On the Intertwining of Science and Religion

The undeniable fact is that all through the ages, in practically all cultures, human beings have behaved in modes that assume the existence of invisible forces and intangible factors governing their lives and destinies. Some of these convictions  became organized, codified, and formulated in what we call the religions of the human family. Religions have flourished and evolved in practically all societies during the past six millennia or more, suggesting that they have served humanity in a number of ways.What is remarkable is that even after the rise of what we call modern science, and the not insignificant spread of scientific knowledge some which blatantly challenge and give the lie to certain religious beliefs (in all religions), traditional religious beliefs and practices continue, in some quarters with greater intensity than ever before.Given that science is in the business of studying and explaining not only physical but also human-related occurrences, the challenge for it is to account for this phenomenon in consistent ways. Biology may find the molecular (genetic) basis for religious and other beliefs; psychology may explain why religious beliefs are more soothing to vast numbers of  people that irreligious;  cultural anthropology may shed light on how religions have arisen, evolved, and spread among different peoples;  sociology could explain how religions get established in new contexts;  and neuroscience may be able to tell us which part of the brain triggers which kind of neurons for what is described as  spiritual experience.  They are all trying, with already some successes. However, whereas physicists have been quite successful in explaining the structure and components of music, and chemists have explained the sources and structures of molecules that titillate the tongue and the nose, the other sciences have only recently begun to delve into the roots of religious belief and experience, and have been only modestly successful in their theories. But it is important to realize that the deeper fulfillment that traditional religions provide are not to be trivialized by scientific explanations. It is okay to say that the peculiar structure of glucose is what causes sweetness, but that knowledge cannot be used to eliminate glucose from sweets. Any science that is not user-friendly to religions will be regarded as more foe than friend by a great many people. Unintelligible Latin liturgy or archaic Sanskrit shlokas will be more welcome by the majority of the people than scientific explanations that trivialize religious beliefs as abnormal brain behavior.Granting that in its more mindless modes, religions have done havoc in human history and continue to do so relentlessly even today, it is also a fact that religions were the ones that first put constraints on our instinctive urges for self-gratification, self-aggrandizement, and cruelty towards fellow humans. Most traditional religions foster the values of caring and compassion for others, marital loyalty, restraint from promiscuity, adherence to truth, and such other wholesome virtues. Leaving aside the question of whether these values can be nurtured with or without the doctrinal paraphernalia of religions, humanity (and that includes scientists) would do well to practice some of these in whatever activity they are engaged in. It would be in our interest if scientists worked in the highest ethical framework that religions can provide – especially in the context of the actual and/or potential impact of their findings on society and civilization.Furthermore, religions (as I see them) also provide a cosmic vision in humanity’s interaction with the world around. It is not a misuse of the term to say that anyone who lives with an understanding and deep-felt conviction of human frailties, finiteness and fallibility, and with deep reverence for the world and the universe wherein we come and go with apparently no rhyme or reason, and feels a sense of gratitude for the fleeting consciousness with its capacity for love and laughter, science and music,  a consciousness that is his or her privilege for a brief span of time, and anyone who is touched by  a profound sense of mystery as to what is yet to come, such a person is religious in the best sense. And yes, in that sense religion can permeate the being of thoughtful scientists also.

On the Intertwining of Science and Religion

The undeniable fact is that all through the ages, in practically all cultures, human beings have behaved in modes that assume the existence of invisible forces and intangible factors governing their lives and destinies. Some of these convictions  became organized, codified, and formulated in what we call the religions of the human family. Religions have flourished and evolved in practically all societies during the past six millennia or more, suggesting that they have served humanity in a number of ways.

What is remarkable is that even after the rise of what we call modern science, and the not insignificant spread of scientific knowledge some which blatantly challenge and give the lie to certain religious beliefs (in all religions), traditional religious beliefs and practices continue, in some quarters with greater intensity than ever before.

Given that science is in the business of studying and explaining not only physical but also human-related occurrences, the challenge for it is to account for this phenomenon in consistent ways. Biology may find the molecular (genetic) basis for religious and other beliefs; psychology may explain why religious beliefs are more soothing to vast numbers of  people that irreligious;  cultural anthropology may shed light on how religions have arisen, evolved, and spread among different peoples;  sociology could explain how religions get established in new contexts;  and neuroscience may be able to tell us which part of the brain triggers which kind of neurons for what is described as  spiritual experience.  They are all trying, with already some successes.

