Mystery and Humility in the Depths of Understanding of Reality

Abstract

The scientific process of understanding natural phenomena such as evolution is an important tool for human progress, so it is good to know where it begins and where it ends, or where it leads. In this article, we put forward the observation that mysticism begins when, in understanding phenomena, we move into the intellectual realm of the unobservable and invisible material and personal life processes, which are interconnected in two ways. On the one hand, the material life processes, which can be contemplated mystically by means of scientific explanations, analogical models, and imagination, are the reason for the purposefulness of identities that are the fruit of personal processes. These are experts, professional and amateur scientists, and lay scientists who are attracted to identity precisely because of the material life processes in which they have an interest, enthusiasm, or passion. On the other hand, it is precisely their mental engagement with these material life processes through the mystical contemplation of the beautiful solutions to nature’s problems that makes them true since truth is classically conceived precisely as the correspondence between intellect and a thing. Discerning the truth of hypotheses, theories, mid-range theories, and meta-theories, however, requires humility at all levels because of the collective way of seeking truth. In this process of truth discernment, it is necessary to accept humbly that I may be wrong and that my neighbor may be right, which ultimately leads us to the mysticism of the Triune God’s merciful love.

1. Introduction

Sometimes, it seems as if imagination is completely absent from philosophy and theology. This is not the case in science, where models abound that visualize otherwise unobservable and invisible natural processes, with the help of human imagination and computer technology, which create fascinating and awe-inspiring models. Nevertheless, there are examples of theologians who are inclined to bring imagination into the scientific language of theology. One of these is the theologian and scientist Alister E. McGrath, who sees one of the pillars of his vision of natural theology precisely as “an acknowledgment of the importance of the imagination in any Christian encounter with the natural world, particularly in relation to its beauty” (McGrath 2017, p. 5). For him, Christian natural theology is “a process of beholding nature that involves imagination, recognizing that this human faculty is capable of making connections and correlations which are difficult to express in the pure language of logic” (p. 41). We may not really need imagination to analyze phenomena, but it is almost indispensable in synthesizing knowledge.

Trinitarian natural theology is, according to Alister McGrath, “an insightful tool for making sense of what is observed within the world” (McGrath 2009, p. 34), which means it is “a significant and potentially highly productive interface between theology and the sciences” (p. 34). Dialogue between science and theology is, therefore, the broader context of this article, which is important precisely from the point of view of fostering this dialogue since its purpose is bridging the distance between them and establishing a resonant relationship. In keeping with the purpose of Trinitarian natural theology, the purpose of this article is to make sense of two observed surprising facts, namely: (1) the current fragmentation and disconnectedness of human knowledge; and (2) the rather late development of theoretical disciplines that study the mystical unobservable and invisible material and personal life processes, and the related collective approach to truth-seeking that expects scientists to possess the virtue of epistemological humility.

Our specific research hypothesis, which can make sense of these observations, is the following: The process of understanding, whether historical or personal, according to the Mountain stream analogical model presented in this paper, consists of the steps of perception of different kinds of meaning, from the highest, which is the most concrete (rational and analytical knowledge), through the widest and up to the deepest meaning, which is the most abstract (intellectual and synthetical knowledge), following the principle of a double symmetrical spiral. In deepening our understanding of nature through this flow of meaning, scientific knowledge is becoming ever more mystical, and discerning its truthfulness requires ever greater epistemological humility on the part of scientists.

There are several different theories that attempt to explain how the process of understanding takes place. The theory of constructivism (cf. Piaget 1926; Vygotsky and Cole 1978; Lave and Wenger 1991; Harel and Papert 1991), for example, suggests that understanding is a process of constructing meaning from our experience and that knowledge is not simply transmitted to us by others but rather actively constructed by the learner. Schema theory (cf. Ausubel 1963; Ghosh and Gilboa 2014; Holyoak and Morrison 2005) proposes that understanding involves the activation of pre-existing mental structures, called schemas, which allow us to make sense of new information by fitting it into an existing framework. Information processing theory (cf. Miller 1956; Anderson 1980) suggests that understanding involves a series of mental operations, such as attention, perception, memory, and problem-solving, which work together to process and make sense of information. Situated cognition theory (cf. Suchman 1987; Robbins and Aydede 2008) argues that understanding is situated in a social and cultural context and that knowledge is not simply stored in the individual mind but rather distributed across people, tools, and environments. Experiential learning theory (cf. Kolb 1981; Beard and Wilson 2013) suggests that learning occurs through a cyclical process of experience, reflection, conceptualization, and experimentation. Understanding is viewed as a process of actively engaging with the world, reflecting on those experiences, and then using that reflection to construct new knowledge and understanding. These are just a few examples of the many theories that attempt to explain how the process of understanding takes place.

The process of understanding can be seen as a component of the broader process of knowledge formation, but they are not exactly the same thing. Understanding involves making sense of information or experiences by interpreting and organizing them into meaningful patterns or structures. It involves using previous knowledge and experience to make sense of new information and can be seen as a necessary step in the process of knowledge formation. Knowledge formation can involve understanding, but it also includes other processes, such as perception, attention, memory, and reasoning. In short, understanding is a key component of knowledge formation, but knowledge formation involves additional processes beyond just understanding.

Relevant to the process of understanding is critical realism (cf. Bhaskar 2016), a theory of knowledge, because it emphasizes the importance of context and the role of social structures and institutions in shaping our understanding of the world. In this sense, critical realism can be seen as a framework for analyzing both the process of knowledge formation and the process of understanding. Critical realism incorporates insights from other theories of knowledge and understanding, such as positivism, constructivism, and hermeneutics, and seeks to combine their strengths and address their weaknesses. For example, it draws on the positivist emphasis on empirical observations and the constructivist recognition of the role of interpretation and social context in shaping knowledge. At the same time, critical realism critiques both of these positions. The assumptions of critical realism are also contained in the content of this article.

As the ‘maps of meaning’ are also within the research field of this paper, it is worth mentioning some of the important contemporary authors who use them, especially in the field of dialogue between science and theology, which is the context of this paper. There are several scientists and philosophers who have written about maps of meaning and their role in helping us navigate life. Barbour (1966) in his book Issues in Science and Religion proposed the integration model of the relationship between science and religion as the most fruitful approach to integrate scientific and religious perspectives into a coherent worldview. Polkinghorne (1998) in his book Belief in God in an Age of Science proposed a two-level model of reality, with the physical world operating according to the laws of nature and the complementary realm of God operating according to a different set of rules. Goodenough (1998) in her book The Sacred Depths of Nature proposed a framework for understanding the natural world that incorporates both scientific and religious insights. McGrath (2008) in his book The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology proposes a framework for understanding the natural world that draws on insights from both science and theology. Other contemporary authors from the area of dialogue between science and religion, such as John Haught (2006) and Arthur Peacocke (2013), have also proposed frameworks for understanding the meaning and purpose of human existence that draw on both scientific and religious insights. These frameworks often emphasize the importance of finding a coherent and integrated worldview that can help us make sense of the complexity and diversity of human experience. “The questions related to the connection between the paradigm of science and that of faith is of great importance at this moment of history, and it seems that an understanding of this will influence immensely upon the living of faith in the future” (Vranješ 2019, p. 34). It is worth noting that these authors’ approach emphasizes the importance of dialogue and integration between science and religion, rather than seeing them as separate and distinct domains. In this sense, their work can be seen as a way of mapping out a path toward greater coherence and understanding between these two areas of inquiry.

