Our Changing Paradigms: Models of Reality as Sources of Conflict
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE APPEARS IN THE CURRENT JOURNAL
OF THE ROMANIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE:
OUR CHANGING PARADIGMS: Models of Reality as Sources
of Conflict
By Archbishop LAZAR (Puhalo), Retired
Orthodox Church in America
Reality at all levels and in every dimension is a
mystery. I will not suggest that the world which we
experience with our own sense is not reality;
nevertheless, what we perceive is the surface of
reality, which is penetrated only with great effort
over time. The more deeply we penetrate into this
perceived reality, the greater the mystery becomes.
It is my proposal to demonstrate that almost all the
apparent conflicts between science and faith arise
from models of reality and not from reality itself.
The resolution to such conflict may arise from a
re-examination of the models of reality we hold which
are based on obsolete information. The Church fathers
should perhaps be given credit for having the
integrity and intelligence to have restructured their
understanding of the history, geography and the nature
of the earth and the universe, if they had had access
to the technology and information which is at hand in
our century. The holy fathers were open to the
learning and experience of the world around them, and
utilised that learning themselves. There is every
reason to surmise that they would utilise our own
contemporary exploration and learning to reshape many
of their own models of reality. The reshaping of our
models of reality does not contravene our basic
dogmatic understandings about God as Creator and
Redeemer. In fact, the discoveries of the past century
only open us up to greater wonder at the beauty of the
universe, along with its fragility: this can open to
us also a greater appreciation of the presence of God
and His role in the sustenance of our universe. We
need not limit the role and plan of God by the
boundaries of our own finite understanding and wisdom,
but can open up our minds to the beauty, the vastness,
the fragility and the dimensionality of the universe,
as a way of increasing our faith and love-relationship
with God.
When we become rigid and frozen in our models of
reality, particularly when based in literalistic
understandings of Scripture and the non-dogmatic
statements of the holy fathers about science and
history, then we deprive ourselves of the reality
itself, and close ourselves off from a more full
discovery of God's presence, even though He is
"everywhere present and fills all things."
Modern physics and cosmology have become "superstar"
subjects. There is, however, an admirable and
dignified modesty among physicists who acknowledge
that they offer us only models of reality, rather than
reality itself. When Nils Bohr said that "the purpose
of science is not to know the essence of nature, but
to discover what can be known about nature," he
reminded us that science is a method of exploration,
not the final arbiter of facts and understanding.
Science is not an alternative to revelation.
This same dignified modesty is expressed in the
Orthodox Christian concept of apophatic theology.
Apophatic theology also acknowledges that doctrinal
and poetic formulations are secondary worlds, models.
They are more or less adequate in helping us give
words to and have concepts for our encounter with
ultimate reality. Since no one can know or comprehend
the essence of God, even the dogma of the Trinity must
be understood as a secondary world, a conceptual
framework of enormous importance and clarity that is
the best we can do in the framing of language for the
experience of the ineffable, but it is, nevertheless,
a model of reality. When we assume that we have a
concrete definition of the Divine, we step onto the
path of those who built the Tower of Babel. We will
examine later the problems created in Western
Scholastic theology when philosophical theologians
attempted to present such models as facts which are
legally definable, adequate and comprehensible by
reason.
In a similar context, physicist Werner Heisenberg says
of quantum physics that we have no framework for
correlating the mathematical symbols of it with the
concepts of our human language, nor can we
satisfactorily discuss atoms in normal language. The
evidence of reality upon which scientific exploration
builds models of reality can only be expressed
symbolically by a mathematical formalism, which might
be the closest one can come to expressing a metaphor
for the great mysteries that are encountered but not
resolved.
In order to better understand the essence of this
discussion, let us first explain the meaning of models
of reality. Perhaps the best way to do this is to look
at history's most famous clash between models of
realities.
In the year 1500, the general model of reality for our
universe was neat, tidy, dogmatic — and completely
wrong. It was generally acknowledged that the earth
was the centre of a harmonious system of concentric
circles. These circles, diaphanous crystal rings, were
delineated by the heavenly bodies that rotated in
perfect circles around the earth. The sun rotated
around the earth, as did everything in the universe.
There could be no essential change within the region
of the harmonious spheres. Earth did not move. Both
the greatest of the philosophers and Holy Scripture
agreed: Earth does not move, and the sun rises and
sets as it moves in a perfect circular orbit around
the earth.
This system was not thought to be a model of reality.
It was held to be reality itself — reality so concrete
that it could be a dogma of faith.
Then, however, an insignificant science-oriented monk
somewhere in north central Europe had the outrageous
temerity to offer a radical revision to this venerable
model. Not only is the earth not stationary, he
asserted, not only does it, like the other planets,
rotate around the sun, but their orbits are not
perfect circles.
Father Nicholas Copernicus had the good fortune to
live beyond the reach of the Inquisition, but his
writings were received with sufficient outrage, and
suppressed.
When, however, Galileo pointed his crude telescope
toward the heavens, the old model of reality about the
universe was doomed. Not only was Copernicus correct,
but his understanding of the new model was only
elementary. Indeed, he had only present or more
accurate models, but by no means a complete model.
The conflict that had arisen by the clash of these two
models of reality was enormous. It had already cost
the life of Giordano Bruno, and came close to claiming
the life of Galileo.
Let us carry our example a step further. Copernicus
and Galileo also gave us only models of reality. In
fact, the sun is not stationary either, nor is it at
the centre of the universe. It races through space at
an enormous speed, in one of the tentacles of a
massive spiral galaxy, which itself is hurtling
outward from some unknown point to some unknown
destination. This also is a model of reality which may
be added to and augmented by yet more discoveries.
This historical example demonstrates both the meaning
of "models of reality," and of my thesis that models
of reality, and not reality per se are the sources of
all the apparent conflicts between Christianity and
modern science.
How does the massive new information we have encounter
models of reality shaped by an antique understanding
of relevant sections of Holy Scripture? I would like
to invite you to think together with me about how we
might resolve the conflicts — sometimes bitter
conflicts — between the new information which forms
scientific models of reality, and models of reality
drawn from a simplistic reading of the Bible.
AN OUTLINE OF THE MAIN POINTS OF OUR CONSIDERATION
Metaphor is integral to language, and the language
of Scripture is rich in metaphor.There are serious problems and loss of meaning when
one literalises metaphor.All tribes and societies throughout history have
used stories to transmit their understanding of the
meaning of life. It is a singular curiosity of our
modern era that these stories are often presented, not
as landscapes of meaning, but as concrete fact,
history and science.Challenging models of reality formed by the
literalisation of metaphor and simple narratives is
inevitable, and sincerely believing persons need to be
clear about the language of meaning that constitute
the purpose of a story, and not become party to the
reduction of that story to history or science. We
should also be open to changes in our models of
reality.Testing models of reality with regards to
cosmology, the creation narrative and man's history:
a. Science: the scientific method.
b. Religious: consistency of meaning, rather than
concreteness of facts.
Theoria: a shared concept between physics and
Orthodox Christian theology.Science and Christianity: The challenge of living
harmoniously with one another.
Here, we are speaking of those subjects where science
and religion may overlap. There is a range of subjects
in which there is no such overlapping. For example,
science can say nothing about the Holy Trinity, the
Resurrection of Christ and the Ascension.
Metaphor and Simple Stories
Simple stories told for simple people are intended to
convey meaning. They are not concerned with scientific
facts or chronological accuracy. They will often
contain sophisticated psychology in narrative that
appears naive on the surface. Although the stories
appear simple, the meaning they convey may be complex
and surprising in its depth.
Metaphor, which is very rich in older languages,
conveys meaning by means of interlocking imagery. It
is not "concrete" language. It has a fluidity that can
convey textures of meaning which more concrete
language cannot. Metaphor also contains an internal
dissonance that warns one not to literalise it.
At the very least, literalising a simple narrative
story or a metaphor creates a false model of reality.
In relation to scripture and theology, when we
literalize a metaphor, we create an idolatry.
Let us look at the creation narrative in the book of
Genesis, for example. The details and processes of the
creation of the universe, our solar system and our
earth are extremely complex. Indeed these matters are
so complex and difficult to comprehend that the best
scientific minds in history with the finest technology
are only now unfolding the details, though with
difficulty.
Why would the scripture attempt to explain all this
vast complexity — so complex in many details that it
exceeds human language and requires mathematical
formulae to express it — to a wandering tribe of
Hebrews who were not yet literate? Instead the
narrative presents a simple story, but one filled with
meaning and revelation. Moses had to come down from
Sinai with the ten commandments; it would have been of
no value for him to have returned with the Periodic
Table of the Elements.
It is not surprising that ancient peoples formed a
model of reality based on a more or less concrete and
literal interpretation of the Genesis narrative; what
is astonishing is that anyone in the 20th and 21st
centuries would hold such a model of reality when it
is so clearly false. The first tragedy in this is that
it results in a loss of the actual meaning of the
story. The second tragedy is that such a disproved
model of reality sets up an unnecessary conflict
between religion and science, which undermines the
faith of many who desire to believe.
