By all means we must eschew scientific materialism! But that science pertains only to the material is the classical view, which seems increasingly displaced by the insights of quantum theory. Of course, I am hardly an expert on that, and the learning curve has a long ways to go. But when one reads statements such as the following by Henry Stapp, one gets the sense that there is an impending sea change in the self-understanding of science:
"...[E]ach atom turns out to be nothing but the potentialities in the behavior patterns of others. What we find, therefore, are not elementary space-time realities, but rather a web of relationships in which no part can stand alone; every part derives its meaning and existence only from its place within the whole."
Thus the purely reductionist approach to understanding physical reality -- the goal of classical physics -- seems no longer appropriate.
Kafatos and Nadeau write:
"While the formalism of quantum physics predicts that correlations between particles over space-like separated regions is possible, it can say nothing about what this strange new relationship between parts (quanta) and whole (cosmos) means outside of this formalism.... Wholeness requires a complementary relationship between unity and difference and is governed by a principle of organization determining the interrelationship between parts. This organizing principle must be universal to a genuine whole and implicit in all parts that constitute the whole, even though the whole is exemplied only in its parts."
That is to say, neither the organizing principle nor the whole itself is directly accessible to scientific observation. So Kafatos and Nadeau say, "this does not, however, prevent us from considering the implications in philosophic terms."
And the implication of that statement, to my mind, is that science is not the proper domain for such questions. Philosophy must step in here. Science needs a strong epistemology in order to ensure the accuracy of the descriptions it makes. But it simply isn't geared to metaphysical/ontological questions; and when it nevertheless engages them -- consciously or unconsciously -- in its descriptions of reality, the result may be only ambiguity, or just plain "bad" science.
That is the sense in which I meant that I thought science needed to be separate from philosophy/ontology/metaphysics.
One can understand the complete relationality of all the constituting parts of the whole -- and science can observe the relationality. And yet it can only infer the whole: It can never observe it directly, nor describe it -- there is no language in science to describe it. That "description" must come from outside of science. And historically, from the earliest times, it has been the religious consciousness that has engaged the "wonder of the Whole."
The authors write further:
"But since the actual character of this seamless whole cannot be represented or reduced to its parts, it lies, quite literally, beyond all human representations or descriptions. If one chooses to believe that the universe is a self-reflective and self-organizing whole, this lends no support whatsoever to conceptions of design, meaning, purpose, intent, or plan associated with any mytho-religious or cultural heritage. However, if one does not accept this view of the universe, there is nothing in the scientific description of nature that can be used to refute this position. On the other hand, it is no longer possible to argue that a profound sense of unity with the whole [or with God, Who made the whole], which has long been understood as the foundation of religious experience, can be dismissed, undermined, or invalidated with appeals to scientific knowledge. While we have consistently tried to distinguish between scientific knowledge and philosophical speculation based on this knowledge, let us be quite clear on one point -- there is no empirically valid causal linkage between the former and the latter."
It's as if quantum epistemology [science, the study of the physical world] and ontology [the study of Being, essence] are yet two more "complementaries"; and both are needed to conceptualize the idea of the whole, the "total system," which is the Universe. And to me, that conceptualization/contemplation leads us to the contemplation of God.
I'm reflecting on this entire issue, and expect I will be reflecting on it for some time to come. I may yet come to a better understanding. But this is the best I can do for now.
Thank you so much, A-G, for your thoughts, which are deeply appreciated.
The process is like the unfolding of a seed, moving from simple origin to termination in the world of sense, the prior always remaining in its place, while begetting its successor from a store of indescribable power - power that must not halt within the higher realm . . but continue to expand until the universe of things reaches the limit of its possibility, lavishing its vast resources on all its creatures, intolerant that any one should have no share in it. Nothing is debarred from participation in the Good, to the extent of its receptivity. [4.8.6]
This All is universal power, of infinite extent and infinite in potency, a god so great that all his parts are infinite. Name any place, and he is already there. [5.8.9.]
It has not deserted its creation for a place apart; it is always present to those with strength to touch it. [6.9.7]
The power and nature of Soul encompasses heaven and guides it according to its will. To all this vast expanse, as far as it extends, it gives itself, and every interval, both large and small, is filled with Soul. . . Soul enlivens all things with its whole self and all Soul is present everywhere. . . And vast and diversified thought this universe is, it is one by the power of soul and a god because of soul. The sun is also a god, because ensouled, and the other stars, and if we ourselves partake of the Divine, this is the cause. [5.1.2.]
Nothing is detached or severed from its prior, so that the higher soul seems to extend as far as plants; and in a way it does so extend, because the life in plants belongs to it. Not that soul is wholly within plants, but only to the extent that they are the lower limit of its advance, another level of existence created by its decline towards the worse. [5.2.1.]
Every participant partakes of the power of Being in its entirety, while Being is unchanged and undivided. [4.4.8]
Soul in its unity is not extended by fragmentation into bodies, but is entirely present where it is present, and omnipresent and undivided throughout the universe. [6.4.12]
This universe is a single living being embracing all living beings within it, and possessing a single Soul that permeates all its parts to the degree of their participation in it. Every part of this sensible universe is fully participant in its material aspect, and in respect of soul, in the degree to which it shares in the World Soul. [4.4.32.]
A sympathy pervades this single universe, like a single living creature, and the distant is near. . . Like parts lie not in contact but separated, with other parts between, yet by their likeness they feel sympathy . . and in a living and unified being there is no part so remote as not to be near, through the very nature that binds the living unity in sympathy. [4.4.32]
[Matter] is an image and phantom of corporeal mass, a mere tendency to substantial existence, static but without position; it is invisible in itself, eluding all attempts to observe it, present yet unseen. . . Images of intelligible beings pass in and out of it . . without cutting, as if through water, or like shapes floating through the Void. [3.6.7.]
If evil exists, it exists in non-being . . . Such is the whole world of sense and all experience of the senses. [1.8.1]
[Matter] is the substrate which underlies figures, forms, shapes, measures and limits . . a mere shadow in relation to real Being, the very essence of evil, if such is possible. [1.8.2]