The Edge of Infinity

Yesterday I came across an intriguing article wherein a scientist asked if "there is a philosophical incompatibility between religion and science?" and "does the empirical nature of science contradict the revelatory nature of faith?" Further, "Are the gaps between them (religion and science) so great that the two institutions must be considered essentially antagonistic?" The site can be found at www.Edge.org. It has the august, if not laughably arrogant intent, "to arrive at the edge of the world's knowledge..." It proposes to do this by seeking "out the most complex and sophisticated minds, put them in a room together and have them ask each other the questions they are asking themselves."Upon discovering the site and rummaging through the articles, my brain got an erection. I consider myself to be an intellectual. I always qualify that statement by saying I am not particularly brilliant but that the energy of my life is sifted through my brain as opposed to my emotions. I am a thinker. I am a sucker for intellect and philosophy.


What intrigued me the most about the article (it was more a question put by one scientist and answered by other scientists) on science and religion was the unfiltered arrogance and haughtiness of many of the scientists who answered the question. I have very high and intense ideas about many things; highly opinionated am I. This is the result of being a thinker. It would seem to me that, truly, an intellectual would be unbiased in any direction because such bias would prejudice their ability to formulate or get at the truth. If I would like to understand or enter upon the journey to question the validity of Faith or God or Religion, I must first empty myself of all preconceived notions, archetypal images, community stereotypes, myths, etc., to make room for what the journey will bring to light.


Many of the scientists, who answered the question, by the timbre of their responses, simply refused to countenance or even allow for the possibility that Science and Religion could possibly have anything to do, one with the other. That is not the mark of an intellectual. The intellectual believes in nothing, yet believes in everything. The intellectual denies nothing, yet denies everything. Only in that illimitable void can anything truly be formulated. Without it we are simply indulging ourselves in confirmation bias (seeking information, whether consciously or unconsciously that, confirms our own prejudices and predilections).


The scientists who answer the question start out with a preconceived notion that there is a natural incompatibility of science with religion and use their training, existence and abilities to secure this prejudice. Were I of the same ilk I would start out with the opposite assertion that metaphysics has a natural superiority to empiricism as it it not entrenched by the ball and chain of reason.


The supposed incompatibility of science and religion probably has its roots in the Enlightenment of the 18th century. The Enlightenment followed upon the heels of the Middle Ages or Dark Ages as they are sometimes called (probably because the Church cast a shadow over all existence). During the Enlightenment, which incidentally began the dissolution of the Church's power, Reason and scientific method and inquiry gained a foothold in European, Eastern European and American life. This period saw the beginning of the emergence of the individual from beneath the tyranny of the Church and the aristocracy. Independence of thought, natural rights, natural law and the elevation of the common man came about. It was the principles of the Enlightenment that spread and caused revolution throughout the European continent and America. The divorce of Science and Religion was finalized during the Enlightenment.


In his poem, Deutschland, though, Heinrich Heine, says:


Plato and Aristotle! These are not merely two systems, they are types of two distinct human natures, which from time immemorial, under every sort of disguise stand more or less inimically opposed. The whole medieval world in particular was riven by this conflict, which persists down to the present day, and which forms the most essential content of the history of the Christian Church. Although under other names, it is always Plato and Aristotle that we speak. Visionary, mystical, Platonic natures disclose Christian ideas and the corresponding symbols from the fathomless depths of their souls. Practical, orderly Aristotelian natures build out of these ideas and symbols a fixed system, a dogma and a cult.


Heine, too, asserts a duality, a diametrical duet between Religion and Science based upon the two methods created by two seminal philosophers of Western civilization. But I must persist in my belief that the two are not mutually exclusive of one another. I have lived enough to profit by my experience, which has revealed that everything is related to everything else. Duality is simply an illusion on the ground level. Were we to travel a little higher to the mountain tops we would have a bird's eye view and see the connections from the air that are undetectable to us in the valley.


There is an intellectual that is terribly prosaic in that they believe in the superiority of intelligence. But it is thought that informs intelligence and the nature of the thought determines the quality of the intelligence. What they concern themselves with is the lower dynamics of intelligence, or as Harvard Psychologist, Howard Gardner, would term it, logical-mathematical intelligence. This type of intelligence restricts itself to empiricism, to data that can be processed and analyzed. John Forbes Nash, a mathematical genius, Nobel laureate and subject of the film, A Beautiful Mind, believed there existed a type of super logic, one that went beyond the boundaries of normal logic. He was on the right track, if I may be so bold.


Scientists tell us that humankind uses roughly 10 percent of its brain capacity. That being the case, any formulations we make must be taken with a grain of salt. Any faith placed in human capability must be looked at with discretion. We must, from a scientific perspective, resign ourselves to the fact that we are operating at diminished capacity. Wherewithal is our misplaced faith in our intellectual abilities? How could we, in light of this knowledge, erect an idol to intelligence and worship at its feet, knowing full well that we have yet to uncover our full potential?


Intelligence is akin to infinity, to hope to reach its edge is a useless endeavor. I recall an author saying, "no one's mouth is big enough to utter the whole thing." So too, with intelligence. No ONE may fathom its depths or hope to consume its bounty. As Nash indicated there are levels of thought or logic that border on the supernatural. It is here that we may find the nexus between Religion and Science. It has occurred to me often that we are all saying the same thing. Too often though, we do not listen enough to understand this. We are too intent on proving our point. If we would but listen a little more we would understand that many times we are simply coming from opposite ends of the same spectrum. At some point, at some point those lines converge and meet and form an intersection. Were we to keep talking and listening we would discover this.


What Science wants is to observe and categorize, to calculate and indicate. But I wonder if it ever occurred to them that they do not often have the necessary equipment to lay bare the information they seek. If certain kinds of energy exist say, Dark matter for instance, would it not occur to them that maybe they do not have the necessary equipment that would accurately categorize and detect Dark matter? Proving the existence of something has to do with your ability to recognize and detect that something. In the absence of that equipment can you truly rule out its existence? The 10 percent capacity of the human brain, I suspect, prevents us from understanding and discovering a great deal which Science scoffs at and disrespects.


It is said that Religion depends upon Faith and Revelation. But again the absence of that Faith and Revelation may have to do with the capacity of the individual to achieve it. It is not possible for a conduit to conduct power which it was not constructed to hold. In other words, the power passing through a conduit must be proportionate to its ability to conduct it. You cannot pass 100,000 volts through a conduit that will only conduct 10,000 volts. Simple fact. Humanity, that is, scientists and people of faith, are often trying to pass 100,000 volts through conduits that can only handle 10,000 volts. The manner in which the voltage may be increased depends both upon science and faith.


The fact that both Science and Religion exclude each other proves only their incontestable immaturity. Science could reach new heights were it to open its mind. Religion could gain increased footing were it to court logic and reason (although, a super logic, as John Nash would interject). Religion needs to give its wings to Science. There are places which are only accessible by air. Science needs to loan gravity to Religion. Only on the ground do we gain experience and poise. It is only when we release our prejudices do we have the opportunity to educate ourselves. Only then can the truth enter and set us free.