Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey — great 44 minute science sermon

I don't go to church any more. But last Sunday I experienced an inspiring sermon... about the cosmic wonders discovered by science.  Here's the best thing about the new series featuring Neil Degrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist: "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" is all about reality. Not religious fantasy.  (First uplifting episode can be viewed online.) The computer graphics are excellent. Sure, these are simulations of how the universe appears beyond Earth's immediate surroundings. But given the immensity of the cosmos, there's no other way to describe expanses of space and time far beyond everyday understanding. I was deeply moved. Particularly, by…

Consciousness is like a performance with no audience

The illusion of a separate self or soul dies hard. It's just so convincing, because this is how it feels to each of us: that someone, an "I," is looking both outward to the world and inward to our own consciousness from some privileged lofty place. Much, if not most, of religion, spirituality, and mysticism is founded on this belief. Supposedly our true self is distinct from the brain's goings-on. It survives bodily death. It stands apart from our physical nature in some sense (even though a baseball bat to the head belies this assumption). I wish it were true.…

Atheists can feel as much awe as religious believers

I'm best friends with awe. If anything awe and I are closer now, in my churchless days, than when I was a religious believer. (See here, here, and here.) Often my awe is stimulated by a simple thought: existence exists. However, sometimes this strikes me as a meaningless truism: of course, existence exists; if it didn't, it wouldn't be existence. Also, if it didn't, I wouldn't be thinking existence exists. Or anything else. Regardless of what makes awe so awesome to me or others, I heartily agreed with Michael Shermer's Skeptic column in the most recent issue of Scientific American.…

Religion isn’t true, like science, but it is appealing

This is how I like to "worship" these days: at the altar of science, with an Oregon craft beer, fries, and a hempburger at hand. Such is possible here in Salem every third Thursday, when Gilgamesh Brewing holds its Science Night at the brewpub.  I don't drink beer very often. But, man, Gilgamesh's Hopscotch (on the right) really rocks. Beer has come a long way from the not-so-good old days of Budweieser and Schlitz, which my high school friends and I would consume with regularity even though it tasted like shit. The Hopscotch I drank last night was like fine…

Subjective spiritual experiences can be studied objectively

Someone has a vision of God. Or feels one with the universe. Or has a near-death experience that gives them a glimpse of heaven. Or comes to know that Jesus loves her. What should we make of such experiences? They are undeniably subjective. Yet so is everything that we humans experience as conscious beings. I have no direct access to the consciousness of any other person, nor does anyone else have access to mine. There are two extreme answers to the question I posed. One is to make subjectivity unquestionable. If somebody says "I've seen God!" no one else has…

Ecstatic feelings can be caused by epilepsy

We are a physical brain. This is virtually certain. But even without the supernatural, mysteries abound within our cranium. 

Here's an article from New Scientist (January 25, 2014) called "Fits of Rapture." The title page said:

Why do bliss and ecstasy sometimes accompany epileptic seizures? The answer might shed light on religious awakenings, joy, and the sense of self, says Anil Ananthaswamy. 

I'll share some excerpts, along with the whole piece in a continuation to this post.

As Picard cajoled her patients to speak up about their ecstatic seizures, she found that their sensations could be characterised using three broad categories of feelings (Epilepsy & Behaviour, vol 16, p 539). The first was heightened self-awareness. For example, a 53-year-old female teacher told Picard: "During the seizure it is as if I were very, very conscious, more aware, and the sensations, everything seems bigger, overwhelming me."

The second was a sense of physical well-being. A 37-year-old man described it as "a sensation of velvet, as if I were sheltered from anything negative". The third was intense positive emotions, best articulated by a 64-year-old woman: "The immense joy that fills me is above physical sensations. It is a feeling of total presence, an absolute integration of myself, a feeling of unbelievable harmony of my whole body and myself with life, with the world, with the 'All'," she said.

…It is uncanny how these feelings of serenity, heightened awareness and a slowing of time also underpin apparent religious experiences. Have mystics over the ages been having ecstatic seizures? Picard's patients could see why some might attribute religious meaning to their seizures. "Some of my patients told me that although they are agnostic, they could understand that after such a seizure you can have faith, belief, because it has some spiritual meaning," she says.

