Reality, Language and the Inner World
As you may have gathered, I don’t believe gods are real. Thus, the “Atheo-” in Atheopagan.
Recently, however, I had a long conversation on Facebook that turned into a discussion about what we mean when we say something is “real”. From that conversation, I have concluded that “real” is a nearly useless word unless it is heavily qualified…and that it would be helpful to have more narrowly-targeted terms than “real” when discussing experiences.
In the past, when I have said something is “real”, I meant it has physical, material entity. It’s a thing or a process in the physical Universe. By that standard, there is no compelling evidence that disembodied, interpersonally communicative intelligences such as god, spirits, ghosts, etc. are real. So I don’t believe they are.
But is that what some theists mean when they say their gods are real?
What is real?
It’s one thing—and a largely academic one, at that—to make the judgment in the third paragraph above. But we don’t live in a world of double-blind experimentation and peer review. We live in the movie our minds create for us, using, filtering, editing—sometimes manufacturing—data from all-too-fallible senses as well as incorporating parallel dialogues of the multiple parts of ourselves, associative memory flashbacks, and a diverse chameleon we imagine as adding up to the “self”.
It is within the context of all that that experiences are formed, be they of gods or meals or work or driving a car. In most cases, something is happening in the physical Universe, yes, but in the Inner World, our awareness of this can at times be highly tenuous.
It is my belief that this is where experiences of gods, spirits, etc. arise. Not as interaction with an external entity, but as a part of the complex welter of voices and personalities that live within us rising up to speak, act, even appear to our vision.
In the context of what we now know with high confidence to be true about the physical Universe, religion fails when it tries to be about external reality. Insistent as some are about the verbatim reality of their beliefs, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, burning bushes do not talk, and there is no compelling evidence of noncorporeal intelligent entities with magical powers. Gravity works no matter what you believe about it, and the speed of sound is the same for everyone.
But to some degree, it doesn’t matter. Religion is about the inner experience. Even when it comes to the impulse toward community, it is the feeling of being in community that is sought after and carefully stewarded. Our lives are our personal experiences. And at that level, something is “real” simply because we saw it or heard it or felt it, no matter whether that experience had any root in physical reality external to the body or not.
This is something it may be hard for some theists who are threatened by Atheopagans’ disbelief to understand: we’re not discounting the importance of the inner experience (at least, I’m not; I can’t speak for others, but I’ve never heard anyone do so). Quite the contrary: we’re working to create them for ourselves, and we’re perfectly glad that others are having them. Our rituals and observances may be pinned to external realities like the changing seasons, but we do them to create a feeling, a sense of belonging/connectedness/meaning. We’re different than the Dawkins/Hitchens crowd, because we understand that what religion can contribute to the inner world is profoundly meaningful and gratifying.
To recognize the difference between the external (objective) real and the internal (personal) real is not to declare one more important than the other. It simply states what is true: they’re not the same. And making overclaims in relation to the former really isn’t necessary when you’re talking about something that is “real” in the latter.
I have had some amazing experiences. Some of them, in fact, violated the laws of physics as I remember them. I am quite confident that I misperceived these moments, just as I know that the flying dreams I have had were, in fact, dreams, although they are as bright and vivid in my mind as any other memories.
And I don’t care. Those moments are precious to me. They were deeply meaningful, and it doesn’t bother me that my mind played a heavy role in creating them.
They were “real”, in a way, in that I experienced them. Not real like a stone or a fish is real, but…experientially real.
It would help a great deal—and probably reduce conflict—if we had different language for these types of “reality”. Because even though I might cringe a bit when someone tells me earnestly that her gods talk to her, at least if she was using language that clearly referenced her personal, inner reality, I wouldn’t understand her as flouting the known physical nature of the Universe. And I could explain to her about my experiences flying naked over the Golden Gate Bridge at sunset, and she would know that I wasn’t delusional.
