A friend sent me this story on this Christmas day that I’d like to share it with you:
There once lived a king. He was a king, but he was more than a king. He was THE king, the king of kings. He was incredibly rich. He was enormously powerful. His realm of influence stretched far beyond the horizons.
Other kings would send him very expensive gifts, even though not all of them liked him. No one wanted to make him angry. Because all he had to do was speak and, at once, it was done.
He was rich and powerful. He was also very good. He was wise and just. This king knew his subjects well. He knew where they lived and what they did. He would often venture out from his castle in his royal carriage, so he could see his people at their work and at their play.
One day, he was looking around and he saw a young woman. She was at work taking care of goats. He asked some others about her and found out that she lived in a tiny cottage with her mother. She and her mother were very poor. Her father had been dead for some time. Sometimes in the evenings she would sit in front of her cottage and play a wooden flute for the children in her village. She loved the children and they loved her.
Well, the king, this king of kings, fell in love with this lowly young woman. He wanted to marry her and to make her his queen. But he also wanted her to love him.
Of course, the young woman knew that there was a king, a king above all kings, and she was grateful for what he did for everyone. But she had no idea that this king loved her. There were so many other women in the kingdom – beautiful, rich, talented women. He could marry any one of them. She was poor and plain. Yet, for reasons he could not explain, he loved her. He loved her because of who he was. And he wanted her to love to love him.
The question was – how could that happen? What could he do? The king called together the wisest in his court to get their advice. He told them of his love for this young woman. He didn’t tell them who she was. He only told them she was poor.
One of them piped up, “Congratulations your majesty! How wonderful that you have finally chosen a queen! We shall send messengers to the young woman and order her to come to the castle that she might become queen!”
“No,” said the king. “Soldiers I command; servants I order; all my subjects obey my decrees. But this woman I love. I can’t order her to love me. I don’t know that she would be happy with me. If I ordered her to be my wife, she could resent me the rest of her life.”
Another stepped forward and said, “Your majesty, then we must set out to win her love for you. We shall send her gifts…yes, gifts beyond her wildest dreams! We will build a great house for her. We will send her servants. She can have everything she ever wanted. Why, she’ll be so grateful, she’ll just have to love you!”
Now the king became angry. “Are you suggesting that I buy her love? That I bribe her? Every time she would look at the gifts, she would feel obligated to love me. Or, worse, that she actually deserved my love.
“My love for her is free and undeserved. I don’t want her to feel obligated to love me. I don’t want to deceive her into thinking that she deserves my love. That is not true love and will not win her love. I cannot force her to love me by power or by price.”
At this all of the king’s advisers fell silent. So, he dismissed them. After some time of thinking on his own, the king decided what he would do. He took off his crown and his royal robes and set them aside. He put on the clothes of poor peasant and dropped a few small coins in his pocket.
Then, in the middle of the night, he left through the back door of the castle. He went to the village where the young woman lived. He begged for a place to stay. No one would take him in, so he slept in a barn with animals. The only job he could get was the lowest job – a goat herder. Because people didn’t know him, and maybe because they could sense something different about him, they laughed at him.
In the evening, he went with the children to listen to the young woman play the flute. That is how he got to know her. Then, he offered to help her. He helped her with the goats. He did small things to fix up their cottage. When her mother became sick, he brought her soup.
Then he waited. He waited and waited for a sign of her love – not merely of her gratitude, nor of her respect, nor of her admiration, nor of her friendship, but of her love. At times, he became very sad and discouraged. He wondered if she would ever love him. He spent many long and lonely nights. But at last joy came to him when he discovered that the poor young woman did indeed love him.
He asked her to marry him and she consented. When her neighbors found out, they scolded her. “He’s so poor! He has no prospects! He doesn’t even herd goats very well!”
But she simply said, “He loves me and I love him. He wants me to be his wife and this is enough for me.”
Then he told her, “I live in another place not far from here. I want you and your mother to come live with me there, but I need to go first and get it ready for you.”
He went back to his castle. Then he returned in order to marry her according to the customs of her people. Then, together, they walked to the castle. To her great surprise, they strolled right through the gates and the guards did not stop them. She was surprised again when others came up to her husband and bowed to him. She was most surprised when he invited her to take a seat on the throne next to him. But, because of how he had loved her, she was always amazed, but she was never surprised by his love.
And every evening she would sit at the castle gate and play her flute for all the children of the kingdom who would gather there. And her audience always included the king.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Science and Religion: Nature of the conflict (VIIII)
Conclusions
Working scientists have tended to be skeptical of religion because they have examined only the older religions where, as I have suggested, facts are few and theory is perverted by years of unscientific thinking. Few such scientists have undertaken an objective study of the Bahá’í Faith. They cannot, therefore, presume that they would not validate the finding of Bahá’ís until they have examined this most recent evidence for the phenomenon of revelation. A modern scientist would ridicule someone who judged modern science by studying the science of 500 or 2000 years ago. Yet these same scientists judge all religions without examining the modern form of religion which is the counterpart of modern science.
The truth is that scientists are human and that human beings, even scientists, can suffer from subtle but disastrous prejudices. When great scientists such as Albert Einstein and Julian Huxley have undertaken to write about scientific religion, they have been scorned by the scientific community. Most biologists began to regard Huxley as a senile old man when he undertook to write in this vein. Yet Huxley’s thoughts on the subject are not only profound but they also constitute the true culmination of his scientific career. We, as individuals, can do nothing more than to apply the scientific method in our own life and to maintain a scientific faith. We must not allow false conceptions about science to mar the beauty of scientific method any more than we let false conceptions of religion mar the beauty of religion.
(All above are excerpts from an article “The Science of Religion” by Dr. William Hatcher which I liked very much so to share it here with you.)
“Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VIII)”
“Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VII)”
“Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VI)”
“Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(V)”
“Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(IV)”
“Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(III)”
“Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(II)”
“Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(I)”
Ref.: The William Hatcher Library
Working scientists have tended to be skeptical of religion because they have examined only the older religions where, as I have suggested, facts are few and theory is perverted by years of unscientific thinking. Few such scientists have undertaken an objective study of the Bahá’í Faith. They cannot, therefore, presume that they would not validate the finding of Bahá’ís until they have examined this most recent evidence for the phenomenon of revelation. A modern scientist would ridicule someone who judged modern science by studying the science of 500 or 2000 years ago. Yet these same scientists judge all religions without examining the modern form of religion which is the counterpart of modern science.
The truth is that scientists are human and that human beings, even scientists, can suffer from subtle but disastrous prejudices. When great scientists such as Albert Einstein and Julian Huxley have undertaken to write about scientific religion, they have been scorned by the scientific community. Most biologists began to regard Huxley as a senile old man when he undertook to write in this vein. Yet Huxley’s thoughts on the subject are not only profound but they also constitute the true culmination of his scientific career. We, as individuals, can do nothing more than to apply the scientific method in our own life and to maintain a scientific faith. We must not allow false conceptions about science to mar the beauty of scientific method any more than we let false conceptions of religion mar the beauty of religion.
(All above are excerpts from an article “The Science of Religion” by Dr. William Hatcher which I liked very much so to share it here with you.)
“Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VIII)”
“Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VII)”
“Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VI)”
“Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(V)”
“Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(IV)”
“Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(III)”
“Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(II)”
“Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(I)”
Ref.: The William Hatcher Library
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Searching for the meaning of life (cont'd)
(3)
It was when I first arrived in US, my husband had told me once that there were two persons in our area I should meet. I asked him why. He said he didn’t exactly know why, but felt that they possessed certain qualities which I might like. That was the end of conversation. I didn’t understand the meaning of it, neither did he.
One day during those confusing period, at supermarket, my husband suddenly said loudly to me: “Le, look, that’s Bill, whom I told you before.” I remembered what he said to me about Bill. Yes, there was something special in Bill that I could not describe, but I did like for sure. After exchanging a few greetings, Bill said: “Do you have time on Wednesday evening? Let’s have dinner together at my home.” Before we realized, the invitation was confirmed.
On the way home, I asked my husband: “Do you know Bill well?”
“No, just met him one time when he came to where I lived to visit some one else, we chatted in the hall way and after that met him several time in restaurant where I worked as a waiter, that’s it.”
I asked : “Is this the custom here, people invite each other for dinner at home even though they don’t know each other well?"
“I don’t think so.” We were not sure what all these meant.
On the evening of that Wednesday, right before we were ready to go to Bill’s home, my husband decided he would not go after all. I decided I was going all by myself.
On the way to Bill’s home, I lost direction for a while in the darkness. I had never been in that area. I couldn't decide should I turn back or go forward. I asked myself that I didn’t know Bill at all, why I’d go to see him even by myself. Beside to keep my word, were there any other reasons? Another day when I saw Bill at National, I felt clearly there were something in him that attracted me. I was not sure what it was, but I'd like to find it out.
When I arrived at Bill’s home, he and his wife had prepared a whole table of food and were waiting for us. Five minutes into dinner, I was about to ask Bill questions concerning religion. I didn’t know then that the conversation was about to lead me to answers to all my questions and concerns, and would change the rest of my life and my 15-year-long search would come to a conclusion.
(The following is not exactly quotes of our conversation, rather they are what I remembered the principles I learned).
I asked Bill: Are you a Christian?
Bill said: We believe Christ is a Messenger from God, and Bible is the teachings from God brought to us by Christ.
I noticed immediately that Bill’s answer was different from a standard Christian’s answer. I was encouraged and asked another question: Beside Christ, are there any other Messengers from God?
Bill: Yes, God has sent to mankind many Messengers in history and will send many more in future. In fact, we believe all of the founders of major religions are Messengers from God.
I: So what’s the relationship between those religions? Do they believe in the same God? ( This was a big and crucial question for me)
Bill: We believe all religions are from the same God. The relationship between them we call Progressive Revelation.
I: What is Progressive Revelation?
Bill: We view religious history as a succession of revelations from God and the term "progressive revelation" is used to describe this process. We believe that in reality, there is only one religion, the religion of God. This one religion is continually evolving, and each particular religious system represents a stage in the evolution of the whole. All of the religious systems "have proceeded from one Source and are the rays of one Light." Religion is like a book, different religions are different chapters in the same book.
I felt that the clouds in front of me were slowly dispersed away, there was a ray of light shining through the cloud directly to the very depth of my heart. My inner being recognized instantly the truth of these few words. It's like a magic, religion was no longer a lifeless system, rather suddenly become alive. God was no longer so far removed, but became near, so intimately near to my heart.
I couldn't wait to hear more: What’s the relationship between science and religion? Do they have to contradict with each other?
Bill: We believe that science and religion are two sources of knowledge ordained by God. Science is the source of understanding the laws of physical reality while religion, true religion, is a source of understanding of the laws of spiritual reality. Fundamentally science and religion should agree and complement to each other. If they appear to contradict with each other, it’s because either religion has become superstition, or science has not yet discovered complete truth.
I breathed deeply. Everything sounded refreshing and made sense to me and I still had one last question that had been buried deeply in my heart for 15 years: "What is indeed the meaning of our existence?"
Bill: We believe that human reality is fundamentally spiritual. If there were no Creator, if humans were simply chance products of a thermodynamic system, there would be no purpose in life. Each individual human being would represent the temporary material existence of a conscious animal trying to move through his or her brief life with as much pleasure and as little pain and suffering as possible. It is only in relation to the Creator, and the purpose which that Creator has fixed for His creatures, that human existence has any meaning. And in this context, life should be seen as an eternal process of spiritual discovery and growth. God has endowed each human reality potentials to reflect all of His attributes. Thus the development of these spiritual potentials constitutes the meaning of our life. And as we develop and as we progress, we become more and more God-like and thus drew ever nearer to God.
How wonderful and beautiful insights of understanding! Everything suddenly made sense and all pieces had simply come together. My puzzle had finally been solved!!
It was obvious to me that all of these understandings were not from traditional Christianity.
I asked Bill: "What is your religion?"
Bill: "We are Baha'is, the followers of Baha'u'llah."
The name was new, never heard before. But it's alright with me. There was first time for all new things. I could get used to the new name.
"Who is Baha'u'llah?"
Bill: "We believe that Baha'u'llah is the latest Messenger from God, He brought teachings for our time."
No wonder everything sounded so current, so accessible to modern mind!
I sat there for a while quietly, hardly comprehending what had just happened to me. I looked at Bill. His face was luminous that it seemed there was light shinning through him. His eyes were full of warm kindness that could move one to tears. I wished he kept talking and that moment would never end. I had no doubt at that moment that it was God who had sent Bill to guide me and to teach me. God had kept His promise. My fifteen-year-long fervent search had finally been answered, and my mind and my heart could finally rest for peace.
I ran home that night and shouted to my husband:" I found it, I found it, I found it!!!" He looked at me puzzlingly: " I never know you have lost anything." Never mind, he didn't know this. I never told anyone my inner struggles, my desperate desires. I wished I could share this with someone, anyone that how much this meant to me. God cares, God really cares for me and equally for everyone. God's grace did not just pour out at an arbitrary point of history and stopped pouring for ever for no reason. God has been and will always be raining down His grace to mankind. And with the one simple teaching that religion and science should be in harmony, my heart and my mind are brought together into one single entity. Truth must be beautiful and beauty cannot be false. Everything becomes one and I become whole.
I'd like to finish this post with a paragraph from the Writings of Baha'u'llah concerning how a seeker of truth should go about his searching:
"On this journey (searching) the traveler abideth in every land and dwelleth in every region. In every face, he seeketh the beauty of the Friend; in every country he looketh for the Beloved. He joineth every company, and seeketh fellowship with every soul, that haply in some mind he may uncover the secret of the Friend, or in some face he may behold the beauty of the Loved One." (Baha'u'llah, The Seven Valleys, p. 7)
Searching for the meaning of life (Part I)
It was when I first arrived in US, my husband had told me once that there were two persons in our area I should meet. I asked him why. He said he didn’t exactly know why, but felt that they possessed certain qualities which I might like. That was the end of conversation. I didn’t understand the meaning of it, neither did he.
One day during those confusing period, at supermarket, my husband suddenly said loudly to me: “Le, look, that’s Bill, whom I told you before.” I remembered what he said to me about Bill. Yes, there was something special in Bill that I could not describe, but I did like for sure. After exchanging a few greetings, Bill said: “Do you have time on Wednesday evening? Let’s have dinner together at my home.” Before we realized, the invitation was confirmed.
On the way home, I asked my husband: “Do you know Bill well?”
“No, just met him one time when he came to where I lived to visit some one else, we chatted in the hall way and after that met him several time in restaurant where I worked as a waiter, that’s it.”
