David Bohm

Science vs Religion

David Bohm is famous in certain circles.  Wikipedia introduces him as one of the most significant theoretical physicists of the 20th century.  But we’re not going to talk about that.  

He’s also got something to say about our relationship with knowledge and with each other. 

If you’re wondering : why should it matter what a physicist has to say about our lives?   Well he’s also a human being, who was concerned with the problem of harm.

But I’m glad I asked!  – mainly because it’s an excuse for a little rant.

A rant about our attitudes concerning science and religion.  To look at the difference, if any, between a scientific mindset vs a religious mindset.    

Does a person who belongs to a particular faith necessarily have a religious mind?  Or are they more likely to have a dogmatic, tribalistic attitude?

There’s a difference between belonging to a religion and acting in a religious manner – these are not the same.  

Something to do with how we cling to belief.

Is there anything holy about a terrorist going to war for their beliefs?   Or are they being dogmatic and violent?

The same goes for Scientism – to assume that science is perfect.  It’s an attitude that precludes a scientific outlook.   It inhibits our ability to enquire into the unknown.

We are looking at the difference between an open inquiring attitude and a closed and resistant one.  

To be clear : the religious mind and the scientific mind are able to embrace the mystery; in fact they are driven by it.   

In devotional-speak : the mystery is the “most high”.

Science and religion refer to the different doctrines, methods or institutions – which is different from someone’s mental attitude.

I realise this isn’t in line with our conventional opinions – science and religion are usually framed as opposites.   Which brings me to another favorite rant : NOMA.   Where I pit NOMA vs. The Pope.

The Non-overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) is a most excellent term coined by Stephen Jay Gould, a biologist and popular science writer.  It states that science and religion deal with two distinct realms of reality.  

Science is great at the what and the how: rocks, lichen, atoms, disease. Theology teaches the why and the ought: purpose and morality in the grand scheme of creation. 

On one side the empirical realm of facts and theories, and on the other moral values and ultimate meaning.  And never the twain shall meet : they don’t overlap.

The Pope (aka Saint Peter’s successor, supreme pontiff of the catholic church and bishop of Rome) states that “Truth cannot contradict Truth”.   This seems to be the opposite of NOMA.

The pontiff doesn’t care what realm you’re in; what you say over here counts just as much over there.   The papacy stands with the rules of logic : the law of non-contradiction prevails – if my truth contradicts yours, then at least one of us is wrong.

Which is why Catholics are allowed to admit that some of the stuff in Genesis is more of an allegory than an exact historical account.

If logic prevails over diplomacy, then the winner is : The Pope.

Conflict management does matter, it helps society function.  If you don’t want religious fundamentalists turning up to burn down your house – or if you just want to avoid stepping on people’s toes – NOMA rules.

The Church is trying to tell us what God wants, and that’s not the mission of science.

Scientific inquiry describes what’s actually happening – stuff that can be detected.  So do their missions overlap? 

There is a gap between “is” and “ought” as all good philbros know.   “What should be” cannot be directly derived from “what is”.

Put enough data together though, and conclusions about optimum behavior will tend to emerge.  For example, if it’s true that : 

          a) consuming arsenic is bad for our health; and that 

b) we generally don’t want to damage our health

then we can conclude that we generally ought not consume arsenic.  Maybe there is a slight overlapping of the magisteria when it comes to morality or wellbeing? 

Morality is generally considered to exist, in the sense that it has an effect on our lives.  If there are facts about morality then they can be demonstrated.  And if a deity has some detectable effect, it too can be detected.

For example, we have carried out scientific research into the efficacy of prayer – research that is often funded by religious institutions. 

So keeping the different magisteria apart can be difficult in practice.  Real life doesn’t always respect our artificial boundaries.   Meaning, values and facts all collide in the shared space of our brains and the actions we take.   We all share the same universe and experience it with similar brains.

Feelings and beliefs are powerful, they motivate our behavior – including violent behavior.   Diplomacy is no small matter, it can save lives.  But it depends on a pretend wall that doesn’t exist.  The alleged proclamations of God and the tentative findings of science always end up butting heads in the real world.

Many Worlds?

David Bohm allowed his curiosity free reign.  He wasn’t swayed by societal divisions.  He would inquire into whatever interested him, whether it was in one particular field or another.  Being a physicist didn’t stop him studying religion.  

Which is why he is recognised as having contributed to both these fields.  It’s also why some of his colleagues accused him of dabbling in “pseudo-science”.  

His patriotism was also called into question for not being sufficiently anti-communist (during the McCarthy era of repression against perceived “left-leaning” individuals).

Some of his work as a theoretical physicist wasn’t taken seriously at the time, and he ended up losing his job and felt obliged to leave the country – all for crossing party lines.  Treason to science for his interest in mysticism, and treason to America for his support of trade unionism.

This was back in the 1950’s, in the good old days when dogma was real dogma.  

These days his name and work is well remembered and respected.  

In terms of Quantum Physics you may have heard of the “Copenhagen interpretation” (of what’s really going on in the wacky world of tiny quarks and electrons).  It’s the first and still most famous, and also fuzzy, “don’t ask me, I don’t know” kinda interpretation.  Sometimes called the “shut up and calculate” (ie. don’t interpret) interpretation.

The “Many-worlds interpretation” seems to be the current fan favorite.  Not least because the notion of there being multiple universes precedes quantum physics – it’s an exciting idea that we are already familiar with – movies about it like : Dr Strange and the multiverse of madness, and Everything, everywhere all at once have even won Oscars. 

It’s based on the observation that photons and their tiny friends do cause measurable effects, thus they must necessarily exist.  But since everything that happens in what we calculate as “probability fields” can’t and thus doesn’t actually occur in this reality (because being here and there at the same time would be a contradiction? I’m speculating at this point, please don’t take my confusion seriously folks) – therefooore some of the stuff must be happening in a different reality/universe (cool!)

And let’s put the “De Broglie-Bohm theory” in third place of this list of attempts to explain quantum weirdness.  Some people might disagree about placing it third, because it’s boring, complex and was for a long time ignored (for the reasons related above) – tough.  

Did I say I know close to nothing about Physics?  Good.  Understanding what this theory is about is way beyond my pay grade.  But apparently it can be represented as an equation, and is still in use today.  Let’s just say it’s based on the assumption that all matter can be expressed as a wave (and as particles, exactly like stuff at the quantum level).

That’s not Bohm’s only contribution to theoretical physics, but I’d definitely put it at the top of my CV if I could.

However we’re here to look at his book : On Dialogue.  A book that was no doubt influenced by the ostracism he suffered during the McCarthy era – having lived through the violence that arises out of our inability to communicate beyond tribal boundaries. 

He dedicated much of his later years to the question of dialogue and knowledge.  On Dialogue is Bohm’s literary response to our tendency to fight over worldviews.  As soon as you say something that goes against my opinions, I tense up.    

The Bohmian take on Diplomacy – for example the diplomatic divide between scepticism and superstition, or between Capitalism and Communism – is stated clearly in the book.  Efforts towards de-escalation become necessary when everyone refuses to question their convictions.  Necessary in order to avoid all out war.

Diplomacy is necessary because we, and our societies or institutions, are broken.  Or to be precise they lack the mechanisms of self-correction.    Our initial and overriding instinct is to protect what is ours.  Our doctrines define us, and so to question our worldview is to question our identity.   Errors cannot be corrected, because we cannot admit that any errors exist.

Clarity vs Conflict

During the cold war, in the 1970’s and 80’s when the Americans and the Soviets felt obliged to negotiate with each other, there was no actual meeting of minds or any real problem solving.    The survival of life on earth was at stake, due to the threat of nuclear winter, but the best we could do was negotiate the number of warheads.  If war was to break out everyone would still die, but the number of bombs used would not be too unreasonable.

The fact that we were locked in a potentially lethal relationship based on identity was not a subject that could be questioned.  It was not up for discussion, why discuss the inevitable?   Our identities are bound up in contrasting ideologies, thus we must be enemies.

Collaborating towards the most beneficial or intelligent outcome was inconceivable – at least practically.   Working together as humans in the same boat – ie. this planet that was being threatened with annihilation – was not a possibility.    The world would have to remain at loggerheads until either one of the parties failed or someone pressed the launch button.   

