| Home
|
Putting Theism back in Pantheism by Brunla Van Cleve, Ph.D.; Almost all Pantheists have rejected the Bible's "God on a Throne,"
and a personal, paternalistic God. But some Pantheistic groups, including
Panpsychists, still take the word Pantheism literally and believe simply
"All is God." In contrast, many of those in another, scientifically oriented,
faction object to equating "God" with Pantheism, advocating instead a materialistic
explanation for the universe, and using evolution to explain the origin
of life. Is a God-rejecting view valid? Or should we hold on to the Theism
in Pantheism as many Pantheists and Panpsychists advocate? Before you answer,
consider the following in support for retaining Theism.
The scientific establishment's disinclination to apply the Scientific method to research on a God-like force is being increasingly questioned as quantum physics forges ahead. Even Eugenie C. Scott, director of The National Center for Science Education (an organization whose stated goal is "to keep evolution in and scientific creationism out" of the nation's educational curricula) has had to acknowledge that of those scientists who believe in evolution, 40% believe it to be guided by God. Forty percent may be a minority, but not nearly as insignificant as today's materialistic Neo-Darwinists, would have us believe. And 60% (those who reject "guided by God") is not "almost all scientists" as is so often stated by the materialists. Not surprisingly then, an increasing number of scientists who believe in God-guided evolution are looking for answers other than materialistic ones to questions of ultimate reality. The Panpsychist concept of Theism fits well with their understandings of Theism as the ultimate power. Because of this, and the reasons listed below, these scientists are taking a long hard look at the monistic form of pantheism known as Panpsychism. Panpsychism proposes, very much in keeping with quantum science, that all matter or physical energy, all the way down to the subatomic particles, is "sentient." This means that each subatomic entity is "conscious" and thus experiences all other subatomic entities. All are participants in a grand communication scheme by which each entity experiences, feels, or is conscious of the others. There is laboratory research and mathematical proof (to be described later) to support this basic understanding.
This evidence leads quite logically to the belief that the universe is composed of nothing but some type of Mind or Consciousness. Thus, Panpsychism stands in distinct opposition to the limited and dated materialistic base of many Pantheists, who reject God or Mind based answers to Universal questions such as the origin of life and appear unaware of leading edge physics. It is true, of course, that Materialism's position was enhanced by the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment in which they passed a spark through what was at that time believed to be a medium similar to the primordial atmosphere. This process did produce four amino acids and some organic molecules, which dropped into water below and formed what was later to be called an "organic soup." This was an amazing accomplishment for science. But to this day, Miller and other experimenters have been unable to produce the remainder of the 20 left-handed amino acids needed for life under conditions that could be considered plausible. So the importance of that experiment has declined considerably and the Miller-Urey materialistic brand of science is still a long way from creating life. There also is serious question as to whether it ever will. Meanwhile, quantum physics continues to uncover more of the secrets of ultimate reality. Even staunch evolutionists such as Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe acknowledge that the chances for an enzyme to form at random in the "organic soup" would be 1 in 10 to the 20th power. (That's one followed by 20 zeros.) This is a highly unlikely, but still possible number. But to assemble the approximately 2,000 enzymes needed for a cell's activity the odds go to 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000th power. That is a figure larger than all the particles in the universe. Hoyle said "if the entire universe were cosmic soup it still wouldn't be enough." Panpsychism identifies and rejects poor science such as that of Richard Dawkins. In his book "The Selfish Gene," Dawkins takes Darwin's name in vain and would have us believe that the evolution of life from non-living matter is not a theory but a fact. This is a distressing and unwarranted case of misguided and misleading speculation. Personally, I like my facts a bit more probable than 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. Of course evolution is a FACT. Organisms have changed over time, but neither of Darwin's two main theories attempts to explain the origin of life. Panpsychist Christian deQuincy's explanation of Panpsychism seems to be supported by a Nobel Prize winning experiment devised by Tsung Lee and Chen Yang at Princeton in 1956 and verified the following year by Chien-schiung Wu at Columbia. The experiment proved that consciousness exists in matter. Wu explained, "cobalt in its observed radioactivity can tell the difference between its future and its past in making a spatial distinction between its right and its left." Her unmistakable conclusion was. . .there appears to be a rudimentary intelligence or universal mind permeating and pervading subatomic particles lying deep within all matter. As de Quincy put it: "If both mind and matter are real, and are not separate substances, and neither can emerge or evolve from the other, then matter and mind have always existed together, are coextensive, co-eternal and in some way co-creative. . .. Panpsychism proposes that matter (or physical energy) itself is intrinsically sentient or experiential, all the way down." As further evidence for the beliefs of Panpsychism, quantum physicists have shown that basic "information" is transmitted to and from and by infinitesimally small forms of reality, and that this information permeates the universe. In 1964 John Stewart Bell offered mathematical proof that physical reality must be non-local. Bell showed that on a deeper (non-local), level of reality, the speed of light is irrelevant, because phenomena are instantly connected regardless of distance. Einstein's philosophical objections to non-locality then became a testable proposition. In 1982, French physicist Alain Aspect and more recently his colleague Nicolas Gisin, separated a pair of photons and showed that if they changed