That science could, in any way, be considered separate from man?s inner, natural religion, which is not of mind but part and parcel of our electromagnetic and genetic structures (as opposed to oppressive, money- and power-oriented organized religions), would be akin to separating sun from sunlight, water from wetness. Consensus that the two are linked must be a given; that they are one in the same, or at the very least two sides of the same coin, is an inevitable outcome.
I use as a basis for such understanding the wisdom of Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi, ?Truth is absolute,? and ?Truth does not divide people.? Those few simple words hold deep and far-reaching implications for the inquiring, seeking mind — be it after scientific or religious meaning. A simple shift in vantage point — from within the mind to seeing from an infinitely higher state of consciousness above the mind — will illuminate the answers to all questions and for all to see and understand.
One other point that is evident to many enlightened scientists and theologians is that all scientific and religious pursuits/beliefs are branches on the same Tree of Life, all of which are Divinely orchestrated to serve those of their time. However, in our lower nature we have a tendency to break pieces off the tree and hit each other with them at every opportunity. So, in this new age of truth, I think one main question would be, Do we really want the answers we claim we?re seeking — for truth can be confronting in ways we may not like — or are we too attached to the ego/thinking aspects of the search to get beyond our limitations and biases? One truth is that we get what we ask for. I suppose the wisdom is to know what to ask for.
Nothing I have ever found in the original texts of any of the major religions indicates a fear of science—only the ideas and writings of other followers of the religions have said this. In 1986, I became a member of the Baha'i Faith. The founder of the Baha'i Faith, Baha'u'llah, teaches that science and religion are two halves of the same truth, and that true understanding is not possible without a fair-minded approach to the values brought by each discipline and
reality. His son, Abdu'l-Baha (the head of the Faith up until 1921) put it most clearly:
"Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism."
Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 143
"Arts, crafts and sciences uplift the world of being, and are conducive to its exaltation. Knowledge is as wings to man's life, and a ladder for his ascent. Its acquisition is incumbent upon everyone. The knowledge of such sciences, however, should be acquired as can profit the peoples of the earth.
Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 26
Tim Reimers
Asheville, NC (WCQS, 88.1 FM)
Science and Religion (September 26, 2004)
For me the two are one and the same. At one stage of my life they weren't, science was based on knowledge, religion on belief or faith, the latter being inherently dangerous territories as recent world events will testify. What brought them together? Through the practice of Sahaja Yoga, which is virtually unknown in the USA, and which suffers from the handicap of being free of charge, I learned to connect to the elemental, or all-pervading power, which Wordsworth expressed so eloquently:
And I have felt
A presence that disturbs me with the joy
Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime
Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man:
A motion and a spirit, that impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thought,
And rolls through all things.
This power is known in Sanskrit as paramchaitanya, or supreme energy. I am certain that in time, is will be 'discovered' by science. When connected, it centers us, allows us to be in the present, and it can be felt on the hands and on the top of the head as a cool breeze. I dearly wish that an experiment could be conducted by which it's existence could be verified. When connected to it, (the real meaning of yoga is union, a connection of this energy within us to the same energy outside,) by which an individual is thence transformed. In this state, one goes beyond doubt.
Alan Wherry
Bronx, NY (WNYC, 820 AM)
Science and Life (September 30, 2004)
This article is in two parts. Part one is directed towards Dr. Foerst?s subject of androids. It is said in the Vedas that everything in this Universe is created through a combination of eight different parts: earth, water, wind, fire and space, mind, intellect, and egoism. So this is how the body of man is made. But the spirit is supreme and resides in this body. It cannot be destroyed and, therefore, cannot be constructed.
J.C. Bose has demonstrated that living and non-living matter, muscle, and metal respond in a similar way to external stimuli, to the effect of fatigue, stimulation, depression, and poisonous drugs. Confirmed by several other scientists, this showed the inter-connectedness of organic and inorganic matter. Perhaps it is quite possible to duplicate the organic in us with inorganic matter.
So it is quite possible to build a robot that simulates a human being?s responses to stimuli. Logical intelligence is single dimensional, easy to program since to every situation or problem the solution can be reached by a series of calculations. But what makes a human supreme among the created is more than this problem solving ability. Emotional intelligence involves multiple dimensions, the appropriate response to a situation is influenced by several factors and is not always the same. If emotional intelligence has a few dimensions then Spiritual Intelligence as yet uncharted, has many. But as in the case of the emotionally intelligent person to whom the appropriate behavior is natural, so in the case of the spiritually intelligent person it is spontaneous.
Dr. Foerst alludes to Commander Data?s question: I'm curious as to what transpired between the moment when I was nothing more than an assemblage of parts in Dr. Soong's laboratory and the next moment when I became alive. What is it that endowed me with life? My question is ?what is it that is in the seed and in the Mother Earth that makes the seed sprout?? The seed has the potential to sprout when it comes in contact with the earth and the earth has the potential in it to sprout the seed. We have not yet been able to sprout a single seed without using this potential.
