Semantics in Religion and Science
(Link to French version)
I have been thinking for a while about the words, which many religions have used throughout the ages and some of the language used in modern physics. Words such as “spirit”, “eternal soul”, “Word of God” and even “God”. It is instinctive to categorize such types of semantics as well outside the pale of scientific thought.
For example the word “spirit” is commonly looked on at worst as a product of old superstitious thought or at best a vague expression of emotion or feeling. Yet if we look beyond the historical baggage of this word, one can find words in contemporary physics, which basically appear to carry the same base meaning. In physics we have the idea of the “field” which originally was imagined to have a physical basis. For example the magnetic and electric fields were originally conceived to arise from a physical medium called ether. The gravitational field, when it was first described by Newton, required an action at a distance, it was for this reason that Newton believed it was profoundly flawed. It was only with Einstein that the modern view of a gravitational field, described as a product of curved space-time emerged. More recently there are some hints that space-time itself might have basis in quantum entanglement.
With the advent of quantum mechanics the concept of a field transcended the need for a ‘physical’ medium. Mind you a medium still exists but it was explicitly non-physical, an abstract mathematical, probabilistic function that permeated all space. For many years now physicists have lived with this new idea of a field. Yet if one is honest, this idea is not dissimilar to the ancient religious idea of a ‘spirit’. We may not like the word due to the connotations which it carries, but at its basic level the ideas are exactly the same. A field is a non-physical thing which permeates space, which is what a spirit is.
The connection goes further. Many religions posit that the basis of true reality is the spirit. For a physicist, the field is stuff from which physical things are born. It is the primary substrate of existence. That substrate is a non-physical mathematical abstraction. In fact there is a line of thought which claims that everything is ultimately in its clearest form math as this short presentation by Max Tegmark explains:
What Max Tegmark probably understands but doesn’t explain is that this is a very ancient idea actually, with a direct line back to Pythagorus and Plato. If they keep digging here they might be surprised to find the deity which they are trying very hard to escape.
In the Abrahamic religious traditions there exists the idea of the “Word of God” which represents the creative and causative force behind the universe. For example in the New Testament is says, “In the beginning was the Word” or in Quran it says, God said, “Be and it is”. Baha’u’llah the prophet founder of the Baha’i faith elaborates on this idea more: “(the) Word of God which is the Cause of the entire creation, while all else besides His Word are but the creatures and the effects thereof. Verily thy Lord is the Expounder, the All-Wise. Know thou, moreover, that the Word of God — exalted be His glory — is higher and far superior to that which the senses can perceive, for it is sanctified from any property or substance. It transcendeth the limitations of known elements and is exalted above all the essential and recognized substances. It became manifest without any syllable or sound and is none but the Command of God which pervadeth all created things. It hath never been withheld from the world of being.”
If we parse the idea a bit, at its simplest level a word represents a container for information. That information can itself give rise to physical order or ‘creation’ is fairly obvious when considering modern information technology or the relationship between life and the genetic code. What is still unclear and being actively studied are the details of how this connection occurs from a pure physics point of view.
When one considers the origin of order in the universe or the primal creative act, there exist two modes of thinking on this topic. The first is to consider the proper universe or cosmos (by this I mean everything including any idea of a multi-verse) as having a beginning point and thus a ‘first’ cause in the classical creationist sense. The second is to consider the cosmos to have no beginning, to exist eternally. In this view order might be the natural result of probabilistic physics operating over enormous time scales. So while the formation of spontaneous order has a vanishingly low probability, over eternal time scales it “almost surely” will occur an infinite number of times. While traditional theists tend to prefer a more directly active deity, as is expressed in the first case, either viewpoint requires the operation of ‘creative’ information that might be considered definitional for the term “Word of God”. This information exists potentially and eternally just as the number 3 or the geometry of a circle.
