A fascinating paradox is that most transcendent experiences are completely ego-free. In the moment, we lose track of time and space, we lose track of our bodies, we lose track of our selves. We dissolve. And yet, as I suggest, spirituality emerges from consciousness and the material brain. And the paramount signature of consciousness is a sense of self, an “I-ness” distinct from the rest of the cosmos. Thus, curiously, a thing centered on self creates a thing absent of self.
With a PhD in theoretical physics and as “the first person at MIT to receive dual faculty appointments in science and in the humanities”, Alan Lightman is well poised to think and write about the intersection of science and spirituality (and his writing has often addressed this intersection, as proven by his backlist). The Transcendent Brain reads like a final synthesis of this lifetime of thinking and writing — for a shortish book, it has countless references to the scientists, psychologists, and philosophers who have influenced Lightman’s thinking — but as interesting as I found the material, I don’t know if it really answered his own questions around whether the scientific method necessarily precludes a belief in God (or anything “spiritual” beyond the material world of what can be tested). Still a very interesting read that gave me much to think about. (Note: I read an ARC through NetGalley and passages quoted may not be in their final forms.)
The driving forces for the emergence of spirituality are both biological and psychological: a primal affinity for nature, a fundamental need for cooperation, and a means of coping with the knowledge of our impending death. Some of these forces can be found in nonhuman animals, of course, but the full experience of spirituality may require the higher intelligence of Homo sapiens.
Over the course of The Transcendent Brain, Lightman shares several transcendent experiences he has had throughout his life; so even though he identifies as an atheist, he understands what others mean by a religious or spiritual experience. He satisfactorily proves a material basis for consciousness (I enjoyed the bits about emergentism — just as you couldn’t predict the characteristics of water by examining its constituent elements of hydrogen and oxygen, there’s no need for Divine Intervention to explain how our minds are the natural result of the billions of synaptic connections in our brains) and he also shows the ways in which a sense of spirituality (and its fellowship-building) would have been an evolutionary advantage for early humans. One of the most intriguing passages I noted, about “the creative transcendent”, was:
Practitioners and philosophers disagree on whether mathematical truth exists out there in the world, independent of the human mind — in which case mathematicians discover what is already there, like coming upon a new ocean — or whether mathematical ideas, theorems, and functions are invented out of the mind of the mathematician.
It’s interesting to think that it’s no easier to prove the existence of math outside the human mind than to prove the existence of God; so what does that mean for his thesis?
Science can never disprove the existence of God, since God might exist outside the physical universe. Nor can religion prove the existence of God, since any phenomenon or experience attributed to God might, in principle, find explanation in some nontheist cause. What I suggest here is that we can accept a scientific view of the world while at the same time embracing certain experiences that cannot be fully captured or understood by the material underpinnings of the world.
And that’s a bit of Lightman having his cake and eating it too, which has apparently long put the author in the crosshairs of other, more strident, thinkers. Lightman writes about sharing his transcendent experiences during a debate with Richard Dawkins who mocked the author, dismissing people of faith as “nonthinkers” and labelling religion as “nonsense” (classic Dawkins). On a different occasion (as referenced in the Notes at the end), Lightman shared the stage with distinguished Islamic scholar Osman Bakar who, “strongly disagreed with me that we cannot prove the existence of God, stating that ‘revelation’, in both the sacred books and in personal experience, shows that we know God exists.” Acknowledging thusly that he can publicly represent either the pro-spiritual or anti-spiritual point-of-view, The Transcendent Brain reflects this squishy middleground (despite the author stating throughout that he is an affirmed atheist), and I don’t know if this non-resolution was entirely satisfying to me. And yet: I thoroughly enjoyed everything that Lightman shared and the internal musings they led to. Totally worthwhile read.
For an idea of Lightman’s thinking (and some backlash it has elicited), here’s a link to an article in Salon from 2011: Does God exist?
And an angry response in Salon a week later from Daniel Dennett: When atheists fib to protect God
