What if a scientist told you that atoms exist? Would you believe him, even though you have never seen an atom yourself? What if he told you he could teach you how to manipulate atoms in order to release incredible amounts of energy into the world? If this is something you wanted to do, would you do what he told you to do?
What if someone told you that they consistently experience the felt presence of God? Would you believe him, even if you had never felt the presence of God yourself? What if he told you he could teach you how to structure your life in such a way that you could experience presence of God in the same way and release all kind of spiritual energy into your life? Would you do what he told you to do? Or would you balk because you don’t believe that one person can tell another how to feel the presence of God because that seems too formulaic or predictable? After all, God’s presence is a subjective reality.
Consider this quote from Ronald Rolheiser:
In a pragmatic society, science alone is given the right to establish facts. Its findings are considered objective. What is proposed by other disciplines, with a different method of knowing–metaphysics, philosophy, mysticism, poetry, or theology–is considered to be purely subjective, a matter of personal faith and blind option. Thus, for example, no one, professional scientist or lay person, has ever seen an atom. Yet none of us doubts its existence. Science not only assures us that atoms do exist, it positively manipulates them to create nuclear energy. Who can doubt their existence? Likewise, no one, professional mystic or lay person, has ever seen God in the world. Yet, we doubt God’s existence despite the fact that mystics assure us of that reality and we see in the lives of many believers fairly concrete evidence that they are experiencing something real in what they claim as an experience of God. They, too, like scientists, are splitting atoms which release energy. However, in a technological society, we see and understand only one kind of energy, pragmatic. This reduction, as we shall see later, is a debilitating impoverishment.
Telling Stories, Asking Questions, Learning Lessons
Is this from a book? Sounds interesting.
I don’t know if I would think it was formulaic because of subjectivity, I just struggle with it because it would seem to say God is ours to control, like the atom. It would seem that if we could control God in such a way we would do the same amount of damage that we have with the atom. It would seem that God reveals himself in very common ways and yet still very unpredictable.
I don?t know though. The quote leaves me wanting more.
There does seem to be a huge difference between seeing/proving the existence of atoms and the existence of God: the existence of atoms are known by the actions (observations) of atoms, they are predictable and exact for every person. Split an atom (or whatever nuclear fission does exactly to an atom) and all humans standing within a certain distance will die. But I can’t think of any single observation about God which holds true for all humans. I sometimes feel the presence of my grandmother who died 10 yrs. ago, but I know that neither physically nor spiritually is she with me. Some people feel at one with the universe; some people feel that they are Abraham Lincoln; some people feel that someone is trying to kill them; some people in history felt that they were visited by Hermes and Zeus. But the presence of God has been elusive and mysterious, just like all the other deities of history.
I think the writer’s point is that God, like atoms, can only be known by His effects. God doesn’t effect everyone the same way. Not everyone seeks relationship with Him, but when we do, we move into a dynamic relationship, a relationship that has all the drama, the twists and turns, the ups and downs that one can imagine. We can’t manipulate Him like we can atoms, but we can experience Him in a thousand ways. And that experience is real even though it can’t be weighed or captured in a test tube.
I appreciate the atom as an analogy, not least of all because I believe the new testament word for energy is grace, and the old testament word for energy is creation. God acts, release energy, not in an impersonal atmomic sort of a way, but in a deeply personal, wisely directed, relational way. We can’t control Him, but we can know that if He gave His own Son up for us all, then He will through Him graciously give us all things. His energy is directed toward us for our own good, and it ought not shock us that we can sense that grace, that energy, that creative work in our lives. We can’t see the rays of the sun, be we can definately know the effects of the sun’s energy. What is true of the sun, is true of the Son–the nearer we are the more we are warmed by His presence.
Ben
Using this argument, we can also know that evil exists and has power in this world. I felt this yesterday when I was in a book store that offers an eclectic variety of spiritual reading. I was looking through a couple of books by Bishop Spong, and as I read I felt the presence of evil surrounding me. I left with a strange uneasiness in my soul, but as soon as I arrived at the church to do some work with friends it was gone, and in place of evil I found the Spirit moving amongst us and in me.
Thanks for raising this question, Wade.
Like the idolatry that was confronted at Mount Carmel, the supremacy of scientism cannot be overturned except by a miracle. The very language we use every day assumes its authority. If something is truly important, we say “It matters.” Science excels at quantifying things that matter. So if something is significant, we say “It counts.” The best thing I’ve ever read along this line is Huston Smith’s book “Forgotten Truth.” It’s very much worth reading, one of those books where you have to stop every few pages and ruminate.
“What if someone told you that they consistently experience the felt presence of God? Would you believe him, even if you had never felt the presence of God yourself?”
One reason that my heritage is the Church of Christ is that my great-grandfather was unable, despite encouragement from his Baptist brothers, to “feel the spirit” so he could get saved. He said that he tried. Later, he found that the CofC didn’t require this. So, it has been my family and religious heritage that has rendered me suspicious of subjective feelings. I hear people say they feel the presence of God occasionally in church settings but I not sure what they mean or that they know what they mean. There can be a variety of meanings to it. From “I’m feeling great being with my friends and worshipping God and I’m happy so God must be present” to something else. What else?
I learned science by being taught and mentored while apprenticing for a period of ten years. I’ve not yet found a teacher who has been able to mentor and apprentice me in a more mystical way. I’ve read books on it but I’m not there yet. They are difficult to comphrehend. Perhaps it can only be communicated via relationship. I respect Huston Smith, having read Why Religion Matters (he chastens the scientism crowd but acknowledges the role of science in the detection and intervention of his cancer). What he describes from his years of devotion and discipline are tantalizing to me. Thanks for bringing it up Frank, I just ordered “Forgotten Truth”. Regarding Bishop Spong, let me recommend “Hebrew Lord”. It is a great book about Jesus.
Just a follow-up on Steve’s reference to Huston Smith. In “Forgotten Truth,” Smith acknowledges that modern science gets at a slice of reality, but only a slice. However, the practical upshot of science, technology, is so very impressive. And because “It’s amazing what they can do these days!” the tendency is to focus on the realm that is seen, while forgetting the realm that is unseen. You’ll enjoy it, Steve. Now to check out “Hebrew Lord.”
Just looked at “Hebrew Lord” on Amazon. It’s BY John Spong. Every reference to Spong that I’ve come across suggests that he’s persona non grata among theological conservatives. So I’m curious to hear from Steve about why he thinks the book on Jesus is so good, as well as from others who have read Spong.
Oddly enough, logical positivism has run its course and is now considered a laughable worldview. The idea of empiricism as the sole arbiter of truth is ridiculous these days — what with quantum physics and relativity and all that.
And yet….
Scientism still holds a strange grip on popular culture. The notion that a thing (or even an idea) must be scientifically verified for it to have any meaning is preposterous, arbitrary and self-negating. But it’s keeping the theory of Intelligent Design out of schools.
I’m not sure scientism is what’s keeping Intelligent Design out of schools. When ID begins to produce useful results that biologists can use, when it has a track record for provoking a fertile research program, and when some consensus is reached about what it is and what it can do, then teaching it will come about. I’m an optimist that we will eventually get where we need to go.
Steve,
Sounds like you’re saying when ID becomes pragmatic, then a pragmatic society will use it. I think that’s part of the problem Rolheiser is pointing out.
Good point. And I’d like to learn more about what Rolheiser has to say. Well, I guess I am somewhat of a proponent of pragmatism. Sometimes it is safer and more humble to say that something is useful than that it is true, considering all that has happened in religion, philosophy and science since the reformation. ID may appear to be a God-friendly form of science, but I suppose it must be tested and vetted properly in order to discern its value and explore its implications. I think “testing” is a biblical concept is it not?
Wade – sorry I have no comment on topic today, just wanted to say I was really glad I got to meet you at Lectureship – and your comments on the missional church were excellent.
Steve,
I’m all for testing and vetting and all that. I would just like to see our Darwinist friends agree to play by the same rules rather than bullying and censoring others.
John,
There should be no place for bullying and censoring, that’s for sure.