On one hand, I'm drawn to the stability of believing concrete truths, clear doctrinal scaffolding, scientific laws. On the other hand, I bristle against strict, unalterable conclusions or policies, and I'm not satisfied simply by asserting an absolute truth if there are still reasonable, valid counterarguments unanswered or factors not taken into account. And most often, there is subtlety and perspective far beyond what readily comes to mind.
Example: in Physics, I understood the basic laws of gravity, etc, but it always bothered me that there would be inherent imprecision in calculations unless you perfectly took into account every seemingly chaotic factor, which seemed virtually impossible to do in almost all situations. We could study the principles, but to test them in the real world was difficult or problematic. How often do you find a perfect vacuum with perfect measuring equipment to quantify the force of gravity on a perfect object? Even then, you have to account for the distance from Earth's gravitational center, don't you? Fortunately, our textbook told us to assume no other factors than those given (AKA assume all other factors are NOT, in fact, factors) in order to work out example problems. This stripped the equations of real-world factors to illustrate scientific principles but leaving them in real-world situations, which makes them easier for most students to grasp and learn.
In addition to elevation, factors that would affect REAL-world situations could include air resistance, the breeze on any particular day that is constantly shifting direction and magnitude along with seeds and particles carried on that breeze, a possible imperceptible dimple made by a hailstone on the wing of an airplane, the varying density of or moisture in the air at any given place, subtle seismic activity hundreds of miles away from a given plain, imperceptible intermittent slipping of an object rolling down a plain due to imperfect friction, the interference of grains of dust and imperfect roundness of a ball rolling down the imperfectly-surfaced plain, maybe even the interference of light acting as wave-particles...
I knew I could theoretically ignore those factors for the sake of (often very accurate) approximation. And I marveled that even the hard sciences are largely based on theoretical logic and calculations that can't be 100% proven because nobody has ever invented perfect instruments to take measurements of perfect objects in perfect vacuums. I won't say my world was shaken, but the fact that so few people even seemed to express awareness of those factors bothered me just enough to hope that NASA scientists were more attentive. And I was a bit wary of other people's results and research and found it a touch challenging to readily "trust" others enough to just accept what was taught in a textbook or by one lecturer, even though I acknowledged their knowledge far surpassed mine. But I was especially wary of the students who seemed oblivious to the confounding subtleties.
I guess it kind of comes down to this: it felt a little unnatural to approach problems fully pretending those factors in Physics don't exist because...they do. But I also appreciated learning the principles with the caveat that the principle will rarely, if ever, be observed perfectly in real life.
I see a similarity with life in general. Maybe that's one part of why I stopped enjoying most church meetings or religious discussions with most people: I'm not convinced most people are looking beyond their simplified view by even considering the subtleties or anomalies of people's unique experiences or all of the confounding factors of life in this world in general--the dust on the plains or the differences in gravitational force--so I have trouble believing that the things they are saying are as valid as they seem to think they are when they offer all of their "real life" confirmation of this or that doctrine or practice.
It's hard to listen to rules, creeds, or checklists that are taught as if the conditions of peoples lives are simpler than they are. Checklists are often held up as browbeating ideals when in reality, I think to check them all off, you would likely have to have been handed a theoretical vacuum of a life. Now, some people may love the vacuum life, the tidy, no-complications world they live in or think they live in. Such a person definitely has no right to--nicely or otherwise--inform others who are not living in such vacuums for whatever reason that they are somehow lacking for not checking those things off or even for having a different list due to their more complicated situation, regardless of how they found themselves in that situation. We teach principles and then expect people, including ourselves, to put them into perfect practice in a very natural, imperfect world, and we get judgmental or critical when people choose differently than we would like to think we would have or when we fail to live up to our own expectations.
Sometimes, the most motivating, powerful truths or principles are, indeed, the simplest, and we often over-complicate things when we try to quantify them according to our own imperfect measurements and rules. When you're talking about theology, religious convictions, or life philosophies, where there is no tangible quantification, isn't it more effective to focus on serving your fellow man, loving your neighbor, being willing to do all righteous things asked of you, and having a broken heart and a contrite spirit than to focus on whether your tithing is paid from net or gross, whether you drink the right drinks, whether Earth is 6,000 years old, or how anyone should vote on the next political referendum?
I guess when you look at it, though, some real-world application is necessary and helpful, and we all can use help learning how to translate the principles into behavior and action. I mean, Jesus asked a man to give away all of his belongings. But we don't always see each other and know each other's needs so accurately as we believe he sees us, do we? I suppose I'd just like to see more focus, among what I've considered my own religious community, on the principles and the "why" and the "good news", and less on the "to do" lists we hold ourselves and others up to in critical light, even if some of that is necessary for helping keep ourselves accountable and to remind ourselves of a few indicators of where we may be on our spiritual journeys.
Maybe I guess a trick I'm still trying to learn is to focus on the basic principles behind what people say, even if they seem clueless to the fact that their application of the principle may not be a viable approach for someone else. When I can cut past the fluff and get to the principle behind their blather, I think the principles are often true and good. I can't change the people whose preaching I find abrasive, but I can change myself as necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment