Stephen Hawking, Mensa and Intelligent Answers to Good Questions
Last night I attempted to introduce the idea of "Spinosa's God" to a MENSA group. I got my head torn off. Although these people are in the top 3% on the IQ scale, they are all over the map on the "emotional intelligence" scale, nor can one assume that they are widely informed outside of their various specialties, even though they tend to assume that. It is famously difficult to know what you don't know, but especially difficult for smart people. I call this the Donal Rumsfeld syndrome. But don't get me started ...
"Spinosa's God", defended by Einstein and the coincidentally recently deceased Stephen Hawking refers to the unexpected deep order in the Universe. This "God" is not a person behind the scenes, pulling the strings to punish the bad guys and reward the good guys. "He" is totally impersonal - another name for physical law, which turns out to be comprehensible by the human mind - mostly in terms of mathematics. It is important to understand that those who speak of this kind of "God" are speaking of their personal feeling of awe, not a fact "out there" in the world.
In our "conversation" (food fight) at MENSA, I reminded my friends of my time 40 years ago as a junior Minister and theological student. For them, this tarred me as a Scientologists or ISIS terrorists. It seemed to be impossible to get anyone to talk about what they believed or I believed to take a break from filling the room with "straw men". They competed with each other to rant about the stupidity of un-named individuals who were not there to defend themselves. Logically speaking, blaming all the evils of the world on people who believe in God is equivalent to blaming the same problems on people who are over 2 feet tall. For most of history, everyone believed in God.
So here, in a "note to myself" let me say a few things I would have loved to have on the table with the "top 3%".
For one thing, even in my most "religious" years (age 27 or so), I leaned toward the "Theology of Wonder", specifically that of G. K. Chesterton. That is about the experience of awe and humility inspired by the Universe - growing more compelling the more you learn about the Universe. As the Island of Knowledge grows, so does the shoreline of the unknown. At the time, I felt this compatible with a career in the professional clergy. I was also taken up with the language and mythology of the evangelicals, who stressed a "personal relationship with Jesus". To me, at the time, this meant bringing my personal affairs into line with what we imagined to be a personal, daily relationship with Jesus. My MENSA friends were not at all interested in the fact that education of the professional clergy is mainly about understanding the myth as myth. They imagined themselves as uniquely able to spot the logical inconsistencies in the "faith", which is an achievement akin to proving that Superman is not a real person and being proud of the insight.
In the long run (by my 30th birthday) I saw all this as a language - a way of talking about life in a way that admitted you to a certain social circle. It was a point along a very long journey from the time someone told me about God (age 5) to the present day (age 71). I can still speak the language and appreciate the worldview, but it's all very much in the rearview mirror. My MENSA friends showed no interest in what I believed now or how I viewed my old ideas: only in competing with each other to attack what they imagined other idiots (not named or present) must believe. It was MENSA at its worst.
As it happens, my journey has taken me back to the old neighborhood in the last year. I wrote about the dismaying hollowness of a modern Christian Service here. This was made all the more unsettling because the young Minister was exactly at the point that I would have been at her age (early 30's), attempting to force what she really meant into the procrustean bed of "Christian" language.
I was also reminded of Spinosa's God through my project to read everything Damasio has written, including "Looking for Spinosa".
The fact is that none of this interested my MENSA chums, who don't seem to read or think very much. The previous hour of discussion had been devoted to Game of Thrones and Zombie movies.
What was it that had dragged me back to reconsider issues that had been buried for 40 years? Looking closely, I think it was an emotional shock - a sudden realization that there is something absolutely real and important but previously caught only out of the corner of my eye. The "Theology of Wonder" came roaring back.
