Principled Non-Opposition, or the Third Option

Is it possible to reconcile science and religion? Hardly. Science is rational — it seeks explanations for life’s phenomena, investigates their causes, and studies the regularities and interdependencies of what happens. Religion, on the other hand, is irrational — it presupposes faith in the arbitrary influence of supernatural forces and, therefore, does not consider all life’s phenomena explainable or their causes comprehensible. How can these two irreconcilable views of reality be combined? They cannot — because, as stated, they are incompatible. Any attempt to do so would lead to one side losing its essence: the result would either be science absorbing and demythologising religion or a pseudo-scientific religion distorting scientific concepts.

And yet, they coexist, though in competition. Our world provides sustenance for both. It contains factors that serve as the foundation for science and those that form the basis of religion. Moreover, more and more frequently, the same elements shift from one opposing camp to the other: some religious phenomenon receives a rational scientific explanation, or science makes a discovery that seems impossible to explain without acknowledging the possibility of higher forces. This suggests that, paradoxically as it may sound, the division between science and religion does not actually exist. That is, it is illusory and thrives on misunderstanding. Science refuses to acknowledge what it is not yet capable of studying or explaining (and sometimes even detecting), while religion refuses to accept that many currently inexplicable phenomena may — and should — have a rational explanation.

Even if science and religion cannot be reconciled, could there be a third option — one that integrates elements of both and provides a unified interpretation? Yes, such an option exists. It is the Teaching of the United Temple. Without being a religion, it acknowledges the existence of phenomena typically interpreted as religious and provides them with rationalist explanations — albeit from a broader rationalist perspective than that of modern science. This means it explains such phenomena without reference to supernatural forces and holds that, in time, science will be able to study and explain them.

Like anything unconventional, this third option requires developing an appropriate approach, overcoming certain stereotypes, and simply getting used to looking at things from a new angle. At one time, I had to confront the challenge of understanding these realities and adopting this new perspective. I wrote about this in one of my unpublished texts. Below is a relevant excerpt. It will help clarify what is meant by “the third option”.

***

When I was learning all this from my Teacher, I was long troubled by a sense of unease, caused by an apparent contradiction. On one hand, there was something I had never believed in — a Creator, the act of creating the Universe, and similar concepts. On the other hand, there was something I had accepted and believed in since my school years — evolution, strict cause-and-effect relationships, and so forth. It was difficult to reconcile these realities within a single coherent system — because I personally struggled to connect them. The problem lies in a stereotype: the notion that the idea of a Creator making the world belongs to the realm of the supernatural, the irrational, and is characteristic of religious consciousness — thus, by definition, incompatible with a rational scientific approach and the concept of evolution. Especially evolution that applies even to the Creator Himself. Overcoming this mental barrier took time. The difficulty was not in understanding the information itself but in resolving the apparent contradiction that made it hard to absorb. There was a kind of internal rejection, which could be roughly described as follows: if I do not believe in the supernatural, considering it absolutely impossible, then how can I take the idea of a Creator seriously? How can I accept this information intellectually and spiritually? But when I realised that the creation of the world by a Creator does not necessarily have to be a supernatural act, everything fell into place, and the rest seamlessly fit into the framework I had been taught.

This is how it happens: ingrained stereotypes prevent us from seeing reality as it is. This is well known; I do not claim it as my discovery. However, encountering this problem not in theory but in practice, and overcoming it in practice, taught me a great deal. I believe it was one of the key moments on my path. I did not just learn something new — I broke a significant perceptual stereotype, without which understanding the Teaching would have been impossible.

Why do I emphasise this point, even to the extent of straying from the main topic? Because this stereotype is undoubtedly relevant not only to me. As I mentioned, it may be the biggest obstacle to understanding the Teaching. Simply because it prevents people from even beginning to study it seriously. Those with a scientific mindset may be put off by the fact that the Teaching acknowledges the existence of a Creator who made the Universe; while those inclined to place the supernatural above the rational may find it unacceptable that the Creator is not omnipotent, that he is also subject to the laws of evolution, and that the creation of the Universe was necessitated by his own evolutionary needs. Here, we see the clash of two worldviews: the scientific and the religious. Their opposition, as the conflict between rational and mystical consciousness, has been one of the recurring themes throughout human history. Yet, the Teaching reconciles them, showing that the idea of evolution is entirely compatible with the idea of a Creator’s existence. Moreover, these ideas complement, explain, and justify each other. And, of course, this integration extends beyond just these two concepts. The Teaching contains many such interconnections. It can only be correctly understood through the realisation that seemingly supernatural things and phenomena can be explained rationally — and that rationality itself should not lead to the premature rejection of what, due to ingrained stereotypes, is perceived as manifestations of supernatural forces.

While studying the Teaching, one may occasionally feel that in certain aspects, it resembles religion — since it describes things that science does not recognise but that bear a striking resemblance to religious doctrines. However, this resemblance is akin to the religious view of lightning. Religions considered it a supernatural phenomenon, an attribute of an angry God or gods, intended to terrify the disobedient and punish the wicked. Yet, this perception of lightning does not strip it of its physical reality or turn it into a mere product of mystic imagination. Lightning is real. And the day came when science provided a rational explanation for this natural phenomenon. We see that the phenomenon itself exists, but there is nothing supernatural about it. Similarly, the Teaching speaks of many things that at first glance seem to go beyond rationality: the Creator and the creation of the Universe, the world of energy and the world of Spirit, elemental gods, life after death and reincarnation, and so on. Yet, it emphasises that all of this belongs to the realm of the natural and rational — and therefore, is accessible to scientific inquiry. Thus, those studying the Teaching must approach it from this perspective: understanding that what may seem religious in nature is, in reality, not religious at all but genuinely exists. Developing this perception may not be easy, and it may not happen immediately — but it is necessary. Otherwise, one risks veering too far in one direction: either outright denying the possibility of such things or interpreting them in a mystical light. Either path distorts the integrity of the Teaching and fatally misrepresents its meaning.

Yes, the Teaching speaks of many things unknown to science. But it is not uncommon for science to be unaware of something — or even to know of it but be unable to explain it. In time, science will learn and explain. The Teaching, however, can greatly aid this process, offering guidance, suggesting causal relationships, and providing logical explanations for the unknown. It does not oppose science. On the contrary: the methods of knowledge within the Teaching and the scientific method are two manifestations of the same thing. They complement each other and often merge. In the future, when the Teaching becomes the worldview of all humanity, the boundary between it and the purely scientific approach to understanding the world will disappear entirely, and they will visibly unite into a single whole. In essence, they are already one — but science sees this less clearly than the Teaching does, and it will take time for it to acknowledge this fact.

***

As a final summary, I will add this: It is commonly said that science and religion are in fundamental opposition. In contrast, science and the Teaching can be said to be in principled non-opposition. The Teaching not only does not reject the scientific approach but asserts that a scientific explanation will eventually be found even for what science currently does not acknowledge or cannot yet justify. One could say that the Teaching believes in science more than science believes in itself. And there is no irony in these words. There is only confidence in the future unification of science and the Teaching — and our readiness to do everything possible to make it happen.

© Atarkhat, 2016