PureEvil760
07-11-2007, 05:29 AM
Written by Kim Michaels.
Let us first consider whether you should care that there is a state of war between science and religion? If you are the type of person who wants someone else to tell you what to believe about life, then you probably shouldn??t care. You will align yourself with a professed religion or the unprofessed religion of scientific materialism and accept its image of reality. Yet if you are the type of person who likes to think for yourself and find your own answers, then there are several reasons to care about the split between science and religion.
The conflict between science and religion can make it more difficult for us to find personal answers to life??s deeper questions. The opposing and seemingly mutually exclusive claims made by both sides can confuse just about anyone, and we easily end up feeling like Pontius Pilate felt when he asked Jesus, ??What is truth?? By resolving the conflict, we might move out of this impasse and find a new and more constructive approach to finding answers.
Consider how many resources are currently tied up in defending existing beliefs and theories. On a personal level, many people spend enormous amounts of energy and attention defending what they have accepted as the ultimate truth. On a larger scale, many of the greatest minds are engaged in a seemingly never-ending battle to defend religious or scientific doctrines. What if we took a different approach? What if we assumed that none of our current doctrines, be they in the field of science or in the field of religion, can give us a complete understanding of life? Instead of defending current ideas, we might focus our attention on reaching for a higher understanding of life, an understanding that might resolve the conflict by showing us that there is more between heaven and earth than is spoken of in our (current) philosophy?
Imagine how each of us could make personal progress by taking this approach. Imagine how much collective brainpower could be freed up and put to better use. Who can tell what startling new discoveries might result. After all, any progress in both science and religion has come about only because someone had the courage to look beyond existing beliefs.
There is a growing body of scientific evidence which indicates that some past civilizations were, in many ways, more advanced than our own. This is interesting, because almost every religion contains the idea that humankind, sometime in the past, were in a higher estate and then fell or descended into our current low estate. Is it possible that this fall was really a fall into a lower state of consciousness, a state of mind in which we have forgotten who we are and where we came from? Is it possible that some past civilizations had uncovered at least part of this knowledge and used it to advance beyond our current level?
It seems that ours is the first known civilization to develop a split between science and religion. Past societies seem to have viewed science and religion as two sides of the same coin, as two way to increase our understanding of life. Is it possible that our civilization cannot achieve its full potential as long as the war between science and religion continues? Might this war make it more difficult for us to rediscover who we are?
Consider the eternal question of how to draw the line between what we can do and what we should do. In all past civilizations, religion provided a moral compass, so what happens in a civilization where science no longer accepts any moral restraints? How do we draw the line between what is technologically possible and what would be self-destructive?
Should we create a virus that can kill all life on earth? Should we build a bomb that can blow up the entire planet? Should we mix human and animal genes? Should we conduct research on live fetuses? How can we resolve such questions when so many scientists refuse to accept the existence of anything beyond the material universe, the existence of a mind beyond the human mind?
The central premise of religion is that a higher authority has defined certain laws, and if we violate those laws, we will bring about our own destruction. If such laws do exist, as all past civilizations recognized, then they will not go away because science no longer acknowledges them. The earth was still round when everyone believed it was flat. Instead, we will be left to discover these laws through trial and error. Given the power of technology, that could lead to some very costly mistakes.
Why did the war start?
How might we begin to resolve the conflict between science and religion? Perhaps we should find out why it started.
Many scientists think the Catholic Church started the war by persecuting the early scientists. They also think this proves the weakness of religion, which clings to superstitious doctrines, and proves the superiority of science, which supposedly accepts only what is experimentally proven. Yet this viewpoint might not give us a complete picture.
It is undeniable that many religious people have become fanatical. Yet does that prove an inherent flaw in religion, or does it prove an inherent flaw in the human psyche? Were the medieval Catholics religious fanatics, or were they simply human fanatics? In other words, might there be a psychological mechanism that causes us to cling to existing beliefs and close our minds to any evidence that contradicts our chosen beliefs?
An unbiased look at history quickly reveals that religion is not the only factor that causes people to close their minds. Numerous examples, Nazism and communism being obvious ones, show that political ideologies can cause people to suppress evidence that contradicts their chosen beliefs. Even science itself doesn??t seem immune to this tendency.
For example, in the early 1990s two well-educated scientists, John Anthony West and Robert Schoch, took a look at the Sphinx and discovered evidence to suggest that it might be older than accepted theories claim. They were attacked by ??orthodox? scientist who seemed unwilling to consider evidence that contradicted their existing theory. If science was immune to the human tendency to close our minds, then why the uproar? Why not simply look at these findings as neutral evidence? If, after unbiased examination, the evidence was found to be plausible, why not simply adjust scientific theories accordingly?
In other words, why do some scientists seem to have an emotional attachment to current theories, an attachment that prompts them to ignore or suppress contradicting evidence? And why do these scientists claim that certain scientific theories are infallible? If science really is an endeavor that seeks to give us a better understanding of reality, then why not see current theories as stepping stones towards even better theories? Why would a true scientist feel threatened if the pyramids were older than currently expected or if Darwin??s theory was proven incorrect?
The obvious conclusion is that we humans are psychological beings. No human endeavor, science included, is exempt from being influenced by our psychological drives. So what is the mechanism that causes us to become so emotionally attached to existing beliefs? Why do some people seek to define truth instead of seeking to find it?
Consider the question posed by Pilate, ??What is truth?? It seems clear that this question was asked by a person who doubted that there was such a thing as truth. Given the myriad of conflicting ideas created by human beings, that is an understandable dilemma. Is it possible that we have lost our ability to recognize absolute truth? Might we have fallen into a lower state of consciousness that prevents us from seeing truth and instead traps us in a world where everything seems relative? Does the relativity of this state of mind make us prone to define a relative truth within our own minds instead of attempting to find an absolute truth by connecting to a higher mind?
Could our descent into a lower state of consciousness have given us a deep sense of insecurity that makes us feel like we have no foundation for dealing with an ever-changing world? It would seem that some people attempt to deal with this insecurity by defining an absolute image of truth, and thus they become emotionally attached to this idol. Others seek to resolve the insecurity by reestablishing contact with the source of truth, and they are able to keep an open mind.
Consider the response Jesus gave to Pilate, ??I am the way, the truth and the life.? Is it possible that Jesus was not referring to himself as a person, but that he had attained a higher state of consciousness and thereby become one with truth? Is it possible that all true spiritual visionaries came to demonstrate that there is a way out of this lower state of consciousness? Is it possible that the real drive behind both science and religion is an inner longing, a kind of soul memory, driving us to find an absolute truth beyond the relative truth that we have defined?
Tool time
Most people realize that science springs from our desire to know. Science emerged at a time when orthodox religion had become a mind control machine based on superstitious, man-made doctrines. Therefore, science can be seen as a tool for overcoming human superstition. Yet what if this superstition is not produced by religion, but rather by the lower state of consciousness? Science then becomes a tool for reaching beyond the relativity of this state of consciousness to discover a truth that is not affected by human beliefs.
Unfortunately, we are now seeing evidence that science itself is becoming a machine for mind control. So perhaps it is time to recognize that no tool is foolproof. It is not the tool itself that takes us out of superstition, but our willingness to look beyond existing beliefs rather than seeking to confirm those beliefs.
So it seems that the key to mending the conflict between science and religion is to recognize that both are tools. If used correctly, each tool can help us find a truth that is not affected by human beliefs, the relative, superstitious beliefs that spring from the lower state of consciousness. If used incorrectly, both can become traps that bind us to our existing beliefs and cause us to close our minds to a higher understanding.
The key to using both tools correctly is to recognize that we must base our understanding on experiential, verifiable evidence rather than anecdotal evidence, theories or doctrines. If one scientist conducts an experiment and achieves a certain result, it cannot be considered proof. The key to the acceptance of scientific evidence is that other scientists must be able to repeat the experiment and get the same result. Some people think the process of verifiable experimentation is unique to science and that it makes science superior to religion. However, what if verifiable experiential evidence is at the heart of all true religion?
