In all the nearly 900 blog posts I have made to this point, only one has mentioned bees: “The Plight of the Bumblebee” posted on 7/20/14. But I now know much more about bees as recently I read Sue Monk Kidd’s The Secret Life of Bees (2001) and watched the 2008 movie based on that novel.
More than What the Eye Can See
Sue Monk
Kidd (b. 1948) is an engaging writer. Her The Invention of Wings (2014) is
on my list of the “top ten” best novels I have read this century. But her
earlier novel was also a delightful and thought-provoking read.
The central
character in The Secret Life of Bees is Lily, who turns 14 early in the
book. She is splendidly played by Dakota Fanning in the movie, which also stars
Queen Latifah as August Boatwright, the second main character in the book/movie.
About halfway through the book, Lily reflects on what August has said
to her about “spiritual” things, and she thinks,
maybe I had no idea what kind of world I was actually living in, and maybe the teachers at my school didn’t know either, the way they talked about everything being nothing but carbon and oxygen and mineral, the dullest stuff you can imagine (p. 176).
Perhaps things
that the eye can see—things that can be thoroughly investigated by science—is all
that can be taught in public schools. But how unfortunate is any child whose
education is limited to only what the eye can see!
Seeing with One’s “Magic Eye”
Most of you are probably
familiar with “magic eye” pictures. Their technical name is autostereograms.
Only 30 years ago, in
1991, a computer programmer and an artist created the first color random-dot autostereograms,
later marketed as Magic Eye. I was fascinated with them when I first saw them
in the 1990s and several times used them as sermon illustrations.
I was somewhat
surprised when I discovered that the “magic eye” pictures could be seen on a
computer screen as well as when printed on paper. So look at the image below.
On the surface, it seems to be only a random-colored, meaningless picture.
But now use your “magic eye” and look for the depth in the picture. Do you see the 3-D picture? Believe me, there is really a meaningful image there, and I assume that most of you can see it.
It is only an illustration or an analogy, so there are limitations to the
explanation, but similar to seeing a magic eye picture, faith is seeing the “depth”
of reality rather than just “carbon and oxygen and mineral.”
What Is Essential is Invisible to the Eye
Moving beyond what we actually can see with
our eyes if we look at a magic eye picture in the right way, I am thoroughly
convinced that by faith we can “see” what is not visible to our physical eyes.
I have many “top ten” lists, and one is a list
of my favorite quotes, which includes these words from The Little Prince (1943),
written by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.
In that delightful story, the little prince declares,
I have always felt a bit sorry for people who
were unable to see the 3-D objects in magic eye pictures. But that inability is
trivial to the inability to see the “depth” of existence, the essential meaning
of life that is invisible to the physical eye, i.e., to science alone.
Most people, though, who are open to suggestions
about how to look at magic eye pictures do come to see what is really visible
there.
Similarly, for those who are open to learning
what kind of world we are actually living in, as Lily was, the “magic eye” of
faith makes it possible to see the wonderful splendor of reality that is invisible
to our physical eyes.
How marvelous is the magic eye of faith!
.jpg)
Your use of the "magic eye" is an apt metaphor for the magic eye of faith, or so it seems to me. I think you might be flirting a bit with unfairness to science, however. While science is based on empirical realities, it is large a body of inference from the evidence of our senses and our testing of "hypotheses," so something quite magical in its own right. It does have the advantage of testing theory in ways that theologies cannot. But it was Werner Heisenberg who said, "What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning."
ReplyDeleteAnton, I hoped someone would raise the issue that you did, and I certainly am not surprised it was you. This gives me the opportunity to explain more of my thinking on the matter I wrote about.
DeleteThe rather negative things I said about science are more accurately about scientism—and there seems to be many people who have, to varying degrees, adopted that ism as a worldview. Scientism has little room for God-talk, but faith and true science are not antithetic.
I was happy that you mentioned Heisenberg (1901~76), for those gives me the opportunity to say that certainly there is much that modern science deals with that is invisible to the physical eye—such as in the quantum theory developed by Heisenberg in the 1920s and such as is a part of his “uncertainty principle.” My use of “the physical eye” was a shorthand way to refer to the entirety of the scientific method for gaining knowledge of the physical world.
Also, many natural scientists also have the “magic eye” of faith in addition to their understanding of the physical world. Heisenberg himself is said to have been a devout Christian, and though there is some question about them being his exact words, Heisenberg is reported to have said, “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
The magic activities of bees is just another proof that there is a Creator and higher intelligence in The Universe.
ReplyDeleteIt is-GOD!
I am not sure that the "magic activities of bees" is proof that there is a Creator to those who do not have or use the "magic eye" of faith, but it certainly seems to me that their "secret life" is far more understandable seen as the result of an intelligent Creator than simply the result of time and chance.
DeleteI haven't yet received many comments on today's blog post. I don't know if it was because of the power outage that caused me to be about two hours later than usual in sending the email about this new article to my Thinking Friends, because it is Saturday, or because of the topic of the article. Perhaps it was a combination of those three factors.
ReplyDeleteThe first comments received were from local Thinking Friend Sue Wright:
"What a marvelous piece made only more illuminating by the wait. Nice how our magic eye when turned on, works night or day, dark or light."
Thanks, Sue! I appreciate your kind and affirming words.
DeleteNext I received the following brief comments from Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson, who for many years was a professor at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.
ReplyDelete"Amen to that, Leroy. Sue Monk Kidd’s husband was a student at Southern, and she came to talk to me about her desire to be a writer. I have always rejoiced that she has soared in her chosen vocation."
Thanks for sharing this about Sue Monk Kidd and her husband, Dr. Hinson. I am impressed that you talked with her about her desire to become a writer. “The Secret Life of Bees” was her first novel, published when she was 53. It sold more than six million copies and spent a hundred weeks on the “New York Times” best seller list. You must have given her excellent advice!
DeleteI couldn’t find out much about her husband, Sandy Kidd. References to him on the Internet mostly just say that he is a Christian minister.
At the end of Acknowledgements, in which she mentions the names of many people, she wrote, “And most of all, my husband, Sandy, for more reasons than I can name.”
Hear no magic eye. See no magic eye. Speak no magic eye. Not that the warning signs frequently stop me! It had been a long time since I last successfully peered into a magic eye picture, and it is a good metaphor for how both science and faith find understanding. Think of Copernicus peering into the heliocentric model of the solar system, or Darwin peering into the theory of evolution, or even Saint Paul peering into the darkness of the road to Damascus. As a certain Newton once put it, "I once was lost, but now am found, was blind, but now I see."
ReplyDeleteJust yesterday I received the following perceptive comments from local Thinking Friend Linda Schroeder:
ReplyDelete"When the 'magic eye' post arrived, I could not get my eyes to cooperate. I guess they were too tired, because I’ve been able to make the magic work other times over the years. The next day, however, I saw the monkeys immediately, and repeatedly, including today when they reappeared on my first try. Sometimes fatigue blocks our perception of miracles and blessings, and that’s sad; but there’s always a new day dawning with new vision."