Science and Spirituality: Gifts and Limits (Part II) Spirituality/Religion: Gifts and Limits John K Graham, M.D., D.Min. The Institute for Spirituality and Health at the Texas Medical Center, Houston, TX 77054
Outline of talk Definitions: Spirituality / Religion Look at benefits of Religion to humanity Overview of major World Religions Religion and impact on science Challenge Creationism, Intelligent Design The limits of Spirituality and Religion Elaine Ecklund s Science vs. Religion Bringing Science and Religion together
I. DEFINING SPIRITUALITY Keith Ward: All, or most, human beings have similar basic intellectual and emotive drives, and one of those drives is the desire to relate to a transcendent reality, or a belief that they can do so. The Case FOR Religion. Oxford: One World Publishing, 2004, p 16 Ken Pargament: Spirituality is the search for the sacred
I. DEFINING SPIRITUALITY 1. Spirituality is the capacity to love 2. Pargament: Spirituality is the search for the sacred 3. John Graham: Spirituality is the process by which we encounter Transcendent Mystery / God and experience what it means to be fully human
3. Spirituality is the process by which we encounter Transcendent Mystery and experience what it means to be fully human By process I refer to the practices and spiritual disciplines that enable us to respond to Mystery/God which give Ultimate meaning to Life. Practices= Prayer, meditation, study of scripture, Yoga I include experience for without it there can be no understanding of the spiritual aspect of life.
Psychoanalyst/priest Pittman McGehee: Spirituality is the longing to experience the Transcendent in the Immanent Spirituality is the innate human longing to experience the Transcendent in the Immanent
Keith Ward s 4 models of Spirituality 1. Idealist (only the spiritual ultimately exists) 2. Dualists (spirit and matter both exist and are independent of one another) 3. Theistic (spirituality and the material both exist, but the material exists in dependence upon the spiritual) 4. Monist (spirit and matter are different aspects of the same unitary reality)
Keith Ward, The Case FOR Religion, 2004, p 114. Both exist but Independ ently Different aspects of same Reality Ultimately only Spirit exists Both Both exist; exist but Spirit but depends Matter on matter depends for its on Matter Spirit is only reality; existence Spirit is an illusion
SPIRITUALITY HAS A CONTAINER -- RELIGION The great religions of the world all have: A founding figure Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed A historical story - that can be told, recorded, and shared Sacred writings Bible, Qu ran, the Vedas, Gita Sites temples, churches, synagogues, sacred mountain or grove Sacred arts - music, literature, paintings, sculpture, and dance Unique set of rituals - rites, practices, beliefs, prayers, liturgies Ordained clergy - priest, rabbi, imam, monk, nun, guru The five world religions are: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Some add Confucianism or others, Baha i
II. Benefits of Religion: The teachings of the world s great religion leaders have blessed humankind immeasurably: Ethics - The Golden Rule / Ten Commandments Sacred writings, works of art, places of worship Rituals to mark events birth, marriage, death Compassion for sick, marginalized, & oppressed Remind people of Transcendent/Mystery/God A community with a shared sacred story, beliefs Eschatology the hope of life after death Place to receive forgiveness for sin/redemption
The health benefits of religion Over 3,000 RCT (Randomized Controlled Trial) studies in the medical literature -- 66% show a positive correlation between spirituality and health. I.e., if you attend religious services once a week or more, your longevity is increased by 7 years. Regular religious service attendees have measurably: Lower stress, lower blood pressure, lower cholesterol levels, and improved immune response (IL-6 levels) and maintenance of the proper Serotonin levels in the brain.
What accounts for the health benefit? Weekly worship services nurture the spirit within us; and, remind us of God s presence in our lives We hear beautiful music and sing hymns together Listen to a positive, uplifting, life-affirming sermon Are with people we value and get to know well Acquire friends who care about us and our family, and pray for us. Have community to celebrate major life events birth, bar/bat-mitzpah or confirmation, marriage, and burial.
Religion defined The word religion is derived from the Latin, ligare, -- to bind or to bind together i.e., to provide a view of the world and reality. Webster s (a) belief in a divine, supernatural power(s) to be obeyed and worshiped; i.e., the creator and ruler of the universe. (b) any object of conscientious regard and pursuit.
