The pursuit of geopolitical power in an emerging multi-polar world

In this essay, I discuss the role of geopolitics in the emerging world order. For the first time in decades, we see a multi-polar world emerging and various world powers (especially China, Russia and the EU) are challenging the old order. But what are their strategies? And how do they try to realize them? Although technology plays an important role, the old game of geopolitics is back in town. I discuss the most important geopolitical strategies and how these world powers are incorporating them in their thinking. I also show how this helps us to understand the current situation in Ukraine.

There are longs periods during which the international political landscape in the world is quite stable. And then there are periods in which it is extremely unstable (typically ending in great wars). At this stage in the history of the world, we are moving from a stable to an unstable situation. Although the world is not yet in the precarious situation of being unstable, it is changing fast and the signs are clear that a new phase in the political history of the world has begun. There is a sense that the playing field has opened up and that opportunities are presenting themselves. The other important players (other than the US) sense that the Great Recession has damaged the financial power of the West and with it its ability to project power. And they are preparing strategies to assert themselves in ways unthinkable a few years ago.

Stability in the international political landscape always has its origin in a stable balance of power between world powers. This can include a situation where one superpower rules (a mono-polar world) or where two great powers are more or less evenly balanced in various parts of the world (bi-polar-world). Generally, these are periods of peace when commerce flourishes. During the last few centuries this happened during the period of the British empire in the eighteenth century, during the long period when the West and the USSR were evenly balanced in power (before the Cold War came to a climax during the last part of the 1980's) and again during the period of US dominance over the last few decades.

But there are also periods during which the world was very unstable. This typically involves a multi-polar world in which various players actively participate in the pursuit of power - when the great powers try to manoeuvre themselves into positions of power. This happened when Imperial Germany challenged British power just before the First World War and again when Nazi Germany challenged the Anglo-American power just before the Second World War. It also happened when Communism spread all over the east and the West tried to block that in the period before and during the Vietnam War. And it is happening again - in the period since the Great Recession.

The great powers follow various strategies in their pursuit of power. These could include an effort to try and out-sprint each other in military capability, both regarding new technologies and brute power. This can typically be measured in military spending. At the end of the Cold War the West out-sprinted the USSR for the simple reason that it became overstretched and did not have the economic and innovative ability to keep competing (that is why China combined its communism with a form of open economy). But there is another important factor in the power game. Although it is not often mentioned, it played a very important role in the thinking of the great military powers of the past and the present. This is geopolitical concerns. Various geopolitical strategies for world domination have been developed which involve control of certain strategic geographic areas of the world. The use of such strategies depends on a country's own geographic position.

Classical geopolitical strategies

There are essentially three major geopolitical strategies. The first was developed by Alfred Thayer Mahan (1840-1914), a US naval officer. He studied the British Empire and concluded that its navy was the basis for its success. He developed the concept of "sea power" according to which countries with greater naval power will have the greater worldwide impact. He presented his ideas in his famous book The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1600-1793 (1890). His ideas had a great impact on the thinking of many strategists since that time and even today it is important in US Naval Doctrine. This strategy seems to be especially well suited for trading countries like Britain or the US, which need large navies to protect their financial interests. Although such countries were historically island countries which were in some sense protected from enemies by the sea which surrounds it (even the US can be viewed as a large island away from the large world mass of Euro-Asia), this advantage has diminished due to technological developments over the last century. Nowadays trade moves along sea, air, land and advanced communication routes.

The second strategy was developed by Sir Halford Mackinder (1861-1947), a British geographer. He viewed history as a constant battle between sea power and land power. Whereas sea powers have the ability to control the sea, land powers have the ability to control the major crossing points on land (railroads, oil pipelines etc.). He studied the world's land mass to establish which part of it is of central importance for any land power to effectively control the world. In his view, this involves controlling the "World Island", which includes Europe, Asia and Africa (i.e. two-thirds of the available land). The other smaller "islands" like North and South America or Australia are less important. Furthermore, to control this large land mass (especially the "Heartland" which includes Europe and Asia) one have to control eastern Europe. Traditionally the European powers and Russia came into conflict over this area. If the area between the Black and Caspian Seas is included in "eastern Europe", this means effective control of all the routes going from Russia to Europe and the Middle East.

The third important strategy was developed by Nicholas Spykman (1893-1943), a US scholar of international politics. He brought Mahan and Mackinder's strategies together. In his view, the most important geographical area to be controlled is not so much eastern Europe, but the "rimland". This includes the area surrounding the "Heartland" of Euro-Asia and consists of various sections, namely the European Coastal areas, the Arabian-Middle Eastern desert land and the Asiatic monsoon, by which he means the civilizations surrounding the Chinese cultural sphere. Anyone who controls the "rimland", be it land powers in Euro-Asia or Sea powers, controls the world. His view greatly influenced the US containment strategy, of both the USSR and China.

Current power games

Countries have no control over the geographical area where they are situated. The US is an "Island" country, and China, Russia and the EU (the only ones to be discussed in this essay) are land powers in Euro-Asia. Since large deserts divide Russia and China, and the possibilities for power expansion in these areas are restricted, it is easy to see why Russia has traditionally projected its power to the west and south (i.e. towards Europe and the Middle East) and China has projected its power towards the seas to the south and east. For China, any effective projection of power would, first of all, involve control of those areas. During the Cold War, when the power of the US and the USSR were quite evenly balanced, the US controlled the seas as well as a large part of the rimland (but lost control in Vietnam), whereas the USSR controlled eastern Europe as well as parts of the rimland. At the end of the Cold War, the USSR lost control over those areas, but the US held and strengthened theirs.

There are mainly two reasons why the international political situation in the world is changing. The one is the rise of China. Over the last few decades, the Chinese rulers have come to the conclusion that the only way to effectively grow their power is through rapid technological and economic development and that involves trade. Furthermore, they have concluded that the best strategic geopolitical model suited for their circumstances, is the one associated with trade, namely of sea power as envisioned by Mahan [1]. The Chinese have built a powerful navy and are challenging US containment. They have tense relations with nearly all their neighbours to the east and south, including Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam and Taiwan (things have calmed somewhat due to Taiwan's current policy of appeasing China). In November 2013 China even proclaimed a new air defence zone in the East China Sea of which about half overlaps with Japan's own air defence zone. The Senkaku islands (called Diaoyu by the Chinese) are in this area. In reaction, the Japanese have increased their military budget for the first time in more than a decade.

The other reason for the changing world situation is the geographical rise of the EU, which now includes 28 countries. Although the rise of the EU has not really drawn much attention because the EU is not viewed as a strong military power and some have taken the economic crisis in the EU to signify its decline, in geographical terms, the EU has dramatically expanded its reach. It is exactly this eastern expansion of its influence which has brought it into conflict with Russia over Ukraine. Before its independence, Ukraine had been part of the Soviet-Union. What we have seen, is that the EU has effectively expanded its control over a very large part of eastern Europe which, according to Mackinder, is needed for any ambitions to have eventual control of the world. Would the ex-Soviet states of Ukraine and Armenia have signed association agreements with the EU as part of the eastern partnership program at the end of 2013 (together with Moldavia, Georgia and Azerbaijan), it would have been the first step to contain Russia beyond the Ural mountains. Such a Russia is effectively stripped of all geopolitical possibilities to expand its power - no wonder that the Russian president, Putin, has used strong-arm tactics to prevent them from signing.

The Arab Spring could play an important role in shaping this emerging world. If all the Arab countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea would eventually, maybe after some decades, turn into democracies (some expected that to happen overnight!), their natural home would be the EU. From a geopolitical point of view, this would give the EU control of a large part of the rimland. If it ever happens that other Arab countries in the Middle East, like Syria and Iraq, would also move in this direction, the EU could in principle become the most powerful country in the world (This is because of such possibilities that Spykman was very much against the unification of Europe). Since its rise is so peaceful, nobody expects it to become such a superpower. But that can change if some EU countries proceed to form a political union (become politically integrated) and have strong military capabilities at their disposal.

The outcome of the war in Syria could also have a major impact on the emerging world order. The reason why Russia is supporting the Syrian regime is simply that it is one of their last allies in the Middle East. If Syria becomes democratic, Russia would be excluded from the Middle East (except for its alliance with Iran). Together with the EU's eastern partnership (if that ever comes to full fruition), this would reduce Russia to a large but impotent country. So, Putin's cunning power games is not a sign of Russia's rise, but rather of its struggle to keep some of its prospects for power open.

On the other hand, the US's reluctance to bomb the Syrian regime in 2013 after it used chemical weapons against the rebels, had been taken by many Middle Eastern countries as a sign that the US does not have the same motivation as in the past to become involved in conflicts in the region. Although it is clearly a good strategy to first get rid of Syria's chemical weapons before any direct Western participation in the conflict, it none the less seemed to countries like Saudi-Arabia and Israel (and probably Iran and Russia) that the war-weary US is becoming an unreliable partner. Since the US will become self-sufficient in fuel-production in the near future, it clearly does not have the same motivation than in the past to secure Western fuel supplies in the Middle East. The US has also stated that they have the intention to focus more on securing their strategic interests in the east, with the rise of China in mind. It is possible that the US will eventually need all their resources to contain a rising China in the east. This will open a strategic space in the Middle East which will most probably be filled by the EU (although Iran, together with Russia, will do all in their power to resist this).

The US has spent a lot of effort in promoting peace in the Middle East. They got the Israeli-Palestinian peace process going again, are trying to bring the Syrian regime and the rebels to the negotiation table and are also trying to force Iran to let go of its nuclear ambitions. Although such an effort to promote peace seems noble, there are some problems associated with this approach, namely 1) it seems that the Obama administration is trying to promote peace at all costs (or avoid war at all costs?), and 2) lasting peace has historically only been achieved when the world moved from an unstable political landscape towards a more stable one (typically after great wars), never when the world is moving from a stable to an unstable situation, from a unipolar world to a multipolar one. The result is that the major players see this as an opportunity to enhance their positions in the intermediate period before everything becomes extremely unstable. They try to manoeuvre themselves to outplay the others.

Conclusion

The world is changing fast and a new multi-polar world is emerging in which China, Russia, the US and the EU are the major players. In (classical) geopolitical terms, the US has been using the ideas of Mahan and Spykman for about a century to enhance its own power. They have controlled the seaways and the rimland. But this situation will not stay static. Their control of both the sea as well as the rimland (especially in the east) is challenged by China, who is also seriously considering implementing Mahan's strategy. Although China has not yet made any major move in this regard, it seems quite possible that they will eventually do so - especially when they think they are in a position to succeed (maybe with fast, land-grabbing military exercises). It is possible that the containment of China will eventually force the US to apply all its resources in this regard.

The alliance between the US and the EU within the framework of NATO, and the free-trade zone that is being negotiated between them, implies that the US could (and probably would eventually have to) leave the European borderlands to the EU as primary (but maybe not sole) defender thereof. This will only happen once the EU has developed into a major military player as well. In the meantime, it has used its soft power to enhance its own interests to such an extent that it has effectively secured eastern Europe and could very well eventually include the countries around both the Black and Mediterranean Seas in its sphere of influence. This will give them control over large parts of the rimlands bordering Europe and the Middle East. If Russia is effectively excluded from this zone, the EU could become the new and final (?) unipolar superpower in the world. Although this seems improbable at this point in history, this is exactly what geopolitical analysis predicts.

