The Prisoner and The Pawn
Two men.
Both wealthy and respected. Both learned and disciplined. Both the heads of large and influential families. Both doomed to suffering, not by their vices, but rather, by their virtues.
One was a man of faith, the other, a man of science.
The man of faith was the foremost citizen in the foremost city of the known world but despite his power and wealth, he was humble and pious. He knew that the most important values in the world were not those that could be tallied or traded but only felt. He was, in short a devout follower of unseen, unfathomable God and he knew, without a shadow of doubt, not only that his God was real, but that God loved him.
The man of science was born in a city devoted to God where all the teachers were God’s servants and all truth was defined by his holy church. But when he looked around, the truth he witnessed wasn’t what he had been taught and that left him in a terrible dilemma. “Does it take more courage to open one’s eyes or to close them?”
There were those who were unimpressed by the man of faith’s devotion. “It’s easy”, they would say, “to have faith when you are a rich.” It does not take great character to have faith in luxury but faith in suffering is hard and sometimes the greatest lessons come with the greatest price.
The man of science knew that closing his eyes to the truth would be easier, but the call of knowledge was too beautiful to ignore and so he opened his eyes ever wider and began to study. He measured the movements of the planets and the stars. He touched earth and stone. He sought truth in fire and water and the more he learned, the more he came to understand that the word of God, so long spoken with certainty, was at best in error and at worst an outright lie.
How do you keep your faith in the face of tragedy? How can you love a God who takes away everything you hold dear? The man of faith watched his wife and children die of disease. He lost his fortune, his status in the community, and his home. Even his health deserted him and this once proud pillar of society became homeless, destitute and diseased. He valued faith above all other things and now faith was all he had left.
If you are going to argue with God, you better have your facts straight. Years went by. Decades. The man of science spent long nights charting the stars and long days working out the mysteries of their movements. Even when he was certain he had unlocked their secrets he returned to his studies and sought out his own mistakes. Doubting what the rest of the world takes for granted might be the pathway to new knowledge, but turning the light of doubt on your own preconceptions and fallibility is the first step towards wisdom. When he was finally certain, the man of science told his story to the world and it almost cost him his life.
Everyone told the man of faith to abandon God. “How can you love a God who clearly doesn’t love you?” “How can a just God allow such suffering to be visited on a just and faithful man?” The logic, they said, was self evident. “Either God does not exist, or, if he does, he does not love you.” The man of faith listened patiently but in his heart he knew the truth.
In 1633 Galileo Galilei was called before the inquisition in Rome under the charge of heresy. His believe in a heliocentric universe was in direct contradiction to the geocentric universe described in scripture. Galileo was imprisoned and forced to recant his views. However, there is a legend (probably apocryphal) that after admitting, under threat of torture and death, that the earth was the stationary center of the universe, he whispered under his breath, “And yet, it moves.”
Job never gave up his faith and, in the end, God returned his health, wealth and status. That God was also responsible for his suffering is the wellspring of a great debate. How can we love a God who could so callously torture one of his most devoted followers simply to prove a point to Satan? Is Job a saint to be admired and emulated, or a fool?
The journeys of faith and science are both long and difficult. They both require dedication and discipline. They both often mean pitting yourself against the prevailing culture and enduring the derision of the world. However, in the end, these two journey’s are walked in opposite directions. The discipline of science is one of doubt, of seeking facts not feelings, of believing not what we wish is true but only what can be proven. The discipline of faith is internal. It is about letting go of doubt. It’s power is derived not from the head but from heart. It is a way of finding hope, when logic would say all hope is gone.
Science and faith can both save lives, change civilizations and, perhaps, even move mountains but they have walked so long in opposite directions that they have lost site of each other and that might be a tragedy for both.
posted by Steve at 5:15 PM
19 Comments:
Here's my issue: Galileo was real and his story is true; Job's is a parable and exists to fulfill its own prophesy, demonstrating the power of faith in higher power. Putting them together as if they are of equal weight "loads the dice".
I happen to be moving much more toward the scientific mindset, since the other lends itself to abuse. If something is unprovable, then anyone is free to speculate, hence the variety of religious beliefs.
Like the prehensile tail and the appendix, I believe that "belief" was a necessary step in the development of uncivilized man, much like a child is told not to do something (play with fire, cross the street)before she is able to fully understand the consequences of the action; once a level of maturity is reached, understanding of the consequences removes the need for the scary story..
