October 03, 2007

A God within our reach

Andrew Sullivan comments on Freeman Dyson's arguments on the connection of theology and biology in his post "A God Beyond Our Understanding". When Dyson suggest, "So our theology also reflects our possibly skewed view of the world", Sullivan concurs, "It has to, of course, because we have no other way of knowing God." But that's not quite true, because there are other ways of knowing God, ways presented by contemplatives and mystics, ways that culminate in unio mystica wherein God, even Godhead, is known directly. But even to common folk, God is known intimately through deep faith, not through theology, analytical thought or conceptual framing, however useful these prove in the theological approach.

So, yes, a God beyond our understanding, but within our reach, much more close than we dare confess, absent from nothing, immanent in everything, greater than anything - Silent, yet Obvious.

And by the way, Dyson has a good point on Dawkins and a "heretical" stand on climate change, as well as an interesting grasp of cultural evolution as the new driving force of change. See the whole article here.

Labels: ,

2 Comments:

Blogger Fishboy77 said...

Hi Hokai. It seems to me that there is already a pretty strong logical, scientific argument for certain religious notions, especially that of emptiness, non-duality, no-self, God, or whatever you want to call it. As far as I know, the results from every scientific investigation into the brain are consistent with the hypothesis that the brain functions in an entirely causal manner just like any other chunk of mass in the universe. Input goes in, gets processed, and leads to output. Ie there is absolutely zero evidence for a part of the brain where physical laws do not apply, where "free will" or a "permanent, independent self" can hang out. But if you ask scientists if they have free will (and I know this because I am one and have asked), they say yes without batting an eye. That is, they don't acknowledge the fact that free will is every bit as supernatural and contradictory to science as their perverted view of God. And then there is the simple experience of consciousness itself. I don't think you have to be enlightened to understand that sensations do not observe or control other sensations, and thus that the sense of separate observer/controller is illusory. A little bit of reflection into one's own consciousness reveals this truth using reason alone. Thus, it is strongly suggested that there is only one consciousness (ie God, Brahman, etc.) shared by all sentient beings and only the contents of that consciousness are mistaken for separate self. Are these not valid, logical arguments? In general I don't see them being made much. Otherwise perhaps Dawkins and the like wouldn't have such a following and Dan Dennett wouldn't be writing convoluted theories about free will.

6:58 AM  
Blogger Hokai said...

Hi, Lloyd. Yes, I agree with your points. Sadly, this important discussion is often guided by scientistic or fundamentalist agenda.

Godspeed,

Hokai

12:28 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home