June 15, 2023
He who is not contented with what he has would not be contented with what he would like to have.
– Socrates
Greed is good! Greed is right! Greed works! Greed will save the U.S.A.!
– Gordon Gekko in the movie “Wall Street”
A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold.
– Proverbs 22:1
The one who dies with the most toys wins.
– Bumper sticker
Embrace simplicity. Reduce selfishness. Have few desires.
– Tao Te Ching
The state of nature is a state of war of all against all.
– Thomas Hobbes
The World in Which You Will Live
The world of the future will be different for each of the 8 billion people who live on this planet today. Each of us will experience, to a significant degree, the world we create: Our personal reality will be based on the beliefs we hold and the way we understand and interpret past, present, and future. And the choices we make in response to those things.
We will, of course, be continually influenced by the people we encounter and the unexpected events that come into our lives from “over the horizon” (to use Martin Heidegger’s imagery). We seldom know exactly which events will be coming or what form they will take. We often have little influence over which ones will appear, and we cannot control this. We can, however, dramatically influence how we understand and respond to the actions of others, and to each event when it happens.
Our significant influence begins with the way we interpret the actions of others and the assumptions we make about the meaning of events. Because these two things can vary radically from person to person — each of us starts with different assumptions and makes different interpretations — each of us experiences a different world. Even people from similar backgrounds facing similar events come to a wide range of conclusions and respond in a wide variety of ways.
This can be disconcerting — we want others to see the world as we do — but it makes vivid the power you have to shape your life and your world. Instead of being controlled by external circumstances, your life depends to a great degree on your assumptions, where you focus your attention, the values and meanings around which you organize, and the choices you make.
You have enormous influence over each of these things. For proof of this, simply study the countless examples of those who defied expectations created by a difficult past or challenging circumstances and lived lives no one could have expected. You can be one of those. We each have an almost unlimited capacity to influence how our lives unfold.
Skeptico: That is a dramatic set of statements. You have my attention, but what you are saying is abstract. Give me some practical examples.
Wisdom Seeker: How could anyone have expected Viktor Frankl, after years in the Nazi concentration camps and losing all his close loved ones there, to emerge with great vitality and develop an important branch of psychology? Would anyone knowing about the trauma of his life have guessed that his work would be focused on the importance of meaning, or that it would become one of the founding pillars of the positive psychology movement?
Who would have dreamed that a young, fiery South African revolutionary named Nelson Mandela would have emerged from 27 harsh years in prison as a man variously described as selfless, forgiving, tolerant, compassionate, fair, and humble? Or that he would become a wise leader, revered around the world for the respect he gave to his past enemies and his willingness to negotiate with them to create a future for his country that included all the rival groups that had hated each other?
How will anyone ever understand why a fairly conventional nun leading a sheltered life as a teacher and headmistress at a girls’ school chose to leave her post at the age of 38, give up all comforts, and spend her time tending to the poorest of the poor in one of the worst slums in Calcutta? Yet Mother Teresa did just that.
Nor could anyone have dreamed that a young girl who became deaf and blind at the age of 19 months would be named one of the 100 Most Important People of the 20th century by Time magazine. But Helen Keller lived almost 88 very productive years, writing 14 books and hundreds of speeches and essays and championing numerous causes on a wide range of topics, and in the process building a legacy that affected the entire world.
And who could have imagined that Florence Nightingale, a lowly volunteer nurse during the Crimean War of 1854, would revolutionize medical care, first in the British military, and then gradually all over the world? When she arrived at a field hospital in Crimea, she was appalled by the horrific conditions to which the wounded were subjected. Those same conditions, however, were there for everyone to see. Why was she the only one to notice — or care enough to try to do something about it? Why did she alone make the choice to begin a crusade to change the conditions under which the wounded were being treated throughout the military, and in the process establish the modern practice of nursing?
In the spiritual realm, put yourself in the place of Socrates and make an attempt to understand why he chose to drink hemlock rather than escape and save his life when he was given that option. Can you get in touch with the reasons he chose to die rather than betray what he had been teaching about the path to a fulfilling life?