[1]  Part1-3: Inside China's military buildup (Reuters investigates).


Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)

See also: The rise of the final world empire: the different views
 The euro countries move towards a fiscal union: an eschatological perspective

Wat moet Christene in 'n tyd soos hierdie doen?

In hierdie skrywe bespreek ek die Groot Skeiding in die samelewing. Wat is dit en hoe kan ons dit sinvol aanspreek? Ek maak voorstelle oor hoe Christene die speelveld kan verander.

Ons staan weereens by die begin van 'n nuwe jaar. Met die draai van elke die jaar is dit 'n goeie tyd om na te dink. Om 'n bietjie te herkou. Ons kan onsself afvra: Wat staan uit ten opsigte van die afgelope jaar? Wat is belangrike tendense? En sulke nadenke kan lei tot nuwe idees. Tot nuwe voorstelle. Ons kan vra: Wat kan of moet ons in die lig van ons waarneming doen? Mense het allerhande nuwejaarsvoornemens. Maar ons kan gewoon ten opsigte van die nuwe jaar vra: Wat kan ons in hierdie jaar doen om 'n verskil te maak? Christene kan vra: wat moet ons in 'n tyd soos hierdie doen?

Terwyl ek so nagedink het, was daar veral een waarneming wat vir my uitgestaan het. Ek wil dit die Groot Skeiding noem. Dit lyk vir my of daar 'n groot kloof deur die samelewing loop. Alhoewel ons baie skeidings en verskille in die groter samelewing kan waarneem, is hierdie een belangrik omdat dit nog 'n baie groot impak op die toekoms van die evangeliese Christendom gaan hê. Dit het hoofsaaklik met mense se ingesteldheid ten opsigte van die wetenskap te doen. Ons kan dit in meer diepte beskou en kyk wat ons as Christene moet doen om oor die lang termyn 'n verskil te maak.

Aan die een kant merk ek 'n groot groep mense op wat ons as "tradisioneel" kan beskryf. Wat hierdie groep in gemeen het is dat hulle oor die algemeen deel van die tradisionele stroom van denke uitmaak. Hulle staan by dit waarmee hulle grootgeword het. Onder hierdie mense is baie Christene. Baie onder hulle is of negatief of agnosties oor die wetenskap. Daar bestaan by hulle 'n persepsie dat wetenskaplikes die Bybel probeer ondermyn [nota 1]. Dat die Bybel en die wetenskap in konflik is. Baie van hierdie Christene maak 'n bewuste keuse vir die Bybel teenoor die wetenskap. 

Aan die ander kant is daar die groep wat miskien in die verre verlede "verlig" genoem sou word omdat hulle 'n meer kritiese benadering het. Hulle dink krities oor dinge na. Hierdie groep onderskryf die wetenskap en baie staan agnosties teenoor die geloof. Op die markplein van denke behoort  feitlik al die stemme wat in die wyer media as gesaghebbend aangehaal word, naamlik in die daaglikse en weeklikse koerante of op nasionale TV, tot hierdie groep. Hulle is die meningsvormers van die tyd. Waar hierdie groep jare gelede betreklik klein was, beperk tot sommige vrydenkendes by universiteite, is daar vandag 'n groot segment van die samelewing wat hier tuis is. Baie van die professionele beroepsmense bevind hulle hier. Ons kan dit die wetenskaplik-ingeligte groep noem.

Waarom is die Groot Skeiding vir ons as Christene belangrik? Die antwoord is eenvoudig: die jonger geslag is oor die algemeen baie meer gesofistikeerd in hul denke en voel hulleself tuis in die tweede groep. Op skool leer hulle nie meer soos in vergange dae dat die Bybel die belangrikste rigsnoer van ons lewe is nie; hulle leer dat die wetenskap die antwoorde het. Al meer van hulle huldig 'n sekulêre lewensbeskouing. Al meer staan agnosties ten opsigte van die geloof of is selfs ateïste. Soos die wyer samelewing met gesaghebbende stemme van regoor die wêreld bekend raak en wetenskaplik-ingelig is, so raak die eerste groep kleiner terwyl die tweede groep deurentyd groei. Christene bevind hulle al meer op die rand van die samelewing en hul impak gaan in die toekoms al kleiner word. As ons ons kinders verloor, het ons die toekoms verloor.

Die persepsie wat die tweede groep van die Christene het is dat hulle primitief dink, dat hulle ongeloofwaardige posisies probeer verdedig en dat dit wat hulle sê glad nie in die hedendaagse konteks sin maak nie. Alhoewel Christene voel dat so 'n beoordeling onredelik is, is dit ongelukkig waar dat dit al meer 'n algemene persepsie in die wyer samelewing raak. Sommige Christene dink dat die evangelie noodwendig vir die wêreld sal aanstoot gee en dat dit maar die lot van Christene is. Alhoewel dit waar is dat die evangelie vir baie aanstoot gee, is dit ook so dat baie Christene posisies verdedig wat lankal nie meer vir die gemiddelde wetenskaplik-ingeligte persoon sin maak nie. Die probleem lê nie by die evangelie nie; dit lê by die verpakking van die evangelie. 

Wat is die oplossing? Aan die een kant is daar 'n geestelike oplossing, naamlik dat ons die krag van God in aksie moet sien [nota 2]. In soveel gevalle weerspreek Christene se lewens en optrede dit wat hulle predik. Ons het 'n geestelike opwekking nodig. Maar aan die ander kant is daar ook 'n intellektuele oplossing. Christene sal die Groot Skeiding moet oorsteek. Hulle sal 'n taal moet praat wat vir die wetenskaplik-ingeligte mense van ons tyd sin maak. Die tradisionele Christen paradigma en die wetenskaplike paradigma (i.e. waarin wetenskaplikes en baie professionele beroepsmense opereer), praat verskillende tale wat in die algemeen glad nie wedersyds verstaan word of sin maak nie. Vir my lê die wonder daarin dat die Bybelse teks so dinamies is dat dit juis gesofistikeerde interpretasies ondersteun. Ons kan die Bybel op 'n eenvoudige wyse verstaan, maar ons kan ook op 'n gesofistikeerde wyse daarmee omgaan. En sonder sulke gesofistikeerde interpretasies wat die inspirasie van die teks onderskryf (let wel), sal die Bybel dood gewoon nie vir die wetenskaplik-ingeligte groep sinmaak nie.

In 'n poging om sinvolle interpretasies op die tafel te plaas, het ek het oor die afgelope jaar artikels op hierdie blog gepos waarin ek op twee aspekte gefokus het. Ten eerste het ek getoon dat die Christelike wêreldbeskouing - soos die bestaan van die hemel - kredietwaardig is [nota 3]. Alhoewel die wetenskap nie hieroor kan uitsluitsel gee nie, is dit wel so dat die Christenstandpunt gemaklik met die wetenskap versoenbaar is. Agnostici of ateïste wat glo dat ons wêreld tot die materiële aspek beperk is (dat daar geen gees of hemel is nie), moet nou toon dat die wetenskap nie 'n geesteswêreld kan akkomodeer nie. En dit kan hulle nie doen nie. Ek argumenteer dat die geesteswêreld waarbinne die hemel lê maklik met die kwantum realm, wat 'n hoër dimensionele tekstuur kan hê, wat binne die raamwerk van ons materiële wêreld ingebed is, kan ooreenkom.

Ten tweede het ek geargumenteer dat die Bybelse narratief geloofwaardig is. Ek het begin by die boek Genesis, wat vir baie mense problematies is en artikels oor die Skepping asook Adam en Eva gepos. In die komende jaar beplan ek verder ook artikels oor die tuin van Eden, die slang asook die Godskonsep in Genesis 1-3 (en die vraag oor die geldigheid van die bronneteorie van die Pentateug!). So het ek getoon dat die Bybelse teks in Genesis 1-2 glad nie in stryd is met wetenskaplike bevindinge oor die ouderdom van die kosmos en die aarde nie [nota 4].

Christene wat 'n sesduisend jaar oue skepping in Genesis 1 probeer inlees, het enorme probleme om hul siening te regverdig (sien [nota 4]). Wat meer is, daardie siening het tot gevolg dat diegene wat wetenskaplik-ingelig is dink dat dit die Bybel is wat sulke lagwekkende uitsprake maak en daarom totaal irrelevant vir vandag is - terwyl dit eerder waar is van daardie interpretasies wat voortbou op 'n ongesofistikeerde lees van die teks. Alhoewel sommige wetenskaplik-ingeligte mense vanweë die scientistiese invloede in die samelewing ook nie ruimte maak vir dinge soos die opstanding nie (dink maar aan diegene in die Nuwe Hervorming), laat die Bybelse teks ons toe om dit sinvol te verdedig [nota 5]. Gesofistikeerde interpretasies is nie in stryd met die Goddelike inspirasie of wondergebeure in die geskiedenis nie. Vir baie Christene is dit kompromie om die wetenskaplike bevindinge vir byvoorbeeld 'n ou aarde te aanvaar - hulle besef nie dat die Bybelse teks daarmee gemaklik is en glad nie 'n sesduisend jaar oue aarde onderskryf soos hulle geleer is om te dink nie.

Die gesag van die Bybelse teks as die geïnspireerde Woord van God is oor die afgelope paar eeue veral deur Bybelse Kritiek (Biblical Criticism/Bybelwetenskap) ondermyn, eers met hul positivisties-modernistiese en deesdae met hul post-modernistiese aanslag. Alhoewel evangeliese Christene, veral aan sommige universiteite in die VSA, goeie teen-antwoorde gee, weet baie Christene nie altyd hoe om hierdie denke effektief te weerlê nie. In hierdie verband is filosofie een van die mees effektiewe stukke gereedskap tot ons beskikking, in teenstelling met wat baie Christene dink - veral kontemporêre hermeneutiek. Ek het dus ook 'n artikel in hieroor gepos waarin ek Bybelse Kritiek vanuit 'n filosofiese hoek gekritiseer het [nota 6].

Ongelukkig is baie tradisionele Christene negatief oor filosofie. Hulle verbind dit met Paulus se "wysheid van die wêreld" (1 Kor 3:19). Alhoewel dit sekerlik waar is dat filosofie in sigself ons nie op die regte pad kan lei nie, kan dit tog 'n handige middel wees in die verdediging van die evangelie. Paulus self het in Griekeland op die Areopagus met die filosowe gedebatteer en dit is duidelik dat hy in hierdie verband goed in die antieke denke onderlê was. Waar evangeliese Christene (meestal in die VSA) wel filosofie studeer en in debatte benut, fokus hulle ongelukkig meestal op die Middeleeuse Christenfilosowe. Ons kan sekerlik baie by hulle leer, maar ek dink die debat vra dat ons baie meer van die kontinentale filosofie (veral van hermeneutici soos Gadamer asook van Immanuel Kant, wie se filosofie tans 'n groot oplewing beleef) moet maak. Voorts is dit belangrik om kontinentale filosofie te bestudeer omdat dit so 'n groot impak op die kontemporêre wêreldbeskouing het.

