Divinity (Part Two)

The Objectivity of Science

by Robert (Reese) M. Kreegier

Before we begin this discussion, allow me to lay down some ideas: The true nature of reality is undefinable in exact physical terms, be it through written word or the language of math,  because that nature is fundamentally multi-dimensional. Our language is couched in our objective time/space framework and so it becomes nearly impossible to describe the basic framework from which physicality emerges using just physical words. I know many out there have probably read ideas like this many times before, but they are not to be taken esoterically. This is literal. I found that it is impossible to “prove” or rigorously define anything that wasn’t objective using a purely objective base. In other words, if you are looking to prove anything, you must first venture outside of the reality of the thing you are looking to prove and then use the “outside terms” as the basis of the definition. This is a concept that is extremely hard to verbalize due to the aforementioned reasons.

Consider that every system is composed of a more basic system. As an analogy, this is like saying there are three primary colors in a basic color system. From this individual system of three colors, another system of “higher” colors can be created. The “higher” colors are then composed of the fundamental system of three colors. You cannot, however, create the three primary colors by mixing any of the “higher” colors.

Illustration 1: For those of you in the business of mixing colors, I’m sure I just brought out your inner nerd, so just play along…

Now, there is a whole history behind Science that has led it into the position it is in, but in simple terms: Science, as a trademark, has looked to define our reality using an objective perspective. It looks to separate itself and then define and categorize the “things” around it. This is partially in vain, for when it comes to people who claim that there are the three primary colors, following our analogy again, Science has no choice but to try and “prove” or create those primary colors from the “higher” color scheme that it couches itself in. Note that in our analogy, I am equating our physical reality with the higher color scheme and “spirit” as the primary colors.

Science, seeing that it cannot “prove” the primary colors, gladly dismisses them. Were Science to take a perspective from that of the primary colors, it would see that they not only exist, but that they are the fundamental building blocks of all other colors.

Trying to define or prove spirit through physical means is like trying to define the feeling of love with mathematics. Mathematics was created as a way of describing the physical and so mathematics became the language of physics; however, it is because of this basic virtue that mathematics is essentially unequipped to describe anything that is NOT physical.

In the process of trying to prove and explain the reality we experience, Science comes up with theories based off laws. It comes up with theories based off of the theories. It mildly acknowledges that the laws are laws in the first place because it cannot define them in any simpler terms. The Law of Gravitational Attraction is a law because all we can do is assume it to be true. There is no other way of proving it other than to simply admit that it’s there. Suppose we follow Einstein for a moment and admit that gravity is a by-product of space-time… but then we must ask what space-time is made of. What is time made of? Science settles on law only when it cannot go any further in its reasoning.

If one studies science long enough, they will realize that everything about it, no matter how logical and objective it is, has its base in fundamental assumptions and laws. If science were to view our world not from an objective perspective, but from a subjective perspective, then it would easily arrive at a new set of assumptions that would easily redefine all that it thought it knew.

Now, just as I was saying, there is a vast history behind the western sciences, but what I would like to approach now are their interrelationship with religion, particularly Christianity. When Science emerged at the end of the Dark Ages and gained steam, it was seen as a fledgling religion in the subconscious of the then religious elite, prime to take its followers away and claim them as its own; prime to veer followers away from the faith. The scientific followers would see this and look to justify their scientific standing with scientific rules based off of scientific rules in an attempt to justify their scientific observations, even when justification was never needed. Science looked to separate itself from those inner feelings of divinity and in the process created the objective perspective that became its trademark. In a manner of speaking, as time progressed and religion felt more threatened, it would openly detest scientific work and in the process turn science into an adversary. Science, now feeling victimized, would try to reject anything subjective or irrational or anything else that would smack of religious overtones. This all follows a very wide and loose time frame that continues to this day. This religious war is best epitomized today by the debate between Evolution and Creationism, a fine example of duality and polarization.

Now, the main intent behind the teachings of Christ were of love and confidence in direction. However, following along side Science, Religion reasoned, and in the process contorted its original message and meaning; it assigned all kinds of bells and whistles to its wardrobe and made itself look very fancy indeed.

It pushed out all other religions around it saying that its way was the only true way. In just the same fashion, Science followed the path of a religion. Just like any religion before it, Science tried to explain what we knew and felt was true with its own type of logic and reason, creations of physicality, even when the basic nature of what we know and feel is essentially based outside of logic, reason and physicality. It too became contorted beyond its original intentions and looked to push away all illogic in the name of its true way. Despite being polar counterparts of each other, neither Science nor Religion can defeat the fact that they have intimately influenced each other. As one took a position on one issue, the other would automatically take the opposing stance. This is the nature of a dualistic system. Despite each side trying their best to be different, the choices of either are dependent upon the other. And so both follow paths that are opposing yet similar in direction. Much like the double helix of DNA, Science and Religion form two counterparts of an intertwined whole, contrasting and in many ways complimenting each other, but basically working off each other.

However, despite Science’s reluctance to accept anything that hinted of religion, it was still open enough to allow change and expansive enough to incite some pretty far out theoretical ideas.

Whereas Religion was based off of ancient ideas that were considered to be divine and hence infallible, Science was based off of ideas that, if given enough scrutiny, could be sacrificed in the name of truth. This was allowed in Science; however, it still was not without its “ancient” and infallible laws. In this sense, Science carried a dogma all its own.

Now, Scientists are very good followers of their religion, of their belief. Even in light of paranormal experiences, they will hold to their belief in science and logic and push the experiences aside as unofficial: explained as phenomena of the “complex scientific nature” of their reality. Visions of demons are explained off as delusions, a product of the nervous system. Dreams are pushed aside as flights of the subconscious, a product of a certain harmonic state of the brain. Faster than light travel is impossible due to the theories of relativity, but I ask you to argue this with someone who has had an out-of-body experience.

The scientific belief system is so built up that nearly every experience can be “explained” via some means, usually a currently entertained theory. Anything that cannot be explained is pushed even further to the side with a general blurt of “we’ll get to that later”. For the longest time Christianity did the same thing by rejecting the scientific explanations of Galileo and others in favor of their own religious dogma.

I should point out that if the spiritual ideologies within any one of the religions, Science/Atheism included, had any sort of sound and empirical logic, we would not see the massive split in preferences that we see en masse. The only reasonable explanation that I can derive from this phenomenon is that each mainstream ideology has within it kernels of truth. Each ideology speaks to its followers because there is something within it that has a basis in reality. For instance, if the economic ideologies within the conservative or liberal mind-frames had any sort of rigorous logic, then we wouldn’t see a split. If either camp was definitive in their views, everyone would be in consensus. Your economic outlook on the world, your economic ideology, truth be told, requires just as much faith for it to work as does any religion believing in some invisible entity. It is no wonder the economic status of the world right now is in the position it is in when all faith in it was lost.

However, if scientists and religious followers alike are to continue to hold so faithfully to their doctrine, they are doomed to never allow themselves the freedom to experience the world in its purest form; they are doomed to their own type of fantasy world where the experiences and observations of their counterparts are considered invalid, even when each side’s experiences are valid within their respective perspective.

At least religious followers have a somewhat acceptable and simple surrogate for divinity by living vicariously through their symbolic gods, saints, and lords. At least within this framework, these feelings of connection can be accepted and rejoiced.

Scientists must relegate any explanation of divine feelings they experience to the mathematics and science of biochemistry. Within this framework, those feelings of connection must be diminished to a series of chemical reactions that have little or no other meaning beyond the reactions themselves. The felt connection is then seen as a reaction to outside stimuli rather than an actual merging of consciousness and subjective communication. The validity behind science, however, remains in its expansive and self-reinforcing belief structure. Added together with a very convincing argument for its view, the fact that it is widely accepted by most current cultures and that it is seen as separate from religion, Science is allowed to flourish and evolve without considerable consequence.

These aspects of the scientific world are appealing: universal acceptance, basic flexibility and an in-grown separation from “religion”. They allow a common ground to be maintained between cultures and creeds and reinforce the need for critical thinking. Science only needs to accept the validity behind all religions and spiritual practices and incorporate some of the basic truths that lay within them in order to become its full fledged self. Only when these concepts surrounding subjectivity are accepted into mainstream science will Science then be able to answer some of the more evasive and fundamental questions that it has been striving so long to answer.

