The Infinate Question of Why.....?

My own particular studies in this area have been on five major themes.

1. The limits of science and of the scientific method. In the face of some who claim that the powers of science are limitless, it is important to try to understand what aspects of existence science in fact can and cannot comprehend. As I mentioned above, I believe the boundaries here are becoming clear, for example science cannot and never will be able to handle issues of aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, or meaning. However there are some areas where the answer is unclear: it is unresolved, for example, whether science will or will not succeed in solving the hard problem of consciousness. I have extensively written and talked on this important theme of the limits of science, for it sets the parameters for much of the rest of the discussion.
2. The way that complexity can arise through physics, and alternatives to reductionist viewpoints that demean humankind. It is true that physics and chemistry underlie our existence and functioning as human beings, but that does not mean we are "nothing but" atoms, molecules, chemicals, or whatever. That phrase always hides an attempt to deny the true complexity and autonomous existence of vibrant living beings. We are much, much more than implied by hard reductionists and their favorite phrase "nothing but." I have written extensively on why it is that these reductionist viewpoints miss out on the true nature of the complex reality that emerges from the underlying physics and chemistry. And one should note here that reductionist viewpoints emanate equally from the social and human sciences as from the natural sciences, and are equally fallacious in those cases too.
   
   
   It is crucial also that despite the fact that the functioning of our brain can be understood by neuroscientists in terms of action potentials in the brain and flows of chemicals across synapses, nevertheless personal choice is real. Furthermore, the ethics that underlies the direction and nature of our choices is causally effective, and strongly shapes the nature of what happens in the world around us. It is not possible to reduce ethics to statements about neuroscience (or evolutionary history, for that matter), for it has a real normative nature; I return to this later.
3. The natures of existence that flow from all this. Those pursuing a hard reductionist line associate it with a strongly materialist viewpoint: the claim that all that really exists are just particles with specific forces acting between them, and there is no other kind of reality to contend with. This too is deeply mistaken, and I have been developing further a line of argument of Karl Popper, John Eccles, and Roger Penrose on the multiple natures of existence. Here I emphasize that even hard-headed physicists have to acknowledge a number of different kinds of existence as well as that of the particles that constitute matter. In particular, human thoughts, emotions, and social constructions are both causally effective, and cannot be compassed by present day physics. Consequently even the most advanced physics today is unable to give a causally complete account of the factors that are effective in shaping the physical world we see around us, for example it cannot even explain the existence of as simple a thing as a pair of spectacles, because it is unable to encompass human thoughts and intentions. Furthermore, by its very nature it is unlikely to ever do so. This realisation strengthens the arguments I have already mentioned regarding the limits of science.
4. The nature of the tensions between rationality and faith and between emotion and reason in human life and affairs. Much our of life can be thought of as a struggle between emotion and rationality — the calm analyst deciding on a logical basis what we should do, versus the emotional hot-head who rushes into action and just does things. A common view is that evidence-based science represents that calm rationality which exemplifies us how we ought to behave, and we should try to avoid basing our lives on faith and hope rather than rationality and reason. However this is also a bad misunderstanding. In facing our individual and communal lives, we always need faith and hope as well as rationality, and indeed the real issue is how we can best balance them against each other. Take the case of my own country: there were very many times in the past when it was rational to give up all hope for the future — to assume that the nation would decay into a racial holocaust that never happened. It did not occur because of the transformative actions of those marvellous leaders Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela, confounding the calculus of rationality. This is a really important practical issue that I have only recently begun to consider. It is in a sense the theme of the book The Far Future Universe that I edited.
5. However as well as being a highly practical issue, this also relates to the issue of reductionism and the way the mind functions. The reading and writing I have been doing on that topic have led to a very interesting appreciation: the fact that the rational mind is in a profound developmental sense based in the emotional mind. This is true both functionally and in evolutionary terms. So one of my latest projects is looking at this fascinating theme, and even writing about it in association with Judith Toronchuk of Trinity Western University. So I am now happy that though I am a cosmologist by trade, I have just had a paper on this theme accepted for publication by the journal Consciousness and Evolution. This paper shows that the tension between emotion and reason has a deep grounding in the neurological mechanisms underlying brain function.
