Science in Christian Perspective
A Model for our Time
On Man's Creativity
JOHN C. RICHARDS
53 Atherton Ave. Atherton, California 94025
From: JASA 23 (June 1971): 48-51.
It is shown logically that belief is a necessary initial condition for scientific thought. Our beliefs modify what information we receive and hose we receive it. This paper postulates a second mode of the human thought process which parallels the familiar conscious thought process. It is based on a wealth of subjective data and an increasing amount of objective data. It explains how popular biases in our present culture have kept this mode hidden. The two modes are described in terms of general semantics and the role they play in man's creative process is presented.
The professional skepticism of the scientist can limit his professional progress. The Christian with his experience in the practice of faith as well as his belief in Christ can make a unique contribution. He can give scientific beliefs the dispassionate scrutiny they need and he can reexamine scripture for the insights it can give into the processes of nature-not just human nature.
A New Beginning
It is not uncommon for the Christian in science to ask, "How can
I demonstrate
that my faith and my vocation are not incompatible?" But perhaps this is
the wrong question. It suggests that the two, while not in conflict,
are at least
compartmentalized. Surely the Way demands that all of one's actions, including
vocation, spring from one's faith. Should not the scientist aim higher and ask,
"How can I contribute to science specifically because I am a
Christian?"
To answer calls for a new approach; epistemologically we need to go
hack and start
over.
But where to start? I believe we need to go hack to where science
first went its
separate course, hack to Descartes. In the Middle Ages the whole
field of reality
was often regarded as beyond the appreciation of man, and
supernatural revelation
was the center of all thought. With the Cartesian revolution the
scientist turned
his back on revelation and tended professionally to divorce himself
from God.
Philosophically, Descartes started with his famous axiom "Cogito
ergo sum"
But "thinking" is a complex process. Let us break it down a bit. In
today's vernacular it might well be expressed, "I am aware;
therefore I exist."
(The very statement implies self-awareness, and thereby, conscious
thought.) Newborn
babes and sentient creatures less than man are also aware and exist,
in the homeostatic
sense, but they are not aware of their awareness and are incapable of
making
this statement. Such a statement is incomplete; we must recognize that it is an
axiom, a belief. It demands another clause. ". . . and I
believe; therefore
I live." To live is to create, to modify nature beyond oneself.
When we say, "I am aware and I believe; therefore I live,"
we accomplish
two things. First we open the door for the Christian formally to
include his faith
as an integral part of his work. We officially recognize that both
awareness and
faith are necessary initial conditions for man to be creative. We affirm that
we are indeed made in His image, even though man's creativity is but a modified
reflection of part of what God offers us. Second, we highlight the areas which
need the scientist's attention.
We need to examine both our beliefs about our awareness and our
awareness of our
beliefs. Each of us finds himself in the center of, and part of, a
continuum hounded
by infinity-the unknowable. What each of us regards as unknowable (not merely
unknown) shapes not only the periphery of our universe, and indeed
its characteristics,
but, more importantly the way we receive information about it, i.e.,
become conscious
of it. This is just as true of what we believe we do know. Thus, our
beliefs shape
our perceptions, the very stuff with which we must start if we are to
be creative.
We need a fresh and simultaneous look at the boundary conditions,
both the center
and periphery of our universes-and much in between.
One Approach to the Problem
One approach to the problem is to recognize two things. Not only is
there knowledge
available to man which falls outside the domain of present clay
science, but apparently
man's method of receiving it is different from the accepted methods of science.
The stigma attached to others who have recognized this presents the
modern scientist
with a dilemma. There is need to steer a course between the Scylla of
the medieval
mystic and the Charybdis of the modern exponent of psychedelic drugs-but there
is value to science in sounding the calm waters between. The value lies in an
understanding of the process rather than in a use of the methods.
There seem to be two distinct but interrelated modes by which man receives and
processes information. The first, one might call the focused mode, and the second,
the non-focused mode or the awareness. At present our formal methods
are related
almost exclusively to the focused mode. As a rough analogy, the
focused mode compares
with photography, and the awareness with holography. Both abstract information
from the continuum, but differently. The former, being focused, deals with one
area at a time, is of higher order (less information) and is always conscious.
The latter (awareness) is non-focused, holistic, of lower order, and
largely subconscious.
All of the information which the focused mode accepts is also available to the
awareness, and much more. The additional information available only
to the focused
mode is its consciousness of at least part of the awareness.
Brain Processes
There has been some research which tends to substantiate that the brain 1) uses
holographic methods to receive and process information and 2)
bypasses the higher
brain centers to do it. For instance, some studies by Pribram on memory1 suggest
this, and findings of Trevarthen and Sperry at Cal Tech2 of a second
human optic
system could be explained by a holographic process. In their study,
brain surgery
separating the left and right hemispheres leaves both the usual visual system
and the newly discovered one functioning but affects them
differently. "Perception
in the classical system becomes divided into right and left fields of vision,
but perception in the newly found system remains unified-with left
and right hand
vision in each hemisphere." There is also recent evidence that the brain
receives and responds to stimuli not consciously perceived .3,4
There is beginning to be enough objective data available now for this subject
to assume some aura of respectability. There is however, a wealth of subjective
data from which this search for objective data stems. Modern science's concern
for objectivity has made it the custom to present available data
first and follow
them with an hypothesis as a conclusion drawn from the data, or at
least to present
theory and supporting objective data simultaneously. This obeisance
to objectivity
and formal conscious logic tends to mask a fact which needs more
careful scrutiny.
The actual process which more usually occurs is to have a "flash
of insight",
form an hypothesis, and seek data to test it. For instance, Pribram's interest
in photography and holography led him to look for holographic processes in the
brain.' We need a dispassionate, if not objective, look at what the process of
"insight" is.
We need to examine both our beliefs about our awareness, and our awareness of our beliefs.
Limitations of Objectivity
The value of objectivity to science is well established; it should
not be denied
or discarded. However, the very success of objectivity as a part of
the scientific
method has hidden its limitations. Objectivity is but one of many
man-made concepts
for coping with change. None of them is more than an abstraction of
reality, and
therefore less than the full reality, indeed often a poor model. Since it is an
abstraction by the observer it is not independent of the observer.
Some ideas from the non-Aristotelian discipline of general semantics
may provide
a helpful framework to explore this process of abstracting, both as it relates
to objectivity and to the initial steps in man's creative process. At some time
or other, most of us have wondered what there is in common between
the world around
us and the thoughts inside our heads about this world. Let us use a man's pen
as an example of part of this world. Surely the man's thoughts about
his pen are
not the pen itself, and yet equally obviously, there is something
common to both.
The common denominator is structure; the link between the two is his
nervous system,
including his brain. It too is similar in structure to both the pen
and his thoughts
about the pen. To explain further, science tells us that the pen, at
a subatomic
level, is an aggregate of unique, transitory events, involving protons,
orbiting
electrons, neutrons, etc. The man is blissfully unaware of all this because his
gross nervous system through eye and finger has abstracted (selected) some of
the more invariant relationships among all these teeming events,
passed this structure
on to his brain-and left out everything else. The vehicle for these sensations,
the material with which his nervous system is made, is certainly different from
the pen, but there are now relationships between some of its parts
which are similar
to some relationships between the parts of the pen; their structure is similar.
His consciousness of the pen is still at a sub-verbal level, what
Korzybski calls
the "unspeakable" level.6 As soon as he gives it a label (symbol) he
has abstracted even further, retaining only part of the relationships which his
eyes and fingers noted, and has identified these with the verbal
sounds of "my
ballpoint pen". It is this discontinuity in the abstracting process-this
making one set of sensations (the feel and look of the pen) "equal"
to another set of sensations (the sound of "my ballpoint pen")-which
separates man's thought processes from the lower animals. Humans then are able
to continue this process of abstracting to indefinitely high levels,
for instance,
"my ballpoint pen", "ballpoint pen",
"pen", "writing
implement", "recording device", "artifact", etc. These
are each symbols at successively higher levels of abstraction. They stand for
successively smaller groups of relationships abstracted from
successively larger
classes of objects. A statement about any one of these is again a higher order
abstraction, and still higher is a statement about the statement,
etc. These statements,
in effect, manipulate the symbols.
