How does a person determine who he or she is? How does a person gain that self-confidence that they are comfortable in their own skin? When is a person at peace with themselves?
These are some of the most difficult questions a person ever faces.
These questions go back to the fundamental characteristic of human beings…the ability of human beings to solve problems or to make decisions. But, what is the basis for the use of this capability to provide answers for the above questions?
The basis is what has been called the greatest commandments which Jesus limited to just two. The first was to love God with all you heart, and soul, and mind, and strength. The second was like the first…you should love your neighbor as yourself. Many people have pointed out the fact that one cannot really love your neighbor if you do not love yourself. So, to me, the way to answer the questions posed in the first paragraph is to love God and by loving God coming to love yourself so that you can love others, including all creation, as yourself.
So, the charge becomes knowing God and knowing ones self sufficiently so that you can move into greater unity with God and within yourself. This is how one comes to love ones self. This is how one comes to know who he or she is…it is how a person becomes comfortable in their own skin…it how a person achieves peace within themselves.
Still, the process is one of problem solving or decision making. It is the same as everything else we do…we just turn the focus on other objects. The problems we have to deal with in this instance are concerned with how we solve those problems and how we make the decisions that bring us into greater unity…with God…and within ourselves.
And, what is so extraordinary about this? We are to learn and grow and mature in our lives so that we can make better decisions or solve more difficult problems. We are to take responsible for ourselves and our mental state.
This sounds easy…but as we know it is very, very difficult. We live in a world of incomplete information…including a lot of things we don’t know about ourselves. We have to live with uncertainty and change. We have to learn to live with the fact that our worldviews, our models and schema, our rules of life…are partial and fallible. We can be wrong. And, we don’t like that.
One response to this situation is to crave certainty…to crave rules and creeds and dogma that promise “the truth”. We crave a solution to our disunity…our alienation…our lack of wholeness. And, many of us are willing to give up our minds and lives to rulers who will control our lives so that we, maybe…just maybe…may control the things and people around us.
In the end, however, this is not satisfying…it is giving up yourself to others.
We must live in this world of incomplete information…in this world of uncertainty…and accept the fact that our models and worldviews are partial and fallible. Yet, in a very pragmatic way, we stay with models and worldviews that work…that help us make better decisions and solve more difficult problems.
The crucial thing is that we must desire this greater unity with God and with ourselves and this desire must be met with the effort to gain more and more information about God and about ourselves. We must enter into a lifelong search to strengthen our models and worldviews or to modify them or change them if we find new information that leads us into these changes. Like everything else we do, we must go forward building upon the foundations we have established and work to grow into greater unity…and wholeness…and peace.
We must listen to ourselves…we must be aware of disunities…we must be aware of our alienation…and we must question…and we must seek help…and we must be open to new information.
This effort must be intentional on our part…we must address our issues…we must have confidence that we can achieve what we are setting out to do. We must believe, with Goethe, that if we must commit….for when we commit for “the moment one definitely commits oneself, then Providence moves to.”
“All sorts of things occur to help one that would otherwise never have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one’s favor all manners of incidents and meetings and material assistance which no person would have believed would have come their way. Whatever you think you can do, begin it. Action has magic, grace and power in it.”
Seek peace within oneself…seek wholeness…seek self-confidence in one’s own skin. Use what you have been given…and be open to what is possible…to surprise…to wonder.
Be open to God…
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
On Not Being Will-Full
The last post (January 12, 2009) argued against any person, group, or organization imposing doctrine, creed, or “truth” upon others. That is, one should be suspicious or stand-offish against anyone that demands 100% allegiance to the rules or laws concerning what they believe.
This position, however, opens up on the other side, the issue which is that individuals have complete freedom to choose whatever they want to, at any time they please. I call a person who takes such a position, a will-full person…a person who imposes their will upon a situation.
I find myself uncomfortable with this extreme position as well. I guess I am just wishy-washy.
There are two aspects to this issue that I believe to be very important. First, people, groups, and organizations do possess beliefs, worldviews, and other content that are helpful to one leading a better, fuller, or, more whole and alive life. These people, groups, and organizations can provide us with models and schema that allow us to make better decisions or solve more difficult problems.
To me, there is no question that this is the case. And, these people, groups, and organizations continue to provide guidance to individuals over time because, in a very pragmatic sense, a large part of what they have to offer succeeds…it truly helps others. The reason that they have “staying power” and are still around is that they do provide people with good models upon which these people make decisions or solve problems.
Where these people, groups, and organizations can go wrong, I believe, is when they either come to believe so strongly that they are “right” in their beliefs that they feel everyone should believe the same way they do, or, when they take a successful way of looking at something and use this success to build power and control for themselves. Of course, you can have situations where both occur and build upon one another over time.
The extreme of the first of these can be seen in the 16th century practice of burning people at the stake for their own good because they did not adhere to a particular form of belief. That is, these people were “going to hell” anyway, they could not be redeemed, and so they might as well get on with it…with the help of good Christians who knew of their depravity.
The extreme side of the second of these is the person who uses his or her charisma to gather followers to themselves, followers who seek certainty in one way or another. These people use their power over these people to enhance their own position and gain more and more control over others even to the point of committing mass suicide as the wish of the leader.
Variations can be found of both of these paths in highly organized clerical situations, political movements, or grass-roots assemblies. The foundation for such happenings is that there is fundamentally something positive that is offered people…whether it is hope, or certainty, or healing, or whatever. It is what happens in the evolution of the idea or ideas that corrupts the effort and turns it into something negative rather than positive.
My objection is that when the ideas, rules, laws, models, or schema start to be imposed upon individuals so that they cannot question or debate or investigate or be open to new information trouble begins. People must be free to ask questions. They must be free and open to new information. They must be at liberty to follow where their own minds lead them.
The problem with this, of course, is that people only have incomplete information about any subject. Thus, whatever questions they have or problems they face, they must go into them knowing that the answers they produce or the solutions they come up with are only uncertain and fallible. People must live with this deficiency…and this is a hard thing to do…for individuals, deep down, crave certainty. Individuals must learn to be strong and accept the fact that this is the reality of life. And some…because of life situations, of experiences, of personal weaknesses…cannot live with such uncertainty. They constantly search out those that offer a kind of shelter from the storm.
This leads into the second major aspect of the situation. There are people, groups, and organizations that do have successful worldviews, models, schema, and so forth and do not impose their ideas and beliefs on other people. These people, groups, and organizations accept the incompleteness and fallibility of their ideas and beliefs yet realize the positive aspects of their worldview, models or schema and want to share this fact with others.
I believe this to be true of those who truly follow Jesus…as argued in my post of January 12, 2009. I also believe that it is the responsibility of those that follow Jesus to share what Jesus has to offer with others. This is called “Missional” behavior and it is what we are supposed to engage in if we support the teachings of Jesus.
To go through the whole argument quickly: we argue that God is Love. Our objective is to love as God loves. First, we are to love God with all our heart and soul and mind and strength. Second, we are to love God’s creation…ourselves, other people, and the rest of creation.
To love God and to love our neighbor…creation…we need to have some idea of what it means to love like God. This is where Jesus comes in. We who follow Jesus believe that he was an example of what it means to love God and to love God’s creation. In this, Jesus glorified God which translates into the statement that Jesus revealed the image of God in all that he did. Thus, Jesus is our model of what it means to love God and to love God’s creation.
This is what it means to be “Missional”. We are to do as Jesus did and that is reveal the image of God to others. That is…we are to “go and do likewise.”
