Responding to my previous post, my brother Marek asked: "Where would you start with a mystic materialist who claims experience of ‘gnosis’ of the material nature of the world? An absolute knowledge that all is matter, that there is no spirit, that nothing is spiritual? And that this knowledge is beyond the logical, beyond the rational, far more than an intuition – this is a knowing – all is beautiful matter, and its beautiful interactions."
Wow! The mystic materialist. Well, I don't doubt that such people exist, it's just that I'd imagine them to be very few in number. The philosophical tension between holding the position that "all is matter, matter is all", while saying that you've experienced this as an absolute truth implies tapping into non-local consciousness – tapping into what Christianity would call the Holy Spirit, Hindus Atman, or Buddhists the Buddha-nature.
Can you know that all is matter on the basis of an intrinsic, absolute knowledge, rather than through logical deduction, experiment, data and rational thought? [Google Gemini Advanced 2.0 Imagen 3.0, prompted to produce a cartoon of a mystical scientist, came up with this:
Neuroscience is starting to explore the neural correlates of mystical experiences, such as those brought on by meditation or psychedelics, with researchers attempting to explain these subjective experiences in terms of brain activity and neurochemical processes, rather than as evidence of non-local consciousness.
I would argue that most of Western society is so deeply marinated in reductionist materialism that it is difficult to scramble out of that mindset.
Certainly, there are scientists and thinkers who come at the paranormal with a mindset that denies a divinity. The arch-atheist Richard Dawkins has self-identified as a 'cultural Christian', emphasising his appreciation for Christian heritage and traditions, such as hymns and Christmas carols, while not embracing Christian religious doctrine. Another public intellectual noted for his atheism, Sam Harris, engages in Buddhist practices such as meditation. And it must be said that Buddhism appeals to many modern-day atheists, drawn towards it by mindfulness, yoga and breathing exercises – without necessarily having to accept the existence of a divine presence.
I can also observe that we humans are increasingly drawn to the spiritual and numinous as we age, as we begin to feel the intimations of our mortality. Many Western teenagers brought up in conventional Christian tradition rebel against the dogma and stop going to church. As young adults, spiritual concerns are entirely pushed aside as the demands of getting materially established take absolute precedence: career, mortgage, the costs of child-rearing. Reductionist physicalism becomes the established mindset. Only later in life does a space emerge that can in some be filled by spiritual thought.
There is the so-called 'Winner's Curse' that affects Nobel Prize-winning scientists. Having reached that pinnacle, they disappear down speculative rabbit holes. One example is Sir Roger Penrose and his work on the Orch OR theory, linking consciousness to quantum effects within the brain, something once dismissed by the scientific mainstream, but that is slowly gaining traction. Another example in quantum consciousness research is Brian Josephson, awarded a Nobel Prize for his work on superconductivity, who has since ventured into areas considered pseudoscientific, drawing criticism for failing to produce rigorous evidence.
On the other hand, there are many scientists in the psi-research field who dismiss supernatural explanations of phenomena such as precognition, psychokinesis or telepathy, claiming to be rational atheists exploring the boundaries of scientific knowledge.
But can spirituality be 'cracked' by science? There are three views. I'm somewhere between the first two.
One is: "Yes, consciousness exists across the universe; one day we'll prove it by detecting its presence with as-yet unimagined ultra-sensitive instruments that can pick up waves/particles of consciousness."
Another is: "No, you are destined never to truly know the nature of reality through scientific inquiry. That deep understanding comes only through gnosis, through a divine intuition that defies matter, energy, space and time."
The third, the one I reject, is: "Consciousness is a mere construct of matter, an emergent epiphenomenon of biological evolution; there's nothing to 'crack', it's just an illusion, it's just a story we tell ourselves."
Whichever view you hold, I believe it boils down to belief.
All of which ties in nicely to my blog post on the fifth day of Lent last year...
Lent 2025: Day five
Believers and the unbelievers
Lent 2022: day five
The Ego and Evil
Lent 2021: day five
Science, materialism and God
Lent 2020: day five
Monism and Dualism
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment