The entire content of this talk is copyrighted (© 2009) by Greg Nooney. All rights reserved.
Return to First Unitarian Church
This sermon was delivered by Greg Nooney on 10/11/09.
|
A reading from the words of Albert Einstein:
Last week Ron Knapp gave a wonderful sermon ("Truth Is Truth To The End Of Reckoning") and emphasized the idea that there is an absolute truth about certain things even if we do not always know what it is. He gave an example of something that annoys him about Unitarians and others who are a bit wishy-washy about this. Ron Knapp’s example is that if I make an assertion and my friend contradicts me that there are only three possibilities: 1) I am right and my friend is wrong; 2) My friend is right and I am wrong; or 3) we are both wrong. Ron maintains that it is ludicrous to think that there is a fourth possibility that we are both right even though many would like to believe this, if for no other reason than it might make us get along better. I suspect my old friend Ron Brink would agree with Ron Knapp and go a step further and say that the problem is that people get used to accepting cognitive dissonance and that their brains get weak and soft. So at the risk of being seen as having a soft, weak brain I would like to argue for this fourth possibility. One example would be a father and adult son having a conversation. The son says: “I had a terrible childhood; you were abusive to me.” The father says: “You had a wonderful childhood. I was not abusive; I showed you love.” So maybe the son is right and the father wrong; maybe the father is right and the son wrong. Maybe both are wrong. But in this case, it is entirely possible that both are right. Each has a unique perspective to the events as they occurred and each has a different understanding or interpretation of those same events. However one could argue that the son and father each define “love” and “abuse” in different ways, so what is really happening is that there is not a clear understanding or agreement on what each is asserting. Consequently, it is not that both are correct but each is using language in a different way. I mention this example though because such misunderstandings are perhaps rather typical of our real-life conversations. If we can never be sure that our words are understood accurately, then the chances of both being right seem quite high to me. However I will give you another example that doesn’t involve a miscommunication. It goes as follows:
As most of you know, both scientist A and Scientist B are right. Sometimes a photon behaves like a particle and sometimes it behaves like a wave. This understanding led to the formulation of the uncertainty principle and the development of quantum mechanics and eventually led to Einstein’s famous statement:
I believe that the most important question facing both science and religion is this: “What is consciousness?” How do we as humans obtain and process information? We do so through sensory input: photons strike our optic nerves and we interpret that as visual information, which is interpreted and processed in the brain. Our eardrums are stimulated by sound waves floating in the air. This stimulation is interpreted in the brain as sounds. We smell; we taste; we feel with the largest organ of out body, the skin. In each of these cases, information gets to our consciousness through direct sensory input from the outside world. We of course store lots of this information in our brain, which is capable of re-creating these sensations for further processing. We do so by thinking, reflecting, day-dreaming, night dreaming, hallucinating, seeing visions, but in all these cases the information is either rearranged or re-sorted in our brain and re-experienced, or it is obtained from the outside world through our senses. This is the classic scientific view. The brain gathers information obtained through the senses and no other way. If consciousness really exists, it exists in the brain. It emerges, perhaps, from the complicated processes of that brain. It does not exist outside of the brain. To suggest such a thing would require some theory, some explanation as to how that could be. If information comes into the brain through telepathy, or through some other sort of psychic ability then this classic understanding breaks down. If consciousness could exist outside of the brain, or outside of the body, or if there could be some sort of non-local influence through prayer or sending good thoughts to another, then everything sort of falls apart. I will draw from a recent book by Diane Hennacy Powell MD entitled The ESP Enigma: The Scientific Case for Psychic Phenomena published in 2009. Dr. Powell was trained at John Hopkins University of Medicine in medicine, neurology, and psychiatry. She is a former member of Harvard Medical School’s faculty and a think tank on consciousness at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California. In this book she summarizes the research on the four basic psychic abilities: telepathy (the ability to access someone else’s consciousness), psychokinesis (the ability for one’s conscious intention to directly act on physical matter), clairvoyance (the ability to see something remote in space and time) and pre-cognition (the ability to access the future). I have noticed that often when folks express a concern during the chalice lighting in this church they may say something like: “Please send good thoughts for this person who is in need.” I am thinking that this is more palatable than saying please pray for this person and is designed to be more inclusive to those who may not believe in prayer. However it may be worth noting that if it is possible to send positive thoughts to another person then we are suggesting that it is possible to influence another’s mind from a distance without any physical connection. This would only be possible if consciousness is not contained solely within the brain and that some sort of non-local phenomena is possible. Non-local simply means that there is no way to physically trace the effects from one to another like through sound or light waves or through radio waves via cell phone or Internet, etc. Isn’t his a form of telepathy? Are we all secret believers in telepathy? If we are to take the idea of telepathy, psychokinesis, clairvoyance, or pre-cognition seriously, then the classic view that consciousness, if it exists at all, is a result of brain activity and it stays in that brain would have to be replaced with something else. Dr. Powell carefully examines the available research for each of these phenomena. She describes a great deal of controlled studies many of which show that groups of people are able to accomplish one or more of these psychic actions much more often than would be predicted by chance. However, much of the research is anecdotal, meaning there are data describing the abilities and experiences of one person who apparently has one or more of these abilities. One striking example of this was an experiment conducted by a brain surgeon Dr. Michael Sabom. His patient needed a brain aneurysm removed from the base of her brain. As part of the surgery her body temperature was reduced to 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Her heartbeat and breathing stopped and her EEG flatlined. The blood was completely drained from her head while her aneurysm was repaired. Her eyes were taped shut and her ears had molded earplugs during the operation. After the operation she reported the classic near-death experiences of the tunnel vortex, bright light, and deceased family members coming to greet her. More interestingly however she was able to report specific details of what was said and done by medical staff while she was in the brain-dead state and had a flatline EEG. Dr. Powell has many other examples in her book of individuals who apparently have psychic abilities. Many of you are familiar with William James, a pioneering psychologist and philosopher (January 11, 1842 – August 26, 1910) who was also trained as a medical doctor. He wrote influential books on the young science of psychology, educational psychology, psychology of religious experience and mysticism, and the philosophy of pragmatism. He was very skeptical of psychic phenomena but was very struck by the abilities of a medium named Lenora Piper (1859-1950). After extensive experiences with her he concluded that her gifts were genuine. He stated:
Dr. Powell identifies dozens of white crows in her book but I will not relate any others at this time. Even if we were to accept her findings, we still need a theory in which to make sense of those experiences. In the absence of a theory whatever data is produced will sit dormant. Fortunately, Dr. Powell does create an outline for such a theory which she calls the Mobius mind Model.
I would like to talk a minute about our senses. Adapting the ideas of Dr. Powell, I would like to suggest that it is possible to expand our sensory abilities using five other abilities: compassion, imagination, focus, expression, and awareness. Einstein was keen on imagination. Here is a quote:
As was mentioned earlier in the service, President Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize and some conservatives are critical of this choice. I think this is an excellent example of what we have been talking about. Obama received this prize for shifting the consciousness of the planet, not for any particular action or event that he can be given credit for. Apparently the Nobel committee understands consciousness and the importance of it for the making of peace. It is not surprising that those who do not understand or believe in consciousness would be critical of this decision. At this point, I would like to invite all of you to expand your senses. (Beginning of experiential exercise).
|