 Science and spirituality are often seen as being in conflict. Yet, are they both anchored in a common understanding of reality?
Comments: Scroll down to the bottom of the page to leave your comments and pointers to relevant resources for the program theme. (We will moderate the site to eliminate spam and reserve the right to shorten longer posts.) Social networking: You can support this show by sharing with Facebook, Linked-in, etc., using the share/save tool below. To skip the intro move the playhead to 02:42. Click here to return to the video directory. Download the audio (MP3) file: Science and Spirituality |
Dear both,
Tonight, I have watched your ‘all 5 shows’ ‘in one breath’ and already posted a reply, ‘just’ after seeing the first show….. This is ‘wise / complete material’, amazing material. I will refrain from many more thoughts that I have, perhaps later or in another way. This ‘is’ universal material and I am happy that as a European I am able to link into this from my home in France today. Great job. …. You having taken on some very fundamental ‘expressions about science and religion / spirituality’ in your previous shows I ‘hope’ this is an explorable (future) subject. Assuming it is not been seen as ‘too’ religiously hot ?
Thanks for your courageous dialog’s,
Dick
i enjoy listening to this!
Zero point energy was first explored by Nikola Tesla more than one hundred years ago and is, I’m told,
currently being examined by Tesla’s followers; he deserves credit for this and for warning the world against the use of fossil fuels for energy.
In future explorations of consciousness, can you explore Biocentrism? a concept formulate by Robert Lanza, much like an Anthropic Principle for Biology.
Do you have any future intention of involving others in your programs?
Thanks, Al Buono
I enjoyed the description of zero point energy. I’ll replay this segment again. Would like to understand it further.
Excellent conversation and discussion. The bigger issue, however, between science and religion has to do with who should rule this planet. Rulership and control is now mostly man centered. This man centered power/control/rulership leads to stress, conflict, friends/enemies, ends justifying the means, might makes right, and all the other psychological issues which derive from man’s rulership. I don’t think that becoming more aware or conscious will eliminate this basic issue of rulership and control. How can we as a global society transcend this desire for power/control/rulership (really an ego issue)? This is the big issue that we must confront (in my opinion). As our society breaks down in the coming years, we should witness this factor of ‘who should rule’ as our major issue…going forward. We witness this issue in some of the African states now. We witness this issue within the economic decision making that is taking place right now. Can man really rule this planet? If not, then who?
Who should rule? I would like to introduce …. let’s co-create … in the spirit of … we are one.
Hi Shema,
I agree 100%, it is time for us all to co-create together in the spirit of we are all one. We have come to make money our “God” in the point that we are willing to kill each other over a parking space or a pair of tennis shoes, …. We live in a society who believes in scarity and I feel we have lost or forgotten our spiritual connection to all of life. I truly believe all of our problems and most of our chronic diseases are more psychological than physical.
I am 50 years old and I have gone back to school for Alternative Medicine but lately I have been thinking about changing my major to and trying to attend the California Institute of Intergral Studies, who do research on consciousness. There are not many schools out there studying these types of things that you can get help on financing an education. But I feel these things are more important than any other discovery that we can make. I am not sure how we can turn all this around but what I do know is that I want to at least start finding people to explore the possiblities with. Such as with school, I am not sure if taking on thousands of dollars in debt to be able to study these things is a smart thing either. All I do know is that I do not want to sit around and just watch us destroy ourselves and it is quite obivious to me that our current system is going to break down, the way we are going now, this is not sustainable. I look forward to more of your shows and more discussions on how we can all come together and start doing what is good and right for all the beings on this planet and our universe.
Again with some of my studies it has taken me to the Zeitgeist Movement and some very interesting information that I think maybe everyone should at least look at with an open heart and mind. I thank you all for this discussion and I pray your day is Blessed in Love, Peace, and Happiness!!
….an organization called the Zeitgeist Movement goes into discussing how our current monetary system is flawed and unsustainable and that we need to change to a resource based economy where everyone is involved in making sure it works for the betterment of all living beings and the earth. You can check out their website and they just put out a new film yesterday 1/26/2011 called,”Zeitgeist Moving Forward.” I think everyone should check out this movie. I personally believe that we can fix these problems that we have going on if we decide to take care of each other instead of only ourselves. I am happy that we are beginning a discussion on the subject anyway. Thanks to Peter and Duane for having this show, it is inspiring to see that there are millions of people starting to wake up to the fact that we can do better than we are right now and I thank them that they have the courage to start the discussions. I pray your day is Blessed in Love, Peace, and Happiness!!!
