I have noticed that more of my readers are religious than I expected.
That's not a complete surprise. Introverts are by nature more religious than
extroverts. In several of psychologist C.G. Jung's books he described the strong
religious sense of introverts and pointed out that the mediaeval period, the great
age of religion in the West, was a time in which the introvert was much more at
home. If you had trouble coping with the social world, you could retire into a
monastery. It was socially acceptable, and a lot of people did it. If the other monks
in the monastery* were too much for you, you were free to retire into a solitary cell.
Some voluntarily remained in them for years, in a few cases producing great
books and/or music there.
But, even so, it was a bit of a surprise to discover that my readers are often
religious, for I come from an atheist background. When I was growing up in the
1950s, almost everyone in my steel town working-class neighborhood attended
church and sunday school, but my father steadfastly kept my brothers and I out of
them. Though he died unexpectedly when I was only five years old and my mother
then submitted to family and social pressures, he must have still had a strong
influence, for I proved remarkably resistant to Christian teaching.
At that time there was a bible reading in public school every morning, so little
atheist me got to know the Bible. I listened silently, day after day, year after year,
privately conducting my own critique of what I was being told. Whether it was
about God, science, math or history I didn't believe everything my teachers said.
Shy and solitary, I kept my ideas to myself, but by high school I was a keen skeptic
and a determined atheist.
Nevertheless I was drawn by a few things in the Bible. When I learned that Jesus
had said God watched every sparrow fall, I was impressed. I was moved by the
story of the good Samaritan too, and some other things.
But I was more interested in science and nature. You might think that that helped
keep me away from religion, but I don't think so.
Religion, at least in its beginnings, and at its core, is about knowledge, mystery,
and the search for meaning. That's what science is about too. Though the
sciences investigate mysteries, they have not driven them from the world. Instead
the mysteries have multiplied. Read an up to date book on astronomy or physics
– mysteries abound. Now we know that we live in a gigantic galaxy, only one of
billions of galaxies, in a universe now said to have 10-11 dimensions, with
mysteries like gravity, dark matter, and quantum entanglement around every
corner.
Yes, the universe surrounding us is a million times larger and a million times more
complex than it was perceived to be in the time of Jesus Christ. But if he was alive
today, I don't think science would be a problem for him. Anyone as intelligent as
he was would be fascinated by science. If he came back, he would probably read
deeply in the sciences (Nature, someone has said, was God's first book).
Yes, for whatever the reason, I have always had a soft spot for the Christian
church and other religions. Maybe it's just that I, like everyone else according to
Jung, have a religious instinct.
Oddly enough, modern society seems to be moving in the opposite direction,
away from that instinct. Many people who claim to be religious don't really believe
in anything more now than making money and trying to get everything they want.
Judged by their actions, I believe most people are non-believers now.
What bothers me about this is that it leaves humanity alone and unrestrained at a
pinnacle of existence, one where we have mistakenly put ourselves, judging
ourselves to be superior to every other living thing.
Oh, yes we allow that there might be aliens out there in the galaxy who we may
meet one day and who we expect to be more or less equal to us – made up of
atoms and molecules and carbon-based chemistry, with big brains to go with it. It
is as if we only expect to meet other versions of ourselves, traveling about in
space ships, etc. No one expects to meet gods.
Well, it seems to me colossally implausible that in this almost limitless and
infinitely complex universe there should not be something bigger than us, and/or
vastly more intelligent than us.
It doesn't have to be something you can see. In a universe of ten dimensions,
where we can perceive only four (time is now accepted by most physicists as the
fourth dimension), we can't see very far can we? Why do we expect everything to
be perceptible?
The idea that there might be intelligent entities in the universe constructed of
energy fields and forms, or that are products of higher dimensions, is almost
never discussed or even contemplated.
My sympathy with the religions of the world is at least partly connected to this –
that only they accept the likelihood that there is something greater than us.
The problem is that those religions have become so separated from science, for
it is science now that has the attention of the public. Because of spectacular
scientific successes (the atomic bomb, the trips to the moon, manipulating DNA,
etc) the public is now entranced by science, and the same sheep-like people who
used to swallow religious dogma wholesale, now feed on scientific dogma.
Scientists want to blame religious leaders for the divide, arguing that irrational
adherence to prescribed dogma prevents the religious from accepting science,
but that's unfair. The greater part of Christian thought, from Augustine to writers of
our time, has recognized that the essential ground of religion is human
psychology. Christ himself dealt almost entirely with the human mind and heart,
and the ancient Hindu, Bhuddist and Islamic writers did that too. Psychology is the
bed rock of religion. In the depth of their understanding of it, religious thinkers are
often supremely rational, to the extent that modern psychology often has a long
way to go to catch up with them.
And yes, the sciences have their own dogma. I could give many examples, but
here I'm going to discuss only one – the century old phobia towards paranormal
phenomena.
