I was thinking about some of Sam Harris’ criticisms of organized religion, and he’s not entirely wrong, rather, only that he gives up too easily.
True, there are plenty of contradictions and implausibilities in any big box religion, but that’s no reason to embrace a philosophy that is equally or more contradictory and implausible, such as scientism or astrology.
In general, this is precisely the role of esoterism, which seeks the deeper truth (or substance) beneath the forms without in any way undermining or negating the fundamental message.
Taken at face value there is much about religion that doesn’t add up, and may even be repugnant to our reason.
Two things about that: first, being confronted with such doctrinal assertions forces us to grapple with them for a deeper understanding. This reminds me of, say, poetry, which forces the poet to express himself within the constraints of a certain structure, rhythm, or rhyme scheme, resulting in something deeper and more beautiful than the same thing expressed in prose, hopefully without sounding totally gay.
Similarly, it’s easy enough to look at the world and conclude that it is filled with evil and suffering. However, Christianity affirms that the Creator is pure good. How then to reconcile the one with the other?
This is the role of theology, but even then, theology may only be sufficient within the bounds of principles and doctrines that are already accepted by the theologian. In other words, Christian theologians don’t appeal to Buddha or Shankara to extricate themselves from a metaphysical jam.
Anyway, it’s easy enough to spot the fissures and anomalies in religion. What about science? As everyone knows, it is a fantastic method for exploring the natural world but quickly beclowns itself when elevated to a philosophy or metaphysic.
It occurs to me that both science and religion are in need of an “esoterism” to help them get beyond their own limitations. Indeed, it is precisely here that we will discover their unity. If we’re on the right track.
In other words, what is needed is a religious esoterism and a scientific esoterism, both unified in a higher esoterism as such.
Except I don’t like that word, “esoterism.” Too loaded a term. For one thing, I don’t think it’s all that difficult to understand the principles we are proposing. It’s just that people become so accustomed to seeing things a particular way that it’s difficult to get out of the rut.
Back to science for a moment. Last I checked, there is no way to reconcile quantum and relativity theories, but does this mean we should just give up because science is hopelessly contradictory?
Of course not. Likewise, in grad school I learned all about neurology and brain anatomy in addition to purely psychological theories, but with no earthly idea of how to connect the two. There are obviously stupid ways to do it, but these are analogous to the theologian who can only explain things with recourse to his own theology. The same is true of a neurologist who explains subjectivity with recourse to neurology.
Let’s cut to the chase: is there such a thing as a View From Nowhere, or pure objectivity, a total metaphysic in which to situate everything, encompassing those realties which both science and religion try in their own ways to explain?
The other day while on a walk, a good title occurred to me for The Book That Will Never Be Written: 3,980 Footnotes on a Total Explanation of Reality. Okay, but where is this explanation? Oh, that? It doesn’t exist. Best I can do is all these footnotes.
But is this the best we can do? What if there is some implicit unity beneath these 3,980 fragments? What is it?
*I’ll put it in the hopper and come back with #3,981 tomorrow.
7 comments:
As everyone knows, (science) is a fantastic method for exploring the natural world but quickly beclowns itself when elevated to a philosophy or metaphysic.
Couldn’t agree more. But I’m wondering who gets to explain bad Christian behavior? These days, it seems that philosophers and metaphysics are trying to get us to instead look at all the bad behavior being done by the scientists.
When I reply “Yes, and you betcha. But that wasn’t my question.” the philosophers and metaphysics start calling me names. I’m not sure what to make of this.
Anyway, it’s easy enough to spot the fissures and anomalies in religion. What about science?
One of the big challenges with science is that so much of what is called "science" turns out not to be so. Studies that can't be replicated, other studies with inconvenient information which must be rejected because "the science is settled;" how can one even begin to address the fissures and anomalies when such things are completely obscured beneath politics and lies?
We had an unpleasant exchange before Christmas with a family member, Dr. Fear. She became completely unhinged when she was told about a case of probably-wuflu that was nipped in the bud in time for Christmas with the help of ivermectin & vitamins. Instead of being happy that someone recovered so quickly (whatever the cause), she was enraged that anyone would try that to get better using that particular method. Now amplify that attitude by the millions of people who trust the "science," and it starts to seem like we need a new word to describe what science used to mean.
Though I think there is a unity between religion and science, after all, religion did give birth to science, there is no way that true science, i.e. use of precision instruments invented by man's mind to measure and quantify things objectively and thus be reproducible by other men, can provide us with a total explanation of reality. Footnote #3981 will only provide us with another clue, but never a solution. Job was schooled on this, and I think the messages Job received remain pertinent to us today.
Apropos nothing (or everything, depending on your perspective), interesting demonstration of the tangible effects of sound frequencies. If simple tones can do this, what is really happening inside someone's brain when they hear complex music?
Julie, I didn't click your link, but your question brings to mind the reaction of certain Alzheimer and dementia patients who respond so positively to music from their younger days. Some of these individuals actually appear to return to reality, rather than living in their minds, and sing the words to the music they are hearing. It is both exhilarating and heartbreaking at the same time to view. There are videos of this phenomenon out there in the internet.
"This Is Your Brain On Music" by Daniel J. Levitin is all about that.
Dr. Fear was probably implying (while emoting) that Julie was selling ivermectin, for purely tribal reasons.
Nobody is more into breaking into the big pharma/medical/insurance cabal with good ole fashioned home remedy capitalism than I. I do it myself all the time. As we should all know, half the time your GP refers you to a specialist for expensive repairs, you and your body's natural repair mechanisms would've been fully capable of doing it themselves.
This is why I'm having such a beef with philosophers and metaphysics and scientists, oh dang. Ideally in an ideal capitalistic democracy, we'd have reliable studies and institutions doing those studies to determine actual reality. As it is, it's all tits and tats for political unhinged points.
Post a Comment