Dr. Rupert Sheldrake Brings Science to Spiritual Practices |376|

[Baccarat]

I find this all so redundant sometimes, its like the serpent eating its own tail, on one hand you have Sheldrake who I admire who seemingly takes the bible literally.....sigh.....accepts Jesus as his savior (presupposition) also stepping out of the box of overrated half truth science of materialism.......

 

[Wormwood]

This is what I don't understand if something works, why does there have to be a placebo distinction? I'f i'm taking a homeopathic remedy, which according to skeptics has no evidence and if it does work it is merely a plaecbo?
You see how stupid that sounds? The point is it worked regardless if it was a placebo or not. It worked!

Its an important distinction to make though when scientifically attempting to ascertain the qualities of various modalities. Anybody can achieve a placebo affect with something, but you want to take things which work magnitudes above and beyond placebo. In this way you can compound knowledge and find better, more effective remedies.

But I know what you mean, to a degree. On a personal level, if you are taking something and you are getting the desired effect, then that's all that matters.

 

[gabriel]

Always good to hear Rupert speak, and so much to agree with. I go on sacred pilgrimages at least once a year, usually to places of the sacred feminine which Anglicanism generally plays down, high church less so. So many of the great cathedrals are sacred groves in stone, the pillars like trees with branches overseen by green men. Of course the puritans saw these as pagan and idolatrous, and the word became fixed and impermeable to personal response and interpretation.

 

[Laird]

If the mere fact that something works for someone implies that the believers' claims about it are real (eg: Christian rituals work for Sheldrake and Co; hence Jesus actually existed, was resurrected by God the father etc), then we end up with an approach whereby any beliefs that work, albeit just for some (including Unicorns and Scientology, say) have to be accepted as truthful, too, even if all these beliefs are 100% in contradiction with each other (eg: Jesus never said one should try to establish a spiritual connection with Unicorns).

Hey Magda - totally agree with your point but hope you're not implying that this is Rupert Sheldrake's position, because I don't think it is. I didn't hear him say anything remotely like "Christian ritual works experientially for me therefore the Christian belief structure is true".

To Alex and Rupert: fantastic interview, very much appreciated here.

 

[Baccarat]

Its an important distinction to make though when scientifically attempting to ascertain the qualities of various modalities. Anybody can achieve a placebo affect with something, but you want to take things which work magnitudes above and beyond placebo. In this way you can compound knowledge and find better, more effective remedies.

But I know what you mean, to a degree. On a personal level, if you are taking something and you are getting the desired effect, then that's all that matters.

The problem with Science is they reduce things down to a part, for example certain turmeric, that's just one component of the plant out of 100s, turmeric was tested by itself, not synergistically with the other components of the plant or other foods

 

[David Bailey]

It might have more to do with the several return visits I've had over the last few months (for various reasons). I always convince myself that church is a community of good/god loving souls who are interested in the highest truths... only to have my illusions shattered by cultish elements and mind-numbing scripture :)

Right, and part of the trouble with Christianity, is that like it or not, it has a long history that contains a lot of terrible stuff. When you are part of a religion, you implicitly support the organisation's past - you can't just discard it all if you are a member. If you meditate, or perform other spiritual practices, or even just come here to discuss, you don't have to pledge support to a huge flawed organisation.

Rupert Sheldrake has ploughed a very interesting path in science and thought, but I feel uncomfortable that he has become a part of an organisation that he can't wholeheartedly believe in! I will still read his latest book with interest!

David

 

[David Bailey]

Its an important distinction to make though when scientifically attempting to ascertain the qualities of various modalities. Anybody can achieve a placebo affect with something, but you want to take things which work magnitudes above and beyond placebo. In this way you can compound knowledge and find better, more effective remedies.

But I know what you mean, to a degree. On a personal level, if you are taking something and you are getting the desired effect, then that's all that matters.

Placebos can actually be quite powerful - however they work - and being able to access that power without being fooled to believe in some pills would have real value.

