We all reach for those things we cannot grasp. We seek answers to questions that define our existence and our place in the universe. We reach out to those things which help us make sense out of our own behavior and that of the rest of Creation. We have an innate need to believe in something, to find an reference point which anchors our perception of reality.
In reaching out, we often become develop certain inflexible opinions about what we have observed and experienced. When we decide that our conclusions are an objective, unassailable expression of what we have observed and experienced, it becomes dogma, rather than belief or opinion.
Dogma is created in the mind of man. Whether you believe in a divine Creator, or an impersonal universe, neither of these is responsible for any dogma people insist on embracing. Both are objective in and of themselves, but both also are at the mercy of the subjective perception people have of them.
There are absolute truths, of course, for both the believer in the Divine and the Atheist. What must be remembered is that our perception of whatever truths we witness and accept is flawed, and so we are unable to develop an absolute perception of any absolute truth.
What this means is that we are best off leaving our declarations of those truths we see at "I believe" or "This is how I see things". As soon as we decide to say "This is the way it IS!", we have imposed our own flawed and imperfect reference point-ourselves-upon what otherwise would be an objective truth.
A person from a faith which believes in inerrant Scriptures might say "I can show you the absolute truths of my beliefs in my Scriptures". But can that really be done. Speaking as a Jesus follower who is quite familiar with the Bible, I can attest to just how many different interpretations, and resultant dogma and doctrine, can arise from the same passage from the Bible.
Indeed, I'm of the opinion that, given what the Bible says about faith, we honor Creator more by simply saying "I believe in Him" than by trying to present a set of empirical proofs of His existence. After all, according to Hebrews 11:6, without faith-that is, the evidence of things not seen, the essence of things we hope for-it's impossible to please Creator. Absolute proof of His existence obviates the need for faith. Both believers and atheists err greatly in this regard.
The Bible itself was written within specific historical and cultural context, and is viewed by each of us in specific historical and cultural context. That is not to say that there is no truth in the Bible. Rather, it's a humble admission that, as Paul wrote, what we see is but a poor reflection of the Spiritual reality we will some day witness face to face. We only know in part right now. We cannot declare the incomplete reflection of Truth to be an Absolute without imposing our own will upon it. This, in my opinion, is a form of idolatry, setting our own minds upon an alter as judges of Creator's truths.
Therein lies grace,and faith: we say "I believe..." and trust that Creator, in His love and Mercy, holds us accountable for that little bit we get right rather than all the things we get wrong. I used to be a very strong proponent of the idea that to truly honor Creator, to really follow Christ, I had to be dogmatic about certain things. Then I came to understand how flawed my own expression of certain truths can be. I had a choice to either ride a carousel of trying to objectify my subjective perceptions, or to understand that my own faith, and Creator's mercy, count for far more than what I think I know to be Absolute Truth. I've found it makes my spiritual walk both simpler and more fulfilling to concentrate on who I am in Creator rather than whether I can prove that what I believe about Him is Absolute Truth.
It's up to His Holy Spirit to convince people of the Truth anyway.
Atheists and those who look to science as the source of all truth are no different, really. One can argue there are scientific absolutes, such as gravity or the speed of light, but that would be both incorrect and missing the point when it comes to dogmatic belief(both of these aspects of the observable universe have variances in definition and constants, depending on which school of physics, such as Einsteinian or Quantum, is applied). Certain "constants" are assumed to be constants inasmuch as we haven't yet uncovered or accept evidence to the contrary. (Yet even light slows down when passing through certain substances, such as a diamond.)
First, just saying "there is gravity" is not a basis for belief in science as a purveyor of absolute truth. There has always been gravity, even before men came up with a name and a theory of physics as to why it exists and how it affects the universe. What is still lacking is an explanation of exactly how gravity works. There are several theories, but no one can say "this is the right explanation, and all others are wrong." Ironically, in a discipline declared by some to be based on absolutes, there is as much bickering and disagreement regarding many of those absolutes as there is among theologians.
Many scientists are careful to use the term "observable universe" or "to the extent of our knowledge" when dealing with such matters. Any scientist worth listening to will readily admit that what we know is a small fraction compared to what we don't know. (that "dim reflection" idea again.) Perception of the evidence, and conclusions reached, is often far more subjective than some scientists will let on. There are even theories that our our observation itself alters the universe in some way. "Schrodinger's Cat" is a perfect example of how scientific thought itself allows for observation/perception to directly affect the outcome of a given, observable action.
Some try to become dogmatic about their preferred theory, but ultimately the only proof is in their own dogmatic attitude. Gravity is what they say it is simply because that is what they choose to believe, and they will not accept an alternative theory. "Overwhelming evidence" proving a theory isn't really that overwhelming if scientists also admit that have only uncovered a small fraction of what lies out in the universe that exists beyond our own limited perception of the moment.
The expression of scientific thought, as with Scripture, is often subject to the perceptions and dogmatism of those doing the interpretation. For years, dinosaurs were great, lumbering ancestors of modern geckos, monitor lizards and other reptiles. Now popular scientific opinion is they were more closely related to avians than reptiles. Did the evidence that led to the first dogmatic views of dinosaurs change? No, but as some new evidence came to light, the perception of that evidence evolved within those viewing it.
If you could ask a dinosaur what he was, reptile or avian, he would say he is just a dinosaur.
So the expression of science, as with spirituality, is very much dependent on the perception of those who believe either one, or the other, or both to be purveyors of truth. Since that perception is imperfect, so to is the expression of truth human beings rely on to communicate what they perceive in either scientific or spiritual matters.
What I am saying is that in my opinion, scientific dogma is just as flawed an approach to truth as religious dogma: both assume the "believer" is perfect and has an unimpeachable reference point upon which their dogma is based. Since our reference points themselves are more or less subjective (because we choose them through conscious decision), at least some part of what we state to be truth is also subjective.
Dogma is therefore subjective in essence, not to mention expression.
That being the case, being dogmatic regarding science is simply the other side of the coin of being dogmatic about spiritual matters. Since both disciplines involve an imperfect, or incomplete, knowledge of the universe, neither can become so dogmatic as to disqualify the other as part of a world view or perception of the universe.
Science and spirituality are complimentary, not mutually exclusive. It's only in the mind of dogmatic individuals (no matter how intelligent they may be) that the two come into opposition. People who say one disqualifies the other from expressing truth, or that one can only believe in one or the other, are basing this opinion on their subjective dogma, not on the evidence each presents as to the nature of the universe and the existence of a Creator.
No comments:
Post a Comment