So What?

Projection and Idolatry

Image via Wikipedia

Sorry about the long delay since my last post.  Things have been rather hectic.  I want to pick up some of the threads from my recent posts about Quantum Puppetry.  You will remember, I suggested the effects of super-position, where we see mutually contradictory things at the same time, is illustrated by puppets.  But it is more widespread.  In this post and the next I will explore first the negative side and then the positive.

Let's start with projection.  This is where I project my prejudices onto others.  This is what de Mello is getting at in his story about the rose bush.  When we look at a rose, do we see the rose or our preconceptions, our prejudices, our projections?

If it works for roses, it certainly works for people.  When we allow our prejudices to cloud our judgement, we cannot see people because we already know what they are like.

And of course, there is no greater target for our projections than God.  The word for projection of  our preconceptions onto God, is idolatry.  (I wrote at some length about this a few years ago - this is the first post in a sequence of 24!)  Most faiths try to guard against idolatry because much of the time, followers of religion fall for their idols.  When we know what God is like, we are projecting and making a puppet of God.  How often do we get the sense when cornered by a religious fanatic that they have their hand up their puppet's behind?

So, how can we know anything?  The key is in the puppets.  We have no problem suspending disbelief when we see a puppet.  So, why should the fact that we project our beliefs be so much of a problem?  Two things.  First, we don't need belief in order to live.  The important thing is not whether I believe God exists or does not exist; rather it is the quality of the life I lead (more about this next time).  Second, the key to unlock this is to pay attention to what is there, rather than what I believe to be there.

 

Related articles

• Quantum Puppetry (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• Puppets and Projections (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• Easiest Meditation? Rose or Motorcycle? (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)

What Does it Mean to Prove God Exists?

Image via Wikipedia

I wonder whether tacit knowledge might help with the perennial debate about the existence of God?  Although atheists sometimes concede God's existence is not in principle provable, my usual experience, especially online, is a demand for proof.

Crawford, in his book The case for working with your hands, tells the story of his father, who was a physicist, making the claim that it is possible to untie a double knotted shoelace by pulling on one end.  Mathematically this is true, or so Crawford claims.  The point is though in real life, you cannot untie a double knotted shoelace in this way.  The problem is the physical properties of the lace have a bearing on what can be done with it.  Whilst mathematically it might be possible, physically it is impossible because shoelaces are made of something.

So, let us assume I have a proof of God's existence.  How do I know it is in fact a proof?  The rules that determine a scientific proof demand we strip a problem down to its basics, ignoring the realities we encounter when things are apprehended in our lives rather than through our heads.

This claim that only formal proofs are valid, gives away the reality of the radical atheist's position.  It is in essence a requirement for control.  It is not a free encounter with reality but one that is determined by prior ideological constraints.  It is an assertion of imperialism over and against the radical call to freedom.  We are told to sacrifice what we experience as true, to a particular partial understanding of our world.  The point is formal knowledge alone is not sufficient to make a chair or mend a motorbike, lat alone encounter God.

But there is a sense in which radical atheists are right.  if you really want proof of God, you need to do what the scientist does.  Scientific proof requires many hours in the lab, applied to getting experiments to work, in the sense of providing reliable results.  Usually this requires the application of significant technical expertise.  Without this dedication we would have no science whatsoever.

What I find difficult to understand is that anyone who wants proof of God, needs to apply themselves to it, in just the same way as the scientist applies herself in the lab.  It's all very well demanding proof but a little odd to condemn those who claim to be believers as having no proof, when you are unwilling to do what is necessary to find out for yourself.

Related articles

• Tacit Knowledge (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)

On Belief in Scripture

Image by attercop311 via Flickr

I came across this from One Minute Wisdom by Anthony de Mello, page 118:

There was once a student who never became a mathematician because he blindly believed the answers he found at the back of his math textbook - and, ironically, the answers were correct.

This is beautiful and it is difficult to add anything that will improve upon it.  So I won't.

