Loving Ultimate Reality

“NT Wrong” offered an interesting response to my post about God, projection and our values. Although the points made there are important, I think that it is indeed possible to love a God who is infinite and ineffable. Scientists who love reality and love discovering even a tiny fraction more about reality are doing much the same thing. When Tillichians and others with similar theological views talk about God as “Being itself” one could just as readily say “Reality itself.”

But it remains important, in my opinion, to have one’s focus take into consideration Ultimate Reality. We all have our moral values and convictions shaped by realities that transcend us: family, community, society, and nation (to name a few). The reason for trying to acknowledge that Reality itself transcends these authorities and influences is precisely in the hope that we might at times be open to seeing things in a different way, and acknowledging (even if we can’t always see it ourselves) that there is a perspective from which the limitations of our personal, communal and even human perspectives are readily noticeable.

As for loving Neighbors, personally I always preferred Home and Away

And now it looks like the good Doctor has regenerated once again. I wonder whether, once he’s recovered from the process, he shall agree with me more or less than the regeneration with whom I’ve been in conversation so far!

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11335631079939764763 Bob MacDonald

    This is clearly not the same NT Wrong. Secular is no longer a defining term. And as to loving 'Ultimate Reality', Jews and Christians alike should be the ultimate secularists – an empty temple and a torn veil. No separation between the holy and the unholy and no object of worship.

  • Antonio Jerez

    Which makes me wonder that if God is "reality itself" what does the reality we see and experience tell us about the characteristics of God (reality)?

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/03089281236217906531 Scott F

    I think teh way that Ultimate Reality transcends us is different in quantity if not quality. I can say many things about my family, community and society. I can reject the morals that these influences produce. I can seek to change said morals. When we turn to Ultimate Reality, what is there to say – it's ineffable? Although considering and "loving" an Ultimate reality may indeed be useful in stepping outside the influences that are the medium of our daily existence, the inevitable temptation is to reify the concept into a religious entity. Besides, do scientists really "love" reality and does this kind of language result in a bait-and-switch that equates religious experience with the mundane? Think of the confusion that Spinoza and Einstein caused by their poetic use of God language.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940 Edward T. Babinski

    Nature is fun to contemplate and study, from a distance, like the joy of working to solve a jigsaw puzzle so big and difficult that no on will ever finish it. But nature's also dangerous and unexpected in the ways it causes and/or callously allows universal suffering and death.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829 Angie Van De Merwe

    Mr. Babinski,Are you saying that existance is "ultimate reality"? And since there is much suffering and death is part of that ultimate reality?

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829 Angie Van De Merwe

    Bob,You sound like an atheist….no god to worship. Is this your position?

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11335631079939764763 Bob MacDonald

    Angie. No. I believe that Jesus was anointed uniquely and his non-use of power disarms other powers. I believe God raised him from the dead and that we too through that can find a quality of life that is different from what we otherwise have known. I don't think love is won by argument, but good questions are a necessary foil. Bertrand Russel raised good questions for me in my youth. So have other atheist writers. Dawkin's first book, The Selfish Gene, is excellent. So also Hofstader's Godel-Escher-Bach. With both these writers, some of their follow-on 'conclusions' are without foundation even from their own points of view. Christians are equally prone to unfounded conclusions and may easily end up worshiping their ideas rather than doing the love that brings understanding. That's why we need the foil of the atheist's wit. If the atheist's foil is part of my body, how can anyone be left out?

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829 Angie Van De Merwe

    What I do in my body, is my choice, or right under our Constitutional government. That is, unless you believe in tyranny to bring about that "ultimate" love or reality in another's life…

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/02919095308998395424 steph

    He's so unlike Wrong and so un Antipodean, I wish he'd make up some other name for himself.

  • http://ntwrong.blogspot.com +Wrong

    Sorry, Steph, to disappoint you (and anyone else for that matter). You sure know how difficult it is to fake an Antipodean. And inheriting an identity certainly has its challenges. But would you rather that the Deutero-Pauline epistles had been signed by the author's *real* name than with Paul's? So, for the time being, what you see (or read) is what you get. And, if you allow me to add, claiming Dunedin as my home isn't too far from the truth. Now give me a day or two, and I'll show you more sides to this new Wrong.Sincerely,+Wrong

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647 James F. McGrath

    I assumed that the claim to be "antipodean" was subversive, refusing to adopt the perspective from the Northern hemisphere as normative… :)


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X