Looking back, I’m not sure why they believed that the rarity of life in our universe proved that God must have created life only on this planet. Perhaps they believed that if intelligent life were found on other planets, it would diminish the miracle of God’s creation of Human Beings.

For me, the opposite is true; that God’s universal creation is filled with life is simply the result of God’s mercy and love of living things. What science can teach us is the awesomeness of God. As Said Nursi, an influential early 20th century Turkish Muslim theologian, taught, “God created the universe as a ‘book’ to be ‘read’ by those who want to learn of and draw close to Him.”

I am a Reform Rabbi who first became interested in Islam 55 years ago, when I studied it at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. I have continued my study of Islam off and on since that time. I now consider myself to be a Reform Rabbi and a Muslim Jew – i.e., a faithful Jew submitting to the will of God.

As a Rabbi I am faithful to the covenant that God made with Abraham – the first Muslim Jew – and I submit to the commandments that God made with the people of Israel at Mount Sinai. Thus, I see scientific things from the perspective of both the Qur’an and the Torah.

The Qur’an and the Hebrew Bible teach that the Living God created the whole universe to be conducive to the universal evolution of life. The Qur’an says, “We have not sent you but as a blessing for all the worlds” (Al-Anbiya 107). Many commentators say this refers to the 18,000 worlds created by God. Our world is one of them (Mir’at-e-Kainat, vol.1, p.77).

The Hebrew Bible says in the Zabur of Prophet David, King of Israel, “Your kingdom is a kingdom of all the worlds; and Your dominion is for all generations” (Psalms 145:13).

Both of these readings suggest the likelihood of other planets with life on them – and new science suggests the same thing.

In January 2013, astronomers estimated that there could be at least 17 billion Earth-sized exoplanets¹ in just our galaxy, the Milky Way. They also said that one in six stars could host an Earth-sized planet in a close orbit.

Now, two years later, two new studies have offered additional evidence favoring widespread solar systems with earth-like planets, thus providing more proof that God’s universe is filled with life.

First, at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in January 2015, the NASA Kepler Space Telescope team announced its 1,000th discovery of a planet outside our solar system. This brings the total number of confirmed exoplanets to 1,795, with an additional 4,000 possibilities also located by Kepler.

Twenty years ago we had no proof at all that our planetary system was not unique in the universe. Now we know that we are one of thousands, perhaps even millions or billions, of systems.

Second, the Kepler Space Telescope has discovered a star with three planets only slightly larger than Earth. The outermost planet, which is 50% larger than Earth, orbits in the zone where surface temperatures could be moderate enough for liquid water, and perhaps life, to exist. This means that proof that God’s universe is filled with life is literally coming closer and closer.

The star around which this planet rotates is a cool, red M-dwarf, about half the size and mass of our own sun. At a distance of 150 light years, it ranks among the 10 nearest stars known to have orbiting planets. The star is close enough for astronomers to study the planet’s atmosphere to determine whether oxygen is present and if it could possibly be conducive to multicellular life forms.

For those who believe in the One God of all the inhabitable worlds, these two new scientific studies are not shocking. For unlike the inquisition’s condemnation of Galileo, no Muslim or Jewish astronomer was ever condemned by a Muslim or Jewish inquisition, because Jews and Muslims never had an institution like the inquisition.

Also, because both Muslims and Jews had many philosophers who were critics of Aristotle’s and Ptolemy’s sciences, most medieval Jewish and Muslim religious leaders did not feel they had to prevent new science from disagreeing with Greek science.

Thus, even as new discoveries always change the scientific understanding of God’s universe, the religious belief that the whole universe exalts God and reveals God’s glory remains the same.

The Qur’an proclaims over and over again, “Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth exalts God” (Qur’an 57:1, 61:1, and 64:1); and the Zabur of Prophet David, King of Israel, states, “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Zabur of David-Psalm 19:2).

Note

1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20942440

M&B: Your area of study is social ethics. In what way your approach to environmental problems is different than an ecologist, environmental scientist, or a purely religious scholar?

Dr. Hadsell: As social ethicists, when we look at the question of the environment we look at other questions in the human social world. So for example questions of peace and conflict, questions of population, questions of rich and poor within countries, questions of rich nations and poor nations, north and south, east and west so forth. In every case the goal is also to get the science right, to get the data right. So if you’re looking at issues of north and south for example what is the north what is the south what are the relationships we’re talking about are those political relationships? Are those economic relationships? How are political relationships related to economic relationships and culture and language and history and so forth? And when we therefore turn our attention to the environment we’re doing the same thing. We’re asking “whose environment?” According to whom what aspects of the environment. We also look at how are the environmental questions are being raised today. We look at issues of global warming and our use of natural resources accelerated use of natural resources and so forth. The social ethicist will say how these environmental issues are related to other issues that we know something about? That is how are they related to political issues, to economic issues to historical cultural interactions and so forth?

While some environmentalists takes the environmental issue as an object in itself and see it from their own perspective, a social ethicist will say as we look at the environment how is that question embedded in all of these other questions? They want to know the data about the environment the scientific data about the use of the consumption of natural resources and the acceleration of global warming and who is using the most resources? They want to know all of those things but they drive that discussion also from the philosophical religious side of things and ask from a religious perspective from a Christian perspective from a Muslim perspective let’s say, what is the human responsibility here? What does scripture tell us about the proper relationship between humans on the one hand nature on the other and God on the other? What is this relationship between these 3 things?

M&B: It seems like many different factors must be taken in to considerations.

Social ethics is really a composition of a number of things including sociology, political science studies of the social world, sometimes cultural anthropology as well as the more philosophical and religious area of ethics. And if you put those all together you have what is really called social ethics. People often work out of traditions, for example one can be an ethicist who’s interested in the social world and political issues in the social world out of a Muslim perspective or out of a Christian perspective or out of a Hindu perspective and so forth. There are also a humanist perspective so there are various approaches and they can be grounded religiously or not. That is religious people using scripture and faith but also then drawing upon as I said political science, history, sociology, cultural anthropology. When you put that together then it really is what in the United States we call the discipline of social ethics.

M&B: What are the challenges in working in such a diverse multicultural setting?

Multicultural settings are challenging be cause the history of human relationship with the environment varies with the cultures and religions. Different cultures approach nature in different ways and have a history with nature that is specific and different from other cultures.

In the United States and in our school Hartford Seminary we have a lot of cultures interacting as well as religions interacting. So you get a wide spectrum of perspectives and a wide spectrum of experiences and each perspective and each experience may assume that its own perspective is the normative one because of course it comes out of their own experience. It’s very important to think and to discuss these questions of the human relationship with nature across cultures and across religions to check the tendency for each perspective to blow its own perspective up and to call it common sense and to assume that its common to everyone.

M&B: Not only there are various religious and cultural settings but also geography seems to be an important factor when we approach to environmental problems.

In the United States for several decades there was an assumption that the environment is an issue that is of concern to white rich people. And that the rest of the American population or maybe the rest of the global population outside of north America and Europe for example don’t have the luxury of thinking about environmental issues. Of course that’s not true. The environmental issues such as global warming are going to affect most directly the very people who, once thought, shouldn’t care about the environment because they have other things to worry about like getting food on the table and so forth.

So these issues are complex and I think in recent years the environmental movement has become more able to think across cultures and across specific social classes for example and nations to think about the environment in more subtle ways. In the United States one of the things we’ve started talking about already 10 years ago is for example the issue of environmental racism. That is African Americans in the United States and inner cities of the United States may think of the environment as being something that people in the suburbs who are worried about who want to protect their trees or their streams or you know the kind of natural environment that they have and the reason that they’ve moved out into the suburbs in the first place. Whereas there are many environmental issues going on right in the inner cities which is often the place where the dirtiest processing plants are located. Many environmental issues are very close to home to a variety of cultures and a variety of income groups. The environment is far too important for global humanity to leave it up to one group as an issue for that particular group. It has to be an issue that is on the agenda for all of us from our own perspectives because we all get hit with these environmental issues. They’re moral issues for all of us and we need to have that conversation across these groups.

M&B: You said that the environmental problems hits the communities who depends on nature first. On the other hand the ones who are doing the pollution actually do not depend on nature so much. Do you think this adds another layer of responsibility or accountability to the problem?

I think it’s very true that the people around the world who are already vulnerable often already poor and often already living very close to nature. I think about people in the Pacific Islands for example. They are the people who are most immediately affected by changes in the environment as we see with the studies about the rising sea level in relationship to global warming. Many the people who will be most immediately affected are people who live as fishermen for example in villages who can’t protect themselves and can’t protect their villages and their livelihoods from the effects of global warming.

So yes, it’s very much the case that the people who are already vulnerable are the people who are poor and don’t have a lot of political participation or representation. The people who don’t have a lot of control over their lives are the people who will be most immediately affected by global warming. The people who live in big cities and lives removed from nature in the sense that they don’t know where their food comes from it’s shipped in from wherever all around the globe. They live in heated buildings and air conditioned buildings and they drive cars and so forth. They may not understand the complexity of the environmental issues and they may think themselves to be less vulnerable to questions like global warming.

I think one of the challenges of social ethics pertaining to the environment is to get the people in the cities who feel separate from nature and from the processes of nature to understand the direct although sometimes hidden links they have with the natural world and how their lifestyle and their consumption of resources effects the natural world and how the depletion of nature will in turn affect them and their lifestyles and even in big cities.

M&B: In what way religious traditions or ethical approaches could motivate them to take a new look at the nature?

I think that the sense of the sacred is a very important concept for the environmental movement. I think that as religious people the worldview of religious people is that everything that is given by God is endowed with a kind of sacred quality. So that all of the resources given by God should be approached with a sense of respect and honor the same kind of sense of respect and honor that we give towards sort of classically sacred moments or objects. It’s very much the case that many people in the environmental movement even if they are secular people, they have an experience with nature, an intuition of something bigger, grander and outside of human control and domination.

Many people, even if they’re secular, they sense in nature a kind of sacredness and it brings them that sense that they have even if they can’t talk about it in religious terms or don’t choose to talk about it in religious terms. I’ve met a number of people for whom direct experience with nature has brought them back into religious exploration in religious traditions because they’ve sensed a presence of the sacred in nature. And it takes them into an exploration in their own traditions or new traditions for them. It’s very clear that nature and the sacred are in many ways connected.

Unfortunately there is also a sense in which the leveling of the human perception and imagination in an extremely secular spirit so that the only measure is the human. To think that there are no measurements, no dimensions outside of the human is an impoverishment of human imagination and leads to a disregard for the intrinsic value of nature. Nature is not simply a reflection of what it does for me or how I can use it but that the things of nature are intrinsically in and of themselves valuable.

M&B: Do you think interfaith dialog is an important step to solve environmental problems?

I do think that when we think about religious plurality there are varieties of ways to structure conversations across different religious groups. And some people really want to spend their time talking about religious doctrine. That’s what they like to do and they really want to spend their time talking about religious doctrine and I think that’s a wonderful occupation, its time very well spent, and those people ought to spend their time doing that.

There’s other people who want to work together inter religiously not so much on the issues directly of religious doctrine, but on other issues. They want to problem solve together and they want to attack together across religions questions that are facing all of us. And it is for those kinds of people that the environmental issues are good possibilities for bringing people together across religious traditions to work together on environmental challenges. That is how Hindus or Buddhists or Christians or Muslims or Jews, each formed by and carrying with them their religious values can come to a common table and think together about environmental challenges and work together on those environmental challenges.

And I think that’s a very interesting way to work and it is a way that in some ways will go farther than either political conversations – specifically political conversations – or specifically doctrinal conversations; this is a different way of working together and I think it can be very positive.

She has conducted research on the psychology of meditation for over 25 years, including investigations on the effects of meditation on heart rate control, general well-being, spirituality, psoriasis and anxiety disorders. Her other (but related) line of research is investigating the role of spirituality in adjustment to serious medical illness. A recently published randomized intervention study documented benefits of a very brief physician-delivered spirituality intervention offered to cancer patients on quality of life, emotional well-being, and satisfaction with care. Current work is investigating how religious and spiritual resources, from the patient’s perspective, may help in adjusting to cancer. Matter&Beyond spoke with her on her research.

Matter&Beyond: Dr. Kristeller, you are doing research on the spirituality of cancer patients. You also developed an intervention technique called OASIS that could benefit the patients who are going through spiritual struggles. What was your starting point for this project?