Most religions started because one person achieved a direct experience of a level of reality that is beyond the material universe. This experience was achieved because the person reached beyond the lower mind and made contact with a higher mind. The person had direct, experiential evidence that there is something beyond the lower state of consciousness. The person then defined a system which, in its original form, was designed to help other people achieve the same experience. In other words, all spiritual visionaries came to show us a systematic way to reach beyond the relativity of our present state of consciousness and experience a truth that is not affected by the human mind.
The Buddha came to bring everyone into a state of enlightenment, where we realize that everything is the Buddha nature and that the sense of separation from our source is merely Maya, or illusion. Behind all the orthodox doctrines, the Christ came to show us that we too can achieve a higher state of consciousness. The key is to ??let that mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,? as Paul put it. In reality, all true religions started as a systematic, might one say scientific, process for giving people direct experience of a higher truth. It is true that most religions have moved away from this original goal by falling into the trap of creating man-made images to obscure the original purpose. Yet, once again, is that a flaw in religion or in human psychology?
This line of reasoning leads to an obvious question. If all religions are based on visions of a spiritual world beyond the material world, how come religions are so different, even contradictory? There are several possible answers.
The theory of relativity states that everything is energy. Energy is often described as a form of vibration. Therefore, the spiritual realm might simply be energy of a higher vibration than the energy found in the material universe. As we see on the tonal scale, there might be different levels, or octaves, in the spiritual realm. The human mind seems to function as a radio receiver, and by turning the dial of consciousness, we can tune the mind to levels of vibration beyond the material world. If different people tune their consciousness to different levels of the non-material world, then that might explain the difference in spiritual visions.
Another factor is the discoveries of quantum physics, which clearly state that whenever we make an observation, the observation itself is influenced by the consciousness of the observer. In other words, even when we have a spiritual vision, we might see through a glass darkly.
This points us to another fundamental question, namely the purpose of spiritual and scientific knowledge.
The role of consciousness
Before we consider that question, let us look at one of the main blocks to a unification of science and religion, namely the fact that many scientist claim that spiritual and mystical experiences are affected or even produced by the person??s mind, whereas scientific experiments are unaffected by the consciousness of the scientist. We have already mentioned that the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics have undermined the validity of this claim. Unfortunately most of the people who understand these advanced fields of science are scientists and not philosophers. Therefore, remarkably few scientists have been willing to look at the philosophical consequences of modern physics.
However, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to see the implications. The theory of relativity states that any observation is influenced by our frame of reference. Unless we know this influence, we cannot know if our observations are accurate. Quantum physics states that any observation is a product of the entire measurement situation and that the consciousness of the observer is an integral and inseparable part of this situation.
The logical consequence is that our consciousness is a part of our frame of reference. Therefore, a science which ignores consciousness, and clings to the claim that scientific observations are not affected by consciousness, can never produce ultimate observations of reality. Over the past few decades, numerous scientist have spent countless hours and millions or research dollars in an attempt to formulate a theory of everything (TOE). Yet most of these scientists still ignore consciousness. Given the findings of physics, how could we possibly construct a TOE without incorporating consciousness? And once we begin to consider how consciousness influences scientific observations and the theories based on those observations, we will inevitably blur the distinction between science and religion, or rather between science and experiential religion/mysticism.
Take a common-sense example. When a scientist observes a distant galaxy through a telescope, the instrument is not showing an image of a galaxy. The telescope is simply passing on light rays that are arranged in a certain pattern. It is the scientist who imposes an image on the light rays, calls it a galaxy and attaches a particular interpretation to the word ??galaxy.? The image and the interpretation is produced in the mind of the scientist, as is the world view that makes the concept of a galaxy useful.
This does not mean that scientific observations and theories are useless or invalid. It simply means that when scientists make the claim that scientific theories give us an absolute or infallible view of reality, they have overlooked or failed to understand a basic fact of life, namely that the description of a thing is not the same as the thing itself. Therefore, scientists have moved into the same state of consciousness that causes so many religions people to declare that a particular doctrine gives a complete and infallible view of God.
This brings us back to the purpose of religious and scientific knowledge. When you are trapped in the relativity of the lower consciousness, you tend to think that a specific theory or doctrine gives an ultimate view of reality. It is accurate, complete and therefore unchangeable. Furthermore it is the only correct way to describe the phenomenon, and thus all diverging theories must be false. This state of consciousness can never produce anything but conflict.
When you begin to rise above this lower state of mind, you realize that the purpose of knowledge is not, and never has been, to give us an absolute description of reality. Instead, both scientific and spiritual knowledge is adapted to our current state of consciousness. The purpose of new knowledge is to give us an understanding that is a little bit beyond our present understanding, but not so much beyond that we fail to grasp or accept it.
This presents us with a new view of human history. We might say that we are engaged in an ongoing process of raising our consciousness, including, but not limited to, expanding our understanding of the world around us. At times, we define a certain world view as absolute, and then our progress as a race slows down or temporarily comes to a halt. At other times, we break free of these shackles and take a giant leap forward. What if we, instead of seeking for the ultimate theory, recognized the process itself? Perhaps we will never achieve an ultimate understanding of reality? Perhaps the purpose of science and religion is not to find the ultimate theory, but to fully embrace the process and thereby find ourselves.
Where does knowledge come from?
Let us end by considering where knowledge comes from? We have two basic options. It can come from our own minds, and if so it must inevitably be a product of and limited by our current understanding. Or it can come from a source that is above and beyond our lower minds, which opens up the possibility that there is a source of higher truth.
As already mentioned, the theory of relativity points to a multi-layered universe in which the material world is simply one pocket in a larger continuum of vibrations. Einstein talked about the space-time continuum, but perhaps there is also a matter-spirit continuum. This opens the possibility that true knowledge exists in a higher realm, a higher level of vibration. By reaching beyond the lower state of consciousness, we can tune our minds to this higher realm and receive valid insights. In fact, Einstein and many other scientists have acknowledged receiving some of their greatest insights in the form of inner visions or intuitive flashes. Obviously, many spiritual visionaries receive knowledge in a similar fashion.
We might imagine that this higher knowledge exists in a sort of cosmic data bank. Or we might imagine that the spiritual realm is inhabited by intelligent beings that are not limited by a physical body and brain. These spiritual teachers could then be working with us in an attempt to raise our consciousness. Whenever a person raises his or her consciousness beyond duality, a spiritual teacher might give that person a specific insight. Once again, the purpose is not to give an ultimate understanding. The insight might be carefully adapted to the recipient??s current level of awareness.
This opens the possibility that knowledge is a form of communication between ourselves and a higher form of intelligence. This communication will, by necessity, be limited by our current knowledge and beliefs and by our willingness to look beyond our existing world view.
We might consider that we human beings are engaged in a process whereby we ask questions, and a higher form of intelligence gives us answers. The interesting point here is that the questions we ask have a fundamental impact on the type of answers we are able to receive. It is a simple fact that in order to formulate an intelligent question, you must have some knowledge about the topic. The caveman did not have enough knowledge to formulate intelligent questions about thunder and was doomed to live in fear of this phenomenon. As we have increased our knowledge, we have been able to formulate questions that gave us a rational understanding of thunder. As a result, we have lost our fear of this phenomenon; we have lost our fear of the unknown.
This brings us to the conclusion that if we truly want to know reality, we must continually strive to increase our ability to ask intelligent questions. The foundation for getting better answers is to ask better questions. Therefore, we cannot allow anything to impede our ability to formulate questions and our willingness to ask those questions.
Anything that prevents us from asking better questions is stopping our progress. In today??s world, few things impede our ability and willingness to ask questions more than the war between science and religion. Do we continue to allow man-made doctrines to define our image of reality, or do we look beyond all man-made images and reach for a higher truth?
Who might bridge the gap between science and religion? Only those who refuse to be limited by existing doctrines and keep their minds open to a higher understanding. Only those who take a mystical approach to life. Therefore, if we are to unify science and religion, it must begin with the mystics. We will only see change when the scientific mystics and the spiritual mystics realize that they are following complimentary paths towards the same goal, the goal of experiencing reality instead of defining reality. Imagine what creative powers could be unleashed if the mystics started working together?
