Science Without Bounds |
A Synthesis of Science,Religion and Mysticism
By
Arthur D'Adamo
The Tale of the Scientific Alchemists and Religious Newtonians
We'll close Part I with a short allegory. About three hundred years ago,
when alchemists were still vainly trying to turn lead into gold, Sir Isaac
Newton discovered some fundamental equations that accurately describe the
physical world. In our tale, let's give Newton's discoveries to people who
regard them religiously. We'll call these people "religious Newtonians."
The religious Newtonians are religious because they follow the revelational
method of knowing truth. They're Newtonians because they accept Newton's
theories. And let's give Alchemy to people who regard it scientifically.
We'll call these people "scientific Alchemists." The scientific Alchemists
are scientific because they follow the scientific way of knowing truth; they
are Alchemists because they accept the theories of Alchemy. So "religious"
or "scientific" indicates the way of knowing, the way of finding new knowledge.
And "Newtonian" or "Alchemist" indicates the theories currently accepted
as true. Our tale will illustrate that the method used to find and test beliefs
may be more important than the initial beliefs themselves. Our tale opens
in the seventeenth century. The religious Newtonians believe in calculus
and the basic laws of Newtonian physics. They worship Newton as a god and
venerate his writings as divinely inspired and perfectly true. Following
the ideas and theories in his writings, in "holy scriptures," the religious
Newtonians are beginning to understand the natural world. New discoveries
in mathematics, mechanics, astronomy, and navigation are being made almost
daily. The beliefs of the religious Newtonians are substantially correct
and many centuries of progress await them. Our other group, the scientific
Alchemists, follow not Newton but Aristotle, particularly his theory of the
four basic elements: earth, water, fire, and air. According to Aristotle's
ideas, it's possible to turn lead into gold. And that's what the scientific
Alchemists are trying to do. Into their crucibles, flasks, mortars, and pots,
they put eggs, toads, snakes, herbs, urine, entrails, lead, mercury, sulfur,
and saltpeter. They grind, mix, filter, hammer, and heat them. They describe
their experiments with bizarre symbols such as toads, dragons, birds, stars,
crowns, keys, and planets. The beliefs of the scientific Alchemists are wrong
and their quest is doomed to failure. Notice that we've given the religious
Newtonians a lot of correct physical knowledge. We've given them an kind
of head start in the race toward more and more truth about the physical world.
But we've given them a poor way of knowing, a way that binds them to a "divine
and unchanging" truth. In contrast, we've given the scientific Alchemists
a serious handicap in the form of erroneous physical theories. But we've
given them a better way of knowing, a way that allows revision and progress.
Which will prove more important in the long run, the knowledge currently
accepted as true, or the method of testing current knowledge and discovering
more knowledge? Let's return to our tale. As time passes, the scientific
Alchemists slowly and independently discover some laws of nature that the
religious Newtonians believe to be divine and unchangeable truth. "You've
found," say the religious Newtonians, "but a tiny portion of our divine Dogma.
Surely, your mortal, imperfect minds will never uncover all of our complete
and perfect truth. God gave us our revelation. It's far beyond what we fallible
humans can find, alone and unaided. Why then do you not give up your slow,
painful search for truth and embrace our Truth?" "Never," reply the scientific
Alchemists. "Truth is to be earned, to be understood. You are satisfied to
follow blindly, without understanding. We are not. Even though some of our
truths now match your faith, one day we may find other truths of which you
are ignorant. As the decades pass, the scientific Alchemists independently
uncover, test, and accept more and more of the truths held by the religious
Newtonians. "For many decades now," say the religious Newtonians, "our sacred
scriptures have held the full and complete truth. Ignoring these writings,
you have been winning, bit by bit, through much labor and suffering, what
was already fully given to the fathers of the fathers of our fathers. Our
way to truth, the way of divine revelation, the way of our fathers, is ancient
and sure. Why then do you not cease your needless searching and accept out
divine revelation?" "Never," reply the scientific Alchemists. "No book can
hold the full and perfect truth. Our way of knowing is a never-ending process
of observation, hypothesis, theory, and experiment. Even as knowledge is
limitless, the search for knowledge must be unending. This is our way of
knowing. One day our knowledge shall surpass yours." By the end of the nineteenth
century, the scientific Alchemists have independently found and verified
all the beliefs of the religious Newtonians. "For centuries now," say the
religious Newtonians, "you have groped in the dark while we, following the
divine knowledge given in our holy scriptures by our god, have lived in the
light. Now, after much error and effort, you have finally reached the Truth.
Will you not now admit the inspired nature of our religion and join us in
our worship?" "Never," respond the scientific Alchemists. "Your way of blind
acceptance is not our way. We are pledged to follow the truth; you to follow
your holy books and god. We are free to go wherever the truth leads; you
are bound to a fixed, limited knowledge now hundreds of years old. One day
we shall go beyond your knowledge." So for centuries, the religious Newtonians
have gone nowhere, they've stayed bound to their "holy and eternal" truth.
But the scientific Alchemists have outgrown their initial "knowledge" and
have acquired - earned - a truer, more accurate knowledge. One way of knowing
has led nowhere, the other has discovered more and more knowledge. In the
early twentieth century, a thinker named Einstein claims the theories now
accepted by both religious Newtonians and scientific Alchemists are not actually
true, but only a near approximation of the truth. He proposes radically different
theories, superior only in that they explain the orbit of the planet Mercury
a bit better. The new theories demand, however, a drastic, new view of space
and time. "Blasphemy!" shout the religious Newtonians. "Heretical, perverse,
mind-twisting ideas of an iconoclastic rebel. Surely our Holy Faith, the
faith of our fathers, will prevail against such diseased drivel!" "It seems
to be the truth!" reply the scientific Alchemists. "We shall test it and,
if true, we shall accept it. We are long accustomed to molding ourselves
to the truth, not molding the truth to ourselves." Twenty years later, the
two camps welcome the theory of Quantum Mechanics in much the same manner.
The religious Newtonians reject Quantum Mechanics as heretical nonsense;
the scientific Alchemists test and then accept it. Using the Theory of Relativity
and, more significantly, Quantum Mechanics, the scientific Alchemists begin
to surpass the religious Newtonians in their understanding and control of
the physical world. Using Quantum Mechanics they discover atomic energy,
semiconductors, lasers, and computers. The religious Newtonians, bound as
they are to a way of knowing that limits what they can know, refuse to accept
or use the new discoveries. The world beyond their holy scriptures, the world
of computers, lasers, nuclear energy, and space-time, is a world which they,
as believers, can never enter. Our tale attempts to dramatize that a way
of knowing can be more important than initial beliefs. The scientific Alchemists
were given a lot of erroneous beliefs based on Alchemy. But they were given
the scientific way of knowing. Since their method of acquiring and testing
knowledge was sound, they eventually corrected their initial misconceptions.
The religious Newtonians, on the other hand, were given a lot of accurate
physical knowledge based on Newtonian physics. But they were given a religious
way of knowing. Since their method of acquiring and testing knowledge was
faulty, eventually their beliefs became outmoded, a hindrance to finding
more truth. So even if scripture is eternal and inerrant truth (and this
is debatable), the religious way of knowing hinders the search for more truth.