Notice…in no way are we to force our ideas on others…in no way are we to impose on others…in no way are we to try and control the beliefs and actions of other individuals. We are to reveal what kind of life is led by those that follow the teachings of Jesus. No doctrine…no creed…no toeing the line to a specific way of thought.
The idea is, of course, that leading a life in this way will result in us being in greater unity with God, within ourselves, with others, and with creation. It will lead to greater wholeness and more aliveness. It will lead to a life that others will want to imitate.
Thus, there is no forcing…no imposing…no intimidation…no will-full-ness. We believe in a way of life that is our choice. We live that life and are able to reflect on and explain to others why we live the way we do and why, we believe, we get the results we do.
This, to me, is the way we live our lives. We believe in something. Our choices are not arbitrary. And, it is the way we help other individuals.
This position, however, opens up on the other side, the issue which is that individuals have complete freedom to choose whatever they want to, at any time they please. I call a person who takes such a position, a will-full person…a person who imposes their will upon a situation.
I find myself uncomfortable with this extreme position as well. I guess I am just wishy-washy.
There are two aspects to this issue that I believe to be very important. First, people, groups, and organizations do possess beliefs, worldviews, and other content that are helpful to one leading a better, fuller, or, more whole and alive life. These people, groups, and organizations can provide us with models and schema that allow us to make better decisions or solve more difficult problems.
To me, there is no question that this is the case. And, these people, groups, and organizations continue to provide guidance to individuals over time because, in a very pragmatic sense, a large part of what they have to offer succeeds…it truly helps others. The reason that they have “staying power” and are still around is that they do provide people with good models upon which these people make decisions or solve problems.
Where these people, groups, and organizations can go wrong, I believe, is when they either come to believe so strongly that they are “right” in their beliefs that they feel everyone should believe the same way they do, or, when they take a successful way of looking at something and use this success to build power and control for themselves. Of course, you can have situations where both occur and build upon one another over time.
The extreme of the first of these can be seen in the 16th century practice of burning people at the stake for their own good because they did not adhere to a particular form of belief. That is, these people were “going to hell” anyway, they could not be redeemed, and so they might as well get on with it…with the help of good Christians who knew of their depravity.
The extreme side of the second of these is the person who uses his or her charisma to gather followers to themselves, followers who seek certainty in one way or another. These people use their power over these people to enhance their own position and gain more and more control over others even to the point of committing mass suicide as the wish of the leader.
Variations can be found of both of these paths in highly organized clerical situations, political movements, or grass-roots assemblies. The foundation for such happenings is that there is fundamentally something positive that is offered people…whether it is hope, or certainty, or healing, or whatever. It is what happens in the evolution of the idea or ideas that corrupts the effort and turns it into something negative rather than positive.
My objection is that when the ideas, rules, laws, models, or schema start to be imposed upon individuals so that they cannot question or debate or investigate or be open to new information trouble begins. People must be free to ask questions. They must be free and open to new information. They must be at liberty to follow where their own minds lead them.
The problem with this, of course, is that people only have incomplete information about any subject. Thus, whatever questions they have or problems they face, they must go into them knowing that the answers they produce or the solutions they come up with are only uncertain and fallible. People must live with this deficiency…and this is a hard thing to do…for individuals, deep down, crave certainty. Individuals must learn to be strong and accept the fact that this is the reality of life. And some…because of life situations, of experiences, of personal weaknesses…cannot live with such uncertainty. They constantly search out those that offer a kind of shelter from the storm.
This leads into the second major aspect of the situation. There are people, groups, and organizations that do have successful worldviews, models, schema, and so forth and do not impose their ideas and beliefs on other people. These people, groups, and organizations accept the incompleteness and fallibility of their ideas and beliefs yet realize the positive aspects of their worldview, models or schema and want to share this fact with others.
I believe this to be true of those who truly follow Jesus…as argued in my post of January 12, 2009. I also believe that it is the responsibility of those that follow Jesus to share what Jesus has to offer with others. This is called “Missional” behavior and it is what we are supposed to engage in if we support the teachings of Jesus.
To go through the whole argument quickly: we argue that God is Love. Our objective is to love as God loves. First, we are to love God with all our heart and soul and mind and strength. Second, we are to love God’s creation…ourselves, other people, and the rest of creation.
To love God and to love our neighbor…creation…we need to have some idea of what it means to love like God. This is where Jesus comes in. We who follow Jesus believe that he was an example of what it means to love God and to love God’s creation. In this, Jesus glorified God which translates into the statement that Jesus revealed the image of God in all that he did. Thus, Jesus is our model of what it means to love God and to love God’s creation.
This is what it means to be “Missional”. We are to do as Jesus did and that is reveal the image of God to others. That is…we are to “go and do likewise.”
Notice…in no way are we to force our ideas on others…in no way are we to impose on others…in no way are we to try and control the beliefs and actions of other individuals. We are to reveal what kind of life is led by those that follow the teachings of Jesus. No doctrine…no creed…no toeing the line to a specific way of thought.
The idea is, of course, that leading a life in this way will result in us being in greater unity with God, within ourselves, with others, and with creation. It will lead to greater wholeness and more aliveness. It will lead to a life that others will want to imitate.
Thus, there is no forcing…no imposing…no intimidation…no will-full-ness. We believe in a way of life that is our choice. We live that life and are able to reflect on and explain to others why we live the way we do and why, we believe, we get the results we do.
This, to me, is the way we live our lives. We believe in something. Our choices are not arbitrary. And, it is the way we help other individuals.
Monday, January 12, 2009
The Search for Knowledge
Jesus is reported to have said this during his ministry: “you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” This comes from the book of John, chapter 8, verse 32. He prefaces this by saying, “If you continue in my word…”
The question about the meaning of this…and of other sayings attributed to Jesus…is whether or not Jesus wanted us to take his sayings as “law” or as “process.” If we take his sayings as “law” then we must obey exactly what he says. But, this has its own problems.
When Jesus is ask by a Jewish lawyer, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus responds by asking the lawyer “What is written in the law?” The lawyer smartly replies that “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” This comes from the book of Luke, chapter 10, versus 25-28.
This is the law and Jesus commends him: “You have given the right answer…” but then he goes on, “do this, and you will live.”
Whoa! Here is the law. We are told what to do. But…there is a hitch…how do we act? How do we carry out the meaning of the law? Like, for instance, “And who is my neighbor?” the lawyer replies.
Good question.
What does the law mean? How should it be applied? And, to whom should it be applied?
The law is the law, but the application of the law…is interpretation.
I believe that we get some sense of how Jesus sees the law being applied in two incidents that are reported in Mark 2:23-3:6, Matthew 12:1-14, and Luke 6:1-11. The first incident occurs when Jesus and his disciples are going through a grain field. (Mark 2:23) The second takes place in a synagogue on the Sabbath. In both cases the “upholders of the law” take issue with what is being done. In the first case the issue is about doing work on the Sabbath…plucking heads of grain. In the second case the issue concerns Jesus healing the withered hand of a man.
Upon facing the claim that he or his disciples are “doing what is not lawful” (Mark 2:24) Jesus replies citing scripture. “Have you never read…” he responds to the Pharisees. Also, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?” (Mark 3:4)
He justifies the actions by saying “The Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath…” (Mark 2:27) and “I desire mercy and not sacrifice…” (Matthew 12:7) In other words, think about what the law is supposed to do. Is the law supposed to constrain man, limit him, and box him in? Or, is the law about freeing up man, opening up his possibilities, and providing liberation.
