I recently read two books in parallel:  Taking the Quantum Leap by Fred Alan Wolf and A History of God by Karen Armstrong.

Taking the Quantum Leap and A History of God viewed through the perspective of Exploring the Gap between Science and Religion.

My goal in reading them in parallel was to find common threads between these books and the concepts presented in Exploring the Gap between Science and Religion.   

The most intriguing insight was a single Biblical reference found in all three book. It is the story of Moses and the burning bush found in Exodus, Chapter 3, verses 13 and 14:

Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”

God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’” (a)

In Exploring the Gap I refer God’s “I am” statement as one of  six Biblical stories that are “Themes of Unity in the Christian Bible.” (b)  Regretfully, I did not expand on that topic as much as I would have liked.

In A History of God Karen Armstrong states the following:

Instead of revealing his name directly, he answers “I am Who I Am (Ebyeh asber ebyeh) …(c)

There was to be no discussion of God’s nature and certainly no attempt to manipulate him as pagans sometimes did when they recited the name s of their gods. Yahweh is the Unconditional One: I shall be that which I shall be. (d)

In Taking the Quantum Leap, Wolf states the following regarding Moses’ experience with the burning bush:

The first documented case of quantum consciousness may have been Moses. When he asked “Who are you?” of the Presence felt at the burning bush, the answer came “I AM THAT I AM.” Moses then recognized that, within him, the God Voice now spoke as Moses.

(a) BibleGateway.com, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%203:13-14&version=NIV

(b) Exploring the Gap between Science and Religion, Book Publishers Network, 2011, p. 66. Note: the underline added by me.

(c) A History of God, Ballentine Books, New York, 1993, p. 21

(d) A History of God, Ballentine Books, New York, 1993, p. 22

(e) Taking the Quantum Leap, Harper & Row, New York, 1989

An insight one discovers when exploring the gap between science and religion is that there are always two “somethings!”

There is the object “out there” which is the subject of an individual’s observation, and there is the representation of that object in that humans as “definers” create.

There is a bark-encased, branch-spreading, leaf-bearing (or needle bearing) object, and then there is the representation of that something that we have in our minds. It is of course, the tree. This representation is so pervasive, we almost never attend to it.

Note the philosophical insight: there are two trees.

This “twoness” is not so clear when it comes to intangible “things,” such as love, smell, and transcendental object humans label as “God.”

The labeling of something as “god” or “God” is not limited to those who believe in God. Atheists have a model of god, to which they attribute the characteristic of “non-existent.”

Whether one is an atheist or a theist, the fact that humans created of the term and concept that deals with the transcendental raises the question, “What experience has led humans to label something as “God.”

An experience of something bigger than oneself…

Perhaps it is what Sociologists report as a universal experience of something bigger than ourselves–aka transcendental. “Universal” in this case refers to a global phenomena where every culture has those in their society who testify to this experience.

From this experience of the transcendental–that which transcends the individual (aka ego)–we humans have modeled this experience is different ways. For example, eastern philosophy’s representation as Nirvana and/or the opening lotus blossom.

Notice that in next graphic, the Abrahamic religion’s representation of God as a old male with a long beard and flowing robes. That representation is shaped by other people, the prevailing culture, scripture & other written works, and prayer & meditation.

A god created by humans, is a representation of “something?”

For people who have a strong religious sense then, the challenging question becomes:

Whom shall I worship? The god I created, or the God that created me?

The next logical question is:

How do I know which one?

Study the set of concepts/objects in the figure. What relationship would you  assign them?

Relationships

Note that two of the relationships have been labeled, which provide examples of possible relationships.

The “God->authors->Scripture” is perhaps a common relationship for people of faith.

But what does this relationship imply?

It implies that God plays the role of author, which means that as author, God is in charge of making sure all the details are correct.

This implication has implications. If God is the author, has God checked that all the translations, like all the translations available through the pull down menu on Gateway Bible: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/ :

The other labeled relationship, “Observation->reveals->Truth,” might be common sense for a person whose primary focus is science.  Here again, what does this relationship imply?

It begs the question of  “What is truth?”

Take a look at the figure “An examination of what is “real”  on blog “So what the heck is Model-based Reality (http://explorethegap.net/2012/03/29/so-what-the-heck-is-hawkings-model-dependent-realism-2/ )

You can see that this assumption is not so straight forward!

Reflection on this questions is, I maintain, our human search for meaning. Our labeling and defining these relationship is a life-long journey.

It is such a reoccurring theme as to be a candidate as a principle of “human psychological behavior.”

I continually bring it to the attention of readers because it is so pervasive in all that we humans do. It goes like this:

People see in the information that which matches their model.

We see it again in Keith Kloor’s Discovery Magazine article “The Poisoned Debates between Science, Politics, and Religion.” Here is a link to the full article: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2012/12/27/the-poisoned-debates-between-science-politics-and-religion/#.UPr3E6yKySp

Keith cites multiple examples of how a group’s model of something, like  God, governance (played out in politics), or science causes people to see in the information, that which matches the  group’s model. This is perhaps a leading cause “poison” in human reasoning.

Being critical of activist atheists  Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, Keith states that in their exuberant rejection of religion, they attend to only a narrow segment of the religious community and their behavior:

The other big argument waged by a vocal group of prominent scientists involves the assertion that science is incompatible with religion… What’s more, an argument that lumps together the Taliban, the Dali Lama, and Jesus strikes me as rather simplistic. The atheists who frequently disparage religion for all its faults don’t dare acknowledge that it has any redeeming value, or that it provides some meaning for those who can’t (or aren’t yet ready) to derive existential meaning from reason alone.

Keith goes on to report  the criticism of Peter Higgs:

What Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is another problem. I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind.”

 Higgs points is pointing out here out that himself demonstrates the fundamentalist tenancies that  Dawkins is so critical of.

The fact that one recognizes and identifies this principle, does not give any leverage in escaloping the principle. That of course, applies to this author too.

Evidence that is can stand as a principle.

Science News article: Planets Abound: Astronomers Estimate That at Least 100 Billion Planets Populate the Galaxy

“There’s at least 100 billion planets in the galaxy — just our galaxy,” says John Johnson, assistant professor of planetary astronomy at Caltech and coauthor of the study, which was recently accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal. “That’s mind-boggling.”

From Science News Article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130103143422.htm?goback=.gmp_2074892.gde_2074892_member_201479279

This article  illustrates that the journey–and the scientific scenario–that Galileo helped kick off continues to this day. The scenario is as follows. When scientists put a device between themselves and that which is being observed it prompts an update in the models that make up a discipline of science.

Picture Published in article

In the case of this article, the new measurement device is Kepler space telescope. Being is space, the telescope changes the perspective of the observation. The output of the device has a clarity that earth-based telescopes do not have.

When scientists make new observations and change models, it can cause “definitional dissonance” to some people. I saw an example of this in interesting factoid in the book “A Little History of Science” by William Bynum. In addition to upsetting the worldview held by the Catholic church, there was an even more basic reaction to the telescope itself. William reported  that people did not trust what was coming out of Galileo’s telescope.

They used denial as a means of alleviating their definitional dissonance.

But what this article illustrates the model of human behavior as “definers.” To view human knowledge without looking at all three elements–the observed, the observer, and the instruments used in the observation– one working with an incomplete model.

Understanding that this principle applies to two of human’s major efforts to understand the universe around us–science and religion–is vital when exploring the gap between the two.