Dit bring my by die belangrike vraag: Hoe kan ons as Christene die speelveld verander? Dit is duidelik nie iets wat vinnig sal gebeur nie, maar ek het twee voorstelle:

1. Christene in die akademie moet hulle daarvoor beywer dat sinvolle en gesofistikeerde narratiewe ten opsigte van die Christen wêreldbeskouing en Bybelse teks in die akademiese gemeenskap aanvaar word. Alhoewel sulke narratiewe nooit as die enigste korrekte aanvaar sal of hoef te word nie, is dit heeltemal voldoende dat sulke alternatiewe in die akademiese literatuur erken word. Gesprekke in wetenskaplike en filosofiese kringe syfer uiteindelik tot op voetsool vlak deur. Alhoewel sulke gesprekke en artikels soms baie tegnies kan wees, gebruik baie ander skrywers die essensie daarvan in hul gesprekke en argumente. Dit sal aan Christene die nodige gereedskap gee om effektief op die markplein van denke me te ding.

Dit beteken dat Christene hulleself in die toepaslike dissiplines sal moet bekwaam en bereid wees om vir hul standpunte op te staan. In hierdie verband is dit interessant hoeveel Christene wat deur die eeue 'n groot impak op die geskiedenis gehad het, sedert Paulus, geleerde mense was. Paulus se skrywe was ook vir baie van sy tydgenote moeilik om te verstaan (vgl. 2 Pet 3:15, 16), maar het die intellektuele basis vir toekomstige eeue se gesprek gelê. Sonder Paulus se skrywes sou ons maar 'n baie beperkte insig in die soendood van Jesus Christus gehad het. So het geleerde Christene, en nie altyd teoloë nie, deur die eeue telkens nuwe stukrag aan die kerk verleen (dink aan C. S. Lewis in die vorige eeu) deur die nodige gereedskap daar te stel wat die kerk op daardie stadium vir hul gesprek in die samelewing nodig gehad het. 

Alhoewel dit so is dat baie Christene bang is dat diegene wat gaan verder studeer (veral in rigtings soos teologie en filosofie) deur liberalisme ingesluk sal word - dink maar aan almal wat met 'n brandende hart gaan teologie studeer het net om later die pad byster te raak vanweë liberale invloede aldaar - glo ek dat daar wel 'n oplossing in hierdie verband is. Dit is die daarstel van 'n goeie akademiese inrigting met evangeliese waardes waar alle vakrigtings aangebied word. Ons moet werk vir die oprigting van 'n goeie geakkrediteerde Christen universiteit in Suid-Afrika wat die belange van die wyer Christengemeenskap kan dien - en nie net hierdie of daardie kerk nie. Kritici kan maar sê wat hul wil, maar daar is in die meeste beroepe nie iets soos 'n neutrale posisie nie - en die posisie by die meeste universiteite is sekulêr. So 'n universiteit sal mense in alle beroepe toerus om uiteindelik hul stem op die markplein van denke te laat hoor.

2. Christene moet effektief op die markplein van denke deelneem. Dit sal net gebeur as daar mettertyd 'n wye netwerk van evangeliese Christene tot stand kom wat nie net geestelik is nie, maar ook akademies ingestel is. Hulle kan op 'n wye verskeidenheid vlakke saamwerk om die Groot Skeiding oor te steek en die wetenskaplik-ingeligte groep ook (soos baie ander groepe in die tradisionele groepering in die samelewing en elders) effektief met die evangelie te bereik. As evangeliese Christene mettertyd in posisies regoor die spektrum verteenwoordig is, kan almal in so 'n netwerk saamwerk om sinvolle en gesofistikeerde Christen stemme in die wyer samelewing en media te bevorder.

So 'n netwerk sal net realiseer as evangeliese Christenleiers op een of ander wyse begin saamwerk. En dit sal net gebeur as daar een of ander struktuur of forum is wat so 'n netwerk tot stand bring en dit ook op verskeie wyses bevorder. So 'n forum moet die ruimte skep waarbinne so 'n netwerk kan funksioneer i.e. nie om dit te organiseer nie, maar bloot om die ruimte daarvoor te skep. Daar is soveel verskillende bedieninge en gemeentes wat binne die raamwerk van so 'n netwerk oor kerkgrense heen sal kan saamwerk en floreer.  Maar dit sal ons iets kos. Christenleiers sal van wantroue en trots moet afsien - ons sal ruimte vir mekaar moet maak al staan ons dalk ver van mekaar in ons opvattinge en sieninge.

Dit is eers wanneer so 'n netwerk tot stand kom dat die oprigting van 'n universiteit met evangeliese Christelike waardes 'n werkbare opsie sal word. Die rede hiervoor is dat so 'n netwerk ook die voedingsbron vir so 'n universiteit sal wees. Alhoewel teologiese skole van kleiner kerke vir akkreditering met so 'n universiteit kan saamwerk en teologiese studente hul nagraadse studies daar kan doen, is daar natuurlik soveel ander Christene in verskillende kerke wat nie noodwendig teologie wil studeer nie, maar wat by so 'n universiteit kan studeer. Voorts kan studente wat hul graad daar verwerf weer by ander erkende universiteite verder gaan studeer. Dit sal vir daardie studente die intellektuele basis lê selfs al sou die rigtings waarin hulle verder by ander universiteite gaan studeer as moeilike rigtings vir evangeliese Christene beskou word (dink aan die NG kerk kweekskool).

Daar is ongelukkig baie weerstand onder 'n groot deel van die tradisionele Christengemeenskap teen verandering - veral die soort waarvan ek hier praat. Baie van ons het groot geword in 'n paradigma waar net ons eie posisie as korrek beskou word - terwyl daar tipies verskeie ander soortgelyke en selfs beter posisies elders onder evangeliese Christene aanvaar word. Ons besef nie altyd hoe beperk ons eie insigte en sieninge is nie! Ek glo dat ons in die Christengemeenskap ons harte moet verruim om vir mekaar ruimte te maak. Een van die gevolge van die voorstelle wat ek hier maak sal juis wees dat so 'n gesonde oop gesindheid in die wyer Christengemeenskap bevorder word.

Sommige sal nooit insien dat dit vandag deel van die Goddelike opdrag is dat ons die Groot Skeiding moet oorsteek om mense met die evangelie te bereik nie. Ons moet hulle maar agterlaat. Ons moet nie dat hulle ons terughou nie. Maar daar sal andere wees wat, al gaan hulle nie self nie, ten minste ruimte sal maak vir diesulke wat wel geroepe voel om te gaan. Ons moet ons vir so 'n gesindheid beywer - om 'n netwerk daar te stel waarin ons nie net op verskillende vlakke en raamwerke volgens ons roeping en gawes saamwerk nie, maar waar ons ook ruimte maak dat sommige geroepe is om na die wetenskaplik-ingeligte mense in die tweede groep uit te reik. Ons mense is glad nie toegerus om met diegene rondom hulle wat wetenskaplik-ingelig is gesprek te voer nie - die voorstelle hierbo sal 'n veilige milieu skep waarin dit prakties kan gebeur.  As ons dit nie doen nie, sal die evangeliese Christendom al meer sy stem en impak in die samelewing verloor.

Die voorstelle wat ek hier noem sal net realiseer - en dalk eers oor baie jare - as ons as Christene hieroor nadink, bid en met 'n gesprek onder mekaar begin. As evangeliese Christene wie se harte deur die Heilige Gees opgewek is met geestelike leiers wat na hul mening oop is vir hierdie gedagtes oor hierdie saak gaan praat. As Christenleiers wat die probleem sien, met mekaar begin praat. As sulke leiers moeite doen om met ander wat ook so voel in aanraking te kom en die gesprek oor die forum te begin. Ons sal veral moet besef dat hierdie saak nie net op 'n intellektuele vlak benader kan word nie; dit is bowenal 'n geestelike saak. Dit gaan immers oor die uitbouing van God se koninkryk. Dit is slegs deur baie gebed dat hierdie dinge uiteindelik sal realiseer.

Die realisering van hierdie visie sal ware leierskap vra - geestelike leiers sal ten spyte van opposisie uit hul eie kring 'n besluit moet neem om hulle vir so 'n ideaal te beywer. Ware leierskap is om ten spyte van weerstand, jou op 'n wyse en gesofistikeerde wyse te beywer vir daardie dinge waarin jy glo. As Christenleiers nie in die lig van die veranderende situasie sulke leierskap toon nie, sal toekomstige geslagte van Christene ons verkwalik dat ons niks gedoen het nie. As iemand soos Nelson Mandela nie die groter ideaal van 'n demokratiese Suid-Afrika voor oë gehou het nie, en aan die beswaardes in sy geledere geluister het, sou ons dalk in SA dieselfde konflik gesien het wat lande soos Egipte en Irak kwel.

Ons moet eers besef daar is 'n wesentlike krisis - en dat dit nie voldoende is as ons slegs in die raamwerk van ons bekende veilige omgewing funksioneer en dink nie (ons kan gerus onthou hoe naby 'n groef en graf aan mekaar lê). As ons slegs binne die raamwerk van die kleiner wordende tradisionele groep opereer sal ons nooit die wyer samelewing bereik nie. Ons sal dalk die veraf volke deur sendingwerk bereik, maar in ons eie leefwêreld sal ons 'n groot en vinnig groeiende segment van die samelewing verloor. Christene sal die Groot Skeiding moet oorsteek. Ons moet die mense van ons tyd bereik.

Ek vertrou dat hierdie skrywe so 'n gesprek sal stimuleer.

[1] Sien my artikel: Wetenskap en geloof
[2] Ek het in die afgelope jaar verskeie geestelike artikels op hierdie blog gepos:
 Die profeet
 God hoor
My oordenkinge oor die lewe van Abraham wat op RSG uitgesaai is, is intussen in die boek Begin jou dag met God (Carpediem Media, 2013) opgeneem.
[3] Sien die artikel: Kan ons nog in die hemel glo?
[4] Sien o.a. : Does the creation narrative of Genesis 1 support the idea of a young earth?
[5] Sien my artikel: Om te glo of nie te glo nie...
[6] A Critique of Biblical Criticism as a scholarly discipline


Skrywer: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. www. wmcloud.blogspot.com)
Kontak my by wmcloud@yahoo.com

Kan ons nog in die hemel glo?

In hierdie essay gee ek die redes waarom ek in die hemel glo. Daar is wetenskaplike, filosofiese, geskiedkundige en geestelike redes waarom ons in die hemel kan glo. In die lig hiervan kan blote skeptisisme maklik na 'n onredelike standpunt lyk.

Ek het vroeër vanjaar met Bertus Osbloed van Niekerk en 'n klompie van sy vriende (ek het darem ook 'n vriend saam gehad) van die Renaissance gemeentes, wat noue bande met die sg. “Nuwe Hervorming” beweging het, by 'n restaurant in Somerset-Wes gekuier. Ons het oor verskeie sake soos die betroubaarheid van die Bybelse teks, die duiwel asook oor die hemel gepraat. Wat die hemel betref, het ons eintlik nie baie ver gekom nie en ek hoop ons sal die gesprek nog iewers voortsit. In hierdie essay wil ek graag die kwessie van die hemel verder aanroer.

Alhoewel ons maar relatief kort gesels het, is dit is vir my duidelik dat Bertus en sy vriende agnosties is oor God se bestaan. Hulle dink nie dat die Bybelse vertelling omtrent God se openbaring in die geskiedenis gesag dra nie. En hulle glo nie in die hemel nie. Nou is dit sekerlik so dat dit baie onwaarskynlik is dat 'n mens in die hemel sal glo as jy nie in God glo nie. Ek glo in God en ek glo dat Jesus die Seun van God is – en ek glo in die hemel. Maar ek moet steeds aan myself die vraag vra: Waarom glo ek dat daar 'n hemel is? En waarom dink ek dat die Bybelse inligting oor die hemel gesag dra? Ek wil enkele dinge in hierdie verband aanspreek.