I asked : “Is this the custom here, people invite each other for dinner at home even though they don’t know each other well?"
“I don’t think so.” We were not sure what all these meant.
On the evening of that Wednesday, right before we were ready to go to Bill’s home, my husband decided he would not go after all. I decided I was going all by myself.
On the way to Bill’s home, I lost direction for a while in the darkness. I had never been in that area. I couldn't decide should I turn back or go forward. I asked myself that I didn’t know Bill at all, why I’d go to see him even by myself. Beside to keep my word, were there any other reasons? Another day when I saw Bill at National, I felt clearly there were something in him that attracted me. I was not sure what it was, but I'd like to find it out.
When I arrived at Bill’s home, he and his wife had prepared a whole table of food and were waiting for us. Five minutes into dinner, I was about to ask Bill questions concerning religion. I didn’t know then that the conversation was about to lead me to answers to all my questions and concerns, and would change the rest of my life and my 15-year-long search would come to a conclusion.
(The following is not exactly quotes of our conversation, rather they are what I remembered the principles I learned).
I asked Bill: Are you a Christian?
Bill said: We believe Christ is a Messenger from God, and Bible is the teachings from God brought to us by Christ.
I noticed immediately that Bill’s answer was different from a standard Christian’s answer. I was encouraged and asked another question: Beside Christ, are there any other Messengers from God?
Bill: Yes, God has sent to mankind many Messengers in history and will send many more in future. In fact, we believe all of the founders of major religions are Messengers from God.
I: So what’s the relationship between those religions? Do they believe in the same God? ( This was a big and crucial question for me)
Bill: We believe all religions are from the same God. The relationship between them we call Progressive Revelation.
I: What is Progressive Revelation?
Bill: We view religious history as a succession of revelations from God and the term "progressive revelation" is used to describe this process. We believe that in reality, there is only one religion, the religion of God. This one religion is continually evolving, and each particular religious system represents a stage in the evolution of the whole. All of the religious systems "have proceeded from one Source and are the rays of one Light." Religion is like a book, different religions are different chapters in the same book.
I felt that the clouds in front of me were slowly dispersed away, there was a ray of light shining through the cloud directly to the very depth of my heart. My inner being recognized instantly the truth of these few words. It's like a magic, religion was no longer a lifeless system, rather suddenly become alive. God was no longer so far removed, but became near, so intimately near to my heart.
I couldn't wait to hear more: What’s the relationship between science and religion? Do they have to contradict with each other?
Bill: We believe that science and religion are two sources of knowledge ordained by God. Science is the source of understanding the laws of physical reality while religion, true religion, is a source of understanding of the laws of spiritual reality. Fundamentally science and religion should agree and complement to each other. If they appear to contradict with each other, it’s because either religion has become superstition, or science has not yet discovered complete truth.
I breathed deeply. Everything sounded refreshing and made sense to me and I still had one last question that had been buried deeply in my heart for 15 years: "What is indeed the meaning of our existence?"
Bill: We believe that human reality is fundamentally spiritual. If there were no Creator, if humans were simply chance products of a thermodynamic system, there would be no purpose in life. Each individual human being would represent the temporary material existence of a conscious animal trying to move through his or her brief life with as much pleasure and as little pain and suffering as possible. It is only in relation to the Creator, and the purpose which that Creator has fixed for His creatures, that human existence has any meaning. And in this context, life should be seen as an eternal process of spiritual discovery and growth. God has endowed each human reality potentials to reflect all of His attributes. Thus the development of these spiritual potentials constitutes the meaning of our life. And as we develop and as we progress, we become more and more God-like and thus drew ever nearer to God.
How wonderful and beautiful insights of understanding! Everything suddenly made sense and all pieces had simply come together. My puzzle had finally been solved!!
It was obvious to me that all of these understandings were not from traditional Christianity.
I asked Bill: "What is your religion?"
Bill: "We are Baha'is, the followers of Baha'u'llah."
The name was new, never heard before. But it's alright with me. There was first time for all new things. I could get used to the new name.
"Who is Baha'u'llah?"
Bill: "We believe that Baha'u'llah is the latest Messenger from God, He brought teachings for our time."
No wonder everything sounded so current, so accessible to modern mind!
I sat there for a while quietly, hardly comprehending what had just happened to me. I looked at Bill. His face was luminous that it seemed there was light shinning through him. His eyes were full of warm kindness that could move one to tears. I wished he kept talking and that moment would never end. I had no doubt at that moment that it was God who had sent Bill to guide me and to teach me. God had kept His promise. My fifteen-year-long fervent search had finally been answered, and my mind and my heart could finally rest for peace.
I ran home that night and shouted to my husband:" I found it, I found it, I found it!!!" He looked at me puzzlingly: " I never know you have lost anything." Never mind, he didn't know this. I never told anyone my inner struggles, my desperate desires. I wished I could share this with someone, anyone that how much this meant to me. God cares, God really cares for me and equally for everyone. God's grace did not just pour out at an arbitrary point of history and stopped pouring for ever for no reason. God has been and will always be raining down His grace to mankind. And with the one simple teaching that religion and science should be in harmony, my heart and my mind are brought together into one single entity. Truth must be beautiful and beauty cannot be false. Everything becomes one and I become whole.
I'd like to finish this post with a paragraph from the Writings of Baha'u'llah concerning how a seeker of truth should go about his searching:
"On this journey (searching) the traveler abideth in every land and dwelleth in every region. In every face, he seeketh the beauty of the Friend; in every country he looketh for the Beloved. He joineth every company, and seeketh fellowship with every soul, that haply in some mind he may uncover the secret of the Friend, or in some face he may behold the beauty of the Loved One." (Baha'u'llah, The Seven Valleys, p. 7)
Searching for the meaning of life (Part I)
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Searching for the meaning of life
During this Thanksgiving season, while counting the blessings of family, friends and all the good things in life, my deep gratitude is especially given to those who guided me on my journey of seeking meanings and answers. Their patient and unreserved guidance had changed the course of my life and enriched it most greatly in both depth and breath.
It is said that every life has a story. Though my story may differ from yours, I believe no matter where we were born and in whichever cultural background we grew up, all of our stories are ultimately related to our searching (knowingly or unknowingly) for the identity of who we truly are and what the life is all about beside and beyond it’s obvious, visible and material form.
(1)
“What is indeed the meaning of life?” I started to ponder this question when I was in high school. Growing up in communist country, I was told that life was only an accidental product with no predetermined purpose. But somehow this materialistic view bothered me. Deep down in my heart, I wished this were not true. I tried to find possible answers from different aspects that were available to me at the time: books, friends as well as the experiences and understandings of others. Although all of those enhanced my understanding and helped me to look at life from different perspective, they didn’t answer the question to my satisfaction and didn’t completely comfort my agitated inner being.
In the spring of 1990, when I was trapped in Prague of Czechoslovakia alone, and life was at its lowest point. One evening while I was wandering in the street pointlessly, a group of students handed me a Bible. Though I didn’t believe in any religion, I read it anyway when I had nothing else to do. But I couldn’t comprehend it at all. One evening however, somehow one of these verses (Matthew 7:7) jumped out at me and I actually could understand its meaning: "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.” It sounded like a promise. How wonderful it would have been if it were truly a promise, I pondered: if I kept seeking, I might one day find. But by nature and training, I was a person with mathematical mind, anything not logically sound was hard to accept. Besides, atheism was instilled in me from very beginning and was held true for the past thirty years. It was impossible for me to say “I believe” overnight. Nevertheless religion became a topic that interested me and I started to observe the life of those who believed. In the class I was attending, there were two students from Egypt, who were faithful Muslims. They were openly practicing their faith: morning prayer, evening prayer, fasting, seemingly it’s a real thing. One day I got a chance in the lab to ask the young and intelligent student Magdy: “Magdy, you are very intelligent, plus you are a student of science, how could you believe in God with such sincerity? You know that science and religion can not coexist, as I have learned.” Magdy’s answer was much unexpected: “Because I am a student of science, so my belief is more sincere!” This was exactly opposite to the knowledge I acquired about science and religion. I encouraged him eagerly: “Tell me about it.” I didn’t realize that my request was about to have Magdy to begin a wonderful explanation from an unexpected angle, which in turn, would change my 30-year-long atheist mind.
Magdy said: “We are both chemists, we understand the second law of thermodynamics. It is stated that in a closed system, if there is no energy introduced from outside, the system can only develop spontaneously from relatively higher order to lower order till it reaches completely chaotic state. For example, a beautiful garden must have a diligent gardener, otherwise the garden will for sure be full of weeds; a home, if there is no one to clean, to organize, it will not spontaneously become neat and orderly; and if you see a line of footprints on desert, you will sure think someone has just passed by, and will not believe just because of wind blowing here, accidentally left the footprints on the sand. In summary, that is ‘where there is will, there is order, otherwise, there is only chaos.’ The same is also true for the universe. Through out the nature we have come to know so far, order is everywhere. In all directions we look, small or big, near or far, life or lifeless alike are governed by predetermined natural laws. If we consider the whole universe a closed system, in order to sustain the highly ordered state, there must be energy introduced from outside the universe. The One who is beyond the universe, who is constantly putting energy into the universe is the God I believed in.”
What a reasonable explanation, at least to me! I never knew the existence of God could be explained scientifically. Magdy’s vivid explanation made me feel that switching from an atheist to a believer was not impossible as I thought before and could be reasonable. I had been in the world of atheism searching for the meaning of life for the past 15 years, and had not been able to find answer. Perhaps, it’s time for me to honestly ask myself questions concerning my belief. I thought I was an atheist, was that what I’ve studied thoroughly and came to the conclusion myself? No, I was taught to be an atheist; I was never given an opportunity to choose. Magdy could explain the existence of God scientifically, but I’ve never thought about what was the proof of my atheist belief. If believing/not believing was only a choice of 50-50%, what should I choose? I’ve seen enough what could happen in a society where there was no God. Perhaps, even if it's just a 50-50% choice, I’d rather choose to believe. I’d like to see the other half of the world. Plus, Magdy's explanation was somewhat sensible to me, I could not just ignore it.
I asked Magdy one more question: “Magdy, where did you learn all of these things?”
Magdy replied seriously: “Have you ever heard of ‘Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom’?”
I decided that I was willing and ready to search after the wisdom from God!!
(2)
In the spring of 1991, I finally entered US, the land of the free. The opportunity was precious. With the little knowledge about God from Magdy, I dived myself into Chinese Christian Fellowship organized by students. I studied Bible with them diligently for months and learned many explanations from them as well. I realized by surprise that believing in God was not just a question of believing or not, believing in God was also implying who to believe, which religion to join, even which sects to belong to. This was beyond my comprehension. Honestly, I had nothing to be against Christianity. As matter of fact, I was baptized towards the end of my Bible study, becoming a Christian of my own choice. I believed that Christ was a way leading to God, but I just couldn’t convince myself that Christ was the only way. I was once an atheist, the world was only divided into two half: believing and not believing. A verse from Bible had once given me a leap of faith; the intelligent and warm-hearted Muslim Magdy had led me crossed the line from the non-believing world to the Kingdom of God; I had also shared an apartment with a girl from India for almost a year in Prague, and witnessed her worshiping her God with the same sincerity; and also from my own homeland China, I had learned a little about Buddhism. Were they not all Religions? Beside the different names, did they not all believe in the same God? I happened to become a Christian, just because it was the most popular religion in this country. Had I not come to US then, instead gone to Middle East, I’d have become a Muslim for sure. Oh, religion, I once thought believing in God was all that a religion was about, never expected such complication and confusion.
Although I had many concerns and confusions about religion, I still remembered the verse from Bible which had once gave me comfort and encouragement:
“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.” --- Matthew 7:7
I still believed that this verse was a promise to me: if I ask, I shall be answered.
After I finished studying Bible, I began to ask questions. My major concerns at the time could be summarized as follows:
* What’s the relationship between different religions? How could we know they didn’t believe in the same God?
* According to the current belief of Christianity, Christ was the only Son of God, never before and never after would be another One like Him. Why? If God is all powerful, HE surely could send many Christ-like Ones to mankind, Why not then?
* What’s the relationship between religion and science? Science as the sum of discovered natural laws and religion as the teachings from the Creator of our universe must have something in common, surely not contradict to each other as most have believed?
I started asking those questions in Chinese fellowship, in different Churches. And soon I realized that Christianity as a whole had very rigid doctrines. Any questions that were beyond the scope of these doctrines, they tended to avoid answering them. I knew then that in order to find answers, I must search outside Christianity.
One thing I never doubted that I should one day find answers. God would never fail anyone who asked Him.
(to be continued...)
Searching for the meaning of life (Part II)
It is said that every life has a story. Though my story may differ from yours, I believe no matter where we were born and in whichever cultural background we grew up, all of our stories are ultimately related to our searching (knowingly or unknowingly) for the identity of who we truly are and what the life is all about beside and beyond it’s obvious, visible and material form.
(1)
“What is indeed the meaning of life?” I started to ponder this question when I was in high school. Growing up in communist country, I was told that life was only an accidental product with no predetermined purpose. But somehow this materialistic view bothered me. Deep down in my heart, I wished this were not true. I tried to find possible answers from different aspects that were available to me at the time: books, friends as well as the experiences and understandings of others. Although all of those enhanced my understanding and helped me to look at life from different perspective, they didn’t answer the question to my satisfaction and didn’t completely comfort my agitated inner being.
In the spring of 1990, when I was trapped in Prague of Czechoslovakia alone, and life was at its lowest point. One evening while I was wandering in the street pointlessly, a group of students handed me a Bible. Though I didn’t believe in any religion, I read it anyway when I had nothing else to do. But I couldn’t comprehend it at all. One evening however, somehow one of these verses (Matthew 7:7) jumped out at me and I actually could understand its meaning: "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.” It sounded like a promise. How wonderful it would have been if it were truly a promise, I pondered: if I kept seeking, I might one day find. But by nature and training, I was a person with mathematical mind, anything not logically sound was hard to accept. Besides, atheism was instilled in me from very beginning and was held true for the past thirty years. It was impossible for me to say “I believe” overnight. Nevertheless religion became a topic that interested me and I started to observe the life of those who believed. In the class I was attending, there were two students from Egypt, who were faithful Muslims. They were openly practicing their faith: morning prayer, evening prayer, fasting, seemingly it’s a real thing. One day I got a chance in the lab to ask the young and intelligent student Magdy: “Magdy, you are very intelligent, plus you are a student of science, how could you believe in God with such sincerity? You know that science and religion can not coexist, as I have learned.” Magdy’s answer was much unexpected: “Because I am a student of science, so my belief is more sincere!” This was exactly opposite to the knowledge I acquired about science and religion. I encouraged him eagerly: “Tell me about it.” I didn’t realize that my request was about to have Magdy to begin a wonderful explanation from an unexpected angle, which in turn, would change my 30-year-long atheist mind.