Let us first consider whether you should care that there is a state of war between science and religion? If you are the type of person who wants someone else to tell you what to believe about life, then you probably shouldn??t care. You will align yourself with a professed religion or the unprofessed religion of scientific materialism and accept its image of reality. Yet if you are the type of person who likes to think for yourself and find your own answers, then there are several reasons to care about the split between science and religion.
The conflict between science and religion can make it more difficult for us to find personal answers to life??s deeper questions. The opposing and seemingly mutually exclusive claims made by both sides can confuse just about anyone, and we easily end up feeling like Pontius Pilate felt when he asked Jesus, ??What is truth?? By resolving the conflict, we might move out of this impasse and find a new and more constructive approach to finding answers.
Consider how many resources are currently tied up in defending existing beliefs and theories. On a personal level, many people spend enormous amounts of energy and attention defending what they have accepted as the ultimate truth. On a larger scale, many of the greatest minds are engaged in a seemingly never-ending battle to defend religious or scientific doctrines. What if we took a different approach? What if we assumed that none of our current doctrines, be they in the field of science or in the field of religion, can give us a complete understanding of life? Instead of defending current ideas, we might focus our attention on reaching for a higher understanding of life, an understanding that might resolve the conflict by showing us that there is more between heaven and earth than is spoken of in our (current) philosophy?
Imagine how each of us could make personal progress by taking this approach. Imagine how much collective brainpower could be freed up and put to better use. Who can tell what startling new discoveries might result. After all, any progress in both science and religion has come about only because someone had the courage to look beyond existing beliefs.
There is a growing body of scientific evidence which indicates that some past civilizations were, in many ways, more advanced than our own. This is interesting, because almost every religion contains the idea that humankind, sometime in the past, were in a higher estate and then fell or descended into our current low estate. Is it possible that this fall was really a fall into a lower state of consciousness, a state of mind in which we have forgotten who we are and where we came from? Is it possible that some past civilizations had uncovered at least part of this knowledge and used it to advance beyond our current level?
It seems that ours is the first known civilization to develop a split between science and religion. Past societies seem to have viewed science and religion as two sides of the same coin, as two way to increase our understanding of life. Is it possible that our civilization cannot achieve its full potential as long as the war between science and religion continues? Might this war make it more difficult for us to rediscover who we are?
Consider the eternal question of how to draw the line between what we can do and what we should do. In all past civilizations, religion provided a moral compass, so what happens in a civilization where science no longer accepts any moral restraints? How do we draw the line between what is technologically possible and what would be self-destructive?
Should we create a virus that can kill all life on earth? Should we build a bomb that can blow up the entire planet? Should we mix human and animal genes? Should we conduct research on live fetuses? How can we resolve such questions when so many scientists refuse to accept the existence of anything beyond the material universe, the existence of a mind beyond the human mind?
The central premise of religion is that a higher authority has defined certain laws, and if we violate those laws, we will bring about our own destruction. If such laws do exist, as all past civilizations recognized, then they will not go away because science no longer acknowledges them. The earth was still round when everyone believed it was flat. Instead, we will be left to discover these laws through trial and error. Given the power of technology, that could lead to some very costly mistakes.
Why did the war start?
How might we begin to resolve the conflict between science and religion? Perhaps we should find out why it started.
Many scientists think the Catholic Church started the war by persecuting the early scientists. They also think this proves the weakness of religion, which clings to superstitious doctrines, and proves the superiority of science, which supposedly accepts only what is experimentally proven. Yet this viewpoint might not give us a complete picture.
It is undeniable that many religious people have become fanatical. Yet does that prove an inherent flaw in religion, or does it prove an inherent flaw in the human psyche? Were the medieval Catholics religious fanatics, or were they simply human fanatics? In other words, might there be a psychological mechanism that causes us to cling to existing beliefs and close our minds to any evidence that contradicts our chosen beliefs?
An unbiased look at history quickly reveals that religion is not the only factor that causes people to close their minds. Numerous examples, Nazism and communism being obvious ones, show that political ideologies can cause people to suppress evidence that contradicts their chosen beliefs. Even science itself doesn??t seem immune to this tendency.