Since the placebo effect is clearly real, that means that we have genuine grounds to believe that our own minds can effect cures. I once read that merely focussing the mind on a part of the body that needs help, has a real beneficial effect. The article claimed this was due to increased blood flow in the affected region - but I put that down to sciency rationalisation. I do actually find that this works, but of course I would need a second version of myself that did not try to cure itself, to be utterly sure I am not kidding myself!

David

 

[Wormwood]

Placebos can actually be quite powerful - however they work - and being able to access that power without being fooled to believe in some pills would have real value.

Since the placebo effect is clearly real, that means that we have genuine grounds to believe that our own minds can effect cures. I once read that merely focussing the mind on a part of the body that needs help, has a real beneficial effect. The article claimed this was due to increased blood flow in the affected region - but I put that down to sciency rationalisation. I do actually find that this works, but of course I would need a second version of myself that did not try to cure itself, to be utterly sure I am not kidding myself!

David

Tom Campbell speaks at lengths in his trilogy (which im currently reading) about healing not only yourself but others using your mind. Ive yet to reach that part of the book however. He also teaches people (or tries anyways) at his seminars. When Im done with the book Ill make a thread on it. Its a chug though, 860 pages.

 

[garry]

Mr. Sheldrake always seems such a pleasant man to interview. On the question of whether or not the historical Jesus ever existed I always begin by trying to reason why an emperor such as Constantine, who's army means everything to him would want to adopt the Christian philosophy. He must have experienced a startling revelation to concede to a faith based on peace and love for one another as the correct path through Earthly life and eventual Spiritual Redemption. Amazingly, this philosophy will still work for anyone who believes in it yet today. Of course Jesus existed. He can still be found working among us- "Whatever ye ask of me. that I will do."

 

[hypermagda]

Hey Magda - totally agree with your point but hope you're not implying that this is Rupert Sheldrake's position, because I don't think it is. I didn't hear him say anything remotely like "Christian ritual works experientially for me therefore the Christian belief structure is true".

Hi Laird!
I quote from the transcript: Sheldrake: "I agree, and biblical scholarship has revealed all sorts of things about the Bible and it’s clear that SOME (my underlining) elements of it are mythic, they’re stories that grow up" (...)"The key thing is, I do think Jesus actually existed. I do think that Jesus actually went around teaching many of the things we read about in the New Testament and most biblical scholarship suggests that that was the case."

See, I have no problem with that belief - personally, I am agnostic about the real existence of the historical Jesus and to be honest I am not even particularly interested in the Bible etc. But those statements by R. Sheldrake are clear evidence of his believing the key tenets of the "Christian belief structure" (as you refer to it). I never meant that one has necessarily to believe 100% of the Christian belief structure to be still considered a believer of that faith (especially since there are gazillions of Christian denominations which do not all believe in the same things - but they share enough common ground to still consider themselves Christian, and to be considered as such by others).

So, he's a believer of that faith - so IF at the same time he wishes to imply (this is not 100% clear to me) that Lord Ganesha or Unicorns or Scientology are equally true because the rituals around them work for other people, I am sorry but he is thus ignoring the elephant in the room: there can be only one Ultimate Truth (and this does obviously NOT mean that I know it!)

Which links up to a question addressed to me by Charlie Primero: there must logically be one and one only ultimate Truth (even if we don't know it), because even the assertion/belief whereby there is no ultimate Truth and everything goes, hence there was a historical Jesus and at the same time we can develop a spiritual connection with Unicorns or Santa Claus and at the same time Scientology is not bullshit etc etc (ie: an assertion whereby mutually conflicting beliefs would all be true at the same time) would in itself be "the Ultimate Truth", supposing things are exactly like that.

Problem is, the vast majority (though admittedly not all, but this is just evidence of their not thinking things through) of the believers of any of these religions/alternative philosophies/spirituality forms (call them what you wish) would insist that no, they are right and the others are deluding themselves (ask any Christian who is truly a believer and not just going to church because it's something nice or reassuring or just conformist to do on a Sunday).

