The Science Of Spirituality
A few days ago, I finished reading Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?. I'd enjoyed the movie adaptation (Blade Runner) and had always wanted to read the book someday. senssuzy had found a copy, and it sparked a discussion on the topic of science and religion.
First, a definition or two: The word "Universe" has become somewhat ill-defined of late. It supposedly means "everything", and yet we now hear theoretical physicists talk of "other universes" and of "what came before the Universe". I propose that "Universe" be defined in a truly inclusive fashion: it should mean everything that is, with no limitations. If there is a God, then by my definition, He is part of the Universe. What cosmologists think of as "The Universe", that vast glob of matter and energy that began with the Big Bang and includes the Milky Way and innumerable other galaxies, we ought instead to call "The Cosmos".
We can then state that most scientists would rather study just the Cosmos, and leave the rest of the Universe (particularly the spiritual dimension) out of the picture. On the whole, scientists don't like to study things like near-death experiences because of the difficulty in making measurements, and for fear that they'll be seen as cranks and lose their funding. They don't like being deprived of their tools, or having their livelihood threatened. This is perfectly reasonable, but not acceptable--not to me.
I believe that no phenomenon in human experience should be alien to science. I suggest that it is possible to study subjective phenomena in a way that can add to our knowledge, and benefit Mankind.
Besides, it seems clear to me that science and spirituality are on a collision course, if they have not already collided.
Once again I must stop and define terms. I believe the Universe has a spiritual component, the nature of which we know relatively little at this point. I call that "spirituality", rather than "religion". To me, a "religion" is a body of beliefs about the spiritual realm, and/or an associated moral code for subscribers to obey. Many religions (though not all!) make a point of forbidding subscribers from questioning either the spiritual beliefs or the moral code. They are asked not to think critically, but to simply accept, on faith, the truth of the assertions and the value of the prescribed behaviors. This quashing of critical thought is fundamentally antithetical to science, which could not function without the checks and balances of rigorous debate. I believe it's also antithetical to proper mature human functioning, and I make no secret of my disdain for it.
Spirituality, on the other hand, is a fact of our existence. The set of spiritual phenomena clearly affects the lives of human beings; it is therefore worth studying. (You may, as an atheist, argue that there are no fundamentally spiritual phenomena--that the set is the null set. But you would then be called upon to prove it is a null set, and to explain why people persist in having spiritual experiences.) Therefore, it ought to be possible to devise a religion in accord with science, a religion with "research theologians" as Terry Pratchett imagines the Discworld to have*. Such a religion would be constantly revised as we learn more about the spiritual realm.
I'm not the first to think along these lines. Robert Heinlein suggested, in Stranger In A Strange Land, that a sufficiently advanced science may in fact be indistinguishable from religion. Some years ago, I read The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World, in which Goswami (a U. of Oregon physicist) suggested that the apparent paradoxes of quantum mechanics could be resolved by looking at the matter with a different, consciousness-based--some might say, more spiritual--perspective.
Thanks to anandav for pointing this out: What the #$BLEEP*! Do We Know!? I quote from their web site: "Quantum physics, neurology and molecular biology seem to be saying things that are in agreement with what mystics have been saying for centuries. Furthermore science as a language of the spirit seems to cut across old beliefs and superstitions, and present ideas in a way that encourages people to examine for themselves and make their own decisions."
I think there is fertile ground here.
* Well? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? What kind of pin, exactly? If the pinhead is rounded, is it OK if the angels wear special shoes to avoid slipping off? And what kind of dance? Waltzing requires more surrounding space than you'd need if the angels were, say, moshing.
elfric has been thinking along similar lines lately. I hope to find the time to follow all those links he posted.
First, a definition or two: The word "Universe" has become somewhat ill-defined of late. It supposedly means "everything", and yet we now hear theoretical physicists talk of "other universes" and of "what came before the Universe". I propose that "Universe" be defined in a truly inclusive fashion: it should mean everything that is, with no limitations. If there is a God, then by my definition, He is part of the Universe. What cosmologists think of as "The Universe", that vast glob of matter and energy that began with the Big Bang and includes the Milky Way and innumerable other galaxies, we ought instead to call "The Cosmos".
We can then state that most scientists would rather study just the Cosmos, and leave the rest of the Universe (particularly the spiritual dimension) out of the picture. On the whole, scientists don't like to study things like near-death experiences because of the difficulty in making measurements, and for fear that they'll be seen as cranks and lose their funding. They don't like being deprived of their tools, or having their livelihood threatened. This is perfectly reasonable, but not acceptable--not to me.
I believe that no phenomenon in human experience should be alien to science. I suggest that it is possible to study subjective phenomena in a way that can add to our knowledge, and benefit Mankind.
Besides, it seems clear to me that science and spirituality are on a collision course, if they have not already collided.
Once again I must stop and define terms. I believe the Universe has a spiritual component, the nature of which we know relatively little at this point. I call that "spirituality", rather than "religion". To me, a "religion" is a body of beliefs about the spiritual realm, and/or an associated moral code for subscribers to obey. Many religions (though not all!) make a point of forbidding subscribers from questioning either the spiritual beliefs or the moral code. They are asked not to think critically, but to simply accept, on faith, the truth of the assertions and the value of the prescribed behaviors. This quashing of critical thought is fundamentally antithetical to science, which could not function without the checks and balances of rigorous debate. I believe it's also antithetical to proper mature human functioning, and I make no secret of my disdain for it.
Spirituality, on the other hand, is a fact of our existence. The set of spiritual phenomena clearly affects the lives of human beings; it is therefore worth studying. (You may, as an atheist, argue that there are no fundamentally spiritual phenomena--that the set is the null set. But you would then be called upon to prove it is a null set, and to explain why people persist in having spiritual experiences.) Therefore, it ought to be possible to devise a religion in accord with science, a religion with "research theologians" as Terry Pratchett imagines the Discworld to have*. Such a religion would be constantly revised as we learn more about the spiritual realm.
I'm not the first to think along these lines. Robert Heinlein suggested, in Stranger In A Strange Land, that a sufficiently advanced science may in fact be indistinguishable from religion. Some years ago, I read The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World, in which Goswami (a U. of Oregon physicist) suggested that the apparent paradoxes of quantum mechanics could be resolved by looking at the matter with a different, consciousness-based--some might say, more spiritual--perspective.
Thanks to anandav for pointing this out: What the #$BLEEP*! Do We Know!? I quote from their web site: "Quantum physics, neurology and molecular biology seem to be saying things that are in agreement with what mystics have been saying for centuries. Furthermore science as a language of the spirit seems to cut across old beliefs and superstitions, and present ideas in a way that encourages people to examine for themselves and make their own decisions."
I think there is fertile ground here.
* Well? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? What kind of pin, exactly? If the pinhead is rounded, is it OK if the angels wear special shoes to avoid slipping off? And what kind of dance? Waltzing requires more surrounding space than you'd need if the angels were, say, moshing.
elfric has been thinking along similar lines lately. I hope to find the time to follow all those links he posted.