In a discussion about atheism
recently, a friend told me that atheists were closer to God than those who
touted utter devotion to a belief in God; particularly those Christians view
atheism as evil and will therefore condemn that individual. When my friend
stated this, I was surprised and asked for clarification to which he replied,
“An atheist is searching and looking for the meaning in all existence. In
addition, God is constantly on their mind as they make feeble attempts to
denounce God. Most of them will not admit that the idea of God is paramount to
their existence and if they were truly in a situation without God, then they
would feel uncomfortable to say the least. The atheist may denounce God, but in
reality he or she is simply trying to understand God. The Christian, on the
other hand, is not trying to understand God and just accepts God for what some
preacher told him or her to believe. You were an atheist once until you
realized that Christians did not have a monopoly on God and that God was whatever
you felt most supported you on your journey. To a Christian God is static and
unchangeable and definitely does not conform to what is best for the
individual. Therefore, the atheist is closer to God because he or she almost
always changes his or her belief when he or she comes to the realization that
God is not static nor necessarily of the Christian depiction; at least that has
been my observation.”
When I first read Sharpe’s (2005)
conclusions about God not being a human-like entity, I was a bit taken aback
until I remembered this conversation with my friend. For me, God is personal
and human-like; I cannot imagine what an amorphous God is. A human-like
companion is what my brain can comprehend. Regardless of that, I do accept that
this is simply my brain’s way of connecting with the divine and does not
represent the reality; I realize that God is far more than my human conception
can conceptualize. I also realize that there is more to the universe than the
mere human, and therefore, if God encompasses the whole of the universe then
God can adopt the form of whatever creation was created or all of them at once.
When I really cogitate on it,
Sharpe’s definition is not different from another source I have been recently
exploring regarding God. His statement aligns with how the Kybalian defines God
as the All is of the All and is therefore unknowable to the human mind.
Moreover, the All is not reducible to human likeness.
And
still more presumptuous are those who attempt to ascribe to THE ALL the personality,
qualities, properties, characteristics and attributes of themselves, ascribing
to THE ALL the human emotions, feelings, and characteristics, even down to the
pettiest qualities of mankind, such as jealousy, susceptibility to flattery and
praise, desire for offerings and worship, and all the other survivals from the
days for the childhood of the race. (The Three Initiates, p.56).
This reduction does not make
sense and fails to account for the idea that both the Kybalian and Sharpe
espouse that the whole is greater than the sum
of its parts; therefore, why would it possess the limitations of the
human mind. Like I said, I understand the need to make the All or whole
personal; but I also understand the limitations of my own mind and my inability
to comprehend the vastness of creation.
While I knew that most
spirituality did not embrace the wholeness of God and instead choose to
compartmentalize, dichotomize, and segregate God as if they had complete
understanding, I never gave much thought to the idea of subjective science
(Sharpe, 2005). I understood that people often have two different perceptions
about an event or happening or that they often interpret something as simple as
a word in a different way than the speaker intended. Science had this impenetrable,
impervious bubble stating that it was observations based in fact. I never put
my observations of humans alongside the observations of science to understand
just how fallible it is. It is subjective and entirely based on one’s opinion
in his or her current state of mind and affairs; someone from different
circumstances will probably interpret the results in a different way. The way I
live my life and how I have made many decisions that run counter to scientific
opinion, I would think I would have realized the subjectivity of science; I
suppose I just needed to hear it differently. I agree with Sharp’s assertion; I
guess that had just never given words to my gut feeling.
As far as secular society
believing in Sharpe’s conclusions; I do not think the majority of people are
there yet. I say yet, because they are traveling in that direction; away from
the limitation and mystery of mystic beliefs and toward an understanding of
scientific understanding of the universe. It will take people awhile to admit,
however, that just because someone has credentials does not make that
individual the absolute, end-all authority on a subject. However, our society
only seems to want to believe credentials and therefore they are not engaging
in critical thinking because they are often blinded by those credentials. For
example, as an individual I feel I have a fair amount of knowledge from my
experiences that I could share with others; however, I also realize that my
words and my experience will not mean anything unless I have credentials to
back me up. In other words, I realize that if I want to teach on subjects like
parenting, education, or whatever, then I had better have a doctorate to
include in my name. When people can
admit that credentials do not automatically make someone an authority and they
realize that two people can have different views regardless of their education,
then people will accept that science is subjective; on that day, then the world
will be closer to using science to explain creation and using creation to
explain science.
Dr. Sharpe’s views do bridge the
gap between science and religion because it removes the parts of each that
muddy the equation. The gap will never be bridged as long as individuals cling
to unnecessary drivel or fluff and fail to understand the meat of their stance.
The gap will never be bridged as long as people believe that they are right to
the exclusion of everyone else. No idea is perfect and when people realize the
fallibility of the human mind, then I think we will be closer to getting along.
To get along, however, means that we must be willing to drop those parts of our
beliefs that do not serve to create bridge but rather serve to continue
dissonance.
Resources
Sharpe, K. J., & Bryant, R.
I. (2005). Has science displaced the soul? Debating love and happiness.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
The Three Initiates (1908). The
Kybalion: A study of the Hermetic Philosophy of Ancient Egypt and Greece
[Kindle edition]. Retrieved from Amazon.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment