What is “meta”?

Greek Prefix meaning “-self”

1“Meta” is a greek prefix.It doesn’t actaully stand on its own as a word normally, though today it does.

2“Meta” is self-referential.You can think of it in the way that we have some words that mean to do things to ourselves, like to bathe your-self, or to feed or dress one-self.In this same kind of way, “meta” means a thing “of it-self”.

3“metameta”, for example, would probably get shortened to “meta” all on its own—it ‘s like the belly button of the belly button.It’s the redundant redundancy factor.

4To really understand what “meta” means, let’s consider some examples:

metamorphosis

5Consider the word “metamorphosis.”We’re familiar with this word, usually from childhood, because this is what a caterpillar does to become a butterfly.The word can be broken down as “meta”-“morpho”-“sis”.

6“meta” means “change” or “among, between”,
“morpho” means “shape” or “form”,
and “sis” means action or process.
So then the word “metamorphosis” means “change between shapes process”

7We are aware that change is the only constant in the universe.This is beautifully encapsulated with E=mC².It’s poetic, then, to call us a meta-faith.We embrace change.

metadata

8If you are in the world of AI, analysis, data science, or programming, then you have likely heard of “metadata”.Metadata is data about data, or data of data.In particular, it most often refers to the data that is in the header of a file, such as the time stamp, author, sender, things like that.When we see the “meta” in “metadata” we can surmise that the “data” in question is data about the data itself.

metaphysics

9The term “metaphysics” was named by Andronicus of Rhodes, referring to the works that came after “Physics”. This led to a misinterpretation, associating “meta” with concepts that transcend the physical realm.

10When Immanuel Kant spoke of “metaphysics”, he meant a transcendental form of physics, a Physics of Physics.

Oxford English Dictionary

11The Oxford English Dictionary notes the use of “meta-” in English since at least 1917, often indicating a subject that is self-referential or transcending its original limits.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

12Merriam-Webster defines “meta” as “showing or suggesting an explicit awareness of itself or oneself as a member of its category :cleverly self-referential.”

13In fact, Merriam-Webster did a cleverly self-referential article about “meta” in 2019, “That’s So Meta”.

14So what is a “meta.faith” then?Well, in order to discover that, it’s clear we need to discuss Faith itself.

What is faith?

15Faith, per se, deserves its own disertation.

16Faith is more than unshakeable allegiance in unprovable truths.
In fact, it’s arguable that Faith is so much more than that, that it is not that at all.

History & Etymology

17As with “meta”, we may look to the etymology of the word “faith” to help understand its intent.

18From early 14c. as “assent of the mind to the truth of a statement for which there is incomplete evidence,” especially “belief in religious matters” (matched with hope and charity). Since mid-14c. in reference to the Christian church or religion; from late 14c. in reference to any religious persuasion.

19and

20From late 14c. as “confidence in a person or thing with reference to truthfulness or reliability,” also “fidelity of one spouse to another.” Also in Middle English “a sworn oath,” hence its frequent use in Middle English oaths and asseverations (par ma fay, mid-13c.; bi my fay, c. 1300). In the case of the 1300s, “bi my fay,” we can see this as, “by my honor” or “by my word,” a reference to swearing to tell the truth, similar to swearing on a religious book in court today.

21This utterance seems to be ancient as a word for belief, truth, and hope.In fact, it goes back to Proto-IndoEuropean (4000-2500 BCE) as *bʰeydʰ- as the ancestor of a large family of words in English related to trust, belief, and binding agreements.The original sense of “to persuade” evolved into “to trust” (one is persuaded to trust) and “to obey” (one trusts and therefore obeys).

Faith: Belief, Truth

22Most often we associate faith with belief.This is the most common understanding of faith, especially in a religious context.This is the kind of faith that is often contrasted with science, as if they are mutually exclusive.

23It’s important to note, however, that faith has always indicated a true belief, that it cannot denote an untrue one.We do not profess faith in things in which we do not believe.And the assessment of truthiness by others does not affect our own beliefs.It is our own assessment of truthiness that matters to us, always.

