The spiritual side of science

It seemed kind of obvious, but finally a study has shown that what I've always thought was true, seemingly is: scientific knowledge can produce the same feelings of awe at our place in the cosmos as spiritual experiences can.

So it isn't necessary to embrace religion in order to have a sense of being connected to something greater than ourselves. Exposing yourself to the truths of science can do this, a not-so-minor benefit being that instead of relying on religious fantasies, you're relying on scientific facts.

Below I've copied in an article in the March 2, 2024 issue of New Scientist, "The spiritual side of science" by David Robson. He points toward something that is often ignored or forgotten: gaining knowledge is an experience that changes the brain/mind, just as praying or meditating is an experience that changes the brain/mind.

Some religious people denigrate scientific learning as not being truly "spiritual" or transformative. Actually, it is. I find that the books about science that I read are just as inspiring as the books about spirituality that I read. There's just as much Wow! in what science has learned about reality as there is in tales of how someone achieved enlightenment. 

Here's what Robson wrote:

My personal “road to Damascus” moment came through my TV set. I was 9 years old, and only mildly interested in science, when I caught a repeat of David Attenborough’s Life on Earth, explaining the basics of evolutionary theory. Perhaps it was the sheer timescales involved, but I remember feeling physically dizzy as my mind slowly expanded to encompass these new ideas.

Should we describe these kinds of epiphanies – born from science, rather than religion – as spiritual experiences? That is the conclusion of a new paper from Jesse Preston at the University of Warwick, UK, and her colleagues.

The idea isn’t entirely new. “When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual,” wrote Carl Sagan. But there hadn’t been any experimental work exploring the idea until now.

Preston’s team was inspired by research linking religious belief to better psychological well-being. One potential mechanism for this is through the emotions that spiritual experiencescan inspire: awe, a sense of meaning and the feeling of connection to others, all of which can help to combat stress. It would be unfortunate if atheists and agnostics were excluded from these benefits. Fortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

The researchers’ first step was to develop a psychological scale that examines the emotions elicited by a greater understanding of the physical world. This was done by asking people to rate their agreement with statements such as “there is an order to science that transcends human thinking”. They also included a question on “peak” experiences, those characterised by a state of euphoria – like the rapture I felt while watching Life on Earth.

Testing the resulting scale on 500 people, the researchers showed “spirituality of science” scores to be distinct from related measures, like a general belief in science as a means of rational inquiry. This suggests that the scale could capture the specific emotions otherwise associated with religion.

In a further 526 participants, they then proved it could uniquely predict a range of well-being measures. People with higher scores had higher life satisfaction. This, the researchers argue, suggests that finding spirituality in science can provide the “existential support” typically experienced by religious believers.

I hope this work opens the door to many more investigations. Some studies have hinted that religiosity can lead to better physical health, and I would be interested to see if the spirituality of science can do the same. In the meantime, I would love to hear more about your own experiences – those moments when new knowledge of yourself or nature blew your mind. Drop me a line on X @d_a_robson.

Comments

[sant64]

TREASURE BEYOND MEASURE XII

Though Charan came to the Dera in 1951, he didn't start giving satsangs until much later. Why? Charan said he felt he had a poor knowledge of RSSB teachings that he wasn't fit to give satsang. Dera bigwigs were not pleased with Charan's reticence. "I explained and pleaded with Professor Jagmohan Lal that I knew nothing about Sant Mat teachings. I never attentively heard Sardar Bahadur Ji's or Great Master's satsangs."

Charan Singh on his 1961 tour, reflecting on his conversations with people of other religions: " . . . it is amazing what a poor knowledge people have of their own faith."

[Appreciative Reader]

Yep, science and spirituality.

That famous quote of Douglas Adams, "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

While that sentiment's very cool, as far as it goes; but, to be fair, it may not go quite far enough. That is, the garden's beautiful; as is the sunset; as is the night sky; but if you pack that with stories about some crazed Yahweh God, or about some weird Karmic nonsense, then admittedly that adds some further, I don't know, *depth* to the whole thing.

But, thing is, you get that same depth from science. You look at that garden, and over and above the in-the-moment beauty of it, you can further appreciate the biology of the flowers if you're knowledgeable about it, or about evolution bringing forth all of this. You can look at the sunset, or the nighttime firmament, and over and above the beauty-in-moment-of-it, you might further wonder at the beauty of the science of it, the hows and wherefores of the sun, and of the galaxies, and so forth. (That's a very neat thought, but it isn't mine, not original; I was merely channeling Dawkins there.)

So yeah, that thing about science and spirituality. Sure, on one hand there's the appreciation-in-the-moment thing. But if you want deeper layers, you don't need cock and bull fairy tales, either of the oafish biblical variety, or of the Karmic variety, or of the subtler yet ultimately fictional flights of Vedantic fancy, or any other. If you want layers, if you want spirituality, well then you got science, you got a detailed systematic ever-evolving understanding of reality itself.

Science and spirituality, yes, absolutely.

[Jim Sutherland]

@samt61,…Charan said many times, I AM NOT A MASTER. What’s the big deal? He was a deciple student who became the Teacher by osmosis. He did his duty, teaching as he learned. Isn’t that what we all do,…i.e. teach as we learn? We can’t teach any thing we have not learned. Unlike what 99% of poster are doing on the Internet.

[Ron E.]

I get the point that basically there is no difference in experiences of awe, wonder and the sense of connection whether it is science or religion. It’s interesting though, that we take a word like spiritual and ascribe a series of rigid concepts and meanings to it forgetting that it is just a crude word which we believe explains something greater than ourselves.

As we do have the tendency to believe we are separate and isolated from everything and everyone around (and within) ourselves, it is no wonder that we invest various words, thoughts and feelings with experiences and qualities that, although common to everyone, become invested with a whole host of concepts that basically serve only to maintain a separate, egoic self-structure.

[777]

Charan s method was and is Love
He literally became Sawan
Sawan did that too

Similary we can
and become THEM
That is Sound
777
Somebody asked : Can we kiss forever?
What do U think.?

[sant64]

TREASURE BEYOND MEASURE XIII

Follow up on Charan Singh's knowledge of Sant Mat teachings:

in the chapter "Maharaji's First Satsang," Charan tells of how he'd never read Sar Bachan, nor had he read the Guru Granth Sahib. And this was after Charan was appointed RSSB Master in1951.

This is quite strange to me. Keep in mind that Charan was born in 1916 into a very devout Sant Mat family. His grandfather was the guru of Beas. And yet, despite several decades living in the core of RSSB, Charan hadn't even read Sar Bachan?

Moreover, Charan was also a Sikh. Yet he'd didn't own a copy of the Adi Granth?

It's somewhat like appointing a new Archbishop of Canterbury who'd never read the Bible. Who later scolds other Christians for not understanding the Bible.