Reality, Human Conflict and God

The following is a preliminary concept paper that I’m considering expanding into a more comprehensive essay or maybe even a book.  Any thoughts or ideas you may have would be appreciated.

In past writings, I’ve touched on the concept of reality, posing the question as to whether an absolute or objective reality actually exists.  I suggested that all reality relevant to humans should, perhaps, be considered subjective reality.  That is to say that everything we humans perceive as reality need not be considered universal truths but simply personal truths.   While we may well find concurrence with others about certain beliefs, this approach would give us all latitude to accept the concept that others may have beliefs, realistically valid to them, that we do not share.  This understanding might free us from feeling threatened by the notion that beliefs of others necessarily imply constructs of some absolute universal reality. By absolute universal reality I mean a level of reality that exists independent of human existence.  If you think about this, regarding reality as a personal subjective construct rather than a universal absolute  could possibly avoid many of the confrontations that have plagued humans over the years.  Religion is probably the most obvious area where some of us have been hell bent on “showing others the light” and converting them to our own particular religious philosophy or lack thereof, i.e. atheism.  How much hate and conflict might have been avoided if we simply regard any religious philosophy as a component of one’s own subjective reality and not a universal truth that should apply to all??

While it may be quite possible to accept the concept of subjective reality in the context of thoughts, beliefs and ideas, it becomes significantly more problematic, although not impossible,  to apply this notion to the material universe.  After alI,  you could carry a brick into a room full of people and chances are everyone would agree that you are holding a brick.  Isn’t that brick a component of absolute reality?  Convincing that room full of people that the brick represents an aspect of the group’s collective subjective reality rather than an item of universal absolute reality would, on the surface, appear to be very difficult.  Although accepting such a challenge may appear rather bizarre at first, consider the following about some of the concepts that have long provided a foundation for orienting us in our vast environment of time and space.

 If you were able to peer deep into the submicroscopic structure of that brick, you would find it is composed of molecules of whatever material it is made of and, in turn the molecules consist of atoms.  Progressing down further in the scale of size you see that each atom is composed of a nucleus consisting of protons and neutrons with electrons forming a cloud encircling the nucleus.  Science tells us that these fundamental components of the atoms are composed of even smaller fundamental particles known as quarks.  Perspective at this submicroscopic scale reveals that more than 99.999% of each atom  is empty space.  Thus, our “solid” brick is really mostly empty space.  Furthermore, recent work in this, very strange quantum world of matter, suggests that there is no solid matter at all comprising the brick because closer inspection reveals that  the fundamental particles are, themselves, mere points representing fields of pure energy.  Thus, the implication is that the thing we call a brick from our perspective of the macro world, is not actually solid matter but rather a particular configuration of energy from a perspective at the submicroscopic level.

Perhaps, the appearance of what we perceive depends on the observer’s location in time and space and rather than there being a universal absolute reality. We could say that a personal level of absolute reality exists or is created by each individual which is dependent on his or her particular orientation in time and space. This is a rather long-winded way of saying that what you and I perceive as reality as we sit here on the surface of the earth might be entirely different if we were streaking through the cosmos close to the speed of light or were able to shrink ourselves down to submicroscopic size.  The strange tale of time relativity has been revealed by Albert Einstein and his theories of relativity. If the revelations coming from the theories of relativity and quantum physics aren’t enough to blow your mind, consider recent findings that suggest that the universe is flat, infinite and expanding. 

Comprehending that a singularity in the center of a black hole or elsewhere in the universe is dimensionless, of infinite mass and possess infinite gravity is equally challenging.  Theoretical physics also predicts the existence of other dimensions beyond the three spacial dimensions and time familiar to all of us, perhaps ten or more that are beyond our awareness and, indeed, other universes that are also beyond human perception.

If the above sounds unbelievable, it’s quite understandable.  However, there appears to be solid scientific evidence behind many such assertions.  Cosmologists also speak of creation of the universe arising from nothing and suggest that our universe might only be one of many universes in a composite multiverse.  It would seem that any common-sense compass that we might have had for orienting ourselves in reality is being blown away as scientific knowledge grows.  Maybe the only way to salvage any vestige of understanding reality is for us each to retreat from the concept of an universal absolute reality to the comfort of a subjective reality.  In this case,  we only need to include our personal perspective and  concern ourselves with reality as it appears to us and impacts our lives and the lives of others with whom we interact.  However, if we are content accepting this limitation and place in nature, we must also allow others to function with their own subjective realities and accept the notion that their reality is as valid for them as ours is for each of us.

Maintaining peace and order in a world where absolute reality is shunned for a collection of individuals each with personal subjective realities would depend, not only on universal tolerance, but also on eliminating arrogance and the psychological need for validation of one’s own ideas by coercing others to follow.  Finding adequate security and confidence in one’s own subjective reality might be too much to ask of the human species.

 The ultimate question for each of us in our quest for orientation in the grand scheme of existence may be whether a God concept exists as a key component of our own subjective reality.  If a concept of God, however you may define God, exists for you and helps in achieving your personal orientation with a sense of peace, love and empathy for others and well being for your place in the universe, then God does exist.  Anyone who claims categorically that God does not exist is not only narrow minded but also displays grossly unfounded  arrogance. In the final analysis, the inclusion of the concept of God in each person’s subjective reality is a choice he or she alone should be free to make and define.  This choice, along with what I believe to be the most important consequence of accepting the concept of God, the “Golden Rule” may be the key in achieving a satisfying orientation in our strange but incredible  realm of existence .