How a physicist embraces both science and spirituality

I embrace science. I also embrace spirituality, so long as "spirit" isn't viewed as something supernatural, but as a word that points to a deep personal understanding of existence that is compatible with science.

So when I heard about physicist Alan Lightman's book, The Transcendent Brain: Spirituality in the Age of Science, I knew that I wanted to read it. (I included an excerpt in this post.)

Now that I've finished the book, it met my expectations, though I didn't learn anything astoundingly new.

Lightman does a good job of explaining how we can feel a sense of belonging to a world that is far greater than our small self, which can even fade away to a near-nothing in a transcendent experience, without recourse to religious dogma or mystical mumbo-jumbo.

But I already believed that to be true. Which doesn't take away from the value of Lightman's book for me, because I enjoy hearing truths spoken in different ways.

Here's some excerpts from the book that will give you a feel for Lightman's perspective.

In the millions of experiments and probes of the physical world, modern scientists have not found any mysterious forces or phenomena that did not ultimately yield to a rational explanation.

Sometimes, we have had to revise our understanding and theories based on new observations and considerations, as happened in the twentieth century with relativity and quantum mechanics, but the revised theories have always been consistent with the law of the conservation of energy and, more generally, a material, rule-based understanding of nature.

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

As I have said, I'm a materialist. Like almost all modern biologists, I believe that consciousness and all mental experiences are sensations brought about by the chemicals and electrical currents in the brain. But we may never be able to cross the first-person/third-person divide. The experience of consciousness, at least at its highest levels, is the first-person subjective par excellence. 

The analysis of three pounds of neurons sitting on the lab table, the probing of the brain with instruments, the measuring of its electrical quiverings, the writing of equations to describe it, even the mere talking about it as a thing are all third-person activities. 

We can't be inside the box and outside the box at the same time. Of course, in some sense we are always inside the box of our own minds, since we cannot experience the world except through our individual brains.

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

Given that we cannot cross the first-person/third-person divide, that we cannot express in any objective way what it feels like to be a conscious being or thing, can we at least understand how a congregation of billions of material neurons might produce something as complex and qualitatively novel as consciousness? 

The answer is yes, and it comes from a study of what are called emergent phenomena. Emergence or emergentism is collective behavior of a complex system with many parts that is not apparent and often not predictable by understanding the individual parts.

...In particular, consciousness can emerge from the collective interaction of billions of neurons, following known laws of chemistry, physics, and biology, without the intervention of some additional ethereal or psychic force.

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

The experiences described here, which express many of the features of spirituality as I have defined it -- feelings of connection to nature, the cosmos, and other people; the feeling of being part of something larger than one's self, the appreciation of beauty; the experience of awe -- are religious experiences, in that they are all mediated by an omniscient and purposeful Being and Creator we call God.

As such, the experiences may be considered to derive from God, or from the God-like soul in us, or from the pervasiveness of God in nature and the cosmos. For the unnamed clergyman and for Tagore and Muhammad and Moses, the existence and spiritual power of God are implicitly assumed.

I respect these beliefs and their divine attributions. My aim here is to show that these same spiritual feelings can arise completely from the forces of Darwinian natural selection and the capacities of a highly intelligent brain, without other agency. In other words, I am discussing here a nonreligious spirituality and its evolutionary origins, although the feelings of connection and awe may be quite similar to those of religious spirituality. 

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

A detachment from one's Self plays an important role in various aspects of spirituality, especially the transcendent experience of being connected to something larger than ourselves. When we open ourselves up to a larger world, we are in some ways subjugating and dissolving our individual egos. For a few moments at least, we let go of Self.

Thus, there would seem to be an anticorrelation between the degree to which we focus on our individual selves and the degree to which we can connect to things larger than ourselves. More self, less connection to the larger world. 

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

It is worth pausing here to acknowledge that the relative importance of one's self is partly shaped by one's society. Cultural anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists have long noticed substantial differences between Westerners and Easterners in their attitudes toward the individual versus the larger group.