In this case, the term ‘map of meaning’ has a metaphorical rather than a literal meaning, which is indicated by its purpose, namely “mapping out a path toward coherence and understanding”. In the case of the Mountain-body model of understanding (cf. Pohar 2021), which will be the basis for our analogical model of the process of understanding, however, the term ‘map of meaning’ is understood literally since the symbolic Mountain-body image represents the whole of reality and encompasses all possible types of meaning and their different relationships, and allows one to orient himself on the basis of its own coordinate system (left, right, external, internal, high, deep, symmetrical, etc.). In this way, the model aims to fill the gap as far as the maps of meaning are concerned, which they are in the literal sense.

The main aim of this work is the reduction of the problem of the lack of understanding that plagues modern man, manifested both in the chaotic fragmentation of poorly integrated and organized scientific knowledge and the chaotic fragmentation of poorly integrated and organized human society. This reduction of a chaotic lack of understanding can be achieved through the following: (1) theoretical contemplation of the mystical, i.e., the unobservable and the invisible flow of meaning from the highest and thus most concrete, through the broadest to the deepest and thus most abstract all-encompassing meaning; and (2) a practical reflection on our interpersonal interactions, which most often lacks, among other things, the humility that is one of the conditions for discovering the truth not only about oneself and others but also about nature as such.

In this theoretical contemplation of the flow of meaning and practical reflection, we can notice that as our understanding of nature deepens, the mysticism of theoretical knowledge and the humility of scientists as seekers of truth grow.

Thus, this analysis of our understanding of nature has led us to the conclusion that the deeper we go in understanding a particular natural phenomenon, the more abstract and mystical it becomes, as it becomes more and more mysterious and veiled, and less and less in touch with the material world. At the same time, the process of understanding becomes more and more mystical, fascinating, and purposeful, which is attractive, filling one with awe and wonder. The abstractness of meta-theories means that they are “hollow” so that they can accommodate more concrete mid-range theories, which in turn have room for theories that have room for individual hypotheses in their hollow interior.

We have also come to the conclusion that the ultimate end goal of the process of understanding, according to the theory proposed in this article, is the distant future emergent personal life process of identification of all men with lay scientists, whose mystical unity in truth is a condition of the possibility of the truthfulness of nature’s most abstract meta-theoretical material life processes of integration, including the evolutionary process of building complex connections in physical nature, biological life, and human culture. This personal life process is modeled on the mystical perichoretic life of the Triune God, who, in the power of His virtue of humility, is capable of humbly emptying Himself, making room for the Other, which is the condition for unity with one another. Just as meta-theories must have the greatest hollowness, so lay scientists must make the most room in their hearts for all other lay scientists so that they all can create unity in truth. The greatest space in the heart is, of course, held by the Triune God, who has emptied Himself to the utmost and thus reached the deepest bottom of the abstractness of understanding. By ending the article with the Triune God, natural theology can truly become trinitarian in character.

In these depths of understanding, one can feel the resonance between science and theology, in particular with eschatology, because the collective character of discovering the truth reminds us of the prophetic promise regarding the messianic Kingdom of God. Jesus prayed to his Father: “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you” (John 17:20-21, Bible, New International Version).

2. Methods

To make our purpose a reality and to fulfill our aim, we have used the Mountain-body model of understanding (cf. Pohar 2021). This model (Figure 1) presupposes the existence of eight different types, or levels, of meaning, which belong to four different layers of reality: the material world, lifeworld, material life, and personal life (cf. Pohar 2022). While this imaginative model of understanding is a flawed, limited, and incomplete attempt at finding the big picture of reality as a whole, we believe that it is nevertheless useful to some extent for our purpose, which is to point to the mystical dimension of understanding and to the epistemological humility that is required for it.

As the scientist and theologian Alister McGrath puts it, a big picture of reality “allows us to see science and religion as fitting together within a comprehensive map of the intellectual landscape, allowing an interconnected and enriching view of life” (McGrath 2015, p. 29). Further, he says that “the greatest human quest is for a framework of interpretation, which can provide an overall orientation for our lives” and that such maps of meaning “help us make sense of the complex landscape of reality and find our way within it” (p. 29). Finally, according to him, in psychological terms, we could also speak of schemata (singular: schema), “which provides both a framework for representing some aspects of the world and a system of organizing information about it” (p. 29). The Mountain-body model of understanding, which is just one possible candidate for this big picture (map of meaning or schema), is far from the confirmation and general acceptance of scientists (it has not yet received any academic criticism, nor has it ever been cited in a scientific journal), which means its use represents some risk because it is possible that it will lead us astray. In science, however, the risk is sometimes worth taking, but it must be humbly acknowledged that the collective of scientists, not the individual, has the final say.

The semantical levels of understanding of natural phenomena presented in the Mountain-body model of understanding (cf. Pohar 2021) were methodically established by the conceptual analysis of the languages Slovene and English, which contain a very rich epistemological terminology used in a living language, in which a great deal of life wisdom is sedimented. We could say that “phenomenologists and conceptual analysts are endeavoring to expose underlying structures (be they existential or linguistic), which are in some sense ‘always already’ implicitly known” (D’Oro and Overgaard 2017, p. 8).

This conceptual analysis showed that the language itself distinguishes between four or eight different nuances of a particular form of meaning, which are considered synonyms by dictionaries, without any particular semantic difference. The analysis of this semantic difference revealed four different layers of reality (material world, lifeworld, material life, and personal life) and eight different types of meaning: causal, causally conditional, purposive, principal, sensical, original, purposeful, and purposefully conditional. Different phenomena can be analyzed in a four-layer or eight-level way.

These eight types of meaning can be further differentiated into eight levels of meaning pairs: theological essence–theological cause (the most concrete), philosophical essence–philosophical cause, scientific nature–scientific cause, intended purpose–principle, original identity–sense, scientific purpose–scientific profession, philosophical purpose–philosophical virtue, and theological purpose–theological virtue (the most abstract). These eight levels of meaning pairs are of different abstractness, whereby the abstractness is increasing from the most concrete on the top to the most abstract at the bottom. The four layers of reality are, for example, reflected in a conceptual difference between the following four conceptual pairs: universal/particular (material world), general/special (lifeworld), common/single (material life), and communal/individual (personal life).

These layers of reality and levels of meaning were brought into their proper physical relationship with each other, with the help of the imagination and the phenomenological analysis of the lived experience of the phenomenon of understanding, which produced the imaginative symbolic Mountain-body model of understanding. This model outlines the structure or the framework of the event of understanding and presents the relationships between the different building blocks of which it is composed. This imaginative model is based on the symbolic experience of understanding as conquering mountain peaks of varying heights and on the symbolic experience of different layers of reality and the meaning it contains as parts of the human body. For example, the material world as the exterior layer of reality contains a principal meaning, where the former is experienced as dry, cold, and bare, without any depth, as well as hollow, which is the same experience we get by touching the skin. Similarly, the essences of things are experienced as the ‘flesh of the world’, as pointed out by Merleau-Ponty ([1948] 1968).

