What follows, written from a Baha'i perspective, though coloured with my own opinions, was set down some years ago. It may still have a degree of relevance and should anyone wish to make comments. I would be happy to receive them.
Science and Religion
Limitations in Human Understanding
To keep things in perspective, it might be as well to point out that there are limitations to human understanding. In the past the phrase "knowing the Mind of God", was introduced into discussions on modern developments in nuclear Physics and cosmology. The mere fact that what might be called modern science is in its infancy and should make clear that a decent humility with regard to our knowledge might be desirable. And it is surely obvious that what is part of the created universe, whether this is produced by accident or design, is in no position to acquire a complete understanding of the whole.
There are more direct reasons for accepting restrictions on men's understanding. Mathematics, the discipline in which a high degree of certainty, if only of a logical form, might be expected, has for the last sixty years been known to have clear limitations. The Godel proof, having established that in any axiomatic system there are theorems which are true but cannot be proved, expresses one form that this limitation takes. The way in which we think and, more deeply, the way in which we apprehend, are limited by the instruments at our disposal. Undoubtedly greater and greater possibilities will open up and we may well find that the brain has far greater potential than so far revealed; the state of human consciousness may itself change; but to imagine that a finite being can transcend its own limitations, is not only illogical but irrational and fosters an attitude that is itself detrimental to true science.
The Definition of Science
The traditional definition of science is that it is the investigation of nature by means of observation, experiment,classification and the use of this data to extend our understanding by formulating hypotheses, theories and laws. The detailed examination of this has, of course, been undertaken by modern philosophers and scientific thinkers and entails consideration of the relation of the observer to his field of observation, the place of intuition and predisposed attitudes of the scientist and the extent to which science is culture dependant.The simple Bahá'i principle is that Science and Religion must work in harmony, but concealed within this simplicity are implications which will take centuries to unfold.
Sometimes Abdu'l Bahá (the eldest son of Bahá'u'llah, the Founder of the Bahá'i Faith) talked as though science were merely a practical activity with the main function of producing material results - technological achievements that benefit material living.
At other times He speaks of it as an investigation of the world of the senses in a more abstract or intellectual sense:
"This scientific power investigates and apprehends created objects and the laws surrounding them. It is the discoverer of the hidden and mysterious sectrets of the material universe and is peculiar to man alone."
Promulgation of Universal Peace, pg 29.
At other times He refers to it as the exercise of reason, the means whereby restraint is exercised over superstitions and is in itself evidence of man's spiritual nature:
"...it is evident and true... that in man there is present this supernatural force or faculty...It is capable of discovering scientific laws...Science exists in the mind of man as an ideal reality. The mind itself, reason itself, is an ideal reality and not tangible."
Promulgation of Universal Peace, pg 361
To relate this to our present situation, we may consider the ways in which there are disharmonies between science and religion, and to mention the changes which are occurring that may be recursors of their future harmonisation; finally to see how this connects with individual human beings.
The Disharmonies through constraints on Scientific Method
As a simplification we may limit ourselves to western science, since this currently has the most obvious global effect, though there are undercurrents of alternative approaches from other cultures which may well become more clearly fruitful. In this simplified version, Francis Bacon is credited with laying down the ground rules, while Isaac Newton was the chief inaugurator of the modern scientific approach (while operating with motivations considerably different from those who followed him). Bacon said that Science should not deal with final causes and that science and religion should be kept separate. It roughly corresponds to the idea that science should deal with questions commencing "How?" and leave to religion those commencing with "Why?". the two wings of a bird work together because they are separate. Nevertheless a wrong understanding of this has led to some unfortunate consequences. Some scientists have been driven to find their religion in science (not always acknowledging or being aware of this); and clearly followers of religion are sometimes uneasy with the hard facts that science uncovers. Abdu'l Bahá has said:"As material and physical sciences are taught here and are constantly unfolding in wider vistas of attainment, I am hoping that spiritual development may also follow, and keep pace with these outer advantages."
Promulgation of Universal Peace. Pg 31
Physics and Cosmology
The practical benefits to society of science and technology have been great but the transition to an industrial society caused a great deal of suffering. Religious vision became clouded with a materialism engendered by wrongly applied "rational" thinking.Blake, born in the Age of reason and much at odds with it, wrote "May God keep us, from single vision and Newton's sleep." (Letter to Thomas Butts, Nav 22nd 1802) He was referring to the mechanistic view of the Universe that had developed as a consequence of Newtonian physics and foresaw the dangers of too complete a separation between science and religion. He called for the exercise of a relation to the world that was not based solely on sense impressions, writing: "When the Sun rises, do you not see a round disk od fire somewhat like a Guinea? O no, no, I see an innumerable company for the Heavenly host crying " Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty"" . Clearly this protest against the tunnel vision too often expressed in scienceis an endeavour to keep an awareness of our real and total experience of the Universe of which much science is only an abstract.
The objects that Physics may concern itself with (stars, atoms, electromagnetic radiation etc.) account for the existence of the theories, since they are the raw material from which the theories arise - but the theories do not account for the existence of the objects. The equations may deal with aspects of the objects but are themselves not remotely like the objects they describe. This may seem obvious but - remember Magritte's painting "This is not a pipe" - it is surprising how the connection may become blurred. Sometimes physicists write as though objects conform to their equations whereas, ideally (impossible achievement) the equations should conform to the objects and their properties. And the physicist lives the important part of his life in a world which science cannot touch - who would know the immediate sensation of 'blue' from its measurable characteristics of wavelength, frequency and yet, in ordinary living the blueness of blue is its most immediate and important characteristic. Yet is seems that the scientist can get trapped in a mode thinking where he believes his equations are more important than the objects, that they indeed enable him to approach the Mind of God.
Having said this, it is important to maintain the balance and realise that the hidden characteristics which are unveiled by science do indeed have a an inspiring part to play in discovering our relation to the Universe.
Those who have followed the great thinkers such as Newton or Darwin tend to pick and choose from their works and use them to bolster attitudes which they themselves would be unlikely to support. Newton was, of course, a Christian, indeed one who was imbued with the religious feeling and not a mere conformist. He disbelieved in the Trinity and was covertly at odds with the religious views around him. A complex and, perhaps in some senses, a confused man, but a surprising one to have been seen as responsible for the mechanistic view of the Universe that became the bedrock for many later thinkers. Unlike his contemporary Laplace he believed God had a sustaining and interventionist role in the Universe . His work on the Bible, with regard to prophecy in particular, he regarded as important as his work in science and he expected from his studies that the Second Coming would take place in the nineteenth century. It is easy to disregard this aspect of the man and venerate him as a scientist, if one is disposed that way, and to ignore his other views as mere foolishness. But we need to remember that his impetus and motivation for scientific work came from a complex of beliefs - belief in God, alchemical studies - that the average scientist might well regard as dubious if Newton's attainments did not otherwise command respect. It raises indeed the question of motivation in all men's work and that whether, in the end, a religious view is not only compatible with science, but may energise it in the most effective way.
The Road to Harmony
The limitations of Newtonian physics became clear at the end of the last century. The changes that begin to make clear that a new assessment of the scope of sciece is needed, are moe recent. At a mechanical level, the exclusion of God from intervening in the Universe, depends to a fair degree upon the power of theory to predict the future. If the future can be determined by laws and can be shown to be so, then God might have had the role of initating the process that brought the mterial world into existence but would not have any necessary role in its operation.
The twentieth century brought lines of thought that partly continued the atheistic or materialistic view of the Universe but also by sheer depth of rational analysis raised questions about its nature and questioned the possibility of explaining it as a mechanically determined system.
In the twenties of the last century, the investigations of atomic and nuclear phenomena gave rise to quantum theory. The Principle of Indeterminancy which states that the position and momentum of a particle cannot be simultaneously and accurately known made even theoretically impossible the concept of Laplace that given complete knowledge of the present state of the Universe all future states could be predicted. The quantum theory also introduced the idea of the importance of the observer and raised the whole question as to what degree of objective knowledge was possible in considering events at atomic level.
"But quantum Physics presents a picture of reality in which observer and observed are inextricably interwoven in an intimate way. The effect of observation is absolutely fundamental to the reality that is revealed. And cannot be either reduced or simply compensated for."
Paul Davies and John Gribbin.The Matter Myth pg 208-209
Man is no longer an alien in a mechanical universe, he is esentially part of what he is studying, even at an elementary level.
Connected with the principle of indeterminancy and atomic theory in general is the fact that modern science deals with probabilities rather than certainties. At the atomic level this is particularly obvious. But theoretically even at macroscopic level, events that would be to ordinary observation completely determined are, from a scientific point of view, only highly probable. If a saucepan of water is heated, we may confidentally expect it to get hot and eventually to boil. But there is a chance,finite, though small beyond our ability to conceive, that the water will freeze. This would happen if the random motion of the molecules happened to interact in such a way that their average kinetic energy became small. No matter how long we observed our saucepan of water we would not expect this to happen. If it did, even the scientist would probably shout "miracle". But philosophically there is a great difference between sayinjg a miracle is something which is impossible and contravenes all known laws of science and saying that a miracle is something which is immensely improbable but not contrary to the known laws of nature.
Theories of probabilities then set limits to what is ascertainable by science, and to that degree leaves a space for God who intervenes, in that we can hardly go a step deeper and decide how the probabilities are assigned without destroying the theory.
In the last two or three decades a new aspect of the working of nature has been realised. Suppose an equation to be perfectly correct and able to predict events in a certain field of investigation. One would expect, at least on a limited scale, that it could be used accurately to describe what is going to happen in the future, if not as Laplace ambitiously envisaged, for the whole universe, at least for a small part of it. True there would be limitations imposed by the inaccuracies of measurements, but these could be increasingly refined and so we would get nearer to a true prediction. Unfortunately this turns out not to be so. The behaviour of certain types of mathematical equations that are very common in Physics are so sensitive to changes in values of the inputs that vastly different outcomes may result from minute changes in these. A common example is a ball bearing suspended above three magnetic poles symmetrcally arranged. Which pole it is attracted to depends upon its original placing. But an infinitesimal change in this - far below the accuracy of placing that is possible - can result in it being attracted to a different pole. Such sensitivity is characteristic of all laws involving second order differentials. Even if such a law is derterministic, the determined outcome is inaccessible to us. This is Chaos, often illustrated by the so-called butterfly effect which makes long term weather forecasts impossible.
In truth it is really imprecise to talk of predictions from scientific equations. "What one doesn't put into the equations will not finally be given by the mathematics" (James Franck quoted by Schwartz in the Creative Moment pg 173). Mathematics may be a neat way of summarising relationships and, indeed, of drawing our attention to relationships of which we were not previously aware - as much may be said of a poem. It is, however, not predicting but describing, though its description may involve states in the future as far as we are concerned. Given the nature of mathematics, it is not surprising that out of its application to Physics come entities that are very difficult to describe in the language that we normally use for terms objects directly accessible to the senses. The terms "up", "down", "charm", "beauty" ascribed to quarks have nothing to do with the normal applications of these names, but these attempts also demonstrate that the physicist is aware of the need to make some bridge to normal understanding not only for the sake of communication but also to clarify his own understanding. (The same may be said to be true in other realms of human experience not only the spiritual insights of the mystic but occasions in the lives of all of us which we find beyond the ordinary usage of language.) In spite of beliefs to the contrary, many physical concepts have developed not from mathematics but from what are now called thought experiments, using the imaginative faculty in a way that is, perhaps, not too far from the activity of the poet or musician. The scientist is trying to give to airy nothings a local habitation and a name.
But once you have taken the predictability away, we have no means of being sure what intervention may have taken place from what might be called a "supernatural" level. This is not a very meaningful term but it may draw attention to the fact that often orthodox science draws its devotees to conform to a view of "reality" that give a sense of security and "knowing" at a certain level.
There has been a leap forward from the beginning of the last century from Newtonian and mechanistic views to cosmologies based on Relativity and related theories; these have entered into common culture, together with concepts of Chaos and Fuzzy logic. This represents a step forward in general thinking – when the words "force" and "energy" were brought into general use they represented a more rational understanding than animism, though it is also true that something was lost that must be retrieved. Nature may be more human than we imagine.
The picture that Physics presents to the layman is one in which even the experts can hold contrary views. There is no harm in this unless one makes a special virtue of the contradictions. Surprise, surprise - contradictions are found even among religious thinkers.
There is no point in taking a temporary position of science as supporting a particular religious standpoint. The trend for over three centuries in science has been to eliminate God from an interventionist or sustaining role and at the best to relegate the Creator to the First Cause in a temporal sequence; but, apart from the limitations implicit in the scientific approach one could suggest that if, as implied by quantum mechanics an observer is needed for the collapse of probabilities into facts then God may be the Ultimate Observer. It would be unfortunate to pursue this theme and find that the science has meantime changed.
There are those who hold that there is every evidence that the Universe is so finely tuned that it seems likely that it was specifically designed so that life and ultimately man could appear. Others may take the view of Gell-Mann - a founder of quantum chromodynamics, who wrote "That idea seems to me so ridiculous as to merit no further discussion" (Quark and Jaguar, pg 212)
For those, and I count myself among them, whose relation to God is primarily devotional, much of this may seem irrelevant; but knowledge of God is not to be separated from the worship of God and though the current state of science may be something of a barrier, the time will come when science will be an aid rather than an impediment in seeing the ways in which the created world reflect the attributes of God.
Biology
The work of Darwin brought to the fore the concept of the action of mechanical law in the living world. Darwin's religious beliefs were subject to fluctuation but in some of his followers, Darwinism and Neo Darwinism seemed to take on the form of a substitute religion. A theory which is clearly inadequate to explain many obvious facts has itself come to be stated as a fact. The basis of this theory is the concept of natural selection, yet even Darwin himself found this far from satisfactory. It has retained its position, with few of the objections to it being asnwered, partly from an intellectual bias toward atheism and partly from the point of view that any theory is better than none.
