Intertwining of Philosophy, Religion and Science

While this post starts off by condemning organized religion, its real aim is to assess the role and responsibility of science in today's society. After giving a brief historical overview of how modern science has gradually evolved out of philosophy and it has struggled for centuries to overcome the restraining power of religion, I raise the case that science instead of persevering on a pointless fight against religion should concentrate its efforts on knowledge dissemination. In addition I contend, although not as vocally as some epistemological anarchists, that modern science is becoming set to exercise an authoritarian and unjustified dominance in society, which risks preventing the growth of knowledge rather than promoting it.

Throughout the centuries the purpose of religion has always been to answer some of the same fundamental questions that are also shared by metaphysics (an important branch of philosophy). These include: "what is the nature of reality?" "what is man's place in the universe?" “what is the origin of the Universe?” “what is its first cause?” “is its existence necessary?” “what are the ultimate material components of the Universe?” “what is the ultimate reason for the existence of the Universe?” “does the cosmos have a purpose?” However, because existence of god can only be demonstrated by faith all great philosophers (including those who believed in a first cause of the existence of the universe and have called that "god") have been quick to also point out their uncertainty. Doubt that god(s) exist is the basis of agnosticism, hence philosophers can either be agnostics or atheists, but rarely religious. Of course some exceptions exist (e.g. Kierkegaard and Christian Existentialism).

Until 400AC religion and philosophy had managed to coexist without greatly limiting one another. This occurred regardless of religion having repeatedly been used for political reasons given its power of influencing the minds of the masses by instilling fears of death, after death, and the unknown.

However, peaceful coexistence between faith (i.e. religion) and reason (i.e. philosophy) ended with the Middle Ages when the evolution of human thinking literally froze for a thousand years. Ignorance and superstition ruled and only around 1,100AC a distinction started to emerge between religious subjects (sapientia of the monks) and reason (scientia of the intellectuals) with some philosophers promoting early secular ideas by stating that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact unbiased by religious influence.

But in 1,200AC the Inquisition was still carrying out witch hunting, and the Church was selling absolutions to acquire wealth. It was only in the 1300s that Renaissance Humanism started a cultural and educational reform in Italy with advancements in the arts and science that strongly responded to the challenge of Medieval scholastic education.

Starting around 1,500AC, European civilization began to undergo changes leading to the scientific and industrial revolutions. As a result Europe radically transformed itself and developed an overwhelming impact on other continents and other cultures. With the likes of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton a new optimism about the benefits of learning had arisen among intellectual elite, in conflict with the old and common belief that the world was a mystery never to be fathomed by humanity. This was the Age of Reason which preceded Enlightenment, a period where the Church was often tagged as the number one public enemy (Verri, Beccaria, Genovesi, Voltaire, Diderot, Locke, Jefferson, etc.). Materialists such as La Mettrie, Claude-Adrien Helvetius, and Paul-Henry D’Holbach stressed that man was not a creature of God but only the result, quite imperfect, of a chemical and mechanistic process occurred millions of years before. No soul or after life existed according to them.

The turmoil of ideas that Europe had experienced in previous centuries continued into the 1800s, with advancements in the sciences, medicine and technology. A few Europeans continued the attempt at putting it all together under the ‘philosophy’ umbrella term, but natural philosophy had gradually begun to separate from moral philosophy.

Before the development of modern science, scientific questions had in fact been addressed by that portion of metaphysics that fell under natural philosophy. The word ‘science’ itself already existed and meant knowledge of epistemological origin, but was the widespread use of the expression “scientific method” that made natural philosophy an empirical and experimental activity, and by the end of the eighteenth century it had begun to be called "science" in order to distinguish it from the rest of philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics became the philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence.

My feeling is that since the proclamation of modern science, many metaphysical disciplines (cosmology, ontology, philosophy of the mind) have been harshly classified as pseudoscience…or worse religion!

It is true that metaphysics has been contended in history as vague; similarly to religious views, it has often been defined as not provable (Hume, Kant, and Popper) as neither empirical observations nor logical arguments could falsify metaphysical statements to show them to be true or false. So, does this mean we should stop seeking reasonable metaphysical answers because not empirically testable? I think metaphysics is too important to be discarded as it investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science. It is concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the universe: ultimate questions without which we’ll never be able to develop a theory of everything. Furthermore, in some cases subjects of metaphysical scholarship have been found to be entirely physical and natural, thus becoming part of proper physics (e.g. theory of relativity).

I reckon it is interesting to note how Einstein (1879-1955), while making it clear that he did not believe in a personal God, also argued that a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other there are strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Metaphysics represents those relationships and dependencies.

While I strongly argue against any sort of organized religion and hope they will all die out eventually as more and more people acquire knowledge and lose interest in the absurd teachings of fundamentalist groups, I also fear the possible implications of a growing number of 'scientists' quickly branding as meaningless or false concepts and ideas that deal with spirituality and that cannot be fully grasped by science or tested using standard methods. My fear is that such a trend could eventually lead to a new form of Inquisition.

The battle of science against religion has already been fought and won 300 or so years ago. Of course organized religion still carries its risks and negative features, but so does science. Is fear of a terrorist attack by religious fanatics any greater than the potential consequences of a malfunction in a nuclear plant, misuse of genetics and viruses, advanced weaponry, etc? Even in terms of ideologies, are the religious implications of moderation, authority, emancipation, and punishment much worse than what we got from capitalism, democracy, materialism, individualism, and other social outlooks that in one way or another have derived from the process of modernization set in motion by Europeans during the scientific and industrial revolutions?As Hitchens states, eradication of religion is not a plausible option because we are still evolving creatures who haven't yet got past the fear of death. Than what should we do? My suggestion is a twofold approach that implies a wide dissemination of scientific knowledge as well as the assimilation of metaphysical and epistemological questions by the domain of science.

First of all, it is essential to educate the masses with the dissemination of scientific knowledge in forms that are simple and understandable by everyone. Once an individual finishes high school there is a real difficulty to keep up with science - even when there is a genuine interest - given the fast pace of new discoveries, the complexity of some fields, and the fragmentation of knowledge across a myriad of disciplines. My feeling is that regular updates at least in some fields should be readily available to anyone. The selection below is based on the belief that discoveries in each one of the areas listed has the potential of carrying substantial metaphysical and/or epistemological implications for the basic questions of philosophy (and therefore also religion).

• physics (quantum mechanics, theoretical physics, nanotechnology, space physics, astrophysics, physical chemistry, biophysics, energy, nanotechnology)
  
• chemistry (biochemistry, geochemistry, astrochemistry)
  
• astronomy (astrobiology)
  
• biology (genetics, evolution, neuroscience)
  
• psychology
  
• sociology

Secondly, it is imperative to acknowledge that science's success is not solely due to its own methods, but also to its having taken in knowledge from unscientific sources. There are well-known cases of fields that were originally considered pseudoscientific, but which are now accepted scientific effects or valid hypotheses, for example, continental drift, ball lightning, and radiation hormesis. In turn the notion that there is no knowledge outside science is a 'convenient fairy-tale' held only by dogmatists who distort history for the convenience of scientific institutions. Feyerabend went as far as saying that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the growth of knowledge. The idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself. Examples that support his argument include ancient practices such as acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine which do not conform to modern scientific principles, but are not pseudoscience because their proponents do not claim the practices to be scientific according to today's standards of scientific method.

All reasonable pseudoscientific beliefs, whether they currently lack strong supportive evidence or purely rely on unmeasurable propositions, should be studied in unison by philosophers of science and scientists in well respected institutions, rather than letting self-proclaimed wizards and prophets discredit the disciplines and once again - as organized religions have done in the past - profit by influencing the minds of simple people. Astrology, mysticism, and occultism are here to stay and, unfortunately or not, are in the process of replacing established religious beliefs. The questions they seek to answer remain the same metaphysical questions of the past concerning man, the universe, existence, etc.

I believe there should be a system in place to treat justifiable pseudoscience in a consistent way. The search for extraterrestrial life, parapsychology (telekinesis, telepathy, biological healing, life after death), vitalism, and perhaps a few other disciplines should continuously be monitored and linked wherever possible to areas of natural science. On the other hand, search for the BigFoot, vampirism, and metamorphosis can probably wait...

By saying that natural sciences need to remain connected with metaphysical and epistemological questions of philosophy I am not suggesting anything new. In fact numerous subfields of philosophy of science already exist and the main ones include: philosophy of biology, philosophy of chemistry, philosophy of physics, philosophy of psychology, and neurophilosophy. Although most practitioners are philosophers, several prominent scientists have contributed to the fields and still do. Other scientists have felt that the practical effect on their work is limited. Perhaps so, but it is important for them to manifest their support nevertheless, so that humanity can see a sole and united front that leads the search for new knowledge and eventually will derive a theory of everything.

A Response to my Previous Post (Is Reincarnation a Possibility?)

