Adopting a “Both, And” Mindset
Finding a worldview that encompasses both science and spirituality
Finding a worldview that encompasses both science and spirituality
“The truths — those surprising, amazing, unforeseen truths — which our descendants will discover, are even now all around us, staring us in the eyes, so to speak, and yet we do not see them .”
— Charles Robert Richet, Nobel Prize laureate in physiology
I have always been enamored by the scientific method. The process of starting with inspiration, developing a testable hypothesis, conducting experiments, and eventually circling back to reformulate the hypothesis is deeply satisfying. The ultimate result, after countless successive failures, is inevitably a breakthrough in our understanding of nature. The miracle of our evolution can be attributed to this process on repeat, even if guided by indifferent random chance.
I have also, seemingly paradoxically, always been deeply religious. This is the anti-science; it is an attempt to explain the unexplainable. Rather than iteratively test hypotheses to chip away at the unknown, religion tackles the whole shebang in one fell swoop. Subjective experience alone is sufficient to concoct a theory of everything in the mind of the spiritually inclined. So I ask myself: how can these two coexist?
Science, on the one hand, is defined by niche subjects. Doctoral programs and research institutions are growing increasingly specialized, and as a result, we are collectively learning more and more about less and less. Imagine you go to the doctor for back pain. You might go to your internist first, who will send you to a physical therapist, who will send you to a neurologist, who will send you to an orthopedist, who will send you to a chiropractor, who will send you to an acupuncturist, who will send you back to your internist. Along the way, each specialist will provide their own interpretation of what the ultimate cause of your pain might be. The world of science is the world of Maslow’s Hammer, and every scientist holds their own.
“I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.” — Abraham Maslow
The world of spirituality, on the other hand, has grown more and more abstract. It makes bold claims about the meaning of life, universal ethics, life after death, and the mechanism for salvation. These claims have evolved into an aggregate of theory, tradition, and dogma, divorced from any personal experience. Religious doctrines of the West stand at odds with spiritual practices of the East, and each belief system gravitates towards the illusion that they alone are sole possessors of Truth. Abstracted from any true transformative power or present reality, religions of the world stand diametrically opposed, firmly entrenched in their duality.
“[Theology] proclaims doctrines which nobody understands, and demands a faith which nobody can manufacture.”
— Carl Jung, Psychology and Religion: West and East
We have religions that each claim to be arbitrators of the whole, yet have lost sight of the necessity for radical self-transformation. Meanwhile, we have scientists who are highly adept at seeing in part but are losing sight of the totality in which they play.
And herein lies the conflict, as I see it, between science and religion-at-large: one offers salvation in exchange for a leap of faith; the other demands that no such salvation exists.
“These two views of reality — the natural and the transcendental — are in evident and deep conflict. The mind, it seems, is transcendental in nature. Yet according to the natural sciences that transcendental realm must be materially supported and such is subject to natural law. Resolving this conflict is, and will remain, a primary intellectual challenge to our civilization for the next several centuries.”
— Heinz Pagels, The Dream of Reason: The Computer and the Rise of Sciences of Complexity
But what if this is all a false dichotomy? Neither perspective alone seems sufficient for the proper orientation of my life.
Scientific materialism, and the mechanistic worldview it necessitates, cannot possibly explain the hard problem of consciousness. It cannot provide us with peace in the face of suffering, nor can it offer purpose in the shadow of nihilism.
Religion, devoid of any personal transformation, lacks the convincing reality of subjective experience. It is too often cast aside as primitive superstition, a relic from an irrelevant era. Approached without adequate grounding, however, and vapid spiritualism or militant dogmatism become the default mode of operation.
Neither religion, nor science, seem an adequate solution alone. The necessary question, then, becomes how can I approach this with a both/and mindset. Is it possible that behind this false dichotomy lie harmonious counterparts?
If we view this paradox from the perspective of our own psyche, we might recognize the distinction between convergent and divergent thought processes. We all have a predominant mode of operation between these two generalities, and this in turn dictates our perception of reality. Those of us who trend towards convergent thinking rely on rational deduction and linear thinking. We focus on identifying the shortest distance between two points, carving out a well-defined order in all facets of life. Those of us who trend towards divergent thinking are more comfortable with a degree of chaos permeating our lives. We hold abstract creativity and intuitive feeling as necessary rather than whimsical. This is reflected in the Thinker (T) versus Feeler (F) distinction of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, and we all naturally have one which speaks louder than the other within us. Both are necessary. A society consisting of only poets would never get anything done, but a world of all engineers would be a dull world indeed.
Logic without a dream is blind; a dream without logic is impotent. Both Thinkers and Feelers have equally beautiful contributions to make in this world. Life becomes interesting when the two dance together, two sides of the same immaculate coin.
The conflict between the natural and the transcendental is nothing more than the conflict between Thinkers and Feelers on a macrocosmic scale. The two are equally necessary. What if science, behind any differentiated niche, is perpetuated by some unifying principle that transcends the materialistic presuppositions we accept with so little hesitation? What if all religious traditions are fingers pointing at the moon, holding our gaze while the moon passes overhead unappreciated?
What if we merely ask the question?
Thank you so much for reading! I treat Medium as an outlet for the musings in my skull. If you enjoy following them, all the better. You can contribute to these ideas by joining Medium as a member, where you can read all of my stories along with those from thousands of other authors. Use my link and you’re helping me at the same time.
You can also support me directly by fueling my love for coffee!
Reed Bender is typing...
I write stories about science I find interesting, yoga, philosophy, and consciousness. If you're interested in any of…www.buymeacoffee.com
“The creation of something new is not accomplished by the intellect but by the play instinct acting from inner necessity. The creative mind plays with the objects it loves.”
— Carl Jung