Magdy said: “We are both chemists, we understand the second law of thermodynamics. It is stated that in a closed system, if there is no energy introduced from outside, the system can only develop spontaneously from relatively higher order to lower order till it reaches completely chaotic state. For example, a beautiful garden must have a diligent gardener, otherwise the garden will for sure be full of weeds; a home, if there is no one to clean, to organize, it will not spontaneously become neat and orderly; and if you see a line of footprints on desert, you will sure think someone has just passed by, and will not believe just because of wind blowing here, accidentally left the footprints on the sand. In summary, that is ‘where there is will, there is order, otherwise, there is only chaos.’ The same is also true for the universe. Through out the nature we have come to know so far, order is everywhere. In all directions we look, small or big, near or far, life or lifeless alike are governed by predetermined natural laws. If we consider the whole universe a closed system, in order to sustain the highly ordered state, there must be energy introduced from outside the universe. The One who is beyond the universe, who is constantly putting energy into the universe is the God I believed in.”
What a reasonable explanation, at least to me! I never knew the existence of God could be explained scientifically. Magdy’s vivid explanation made me feel that switching from an atheist to a believer was not impossible as I thought before and could be reasonable. I had been in the world of atheism searching for the meaning of life for the past 15 years, and had not been able to find answer. Perhaps, it’s time for me to honestly ask myself questions concerning my belief. I thought I was an atheist, was that what I’ve studied thoroughly and came to the conclusion myself? No, I was taught to be an atheist; I was never given an opportunity to choose. Magdy could explain the existence of God scientifically, but I’ve never thought about what was the proof of my atheist belief. If believing/not believing was only a choice of 50-50%, what should I choose? I’ve seen enough what could happen in a society where there was no God. Perhaps, even if it's just a 50-50% choice, I’d rather choose to believe. I’d like to see the other half of the world. Plus, Magdy's explanation was somewhat sensible to me, I could not just ignore it.
I asked Magdy one more question: “Magdy, where did you learn all of these things?”
Magdy replied seriously: “Have you ever heard of ‘Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom’?”
I decided that I was willing and ready to search after the wisdom from God!!
(2)
In the spring of 1991, I finally entered US, the land of the free. The opportunity was precious. With the little knowledge about God from Magdy, I dived myself into Chinese Christian Fellowship organized by students. I studied Bible with them diligently for months and learned many explanations from them as well. I realized by surprise that believing in God was not just a question of believing or not, believing in God was also implying who to believe, which religion to join, even which sects to belong to. This was beyond my comprehension. Honestly, I had nothing to be against Christianity. As matter of fact, I was baptized towards the end of my Bible study, becoming a Christian of my own choice. I believed that Christ was a way leading to God, but I just couldn’t convince myself that Christ was the only way. I was once an atheist, the world was only divided into two half: believing and not believing. A verse from Bible had once given me a leap of faith; the intelligent and warm-hearted Muslim Magdy had led me crossed the line from the non-believing world to the Kingdom of God; I had also shared an apartment with a girl from India for almost a year in Prague, and witnessed her worshiping her God with the same sincerity; and also from my own homeland China, I had learned a little about Buddhism. Were they not all Religions? Beside the different names, did they not all believe in the same God? I happened to become a Christian, just because it was the most popular religion in this country. Had I not come to US then, instead gone to Middle East, I’d have become a Muslim for sure. Oh, religion, I once thought believing in God was all that a religion was about, never expected such complication and confusion.
Although I had many concerns and confusions about religion, I still remembered the verse from Bible which had once gave me comfort and encouragement:
“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.” --- Matthew 7:7
I still believed that this verse was a promise to me: if I ask, I shall be answered.
After I finished studying Bible, I began to ask questions. My major concerns at the time could be summarized as follows:
* What’s the relationship between different religions? How could we know they didn’t believe in the same God?
* According to the current belief of Christianity, Christ was the only Son of God, never before and never after would be another One like Him. Why? If God is all powerful, HE surely could send many Christ-like Ones to mankind, Why not then?
* What’s the relationship between religion and science? Science as the sum of discovered natural laws and religion as the teachings from the Creator of our universe must have something in common, surely not contradict to each other as most have believed?
I started asking those questions in Chinese fellowship, in different Churches. And soon I realized that Christianity as a whole had very rigid doctrines. Any questions that were beyond the scope of these doctrines, they tended to avoid answering them. I knew then that in order to find answers, I must search outside Christianity.
One thing I never doubted that I should one day find answers. God would never fail anyone who asked Him.
(to be continued...)
Searching for the meaning of life (Part II)
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Science and Religion: Nature of the conflict (VIII)
The Phenomenon of Revelation
Suppose that a certain phenomenon occurs in our corner of the universe precisely every two billion years. What is the chance that we will ever discover the rational basis for this phenomenon and the principles which govern its occurrence? Clearly the chance is small, almost non-existent. If we happen to be the generation that observes the phenomenon, then it will appear to us as a miracle since we will have no record of its having occurred in the lifetime of any man in our recorded history. We will be able to do no more than record the phenomenon ourselves. If our record survives for two billion years until the next occurrence, then perhaps some scientific genius will begin to see some relationship and even intuit an answer to the question. But more than likely the tendency will be to doubt the validity of a two-billion-year-old record. Moreover, we ourselves, as observers of the phenomenon, will probably begin to doubt that it ever happened. Since the infrequency of the phenomenon will not allow us to incorporate it easily into our existing rational and scientific framework, our natural tendency will be to attempt to explain away or to discredit the phenomenon. Of course, if this recalcitrant phenomenon is itself the cause of other important phenomena, then we will have to find some way to integrate it into our model of reality or we will fail to be scientific in our approach.
...
Though this example of a periodic phenomenon having a period two billion years in length was hypothetical, it is quite possible that there are certain important phenomena which occur regularly at long intervals and whose pattern we have not succeeded in understanding.
If we consider the great religious systems of which there still exists some contemporary expression or some historical record, we will see that most have been founded by an historical figure, a unique personage. Islam was founded by Muhammad, Buddhism by Buddha, Christianity by Christ, Judaism (in its definitive form) by Moses, Zoroastrianism by Zoroaster, and so on. These religious systems have all followed quite similar patterns of development. There is a nucleus of followers gathered around the founder during his lifetime. The founder lays down certain teachings which constitute the principles of the religion. Moreover, each of these founders has made the same claim, the claim that the inspiration for his teachings and his influence was due to God and not to human learning or human devices. Each of these founders claimed to be the exponent on earth of an invisible, superhuman reality of unlimited power, the creator of the universe. After the death of the founder, an early community is formed and the teachings of the founder are incorporated into a book (if no book was written by the founder). And finally a great civilization grows up based on the religious system, a civilization which lasts for many centuries.
All of the statements in the above paragraph are statements with high empirical content and low theoretical content. These are a few facts about religious history. Of course, these facts are based on records and observations of past generations. We can try to dispute these records if we choose, but we must be scientific in our approach. In particular, the records of the older religions are of validity equal to any other record of comparable date. If, for example, we refuse to believe that Jesus lived, we must also deny that Socrates lived for we have evidence of precisely the same validity for the existence of both men. The records of Muhammad's life are much more valid than these, and are probably beyond serious dispute. Moreover, if we choose to posit the unreality of the figures whose names are recorded and to whom various teachings and influence are attributed, we must, at the same time, give an alternative explanation of the influence which these religious systems, elaborated in the name of these founders, have had. This is more difficult than one may be inclined at first to believe.
The major civilizations of history have been associated with the major prophetic religious systems. Zoroastrianism was the religion of the “glory of ancient Persia”, the Persia that conquered Babylon, Palestine, Egypt, and the Greek city-states. Judaism was the basis of the great Hebrew culture which some philosophers, such as Jaspers, regard as the greatest in history. Moreover, Jewish law has formed the basis of common law and jurisprudence in countries all over the world. (It seemed very hard for a Russian to answer when I asked why they closed some shops on Sunday. Certainly, I surmised they did not believe in the nomadic stutterer named Moses who proclaimed the principle three thousand five hundred years ago to a bunch of ignorant wanderers in a desert.) Western culture, until the rise of modern science, was dominated by Christianity. The great Muslim culture invented algebra and preserved and developed the Hellenistic heritage. It was the greatest culture the world had seen until the rise of the industrial revolution began to transform Western culture.
We are, however, very much in the same position with respect to past revelations as we would be with regard to our phenomenon having a period two billion years long. We were not there to observe Jesus or Muhammad in action. The contemporaries of these people were certainly impressed by them, but these observations were made years ago and are liable, we feel, to embellishments. Even though it may be unscientific to try to explain away the influence of these religious figures, there is still a certain desire to do so. We are put off by certain obvious interpolations, and we are not sure just what to accept and what to reject.
The Bahá’í Faith offers the hypothesis that man's social evolution is due to the periodic intervention in human affairs of the creative force of the universe. This intervention occurs by means of the religious founders or Manifestations. What is most significant is that the Bahá’í Faith offers fresh empirical evidence, in the person of its own founder, that such a phenomenon has occurred, Bahá’u’lláh (1817-1892) claimed to be one of these Manifestations and He reaffirmed the validity of the past revelations (though not necessarily the accuracy of all details recorded in the ancient books). Here is a figure who walked the earth in recent times and whose history is documented by thousands of records and witnesses. There are, at the time of this writing*, persons living who knew Bahá’u’lláh. Of course, even the death of these people will not make the historicity of Bahá’u’lláh less certain. Moreover, the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh are preserved in His manuscripts and so we are faced with a record of recent date and one of which there can be no serious doubt.
The only way we can judge Bahá’u’lláh's fascinating hypothesis that social evolution is due to the influence of the Manifestations is the way we judge any proposition: scientific method. This is the only way we can judge Bahá’u’lláh's claim to be one of these Manifestations. We must see if these assumptions are consistent with our knowledge of life as a whole. We must see if we can render these assertions considerably more acceptable than their negations. In the case of Bahá’u’lláh, we have many things which we can test empirically. Bahá’u’lláh made predictions. Did they come true? Bahá’u’lláh claimed Divine inspiration. Did He receive formal schooling and did He exhibit power or knowledge not easily attributable to human sources? He insisted on moral purity. Did He lead a life of moral purity? In His teachings are found statements concerning the nature of the physical world. Has science validated these? He also makes assertions concerning human psychology and subjectivity and invites individuals to test these. Do they work? He engaged in extensive analysis of the nature of man's organized social life. Does His analysis accord with our own scientific observations of the same phenomena? The possibilities are unlimited.
Of course, the same criteria can be applied to other Manifestations, but the known facts are so much less authenticated and so restricted in number that little direct testing is possible. This does not disturb Bahá’ís because they believe that, essentially, there is only one religion and that each of the successive revelations is a stage in the development of this one religion. The Baha’i Faith is thus the contemporary form of religion and we should not be surprised that it is so accessible to the method of contemporary science. Christianity and Islam were probably just as accessible to the scientific methods of their day as the Bahá’í Faith is to modern scientific method.
Each religious system has been founded on faith in the reality of the phenomenon of revelation, and those people associated with the phenomenon felt fully justified in their faith. But as the influence of religion declined and the facts of revelation receded into history, the sense of conviction of the truth of the phenomenon subsided, and this was only natural, as we have seen. It is therefore important to realize that the Bahá’í Faith offers much more than new arguments about the old evidence for the phenomenon of revelation. It offers empirical evidence for the phenomenon and it is frank to base itself on this evidence and to apply the scientific method in understanding this evidence. So much is this so, that I would unhesitatingly say that the residue of subjectivity in the faith of a Bahá’í is no greater than the residue of subjectivity in the faith one has in any well-validated scientific theory.
*1980
(All above are excerpts from an article “The Science of Religion” by Dr. William Hatcher which I liked very much so to share it here with you.)
(To be continued…)
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VII)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VI)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(V)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(IV)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(III)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(II)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(I)"
Ref.: The William Hatcher Library
Suppose that a certain phenomenon occurs in our corner of the universe precisely every two billion years. What is the chance that we will ever discover the rational basis for this phenomenon and the principles which govern its occurrence? Clearly the chance is small, almost non-existent. If we happen to be the generation that observes the phenomenon, then it will appear to us as a miracle since we will have no record of its having occurred in the lifetime of any man in our recorded history. We will be able to do no more than record the phenomenon ourselves. If our record survives for two billion years until the next occurrence, then perhaps some scientific genius will begin to see some relationship and even intuit an answer to the question. But more than likely the tendency will be to doubt the validity of a two-billion-year-old record. Moreover, we ourselves, as observers of the phenomenon, will probably begin to doubt that it ever happened. Since the infrequency of the phenomenon will not allow us to incorporate it easily into our existing rational and scientific framework, our natural tendency will be to attempt to explain away or to discredit the phenomenon. Of course, if this recalcitrant phenomenon is itself the cause of other important phenomena, then we will have to find some way to integrate it into our model of reality or we will fail to be scientific in our approach.
...
Though this example of a periodic phenomenon having a period two billion years in length was hypothetical, it is quite possible that there are certain important phenomena which occur regularly at long intervals and whose pattern we have not succeeded in understanding.
If we consider the great religious systems of which there still exists some contemporary expression or some historical record, we will see that most have been founded by an historical figure, a unique personage. Islam was founded by Muhammad, Buddhism by Buddha, Christianity by Christ, Judaism (in its definitive form) by Moses, Zoroastrianism by Zoroaster, and so on. These religious systems have all followed quite similar patterns of development. There is a nucleus of followers gathered around the founder during his lifetime. The founder lays down certain teachings which constitute the principles of the religion. Moreover, each of these founders has made the same claim, the claim that the inspiration for his teachings and his influence was due to God and not to human learning or human devices. Each of these founders claimed to be the exponent on earth of an invisible, superhuman reality of unlimited power, the creator of the universe. After the death of the founder, an early community is formed and the teachings of the founder are incorporated into a book (if no book was written by the founder). And finally a great civilization grows up based on the religious system, a civilization which lasts for many centuries.
