Reflection Paper
By
Kathleen Froese
#119524
In partial fulfillment of requirements for
Science and Spirituality Seminar
Oxford, England
Summer, 2002
Five books were reflected upon in this paper. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues (1999), by Ian G. Barbour, Paths from Science Towards God: The End of all our Exploring (2001), by Arthur Peacocke, and Sleuthing the Divine: The Nexus of Science and Spirit (2001) by Kevin Sharpe were required reading. Together these works provided the reader with an incredible wealth of knowledge regarding the history of Western science, theories, and philosophy. Christianity, as practiced by Western culture from the end of the Middle Ages to the present, was described in detail through theological and philosophical lenses. Present ways of perceiving Christian philosophy were considered in light of new theories in science. The books Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence (2000), by Gregory Cajete and The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience (1991), by Francisco J. Varela, Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch were also included by personal choice, as I am also interested in non-Western perspectives on science and spirituality.
The breath and depth of each of these books are too immense to summarize, to even name all that is presented. I have tried to briefly summarize each position for my benefit and I have chosen to focus on information of each that would begin to enlighten me in my own particular curiosity; that is, how do those persons who have chosen to articulate new or different perspectives in the interrelationships of science and spirituality transform (if at all) these perspectives into a lived experience? It is here that I think it is possible for humans in the Western world may find a bridge to cross the gap between themselves and nature. It is this gap that symbolizes the real crisis of our Earth; a crisis initiated by Western science and technology. The following is a beginning exploration of each work where, for my own learning, I have tried to encapsulate the premise of each author. I believe that what I am presenting is only the beginning of my understanding of these books, as I hope to gain more knowledge and insight in the following weeks.
First, it seems appropriate to briefly discuss the meaning of the word ‘science’. Often in Western literature it is assumed that science is that which is studied, observed, analyzed, and found to follow certain rules and predictions. Science provides theories for how the world works. In the Western world we often assume that other cultures agree with our viewpoints. I think it would be fair to say that the Western culture gives little thought to how ‘science’ may have evolved in other cultures and assumes that Western science is the way the rest of the world conceptualizes the field. In the work of Barbour, Peacock, and Sharpe, science is presented as a Western construct or concept. Science is primarily that which burst upon the Western world from the late Middle Ages to the present. It is discussed only in the context of natural and physical sciences and their evolution to the present in conjunction with current theories that now impact our thinking. Absent are the human sciences, minimizing the evolution of the inner human experience as it evolved in relationship to the outer story. If these three authors can be loosely categorized, their definitions of science are that of a field of knowledge using specified methodological research. This field is characterized by producing knowledge about the natural world, credible enough for prediction and control, and perhaps more importantly, for producing a coherent, comprehensive, conceptual interpretation of our world (Peacocke, 2001). Each author encases the concept of science with his own particular philosophical model in searching for the spiritual connection. As it appears that each of these authors have chosen to focus on the dilemmas of the separation of a spirituality and science in Western culture, little reference is given to other cultural perspectives or that science as we know it is a culturally derived concept, not a universal human construct. Nonetheless, each author is bold enough to postulate that the inherent potential of connecting science and Spirituality (Christianity) may have profound global implications. This may be true if viewed in the light that Western technology, derived from Western science, has impacted virtually every corner of the Earth. On the other hand, this implies a disregard for the cultural relevance and understanding of non-Western contributions of science and spirituality of which we all may benefit.
Gregory Cajete, speaking as a Native American, defines the term science as a way of understanding the world, a story of how things happen, a way that human beings have evolved to try and explain and understand existence in time and space and relationships vis-à-vis the natural processes of the world. In the Indigenous mind, the human is an integral part of the natural process and it is inconceivable to think other wise. For Cajete, Native science is a metaphor for a wide range of tribal processes of perceiving, thinking, acting, and “coming to know” that have evolved through human experience with the natural world (pp.2). Leroy Little Bear (in the introduction of Cajete’s book) eloquently states it as a paradigm comprised of and including ideas of constant motion and flux, existence consisting of energy waves, interrelationships, all things being animate, space/place, renewal, and all things being imbued with spirit. Native science implies a comprehensive whole of all sciences, as we would understand in Western disciplines, with the inclusion of philosophy and spirituality.