The result of this phenomenological analysis was an imaginative map of meaning of reality (Figure 1), which has its own coordinate system where top edge of the map (up) represents “the highest and the most concrete” meaning, bottom edge (down) represents “the deepest and the most abstract” meaning, left edge represents “the most external” meaning and right edge represents “the most internal” meaning (cf. Pohar 2021).

Further analysis of the meaning revealed that the upper part of the model of understanding is symmetrical to the lower part, while the left part is anti-symmetrical to the right part (cf. Pohar 2022). Unfortunately, we have neglected to highlight the contrasts that exist between the different parts of the map of meaning. In fact, mirror mapping produces not only symmetry or antisymmetry, but also opposites, which was not pointed out in the article and was even misinterpreted as a form of antisymmetry.

For the purpose of this article, we tried to find out whether the levels of meaning of the model could be linked theoretically in any meaningful way. It turned out that the concreteness of meaning increases toward the top of the model, and abstractness increases as we move toward the bottom of the model. It has also shown that the individual levels of meaning or segments of the process of understanding can be linked into a whole with the chain of reasons by the analogy of a mountain stream that originates at the very top, at the most concrete part of understanding, and spirals down to the deepest and most abstract and mystical part of understanding (Figure 2). The analogy turns out to be consistent with the symbolic model identified earlier. The two models are complementary and in resonance with each other, as the dynamic analogy fits the static symbolic model. It should be stressed that the Mountain-body model of understanding is symbolic, not analogical (contrary to what Pohar 2021 claims), since it does not describe an external process of understanding, but outlines the static structure of the totality of meaning.

In fact, several different analog models can be fitted to a single symbolic model, as different starting points can be plotted on the map and different destinations can be selected. In our case, we have chosen the greatest concreteness (or the least mysteriousness) as the beginning of the path and the greatest abstractness, which is also the greatest mysteriousness, as the end of the path. Life always offers several possibilities from which we are free to choose. Knowing where we are on the map of the totality of meaning helps us to banish the feeling of being lost in the endless sea of information that surrounds us on all sides, and allows us to orient ourselves toward a goal that we are free to choose.

In the next step, we analyzed the phenomenon of evolution and confirmed whether we could find information about evolution from all levels of meaning in the scientific literature. We used this information as evidence for the validity of the model and to illustrate the process of understanding itself. Tracing the reasons from the most concrete to the most abstract cases led us to an ever-deepening understanding of evolution. This journey ended with the theological condition of possibility, which is the distant future mystical unity of all human beings as lay scientists in truth, requiring individual humility.

Due to the lack of space in this article, we have very briefly summarized the essence of the rational part of understanding, which is in the upper half of the model, using the example of evolution, and we have described the lower part of the model of understanding in more detail, as the abstractness, and hence the mysticism, of material life processes and the humility of individuals in the scientific collectives increase as we descend.

3. The Switch between Rational and Intellectual Thinking and the Dive into Mysticism

Human knowledge can be, according to the Mountain-body model of understanding, divided into two groups: rational and intellectual. In the model, worldly rational knowledge is located above the “sea” level of life, and its creation is symbolically represented as the conquest of the three peaks of the mountain of understanding of the world. The world can be observed with the five senses and grasped with the help of lifeworld experience.

Rational knowledge about the phenomenon of evolution, which shows no signs of mysticism, would be the reasonable explanation of certain states of affairs by events, for example, the state of the global phenomenon of asymptomaticity of people infected by viruses, including COVID-19. These people are infected with COVID-19 but show no symptoms, such as fever, coughing, and fatigue. The well-known empirical fact is that the global percentage of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections among the tested population and individuals with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis could be as high as 40.50% (cf. Ma et al. 2021). The reasonable explanation for this phenomenon is the event of interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals, which was discovered by an international consortium of researchers of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, who have sequenced the genome of modern humans’ closest relative, the Neanderthal (cf. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology 2022) and discovered Neandertal introgression into modern human species (UCL 2022). The Neanderthal adaptive allele, which protects against RNA viruses, increased in frequency among modern humans as high as ∼25 to 30% in most populations in Eurasia (cf. Zeberg and Pääbo 2021), which means these populations are adaptable to environmental changes in the form of virus pandemics. Therefore, there are at least two rational reasons for the phenomenon of asymptomaticity of people: adaptive introgression and an increase in the frequency of the adaptive allele.

Non-mystical rational knowledge encompasses not only reasonable explanations but also the clarification of certain events by a particular state of affairs (i.e., cause). For example, the increase in the frequency of the adaptive Neanderthal allele can be clarified by a well-known cause of natural selection, which can be defined as “any consistent difference in fitness among different classes of biological entities. A simple way to think of fitness is as the number of offspring an individual leaves in the next generation” (Futuyma and Kirkpatrick 2017, p. 60). This simply means that because people with the adaptive Neanderthal allele survived viral epidemics and reproduced better than people without the adaptive allele, the percentage of this allele increased in the population.

These rational reasonable explanations and clarifications are nothing mysterious because they are in the realm of the observable and visible. One can verify if there are any Neanderthal genes in the modern human gene pool and measure the frequency of the adaptive Neanderthal allele in the population.

However, it is quite different when we try to explain the phenomenon of the asymptomaticity of infected people with a sensical theoretical explanation that is of an intellectual nature. In contrast to rational reasonable explanations and clarifications, sensical theoretical explanations make sense of surprising facts by suggesting some unobservable and invisible material life process that can be nevertheless contemplated with the help of a scientific analogical explanation. The phenomenon of asymptomaticity can, for example, be made sense of by a hypothetical material life process of the struggle for survival of the fittest, an unobservable and invisible process that is the basis of natural selection. It should be noted here that the word contemplation is comprehended very generally “as a gaze on God or His works” (Godawa 2020, p. 556).

Intellectual knowledge, in contrast to rational knowledge about causes and their conditions, is located beneath the surface of the “sea” of life, which means it is mystical in the same way the depths of an ocean are mysterious. The analog of the creation of intellectual knowledge is the conquest of the three peaks of the mountain of understanding submerged in the “sea” of life whereby this mountain is actually an underwater trench to the bottom of which the intellectual is trying to descend.

Unlike worldly states of affairs that we can observe and events that we can see, life processes are unobservable and invisible. However, this does not mean that they are inaccessible to us because material life processes (such as the process of evolution) can be contemplated (Greek: θεωρέω, transliterated as theōrō) by the intellect with the help of analogical models (for example, the analog for the ATP (energy) generation in a cell’s mitochondria is the electricity generation in a power plant) and imagination; meanwhile, personal life processes (for example, the process of studying the process of evolution of humans) can be reflected (Latin: reflectere, to bend back, bend backward; to look at the past personal practices as a means of understanding who one is in order to be able to build the future more wisely—cf. Freire 2005, p. 84) with the help of communal signs and imagination. For example, an evolutionary biologist has studied the adaptation of animals to their specific living conditions, whereby this study is a sign recognized by a community that he is an evolutionary biologist.