What is the Religious Experience? Religions have always felt Spirit/Mystery/God reaches out to/within creation and the human response to the divine call is called religion The psalmist says, Deep calleth unto deep (Psa 42:7). Again, God s Spirit reaching out to the spirit in man. The founders of the world s great religions responded to the divine call in a powerful and unique way -- laying aside everything and risking everything in their response. Recognizing their wisdom, many have followed their lead in every generation.
Living faith is Renewed Dead faith stops here A DIVINE EXPERIENCE Unique and Original RITUALS to recapture experience STORY IS SHARED Orally at first, Sacred writings, later CONCREATIZATION Orthodoxy established Clerics Ordained Rules are established Heretics banished
A Religious Experience defined: Religious experience (also known as a spiritual experience, sacred experience, or mystical experience) is a subjective experience where an individual reports contact with a transcendent reality, an encounter or union with the divine. I.e., because a religious experience is subjective it is not empirically based and cannot be measured objectively (as in science).
Most, if not all Religions recognize two sources of knowledge Natural religion that which is clearly visible in creation itself (the works of God) Revealed religion that which God has revealed and is recorded in sacred texts (the word of God -- the Bible, Koran, Gita).
Essential Characteristics of: Science Naturalness a rational, logical pursuit Religion Supernatural Super, supra = "above" nature Tentativeness time to ponder the question Assertive, confident know God s Word reveled/works Testability a methodology that is repeatable Not Repeatable Occurs at bidding of God, not man Falsifiability findings can be proven wrong Truth Revelation can t be proven wrong
Science and Religion Compared: Science Religion Asking questions Seeking God who that need answers has the answers Formulating a hypothesis (proposed explanation) Prayer, repenting of sin, confessing need for God Gathering data Emptying oneself of preby observation and/or experimentation conceptions, reading sacred writings, listening Testing the hypothesis statistically as see if valid [ Stepping out in faith, trusting in God s grace
One area of agreement: Both document, archive and share their methodology (science)/approach to God (religion) others can use the same method/approach and attempt to reproduce/experience same results. This practice is called full disclosure Science -- allows measurement of data by others Religion encourages others to share the experience.
Yet, (18 th 19 th C) Positivism in Science Positivism asserted that the only authentic knowledge is that which is based on sense experience and by positive verification. Auguste Comte (1798 1857) said The Scientific Method was replacing metaphysics as Truth. With that, the Science-Religion wars began.
Reaction to findings of Science Radical paradigm shifts were challenging for all people -- Scientists and believers alike. Copernicus declaration that the sun is center of universe, not earth, rejected geocentrism and also anthropocentrism (man at the center of creation) Galileo heavens are not perfect; sun has spots Darwin s Origin of Species brought into question creation and divine providence in human affairs.
The dogma of Special Creations Since St. Augustine, natural historians held to the belief in the dogma of special creations that each species was separately and uniquely created by God, perfectly designed for its particular environment. By mid-18 th C, natural historians had come to reject the idea supernatural intervention as an explanation for nature (found exceptions to perfect creation). Most felt it was the duty of science to provide an alternative to the belief in a half-million or more distinct miracles.
Darwin and the Reaction of Science With the publication of The Origin of The Species, in 1859, Darwin presented a sophisticated alternative - - a vast number of observations from embryology, paleontology, and biology to support his theory of natural selection, survival of the fittest. Today, it is common to believe the Church reacted negatively while the scientific community embraced Darwin s idea. Actually that is not exactly the case. While a few naturalists endorsed Darwin s work, most did not.
The Real Issue Many saw Darwin s Origin as an assault on the fundamental principles of natural and revealed religion. Actually, Darwin was careful not to mention the origin of life and credited God with having impressed on matter the laws governing the universe. But, in saying species had arisen by a random, wasteful and often cruel process of natural selection, Darwin described a process that required no divine intervention nor did it allow for a divine plan.
Why is this so difficult for many Christians? A tenant of Fundamental Christianity is that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible Word of God
For the most part, the Western tradition has not said that God directed the authors of the Bible to write the exact words found in the Bible. Exception: Orthodox Jews (Torah only) Fundamentalist Christians (the entire Bible). Scripture can be inspired and not say that it is literally the inerrant, infallible word of God. The Catechism says, The Bible contains all things necessary for salvation, which is a rather modest statement. No mention of the Bible being inerrant.
