Rationally Speaking
N. 2, September 2000
- "The Place of Science"
This column can be posted
for free on any appropriate web site.
If you are interested in receiving the html code, please send an email
"Science
bumps the ceiling of the corporeal plane.... From the metaphysical
point of view its arms, lifted toward a zone of freedom that transcends
coagulation, form the homing arc of the 'love loop.' They are science
responding to Eternity's love for the productions of time." This
grandiose bit of poetical nonsense concludes a chapter of Huston Smith's
Forgotten Truth dedicated to put science in its place. Smith is one
of the world's foremost authorities on religions, and his aim is to
demonstrate that science is not an omnipotent force that can answer
all questions posed by humanities. That is, science needs to be put
in its place.
Fair enough,
although I don't know of any scientist who would claim otherwise.
Contrary to what many anti-intellectuals maintain, science is by nature
a much more humble enterprise than any religion or other ideology.
This must be so given the self-correcting mechanisms that are incorporated
into the scientific process, regardless of the occasional failures
of individual scientists.
But what is
most astounding in Smith's essay is his attempt to develop a parallel
between science and mysticism in order to "demonstrate" that the world's
great religions are capable of insights at least as powerful as science's
because they actually use similar tools. Let us then briefly examine
this alleged parallelism and in the process try to understand what
the proper place of both science and religion ought to be.
Smith's first
insight is that science and religion both claim that things are not
as they seem. For example, you have the perception that the chair
on which you are sitting is solid, but modern physics will tell you
that it is made of mostly empty space. This, apparently, is analogous
to the following bit from C.S. Lewis: "Christianity claims to be telling
us about another world, about something behind the world we can touch
and hear and see." Never mind, of course, that physicists can bring
sophisticated empirical evidence to support their claim about the
emptiness of space, while Christianity is made up of a series of fantastic
and contradictory stories backed by no evidence whatsoever.
Second, according
to Smith, both science and religion claim that the world is not only
different from what we perceive, but that there is "more" than we
can see, and that the additional part is "stupendous." Of course,
electrons, quarks and neutrinos are "more" than we can see, although
they are stupendous only to those few scientists who spend their lives
working on them. Well, this is apparently the same as Shankara's "notion
of the extravagance of his vision of the summum bonum when he says
that it cannot be obtained except through the merits of 100 billion
well-lived incarnations," a cornerstone of some Indian sacred text.
I hope you are starting to appreciate the depths of the similarities
between science and religion. But wait, there is more.
The two quests
for truth also share the quality that this "more" that they seek to
explore cannot be known in ordinary ways (otherwise, presumably, one
would need neither science nor religion to get there). Science's ways
lead to apparent contradictions, such as in the case of some aspects
of quantum mechanical theory. To which Smith juxtaposes some gems
from the Christian literature that he says uncannily resemble modern
notions of quantum physics. For example, did not Nicholas of Cusa
(De Visione Dei) write that "the wall of the Paradise in which Thou,
Lord, dwellest is built of contradictories," pretty much like the
dual particle-wave nature of light? And did not Dionysius the Areopagite
(The Divine Names) say "He is both at rest and in motion, and yet
is in neither state," thus anticipating Heisenberg's indeterminacy
principle? I am not making the examples up––these are Smith's
very own.
Fourth, both
science and religion have found other ways of knowing this "more"
which cannot be accessed by our ordinary senses. The language through
which science accomplishes this is mathematics; the one of religion
is, of course, mysticism, which Smith describes as a "comparably specialized
way of knowing reality's highest transcorporeal reaches" (whatever
that means). This, according to Smith, is "not a state to be achieved
but a condition to be recognized, for God has united his divine essence
with our inmost being. Tat tvan asi; That thou art. Atman is Brahman;
samsara, Nirvana". Yes, of course.
The fifth parallelism
is that in both science and religion these alternative ways of knowing
need to be properly cultivated. A scientist needs to dedicate a lifetime
to her education and research if she wants to make a contribution.
This is apparently similar to the asceticism of saints because, as
Bayazid 'correctly' pointed out, "The knowledge of God cannot be attained
by seeking, but only those who seek it find it."
Finally, in
both science and religion profound knowing requires instruments. In
science, these are microscopes, telescopes and particle accelerators.
In religion, the equivalent is provided by the Revealed Texts, "Palomar
telescopes that disclose the heavens that declare God's glory." If
gods who dictate texts are not palatable to you, there is an alternative:
"Spirit (the divine in man) and the Infinite (the divine in its transpersonal
finality) are identical––man's deepest unconscious is the
mountain at the bottom of the lake." Get it?
I would not
have bothered the reader with this mountain of nonsense if it came
from the local televangelist screaming bloody hell against the humanists'
corruption of the world. But this is Huston Smith, one of the most
respected intellectual exponents of modern religionism, one who is
hailed as offering the deepest insights that not just one, but all
the world's religions can offer!
This is a maddening
example of what Richard Dawkins (in Unweaving the Rainbow) called
"bad poetry." Metaphors make much of the world's literature a pleasure
to read, but they can also be exceedingly misleading. There is no
parallel whatsoever between science and religion. One can practice
one or the other or both, but to pretend that they yield common insights
into the nature of the world is an intellectual travesty. To go further,
as Smith and so many religionists do, and assert that science is arrogant
because it claims to provide the best answers to a circumscribed set
of questions is astonishing, especially when the alleged alternative
is so obviously the result of Pindaric flights of imagination. Now,
here is my modest proposal: what if religions would treat themselves
to a little dose of humility? Imagine what the world would be like
in that case.
Next Month:
"Whence Natural Rights?" a fundamental and difficult question for humanists
© by Massimo Pigliucci, 2000