For example, in the early 1990s two well-educated scientists, John Anthony West and Robert Schoch, took a look at the Sphinx and discovered evidence to suggest that it might be older than accepted theories claim. They were attacked by ??orthodox? scientist who seemed unwilling to consider evidence that contradicted their existing theory. If science was immune to the human tendency to close our minds, then why the uproar? Why not simply look at these findings as neutral evidence? If, after unbiased examination, the evidence was found to be plausible, why not simply adjust scientific theories accordingly?
In other words, why do some scientists seem to have an emotional attachment to current theories, an attachment that prompts them to ignore or suppress contradicting evidence? And why do these scientists claim that certain scientific theories are infallible? If science really is an endeavor that seeks to give us a better understanding of reality, then why not see current theories as stepping stones towards even better theories? Why would a true scientist feel threatened if the pyramids were older than currently expected or if Darwin??s theory was proven incorrect?
The obvious conclusion is that we humans are psychological beings. No human endeavor, science included, is exempt from being influenced by our psychological drives. So what is the mechanism that causes us to become so emotionally attached to existing beliefs? Why do some people seek to define truth instead of seeking to find it?
Consider the question posed by Pilate, ??What is truth?? It seems clear that this question was asked by a person who doubted that there was such a thing as truth. Given the myriad of conflicting ideas created by human beings, that is an understandable dilemma. Is it possible that we have lost our ability to recognize absolute truth? Might we have fallen into a lower state of consciousness that prevents us from seeing truth and instead traps us in a world where everything seems relative? Does the relativity of this state of mind make us prone to define a relative truth within our own minds instead of attempting to find an absolute truth by connecting to a higher mind?
Could our descent into a lower state of consciousness have given us a deep sense of insecurity that makes us feel like we have no foundation for dealing with an ever-changing world? It would seem that some people attempt to deal with this insecurity by defining an absolute image of truth, and thus they become emotionally attached to this idol. Others seek to resolve the insecurity by reestablishing contact with the source of truth, and they are able to keep an open mind.
Consider the response Jesus gave to Pilate, ??I am the way, the truth and the life.? Is it possible that Jesus was not referring to himself as a person, but that he had attained a higher state of consciousness and thereby become one with truth? Is it possible that all true spiritual visionaries came to demonstrate that there is a way out of this lower state of consciousness? Is it possible that the real drive behind both science and religion is an inner longing, a kind of soul memory, driving us to find an absolute truth beyond the relative truth that we have defined?
Tool time
Most people realize that science springs from our desire to know. Science emerged at a time when orthodox religion had become a mind control machine based on superstitious, man-made doctrines. Therefore, science can be seen as a tool for overcoming human superstition. Yet what if this superstition is not produced by religion, but rather by the lower state of consciousness? Science then becomes a tool for reaching beyond the relativity of this state of consciousness to discover a truth that is not affected by human beliefs.
Unfortunately, we are now seeing evidence that science itself is becoming a machine for mind control. So perhaps it is time to recognize that no tool is foolproof. It is not the tool itself that takes us out of superstition, but our willingness to look beyond existing beliefs rather than seeking to confirm those beliefs.
So it seems that the key to mending the conflict between science and religion is to recognize that both are tools. If used correctly, each tool can help us find a truth that is not affected by human beliefs, the relative, superstitious beliefs that spring from the lower state of consciousness. If used incorrectly, both can become traps that bind us to our existing beliefs and cause us to close our minds to a higher understanding.
The key to using both tools correctly is to recognize that we must base our understanding on experiential, verifiable evidence rather than anecdotal evidence, theories or doctrines. If one scientist conducts an experiment and achieves a certain result, it cannot be considered proof. The key to the acceptance of scientific evidence is that other scientists must be able to repeat the experiment and get the same result. Some people think the process of verifiable experimentation is unique to science and that it makes science superior to religion. However, what if verifiable experiential evidence is at the heart of all true religion?