Last week we said Science is based on: Materialism reality is solely matter and energy that can be observed and measured in the laboratory. All else is but an illusion Reductionism complex things can be explained by examining the constituent parts. Mind/consciousness is merely chemical processes in brain. Randomness that the processes of nature follow laws of chance. Intelligent design/god is excluded/un-necessary.
Yet Science & Religion both search for Meaning
In fact, many scientists have been quite religious
Carl Sagan on Ptolemy and Kepler CHECK THIS SITE OUT: www.youtube.com, and type in: Carl Sagan on Epicycles, Ptolemy, and Kepler; and on Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, and Ellipses. Great viewing to appreciate nature of Kepler s faith.
Galileo (1564-1642) Galileo appealed to the metaphor of God s two books: 1. the Bible, the book of God s revealed word 2. Nature, the book of God s works (the creation). Galileo said: The Holy Bible and the phenomena of Nature proceed alike from the divine Word.
Newton and Boyle Isaac Newton (1642-1727) took both God s work and God s Word seriously. He devoted even more time to his study of Scripture than he did to the natural world. Robert Boyle (1627-1691) said, the study of Scripture as well as nature reveals truths about religion and creation. All scientists of this period believed that the study of the created world provided knowledge of the wisdom and intelligence of the creator. Newton, considered the culmination of the Scientific Revolution shared this view.
Elaine Ecklund, Rice U. and her book:
Elaine Ecklund: It turns out that nearly 50 percent of scientists identify with a religious label, and nearly one in five is actively involved in a house of worship, attending services more than once a month. While many scientists are completely secular, my survey results show that elite scientists are also sitting in the pews of our nation's churches, temples and mosques. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-howard-ecklund-phd/the-contoursof-what-scie_b_611905.html
Elaine Ecklund: If religious people better understood the full range of atheistic practice -- and the way that it interfaces with religion for some -- they might be less likely to hold negative attitudes toward nonreligious scientists. The truth is that many atheist scientists have no desire to denigrate religion or religious people. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-howard-ecklund-phd/the-contoursof-what-scie_b_611905.html
Elaine Ecklund: Of the atheist and agnostic scientists I had indepth conversations with... many think key mysteries about the world can be best understood spiritually, and some attend houses of worship, completely comfortable with religion as moral training for their children and an alternative form of community. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-howard-ecklund-phd/the-contoursof-what-scie_b_611905.html
Elaine Ecklund author of Science vs. Religion Given the presence of religion in the scientific community, why do Americans still think scientists are hostile to religion? Within their scientific communities, religious scientists tend to practice what I call a "secret spirituality." They are reluctant to talk about religious or spiritual ideas with their colleagues.
Elaine Ecklund: If people of faith believe they have to become antireligious or completely secular to be a successful scientist -- when this is not a full reflection of the scientific community -- it would be a disaster. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-howard-ecklund-phd/thecontours-of-what-scie_b_611905.html
Elaine Ecklund: Religious people need to remember that not all atheist scientists are hostile to religion. They need to know that even the most secular scientists struggle with the moral and ethical implications of their work. And scientists need to do a better job of communicating the importance of science to religious people -- especially in those areas in which religion might actually motivate them to care about science (like environmentalism, or "creation care").
Limits of Spirituality/Religion: Cannot prove the existence of God walk by faith, not by sight cannot measure Mystery/Transcendence/God Religious opinions are guided by different sources of authority which can lead to: a diversity of opinions among people of faith (prejudice) diverse opinions have lead to wars throughout history Sacred writings are pre-scientific in origin cannot be used to counter the findings of science George F. R. Ellis, Physics, Complexity, and The Science-Religion Debate, in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science. Philip Clayton & Zachary Simpson, Eds., Oxford: Oxford U Press, p. 760-1.
The Limits of Science: Ethics Science respects data & truth telling but: There is no unit of measure of what is good or bad Science looks at some causes but ignores others such as Social effects, personal choice, and morality Does not address values Aesthetics the criteria of beauty No scientific experiment can say what I beautiful or ugly Metaphysics A major interest of humanity throughout history, ignored Meaning silent George F. R. Ellis, Physics, Complexity, and The Science-Religion Debate, in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science. Philip Clayton & Zachary Simpson, Eds., Oxford: Oxford U Press, p. 760-1.
