself quickly in the realm of opinion, philosophy, or speculation, especially when the emotions and values of the observer come into play (according to Hume’s Law, which says that the interpretation of observations often is burdened or influenced by the opinion of the interpreter).
The scientific approach in a complex situation, without comprehensive input and comprehensive experimental analysis of consequences, can be absolutely wrong and dangerous, as was evident in the case of “Scientific Communism”. By the same token, personal “logical” decisions in emotional family situations can also be wrong. In most cases of everyday life, there is a lack of time or funds to collect sufficient input information to arrive at a “scientifically” correct decision. Examples of this can be found in matters of important governmental or business decisions, as well as in the case of responding to a casual telephone call about plans for the evening.
The individual human being is not fully accessible to scientific observation either. Not enough phenomena of psychology can be “scientifically” observed. The sum total of an individual’s thoughts, motivations, feelings, and aspirations – the present and potential ones – is definitely too complex and variable for comprehensive scientific observation or description. For example, can science really help a young man decide whether he will do better and be more useful to mankind if he becomes a doctor, an engineer, or an activist politician? For such questions, observation yields contradictory results, and there is no room for scientific experiments.
If the human individual is not fully observable, the individual’s life environment is, in the scientific sense of the concept, even less comprehensible. The individual, in his environment, interacts with numerous other individuals. All are part of society. Society is part of Creation. One would have to observe all this to fully observe the individual interacting with Creation.
Furthermore, there is the problem of consolidation of dimensionally unrelated considerations. For example, what if business judgment contradicts social responsibility, as in some employment or pollution cases in industry? What if three dimensions are in conflict – for example, the personal desires for freedom, security, and monetary benefit? Science has developed the concept of “utility” to solve such dimensional disparities. The concept of utility, however, is only a method of quantizing an intuitive process, which, in itself, is thoroughly unscientific. The assessed utility values change in time and between individuals.
Are observations of the world around us and the methodology of science applicable to the search for a better understanding of a possible transcendental essence of existence, God, and his will, or is that the exclusive domain of religion and theology? The fact is that all religions establish a correlation between the observable world and the divine essence or mandate. Either they teach that the world, historic developments, and personal destiny are related to divine will, or they use observation of the world to explain their teachings about divine will, God’s personality, and normative statements for the human life on Earth. The old Hindu religious scriptures of the Vedas (approx. 1500 BC) have elements connecting world observation with such statements and Judeo-Christian teachings, too. The latter resort to the Last Judgment and the expected afterlife to compensate for otherwise irresolvable contradictions in this world, extrapolating this approach to another world to come.
There are two basic problems with this approach of searching for an understanding of the transcendental essence of Creation and for a direction for one’s own life through observation:

  1. Does the observation of the humanly observable aspects of “Creation” really allow the deduction of valid statements about the “Creator”?

  2. Does the observation of Creation really provide unequivocal normative statements for the conduct of human life (considering Hume’s Law whereby any normative interpretation of observations is fraught with the bias of the observer)?

To the extent that there is an affirmative answer to either question, at least in some areas, science becomes important as an adjunct of religious inquiry. This will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5, “Observation and Interpretation of Our Existence”.


A more important confrontation occurs where some denominational teaching and theology are in direct conflict with scientific observation. Historically, all areas of knowledge were combined in philosophical and religious teachings. In modern times, however, science became a separate domain of knowledge.
In all confrontations, science appears to have prevailed, then dominating all inquiry into existence and casting everything into a view of causal connections in time. However, the mystery of the origin of Creation, quantum mechanics, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, Chaos Theory, and the relativity of time have provided many openings for a side-by-side existence of science and religion, though not necessarily a comfortable one. But there hardly is any side-by-side coexistence of science with narrowly fundamentalist dogma.
In summary, scientific observation is the most desirable source of insight into the factual aspects of existence. Where complex situations do not allow detailed observation, there may still be room for broad observations of general patterns or probabilistic trends. In areas of personal, social, or religious concerns, however, scientific observation is of very limited use for clarification of the “fundamental questions of existence”. There may even be a risk in over-reliance on scientific observation.
The necessary selectivity of observations in complex situations will lead to substantial subjective variances in conclusions, caused largely by the subjectivity of the selection. Usually, personal opinion and complementing speculation will then fill the gaps of observation.
The wide variance of the various intellectual theories and prescriptive models for society only demonstrate the limited help to be expected from factual observation; while, on the other hand, the progress of Western civilization proves the need for continued observation as one of several sources of insight.
Consequently, the scientific method is of limited use for complex social problems. For example, one should look at the widely varying assessment of political or economic systems by different people at different times in human history.
This leads to three conclusions:


  1. The scientific intellectual approach to social problems is, at best, suitable for explanations in hindsight, but rarely for concise predictions of future events or dependable guidance in real-life situations.




