Science in Christian Perspective
Science and Spirit: A Regress Report
DAVID HADDON
P.O. Box 4308 Berkeley, CA 94704
WALTER H. HEARN
762 Arlington Ave. Berkeley, CA 94707
From: JASA 26
(September 1974): 105-110.
Walter R. Hearn:
Some ASA members feel that although our Christian commitment deeply affects our
personal participation in science, we want science itself to remain
an essentially
impersonal enterprise. Particularly in the publication of scientific
work we support
efforts to maintain the greatest possible objectivity, even though
publication in that format renders our work indistinguishable from work done by
non-Christians. If that makes published science seem philosophically barren, so
much the better. An objective, mechanistic science makes a less attractive idol
to worship, and leaves a spiritual vacuum for us to fill with our testimony of wholeness we find in Christ but not in science. Science
without philosophical
trappings may be more capable of being put to destructive use. If so,
then theology
and philosophy must be strong in their own right to cope with science. But at
least an uncluttered science will also be strong and reliable when we want to
put it to constructive use.
On the other hand, some believers yearn for a kind of "takeover" of
science by Christianity. Truth is one, they emphasize, and should not
be fragmented.
They feel that scientific work done by Christians should be
intrinsically different
from that done by nonbelievers. To examine our motives and dedicate
our abilities
to God, and to reflect on the significance and application of our research, are
not sufficient. In this view, science should be distinctly Christian
in its content,
not merely in our contemplation of it.
In one of these views, science, philosophy, and religion are woven
into one rope
of truth as independent strands. The other wants to see philosophy and theology
woven into the science strand at the beginning, or perhaps wants
truth to consist
of only a single strand.
In the early days of science, papers were dedicated Ad maiorem Dei gloriam. Perhaps
the greatest scientific papers written in those days expressed
Christian commitment
or at least theistic bias. But more recently I recall reading Russian
biochemical
literature of the Stalinist era, with its testimonials that must have
made communist
hearts swell with pride. The scientific work thus glorified by association was
sometimes so poor as to make me wonder if scientific quality were not inversely
proportional to ideological content.
Today one need not go back to an earlier period, or learn to read Chinese, to
see efforts to "colonize" science in the name of philosophy
or theology.
Occultism and psycho-spiritualism, recognizing the rationality and objectivity
of the scientific mind-set as a barrier to their advance, now seek to join and
subvert what they cannot overcome. Theosophy and anthroposophy from
European roots,
American parapsychology, and Eastern religious movements all seem
anxious to show
that "true science" supports their claims.
Further, they seek a kind of metaphysical enlightenment of science by spirit.
For example, Rudolf Steiner, founder of the Anthroposophieal Society,
taught that
"psychic powers could be used with scientific precision to
restore humanism
to a materialistic world." According to the Society's literature,
competent scientists who have trained themselves for
the pursuit of inquiry, not only through natural scientific research hot also
by the spiritual scientific method, may discover solutions of
problems that cannot
be completely solved by either method alone. Such scientific
research, conceived
in the light of anthroposophical conceptions of the realm of nature, is being
conducted at the Goetheanum and by individual scientists throughout
the world.
(The "Goetheanum" is anthroposophy's international
headquarters in Switzerland.)
My introduction to anthroposophy (which I still
have trouble pronouncing) came when I gave an ASA lecture on "Science and
Reality" at U.C. Berkeley in February 1973. I compared my scientific way
of looking at the world with my Christian perspective, arguing that a scientist
who is a Christian has an advantage in seeing the world from two different viewpoints complementary to each other.
A young "evangelist" for anthroposophy in the audience
expressed surprise
that any educated Christian still thought there could be two ways of looking at
the world: after all, Rudolf Steiner had brought science and spirit together in
his writings before his death in 1925.
Recently I have also become acquainted with the founder of "Basic Energy
Concepts," an offshoot of the "Inner Peace Movement."
Charles Mulcahy
left an engineering career to travel around giving lectures on techniques for
stirring up such psychic phenomena as precognition and clairvoyance.
To hear him
discuss "spirit" as an analogy to "energy," one could get
the impression that science has established our psychic oneness with
God and the
cyclic reincarnation of human beings on earth, in which he firmly believes.
University scientists, government agencies, and business executives have begun
to dabble in "psychic research." This is documented in a three-page
article, "Why Scientists Take Psychic Research Seriously," in Business
Week (26 January 1974, pp. 76-78). The researchers interviewed are
convinced that
everyone possesses some dormant psychic powers that can be developed. A lot of
other people with various theological axes to grind are convinced of the same
thing.