The OASIS Project stands for Oncology Assisted Spirituality and Intervention Study. In this project, we were exploring how individuals draw on their spiritual and religious resources to deal with having a cancer diagnosis. The other question was how physicians perceived that aspect of their patients’ resources and whether they felt it was appropriate to bring it up in the medical environment. First we went out and actually asked physicians what they thought about the role of patients’ spirituality in dealing with cancer. We actually got back a very positive response. Substantial proportion of the physicians actually felt that it was helpful to their patients; it was something that was valuable to engage within the medical environment.

M&B: Were they able to address the spiritual dimensions of the patients?

What we found out was that they didn’t know how to do that. They were afraid if they brought it up, their patients might get upset with them and they’d be triggering off a reaction perhaps that would require so much time and effort on their part to explore with their patients that it just wasn’t practical. So when we found that out from the physicians we decided that we would systematically look at that from that patient’s side.

What we heard from patients was that they also wished to bring it up in the medical environment but they felt that the physicians wouldn’t want to and that they would bring it up if the physicians asked about it first, and the physicians were saying they’d talk about it if the patients brought it up first. So nobody was bringing it up.

So we moved this onto the next step. What if we taught the physicians a particular approach to bringing up this issue with their patients because we couldn’t sit down and teach the patients how to do it. We decided to take a risk and teach physicians how to bring this up to their patients in a very simple way. And we found a few very brave oncologists who were willing to work with us around this and we designed literally a 5-minute patient centered way of introducing this concept.

M&B: How did you design this approach and what were its characteristics?

In a way, we’re guided by previous research on how physicians can talk to their patients about difficult topics. This is actually research that I had done previously in relation to other difficult topics like smoking and alcohol use. And what we did in those cases was we taught the physician a very neutral, gentle supportive way to introduce those issues with their patients and then we took a look at how we could use that with introducing the questions about spiritual resources. So a physician may say something like “Many patients draw on their spiritual or religious resources to deal with something like finding out they have cancer. As your physician I would like to hear more about whether that is true for you, it may or may not be, how do you feel about that?” And that very gentle open way of introducing it feels very comfortable to the physicians and it feels very comfortable to patients. And what we find again is most of the patients respond very positively to that.

M&B: What if the answer is no and they are not interested in talking about spirituality?

We also taught physicians that if the response they get back from a patient is something like “oh no, I’m not religious or I don’t want to talk about that,” how they should respond to that. They should say something like “really what I’m concerned about is how you’re dealing with this and I’d like to hear more about that. Is that ok?” And that shifts it just a little bit. But for about 90% of the patients, they really open up and they are responsive and they start to talk about it and if they are a little hesitant we then teach the physicians how to draw them out a little bit more. Very simply saying, “Tell me more about that. I’d like to hear more about that. Are there any problems you’re having around that? Who else can you talk to about this?” It’s very important. So being encouraging and thanking them for having the courage to share their feelings with the physician. Asking them a little bit more about how they draw on a sense of inner meaning and peace, because we’ve identified that in research as one of the key elements for moving to a different level of coping with cancer.

To our surprise this actually worked very, very well. What we found was that patients have appreciated it. Over 50% of them actually told us after the fact that they had found that conversation helpful to them in dealing better. And about a month after this very brief exploration, they actually said that they were feeling less depressed and they were coping better in comparison to patients from the very same physicians who didn’t get this, who just go their usual appointment. So we’ve been continuing to work on this line of research to deepen it and to expand it at this point.

M&B: You also discuss that a small number of patients are coping in a negative way with spirituality. How does it happen?

Our research and research from some other groups, for example Harold Koenig’s work at Duke, is systematically coming up with a pattern that shows that individuals who feel angry at God, who feel that they’re being punished by having cancer are not doing very well.

Most people feel that at some point. But what I’m talking about is a sort of enduring ongoing struggle around this. And what we find is individuals who are really caught in that struggle in fact are doing very poorly. They are more depressed, and their relationships are not going as well. We don’t have any evidence at this point to show that it actually affects the course of their disease. That would be a challenging kind of study to take on and we haven’t been able to do that. But certainly it’s affecting their inner struggle and their inner well-being. What we encourage physicians to do if they realize that one of their patients is struggling at that level is to encourage the individual to find somebody else to talk to, maybe a Chaplain for example from the medical environment. We really encourage them to look to that and to try to provide those resources and not take that on themselves.

M&B: Maybe it is difficult to estimate how the constant spiritual struggles affect recovery time, but maybe it is easier to estimate how it affects the quality of life.

The individuals caught up in that struggle have a poorer quality of life in general and the research again is pretty consistent in that. And of course it would be naïve to say that you just turn that off. If somebody is struggling in these deep personal issues, they deserve to be recognized and I think we have to assist the individual to find some way to talk to people in their own personal circle of friends, family, religious community about how to deal with them.

M&B: Regarding spiritual intervention, what is the general opinion of the medical community? Is there a growing interest?

I think we are just shedding some light on this. Given how positively the patients respond to even just 5 minutes, I think that there is a growing awareness that there can be a role for this. Within the care of the whole patient, when you shift into the perspective that the spiritual and religious resources people bring to a medical crisis are actually tremendously valuable, and the more they can bring those to the crisis the better they’re going to be doing then. I feel that that defines within the medical environment in a different way.

One of the issues that often physicians would bring up with us is “I don’t know if I have the same beliefs as my patient does” and “if I don’t have the same beliefs maybe it’s not appropriate to bring this up.” And one of the things we do in our training is to work with them around that. Saying you know it isn’t about the beliefs that you have and whether they match your patients. It’s about listening to your patient; it’s about hearing the underlying feelings and meaning that the patient has.

M&B: In terms of spiritual response to cancer, do you see people going through a spiritual transformation?

Let me give you a little bit of frame on that. We’re funded on the Spiritual Transformation Project. When you think of spiritual transformation you’re actually thinking about a real shift in people’s beliefs and people’s sense of themselves as a religious or spiritual person, their relationship to God, or their sense of relationship to God. We’ve compared our data to data that’s been collected on AIDS patients in Miami. Something like half of the AIDS patients communicated that spiritual transformation happened to them. We had 2 out of 100 cancer patients relate that level of change occurred.

M&B: Fifty percent compared to two percent. That is a huge difference. What is your explanation for that?

A couple of reasons I think, one is that even though cancer is a very frightening disease, it’s nowhere near as frightening as AIDS. The prognosis is much better in truth. The other is that the AIDS patients were really people who were struggling with their lives in general. Most of our cancer patients have really quite well-functioning lives. They’re already members of religious community. They don’t need a transformation. They just need to deepen or engage that religious support more fully or the spiritual side of themselves. So, one of the issues is that transformation isn’t necessary, it isn’t needed for this. Engagement though is what we’re talking about.

M&B: What are the fundamental difficulties in doing research on spirituality?

One of the things that is so challenging about this area is trying to measure, trying to capture very elusive concepts and do it in a way where we can systematically identify them, where we can frankly put some numbers to them. So we can compare individuals, so we can look at the effect, for example, of a stressful life event on something like spirituality. So, one of the other lines of work we’ve been doing here is to develop the framework for measuring what we call religious and spiritual engagement, and it’s very challenging to do that. Within Psychology, there’s a long tradition of trying to capture these psychological processes, something like depression or fear. And we have lots of different measuring tools.

M&B: Is there a widely accepted measure of spirituality and religious participation among the healthcare and medical research community?

When we started working in this area, what we discovered were a couple of hundred different scales to measure what people called religious and spiritual involvement. But most of them had been developed in very small groups of individuals, they hadn’t been put into a larger theoretical model and we knew there were probably not hundreds of different dimensions but we didn’t know whether there were 2 or 4 or 5 or 10 and one of the projects we’ve done here is to identify using a group of these measures that seem to capture different aspects of spiritual and religious involvement like belief, compassion, like sense of growing within oneself. As in mystical experiences, we’ve had several of these projects where we’ve given this set of measures actually over almost a couple of thousand people at this point.

Another dimension is interestingly their willingness to tolerate questions about their beliefs and their spiritual well being. Tolerating those questions seems to be a separate and important element that is linked into doing better, to growing more. Mystical experience is a separate dimension so someone who has a mystical experience may or may not be strong in their belief system. Having that may shift that strength but it’s somewhat separate.

We focused on several dimensions. One of the 5 or 6 dimensions is what we call spiritual struggle and that is a separate dimension and again people might be high or low on their strength of their beliefs. If that dimension is strong or high, you do see a lot of distress not only in that part of the person’s life but often in other areas of their life.

M&B: People often think that hope, love, and compassion are the indicators of spirituality. But you are giving other dimensions as toleration to questions or having a mystical experience etc. Do you choose them because they are easier to analyze?

That’s a very good question. It’s very important to include as a part of someone’s total spiritual well being their ability to feel compassion towards others; their ability to feel hope. One of the challenges now in this area is to understand those dimensions in and of themselves and I see them more as overlapping with spirituality rather than defining it. And I say that partly because there are many people who feel that they are not religious or spiritual perhaps, but they certainly have the ability to feel hope and they have the ability to be compassionate toward other people in their lives. From the perspective of Psychology, we don’t have the answers to this yet but we’re applying tools out of Psychology that we’ve used in other areas of understanding human emotions, personality, and patterns to try to apply them within this arena of understanding something as complex as religion and spirituality.

M&B: You are using tools from both religion and psychology. Are psychologists generally interested in spiritual experiences?

Well. William James who is considered one of the founders of Contemporary Psychology in the 1800s wrote the Varieties of Religious Experience. And he wrote that from a very sophisticated perspective where he said we really do need to look at some of the universal aspects of religious or spiritual experience. At the time he didn’t really have the tools to do that but he introduced the discourse around the value of doing that, the value of understanding those very human experiences from a psychological perspective. And it began with a respect for those experiences rather than discounting them. And I think that that is a very important distinction.

In contrast, when some of the thinking that came out of the Psychoanalytic Schools and particularly Freudian theory tended to pathologize those experiences considering them as an anomaly or like a sickness. In fact one of the differences between Freudian thinking and Jungian thinking was the discounting of those experiences as regressive and pathological. It is an aspect of human experience that could tremendously contribute to the best in human nature. And if understood and cultivated in appropriate ways, this could tremendously increase people’s ability to engage with their fellow human beings to act ethically.

Matter&Beyond: What was your motivation for writing the book, The Heart-Mind Connection?

Well, that book was a collaboration with Dr. Ting who is a Cardiovascular Surgeon and it was actually his idea. He’s a very enlightened surgeon in that he, over the years of training in a practice as a cardiac surgeon, came to realize that the experience of undergoing cardiac surgery certainly taxed the mind and that the interaction of mind and heart was extremely important for outcomes. If you’re a cardiac surgeon and your goal is to improve your patients’ lives it became very clear to Dr. Ting that in order for that to happen cardiac surgeons and cardiologists had to be mindful of the fact that patients needed to be emotionally and cognitively intact, and so he asked me to collaborate on this book, and the book focused on the interaction between mood states and cardiac states.

M&B: What is the nature of this interaction? Does the heart affect the mind or does the mind affect the heart?

It’s bidirectional. There is an interaction or there is a relationship between mood disorders such as depression, anxiety, anger, and hostility and the actual human heart. The connection between those mood disorders and cardiac function is extremely important. But then also if you go into the experience of having heart disease and you were fortunate enough not to have one of those mood disorders, the experience of having cardiac disease will put you at risk for developing mood disorders. So it’s bidirectional. You can start out with heart disease and wind up having your health complicated by mood problems, or you can start out with mood problems and have your health complicated by heart disease. There’s an unholy alliance between depression and anxiety on the one hand and heart disease on the other.

M&B: What happens, let’s say, if you are someone who has a history of a major depressive disorder? What happens to his or her heart?

Major depressive disorder is a condition characterized by certain clear-cut symptoms, and those symptoms include having a depressed mood everyday most of the day for two weeks or more that includes losing pleasure in life, something we call anhedonia, not being able to take pleasure in normal activities that would normally make you happy. Along with that is loss of interest in things, guilt, or feelings of hopelessness, helplessness and worthlessness, loss of energy, loss of concentration, loss of appetite, sometimes even leading to weight loss, not being able to move the way you’re used to. So it’s sometimes you just curl up in bed and this is something we call psychomotor retardation or withdrawal. On the other hand sometimes depression makes you agitated so you can’t sit still and you’re running around sort of ringing your hands and so on. And then the final symptom of major depression is suicidality or morbid thinking. Always focused on death or wanting to die. So that’s the common sort of a cluster of symptoms we see in major depression. Now, say you have no history of heart disease but you suffer from major depressive disorder. You increase your risk of developing heart disease by having this condition of depression. So your risk of having a heart attack for example goes up like 1-1/2 to 2 times what it would be in someone without depression.