The difference between the world and life can be expressed in the form of the relation between the whole and its parts (cf. Pohar 2022). Meanwhile, in the case of the world, parts take precedence over the whole; in the case of life, the whole takes precedence over the parts. The essence of intellectual thinking is thus the perception of the whole with the help of the parts, which could be labeled as mysticism, and the contemplation of the whole.

This contemplation and reflection fall within the realm of mysticism because when we imagine the material and personal life processes with the help of models and the imagination, we have to close our eyes and immerse ourselves in the otherwise unobservable and invisible processes, which are perceptible only with the eyes of the heart. The word “mysticism” itself reminds us of this since it is semantically derived from the Greek word myeĩn, which means “to shut one’s mouth, to close one’s eyes, to keep silent” (Stres 2018, s.v. “Mistika”).

Mysticism is primarily associated with the religious ineffable direct experience of the supernatural and the ecstatic unity with it. However, already in Hegel, we find an interesting connection between the intellectual and the mystical, where for him everything that is intellectual is also mystical. For Hegel, the mystical, while transcending reason, is nevertheless accessible and conceivable to thought (Hegel 1970, Enz §82 Z). From the point of view of modern science, which has revealed the existence of unobservable and invisible life processes, such a link between the mystical and the intellectual is conceivable because the language of science describes to us, by means of concepts and analogies, life processes that are hidden from the world but which, precisely by means of a scientific explanation, become accessible to us so that we can contemplate them, and even immerse ourselves in them. The process of energy production in a biological cell is, for example, unobservable and invisible, but through the scientific description and analogy of electricity production in a power plant, it comes alive before our eyes and fascinates us with its perfection.

The history of science shows us that knowledge has deepened throughout history, starting with the deductive search for causes (Aristotle defined science as the search for causes) and principles (astronomy is one of the first sciences, based on observation and mathematics), deepening in the modern era with the inductive discovery of the laws of nature and general laws. Only recently, in the 20th century, did science delve into the contemplation of material life processes described by sensical explanations by means of abductive reasoning and, by means of the proposed hypothetical eductive reasoning, it reached the bottom of reality by discovering the personal dimension of nature, as given by disciplines such as professional ethics and virtue epistemology (cf. Pohar 2022). This analysis clearly shows us that humanity has gradually made a switch from rational to intellectual thinking by deepening our understanding of reality. In what follows, then, we leave the sunlit world of rational meaning and plunge into the moonlit intellectual meaning of material and personal life.

4. The Chain of Reasons That, in Understanding Leads from the Surface to the Mystical Unity in Truth, Presupposes Humility

In deepening our understanding, we can follow a descending spiral chain of reasons from the most concrete to the most abstract. For the purpose of this article, we will start our journey at the halfway point of abstractness or concreteness, where meaning stops broadening and starts deepening. We start with the sensical material life processes of growth, followed by the personal life processes of identification with an original expert scientist. Then come the scientific material life processes of development, followed by the scientific personal life processes of identification with a profession. Next are the philosophical material life processes of progress, followed by the philosophical personal life processes of identification with amateur scientists. Finally, we have the theological material life processes of integration and the theological personal life processes of identification with a lay scientist (Figure 3).

4.1. Sensical Material Life Processes of Growth as the Reason for the Sensefulness of Surprising Principal Facts (Figure 3)

The sensical material life processes of growth and their sensical hypothetical explanations are the first in a chain of reasons in deepening our understanding of reality (Figure 3). They give the answer to the question “How?” For example: How is it that a species has rudimentary organs? The process of evolution by natural selection to which a species is subjected makes sense of these surprising facts because rudimentary organs are one of the sensical byproducts of this process.

Charles Darwin was trying to make sense of these surprising facts, which he encountered while exploring the world: rudimentary (vestigial) structures, the phenomenon of extinction (this principle was deduced from the observable fact that some species which lived in the past do not exist today), the uneven geographical distribution of lifeforms throughout the world, and the adaptation of certain living creatures to their specific needs (McGrath 2011, pp. 147–48). His theory of the evolution of different genera made sense of these surprising facts.

Each of the specific material life’s processes has its own sense, meaning that it leads to a solution to a “specific” life problem of stagnation or a lack of growth. Life would not be life if it did not grow. If, for example, a plant organism lacks food and energy for growth, it stagnates and eventually dies, which means its species cannot grow in size. For example, the sense of the process of photosynthesis of a bryophytes species is the synthesis of specific organic compounds, such as glucose, sucrose, fructose, and mannose, which are different kinds of sugars (Glime 2017, p. 19). Different bryophyte species synthesize different organic compounds because they adapted to different environmental circumstances and physical conditions and consequently use different variants of photosynthesis. These specific products enable the species to solve the problem of food and energy shortage that plague heterotrophs and otherwise hinders the growth of an organism and a species. This synthesis is unobservable and invisible to the eyes of the world, but can nevertheless be mystically contemplated with the help of scientific explanation and imagination.

Charles Darwin (1809–1882) was one of the first to describe a specific sense of a specific material life’s process, namely the sense of the evolutionary process, which is the struggle for survival of the fittest. He discovered that the process of evolution is not arbitrary so that it does not lead in any direction, but leads to a specific result or material product (fruit), namely the fittest organisms. The material product of the evolutionary process of the struggle for survival is the fittest organisms of a species. This struggle can be mystically contemplated in nature with the help of the scientific explanation, which describes it.

The surprising fact of the asymtomaticity of certain people infected with COVID-19 can thus be made sense of by the sensical hypothesis about the process of evolution of the modern human species, meaning that these people have the fittest bodies and, therefore, survived the coronavirus infection, while people with unfit bodies died. This means they are one of the material products of the evolution of the human species; specifically, they were generated by the unobservable and invisible process of the struggle for survival, which can nevertheless be mystically contemplated in nature with the help of scientific description and imagination.

Symbolically, scientific hypotheses can be represented by Waning Crescent because individual hypotheses about natural phenomena, such as evolution, reflect just a small portion of the truth about them. There is much more to the phenomenon of evolution than simply calling it a specific material life process of the modern human’s struggle for survival of the fittest. Not only are there countless other species that evolve through this process, but there are also evolutionary processes at a deeper level described by theories, mid-range and meta-theories, which are also the focus of this paper.

4.2. Personal Life Processes of Identification with an Expert Scientist as the Reason for the Veracity or Truthfulness of the Specific Sensical Material Life Processes (Figure 3)

Original personal life processes of identification give the answer to the question “Who?” For example: Who is the expert on Neanderthal evolution? A possible answer: an evolutionary geneticist. An expert is an original identity because every expert is original in working on a subject that belongs only to them. An original identity is the immaterial personal product of the unobservable and invisible personal process of identification, for example, in the case of the evolutionary geneticists through the studying of the genetic material of modern humans, which can nevertheless be reflected upon and evaluated.