Did Moses liberate the Hebrews from bondage…or did he impose the law on them to bring them into a different kind of bondage?
I believe that what Jesus is saying is “think rightly.” What is this all about? The law is supposed to build up life…to create greater wholeness…to allow one to live more fully. You shouldn’t use the law to destroy life…or create division…or to smother the living. The law is supposed to help people live with God…to live with themselves…to live with others…and to live with creation.
The law is a guideline…but the law needs interpretation…the law requires knowledge and understanding. And, what does the law say? Well, Jesus says that the lawyer “gave the right answer.” The right answer is…“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”
But, this answer opens up two issues that require definition. The first one, the lawyer goes for…”who is my neighbor?” Jesus doesn’t provide an answer to who the neighbor of the lawyer is. This is the story of the Good Samaritan and when Jesus finishes the story he asks…”Which of the these three was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” And this deals with the second issue…what does it mean to love you neighbor.
Not…who is my neighbor?...but who was a neighbor. And, the lawyer gives Jesus the right answer again, “The one who showed him mercy.” The one who loved.
Note, by providing the other with the response he or she needs…you are being a neighbor. YOU are the only one you can control. YOU are the only one that can carry out the commandment for YOU. And, you respond to the needs of others, which requires that you make the effort to know what the other needs…and this is not what YOU want to give to the other…it is what the other needs!
And, this gets me back to the quote at the beginning…”If you continue in my word…YOU will know the truth…and the truth will make YOU free.” That is, if you take the time and effort to learn what the other needs and give to the other what he or she or it needs then YOU will become free…become whole…become fully alive. It is not the responsibility of the neighbor or who the neighbor is.
So, loving requires knowing…and knowing requires effort on the part of the individual to learn. We don’t know what the answer is until we make the effort to learn. THE LAW DOES NOT GIVE US THE ANSWER…the law only guides us. We must “think rightly.’
To put this in another way, it seems to me that any one or any group or any organization that requires you to subscribe to something that is rigid, dogmatic, or imposed upon you violates the teachings of Jesus. Any one or any group or any organization that tells you what to believe or tells you what to do or tells you who you can associate with violates the teachings of Jesus. We should be immediately suspicious of any one, any group, or any organization that has the final word on things, that will not us allow us to test things out and make our own judgments.
Jesus says that if you open your heart and soul and mind and strength to love…to love God, yourself, others, and all of creation…you will know the truth and the truth will make you free. That is, we have to develop and trust the inherent abilities we have as human beings and problem solvers if we are to be fully human, fully whole, and fully alive. We must oppose those that try and constrain us, who allow us anything less.
The question about the meaning of this…and of other sayings attributed to Jesus…is whether or not Jesus wanted us to take his sayings as “law” or as “process.” If we take his sayings as “law” then we must obey exactly what he says. But, this has its own problems.
When Jesus is ask by a Jewish lawyer, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus responds by asking the lawyer “What is written in the law?” The lawyer smartly replies that “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” This comes from the book of Luke, chapter 10, versus 25-28.
This is the law and Jesus commends him: “You have given the right answer…” but then he goes on, “do this, and you will live.”
Whoa! Here is the law. We are told what to do. But…there is a hitch…how do we act? How do we carry out the meaning of the law? Like, for instance, “And who is my neighbor?” the lawyer replies.
Good question.
What does the law mean? How should it be applied? And, to whom should it be applied?
The law is the law, but the application of the law…is interpretation.
I believe that we get some sense of how Jesus sees the law being applied in two incidents that are reported in Mark 2:23-3:6, Matthew 12:1-14, and Luke 6:1-11. The first incident occurs when Jesus and his disciples are going through a grain field. (Mark 2:23) The second takes place in a synagogue on the Sabbath. In both cases the “upholders of the law” take issue with what is being done. In the first case the issue is about doing work on the Sabbath…plucking heads of grain. In the second case the issue concerns Jesus healing the withered hand of a man.
Upon facing the claim that he or his disciples are “doing what is not lawful” (Mark 2:24) Jesus replies citing scripture. “Have you never read…” he responds to the Pharisees. Also, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?” (Mark 3:4)
He justifies the actions by saying “The Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath…” (Mark 2:27) and “I desire mercy and not sacrifice…” (Matthew 12:7) In other words, think about what the law is supposed to do. Is the law supposed to constrain man, limit him, and box him in? Or, is the law about freeing up man, opening up his possibilities, and providing liberation.
Did Moses liberate the Hebrews from bondage…or did he impose the law on them to bring them into a different kind of bondage?
I believe that what Jesus is saying is “think rightly.” What is this all about? The law is supposed to build up life…to create greater wholeness…to allow one to live more fully. You shouldn’t use the law to destroy life…or create division…or to smother the living. The law is supposed to help people live with God…to live with themselves…to live with others…and to live with creation.
The law is a guideline…but the law needs interpretation…the law requires knowledge and understanding. And, what does the law say? Well, Jesus says that the lawyer “gave the right answer.” The right answer is…“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”
But, this answer opens up two issues that require definition. The first one, the lawyer goes for…”who is my neighbor?” Jesus doesn’t provide an answer to who the neighbor of the lawyer is. This is the story of the Good Samaritan and when Jesus finishes the story he asks…”Which of the these three was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” And this deals with the second issue…what does it mean to love you neighbor.
Not…who is my neighbor?...but who was a neighbor. And, the lawyer gives Jesus the right answer again, “The one who showed him mercy.” The one who loved.
Note, by providing the other with the response he or she needs…you are being a neighbor. YOU are the only one you can control. YOU are the only one that can carry out the commandment for YOU. And, you respond to the needs of others, which requires that you make the effort to know what the other needs…and this is not what YOU want to give to the other…it is what the other needs!
And, this gets me back to the quote at the beginning…”If you continue in my word…YOU will know the truth…and the truth will make YOU free.” That is, if you take the time and effort to learn what the other needs and give to the other what he or she or it needs then YOU will become free…become whole…become fully alive. It is not the responsibility of the neighbor or who the neighbor is.
So, loving requires knowing…and knowing requires effort on the part of the individual to learn. We don’t know what the answer is until we make the effort to learn. THE LAW DOES NOT GIVE US THE ANSWER…the law only guides us. We must “think rightly.’
To put this in another way, it seems to me that any one or any group or any organization that requires you to subscribe to something that is rigid, dogmatic, or imposed upon you violates the teachings of Jesus. Any one or any group or any organization that tells you what to believe or tells you what to do or tells you who you can associate with violates the teachings of Jesus. We should be immediately suspicious of any one, any group, or any organization that has the final word on things, that will not us allow us to test things out and make our own judgments.
Jesus says that if you open your heart and soul and mind and strength to love…to love God, yourself, others, and all of creation…you will know the truth and the truth will make you free. That is, we have to develop and trust the inherent abilities we have as human beings and problem solvers if we are to be fully human, fully whole, and fully alive. We must oppose those that try and constrain us, who allow us anything less.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Speaking of Children
The psychologist Robert Coles was featured on Krista Tippett’s Speaking of Faith program this last Sunday, January 4, 2009. The topic was “The Inner Lives of Children”, http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/2009/robert-coles/. Coles discussed his work with children and especially his work that connected with the spiritual side of children. The thing that resonated with me was how his description of the way kids went about life as ‘problem solvers’, learners and strivers, just as are all adult humans.
