Spring Break
Gravity: The middle ground between science and religion
Brett Haymaker
Issue date: 3/9/07 Section: Ed-Op
You ready for it?
God resides in everything. God is the reason why everything is the way it is. When I refer to God, I am not referring to a being, nor am I referring to a creator with intentions, a consciousness capable of performing actions. I am not referring to a God that is pleased with human behavior or moral subjectivity. God does not concern itself with animals or plants or with anything else. God just is.
God is simply a force. A way. A way that is beyond our human comprehension. In order to understand, we must personify it, make it human in some way. We must dumb it down into human experience to connect to it in some way. To relate to it in a way that gives our lives meaning. Because in the human experience, meaning is a fundamental necessity, whereas God, this immense, complex force, has no interest in meaning. It simply exists and governs the universe, completely outside and unaffected by whatever arises and grows as a result of it. So God has no interest in reason, in meaning, in purpose, but we, as humans, have an interest in God as a result of reason, meaning and purpose.
Creationism and evolution are two ways of saying the same thing, one being empirical and rational, the other being symbolic and metaphoric.
The problem arises when our sense of purpose and meaning are threatened. We defend our positions with an empowerment of right and wrong given to us by either science or religion, both of which exist outside of where God truly lies, but at the same time, undeniably exists within its boundaries. Since meaning, purpose and intentions are so integral in our human understanding of the world, it is hard for us to accept that some things exist outside of the realm of intention. That some things just are.
What we need now is to set down our weapons and put some of those defensive resources into our language. For that is what this battle is really contingent upon.
In order to change our view of God to a more accurate one, we must look at the word God as if it were an entirely new word. God, to humans in the modern era, has become something like the word Love. Everyone has a definition of what it means to them, of what is convenient for them at the time, and it is constantly evolving. Scientist, preacher, monk, nurse and schoolteacher alike, the word God often becomes a tool for our human needs, desires and aims, and we change it to mean whatever is convenient for us and our agenda, to argue or defend our own beliefs and what it means for us. Again, the key problem is with our need for meaning and perception of death, and how that influences our sense of God. For example, we do not ask, "What is God?" but rather, "Who is God?" - our bias toward personification. What God truly is, and what we should be referring to when we use the word God are completely different. That is to say, when we say the word God now, an image of a person comes to mind, when in reality, we should really be thinking of wind, or how ice freezes, or gravity, or time. Because God is more like those things than it is like Jesus Christ, Jehovah, angels or any of the other personified deities of our time. When we think of God now, not only is that notion personified, but God is also an explanation, a reason for why things happen. In our new understanding of the word God, it also serves as an explanation for the Universe but it is true in a less specific sense, in terms of our personal lives and experiences.
God resides in everything. God is the reason why everything is the way it is. When I refer to God, I am not referring to a being, nor am I referring to a creator with intentions, a consciousness capable of performing actions. I am not referring to a God that is pleased with human behavior or moral subjectivity. God does not concern itself with animals or plants or with anything else. God just is.
God is simply a force. A way. A way that is beyond our human comprehension. In order to understand, we must personify it, make it human in some way. We must dumb it down into human experience to connect to it in some way. To relate to it in a way that gives our lives meaning. Because in the human experience, meaning is a fundamental necessity, whereas God, this immense, complex force, has no interest in meaning. It simply exists and governs the universe, completely outside and unaffected by whatever arises and grows as a result of it. So God has no interest in reason, in meaning, in purpose, but we, as humans, have an interest in God as a result of reason, meaning and purpose.
Creationism and evolution are two ways of saying the same thing, one being empirical and rational, the other being symbolic and metaphoric.
The problem arises when our sense of purpose and meaning are threatened. We defend our positions with an empowerment of right and wrong given to us by either science or religion, both of which exist outside of where God truly lies, but at the same time, undeniably exists within its boundaries. Since meaning, purpose and intentions are so integral in our human understanding of the world, it is hard for us to accept that some things exist outside of the realm of intention. That some things just are.
What we need now is to set down our weapons and put some of those defensive resources into our language. For that is what this battle is really contingent upon.
In order to change our view of God to a more accurate one, we must look at the word God as if it were an entirely new word. God, to humans in the modern era, has become something like the word Love. Everyone has a definition of what it means to them, of what is convenient for them at the time, and it is constantly evolving. Scientist, preacher, monk, nurse and schoolteacher alike, the word God often becomes a tool for our human needs, desires and aims, and we change it to mean whatever is convenient for us and our agenda, to argue or defend our own beliefs and what it means for us. Again, the key problem is with our need for meaning and perception of death, and how that influences our sense of God. For example, we do not ask, "What is God?" but rather, "Who is God?" - our bias toward personification. What God truly is, and what we should be referring to when we use the word God are completely different. That is to say, when we say the word God now, an image of a person comes to mind, when in reality, we should really be thinking of wind, or how ice freezes, or gravity, or time. Because God is more like those things than it is like Jesus Christ, Jehovah, angels or any of the other personified deities of our time. When we think of God now, not only is that notion personified, but God is also an explanation, a reason for why things happen. In our new understanding of the word God, it also serves as an explanation for the Universe but it is true in a less specific sense, in terms of our personal lives and experiences.
Viewing Comments 1 - 5 of 6
Joseph Ulicki
posted 3/11/07 @ 7:30 AM EST
Brett,
In your article you wrote:
"Poets and philosophers ..., they are all reliant upon a false assumption, one that has refused to be challenged for far too long: the assumption that God cares. (Continued…)
JoeU
Joseph Ulicki
posted 3/11/07 @ 7:37 AM EST
Brett,
In your article you wrote:
"Poets and philosophers ..., they are all reliant upon a false assumption, one that has refused to be challenged for far too long: the assumption that God cares. (Continued…)
Gary L. Herstein
posted 3/13/07 @ 4:30 PM EST
Brett,
You might be interested in researching the ideas behind "Process Theology." John Cobb has a pretty good "introduction" available (searching on those terms at, say, Amazon or B&N should pull it up. (Continued…)
Ben Simmons
posted 3/25/07 @ 11:47 PM EST
Scientists try to explain things in a way that allows them to make accurate predictions. "God is everywhere" explains exactly nothing. That is why god and science are incompatible. (Continued…)
Sic
posted 3/26/09 @ 2:54 AM EST
Atheist here - to get that out of the way.
Interesting read. So you're really a Deist with slight Buddhist tendencies and you propose this type of god to be a bridge between religion and science? The middle ground?
While not a unique concept, it's a good place to begin weaning humanity off the god dependency, but it's hardly a middle ground or bridge. (Continued…)
Post a Comment