We keep arguing if God has created the Universe, or if it has created itself; if there is life after death, and so on. However, we are so biased, we have so many subconscious assumptions --- that there is always one answer, or that there is always more than one answer, or that everything is relative --- that even if an angel came from the sky and gave us all the answers, we would misinterpret them.
Some say science has proved there is no God. How? Where is the proof? Do you know anything about proofs at all? Kurt Gödel
has demonstrated by his Incompleteness Theorem that, at least assuming a certain formalism, there are lots of statements that
are true, but cannot be proven. If you claim to have a scientific mindset, then you have to accept the consequences: there may be lots of statements about, say, God, that may be true in a certain formal sense, but not provable from our finite set of premises. Of course, modern science is not written in first-order predicate logic, yet this is hardly an excuse. Furthermore, in the presence of billions of other people following this or that religion, how confident are you that they are all wrong? Do you seriously
think that just because there is electricity, antibiotics, and cellular phones, hence there should be no God?
Conversely, if, say, you really believe in Jesus, do you seriously think that billions of those who follow other religions are wrong? Wake up! It is not that the faith in Jesus is more correct; it is because of your subconscious or conscious bias and fear. If your parents told you, for example, that you will go to Hell without Jesus, then, of course, you will keep making up all kinds of rationalizations. The bottom line is, it is not the particular religion, or the particular flavor of scientific materialism that is by itself true or false; nor do I see that truth is relative. We choose to perceive those theories as true or false, or likely, or unlikely, or nonsensical, or self-evident because of our beliefs about the world; largely because of the particular culture and the particular family that we grew up in. 99% of the debates about the nature of
the Universe, absolute vs. relative truth, purpose in life, the origin of life, and so forth, are just battles between different subconscious patterns in different people; these debates have nothing --- nothing to do with discovering truth.
The very idea of truth is different for different people, and also depends on lots of subconscious constructs and assumptions, and on what you encountered in the culture and in the family during your childhood, and whatever thoughts and experiences you've had during the rest of your life. Same goes for the idea of the purpose of life. The idea of purpose is also something we've learned; and the very question appears to be nonsensical.
The concept of "purpose" is very much linked with survival; but now we are asking about the purpose of survival --- the purpose of having purposes in the first place. We are stretching the concept beyond applicability. Just because we can conceive of
something such as "the purpose of life" doesn't mean that it exists or even that it is not self-contradictory. For example, in mathematics we can conceive of a set containing all sets as its element, but such an object is self-contradictory and, we conclude, thus cannot exist.
Most of us most of the time are unable to transcend our own thinking and perception. We look for "absolute truth", but this very idea was created by our fear of death. We look for "salvation", but this idea was also created by our fear of death.
We complain about democracy in the USA, but "democracy" itself is an idea that we have learned. We argue that North Korea is an evil state, but the idea of "evil" is also something that we have learned. Every human and every state is 99% governed by its habitual patterns, and North Korea is not different; "evil" does
not actually exist, it's just a term habitually used to denote somebody you really don't like. It is learned in the childhood and linked to fear and to the perception of your own weakness as a limited human being.
We don't know if there is God --- even the concept of existence is questionable, as it is something we had to learn, and each of us thus has a different concept of what it means for something to exist --- but we know there are healthy and unhealthy patterns
associated with this idea. This is what we can take care of. There are healthy and unhealthy patterns associated with the ideas of "democracy", "evil", "purpose of life", and so forth. The whole conflict between Israel and Palestine, for instance, is just one huge pattern. It's not that the Jews are wrong, or that the Arabs or wrong, or that some people are making money from the war, or that the U.S. wants the war to continue, or that Russia wants it to continue, or that some terrorist groups want it to continue. Don't take it personally; it's just a pattern.
After reading this you probably still think that, all this not withstanding, you believe in what modern science has to say, that we have to be random collections of molecules governed by the laws of physics and our DNA, or that Israel is right because it is a real, democratic, XXI-st century state, or that life really does have a purpose because "you know there is something out there", or that Obama is really a terrible president because what we have here is not like your idea of democracy at all. Letting go is always scary. It involves saying "I really don't know the truth. Maybe my parents were wrong. Maybe my country was wrong. Perhaps, I was wrong as well."
