I do NOT Think That Thinking Undermines Religious Faith

But, that’s the gist of this new study that devalues religion and any sort of “gut” feeling:  Thinking can undermine religious faith.

I think the conclusions of that article are flawed by insufficient data and inadequate analysis.

---

I think that people who THINK they’re thinking can UNDER-think the issue because of pre-conceived opinions and scientific political correctness … and can get wrong answers based on too little information. Analytical processes do not create correct answers when they grind through incorrect or incomplete data.

I write about this in my thriller,  Perfect Killer.

The following excerpt from Perfect Killer will tell you why I think this is important:

PERFECT KILLER, CHAPTER 27 (MOST OF IT)

 When I reached the enclosed bridge to the next building, I began a jog toward the conference room inside, the half dozen postdoctoral students from Toronto were sitting around a long, elliptical plastic-laminate table, drinking coffee from a variety of disposable cups. The rest of the seats around the table along with the standing room around the windowless walls were jammed with a collection of my current students I vaguely recognized but whose names I could not recall.

The conversation lulled when I entered the room and made my way to the big white board at the front.

“Good afternoon,” I greeted them. “Before we get started, I want you to know that if today’s lecture is interesting and you want more, you can find my notes and other data at my Web site: ConsciousnessStudies.org.” I turned and wrote the address on the white board.

“Okay.” I turned to face them. “Let’s begin with a question: Did you really decide to attend this seminar today, or are you here because of some unremembered incident last year or maybe during your infancy?”

The attendees unanimously gave me the confused stares I wanted.

“Or maybe you’re here because of some artifact lurking in your DNA?”

Their befuddlement deepened.

“Some among us today believe everything you do is predestined. These reductionists and determinists whose dogma dominate brain science today think free will is an illusion and consciousness an accidental by-product of synaptic electricity.”

A couple of the faculty members present, acolytes of the orthodox, frowned deeply at this.

I tapped an index finger against my temple. “’One hundred percent in the meatware,’ they say. ‘Inspiration, meditation, right and wrong, eloquence, philosophy, do not exist; transcendence is a fantasy and everything’s just the meat talking.’”

Most heads shook their disagreement.

“This issue transcends science because free will underpins our relationships with others and forms the philosophical foundations of law and society. Genuine accidents carry a different reaction than intentional injury or insult. Courts treat two people convicted of identical crimes very differently if one’s insane or visibly, provably brain-damaged.

“Sadly, the scientific mainstream has mishandled free will. They have a vested intellectual interest in promoting politically correct science over reality, just as the Renaissance Vatican favored the religiously correct over provably factual heresy.

“They conveniently forget Albert Einstein when he said that ‘science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.’”

I ignored an assassinating frown from a slight man sitting toward the back of the room. The man, Jean-Claude Bouvet, had a lot to lose if I was right. A widely published author and leader of the “consciousness as meatware” movement, Bouvet was a pompous, brilliant man who received lavish research funding from large pharmaceutical companies.

“We will speak heresy today,” I continued. “Because like Copernicus, our search for truth requires that we see things as they are, rather than as we would like for them to be. This means setting aside politics, social engineering, and corporate profits to accept the unwelcome pain of unexpected discoveries. Unlike our reductionist colleagues” — I singled out Bouvet with a glance— “we will deal with science rather than fantasy.”

Bouvet mumbled something derogatory, and I continued without acknowledging him.

“Our quest for the truth begins with three important steps:

“One, free will derives from consciousness. Two, consciousness is our perception of reality. Three, reality is weird.”

This produced a titter of nervous laughter.

“There’s no real argument over the first two steps,” I continued. “Because without the awareness provided by consciousness, there can be no exercise of free will. And even the most orthodox priests of reductionism agree that consciousness is perception. But the nature of reality divides us bitterly.

“The reductionists believe we live in a classical, clockwork universe as defined by Sir Isaac Newton where any future action can be predicted by knowing all the data about its starting point and every starting point can he determined by reversing the process.

“The classicists also believe that all action must be local. But entanglement—the foundation of quantum cryptography now being tested by banks for money transfers—proves that actions on a particle here can instantaneously affect an entangled particle anywhere else in the universe.

“Uncertainty and entanglement mean that biological reductionism is about as right as the Vatican was about astronomy in Copernican days. Quantum physics has trumped Newton’s classical physics in everything from semiconductors, global-positioning satellites, and nuclear bombs. Despite this, classicists cling to predictability despite quantum physics’ proof that uncertainty rules the universe.

“In our quantum world, we cannot even predict the behavior of a single electron or proton in any atom of your body. We can calculate probabilities of its behavior, but nothing is certain—not even whether that particle will exist a nanosecond from there. Thus, classical reductionism falls short because quantum reality prevents it from determining starting conditions, and this means they cannot forecast actions based on those conditions. In place of their fantasy clockwork, reality consists of infinitely nonpredictable sets of mathematical probabilities. In other words, uncertainty is the only thing of which we can be certain.”

“I can’t sit here and let you mislead these people.” Bouvet’s angry interjection riveted the room. “Your theory is misleading because quantum physics determines science at the very small levels of atomic and subatomic particles, whereas people and the cellular structures that govern life and our behavior are many times larger. A biological system is too large, too warm and messy, for any sort of coherence or quantum phenomenon to govern it.”

He jutted his jaw at me like the tip of a spear. Eyes flitted from him to me and finally fixed me with expectations.

