Despite the undeniable utility of scientific inquiry, it is largely inadequate to answer spiritual questions-questions that are arguably the most important ones we face. While science can tell me how best to reach a certain objective or what to expect from the natural world, it can't transcend the natural world to provide answers about meaning and purpose.
This observation is no indictment of science. It's just how things are. If we trace back natural laws to moments after the Big Bang, we find that they suddenly fail to hold. Laws we typically accept as fact are broken, it seems. We can no longer use our conventional tools to answer important questions. What was before the big bang? What is smaller than a quark (or insert the latest vogue subatomic particle)? What is past the edge of the universe? ... all seem out of reach. Even granting the theoretical ability to answer those specific questions, there will ALWAYS be something out of provable reach, as Gödel has gone ahead and shown. Let me say it again: on the most fundamental level, there will always be something just out of the reach of observation, measurement, and even logic.
One may choose to be satisfied with these limitations, but I'm prone to believe that there is a fully spiritual aspect to my humanity, and that addressing it may transcend those limitations. Maybe it just requires a different approach. I hunger for meaning and spiritual knowledge. How I find that spiritual information is still subject to rational processes but is not subject to all the assumptions of science (and therefore may not be subject to all its limitations).
Many are quick to point to the widely disparate conclusions drawn by those pursuing spirituality. They conclude that none of those spiritual views have any merit over the others. This is invalid. I believe that some spiritual conclusions are right, and some are wrong. Some are incomplete or inferior. And some are supernal and real. Faulting spirituality for its non-demonstrable nature shows a misunderstanding of the rules of the game, and denying that reason plays a role is equally incorrect. We ought to have respect for differing views without accepting them all as having equal merit. Some spiritual views are irrational, yes. But calling all spirituality irrational is a fallacy of generalization.
There are admittedly many perils inherent in any subjective process, but those perils can take you in opposite directions. I've met folks who interpret Mary's face on a piece of toasted cheese to be a sign from God, and although I can't rule that out, I agree with those who note such random "signs" will happen with certain regularity over time based on probability alone. On the other hand, categorically dismissing spirituality as the result of misinterpretation of coincidence in all cases is unjustified. A rational person will recognize that the existence of such misinterpretation and coincidence does not rule out the discovery of genuine spiritual information in some cases. That is, there are both real and mistaken spiritual experiences, and one's discovery of the existence of the latter shouldn't lead one to fallaciously generalize all spiritual experiences by all people to that group.
The notion that an all-powerful Father in Heaven has created this universe and our souls for purposes that can only be partially represented to our mortal minds as "joy" and "exaltation" establishes a framework from which to understand our spiritual world. The scenario is fleshed out quite reasonably and rationally with an explanation that God's interactions with man are limited and indirect because those circumstances are necessary for development of a righteous will and maturation of a divine nature. Further, the idea that God provides information through a nuanced combination of personal revelation and authoritative messengers makes a lot of sense.
Spiritual inquiry necessarily uses reason and logic, but expands acceptable working data past what is reproducible and demonstrable. Clinical trials and retrospective analysis are key for discovering and believing what can't be overtly proven (and must therefore be based on faith). But the data turned up by such analysis can only be personally appreciated, and may therefore get a lot of scorn from those who have had a vastly different personal spiritual experience and have no context to appreciate an individual's specifics.
Spiritual truths are most immediately meaningful for what they tell us about living life abundantly, finding joy, and being filled with other divine attributes like love. Spiritual inquiry, because of its subjective nature, is often condemned for its non-reproducibility. But this non-reproducibility is expected within the context of a personal spiritual journey in which transcendental truths are available on a need-to-know-when-you're-ready basis. So, ultimately, it comes down to each individual and his or her own experience. And my experience tells me that spiritual inquiry has been extremely successful in my life in providing meaning and purpose. It has been extremely successful in making the people I admire into the people that they are. It has been extremely successful in predicting what will make me happy and help me flourish. Basically, I like spiritual inquiry because it works really well.
Index to series:
Rational faith 1: Science
Rational faith 2: Spirituality
Rational faith 3: Grand unifying theory
Rational faith 4: Creative calculus
Rational faith 5: Wrap up
6 comments:
Thanks for your comments, and I will turn on my feed for you. Keep in touch.
[Peaks head out of shrubbery]
“[Science] can't transcend the natural world to provide answers about meaning and purpose.”
Despite our occupational similarities, it still seems we see science differently. Science, to me, actually needs no natural or material world; it works with or without it. In idealism, and solipsism it still works. It basically is: 1. Imagining if I sent out a particular signal, I’ll get a particular set of qualia back. 2. Send out the signal. 3. Bolster or debase the hypothesis by the qualia returned. It only needs doubt, and causation between your sensations at different points in time. For what I generally call formal science the only added need is other people sharing a presumed source of that qualia.
Lastly, in a rare defense of the materialist atheists :-), they do find purpose and meaning in the natural world. They do it by experiment. As I’ve said before, atheist or theist, to me, a life means what it says, what it does. The meaning is inevitable; it’s the quality of the meaning for which we struggle. And the supernatural doesn’t really solve that problem, though it does make the work easier. There are many purposes and meanings the supernatural could offer that we’d reject as meaningless; even there we have to judge, build, test, and work for it.
“Let me say it again: on the most fundamental level, there will always be something just out of the reach of observation, measurement, and even logic.”
We agree :-). But to be clear, to think because it’s wanted it can be had, doesn't follow, right? To me, being an agnostic is far from about being “satisfied” with this limitation; it’s about self-restraint, I could believe many things that would make me happy, make the quality of meaning simpler, maybe even improve my life, but that, as I’ve said too many times :-), can cause problems for those who aren’t me and can’t test my beliefs.
As a side note, I remember us discussing before and didn’t you say God is limited by some rules? Among those are logic? He can’t make 1 + 1 = 3 or a 4-sided triangle, right? If so then Gödel’s work would apply to Him as well, or no?
"I believe that some spiritual conclusions are right, and some are wrong."
I bet you’re eventually getting to how one distinguishes between disparate spiritual conclusions and experiences. But, in a way, this does makes you more of a skeptic and atheist than I am ;-).
“How I find that spiritual information is still subject to rational processes but is not subject to all the assumptions of science”
Which assumptions in particular? I think this may be important.
“On the other hand, categorically dismissing spirituality as the result of misinterpretation of coincidence in all cases is unjustified. ”
We agree again :-). It would be similarly wrong to dismiss someone’s claim to be able to fly, because I saw how it was done in a magic show. We just can’t prove “there is no [blank].”
"The scenario is fleshed out quite reasonably and rationally…"
I hope to explain, though, how this looks from the outside. Most are very reasonably constructed under the given limitations; some just need time. They’ve been honed over millennia, and each generation has the benefit of the last. It is, in a way, it’s own science. You can watch such growth in many religions (e.g. the development of Hell and the devil through the Bible), and they pretty much use the same tools (e.g. Scientologist’s thetans and Catholic’s demons, both hindering people from the True Path). The reason to meticulously reason out why others can’t test a God are far from new, and are a necessary part of every religion.
In the end though, most do essentially claim some evidence for God is the lack of good evidence for God. Pretending we know another faith is true, it still makes sense for the wrong religions to only be known personally, for there to be only subjective experience. It makes sense that a mortal mind can’t understand the seeming inconsistencies, and that we just have to take somethings on authority, be it from a man or a book. It makes sense to appeal to a person’s quiet voices of intuition, but if they have a well-timed dream of the Virgin Mary all the better. It has to be that if another doesn’t believe as a believer does and has a spiritual experience it’s wrong. Even if there is one true religion, to survive and work, all the false religions still have to be well-crafted, self-consistent and self-defending narratives, without some way for us to defer to self-assailing science.
"It has been extremely successful in predicting what will make me happy and help me flourish. Basically, I like spiritual inquiry because it works really well."
I agree here too, and I do still remember what belief gave. In this way, religions are very useful and can cause a lot of happiness and charity. It does work. I’d be careful though using this as evidence for truth; it’s evidence for ability to please, and if we were to go on that it’d seem the most popular religions work better for people. It doesn’t speak to the truth of competition either.