Believers in false religions may misuse science. In my opinion, if believers in
"true religion" try to commandeer science for our own ends, we risk
ending up with a pseudo-science. Even when making valid theological
or philosophical
points, we must be careful about using analogies from science, lest
we "swear
falsely" in the sense of Matthew 5:33-37. When those who oppose our faith
stretch science to fit their own presuppositions, we legitimately cry
"foul!"
Let us not be guilty of the same kind of distortion. Perhaps as we Christians
see science being misused by other "faiths," the Lord will
help remove
the beam from our eyes so we can go after the speck in theirs. (See
also "PseudoScience
and Pseudo-Religion" by R. H. Bube in Eternity 1974.)
When posters appeared all over the Bay area announcing "SCIENCE AND SPIRIT
EXPOSITION: Two Days of Astounding Films, Lectures, and Exhibits," I asked
David Iladdon of Berkeley to attend that "exciting, informative
introduction
to world-wide scientific inquiry into parapsychology, ESP, and the
occult,"
and to report what's going on to Journal ASA readers. Haddon's
undergraduate work
at U.C. Berkeley and Santa Barbara earned him a B.S. in civil engineering, but
he also has an M.A, in polities and literature from the University of Dallas.
He is currently on the staff of the Christian World Liberation Front,
researching,
writing, and counseling on various forms of occultism. He is the author of two
extensive articles on Transcendental Meditation: "Thou Shalt Not
Think"
(His, December 1973) and "New Plant Thrives in a Spiritual
Desert" (Christianity Today, 21 Decemher 1973).
David Haddon:
Exhibits at the Science and Spirit Exposition hosted by the
Theosophical Society
at San Francisco's Palace of Fine Arts, November 24-25, 1973, covered
a wide range.
Schematic diagrams of "Kirlian" photographic equipment and finished
photographs of "auras" taken by student researchers at U.C. Berkeley
were on sale. So were slick commercial occult objects like the Pyramid Energy
Generator and the $25 Cheops Pyramid Tent for meditating, by Pyramid Products,
Inc., of Glendale, California (see "Modern Living," Time, 8 October
1973, p. 104). But the standard occult practitioners of palmistry, astrology,
and the Tarot were also represented.
Lecturers included Roy Eugene Davis, an American disciple of
Paramahansa Yogananda;
Dr. G. Patrick Flanagan, 28-year-old electronics whiz and pyramidologist; Dr.
Marcel Vogel, ex-IBM materials scientist turned man-plant
communicator. and Kendall
Johnson, researcher in Kirlian photography at the UCLA Department of Medicine.
Most of the other participants represented Eastern religious and occult therapy
groups.
Films shown at the Exposition included the TV documentary, "In Search of
Ancient Astronauts," produced by Erich von Daniken, author of Chariots of
the Gods; a Soviet film, "Psychokinesis in Russia"; and the Academy
of Parapsychology and Medicine's "Introduction to
Acupuncture" and "Faith
Healing and Psychic Surgery in the Philippines." Ex-astronaut
Edgar Mitchell's
Institute for Noetic Sciences provided two significant films:
"Inner Spaces"
and "Ultimate Mystery."
There were exhibits by yogis and other overtly religious groups.
Representatives
of Sun Myung Moon's Re-education Foundation (Unification Church) and
of Maharishi
Mahesh Yogi's Student's International Meditation Society/
International Meditation
Society (SIMS/ IMS) were notably present although they took no part
in the formal
program. SIMS in particular uses scientific studies to present a system of yoga
as a nonreligious technique of self-improvement. Their approach
reflects the general
attitude of the Theosophical Society sponsoring the Exposition. The
theosophists
seemed eager to seize upon any research by scientists into the area
of parasycholngy
as verification of their traditional pantheistic position outlined in the books
of Madame Blavatsky and C. W. Leadheater.
During a lunar mission, Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell performed
mental telepathy
experiments (not authorized by NASA) in collaboration with some ESP enthusiasts
on earth. In the film "Inner Spaces," narator Mitchell advocated the intuitive power of mind as a direct way of gaining
knowledge. The movie recounted observations made on the ability of successful
business executives to predict computer-generated random numbers, the
effectiveness
of water dowsers in discovering underground pipes and deposits,
unconscious telepathic
communication, and astral projection. Following all this "evidence for the
existence of a realm of spirit" came scenes of the paths to
religious experience
of the Orient: meditation, chanting, and ecstatic dancing. Mitchell
asserted the
universality of this kind of experience in world religions,
Believers in false religions may misuse science If believers in "true religion" try to commandeer science for our own ends, we risk ending up with a pseudo-religion propped up by a pseudo-science.
concluding on the note that the objectivity of science and the subjectivity of
religion must now merge.