Cole’s description of the process used by children to address issues is, of course, a description of how all human beings go about their daily lives. Human beings are problem solvers and in this specific talent, no other species alive even approaches the capability of the human animal in his or her ability to solve problems. (For more on the development of this ability within a religious context one can go to the book by J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, “Alone in the World?: Human Uniqueness in Science and Theology”, which is his Gifford Lectures at the University of Edinburgh, or, my work “Plausible Reasoning within a Religious Context”.)
The basic idea is that the ability to solve problems is the unique characteristic that human beings have and, given its contribution to the survival of the species, has been developed to a very advanced and sophisticated stage. Given the importance of this capability to the survival of the species it is not unexpected that younger humans possess this characteristic and practice it and perfect it throughout their childhood.
What is particularly enlightening about the work that Coles reports upon is how this human trait exhibits itself very early on in terms of how children generate questions about life, about value, about meaning, about relationships, and so on. His work just reinforces the idea that humans have possessed a curiosity about “spiritual” matters for as long as we, humans, can trace back this trait in what our ancestors have left us. That is, the early drawings left in the caves of France, as well as artifacts in other places, speak to the quest of human beings to understand more than just the physical world around them.
Human beings ask questions…and they seek and propose answers.
Where do these answers come from? Are they divinely inspired? Are they human concoctions? Are they just picked out of the air?
Many different people give us many different explanations as to where the answers come from. I have my preferences…but, that, to me, is not the crucial issue at this point.
What is important at this point is that people, being problem solvers, require that the solutions they get for specific questions work. That is, these solutions have practical value to humans…remember problem solving is a ‘survival’ characteristic. Thus, these solutions must contribute to life and to a ‘better’ life if they are to continue to serve as solutions to human beings.
Let me just throw in two words of caution at this time of a more skeptical nature. First, I would argue that all solutions are tentative…that is they are fallible…they may not work forever. In seeking answers all humans work in a world of incomplete information. That is, humans never have complete information in solving any problem or in making any decision. Yet, in life they have to make decisions…they must act…even with incomplete information. That is why humans continue to ask questions, seek more information, and continue to question the solutions they have been working with.
This last point leads to the second word of caution: specific solutions may work for a while, but as these solutions are tested through acting and living, and as new information becomes available, the specific solutions may be modified…or, they may be replaced. We can believe in a specific idea so strongly that we will die for that idea, but that does not mean that the specific solution will live on and continue to be used by others. Thus, solutions that provided certain people with a ‘better’ life at one time may not be solutions that provide them with a ‘better’ life at a later date when more or better information is available to them.
How does problem solving and living a ‘better’ life and spiritual issues fit together?
The answer to this question, I believe, is connected with what is meant by experiencing wholeness in life…by being “Alive”. I spent a little time on this in my post of January 5, 2009 entitled “Aliveness.” To me, the essence of ‘Aliveness’ is in living in unity with God, within self, with others, and with creation. To survive in life is important, but one must also experience a ‘better’ life in order to live as full a life as possible. And, I believe that living a ‘full’ life is a good thing and is something that human beings, as a species, crave. It is a basic drive.
In other words, creation is good…creation includes ourselves and others…and God is behind this creation in some way…so it would seem that it would be a good thing to work “with” this creation and “with” God than to work at odds with either creation or God. The solutions we use to solve problems or make decisions or take actions, therefore, need to conform as much as possible to the way things work…the way God is.
Our solutions result from incomplete information, however, so that the unities that we achieve are only partial and, in most cases, temporary. In our lives, we constantly must struggle to maintain or increase the unity we experience. In a sense it is the burden that we must continue to carry up the hill as Sisyphus is pictured doing in the Greek myth.
Human beings continue to struggle in life…they continue to solve problems in the best way they can…even those of a spiritual nature.
In the work of Robert Coles we see how this very human characteristic is manifested early on in life when we are children.
Human beings, I believe, are spiritual in nature. They continually ask questions of a spiritual nature and their lives and cultures are full of spiritual answers. As Paul Tillich informed us…humans build the spiritual into their lives and cultures…even as they vehemently deny it.
In this sense, we have been spiritual beings since our childhood. May we never lose that hunger
Cole’s description of the process used by children to address issues is, of course, a description of how all human beings go about their daily lives. Human beings are problem solvers and in this specific talent, no other species alive even approaches the capability of the human animal in his or her ability to solve problems. (For more on the development of this ability within a religious context one can go to the book by J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, “Alone in the World?: Human Uniqueness in Science and Theology”, which is his Gifford Lectures at the University of Edinburgh, or, my work “Plausible Reasoning within a Religious Context”.)
The basic idea is that the ability to solve problems is the unique characteristic that human beings have and, given its contribution to the survival of the species, has been developed to a very advanced and sophisticated stage. Given the importance of this capability to the survival of the species it is not unexpected that younger humans possess this characteristic and practice it and perfect it throughout their childhood.
What is particularly enlightening about the work that Coles reports upon is how this human trait exhibits itself very early on in terms of how children generate questions about life, about value, about meaning, about relationships, and so on. His work just reinforces the idea that humans have possessed a curiosity about “spiritual” matters for as long as we, humans, can trace back this trait in what our ancestors have left us. That is, the early drawings left in the caves of France, as well as artifacts in other places, speak to the quest of human beings to understand more than just the physical world around them.
Human beings ask questions…and they seek and propose answers.
Where do these answers come from? Are they divinely inspired? Are they human concoctions? Are they just picked out of the air?
Many different people give us many different explanations as to where the answers come from. I have my preferences…but, that, to me, is not the crucial issue at this point.
What is important at this point is that people, being problem solvers, require that the solutions they get for specific questions work. That is, these solutions have practical value to humans…remember problem solving is a ‘survival’ characteristic. Thus, these solutions must contribute to life and to a ‘better’ life if they are to continue to serve as solutions to human beings.
Let me just throw in two words of caution at this time of a more skeptical nature. First, I would argue that all solutions are tentative…that is they are fallible…they may not work forever. In seeking answers all humans work in a world of incomplete information. That is, humans never have complete information in solving any problem or in making any decision. Yet, in life they have to make decisions…they must act…even with incomplete information. That is why humans continue to ask questions, seek more information, and continue to question the solutions they have been working with.
This last point leads to the second word of caution: specific solutions may work for a while, but as these solutions are tested through acting and living, and as new information becomes available, the specific solutions may be modified…or, they may be replaced. We can believe in a specific idea so strongly that we will die for that idea, but that does not mean that the specific solution will live on and continue to be used by others. Thus, solutions that provided certain people with a ‘better’ life at one time may not be solutions that provide them with a ‘better’ life at a later date when more or better information is available to them.
How does problem solving and living a ‘better’ life and spiritual issues fit together?
The answer to this question, I believe, is connected with what is meant by experiencing wholeness in life…by being “Alive”. I spent a little time on this in my post of January 5, 2009 entitled “Aliveness.” To me, the essence of ‘Aliveness’ is in living in unity with God, within self, with others, and with creation. To survive in life is important, but one must also experience a ‘better’ life in order to live as full a life as possible. And, I believe that living a ‘full’ life is a good thing and is something that human beings, as a species, crave. It is a basic drive.
In other words, creation is good…creation includes ourselves and others…and God is behind this creation in some way…so it would seem that it would be a good thing to work “with” this creation and “with” God than to work at odds with either creation or God. The solutions we use to solve problems or make decisions or take actions, therefore, need to conform as much as possible to the way things work…the way God is.