And personally, I find it hard to imagine (let alone disappointing) that the Ultimate Truth could be simply utter chaos (an inconceivably irrational 'thing" where everything and its opposite are equally true and real). But hey, it could certainly be the case. However this scenario is hardly one that believers (in anything) would agree with. If there is something all believers share, is belief in an order that "makes sense" (regardless of our ability to see it clearly).

Finally, on the topic of the placebo effect, Baccarat: if you suggest that turmeric works because there may be ways in which it interacts with other "factors" you are implying that there are material reasons for its effect. However "the placebo effect" is a different thing, it suggests that there is another way of healing beyond the material (from wikipedia): "The placebo effect points to the importance of perception and the brain's role in physical health."

However what this "way/dimension" is we don't know for sure. And this is why attributing feeling better/ spiritual or physical healing to a spiritual connection with Jesus because he truly existed and is of course still out there somewhere or to Unicorns because they are allegedly real although in another dimension may or may not be just a delusion, but what is truly interesting and important is why it works, regardless of the actual truth of what specific people happen to believe in. THIS is what I am interested in, the ultimate Truth, not so much whether spiritual practices work or not.

The Ultimate Truth may in fact be that NONE of the things humans have imagined throughout the ages (Jesus included) are real. But they still 'work'. Why is that? Is there something behind reality that we have no clue about whatsoever but that seems to enjoy distracting (and dividing us!) by leading different people to believe in different things, no matter how outlandish, by producing 'results' for them, so that lots of different beliefs have something to show for themselves, but precisely for this (ie, there may be be something in each of them but none of them is demonstrably "the one") none of them can be considered THE right one, objectively?

I find this level of analysis to be truly important and although as I said I truly love Rupert Sheldrake I was disappointed that he did not address it. OK, he's not a philosopher, but I would have loved to hear his opinion on these deeper questions.

 

[Wormwood]

Mr. Sheldrake always seems such a pleasant man to interview. On the question of whether or not the historical Jesus ever existed I always begin by trying to reason why an emperor such as Constantine, who's army means everything to him would want to adopt the Christian philosophy. He must have experienced a startling revelation to concede to a faith based on peace and love for one another as the correct path through Earthly life and eventual Spiritual Redemption. Amazingly, this philosophy will still work for anyone who believes in it yet today. Of course Jesus existed. He can still be found working among us- "Whatever ye ask of me. that I will do."

People have adopted a lot of belief systems in the past for many various reasons. Some of them partially true, most of them either totally false or largely false, from a historical perspective. Of course I do understand and see the value of mythology in human history. It served a powerful and necessary purpose which taught important moral lessons and quelled some intellectual curiousities, but I am now speaking from a strict historical perspective. I don't think the historical record tells us that Constantine was a man of peace and love. My impression (hardly an expert on the topic) is that it was politically convenient etc. for him to adopt the faith. Of course there's that story of him seeing a cross in the sky before a victory? Is that historically accurate? Genuine question. He may have thought that Jesus was helping him crush his enemies so he could obtain power, which is not an admirable reason for conversion. Even so, he's just one man. I don't find the story of his conversion to Christianity any more evidential than all of these other conversion stories of random people around the world who have converted to any number of other faiths for whatever various reason.

 

[gabriel]

When you are part of a religion, you implicitly support the organisation's past - you can't just discard it all if you are a member.

Christianity has lasted for 2000 years. It's inevitable it will have been put to the service of every human instinct in that time, from OCD scriptural readings, self hatred, narcissism, empire building, pseudoscience, whatever. Why would anyone have to take on board every reflection of humanity when the texts are available to anyone? It's clear you and Alex can't get past your own projections of what Christianity represents, whereas Sheldrake has clearly navigated the same ground and come through with something he thinks important. It's the same old critique, if you believe x you must believe y, and how can someone so bright believe something so stupid? It's projecting your own dogmatism on to someone else. You are of course entitled to put whatever spin on to the data you wish, but not all theories are created equal and hypotheses that say Jesus of Nazareth never existed are academically bankrupt. Citing those as equivalent to the conclusions of people who've spent their entire lives studying ancient Hebrew and Aramaic scripts does the subject a grave (sic) disservice.