The Mantra of Fundamentalist Science Science tells us about physical reality. Since non-physical realities cannot be investigated by science, they do not exist. Bernard Haisch, The God Theory: Universes, Zero-point Fields, and What s Behind It All. San Francisco, CA: Weiser Books, 2006, p 38
The Mantra fosters a conviction that the only possible reality is that explored or conjured up by physics and limited to matter and energy. It inculcates a belief that science has proven God and immaterial intelligence are antiquated myths. This view of science is dangerous because it leads to the conclusion that there cannot be any purpose behind the existence of the universe or its tenants. All this without any direct evidence from science. Bernard Haisch, The God Theory. San Francisco, CA: Weiser Books, 2006, p 38-39
Seeking union of Science and Spirituality/Religion: All but the most hardened scientists and theologians hope for the union of the disciplines of science and theology for the betterment of humanity. There are several potential grounds for union of these two disciplines. Michael W. Brierley, The Potential of Panentheism for Dialogue Between Science and Religion, in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science. Philip Clayton & Zachary Simpson, Eds., Oxford: Oxford U Press, p. 635-647.
First, there are two approaches that aren t able to unite science and religion 1. Creationism When Darwin s Origin appeared, views arose to reconcile science with the Genesis creation narrative. [3] Those holding that species had been created were generally called "advocates of creation" and came to be known as Creationists by Darwinists. In 1930s in the U.S. the term Creationism" first became associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to evolution and belief in a young Earth (both are counter to the findings of science).
The second approach that isn t able to unite science and religion 2. Intelligent Design (I.D.) the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected (chance) process of natural selection. I.D. is a recent adaptation of the traditional argument for the existence of a creator God, but one that avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer so the concept can be included in books and accepted by school boards.
I.D. isn t able to unite science and religion The principal reason I.D. cannot unite Science and Religion is the fact it rejects Evolution, the process of natural selection taking place over the ages I.D. states there is irreducible complexity at the cellular level makes it impossible for intracellular mechanisms to have ever arisen by chance (requires an intelligent designer). I.D. views irreducible complexity as the fatal flaw of the Theory of Evolution and this view is a stumbling block to uniting science and religion.
Other Approaches to Unity
Basic Assumptions of a Spiritual Worldview 1. That there is an ultimately benevolent Creator who seeks the good of all (despite evidence to the contrary in human history). 2. Human beings are immortal spiritual beings that exist in temporary bodies (that one day will shed) 3. There are realms of reality beyond the realm of physical matter and energy as presently known to modern physicists (i.e., a metaphysics) Bernard Haisch, The God Theory: Universes, Zero-point Fields, and What s Behind It All. San Francisco, CA: Weiser Books, 2006, p 49-51
Assumptions of a Spiritual Worldview You can build a system of ethics without these three assumptions, but not a spiritual worldview. These 3 assumptions invite a system of ethics that will include a vision of spirituality. These assumptions can bring together the values of objective scientific discovery with the experience of a larger reality. Bernard Haisch, The God Theory: Universes, Zero-point Fields, and What s Behind It All. San Francisco, CA: Weiser Books, 2006, p 49-51
Are these assumptions at odds w Science? All of these assumptions are indeed at odds with tenets of fundamentalist science (i.e., Positivism) But, these assumptions are NOT at odds with the findings of objective mainstream science. Why? Because, the scientific method by definition limits its investigations to the physical world and precludes inquiry into realm of spirituality. Bernard Haisch, The God Theory: Universes, Zero-point Fields, and What s Behind It All. San Francisco, CA: Weiser Books, 2006, p 49-51
Again, the argument against these three spiritual assumptions is based on the dogmatic stance of fundamentalist science (i.e., Positivism/scientism) and NOT on any scientific evidence to the contrary
That being true there must be a way to bring together science and religion
Many scientists and theologians believe there can be no union between science and religion
fundamentalist science and fundamentalist religion
non-fundamentalist science and non-fundamentalist religion
Union of Science and Spirituality/Religion: A. The potential of Panentheism Traditional Theism says God is separate from creation (God is transcendent, required angels) Pantheism says All is God (God = creation) Panentheism says All in God (God in creation) Here word in is critical in expresses a relationship by inclusion of God in God s creation (God is imminent) Michael W. Brierley, The Potential of Panentheism for Dialogue Between Science and Religion, in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science. Philip Clayton & Zachary Simpson, Eds., Oxford: Oxford U Press, p. 635-647.