However, whereas physicists have been quite successful in explaining the structure and components of music, and chemists have explained the sources and structures of molecules that titillate the tongue and the nose, the other sciences have only recently begun to delve into the roots of religious belief and experience, and have been only modestly successful in their theories.

But it is important to realize that the deeper fulfillment that traditional religions provide are not to be trivialized by scientific explanations. It is okay to say that the peculiar structure of glucose is what causes sweetness, but that knowledge cannot be used to eliminate glucose from sweets. Any science that is not user-friendly to religions will be regarded as more foe than friend by a great many people. Unintelligible Latin liturgy or archaic Sanskrit shlokas will be more welcome by the majority of the people than scientific explanations that trivialize religious beliefs as abnormal brain behavior.

Granting that in its more mindless modes, religions have done havoc in human history and continue to do so relentlessly even today, it is also a fact that religions were the ones that first put constraints on our instinctive urges for self-gratification, self-aggrandizement, and cruelty towards fellow humans. Most traditional religions foster the values of caring and compassion for others, marital loyalty, restraint from promiscuity, adherence to truth, and such other wholesome virtues. Leaving aside the question of whether these values can be nurtured with or without the doctrinal paraphernalia of religions, humanity (and that includes scientists) would do well to practice some of these in whatever activity they are engaged in. It would be in our interest if scientists worked in the highest ethical framework that religions can provide – especially in the context of the actual and/or potential impact of their findings on society and civilization.

Furthermore, religions (as I see them) also provide a cosmic vision in humanity’s interaction with the world around. It is not a misuse of the term to say that anyone who lives with an understanding and deep-felt conviction of human frailties, finiteness and fallibility, and with deep reverence for the world and the universe wherein we come and go with apparently no rhyme or reason, and feels a sense of gratitude for the fleeting consciousness with its capacity for love and laughter, science and music,  a consciousness that is his or her privilege for a brief span of time, and anyone who is touched by  a profound sense of mystery as to what is yet to come, such a person is religious in the best sense. And yes, in that sense religion can permeate the being of thoughtful scientists also.

On the Intertwining of Science and Religion

The undeniable fact is that all through the ages, in practically all cultures, human beings have behaved in modes that assume the existence of invisible forces and intangible factors governing their lives and destinies. Some of these convictions  became organized, codified, and formulated in what we call the religions of the human family. Religions have flourished and evolved in practically all societies during the past six millennia or more, suggesting that they have served humanity in a number of ways.

What is remarkable is that even after the rise of what we call modern science, and the not insignificant spread of scientific knowledge some which blatantly challenge and give the lie to certain religious beliefs (in all religions), traditional religious beliefs and practices continue, in some quarters with greater intensity than ever before.

Given that science is in the business of studying and explaining not only physical but also human-related occurrences, the challenge for it is to account for this phenomenon in consistent ways. Biology may find the molecular (genetic) basis for religious and other beliefs; psychology may explain why religious beliefs are more soothing to vast numbers of  people that irreligious;  cultural anthropology may shed light on how religions have arisen, evolved, and spread among different peoples;  sociology could explain how religions get established in new contexts;  and neuroscience may be able to tell us which part of the brain triggers which kind of neurons for what is described as  spiritual experience.  They are all trying, with already some successes.

However, whereas physicists have been quite successful in explaining the structure and components of music, and chemists have explained the sources and structures of molecules that titillate the tongue and the nose, the other sciences have only recently begun to delve into the roots of religious belief and experience, and have been only modestly successful in their theories.

But it is important to realize that the deeper fulfillment that traditional religions provide are not to be trivialized by scientific explanations. It is okay to say that the peculiar structure of glucose is what causes sweetness, but that knowledge cannot be used to eliminate glucose from sweets. Any science that is not user-friendly to religions will be regarded as more foe than friend by a great many people. Unintelligible Latin liturgy or archaic Sanskrit shlokas will be more welcome by the majority of the people than scientific explanations that trivialize religious beliefs as abnormal brain behavior.