Okay, I’ve read this dissertation over a couple times, and I hope it comes across in the tone I felt as typing. I’d still rather have such a discussion in person so you could see and hear my emoticons :-). I wonder, for my long-wordedness, would you rather we discussed this via email? (or not at all ;-)?)
Your definition of science is much like what I'm calling rationality. When you make science and rationality synonymous and then fiercely exclude religious faith from science, you've managed to edge rationality and spirituality away from each other. That's precisely what I'm trying to dispute with this series. I believe faith and religion should be (and are) essentially rational and internally consistent despite frequent charges to the contrary. It annoys me to no end that people don't even seem to feel any justification is necessary for calling faith irrational--it's just assumed to be a self-evident part of spirituality and faith.
So, for the purposes of the present series of posts, my definition of science is more toward your "formal" science. Science is objectively verifiable and based on shared experiences. This also addresses your atheists' sense of meaning. While it may be rational, it's not verifiable and objective and so puts your atheist as an active participant in what I'm calling spirituality.
But to be clear, to think because it’s wanted it can be had, doesn't follow, right? To me, being an agnostic is far from about being “satisfied” with this limitation; it’s about self-restraint, I could believe many things that would make me happy, make the quality of meaning simpler, maybe even improve my life, but that, as I’ve said too many times :-), can cause problems for those who aren’t me and can’t test my beliefs.
Yes, it doesn't follow that "because it's wanted it can be had," but as I said in the post, "addressing [spirituality] may transcend those limitations". Whether it can or can't be had must be learned as a matter of personal investigation--a matter of reason and experimentation according to the rules of faith and spirituality (personal spiritual experience allowed as evidence). Others can't test my beliefs because spiritual investigation as I've defined it is an inherently personal matter and can't, be tested by others else it be classified as science. Whether one feels compelled to "restrain" themselves from spirituality probably depends on whether their view of it is colored by misunderstanding.
He can’t make 1 + 1 = 3 or a 4-sided triangle, right? If so then Gödel’s work would apply to Him as well, or no?
Yes and no. I do believe that God is subject to the limitations of objective truth. Logic, in some ideal form, is part of that. But what we perceive logic and objective truth to be is limited by our mortal capacity, and that fact is central to this whole discussion. God's paradigm is broader and includes ours only as a subset. So, although God is limited by rules, those rules that limit him are within a larger sphere of existence, and to us he is practically unlimited by anything (to my mind that may or may not include Gödel). Omnipotent.
I bet you’re eventually getting to how one distinguishes between disparate spiritual conclusions and experiences. But, in a way, this does makes you more of a skeptic and atheist than I am ;-).
I don't know what you're talking about. Me? A skeptic?
Which assumptions in particular? I think this may be important.
For one, that natural laws we observe here and now apply everywhere and at all times. This is an assumption of natural science that allows our experiments (and their reproducibility) to work. It is inconsistent with God having access to a higher metaphysical sphere and being able to transcend the apparent limitations of natural science. Another instance is the notion that absolute knowledge is impossible--that we only muster a high enough sense of supportive evidence to act with confidence through undeniable probability rather than absolute knowledge. I think absolute knowledge can be obtained and epistemological limitations can be overcome through the Holy Spirit... that an investigation into certain principles somehow can escape that asymptote and wind up at that limit of pure knowledge.
They’ve been honed over millennia, and each generation has the benefit of the last. It is, in a way, it’s own science.
Uh... yeah. Exactly.
It makes sense that a mortal mind can’t understand the seeming inconsistencies, and that we just have to take somethings on authority, be it from a man or a book.
Again, yes and no. These posts have already been some of my longer ones, so I thought I'd better make this serial. But it would have simplified things to have it all out on the table before having you respond to any of it. When something is to be taken on authority, be it from a man or a book, there must be ample opportunity to corroborate the authority of that man or book in other ways. So, it's not all blind trust. Not in the least, if you're doing it right.
I’d be careful though using this as evidence for truth; it’s evidence for ability to please, and if we were to go on that it’d seem the most popular religions work better for people.