Burngreave Multifaith Chapel and Library Tree Plaque

Last year on 15 November the Multifaith Chapel and Library, at the top of Spital Hill in Burngreave (or Pitsmoor), planted a Stone Pine.  The first multifaith tree in Sheffield.  Today we unveiled a plaque to mark, as the planting did last year, the start of interfaith week.  Here are some pictures.  First, here's a couple of the tree:

The plaque was unveiled by Revd Inderjit Bhogal, Chief Executive of the Yorkshire and Humber Faiths Forum and a past President of Methodist Conference, seen here with Cllr Alan Law JP, the Right Worshipful the Lord Mayor of Sheffield and Abdool Gooljar of the Islamic Society of Great Britain.

Related articles

• Building a Learning Community (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)

Conversations with Atheists: A Fundamental Problem

Image via Wikipedia

It should come as no surprise, when theists and atheists enter conversation, there is mutual incomprehension.  I view the world from a theistic perspective.  It would make little sense to call myself a theist if I did not.  The first problem I encounter in conversation with atheists is their expectation I will respond to questions the way they want me to.  This led me into certain difficulties.

The main difficulty I encountered in my recent conversation, was projection.  These atheists appeared to have a particular image of God.  This was projected onto me and other Christians, theists and religious people.  This atheist God is violent, favours the powerful and deludes people.  In short, the opposite of my own experience.

When I pointed this out, I was told to stop messing about.  They're atheists remember.  They have no image of God by definition.  As the conversation progressed it felt as if we swopped places.  I was arguing all images of God are false.  They were trying to show me my view of God was flawed on the grounds that if all images of God are false, it is impossible to say anything of God.  (It didn't stop them!)

I have written at some length about idolatry and projection is an excellent example of its power.  Most religious mystics are true atheists.  They reject all images of God. 

Take for example, the use of the word 'probably'.  I pointed out this doesn't sound very atheistic.  Apparently, the idea is that in the atheist universe God could in theory be proved.  So, it is scientifically accurate to put probably on the front of the sentence, 'God does not exist'.  What this shows of course is a massive mistake of logical typing.  It assumes that God is something that can be proven through scientific methodology.  This places God in a place that makes God an idol.

Now consider the content of their image.  What we have is a group of people who cannot imagine a God who loves people.  This negative image is the only image they have.  Thank goodness they don't believe in it.

Up to a point it is good they claim not to but I think we need to take care here.  What they are doing is projecting their false God onto religious people, much as George W Bush projected his demons onto Muslims.  This is dangerous because I suspect some atheists believe religious people are evil, because of their perceived god of religious people.

Paradoxically, therefore our problem is not their atheism but their theism.  To be a proper atheist,  requires the same spiritual preparation as it would to speak of God from a theistic perspective.  This is why Christians can find common cause with Buddhists, for example, despite their atheism.  Their atheism has more in common with our theism than it has with modern atheism.

I will explore this in more depth later.

Related articles

• Atheists and Christians Should Be Friends (godlessgirl.com)

Ten Features of Conversations with Atheists

Image via Wikipedia

I've recently been in conversation with atheists on a discussion board around the theme of 'the fundamental flaw of religion'.  This is the first of a series of posts reflecting upon this exchange in various ways.  It has been an interesting experience and also rather frustrating, doubtless for the atheists as well as for me.  So, this first post is a superficial review of my experiences.  More depth later.

1. There is a profound lack of humour (say what you like about atheism, Flastaffian it ain't).  The last time I encountered something like this was the Christian Socialist Movement.  I was used to the light hearted meetings of the late lamented Alliance of Radical Methodists.  I found the Christian Socialist Movement far too serious and so never really got on with them. 
2. There's also a lot of anger.
3. There is a constant demand for evidence for the existence of God.  What would constitute satisfactory evidence for the existence of God remains a mystery.
4. Contrariwise, many claims are made about the Christian God that are rarely supported with so much as a Bible reference. 
5. There is little appreciation that Christians actually hold a variety of views.  It is frustrating being told that views I have held for many years, alongside many other people, are not Christian. 
6. Indeed I suspect I disappoint because I'm not fundamentalist.
7. I had no sense of being part of a mutual attempt to make sense of human existence.  When I dialogue with Christians from other traditions or people of other faiths, the tendency is to share.  Here I have been unable to find any common ground at all.
8. It feels like the culture is one of suspicion and fear.
9. Overall, the atmosphere is aggressive and dogmatic.
10. Even if we allow the premise that religion is fundamentally flawed, there is little discussion about what practically can be done about it.

