Metascience and Metatheology

Neither science nor religion are possible in the absence of a sense or vision of the Absolute, whether implicit or explicit. 

Every special science, for example, has its material object, but these objects can't just be floating around independently in the cosmos. We separate them for reasons of convenience, but obviously they must be unified in some higher object, the highest and most general of all called being. Metaphysics is the study of being qua being, while every special science limits itself to an aspect of changeable being.

Is the same thing true of religions? In other words, is it possible that there is a metareligion of which diverse religions are exemplars? Here's a thought: according to Schuon,

Religions are cut off from one another by barriers of mutual incomprehension; one of the principle causes of this appears to be that the sense of the absolute stands on a different plane in each of them, so that what would seem to be points of comparison often prove not to be (emphasis mine).  

Compare this to the situation in science (or among scientific disciplines). Say we're looking at biology and physics and get into an argument over what is prior, life or matter. This won't be a fruitful debate unless we can arrive at a larger system in which to situate both life and matter on a vertical axis. 

Last I checked, people are still trying to reduce life to matter instead of realizing this is impossible in principle. A cosmos capable of hosting life -- let alone persons -- is utterly different from on that isn't. The least we can ask of a metaphysic is How am I even possible, let alone actual?   

I don't want to get sidetracked on this smaller (or is it larger?) issue, but here are some illustrative passages by our favorite theoretical biologist, Robert Rosen, from his book Essays on Life Itself: 

Any question becomes unanswerable if we do not permit ourselves a universe large enough to deal with the question.

In science, for instance, it seems patently obvious that, whatever living organisms are, they are material systems, special cases drawn from a larger, more generic class of nonliving inorganic ones. The game is thus to reduce, to express their novel properties in terms of those of inorganic subsystems.... 

[O]ne manifestation of this claim to the objectivity of reduction is that one must never, ever, claim to learn anything new about matter from a study of organisms. 

Nevertheless, 

Despite the profound differences between those material systems that are alive and those that are not, these differences haver never been expressible in the form of a list -- an explicit set of conditions that formally demarcate those material systems that are organisms from those that are not. 

The List does not exist because it cannot exist, and besides, we're looking for it in the wrong place (not to mention Gödel). We are free to dissolve organisms into "a presumptively larger universe of inorganic systems," but this -- in my opinion -- actually shrinks the universe down to one of our modes of comprehending it, resulting in a total conflation of model and reality, menu and meal. 

No wonder there is so much spiritual hunger among radical secularists: they try to subsist on the menu and wonder why they're malnourished.

Now that I'm thinking about it, we could say that such enigmas result inevitably from the elevation of science to metascience. This redounds to a scientism that can never even account for itself, let alone everything else.   

As it so happens, I'm reading a book called The Way Toward Wisdom: An Interdisciplinary and Intercultural Introduction to Metaphysics, which is all about metascience and the Unification of Everything more generally. My kind of book. Or at least I thought it was. Kind of a slog, actually. Someone needs to write the same book, only make it more irreverent, entertaining, and engaging. I know a guy, but he's a little lazy...

Here's a relatively straightforward passage:

Persons can be judged really "wise" only if, through reflection, they have become conscious not simply of what their worldview is but also of the bases on which it rests. Nor is anyone wise who is unable to enter into dialogue with those of different worldviews.  

Now, we all know there is by definition no wisdom on the progressive left; this in turn is both a cause and consequence of their hatred of free speech. They are trapped in their little model of the world, and repel any information that might help them escape from it. Could there be a theory less critical than critical race theory?

Yes! Because critical race theory is situated in a more general metaphysic of critical theory, exemplified by everything from feminism to Chicano studies to post-colonialism to queer theory. They could save a lot of money by merging these into one big Department of Angry Victims. 

Back when I studied psychology in grad school they just called it "paranoia." Now they call it psychology. In other words, psychology itself has become "critical" and therefore uncritical. Today I don't think a guy like Bob could ever pass the licensing exam except by concealing his true beliefs and toeing the party line.   

Headline I just now saw: Media Watchdog: Big Tech Stepped in to Censor News About Biden 646 Times in Just 2 Years. Pay no attention to that shuffling corpse and get back in the Matrix!

But let's try to focus on our original subject, that is, how and where to situate different religions in relation to one another.  

Nah, out of time.