Westerners (Americans, Europeans, Australians, etc.) celebrate the individual and the individual's freedom, independence, and autonomy, while Easterners (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc.) prioritize the group over the individual and emphasize the interdependent relationships between members of the group.

The two psychological and cultural dichotomies are referred to as "individualism" versus "collectivism." One particularly interesting feature of this dichotomy: To study a phenomenon or analyze a problem, individualists break the thing down into its component parts. Collectivists experience phenomena holistically, and in terms of the relationships between the parts.

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

I believe that the capacity for awe also includes an openness to the world. Openness, in turn, requires a certain humility. To be open to the world is to recognize that there are things in the world that we do not yet possess, things bigger than us, things that we do not yet understand (or perhaps may never understand).

...Returning to the Hindu concept of darshan, which literally means "viewing" in Sanskrit, its fuller meaning is the experience of beholding a deity or sacred object. 

For Penrose, mathematics is that sacred object. For Bai Juyi, it was the view from a mountaintop. For my early morning in Maine, it was the shining air. For my two-year-old daughter, it was the ocean. The experience of darshan is considered to be reciprocal. 

When we open ourselves to the world and pay homage to that which is larger than ourselves, we receive a blessing from the outer world. We get something back. We are ourselves enriched by the larger understanding of the cosmos and our place in it.

Comments

[Ron E.]

Brian's’ opening paragraph: - “I embrace science. I also embrace spirituality, so long as "spirit" isn't viewed as something supernatural, but as a word that points to a deep personal under-standing of existence that is compatible with science.”

And Alan Lightman concurs with: - “In the millions of experiments and probes of the physical world, modern scientists have not found any mysterious forces or phenomena that did not ultimately yield to a rational explanation.”

He (Lightman) goes on to say: - “In particular, consciousness can emerge from the collective interaction of billions of neurons, following known laws of chemistry, physics, and biology, without the intervention of some additional ethereal or psychic force.”

It is my view that once we have the courage to embrace ourselves (and the universe) as physical wonders, then we are on the road toward stepping out of the dark ages of our minds’ contents and into a more enlightened way of seeing ourselves and others as composite physical and mental creatures with the (perhaps dormant?) capacity of living an integrated life; one not based on isolated belief systems but one of understanding and mutual interdependence.

To this end, I believe it is imperative to understand the basics of the mind, the self and consciousness as provided through sincere self-study and with the insights from science – two of which I list below: -

Dr. Chirapa Ukachoke on his research of the mind phenomenon states: - “Because the mind is a non-material, informational entity, it is not a conventional physical entity (or mechanical entity) like mass, energy, or force; that is why it is so different from the conventional physical entities. But, because information and information-processing processes are physical entities, the mind, which is an informational entity, is also a physical entity.”

A passage in ‘SELFLESS’ by Brian Lowery tells us: - “Selves don’t emanate from some ineffable light within people. Instead, selves are created in relationships.” And: - “The concept of self is not static, but rather constantly evolving through social interactions and the ongoing construction of our identity.”

[Appreciative Reader]

What Alan Lightman says here makes sense, Brian; but I’d keep a pinch of salt at the ready when listening to Lightman pontificate about spirituality, or indeed any scientist pontificate about any of these more general things that are outside of their domain. When they’re talking about their core competency, about the specific subject of their expertise, well then they’re authorities on that, absolutely. But as far as more general philosophizing, there’s no need to defer to them any more than one would to …you, say, or me for that matter. By all means we accept their ideas if they comport with what makes sense to us; but the moment it doesn’t, out into the garbage can it goes, no matter their bona fides in their specialization.

