The Need for Speed

Lo, tho she knew the truth of it, she searched still for a force greater than the mind yet capable of being understood by it.

I feel the need to expound on some things that I said yesterday...

[DISCLAIMER: I am a philosopher by necessity, not by trade, so if someone else has said any of this better, please drop me a comment and let me know who so that I may go and read that material.]

My struggle to adopt a significantly different, yet more scientifically accurate, worldview (and you know which one I'm talking about) inevitably led to a whole slew of questioning about what meaning can be derived from our existence, given the exotic new nature of that existence. It also led to a search for discussion on how to define ethics and morality when the nature of what it meant to be human had radically changed. Science forced me to accept the scientific aspects of that worldview, but it did not completely prepare me to live within that worldview.

The point I'm getting at is this - if we as scientists are going to ask people to relinquish the definitions of self and place in the universe that they have built their psychological constructs around, then we must either 1) be prepared for a massive fallout of depression, suicide, solipsistic withdrawal, etc., or 2) we must be prepared to engage them with the best ideas and discussions on ethics and morality and meaning of life that man (past and present) has to offer. The latter is no longer within the scope of science, therefore it would behoove scientists (and anyone who would like to see our collective consciousness move away from all forms of superstitious, out-dated thinking) to engage philosophers, humanists, and even open-minded clergy in dialogues about how the changes that science is foisting upon us at a record pace with respect to redefinitions of the mind, self, and place in the universe can be matched to man's need for moral guidance and new horizons. (I think one of our friends was trying to make this point a few months ago, but I wasn't getting it then.)

It's difficult to say from where these perceived psychological needs of man arise, and where, for instance, they might fit on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. At this point, I'm mostly generalizing from my own experience with adopting a significantly different worldview. Scientists are not trained to address these needs, but neither should they assume that such needs are unimportant and not worth addressing. They are very real, and unless scientists are willing to spend some of their time engaging non-scientists in dialogue on non-scientific topics, these needs may result in a further rupture between science and religion. I think that the last thing that any scientist wants is to see a full-scale rejection of science by people who prefer having their psychological needs addressed by religion to accepting scientific evidence for another view of the world and their place in it.

'That would never happen', you say. But you are wrong. It does happen; I've seen it, repeatedly. People are unwilling to accept or engage another, more scientific, worldview because they perceive that it means leaving behind everything that they are currently getting from religion. 'I will be dead before this becomes the dominant paradigm, so why should I struggle to accept it now?' is also something I've heard. Perhaps some scientists and academics are a little too isolated from the larger world to appreciate the degree to which this kind of thinking presents an obstacle to the progress of science and alternative worldviews.

I hold out great hope for mind-brain science to allow us to find a better definition of what it means to be human. But science alone will not succeed in transmitting such a vision to humanity at large. If scientists truly wish for a 'shift in the culture war', then perhaps it would behoove us to find allies with the knowledge and training that we lack...