Science, Paradox, and the Moebius Principle confronts basic anomalies in the foundations of contemporary knowledge. Steven M. Rosen deals with paradoxes that call into question our conventional way of thinking about space, time, and the nature of human experience. Rosen's contribution is unique in at least five respects: 1) He provides an unparalleled integration of modern theoretical science and contemporary phenomenological thought. 2) He features a section of dialogue with David Bohm, who contributed greatly in fields of major concern to the book. 3) He sets forth a process theory and philosophy, presenting a concept in which space, time, and consciousness undergo a continuous internal transformation and organic growth. 4) He furnishes a highly specific account of dialectical change, employing geometric forms that bring the dynamics of paradox into focus with unprecedented clarity. 5) He is transdisciplinary and provides transcultural bridges between the "two cultures" of science and the humanities.

The question of the origins of the universe is probably one of the most dwelled upon and argued about over the last couple of centuries. Ever since Charles Darwin proposed his theory, evolutionists and creationists want to settle the issue on their sides. But science did not stop at Darwin’s time. It progressed enormously, creating significant problems for Darwinian explanations. Is there a better answer than the dominant neo-Darwinian synthesis? Even more fundamental is the question of whether natural science, by itself, can explain the origins of nature. What are the limits of science and where should we turn to philosophy and theology? How do these three domains—science, philosophy, and theology—relate when addressing the question of origins? Theistic evolution, the idea of God using evolution as a means of creating the universe, faces problems from both classic Christian theology as well as classic metaphysics. Today things do not look good for the dominant views. The time has come to propose a new faith and science synthesis, one that offers a serious approach to the Bible on the one hand and an honest look at biological findings on the other. This book sets a path to such a new synthesis.

“A fascinating new analysis of human violence, filled with fresh ideas and gripping evidence from our primate cousins, historical forebears, and contemporary neighbors.” —Steven Pinker, author of The Better Angels of Our Nature We Homo sapiens can be the nicest of species and also the nastiest. What occurred during human evolution to account for this paradox? What are the two kinds of aggression that primates are prone to, and why did each evolve separately? How does the intensity of violence among humans compare with the aggressive behavior of other primates? How did humans domesticate themselves? And how were the acquisition of language and the practice of capital punishment determining factors in the rise of culture and civilization? Authoritative, provocative, and engaging, The Goodness Paradox offers a startlingly original theory of how, in the last 250 million years, humankind became an increasingly peaceful species in daily interactions even as its capacity for coolly planned and devastating violence remains undiminished. In tracing the evolutionary histories of reactive and proactive aggression, biological anthropologist Richard Wrangham forcefully and persuasively argues for the necessity of social tolerance and the control of savage divisiveness still haunting us today.

Is another world war inevitable? The answer is a resounding “yes” if we continue to think in terms of “either/or” outcomes. Adversaries think in such terms, you either get what you want, or you do not. Can a different way of thinking produce a different outcome? This book shows that the consistency demanded by the linear, logical either/or thinking is disrupted by paradox, whose resolution forces a consequent decision: war or peace, with no middle ground. If this were the only way of thinking then a person would be either a protagonist or an antagonist, but a person can be both, either, or neither; this opens the door to novel solutions. This is “both/and” thinking, which the book shows can be achieved by a dynamic resolution of paradox. Thus, a basically selfish individual can also be a hero; a consequence of the complexity of being human.