Let me pose one more question...
- What is nearest to you, your body or your thoughts?
The answer, of course, depends on how we are defining the concept of nearness. Are we talking physically or philosophically?
The process of defining nearness, however, requires more than definition if we are to have a meaningful and specific discussion. I would argue it requires us to understand each other's entire worldview.
For some people, the body is objectively nearest. They consider their body to be much more tangible than the theoretical construct humanity loosely defines as thoughts. To them, thoughts are identifiable only in terms of the data which can be gathered in a lab from brain activity, which is part of the body. Aside from this, the concept of thoughts themselves may be too nebulous or unspecific to have any kind of serious discussion about. They may argue that we can see, touch, and measure a body and its activity, but we cannot see, touch, or measure a thought, except possibly as one of many bodily functions.
Let me call this the materialist perspective, because in this perspective the material body is the nearest thing to us. It is the tangible basis of our worldview and experience.
For other people, however, thoughts are objectively nearest. They may consider the experience of their body to be purely mental, a construct in thought. They may point out that in dreams, when we are not using our physical bodies, we are still having rich and often meaningful experiences. To them, our experience of the body, ourselves, and the world is entirely dependent on our thoughts. They may argue, in fact, that thoughts are the only thing that we can be certain exists.
Let me call this the mentalist perspective, because in this perspective thoughts are nearest to us. They are the tangible basis of our worldview and experience.
Now, I am sure that you can picture the arguments that both of these perspectives would arrange to convince the other side of their point. What is important for our context, however, is that to both perspectives, the materialist and the mentalist, there is a different objective answer to the question of what is nearest. Who is correct? Both could find infallibility within the logic of their own worldviews.
Human logic—our definitions, perspectives, and arguments—is dependent on human experience and point of view. This means that logic, of necessity, is subjective. It is dependent on context. To further illustrate this point we only need to remember that for thousands of years it was logical to think the earth was flat. After all, no evidence had been discovered of an alternate view.
In the sciences, logic and reason are extremely important, but because they are subjective, the basis for absolute premises and theories must rest on objective proof alone.
For example, quantum theory is largely considered to be the most successful scientific theory we have in the physical sciences. Quantum theory, however, does not seem logical to most people, including the experts. It proposes, among other things, a view of reality in which something can be infinitesimally small and as large as the universe simultaneously. This is counterintuitive and even illogical to most people. It does not remotely reflect human experience or their view of reality.
However, quantum theory is considered successful because so far it has been proved consistent and correct in every experiment suggested by its premises. It forces us to redefine what is logical because it can be proved objectively. It can be seen as describing a fundamental aspect of reality.
In this book I will ask you to consider an absolute premise with me. I will aim to illustrate a view of consciousness that describes a fundamental aspect of reality. Logic and reason will help us navigate the human experience of that reality. However, the final basis for judging the validity of the ideas presented must be whether or not they can be proved.
In re-defining God as infinite Mind, I believe Eddy discovered, in Jesus' work and theology, a view of consciousness that can be proved objectively. That is the subject of the next chapter.
Quantum theory may be the most successful theory we have in the physical sciences. Yet the experiments of quantum theory, so far, only describe a small scale of phenomena that have limited practical use for humanity. Could we find the same kind of consistency beyond its limits in Christian Science? Could Jesus' work and theology reveal a more fundamental truth about reality and the human experience?
And what of the curious ways the experiments of quantum theory seem inextricably dependent on the activity of consciousness? The type of result gathered from these experiments depends completely on whether or not an observation is made during the experiment. Could this be more than a mere oddity? Could consciousness in fact be the basis of the reality these experiments are discovering?