I read an interesting article the other day about conspiracy theory as a type of political pareidolia (a search for patterns, even when they may not exist). Ryan Shirlow subjected his 1993 VW Polo to Sacred Geometry and the Fibonacci Sequence which exist in nature, and came out with the quack reading. Unsurprisingly he emerged with convincing yet utterly erroneous conclusions that Judas Escariot, Arianism, Freemasonry and angels were involved in its construction. That's what happens when allow our prejudices to wander where they will. It was an interesting interview but Rupert Sheldrake was unable to elaborate his conclusions because someone, somewhere once said Jesus was a Mesopotamian goat deity, and we have to give that equal weight.

 

[Wormwood]

Christianity has lasted for 2000 years. It's inevitable it will have been put to the service of every human instinct in that time, from OCD scriptural readings, self hatred, narcissism, empire building, pseudoscience, whatever. Why would anyone have to take on board every reflection of humanity when the texts are available to anyone? It's clear you and Alex can't get past your own projections of what Christianity represents, whereas Sheldrake has clearly navigated the same ground and come through with something he thinks important. It's the same old critique, if you believe x you must believe y, and how can someone so bright believe something so stupid? It's projecting your own dogmatism on to someone else. You are of course entitled to put whatever spin on to the data you wish, but not all theories are created equal and hypotheses that say Jesus of Nazareth never existed are academically bankrupt. Citing those as equivalent to the conclusions of people who've spent their entire lives studying ancient Hebrew and Aramaic scripts does the subject a grave (sic) disservice.

I read an interesting article the other day about conspiracy theory as a type of political pareidolia (a search for patterns, even when they may not exist). Ryan Shirlow subjected his 1993 VW Polo to Sacred Geometry and the Fibonacci Sequence which exist in nature, and came out with the quack reading. Unsurprisingly he emerged with convincing yet utterly erroneous conclusions that Judas Escariot, Arianism, Freemasonry and angels were involved in its construction. That's what happens when allow our prejudices to wander where they will. It was an interesting interview but Rupert Sheldrake was unable to elaborate his conclusions because someone, somewhere once said Jesus was a Mesopotamian goat deity, and we have to give that equal weight.

While I am not a Christian I do agree. It is absolutely possible that the central tenant of Christianity is true (the resurrected Jesus), even if the Bible is erroneous in several locations. But reactions like Alex's are understandable, as the assertions of many fundamentalists and literalists really beg this sort of reaction. Fundamentalists and many opponents of Christianity (not all of course) assume that if God is real (and is something like the God of the Bible) then his main purpose must have been to give us an accurate book which we now call the Bible. (I'm not saying this is Alex's assertion).

From an evidential current standpoint, people do experience Jesus during NDE's etc, so I feel that at least a MINIMALIST case can be made.

 

[Michael Patterson]

Alex's questions at the end of the podcast:

How might science interface with and inform the kinds of questions we would have as spiritual seekers? What spiritual practices are best? For which types of people? Measured under which circumstances? What would that then say about the underlying structure and meaning of extended realms of consciousness?

I bought Rupert's book and read it - actually scanned it - very quickly. It seemed to be gently inoffensive, and maybe useful to people I do not understand. Essentially, if you are a 'spiritual seeker', looking to science for answers is a complete waste of time. That is not to say that evidence drawn from scientific studies does not validate spiritual aspirations. We would expect that, if scientific inquiry has any value, it will validate knowledge drawn from direct (and experimental) experience undertaken by people engaged in empirical inquiry into what we loosely call 'spiritual' matters. For me any such confirmation tends to validate the 'science', not the spirituality.

It is essentially a good thing when inner and outer experiences come together. If I get out of my body it is a good thing when I discover that other people do the same thing, and even better when so-called 'scientists' don't dump buckets of crap on the idea. But when they do I am not going to be unsettled by that. i have learned to trust my experiences over 'consensus' reality.

I completely understand that people with no such experience have to rely on other sources of information. But there are forms of inquiry into the nature of human reality that don't cut any ice with 'science', because it does not admit to such possibilities. And when it finally does catch up I struggle to be more generous than thinking its time those dull wits got with the program.

