Consider two readers - Bob and Jane - as they read and understand this post. What is it that they are reading? They are reading words that I have written. That may sound absurdly and pointlessly true, but think about the implications of that for a moment. I - not Bob or Jane - have written these words. That is an objectively true statement. Bob or Jane or Nobel Prize-winning scientist David Wineland could examine this and, with the right amount of knowledge, determine its truth.
In other words, there is objective reality that exists - in this case, the words stored on a computer somewhere and observed on a computer screen - to which Bob and Jane, my faithful readers, are witnesses. Objective reality....well, it is real. There are things that are true, and remain true, whether we observe them or not, or believe in them or not.
I discovered a neat little proof for this here (http://www.geek-central.gen.nz/peeves/objective_reality.html), and after giving the author (Lawrence D'Oliveiro) proper credit, I will now post his argument:
This proof is about giving a definite answer to the following question Q:
Q: Is there such a thing as objective reality?
Objective realists would say that the answer A to question Q is:
A1: Yes.
while the cultural relativists would say that the answer is:
A2: No.
Q': Is there an answer to question Q?
To which both objective realists and cultural relativists would agree that the answer A' is definitely:
A': Yes.
That, in a nutshell, is the basis of the proof of objective reality. But some may argue that the above conclusion is too pat. What if there isn’t a definite answer to meta-question Q'? So now we have a dispute over the answer to meta-meta-question Q'':
Q'': Is there an answer to question Q'?
to which the objective realists say the answer is “yes”, while the meta-cultural-relativists say the answer is “no”. However, all have to be in agreement that the answer to meta-meta-meta-question Q''':
Q''': Is there an answer to question Q''?
is
A''': Yes.
which itself becomes an example of something objectively true, from which the answer to the original question Q is again A1 (yes).It is clear that the above sequence can be extended ad infinitum: the objective realists always answer “yes” to every question, while the metan-cultural relativists (n = 0, 1, 2 ...) answer “no” to the first 2n+1 questions, and agree with the objective realists thereafter.
Now, we know there has to be objective reality that exists, but the question becomes, How do each of us interact with that objective reality? And the answer is: subjectively. In other words, while objective reality exists, each of us interacts with that objective reality differently, and each of us experiences that objective reality differently. So we have a subjective experience of objective reality.
Let us go back to my faithful readers, Bob and Jane. Each of them reads these words in this post and both see the same exact text put down in the same exact order and fashion. But each of them experiences them differently. Let's say Bob is a philosophical thinker who has been wrestling with various philosophical issues recently. He might read what is here and the words hit him in a particular way. Immediately, his brain goes into critical thinking mode, and he seeks ways to counter what I've written. And if he disagrees strongly, his emotional response might be one of anger, feeling like I've led my other faithful readers astray.
But Jane is coming into this from a very different place. She's never thought about these things before, but does have an intuitive sense that what I'm arguing is true. Maybe she feels like she can relate to my words and as she reads, she's nodding, thinking, yes, that makes sense. And she begins to see how her experience of the world changes, depending on what she herself brings into that experience.
So Bob and Jane, reading the same objectively real text, experience it very differently. They each have subjective experiences of an objective reality.
What does all this have to do with God? Well, God, if He exists at all, exists in an objectively true fashion. Maybe some might dispute that, on the basis of the fact that we can't (at least in our finite, mortal minds) fully comprehend God, so we all have slightly different views on what God is like. Consider, for example, a piece of art that is meant to be interpreted differently by each observer. God might be like that. But then if that's how God is, that's how God is! It would be objectively true that God's nature is such that He is to be understood and experienced differently by different people.
So if God exists at all, God exists in an objectively true fashion. But we all experience Him differently. Moses' experience of God might have been very different from St. Francis of Assisi's. Yours might be very different from mine.
Now, a logical question to ask at this point is this: if we all experience God subjectively, does that mean that all our subjective experiences of God are true and trustworthy? The answer to that is no. Two of us could see an accident in a busy intersection, and file a report for the police. Something objectively true happened in that intersection, and we both experience it differently. But (a) our different experiences do not mean that there is no objective reality, and (b) it's entirely possible that one of us is actually wrong about our experience. If I explain that the blue car, driven by the man with the long hair, ran the red light and smashed into the red car, it's possible that that's exactly what happened, but it's also possible that I got it wrong. Maybe it wasn't a man with long hair; maybe it was a woman. Maybe the blue car didn't run a red light; I just thought it did. In other words, the fact that we subjectively experience objective reality does not mean that every subjective claim of that objective reality is true or accurate.
So don't think that what I'm arguing is that any religious claim or spiritual experience is just as good as another. That's not the case at all. If I have a particular spiritual experience and walk away believing that God is XYZ, it could be the case that all I'm really experiencing is a bad burrito.
Why am I bringing all this up? For my Christian friends, I would use this time as a caution against a sense that God can be experienced only a certain way. Christians have different experiences of God - some experience Him in nature, others in the solitude of Scriptural study, others in difficult and painful times, others in more emotional settings. There is no one way that we experience God, and we would be wise to open ourselves up a little more to different ways God can speak to us and work in our lives.
To my non-Christian friends, I would use this as a caution against a religious free-for-all, because, as I said a moment ago, the fact that subjective experience of objective reality exists does not mean that all subjective experiences reflect the truth. Just because someone finds a spiritual experience in a rainbow doesn't mean that the rainbow is God. Our task is to seek to discover the objectively real God, understanding that when we find Him, we will experience Him differently.
Fortunately, God Himself has given us insight as to how we can discover Him. Jesus said in John 17:3, "Now this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." Eternal life is defined as a relationship with God. Knowing God is different than knowing about God. We know God through Jesus Christ, but our experience of God can change from day to day, from person to person.
I would encourage each of us to seek the objectively real God and enjoy the unique ways each of us can experience Him!
My subjective opinion is that this is a very good post.
ReplyDelete