Most religions started because one person achieved a direct experience of a level of reality that is beyond the material universe. This experience was achieved because the person reached beyond the lower mind and made contact with a higher mind. The person had direct, experiential evidence that there is something beyond the lower state of consciousness. The person then defined a system which, in its original form, was designed to help other people achieve the same experience. In other words, all spiritual visionaries came to show us a systematic way to reach beyond the relativity of our present state of consciousness and experience a truth that is not affected by the human mind.
The Buddha came to bring everyone into a state of enlightenment, where we realize that everything is the Buddha nature and that the sense of separation from our source is merely Maya, or illusion. Behind all the orthodox doctrines, the Christ came to show us that we too can achieve a higher state of consciousness. The key is to ??let that mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,? as Paul put it. In reality, all true religions started as a systematic, might one say scientific, process for giving people direct experience of a higher truth. It is true that most religions have moved away from this original goal by falling into the trap of creating man-made images to obscure the original purpose. Yet, once again, is that a flaw in religion or in human psychology?
This line of reasoning leads to an obvious question. If all religions are based on visions of a spiritual world beyond the material world, how come religions are so different, even contradictory? There are several possible answers.
The theory of relativity states that everything is energy. Energy is often described as a form of vibration. Therefore, the spiritual realm might simply be energy of a higher vibration than the energy found in the material universe. As we see on the tonal scale, there might be different levels, or octaves, in the spiritual realm. The human mind seems to function as a radio receiver, and by turning the dial of consciousness, we can tune the mind to levels of vibration beyond the material world. If different people tune their consciousness to different levels of the non-material world, then that might explain the difference in spiritual visions.
Another factor is the discoveries of quantum physics, which clearly state that whenever we make an observation, the observation itself is influenced by the consciousness of the observer. In other words, even when we have a spiritual vision, we might see through a glass darkly.
This points us to another fundamental question, namely the purpose of spiritual and scientific knowledge.
The role of consciousness
Before we consider that question, let us look at one of the main blocks to a unification of science and religion, namely the fact that many scientist claim that spiritual and mystical experiences are affected or even produced by the person??s mind, whereas scientific experiments are unaffected by the consciousness of the scientist. We have already mentioned that the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics have undermined the validity of this claim. Unfortunately most of the people who understand these advanced fields of science are scientists and not philosophers. Therefore, remarkably few scientists have been willing to look at the philosophical consequences of modern physics.
However, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to see the implications. The theory of relativity states that any observation is influenced by our frame of reference. Unless we know this influence, we cannot know if our observations are accurate. Quantum physics states that any observation is a product of the entire measurement situation and that the consciousness of the observer is an integral and inseparable part of this situation.
The logical consequence is that our consciousness is a part of our frame of reference. Therefore, a science which ignores consciousness, and clings to the claim that scientific observations are not affected by consciousness, can never produce ultimate observations of reality. Over the past few decades, numerous scientist have spent countless hours and millions or research dollars in an attempt to formulate a theory of everything (TOE). Yet most of these scientists still ignore consciousness. Given the findings of physics, how could we possibly construct a TOE without incorporating consciousness? And once we begin to consider how consciousness influences scientific observations and the theories based on those observations, we will inevitably blur the distinction between science and religion, or rather between science and experiential religion/mysticism.
Take a common-sense example. When a scientist observes a distant galaxy through a telescope, the instrument is not showing an image of a galaxy. The telescope is simply passing on light rays that are arranged in a certain pattern. It is the scientist who imposes an image on the light rays, calls it a galaxy and attaches a particular interpretation to the word ??galaxy.? The image and the interpretation is produced in the mind of the scientist, as is the world view that makes the concept of a galaxy useful.
This does not mean that scientific observations and theories are useless or invalid. It simply means that when scientists make the claim that scientific theories give us an absolute or infallible view of reality, they have overlooked or failed to understand a basic fact of life, namely that the description of a thing is not the same as the thing itself. Therefore, scientists have moved into the same state of consciousness that causes so many religions people to declare that a particular doctrine gives a complete and infallible view of God.
