Should
We Unify Science and Religion?
By Kim Michaels
Let us first consider whether you should care that there is a state
of war between science and religion? If you are the type of person who
wants someone else to tell you what to believe about life, then you
probably shouldn’t care. You will align yourself with a professed
religion or the unprofessed religion of scientific materialism and accept
its image of reality. Yet if you are the type of person who
likes to think for yourself and find your own answers, then
there are several reasons to care about the split between science and
religion.
The conflict between science and religion can make it more difficult
for us to find personal answers to life’s deeper questions. The
opposing and seemingly mutually exclusive claims made by both sides
can confuse just about anyone, and we easily end up feeling like Pontius
Pilate felt when he asked Jesus, “What is truth?” By resolving
the conflict, we might move out of this impasse and find a new and more
constructive approach to finding answers.
Consider how many resources are currently tied up in defending existing
beliefs and theories. On a personal level, many people spend enormous
amounts of energy and attention defending what they have accepted as
the ultimate truth. On a larger scale, many of the greatest minds are
engaged in a seemingly never-ending battle to defend religious or scientific
doctrines. What if we took a different approach? What if we assumed
that none of our current doctrines, be they in the field of science
or in the field of religion, can give us a complete understanding of
life? Instead of defending current ideas, we might focus our attention
on reaching for a higher understanding of life, an understanding that
might resolve the conflict by showing us that there is more between
heaven and earth than is spoken of in our (current) philosophy?
Imagine how each of us could make personal progress by taking this approach.
Imagine how much collective brainpower could be freed up and put to
better use. Who can tell what startling new discoveries might result.
After all, any progress in both science and religion has come about
only because someone had the courage to look beyond existing beliefs.
There is a growing body of scientific evidence which indicates that
some past civilizations were, in many ways, more advanced than our own.
This is interesting, because almost every religion contains the idea
that humankind, sometime in the past, were in a higher estate and then
fell or descended into our current low estate. Is it possible that this
fall was really a fall into a lower state of consciousness, a state
of mind in which we have forgotten who we are and where we came from?
Is it possible that some past civilizations had uncovered at least part
of this knowledge and used it to advance beyond our current level?
It seems that ours is the first known civilization to develop a split
between science and religion. Past societies seem to have viewed science
and religion as two sides of the same coin, as two way to increase our
understanding of life. Is it possible that our civilization cannot achieve
its full potential as long as the war between science and religion continues?
Might this war make it more difficult for us to rediscover who we are?
Consider the eternal question of how to draw the line between what we
can do and what we should do. In all past civilizations, religion provided
a moral compass, so what happens in a civilization where science no
longer accepts any moral restraints? How do we draw the line between
what is technologically possible and what would be self-destructive?
Should we create a virus that can kill all life on earth? Should we
build a bomb that can blow up the entire planet? Should we mix human
and animal genes? Should we conduct research on live fetuses? How can
we resolve such questions when so many scientists refuse to accept the
existence of anything beyond the material universe, the existence of
a mind beyond the human mind?
The central premise of religion is that a higher authority has defined
certain laws, and if we violate those laws, we will bring about our
own destruction. If such laws do exist, as all past civilizations recognized,
then they will not go away because science no longer acknowledges them.
The earth was still round when everyone believed it was flat. Instead,
we will be left to discover these laws through trial and error. Given
the power of technology, that could lead to some very costly mistakes.
Why did the war start?
How might we begin to resolve the conflict between science and religion?
Perhaps we should find out why it started.
Many scientists think the Catholic Church started the war by persecuting
the early scientists. They also think this proves the weakness of religion,
which clings to superstitious doctrines, and proves the superiority
of science, which supposedly accepts only what is experimentally proven.
Yet this viewpoint might not give us a complete picture.
It is undeniable that many religious people have become fanatical. Yet
does that prove an inherent flaw in religion, or does it prove an inherent
flaw in the human psyche? Were the medieval Catholics religious fanatics,
or were they simply human fanatics? In other words, might there be a
psychological mechanism that causes us to cling to existing beliefs
and close our minds to any evidence that contradicts our chosen beliefs?
An unbiased look at history quickly reveals that religion is not the
only factor that causes people to close their minds. Numerous examples,
Nazism and communism being obvious ones, show that political ideologies
can cause people to suppress evidence that contradicts their chosen
beliefs. Even science itself doesn’t seem immune to this tendency.
