The apparent contrast between science and spirituality in my opinion is based on a limited understanding of what both fields actually mean to us. While science and spirituality may have different methods, in part they both seek to understand the world and our place in it. In my view, one can benefit tremendously from each perspective to gain a deeper insight. By acknowledging the complementary nature of these two fields, we can open up new avenues of inquiry and discovery, and create a more holistic understanding of ourselves and the universe.
The main point of contention between science and spirituality is the issue of empirical evidence. Science relies on evidence that can be observed, measured, and tested in order to establish the validity of its claims. Spiritual beliefs, on the other hand, are often based on subjective experiences that cannot be easily quantified or replicated. This fundamental difference has led some people to dismiss spirituality as unscientific or even anti-scientific. Science is often seen as the antithesis of spirituality because of this.
Despite these apparent differences, I argue that science and spirituality can complement each other, rather than being in conflict. Many scientific discoveries have helped to deepen our understanding of spiritual concepts, such as the nature of consciousness. For example, Neuroscientific studies on the effects of spirituality and meditation on the brain have provided evidence for the benefits of practising these techniques.
What we know
Science has come a long way in helping us understand the natural world, from subatomic particles to the vast expanse of the universe. Learning the laws of physics have been essential in the development of technology and advancements in our world. However, there is a limit to how much science can explain about reality. There are many mysteries of the universe that remain unsolved by science. There will always be answers to questions that we cant find through science, just as there are answers to questions that we will never find through spirituality.
There is a deeper connection to the natural world that science alone cannot fully explain. This connection touches the very core of our being. It is a feeling like a frisson that one gets when gazing up at the stars on a clear night; being moved by a musical piece in a way that transcends reality; the joy of holding a new born baby, or contemplating the vast complexity of the universe.
Spirituality provides us with a different perspective on reality, one that has a possibility to go beyond the physical understanding, to look deeper into true meaning. It enables us to establish a stronger relationship with the universe, and help connect with its forces in a profound way. This connection can bring a sense to us that is difficult to describe in words, as it touches something so deep within us that it transcends them, and in some cases, can even bring us to our knees.
Reality
Reality is a concept that has captivated humans for centuries. It is the world around us, the things we see, hear, feel, and touch. But it is also what we don't see. What we imagine, what we dream about, our feelings. Our very consciousness. Everything. But how do we perceive reality, and is our understanding of it limited to what we can physically experience? Both science and spirituality attempt to answer these questions, but they approach them from different perspectives.
We can all agree that by using our senses, we can build an understanding of what reality is, and it probably feels like you're getting the hang of it by now. But what we can perceive is not always what is there. Take light for instance. Light is a perfect example of how our sense of reality can be deceiving. The visible spectrum of light, which is the range of wavelengths that our eyes can detect, spans from about 400 to 700 nanometres (nm). However, there are many more wavelengths of light that exist beyond this range. The visible light we see only covers about 4-5% of the full spectrum. Beyond our visible spectrum, there are many other types of light that we cannot perceive without tools.
This is just to state that our most basic understanding of reality is limited by our sensory input. This can show that there are proven aspects of reality that we would otherwise be completely unaware of without the correct tools.
Our senses can be both powerful tools for understanding reality and also sources of deception and error. Hallucinations involve perceiving stimuli that are not even present at all. But does that mean that they are not reality? In some cases, hallucinations can be indistinguishable from reality, which can make them particularly confusing. It's possible for someone to be unaware they are in a hallucination, and fully believe it to be reality.
Some scientists are beginning to explore the role that consciousness has in shaping our perception of reality. They have suggested that consciousness itself may be a fundamental aspect of reality, and that our perceptions and beliefs may shape the concept itself.
While science can help our understanding of our physical reality, it does not have much to say on our metaphysical reality.
Many spiritual traditions explore the metaphysical aspects of reality. These traditions often emphasise the interconnectedness of all things and the role of consciousness in shaping our perception of the world around us. For example, in some Eastern traditions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, the concept of "maya" suggests that what we perceive as reality is ultimately an illusion, and that true reality lies beyond our ordinary experience.
For many indigenous spiritual traditions, they emphasise the interconnectedness of all things and the importance of living in harmony with the natural world. These traditions often see the importance of developing a deep connection to the spirit/s.
Ethics
Morals are an important consideration in both science and spirituality. In my belief, it is an area where science and spirituality must learn to coexist, or at least take a step back. As it is a branch of philosophy that deals with moral principles and values, I believe that neither science nor spirituality can speak of what our morals should be. However, certain areas of science and spirituality are deeply connected with the ideas and truth behind morality, so I believe that I must voice my opinion on these matters.
The philosophy of ethics, or moral philosophy, is concerned with questions about what is right and wrong, good and bad, and how we ought to live our lives. Ethics is a broad, diverse, and unsurprisingly debated field that encompasses a wide range of philosophical ideas.
Spirituality
In many spiritual traditions, ethics and morality are often viewed as being based on divine authority rather than social evolution. This means that the principles and values that guide moral behaviour are believed to be revealed through sacred texts or the guidance of leaders who are believed to have a direct connection to the divine*.