Personal life processes of identification are the reason for the veracity or truthfulness of these sensical material life processes because the result of these personal processes is an original expert identity, who is the author of thoughts on these material life processes, which makes them true. The philosophical doctrine of truth reveals how this is possible.

We have different theories of truth and what it means for something to be true. In our case, the most relevant is the classical metaphysical correspondence theory of truth, as put forward by medieval philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas, who defined the truth as follows: “Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus” (Truth is the equation of thing and intellect) (Aquinas 1920, De Veritate, q.1, a.1–3). This formula first states that the adjective “true” can be applied to thoughts and judgments, but it also leaves room for the idea that it can be applied to things or persons. Meanwhile, a thought is true because it conforms to reality, and a thing or a person is true because it conforms to a thought (The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2015, s.v. “The Correspondence Theory of Truth”).

Man’s being is different from that of every other being precisely because of his openness to the world, and his capacity to relate to every being. The truth (Latin: verum) is not a characteristic of a being-in-itself (Latin: ens in se), but of a being-in-relation (Latin: ens ad aliud), which means that the truth is grounded in relation. However, for Thomas Aquinas, this does not mean that truth would not exist without humans being able to establish this relation since the first and original relation of every being is the relation to God. The truth (Latin: verum) is, therefore, originally grounded in the mind of God. Things are intelligible because they are ultimately thought by God. Even if man did not exist, the truth of things would continue to exist in relation to the mind of God (Klun 2019, pp. 14–20). However, because humans are, according to the apostle Paul “co-workers in God’s service” (1 Corinthians 3:9, Bible, New International Version), we could say that things and people are also true because of human intellectual activity.

This definition of truth makes it clear that things are not true in themselves, but insofar as they correspond to a thought, which is always personal, whether it belongs to a man or God. This means that if personal life did not exist, things would not be true because the veracity of reality is relative to its conformity to personal thought. The truthfulness of material life processes is not an absolute category, but relative, because it is not something possessed by impersonal nature itself but something that emerges when this impersonal reality conforms to personal thought. This thought is the result of a personal life process of thinking that results in a sensical hypothesis. Therefore, when we speak about the truthfulness of a “specific” sensical material process it describes, we want to say that the expert’s hypothetical thought, which is the result of personal life’s processes, just “maybe” conforms to a reality of material life processes.

Why “maybe”? Because an individual expert cannot figure out by himself if his thought conforms to reality, and because the discerning of the truth is a matter for a collective of experts. According to the philosopher of science Karl Popper (1902–1994), rigorous testing of empirical hypotheses by individual scientists is not sufficient because of the well-known epistemological problems of the theory-ladenness of observations (a scientist can interpret data or evidence wrongly because of a theory) and a scientific consensus is needed. The relevant scientific community is the one that accepts an observation statement as a basic statement that has the power to falsify or corroborate a theory (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy n.d.).

Another problem that prevents an individual scientist from independently proving a sensical hypothesis is the problem of the invalid nature of the argument used for that purpose. The argument of affirming the consequent, which is used for the corroboration of hypotheses, is in fact an invalid argument, which means that there is a possibility that the premises of an argument are true but the conclusion is nevertheless false. Affirming the consequent is a classical logical fallacy. These are the two main reasons why there is a need for the additional help of scientific consensus while judging the veracity of a hypothesis.

Collectives of experts are humanity’s most suitable locations for discerning the true status of hypotheses. These experts work on a specific research project, such as, for example, the Neanderthal Genome Project, which was undertaken by a group of experts in the form of an international consortium of researchers of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, who have sequenced the genome of modern humans’ closest relative, the Neanderthal (cf. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology 2022) and discovered its introgression into the modern human species (UCL 2022).

Only someone who is an expert on a specific topic (subject or question), for example, on the topic of gene flow between modern humans and Neandertals, can (together with other experts from the research group) judge the truth of a concrete specific sensical hypothesis, for example, that the evolution of Neanderthals and modern humans was parallel, and interbreeding occurred. The truth of a specific hypothesis crystallizes over time as experts gradually come to a consensus on its veracity or truthfulness.

As individuals in a collective, experts must humbly accept the opinions, criticisms, and arguments of other experts in their collective and cannot be soloists. In a collective, it is not the argument of authority that applies, but the authority of the argument, which means that the argument of the one who is most convincing must be humbly accepted.

Collectives of experts judging the truth of scientific hypotheses, and thus the truth of the specific material life processes they describe, are very small, which can lead to a consensus on the truth very quickly and requires relatively little humility on the part of the experts, who have to listen to the arguments of only a small number of persons, whose knowledge is very specific. This limited humility and unity in truth can be symbolically represented by the Waxing Crescent Moon (Figure 2), which just partly reflects the light of the Sun. In the same way that the Crescent just partly reflects the light of the Sun, so the collective’s unity in truth and humility only partly reflects the perfect unity between the Father and the Son of which Jesus was speaking (cf. John 17:20–21, Bible), and the Son’s humility, who said of Himself: “I am gentle and humble in heart” (Matthew 11:29 Bible, New International Version).

4.3. Common Material Life Processes as the Reasons for the Purposefulness of Personal Life Processes and Personal Life Processes as the Reason for the Truthfulness of Material Life Processes (Figure 3)

Purposefulness and its conditions give the answer to the question “What for?” For example: For what purpose did you apply for the Neanderthal Genome Project? One possible answer: Because it belongs to evolutionary anthropology, which is the area of my interest, and to the field of evolutionary biology, which I am passionate about.

4.3.1. “Scientific” Material Life Processes of Development as the Reason for the Purposefulness of Original Expert Personal Life Processes

The reason for the purposefulness of individual personal life processes and their original expert identities are purposeful common theoretical scientific material life processes, meaning the survival mechanisms, which purposefully solve the common life problems of a genus, such as a plant genus’s problem of food shortage, which is solved by different types of photosynthesis (oxygene, anoxygene, C3, C4, and CAM) or the problem of the human genus’ susceptibility to viral infections, which is solved by the evolutionary process of the struggle for survival of the fittest human being. The purpose of the process of the human genus’ struggle for survival is to produce the fittest human beings. These abstract common material life processes are unobservable and invisible, but can nevertheless be mystically contemplated in nature with fascination through the interaction of imagination, scientific explanations, and analogical models.

The formula for the process of oxygenic photosynthesis, which is “common” to different species and is, therefore, the characteristics of their genus is the following:

CO₂ (carbon dioxide) + 2H₂O (water) + photons (light energy) → [CH₂O] (carbohydrate) + O₂ (oxygen) + H₂O (water)

In this formula, there is no mention of “specific” products of photosynthesis, such as glucose, but only a “common” product, which is carbohydrates. Scientific life processes are emergent processes that emerge from the upper level of reality; namely, from the sensical material life processes of growth. With the emergence of these scientific life processes, a genus develops toward the solution of the “common” problem. The solution to one specific problem that applies only to one species is not a solution at all. If only one species would be able to make food with the help of photosynthesis, this solution to food shortages would have no future.

Scientific projects are carried out within the framework of a specific study and its guiding purposeful theory. The identity of an expert participating in the Neanderthal Genome Project is purposeful or attractive because it is oriented toward the common material life process of human evolution, which is the area of interest of the expert.