The creation narrative, from the beginning up to the
time of the holy prophets Sarah and Abraham, condenses
an enormous time and a vast prehistorical oral
tradition into a simple narrative. This entire
narrative is about meaning, not historical or
scientific detail. We must remember that we derive our
theology from meaning, not from supposed facts. Facts
do not constitute truth even when they are accurate,
only meaning can provide a basis of truth, and both
the meaning in scripture and the truth of that meaning
are revealed to us by the Holy Spirit.
"Truth" is founded on meaning, while models of reality
are based on supposed facts. More clearly, models of
reality are derived from a presupposition of the
accuracy of a given set of what appear, at least on
the surface, to be facts — really, suppositions which
have emerged in a given era of time.
For Orthodox Christians, spiritual and theological
truth is derived from meaning, illumined by grace.
Revelation, in the Christian sense, is also about
meaning: a way of integrating meaning into the events
in life. This too (understanding revelation) must be
illumined by divine grace. If there is, therefore, any
claim to immutable truth, it is a subject of spiritual
experience rather than rationalistic reflection on a
given set of surmised facts.1 models of reality, being
based on surmise and supposition about what are
presented as "facts" in a given era, are malleable and
subject to revision and change when some or all of the
bases of the information that informed these "facts"
are disproved or displaced by later discoveries and
newly emerging sets of information relating to the
same subject.
This is where the crisis arises for fundamentalism and
Scholastic based Western theology in general.
Fundamentalist interpretations of Scripture consist in
models of reality which are based on supposed facts,
with little comprehension of meaning. It is these
models of reality which many religious thinkers bring
into conflict with the models of reality generated by
physics and other fields of science and medicine.
AXIAL II
Karl Jaspars appears to have coined the _expression,
"axial period" to describe the great philosophical
developments in the ancient world. He applied it to
the long era between about 800 and 400 B.C.2 During
that era, an enormous revolution in human thought and
understanding took place. A radical shift in the
paradigm that informed human thought and society
occurred. At first, the transformation moved almost
with the gradualness of the shift of the magnetic
poles, but then it erupted into a great flowering of
philosophy and systematic ethics. This era began at
about the time Prophet Isaiah was illuminating the
revelation of God in Israel. It was the epoch in which
the Azeri prophet Zoroaster revolutionised religion in
Persia, Confucianism developed the system of ethics in
China and the Milesian Greeks began to speculate about
the nature of being. During this period, too, the
Buddha began to explore the problems of human
suffering. The great thinkers of this era began to
consider the actual meaning of myths and taboos, and
to transpose them into systems of meaning. This
process had, in fact, begun with the great lawgivers
of history who attempted to systematise human
experience into the structure of civil society,
binding it together with legislation that took account
of the purpose of the myths and taboos.
It was during this era that the quest for an
understanding of the roots of good and evil advanced a
general moral philosophy. It was evident that people
could keep any set of laws to the letter and still do
evil things to others. Law was not the solution; it
remained only a mechanism for controlling and
mitigating behaviour within a given civil society.
Neither the moral concepts that were developing, nor
the legal concepts were by any means universal.
During this great axial period, theology began its
long journey toward development. Philosophy was
rivetted on cause and effect, and later spent great
energy on the question of how we learn and know. The
paradigm shift of this first axial period consisted in
a movement away from unexplained myth, and into the
realm of philosophy. The development of both
philosophy and theology were part of the same stream.
Within this stream, myth was converted to a systematic
concept of ethics and social morality and the
philosophers, both secular and religious became the
dominant practitioners who formed the grid of thought,
beliefs, and structural changes in politics and
governments and our concepts of humanity, the world
and the universe.
I will contend, with Robert Solomon, that we are in
the midst of a second great axial period. It appears
to me that a major paradigm shift is underway, and
that it began already in the 1600s, but gathered its
real force at the beginning of the 20th century. I
want to suggest that this shift has been, in some
small way, motivated by the fact that the question of
what we know is overpowering the question of how we
learn and know.3 The old preoccupation with a
metaphysical dualism of mind/brain, and the
abstraction of the intellect hardly seem tenable or
significant in our present era. Reality at all levels
and in every dimension, is a mystery. I do not suggest
that the world of our sensual experience is not
reality, but it is only the surface of reality. This
surface can be penetrated only with great effort,
either spiritual or scientific, over time. The more
deeply we penetrate through the surface of this
perceived reality, however, the greater the mystery
becomes. This is reflected in quantum physics, and
also in Orthodox Christian theological experience.