Granting that in its more mindless modes, religions have done havoc in human history and continue to do so relentlessly even today, it is also a fact that religions were the ones that first put constraints on our instinctive urges for self-gratification, self-aggrandizement, and cruelty towards fellow humans. Most traditional religions foster the values of caring and compassion for others, marital loyalty, restraint from promiscuity, adherence to truth, and such other wholesome virtues. Leaving aside the question of whether these values can be nurtured with or without the doctrinal paraphernalia of religions, humanity (and that includes scientists) would do well to practice some of these in whatever activity they are engaged in. It would be in our interest if scientists worked in the highest ethical framework that religions can provide – especially in the context of the actual and/or potential impact of their findings on society and civilization.

Furthermore, religions (as I see them) also provide a cosmic vision in humanity’s interaction with the world around. It is not a misuse of the term to say that anyone who lives with an understanding and deep-felt conviction of human frailties, finiteness and fallibility, and with deep reverence for the world and the universe wherein we come and go with apparently no rhyme or reason, and feels a sense of gratitude for the fleeting consciousness with its capacity for love and laughter, science and music,  a consciousness that is his or her privilege for a brief span of time, and anyone who is touched by  a profound sense of mystery as to what is yet to come, such a person is religious in the best sense. And yes, in that sense religion can permeate the being of thoughtful scientists also.

On John Casti’s The Cambridge Quintet: A work of Scientific Speculation

In this  slender volume, John Casti takes the reader to an imaginary dinner party in Cambridge (England) some fifty years ago  at which five intellectual stalwarts who had unknowingly laid the foundations for what has come to be known as AI (Artificial Intelligence) exchange views and ideas on the nature, uniqueness, and possibility of non-biological replication of some of the unique functions of the brain. These are C. P. Snow, Erwin Schrödinger, Ludwig Wittgenstein, J. B. S. Haldane, and Alan Turing: names with which the general public may not be very familiar. The discussants argue and counter-argue on how important other experiences (such as pain and pleasure) are for consciousness and intelligence, whether mind is distinct from matter, the relevance of form to substance for intelligence to arise, about the role of language and culture, etc. From their conversations (which could be turned into a high-brow play for universities and academics) even the uninitiated reader can learn a great deal about this important subject, and the initiated will become aware of certain aspects and sources of the history of AI. The book, which is delightful reading all through, belongs to the Meeting-of-the-Minds genre of writing, and it closes with a short and intelligent summation which brings us up to date on the evolution of the subject, with appropriate reference materials. Highly recommended to all readers who wish to know about an important scientific thought current of our age, and how it all began in the minds of a few extremely intelligent and deeply insightful  individuals.

On Lorne Ladner’s Th Lost Art of Compassion: Discovering the Practice of Happiness in the Meeting of Buddhism and Psychologist.

We live in an extraordinary age of wonderful scientific breakthroughs and marvelous technological achievements. Possibilities for cure of pernicious diseases and for health and longevity keep increasing. But ours is also an age of spiritual anguish and moral confusions, of promiscuous sex and savage violence. Crudeness, combativeness, and religious intolerance seem to be on the rise. In this context, it is refreshing to read a book that brings us wholesome worldviews that could help restore some balance in human interactions, based on both scientific  and spiritual insights on compassion.

Though the title and principal theme of the book relate to compassion – the cardinal virtue in the Buddha’s teachings – the author, who is a trained psychologist and practitioner of Buddhism,  gives his readers many worthy understandings of the human mind and human capacities for good.

The book is spiced with interesting anecdotes and reflections. The connections between Buddhist tenets and findings of current psychology add scientific support to the recommendations in the book. Reminders of eventual death and the ephemeral nature of existence may not be original, but they can inspire restraining reflections on people on the verge of rash or harsh behavior. There are also intelligent analyses of the  basic urge for happiness in the book. The author presents a clarification of the notion of happiness which should be useful to readers.

There is no question but that raw aggressiveness and self-centered acts of cruelty and exploitation seem to pervade modern societies, and the book is meant to transform them to gentler and more civilized modes. However, it is important to remember that our appraisal of the world’s moral status is often derived from the daily news. This view of the world is, for most people, very different from the world in which most people normally live during their waking hours. When calamities arise, not just in our neighborhood but in distant lands too, the outpouring of caring, compassion, and concrete assistance has generally been at more than a modest level. In other words, the art of compassion is not as lost as the title of the book suggests.