And even if science's ideas are all wrong (this, too, is debatable), its
way of knowing leads to more and more truth. Our tale compared the scientific
way of knowing, the way of knowing accepted by science, with the revelational
way of knowing, the way of knowing often accepted by religion. It showed
the scientific way of knowing the superior method - at least, for understanding
the natural world. Is it a better way for understanding the "supernatural
world" too? Let's see. Independent Dualism The axioms of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good God seems to prohibit the real and full existence of evil. Therefore, thinkers such as Mary Baker Eddy, Augustine, and Dionysius teach evil doesn't really and fully exist. If they're wrong and evil does exist, and if God really exists, then God isn't all-good, or doesn't know evil exists, or isn't powerful enough to stop it. Independent dualism chooses the last alternative. Evil exists because God isn't strong enough to eliminate it- at least, at present. Some independent dualisms teach the ultimate triumph of good over evil. Independent dualism is the strongest kind of dualism. In it, evil really exists, independently of good. Independent dualist systems were influential in the past. If fact, good and evil, were originally part of the ancient vision of Zoroaster. Later Zoroastrianism, if not Zoroaster himself, taught good and evil exist independently of each other, though it did predict good would eventually vanquish evil. Other independent dualistic systems include Marcionism, which flourished in the second century C.E.; Manichaeism, which survived for over 1,000 years; and that of the Cathari, who arose in Western Europe in the 12th and 13th centuries C.E. and were probably influenced by Manichaeism. To better understand independent dualist systems, we'll discuss one of these systems in more detail. Mani, for whom Manichaeism is named, lived in the 3rd century C.E. Like Mohammed over two hundred years later, he accepted earlier prophets such as Zoroaster, Buddha and Jesus. But he believed written records of their teachings were distorted since they themselves hadn't written them. In contrast, Mani himself recorded his teachings,thus assuring their integrity over time. Like Mohammed, he was regarded ([N04],v14,783) as the "seal of the prophets". That is, since the pure and perfect teaching had finally been captured in writing, no other prophet would be needed. In Manichaeism belief, the kingdom of Light and Spirit and the kingdom of Darkness and Matter had originally been separate and independent. But at the border, Darkness and Light mix, creating the world we live in. Overpowered by Matter, Light forgets its own nature. Consciousness becomes aware of matter and forgets Itself. For salvation - that is, to free the soul, a particle of Light, from the domination of Matter - a person must practice strict asceticism. Only then can the soul finally return to its original home, the kingdom of Light. Manichaeism disappeared centuries ago. Yet, similar ideas exist even today. Kushner seems to embrace an independent dualism of God and. . . chaos, in those corners of the universe where God's creative light has not yet penetrated. And chaos is evil; not wrong, not malevolent, but evil nonetheless. . . ([K11],53). He writes: . . . [T]he earthquake and the accident . . . are not thewill of God, but represent that aspect of reality which stands independent of His will, and which angers and saddens God even as it angers and saddens us.([K11],55), and: God does not want you to be sick or crippled. He didn't make you have this problem, and He doesn't want you to go on having it, but He can't make it go away. That is something which is too hard even for God. ([K11],129). Though independent dualism still exists, it's rarely accepted,especially by established religions. It's easy to see why: in an independent dualistic system the following three statements are true. (1) The bubonic plague, which ravaged Europe centuries ago, was too hard for God to stop then, but could be stopped today with modern drugs. (2) God cannot prevent a man from abusing a woman or child,but a policeman with a gun can. (3) A man, a woman and their three children are asleep in their home. Somehow a small spark has ignited the curtains in the living room; the fire is beginning to spread. The family is all sound asleep and will die in the fire if not awakened soon. God cannot awaken them to their danger. But a pet dog, if they had one, could. Even though they aren't widely believed, independent dualistic systems do have one advantage over other systems: the continued existence of evil is explained (even though the origin of evil may remain unexplained). Evil exists simply because good is not powerful enough to destroy it. In theistic terms, good and evil exist simply because good and evil exist in God. Or if God is all-good, then good and evil exist because God is not always powerful enough to destroyor hinder Evil. Our aim in this and the next few sections is to explore the dualistic system of "good" and "bad." Our first task is to find better labels, to avoid confusing "good and bad" with "good and evil." The terms I'm going to use - "yang" and "yin" - are