Or can you understand why a young prince left a life of luxury to become a traveling renunciate, giving up all worldly possessions and even eating little for many years? But Siddhartha Gautama, the future Buddha, did just that, and in the process provided a way toward inner peace for millions.
All these are examples of people who made choices that could never have been expected, but resulted in radiant lives. They are, of course, examples of individuals who became famous, but there are millions who did extraordinary things without gaining fame or fortune. At the same time, for each of those who chose an exemplary path, there are many others who encountered similar circumstances, could have made similar choices, but did not.
For instance, every war has many examples of soldiers who do incredibly courageous things, while others do not. During natural disasters, some choose to loot and steal, while others make a very different choice, helping others, and even risking their own safety to do so.
Or consider the radically different paths people in prison choose to take. Some become ever more cynical, bitter, and violent, while others use their time in prison to study, meditate, exercise, or pray — crafting meaningful lives for themselves inside prison and, if released, outside.
Why such dramatic differences in life paths? No one knows, and no one can predict which path any individual will follow. Each person, somewhere inside, makes a series of choices about the way they will understand the world and themselves in it. How any particular person will react in a given situation is unknown. Yet in moments of choice, each person makes a decision, consciously or unconsciously, that reflects the worldview by which they have chosen to live. And from that worldview, and the decisions that follow from it, a life is molded.
Prediction about how any individual will respond in a moment of choice is impossible, but one key factor is present in all those who choose an exemplary path, both the famous and not-so-famous. All embrace a worldview holding that we are connected to something larger than ourselves, and that our own happiness, fulfillment, and well-being are inextricably linked to honoring that connection.
You too will be faced with key choices in your life, and when you are, nothing is more important than the overall worldview you have embraced. Of course, there are many different worldviews, but there are two overall paths within which they all fall, and the one you pick will affect your life more than most anything else you do.
The worldview you embrace is a completely free and open choice, yet it will determine much about how your life will unfold. It will establish the way you understand yourself and how you will interpret everything that happens. It will be the basis for the intentions and purposes that guide your life, and it will be the foundation for your interactions with others.
Skeptico: Enough preliminaries! What are the two worldviews?
The First Worldview – Materialism and the Self-centered Path
The materialistic worldview (sometimes called physicalism) says that everything can be explained on the basis of the interaction of tiny bits of matter and random energy alone; that the universe contains only material stuff and mindless energy and so everything — consciousness, emotions such as love and compassion, values such as responsibility and commitment, the beauty of art, the power of music, and all meaning — can be explained in materialistic terms alone.
This worldview is the simplest to understand and to follow, for its overall assumption is that everyone is self-centered in their motivations, and life is solely about trying to fulfill as many personal urges and desires as possible. Because this worldview gives so much importance to basic urges and desires, let’s start by acknowledging their dramatic influence on our lives.
Everyone begins life with strong urges and desires, and whether we recognize it or not, we spend much of the time and energy of our lives trying to fulfill them. Furthermore, since fulfilling them is so much a part of our basic nature, the tendency to follow this path has been recognized as a powerful force from the beginning of recorded history. Even still, many people do not truly understand and accept how much these forces control every aspect of their lives.
For example, in ancient Greece the Homeric epics (the Iliad and the Odyssey) first told at least 3000 years ago, presented many characters who were driven by an attempt to gain as much sensual satisfaction, wealth, glory, and power for themselves as possible. (Every other ancient civilization has similar stories about characters who were driven by these same personal desires.)
Without question, these motivations continue in full force right down to today. All you need do is look around at our culture and you will instantly see that this way of thinking about life is still going strong. It is vividly portrayed in movies, novels, and fascination with the rich and famous. It is reflected in oft-used phrases such as “to the victor belong the spoils” and “greed is good.” Furthermore, for those who choose to follow this path, life is in some ways uncomplicated. You simply try to fulfill as many desires as you can, and because you then fit in easily with lots of other people, there will be much reinforcement.