In hierdie essay benader ek die kwessie van die hemel vanuit verskeie hoeke. Ek gee 'n kort agtergrond oor die antieke voor-wetenskaplike beskouing van die hemel. Vir baie Bybelse geleerdes is dit moeilik om die antieke konsep van die hemel met die postmoderne denkwyses te versoen. Tog bou hul kritiek op die hemel grotendeels voort op die modernistiese beskouing oor die kosmos toe baie geleerdes daarvan oortuig was dat ons net dit wat wetenskaplik gegrond kan word, as geloofwaardig kan aanvaar. Dit is egter nie 'n siening wat vandag meer veel aansien geniet nie.

Regdeur die essay vra ek myself: Wat is die belangrikste rede waarom ek in die hemel glo? Is dit omdat ek genoegsame wetenskaplike getuienis het dat die hemel bestaan? Sekerlik nie. Die wetenskaplike getuienis is nie genoegsaam om enige uitspraak vir of teen die bestaan van die hemel te maak nie. As ons die vraag 'n bietjie aanpas, en vra: Hoe is die bestaan van die hemel moontlik? of : Hoe kan ons die bestaan van die hemel met die huidige wetenskaplike kennis van die kosmos versoen?, dan dink ek dat 'n sinvolle antwoord gegee kan word. In hierdie verband is dit opvallend dat slegs die wetenskaplike ontwikkelinge oor die afgelope eeu – en veral oor die laaste paar dekades – my toelaat om hierdie vrae sinvol te beantwoord. Die rede hiervoor is gewoon omdat die kosmos duidelik 'n baie meer komplekse plek is as wat die modernistiese mens ooit kon droom. 'n Groot deel van die skeptisisme oor die hemel is juis die gevolg van 'n baie simplistiese vertolking van ons beperkte wetenskaplike kennis.

Maar die feit dat die hemel gemaklik versoenbaar is met ons wetenskaplike kennis, is nie die belangrikste rede waarom ek in die hemel glo nie. Ek is van mening dat die uitsprake wat ons in die Nuwe Testament oor die hemel vind, geloofwaardig is en gesag dra. Ek kyk na Paulus se skrywe. Voorts glo ek dat Jesus se uitsprake hieromtrent geglo kan word. In hierdie verband noem ek enkele dinge omtrent die betroubaarheid van die Jesus-woorde in die Evangelie van Johannes. Uiteindelik kan ons natuurlik nie die bestaan van die hemel bewys nie; ons glo daaraan of nie. En ek dink dat ons goeie rede het om daarin te glo.

Die pre-wetenskaplike hemel

Die konsep van die hemel is baie oud. Ons vind verwysings na die hemel in die vroegste Sumeriese tekste. Ons vind dit ook regoor die antieke wêreld asook later in die Hebreeuse tradisie. Die antieke siening kan kortliks saamgevat word in 'n drie-verdieping beskouing van die kosmos, met die hemel bo, die aarde in die middel en die doderyk onder die aarde. Baie kontemporêre geleerdes is van mening dat daardie vroeë beskouing primitief is omdat dit uit 'n pre-wetenskaplike leefwêreld kom waarin mense 'n baie simplistiese beskouing oor die kosmos gehad het. Daardie mense sou dink dat die hemel “bo” die aarde is – en ons weet vandag dat daar nie van “bo” die aarde gepraat kan word nie.

In my boek Abraham en sy God (2011) bespreek ek die antieke beskouing in detail. Ek fokus op die vroegste denke hieromtrent en toon dat dit inderwaarheid 'n baie gesofistikeerde siening van die kosmos is wat op die beweging van die sterrehemel gebaseer is. Ongelukkig werk baie Bybelse geleerdes met 'n karikatuur van daardie siening wat hulle dan gemaklik afskiet. Ek gaan nie daardie antieke siening hier volledig bespreek nie ('n blits uiteensetting sal nie daaraan reg doen nie); wat ek wel kan noem is dat die antieke mens, sedert die tyd van die Sumeriërs en sekerlik lank voor hulle, geglo het die “hemel” wat ons in die noordelike sterrehemel kan onderskei, slegs 'n sigbare eweknie van die werklike hemel is wat in die geesteswêreld verborge is. Hulle het geglo dat daar 'n onsigbare “direksionele” wêreld (i.e. wat ons wêreld impakteer) agter die sigbare wêreld verborge lê – 'n wêreld waarin die geeste, gode en God self bestaan. So, die hemel moet dus in die onsigbare geestesrealm gevind word – en soos ek hieronder sal aantoon is daar geen rede waarom ons nie hierdie siening ernstig kan opneem nie.

Die rede waarom sommige Bybelse geleerdes soveel klem op die pre-wetenskaplike aard van die Bybelse teks asook konsepte soos die hemel lê, is omdat hulle van mening is dat die moderne en postmoderne mens doodgewoon nie meer daardie narratief as geloofwaardig kan beskou nie. Waarom dink hulle so? Hulle is van mening dat die wetenskaplike era onherroeplik met die pre-wetenskaplike wêreldbeskouing weggedoen het. Ons kan dus nie meer veel waarde heg aan sieninge wat uit daardie primitiewe tyd kom nie. Hierdie siening word onderlê deur die standpunt dat die wetenskap ons enigste betroubare maatstaf omtrent die werklikheid is.

Alhoewel niemand dit sal betwyfel dat ons wetenskaplike wêreldbeskouing die antieke siening verplaas het nie, is daar geen rede om te dink dat die wetenskap ons enigste maatstaf omtrent die werklikheid is nie. Wetenskaplikes dink deesdae dat bekende materie slegs sowat 7% van die kosmos uitmaak. Daar is 'n erkenning dat ons steeds baie min omtrent die kosmos weet en wetenskaplikes wat dink dat ons binnekort als wat ons kan weet gaan deurgrond, word nie meer in filosofiese kringe ernstig opgeneem nie. Ons besef vandag dat die kosmos baie meer kompleks is as wat die modernistiese mens – wat so vol bravade gedink het dat daar geen beperkinge op die menslike vermoëns is nie – ooit sou kon dink.

Die filosoof Immanuel Kant het lang gelede reeds geargumenteer dat ons empiriese benadering tot die kosmos slegs tot die fenomenele wêreld beperk is. Dit is die wêreld wat ons rondom ons of deur wetenskaplike ondersoek kan waarneem. Volgens hom is daar 'n aspek van die kosmos waartoe ons geen direkte toegang het nie – dit is die noumenele wêreld (afgelei van “nous” wat “mind” beteken) wat buite ons konsepte van ruimte en tyd lê. Ons kan daardie aspek van die wêreld bedink, maar nooit direk empiries waarneem nie. As die kosmos inderdaad is soos hy sê (en hy voer goeie argumente vir sy siening aan), dan is daar sekere beperkinge op menslike rede.  Sy bekendste werk, Critique of Pure Reason, stel dit juis ten doel om te toon dat ons rede onherroeplik beperk is tot die fenomenele wêreld. Ons kan nooit enige finale gevolgtrekkings maak oor die werklikheid soos dit waarlik daar uitsien nie.

Kant onderskei drie benaderings ten opsigte van die gebruik van ons rede. Daar is die dogmatiese beskouing waarvolgens sekere sieninge (soos die bestaan van die hemel) dogmaties en sonder bewys onderskryf word. Verder is daar is die kritieke beskouing waarvolgens sulke sieninge op 'n radikale wyse gekritiseer kan word – hy verwys hier veral na David Hume en sy volgelinge (B789). Laastens is daar sy eie kritieke benadering wat beide die dogmatiese en skeptiese sieninge kritiseer. Sy sieninge kritiseer die gebruik van rede buite die grense wat rede self daarvoor stel.

Ons kan die dogmatikus kritiseer, maar ons kan ook die skeptikus kritiseer omdat hy nie in ag neem dat ons menslike beperkinge ons onherroeplik terughou van enige finale kennis oor die kosmos nie. Ons kan gewoon nie sekere antwoorde vanuit die raamwerk van suiwer spekulatiewe rede gee nie. Die wetenskap sal gewoon nooit enige finale antwoorde vir of teen die bestaan van die hemel kan gee nie. Ons kan wel die wetenskaplike uitsprake oor die kosmos met 'n ander, geestelike beskouing komplimenteer – dit is nou as ons dink dat ons rede het om dit te doen. Ek glo dat ons wel so 'n rede het.

Die hemel en die wetenskap

Ons sou kan sê dat ons beperkte wetenskaplike kennis ruimte maak vir geloof. Maar dit is nie genoegsaam om maar net te sê dat omdat die wetenskap nie als weet nie, daarom kan ons daardie kennis-gaping met enige vorm van geloof vul nie. Ons moet darem seker redes gee waarom ons dink dat ons die wetenskap met geloof kan komplimenteer. In hierdie verband is daar verskeie redes, waarvan die eerste is dat ons huidige wetenskaplike kennis gemaklik versoenbaar is met die antieke konsep van die hemel. In stede om te vra: Is daar genoegsame wetenskaplike getuienis vir die bestaan van die hemel?, kan ons vra: Hoe kan ons die bestaan van die hemel met die huidige wetenskaplike kennis van die kosmos versoen? Ek dink dat 'n mens 'n sinvolle antwoord hierop kan gee.

Een van die belangrikste ontwikkelings in die wetenskap die afgelope eeu was die ontdekking van kwantum fisika. Wetenskaplikes het ontdek dat daar 'n aspek van ons kosmos is wat baie anders lyk as die fenomenele wêreld waaraan ons gewoond is. Die kwantum wêreld het ander reëls – Newton se bekende wet van oorsaak-gevolg word opgehef, die elementêre kwantum deeltjies (wat nie “deeltjies” in die klassieke sin is nie) is op 'n manier onderling met mekaar verbind al is hulle hoe ver van mekaar verwyder, daar is spontane oorsaaklikheid wat ons fenomenele wêreld impakteer ens. Dit is 'n wêreld wat nie empiries vir ons toeganklik is nie – en kom presies met Kant se noumenele wêreld ooreen. Ek het in 'n essay wat ek by die jaarlikse PSSA (Philosophy Association of SA) gelees het, geargumenteer dat ons die kwantum realm as die demonstrasie van Kant se noumenele realm kan neem [1]. Dit sal beteken dat die siel, wat Kant in die noumenele realm plaas, in effek in die kwantum realm kan bestaan (sien veral nota 7 in [1]).

Ons weet nog relatief min van die kwantum wêreld. Dit blyk dat daardie wêreld uit 'n verweefdheid van kwantum velde bestaan wat buite ons ruimte-tyd dimensies lê. Slegs die gebeure wat vanuit daardie velde spontaan in ons fenomenele wêreld manifesteer, val binne ons ruimte-tyd dimensies. Dit is moontlik dat die kwantum wêreld in ander ruimte-tyd dimensies bestaan. Wetenskaplikes wat worstel om 'n verenigde teorie oor die kosmos daar te stel, wat poog om die vier fundamentale kragte (elektromagnetiese krag, sterk en swak kernkrag asook swaartekrag) in een teorie byeen te bring, het al voorgestel dat ons dit net kan doen as ons sekere klein ingevoude ruimtelike dimensies veronderstel wat binne die struktuur van ons kosmos ingebed is [2]. Ons ruimtelike dimensies is dan met sulke dimensies gevul waarin daar in beginsel ander deeltjies en selfs strukture (soos die menslike siel/gees) teenwoordig kan wees wat nie vir ons sintuie toeganklik is nie. Dit sal beteken dat daar 'n hele wêreld binne ons fenomenele wêreld bestaan wat glad nie direk empiries toeganklik is nie – 'n wêreld waarvan ons nog bitter min weet.