We need constantly to remember that the filter of our nervous system
already has
us removed from the
There seem to he two distinct but interrelated modes by which man receives and processes information: the focused mode, and the non-focused mode or the awareness.
full external reality whenever we observe, and removed farther still
when we label
an observation and then deal with the labels. It is Korzyhski's
thesis that most
of man'sinsane behavior stems from confusing these different orders
of abstractions,
from equating different steps of what has been called the abstraction ladder.
While our thoughts or feelings about the pen have as much reality for
us individually
as our observation of the pen, they too stem from more complex
events, this time
inside our skins.
Application to Focused Mode and Awareness
The initial step of abstracting from the continuum applies both to the focused
mode and to the awareness. The latter would appear to get lower order
information-information
which is less invarient and thereby closer to reality but harder to cope with.
The awareness mode also continues up the abstraction ladder. It too
sets its objects
"equal to" symbols and then manipulates the symbols, but
there are important
differences. The most important one is that we have complete control over the
focused mode and only the right of refusal over the awareness, i.e.,
the ability
to limit how much of it shall become conscious. To avail ourselves of
it we must
act in faith that we will not be hurt and relinquish the self control
we cherish.
Phrases such as "empty ourselves", "lose
ourselves", "let
go and let God" suggest that Christians are not unfamiliar with
this process,
at least in their spiritual life.
Another difference between the modes in their use of the abstraction process is
that they often set their objects "equal to" different
symbols. Dreams
and visions are good examples of this process in action. Dream interpretation,
for instance, is the translation of awareness mode symbols into
focused mode symbols.
The reason we have so few visions or remember so few dreams in modern society
is simply that we are not willing to relinquish our apparent control
of ourselves.
They are perfectly natural processes, neither abnormal nor supernatural. With
the exponentially increasing evidence all about us of man's ability to control,
modify and expand his world, it is scarcely surprising that our faith
in ourselves
(in our self-controlled minds) should increase. It is understandable,
but dangerous,
because this is the area where we play God if we are not careful.
The Creative Process
Let me relate the creative process to the abstraction ladder and give
some examples
of how we abuse the process. Man's creativity is obviously not
"ex nthilo";
it starts as an abstraction from what God has made available to us.
We then label,
abstract further, manipulate these abstractions and devise from them an idea,
plan, concept, theory, etc. This must then be brought hack down the abstraction
ladder and be illuminated by reality. If the first approximation is
an inadequate
match with reality, the process is repeated and the model refined. This iterative process of reconciliation continues until
the author is satisfied. This "creation" is not complete
until it gets
out of the author's mind and into the continuum surrounding him. We
cause problems
when we confuse the higher abstractions with the lower, when we deny
the process
of reconciliation. We have a tendency to "create" an
abstraction, declare
it good, and try to stop there. We try to equate it with lower order realityto
give it an "allness" that it does not have. This tendency to play God
has a vast gamut of guises, from blatant to very subtle. A few
pertinent examples
may he helpful.
One example is that of the physical scientist who finds objective information
of such value in science that he tries to make it the only
information by denying
the validity of any other kind. This is not unlike blindfolding one
eye. It limits
the field of vision and also eliminates all the advantages of the two
functioning
together. In the unexplored infinity around us, our research, and therefore our
discoveries, is largely limited to those areas which we have permitted to catch
our attention.
Another example is the intellectual who so delights in the powers and pleasures
of the conscious thought process (the focused mode) that he makes it
"all"
and denies the existence of any other, especially any over which he
does not have
complete control.
A third example is the Christian who finds the idea that "God is
a person"
good and satisfying, and tries to protect the idea by denying that God is anything
else. God is no less a person for being process also. "The Way, the Truth
and the Life" are answers to "how" and
"what", not "who",
The Way is not limited to social behavior. "How" and "what"
are clearly the domain of the physical scientist also.
