synergistically to shed new light on the human mind? In the Fall of 2004, we established an ongoing network of more than a dozen scholars unbounded by disciplinary precincts, geographical borders, or methodological perspectives to set aside antagonisms that had grown up between science and humanities in order to explore this question. These Network scholars hail from disciplines as disparate as psychology, neurology, theology, statistics, philosophy, internal medicine, anthropology, and sociology. Each of these scholars was well known in their own field and were busy with other obligations, but it was the opportunity to achieve a deeper, more comprehensive discussion of the human mind that made it worth the time and effort it required to be part of the Network.
Although various members of the Network interact on a daily or weekly basis, the entire Network convenes twice annually for a four-day retreat to discuss each other’s research, to critique each other and to learn from one other. Scientific analyses characterized by rigorous experimental designs and data analytic strategies are interlaced with rich philosophical, theological, and historical analyses of the same questions about invisible forces that act on us all. The dialogue between the Network scientists and the scholars from the humanities and theology is bidirectional. For instance, the beliefs and behavior described in the humanities and theology are rich in hypotheses that can now be tested empirically, and the measures and methods of the behavioral sciences and neurosciences now permit rigorous investigation of some of these hypotheses. Each of the Network members brings a unique perspective to the study of the human mind, and the
provocative story of the mind that is emerging from the collective efforts of the Network is the subject of this book.
The Network is unconventional in other ways, as well. Traditionally, scientists and scholars work together to achieve a common understanding and a consensus position. We quickly learned that we did not need to come to a consensus to benefit tremendously from the dialogue on the capacity and motivation for the ubiquitous human quest for sociality and spirituality. For instance, there is no consensus within the Network on whether there is a God, and we do not seek here to provide the final word on what science and the humanities each have to say to the other about the human mind. Instead, our purpose is to illustrate the possibility and importance of engaging others whose views we may not share in a serious dialogue on such topics. Among the lessons we as a Network have learned are:
1. that some questions about human nature and our social and spiritual aspirations have been asked by humankind for thousands of years. Accordingly, there may be more to be gained from engaging in a collaborative process of thinking about these questions than from demanding simple and immediate answers. We discuss what we see as possible answers to questions about our nature and strivings, but the value in stating these positions is to have clear positions from which to move thinking and research forward. Thus, our purpose in writing this book is to articulate ideas to be shaped and refined, not to provide the final word.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021255