For example, in the early 1990s two well-educated scientists, John Anthony
West and Robert Schoch, took a look at the Sphinx and discovered evidence
to suggest that it might be older than accepted theories claim. They
were attacked by “orthodox” scientist who seemed unwilling
to consider evidence that contradicted their existing theory. If science
was immune to the human tendency to close our minds, then why the uproar?
Why not simply look at these findings as neutral evidence? If, after
unbiased examination, the evidence was found to be plausible, why not
simply adjust scientific theories accordingly?
In other words, why do some scientists seem to have an emotional attachment
to current theories, an attachment that prompts them to ignore or suppress
contradicting evidence? And why do these scientists claim that certain
scientific theories are infallible? If science really is an endeavor
that seeks to give us a better understanding of reality, then why not
see current theories as stepping stones towards even better theories?
Why would a true scientist feel threatened if the pyramids were older
than currently expected or if Darwin’s theory was proven incorrect?
The obvious conclusion is that we humans are psychological beings. No
human endeavor, science included, is exempt from being influenced by
our psychological drives. So what is the mechanism that causes us to
become so emotionally attached to existing beliefs? Why do some people
seek to define truth instead of seeking to find it?
Consider the question posed by Pilate, “What is truth?”
It seems clear that this question was asked by a person who doubted
that there was such a thing as truth. Given the myriad of conflicting
ideas created by human beings, that is an understandable dilemma. Is
it possible that we have lost our ability to recognize absolute truth?
Might we have fallen into a lower state of consciousness that prevents
us from seeing truth and instead traps us in a world where everything
seems relative? Does the relativity of this state of mind make us prone
to define a relative truth within our own minds instead of attempting
to find an absolute truth by connecting to a higher mind?
Could our descent into a lower state of consciousness have given us
a deep sense of insecurity that makes us feel like we have no foundation
for dealing with an ever-changing world? It would seem that some people
attempt to deal with this insecurity by defining an absolute image of
truth, and thus they become emotionally attached to this idol. Others
seek to resolve the insecurity by reestablishing contact with the source
of truth, and they are able to keep an open mind.
Consider the response Jesus gave to Pilate, “I am the way, the
truth and the life.” Is it possible that Jesus was not referring
to himself as a person, but that he had attained a higher state of consciousness
and thereby become one with truth? Is it possible that all true spiritual
visionaries came to demonstrate that there is a way out of this lower
state of consciousness? Is it possible that the real drive behind both
science and religion is an inner longing, a kind of soul memory, driving
us to find an absolute truth beyond the relative truth that we have
defined?
Tool time
Most people realize that science springs from our desire to know. Science
emerged at a time when orthodox religion had become a mind control machine
based on superstitious, man-made doctrines. Therefore, science can be
seen as a tool for overcoming human superstition. Yet what if this superstition
is not produced by religion, but rather by the lower state of consciousness?
Science then becomes a tool for reaching beyond the relativity of this
state of consciousness to discover a truth that is not affected by human
beliefs.
Unfortunately, we are now seeing evidence that science itself is becoming
a machine for mind control. So perhaps it is time to recognize that
no tool is foolproof. It is not the tool itself that takes us out of
superstition, but our willingness to look beyond existing beliefs rather
than seeking to confirm those beliefs.
So it seems that the key to mending the conflict between science and
religion is to recognize that both are tools. If used correctly, each
tool can help us find a truth that is not affected by human beliefs,
the relative, superstitious beliefs that spring from the lower state
of consciousness. If used incorrectly, both can become traps that bind
us to our existing beliefs and cause us to close our minds to a higher
understanding.
The key to using both tools correctly is to recognize that we must base
our understanding on experiential, verifiable evidence rather than anecdotal
evidence, theories or doctrines. If one scientist conducts an experiment
and achieves a certain result, it cannot be considered proof. The key
to the acceptance of scientific evidence is that other scientists must
be able to repeat the experiment and get the same result. Some people
think the process of verifiable experimentation is unique to science
and that it makes science superior to religion. However, what if verifiable
experiential evidence is at the heart of all true religion?
Most religions started because one person achieved a direct experience
of a level of reality that is beyond the material universe. This experience
was achieved because the person reached beyond the lower mind and made
contact with a higher mind. The person had direct, experiential evidence
that there is something beyond the lower state of consciousness. The
person then defined a system which, in its original form, was designed
to help other people achieve the same experience. In other words, all
spiritual visionaries came to show us a systematic way to reach beyond
the relativity of our present state of consciousness and experience
a truth that is not affected by the human mind.
The Buddha came to bring everyone into a state of enlightenment, where
we realize that everything is the Buddha nature and that the sense of
separation from our source is merely Maya, or illusion. Behind all the
orthodox doctrines, the Christ came to show us that we too can achieve
a higher state of consciousness. The key is to “let that mind
be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,” as Paul put it. In
reality, all true religions started as a systematic, might one say scientific,
process for giving people direct experience of a higher truth. It is
true that most religions have moved away from this original goal by
falling into the trap of creating man-made images to obscure the original
purpose. Yet, once again, is that a flaw in religion or in human psychology?
This line of reasoning leads to an obvious question. If all religions
are based on visions of a spiritual world beyond the material world,
how come religions are so different, even contradictory? There are several
possible answers.
The theory of relativity states that everything is energy. Energy is
often described as a form of vibration. Therefore, the spiritual realm
might simply be energy of a higher vibration than the energy found in
the material universe. As we see on the tonal scale, there might be
different levels, or octaves, in the spiritual realm. The human mind
seems to function as a radio receiver, and by turning the dial of consciousness,
we can tune the mind to levels of vibration beyond the material world.
If different people tune their consciousness to different levels of
the non-material world, then that might explain the difference in spiritual
visions.
Another factor is the discoveries of quantum physics, which clearly
state that whenever we make an observation, the observation itself is
influenced by the consciousness of the observer. In other words, even
when we have a spiritual vision, we might see through a glass darkly.
This points us to another fundamental question, namely the purpose of
spiritual and scientific knowledge.
The role of consciousness
Before we consider that question, let us look at one of the main blocks
to a unification of science and religion, namely the fact that many
scientist claim that spiritual and mystical experiences are affected
or even produced by the person’s mind, whereas scientific experiments
are unaffected by the consciousness of the scientist. We have already
mentioned that the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics have undermined
the validity of this claim. Unfortunately most of the people who understand
these advanced fields of science are scientists and not philosophers.
Therefore, remarkably few scientists have been willing to look at the
philosophical consequences of modern physics.
However, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to see the implications.
The theory of relativity states that any observation is influenced by
our frame of reference. Unless we know this influence, we cannot know
if our observations are accurate. Quantum physics states that any observation
is a product of the entire measurement situation and that the consciousness
of the observer is an integral and inseparable part of this situation.
The logical consequence is that our consciousness is a part of our frame
of reference. Therefore, a science which ignores consciousness, and
clings to the claim that scientific observations are not affected by
consciousness, can never produce ultimate observations of reality. Over
the past few decades, numerous scientist have spent countless hours
and millions or research dollars in an attempt to formulate a theory
of everything (TOE). Yet most of these scientists still ignore consciousness.
Given the findings of physics, how could we possibly construct a TOE
without incorporating consciousness? And once we begin to consider how
consciousness influences scientific observations and the theories based
on those observations, we will inevitably blur the distinction between
science and religion, or rather between science and experiential religion/mysticism.
Take a common-sense example. When a scientist observes a distant galaxy
through a telescope, the instrument is not showing an image of a galaxy.
The telescope is simply passing on light rays that are arranged in a
certain pattern. It is the scientist who imposes an image on the light
rays, calls it a galaxy and attaches a particular interpretation to
the word “galaxy.” The image and the interpretation is produced
in the mind of the scientist, as is the world view that makes the concept
of a galaxy useful.
This does not mean that scientific observations and theories are useless
or invalid. It simply means that when scientists make the claim that
scientific theories give us an absolute or infallible view of reality,
they have overlooked or failed to understand a basic fact of life, namely
that the description of a thing is not the same as the thing itself.
Therefore, scientists have moved into the same state of consciousness
that causes so many religions people to declare that a particular doctrine
gives a complete and infallible view of God.
This brings us back to the purpose of religious and scientific knowledge.
When you are trapped in the relativity of the lower consciousness, you
tend to think that a specific theory or doctrine gives an ultimate view
of reality. It is accurate, complete and therefore unchangeable. Furthermore
it is the only correct way to describe the phenomenon, and thus all
diverging theories must be false. This state of consciousness can never
produce anything but conflict.
