To begin let’s distinguish between religion — conceptual models and guidelines for behavior in a community (theology + morals + rituals) and spirituality — direct experience of reality independent of context. Experience is primary. The model, theory, or theology is secondary and approximate. Spirituality is concerned with the primary — the encounter with the essential mystery of being and the fundamental interconnectedness of all.
If we view spirituality in that light we can see how spiritual inquiry is compatible with both science and religion. Direct experience of reality and the accompanying awe, mystery, interconnectedness, etc. are shared by the scientist and the religious practitioner. It is then the language and symbolism they use to represent this experience where the two differ.
This relates to the conflict between religion and science. The core issue arises out of fundamentalism on both sides: when the religious interpret their symbols and metaphors literally and when scientists forget their models too are approximate (they are secondary to direct experience of reality which is primary). When this happens you get a dichotomy where each side is arguing over which set of symbolic representations are fundamentally true. Well, they are both symbolic representations of a direct experience; hence neither is absolutely true but both may be practically true. Scientists had this shocking realization in the mid to late 1900s in the exploration of the quantum. Einstein said “as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality”. I say practically true in that science can get us to the moon and that religion can help one find a sustainable and joyful way of living. The real integration comes when we see that scientists and contemplatives or spiritual practitioners are more similar than different.
They move towards the same ends through slightly different means. Both are concerned with seeking the truth. They essentially make empirical observations - asking questions of reality and then observing what is true and building it into an organized knowledge base. The scientist focuses on the outer dimension (measurement of objects) whilst the contemplative focuses on the inner dimension (phenomenal experience). But they arrive at the same place: consciousness is inseparable from material reality. We won’t go to into it here but famous physicists Oppenheimer, Bohr, and Heisenberg all reference parallels between Eastern mysticism and modern physics. At the time of this writing I suggest the Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra to explore this point while I will continue to expand upon it in 9C. Science and spirituality (religion) are complimentary.
So we see that both science and religion are offshoots of some direct experience (which is the domain of spirituality). They are collections of different symbols to approximate a primary experience. The scientist and contemplative — when they have the right orientation — undertake the same quest. To make careful observations of reality and draw practical conclusions about what is true and then represent it using language and symbols.
The systems view of life can help to unify these two modes of inquiry. This is particularly true if we look at ecology and emergence (two “scientific” insights).
In ecology we see that we are part of an interconnected whole - we are inseparable from the cosmos. My body is made of atoms born in the hearts of stars. Molecules that were once contained deep below the surface of the Earth, that passed through countless forms of living and nonliving entities, come together to form this self. The air I breathe was breathed by you and all that came before me. ‣ To use the Ubuntu saying — I am because you are. To reference Christianity — Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I speak are not my own, but my Father who lives in me does his work through me. Just believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me (John 14). So we can already begin to see how the essence of science (ecology) and religion point towards interconnectedness.
Taking this a step further with the science of emergence — how complex systems (living and nonliving) spontaneously manifest into higher order levels of complexity and structure (this is discussed in What is Life? in 00 RESOURCE: The Systems View of Life — Fritjof Capra). It seems there is some inherent creative principle at work in the universe. Note this need not imply something teleological (meaning there is a purpose or intellectual designer). Rather there is something inherent in the universe where order and complexity (and consciousness) emerge out of seeming emptiness and chaos. Maybe this creative principle, which is beyond all intellectual knowing, is what we call God. “At the end of all knowing we shall know God as the unknown.” — Areopagite
To conclude with commentary from Fritjof Capra — “I argue that ecology - and especially the recent philosophical school of deep ecology, is the ideal bridge between science and spirituality. When we look at the world around us, we find that we are not thrown into chaos and randomness but are part of a great order, a grand symphony of life. Every molecule in our body was once a part of previous bodies - living or nonliving - and will be a part of future bodies. In this sense, our body will not die but will live on, again and again, because life lives on. Moreover, we share not only life's molecules, but also its basic principles of organization with the rest of the living world. Indeed, we belong to the universe, and this experience of belonging can make our lives profoundly meaningful.”
For an in depth review of Capra’s work and his “systems view of life” see 00 RESOURCE: The Systems View of Life — Fritjof Capra
Monthly email with practical tools from the art and science of happiness below.