INTRODUCTION
Scientists must have a difficult time with
reconciliation. I mean, it must plague them. Things yet uncovered, things
beyond definition, things outside of statistical explanation. Categorization,
methodology, sample size, confidence levels, variable dependency. I imagine,
like a Mountain Dew on a Tuesday evening, it keeps them up at night.
That
is why I must tell you I do not count myself among their numbers. I am logical,
sound and deal with problems utilizing the scientific method, more often than
not, anyway. But none of this makes me a scientist in the traditional sense.
And oh the door knockers, the abortion
clinic protestors are just as anxious. How they must squirm at all the facts
and figures that defy their beliefs. Post-trib, pre-trib, mid-trib…I mean you’d
think religion(s) being based on such ancient texts would have long ago at
least settled the differences among those within their own camps. But alas,
this isn’t the case. So while the scientists are up at night experimenting for
enlightenment, the religious pray for it instead.
It
is also worth mentioning, before I launch into what will likely be a heady look
at science versus faith, that I have never considered myself much of religious
fellow either. To me, church also seemed so impersonal and gaudy. Moreover, it
seemed to defy the point of fellowship with a Creator. To commune with my God, I must do so in the presence of other people,
and pay you for the privilege? I also must confess to you, I am no atheist.
I believe in a God, but do not claim to understand, Him, Her, It, Them…but I do
believe that we are no accidents.
WHAT
EXACTLY IS THIS I’M READING?
…Or have stopped
reading, or told my kids not to read, or scrolled past on Facebook etc…Truthfully,
it only (and perhaps sadly) boils down to my thoughts after reading The Problem of the Soul by Owen Flanagan (2002). I suppose it is a book written to
examine and reconcile the “manifest and the scientific image” of creation.
Further, I imagine the author set out to write a book capable of motivating
those who questioned religious ideology (though perhaps not moral value) to
side fully with the idea that humans are (to dumb it down for people like me)
very special animals.
WHERE
I STAND (AND JUST WHAT THE HELL HAVE I GOTTEN MYSELF INTO)?
If you’ve
bothered to read this far, I suppose
it’s only fair to state that I am not writing this from the perspective of a
religious person, or even a scientific one. Beyond that, I hold no
qualifications as far as philosophy. I am writing this as someone who thinks (perhaps
too much) about things great and small.
I
am not an atheist, but don’t believe I can call myself quite the agnostic
anymore either. If I had to give it a name I would say I am some sort of Monotheistic-Gnostic-Skeptic.
Yes,
it’s complicated. For instance, if you accept the fact that God is omnipotent,
than you accept the fact He, She, It was intelligent enough to foresee not only
that each cultural group would never concede to worship the same God, but also
that humans by nature would distort and pervert any God’s teachings for their
own gain. Of course, this level of thinking is never addressed by most figures
of Western religion.
As
you might’ve guessed, my thinking (and knack for making things complicated) has
only been amplified after reading what Professor Flanagan has written in his
aforementioned book. This was a surprising after-effect, as when I initially
began reading this work, I assumed it would deliver solid answers to ethereal
questions. Despite the rave reviews I have read of Flanagan’s work, I felt less
open-minded and more unconvinced that anyone on this planet’s has anything
bigger than our individual selves figured out (of course most haven’t even
gotten that far).
So
there you have it. What you are about to read, or perhaps (just got tired of
reading) isn’t a critique, but rather an expression of thought brought about by
something I myself read. I found Professor Flanagan’s explanations intelligent,
but also lacking at times. This again, is no review, as I would describe myself
and most people in general, in much the same way. Also, as I typed that
sentence, I equated to “I ate something foul and the end result was an upset stomach
and a night on the can”. At any rate, so it goes…
BURDEN
OF PROOF
Science tests
and measures the physical. Faith attempts to test and measure the non-physical
(i.e. spiritual). Much of Flanagan’s premise throughout the book (particularly
its last chapter) is that those that approach life from the manifest
perspective must “give up” some fundamental notions of their manifest image in
order to happily co-exist with the scientific image (Flanagan, 2002, p. 267).
As
a mere mortal (I hate to admit that) watching from the sidelines, why would
anyone with a faith-based ideology wish to concede to any other world view? This
becomes particularly true as Flanagan attempts to resolve conflicts between core
ideological values between atheistic and theistic views. Typically, all the
reader is offered is the equivalent of “That’s the way it is, trust me.” (Flanagan, 2002, p. xiii, 123, 155, 266…).
