Many want to believe that the
pursuits of science and spirituality are divergent; heading in opposite
directions. However, divergence indicates that at one point the paths were
together but they branched apart; this also implies that the two are still
linked together by some point of commonality. This monoism point of view does
not represent the views that humanity has about the separate distinctness of
these two fields of thought; a rather dualism perspective. An example more fitting
toward this dichotomous view is that of parallel paths on each side of a
canyon: the individuals on each path can see one another, but there is no point
of commonality nor is there any way to transverse the expanse of the canyon
divide. However, this also brings up a paradox, are these two ideas parallel
and seeming to discuss the same things in a different way? The members on each
side do not see it that way and believe that one is right while the other is
wrong (Sharpe & Bryant, 2005); the religionists believe that creation is
the only possible answer while the scientists believe that evolution is the
only possible answer. Some attempt to build bridges to connect these two ideas
(Sharpe & Bryant, 2005). However, these individuals are under the illusion
that both are separate and distinct entities and that a bridge is merely a
connection but does not change the intrinsic, individualistic nature of either.
A better approach to bridging the
divide is to not merely build bridges but to create a point of path convergence
where the two become one by weaving together the seemingly disparate pieces;
this is what philosopher Phillip Hefner (Sharpe & Bryant, 2005) discussed.
A monism point of view suggests that there is one underlying unification or
emergence point; that the subjects are essentially the same at their core.
I believe it is human nature to
want to dissect and classify things in to distinct, definite categories; people
do not seem to like fading edges where the distinction between where one ends
and the other begins is not readily apparent. The whole argument between
creationists and evolutionists or religionists and scientists is this essence
at its apex; separate, distinct, definite, and not intertwined. I do not
believe this is a healthy state of existence; if one’s sole purpose in life is
to distinguish the self then that individual is setting the stage for a lonely
existence. In addition, I believe instance on separate and distinct fails to
look at the threads that unite or the inherent commonalities. I do not believe
in opposites because this indicates distinctness; rather I believe in polarity.
I believe that the things people often consider opposites such as (The Three
Initiates, 1908) night and day, hot and cold, good and bad, white and black,
etc. are in reality ends of a spectrum
because there is no such thing as the complete presence or lack (1908)
of any of those states of existence.
For example, is there a point at
which something is defined as hot or cold? No, the perspective is relative. To
a snowflake, 35 degrees is hot because it melts the snowflake; however, to a
flower, 35 degrees is cold because the flower has either died or is hibernating
(annual or perennial) during the time when the temperature is 35 degrees. It is
all a matter of perspective. Take good and bad as another example. To the
individual who is just learning a new skill, say knitting, a good piece of work
is what one finally completes although to the advanced knitting practitioner, a
newbie’s knitting leaves something to be desired; in other words, it is bad.
All opposites are relative and depend entirely on the point of view of the
thing making the judgment.
This relative nature and the
absence of finite and distinct points of one or the other, indicates that
opposites merely fade into one another; often there is a point of ambiguity or
ambivalence (The Three Initiates, 1908) where one is not sure where one ends
and the other begins. For this reason, I suggest that opposites are merely
points on the same spectrum. This spectrum, however, is not linear, and is, in
fact, circular; one moves from one to the other and back again. This is similar
to how a pendulum swings (1908) from one side to the other and back again. This
perspective gives a good example of how a spectrum might appear linear; as one
moves closer to one point they move away from the other, but there is always a
point of return to the opposite thing and away from the original point of
approach. Think of the earth as it rotates for an image of a circular point of
existence. As the earth rotates, it moves from daytime to nighttime and then
starts over in a never-ending cycle.
I believe that science and
religion, while often seen as opposites, are merely a spectrum; in other words,
they are polarized and one in the same. In suggesting this, I am saying that it
is possible for these two to combine in a monism point of view; for their paths
to converge once again. I believe that as one becomes more spiritual that there
is a point where the mind turns to scientific understanding; likewise, as one
moves toward the scientific part, there will come a critical point where one’s
mind turns to spiritual matters. I am not sure if the current state of affairs
will ever allow people to come to this understanding that the disparate parts
are essentially one in the same. If people like Hefner continue to espouse upon
the similarities and people wake up and realize that they cannot necessarily
ignore the very real reality of scientific discovery or spiritual experience,
then there will come a point where there is a loving “conflagration” (Sharpe
& Bryant, 2005, p. 69) or point of convergence. As long as people continue
to believe that everything is separate, distinct, and unique then there will
always be dualism.
Resources
BELIEVE (1980). Monism. Retrieved from http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txn/monism.htm.
Sharpe, K. J., & Bryant, R.
I. (2005). Has science displaced the soul? Debating love and happiness.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
The Three Initiates (1908). The
Kybalion: A study of the Hermetic Philosophy of Ancient Egypt and Greece
[Kindle edition]. Retrieved from Amazon.com.
