Science and Mysticism

Dark Hunter

 

First, let’s clarify our definitions.

There is the scientific approach. It deals with proving hypotheses with experiment, reproducibility of experimental results, etc.. e.g. all the methods of science and the results of applying them.

There is the philosophy of materialism. It claims that nothing exists but the things that can be materially detected. (As for me, I view it as quite a silly idea, but as a personal worldview — why not? Just don’t force it onto others.)

There is a really silly Marxist mixture of the two, which claims that “Science has proved that nothing mystical exists”. (Actually, science cannot prove that something does not exist at all; it can only prove that it is not observed at a particular place.)

Finally, there are the philosophical categories of matter and spirit. They can be subject of discussion, can be observed from your personal experience, but have nothing to do with practical science.

I use both the scientific and the mystical approach, and I like them both. But I also realize their limitations.

Science is humanity’s collective knowledge base. Its only one disadvantage is that it works only where knowledge can be collective. It deals with technologies that work always, regardless of the personality of the one who is using them. The aim of science is to create technologies that work, not unique masterpieces.

This is also the limitation of the scientific approach: it works only when the result does not depend on who is using it. Two plus two always make four, no matter who is calculating. However, when the result starts to depend on the personal traits of people who are trying to achieve it, then science ends and art begins.

The scientific approach is an excellent and precise instrument. Troubles come when people start to absolutize it, when they forget that it’s a tool for doing the job it’s designed for, and turn it into a kind of religion instead. Such a religion states the “Science can explain everything”. But explanation is not enough for real understanding. A five years old child can “explain” thunder as “Two clouds collide”. This “explanation” will be persuasive and consistent for his image of the world. But, alas, it has nothing to do with understanding of the physics of thunder.

This is why people look so silly when they try to scientifically explain mystical, magical, occult things. It turns really to a profanation of science. When I see it, I feel embarassed twice: first, for such a moronic use of an excellent tool, and second, for the pathetic result it achieves.

Usually, it goes so: people totally ignore the very mystical part of the thing they are trying to explain, leave only its psychological or biological part, explain it, and triumphantly claim that they have explained everything and there is nothing more! (This is where I make a facepalm gesture.) It sounds as somebody explaining art like this: “A painting is two square meters of canvas and a kilogram of dye.” It will be difficult to demonstrate for such an “explanator” that the art of painting lies exactly in what else is there except the canvas and the dye. It exists, but you cannot scientifically prove it.

Surely, any mystical phenomenon includes also a material (physical, biological, psychological etc.) part — the same way as a painting contains also the canvas and the dye. Mysticism does not violate the laws of science, it complements them. Therefore, when somebody pretends to explain mysticism via mere biochemistry, it’s a sign for me that his knowledge of the topic is thinly superficial, like something from junk media and telltales of ignorant people.

And, finally, something to say about where it all began. When I was 16 years old, I encountered a situation in my life where I really needed to find out: who is right, materialists or mystics. It was a practical necessity for me then, not mere curiosity. I started to read sources on both, trying to find the most advanced books available. And I got an impression that both are right in some sense, but it was not an answer to my life question. Then I started to experiment. I needed to find out from my own practice: whether magic works or not. I spent several years on it, trying to make experinents that could be reproducible. It was quite a challenge, but I finally got convinced by my own experience: yes, magic does work.

This is why such quasi-scientific explanations of mystical things sound unconvincing to me: because I’ve personally researched this field. And this was actually a scientific approach from me: to prove the theory with experiments. While the claims like “Science proved that mysticism does not exist” are pure obscurantism and appealing to tradition instead of doing research.

Translated by Milchar