Brains, Physics, And "god"

[Orbit]

I don't know how coherent this is going to be, because I'm still working through these thoughts, but here goes. At the outset I'd like to state that I'm not talking about the God of the Bible, but rather the loose concept that we associate with spirituality. I'm trying to pin down what I actually believe.

 

As an anthropologist, I know that all cultures that we know about in human history have beliefs in the supernatural, whether it is animism in hunter-gatherer societies, sorcery in horticulturalist societies and agricultural societies, polytheism, and monotheism in tribal, classical, and modern societies. Given that we are now a post-industrial society, at least in the West, I see for the first time a society in which it is possible, thought not always comfortable, to reject belief in the supernatural without persecution. Technological theories of social change posit that developments in technology affect the culture in which they occur. Is it possible that we are simply evolving past belief in the supernatural as a result of the rise of the scientific paradigm and its accomplishments? If this is true, there was never a basis for any supernatural belief--it was simply a product of the culture.

 

The thing that complicates this for me is the link between neuroscience and religious experience in the brain. I have discounted NDEs on the basis of Dr. Rick Strassman's work on recreating NDE-type experiences by administering DMT to test subjects. (See DMT: The Spirit Molecule in book form or on Netflix). DMT is naturally produced by the human body but is masked by normal body chemistry. At death, the pituitary gland releases hormones that inhibit the masking factors, and allows the effects of DMT to manifest, resulting in NDE type experiences. I myself have had an experience on DMT and it was much like the process described by the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Because of my underlying worldview, I didn't interpret the experience in religious terms, however.

 

Along the same lines I have read several studies that establish, though imperfectly, a relationship between the brain and religious feeling. I also feel that humans have an evolutionary need for spirituality, perhaps to calm anxiety. I have no evidence for this, however.

 

Physics comes into it because in natural pantheism, one is involved in reverence for the laws of the natural universe, which is essentially physics.

 

Given all of this, my questions are "Is spirituality a crutch, as some atheists would have it?" "Is my inclination towards natural pantheism and taoist ideas any less supernatural than an actual religion, or are they just religion substitutes?" "Is it possible to be psychologically healthy without spirituality?"

[bornagainathiest]

Hi Orbit!

 

I'm not going to respond to any particular part of your post.

Instead, given the content and the questions you ask, I'd recommend you take a look a this thread... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/60888-natural-panentheism/#.U3UZp9JdWYE

 

JoshPantera is someone I'd heartily recommend, when it comes to matters Pantheistic.  

Also, the Antlerman is a very lucid thinker, when it comes to how human consciousness interfaces with reality.

I have Pantheistic leanings myself, though I come to the table from a reductionist, materialist p.o.v.  Please note that I tacitly acknowledge that my position is neither complete, not fully tenable.  I am learning and experiencing and discovering and (hopefully) my journey is far from over.

 

I hope the above link is helpful.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Orbit]

Thanks--I read that with great pleasure, but I'm still left with the question about spirituality being necessary for humans vs. it being a sort of false need that we're socialized into. 

 

That really was a phenomenal thread.

[Ellinas]

Evening.

 

I have no certain answers, am not an anthropologist and claim no other relevant specialism, but, for what they are worth, here are my thoughts:

 

Is spirituality a crutch, as some atheists would have it?

 

I suspect not, or, at, least, not always.  Some spiritual practices can be very challenging - the shamanic visionary practices, the use of hallucinogens for altered states of consciousness etc psychologically; extreme fasting physically.  I'm not sure how a "crutch" would work by causing pain and psychological trauma.  Also, like or loathe the philosophies behind them, it remains the position that some forms of spirituality involve a commitment to self-sacrifice, acting for the good of others or the community.  Spirituality may motivate painful acts - but I'm not certain it dulls the pain to the extent of being a "crutch".  Nor does it necessarily promise a conscious afterlife - I've come across Christians who see god as a moral abstract and deny the existence of the soul.  To such, presumably, spirituality is just a guiding moral framework and the practices that flow from that.  I know of pagans who view deity as harsh and see the primary issue of spiritual life as taking responsibility for one's own actions.  All these do not, to my mind, sit easily with the "crutch" idea, which I suspect is rooted in "happy-clappy" western practices.

