HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021394.jpg

Page | 148

design or intent, seem to arise from behaviors and interactions at a lower level of organization. How this can come about is a puzzle, but it is a puzzle that is amenable to thoughtful investigation, both scientific and philosophical. What forces are at play, we might ask, that makes such a collection cohesive? Just what chemistry can transform a collection of individuals into something both more than and different from what in aggregate they bring to the table? We seek to understand more fully the bonds of marriage, family, friendship, or membership—invisible forces that bind and simultaneously transform the underlying nature of their constituents no less than chemical bonds transform atoms of hydrogen and oxygen into water.

Our origin was rooted in distaste for the unproductive and unenlightening shouting matches between proponents of views of science that denigrate religious belief and views of religion that are anti-scientific. We started from the assumption that scholars from the sciences and from religion and philosophy could have fruitful conversations about what is known, what counts for knowledge, what can be observed, and what can be tested through experiment and observation. And we all believe in the value of the scientific method as a means for expanding our knowledge. Internal tension is needed for the structural integrity of buildings and bridges, and that is no less true of social structures such as our network. Through appropriate construction, deep tensions between theology and science (or even between scientific disciplines or theological perspectives) that have the potential to drive us apart can instead be shaped to release creative energy and shared purpose.

Berntson notes that “beliefs and emotions have consequences, both behavioral and physiological.” The network starts from the premise that one can learn about such apparently invisible phenomena as beliefs by studying and reasoning about their consequences.

In his essay, Browning advocates starting with a critical hermeneutic phenomenology, a “careful description” of our instruments, our observations, and the stories we use them to tell. Clearly articulating our assumptions and starting points has been of immense value. After doing so for the benefit of colleagues outside our disciplines, those colleagues in turn have helped us become aware of unarticulated assumptions implicit in our approaches or in our experiments. These observations have led in turn to better science and more convincing evidence. Our colleagues in the network have helped each of us to see more facets of the same elephant that individually we are too blind to appreciate fully.

Revising our thinking and our research to take those observations into account has increased the rigor of our thought and broadened the scope of our conclusions. The presence of a rich variety of disciplinary perspectives has helped us to weave the nets of Sir Arthur Eddington’s parable more tightly, enabling us to see for the first time some of the “smaller fish” that earlier would have escaped our notice.

Shedding light on invisible forces (a koan)

Invisible forces of culture, connection, and curiosity bind us together and define us as a species that is

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021394