Some who follow this path make a conscious choice to do so, while others follow it with less consciousness about what they are doing. Many have simply been indoctrinated into this worldview by popular culture, advertising, and the people they hang out with, subliminally accepting the message that the world is just this way and it would be foolish to live otherwise.
Although this path is simple in some ways, there are major problems. One is that those who follow it must assume that everyone else is self-centered as well, and this sets up a lonely, often paranoid existence in which everyone is constantly fighting to get what they want and manipulating everyone they encounter in an attempt to use them to achieve personal goals. Even when people band together, the underlying motive of each is to gain as much for themselves as they can. As Thomas Hobbes characterized it (and as he believed the world actually is), each and every person is engaged in “a war of all against all.”
For those who follow this worldview, consciously or unconsciously, it seems totally justified to manipulate others to get what you want. In this world, the task of reason is to rationalize, not only to others but even to yourself, that any action is acceptable to fulfill your personal desires (or keep from being thwarted or punished by anyone with more power). In such a world, even the emotions of others are just another tool we use to manipulate everyone else so they will give us what we want.
Skeptico: That sounds so cynical. Does anyone really believe that is what they are doing?
Wisdom Seeker: Not many. Most who follow this path do not acknowledge they are doing so, certainly not to others, and often not even to themselves. Instead, they rationalize by saying “everybody does it,” or “once I have enough for myself I will be able to help others,” or even “if other people are that dumb, they are getting what they deserve.”
Another crucial factor is that we humans have many different currents in us, and our lives are made up of a wide mixture of motives. Most of us swing into the self-centered worldview part of the time and move into a more idealistic point of view at others. This is why “Knowing Thyself” is so important: If you do not wish to follow the self-centered path without being conscious you are doing so, you must learn to recognize and be deeply honest with yourself about your true motives.
The Second Worldview – The Path of the Wisdom Traditions
For thousands of years saints and sages all over the world have been telling whoever would listen that there is an underlying order to the universe, a field in which values and meanings reside that each of us can access. They have assured us that everyone can turn to this common Source to gain knowledge about what is true, to understand justice and fairness, to be able to tell the difference between right and wrong. They have said that each of us, by opening to this dimension, can come into harmony with the Good, the True, and the Beautiful.
They have also said, though, that this ground of wisdom and truth is not easily attained. It is not hidden; it is not a secret; it is just difficult to gain this prize beyond price, to find this great treasure, because it requires gaining mastery over your own urges and desires. It means doing the hard inner work of sorting through numerous internal urges — postponing some, giving up others, and prioritizing a portion of your life energy for goals beyond the basic and instinctual.
Because this path is not easy, many resist — or completely refuse to listen to its call. Others put off doing the required work until a later date (when they hope it will be easier), or they substitute half-heartened attempts at self-help for doing the real work necessary for deep transformation.
Skeptico: I definitely do not think I am ready for a total immersion or surrender right now. What can I do?
Wisdom Seeker: First, don’t be discouraged. At any given moment in history, few have been ready to attempt a complete change in thinking (the metanoia about which Jesus spoke) or the awakening toward which the Buddha urged everyone to strive. Still, at this very moment anyone can take serious steps on the journey, wherever they are in their lives right now.
Advice for the early stages is the same in all the traditions: 1) give less energy to pursuing basic urges and drives; 2) focus some time and energy on practices that might open you to higher goals such as awakening to the Buddha within, taking on the mind of Christ, hearing the “still small voice” within, realizing your essential nature is one with the Divine, or coming into harmony with the Tao; 3) cultivate love, compassion, respect, and kindness toward others.
Thought Experiment – Which path for you?
1. Which of the two worldviews do you primarily believe to be the nature of existence?
2. Which of the two provides the primary framework for your daily life at this time?
3. How would you like your life to be divided between the two?
4. How will you move toward that intention?
One crucial point is that your answers to these questions have little to do with whether you belong to a religious group or not. Many who identify with a religion lead lives dominated by self-centered urges and desires, while many others are traveling the wisdom path without being part of an organized religion.
