This is a loaded question for most people. Some people deride the notion of life after death as irrational superstition – others have deep convictions and even personal experience that vividly confirms the truth of a transcendent spiritual world for them. Many of us, perhaps most of us, have a mixture of belief and doubt. Lacking a personal transcendent revelation, we sort through the claims and counterclaims with questions, perhaps with hope, and maybe even with faith.
There is, however, a substantial body of testimony that strongly supports the claim even in the modern, scientific era, from credible sources such as Emmanuel Swedenborg, Dr Raymond Moody, Dr. Eben Alexander, and many others. While the debunkers continue to claim fraud or hallucination, a dispassionate assessment has to admit that there is credibility and consistency to the personal stories and experiences offered by these individuals. They are worth a listen
On June 4-7, the Fifth Annual Afterlife Awareness Conference will be held in Norfolk, VA. Those with an open mind may wish to check it out!
The RSA has released its final report on a two-year research initiative on revitalizing spirituality to address 21st century challenges. The report provides a serious critique of secular materialism and a passionate appeal for a new, shared commitment to a universal spirituality – the existential ground which all humans share. A few interesting quotes:
- It’s not so much that a marketised spirituality has hijacked religion, but that, while religion was looking the other way, capitalism hijacked spirituality.
- Spirituality is not so much a unitary concept as a signpost for a range of touchstones; Our search for meaning, our sense of the sacred, the value of compassion, the experience of transcendence, the hunger for transformation.
- It seems fair to argue that religions are the particular cultural, doctrinal and institutional expressions of human spiritual needs, which are universal.
 The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (http://www.thersa.org), a 260 year old non-profit organization headquartered in England, is dedicated to enriching society through ideas and action. One of their initiatives, The Social Brain, is targeted to understanding humans as a fundamentally social species and to changing the rational individual construct that helped us plan our economies and organize our societies but fails to appreciate the social context that is the defining feature of how we think, learn and behave.
This is the second installment of a four-part series on the Human Race and The Technology Race. Chapter I has been published: The Human – Technology Interface. Chapter III and Chapter IV will follow.
This link provides a full PDF copy of Chapter II (which in my opinion is much easier to read).
This post (Golden Ratio Also Relates To Space-Time And Biology) from redOrbit.com on new theories about the role of The Golden Ratio, the “cosmic constant” in various scientific disciplines, caught my eye today. There is something magical in the properties of this very special “transcendental” number. It seems to provide a foundation for understanding movement and growth across the complete range of scientific inquiries.
The topic brought to mind this article (Is there a Spiritual Significance to the number Phi), which I wrote for The New Philosophy, The Journal of the Swedenborg Scientific Association, in 2005. In the article I speculated on the spiritual meaning of the Golden Ratio as an infinite unfolding of finite creation. The concepts are quite surprising and far-reaching!
The original concept of the ISAS name for this forum came from its goal – Integrating Science and Spirituality – and from a mental wordplay that came from sounding out “is as.” Part of what the forum does is to explore life and the world, from the premise that there is an objective world that we can access to and learn to know. The world “is as it is”, but we have been given the gifts of perception, rationality and insight as well as motivations for exploring and understanding that world.
Unfortunately, a very similar acronym, “ISIS, ” representing an entity that seems to have quite different goals than knowledge and understanding, is getting considerable and quite negative attention on a daily basis. Several wise people have suggested I change the name of the forum, and I am going to do so.
If you have any thoughts on a new name and acronym, I would welcome hearing about it. For the time being, we will continue to use “Integrating Science and Spirituality” but will no longer use the acronym.
A short, insightful article on Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) appeared in The Philosopher’s Mail (a publication of the School of Life in England) last week. Aquinas integrated Greek notions of reason with Catholic theology, establishing the concept that “natural law is a subsection of eternal law, and it can be discovered through the faculty of independent reason.” This “broke a logjam in Christian thinking… and opened the Christian mind to the insights of all of humanity from across the ages…” Through his works, Aquinas helped open the doors to natural philosophy (at a time when they were being closed in the Islamic world), leading ultimately to the scientific revolution in subsequent centuries.