Then again, it is not clear that even among peoples where Buddhism is the principal faith, there is the kind of universal compassion that one would imagine in that framework. When one reads about the Sermon on the Mount or the Ten Commandments in Tibet, the reader should not assume that all the people in Judeo-Christian societies put those nuggets of wisdom into practice.

This is not to say that the  wisdom and perspectives spelled out in this book are not relevant or significant. Irrespective of one’s religious affiliation or absence thereof, one can benefit enormously by following the recipes for Compassion Practices given in the last sections of the book, à la Dale Carnegie. These instructions are meaningful, enriching, and practical. If only all were to make honest attempts to live up to them the world would surely be a better place.

This is the kind of book that can have only positive impact on readers, especially if they are in the early stages of value-formation.

On September 11, 2001

 [Written on September 11, 2002]

It happened a year ago, in the morning of 11 September 2001: an episode that lasted for a couple of hours and changed the heartbeat of history. It was as if an asteroid had landed somewhere on our planet, a mindless, mammoth, unannounced intrusion that disrupted everything around and much beyond, causing death and destruction of inordinate proportions. Except that this was hatched in the minds of men, with passion and deliberation, for revenge and with prayers to their religion which had once been a fount of learning and science, of philosophy and poetry, but which has been pitifully sterile in creative science or world-enriching ideas during the past few centuries, and (as they saw it) treated with scant respect by a more successful and productive civilization. They stood tall and strong: those majestic Manhattan Towers, symbols of a nation in many ways, clearly visible from the Statue of Liberty that is holding high the torch of freedom. Those arch-haters did not have the heart to level Lady Liberty to the ground with the planes they had high-jacked with cowardly brutality. Or perhaps they calculated that wouldn’t kill as many human beings.But the structures they struck were towering over the surroundings like the nation does in the world, much to the annoyance of billions. The buildings symbolized America: grand in scale, strong like America’s might. They were brimming with business like America’s market-places, buzzing with economic activity, facilitating finance, providing jobs for a multitude, harboring people from all over the world. In the buildings were citizens of more than sixty nations, belonging to every race and creed. There were blacks and whites and browns working there, Hispanics and Greeks, Sikhs and Arabs too.

The premeditated murder of several thousand innocent individuals and the infliction of painful bereavement on thousands more should have been abhorrent to every decent and civilized person, and yet it was a matter for rejoicing, public and private, to millions who have been harboring venomous hate, for reasons justified and unjustified, for the giant of a nation called the United States.

Aside from the anguish and incalculable material loss, that eruption of inhumanity triggered many responses, including a public declaration of war against terrorism and the fiery destruction of individuals who were planning and plotting more such mischief, hiding in the dark dens of Afghanistan. In the process, the medieval Taliban regime was deposed in that unfortunate country. Its leaders – including the mastermind behind 9/11 – promptly went underground, and still remain there: alive or not is anybody’s guess.

Scholars began to analyze the roots of the ruthless savagery, and commentaries filled editorial pages. A sense of panic gripped countless people. Non-Muslims tried to understand what Islam was all about. Most of all, all realized that the world will never again be the same for the secure minority who live in relative comfort and freedom within the borders of the United States. Safety and civil rights began to take on different meanings here: those very features had facilitated the perpetration of the awful atrocity.

Even after a full year, the tremors haven’t subsided: it may take decades for this. Sadly, we are at the brink of another ominous war. The time hasn’t yet come for people of all faiths and races to join hands in gestures of friendship and mutual respect, and to seek peace and understanding, no matter what the price. But we must remember that hate is a cancer that eats away both source and target, and the price of uncontrollable anger and revenge can be very high too.

On the Concept of Self

Do you think the concept of “self” is an emergent phenomenon of our neural complexity and if so is it continuously emerging throughout our lifetime?

I am inclined to consider the self as an emergent property of the neural complexity through the following analogy:
Paper is the end product (through several complex processes) of wood (which has a molecular structure). On this paper could be written countless words and phrases and pictures. [How these come to be written and what, are surely infinitely more complex than the mere manufacture of paper.
Likewise, as the human entity takes form and shape and completion, and begins to grow, the paper becomes fully formed. To begin with, aside from texture and color, all blank papers are equivalent. Then gradually, through the different scripts that are imposed on the different sheets, each sheet becomes very different from every other. So too, our various selves are each very different, but they have the same substrate.
As I see it, (in this analogy) neuroscience can unravel how the substrate is manufactured, what its electro-chemical properties are, how it can be straightened out when it gets crumpled, how its longevity can be prolonged, etc. All this is no mean achievement. But I fear the generation of the particular kinds of scripts on the paper is a very much more complicated process, and may not be amenable to the standard modes of current scientific methodology. As a devotee of science, I hope I am proved wrong.