Panentheism defined: The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church: God s Being is more than and is not exhausted by, the universe, but the being of God includes and penetrates the whole universe, so that every part of it exists in Him. Panentheism wants to avoid the implication that God remains outside the cosmos (classic theism) and proponents often state that God is not everything (pantheism) but that God is in everything (Panentheism). Michael W. Brierley, The Potential of Panentheism for Dialogue Between Science and Religion, in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science. Philip Clayton & Zachary Simpson, Eds., Oxford: Oxford U Press, p. 635-647.
A Continuum may help understand Panentheism: 1. God is separate from the cosmos (Classic Transcendence) 2. The cosmos will be in God (God s ultimate plan, not yet) 3. God contains the cosmos (embraces all but is greater than) 4. God is affected by the cosmos (God suffers) 5. God acts in and through the cosmos (providence/presence) 6. The cosmos is a sacrament (outward/visible sign of God) 7. God is the ground of the Cosmos (holds it together) 8. The Cosmos is the Body of God 9. God includes the cosmos (as the whole includes the parts) 10. God and the cosmos are inextricably intertwined 11. God is dependent on the cosmos (Process Theology) 12. God is totally coterminous with the cosmos (Pantheism) Michael W. Brierley, The Potential of Panentheism for Dialogue Between Science and Religion, in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science. Philip Clayton & Zachary Simpson, Eds., Oxford: Oxford U Press, p. 635-647.
B. Astrophysicist Bernard Haisch s God Theory
B. Astrophysicist Bernard Haisch s God Theory Haisch proposes that everything yes everything -- in the universe flows from an infinite potential and participates in an infinite intelligence (the Godhead). Bernard Haisch, The God Theory: Universes, Zero-point Fields, and What s Behind It All. San Francisco, CA: Weiser Books, 2006, p 40-41 Begins with the supposition that reality involves both tangible, physical matter and an immaterial something. This immaterial something is intimately involved with the existence of consciousness and life and is ultimately traceable to a divine origin and purpose.
Haisch says John Haught in God After Darwin, presents a compelling case that Darwin s theory, far from ruling out God, gives us insight into an intelligence that pours its creative essence into the universe and gives free reign to make things happen. This deity voluntarily relinquishes control to its creatures so that new and autonomous things may arise the unplanned, the unscripted, the random.. The universe is thus invited to participate in crafting creation and this ongoing participatory act of creation is, in fact, the ultimate expression of God s love. Bernard Haisch, The God Theory: Universes, Zero-point Fields, and What s Behind It All. San Francisco, CA: Weiser Books, 2006, p 43-44.
The God Theory, continued Contrary to the claims of strident reductionists, Darwinian science is thus not inextricably wedded to a scientific ideology devoid of a God and lacking any purpose. Bernard Haisch, The God Theory: Universes, Zero-point Fields, and What s Behind It All. San Francisco, CA: Weiser Books, 2006, p 44-45 Hairsch says, the random mutation and natural selection proposed by Darwin ultimately allow an infinite intelligence to experience its own potential. He quotes Thomas Aquinas: It would be contrary to the nature of providence and to the perfection of the world if nothing happened by chance.
The God Theory, continued Haisch mentioned Jesuit palentologist Teilhard de Chardin who proposed that evolution does occur, but in a directional, goal-driven way. He used the term Omega Point to describe an aim toward which consciousness evolves in an evolutionary process converging toward a final unity Haisch says, Likewise, I suggest that the evolution of living things may occur through a combination of strictly physical, deterministic processes and a nonphysical tendency toward order and information though the latter may not be detectable by science Bernard Haisch, The God Theory: Universes, Zero-point Fields, and What s Behind It All. San Francisco, CA: Weiser Books, 2006, p 44-45
The God Theory, continued Hairsch s says his God Theory is consistent with two of the major cornerstones of modern science: The Big Bang Theory The Theory of Evolution Robert Hesse, PhD will address the Big Bang Theory on Thursday, Oct 28, 2010 at the Institute John K Graham, M.D., D.Min. will address the Theory of Evolution on Thursday, Nov. 11, 2010. Bernard Haisch, The God Theory: Universes, Zero-point Fields, and What s Behind It All. San Francisco, CA: Weiser Books, 2006, p 40-41
Another concept you read in Science- Religion literature is Emergent Theology The idea here is that Science has revealed nature to be evolving (emerging), so the theology begins with the fact of God s creation as Emergent. This removes a major hurtle. This form of theology agrees with the findings of biological science, seeing God as having set in place a creation designed to emerge to unfold, to evolve. Bradford McCall, Kenosis and emergence: A Theological Synthesis. in Zygon: Journal of Science and Religion, Vol 45, No. 1, March, 2010, p. 149-162.
