Dialogue ~ 15

It is a given that differing perspectives will bring about differing emotional states, inclinations and actions. Death for instance, is accepted in some cultures as simply another phase of life and may be welcomed, whilst others perceive it as an unnecessary nuisance, to be stalled for as long as possible and even eradicated. In earlier times, going to war and fighting for something greater than oneself (usually territory, influence or ideology) was seen as valiant and heroic, whilst in more recent times, such actions can be viewed with scepticism and contempt. Myths too, have been interpreted in vastly different ways according to their audience. 

In his book, ‘A Brief History of Time’, the physicist Stephen Hawking says, “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

 

Stephen also says, “However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we would know the mind of God.”

It appears that Stephen was often asked to explain his views with regard to faith and a creator God. In an interview which took place some four years prior to his death, Stephen said, “Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by “we would know the mind of God” is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.” In another interview, he clarified that he hadn’t been referring to a creator in the traditional sense, but with more of an impersonal view that has to do with the laws of physics. In ‘The Grand Design’ he wrote, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” 

It is interesting to consider whether, as Stephen suggests, the discovery of a ‘theory of everything’ would be enough to bring all people together, in such a way as allows for individuals from all manner of backgrounds, cultures and of knowledge to talk about why they and the universe exist. It would be a case of ‘the many’ bearing witness to or giving testimony of ‘the one’. However, without such dialogue taking place, Stephen advocates that a theory of everything would amount to nothing more than a ‘mathematical model and set of rules and equations’; devoid of necessity or intent to ‘bestow upon it fire’ (as Prometheus was said to have done for the first humans) or meaning as can be understood by humanity.  

Is it practical or necessary for all of humanity to agree upon how the universe works before such time as we can talk about why it does and what sort of timescale would apply? Would establishing ‘a theory of everything’ generate such conditions as might be necessary for humanity to enter into a period of enlightenment, or ‘golden era’ of world peace, improved relationships with the planet and of exponential creativity? 

Would consensus with regards to a possible truth of ‘how things are’ (reality) be a beginning of the ‘mind of God’ to which Stephen infers? Literally a global database or body of information which we are either individually or collectively capable of exploring and/or generating to, through whatever extent has been agreed by consent? Is the internet an evolving model of such an apparatus – what would happen if technology inexplicably went dark, what meaning would that give to the ‘mind of God’ then?

Perhaps it would be wise to put aside an enquiry as to whether Stephen Hawking was referring to the mind of God as a generic reference to the collective consciousness of humanity. It is not that this enquiry would be unimportant or irrelevant, but that other questions are arising: is meaning derived from an observation of form or function, or does that limit intelligence to the realms of whatever it is that we are capable of observing? Essentially, is reason the only tool by which we are capable of discerning meaning in the world? If that is so, where does that leave faith, other than of it being viewed as a by-product or as servant of the intellect? 

Instead of competing with one another in regards to truth, is it possible that reason and faith are such that they work together, offering differing views or perspectives which are equally valid in generating knowledge and helping us to comprehend the world and our place in it? Can ‘what is known or is knowable’ and ‘what is unknowable’ co-exist and inform one another without compromising integrity? 

In 1440, the philosopher and theologian, Nicholas of Cusa (or Nicolaus Cusanus), wrote a book called ‘docta ignorantia’ (on ‘learned or scientific ignorance’). With regard to this text, Wikipedia (the online encyclopedia) informs that, ‘Earlier scholars had discussed the question of learned ignorance. Augustine of Hippo, for instance, stated … “There is therefore in us a certain learned ignorance, so to speak – an ignorance which we learn from that Spirit of God who helps our infirmities”; here he explains the workings of the Holy Spirit among men and women, despite their human insufficiency, as a learned ignorance. The Christian writer Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite advises his reader to … “strive upwards unknowingly”. Bonaventura of Bagnoregio declared … “We are lifted into divine knowing without directly striving for it”. 

Wikipedia continues, ‘For Cusanus, ‘docta ignorantia’ means that since mankind cannot grasp the infinity of a deity through rational knowledge, the limits of science need to be passed by means of speculation. This mode of enquiry blurs the borders between science and ‘ignorantia’. In other words, both reason and a supra-rational understanding are needed to understand God. This leads to the ‘coincidentia oppositorum’, a union of opposites, a doctrine common in mystic beliefs from the Middle Ages….’

Interestingly, one of the fragments left by the philosopher Heraclitus has been translated as: “What opposes unites, and the finest attunement stems from things bearing in opposite directions, and all things come about by strife.”

The psychoanalyst Carl Jung said, “The co-operation of conscious reasoning with the data of the unconscious is called the ‘transcendent function’ … This function progressively unites the opposites. Psychotherapy makes use of it to heal neurotic dissociations, but this function had already served as the basis of Hermetic philosophy for seventeen centuries. Besides this, it is a natural and spontaneous phenomenon, part of the process of individuation.”

Jung refers to Hermetic philosophy. For example, depictions of Osiris and Isis, the Red King and the White Queen or the Sun and the Moon continue to serve as allegories, whereby their union allows for a sum that is greater than its parts. 

Alchemical texts and the transcendent function refer to integration as a threshold which exists between the conscious and the unconscious. Many ancient texts, seers and wisdom holders point towards integration of what is perceived as being other, as unlike ourselves or opposites as a way of participating more fully in Nature; unity in this regard is not indicative of or preferential of uniformity, but is in celebration of diversity. Once we are able to experience this in the midst of an experience, we are less inclined to be fearful and resistant in the face of the unknown.