Die doel van hierdie bespreking is nie om te toon dat die kwantum wêreld met die geesteswêreld ooreenkom nie. Al wat ek hier doen is om te toon dat daar inderdaad so 'n “geesteswêreld” binne die raamwerk van die fenomenele wêreld kan bestaan – presies soos die antieke mens gedink het [3]. Alhoewel die wetenskap nie op hierdie stadium die antieke konsep van die geesteswêreld of die hemel kan onderskryf nie, kan so 'n konsep gemaklik met die wetenskaplike verstaan van ons wêreld versoen word. Daar is geen rede om te dink dat die wetenskap die konsep van die hemel ondermyn nie. Om die waarheid te sê, Kant vereenselwig uiteindelik ook die noumenele wêreld met die toekomstige wêreld waarop ons as Christene hoop (B835-839).

Die Bybelse hemel

Die feit dat die wetenskap gemaklik met die konsep van die hemel as 'n plek in 'n ander dimensie versoen kan word, is egter nie die belangrikste rede waarom ek in die hemel glo nie. Dit ondersteun wel my geloof in die bestaan van so 'n plek. My geloof in die hemel is op die Bybelse getuienis in hierdie verband gebaseer. Ek is van mening dat die Bybelse uitsprake oor die hemel geloofwaardig is. Ons kan dit maar glo.

Een van die belangrikste plekke in die Bybel waar die hemel as uiteindelike bestemming van gelowiges ter sprake kom, is in Paulus se skrywe aan die gemeente in Korinthe. Daar argumenteer hy dat ons in die hemel as onverganklike bestemming van die opgestane gelowiges kan glo omdat Christus uit die dood opgestaan het. Paulus begin sy rede met 'n geloofsbelydenis wat duidelik met die skrywe van die brief in 54 n.C. reeds lank in die vroeë kerk in gebruik was: “[I]n die eerste plek het ek aan julle oorgelewer wat ek ook ontvang het, dat Christus vir ons sondes gesterf het volgens die Skrifte; en dat Hy begrawe is, en dat Hy op die derde dag opgewek is volgens die Skrifte; en dat Hy aan Cefas verskyn het; daarna aan die twaalf. Daarna het Hy ook verskyn aan oor die vyfhonderd broeders tegelyk, waarvan die meeste nou nog lewe, maar sommige al ontslaap het. Daarna het Hy verskyn aan Jakobus; daarna aan al die apostels; en laaste van almal het Hy verskyn ook aan my as die ontydig geborene” (1 Kor 15:3-8).

Paulus argumenteer dat daar goeie getuienis vir die opstanding is. Die opstanding is sedert die vroegste tyd in die kerk se geloofsbelydenis opgeneem. Christus het na sy dood in 'n verheerlikte liggaam aan verskeie persone asook aan groepe persone verskyn – waarvan die meeste nog met Paulus se skrywe gelewe het. Hy noem dat Christus se opstanding die rede is waarom diegene wat in Hom glo, ook kan weet dat hulle eendag met die opstanding van die dode sal opstaan. As ons in Christus se opstanding glo – en Paulus dink dat ons goeie rede het om dit wel te glo – dan het ons alle rede om in die opstanding en die hemel as ewige salige bestemming te glo. Ek stem met Paulus saam dat daar goeie getuienis vir die opstanding is – en dat gelowiges dus rede het om in die hemel te glo.

Ons vind verder ook regdeur die evangelies dat Jesus na die hemel of "koninkryk van die hemele" verwys waar die regverdiges uiteindelik saam met God, Jesus self en die engele sal wees (vgl. Mark. 12:25-27; 13:26-27, 32; Mat. 13:43 ens.) [4]. Een van die mooiste uitsprake in hierdie verband kom in die Evangelie van Johannes voor. Daar lees ons hoedat Jesus se: “Laat julle hart nie ontsteld word nie; glo in God, glo ook in My. In die huis van my Vader is daar baie wonings; as dit nie so was nie, sou Ek dit vir julle gesê het. Ek gaan om vir julle plek te berei. En as Ek gegaan en vir julle plek berei het, kom Ek weer en sal julle na My toe neem, sodat julle ook kan wees waar Ek is” (Joh. 16:1-3). Alhoewel daar sommige uit Bybelse Kritisisme kringe is wat hierdie uitsprake as laat en onbetroubaar probeer afmaak, het ek al vroeër in 'n artikel op hierdie blog getoon dat daardie aanslag onherroeplik deur die modernistiese wortels daarvan gekompromitteer is [5]. Die kritiek teen die betroubaarheid van die Nuwe Testamentiese getuienis is uiters eensydig en uiteindelik onwetenskaplik.

Ek kan wel iets oor die Evangelie van Johannes sê waarin hierdie uitspraak van Jesus voorkom. Alhoewel daar 'n siening is dat die evangelie baie laat geskryf is en dus nie Jesus se woorde korrek kan weergee nie, is daar rede om te dink dat presies die teendeel waar is. Volgens die interne getuienis is hierdie evangelie deur die geliefde dissipel geskryf wat aanvanklik deel van Johannes die Doper se volgelinge was (Joh. 1:35-43). Johannes het naby Qumran gedoop en het moontlik tot die Qumran groep behoort. Hulle was toegewyde Jode wie se sieninge grotendeels tot die hoofstroom Joodse denke behoort het behalwe vir die besondere klem op die Messiaanse verwagting, afsondering asook die verwerping van die destydse tempeldiens.

Ons vind dan ook in hierdie evangelie 'n sterk verbintenis met Johannes die Doper en die Qumran groep. Daar is twee getuienisse van Johannes die Doper, 'n beklemtoning van motiewe wat tipies was van die Qumran groep (bv. die klem op die konflik tussen lig en duisternis, tussen die seuns van die lig en van die duisternis – Joh. 1:5-10; 3:19-21; 8:12), 'n assosiasie met persone wat Qumran gebruike volg, soos die man wat die kruik na die bo-vertrek gedra het (slegs in gemeenskappe waar min vroue was, soos die van Qumran, waar mans hulleself afgesonder het, is kruike deur mans gedra). Dit toon dat die evangelie waarskynlik deur iemand geskryf is wat sulke bande met die Qumran groep gehad het. En dit impliseer dat die mees waarskynlike skrywer van hierdie evangelie wel Johannes die apostel was soos tradisioneel veronderstel word – die een wat eers 'n volgeling van Johannes die Doper was en later as die geliefde apostel bekend was.

Ons vind dus dat beide die opstanding sowel as Jesus se eie woorde aan ons rede gee om in die hemel te glo. Alhoewel ek nie hier 'n lang argument in hierdie verband kan voer nie, glo ek dat ons goeie rede het om dit as betroubare getuienis vir die hemel te beskou. As Jesus self sê dat gelowiges met verwagting op die hemel kan uitsien, dan kan ons dit maar doen! Jesus se opstanding bevestig dat ons sy woorde in hierdie verband ernstig kan opneem. En alhoewel ons natuurlik nie hierdie dinge kan bewys nie, het ons goeie rede om dit te glo.

Ek moet eerlik erken dat al hierdie getuienis nie die hoofrede is waarom ek in die hemel glo nie – alhoewel dit natuurlik als bydra tot my geloof in die hemel. Die belangrikste rede waarom ek in die hemel glo het eerder met my eie geloof en diepe belewing van God te doen. Ek ervaar God in my lewe – noem dit 'n diep geestelike intuïsie [3] – en omdat ek God so beleef glo ek ook in die hemel. Ek het 'n innerlike sekerheid dat God in my leef – en dat ek ook eendag die hemel met Hom sal deel. Hierdie belewing is gegrond in die Bybelse teks waarna ek reeds hierbo verwys het.

Slot

Op die vraag: Is die hemel 'n werklike plek? kan ek met oortuiging Ja antwoord. Alhoewel die hemel natuurlik nie 'n plek in die fenomenele wêreld is nie, is dit 'n plek wat in 'n geestelike, maar tog werklike, dimensie bestaan. Alhoewel die hemel 'n baie ou konsep is wat sedert die vroegste tye in tekste genoem word, doen die voor-wetenskaplike beskouing van die hemel geen afbreek aan my geloof in die hemel nie. Soos die antieke mens geglo het, is die hemel in die onsigbare wêreld agter die sigbare verborge. Dit bestaan in 'n ander realm, in 'n geestelike realm.

Daar was 'n tyd toe die modernistiese mens op simplistiese wyse gedink het dat ons net dinge kan glo wat ons kan bewys. Die probleem is egter dat, soos Immanuel Kant getoon het, dit onmoontlik is om te bewys dat die hemel bestaan of nie bestaan nie. Die modernistiese skeptisisme is in sigself simplisties omdat dit slegs die fisies-waarneembare onderskryf. Ons weet vandag dat die kosmos baie wyer strek: die kwantum realm bestaan al het ons geen direkte empiriese toegang daartoe nie. Wat opvallend is, is dat als wat ons van die kwantum realm weet presies ooreenkom met dit wat Kant oor die noumenele realm geargumenteer het. As ons die kontemporêre teoretiese fisici ernstig opneem, dan is dit goed moontlik dat daardie realm uiteindelik in ander ruimte-tyd dimensies bestaan. Dit is baie moontlik dat daardie realm niks anders is nie as die geesteswêreld waarin die antieke mens geglo het en waarin hulle ook die hemel geplaas het.

Ek glo in die hemel omdat Jesus gesê het dat so 'n plek bestaan. Sy opstanding bevestig dat dit wat Hy gesê het die waarheid is. Alhoewel ek nie daardie dinge kan bewys nie, is ek oortuig dat ek goeie rede het om dit te glo. Voorts glo ek nie alleen in die hemel omdat die Bybel daarvan praat nie, maar veral ook omdat ek in God glo en Hom daagliks in my lewe ervaar. Ek aanvaar dat sommige nie my geloof deel nie, maar diesulkes het beslis nie meer bewyse aan hul kant nie. Blote skeptisisme wat op onmoontlike feite aandring wat nie vir ons as mense beskore is nie, is duidelik om daardie rede onredelik. Ek glo daarenteen dat Christene goeie rede het om in die hemel te glo.

[1] Ek skryf tans 'n artikel waarin ek toon dat ons die kwantum realm as die demonstrasie van die noumenele realm kan neem.

[2] Sien: Kant's noumenal realm reconsidered in the light of contemporary developments in physics
[3] Sien: Is the spirit world more than an idea?  Die essay fokus op die filosofiese tradisie en die geestesrealm.
[4] Hierdie essay leen dit nie tot 'n in-diepte bespreking van die begrip "koninkryk van God" in die evangelies nie.

[5] Sien my essay: A critique of Biblical Criticism

Skrywer: Dr Willie Mc Loud (ref. www.wmcloud.blogspot.com)

Is the spirit world more than an idea?