For example, in Christianity, the Ten Commandments are considered to be the fundamental moral laws that God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai. These commandments provide a clear set of ethical principles that guide behaviour.
The spiritual practices believe that these morals are not simply human inventions, but rather are rooted in the divine nature of their god/s, and are the fundamental moral principles that underlie the universe.
While the ethical principles and values in these traditions may not change over time, the interpretation and application of these principles may evolve as social and cultural contexts change. In the past, some Christians used biblical passages to justify the practice of slavery, arguing that it was acceptable to own slaves as long as they were treated well and were taught about Christianity. However, over time, as social and cultural contexts changed and people began to recognise the inherent injustice and cruelty of slavery, the interpretation and application of Christian ethical principles began to shift. Today, the majority of Christians reject the idea that slavery is acceptable, and many argue that the ethical principles of Christianity require us to work to end all forms of slavery and human trafficking.
This shift in interpretation of ethical principles suggests that they are shaped by societal needs and changes, or rather that it is "advantageous to social evolution". This indicates that even in spirituality, ethics are not a fixed set of rules, but rather a flexible and adaptable system that reflects the norms of a given society.
*Not all spiritual traditions hold the same beliefs about what constitutes ethical behaviour, and some may have conflicting views on certain issues.
Science
There is no question that science can provide huge insights into our human behaviour. Using psychology we can understand the factors that influence our decision making, our thoughts and feelings, our attitudes and behaviours towards ourselves and others, our biases, and how our socialisation can impact our ethical behaviour.
Many scientists hold the view that ethics are created through social evolution. According to this view, ethics and moral values emerge and evolve over time as a result of human societies interacting with their environments and with each other. As societies change and adapt to new circumstances, so do their ethical values and norms. But as we are simply another species on this planet, our morals and ethics are very different to that of a bee's or another creatures. Charles Darwin said “If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering." Thus, our sense of right and wrong cannot be an objective truth of reality, and that our moralities are not justified or "right" in any way. Seeing human morality as the "correct way" is a strange bias to have once you see it in this context.
The observation and explanation of ethical principles through the lens of science can provide valuable insights into the nature of moral reasoning. However, it is important to recognise that science cannot provide definitive answers to ethical questions, such as what is right and wrong. Ultimately, what is ethical requires broader philosophical considerations that extend beyond the realm of scientific inquiry.
Philosophy
While science can teach us the effects of using ethics, and provide valuable insights into behaviour by those that use them, to me, it cannot claim to prove if the concept of morals or ethics even exist. Science can tell us why it is advantageous to help the sick, or not to steal or murder, but it cannot tell us what makes empathy good, or what makes theft and murder evil. It involves grappling with questions such as, “What is the nature of right and wrong, good and evil?”, and “Are they dependant on what we simply define them as?”
If you find yourself at the question of whether ethics actually can exist or not, you may not be alone. But first, it depends on what you mean by the question:
Do people show "ethical behaviours"? Yes, but again, this is simply human morality, and while we have some universal human moralities, many ethics change from culture to culture. However, if we were to change interpretation of the question slightly, and ask whether right and wrong exists as a fundamental part of reality? Then I would loosely argue no.
This philosophy, while not proving if ethics exist or not, at least states that it is a philosophical concept rather than a scientific or spiritual question to be answered.
Regardless of whether our morals are a result of social evolution or divine will, the claim that we have ethics despite a complete absence for the concept's existence has remained unchanged, and has helped us in unimaginable ways as a species.
So am I saying that morals therefore do not exist in Spirituality?
Not necessarily. While I firmly believe that ethics cannot exist in what we know reality to be. Our understanding, or lack thereof, in the field of metaphysics provides enough room for a clear framework, that in its own ways, could explain the underlying meaning of good and evil. Whereas science as we know it cannot at this time.
Using this, I am able to believe that while morals and ethics do not have an objective existence in reality, what we consider to be "ethical" can be interpreted both through the lenses of science and spirituality. It is entirely subjective and dependent on individual perspectives. Much like spirituality in and of itself.
Then how are they different?
There is one fundamental difference between the two that I can see. While I believe that there is a possibility that true ethics could exist in a metaphysical sense, I don't believe it exists in our perceived reality. Instead humanity has invented its own set of ethical and moral standards, based on an evolutionary "trick" that has evolved alongside us to reward what is most advantageous for us individually, and collectively.
As I see it, the ethical and moral question devolves into a paradoxical cycle of cause and effect. Where morals in spirituality are proven wrong, and the evolution of societal morals suggests they lack a basis in reality altogether. The existence of universal morals suggests a deeper metaphysical explanation.
It's worth noting that for certain individuals, embracing spiritual ethics not only offers a sense of structure and accountability but also serves as a practical tool to aid them in conquering their challenges related to self-discipline. In this sense, the principles and values of spiritual ethics can indeed be considered true in a pragmatic sense, as they effectively assist in the betterment of their lives.
For a person who is not spiritual in any sense, they might still have their own personal sense of morals, and a strong self discipline. It is important to recognise the power of self trust and the ability to make ethical decisions based on our own convictions and beliefs. In other words, while we may be influenced by external factors at every turn, we ultimately have the power to choose our own moral path and "ethics".