drawn from the Taoist tradition. Ancient Chinese Taoist texts, such as Tao Te Ching and the I Ching, suggest "yang" and "yin" are equivalent to "good" and "bad." It's difficult to be certain, however, because translations vary. Nonetheless, I'll use "yang" and "yin" in place of "good" and "bad," offering my apologies if the usage differs from what a Taoist would consider correct. So in this book, "yang" refers to what most people call "good" -the pleasant, the agreeable, the desirable. And "yin" is what most people call "bad" - the unpleasant, the disagreeable, the undesirable. If we imagine the two faces of drama, then "yang" is the smiling face and "yin" is the sad face. Yang and yin differ from good and evil in fundamental ways. For one, good and evil are usually thought of as moral absolutes that inhere in the entity (kindness is good; killing is evil). But yang is anything agreeable - and agreeable must be agreeable to some person. Like beauty, yang and yin are in the eye of the beholder. In other words, yang and yin don't exist independent of the observer. Rather, a particular person creates yang and yin qualities. How? We'll discuss two answers. The first answer is interactive projection, which says that an observer interacts with an entity, experiences a private (yang or yin) sensation, and projects that sensation onto the entity. Interactive projection says that ice cream's taste exists only in the observer, not the ice cream. Therefore, "This ice cream tastes good." isn't accurate. It's more accurate (but much more wordy) to say: "Interacting with this ice cream causes me to experience a pleasant taste. Of course, someone else might experience an unpleasant taste. Therefore, the pleasant taste must be my own private sensation, something I project onto the ice cream." After all, if the pleasant taste was entirely a property of the ice cream, then the ice cream would always taste the same. It doesn't. The first spoonful tastes good, the thirtieth spoonful tastes neither good or bad, the hundredth spoonful may make you ill. Each spoonful of ice cream is identical, but its qualities change. This shows that the observer does more than observe; the "observer" and entity interact to bring a quality into existence. The second answer is interactive invocation, which says that an entity possesses innumerable yang and yin qualities in a potential state. A particular quality is brought into actual existence when it's "invoked" by the entity and an observer interacting. Interactive invocation says that the ice cream has the potential of tasting good,bad, rich, thin, flavorful, bland, healthy, sickening, etc., but only when a particular person and the ice cream interact are one or more potential qualities "invoked", that is, brought into actual existence. Projection and invocation are probably equally valid ways of thinking about yang and yin. In what follows, however, I'll usually choose the invocation viewpoint. With either view, however, the quality is created when an observer and an entity interact. Quantum mechanics, by the way, has a similar idea. The crucial feature of atomic physics is that the human observer is not only necessary to observe the properties of an object, but is necessary even to define these properties. In atomic physics, we cannot talk about the properties of an object as such. They are only meaningful in the context of the object's interaction with the observer. ([C03],140). Of course, an observer can interact with an entity and invoke no qualities at all. As an illustration (which we'll return to), suppose two men compete for a job. The first man is chosen, the second rejected. That the first man was hired and the second rejected is a fact, a datum, an entity. From this single entity, an indifferent person (who, perhaps, doesn't know either of the men) invokes no qualities. The first man, however, invokes yang qualities - satisfaction, a sense of success and achievement. The second man invokes yin qualities - disappointment, a sense of failure. All three people interact with the same entity but invoke different (or no) qualities. There's another way that yang and yin differ from good and evil. As moral absolutes, good and evil are the same for everyone but yang and yin aren't, because they depend on the observer. Something that's yang to one observer may be yin to another. Some kids say chocolate ice cream tastes good, others say it tastes rotten. The pleasant and unpleasant taste is invoked by the particular kid. Observers interact The Universe 197 with the same entity but invoke different qualities. In fact, an identical quality can be yang for one observer and yin for another. That a particular car is expensive, is yang to someone who desires the prestige of such a car, and yin to someone who would like to purchase the car but can't afford to. Because yang and yin depend on the observer, basing moral values on them might seem difficult. It isn't. In fact, much of Part III concerns goals, values and morals. We'll see how good and evil seem to require a God who is a Person to define them, but how yang and yin are much more compatible with the idea of the God which is not a Person. Inseparable Interactive Invocation, an Inseparable |
Related Articles |