Rick,
I agree with everything you have said. I am very much of the scientific mindset and have always distrusted faith for the exact reasons you have laid out.
However, faith is both powerful and meaningful to many people. What I am trying to do in this series of blogs is too explore that power and meaning.
I am still struggling to answer the question I asked in my previous blog. "Can a thing which is not literally true have real and positive power?"
I believe the answer is yes but in order to understand why, I think we have to first put aside the question of truth and begin exploring the practice and process of faith.
That's your question? "Can a thing which is not literally true have real and positive power?"
I think the answer is no. Your question answers it self in "literal terms". If a "thing" is not true, meaning: doesn't exist then it simply can't be "real"... So therefore, how can it have "power"?
You answered your question right there. Why go any further? You've made up your mind already. Your question states that the "thing" is not true. It's like asking, can I hydrate myself by drinking an empty glass of water... Ummmm... You're stating the glass is empty of water, so you can't really drink it, can you?
A more open minded question might be "Is there power in a faith that cannot be proven true or false by current scientific study?"
A true scientific approach starts without opinion. It's open to any discovery. I get the distinct impression your journals come from a slanted perspective.
Jesus said "in my Father's house there are many mansions."
I have ascribed for many years to a belief system known as Science of Mind (no relation to Scientology), which believes that we think with
the same consciousness as God, or as we put it, the Universal Mind. Science of Mind is a metaphysical reinterpretation of the New
Testament, whereby Christ is believed to be not THE son of God, but a man who completely understood his spiritual relationship to God, and
was thus able to perform "miracles", or "manifest" as new-agers put it. Think of it as a sort of metaphysical sports psychology, where you spend quite a bit of time reorganizing the way you think aboutyourself and the world and envisioning circumstances to be how you would like them to be (e.g. visualizing winning a race).
In a recent interview with an Olympic coach, the question was posed regarding the next phase of training for Olympic athletes. The answer was "visualization". Studies have shown that visualing can achieve 70% of the benefit of physically training.
What does this have to do with faith? Science of Mind believes that the stronger your faith in a better outcome for yourself, others and the world, the more likely it is such an outcome will occur.
This is not the same as wishful thinking. Science of Mind spends a considerable amount of time discussing something called "spiritual mind treatment", a sort of cognitive praying -- changing your inner conversation and spending time meditating and rethinking your relationship to God.
There is no doubt that confident, calm, positive people -- people with a "faith" that life will treat them well, or "believe' in their ability to manage life's challenges -- tend to attract more positive
circumstances in their lives. Research has shown that people with a strong faith do better in recovering from illnesses and surgery.
What is the source of this "power" to effect these kinds of outcomes? The truth is, as you so succinctly put it, no one knows. But we do know that it does exist. The devil, as they say, is in the
details. Everybody gets really angry when they start arguing about those details. Maybe that's what the Tower of Babel story is really all about.
Jesus said "in my Father's house there are many mansions." The problem seems to be expecting everyone to live in just one of them.
-- Wendy
UB, I disagree with your analysis. You beg the question as well. Just by stating: If a "thing" is not true, meaning: doesn't exist then it simply can't be "real"..." and is therefor unable to be powerful, doesn't make it so.
I think that hypnosis, for example demonstrates that if the mind believes something (something that is visibly untrue), it has the power to make the body do things (stay rigid over two chairs)it couldn't, or wouldn't otherwise do.
This probably moves the discussion to the psychology arena, where there is clear evidence that what the mind believes has power.
Rick and Wendy both make my point for me.
I think part of the problem we have, when science folks and religious folks argue, is that they focus too much on the issue of truth and not enough on how faith and belief work.
In fact, an examination of world religions makes clear how little "Truth" has to do with it. Maybe one of the religions is literally true but that means all the other religions in the world must be to, some degree, wrong. If the power of faith was dependent upon truth, you would expect to see a marked difference between how strongly people hold to their faith, but you don't. So let's stop talking about truth and focus instead on the power of belief.
And this isn't just about religion. Stock markets rise and fall on belief. Political leaders gain power. Wars are started. Much of our culture is based not on fact but on what we believe.
Rick and Wendy both point out how profoundly our way of looking at ourselves and the world can effect everything around us.
We are, as my friend, Mike Hoover, points out, Neurotic Meaning making machines constantly inventing the world around us and our place in it.
But none of that is about the truth of the belief merely about the fact that we believe it.
Of course the mind can be fooled through hypnosis, brainwashing, etc. It's very easy to do. That isn't what I am referring to, however.
