In the movie The Matrix, the main character- Neo- had to make a decision at one point in the movie: should he take the blue pill which would keep him in relative comfortable ignorance, or should he take the red pill, which wouldn't promise him anything, but help him discover truth. In the movie, of course, the hero isn't comfortable with ignorance and needs to know the truth, therefore he takes the red pill. He then realizes that he is plugged into a computer and everything he has known as real is false. He "wakes" up and unplugs himself from the computer, thus beginning a long and arduous journey towards "the truth"- one in which he arguably doesn't get very far.
Neo's decision is interesting, however, because I would argue most humans choose the blue pill. Questioning the status quo and the conventional wisdom is hard to do. Going along helps us fit in- a very strong urge in our communities. Being ostracized is not something that human nature rewards. As some have noted (http://www.arrod.co.uk/essays/matrix.php), politics plays a part as well: those in power or have something to lose if the status quo changes have a reason to fight the questioning of said status quo. Is this something we do with religion as well? Do we fight anyone questioning our assumptions or our "Truth"? Are we really that scared that we will lose a debate? Is our faith that shaky?
One recent poster to this blog stated that "this is postmodern rubbish" and implied that to question religious truth is illogical and blasphemous. Is this line of thinking closer to the way Martin Luther thought or more like Pope Leo X? Are we now the entreched, dogmatic and institutionalized Catholic Church of old- incapable of learning, questioning, or accepting of new ideas? Are contemporary Christians more inclined to be comfortable with their blue pills of ignorance or are they strong enough in their faith to take on the red pill of questioning assumptions? One of my friends once told me that questioning things is dangerous as it allows the Devil a way in. Really? Is that why we refuse to question our beliefs- because we are afraid of the Devil? Where is the tradition of "the rock of Peter"- the unshakeable faith that so characterizes earlier Christian trailblazers? Why can't we don our Godly armor, take the red pill, and wade confidently into the complex universe of questions, knowledge, and alternative possibilities?
Occam's Razor is a concept that basically states that among competing theories, the one with the fewest assumptions is the one one should usually go with. Some have used it to argue both for and against God. Religious supporters have said there are fewer assumptions if God created the Earth. More scientific folk say that the concept of God is fraught with assumptions. I take Occam's Razor a different way- and it has something to do with the "postmodern rubbish" mentioned in the previous post and related comments.
To me, knowledge of reality- knowledge of "truths"- is fraught from the get-go, as humans can only make observations through our senses. Therefore, since all known human observations have only been corroborated by other humans, the only thing we can definitely say is "that through our limited senses and position in the universe we have observed the following:________", for all empirical findings. Therefore, science is very limited in terms of explaining "initial conditions" and "universal" truths. To make some of the deductions and inductive reasoning we have made in science is ludicrous without that caveat. The fact that scientists don't caveat their theories and observations with those words- especially Stephen Hawkings new book (http://gawker.com/5629013/stephen-hawking-proves-god-doesnt-exist-in-new-book-or-something) that seems to deny God- is especially troubling to me.
I don't think God can be "proven" (therefore why need "faith"?), but then again I don't think the concept of God can be denied through current science. All of our (humans) observations are distorted through our limited perspective. We occupy a very small portion of the known galaxy (not to mention the unknown), we can only observe phenomena through 5 senses (because of that we can only observe about 20% of the known universe), and we have absolutely no way of independently and objectively verifying anything we observe (we haven't contacted anyone outside even of our solar system- much less universe- to see if what we are "seeing" is consistent with what they "see").
To me, Occam's Razor would hold that "the universe"- i.e. everything "out there"- everything that exists, is most likely NOT explained by physics principles based on human observations from Earth. That to me would take many more assumptions than I can conjure. Instead, the explanation with the least amount of assumptions is that our observations are very localized and only make sense from a local perspective. Thus Newtonian physics works very well- because it fits local conditions. Once one attempts to infer initial conditions of the universe from local observations, one must make vast assumptions- something I curiously never find that scientists do.
I'm not saying this "proves" God, but I am saying that in my mind it says that Earthly-based observations (our science) cannot disprove Him either. Which brings me back to Neo's decision in The Matrix. As Christians we shouldn't be afraid to take the red pill. To take the red pill means to question. It means to risk being ostracized. It means to be skeptical about the conventional wisdom. This would follow in the historical tradition of Jesus and Martin Luther. If we are afraid to question- afraid to listen to new ideas- and would rather remain in the possible ignorance of the blue pill's dogmatic comfort, then not only are we just as bad as the Sadducees and Pharisees who refused to hear a new message and the Catholic hierarchy that fought anything that would upset their positions- but we also may be too weak in our faith. Have faith that God can stand up to scrutiny. Take the "red pill."
Neo's decision is interesting, however, because I would argue most humans choose the blue pill. Questioning the status quo and the conventional wisdom is hard to do. Going along helps us fit in- a very strong urge in our communities. Being ostracized is not something that human nature rewards. As some have noted (http://www.arrod.co.uk/essays/matrix.php), politics plays a part as well: those in power or have something to lose if the status quo changes have a reason to fight the questioning of said status quo. Is this something we do with religion as well? Do we fight anyone questioning our assumptions or our "Truth"? Are we really that scared that we will lose a debate? Is our faith that shaky?
One recent poster to this blog stated that "this is postmodern rubbish" and implied that to question religious truth is illogical and blasphemous. Is this line of thinking closer to the way Martin Luther thought or more like Pope Leo X? Are we now the entreched, dogmatic and institutionalized Catholic Church of old- incapable of learning, questioning, or accepting of new ideas? Are contemporary Christians more inclined to be comfortable with their blue pills of ignorance or are they strong enough in their faith to take on the red pill of questioning assumptions? One of my friends once told me that questioning things is dangerous as it allows the Devil a way in. Really? Is that why we refuse to question our beliefs- because we are afraid of the Devil? Where is the tradition of "the rock of Peter"- the unshakeable faith that so characterizes earlier Christian trailblazers? Why can't we don our Godly armor, take the red pill, and wade confidently into the complex universe of questions, knowledge, and alternative possibilities?
Occam's Razor is a concept that basically states that among competing theories, the one with the fewest assumptions is the one one should usually go with. Some have used it to argue both for and against God. Religious supporters have said there are fewer assumptions if God created the Earth. More scientific folk say that the concept of God is fraught with assumptions. I take Occam's Razor a different way- and it has something to do with the "postmodern rubbish" mentioned in the previous post and related comments.
To me, knowledge of reality- knowledge of "truths"- is fraught from the get-go, as humans can only make observations through our senses. Therefore, since all known human observations have only been corroborated by other humans, the only thing we can definitely say is "that through our limited senses and position in the universe we have observed the following:________", for all empirical findings. Therefore, science is very limited in terms of explaining "initial conditions" and "universal" truths. To make some of the deductions and inductive reasoning we have made in science is ludicrous without that caveat. The fact that scientists don't caveat their theories and observations with those words- especially Stephen Hawkings new book (http://gawker.com/5629013/stephen-hawking-proves-god-doesnt-exist-in-new-book-or-something) that seems to deny God- is especially troubling to me.
I don't think God can be "proven" (therefore why need "faith"?), but then again I don't think the concept of God can be denied through current science. All of our (humans) observations are distorted through our limited perspective. We occupy a very small portion of the known galaxy (not to mention the unknown), we can only observe phenomena through 5 senses (because of that we can only observe about 20% of the known universe), and we have absolutely no way of independently and objectively verifying anything we observe (we haven't contacted anyone outside even of our solar system- much less universe- to see if what we are "seeing" is consistent with what they "see").
To me, Occam's Razor would hold that "the universe"- i.e. everything "out there"- everything that exists, is most likely NOT explained by physics principles based on human observations from Earth. That to me would take many more assumptions than I can conjure. Instead, the explanation with the least amount of assumptions is that our observations are very localized and only make sense from a local perspective. Thus Newtonian physics works very well- because it fits local conditions. Once one attempts to infer initial conditions of the universe from local observations, one must make vast assumptions- something I curiously never find that scientists do.
I'm not saying this "proves" God, but I am saying that in my mind it says that Earthly-based observations (our science) cannot disprove Him either. Which brings me back to Neo's decision in The Matrix. As Christians we shouldn't be afraid to take the red pill. To take the red pill means to question. It means to risk being ostracized. It means to be skeptical about the conventional wisdom. This would follow in the historical tradition of Jesus and Martin Luther. If we are afraid to question- afraid to listen to new ideas- and would rather remain in the possible ignorance of the blue pill's dogmatic comfort, then not only are we just as bad as the Sadducees and Pharisees who refused to hear a new message and the Catholic hierarchy that fought anything that would upset their positions- but we also may be too weak in our faith. Have faith that God can stand up to scrutiny. Take the "red pill."
