Skeptic » eSkeptic » October 19, 2005

The Skeptics Society & Skeptic magazine



The
Universe in a Single Atom book cover

In this week’s eSkeptic, we reprint Michael Shermer’s review of The Universe in a Single Atom : The Convergence of Science and Spirituality by the Dalai Lama (Morgan Road Books, September 2005, ISBN 076792066X) that appeared in the New York Sun “Arts & Letters” section on September 14, 2005.


Carina
Nebula NASA photo

the Carina Nebula (NASA image courtesy of GRIN)

Science Without Borders

a book review by Michael Shermer

In a 1987 lecture on “The Burden of Skepticism,” the astronomer Carl Sagan opined:

In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.

Well, Carl, here’s a bit of good news, from no less a personage than His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who writes in the prologue of his latest book, The Universe in a Single Atom:

My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.

Listen up, all ye who insist on squeezing the round peg of science into the square hole of religion; if religious claims are not consonant with scientific findings, it is wisest to err on the side of science, which employs self-correcting machinery designed to weed out error, agenda, and bias. Not only do scientists change their minds in the face of contradictory evidence, they do so regardless of the religion, race, or nationality of the scientific colleagues who are doing the contradicting.

Science is international, or non-national, in this sense, a characteristic His Holiness says is in harmony with the teachings of Buddhism. “Because I am an internationalist at heart,” the Dalai Lama explains,

one of the qualities that has moved me most about scientists is their amazing willingness to share knowledge with each other without regard for national boundaries. Even during the Cold War, when the political world was polarized to a dangerous degree, I found scientists from the Eastern and Western blocs willing to communicate in ways the politicians could not even imagine.

In my 1999 book, “How We Believe,” I outlined a three-tiered model of the relationship of science and religion:

  1. the “conflicting worlds” model, in which science and religion are at war and one must choose between them;
  2. the “same worlds” model, in which science and religion are in harmony and one may have both simultaneously; and
  3. the “separate worlds” model, in which science and religion are different methods to deal with different areas of human concern. Since that time, hundreds of books have been published in the field of science and religion studies, which has blossomed with its own journals and magazines, college courses, scholarly conferences, and even an annual million-dollar cash prize for the individual who most contributes to uniting science and religion (the Templeton Prize).

I thus approached this book with trepidation — what else can be said on this subject, especially by someone with no background whatsoever in science? Yet, as I read I grew to respect the author, Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, who at the age of 6 was enthroned as the reincarnation of his predecessor, the 13th Dalai Lama, in the Tibetan capital of Lhasa. Born to a peasant family in a small village called Takster in northeastern Tibet, the Dalai Lama ended up in an exile that brought him in contact with many of the world’s leading scientists.

He talks about his youthful encounters with science, especially his meetings with some of the world’s leading scientists, including physicists Carl von Weizsacker and David Bohm, and the philosopher of science Karl Popper. From these encounters, as well as his Buddhist studies, the Dalai Lama found a way to harmonize science and religion, even while recognizing (and respecting) their differences. Both science and Buddhism, he points out, share a strong empirical basis:

Buddhism must accept the facts — whether found by science or found by contemplative insights. If, when we investigate something, we find there is reason and proof for it, we must acknowledge that as reality — even if it is in contradiction with a literal scriptural explanation that has held sway for many centuries or with a deeply held opinion or view.

Instead of filtering scientific findings through the sieve of his religion, the Dalai Lama approaches science with humility and openness.

As my comprehension of science has grown, it has gradually become evident to me that, insofar as understanding the physical world is concerned, there are many areas of traditional Buddhist thought where our explanations and theories are rudimentary when compared with those of modern science.

This book is “not an attempt to unite science and spirituality,” he explains, “but an effort to explore two important human disciplines for the purpose of developing a more holistic and integrated way of understanding the world.”

photo of the Dalai Lama by Martin Louis

photo of the Dalai Lama by Martin Louis

He begins his exploration by equating science with the worldview of “scientific materialism,” which “seems to be a common unexamined presupposition” that includes “a belief in an objective world, independent of the contingency of its observers. It assumes that the data being analyzed within an experiment are independent of the preconceptions, perceptions, and experience of the scientist analyzing them.” Well, not quite. Most working scientists do make this assumption when conducting their experiments, but they are well aware that their preconceptions can color their analysis and interpretation. Reality exists, we can agree. Getting an accurate reading on reality is another matter entirely.