If you choose the wisdom path, however, it is almost always necessary to learn from one or more of the traditions. But there are many ways to do so. For some, belonging to a religious group is the best approach, while for others reading, listening, taking advantage of the many available retreats and online resources, or exploring with a small group of friends or a teacher is sufficient.
The only vital question is whether you organize your life primarily around fulfilling personal desires and ego goals, or instead, organize around the belief that there is “something greater” — beyond your self-centered wishes and desires. As long as you pay attention to the polestar that there is a larger order of which you are a part — and through which you are connected to others, the world you inhabit, and to existence itself — you will find guides along the way. If you hold tight to a decision to move along the wisdom path, all you need do is keep looking for ways to open to the values and meanings that exist beyond your personal self, and try to live what you are discovering as best you can.
The Gray Areas – It Is Complicated
Skeptico: OK, I think I understand the two alternatives in their broad forms, but you make it sound so clearcut. My life is not like that; there are always gray areas where the distinctions are blurred.
Wisdom Seeker: Very good point. A sharp line separates the pure form of the two worldviews, but there is much confusion when a person is trying to sort through and understand the daily choices we all have to make, and their relation to the two paths.
For instance, most human beings who have ever lived accepted the second worldview — in theory. It was taught by all the wisdom traditions for thousands of years and has been the foundation for all successful civilizations. But accepting this worldview in theory is quite different from actually living it in daily life. To live it is very complicated, for our basic urges and desires crave to be satisfied, no matter what we believe. In fact, our urges and desires pay little attention to what we believe.
Further, the ego wants to be in control and wants to be considered special and important. So, when the wisdom traditions suggest the ego should not be the center of our lives, it resists that message, sometimes fiercely. The result is that most people give verbal assent to the wisdom path while spending most of their time and energy fulfilling personal urges and desires and pursuing the ego’s wish for importance.
Complicating the picture even more, we often tell ourselves we have high-minded motives, justifying to ourselves and others self-centered actions with idealistic words. Many who gain political and religious power do this, claiming to support higher values while manipulating the institutions they control to get what they personally want. Sometimes they do so through intentional lies, but often it is through blindness to their own motives — leaders convincing themselves they are serving a higher purpose while using their power and influence for personal gain.
This is not a new development, of course. When 500 citizens of Athens sat in judgment of Socrates for alleged “crimes” almost 2500 years ago, a major point of his defense was that many of those judging him had hidden agendas, and that some of them were not even conscious of their own motives.
For a very long time, then, most people have professed belief in a wisdom tradition and in a worldview with deeper values, virtues, and meanings. Most have told themselves that their lives were about more than pursuing personal urges and desires. And, like our ancestors, many of us today do the same — giving a nod toward values while focusing the great majority of our time and energy pursuing sexual satisfaction, making a living, looking for romance, having exciting experiences, accumulating wealth, gaining power, or seeking status and prestige.
And just like our ancestors, many of us feel compelled to hide our true motives from others — and often from ourselves. We want to believe we are better than we are, that we have idealistic goals, while our basic urges and desires are prompting our actions and our egos are driving the train of our lives. It is for this exact reason that Socrates emphasized “Know Thyself” in his teachings, for only if we know ourselves well enough to recognize our own underlying motives will we be able to know if we are truly in touch with deeper values and meanings, or following them in our daily lives.
Skeptico: Another thing that has been confusing to me lately is the debate about competition versus cooperation.
Wisdom Seeker: Yes, for a long time the idea predominated in materialistic thought that competition was the primary motivation in the lives of all living things. The belief was that evolution trained us to look out for “Number One” and that humans, like all other species, were genetically programmed to take care of ourselves first and foremost (and maybe our direct kin). In contrast, those who supported the wisdom traditions tended to say we also have an urge to cooperate, to feel care and concern for others, and that this is an indication we have motivations coming from a higher Source.
