[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
in engineers who design and create their research instruments. But all such faith is
combined with a healthy sense of pragmatism; and it is not blind. Such faith has an
important role in both scientific and contemplative inquiry; indeed, progress in both
fields may be impossible without it.
CONCLUSION
No Boundaries
The Scientific Study of Religious Experience
In a refreshing departure from all forms of religious and scientific dogmatism,
William James proposes a science of religion that differs from philosophical theology by
drawing inferences and devising imperatives based on a scrutiny of the immediate
content of religious consciousness. 1 This approach, he suggests, must be empirical rather
than rationalistic, focusing on religious experience rather than religious doctrines and
institutions. He elaborates on this point as follows.
Let empiricism once become associated with religion, as hitherto, through some strange
misunderstanding, it has been associated with irreligion, and I believe that a new era of
religion as well as philosophy will be ready to begin ... I fully believe that such an
empiricism is a more natural ally than dialectics ever were, or can be, of the religious
life. 2
Such a science of religion, he suggests, can offer mediation between different believers,
and help to bring about consensus of opinion ;3 and he pondered whether such a science
might command public adherence comparable to that presently granted to the physical
sciences. Even the personally nonreligious might accept its conclusions on trust, much
as blind persons now accept the facts of optics it might appear as foolish to refuse
them. 4
By the end of the nineteenth century, many physicists were utterly convinced that
there were no more great discoveries to be made in their field: understanding of the
physical universe was in all important respects complete. One of the few lingering
problems to be solved, known as the ultra-violet catastrophe, had to do with the
incompatibility of entropy-energy formulas derived from classical thermodynamics. The
solution to this problem came from Max Planck, who thereby laid the foundation for
modern quantum theory, which shook the very foundations of physicists views of the
universe.5
While there is certainly no comparable sense that the cognitive sciences have
formulated a comprehensive theory of the brain and mind far to the contrary! many
experts in this field have concluded beyond a shadow of a doubt that consciousness is
produced solely by the brain and that it has no causal efficacy apart from the brain. The
fact that modern science has failed to identify the nature or origins of consciousness in no
way diminishes the certainty of those scientific materialists. When empirical knowledge
of the nature and potentials of consciousness replaces these current metaphysical
assumptions, I expect the problem of consciousness will turn out to have a role in the
history of science comparable to that of the ultraviolet catastrophe.
The most effective way to acquire such knowledge is by a concerted,
collaborative effort on the part of professional cognitive scientists and professional
contemplatives, using their combined extraspective and introspective skills to tackle the
hard problem of consciousness. This might entail, among other things, longitudinal
studies of the gradual development of sustained, voluntary attention by people devoting
themselves to contemplative training with the same dedication displayed by the scientists
and engineers working on the Manhattan Project. The successful completion of those
efforts to tap atomic and nuclear power changed the face of the modern world. The
successful completion of such research into refined states of attention might do so as
well; and if such an endeavor were pursued with the altruistic aims promoted by the great
contemplative traditions of the world, the consequences for humanity may be more
uniformly beneficial. This would be a refreshing departure from scientific research into
mind control that has focused on controlling others minds by means of drugs, other
(often painful) physical stimuli, and indoctrination.
When considering the many years of arduous training and practice by
accomplished contemplatives in the past, some researchers are bound to look for
shortcuts, which purportedly reach the same ends with relatively little time, effort, shift of
priorities, or personal sacrifice. Although it is always worthwhile to explore ever more
efficient ways of pursuing knowledge, the type of contemplative research needed is one
that has a parity with and complements neuroscientific research. There are no shortcuts to
gaining an undergraduate and graduate education in the neurosciences, and the
development of technologies that have advanced this field has been made only with long,
hard work. It is unreasonable to expect that contemplative training should be any less
demanding or time-consuming than scientific training; and if the former is left at an
amateur level, there will be no contemplative science worthy of the name in our
civilization.
There is bound to be considerable resistance among scientific materialists to such
interdisciplinary and crosscultural research. Some might argue, for instance, that science
should always seek new, unprecedented modes of research and not revert to prescientific
theories and methods of inquiry. In particular, any collaborative association between
science and traditional religions will certainly raise deep qualms. Such misgivings are
based in part on the view that the great discoverers of the past had to battle against the [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl ocenkijessi.opx.pl
in engineers who design and create their research instruments. But all such faith is
combined with a healthy sense of pragmatism; and it is not blind. Such faith has an
important role in both scientific and contemplative inquiry; indeed, progress in both
fields may be impossible without it.