It's corroborative evidence for truth, certainly. And for the utilitarian purpose of teaching me how to live a good and wholesome life, it's demonstrably true. As for the associated doctrines, it provides enough corroboration to keep me coming back for more, to keep me engaged in the possibility of greater light and knowledge that I've been promised. As that greater light and knowledge comes, it's no longer a matter of popular religion, ability to please, or convincing anyone else--it becomes a matter of personal certitude that God lives and a quiet assurance that the course of life one is pursuing is acceptable to Him.
I’ve read this dissertation over a couple times, and I hope it comes across in the tone I felt as typing.
It was never my intention to scare everyone into silence. Maybe my "way of putting things" you referenced is the culprit for nobody else commenting on these posts! But I appreciate your feedback in whatever forum you choose. (Preferably speaking from the shrubbery.)
Maybe we’re not too far apart. Maybe I’ve given the wrong impression, fighting enemies that aren’t here, but if an angel came down everyday and had breakfast with me, but no one else could see him, I’d certainly say it could be rational for me to believe in him. Even if it got me locked away :-), it could still be rational and true. Sensation is sensation.
In a way, you could even set up a test with you’re definitions. All experience is a personal experience. The problem is just here, when people ask, they receive different answers. It’s like we’re supposed to read the litmus paper and we each see a different color. The only recourse is to tell the others that I see the True color and they’re blind to it, if I’m only going to trust my personal experience.
While it may be rational, it's not verifiable and objective and so puts your atheist as an active participant in what I'm calling spirituality.
Why? He can test it with peers and so on. The only difference is that the subject is the human psyche, and not, say, a molecule or the chimp psyche. While there are certainly anomalies, I think it’s not too hard to predict what sort of things make humans feel meaningful and purposeful, god or no. I bet someone has already imaged it with an MRI ;-).
Whether one feels compelled to "restrain" themselves from spirituality probably depends on whether their view of it is colored by misunderstanding.
Not restraint from spirituality, as you’ve defined it, but belief. If you’re not right, then it is an adverse action and it’s often dangerous to believe without willingness to doubt your experience, come together, test, and find shared agreement. I’ve had many spiritual experiences, and would say I still do, by your definition. In fact most agnostics I know have a good deal of exposure to both spirituality, and the atheist materialist view.
Now, if you’re right and you’ve picked the right spirituality, then you’d still have to advocate restraint in my spirituality, and you’d not say you’re under a misunderstanding, right? You’d not want me to pick a religion because it felt right to me, made me flourish and so on, if it was your wrong answer.
God's paradigm is broader and includes ours only as a subset.
Ah, but does that paradigm include the set of all sets ;-)?
So, although God is limited by rules, those rules that limit him are within a larger sphere of existence, and to us he is practically unlimited by anything (to my mind that may or may not include Gödel).
It’s tough to leave such at mysterious ways, limited minds, and omnipotence, but if that’s the way it is, fine. It’s just either Gödel was right or not. If right, then there are things God cannot know, as sure as He couldn’t make a square triangle. If wrong, well, you get the picture…
For one, that natural laws we observe here and now apply everywhere and at all times.
But this is not an assumption of science; even formal science. If laws of cause and effect change from the here and now, then science doesn’t keep assuming them static; everything can change.
Another instance is the notion that absolute knowledge is impossible
And thus the importance of the work of Gödel above (hey, you brought it up :-)). This is a finding of logic. To me, the assumptions of science are something like: 1. There is a causal relationship between two points in our streams of consciousness and 2. Our sent signals can be a cause of our eventual sensations. That of formal science would be: 1. There are other consciousnesses that can perform science, and 2. If I were in their place, at the same time, with their abilities, and did the same thing, I’d get the same results. The rest is questioned often in any formal science.
But it would have simplified things to have it all out on the table before having you respond to any of it.
Now, if you believed that could’ve happen, then I’d certainly say you had an irrational faith. :-)
…it becomes a matter of personal certitude that God lives and a quiet assurance that the course of life one is pursuing is acceptable to Him.
And I’d not debate any of that paragraph, but the first sentence. It’s evidence for one claim: that that religion can make you, personally, happy. The rest of that paragraph applies to all the faithful in the world. Most all find personal corroboration and feel they’re getting what they’ve been promised. Though it’s true that it makes them happy, to say truth is what makes a person happy clearly does not follow for them, right?