Skeptico: Exactly. So my confusion comes from reading a lot lately about how evolution trained us to cooperate. Maybe this means that all our cooperative behaviors come from evolution — and there is no need for a higher Source to explain them.
Wisdom Seeker: It is true that a new understanding of the reasons for cooperation is emerging in evolutionary biology. It is likely that many species, including humans, learned through the eons that cooperation can be helpful. This doesn’t change the fact that, depending on the worldview you choose, you will understand the reasons for cooperation in radically different ways.
The first worldview says the only purposes in life are to get as much for ourselves as we can and maximize our offspring. If this is the worldview you choose, then cooperation is just a tool to fulfill those urges and desires. You might cooperate with others to do so, but the underlying motive is still self-centered.
On the other hand, if you follow the wisdom path you can fully acknowledge that cooperation comes partly from evolution, and perhaps some might come from our genes — while also recognizing that other reasons for cooperation exist and that there is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to suggest otherwise. In fact, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the sole motivations for cooperation are captured by materialism.
Instead, besides learned behavior and genetic programming, the wisdom traditions say that cooperation arises from a deep intuition that we are connected to others; that there is a Source outside the individual self in which we find the deepest roots of connection and cooperation. If this is true, then the more an individual gets in touch with this Source, the more that person will cooperate with others (and not just with their immediate kin or group).
Science Does Not Take Sides
Skeptico: If there is such a Source, why hasn’t science found it?
Wisdom Seeker: Because it does not have physical properties; it is not in the material realm, so the tools of science cannot study or find it.
Skeptico: But hasn’t modern science demonstrated that the material world is all there is? Hasn’t it thrown its weight behind the first worldview — that life is about maximizing personal satisfaction and producing as many offspring as possible?
Wisdom Seeker: Absolutely not!
Many of those who have chosen the materialistic worldview claim that science is on their side, but science does not support either worldview. Most great thinkers and scientists through history have believed in the existence of an “Unseen Order” (to use William James’ phrase) and have organized their lives around one of the wisdom traditions.
This does not mean, however, that science supports the wisdom worldview. Science simply does not take sides in this debate. When a scientist argues for materialism, this has nothing to do with science. Defending one worldview over another is not the purpose of science, for it does not deal with metaphysical questions, and the choice of worldviews is exactly that.
Like every other way of thinking and reasoning, science is based on a specific set of assumptions, and one of those assumptions is that its job is to understand how the material world works. It therefore focuses on the nature of matter, the laws that affect matter, how different pieces of matter are constituted, how they interact with each other, and the energy that affects the processes occurring in matter.
Having this starting assumption is crucial for the successes science has achieved, but it also means that science can never prove, or disprove, metaphysical ideas, or philosophical and spiritual theories that fall into this realm. Science is not organized to deal with such issues.
Of course, science can prove or disprove specific claims that a specific religious group makes about the material world, and at times this has led to conflicts between science and certain religious groups. Science, however, has never been in conflict with the overall message of the wisdom traditions.
Understanding how science can be in conflict with specific religious claims but never with the wisdom traditions themselves brings us to several vital distinctions that most scientists and religious leaders through the centuries have understood.
The wisdom traditions arose from the mystical experiences of individuals who came to be revered over time as saints and sages in a particular community. When they started sharing what they had learned, their messages dealt with how best to live, the values and meaning that are central for a fulfilling life, and what is truly important. These issues involve the spiritual dimension of life, and science can never be used to evaluate this dimension. Science leaves a completely open field for each of us to discover answers to these questions for ourselves.
In distinction from the wisdom traditions and what I think of as the broad spiritual dimension, each religion includes guidelines, rules, and specific ideas about the world and how best to live. Every religion began when a founder or founders presented a set of ideas based on one or more mystical experiences. But they had to formulate messages in the language of their own communities in a simplified form so they could share the ideas with those who had not had similar experiences.