6. The science-religion-ethics triad, and the true nature of deep ethics. Finally, a theme in my writing, set out in detail in the book with Nancey Murphy, is the importance of including ethics in the science and religion debate. This is because ethics is causally effective, as outlined above, and provides the highest level of values that set human goals and choices. Consequently a crucial issue is the origin of ethics, on the one hand, and the nature of ethics, on the other. With Nancey I am a moral realist, that is, I believe that we discover the true nature of ethics rather than inventing it, hence the title of our book: On the Moral Nature of the Universe. Indeed it is only if ethics is of this nature that it has a truly moral character, that is, it represents a guiding light that we ought to obey. I am fascinated that Stephen Pinker too has been suggesting moral realism in his recent book The Blank Slate — he too realizes this must be the case if it is to have the normative status that true morality must have. If true, this is a very important feature of the nature of the universe
7. But then the issue is what is the nature of true morality? Nancey and I have argued that it must be kenotic in nature, that is, it must be a kind of ethics involving letting go of one's own interest on behalf of others, being ready if necessary to sacrifice one's own interests for them, even on behalf of an enemy. This is of course very controversial, just as it was when Jesus in essence stated it in the Sermon on the Mount. However I am convinced it is a deeply transforming principle of fundamental importance, which is universally recognised by the non-dogmatic branches of all the great religions: it is held up in all of them as behaviour to aspire to. Indeed this is the theme of one of Sir John Templeton's books, called Agape Love: A Tradition Found in Eight World Religions. Furthermore this is the only basis for true security, for the deep foundation of security is based in transforming your enemies into friends. That can in the end only be achieved by the kind of sacrificial practices exemplified by Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Desmond Tutu, for this is the only way to touch the hardened heart. What seems rationally impossible can indeed become possible through the generosity and hope underlying and enabling kenosis and forgiveness: and this we experienced in South Africa. Nancey and I suggest this principle is deeply imbedded in the universe, both in ethics and in other aspects of our lives, and will thus be discovered by deeply moral beings in the vicinity of Alpha Centauri or the Andromeda galaxy, just as it has been discovered by all major religions here on Earth.
   Overall, in these studies I have been working on developing a comprehensive integrative view of the world and the universe, in contrast to the simplistic reductionist views that so many hold from one standpoint or another; this view endeavours to take into account the most recent achievements of science as well as relevant philosophy and ordinary human experience. I believe that although these issues may at first seem somewhat abstract, they are in fact foundational in the ongoing Science and Religion debate, and have the capacity to help change the way we view things and to help develop a worldview with rich foundations and outcomes.
   I have been much helped in thinking on these things by many colleagues, but particularly Bill Stoeger (Vatican Observatory), Nancey Murphy (Fuller Theological Seminary), Phil Clayton (Sonoma State University), George Coyne (Vatican Observatory), Bob Russell (Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences), Billy Grassie (Metanexus Institute), and Charles Harper (John Templeton Foundation); without them I would have blundered much more than I have. I thank them all for having encouraged me to travel on these risky paths. I am delighted that this work has been assessed by the judges as a useful contribution.
   As regards the use I intend to make of this very generous prize: I will be following Sir John in trying for maximal strategic advantage. In South African terms the prize is about ten million Rand, which sounds a great deal (it could be a bit more or less, depending on the tax situation and the exchange rate). After much thought, rather than giving it to a single beneficiary I am planning to split it in two major portions:
   Half to go to a trust fund, whose interest will support me in retirement and in my work for the rest of my life. On my death the capital of this fund will go towards a major project at my alma mater, the University of Cape Town — one of the great educational beacons in Africa, which has been a main focus of most of my life; its best strategic use is to be discussed with the University. A further strategic aspect of this donation will be that I will use it to try to help leverage a greater willingness of alumni of my university to support their alma mater — a tradition that is strong in the USA but weak in South Africa.
   
   
   

KENOSIS: The Practice of the Art of Letting Go....

Kenosis in Practice

What is Kenosis exactly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosis

Kenotic ethic
The kenotic ethic is the ethic of Jesus, considered as the ethic of sacrifice. The Philippians passage urges believers to imitate Christ's self-emptying. In this interpretation, Paul was not primarily putting forth a theory about God in this passage, rather he was using God's humility exhibited in the incarnation event as a call for Christians to be similarly subservient to others

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08617a.htm


Week One:  Finding Myself and what I am called to do:  let go...

I found this blog on the internet and immediate was again reaffirmed this word is meant to seep into my very bones and change me if i let it be so by practicing mindfulness daily.....

Sunday, July 10, 2005

Conflict resolution: George Ellis speaks on Kenosis

This morning I listened, as usual, to my local NPR station, WHYY, as I gathered my energy to meet the day. This morning the Speaking of Faith program, titled "Science and Hope", featured an interview with George Ellis, Professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of Cape Town, and recipient of the Templeton Prize "for progress toward research or discoveries about spiritual realities." I found the entire program interesting, but especially when he spoke about the concept of kenosis, a greek word I understood roughly to mean "emptying out." In Ellis' presentation he spoke of kenosis as a technique of emptying oneself of ego and selfish goals. This enables one to sacrifice and take risks for others and/or for the greater good.

