|
EDUCATION AND THE NEW SCIENCES: Bridging the Gap Between Science and Spirituality Dr. Yoav Ben-Dov Cohn Institute for the History and
Philosophy of Science and Ideas, Tel-Aviv University presentation delivered at the June 26th -
28th, 2006 – Bangalore, India many people today, scientists and non-scientists, believe that science and spirituality are opposites
and cannot live together. aims of this presentation:
realize that this statement is incorrect
within the framework of current science
understand why it is still widely
believed
suggest ways to change this situation
part 1: ORIGINS in traditional societies, the worldview is "organic", taking its inspiration and concepts from the world of living bodies. in such a worldview, there is no separation between the study of material nature and spiritual aspirations (religion, mysticism). modern science began in the 16-17th
centuries as an offshoot of mystical and occult studies. Porta, Paracelsus:
origins of experimental science in alchemy and high magic. Newton, Kepler
(following Pythagoras, Plato):
the idea of cosmic rationality as a basis of mathematical physics.
"The finest emotion of
which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art
and all true science" Albert Einstein, "Science,
Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941.
part 2: THE DIVIDE
The break between science and
spirituality originates in the 18th century, with the mechanistic
interpretation of modern science (Descartes, Laplace).
mechanism: objective reality of matter (the
world from the viewpoint of an impersonal "external observer") mechanical causality - no
meaning, purpose or finality linearity, reduction to basic parts, determinism
in the worldview of mechanism, there
is no place for spirituality, religion or mysticism.
part 3: THE NEW SCIENCES
non-mechanistic sciences of the 20th
century:
quantum mechanics chaos, fractal geometry complexity theory quantum mechanics: the electron - wave or particle? complementarity:
different descriptions of the same object may be mutually exclusive, but all
true - each in a different experimental context. choice of the context: observer-dependence quantum mechanics eludes any mechanistic
interpretation. objectivity --> observer-dependence "one true description" --> complementarity quantum mechanics does not imply a
rejection of the spiritual experience (which is complementary to the scientific
description of nature). In fact, many features of quantum mechanics resemble ideas from "organic" traditions. complementarity <--> "neti-neti", the
"neither-nor" of Hindu logic polymorphic monotheism:
many gods, many images and conflicting stories - absolute reality is beyond
the grasp of human language, so that every human description
is only partial and observer-dependent. sources: pioneers of quantum mechanics
F. Capra: The Tao of Physics (and
followers)
film: What the Bleep
Do We Know? other points of similarity between
quantum mechanics and organic/spiritual worldviews: non-separability (EPR
experiment) <--> holistic
(system) thinking no separate object self-identity <--> "an-atman" of
Buddhist philosophy, "advaita" of
Vedanta philosophy. "computerized" new sciences at
the end of the 20th century: chaos
fractal geometry
complexity theory, autopoiesis, connected
networks.. these new sciences display similar
features: not mechanical
bearing similarities with
organic/spiritual worldviews examples:
chaos theory <--> Chinese
Taoist philosophy (Briggs and
Peat: Turbulent Mirror) fractal geometry <--> traditional
worldviews:
African (R. Eglash: African
Fractals) Hindu (cosmology, temple architecture..) fractal worldviews (the
following graphics are taken from the "fractals" presentation. to see the complete presentation, press here) holistic medicine: the whole body is
mapped unto any of its parts
mystical experience: the part (human
consciousness) becomes identical with the whole (cosmic consciouesness)
William Blake, 1757-1827 fractals in africa and india
a self-similar layout repeating itself, with the same proportions, in
smaller and smaller scales Hindu time cycles bhavanga - consciousness wave (microseconds) Hindu
temple surface decoration: fractal patterns
part 4: EDUCATION the new, non mechanical sciences are well
accepted into the scientific consensus. yet, both the general public and most of
mainstream scientific / technical / medical communities hold a
positivist-mechanical image of science, and believe that science
and spirituality are opposites. why is this so? current school education begins with
classical, mechanistic science, which remains the focus of the science
curriculum throughout high school.
only much later, in the university (and
not in all disciplines), the new sciences are taught. thus, members of the general public that
finish their science studies at school level keep a
mechanistic image of science.
only a minority will come to appreciate
the significance of the new sciences, for example through popular science/new
age literature. as for members of the scientific /
technical / medical communities, they come from among the most successful
science students at high school level.
this is a selection effect: those are
exactly the students that tend to identify most strongly with the view of
science presented at high school. this tendency is reinforced by the study
material and its explicit and implicit messages. when at a much later stage, when (if at
all) they finally get to study the new sciences, they tend to interpret
the new material in terms of the old mechanistic framework, and
to ignore the discrepancies from the mechanistic paradigm.
therefore, notwithstanding their study
of the new sciences, many of them keep the view that
science and spirituality are antagonistic. conclusion: to remedy this situation,
and help people better to integrate science and spirituality in their life
and their worldview, it is recommended that ideas and
images from the new sciences be introduced from the early stages of science
education, and remain central in the curriculum throughout school education. how can it be done? quantum mechanics at mid-school level, quantum mechanics
can be taught only as "popular science". this can be done in ways
similar to popular presentations of q.m. in books, films ("bleep")
etc. in parallel, it is important to present
the introductory courses in "classical" science not as "the
truth about reality", as it is done today, but as "an approach to
reality", which can coexist with other approaches. it is also suggested to discuss in a
balanced way the pre-assumptions of the classical /
cartesian method and the relations between scientific and holistic
approaches, e.g. in medicine. chaos, fractals and complexity here the situation is different: young students
can play and experience "the real thing" through play with computer
simulations and observations in nature. examples: software for fractal creation (like
"fractint"), accessible to 8-10 years old children chaos, non-linearity, self-emergence and
complexity in computer games like "sims", "spore"
(forthcoming 2007) etc. thus, it is possible to construct
educational versions of similar software, along with a corresponding
pedagogical approach and study materials, which will be adequate for elementary
school level.
|