M&B: Is it similar with anger and hostility?

Some people believe that if you’re an angry person or a hostile person, that also increases your risk of developing depression. Say you have depression and you unfortunately have a heart attack. If you remain depressed then your risk of having another cardiac event, another minor cardiac infarction or a cardiac arrhythmia would go up three and a half times what it would be if you weren’t depressed. So that means that this connection between the brain and the heart, between depression and cardiac disease are tremendously important in terms of public health. Because those two diseases are causing most of the disability that exists, by the year 2020, the World Health Organization predicts that heart disease will be number one and depression will be number two in the entire world. That includes the developed world, the industrialized countries as well as the developing low income countries around the world. So in terms of the book that we did we thought it was important because these two illnesses, first of all feed off each other and cause a lot of heartache in the population but they also are the most important diseases in public health.

M&B: The heartbeat change is associated with love or certain joy. What is the physiology behind that?

Let me preface it by saying that this is the age old philosophical question which Plato and Aristotle sort of debated. Love is an idea as Plato thought. So, is there sort of an idea of beauty and of love that exists outside of the materialistic world? Are we somehow plugging into that ideal world of love as material organisms? Or does it come as a result, as an epiphenomenon of the material world we’re living? Does it emerge from the biological material world that we’re living? That in a way becomes a philosophical question. As scientists when we see human behavior, there’s something that we do, and it’s called reverse engineering. Let’s look at the behavior or the experience of human love. Where does that come from? Let’s work backwards from human love to try to understand in a biological way where it came from. We are the ultimate mammalian life. We might start a little controversy about that and especially with the all wars that we fight, but be that as it may, we are these high level, high functioning mammals. Our infants are born [in need of] altruism, which means that they are absolutely helpless when they are born. So parenting for the human being is extraordinarily important for the continuity of our species, and so our infants are in total need of care.

M&B: Isn’t this the same for all the animals?

It’s different in reptiles. If you go to Borneo and you study the life of the Komodo dragon, you’ll find out that komodo pups know immediately what they have to do when they plop out of komodo mommy. They have to roll around in their own feces in order to throw mommy off the scent because mommy will look at them as food. So that’s their strategy for avoiding being eaten by mommy. They also know how to climb up trees to get away from mommy. So here the survival strategy of reptiles is not one of attachment; it’s one of separation. All psychiatry is tied up in that simple fact. There would be no psychiatry if we were reptiles. But because we’re mammals, there’s psychiatry because all of the disorders we have are really disorders of a dysfunction in parental and social attachment. Only mammals for example have a part of the brain called the paralimbic cortex. So reptiles have primitive limbic areas, they have hippocampus, they have amygdala, so they show fear, and they act when they’re threatened, etc. They’re outfitted with those structures which allow them to do those simple attachments-attachments to food and to sexual objects etc., but don’t allow them to do social attachments very well, and there’s some reptiles that are better at it than others. Crocodiles, for example. They do a version of taking care of their pups. Birds also take care of their nestlings very well, and crocodiles actually have brains that are more kind of on the bird-like end of the spectrum, allowing them to do a better job as reptiles taking care of their young and having something of a social life. Nothing to the extent that mammals do and you can look at a mammal brain, and you can see where this is taking place. So the anterior cingulate is an area of extreme importance for mammalian behavior.

M&B: This unique mammal feature, the limbic system and the paralimbic system; would you elaborate a little bit more on them?

I had the privilege of meeting back in 1990 Paul McClain, who is a famous neuroscientist who coined the term limbic system. He studied emotional parts of the brain in reptiles and in monkeys and in human beings. He talked about what he called the mammalian behavioral triad. There are three things that mammals do that reptiles don’t do very well. One is that all mammalian infants cry for their mothers in the same way, so every lamb baas for its mother the same way. Every human infant cries for its mother in the same way, that’s called a separation cry, and you can study it. So when you look at rats they have an ultrasonic isolation cry; you can study it, and you can deprive them of relationships and you’ll see the cry. That’s typically mammalian. Another feature is play, so mammals play, and that serves a social binding function. We play sports together; it serves a social binding function. Then the third thing is maternal nurturance which is extremely important, and mammals do that parental nurturance piece pretty well.

M&B: Are there any experiments that may illustrate the role of love?

There are a couple of experiments that Paul did and they are very illustrative. They get us back to a focus on love. So one experiment was to take hamsters and you can ablate, sort of take out the anterior cingulate. When you do, the hamster pup no longer cries for its mother when it’s separated and the hamster mother no longer responds when the hamster pup cries for her. You can also put morphine in that area, and get pretty much the same results. So you could put morphine in the hamster pup’s brain in the anterior cingulated, and the hamster pup will no longer cry for their mother, it distorts that bonding. And you can do that with squirrel monkeys too and you’ll get similar results.

M&B: Do the results apply to human beings as well? Could the use of morphine stop a healthy heart or brain from giving love or responding to love?

One of the real problems that we face in psychiatry is when we run across an addicted mother. What happens to the mother child relationship when the mother is addicted to heroin or to cocaine or to other drugs of abuse? The child gets neglected, the mother no longer responds to the needs of the child. So we see there’s even a reflection of those basic experiments in the human model when we’re talking about maternal-child relationships. So again that’s kind of circumstantial evidence where there’s reverse engineering, and mothers also have this phenomenal hormone, neuropeptide hormone, this again is exclusively mammalian, called oxytocin. So it’s used in pregnant women to get them ready to give birth, and so once a pregnant woman gives birth it’s responsible for milk production and so on. This is another example of this – if we think about maternal love, one of the requirements for maternal love is that there needs to be oxytocin involved. Oxytocin needs to allow that brain to have the experience of being connected and bonded to offspring.

M&B: The relation between the brain and the other organs such as the heart, is it really a top down relation where the brain commands, or is it a bottom-up relation where bodily sensors form the human brain?

What you’re referring to when you bring up this fact that the body sends markers up to the brain, and the brain takes note of that and becomes behaviorally engaged, that is absolutely true, and it’s something that Tony Damasio calls a somatic marker hypothesis of how the brain works. This is also something that William James postulated in the late 1800s-that emotion is a reflection of the body’s activity. Your heart racing or your stomach turning, emotion is secondary, it’s the brain trying to make sense of what the body is going through. What came first, the chicken or the egg, that kind of a problem. The fact is, the organism works as a unity and you need all of its component parts for it to work, and you really can’t tease a part, what came first and what came second.

M&B: From our physiology, it is evident that we are born to love.

It is very spiritual about this kind of understanding of love and connecting it back to the brain. How the heart becomes a reflection of what the brain is about, and also this need we have as human beings for connection. Spirituality really is this need we seem to have as human beings to be connected to something greater than ourselves. So we have this part of our brain, the prefrontal cortex, which allows us to think into the future and when we think into the future, we gain security when we see a future of connectivity, of attachment. That becomes a workable definition of spirituality. So many of us feel connected to a higher power, to God or to nature, but that is also a common reflection of what people refer to as love, and again you can choose to understand its biological origins. The body will be connected up with that whole experience, so your heart will be connected up. If you’re feeling connected to God, or to the scene of an ocean, and you’re feeling connected to the universe, when you’re looking up at the stars, there will be a bodily sensation connected up with that experience, and that will become for you part of what you understand to be spirituality.

Paul Davies, a British-born cosmologist, theoretical physicist, and bestselling author, conducts inter-disciplinary research in the areas of physics, cosmology, and biology. Dr. Davies is the director of a new research center at Arizona State University called Beyond. The mission of the center is to explore the great questions of our existence, the origin of our universe and life, the nature of consciousness, and the mathematical laws that underpin the universe. He is particularly interested in the Big Bang Theory, one of the most influential theories of our time concerning the origins of our universe.

Matter&Beyond: You are a cosmologist and the topic obviously is fascinating. But what is the root of our connection with space? What is the root of our human fascination with the sky and stars?

It’s very interesting to speculate if human beings had developed on a planet that was totally covered in cloud and had no awareness of the sky and astronomical bodies, whether society would’ve developed very differently. It’s quite clear when you look back at human history that the “heavens,” as they used to be called, had a very major role to play in all early civilizations. We can see evidence of astronomical observatories, thousands of years ago, long before the invention of telescopes. There are monuments, for example, pyramids that were built or Stonehenge in England, which are clearly astronomical monuments of some sort. And then we think of the world’s great religions and they all have an astronomical component. Think of the role of the new moon in Islam, for example, or the Star of Bethlehem in Christianity. … I think we can trace this preoccupation with the sky and the heavens to the early days of the development of agriculture because it became really important for people to know when to plant their crops and when to harvest them and the different seasons and so on. We can imagine that, say 10,000 years ago, people studied the sky very, very carefully and they became familiar with the movement of the objects and they invented complicated mathematical formulas to chart them.

M&B: How did our fascination with space change after industrialization?

What I would say has happened in the last three or four hundred years is that actually most people have become less aware of space. We live in cities that are polluted so we don’t see outer space. We’re too busy looking at televisions or driving home from work so we never look up and see this wonderland above our heads. How many people, for example, could name even the major constellations of stars if they were ever taken outside of their cities to somewhere where they could see the dark night sky? And so astronomy has become in a way less and less significant in people’s lives.

M&B: But today astronomy and cosmology is making a comeback. There are a lot of bestseller popular science books written on space and time.

I think during the 1970s and ‘80s people became very antiscientific, perhaps as a result of a reaction to the Vietnam War. Astronomy somehow remained aloof from that. It was perceived as a subject that wasn’t dangerous, that we could study the stars, they were a long way away using benign equipment like telescopes and astronomers weren’t going to threaten anybody. And so I think exploring the universe has been seen in many ways as a sort of untainted glorious enterprise that doesn’t have this sort of threatening aspect to it. It’s still, of course, immensely popular. People still want to go to planetariums and they read books on astronomy and they like television productions on astronomical things. But I think it’s shifted now from those early days where people’s lives really revolved around the stars in a very literal sense, and those days are now gone.

M&B: You are a cosmologist, but based on the wide range of research areas at the center Beyond, I would say that you look more like a modern seeker of old times.

Since the dawn of human history people have asked the great questions of existence, how did the universe come to exist? What is the role of human beings in the great cosmic scheme of things? How will the universe end? What is it made of? Now for the greater part of human history, these questions were addressed by priests and philosophers. But in recent years, science has made progress as well. So scientists find themselves now asking those same age-old questions of existence. In my career, I have covered topics like the origin of the universe and the origin of life, the nature of time, the nature of consciousness, and the underlying laws of the universe. Inevitably these topics trespass on territory which was previously almost exclusively philosophy or religion’s. Now science has a story to tell about these great issues.

M&B: If you have to pick the most interesting question modern science is trying to answer, what would be your choice?

I suppose the most interesting thing modern science is telling us about is how the universe came into existence. When I was a student, the Big Bang Theory was just one of many ideas about the origin of the universe. But over the past 30 years it’s become much more secure so that not only do we know that there was a Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago, but we know a great deal about the details including the conditions that prevailed in the universe back to as little as one-trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. So we’re now able to reconstruct precisely how the universe went bang and how it developed over the subsequent billions of years into what we see today. So I think that the scientific story of the genesis of a universe is fascinating—its origin, its explosive outbursts, and the long period of enrichment and complexification of matter leading eventually to the emergence of life and beings like ourselves who could look back and reflect on it all.

M&B: The Big Bang Theory is well established. Yet it’s still open to commentaries and interpretations.

It’s often said that science deals with “how?” questions and religion deals with “why?” questions and so you don’t normally go to a scientist to find meaning or purpose in the universe. Nevertheless it is clear that because science is now able to fill in so many details about the big picture, that scientists are inevitably asked to make pronouncements about meaning and purpose. As they do so, they divide about equally into two groups. One group who says, “Well, the universe is beautiful, it’s so ingenious that it looks as if it has been designed by an intelligent creator but in fact it hasn’t.” There is no meaning, no purpose in the universe. The famous quote by Steven Weinberg, the American cosmologist, goes: “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” Then the other half of cosmologists look at this same set of facts and they agree about the facts but they interpret them differently. They will say, “Well, it does suggest that there is a grand scheme of things, it does suggest that the universe is about something. This grand and wonderful scheme, which is so ingeniously constructed, does suggest that there is something deeper to it all.”

M&B: We find more and more scientists thinking and writing about these topics on both sides.

Human beings usually are not happy just to have a technical description of how the universe works, and in particular people always want to ask the question what happened before the Big Bang? What made the Big Bang go bang? Why is there a universe in the first place, and why is the universe as it is and not something different? And these are questions right on the edge of science because science really can only deal with things that can be measured and observed. They can deal with the facts of the world, the things before us. When we come to questions about why does the world exist at all or why are there laws and where do those laws come from, it’s very difficult for science to make a contribution. Nevertheless, in the last ten or twenty years more and more scientists have been addressing those questions. The nature of physical laws is a very good example… When I was a student, you were simply told the laws of physics are what they are, we don’t know why, maybe there isn’t any reason why—that’s just the way it is. It was not the job of the scientists to ask why those laws of physics exist. The job of the scientist was to discover what the laws are and then apply them. But that has changed. There is now a feeling that maybe the nature of physical laws is something that is a proper, legitimate subject for scientific inquiry. And so there’s a whole bunch of physicists who are looking at alternative laws.

M&B: How do they theorize alternative laws?

Supposing we stipulate a different law of gravitation and see what the consequences would be. We can work out using mathematics what it would be like if gravity differed a little bit from the observed law. And then we can do the same with the other forces of nature and other features of the world. What would it be like if we lived in the universe with 23 space dimensions instead of three? We can work that out. Partly that’s a recreational exercise—it would be fun to know what it would be like in a universe with different dimensions or different forces—but also we would like to know is there anything special about the particular laws of this particular universe.

M&B: What is the result of such experiments?

There is something special and that special thing is that the particular laws that we observe in this universe are very strangely conducive to the emergence of life. They’re highly suited to life, even suspiciously so. It’s almost as if these laws have been fine-tuned for life, and so at that point disagreement sets in and some scientists say, “Well, it’s just a lucky coincidence that that is the case,” and others say, “No, there must be some other explanation for it.” But it is certainly the case that the universe we observe and the laws that underpin it, which used to just be regarded as given, as not a proper subject for inquiry, are now being studied as one set among a vast variety of possible sets, and it’s generally agreed that the particular laws that we observe are very special in their relation to the ability to bring forth life.

M&B: And you call this a “cosmic jackpot.”

My book, Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life, examines a very specific problem, the problem of why the universe seems to be just right for life. When we look at the fundamental laws of physics and the way that the universe originated in the Big Bang, there are many features that appear to be coincidences or the happy arrangement of different aspects of physical laws without which there would be no life and no observers like ourselves. And the question is, What are we to make of that? Some people say, “Well, it looks like the whole thing is a fix, it looks like the universe is being created by an Intelligent Designer.” Well, obviously all the scientists aren’t going to believe that. So instead they come up with other explanations.

M&B: There is the theory of multiverses.

According to that theory, there are many universes each of which has its own set of laws and these laws are just randomly distributed across these universes. So here and there, just by chance, the laws are going to come out just right for life. It’s no surprise that we find ourselves living in a universe where conditions are just right for life because we could hardly live in a universe which had laws of physics that did not permit life. It’s like a gigantic cosmic lottery with all of these different universes and we’ve just hit the cosmic jackpot because we’re winners of this vast lottery. So that is the popular view as to how we explain that the universe is just right for life. I think that view is progressive but I think it falls far short of providing a complete explanation of existence. I take life seriously and I take the mind seriously so I don’t think that these are just incidental phenomena in the great cosmic scheme of things. I think they’re fundamental to the workings of the universe as a whole and so what I’m trying to do here is to go beyond the rather startled debate between science and religion that’s existed for the last 30 years about the ultimate source of reality.

M&B: It just seems to me, just based on intuition, that we’re not alone here. The universe is so vast, there’s just got to be life somewhere. Does mathematics and statistics support this intuition?

A lot of people make that mistake by saying, statistically, there has to be life elsewhere, the universe is so vast, so many stars out there. It would be incredible if this was the only planet with life. It’s just simply not true. The probability of forming even the simplest enzyme, the simplest protein in known life, if you did it just by shuffling the building blocks, the amino acids that make up for that, is infinitesimal. If you took the entire volume of the universe and filled it with an amino acid soup and just kept shuffling and shuffling and shuffling, you would simply not make it. If it’s happened once, we’re it. It would not happen anywhere else. So the probability of life forming in that way by chance is twice as infinitesimal. So if that’s the way life happened, the fact we live in a vast universe makes no different whatsoever.

M&B: People who are not scientists may think that scientists are the smartest of all of us so they must be figuring out everything, they’re the smartest ones who bring the technology. They look at scientists as natural guides. Do you see a danger here?

Scientists are human beings like everybody else, and I think it’s a mistake to see scientists as generally cold, hard, soulless people who don’t care about the consequences of their work. Scientists are very passionate people and they feel passionately not only about their work but about other aspects of human life. It is also a mistake to think that scientists have any special moral authority over questions of general relevance to human beings. The vast majority of problems that we confront in the world really are only related obliquely, if at all, to science. We struggle with things like the ruin of our environment or international disputes or family concerns or education concerns. These sort of day-to-day things loom very large in people’s lives, but I’m not sure that scientists make a contribution. Science is obviously relevant to some of these things, for example, if we could find a better source of energy that doesn’t heat the planet, that would be good. So science can play a role, but individual scientists, I don’t think are any better than anybody else as moral judges.

Introduction

Human beings have wrestled with questions about the origin of our existence and the fabric of our universe for thousands of years. This questioning formed the discipline of cosmology. Dr. Natarajan explores the nature of our world and shares her perspectives about how new scientific discoveries are reshaping our understanding of the universe and our place in it. Until very recently, the universe had been considered a vast empty space. But the Dark matter theory states that the universe is not empty, but rather filled with an invisible matter. As new mysteries unfold, Dr. Natarajan points out that it is our fundamental human curiosity that leaves us no choice but to explore the universe and how we fit into its grand picture.

M&B: Dr. Natarajan, you work on dark matter in the universe. What is the theory?

It turns out that the bulk of the matter in the universe is not made of ordinary atoms that you and I or the universe that we know and experience is made of, but instead made of this mysterious particle. Ninety percent of all the matter in the universe is dark matter, and we believe this is a set of particles that was created very early in the universe. These particles do not have charge, but they have mass. Since they dominate the mass of the universe, it turns out that they really form the scaffolding in the universe around which all galaxies, stars, and so on, form. They are sort of the basis or the framework within which normal atoms actually cool to form star galaxies, and then have generated us.

M&B: What is the evidence for their existence?

The reason dark matter remains a mystery, – although there is incontrovertible evidence for the existence of dark matter – is the fact that you only detect it indirectly. What I mean by that is you detect its presence because it has mass, and since it doesn’t have any charge it doesn’t couple to any radiation. So you don’t see radiation in any wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum: no X-rays, no gamma rays, no visible light, nothing. But since dark matter has mass, it aggregates gravitationally, so they feel gravitational pull towards each other and they cluster. It’s the clustering of the dark matter, the fact that it gets compact, that we detect the effects of dark matter.

M&B: What happens near the regions where dark matter clusters? In your research papers you use the bending of the light rays. How do you observe it?

The primary evidence is the gravitational bending of light produced by these aggregates of dark matter. The universe is really composed of a smooth distribution of dark matter, with a lot of clump regions where this dark matter has aggregated, and then enabled the formation of galaxies. The presence of these large amounts of dark matter causes light from background galaxies coming towards us to bend. The actual shapes of galaxies that are behind a big clump of dark matter, which is along our line of sight, are actually distorted when we see it. The dark matter in general is smoothly distributed everywhere in the universe. But there are these particular regions that are denser. So we can look at regions in which the dark matter is not so densely distributed, look at the shapes of undistorted shapes of galaxies, and then use that to infer how much distortion we’re actually seeing when we see a lump, and infer its existence from the distortion. Because the strength of the distortion is directly proportional to the mass, you can directly infer how much mass there is between us and those objects.

M&B: Is there evidence other than the bending of the light rays?

The other evidence eludes to the fact that dark matter actually gives the basis for the formation of stars and galaxies. If you look at the motions of stars and galaxies, you find that, unlike the solar system, if you look at the velocities of the planets in the solar system as a function of distance from the sun you find that it’s falling. So the planets in the inner regions are moving very fast; they feel the gravity of the sun much more strongly than the outer planets, which are not actually moving as fast. So if you plot the velocity from the center or from the sun outwards in the solar system, the velocities are falling. Whereas if you go to a galaxy and you do the same experiment, you look at stars at different radii and you try to see what their speeds look like. They are speeding up as you go outwards. And the only way they can do that is there is something that is sitting outside the galaxy that holds it up as it were, and has gravity. And it turns out that our current picture is that most galaxies have very extended dark matter halos. The key point is that there’s a lot of dark matter sitting outside the galaxy well beyond where we see the stars.

The other compelling lines of evidence for the existence of dark matter come from larger scale observations of the universe. One of the leftovers of the big bang or relic of the big bang is this microwave background radiation that is detected today in the universe. It was a very hot radiation that has cooled with the expansion of the universe, and we are bathed in it. I mean it’s everywhere, in every direction, and measurements of the directional dependence of the microwave background shows that it’s very uniform. But in one part it’s anisotropic, so there are cool zones and hot zones in the sky. On very small scales we see these cold and hot spots. And these and isotropy’s in the microwave background are exactly predicted by this model, the cold dark matter model, which I said you know is postulated on the very early generation of the universe and these dark matter particles.

M&B: So we know that they exist. But what is their essence? What are their properties?

This is still a mysterious kind of beast. In fact, we don’t know the nature, but it appears that it’s collisionless. It’s very counterintuitive. That’s one of the things I find fascinating about the fact that it is so counterintuitive. These particles are actually collisionless. What that means is that when two dark matter particles approach each other, they pass through each other, they don’t actually bounce off of each other, so these particles don’t collide, which means they don’t have pressure, because pressure is generated by collision. So they are pressureless particles that have mass. Gravity holds them together, but they don’t actually collide.

So a current understanding of dark matter is that it’s definitely generated very early in the universe and that it clusters very strongly and it’s distributed on very different scales in the universe, so there’s like a smooth background and there are lots of clumps on top of it and so on.

M&B: As far as the mass of Dark Matter how much mass are we talking about? If there is no clustering, something like in the volume of the earth, for example, how much total dark matter mass do we have?

Well I guess the thing is at the position of the earth and at the position of the sun from the center of our galaxy. We are not really dominated by dark matter anymore, so dark matter at that radius doesn’t constitute significant portion of the mass. We are bathed in it, but the density is quite low. It’s at the innermost part of our galaxy where the density is very, very high, so we actually expect that the inner most regions of our galaxy is a very complicated, violent place where not only do you have a black hole which we know exists. This is a black hole that is not made of dark matter. This is a black hole that has gobbled gas and grown to about a million times the mass of the sun, and which is sitting at the center and it creates a very violent place for stars because it can rip them apart and so on. And this whole system is sort of embedded in this very, very dense region full of dark matter.

M&B: How is your everyday work? Where do you get data about the light rays coming near the regions with high Dark matter density?

A: I’m a theoretical person and what that means is that I actually build models but models that are guided by observations. The theory has transformed in the past 10 to 15 years because of the amount of data that technological progress has given us.

For example, the Hubbell space telescope has really transformed the kind of modeling that can be done. So I actually use data that other people have procured. They’ve cleaned it up and they give it to me. These are very distorted images of background galaxies whose shape has been distorted because of the huge amounts of dark matter that is contained in a cluster of galaxies.

M&B: The bending of the light rays is predicted by the general relativity theory. Is it what you use for your calculations?

A: It’s a beautiful theory. I think that people really have understood the iconic status of Einstein. What is most fascinating about him for me is the profound insights that he had of such despaired phenomenon. There was a way in which he was able to see connections and synthesize. You know the whole understanding that the geometry, the fate and the contents of the universe ought to be linked is a profound insight. And I think you know it’s incredible that he enabled, you know, his mind enabled him to formulate it in the way that he did, which has allowed people like me to use general relativity and the sort of elegance of general relativity because of how simple it is in fact to apply and test.

M&B: This looks like an intriguing line of work?

I want to stress that this is a particularly wonderful time for cosmology. It’s a particularly special time. I don’t want to use the sort of often abused golden age as it were, but it’s the confluence of technological progress with the kind of data that we can obtain and the level of understanding that we have built up. This is a very special time to be doing this kind of work. And while the mystery of what dark matter might be made of, you know, it may or may not get solved in my lifetime.

M&B: If you want to describe your work, what term would you use?

In a more descriptive way, I guess. What I really do is I build a story line. I build a story line for the universe. I mean, I build a story of the sequence of events of how a structure forms and assembles. The key there is that you are guided, you have a few snapshots, so you have a bit of data, but then you have to extrapolate and you make some predictions. The goal of the kind of work that I do is to make predictions, and have them be taken seriously, to either be falsified or shown to be true, and what’s exciting about this particular time is that people can falsify your theories or your models in a very short time.

M&B: Isn’t it interesting that we can actually make a story out of universe?

Well, I mean, I think that what is fascinating, and this is a personal view, what is fascinating about cosmology is the… you know it’s mystical and it’s mysterious at the same time and it’s highly abstract. It’s not intuitive because the scale that I’m working with in terms of distances, masses, and energy are just unfathomable. So there’s a real irresistible pull for certain kinds of people to do this kind of work. And I think the universe is a pretty good subject for a narrative because of the range of phenomena that occur in it. This is possibly why in all ancient civilizations there is some notion of cosmogony and this idea of fascination with where we came from. I don’t want to sound arrogant by saying that it’s the fundamental question, but you know it’s an inescapable question for anybody to ponder where we came from.

M&B: Is there a sense of awe that motivates you in your studies?

There is a sense of wonder that the universe generates and I think that you know personally for me I’m a bit of an adventurist, and I think if I can imagine myself, if I had been born 200, 300 years ago I would have been one of those explorers. And I think there are people like that amongst us always, who want to explore in different ways. I mean, there are some people who want to explore via music. And there are frontiers that they want to break through in music, and they have the creativity to do that. And I think that for a lot of us who are doing science, and cosmology in particular, there is a sense of exploration, there’s a sense of examining or grappling with things that are really at the limits of our capabilities in a way.

M&B: In some ways one of the most important fruits of the process and coming along it’s our imagination. And the human imagination is also a part of the universe.

Absolutely. It is an inescapable part of the universe and what is fascinating is the idea that we have the capability to even contemplate the origin of the universe given that we are a part of the universe.

M&B: Many people approach science in a utilitarian way and this is not what you are doing.

I think that the fact that it is not utilitarian is precisely what attracts me to it. I think it is the other side of the coin of this, which is why we probably aren’t as well funded and we ought to be better funded than we are, because this is such a fundamental human curiosity. There is enormous public interest in what we do and the level of funding that we have does not reflect that. For instance, obviously medicine is very critical. It’s critical to our existence. But the disparity in how they are funded and how the pure sciences are funded is sort of disturbing. Because I think as a culture, as a world, we can afford to indulge in understanding basic sciences partly because there are spinoffs from all the work that we do. It is unpredictable, and I think that is what’s fascinating. There are no guaranteed benefits to human kind and society today that cosmologists can bring. However, they satisfy this hunger for knowing and going beyond, you know, satisfying your hunger and thirst on a day to day basis.

Mustafa Tabanli is a producer at Ebru TV. He conducted this interview for Emmy Award winning television series Matter&Beyond.

Bio

Dr. Priya Natarajan is a Professor of Astronomy and Physics at Yale University, and an Associate at the Dark Cosmology Center, which is part of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark. Her research interests include cosmology, gravitational lensing, and black hole physics. She earned a B.A. degree in physics and mathematics at M.I.T. and her doctorate at the Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge in England, where she was a member of Trinity College and elected to a Title A Research Fellowship that she held from 1997 to 2003. She is currently on leave from Yale to take up her Guggenheim Fellowship. She is deeply invested in the public dissemination of science and is currently a member of the Science Advisory Board for the public television series NOVA.

http://www.astro.yale.edu/priya/

Dr. Andrew Newberg is Director of Research at the Myrna Brind Center for Integrative Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital and Medical College. He is also Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. He is the author of 5 books on this topic: Principles of Neurotheology, Why We Believe What We Believe, How God Changes Your Brain, Why God Won’t Go Away, and The Mystical Mind. He is considered a pioneer in the neuroscientific study of religious and spiritual experiences.

Dr. Newberg’s research utilizes the many recent advances in brain imaging to comprehend the nature of human consciousness and to determine how we, as humans, understand reality and interact with it. His studies now focus primarily on how brain function is associated with various mental states, and in particular, the relationship between brain function and religious experiences.

Matter&Beyond: What aspect of religions interests you personally?

I think the part of religion and spirituality that really interests me the most is its focus on that which is ultimate. Teilhard de Chardin used to tell that religion is related to questions of the ultimate. And that’s something that I guess I’ve always been focused on in my own thinking, trying to understand the ultimate questions about the Universe, about reality, about how we as human beings can interact with that reality and understand that reality, and I think that to me religions have always tried to find those answers.

M&B: You obtain brain scans of people while praying and meditating. What is the focus of those studies?

I think one of the parts of religion that has become very interesting to me is the profound experiences that people can actually have, particularly the mystical experiences where people really feel like they get outside of themselves and they begin to see the world in a whole different way. These transformative mystical kinds of experiences, depending on how you define them, those to me are the most interesting experiences in many ways and certainly worthy of looking at from lots of different perspectives.

M&B: But each religion brings its own perspective. Are you looking for commonalities, do you accept varieties, what is your take on the diversity of such answers?

I don’t always agree with those specific answers, but to me there’s always that pursuit of trying to find the answers of how we understand reality. And I think that is so ultimately, and while this doesn’t always come out in the practice of religions, there is that goal of having human beings attain a higher level of existence, becoming a better person, becoming something more than what we are and feeling more connected with our world than we normally do.

M&B: Certainly, world religions bring thousands of years of accumulated resources and historical notes about those intense spiritual experiences to the table. When you look at them, what are the common elements that catch your eyes?

When we look at the spiritual literature we see when people have had mystical experiences, we frequently see a description in which people feel that they get beyond the self, they get beyond their own ego problems like selfishness, their way of looking at the world from their own self perspective, and they look at the world in a whole different way. They look at the world in a much more holistic way, in a very interconnected way, they have a deeper understanding of what that world is all about, so from a subjective experience, people have the description where they really can get beyond the ego, get beyond the self, and see the world in a very different way. Now the question is, are they really doing that? And that’s something that is certainly open for debate both philosophically as well as spiritually.

M&B: These experiences and what they mean theologically as well as philosophically were debated for centuries. But with the advances of technology, now science has something to say about that too. The study of moment to moment reactions of the brain, that’s what you are doing, was not possible fifteen years ago.

We try to bring the science along with us so that we can then use the science in that new perspective as well and understand the world in a deeper way from both sides. That to me is really where we’re ultimately headed, and hopefully the research that I do and some of the other individuals around the world who are looking at these questions; this is what I hope the world’s going to lead to.

M&B: Let’s go to particular experiences. What would be an example for an intense spiritual state?

In the work that I have been doing over the last decade, I’ve spoken a lot about a state called absolute unitary being where everything is just undifferentiated oneness. Now, theoretically and from a philosophical perspective, that should be a very similar state regardless of how one ultimately gets to it, whether one comes from an eastern or western tradition, if you are in a completely undifferentiated state of oneness, then there really can’t be other perspectives on that. On the other hand, one still has to try to make some sense out of that so that after somebody has that experience, do they then interpret it through the lens of Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, what have you, and then try to make some sense out of that.

M&B: About the spiritual states that you are talking about, there’s intense fulfillment related to those states. Sometimes people get the feeling that they reached the ultimate reality, all there is and all there was and all there will ever be. And in history there are some figures who claim that they became like God.

When one talks about the highest levels of mystical states and mystical experiences, it’s always very difficult to know how to respond to people who say that they have had them. On one hand they are, or should be at least, totally indescribable to the human mind and the human brain. On the other hand, when one has any kind of experience that’s a natural tendency that one wants to do is try to explain it and express it to other people. It really creates a conflict for the person who has that experience. Most of the people I have spoken to who have had mystical experiences of one form or another generally acknowledge that while “here’s the description that I’ll give you, but it’s really very far from what that experience was all about,” and I think that’s part of the humility that comes along with those experiences of realizing in many ways that experience was so much bigger than anything that that person really can get a hold of and understand and describe, and we sort of stand before those experiences and say “Wow, this is just something which is so much bigger than me and so much bigger than the world in many ways as I understand it, that there’s just no way for me to really understand it in its totality.”

M&B: What is your scientific goal in studying these intense experiences of oneness?

I think one of the interesting things from a research perspective is to ask “are these experiences the same, are they different, are the people different, is it the interpretation of those experiences that is different”? And that is something that we don’t really know yet. I guess it depends a little bit on the kind of experience that a person has, so I think that the question is, is that experience really the same for all those individual people? Is it not quite the same? Or if people think they did get that experience but feel something a little differently, could they have gotten to another state, another mystical state that isn’t exactly there and hopefully by the study of the biology as well as the phenomenology of these experiences, we might be able to understand them that much more and understand when they’re similar, when they’re different and how people ultimately interpret those experiences to be similar or different.

M&B: On the other side there are everyday religious experiences which are not so intense however more common.

Of course, intense experiences are not the only kinds of religious experiences, and for many people religion and spirituality is a way of life. And I think that it’s equally important for us to understand what that means for a person, so that they don’t necessarily have to have a mystical experience to have a deep understanding of what their religion or what their spiritual tradition actually means to them. And I think we need to look at both. What are the similarities and what are differences.

M&B: In religions there are some rituals related to spiritual states.

A lot of the research that I’ve been pursuing over the last decade or so have looked not just at religion, but at the specific rituals that people take part in that helps you induce various types of experiences and states. One of the things that we can look at when we look at rituals is that there is a very wide variety of rituals and they can have an impact on us in lots of different ways. To that end, a lot of rituals include visual stimulation, hearing or auditory stimulation, different types of body movements and so forth. Some can be very rhythmic, some can be very frenzied, and some can be very slow and methodical. And each of these different aspects of ritual can have a different kind of impact on us as a person, the things that we feel, the experiences that we have, and how they ultimately relate to whatever concepts that those rituals are looking at and helping us to understand in a deeper way.

M&B: What would be the resulting experience after a slow ritual?

So when we look at some of the slow rituals, for example, the ones that may be like a glory and chant which is a very slow rhythmic kind of music, or a very slow physical kind of process where a person may just be doing some kind of bowing or prostration, in a rhythmic way, those are the kinds of practices that can result in very deep feelings of calmness, acquiescence, and they may feel the sense of oceanic blissfulness. We can look also at the biology of that, the different parts of the brain and body that respond to that, so when we talk about slow rituals, we’re usually talking about what’s called the parasympathetic system in the body, or what I sometimes refer to as the quiescent system in body that helps the body relax, it helps the body rejuvenate its energy stores, for example, and this ultimately plays out in the brain because these experiences are associated with emotions such as contentment, happiness, joy, and blissfulness, and we can start to see all the different changes about how the practice itself starts, how it ultimately is played out in the behaviors and the rituals that the person takes part in, and then what happens in the brain in response to the kinds of experiences that they ultimately can have.

M&B: Are there any differences between man and women in terms of spiritual experience?

When we talk about different genders and the kinds of experiences that people have, on one level we certainly have some brain data that suggests that there is a difference between men and women’s brains and how they work, although they’re fairly subtle differences. When we talk about religious and spiritual experiences, obviously both genders can have very profound and compelling kinds of experiences, and to a certain extent when one looks at the literature, they are not fundamentally distinct kinds of experiences, there is probably a different kind of emphasis and we might see that women might focus a little bit more on the emotional aspects, more on the holistic aspects, but that’s a very subtle distinction and in the brain imaging studies that we’ve done as an example, again there are some very minor subtle differences between men and women, but in general, most of the changes that we’ve seen in one gender, we also see in the other. It might be to a slightly different degree in a few different structures, but in general, what we tend to see, especially as you get to the more profound and compelling kinds of experiences, is that there are a lot of similarities between men and women.

M&B: In what way do those mystical experiences transform an individual?

