Today the BBC reported that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, whose appointment ends soon, called the attacks by Jewish settlers in Hebron in the last several days a "pogrom," a word generally used to refer to the anti-Semitic treatment of Jews in Europe in and before World War II. Settlers are angry because the Israeli army forcibly evicted a few of them a couple days ago because they forged documents of ownership of the house, and the Israeli High Court ruled against them.
It is true that this act is a "pogrom," but it is incredibly hypocritical for Olmert to denounce it without taking measures against settlement growth. It is Olmert's policies which have broken the Oslo Accords and continued building settlements in the West Bank. If he gives them the prerogative to live there, stealing land from the Palestinians who previously lived in those houses and used that land, how is this different from the violent attacks occurring in Hebron in recent days?
The only difference is that the attacks are overtly violent, while the subtle stealing and take-over of the West Bank happen stealthily. What is really wrong with the attacks, as Olmert's thinking goes, is that they are bringing the world's attention to the problem and swaying public opinion toward innocent Palestinians, while the settlement growth is almost imperceptible and not worthy of much press.
This latest violence is nothing very unusual, unfortunately. Look at this UN report, which records almost as many settler attacks in the first half of 2008 as there were in all of 2007.
I hope that eventually--hopefully sometime soon--all people will be able to live in peace in the Middle East, regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion or gender. May we all recognize the seeds of war in ourselves, and live in more just ways with one another day by day.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Thursday, December 04, 2008
catching the bus
Last semester my finals week metaphor was the bike ride to campus--but this time of year it is WAY too cold here to bike. So I ride the shuttle bus that takes us from the student apartments to campus and back. This is great, except one has to actually catch the bus in order to use it, and in the late afternoon and evening the bus only comes once and hour, so if you miss it you're out of luck (or one's husband has to come pick one up and isn't very happy about this because he has to wake up one's child from a nap...or wait an extra hour for one to come home! Not that this has ever happened to anyone WE know...).
Anyway, so my metaphor for this finals week is "catching the bus."
The last couple days I've found myself realizing just a little too late that it's almost time for the shuttle, and I'm 5-6 blocks away and still have to pack up my stuff. So I pack up and rush to the shuttle, wearing shoes that are fairly comfortable except when I'm walking fast and they rub against my heels, and about a block and a half away I say to myself, "Cherice, you're going to make it. Just keep on goin fast, it's worth the blisters on your heels!"
I'm not really sure if it IS worth the blisters on my heels, but...at least in its metaphorical sense it probably is worth the blisters on the heels of life that this week causes.
As far as finals weeks go this one isn't completely bad, it's just that I have to write a paper that I hope to use for grad school applications so that makes it seem even more daunting. I just have to keep telling myself, "You're almost there!" I may lose some sleep, I may stress a bit, I may not have as much time with my family as I'd like--but it's worth those blisters, right? They'll go away soon.
Or maybe I should try paying a little more attention and not waiting until the last minute. Yeah, I said that last semester, too. I don't think it's possible. I've been working on this all semester! (And watching TV and movies and hanging out with friends and reading a few novels...but one can't work ALL the time, right?!)
Anyway, here's hoping I catch the bus. Only a week and two days to go!
Anyway, so my metaphor for this finals week is "catching the bus."
The last couple days I've found myself realizing just a little too late that it's almost time for the shuttle, and I'm 5-6 blocks away and still have to pack up my stuff. So I pack up and rush to the shuttle, wearing shoes that are fairly comfortable except when I'm walking fast and they rub against my heels, and about a block and a half away I say to myself, "Cherice, you're going to make it. Just keep on goin fast, it's worth the blisters on your heels!"
I'm not really sure if it IS worth the blisters on my heels, but...at least in its metaphorical sense it probably is worth the blisters on the heels of life that this week causes.
As far as finals weeks go this one isn't completely bad, it's just that I have to write a paper that I hope to use for grad school applications so that makes it seem even more daunting. I just have to keep telling myself, "You're almost there!" I may lose some sleep, I may stress a bit, I may not have as much time with my family as I'd like--but it's worth those blisters, right? They'll go away soon.
