I have to confess, one of the most frustrating things for me is to try and discuss (explain) a concept or word that is very common and fundamental for folks, but get push back from them saying, "ohhh, that's too deep." It has fascinated me for some time, especially as I began teaching college students. I found it compelling, but daunting to present very normal, everyday concepts to them, such as attitude and motivation, but do so in a way that they get the full understanding and not just a surface perspective that lacked any punch in their life. I often have felt that I must sound like that rote, mechanical voice, lost in the noise of life's corridors, saying "mind your step."
Well, I am now "deep" into writing script on a course where I must cover "deep" concepts like knowledge, truth and faith, in a way that a 15 year old can understand and apply them to make their life work better, maybe even affect their eternal journey.
Today I am working on the words "exist" and "real". So I ask, "what do these words mean?" "can something exist and not be real?" and vice versa. Certainly these are words that everybody uses all the time. They happen to be words whose meaning form some part of everybody's core assumptions. The problem with something being a core assumption is that it is something we believe "deeply", but never examine it and never have to "prove" it true, but we use it to "prove" everything else.
Is that too deep? I feel someone saying "mind your step!"
Let me ask you about these two words in this way. Look at the following two statements. Then simply select the option that you think best completes the statement for you. You may think more than one applies, but you can only pick one, so select the one you think best represents what you believe.
An object "exists" if it
A. can be observed by any of the 5 physical senses
B. participates in someone’s thoughts
C. has a certain form or state of being
D. presently occupies a known place in the world
An object is "real" if
A. it is eternal
B. it can be observed by any of the 5 physical senses
C. it is genuine, not a representation
D. someone perceives it exists
Lets examine what the different answers may mean to how you think, feel, and act in many areas of your life. First, you note I have offered more than one option for each. It is safe to assume that out of 10 people someone would pick each option. Certainly, people believe differently about these two common words. Second, some answers suggest that the two words may actually mean the same thing. If you select A and B, you have obviously claimed the two words are identical. Third, some answers for one would suggest certain answers on the other would not be possible. Let's look at a few like this.
If you answer A for the first, then anything that exist must be observable in some way. This would likely exclude possibilities for A, C and D in the statement on what is real. (A) Eternity suggests that anything that exists which dies cannot be real. Similarly answer (C) for "reality" suggests that anything that exists that is a copy of something or an illusion or myth cannot be real. (D) for the second statement suggests that reality doesn't have to be observable, just be thought to exist by someone.
We could spend a lot of time comparing what you believe "exist" and 'real" mean, but let me focus on this point. Thousands of years ago, before culture worked on redefining these terms, "exist" meant "has a certain form or state of being" (C) and "real" meant "eternal" (A). If this is true about these words, then something can exist and not be real. Something can be genuine, but temporary or finite and therefore not be real. and so forth .... For instance, an architect builds a model of a hospital before it is built. This allows people to see something that they otherwise could not see until later. The model exists but it is not the "real" hospital. Look at a $1 bill. Is it real money? It certainly exists but it is not the money. Money is a promissory note backed by government that gives the $1 bill its value. The dollar bill represents or points to the money. This idea of things exist to point to or represent something real introduces the opportunity for counterfeit. Something counterfeit exists but points to or represents something that is not "real".
Why does this matter? First, many Christian apologists over the years have tried to argue that "God exists" against arguments of atheists that "God does not exist." While all the attention is on God, the problem resides in a disagreement on what "exist" means. There needs to be an agreement on "exist" before there is an attempt to agree on existence of God. Second, if we misstep on what "real" means, we can struggle with many of life's circumstances. If the original idea of real is correct, that "real" means "eternal", then what do we do with everything that exists that is observable and temporary? Is marriage real? Is the body real? Is wealth real? Plus, we need to be aware of the risks of counterfeits of what is real, that is, things that exists that do not point to something that is eternal.
Paul said look on the invisible and eternal, not on the visible and temporary. Is this what he was trying to tell us? Is that too deep? Jesus constantly told parables about the Kingdom, He performed miracles as signs of who He is. Marriage is used to describe the relationship the church has with Christ. Is marriage one of those signs or reflections of what is real? Is that why the design of marriage must stay as the Architect wished? Otherwise a distortion in marriage becomes a counterfeit of what is real.
What we consider real and what we see as pointers, signs, reflections and such of what is real establishes a set of core assumptions that informs everything we feel, think and do. Is our issue that this is too deep and so we are stuck to live beneath our privilege of knowing what is real? OR is our issue that our human nature and our culture have dug holes that we step into, creating core assumptions that rob us of what is real by enticing us to chase and grab hold of the replicas or models of what is real.
If we respond too often with "oh, that is too deep", we may miss the warning to "mind your step."
Certainly worth pondering ....
We could spend a lot of time comparing what you believe "exist" and 'real" mean, but let me focus on this point. Thousands of years ago, before culture worked on redefining these terms, "exist" meant "has a certain form or state of being" (C) and "real" meant "eternal" (A). If this is true about these words, then something can exist and not be real. Something can be genuine, but temporary or finite and therefore not be real. and so forth .... For instance, an architect builds a model of a hospital before it is built. This allows people to see something that they otherwise could not see until later. The model exists but it is not the "real" hospital. Look at a $1 bill. Is it real money? It certainly exists but it is not the money. Money is a promissory note backed by government that gives the $1 bill its value. The dollar bill represents or points to the money. This idea of things exist to point to or represent something real introduces the opportunity for counterfeit. Something counterfeit exists but points to or represents something that is not "real".
Why does this matter? First, many Christian apologists over the years have tried to argue that "God exists" against arguments of atheists that "God does not exist." While all the attention is on God, the problem resides in a disagreement on what "exist" means. There needs to be an agreement on "exist" before there is an attempt to agree on existence of God. Second, if we misstep on what "real" means, we can struggle with many of life's circumstances. If the original idea of real is correct, that "real" means "eternal", then what do we do with everything that exists that is observable and temporary? Is marriage real? Is the body real? Is wealth real? Plus, we need to be aware of the risks of counterfeits of what is real, that is, things that exists that do not point to something that is eternal.
Paul said look on the invisible and eternal, not on the visible and temporary. Is this what he was trying to tell us? Is that too deep? Jesus constantly told parables about the Kingdom, He performed miracles as signs of who He is. Marriage is used to describe the relationship the church has with Christ. Is marriage one of those signs or reflections of what is real? Is that why the design of marriage must stay as the Architect wished? Otherwise a distortion in marriage becomes a counterfeit of what is real.
What we consider real and what we see as pointers, signs, reflections and such of what is real establishes a set of core assumptions that informs everything we feel, think and do. Is our issue that this is too deep and so we are stuck to live beneath our privilege of knowing what is real? OR is our issue that our human nature and our culture have dug holes that we step into, creating core assumptions that rob us of what is real by enticing us to chase and grab hold of the replicas or models of what is real.
If we respond too often with "oh, that is too deep", we may miss the warning to "mind your step."
Certainly worth pondering ....
No comments:
Post a Comment