The extreme view has perhaps been best expressed by Professor Richard Dawkins. His original stance was that the multivarious forms that living things take came about so that they might serve as carriers for the gene, whose sole aim is to propagate itself. It is interesting that almost all writers on living creatures find themselves constrained to some sort of anthropomorphic expression so that they endow creatures with a kind of will or intent which if pressed they would deny, claiming poetic licence or something similar. The fact is they are dealing with an urge towards complexity and, indeed, spiritualisation in nature that has no place in the current scientific undersrtanding. The writers on biological and related disciplines have been, of course, been brainwashed or, more politely, trained in the accepted traditions. It is a fault in our educational system that it does not encourage independent thinking in its search for short term achievement. In this generalisation I apologise to the minority of more independent thinkers. Rupert Sheldrake is an example of one who has attempted an alternative and unpopular approach and no doubt there are others who have found it impossible to work even on the fringe of a system in which they are discouraged from questioning the basics. It may be that some of the ideas of Goethe with their emphasis on a holistic approach might have proved a fruitful alternative to reductionism. I think, however, that we are becoming increasingly aware that scientists often examine or sift evidence with a bias that stems from their own cultural background, individual prejudice or plain self-interest. The objective truth seeker is as rare in this field as in any other.
For some, science provides a belief structure that is a substitute for religion.
"Science may even be described as a religion... Science shares with religion the claim that it answers questions about origins, the nature of life, and the cosmos. But there the resemblance ends. Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths are not and do not."
Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden, pg 33
The superficiality of this is clear. Firstly, there is the lack of understanding of what a religion is, secondly the dismissal of results that do not conform to a preconceived idea of what may be termed results. Since whole cultures have been shaped by religious beliefs and individual lives transformed, it is odd to dismiss religion as having no results; and, of course, the results are part of the evidence. You may not like the results; but in objecting to certain effects of misapplied or distorted religions one may be in the position of one dismissing science because one of the fruits of science was the atomic bomb or wide spread pollution.
Too many people have died for or through religions, too many great works of art have been inspired by them, too many societies have incorporated attitudes or laws based on them, for it to be possible to say they have no results. What Dawkins is saying is that he wants to replace these belief systems with another, that of science. And that gives no sure foundation of morality.
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden, pg 133
Professor Dawkins is presumably referring to some universe outside himself, or does he look within and find a blind, pitiless indifference in himself? If the latter is the case, which I find difficult to believe, we should certainly regard his views as suspect on general grounds. Man, in his material aspect, is part of the Universe he observes, a dilemma which has consequences beyond that brought to light in quantum theory.
The fact that River Out of Eden has had the status of a best seller is encouraging in that it shows a general interest in science but exasperating if it means that there are many readers who find its specious arguments convincing.
It is clear that the view expressed in the above quotation is clearly the result of a subjective attitude and not, in any deep sense of observation or self-awareness. It is at least obvious that the positive qualities Professor Dawkins finds lacking in the universe are in man. It is certainly possible to imagine that man arose by accident and that the qualities of beauty , of goodness, of purpose that men may observed or experience in their own lives are accidental by-products of a universe that came into existence by accident, but this is a result of an emotional bias or a faith rather than the application of reason.
So a disharmony between science and religion has come about because many scientists have the urge to exclude God from an interventionist or sustaining role in the Universe while many religious people feel inadequate and ignore rather than confront the assertions of such "experts".
Moral Constraints
As second cause of disharmony lies in the situation of science with regard to values as opposed to facts.Science as it is actively expressed today embodies in itself one what may be called moral value: the search for truth. This could be called an internal restraint and is applied mainly to material gained through the chief senses, though efforts may be applied to take the scientific method into such realms as sociology and psychology, with often questionable results.
The urge towards finding the truth is an ideal and has been ignored by individual scientists because of commercial pressures and personal ambitions. The average scientist's regard for truth may be no more or less than that of the average citizen and is subject to the same self-delusions. It does, however, tend to operate within the constraints of a community that makes specialised demands on its members, which has both advantages and disadvantages. In spite of the constraints frauds have been perpetrated to enhance the reputation of scientists, or less extremely to justify a theory which the scientists already believes to be true.
Science can only advance if scientists in general hold the truth to be important. But without moral limitations imposed by some system external to science, the pursuit of truth in the limited fashion open to science may eventually lead to actions that are remote from civilised behaviour. At this stage there is no need to explore whatmay be implied by the term "civilised behaviour", but one need only to mention the problems of genetic manipulation to recognise the dilemmas which will have to be faced in modern society.
Science as it has developed has not been in a position to examine values objectively.
