Quantum Faith: Part II in Faith vs. Science vs. Religion

Defining Faith

Published on December 4, 2004 By TaBooTenente In Misc

Part I, Quantum Religion: Proof is in the Proof Link discussed aspects of new theory relating to the Creation vs. Evolution debate. Part II discusses the concept of faith.

Random House Webster's first definition of faith unfortunately reads as follows: "Confidence or trust in a person or thing."

Some faith is fatalistic and goes beyond sensual reality. Such a faith suggests that humans are incapable of recognizing truth, of understanding Divine Purpose, and of obtaining such value as to make us worthy of God's love. This faith is like closing your eyes, removing the protective bar, and standing in your least favorite roller coaster car, as if to say, "I am incapable of understanding my place. God must either protect me, take my life, or further some other purpose; in my soul I trust nothing but God."

Another faith is an unconscious, learned faith that most people develop after a few years toddling around on this planet. You learn faith in the solidity of the world, and faith in certain instant emotional responses to stimuli, which again reinforces faith in the solidity of the world.

The debate over this faith went like this: The philosopher David Hume developed an attack on consciousness and cause/effect. If you're shooting a game of pool, you see the cue strike the cue ball, which in turn strikes the eight ball, which in turn rolls smoothly over green felt into the corner pocket, where it stays instead of bouncing out and changing into a platypus with stringy tassles on its nipples itr is a mammal, it's not that far-fetched--though it lays eggs, sigh). One infers that it is your muscle and focus that swings the cue, and that force creates a momentum which through force vectors causes the cue ball to correctly strike the eight ball, forcing new movement along new vectors until the forces balance in the corner pocket, where the force of weight balances with the tension of the pocket. Since the eight ball remains an eight ball rather than changing into a platypus with stringy tassles swinging gracefully around its nipples (even though it would be a mammal and should have nipples), you infer that this is natural. The eight ball will remain in the pocket, and it will remain, prosaically, an eight ball.

David Hume said, "So?" He suggested that you were not witnessing cause/effect in these, and other similar, situations. First of all, even a googuilazillion such situations would not constitute every such situation. Second, your senses are suspect. It is not enough to believe what you see. In fact, when you do believe what you see, you make it that much harder to discover truth (should such a discovery be possible at all) because your belief controls what you see in the future.

A curiously related, but inverted theory, suggested by Bishop Berkeley, proposed that the world we see does not exist; the only existing reality is the turning of ideas in God's mind. And while Hume was more of a qualified agnostic, the theories are similar in the concept that our sensual so-called knowledge and our experiences are nothing more than shadows of a swiftly passing dream.

The satirist/ philospher Samuel Johnson supposedly became vexed with the argument and stepped out on to what he perceived to be solid earth, and kicked with some effort into what he believed to be a solid boulder, and experienced what he conceived to be a crap load of pain. Then he delivered his famous line: "Thus I refute Berkeley!"

Johnson, like most of us, have unconscious, automatic faith in this solidity, and the logical cause/effect of such experiences.

But I would propose there is another type of faith that exists, and might be achieved through a lifetime of often painful self-exploration.

Moments of reflection in a mirror, or staring at a photo of yourself taken decades ago often produces a sense of surreality. You have not left "reality", but certain assumed aspects of reality become suspended such as time and place. Can you remember the look in the eyes of that small boy in the photo? In the mirror, did you realize that this was the look you give to the world these days?

When you are about to become angry for whatever reason, have you ever recognized in that strange, timeless moment, that you have a choice to become angry or remain calm? Perhaps you feel the pumping of your heart. Perhaps you remember a thousand such instances where you took the passive path, decided against outward anger even though your anger was "justified". Then, when you finally give in and allow yourself to feel anger, the sweet "righteousness" of your anger hits you like a rush, and the anger becomes rage.

Why? In the first situation, something about confronting the passage of time creates discomfort. Is it fear of death? Is it a broken connection with an identity that, all along, you thought was yours?

Quantum physicians have seized on the concept of the Observer from relativity theory to explain the unexpected results of experiments testing certain subatomic particle hypotheses. Basically, these particles were widely believed, amongst the scientist community, at least, to contain the largest portion of the universe's mass, if not all of the mass (which leads to the idea that nothing actually exists anywhere but in the smallest fraction of the perceived whole).

Now these physicians are saying that these "particles" do not even have concrete mass.

Does this mean anything? Some people say no. Some people say that this proves the inadequacy of science to measure such particles, which may be imaginary anyway. But in general, science is leading toward the belief that these particles are only potential until the observer sets focus in their direction.

All of this I discussed in the previous article. The point here is how faith relates to the quantum concept:

--Faith in the supremacy and unfathomable nature of God would agree with this concept, if the Observer were interpreted as "God".

--Faith in the solidity of the universe would quiver a bit. It becomes to much of a hassle to determine whether or not the solidity of the universe creates this faith, or the faith creates the solidity. Why bother with this sort of debate?

--But the infinte, instantaneous moment of faith that blooms from the unsought epiphany marries itself, with hope and desire, to the quantum concept

This moment, the one you think you're in right now, is an acknowledgement of solidity. If you do not have faith in God, here, than the result is despair. The quantum concept says that there is no moment until whatever your true faith details for reality. It also implies a connection to "God", "Creator", "Force", or "Purpose".

And it also implies that your surface consciousness is a product of a deeper consciousness--both of which are parts of "you". We're not talking about ego, super ego, or ID. We're talking about the Observer. We're talking about faith in POTENTIAL.

Copyright ©2004, ©2005, ©2006 Joshua Suchman. All rights reserved.
Taboo's Ezine Navigator: Article Index
Taboo Tenente: A Thinker's MFA Journey - Home
The Phallic Suggestion
Stone Soup Blog Forum

Comments

stevendedalus

on Dec 13, 2004

This moment, the one you think you're in right now, is an acknowledgement of solidity. I think therefore I am[?] I am thinking of your words, therefore they exist, though I am not depressed and not in need of faith in a force that dictates I am not depressed in that which is out there--your soliloquy--other than a sense of the other.

TaBoo Tenente

on Dec 17, 2004

I'm trying to understand whether you're asking or commenting. The original quote suggests that you place yourself in the moment, acknowledge solidity, thereby creating solidity. It's a simple function of developing reason in children. We stress the importance of reason, of judgment between good and evil, right and wrong, true and false. The child develops faith in "real". At this point in his/her life, real takes concrete shape. Language and memory take root, become the definition of right.

You refer to a bunch of different philosophies in a couple of quick thoughts. You have Descartes' self-proving declaration, which is less about faith and more about sophistry; and you have Levinas' concept of the Other--a briliant concept I'd love to discuss. Help me out here: what are you suggesting?

TBT

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!