Is the divine an experience that exceeds human thought and belief?
Human thought exists in roughly two states: the concrete, and the abstract. Concrete ideas are produced from interpretations of the objective, material, and perceivable world, in which the perceiver validates their interpretation through empirical evidence and sensory engagement. Ideas of people, places, and objects are said to be concrete, because they come to fruition within the constraints of the physical world. Conversely, while abstract ideas do have a basis in the physical world, they are not impeded by the same constraints posed on the concrete. Abstract thought goes beyond the scope of what we can perceive with our senses and furthermore what we can interpret through evidence, deeming it somewhat of paradox. This paradox rests in the reality that we as humans collectively agree upon the existence of speculative concepts, even when these concepts do not adopt a sensible, validating form. The man made ideas of math, love, reason, truth, freedom, religion, logic, language, and even humor, are all a product of abstract speculation which is thought to be fundamentally embodied in human nature even at the lowest levels of cognition. Aside from the intangible concepts that create and shape our society, perhaps the most profound consequence of human abstraction is the age-old belief in a higher order divinity. Because the idea of God is a disputed, misunderstood, and unverifiable theory with no concrete basis, spiritual experiences rise exclusively through nonmaterial mediums of thought. It is believed that even though our minds allow us to internalize part of the divine experience through abstraction, we do not visualize the full picture because the divine exceeds both concrete and abstract human abilities. We like to believe that our minds are boundless as is our ability to imagine and understand complex concepts, but as finite beings trying to comprehend the infinite, we do have our limits. Though theologians, philosophers, and scientists alike have tried to use abstraction and reason to understand the origins of the divine, it is ultimately an experience that can not be fully grasped by regular modes of thinking and thereby exceeds all forms of human thought and belief.
The idea of God is one of the most disputed, misunderstood, and unverifiable conjectures of the modern world. A large number of the arguments for or against God can be categorized through metaphysical, logical, empirical, or scientific lines of thought, deeming it a difficult concept to generalize among masses. The Western philosophical discourse surrounding the existence of God began with Plato and Aristotle, whose arguments were extrapolated via cosmological and metaphysical bases of reasoning. Over time more contemporary ideas of God arose which were psychological and empirical in their approach, one the earliest unique descriptions being from Sigmund Freud who believed that God arose as a function of human “wish fulfillment”. As a psychologist, Freud analyzes the origin of the divine through the lens of psychological fulfillment postulating that the human mind is forced to wish into existence the idea of a “sole protector” because the mind can not cope with the idea of being alone and unprotected in a universe so vast and intimidating. He argues that this view of the divine becomes an illusory coping mechanism for humans, as it is created out of the necessity of our own desire and the deep understanding of an external locus of control. Freud argues that there are advantages to this idea of the divine, claiming that society has learned how to harness wish fulfillment to create moral imperatives and an ethical framework that encourages “goodness”. Here, God is the ultimate cosmic enforcer that upholds society to a certain standard that otherwise would not have been within reach. Regardless of this theory, Freud acknowledges that there are valid drawbacks to his hypothesis, as wish fulfillment manifestations of a God may stunt our ability to reason, discourage critical thinking and even stunt the growth of a moral compass as compassion is no longer a product of love, but rather a product of fear of punishment. An example of this religious extremism, where the blind faith and fear of God pushes individuals to commit hostile behaviors in order to prove their commitment to God. Freud hoped that wish fulfillment was something humans would grow out of, and that a deeper understanding of optimistic nihilist perspectives would dispel the need for society to use the divine as their insecurity crutch.
