In his comment of one of the blogs I read regularly, the author says:
“I do not believe there is a One True and Only Infallible anything – and I’m including all organized, semi-organized and disorganized religions, voodoo cults, talk show hosts, diet plans and scientific theories. (I’m hoping I’m wrong about diet plans, but evidence hasn’t been encouraging so far).”
I was amazed. Not because I don’t agree because I do. But because it seems to me to be a view held by so few people. I know many people who have given up religious belief, and others who simply dismiss scientific findings like evolution or climate change because they do not mesh with their values. But religious believers whom I know don’t usually appreciate that “faith”, by definition, means that it is beyond proof. And scientific followers often think that facts are proven by evidence beyond dispute. But a study of the short history of science demonstrates that absolute “facts” supported at one time by science are no longer considered valid. Newton, for instance, thought that the entire universe ran like a huge totally determined mechanical clock, and that theoretically, at least, it is possible to know not only what has happened in the past but what is already determined to happen in the future. As little as a century and half ago, eminent scientists thought planet earth was less than 4,000 years old. They now think it is closer to 6 billion years old.
I used to think that people didn’t understand this reality of our inescapable human uncertainty because they were not intelligent or educated enough. I don’t think that anymore. Of course what ideas any of us have are in part dependent on the opportunities our culture might expose us to. But as I look at both myself and others, I think the ability to live in what I call mystery, but which might simply be called uncertainty, is determined more by one’s psychology.
Living in mystery or ultimate uncertainty doesn’t mean one doesn’t live by principle or values. But it does mean that I need to understand that I might be wrong. Especially I might be wrong in the way I am applying my values. An inability to tolerate dissent or disagreement is often a dead give away that I haven’t achieved that understanding. Even something that at first seems as simple as Love is subject to huge diversity in our beliefs in what it means. Should we beat the devil out of our children when they tell a lie or steal something, for instance? Or explain why telling the truth and respecting other people’s property is important? Is it immoral to save the life of the mother if it means losing the life of the unborn baby? What about war? Is there such a thing as a just war? And of course there is the consolation offered by many religious faiths that death is not the end of life, but instead teaches that we each will continue to live “in the next world,” and that our separation from loved ones is only temporary.
Actually, this might sound like a fairly academic discussion. But it’s not. If I’m sure I am right, I am more willing to force others to behave by what I believe are my unassailable moral positions. Throughout the late middle ages, the Roman Catholic Church felt justified in burning heretics to death, for centuries all western Christian persuasions justified slavery and racism as the will of God. Christians have engaged in centuries of warfare with other Christians with whom they disagreed, and today ISIS and other radical groups believe they have a God-given right to kill anyone who disagrees with them.
The world is convulsed with discrimination. Perhaps it has always been, but with population growth, globalization, increasingly destructive weaponry, and climate change, these attitudes of intolerance are becoming increasingly dangerous to the very survival of our species. In some ways, I think our biggest danger lies in our inability so often to live in the uncertainty and mystery intrinsic to the limitations of human consciousness.