I have been thinking a lot lately about our competing realities.Right now in America, it is possible for us to live in completely alternate and parallel universes of truth. Some of us live in a liberal-rational universe of progressive democratic idealism and (mostly) relative truth. Others of us live in a religio-literal universe of scriptural prophecy, apocalyptic foreboding, conspiracy theories and absolute truth.
All of us are victims of the battles raging between these two universes.
Our parallel universes are evidenced by the fact that we have evolved conservative and progressive news networks, and online news sources that aggregate and present information in ways that affirm our prior biases. Different universes of truth need different universes of news. The universe you inhabit is indicated by the news choices you make and information sources you consume.
Each universe has its own apocalyptic mythology. In one universe, the apocalypse is a cascading environmental disaster of man-made climate change, or worse, a total nuclear war and global annihilation. In the other universe, the apocalypse is an imminent supernatural intervention by God that will separate winners from losers, sheep from goats, and a time when faithful believers will be rescued and rewarded. Or worse, a total nuclear war and global annihilation, which the faithful believe they will miss because they hold an acritical belief in the "rapture."
Both universes are founded upon assumptions and beliefs that can't truly be tested. Whether the universe started with a something-from-nothing bang, or was created by an all-powerful supernatural being, there is no way to definitively prove, or disprove, either creation myth.
Those ensconced in the libero-rational reality will likely flinch to hear the Big Bang theory referred to as a myth. A true believer almost always blanches when their sacred ox is gored. However, science-based beliefs are every bit as made up as religious beliefs. They are created in the human imagination, just like all religions. Sciencentrists (a neologism) privilege knowledge they believe to be discovered, or "scientifically proven," much like religious doctrinaires point to scripture and say "thus it is proven."
It is undeniable that scientific knowledge undergirds most of the technological and quality-of-life advancements that the modern world enjoys. It is also undeniable that scientific advancements have given birth to some of the most horrific and terrifying prospects for humanity's future: nuclear wars, biological warfare, and vastly improved battlefield weaponry, to name just a few; not to mention the environmental destruction that industry and technology make possible. Whether science-based beliefs are a net positive or net negative for humankind is an as yet unanswered question.
Libero-rational individuals are likely, at this point in the essay, to comfort themselves with the smug assumption that science is absolutely a positive development in the history of humanity. This response puts the lie to their much proclaimed preference for "objective truth," and "open-minded inquiry," and reveals their prior-bias for what they will accept as "truth" and "knowledge." At every stage of human history, the dominant and hegemonic power has proclaimed itself to be the pinnacle of human achievement and understanding. Thus, in the middle-ages when philosophy was a hand-maiden of the church, it was believed that religious understanding and knowledge were the flower of humanity's best minds, and thus all other beliefs were assumed to be vastly inferior, or dangerously flawed. In other words, much the same smug attitude that many in the libero-rational universe hold in regard to scientific knowledge, and in their utter rejection of religious beliefs and understandings.
Those ensconced in the religio-literal universe are often also offended upon hearing their beliefs described as products of the human imagination. In that universe, truth is revealed to humans by God, and that truth can be found within ancient human writings they believe are divinely inspired by God, another proposition which is beyond human capacity to validate. They willingly turn a blind eye to their own agency in accepting the multitude of rationalizations, explanations and misinterpretations that comprise belief in their sacred texts.
For the libero-rational universe, the truth about reality is discovered through rational thought and scientific experimentation. For the religio-literal universe, truth is revealed by God through manifestation of the supernatural into the natural world. Both universes, however, rely on the same human agency in accepting, believing, upholding and maintaining their ascribed sets of beliefs. Each individual adds his or her own psychic energy to perpetuating and propagating the beliefs they have either chosen or inherited from their socio-cultural ecology.
One big difference between these two universes is their relationship with human agency. The libero-rationalists, supporting the truths of human scientific discoveries, embrace human agency in this life. For the inhabitants of that particular paradigm, humans have the power and responsibility to make changes we deem are good and necessary. For those living in the religio-literal universe, human agency is surrendered to an all-powerful, hopefully beneficent, supernatural being who intervenes in human history to effect its will for the world. A potent symbol of one's affiliation to this universe of belief is how completely one surrenders their life to the whims and influences of this supernatural being. That is to say, when faced with the toils and tribulations of everyday life, when one surrenders their own agency to rely, instead, upon prayer and other religious observations, in hopes that will change the situation or circumstances that are distressing the believer.
Our current political situation in the United States is very much a result of the clash between a religio-literal universe and a libero-rational universe. Many Trump supporters proclaim themselves to be Bible believing Christians -- which means, they believe the apocalyptic script that has evolved over many years of Protestant Fundamentalist groupthink. They view Trump as somehow ordained by God, and think his task is to bring about a resurgence of the nation of Israel, thus paving the way for the second coming of Christ. It is a schizophrenic belief, however, since many of these same people believe they will be spared any end-of-world nightmares scenarios by virtue of being "caught up in the air" by Jesus during a much-feared-but-still-hoped-for Rapture.
Many Trump resisters, however, feel that Trump is nothing more than a demagogic fraudster who trades on the acritical prior biases and beliefs of his self-described Christian followers. For these resisters, Trump is a dangerous and precedent breaking, racist and hate-spewing con artist who threatens the entire American experiment in democracy.
Proceeding, as both do, from their firmly held and diametrically opposed universes of belief, it is unlikely that there can ever be true accommodation between these two groups of believers. As has happened in other countries around the world, religious fervor and blind obedience to religious authority is threatening to erupt in this nation as well. Because each universe holds the other in disdain (although, fairly, the libero-rational camp is open to valuing a diversity of opinion), it is likely that only the total defeat and capitulation of one side to the other will determine which version of reality will prevail.
Robert Frost may have captured this dichotomy of beliefs in his brief but gut-punching poem:
Fire and Ice
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
