OK, don't be put off by the title. I know it's a bit of a stretch to think of physics and philosophy as ways of viewing the world. It was for me, at least, until I took physics in college.
I was one of those people who wanted to think he had a scientific mind but really didn't. Especially in physics and chemistry, my mind always wandered away from the subject. Why did I have to memorize all of those formulae? Did anyone really think this stuff would be helpful when I started actively contributing to society in a meaningful way? Who thought up all that stuff anyway? It wasn't until my physics class in college that I realized that I had been thinking about science all wrong! Science in general, and physics more particularly, could be approached in ways that the philosophers have used for centuries! That Welsh physics professor helped us to explore not only basic physics, but life in general by asking questions, experiencing and providing an environment in which to talk about the experience. Soon enough, the class realized that the formulae were not a required "law" but a gift to help give words and shape to the life experience.
Sounds weird, I know - welcome to the inside of my head! That experience reminded me of a truth that Phyllis Tickle shared with our book group recently. She quipped that Albert Einstein gave rise to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, that later gave rise to philosophers like Caputo, Foucault and the 20th Century Existentialists.
I admit that the only thing I know about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is that one of two components can be determined at a time about an electron: (1) its location and (2) its momentum. In other words, when observing the atomic world (the quantum world, even) the observer can never know for certain (thus, the "uncertainty" of the Heisenberg Principle) the momentum if s/he is observing the location; conversely, the observer cannot know the location if s/he observes the momentum. To observe one is to be uncertain of the other.
Of course, philosophers latched on to this idea and deconstructed all of life - not just atoms or electrons. It seems a clean manner of learning about life. In reality, the Uncertainty Principle makes a mess of everything! No longer can I say that "this happened because of that". Can I any longer say, "where there's smoke, there's fire"? I don't know.
Where is all this going? I don't know. No, really, I don't know and I wonder if it's OK to say, "I don't know"?
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Knowing God
It may come as no surprise to many: I like to read. Mostly I read books that challenge me to think in different ways. I don't always agree with what I read, but the process of reading offers to me an outlet to meditate on new ideas. Recently, I have been reading about the relationship between science and spirituality. Not science and religion - that would lead in a wholly different direction - but science and spirituality.
For the writer of the book I am reading, "spirituality" is more like the ability to recognize and accept the sacredness that one encounters in life. This kind of sacredness can be experienced in the rational mind of a scientist who stands in awe of galaxies and universes. That sacredness could happen at work, or at home; in the car or while walking; one could encounter "spirituality" anywhere. The author mentions the work of Rudolf Otto, The idea of the Holy - an early 20th Century work about the encounter of things that one could call "holy".
According to Otto, holiness happens when one listens to a work by Mozart or Beethoven; perhaps when one attends an opera; it could happen, of course, when one goes to worship; it could occur most anywhere one feels outside the normal life. A holy moment is that moment when one forgets the cares of the world and realizes that everything finally fits together. It's a "numinous" moment, says Otto - a moment that is beyond description, even if you could find the words to say.
I had read Rudolf Otto's book many years ago. In typical German style, it is very dense and difficult to read without saying, "What did I just read?" It's one of those books you read the same page about three times before having just an inkling of an idea what the author is saying...I think you get the point. I almost put it down several times, but something kept drawing me back to it. Finally, at the end, I realized one thing: anything that I consider holy must be experienced.
Experience: that's what knowing God is all about. I could read 10 or 10,000 books on God, but until I finally experience God's presence with me, I cannot "know" God. Understanding God is not what I am talking about here. I don't think I will ever understand God, but I can "know" - in a feeling, perceiving way about God with me.
What experiences have you had in which you felt like you "knew" God? Even if that experience lasted only seconds, when have you felt that you were standing on holy ground?
For the writer of the book I am reading, "spirituality" is more like the ability to recognize and accept the sacredness that one encounters in life. This kind of sacredness can be experienced in the rational mind of a scientist who stands in awe of galaxies and universes. That sacredness could happen at work, or at home; in the car or while walking; one could encounter "spirituality" anywhere. The author mentions the work of Rudolf Otto, The idea of the Holy - an early 20th Century work about the encounter of things that one could call "holy".
According to Otto, holiness happens when one listens to a work by Mozart or Beethoven; perhaps when one attends an opera; it could happen, of course, when one goes to worship; it could occur most anywhere one feels outside the normal life. A holy moment is that moment when one forgets the cares of the world and realizes that everything finally fits together. It's a "numinous" moment, says Otto - a moment that is beyond description, even if you could find the words to say.
I had read Rudolf Otto's book many years ago. In typical German style, it is very dense and difficult to read without saying, "What did I just read?" It's one of those books you read the same page about three times before having just an inkling of an idea what the author is saying...I think you get the point. I almost put it down several times, but something kept drawing me back to it. Finally, at the end, I realized one thing: anything that I consider holy must be experienced.
Experience: that's what knowing God is all about. I could read 10 or 10,000 books on God, but until I finally experience God's presence with me, I cannot "know" God. Understanding God is not what I am talking about here. I don't think I will ever understand God, but I can "know" - in a feeling, perceiving way about God with me.
What experiences have you had in which you felt like you "knew" God? Even if that experience lasted only seconds, when have you felt that you were standing on holy ground?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)