There are signs that science is expanding and changing in its mode of action and understanding. The rational mind looks for patterns and is engaged in pattern making. The devising of mathematical theories that fit physical facts were, to a certain extent, bound by concepts of causality; but modern theory tends towards pattern making (eightfold path, symmetry) But once we admit pattern making we see there is another activity which is deeply engaged in this and that of artistic production. We may consider that there is a relation between science and art which is only now becoming more explicit and though it has clearly been present in western society from before the Renaissance.
"In fact, science may be likened to a mirror wherein the infinite forms and images of existing things are revealed and reflected."
Abdu'l Bahá, Promulgation of Universal Peace, pg 50.
There must be a causal link between an artist's work and the states it evokes. Colours have different connotations, as do shapes and can arouse moods and feelings according to the degree of resonance between to artist and the observer; the same, of course, applies in music and literature.
In this sense the constructs of the artist, though without immediate utilitarian value, nevertheless exert practical effects and may be compared to the technological achievements of science. There is also the parallel to the aesthetic value which a scientific theory may have.
Faith
Faith was mentioned in connection with evolutionary theory.The solipsists postulated that there is no external reality; the universe existed in the mind of the observer. There is no rational way of refuting this. But one wonders whether anyone ever held the view sincerely or what the solipsists thought they were doing when they talked to each other. Generally people hold the belief that there is a world external to them and that it is inhabited among other creatures, with humans similar to themselves. This in sprte of the fact that from a scientific standpoint our relation to external reality is indirect, via electromagnetic waves, pressure waves, transformed to electrical and chemical impulses that are processed in a central office to form images.
This assumption that there is an external reality certainly involves faith; and those who belittle faith , should do well to remember it. Atheist, agnostic and religious all subscribe to it to a greater or lesser degree. The faith of a scientist goes rather beyond this when he assumes that there is not only an external reality but that it can be dealt with rationally and that there is a pattern in it that human minds can investigate and to a degree, comprehend. Though some have speculated that we impose the pattern.
Another act of faith, important in cosmology and even more difficult to defend, except as a necessary act of faith, is that the laws of Physics are the same everywhere in the Universe. Exception is made with regard to singularities - the interior of black holes.
"Just because the sun has risen every day of your life, there is no guarantee that it will rise tomorrow. The belief that it will...is an act of faith, but one that is indispensable to the progress of science."
Paul Davies, The Mind of God, pg 81
But many scientists depend upon an act of faith that is in a way even nearer to that which is conceived as animating religion. They hold a reductionist view that all processes, living and otherwise, can be reduced to the operation of ultimate particles. There is no real evidence for this but it seems necessary if one is to avoid postulating the existence of mysterious life forces; though there seems no sound reason for eliminating the idea of finer energies of which we are not yet cognisant on a scientific level.
"Science is based on the assumption that the world is rational, and that human reasoning reflects, albeit in a somewhat shaky way, an underlying order in nature. Logical consistency requires that the various laws and principles which govern the natural world must fit together consistently. It is sometimes possible, by tenaciously following a logical thread, to make discoveries about the real world without ever conducting an experiment, simply by imagining a particular physical state of affairs. In practice, it is essential to confirm such theoretical predictions experimentalld, as there are many examples in history of apparently rational thought producing absurd conclusions."
Paul Davies, About Time, pg 92
Faith, therefore, is as much implicit in Science as in religion. Though the scientist may pride himself on using reason, he often does not appreciate that his use of that reason, indeeds, its very operaton within him, depends upon faith, though, it must be made clear that this is a coarse action compared with that which we imply by the Spirit of Faith that is available to man.
One can argue, I think, that though the rational faculty is the most distinctive attribute of man, that faculty at all levels, operates only if it is sustained by some level of faith.
Some scientists have maintained a faith in an orthodox religion , and this religion has no doubt given energy to their belief that they share with other scientists that the universe is rational. Some doubt, have even let their belief in God guide them in their assessments of scientific theories. Einstein asserted his conviction that the quantum theory was only an approach to a deeper, more determinstic, reality, by saying that "God does not play dice" or his belief in a rational approach "God is subtle but not malicious". Kronecker asserted "God made the integers, all else is men's work". Sir James Jeans in the 1930's labelled God as the "Great Mathematician". These are quoted only as instances of the way in which religious views may colour science.
But though in some respects we have compared the faith of science with that of religion, this is only in that they concern basic, not deduced, belief. In religion, faith is not an abstract, it is a real power and it is that power which produces results that come from divine guidance. If that power is not present in the individual or if it is absent from a religion because it has lost contact with its Divine origin, then such results as are observed are degenerate and lead ultimately to confusion, both in the life of the individual and in the impact of that deprived religion on society.