I thank my brother, Andrea, for providing a detailed feedback to my previous post “Is Reincarnation a Possibility?” and giving me the chance to expand some arguments. His points are well substantiated and I am sure some readers will feel closer to his views than mine (which I don't see too far apart). That’s absolutely fine as I am not claiming to know anything for certain – my views change continuously as I explore deeper my inner self – and because I am not here to preach but to initiate discussions over issues that I feel are important regardless of how diverse the views of my readers might be. The aim of this Blog is not to seek approval but rather to exchange ideas in a way that eventually will lead us to improve the formulation of our own individual theories, which in the end will have to satisfy only us!

ANDREA: The first problem I find is the insinuation that reincarnation and scientific observation could somehow coexist, or even benefit mutually. This is simply not true. Despite vague ad-hoc examples, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that reincarnation exists beyond what most biologists and scientists would describe as a continuation of the energy cycle. There has never been a conclusive study that was able to elevate reincarnation from its current condition of pseudoscience, a place it shares with alchemy, astrology, and phrenology among others.

REPLY: Some could argue that the absence of valid scientific evidence supporting the philosophical idea of reincarnation is due to the matter not being a subject of modern science. Nevertheless, being reincarnation an experience, it is absolutely scientific and perhaps psychotherapy will come up one day with a convincing method by which anyone will remember past lives... Until then we can only rely on the experiences of great minds of the past and present such as Pythagoras, Gautama, Laozi, Kanada, Plotinus, Plato, Origen, Mahavira, Yogaswami, Yogananda, Adi Granth, and many more…

ANDREA: On the other hand, there are innumerable studies showing that in no instance would you find a continuation of the cognitive processes beyond the natural death of the organism that produces them. In other words, the death of the brain signifies the death of the mental processes it produces.

Many "spiritual" people lack an understanding of even the basic tenets of world religions and philosophies (two very different subjects pertaining to more or less the same basic questions), and this has generated great confusion. Most people who seek consolation in Buddhism because it grants them a certain continuation to the very natural tendency of all living things to die, would be quite disappointed to learn that the Buddha categorically denied any possibility of the permanence of the soul, the mind, or the self.

REPLY: Spirituality is not measured by how educated we are about religions, philosophies, or science. Actually it is arguably the opposite as the more we rationally try to understand existence, the less we free our mind to experience it. While many seek comfort in existing systems of belief (misinterpreting them or otherwise), many others simply follow their feelings and sometimes these result to be closely aligned with some basic tenets of religions or philosophies.

ANDREA: Siddharta Gautama was unequivocal: when you die, you die. In Buddhism, death and life are often compared to two candles. We can be a dying candle lighting another, thus creating the condition for the light to perpetuate, but we cannot become the other candle.

REPLY: Right in saying that Buddhists don't believe in the soul intended as a spirit or ghost, but they (including Gautama) do believe in rebirth.

Also appropriate is the metaphor of the two candles to illustrate the lack of a constant self, although I don’t think it clearly depicts the continuum of the life cycle in Buddhism, a conception which is by the way not too far-off from the continuation of the energy cycle you acknowledged previously. Instead of the two candles I prefer Osho’s view of a single candle whose flame constantly changes never being the same twice but always connected. The flame changes incessantly disappearing into smoke with a new flame replacing it each moment. The first flame of when you light the candle and the last of when you put it out are different but are part of one chain. For lack of better words, I have referred to what keeps each flame connected as the soul, but perhaps we need a different term to describe that continuum.

ANDREA: What made the Buddha such a pivotal figure in the history of mankind was that he was one of the very first scientific minds of the East. He tried opulence and asceticism, and readily rejected them when he found them not to work. He had been introduced to the concept of eternal soul of Hinduism (and the consolation it brings), but decided to follow his observations instead. On is deathbed, he urged his disciples to always question everything, and to submit every idea to the test.

REPLY: I believe the test he was referring to was not a lab experiment but the test of ‘experience’. Wealth and asceticism did not work for him as paths to increase his consciousness but eventually he found his way through moderation and meditation.

ANDREA: Let us not forget that this happened more than 2500 years ago. Clinging on to ancient theories when our knowledge has improved so vastly is a nonsensical endeavour, and one that would make the Buddha himself ashamed. He made the best of what he had. If only he had known about galaxies, atoms, cells, and energy! How would he test his ideas today?

One of the main flaws with the whole "we can't quite explain this yet, so… god (or fairies, or spirits) did it!" is that it does nothing to improve our odds of understanding a concept. How would an unobservable, unmeasurable, and even indescribable entity ever solve any problem? Certainly science does not have an answer for everything, but that is no excuse to put a deity in there.