  1. Hume’s Law applies: The translation from observation to normative statements is difficult and, for the most part, fraught with the observer’s personal bias.



  1. Good leadership cannot do without an intuitive element, which is subsequently justified by selectively chosen observations and reasons.


3.2. Religious Faith and Theology
All great cultures have turned to religious explanations for an understanding of existence and destiny. Does that mean humans are inherently religious? Two aspects may have led to the belief in gods or transcendental forces 1 :

1. In the evolution of the human mind, conscious recognition of causality became a key element in understanding existence. Causality was expected in all the events of nature (including lightning and earthquakes) and also in the events of history or personal destiny. In early cultures, the invisibility of causes in many such events may have led to the acceptance of powerful “spirits” or gods as causes.



2. The human mind is capable of visualizations (mental images of visual, verbal, acoustic, or other sensory characteristics) independent of actual sensory perception. That is what “thought” is all about – or the work of writers in creating fictitious characters and stories. Consequently, we can live in two worlds, the real world of perceptions and the virtual world of our thoughts or visualizations. The natural evolution of human consciousness and the recognition of visualizations in the mind (and emotions of the “heart”) led to a distinction between body and mind – in Greek thought between body, mind, and soul. This allowed for the perception and belief in the gods as beings of mind and soul, without always-perceptible bodies.
Consequently, myths of Creation and destiny arose. Primitive gods demanded sacrifices, sophisticated gods demanded acceptable behavior before they would grant favorable destiny.
In our scientific times, the quest for transcendental concepts remains when considering the origin of all existence in the Big Bang that caused our world to appear (or in the structural foundation of a multiplicity of universes). It also continues in the recognition of natural evolution as a wondrously sophisticated development (even when anchored in the natural laws that appeared together with the first subatomic particles upon granulation of the original energy and from subsequent “emerging” phenomena). But the observation of the often cruel history of mankind, harsh personal destiny, and of the waste of so many organisms and human beings everywhere and throughout all times, leaves one with substantial doubts.
For many humans, the emotions of the “heart” are more important and prevail over the explanations of the searching mind. Consequently, they find their support in existence not in scientific observation but in their belief in transcendental concepts of gods or goddesses of love and compassion or in their belief in a merciful supreme being.
Generally, people do not formulate their own basic questions of existence. People do not search for, and follow, individual interpretations of existence but follow the beliefs of their respective culture. This corresponds to common human behavior: to join, to be expected to join, or be forced to join groups with a common outlook on life, religion, or ideology. Coordinated social action is thereby facilitated in defining value scales, group objectives, and education. Religions and ideologies provide an interpretation of existence, an explanation how the world functions, hence, the objectives for human behavior and actions.
The religions and ideologies of large groups cannot go into specifics for each individual; instead, they concentrate on what they consider the main aspects of human existence, or the main concerns of people. Buddhism, which originated 2,500 years ago, relates mainly to man’s suffering and teaches a path leading to escape from existence by being unattached and by seeking enlightenment through meditation, not science. Christianity, which originated 2,000 years ago, also relates to man’s suffering as being caused too often by human fault, sin, and guilt; and teaches forgiveness, moral effort, good deeds and the hope for a better world in the afterlife in Heaven. In the modern world, Communism and, to a lesser degree, Socialism are still preoccupied with man’s suffering as being caused by exploitation; they teach social change – if not revolution – negation of the preeminence of individualism, and a utopian world after the re-education of all people.
A great blessing of the Christian religion is the provision of comfort to the souls of the suffering – in this world or in heaven – as is the teaching of compassion for those who do suffer. An even greater blessing is the providing of stimulation for pro-active change and for strength to cope with the problems of this life.
It is interesting to note that religions and ideologies are primarily (and almost exclusively) concerned with human suffering and shortcomings, and less with defining and maximizing the wide spectrum of positive opportunities in existence, the development of the human multi-faceted positive capabilities, and the fostering of initiative for responsible improvements in this world.
Religions and ideologies should be judged by the extent of their validity (truth) and of their usefulness to man in fulfilling his existence. Guidance to use opportunities, to grow, and to see positively valued objectives beyond the utilitarian should be as important (or, actually, more) as delving into problems and avoiding perceived dangers.
There is a need for a factually more correct system of thought, one that gives better guidance in our times and provides a better balance between tolerance or goodness, on one hand, and self-correcting forces against abuse or degeneration, on the other.
The following is a detailed discussion of faith, inspiration, or theology as sources of insight:
Faith