I think, as we look at different kinds of mystical experiences and different kinds of spiritual states, we do see kind of a continuum of these experiences and what myself and what my colleagues have argued for is that when one gets into the real high level of mystical states where that sense of getting beyond the self and the sense of connectedness extends not just to a particular group, but to the entire universe, to all of humanity, to the whole world, than there really is a much deeper level of compassion, a level of realization of where each of us is and the various issues each of us faces knowing that we’re doing the best that we can, but that we’re very limited in that ability, so I think its very correct to say that when people achieve deeper and deeper levels of connection and mystical experiences that they tend to feel deeper levels of compassion and love and humility in the face of other types of belief systems.

M&B: Although you are doing important studies about this topic, there are limitations too. You often talk about the limitations in both the scientific quest and religious understanding.

I think most religious belief systems feel that God is something which is infinite and all powerful and all knowing, and therefore as a human person, it’s very difficult, we’re very limited, and we really can only look at one very small aspect of what God or religion is all about. Therefore, we have to be aware of that limitation and recognize that all of us have limitations. So we’re all, in many ways, doing the best that we can with the belief systems that we have. But we also have to respect, I think, the other belief systems that other people may have because they may be looking at the same thing, but they may just be seeing it a little bit differently.

M&B: Would you give us an example?

I always liked the analogy of having different flies on an elephant, and then you ask each fly to describe an elephant. Well, the fly that is on the trunk is going to say something different than the one that’s on the tail, and different than one that’s on the tusk. And they’re all right, but they’re also all limited in how they’re looking at it. They’re not seeing the whole thing, and I think when we talk about ultimate reality, when we talk about God, these are such huge concepts that I think people really have to be very aware of and careful about the limitations that they are putting on those ideas, on the ideas as they understand them, and also recognize that everybody else is working with very similar kinds of limitations. Hopefully this will give us a little bit more sense of compassion for each other to realize that we’re really all kind of in the same boat, and we’re all kind of dealing with the same problems of trying to understand our world the best that we can.

M&B: There is also the limit of sensory experience.

Certainly, the biology of our brain speaks to that very issue. We miss so much of what comes into the brain, what gets up into our consciousness, and what we are aware of is so small relative to all the other things that are going on around us, that it really is very sobering I think. We think that we see the whole world and that we see it so clearly, and a lot of the research that has been done over the last 10 or 20 years shows that our view of the world is really very limited, and I think when you extent that to religion and spirituality it really makes, at least me, pause and say well maybe we really need to be a little bit more aware of what those limitations are about. On one hand it’s great that we can have a spiritual or religious view about our world, but lets keep it in the understanding of what the limitations that our own mind, our own brain, impose upon that ability to think about that and to act upon it and understand it in the right way.

M&B: To summarize, what would be the role of science and spirituality in understanding the ultimate reality?

On one hand, science offers these wonderful tools to try to get at what is out there. On the other hand, religion and spirituality offer a path towards getting beyond the self. I think we really need to look at those experiences in which the person feels that they get beyond the subjective and objective nature of what the world is all about and look at it from a whole different perspective. However, our sense of religion, spirituality, and God, that is ultimately processed through the functions of the human brain. In that regard, the human brain actually in some ways constricts our ability because the universe and God are very, very big concepts, and we as human beings are very finite and very mortal in terms of how we think about the world. We can’t look at the whole world. We can’t look at the entire universe, and we can’t look at all of God. We can look at a very specific aspect of them. Therefore, the human brain actually constrains how we think about religion, how we think about God, and how we make sense of that.

M&B: So in a sense, we get a glimpse of the unlimited in our limitedness.

We really are trapped within our own mind, we’re trapped within our own consciousness, and we have a long way to go, I think, to be able to get beyond the human brain and in many ways, to have the brain get outside of itself to take a look at and really be able to know what is out there in reality.

Mustafa Tabanli

MaryLynn Schiavi

What Is This Thing Called Love?

Post: Love is a profound ability that we have to say yes to the lives of the people around us. Your life is not a mistake, your life is a gift, we affirm it, we value your life, you have significance in this universe no matter what anyone’s told you. You matter, we are concerned about you.

It is believed to conquer all. It forms the cornerstone of all major religions and has been the primary call to action echoed by the great spiritual leaders throughout human history, from Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, to Gandhi and the Dalai Lama. It has inspired countless poems, novels, songs, and films. Many people search for it their entire lives. Others find it everywhere they go. As the 1929 song written by Cole Porter asks, “What is this thing called love?” And how does love impact our physical and mental health? Can the emotion of love affect our overall well-being and the well-being of society? How can we cultivate love? We explored all these questions with Professor Stephen G. Post. Dr. Post is Professor of Preventive Medicine, Head of the Division of Medicine in Society, and Director of the Center for Medical Humanities, Compassionate Care, and Bioethics at Stony Brook University. He is currently a Trustee of the John Templeton Foundation (2008-2011). Professor Post is equally recognized as a leader in the study of altruism, love, and compassion in the integrative context of scientific research, philosophy, and religious thought.

M&B: Professor Post, can we say that academic research on health mostly focuses on the negative aspects, such as depression?

Well, I think most of the research is focused on human disease and deficit and illness, but now I think there’s a little more of a balance. People realize that, say, public health, isn’t just about getting rid of lead paint or getting rid of bugs and germs by washing your hands, but it’s actually a part of how we live our lives. When we live good, generous, positive lives we are healthier, happier and odds are that we live a little longer, too.

M&B: You did a lot of research on the positive aspects, such as love and altruism. It’s a topic essential to human life, yet not essential to academic research. Do you see a controversy here?

People in the academic world are more receptive to studying positive things nowadays. I think there’s so much hatred, fear and anger in the world that people are interested in things like forgiveness, gratitude, joy, happiness, love and altruism; those are topics that have really come into their own in the last five to ten years.

M&B: How do you define love, and based on your research can we say that we are born with it?

Well, what is love? I think love is something like this: When the happiness and the security of another person means as much to me or more than my own happiness and security, I love that person. That could be a child, it could be my spouse, a parent, a friend, a colleague at work, a student, or it could even be just somebody on the street. So what we’re talking about is the shift from a preoccupation with self, you know, “I’m the center of the universe,” and only relating to people insofar as they contribute to my little agendas and plans, but no further. So, I never really discover other people as valuable in themselves, and therefore I never get a sense of awe. I think that love responds to this human need for significance.

So are we born with it? Well, we’re certainly born with the capacity for it but it can be inhibited; in other words, it can be covered over if we’re raised in an environment that’s full of hurt and hatred. I like to say hurt people… people who are hurt usually tend to be hurtful. So how we grow up, what kind of support we have in our families, in our environment, that’s important. We all have that side; I don’t think one person is different than any other in that sense. I think we all have these two sides to us, the positive and the negative, and it’s up to us in a lot of ways to decide what we emphasize, what we decide to nurture and cultivate, and it’s very easy for negative emotions to take over, and then we get in this incredible cycle of hatred and violence.

M&B: Now, there is also some research showing that being good actually has certain health benefits too. Would you please tell us a little bit about that?

Being good in the sense of being generous toward others does have health benefits. In the 1990s there was a remarkable book published called Anger Kills. It was written by a cardiologist at Duke University named Redford Williams. He looked at these personality tests that people had been taking over the last 60 or 70 years and he identified 50 questions which were associated with hostility, cynicism, anger, aggressiveness and so forth. He went back and he looked at those 50 questions. Of the people who took that test in 1950 when they were 25 years old, those who are in the top 25 percent on hostility had a 20% death rate by age 50. In other words, 20% of them were dead by the time they would have reached age 50. Of the ones who were in the lower 25% on hostility, only 2% of them were dead by age 50. So we know that these negative emotions are like acid on metal. Metal is pretty strong, but after awhile the acid will eat through even metal, so a lot of these people died of coronary problems, vascular problems, heart problems, they were more susceptible to cancer and other stress induced physical illnesses and they tended to be more depressed.

What positive emotions like love do is to move us away from that anger and hatred. Really looking toward other people, forgetting about your own problems and just being generous, getting into the flow of love, that really frees us from a lot of negative emotions. Therefore, the studies were quite remarkable. Young people going back to the 1920s who identify nobility of purpose as their major goal in life – they want to help other people – that group of young people tend to be healthier, happier and live a little longer. Even as they’re getting into their 80s and 90s, because now they’re old people, they’ve been followed up on every ten years, and they tend to get a benefit. Older adults, people 60 and older, who do a little volunteering instead of being isolated, have a tremendous reduction in death rates.

So the appeal isn’t to selfishness. I’m not saying help others just for yourself. Rather, the appeal is to look into the human essence of love. When you live that way of life, when you’re close to that way of life in your heart and in your actions, then you’re going to be shielded from a lot of alternatives – hatred, fear, anxiety, anger – you’re protected from those emotions and that’s a benefit for you. That’s why every religious tradition without a single exception, whether it’s Islam or Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism or whatever it might be, they all have statements like those who refresh others will themselves be refreshed, or it is better to give than to receive, and that idea is really important.

There’s no religious tradition that just teaches “do unto others,” you know, “love your neighbor and nothing good will happen to you.” When you love your neighbor, when you do unto others, it’s a blessing. Usually, it’s a blessing in terms of relationships and your external situation in the world because people will like you more, they will respect you more, you’ll get more opportunities and more relationships, but also it’s a health benefit. Now, this is a byproduct, it’s a side affect, you’re not aiming for it.

M&B: Now the question is how to cultivate love. In your book Why Good Things Happen to Good People you give 10 basic expressions of love. Some of them are intuitive like compassion, forgiveness, even generosity and joy. But some of them could be somewhat surprising like courage. How does courage be a part of loving?

There’s sort of ten basic expressions of love, so I’ve defined love as when the happiness and security of another person means as much or more to me as my own happiness and security. Now how can that love be expressed? Well, sometimes it’s expressed as compassion, an immediate response to suffering. I see someone suffering and I jump out of my seat and I want to help them; that’s compassion. But sometimes, love is expressed in terms of the courage to confront destructive and self-destructive behaviors. We love everybody, we believe in universal love, but there are many times in life when we’re raising children as parents, or when we’re dealing with difficult individuals who are incredibly disruptive or violent, and we certainly don’t endorse everything that people think or say. So care-frontation is what I call it, having the courage in a caring way to confront destructive behavior and in the process not to completely lose the connection with that person, you know, not to let them go away, never to be seen again, but somehow to inspire them and uplift them so that they can change and improve their behavior. That ain’t easy. People who love are not just nice all the time, but typically they are the first ones to speak out when there’s an injustice around them. All the great prophets are like that; when they see an injustice, instead of just being quiet about it, they speak to it. Sometimes at risk to themselves. So there is a certain risk that comes with the territory of courage and care-frontation. Compassion is one expression of love, but sometimes care-frontation is also an expression of love. There are a lot of other expressions of love, too.

M&B: I will leave other chapters for our readers to explore. But I see all these virtues are interconnected and intertwined, like respect is related to gratitude and celebration is related to joy and so forth.

Yes, they are. I think of it as a wheel of love. So, at the center is love as I’ve defined it, this profound ability that we have to say yes to the lives of the people around us. Your life is not a mistake, your life is a gift, we affirm it, we value your life, you have significance in this universe no matter what anyone’s told you. You matter, we are concerned about you. That’s this outpouring of love; but like in any wheel there are spokes, so the ten ways of love are like spokes on a wheel. You can sometimes see this in life on everyday occasions. I mean, my daughter called me one morning – I say this in the book, you know – and she had just gotten a new job. She was really happy about it; she’d been very sad about not having a good job. So, I was on the phone celebrating with her. I was affirming her, I was saying great, wonderful, happy, delightful, you’re terrific, but then I was coming in the door to the medical school and this poor woman who worked here for many years had just been fired, unfortunately and unfairly, and she was out in front of the door crying because her card would no longer let her get into the medical school. So she needed compassion, right? You walk through life everyday and you’ll find that you need to use all these different forms of love, maybe some on one day more than others. So they’re separate, but also they’re all interconnected, because separating them is a little bit artificial. The reality is that in most interactions you’re trying to be a good listener, you’re trying to be affirming and grateful, you’re trying to be compassionate; in other words, things can mix together a bit. Loyalty is also a very important expression of love. I mean, I’m telling you in today’s world a lot of relationships don’t last very long – marriage, parents and children, friendships – they’re not very deep, they don’t have much loyalty or much glue, and so to me commitment is a big expression of love. It’s hard to imagine loving someone if you’re just thinking, “Well, you know, I’ll see you for two seconds and bye, bye for life.” I mean, love has a kind of presence, a king of holding power that’s really important.