It’s ghosts all the way down

One reason I subscribe to New Scientist magazine is the letters. They're always intelligent, often wonderfully thought-provoking.  Here's one from the January 4-10, 2014 issue called "Haunting Thought." From Rick Bradford I suspect the discomfort that most people feel at the notion that they are "just" their physical brain is due to an insufficient respect for matter (30 November, p. 30). Physicists know that matter isn't the lumpen stuff we usually take it for. The closer you look at matter the more it dissolves before your eyes. Mass, the quantification of stuff, is actually the field energy generated by the…

True “religion” — becoming one with nature, not God

For many years, about thirty-five, I believed in pursuing a supernatural sort of oneness. Even wrote a book about how a Neoplatonist Greek philosopher, Plotinus, taught it was possible to Return to the One. That One was viewed as the ultimate source of this physical world, through creative intermediaries. Yet returning to what could loosely be called "God" required transcending materiality and leaving behind sensory awarenesses. I still consider that such might be possible. Heck, anything is possible. But not everything is probable.  These days I'm much more focused on becoming one with nature. Or more accurately, realizing that I'm…

Brilliant arguments in favor of “no free will”

I've got no problem with a scientifically and logically defensible conclusion: neither I, nor anyone else, has free will.  (Of course, I had no choice but to write that sentence.) The whole existentialist and religious thing -- most early existentialists were Christians -- puts way too much undeserved pressure on us to choose the right thing to do. Maybe this made some sense when little was known about the brain, biology, genetics, systems theory, ecology, and such.  But now it is clear that reality is a web of interdependencies, interelationships, cause and effect linkages. Demonstrable evidence for a non-material free-floating…

Spirituality should be based on reality

Since I bought it, my go-to book for reading prior to my morning meditation/quiet time has been David Barash's "Buddhist Biology: Ancient Eastern Wisdom Meets Modern Western Science."  My previous posts about the book are here and here.  For me, it's a home run in the spirituality without supernaturalism ballpark. In the same genre of Stephen Bachelor's "Buddhism Without Beliefs," yet more satisfying in certain ways, being based on solid science. Albeit with a healthy dose of modern secular Buddhism viewpoints. The core of Barash's book, which I've almost finished, is that three principles underly Buddhism in all of its…

Einstein talks about “spirit.” But not in a religious sense.

Can you be spiritual without being religious? Can you be spiritual and also scientific? Of course. It depends on what is meant by spirit.  A Google search produced this definition: 1. The nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character; the soul. 2. Those qualities regarded as forming the definitive or typical elements in the character of a person, nation, or group or in the thought and attitudes of a particular period. Obviously the first definition -- the non-physical part of a person, soul -- implies a religious sensibility. Or at least, a supernatural one. …

Buddhism without supernaturalism leaves reality

For me, giving up religious addiction isn't done "cold turkey," all at once. It's a gradual process. I discarded the most ridiculous notions early on, but afterwards I find myself letting go of faith-based beliefs bit by bit.

Buddhism and Taoism are examples of this. 

I've given away quite a few of my books in these genres that I couldn't bear to read any more. Even Zen books. Just because spirituality comes in an "Eastern" guise doesn't mean it is free of the dogmatism and supernaturalism that infects Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. 

So now I'm only able to enjoy Buddhist and Taoist writings that make scientific sense. Or at least aren't opposed to a rational, experiential understanding of everyday reality.

Which explains why I've started reading "Buddhist Biology: Ancient Eastern Wisdom meets Modern Western Science." I read a review of David Barash's book in New Scientist. 

(In case the review disappears from the New Scientist web site, I'll include it as a continuation to this post.)

Here's some excerpts from the first chapter that I resonate with.

Full disclosure: I have been a practicing biologist for more than four decades and an aspiring Buddhist (or "Buddhist sympathizer") for about as long, but I am definitely more the former than the latter. I have no religious "faith," if faith is taken to mean belief without evidence. 

Indeed, I have a powerful distrust of organized religion and a deep aversion to anything — anything — that smacks of the supernatural. Give me the natural, the real, the material, every time.

…I am a Buddhist atheist, a phrase that may seem contradictory but that has legitimacy not only in my case, but as a description of many others, of whom the former Buddhist monk and current scholar and author Stephen Bachelor is best-known.

…By contrast, it is hard to imagine a Muslim or Christian atheist, since the terms are oxymoronic: they contradict each other.

…a "Christian" who doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus would seem not only a poor Christian but no Christian at all. Interestingly, Jewish atheists are comparatively abundant, probably because unlike Islam and Christianity, whose followers are defined as those who espouse the tenets of their religion, Jews are defined as much by their ethnicity as their religious beliefs. There are also many "Jew-Boos," people who identify both as Jewish and as Buddhist.

…High on the list of Buddhist absurdities are the phenomenon of iddhi, supernatural events that are supposed to be generated by extremely skillful and committed meditation. They appear often in Buddhist texts and I don't believe a word of them.

…The traditional Buddhist cosmology is, however, very specific, and more than a little weird, with the world composed of thirty-one levels. 

…A final example in which I (and many other Buddhist sympathizers) part company with traditional Buddhist beliefs concerns the doctrine of reincarnation…. For those of us interested in reconciling Buddhism with science in general and biology in particular, traditional reincarnation remains a pronounced and irreconcilable outlier.

…the present book will likely trouble those otherwise gentle Buddhist souls who so revere Tenzin Gyatso that they append to his name the honorific "HH," His Holiness. "The Dalai Lama" is okay with me, since that is how this particular gentleman is widely known, but even though I greatly admire him for his kindness as well as his wisdom, I cannot swallow the notion that he is any holier than thou, or me, or Charles Darwin, or anyone else. Either we are all holy (whatever that means), or no one is.

…I hold to the position that Buddhism in its most useful, user-friendly, and indeed meaningful form is not in fact a religion in the standard Western sense of the term. Rather, it is a perspective, a philosophical tradition of inquiry and wisdom, a way of looking at the world that is often perverted into a kind of "sky-god" faith complete with other nonsensical rigamarole, but, in its more genuine form, is anything but that.

Here's the New Scientist review:

Science isn’t separate from the rest of human rationality

Sam Harris has written a terrific response to this year's Edge question: "What scientific idea is ready for retirement?"  He proposes that we discard the notion that science is only something that physicists, biologists, chemists, and other obviously science'y types do. Rather... We must abandon the idea that science is distinct from the rest of human rationality. When you are adhering to the highest standards of logic and evidence, you are thinking scientifically. And when you’re not, you’re not.   I don't want to quote much more of the piece, because you really should read the whole thing. It isn't…

Brains are us: a fresh thought for a New Year

OK, this isn't exactly a New Year's resolution blog post. But I don't believe in resolutions. Those of the spiritual variety, at least. I've expressed my disbelief here, here, and here. A fresh thought, though... I'm up with that.  I enjoyed this letter in the yearend issue of New Scientist magazine. From Iain PetrieNeurophilosopher Patricia Churchland argues that it can be difficult to accept that "you're just your brain" (30 November, p. 30). So it would seem.  When she says, "I've made my peace with my brain," it rather suggests that she regards herself as an entity distinct from her…

The unconscious hugely influences our conscious life

"Know thyself." Yeah, right.  Tough to do under the best of circumstances, when the supposed self is out in the open, available for knowing.  But modern neuroscience and psychology know that our conscious awareness is just the tip of the iceberg of what lies below in unconscious depths. Early on in my blogging (2005), I wrote a blog post where I said: After I watched “I Heart Huckabees” I experienced a mild existential coincidence of my own. In the movie a character observes that only 5% of the matter/energy in the universe is recognizable. This is true. Physicists estimate that…

Benefits of realizing you’re just a brain

Being religious or non-religious isn't an on-off, binary, this-or-that state of mind. It's a continuum. Much the same as drinking or non-drinking is.

If someone once was a serious alcoholic, changing to only drink a couple of beers a day will seem like a huge difference. He or she will think, "I'm barely drinking." But to someone who doesn't drink at all, that person will appear to still be wedded to alcohol.

These sorts of attitudes are reflected in both comments and posts on this blog. What seems non-religious to some, will look like raging religiosity to others. It all depends on where you are on a continuum. This can be called the Spectrum of Theistic Probability

Richard Dawkins puts it this way:

  1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
  2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
  3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
  4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
  5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
  6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
  7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

But there is more to spiritual belief than God. Many people don't believe in God, but do believe in supernatural phenomena. They've given up a Father figure who resides in an ethereal heaven, yet hold on to other sorts of other-worldly entities.

Such as consciousness separate from the brain.

After heading down the churchless path, for quite a while I carried along this belief, or at least a "weak theist" version of it (I am very uncertain that consciousness exists separate from the brain, but I am inclined to believe that it does).

