3,980 Footnotes on a Total Explanation of Reality*

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.