M&B: What would be your final recommendation?

Well, people will have different strengths, so no one shoe fits all; people have different personalities and different abilities, so some folks are going to be mostly expressing their love through, say, creativity and compassion maybe, and some people are going to be expressing love maybe more through listening. So people can have strengths and can cultivate those strengths, but they also ought to be aware of all the other different forms of love, and they ought to try to avoid big gaps. You know, big down points where they’re just not functioning.

I can’t prescribe this like a medicine. I mean, people need to be uplifted, they need the right people around them, they need to stumble on this kind of lifestyle and it’s sometimes a difficult thing. What the book does is that it gives people a kind of test, a quiz at the end of every chapter, so they can size themselves up. They can get a birds’ eye view of some other strengths and maybe some of the areas where they could work a little bit harder, just by having that in mind. Everything begins with an idea. So just putting that idea, planting that idea in a person’s mind – “Hey, I could be more loyal, I could be more forgiving” – that’s the beginning of change.

Interview conducted by Mustafa Tabanli for Ebru TV for the Emmy Award winning television series Matter and Beyond.

Is life unpredictable? Do we choose our own thoughts or our own path through this life? Are we beings who truly have the free will to decide which path we will take or which choice we will make? Or do we live and breathe in a completely deterministic world? Are we merely an aggregation of particles that react and respond in predictable ways? Most scientists would agree that on the atomic level there is a certain amount of predictability, but what about the curious behavior of particles on the subatomic or quantum level? And what does this strange behavior have to do with us?

Here, let us explore the quantum theory and what it might be able to tell us about ourselves and how we interact with the people and the world around us. If we live in a world where the behavior of particles cannot be predicted, then can we conclude from this that human beings and the human mind are just as unpredictable as quantum particles? We met with Nobel Prize Winner Dr. Charles Townes in Berkeley California. Townes is the inventor of the maser (microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation) which led to the laser, something that has changed our world in profound ways. He received the Templeton Award.

Scientific discoveries

Matter & Beyond: The spirit of adventure, this wanting to wander from the beaten path, do you think that this goes hand in hand with being not only a scientist, but a scientist such as yourself who makes incredible discoveries?

Well I think exploration and trying to see new things and look at things that other people haven’t seen are all part of invention and a part of scientific discovery. So you need that attitude of exploration.

M&B: In your book How the Laser Happened you mention some responses when you started talking to people about your initial theories. Ike Bowen said, “Well, I’m very sorry to tell you but I don’t think radio waves are ever going to tell us anything about astronomy.”

Yes. Ike Bowen was a very famous professor and very intelligent; he’s done excellent astronomy and so on, but he didn’t think radio waves would work. One of the things you have to do to explore is to try things other people don’t think will work. There are many times in my life when I’ve done that. For example, when I was trying to build the first maser, I was told by two Nobel Laureates, “oh look, that’s not going to work, we know it’s not going to work, you know it’s not going to work, you have to stop; it’s a waste of money and time.”

M&B: Isn’t this an example of how some scientists box themselves in by trying to measure what is unknown only with what is known?

Yes, it’s very common that people close their eyes to really new things. But one should be able to disagree if you think there really may be something there; you should try it out. That’s what I did. I tried it out, and radio astronomy has turned out to be a very important field.

M&B: You had this feeling about it, but Ike Bowen didn’t.

I was rather more familiar with radio waves and microwaves than Dr. Bowen was. That may be part of it; but one’s instinct is also involved. Where do revelations come from? Where do new thoughts come from? It was something that I thought might be there, but I did know a little more about microwaves than he did.

M&B: Looking back what would you tell fellow scientists – would you give them advice based on this?

Perhaps my advice is think about the things you think might pay off and don’t be too persuaded by what other people think. Be willing to differ with other people, but think very carefully about what you’re doing. Be sure that you think it’s likely to work.

Religious discoveries

M&B: In addition to the Nobel Prize you have also won the prestigious Templeton Award. How did you become interested in this dialogue between science and religion?

Firstly, I’m both religiously oriented and scientifically oriented. In spite of many apparent conflicts between the two, in my mind there is no actual conflict. They’re much more consistent with each other than people think; in fact they help each other. Each can learn something about one from the other, and I felt it was time to point this out to people and emphasize it.

M&B: According to what you say in your acceptance speech for the Templeton Award, you started expressing your ideas about science and religion as early as the 1960s?

First I was asked to give a talk about it and then I wrote an article. It eventually became very, very popular and I was asked to give many more talks. So my ideas began to spread and I think this had an important affect on thinking at the time; this is why I received the Templeton Award.

M&B: Were you surprised at the reaction you received to this article?

I was surprised how fascinated people were about it, yes. In fact, it was the editor of Think Magazine who telephoned me and asked me if they could publish it. Think is a publication by IBM. I said, “all right; if you’d like to publish it that’s okay.” So he published it, then everybody began to read it and wanted to publish it in other places. I was impressed how interested people were; I was also pleased. I thought it was very important to try to understand the correlation between science and religion. Both are very important to us and to understand the correlation between them is important.

M&B: Where do you think the popularity of this comes from? This obviously resonates in many people.

I think religion is very important to many people, as it is to me, and science is important too; religious people want to try to understand it. They’re also pleased to learn that a scientist thinks that science and religion are consistent with one another; they want to learn more about such ideas.

M&B: Would you like to comment on the limits of scientific knowledge versus the limits of spiritual or religious knowledge?

Both are limited, as I have mentioned before. A set of assumptions are made and we use logic to try to derive things from that; but we can never be sure that these assumptions are consistent. Now, in addition we know that there are many puzzles in science. We are finding fantastic things. For example, many scientists, including Einstein, didn’t think the universe could have a beginning. Of course how could it possibly have a beginning; it couldn’t have started from nothing. Now we know the discovery of the “Big Bang.” The universe did indeed have a beginning. That was previously a religious view, but not a scientific view. Now suddenly we learn it had a beginning and this shows that science can shed some light on religion.

M&B: So what do you think are the most important and fundamental human questions; perhaps the top three?

A: Well, I suppose the most fundamental and human question is the meaning of life. Why are we here and what should we do? The meaning of life is a very important and interesting question. How did life begin, why is the world the way it is? We know the universe has to be almost exactly the way it is for us to be here, but how did it turn out to be that way? So there are many very basic and interesting questions, and of course how we should live depends on what we think this is all about. These are very fundamental and interesting questions.

M&B: Some say that science answers the “how” and religion answers the “why.” How do you react to this statement?

It’s something like that. I would say science is an examination of what the world is like, or what the universe is like. Even humans: science tells us what we are like and how we work. Religion examines what the purpose and meaning of the universe is, as well as that of humans and human life is. If there is a purpose and meaning, they must have something to do with what we’re like, and what we do, and so on. How we work must have something to do with this purpose and meaning, and so, if we understand one very thoroughly maybe we will be able to understand the other.

M&B: What can science learn from religion and what can religion learn from science?

I think some religious people have been too absolutist. Some scientists are too absolute as well. They think; science really understands that, this is all there is and nothing else. I think in both cases we should recognize that we don’t understand everything and must be ready to change our views to some extent. Maybe in general we know what is approximately right, but we must recognize that we don’t understand everything. Actually, religion has helped science and vice-versa at various times.

M&B: Could you give us some examples from the past about how religion and science interacted.

I would have to say that I believe science was a result of religion, and religion was monotheistic with a single God who created this universe and planned it. This has substantially affected early scientific views. The Greeks, for example, felt they could figure out what the world was like just from logic – they thought that it had to be a certain way and they thought about it using logic, trying to figure out what the world was like. Now, if there’s a God who created the universe, then God created the universe and made it the way He wanted it. So let’s find out what it’s like; if God created the world, then it should be consistent and reliable. So that, I think, was the background for the beginning of basic science. What is this universe really like and is it consistent, can we rely on it and predict it? So the religious idea of a single God that created the universe was basic to the beginning of science, or at least European science.

M&B: So that’s how religion inspired scientific questions. And how does science shed light on religion?

The Greeks, as I said, thought they could figure out everything just from logic, without observations. Now we have observations, we have to see what the world is like. As we learn what it is like this will shed some light on its purpose and meaning. I’ve already mentioned that we have discovered that there was a beginning of all things. We are able to understand more and more over recent years. The laws of science have to be almost exactly as they are if we are to be here. Atomic forces and electromagnetic forces have to be almost exactly the way they are for the chemicals that we need for our bodies to be here. Nuclear forces and gravitation have to be almost exactly the way they are for the stars to be here and to last so long. The sun, for example, is here for billions of years, shining on us and keeping us alive. Our life depends on the laws of science; they have to be almost exactly the way they are. We recognize that now; but why are they this way? Well, that’s the origin of the expression “intelligent planning.” Somehow it was planned, (intelligent planning) to make it come out this way, why else would it be otherwise?

M&B: But still, there are some alternative explanations as well.

Some people think that maybe there are billions and billions of different universes and each one is a little different. Well, that’s a possibility, but why would the laws of science differ from one universe to the other and so on? That’s an arbitrary assumption, but maybe. Otherwise one has to say: gee, maybe it was planned. For everything to come out exactly this way will shed some light; perhaps this was a planned and created universe. Science and religion interact and shed some light on one another; and I think as we learn more about each they will interact more.

Undiscovered territories: quantum mechanics and free will

M&B: With the birth of the quantum theory, there are some religious people who say that this gives us a clue into the true nature of reality. They have made the leap and they’re saying that our perception of something actually changes the nature of it. Would you like to comment on this?

Quantum mechanics describes how atoms and molecules behave and so on; that’s very important to us. But quantum mechanics is very puzzling in many ways. It’s really changed our views of what physics is like and what the world is like, fundamentally and philosophically. But it’s also very puzzling because it says that if you send a small particle through a hole, it may go this way or that way, and one can never know which way it goes until you look at it. But before you look at it, it may be here and it may be there, or it may continue to be in a combination of both places; but once you look at it, then it’s definitely there as you see it. Now why humans – why the observations of humans – have such an important effect, that’s a little puzzling. What role is it that humans really play in deciding just where the atom is and so on? In any case, quantum mechanics is a really remarkable and strange phenomenon which we don’t understand at all. It says that things are unpredictable and it’s changed our ideas of a deterministic world to one of a non-deterministic world. It is non-deterministic and one can never predict what it will do exactly.

M&B: Could you explain this to somebody who is really not a scientific person; do you think you could walk me through it?

Well, maybe. Now if we throw a baseball, once we see it start going we think we know what way it will go. But if we throw an atom, then quantum mechanics says that’s not predictable. It even says the baseball isn’t completely predictable, but it’s almost predictable. So it’s predictable with a precision we can measure. But for an atom, which has a much smaller mass, it’s not predictable and it may go this way, up, down, left, right. The laws of physics says that it can go all these different ways and we don’t know which way it’s going until we actually measure it. If we detect the atom here, then we know, “okay, it’s going this way.” But until that time, the atom is maybe in all these different places at the same time or at least in any one of them. We don’t know. Now that also means that in a sense all of life is unpredictable. We are made of atoms and these atoms do things. So, while we can assume roughly what’s going to happen in life we don’t know for sure.

M&B: Some people are making the leap, suggesting that because of the laws in quantum mechanics one’s thoughts somehow interact with the macro world. How would you respond to that?

There is no evidence of that at all. I don’t think quantum mechanics allows that. I know people have thought: well maybe this will allow some new things of that type, but it doesn’t. As noted earlier, one of the great problems is free will. How can we have free will and what is consciousness and what is free will? Science doesn’t allow free will, but that doesn’t mean that science is complete. Our present science doesn’t allow free will and we should recognize that. If we have free will then there is something new and different that we have yet to understand.

M&B: Some people think that the principle of uncertainty is a basis for free will; what are the arguments and counter arguments to this?

It is sometimes thought that because of the principle of uncertainty things are not predictable; this gives us a freedom of choice. But it doesn’t. We have a theory that’s being developed which shows how we can test whether or not there can be any outside force of any kind coming in to affect quantum mechanics; we carry out experiments that show that this cannot be. Thus, we do not have free will in accordance with our present understanding of science. It’s tempting to think that maybe this is not the case, but unfortunately it is.

M&B: Well, when you say that science doesn’t allow free will, my first thought is “so what? as a human being can I not decide that I want to live my life this way as opposed to that way ?