the spin of one of the pair it instantly changed the spin of the other, no matter how far the photons were apart. The photons were demonstrably connected by some non-local form of consciousness that is faster than the speed of light. As Encarta Encyclopedia puts it: the strong correlations observed in these experiments suggest we may inhabit a non-local reality, meaning that what happens here and now could depend on something far away in space, time, or both." What is the mechanism of consciousness that makes this possible? In recent years quantum physicists have come up with the idea of super-strings that permeate and connect the entire universe. This mathematical construct is the most popular of the emerging theories that attempt to explain the ultimate reality. Physicist David Bohm chose Light, pointing out that since photons travel at the speed of light and have no mass, they can be outside time and space. In addition Bohm said photons sometimes actually create new matter. The still theoretical Graviton is another candidate. While gravity is the weakest of the four forces it still is able to exert its force over billions of miles and is found universally. The graviton is a factor in most string theory and may help solve the "Theory of Everything." It is also possible that some entirely different force is exerting itself instantly. "Toward a Science of Consciousness" conferences have been held biennially in Arizona since 1984, and attract 600 to 700 of the world's greatest thinkers from almost every possible discipline. The neuroscientists present many research papers attempting to establish the brain as a source of consciousness. But are these experimenters looking in the right place? Simple observation shows that not all consciousness occurs in the brain. Judge for yourself--if we could enlarge an amoeba to the size of a wolf, it would be seen that the two creatures share many characteristics. Both the amoeba and the wolf move about, stalk their prey and gulp it down when they catch it. Both the amoeba and the wolf remember where they deposit their waste and avoid it. They also avoid danger, respond to stimulus, and even get tired and rest. But the amoeba does all this without a brain, or even a central nervous system. If you have ever watched an amoeba under a microscope you probably observed that it definitely displayed something on the order of consciousness. But that isn't all the evidence for consciousness without a brain. So-called single-celled forms of life such as an amoeba contain within them even smaller conscious entities--the mitochondria. Mitochondria, of which there are up to hundreds in one cell, are so incredibly complicated as to almost defy description. Their role is to supply energy to the cells and, in fact, you couldn't even move your little finger without their providing the needed energy. Some mitochondria researchers go so far as to say that when you decide to jump over a mud puddle, the mitochondria give you an instant burst of energy. Or, should you decide to walk around the puddle, some form of consciousness seems to anticipate your movement, even before you do--and the mitochondria make another energy adjustment. No human designed energy-producing factory is so complex. Attached to the mitochondria are even smaller conscious entities, the microtubules studied by Hameroff and Penrose. Challenging scientists and philosophers at all of the "Toward a Science of Consciousness" conferences, David Chalmers has made what he called the "Hard Problem" the central focus of the conferences. The Hard Problem, of course, is the mystery of . . ."The advent of consciousness." The problem has been approached from almost every discipline and angle, with no clear consensus emerging. Unfortunately, the debate has not always been peaceful or reflective of the higher ideals of academia. Nevertheless, some of the more open-minded scientists such as Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose have risked derision and possible retaliation from the materialists by subscribing to some degree of panpsychism and suggesting that matter may indeed be sentient. Certainly the contributions of Lee, Yang, Wu, Bell, Aspect and others have contributed to the growing willingness by other scientists to consider the strong likelihood that all particles, no matter how small, have some type of awareness or mind, and that the information connecting them is everywhere. I have attempted to show that leading edge science has supported Panpsychist beliefs. It also supports my personal insistence on retaining a "Theistic" explanation of ultimate reality. Now let's look at the philosophical side, although much of what was formerly considered mere philosophy is being validated as it merges with quantum science. The search for the secret of the origin of life and for understanding of the basic, universal questions is a central goal of Panpsychism. Most Panpsychists agree that physical nature (matter) is in some way sentient and it was this sentience that assembled the necessary ingredients for life that still guides evolution. The phenomenon called "Mind" has been described as the glue that holds the universe together. Others simply call it the mind of God. Ernest Holmes, founder of "Science of Mind," used Mind as a synonym for God. The "Mind" of Panpsychism was clearly articulated as early as the 16th century by Giordano Bruno (1548-1600). One can even find a basis for Panpsychism as far back as the Milesian philosophers while, in our time, even Stephen Hawking uses the phrase, "the mind of God." This mysterious "Mind of God," a more or less generic term, has many other names. David Bohm called it the Implicate Order, C.G. Jung called it the collective unconscious and used it to explain archetypes. Teilhard Chardin called it the Noosphere, a mind layer surrounding the Earth. Rupert Sheldrake calls it morphic resonance, which involves a transfer of information similar to the collective unconsciousness. Other descriptors include Universal Mind, Life, Nature, Tao, Dharma, Soul, Laws, Psychons, Essence, Energy, Force, Order, etc. . . None seems to adequately encompass the vastness of Ultimate Reality. Nevertheless, many cultures, scientific disciplines, philosophies, arts and religions seem to be saying much the same thing. Which is that the mysterious Mind of God was here before the Big Bang, before space/time itself, and is truly eternal. Perhaps the mystery of the "Mind of God" will never be explainable, but mankind's expanding ability to gather and disseminate and comprehend information holds tremendous appeal for future seekers of Truth. |