Self-Awareness – and the Choices this
Awareness Brings?
As self-aware beings, we are
continually confronted by the incredible complexity of the natural world we
live in. How do we understand it? We note this type of complexity in our modern
technological world, but sometimes take for granted the far greater complexity
and order of the natural world. Is this order and complexity the work of
chance, or is there a mind at work
that has set all these things in order? Are the laws of nature, as we call
them, and the general order we observe the evidence of intelligence. This is
the challenge we are each confronted with.
Most of us don’t really seek for
answers but are somewhat satisfied by the consensus of opinions advanced by the
experts and thought leaders we follow, whether consciously or subconsciously. The
added complexity to the question of existence is the self-evident fact that
total objectivity is rarely possible, since every one of us has prejudices that
colour our reasoning and conclusions. This often works in ways that we are not
even aware of. This is a peculiar quirk of the human condition. Our ability to
be totally objective is often challenged by our education, culture, peer group
or simply our preferred group’s prejudices. Most of us have an innate bias or
need to conform to the consensus position of the particular group that we most
closely identify with. This causes most people to rely upon the conclusions of
those they respect and identify with, and who are often experts at articulating
their positions. We rationalise, that if they cannot get it right and tell us
the answers, who really can?
Yet, are they really supplying
the right answers? Are they really interpreting all the evidence correctly and
objectively, or are they, like the rest of us, simply the victims of a hidden
philosophical construct, i.e. subjective filters in the mind that arranges
facts to suit a preconceived or accepted model? In an endeavour to overcome
subjective interpretations, since the enlightenment and the birth of modern
science, science has developed a method to interpret the world we live in. It
is called ‘The Scientific Method’,
or more precisely ‘Methodological Naturalism’,
whereby ONLY natural causes are considered possible explanations of the things
that exist. This approach is rigorously practiced and enforced by a
well-developed peer review process. This is the method used to interpret the
present, as every rational person would agree that a return to the dark ages
and the superstitions of the past, would certainly be a step backwards from
reality and truth.
However, this raises some questions.
Is this methodology sound when interpreting everything to do with the past and
when thinking about the future? Our natural response is that this sounds like a
reasonable approach. However, it is
based upon the assumption that the past has always been as the present, and
that the future will always be the same. This assumes that only currently known or postulated natural mechanisms
can be used to explain the past, or envision the future. What most people do not realise is that
this is based upon a philosophical position called ‘Philosophical Naturalism’,
or ‘Materialism’ for short. In this article we will refer to this as ‘Materialism’, which is how it is
commonly known in philosophical circles. It is not to be confused with the
common definition of materialism as the pursuit of material goods.
Materialism is a philosophical
position that assumes that only ‘Matter’
and ‘Energy’ exist, and that there
is no higher ‘Mind’, or God, that is
greater or outside the laws of the known universe. Once Materialism is
accepted, this way of thinking will have a huge impact upon our world view, and
how we understand the meaning and purpose of life. It will function as a filter
that affects how we understand the world we live in, both past, present and
future. Materialism is a philosophical position that grew in popularity in the
19th and 20th centuries. It has been almost universally
adopted, often unknowingly, in our modern times. It is also one of the main
(philosophical) drivers beneath most modern scientific theories.
Contrary to this mode of
thinking, most thinkers and scientists before the 19th century,
including the commonly accepted fathers of science, men like Newton and Boyle,
believed in Mind, Matter and Energy.
They believed that the incredible complexity that we see in the universe and in
the world sprang from a Mind that designed, made, set in order, and sustains
all things. This mode of thinking was in accordance with the Bible’s testimony
(Rom.1:18-22). This mode of thinking caused
early scientists to expect to find order everywhere in the universe.
Of special note here is the plain
and simple fact that the Biblical record challenges the philosophical
assumptions of Materialism. Christianity itself is founded upon the life and
works of Jesus Christ, who we are clearly told was born of a virgin, and was
after his crucifixion, raised from the dead. Now these two things are both
impossibilities, according to ‘Materialism’. The OT Jewish religion was also
founded on similarly impossible events. The original Passover, the crossing of
the Red Sea, the events recorded at Mount Sinai, and the manna in the
wilderness are all likewise outside of materialism’s boundaries, and therefore
considered as unscientific.
This raises some interesting
questions. Is it reasonable to discount the evidence of witnesses because
accepting their testimony sits outside the bounds of a philosophical position
and its methodology? That is, the testimony of miraculous events as well as the
existence of a Supernatural God not constrained by natural laws must be false,
because it does not match scientific theory and methods. This form of reasoning
is circular, and ends up begging the question, because it assumes that the
conclusions of Materialism are correct and therefore it cannot accommodate or
allow for anything that is not limited by its Materialistic philosophy.
Moreover, the Bible records many
things that are also likewise impossible, according to Materialism. What do we
therefore do with the Bible’s testimony? Do we -
1.
Reject it
outright as a book of fables, from a deluded people, written in the dark
ages of human existence? This is the position taken by sceptics and atheists,
or
2.
Do we
massage the record, ignore the things we are not comfortable with, and only
accept those we are comfortable with, thereby compromising much of what is
written? or
3.
Do we try
and understand it for what it says, and consider the possibilities this may
bring? That this book is what it claims to be! – That is, God’s revelation of
both himself and of His will and purpose.
The second option is quite
commonly held in society, and particularly among many religious groups, whether
they be Christian or Non-Christian. This too was the method used by many of the
great rationalists of the past. Men like Thomas Jefferson, the third president
of the USA and one of the framers of the American Constitution. He is alleged
to have created his own composite Bible by removing all the parts that referred
to anything and everything that was not natural, and kept only the sayings and
teachings of Jesus, whom he greatly admired. But is this filtering method
really fair to the text? If we are to remove some of the record, why not ignore
all of it? How can you trust any of it if you doubt some of its core teachings,
particularly given the overall God centred themes used throughout the Bible?
We should note here that the
Bible, first and foremost, claims to be the written testimony of select
witnesses who observed events first hand or were told certain things by Divine
communication. These men were in a very privileged position, as they sometimes
worked and/or witnessed many miraculous signs and wonders (Luke.10:24, John.20:29) that were designed to
authenticate the message. The cost of this witness was great. But the
miraculous things themselves were only given to establish the authenticity
of the message they were given and its underlying truthfulness. These
witnesses, in general, received no benefits in their lifetime. In fact, often,
after a lifetime of difficulties and persecution, many of them were put to
death by their contemporaries because of their testimony (Acts.7:52, Acts.9:16). It seems that this was
deliberately designed to add weight to the truthfulness of the message they
spoke.
In summary, the following
reference from the writings of Paul informs us that the order of nature has
been designed by God to challenge us and direct us to seek and to search out
the one who ordained it, or set it in order. The diagram below maps this
thought process and the choices we face as we consider the vastness and
complexity of the world we live in.
Rom.1:20-24. For since the
creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead,
so that they are without excuse,
Diagram 1 –
Self Awareness alerts us to the Design & Complexity of Nature, and of a
Mind at word. This challenges us, yet tells us nothing of the will and purpose
of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment