Science As a Metaphor
Bridging the gaps between naturalism and idealism
Ruling over time and space itself, god of gravity is an extremely powerful god. You cannot plead with that god, and yet, craftsmen of complex arts can build artifacts that invoke the goddess of lift force, who can temporarily defy god of gravity. Similarly, god of lightning, also known as god of electromagnetism, can be invoked to conjure virtual worlds where the god of gravity can be opposed.
Unless one insists that perpetual motion machine, philosopher’s stone, or transmutation of lead into gold without a particle accelerator are literal possibilities and not just a metaphor for the process of trying to attain the unattainable through deep practical knowledge (which is itself a metaphor), one has to arrive at naturalistic explanation of phenomena in the universe. At least, both explanations, mystical and naturalistic alike, must be functionally identical (thus also demonstrable).
It goes without saying that when the two explanations differ, the reliability record, quite naturally, leans heavily toward naturalistic explanation which makes it a pretty sound yardstick. Why that is the case can be best illustrated when we assume that both, idealism’s consciousness as ground of being as well as naturalistic explanation of phenomena, are equally true and valid.
Thus we arrive at idealistic naturalism (or naturalistic idealism, if you will), which could be roughly summed up like this:
As is obvious, adherents of idealism are prone to put the “miracle” in random places. For example standard theism puts it somewhere around the mind, and there are even extremists who put it before concept and thus end up with total disregard for the phenomenal world. In any case, that’s the root of all those wild spirito-religious beliefs and superstitions that simply cannot hold their ground in front of experimental experience.
On the other hand, naturalism stops short of acknowledging any “miracle” whatsoever. That naturally results in the obvious problem of how something came from nothing and also hard problem of consciousness, both of which, however, still imply nothing short of a miracle. After all, those problems are what you inevitably get when you juxtapose the existence of depersonalized observable world and personal consciousness (which we are), but you also refuse to entertain the idea that that consciousness might be the “common ground of being.”
To put it very simply, while idealism can give us a general outline of the whole framework, naturalistic explanation gives us a clear, detailed blueprint and manual. Even though we will most probably never know how the unmovable, which we are, began to act or how an action, a movement of the unmovable, registers as perception.
Of course, neither of that invalidates so-called extraordinary or paranormal phenomena. It just treats them as normal and therefore perfectly explainable within (functionally) naturalistic framework. It simply means that when you see yourself in your dream while you hover above your bed right under the ceiling, you are, indeed, just sleeping and dreaming. You may even be already dead by all social or medical standards, but there’s still some perceptible activity with/in your body.
On the other hand, it also clearly demonstrates the stupendous accuracy with which you can conjure and navigate a mind representation of the world. And naturally, depending on the type of dream, you may visit other mental realms — some individual, some shared — but all pretty much grounded in the whole of existence, physical included. (Despite the fact that you yourself who dreams those dreams are essentially dreamed, just with enormous level of consistency.)
Or consider synchronicity — it’s not that the event is acausal, you simply know about an event even before you are aware of it. Your unconscious simulates what may happen based on the state of the world around you even if it’s not in your direct attention. Furthermore, the more the movement of various units is subject to raw natural forces, instincts, or other predictable patterns, the more precise the simulation becomes.
Now, if your unconscious contains a long-term encouragement toward seeking out the unconventional and surprising and it detects a rare golden bug that will most probably hit your window pane or it registers a unique pyramidal red stone, it sends you a reminder of a dream you’ve had about a scarab or an echo of an excerpt from a book you’ve read and which left deep emotional impacts on you, thus registered as strong symbols.
But — you are not getting a message from somewhere else. You are simply predicting the course of events, and the strong meaningful concordance that is felt across the whole perceptual spectrum just points to the accuracy of the prediction. Your alarms go, “Bingo!” It’s the same as when the oracle gives you an answer you already know and you are not even surprised that the oracle just states the obvious. You already knew the answer and you already knew what was coming, so you just asked accordingly, and the “synchronicity” brought it home.
Just as a side note: I’d say that the factor of surprise is there to assure a lack of premeditation, even though it’s always I who plots against and plays tricks on myself. As is always the case, whether below or above.
Anyway.
Naturalistic explanation clearly speaks for itself. You can demonstrate, even for others, its claims. Despite the popular belief, you can also demonstrate the claims behind the idealistic framework in the same way. And even for others, albeit only implicitly. Thus the debate between atheism and theism, the dispute between idealism and naturalism/materialism/physicalism comes to an inevitable end. Yin and Yang reveal the unnamable Tao which reveals itself when Yin and Yang cease.
Therefore, if I was ever pressed to formulate a worldview, I would most probably not settle for less than the above :D