Our solutions result from incomplete information, however, so that the unities that we achieve are only partial and, in most cases, temporary. In our lives, we constantly must struggle to maintain or increase the unity we experience. In a sense it is the burden that we must continue to carry up the hill as Sisyphus is pictured doing in the Greek myth.
Human beings continue to struggle in life…they continue to solve problems in the best way they can…even those of a spiritual nature.
In the work of Robert Coles we see how this very human characteristic is manifested early on in life when we are children.
Human beings, I believe, are spiritual in nature. They continually ask questions of a spiritual nature and their lives and cultures are full of spiritual answers. As Paul Tillich informed us…humans build the spiritual into their lives and cultures…even as they vehemently deny it.
In this sense, we have been spiritual beings since our childhood. May we never lose that hunger
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Aliveness
“Sometimes people get the mistaken notion that spirituality is a separate department of life, the penthouse of our existence. But rightly understood, it is a vital awareness that pervades all realms of our being. Someone will say, “I come alive when I listen to music,” or “I come to life when I garden,” or “I come alive when I play golf.” Wherever we may come alive, that is the area in which we are spiritual. To be vital, awake, aware, in all areas of our lives, is the task that is never accomplished but it remains a goal.”
Brother David Steindl-Rast
“Don’t ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive and then do it. Because what the world needs are people who have come alive.”
Howard Thurman
What is it that makes us come alive?
I believe that we really come alive when we are whole, when we are in unity with God…within ourselves…with others…and with creation. I believe that we can come alive listening to music, gardening, playing golf, helping other people, doing our daily chores, performing in our profession and so on and so on because we can find ourselves as more complete beings…more whole…working with and within God’s creation rather than against or in conflict with it.
I believe that in the times we are “alive” in this way, we are revealing to others an image…an image of God. In times like these we reflect a love that is God-like and that is why we feel “in unity”…why we experience the feeling of wholeness and peace.
One cannot control the world and in trying to do so we experience separation, alienation, and anxiety. All that one can hope to control is one’s self and a person must exert his or her efforts to bring themselves into a greater unity with all that there is. But, this requires love. And, if we are to love, we need to bring this love into everything one does…and, in acting “in love” we need to reveal this image of love in all we say and all we do.
We have been told that there are two commandments—to love God and to love our neighbor as ourselves. I believe that we must take an enlarged definition of neighbor and expand the definition to include all of God’s creation, not just another person. That is, we are to love what God has created and that includes all that is within this creation. This is our neighbor.
Thus, to love our neighbor consists of coming into unity with others…and with creation. One should note, however, that loving our neighbor and coming into unity with our neighbor may not mean that we get along with them or are not at odds with them for some reason. Being in unity means that we are acting within the situation that we may agree to disagree. Since we do not control the other, we may not be able to bring them into unity with us. This raises a question, therefore, about what do we mean by love?
My definition of love is this: to love someone or something is to try to be where they are, see things as they see them and then respond to them with as full an understanding of this knowledge as possible. To love someone or something is not to respond to them as we would like them to be or as we see the world. We must learn as much as we can about those we are to love so that we can respond appropriately to where they are. Sometimes this means that we sacrifice for them. Sometimes this means that we work together. Sometimes this means that a “tough love” must exist between parties. But, to love someone or something means that we must work hard to try and understand them and their needs within a specific situation. I believe that God does this for us.
Another important point in this understanding of love is that to love our neighbor as ourselves…we must love ourselves. We must learn about ourselves and work to bring ourselves into a higher degree of unity, internally. We cannot really love someone else until we are confident in our love of ourselves. And, this does not mean that we are to be ego-maniacs!
And, of course, to be as “alive” as possible we must love God…be in unity with God. But, how do we do all this? We, of course, need examples. We are told that “God is love” and that we are to glorify God…that is “reveal the image of God.” We do have an example of a person who reflected God’s love and glorified God by revealing to us the image of God. This person is Jesus. By looking to the example of Jesus we can see how a person can love as God loves us.
Jesus is our example of what it means to love our neighbor, to love others, to love God’s creation, and to love God. Jesus shows us how to love as God loves.
This is our charge. This is why we can “feel alive” in doing something. We can “feel alive” in doing something because we can be more whole, more in unity with God, when we do those things…even playing golf.
Having played golf I can admit that this activity can be looked upon as rather trivial. Yet, it should remind us that even in doing very trivial things we should take them on as an opportunity to reveal the image of God. Others see us, see how we act and behave…and break golf clubs…see how we speak…and swear. They respond to the image we create. Realizing this we must decide whether or not we want the image we reveal to be helpful and productive to others…or are we satisfied as having little or no influence on them…or even a negative influence on them.
The image we reveal to others is important for that image not only reveals to others whether or not we “are alive” but how they might be “more alive” as well. In everything we do…whether it be playing golf, listening to music, or gardening…we should be exhibiting love…and in exhibiting love we “reveal the image of God.”
Brother David Steindl-Rast
“Don’t ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive and then do it. Because what the world needs are people who have come alive.”
Howard Thurman
What is it that makes us come alive?
I believe that we really come alive when we are whole, when we are in unity with God…within ourselves…with others…and with creation. I believe that we can come alive listening to music, gardening, playing golf, helping other people, doing our daily chores, performing in our profession and so on and so on because we can find ourselves as more complete beings…more whole…working with and within God’s creation rather than against or in conflict with it.
I believe that in the times we are “alive” in this way, we are revealing to others an image…an image of God. In times like these we reflect a love that is God-like and that is why we feel “in unity”…why we experience the feeling of wholeness and peace.
One cannot control the world and in trying to do so we experience separation, alienation, and anxiety. All that one can hope to control is one’s self and a person must exert his or her efforts to bring themselves into a greater unity with all that there is. But, this requires love. And, if we are to love, we need to bring this love into everything one does…and, in acting “in love” we need to reveal this image of love in all we say and all we do.
We have been told that there are two commandments—to love God and to love our neighbor as ourselves. I believe that we must take an enlarged definition of neighbor and expand the definition to include all of God’s creation, not just another person. That is, we are to love what God has created and that includes all that is within this creation. This is our neighbor.
Thus, to love our neighbor consists of coming into unity with others…and with creation. One should note, however, that loving our neighbor and coming into unity with our neighbor may not mean that we get along with them or are not at odds with them for some reason. Being in unity means that we are acting within the situation that we may agree to disagree. Since we do not control the other, we may not be able to bring them into unity with us. This raises a question, therefore, about what do we mean by love?
My definition of love is this: to love someone or something is to try to be where they are, see things as they see them and then respond to them with as full an understanding of this knowledge as possible. To love someone or something is not to respond to them as we would like them to be or as we see the world. We must learn as much as we can about those we are to love so that we can respond appropriately to where they are. Sometimes this means that we sacrifice for them. Sometimes this means that we work together. Sometimes this means that a “tough love” must exist between parties. But, to love someone or something means that we must work hard to try and understand them and their needs within a specific situation. I believe that God does this for us.
Another important point in this understanding of love is that to love our neighbor as ourselves…we must love ourselves. We must learn about ourselves and work to bring ourselves into a higher degree of unity, internally. We cannot really love someone else until we are confident in our love of ourselves. And, this does not mean that we are to be ego-maniacs!
And, of course, to be as “alive” as possible we must love God…be in unity with God. But, how do we do all this? We, of course, need examples. We are told that “God is love” and that we are to glorify God…that is “reveal the image of God.” We do have an example of a person who reflected God’s love and glorified God by revealing to us the image of God. This person is Jesus. By looking to the example of Jesus we can see how a person can love as God loves us.
