The Arcanities of Religion and Science

The existence of universal truisms is as hotly debated a topic as anything regarding our ways of knowing.  Yet, there could be some justification in the act of applying a universal status to our desire to find ways of knowing.  Such a seeming contradiction is only the first of many along the various paths chosen by individuals to know anything at all about life, the universe, and everything, to borrow from Douglas Adams.

Ways of knowing could be arguably divided into two rough camps of religion, including abstract philosophy, and science.  Each side has approached the singular questions posed by the existence of our observable universe and our place within it.  Owing to the methodology used by each camp, they tend to be quite disparate in their pursuit of this knowledge.  Religion requires an act of blind faith on the part of the adherent to not only the sometimes supernatural beliefs it imparts, but also in seeking to formulate reasons behind the beliefs.  Science has traditionally gone the opposite direction and dismissed the faith element in favor of provable or testable theories to accommodate observation with ideas built upon already obtained knowledge.

Yet, there exists within both sides of reasoning a level at which only a few may truly understand the intricacies of the thought process that yields any knowledge worth knowing to the adherent of the camp.  These individuals are known as mystics to religion and theorists to science.  Not surprisingly, they are also viewed as esoteric by the lay members of either method of thought for the simple fact that whatever knowledge they possess in answer to the questions being asked is only achieved through rigorous study and complete dedication to the cause.

A good example of these esoterics is the comparison between the writers of the Jewish Kabbalah and modern theoretical physicists working in what is popularly known as “M Theory”, which encompasses numerous sub-theories on superstrings and the unification between relativity and quantum mechanics.  These esoterics are different from one another in that they begin their way of knowing from dissimilar goals for their understanding.  The mystics seek to know the mysteries of a god and his interaction with the universe, including individual humans.  The theorists try to explain observations of the universe in a mathematically precise way upon which further theories may be built or a final “theory of everything” can be developed.  What’s even more important in this particular example is how remarkably similar the end results are to one another from the perspective of the uninitiated layperson.

The Jewish Kabbalah, not to be confused with the popular New Age variant advocated by certain celebrities, describes the nature of god and the universe in ways not made available in the canon of either Judaism or Christianity.  Going further than the mental image of a deity as a sentient and somewhat approachable entity with a specific doctrinal purpose for humanity, the Kabbalah describes a god through a series of diagrams and terms which account for components of the god’s nature and how the observable universe fits as a result.  In this sense, the concept of god is addressed rather than the specific purpose of the god which is, in itself, a component of the same.

M Theory, and its variants, does much the same thing with the exception of a difference in labels and expected outcome.  Mathematics describes the nature of the universe beyond the directly observable aspects of planets and stars and their interaction.  Going both smaller in scope of size and larger in scope of components, these theories postulate a universal nature beyond the abilities of our common senses to detect.

Superstring Theory, for example posits the existence of up to 26 dimensions beyond the 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time observed by the layperson.  The least number of dimensions is 10 in order to allow for the predicted behaviors of superstrings to actually exist.  So too does the Kabbalah describe 10 “sephirot” as being both the levels of creation and the nature of god.  Both the mystics and theorists postulate that vibrations (scientific term) or emanations (mystic term) from these dimensions/levels are responsible for our observable world and aspects hidden from normal detection.

The lay person’s understanding of either way of knowing, especially without the requisite backgrounds of study from both areas, requires considerable mental gymnastics in order to even approach understanding of what is being described.  Whether it is imagining a god in the abstract notion of being both intrinsically tied to the very fabric of the universe and yet apart from it or envisioning our observable nature as being comprised of impossibly small strings which, in themselves, exist in dimensions beyond our reach, the result can be the same exhausting frustration.

Thus, the “arcanities” of both religion and science provide a unique temptation to formulate some cohesive blending of the two into yet a third way of knowing.  Ostensibly, this would appear to be the long sought after reconciliation between usually opposed schools of thought, the argument being that scientists are only now discovering and using different terminology for what mystics have been saying all along.

Such a blending is further encouraged by the Kabbalah’s postulation that humans can have real interaction with the mystical elements of the universe through their own mystical natures existent outside of physical capability.  Sometimes condemned by mainstream Judaism as an occultic use of the Kabbalah’s instruction, this interaction includes the use of magical words and incantations to bring about a real effect through the very fabric of the universe.  This is laughingly dismissed by science until confronted with the mysteries of such things as “superposition”, in which something can exist in two states at once until it assumes one state over another through the act of observation.  Other “spooky” (according to Einstein) observations include quantum entanglement of particles whereby what happens to one also happens to the other through some connection the two share beyond observable detection.  There is also the tachyon, a hypothetical particle which travels faster than light and thus also backwards through time.

All of these similarly hard to grasp concepts have their own explanations and solutions within the larger framework of the respective school of thought.  Yet, those schools of thought are still only in the realm of the serious and studious seeker of that knowledge.  Just as the Sephiroth can be described in a rudimentary, if partially understandable way to the layperson, so too can superstrings be illustrated in plain language to provide at least a glimpse of understanding.  However, the more arcane aspects of both still reside with an inner circle of individuals who have dedicated their lives to full understanding.

It could be surmised that Kabbalah adherents would be eager for science to provide the real backing and confirmation of Kabbalic mysteries even as scientists are not inclined to have their theories co-opted for the purpose of mystic belief propagation.  Thus, the aforementioned temptation to blend mystic and theorist elements into some amalgamated belief system poses a greater danger to real scientific understanding than it does to the furtherance of mystical thought.  From the layperson’s perspective, therefore, a unique burden is placed on science and its theorists to more clearly elucidate the arcane aspects of their work so as to remove an almost magical quality seen by those with less inclination to dedicate a hefty chunk of their lives to its full understanding.

This is especially true and pertinent in an age and society where influential Hollywood actors pass off pseudoscience and hocus-pocus as having real scientific backing to their waiting and adoring public.  The Carl Sagans, Michael Shermers, and Brian Greenes of the scientific community must find a way to staunch the incursion of mystical thought into the logical methology of science by working to remove the arcanity of its frontiers which began with Einstein’s generation of popular scientists.  The consequence of failure is the bastardization of science and religion foisted upon a society which more readily recognizes the names of Sylvia Browne and John Edward than it does Max Planck or Niels Bohr.