Freewill and Divine Omniscience

The question, “If God is omniscient, then how can there be freewill?” is an ancient theological paradox. For freewill implies that the next move by a conscious entity is as yet undetermined, and could be one of many possibilities, depending on the FREE exercise of judgment by that entity. If this “capacity for free exercise of judgment prior to an action” (which is what free-will is) has been given to the human being by God, then God cannot and should not know what the actions of humans would be prior to their performance, especially if God is to judge and reward/punish human beings on the basis of their actions based on their own free will. If God is thus aware, how can God be considered omniscient?
This paradox arises from not recognizing what I have called elsewhere the hypercomplex level of reality. At the hypercomplex level, events occur, not simply by the operation of the usual physical forces, but also from thought processes. Thus, whereas the motion of a projectile is governed solely by physical forces, the initial magnitude and direction of motion of a football is determined by a decision on the part of the ball player. Events of this kind occur only in the hypercomplex level at which thought/decisions come into play. As a result, events at this level are utterly unpredictable.
The omniscience of God refers to knowledge and phenomena at the usual physical (classical and quantum) levels, but not at the hypercomplex level: Not because God is ignorant, but because God chose to create a hypercomplex level with such a property, perhaps because it is very interesting and has great potential for continuous creativity.

On Jimmy Carter’s “Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis.”

A  nation’s life is like that of a person: it has its ups and downs, successes and defeats, days of glory and of shame, times for jubilation and times for grief. These contrasting states may arise from external factors that tilt one’s fortunes, but equally from the decisions one makes, consciously or unwittingly, with wisdom or with short-range benefits in mind. Even a positively inclined observer will recognize that in addition to a growing paucity of resources, the Unites States is facing as seldom before immense problems in a great many spheres.  The nation has lost much of the high regard it enjoyed from people and governments all over the world, though the ideals it stands for are still much respected in most places. The scene within the country is not any better. Political debates have degenerated in quality, special interest groups secretly or overtly tamper with Congressional decisions through blatant financial inducements, ideological opponents resort to ad hominem attacks, and the country is more deeply divided in many ways than ever before in the past hundred years.

Our endangered values: America’s moral crisis is an insightful book on these issues. It is written by a man who needs no introduction, for he was once President of the United States and recipient of the Nobel Prize for Peace. Jimmy Carter has gone through the length and breadth of this country, traveled to many parts of the world, interacted with leaders and common people, with businessmen, educators, scientists, economists, and more. The book’s thesis is simple: While we have made progress in science, technology and industry, we have been gradually losing the values and ideals that made this a great nation: a nation that could be depended upon for help and assistance, as well as for international cooperation and leadership, one that has often stood for peace and  cared for its own poor. Many of those ideals and values are eroding. The book gives myriad examples of this, and discusses how they came about.

Carter explains that ironically a major cause of the erosion of America’s moral values is to be found in the very institution that should nurture moral behavior, namely, religion. More exactly, it is not religion which disfigures the face of a nation, but a perverse parody of it: religious fundamentalism. Carter incisively describes its principal traits as “rigidity, domination, and exclusion.” Fundamentalism is any ideology that leads to intolerance and exclusion, and is insensitively blind to other perspectives. [Incidentally it can manifest itself in science as scientism and in politics as communism and fascism.] When such a system comes to power anywhere, it could spell disaster. That, says Carter, is what has been happening to America in recent years.Carter has no problems with fellow Christians who may believe in a six-day creation of the world six thousand years ago and in such other matters as one reads in holy books. He respects every individual’s right to religious beliefs and sincerity of heart. However, when people who take mythopoesy literally insist that it should be part of the science curriculum in schools, it does not bode well for the country.