Jesus is our example of what it means to love our neighbor, to love others, to love God’s creation, and to love God. Jesus shows us how to love as God loves.
This is our charge. This is why we can “feel alive” in doing something. We can “feel alive” in doing something because we can be more whole, more in unity with God, when we do those things…even playing golf.
Having played golf I can admit that this activity can be looked upon as rather trivial. Yet, it should remind us that even in doing very trivial things we should take them on as an opportunity to reveal the image of God. Others see us, see how we act and behave…and break golf clubs…see how we speak…and swear. They respond to the image we create. Realizing this we must decide whether or not we want the image we reveal to be helpful and productive to others…or are we satisfied as having little or no influence on them…or even a negative influence on them.
The image we reveal to others is important for that image not only reveals to others whether or not we “are alive” but how they might be “more alive” as well. In everything we do…whether it be playing golf, listening to music, or gardening…we should be exhibiting love…and in exhibiting love we “reveal the image of God.”
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Nature of Genius and its Relationship to Unity
[Of the successful.] Their success lay in their parallelism to the course of thought, which found in them an unobstructed channel; and the wonders of which they were the visible conductors seemed to the eye their deed. Did the wires generate the galvanism? It is even true that there was less in them on which they could reflect, than in another; as the virtue of a pipe is to be smooth and hollow. That which externally seemed will and immovableness was willingness and self-annihilation. Could Shakespeare give a theory of Shakespeare? Could ever a man of prodigious mathematical genius convey to others any insight into his methods? If he could communicate that secret, it would instantly lose its exaggerated value, blending with the daylight and the vital energy the power to stand and to go.
Emerson: “Spiritual Laws”
The reference here is to genius and the uniqueness of genius. The question is…what is genius? I tend to believe that genius has to do with the ability of a person to unity in things before others perceive that unity. That is, the genius sees how things can go together before others see how the same things go together. And, the genius is able to capture that unity and explain it to others so that the others can see and appreciate the unity.
Human beings are problem solvers, that is what separates them so distinctly from other species. To be a good problem solver one must be able to make relatively adequate predictions about what might happen if one acts or does something in a certain way. By relatively adequate is meant that an individual has some kind of a model (which could be a story or narrative, a rule of thumb, a proverb, a schema or whatever) that has a sufficient degree of consistency (it does not contradict itself) and it predicts at least as well as any other model related to the outcome. Since problem solvers only have incomplete information their models only are capable of producing probabilistic predictions…a range of possible outcomes from a given action.
In order to be able to predict in an adequate way, the model an individual uses must bear some relationship to the underlying structure of reality so that the predictions are helpful. A model that does not predict well is not very useful in predicting possible outcomes! Thus, the more the model constructed by an individual conforms to how creation really works, the more adequate the model. The models that are best show the greatest unity with how things work. This is a logical result because one has to reason that the more closely the abstract model captures the workings of the world the better its predictions will be.
Of course, if our models are only derived from incomplete information they can be improved or supplemented as new information is forthcoming. But, it is crucial for an individual to intuit from a given base of information the model that he/she creates. And, it is this intuition that is so crucial in discovery. It is a unique characteristic of a human being to see what looks like an unconnected collection of data and make some sense out of the collection, determining some order to what looks like unrelated pieces of information. This intuition allows someone to see unity where others see chaos!
It is this ability to see unity where others see chaos that can be called genius. The genius that is usually recognized and honored is that which deals with important questions that have been very, very difficult to answer. That is, the unity that relates to these very important questions is very, very difficult to discern. The genius is the one that is able to discover the unity in the situation and is able to construct a model that is capable of providing relatively adequate predictions.
The genius sees something that others don’t see. It is that possibility that separates the genius from the others.
The question this raises concerns whether or not there is a continuum related to different degrees of genius. Often we think of the idea of genius as being unique. That is, you either are a genius or you are not. I like to think that there is a continuous spectrum of genius and this spectrum generally defined according to the difficulty of the problem that is solved. At the one end of the spectrum are the very, very difficult problems that need to be solved and these problems require much effort, much time, and large amounts of intuition; at the other end are problems that can be easily resolved in a relatively short period of time by relatively ordinary means. The basic idea here relates to the ability to discern the unity within the situation resulting from a particular question. The person that possesses more genius is the one who can see the unity in situations that are extremely complex whereas the one with lesser genius is one that can only see unity in simple situations.
Considering the designation of genius as a continuous definition in this way helps us to understand, I believe, the current question about where are all the geniuses today. Where have all the geniuses gone? It seems to me that there are almost a constant stream of discoveries these days, and in many, many different fields of study. Yet, there does not seem to be a truly “incredible” discovery that stands out beyond all the other discoveries that have been reported. Hence, the concern over the disappearance of genius.
Maybe the times have changed. Whereas in the past we had fewer people working in all of these areas and, hence, we had fewer discovers and these discoveries seemed to be discrete jumps in knowledge. Maybe today, discoveries tend to be more incremental and more continuous because more are studying in an area and the environment surrounding discovery has changed.
One study I am familiar with examines the time it takes for a second invention in a field to come to market that is similar to the initial marketing of a ground breaking innovation in a specific industry. In the 1880s the time between these two events was approximately 35 years. In the 1990s this time lag was close to three years. By 2010 it is expected to be around one and one-half and two years. Obviously, many people are working in the same fields and with very similar ideas.
Another definition of genius relates specifically to the question of time. I have heard a genius defined as one who makes a discovery 10 years before anyone else is able to come up with the discovery. Using this definition and putting in within the context of the previous paragraph one can define the current time period one in which the genius only makes the discovery a couple of years before others. Same difference…in that the discoveries appear to be more incremental now and not discrete in nature.
Let’s go back to the question about whether or not the times have changed. Can environment and education change the incidence of genius? By environment I mean the attitudes that exist within a society and its culture toward being open to the possibility that all models are fallible and that people should be questioning and testing existing models to find other models that are relatively more adequate. By education I mean that individuals are being trained to treat all models as fallible and to develop skills pertaining to the questioning and testing of existing models. If environment and education can change create a society in which more and more talented people question and test models, there will be more of a continuum of discovery rather than just random periodic occurrences of major advances to thinking.
The last three sentences of the passage presented above indicates that Emerson does not believe that genius is transferable. Yet, in those statements he states the empirical condition that would support the hypothesis that genius is transferable. “If he (the genius) could communicate that secret, it would instantly lose its exaggerated value…” That is, if the genius could teach his/her ability then discoveries would appear to be incremental rather than discrete. Q. E. D. !
Emerson: “Spiritual Laws”
The reference here is to genius and the uniqueness of genius. The question is…what is genius? I tend to believe that genius has to do with the ability of a person to unity in things before others perceive that unity. That is, the genius sees how things can go together before others see how the same things go together. And, the genius is able to capture that unity and explain it to others so that the others can see and appreciate the unity.
Human beings are problem solvers, that is what separates them so distinctly from other species. To be a good problem solver one must be able to make relatively adequate predictions about what might happen if one acts or does something in a certain way. By relatively adequate is meant that an individual has some kind of a model (which could be a story or narrative, a rule of thumb, a proverb, a schema or whatever) that has a sufficient degree of consistency (it does not contradict itself) and it predicts at least as well as any other model related to the outcome. Since problem solvers only have incomplete information their models only are capable of producing probabilistic predictions…a range of possible outcomes from a given action.