Ultimately,
in writing this I suppose that’s a main theme; you can neither prove nor
disprove what is unseen. Aligned with this concept is the notion that quoting
men like Darwin, Skinner and even Socrates will give your scientific argument
traction with a theist. To the theist, these men are just that; merely men. To
the theist, their musings and findings my have value in the “present” world,
but hold little weight when compared against the intellect of a God, or even the
perception of a God.
Many
scholars (theist and atheist alike) have sought to harmonize the manifest and
scientific views. I myself am not qualified to try, nor do I believe it
possible. Therefore, I will not be arguing for or against here.
THE
HIGH POINTS
As I have
mentioned, Flanagan’s final chapter in this book (Ethics as Human Ecology) was
a pleasant surprise to read. This is due to the fact that it highlights the
notion that lack of religion does not equate to lack of morals. While this
concept is perhaps more accepted in our modern times, I still believe it worth reiterating,
and Flanagan does a fine job of this. Even if it is done at the attempted
expense of “God’s moral code” (Flanagan,
2002, p. 317).
Further,
this chapter gives readers a thorough view into how strict religious code under
any cultural context can limit how the human race as a whole progresses and thrives.
Flanagan uses the idea that working together for the betterment of all does not
need to be an idea handed down from a deity. Instead, he ties this notion of
ethics as a mechanism developed for survival and perpetuating the species.
WHERE
WE AGREE (AND DISAGREE SLIGHTLY)
Flanagan is
right (at least in this author’s mind) regarding the fact that we all want all
lives to have purpose (Flanagan,
2002, p. ix). While the definition
of this purpose varies throughout time and across cultures. Still most, if not
all, humans like to believe they serve a purpose.
Flanagan
also discusses repeatedly that most people are religious in ways they do not
realize (Flanagan,
2002, p. xv). This speaks to the
fact that much of what we inherently know, or think we know, about religion is
handed down to us at an early age based on ecological factors. Essentially, we
are Baptist because we were raised as such; we are Buddhist because our
families are etc…
Flanagan
also challenges the idea of free will. He posits that we are wired for certain behavior
based on factors that we cannot tame - among them; cognition, causation and
statistical predisposition. The author also offers up an experiment in which
researchers observed the response of those willing (or unwilling) to help a
woman pick up dropped papers on a busy street (Flanagan,
2002, pp. 153-155).
The study determined that while most people professed a desire to help those in
need, they seldom actually act on it. Bearing to mind that we enjoy seeing
ourselves as the hero of the narrative that is our life, even if we are more
the villain, or worse, an extra in the background amidst someone else’s
starring role.
And
hereby we arrive at the title of this essay, for as I pen this I see little
problem with the soul. Instead, I see a distinct and fractured problem with purpose among most that I meet. It seems
most people have great difficulty understanding why it is they do what they do,
and don’t do that which they are capable. To me this question needs answered
ahead of the debate between scientific versus manifest image.
THE
END
This
brings to mind a question I asked of a Sunday school teacher years ago. A young
woman who looked like a 70’s librarian had just closed a children’s picture
Bible. She looked at the class of 30 or so elementary age children and said, “So
it’s our job as Christians to spread the good news, so that everyone can know
God and have a relationship with Jesus Christ so they may dwell in Heaven
forever.”
My
immediate response was, “What about a kid in the country who can’t get to
Sunday School? Or deaf kids that can’t hear me tell them about Jesus?” Keep in
mind I was seven, so my concept of Heaven involved all you can eat pizza and unlimited
time on my NES. I also knew nothing about sign language. However, my question
was begging for answer that was more immense than I imagined at the time.
I apologize
if you came here looking for some type of epiphany on this state of being we
refer to as “humanity”. How to live with it, how to control it, maybe even how
to cure it?
However,
I can say with certainty believing that the immaterial can save you is no more
dangerous than believing science can.
Truthfully,
I can’t help you. I suppose therein is the rub. I don’t believe anyone on Earth
has that ability. Though a lot of people think they can, or at least will try
to convince you they do.
The
best advice I can give you regarding the human condition is as follows: Be open
to new ideas, do not seek to reinforce your own timeless beliefs, no matter how
well they shine, or how well they’ve served you in the past. When someone talks
(or writes for that matter) listen (or read) with a skeptic’s eyes and ears,
but never a dismissive hand.
And
of course, thank you to Professor Flanagan for getting me thinking.
