The Science and Neuroscience of Good vs Evil: the neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, the iconic

psychoanalyst Carl Jung, Albert Einstein, and the famous Trolley MRI Neuroscience Experiments, Social
Identity Theory, Tajfel and Turner’s Minimal Group Paradigm, Kay Deaux and Emotional analysis,
Materialism, Rupert Sheldrake, Francis Collins, and Psychology of Religion.

Einstein, Human Consciousness, and the Limits of Research by Strict Scientific Methods

The human mind is incredibly complex and, to an extent, beyond strict measurement and quantification.
In fact, at times, some people appear to mistake knowledge for "truth!" As an important aspect of
'scientific' perspective, it would seem useful to understand that there are indeed some limits to
knowledge and rational analysis. Albert Einstein’s biographer, Walter Isaacson, observed in his book
Einstein: His Life and Universe (2007), that Einstein believed that science had limitations and
furthermore that Einstein did, in fact, have his own personal and private spiritual and religious views.
Einstein remarked that his very reverent and spell-binding vision of the “mystery” of the universe and
life that gave birth to his compelling drive to understand life and the universe.

Einstein summarized the limits of rational analysis and logical deduction by saying, “Try and penetrate
with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and
connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration of this force
beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious.” (p. 384-5
E) Many scientists, such as Jung and the physicist Pauli, agreed with Einstein that there are some be
definite limits to human comprehension and consciousness.

Relevant to understanding the question about regarding quantification and measurement – and
meaning and relevance – in psychology would be the fact that Einstein stressed that "imagination" is
more important and valuable than knowledge because imagination includes not only “what is”
(knowledge) but also includes all the hypothetical possibilities and potential realities. In fact, Einstein's
discovery of the theory of relativity would seem to be rooted in his "imaginative" thought experiments,
such as his "elevator" thought experiment appeared clearly to demonstrate. The bottom line would be,
then, as Jung, Einstein, William James and others emphasized, that the "Science of Psychology" does
have some limitations, in some circumstances.

Good and Evil and Emotional Influences

The limitations of rational analysis and knowledge couldn’t be clearer than when the question of morals,
good and evil, and right and wrong are salient. as well as when principles and ideals like freedom,
justice, or equality are involved. At an Address to the Princeton Theological Seminary on May 19, 1939,
Einstein stated unequivocally, as noted in the book, Ideas and Opinions (1954, 1982): that it is “equally
clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the
clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should
be the goal of our human aspirations.” (p. 42) Sixty-one years after Einstein made that speech, the
neuroscientist and doctor, Antonio Damasio, in his book The Feeling of What Happens: Body and
Emotion in the Making of Consciousness (2000), stated unequivocally that “Inevitably emotions are
inseparable from the idea of good and evil.” (p. 55)
In fact, Andrew Newberg, the famous medical doctor and neurologist, goes even further and states in
his book, Why We Believe What We Believe: Uncovering Our Biological Need for Meaning, Spirituality,
and Truth (2006), “If a concept or experience elicits no emotional response, it probably will not reach
the level of consciousness.” (p. 95) This echoes what the iconic psychoanalyst Carl Jung stated decades
earlier, when, in Volume 8 of the Collected Works paragraph 642, Jung stated “that an idea which lacks
emotional force can never become a life-ruling factor…... [that is] an idea must evoke a response from
the emotions, I meant an unconscious readiness which, because of its affective nature, springs from
deeper levels that are quite inaccessible to consciousness.”

Kay Deaux, a prominent social psychologist, highlights the significance and importance of emotions
especially in understanding many social, political or group related behaviors. However, Kay Deaux
emphasizes the difficulty in measuring emotions and the reluctance of many psychologists in
confronting the questions and issues surrounding emotions. Deaux highlights the fact that social
psychology has historically had an “emphasis on experimenter-created social groups” which “precluded
most affective displays.” Experiments conducted in a laboratory would necessarily have a contrived and
arbitrary aspect to them, and cognitive concepts, structures and paradigms tend to be nice, neat, and
precise constructs that are measurable in some sense. As the philosopher Solomon and others
frequently emphasize, emotions tend to have a “subjective" characteristic and are difficult to quantify
and measure.

Deaux, in her critical analysis of social psychology, goes on to say, “In contrast, natural groups, whether
family, fraternity, or nation, are often the arena for intense displays of emotion and strong affective
ties.” (p. 794 Handbook) It should be noted that the almost universally accepted theory of group related
behavior is entirely cognitive, originating largely in Tajfel and Turners' "minimal group paradigm, so
named because "minimal" refers to the fact that a trigger to group related behavior, in their theory is
entirely cognitive. The final result, however, as Kay Deaux emphasizes is that the social identity as a
model or theory of group-related behavior utterly fails to explain the group related behaviors for
instance of Trump rallies during which Trump followers chant about the quad, four minority
Congresswomen, vilified and demonized by Trump, "Send them Back." So, the "Science of Psychology"
has limits.

Carl Jung, goes even a little further than just the issue of right versus wrong in stating that there are
some aspects of human consciousness that are beyond the ordinary scope of ‘science.” In Volume 8 of
the Collected Works, paragraph 120, when Jung states: “Since nobody can penetrate to the heart of
nature, you will not expect psychology to do the impossible and offer a valid explanation of the secret of
creativity.” Now, Jung was talking specifically about “creativity.” In that context, however, surely ideals
such as freedom liberty, compassion, justice, and equality would also need to be included in the same
category of ‘expecting psychology to do the impossible. Ideals generally involve principles, values, and
ethics, categories which, ordinarily, do not readily lend themselves to quantification, measurement and
rational analysis. These ideals rely on incredibly abstract ideas and highly emotionally charged
concepts. In any case, Damasio’s statement about emotions and the unconscious being the ultimate
source in decision-making in questions of good and evil is very relevant.

Neuroscience: The Trolley and Footbridge Dilemma

The neuroscientist Joshua Greene and his colleagues performed some fascinating experiments that
focused on how the brain processes moral dilemmas and situations. While subjects were asked
questions relating to moral dilemmas, the subjects were undergoing MRI scanning to see which parts of
the brain were active. The dilemmas presented were similar to the trolley dilemma

Trolley Dilemma.

The situation of the trolley dilemma is that “A runaway trolley is headed for five people who will be
killed if it proceeds on its present course. The only way to save these people is to hit a switch that will
turn the trolley onto a side track where it will run over and kill one person instead of five. Is it okay to
turn the trolley in order to save five people at the expense of one?” (p. 58 neuro and moral)

As far as questions, go, the trolley dilemma presents a problem for the human mind which is difficult
and delicately intertwined with the truth and reality of morals and morality. an interesting question. My
son, Teddy, said he wouldn’t do anything because he didn’t have the right to take an action since he
didn’t have enough information and facts about the people involved. My son, Stephen asked if he liked
any of the five people. My sister, Perry, found the question disturbing and simply didn’t answer at all. In
reading the dilemma my reaction was that it was okay to switch the trolley and kill the one person. It
was only later that the question occurred to me: What if the one person was my mother? In the end I
personally came to the conclusion that my son, Teddy’s assessment was correct. In order to act
appropriately one needs adequate information and facts. The consensus of philosophers and people
tested experimentally is “that it is morally acceptable to save five lives at the expense of one in this
case.” (p. 58) A corollary of the trolley dilemma is the footbridge dilemma.

The Footbridge Dilemma

“As before, a runaway trolley threatens to kill five people, but this time you are standing next to a large
stranger on a footbridge spanning the tracks, in between the oncoming trolley and the five people. The
only way to save the five people is to push this stranger off the bridge and onto the tracks below. He will
die as a result, but his body will stop the trolley from reaching the others. Is it okay to save the five
people by pushing the stranger to his death?”

Even though, rationally and logically, there is no objective difference between the two dilemmas in that
in both cases only one person dies if you intervene, the consensus was that it is not okay to push the
stranger onto the tracks. In explaining the difference Greene argued that innate prohibitions against
interpersonal violence would account for the difference. The footbridge dilemma involved a situation
which is “up close and personal” and people naturally shy away from overt violence.

Hypotheses and Result of the Experiments.

Before the experiments were run, Greene hypothesized that the footbridge dilemma would show more
activity “in the brain regions associated with emotional response and social cognition” (p 59) while the
more impersonal trolley dilemma would involve systems related to “higher cognition.” (p 59) That was
precisely what they found. “Contemplation of personal moral dilemmas produced relatively greater
activity in three emotion related area.” (p.59) (posterior cingulate cortex, the medial prefrontal cortex,
amygdala) In the more impersonal trolley dilemma there was “relatively greater neural activity in two
classically ‘cognitive’ brain areas.” (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and inferior parietal lobe). (p 60) They
also found that those people who did answer yes to the footbridge dilemma took much longer in coming
to an answer, which makes sense. It naturally would take the brain more time for the “higher cognition”
processes to over-ride instinctual impulses.