George Gantz is the featured speaker for the Wayland Great Presenter’s Series on Tuesday November 4, 7:30PM at the Wayland MA Public Library:
Has technology advanced beyond our ability to control it? Some believe this is a good thing and will lead to a marvelous “Singularity”, a point where self-replicating machinery will largely replace human labor, freeing humans to pursue whatever they want. Others are less sanguine about the impacts of technology – warning that the earth and the human race itself may be headed for disaster. George Gantz will lead a discussion on these profound questions, starting with our own experiences with digital technologies and recent research on the human – digital interface.
As reported in The Independent, the leader of the Catholic Church has declared that evolution and the Big Bang Theory are real and do not conflict with faith in God. This is a remarkable statement from the world’s largest religious organization and perhaps may soften the rhetoric in the science-religion debate. This is the same Pope who, several months ago, revealed his Top Ten Secrets for happiness, the 9th of which is to respect others’ beliefs. “We can inspire others through witness so that one grows together in communicating. But the worst thing of all is religious proselytism, which paralyzes.” Good advice for theists and atheists alike.
An opinion piece posted by Gary Gutting October 13 on the NYTimes website summarizes his series of interviews with philosophers on religion. Some of his findings echo themes we have touched on previously (see Miracles for example). While the author is “agnostic” and finds that to be the most defensible ground, he identifies areas of weakness for both atheists and theists (outnumbered almost 5 to 1 in his interviews), in the debate.
There have also been some interesting posts recently about what might be called the sociology of alternative beliefs. In recent weeks, I participated in a Linked-In exchange with the provocative title: Is there a lack of civility and empathy in the atheist community? Do you find many atheists come across as arrogant/ haughty/ belittling/ ostentatious/ offensive?
Last winter, Big Questions Online also carried an extensive exchange with the somewhat tongue-in-cheek title: “Is Atheism Irrational?”
Along a corollary line, research was reported that those who believe in God are happier and healthier.
And a sharp controversy recently flared up on the question of why atheism may be male oriented:
There is nothing definitive about any of this material, as it is dealing not with truth claims per se, but with the demeanor of the combatants. Nevertheless, there may be lessons to be learned. Who would you like to spend more time with? Who would you trust most in a pinch? What is the better pathway to a better and happier life?
Last April, George Gantz submitted The Tip of The Spear in the FQXi essay contest titled “How Should Humanity Steer the Future?” A total of 155 essays were submitted and were rated by other essayists during an extended community comment period. The Tip of the Spear earned a 4th place rank, joining the 40 top-ranked essays in the final judging by a panel of experts, and was subsequently awarded a fourth prize at the announcement held on August 21.
The Tip of the Spear traces the latest findings of empirical science in the fields of mathematics, physics, biology and evolution to determine what the guiding principles are for the evolution of the physical universe and how they can help us in steering the future of humanity. The conclusion is that, while empirical science is the driving force to the advance of human civilization, the tip of the spear should be armed with our highest human empathic qualities – in a word, with love.
The winning essay, “How to Save the World” by Sabine Hossenfelder, challenges humanity to convert ideas into action: ” We fail to act in the face of global problems because we do not have an intuitive grasp on the consequences of collective human behavior, are prone to cognitive biases, and easily overwhelmed by data. We are also lazy and if intuition fails us, inertia takes over.” Her answer is to make the necessary information accessible to individuals. “To steer the future, information about our dynamical and multi-layered networks has to become cheap and almost effortless to use. Only then, when we can make informed decisions by feeling rather than thinking, will we be able to act and respond to the challenges we face.”
Last year I raised some concerns about the impact of technology on humans (see: Busted). These concerns remain, but in the interest of equal time, it is worth highlighting some of the potentially positive impacts of new technology. In a recent episode of EconTalk on The Sharing Economy, Russ Roberts, in a conversation with Mike Munger, highlights some potentially transformative impacts of technology. They conversation centered on AirBnB, Uber and ParkingMonkey. All three applications connect, through mobile devices, users with needs for lodging, ground transport or parking with potential suppliers, in simple, automated transaction platforms. The applications are potentially transformative in two ways – one economic and one social. On the economic front, the applications make it simple and nearly cost-free to connect under-utilized capital assets (e.g. vacant rooms in your house) with potential buyers – this has potentially immense economic benefits to consumers and suppliers but will be highly disruptive to incumbent businesses that will have to evolve to survive. On the social front, the three applications are also completely outside of the systems devised by government regulation to protect consumers, such as taxi cab licenses (“medallions”), local and state health regulations on lodging, and public access to parking spaces. As peer-to-peer applications, the “policing” is done by reviews by users and the private actions of the application operator (for example, Uber kicks out any driver that gets less than a “4.7” rating by its users), with no government involvement. All three applications depend on the trust of users and the trustworthiness of providers – achieved through transparency and consumer ratings rather than government oversight and regulation. In one sense, these applications are tangible demonstrations of the “democratizing” effect of technology – giving power to people to make prudent choices rather than relying on regulatory compliance. Moreover, the system rewards honesty, credibility and service – virtues that may need reinforcing after decades of self-preoccupation by members of Gen Me, Gen X, and Gen Y …
In a recent EconTalk podcast, William Easterly called for a new “Copernican revolution” in how we look at Economic Development for poor people around the world. Rather than putting the technocratic experts (e.g. the World Bank, Bill Gates, Jeffrey Sacks) at the helm, Easterly calls for putting poor people in charge of their own future by giving them economic and political freedom. The concept is provocative and has important implications for human development and the concept of charity itself – and it echoes Swedenborg’s Laws of Divine Providence. (more…)
The FQXi (Foundational Questions Institute) is dedicated to exploring the foundations and boundaries of physics and cosmology. One of their programs is an annual essay competition. Last year, the contest posed the question “It From Bit, or Bit from It”, addressing whether information or energy/matter are more fundamental to the reality of the physical world. This year’s essay question posed quite a different challenge – “How Should Humanity Steer the Future?”
The ISAS Forum has dealt with issues at the boundaries of science and spirituality, and the FQXi competition poses an intriguing question that intermingles the realm of empirical knowledge with considerations of value and purpose. The essay that George Gantz submitted, entitled “The Tip of The Spear”, is an effort to follow the latest findings of empirical science in the fields of mathematics, physics, biology and evolution to determine what the guiding principles are to the evolution of the physical universe and how they can help us in steering the future of humanity. His answer is that while empirical science is the driving force to the advance of human civilization, the tip of the spear should be armed with our highest human empathic qualities – in a word, with love.
You are welcome to read and comment on his essay, The Tip of The Spear, or any of the other submissions. The Essay Contest closes April 18, but remains open for comments and scoring until August 31st. George also gratefully acknowledges the review and comments he received from Justin Junge and Sylvia Shaw on a draft of the essay.
Iain McGilchrist, psychiatrist and writer, was the featured speaker for an RSA Event on March 31, 2014, titled “What happened to the Soul?” The event was held under the auspices of the RSA Project on Spirituality, Character Development & The Social Brain, examining the scientific and spiritual foundations of character development.
McGilchrist noted that in the current environment, reference to the human soul as a concept capturing the full range and complexity of human experience has largely disappeared from intellectual discourse, squeezed out of our language by reductionism and linguistic analysis. The human soul is a very deep concept that cannot be analyzed, specified or defined without losing much of its subtlety. Essentially, in the process of dissecting and analyzing this profound concept, western discourse has so narrowed it as to strip it of meaning. Yet, it remains important and useful – but only if appreciated in its full depth and nuance.
He offered this quote from American philosopher Eugene Gendlin: “We think more than we can say – we feel more than we can think – we live more than we can feel – and there’s much else besides.” The human soul is a symbol for “much else besides.”
And from Indian writer Rabindranath Tagore: “The small wisdom is like water in a glass: clear, transparent, pure. The great wisdom is like the water in the sea: dark, mysterious, impenetrable.” Understanding any part of the human soul is deep wisdom.
For McGilchrist, while the human soul may be resident in the physical body and brain of humans, this does not mean that it can be explained in material terms. Just as the water carries the wave, but is not the wave, so too, perhaps, does the brain carry the soul – but the soul is not the brain. The wave transcends the water, and the soul transcends the brain.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has embarked on a Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion (DoSER). The results of an initial DoSER survey was released February 17th at the AAAS annual meeting and researchers reported that “religious and scientific communities may be less combative than is commonly portrayed in the media and in politics.” Only 27 percent of those surveyed said that they viewed science and religion as being in conflict with each other, with the highest percentage being in the evangelical community. A survey by MIT researchers a year ago also found little conflict between science and church doctrine – they reported that only 11% of Americans belong to religions openly rejecting evolution. However the MIT researchers also found a gap between official doctrine and individual beliefs – 48% of respondents in that survey reported believing that humans were created by God in their current form less than 10,000 years ago. The DoSER initiative will now hold a series of regional workshops for local science and evangelical leaders with the goal of building dialogue and understanding. A national conference will follow. As an AAAS article on DoSEr notes: “Ultimately it is the building of real relationships between scientists and religious communities that can provide the best bridges of understanding.”
This effort is an important acknowledgement by an esteemed scientific establishment of the need for improved dialogue with religious communities. In fact, as discussed in the earlier ISAS post, Science – Losing Credibility, the scientific community has been losing credibility in recent decades. We can hope that improved dialogue between scientific and religious communities will reduce the distrust and polarization that seems to dominate media coverage and public policy debates on science policy and funding and on public issues involving medicine, health and the environment.
Ian Barbour, a leader in the efforts to build dialogue between science and religion, died on December 24, 2013, at the age of 90. According to the TF Newsletter, he was “one of the founding figures in the academic discipline that studies the relationship between science and religion.” He was committed to the idea that “science and religion might converse at the level of the assumptions they share, and both might hold that the universe is rational and intelligible, awesome and wonderful. Such reflection might lead to … integration. Here, the expectation is that scientific and theological inquiry will profoundly inform one another.”
May we be fortunate enough to see his vision fulfilled in the not-too-distant future!
In the Big Questions Online forum this month, Kelly Clark posted an essay that takes aim at atheist claims of rational superiority. Under the provocative title “Is Atheism Irrational”, he borrows the line of reasoning from atheism that labels belief in religion as mental weakness, illusion, or “cognitive functioning gone awry” and applies it to findings that show a correlation between low empathy (in the form of autism) and a belief in atheism. The hypothetical (and ironic) conclusion is that atheism is no more rational than theism. He notes that “the vast majority of those who work on these topics are atheists or agnostics”, which explains why this finding may have been overlooked. In the comments, Roy Baumeister notes as well the correlation first observed by Freud that there is a “pattern of filial love correlating with religious faith,” which supports the idea that such psychological factors can influence one’s beliefs. Baumeister concludes: “A bit more gentle respect all around would seem appropriate. Thanks for your essay, which exemplifies that spirit.” My own concluding comment: “The bridge between science and religion, or theism and atheism, has to be built on a foundation of humility – something sorely lacking on both sides.”
In a recent interview on Philosophy Bites, a podcast from England, Eric Schwitchgebel reported on his study of the ethical beliefs and behaviors of ethics professors. He found that professors, philosophy professors, and ethics professors all behaved about the same in terms of not eating meat, voting and making charitable contributions. However, the ethics professors’ opinions on what constituted good moral behavior were far more supportive of those virtues.
It is difficult to say whether this is a sign of our times or simply a reflection of basic human nature, but the pattern of saying one thing and doing another is not unfamiliar. How often have we seen public officials convicted of graft or driven from office in scandal as a result of a failure to adhere to their own professed moral code? Or ministers and religious leaders who surreptitiously engage in behavior they decry as sinful in their public pronouncements?
Dr. Schwitzgebel speculates that ethics philosophers are so used to arguing on moral issues that they are probably better at rationalizing when it comes to moral behavior. Perhaps this is true as well of those who are well-versed in politics, public communications or theological inquiry. As we humans become adept at mental and intellectual pursuits by slicing, dicing and spinning arguments, our behaviors and private choices can lose touch with the simple notion of right and wrong.
We are all familiar with the idiom “the bigger they are the harder they fall.” Perhaps we need another one that points to the spiritual risks of facile argumentation: “the smarter they are, the deeper they fall.”