Read an Excerpt

CHAPTER 1

Setting the Scene

When Albert Einstein was in his late fifties, he wrote an article called Physics and Reality in which he concluded that science rests on unknowable mysteries. Why does the universe show an elegant and beautiful form? Why does it seem to have a hidden structure that is comprehensible with conceptual theory and algebraic equations? From where or what do scientific laws come, and why do they seem to govern the physical world? These questions had brought Einstein to a conviction that the theories and formulae of scientific knowledge convey only part of reality. Beyond them, he surmised, lie the immeasurable, the inexplicable and even the miraculous.

You too have mysterious layers that science struggles to reach. Consciousness, subjectivity, meaning, purpose, and morality defy the objective lens of the scientist in part or whole. I will never know what it feels like to be you, nor you me, no matter how much science we learn. Furthermore, many of the deepest experiences in your life, such as the feeling of unconditional love or the sublime beauty of a natural scene, are impossible to fully describe in the words and numbers upon which science depends. They require more subtle modes of depiction. The areas that science struggles to reach and explain are the natural territory of spirituality – it thrives in the unknown and transcendental, and in the subjective depths of lived experience.

Science and spirituality have both separated from religion over the course of the modern era into different, yet complementary, domains of inquiry. Spirituality still draws on ideas and practices from organized religion, while taking a more experiential and eclectic ethos to its subject matter than the latter. In many ways, it can be seen as religion's unconventional and inquisitive younger sibling. To understand the formative give-and-take between spirituality and religion is an important first step towards making sense of the rest of the book, so it is to this topic that I turn first.

Comparing spirituality and religion

Organized religion combines sacred rituals, rules, beliefs, texts, and codes of behavior into a formally recognized social institution. The first religion that included a written scripture appeared in Ancient Egypt around 3000 BCE. Over the subsequent millennia, organized religion spread across the rest of the world, as civilizations grasped the varied benefits of structuring the spiritual impulse into manageable groups and hierarchies. Indeed the word hierarchy has religious origins – it comes from the Ancient Greek word hierarkhes, which means sacred rank.

The great religions of Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all of which emerged between 500 BCE and 500 CE, perfected this system of formalizing and containing the spiritual life within circumscribed institutions. They all developed an explicit membership system, whereby a convert would state their allegiance, publicly become a member, and henceforth agree to adopt the conventions and rules of the collective. Membership of one religion precluded being a member of another, which meant clear boundaries were established between religious communities. In return for this loyalty and singular commitment to the group, members were promised a defined path to salvation or enlightenment.

Today, the major religions continue to use this group membership system. To become a member one must undergo a joining or conversion ritual, then adhere to the core beliefs and practices that are required for membership. In drawing together large numbers of individuals under an agreed set of conventions and a common purpose, religious groups are powerful structures indeed, and this power has historically been used for good and ill. The charitable and educational work of religious groups has been enduring and widespread, but the corruption of religion for violent or controlling ends has also been immense. Weighing these positive and negative effects against one another is hard, for they are not directly comparable in a quantifiable sense. Supporters of religion will tend to focus on the positive side, critics on the negative side, and arguments continue to this day.

Over the past four centuries, religion has been challenged by a more recent kind of experimental, de-institutionalized approach to matters of the sacred. Since the early twentieth century, it has been mainly referred to as spirituality. It includes the open exploration of topics such as ultimate purpose, transcendence, the divine, spiritual healing, yoga, meditation, states of consciousness, enlightenment, sacredness, prayer, love, ecstasy and the nature of the soul or higher self. In contrast to religion's emphasis on social stability and continuity, spirituality emphasizes exploration, transformation and growth. Correspondingly, at the center of religion one finds a strong focus on the past, in the shape of historical scripture and the upholding of traditions. In contrast, at the core of spirituality one finds a focus on the future, in ideas and practices that pertain to the realization of higher potentials in self and society.

In comparison to the communal framework provided by religion, the personalized approach of spirituality leads to more pluralism of belief, with individuals often drawing on multiple sources of inspiration. Although this may seem like a loose 'pick-n-mix' approach, it has been used productively by philosophy for centuries. Students and experts in philosophy find their own integration from the many theories and arguments in the field. It is neither expected nor desired that all philosophers should think the same, or come to the same conclusions. Indeed it is precisely the dynamic differences between them that keep philosophical ideas as living truths rather than dead dogma. This same kind of eclecticism invigorates spirituality, and keeps its ethos helpfully distinct from religion.