I tripped over it quite accidentally when I considered the "proto-life" era. I quite vividly imagined the impressive complexity of the first known life form and the yawning gap - perhaps permanently mysterious - between physics and the simplest form of life. Not really an original insight, right? But it bothered me. It kept me awake for hours. It stayed with me as a new, important feature of reality. It's a bit like the Big Bang. I have no direct knowledge of the Big Bang, nor does it have the slightest impact on my life. Yet it is profoundly important to my worldview - always in the background. This is something the hardened skeptic has problems grasping: that "spiritual" insight can come as much from the shocking realization of what you don't know as from what you suddenly do know.
This is not entirely unrelated to the long series of shocks that came in the last few years from my study of Zen. For example, I found that I had no idea what I meant by the word "self" or even the word "I". For me, at least, the "spiritual" attitude comes from "knowing" less and less about more an more - a fundamentally Zen concept. But I digress ...
Is it unreasonable for other, intelligent human beings to grasp these awesome mysteries and wrap them up into a feeling of humility and awe that is religious? Is it crazy to seek out a community that shares these feelings? Is it not the height of arrogance to assume that such people are reacting foolishly to not knowing answers to the ultimate questions? It is the conceit of the world-weary cynic to imagine that "religious" people think they have all the answers. It is not a fundamental error of logic to assume that although some religious proponents talk as if they have all the answers, that this is typical or even universal of the "type". These are errors that are shocking to find in a group that prides itself in exceptional intelligence. To many in that room investigate the wonders of the Universe by devouring and endlessly discussing Game of Thrones: leave the crazy speculation to the fools.
One particularly high-decibel genius defended the theory that the Universe is a simulation (the Matrix idea). He failed to see that this is logically equivalent to belief in God behind the scenes. The only difference is a modern "science fiction" gloss - something that a Scientologist would appreciate. "Believers" in the Matrix theory show exactly the unwillingness to discuss things like "proof" that we see in hardcore theists. The only difference is that the theists are also tarred with all the evils committed for thousands of years by people who believe in God. In my narrow experience, the Matrix idea is uniquely popular among people who are smart enough to be fooled by it. And people who watch too much TV.
These ultimate mysteries form a common ground for respectful dialogue between "religious" folks and the rest of us. There I also a broad common ground in our common acceptance of social justice - although the modern skeptic will loudly deny this has anything to do with our Christian traditions.
One "bumper sticker" sums up my personal "religion":
When it comes to profound ignorance on deeply important matters, there is no "us and them".
"Spinosa's God", defended by Einstein and the coincidentally recently deceased Stephen Hawking refers to the unexpected deep order in the Universe. This "God" is not a person behind the scenes, pulling the strings to punish the bad guys and reward the good guys. "He" is totally impersonal - another name for physical law, which turns out to be comprehensible by the human mind - mostly in terms of mathematics. It is important to understand that those who speak of this kind of "God" are speaking of their personal feeling of awe, not a fact "out there" in the world.
In our "conversation" (food fight) at MENSA, I reminded my friends of my time 40 years ago as a junior Minister and theological student. For them, this tarred me as a Scientologists or ISIS terrorists. It seemed to be impossible to get anyone to talk about what they believed or I believed to take a break from filling the room with "straw men". They competed with each other to rant about the stupidity of un-named individuals who were not there to defend themselves. Logically speaking, blaming all the evils of the world on people who believe in God is equivalent to blaming the same problems on people who are over 2 feet tall. For most of history, everyone believed in God.
So here, in a "note to myself" let me say a few things I would have loved to have on the table with the "top 3%".
For one thing, even in my most "religious" years (age 27 or so), I leaned toward the "Theology of Wonder", specifically that of G. K. Chesterton. That is about the experience of awe and humility inspired by the Universe - growing more compelling the more you learn about the Universe. As the Island of Knowledge grows, so does the shoreline of the unknown. At the time, I felt this compatible with a career in the professional clergy. I was also taken up with the language and mythology of the evangelicals, who stressed a "personal relationship with Jesus". To me, at the time, this meant bringing my personal affairs into line with what we imagined to be a personal, daily relationship with Jesus. My MENSA friends were not at all interested in the fact that education of the professional clergy is mainly about understanding the myth as myth. They imagined themselves as uniquely able to spot the logical inconsistencies in the "faith", which is an achievement akin to proving that Superman is not a real person and being proud of the insight.