Part 2: Finding God
Science has definitely influenced man?s thinking. From the point where man and hence, earth was the center of the Universe, we have traveled to the point where man is enabled to view Earth from space with his own eyes as a microscopic particle hurtling through space. Science has helped us to get over blind faith and fears of wrathful Gods by showing natural phenomena for what they are. It has also lead to the overthrow of domination by religious institutions like church.
Development of science and technology has brought about a globalization but only outwardly. People of different and sometimes conflicting cultures, religions, ideas, beliefs are forced to exist together. We each hold on to our own tightly as if to a security blanket. History has shown that whenever this happens, there is revolution that changes our intellectual and spiritual worlds as we know them.
Science has definitely bettered the quality of our outer lives but it seems to have exhausted its potential in terms of our inner lives. Is it possible to know God through science? Science tries to ?know? God through His creation. Is it possible to know everything about the artist through a single painting? No, this is the work of the great spiritual teachers.
Religious institutions although based on teachings of divine prophets have the handicap of being started through various socio-political factors and personal ambitions of power and status. This is a major cause of disappointment for all people of different religions seeking the divine. Besides, we?ve realized that priesthoods, bishoprics, certificates of spirituality mean nothing. They are not an indication of higher spiritual personality or the ability to guide us in our search for God. Ultimately, God cannot be found by thinking, analyzing, by ideas, by mental activities. For every argument no matter how brilliant, there
are a thousand arguments equally brilliant.
Sridevi Vallabhaneni
Paramus, NJ (Listen via Web Audio)
Religion and Science (September 28, 2004)
I want to express my general appreciation for your valuable program and especially for today?s installment on religion and science. Your guests were interesting, articulate, and impressive both in their passion and thoughtfulness.
At the risk of being ethnocentric, I have always felt that my own Jewish background (I am not, by the way, observant) fit especially well with my career in academia, since it is a tradition that values study, that believes we are here to ?repair the world? (tikkun olam). And, as Elie Wiesel likes to put it, Jews are people who argue with God. At the same time, as an anthropologist — and one who has done research with a congregation of Catholic nuns, among other folks — I have looked at various religions closely. And I have seen that in the house of even a single religion are many mansions. In terms of the major world religions, each has traditions that favor thought and reflection and each has traditions that shut thinking down with appeals to authority. In this sense, the divisions within religions are more important than the divisions between them. This is a crucial message to convey in these times and your program is ideally situation to convey it.
When I was growing up, I thought of Catholics as kids who had to wear uniforms to school and recite their catechism, which seemed to me the opposite of my own approach to being in the world. And, indeed, rote obedience without much reflection is the path followed by all too many. But, given what I have learned since, I took special pleasure in hearing Anna Foerst talk about how her understanding of the Incarnation has informed her view of robotics — or, rather, vice versa. (The doctrine of the Incarnation also played a major role in the liberation theology movement.) I also appreciated your last guest?s (I believe he was introduced as being a minister as well as a scientist) comments on why he distrusts the concept of "wonder." He noted that it can function as a dead end to thought and interpretation.
When, earlier in the program, you thought that your Yeshiva guest [Carl Feit] was saying that a religion-inspired sense of wonder informs his experience as a scientist, he corrected you since that, in fact, was not what he was saying. You then went on to understand him properly. He talked about how religion provides a spur to learning despite how difficult it can be. He talked about nature loving to hide and not giving up its secrets easily. And your minister guest talked about St. John of the Cross, the dark night of the
soul, the mystic tradition, struggling with doubt. He also talked about religious beliefs as being no more absolute than the current understandings of science: he approaches them as provisional, the best we can do to date.
Your Jewish guest made the important point that science itself does not provide a set of moral values (except insofar as there being an ethics of scientific practice, setting it apart from pseudo-science); that is what his religion does for him. I do not happen to believe that we need religion, as generally understood, in order to be moral beings. But it certainly has done major work of that kind throughout history.
What was reflected most clearly in your program is what religion and science have in common: the search for meaning. To be sure, the enterprises can be distinguished by the different ground rules they observe and the different kinds of understanding they have to offer. But it is equally important to see how they can come together in the hearts and minds of some very fine human beings.
In general, you are performing an important service at a time when there is such a great need to understand the complexities of religious beliefs and the variety to be found within the world?s major religious traditions.
Judith Shapiro
New York, NY (WNYC, 820 AM)
Applause (September 27, 2004)
I'm 58 this year and can happily claim to have grown up with public radio while living in California, Texas, and now Minnesota. It was as a senior in high school that I "found" and learned to appreciate public radio. You could say I have gorged on it all my adult life.
I have listened to many wonderful programs. But Speaking Of Faith is the first program in a very long time that has stimulated my appetite for spiritual knowledge. Raised a "High" Episcopalian, at eighteen, I began to "sample" the worlds of faith upon graduation. (It was the mid-60's and I did so love George.) Four decades later I can say I gleefully indulged in a veritable feast of spirituality. Majoring in art and philosophy, many years in AA, a Celtic, Pagan, Germanic heritage, family and friends from every walk of life and, of course, the Beatles — led me to sample everything from being an Atheist to practicing Zen. The result: a Spiritual Stew of my own making.
I've long thought of science and nature/religion as opposite sides of the same coin. So this past weekend I burst out laughing when you quoted Star Trek (an
original treker here.) How refreshing and delightful. Each week I am surprised at the "food for thought" you present.
I am in no way near the end of my spiritual search and therefore applaud Speaking of Faith for adding — in no small part — a delightful "bouquet" of spice to the pot. Now, I'm off to the Internet for some new research to devour. Perhaps the entire flavor of my stew will change. Thank you for sharing, what I believe is, one of the loves of your life. My grateful applause indeed.
Pat Engman
Pine City, MN (KNOW, 91.1 FM)
What Is Life? (March 27, 2004)
Two thoughts immediately came to mind as I listened to this program: "Life! Life! Give my creature LIFE!", as spoken by Gene Wilder in Young Frankenstein and the creation (seemingly) eternal human life in the novel of Greg Iles, The Footprints of God. What has been created when through scientific endeavor (reanimation, cloning, or genetic manipulation), we create a human life? Even harder to answer is the question of eternal life or eternal consciousness. When (not if) we develop a supercomputer that learns, develops, and repairs itself, AND has the entire genetic code of a human brain, have we created (or recreated) a human being that lives within the structure of a computer?
The plot in The Footprints of God involves creating a model of human brain with a "super MRI" and loading it into a supercomputer built from nano-tubes that transmit light. Operating at the speed of light without digital circuitry, this supercomputer not only recreates the entire consciousness, memories, emotions, fears, and dreams, of a particular person, but also can act, learn, and develop as a human consciousness independent from the person upon whom it was based. What then does our concept of consciousness, mortality, and the meaning of life become? I have pondered questions such as these (without any answers) since reading Survival and Disembodied Existence in college philosophy class 30 years ago.
My only response to these questions, in wholehearted agreement with Lindon Eaves, is our pursuit scientific knowledge is also our search for God.
Mark Sereduck
Clinton, MS (Mississippi Public Radio)
Going Forward (March 27, 2004)
I am a 75 year old man who has recently received an MA in dispute resolution. I am committed to going further in my studies and was astonished by the depth and breadth of the discussion regarding the awe of creation and the love of the Creator for the species. I was very impressed by Anna Foerst and her views on this field of super creation by man. Can you suggest a field that I might explore to further examine artificial (man-made) intelligence. Anna Foerst caught my interest and I wonder what her thoughts on the subject might be. I enjoyed the program and especially your leading the discussion with the three guests.
Abraham Bunis
Maplewood, NJ (WNYC, 820 AM)
A Commendable Try! (March 28, 2004)
The miracle that we keep overlooking is that the earth is tilted on its axis by 23 degrees. That lets the sun warm first, one pole then the other, and generates the cycle of the seasons, and inures in us the sense of anniversaries, and coaxes the awesome transformations of the grey-brown, barren earth into gentle riots of color, heralding the new Spring! Science can't get this right — and religion without compassionate and unconditional love chokes on dogma — while radio programs with balanced correctness poke and prod the discarded shroud.
Ralph Palasek, SFO
Arlington, VA (Listens Online)
The Best Program (March 28, 2004)
This was for me one of the BEST programs I've heard so far on Speaking of Faith. I would love to hear more from each of the guests: Dr. C. Feit, A. Foerst and L. Eaves. Their life's work is fascinating. Thank you.
Elizabeth Niemeyer
Maple Shade, NJ (WHYY, 91.0 FM)
Reality Is What? (March 27, 2004)
May I pose a question? What is the PROOF that the physical realm is reality? As far as I know, it is simply the environment of one-half of our being. It is a megasystem like its counterpart, the spiritual system. Each system is real within itself, but one system is the unreal. The physical system is full of illusions, solidity is sponge-like and there is none of our senses that can testify to the reality of the physical, except that we have arbitrarily taken the illusions as the state of certainty.
Ezra Richard
Bergenfield, NJ (WNYC, 820 AM)
HAL is a robot, with a non-human body (March 26, 2004)
Your MIT person (Anne Foerst) does not understand HAL very well. First he is embodied. His breathing is the ship's air recirculation. His movement is the directing of the ship through space. His hands/legs are the ship doors, pods, etc… In fact, if you set aside a human view of what a body is, HAL's body could be considered FAR more complex than that of a human's. He has MANY 'eyes', cameras around the ship. Many limbs etc…
Second, the sequel to the first movie, postulated that HAL had a mental breakdown because people interacting with it lied to it and presented it with logical contradictions. So I think HAL would be quite possible if you assume that such a ship could be built. And if you look at say the modern military jet or helicopter, we are making machines with amazingly versatile 'bodies'. The scary thing for me, that The Terminator also postulated, is what happens when a deadly 'body', like a military helicopter, gets enough AI that it can 'go crazy' by being given contradictory input data, on purpose or by accident.
Dale Strickler
Afton, VA (Listens via Web Audio)
