Francis Bacon (1561-1626) and René Descartes (1596-1650), who are considered the founders of opposing factions in philosophy, viz. empiricism and rationalism, agreed on one point: to separate religion from the study of the natural world. They may have been right to do so at the time when the Church was all-powerful, but this does not mean that scientific and spiritual approaches are inherently in conflict. They appear so only because of ideological prejudices in both camps. Many scholars seem to be arriving at the same conclusion. For example, Schrödinger, who formulated the fundamental equation of quantum mechanics, espoused in his book Mind and Matter (1958) a spiritual view that he identified with the ‘perennial philosophy’ of Aldous Huxley, and expressed his sympathy for the Upanishads and Eastern spiritual thoughts. Seeing reality as meaningful does not need to conflict with empirical facts. Polanyi and Prosch make the point stating that ‘… we can claim all this with an open and clear scientific conscience. The religious hypothesis, if it does indeed hold that the world is meaningful rather than absurd, is therefore a viable hypothesis for us. There is no scientific reason why we cannot believe it.’ (1975, p.179).

This is not only of theoretical significance. Our very survival may depend on an ability to transcend the superfluous and synthesise what is important in these approaches. Human society cannot long afford to live in a world in which philosophy is disparaged, religion contradicts science, and science contradicts common, everyday experience and social practice (e.g. democracy assumes choice, and our legal system personal responsibility – both are based on the notion of free will that is not upheld by science[1]). Such antagonisms must be reconciled in order to produce a more adequate and complete interpretation. This does not require the abandonment of the current methods – they have contributed to knowledge and continue to do so – only a recognition that they have limited value in isolation and that, in some cases, it would be beneficial to combine them. It has been recognised that “objections to novelty and to alternatives come from particular groups with vested interests, not from science as a whole. It is therefore possible to gain understanding and to solve problems by combining bits and pieces of ‘science’ with prima facie ‘unscientific’ opinions and procedures” (Honderich, 1995, p.809).

On the one hand, philosophy could not compete with science in studying the natural world. On the other, turning to personal experience would blur its boundaries with the artistic or even the spiritual and mystical, with which few philosophers wanted to be associated for fear of losing credibility. In order to find or preserve its own identity, philosophers tried to develop logic into an elaborate system, an exact meta-language that could rival mathematics. However, this endeavour hit a dead-end when it transpired that logic can never be completely logical (only shortly before it happened to mathematics itself – both at the beginning of the 20th century[1]). As a result, many philosophers focused on the relationship between subject and object, the so-called ‘human condition’. The domain of philosophy became relations not particulars that relate, which freed philosophy from being bound to a specific subject. It is now considered to be a method of enquiry that develops defensible/valid arguments based on reason (rather than observation or experience). The aim of philosophy is understanding, which necessitates the examination of the relation between awareness of the world and the world as the material of awareness. For example, philosophy is not primarily concerned with the question ‘does God exist?’, but rather ‘does the idea of God make sense?’, or ‘does the concept of reality without the idea of God make sense?’ This is why philosophy can never be conclusive – people are changing, so their understanding is changing too.

A Common Misconceptions About Philosophy

It is irrelevant – the inconclusiveness of philosophy has led to a widespread belief that philosophy does not matter. Yet throughout history philosophy has influenced every sphere of life, from science and religion, to education, politics, economics, art and even fashion. Stoicism served as the working ideology of the Roman Empire, the writings of Plato and Plotinus were instrumental in transforming an intellectually rudimentary offshoot of Judaism into one of the dominant world religions. Descartes and Leibniz directly contributed to the 17th century rise of science, while Voltaire and Rousseau inspired the French Revolution. John Locke and Adam Smith are credited for laying the foundations of capitalism, and the philosophy of Marx and Engels stirred political changes from Cuba to China. More recently, existentialism and later, post-modernism shaped Western culture.

The spiritual approach starts from the sound premise that the physical world may be only a sub-set or one plane of reality. After all, it is imprudent to believe that everything is accessible and explicable from data obtained through our five senses (even with the help of instruments that may substantially enlarge this). There is nothing unreasonable in considering the possibility that there is more to it than meets the eye. The spiritual approach pushes these boundaries and explores the realm beyond that with which  we are familiar. It is characterised by a sense of ‘otherness’, ‘something more’ a sense that what we normally perceive is limited in its scope. From that perspective the natural world is seen as part of a greater whole, and can be properly understood only with reference to this whole. It would be a mistake to exclude such a possibility outright, as long as the beginning, end and cause of the world we live in cannot be fully accounted for otherwise.

