In Reality

By Richard Doyle Davis

Why do Christians view the world differently than do secularists? Is a conclusion valid if the first step of evaluation to reach that conclusion is to reject significant factors upon which the conclusion must rest? Consider!

• Language: English
• Publisher: Covenant Books, Inc.
• Release date: Aug 31, 2018
• ISBN: 9781643003238

Book preview

The Problem

Mankind has a problem. That problem is this: how does one tell the difference between that which is real and that which is not? Some assert that this is a complex problem; I assert that it is not a complex problem, but rather it is the results of the problem that are complex. Thus, if the problem is simple, it has a simple solution. Further, if the simple problem can be solved in a simple manner, so also can its resulting complexities be solved in a simple manner.

That which is real and thus true is that which is not within us. Such has been identified long before now as objective reality or truth. It is real and true regardless of what anyone thinks of or about it. It is there, and it is what it is. Nothing anyone thinks about it changes what it is.

According to Descartes’s principle, I think therefore I am. All of us are part of that which is called objective reality, but we humans do this thing called thinking. We draw conclusions about what is out there outside us. This set of conclusions about what is outside of us is called subjective reality. It is called subjective reality or truth because it is subject to what we think. And herein is the crux of the matter; what we think about objective reality may not be what the objective reality really is. There are at least two subjective views about what objective reality is. Some say that there is but one objective reality. They say that all objective reality operates on the same uniform set of rules. But others say yes, but it contains two subportions, which are called realms. These say that there is a physical realm and a spiritual realm. Furthermore, they say that the two realms do not play by the same set of rules. For example, in the physical realm, it is acknowledged that there can be only one thing in one place at one time. However, those who say that there is a spiritual realm say that in the spiritual realm, it is possible to have more than one thing in more than one place at more than one time. The uniform single reality folks say that having two sets of rules is evidence that the existence of multiple realms is but a fantasy. Those of us who believe in multiple realms simply reply that that is but someone’s subjective opinion. Chapter 8 contains a fuller explanation of the principles of the spiritual realm, which is, by the way, my subjective opinion.

Thinking operates upon data. Data is a Greek word that means simply facts. Facts are those things brought into us via the senses. The number of senses that there are is not a settled issue. There are five senses upon which there is common agreement. They are sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. There are those of us who assert that there is a sixth sense, which we call the conscience. There are others who assert that this thing we call the conscience is nothing more than a fabrication of the (sick) mind. We who assert that it does exist respond that it is rejected not because it is not real, but because of what it reveals about reality, hence what it reveals about us as individuals.

Differences between what we think and the information coming in to us via the senses (whichever ones they really are) is called inconsistency. Inconsistency upsets thinking. Thinking is after all the search for consistency. It is thought that inconsistency arises from fallacy. But how does one identify and remove the fallacy? Wherein is the analysis of the facts incorrect?

Thinking cannot take into account either that which does not exist or that which is not detected by the senses as existing. If something exists but is not detected by the senses, then it is altogether the same to the mind as if it did not exist. It is impossible to draw conclusions about that which is not known. Thus, if the senses cannot detect it, then the mind cannot and will not think about it. There is, however, this thing called speculation. Speculation is the process of the mind searching for explanations that resolve things that have been detected by the senses, which have also raised awareness of inconsistencies between what is being detected and what was previously thought to be objective reality.

It has been found that the human senses don’t detect everything. For example, bats both make and hear sounds of that humans are completely unaware. Another example of creatures that have senses superior to those of humans is the mantis shrimp. In the human eye, there are two types of detectors. There are detectors that detect black, white, and shades of gray in between. There are other detectors that detect the colors red, green, and blue, as well as all combinations and degrees of these three. The mantis shrimp, however, has eighteen different kinds of detectors in its eye. Thus, in addition to being able to see everything that humans can see, mantis shrimps are also able to see ultraviolet light, infrared light, and polarized light and probably other things that researchers have not yet discovered. Furthermore, each sense operates on and within a specific medium. For example, eyes do not detect sound; smell does not detect touch. Some animals have senses that operate in mediums for which humans have no corresponding detectors. Sharks, for example, have detectors (senses) that detect electromagnetic activities. They find their prey by smell and also by detecting the electromagnetic activity of their victim’s brain sending a signal telling the heart to take a beat.

In addition, those things that are detected don’t spontaneously make sense. Speculation is necessary to make sense of those things detected. Some scientists assert that most of the first two years of a human’s life are spent making sense of the things detected by their senses about the world into which they have been introduced.

The senses are the human’s connection to that which is outside them and thus to objective reality and truth. The five senses connect with mediums found only within the physical world. Hence, they can deliver data found only within and therefore about the physical world.

The sixth sense that I am calling the conscience operates on a nonphysical medium. Those of us who believe in this sense call the medium in which the conscience operates the spiritual realm. Those who do not believe in this sense, and thus this medium, say that the spiritual does not exist and that which we call the spiritual realm has only been fabricated out of the fear-driven and superstitious and thus sick mind. It is from the spiritual realm as detected by the sense of conscience that we know right from wrong. There is no morality in the physical world. There is only that which has happened before, which caused that which is happening now, which will in turn cause that which will happen after now. Morality is more than a sense of what is happening then, now, or later. It is the sense of what ought to happen; it is a sense of what is not happening and which should happen. It is the perception of the spiritual that gives us a sense of morality.

There is another group of detectors and detections that may be called senses. They are what we call the appetites or feelings. These detect significant conditions within the self. They detect, and the self responds to such things as when to breathe, when to drink, when to eat, when to get rid of those things eaten and drunk, as well as when to arouse and exercise sexual passions. When these report that all things within the individual are going well, the individual may say that he feels fine; when they detect something not right, then the individual may say that he doesn’t feel so well. These are all lumped together and labeled feelings. This kind of feeling is not to be confused with the kind of feeling that is a result of detection of events via the sense of touch.

In the church today, there is a debate over whether man is bipartite or tripartite. These are fancy words that simply mean two parts or three parts. There is one part upon which both viewpoints within the church and even the nonchurch agree. Everyone agrees that there is a physical part to man; they all call this physical part the body. The nonchurch group that holds the viewpoint called empiricism says that man is a body and nothing else. Others say that there is a visible part of man called the body and an invisible part called the soul. The third viewpoint says that there is indeed a visible part of man and an invisible part of man; they further assert that the invisible part of man also has two parts. They (including me) say that the invisible part of man is itself in two parts called the soul and the spirit. The empiricist say that what appears to be an invisible part of man is nothing more than complex operations within the visible part of man. They say that when the physical part dies, that is the end of the man. They say that all this dispute