While many choose to pursue spirituality without affiliating to a religion, they are not mutually exclusive and can be combined in productive ways. Many liberal religious groups now accept the value of reaching out spiritually into areas beyond their own boundaries and practices. Notable examples are the Quakers, Unitarians, Liberal Anglicans, liberal strands of Sufism such as The Sufi Order; liberal Judaism exemplified by the Rabbi Michael Lerner's Network of Spiritual Progressives; as well as many moderate strands of Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism. These open and tolerant religious groups in the West tend to be less visible and vocal than the more exclusivist and fundamentalist sects, so the atheists and agnostics who look at religion from afar may well only hear the loud shouts of the hard-liners, and may miss the subtle and open messages that are proffered by religious moderates and liberals.

A negative manifestation of how religion and spirituality can mix is the phenomenon of the modern cult. Many cults are based on the same transformative practices and ideas that are explored openly in spirituality, but within a highly controlled environment that has fixed boundaries, a lack of questioning, and deference to authoritarian leaders. Cults are manifestations of what happens when spirituality is led away from free exploration and autonomous thinking towards dangerous credulity. I will argue over the course of the book that it is precisely the input of the scientific mindset that prevents spirituality from drifting into gullibility and cultish forms.

The harmonies of science and spirituality

Over the course of the book, I will be putting forward the case that science and spirituality are harmonious partners in the quest for truth, well-being and wisdom. Harmony, whether in ideas, music or art, occurs when different things that contrast with each other are combined to create a higher-order whole. The word harmony comes from the Latin harmonia, which means joining together. In music, harmony is created when different notes with complementary frequencies come together in such a way that they combine into a higher unity. In art, harmonious combinations are produced by juxtaposing colors that are opposites on the 'color wheel' (such as orange and blue, or green and red). In the domain of ideas, harmony is created when two or more contrasting ideas bring a greater understanding together than one does alone, despite the tension between them. In sum, all kinds of harmony involve a paradoxical mix of both difference and commonality.

In considering science and spirituality, certain key commonalities provide the foundation for harmony. Firstly, both science and spirituality are transformative and active ways of knowing through experience. One can read about them and talk about them, but that is unlikely to lead to any progress in either. Doing them is achieved by undertaking particular kinds of embodied activity over an extended period, after receiving the right kind of training. For the scientist, the physical activity that is necessary is data collection from the external world, via traveling to the data collection site, gathering field notes, taking measurements, making observations and specimen-gathering. For the spiritual practitioner, the embodied practices used to facilitate development include meditation, yoga, tai chi, centering prayer, dance, singing and playing music, psychotherapy, psychedelic exploration, ethical activism, and helping activities such as charitable work or caring for the sick.

By pursuing the right methods, and by accepting a fair amount of trial and error, the assumption in both science and spirituality is that a practitioner will develop a more accurate conception of reality, and so move closer to the truth and further from falsity.

Science pursues truth through its methodology that links the collection of external evidence with mathematics and reasoned thinking. The intention in the scientific method is to elicit dispassionate and objective knowledge about the external world, which transcends any individual point of view and is superior to common sense.

Spirituality pursues truth not as something beyond subjective consciousness but as a state of awakeness and higher awareness within it. Through practice, the seeker connects with a "ground of being" beyond ego, which is felt to be a source of authentic love, compassion and peace, that connects people and other living things together. It is as though we are all cups of ocean water, and through spiritual practice, we eventually realize our true identity as ocean, not cup.

A second key commonality is that both science and spirituality entail reflective questioning, criticality, and a wariness of dogma. Within science, critical thinking is highly valued and all research is scrutinized by other scientists as part of the peer-review process, to help ensure quality control. Scientists are encouraged to self-criticize too, and to constantly reflect on limitations and ways of improving their methods and theories.

The reflective and critical processes of spirituality are more informal than those of science, but no less important. Mature spiritual questioning entails reflecting on whether what is being experienced or learned via one's practice is congruent with reason and intuition, and helpful to personal and social development. Critical reflection is further facilitated by talking to others and by perusing the ever-expanding literature on spirituality. Feelings are integral to the reflection process, as often they are gut indications about issues that conscious thought sometimes struggles to grasp.

In addition to these commonalities of (a) learning through experience and (b) critical reflection, the harmony of science and spirituality is a product of their complementary differences, seven of which I look at in this book. I define these seven using the following pairs of opposites:

1. Outer Inner
Between each pair of opposites there runs a spectrum of difference that creates a 'path' between the concept shown on the left, which is traditionally associated with science, and the concept on the right, which is associated with spirituality. This is a matter of degree rather than absolute; the methods and activities of science have an emphasis on the left-hand side concepts, while spirituality has an emphasis on the concepts listed on the right-hand side. Within each spectrum of difference, there are intermediary positions that combine and hybridize science and spirituality, like shades of gray created by mixing black and white.

In Chapters 3 to 9 of the book, I journey down each path in turn, stopping off at various points from one end to the other, including frontier areas that sit at the interface between science and spirituality. In Chapter 10 I draw the threads of the discussion together, by proposing how the polarities can all be seen as expressions of one fundamental duality.

Seven is an auspicious number for the scheme, given that it is rich in scientific and spiritual meaning. On the scientific side, it has unique mathematical qualities; for example, it is the only number between 1 and 10 that cannot be divided or multiplied to make a number between 1 and 10. It is found in a variety of natural systems, including seven colors in a rainbow, seven notes in both major and minor musical scales, seven rings around Saturn, and seven diatomic elements in the periodic table.

In religion and spirituality, seven also has a special place. In Christianity, Islam and Judaism, there are seven days of creation, and Christianity refers to seven deadly sins and seven virtues. The Book of Revelation is full of the number – there are seven churches, seven spirits, seven seals and seven trumpets. In the Talmud and Koran there are seven heavens, and when Muslims pilgrimage to Mecca they walk around the Kaaba seven times to represent this. Seven is prevalent in Eastern religion too; in Hinduism there are seven higher worlds and seven lower worlds, while the system of subtle energies that underpins yoga conceives of seven chakras in the human body. Given all this scientific and spiritual resonance, it is no surprise that in a recent multinational poll, seven was found to be the world's favorite number.

Those of you who are familiar with the science-religion debate will notice passing similarities between the scheme presented in this book and the Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) theory of science and religion developed by the paleontologist Steven J. Gould. Like Gould, I suggest that science has limitations that allow space for other ways of knowing, but there are fundamental differences between his scheme and mine. Firstly, Gould's scheme only refers to Christianity. In contrast, this book is about spirituality and hence not about any one religion in particular.

Another key difference is that Gould proposes that science and religion cannot mix. He uses the analogy of oil and water to visualize this – if oil and water are put in a jar, they create two distinct layers and don't mix even at the join. That, says Gould, is how religion and science are. In contrast, I propose that science and spirituality definitely do mix and overlap. There are scientific approaches to spirituality and spiritual approaches to science, and this interface area between the two is a fascinating and controversial area that I look at in various ways across the chapters of this book.

The seven dialectics all contribute to an integrative model, which is presented in the final chapter. I call it the Multiple Overlapping Dialectics (MODI) model. But let's not get ahead of ourselves – there's much groundwork to do first in presenting all seven elements of the model. This allows the big picture to emerge gradually and digestibly. The next task is to briefly outline the process of how to think with dialectics and polarities, and how that relates to positive human development.

Dialectical thinking

Dialectical thinking has been employed for millennia by philosophers, theologians, mystics, scientists, and psychologists as a way of reconciling the tension of opposites, and of integrating apparent contradictions. It is often referred to as 'both-and' thinking due to its preference for seeking to integrate two contrasting ideas, rather than choosing one and rejecting the other. Perhaps the most famous advocate of dialectical reasoning in the West was the philosopher Hegel. He proposed that ideas evolve through a process of dialectical interaction, whereby an idea or theory (a thesis) is presented, and then opposing or critical ideas are presented (an antithesis). As a dialogue between the two sides proceeds, resolution occurs through a higher-order synthesis that integrates both the thesis and antithesis. This synthesis of the two then becomes a new thesis, and the process starts all over again. Over time, this process of dialectical challenge and integration leads to greater harmony and oneness in knowledge.

---

Excerpted from "Paths Between Head and Heart"
by .
Copyright © 2017 Oliver C. Robinson.
Excerpted by permission of John Hunt Publishing Ltd..
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---