A present understanding is that science doesn’t allow free will. There has to be some new laws, something new, perhaps a new dimension somehow, a spiritual dimension or some new dimension. Something has to be happening if we have free will. Maybe we don’t have free will; however, if we really believe that we have free will, there must be something completely new that we don’t understand. This is an example of science and religion interacting and shedding light on one another. Our belief that we are able to decide this way or that is just an illusion; we merely think that we’re making a decision. There’s also the question of what is it that leads us to make a decision, where is this thing? Where is the human you envision? How do you define a human, where and what is this thing that has free will?

M&B: Do you believe that we can be reduced to being kind of a skin encapsulated computer, just a brain sitting on top of our shoulders?

Personally, I think we have free will. Most people think we have free will, even if science doesn’t allow for it. I am only saying that there is something new here we don’t understand; we have to go on from there.

M&B: What most excites you at the present time?

Well, I’m more and more impressed by what a wonderful world this is. I’m very curious and I’d like to learn more about it and have better instincts and more insight into it. It is truly remarkable.

Interview conducted by Mustafa Tabanli for Ebru TV for the Emmy Award winning television series Matter and Beyond. For more information and the full episodes visit http://www.ebru.tv

We invite you to embark on a journey with us to explore some fascinating perspectives that shed a light on our relationship with sound and music.

Dr. Jeffrey Thompson, the Founder and Director of the Center for Neuroacoustic Research in California (www.neuroacoustic.com), is recognized as a worldwide expert in the field of acoustic pacing frequencies that are incorporated into musical sound tracks. A consummate musician and composer in his own right, he has established a method for using modulated sound-pulses that change states of consciousness for optimal “Mind-Body” healing. Dr. Thompson believes that the sounds in nature resonate with us because they take us back to the beginning of our journey and our primary senses.

Matter&Beyond: Why are sound and music so central for us, both culturally and personally?

I don’t think I’ve found a single culture on earth which at some point hasn’t used sound as a prominent technique in healing, in religious rites, or as a means of attaining a change of consciousness in one way or another. I think the tradition probably dates back to the first use of sound as a soothing or healing means for mothers; that is lullabies for babies.

M&B: Is this our earliest experience with sound? Is this what you call primordial sounds?

If you go back to before the lullabies, we’re talking about womb experiences and it’s one of the primal things we all share; this is what I call primordial sounds. Certain type of sounds have the same influence on anyone who hears it, no matter what age you are, what sex you are, what culture you were brought up in, what language you speak; womb sounds fit that criteria.

M&B: Why is it sound, but not the vision?

Because at 16 weeks, when the fetus is very small, the nervous system is developed enough that all the senses are functioning; however it is dark, so the eyes aren’t working, no information is being received and the nose and the mouth are filled with fluids, so there is no tasting or smelling, but sound travels through water five times better than it does through air; therefore the ears are working but amplified by five times, and the largest sense organ we have, the skin, is a huge sense organ for vibrations. Thus, we’re experiencing vibration and sound for nine months in the womb and that sound environment is a very specific type of environment; the amniotic fluid sounds, the watery bubbly sounds, the mother’s heartbeat through the placental artery, respiratory sounds from the diaphragm, noises of the internal organ; it’s a rich complex, three-dimensional sound environment that is exactly the same for everyone of us; we all experienced this in the same way.

M&B: How does the fetus perceive this sound?

Remember the fetus is small and the ear is small; the eardrum is extremely small. If the eardrum was blown up to the size of my eardrum and the mother’s heart was blown up in proportion it would fill this room. So what kind of sound would such a heart make? It wouldn’t be the sound that you would expect it to be listening to the adult’s heart with a stethoscope from the outside; it would be a very large, slow sound, a large thumping sound.

M&B: How is this related to the use of sound in therapy or for relaxation?

Most of us who have gone on vacations and have explored nature feel a peaceful, beautiful return to nature; why?

Because if you take the sounds of the amniotic fluid and you slow those sounds down, they sound a lot like the ocean. The size of the sound waves compared to the eardrum would make these watery sounds sound like they have also slowed down. So many of the watery sounds in the womb sound like other sounds that we can hear later in nature. This can spark a similar kind of primordial recognition which is beyond the control of the rational thinking mind.

So when we build up these kinds of sounds on a soundtrack you can then push the button and the body will automatically go back to what it felt like to have a natural experience; when we combine the sounds of nature with music this makes a relaxation tape. So I would say that the sounds of nature provide secondary primordial sounds, as not all of us would have heard the same natural sounds in our lives.

The idea is to extend the power of the primordial recognizable components of sound in order to create a physical response. The technique is to connect with a primal recognition at a subconscious level; this will tap into experiences that you have had in the womb and at other times.

M&B: You not only use sound for relaxation, but also in order to combat stress. Could you please talk about this?

When a person has a fight-or-flight response, a stress response, we know very precisely what happens physiologically. The very first thing, the most sensitive organ, to respond to stress is the heart and thus when we look at the heart waves we can gain important information.

M&B: Why the heart and not the brain?

The reason for this is that the heart is the perfect system in the nervous system; it is called the autonomic nervous system or the automatic functioning nervous system; it knows how to organize and control my organs and glands and body chemistry and perform biomechanics that I’m not aware of and can’t control.

My rational-thinking brain can control physical body movements and thinking processes, but there’s another section that controls the automatic functioning of how my body runs. There is another control of this autonomic nervous system, which has two large branches of nerves that innervate all the organs and glands; these two branches of the nerves are the sympathetic and the parasympathetic nervous system.

While the sympathetic nervous system switches on, the parasympathetic switches off and mobilizes energy from the higher brain centers, from my digestive system, from my elimination system and from my immune system, it pulls that energy into my muscles to fight for my life.

This is when the brain freezes when you take an exam. You’re frightened about the exam; it is your final exam and you’re frightened that you’re not going to pass it or that you’re not going to do well. That fright causes the sympathetic system to switch on and drain the energy out of your brain; this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You don’t have a brain left, because all the energy has gone to your muscles. At the moment the sympathetic system switches on, it mobilizes the pituitary which signals the adrenal glands; these fires adrenaline, the adrenaline starts the heart and the respiration and a number of other things. At the same time it suppresses the pancreas and lets loose extra glucose so you can fight for your life more and so what you end up with is the very first thing that happens.

M&B: What is the normal stress response and how do we return to a normal state?

When a person is required to carry out special tasks, like running or fighting for one’s life, then the sympathetic nervous system has to switch on, mobilize the energy from various places and send it to my muscles. If I am injured, but I survive and win, then the parasympathetic system is going to switch on and build up; that energy will be sent to my immune system, healing centers and recuperation areas for my muscles; when this is finished these are basically switched off, because we don’t need this energy anymore. This is certainly the normal way of functioning.

Thus, there are certain normal ways in which the body should function when a person is okay and normal. When the patient comes in and lies down on their back we hook them up and look at what’s happening in the autonomic nervous system. Normally when you lay down for three to five minutes your system should relax. Gravity isn’t affecting you, your heart doesn’t have to do extra work to pump the blood up to your brain; as a result the muscles relax and the sympathetic system and parasympathetic nervous systems should be at a level playing field. Now they can conserve their energy and this state of balance in the autonomic nervous system is known as homeostasis. The best state of health you can have is in homeostasis, where you’re not using energy in an unnecessary way. Homeo means unity, one, within my body, while stasis is a perfect state of rest.

M&B: What are the results of your studies to date? How many of us return back to homeostasis in three to five minutes?

Clinically what I see is maybe two patients with a normal response; I’ve been checking every patient with the real time heart rate variability system now for 7 years. This means thousands of patients; in all of that time I have seen one, maybe two patients with a normal response. I hook the patient up, and see what the response is. Most people’s response is abnormal; what this abnormality says is that after five minutes they have not attained a balance, and they have a good strong, healthy, dominant sympathetic stress response which never stops.

M&B: What do you think is the reason for this?

This state is constant because of the artificial, extremely stressful world that we have artificially created for ourselves. It wasn’t supposed to be like this; you are supposed to wake up in the morning and grab your spear and go catch a rabbit and that’s your workday; when you get there and you see that rabbit the sympathetic system turns on and the heart rates increase, the same thing happens with the rabbit, and it’s all going to be over in a couple of minutes. You’re going to catch the rabbit or he’s going to get away and then everything goes back, the clutch pushes in. Let’s say you get the rabbit, and the clutch pushes in; everything is fine and you are going to go home. Now you hear a growl behind you and there’s a saber tooth tiger looking at you, thinking about dinner; now the sympathetic system switches on, the heart rate is up, and you are running and he is running. It is all going to be over in a couple of minutes and either you are going to get away or you’re not.

But what I’m talking about here is that the nervous system, at its core, and its stress response are both designed for a sprint and not a marathon; but what we have had in the twenty-first century and throughout the twentieth century is a marathon of stress; but these are the kind of stresses that we can’t see, i.e. invisible stresses. They’re electromagnetic frequencies; the walls in this room, television channel frequencies, military frequencies, microwave frequencies, air pollution, food pollution and traffic jams when going to work to a job that doesn’t pay enough money for a boss who has the emotional development of a three-year old are all problems for us. The stress goes and then it’s back again; it’s time to get dinner for the kids and watching 7:00 news. This doesn’t stop; the nervous system’s solution to surviving this is to invent a mechanism of merely stepping on the gas, switching on the emergency sympathetic system on and bulldozing your way through the stress for the rest of your life with great momentum; but at nighttime, when it’s time to go to bed the nervous system doesn’t want to let go of this momentum that it has built up to get through the day.

M&B: And this has devastating effects on our health?

You can’t keep running in high gear for the rest of your life without some horrible consequences; the body’s not designed for it. You can only do this for a few decades before your heart or your brain blows up, the two biggest killers in Western society are heart attacks and strokes – there is also high blood pressure and diabetes. But what can we expect if our sympathetic nervous system is all the time working, which means by definition that our heart pressure is up and the pancreas is suppressed, so there is extra glucose being sent out? So people who don’t have the constitution to handle the stress blow a fuse; they have no way to handle the stress and as a result they have immune system problems, digestive problems, and problems that come from that colon cancer, irritable bowel syndrome, autoimmune diseases, allergies.

M&B: You are using sound in order to help people return to their normal healthy state. How does this work?

I’ve come up with a way to use sound to force the autonomic nervous system to push in the clutch, removing us from a place of high stress from which you can leave by using sound; we do this by using the heart-rate variability to see how bad the heart rate is and then explore various precisely tuned sound frequencies which will actually force the nervous system to push in the clutch. There will be a very specific tone for every person; this is like a glass vibrating if I sing the right note. An opera singer can sing the right note to make the glass vibrate. Well, now let’s imagine that your autonomic nervous system is the glass and we’re going to explore various sound frequencies that are very precisely tuned to find out which one affects your autonomic nervous system function; when we find it the response will be like pushing in the clutch and sending it into a state of relaxation. So we hit the right note and we get the response; this is what I’ve been looking for. Now we can see this phenomenon clinically. Once we’ve got the tone that’s associated with the pushing in of the clutch of the autonomic nervous system we can use that therapeutically through a specially designed sound table that I have made; this consists of low-frequency sound components which drive the low frequencies right into your cells via headphones. This relaxation mode is introduced to your nervous system over an extended period of time. We can burn this sound onto a CD and you can take it home and work with it at home on your stereo; it is like an internal training program. Every time your nervous system pushes in the clutch, the ability to push in the clutch grows, just like working a muscle in a gym.

This is a kind of high-tech stress reduction training program for the nervous system with sound. This is one of the three components I mentioned earlier; there are three parallel processes using sound for healing. This one is the idea of using the physical resonance to cause an effect on the nervous system to relax people.

M&B: This is what is called a sound table, right?

Yes, the sound table I needed had to have specific requirements, which is why I had to make my own to attain the exact clinical results I wanted. The power in the table actually delivered more power to your body than I wanted to be delivered. Therefore, I had to be able to have the sound that was coming from the table split into the right and left speakers, but none of those that were available on the market could do that. So I had to have it specially designed. As a composer, musician and audio engineer I was able to design the sounding board of that table and the transducers so that a lot of free sound could be delivered and spread out, therefore it is much more effective and delivers the sound to your body via headphones. Thus there is a lot going on in that table that you cannot see and this is what makes it work properly.

Interview conducted by Mustafa Tabanli for Ebru TV for the Emmy Award winning television series Matter and Beyond.