The origin of purposefulness is the perceived beauty of nature’s solutions to common life problems. Only in recent decades have scientists finally come to realize that the professional disciplines do not merely accumulate facts about life but have a purpose of solving common theoretical problems, which are connected to certain mechanisms (cf. Simon 1989, Ch. 14). Nature’s solutions to life problems are very beautiful and scientists cannot help but marvel and wonder at the beauty of complex mechanisms that provide solutions to common problems. The more abstract the solutions and processes they describe, the more attractive and, therefore, purposeful they are and also more mystical.

Symbolically, theories about scientific material life processes can be represented by the Third-Quarter Moon (Figure 2) because theories are only half of the truth about a phenomenon, as more abstract mid-range and meta-theories exist. Abstract theories, such as the theory of the evolution of humans through natural selection, encompasses all concrete hypotheses, such as, for example, the hypothesis of the Neanderthal species’ evolution and other hypothetical material life processes.

4.3.2. “Scientific” Personal Life Processes of Identification with a Profession as the Reason for the Truthfulness of Scientific Material Life Processes

Without different professions, different areas of interest, such as evolutionary anthropology or photosynthetic physiology, could not have developed. The people who study these material life processes and write books about them often practice the profession of professor, dedicating their lives to this area and pursuing their profession as part of their mission in life.

Anyone with a particular profession, for example, an evolutionary anthropologist, is, of course, also an expert in a particular field and is involved in various projects, which means a profession is more abstract than individual expertise because a profession encompasses many different fields of expertise.

By studying scientific material life processes, collectives of professionals make them real or true because they think about them, whereby a corresponding thought is a necessary condition for their truthfulness. For example, by thinking about the process of human evolution, the professional makes it real or true because truth is, according to Thomas Aquinas, defined as the equation of thing and intellect (Aquinas 1920, De Veritate, q.1, a.1–3). To put it another way, a thing or a person is true because it conforms to a thought (The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2015, s.v. “The Correspondence Theory of Truth”). If there were no God and professional people to think about the scientific material life processes, then it would not be possible for them to be true.

A collective of scientists with a certain profession has the power to discern between different interpretations of scientific theories. In this process of seeking consensus on competitive theories through value judgment, humility is needed because one needs to listen to arguments generated inside the collective and humbly accept those that are convincing.

The scientific consensus about theoretical knowledge, which is made on the basis of value judgment, is not methodical but a matter of practical wisdom, meaning a skill, depending on “good sense”. Alister McGrath wrote: “This ‘good sense’ is a communal intuition, a sense of what works and what does not work, which is generated within the scientific community as a consequence of its inherited experience of engaging with nature. It is a living notion, grounded in the corporate wisdom of the scientific community […] Such theoretical choices are not irrational or arbitrary but represent the best judgment of the scientific community” (McGrath 2003, pp. 210–12).

There is also the need for collectives of scientists with a certain profession, and their consensus, in the case of the attempt to falsify a theory with the argument Modus tollens, which is “the” scientific method because a scientist should not seek evidence “for” a theory but evidence “against” it. Because observational evidence is theory-laden, a consensus must be reached on whether the evidence will be accepted or rejected.

Again, the humility of all who are involved is needed. It does not matter in what kind of collective a professional is involved; it is always the case that consensus can only be reached by humbly admitting that one may be wrong and that others may be right and acquiescing to the authority of an argument.

Symbolically, a collective of professionals can be represented by the First-Quarter Moon (Figure 2), which is reflecting more of the Sun’s light than the Waxing Crescent Moon, because a collective of scientists of a certain profession is bigger than a collective of experts involved in a particular project and thus requires more unity and humility. For example, there are many more evolutionary anthropologists who must unite on the truth of the theory of human evolution than there are experts in a particular project who study the evolutionary process of a particular human species. More people mean more people to listen to and take into account, which requires more humility on the part of scientists.

4.3.3. “Philosophical” Material Life Processes of Progress as the Reason for the Purposefulness of Professional Personal Life Processes

The reason for the purposefulness of different professional identities is the purposeful philosophical common material life processes, which are the emergent abstraction of the scientific material life processes, meaning the mid-range theoretical material life processes professionals are passionate about. For example, the profession of an evolutionary anthropologist is purposeful because these professionals have a passion or a passionate attraction for the more abstract evolutionary biology, which covers the abstract philosophical material life processes, such as the evolution of biological life. Because evolutionary biology is a subfield of the field of biology, one can be even more passionate about it.

For example, one can be passionate about biological evolution (i.e., the evolution of biological life) after this passion develops in primary or secondary school. The more we deepen our theoretical understanding, thus moving toward ever greater abstraction, the more beautiful and wonderful theoretical processes are, and their purposefulness increases. If, in the case of scientific problem-solving material life processes, one can speak about different areas of “interest”, in the case of philosophical problem-solving material life processes, and mid-range theories which describe them, one can speak about fields of “passion”.

“Philosophical” material life processes are emergent realities that emerge on a deeper level from scientific material life processes. They too are unobservable and invisible but nevertheless can be passionately contemplated in nature with the help of mid-range theories, analogical models, and imagination. For example, there are three different phyla of the process of evolution; namely, the process of evolution of biological life, cultural evolution, and the evolution of the physical world (Mohanan 2017, p. 404), which can be mystically contemplated by mid-range theory.

In the case of photosynthesis, the “philosophical” formula of the abstract process of photosynthesis, which emerges from different oxygenic and anoxygenic types of photosynthesis, and which is “common” to all genera, is as follows:

CO₂ (carbon dioxide) + 2H₂A (electron donor) + photons (light energy) → [CH₂O] (carbohydrate) + 2A (oxi-dized electron donor) + H₂O (water)

The process of photosynthesis serves most plants, algae, and cyanobacteria by generating energy-rich organic molecules. The emergence of this process was seen as progress in terms of biological life. Photosynthesis is an emergent process on a deeper level of reality, which can be passionately contemplated through the abstract mid-range theory that describes it.

Similarly, in the case of COVID-19, it is not only the human genus that evolved immunity to RNA viruses through the evolutionary process of the struggle for survival of the fittest human being, but also other genera (i.e., animal, plant, fungal, and microbial) that are also immune to viruses. This means there is an underlying emergent abstract “philosophical” material life process of struggle for the survival of all biological life, which connects all higher scientific material life processes used by different genera and which results in the survival of the fittest living being, here meaning the one immune to viruses.

Symbolically, mid-range theories about the “philosophic” material life processes can be mystically represented by the Waning Gibbous Moon (Figure 2) because they reflect more than half the truth about the phenomena, for only meta-theories are left out. Abstract mid-range theories, and the processes they describe, encompass all more concrete theories and their processes, and with them all the hypotheses. For example, an abstract mid-range material life process of biological evolution encompasses all higher and more concrete evolutionary processes, such as the process of the evolution of humans, plants, insects, etc. All these evolutionary processes have in common the process of biological evolution, which is an emergent reality.

4.3.4. “Philosophical” Personal Life Processes of Identification with Amateur Scientists as the Reason for the Truthfulness of “Philosophical” Material Life Processes

A person who, for example, possesses virtues, such as curiosity, inquisitiveness, and cleverness, as well as a love for biological life and especially for the processes of its evolution, has great potential or possibility to become an amateur scientist (Latin: amare, to love).

Moreover, the “philosophical” personal life processes, with their amateur identities, who possess virtues (e.g., the virtue of love for the evolution of the biological life), are the condition of possibility for the veracity or truthfulness of mid-range “philosophical” material life processes because, in accordance with Thomas Aquinas’ correspondence theory of truth (Aquinas 1920, De Veritate, q.1, a.1–3), the latter is true only if there are mid-range theoretical thoughts to conform with them. If there were no God and scientists with a love for biological evolution, who would like to think about the philosophical material life processes, then it would not be possible for them to be true. Amateur evolutionary biologists contemplate the mystery of “philosophical” material life processes, such as the process of biological evolution, and their thoughts make it true. Of course, even without them, these processes would still be true since they would still be thought by God, but we can nevertheless say that they are also true because of humans.

For the creation of a mid-range theory, a philosophical approach is needed, and an amateur who would abstract and synthesize scientific theories. For example, the mid-range theory about evolution describes the abstract process of evolution of all biological life, which is common to all the different, more concrete processes of evolution of various genera, such as the process of human or a plant genus’ evolution. The currently accepted mid-range theory of biological evolution is modern synthesis, or the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, which “represents a synthesis of Charles Darwin’s theory in terms of natural selection and modern population genetics” (Encyclopædia Britannica 2022, s.v. “neo-Darwinism”). Philosophical mid-range neo-Darwinian synthesis is more abstract than the more concrete scientific theories of the evolution of different life genera.

As in the case of hypotheses and theories, judging the veracity of mid-range theories requires a collective of scientists; namely, in this case, amateur scientists who have the capacity for abstraction, which gives them the competence to be the arbiters of the matter. It is certainly in their interest that the wonderful mid-range theories describing the “philosophical” processes of material life are also true, so it is necessary to get together and judge their validity.

Symbolically, a collective of amateur scientists can be represented by the Waxing Gibbous Moon (Figure 2), which is reflecting more of the Sun’s light than the First-Quarter Moon, because a collective of amateur scientists who have the virtue of love for the same field is bigger than a collective of people with a certain profession and thus requires even more unity and humility. For example, there are many more people with the virtue of love for the process of biological evolution, who must unite on the truth of its theory, than there are scientists working as evolutionary biologists who study the evolution of humans. More people mean more people to listen to and take into account, which requires more humility on the part of amateur scientists.

4.3.5. “Theological” Material Life Processes of Integration as Reasons for the Purposefulness of Amateur Personal Life Processes

The reason for the purposefulness of different amateur identities is purposeful theological material life processes of integration, which are the abstraction of the “philosophical” material life processes and which amateur scientists value. The latter present nature’s most beautiful and purposeful solutions to the most abstract of life’s problems, such as the problem of primordial disconnectedness of the universe, which is being solved by the most abstract problem-solving process of evolution. These solutions are described by meta-theories or grand theories, the most abstract being the theory of everything. In the case of these meta-processes of evolution, gravitation, synthesis, and similar, mysticism is the most profound because contemplating these abstract processes in nature with the help of imagination and the meta-theories that describe them, awakens a special kind of mood, which, of course, is impossible to describe.

In the case of evolution, the meta-process of evolution is the abstraction of three different mid-range processes of evolution, specifically biological evolution, cultural evolution, and the evolution of the physical world (Mohanan 2017, p. 404). What is the purpose of their underlying common emergent abstract meta-process? The history of biological life, human culture, and the physical world gives us a hint for speculation, for it reveals that the product of all three mid-range processes is some kind of complexity in the form of complex interconnectedness, which represents the victory over primordial chaos in the form of simple disconnectedness.

Regarding the physical world, after the Big Bang, there was pure chaos of an infinite simplicity with a low level of interconnectedness, which over billions of years evolved into a beautiful cosmos, which is complex and interconnected in a micro-level of an atom and on a macro-level of a web of galaxies. The primordial biological life was simple and unconnected. Only gradually did different cells begin to connect with others in multicellular organisms, symbiotic relationships, groups of animals, and similar. After 3.7 billion years of evolution, biological life turned out to be beautifully complex and interconnected in infinite ways. Finally, human culture began in a simple and chaotic way, for there was a great deal of violence, criminality, wars, and destruction, which remains the reality in many parts of our world. However, it is impossible to overlook the complexity and interconnectedness of human society on the local and international levels, which gives us the hope that this evolution will continue until the fulfillment of the Gospel promise of the Kingdom of God.

Theologically speaking, the meta-theory of evolution is, therefore, about the way the whole of nature is mystically interconnected into one unique living organism. This mystical meta-theory describes the process of nature’s interconnectedness, which solves the primordial problem of disconnectedness that has marked our universe since the beginning. The perfect complex interconnectedness of everything could be the purposeful ultimate end goal of the evolution of nature, the theological purpose toward which the whole of creation moves, together with human society. The purposeful result of the process of theistic evolution could be the perfect interconnectedness of everything. This is already present in Christian theology, which speaks about the Messianic Kingdom of God that will someday come and stop all suffering and grief. This is part of the distant future, toward which creation moves according to Christian theology. This mystical process of the evolution of nature toward complex interconnectedness cannot be observed nor seen but can be mystically contemplated with the help of the imagination while perceiving reality.

Similarly, regarding the process of solving the problem of food and energy deficiency, two emergent phyla or mid-range material life processes are photosynthesis and chemosynthesis, whereby the former uses sunlight and the latter chemical reactions. Moreover, there are many other phyla of synthesis processes, such as the process of nucleosynthesis, the end result of which is a new atomic nucleus. All these philosophical material life processes have an underlying emergent abstract theological meta-theoretical material process of synthesis, which is certainly an indispensable element in the evolution of the physical world, biological life, and human culture. Without the phenomenon of synthesis, no evolution would be possible.

From these two examples of evolution and synthesis, we can easily see that the most abstract theological processes of material life can be called the processes of integration, which explains why these processes can be called “theological”, namely because integration is connected with agape, a Greek word for the sacrificial unconditional maternal love that unites.

Symbolically, meta-theories about “theological” material life processes can be represented by the Full Moon (Figure 2) because, with them, the deepening of the knowledge about natural phenomena is completed, which means the treasury of knowledge of natural phenomena is full. Abstract meta-theories and the processes they describe encompass all the more concrete mid-range theories and their processes, and with them all the even more concrete theories and their hypotheses. For example, an abstract meta-material life process of evolution of nature encompasses all higher and more concrete evolutionary processes, such as the process of biological evolution, the evolution of life, and cultural evolution. All these three evolutionary mid-range processes have in common the process of the evolution of nature, which is an emergent abstract reality that can be mystically contemplated in nature.

