Deism and mysticism, to me, are the only reasonable way of reconciling the metaphysical worldview with science without causing a dualism, since they observe God through the universe and recognize the importance of symbolism.
I think contemplating angels as symbols for the laws of the universe can help bridge the gap between science and religion.
Instead of living a double life, where we envision angels as bodily spirits with wings in a religious setting, to only switch modes when we are in a laboratory or science classroom and imagine the universe being run by the laws of physics, I suggest the two be converged and consider angels and the laws of nature to be the same.
In the past, imagining angels literally as winged creatures who fly around guiding the affairs of the universe by being consistently obedient to God's commands was perhaps a suitable way of explaining how God runs the universe to an illiterate Bedouin who was unaware of the laws of physics and nature. There was no science back then; people had to rely on these depictions.
But in the post-scientific era, I think that such a view creates a dichotomy between the natural and the supernatural. Symbolism is one way to make sense out of this disparity.
Laws after all are nothing but symbols. When we say E=MC^2, this is a mathematical equation that reflects reality. It is only a symbol, but it is the best way we know of to understand how the universe works.
Mathematics is the use of abstraction and logical reasoning to reflect reality. Equations are symbols. The same is true for angels.
Laws of nature behave consistently; they appear to apply everywhere in the universe; they are absolute and stable; nothing in the universe appears to affect them; the laws are unchanged since first discovered and omnipotent; everything in the universe apparently must comply with them.
I observe the universe being run by God through a system of laws that are constant and dependable.
This in a metaphysical worldview corresponds to angels. So they might as well be the same.
Converging physics and metaphysics, which is something necessary if we want to avoid living a double life, entails such attempts.
Our interpretation of the supernatural must be modified each era based on the understanding, knowledge and awareness available to us at the time.
It also can be modified as a person grows older and more knowledgeable. We can attempt to observe things at different levels. Just as we explain things differently to children than we do to adults when it comes to science, the same should be true for religion.
I believe we can and should modify and develop our perception of God and the metaphysical world rather than allow it to remain static. The universe is too great to be contemplated at a static level - God is even greater.
Over time, humanity's understanding of how the laws of physics work has evolved. Yet, our understanding of scripture remains at undeveloped. The illustration of angels, which are soldiers of God who obey His every command, is still as it was a millennium and a half ago.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Categories
health
(58)
Islam
(47)
weight loss
(47)
self-improvement
(18)
evolution
(17)
exercise
(15)
Arab culture
(14)
Arab media
(14)
technology
(11)
mind-body
(10)
yoga
(10)
spirituality
(4)
arabic poetry
(2)
politics
(2)
11 comments:
I don't know if you are familiar with the work of Carl Jung, but if not, you should read his Synchronicity. This is not exactly what you are writing about here, but it's somewhat close. Jung and Freud are considered the founders of modern psychology and Jung still remains rather influential. Jung had a kind of interest in and appreciation of mysticism and the stuff and in fact his work seems to have attracted interest of one of the top nuclear scientists of his days. Jung's theory of synhronicity is very controversial of course, but I am sure you will like it
Lina, I have read some of your posts and it is interesting to see the things your mind is trying to understand and make sense of based on what you know. I think you will find it gets more difficult to reconcile a scientific worldview with the supernatural as you delve into it over time. I understand at this time in your life you may not want to give up the mystical, and "angels" acting as symbols of laws of nature seems a satisfying merger. Next, however, you need to face the unsatisfying idea that these "angels" right now are mutating DNA in a very unlawful random way that will result in a child with horrific birth defects. This child will probably not share the ease at which you seem to think it is possible to join the "intentional" with the merely probable. Equating angels to the laws of nature is like equating a god to love...it merely shows we can get along without the idea of god or angels.
This is another interesting attempt at trying to reconcile what is regarded as supernatural with natural observed phenomena. However, what I see you are trying to do here is to say that what was or still regarded as supernatural isn't super but was just another way of explanation (to the Bedouin or whoever) for better understanding at that time. Even though this is unfalsifiable, that does seem like a decent rationalization.
Though, how would you explain the tales of fallen angels? Or the angel that came to Prophet Muhammad? Or angels that helped in wars? Some people rationalize that these are aliens. Which do you think is a better explanation and why? And why would they make up figures (about angels with wings) to explain relevant and natural truth instead of just saying this is the raw facts and you will be able to understand this later? Why didn't they
at least warn them (the Bedouins) that this is just a supplementary explanation like you speculate it could be.
Furthermore, I think this rationalization takes away from the supernatural aspect of God and his realm, so to speak. It appears as if
religion or mysticism, is trying little by little to walk in the shadow of science. I mean the whole point is that God is outside the process and cycle of the universe which is why questions like "If God created the universe which is complex, then God must be complex, so who created God?" are considered inapplicable.
It becomes a process of looking at God with a
scientific point of view. Assigning God and his realm as the mystery to be uncovered by science. And as the mystery begins to dwindle, so will God (or the stories told about him to satisfy the Bedouins' curiosity). Or more precisely, we will see that the use of God or anything mystical and supernatural as an explanation to anything is after all unnecessary. While I am sure you do not feel this way, your methods will reach that
state.
Either you accept God and his realm to be outside of scientific truth which is in turn based on human interpretation (through the five senses), or you rely on scientific truth alone without having extra baggage (religion) to accommodate for.
Also, the example about E=MC^2 being a symbol for something and using it the way you did was quite creative, but I am afraid it is nothing
more than semantics using the word 'symbol'. The whole 'Equations are symbols of observed phenomena which appears to be absolute (laws), and angels are symbols as well' is an unjustified statement. Meaning, it is
unfalsifiable, and not yet proven or comprehensively put together with
a stable base.
Unlike your example, mathematical equations satisfy our coherent epistemic network of knowledge while the idea of angels to science and to mathematics are foundational (see Coherent and Foundational Epistemology). Your rationalizations of this topic are also foundational and not supported (or at least at first) by firm beliefs or convictions. Even though what you said lies outside this scope, but even laws are always being upgraded and made better. Not the laws, but our understanding of the laws, like for example when Einstein posited the the cosmological constant and then abandoned it after reviewing some data, and with the discovery, among many others, that the second law of thermodynamics is shown not to hold under microscopic systems. This tells you it's (it = scientific laws) not really the most accurate way to describe something that is said to be absolute (God and his absolute realm).
I'd like to hear what you think. Did I miss the point? Did I look too far and ended up getting lost?
Oh, and by the way, keep it up!
Ali
Dear Ali,
I really appreciate your valuable comments as they allowed me to contemplate this topic in a deeper way.
Here is my response:
There is no such thing as fallen angels in Islam. Angels are strictly obedient. In Islam, Satan is a Jinn and not an angel. Jinns are another aspect of the supernatural that must be rationalized if we are to bridge the natural and the supernatural.
Here is my preliminary attempt: They might represent free will, as opposed to determinism which is observed in the natural world.
The following are attempts to explain the other phenomena you referred to:
I would rationalize the angels that helped in wars as a combination of the physical laws and circumstances that led to triumph (the angel Michael) and the inspiration that led to a successful strategy (the angel Gabriel).
The ideas that every human gets are inspirations from the spirit of God, facilitated by angles (the cosmic force.) Humans are from the spirit of God. We are also made of the substance of the cosmos, materially and cognitively.
"Then He made his progeny from a draught of minute fluid; Then He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His spirit. And He gave you (the faculties of) hearing and sight and feeling (and understanding)" Quran (32:8-9)
The angel that came to Prophet Muhammad was also a symbol for the inspiration from God, but perhaps of a special superior kind.
Any inspiration that a human gets (whether a prophet or a regular person) is the result of a cosmic force, which in religion corresponds to a revolution from God facilitated by angels.
The nature of the conscious mind is still a mystery to science. Strict theists like to take advantage of unsolved problems in science by defaulting them directly to metaphysics, but this hinders scientific inquiry and only serves to drive a wedge between religion and science, something which is unfavorable in Islam.
Scientists are cracking scientific codes rapidly. More and more is being discovered about the human brain through the fusing of biology and psychology.
It is as strict theists want the areas in science that appear insoluble to remain insoluble. There is a tendency to rely in religion on scientific mysteries, but Islam, in its final revolution, makes it clear that it is not helpful to rely on miracles and that understanding of our existence is sought through the known and not the unknown.
I concede that mysticism which equates God with the universe and existence very often leads to the reliance on the universe and existence and slowly withers the concept of a theistic God. This is something that should be addressed. I'm not sure I have an answer to it.
There are many paths to God, as mystics say. Some people feel the need for a theistic God; others feel content without one, such as adherents of Buddhism, Sikhism and certain traditions of Hinduism.
I agree that laws are always being upgraded and made better. That is why I mentioned that our interpretation of angels should be upgraded and made better as our understanding of the laws evolves.
Thank you for the response, I am both honored and intrigued; a good combination for the spirit, huh? And I hope you are not bothered by my reply since I took you as person who wishes to learn more than anything else, which doesn't exclude me.
Now notice I didn't strictly focus on the rationalization of angels since almost anything anyone can think of can be intellectualized, but I was focusing on the rationalization of anything that religion may assert (the supernatural being used as an explanation for phenomena.)
