The Power of Illusion

On February 18, 2012, in Kabbalah on Science, Main Articles, by Webmaster

Sometimes science can teach us powerful spiritual lessons if we are open to understanding science in a personal, subjective way. That is not to say to that the purpose of science is to increase our spiritual understanding, and we must not allow our personal subjective experience interfere with the proper objectivity needed for good science. Rather, once completed, the body of scientific research can be a source of inspiration, and can help us appreciate the creation in which we live.

I’ve had the great privilege of teaching in the Psychology Department of Columbia University, and the first class I taught was on sensation and perception; my qualifications for that coming from my training in research on the perception of time. Even before I started studying Kabbalah at the Kabbalah Centre, one theme in that course struck me as profound. That theme was the extent to which our personal experience is constructed, and only indirectly influenced by the objective world. As it turns out, this theme is central to the study of Kabbalah as well.

Continue reading »

Tagged with:
 

Comment on “Richard Dawkins…”

On February 15, 2012, in Comments, On the Web, Uncategorized, by Webmaster

Huffington Post Religion section posted this awesome description of a radio interview with noted scientist and atheist, Richard Dawkins. Dawkins’ runs a foundation that seeks to undermine religion, and this foundation uses methods that is far from science town and well down the road to Dubiousville. The problem with this approach is that a more clever word smith might win the game of “gotcha.”

I posted a comment to this article. Here is the whole text:

Dawkins is a perplexing character. What part of his Ph.D. concerned delusions or other phenomenon about which he claims to speak with expertise?

Without commenting on the substance of his work, I object to Dawkins using his scientific credential­s to attempt to invalidate the subjective experience­s of billions of faithful people. Scientific credential­s do not convey universal authority. Indeed the parochial nature of science and the inconsiste­ncy of intelligen­ce across domains (as demonstrat­ed empiricall­y by evolutiona­ry psychologi­st) falsify claims to universal authority.

Freedom of speech guarantees his right to speak his mind – as an amateur. The scientific community, even those in agreement with him should repudiate behavior that belittles human nature, and contribute­s to social conflict, rather than explaining behavior and its evolutiona­ry imperative­s in an unbiased manner.

I’ll begin. I’m a scientist and I repudiate Dawkins for posing philosophy as science, abusing his authority, and sitting in judgment upon those he claims to help.

 

Tagged with:
 

William Grassie from the Metanexus Institute posted this interesting piece on Huffington Post Religion. I posted this commentin response. However, due to word limits I was not able to post the complete comment. Here it is:

Another excellent article by the author. I have two comments.

First, the author sets up a false dichotomy between “scientific” textual analysis and fundamentalism. I would remind the author and the readers that neither Jewish nor Catholic, nor many mainstream protestant denominations approve of a literal interpretation of sacred texts. Indeed Jewish sources have for thousands of years understood the written, or “revealed” text, as only a fraction of their sacred inheritance, and one which can and will be abused if not understood in light of the entire tradition.

Second, The author’s assertion that textual analysis is scientific, is true only to the extent that it is an alternative to traditional interpretations. To be scientific, an academic endeavor must adhere to the standards of the scientific method as evolved from Locke, Bacon, and Galileo. This method involves conducting prospective research with independent variables that are manipulated before measuring dependent variables, and employing random sampling, random assignment and various types of experimental control. The goal being to establish causal relations, while mitigating the influence of confounds. I challenge the author to present evidence that biblical scholars adhere to these standards, thus producing evidence for hypotheses that can supplant the claims from within the traditions. Without such evidence, the claims of “natural” evidence for the text is exactly as valid – or invalid – as the traditional claims of the supernatural.

Not all science adheres to the strictest standards, but they do so at the expense of the ability to infer causal relations in the natural world. The research carried out by textual analysts is observational. That is textual analysis may identify variables of interest such as variations in usage of the names of the creator throughout the Torah – an important piece of “evidence” for the multiple source hypothesis. However, without being able to employ the more stringent tests of research experiments these observations do not constitute the same level of evidence required to establish laws in natural science. Indeed I would assert that the methods described by the author are in fact elaborate forms of historical analysis attempting to grab the esteem of the label “science.”

This doesn’t mean the historians are wrong and the religious communities are right, it just means that the academic community is not capable of making the kind of claims described by the author.

If you’re interested in this topic read my earlier SoulLaboratory.com post “Digging for the Truth (when Reading is too Hard).” The argument I make is essentially the same as the one described in “Raining Frogs and Limits to Science.”

On the Web: Scientists on Religion

On February 12, 2012, in Articles, On the Web, Uncategorized, by Webmaster

Huffington Post Religion is a great resource for SoulLaboratory Readers, but this one is just over the top. Loads of quotes and videos of top scientists, current and past, spouting about religion. Have at it!

 

Raining Frogs and Limits to Science

On February 11, 2012, in Main Articles, Philosophy, by Webmaster

The tag line for SoulLaboratory.com is “making room for spirituality in science and science in spirituality.” The first part of that phrase refers to my attempts to outline limits of the scientific method, which in turn demonstrates a demand for other systems of knowledge, including spirituality, to help us understand ourselves. The most important limit is the objective/subjective divide, which is a “hard” limit of science to phenomenon that can be observed by two or more people. This limit is “hard” in the sense that it cannot be circumvented, and any future system which does allow formal, objective investigation of the subjective can no longer be properly called science. In this article I would like to introduce the idea of “soft” limits to science, which are more practical in nature. For example, what are scientists to do when frogs rain from the sky?

Continue reading »