These are fairly arbitrary and are very much first impressions.  I'd certainly like to hear of others you would add or refinements.  In my next post I will explain what I see as the main problem with these conversations.

On Imagination: Religion

One of the most condescending things atheists say about Christians, is Jesus is our imaginary friend.  Our faith is in our imagination, it has no reality in the material world.

Well, yes of course it is.  Where else can we encounter God other than in our imagination?  We create works of art, find our way around our neighbourhood, study the structure of chemical molecules in our imagination.  Why should we not encounter God there too?

I'm not saying God has no reality outside the imagination, just that our imagination is where we encounter God.  Are atheists really saying the imagination is in some sense not valid?  If so, they have a problem.  If imagination is not valid, what are the implications for science?

Christians have a problem too.  It is hard to claim God has an objective reality outside of the imagination because it is not possible to point to any evidence of God's actions outside of the impact imagining God has on human behaviour.

And that in itself is a big problem.  Human imagination is not terribly disciplined - how do we know what we imagine is real, is right, is ethical?

Where the scientist has reality to check results of experiments, the Christian has few things to validate their position.  Methodists identify scripture, tradition, reason and experience.  Most traditions look to a similar list.  But it is hardly surprising traditions cannot agree about everything.

Also our imagination is prone to run away with us.  We project our repressed negative thoughts onto others and onto God.  We project what we know, kings and dictators, onto God and turn God into a monster.  How can we possibly know whether we are imagining the right things?

Related articles by Zemanta

• On Imagination: Science (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• On Imagination: Media (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• On Imagination (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)

Theology and Science: On the Nature of Spirit

Dark matter and dark energy make up 96% of the universe.  So, is God in the dark matter or dark energy?  Well, whatever the truth, it is not true to say there is nowhere in the universe for God to be found.

The problem is, of course, theologians will tell you God the creator is not in the universe; that would be to confuse the creator with the created. 

Perhaps we can search outside the universe?  String theory has 10 dimensions.  Plenty of room for God there, outside the universe as we perceive it.  I'm simply showing it is not illogical to believe in God, there is no evidence for God in any of these places.

For the atheist there is only matter, no spirit.  For the theologian too often matter is inferior to spirit.  This is the old gnostic heresy and is still prevalent amongst many Christians.  Let's look at the theology.

God loves matter.  God is the creator and holds matter in existence - this is part of our foundational belief.  Furthermore, the Christian believes God became incarnate in human flesh. 

This means, whilst the scientist might look for God in dark matter or other dimensions, the Christian seeks God in the stories of Jesus and his followers.  God is not out there somewhere but close by, albeit hidden.

Maybe God is out there somewhere but essentially the God out there is unknowable.  If we want to know God, we must look to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.  This is the only way we can know anything of the nature of God.

Why is God hidden?  Because God is in the here and now.  God inhabits the world of our senses but is found only by accident, by glimpses or revelations.  No-one can produce proof or be categorical; God is revealed now and then, here and there.  All stories are part of a greater story, all words part of a greater conversation.

Theology and Science: The Big Bang

Let me illustrate what I meant in my last post.  To understand Schrödinger's cat, you need to understand something about Erwin Schrödinger's wave function.  Those of you who are confused about these things need not worry; I don't understand them either. 

The wave function is a mathematical equation with more than one solution.  So, let's assume there are two solutions for the sake of argument.  They are solutions to the possible states of a subatomic particle.  The equation tells us how many states the particle might be in and what those states are.  When we observe a particle, take a reading of its current state, we will get one of the states the equation predicts.  The point is that the act of making an observation determines the state of the particle.  The particle is not in that state until we observe it; all the possible states are ... well ... possible!