The human brain is incredibly complex. Obviously, there isn’t a specific ‘moral’ region of the brain that
processes information relative to all situations that involve morals. Different situations produce
different means for processing information. Different regions of the brain perform different functions
and more than one region of the brain actively works on the same problem. It is noteworthy that the
amygdala was involved in the footbridge dilemma. While the amygdala does process information about
potential rewards, its primary function, so to speak, is that of a town watchman who sounds the alarm.
The amygdala is in a region of the brain which is one of the most primitive regions. Decision making, in
this case, involved not only emotional content but also involved instinctual processes.

The well-known “subjective” characteristic of emotions is very salient in understanding emotions – and
thus morals. In that much of human consciousness, which would be the capacities of human beings to
experience, feel, and think about the world and the All, psychology, as such would appear definitely Not
to be a hard science such as chemistry or physics, since precise direct measurement and quantification
of subjective emotions would appear at the moment to be beyond the capabilities of the “science” of
psychology.

Conclusions:

Neuroscience has now identified 360 separate and distinct regions of the brain. Also, a recent
neuroscience MRI experiment identifying regions of the brain connected with the processing of specific
images of objects showed that there were a fair number of regions that "lit" up when the image of a
hammer was shown. So, it would stand to reason that when more complex issues are involved, a
number of diverse regions of the brain would likely be involved. As the Trolley-Footbridge MRI
experiment showed, different situations engage or trigger different regions of the brain, and that
different regions of the brain work in tandem with other regions of the brain.

The fact that different situations engage different regions of the brain which work in tandem with other
regions of the brain would be very relevant to any correct understanding of how the brain processes
information or social signals not only about moral issues, but especially where spirituality or religious
beliefs are concerned. I have come across many people who reject spirituality because of how religions
behave or act. In the case of Evangelical leaders who support Trump, it would seem readily apparent
that processes involved with group related ideological behaviors would be involved, while the brain
processes involved in the spiritual-religious ideal of compassion would most likely be the anterior
cingulate (which the psychologist Tania Singer has shown are implicated in empathy).

In the footbridge dilemma, the conclusions of Joshua Green and his colleagues was that the more
emotional (and 'primitive') processes were a major influence in the decision of many people in the
experiment to avoid up close interpersonal conflict. So, the conclusion is that some of the more
'primitive' and emotional processes are involved - positively, in fact - in making moral decisions. Of
course, this contradicts many peoples' views including the philosopher Spinoza, who believe that morals
are entirely a rational or cognitive activity.

Footnote: Materialism: No Spirituality, No Meaning, and No Social Consciousness

Although many psychologists and authors talk about materialism and the materialist bias in psychology,
such as Francis Collins, author of God’s DNA and Director of NIH, the maverick scientist Rupert
Sheldrake, the psychologists Baruss and Mossbridge, as well as the French philosopher Guenon, who
long ago argued that materialism began with Descartes, not many are aware that materialism exists
much less that it could be a serious problem. You know Spirituality is a problem in Psychology, when you
review "The Story of Psychology," which is a 700 plus page comprehensive 'History of Psychology'
textbook, which was written by Morton Hall, a well-known and prolific author on the subject of
psychology (Anchor Books, 2007), and, to my amazement, I did not find a single reference to either
meaning, spirit, spirituality, religion, or even meaning (hard to believe – but true).

Of course, a good question would be how a highly advanced scientific civilization such as ours, could
even contemplate the idea of "No Spirituality" for even a millisecond. In light of the fact that for tens
and thousands of years human beings have believed in spirit, spirits, and spirituality, coupled with the
fact that science has shown that some traits of religiosity are inherited, it would be highly likely that the
human mind would contain at minimum several unconscious spiritual processes - which would make the
idea of "No Spirituality" utterly ludicrous. Furthermore, there are all sorts of spirituality. What about the
spirituality of civic activists like Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi, and Tolstoy? In my view materialism has
thrown away the baby with the bathwater. I mean,..."NO Spirituality at all?? Really? "

