8 Ken Wilber Quotes on Science

Ken Wilber quotes on science

2. Modern science is no longer denying spirit. And that, that is epochal. As Hans Kung remarked, the standard answer to 'Do you believe in Spirit?' used to be, 'Of course not, I'm a scientist,' but it might very soon become, 'Of course I believe in Spirit. I'm a scientist.'

18. An acknowledgment of the full spectrum of consciousness would profoundly alter the course of every one of the modern disciplines it touches - and that, of course, is an essential aspect of integral studies... A full-spectrum approach to human consciousness and behavior means that men and women have available to them a spectrum of knowing - a spectrum that includes, at the very least, the eye of flesh, the eye of mind, and the eye of spirit.

19. The integral vision, I believe, is more than happy to welcome empirical science as a part - a very important part - of the endeavor to befriend the Kosmos, to be attuned to its many moods and flavors and facets and forms. But a more integral psychology goes beyond that . . . With science we touch the True, the 'It' of Spirit. With morals we touch the Good, the 'We' of Spirit. What, then, would an integral approach have to say about the Beautiful, the 'I' of Spirit itself? What is the Beauty that is in the eye of the Beholder? When we are in the eye of Spirit, the I of Spirit, what do we finally see?

22. There is arguably no more important and pressing topic than the relation of science and religion in the modern world. Science is clearly one of the most profound methods that humans have yet devised for discovering truth, while religion remains the single greatest force for generating meaning. Truth and meaning, science and religion; but we still cannot figure out how to get the two of them together in a fashion that both find acceptable.

24. Within the scientific skeleton of truth, religious meaning attempts to flourish, often by denying the scientific framework itself - rather like sawing off the branch where you cheerily perch. The disgust is mutual because modern science gleefully denies virtually all the basic tenets of religion in general. According to the typical view of modern science, religion is not much more than a holdover from the childhood of humanity, with about as much reality as, say, Santa Claus. Whether the religious claims are more literal (Moses parting the Red Sea) or more mystical (religion invovlves direct spiritual experience) modern science denies them all, simply because there is no credible empirical evidence for any of them.

25. This is a massive and violent schism and rupture in the internal organs of today's global culture and this is exactly why many social analysts believe that if some sort of reconciliation between science and religion is not forthcoming, the future of humanity is, at best, precarious.

31. Finally, integral spirituality - as the very name 'integral' implies - transcends and includes science, it does not exclude, repress, or deny science. To say that the spiritual currents of the cosmos cannot be captured by empirical science is not to say that they deny science, only that they show their face to other methods of seeking knowledge, of which the world has an abundance.

35. If you are talking to me about your new car, you are the first person, I am the second person, and the car is the third person. These pronouns actually represent three perspectives that human beings can take when they talk about the world or attempt to know the world... The fascinating part is that these three perspectives might actually give rise to art, morals, and science. Or the Beautiful, the Good, and the True: the Beauty that is in the eye (or the 'I') of the beholder; the Good or moral actions that can exist between you and me as a 'we'; and the objective Truth about third-person objects (or 'its') that you and I might discover: hence, art ('I'), morals ('we'), and science ('it').