The Dalai Lama’s other bugbear is scientific reductionism, and here I feel he has set up something of a straw man.

The view that all aspects of reality can be reduced to matter and its various particles is, to my mind, as much a metaphysical position as the view that an organizing intelligence created and controls reality.

This view, he fears, leads to nihilism, and with it the loss of subjective purpose and meaning.

The danger then is that human beings may be reduced to nothing more than biological machines, the products of pure chance in the random combination of genes, with no purpose other than the biological imperative of reproduction.

I do not fault the Dalai Lama for challenging this view of science, which does make it difficult to explain such phenomena as the origins of the universe, life, sentience, and consciousness (each of which receive individual chapter treatments in his book), and is held by a great many people, both within and outside of the scientific community. Yet the solution to these and other problems, in my opinion, is through the new sciences of complexity, emergence, and self-organization. The Dalai Lama does not go this route, instead turning to certain Buddhist principles, such as karma.

Karma, he explains, is easily misunderstood by Westerners. It has to do with causal action, but “it is erroneous to think of karma as some transcendental unitary entity that acts like a god in a theistic system or a determinist law by which a person’s life is fated.” In fact, from a scientific perspective, karma is just a metaphysical assumption, but “no more so than the assumption that all of life is material and originated out of pure chance.” Although he admits that the Darwinian theory of evolution “gives us a fairly coherent account of the evolution of human life on earth,” the Dalai Lama also believes “that karma can have a central role in understanding the origination of what Buddhism calls ‘sentience,’ through the media of energy and consciousness.”

How? In Buddhism, the most fundamental unit of matter is prana, a vital energy indistinguishable from consciousness. So matter, energy, and consciousness are the same. Since not only sentience, but the origins of life, consciousness, and morality are inadequately explained by science, it is useful to employ the notion of karma.

Here I am afraid the Dalai Lama proffers the same empty explanations as the creationists and Intelligent Design theorists in what we call the “God of the Gaps.” Wherever there is a gap in scientific explanation — the origins of life, sentience, consciousness, morality — this is where God, or karma, intervened. But what happens to God/karma when science fills in the gap? Are you going to abandon God/karma from your worldview?

In my opinion, God/karma does not explain anything; it is just a linguistic place-filler until science can discover the actual cause. By analogy, cosmologists proffer something called “dark energy” and “dark matter” to account for certain anomalies in their data. But cosmologists do not stop there. They admit that “dark matter” is just a convenient label for something they have yet to discover. When creationists or Buddhists speak of God or karma, they mean it as the actual cause and end of their searching.

Although I applaud the Dalai Lama for his liberal open-mindedness to science, he still has some things to learn about science. Just because a current theory or philosophy of science fails to account for a phenomenon does not mean that science itself should be abandoned. And any attempt to blend religion with science, no matter how thoughtful and respectful of both traditions, can only lead to the reduction of the deity to the laws and forces of nature. A scientist will inevitably search for how, and by what forces and mechanisms, God or karma operated in the world.

I would caution both Christians and Buddhists alike: Be careful what you wish for in this endeavor to unify science and religion — you may not like what you find.

Lawrence Krauss photo

Hiding in the Mirror
The Mysterious Allure of Extra Dimensions,
from Plato to String Theory & Beyond

Dr. Lawrence Krauss

Sunday, October 30th, 2:00 pm
Baxter Lecture Hall, Caltech, Pasadena, CA

Beginning well before Plato’s allegory of the cave and continuing to modern scientific breakthroughs from relativity to quantum mechanics, as well as to pop cultural icons like Twilight Zone and Star Trek, human beings have imagined, even longed for, alternate realities. Dr. Krauss, Professor of Physics at Case Western Reserve University and the author of Atom, Quintessence, Beyond Star Trek, and The Physics of Star Trek, examines why we have often believed that the answers to the great questions about existence lie in the possibility that we live in a universe more complex than we can see or otherwise sense. Drawing on work by scientists, mathematicians, artists, and writers Hiding in the Mirror explores whether extra dimensions simply represent abstract speculation or hold the key to a deeper understanding of the universe. Krauss examines popular culture’s embrace — and misunderstanding — of topics such as black holes, life in another dimension, string theory, and some of the daring new theories that propose that large extra dimensions exist alongside our own.

7 Comments »

7 Comments

  1. JJ says:

    I’m a buddhist and I would like to think that most of us, where it can be positively proved that the notion of karma is false would accept the result. One of the teachings of the Buddha is to critically assess our beliefs. Enlightenment is about finding the truth to choose to be blind to it would mean we never sought it in the beginning. Personally, I have chosen to “believe” in karma until it can be proven to not exist (1) to be an example, because i believe that if we all acted in this way, the world would be a “pure land” and (2) it makes misfortune easier to accept paving the way to more energy to resolve difficult situations.

  2. Marlow says:

    It is important to acknowledge that “karma” takes in a great many Buddhist and Hindu traditions. In Tibetan Buddhism karma is tied to reincarnation, which, granted, is incompatible with a positivist world view. In other traditions it is more a law of cause and effect, completely compatible with positivism, empiricism, etc.; its oddity inheres only in its nature as a *moral* law of cause and effect. It’s disingenuous to draw conclusions about Buddhism based only on Tibetan Buddhism. That’s like drawing conclusions about predestination by reference only to Calvinism.

  3. Chris says:

    The term ‘karma’ seems to be problematic and misunderstood for several reasons. First of all karma means ’cause and effect’ or ‘action’ and nothing else. It is nothing mystical and nothing unobservable. However, it has been borrowed and overloaded with unintended meaning by virtually everybody, especially New Age sweet-farts so it became almost as blurry as the term ‘electricity’.

    Karma is not necessarily tied to reincarnation at all. It functions here and now. The whole problem with reincarnation arises because it really doesn’t make sense if you have that funny idea that there is something that reincarnates, which Buddhism clearly rejects. There are only causes and effects and it is simply as stupid to believe in the first cause as it is to believe in the last, isolated effect.

    Of course there is an ongoing scientific debate on the nature of consciousness which affects potential scope of the problem. I recommend reading works of David Chalmers and criticisms by Daniel Dennett and others to draw your own conclusions. Personally, I think that most materialistically biased thinkers (especially those from the atheist-brights camp) either don’t grok the very core of the so-called hard problem of consciousness or are inconsequent in their criticisms.

    The word is often used in the context of ‘having good or bad karma’. But again it means nothing mysterious, especially it doesn’t mean that karma ‘exists’ in any way. It is more like a notion of situation that one has worked out through a series of causes and whether this yields a liberating or limiting position. Karma doesn’t imply determinism because you can always re-route the action just as you can choose to wiggle your toe or not right now. I find Buddhism to be the only one so far to deliver naturalistic and logical ground for ethical behavior.

    I think that Buddhism being a consequent method to achieve well-defined liberation and enlightenment deserves a better criticism than presented in this article and other alike.

  4. Herman King says:

    Scientists are not always seekers after objective truth as they claim.They often allow political correctness to trump truth. Examples: Kennewick Man which proves Asiatics are not the original native Americans, the MRI scans which proved King Tut an European, and the firing of Dr. James Watson for stating the simple and obvious fact that Sub Sahara blacks aren’t as smart as Europeans. Scientists are as corruptible as anyone else. Case closed.

  5. Christian Copley says:

    “Scientists are not always seekers after objective truth as they claim.They often allow political correctness to trump truth.”

    What nonscientific method was used to discover this? Did the ‘reveal’ of this fact come from Cthulu?

    “Scientists are as corruptible as anyone else. Case closed.”

    Too bad your brain shut off so quickly. No one has said scientists are not corruptible (straw man). The problem is that science is a mechanism, not a person. It is designed to weed out bias and corruption as a natural course. None of your examples were discovered by magic. They were discovered because science is not lashed to the corruptibility of a human. Scientists distrust each other more than you do.

  6. Mike Huber says:

    I just started this book and liked it at first, then ran into the part as stated by Shermer “filling in the gaps with god” and am disappointed also. I will read the rest of it, but see the Dalai Lama’s bias already, and am impressed that he stated that “Bhuddism must accept the facts” which I doubt we will hear anytime soon from any Pope.

    Thanks Michael Shermer for your eloquent review of this book.
    Mike Huber

  7. Eugene Limpin says:

    External proofs can easily be resolved by Science. Such as causal connections, correlations, and deductive validity. But man cannot find answers to his own self-actions by a fraction of a second or in the present moment. It can only be done through critical investigation, it would probably mean to take time and think things-out but humans find themselves to lack that time even though it is evident that they possess it and as even Bertrand Russell noted, “Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so”. Critical thinking also means by that taking the most reasonable claim an issue or an argument can muster. Therefore, I find good reason for why Dalai Lama mentioned Science because it is a tool to discover the nature of reality through critical investigations whether claims of Religion or Spirituality has substantial proof.

    And by that let me take it further, that he meant reality not dogmatic is the purpose of Spirituality. For reality can only be measured or evaluated when critically investigated and it can provide enlightenment or openness of thinking that most Religions which are dogmatic do not commit to and through the recommendation of the Dalai Lama that they should now commit to. But Science or critical investigation also has its down-side because when radically enforced turns into what Dalai Lama feared, and that is already a sign of dogmatism on the part of critical thinkers because it reduces everything and becomes a form of nihilism.

    So all in all, it needs a balance. What are needed are proofs. Not dogmatism, reductionism or nihilism. Dalai Lama simply tries to express that we need proofs and not Scientific reductionism that turns into a nihilist ideology and that Religion should not be dogmatic.

    On the other side of the review, I was really disappointed when you (the reviewer) mentioned a Straw Fallacy. I hardly find an idea or expression a straw fallacy when you express it on your own point of view. You as the reviewer seemed to have a prejudiced idea or notion about Science that you attacked Dalai Lama’s expression as a Straw Fallacy. According to Walton’s thesis that Straw Fallacies are committed when there is a shift from a type or context of dialogue to another(also presented in his thesis) which can be found here: http://www.dougwalton.ca/. Since he is expressing his own insight and not performing any dispute (symmetrical dialogue) or dissent (assymetrical dialogue) that I find your review a little bit guilty on bias and therefore, faulty in reasoning. The fault seems to be that you presented you own argument in the review and thus changed the context of an author-reader expression into a dispute. It is because you already have a view that you took it on the side of Science and praised it wholeheartedly that you’ve failed to consider what he is expressing and that is the Science and Religion thesis.

    Overall, I would like to thank you for the enlightening review since there are pojnts which are really good. The Karma and God part of the review is one.

Patreon: a new way to support the things skeptic creates

Get eSkeptic

Science in your inbox every Wednesday!

eSkeptic delivers great articles, videos, podcasts, reviews, event announcements, and more to your inbox once a week.

Sign me up!

Donate to Skeptic

Please support the work of the Skeptics Society. Make the world a more rational place and help us defend the role of science in society.

Detecting Baloney

Baloney Detection Kit Sandwich (Infographic) by Deanna and Skylar (High Tech High Media Arts, San Diego, CA)

The Baloney Detection Kit Sandwich (Infographic)

For a class project, a pair of 11th grade physics students created the infographic shown below, inspired by Michael Shermer’s Baloney Detection Kit: a 16-page booklet designed to hone your critical thinking skills.

FREE Video Series

Science Based Medicine vs. Alternative Medicine

Science Based Medicine vs. Alternative Medicine

Understanding the difference could save your life! In this superb 10-part video lecture series, Harriet Hall, M.D., contrasts science-based medicine with so-called “complementary and alternative” methods. The lectures each range from 32 to 45 minutes.

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Myths of Terrorism

Is Terrorism an Existential Threat?

This free booklet reveals 10 myths that explain why terrorism is not a threat to our way of life or our survival.

FREE PDF Download

The Top 10 Weirdest Things

The Top Ten Strangest Beliefs

Michael Shermer has compiled a list of the top 10 strangest beliefs that he has encountered in his quarter century as a professional skeptic.

FREE PDF Download

Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future (paperback cover)

Who believes them? Why? How can you tell if they’re true?

What is a conspiracy theory, why do people believe in them, and why do they tend to proliferate? Why does belief in one conspiracy correlate to belief in others? What are the triggers of belief, and how does group identity factor into it? How can one tell the difference between a true conspiracy and a false one?

FREE PDF Download

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

Do you know someone who has had a mind altering experience? If so, you know how compelling they can be. They are one of the foundations of widespread belief in the paranormal. But as skeptics are well aware, accepting them as reality can be dangerous…

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Myths About Evolution

Top 10 Myths About Evolution (and how we know it really happened)

If humans came from apes, why aren’t apes evolving into humans? Find out in this pamphlet!

FREE PDF Download

Learn to be a Psychic in 10 Easy Lessons

Learn to do Psychic “Cold Reading” in 10
Easy Lessons

Psychic readings and fortunetelling are an ancient art — a combination of acting and psychological manipulation.

Copyright © 1992–2017. All rights reserved. The Skeptics Society | P.O. Box 338 | Altadena, CA, 91001 | 1-626-794-3119. Privacy Policy.