Schrödinger's cat is a famous illustration of this principle.  The cat is in a box with some radioactive material which has a 50% chance of decaying in 30 minutes.  Should it decay, it triggers a capsule of cyanide to break and the cat dies.  You open the box after exactly 30 minutes.  Opening the box causes the wave function that determines whether the radioactive material decays to collapse, so that one of the 2 outcomes becomes a reality.  The question is whether or not the cat is dead or alive during the 30 minutes before the box is opened.  Apparently, there is no answer, the cat is neither alive nor dead.  If you open to check you immediately collapse the wave function and the cat will be either alive or dead.

The important point is that observation determines the state of the cat.  Indeed at the subatomic level nothing can be determined without observation.  All subatomic behaviour is indeterminate without observation.

This is interesting because it is like what I have been saying in my other blog about conversation.  The scientist is in conversation with nature.  You make an observation and nature responds in some way.  Usually at our everyday scale of things, we don't observe the paradoxes of subatomic physics but we are changed ourselves by the observations we make and indeed, our observations can change the observed.

The Big Bang might seem at the opposite end of the scale to subatomic physics but the thing that exploded followed the same rules as subatomic particles.  Indeed it seems they have a wave function for it.  Manjit Kumar in 'Quantum: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate about the Nature of Reality' writes on page 357, '- what act of observation could possibly bring about the collapse of the wave function of the entire universe?'

For any theologian this is a fascinating question.  I would certainly argue, theologically, the universe is held in existence by the presence of God.  So, the answer to this question is easy for the theologian.  I would argue this is a good example of an opportunity to demonstrate belief in God is not irrational.  However, we need to approach this argument with extreme caution ...

The observant reader will have noted my quote from Kumar above begins with a hyphen.  How many readers wondered what went before?  Here is the beginning of the sentence: 'The many worlds interpretation allowed them to circumvent a problem to which the Copenhagen interpretation had no answer -'

There are multiple interpretations of indeterminate quantum behaviour and what might look like a problem for one is circumvented by another.  Granted the word 'circumvent' implies the many worlds interpretation does not necessarily disprove God's role, I think it does what I suggested and allows us to argue our faith is rational but not that it is true.

With this, I think we should be satisfied.  We should be satisfied with rationality, understood as consistency with some interpretations.  It allows us freedom to choose how we visualise God and we should be satisfied with that - but there is of course much more to be said.

Theology and Science: Why Bother?

I've never understood the fuss about science and theology.  I don't see why either needs to compromise.  We need to understand the methodologies of both and apply them with respect for each other.

At one time, it was suggested they are two independent magisteria.  I don't see the need to go this extreme.  If we argue the two methodologies are entirely independent then we are saying neither is relevant to the other.  It is better to understand neither has authority over the other and to encourage conversation between them.  They are different worldviews that complement and critique each other.  They cannot be independent.

Their methodologies, properly understood, do not necessarily undermine each other.  Theologians sometimes do not appreciate scientific method.  In principle, any scientific theory is open to modification.  This cannot mean there are no certainties.  Richard Dawkins makes the case that theories, such as the theory of evolution, are not in any way provisional.  I think he is right.  Any future changes to our understanding of evolution will build upon modern evolutionary theory, rather like the way Einstein's theories of relatively built upon Newton's work, in the sense that Newton's theories became special cases of a theories with wider applicability.

Equally, some scientists think theology is about what we believe.  It seems the object of theology is to produce some formula to explain the truth about the universe.  I can't deny some theologies attempt to do this.  But it is a profoundly mistaken approach.  Complete certainty cannot be achieved through theology any more than it can through scientific theory.  The aim of theology is not to bolster belief but to challenge it, by explaining the hope that is within us.  

My aim as a theologian, therefore, is not to demonstrate the truth of claims about God.  It can't be done.  We cannot possibly know the entirety of God's relationship with humanity.  My aim is more modest but I still maintain, important. 

I aim to demonstrate it is not irrational to be a Christian.  Those atheists who use science as a means to critique Christians, maintain faith is somehow irrational.  We do not have objective information but an imaginary friend in God or Jesus.  My aim is not proof but to demonstrate our faith should be taken seriously and treated with respect.  

I do not want to use the findings of science to bolster faith because science itself develops to different rules and so what supports a faith view today might undermine it tomorrow.  Rather the two need to be engaged in dialogue.  My hope is the lives of all involved will be enriched through respectful dialogue.