Thus, both quantum mechanics and the world of Orthodox
Christian spiritual experience are complementary.
Orthodox theology can be informed by modern science,
and modern science can be illumined by Orthodox
Christian spiritual experience. This can be
accomplished only when we clearly maintain the
understanding that science is a method of exploration,
not a dogmatic system, not pursued in the manner of a
religion or "spirituality." Orthodox theology is not a
system for interpreting the physical history and
properties of the cosmos, but a means of the assent
and transformation of the human person, an avenue of
the revelation of redemption, and a framework for life
and experience.
What shapes our idea that we are in a second axial
period, is the major shift in the paradigms of
philosophical and religious thought in the present
era, beginning with the last decade of the 19th
century.4 The shift has been such that scientists, and
physicists in particular, have gradually replaced the
philosophers as the architects of the grid through
which we view humanity in relation to the world and
the universe, and to each other. This shift has
clearly touched all areas of human thought and
reasoning. Just as the lofty theories of philosophers
slowly "trickled down" to the most common levels of
society, reshaping human thought, so the abstractions
of scientists have been trickling down to every human
level reshaping, over the past four or five centuries,
every aspect of thought, including theological and
religious concerns. In the 20th century, and
especially in the present century, technology, which
is something of a parasite on science, has had an even
greater impact on the shaping of the human mind.
Still, at the root of the making of the post-modern
mind one has to see both quantum physics and
evolutionary biology as seminal. This is the great
paradigm shift that constitutes what I see as the
Second Great Axial Era.
From an Orthodox Christian point of view, if we are to
continue to effectively witness the faith of Jesus
Christ, we must respond to this Axial shift. At a time
when the Scholastic system in religious thought has
been exposed for its emptiness as a spiritual and
theological cul de sac, a deep spiritual void and
hunger has been created in man by the age of
technology, with both its benefits and its
dehumanisation. The equally blind alley of
"spirituality without religion" offers no answers; it
cannot separate itself from the spirit of the age and
the bondage to ultimate hopelessness. Orthodox
Christianity stands in a position to have a vital,
existential encounter with the paradigm shift of the
present Axial Era, and give form to the void and
fulness in place of the emptiness that has been
generated. It has the content and the spiritual power
to carry man beyond mere spirituality and into a
profound spiritual life, in the grace of the Holy
Spirit, which is not in conflict with this new grid of
understanding, but which rather has a complementarity
with it. I will assert that Orthodoxy alone can sail
easily upon the sea of our unfolding understanding of
the universe, the origins of humankind and the
mysteries of the quantum world. In order to do this
effectively, however, we must wean our Orthodox
teachers and leaders away from the bondage of Western
Scholasticism into which so many have fallen, and
bring them back to the great existential revelation of
the faith so clearly enunciated by the holy fathers,
and in particular by the great hesychastic theologians
who synthesised our understanding of our true
relationship with God and the universe.
If we cannot, as teachers of the faith and
theologians, address in a meaningful and open way, the
new paradigms of the Axial Era in which we live, then
we will be frozen in obsolete and meaningless models
of reality, which we must forever set in militant
opposition to the models of reality of physics and all
the sciences. If we fall prey to such arrogance, we
will be unable to respond at all to the spiritual
needs and aspirations of mankind, we will be unable to
sustain the Gospel and we will be able to speak only
to the most superstitious and religiously credulous
elements in our various societies. The younger
generation will have been betrayed by us as we betray
the Gospel and the faith with a blind, reactionary
religiosity rather than an openness to new
understanding and a grasp of the infinitude of the
Orthodox Christian revelation.
Orthodox Christianity is not the arbiter of "facts,"
but the healer of humanity, the source of meaning, the
path to authenticity of life and the doorway to
eternity — to immortality.
I have purposely avoided the use of the word
"philosophy" and "philosophical," because the context
might not be understood, and one might think either
that we are degrading philosophy or elevating it to
too high a level. Philosophy, to cite David Goa, is
part of the "great human dialogue." We will discuss it
later.I do not recall his actual delineating dates, but
it was during approximately that era,I believe Lord Bertrand Russell suggests such a
situation in one of his works.I believe Dr. Solomon thinks of a second axial
period as beginning during them 1700s. I would date
the beginnings of the era in the 1600s, and suggest
that a pivot point took form in the 1800s. The two
major impetuses in that era were Newton and Darwin.
However, in my view, we see the great paradigm shift
taking place early in the 20th century, with the
acceptance of atomic theory and the birth of quantum
physics, coupled the emergence of evolutionary biology.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Forwarded by Rd. David-Constantine