Then, as the centuries passed, these messages were expanded, changed, and reinterpreted over and over. This has happened countless times in human history — Wikipedia lists over 1200 specific religious groups around the world today, and these are the ones that have been successful. For each, many others have started but faded away.
The successful ones are those where a significant number of people formed a community to practice what was being taught and to share their ideas with others. Over the years, it seemed natural to some leaders of these communities to take positions about the material world and how it worked — often adopting the ideas of the science of their time. Some of these ideas even became part of the official dogma of the religion.
When, in later decades or centuries, science moved on to a new understanding and a religious group kept an old scientific interpretation as part of its belief system, controversies have emerged. But these have only been conflicts about ideas concerning the material world in which theories held by specific religious groups differed from changing scientific thought. To repeat, there are no conflicts between “science and religion,” only disagreements by some religious leaders in a particular time and place about current theories in science concerning the material world.
Trying to use such conflicts to their advantage, however, materialists have sometimes made broad statements saying that science has proved all religious ideas wrong. But these limited and specific conflicts do not provide any support for materialism as a worldview. They have nothing to say about the overall validity of the religious traditions, and science has never had any conflict with the overall message of the wisdom traditions or with broad spiritual ideas.
This problem would not arise if more religious leaders recognized that theories about how the material world works have nothing to do with their core teachings or with what their founders were trying to share. As the Dalai Lama put it: “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
But the Dalai Lama also made clear that this does not mean he needs to change any of his core beliefs. Because science only deals with the material world, his statement about abandoning claims does not apply to issues science cannot study: “What science finds to be nonexistent we should all accept as nonexistent, but what science merely does not find is a completely different matter.” Therefore, because science has nothing definitive to say about the meaning of our lives or the values we should live by, these issues remain firmly in the domain of the wisdom traditions, and there can be no conflict with science.
This problem would also be easy to solve if both religious leaders and materialists accepted what the great evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould had to say. Gould, a religious agnostic, recognized that science and the spiritual dimension are two distinct realms, with science investigating the material world and the wisdom traditions dealing with morals, meanings, and values. Because they deal with different areas of life and thought, there need be no conflict between them. These two domains are, in Gould’s words, “Nonoverlapping Magisteria.”
Joining this unlikely pair (the Dalai Lama and Stephen Jay Gould) in understanding the separation of these two domains is one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, Ludwig Wittgenstein, who said: “Even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain untouched.” Wittgenstein is making the crucial distinction between what science can do and what it can never touch, such as the values we choose to live by, the meanings that will guide our lives, and how to have a fulfilling life.
The Myth of “Scientific Materialism”
In spite of these persuasive arguments, some materialists continue to claim that science supports their personal belief system, even calling it “Scientific Materialism.” But “Materialism” as a worldview is not “Scientific.” Science is a method for studying the material world and Materialism is a metaphysical belief about how the universe came to be, as well as the role and nature of humans within that universe. The fact that some scientists have chosen a materialistic worldview does not mean that science supports it.
Still, the famous biologist Francis Crick had this to say:
“You, your joys and sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. … You are nothing but a pack of neurons.”
He makes this pronouncement as if he is speaking for science, but when you hear a statement like this and wish to discover if science truly supports it, look to see if any evidence has been provided. In this case, there is no scientific research at all to show that the physical brain is the sole location of all consciousness, and certainly no evidence to rule out the possibility that other factors might be at play in the behavior of human beings besides neurons.
Indeed, several other possibilities are being seriously considered that might be affecting our thought processes, our sense of identity, and our emotions. These include images and intuitions that might arise from a field of consciousness outside the individual such as the collective unconscious, an immaterial holographic dimension, morphogenic fields, a shared Mind-at-Large, or Consciousness itself. There is also the possibility that has been accepted by most people for thousands of years that our thoughts can be influenced by the thoughts and feelings of others. And there is the possibility that energy waves, or perhaps even dark matter or dark energy affect us in unknown ways.