The most compelling part of the program to me was when Ellis answered a question about how the concept of kenosis could be applied to a conflict like in Iraq. He gave an actual historical example that demonstrates that an ethical approach to military action can be successful. I highly recommend that you listen to at least that portion of the interview (it starts at about the 41:15 mark).

Listen to the interview with George Ellis here.
Read the notes and view links to many related resources here.

Permalink posted by MH : 12:30 PM

"But then the issue is what is the nature of true morality? Nancey and I have argued that it must be kenotic in nature, that is, it must be a kind of ethics involving letting go of one's own interest on behalf of others, being ready if necessary to sacrifice one's own interests for them, even on behalf of an enemy. This is of course very controversial, just as it was when Jesus in essence stated it in the Sermon on the Mount. However I am convinced it is a deeply transforming principle of fundamental importance, which is universally recognised by the non-dogmatic branches of all the great religions: it is held up in all of them as behaviour to aspire to. Indeed this is the theme of one of Sir John Templeton's books, called Agape Love: A Tradition Found in Eight World Religions. Furthermore this is the only basis for true security, for the deep foundation of security is based in transforming your enemies into friends. That can in the end only be achieved by the kind of sacrificial practices exemplified by Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Desmond Tutu, for this is the only way to touch the hardened heart. What seems rationally impossible can indeed become possible through the generosity and hope underlying and enabling kenosis and forgiveness."

The following letter from a Scottish soldier was sent to Dr. Ellis after he received the Templeton Prize in 2004. Ellis read this during the live event at WHYY in Philadelphia to illustrate his concept of kenosis in action in a strange situation. Ellis says that despite the British army's overpowering force, they risked their lives in order to achieve peace by not retailiating but by exercising restraint, even while being attacked. It's this type of sacrifice, Ellis points out, that can be applied to the situation in Iraq.

In 1967 I was a young officer in a Scottish battalion engaged in peacekeeping duties in Aden town in what is now Yemen. The situation was similar to Iraq, with people being killed every day. As always, those who suffered the most were the innocent local people. Not only were we tough, but we had the power to pretty well destroy the whole town had we wished.
But we had a commanding officer who understood how to make peace, and he led us to do something very unusual, not to react when we were attacked. Only if we were 100 percent certain that a particular person had thrown a grenade or fired a shot at us were we allowed to fire. During our tour of duty we had 102 grenades thrown at us, and in response the battalion fired the grand total of two shots, killing one grenade-thrower. The cost to us was over 100 of our own men wounded, and surely by the grace of God only one killed. When they threw rocks at us, we stood fast. When they threw grenades, we hit the deck and after the explosions we got to our feet and stood fast. We did not react in anger or indiscriminately. This was not the anticipated reaction. Slowly, very slowly, the local people began to trust us and made it clear to the local terrorists that they were not welcome in their area.
At one stage neighboring battalions were having a torrid time with attacks. We were playing soccer with the locals. We had, in fact, brought peace to the area at the cost of our own blood. How had this been achieved? Principally because we were led by a man whom every soldier in the battalion knew would die for him if required. Each soldier in turn came to be prepared to sacrifice himself for such a man. Many people may sneer that we were merely obeying orders, but this was not the case. Our commanding officer was more highly regarded by his soldiers than the general, one must almost say loved. So gradually the heart of the peacemaker began to grow in the man and determination to succeed whatever the cost. Probably most of the soldiers, like myself, only realized years afterwards what had been achieved.

Ms. Tippett: Cosmologist George Ellis. I'm Krista Tippett. And this is Speaking of Faith from American Public Media. Today, we're talking about the intersection of faith and science in George Ellis' thought. He has studied such lofty topics as the structure of space and time. In recent years, he's also become interested in whether the universe has an underlying moral foundation.
George Ellis points to the recurring ethic of nonviolence and self-sacrifice that runs throughout the major religions and the lives of human beings who've changed the world, figures such as Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and in Ellis' native South Africa, Nelson Mandela and Stephen Biko. As a Quaker Christian, George Ellis values the key image of the ethic of Jesus found in the New Testament. It uses a Greek word, kenosis, to describe Jesus' sacrifice of His life and His power for the freedom of others. The word "kenosis" means to empty oneself. Here's more of my conversation with George Ellis that took place before a live audience in Philadelphia.

Ms. Tippett:So in this book you've written with the theologian Nancey Murphy…
Dr. Ellis: Yeah.
Ms. Tippett: …called On the Moral Nature …
Dr. Ellis: Nature of the Universe.
Ms. Tippett: You say that one important piece of the dialogue between science and religion, and I think also what you're saying one important piece of how we view what happens in the world and what it means and what makes the difference is ethics.
Dr. Ellis: Yeah.
Ms. Tippett: And you talk about the true nature of deep ethics.
Dr. Ellis: Yes, yes.
Ms. Tippett: So talk about that. I think it's also interesting that, you know, coming, obviously, you did have this wonderful miraculous turn of events in South Africa…
Dr. Ellis: Yep.
Ms. Tippett: …for many — for decades and for longer than that. I mean, you say ethics is — you feel that ethics is something that's in the universe to be discovered.
Dr. Ellis: Yes.
Ms. Tippett: So tell us how you can come to that.
Dr. Ellis: Let me just prepare the way slightly by saying in order to understand what I mean by that, the same is true of mathematics. Mathematicians discover the nature of mathematics despite what they want. What I mean by that is something like the following. It was a great shock to mathematicians when they discovered that the square root of two is irrational. That's not something that they wanted. The number pi is irrational. That's also not something mathematicians wanted. What I'm pointing out here is that mathematics exists and is discovered. It's not invented by humans. It's something which is discovered. Therefore, in some sense, it exists in order to be discovered.
The view on ethics I take as an ethical realist is it's the same, the nature is sitting there in some sense waiting to be discovered. And the deep nature of ethics, which we were writing about, is what we call kenotic ethics. Kenosis being letting go or giving up on behalf of other people.
Ms. Tippett: Right. And kenosis is a Greek word.
Dr. Ellis: It's a Greek word meaning letting go or giving up, and it's used in the Bible in Philippians. It's central to my understanding of Christianity, and there's a spectrum which goes through in practical terms from forgiveness, which is a crucial part in which you are giving up the need for revenge. And it goes through to self-sacrifice on behalf of others, which is what Gandhi was about, Martin Luther King was about. And to me, that's the really, really deep transformative principle, which was also in the life of Christ, of course, when he sacrificed himself on behalf of others. I think it's important to say that to me, kenosis is a generic principle which is much wider than just ethics. For instance, it's actually central — this emptying oneself — it's actually central to education and learning, because if you go into learning any subject with a preconceived notion, you can't learn. You have to empty your mind of your preconceived notion that you can see something new.
In ethics, it's, though the key point about kenosis is the willingness to give up, which makes way for contact with the human part of the other person. And it's a kind of moral jujitsu in that they're expecting you to react in the way that they want you to react. They are your enemy and they want you to be their enemy. And if you refuse to be their enemy, then they don't know how to handle it.
As an example from my South African context, one of the people I worked with as a social worker and community worker was detained by the security police. So now, he's in jail with them. He then started because of his nature, he's outgoing, generous kind of guy, he starts talking to the jailors of — 'How are your children?' 'How are you getting on?' 'Do you enjoy doing what you're doing?' ?' All this kind of stuff. That totally undermines what a jailor is supposed to be about, because now you are treating the person who is holding you prisoner as an equal, as a person, and you are ignoring the fact that he's the jailor and you're the prisoner. And that just changes the context.
Ms. Tippett: So that would be a really gentle form of this kenotic ethics.
Dr. Ellis: That's a very gentle form, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Ms. Tippett: And then the extreme form would be a person like Nelson Mandela, the example he set.
Dr. Ellis: Yes, yes.
Ms. Tippett: Being in prison for 20 years.
Dr. Ellis: Being in prison for 20 years and not letting go of the grudges, the hatred, which he could have had. Yeah. Absolutely.
Ms. Tippett: All right. So let's just clarify, you believe that this ethos, this ethic of kenosis, in fact, is like a mathematical truth…
Dr. Ellis: Yes.
Ms. Tippett: …and is sort of built in to the universe.
Dr. Ellis: Yeah.
Ms. Tippett: And it finds expression in, I don't know, every major religious church that I can think of. In some form…
Dr. Ellis: Correct.
Ms. Tippett: …humility, self-sacrifice, serving others. On the other hand, is very counterintuitive to the way — I don't know — than today's newspaper would tell us the world works.
Dr. Ellis: Yeah. It's counterintuitive because the way it works is it transforms the context. In the real conflict situations, the kind of thing which Gandhi was involved with — where he was trying to free India from the British oppressors — he trained his followers to accept suffering, not to retaliate. And by doing so, he reached into the heart of the British oppressors. But after a while, the pain is incredible at that deep level. The pain is — the training is incredible. Gandhi spent about 15 years studying and thinking before he did it. So did Martin Luther King.
Ms. Tippett: The pain of what?
Dr. Ellis: Of doing what in a sense is incredibly unnatural. Of being willing to sacrifice, of being willing to — well, in that case, to be beaten up just as they were, to be beaten up and not to retaliate. It requires incredible courage, devotion, dedication in that extreme kind or form. The life of Christ, of course, is the ultimate kind of example.
Ms. Tippett: I think I want to ask you, is this something that has to do with you as a person of faith more than a scientist, or does this also flow into this idea of this ethic that's embedded in the universe? Does this also affect your — you as a cosmologist or the way you approach the field of cosmology?
Dr. Ellis: It's this cosmology with the small "c" and the big "C."
Ms. Tippett: So this is the cosmology with the big "C."
Dr. Ellis: Yeah. Absolutely.
Ms. Tippett: OK.
Dr. Ellis: From the cosmology with the big "C," it immediately gives one for a route into — in effect arguing for the existence of God, if you like, from the way that the whole thing is constructed.
Ms. Tippett: OK.
Dr. Ellis: From the small "c," it's — as a scientist, I work as a scientist and this just doesn't enter into it. As a cosmologist in the big "C," they're just trying to understand the big pattern, the way humanity relates to the universe. It's a central issue.
Ms. Tippett: You also talk about the limits of science…
Dr. Ellis: Yeah.
Ms. Tippett: …and about how ethics and human consciousness and human emotion, although they often get bracketed out as illogical and not a part of science, in fact are always causing things to happen.
Dr. Ellis: Yeah.
Ms. Tippett: And in some sense, driving the physical universe and all the things that science can study. Is that fair?
Dr. Ellis: There were several kind of things, which — do you want to pursue the limits to science or do you want to pursue…
Ms. Tippett: Whichever one you want to do. Or you can do them in order, you know…
Dr. Ellis: Yeah. Yeah.
Ms. Tippett: …in order of your choice.
Dr. Ellis: I think it's terribly important in terms of looking at science to understand it's got these incredible achievements — and I love science. I love the way it works — but it has these limits. And the limits, which I think it's really important to understand, that science sees nothing about ethics or aesthetics or meaning or metaphysics, all of these areas. And you immediately get told by some people, 'Look, this is just the old God of the gaps thing and, you know, this is just discredited.' It's not the God of the gaps, it's the God of the boundaries.
Ms. Tippett: Which is that God is in what we can't understand or work with in science.
Dr. Ellis: Yeah. But the point about the God of the gaps argument is saying, 'Look, that's a gap which will be filled in by science.'
Ms. Tippett: Right.
Dr. Ellis: But the point about this is that there are boundaries to what science can handle and science will never ever get into those areas. And that's crucially important. And the one which is important is ethics. So let's go back to the ethics. There's a whole lot of people out there trying to say, 'Well, ethics is understood by science through sociobiology.' There's another lot of social scientists saying ethics is understood through sociology and psychology and anthropology, and so on. And they are just profoundly mistaken when they say that, for a whole host of reasons. And perhaps we don't want to get technical about this, but the simple way to see how mistaken they are is to ask the following question to a scientist who says 'Look, science can comprehend ethics.' We can use science as a basis for ethics. 'So fine,' we say, 'fine. Tell us what sciences we should do in Iraq today.' OK? Then you get this deafening silence because science is totally unable to say anything about that. The reason is there are no experiments in science to do with what is good and what is bad. There are no scientific units for good and bad. There's no experiment. It's just outside the scope of science, not only now, but forever, never ever will be within the bound of science.
Ms. Tippett: So, so what is good and what is bad, but also in just what human beings do, which is essentially what happens in the world.
Dr. Ellis: Yeah.

The Importance of Lowering Cordisol NOW

Our stress reduction is the first place that I believe we need to start on ourselves.  I am literally freaked out more and more after reading about cancer causing stress hormones and I have WAY too many stress hormones that have traveled through my body extensively ever since Erron and then you.  This is a MAJOR PRIORITY for me to control and conquer soon.  I hope you will take the time to listen to the CD I will make for you from burning the below topics.  Very eye opening and what your "Dr. Wife" ordered for now.  I would love to practice mindfulness with you together soon!

Love you mucho, h

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortisol

I