In order to be able to predict in an adequate way, the model an individual uses must bear some relationship to the underlying structure of reality so that the predictions are helpful. A model that does not predict well is not very useful in predicting possible outcomes! Thus, the more the model constructed by an individual conforms to how creation really works, the more adequate the model. The models that are best show the greatest unity with how things work. This is a logical result because one has to reason that the more closely the abstract model captures the workings of the world the better its predictions will be.
Of course, if our models are only derived from incomplete information they can be improved or supplemented as new information is forthcoming. But, it is crucial for an individual to intuit from a given base of information the model that he/she creates. And, it is this intuition that is so crucial in discovery. It is a unique characteristic of a human being to see what looks like an unconnected collection of data and make some sense out of the collection, determining some order to what looks like unrelated pieces of information. This intuition allows someone to see unity where others see chaos!
It is this ability to see unity where others see chaos that can be called genius. The genius that is usually recognized and honored is that which deals with important questions that have been very, very difficult to answer. That is, the unity that relates to these very important questions is very, very difficult to discern. The genius is the one that is able to discover the unity in the situation and is able to construct a model that is capable of providing relatively adequate predictions.
The genius sees something that others don’t see. It is that possibility that separates the genius from the others.
The question this raises concerns whether or not there is a continuum related to different degrees of genius. Often we think of the idea of genius as being unique. That is, you either are a genius or you are not. I like to think that there is a continuous spectrum of genius and this spectrum generally defined according to the difficulty of the problem that is solved. At the one end of the spectrum are the very, very difficult problems that need to be solved and these problems require much effort, much time, and large amounts of intuition; at the other end are problems that can be easily resolved in a relatively short period of time by relatively ordinary means. The basic idea here relates to the ability to discern the unity within the situation resulting from a particular question. The person that possesses more genius is the one who can see the unity in situations that are extremely complex whereas the one with lesser genius is one that can only see unity in simple situations.
Considering the designation of genius as a continuous definition in this way helps us to understand, I believe, the current question about where are all the geniuses today. Where have all the geniuses gone? It seems to me that there are almost a constant stream of discoveries these days, and in many, many different fields of study. Yet, there does not seem to be a truly “incredible” discovery that stands out beyond all the other discoveries that have been reported. Hence, the concern over the disappearance of genius.
Maybe the times have changed. Whereas in the past we had fewer people working in all of these areas and, hence, we had fewer discovers and these discoveries seemed to be discrete jumps in knowledge. Maybe today, discoveries tend to be more incremental and more continuous because more are studying in an area and the environment surrounding discovery has changed.
One study I am familiar with examines the time it takes for a second invention in a field to come to market that is similar to the initial marketing of a ground breaking innovation in a specific industry. In the 1880s the time between these two events was approximately 35 years. In the 1990s this time lag was close to three years. By 2010 it is expected to be around one and one-half and two years. Obviously, many people are working in the same fields and with very similar ideas.
Another definition of genius relates specifically to the question of time. I have heard a genius defined as one who makes a discovery 10 years before anyone else is able to come up with the discovery. Using this definition and putting in within the context of the previous paragraph one can define the current time period one in which the genius only makes the discovery a couple of years before others. Same difference…in that the discoveries appear to be more incremental now and not discrete in nature.
Let’s go back to the question about whether or not the times have changed. Can environment and education change the incidence of genius? By environment I mean the attitudes that exist within a society and its culture toward being open to the possibility that all models are fallible and that people should be questioning and testing existing models to find other models that are relatively more adequate. By education I mean that individuals are being trained to treat all models as fallible and to develop skills pertaining to the questioning and testing of existing models. If environment and education can change create a society in which more and more talented people question and test models, there will be more of a continuum of discovery rather than just random periodic occurrences of major advances to thinking.
The last three sentences of the passage presented above indicates that Emerson does not believe that genius is transferable. Yet, in those statements he states the empirical condition that would support the hypothesis that genius is transferable. “If he (the genius) could communicate that secret, it would instantly lose its exaggerated value…” That is, if the genius could teach his/her ability then discoveries would appear to be incremental rather than discrete. Q. E. D. !
Friday, October 31, 2008
Models that Work
In building up their worldviews, people and communities of people assemble an interacting set of “models” which they use to make predictions so that they can make better decisions that will lead to the best actions they can take. Before going further, I need to define the concept of “models” that I am using here. To me, a “model” is any means that an individual or group uses to make predictions about the possible outcomes related to decisions or to the actions that result from decisions made. These “models” may be such things as sayings, stories, narratives, rules of thumb, parables, proverbs, fables, laws, norms, schema, or anything more formal, including either logical or mathematical structures. For example, “love your neighbor as yourself” can be considered to be a “model”; the fable about the tortoise and the hare leading to the conclusion that slow and steady wins the race can be considered to be a “model”; and the parables of Jesus can be considered to be a “model”.
“Models” are fallible; they never predict with 100% accuracy. For example, there is the problem of applying the appropriate “model” to a specific situation. The advice “slow and steady wins the race” is not appropriate for someone running a 100-yard dash. Here, “the race goes to the swiftest” is a better “model”. Furthermore, “models” can be thought of as probabilistic. That is, “models” supply a range of possible outcomes for any proposed action…not just one outcome. “Models” that provide only one outcome are called deterministic models and tend to be circular in reasoning.
Everyone needs “models”! People and communities of people cannot function without them. Many argue that humans are hardwired to develop “models” because human beings are problem solvers and this is the unique characteristic of the species that has led to its higher development. People just naturally construct models to help them solve more difficult problems and make better decisions. The test of whether or not a “model” is relatively adequate is whether or not it can do better than other models in solving more difficult problems or help individuals and groups make better decisions.
People and communities are pragmatist in terms of the “models” they use. The ‘kicker’ in this approach is that the “models” used must be reflective of the worldviews of these individuals or groups. People construct these “models” using assumptions that are consistent with how they view the way the world works. But, not all assumptions are equal. Some assumptions are more important than others. Willard Van Orman Quine, the philosopher, argued that people have a hierarchy of assumptions running from assumptions that are relatively superficial and not that crucial to a model to assumptions that are very, very deep crucial to the model and are deeply held by the supporter of the worldview.
When people get new information that raises questions about the relative adequacy of a model, they tend to modify or adjust the assumptions that are not that important so as to make their model more adequate. If the model continues to underperform normal practice is to go deeper into the hierarchy of assumptions making further changes to improve model performance. This process continues until the model being used has been altered sufficiently so as to now be a relatively adequate model once again, or, the individual will have to go back to the drawing board and build a new model that is relatively adequate, or, the individual will switch models and begin working with another model that is relatively adequate.
Of course, individuals and groups differ on their willingness or ability to move through their assumptions so as to build a relatively adequate model. Some will move fairly quickly to deeper and deeper assumptions; others will only move slowly through their hierarchy of assumptions. I am not saying one approach is better than another because this is just human behavior and all individuals are different.
Now part of the worldview of individuals or communities is that related to religious or theological issues or questions. It is my position that all human beings approach religious or theological questions in exactly the same way that they attack any other type of question. That is, they construct “models” that conform to their worldview and pragmatically use these “models” to make predictions about possible outcomes so that they can make better and better decisions or solve more difficult problems. The only difference between areas of practice is the complexity of the subject being addressed. The ultimate test of these “models” is whether or not they help individuals or communities gain greater unity within themselves and lead better lives: do these “models” help people achieve “the peace that passes all understanding?”