Now, though, I'm much more on level 6 of the continuum above. I live my life under that assumption that when I die, that's it. No more me. When my brain dies, so does my existence as a conscious entity. I can't be certain of this, but it seems like by far the most likely possibility.

A blurb on the cover of the most recent issue of New Scientist said, "Meaning of life. Learning to live with the reality of existence." Ooh… that sounded intriguing. It was the first story that I read.

Which turned out to be an interview with neurophilosopher Patricia Churchland called At peace with my brain. Or in the online version, The benefits of realising you're just a brain.

Here's some excerpts. I'll include the entire piece as a continuation to this post.

Why is it so difficult for us to see the reality of what we actually are?
Part of the answer has to do with the evolution of nervous systems. Is there any reason for a brain to know about itself? We can get along without knowing, just as we can get along without knowing that the liver is in there filtering out toxins. The wonderful thing, of course, is that science allows us to know.

Are there any implications of neuroscience that you feel unsettled by?
I'd have to say no. It takes some getting used to, but I'm not freaked out by it. I certainly understand the ambivalence people have. On one hand, they're fascinated because it helps explain their mother's Alzheimer's, but on the other, they think, 'Gosh, the love that I feel for my child is really just neural chemistry?' Well, actually, yes, it is. But that doesn't bother me.

By and large I find neuroscience liberating because it allows us to see our connections to other biological things, and because it's not full of metaphysical junk about preparing your life for the great beyond. Of course it's possible we're wrong. But it doesn't seem very likely, and that lack of likelihood is sufficient for me to not want to organise my life around this possibility. I want to enjoy it now. I don't want to make useless and meaningless sacrifices, and I don't want to trash this planet because I think a better one awaits me.

…Some might say the idea that you are just your brain makes life bleak, unforgiving and ultimately futile. How do you respond to that?
It's not at all bleak. I don't see how the existence of a god or a soul confers any meaning on my life. How does that work, exactly? Nobody has ever given an adequate answer. My life is meaningful because I have family, meaningful work, because I love to play, I have dogs, I love to dig in the garden. That's what makes my life meaningful, and I think that's true for most people.

Now, at the end of it, what's going to happen? I will die and that's it. And I like that idea, in a crazy sort of way.

It’s possible to prove God does not exist

When faced with the lack of evidence of God's existence, one of the favorite retorts of religious people is, "Well, you can't prove that God doesn't exist." I've been prone to argue back, the burden of proof is on the person making a claim that something exists. Or, it is impossible to prove a negative. But these are rather simplistic responses. I've come to feel that a more nuanced reply should be, "Hell, yes, I can prove that God doesn't exist."  Here's how it can be done. Get some specifics from the God-believer. What are the characteristics of this God…

Wandering mind and focused mind: we need both

Driving home after a Tai Chi class tonight, I listened to part of an NPR interview with several psychologists. They talked about creativity, daydreaming, focused attention, the brain's default network. Interesting stuff. The basic notion being discussed was that the brain has several ways of functioning. These aren't exhaustive, of course. Scientists are nowhere close to understanding the intricacies of how the brain works. But common sense is in line with what sometimes is called "experiential focus" and "narrative focus." One of the psychologists said it is like what happens when we drive a familiar route. We don't need to…

Scientific faith is way different from religious faith

Here's an interesting look at faith: "No Faith in Science -- why the Higgs boson is not like a sea of milk that sustains the gods." Just because a scientifically minded person uses the word, faith, doesn't mean it is being used in the same sense as religious faith.  I have faith that global warming is happening, because the evidence in support of this conclusion is clear, convincing, and attested to by almost all of the world's climate scientists.  I don't have faith that Jesus saves, because this is a belief with zero demonstrable evidence backing it up.  The Slate…

Atheism is the rejection of theism, not a belief system

Here's a follow-up to my "Atheism isn't a belief. It is a lack of belief." That post had quotes from James Lindsay's second book.  The passages below are from Lindsay's first book, God Doesn't, We Do. Once again, he persuasively challenges the false assumption that theism, believing in God, and atheism, not believing in God, are somehow both belief systems. Doesn't make sense. Read on to see why. Another common misconception among believers is that infidels, atheists in particular, subscribe to a religious view that is called Atheism. This is incorrect, generally speaking. We might be able to call (capitalized)…