For a while it looked like the Soviet side caved, thanks in part to Mr. Gorbachev – but the dream of Russian power has since been rekindled.

These power struggles are the norm for interactions between humans.  Whether between states or between the billions of people interacting online right now.  We are compelled to act based on our worst impulses of fear, anger, hatred and pride

In high stakes situations, our beliefs and emotions can get in the way.   Our anxiety is such that simply holding back from our worst behavior is the best we can do.  Any hope of intelligent action is completely overwhelmed by our emotional distress. 

Even with our best representatives, our best negotiators to address planetwide annihilation, simply forestalling immediate violence is considered a major success. 

In the absence of outside mitigation, our passions can make us feel obliged to act.  And oftentimes in our need for immediate action, our only option is the worst option.  We end up attacking first, which could mean slapping our child, insulting our neighbours, or sending in the crack military troops.

Once the dust settles we can look back on our violent behavior and either rationalise it or hope to do better next time.   Often concluding that we did what we had to do – that violence was the only possible solution considering the circumstances.   

If there is a sense of guilt for any harm inflicted, then we usually try to imagine how such terrible outcomes could be avoided in the future.

What we’re asking is whether it is at all possible to be free of our propensity for senseless violence.   Are we bound to be continuously overwhelmed by our self-centered psychology?   Is it possible to wake up from our confusion, or will we always be dominated by our opinions and emotions?  

It’s great when someone instinctively dives into a lake to save a drowning child, but it’s less cool when we find ourselves acting as the aggressor.

Is mitigation our only hope?  Is reducing the number of nuclear warheads the best we can do?  

Is our only hope in some imagined future, where we eventually become better versions of ourselves – more loving, more patient?

Relationship as a Mirror

David Bohm’s book On Dialogue sits in a long tradition that goes back at least 2500 years – a tradition that started in Nepal with the Buddha.  

We’re referring to meditation, a concept that existed before the Buddha, but was radically transformed by his enlightenment and teachings.   

You’ve heard of mindfulness, maybe even insight dialogue, these are modern manifestations of this same lineage.   They are forms of meditation that have become part of modern medical therapeutics – especially in the field of stress reduction.

We’ll get into proper definitions of meditation later, and into the story of the Buddha too.   

Right now I’m just pointing out an ongoing debate (or confusion) concerning this contemplative practice.  Namely the question of whether it’s a developmental or cumulative technique of improvement acquired over time – or whether it’s a mental state.   

Is it a slow process akin to a form of self-hypnosis, or spiritual purification – or is it more akin to waking up?  Is it a form of progressive mitigation of suffering – or some kind of instantaneous psychological transcendence? 

Someone told me recently that it was both – like a contradiction.   At once a desire for future goods, whilst simultaneously transcending those desires in the present moment?   A sort of paradoxical method for awakening whilst already being awake?   Sounds tricky.

In any case Bohm dialogue, as it is sometimes called, is not meant to be an analytical procedure leading to a final conclusion.   It’s more of an ongoing experiment with our relationship to words and ideas – where the actual exploration is the whole point.  Because exploration is different from blindly reacting.

When we become curious about our mechanical or habitual reactions, we are no longer being blindly driven by them.  If that means my anger is no longer dominating me – surely everybody wins.  And if I no longer need to dominate you – surely the world has become a better place.  

If this is a kind of journey from suffering to clarity, then maybe it’s a journey of only two steps.  The first step being when we are confronted with our own image – when we turn to look at ourselves in the mirror.  And the second step when we see who we are.

Meditation, or “awakening to our true nature” is definitely not about a progression over time towards some arcane knowledge.  It’s not about gaining some mystical power in order to finally feel secure and content. 

And in this case it’s not even about sitting in an uncomfortable yogic posture.

Emeritus Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of London.  David Bohm was born in Pennsylvania, USA in 1917 – and died aged 74 in London, England in 1992. 

He was attracted to contemplative traditions and spent a large part of the 1970s and 80s hanging out with the Dalai Lama and J. Krishnamurti.  Some of their discussions, which are still available online, helped shape his work in both science and philosophy.

Bohm’s main concern was with understanding the nature of reality in general and of consciousness in particular.  Here follows a summary of some of that work.  See you in the next chapter for his take on what enlightened conversations look like.