Nothing gets as vicious as fighting for a lost cause. If the proverbial Martian landed in a flying saucer today and saw how religionists war against scientists, he would be surprised at the vehemence on both sides. What is the war about? Fact beat out faith long ago. When Darwin's theory of evolution replaced Genesis to explain the appearance of human beings, which was in the middle of the 19th century, the trend away from faith was already old. The world had been remade as material, governed by natural laws, random in its effects, and immune to divine intervention. Not just science but thousands of unanswered prayers did their part to dethrone God.
I am not drawn to lost causes, and therefore I'd like to guide the debate away from religion. And since religion is the primary form of spirituality in most people's lives, we'll have to step away from spirituality, too, at least at first. There should be renewed admiration for science's attempts to answer the fundamental mysteries. These are well known by now:
Many observers have linked these questions to spirituality, too. Facts tell us how life came about, but faith still wants to know why. But what strikes me is how useless these big questions easily become. You and I live our lives without asking them. We may be philosophically curious; we may even have enough leisure time to reflect upon the big picture. For all that, the big questions are posed, by and large, by professors who are paid to pose them. Religion and science occupy different kinds of ivory towers, but until they come down to earth, neither one meets the practical needs of life.
Science comes down to earth as technology, religion comes down to earth as comfort. But viewed together, they fall short of a common factor that guides every moment of daily life: consciousness. The future of spirituality will converge with the future of science when we actually know how and why we think, what makes us alive to the outer and inner worlds, and how we came to be so rich in creativity. Being alive is inconceivable without being conscious. "I think, therefore I am" is fundamentally true, but Descartes' maxim should be expanded to include feeling, intuition, a sense of self, and our drive to understand who we are.
The practical application of consciousness seems remote compared to technology. Would you rather be enlightened or own an iPad? In modern society, the choice is all too obvious. But it's a false choice, because people don't realize that the things they most cherish and desire are born in consciousness: love, happiness, freedom from fear, the absence of depression, and a vision of the future. We achieve all these things when consciousness is healthy, open, alert, and expansive. We lose them when consciousness is cramped, constricted, confused, and detached from its source.
I receive Google alerts every day telling me that one skeptic or another calls these considerations "woo." It's not my role to defeat skepticism, which amounts in practice to a conspiracy for the suppression of curiosity. Science advances through data and experiments, but those in turn depend upon theory. Theory is the flashlight that tells an experimenter where to look, and without it, he wanders at random. His data don't fit into a worldview. I consider myself scientific at heart, and so I depend upon a theory as well. Its basic premises are as follows:
Scientists don't use most of the terms that are central to my theory -- which isn't mine, actually, but was born and sustained through the world's wisdom traditions. In the name of objectivity, science leaves consciousness out of its equations and is fiercely proud for doing so. In doing that, a scientist is pretending not to be part of life, as if thinking, feeling, creating, loving, and enmeshing oneself in the complexities of the inner world were all irrelevant.
In fact, nothing could be more relevant. While the general public sees atheists mounting windy charge against superstitious believers, neither side is moving forward. The future lies with anyone who seriously delves into consciousness. Why? Because with physics arriving at the quantum world, neuroscience at the most minuscule operations of brain cells, and biology at the finest fabrics of DNA, all three have hit a wall. At the finest level, Nature is too complex to unravel through such weak ideas as randomness, materialism, and unconscious mechanics. Nature behaves, and as we know from ourselves, behavior is tricky. Science has tons of data about phenomena that don't fit any explanation. For example:
These are alluring mysteries, like trailing bits of yarn that lead back to a big tangled ball. This forum, with its open-minded questioning, can help in the untangling. Yet it spells doom if anyone, either believer or skeptic, falls back upon the tired and dishonest ploys that fill the debate today, such as:
An invited contribution to the Ervin Laszlo Forum on Science and Spirituality.
Follow Deepak Chopra on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DeepakChopra
Deepak Chopra: Understanding Consciousness - Deepak Chopra & Intent
YouTube - Deepak Chopra: The Mystery of Consciousness
Consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness - TIME
Higher consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quantum mind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This statement helps explain why Progress is such a paradox. Science & Technology offer so much, but they are cold indifferent. They have no "consciousness". But religion or even spirituality cannot comfort us because neither can or in some cases, desires, to keep up. Ironically, when we stand so close to so many limits we know of the full consequence, sounds like a time when we need one or either the most. We can also see ironic the fact that our exploration using science may carry us closer to spiritual answers we never imagined.
File this under Paradox2140:Progress:New Morality and http://measuringhistory.com/waves/discussions/paradox2140-progress/new-morality/Paradox2140:Progress:New Morality:Can Spirituality Keep Pace with Science?-http://measuringhistory.com/waves/discussions/paradox2140-progress/new-morality/can-spirituality-keep-pace-with-science/http://measuringhistory.com/waves/discussions/paradox2140-progress/new-morality/
And unfortunately the same is true for most talking therapies which are influenced by Freud or one of his followers such as Jung.
