I had a conversation recently – one of those where you think you’re getting the other persons viewpoint, and you think they get yours, until you realize you don’t. I’m a Christian, he’s an ex-Christian (I think), but I’m still not exactly sure of his replacement world view. The conversation was on one subject, and lurking in the overtones was faith and Christianity.
It’s hard to recount such a conversation and what follows is a memory - whether I get it exactly right or not is not really the point. I think there are some really important issues at play where we often make assumptions about other people, and often get it wrong. I assumed he held logic as an indisputable authority, he assumed I limited myself in logic. I don’t remember how it all began, it was lunch, and strange things happen at lunch. At some point I made a statement along the lines of “If we are no more than mere atoms then life is meaningless”. That was a unfortunate choice of words because he found the semantic weak point and responded “Of course I can find meaning”. I agree to some degree; certainly the new-Atheism community is formulating all sorts of arguments about how an atheist (which I take to mean someone who subscribes to the position “I’m no more than the mere atoms of which I’m made”) can construct meaning. I suppose I should have said “ultimately meaningless”. For logic would say that if I am only atoms, then there is no ultimate meaning, and any meaning I might construct is necessarily relative and self-defined. Such meaning may satisfy me (for a moment) but life must logically be ultimately meaningless. The inherent weakness of a self-identified meaning usually shows up when an individual is in the face of intense stress or imminent death. At this point my discussion partner split the conversation (or maybe I did it) into two inter-mingled threads. But for clarity let me present them separately as I perceived them, not as it happened in conversation. First is the challenge to my use of logic. I said logic is the only refuge we have for thinking, and as best we can tell logic is the only external framework for thinking that is verifiable (so far as our senses can tell). I went on to say that the essence of logic begins with the law of non-contradiction. For example, logic would say 1+1 cannot equal 2 and equal 3. His challenge to this was that I’m locking myself into a solution. He asked “could you not imagine an alternative framework where such logic did not operate” – implying that I had chosen to limit my thinking by requiring that we play by the rules of logic. It took me awhile to convince him that of course I could imagine alternatives. I have a very active imagination that gives me hours of pleasure! I love Alice in Wonderland, Tolkien, and Terry Pratchett. Of course neither he (I hope) nor I would suggest these reflect reality. But I can also very easily imagine many other very plausible ways in which reality could be operating beyond our comprehension. I can even imagine that logic may be only symptomatic of something else in a higher dimensional existence that we cannot see. I can imagine I’m wrong (and I often do). But my point in response was that while I can and do imagine alternatives, I also have to have a working hypothesis of life … for otherwise I have no basis for decisions and choice. My working hypothesis of life is the one which is supported by the evidence. If I suddenly found out that 1+1 can equal 3, then I will (unhappily) quickly change my frame of reference. I would be extremely stupid, foolish, and dishonest not to do so. Thus my use of logic as the working hypothesis of authority is rooted in the evidence of experience (what else do I have?). Imagination has no authority; it may fruitfully lead me down paths of discovery but until there is evidence to support the imagination, it would be deeply unwise to let imaginative ideas determine my choice without the evidence to support it. I can imagine that I can choose to negate gravity (I love Douglas Adams’ description of Arthur learning to fly), but it would be unwise for me to act on that imagination in real life. Therefore the modus operandi for my life is to examine, conclude, then act. As evidence builds I will of course re-examine, re-conclude, and re-adapt. And so we come to the second thread. While we avoided overt discussion of God and Christianity, this was an inevitable backdrop to discussing whether we are more than the mere atoms that make us up. I strongly believe I am more than the mere atoms … (my) logic and experience tells me so. Of course I may be deluded, but so far this is my working hypothesis. He, I think, is more of the mind that we are deterministic with a splash of randomness that gives the delusion that there is something more going on (although, as I said earlier, I’m not really sure that is his position). This second conversation thread is the mystical equivalent of the former, and he challenged me with the statement that I only believe what I do because I’ve chosen to lock myself into the constraints of a Christian theology, a particular lens on life. He pushed me on this point assuming (I think) that this was the case, and that consequently I was not allowing myself to imagine alternative explanations and realities to my experience. This is a natural assumption; most people with a highly secularized world view assume this about someone who affirms a religious affiliation. In many cases I sadly think the assumption is completely warranted. But I pushed back on that and noted that I do engage with imagining my beliefs to be wrong, I do entertain doubt – frequently. This surprised him, I hope. For I believe logic is authoritative (my experience tells me so), and I believe imagination can open the way to alternatives (my experience tells me so). I also hold that evidence and experience are the constraints to the design of my working hypothesis for life. Ever since I got past being dominated by the hormones of childhood I have been on a journey of doubt, (re-)examination, (re-)imagination, and conclusion. Along the way there have been ups and downs, but always I converge back to my working hypothesis; I am more than the atoms that make me up, there is a spiritual dimension that is what makes me be me, and there is a “higher power” (to use the politically correct term). To be politically incorrect, I think all religions reflect some of this truth (as one would logically expect them to), but that only Christ (not Christianity) offers a full and logically consistent explanation (implying that all other religions are ultimately dead ends, if you'll excuse the pun). Of course there remains mystery … logic would say that if my position is true then there MUST be mystery. It is a logical necessity that the finite cannot fully understand the infinite. The offence to my senses comes from my wanting to think I can understand the infinite, but logic quickly raps me over the knuckles and gives me the apparent paradox that says “You cannot fully understand, but to be honest with yourself you must necessarily try”. And to finish with logical consistency, I imagine all the above could be wrong.
1 Comment
Al Owski
3/2/2015 08:32:16 pm
Tolstoy tried to find meaning in life through reason alone to no avail. It was a futile attempt until he could connect the finite to the infinite. See http://www.deepspirits.com/great-people/leo-tolstoy/confession9.php
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Why?
Probably the best therapy is to express yourself. Why do you think psychiatrists make you lie on the couch and talk, while all they do is murmur "hmmm", "uhuh", or "go on"? Archives
May 2017
|