The ancients believed in an invisible world in which spirits and gods are to be found. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, this is referred to as the spirit world. The concept entered philosophical tradition with Plato, who reworked it into his intelligible world of forms. Later, the philosopher Immanuel Kant also incorporated a "noumenal realm" in his philosophy. With the strong accentuation of the rational in the Platonic-Kantian tradition, something that the ancients affirmed was lost, namely the possibility of having an intuition of that world. Once this happened, the noumenal realm became nothing more than an idea - a realm beyond experience that religious people believe in. Something that the sceptical scientific mind could not accommodate. But with new developments in theoretical physics the possibility arises that the ancients could have been right after all. 

Since early times peoples from all over the world believed that an invisible world exists next to our own visible world. They believed that that world is occupied by gods and spirits. It was typically referred to as the "other world" and cosmic domains like heaven (as the abode of the gods) and the underworld were believed to be situated in that world. We find reference to it in the earliest writings of people like the Sumerians and the Egyptians. In fact, it seems that all ancient peoples held the belief that such a world exists. The Greeks and Hebrews also believed in it - their views played a formative role in the Judeo-Christian conception of the spirit world. The ancients even believed that we have some type of intuition directed to that world.

The idea of such an invisible world had a great impact on the thinking of the Greek philosopher Plato (5th to 4th century BC). In fact, his idea of a "world of forms (or ideas)" originated from the age-old belief in an invisible world. In Plato, the invisible world of the ancients is reworked into an intelligible world - a world that is only accessible through thought. He distinguished between the visible world of our senses and the intelligible world. Although he believed that that world is only accessible through thought, he nevertheless still held that it is a (the only) real world.

Later generations of philosophers followed Plato's lead in discerning an intelligible or noumenal world (from the Greek word "nous", meaning mind).  The greatest of them was the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). The idea of a noumenal world differing from the phenomenal world featured prominently in his philosophy. Although he rejected the Platonic idea that we could access that world in thought (he rejected the possibility of humans having an "intelligible intuition" thereof), he still held that we can think it. But, according to Kant, we can have no "knowledge" of that world. This, however, did not stop him from thinking that such a world could really exist - he envisioned it as underlying and giving form to the phenomenal world.

The Platonic move to envision the invisible world as an intelligible world eventually had the opposite outcome that he intended - it led to the rejection of the possibility that such a world exists. How did it happen? Once the possibility of having any intuition (that is, a sensing without the use of rational processes, an immediate awareness) of that world was rejected (in Kant), it became nothing more than a mere idea - an idea of something beyond the senses that religious people "believe" in. Since nothing in science gave the slightest reason to believe in such a world, a general consensus developed that such a world does not exist.

But was Kant right? Do we not have any intuition of a noumenal world? Such an intuition would imply some type of experience of that world - which is in fact what the ancients affirmed. What is more, theoretical physics now also envisions a world very much in accordance with the Kantian idea of the noumenal world - but one that is real and which could in principle be accessible in some kind of experience.

Plato's intelligible world

Why did Plato redefine the invisible world as an intelligible world? The reason is simple. Socrates, Plato's teacher "discovered" reason. This led to one of the most important shifts to ever occur in Western thought - the accentuation of reason as the most important of all human faculties. It dawned on these men that reason is what makes us distinctly human (animals cannot reason). We can even through reason control our animal passions (therefore reason guides us to the virtuous life). In Plato's opinion, the human mind ("nous") should be viewed as a thinking ability - he equated it with intelligence. This ability is seated in the human soul, that part of humans through which they have access to the invisible world. Therefore that world - the one that is accessible only through thought - is to be understood as an intelligible world.

This Platonic move - to equate the invisible world with the intelligible - is clearly observable in his Phaedo.  In the dialogues between Socrates and his friends, it is mentioned that he takes the view of the mystics (the Orphics), in which the invisible world played an important part, as the point of departure (as a "metaphor") for his own view. Two different worlds are distinguished, namely the invisible and the visible realm. The invisible realm is called "the realm of the absolute, constant and invariable" whereas the visible world is always changing. In this last respect, Plato follows Parmenides of Elea (b. c515 BC) who argued for two worlds, one that is the real world and which is eternal, indivisible, motionless and changeless and the other that is the world of our senses, which is a world of "appearances".  Plato furthermore distinguished two types of things which belong to these two different worlds, namely the invisible (the forms) and the visible things.

According to the dialogues in the Phaedo the soul belongs to the invisible world: "Since the soul is invisible, it belongs to the eternal invisible world... When it [the soul] investigates by itself, it passes into the realm of the pure and everlasting and changeless; and being of a kindred nature, when it is once independent and free from interference, consorts with it". True contemplation is not with the eyes, but with the soul - or, more precisely, with the intellect. In this regard, we read: "We are in fact convinced that if we are ever to have pure knowledge of anything, we must get rid of the body and contemplate things by themselves [i.e. as they really are] with the soul by itself" and "the man who pursues the truth by applying his pure and unadulterated thought to the pure and unadulterated object... Is not this the person, Simmias, who will reach the goal of reality, if anybody can?".

In Plato's writings, the human mind (nous) has a direct intuitive understanding of the invisible realm. Again this view goes back to Parmenides who argued for a dualism wherein nous describes an intellectual perception, which should be distinguished from sense perception. But was this how the earlier Greeks, in general, viewed the mind? As mentioned in the Oxford dictionary, the Greek word nous meant "mind, intelligence, intuitive apprehension". Although the Greeks allocated both understanding and intuition in the mind, there is no reason to believe that they viewed the intuition directed to the invisible world solely as an "intellectual" intuition (this view originated with Parmenides).

It seems that the Greeks allowed for a direct intuitive awareness of the invisible world, which is only then (as a secondary move) brought to understanding. The Pythagoreans, for example, seem to have held the opinion that we have some intuition of that world in the deepest essence of our being and that our thinking (even in reference to that intuition) is only secondary. They distinguished between 1) the higher soul, seat of the intuitive mind, 2) the rational soul, the seat of discursive reason and 3) the non-rational soul, responsible for the senses, appetites and motion. Even Plato often refers to a perception of the invisible world (for example, through the "eye" of the soul) which seems to be more fundamental than the thought thereof (why use the metaphor of "eye" if it is in fact the act of thinking that should be accentuated). The overall move in Plato's philosophy - and the Western philosophical tradition derived from him - was, however, to collapse the noumenal into the intelligible.

Plato's opinion on the relation between the worlds changed through the course of his writing. At first (in the Phaedo) the "invisible world" is viewed as a separate domain where human souls go between lives (and where the gods live), but in the Republic the "intelligible" world (as it is now called) is more closely connected to our own world (we can see that in the metaphor of the cave). This (our) world is somehow dependent on the real world for its existence (where the forms for the phenomena in this world is situated). In the Timaeus, the real world (of unchanging being where the forms are situated) underlies this world (of becoming) in a very real sense in that it gives form to it.

Kant's noumenal world

Kant lived many centuries after Plato but his reworking of the Platonic position produced one of the most important philosophical traditions since Plato. He lived during the height of the modern epoch - also known as the age of reason. Not only was reason accentuated more than ever before (in accordance with the Platonic-Aristotelian tradition), the discovery of empirical science demonstrated the practical possibilities of reason in a powerful way. And in science the sole focus is on the world of the senses. This now became the "real world". But even in the face of this new focus on the sensible world, Kant stood his ground in affirming the possibility of the "noumenal world". Kant was a Christian and believed in the existence of a spiritual world. And following Plato, he distinguished between the sensible (phenomenal) world and the "intelligible world", also called a "noumenal" world (which for Kant is supra-sensible, i.e. transcending sensible experience).

Kant's most important work, The Critique of Pure Reason, focuses (in the spirit of the age) first of all on our interaction with the sensible world (in contrast with Plato's focus on our interaction with the intelligible world). He shows how human thinking and sensing are interacting to establish "knowledge" of the sensible world. For Kant, the only knowledge possible is of this (sensible) world. He rejects the Platonic position that we can have any knowledge of the noumenal world. But this does not stop us from thinking the noumenal realm. The Critique distinguishes between the human faculty of "understanding" which get its content from the senses and "reason" which is quite independent of the sensible world and can think intelligible things. But Kant's goal with this work is to establish the limits of what reason can achieve.

Although Kant mentions that direct "intelligible intuitions" of the noumenal world is in principle possible, he argues that this is not something that humans have (God can have them). We can ask: But why didn't he allow for possible intuitions of the noumenal world other than intelligible ones? The reason for this is possibly because Kant was influenced by the Platonic move to view all intuitions of the noumenal world as intelligible ones. Kant's distinction between the sensible and intelligible (supra-sensible, noumenal) worlds therefore also incorporates a dichotomy between experience and intelligence. Kant assumes that all experience is sensible. He did not allow (as many ancient peoples seem to have done) for the possibility of an inner non-sensible experience directed to the noumenal realm. Although he did not exclude such noumenal intuitions in principle, he thought that we are not acquainted with such intuitions. He writes in the Critique of Pure Reason in a section called "Phenomena and Noumena": "room thus remains for some other sort of intuition... [but] we are acquainted with no sort of intuition other than our own sensible one" (B343).

As far as our understanding is concerned (to the extent that it is directed to the sensible world), the noumenal world is "empty" - we cannot gain any knowledge thereof. As far as reason is concerned, however, we can use reason, especially "practical reason", to argue for certain things about the noumenal realm. Starting with the Critique of Pure Reason, and developing his ideas further in his other two Critiques (of practical reason and the power of judgement), Kant developed an extensive view of the noumenal world. In the second Critique, he argued that we need the noumenal realm to account for our moral nature, our ability to make moral laws and act according to them. In the last Critique, Kant takes the noumenal world as the ultimate ground for our world, being ultimately responsible for the design of the whole spatio-temporal world. In this, he follows Plato in the Timaeus. Kant's noumenal realm is the supra-sensible ground of all phenomena, wherein the form-giving dynamic spontaneity (freedom) which gives form to the phenomenal world, is situated. Humans as well as nature are grounded and partially situated in the noumenal realm.

Science and the noumenal world

Towards the end of the modern epoch the Kantian affirmation of the existence of a noumenal realm seemed to be superficial. How can we ever show the existence of a realm of which we cannot have any experience. It's like defining something in such a way that it is beyond experimental proof and then affirming its existence in accordance with your Christian view. For the modern mind, which was so smitten by the power of reason, and who believed that science can give all the answers, this seems to be an excuse to keep believing in the face of scientific discovery - which seemed to confirm that the world is nothing more than the sensible world. Therefore a consensus developed that such a world could not exist.

Those days are, however, long gone. Gone is the days when it was believed that the human capacity to solve all problems and ultimately understand everything was around the corner. The centuries during which scientists affirmed that they would be able to understand everything in the not-too-distant future has lead to a new consensus (even though many scientists still hold to the modernist view), namely that this view should be taken with a pinch of salt. The world is extremely complex. More complex than modern man could ever have imagined. Today, scientists except ideas that were frowned upon only a few years ago, for example, that dark matter and dark energy exist. In their efforts to develop an unified theory that could integrate all the basic forces of nature, theoretical physicists are even postulating the existence of a higher dimensional realm that are interwoven with our own three dimensional sensible world. Scientists are confronted with the fact that it might just be possible that we would never be able to fully fathom what reality is like.