In the long run (by my 30th birthday) I saw all this as a language - a way of talking about life in a way that admitted you to a certain social circle. It was a point along a very long journey from the time someone told me about God (age 5) to the present day (age 71). I can still speak the language and appreciate the worldview, but it's all very much in the rearview mirror. My MENSA friends showed no interest in what I believed now or how I viewed my old ideas: only in competing with each other to attack what they imagined other idiots (not named or present) must believe. It was MENSA at its worst.
As it happens, my journey has taken me back to the old neighborhood in the last year. I wrote about the dismaying hollowness of a modern Christian Service here. This was made all the more unsettling because the young Minister was exactly at the point that I would have been at her age (early 30's), attempting to force what she really meant into the procrustean bed of "Christian" language.
I was also reminded of Spinosa's God through my project to read everything Damasio has written, including "Looking for Spinosa".
The fact is that none of this interested my MENSA chums, who don't seem to read or think very much. The previous hour of discussion had been devoted to Game of Thrones and Zombie movies.
What was it that had dragged me back to reconsider issues that had been buried for 40 years? Looking closely, I think it was an emotional shock - a sudden realization that there is something absolutely real and important but previously caught only out of the corner of my eye. The "Theology of Wonder" came roaring back.
I tripped over it quite accidentally when I considered the "proto-life" era. I quite vividly imagined the impressive complexity of the first known life form and the yawning gap - perhaps permanently mysterious - between physics and the simplest form of life. Not really an original insight, right? But it bothered me. It kept me awake for hours. It stayed with me as a new, important feature of reality. It's a bit like the Big Bang. I have no direct knowledge of the Big Bang, nor does it have the slightest impact on my life. Yet it is profoundly important to my worldview - always in the background. This is something the hardened skeptic has problems grasping: that "spiritual" insight can come as much from the shocking realization of what you don't know as from what you suddenly do know.
This is not entirely unrelated to the long series of shocks that came in the last few years from my study of Zen. For example, I found that I had no idea what I meant by the word "self" or even the word "I". For me, at least, the "spiritual" attitude comes from "knowing" less and less about more an more - a fundamentally Zen concept. But I digress ...
Is it unreasonable for other, intelligent human beings to grasp these awesome mysteries and wrap them up into a feeling of humility and awe that is religious? Is it crazy to seek out a community that shares these feelings? Is it not the height of arrogance to assume that such people are reacting foolishly to not knowing answers to the ultimate questions? It is the conceit of the world-weary cynic to imagine that "religious" people think they have all the answers. It is not a fundamental error of logic to assume that although some religious proponents talk as if they have all the answers, that this is typical or even universal of the "type". These are errors that are shocking to find in a group that prides itself in exceptional intelligence. To many in that room investigate the wonders of the Universe by devouring and endlessly discussing Game of Thrones: leave the crazy speculation to the fools.
One particularly high-decibel genius defended the theory that the Universe is a simulation (the Matrix idea). He failed to see that this is logically equivalent to belief in God behind the scenes. The only difference is a modern "science fiction" gloss - something that a Scientologist would appreciate. "Believers" in the Matrix theory show exactly the unwillingness to discuss things like "proof" that we see in hardcore theists. The only difference is that the theists are also tarred with all the evils committed for thousands of years by people who believe in God. In my narrow experience, the Matrix idea is uniquely popular among people who are smart enough to be fooled by it. And people who watch too much TV.
These ultimate mysteries form a common ground for respectful dialogue between "religious" folks and the rest of us. There I also a broad common ground in our common acceptance of social justice - although the modern skeptic will loudly deny this has anything to do with our Christian traditions.
One "bumper sticker" sums up my personal "religion":
"Whatever this is, we're all in it together".
When it comes to profound ignorance on deeply important matters, there is no "us and them".
Comments
Post a Comment