I am referring to scientifcally observed evidence that records the fact that people with a strong spiritual faith fare better in the world, including healing after surgery and illness. Science cannot account for why people with faith heal better. But as good scientists, they can observe and record the evidence that it does. As I said before, nobody knows exactly what this phenomenon is.
And because a thing hasn't been proven scientifically doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In the quantum universe, the rules of physics change. Time runs backwards. It is possible for something to be in two places at the same time. However, the idea that this could occur would have seemed fantastical 100 years ago.
Science and spirituality are slowly (very slowly!) coming together. The buddhist ideas of maya and illusion are very similar to ideas posited in quantum physics.
Scary televangelists and icky pedophile priests make religion unpalatable as do those who would legislate their personal moral beliefs, or even live under a theocratic government. However, dismissing evidence of the influence of faith on the human condition due to one's own distate for religion's often reprehensible history is as unscientific as stating unequivocally that Jesus rose from the dead because the bible said he did.
Rick... I think you need to re-read my comment. I'm not asking the same question as Steve.
I'm saying the very nature of his question is biased.
I'm saying ask a better question and you'll get a better answer.
Your chair analysis doesn't work for me. Is it belief or focus or simply determination? There's many factors there.
Just like faith, it's very individualistic. So blanket statements and analysis really don't apply.
Steve, that Mike Hoover sentence/statement makes no sense whatsoever.
And, I notice you avoided any sort of statement regarding your "question". A question, mind you, which you clearly quoted. Is it that difficult to admit it's verbiage is slanted...?
UB,
I'm perfectly happy to say that I'm biased, I state regularly in this blog that I'm a science guy, but I don't think my question is biased and I think you're the one who isn't reading carefully.
I've said over and over again that I want to dispense with the question of whether or not any particular religion is literally true. I've admitted, many times that it is perfectly possible that one of the religions could be literally true. I've admitted that I can not prove that any of the religions are false. I can, however, say with relative confidence that not all of them are literally true.
And that means that some religious people, somewhere, (not you) are fervently and passionately believing in a lie. What I find interesting (and the real point of these blogs) is that all religious people seem to get many of the same benefits from their beliefs even though some of them must be wrong.
What I'm trying to talk about (which Rick and Wendy both describe beautifully) is the power of the human mind.
Perhaps I would be better off just staying away from the hot button topic of religion entirely and discussed athletic visualization, as Wendy did or the psychology that Rick brought up.
I could have talked about the false body image that causes a woman to starve herself to death or the courage that comes from knowing you are loved (even loved by God)
My point is that the relative truth of something often has very little to do with how hard we hold onto it or how powerful that idea can be. Our minds shape the world and ourselves.
That's a lot of power and it can be used for good or ill. It is that power, not truth, that I am trying to discuss.
Steve, I still don't think you quite get what I'm saying. Your QUESTION, the one you mention in quotes in your reply to Rick is what I have a problem with.
"Can a thing which is not literally true have real and positive power?"
And I repeat, You answered your question right there. Why go any further? You've made up your mind already. Your question states that the "thing" is not true.
That question, which answers itself, is pointless when posed that way.
That's all I'm saying.
Your journey to discover the power of belief/faith is fine with me. But your question seems lop-sided. It simply isn't well thought out and constructed to convey what you apparently meant by it. I believe my sentence works better. ["Is there power in a faith that cannot be proven true or false by current scientific study?"]
But whatever, it's your journey. Say it, phrase it any which way you want. In the end you will find only the answers your heart wants you to find because there simply isn't a scientific measuring stick for that sort of inquiry.
UB, I sort of like Steve's question better than yours simply because he goes to the "hardest" case, the one we we acknowledge that the belief is false, not the case where it may or my not be false because it can't be proven.
Okay.
It's sort of a Tree Falling in a Forest sort of question any way you slice it.
I suppose it's nice to debate about things like "the meaning of life". But it all seems masturbatory to me. It's impossible to answer a question like that. Is Steve going to do it, no matter how many parables he presents? No. Can anyone? No.
But, hey, we play Nintendo and waste time too. I guess there's not much difference.
UB
I don't think I'm asking a "tree falling..." kind of question. What I'm trying to do (albeit at times unsuccessfully) is examine the power of faith, and the power of the mind.
But maybe I've been too clever with my writing (which isn't much of a stretch) So let me lay out the points of my argument and you tell me where my logic is flawed.