To emphasize, I do think religion has been a positive forced in many lives; this is, in fact, why some atheists I’ve known spend time promoting it.
It was never my intention to scare everyone into silence.
lol, could have been me too, you know :-). Or maybe this is only a topic weird types get into.
The only recourse is to tell the others that I see the True color and they’re blind to it, if I’m only going to trust my personal experience.
Did I suggest that one should only trust one's personal experience? Didn't mean to. Discussing subjective feelings and one's subjective conclusions with others is a rewarding way of clarifying and interpreting what it all means (else what the heck I am putting up with you for?!?). The problem is that if you are convinced the litmus paper is a different color than it is based on my description (because you can't actually see it for yourself), then it's not too ridiculous for me to go ahead and trust my own eyes after all.
Why? He can test it with peers and so on. The only difference is that the subject is the human psych...
If the atheist believes that the only meaning in life comes from the human psyche, then he's not really looking at the meaning that I'm interested in (or that I've suggested spirituality is concerned with). I personally think there's an objective meaning to life (ie. independent of whether or not we appreciate it) that can only be appreciated subjectively (can't be demonstrated to someone else). Whether anyone wants to pursue their own version of life's meaning could be a great affirming psychological exercise, but wouldn't affect the "real" meaning, and the real meaning is what God says it is. Appreciating that meaning can only be accomplished through spirituality.
Now, if you’re right and you’ve picked the right spirituality, then you’d still have to advocate restraint in my spirituality, and you’d not say you’re under a misunderstanding, right? You’d not want me to pick a religion because it felt right to me, made me flourish and so on, if it was your wrong answer.
In my view one shouldn’t just "pick" a version of spirituality, although I can imagine why you see it this, umm, oversimplified way. It’s an ongoing process subject to review and input from others and God. I would want you to keep aspects of whatever in your spiritual journey helped you to flourish, because it would not be from a wrong answer... or at least it would be from a partially right answer. I’d want to share whatever I thought could be helpful, and I’d appreciate the same in return.
Ah, but does that paradigm include the set of all sets ;-)?
As a woman once told William James, it's turtles all the way down. hee. I'll ask God sometime and see.
It’s just either Gödel was right or not. If right, then there are things God cannot know, as sure as He couldn’t make a square triangle. If wrong, well, you get the picture…
Yeah, by human logic. I'm saying God has a metalogic that might change things up a bit. Even logic that seems so incontrovertible now might end up with a different flavor. Godel's proof in particular is esoteric enough that I can't help wonder if it's an overblown brain-teaser--a novelty that isn't what it seems. It’s easier for me to doubt than the idea of square triangles. But regardless of my limited ability to comprehend it for myself (despite formal logic training), I have, umm, confidence that it is true in general. It’s true enough for me to use it to say that there are things science can’t demonstrate, anyway. I’ll have my cake and eat it too, thank you.
But this is not an assumption of science; even formal science. If laws of cause and effect change from the here and now, then science doesn’t keep assuming them static; everything can change.
You're saying the same thing as me again, you’re just demanding to be contrary about it. The speed of light, the gravitational constant, or whatever, are constant here just as they are constant wherever you are... just as they will be constant tomorrow. It is a working assumption of science, and to suggest otherwise is pushing things a bit far, don’t you think? If you want to appeal to a changing "cause and effect" then you're conceding my point about God's sphere having objective rules despite that they are un-understandable and impenetrable to us. You just can't stand to leave things in my original words. :-)
Though it’s true that it makes them happy, to say truth is what makes a person happy clearly does not follow for them, right?
I didn't say it did, I said it was corroborative evidence. If I tell you, "Go up to that girl and ask for her phone number, and if she thinks you are cute, she'll give it to you." and then you do and she does, you can't conclude that she thinks you are cute, but you might consider the whole episode including my advice and the experience itself to be corroborative toward that conclusion. It may take a lot more corroboration to really be persuaded, and then an actual act of God to take you to the level where you know it's true (in the absolute and correct sense of the word "know").