 

 

Is my inclination towards natural pantheism and taoist ideas any less supernatural than an actual religion, or are they just religion substitutes?

 

I'm not even sure that religion is necessarily supernatural.  Does it equate to belief?  I believe in a sort of deity, but in terms of observance I do very little indeed.  I have met people whose behaviour is far more overtly "religious" than mine, yet who are rather less inclined to believe in deity.  Where does philosophy - in the sense of a set of ideas guiding behaviour - end and religion begin?  I don't know - but suspect there is a considerable overlap, maybe to the point that religion is actually "applied philosophy" and separate to belief.

 

If that is the case, if your Taoism and/or Natural Pantheism informs your behaviour, validly they are your religion.  If not, they are not

 

Either way, I have difficulty seeing either as particularly metaphysical.  Insofar as the Tao te Ching seems to focus on a holistic view of being and on living in equilibrium with our nature, it may, I suppose, be seen as a version of Natural Pantheism.  However, my copy of that work seems a free translation by someone with a spiritual axe to grind, so my view of it may be incorrect.

 

Is it possible to be psychologically healthy without spirituality?

 

I have no idea - for that you need a psychologist.  But, again, I wonder whether "spirituality" is a misleading term.  Meditation is often seen as a spiritual activity - but a rampant materialist may practice it.  We need to look after our mental wellbeing.  If that is a form of spirituality, presumably it is not possible to live without it.  That does not assume, necessarily, reliance on the otherworldly.

 

I hope that all makes some sort of sense...

[Orbit]

Evening.

 

I have no certain answers, am not an anthropologist and claim no other relevant specialism, but, for what they are worth, here are my thoughts:

 

Is spirituality a crutch, as some atheists would have it?

 

I suspect not, or, at, least, not always.  Some spiritual practices can be very challenging - the shamanic visionary practices, the use of hallucinogens for altered states of consciousness etc psychologically; extreme fasting physically.  I'm not sure how a "crutch" would work by causing pain and psychological trauma.  Also, like or loathe the philosophies behind them, it remains the position that some forms of spirituality involve a commitment to self-sacrifice, acting for the good of others or the community.  Spirituality may motivate painful acts - but I'm not certain it dulls the pain to the extent of being a "crutch".  Nor does it necessarily promise a conscious afterlife - I've come across Christians who see god as a moral abstract and deny the existence of the soul.  To such, presumably, spirituality is just a guiding moral framework and the practices that flow from that.  I know of pagans who view deity as harsh and see the primary issue of spiritual life as taking responsibility for one's own actions.  All these do not, to my mind, sit easily with the "crutch" idea, which I suspect is rooted in "happy-clappy" western practices.

 

 

Is my inclination towards natural pantheism and taoist ideas any less supernatural than an actual religion, or are they just religion substitutes?

 

I'm not even sure that religion is necessarily supernatural.  Does it equate to belief?  I believe in a sort of deity, but in terms of observance I do very little indeed.  I have met people whose behaviour is far more overtly "religious" than mine, yet who are rather less inclined to believe in deity.  Where does philosophy - in the sense of a set of ideas guiding behaviour - end and religion begin?  I don't know - but suspect there is a considerable overlap, maybe to the point that religion is actually "applied philosophy" and separate to belief.

 

If that is the case, if your Taoism and/or Natural Pantheism informs your behaviour, validly they are your religion.  If not, they are not

 

Either way, I have difficulty seeing either as particularly metaphysical.  Insofar as the Tao te Ching seems to focus on a holistic view of being and on living in equilibrium with our nature, it may, I suppose, be seen as a version of Natural Pantheism.  However, my copy of that work seems a free translation by someone with a spiritual axe to grind, so my view of it may be incorrect.

 

Is it possible to be psychologically healthy without spirituality?

 

I have no idea - for that you need a psychologist.  But, again, I wonder whether "spirituality" is a misleading term.  Meditation is often seen as a spiritual activity - but a rampant materialist may practice it.  We need to look after our mental wellbeing.  If that is a form of spirituality, presumably it is not possible to live without it.  That does not assume, necessarily, reliance on the otherworldly.

 

I hope that all makes some sort of sense...

