Humankind Advancing, Vol.9, No.1 January 1998

(Reprinted from the IRAS Newsletter with permission)
"On the pre-scientific level, we are often ourselves destroyed, eliminated with our false theories; we perish with our false theories. On the scientific level, we systematically eliminate our false theories -- we let our false theories die in our stead."

Karl Popper

"There appear to be at least three tests that can be applied -- not to whether a picture of reality is correct, but to whether it appears to be a wholesome one for society to hold. These are: 1) Does the view in the long run lead toward societal or system adaptability, and hence toward survivability? 2) Does the view lead toward fruition of    the long term trend of human civilization? 3) Is the view compatible with whatever can be discovered to be man's most fundamental nature?"

Willis W. Harman

The good news is that these quotes are not contradictory. The bad news is that this is not generally realized; it is widely assumed that science and reason stand in the way of ethical progress.

Even Professor Loyal Rue, to whom I am deeply grateful for inviting me to write this essay, implies in his book By the Grace of Guile that no alternative exists between the truth of a chance-created universe without meaning and purpose and the "Noble Lie" of a meaningful creation story, which is needed to keep humanity on track. But an alternative exists. It is the principle of emergence at the core of evolution.

The struggle toward a viable world view -- or more precisely a world view that would secure a viable ecosystem, a viable humanity as part of it, and the unceasing glow of the spark within that draws us toward wisdom -- should be of special relevance to IRAS members, as they are in the business of clearing away misconceptions arising between the viewpoints of science and those of religion, and to do so at the highest possible level of insight and understanding.

Among those beliefs obstructing our progress, the ones I am encountering most persistently (and not only from nonscientists) are the following:

1. Darwin was wrong.
2. The population problem is irrelevant.
3. Science is identified with materialism and greed.
4. Traditional science must be replaced with a "New Science," which does not insist on verifiable (or rather falsifiable) data.
5. Understanding the interrelationship of the web of nature is a sufficient ethical guide.
6. Consciousness exists independently of a living brain.
7.  Purpose or meaning cannot exist in our world unless they preceded evolution.
8. Mystical experience cannot be explained by science and therefore proves the existence of supernatural powers.
9. Drug-induced states of consciousness lead to the perception of superior truths.
10. Life is meaningless unless it continues after death.
11.   Quantum mechanics proves the existance of psychic powers at a distance.
12. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle makes all scientific knowledge irrelevant.

I am burning to defend my objections to these beliefs in detail, but Loyal Rue took the precaution of restricting my essay to 1,500 words. 

Thus, I will simply speak of the struggle, which consists on my part in vigorous letter exchanges and the sampling of new world views to widen my horizon and look at the problem from different perspectives.

Pursuing that endeavor, I encountered fascinating papers and books, the most relevant of which was Evolution: The General Theory by Ervin Laszlo. That book displays a breathtaking panorama of our evolving world from the position of systems theory. According to that theory, different systems, such as the atom, the cell, the organism, societies, ecosystems, and galaxies, are at the most fundamental level guided by the same organizational principles, such that the knowledge of one of these systems leads to the understanding of all of them. This thesis has been contested on the grounds that human systems are different, because they rely on conscious intentional action. But if it is assumed that consciousness is not an emergent of the living brain, but exists in the universe at large, and that it occurs in atoms and cells as well as in the neocortex, this objection does not apply. In the organic realm, Laszlo sees a succession of subsystems, systems, and supersystems, in which each system's advance toward greater complexity is followed by a transformation, combining independent constellations into one larger one, after which the process is repeated. The organizational complexity of the larger system is at first simpler than those of its subsystems, but increases again until a new transformation takes place. In such a way, atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, etc. arise. Binding forces are strongest at the lowest level, that is, in subatomic particles, but become increasingly weaker at higher levels. At the human level immense difficulties have to be overcome to achieve cohesion. Yet, unless this evolutionary imperative is achieved, mutual annihilation will be a constant threat.

The scheme is exhilarating. It goes beyond Darwin and focuses on the role of cooperation as a major evolutionary strategy. But related reading was deeply disturbing. Concern with humaneness gave way to inordinate emphasis on the need to reject traditional rigorous science. For instance, it was demanded (not by Laszlo, but by one of his admirers) that the subjective experience of a medium, who wrote two books allegedly dictated to her by a scientist 20 years after his death (who had continued his studies in the beyond), be accepted as scientific data! And this was by no means an exception. Such demands effectively block the wholesome world view toward which we (and Laszlo) aspire.

Systems and chaos theories do not conflict with science, yet they seem to attract believers in the most incredible caims. The same happened to the work of Roger Sperry, who had become the guru of the flower children of the Sixties, after his discovery that the right hemisphere specialized in intuitive, artistic thinking and religious experience, and that it was essential for a meaningful life and functioning society. But he took care to dissociate himself constantly from claims that his discovery supported belief in the occult and supernatural. One of his several papers on the topic, "Holding Course Amid Shifting Paradigms"¹ (published posthumously), explains again his position that consciousness is an emergent of the living brain, although it affects brain function and is not an epiphenomenon.

Though the right hemisphere must supplement the left one, it cannot replace it. The expulsion of science and reason from our civilization would open a void into which ruthless and irresponsible elements would rush to feed on confusion and despair. Our acquisition of a viable world view may be likened to a caterpillar's metamorphosis into a  butterfly. Within the safety of the cocoon, a complete transformation takes place, during which the entire interior dissolves and is reorganized. Everything is demolished, except for a vital part: the DNA-information that carries the instruction to create the butterfly. What is the cultural equivalent of this DNA-information, the most vital part to be preserved? I believe it is our reasoning power, together with our capacity to be humane, and the glimmer of foresight that must be encouraged to grow and replace present short-sighted and destructive policies.
 
The key problem is that intuitive knowledge cannot be corrected when it is in error. Belief systems based on revealed religion are therefore far more likely to fight each other until death than those containing components of reason     .

But not only is the rejection of science and reason dangerous, it is also unnecessary. The most beautiful experiences in life are not erased through scientific discoveries; they are deepened. I will close with a quote from Beyond a World Divided¹ in support of Sperry's contention that no life exists after death:

There is a way in which even the devoutly religious person may transcend his concern with the unembodied self, not through the rejection of his or her belief, but through experiencing the divine at a more fundamental level, unchained from any dogma or specific belief system. During that experience the individual meets the divine in depth and in truth, becoming one with the universe. All its separate, distracting aspects vanish. It no longer matters whether the entity once known as "I" remains alive after death: all that matters is the overwhelming sensation of a love that knows no boundaries. The quest for the life of the individual soul after death becomes irrelevant.

Here believers in all the religions of the world, be they of the West or the East -- and even those confessing no faith at all -- are unified during moments of their deepest experience.

To succeed in our struggle toward a viable world view we need a more profound understanding of science and a more profound understanding of religion. I cannot think of any group better suited than the members of IRAS to lead us toward that aim.

1.)  See References

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