Science and Religeon

[GT]

Thought this was an interesting book review. Any comments?

A reprint of Michael Shermer's review of The Universe in a Single Atom : The Convergence of Science and Spirituality by the Dalai Lama (Morgan Road Books, September 2005, ISBN 076792066X) that appeared in the New York Sun "Arts & Letters" section on September 14, 2005.

Science Without Borders

a book review by Michael Shermer

In a 1987 lecture on "The Burden of Skepticism," the astronomer Carl Sagan opined:

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.

Well, Carl, here's a bit of good news, from no less a personage than His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who writes in the prologue of his latest book, The Universe in a Single Atom:

My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.

Listen up, all ye who insist on squeezing the round peg of science into the square hole of religion; if religious claims are not consonant with scientific findings, it is wisest to err on the side of science, which employs self-correcting machinery designed to weed out error, agenda, and bias. Not only do scientists change their minds in the face of contradictory evidence, they do so regardless of the religion, race, or nationality of the scientific colleagues who are doing the contradicting.

Science is international, or non-national, in this sense, a characteristic His Holiness says is in harmony with the teachings of Buddhism. "Because I am an internationalist at heart," the Dalai Lama explains,

one of the qualities that has moved me most about scientists is their amazing willingness to share knowledge with each other without regard for national boundaries. Even during the Cold War, when the political world was polarized to a dangerous degree, I found scientists from the Eastern and Western blocs willing to communicate in ways the politicians could not even imagine.

In my 1999 book, "How We Believe," I outlined a three-tiered model of the relationship of science and religion:

1. the "conflicting worlds" model, in which science and religion are at war and one must choose between them;
   
2. the "same worlds" model, in which science and religion are in harmony and one may have both simultaneously; and
   
3. the "separate worlds" model, in which science and religion are different methods to deal with different areas of human concern. Since that time, hundreds of books have been published in the field of science and religion studies, which has blossomed with its own journals and magazines, college courses, scholarly conferences, and even an annual million-dollar cash prize for the individual who most contributes to uniting science and religion (the Templeton Prize).
   

I thus approached this book with trepidation — what else can be said on this subject, especially by someone with no background whatsoever in science? Yet, as I read I grew to respect the author, Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, who at the age of 6 was enthroned as the reincarnation of his predecessor, the 13th Dalai Lama, in the Tibetan capital of Lhasa. Born to a peasant family in a small village called Takster in northeastern Tibet, the Dalai Lama ended up in an exile that brought him in contact with many of the world's leading scientists.

He talks about his youthful encounters with science, especially his meetings with some of the world's leading scientists, including physicists Carl von Weizsacker and David Bohm, and the philosopher of science Karl Popper. From these encounters, as well as his Buddhist studies, the Dalai Lama found a way to harmonize science and religion, even while recognizing (and respecting) their differences. Both science and Buddhism, he points out, share a strong empirical basis:

Buddhism must accept the facts — whether found by science or found by contemplative insights. If, when we investigate something, we find there is reason and proof for it, we must acknowledge that as reality — even if it is in contradiction with a literal scriptural explanation that has held sway for many centuries or with a deeply held opinion or view.

Instead of filtering scientific findings through the sieve of his religion, the Dalai Lama approaches science with humility and openness.

As my comprehension of science has grown, it has gradually become evident to me that, insofar as understanding the physical world is concerned, there are many areas of traditional Buddhist thought where our explanations and theories are rudimentary when compared with those of modern science.

This book is "not an attempt to unite science and spirituality," he explains, "but an effort to explore two important human disciplines for the purpose of developing a more holistic and integrated way of understanding the world."

photo of the Dalai Lama by Martin Louis

He begins his exploration by equating science with the worldview of "scientific materialism," which "seems to be a common unexamined presupposition" that includes "a belief in an objective world, independent of the contingency of its observers. It assumes that the data being analyzed within an experiment are independent of the preconceptions, perceptions, and experience of the scientist analyzing them." Well, not quite. Most working scientists do make this assumption when conducting their experiments, but they are well aware that their preconceptions can color their analysis and interpretation. Reality exists, we can agree. Getting an accurate reading on reality is another matter entirely.