Purpose
Paul Davies, whom I have quoted before writes, "I belong to a group of scientists who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny that the universe is a purposeless accident." (The Mind of God, Preface). And again, he writes: "Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, the minor product of mindless, purposeless forces." (The Mind of God, Conclusion). Contrast this with Gell-Mann's comment, quoted previously, on the idea that the fundamental forces of the universe were shaped so as to produce human beings: "That idea seems to me so ridiculous as to merit no further discussion." (Quark and Jaguar pg 212)Paley's watch refuses to go away. The arguments in the Blind Watchmaker carry little conviction except to those whose faith commits them to atheism or agnosticism. The pseudo life-forms (bio-morphs) produced on a computer by Professor Dawkins will appeal only to those who wish to be convinced. They suggest the counter argument that the entities are produced because of a programme supplied by an intelligence and modified by the intervention of that intelligence and indeed sustained in action by a continual input of energy. Any apparent self-evolving process - or to bring in a different theme - artificial intelligence and produced by man, carries with it the evidence that a prior intelligence, that of man, was needed to produce it.
The probability arguments for the production and development of species are all weighted in favour of some purpose at work. An ordered series of small mutations to produce a complex organ is just as unlikely as that complexity (with the need for supporting forms) being reached in one jump.
Divine Science
Having given some indication of the situation in layman's eyes of contemporary science and the changes which are apparently in progress, we can take up the more controversial theme of Divine Science. In this context Abdu'l Bahá gives Science a very high status."Science is the first emanation from God toward man. All created things embody the potentiality of material perfection, but the power of intellectual investigation and scientific acquisition is a higher virtue specialised to man alone."
Promulgation of Universal Peace, pg 49
We can now consider again the nature of that unity or harmony between science and religion.
In the outward form it is clear that the operation of science in society and in relation to the biosphere needs moral constraints; these ultimately have their source in religions.
The relation of science to the individual is more complex.
The human mind seems to need a belief system, even if it is only one that is as primitive as keeping up with the Jones's. Such a system gives a certain coherence and motivation for action, even acts of apparent mindless vandalism have a hazy structure of self-justification behind them. On a higher level that belief system may be a scientific theory or even the methodology of science. The system may be fragment or two or more systems may co-exist. They are source of prejudices as well as a guide to action.
Anything short of a religion is realy partial and inadequate and only survives by ignoring large tracts of experience. In the realm of Physics the concept of a Theory of Everything is only supportable if one holds a very strong faith that a reductionist theory makes sense even at the human level and that values of all kinds may be ignored as accidental by-products of a meaningless universe. But if the data of Physics could be reduced to one law this would do no more than express the concensus of like minds willing to accept as real something they could feel comfortable with. A far less mature effort, philosophically, than the idea of an unknowable God. There is a state in which to be content to accept the unknowable is more rational than to strive to put the universe in a nutshell.
The practical uses of science are more obvious and do not depend upon the embodiment of an ultimate truth.
"Mathematicians, astronomers, chemical scientists continually disprove and reject the conclusions of the ancients; nothing is fixed, nothing final; everything is continually changing because human reason is progressing along new roads of investigation and arriving at new conclusions every day. In the future much that is announced and accepted as true now will be rejected and disproved. And so it will continue ad infinitum."
Abdu'l Bahá, Promulgation of Universal Peace, pg 21
Abdu'l Bahá also recognises science as a very broad field.
"Through intellectual and intelligent inquiry science is the discoverer of all things... It unites present and past, reveals the history of bygone nations and events, and confers upon man today the esence of all human knowledge and attainment throughout the ages."
Promulgation of Universal Peace, pg 49
"A scientific man is a true index and representative of humanity, for through process of reasoning and research, he is informed of all that appertains to humanity, its status, conditions and happenings. He studies the human body politic, understands social problems, and weaves the web and texture of civilisation. In fact science may be likened to a mirror wherein the infinite forms and images of existing things are revealed and reflected."
Promulgation of Universal Peace, pg 50
Abdu'l Bahá is clearly holding up to us a situation to be aimed for, rather than an achievement, both for the indiviudal scientist and for the place of science in society. In the wider sense, science may refer to any intellectual investigation. Over the last hundred dyears we have seen the broadening of the scope of science to include such disciplines as psychology and the application of science to the dating and investigation of ancient documents.
The activity of science may be regarded as beyond nature . Abdu'l Bahá states that "man possesses conscious intelligence and reflection, together with volition and memory and it is this which distinguishes man from other forms of life."
It is diffficult to imagine an explanation based on natural selection for the arising in man of an immense power of abstract thinking as exemplified, say, in the higher forms of mathematics.
Obviously the rational faculty in man is exercised in science but the limited current concept of science may need to be expanded if we are to deal with the real nature of the rational faculty.
"Consider the rational faculty with which God hath endowed the essence of man. Examine thine own self, and behold how thy motion and stillness, thy will and purpose, thy sight and hearing, thy sense of smell and power of speech, and whatever else is related to, or transcendeth, thy physical senses or spiritual perceptions, all proceed from, and owe their existence to, this same faculty."
Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings LXXXIII
Scientists in general are not particularly concerned with the nature of the faculties they are employing in any particular investigation but the more abstract and general theories are indeed pushing the investigator more and more towards examining his own nature. Our ideas of what constitutes intelligence may well have to be considerably modified; some apparently unsophisticated people may have a deeper insight into man's place in the universe than dedicated specialists.
Abdu'l Bahá was not a scientist in the ordinary meaning of the word but he certainly made use of the rational mind. This is, of course, true of others; philosophers, artists, those with spiritual insights have all indicated man's situation in ways which are independent of scientific knowledge. Divine Science encompasses the applications and procedures which some like to think of as scientific but which are the result of developments and attitudes which have come about in the last two hundred years. Some also have rebelled against the materialisation of science and have rebelled against the constraints this imposes, only too often to relapse into superstitions.
There is a need for a common understanding and an application of the rational faculty to our daily lives and to operations within society.
In the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Bahá'u'lláh says "...the precepts laid down by God constitute the highest means for the maintenance of order in the world and the security of its peoples..." and Abdu'l Bahá writes, "Yet science cannot cure the illness of the body politic. Science cannot create unity and fellowship in human hearts" (Promulgation of Universal Peace, pg 171) and also: "The Sciences of today are bridges to reality; if then they lead not to reality, naught remains but fruitless illusion... If learning be not a means of access to Him, the Most Manifest, it is nothing but evident loss." (Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l Bahá, pg 11).
We are coming quite a way from the generally accepted view of science. Some may find the continually reference to authority off-putting. In fact, we all implicitly, perhaps unconsciously rely greatly upon authority. We take many results on trust and quote approvingly from others whom we regard as superior thinkers. We are to a degree the product of the times and culture into which we are born; but we can exercise choice in choosing our authorities and also in assessing our own experience. We need to be very wary if we find ourselves thinking that we have a personal pipeline to Truth.
The scientist may claim that his authority is merely objective investigation, but in practice much of his knowledge is taken on trust. Many of his views are formed not through his own clear understanding but because of his respect for their expositors or originators. In general, scientists, intent on earning a living in a way that is congenial to them follow the policy of the Vicar of Bray . This can be seen in even open-minded scientists when they refer to the results of other disciplines. The biologist will happily talk of black holes without knowing the paucity of evidence for their existence, the physicist will speak of Neo Darwinism as though he is speaking of a fact rather than a theory inadequate to even suggest explanations for a multidtude of facts. We still need to have an education where students are encouraged to think rather than accept and where the unorthodox are not summarily dismissed.
Order
Rationality is concerned in some way with pattern or order.When Shakespeare in Hamlet speaks of the playwright holding the mirror up to nature, he is, as is often the case, embodying several levels in a phrase ; but we can take it that he was well aware that his plays were in no sense naturalistic, that verse is not a naturalistic medium but was referring to a deep order in nature.
Bahá'u'lláh reveals, speaking of Socrates:
"...He it is who perceived a unique, a tempered , and pervasive nature in things, bearing the closest likeness to the human spirit, and he discovered this nature to be distinct from the substance of things in their refined form."
Tablet of Hikmat
There is an ordering force in nature which may help us toward understanding how the development of complexity in the natural world took place. Science here is beginning to break new ground.
Interpreting Experience
Interpretation of experience is an integral part of growing. From our beginnings, apart from receiving through sense expressions, which have to be related in some meaningful manner, we are educated (using the word in the broadest manner) by parents and others to interpret what we receive in particular ways. At the simplest level, we are told the names of objects, but we are encouraged in a more complex fashion to deal with feelings in ways acceptable to our section of the community, to accept some form of discipline, to relate to the environment of culture and nature.As we grow we may either demand or have imposed on us more elaborate structures. These may be habits of behaviour, moral codes, a belief in science, a religious belief. We may not always be aware that such a structure exists, but it is a necessary part of human experience, absorbed, in default of a high degree of self-awareness, from our reading and from thosewith whom we associate.
Since we are exploring the ways in which what we call science enters into our experience it is important to point out that, curiously enough, our most vivid and intimate experiences are not susceptible to the methods of and perhaps are not even the concern of, normal science. Our subjective experience of colour lies beyond the reach of measurement and equations - certain physicists are accustomed to write as though mathematical physics has got close to describing the real universe but though physical theories may be a great tour de force and may even have practical applications, the omit most of what gives purpose and meaning to our lives. Stephen Hawking has raised the question of what puts fire into the equations, but one need not be so abstract; one may ask what puts the "redness" into electromagnetic vibrations of a certain frequency. And where in the world of equations is love and hope, ambition and despair?