Remember Romeo and Juliet. There everyone understood that the struggle was just a pattern, and they still carried it on, out of tradition, because it felt so natural.
Some say science has proved there is no God. How? Where is the proof? Do you know anything about proofs at all? Kurt Gödel
has demonstrated by his Incompleteness Theorem that, at least assuming a certain formalism, there are lots of statements that
are true, but cannot be proven. If you claim to have a scientific mindset, then you have to accept the consequences: there may be lots of statements about, say, God, that may be true in a certain formal sense, but not provable from our finite set of premises. Of course, modern science is not written in first-order predicate logic, yet this is hardly an excuse. Furthermore, in the presence of billions of other people following this or that religion, how confident are you that they are all wrong? Do you seriously
think that just because there is electricity, antibiotics, and cellular phones, hence there should be no God?
Conversely, if, say, you really believe in Jesus, do you seriously think that billions of those who follow other religions are wrong? Wake up! It is not that the faith in Jesus is more correct; it is because of your subconscious or conscious bias and fear. If your parents told you, for example, that you will go to Hell without Jesus, then, of course, you will keep making up all kinds of rationalizations. The bottom line is, it is not the particular religion, or the particular flavor of scientific materialism that is by itself true or false; nor do I see that truth is relative. We choose to perceive those theories as true or false, or likely, or unlikely, or nonsensical, or self-evident because of our beliefs about the world; largely because of the particular culture and the particular family that we grew up in. 99% of the debates about the nature of
the Universe, absolute vs. relative truth, purpose in life, the origin of life, and so forth, are just battles between different subconscious patterns in different people; these debates have nothing --- nothing to do with discovering truth.
The very idea of truth is different for different people, and also depends on lots of subconscious constructs and assumptions, and on what you encountered in the culture and in the family during your childhood, and whatever thoughts and experiences you've had during the rest of your life. Same goes for the idea of the purpose of life. The idea of purpose is also something we've learned; and the very question appears to be nonsensical.
The concept of "purpose" is very much linked with survival; but now we are asking about the purpose of survival --- the purpose of having purposes in the first place. We are stretching the concept beyond applicability. Just because we can conceive of
something such as "the purpose of life" doesn't mean that it exists or even that it is not self-contradictory. For example, in mathematics we can conceive of a set containing all sets as its element, but such an object is self-contradictory and, we conclude, thus cannot exist.
Most of us most of the time are unable to transcend our own thinking and perception. We look for "absolute truth", but this very idea was created by our fear of death. We look for "salvation", but this idea was also created by our fear of death.
We complain about democracy in the USA, but "democracy" itself is an idea that we have learned. We argue that North Korea is an evil state, but the idea of "evil" is also something that we have learned. Every human and every state is 99% governed by its habitual patterns, and North Korea is not different; "evil" does
not actually exist, it's just a term habitually used to denote somebody you really don't like. It is learned in the childhood and linked to fear and to the perception of your own weakness as a limited human being.
We don't know if there is God --- even the concept of existence is questionable, as it is something we had to learn, and each of us thus has a different concept of what it means for something to exist --- but we know there are healthy and unhealthy patterns
associated with this idea. This is what we can take care of. There are healthy and unhealthy patterns associated with the ideas of "democracy", "evil", "purpose of life", and so forth. The whole conflict between Israel and Palestine, for instance, is just one huge pattern. It's not that the Jews are wrong, or that the Arabs or wrong, or that some people are making money from the war, or that the U.S. wants the war to continue, or that Russia wants it to continue, or that some terrorist groups want it to continue. Don't take it personally; it's just a pattern.
After reading this you probably still think that, all this not withstanding, you believe in what modern science has to say, that we have to be random collections of molecules governed by the laws of physics and our DNA, or that Israel is right because it is a real, democratic, XXI-st century state, or that life really does have a purpose because "you know there is something out there", or that Obama is really a terrible president because what we have here is not like your idea of democracy at all. Letting go is always scary. It involves saying "I really don't know the truth. Maybe my parents were wrong. Maybe my country was wrong. Perhaps, I was wrong as well."
Remember Romeo and Juliet. There everyone understood that the struggle was just a pattern, and they still carried it on, out of tradition, because it felt so natural.
No comments:
Post a Comment