CONCLUSION
No Boundaries
The Scientific Study of Religious Experience
In a refreshing departure from all forms of religious and scientific dogmatism,
William James proposes a science of religion that differs from philosophical theology by
drawing inferences and devising imperatives based on a scrutiny of the immediate
content of religious consciousness. 1 This approach, he suggests, must be empirical rather
than rationalistic, focusing on religious experience rather than religious doctrines and
institutions. He elaborates on this point as follows.
Let empiricism once become associated with religion, as hitherto, through some strange
misunderstanding, it has been associated with irreligion, and I believe that a new era of
religion as well as philosophy will be ready to begin ... I fully believe that such an
empiricism is a more natural ally than dialectics ever were, or can be, of the religious
life. 2
Such a science of religion, he suggests, can offer mediation between different believers,
and help to bring about consensus of opinion ;3 and he pondered whether such a science
might command public adherence comparable to that presently granted to the physical
sciences. Even the personally nonreligious might accept its conclusions on trust, much
as blind persons now accept the facts of optics it might appear as foolish to refuse
them. 4
By the end of the nineteenth century, many physicists were utterly convinced that
there were no more great discoveries to be made in their field: understanding of the
physical universe was in all important respects complete. One of the few lingering
problems to be solved, known as the ultra-violet catastrophe, had to do with the
incompatibility of entropy-energy formulas derived from classical thermodynamics. The
solution to this problem came from Max Planck, who thereby laid the foundation for
modern quantum theory, which shook the very foundations of physicists views of the
universe.5
While there is certainly no comparable sense that the cognitive sciences have
formulated a comprehensive theory of the brain and mind far to the contrary! many
experts in this field have concluded beyond a shadow of a doubt that consciousness is
produced solely by the brain and that it has no causal efficacy apart from the brain. The
fact that modern science has failed to identify the nature or origins of consciousness in no
way diminishes the certainty of those scientific materialists. When empirical knowledge
of the nature and potentials of consciousness replaces these current metaphysical
assumptions, I expect the problem of consciousness will turn out to have a role in the
history of science comparable to that of the ultraviolet catastrophe.
The most effective way to acquire such knowledge is by a concerted,
collaborative effort on the part of professional cognitive scientists and professional
contemplatives, using their combined extraspective and introspective skills to tackle the
hard problem of consciousness. This might entail, among other things, longitudinal
studies of the gradual development of sustained, voluntary attention by people devoting
themselves to contemplative training with the same dedication displayed by the scientists
and engineers working on the Manhattan Project. The successful completion of those
efforts to tap atomic and nuclear power changed the face of the modern world. The
successful completion of such research into refined states of attention might do so as
well; and if such an endeavor were pursued with the altruistic aims promoted by the great
contemplative traditions of the world, the consequences for humanity may be more
uniformly beneficial. This would be a refreshing departure from scientific research into
mind control that has focused on controlling others minds by means of drugs, other
(often painful) physical stimuli, and indoctrination.
When considering the many years of arduous training and practice by
accomplished contemplatives in the past, some researchers are bound to look for
shortcuts, which purportedly reach the same ends with relatively little time, effort, shift of
priorities, or personal sacrifice. Although it is always worthwhile to explore ever more
efficient ways of pursuing knowledge, the type of contemplative research needed is one
that has a parity with and complements neuroscientific research. There are no shortcuts to
gaining an undergraduate and graduate education in the neurosciences, and the
development of technologies that have advanced this field has been made only with long,
hard work. It is unreasonable to expect that contemplative training should be any less
demanding or time-consuming than scientific training; and if the former is left at an
amateur level, there will be no contemplative science worthy of the name in our
civilization.
There is bound to be considerable resistance among scientific materialists to such
interdisciplinary and crosscultural research. Some might argue, for instance, that science
should always seek new, unprecedented modes of research and not revert to prescientific
theories and methods of inquiry. In particular, any collaborative association between
science and traditional religions will certainly raise deep qualms. Such misgivings are
based in part on the view that the great discoverers of the past had to battle against the [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]