Which isn't to say that such therapies provide no value. I think some well controlled experiments show that they do. Its just that what therapists really learn IMO are general listening and coaching skills.
As for evolution I introduced the concept of the Supreme Evolutionary Principle http://buddha.me/buddha_evolution.htm
Best Wishes
Answer: they can't.
The research has been done at several universities all over the world, including a lab at Princeton that was eventually closed in 2007. You might think it was closed because it failed to produce results, but that's not the case. They had shown the effect so many times that they considered it a waste of resources to continue.
You can read about the Princeton Lab here:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/press_release_closing.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/science/10princeton.html
The reason we don't hear about this kind of research in mainstream media is because whenever a study is released almost all "regular" scientists will claim that it is impossible and point out how the study could theoretically be flawed. But the interesting thing is that a study has proven that "paranormal" research has a much higher level of scrutiny and anti-bias measures than any other field of science. Even medical and pharmaceutical tests don't live up to the high standards employed by these so called "fringe" scientists.
Consciousness in the Science of Psychopathology has been covered over by Freud's theory of the Unconscious and Repression; Oddly enough psychotherapy has dangerously become another means of de-responsibilization of people's conscious-awareness by attributing their thoughts and actions to a mythological 'unconscious'. Rational Insight Therapy based on RCTN (The Rational-Choice Theory of Neurosis) removes this conceptual 'comfort zone' (which in the blog's quote above is equated with religion) from the science of psychopathology and focuses on strengthening a person's coping mechanisms.The danger of the continuation of traditional psychotherapeutic techniques' de-responsibilization of the neurotic masses is in the collective movement toward wars and domestic violence. RCTN brings this sector of science (psychopathology/therapy) BACK from the 'comfort' of irresponsibility. Efforts such as these (including rational insight therapy), raise consciousness and promotes world peace in an authentic, practical and scientific manner. I suppose I am partly motivated to address the apparent 'lack' of discussing psychological sciences, and in particular the advances in psychopathology and clinical research when involved with spiritual discussions on Consciousness. I think RCTN bridges that gap with positive consequences for the good of all human beings. Thank you!
Non-religious people don't care what religious people do in their own lives - we object to their intrusions into ours. WE are not the aggressors in this situation.
This must be an instance of "I am here to win" :-)
N Korea is officially atheist, so is China. Who's gonna lay down their weapons?
"Non-religious people don't care what religious people do in their own lives - we object to their intrusions into ours"
Tell that to the Christians and Muslims who are arrested for being Christian in communist countries.
Was it a Buddhist monk that guilt the A-bomb? And what about Nazi scientists, unnecessary animal testing, and the food scientists that create wonderful things like Twinkies and Coke?
Like religion, science can be wonderful. Also like religion, however, it can be a system for allowing the most egregious crimes possible to manifest through human weakness.
However, there is clearly a logical pathway from devoutly believing something with no evidence to holy wars, terrorism, religious bigotry, etc. There is a methodological error of taking something to be true on faith, no matter who dubious or horrible, and failing to thoroughly question and test that something.
A study of the Gospel of Jesus reveals much about the need to love, forgive and be tolerant. When followed, it leads folks to work together in peace. Much the same way peaceful Muslims are sometimes whipped into a fighting frenzy by corrupt men who do not live by the Koran, wicked leaders perverted the gospel and convinced people that the Crusades were justified. Of course it's much easier if you keep the people in poverty and illiteracy. Pol Pot, Stalin and many others used different tools with the same results.
The tools used are not the cause of the destruction. It's human nature that causes some to dominate and destroy others. They may employ religious fervor, bias, racism, or many other methods, but the cause is almost always the same... power and wealth. That's what leads members of Congress to pander to lobbies and turn their backs on the people, and dictators to abuse their citizens, conquer other nations and commit genocide. Not religion.
You can casually assign this excuse for folks on one side of this issue, yet you demonize anyone on the other side for doing similar things. Can't have it both ways.
You mentioned the A Bomb and excuse Oppenheimer for the destruction caused by his work. In fact, I agree with you about him. You neglected to mention he was a Jew who went to a morals and values school as a boy, and later devoted much time and energy to study and living the Hindu religion. He also devoted a considerable part of his life to lowering nuclear proliferation.
Everything we do to, or for, each other is "people being people."
Well he's just begging the skeptics to be offended. After saying something so slanderous, it seems, uh, unfair to then suddenly claim that he's going to be "open minded." Skepticism can be annoying, yes, but in its purist form it's about honesty.
excerpt:
Strange Bedfellows
One conclusion I have come to over the years is that both the atheist and the believer, from the fundamaterialist to the fundamentalist, share something in common. In fact, from an epistemological perspective, what they have in common is much more significant than what they disagree about. What they agree about is this: Beliefs pertaining to the possible existence of a transcendent reality—God, soul, afterlife, etc.—are based on faith, not fact. If this is true, then there can be no factual evidence that pertains to such beliefs.
This metabelief—that beliefs about a transcendent reality cannot be empirically based—is so deeply entrenched in our culture that it has the status of a taboo. The taboo is very democratic in that it allows everyone to believe whatever he or she wants to believe about such matters. This allows the fundamaterialist to feel comfortable in her conviction that reason is on her side, that there is no afterlife, and that those who believe otherwise have fallen prey to the forces of irrationality and wishful thinking. But it also allows the fundamentalist to feel comfortable in his conviction that he has God on his side, and that those who believe otherwise have fallen prey to the forces of Satan and evil. Thus, although the fundamentalist and the fundamaterialist are on opposite extremes of the spectrum of possible attitudes towards an afterlife, the extreme positions they hold unite them as "strange bedfellows" in their battles against the possibility that there are matters of fact about the afterlife that empirical research might discover. The very suggestion that empirical research might be relevant to beliefs pertaining to a transcendent reality—that such beliefs are subject to empirical constraint—runs strongly against this taboo, and is thus very threatening to most elements of our culture.
The concern for people like myself isn't based on some misconception that all Muslims are terrorists. The issue is simply belief without evidence. From such belief Muslims for Peace follows. But also from that belief 9/11 followed. From belief without evidence, just about anything can and has followed. Some of us are concerned about what that "anything" might be. But this should not be taken as a slight on Islam as if Muslims for Peace do not exists (if we are going to have belief without evidence, it should all be like Muslims for Peace) nor is it a slight on the advocacy of peace.
7. We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all, subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law - laws which all governments should respect and enforce. We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances.
8. We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for minority communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.
9. We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation.
10. We reject any special consideration for religion in politics and public life, and oppose charitable, tax-free status and state grants for the promotion of any religion as inimical to the interests of non-believers and those of other faiths. We oppose state funding for faith schools.
11. We support the right to secular education, and assert the need for education in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge, and in the diversity of religious beliefs. We support the spirit of free inquiry and the teaching of science free from religious interference, and are opposed to indoctrination, religious or otherwise.
It seems you are saying mandatory education in critical thinking is somehow NOT indoctrination.
Who is "we"? (tm)
What is "international law" and why should an American concern himself with it? There is law only where there is force; what foreign power is going to impose its will upon Americans?
1. We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one's religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.
2. We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.
3. We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.
4. We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.
5. We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.
6. We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.
7. through 11. to follow
1. Religion doesn't seem content with others exercising their right to practice their own religion. They always want to seem to want to push their religion onto others, even at the expense of freedom of religion, at worse to proselytize and at best to at least put "under God" in the pledge.
2. It should be evident from American politics that the religious want to vote based on their beliefs.
4. As with 1, religion doesn't seem content until the state endorses their religion.
5. Religious sexual ethics. Enough said.
7. Religions seem to thrive on the taboo that they are not to be criticized and in fact praised. It convinces even the atheist to fain spirituality. Moreover, religion is such a deep feeling that blasphemy is the worse offense. Religion would fight this one to no end.
10. See above and the churches' survivals seem to rely on the tax exemption.
11. This would seriously undermine religious indoctrination of children and undermine religions ability to propagate. Religion wouldn't allow this to happen.
In short, religions seem to survive and thrive by not keeping their hands to themselves and pushing their beliefs onto others. It is inherent that to practice and believe religion you must spread the word. Religion would have to change dramatically to live with you list.
I salute you for all your wonderful comments.
You are a real asset for those of us here at HP who relish intelligent, passionate convictions.
Marked as favorite.
This is true of the atheists as well. The comment and list are hypothetical, IF everyone subscribed to the list we'd all be socialists if nothing else, but at least this "war" would end -- or so the author supposes.
"It should be evident from American politics that the religious want to vote based on their beliefs."
Can you name a person that does NOT vote according to his beliefs?
"religion is such a deep feeling that blasphemy is the worse offense."
In what religion? You seem to have a specific religion in mind whereas the article does not.
"11. This would seriously undermine religious indoctrination of children"
Indeed, but as we can plainly see, it depends on how you define "indoctrination". It is clear to me that public school education IS already indoctrination, quite often in socialist/leftist groupthink. My daughter believes in global warming and a hollow sun (somehow a hollow sun has become linked into discussions of global warming).
What you are describing appears to be Marxism, with the state taking over all education and just not calling it "indoctrination" although it most certainly would be an exact fit.
You advocated: "1. We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one's religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others."
Do you really advise us all to respect any folly, any stupidity, any evil, as long as it is sacred?
I'm sorry, by Chopra fails here. Religion continues to be nothing more than delusion. It's ok NOT to know why something is as it is. Knowing we do not know drives us to learn. Accepting anything on faith stagnates the mind and kills mankind's progress.