The Dalai Lama's other bugbear is scientific reductionism, and here I feel he has set up something of a straw man.

The view that all aspects of reality can be reduced to matter and its various particles is, to my mind, as much a metaphysical position as the view that an organizing intelligence created and controls reality.

This view, he fears, leads to nihilism, and with it the loss of subjective purpose and meaning.

The danger then is that human beings may be reduced to nothing more than biological machines, the products of pure chance in the random combination of genes, with no purpose other than the biological imperative of reproduction.

I do not fault the Dalai Lama for challenging this view of science, which does make it difficult to explain such phenomena as the origins of the universe, life, sentience, and consciousness (each of which receive individual chapter treatments in his book), and is held by a great many people, both within and outside of the scientific community. Yet the solution to these and other problems, in my opinion, is through the new sciences of complexity, emergence, and self-organization. The Dalai Lama does not go this route, instead turning to certain Buddhist principles, such as karma.

Karma, he explains, is easily misunderstood by Westerners. It has to do with causal action, but "it is erroneous to think of karma as some transcendental unitary entity that acts like a god in a theistic system or a determinist law by which a person's life is fated." In fact, from a scientific perspective, karma is just a metaphysical assumption, but "no more so than the assumption that all of life is material and originated out of pure chance." Although he admits that the Darwinian theory of evolution "gives us a fairly coherent account of the evolution of human life on earth," the Dalai Lama also believes "that karma can have a central role in understanding the origination of what Buddhism calls 'sentience,' through the media of energy and consciousness."

How? In Buddhism, the most fundamental unit of matter is prana,a vital energy indistinguishable from consciousness. So matter, energy, and consciousness are the same. Since not only sentience, but the origins of life, consciousness, and morality are inadequately explained by science, it is useful to employ the notion of karma.

Here I am afraid the Dalai Lama proffers the same empty explanations as the creationists and Intelligent Design theorists in what we call the "God of the Gaps." Wherever there is a gap in scientific explanation — the origins of life, sentience, consciousness, morality — this is where God, or karma, intervened. But what happens to God/karma when science fills in the gap? Are you going to abandon God/karma from your worldview?

In my opinion, God/karma does not explain anything; it is just a linguistic place-filler until science can discover the actual cause. By analogy, cosmologists proffer something called "dark energy" and "dark matter" to account for certain anomalies in their data. But cosmologists do not stop there. They admit that "dark matter" is just a convenient label for something they have yet to discover. When creationists or Buddhists speak of God or karma, they mean it as the actual cause and end of their searching.

Although I applaud the Dalai Lama for his liberal open-mindedness to science, he still has some things to learn about science. Just because a current theory or philosophy of science fails to account for a phenomenon does not mean that science itself should be abandoned. And any attempt to blend religion with science, no matter how thoughtful and respectful of both traditions, can only lead to the reduction of the deity to the laws and forces of nature. A scientist will inevitably search for how, and by what forces and mechanisms, God or karma operated in the world.

I would caution both Christians and Buddhists alike: Be careful what you wish for in this endeavor to unify science and religion — you may not like what you find.

Edited October 23, 2005 by GreasyTech

[Too Gray Now]

GT - Just wondered what you found to be interesting? - I can spot about 50 ideas to run around the barn with... LOL !

[GT]

All of it. Pick one and go for it.

[George Aar]

I'm just now reading Sagan's "A Demon-Haunted World".

I'd avoided Sagan for quite awhile due to his goofy on-air persona

that he displayed in PBS's televised version of "Cosmos" several years ago.

My bad. He was an formidable intellect. And AD-HW is a highly recommended read

for anyone with a mind to understand science and the scientific perspective. He really

takes pseudo-science and superstition to task for a lot of what they propound.

A really interesting read...

[Too Gray Now]

GT - One of the books I am reading is "Destructive Emotions" - a Scientific Dialogue with the D. Lama.

In the early pages of this book, Daniel Goleman (narrator/author) describes the Dalai Lama's vision/hope to integrate – or at least – bring closer together Western science and Eastern Buddhist (Tibetan) thought. This would not result in a destruction of either science or Buddhist philosophy. Buddhism and Science both allow for change – which makes them more capable of coming together.

I do not purport to be a scholar nor well read in the disciplines of Buddhism. But one thing is evident in the book I am reading - Buddhism can not simply be thought of as “a religion”. It is too encompassing.

I would caution both Christians and Buddhists alike: Be careful what you wish for in this endeavor to unify science and religion — you may not like what you find.

The closing comment made in the post left me miffed. Buddhists laugh when a Westerner says theirs is simply a religion. Scientists laugh when told that Buddhist thought contains different ways of understanding reality that can lead them to more discovery.

Religious people often treat pure scientists as if they were Satan incarnate. And the scientists do not want their ideas "touched" by anything that is not material. Lock these two types in a room and watch the fireworks.

The Dalai Lama prefers to not view these two as odd bedfellows - for in Buddhism - they are not. The author of this review, on the other hand, seems to have posted a "warning" sign. He seems to warn of Mutual Assured Destruction if one mixes Buddhism and Science.

Doomsday or Unification. Kind of depends on how you look at the outcome to start with...

By the way, have you ever taken two cats, held them by their tails, put them close to each other?? Yup. They fight. (As a kid on the farm, sometimes we got into mischief - when I got older, I gave up this childish practice.)

Anyway, I wonder if sometimes people don't purposely hold religion and science by the tails and put them together just to start a fight. It is something that we ought to encourage people to grow up and be more responsible.

Edited October 24, 2005 by Too Gray Now

[GT]

I think his closing comment is meant to mean that if you honestly look at science you'll find that your religeous views don't hold water. In other words, you risk losing your beliefs -- which most people would prefer not to do even though those beliefs contradict reality.

I didn't see any invitation for a fight with it.

------------

"A Demon-Haunted World" is on my to-read list, been there for awhile. Need to 'git to it.'

Edited October 25, 2005 by GreasyTech

[Belle]

Adding it to mine, too! :D

I'm currently reading "Why People Believe Weird Things" by the guy that started Skeptic Magazine and www.skeptic.com - can't remember his name right now, though.

GT, I just finished reading a section about science, scientists and religion and he basically says the same thing that you do:

I think his closing comment is meant to mean that if you honestly look at science you'll find that your religeous views don't hold water. In other words, you risk losing your beliefs -- which most people would prefer not to do even though those beliefs contradict reality.

Except that he also points out that scientists often and frequently have their work proved to be invalid and once it is, they accept that and move on to the next experiment because one more thing ruled out gets one that much closer to "the truth" - scientifically speaking. Scientists also want, accept and encourage others to test their conclusions. Religious people are insulted when someone questions or tries to test their belief.

But, also there are scientists who DON'T rule out a God - Heck, even Stephen Hawking accounted for God with his Big Bang Theory! He developed the Big Bang Theory, but always maintained that we don't know WHAT or WHO caused the big bang. ;) He believed in God, but not the same way most "religious" people do.

[Lifted Up]

I haven't had any problem at all with my belief in God given what I know about the field of the atmosphere. One of several interesting aspects that stands out...and this applies to other fields...is that the human mind has trouble conceiving of the energy levels involved in nature. Even the power of a single thunderstorm cell dwarfs anything people can do, including man made nuclear energy...let alone a tornado or a larger scale storm...such as a hurricane. And speaking of nuclear energry and relativity (I'm not an expert there, but I DID take a college course on both subjects...(at the time we could never figure out why meteorology majors were required to take that course, but it turned out to be very interesting. I even aced it.) ...and the implicatiopns of both the energy levels involved in that science and the distances involved in the universe (BTW I took two astronomy courses also, the ones that were for majors) and the relativity part of it were mind boggling.