REPLY: I also did not mention God anywhere in the post and I totally agree that deities should not be used to cover holes in our understanding of the universe and its laws.

ANDREA: It is true that we don't exactly know how the first prokaryotes came into being, but we have sound, workable theories. Some of these theories will undoubtedly prove to be false, and others will take us one step closer to an answer. But we certainly shouldn't give up so easily, and believe that a "soul" would be a grand explanation (or even a remotely plausible hypothesis) of how inanimate matter could have turned into life. Give that idea a chance, and you'll have to give it to any other idea anybody will ever come up with!

The fact that you can't disprove something does not make it real. You can't disprove an invisible unicorn lives at the bottom of the sea, but you wouldn't waste a minute of your life pondering that possibility. "But many people have had an experience of reincarnation," you may say. Well of course, what could a unicorn at the bottom of the sea do for you? Clearly, believing that your dead loved ones still hang around is slightly more powerful (but raises all kinds of embarrassing questions). I submit to you that most people who were born in Baghdad have had visions of Mohammed, and that Christians love nothing more than being visited by the Lady of Fatima, but not by their ancestors reincarnated in a child.

REPLY:
As a general consideration I’d say it is fine to generate ideas to explain events that science cannot yet explicate; especially when you seem to agree that “certainly science does not have an answer for everything”. The big problem is when people blindly keep following religious views that have been thoroughly disconfirmed.

My suggestion that a soul could explain how inanimate matter has turned into life is in fact an idea just as the invisible unicorn. However, considering that ‘something’ (called soul or anything else) is carried forward from a previous death to guarantee the continuum of the life cycle is perhaps not as absurd especially when we consider that “most biologists and scientists already recognise a continuation of the energy cycle”.

I do not doubt the importance of nurturing our scientific endeavours which perhaps one day will have enough substance to disprove the main tenets (including rebirth) of great philosophies that have lasted the test of time. But so far, science is still throwing wild guesses to fabricate a possible TOE (Theory Of Everything) that is not much less absurd than the invisible unicorn idea.

ANDREA: Had we applied this method of explaining the unknown with whimsical conjectures instead of observable evidence, we would still be taking hearts out of sacrificial victims every morning to propitiate the Sun's rising. We would still believe in burning bushes and great floods. Excuse me, but I find the immensity of space, the swirling of galaxies, the wonderful trees and animals, and the fact that we are made of stardust much more appealing.

REPLY: It is in fact a very appealing portrayal and perhaps not far from the truth. But the immensity of space, the swirling of galaxies, the wonderful trees and animals, and the fact that we are made of stardust can all very well coexist with rebirth.

ANDREA: And finally, on the subject of life on other planets. The possibility of life on other planets even within our own solar system is being recalculated almost daily. Observations from Titan, Europa, Mars, and other corners of our small cosmic backyard suggest that life could indeed be everywhere.

Why have no green man ever contacted us? First of all, we must understand the difference between life and intelligent life. Intelligent life might be much rarer than micro-organisms. There has been life on this planet for more than 3 billion years, and yet we have been able to send signals out into space only for the last 60. This is a tiny, tiny window of opportunity that might not necessarily coincide with the same window of opportunity of other civilizations, if indeed they exist.

Secondly, the distances are so great that if the green men's civilization did happen to coincide with ours, and managed to send a signal just in the right direction, and in a form we could identify as artificial (and that's a lot of ifs), it might take tens of thousands of years for that signal to get to us.

REPLY: It is precisely because of the belief that life can exist on many planets, combined with the young age of our solar system (4.58 billion years) – when compared to some far away corners of the universe (13.7 billion years) – that we should by now have been contacted/invaded by green men. Assuming that several other planets in the universe have followed an evolutionary pathway similar to ours, there should be a few civilizations out there with technological advancements several billion years ahead of ours. I think it is biased to place extremely complex capabilities to communicate at the same level as signals we sent out 60 years ago!

Conversely, if we start saying how special our solar system is, how special Earth is, how special life is, and how special intelligent life is, then it is a natural and perhaps correct consequence to declare that we are unique in the universe and why not that we have a purpose: we might be the ultimate peak of evolution of consciousness and through the symbolical Buddhist cosmology we strive to move up from one world to the next until we reach Enlightenment.

Is this much crazier than what science states? Theoretical physicists don’t know where to turn their heads and suggest totally unsubstantiated theories of parallel universes to explain what came before the Big Bang…

ANDREA: Are we all connected? Of course we are. We are all made of the same elements that once formed stars, and supernovas, and other living creatures. How is this less appealing and mystifying than an unsound theory of reincarnations, body seeking souls, and hungry ghosts?

