A Treatise on Science and Philosophy

Is there opposition between science and philosophy?

According to the literal and specific meaning of the terms “science” and “philosophy’, there should be no conceived oppostition between them. Science is defined as “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” The word "science" comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning "knowledge," which is derived from the verb "scire," meaning "to know." Its roots can be traced back to Proto-Indo-European, where it is associated with the concept of "to cut" or "to separate," reflecting the idea of distinguishing knowledge from ignorance. The term philosophy comes from the Ancient Greek words “philos” meaning “love” and “sophia” meaning “wisdom”, translating to “love of wisdom”. As we discussed in a previous post, “wisdom” is organized truths. Truths which would be impossible to know or agree on without the scientific method. Therefore, science and philosophy cannot be intrinsically opposed, as they are dependent on each other. We could say that “philosophy” is the result of “science”. Both words in their meaning convey the notion of “knowing”.

The perceived discrepancy between science and philosophy comes into play with the modern use and understanding of the term “philosophy”. Philosophy in modern times is understood to be synonymous to “hypothetical” thought. Hypothetical thought is not based on truths proven by the scientific method. Instead, it is context created from the realm of proposed truths with the intention of proving them scientifically later on, a process opposite of the scientific method and resulting theory. Philosophy is actually more closely synonymous with “theoretical science”,  which takes proven and reliable facts and creates a body of work to practically apply them, a “theory” or “wisdom”.

Much of what is thought to be “philosophizing” today is in reality “hypothesizing”. The classic philosophers built their theories off of base principles that were tested and accepted as objective truth. They used the scientific method to work towards a practical application of those foundational principles. They were in the business of “loving wisdom” with those scientific truths and facts.

What does all of this mean for us today? We have to be able to understand the meaning of these terms to properly conceptualize the things we are hearing from our church, our favorite streaming channel or the elected officials we voted for.

The classic philosophers were able to elaborate on extensive theories while also being able to “show their work”. In elementary school, it was not enough to produce the right answer on a mathematical equation. The teacher required us to explain how we arrived at the answer, thus demonstrating that we sufficiently understood the subject instead of just guessing the right answer or getting it from another student.   

If grade school arithmetic is important enough to require proof of the scientific method, then the “wisdom” we hear from our pastors and politicians should even more so be scrutinized and subjected to test by the scientific method. It may not be that they have the wrong answer; their statements may be factual. But, if they cannot show their work, it demonstrates that they are not sufficiently equipped to be an authority on the subject.

One way we can tell if an individual is parroting something they don’t understand is the overuse of overly broad and vague terms. “Jesus died to forgive us of our sins” may be factually correct, but how exactly does that work in scientific terms? Constantly repeating a phrase will carve an idea into our psyche, but it does not make us understand it.

The lack of scientific method is the reason large percentages of certain generations have been turned away from organized religion and other systems of gnosis even though they profess belief in deity. If those institutions were able to answer one question, the situation would be different. That question is: “Why?”

To ask “why?” is to ask to show your work. If our institutions cannot show their work, why should they be trusted to properly teach us? The current configuration of human consciousness is such that the “Why?” HAS to be answered. It is the pathway to a scientific understanding of ourselves and the world we live in. Until our higher institutions of learning and faith can answer this question, there will remain a fundamental problem with educating new generations.

Human consciousness is currently low in trust of others and high in critical and scientific (frontal lobe) thinking. This is a necessary step in the evolution of human consciousness as it allows each individual the opportunity to penetrate into the mysteries if they are so inclined, instead of being required to accept the truths blindly on the merit of another. The masters have always been there for humanity during times of exceptional circumstances, but they are meant to be a helping hand to us on our personal journey, not a crutch to avoid the difficulty of our own development.

Science, religion & philosophy were at one time joined together in agreement. While they are not intrinsically opposed, there has been a great chasm opened up between them in recent history. The path forward into the future is to once again bridge the many areas of study into one “Gnosis”. This is the way.