But having said that I should also say that I hold Rupert in high esteem because he has persisted against unreasonable and irrational opposition in his course. He has remained relentlessly reasonable. He is a tonic to a quivering materialist on the brink of awakening. He is a gentle antidote to a dose of materialistic confusion.

I bought Rupert's book as an act of solidarity. I hope it has an audience/readership for whom the contents are genuinely enlightening and exciting. I just have no idea who those folk might be. That is, there may be folk teetering on the edge between compliance with dogma and free inquiry. In fact I have no doubt they are legion. I just don't know who they are. It is therefore really is not a book on which I should make any comment at all.

Its good the stragglers are finally getting over the line, but they should be getting lollipops and not champagne.

 

[gabriel]

Fundamentalists and many opponents of Christianity (not all of course) assume that if God is real (and is something like the God of the Bible) then his main purpose must have been to give us an accurate book which we now call the Bible.

As I've said on numerous occasions, the bible is a series of books written in various genres over many hundreds of years. One cannot read the documentary aspirations of a text like the Gospel according to Matthew, with apocalyptic poetics like Revelation in the same light. Biblical literalism is like taking Tennyson's "The Charge of the Light Brigade" as a historical description of Crimean War military tactics. Sure they cross over, both are "true" if after the event, but the expectations of writer and reader are completely different. Reductionism in scripture or science reveals little of value. It takes us down the rabbit hole of Augustine of Hippo who was concerned whether Adam enjoyed his erections.

 

[David Bailey]

Christianity has lasted for 2000 years. It's inevitable it will have been put to the service of every human instinct in that time, from OCD scriptural readings, self hatred, narcissism, empire building, pseudoscience, whatever. Why would anyone have to take on board every reflection of humanity when the texts are available to anyone? It's clear you and Alex can't get past your own projections of what Christianity represents, whereas Sheldrake has clearly navigated the same ground and come through with something he thinks important. It's the same old critique, if you believe x you must believe y, and how can someone so bright believe something so stupid? It's projecting your own dogmatism on to someone else. You are of course entitled to put whatever spin on to the data you wish, but not all theories are created equal and hypotheses that say Jesus of Nazareth never existed are academically bankrupt. Citing those as equivalent to the conclusions of people who've spent their entire lives studying ancient Hebrew and Aramaic scripts does the subject a grave (sic) disservice.

I read an interesting article the other day about conspiracy theory as a type of political pareidolia (a search for patterns, even when they may not exist). Ryan Shirlow subjected his 1993 VW Polo to Sacred Geometry and the Fibonacci Sequence which exist in nature, and came out with the quack reading. Unsurprisingly he emerged with convincing yet utterly erroneous conclusions that Judas Escariot, Arianism, Freemasonry and angels were involved in its construction. That's what happens when allow our prejudices to wander where they will. It was an interesting interview but Rupert Sheldrake was unable to elaborate his conclusions because someone, somewhere once said Jesus was a Mesopotamian goat deity, and we have to give that equal weight.

Well we obviously will never agree about Christianity! However, my point is that if you rely on some aspect of modern medicine (say you take an antibiotic to cure something) you don't need to concern yourself that modern medicine grew from layers of medical practice that were clearly absurd or even cruel - extensive use of bleeding, for example.

However if you join a religion you join a group of people whose ideas come directly from very long ago, and which inspired all the people who were members all down through the centuries. There can't be an authoritative re-appraisal of such a body of ideas. Any such re-appraisal can only be temporary, because the ultimate authority is the Bible. In some ways I can understand the logic of Fundamentalist Christians, who say, since the Bible is holy, it all has to be literally true!

In the Bible there is no equivalent (at least that I can recall) of "It is interesting to speculate...", or "Consider this analogy..." or "Let's put that poetically...", there aren't even any font changes that might indicate such things! Clearly either all the Bible is authoritative - every word of it - or none of it is authoritative, because the decision as to which bits are to be believed is made by humans!

