For a deep understanding of reality, mix equal parts: science, philosophy and religion.
Critical to my approach is the need to maintain the ethic that keeps integral philosophy free from religious bias. Although integral philosophy has a strong spiritual component, its spirituality is broad enough to include a wide diversity of spiritual beliefs because it is careful to minimize its reliance on metaphysics. Like the three legs of a stool, science, philosophy, and religion each have an important role to play in supporting higher levels of civilization. These different approaches to truth each address distinct and irreducible aspects of human experience that must be accounted for in any integral understanding of reality. And while these diverse fields do well to inform and support each other, like the legs of a stool they must be kept apart; if they come too close together the stool falls over. That is, philosophy must not be limited to only what can be proved by science, nor should it be extended to encompass matters of faith or propositions that must be taken on the authority of a spiritual teacher or a religious text. Integral philosophy is thus informed by science and religion, but it remains respectfully independent of both.
The above passage comes from Steve McIntosh’s book Evolution’s Purpose. I believe he got the “stool of human understanding” thing from Hegel, but I really like it. It clicks for me.
The main reason for posting this excerpt is because I recently read an article, and listened to a podcast, which both featured physicists. The article was about Neil deGrasse Tyson and his distaste for philosophy, and the podcast was an interview with theoretical physicist Brian Greene. Although Greene gives way more credit/recognition to philosophers in his interview than NdG seems to, I still picked up on a potential conviction that Greene may harbor which posits that “ultimate truth” can only be found by scientific/mathematical investigation. To be fair, he didn’t use the phrase “ultimate truth,” but he did use the phrase “deeper understanding” a bunch of times, and admitted that he enjoyed the certainty that came with doing mathematics.
I actually agree with Greene that scientific investigation can give people a deeper, richer, fuller understanding of reality, but this is also where I have to agree with McIntosh. Science is but one approach to truth that addresses a distinct and irreducible aspect of human experience. I think philosophy and religion are two other approaches that are also “irreducible aspects of human experience that must be accounted for in any integral understanding of reality.” I like the integral approach because–if for no other reason–it seeks not to exclude or minimize any of these approaches to truth, but to include them all.
On the problem of "Reality": it is exceedingly difficult if not impossible to define in a fundamental objective way. Science and Religion and people in general are all deeply concerned with Time. We all worry about it, feel it passing inexorably ALWAYS in the forward direction - from Past to Future, never the reverse. Yet we cannot define it or explain it. We pretend that we can agree on What Time It Is NOW by setting our clocks SIMULTANEOUSLY. Yet Einstein showed that simultaneity is a myth, and that is quite easy to prove in simple thought experiments. Two bolts of lightning I and II strike at two different points equidistance from a stationary observer who sees the strikes as simultaneous. But an observer moving towards Strike I sees it first, followed by Strike II. A third observer, moving towards Strike II sees that first, then Strike I. Since ALL motion is relative, all three observers are "correct" in their observations. Thus the "reality" of simultaneity is not general, it is not universal, it is "real" only in one of these frames of reference.
And it has been proven many times that time flows at different rates in different frames of reference. A classic example is the fact that very fast muons formed in the upper atmosphere can reach the earth. This is only possible due to these muons living about ten times longer than identical slow muons produced in earth labs. The Half-Life of muons (and all other particles) increases with increased velocity.
HOWEVER: We on the earth see the fast muons living longer, but the muons themselves do NOT enjoy longer lives. Instead, they "see" the distance they have to travel to hit the earth DECREASED by a factor of ten.
There is also a gravitational effect on time flow, and it is clear that one second of elapsed time is NOT the same for all observers anywhere in the universe, contrary to Newton's concept.
So we cannot agree on simultaneity nor on how fast time passes. There is no "universal reality" on this.
But what IS Time? Was it created along with Space in the Big Bang 14 billion years ago? Many cosmologists may assume this, but there is no evidence of it, and since both Relativity and Quantum Theory break down at the instant of the Big Bang, there is no theory for it. Some String theories posit Time being totally absent during the Big Bang and appearing later on, just as atoms could not exist in the Big Bang and were formed later (I think that was about three minutes after the Bang???).
So what is the reality of Time? In Chemistry it is easily measured and we use the flow of time to express rates of reaction assuming we can ignore Relativity and quantum effects. But this is a sort of "artificial" measure of something we have no theory for!
In Physics, we usually ignore Relativity and quantum theory for practical purposes in most engineering efforts for example. But we MUST use Relativity to operate our GPS units to get accurate results. We MUST calculate time dilation factors even though we do NOT know what Time is.
Most religions seem to "assume" that Time is something fundamental, regular, immutable. Terms such as Eternity pop up, which most people think means "forever" after death, but this is meaningless.
Some Cosmologists are seriously wondering if the universe may be infinite in Space and in Time. Did it have a beginning? Will it go on forever? Are there an extremely large number of other universes which co-exist with ours but from which we can get no information? Now we enter into the realm of speculation, or metaphysics, or.....imagination with no hope of verification.
The REALITY is that human beings have evolved in an extremely restricted three dimensional world where our senses CANNOT see or feel (even with ultrasensitive instruments) the extremely large (astronomical distances) or the extremely tiny (quarks, gluons, Higgs bosons, electrons) to an extent that permits us to assess the fundamental "realities" of the universe.
Yet Science is without question the most powerful, most accurate discipline we have to try to APPROACH what we think may be the "reality" of the universe, and to make it useful. Religion is too fragmented, limiting, and dis-uniting to attain anywhere near the world wide continuity and cohesiveness of Science. Science has an ultimate goal of attaining a Theory of Everything. We will NEVER get there, but we are reaching deeper and deeper into the secrets of the structure of the universe and revealing things that the main body of scientists across the world can agree on and apply.
Religion has invented.....how many different gods? How many different chunks of dogma for which there is no rational reason? Much of Religious thinking is badly splintered, filled with imposed beliefs that restrict imagination and induce a culture of fear and superstition.
A TRUE Scientist NEVER claims that he/she knows the TRUTH. "Reality" is flexible, changeable. How many "religious" people claim to KNOW THE TRUTH about God, salvation, eternity, etc.?
What does "Faith" mean? Is the faith of a devout Catholic the same as that of a devout Baptist? Or a Jew? Or a Muslim? Or a Republican? Or a Hitler Youth?
(YAAAWN! Time for sleep.)
Love this comment. Thanks for sharing your thoughts :)