All of the statements in the above paragraph are statements with high empirical content and low theoretical content. These are a few facts about religious history. Of course, these facts are based on records and observations of past generations. We can try to dispute these records if we choose, but we must be scientific in our approach. In particular, the records of the older religions are of validity equal to any other record of comparable date. If, for example, we refuse to believe that Jesus lived, we must also deny that Socrates lived for we have evidence of precisely the same validity for the existence of both men. The records of Muhammad's life are much more valid than these, and are probably beyond serious dispute. Moreover, if we choose to posit the unreality of the figures whose names are recorded and to whom various teachings and influence are attributed, we must, at the same time, give an alternative explanation of the influence which these religious systems, elaborated in the name of these founders, have had. This is more difficult than one may be inclined at first to believe.
The major civilizations of history have been associated with the major prophetic religious systems. Zoroastrianism was the religion of the “glory of ancient Persia”, the Persia that conquered Babylon, Palestine, Egypt, and the Greek city-states. Judaism was the basis of the great Hebrew culture which some philosophers, such as Jaspers, regard as the greatest in history. Moreover, Jewish law has formed the basis of common law and jurisprudence in countries all over the world. (It seemed very hard for a Russian to answer when I asked why they closed some shops on Sunday. Certainly, I surmised they did not believe in the nomadic stutterer named Moses who proclaimed the principle three thousand five hundred years ago to a bunch of ignorant wanderers in a desert.) Western culture, until the rise of modern science, was dominated by Christianity. The great Muslim culture invented algebra and preserved and developed the Hellenistic heritage. It was the greatest culture the world had seen until the rise of the industrial revolution began to transform Western culture.
We are, however, very much in the same position with respect to past revelations as we would be with regard to our phenomenon having a period two billion years long. We were not there to observe Jesus or Muhammad in action. The contemporaries of these people were certainly impressed by them, but these observations were made years ago and are liable, we feel, to embellishments. Even though it may be unscientific to try to explain away the influence of these religious figures, there is still a certain desire to do so. We are put off by certain obvious interpolations, and we are not sure just what to accept and what to reject.
The Bahá’í Faith offers the hypothesis that man's social evolution is due to the periodic intervention in human affairs of the creative force of the universe. This intervention occurs by means of the religious founders or Manifestations. What is most significant is that the Bahá’í Faith offers fresh empirical evidence, in the person of its own founder, that such a phenomenon has occurred, Bahá’u’lláh (1817-1892) claimed to be one of these Manifestations and He reaffirmed the validity of the past revelations (though not necessarily the accuracy of all details recorded in the ancient books). Here is a figure who walked the earth in recent times and whose history is documented by thousands of records and witnesses. There are, at the time of this writing*, persons living who knew Bahá’u’lláh. Of course, even the death of these people will not make the historicity of Bahá’u’lláh less certain. Moreover, the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh are preserved in His manuscripts and so we are faced with a record of recent date and one of which there can be no serious doubt.
The only way we can judge Bahá’u’lláh's fascinating hypothesis that social evolution is due to the influence of the Manifestations is the way we judge any proposition: scientific method. This is the only way we can judge Bahá’u’lláh's claim to be one of these Manifestations. We must see if these assumptions are consistent with our knowledge of life as a whole. We must see if we can render these assertions considerably more acceptable than their negations. In the case of Bahá’u’lláh, we have many things which we can test empirically. Bahá’u’lláh made predictions. Did they come true? Bahá’u’lláh claimed Divine inspiration. Did He receive formal schooling and did He exhibit power or knowledge not easily attributable to human sources? He insisted on moral purity. Did He lead a life of moral purity? In His teachings are found statements concerning the nature of the physical world. Has science validated these? He also makes assertions concerning human psychology and subjectivity and invites individuals to test these. Do they work? He engaged in extensive analysis of the nature of man's organized social life. Does His analysis accord with our own scientific observations of the same phenomena? The possibilities are unlimited.
Of course, the same criteria can be applied to other Manifestations, but the known facts are so much less authenticated and so restricted in number that little direct testing is possible. This does not disturb Bahá’ís because they believe that, essentially, there is only one religion and that each of the successive revelations is a stage in the development of this one religion. The Baha’i Faith is thus the contemporary form of religion and we should not be surprised that it is so accessible to the method of contemporary science. Christianity and Islam were probably just as accessible to the scientific methods of their day as the Bahá’í Faith is to modern scientific method.
Each religious system has been founded on faith in the reality of the phenomenon of revelation, and those people associated with the phenomenon felt fully justified in their faith. But as the influence of religion declined and the facts of revelation receded into history, the sense of conviction of the truth of the phenomenon subsided, and this was only natural, as we have seen. It is therefore important to realize that the Bahá’í Faith offers much more than new arguments about the old evidence for the phenomenon of revelation. It offers empirical evidence for the phenomenon and it is frank to base itself on this evidence and to apply the scientific method in understanding this evidence. So much is this so, that I would unhesitatingly say that the residue of subjectivity in the faith of a Bahá’í is no greater than the residue of subjectivity in the faith one has in any well-validated scientific theory.
*1980
(All above are excerpts from an article “The Science of Religion” by Dr. William Hatcher which I liked very much so to share it here with you.)
(To be continued…)
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VII)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VI)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(V)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(IV)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(III)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(II)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(I)"
Ref.: The William Hatcher Library
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Science and Religion: Nature of the conflict (VII)
Knowledge and Faith
We need a good word to sum up this process of organizing our emotions around our assumptions, and religion has provided us with the word: faith. We can define an individual's faith to be his total emotional and psychological orientation resulting from the body of assumptions about reality which he has made (consciously or unconsciously). Of course, his faith may change with time as he has new experiences and modifies his concepts.
We can see from this analysis that faith is not some vague thing possessed only by a few religious mystics. Every human being has faith just as surely as he has a mind and a body. We are not free to choose not to have a faith any more than we can choose whether to be born. However, the quality of people's faiths differs considerably depending on the degree to which the basic assumptions on which a given faith is based are justified. Faith is the process of organizing our emotional life around our assumptions, and so the quality of faith is directly proportional to the validity of the assumptions (again, conscious or unconscious) on which faith is based. We can see, now, why the Bahá’í Faith enjoins a scientific outlook on life as being essential. The scientific approach does not guarantee us absolute knowledge, this being beyond the possibilities of man in any case, but it does guarantee that our concepts will be as functional and as close to reality as possible.
We have already indicated that change and reappraisal characterize knowledge and faith. But what is also true is that we seem to be more suited to gradual, smooth transitions than to sudden, violent, cataclysmic ones. The latter tend to over stimulate us to the point of shock, rendering a new and pragmatic response difficult. This is to say that living is basically a serious business, and that it behooves us always to maintain a certain alertness in order to be able to modify our conceptions gradually, thus avoiding rude awakenings where we find that our faith has been totally blind and misguided.
In short, when our concepts are grossly unscientific, our faith becomes blind and unreal. We come to expect the wrong things and to be upset when they do not happen as we wish. We become hardened and adamant in our faith. Even when presented with clear contradictions in our conceptions we resist change, for we sense that even though the purely intellectual effort necessary to reconstitute our thought may be small, the emotional reorientation necessary to assimilate the new truth will be great. Thus, we may be led, by our emotions, to act against our own interest. The more we persist in our blind faith the greater the inertia against acceptance of a truer picture of reality, and the greater the pain when the larger conception forces itself upon us, and we can avoid it no longer.
Our discussion here touches upon yet another common misconception about science and its relationship to religion. This is the idea that there is an intrinsic opposition between faith and reason. Rather than being in opposition, the two are part of the same process of knowing and living, as we have seen. Faith must be rational, and reason always operates within the context of our basic assumptions, that is, our faith. Our assumptions, when made explicit, are the purely intellectual component of our total faith.
I wish to close this section with two brief comments. The first is for the philosophically minded individual who may feel he sees a contradiction in that I make an absolute principle of the relativity of truth. This, I do not do. The reason for accepting scientific method is that it works. The statement “the scientific method is a good one” is to be evaluated by the same pragmatic criterion as any other statement. I admit the possibility that later experience may force me to revise my evaluation even of that statement. I thus do not make an absolute out of relativity.
The second comment is this: Though the nature of knowledge and of man's own limitations makes relativity an essential feature of knowledge, it may be that in practice most statements can be rendered either very acceptable or very unacceptable, thus reducing the existential component of “undecidability”. The theoretical uncertainty remains even with the surest of statements, but it is our explicit awareness of this uncertainty which is our greatest asset in adapting to our human situation. Once we accept humbly the limitations imposed on us, it becomes practically possible to resolve a good many issues and to make real progress in formulating a meaningful and practical understanding of reality.
(All above are excerpts from an article “The Science of Religion” by Dr. William Hatcher which I liked very much so to share it here with you.)
(To be continued…)
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VIII)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VI)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(V)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(IV)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(III)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(II)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(I)"
Ref.: The William Hatcher Library
We need a good word to sum up this process of organizing our emotions around our assumptions, and religion has provided us with the word: faith. We can define an individual's faith to be his total emotional and psychological orientation resulting from the body of assumptions about reality which he has made (consciously or unconsciously). Of course, his faith may change with time as he has new experiences and modifies his concepts.
We can see from this analysis that faith is not some vague thing possessed only by a few religious mystics. Every human being has faith just as surely as he has a mind and a body. We are not free to choose not to have a faith any more than we can choose whether to be born. However, the quality of people's faiths differs considerably depending on the degree to which the basic assumptions on which a given faith is based are justified. Faith is the process of organizing our emotional life around our assumptions, and so the quality of faith is directly proportional to the validity of the assumptions (again, conscious or unconscious) on which faith is based. We can see, now, why the Bahá’í Faith enjoins a scientific outlook on life as being essential. The scientific approach does not guarantee us absolute knowledge, this being beyond the possibilities of man in any case, but it does guarantee that our concepts will be as functional and as close to reality as possible.
We have already indicated that change and reappraisal characterize knowledge and faith. But what is also true is that we seem to be more suited to gradual, smooth transitions than to sudden, violent, cataclysmic ones. The latter tend to over stimulate us to the point of shock, rendering a new and pragmatic response difficult. This is to say that living is basically a serious business, and that it behooves us always to maintain a certain alertness in order to be able to modify our conceptions gradually, thus avoiding rude awakenings where we find that our faith has been totally blind and misguided.
In short, when our concepts are grossly unscientific, our faith becomes blind and unreal. We come to expect the wrong things and to be upset when they do not happen as we wish. We become hardened and adamant in our faith. Even when presented with clear contradictions in our conceptions we resist change, for we sense that even though the purely intellectual effort necessary to reconstitute our thought may be small, the emotional reorientation necessary to assimilate the new truth will be great. Thus, we may be led, by our emotions, to act against our own interest. The more we persist in our blind faith the greater the inertia against acceptance of a truer picture of reality, and the greater the pain when the larger conception forces itself upon us, and we can avoid it no longer.
Our discussion here touches upon yet another common misconception about science and its relationship to religion. This is the idea that there is an intrinsic opposition between faith and reason. Rather than being in opposition, the two are part of the same process of knowing and living, as we have seen. Faith must be rational, and reason always operates within the context of our basic assumptions, that is, our faith. Our assumptions, when made explicit, are the purely intellectual component of our total faith.
I wish to close this section with two brief comments. The first is for the philosophically minded individual who may feel he sees a contradiction in that I make an absolute principle of the relativity of truth. This, I do not do. The reason for accepting scientific method is that it works. The statement “the scientific method is a good one” is to be evaluated by the same pragmatic criterion as any other statement. I admit the possibility that later experience may force me to revise my evaluation even of that statement. I thus do not make an absolute out of relativity.
The second comment is this: Though the nature of knowledge and of man's own limitations makes relativity an essential feature of knowledge, it may be that in practice most statements can be rendered either very acceptable or very unacceptable, thus reducing the existential component of “undecidability”. The theoretical uncertainty remains even with the surest of statements, but it is our explicit awareness of this uncertainty which is our greatest asset in adapting to our human situation. Once we accept humbly the limitations imposed on us, it becomes practically possible to resolve a good many issues and to make real progress in formulating a meaningful and practical understanding of reality.
(All above are excerpts from an article “The Science of Religion” by Dr. William Hatcher which I liked very much so to share it here with you.)
(To be continued…)
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VIII)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VI)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(V)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(IV)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(III)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(II)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(I)"
Ref.: The William Hatcher Library
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Grew up as atheist
A friend sent me this link (http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html) written by a once atheist talking about several reasons of believing in God. I really like the first 5 points about our marvelous world. It never stops amazing me that our universe operates not only on a lawful base, but also in an unbelievably beautiful way. The world, as the author has said, doesn’t have to be orderly and beautiful. It actually has much more chances to become chaotic. Nevertheless it is highly ordered and harmoniously gorgeous. These points may not be a direct proof of the existence of God, but very valid points to invoke one’s deep thoughts.
I grew up also as an atheist in communist country. But people who believed in God never bothered me, they were just irrelevant to my life. Till I left China in late 1980’s and went to Europe, I realized that many people and many intelligent people in the world believed in God. I remember clearly that a question popped into my head one time “How come we (Chinese) are so smart that we have figured out there is no God, but the rest of the world are so ignorant that they still believe in God even in this modern age?” But not until I was trapped in utterly desperation and completely out of option in life that my heart became softened and I started to think seriously about the issue of God. I was fortunate, very fortunate to meet a couple of highly intelligent and enormously loving people to guide me on my journey of seeking answers in a way that was most suitable to my understanding. How utterly despair I would have felt if they were not there to answer my questions when I needed them the most. Every time when I read the quote by Baha'u'llah: ‘What "oppression" is more grievous than that a soul seeking the truth, and wishing to attain unto the knowledge of God, should know not where to go for it and from whom to seek it?’
my heart sorely testifies the truth of these words.
Now I look back after twenty years of experience in the world where there is God that my life has been so enriched beyond any wild imagination. The horizon of my life and my perspective about life has changed from a few limited decades to eternity in duration, from a meaningless and hopelessly imperfect random product to a purposefully designed human reality with a potential for perfection. I lived through the two worlds for almost equal amount of years. Often I thought that growing up as an atheist has certain advantages: I have seen both sides of stories. The most striking difference which matters to me is that in the world where there is God, being good actually counts. It is a great feeling to know that there is a foundation for everything to be built upon, a standard to strive towards and a purpose in everything that exists. And above all, there is a Power in control and that Power represents goodness and perfection.
