Rationality

In this essay I wish to make the argument that rationality is capable of making life understandable. I begin by supplying the dictionary and my own definition of rational.
Dictionary: Based on reason or understanding.
Mine: Based on causality (cause and effect).

Causality provides that every event is caused by another. This suggests the existence of a first cause which we call God.

I will approach the problem of belief in rationality by assessing the main criticism against it. That criticism is that whatever rationality leads one to believe cannot be proven. This is true, but there is an implicit untruth contained within it. That untruth is that there is something that can, in the universal sense, be demonstrated to be true. To demonstrate this untruth let us use a simple mathematical example. We all accept that one and one is two. However, upon studying mathematics it is quickly demonstrated that the entire edifice is based on three unprovable rules. As long as these three rules are accepted, then the rest follows. It has internal consistency. My contention is that this principle of mathematics is universally applicable. It applies to all fields of study.

Neither you nor I can prove that the world and everything in it wasn't created by God ten minutes ago. It would be irrational of us to believe that however, because it is inconsistent with our experience.

I would go on to point out that all are rationalists. Every individual is rationalizing all day every day. Rationality doesn't require that the truth be known, otherwise we wouldn't be able to get out of bed in the morning. Rationality relies on probability. Each of us, on getting up in the morning, calculates the probabilities of getting to work safely and concludes that the odds favor it and therefore go. Each and every moment we perform a similar calculation before performing any new act and for repetitive acts rely on calculations we have performed in the past.

We believe in probabilities because of causality. Probability is based on the recognition that like causes produce similar effects.

This brings us to the question of miracles. We must now distinguish between what is true and what we wish were true. Miracles must be explained by resorting to an irrational universe or the assumption that we fail to understand what will eventually, be rationally explained. Many believe in miracles because they feel they need to believe, in order to retain hope. This is an insubstantial basis for a life.

How then, can a rationalist believe in Jesus, given that a precondition for that belief is acceptance that the Bible is completely true, throughout? Many cannot. The answer lies in understanding symbolism. Dreams are filled with symbolism and they are profoundly true. This statement recognizes the fact that truth/falsehood is not a black/white question. Some things are truer than others. Identification of the fact that the temperature is twenty six degrees outside right now is truer than the statement that it is pretty cold.

So, the miracles recounted in the Gospels are symbolically true, providing a deeper understanding of who and what Jesus was, rather than literally true, which wouldn't have said as much. Should the writer precede each symbolic statement with the fact that it is symbolism rather than literalism? Besides the fact that this would ruin the beauty of the writing, it would also defeat the intent of the writer, which is to overcome the prejudices of the reader without telling any lies, thereby allowing him to gain the advantages of knowledge of Christ. This in spite of the fact that Jesus, being outside of the experience of ordinary people, would be incomprehensible to them.

So, to understand the Gospels, one has not only to read them, but to take into account the readers and their expectations and the writers and their motives.

There is a great conflict in our culture regarding the validity of religion and science. The religious have used their vehicle to understand their world and found it to have great validity. The scientists have done the same. We are driven to the conclusion that some are rationalists and others not and that is the way of the world. I contend that both groups are filled with literalists and therefor fail to comprehend either themselves or their opponents.

The real conflict is between literalism and symbolism. The literal truth is more precise, symbolic truth carries more meaning. Which of the following statements is more useful? "There is a billion dollars here.", or "There is enough money here to reach around the earth twelve times if each bill were placed end to end." The first statement is more precise, especially if we wish to know if we have enough to buy something. The second is more useful if we are trying to imagine the volume of space necessary to hold the money.

All statements are symbolic, even literal ones. Writing consists of numbers and letters, all of which are symbols for sounds and concepts. But, they are small scale symbols and lend themselves to objective thought. Jesus' parables rely on large scale symbols and therefore transmit commensurately larger concepts. This sort of language is more useful for subjective thought.

Ultimately both subjective and objective understanding is required for a complete mastery of life. An objective understanding provides us with a grasp of the physical nature of the universe, while a subjective understanding invests life with meaning. Without the second the sufferer concludes that life is a mechanism devoid of meaning, and without the first one cannot achieve complete understanding.

For rationalism to succeed requires an accumulation of knowledge over time, which means that only older humans will have succeeded well enough to base the decisions of life on it. Prior to that time the irrationality of belief must be relied on. But, even that has its rational component. We believe in things because they have demonstrated themselves to be believable in the past.

So, science is a rational construct and explains life very well, though not completely, since science is always in the process of becoming and never complete. Beyond science, we must rely on belief. The problem lies in locating beliefs that don't conflict with science, or identifying invalid science that will allow us to retain old beliefs that appear to be in conflict with science.

This realization suggests that there is an unfilled gap between science and religion. I would say that Darwinism doesn't quite reach because it fails to provide meaning and a reason to accept human suffering; nor does God demonstrably interfere in our lives to the satisfaction of a scientist.

We are in need of something that doesn't violate scientific facts and also doesn't interfere with one's faith in God. Science gives understanding, religion gives meaning, a reason to continue to live after sensual pleasure fails to satisfy.

What is needed is Gaia.

Gaia is the right choice because, contrary to the fact that our natural parents are male and female, our God is only male. Since one of the most comprehensively true things about this universe is analogy, we must suspect that we also have an identifiable feminine deity that will function very well as a universal mother. One that shares basic characteristics with our natural mothers. Having identified her and subtracted those features of life more closely identified with her than God, we will also arrive at a more precise characterization of Him.

