Experimental science has enjoyed considerable success, having adopted the premise that any credible theory must be testable and concur with observations. In fact, much of the technology we use today is based on science born out of iterative experiments and their observations. Perhaps it’s not so surprising then that we seem to have an innate aptitude for believing only those things that we can see for ourselves, and find more difficult, if not impossible, to have faith in that which we cannot. Faith in an all-pervading power or God, therefore, pushes us to the extreme boundaries of belief, and has prompted endless discussion between Scientists and the Mystics, and their aspiring followers.
Personally, I have no issue with the foundations of experimental science. However, I do raise a concern that what we often ‘see’ can only be a representation of the best picture we have formulated in time, with every potential for it to change as new layers of our understanding are unveiled. Building a view of the world on only what you have seen (or on extrapolations thereof), seems to me to be somewhat naïve and limiting, yet it is an approach that many of us are willing to accept whilst science continues to provide us with explanations that readily conform with our physical perceptions of reality and provides us with the technology to unlock the potential of the universe right before our eyes.
However, history tells us that there inevitably comes a time when we are forced to question our models of reality when things don’t quite add up. My hypothesis is that this is a recurring cycle, in which case, can we really believe what we see? More importantly, should we be more cautious before dispelling that which cannot be ‘observed’ at present?
I invite you to ponder this further and to begin our journey I would ask you to imagine a world without mirrors, or more precisely, without reflection.
What sort of world would that be? No doubt we would still have the ability to observe each other and the things around us. We could continue with our normal chores and daily routines in more or less the same way – or could we? Obviously there are some clear difficulties when you consider the need for rear-view mirrors whilst driving (perhaps this is a distinction between a ‘good’ and ‘bad’ driving ability) or putting your make-up on, but let us consider these as technicalities that could otherwise be resolved through some other method. What I am more concerned about are the transformations in psychological and mental attitude that might take place, for without mirrors, we would never have the privilege of seeing our own face and would have to rely purely on the descriptions provided by others. The implications are interesting to say the least.
There is a school of thought that suggests that confidence (or self-belief) is partly dependent on how good you feel about yourself and can have profound influence the quality of one’s life. In the western world high regard is attached to appearances so it is natural for people to be concerned about the way they look. Often that concern can extend beyond normality and lead to a lack of confidence or even paranoia in some extreme cases. It would therefore be important that in our world without reflections, the descriptions provided by our companions are reasonably accurate. Of course there is a case to argue the opposite also, but in either scenario a wildly false description could leave you either as an emotional wreck, or an overconfident failure.
If the implications of removing physical reflection could be such then imagine the implications of an absence of more-deeper mental and emotional reflection. I would take this further to what some might call spiritual introspection or consciousness – a journey which prompts us to become more aware of our spiritual being. And yet strangely enough, how many of us take the time to really, truly introspect? Perhaps the rather patronising view of society in general towards believers in a ‘God’ of some sort is not so unexpected then. In today’s world there is almost an instinctive assumption that you must be either part of a cult or emotionally abnormal to be a dedicated follower of some God, let alone have a personal relationship with him. Yet many others have pondered this to such degree that they have been inspired to ask questions as to what is, in actual fact, our true reality:
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience.
We are spiritual beings having a human experience
–Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
Moving onto a slightly different line of inquiry let us consider a trivial mathematic equation, say ‘2+2=4’. That might seem easy enough but what if we removed the equality sign? We would then have two separate parts, namely ‘2+2’ and ‘4’. These would still be seen to exist as real entities and would remain logically equal, but the equation itself would not hold true without the punctuation – it is almost as if the humble equality sign provides insight or some necessary assurance as to the balance of both sides, and by removing it the integrity of the equation is destroyed. In a similar way you might say that the separate entities of our spiritual and material lives do exist by themselves, but we require some insight to bring them together as a balancing equation. Just as the physical mirror reflects our physical representation so perhaps spiritual realisation provides insight into our spiritual self, and the ability to preserve the balance of the equation. Again the question arises as to how one might perceive their spiritual self
“…You cannot see me with these human eyes of yours; therefore, I vouchsafe to you the Divine Eye. With this you behold My Divine power of Yoga.”