I see you also rationalize the idea of evolution and how it can be reconciled with the creation story, which I admire. That sure, God did create humans and every other species on the planet, but the question is how? And that's what the theory of evolution answers, to exclude the theory is to say God wished everything into existence which is nothing more than an incantation spell. Furthermore, soon enough if or when abiogenesis becomes a leading theory in how life started on earth with a naturalistic explanation, we begin to rely on natural explanations rather than our preconceived ones. Soon enough, if we keep upgrading and upgrading to fit a more rational and scientific notion our entire preconceived idea (about religion and the supernatural) would have changed.
Notice this transformation (of our preconceived idea) is not unlike the evolution of species. (1) Animals replicate themselves and (2) there's always variation, these two facts and long periods of time results in morphology of the animals in (1). In my previous paragraph, (1) we review our preconceived ideas by bringing them back up in our mind (to see how we can upgrade them) and (2) there is always variation in the way we look at them due to new data from scientific truths, these two facts and a long period of time our preconceived ideas, in (1), change.
Evolution, over long generations, works in stages of micro changes (eg. neck gets longer, back legs become shorter for easier balance, etc) until everything has changed. If we keep upgrading our understanding of God and his realm, it too will change either to another unfalsifiable idea, or we will learn to dispose of such an idea and learn to rely on our naturalistic methods.
I am not saying this should really anger God. God isn't a narcissistic human being waiting for worship, he knows we are simple creatures based on compartmentalized and referential thoughts. He knows this is our capability.
Anyways, my opinion is that if you are to follow a religion, you should stick to its teachings and take it for what it is and try not to accomodate it with anything. Accomadoting and rationalizing will reach the state of no religion (the change of our preconceived idea I brought up earlier), and why go through all this work while you could just skip these steps?
Ali
Also, I know very well you understand the process of evolution, you have many articles and replies indicating you do, so i was not trying to insult your knowledge by reexplaining it here, it was only done for explanation and really for my own pace.
Thanks again Ali for your reply.
It seems most people on earth are not ready to skip these steps. People need something to default to when all else fails. They need things like meaning, love and hope, which science does not do a good job at providing.
The problem with sticking to the literal teachings of a religion is that it hinders scientific inquiry. Even intelligent design, which concedes evolution, can block curiosity, because it tells us to surrender in the face of anything that cannot be explained by science and attribute it only to God.
As you mentioned, every process requires an evolution, and that includes human understanding.
Nonetheless, I am not sure that this thinking process necessarily leads to a state of no religion. Religion is too powerful a force for people to do away with—at least not at a group level.
However, religions themselves evolve. Religion and our interpretation of religion is a tradition of change.
Meaning, love, and hope are not in the realm of science (in the general sense) nor are they really exclusive to the realm religion. However, science is not meant to be a way of life nor to replace anything religion explains. It's meant to provide raw data and how to best interpret it with respect to our wide pool of knowledge. The problem occurs when religion makes assertions about things in the realm of science.
However, yes it will be very hard for people to skip such steps. People do need something to default to when all else fails. Though I do empathize, we should not conclude that these are truths for the mere fact.
For most people that think like you do (assuming I have the right idea and the right to judge your thoughts) about lessening the gap between science and religion think that science and religion are both congruent attempting to explain the same thing (not opposing) or one is attempting to explain or give perspective to the other.
One is based on evidence, and the other is based on revelation. Assuming we did our research correct and the source of revelation is reliable, they both cannot be wrong. This is very true and is courageous to follow that path from the perspective of a theist, but one question. Why all the confusion with analogies and symbols in the first place regarding the revealed truths? Shouldn't truth directly and immediately sound like truth rather then rely on something else (something developed by man: Scientific method) to upgrade it with? Wouldn't that be somewhat the opposite of actual revealed truth? The question covers any kind of revealed truth, be it scientific, moral, feeling, spiritual, etc.
No one is against the process of upgrade. The problem occurs when we are upgrading our understanding of something without a base (according to scientific thought), such as religion, with something that is entirely coherent (scientific method). Like was previously said, it becomes extra baggage.
This is why I say if this rationalizing continues to happen, then you will reach the state of no religion, or at least to the state no real, absolute, or firm religion. I mean, when do we know when to stop upgrading the truths we get from religion? When we reach final scientific truths? As long as we discover new things, religious truth continue to upgrade? You see what's happening? How long do you think it will take before the two graphs (of science and religion) to overlap and become the same one? It may not happen in our life time, but logically that's where it will lead to.
Ali
Ali,
I don't think we should be reluctant to explore possibilities and seek better awareness for fear of discovering something that will rock our foundation. All that means is that our foundation is too weak to be tinkered with.
Most religions in their essences, favor searching and questioning rather than taking things on faith. The monotheistic faiths encourage us to seek God through the universe and through reason, not to mention Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism. Religious traditions do not favor this because it weakens social cohesion and conformity.