I grew up also as an atheist in communist country. But people who believed in God never bothered me, they were just irrelevant to my life. Till I left China in late 1980’s and went to Europe, I realized that many people and many intelligent people in the world believed in God. I remember clearly that a question popped into my head one time “How come we (Chinese) are so smart that we have figured out there is no God, but the rest of the world are so ignorant that they still believe in God even in this modern age?” But not until I was trapped in utterly desperation and completely out of option in life that my heart became softened and I started to think seriously about the issue of God. I was fortunate, very fortunate to meet a couple of highly intelligent and enormously loving people to guide me on my journey of seeking answers in a way that was most suitable to my understanding. How utterly despair I would have felt if they were not there to answer my questions when I needed them the most. Every time when I read the quote by Baha'u'llah: ‘What "oppression" is more grievous than that a soul seeking the truth, and wishing to attain unto the knowledge of God, should know not where to go for it and from whom to seek it?’
my heart sorely testifies the truth of these words.
Now I look back after twenty years of experience in the world where there is God that my life has been so enriched beyond any wild imagination. The horizon of my life and my perspective about life has changed from a few limited decades to eternity in duration, from a meaningless and hopelessly imperfect random product to a purposefully designed human reality with a potential for perfection. I lived through the two worlds for almost equal amount of years. Often I thought that growing up as an atheist has certain advantages: I have seen both sides of stories. The most striking difference which matters to me is that in the world where there is God, being good actually counts. It is a great feeling to know that there is a foundation for everything to be built upon, a standard to strive towards and a purpose in everything that exists. And above all, there is a Power in control and that Power represents goodness and perfection.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Science and Religion: Nature of the conflict (VI)
Knowledge and Conviction
The reader who may be reflecting on these things for the first time might well have an immediate reaction of the following sort: “If knowledge really is relative, as you say, then where does the sense of certitude which I possess come from?” The fact is that we do have seemingly deep-seated “feelings” of certitude about many things. In particular, the sense of our own existence or self-identity, and the sense of the objective reality of the physical world are two feelings which seem to be quite universal. Yet, the mentally ill frequently lose their sense of identity and existence. Even normal people have moments in which they have a sense of “unreality” about things. After all, we really could be dreaming and the world may be a monstrous illusion. The belief in the unreality of our existence or of the physical world is unscientific since scientific inquiry has led us to feel that the assumption of the reality of these things is considerably more acceptable than the contrary. Yet, if we are honest, we cannot rule out the possibility of having to revise our assessment in the future. How far it is from our everyday common-sense experience of matter (from which our sense of physical reality is largely derived) to the rational and scientific view of matter as energy, protons, electrons, etc.!
Thus, the “feeling” of certitude which we have is a psychological state. Our convictions may not really be as deep as we perceive them to be, and we may lose them in the future even though such a thing be inconceivable to us at the present moment. The feeling of certitude is not equivalent to knowledge, for knowledge is the process we have described in some detail above, but a sense of certitude can be had even when there is no knowledge.
I think that we can say something like the following concerning the relationship between knowledge and conviction: If our intellect accepts a concept as true, then our emotions begin to organize themselves around the idea, focusing on it, and “depending” on it. When this happens, the concept ceases to be a mere intellectual hypothesis or assumption. It becomes part of the way we live and expect things to behave.
Of course, an intellectual concept may be new or it may be an explication of a principle previously assumed on an unconscious level. Thus, there may already be considerable emotional orientation around a principle before we are able to make the principle explicit even to ourselves. Progress in knowledge frequently occurs when unconsciously assumed hypotheses are made explicit.
For example, from infancy our experience of the world leads us to expect unsupported objects to fall. This common expectation which we make in a more or less unconscious way can be explicitly formulated in the theory of gravitation. But the purely intellectual part of this theory does not express the emotional upset we would feel if suddenly it happened that an unsupported object did not fall. It would be only the most objective scientist who, observing an instance in which a dropped object did not fall to earth, could overcome his natural emotional reaction to the event and consider it merely as an intriguing counterexample to the present theory of gravitation.
There is nothing unscientific about this emotional and subjective dependence on our assumptions. Psychologists have shown this dependence to be so great that even a slight physical environmental change, such as being plunged into total darkness, can result in psychotic behavior in a short period of time. We are so constructed that dependence on our assumptions is an inextricable part of our makeup. Our freedom lies in being able, through independent inquiry, to obtain knowledge and thus modify our conceptions and ultimately our emotional orientation.
The very depth of this emotional attachment to our concepts serves as a pressure to force us to keep our concepts as close as possible to reality, because we are in for emotional shocks if our expectations are not fulfilled.
(All above are excerpts from an article “The Science of Religion” by Dr. William Hatcher which I liked very much so to share it here with you.)
(To be continued…)
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VIII)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VII)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(V)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(IV)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(III)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(II)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(I)"
Ref.: The William Hatcher Library
The reader who may be reflecting on these things for the first time might well have an immediate reaction of the following sort: “If knowledge really is relative, as you say, then where does the sense of certitude which I possess come from?” The fact is that we do have seemingly deep-seated “feelings” of certitude about many things. In particular, the sense of our own existence or self-identity, and the sense of the objective reality of the physical world are two feelings which seem to be quite universal. Yet, the mentally ill frequently lose their sense of identity and existence. Even normal people have moments in which they have a sense of “unreality” about things. After all, we really could be dreaming and the world may be a monstrous illusion. The belief in the unreality of our existence or of the physical world is unscientific since scientific inquiry has led us to feel that the assumption of the reality of these things is considerably more acceptable than the contrary. Yet, if we are honest, we cannot rule out the possibility of having to revise our assessment in the future. How far it is from our everyday common-sense experience of matter (from which our sense of physical reality is largely derived) to the rational and scientific view of matter as energy, protons, electrons, etc.!
Thus, the “feeling” of certitude which we have is a psychological state. Our convictions may not really be as deep as we perceive them to be, and we may lose them in the future even though such a thing be inconceivable to us at the present moment. The feeling of certitude is not equivalent to knowledge, for knowledge is the process we have described in some detail above, but a sense of certitude can be had even when there is no knowledge.
I think that we can say something like the following concerning the relationship between knowledge and conviction: If our intellect accepts a concept as true, then our emotions begin to organize themselves around the idea, focusing on it, and “depending” on it. When this happens, the concept ceases to be a mere intellectual hypothesis or assumption. It becomes part of the way we live and expect things to behave.
Of course, an intellectual concept may be new or it may be an explication of a principle previously assumed on an unconscious level. Thus, there may already be considerable emotional orientation around a principle before we are able to make the principle explicit even to ourselves. Progress in knowledge frequently occurs when unconsciously assumed hypotheses are made explicit.
For example, from infancy our experience of the world leads us to expect unsupported objects to fall. This common expectation which we make in a more or less unconscious way can be explicitly formulated in the theory of gravitation. But the purely intellectual part of this theory does not express the emotional upset we would feel if suddenly it happened that an unsupported object did not fall. It would be only the most objective scientist who, observing an instance in which a dropped object did not fall to earth, could overcome his natural emotional reaction to the event and consider it merely as an intriguing counterexample to the present theory of gravitation.
There is nothing unscientific about this emotional and subjective dependence on our assumptions. Psychologists have shown this dependence to be so great that even a slight physical environmental change, such as being plunged into total darkness, can result in psychotic behavior in a short period of time. We are so constructed that dependence on our assumptions is an inextricable part of our makeup. Our freedom lies in being able, through independent inquiry, to obtain knowledge and thus modify our conceptions and ultimately our emotional orientation.
The very depth of this emotional attachment to our concepts serves as a pressure to force us to keep our concepts as close as possible to reality, because we are in for emotional shocks if our expectations are not fulfilled.
(All above are excerpts from an article “The Science of Religion” by Dr. William Hatcher which I liked very much so to share it here with you.)
(To be continued…)
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VIII)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VII)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(V)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(IV)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(III)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(II)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(I)"
Ref.: The William Hatcher Library
Thursday, October 29, 2009
To bring about human potentials is the true purpose of creation
Seeking to understand the mysteries of universe always brings me joy and being a Baha'i is specially fun for me because within the Baha'i teachings many mysteries about our existence are explained clearly and logically. The following is one of these mysteries about human being and human progress that I learned lately*.There is objective existence which we call the reality and within the framework of the overall wholeness of reality, there are four distinct levels of being (see the attached picture):
1. The first and the highest level is that of the essence of God, our Creator;
2. The second level is that of the Manifestations of God, who perfectly manifest all of the attributes of God;
3. The third level is that of the human soul, which has consciousness and endowed with capacity to reflect progressively (potentially) all of the attributes of God;
4. The lowest level is that of the material world, which is totally devoid of consciousness and will.
It is worth noticing that the third level, that of the human soul, is the only level of being that is capable of true irreversible progress. God and the Manifestations are already in perfect states of existence on Their respective levels and therefore have no need of progression. On the other side, the material world only exhibits continual movement within fixed limits. All material systems are composite and temporary. They have a finite life span and progress only to a fixed degree and then decomposition sets in and death is inevitable. Thus there is no real progress in material world, or in purely material sense.
However, the human soul, while created in an imperfect state, has or is endowed with the potential for perfection. From the picture we can see that human beings occupy an unique position among all creations. If we say the material world is the world of imperfection and spiritual world is the world of perfection, and then we may also say that human being is the end of imperfection (highest level in material world) and beginning of perfection (lowest level of spiritual world). Thus to bring about human potentials to reflect all perfections latent within him is not only the purpose of individual's life, but also the business of whole creation. It is not for human being to find his purpose in the universe, but for the creation to find its purpose in helping bringing about human potentials. God has ordained for the training of human beings "every atom in existence and the essence of all created things."
Human capacity is God's given. No one can ever change it and no circumstances of life can destroy it. But this human capacity is latent and needs to be developed. And the development is not automatic. As Baha'u'llah stated in this quote:
"Know thou that all men have been created in the nature made by God... Unto each one hath been prescribed a pre-ordained measure, as decreed in God's mighty and guarded Tablets. All that which ye potentially possess can, however, be manifested only as a result of your own volition."
Effort is needed from our part for our own development. Our soul is threaten by and only by undevelopment. Another day, a friend of mine asked "What is good?" while talking about "Do well by doing good". From Baha'i perspective we may say: that which fosters and advances the process of human spiritual development is good and that which tends to inhibit this development is bad.
How then, one may ask, do we go about to develop our soul?
From the point view of human spiritual development, the material world serves as the womb of preparation for birth into the spiritual world. Let's first take a look at the development of a fetus in a mother's womb. There are two prerequisites for a fetus to effectively progress from one-celled organism to a mature human form which if left out in the physical world could take five hundred million years of evolution. These two conditions are: the special environment of mother's womb and the encoded human DNA information within the cell. The same is true for the development of a human soul . The material world serves as that special environment, but this is not enough for a human soul to progress, just as mother's womb alone will not enable a rock to develop into a human baby. The knowledge brought by the Manifestations of God serve as the second condition for human development. Their teachings may be thought of as the spiritual counterpart of the genetic code. These teachings are recorded (encoded) in the holy writings of the great religions and when the knowledge they contain is implemented, genuine spiritual growth is the result.
Thus, striving to understand and implement the laws that govern the process of spiritual growth is the fundamental task of our earthly lives. In doing so we may generate the appropriate, growth-inducing responses to the circumstances of our lives and thereby profit from the unique opportunities for our spiritual growth with which God has endowed this life.
*Ref.: "The Law of love enshrined" by Hatchers
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Our seeking mind and our yearning heart
“True loss is for him whose days have been spent in utter ignorance of his self.”
Sometime ago, I read a book titled “Portals to Freedom” by Howard Colby Ives and found this paragraph incredibly beautiful. So I’d like to share it with you here:
“Men are wandering in the wilderness of Time and Space, caught in the net of circumstances, befooled by the illusions of sense. They are not aware of this, and that ignorance constitutes the tragedy of life.
Nevertheless, they long above all else to escape that wilderness in which they wander so forlorn. Under the pressure of this instinctive yearning they experiment with every path which offers the slightest hope of freedom. To the vast majority, that escape seems easiest along the path of what they call pleasure. To others fame and power beckon, saying: “follow me and I will give you in the adulation of the world that respite from self for which you long.”
To still others the refuge lies in the realms of intellect. In extending the barriers of nature; in probing into the microscopic universe; in breaking down the atom and bombarding the electron; in sweeping inter-stellar space with powerful and ever more powerful telescopes, -- all are seeking, though they know it not, for Him who is in their very heart of hearts, “closer than their own identity.” Inherently, fundamentally, essentially, inescapably dissatisfied with all the contingent world can offer, they yet seek to find within its scope that answer to their questing soul and mind without which they can never find rest. They know instinctively that they must escape the self and so they seek, in flying from it to the world around them, the refuge from its grasp for which they yearn. Their longing is for an eternal Home, for the knowledge and love of God, but they know this not.”
What a tragedy, I often think, if we live our whole life without ever knowing who we truly are, and why we live, why we die.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Science and Religion: Nature of the conflict (V)
Scientific Method
We now turn to a more substantive task of elaborating just how the basic unity of science, and of science and religion, is viewed in the light of the Bahá’í teachings. Our theses are, quite simply: (1) that the basic unity of science lies in its method of inquiry or epistemology, and (2) that the Bahá’í Faith consciously accepts this epistemology as its own, accepting in its wake whatever redefinitions of the terms “religion” and “faith” are consequent to it.
…
Science is, first of all, knowledge. Moreover, it is human knowledge because it is humans who do the knowing, and the nature of human knowledge will be determined by the nature of human mental faculties. Of course every human being on earth knows things and uses his mental faculties in order to attain this knowledge. What distinguishes the scientific method of knowing, it seems to me, is the systematic, organized, directed, and conscious nature of the process. However much we may refine and elaborate our description of the application of scientific method in some particular domain such as mathematics, logic, or physics, this description remains essentially an attempt on our part to bring to ourselves a fuller consciousness of exactly how we apply our mental faculties in the course of the epistemological act within the given domain. I offer therefore this heuristic definition of scientific method: Scientific method is the systematic, organized, directed, and conscious use of our various mental faculties in an effort to arrive at a coherent model of whatever phenomenon is being investigated.
In a word, science is self-conscious common sense. Instead of relying on chance happenings or occasional experiences, one systematically invokes certain types of experiences. This is experimentation (the conscious use of experience). Instead of relying on naive reasoning, one formalizes hypotheses explicitly and formalizes the reasoning leading from hypothesis to conclusion. This is mathematics and logic (the conscious use of reason). Instead of relying on occasional flashes of insight, one systematically meditates on problems. This is reflection (the conscious use of intuition).
The practice of this method is not linked to the study of any particular phenomenon. It can be applied to the study of unseen forces and mysterious phenomena as well as to everyday occurrences. Failure to appreciate the universality of scientific method has led some to feel that science is really only the study of matter or of material phenomena. This narrow philosophical outlook, plus the historical fact that physics was the first science to develop a high degree of mathematical objectivity, has led to a common misconception that scientific knowledge is inherently limited only to physical reality.
It should be stressed also that the scientific study even of material and concretely accessible phenomena involves a heavily theoretical and subjective component. Far from just “reading the facts from the book of nature,” the scientist must bring an essential aspect of creative hypothesis and imagination to his work. Science as a whole is underdetermined by experience, and there are often many different possible models to explain a given phenomenon. The scientist therefore must not only find out how things are but must also imagine how things might be. Developments in all branches of science during this century have led to an increasing awareness among scientists and philosophers of the vastness of this subjective input into science.
Another feature of scientific knowledge is its relativity. Because science is the self-conscious use of our faculties we become aware that man has no absolute measure of the truth. The conclusions of scientific investigations are always more or less probable. They are never absolute proofs. Of course if a conclusion is highly probable and its negation highly improbable we may feel very confident in the results, especially if we have been very thorough in our investigation. But realization and acceptance of this essential uncertainty and relativity of our knowledge are important, for the exigencies of the human situation are often such that we are forced to act in some instances before we have had time to make such a thorough investigation. It therefore behooves us to remain constantly alert to the possibility that in fact we may be wrong.
In sum, human knowledge is the truth which is accessible to man, and this truth is relative because man the knower is relative, finite, and limited. There is an absolute reality underlying the multifaceted qualities and experiences accessible to man, but direct access to this reality or direct perception of it is forever beyond man's capabilities. His knowledge is therefore relative and limited only to the knowledge of the various effects produced by this absolute reality (the Manifestations being one of the most important of these effects). However, if man uses systematically all of the various modes of knowledge available to him, he is assured that his knowledge and understanding, such as they are on their level, will increase.
(All above are excerpts from an article “The Science of Religion” by Dr. William Hatcher which I liked very much so to share it here with you.)
(To be continued…)
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VIII)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VII)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(VI)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(IV)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(III)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(II)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(I)"
Ref.: The William Hatcher Library
We now turn to a more substantive task of elaborating just how the basic unity of science, and of science and religion, is viewed in the light of the Bahá’í teachings. Our theses are, quite simply: (1) that the basic unity of science lies in its method of inquiry or epistemology, and (2) that the Bahá’í Faith consciously accepts this epistemology as its own, accepting in its wake whatever redefinitions of the terms “religion” and “faith” are consequent to it.
…
Science is, first of all, knowledge. Moreover, it is human knowledge because it is humans who do the knowing, and the nature of human knowledge will be determined by the nature of human mental faculties. Of course every human being on earth knows things and uses his mental faculties in order to attain this knowledge. What distinguishes the scientific method of knowing, it seems to me, is the systematic, organized, directed, and conscious nature of the process. However much we may refine and elaborate our description of the application of scientific method in some particular domain such as mathematics, logic, or physics, this description remains essentially an attempt on our part to bring to ourselves a fuller consciousness of exactly how we apply our mental faculties in the course of the epistemological act within the given domain. I offer therefore this heuristic definition of scientific method: Scientific method is the systematic, organized, directed, and conscious use of our various mental faculties in an effort to arrive at a coherent model of whatever phenomenon is being investigated.
In a word, science is self-conscious common sense. Instead of relying on chance happenings or occasional experiences, one systematically invokes certain types of experiences. This is experimentation (the conscious use of experience). Instead of relying on naive reasoning, one formalizes hypotheses explicitly and formalizes the reasoning leading from hypothesis to conclusion. This is mathematics and logic (the conscious use of reason). Instead of relying on occasional flashes of insight, one systematically meditates on problems. This is reflection (the conscious use of intuition).
The practice of this method is not linked to the study of any particular phenomenon. It can be applied to the study of unseen forces and mysterious phenomena as well as to everyday occurrences. Failure to appreciate the universality of scientific method has led some to feel that science is really only the study of matter or of material phenomena. This narrow philosophical outlook, plus the historical fact that physics was the first science to develop a high degree of mathematical objectivity, has led to a common misconception that scientific knowledge is inherently limited only to physical reality.
It should be stressed also that the scientific study even of material and concretely accessible phenomena involves a heavily theoretical and subjective component. Far from just “reading the facts from the book of nature,” the scientist must bring an essential aspect of creative hypothesis and imagination to his work. Science as a whole is underdetermined by experience, and there are often many different possible models to explain a given phenomenon. The scientist therefore must not only find out how things are but must also imagine how things might be. Developments in all branches of science during this century have led to an increasing awareness among scientists and philosophers of the vastness of this subjective input into science.
Another feature of scientific knowledge is its relativity. Because science is the self-conscious use of our faculties we become aware that man has no absolute measure of the truth. The conclusions of scientific investigations are always more or less probable. They are never absolute proofs. Of course if a conclusion is highly probable and its negation highly improbable we may feel very confident in the results, especially if we have been very thorough in our investigation. But realization and acceptance of this essential uncertainty and relativity of our knowledge are important, for the exigencies of the human situation are often such that we are forced to act in some instances before we have had time to make such a thorough investigation. It therefore behooves us to remain constantly alert to the possibility that in fact we may be wrong.
In sum, human knowledge is the truth which is accessible to man, and this truth is relative because man the knower is relative, finite, and limited. There is an absolute reality underlying the multifaceted qualities and experiences accessible to man, but direct access to this reality or direct perception of it is forever beyond man's capabilities. His knowledge is therefore relative and limited only to the knowledge of the various effects produced by this absolute reality (the Manifestations being one of the most important of these effects). However, if man uses systematically all of the various modes of knowledge available to him, he is assured that his knowledge and understanding, such as they are on their level, will increase.
(All above are excerpts from an article “The Science of Religion” by Dr. William Hatcher which I liked very much so to share it here with you.)
(To be continued…)
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VIII)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VII)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(VI)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(IV)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(III)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(II)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(I)"
Ref.: The William Hatcher Library
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The out climate change is an indicator of the change of inner climate
Today is "Blog Action Day" and the topic is on Climate Change.
As we have discussed in a previous blog that social progress or civilization starts with a set of moral values as its core. When people begin to believe in these core moral values and try to translate them into their daily life, the society will see a pattern of behaviors slowly taking shape. In turn, this totality of behaviors will guide us on how to construct our material development and environmental usage.
So according to this model, any environment or climate change is not purely material. There is always human factor or human contribution to the outer environmental change. And since man lives intimately within a given environment, thus his life and inner development are inevitably affected by the conditions of the environment in which he lives. Shoghi Effendi has described this reciprocal relationship beautifully in the following quote:
"We cannot segregate the human heart from the environment outside us and say that once one of these is reformed everything will be improved. Man is organic with the world. His inner life moulds the environment and is itself also deeply affected by it. The one acts upon the other and every abiding change in the life of man is the result of these mutual reactions."
Thus the outer environmental condition (good or bad) is actually a reflection of the state of inner climate that human beings collectively possess. It is then not far fetch to say that the issue of climate change is essentially a spiritual issue.
Furthermore, the issue is not only spiritual in its nature, but also global in its scope. The climate change is not limited to any particular region. Its impact, if let continue and unchecked, will affect every corner of the world. It is therefore natural that the solution thus considered must not only include spiritual aspect but also require unified efforts from all of the inhabitants of the earth. This, as Baha’u’llah has pointed out more than 160 years ago, is not possible until and unless the oneness of human race is universally recognized and its unity is firmly established:
“The central spiritual issue facing all people, Bahá'u'lláh says, whatever their nation, religion, or ethnic origin, is that of laying the foundations of a global society that can reflect the oneness of human nature. The unification of the earth's inhabitants is neither a remote utopian vision nor, ultimately, a matter of choice. It constitutes the next, inescapable stage in the process of social evolution, a stage toward which all the experience of past and present is impelling us. Until this issue is acknowledged and addressed, none of the ills afflicting our planet will find solutions, because all the essential challenges of the age we have entered are global and universal, not particular or regional.” (From “Who is writing the future” by Baha’i International Community)
Improvement of environment not only needs the help of technological tools, but also requires changing of human hearts.
As we have discussed in a previous blog that social progress or civilization starts with a set of moral values as its core. When people begin to believe in these core moral values and try to translate them into their daily life, the society will see a pattern of behaviors slowly taking shape. In turn, this totality of behaviors will guide us on how to construct our material development and environmental usage.
So according to this model, any environment or climate change is not purely material. There is always human factor or human contribution to the outer environmental change. And since man lives intimately within a given environment, thus his life and inner development are inevitably affected by the conditions of the environment in which he lives. Shoghi Effendi has described this reciprocal relationship beautifully in the following quote:
"We cannot segregate the human heart from the environment outside us and say that once one of these is reformed everything will be improved. Man is organic with the world. His inner life moulds the environment and is itself also deeply affected by it. The one acts upon the other and every abiding change in the life of man is the result of these mutual reactions."
Thus the outer environmental condition (good or bad) is actually a reflection of the state of inner climate that human beings collectively possess. It is then not far fetch to say that the issue of climate change is essentially a spiritual issue.
Furthermore, the issue is not only spiritual in its nature, but also global in its scope. The climate change is not limited to any particular region. Its impact, if let continue and unchecked, will affect every corner of the world. It is therefore natural that the solution thus considered must not only include spiritual aspect but also require unified efforts from all of the inhabitants of the earth. This, as Baha’u’llah has pointed out more than 160 years ago, is not possible until and unless the oneness of human race is universally recognized and its unity is firmly established:
“The central spiritual issue facing all people, Bahá'u'lláh says, whatever their nation, religion, or ethnic origin, is that of laying the foundations of a global society that can reflect the oneness of human nature. The unification of the earth's inhabitants is neither a remote utopian vision nor, ultimately, a matter of choice. It constitutes the next, inescapable stage in the process of social evolution, a stage toward which all the experience of past and present is impelling us. Until this issue is acknowledged and addressed, none of the ills afflicting our planet will find solutions, because all the essential challenges of the age we have entered are global and universal, not particular or regional.” (From “Who is writing the future” by Baha’i International Community)
Improvement of environment not only needs the help of technological tools, but also requires changing of human hearts.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Science and Religion: Nature of the conflict (IV)
(All below are excerpts from an article “The Science of Religion” by Dr. William Hatcher which I liked very much so to share it here with you.)
At the heart of the conflict between science and religion is that two essentially different views of man are associated respectively with each, at least in the popular view. In the one instance man is seen as a super evolved animal, a chance product of a material thermodynamic system. In the other he is seen as a spiritual being, created by God with a spiritual purpose given by God. Of course conflicting views of the nature of man are as old as thought itself and certainly predate the period of modern science. However, it is only in the modem period that the materialistic view has become linked to a prestigious and highly efficient natural science. This prestige of science forces people to take seriously any pronouncement that is put forth in its name.
All of this contrasts sharply with the pre-modern period in which the materialistic view was just one among many competing views and had no particular natural or obvious superiority over others. People simply could discredit or disregard the materialistic viewpoint without feeling any pangs of conscience or without feeling threatened.
In sum then I am suggesting that the conflict between religion and science is due essentially to the two qualitatively different views of man which are associated respectively with them, that the force of the materialistic view associated with modem science is due not to any inherent philosophical superiority of that view but rather to the immense prestige of the science in the name of which the materialistic view is put forth and that this prestige of science is due essentially to its evident technological productivity and efficiency.
One may ask in turn to what the efficiency and productiveness of modem science is due, and I believe that here there is one basic answer: scientific method. It is the method of science which has led to such remarkable results and thus to the present situation. Although some thinkers have tried to attribute the success of scientific method to one aspect or another of Western culture or religion, it is now abundantly clear that modem scientific method can be practiced with success independently of any particular religious or cultural orientation.
Indeed we can say that science as an activity is characterized by its method, for the immense diversity of domains which are now the object of scientific study defies any intrinsic characterization in terms of unity of content. The unity of science is its method.
The importance of religion on the other hand derives precisely from its goal and its contents rather than its method. Religion treats of questions which are so fundamental for us that every human being is obliged to realize the importance of answering them. Some of these questions concern the purpose of man's existence, the possibility of life after death, the possibility of self-transcendence, the possibility of contacting and living in harmony with a higher spiritual consciousness, the meaning of suffering, and the existence of good and evil.
Once we realize that the basis of science is its method and that the basis of religion is its object of study, the essential move toward resolving the religion-science controversy seems obvious and logical: Apply scientific method within religion. But, as I already have noted, there is widespread feeling that this is not truly possible. Thus each side remains with its view of the nature of man and with a feeling that reconciliation is not possible.
It seems to me, however, that the conviction of the impossibility of applying scientific method to religion rests on several misconceptions both of the nature of scientific method and of the nature of religion.
(To be continued…)
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VIII)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VII)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(VI)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(V)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(III)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(II)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(I)"
Ref.: The William Hatcher Library
Ref.: The William Hatcher Library
At the heart of the conflict between science and religion is that two essentially different views of man are associated respectively with each, at least in the popular view. In the one instance man is seen as a super evolved animal, a chance product of a material thermodynamic system. In the other he is seen as a spiritual being, created by God with a spiritual purpose given by God. Of course conflicting views of the nature of man are as old as thought itself and certainly predate the period of modern science. However, it is only in the modem period that the materialistic view has become linked to a prestigious and highly efficient natural science. This prestige of science forces people to take seriously any pronouncement that is put forth in its name.
All of this contrasts sharply with the pre-modern period in which the materialistic view was just one among many competing views and had no particular natural or obvious superiority over others. People simply could discredit or disregard the materialistic viewpoint without feeling any pangs of conscience or without feeling threatened.
In sum then I am suggesting that the conflict between religion and science is due essentially to the two qualitatively different views of man which are associated respectively with them, that the force of the materialistic view associated with modem science is due not to any inherent philosophical superiority of that view but rather to the immense prestige of the science in the name of which the materialistic view is put forth and that this prestige of science is due essentially to its evident technological productivity and efficiency.
One may ask in turn to what the efficiency and productiveness of modem science is due, and I believe that here there is one basic answer: scientific method. It is the method of science which has led to such remarkable results and thus to the present situation. Although some thinkers have tried to attribute the success of scientific method to one aspect or another of Western culture or religion, it is now abundantly clear that modem scientific method can be practiced with success independently of any particular religious or cultural orientation.
Indeed we can say that science as an activity is characterized by its method, for the immense diversity of domains which are now the object of scientific study defies any intrinsic characterization in terms of unity of content. The unity of science is its method.