Or maybe I should try paying a little more attention and not waiting until the last minute. Yeah, I said that last semester, too. I don't think it's possible. I've been working on this all semester! (And watching TV and movies and hanging out with friends and reading a few novels...but one can't work ALL the time, right?!)
Anyway, here's hoping I catch the bus. Only a week and two days to go!
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
"good" & "evil": cultural construction or existential reality?
Here's an excerpt from the paper I'm working on--it's still a rough draft but it's what I'm thinking about. The current title of a paper is "Self-Transcendent Societies: Ideal Societies & Non-traditional Sources of Power, a case study of Gandhi's movement and implications for the Christian church."
Emile Durkheim states: “there are no false religions....all respond, if in different ways, to the given conditions of human existence” (Durkheim 4). Human beings create religions to address felt needs, because, as Thomas Hobbes puts it, apart from society, “the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes, Leviathan). Each individual's conception of “good” and “evil,” say Hobbes and Durkheim, really is generated out of our understanding of what is good for the self, rather than through objective truths (Hobbes; Durkheim 15-17). Apart from civil society individuals are in a state of perpetual war, each person against all others: each of us does what is best for ourselves in the moment and there is no authority who can state what is best for all (Hobbes). This is why, they posit, we form societies: to act as that overarching authority mediating between various individuals' conceptions of what is “good.”
Human cultures almost universally conceive of life on two levels of existence: present reality as opposed to the dreamed-of ideal, or a physical versus a spiritual world. Durkheim suggests that these correspond, in human thought, to the individual and collective ability to discern what is “good" (Durkheim 18). We ascribe to the spiritual level our ideals and also the authority to enforce our ideals, which are carried out in the world through our society (including governing authorities), and perhaps somewhat separately on a spiritual level by gods or spiritual forces. Durkheim says these two levels are actually “an individual being...and a social being that represents within us the higher reality of the intellectual and moral order that we know through observation—by which I mean society” (Durkheim 18). We need this duality because it keeps us from either acting in a perfectly utilitarian manner with no thought for ourselves, or a completely selfish manner, because we are conscious of the collective need of humanity to live together, requiring some form of moral responsibility to one another.
In short, “truth,” “good,” “evil,” and all moral terms are social constructs that really mean “what is good for me/us.” As we extend alliances out further and further the pool of individuals included in our qualification of what is “good” increases. And yet, we form these societies in order to first ensure that our own needs are met, because others then have a moral responsibility to do what is “good” for ourselves (Hobbes).
Durkheim's theory is difficult to refute because one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god or force that defines “goodness,” “truth,” and in contrast, “evil.” Perhaps all we can say for certain is that the best way to envision “truth” and “the good” is as ethical action that ensures life for all people and the natural world, where no individual must worry about meeting their basic physical, emotional and spiritual needs. “Evil,” then, is unnecessary or pointless death. All things must die—this is part of life. But fearing death to the point that one places one's own needs or the needs of one's society (be it a family, clan, nation, race, or what have you) above the life of others has the effect of creating “evil” for another individual or group, and therefore is evil. Although I disagree with Durkheim that society is the source of all understanding of good and evil, perhaps we can agree that it is within society (in which I include the natural world) that good and evil find meaning. Apart from expression in reality, all things are “morally indifferent.” It is only when an action occurs in a specific context, using specific methods, that it it can be discerned whether it is “good” or “evil” (Aquinas, Summa Theologica I-II.1.3).
Even though I can make this compromise with Durkheim, my intuition tells me that perhaps there is something toward which all our visionary ideals point (We will not here discuss from whence “intuition” comes, although this is a worthy (and related), but will assume readers have a knowledge of this internal, inexplicable certainty.) Perhaps Plato is right about his Forms, and Tillich is right about his Ground of All Being, and Levinas is right about our responsibility to God in the face of the Other, and people of faith in all times and places are right in their yearning for something looking like what Christians call the Kingdom of God. Could it be that all these idealistic desires point to an essential Reality, a spiritual plane of self-transcendence where truth, justice and love coexist in interdependence and joy? This may not be a place per se, whether present, past or future, in this or another world. Perhaps this is a state of being, a living-in-relation to one another and to the Ultimate. Perhaps it is this state of being in which the individuals mentioned in the introduction lived, an interior knowledge of the Ultimate that orients their exterior lives toward existence in the ideal society here and now.