Faith shall be defined as the acceptance of personal convictions or religious inspiration about God, or other spiritual concerns of existence. Such convictions or inspiration may be one’s own, or they may be received by others. Thereby, faith reaches beyond factual scientific observation or proof and relates to the so-called “transcendental.”


The use of faith as a source of insight is fraught with three dilemmas:

1. God does not communicate with mankind unequivocally or always when asked.

One cannot simply “meet” God. There never has been direct, conscious, and reproducible communication between any human being and God. All reported contacts with God have been subjective, momentary, not reproducible, and often contradictory. Many religious opinions, which were presented as being based on divine inspiration or teaching, turned out to have devastating consequences (for example, the Aztec priests’ demand for sacrifices, the Inquisition, some Crusades, and, lately, Muslim violence). Recourse directly to God for further clarification or correction was never possible. More important, interference by God with misguided or wrong religious teachings or directions did not occur – except possibly through long-term historic developments. Even Pope Benedict XVI lamented on May 28, 2006, upon visiting the former Auschwitz concentration camp: “Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate this?”

2. There are substantial contradictions between the various religious faiths and between most religions and science.



3. The insight gained by faith is, ultimately, anchored in belief, even when called personal conviction, not in reason. But such anchoring is often very firm in the minds of the believers, even when facing objective contradictions (but mostly negating them).
New questions and problems arise all the time for individuals and societies. New insights occur during the evolution of cultures. Different cultures, often far removed from the original source of their religion, may have different concerns. If God cannot be called upon when needed, human interpretation of old traditions or ancient scriptures (exegesis) sets in. As different interpretations are possible, religions split. As prior interpretations from the historic past appear inadequate, new denominations or new religions appear – often too late to prevent damage (see not only the Muslim fundamentalism).
Who judges whether the old or the new is valid from then on? What if, in one’s own life, personal doubts set in and one is exposed to other religions or begins to build one’s own edifice of beliefs and convictions? How can one decide or find what is right?
For the faithful believer, new insight and answers can be found in one’s “heart”, in “conscience”, prayer, meditation, or a deeper investigation of scriptures and faith, preferably by the wise, God-blessed, saints, or appointed priests, who never refuse to assume this responsibility quite willingly. However, this does not resolve the dilemma indicated earlier, regarding the limitation or unavailability of unequivocal insight by faith and by direct reference to God’s will through communication with God when needed.
There is also the question to what degree the “heart” and conscience are reliable indicators of God’s will, since it is known that both the feeling of the heart and conscience are influenced by learning and cultural circumstances, if not, in addition, by personal preferences. If a person has to make a decision that will have an impact on his or her own family, as well as thousands of others, will that person be able to depend on his or her “heart” and conscience alone for the decision to be right?
Unfortunately, history is full of examples where the position of one religious person or party was not accepted by another person or church and was even rejected as wrong, bad, or dangerous (for example, the Inquisition, teachings about modern morality, or some fundamentalists’ proclamations, as, for example, the claim of some Jewish settlers for their religious right to settle in the West Bank or Muslim calls for Holy War against the “infidel” or “apostates”). There have been endless and cruel wars among various groups following different religious ideas, most notably among different Christian denominations, but also between Christians, Muslims, and Jews.
There are a number of arguments in explanation of God’s restraint from communication:

  • Such restraint is the basis of human freedom, self-determination, and responsibility.