Thanks, Pete and Duane, for these important discussions and for all you are doing to help increase our awareness.
I love it!!!! It is clear, and gives the opportunity to see both side of the coin. I wish we can have this in Spanish or to have English/Spanish subtitles it will go around the world. Would you accept guest or can we request names for interview? I am very grateful to received this information. Thank you,
Many thanks for a wonderful exchange!!
Could you next time explain more on that Zero-Point field in conjunction with Natural Mind? This so very important concept of NOW?
Science is a way to measure stuff. There are qualities in the natural world which can be given a number. Science has nothing at all to do with Spirituality. Spirituality is about feelings. One can assign numbers to feelings, and make pseudo science, but this is subjective. The social sciences are not really science, since they attempt to objectify subjectivity through statistics.
Religion is about assigning human qualities to imagined outside forces. And then people tell stories about these forces, and how they influence the world. Religion is about taking power away from the individual. This makes life easier to cope with psychologically. But it is a weakness.
I was drawn to this series because I admire Peter Russell. He is one of my heroes, along with Neale Donald Walsch, Gary Zukav, and others.
I would agree that science and spirituality are two different realms of reality. Science deals with all that I observe ‘outside’ my self. Spirituality deals with my ‘inner’ perceptions, thoughts, concepts, and images. Personally, I would suggest that we live within TWO realms of reality which could be described as the ‘outer’ and the ‘inner’. Dualism is reality and we use this type of thinking in all our activities. As an economist/philosopher, I would suggest that ‘money’ derives from our ‘inner’ being. We invent ‘money’ to serve as a ‘tool’ for creating physical wealth (the outer). We could eliminate ‘money’ and solve our economic problem via people…if we desired. Our current fiat money system could be described (scientifically) as ‘imaginary’. We are really living in the ‘spiritual’ realm with our ‘money’ today. But who is aware of this? Let’s eliminate ‘money’ and create a world of freedom and prosperity for everyone. D
I love Duane’s phrase, “an ecology of consciousness”, and although It’s new to me I immediately feel it’s truth, that is that although we all have our own awareness, this nestles within a universal awareness, sort of complete in itself but also an integral part of the whole. Is that what you’re getting at?
Exactly. Nicely stated!
Thank You, I’m already looking forwards to the next one, “be love now”.
“May the long time sun shine upon You,
all love surround You,
and the pure light within You,
guide Your way on”
I am studying to become a minister n the Church of Religious Science. I find many of your points are relevant and worthy to be considered further. I find no problem in the unification of the two subjects in order to avoid the dogma associated with formal relgious institutions. Thanks for the interesting info.
Hello Peter, I met you and heard you present From Science to God at the Inside Edge many years ago. I have read my autographed copy of your book several times and have used my understanding of your presentation of Conscious Universe in my book The Last Relationship Book You’ll Need. In viewing your recent program on Science and Spirit you made the comment that you don’t believe that atoms have consciousness. Doesn’t this contradict your premise in Science to God? I am thinking specifically of the question of how does consciousness arise from inanimate objects. If atoms are not conscious and we as humans are composed of unconscious atoms we have to go back to the religious premise that some outside force or being initiated consciousness in certain objects (humans, dolphins, trees, plants, etc) but not others, such as rocks. I agree with your concern about the word “consciousness” and making it into a noun. When discussing matters of Spirituality and the Mystery of Life we are trapped by our words. The minute we name it to distinguish it from something else or just to speak about it, we put it in a box that limits the experience to our capacity of words – we do this with the words such as God, Spirituality, Consciousness.
I seems to me that there are levels of consciousness that are present in the Universe. Again inventing words for these levels limits us but I will do my best. Perhaps there is the original or primary level which I name Presence. At the time of the Bang all in the universe was brought present – matter/anti-matter, energy/dark energy, the stuff of atoms etc. In my book I try to use the example that the big bang may have been God blowing up and infusing the universe with God’s presence or in terms i adopted from you Consciousness. From this possibility of Presence we have atoms and the inexplicable energy that holds them together come present. This Presentness of energy already always exists universally. From this Presence, or Isness as Richard Bock introduces in Illusions, and through evolution of atoms into things Consciousness is evolved to various levels. Obviously Trees, Plants, Fish, even our Liver and internal organs have and present a higher level of consciousness than say rocks. They live, exist and fulfill a function universally without thought or learning. From this level of universal Presence or Consciousness and through evolution consciousness evolves into various forms of awareness – Heliotropism for plants on up to our various forms of awareness in animals and ultimately to self-awareness in humans and perhaps other animals such as higher primates and dolphins. I claim that Presence is expanding and evolving into states that we cannot even fathom in our current state of Presence. I think of the Traveler in StarTrek, the Next Generation.
I would appreciate and request that you and Duane expand on your beginning tape of Consciousness and Spirituality. I don’t expect any answer, for that is one for individual selves to interpret, but your questions do evoke questions in listeners that at some point in communal life need to be addressed.
Thank you both for beginning these conversations. I have introduced your website to several friends and look forward to the conversations that may be initiated from their watching.
Be Well, Jim Collister
Jim, I probably wasn’t clear enough with my comments about atoms and consciousness. I believe that the capacity for experience is a universal quality and present in everything. So atoms would have consciousness in that sense – though only the faintest imaginable glimmer of what we know as consciousness. More a sort of protoconsciousness. Although the capacity is there, it has not taken on form. So what I meant was that atoms do not know consciousness as we know it.
Pete
Many years ago, when I was being examined for ordination in the United Church of Christ, I was asked who was my favorite theologian. My hearers were a little startled at my reply: Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Science and spirituality are twins, if not two sides of the same coin. Religion, wrongly used, has harmed people and societies. Science, wrongly used, has damaged ecology and societies. Both religion and science have been used to destructive and egocentric ends, but each, relieved of its fundamentalism, has the capacity to enlarge and enrich human experience, broaden our ethics and deepen our morality. One of the reasons I stay within the church is that it provides opportunity to explore, experience and celebrate our spirituality within community, wherein lies strength.
Apropos of twinship, no one has contributed more to the discussion than Fritz Capra. I also enjoy the emerging science of cosmology, which is often derided as the social sciences were a generation ago. I appreciate Brian Swimme, Elizabet Sahtouris and others as well as you, Peter, in this regard. What a great and scary time to be alive!
As an economist and philosopher I would suggest that we witness our spirituality and our science when we go to the grocery store. We purchase items from nature (milk, meat, bread) with ‘money’ that is derived from our consciousness (spirit). Most are unaware of this daily experience. Think about our ‘money’ and the concept of ‘value’ the next time you shop at a store. A sack of potatoes could represent science (a thing) and the ‘price’ of each potato could represent the manager’s view of ‘value’ (a non thing). Value is derived from our consciousness (mind) and the sack of potatoes is derived from the natural world (our planet). We experience this dual nature of reality without really thinking about it. We live within two realms of reality every moment of time…yet most seem unaware of this reality (my observation). I agree with Peter that life is lived in the now…and successive moments of now represents our experience of reality. I don’t see how anyone can escape the now…in living one’s life. Does anyone agree or disagree with this viewpoint? I enjoy the different perspectives on this blog. Thanks for initiating!
Keep the faith, my Internet friend. You are a first-class writer and deserve to be heard.
So Teslas’s work dealt with engendering energy from zero point perhaps we would do better to try and be immersed in the flow of zero point energy. Also in discussing free will, recent studies have shown that the brain anticipates for instance pictures before the eyes actually see them. Peter talks about the brain anticipating movements before we actually make them doesn’t that suggest a ‘dumb terminal’ theory that our brains are part of a non random, non chaotic, organizing matrix?
Nice work you two and interesting comments. Great to see you Peter. This was the first piece I listened to so will now embark on the rest…….
Peter and Duane
Thank you for sharing your hearts in this site. It is true that worlds and points of view are swept by the time created in our minds but your essence and devotion for spread the Light of the Universe in this human world will remain for the eternity.
Love
Luis
I have to take issue with you on your characterization of science. Science is fundamentally a way of knowing even more than a body of knowledge. Which science, ecology, biological science, cybernetics? My problem with the entire community of those who postulate a spiritual universe is their characterization of science as fundamentalist. As scientists you should know better.
You’re into the realm of religion with you begin speculating about consciousness. The difference is that science would hold it as a hypothesis and set out to prove or disprove it. Whether or not I believe it is immaterial.
You ought to admit that you are hypothesizing. It is a very dangerous precedent for you to putting this out as truth by way of authority, yours.
Dear Dr. Jackson. Thank you for your comments; however, I respectfully but profoundly disagree with your assertion that consciousness belongs strictly to the realm of “religion.” There is an enormous amount of research testing various hypotheses about the nature of “consciousness” that ranges from the quantum nature of reality (where consciousness and the observer are vital to the collapse of the wave function of reality into the discrete expressions that we see in our everyday lives) to decades of laboratory research on the nature of consciousness not being restricted to a narrow, brain-based phenomena. Your comments seem to suggest the shallow fundamentalism of the old sciences of a universe comprised of inert matter and empty space. I’m open to being mistaken.
