In my last but one post, ‘Mr. James’ Best Friend’, I
commented on the convoluted lengths that materialists, i.e. those who believe in
physical existence only , are prepared to go to in order to ‘explain away’ certain
phenomena.
This leads me onto another personal gripe. I sometimes get
very frustrated with the media for acting as if there are only two camps to
choose from e.g. science OR religion; evolution OR creationism etc. etc. Furthermore
there is often an assumption that if you ‘believe’ in evolution, you don’t
believe in anything but scientific materialism.
Like many people, I think the evidence for the evolution of
species is overwhelming. I do however have some questions around the mechanisms
by which evolution happens, or the circumstances in which evolution of
particular types takes place, (which are all to do with ‘What came first, the
chicken or the egg?’ type questions.) For scientists like Richard Dawkins, who
wrote ‘The God Delusion’, I am committing the heresy of wondering if the laws
of nature are as fixed, and if the universe and evolution are as accidental or
as mechanistic as he claims. Of course, if you’ve read my other posts you will
know that I don’t think they are. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in
evolution.
And I also ‘believe in’ the first chapter of Genesis, but as
‘mythos’ not ‘logos’. Nowadays if we refer to something as a ‘myth’ we are
usually saying that it isn’t true, but in fact myths are designed to represent
truths which are too deep for individual words, via images and stories. Music
can do the same, especially when it comes to demonstrating and representing
emotions that are hard to put into words.
As a student of Kabbalah, I take the ‘seven days of creation’
story to represent the creation of the spiritual universe out of the Divine.
There is a second creation story in Genesis chapter 2 (starting about half way through verse 4 - the New Jerusalem Bible sets this out very clearly) which represents the
creation of the psychological universe (the universe of mind) out of the
spiritual. Finally the physical universe comes about in Chapter 3 v.21 when Adam and Eve leave
Eden (yet another name for the universe of mind), putting on suits of skin;- I wrote about this process of universes
emerging from one another in ‘A Spiritual Cosmology'.
Only a few hundred years ago, many religious people would
have been amazed to learn that vast swathes of Christians in the future would
be interpreting Genesis literally, and believe the world was created in 7 days.
For a start they would point out that there are, in fact, two creation stories
in Genesis, as I have pointed out above. I sometimes wonder if this is why a
lot of learned people thought that it would be dangerous to translate the bible
into everyday languages that everybody would be able to read for themselves….and
start to take literally!
But basically it comes down to the big question which is
completely outside of science’s remit (though try telling that to Dawkins or even
Stephen Hawking) why is there something, rather than nothing?
Oh,- one last thing... I do tend to grind my teeth when scientists (Freud and Hawking included) announce, as if they know, that there is no life after death, but that some of us are too weak, too afraid of dying to face up to that. I think the possibility that there IS something after death also takes real courage to face.
"Only a few hundred years ago, many religious people would have been amazed to learn that vast swathes of Christians in the future would be interpreting Genesis literally, and believe the world was created in 7 days."
ReplyDeleteHelen, i believe the problem of materialism that you bring up is actually one of those literal Christians as well as 'literal' scientists. Jean Gebser offers good insight here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Gebser .
at my Esoteric Online group Elemental Theory : http://www.esotericonline.net/group/elemental_theory , I lay out 4 elements that when applied to epistemology are similar to Jung's basic personality types.
the spirt knows the mind compares
the soul feels the body senses
the left column is non-rational being, the right is rational (and when in error irrational) relationships. whereas Science is only in the right column, the rational-material, a good scientist uses both. the 'hunch' comes from intuition, the Spirit, and is not rational, but, when articulated, a statement of being. from this premiss, the mind compares or logically follows to a conclusion which is a rational process. then, in the body sensation is used to verify the soundness of the previous hypothesis. finally, back over in the left non-rational category, the soul feels the value or meaningfulness of the hypothesis.
when we get trapped on one side or the other, errors result. everything is either reduced to the material or the Spiritual resulting in meaningless and truthless laws OR irrational and ungrounded beliefs.
Integral is the word — we must integrate all 4 Elements in order to be ingenious and meaningful scientists as well as theologians.
Thank you for these two excellent sites. I've reproduced a section from that on Gebser below, because of its importance:
ReplyDelete"Discontinuity
Gebser cautioned against using terms like evolution, progression, or development to describe the changes in structures of consciousness that he described.
Gebser traces the evidence for the transformations of the structure of consciousness as they are concretized in historical artifacts. He sought to avoid calling this process "evolutionary", since any such notion was illusory when applied to the "unfolding of consciousness." Gebser emphasized that biological evolution is an enclosing process which particularizes a species to a limited environment. The unfolding of awareness is, by contrast, an opening-up.
Any attempt to give a direction or goal to the unfolding of awareness is illusory in that it is based upon a limited, mentalistic, linear notion of time. Gebser notes that "to progress" is to move toward something and is thus also to move away from something else; therefore, progress is an inappropriate term to describe the structures of consciousness. Gebser wrote that the question as to the fate of humanity is still open, that for it to become closed would be the ultimate tragedy, but that such a closure remains a possibility. To Gebser, our fate is not assured by any notion of "an evolution toward" any kind of ideal way of being."
'Elemental Theory' is new to me, but I am fascinated by what I have read here, and I shall take some time to read your site more thoroughly.
Cheers, and Happy New Year!
Helen