Two equally absurd ideas:
First, the universe has always existed. Or, to be more accurate, matter-- in all its stunning and largely incomprehensible complexity-- has always existed, and over time, has morphed and moved toward consciousness. Matter is not just complex, it's clearly intelligent. It wants to accomplish things. Also, perhaps, universes leak and create other universes in massive Big Bang events. And the force still propelling stuff through space and/or expanding space itself can be discerned by "human" matter living in some random corner, observing the different chemical shifts of distant stars. Or something like that. In simpler, though less revealing, terms: it's absurd to think that this very specific something came from nothing.
Second, all of this stunning something was created by an infinite all-powerful being, because-- get this!-- He is all-loving and wants to shower us with His kindness. I often phrase it or experience it this way: what's outside of everything? Love. I picture it as a dark, empty circle surrounded by a caressing light. It's just too fortunate to be real.
Forget all of the terrible suffering caused by shifting tectonic plates or wild weather systems, the best way to believe in God is to realize you're alive because blood is consistently coursing through your veins and to your brain-- and you're not plugged in anywhere! And set aside the silliness of things like angels and demons and giants walking the earth, the most absurd proposition made by religion is that behind everything you've ever experienced there's a voice saying, "that's because I love you". Both absurd.
But, what can I say, I want to believe in that infinite love. I've lived with that voice and only then have I been my best self. And this matter-- always and absurdly capable of hope-- feels like a gift.
I find all these ideas absurd, including yours.
ReplyDeleteYou say that matter is intelligent, that it wants things. You anthropomorphize in this way because this is how you are built to see things. This instinct to seek causality is like over-eating: crucial in the wild, death in civilization.
In any case, WE create that causality, that interpretation. As you said in your first post: "And this is what we do with ideas, we make the things of the world relatable to our unique human framework, we make what is beyond physical grasp sensible.". That is what WE do. Is that what is? For you to say that it must be, is an extreme vanity. Who are you, that you can see with eyes that are not bound by human limitations? Who are you to tell us what is, or must be, beyond our comprehension?
When I look at your words, I think of the following elementary experiment in psychology. A subject is shown two slides, in sequence: the first has a vertical rectangle, the second has a horizontal rectangle of the same dimensions. Very few subjects will summarize what they have seen by saying: "The first slide has a vertical rectangle; the second has a horizontal rectangle of the same dimensions.", although that would be a very thoughtful answer, in the sense you described in an earlier post. Most will just say: "It fell.".
I recognize the importance of being able to see basic physical relationships and quickly and accurately lump them in with phenomena we have already experienced and understood. But I also realize that this is just a quirk of our brains, and that tendency to see causality leads to much unhappiness.
And then there is you. You say: "It fell." , but when someone says: "Maybe something fell, maybe not; all we need to say right now is that they are rectangles of the same dimension and different orientations." , you congratulate yourself for seeing truths no one else can see.
You think you see something special, when in fact you are just caving to your base instincts, being human in the most mundane and thoughtLESS sense of the word.
If by some god we have been given the power of thought, you are doing him a great disservice.
+j
I did not mean to convey that I believe matter is intelligent in the way that one might say you and I are intelligent. Since I figured that no one believes that matter has intelligence (with the exception of the brain?), I figured using the word intelligent would give the sense that it does things which can appear in moments to have motivation.
ReplyDeleteBut this is the way evolutionary theorists talk-- think of the notion of "selfish" genes. Here's a wikipedia quote about Dawkins's idea: "The contention is that the genes that get passed on are the ones whose consequences serve their own implicit interests (to continue being replicated), not necessarily those of the organism, much less any larger level."
I meant to convey that it's absurd to think that genes might have implicit interests. Does that mean it's right or wrong? No. It's just a weird thought that that might be the reality.
But I don't think arguing that the brain is built to see causality discredits that. Unless you want to claim that there actually is no causality. But I assume you don't take a stance either way on that.
Who's to say that I'm caving to my base instincts any more than you are? Who are you, that you can see with eyes that are not bound by human limitations and say that witnessing causality is "just a quirk of our brains"? Is the mind built to see patterns or is that an interpretation we thoughtlessly attribute to it?
I think I may have misunderstood your first paragraph. Oh well.
ReplyDeleteI have a story, you have a story. I have reasons I can articulate for why I prefer mine, but that is not a proof, or even an allegiance. It is just a useful way, at times, for me to see things. Hey, sometimes I choose causality.
I think my point is that I don't feel that my stories are "closer to the truth". I try to pick and choose which story to use, in a thoughtful way (in the sense you used in an earlier post).
+j