My inclusion of Native science in this discussion is not meant as a quaint, folksy comparison to the Western science and spirituality discussion, but rather as a point of reference to a viable complex paradigm of humans interacting in the natural world both past and present to this day. Many Native people continue to integrate their understanding of ‘science’ into their daily lives within a spiritual context. It would seem, then, that the point of exploration of science and spirituality is within the lived experience, that point where, perhaps, the human sciences can join the natural and physical science. To leave out the human sciences seems only to further fragment and split the human spirit from science. Varela, Thompson, and Rosch state that there is a human history of nature, a story that is well worth telling in more than one way. Alongside such a human history of nature, there is a corresponding history of ideas about human self-knowledge. This history of self-knowledge remains to be fully explored (pp.5). Varela, et al, attempt to make this connection of mind and everyday experience in their study of mindfulness/awareness practice within the field of cognitive science.
Each author presents a philosophical stand on the science and spirituality discussion, three clearly Christian, a Native American perspective, and three authors jointly presenting an argument for combining science with the Buddhist tradition of mindfulness/awareness practice. Each book presented in this discussion is rich and deep in the author’s articulation of his/their discussion and arguments. It is impossible to do justice to the entire work of each. Rather a brief summary of their theoretical positions will be presented with any implications I have perceived in their work as being applicable to a lived experience of their theories and philosophical stand. I am certain that my interpretations and understanding of each book and its author(s) and the information presented will be clarified, adjusted, and increased in the coming seminar presentations and discussions.
Barbour implements process philosophy, originating from Alfred North Whitehead’s work. Barbour articulates that God is a creative participant, interacting, as we would understand a teacher, leader, or parent to be. God is ever present, everlasting, and perfect. God is the primordial ground of order but also source of novelty and possibilities. Barbour believes that process thought is consonant with ecological and evolutionary understanding of nature as an open and dynamic system. Nature presents as emerging levels of activity, organization and experience. The process model, according to Barbour, avoids dualistic concepts (mind/body, man/woman, humanity/nature). Barbour considers the model to embrace environmental responsibility, although this model, as presented in Barbour’s book, gives little indication of what this experience looks like. Barbour acknowledges the limitations of model use when trying to represent a diverse world and suggests that other models may better present different aspects of the world. In his conclusion, Barbour suggests that we return to the biblical concept of the Holy Spirit. His belief is that reference to the Holy Spirit may help us recover our sense of the sacred in nature and motivate a strong concern for the environment today. The Holy Spirit, in Barbour’s opinion, works within human life and nature and can be expressed through other models in addition to the process model. Barbour leaves it to the reader to interpret the presence of the Holy Spirit in daily life.
Kevin Sharpe aims to find a deep connection between science and spiritual traditions. Sharpe uses David Bohm’s theoretical concept of the implicate order: that is, everything connects to some extent to everything else, because everything folds into everything, having a common foundation that correlates them. Therefore, scientific and spiritual thought can be considered separate but they are also mutually relevant. If this mutual relevance is enacted, the two systems of thought can be guided to interaction and so form a more complete understanding. Spiritual thought can address problems in science while considering how the Divine acts on and in the universe. Neither science nor spiritual thought is independent of each other, but each maintains its own truth. Each moves and grows in human experience and information. Sharpe concludes his work by stating that we need both science and the spiritual because we are whole human beings. It is Sharpe’s thought that a whole system of explanation can be formulated when science and the spiritual work together and draw upon each other’s strengths.
Sharpe advocates Christian emphasis to the spiritual, as he believes “religion for Western society needs to root itself in Judaism and Christianity, given its cultural heritage.” On the other hand, he ascertains that his system of natural spiritual ideas can be interpreted within the traditions of other spiritual belief systems. Perhaps then, a global morality backed by both science and the world’s cultural and spiritual traditions may appear. Sharpe does not articulate a particular way that this may be experienced but rather develops starting points (or as he says, possible startling points) for honesty in tradition and experience. In all, it is time that remains the crucial factor in our global dilemma.
