The current materialist view of the world is that the observable and the repeatable are all that exist. The materialist puts science as the highest pursuit. Anything that cannot be replicated in the lab is dismissed as fantasy. I do not diminish the fact that humans are attracted to a belief in magic and that false beliefs abound. But the other side of the coin, a belief that nothing immaterial may exist, is also a false belief.
With help from the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, I present a depiction of reality divided into three categories.
We humans live in the innermost circle. Through our five senses we have access to the world about us. The second circle is the phenomenal world. This is the sum total of the universe that we can ever hope to experience in human form. The last circle, is the noumenon of reality: reality in itself independent of all conceptualizations of the human mind. (See Noumenon.)
Since math is one of the best ways to attempt to describe phenomena, I will to use it to speculate about noumena. The Greek character Δ (delta) means "the difference". ΔPA is the difference between the sets Phenomenal (P) and Accessible (A) in the figure. ΔNP is the difference between the sets Noumenal (N) and Phenomenal (P).
We can increase the size of set A, the perception of accessible reality through instruments (microscopes, infrared sensors, etc.) Over the course of the last century we have done much to expand the size of Accessible Reality. Many hopeful scientists believe that we may one day approach ΔPA=0. That would be great. Many wondrous abilities would accompany such an achievement. The size of set P, cannot be increased, since by definition, it is the entirety of what can be physically observed. The materialist view is that P is the entire universe and nothing can exist outside of it. (Though some have had to resort to believing in a multiverse...a concept which is also outside the physically observable). That we can conceptualize the universe, however, also leads to the fact that we can conceptualize of things that we can't conceptualize. This is set N, the noumenon.
A simple illustration proves that the entirety of reality is off limits to us. For example, there is no way that you can know what it is like to be a fish. You can imagine it, but you cannot know. Now extend that realization to all phenomena. Can you really know what a light wave is? You can consider it's effects and contemplate the duality of its nature as both particle and wave. But you will always be limited to an understanding that is constructed by and for humans. The noumenon is the "thing in itself" irrespective of the limited human reference point. Kant knew that the material reference point was limited and that part of reality was outside of the phenomenal realm.
We don't know the size of ΔNP and this knowledge is inaccessible to us, by definition. Yet there are many who profess to be students of Reason that claim that ΔNP must be zero! (IE. that if you can't measure it or in some way experience it with infinitely advanced technology, it can't exist) Such a claim is entirely unreasonable. ΔNP may in fact be infinite. This part of the noumenal realm is inaccessible via the scientific method. It is not subject to the laws of the phenomena we observe. That some of us hope to learn the noumenal as well as the phenomenal, make us no less scientific. In fact, I believe it is the only way to comprehensively search for truth.
The diagram above ignored one important point: each of us has an inner life which is uniquely ours. No person or instrument can fully understand or measure your consciousness. When you ponder virtue and moral goodness, or when you see the perfection of the constant π, or when you sense the greatness and wonder of life--you are not entirely inside the material world either. Your noumenon is part of the great untouchable region of immateriality as well.
The noumenon of each person is absolutely unique and special. It it partly material (based on nature and nurture). And it is partly meta-physical. That part of us which crosses into the ineffable region is best described as the spiritual.
As the diagram shows, We overlap with the material world, the spiritual, and with each other. The boundaries can be pushed. People can understand one another better through empathy and inter-cultural understanding. The boundaries with phenomenal reality are enlarged through scientific inquiry.
Meditation and spirituality enlarge the boundaries with the great noumenal reality. This is the place were miracles originate and the place were your consciousness exists.
When I ponder questions like, "what was it like moments before the Big Bang"? Or "What lies beyond the event horizon of the universe?" or "What is it like after death?" ...I cross briefly into that noumenal zone.
Relative versus Absolute Morality
The second diagram above also shows the answer to the question of moral relativism. Is morality relative? Morality definitely lies outside the phenomenal. It is not something that can be measured or easily quantified. Evolution and survival of the fittest are observations of phenomena. There is nothing right or wrong about them. Rightness and wrongness comes from the great speculation that our inner lives have worth. That someone else's inner life can be as valuable as yours is a spiritual non-materialistic belief. It is universal and absolute because it comes from the noumenon to which we are all belong. C.S. Lewis referred to the pursuit of this universal truth as the Tao which he described as "The conception in all its forms, Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic, Christian, Oriental alike... of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes really are true, and others really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are".
There is an absolute ultimate truth, but we cannot fully comprehend it. And that is where relativism comes into play. Our perception of morality will always be subjective, and therefore relative. Thus, I would say that the perception of morality is relative but its existence is absolute. For humility sake, we should accept the absoluteness of morality, and for empathy sake, we should accept that it is perceived relatively.