Achieving the goal of living better lives or achieving “the peace that passes all understanding” is dependent upon how well the “models” of the particular worldview do in predicting the possible outcomes of different actions. If the “models” are consistent with the way the creation works then the individual or the community of individuals will make decisions that help to bring unity within the individual or within the community. However, if “models” are not consistent with the way world works then sooner or later the “models” will prove to be inadequate relative to other “models”.
Crucial then is the way that individuals or communities respond to this inadequacy. Some will respond and adjust in a timely manner. Others, however, will take another path. One such response is for people to develop explanations and excuses about why their “models” don’t work as well as others or as well as they would like. If an individual or a community of individuals wants to ‘defend’ their worldview, they will find explanations and excuses outside of their selves or their community to justify maintaining their existing “models”. These explanations and excuses may run all the way from “the weather” to the fact that “others oppose and put down our worldview” to the devil is attacking us. In this way, the individual or the community is able to deflect concerns, at least temporarily, about the deficiency of the “models” they are using and create an “us versus them” attitude among the supporters of their specific worldview.
If the models continue to be inadequate, the individual or community may attempt to cover up the lack of performance of the “models” being used in order to protect the worldview. Thus, censorship, falsifying information, and other means of restricting news that the “models” are not performing well relative to the “models” of other worldviews are common means of hiding the existing inadequacy. Openness and transparency are the victims of such a failure. These efforts may be combined with attacks on the “them” the individual or community has identified as the evil force behind the putting down of “us”!
When an individual or a community begins to turn in on itself in order to protect its worldview and its “models” the next step is to physically and/or mentally enforce the worldview and its “models” on those affected. In this way, the individual or the community “locks down” their worldview and takes on all outsiders that they consider to be a threat. Strict controls and discipline are enforced upon the individual or community being threatened from external forces and, in such a state, the individual or community can actually conduct offensive actions against those that they consider to be their enemies. They believe that the “truth” of their worldview must be defended at all costs.
In my view these individuals and communities cannot succeed. Ultimately, they will succumb to the spread of information that their worldview, at least in its present manifestation, is not relatively adequate and some will adopt the view that their “models” need to be modified so as to incorporate the new information and produce more adequate predictions or those involved will move into other communities that have a worldview that produces more adequate predictions. The problem is that in the interim time period, much unhappiness and dislocation may be inflicted on a lot of people.
Humans are problem solvers and our ability to solve problems is crucial to our survival. Failing to use our abilities of problem solving is not a strategy of survival…either for an individual or for a community.
“Models” are fallible; they never predict with 100% accuracy. For example, there is the problem of applying the appropriate “model” to a specific situation. The advice “slow and steady wins the race” is not appropriate for someone running a 100-yard dash. Here, “the race goes to the swiftest” is a better “model”. Furthermore, “models” can be thought of as probabilistic. That is, “models” supply a range of possible outcomes for any proposed action…not just one outcome. “Models” that provide only one outcome are called deterministic models and tend to be circular in reasoning.
Everyone needs “models”! People and communities of people cannot function without them. Many argue that humans are hardwired to develop “models” because human beings are problem solvers and this is the unique characteristic of the species that has led to its higher development. People just naturally construct models to help them solve more difficult problems and make better decisions. The test of whether or not a “model” is relatively adequate is whether or not it can do better than other models in solving more difficult problems or help individuals and groups make better decisions.
People and communities are pragmatist in terms of the “models” they use. The ‘kicker’ in this approach is that the “models” used must be reflective of the worldviews of these individuals or groups. People construct these “models” using assumptions that are consistent with how they view the way the world works. But, not all assumptions are equal. Some assumptions are more important than others. Willard Van Orman Quine, the philosopher, argued that people have a hierarchy of assumptions running from assumptions that are relatively superficial and not that crucial to a model to assumptions that are very, very deep crucial to the model and are deeply held by the supporter of the worldview.
When people get new information that raises questions about the relative adequacy of a model, they tend to modify or adjust the assumptions that are not that important so as to make their model more adequate. If the model continues to underperform normal practice is to go deeper into the hierarchy of assumptions making further changes to improve model performance. This process continues until the model being used has been altered sufficiently so as to now be a relatively adequate model once again, or, the individual will have to go back to the drawing board and build a new model that is relatively adequate, or, the individual will switch models and begin working with another model that is relatively adequate.
Of course, individuals and groups differ on their willingness or ability to move through their assumptions so as to build a relatively adequate model. Some will move fairly quickly to deeper and deeper assumptions; others will only move slowly through their hierarchy of assumptions. I am not saying one approach is better than another because this is just human behavior and all individuals are different.
Now part of the worldview of individuals or communities is that related to religious or theological issues or questions. It is my position that all human beings approach religious or theological questions in exactly the same way that they attack any other type of question. That is, they construct “models” that conform to their worldview and pragmatically use these “models” to make predictions about possible outcomes so that they can make better and better decisions or solve more difficult problems. The only difference between areas of practice is the complexity of the subject being addressed. The ultimate test of these “models” is whether or not they help individuals or communities gain greater unity within themselves and lead better lives: do these “models” help people achieve “the peace that passes all understanding?”
Achieving the goal of living better lives or achieving “the peace that passes all understanding” is dependent upon how well the “models” of the particular worldview do in predicting the possible outcomes of different actions. If the “models” are consistent with the way the creation works then the individual or the community of individuals will make decisions that help to bring unity within the individual or within the community. However, if “models” are not consistent with the way world works then sooner or later the “models” will prove to be inadequate relative to other “models”.
Crucial then is the way that individuals or communities respond to this inadequacy. Some will respond and adjust in a timely manner. Others, however, will take another path. One such response is for people to develop explanations and excuses about why their “models” don’t work as well as others or as well as they would like. If an individual or a community of individuals wants to ‘defend’ their worldview, they will find explanations and excuses outside of their selves or their community to justify maintaining their existing “models”. These explanations and excuses may run all the way from “the weather” to the fact that “others oppose and put down our worldview” to the devil is attacking us. In this way, the individual or the community is able to deflect concerns, at least temporarily, about the deficiency of the “models” they are using and create an “us versus them” attitude among the supporters of their specific worldview.
If the models continue to be inadequate, the individual or community may attempt to cover up the lack of performance of the “models” being used in order to protect the worldview. Thus, censorship, falsifying information, and other means of restricting news that the “models” are not performing well relative to the “models” of other worldviews are common means of hiding the existing inadequacy. Openness and transparency are the victims of such a failure. These efforts may be combined with attacks on the “them” the individual or community has identified as the evil force behind the putting down of “us”!
When an individual or a community begins to turn in on itself in order to protect its worldview and its “models” the next step is to physically and/or mentally enforce the worldview and its “models” on those affected. In this way, the individual or the community “locks down” their worldview and takes on all outsiders that they consider to be a threat. Strict controls and discipline are enforced upon the individual or community being threatened from external forces and, in such a state, the individual or community can actually conduct offensive actions against those that they consider to be their enemies. They believe that the “truth” of their worldview must be defended at all costs.
In my view these individuals and communities cannot succeed. Ultimately, they will succumb to the spread of information that their worldview, at least in its present manifestation, is not relatively adequate and some will adopt the view that their “models” need to be modified so as to incorporate the new information and produce more adequate predictions or those involved will move into other communities that have a worldview that produces more adequate predictions. The problem is that in the interim time period, much unhappiness and dislocation may be inflicted on a lot of people.
Humans are problem solvers and our ability to solve problems is crucial to our survival. Failing to use our abilities of problem solving is not a strategy of survival…either for an individual or for a community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)