Smashing the Universe

I was at Academy Northwest yesterday reading the little notes that students leave under the plastic see-through mats on the table. One of them sparked my interest. It's a hold out from Sophie's World, an introduction to philosophy that the class is studying. It asked, "What is reality? What if all of this is a dream?" I felt compelled to answer.

First, what difference does it make? There is no way to prove, really, that we are not in our own or in someone else's dream. There is also no real way to prove that we are. Especially in light of this, there is no reason to not live as we ought now. It doesn't make a difference to our world whether or not it exists in a very real sense. There are still pragmatic issues to confront, such as the monthly bills, and there are still philosophical truths to debate, such as morality. The true nature of reality is irrelevant to life and how we ought to live in it.

Second, since empirical proof is lacking about the nature of reality, we ought to look for the system of belief that most adequately and consistently explains the nature of things around – and within – us. Now certainly, a person may claim that we are all the figment of his imagination, and we have no immediate way to disprove him. However, G.K. Chesterton put together an excellent rebuttal. He said:

"Nevertheless he is wrong. But if we attempt to trace his error in exact terms, we shall not find it quite so easy as we had supposed. Perhaps the nearest we can get to expressing it is to say this: that his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle. A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite as infinite, it is not so large. In the same way the insane explanation is quite as complete as the sane one, but it is not so large. There is such a thing as a narrow universality; there is such a thing as a small and cramped eternity; you may see it in many modern religions."

Basically, the idea that we are in some dream state may be consistent with all the evidence, but fails to explain the large things in a large enough way to truly placate the mind and soul. So, our search must be for a logically consistent yet truly all-encompassing belief system that explains both the nature of man and the nature of God. Personally, I ascribe to a worldview that not only explains the depravity of man, but also explains how God in His grace and love sought to reconcile the impure with a most Holy God. As a believer in "mere Christianity," I have found that system to be the best explanation as to what is real and what is not.

But the question of how we ought to behave still remains, no matter what philosophy or religion you may ascribe to. How shall we then live? I again turn to Chesterton, who said it most excellently. We have got to "smash the universe." Try as I might, I can't quite put my own words up to rewriting his quote … or significantly cutting it.

"Can he hate it enough to change it, and yet love it enough to think it worth changing? Can he look up at its colossal good without once feeling acquiescence? Can he look up at its colossal evil without once feeling despair? Is he enough of a pagan to die for the world, and enough of a Christian to die to it? In this combination … he is ready to smash the whole universe for the sake of itself." (I've been on an Orthodoxy binge, in case you couldn't tell.)

So, to whichever student wrote that question about the nature of reality and placed it underneath the mat, I admittedly haven't answered your dilemma. But, I do contend that it is irrelevant. The real question is what should we believe and then how shall we act. That is a personal choice … but Christianity provides a big enough answer and a clear enough system that I am compelled to go smash the universe "for the sake of itself."