DISCLAIMER: Obviously, I am not a scientist of any kind and have no formal (or informal really) education on the complexities and various fields of science. Feel free to laugh at my questions and statements or enlighten me to scientific theory or fact that may help me to see things a different way or even perhaps answer some questions I may pose. All that said, here’s my verbal rant/philosophical inquiry:
This morning Tice and I watched a debate between Richard Dawkins (an atheist Evolutionary Biologist) and John Lennox (a theist mathematician and science philosopher). The debate was really not so much of a debate as Dawkins defending the ideals he espouses in his book “The God Delusion”. Though I had many thoughts about the debate, there is one main thought that is wracking my brain. The discussion they had about non-overlapping magisteria really got me thinking.
For those of you who do not know, non-overlapping magesteria or NOMA is an idea that came about from Stephen Gould (paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science) who in his book Rocks of Ages defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution" and the NOMA principle is "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)”. Basically, the idea is that the science is the how and religion is the why and the two cannot coexist.
Richard Dawkins argued in this debate that he disagrees with Stephen Gould and that the two cannot be exclusive of each other. He, of course, uses this to compliment his atheistic views. I have to say, that though I am not an atheist, I tend to think I may agree with him. Let me explain why.
If we look at science, the world of empirical evidence, there are many rules and laws that we live by, that many people use as evidence to support the unlikelihood of the existence of a supreme creator being. I would like to use empirical evidence to suggest that a supreme creator being is just as likely as not. I want to take a look at a couple of Newton’s laws.
First there is Newton’s law of reciprocal actions, the idea of every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Everything has its opposite: man woman, hot cold, light dark. Obviously as we all know, the world is not so simple – or “black and white”. There is much more texture and complexity to everything. However, it is without a doubt that we see there exists these extremes. SO, I propose that since we as humans exist in a physical world, we must also exist in a non-physical world. According to scientific law this should be true. Am I right?
Second, there is Newton’s law of inertia, the idea that an object at rest remains at rest and an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted on by an unbalanced force. Science might use this to explain how the world came to be, i.e. the Big Bang Theory. The flaw in using this as fact is in the very name of the concept. It is only a theory. So, could it be that there was a being that set everything in motion? Well, it is as possible as any other scientific theory out there.
I would like to further expand on this idea of inertia. I do not know if the following concept is a theory in existence or not, but I think it interesting to ponder. It seems that everything in the universe seems to move towards order. You might explain this as micro evolution or adaptation. But, basically, everything moves towards order. To use humans as an example, we are born to a very over-stimulating world, and as we grow we organize more and more the world around us. We organize sounds into speech and song, we organize information and process them into application. It seems that plants and animals do this as well. You could look at every thing on the planet and make an argument that it tends towards organization of its environment so that it might maintain existence. Now, some people might say in regards to living things, “What about death? How is that a movement towards organization?” My response would be that I don’t really know, but that perhaps death is a form of organization in itself. Or perhaps it is an incentive for organization. Without the prospect of death or an end, why would a living thing seek to organize itself in the first place? All that speculation being said, if we exist in a both physical and non-physcial world, and our existence was put in to place by someone or something it would seem that this someone or something is pushing us to organize – to process and to, essentially, PROGRESS.
All of what I have discussed so far is to explain why I agree with Richard Dawkins. I think that the how and the why are not so separate after all, and if science were to embrace this idea more of a supernatural or non-physical existence there might be some real scientific progress made. I think science as we know it would be redefined. In the same way, if religion, or spirituality were to embrace science and the empirical, physical evidences and theories there would be real spiritual progress made and religion and spirituality would inevitably be redefined.
As an art therapist in training and an empathetic human I can see that we as people deal with spiritual battles, or something beyond or comprehension that seems to be at odds. There is something non-empirical that affects us. I think perhaps the next stage of humanity may be to combine our current scientific knowledge and technologies with the “primal” or “uncivilized” ancient concepts of spirituality. If we are not living in recognition of our complete environment and human experience, how are we to organize ourselves the way it seems we are intended?
There is no way in our current place and time to prove or disprove a divine being. Tice pointed out that in this sense we are all, whether we want to be or not, Agnostic. We all, however, have our faiths, our convictions, our ideals we hold to be true. But how tight should we hold on? If John Lennox and Richard Dawkins would have come into their debate both admitting this fact, perhaps progress may have been made, instead of two people coming together and essentially, accomplishing nothing. Not that debate always accomplishes nothing, but if neither debater really has an open mind, or is not willing to work with the ideas of the other, what will change? Both people go into the debate with their minds made up. In this sense, nothing is accomplished. There is no progress.
To go back my previous statement that science may need to fully embrace spirituality and spirituality may need to fully embrace science I would like to note one last thing. Tice pointed out to me that science, in a sense, is already delving into the non-physical. For instance, ideas of multiple dimensions and string theory could be seen as pathways to a non-physical realm. Spirituality and religion, has long since incorporated the physical realm. The problem remains that neither side wants to name the other. Tice brilliantly put it by saying, “If science discovered God, they would likely not call it God.” In the same sense, if religion discovered “not-God”, they would never name it as such.
SO, what am I to do? Well, I personally want to progress. I want to follow the inertial push towards continual organization and all that this encompasses. I believe in God and spirituality, but I really want to be able to maintain a healthy state of being and incorporate both my physical and non-physical worlds so I can organize myself they best way possible. I want, essentially, to be the healthiest human being I can be. And I want this for everyone else to, which is why I went into Art Therapy in the first place.
I wonder if all this rambling made any sense? Any thoughts?