Modes of Thought
Thought may be close to our individuality but is not to be identified with it."I think, therefore I am" may well be better corrected to "I am, therefore I think."
At the level where we identify with our thoughts, we may find our inner experience circling round our preferred modes of experience: money, food, sex, or, more austerely, to making logical or rational connections in a way pleasing to us.
The thoughts that arise from the activity of the emotions and feelings may be engendered spontaneously from the metabolism or as a result of interaction with the environment. What thus arises comprise largely "idle thoughts and vain imaginations."
Through meditation or contemplation it is, of course, possible to experience modes of awareness that lie beyond the normal thinking level. The assessment of the value of these would be separate study.
The proper use of thought lies in aiding us to communicate with others, in enabling us to relate and, to a degree, control our environment and also, perhaps, to help us to understand by its limitations, the relation of thinking to higher states of awareness from whose standpoint what is normally called thinking is seen as an attrribute of the soul in which identity ultimately resides. Philosophy, properly used, may be a bridge to those conditions in which spiritual awareness may be cultivated.
My own experience leads me to accept the existence of certain psychic modes of perception though I hasten to add that these experiences were very limited and of no great interest. They nevertheless gave me a bench mark which enabled me to conclude that psychic and allied phenomena , many of which have been taken as a sign of "New Age" consciousness belong in fact to a past mode of consciousness. More visionary of "spiritual" experiences have, if we may speak in such relative terms, a greater content of "reality" but are not easily communicated and are largely irrelevant to man in community, though obviously of great importance to the individual.
There are powers and forces which are detectable by the instruments of the soul yet are not recognisable by a science that deals with sense perceptions and their extension thorugh material instruments. It is possible to build a world view through such materialistic data but such a structure will always be a fantasy in that it ignores many levels of human experience.
Following the positive path, that of divine science, leads to experience that is closer to reality than is encompassed by ordinary thinking and sense data. This reality is immediate, close, and compelling in the qualitative experience that accompanies it. It is rational and opens up realms that suggest further perfections while denying the stagnation of final completion. It may be that a more mature science will recognise these possibilities.
The theories of contemporary science and the entities they postulate may have dimensions of which we are not directly aware. Gravitation, the weakest of the fundamental forces, yet holding together stars and galaxies, may be a material aspect or faint reflection of universal love. The qualities of photons and their interaction with the retina lead us to experience the range of colours of the visible spectrum. But the association of these colours with certain abstract qualities - red for passion, purple for regality, blue for spirituality, green for peace, yellow for abstract thought - apparently subjective yet shared in some fashion may indicate reality on a different plane from physical science. Genes, the atomies of biology may be seen as a mere structural parts of a receiver of pattern rather than originating the pattern itself.
Such intuitions have cropped up in the history of thought and the science of the future may be broad and tolerant enough to accommodate them rather than see them as a threat to a materialistic belief.
Levels of Perception
The difficulty which people have in coming to a common view lies in differences of capacity. In one sense we create our own realities. Human though we may be, it is possible to be a human completely dominated by material,vegetable or animal forces and to see the world in terms of the energies generated by these. For the human or rational soul to be in complete charge of our perceptions and activities is spasmodic for most of us and a goal to be aimed at. ‘We are only human’, is alas, a phrase too often used to excuse attitudes or actions that are below the level of the human.Relating to this and connecting back to previous comments we may take some quotations from the Paris Talks of Abdu'l Bahá:
"The soul has two main faculties a) As outer circumstances are communicated to the soul by the eyes, ears and brain of man, so does the soul communicate its desires and purposes through the brain to the hands and tongue of the physical body... b) The second faculty of the soul expresses itself in the world of vision, where the soul inhabited by the spirit has its being, and functions without the help of the material bodily senses. There, in the realm of vision, the soul sees without the help of the physical eye..."
pg 86
"Like the animal, man possesses the faculties of the senses, is subject to heat, cold, hunger, thirst etc., unlike the animal, man has a rational soul, the human intelligence...The intelligence of man is the intermediary between the body and his spirit.When man allows the spirit, through the soul, to enlighten his understanding, then does he contain all Creation..."
pg 96
"Without the Holy Spirit, he (man) would have no intellect, he would be unable to acquire his scientific knowledge... The illumination of the Holy Spirit gives man the power of thought."
pg 59
In order to achieve a concensus of opinion, it is necessary to establish criteria independent of our own perceptions. In other words we have to accept an authority without having the ability to judge such an authority objectively.