When you begin to rise above this lower state of mind, you realize that
the purpose of knowledge is not, and never has been, to give us an absolute
description of reality. Instead, both scientific and spiritual knowledge
is adapted to our current state of consciousness. The purpose of new
knowledge is to give us an understanding that is a little bit beyond
our present understanding, but not so much beyond that we fail to grasp
or accept it.
This presents us with a new view of human history. We might say that
we are engaged in an ongoing process of raising our consciousness, including,
but not limited to, expanding our understanding of the world around
us. At times, we define a certain world view as absolute, and then our
progress as a race slows down or temporarily comes to a halt. At other
times, we break free of these shackles and take a giant leap forward.
What if we, instead of seeking for the ultimate theory, recognized the
process itself? Perhaps we will never achieve an ultimate understanding
of reality? Perhaps the purpose of science and religion is not to find
the ultimate theory, but to fully embrace the process and thereby find
ourselves.
Where does knowledge come from?
Let us end by considering where knowledge comes from? We have two basic
options. It can come from our own minds, and if so it must inevitably
be a product of and limited by our current understanding. Or it can
come from a source that is above and beyond our lower minds, which opens
up the possibility that there is a source of higher truth.
As already mentioned, the theory of relativity points to a multi-layered
universe in which the material world is simply one pocket in a larger
continuum of vibrations. Einstein talked about the space-time continuum,
but perhaps there is also a matter-spirit continuum. This opens the
possibility that true knowledge exists in a higher realm, a higher level
of vibration. By reaching beyond the lower state of consciousness, we
can tune our minds to this higher realm and receive valid insights.
In fact, Einstein and many other scientists have acknowledged receiving
some of their greatest insights in the form of inner visions or intuitive
flashes. Obviously, many spiritual visionaries receive knowledge in
a similar fashion.
We might imagine that this higher knowledge exists in a sort of cosmic
data bank. Or we might imagine that the spiritual realm is inhabited
by intelligent beings that are not limited by a physical body and brain.
These spiritual teachers could then be working with us in an attempt
to raise our consciousness. Whenever a person raises his or her consciousness
beyond duality, a spiritual teacher might give that person a specific
insight. Once again, the purpose is not to give an ultimate understanding.
The insight might be carefully adapted to the recipient’s current
level of awareness.
This opens the possibility that knowledge is a form of communication
between ourselves and a higher form of intelligence. This communication
will, by necessity, be limited by our current knowledge and beliefs
and by our willingness to look beyond our existing world view.
We might consider that we human beings are engaged in a process whereby
we ask questions, and a higher form of intelligence gives us answers.
The interesting point here is that the questions we ask have a fundamental
impact on the type of answers we are able to receive. It is a simple
fact that in order to formulate an intelligent question, you must have
some knowledge about the topic. The caveman did not have enough knowledge
to formulate intelligent questions about thunder and was doomed to live
in fear of this phenomenon. As we have increased our knowledge, we have
been able to formulate questions that gave us a rational understanding
of thunder. As a result, we have lost our fear of this phenomenon; we
have lost our fear of the unknown.
This brings us to the conclusion that if we truly want to know reality,
we must continually strive to increase our ability to ask intelligent
questions. The foundation for getting better answers is to ask better
questions. Therefore, we cannot allow anything to impede our ability
to formulate questions and our willingness to ask those questions.
Anything that prevents us from asking better questions is stopping our
progress. In today’s world, few things impede our ability and
willingness to ask questions more than the war between science and religion.
Do we continue to allow man-made doctrines to define our image of reality,
or do we look beyond all man-made images and reach for a higher truth?
Who might bridge the gap between science and religion? Only those who
refuse to be limited by existing doctrines and keep their minds open
to a higher understanding. Only those who take a mystical approach to
life. Therefore, if we are to unify science and religion, it must begin
with the mystics. We will only see change when the scientific mystics
and the spiritual mystics realize that they are following complimentary
paths towards the same goal, the goal of experiencing reality instead
of defining reality. Imagine what creative powers could be unleashed
if the mystics started working together?
Back to Science
Main Page.
Back
to top
©
Copyright 2003 by Shangra-la Mission |