The second perspective of the divine we discussed was that of Carl Jung, who was another contemporary psychologist like Sigmund Freud and also heavily associated with the works of Freud during their time. One of Carl Jung’s most famous theories is the theory of the “collective unconscious”, which he describes as a segment of the deepest unconscious mind that is genetically inherited, shared among all humans, and is not shaped by personal experience. Jung viewed the human psyche as an iceberg, in that there is a small part of the psyche that we are aware of, and a large part that is ultimately hidden away from us. Our ego, connections to people, understanding of society, and awareness of self all encompass the parts of our psyche that we can see and analyze through minimal introspection. Below the ego lies our personal unconscious, which Jung describes as the complex that is connected to our ego and shapes our decisions, but is not ultimately seen in clear view through minimal introspection. Our childhood upbringings, familial relationships, and unique individual experiences shape the personal unconscious by internalizing themes and truths we may not even remember from the past. The personal unconscious influences our decisions and personalities in the present moment, and we are usually largely unaware of this. Even deeper below the personal unconscious lies what Jung believed to be the most expansive part of the human psyche, which as mentioned before is the collective unconscious. The collective unconscious is what he believes to be the part of the psyche in which all contents are shared by all the humans that have ever existed and ever will exist. It is the place from which common dreams, symbols, structures, cultural/social themes, and fundamental human behaviors emerge, and most importantly it is the conjurer of the divine. Jung’s theory suggests that God is the inevitable abstract manifestation of this collective unconscious, that poses as a symbol of our interconnectivity and oneness as humans.
The idea of the divine has also been analyzed from an anthropological perspective as concluded by Emile Durkhiem, who poses the third idea of its origins. In contrast to Freud’s theory of God which was largely external and Jung’s theory of God which was largely internal, Durkhiem’s views were more blended in terms of the locus of control. His classical definition of religion is that “religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things”. He believed that God was neither in the individual or the collective unconsciousness, but rather that God lied within the intricacies of society. Similar to Jung’s theory of the divine as a function of psychological structures, Durkhiem posits that the divine is a function of societal structures working together to act as an organism or being. This being generates motivation through sacred energy which is derived from the act of ‘collective effervescence’, a term coined by Durkheim that encompasses the contagious euphoria that we feel in the presence of large ritualistic social gatherings. In this way Durkheim argues that religion and the divine have arisen as a means to symbolize this collective effervescence, and that religion plays a neither good nor bad but functional role in society. Durkheim’s views are largely similar to Jungs in that he believes in the interconnectivity of humans, but they differ in their view on this being an attribute of psyche or society; To Durkheim, God cannot exist without society, whereas Jung does not emphasize the need for social structures to be in place for the experience of the divine.
William James brings forward the fourth perspective of the divine, which is God as a response to the human experience of “the More”. James’ examination is highly metaphysical in that he acknowledges the nature of reality itself, and how the reality that we perceive through the human mind and body does not not do justice in capturing the full picture. “The More” Is what he describes as the aspect of the universe that is not compatible with the human condition, and that because it is not translatable to language or thought, it presents itself as religious or spiritual experiences in individuals. He further posits that religion becomes this unique inner disposition to reality that is characteristic to each individual depending on their life experiences, internalized ideas, and even genetic predispositions, so that no two people will ever have exactly the same idea of “The More”.
James’ hypothesis is similar to Freuds in that they both embrace the idea of the unknown being a catalyst to spiritual thinking. To Freud, the unknown and potentially unknowable characteristics of the universe pose as a fear inducing impetus of belief, but to James it poses as an inquisitive, answer seeking medium of satiation. To James, the experience of the divine is something that humans experience only a fraction of, and that there exists a reality far beyond our consciousness that communicates its presence through the idea of God.