-Bhagavada-Gita (Ch.11.8)
For the spiritualist, this is the basis of Divine Knowledge, or Brahm Gyan. Brahm, or ‘Nirankar’ (the Formless), the almighty, all-pervading power, is considered to be subtly inherent within (and beyond) our physical environment; and Brahm Gyan is a means to providing the spiritual capacity with which to appreciate this
“The eye with which God sees me is the eye with which I see him; my eye and his eye are one. If God were not, I would not be; if I were not, then he would not be.”
–Meister Eckhart (1260-1328)
“Whatever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived.” -Spinoza
So where does Science come back into this picture, for it has certainly been able to make great strides without the need for submitting to questions around the existence of God? One reason for this is probably that traditional (experimental) science is largely concerned with ‘observables’, and thus far, any approximation we make in the science of observables at the macro level is fairly consistent with our experience of the world around us. However, as we begin to dig deeper into the picture beyond the microscopic and venture towards the quantum world then our simplistic approximations begin to unravel. Suddenly we begin to enter a place where it becomes increasingly difficult if not impossible to visualise the order of reality, and it is even debatable as to whether one could in fact be able to ‘see’ the whole picture.
The spiritualists would highlight that they have, albeit somewhat simplistically, claimed this for some time. Although we may not be able to physically observe something with our eyes that does not necessarily mean there is an ‘absence of something’ altogether. But I don’t think Science has ever claimed that to be the case either, rather Science exercises some patience in raising any claim until it uncovers a new understanding through whatever means is appropriate. Often that means a refinement in our models, but sometimes it just necessitates an advancement in our experimental and measurement technology. In my mind, the question always arises as to how we, as human beings, can also be considered as the ‘detectors’ where technology still falls short. Indeed, quantum mechanics and other related theories do prompt us to think more deeply about the peculiarities of conscious observers in all of this.
Another area of discussion is that of cause and effect, with the rather simple example being cited of the wind, which cannot be ‘seen’ but its presence is recognised very easily by its effects on the environment. Our existence on this planet and in this universe is also claimed to be just ‘too perfect’ to have been the result of an accident. It doesn’t matter what perspective you look at the world from (chemical, biological or physical), it’s obvious that nature operates as a remarkably perfect and efficient system.
Consider for example the birth of our universe. It is generally believed that our universe was the result of an enormous cosmic explosion – the ‘Big Bang’. The explosion caused the whole universe to expand from an infinitesimally small, but dense, clump of mass. Even today the universe is expanding and the question is raised as to whether there may come a point one-day when it stops expanding and starts to contract, in which case all matter could potentially disappear! That being said, if the initial explosion had been too small, the expansion would have been unstable and far too slow for the world to evolve. If the explosion had been too large, the expansion would have been so rapid that the universe would have expanded and then immediately contracted to nothing. In other words, we still would not have emerged. However, the ‘bang’ was absolutely perfect! Consider also the chemical composition of the human body. It has been calculated that the ratios and carbon and other elements in biological and physical systems need to be in an extremely precise balance for our Universe to exist, and if these differed by say even 0.000000005 then many things would cease to exist, including human beings – yet this balance does exist today. These ‘Goldilocks’ theorems (i.e. everything is ‘just right’) may not be sufficient evidence to convince the sceptics for the existence of an Almighty Creator, but they are certainly remarkable to say the least, and do prompt us to think a little more deeply.
“God has put a secret art into the forces of nature so as to enable it to fashion itself out of chaos into a perfect world system.”
-Immanuel Kant
I admit that this short collection of thoughts is not enough to build a case in the face of the serious sceptics, but that is not my intention. Rather I implore both the Scientist and the Mystic to open their minds to broader possibilities and to understand whether their worlds can find some common ground. With the advance of all the new weird and wonderful fields of research and the new wave of discoveries I am of the firm opinion that a deeper appreciation will need to come. For now, I am content to say that if technology is the detector of the scientist, then perhaps the conscious being is the detector of the spiritualist.
There are surely more surprises to come.
-George Khambe