I don't think it would be wise to avoid seeking a better understanding for fear of reaching a state of no religion. Why would God ask us to explore the earth and search for the origins of life (Quran 29:20) and then punish us for doing so?
By the way, what I am suggesting here is not something new. Sufis have suggested it, so have many other mystical traditions. They have found that it gives them a more fulfilling spiritual and aesthetic experience. They have also found it more practical in solving worldly problems, including complex health issues (as in the practice of yoga, for example.)
Excellent, I am glad you agree.
I don't think I implied to halt our search for knowledge. I actually implied the opposite, and I even hoped to present a better method of looking for it. And yes, not only is our foundation too weak to be tinkered with but its credibility is lacking on its own.
And no, it is not new, it is rather natural of a 21st century mind to do these things without any difficulty, but it is illogical to hold on to these revealed truths if all we are doing is upgrading it to fit scientific standards. Revealed truth is suppose to be... you know the final call... Either 'it' is right and everything 'not it' is wrong (period), or it is all wrong.
Since you cited The Qur'an a couple of times, I assume you agree it came from someone or something omniscient, right? The absolute reference.
It cannot be somewhat right or partially true but needs a bit of review every now and then. I am assuming this revealed truth is from an almighty God, of course. Revealed truth from an omniscient God, by definition is complete and well thought up of for our utmost understanding.
Since you cited The Qur'an a couple of times, I assume you agree it came from someone or something omniscient, right? The absolute reference.
What you see happening with the gap between Religion and Science is not only because of the misinformed people, but also because that gap exists and is clear.
I will respectfully say, you misunderstood what I was trying to get at.
Ali
Sorry if I misunderstood Ali.
So what do you suggest be done about this gap between religion and science if they can't be reconciled?
There is really no need for apology..
As for the question, I am not sure. If
an intuitive and good enough answer did exist, lots of problems would have been solved already.
If everyone had a common goal concerning such
a topic, we would have been closer to a solution and we would have more brain power and will to end it. But unfortunately there are people who seek the truth, people who seek the truth but don't want to be bothered with doing anything about it, people who want to live happily no matter what the truth is(that could be a truth in and of itself). There are people who are happy and are not even slightly
concerned with theory let alone universal truth. There are people who just don't care, either because they are too mentally handicapped to do anything, too preoccupied with things, etc. I am sure there are more subsets, I just can't think of them at the moment.
So, the problem is also the gap between the people. I am sure there are even gaps between people in science and gaps between people in religion. So doing anything about gaps is really futile, at least in "a group level."
Also, attempting to reconcile is tricky business, at least if you care about logical truth. Because honestly, reconciliation is possible between anything for the sake of personal contentment, all it really needs is a forced shift in perspective, looking at the elements individually, and being creative. In mathematics or in anything as rigorous, this
cannot happen.
When reconciliation is about to take place, the objects seeking to be reconciled need to have already been justified using the same perspective. Angels aren't justified as say the laws of nature are. They are from two different worlds.
Now, you may say, yes, they are from different worlds and this is why we seek to reconcile them. But then we fall into the other problem, how sure are we of the Anegls (or anything) we seek to reconcile? Or are we depending on the reconciliation to justify and verify the Angel's validity?
I used to reconcile my belief in the theistic God with the fact that humans are incapable of sensing anything beyond their five senses, and how arrogant would we be to say nothing exists outside of our five senses? It seemed correct, both philosophically and religiously. I would rationalize using that the amoeba can only sense heat, cold and some chemicals. Now if it had the faculty to think, it would ponder existence through these senses only, and it would think there is nothing else but occasional cold if I move here, and
occasional heat if I move there.
But what always irked me was using an
unjustified, or more precisely a preconceived set idea of a theistic God. That when I found the reconciliation, I felt glory.
For example, now I believe that the truth of God (or anything) is to be reached when it is reached. Meaning when we have research to posit it with confidence, we posit it. For example, even the initial statement that 'Angels exist', is a theory. We know that theories are deeply wrapped up by reason and evidence. So to have reached the theory, all the research and reasoning should have already been done with before even attempting to reconcile it with anything.
We shouldn't rely on lore attempting a reconciliation. That way our minds would be clear to do the work that any omniscient God would want us to do, learn.
And if we are sure that such a God and such Angels exist, then it would be easy to think about things without them, since if he is the truth, then he will certainly be reached.
I think this is the idea that needs to be understood by the people, or at least to the people who care. If no one complies, then we will just wait for natural selection to select the fittest (therefore the truth) ideologies and convictions and we will see.
But if letting go of our current ideas of God (to reach God) is hard, then I guess we would have learned something about ourselves, our convictions, and our need for reconciliation.
Sheesh, I am sorry I am taking so much space from you blog.
Ali
Post a Comment