Why I’m saying all of this is, is because when you brought up Alan Lightman, that brought to mind a discussion I’d watched, of Dawkins with Lightman, some years ago. I did half think of commenting on it when you’d written about him last week or so, but I was too lazy to! Well, now that you’ve brought him up again, and specifically with respect to his views on spirituality, here it is, that link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSCDfjTDVCk

It’s longish, the whole discussion, just over an hour, but I’m sure you’ll find it interesting. I haven’t watched it again now, and I speak of it now from imperfect memory of what I’d watched some years back; but what I take issue with is the fact that despite being a bona fide physicist, Alan Lightman is completely mistaken about the nature and scope of science, and specifically as it relates to spiritualism. Heh, I know, that might appear to reek of hubris, me taking a scientist like Lightman to task on his (lack of) understanding about the scope of science; but that’s why I said what I did about not getting carried away when a scientist philosophizes. They’re an authority on their specialization, but on everything else they’re no more so than you and I.

And in this case, in this discussion, he makes some completely elementary errors in understanding and reasoning that you and I could very easily set him right on. Dawkins does just that, very simply and very clearly. But surprisingly for a bona fide scientist, not only does Lightman not immediately recognize and acknowledge his error; but he goes around furiously shifting goalposts and essentially changing the subject, as woo-peddlers tend to do. Very disappointing, like I said, in a bona fide scientist.

-----

Which isn’t to take away in the slightest from the perfectly reasonable things you’ve quoted him as having written in his book, in your post here, let me hasten to add. And nor is it to question his academic credentials when it comes to his specific domain. And further, Lightman is no kook, and his ideas, as he discusses them here, are perfectly reasonable in general. Just, he seems to get some elementary things completely wrong. Which is fine, we all make mistakes; but, even when his error was very clearly pointed out, he either lacked the wits to recognize this, or, more likely, the integrity to freely acknowledge it, to himself and to others, as one would have expected him to, and instead he tried to double down on his original error, and when that didn’t work, he did the usual woo-peddler thing of trying to shift goalposts and take refuge behind non sequiturs.

So that, and like I said, let’s keep a pinch of salt at the ready when we hear this man hold forth on spirituality, and not let his authority as a physicist persuade us that he’s speaking sense, in those specific instances where we find that he clearly isn’t.

[SantMat64]

"In the millions of experiments and probes of the physical world, modern scientists have not found any mysterious forces or phenomena that did not ultimately yield to a rational explanation."

Really?
What is the rational scientific explanation for the creation of the universe ex nihilo?
What's the rational scientific explanation for the laws of physics?
What is the rational scientific explanation for how life began?
What's the rational scientific explanation for the extremely precise favorable conditions that allow life to exist on Earth?

Scientists have *no* actual explanation for any of these very major questions.

If I may shift to related (sort of) topic -- what in the heck is happening in Sant Mat world? It seems that not only Gurinder Singh but also Rajinder Singh of Science of Spirituality (see? "Science," so it's related) both seem to be in retreat from teaching classical Sant Mat.

In a recent Q & A video, Gurinder, in that mildly scolding way of his, admonished a questioner that "we put too much attention on the guru and not on the path." It's probably the most stunning thing I've heard Gurinder say. It's like the Pope telling Catholics "we put too much emphasis on Jesus Christ." Not exactly the same thing of course, but for goodness sake, read Sar Bachan and what it says about the Guru's central role in the Sant Mat path. Recall what both Sawan and Jagat said about Sant Mat being Gurumat. Nevertheless, Gurinder somehow views guru bhakti as a kind of aberration, something the satsangi should avoid in their practice of the "real" Sant Mat, and having viewed quite a number of Gurinder's vids, it's anyone's guess what that might be.

Then there's Sant Rajinder Singh. Of late, in the monthly publication Sat Sandesh, he's ceased inclusion of any essays by his predecessors Sawan, Kirpal and Darshan Singh (these essays but other Gurus were a standard part of Sat Sandesh since 1967.) So now the whole issue is just Rajinder's essays and interminably long and banal instructive stories, and photos photos photos of Rajinder. Perhaps more intriguing, Science of Spirituality has ceased selling any Sant Mat book except those authored by Rajinder. The many books by Kirpal and Darshan formerly for sale are gone. And no explanation is given for any of these changes.

