The question whether people invent deities (in their own image) in order to satisfy their psychological (and sometimes physical) needs is still open. Whether there is a "higher power" in the universe (metaphysical rather than physical) that (who?) somehow relates to mankind in some meaningful way is an unanswered question, at least no hard and fast conclusion can be drawn. Nevertheless, most people believe and act like there is.

"The proof's in the pudding" many say (as did William James). If such beliefs benefit mankind by providing meaning and giving solace in times of trouble, then they are worthy of adherents. Whether these beliefs bear fruit or work out specifically as held is the contradictory issue.

Because many hold metaphysical beliefs that transgress what is known about the physical universe, they insist that things are demonstrably what they are not. But do scientifically based answers go far enough in addressing "ultimate questions"? I think not. I'm reminded of Einstein, who apparently thought that to answer the puzzles of the physical universe is to answer all valid questions. He was enamored with "Spinoza's God" (although Spinoza was much more complete in his conceptions and also subtler).  

If scientists do find the ultimate "unified" theory about the physical universe, will this tell all? Or will there be something yet to understand, possibly beyond man's comprehension? I'm betting that with our limited minds this will remain the case. Although it might be that some men might grasp at the right straw, it seems unlikely to me that the answer in its entirely will be forthcoming.

Those who insist that the universe is ultimately transparent in its workings and those who insist that it is an impenetrable mystery are both just guessing. For those who believe that a "complete" understanding of ultimate questions begins and ends with the observable universe  this may be a put down, because the quest to find such is the bedrock of their faith. But I think most people carry on with their beliefs rightfully, so long as these aren't harmful to others or are patently self-delusional. That their beliefs can't be proved in any conventional sense of the term is not reason to forsake them. Who can claim rightfully  that orthodoxy must be observed by all?  

There will be a few who will work through to new beliefs on their own. This is not only right, but it may be their personal destiny. If these beliefs prove out to be useful for others too then they may serve as the nidus of a new outlook on life. Most who have  unique beliefs will establish no incipient orthodoxy. Better that the  most of such  people's beliefs remain personal and idiosyncratic, since poorly founded beliefs tend to create havoc in the real world at large and some are frankly psychotic.

There are only a few who claim that they can do without any identifiable beliefs at all,  but many have beliefs that are tentatively held. Many intelligent people do this. When the nearest and dearest belief they hold is no longer supportable they relinquish it. Some say this open-minded approach is without conviction, but this is not necessarily so.

It requires a rather inventive mind to come up with new metaphysical or even theological  propositions. Most of us don't have such, so we borrow from whatever philosophical or theological source that seems most fitting. There is hardly harm in this, and there can be great benefit in doing so. Those who accept orthodoxy and those who reject it are actually in the same boat, striving toward the same end -- some assurance that their lives will not be lived in vain.  In any event,  the means and the end will never be perfectly clear, and this in part is what causes us to strive for spirituality.

Gary Whitesell

213 W. 21st