Thanks for taking the time to respond, Duane. I was not locating consciousness within the realm of religion, I was merely observing that you were speaking about it as though you were coming from a place of belief rather than a place of exploration as we should when speaking from within the realm of science. Again, you are proving my point, by labeling my comment as shallow fundamentalist without even bothering to question whether I understand the universe as comprised of inert matter which of course I do not nor would any scientist within the contemporary scientific community. You do a great disservice to those of us who are scientists when you make assumptions about science even while you are using science to validate and verify your understanding of consciousness. My argument is with the way you characterize scientists as superficial fundamentalists as though they were of a whole cloth. By the way, I’ve been reading your work for 30 years and voluntary simplicity was one that moved me to change my life so it is from this place of disppointment that I write; not as an outsider. I am ever increasingly disturbed by the misrepresentation of science generally and Darwin in particular by those who would claim to have a new take on reality. It is not necessary to trash those upon whose backs we stand in order to proclaim our relevance during this challenging time. I have observed during my years as scientist, and mystic that we often are much more versed and cautious of our own point of view than we are of the one we are leaving behind.
Thanks for clarifying my mis-understanding Dr. Jackson. I appreciate that you do see the universe as did Plato–as a living system, and I stand corrected! I see that I misunderstood your view that consciousness is a “hypothesis” (as it is now such a fundamental attribute of the quantum nature of reality and beyond). Still, in my experience with mainstream scientists, I have not found the openness to the universe as a living system imbued with consciousness that you seem to suggest. Overall, I do think a shallow (mechanistic only) fundamentalism is an accurate description of mainstream science. Again, I’m open to being mistaken. I do appreciate your work to integrate these realms as our future depends on exploring and integrating these depths.
Duane, within the community of co-evolutionists and consciousness leaders, I have found many who put forth their view as fundamental and true. They are mainstream are they not within this community? Yet, I am assuming that there are others who hold a view that is more open to other possibilities. I do not believe that any of us can assume to have the truth. That is the essence of intellectual integrity. I feel very strongly that those of us (and particularly you and others who are well respected and known in the field, continually leave space open for other truths. I say this because there are so many possibilities for co-optation when we do otherwise. For example, when we claim that science lacks validity, or put forth our expanded worldview as though it were truth, we lend credence to the view that all stories are equally valid. This opens the door for intelligent design or creationism to be taught in schools along side Darwinian evolution.
When we speak of mainstream science as though it were whole cloth, we deny the variation among scientists. Most of the individuals who have impacted our world were scientists who were not mainstream scientists who fought there way to recognition. Yet they were scientists through and through. There is not one scientific enterprise. However the one truth that is essential to scientific ways of knowing is the requirement that our ways of exploring reality are valid and reliable. This intellectual integrity is also essential when we are addressing ways of knowing within the spiritual realm. Most recently I watched a program on NPR about mysticism. A rabbi, a sufi, and a Benedictine Monk discussed religious experience. The rabbi said that when a mystic hears the voice it is important that he validate with the word, an elder and friends. I believe that this admonition is critical to our discourse about consciousness, that it remain in the realm of community so that we may constantly verify and validate our assumptions and conclusions with each other. I also hope that you agree with me that as leaders we must continually remind each other than we are actually confronting a great mystery and that we approach it with respect for all ways of knowing including science. As I read through the responses to your work, I recognize the degree to which your followers accept your teachings and it is with this in mind that I make these requests in humility. I was recently at the decisive decade conference at Whidbey Institute at which you were quoted verbatim. It is for this reason that I decided to take my discomfort directly to the source. Eileen
Dear Dr. Jackson, I certainly agree that, “…as leaders we must continually remind each other than we are actually confronting a great mystery and that we approach it with respect for all ways of knowing including science.” Thank you for this important reminder!
Dear Eileen, In response to your comment above “As I read through the responses to your work, I recognize the degree to which your followers accept your teachings and it is with this in mind that I make these requests in humility.”
I wish to go on record to say that I utilize these conversations between Pete and Duane as a source to stimulate my thinking and feeling about issues and questions I am engaged in. It is my job to not “accept teachings” but to rather learn to think for myself. I’m experiencing Pete and Duane modeling thinking for themselves, and it stimulates me to think and feel more deeply within myself. And I sincerely appreciate this forum to share my evolving awareness in a public way.
Thank you for your courage to engage in this exploration.
Dear Duane,
I appreciate your remark “I do appreciate your work to integrate these realms as our future depends on exploring and integrating these depths”.