Then there's Rajinder's exposition of Sant Mat, perhaps best described as a remaking the path into a stress-release modality like TM.

I can see how it can be argued that the changes Gurinder and Rajinder have authored are a good thing, in some ways at least. And yet, these changes are a denial of the role they supposedly were divinely appointed to play. If Guru bhakti is wrong, then what exactly is Gurinder Singh's purpose? I'm sure he's an able administrator of the dera, and he plays "Baba" well in doling out life advice to quavering satsangis, but if he tacitly denies the spiritual role of guru as its defined in Sant Mat tradition, what then?

Similarly, I feel unsure about Rajinder's massive reduction of the vigorous Sant Mat of his predecessors into a method of stress release. Probably many will see these changes as moves in the right direction: less mysticism, more attention to meditation for a balanced life. It's hard to argue with that. But I would argue that with these changes something beautiful and magical was lost.

[Appreciative Reader]

SM64, look up 'God of the gaps'. It's not a thing, but a fallacy; one that you're committing here, or at any rate clearly implying, in the first part of your comment. That term, God of the gaps, telegraphs all that is completely wrong with your gotcha.

[SantMat64]

AR: The claim that something came from nothing, ie, the universe birthed itself out of precisely nothing, isn't a gap in scientific knowledge. Rather, it's just a colossal declaration without any base in any scientific knowledge or credible theory. The same goes for the question about existence of biological life -- no answers from the academy. Neither the origin of the universe or of life are on the same ontological plane as questions about gaps in evolution or geologic history. I'm always nonplussed when people offer this supposed fallacy as a satisfying explanation for the uber fundamental questions about existence. Questions that, as I stated previously, no scientist has ever produced anything more substantial than wild guesses. Guesses clearly imbued with atheistic faith, but wild guesses nonetheless. As Feynman would call it, Cargo Cult Science. If there's no evidence for things, just say so. The wrong approach is to claim the desired answer exists, and doubters are guilty of fallacious reasoning. No sir, God is still very much a possibility, a possibility that, while uncertain, the majesty of even the smallest particle of creation, to say nothing of that of the Cosmos, testifies with thunderous emphasis to anyone with open eyes.

[um]

@ Santmat 64

If you go through the literature attributed to the successors in beas after Swami Ji of Agra, you could have seen a slowly "change": in the presentation of the teachings.

As I love to look at "progresses in work" and finding meaning in it, I used to call it the process of turning the leeve "in side out".

Sant mat is a very adaptive path.

Adaptive in the sense as expressed in one of them saying to me: "In Rome we do what the Romans do". In order to "survive" and live in Rome you have to adapt to their ways and "speak their language" You even find a hint in the Bible related to Christ saying that one has to speak the language of the people to be understood.

If you just have some coffee and do some gazing outside the window looking at the crows in the trees, you could become aware of what has happened to the world. Where there was first and patchwork quilt of local cultures with little contact. Today the world has become an market place where all these local cultures compete and even do their best to survive.

Sant Mat once in the seventies seen as something unique turns out the be just an unique variation of the same and due to the development of science, the processing of data and the access to data the meaning of religion, spirituality etc has drastically changed in the last decades

It is just an superficial adaptation to the spirit of time ... the real thing cannot change.

It is like seeing through the eyes, what is seen can change, the meaning and the value of what is seen can change, but the seeing cannot.

There is in the end, if there is, just ONE path in the interior ... and ... the different forms it take in terms of practice etc have all their roots in ...Ancient Hinduism but that is beyond the scope of this blog ...

[Ron E.]

I’m not too bothered about Lightman using the word spiritual or religious, although such terms have so many interpretations it is sometimes counter-productive to use them in that the whole emphasis of a comment or statement could be diverted away from the intended message.

Lightman explains his interpretations of spiritual quite adequately as “. . . feelings of connection to nature, the cosmos, and other people; the feeling of being part of something larger than one's self, the appreciation of beauty; the experience of awe -- are religious experiences. . .”