Then again, when sectarian ethics is used for formulating national policies, such as those relating to abortion, gay rights, and capital punishment, matters can become contentious in a nation which has grown out of its moral and epistemic infancy. Unfortunately, Carter points out, “leaders of the highly organized Christian Right have successfully elevated into American political debate some of the most divisive social questions.” In a world where science and enlightenment are still struggling to emerge as emancipated worldviews, efforts to return to the narrowness and  values of a by-gone age  are not in the best interest of civilization.

Aside from his career as a political leader, and as  man of faith, Carter is also an informed scientist. He is concerned about the scant attention the government pays to environmental issues, favoring the oil industry and energy producers over efficiency and ecological wisdom. As a reflective thinker who understands the role and relevance of both science and religion in a civilized world, he argues well for his position that there is no conflict between science and religion, fully convinced that the splendor and wonder in the world “is not all an accident.” In our current state of ideological polarization it is hard for some to grant that there is nothing unscientific in this position. Indeed, all through this book Carter speaks as a Christian. He admits he made a tactical blunder in 1976 when he told someone in the presence of reporters that he was a born-again Christian. As a result, it was quickly reported that Jimmy Carter was hearing messages from heaven, and that according to him God had made him a candidate superior to others. Through this anecdote Carter reveals how unwise it is in this secularist  age for a politician to confess his or her faith in public, but he also exposes how headline-seeking reporters bring to ridicule any public figure who mentions faith or God.

Carter talks about his cordial interactions with Pope John Paul with whom he frankly disagreed on liberation theology and the role of women in the Church. He says quite simply that “The government and the church are two different realms of service, and those in political office have to face a subtle but important difference between the implementation of the high ideals of religious faith and public duty.” It is sad that this principle, on which the United States was founded, needs to be reiterated after more than two centuries of its successful practice.

All through the book, whether he is talking about homosexuality or divorce, about abortion or the death penalty, Jimmy Carter is consistent in his adherence to the principle of separation of church and state. As president, whenever he saw a conflict between his own religious values and his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, the latter was always more sacred to him. He reveals that he used to pray regularly in the White House for “patience, courage, and the wisdom to make good decisions,” as also “for peace – for ourselves and others…” Carter is amazed by the lack of sensitivity towards gays and lesbians on the part of supposedly religious people. He reminds us of the irony that those who are overly concerned about the unborn are for state-sanctioned murder which is what death penalty is. And he argues that Christ would be against the death penalty.

In a chapter entitled the Distortion of American Foreign Policy, Carter discusses the deterioration of our interactions with other nations, like Cuba, North Korea and Latin American countries. He lists the disastrous consequences of short-sighted, insensitive and bungled foreign policies in virtually every region of the world, which has cost our country much in many ways, especially in terms of the goodwill of billions of people. In this context he refers to the popularization of Biblical prophesies about the coming of the Messiah through the myths of the Left Behind series. These books speak in dead seriousness about the coming occupation of the Holy Land by Christians, the final conversion of Jews to Christianity or their immolation, and about the en masse transportation of all Christians to Heaven where they will watch the torture of others who are left behind. Incredibly, even in this age of space exploration, unified field theories, and computer technology, millions of Americans and others are seduced into such stories by persuasive Bible-quoting writers. This may be depressing to enlightened Christians who have not fallen into the Fundamentalist trap, and amusing to Non-Christians. But what is alarming, says Carter, is that people with such views have gained influence in the higher echelons of American government.

Carter admits it was “especially unpleasant” for him to write about the American government’s reaction to 9/11 which has included curtailing human rights and due process, deportation of immigrants, detention without trial, prisoner abuse, acceptance of torture, and other practices that painfully deviate from the highest ideals for which this country has always stood. The government which is charged with the responsibility of protecting its citizens from ruthless terrorists is no doubt under great stress. Its spokesmen argue that the war on terror is unlike any other war, and that our enemies do everything they can to take advantage of the American system of fairness and justice, and that in this context it is not always possible to adhere to international treaties and conventions.  But civilized behavior demands that under no circumstances should we deviate from justice and the rule of law, human rights and humane treatment of prisoners.

Carter talks about our dismal failure in putting  brakes on the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Our offensive characterization of nations which are already on the defensive only tends to make them react irrationally and belligerently. Intelligent leadership should bring them around through statesmanship and reassurance rather than by provocative and threatening proclamations.