Mitchell's other film, "The Ultimate Mystery," began with a statement
of the purpose of his research on nnesis, which is to "gain new insights
into that ultimate mystery of the universe, the nature of
consciousness. I believe
we will discover that through consciousness, feelings and thoughts connect all
living beings." Mitchell is refreshingly frank to state the
expected result
of his investigations before they are completed. But selection of the nature of
consciousness as the "ultimate mystery" itself virtually implies the
expected answer: the ultimate nature of the universe is the
impersonal consciousness
of pantheism.
The content of "The Ultimate Mystery" was accurately described in its
billing:
A look at recent scientific data supporting the age-old
claim of mystics that there is a oneness in all things. Sequences
include demonstrations
of consciousness in plants and bacteria, acupuncturists and healers
at work, enzymic
changes caused by healers' hands, and new visions of the powers of
consciousness.
Among the lecturers, the real crowd-pleaser was Patrick Flanagan with
his account
of using pyramidalshaped devices to preserve food ("by
mummification");
to improve the flavor of food, wine, and tobacco; to sharpen razor blades; and
to improve the meditations of meditators. Flanagan said he discovered
a physical
explanation for the "bio-cosmic energy" properties claimed
for the pyramidal
shape. His forthcoming honk would reveal the explanation and spell
out applications
of his discoveries for food preservation without energy expenditure. According
to Flanagan, the Egyptian pyramids were primarily initiation and
meditation chambers
for occult religious practices.
A lecture by Marcel Vogel illustrated how Exposition participants in
general regarded
scientific verification of spiritual hypotheses. "Man-Plant
Communications"
was described in advance as covering "the fusion of science and religion:
the use of plant forms in developing expanded awareness of consciousness."
Vogel rejected the idea of anthropomorphic consciousness in
plantsunless projected
there by man. He understands clearly what science is about:
"precise measurement
with known series of variables." What he is doing is not science "in
any accepted sense" because "the compexity of consciousness
always leaves
the variables pendant or changing." He has become less concerned about the
repeatability of the experiment than about the effect of the experiment on his
own consciousness.
It does not disturb Vogel, for example, that the U.C. Santa Cruz physicist who
tried to duplicate his experiments in man-plant communication failed until he came to work jointly with Vogel. "I have not tried to repeat
these experiments
that were done in 1971, and deliberately so," said Vogel,
"because I've
realized the significance of the experiment, which produced 'the first explicit
pictures in graphical form of thought spectrograms.'" Vogel has
been "assiduously
studying ever since to build a storehouse now of physical knowledge
of past minds
in my own brain case." The past minds Vogel cites include the
Austrian occultist
Rudolf Steiner and theosophists Blavatsky and Leadheater.
The primary lesson I have learned these last years is that in order to do any
form of research along this line one must learn to clear one's
conscious, rational,
reasoning mind. This, of course, is the primary teaching of
meditation. For this
reason I took up yoga and learned the practices of yoga.
From this point, Vogel's lecture declined (or ascended) into an account of his
projecting himself into plants, and of his admittedly dangerous
experiences working
with Indian charmers calling down nature spirits.
Perhaps few fellow scientists would take Marcel Vogel seriously, but
essentially
the same viewpoint was presented in more credible form in the Edgar
Mitchell films.
Indeed, the selfconsciously scientific approach of the Student's International
Meditation Society to the yogic technique of clearing the mind of
rational thought
(Transcendental Meditation) has gained considerable acceptance among scientists
and other academics. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi himself, with his bachelor's degree
in physics and his status as Yogi (i.e., one who has attained union with Grid),
stands as the prototype for the convergence of Western science and
Eastern religion
proposed by Mitchell. In the Maharishi's own words:
The discovery of the field of this one basis of material existence
will mark the
ultimate achievement in the history of development of physical
science. This will
serve to turn the world of physical science to the science of mental phenomena.
Theories of mind, intellect, and ego will supercede the findings of
physical science.
At the ultimate or the extreme limit of investigation into the nature
of reality
in the field of the mind will eventually be located the state of pure
consciousness.-The
Science of Being and the Art of Living, p. 32.
Common to most participants in the Science and Spirit Exposition, then, was the
conviction that universal consciousness unites all things, that man's purpose
is to attune himself to this consciousness by altering his mind
through meditation,
and that science has already verified, or soon will verify, the
existence of this
universal consciousness. The tendency of scientists ond others who
begin the spiritual
discipline of Eastern meditation in any of its manifold varieties,
and then adopt
its pantheistic world view; is to seek its verification in scientific
research.
