In this chapter the question on whether or not the belief in ultimate reality is logical and consistent. If something is ultimate and perfect, which cannot truly be fully defined, it would be outside of our understanding. If it is outside of our understanding than the ultimate reality would be incoherent or beyond our ability to say one way or the other (87). This raises questions on what is truly ultimate and is it free to perspective. Some believe that the ultimate is the best of all things that exist now while others believe it is an actual being.
William J. Wainwright believed that the belief in an ultimate reality, in his example religion arises from human "needs, yearnings, and experiences." Humans desire to escape the suffering of this world with the faith and belief that another more perfect existence is obtainable where the flaws of this world do not exist (89). Some critics find the belief in a perfect place or being incoherent because there is nothing to compare it to, no standard of ultimate perfection. Some find that an ultimate being is not coherent because it cannot be perfect as usually described because some perfections are incompatible, "If some perfections are incompatible, then a reality that possesses all perfections is not a possible reality and is thus not maximally perfect reality" (91).
In response to those objections some can take the approach of men like Charles Hartshorne who basically says we cannot define ultimate reality by our definitions as it is ultimate. It can only be defined by itself. We also know that there is good, power, happiness, etc... Therefore, ultimate reality would be or contain the maximum of these things (92). In Brahman Advaita believed no one being could embody ultimate reality but instead it is a "transcendent place or state" like Nirvana (94). The chapter concludes by basically saying no matter ones stance, the belief in ultimate reality will always have issues of understanding. Therefore, if not all but some of it can be conceived as incoherent.
Personally, I find this exert biased. It leads more towards ultimate reality being incoherent. However, one could argue that the answer as stated in the beginning is in the fact that ultimate reality is or would be outside of our reality, understanding, and comprehension. If that is so we cannot say with certainty if it exists or not as we do not maintain the means to fully comprehend it. Just because we do not contain the ability to fully grasp something does not make it impossible. That would mean we are judging it on our limited ability of understanding which is contradictory to something or someone being ultimate and beyond our understanding. We can only go around in circles asking questions that we do not contain the means to answer.
William J. Wainwright believed that the belief in an ultimate reality, in his example religion arises from human "needs, yearnings, and experiences." Humans desire to escape the suffering of this world with the faith and belief that another more perfect existence is obtainable where the flaws of this world do not exist (89). Some critics find the belief in a perfect place or being incoherent because there is nothing to compare it to, no standard of ultimate perfection. Some find that an ultimate being is not coherent because it cannot be perfect as usually described because some perfections are incompatible, "If some perfections are incompatible, then a reality that possesses all perfections is not a possible reality and is thus not maximally perfect reality" (91).
In response to those objections some can take the approach of men like Charles Hartshorne who basically says we cannot define ultimate reality by our definitions as it is ultimate. It can only be defined by itself. We also know that there is good, power, happiness, etc... Therefore, ultimate reality would be or contain the maximum of these things (92). In Brahman Advaita believed no one being could embody ultimate reality but instead it is a "transcendent place or state" like Nirvana (94). The chapter concludes by basically saying no matter ones stance, the belief in ultimate reality will always have issues of understanding. Therefore, if not all but some of it can be conceived as incoherent.
Personally, I find this exert biased. It leads more towards ultimate reality being incoherent. However, one could argue that the answer as stated in the beginning is in the fact that ultimate reality is or would be outside of our reality, understanding, and comprehension. If that is so we cannot say with certainty if it exists or not as we do not maintain the means to fully comprehend it. Just because we do not contain the ability to fully grasp something does not make it impossible. That would mean we are judging it on our limited ability of understanding which is contradictory to something or someone being ultimate and beyond our understanding. We can only go around in circles asking questions that we do not contain the means to answer.
I agree with your statement of, " just because we do not contain the ability to fully grasp something does not make it impossible." An example of this is heaven for Christians. Christians believe that once they die, they will go to heaven with God, which is "perfect" in every way. Being a Christian myself, I know that heaven is a "perfect place" where all problems go away and everything is good. Though I do not know what the exact meaning of perfect can be, I do know that whatever it is, it is without flaws and better than what I know now. I feel like with the subject of ultimate reality, it can be seen in this way as well. Though we do not have the experience of an "ultimate reality," we know that it is better than anything else we have known.
ReplyDelete