Late in his life C.G. Jung predicted that the great task of science in the 21st
century would be the study of the paranormal, but serious funded research is still
not happening. That's because anyone who attempts to investigate anything
paranormal is ridiculed, ostracized, attacked in scientific journals, and their
funding disappears.
There is nothing in the least scientific about this irrational refusal to contemplate
things that aren't explicable by current science.
Some say the scientific community is afraid that investigation of the paranormal
might turn up something that will validate religious beliefs. I think there's some
truth to that.
The paranormal is the key to the divide between science and religion. The two will
only find common ground when scientists finally face up to paranormal pheno-
mena**. But this chasm of thought between science and religion prevents that
from happening. The situation cries out for someone to build a bridge between
them.
Which brings me back to shy religious people. I believe it's true that it is among
shy people that you most often find authentic religious feeling and thinking. But shy
people are attracted to science as often as they are to religion. The famous
introverts of science are legion, from Darwin to Einstein to many men and women
of our time.
So here is my prediction. One day, and I believe it will happen in the first half of
this century, someone in the sciences is going to build that bridge. I think they will
start it by means of means of an investigation of telepathy, clairvoyance and
precognition (the ESP trio). Who will do this? My bet is that the man or woman
who will lead the way will emerge from the ranks of shy and solitary people. It
might be one of you reading this.
______
That's not a complete surprise. Introverts are by nature more religious than
extroverts. In several of psychologist C.G. Jung's books he described the strong
religious sense of introverts and pointed out that the mediaeval period, the great
age of religion in the West, was a time in which the introvert was much more at
home. If you had trouble coping with the social world, you could retire into a
monastery. It was socially acceptable, and a lot of people did it. If the other monks
in the monastery* were too much for you, you were free to retire into a solitary cell.
Some voluntarily remained in them for years, in a few cases producing great
books and/or music there.
But, even so, it was a bit of a surprise to discover that my readers are often
religious, for I come from an atheist background. When I was growing up in the
1950s, almost everyone in my steel town working-class neighborhood attended
church and sunday school, but my father steadfastly kept my brothers and I out of
them. Though he died unexpectedly when I was only five years old and my mother
then submitted to family and social pressures, he must have still had a strong
influence, for I proved remarkably resistant to Christian teaching.
At that time there was a bible reading in public school every morning, so little
atheist me got to know the Bible. I listened silently, day after day, year after year,
privately conducting my own critique of what I was being told. Whether it was
about God, science, math or history I didn't believe everything my teachers said.
Shy and solitary, I kept my ideas to myself, but by high school I was a keen skeptic
and a determined atheist.
Nevertheless I was drawn by a few things in the Bible. When I learned that Jesus
had said God watched every sparrow fall, I was impressed. I was moved by the
story of the good Samaritan too, and some other things.
But I was more interested in science and nature. You might think that that helped
keep me away from religion, but I don't think so.
Religion, at least in its beginnings, and at its core, is about knowledge, mystery,
and the search for meaning. That's what science is about too. Though the
sciences investigate mysteries, they have not driven them from the world. Instead
the mysteries have multiplied. Read an up to date book on astronomy or physics
– mysteries abound. Now we know that we live in a gigantic galaxy, only one of
billions of galaxies, in a universe now said to have 10-11 dimensions, with
mysteries like gravity, dark matter, and quantum entanglement around every
corner.
Yes, the universe surrounding us is a million times larger and a million times more
complex than it was perceived to be in the time of Jesus Christ. But if he was alive
today, I don't think science would be a problem for him. Anyone as intelligent as
he was would be fascinated by science. If he came back, he would probably read
deeply in the sciences (Nature, someone has said, was God's first book).
Yes, for whatever the reason, I have always had a soft spot for the Christian
church and other religions. Maybe it's just that I, like everyone else according to
Jung, have a religious instinct.
Oddly enough, modern society seems to be moving in the opposite direction,
away from that instinct. Many people who claim to be religious don't really believe
in anything more now than making money and trying to get everything they want.
Judged by their actions, I believe most people are non-believers now.
What bothers me about this is that it leaves humanity alone and unrestrained at a
pinnacle of existence, one where we have mistakenly put ourselves, judging
ourselves to be superior to every other living thing.
Oh, yes we allow that there might be aliens out there in the galaxy who we may
meet one day and who we expect to be more or less equal to us – made up of
atoms and molecules and carbon-based chemistry, with big brains to go with it. It
is as if we only expect to meet other versions of ourselves, traveling about in
space ships, etc. No one expects to meet gods.
Well, it seems to me colossally implausible that in this almost limitless and
infinitely complex universe there should not be something bigger than us, and/or
vastly more intelligent than us.