Mind and Emergence (2004), by Philip Clayton In this book, Clayton reviewed the 20 th c concept and his view based on the immanence of God. He says the biggest question facing scientist today is how nature obtains order when it was not present initially. (p73) He feels that emergence represents a fruitful metascientific framework for comparing the relations between the diverse realms of the natural world. (P 93)
The Significance of the Immanence of God Bradford McCall says, The science-and-religion dialogue has long wrestled with the topic of God s action in the world, and models of conceiving divine action heretofore have been unsatisfactory. Classical interventionism should be dismissed as illogical because God s action in the world would be inconsistently intermittent. God acting only as the Creator of the world is deistic and limits divine action in perpetuity.
Immanence of God in creation Thomaistic understandings of God as the primary Cause and creatures as secondary causes results in unnecessary bifurcation. A full-blown process theology is unable to sustain the escatological guarantees of God as revealed in Scripture. John Polkinghorne (2001) asserts that kenosis (emptying) is an affirmation of God s voluntary selflimitation (incognito). Yet, God is immanent in Creation, providing the ordering Science has found and can demonstrate.
Nothing I have said is in disagreement with findings of objective science and could be embraced by scientists and religionists alike
Kevin Sharpe s The Science of God (2006) Sharpe feels religion must face the challenge of science with a theology that answers their challenge while, at the same time, affirming the reality of God. Theologians need to do theology scientifically if they want to preserve the wisdom that religion has to offer. This means theology must to accept the findings of science in all areas - geology, biology and cosmology. Theologians must be willing to hold discussions that may lead to the undermining of cherished beliefs. Nathan J. Hallanger, Science and Serious Theology: Two Paths for Science and Religion s Future, in Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Vol 45, No 1, March, 2010, p 165-176.
Kevin Sharpe s The Science of God (2006) Sharpe says there is no way to make theology adopt the scientific method but there are three justifications: 1. Because of interest in the truth, theology should be rational and empirical. In the Western world, science speaks the voice of contemporary truth; theology should adopt the scientific method if it wants to speak the truth. 2. If religion is to communicate with society taught the scientific method, it needs to speak the same language or become ever more irrelevant. 3. The psychological and social needs related to science and technology of our day, invite theology to be a leader to help society navigate through these difficult times. Nathan J. Hallanger, Science and Serious Theology: Two Paths for Science and Religion s Future, in Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Vol 45, No 1, March, 2010, p 165-176.
The Challenge for both science and religion is to be committed to examine the evidence. Scientists must resist the temptation to explain away evidence -- like near-death experiences - simply because they contradict their reductionist paradigm. Religionists are challenged to reject pre-scientific dogma and replace it with a genuine search for experiential truth, realizing God does not need to be defended.
Einstein said, Science without religion is lame; and Religion without science is blind. It is time to set aside the unhealthy dogmas of both religion and scientism and be united in our mutual quest for Meaning
What about the Big Bang?
We do not next week --- Open House for Nursing Conference
The Big Bang will come two weeks from now Oct 28 - Robert Hesse, PhD speaking on: Physics to Metaphysics: Cosmos, Big Bang, Singularity, String Theory, Non-local Universe Chemistry to Life: Heisenberg s Uncertainty, Entropy & Stars, Dissipative Structures, Anthropic Principle
And, three weeks from now: Nov 4 - Robert Hesse, PhD speaking on: Biology to Consciousness: Chaos, Artificial Intelligence, Spiritual/ Evolutionary Consciousness, Morphogenetic Theory. Psychology to Mysticism: Near-death Experiences, Brain Waves, Neuroplasticity, Contemplative Experiences.