Late Saturday night I found myself in a dream explaining in great detail what exactly I believe about heaven and hell and the possibility of an afterlife. This was an occurrence (even in a dream!) so unusual (I don't like to be pinned down and what I believe is constantly changing anyway) that the shock of it woke me up, and I was almost, but not quite, energized enough to get up and write it all down while it was fresh. I didn't do that, but I will try to reproduce some of it here, since I thought it was a better job than I'd ever done of it while I was awake and I wanted to record it for future reference.
As is evident from the synthesis of my blogs over the past 8 months or so, my belief set ranges from something approaching orthodoxy on some days to the downright heretical on others, and it would bother me more if my beliefs were constant than it does that they are constantly changing. But, of course, they have been pushing more in some directions than others over the past few years, and I am enjoying the leisure at this point in life to spend some time following through and chasing down some trails of spirituality and religion that others have walked before me. I doubt that I'm blazing any new trails, but do hope that my rambling will encourage others to ramble a little on their own as well. I think the only true heresy in this world is to be of a completely settled faith -- to stop questioning, learning and growing. That would be to be dead already!
One might think that it being Easter had a lot to do with my dream and the arguments I made in it, but I think it was the expected death of an elderly friend (she died on Easter Sunday) that actually precipitated the dream. In it, I was pinned down and made to explain whether I believed in heaven/hell and an afterlife, and there was no escaping putting my thoughts into words. So here, to the best of my memory, is what I said:
"Humans have always had a very difficult time talking about things that are spiritual, since we don't have very good vocabularies to do it. At the same time, I think we are in awe of the power of the spiritual realm, and that we use language not just ineffectively, but deliberately in attempts to put at arms length or play down the importance of the things we are discussing. Thus, we too often use "only" and "just" where they should not be; as in "only metaphor" or "just a myth." Actually, metaphor and myth are quite possibly the most powerful language we possess, and certainly best we have devised for talking about the realm of the spirit.
"That said, I believe that heaven and hell are metaphor and that the concept of afterlife is myth. AND, I believe absolutely in the thing, the concept, behind these terms. We have no other language to convey -- but, let me try anyway.
"I believe that the choices we make have meaning and consequence greater than anything we can conceive, not just for ourselves or even those close around us, but even for the universe as a whole.
"I also believe that we are each more a part of the universe, and of each other, than we fully understand. One of the first tasks of a baby, in order to function as a human in this world, is to distinguish between "myself" and "other." We are not born with than innate distinction of separate self. In fact, meditation helps to suppress the part of the brain where we have built up the 'separate-self sense,' which may explain why it can be such a spiritual experience. Perhaps we learn this sense a little too well -- I think in many ways the separate self is a dangerous illusion.
"Physically, the universe appears to be a closed system. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. We are the stuff of stardust--our molecules the remnants of ancient suns exploding into the vastness of space and converging here on Earth in just the right conditions to give rise to life as we know it; and 'remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.' Time too, we now know from Einstein, is a physical property of the universe, related to space and distance. I think eternity in the spiritual sense is perhaps more of a concept of outside of time-outside the constraints of the universe or perhaps encompassing time and space and the physical universe. I believe that what we call 'the spirit' that is in us is also part of this closed system of the universe, and is neither created or destroyed but changed again from one being to another in this complex web about which we understand so little. And perhaps "God" is the spiritual equivalent of eternity -- encompassing, or outside of and beyond...
"If we were only to say that our choices matter in ways that will continue to have repercussions after our death, the very wording seems to imply that they will matter to others after we die, but somehow we will be beyond caring or will have ceased to exist to care. But, this violates the idea of the universe as a closed spiritual system. Whatever it is that makes up me, that is my life's meaning, doesn't just go away when I die, however changed it may be. So, what matters now will still matter to my spirit--my self--as something that it deeply connected to all of life's/the universe's continuity. And, although my choices affect others as well as myself, the responsibility for my choices lies only with me. [That is, perhaps what matters in the spiritual sense is not so much the consequence (the physical element) as the responsibility.] I can think of no metaphor other than heaven/hell that actually captures this kind of awesome responsibility for our choices and the profound consequences (physical) and import (spiritual) of them for a universe in which there is no escape.
"In complexity science, one talks about the emergent properties of a system (such as the intricate patterns of sand dunes sculpted by wind, rain, and individual grains of sand; or the intricate dance of schools of fish). Emergent properties are properties of the whole of a system that are not in evidence in, or extensible from, any of the individual components that make up the system. In a sense, I think, one can consider life itself to be an emergent property of the right collection of complex organic molecules, water, and energy. And, perhaps consciousness is an emergent property of a highly complex brain. I wonder if it couldn't also be considered that God is an emergent property (THE emergent property, or the sum of the emergent properties) of the whole of the complex universe? Despite the seeming reductionism of this thought, I don't think it necessarily takes anything away from our concept of God. If everything we are -- our consciousness, our sense of self, our creativity and values and morals -- could be emergent properties of our complex individual lives and our societies together, how much more complex could be a God who is emergent from the whole of the great, almost infinitely complex universe? And if we have questioned and pondered for generations on whether we are the sum of our parts or whether we create ourselves through our learning, actions and choices, then how much more complex a question about whether God is creator of the universe, or the universe of God? Or, if that is ultimately even a meaningful question? As small individual components in that complex system, the one thing we do know is that we do not have--cannot have--the ability to fully grasp that whole, even though we are impacted by and live in the patterns that characterize it.
"Complex systems may have several different stable states, and often transition between them with only seemingly minor variations in the configuration of the components. Thus, the individual components of even vast systems can produce major changes that affect the whole. (One fish encounters an obstacle and begins swimming in a different direction -- suddenly the whole school is engaged in a new dance pattern!) Seen from this point of view, again, the consequences of individual choice on the universe could be considered to be vast, ongoing, and inescapable -- still under control of God; within the design of God--whose nature is the patterns that are the 'stable states,' but choices that are momentous nonetheless.
No comments:
Post a Comment