Godly: To be or to Become, A Scientific Approach (2022) by Pashang Salehi
Reviewed by Rabbi Reuven Chaim
Klein (Rachack Review)
This book delves into the idea of
belief and how it shapes our understanding of life, consciousness, and
individuality. It challenges the reader to question their preconceived notions
and dogma. In doing so, the author invites readers to set aside their
preconceived ideas about God, creation, religion, and even science to
reconsider the world from what he considers a fresh and unbiased perspective. Mr.
Salehi combines teachings from ancient Sufism and Zoroastrianism with Spinoza’s
Naturalism and scientific discussions in an attempt to redefine what we know
about the world and shed new light on the nature of existence.
This book does a great job of
showing the limits of science. Yet, while the author would agree that there are
questions that science cannot answer right now, he remains committed that
science will eventually be able to answer all those questions. He compares this
to a Magic Eye picture, whereby one cannot see the hidden picture at first, but
by just looking at it, one will eventually come to see the hidden picture. Of
course, this is a religious-like belief in the primacy of science. It is
essentially the theism in atheism.
Yet, true to his Spinozist
influences, the author balks at the notion of being called an atheist. Benedict
Spinoza held a monist view of the universe, in which everything (including God
and nature), was seen as a single substance, rather than a duality of the
physical and spiritual. He believed that God and nature were effectively synonymous,
and that everything that existed was the result of natural processes and laws.
He was considered a heretic by the religious because he essentially limited God
to that which is perceivable by scientific inquiry, but is also seen as
persona-non-grata in the scientific world because he ultimately believed in a
Prime Mover that guides all the natural processes of which he spoke so highly. Instead
of accepting the atheist label, the author seems himself as a deist (or at best
as a sort of agnostic), who admittedly remains ignorant of the real
underpinnings of the world.
One important theme in the book
is man’s insignificance vis-à-vis the rest of the vast and magnificent creation.
A major part of Sufi thought is that man cannot understand or perceive all of
reality. Similarly, from a purely scientific perspective, man looks like a blip
on the screen. In expanding on this idea, the author likens man's place in the
world to a small virus' place inside a person’s body. I found this a very
intriguing idea, but am comforted by Jewish teachings that still tout man’s
centrality to creation, even if it cannot be quantified on a scientific level.
The author presents Zoroastrianism
(the Old Persian religion before the advent of Islam) as a monotheistic
religion and partially adopts elements of its theology in his worldview. In
general, Zoroastrianism is usually not considered monotheistic, because it believes
in Dualism with Hurmuz (Ahura Mazda) and Ahriman as two separate deities who
compete with each other. However, Salehi argues that because this Dualism is
ultimately played out in one world, it must not represent a true contradiction.
This means that the two opposite forces are two components of one holistic
unit, but are not necessarily pitted against each other. He notes that once we
realize who we are, then we can understand that every aspect of life is made of
a balanced interaction of seemingly opposite forces. These forces do not cancel
each other out, but complement each other. In this view, duality is actually the
fabric of nature and is so deeply embedded that it is impossible to deny.
The author takes a very Naturalistic
approach to the complexities of man's thoughts and how it relates to his actions.
In essence, Salehi reduces the mind to simply various neurons shooting around
randomly in one’s brain telling a person what to think and do. This
deterministic approach has many ugly implications. The author fails to mention
that even in the world of science, there has been much research as of late into
consciousness, which is something beyond a mere neurological pattern. Professors
like Dr. David Chalmers and Dr. Roger Scruton have proposed understanding the
brain through paradigms similar to what religious people call a
"soul."
In this reviewer’s opinion, the
author somewhat overstates the objectivity of science — even when it comes to
the so-called “hard sciences.” In the academic world, even mathematics and
physics have become subject to the very subjective barometer of wokeness, and
are not as objective as they once were. In fact, "accepting your
biases" has become the mantra of the social sciences, and has turned
science into a sort of religion.
The classically religious person,
on the other hand, believes that there are things higher than science. These
things cannot be perceived by the eye or by any sensory input and never will
be. For example, things like values and morals cannot be derived from science.
That is where religion comes in. The only thing science can tell us about these
sorts of things is "the survival of the fittest," which creates a
dreadful world where only the fastest and strongest people can live and
reproduce, everyone else can legitimately be just knocked off and killed.
That is exactly the picture view
of mankind presented by anthropologist Yuval Noah Hariri (whom the author
fondly cites). Hariri describes a horrible world with much competition, wherein
people banded together in order to survive. The way he puts it, the mere fact
of humans joining together caused man to be more successful than other
creatures. According to this thoroughly secular and “scientific” view, there is
nothing inherently special about man. Hariri’s anti-anthropocentrist approach
is similar to what the Mr. Salehi presents in this book.
A major thesis that the author
argues is that the answer to most questions is that one has to know oneself.
I'm not sure exactly how this is supposed to work and what influence “knowing
oneself” should have on one’s epistemology and how it can answer life’s deepest
questions unless the author is calling for a relativistic approach whereby
multiple truths can concurrently be true for multiple people.
Interestingly, besides the
prosaic discussions of science and its contours, the author also intersperses several
English poems that he wrote in the style of Persian poetry. These poems provide
a breath of fresh air to the book, and help make the heavy information a bit
lighter to digest. I found this very fascinating because poetry tends to be a highly
individualized and subjective form of expression, while science is supposed to
be cold, calculated, and objective. The author himself, of course, would reply
that this either-or duality is just a mirage, because science and poetry can,
in fact, live side by side in harmony.
After finishing the book, my
initial reaction was disappointment that the author did not actually propose a
new idea that answers all of the questions that he raised; he merely put to
paper different ideas for his reader’s consideration. Yet, upon further
reflection, I was relieved to find that I am not the only person who does not
have all the answers. At worst, this book can serve as a useful refresher on
the state of science (especially biology) as it is holding now.
Born to a secular Muslim family
in Pahlavi Iran, Mr. Salehi studied science in America before settling in Rowland
Heights, California. He bases his worldview on science, alongside the unlikely
combination of Sufism, Zoroastrianism, and Spinozism. A major part of Salehism
is the notion that “we see things as we are, not as they are.” Throughout his
book, the author makes very interesting connections and raises quite intriguing
questions that the reader will enjoy thinking about and chewing over. In the
interest of transparency, I must disclose that Mr. Salehi was my high school
science teacher at Yeshiva Gedolah of Los Angeles, where he taught for close to
thirty years. In this book, I have encountered a far more mellow and humble Mr.
Salehi than the persona he played in the classroom.