In my own life I have a deep sense of the reality of this Ultimate. It is an impression of Truth in the pit of my stomach, at the very core of who I am and the way I view the world. As I understand my Christian tradition, God is a God who is overwhelmingly for creation—not in the sense that God's purpose is to serve creation, but that God is on the side of creation, wants what is best for those individuals and things God created. In this sense, ultimate truth and good, then, are synonymous with what is best for individuals and the world. God is a Being with whom we can relate, and our relationship with this Ultimate has everything to do with our relations with one another. This is why societies are so important: they provide us a framework in which to relate to one another, a space in which we can all live as whole persons, attending to the truth and reminding one another of our responsibilities to each other through being grounded in Essential reality.
I believe we need one another not only for our basic needs of food and shelter, but because we remind one another of what it means to be human. We confront one another with the spiritual truths of trust, humility and love, as well as our own selfishness and fears. In an ideal society we would continually be humbled and lifted up by our interactions with one another and the Ultimate: humbled as we realize how much work we have yet to do, and lifted up by the fact that we are given the opportunity daily and moment-to-moment to act in truthful ways, and we can choose to do so.
This is not a rejection of the physical world in favor of a spiritual existence, divorced from the body. Instead it is a life of intention where we seek through our lived relationships to enact truth and love. We connect with others and the Ultimate “face to face,” as Levinas suggested, or spirit to spirit—not only in theory but also in reality. This spirit connection reminds us of our responsibility for the Other, which can only be lived out in physical reality. This is not the Utilitarian ideal of the most good for the most people, but it is doing that which provides the most good for the individual standing before me, and the individuals around the world in the network of influence woven between us. It is this spiritual connection with the Other that provides our lives with meaning and encourages us to seek preservation of all life.
Emile Durkheim states: “there are no false religions....all respond, if in different ways, to the given conditions of human existence” (Durkheim 4). Human beings create religions to address felt needs, because, as Thomas Hobbes puts it, apart from society, “the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes, Leviathan). Each individual's conception of “good” and “evil,” say Hobbes and Durkheim, really is generated out of our understanding of what is good for the self, rather than through objective truths (Hobbes; Durkheim 15-17). Apart from civil society individuals are in a state of perpetual war, each person against all others: each of us does what is best for ourselves in the moment and there is no authority who can state what is best for all (Hobbes). This is why, they posit, we form societies: to act as that overarching authority mediating between various individuals' conceptions of what is “good.”
Human cultures almost universally conceive of life on two levels of existence: present reality as opposed to the dreamed-of ideal, or a physical versus a spiritual world. Durkheim suggests that these correspond, in human thought, to the individual and collective ability to discern what is “good" (Durkheim 18). We ascribe to the spiritual level our ideals and also the authority to enforce our ideals, which are carried out in the world through our society (including governing authorities), and perhaps somewhat separately on a spiritual level by gods or spiritual forces. Durkheim says these two levels are actually “an individual being...and a social being that represents within us the higher reality of the intellectual and moral order that we know through observation—by which I mean society” (Durkheim 18). We need this duality because it keeps us from either acting in a perfectly utilitarian manner with no thought for ourselves, or a completely selfish manner, because we are conscious of the collective need of humanity to live together, requiring some form of moral responsibility to one another.
In short, “truth,” “good,” “evil,” and all moral terms are social constructs that really mean “what is good for me/us.” As we extend alliances out further and further the pool of individuals included in our qualification of what is “good” increases. And yet, we form these societies in order to first ensure that our own needs are met, because others then have a moral responsibility to do what is “good” for ourselves (Hobbes).
Durkheim's theory is difficult to refute because one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god or force that defines “goodness,” “truth,” and in contrast, “evil.” Perhaps all we can say for certain is that the best way to envision “truth” and “the good” is as ethical action that ensures life for all people and the natural world, where no individual must worry about meeting their basic physical, emotional and spiritual needs. “Evil,” then, is unnecessary or pointless death. All things must die—this is part of life. But fearing death to the point that one places one's own needs or the needs of one's society (be it a family, clan, nation, race, or what have you) above the life of others has the effect of creating “evil” for another individual or group, and therefore is evil. Although I disagree with Durkheim that society is the source of all understanding of good and evil, perhaps we can agree that it is within society (in which I include the natural world) that good and evil find meaning. Apart from expression in reality, all things are “morally indifferent.” It is only when an action occurs in a specific context, using specific methods, that it it can be discerned whether it is “good” or “evil” (Aquinas, Summa Theologica I-II.1.3).
Even though I can make this compromise with Durkheim, my intuition tells me that perhaps there is something toward which all our visionary ideals point (We will not here discuss from whence “intuition” comes, although this is a worthy (and related), but will assume readers have a knowledge of this internal, inexplicable certainty.) Perhaps Plato is right about his Forms, and Tillich is right about his Ground of All Being, and Levinas is right about our responsibility to God in the face of the Other, and people of faith in all times and places are right in their yearning for something looking like what Christians call the Kingdom of God. Could it be that all these idealistic desires point to an essential Reality, a spiritual plane of self-transcendence where truth, justice and love coexist in interdependence and joy? This may not be a place per se, whether present, past or future, in this or another world. Perhaps this is a state of being, a living-in-relation to one another and to the Ultimate. Perhaps it is this state of being in which the individuals mentioned in the introduction lived, an interior knowledge of the Ultimate that orients their exterior lives toward existence in the ideal society here and now.
In my own life I have a deep sense of the reality of this Ultimate. It is an impression of Truth in the pit of my stomach, at the very core of who I am and the way I view the world. As I understand my Christian tradition, God is a God who is overwhelmingly for creation—not in the sense that God's purpose is to serve creation, but that God is on the side of creation, wants what is best for those individuals and things God created. In this sense, ultimate truth and good, then, are synonymous with what is best for individuals and the world. God is a Being with whom we can relate, and our relationship with this Ultimate has everything to do with our relations with one another. This is why societies are so important: they provide us a framework in which to relate to one another, a space in which we can all live as whole persons, attending to the truth and reminding one another of our responsibilities to each other through being grounded in Essential reality.
I believe we need one another not only for our basic needs of food and shelter, but because we remind one another of what it means to be human. We confront one another with the spiritual truths of trust, humility and love, as well as our own selfishness and fears. In an ideal society we would continually be humbled and lifted up by our interactions with one another and the Ultimate: humbled as we realize how much work we have yet to do, and lifted up by the fact that we are given the opportunity daily and moment-to-moment to act in truthful ways, and we can choose to do so.
This is not a rejection of the physical world in favor of a spiritual existence, divorced from the body. Instead it is a life of intention where we seek through our lived relationships to enact truth and love. We connect with others and the Ultimate “face to face,” as Levinas suggested, or spirit to spirit—not only in theory but also in reality. This spirit connection reminds us of our responsibility for the Other, which can only be lived out in physical reality. This is not the Utilitarian ideal of the most good for the most people, but it is doing that which provides the most good for the individual standing before me, and the individuals around the world in the network of influence woven between us. It is this spiritual connection with the Other that provides our lives with meaning and encourages us to seek preservation of all life.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
read about joel's cpt experience
Well, finals are quickly approaching, as are the deadlines for PhD applications, so I probably won't be blogging much in the near future. I'll be writing a paper on Gandhi, studying for a German test, and working on the finishing touches of applications.
In the meantime, please take as an alternative blog (if you don't read it already) my husband Joel's blog. He'll be home in a couple days from Israel/Palestine with Christian Peacemaker Teams. He hasn't gotten to post much from there, but what he has posted so far has been his reflections on the situation. It's crazy how much one can learn in two weeks. And it's amazing how being in a place and actually seeing what it is like can deepen your perspective so much more. He's heard me talk about the situation there, he's heard other people, he's read stuff, he's been relatively informed (compared to most Americans)--and yet, to see it with his own eyes has opened up the suffering and injustice in whole new ways. Go read his blog.
Soon he'll post pictures--because that's what his blog is usually for--so I'm sure that will enhance the information and help the rest of us see the situation through his eyes a bit more clearly.
At least remembering the situation there makes my own adversities (finals and PhD apps) seem much less difficult...but still, please hold me in the Light in the coming weeks as I work on this stuff. May God's will be done regarding further schooling, and may the paper I write be one that connects me more deeply with the Truth Gandhi (and so many others) worked to embody.
In the meantime, please take as an alternative blog (if you don't read it already) my husband Joel's blog. He'll be home in a couple days from Israel/Palestine with Christian Peacemaker Teams. He hasn't gotten to post much from there, but what he has posted so far has been his reflections on the situation. It's crazy how much one can learn in two weeks. And it's amazing how being in a place and actually seeing what it is like can deepen your perspective so much more. He's heard me talk about the situation there, he's heard other people, he's read stuff, he's been relatively informed (compared to most Americans)--and yet, to see it with his own eyes has opened up the suffering and injustice in whole new ways. Go read his blog.
Soon he'll post pictures--because that's what his blog is usually for--so I'm sure that will enhance the information and help the rest of us see the situation through his eyes a bit more clearly.
At least remembering the situation there makes my own adversities (finals and PhD apps) seem much less difficult...but still, please hold me in the Light in the coming weeks as I work on this stuff. May God's will be done regarding further schooling, and may the paper I write be one that connects me more deeply with the Truth Gandhi (and so many others) worked to embody.
Friday, November 28, 2008
thanksgiving & india
Yesterday was a great day for me and my family--my mom is here, we went to some friends' house for a fun meal, and we Skyped with some family back home.
At the same time, it's hard to imagine all of us Americans going about our happy, thankful lives while Mumbai, India was at a standstill yesterday due to terrorist attacks. I'm totally guilty of not paying attention to this much--I heard about what was going on but didn't check into it, and someone at our meal yesterday brought it up and told me a little more about the situation.
It's amazing how one can get so caught up in making food, caring for a child, doing the things that need to be done--and ignore the pain of others. We expected the whole world to stop and mourn with us on September 11, but we rarely do the same for others.
At the same time, how do we live if not in this way? How do we "mourn with those who mourn" unless we're professional mourners, doing nothing else?
I'm grateful for a world in which good things happen, sometimes seemingly against all odds. I'm grateful for a world in which it's it's a daily challenge to remember the "other" and not just "my own," and I hope and pray each day I live more fully this way.
At the same time, it's hard to imagine all of us Americans going about our happy, thankful lives while Mumbai, India was at a standstill yesterday due to terrorist attacks. I'm totally guilty of not paying attention to this much--I heard about what was going on but didn't check into it, and someone at our meal yesterday brought it up and told me a little more about the situation.
It's amazing how one can get so caught up in making food, caring for a child, doing the things that need to be done--and ignore the pain of others. We expected the whole world to stop and mourn with us on September 11, but we rarely do the same for others.
At the same time, how do we live if not in this way? How do we "mourn with those who mourn" unless we're professional mourners, doing nothing else?
I'm grateful for a world in which good things happen, sometimes seemingly against all odds. I'm grateful for a world in which it's it's a daily challenge to remember the "other" and not just "my own," and I hope and pray each day I live more fully this way.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
"dressing for recession"
I was listening to NPR today and heard this radio essay entitled "Dressing for Recession." Click on this link (or copy and paste it--I can't get the link to work for some reason) to read the full text or listen to it. (It's only 3 minutes long.)http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97524972
It's about a stay-at-home dad (which in itself is a story worth repeating! Yay for stay-at-home dads, like my dad and my husband and some of our wonderful friends!!!) who goes to thrift stores and finds adult clothes to make into clothes for his daughter. It's pretty cool that he's able/willing to go to all that trouble! The picture at the beginning of this post is of his daughter in an outfit he made her. I'm impressed!