I applaud you for diving into this exchange. I notice my stomach tightening whenever differences of opinion arise. I need to remind myself to relax my body and breathe deeply and fully. I find that our world does not seem to model “explorations into discomfort” very well. Thank you Eileen and Duane for modeling this exploration for us.
You’re welcome Duane,
I remind myself at the same time.
Dear Pete and Duane
Your shows are beautiful. I am now into the Science and Spirituality part with focus on conscious(ness).
I liked the distinction Peter made using consciousness as an adjective – I am conscious.
However then you said the following:
“When a being is in a relaxed state – It´s conciousness is in a relaxed state”
What do you mean by that – if being conscious is the faculty of having experiences – how can something like that be relaxed.
Dont you refer to the mind being relaxed – the natural mind – as you call it soon after in the video.
With respect for that I havent read all the comments above.
/Marie
Eileen: Your comment above with regard to ‘truth’ seems totally valid to me. Your assumption that no single person can expect to enunciate final ‘truth’ on any issue (especially the issue of consciousness) rings true to me also. Personally, I would differ somewhat from the view of Duane and Peter when it comes to their nondual philosophy. The idea that all reality can be expressed in a nondual format does not ring true to an economist…like myself. I don’t know if this web site allows contrary points of view or not. If not, then this idea will not be allowed by the moderator. I have learned much from the ideas of Peter on the issue of consciousness and spirituality. His web site is excellent and I also agree with his perspective on much of what confronts science today. On the issue of a nondual reality, however, I must differ. My comments above would be relevant with respect to the issue of dualism. Dualism is an old philosophy, espoused by Plato and Descartes, and mostly abandoned by Western philosophies today. My view, however, is that Dualism is how we all think when we practice economics in the marketplace. See above for why?
Both spirituality and science search for reality .
Human beings sooner or later awake to the need of knowing what do we do here and what is our connection with totality .
Science is the formal way of finding out through observation and intelligence , while spirituality is relying in the intuitive mind free of ties that expects to wake up to reality through full conciousness .
In fact science and spirituality are nowdays helping each other in their common goal …..
The concept of nonduality seems like a goal that could be realistic if ‘motion’ were eliminated from observation. My sense is that matter and energy exist because of ‘motion’. All that I observe within the outer universe appears to be in continuous ‘motion’. From quantum phenomena to galaxies…all seems to be in ‘motion’. If ‘motion’, however, were eliminated from our consciousness, then the outer universe (it seems) would disappear…all would become consciousness or an inner experience. Idealism might then become the nondual reality for everyone. Experiences in the now, however, suggest (to me) that we experience a dual type of reality. Mind or consciousness is distinct from matter/energy. Science and spirituality are current examples of our dual nature. As an economist, I witness this dual nature as I differentiate between things (goods) and value (expressed in monetary units). Dualism seems to manifest itself in the marketplace as we negotiate over value and price.
While dualism certainly dominates the marketplace mentality, I think you have pointed out a key concept; namely, that the entire universe is in motion as a co-arising system. When the flow of our attention matches the flow of the universe arising, then there is stillness within motion–a non-dual experience where we are experiencing the simultaneous arising of attention and the world.
I tend to agree with Peter that science is basically a non-dual philosophy and religion is also primarily a non-dual philosophy. Science tends to view reality as the physical stuff which we all experience outside our mind; whereas religion tends to focus mostly on one’s inner experience. When we combine the two philosophies, however, we end up with dualism. I don’t think we can eliminate dualism from the human race as both science and religion play an important role in our daily experiences. All of history seems to demonstrate that both philosophies are important and relevant to the human species.
I am so glad to have “stumbled” into your website Peter, and these enriching conversations with Duane – thank you both! I always thought of free will as being the choice we have, when free from fear, or at least conscious of the fear as a wise observer – in those moments we are the most “free” to choose the most creative path (i.e. love). Of course, if we believe we are born of God, then ultimately it’s God’s intention of love which has the final say in the course of our evolution because the fear always dissolves as illusion in the end. In this case we aren’t technically free but it doesn’t really matter – the main thing is following what feels wholesome and works. Whether that was our own creation or from a deity, let’s just find good vibes!
Donald’s point about dualism is so important, in order to understand how experience of illusion is needed for our development to see (literally) the light again. It is a hard nut to crack sometimes with so much suffering and some obvious obsessive culprits for this, but if we can focus on the eternity of being and how suffering can always be learnt from, then it is so much easier to accept such people as sleepers going through an early development.
That is not to say these psychopaths don’t need to be locked up and given good therapy