Arthur Peacock considers the world of science to constitute a common starting point from which everyone may pursue the exploration of the Divine. The aim of Peacocke’s book, as he states, is to expound how science has opened up fresh vistas on God for Human perception and life. God’s interaction with the world is encompassed in a panentheistic model. This model is based, in Peacocke’s words, on the recognition that an omniscient God uniquely knows, overall frameworks of reference to time and space, everything it is possible to know, including the interconnectedness and interdependence of the world’s entities, structures and processes. God is the immanent Creator creating through the processes (revealed by science) of natural order. God, as Peacocke states, is best conceived of as a circumambient Reality enclosing all existing entities, structures and processes; and as operating in and through all, while being more than all. Hence, all that is not God has its existence within God’s operation and Being. As a panentheistic model, this allows one to combine a stronger emphasis on the immanence of God in the world with God’s ultimate transcendence over it. Although Peacock’s ground in understanding God is clearly rooted in Christianity, he suggests that we are all attempting “to peer into the depths of that same creative Ultimate Reality.” He boldly steps out to assert that science (as he perceives it) is a truly global cognitive resource accepted across all cultures. Therefore, in his view, it may be possible for seekers of many religious traditions to draw upon it in their exploration from this common source. In the larger picture, it is Peacocke’s hope that Christian theology aspires to transmute into a global theology. This is based on the perennial character of God’s creative engagement with the world. Peacock briefly touches upon the split between humanity and the natural world, attributing it to “an anomaly within the organic world.” Although many may conceive of this maladjustment as a Western dilemma, Peacock appears to attribute it to all of humanity and goes on to question what humanity’s true environment may be. In his perception, he asks whether the human condition raises the profound question of what humanity’s true environment really is. It is a question of what is the nature of that Reality with which humanity must be in harmony in order to flourish. Peacocke ends with the question, “Might it not be, after all, that even modern humanity must come to recognize that the Reality that encompasses us is in fact the Source of our existence and is the End of all our exploring for fruition and so that to which we have willingly to adapt?” Some may argue that this source, this Reality, is simply found in the natural world around us.
Gregory Cajete provides a viable alternative to the Western construct of science for exploring the relationship between science and spirituality. Cajete states in his world view that science is used in terms of the most inclusive of its meaning, that is, as a story of the world and a practiced way of living it. Native science embraces the inherent creativity of nature as the foundation for both knowledge and action with regard to “seeking life”. Within Native science, humans are active co-creative participants. Cajete states that Native science is reflective of the metaphoric mind and is embedded in creative participation with nature. It reflects the sensual capacities of being human. In contrast to Western science, which is studied apart from the culture that creates it, Native science cannot be separated from the culture that gave rise to it. Context and relationship are basic premises. Where Western science has traditionally struggled to remove spirituality from its exploration, Native science works from the opposite side holding sacred its relationship to others and the Earth. Balance and harmony in the sacred involves the integration of the mind, body, and spirit through a dynamic and complex set of activities and mythology. To the untrained Western perspective, Indigenous thought may seem simple, basic, nothing more than a folk tradition. Cajete describes Indigenous people as having evolved a very sophisticated understanding of how things work, how things move, and how things happen in the universe. They use the coded form of mythology to try to convey their understanding, because in some ways, it is understanding beyond words. In Cajete’s discussion, he points out that this is why physics is heavily dependent on mathematics. He notes that there are some things that cannot be explained in words, and the relationship is not transparent unless it is quantified into some symbolic form. In Cajete’s perspective, Native people are doing the same thing in another form by coding their knowledge, understanding, and insights into the rituals they perform, the mythologies they have created, and the stories that they pass down. Indigenous science then may be recognized as an equal but different source of knowledge, not measurable through a Western worldview. Cajete believes that Indigenous science can help Western science in developing and evolving a more expansive way of thinking and understanding, but cultural appropriation issues must be considered. He also believes that Western scientists must make two concessions before debate and discussion is possible: (1) they must recognize that what is considered to be scientific common sense is actually relative, and (2) they must concede that the verb orientations and highly metaphorical nature of Indigenous languages may be better suited than European-based scientific language for expressing scientific reality.