“An excellent recitation of the current dogma,” I said, nodding evenly at Bouvet. “But one rooted in the erroneous belief that biology and physics operate by different rules.”

Bouvet snorted.

“Biology is not immune to the laws of physics,” I responded. “Every atom in our bodies obeys the same rules, adheres to the same quantum mechanical properties as every other atom in the universe.

“Biology is chemistry; chemistry is physics; and quantum mechanics rules physics,” I said. “Biology may seem like the study of large, messy systems, but all life depends on chemical reactions: metabolism, cell division, DNA replication—you name it. Chemical reactions depend on electron bonding orbits, and those are entirely quantum-based. What’s more, every atom in your body is composed of the very same subatomic particles as those in a doorknob or a distant star.

“Let’s do an experiment. Imagine your head, then visualize your brain.” I saw some eyes close. “Pick a neuron, any neuron. Then select a random molecule, and from that molecule, single out one atom. I paused to let people focus as more eyes closed.

“Okay, focus on a particle in the atom—proton, neutron, electron—doesn’t matter. Particle physics tells us that particle is a wave and a particle at the same time, which says that even though the results of our experiments allow us to perceive it as one or the other, it is in reality probably neither. Superstring theory indicates that energy and matter are just different patterns of vibration from space-time, the basic fabric of the universe. That is the ultimate weird nature of the reality we must understand in order to comprehend consciousness and, through that process, come to grips with free will.”

“But you’re still confusing the rules!” Bouvet interrupted. “Quantum mechanics applies to the very small, not to biology.”

I gave Bouvet an indulgent smile. “If you’ll allow me, Doctor?” He slid sullenly into his seat without replying.

“Quantum effects underlie all processes, even those with large, observable effects which—”

“Name one!” Bouvet’s temper burned down toward the limits of my patience.

“Well, Doctor, a nuclear bomb fits pretty well. Hard to miss one of those, and yet quantum processes underlie the whole thing.”

“But—”

“Every biological process including consciousness is rooted in quantum physics, which carries the inherent uncertainty that makes it impossible to determine the fixed starting point you and other reductionists and behaviorists need to predict anything at all. Doctor classical physics is dead. You need to get a grip on that.”

In the front, a slight young man with thinning sandy brown hair tentatively raised his hand. I nodded at him.

“Doesn’t that just shift the issue of free will around from the tyranny of biological predestination to the chaos of rolling dice?”

Bouvet smiled at the young man, then shot me a challenging look.

“You might think so,” I said, “if not for some very good published studies into cognitive behavior therapy—CBT—showing that people with various problems—depression for example—can create new interneuronal connections through directed thought. What’s more, the research proves these people overcome their psychological problems in far more significant and lasting ways than those who pop a pill.”

I looked around the room and, for the first time, saw Jasmine inside the door, leaning against the far wall nearly hidden in the standing-room crowd. I took a deep breath and desperately scanned my notes for an intelligent thought. Her hair framed her face like an aura and created the perfect backdrop for the dazzling diamond studs in her ears. Her eye shadow sparkled faintly violet, and she wore a bright cornflower-blue polo shirt and khaki slacks with lots of pleats. A large leather bag hung over her shoulder.

“CBT upsets the reductionists because classical physics offers no provision for something as ethereal as the mind to act on the physical world. In other words, their dogma rests on matter creating thoughts, but they have absolutely no intellectual explanation for thought-creating matter.”

Bouvet squirmed and fidgeted. He was beside himself now, barely able to contain his growing indignation. Orthodoxy fed such incredible anger, I thought, and it didn’t matter whether the beloved dogma was religious or scientific.

“How’s this possible?” asked the brown-haired man in front. “Is this your fantasy or is there a plausible scientific explanation?”

“As a matter of fact, new work in this centers on a small set of nano-capable structures in every neuron called microtubules. These work on a quantum-level scale, possibly through a biological variant of a Bose-Einstein condensate in surrounding water molecules, which enables them to achieve a quantum coherence. World-renowned physicist Roger Penrose and his colleague Stuart Hameroff theorize that quantum consciousness may entangle itself in space-time, which means our thoughts may even permanently alter this basic fabric of reality.”

“So, why don’t we read more about CBT?” The question came from a crowd near Jasmine. I smiled at her, then said, “Mainly because the multibillion-dollar drug industry has a vested interest in keeping the truth covered up. CBT research fails to get research funding because the pharmaceutical companies can’t afford for the world to know their products are a poor chemical Band-Aid that does not fix the underlying problem and that their science is based on the buggy-whip science of classical reductionists who do get funded by these megacorporations. In a real sense, those who are addicted to the big research bucks are not seekers of the truth, but seekers of grants. And you don’t get grants by challenging the establishment’s dogma even if it is provably wrong,”

“Bullshit’.” Bouvet’s anger finally overran his self-control. “I’ve had enough of your insupportable, insulting, and completely unscientific speculation!”

I watched him search the assembled faces for some support. Finding none, Bouvet elbowed his way toward the door.

Jasmine shifted slightly and nudged Bouvet off-balance. The pompous Frenchman ricocheted awkwardly off the doorjamb, then disappeared.

I couldn’t tell if she had done it on purpose. Then she offered the room a faint conspiratorial smile. Mona Lisa again for an instant. Then applause resonated in the small conference room and spilled from the doorway.

Lew's Books