This to me, describes the quite natural feelings and senses that arise at moments of quiet, moments when the barrage of thoughts and opinions are not taking center stage. Stephen Batchelor coined a nice phrase for this – ‘the everyday sublime’ – always there about us, though our habitual thinking patterns obscure it.

It is very satisfying to have science confirm and reveal truths about the natural world we live in, although there are – and must be – many things that our brains are not designed (another loaded term which I use in the sense of ‘designed’ by nature) or capable of understanding. Basically, brains are designed for survival via information processing, it is just that the evolved mental facility for abstract concepts and our desire to know, may often take us into illusory territory.

[Appreciative Reader]

SM64, if you’ll permit me to correct you on one or two things there:

First, physicists do not posit that the universe birthed itself out of precisely nothing. To begin with, there is more than one cosmological origin model that current consensus looks at. Besides, it isn’t “precisely nothing”, what is posited is a quantum field. So I’m afraid your ideas about the origin of the cosmos are incomplete, and not quite up to date.

Second, that’s not “colossal declaration without any scientific knowledge or credible theory". These conclusions, these theories, are quite literally what the evidence points towards. That, quite literally, is science, hard core science.

But most importantly, whether or not you find this incredible, or I find this incredible, is entirely beside the point. That’s a classic fallacy, this argument from incredulity. Our native intuition is no more than a tendency to extrapolate, through evolutionary means, the conditions in which ancient man evolved. Anything outside of that will necessarily feel counter-intuitive and impossible to us; and clearly the larger reality of the cosmos is very different than the forests of Africa where homo sapiens evolved. Which is why science strives to correct for bias, and to follow the evidence to arrive at the closest approximation of (or the best-fit model of) objective reality.

And finally, I’m afraid you do not appreciate what the God of the Gaps fallacy amounts to. It does not refer to incremental, incidental “gaps” in a long string of things known. It refers to the (fallacious) tendency to randomly attribute to some God figure whatever is currently unknown. And I’d like to devote one more paragraph in this comment to explaining exactly why that is fallacious:

You’re right when you point out that science does not actually know, so far, the mechanism of the actual origin of the cosmos; and also, as you rightly point out, the origin of life. But there’s no reason to imagine that this will forever remain unknown. But more importantly, and more fundamentally, and regardless of whether we do ever get to know these things: When we say that “science does not yet know about the origin of the universe”, what we actually mean is that “*WE* do not know yet about the origin of the universe.” The scientific method is how we uncover knowledge about objective reality; and we haven’t so far been able to answer these specific questions, even as we’ve answered a great many others. And that means that these questions, so far, remain unanswered. It is completely absurd, completely irrational to jump up at that as if that is some kind of gotcha; because that gap in our knowledge arrived at through science does not, at all, lend credibility to random unevidenced claims about these things made by random folks --- which is what all religious and supernatural claims amount to. If science does not know certain things thus far; then neither does religion know those things, because religion by itself knows nothing at all, zilch, nada.

I suggest, SM64, that your being nonplussed about these things, as you say you are, is a function of your not having properly appreciated the nature and scope of science.

-----

Actually that’s very moving, the sentence with which you end your comment, about every tiny particle of the cosmos bearing thunderous testimony to the presence of God. In fact, although I can’t place it exactly, it may have been Rumi, or not, but I’ve come across that exact sentiment, in so many words, in Sufi poetry. That makes for sublime poetry, and moves the heart, absolutely, if only you read and listen with your defenses down.

That said, it isn’t really true, you know, not literally. Is there the possibility that there’s God? Sure there is, why not? By all means keep looking, if you’d like to. I do that, myself, you know. But it serves no purpose to prematurely declare that you’ve found Him, when in fact you haven’t. No, every particle in the cosmos, and the cosmos in its entirety, do NOT bear evidence to the existence of a single creative force behind it all, a creative force that is intelligent and conscious, which is the least that it would need to be in order that we may call it God. There is no reason, so far, to conclude any such thing. Should such exist, then the only way we might reliably come to know of it, is through the methods of science.