All Things In One

In the West we are witnessing a rather remarkable spectacle play out with astonishing alacrity. This spectacle is the constant erosion of trust in institutions and repositories of western wisdom. Many might group these institutions into two categories: the church and the academy, or religion and philosophy. Some may refer to these two categories symbolically as Athens and Jerusalem, arguably the two great centers of our unique Western heritage.

I assert that this crisis of trust in both instances is inexorably connected to a single fundamental and common problem: a disingenuous representation of uncertainty. Misrepresentation is rampant in both the moral repository and the scientific repository. The priests of each order have relentlessly distanced themselves from the fundamental truth that actually binds them together and allows them to operate for the mutual benefit of society. As each of these two halves unmoor themselves from the foundation, they find themselves increasingly at odds with common-sense and ordinary folk, thus eroding trust and placing them at odds with the masses.

So, what is this fundamental truth that binds these two repositories together? Both science and religion agree that human beings are unique. No animal counterpart exhibits the complex social, cultural, artistic, and religious behaviors we do, to say nothing of technological advancement. Whether you believe this to be the inevitable conclusion of evolution’s long march or a manifestation of the divine spark within us, the reality stands without question or controversy. Perhaps this truth is both an evolutionary truism and evidence of the mark of the Divine. Why does it have to be one or the other?

Human beings have the unique ability to think abstractly. This ability has allowed us to create written language and art with deep symbolic meaning beyond mere representations of physical objects. We have words as simple as tree, apple, and wood. But we also have words such as love, hope, nature, and sacrifice that are infinitely complex and deep symbols with many layers of meaning and expression. Entwined in all of this is the ability to understand the passage of time and its implications. The symbolic mapping of time and timekeeping is only found in humanity. These faculties imbue us with the ability to be not only reactors but actors also, shaping the world around us to a scale that is not matched to even the thousandth part in the remainder of the animal kingdom.

So what does abstract thought have to do with science, religion, and the misrepresentation of uncertainty? Let’s investigate.

When I say the word apple, assuming you also speak English, a thought enters both your and my mind. These thoughts are rooted in the experiences of each person. Generally, the two understand the meaning of the word because they have both interacted with the object that the word is meant to symbolize throughout their lives. But it is 100% certain that both people have had different experiences with apples. It is obvious that the word apple alone does not describe every aspect of the object. And how could it? That is impossible. The word itself is an approximate symbolic representation of reality; It is not reality itself. A granny smith apple is quite different from a red delicious or a Fuji or any of the other varieties. An apple can be small, large, ripe, rotten, etc. Thus, our language has evolved to include modifiers that improve the approximation of the word. This allows our language to encompass the fuller range of our experience with this object that exists not in our minds but in reality.

The definition I give above is important, so I restate it here. Words are approximate symbolic representations of reality. When you tell me that you’re going to give me an apple tomorrow, and you give no more qualifiers than that, there is some level of uncertainty as to what I will actually receive tomorrow. Even with qualifiers there is still uncertainty. “Tomorrow, I will give you one large ripe Fuji apple.” Okay, that gives me a much better picture about what you will give me tomorrow, but it is impossible to eliminate all uncertainty or approximation from that communication. Until the event is realized, the abstract expression of that event cannot express every detail fully. Abstraction offers power of expression, but it does so at the loss of information. Abstraction provides compression of information or said another way, the introduction of uncertainty. The world is infinitely too complex for words to encapsulate all of reality.

On top of the words and language we have built larger and more complex approximate symbolic representations of reality. Perhaps the first of these to emerge is Story. On top of that we have archetypes, or symbolic characters. Other variations of these include myth and legend. Generally these types of symbols have been utilized to pass moral wisdom and divine guidance from generation to generation. Some of these stories may have been rooted in historical fact; some may have been created and recreated through time, refining the density of information and wisdom packed therein. The parables of Jesus are some of the most densely packed short stories ever told. He was a master of symbols.

Are these stories and symbols perfect? Of course not. That’s impossible because the information they mean to convey has been compressed. The reality and the truth that a story intends to convey to the hearer or reader is infinitely more complex than the mere words of the story contain. Therefore, there is a measure of uncertainty in the symbolic representation. In the context of a story it is often said, for example, that there are many interpretations. This is an expression of uncertainty. 

For judeo-christian readers, this may seem at odds with our shared religious tradition, but I assure you it is not. I am not making statements about the reality or truths that sit behind the symbols. I am concerned here with our society’s ability to understand and use symbolic representations appropriately. There are moral truths. The transcendent and divine are real. How we convey these realities to each other is the topic of interest. And that always happens with approximate symbolic representations. And we need to be more honest about the role of uncertainty in those expressions. This is why we call ourselves “believers”. 

Said in a religious way, we cannot confuse the symbols meant to communicate the truth with the truth itself. We have to remember that the symbols are meant to point us toward the Source. Religious worship with all its rich symbolism doesn’t do much for us if we don’t learn and live what the symbols are meant to convey.

This construct applies to the world of mathematics and science too, as we have also created approximate symbolic representations of the physical world. Early scientists, many of whom viewed themselves as natural philosophers or even theologians studying God’s natural world, utilized a broad mixture of symbols to understand and then make predictions. They observed, theorized, hypothesized, experimented, and then refined. The end result was always a theory or a model of the world that made increasingly better predictions of reality. 

These theories and models are again approximate symbolic representations. The mathematical expression to represent, for example, the force of gravity between two massive bodies is not exact. There is compression of information, and while remarkably elegant and extremely powerful, the equation is not itself the reality or truth it seeks to describe. It approximates reality with some level of uncertainty, as all symbols do. Any good scientist understands this and is ardent in their determination to communicate the uncertainties of scientific findings.

But many in the world of science are eager to represent things differently. They want the non-scientists to believe that “science is real”. They wish to pull the wool over our eyes collectively in order to boost their own credibility. They want you to believe that there is no uncertainty in their predictions. Their equations, simulations, forecasts, and prognostications are all grounded in facts, i.e. a world of pure certainty. These priests of the new cloth are eager to have you trust and believe them with full faith, and they are happy to pass around the scientific tithing platter all the same.

But this view of science could not be more counterproductive. It stifles new thinking and creates zealots as ardent and full of blind fervor as any religious counterpart. What happens when a generation of young scientists actually believes that the approximate symbolic representations of reality are that reality? They stop trying to invent new models and theories that approximate the physical world even better.

Even worse, when scientists broadly convince the public that “science is real”, and then proceed to make predictions that are inaccurate or flat out wrong (lots of recent examples of this), then we lose widespread trust in the institution. Rather, if uncertainty was broadcast appropriately this would not be the case. Humans are actually remarkably capable, no matter their intelligence, of understanding the difficulty of predicting the future.

Across the board, we have confused the symbols with the reality they have been meant to represent. We are dishonest in our communications with each other about our uncertainties. And we are paying the heavy price morally and scientifically.