In celebration of our 100th blog post here at dancingpastthedark, here is an article I very much want you to read. It is, to my mind, the ideal conclusion to our months-long wondering about quantum physics and its relation to NDE and consciousness; but some of you will take one look and begin to whine. Therefore, let me make a one-paragraph speech and then turn you loose to read.
Massive changes are occurring around us, and whoever and wherever we are, as humans we are all trying to describe and understand the same shifts and the same universe. Whether we take the perspective of scientists, especially physicists, finding mathematics the best language, or the perspective of philosophers and theologians, working with words and stories—it is still the same universe. It should be no surprise to find commonalities coming from the two very different approaches. Most of us prefer one or the other approach, but we all need to know something about both. Whatever your perspective, and whether you consider yourself religious, atheist, or any point between or beyond, the linked article has something important to say about our life as part of Western culture in a time of immense change. I think that in this article, published some 15 years ago, Barbara Brown Taylor clearly describes part of the upheaval. If you say you hate math and science, please put away your objections and read the article. If you are still thinking that anyone using the word “God” is talking about a very large, supernatural humanoid somewhere in the sky, know that the author doesn’t think that, and plunge bravely ahead. In other words, whatever your objection, please put it aside for now. You can grumble to me after you’ve read her article. (Insert smiley here.)
To get you started, here is an edited-down introduction:
Physics and Faith
by Barbara Brown Taylor
Among the many compelling reasons for religious people to engage science is the human tendency to base our worldviews on the prevailing physics of the day. Our governments, our schools, our economies and our churches all reflect our understanding of how the world works, and when that understanding changes—as it is changing right now—all those institutions are up for revision. New discoveries in quantum physics are already changing the way some businesses are being managed. New discoveries in human brain research are changing education. Changes may be in store for the church as well.
Newton planted the seeds of a new worldview. He laid down the laws of celestial dynamics. Reducing them to four simple algebraic formulas, he revealed a solar system that worked like a vast machine… made of parts…all obeying the same four laws.
While religion resisted Newton’s metaphor for a while, the illusion of control proved too hard to pass up. Theology became increasingly specialized and systematized. Our “God view” came to resemble our worldview. In this century, even much of our practical theology has also become mechanical and atomistic. Walk into many churches and you will hear God described as a being who behaves almost as predictably as Newton’s universe. Say you believe in God and you will be saved. Sin against God and you will be condemned. Say you are sorry and you will be forgiven. Obey the law and you will be blessed. These are simple and appealing formulae, which make God easy to understand. Pull this lever and a reward will drop down. Do not touch that red button, however, or all hell will break loose. In this clockwork universe, the spiritual quest is reduced to learning the rules in order to minimize personal loss (avoid hell) and maximize personal gain (achieve salvation).…
There is another way to conceive of our life together
There is another way to conceive of our life together…but it requires a different worldview—not a clockwork universe in which individuals function as discrete springs and gears, but one that looks more like a luminous web, in which the whole is far more than the parts. In this universe, there is no such thing as an individual apart from his or her relationships. Every interaction—between people and people, between people. and things, between things and things—changes the face of history. Life on earth cannot be reduced to four sure-fire rules. It is an ever-unfolding mystery that defies precise prediction. Meanwhile, in this universe, there is no such thing as “parts.” The whole is the fundamental unity of reality.
If this sounds like the language of Eastern religion, it is not. It is the language of quantum physics, which is causing a revolution in the way we see our world.
Since I am not a scientist, I am not always sure what I am looking at, nor do I have the theoretical background to discern all the implications of a particular phenomenon, but as a preacher—that is, someone who lives on stories—I find the stories rolling in from the frontiers of the new science as rich in meaning as any stories I know.
According to quantum theory, a subatomic particle that decays into two particles becomes a set of “twins” —a single system with two parts, spinning in opposite directions… Now imagine those two particles flying apart …According to the laws of quantum physics…some unimagined form of communication, faster than the speed of light, would allow each particle to ‘know” and respond to what the other was doing. Since this eerie idea violated his own theory of special relativity, Einstein concluded that quantum theory is wrong
Unhappily for him, subsequent experiments proved that there is indeed some kind of instantaneous, supraliminal communication between quantum particles. Once they have interacted with each other, they have the power to influence each other, no matter how far apart they go. According to quantum physics, this relatedness goes beyond human beings to include the whole creation. Physical reality refuses to be compartmentalized. As hard as we may try to turn it into another kind of machine, it insists on acting like a body, animated by some intelligence that exceeds the speed of light.
See the implications for near-death experience, energy work, any parapsychology, local religious beliefs, reshaping atheistic thinking, reviewing materialism, and more? Please read the whole article.
.I dont question the existence of such experiences.I question the objective reality of them.The problem whit nde’s is as follow. Suppose everyone go to Paris and visit Eiffel tower.If Eiffel tower really exist ,everybody will see it as big metal pointy spear 🙂 .But what if some will see it as white marble arch, others as a pink building,others as a giant donuts covered in chocolate ,others dont see anything and so one.Just like dreams are contradictory ,illogical and from this attributes of dreams we conclude they are just hallucinations whit non-objective reality ,same whit nde’s.
What is the point of someone going trough the tunnel only to see a giant pair of teeth closing in.Or going trough the tunnel in an ambulance vehicle?