This brings us back to the purpose of religious and scientific knowledge. When you are trapped in the relativity of the lower consciousness, you tend to think that a specific theory or doctrine gives an ultimate view of reality. It is accurate, complete and therefore unchangeable. Furthermore it is the only correct way to describe the phenomenon, and thus all diverging theories must be false. This state of consciousness can never produce anything but conflict.
When you begin to rise above this lower state of mind, you realize that the purpose of knowledge is not, and never has been, to give us an absolute description of reality. Instead, both scientific and spiritual knowledge is adapted to our current state of consciousness. The purpose of new knowledge is to give us an understanding that is a little bit beyond our present understanding, but not so much beyond that we fail to grasp or accept it.
This presents us with a new view of human history. We might say that we are engaged in an ongoing process of raising our consciousness, including, but not limited to, expanding our understanding of the world around us. At times, we define a certain world view as absolute, and then our progress as a race slows down or temporarily comes to a halt. At other times, we break free of these shackles and take a giant leap forward. What if we, instead of seeking for the ultimate theory, recognized the process itself? Perhaps we will never achieve an ultimate understanding of reality? Perhaps the purpose of science and religion is not to find the ultimate theory, but to fully embrace the process and thereby find ourselves.
Where does knowledge come from?
Let us end by considering where knowledge comes from? We have two basic options. It can come from our own minds, and if so it must inevitably be a product of and limited by our current understanding. Or it can come from a source that is above and beyond our lower minds, which opens up the possibility that there is a source of higher truth.
As already mentioned, the theory of relativity points to a multi-layered universe in which the material world is simply one pocket in a larger continuum of vibrations. Einstein talked about the space-time continuum, but perhaps there is also a matter-spirit continuum. This opens the possibility that true knowledge exists in a higher realm, a higher level of vibration. By reaching beyond the lower state of consciousness, we can tune our minds to this higher realm and receive valid insights. In fact, Einstein and many other scientists have acknowledged receiving some of their greatest insights in the form of inner visions or intuitive flashes. Obviously, many spiritual visionaries receive knowledge in a similar fashion.
We might imagine that this higher knowledge exists in a sort of cosmic data bank. Or we might imagine that the spiritual realm is inhabited by intelligent beings that are not limited by a physical body and brain. These spiritual teachers could then be working with us in an attempt to raise our consciousness. Whenever a person raises his or her consciousness beyond duality, a spiritual teacher might give that person a specific insight. Once again, the purpose is not to give an ultimate understanding. The insight might be carefully adapted to the recipient??s current level of awareness.
This opens the possibility that knowledge is a form of communication between ourselves and a higher form of intelligence. This communication will, by necessity, be limited by our current knowledge and beliefs and by our willingness to look beyond our existing world view.
We might consider that we human beings are engaged in a process whereby we ask questions, and a higher form of intelligence gives us answers. The interesting point here is that the questions we ask have a fundamental impact on the type of answers we are able to receive. It is a simple fact that in order to formulate an intelligent question, you must have some knowledge about the topic. The caveman did not have enough knowledge to formulate intelligent questions about thunder and was doomed to live in fear of this phenomenon. As we have increased our knowledge, we have been able to formulate questions that gave us a rational understanding of thunder. As a result, we have lost our fear of this phenomenon; we have lost our fear of the unknown.
This brings us to the conclusion that if we truly want to know reality, we must continually strive to increase our ability to ask intelligent questions. The foundation for getting better answers is to ask better questions. Therefore, we cannot allow anything to impede our ability to formulate questions and our willingness to ask those questions.
Anything that prevents us from asking better questions is stopping our progress. In today??s world, few things impede our ability and willingness to ask questions more than the war between science and religion. Do we continue to allow man-made doctrines to define our image of reality, or do we look beyond all man-made images and reach for a higher truth?
Who might bridge the gap between science and religion? Only those who refuse to be limited by existing doctrines and keep their minds open to a higher understanding. Only those who take a mystical approach to life. Therefore, if we are to unify science and religion, it must begin with the mystics. We will only see change when the scientific mystics and the spiritual mystics realize that they are following complimentary paths towards the same goal, the goal of experiencing reality instead of defining reality. Imagine what creative powers could be unleashed if the mystics started working together?