That no amount of empirical research can verify any interpretation of
the infinite
and the impalpable seems to escape the altered consciousness of researchers who
adopt the experiential practices of Eastern religion. Scientists who
are Christians
should be aware of the tendency to colonize science for essentially religious
purposes by those committed to the pursuit of the Absolute by means
of the powerful
techniques of oriental mysticism.
Walter R. Hearn:
The 1973 "Science and Spirit Exposition" described by Haddon recalls
some of R. H. Bube's observations on the decline of scientific prestige.' False
claims for science (as the only road to truth or way of salvation)
and the aloofness
of scientists towards humanistic and ethical concerns, Rube said, are driving
people away from a rational approach to life, toward nonrational or
even irrational
approaches. He cited growing interest in astrology, scientology,
witchcraft, drug-use,
and Eastern religions as evidence of the drive toward the
non-rational and irrational.
The intensity of this drive strikes us forcefully when we see it grip someone
with extensive scientific training and experience. Haddon's report on what is
happening to Marcel Vogel is a clear-cut example. Making sense to
other scientists
while he communicates with plants is no longer of much concern to Vogel.
An attempt to introduce the irrational into scientific thought itself
can be seen
in a paper by Charles T. Tart, an associate professor of psychology
at U.C. Davis.2
Writing in Science (16 June 1972) on "States of Consciousness
and State-Specific
Sciences," Tart chides scientists for almost totally rejecting "the
knowledge gained during the experiencing of altered states of
consciousness."
The altered states of consciousness (ASC's) of interest to him include those of
auto-hypnosis, meditative states, lucid dreaming, marijuana intoxication, LSD
intoxication, self-remembering, reverie, arid biofeedback-induced states.3
Tart wants more scientists to get into these states and putter around
developing
"state-specific sciences" while there. He seems to be
especially interested
in the marijuana-induced state.4 Tart is sure that "many young
scientists"
who have experienced certain ASC's will be capable of investigating
the phenomena
of ASC's in a manner "which is perfectly compatible with the
essence of scientific
method."2
Tart argues that if a meditating or stoned scientist talks nonsense, the rest
of us shouldn't conclude that he is not making sense in his own state
of consciousness.
To Tart, physicists don't make much sense talking about
"numerous invisible
entities" that sound mystical to a psychologist. Since it generally takes
four to ten years of training to produce a physicist who can make sense out of
physics, we shouldn't be surprised if replication is slow in coming
to state-specific
sciences. It may take many "trips." And even if we could observe two
scientists simultaneously stoned into the same state and
communicating their science
to one another, the shift in "logical framework" from their
ASC to our
state of consciousness might make their communication seem
"deteriorated."2
There are other problems, the author admits. When stoned (or
meditating, or dreaming),
the scientist may give up the questioning attitude necessary for
scientific investigation;
in such a state, "one's experience is that one is obviously and
lucidly experiencing
truth directly, without question." Enhanced vividness of
perception may also
cause problems: "If one can conjure up anything one wishes, how
can we ever
get at truth?" Bad trips may produce "pathologies of cognition."
But exceptionally good trips may also hinder scientific activity1 have generally held that
science activity if the stoned investigator comes to prefer ecstasy to analysis.
communicated by a Christian should be Furthermore, warns a footnote,
indistinguishable
from ordinary science.
A state-specific scientist might find his own work somewhat
incomprehensible when
he was not in that state of consciousness because of the phenomenon
of state-specific
memory-that is, not enough of his work would transfer to his ordinary state of
consciousness to make it comprehensible, even though it would make
perfect sense
when he was again in the ASC in which he did his scientific work.2
A state such as alcohol intoxication might cause too much mental deterioration
to permit development of science within that state. "There have been cases
where scientists, after becoming personally involved with ASC's, have
subsequently
become very poor scientists or have experienced personal
psychological crises,"
but Tart thinks such unfortunate consequences might be avoided by "proper
training and discipline." Of course, "the ASC's resulting from very
dangerous drugs (heroin, for example) may be scientifically
interesting, but the
risk may be too high to warrant our developing state-specific
sciences for them."2
Tart thinks that "practically all the religions we know might be defined
as state-specific technologies, operated in the service of a priori
belief systems."
He has nothing against religious and mystical groups, but he suspects them of
developing "compelling belief systems rather than state-specific
sciences."
He is worried that "the immense power of altered states of
consciousness"
may be left in the hands of religious groups, when science alone can
"improve
our human situation."