  • God may want diversity among humans and their thoughts, including their faiths.

  • There may have been a need for a multilevel, phased development of religious thought in the course of history commensurate with evolving human mental capability and sophistication.

Here are some comments on the preceding list:


Regarding “Such restraint is the basis of human freedom, self-determination, and responsibility”:

The restraint in divine communication has been a concern of mankind at all times. How often was an indication by God asked for by individuals and societies in trouble! The ancient world already reported stories on how dependence on oracles could be misleading. On the other hand, the followers of the Judeo-Christian religions and followers of other religions believe that God did speak clearly from time to time, even though such communication did not begin until thousands of years after humans had managed to develop civilized societies. After that, the speaking of God continued haltingly. Over the past two thousand years, it did not occur at all to Christians or Jews, although God’s message is believed by Muslims to have been heard by Muhammad. Or should one believe more recently reported revelations by Mormons and other religions or sects? Which revelation are we to follow? Which are we to reject as false? How can one resolve contradictions, even partial shortcomings of otherwise acceptable revelations? If we follow one religion, do we have to accept the whole package, or can we choose what parts to accept, and what not? Based on what? Do we have the freedom, even the responsibility, to be critical? Can we, and should we, use our mind to interpret God’s will? Was our mind not given to us to be used? On the other hand, the mind is widely regarded as an inadequate source of insight, as shown in other chapters. Can personal inspiration fill in the gap? Does it? For many believers, such personal inspiration is the greatest source of insight and strength.


It should be noted that such a concept of the divine intent of human mental freedom, self-determination, and responsibility can be in conflict with the God-image of a caring father who averts disaster and helps in predicaments, specifically those resulting from lack of guidance. Religions have repeatedly attempted to provide insight into this predicament through various perspectives or theories intended to provide peace of mind to the believers. Factual observation has shown these attempts to be inadequate.
One should note, in addition, that the concept of divine intent of human freedom, self-determination, and responsibility assumes that humans are interested in assuming responsibility beyond self-interest. Can, and do, self-interest and the pursuit of the best interest for mankind coincide? Most likely, only in the sense of Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Thus, God’s restraint in communication remains an enigma, which a religious person must accept and theology cannot explain. Blessed are those who, in predicaments of lacking guidance, clearly know what correct answer to give or what right path to follow.
Regarding ”God may want diversity among humans and their thoughts, including their faiths”:

If one accepts this thought, does it imply that there is more than one truth? How can that be when religious dogma usually is quite specific as to ritual, ethical rules, and life after death? Which religion should one follow? God cannot be understood as wanting false or obnoxious beliefs. Some religions are, or were, truly despicable, as the Aztec’s with their human sacrifices. How can one decide which religions are acceptable to God and which are not? Catholics and Protestants already have trouble with each other, more so the Jews and the Muslims, and beyond. Many people find something good and something bad in a variety of religions, but cannot or do not want to compose their own religious faith. Acceptance of diversity contradicts the major religion’s claim to be the only keeper of God’s revelation and their missionary zeal. The conclusion – that everybody is supposed to construct his or her own religious faith – puts an enormous burden on everybody’s mind and sense of responsibility. Will many people and society at large really be better off if individuals seek insight from their own religious thoughts?


Regarding ’There may have been a need for a multilevel, phased development of religious thought throughout history commensurate with evolving human mental capabilities”:

Such a need, if justified in historic terms, would also exist within our own time, considering the wide cultural difference between human groups all over the globe – some still living under almost prehistoric conditions, some tending to live in the future. A multilevel religion would pose the same dilemma as the diversity of religions, and it would contradict most missionary effort. This approach could also open a full controversy between modern science as the newest level of insight gained by mankind and any historic religion, making all insight gained by religion subject to scientific review. But the weakness of science as a source of insight for the conduct of human life had been indicated before.


After all, there still may be wisdom in a multilevel structure of religion, allowing people to find comfort and guidance in accordance with their mental capabilities and emotional needs (see the essay, “Religion: What is Religion? What Should Religion Be?”, in the section, “Philosophy/Theology” on the author’s website www.schwab-writings.com).



Yüklə 0,55 Mb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   12




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə