God is . . . our name for that which is greater than all and present in each. God is a symbol expressive of ultimate mystery, meaning and power, . . . .
Forrest Church, from a sermon preached at All Souls UU Church 6/5/05
I quote this just to clarify my use of “God” below. I use the term in the fuzziest possible way here–literally, if I knew what I was talking about–if I knew what I mean by “God”–I wouldn’t be writing this. (Interesting that greater clarity, in this case, implies greater fuzziness. Somehow that tickles me.) I use God and god interchangeably, partly to help readers, and myself, keep this fuzziness in mind.
One question that has to be faced when taking seriously the evolutionary origins of human beings (as I do) is, does any meaning of god, or for that matter soul or spirit, make sense in that context? With the growth and development of science in general, which progresses apace, God has certainly become less necessary and less efficacous as an explanatory principle regarding the origins and development of the physical universe and how things work. There remains a clear social role for religion and ideas of and about god (one can of course argue about whether that role is positive or negative, but that’s a question for another day)—but is there any remaining metaphysical role? Or perhaps a better question is, is there a reasonable metaphysics that includes a thoroughly scientific explanation of origins and functioning of the universe and also includes a role for God, spirit, soul, etc?
My problem is that though I am often drawn to what I see as the fruits of religion or spirituality in the lives of individuals I admire, I can’t pursue the path that got them there because I cannot buy the metaphysics of their belief system. It’s like I can’t join the path somewhere down the line, I need to start at the beginning. Without an adequate metaphysical understanding of god, I can’t take other roles of god seriously, and I have yet to see a metaphysical view of god that appeared adequate to me.
For instance, take process theology; there is much that I like about it, but the discontinuous nature of reality, including, as near as I can gather, time, which is basic to the metaphysics of process theology, doesn’t work for me. I sort of get the necessity for the conception of having everything broken into discrete bits—but it just doesn’t work for me. And since that’s at the root of process theology—I can’t latch onto it and go/grow with it. (And I have to say that another problem with it, for me, is that it presents a view of god as not particularly powerful. I reject the idea of god as absolutely powerful–I think absolutes get us into trouble–but there’s a certain “so what?”ness to the idea of a weak god.)
I could run down the line and similarly explain why other metaphysics don’t work for me–classical Christian, gnostic, deist, Buddhist, etc.–but that doesn’t get me any nearer to something that might work. Which is what I’m trying to muddle my way toward.
Metaphysics both does and doesn’t appear to be important to other people. Pretty much all large religions offer one, and it appears to matter to some people, even, for a minority, to matter a lot. But huge numbers seem to just accept their religion’s metaphysics pretty unthinkingly, with a sort of “well, that’s settled—now on to the important stuff” attitude. But so far I haven’t been able either to accept anyone’s metaphysics, or to accept the “good stuff” of a religion or spiritual viewpoint without having a satisfying metaphysics. So here I am.
I have the feeling that whatever I come up with will not work for anyone else in the entire world. My experience so far (and I’m pretty far along in life) is that my head works really differently from other people’s. However, if anyone does stumble across this blog and have something to say in response to any of my ramblings–it might jog my thinking in some new, unanticipated direction. And if no one reads any of it–or has no response–writing for at least imagined other people may focus my thinking a bit. So I will be, in future posts, sharing what I’ve come up with so far–which is mostly questions–about metaphysics.
Addofio 
What wonderful bait!!
So, another word for what you might be talking about is Truth. The question is, is there some all-inclusive Truth? If so, it would have to include science and metaphysics. It would have to withstand every conceivable experience of reality. It implies, also, that there is some orderedness and purpose to everything. Is there? Is there not?
As to what you come up with not working for anyone else, It’s unlikely that it would work for no one else. But it might be hard to find the one or two that could really understand it. They could exist anywhere.
I think this individual struggle for one’s inner relationship with All That Is represents one of the important tasks of living in our times. Maybe the most important.
It requires willingness to question whether any existing belief system has got the whole thing right, but to see that one can glean things from many. It requires sorting out social implications, personal experiences, scientific knowledge and a lot more because they can appear to be in conflict.
Truth would, in my mind, erase contradictions, if it could be understood. A thing could not be scientifically “true”, and yet contradict a personal experience. The conflict would indicate that Truth had not been reached and would just mean we needed to look longer and farther and deeper. if Truth were the universal goal, religions could not be opposed. They would simply accept the areas where they differed as areas about which we do not entirely understand the Truth.
Couldn’t resist commenting.
LikeLike
My approach to life’s big questions is dialectical. That is, I believe it is constructive to recognize the validity of two or more worldviews which stand in tension with one another.
My Christianity functions in that way for me. I accept the evidence for evolution. I recognize that some of the major findings of science create serious questions about Christian metaphysics. Nonetheless, I value the Christian worldview because it offers a critical perspective on capitalism, materialism, individualism, etc.
I do not take the fundamentalist approach of allowing scripture to trump all other truth claims; I believe that is a path to intellectual stagnation. I prefer to allow science and Christianity to compete in a sort of adversarial process, with each critiquing the other at key points.
I also know a little about Buddhism, which opens up another starkly different worldview. For example, I appreciate the Buddhist equanimity in the face of whatever happens in one’s life. But in other contexts, I appreciate Christianity’s emphasis on battling injustice: changing the world to make it more just.
The point, then, is not to subordinate one system to the other, or to reject one in favour of the other; but to allow competing worldviews to offer alternative potential ways of being. Wisdom arises in knowing in what situation to apply what worldview.
Reality ultimately doesn’t correspond to any of them, I suspect.
LikeLike
You said “My approach to life’s big questions is dialectical.” and “Reality ultimately doesn’t correspond to any of them, I suspect”. I would agree, mostly, except perhaps I’d call myself more “multi-lectical”, to coin a word. My most basic statement of my belief system is the Sharer’s Creed (check my sidebar if you’re interested in reading it.) However, believing that there are many paths to God or Truth is not, in and of itself, a path. So I’ve been muddling my way toward something I can affirm as my own.
There’s a lot to be said for finding one’s way within a tradition, as you are doing, and at times I envy people who find that possible. And I know that many of my own values and ways of thinking were shaped by the particular version of Christianity in which I was raised. I still feel some nostalgia for it, but it simply doesn’t work for me in the end. About 13 years ago I started reading rather eclectically, and it’s pretty clear to me that, while I find much of value in many sources–still, I will have to continue muddling along.
And I find it enormously valuable to the muddling process to engage in discussion with other people around the issues which concern me. (I’ve even found it helpful, in the short time I’ve been blogging, just to be clarifying my thoughts for an imagined audience.) Which is why I’ve appreciated your blog. Not only are y’all talking about issues with which I’m grappling, the discourse is courteous and respectful–no mean achievement, both deliberatlely eliciting discussion from people who disagree, and keeping the tone respectful.
LikeLike
[…] by addofio This post is an effort to move toward a metaphysics that works for me, as I discussed here. I haven’t made a lot of progress, though I have generated a number of questions, and […]
LikeLike