The importance of religion on the other hand derives precisely from its goal and its contents rather than its method. Religion treats of questions which are so fundamental for us that every human being is obliged to realize the importance of answering them. Some of these questions concern the purpose of man's existence, the possibility of life after death, the possibility of self-transcendence, the possibility of contacting and living in harmony with a higher spiritual consciousness, the meaning of suffering, and the existence of good and evil.
Once we realize that the basis of science is its method and that the basis of religion is its object of study, the essential move toward resolving the religion-science controversy seems obvious and logical: Apply scientific method within religion. But, as I already have noted, there is widespread feeling that this is not truly possible. Thus each side remains with its view of the nature of man and with a feeling that reconciliation is not possible.
It seems to me, however, that the conviction of the impossibility of applying scientific method to religion rests on several misconceptions both of the nature of scientific method and of the nature of religion.
(To be continued…)
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VIII)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VII)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(VI)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(V)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(III)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(II)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(I)"
Ref.: The William Hatcher Library
Ref.: The William Hatcher Library
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Life is a fleeting moment
When contemplating the mysteries of life, the mystery of suffering seems to me the most mystic of all mysteries. Difficulties and challenges seem to be part of the make-up of our world. Few hearts are not afflicted by sorrows and few lives are spared by sufferings. Is there a meaning in this, I often wonder, is this a necessary step in a bigger process? Is there any good in bad?
This physical world is a world of opposites. Thus polarities exist universally: light and darkness, positive and negative, health and disease, yin and yang, life and death… More specifically, there are two opposite forces operating simultaneously upon the world of human being: physical and spiritual, thus creating tension between good and evil, moral and immoral, right and wrong. To make things more complicated, we, humans, are given the free will to choose between the two. No wonder suffering is generated. Suffering, in its essence, is our struggling between our desires to satisfy physical needs and our desire to be good as well as to be near to the source of all good. Thus all forms of unhappiness come from one form or another of attachment to the material world. This is the condition of this physical world and for as long as we live here, no one seems to be able to escape.
Why then do we have to suffer?
This question is closely related to the purpose of life. If life does not have purpose, of course suffering does not have any meaning (This is an awful situation, isn’t it? We have to suffer anyway, but without meaning, we suffer in vain!). But suppose that our purpose of living here on earth is to grow our soul, then this physical world might be the special environment in which our soul can make true progress. That is exactly some have suggested that this physical world is a vast “Soul School”, and everything in the world is but a tool to help human souls to learn.
And the suffering is the one condition under which our soul can be best trained:
“The mind and spirit of man advance when he is tried by suffering. The more the ground is plowed, the better the seed will grow, the better the harvest will be. Just as the plow furrows the earth deeply, purifying it of weeds and thistles, so suffering and tribulation free man from the petty affairs of this worldly life until he arrives at a state of complete detachment.”
Guy Murchie also suggested that “human soul thrives on a challenge or a problem and, once it is stretched by struggling with any sort of adversity, it can never shrink all the way back to its original dimensions. And so it grows bigger. Therefore, one should think of adversity as a kind of growth hormone at the opposite pole from, yet absolutely essential to, spiritual development.”
It might be comforting to know that this special condition of physical world does not exist in the next life. There are no opposite forces in the next world, thus test and suffering do not exist there either. Sound pretty good, but there is trade-off like everything in life: the trade-off is we don’t progress as fast in spiritual world as we do in physical world! We don’t have test, we don’t have opportunity either. So rather than to look at it as vale of tears, this life with its multitude tests and sufferings could also be seen and more correctly seen as an unique opportunity. It is an opportunity to get a jump-start to eternity. By struggling against the resistance of material world, it enables us to make enormous amount of spiritual progress in a very short period of time.
However, understanding the cause and the reason of suffering may make it easier to bear the difficulties of life, but it does not completely erase the pain of suffering (to me at least). At the end of a day, whenever sorrow threatens to overtake me, it is always the words of Baha’u’llah that provide consolation to my heart:
“Sorrow not if, in these days and on this earthly plane, things contrary to your wishes have been ordained and manifested by God, for days of blissful joy, of heavenly delight, are assuredly in store for you…”
“Live then the days of thy life, that are less than a fleeting moment, with thy mind stainless, thy heart unsullied, thy thoughts pure, and thy nature sanctified, so that, free and content, thou mayest put away this mortal frame, and repair unto the mystic paradise and abide in the eternal kingdom for evermore.”
This physical world is a world of opposites. Thus polarities exist universally: light and darkness, positive and negative, health and disease, yin and yang, life and death… More specifically, there are two opposite forces operating simultaneously upon the world of human being: physical and spiritual, thus creating tension between good and evil, moral and immoral, right and wrong. To make things more complicated, we, humans, are given the free will to choose between the two. No wonder suffering is generated. Suffering, in its essence, is our struggling between our desires to satisfy physical needs and our desire to be good as well as to be near to the source of all good. Thus all forms of unhappiness come from one form or another of attachment to the material world. This is the condition of this physical world and for as long as we live here, no one seems to be able to escape.
Why then do we have to suffer?
This question is closely related to the purpose of life. If life does not have purpose, of course suffering does not have any meaning (This is an awful situation, isn’t it? We have to suffer anyway, but without meaning, we suffer in vain!). But suppose that our purpose of living here on earth is to grow our soul, then this physical world might be the special environment in which our soul can make true progress. That is exactly some have suggested that this physical world is a vast “Soul School”, and everything in the world is but a tool to help human souls to learn.
And the suffering is the one condition under which our soul can be best trained:
“The mind and spirit of man advance when he is tried by suffering. The more the ground is plowed, the better the seed will grow, the better the harvest will be. Just as the plow furrows the earth deeply, purifying it of weeds and thistles, so suffering and tribulation free man from the petty affairs of this worldly life until he arrives at a state of complete detachment.”
Guy Murchie also suggested that “human soul thrives on a challenge or a problem and, once it is stretched by struggling with any sort of adversity, it can never shrink all the way back to its original dimensions. And so it grows bigger. Therefore, one should think of adversity as a kind of growth hormone at the opposite pole from, yet absolutely essential to, spiritual development.”
It might be comforting to know that this special condition of physical world does not exist in the next life. There are no opposite forces in the next world, thus test and suffering do not exist there either. Sound pretty good, but there is trade-off like everything in life: the trade-off is we don’t progress as fast in spiritual world as we do in physical world! We don’t have test, we don’t have opportunity either. So rather than to look at it as vale of tears, this life with its multitude tests and sufferings could also be seen and more correctly seen as an unique opportunity. It is an opportunity to get a jump-start to eternity. By struggling against the resistance of material world, it enables us to make enormous amount of spiritual progress in a very short period of time.
However, understanding the cause and the reason of suffering may make it easier to bear the difficulties of life, but it does not completely erase the pain of suffering (to me at least). At the end of a day, whenever sorrow threatens to overtake me, it is always the words of Baha’u’llah that provide consolation to my heart:
“Sorrow not if, in these days and on this earthly plane, things contrary to your wishes have been ordained and manifested by God, for days of blissful joy, of heavenly delight, are assuredly in store for you…”
“Live then the days of thy life, that are less than a fleeting moment, with thy mind stainless, thy heart unsullied, thy thoughts pure, and thy nature sanctified, so that, free and content, thou mayest put away this mortal frame, and repair unto the mystic paradise and abide in the eternal kingdom for evermore.”
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Three barriers between man and God
Baha’u’llah said:
[bellows are taken and edited from “The Revelation of Baha'u'llah” by Adib Taherzadeh, v 2, p. 35-39]:
1. Attachment to this material world:
Man may possess all the good things of the world, live in luxury and yet be detached from earthly things. God has created this world and all it contains for man's use and enjoyment, provided he lives in accordance with the teachings of God.
This world is filled with material bounties from God, that all good and beautiful things are manifestations of His attributes and that to possess them is not attachment. However, the things of this world are all transitory and man should not fix his affection upon them, nor allow himself to be possessed by them.
2. Attachment to the next world and all that is destined for man in the life hereafter.
To understand the significance of the second barrier let us remember that the purpose of life is to know and worship God. This, therefore, is the purpose of creation. Man's deeds are praiseworthy in the sight of God when they are performed solely for His love and for no other reason. If man's motive for his actions is that he may reap a reward for himself in the next world, then this is attachment. To be detached means to do everything for the sake of God and to seek no recompense.
What a contrast between this attitude and that prevailing in human society at the present time, where almost every action is designed to bring forth rewards for the individual. The attitude of expediency and self-interest has so conditioned the mind of man today that even in spiritual matters such as faith and belief in God, man often looks for something that will primarily satisfy his own needs. Many people today join one religion or another in the hope of receiving some spiritual help or other benefit such as peace of mind or salvation. This is not the right motive for following a religion. For the story of every religion is written with the language of love. A true lover has no ulterior motives or self-interest, but only a passionate love for his beloved.
“He who seeks reward for his deeds will be given the Garden of Paradise; and he who seeks God is in no need of paradise.”
3. Attachment to the 'Kingdom of Names'.
God in His own essence is exalted above attributes. However, in all His dominions and within each of His worlds, both spiritual and physical, He reveals the kingdom of His attributes. Every created thing manifests the names and attributes of God. In the human world, these attributes appear within the 'Kingdom of Names' and man often becomes attached to these names.
In this world every one of God's attributes is clad with a name, and every such name reveals the characteristics of its attribute. For instance, generosity is an attribute of God, and it manifests itself in human beings. However, a person who has this attribute often becomes proud of it and loves to be referred to as generous. When his generosity is acknowledged by other people, he becomes happy, and when it is ignored, unhappy. This is one form of attachment to the Kingdom of Names. Although this example concerns the name 'generosity', the same is true of all the names and attributes of God manifested within the individual. Usually, man ascribes these attributes to his own person rather than to God and employs them to exalt his own ego. For instance, a learned man uses the attribute of knowledge to become famous and feels gratified and uplifted when his name is publicized far and wide. Or there is the individual whose heart leaps with feelings of pride and satisfaction when he hears his name mentioned and finds himself admired. These are examples of attachment to the Kingdom of Names.
Human society at present exerts a pernicious influence upon the soul of man. Instead of allowing him to live a life of service and sacrifice, it teaches him to pride himself on his accomplishments. From early childhood he is trained to develop his ego and to seek to exalt himself above others. His ultimate aim is to achieve self-importance, success and power.
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh aims to reverse this process. The soul of man needs to be adorned with the virtues of humility and self-effacement so that it may become detached from the Kingdom of Names.
“The purpose of God in creating man hath been, and will ever be, to enable him to know his Creator and to attain His Presence.”To this seemingly simple purpose, there are three big obstacles man needs to overcome.
[bellows are taken and edited from “The Revelation of Baha'u'llah” by Adib Taherzadeh, v 2, p. 35-39]:
1. Attachment to this material world:
Man may possess all the good things of the world, live in luxury and yet be detached from earthly things. God has created this world and all it contains for man's use and enjoyment, provided he lives in accordance with the teachings of God.
This world is filled with material bounties from God, that all good and beautiful things are manifestations of His attributes and that to possess them is not attachment. However, the things of this world are all transitory and man should not fix his affection upon them, nor allow himself to be possessed by them.
2. Attachment to the next world and all that is destined for man in the life hereafter.
To understand the significance of the second barrier let us remember that the purpose of life is to know and worship God. This, therefore, is the purpose of creation. Man's deeds are praiseworthy in the sight of God when they are performed solely for His love and for no other reason. If man's motive for his actions is that he may reap a reward for himself in the next world, then this is attachment. To be detached means to do everything for the sake of God and to seek no recompense.
What a contrast between this attitude and that prevailing in human society at the present time, where almost every action is designed to bring forth rewards for the individual. The attitude of expediency and self-interest has so conditioned the mind of man today that even in spiritual matters such as faith and belief in God, man often looks for something that will primarily satisfy his own needs. Many people today join one religion or another in the hope of receiving some spiritual help or other benefit such as peace of mind or salvation. This is not the right motive for following a religion. For the story of every religion is written with the language of love. A true lover has no ulterior motives or self-interest, but only a passionate love for his beloved.
“He who seeks reward for his deeds will be given the Garden of Paradise; and he who seeks God is in no need of paradise.”
3. Attachment to the 'Kingdom of Names'.
God in His own essence is exalted above attributes. However, in all His dominions and within each of His worlds, both spiritual and physical, He reveals the kingdom of His attributes. Every created thing manifests the names and attributes of God. In the human world, these attributes appear within the 'Kingdom of Names' and man often becomes attached to these names.
In this world every one of God's attributes is clad with a name, and every such name reveals the characteristics of its attribute. For instance, generosity is an attribute of God, and it manifests itself in human beings. However, a person who has this attribute often becomes proud of it and loves to be referred to as generous. When his generosity is acknowledged by other people, he becomes happy, and when it is ignored, unhappy. This is one form of attachment to the Kingdom of Names. Although this example concerns the name 'generosity', the same is true of all the names and attributes of God manifested within the individual. Usually, man ascribes these attributes to his own person rather than to God and employs them to exalt his own ego. For instance, a learned man uses the attribute of knowledge to become famous and feels gratified and uplifted when his name is publicized far and wide. Or there is the individual whose heart leaps with feelings of pride and satisfaction when he hears his name mentioned and finds himself admired. These are examples of attachment to the Kingdom of Names.
Human society at present exerts a pernicious influence upon the soul of man. Instead of allowing him to live a life of service and sacrifice, it teaches him to pride himself on his accomplishments. From early childhood he is trained to develop his ego and to seek to exalt himself above others. His ultimate aim is to achieve self-importance, success and power.
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh aims to reverse this process. The soul of man needs to be adorned with the virtues of humility and self-effacement so that it may become detached from the Kingdom of Names.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Happiness is the quality of our soul
For a few days, I can’t get my mind away from this “happiness” business. After tried to comb through my life and listed out what really makes me happy and my heart singing, I come to the conclusion (at least to me) that happiness is a quality of my soul and anything that will increase the capacities of my soul will make me happy. It is almost like that happiness is an indicator of the state of my soul. If the needs of my soul are satisfied, I am happy. Otherwise I will feel the void in my heart and become increasingly restless and unhappy. Just as physical pain is a sign that something is wrong with my body, unhappiness (we may call it spiritual pain) is a sign that something is wrong with my soul.
Then what are the needs of our soul?
We have discussed this in a previous blog that there are three fundamental capacities of our soul that need to be developed and must be developed in order to achieve inner happiness (contentment):
1.The knowing capacity: our intellect, rational thoughts. It is through this capacity we are able to discover the mysteries of the universe and our self. With the help of this capacity, we are able to discern the truth. Ultimately, the truth we are enabled to know is the truth about God, which is equivalent to the truth about ourselves (remember that we are made in the image of God and able to reflect all the attributes of God).