Reconciliation
Scripture tells us that the process of reconciliation is an important
characteristic
of the Way. This process has not received the explicit attention it merits in
any field save social behavior. It is relevant at once to the
physical world about
us, to our nervous system and to our thought processes. This is so
because reconciliation
is a process common to all self-organizing systems. One of its characteristics
is selecting only the parts which have value for higher order and
discarding everything
else. To determine what has such value requires comparison of the
selected parts
(our model) with the best evidence available to us of the highest
order, the reality
about us. Our models are not unlike the first term in a converging series. We
need the process of reconciliation to complete the series.
With reconciliation an integral part of our vital processes we are compatible
with such processes and are equipped by nature (God) to detect and understand
them. Two such physical processes which come to mind are impedance matching and
various types of entrainment of nonlinear systems. Both help us understand and
cope with nature. There are undoubtedly many more.
The Christian would do well to look to Scripture for other insights which will
help his investigations in all fields of science. For instance, it is
no accident
that Christ used parables and analogies to teach men. They are
entirely compatible
with the abstraction process of setting something "equal
to" something
very different. Also there are many verses which we might reexamine-this time from the point of view of process. For instance, one which
may be relevant to this discussion is Mark 10:15 "Whoever does not receive
the Kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." This is
generally interpreted
to mean a childlike trust. But what does the trusting child actually do which
is different from the behavior of the guarded adult? Is it not possible, in the
language of this paper, that he is using his awareness mode to receive?
At the same time science would benefit by a fresh look at some of the
ideas which
have served it so faithfully. For instance, much of modern science is built on
our concepts of mass and time. We tend to forget, even to deny, that both are
manmade abstractions to help us cope with change. Neither is directly
observable.
They are useful fictions whose usefulness may indeed be limited at the present
frontiers of science. Creative revolutions in thought occur only when
we specifically
recognize our limitations and look actively in new directions.
They also would be more likely to occur if we understood the process of being
creative and practiced its skills. The ideas in this paper on two
modes for receiving
and handling information are an effort to understand this process. The model is
rough and incomplete; it says little about the interaction between the modes.
I would like to think of it as the first term in a converging series. Yet even
if the series turns out to be divergent and must be discarded, I hope
this model
will stimulate fruitful discussion in an area which needs much attention.
A New Revolution
Mankind is at the portals of a new intellectual revolution based on
science. Each
such revolution in the past, Copernican, Darwinian, and Freudian
alike, has attacked
man's model of himself. Each time his
What does the trusting child actually do which is different from the behavior of the guarded adult? Is it not possible that he is using his awareness mode to receive?
picture of his own preeminence, or of his control has been diminished. However,
once reconciled with each fresh and humbling insight, man has been able to move
forward. We are on the threshold of including subjective experience
in the family
of respectable science. Not only will it become a reputable science in itself,
but it will contribute greatly to the physical as well as social
sciences of today.
It will have many characteristics,7 but the most revolutionary, as
always, will
be those which diminish our image of ourselves. The revolutionary thought this
time is that we have no choice but to start with faith. What we may choose is
whether we will start with faith in ourselves or faith in Christ. The
Christian's
role in this revolution is obvious.
REFERENCES
1Scientific American, Vol. 220, No. 1 p. 73, Jan. 1969
2Scientific Research, Sept. 1, 1969 p. 13 "Second Human Optic
System Found."
3New Scientist. Jan. 4, 1968 p 38 Feeling."
4Science, Vol. 158 p. 1597
5Scientific American, Vol. 220, No. 1 p. 18, Jan. 1969 "The Authors."
6Alfred Korzyhski, Science and Sanity, The International
NonAristotelian Library
Publishing Company, The Science Press Printing Co., Lancaster,
Pennsylvania.
7Stan
ford Today, Winter 1969, p. 8 "The New Copernican Revolution, W.
W. Harman.
See also pp. 42-47 of this issue of the Journal ASA.