REPLY: Whatever the ‘real’ answers might be to the questions we raised in this discussion, we are still far from the truth. I am mostly certain that science will not be able, at least during our time on this Earth, to develop the ultimate TOE. Therefore it makes sense to me to search that understanding through meditation and elevation of consciousness. That being said I continue to support science in all of its forms and I monitor its developments with anticipation regardless of whether new findings will support or confute my current beliefs.

Is Reincarnation a Possibility?

Reincarnation has been considered by many. Numerous philosophers and mystics have discussed it and it is a central tenet to a surprising number of diverse spiritual traditions including Early Christianity, Judaic mysticism, Hinduism, and Buddhism.

I personally still do not know whether I should believe in it or not, but there are several supporting arguments. In this post, rather than discussing cases of remembrance of previous lives, providence, karma, or the difficulty by many in reaching spiritual enlightenment, I want to consider reincarnation from a more scientific angle.

Most of us would agree that when a living creature dies his energy fades away dispersed back into the universe. Science tells us that energy and mass are conserved quantities that cannot be created nor destroyed, but only converted from one form into another (gravitational, electric, heat, etc.) Therefore the total energy of the universe is a constant value that can never change. But then how does a newborn come about? Where is that energy coming from? Believers in reincarnation would answer by saying that since souls are deathless, seemingly they also must be birthless. Thus energy has always been there and it is only materializing into a physical body when a new organism is born!

In general, the word energy can be defined as "the potential for causing changes" and therefore energy is the cause of all change. The most common definition of energy is the activity that a certain force (gravitational, electromagnetic, etc) can generate. It is the ability to do work. Due to a variety of forces in existence, energy has many different forms that can be grouped into two major categories: kinetic energy and potential energy. The question is whether potential energy can create life, and therefore whether energy can naturally change non-living substances into living creatures, something that science has yet to observe.

The mechanisms by which non-life became life are still elusive. According to scientists at the beginning of time on Earth non-living chemical entities such as water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2) were electrically stimulated into forming the various precursors to life, such as hydrogen cyanide, amino acids, simple sugars, etc. These, in time, would have theoretically formed RNA and DNA the building blocks of life.

The presence of immortal souls could perhaps go hand-in-hand with the theories of evolution and would solve the mystery of life creation because 'life' is already an attribute of the soul and souls get attached to all organisms (animals, plants, fungi, micro-organisms) giving them life.

While it would be great to have an eternal soul that seeks perfection to ultimately be fit to remain in the spiritual world, I still have some problems with reincarnation, which hopefully will be answered in the years to come.

1. Eternity. What was Birth before Life on Earth? Who/what was living, dying, and going through rebirth to ultimately find enlightenment?
   
   Earth is the only planet in the universe known to harbour life. Given the relatively young age of Earth when compared to other parts of the universe, it would be reasonable to say that if other life forms existed, some of them would probably be several millions of years ahead of us. Their technology should be even more advanced than we imagine it in sci-fi movies, so why have not they made contact?
   
   How will rebirth be possible when Earth will come to an end? What will be of all the souls waiting to be reborn?
   
   
2. Enlightenment. It seems to me that all creatures, other than man, live as if they JUST ARE. They appear to always live in a meditative state because they do not think but only experience and therefore apparently are in a perennial state of ZEN. How could their souls become more pure than what they already are? Being reborn into a human body would appear to me as a downgrading.
   
   
3. Perhaps the big difference between an Enlightened human being and any other type of living organism is consciousness of that state. But if that is the case, then how can plants or even animals reach the new spiritual heights required for the soul to return in a human body?

Should We Get a Formal Education?

How important is it for new generations to receive a formal education and to do well in their studies?

I think it is very important because strong qualifications will give them the confidence to jump with both feet into the unknown, into a way of life that is different from the one they witness every day by looking at people around them.

While we are born prisoners of society, I believe we should become well equipped to survive in it according to its rules before we decide to break the chains and create our own parallel reality. Strong qualifications are part of this process as they help us to keep playing the game with a good hand until we feel ready to depart on our personal journey. When mentally and psycologically ready we'll have less fear of turning our backs to society because we'll know that if something goes wrong, or our feelings about a better way of life end up being just dreams, we will still be able to come back and society will embrace us once again with open arms.

Therefore it is ok to follow the standard path designed for us by society in terms of studying well, getting a job, buying a car, raising a family, getting a mortgage etc. but, as Plotinus would say, we should do all these activities as long as they do not diffuse our spiritual energy, and leave us with less being. It isn't what we do that is important, but who we are!