It doesn't have to be something you can see. In a universe of ten dimensions,
where we can perceive only four (time is now accepted by most physicists as the
fourth dimension), we can't see very far can we? Why do we expect everything to
be perceptible?
The idea that there might be intelligent entities in the universe constructed of
energy fields and forms, or that are products of higher dimensions, is almost
never discussed or even contemplated.
My sympathy with the religions of the world is at least partly connected to this –
that only they accept the likelihood that there is something greater than us.
The problem is that those religions have become so separated from science, for
it is science now that has the attention of the public. Because of spectacular
scientific successes (the atomic bomb, the trips to the moon, manipulating DNA,
etc) the public is now entranced by science, and the same sheep-like people who
used to swallow religious dogma wholesale, now feed on scientific dogma.
Scientists want to blame religious leaders for the divide, arguing that irrational
adherence to prescribed dogma prevents the religious from accepting science,
but that's unfair. The greater part of Christian thought, from Augustine to writers of
our time, has recognized that the essential ground of religion is human
psychology. Christ himself dealt almost entirely with the human mind and heart,
and the ancient Hindu, Bhuddist and Islamic writers did that too. Psychology is the
bed rock of religion. In the depth of their understanding of it, religious thinkers are
often supremely rational, to the extent that modern psychology often has a long
way to go to catch up with them.
And yes, the sciences have their own dogma. I could give many examples, but
here I'm going to discuss only one – the century old phobia towards paranormal
phenomena.
Late in his life C.G. Jung predicted that the great task of science in the 21st
century would be the study of the paranormal, but serious funded research is still
not happening. That's because anyone who attempts to investigate anything
paranormal is ridiculed, ostracized, attacked in scientific journals, and their
funding disappears.
There is nothing in the least scientific about this irrational refusal to contemplate
things that aren't explicable by current science.
Some say the scientific community is afraid that investigation of the paranormal
might turn up something that will validate religious beliefs. I think there's some
truth to that.
The paranormal is the key to the divide between science and religion. The two will
only find common ground when scientists finally face up to paranormal pheno-
mena**. But this chasm of thought between science and religion prevents that
from happening. The situation cries out for someone to build a bridge between
them.
Which brings me back to shy religious people. I believe it's true that it is among
shy people that you most often find authentic religious feeling and thinking. But shy
people are attracted to science as often as they are to religion. The famous
introverts of science are legion, from Darwin to Einstein to many men and women
of our time.
So here is my prediction. One day, and I believe it will happen in the first half of
this century, someone in the sciences is going to build that bridge. I think they will
start it by means of means of an investigation of telepathy, clairvoyance and
precognition (the ESP trio). Who will do this? My bet is that the man or woman
who will lead the way will emerge from the ranks of shy and solitary people. It
might be one of you reading this.
______
Shyness and Religion
Alan
Conrad
Conrad
* The word monastery comes from the Greek word monasterion, which referred to a hermit's cell,
and the verb monazein 'to live alone'. Presumably both of those derive from monos, which means
'one' or 'single'.
**Telepathy and clairvoyance are the key phenomena, and they are a physics problem more than a
psychological problem. The medium that the mind uses for those things must be identified before
we can learn more about them. So it is physicists we need, yet sadly to my knowledge no physicist
since Sir William Crookes in the late 19th century (he helped found the Society for Psychical
Research in 1882) has shown serious interest.
Photographs – Views of 'La Sagrada Familia' the cathedral in Barcelona. The 20th Century was
not without religious thinkers who were just as in touch with the natural world as the spiritual one.
One of the most significant was the architect of this magnificent church, the shy introverted Antonio
Gaudi. The frescos and sculptures on the ramparts, walls, and spires of his church include not
only Biblical scenes and characters, but trees, ferns, geese, cattle, fish, snails, etc. It seems as if
his vision of the 'sacred family' included all creation, not just human beings. (Copyright for both
photographs – Lesley Enston)
and the verb monazein 'to live alone'. Presumably both of those derive from monos, which means
'one' or 'single'.
**Telepathy and clairvoyance are the key phenomena, and they are a physics problem more than a
psychological problem. The medium that the mind uses for those things must be identified before
we can learn more about them. So it is physicists we need, yet sadly to my knowledge no physicist
since Sir William Crookes in the late 19th century (he helped found the Society for Psychical
Research in 1882) has shown serious interest.
Photographs – Views of 'La Sagrada Familia' the cathedral in Barcelona. The 20th Century was
not without religious thinkers who were just as in touch with the natural world as the spiritual one.
One of the most significant was the architect of this magnificent church, the shy introverted Antonio
Gaudi. The frescos and sculptures on the ramparts, walls, and spires of his church include not
only Biblical scenes and characters, but trees, ferns, geese, cattle, fish, snails, etc. It seems as if
his vision of the 'sacred family' included all creation, not just human beings. (Copyright for both
photographs – Lesley Enston)
