Dualities of Science and Spirituality (March 2025)

The Convergence of Science and Spirituality (Part One) is a mediated conversation between Rupert Spira (2023) and Donald Hoffman wherein the philosopher and scientist respectively explore what consciousness is, and how consciousness can be known. Spira, a philosopher and a potter, notes that consciousness cannot be defined, for it is “that with which all experience is known… within which everything arises… out of which everything is made” (Spira, 2023). Hoffman agrees that consciousness cannot be defined, though his perception is confirmed through mathematics’ inability to define it; recognized as the hard problem of consciousness, scientists do not have a confirmed theory for how the human brain’s neural activities result in subjective experience (consciousness) (Berent, 2023).

As a cognitive psychologist, Hoffman clarifies how his peers frame this quandary by first stipulating space-time, then stipulating physical systems (brains) and the neural activities of those systems, to provide a pathway to stipulate the specific experience of consciousness (Spira, 2023). However, there is no theory that can explain each of these scientific unknowns as separate equations, or how they interconnect with each other. Instead of continuing to seek answers for what seem to be mathematically unanswerable questions, Hoffman has set out to first stipulate the conscious experience and use mathematics from this discovery to connect the dots for space-time (Spira, 2023).

Spira (2023) later explains how no scientist or human can ever define what reality is using their mind, since consciousness itself cannot be observed or defined through thought, as the act of observing (thinking) interjects logic which disrupts the experience of consciousness. Essentially, consciousness is existing (being, experiencing, immaterializing) outside (beyond, separate, fluidly) of the human mind and when our brains witness what we believe to be consciousness, the act of witnessing it automatically negates it from existing. I use the term ‘essentially’ loosely since, as a spiritual person, the act of churning a knowing (recognition, familiarity, sensation) of consciousness into a human-made language, transcribed through human-constructed mechanics, to try (hope, aim, wish) and re-interpret one’s spiritual understandings of experientially-expansive and immaterial perceptions for an unknown audience (brains, belief systems, experiences) to understand is… a delightfully overwhelming feat.

Much of the conversation between Spira (2023) and Hoffman followed a formula where Spira shared philosophical lessons of consciousness and our inability to recreate it through scientific understandings, followed by Hoffman agreeing with the sentiment but pushing forward to ask how Spira’s knowing can be defined through the scientific formula. In response, Spira explains how asking the question of how to define it will never bring forward an answer, and Hoffman asks why. As a spiritual person, I found Hoffman’s respectfully mystified agreeance spoke of his humility toward the greatness that is the all of everything and admired how his alignment with scientific knowing processes did not waver; to me, this read as a spiritual connection to scientific nature and the mastery of accepting what we as humans cannot (yet) know. And still, he wants to know why we don’t know what we don’t know and how we can grow to know.

Spira (2023) and Hoffman’s ability to debate through respectful, considerate, and appropriate communication methods reflect my classmate’s responses in how to engage with those holding opposing viewpoints. Practices such as active listening, keeping a neutral approach, reflective self-awareness, and being mindful of one’s unconscious biases, prejudices, and assumptions all steer participants toward a respectful path for interpersonal communication in potentially stressful or ostracizing conversations. Whether it be debating if science can measure spiritual experiences or having someone contradict one’s own spiritual beliefs, the intended message will always get lost in the shuffle of triggered emotions, inconsiderate remarks, or disregarding someone else’s experiences altogether.

A common thread in the discussions referenced how Indigenous Peoples’ worldviews recognize there are multiple truths as opposed to one universal truth. It is a teetering tightrope walk to view Indigenous cultures and practices from a non-Indigenous spiritual lens, so I will tread carefully. From my experiences being in a relationship with a Two-Spirit Indigenous woman, engaging in cultural activities in community, and learning alongside Indigenous Two-Spirits, women, men, and youth, there is often a shared assumption that one experiences a connection with the earth. There are discussions over how intergenerational trauma such as residential and day schools, the child welfare system, and substance (mis)use can lead to a disconnection from Mother Earth. As a white settler who was raised in the church, its strictness, and its belief that every other experience is irrelevant except its own, it’s no wonder that many people whose lives have been intercepted, influenced, or otherwise indoctrinated by the church are struggling to find this connection with Mother Earth and fellow humans.

I don’t yet have the full words for this but I will try and flesh out these concepts here believing that the pass/fail aspect of this course invites unfinished thoughts to take root and grow. Zooming out to the macro-est macro lens, we can see that humans are hurting around the globe. In essence, there are countless preventions which block individuals, families, communities, and collectives from reaching peace. From colonialism to patriarchy, capitalism to borders, and war to hunger, there is an endless list of human-made structure created to extract resources, divide between difference, and fight to hold onto power at the cost of anything.

Without seeming too naïve, I’m at the point where I am less concerned with trying to prove these systems exist and am more interested in looking to develop a path forward which aims to disrupt, dissolve, and decolonize these violent structures at a sustainable pace. Similar to the subsect in queer studies which declines discourse on what causes queerness due to its irrelevancy for the purpose of the discussion at hand (Motschenbacher & Stegu, 2013), I am not seeking to dive into the ‘why’ of why colonialism exists or why it has harmed Indigenous Peoples; I’m here to reframe the labour of those who have come before me having already done this good work, thank them for their contributions, and move ahead using a spiritual lens to consider how these colonial systems have inflicted harm and continue to disconnect so many people from their own culture, worldview, sense of self, higher power, and/or our shared earth.

By embracing a spiralled approach to learning, growing, and expanding, the spiral itself contains the knowingly unknowing of the unanswerable answer. I am not someone who seeks out scientific explanations for spiritual experiences, though I have often had my beliefs corroborated in scientific theories such as vibrational energy (French, 2024), string theory (Michio Kaku, 2013), and sacred geometry (The Esoteric Cross, 2024). At the same time* (*relatively so), I recognize the overwhelming amount of misleading information which claims to have all of the answers to consciousness, enlightenment, and the meaning of life, and the negative impact it has on both those whose spiritual beliefs transcend modern science and the very scientists committed to finding these answers. According to Spira’s interpretation of nonduality, we are happiness itself and this nature of reality exists within our self (Spira, n.d.). In terms of modern science, this belief that we are happiness cannot be proven, measured, or confined to a formula because of the very nature to what it is.

In a secular context, how does human-led science’s insistence that there is a mathematical equation for all of existence become its own ‘belief system’ which is no more measurable, logical, or proven than any other system of beliefs that relies on faith, personal experiences, and the unexplainable (AKA hypothesis, scientific method, and inconclusive evidence)?

When engaging with colleagues, classmates, or peers whose views are in opposition to your own, what measures do you take to ensure your engagements are constructive, respectful, and considerate to the sacrality of knowledge systems outside our own? 

References

Berent, I. (2023). The “Hard Problem of Consciousness” Arises from Human Psychology. Open Mind, 7, 564-587. https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00094

The Esoteric Cross. (2024, November 18). What Is Sacred Geometry? YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLUdnO-Jr4A

French, M. (2024, September 23). What Is Vibrational Energy? Healthline. https://www.healthline.com/health/vibrational-energy

Kaku, Michio [Big Think]. (2013, November 11). Michio Kaku Explains String Theory | Big Think. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ5dj-Ozwm0

Motschenbacher, H., & Stegu, M. (2013). Queer Linguistic approaches to discourse. Discourse & Society 24(5), 519-535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926513486069 

Spira, R. (n.d.). Introduction to Non-duality. Rupert Spira. https://rupertspira.com/non-duality/introduction-to-non-duality

Spira, R. (2023, March 26). The Convergence of Science and Spirituality (Part One) | Donald Hoffman & Rupert Spira. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rafVevceWgs