Varela, Thompson, and Rosch explore the potential relationship between cognitive science and human experience. As the authors state, the book begins and ends with the conviction that the new sciences of the mind need to emerge to enlarge their horizons to encompass both lived human experience and the possibilities for transformation inherent in human experience. On the other hand, they believe that everyday experience must enlarge its horizons to benefit from analyses and insights that are distinctly formulated by sciences of mind. The work of the French philosopher, Merleau-Ponty, heavily influences and orients their work. They perceive of the human body as both a physical structure and as a lived experiential structure. Therefore, the term embodiment is used to encompass both the body as a lived experiential structure and the body as the context of cognitive mechanism. Varela, et al, perceive human experience as faced with a challenge as a result of science studying the mind. This concern and challenge is one that the authors articulate throughout the book: the self or cognizing subject is fundamentally fragmented, divided or nonunified. The author’s acknowledge that this issue is certainly not new within science and psychology but they are dissatisfied with the procedures used to study the phenomena and the resulting answers. Varela, et al, perceive that currently there is no direct, hands-on pragmatic approach to experience that is a complement to science. In order to remedy this situation, they refer to the Buddhist tradition of meditative practice and pragmatic philosophical exploration – a tradition not familiar to most Westerners but one in which the authors believe the West can hardly continue to ignore. The Buddhist tradition is relevant to the author’s concerns because, as they state, the concept of a nonunified or decentered cognitive being is the cornerstone of the Buddhist tradition. This concept is fundamentally a first hand experiential account by those who attain a degree of mindfulness in their daily practice. It is for these reasons that Varela, Thompson, and Rosch propose to build a bridge between the traditions of cognitive science and Buddhist psychology. The authors provide an outline of cognition centering on embodied actions. This view of cognition is also discussed in the context of evolutionary theory and connectionistic theory. The author’s exploration of experience and mind is motivated by a concern articulated as such: “without embracing the relevance and importance of everyday, lived human experience, the power and sophistication of contemporary cognitive science could generate a divided scientific culture in which our scientific conceptions of life and mind on the one hand, and our everyday, lived self-understanding on the other, become irreconcilable.” It is their perception that these issues are inseparable from deeply ethical concerns, ones that require “an equally deep understanding of the human dignity of life.”
So what have I learned? I have learned that I appreciate the poetic articulation of Christian theologians/scientists, such as Sharpe, Barbour, and Peacocke, as they postulate new ideas and philosophical frameworks for understanding Christianity in the 21st century as it relates to the expanding fields of natural and physical sciences and the concerning conditions of the Earth. I have learned that I want to know more about these theories and thoughts and to be able to articulate them myself without so much struggle. But it is not enough for me.
Although my cultural background is firmly planted in Western Chrisitianity, Christian philosophy does not resonate with me in my search for understanding how one might consciously live a belief system that holds humanity’s relationship with the Earth as necessary and sacred. As an everyday person, living in the Western world, I want to know how we might now, today, learn how to be humans and thoughtfully express our experience in the universe where everything is present to everything else; where nothing is separate. I believe that we must perceive the idea of knowledge as being something more than a means to usefulness. Rather, knowledge can be perceived as a means to fulfullment and understanding, to become more fully human.
For me, exploring other cultural constructs of science and spirituality with respectfulness and curiosity adds richness to this pursuit of regaining an intimate relationship with the natural world. It is not my intention to force-fit myself into another culture other than my own. It is that I believe and feel that my culture has lost/avoided the rich connections to the Earth. Our daily life is void of any recognition of a sacred connection to our environment that sustains our lives. How do we re-invent our roles as co-creators in a dynamic, evolving Universe? So I seek solutions and answers from other cultures and peoples while recognizing my grounding in the West. As Thomas Berry says, the problem (the separation of humanity from the natural world) is within the Western world, the solution must be there also. You always find the solution where the problem is. Therefore, it is fitting to continue to explore knowledge from a Western perspective, because that is what I am, Western. On the other hand, I wish to pursue the answers to my questions by also looking outside of the Western paradigm, in an inclusive body of knowledge – why? As Vine Deloria, Jr. (1999) so appropriately stated, “a full content of human knowledge is a discontinuous arrangement of smaller bodies of knowledge derived from the many human traditions represented in planetary history, not a body of knowledge that merely adds insights of non-Western peoples to the already constructed edifice of Western knowledge.”
Other References:
Berry, Thomas (2002). “Singing to the Dawn: Thomas Berry on our Broken Connection to the Natural World,” The Sun, May 2002, Issue 317.
Deloria, Jr., Vine (1999). Spirit & Reason: The Vine Deloria, Jr., Reader, Golden, Colorado: Fulcum Publishing.