At the same time, I'm kind of flabbergasted by his expressions of embarrassment at having to shop at thrift stores, and his description of the "disposable generation" in which he grew up. Does it really take something like this "economic downturn" to get Americans to think about not throwing everything away? Does it really have to embarrass us to shop at thrift stores or to reuse other things?
To me, I think it should embarrass us that we would be willing to spend "$40 for the latest Janie and Jack dress or $30 for something from the Gap or Gymboree" for a child who will outgrow it in a year or less. Why would one spend that kind of money in the first place??? We (my husband and I) almost always shop at thrift stores--perhaps it's just that our family has always been in an "economic downturn" ever since we both graduated from high school and had to buy all our own stuff...but still, it's a matter of pride to find the cheapest, coolest stuff at a thrift store and a matter of embarrassment to pay over $20 for any article of clothing, and that only once in a blue moon (how often is that, by the way?).
I'm glad we have this situation in some ways--so that middle class Americans have to start thinking outside of the "disposable generation." But of course for people who were struggling to make ends meet anyway, who didn't have the luxury of spending $30-40 on children's clothes, what of them? What if they've been spending $1.50 on their kids' outfits all the time, and now can't afford food? And what about the fact that our ever-disposable lifestyle has for decades caused those around the world to not have enough, when for us "there's always more?"
Is this "economic downturn" going to have the effect on this generation that the Great Depression had on my great-grandparents' generation? Are we willing, and do we have the stamina we need, to scrimp and save and do without? Or are we going to continue printing ourselves $800 billion more until it becomes as useless as Monopoly money?
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
what is "rational"?
Have I written a post by this name before? I don't know, but it's something I've been thinking about for a long time now. What counts as rational and how do we know it?
Generally what counts as rational is something that is objective, meaning it can be studied from a distance, without the use of emotions, and it can be explained using the language of the natural world. In scientific studies, a study is rational and objective if it is studied by someone not involved in the situation, can be replicated, and does not make interpretive claims. It just studies the way things are. When it moves into interpretation this can bed one rationally but also involves a fair amount of guessing and putting pieces together, and may require further research in order to fill in these gaps.
This is good in that it helps us separate out one piece from another, to study each piece well, and to not be confused by our own part in the process (supposedly).
Unfortunately, this rules out a lot of experiences that are not able to be proven as "rational." One cannot tell another person their experience did not occur, but one can question the reasons for it, or the sanity of the person who experienced it, or whether that person is interpreting the situation to fit their own beliefs rather than through sound research.
But what if there are things that can't be studied in a laboratory? Things happen to us every day that don't happen in a lab. No one will tell us that just because it wasn't studied it didn't happen. The problem is that those things which happen in real life might not happen if one was in a laboratory at that moment. And things happen that may not happen again even if one was in a lab. Surprising although not impossible things happen all the time, like someone shooting a basketball backwards over their head from 3/4 court and it goes in, when they may try this again and again and it would never happen to them.
And then there are religious and emotional experiences. One can study in a lab where these experiences occur within the brain, but one cannot study from whence they come, if they are "valid," or when they come. One can't really study what kind of effect they have on the person. These experiences are not able to be replicated. One can't say, "OK, now I'm going to have a religious experience," and expect the Spirit to show up in exactly the same way as last time one tried the test.
So there's no way to prove whether emotional or spiritual experiences are "rational." They are not objective, in that they happen to each of us differently, at different times and for different reasons. We cannot will them to happen, or manipulate them. We can manipulate ourselves to have an emotional response, but not the same one we had before. One can become centered and that can be studied, but one can't know for sure that God's going to show up in a powerful way we can understand while one's brain is being scanned, any more than one can tell if God will show up on a Sunday morning or a Tuesday night or when one is sleeping or when one is driving or when one is picking one's nose.
In a sense, these experiences are not "rational" because of the definition of rational that has been agreed upon--but the problem is whether or not these are valid and important forms of knowledge. If we only accept "rational" knowledge as valid, experience of other forms doesn't count. It can't be studied, manipulated or replicated, and I think this is what scares us about it.
Also, we have to be careful when talking about "rational" knowledge that we don't forget that no matter how much people want their scientific observations to be "objective," for their own views and experiences to play no part in the study, this just can't be so. Viewing and recording scientific studies is another form of "experience," one that requires selection of data to notice and record, and one that requires interpretation as one sets up the experiment and "interprets" the data. So even objective scientific studies can't really be termed "rational." This is shown to be the case in studies where people look at light to see if it's a wave or a particle, and they see whichever one they expected it to be.
But if nothing is rational, how do we know anything? If everything is valid knowledge, why is it necessary to discern truth? Is there something there, something that we're seeking when we try to do rational, objective studies? Is there something there, something that we encounter through our emotions, dreams and spiritual experiences? How do we find that "something" if not through objective studies? How do we know it's real if we find it?
Generally what counts as rational is something that is objective, meaning it can be studied from a distance, without the use of emotions, and it can be explained using the language of the natural world. In scientific studies, a study is rational and objective if it is studied by someone not involved in the situation, can be replicated, and does not make interpretive claims. It just studies the way things are. When it moves into interpretation this can bed one rationally but also involves a fair amount of guessing and putting pieces together, and may require further research in order to fill in these gaps.
This is good in that it helps us separate out one piece from another, to study each piece well, and to not be confused by our own part in the process (supposedly).
Unfortunately, this rules out a lot of experiences that are not able to be proven as "rational." One cannot tell another person their experience did not occur, but one can question the reasons for it, or the sanity of the person who experienced it, or whether that person is interpreting the situation to fit their own beliefs rather than through sound research.
But what if there are things that can't be studied in a laboratory? Things happen to us every day that don't happen in a lab. No one will tell us that just because it wasn't studied it didn't happen. The problem is that those things which happen in real life might not happen if one was in a laboratory at that moment. And things happen that may not happen again even if one was in a lab. Surprising although not impossible things happen all the time, like someone shooting a basketball backwards over their head from 3/4 court and it goes in, when they may try this again and again and it would never happen to them.
And then there are religious and emotional experiences. One can study in a lab where these experiences occur within the brain, but one cannot study from whence they come, if they are "valid," or when they come. One can't really study what kind of effect they have on the person. These experiences are not able to be replicated. One can't say, "OK, now I'm going to have a religious experience," and expect the Spirit to show up in exactly the same way as last time one tried the test.
So there's no way to prove whether emotional or spiritual experiences are "rational." They are not objective, in that they happen to each of us differently, at different times and for different reasons. We cannot will them to happen, or manipulate them. We can manipulate ourselves to have an emotional response, but not the same one we had before. One can become centered and that can be studied, but one can't know for sure that God's going to show up in a powerful way we can understand while one's brain is being scanned, any more than one can tell if God will show up on a Sunday morning or a Tuesday night or when one is sleeping or when one is driving or when one is picking one's nose.
In a sense, these experiences are not "rational" because of the definition of rational that has been agreed upon--but the problem is whether or not these are valid and important forms of knowledge. If we only accept "rational" knowledge as valid, experience of other forms doesn't count. It can't be studied, manipulated or replicated, and I think this is what scares us about it.
Also, we have to be careful when talking about "rational" knowledge that we don't forget that no matter how much people want their scientific observations to be "objective," for their own views and experiences to play no part in the study, this just can't be so. Viewing and recording scientific studies is another form of "experience," one that requires selection of data to notice and record, and one that requires interpretation as one sets up the experiment and "interprets" the data. So even objective scientific studies can't really be termed "rational." This is shown to be the case in studies where people look at light to see if it's a wave or a particle, and they see whichever one they expected it to be.
But if nothing is rational, how do we know anything? If everything is valid knowledge, why is it necessary to discern truth? Is there something there, something that we're seeking when we try to do rational, objective studies? Is there something there, something that we encounter through our emotions, dreams and spiritual experiences? How do we find that "something" if not through objective studies? How do we know it's real if we find it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)