This doesn’t resolve the conflict between those, like me, who do not believe in objective, external gods as disembodied, intelligent and communicative entities and those who do. There really isn’t any way to bridge that gap except a mutual agreement to live and let live. But I suspect there are far fewer of those than there are of people who experience their gods as resident in their inner worlds.
I’m still struggling to come up with terminology that would help to prize real (objective) from real (personal). Any suggestions are welcome in the comments.
8 Comments
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
I have been following a similar train-of-thought for the next article I am writing for HP about reason and spirituality. I think our society conflates real (in an objective/empirical) sense with meaningful, and so when we point out their experience of gods is not within the objective/empirical reality they get offended because of the real = meaningful fallacy. Studying literature and poetry in college and learning the art of poetry and fiction from seasoned accomplished writers it is plain (as the nose on my face) that something needs not exist in objective/empirical reality to be meaningful. I am not sure if we need new words for this or adjectives to modify reality (e.g. objective/subjective reality) as we do to dis disavowal and confront the real = meaningful fallacy head on and be purposeful about it in our communication. — I think I just wrote the next paragraph to my essay. Anyway those are my thoughts.
Don’t know if you’re familiar with the Temple of Set or not, and I’m not in a position to speak for them; however, they make references in their literature to a single “objective universe” (the physical reality in which we all live) and infinite “subjective universes” (the inner realities through which we all experience the objective universe). The interesting thing is that not all Temple members believe Seth is a literal entity, so there are theists, atheists and even agnostics in the group. I think some of the conclusions they draw are pretty dang weird, but you might find something useful their literature. The Satanic Puritan actually posted a really good synopsis of their “objective/subjective universe(s)” concept here.
For my own part, it’s enough for me to state that I don’t claim to know what “The Truth” really is when it comes to objective reality, and that I agree with you that science is our best bet in that department. In terms of my inner experience, however, I choose to treat the things I have experienced as real. For example, whether my personal God is actually a real polytheist Deity, an aspect of some all-inclusive monotheistic God, a manifestation of my own higher self, a Jungian archetype, or a delusion…I don’t claim to know, and I don’t really care either. All I know for sure about it is that interacting with Him in the way that I do has consistently worked for almost two decades of my life now, so I see no reason to stop what I’m doing. On the other hand, I also see no reason to try and “convince” anyone else that what I’m experiencing is objectively real or not.
I’m reading Stephen Hawking just now, and he makes the point that as a positivist, the question “is x real?” Is useless. All that matters is how good our models are at making predictions which can be verified.
Michael Dowd’s “Day Language” and “Night Language” terms may be useful here – or even “Day reality” and “Night Reality” – in our discussions with the wider Pagan community. Here is a description: http://evolutionarychristianity.com/blog/day-night-language-public-private-revelation/
Here is Robinson Jeffers’ take on this question:
CREDO
My friend from Asia has powers and magic, he plucks a blue leaf from the young blue-gum
And gazing upon it, gathering and quieting
The God in his mind, creates an ocean more real than the ocean, the salt, the actual
Appalling presence, the power of the waters.
He believes that nothing is real except as we make it. I humbler have found in my blood
Bred west of Caucasus a harder mysticism.
Multitude stands in my mind but I think that the ocean in the bone vault is only
The bone vault’s ocean: out there is the ocean’s;
The water is the water, the cliff is the rock, come shocks and flashes of reality. The mind
Passes, the eye closes, the spirit is a passage;
The beauty of things was born before eyes and sufficient to itself; the heartbreaking beauty
Will remain when there is no heart to break for it.
I’m reminded of the division between “relations of ideas” and “matters of fact” in Hume’s Fork. Which suggests division between fact vs concept, necessary vs contingent, a priori vs a posterioiri, and analytic vs synthetic in differing situations.
Perhaps we could talk of concrete reality vs abstract reality? Or realism vs idealism (although this might be confused with philosophical schools of thought)? The trick is to distinguish between the two terms without disparaging either…
Exactly. While there are those who will always take offense at the idea that their personal “reality” is not the GENERAL “reality”, we should strive that the terms we use not elevate either as somehow more valued or important.