Unfortunately, Christianity and Islam (at least) has inspired people to do utterly terrible things, so if you plug into that system, you do give some moral support what was done in the past. There isn't any way for Christianity to cleanly and permanently cut itself off from the ideas that lead to disaster in the past - as some modern versions of Islam illustrate very well right now.
Even Christianity still has problems, for example:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/christian-homophobes-are-spreadi.html

Within Christianity there is no way of deciding any of these issues, because for example intensely homophobic churches can point to passages in the Bible that seem to support their point of view. OK, others can find reasons not to use such texts, but any such decision is not based on Christian concepts, but on modern secular ideas about what is right or wrong.


I think we both agree that Rupert Sheldrake is a really valuable thinker, whatever his views on Christianity.

David

 

[Wormwood]

In the Bible there is no equivalent (at least that I can recall) of "It is interesting to speculate...", or "Consider this analogy..." or "Let's put that poetically...", there aren't even any font changes that might indicate such things! Clearly either all the Bible is authoritative - every word of it - or none of it is authoritative, because the decision as to which bits are to be believed is made by humans!



David

I disagree with this in a big way. I don't think its black or white. You can have a historical event occur, and then have people muddle that event with opinion, bias, political slant etc. Of course you are right when you say that it thus becomes very problematic from an evidential standpoint, and makes your standing ground for proof nearly impossible to stand on, and in that sense we may not be able to determine if it actually DID happen or not. But our inability to discern or determine such things does not make the historical event impossible. The historical event in question, as far as I'm concerned, is the resurrection. Christianity stands or falls with the resurrection, in my opinion. If it happened, it happened, regardless of what people wrote about it afterwards, or what they added etc. It's not as simple as "if the Bible is the word of God, the resurrection occurred, if the Bible is not the infallible word of God, the resurrection did not occur." But, perhaps Im misrepresenting your point some because you didn't say exactly that. That's just what I took from it.

 

[gabriel]

Well we obviously will never agree about Christianity!

As a belief system there's no reason why we should. As evidence of a historical figure it meets the demands of any ancient history.

In some ways I can understand the logic of Fundamentalist Christians, who say, since the Bible is holy, it all has to be literally true!

Why doesn't that surprise me!

In the Bible there is no equivalent (at least that I can recall) of "It is interesting to speculate..."

It's a diverse set of texts. Some are didactic even mundane, like lists of names in Genesis, some challenge human nature, some are gnomic. I'd say they invite speculation of the most profound sort.

My starting point is Pentecost where a bunch of argumentative, cowardly and deeply parochial individuals who thought their military leader or rabbi was dead, were able to set out alone and convince the people of three continents, including their persecutors and the leaders of empire. That is not easily dismissed as a phenomenon. Whether it convinces you of a psychic phenomenon is another matter and not my business. The rest is place settings to that event and I process them in that context.

Unfortunately, Christianity and Islam (at least) has inspired people to do utterly terrible things,

I don't think it inspires people to do anything they're not predisposed towards. Mad people do mad things. People see some patterns and ignore others that do not fit their prejudices.

 

[David Bailey]

My starting point is Pentecost where a bunch of argumentative, cowardly and deeply parochial individuals who thought their military leader or rabbi was dead, were able to set out alone and convince the people of three continents, including their persecutors and the leaders of empire. That is not easily dismissed as a phenomenon. Whether it convinces you of a psychic phenomenon is another matter and not my business. The rest is place settings to that event and I process them in that context.

I already am pretty much convinced of the existence of psychic phenomena - that isn't the point - the point is that I wouldn't want to pledge myself to an organisation that declares the Bible to be authoritative, except for the bits that some committee has decided might not be - particularly when some biblical texts are downright hateful!

David

 

[David Bailey]

disagree with this in a big way. I don't think its black or white.

Yes, but you aren't a Christian! A Christian is supposed to believe the Bible, even though they only believe in parts of it! Christians accept the whole Bible - both testaments, so that includes (modern translation):

If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

Or take your pick from this:

https://www.openbible.info/topics/

I mean people can and do quote the Bible as Christians!

David