I'm late to the party. That's what I would say of my recent reading of the late physicist Richard Feynman (1918-1988). He was the noted professor of physics at CalTec and was to physics what Carl Sagan was to Astral Physics; making the complex approachable to the interested lay person, someone like myself. He was a winner of the Nobel Prize in physics.
The two books for which he is most known are Six Easy Pieces and Six Not-So-Easy Pieces. I thoroughly enjoyed both of these, primers on the basics of physics in the quantum realm. I confess skipping most the technical formulas and going straight to the narrative descriptions and conclusions.
His book that I just finished was published near the end of his career and life and is titled The Meaning of it All. This is his philosophical reflection on science and other sources of meaning. Religion plays an important part in this meditation and, though Feynman was in no sense of pious man, he did have an ongoing conversation with the world of faith and how it knows things - in ways very different than his own world of science.
Feynman was no theologian but portions of his book sound like he was, at least in part. I think this is due to the simple fact that when we start asking questions of ultimacy we all start to sound like either philosophers or theologians, schooled or not. And so he did what so many psychologies or histories or philosophies of religion do - they boil down the essentials of the origins or functions that religion plays.
He identified a tripartite group of religious aspects.
The first
is what is calls the "metaphysical" aspect, or what and how the cosmos is structured, its orienting powers, purpose, destiny, and governance.
The second
is the "moral or ethical" maxims by which individuals and communities are to conduct themselves in their living.
The third
is what he calls the "inspirational" function; how we are inspired, moved, and connected on the deepest emotional levels of our being.
For a bird's eye view, that's not a bad summary. What is reality? How shall we live in this reality? What touches us most profoundly?
Of course, he addressed all of these from a non-theistic point of view. He stated that our metaphysics shift and change, and science has a part in that even and especially for religion. The world is not, after all, flat and we do not insist that it is heresy to say so. Our metaphysics do shift and change. What is the universe, its age and nature? What makes it tick? Science cannot say anything about transcendence or surmise what is responsible for everything in the first place. But it really doesn't care to. It is satisfied with describing what is as best it can. It leaves questions of ultimacy to, indeed, religion and philosophy.
Surprisingly, Feynman made a rather sweeping statement about fundamental morals. He said that although both religion and science are human creations and shift over time, universal moral structures tend to survive all that flux. He frankly states that science doesn't have much to contribute to the ethical life, in fact, ethical life is what must inform the uses of science. And he says that religion - with all its theological shifts - has remained fairly constant as regards moral theology. I would say that he identifies the moral and ethical dimensions as those most enduring and universal - more so than most any other category. New paradigms of knowledge appear but loving one's neighbor continues.
As regards inspiration Feynman believed that we all need sources of wonder, awe, beauty, and unitary experiences. Religion provides this through its stories, images, spiritual practices and sacred spaces. Scientists may have parallel experiences of wonder and awe and beauty as they explore the intricacies of the cosmos, the fine tuning of nature or the elegance of mathematics. These experiences and encounters are the source of intellectual and emotional inspiration, much in the same way that music and the arts inspire us.
And so let me sign off with a simple observation: All truth is God's truth whether you call it that or not. Let's revel in it wherever it is to be found. And let me give the last word to the author of a book he wrote so many years ago and I enjoyed so very much:
"Western civilization, it seems to me, stands by two great heritages. One is the scientific spirit of adventure - the adventure into the unknown ... The other great heritage is Christian ethics - the basis of action on love, the <family of all people>, the value of the individual, and the humility of the spirit. These two heritages are logically, thoroughly consistent. But logic is not all. One needs one's heart to follow an idea.
If people are going back to religion, what are they going back to? Is the modern church a place to give comfort to a person who doubts God? More, one who disbelieves in God? Is the modern church the place to give comfort and encouragement to the value of such doubts?" (47)