(Even a stoned science? No doubt his unquestioning faith in science comes from Tart's own
a priori
belief system, which does not seem particularly compelling to me.)
It took a full year for other (stunned?) scientists to respond to this bizarre
paper. Four letters to the editor and Tart's reply to them appear together in
the 8 June 1973 issue of Science.5 Albert B. Booth of Jekyll Island, Georgia,
includes a fable about an animal in the jungle of life whose
perceptions are distorted
by eating "goofyberries." On seeing a lion, he
unfortunately perceives
it as a small, funny pussycat who wants to play with him. As the
hungry lion crouches
to spring, the hapless experimenter's last words are "Oh, this
is such great
fun!" From evolutionary considerations, Booth warns that
"the probability
is enormous that all altered states of consciousness are
defective," citing
the relation between drunken driving and highway carnage as a reminder. It is
"suicidal" to handicap the senses and data processing equipment that
enable us to see the world as it is. There are no "free
trips." To this,
Tart replies: A sensible animal should know better than to eat goofyberries in
the presence of lions.5
(But will we still be sensible after eating goofyberries? "That's no lion!
That's a friendly little pussycat. And the more gnofybcrries we eat,
the friendlier
he gets! Here, kitty, kitty ..........")
A strong caveat also comes from Chauncey D. Leake, distinguished pharmacologist
at U.C. San Francisco's school of medicine. Leake argues that guidelines for scientific effort "generally agreed upon by
scientists"
are adequate for the rational explanation of altered states of
consciousness.
Tart's proposals, however sincere, add merely confusion, fallacious reasoning,
and semimystical hope to the orderly, though slow, process of
reaching tentative
explanations and understandings of how our complex brains function.
Irrationality
is incompatible with scientific endeavor, except as a phenomenon to be explored
rationally.
To Leake, Tart's state-specific sciences imply "an esoteric
in-group of specialists
with an unintelligible jargon who would tend to indulge themselves in
emotionally
oriented irrational speculation."5
(Not a bad prediction of the stance of many participants in the
Science and Spirit
Exposition, according to the report by Haddon.)
In reply, Tart comments that it is only a value judgment that our
"ordinary,
normal, so-called rational state of consciousness is the best one for surviving
on this planet and understanding the universe." He argues that
the existence
of nuclear weapons and bacteriological warfare gives reason to
question that assumption.
He thinks it is hardly scientific to define our own ordinary state of
consciousness
as normal "and that of everyone else whose behavior displeases
us as abnormal
or altered ."5
Reading this exchange, I find myself immediately siding with Chauncey Leake. Then
I find myself wondering how other ASA members would respond. For Leake, rational
explanations, even of human phenomena, "tend to be in terms of physics and
chemistry, since these scientific disciplines have optimum measurable
precision."
Tart says he doesn't think much of physics and chemistry for describing states
of consciousness. Many Christians likewise seem suspicious of attempts to give
biochemical explanations for human activity, particularly for mental
or "spiritual"
activity. And what of Christians who want "our" science to
be different
from worldly science? Tart's "state-specific sciences" would also be
different from this worldly science. What if he had been talking about Christian
("spirit-filled") science instead of Eastern ("meditating")
science?
I have generally held that science communicated by a Christian should
be indistinguishable
from ordinary science. Perhaps that means that I don't expect my
"spirituality"
significantly to alter my state of consciousness or to shift my "logical
framework." Do I thus give rationality undue priority over true
spirituality?
Christians should conduct themselves "wisely toward outsiders.6 To
me this means guarding against any deterioration of communication caused by a
shift in logical framework. It seems to me that a Christian's
science, even more
than his Christian life, should make sense to ordinary people in their ordinary
state of consciousness.
We expect our preaching of Christ crucified to be "folly"
to pagan scientists.7
But shouldn't our science make sense to them?
REFERENCES
1Bube, R. H., "Whatever Happened to Scientific Prestige?" Journal ASA
23, 7 (March 1971).
2Tart, C. T., "States of Consciousness and State-Specific Sciences,"
Science 176 (No. 4040), 1203 (16 June 1972).
3Tart, C., Altered States of Consciousness': A Book of Readings,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1969.
4Tart, C., On Being Stoned: A Psychological Study of Marijuana
Intoxication, Science
and Behavior Books, Palo Alto, 1971.
5Cowan, T. M.; Leake, C. D.; Booth, A. B.; Sarles, H. B., Tart, C.
T.," Letters on "State-Specific Sciences," Science
180 (No. 4090), 1005 (8 June 1973).
6Colossians 4:5, RSV.
71 Corinthians 1:18-31, RSV.