Actually Baha’u’llah has discussed this very question:
“As regards thine assertions about the beginning of creation, this is a matter on which conceptions vary by reason of the divergences in men’s thoughts and opinions. Wert thou to assert that it hath ever existed and shall continue to exist, it would be true; or wert thou to affirm the same concept as is mentioned in the sacred Scriptures, no doubt would there be about it, for it hath been revealed by God, the Lord of the worlds. Indeed He was a hidden treasure. This is a station that can never be described nor even alluded to. And in the station of “I did wish to make Myself known,” God was, and His creation had ever existed beneath His shelter from the beginning that hath no beginning, apart from its being preceded by a Firstness which cannot be regarded as firstness and originated by a Cause inscrutable even unto all men of learning.” — Lawh-i-hikmat
He appears to come down on the side of an eternal universe while maintaining the possibility of a more active creative process. Further on in this same work Baha’u’llah makes the statement which seems to imply that whatever form the creative process takes, it remains a product of Nature:
“Say: Nature in its essence is the embodiment of My Name, the Maker, the Creator. Its manifestations are diversified by varying causes, and in this diversity there are signs for men of discernment. Nature is God’s Will and is its expression in and through the contingent world. It is a dispensation of Providence ordained by the Ordainer, the All-Wise. Were anyone to affirm that it is the Will of God as manifested in the world of being, no one should question this assertion. It is endowed with a power whose reality men of learning fail to grasp. Indeed a man of insight can perceive naught therein save the effulgent splendour of Our Name, the Creator. Say: This is an existence which knoweth no decay, and Nature itself is lost in bewilderment before its revelations, its compelling evidences and its effulgent glory which have encompassed the universe.” — Lawh-i-hikmat
Both the idea that fundamental matter is a product of a non-physical mathematical field and that information can be an organizing and creative agent find common root in the ancient Platonic ideas of idealized forms as the true reality. In a previous article I have discussed the relationship between Plato’s ideas and these concepts of modern physics. The consequence is the understanding that the physical forms expressed in our universe are as eternally recurring and deathless as the number 3 or π. It is a short leap to realize that consciousness itself is at the very least a product of these mathematical relationships (if not much more) and as such is similarly eternally recurring and deathless. Thus the concept of an, ‘eternal soul’ could be understood in this context.
It is interesting that the rise of information technology has exposed the primacy of relational information over matter in a very direct way. In my opinion it underlies the current popularity of the simulation hypothesis. It becomes obvious that if our perception of the physical reality is so flimsy that it can be replicated in across physical platforms, perhaps this betrays a profound mistake in what is the true ‘base-reality’. The commonly assumed idea is that it is physical; when in fact a proper understanding of ‘base-reality’ reveals that it is instead a kind of relational information.
The word ‘God’ is packed with even more baggage, the standard monotheistic definition is that of an all powerful and benevolent creator. However when this definition is examined carefully it fails due to simple logical and mathematical consistency. In fact mature consideration of the question of a singular and ultimate deity brings one to realize that such an entity cannot be contained by definitions. In the words of Baha’u’llah, God is “sanctified above all attributes and holy above all names”. At best the word ‘God’ is a pointer towards the infinite, the “unknowable essence” . This pointer is at the very least the source of all the math and creative information from which order in the universe and consciousness spring. While the secular minded might choose to leave such an idea unnamed, a religious individual calls this pointer ‘God’.
I think the break between the religiously minded and the secular on these terms would be on the word ‘God’ and consists in levels of abstraction below its primary meaning. The question is, has this ultimate reality, ever manifested or communicated in some manner to humans? On one level I would claim that based on our definition of the ‘word of God’ as ‘creative information’, that the existence of our consciousness is sufficient proof of this. This is because it represents the very embodiment of creative information. Human consciousness so far represents the highest expression of creative information, which we have encountered. Human consciousness thus become on some level definitional for what is knowable about ‘God’. This returns us to the ancient idea of man made “in the image of God” and inverts it, so humans represent the current limit of what is possible to know about God.
Baha’u’llah takes this idea further and teaches that among humans there exist rare beings, which express a supreme type of consciousness. These individuals represent the true Man, the Sadratu’l-Muntahá, which is the symbolic Lote-tree beyond which there is no passing. They are known as manifestation of God, and include individuals like Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Krishna and Baha’u’llah. Elaborating on the purpose of our existence and the relationship to these beings, Baha’u’llah explains:
“The purpose of God in creating man hath been, and will ever be, to enable him to know his Creator and to attain His Presence. To this most excellent aim, this supreme objective, all the heavenly Books and the divinely-revealed and weighty Scriptures unequivocally bear witness. Whoso hath recognized the Day Spring of Divine guidance and entered His holy court hath drawn nigh unto God and attained His Presence, a Presence which is the real Paradise, and of which the loftiest mansions of heaven are but a symbol. Such a man hath attained the knowledge of the station of Him Who is “at the distance of two bows,” Who standeth beyond the Sadratu’l-Muntahá. Whoso hath failed to recognize Him will have condemned himself to the misery of remoteness, a remoteness which is naught but utter nothingness and the essence of the nethermost fire. Such will be his fate, though to outward seeming he may occupy the earth’s loftiest seats and be established upon its most exalted throne.”
Links to my other articles on religion and science:
Plato, Modern Physics and Baha’u’llah
One Physicist’s first Look at Abdu’l-Baha’s Tablet of the Universe
The Known and Unknown: Physics and the Revelation of Baha’u’llah
Does the singularity of God require the singularity of Religion?
The Spirit of Faith and Eternal Life
A Talismanic View of Evolution
Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab and Shaykh Ahmad
The fetish of exaggerated individualism is driving us to extinction.