This development is in accordance with the position of some existential philosophers who rejected the modern efforts to establish reason as the sole arbiter of existence. Some like Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), developed an anti-Platonic, anti-Kantian position. He argued that we should affirm our earthly existence and embrace our inner drives - we must not bow to reason and fight against our true nature. In his opinion, all talk of another or noumenal world is the result of mankind's (especially religious people's) inability to cope with the here and now. They cannot cope in this world - and therefore developed the idea of another world where they would be happy. The post-modern philosophers took Nietzsche's views as the point of departure to develop an anti-modernist perspective in matters concerning the nature of morality, truth and reality. Other philosophers like Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) followed a different route - he rejected the efforts to fathom all of existence through reason. He affirmed the reality of the Christian experience even in the face of reason's onslaught on the supernatural. In a sense, he rejected all efforts to reasonably establish the ground for the Christian faith (and our experience of the spiritual).

What I propose is that although we cannot reject reason's ability to fathom existence, we should at the same time affirm it's reductionist nature. In it's efforts to understand reality, reason has to construct models, establish approximations, formulate reductionist concepts. This is in fact what the Copenhagen interpretation confirmed for quantum physics - we can only have a partial concept of the reality that we study. This is where Plato and Kant have fallen short - in their efforts to rework the invisible (spiritual) realm as an intelligible realm, they have been reductionist. They have not been able to sufficiently account for those intuitions of that realm that the ancients, and many religious people throughout the ages, have affirmed to exist. Kant excluded the possibility of such intuitions in his philosophy - even though it is possible (in my opinion) to incorporate it therein. For him, all experience is sensible - but what about the possibility of non-sensible (or supra-sensible) experience of the noumenal?

In spite of this, Kant's conceptualization of the noumenal realm shows remarkable agreement with the higher dimensional structure of the universe that theoretical physicists postulate. These dimensions are very small and not accessible to our senses - they are supra-sensible. But they are interwoven in the structure of space. They underlay the phemonenal world as the form-giving part of the cosmos. All nature are in some way grounded therein - also are we as humans. Although most particle-structures could have parts in both realms, it is in principle possible that at least some particle-structures exist solely in that realm, implying the possibility of a whole world unknown to our senses existing next to our own without us knowing it. It is possible that humans have a part situated in higher dimensions (corresponding to what has traditionally been called the soul or spirit) that co-exists with our physical bodies. This description does not only closely agree with Kant's ideas about the noumenal realm, they affirm the possibility of a real spiritual world.

Conclusion

During the modern epoch, people thought that they have finally arrived and that the ancients were primitive and without true knowledge. In our day there is a new appreciation for the views of those people. They experienced something about the world that the rational mindset has conditioned us to reject as something unreal. They believed in some type of intuition directed towards that world that religious people from all around the world has continued to confirm in their everyday experience (not only Christians; there is no reason from a Christian point of view, why other religious experiences are not also directed to the spiritual world). One of the reasons why so many religious people have never bought into the modernist framework is because their own experience proved the opposite. Although many scientists are eager to (again in a reductionist way) ascribe all such experience to people's psychology, most Christians, for example, have a subtle, but distinct, awareness that their experience of God goes beyond themselves.

The one thing about the noumenal world that is especially interesting, is that Kant's formulation thereof corresponds so closely with scientific notions about a higher dimensional realm that co-exists with our own. It seems that through pure reason he was able to in a remarkable way foresee the eventual scientific formulation of models that describes the world as much more than a sensible world. Although this could (once proven) confirm the power of reason, his philosophy at the same time should always remind us how reductionist reason is. We should use reason, but we should also trust our deepest spiritual intuitions about our own experience in the world. Both reason and such intuition should be our guides in this world. Without such intuition, humankind will wander as a person in the dark, groping towards a destiny without hope.

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. www.wmcloud.blogspot.com)

See also:
The God Impulse (life after death?)
Kant's noumenal realm reconsidered in the light of contemporary developments in physics

The God Impulse

"Basing one's spirituality on science is as foolhardy as basing one's science on spirituality" – Kevin Nelson

In his book The God Impulse neurologist Prof Kevin Nelson argues that spiritual experiences – especially of the near-death type – could be ascribed to a particular type of consciousness, namely being awake while in the REM-state. He also discusses the areas of the brain which produce such experiences. What does this say about life after death?

I have the habit of buying books before flying. A while ago I had to fly to Pretoria on my way to Bloemfontein where I had to participate at the Vryfees (Vrystaat festival) in a discussion on my book Abraham en sy God. As always I visited the Exclusive Books branch at the airport in Cape Town just before boarding. And, as so often happens, I found a book that turned out to be very interesting. It is The God Impulse, Is Religion Hardwired into our Brains? (2011) written by Kevin Nelson, Professor in Neurology at the University of Kentucky in the US.

The God Impulse is a study of the brain's functioning during spiritual experiences. Nelson studied such experiences – especially the type called "near-death" experiences – for many years. He collected many first-hand accounts of such experiences and also conducted a more detailed study on 55 research subjects. For the purposes of that study, particular characteristics of such experiences were distinguished, based on the work of the philosophers William James and W. T Stace as well as psychiatric and medical studies. The areas of the brain associated with these characteristics were then examined to gain an understanding of the biology underlying such experiences.

Why do we as humans have spiritual experiences? To what extent can we explain such experiences within the framework of the current biological understanding of the brain? Which characteristics of such experiences are associated with which parts of the brain? Can science explain spiritual experiences? These are some of the questions that most of us ask at some stage during our lives. These are also the questions that Nelson tries to answer in his book.

REM consciousness borderlands

Neurology recognizes three states of consciousness: wakefulness, REM sleep (when we dream) and non-REM sleep. The opposite of consciousness is a coma. In The God Impulse Nelson proposes that we should ascribe spiritual experiences to the borderlands between consciousness, unconsciousness and dreaming. More particularly, he discerns another state, where wakefulness is blended with REM sleep, and ascribes spiritual experiences, especially of the near-death as well as mystical types, to this state.

Instead of shifting from one state to the other as we normally do (between being awake and asleep), we can get stuck in this borderlands in between states. Since this is an unstable state, this experience lasts only for seconds or minutes even though it can feel like hours. This is the state associated with Lucid Dreaming which is when we are conscious while we are dreaming (this happens in 3% of dreams). One has REM consciousness and is aware and conscious of it at the same time.

What is interesting about this "in-between state", is that one is conscious while one's bodily senses are switched off. One is awake but unable to move any part of your body except your eyes. Studies have shown that people in this state are able to communicate through certain previously agreed (eye) signals with researchers, showing that they are awake even though their bodies are asleep. The reason why this is possible is that the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (responsible for logical problem-solving, planning as well as organizing information, thoughts and emotions), which is normally switched off during REM-sleep, is switched on during this state. The same parts of the brain which bring thoughts and sensations together in a wholeness of conscious perception are operative in this state.

While in this state, the temporoparietal region of the brain is switched off. This region integrates our sensations to orientate us in space. The dorsolateral prefrontal is also switched off. This can be the reason why time in this state is experienced differently, with things happening instantaneously, people and places shifting abruptly and people having feelings of transportation to new and fantastic places. Our ability to see ourselves as consistent, our sense of being carried through the past, present and future, are distorted.

This in-between state is fundamentally different from dreaming (normal REM consciousness). Persons in this state (as in near-death experiences) have a very strong sense that their world of experiences is as "real" as the one we know when fully awake. The sensations that such persons experience do not come from the outside world, but from the "dream world". Emotions of fear, joy and anger are very strongly felt. A different type of "just-knowing" and telepathic guidance is experienced.

Moving into this state is often accompanied by an awareness of moving through various colour-levels. Powerful hallucinations of complex and completely formed animations of people, animals and things appear. Aliens or spiritual beings are also encountered as well as feelings of a transcendent self, encounters with a higher power or being as well as mergence with universal consciousness. After awakening from this state, these experiences are vividly remembered.

Near-death experiences

In his research, Nelson found that in persons who have had near-death experiences the REM switch (which switch consciousness between states) operates differently and that such people are more prone to this type of consciousness. It is not clear whether this is the result of their near-death experiences (which could have changed the functioning of this switch) or if they had these experiences because of the way this switch functions. 

Nelson proposes that in near-death experiences people have experiences associated with the above-mentioned "in-between" consciousness. The reason why this is so is that the REM switch (or rather a portion of it called vlPAG) switches to this state (or REM sleep) during severe pain or low blood pressure (as in fainting and cardiac arrest). In people who have had near-death experiences all parts of REM consciousness (paralysis and all kinds of hallucinations) mix with waking consciousness. The various experiences associated with near-death experiences are also encountered in the in-between state. Nelson explains all the basic phenomena associated with near-death experiences, including passing through the tunnel, seeing a bright light, appearing dead, out of body experiences, life flashing before one's eyes etc. in terms of this state and the way that (especially) the limbic system is affected.

Nelson also ascribes mystical experiences to this state. The difference between lucid dreaming, near-death experiences and mystical experiences is that people in the last group more often experience that they move beyond some sort of uncrossed border. These experiences are "beyond the sense, beyond the understanding". Words like "boundless, ceaseless, bottomless, nothingness, fathomless, infinite, empty, void, barren, abyss, abysmal and absolute" are used for this experience. The sense of being a separate self of thoughts, feelings, sensations and memories is lost and transcends into the One. Time and space dissolve. Those who had this experience describe it as beyond reason and language: "It is absolutely impossible, nor has it time, (so) to speak; but afterwards that it is able to reason about it". The self is, however, not dissolved and the mystics afterwards have clear memories of the experience.

This experience can be induced through hallucinogenic drugs, "ecstatic" seizures (as in the case of Fyodor Dostoevsky) and is clearly distinguished from both dreams and psychotic delusion. The serotonin-2 receptors activated by hallucinogenic drugs are heavily distributed in the very same brain structures which operate in the in-between state, namely the limbic system, including the hippocampus and the amygdala.

Noumenal intuitions

When I read these things, I was quite amazed by the fact that such a state beyond sensibility is not only medically possible but that a lot of research has been done regarding it. All our interaction with the outside world happens through the senses. It is through the senses that we have experience in this world. And all sense experience happens within the space-time framework. But in the in-between state, the senses are switched off, the body is inactive and our experience of space-time is distorted. It seems that we enter some state beyond the senses which is also beyond normal space-time.

These issues have been studied for a long time in philosophy. The great modern philosopher Immanuel Kant situated our sense experience within space-time. In his view, all our sense experience are grounded in our ability to perceive space and time. Kant, however, allowed for the possibility that another realm could exist, which he called a "noumenal" realm (derived from nous=mind), which is beyond normal space-time.

Kant argued that our consciousness, feelings (of pleasure and displeasure) and our will are faculties of the mind which are beyond sensibility. For us to have experience in this world, these must interact with our sense intuition. What is remarkable about Nelson's study, is that he shows that these human abilities could still be operative once our sensibility is switched off! Humans have consciousness (with normal thinking functions), strong feelings and the ability to use their will while in the in-between state. If further research confirms this, it would be a dramatic confirmation of the Kantian view that these faculties are "beyond" sensibility.