24In this way, faith is a personal assessment of truth, our beliefs.It is not something that can be proven or disproven by external evidence.It is belief, in the most personal sense, and it is always true for the believer.

25We often use the word faith in contrast to belief, wherein belief seems to be founded upon empirical evidence, whilst faith is founded upon conviction.However, they are not mutually exclusive, nor do the terms imply whether or not the “true belief” in question is factually justified.

26We typically feel that our beliefs are justified, else we would not believe them.

Justified True Belief

27The concept of “Justified True Belief” (JTB) is a foundational idea in epistemology, the philosophical study of knowledge.It posits that for a person to know a proposition, three conditions must be met:

1. 28Belief: The person must believe the proposition.
2. 29Truth: The proposition must be true.
3. 30Justification: The person must have good reasons or evidence for believing the proposition.

31This framework has been a cornerstone of epistemology for centuries, though it has also faced significant challenges, most notably from Gettier problems, which demonstrate situations where these three conditions can be met, yet knowledge is intuitively absent.

Non-Justified True Belief

32Gettier problems highlight the limitations of JTB by presenting scenarios where a person has a justified true belief, yet we would not intuitively say they have knowledge.These thought experiments typically involve situations where the justification for a true belief is based on a false premise, or where the truth of the belief is accidental to the justification.

33For example, imagine a person who believes there’s a sheep in a field because they see a dog that looks exactly like a sheep.If, by coincidence, there is a sheep in the field, but it’s hidden from view, the person has a justified (they saw something that looked like a sheep), true (there is a sheep), and believed (they believe there’s a sheep) proposition.However, most would agree they don’t know there’s a sheep in the field.

34Gettier problems demonstrate that while belief, truth, and justification are necessary conditions for knowledge, they may not be sufficient.This has led to ongoing philosophical debate about what additional conditions might be required for a belief to truly constitute knowledge.

Faith in Science

35So a classic real-world example could be the widely-published study which concluded that “Chocolate causes weight-loss”.This study was published in journals as real science, and many bona-fide scientists, that is, scientists working in the field, were misled by the study and its results. And they did, at the time, call it science, but they were misled—were they justified in their belief?

36After the fact they would disavow it as non-science, as bunk science and junk science. It discredited the publications that promoted the findings, albeit mostly ephemerally.The faith was broken, and so it was as if it never were.

37It is in this way that science and faith are exactly the same:both are true whether you believe in them or not, and if disproven, are as if they never were considered true.

38Faith and Science both require honesty.

Faith: Fidelity, Honesty

39When we say we believe something, it is implicitly said that we have faith in the evidence or the presenter,—“I believe you,“—and that we believe they are acting “in good faith”.This is, itself, a kind of faith.

40The word “fidelity” comes from the word “faith”, as they both come from the Latin root fide- which means “true”.You are likely familiar with the word fidelity in the context of ‘high fidelity’ or perhaps you have heard it in divorce court, or even in the context of a ‘fidelity bond’.

41When we are acting “in good faith”, we are acting with fidelity and honesty towards the trust and confidence placed in us.

42It is important to recognize that this defintion of faith is not separate from the other interpretations and contexts:Faith is a singular concept.

Faith: Trust, Hope

43In most cases, when we talk about trust, we are also intrinsically talking about risk.However, in the case of faith, we do not have the element of risk, because faith is fidelity.Faith is not a belief in something for which there is no proof.Faith is a belief in something for which there is no need for proof.

44So when we talk about faith as trust, that is not a fallable trust.Faith is considered unfounded if the trust is broken.It’s as if the faith never were.This is why it’s such a heavy thing when trust is broken, why it’s so difficult to rebuild after even only one failure:

45Faith is not a belief in something for which there is no evidence.Faith is a belief in something for which there is no need for evidence.

46This means then, when trust is broken, when faith is unfounded, now there is a need for evidence.This is problematic when the thing in question cannot be easily evidenced, such as, “How can I trust you?”To place one’s faith in someone again, this is truly faith in its purest sense.You are saying, “I don’t know if I can trust you.I believe I may not, but I am choosing to disavow that and to decide that I will trust you.”You’re not disavowing evidence.You considered the evidence and experienced a moment of transcendence.

47This is why faith is so often misunderstood by those who seek to understand it through the lens of empirical evidence.

Faith in Expertise

48Consider your plumber.You have faith in their expertise.That faith may be well placed, or it may not be, but you are not concerned about that in a plumbing emergency.You have faith in your ability to choose a reputable plumber.Again that faith may be completely unfounded, but it truly does not matter in the moment you are hiring them.You have faith in their expertise.You have faith in the system that allows you to hire a plumber.You have faith in the legal system that allows you to recourse if they do a bad job.These are all beliefs for which we do not require proof at the time of belief.It is all faith.

Taxicab Faith

49You have faith that the taxi driver will take you to your destination.You have faith that they will not kidnap you, or rob you, or drive you off a cliff.You have faith that they will follow the rules of the road.You may even have an app that assures you that they will charge you a fair price and that they will get you there safely, but an app, like the law, never stopped anyone.When you get into the car, you do not ask for proof of the unproveable.

50When they let you into their car, they have faith that you will not rob or maim them, destroy their car, or refuse to pay.

51This is all faith.

Faith in the Future

52You have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow.You have faith that the seasons will change.You have faith that the world will continue to spin in the trajectory which it seems to spin.

53You have faith that you will wake up tomorrow.You have faith that your loved ones will be there.You have faith that your job will still exist.You have faith that your money will still have value.

54This is all faith.

Faiths: Beliefs, Profession

55Faiths, plural, are considered to be systems of belief.It is for this reason that it is most often considered at odds with science by academics.This is a misunderstanding of both, as we will see.

56The American First Amendment begins with the right to professions of faith, no matter what they may be.This is the proverbial Freedom of Speech, and it is predicated on the fundamental right to profess that which you believe with impunity.

By my faith

57Once upon a time, our “faith” was our “word”.This is why we have the phrase “my word is my bond.”

Faith: Fealty, Loyalty

58Fealty and loyalty are closely related to faith, particularly in historical and political contexts.

59In a feudal system, a vassal’s fealty to their lord was a form of faith, a sworn allegiance that bound them together.This wasn’t just a legal contract;it was a deep personal commitment, often with religious undertones.

60Similarly, loyalty to one’s country, family, or cause can be seen as a form of faith.It’s a commitment that goes beyond rational calculation, often involving sacrifice and unwavering support.

Faith: Dogma, Zeal

61Dogma and zeal are often associated with faith, particularly in its more rigid and exclusionary forms.

62Dogma refers to a set of established beliefs or principles, often presented as authoritative and not open to dispute.Zeal is a fervent and often aggressive enthusiasm for a particular belief or cause.

63Too often people of science will completely eschew religion and faith as a whole because they feel it is unscientific, especially because of the historic use of zeal and dogma.This is a misunderstanding of science, faith, zeal, and dogma.

64Science is a method of inquiry, not a set of beliefs.Faith is a set of beliefs, not a method of inquiry.And yet, they are not mutually exclusive.In fact, they are complementary.

65While zeal and dogma are not factually tied to only religious faith, scientists have been equally dogmatic and zealous in their assertions. It’s particularly damning when these points of view are so vehemently and vitriolically defended, only to be found false or inaccurate in their conclusions.

66If we cling to science, or any singular method, as the only valid way of knowing, we risk becoming dogmatic ourselves.

Dogma vs Philosophy

67Dogma, in its simplest form, refers to a set of established beliefs or principles held by a religion, ideology, or organization.Philosophy, on the other hand, is the study of fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.While dogma often presents conclusions to be accepted, philosophy encourages critical inquiry and the pursuit of understanding through reasoning.

68Simply put, dogma asks you to accept their conclusions as fact, while philosophy asks you to explore the questions for answers.It is a method of inquiry, where dogma is a method of prescribing answers, often without further inquiry.

69The conflict between religion and science often arises when religious dogma attempts to dictate scientific findings or when scientific theories are perceived to challenge deeply held dogmatic beliefs, especially when presented as infalliable, incontrovertible truth proved by lay-incomprehensible evidence.

70However, most philosophical traditions within religion encourage intellectual exploration and do not see a fundamental conflict with scientific inquiry.

71The Catholic Church, for example, considers the pursuit of knowledge to be a gift from the Holy Spirit, and an act of worship, seeing no inherent contradiction between faith and reason.

72The Jesuits are a prime example of this, having founded numerous scientific institutions and made significant contributions to various fields of science, such as astronomy, seismology, and mathematics, demonstrating a harmonious relationship between faith and scientific pursuit.This is not to say that the Catholic Church has always been on the side of science, but rather that the philosophical underpinnings of the faith do not preclude scientific inquiry.

73Philosophy per se can become dogmatic, which of course is non-scientific, but the line can feel blurry to the uninitiated.This is why it is important to distinguish between the two and to understand how this can occur, and how it can be avoided.

74Science is not immune from professing dogma.

Zealousy

75Zealousy is a fervent and often aggressive enthusiasm for a particular belief or cause, often reserved for those of religious or ideological convictions.It is a form of extreme devotion that can manifest in various ways, from unwavering support to outright fanaticism.

76It is often characterized by an uncompromising and intolerant attitude towards differing views.It can lead to dogmatism and a rejection of evidence that contradicts one’s beliefs.It is important to distinguish zealousy from passion or conviction, as zealousy often implies a lack of openness to alternative perspectives and a tendency towards extremism.It is a dangerous path that can lead to conflict and division.

Religious Persecution of Science

77We can go back as far as Hypatia to see that those who have pursued science have been persecuted for their sophic pursuits.More often than not, these quarrels are actually political in nature, where the scientist is often scapegoated for some other social ailing, or for the political ambitions of the religious.Is this the fault of God?

78We need not consult with Gallileo to see that Religion has attempted to suffocate the enlightenment of the masses, more than to illuminate them.This is the epitome of dogma:“do as I say, for I have done the studies before you, you need not repeat them.”

79Those who pursue science are right to fear anything which might seek to control their pursuit of knowledge and truth.Yet, the right to profess that which we believe reigns supreme above all other rights, the Democratic cornerstone, Freedom of Speech.This is the very foundation of a free people.

Religious Support of Science

80We can also see that many religions have embraced science, and have even been the impetus for scientific discovery.

81For example, the Islamic Golden Age saw significant advancements in science, mathematics, and medicine, often driven by religious scholars.Algebra itself comes from a book of the same name, Al Jabr, which single-handedly laid the foundation for modern algebra.

82Besides this treatise being the first piece to make algebra an independent study, Al-Jabr was invaluable in light of its systematic illumination and resolution of linear and quadratic equations.Notably, half of al-Jabr’s length went into great detail and description of some valuable Islamic inheritance laws, which undoubtedly required and still do require algebraic fluency.It also provided extensive information regarding the area and volume of particular objects and planes.

83Similarly, many Christian monastic orders preserved and advanced knowledge during the Middle Ages, such as the Benedictines, who copied and preserved ancient texts;the Dominicans, who established universities;and the Franciscans, such as Roger Bacon, who contributed to the development of early scientific methods.

84The Catholic Church, considers Science, the pursuit of knowledge, to be a gift from the Holy Spirit, and an act of worship, seeing no inherent contradiction between faith and reason.

85The Jesuits are a prime example of this, having founded numerous scientific institutions and made significant contributions to various fields of science, such as astronomy, seismology, and mathematics, demonstrating a harmonious relationship between faith and scientific pursuit.This is not to say that the Catholic Church has always been on the side of science, but rather that the philosophical underpinnings of the faith do not preclude scientific inquiry, and indeed, encourage it.

86This demonstrates that science and religion are not inherently at odds, but can coexist and even mutually enrich each other.

87Indeed, the Buddhists fully embrace scientific discovery, and find themselves not at odds with it in the slightest. It is for this reason that many spiritual and faithful scientists find themselves drawn to Buddhism.

88Bahá’ís reject the notion that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion. The harmony of science and religion is one of the fundamental principles of the Bahá’í Faith

89Some spiritualists and prophets have attempted to create religions based on scientific principles, or to integrate scientific understanding into their spiritual frameworks.These efforts often come from a recognition that scientific principles do often align with ancient religious teachings, especially Sacred Geometry and the esoteric.

Efforts to make Science a Religion

90Efforts have been made in the past to create religions founded upon science and scientific principles.We might immediately look to Christian Science or Scientology, however these are far from the only religions founded upon science, wether or not you agree with their definition of the term “science” is irrelevant.

91We believe that if we build upon the true foundations of science, the pursuit of knowledge and the scientific method, we can avoid the pitfalls of dogma and superstition that have plagued previous attempts to create a “science-based religion.”

92While we are certainly at risk of befalling the same pitfalls as they have found, nonetheless, we embark upon this journey of faith, not to create a new religion, but to understand the meta-faith, the faith of faiths.

93This is not a new religion.This is a new way of understanding faith and science as a humanity.

Are we Christians?

94This entirely depends upon your definition of it.We might be seen as Gnostic Christians, though it’s important to recognize that there are Gnostics in every faith, and that Gnosticism is not a religion, but a philosophical approach to faith.

95If you mean, do we believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, then yes.

96If you mean, do we believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, then yes.

97If you mean, do we believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, then probably yes, it depends on who you ask.

98If you mean, do we believe in the second coming of Jesus Christ, then it’s complicated.In order to believe in a second coming of Jesus Christ, we would first have to believe he ever left.We believe he is always with us, always present.He never left.

99Jesus taught in John 13:34-35, “A new command I give you:Love one another.As I have loved you, so you must love one another.By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

100We do intend to share His love with the world.

101We believe in the power of love to transform individuals and societies.

102We believe that love is the highest law.

103We believe that love is always the answer.

104We accept the teachings of all the prophets, modern and ancient:Abraham, Thoth, Moses, David, Buddah, Jesus, Mohammed, Baha’u’llah, and others. We believe in the inherent goodness of humanity.

105Historically, the Catholic Church has considered Gnostics as heretics. This is at odds with the Gnostic Catholics, of course.

106Like so many things that once happened now are, “Once a Christian, always a Christian.”

107The true teachings of Jesus do not leave us.

Are we Buddhist?

108Yes and no.

109We believe in the teachings of the Buddha, such as the Wheel of Dharma and the Four Noble Truths.

110We believe in the concept of karma and reincarnation, and the Eightfold Path.

111We believe in the interconnectedness of all beings.

112We believe in the importance of stillness, mindfulness and meditation.We do encourage and teach meditation.

113But you will not find us professing to be Buddhist, nor will you find us professing to be anything other than what we are:metaphysicians.

114We do not believe in the concept of “enlightenment” as a final destination, yet we are effectively each Boddhisatva.We do not profess that you must take a prescribed path to enlightnment, nor do we consider that anyone may be enlightened only once;we recognize many enlightenments which become cumulative across time and space.In this way, we are not Buddhist, as we do not profess the prescribed path.

115That we might say we are Boddhisatva may be offensive to some, and we invite you to consider your reaction as an observer.The Wheel of Dharma does suggest that the paths are many and unique to all, and so that we do not profess the same path may not mean that we are not on the same path.

116No, enlightenment is a continuum, it does not end and it does not begin.It is a process of becoming, of unfolding, of realizing.It is a journey, not a destination.

117In this way, yes, we are Buddhist. We are also not Buddhist.

118“Nothing makes sense, doesn’t it?”