1. There is no way to prove that any particular religion is true or false (I'm pretty sure we agree on this one)
2. All religions cannot be true. (There are two many inconsistencies. ie. reincarnation vs. after life, one god vs. many)
3. Therefor some (or most) of the religious people in the world believe in something which is not literally true.
4. People of all religions get benefits (usually very similar benefits) from their faith.
5. (and this is the tricky one) If everyone gets the same benefits from faith and if at least some of the religions are false then some of the benefits of faith have nothing to do with the truth, or lack thereof, of that particular religion.
6. Conclusion: The act of faith, and the ways religion is practiced (prayer, singing, ritual, fasting, etc...) have power even if they don't have truth.
So, where is my logic flawed?
By the way, I think these ideas are important (not just masturbatory) because I believe exploring them can help scientific folk better understand and respect religious people and, it can help religious people of different sects better understand and respect each other.
Not sure that it would (should?) lead scientific folks to "better understand and respect" the religious. The scientists realize that it's not the content of the religion that merits such respect, since it's apparently irrelevant (and arbitrary) , but rather the behavior that results from such belief..
Five people each eat an apple a day. Each benefits from eating the
apple -- more fiber, vitamins and minerals, better digestion, etc.
Person No. 1 thinks that The Great Spirit gave humans apples as a gift.
Person No. 2 thinks that apples are symbols of the god Dionysus (how
d'ya like them apples?)
Person No. 3 is a nutritionist, but has been eating apples since she
was a kid and didn't know anything about nutrition until graduate
school.
Person No. 4 read somewhere that apples are good for you, but doesn't know why.
Person No. 5 hates apples and finds them disgusting. He believes that
apples are the devil's fruit, based on the Garden of Eden story.
However his parents believe they are good for him, so he is forced to
eat the apple every day. Usually he pukes it back up because the
thought of apples make him naseous.
Persons 1 - 4 benefit from eating the apple. Only one knows --
eventually -- why the apple leads to better health. The one who
believes apples are disgusting derives little to no benefit. Even the
portions of apple that he doesn't puke up are badly digested because
of his naseua.
So there is something in the apple that helps everyone who believes
the apple is helpful. For the person who doesn't believe that apples
are helpful, the apple is not helpful or is less helpful. Each person
has their own interpretation, not necessarily based on fact. One
person has SOME factual information. As the science of nutrition
advances, that person will learn more.
Eating food that is attractive and appealing is part of good
nutrition, as anyone who is trying to lose weight will tell you. So
Person No. 5's apple-phobia prevents him from gaining any benefit from
the apple, whether the apple is good for someone else or not.
Person No. 5 gets his fiber and vitamins and minerals from another
food source.
But Wendy,
You're comparing apples and orang...oh wait, you're not..
LOL
Fantastic analogy Wendy!
I was going to use a food metaphor too.
Just as Nutrition scientists are starting to realize they have a lot to learn from traditional food culture, I think social and psychological scientists can learn a lot from traditional religious practices and ideas.
Focusing on truth and provability creates a contentious atmosphere. Whereas, I believe, focusing on the cause and effect of faith (the eating of Wendy's apple) might be a place where we can actually learn some stuff.
I think both you and Wendy sum it up well.
I think your "points" are universally known and understood by every moderately intelligent person.
Not all religions must be true but people benefit from their faith regardless.
So what? I get it. Larry gets it. Laura gets it.
So why the parables? Why the "study"? People universally already understand these concepts without all of the overstating.
Do I think conflicting religions can benefit from focusing on faith objectively? Yes. But I believe that's a matter of literally practicing what you preach. In the sense that the vast majority of religion encourages peace and "treating others as you wish to be treated".
Basically we need to learn Tolerance and Compassion.
Otherwise, the "battle" between sects continues internally. "I believe I'm right and they are wrong but we both benefit from our faith." The internal conflict and judgment is still there.
Instead, IMO, we're better off focusing on, "I respect my neighbor and wish him/her peace and happiness." Each to his/her own.
In your various Journeys and Quests for understanding you seem to merely state some tacit remarks and include a parable or two and that seems to be it. And, IMO, they're generally a bit slanted.
But that's another problem I have with your blog. It's just a "a bit" slanted. Your feelings seep out cloaked in clever stories without a clear/critical approach.
I would much rather you state your opinions on a subject than just state a bunch of common knowledge and then leave the children to discuss... Instead of you personally taking us on the journey with you - it's more like you're presenting a Thomas Guide.
But it's your blog. However, your blog is public.
Post a Comment
<< Home