4.3.6. “Theological” Personal Life Processes of Identification with a Lay Scientist as the Reasons for the Truthfulness of Theological Material Life Processes

Finally, the reason in the form of the theological condition of possibility for truthfulness or the veracity of different purposeful meta-theoretical material life processes is the abstract theological personal life processes with their lay scientist identities, who have love for a certain meta-process, such as evolution.

The collectives of lay scientists, which possess the competence to judge the truthfulness of meta-theories, and all other people who have confidence in their judgment and let them be persuaded, are a matter of theological eschatology and distant future because this mystical unity in truth is possible only from the perspective of eternity and Christian hope. We can only hope that one day maybe this unity of all lay scientists and all people who trust them regarding the truthfulness of evolution and other valuable meta-theoretical phenomena will be achieved and that through considering the meta-theoretical purposeful process of evolution, the latter will be real or true because we cannot talk about their truthfulness or veracity without thoughts that correspond to some reality.

This collective unity of all lay scientists who have the theological virtue of love for a certain meta-process is the most abstract mode of being because it is based on complete selfless love, the essence of which is the self-emptying for, if one wants to listen to the arguments of others, one needs to respect the others and give them a chance to speak. As in the case of the collectives of experts, professional, and amateur scientists, a consensus is possible only through the humility of all truth-seekers, which means everyone has to be prepared to humbly admit that they are wrong and that the other person is right, in the case that the other person has a better argument. This is a matter of Christian hope and the distant future because nowadays humans are far from being a communion, and not all people agree on the reality of valuable processes, such as evolution, which means that there is still a long way to go before a consensus is reached. For example, forty percent of U.S. adults reject evolution as untrue and believe that God created everything in its present form within roughly the past 10,000 years (Gallup, Inc. 2019). Without a consensus, a meta-process cannot be considered true.

This theological condition of possibility is in resonance with the Christian vision of a messianic age in a distant future, where people will live as the family of the Children of God and will overcome alienation and division and live according to the example of the Triune God, who exists as a personal communion of the Merciful Father, the Beloved Son, and the Maternal Spirit of Love (Greek: agape). Because human beings are created in the image of God (Bible, Genesis 1:27), our personal relationships should reflect that of the Triune God. This family of the Children of God is a kind of communion in truth, which is the reason for the veracity or truthfulness of the theological material life processes.

Symbolically, a collective or communion of lay scientists, who have the theological virtue of love for a certain meta-process and are united in truth, can also be represented by the Full Moon (Figure 2), which is reflecting the Sun’s light to a greater extent, and more than the Waxing Gibbous Moon. This is because a collective of lay scientists who love a certain meta-process, such as evolution, is bigger than a collective of people with a certain virtue of love for a certain field, such as evolutionary biology, and thus requires the greatest unity in truth and humility. For example, there are many more people who love the meta-process of evolution and must unite on the truth of its meta-theory than there are amateur scientists with the virtue of love for biological evolution, who study the evolution of biological life. All people mean all the people to listen to and take into account, which requires the greatest humility on the part of lay scientists and all non-scientists, who trust in their judgment. This mystical unity of all people, which is a matter of Christian hope and eschatology, opens us up to another, this time truly the deepest abstract reality, namely, the personal life process of identification with the Triune God, who is the mystery of all mysteries, and the humility of all humilities and who is an example of all unity and humility.

5. Conclusions

The Triune God’s merciful love is the most important spiritual personal virtue and simultaneously the most abstract and deepest part of reality because it is a personal process of complete self-emptying. Understanding it requires the mysticism of perfect love, which contemplates the mystical unity of three persons of God in the Triune God. The mysticism of the theological material life processes of integration thus flows into the mysticism of the Triune God’s existence, an example to be imitated in order to arrive at eschatological unity and humility.

To understand why the Triune God is the most abstract reality, we need to contemplate the way in which the communal interpersonal relationship between the Merciful Father, the Beloved Son, and the Spirit of Love is being realized. Theology describes this way of the realization of the communal spiritual life of the three divine persons with the technical term “perichoresis”, which, according to Ciril Sorč (2000, p. 181), denotes “the unstoppable flow of the exchange of goods, all the way to the greatest good, which is life. It is a life happening which impregnates all pores of life. Perichoresis keeps open paths, makes them transitory so that individual persons are completely ‘open space’ for another person” (my translation). For someone to be an open space requires perichoretic self-emptying. Sorč describes this dynamic perichoretic way of the spiritual life of the Triune God with its three modes of existence: co-existence, ex-istence, pro-existence, and in-existence (cf. Sorč 2012, pp. 82–85). All modes of existence are based on the Heavenly Father’s maternal merciful love, which is in Greek named agape and was presented in a particularly thorough and illustrative manner in St. John Paul II’s encyclical Dives misericordia or Rich in Mercy.

Above all, the Triune God’s existence is about co-existence, which means that the three divine Persons of God are not subordinate or superior to each other but equal in dignity, glory, holiness, importance, and similar. Second, the Persons of God are “outside” themselves (ex-istence). Any introversion is foreign to the Triune God. God’s Persons are completely open to each other; they know each other and are interested in each other. Because they live outside of themselves, they are always available to the others and willing to accept and entertain them. In this way, they are emptied of themselves or even exnihilated, thus preparing the space for the Other. Third, three divine persons exist for each other (pro-existence). The three Persons forget about themselves and give themselves completely to each other. Existing for others means caring for them, actively searching for them until finding them and living with them, and making themselves available to them. Finally, fourth, the three divine persons live in each other (Lat. in-sistere). This presupposes, first of all, that they prepare space for others in their life; on the other side, they find space for themselves in others. It actually means that they are at home with others and that the others are at home with them (cf. Sorč 2012, pp. 82–85).

From this phenomenological analysis of the Triune God’s modes of existence, we can clearly see why His existence is the most abstract form of being because it can be described as perfect self-emptying, which creates infinitely large empty space that is ready to be occupied by the Children of God. Nothing is more empty or abstract than the spiritual space, which is being created by the Triune God on the basis of his agape. This empty space is big enough to receive other divine persons and also all of creation.

There is no greater model of unity and humility than that which the Triune God gives us with his perichoretic way of life. This perichoretic personal life process of self-emptying leads to a divine unity and humility that will never be surpassed by a mortal, but we can nevertheless try to get as close to it as possible, including in scientific collectives of experts, professionals, amateurs, and laymen. This unity is the ultimate end goal of the understanding of natural phenomena because, without this unity, humanity cannot discover which explanations about material life processes are true.

This unity is the personal form of complex interconnectedness, which can be mystically contemplated in nature, with the help of evolutionary explanations, and reflected on our gatherings when we ask ourselves how far we have come in overcoming the distances between us.

The deepest bottom of understanding of reality will, therefore, be reached when collectives of lay scientists will achieve full interconnectedness through humility and the consensus on the reality or truthfulness of theological material life processes that are of the utmost beauty, first and foremost of the process of theistic evolution, which allows the physical world, biological life, and human culture to become more and more complexly interconnected. This universal complex material and personal interconnectedness of reality is the ultimate end goal of understanding reality and at the same time the ultimate end goal of theistic evolution, which itself is unobservable and invisible, but can nevertheless be mystically contemplated with awe and wonder by those who believe.