My contention has now become: Rationality is the pathway to understanding of life. Religion invests life with meaning. Religious texts are completely true, though only partially historical. Science is partially unfinished. The more recent discoveries of science are only partially true. Older science is largely true. Science has failed, thus far, to identify some truths.

To understand aright requires precise definitions. This means that concepts are constantly in need of redefinition to make them more accurate. This applies to the concept of God no less than any other.

It is rational to believe, even in the absence of proof, that since we all have two parents, they will also have two parents each. This logic can be extended to those beings above us in the hierarchy of things. Our species must be expected to have two parents, one displaying the characteristics of masculinity and the other of femininity.

We in the West have concentrated, perhaps excessively, though undoubtedly for a reason on our Father. The time now approaches for recognition of our mother. Many cultures prior to ours have found our mother apparent, but our Father religion has been at pains to encourage us to ignore her and to include those features of life more closely associated with her into His realm. But, definitional inexactness will lead to failures of judgment.

It is altogether too common for humans, upon discovering a new and important reality, to conclude that all that has gone on before has been in error. This has occurred in our religion over and over. It now becomes incumbent upon us to uncover what was known about our mother in the past and to enhance that understanding with what has been discovered through the gift of our Father, science.

Thus Gaia. Gaia was the wife of Zeus. Gaia is associated with the moon, while Zeus is associated with the sun. Gaia is also the earth while Zeus is heaven. Zeus is an earlier understanding of God or Allah or Yah(weh). We have been at pains to understand what God's motive could have been in creating us. The conclusion has been to separate good and evil. This is a very abstract goal and to what end? God already knows the ways of good and evil. This is an unsatisfying answer. Life is full of suffering, we should expect to be accomplishing important things that make this suffering worthwhile.

Gaia is much more like us than God. She doesn’t know God any better than we. What she knows is that she is and wishes to continue to be. We, along with all other living things are she. We are divided into two sexes, the male half demonstrating the characteristics of God and the female half, the characteristics of Gaia. This division was imposed on us by Gaia in pursuit of survival a very long time ago, but has not been true from the beginning. Gaia discovered herself as an insignificant chain of carbon atoms a very long time ago and has been developing herself in divers ways in pursuit of survival ever since.

Gaia had to alter the environment in dramatic ways in pursuit of her goal. She had to change the atmosphere and the weather. She started in the sea, but had to colonize the dry land. In pursuit of a suitable atmosphere, she had to divide herself into an immobile and vegetative half and a mobile animal half. These halves she decreed, would rely on each other and produce a suitable atmosphere for their continuance indefinitely. But, adjustments have to, from time to time be made, because of the ever changing environment within which she exists. She cannot control the life of the sun, which has its effects on the earth. She has to adjust.

In order to create a steady state, things must be recycled from time to time. In order to create an ideal atmosphere, it became necessary to remove much of the carbon dioxide from it and to replace it with oxygen and nitrogen. But this process cannot go on forever. Eventually too little carbon dioxide would exist for continuation of the vegetative half of life and since the animal half was dependent on that, all of life would be threatened. At some point it would be necessary to recycle carbon dioxide. From the current 0.03%, it might be possible to improve to two or three percent and perhaps with further engineering a stabilization might be achieved.

This is not an easy prospect. Recyclable carbon dioxide exists in liquid form but deep under ground and difficult to retrieve. Once retrieved it would have to be returned to its gaseous form and released into the atmosphere. This would have the effect of altering the weather. The carbon dioxide exists where it does because all living things produce oil as a product of their existence and after death, much of that oil sinks into the earth due to its density. As it sinks, much of it is caught in basins of rock and is therefor potentially retrievable.

In order to accomplish this goal an unusual species would be needed. This species would have to be capable of manipulation of the environment. It would require to have objective awareness of a very refined nature. It would also require independence, since Gaia didn't know what methods might be needed. It would require guidance, since because of its independence of Gaia, it wouldn't be in a position to understand her motives until after the goal was achieved.

It now appears that this goal will be achieved in as little as fifty more years.

What might we expect to occur as a natural result of this fulfillment? There will no longer be a need for the environment to favor the further development of our species. Instead, the environment can return to that which favors all species. A return to the law, fair to all participants, eat or be eaten.

It can reasonably be expected that after the age of man, there will be a repopulation of the earth with new forms, one of which will be that chosen by man as his preferred adaptation. If he wishes to retain his large brain he will be able to support a large body. He may wish out of sensitivity to satisfy his appetite with the lowliest of life forms. He may wish to protect himself from the vicissitudes of weather. He may wish to retain his sexual nature as the most permanent of satisfactions of life to which he has been exposed. He may wish to continue to contemplate existence. If so, and taking into account what has gone before, the whale form may be the most attractive.

This is not an existence to be disparaged. Freedom to migrate with the seasons. An always abundant food supply. A size sufficient to intimidate all but a declining and less powerful mankind. Freedom to congregate and freedom to seek out solitude. Freedom from management and responsibility. Freedom to procreate. A large and weightless body. Freedom to contemplate and to observe the changes of virtually endless time. Freedom to live and die, independent of defensive struggle. Subject only to the virus and perhaps even victory over that. Freedom to choose and be chosen.