Science is the practice of coming to know about the world and the universe through methodologies that originated in the Socratic method. Socrates is assumed to have lived from 469–399 B.C.E., and even though he himself wrote nothing, he is considered to be one of the philosophers who forever changed the landscape of human civilisation. In essence, the Socratic method poses that in relation to any question, one may pose an initial definition or hypothesis, questions are then asked to bring up exceptions to that definition, in order to arrive at new definitions. While modern science applies rigour to how those questions are answered, through qualitative and quantitative methodologies that vary from field to field, at its core, we rely on the Socratic method in all of science to this day. If a hypothesis is falsifiable, it means one can ask systematic questions of it and refine it.
While I am atheist to the existence of a supernatural God, I definitely find healing and connection when I use physics, chemistry and psychology metaphorically and through techniques of active imagination, in order to practice transforming my own energy (anger, jealousy, pride, desire – emotions) into more useful states before I expect to see loving-kindness or wholeness in my life. This is religion in the manner Richard Dawkins likens to Einsteinian religion, and in this sense, I am religious in my practice of emotional self-care if that means that I ritualistically and routinely practice in private, what I wish to create in the world.
A key idea I want to refute at the outset of this project is that I believe in Darwinian evolution as a system of human organisation. I believe that it is each individual’s responsibility to practice the virtue they wish to experience in their lives, but I do not believe that we are at the mercy of natural selection. I certainly do not believe that because evolution has been shown through the study of the gene to be true, that we need live by means of survival of the fittest.
In fact I believe that modern medicine has exempted humanity from having to compete because we have the opportunity to create on systems that are by their very nature, unnatural. Sadly though, I think humans have chosen systems of greed rather than systems of sharing and unity, for one simple flaw – that egotism leads most to believe that their way is the one right way. In trying to be kind to those who will not really see diversity, we have come to tolerate violence and genocide by not really ever doing much about it. In this way, I am immoral. I am immoral to any singular morality, but I am moral if that means that the practice of loving-kindness, connection and compassion to those whose lived experience differs to mine. I expect the same in return, and I am not phased if I am judged by a morality other than mine.
While evolution can answer how we came to be as a species, and it can connect us to various ethnicities of humanity and the natural world – believing that a God create the universe with us in mind leads the human psychology to assume something special about itself. I am not special as a human, I am special as part of this magnificent planet and my only purpose is to be a force for kindness, connection and harmony in the world to humans of all forms of diversity and the entire kingdom of life.
Richard Dawkins’ brilliant book, The God Delusion, poses rational positions about deism and theism, supernatural religion and Einsteinian religion as a roadmap out of supernatural belief for one to enter into the world of evidence-based knowledge and relationship with scientific truth about the natural world and means of practice to be an effective part of the entire living ecology.
What I love about Richard Dawkins is that he seeks to retain the awe and wonder about the natural world in his understanding of science, but I do not believe that we need to take answers about how we got here to suggest the way forward. I argue that knowledge of objectivity does not negate that each and every one of us is sentient, and what we choose to do with that sentience is limitless.
“I relate therefore I am; so how I impact on you and how you impact on me, determines the nature and quality of our being.”~Charl Vorster (2011)
It is this mutually impactful being that we deal with. In order to know what to practice, science can help us understand the human psyche as it is and how harmonious relationships develop so that we may practice what will lead to the best results. This may sound humanist, but I would like to suggest that this not be read in terms of philosophical positioning, but rather that if one is to step back from these words: what would you like from life? What methods can help you get there? What boundaries would you need to break down in order to get there?
Science can tell us about the truth of things, but what we do about our own lives takes routine and practice. What we practice is up to us; what science says about the truth of things does not really matter, if we do not use that for the highest good. If we cannot see that the highest good for different people, differs, then we cannot see how one scientific truth will never lead to harmony. Only choosing to harmonise with diversity will ever do that.
Finally, the field of alchemy which Carl Gustav Jung consolidated into a coherent series of processes and stages of human and emotional transformation appears to suggest that the process of human becoming follows age-old patterns. It is important to note the lack of evidence to support these processes. However, the minimal scientific understanding that we have of these processes and their validity should not deter engagement with the awe-inspiring nature of the imagination correctly applied.
The apparently religious content of psychoses and that the phases of alchemical transformation are imbued with religious symbolism does not negate the potential that emotional transformation has to lead to profound growth. Is inner sight affected by imagery that we are exposed to, or does the imagery live within us? These questions are sure to evoke the same level of anxiety about our lack of ability to scientifically describe these processes and this may lead us to invoke the god of the gaps to explain something that remains unknown. I urge that while we know very little about the nature of consciousness we do not attempt to express any theoretical or theological certainty about the truth-value of religious imagery which is clearly powerful. The fact that the emotional landscape is mysterious is certain, and therefore this page is atheist to the existence of a supernatural god, but not to the power that such an image has to transform consciousness; of this, I am a gnostic.
Above: Nekyia, 1980 (https://annmccoy.com/alchemy/putrefactio/)
Comments