Back to the Connections
I am not alone in my view that science and spirituality must compliment each other. Many scientists and spiritual followers themselves have expressed a belief in the compatibility of the two. Much like today though, throughout history there have been both proponents and detractors of the idea that they can coexist.
The Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, wrote in his book "The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality" about the importance of bridging the gap between these two fields of inquiry. He argues that both science and spirituality share a common goal of seeking truth, and that they can inform and enrich each other. He writes, "The great benefit of science is that it can contribute tremendously to the alleviation of suffering at the physical level, but it is only through the cultivation of the qualities of the human heart and the transformation of our attitudes that we can begin to address and overcome our mental suffering... We need both, since the alleviation of suffering must take place at both the physical and the psychological levels."
The pursuit of health, whether through physical or spiritual means, is a noble and necessary endeavour. Both science and spirituality are capable of revealing important truths about the universe and our place within it, and that a deep understanding of both is necessary for a more complete understanding of the world. However, in order to bridge the gap, we must find a new philosophy that can compliment the two.
Not everyone agrees that science and spirituality can coexist peacefully. Some argue that the principles of science are fundamentally at odds with spiritual beliefs, as the latter often relies on faith rather than evidence. They see the scientific method as the only reliable way to gain knowledge, and reject the idea that there can be multiple "truths".
Some spiritual traditions have been criticized by some scientific communities for making claims that are "demonstrably false", or at least unfalsifiable. However, as we are beginning to understand the true idea of "reality", we can see that things aren't as black and white as this.
Christopher Hitchens, a British-American author and journalist, was a well known critic of religion. He argued that religion was not only incompatible with science, but also that it was harmful and unnecessary. Hitchens argued that religion has been used to justify violence, discrimination, and oppression throughout history. In his book, "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," Hitchens wrote, "Religion poisons everything... It is responsible for more wars, more bloodshed, and more oppression than any other force in history."
While he is correct by saying that religion has been used to justify violence, discrimination, and oppression throughout history, so have many scientific ideas. I go into this in more detail in my post "The Devil is in the Details".
My View
The apparent contradiction between science and spirituality is only a product of a limited understanding of both, and what their purposes are. There need be no conflict between the two, as they are two sides of the same coin, and should be used together. For science can explore what is, and spirituality can explore why it is. What I mean, is that science can tell us how the universe works, while spirituality can offer an insight into why it exists and what our place in it might be. This is why I view philosophy as the bridge between the two. More importantly to me, the philosophy of Omnism.
I see the relationship between science and spirituality as a set of 3d glasses. Just as we need both lenses to perceive depth and perspective from the image, one must use science and spirituality together to provide a more clearer understanding of "reality". Of course, the integration of science and spirituality is not always easy or straightforward. It requires us to be open minded, willing to challenge our assumptions, and be free to explore new ideas. It also requires us to use our brain on a much more philosophical level, to process the information we have taken onboard from both. By then, using a personal philosophy, we can arrive at a clear understanding of the world that allows us to see the final picture with greater clarity, depth, colour, and perspective.
It's intriguing how some people will use one lens to view life, and will use it to simply criticise the practicality and usefulness of the other lens. The issue here, is that by looking through a polarised lens at the opposite one, it will result in them cancelling out. This will make the other lens appear as if it is unable to pass on any information, rendering it seemingly useless. Secondly, this method prevents them from truly understanding the other lens's intended purpose. It is simply another tool, and while they seem to have opposing qualities that counteract each other, they are very similar. By utilizing both tools in tandem, we can deepen our perception and enhance our understanding of the world. Ultimately however, the most significant drawback is that their fixation on each other's presence, causes them to miss out of the bigger, beautiful picture.
Our understanding of reality is limited by our perspective. Without tools we see reality with a confusing distortion that can sometimes be hard to discern, but we have two remarkable tools at our disposal to understand the unknown. If we only rely on a single perspective, we risk missing out on important details and hindering our perception of the world, rendering it with a dark hue that distorts our personal view of reality. A clear understanding of reality requires us to explore multiple perspectives through these tools, which can help us to appreciate the complexity and richness of the world we live in. By recognizing the limitations of only using one without the other, we can find a more easily understood picture of the world around us.
Similar to when we see the world through rose tinted glasses, we tend to see only certain aspects of a situation and ignore others. Or in this case, seeing life through a strictly spiritual or scientific lens, will leave the world in a dark hue of red or blue, leaving someone unable to recognise the clearer image that can been seen by simply forming a connection with the other tool.
The question of whether science and spirituality can coexist is a complex one, with no easy answers. While some people argue that the two can be reconciled, others maintain that they are fundamentally incompatible. However, it is clear to me that both science and spirituality have much more important connection than we may realise. Together, they have much to offer in terms of understanding ourselves and the world around us.
By engaging in open and respectful dialogue, we can hope to bridge the gap between these seemingly opposing world views and find common ground in our quest for truth and understanding. As Carl Sagan once said:
"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality."
Commentaires