Carter is very clear about military service, war, and his conscience as a Christian. He sees nothing wrong in a war to defend the country from foreign aggression. Prompted by terrorism and anti-American rhetoric, the current administration has announced a policy of preemptive attack. Carter deplores this because it “has forced the United States to renounce existing treaties and alliances as unnecessary constraints on our superpower’s freedom to act unilaterally.” He speaks out openly against the war in Iraq which he regards as hasty, unjustified, and based on misinformation. He stops short of describing the excuses given for this war as lies.

Carter is unhappy with the meager foreign aid given by Washington these days compared to other industrially advanced nations. “Sharing wealth with those that are starving and suffering unnecessarily is a value by which a nation’s moral values are measured,” he writes. He calculates on the basis of our $11 trillion gross national income that the U.S. government and people together give as aid about 22 cents for every hundred dollars in aid. Just as civilized religion can engender a fundamentalist wing, productive capitalism can sire greed, selfishness, and heartless exploitation. When capitalism morphs to such monstrosity, it too undermines the moral framework of nations. In this mode, caring for the poor and concern about the health-care of the less fortunate are not as urgent as the bottom line for shareholders. In Carter’s analysis, the heartless side of capitalism has entered the body politic of America.

The book concludes with a brief and thoughtful statement on the role and responsibility of a superpower. As such, Carter’s book and his concluding statement should be regarded as a wake-up call for America.T his book may be seen as a scathing indictment of President Bush and his advisors. But in a deeper sense it is an analysis of the crucial contexts where, because of forces seen and unseen, the country has moved away from her inherent decency and historical ideals. Jimmy Carter’s reflections may sound like a tirade by a mindless America-hater of which there are millions all over the world. But it is in fact a sad and cool-headed analysis of some of the ways in which America has been erring in the recent past. And it is written beautifully by someone who loves this country and has served it with distinction in a hundred ways, who is a devout and enlightened Christian, who is a humanist and  humanitarian,  who is deeply committed to international understanding and peace.

Jimmy Carter is respected all over the world his for honesty and decency. He knows what he is writing about, and he writes with simplicity and clarity, with truthfulness and passion. The contents of this book should be an eye-opener for those who are still oblivious to the dangers that lurk within the country from misguided patriots, religious zealots, and blundering politicians. It is a beacon of hope for America that it has thinkers like Jimmy Carter with depth of understanding, enlightened religious sensitivity,  and the courage to write books of this kind.

On Ursula Goodenough’s “The Sacred Depths of Nature.”

Though some have cautiously kept science and religion apart, remembering the theme  in Ecclesiastes that “To everything there is a season, and a time in every purpose under the heaven,” there has been, in recent decades, a spate of books that try to build bridges between the two. Of these, some seek to find science in  time-honored religious texts, while others seek religion in well-established scientific results. The book under review belongs to the latter category. I have difficulty seeing the Big Bang in the Bible or vacuum fluctuations in the Vedas, but astrophysics and unified fields do resonate with my spiritual chords. So I thoroughly enjoyed reading Goodenoughs slender volume.During the past century, of all scientific disciplines it was biology that came into open combat with the religious world views of the Judeo-Christian tradition. In an earlier century, Galileo had to answer the Catholic Church for propagating the Copernican model. In the nineteenth century, no Inquisition brought Kelvin to court for estimating the age of the sun, but  in a famous Oxford debate, Huxley had to  argue for the Darwinian declaration. What is ironic is that the hand of God (even as envisioned in the orthodox framework) is nowhere more spectacular than in the biological world. Yes, there is order in the cosmos and beauty in elliptic orbits, but these pale in comparison to the magnificent complexity and variety of life. The mere spectacle of the structure and system apparent even in the simplest of organisms should leave one gasping in wonder  and recognize marvel whatever its source. Or, as Goodenough says it with a personal flourish, “I walk through the Missouri woods and the organisms are everywhere, seen and unseen, flying about or pushing through the soil or rummaging under the leaves, adapting and reproducing. I open my senses to them and we connect (pp. 73-74).”Beginning with a concise review of the earth’s origin, Goodenough  presents a series of glimpses of the biological world view, guiding us step by step through an orchard of results and reflections. With intelligent modesty, she articulates her covenant with Mystery. As one who holds the view that to concede there is mystery in ultimate questions is a  wisdom that tames the arrogance springing from cocksure knowledge and the fanaticism arising from the conviction that we know all about God and the beyond, I applaud her for this. Her pithy phrase “Life has no choice but to evolve (4)” reminded me of an old ditty which said, “Life is so peculiar theres nothing to do but live…” She confesses that once she wallowed in the poignant nihilism (p.10) of Steven Weinbergs oft-repeated reaction upon  recognizing the laws of physics: “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless.”  [I recall that when I read this memorable sentence, I said to myself that  Weinberg should have added two little words at the end: "to me."] For meaning and point are functions of one’s perspective. After all, Picasso and Verdi, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, could also be pointless if we consider them in the context of the Clausius Heat Death, but are they really pointless to those who appreciate and enjoy them?For when one sees the world as Goodenough does: “…the existence of all this complexity and awareness and intent and beauty and my ability to apprehend it,  steadily, from the beginning to the present. We are all, we creatures who are alive today, equally old, or equally recent (p. 85).” This is a more complex thought, and for all its scientific factualness, it is enriching rather than competing with the vision of being formed by a loving Creator. Whether the topic is meaning or sex, sexuality or death, the discussion is grounded on sound biology, as when she reflects on death: “Death is the price paid to have trees and clams and birds and grasshoppers, and death is the price to have human consciousness, to be aware of all that shimmering awareness and all that love (p. 151).” Here, as elsewhere, her language is simple and clear, uncluttered by abstruse jargon or pedantic verbosity, and her prose lucid, at times poetic. There are short quotes from thinkers and  scriptures at the close of many chapters. Whether it be from the Psalms or Walt Whitman or a lesser known author, these relevant spurts of thought prompt us to a heightened level of appreciation of the wonders around us, and of the sheer splendor of life, and  they contribute to making this book, as one early reader described it, a Dail Devotional. However, while Goodenough recognizes the richness in the wisdom of the ages, hers is not an attempt to establish the correctness of holy books. Indeed she admits to her inability to resonate with some of the traditional beliefs, resulting, for sure from her involvement with science. And because  this involvement has meaningfully matured, she reacts to science  with awareness and alertness, and exemplifies in this work how one can respond religiously to the cold and confirmed facts established by rigorous and disinterested science. The cover of the book which captures tortoises in the Galapagos reminds us of  the slow advance of evolution in the sacred arena of our planet.Religion is an experience with multiple facets. Some relate to prayer, some to surrender to the Almighty, and some others to love and caring. Science may be of little value in these contexts.  But there are two other dimensions of religion which are of no less importance.  One  is contemplation, a contemplation inspired by awe and reverence, and leads to higher levels of awareness. Science can join in here with the religions of the world, albeit at a somewhat esoteric level. Not in the mere recognition of causes, not in the listing of verified hypotheses, not in the prediction of planetary orbits, not in its countless applications, but in its elevation of the human spirit by the contemplation of revealed complexities. When one reflects on the world, standing on the bedrock of science, one can not only undergo a deep religious experience, but also see the essential wisdom in the religious traditions  of the human family. When a sensitive scientific mind contemplates on Nature, it is reminded of the line from a Pawnee prayer (quoted in the book, p. 86): “Remember, remember the sacredness of things….” As Blake saw “heaven in a wild flower,” Goodenough unveils to the reader “the sacred depths of nature.”.Then there is the ethical level. Traditional religions stress personal conduct in relation to those with whom one immediately interacts: parents, children, friends, neighbors, community, etc. And many of them also express a reverence for and pay homage to the powers and principles of Nature. But, with the intertwining of the peoples of the world and the technological assault on the environment there is a crying need for a planetary ethic. This too is a goal of Goodenough’s book. As she clearly states, her agenda “for this book is to outline the foundations for such a planetary ethic, an ethic that would make no claim to supplant existing traditions but would seek to coexist with them, informing our global concerns… (pp. xv-xvii).” She could have said, supplement and fortify them further, instead of “coexist with them.” The concluding chapter of the book (pp. 166 et seq.) explores this idea further. There is no doubt that as we move forward, carrying the boons and burden of  technological onslaught into the impending century, we need to enlarge our ethical visions in the new and rapidly changing contexts. This can be most effectively done by the deep understanding that science offers, and the reverential humility to the world that wisdom fosters. This book accomplishes all this with great charm and insight.