An attempt to expand beyond ordinary sense experience is not in itself something unique to spirituality. Science does the same (by using microscopes or telescopes, for example). What is specific to this approach is its method, which transcends normal perception by means of personal transformation. Gaining such knowledge and understanding requires altering the level of awareness, which, in turn, necessitates at least a temporary personal transformation. So, whereas for scientific method the quality of an experiment matters (while the experimenter should be neutral, in the background), for these kinds of insights the quality of the experimenter matters (while the ‘experiment’ is only a vehicle). Although they are not necessary, various techniques are traditionally used to assist this process: psychotropic substances, lucid dreaming, meditation, breath-control, repetitive sound or movement, trance, fasting, sleep deprivation and so on. They all have the same aim, to reach beyond our mental constructs and provide ‘knowledge by presence’, a direct, unmediated mode of cognition. Therefore, although spirituality is empirical in the sense that it is based on experience, it differs from conventional scientific empiricism in the focus of its enquiry and in its method.

It should be clarified though that we distinguish spirituality from mysticism or religion (with full recognition that there are grey areas and overlaps between them). Mysticism and religion may have huge personal and social value and can be truly inspirational, but their contribution to our overall knowledge of the realm they are preoccupied with is somewhat limited albeit for different reasons. Mysticism generally takes the stand that the riddle of reality is a mystery and will always

Some Common Misconceptions About Science

Science is a modern Western invention – there is a widespread belief that science was invented in Europe and did not exist before the 17^th century. In fact, science has thrived in various periods in the Arabic, Indian, Chinese and other cultures. The science of the present day is influenced by and partly based on their findings. Ancient and Middle Age Europe had science too – although, following a highly influential early Christian theologian, St Augustine (354-430), observation as a method of knowledge acquisition was rejected in the Middle Ages in favour of more abstract thinking.  Modern science (starting in the 17^th century, in the period known as Enlightenment)  shifted the emphasis to empirical observation that could be tested and independently verified. Its aim was to dispose of speculation and place science on firmer foundations. However, this also somewhat narrowed its scope as only the physical world could be studied in such a way.

Science and technology are the same – although they may contribute to each other, science and technology should not be equated. Science is about increasing human knowledge and understanding, while technology is about producing tools, more often on the basis of trial and error than scientific discoveries (for example, Edison, one of the greatest inventors, was not a scientist). The following observation may be illuminating in this respect:

Up to [the mid-19^th century] natural science had made no major contribution to technology. The industrial revolution had been achieved without scientific aid. Except for the Morse telegraph, the great London Exhibition of 1851 contained no important industrial devices or products based on the scientific progress of the previous fifty years. The appreciation of science was still almost free from utilitarian motives. (Polanyi, 1958, p.182).

Some Misconceptions About Common Sense

Common sense is less valid than other approaches – the success of science in particular has often led to a derogatory attitude towards common sense (sometimes labelled ‘folk psychology’). To demonstrate its supposed inferiority, examples are often given of our ancestors believing that the Sun goes around the Earth or that the Earth is flat. Common sense, indeed, can sometimes be wrong, but this cannot justify completely denying its value. Most of the knowledge we gain in this manner has at least a pragmatic use (the Sun may not go around the Earth, but it is useful to think in terms of the Sun rising in the east and setting in the west). Other approaches, when they go against common sense, are more often than not eventually shown to be mistaken. For instance, during the reign of behavioural psychology parents were urged to bring up their children in the ‘scientific’ manner, but this appeared to be, at least in some instances, damaging for children and parents alike (both sons of the founder of behaviourism, John Watson, suffered from depression later in life (Smirle, 2010)). Eventually, such ways of upbringing were abandoned and common sense prevailed again.

Common sense is simplistic – in fact, common sense is probably the most intricate approach of all. This is because it deals with our life experiences that are usually non-linear and complex in nature. Linear systems may be more precise, but they are inevitably simplifications and therefore not fully adequate in many situations.

Common sense is relativistic – common sense may, indeed, vary from individual to individual or from culture to culture to some extent, but it is often forgotten that what people share is much greater than what they do not. Stripped of its cultural idiosyncrasies, common sense can be surprisingly universal. The differences are often the result of an adaptation to diverse,  historical or present, circumstances (e.g. every culture recognises human agency, but various cultures may interpret it in different ways).