Is more likely that the brain construct a symbolic reality in order to answer the paradox “if im death why im still conscious ?”.That women who saw zombies on the other side also suggest this.What creatures are death yet still alive ? Zombies.Her brain trying to solve the paradox .
Even Eben Alexander experience suggest this .Acording to Mircea Eliade and his book about symbolism ”the muck ”(underground muck of Eben) and the butterfly are also symbols of death.
I agree completely with your questioning the objective reality of these kinds of experience. However, the lack of objective reality does not mean that they are trivial or meaningless. Experiences do not need to be factually accurate to have profound, even life-changing, significance for the people who have them. In all our modern conviction that only the physical world has meaning, we have overlooked the importance of symbols for the deep psyche. The spiritual phase or level of life has always communicated by symbol.
Hi Nan,
This is a very insightful post. In my meditations lately, I’ve found my mind settling on the issue of mechanism vs. organicism. As of late, I’ve caught myself using many organicist metaphors to explain myself and have been mulling over the historical consequences of western society embracing the metaphor of the machine as one of is favored ways of narrating reality. This post helps to crystallize my thoughts.
I took a course in the history of psychology a few years ago and Stephen C. Pepper’s “World Hypotheses” was assigned as one of the texts for the class. In the early chapters of Pepper’s book, he dismisses animism and mysticism, stating that they are insufficient in terms of explanatory power. He then explores four other means of understanding the world which he feels are philosophically sound. These are: formism, mechanism, contextualism, and organicism.
What struck me while taking the course was the way in which mechanism has clearly become dominant – even if there are three other legitimate ways of approaching our experience (being inclined toward mysticism myself, I feel rather uncomfortable discarding both animism and mysticism as Pepper does).
However, a recent realization I have had is that organicism meshes very well with my mystical leanings. Further, I feel intuitively that it is a more robust way of describing reality considering that our whole world and experience is fundamentally organic. Everything on our planet is alive (except, perhaps, for rocks – but our animist friends might wish to convince us otherwise). Humans may have created machines, but machines did not create humans. Our metaphors for approaching reality ought to be as congruent with that reality as is possible if we would hope to explain things as accurately as possible.
I am looking out my window right now. There is a large tree with many birds and squirrels dancing about on it. Below the tree is a large holly bush which the birds and squirrels (and sometimes rabbits and foxes) can be seen hiding in. The tree, the holly bush, the animals and birds, they are all one big living thing. Totally interdependent. Once you put on the lenses of organicism (or any worldview) you will quickly perceive realities that you did not see there before.
I would at least say that seeing things in this way is more pleasure-producing than seeing everything as a machine with all the parts isolated from one another. Through this lens, we are all very much *welcome* here. We have emerged from processes far beyond our ability to comprehend and we – in some way – are a crucial part of this reality. In mechanism, we could be subtracted out and that would be fine – we wouldn’t be missed and the machine would blindly produce other bits and pieces if need be. The one view inspires a desire to care for the world and for one another and fosters an encounter with the realization that we are all connected – the other deadens this perception and denies it. In mechanism we may be used by others and use others ourselves, perhaps even in something resembling cooperation – but we are always estranged from each other, and at the end of the day any semblance of unity is thought to be mere play-acting. In organicism we and all of reality are One, forever, and can never be anything less.
Biblical scholars often attribute Jesus’ parables, which often employ the metaphors of organicism, to his having been a rural person. Perhaps there’s more to the story – perhaps Jesus (or the scribes who may have written in his name, who knows?) employed such metaphors intentionally because they are the most accurate form of describing reality available to us. It’s an interesting thing to contemplate.
A super addition to this conversation. Thanks!
Well, that was definitely worth reading! She has a wonderful, thought-provoking way of putting things – “….animated by some intelligence that exceeds the speed of light.”
Quantum physics surely gives us a more sophisticated worldview and “Godview” than ever. Her essay made me wonder what might come *after* quantum physics. Just as Einsteinian / Bohmian physics is more comprehensive than Newtonian, what will be more comprehensive than Einsteinian / Bohmian?!
This question fits with Nan’s commitment to humility – even though we seem to be gaining new understanding at a fast clip, it pays to always remember that there is so much we still don’t know, so much yet to discover.
I’m so glad (but not surprised) you liked the article. Barbara Brown Taylor has made her reputation on that ability to express the often-inexpressible. And yes, as we interpret all experience through our own cultural senses, what might be still to come? As incomprehensible to us (to me, at least) as her quantum perspective is to people still locked into literal, material interpretation. Head-spinning!
To me it seems like we, scientists and regular people as well, have run up against a wall or a limit that we can’t see past. Some of the smartest people that have ever lived have agonized over the “meaning” or implications of quantum physics. THEY can’t even agree but despite that..there it is. It seems all we can do is stand before it in silence and wonder at what it all means or if it means anything at all. Then there’s the NDE that seems to show us that something is going on..there’s more than meets the eye. But we can’t make sense of it either. Trying to link two things, neither of which seems to make sense, neither of which we understand in the least, just makes things even more incomprehensible. But both are fascinating and incredible and may point to a good reason to just have faith and keep trying to see beyond that wall of course!
Couldn’t have said it better myself! Thanks, Mike.