The hypotheses discussed thus far have viewed religion as neither incredibly beneficial nor detrimental to society, but in Karl Marx’s view, religion is a dangerous tool used for mass exploitation. Marx is known for his takes on exploitation of labor and his derivation of the communist economic theory during the early industrial revolution, where he witnessed the pure neglect and suffering of people subject to poor lifestyles at the hands of the wealthy. As Marx observed the world around him change through the industrial revolution, he started to analyze the role of religion in society as “an opiate of the masses”. Religion seemed to be a form of mind control that the ruling classes used as a means to dumb down and numb working class people into accepting their fate. Marx understood that religion was a powerful mental tool and did not inherently believe religiosity was mentally debilitating, but in the context of the newly formed industrial society he saw it as a completely negative impediment keeping humanity from revolt against mistreatment. Although it may not be apparent at first, Marx’s theory of the divine actually addresses the exploitation of almost all theories previously discussed. Similar to Freud’s idea of ‘wish fulfillment’, Marx believed the working class people were using religion to fulfill their desire for a better life. Similar to Jung’s idea of the collective unconscious, Marx believed the wealthy class was exploiting the unconscious minds of workers by indoctrinating them with the belief that they were all connected and prospering. Finally similar to Durkheim’s idea of society as God, Marx believed religiosity arose as a response to the poor structural changes of society during his time. Although Marx’s ideas of the divine are a valid response to the happenings of his time, his perspective focuses more on religion and the exploitation of religion as a societal structure rather than religion and spirituality as fundamental aspects of the human condition. Unlike previous theories, this perspective is not standardized for the diversity of the human experience, as it focuses on one societal aspect that invokes a specific response. Nevertheless, Marx is the only one who’s perspective focuses on the potential pitfalls and dangers of religion, highlighting that experience of the divine can be manipulated if one desires to do so.
The final perspective is that of Rudolf Otto. Otto was a German philosopher who was regarded as one of the most influential theologians of the early twentieth century. Otto presents us with the idea of God as a complex relationship between human reason, morality, and what he calls, “the numinous”. Otto postulates that the existence of God can be inferred through rational principles brought to us by reason, and our innate predispositions to good brought to us by morality. “The numinous” exists as what is left over after reason and morality, as this sort of unknown lingering feeling that we all experience as the sublimity of life. The encounter of the numinous can be classified as a divine experience, and otto describes the validity of this encounter through the emotional states of fascinating mystery, followed by creature feeling terror, and lastly a feeling of attractiveness to this terror despite it’s intimidation. Otto acknowledges that the experience of the numinous is not as comfortable or euphoric as it is made out to be, and that the numinous will make one feel as if they are infinitesimally powerless in its presence. It is a state where all ego vanishes and one is left with a pure understanding of how much isn’t understood, but one still retains a respect for the numinous as they surrender to it their control. It is the state in which one understands that experience of the divine is indeed, one that exceeds classical human thought and belief.
One of the most noble places to experience the numinous or the divine has historically been in nature. Nature is one of the original environments in which mysticism was observed and felt, and although we don’t interact as much with nature in the modern day, prehistoric humans and hunter-gatherer societies derived all of their motivations and inspirations from the wilderness. Ralph Waldo Emerson and John Muir are examples of transcendental naturalists that believed in the presence of God within the natural world, and that the natural world provided all that one needs for the development of their own understanding of the universe. Emerson emphasized the importance of self reliance and rejection of reliance on second hand information in order to form a pure relationship with the universe and one’s consciousness. Muir, although not one to form as concrete opinions on God as Emerson, felt numinous through the astounding beauty of the natural world which he believed to be a way in which God would communicate to humans that they were right where they should be. In the movie “Into the Wild”, Christopher McCandles is inspired by Emerson’s writings on nature and tries to chase the feeling of complete self-reliance by embarking through the wilderness in solitude. McCandles journey started out with the intention of finding fundamental truths rather than finding himself, but through his journey he finds that the pursuit of truth and self actualization does not bring forth true happiness, in the way that forming genuine human connections does. McCandles interpretation of the numinous becomes an understanding of the fact that between all the unknown, dark, cruel, empty, and sometimes downright pointless aspects of the universe, all we truly have in each moment as humans is each other. This compassion for one another propels us to look past the fear, and come together as a collective to make the world a better place for all. The power of love between people may be one of the most telling arguments as for why divine experiences exceed human thought and belief. Because human thought follows logic, and love oftentimes does not follow this logic, I am led to believe that the divine experience is not meant to be fully understood, but appreciated and nurtured.
