Consider Zen
Buddhism. The meditation of ZEN (Zazen) calls for quieting the mind, so as to
not think about any thing. Some people get it wrong and believe it calls for
one to think about nothing. But it really
calls for one not to think. Actually, I think it is not truly possible for a
human being to “not think,” unless one is in a coma (perhaps) or not
functioning at all (dead?). As long as we are human, our brain, if you accept
it as an organ of the thinking faculty, does what it does, i.e. it thinks.
Zazen is to keep focusing on nothing, as if looking into a space that contains
nothing and doesn’t think about it.
In any
event, if one can consider the thought of a “no thought” and a thing of “no thing”
you’ve got it made. We just cannot, however. So we are talking here about
meta-thinking or “thinking about thought.” That’s a brick wall surrounding us
humans and preventing knowing (using a faculty of the mind) nothingness. This
is why I believe we physical creatures cannot know God, as this principle IS
called. The best I have come up with to ease my dis-ease of not being able to
stop doing what I am “built” to do is to go metaphysical to a concept of a
creating force that “causes” everything to exist.
Before any
thing existed, I envision or consider a possible existence of a “force” that
simply exists. Now, force is a measurement we have as a concept that causes
things to act, or move, or change from one “thing” to another. This is all
nonsense, of course, but is our physical way to picture something that causes
what we experience physically. It’s all we’ve got or least is the farthest we
have gotten to relate to the universe as best we can. It’s a pretty good way to
get by our physical systems to an unphysical one, I think. Check out my next
leap … it’s one of faith, not science.
Conceive of
a force existing all alone, without any substance anywhere for it to act on. It
is a force of some kind. We physical things have to have a concept of what kind
of force it is and how it acts on us physical things, in fact, on all and any
physical things. I suggest the way this force acts on physical things is to
bring them into existence. This means, in a way, that the force doesn’t exist
either unless it has physical things to act upon. But its action is to bring
physical things into existence, … BOOM … there they are! They just come into
existence at the “will” of this force.
And what
“comes” into existence? The simple answer: everything. Physical things are not
there and then … BANG … then they are. I think you will grant me that it is a
pretty big bang in order for all the stuff we know about (and lots we don’t, I
suppose) to exist at one moment in what we call “time.” And whatever that stuff is made of is just basic stuff,
created (BOOM) by the force that creates in the very first of moments (BANG).
The entire part of that physical existence is created by that non-physical
existence that “creates” stuff. And that leads to a rather complex system of
any and all physical stuff interacting with all the physical stuff that
coexists.
Small pieces
of stuff smash into other small pieces of stuff; stuff pulls at stuff; stuff
moves around, smashing, pulling, pushing, etc. and as it moves it defines the
extent of “where” it exists. And every bit of it has, at its metaphysical core,
the existence of that force that created it. The force, and the object it
caused to be (its essence, or in Latin “esse”) are there as a unit. The
physical doesn’t exist without the force creating it, and the force doesn’t
exist without the stuff it creates.
If you can
truly understand this bit, you’re not human. We only work with the physical and
can only think physically. We only understand what we can sense with some
instrument or other, and that leaves out forces. With forces we only understand
by observing what the forces does to stuff. And then we have a belief (or
“faith”) in that force --- that it exists in some way and that it causes the
interactions we observe in some way.
So, we believe
(without any real “proof”) that all those little pieces of stuff eventually
became larger and larger pieces of more and more complicated stuff (stars,
galaxies, planets, plants, animals, and us, with all the other stuff as well
(air, water, heat, light, complex atoms, compounds, and on and on). We detect
with our senses and instruments the motions and interactions between stuff #1
and stuff #2 and so on, and develop a theory to explain how stuff interacts
with stuff, and then convince ourselves by repeated observations through
experience or tests we devise that our explanations are “correct” and can be
relied on. This is science. But our insistence that we got it right, and that
it is just what we said, is faith. In this sense I think Chemistry is as much a
religion as a science. And either one could be “right” or “wrong.” And they
could both be “right” or “wrong” at the same time!
Now, I can
decide to call that creative force that I am suggesting is as good an
explanation as any, one (or more) of the following: God, Love, Prime Matter,
sub-atomic particle energy levels, and so on, and come to the conclusion (we
are so good at that!) that this creative force must be in/with/part of each
piece of stuff. If it (the force) ceased to exist, so would the piece of stuff.
It’s always there in everything we believe exists. So, to put it in the
simplest terms: God is everywhere. (I define “everywhere” as “anywhere there is
some stuff.”) Another simple term: God is Love. Hmmmm. Could that be right?
Is there a
conflict between Religion and Science? Maybe not. It’s just two ways of looking
at the same stuff. And the Universe? The sum total of all the stuff and the
interactions between each piece of stuff and all the others. So how do we talk
or think about the stuff we can detect? Well, science tells little stores about
how specific groups or types of stuff interact with other stuff. Religion tells
us little stories about how specific groups or types of stuff interact with
other stuff. Science use mathematics, diagrams, tables, etc. to tell the
stories. Religion uses parables, signs, symbols, and human interactions to tell
the stories. Science mostly sticks to interactions between stuff as being
“natural” or “required.” Religion mostly sticks to interactions between humans
and “the creative force” or between humans and humans: these are morals and
ethics. So far, so good.
Where
problems develop is when science tries to make conclusions about morals and
ethics, and religion tries to make conclusions about physics, chemistry,
astronomy, etc. You guessed it: conflict. Remember, science makes up its
stories using its tools, and religion makes up its stories using its tools.
“Laws” of
science? Miracles of religion? Is there any wonder there are conflicts? In this
framework they have to happen. More on
this matter later.
No comments:
Post a Comment