I appreciate your reply. By saying I'm an anthropologist I definitely didn't mean that I don't value the views of others, and I definitely don't think I've got all the right answers. Your post is thought-provoking and I'm going to think about it for a bit. When I was thinking "crutch" I was thinking about a practice or belief (I'm not even sure which) that is just an excuse to keep oneself from fully accepting atheism. You bring up some excellent points to think about.

[Voice]

Orbit, I enjoy your concise style of writing.  

I haven't studied a lot of religions in depth but I take overviews of all I encounter and learn what I can of as many as I can.  Religion and spirituality can be a crutch, but it's not appropriate to define them as a crutch.  They are for some people but not everyone.  Both religion and spirituality can be better viewed as tools, used in various ways by whoever is wielding them.  Spirituality is less of a crutch or a tool when it comes to just being a means to try and answer questions we have no answers to.  It is a reach for answers, individually and socially (group-think).

[florduh]

It appears to me that both religion and spirituality without the religion perform the same functions. People seem to choose a religion or "path" according to their psychological needs. Both methodologies ostensibly answer questions that have no answer. I conclude those questions have no answer because over thousands of years there has been no consensus. I guess one believes whatever feels right or good at a given stage of life, and that is enough for most.

[Ellinas]

Orbit,

 

I wasn't suggesting that you were casting any sort of aspersion on those without your professional background - I was merely pointing out that my thoughts were nothing more than personal musings.

 

Anyhow, I had a further thought on the "crutch" issue today, which was that I'm not even sure what the idea means - don't we all choose the intellectual framework with which we most comfortably negotiate reality?  In which case, can it be argued that any such framework is as much or as little a crutch as any other, and, if so, is the term meaningless?

 

Given the clarification of what you meant, however, I am not sure that is relevant.  What puzzles me is why you might not want to fully accept atheism (and yes, I say that as someone who is not an atheist).  If logically and/or philosophically atheism is what makes sense to you, presumably you have no reason to reject it.  If, logically and/or philosophically, it does not so make sense, you have no reason to accept it.  If you have yet to decide whether atheism makes sense to you, then I understand that you need to think things through further; however, the way you have explained this suggests to me either you want to accept atheism but are worried that your outlook is "not atheist enough", or you have difficulty with atheism but are worried that this is illogical.

 

I mean no disrespect by this, but, if I am correct in that reaction, is there an element of getting hung up on labels when the reality is that it doesn't really matter whether whatever you think might be categorized as atheist?

 

I'm not asking that question to necessarily elicit an answer from you - I just thought it might be a possibility worth you thinking about.  Then again, I might be barking up the wrong proverbial tree.

[Orbit]

It's worth thinking about, definitely. To a Christian, I'm an atheist. To myself, dunno. Perhaps it is indeed unanswerable.

[Joshpantera]

Some one rang? 

 

I wonder this myself sometimes, Orbit. 

 

I don't really feel that Natural Pantheism is a crutch though. I'm fully atheistic and Pantheism is more of a philosophy from the way I approach it. Now some do approach it as more of a religion and replacement for the religion they've left, but those are usually the more Panentheistic types. Natural Pantheism is more atheists who understand the lack of evidence for the supernatural who are perfectly fine with having spiritual feelings towards the awe and wonder of the natural universe, and I've added natural multiverse just to stay one step ahead in cosmological view. 

[Voice]

Reading the Natural Panentheism thread it seemed obvious to me that if none of you can find anything on panentheism online, that a lot of you are qualified to create a wikipedia page.  Link to it from the pantheism page.  If you haven't done wikipedia work in the past, it's as easy as signing up with a username and password - and reading the rules.

[Joshpantera]

Reading the Natural Panentheism thread it seemed obvious to me that if none of you can find anything on panentheism online, that a lot of you are qualified to create a wikipedia page.  Link to it from the pantheism page.  If you haven't done wikipedia work in the past, it's as easy as signing up with a username and password - and reading the rules.

Well, what stopped me from going further was the reaction I received from the WPM. I just don't know if I should take it any further or just sit back and let Natural Pantheism adapt to a multiverse as the evidence continues to weigh in. But with your suggestion if I think it's the right thing to do down the road at some point then I may well create something about Natural Panentheism on wiki. That is, if the WPM doesn't get around to addressing the issue. 

[Voice]

[snip]