I'm delighted that some atheists promote religion. I promote prayer among my patients for similar reasons--because it produces objectively measurable healing results (if I recommended prayer for the most legitimate reasons I'd be canned for my evangelism). But, as I'm sure you already know, I believe it's not just a warm and fuzzy way of life, I believe it's actually true.
I'm pretty sure we're the only ones into this because it's dry and you have to be really interested to get through it. Maybe I'll start writing some anecdotes--short and sweet--to make up for it.
If you want... ;-)
The problem is that if you are convinced the litmus paper is a different color than it is based on my description (because you can't actually see it for yourself), then it's not too ridiculous for me to go ahead and trust my own eyes after all.
We can’t even agree who’s looking at the paper :-).
If the atheist believes that the only meaning in life comes from the human psyche, then he's not really looking at the meaning that I'm interested in (or that I've suggested spirituality is concerned with). I personally think there's an objective meaning to life (ie. independent of whether or not we appreciate it) that can only be appreciated subjectively (can't be demonstrated to someone else).
We are getting to where these debates aren’t too helpful, maybe too far past “what’s science”. Here I’m hearing something like:
If meaning comes from the human psyche then my human psyche isn’t interested in it. My human psyche is interested in the real meaning, which can only be appreciated subjectively, by human psyche.
At least we both think a real objective meaning exists. :-)
What if the meaning you had given you from the supernatural was to be the literal eternal footstool for a sweaty Mussolini in hell? I think you’re looking at the meaning you think the supernatural has for you and judging it as meaningful to you, as most human minds would, if they believed the same. To me it seems our human psyche still has to judge if it can find meaning in the proposed meaning or not, supernatural forces or not.
In my view one shouldn’t just "pick" a version of spirituality, although I can imagine why you see it this, umm, oversimplified way.
I didn’t mean by roulette wheel :-).
I’ve done much work, and I’ve come to a different place. On top of that, what’s made me flourish would not make you flourish. Everyone could tell anyone else they’ve not done enough, or left their favored path too soon, or didn’t do it the right way, or that they’re mistaken, but all that can be reflected right back. Eventually the point is reached where one can’t argue a faith.
I’d want to share whatever I thought could be helpful, and I’d appreciate the same in return.
I worry I’ve come across as ungrateful for this. I can certainly understand your motives are of the highest sort and I do very much respect you for that.
This topic does put me in an odd spot. Once, very early on, I asked if you absolutely came to know your faith was untrue if you’d change your family situation and you said no. That was important to me to read, as I don’t suspect, at these points in our lives, what makes me flourish would make you flourish as well. I am interested in this topic, and I also don’t want you telling your representative to take aim at us again, but I really don’t want to see you dancing on top a gay pride float :-). I can see it now, even though I’ve never seen you...
I’ll have my cake and eat it too, thank you.
You’ve got me beat then :-).
It is a working assumption of science, and to suggest otherwise is pushing things a bit far, don’t you think?
Maybe it’s a very common and historically reliable assumption, but I do read often in my skimming of people doubting these assumptions, using new hypotheses on, say, the speed of light to explain some phenomena. As another example it seems in vast voids, something very odd occurs with gravity, negative energy and so on. Not to mention the odd occurrences at the dawn of time that gave rise to the cosmic background radiation we see. It could all be different at different locations, both spatial and temporal, and science doesn’t restrict itself to believe otherwise, even if some scientists do.
I didn't say it did, I said it was corroborative evidence.
It’s what it corroborates that I’m taking issue with. It tells us certain religions know what makes certain people happy and productive. This is a claim I don’t dispute. But if you said "Go up to that girl and ask for her phone number, and if she thinks you are cute, she'll give it to you. An invisible eagle told me so." If you did it and it worked, I may think she thinks I’m cute, but I’d still not consider that corroboration of the existence of invisible and talking eagles (not to say religions are that simple and silly, but I needed an example for this one point).
if I recommended prayer for the most legitimate reasons I'd be canned for my evangelism
Man, I’d watch out for the other sort, though, the really militant atheists. They can through ever bit as big a fuss as any fundamentalist.
Post a Comment