Now, as I have been saying, Science has become self-involved, searching for answers to its deepest questions within what it has already created. Some of these questions have been topical, such as what creates the electron. But these topical questions hint at the true underlining wonderment that scientists and most other people posses.

The attempts to answer questions such as how black holes are composed are really an attempt to answer the fundamental questions, “What creates our reality? Why are we here? What is our purpose? What is the meaning in all this?” And I will state it again and again that the answers to these questions will only be found if and when science begins to accept the multidimensionality and spiritual nature of our combined reality. It is no accident, for instance that every human who has been bored long enough has eventually asked “Why am I here?”, or some variation on that theme. It is that very question, that very subjective and divine question that is the basis of science itself.

There is a basic proof for divinity in Descartes’ statement “Cogito, ergo sum”¹. It is not only certain, but it is so true that nearly every person willing to contemplate the idea cannot claim to inwardly feel any different on the subject. It is such a part of our selves and inner knowing that nobody can recite the concept without having profound feelings about it.

What evolutionary purpose would render a whole species to ask such questions? What cause and effect would produce such self-reflection? What benefits could self-reflection have given to a struggling creature? Why is it that we cannot find the missing link from when primates had enormous K-9s and barrel chests but no introspection to humans with small arms and teeth but with a knack for self-reflection?

Religion needs Science if it is to become flexible enough to appeal to continuing generations. Science needs religion if it is to answer its most pressing questions. The divide between these two pillars of thought must be closed if we are to move ahead and advance ourselves as a species². The more separation these two pillars impose upon themselves, the more we will feel a loss of hope for a meaning in life. As inhabitants of this great world, we not only experience what we see before us, but also experience a rich subjective world full of meaning. Without the objectivity of life, the solidity and diversity of our world would obviously fall apart. Yet without a subjective recognition of the meaning in our world, not one object would have any sort of validity.

If an individual were to accept their world for what it was, holistically, whether or not they claimed a belief in a personified god, they would at least have somewhat of an unbiased view toward what they experience. If an individual, on the other hand, were to continue to adamantly hold to their ideological persuasion to such an extent that they effectively filter, bias or outright reject their personal experiences, then they would only be limiting their own personal understanding of the world around them.

My point isn’t to insist that the world at large, be it objective or subjective, be empirically categorized, for in doing so limits are automatically created no matter how expansive the categorization. As well, my point isn’t to insist that all categorization be abolished. Rather, my point is to realize and accept the current perspectives as they are and to come to a holistic understanding; to accept the validity behind all perspectives and understand those validities to augment what understanding you already enjoy.

Thankfully, not everyone in the world is a scientist, just as we can be thankful that not everyone is Christian. Many of us have a rudimentary understanding of the belief systems surrounding science and do not hold tightly upon them. Many of us take from religion what we want and integrate it with our own private understanding of our reality. Most do not need everything spelled out for them. We know that we dream and we can feel that there is meaning. We know there is something greater than what we see and we do not need experiments to prove it. Why would we need to prove what we already know? Were we to be as Science says we are, atoms and molecules first and brains and bodies second, it would be impossible for us to consciously make sense of the world around us. It is only because our basic nature is essentially outside of physicality that we can perceive, interpret, feel and understand our connection with it.

We are all creatures of physicality, but more importantly we are souls of the universe. We experience objectivity from a reality that is couched beyond it and so it is not hard for many of us to understand that there is more to an object than the object itself. All of us, no matter how much some of us try to fight it, innately know our position and know the implications of that position. All of us innately know that words and numbers can only hint at the world we experience; that in order to understand physicality, we must use the “outside terms” I mentioned earlier: the immaculate language of emotion.

Author’s Notes

1 Translated into English this reads “I think, therefore I am”

2 In the coming years, science will begin to reflect the esoteric nature of reality more. As scientists begin to approach those questions it so diligently pushed aside, it will begin to change its perspective, and subsequently its theories. New beliefs will emerge that begin to more adequately reflect the true nature of reality. As time progresses even these beliefs will be seen to be choices and individuals will more openly experiment with manipulating energy. Our shift will then be well under way and toward completion.