“Supreme happiness is man’s, and he beholds the signs of God in the world and in the human soul.”
2.The loving capacity: our feelings, our emotions and our desires. Perhaps, nothing has brought human hearts as much happiness as love has done. Love is a relationship that brings happiness to both lover and the beloved. And ultimately all love comes from God. The whole universe exists because the love of God.
“The greatest gift of man is universal love... It attracts realities and diffuses life with infinite joy.”
3. The willing capacity: our ability to take action. When we use this capacity to do what is good, when we know we are contributing to the good of the general society, it brings happiness and fulfillment to our heart. It is our deeds to define who we are, not our words after all.
“That which is truly spiritual must light the path to God, and must result in deeds.”
In conclusion, it is from our striving to know the truth, to love the beautiful and to do what is good, we derive our true and lasting happiness.
One more point, how do we differentiate what is material and what is spiritual? There is, in fact, distinctive and fundamental difference between the two: the material things, when shared, will diminish. So we are always in a position of competition for material things. On the contrary, the spiritual entity, when shared, will multiply (math doesn’t work here). For example, if I have a good idea, when share with you, we both have a good idea. So we will never be short of spiritual thing if we choose to share with each other. This will ultimately make every one happy. So the value of spiritual entity is universal.
Then what are the needs of our soul?
We have discussed this in a previous blog that there are three fundamental capacities of our soul that need to be developed and must be developed in order to achieve inner happiness (contentment):
1.The knowing capacity: our intellect, rational thoughts. It is through this capacity we are able to discover the mysteries of the universe and our self. With the help of this capacity, we are able to discern the truth. Ultimately, the truth we are enabled to know is the truth about God, which is equivalent to the truth about ourselves (remember that we are made in the image of God and able to reflect all the attributes of God).
“Supreme happiness is man’s, and he beholds the signs of God in the world and in the human soul.”
2.The loving capacity: our feelings, our emotions and our desires. Perhaps, nothing has brought human hearts as much happiness as love has done. Love is a relationship that brings happiness to both lover and the beloved. And ultimately all love comes from God. The whole universe exists because the love of God.
“The greatest gift of man is universal love... It attracts realities and diffuses life with infinite joy.”
3. The willing capacity: our ability to take action. When we use this capacity to do what is good, when we know we are contributing to the good of the general society, it brings happiness and fulfillment to our heart. It is our deeds to define who we are, not our words after all.
“That which is truly spiritual must light the path to God, and must result in deeds.”
In conclusion, it is from our striving to know the truth, to love the beautiful and to do what is good, we derive our true and lasting happiness.
One more point, how do we differentiate what is material and what is spiritual? There is, in fact, distinctive and fundamental difference between the two: the material things, when shared, will diminish. So we are always in a position of competition for material things. On the contrary, the spiritual entity, when shared, will multiply (math doesn’t work here). For example, if I have a good idea, when share with you, we both have a good idea. So we will never be short of spiritual thing if we choose to share with each other. This will ultimately make every one happy. So the value of spiritual entity is universal.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
What makes you happy?
Yesterday, we read the article (Is Happy Catching?) in which we learned: “that good behaviors — like quitting smoking or staying slender or being happy — pass from friend to friend almost as if they were contagious viruses…And the same was true of bad behaviors — clusters of friends appeared to “infect” each other with obesity, unhappiness and smoking.”
So according to this finding, our own happiness or unhappiness is no longer our own private business. Knowing or not, willing or not, we are spreading our own mood around not only to our family members, but also to our friends, our friends of friends…It’s almost like that we are contributing to a reservoir of happiness/unhappiness of our society, and in turn the net of this reservoir will have impact on each of us. Living really is a serious business.
It is in this context, I found this article published a few years ago of research results by some psychologists that what really makes people happy:
The science of happiness
One of studies showed that the following eight steps that makes one's life more satisfactory:
1. Count your blessings;
2. Practice acts of kindness;
3. Savor life’s joys: pay close attention to momentary pleasures and wonder;
4. Thank a mentor;
5. Learn to forgive;
6. Invest time and energy in friends and family;
7. Take care of your body;
8. Develop strategies for coping with stress and hardships;
To identify what really makes us happy could help us to deliberately do those things more frequently so that we will stay in happy mood more often and in turn we help people around us living a happier life. Just like Fowler, one of the researchers in "Is Happy Catching?" said that their work had inspired him to listen to upbeat music before he arrives home from work so he will be in a good mood when he greets his family. “I try to get myself in a mental space where I’ll be happy,” he says. “Because I know that I’m not just having an impact on my son, I’m potentially having an impact on my son’s best friend’s mother.”
If you don't mind, you may like to share with us what makes you happy so we may learn from each other.
So according to this finding, our own happiness or unhappiness is no longer our own private business. Knowing or not, willing or not, we are spreading our own mood around not only to our family members, but also to our friends, our friends of friends…It’s almost like that we are contributing to a reservoir of happiness/unhappiness of our society, and in turn the net of this reservoir will have impact on each of us. Living really is a serious business.
It is in this context, I found this article published a few years ago of research results by some psychologists that what really makes people happy:
The science of happiness
One of studies showed that the following eight steps that makes one's life more satisfactory:
1. Count your blessings;
2. Practice acts of kindness;
3. Savor life’s joys: pay close attention to momentary pleasures and wonder;
4. Thank a mentor;
5. Learn to forgive;
6. Invest time and energy in friends and family;
7. Take care of your body;
8. Develop strategies for coping with stress and hardships;
To identify what really makes us happy could help us to deliberately do those things more frequently so that we will stay in happy mood more often and in turn we help people around us living a happier life. Just like Fowler, one of the researchers in "Is Happy Catching?" said that their work had inspired him to listen to upbeat music before he arrives home from work so he will be in a good mood when he greets his family. “I try to get myself in a mental space where I’ll be happy,” he says. “Because I know that I’m not just having an impact on my son, I’m potentially having an impact on my son’s best friend’s mother.”
If you don't mind, you may like to share with us what makes you happy so we may learn from each other.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
The health of human mind
Let’s look at this question first: what is human and human mind?
It is understandable that there may be many diverse definitions of human beings. After all, one of the definitions of human is that human being is the only creatures whose potentials can not be defined. One notable viewpoint nowadays in part of the world is the materialistic philosophy. That is, there is only one kind of thing in the universe -- matter. And everything else is but a byproduct of the interaction of maters. Thus, human being is equivalent to his body which in turn produced human mind. So according this point of view, if our mind is sick, it must be something wrong with our body. Popping a pill, everything will be cured.
It was in addressing the above monist point of view, ‘Abdu’l-Baha in his letter to Auguste Forel in 1921 proposed a different model of human being. ‘Abdu’l-Baha first pointed out that there are certain phenomena in the world which can only be known relationally.
In order to understand this model, let’s first look at two examples (these examples are not from ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s Tablet). The first example of the relational phenomena is the relationship between pianist and piano. If pianist does not associate himself with a piano, nothing happens. But once the pianist put his hands on a piano (association) and play, a music is produced. Moreover, the quality of the music depends on both the skill of the pianist and the quality of the piano. Another example is the light. We know that light makes physical objects visible. Without light, the world is dark. But seldom do we realize consciously that without physical objects, the world is dark as well even if there is presence of light. It is said that a physicist Arthur Dijon did an experiment on the nature of light: he wants to know how does light look like when it is entirely left to itself? He constructed a box in which there is nothing to reflect light. Then he shone a ray of light into the box. He saw nothing but the blackness of an empty space. The darkness of space exists because there are not sufficient objects against which light can be projected.
Similarly, human being owes its existence to an interrelationship that produces a third phenomenon: when the soul of a human being is associated with a human body, it produces human mind (a relational phenomenon). The properties of human soul can only be known in this physical world through the instrument of human mind. Just as a mirror provides a vehicle to witness the present of light, human body provides the vehicle for the expression of the light of our soul. Whatever the mind imagines, desires, works for, or pursues is the expression of the interplay between the body and the soul. Our mind is a tightly woven fabric in which our soul and our body are inseparable from one another in this physical world.
So, according to this model of human being, the health of our mind is depending on both the health of our body and the health of our soul. Just as our body possesses certain capacities that can be and need to be developed, our soul possesses certain inherent capacities that can be and need to be developed.
It is believed that there are three fundamental capacities (powers) for a human soul, that is:
1. The power to know: the intellect or the capacity for conscious, rational thought;
2. The power to love: the capacity to experience feelings, emotions, desires and longings.
3. The power to will: the capacity to choose, to decide, to initiate and sustain an action.
These three capacities are inseparable from the human soul in the same way that heat and light are inseparable from the sun. At no time a human being is not knowing, not loving and not willing. The only difference is what we are knowing, what we are loving and what we are willing. This is a power that is the bounty of God never withdrawn from us. The refinement, cultivation and development of these three capacities are the goal of all moral striving. Just as there are bodily diseases, there are diseases of a soul as well. Each dimensions of our soul has requirements that must be satisfied. When this is done, all is well. But when it is not, the conditions of disease and disability of our soul begins to set in and will cross the body and the mind.
So when dealing with diseases, it is sometimes useful to look for the cause in the body, and sometimes useful to look for it in the pattern of emotions, thoughts and behaviors. These three powers are closely connected that change in one power will result in a change another.
Religious teachings have provided and will continue to provide means for the development of human souls. The chief goal of Baha’i Faith, as Shoghi Effendi said, “is the development of the individual and society, through the acquisition of spiritual virtues and powers. It is the soul of man that has first to be fed…”
The declining of the influence of the religious force on the individual and our society as is the case in current time, has caused imbalance in the development of our body and our soul, thus increase in the sickness of our mind and society. And when talking about the problems of our society, Shoghi Effendi stated: “Indeed, the chief reason for the evils now rampant in society is a lack of spirituality. The materialistic civilization of our age has so much absorbed the energy and interest of mankind, that people in general no longer feel the necessity of raising themselves above the forces and conditions of their daily material existence. There is not sufficient demand for things that we should call spiritual to differentiate them from the needs and requirements of our physical existence. The universal crisis affecting mankind is, therefore, essentially spiritual in its causes.”
And “How to attain spirituality is, indeed, a question to which every young man and woman must sooner or later try to find a satisfactory answer.”
It is understandable that there may be many diverse definitions of human beings. After all, one of the definitions of human is that human being is the only creatures whose potentials can not be defined. One notable viewpoint nowadays in part of the world is the materialistic philosophy. That is, there is only one kind of thing in the universe -- matter. And everything else is but a byproduct of the interaction of maters. Thus, human being is equivalent to his body which in turn produced human mind. So according this point of view, if our mind is sick, it must be something wrong with our body. Popping a pill, everything will be cured.
It was in addressing the above monist point of view, ‘Abdu’l-Baha in his letter to Auguste Forel in 1921 proposed a different model of human being. ‘Abdu’l-Baha first pointed out that there are certain phenomena in the world which can only be known relationally.
In order to understand this model, let’s first look at two examples (these examples are not from ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s Tablet). The first example of the relational phenomena is the relationship between pianist and piano. If pianist does not associate himself with a piano, nothing happens. But once the pianist put his hands on a piano (association) and play, a music is produced. Moreover, the quality of the music depends on both the skill of the pianist and the quality of the piano. Another example is the light. We know that light makes physical objects visible. Without light, the world is dark. But seldom do we realize consciously that without physical objects, the world is dark as well even if there is presence of light. It is said that a physicist Arthur Dijon did an experiment on the nature of light: he wants to know how does light look like when it is entirely left to itself? He constructed a box in which there is nothing to reflect light. Then he shone a ray of light into the box. He saw nothing but the blackness of an empty space. The darkness of space exists because there are not sufficient objects against which light can be projected.
Similarly, human being owes its existence to an interrelationship that produces a third phenomenon: when the soul of a human being is associated with a human body, it produces human mind (a relational phenomenon). The properties of human soul can only be known in this physical world through the instrument of human mind. Just as a mirror provides a vehicle to witness the present of light, human body provides the vehicle for the expression of the light of our soul. Whatever the mind imagines, desires, works for, or pursues is the expression of the interplay between the body and the soul. Our mind is a tightly woven fabric in which our soul and our body are inseparable from one another in this physical world.
So, according to this model of human being, the health of our mind is depending on both the health of our body and the health of our soul. Just as our body possesses certain capacities that can be and need to be developed, our soul possesses certain inherent capacities that can be and need to be developed.
It is believed that there are three fundamental capacities (powers) for a human soul, that is:
1. The power to know: the intellect or the capacity for conscious, rational thought;
2. The power to love: the capacity to experience feelings, emotions, desires and longings.
3. The power to will: the capacity to choose, to decide, to initiate and sustain an action.
These three capacities are inseparable from the human soul in the same way that heat and light are inseparable from the sun. At no time a human being is not knowing, not loving and not willing. The only difference is what we are knowing, what we are loving and what we are willing. This is a power that is the bounty of God never withdrawn from us. The refinement, cultivation and development of these three capacities are the goal of all moral striving. Just as there are bodily diseases, there are diseases of a soul as well. Each dimensions of our soul has requirements that must be satisfied. When this is done, all is well. But when it is not, the conditions of disease and disability of our soul begins to set in and will cross the body and the mind.
So when dealing with diseases, it is sometimes useful to look for the cause in the body, and sometimes useful to look for it in the pattern of emotions, thoughts and behaviors. These three powers are closely connected that change in one power will result in a change another.
Religious teachings have provided and will continue to provide means for the development of human souls. The chief goal of Baha’i Faith, as Shoghi Effendi said, “is the development of the individual and society, through the acquisition of spiritual virtues and powers. It is the soul of man that has first to be fed…”
The declining of the influence of the religious force on the individual and our society as is the case in current time, has caused imbalance in the development of our body and our soul, thus increase in the sickness of our mind and society. And when talking about the problems of our society, Shoghi Effendi stated: “Indeed, the chief reason for the evils now rampant in society is a lack of spirituality. The materialistic civilization of our age has so much absorbed the energy and interest of mankind, that people in general no longer feel the necessity of raising themselves above the forces and conditions of their daily material existence. There is not sufficient demand for things that we should call spiritual to differentiate them from the needs and requirements of our physical existence. The universal crisis affecting mankind is, therefore, essentially spiritual in its causes.”
And “How to attain spirituality is, indeed, a question to which every young man and woman must sooner or later try to find a satisfactory answer.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)