The point is, we have no real conceptions of the power of nature right around us, let alone the power or distances involved in the universe. Is it astounding that we would have trouble comprehending or believing the power of God? I'm not writing this to convince anyone that "there is a God", because some have trouble believing that an "intelligence" can have control of such power. But between my limited knowledge of what is in and what goes on in our world and our universe, and my limited knowledge of the concept of entropy, and a few other factors involved, I have extreme difficulty not believing in God.

[GarthP2000]

I think one popular misconception that a lot of people have is that science is antithetical to religion. Or that when science comes up with things (like the theory of evolution), that that is their means of saying that there is no God. I read and come across that misconception a lot.

For one thing, the theory of evolution doesn't deal with Who created the universe, or whether a God created it or not, or even for what Divine Plan. Nor does it stand deliberately juxtaposed to the aforementioned Divine Plan.

It just deals with how life came to be from an evolutionary standpoint, and (still) tries to see what evidence supports or declines evolution. And because evolution hasn't answered ALL the questions that deal with it beyond any shadow of a doubt, technically, its still a theory. So why doesn't that make it *just* 'guesswork'? (Which is how many uninformed people presume the word 'theory' to mean) One poster on a local Atlanta message board put it quite well:

Many aspects of evolution have been proven to be accurate, however, it is still called a theory. We do not reference the ‘Theory of Gravity’ do we? Why is that? B/C there are still unanswered questions about the entire theory of evolution, unlike the scientific certainty of gravity.

Note that evolution still has a sizeable (and proven) characteristics to it, even tho' it it still not 100% fact. The meaning of the word 'theory' goes beyond the word 'hypothesis' which has even less certainty to it, but yet has opened doors that can ( and has) often led to the truth.

I find it interesting that some of those on the religious side who often overfocus on the 'theory' (guesswork ;)) of evolution as a means of downplaying/disgarding it, yet would embrace what they learn 'by faith' about the world with nary a 2nd question about it.

[sirguessalot]

It seems there is A LOT of misunderstanding of Buddhism (and all its many various practices and beliefs and histories) beyond the popular notions in the west. Regardless...

the "separate worlds" model, in which science and religion are different methods to deal with different areas of human concern.

Though this is a simplistic use of two very complex terms, i can see a lot of value in this model. Perhaps it can be restated as the difference between interior and exterior sciences, or objective and subjective scientific modes of inquiry.

Also, to unpack it all a bit further, perhaps the areas of human concern can also be seen in collective and individual applications (although the individual and collective exteriors kind of run together, giving us 3...the science of the I, the science of the WE, and science of the IT)

The "science of the I" is seen in things like meditative and contemplative inquiry (seen in most all wisdom traditions, Christian, Buddhist, Islam, Aborigine, etc...but often mistaken for mere dogmatic religion by the less-informed). Psychology, also, would fit in this mode of subjective inquiry, although less focused on higher spiritual states, but more fully completing the lower rungs "the chain of being" (such as in childhood development).

The science of the "IT" is the one we most commonly associate with "cold hard science." 3rd person investigation of 3rd person realities. Deals in what Buddhism calls "gross," and what Christianity calls "body" or "flesh," and what western calls "matter, energy, physics, biology, neurosciences, etc...."

The "science of the WE" is more cultural and social, and perhaps one of the least explored territories of science. I am guessing it is the newer frontier in human evolution, one where femine energies play an important role (such as the science of transforming dialogue). Also, considering that the WE is a collection of "I's," this is a mode of VAST potentials in Intersubjectivity, such as collective intelligent processes (along the lines of Peer-to-Peer processes, think-tanks, and OpenSpace technology).

These are the 3 areas of human concern where i think the Dalai Lama was getting at. But part of the problem/solution of dialoguing these topics are in finding clarity regarding our actual personal applications of the labels "science" and "religion," which is where the "science of the WE" comes in handy (where WE understand each other's meanings clearly before WE take another step...from a more common ground)

Also, perhaps you can see where any of the 3 modes of inquiry has its problems/opportunities.

Edited November 17, 2005 by sirguessalot