Also, from talking to psychology professors at Maryland Universities, doing a quick overview of courses
offered as well as looking over the specialties of professors of psychology, not to mention information
gathered from talking to a psychology major in her last semester, it is somewhat disconcerting that it
appears relatively apparent that most Maryland Universities curriculum appear to reflect the rather
extreme materialist bias so blatant in Morton Hall's comprehensive 'History of Psychology.' Two
separate psychology professors at universities in Maryland let me know that if I wanted to talk to a
psychology professor about spirituality or religious beliefs, I would need to go outside Maryland. Also, I
looked over the ’specialties’ of professors and associate professors at a Catholic University and there
was not one single reference to either spirituality or existential and positive psychology. That should tell
you something. It is crystal clear Maryland Universities sideline and marginalize spirituality in all forms
and it is apparent to an extent psychology seriously represses spirituality, as well. Dr. Koenig, a well
know author and researcher from Duke University, who presents medical research that spirituality has
definite benefits for physical health and well-being, has pointed out that about half the medical
universities course in spirituality are offered. However, there are no courses about spirituality in
Maryland Universities.

Plus, only Loyola University offers a course in the 'Psychology of Religion.' Of course, I feel I should
highlight the fact, that in my view the 'Psychology of religion' books, which I have reviewed, failed to
adequately deal with the "Teachings of Religion" - which begs the question how one can write a
'Psychology of Religion' book without at least bringing up the "teachings of Religions." Furthermore, it
appears that the "function," purpose," or "raison d'etre" of religious and spiritual beliefs was not
established in my view. Here is a link to what I believe is more full and better portrayal and description
of religious and spiritual beliefs: "Why People have Spiritual & Religious Beliefs! - The Dynamics
Underlying Religious Beliefs & the Functions of Religion: Need for Meaning, Need to Belong, Need for
Ideology, & Spiritual Drive:
https://www.spirittruthandmeaning.com/a-theory-of-religion-need-for-meaning-need-to-belong-need-
for-ideology

Materialism is rooted in the bias of many psychologists toward physiological and biological explanations
an 'proofs.' In 1933, the iconic psychologist Carl Jung pointed out that “The “modern belief in the
primacy of physical explanations” effectively leads to the elimination of all metaphysical and spiritual
aspects of human consciousness. The modern positive psychologists, Pargament and Mahoney, make
the observation that "Since the early part of the twentieth century, .....psychologists have tended to
treat spirituality as a process that can be reduced to more basic underlying psychological, social, and
physiological functions.”

It would seem that, only too often, many psychologists take the view that anything that appears to be
somehow "transcendent" of physiology or hard biochemistry, or which encompasses intangible
concepts, archetypes and the collective unconscious, spirituality, or perhaps even of somewhat
nebulous ideals such as freedom or justice as something "nonscientific" or even perhaps even as
"superstitious nonsense." Yet, when viewed from afar, "materialism," appears to be an incredibly
narrow and limited way of looking at things.

In the end, materialism is a state of mind, a way of looking at the world and human consciousness, and
definitely not an "Absolute Truth." In the end, there is much about human consciousness that simply is
not provable - or dis-provable - that is a matter of judgment, beyond science. Furthermore,
"reductionism", the principle of 'reducing" something to its constituent parts, which is generally
associated with the emphasis of materialism for measurement and quantification, has produced in
psychology a very large number of specialized concepts and theories, for example "self-determination
theory" - all of which are useful in a limited sense, yet produce a very large amount of un-integrated and
un-synthesized parts and pieces produced by reductionism.

As the maverick scientist Rupert Sheldrake emphasizes, “The trouble is that the sciences give us vast
amounts of data, but it is devoid of personal or spiritual meaning.” (p.169) In the end, human beings
absolutely need the "mystical," "spiritual," and intangible concepts and ideas which do in some fashion
or form "integrate" and "synthesize" all the concepts, ideas, beliefs, and theories which would otherwise
be nothing but "clutter." It's somewhat of a paradox that it would seem likely that the more materialist
science and psychology "reduces" the human being to its almost numberless parts and pieces, the more
people will need all the mystical, spiritual, and intangible ideas and concepts that materialism rejects. As
Shane Eynon points out, "Much of Jung’s life-work, according to Joseph Henderson, had the ability to
shatter the illusion that modern man and the myths and symbols of past cultures are somehow
separated. That symbols and myths are somehow irrelevant to our current society and epoch."

Furthermore, Einstein had a profound reverence, and even awe, for the “mystery” of the universe and
life. More than once Einstein has remarked that those who could not see the miracles in life or who “can
no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead!” In a sense, if ‘we’ knew
“everything,” and there were no more "mystery" to life or the universe. then life in this world might turn
out to be an incredibly boring world.

Link to website about spirituality: https://www.spirittruthandmeaning.com/