If you have not read previous “What is true and real?” posts, you can read them HERE and HERE.
In my previous post I concluded: “Mirage, an illusion of something that is real, describes my belief… true but unreal.”. Subsequent conversation about “true but unreal” understandably produced some pushback. This post will probe that idea further.
My beliefs developed in my echo chamber… family, relatives, friends. Consistent and continual messages created images, pictures representing reality. Those pictures became my reality, what was true.
Numerous propositions were true. For example, I was warned early on that electrical outlets are dangerous and I should never stick an object in them. My Thomasian skepticism led me to encounter reality. In that experience, I learned that picture was reality. On the other hand, there was Santa Claus. Discovering that picture was not reality is a painful memory.
My religious belief formed in a similar fashion. I grew up in a sectarian echo chamber (read “The Perfect Echo Chamber). When coupled with a secular worldview, where the individual is the focus of truth adjudication and the disenchanted mind employs neat and clean, easy to use, bivalence logic, belief was cut and dried…true or false, the result was an unholy amalgamation of disenchantment and enchantment. Viewing scripture through lens of logic and reason, produces a mirage. an unreal illusion of truth.
I recently came across a phrase shared by Fr. Stephen Freeman that is helpful in understanding belief as a mirage… true but unreal.
“Noetic perception” is a phrase that describes the ability of the human heart to perceive that which is Divine. As such, it is our capacity for communion with God and the whole of creation. … Without such a perception, we do not see the truth of things. By the same token, without such a perception, we cannot know the truth of our own selves.
A journey birthed in secular waters of disenchantment, created a deficiency of “noetic perception”. Unable to perceive that which is divine, belief proved to be shallow, lacking in meaning and purpose, ultimately dependent on my preferences. As Freeman observed, I was unable to even know the truth about myself.
What is described above does not characterize my belief today. However, even after decades of spiritual journey I am keenly aware of how deficient I am in “noetic perception”. To the extent that “noetic perception” flourishes, what is true and real is revealed.
An obvious question is: How does “noetic perception” grow?
Could it be that be that deficiency of “noetic perception” is an underlying condition that makes Christians most vulnerable to secularism?
More to come.