Read Aloud the Text Content

This audio was created by Woord's Text to Speech service by content creators from all around the world.

Text Content or SSML code:

In architecture, a structure cannot stand unless its base be equable and harmonic; the distinguishing of music from noise is in the mathematical ordering of vibration; physics itself places supreme significance on the principles of equilibrium and conservation, all of which are proofed with shockingly elegant mathematical expressions. Why is it that material understanding is so fundamentally framed by immaterial principles? Strangely, scientists seem to ignore the fact that they justify their materialism with something that transcends it. There appears to be some qualitative, experiential aspect of life with a kind of significance often unrecognized by popular materialism. Extending on this, it seems that the deeper efforts of scientific thought point toward a religious sentiment, and suggest that “what is wanted is an appreciation of the infinite variety of vivid values achieved by an organism in its proper environment. When you understand all about the sun and all about the atmosphere and all about the rotation of the earth, you may still miss the radiance of the sunset. We want concrete fact with a high light thrown on what is relevant to its preciousness” (Whitehead, Science and the Modern World 199). It is fair to argue that one’s understanding of the aforementioned will actually amplify and sublimate the experiential value of the sunset’s radiance, rather than occlude it. Understanding of the “concrete fact” assists in expanding the scope and articulating the detail of “what is relevant to its preciousness.” Though, the point is aptly made. Understanding physical phenomena alone does not exhaust the mysteries of life, nor vitalize it fully. The failure of religion to adapt to scientific conclusions has taken away its credibility among an increasingly scientific public, and the failure of science to provide substantial answers regarding essential aspects of being has taken away its credibility among those who justly demand that a full and accurate view of the world must include measures of value, meaning, and purpose. In order to discover the ultimates of existence it is necessary that these two indispensable approaches be in harmony, and nothing could be more destructive to such harmony than one side insisting the other side can’t be taken seriously. The assignment of anything on an ontological scale, including the scientific materialist’s ‘object in space,’ is laden with unacknowledged metaphysical assumptions. There must be a substratum on which the manifold stand and are defined by. Physics can explain things but physics cannot explain why physics can explain things. “We should wait: but we should not wait passively, or in despair. The clash is a sign that there are wider truths and finer perspectives within which a reconciliation of a deeper religion and a more subtle science will be found” (Whitehead, Science and the Modern World 185). The most tangible consequence of scientific progress has been advancements in technology. Because this is the most salient reason the public puts their faith in science, it has led many to erroneously regard it as the purpose or goal of science. The concentrated efforts of the scientific community have resulted not only in medicine, but in hydrogen bombs. So, while some may propose that the purpose of science is to mitigate the material stressors of life, such thinking is, at its lowest resolution, oversimplification; and at its highest, dangerous naivety. Science cares neither for helping nor harming, but simply to show what is; and, to whatever extent it can, how that which is, is what it is. There are two issues at hand here. The first, framed in the paradigm that science exists purely for the enhancement of life, is that science seems to offer little to nothing in the realm of discerning values. The other argument is that it is a way of mapping out the world, and manipulating nature. But, the problem with simply delineating physical fact, is that it in no way offers a means by which to interpret those facts, or draw meaningful connections between them. “The synergetic metaphysical effect produced by the interaction of the known family of generalized principles is probably what is spoken of as wisdom” (Fuller 13). Neither science nor religion completes the full view of the world, but where the former might fall short in supplying adequate answers for personal values, and where the latter might fall short for drowning in superstitions, it seems that they work better in tandem, and unite to form a more coherent perspective. It feels requisite to drill the final nail in with the best of them: “a contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people” (Einstein 43).