In Kantian philosophy, only normal consciousness is considered and he, therefore, did not allow for any awareness of these human faculties without sensibility. The only intuition (awareness) that Kant considered was sense intuition. What Nelson's study seems to confirm, is that there are particular circumstances when we can have an awareness (intuition) of these faculties of the mind even when sensibility is switched off (i.e. during the in-between consciousness). We have direct access to these faculties and can be aware of them even when our senses are switched off! This could imply that humans have another type of intuition (i.e. different from sense intuition), namely "mind" or "noumenal" intuitions.

Long before Kant, the philosopher Plato allowed for such noumenal intuitions – he described them as "intellectual" intuitions. He believed that we can through such intuitions gain direct knowledge of the noumenal realm which he described as the truly real realm. Nelson's study is also relevant to this. Nelson mentions that people who had experiences while in the in-between state remembered them clearly and believed that they were very much real. They had direct noumenal intuitions in the sense of "just knowing" while in this state – very much like Plato's direct knowledge of the noumenal realm.

People who entered the in-between state, not only knew their own thoughts and feelings, they also became aware of things which they experienced as being "telepathically" communicated to them. This could imply that they had been able to gain wider access to the "noumenal realm" while in this state. Since the entities experienced in this realm include all sorts of spiritual beings, this could well be the "spirit world" of the ancients.

Plato did in fact based his noumenal (intellectual) world on the spirit world of the mystics (see especially the discussions in the Phaedo). Plato's noumenal world was but a reworking of the spirit world and his intellectual intuitions was but a reworking of the spiritual awareness ascribed to this world. (Kant also believed in the spirit world and one could argue that his noumenal realm is also based on that world – it is, for example, the realm in which the "soul" is situated).

Real or imaginary experience?

The million dollar question is whether the world accessed while in the in-between state is truly real? Is it really so that one's consciousness is altered while in this state to interact with another world – a world beyond the senses and space-time? A world in which the soul and all sorts of spirits are situated? A world which Christians associate with both good and bad spirits and in which the Spirit of God operates? Is that world only in the mind or is it rather that we access that world only through the mind?

Nelson's study could not answer this question for the simple reason that science cannot at this stage give any such answers. Although Nelson could ascribe the typical phenomena of a near-death experience to this in-between state and distinguish the areas in the brain responsible for such experiences, this only tells what happens to us while our brains are still functioning. Once we are brain-dead there is no way in which we can communicate any possible after-death experience through our body.

There is one case that has attracted a lot of attention. Pam, a thirty-five-year-old woman, had a huge ballooning aneurysm at the base of her brain removed. Doctors had to drain all the blood from her brain to do the operation. To do this they turned down her brain's metabolism so that it didn't require oxygen or glucose. During the operation, she woke and was able to see the surgery as if she was sitting on the neurosurgeon's shoulder. She later described the operation in some detail, including the particular saw used to open her skull.

How should we interpret this? Was she viewing the operation from her disembodied soul? Nelson does not think so. He mentions other research which shows that persons who had such out-of-body experiences while asleep (being in the in-between state) were not able to really observe things while in this state. They moved certain things in the room around before their experiences, which they did not observe during their out-of-body experiences. This implies that the visual images were constructed from familiar memory. Nelson, therefore, argues that the same was true in the case of Pam.  According to him, she must have had an opportunity to observe the saw when wheeled into the operation room.

But this is not necessarily the case. One should differentiate between a healthy person having such an experience in which the mind projects itself to some out-of-body position (i.e. no soul really leaves the body) and a situation when a person is practically dead (i.e. when the soul had left the body). In the first case certain capacities of the mind are activated, in the second those capacities involve access to another world (through the soul). Those who argue for the existence of the soul (which continue existing after death) take Pam's detailed description of the operation and of the saw used as evidence for their view. Those who assume that she must have seen the saw beforehand reject this as evidence for the existence of the soul. Science cannot at this stage provide the answers.

Conclusion

The God Impulse is fascinating reading. I believe that the topic discussed is very relevant to current debate. Nelson made a good case that near-death and mystical experiences could be ascribed to a state between being awake and REM sleep where one is conscious (as when awake) while in REM sleep. This is totally different from being awake while being sensibly-aware as well as from sleeping. A strange world is encountered which could very well be the spirit world that the ancients often referred to.

I found the possibility that this state could (in principle) confirm the existence of noumenal intuitions especially interesting. This would be a substantial finding. Many Christians believe that they experience such "spiritual" intuitions, which they associate with God's voice in their lives. Nelson's research seems to tell us how such experiences are possible, but not what it amounts to, i.e. whether real communication between us and the spirit world (if it exists), is possible. Although Nelson's research could not confirm or deny the existence of the spirit world, most Christians (and many others) believe that it exists. They could well be right...

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (www.wmcloud.blogspot.com)

See also:
Kant's noumenal realm reconsidered
Science and spiritual intuition

God hoor

In hierdie geestelike essay fokus ek op gebed. Die gebed wat werk.

"Elkeen wat bid ontvang; en elkeen wat soek, vind" (Matt. 7:8)

Alle Christene bid. Gebed is deel van die praktiese uitlewing van geloof. Gebed bring ons in die geestelike stemming waarin ons God kan beleef. Deur gebed tree ons met God in gesprek. Persone wat hul geestelike lewe ernstig opneem, is oor die algemeen ook mense wat meer tyd in gebed spandeer. Maar soms lyk dit of gebed nie werk nie. Soms voel dit of ons te vergeefs bid. Soms wil ons ophou bid.

Die Bybel maak baie van gebed. Van Genesis tot Openbaring lees ons van mense wat gebid het. Daar is verskeie gebede in die Bybel opgeteken. Die deurlopende tema in die Bybel is dat God gebed verhoor. Ons lees telkens hoedat God gebede verhoor het. Die meeste gebede kom reg in die middel van die Bybel in die Psalms voor. Daar lees ons male sonder tal hoedat Dawid tot God bid met die verwagting dat God hom sal hoor. En telkens het hy gevind dat God hom uitgered het.

Gebed het bowenal met vertroue te doen. As ek vertroue in God het, dat Hy my sal verhoor, dan bid ek met verwagting. In gebed gaan dit tot 'n baie groot mate oor my idee of beskouing van God. As ek God as 'n vader sien, as een wat vir my omgee en wat regtig na my luister, bid ek anders as wanneer ek maar net uit gewoonte bid of as deel van een of ander ritueel. Dit is waarom die Onse Vader gebed juis so die konsep van God as vader beklemtoon. As verlostes kan ons God ons vader noem - Hy is nie net die vader van Jesus Christus  nie; Hy is ook ons vader. As ons regtig glo dat God ons vader is, en ons sy kinders, dan kan ons ook soos kinders na hul vader gaan. Anders as aardse vaders wat soms in gebreke bly, is Hy die volmaakte vader wat vir ons toeganklik is deur Jesus Christus.

Die gesin waarin ons grootword, het 'n geweldige groot impak op ons gebedslewe. Die optrede van ons eie vader het 'n blywende invloed op die wyse waarop ons God sien. Voorts het die wyse waarop ons God in die huis leer ken, ook 'n groot invloed op ons geloof in God en ons verwagting dat God ons sal verhoor. As ons in 'n huis grootword waarin gebed positief beleef word, dan wil ons ook graag bid. As ons duidelike insidente van gebedsverhoring onthou, dan wek dit by ons die verwagting dat God ons sal verhoor. Ons dink terug aan daardie tye toe God ons (of ons gesinslede) se gebede verhoor het. So kan ek geleenthede onthou waar my ouers my as jong seun ingeroep het om saam met hulle oor sake te bid, waarna hulle telkens verhoor is. Dit het 'n groot indruk op my jong gemoed gelaat. In later jare kon ek ook met verwagting vir sake bid en ek onthou besondere voorbeelde van gebedsverhoring. Sulke insidente van gebedsverhoring skep by ons die verwagting dat God ons hoor en dat Hy ons ook sal verhoor.

Wanneer ek in gebed na God kom, dan kan ek Hom op 'n baie besondere wyse beleef. Wanneer ek van God se teenwoordigheid bewus word, raak ek ook bewus waar daar dinge in my lewe is wat skeiding bring, wat my verhouding met God vertroebel. Net soos wat daar soms dinge tussen ons en ons aardse vaders kan kom wat daardie verhouding kan skaad, so is dit ook met God. Ons kan inderdaad 'n diepe vrede en innerlike geestelike gemeenskap met God beleef wat die verstand te bowe gaan. Meer nog, ons kan ervaar dat God met ons praat en sy wil omtrent ons gebed aan ons bekend maak. Die wonder van gebed is dat God ons antwoord selfs voordat Hy ons gebed verhoor.

Gebed is uiteindelik nie maar net 'n blinde hoop nie, maar 'n gesprek waarin God ook met ons praat. Soos enige vader maak God ook sy besluite aan ons bekend. God kan diep in ons gees, deur sy Woord of deur omstandighede met ons praat. Hy kan met 'n Ja of 'n Nee antwoord.  Hy kan sê ons moet net wag. Hy kan vir tye net stil wees [1]. Wat gebedsverhoring so besonders maak, is dat ons kan weet dat God uiteindelik ook sal doen wat Hy gesê of belowe het.  Ek kan met 'n vaste vertroue verby alle omstandighede na God kyk met die verwagting dat Hy sal doen wat Hy gesê het. Dat Hy my sal verhoor. Ons kan in die gebed "volhou soos een wat die onsienlike sien" (Heb. 11:27). As ons God eers leer ken het as die Een wat gebed verhoor, as die Een wat sy woord waarmaak, dan het ons 'n onwrikbare vertroue dat Hy dit altyd sal doen.

Ons leef in 'n tyd waarin daar al meer oor God getwyfel word. As ons twyfel oor God se bestaan, kan ons tog nie met oorgawe bid nie. As ons gebedsverhoring sinies beskou as dinge wat maar toevallig so gebeur het, sal ons nie met verwagting bid nie. As ek egter uit ervaring weet dat God werklik gebed verhoor, kan hierdie dinge nie my geloof raak nie. Ongeag wat wie mag sê, ek weet my Verlosser leef en dat Hy my hoor en verhoor wanneer ek bid. Alhoewel andere wat daarmee onbekend is, ons belewing van God op allerlei wyse kan afmaak, weet ons dat ons God werklik in ons lewens beleef. Dat Hy met ons praat. Ons weet dat God gebed verhoor.

Soms het ons nie so 'n geskiedenis met God nie. Dalk is ons geloofslewe maar net tradisioneel sonder enige werklike belewing van God. Dit verhoed ons nie om God op 'n dieper vlak op die proef te stel nie. Om Hom so te sê, uit te probeer nie. God ken ons harte. As ons in eerlikheid Hom op die proef stel, sal Hy ons nie teleur stel nie. Ons sal vind dat Hy graag ons vader wil wees. Dat ons maar ons lewens aan Hom kan toevertrou. Dat ons Hom vader kan noem. As ons eers gebedsverhoring beleef het, sal ons nie anders kan as om weer en weer met verwagting te bid nie. Ons kan God maar op die proef stel. Hy verhoor gebed.

[1] Ek sal DV in 'n latere skrywe in meer detail op God se stem fokus.

Skrywer: Dr Willie Mc Loud (www.wmcloud.blogspot.com)

Lees ook:
Die profeet
Wrong choices
The Power of God
Something or Someone is Missing
Revival is of the Lord
Om God te glo

A message for the church

Meeting God
Om te glo of nie te glo nie