I do not know which, if any, of these possibilities will be adopted by mainstream science in the future, but neither does anyone else. A foundational principle of science is to remain open to new ideas and new possibilities, no matter how amazing they might seem. What if Galileo, Newton, or Einstein had proclaimed that new possibilities were ruled out, as materialists do with most of the above ideas.
Besides, physics has now shown that neurons themselves are not physical things, as Crick believed, but useful names we give to patterns of probabilities. There is actually nothing “material” at the core of what we call a neuron. It is a useful concept for thinking about one level of reality, but as quantum mechanics has shown, there are other levels.
For instance, beneath the purely physical level neurons are made up of quarks, and these are constituted by energy fields, or vibrating strings, or holograms, or who knows what? (If you don’t know, don’t be concerned; no one else does either.) So when Crick says, “you are nothing but,” he doesn’t even seem to realize that a neuron is not a “thing,” and certainly not a place to ground all of our internal reality. It is simply a useful concept physics gives to probability waves. (Don’t take that as gospel either; the jury is still out on all of this.)
Even more surprising is that this statement is not even in the area of Dr. Crick’s expertise. He is a brilliant biologist, but that expertise does not transfer to theology or metaphysics. He is fully entitled to his personal views like everyone else, but he is not in a position to make definitive statements about metaphysics. His statement, therefore, is not science, but a personal metaphysical speculation.
Another dramatic statement concerning metaphysics made by a scientist, as if it is scientific, comes from the well-known physicist Steven Weinberg: “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” Here, again, no evidence is provided. How could there be? Weinberg is a brilliant physicist, but not in a position to make absolute statements about metaphysics or theology, any more than a brilliant theologian is in a position to make definitive statements about the area of physics in which Weinberg specializes.
The primary tools of science are reason and experiment. Experiments are done to collect data, and reason is used to sort out the best theories. But how would science examine the question of whether or not the universe is pointless? Exactly which scientific experiments could be done?
Theologians of every religion have given rational arguments for their metaphysical views, of course, but few outside their own religion have been persuaded by these efforts. Unlike with science, ultimate questions about the meaning of life can be effectively resolved only in the subjective heart and mind of each individual.
The same is true for who we will love and the deepest values we will hold. The mission of science isn’t to deal with our personal relationships, hobbies, reading interests, entertainments, how we spend our time, or which artistic creations we find valuable. And science was not developed to tell us what might exist beyond the material realm or how non-material forces affect our lives. It has no tools to deal with such matters. This is the precise basis for Wittgenstein’s observation that “when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain untouched.”
Consider the realm of music. Music is not science and cannot be made a scientific endeavor, yet science and music have never been in conflict. Moving on a separate track, music has had a profound influence on humanity since before recorded history began: Billions of people have been inspired, touched, soothed, brought to tears and ecstasy, and even to spiritual awakening, through listening to music.
Science does not deny the importance of music in human life, nor can it explain the powerful subjective experiences so many have had when bathed in its magic. The same is true of art, anything that touches us as beautiful, and experiences in nature of awe and wonder. It is certainly true for the deepest dimensions of love. Science is not in conflict with music, art, beauty, or love, and in the same way and for the same reasons, science is not, and never has been, in conflict with the wisdom traditions or their attempts to answer questions about what is ultimately important and the values by which we should live.
This was certainly the view of Albert Einstein, considered the greatest scientist of the 20th century. Einstein was not a religious man in the normal sense of that word, but he believed there was a Source for meanings and values beyond the material realm, and that there was a moral order in the universe. He also captured the core issue between the two worldviews with one simple question: “Is the universe a friendly place?”
With this question, which he believed to be the most fundamental one facing humanity, Einstein is asking whether the nature of the world is random, empty of meaning, with no inherent values, or if there is a force, an underlying field that is friendly to us and can give meaning to our lives.
Einstein spent much of his life focusing on science and trying to understand and explain the physical world, but as he got older, he wrote and gave many talks in which he affirmed his belief that an order exists and that it is indeed “friendly” to human life. (See his book Ideas and Opinions.) He even came to believe that the work of those who teach meanings and values is more important than his own work.
“Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind.”
“The enquiring and constructive mind” here refers to the broad scientific endeavor — his own lifework — which for him takes second place to the work of those who deal with “high moral standards and values.” From this, Einstein went on to assert the necessity of a healthy relationship between science and religion: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Einstein certainly believed we have basic urges and drives within us, but he also thought we have higher drives as well, one of which was for “the cosmic religious experience.” (He uses this phrase to refer to what I call the spiritual dimension, separate from the beliefs and rules of any particular religion.) He goes on to say this drive is the primary motivation for science: “I assert that the cosmic religious experience is the strongest and noblest driving force behind scientific research.”
For Einstein, then, the most pressing task we each face is to come to a point where we “know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty.” Further, those who make an attempt to encounter and share this level of wisdom and beauty are taking on the most important task anyone can undertake. For this reason, he emphatically said, “A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist.”
In holding this view, Einstein joins most of the great scientists and philosophers through history. In every culture for thousands of years, most of the greatest minds have believed in the existence of an Unseen Order in the universe, and that it is the Source of our deepest values and meanings.
All the key founders of the scientific revolution held this worldview — Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes, Newton, Brahe, Bacon, and Galileo. So did most of the founders of modern science, including Einstein, Max Planck, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, James Maxwell, Alfred North Whitehead, Nicola Tesla, Alfred Russel Wallace, and Michael Faraday.
The fact that all these great scientists held the worldview of the wisdom traditions does not mean that it has been proven by science, or that it ever will be. It does, however, demonstrate decisively that there is nothing in science that contradicts the wisdom traditions in any way. Max Planck, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century and the first voice in the creation of quantum theory, put this forcefully:
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: … All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
Your Choice
In a world with so many problems, and in which we are swamped with information — and disinformation — it is easy to feel powerless. But each of us can have a transformative influence over three things: the way we personally understand the world, what our own life will be about, and the values by which we will live. Crucially, if you take responsibility for these three things, you will profoundly affect the world you will experience.
The degree of awareness and skill each of us brings to this undertaking varies widely, but one thing is sure: You have the capacity to develop these tools more fully. If you commit to knowing yourself as thoroughly and honestly as possible, you will be able to increasingly choose who you will be, and even the world you will experience.
If you choose wisely, you will become a strong thread in the rope that is tugging the world toward that which is Good, True, and Beautiful. Nothing else you can do will affect the sweep of your own life more, or have a greater impact for good on the world.
If, on the other hand, you choose to follow the self-centered path, you will be giving the forces of selfishness, greed, and the rule of pure power your allegiance and support.
For myself, I choose to align with Einstein, Newton, Wittgenstein, Helen Keller, Florence Nightingale, Socrates, Jesus, the Buddha, and so many other wisdom figures through history: I choose to believe the most likely possibility is that there is a meaningful order in the universe.
If you choose to follow this path, the first requirement is working diligently to know yourself well enough to be clear about your own motives. Without this step, you will often mislead others with false justifications for your actions, and you will also mislead yourself — by rationalizing your behaviors in ways that are untrue.
Additional steps recommended by the founders of the wisdom traditions are: 1) cultivate love, compassion, kindness, and respect for others; 2) find ways to open your heart and mind to the Source of values and meanings; 3) make a sincere effort to live by the values and meanings you discover; 4) refuse to go along with those who are self-serving or cynical, even if they cloak their motives behind idealistic slogans or the doctrines of a religion.
By choosing to live your life in this direction, you will be joining all those who are following the wisdom path. Although we each start from a different point, sometimes radically different, I believe all those who undertake this journey are looking toward a common Source — to which we each have access — for the values and meanings we need to guide our lives.
Thought Experiment – Which will you choose?
1. Which of the two worldviews will you choose?
2. If it is the Wisdom Path, how will you attempt to live it? How will you include it as an important part of your daily life?