Philosophy And Spirituality

[Orbit]

I have been reading Ken Wilber's "Eye to Eye". In the titular essay, Wilber posits that there are three epistemologies: science, philosophy, and spirituality and that none should be reduced to the other. What he means by this is that science relies on that which can be observed and measured; philosophy deals with the mind and human reason and logic; and the third is religious/spiritual, centered on the contemplative mode of awareness.

What I want to put up for discussion is the idea of the legitimacy of not crossing the boundaries between them. In a way, this formulation was anticipated by St. Thomas Aquinas who said "matters of faith are not subject to proof" meaning that science had no legitimate grounds as the judge for spiritual matters. According to Wilber, the measure of science is the consensus of the scientific community, and the measure of things spiritual is the consensus of the spiritual community.

From where do we actually get our consensus on spiritual matters? Is this separation of epistemologies valid? Thoughts?

[Merlin]

Hey Orbit,

 

You've brought up an extremely interesting subject in this thread.  I'm really hoping that more people will chime in with their ideas and opinions.  I've never considered myself an atheist, and I probably never will because I really believe that there is just too much in this universe that is 'unknown' and 'undiscovered',  In other words, I don't believe that anyone really has enough evidence to write off the possibility of a higher order, a higher intelligence, or anything else along those lines...  Now, with that being said, I want to make it clear that I absolutely do not believe in Christianity anymore.

 

Anyway, I think that there are millions of people who have had valid spiritual experiences (even Christians), but I think that many of these religious people are too quick to give the 'higher power' of their choice all of the credit for these experiences without considering other possibilities.  That is absolutely a mistake.  However, that is not to say that there aren't people who have somehow tapped into or connected with a realm that we currently know very little about.  As of this moment in time, there is no way to make scientific measurements on matters that relate to the spiritual realm, but that does not mean this will always be the case.

 

For example, according to an article I found on www.space.com, nearly 80% of the mass of the known universe is made up of 'dark matter'.  Dark matter is something that scientists know very little about.  At this point in time, the brightest of scientists are still being forced to postulate and hypothesize about its qualities, makeup, etc.  The article also mentions 'dark energy' which is another concept that we currently do not understand very well.  

 

So, who's to say that the spiritual will not one day share the same bed as the scientific?  :-)  I look forward to the day when we as a human race are finally able to truly understand and tap into that realm of our existence.  In conclusion, I think the worst thing we can do as people is to write off spirituality altogether because somewhere in our thick skulls we have deemed the concept unworthy of further study and research.  To eliminate possibilities before they are fully researched is to eliminate progress.  

 

Here is a link to the article I referenced above:  http://www.space.com/20930-dark-matter.html

[TrueFreedom]

I like this question.  I'd like to understand how Wilbur would expect to arrive at a spiritual consensus.

[Orbit]

I like this question.  I'd like to understand how Wilbur would expect to arrive at a spiritual consensus.

From what I've read from Wilber, he means something similar to the Buddhist idea of a sangha, that is a community of practitioners. So for example, if you meditate, you would compare notes with other people who meditate.

[Deidre]

In a word...fear. Fear of the unknown.

[Orbit]

In a word...fear. Fear of the unknown.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Explain?

[mikey101]

What I want to put up for discussion is the idea of the legitimacy of not crossing the boundaries between them. In a way, this formulation was anticipated by St. Thomas Aquinas who said "matters of faith are not subject to proof" meaning that science had no legitimate grounds as the judge for spiritual matters. According to Wilber, the measure of science is the consensus of the scientific community, and the measure of things spiritual is the consensus of the spiritual community.

 

From where do we actually get our consensus on spiritual matters? Is this separation of epistemologies valid? Thoughts?

I don't see science as having anything to do with religion. The paths may cross sometimes and seem to validate or invalidate the other, but I don't think that should be done intentionally.  Science focuses on the observable, not on various religious beliefs about gods and mysterious forces that can't be measured.  

 

I don't see that there is a consensus on sprituality/religion.  That's kind of the whole point.  Just like there are different cultures and skin colors, there are different beliefs and experiences.  When people talk about everyone believing the same thing, or all religions being united.. watch out.

[mikey101]

 

I don't know if we should view these three epistemologies as separate fields, or modes, of knowing. Maybe we should consider them as different methods in our investigation of reality. Maybe no particular epistemological field should have exclusive domain over any particular type of experience. Perhaps all three (as distinct as they are) should work in concert for us to have a wholistic (i.e., "whole") understanding of reality.

 

This reminds me of the Oxford professor that took interest in the spiritual beliefs of the Kogi tribe of Columbia, saying that they indeed have knowledge of how the earth works that we should try to understand.  But the Kogi mentioned concerned that their beliefs will be 'mentalized' and not understood properly.  Which I think is something they should expect, since we're from a totally different world than theirs. Regardless, the emergence of the Kogi after 500 years of silence and their message is peaking the interest of people in science. 

 

But the question is, should we?  How will it affect the Kogi, and how will it affect us?  And will we even be able to understand them through Western scientific reasoning?  

[Orbit]

  When people talk about everyone believing the same thing, or all religions being united.. watch out.

 

Hi-just to clarify, Wilber does not talk about uniting all religions, nor does he say all religions are one. What he is actually talking more about in this book is the contemplative traditions of different religions, or meditation. What he is saying is that the meditating mind has a paradoxical logic of its own, and shouldn't be expected to be rational. The meditating mind is by nature irrational, and that's ok. It's giving people a way to give value to their meditative experience instead of valuing them in a scientistic way as a collection of brainwaves. There are brainwaves, obviously, but there are also your thoughts and feelings that arise; subjective states arise which are important on a symbolic, intuitive level apart from science.

 

Wilber uses the analogy of examining a painting. From a scientistic point of view, it is a collection of pigments with specific chemical structures. But that's not how we experience the painting, how we feel pleasure from it, or see beauty. Those things belong to the contemplative mind. The main point seems to be a corrective to the idea that only science has value.

[seven77]

I have been reading Ken Wilber's "Eye to Eye". In the titular essay, Wilber posits that there are three epistemologies: science, philosophy, and spirituality and that none should be reduced to the other. What he means by this is that science relies on that which can be observed and measured; philosophy deals with the mind and human reason and logic; and the third is religious/spiritual, centered on the contemplative mode of awareness.

 

What I want to put up for discussion is the idea of the legitimacy of not crossing the boundaries between them. In a way, this formulation was anticipated by St. Thomas Aquinas who said "matters of faith are not subject to proof" meaning that science had no legitimate grounds as the judge for spiritual matters. According to Wilber, the measure of science is the consensus of the scientific community, and the measure of things spiritual is the consensus of the spiritual community.

 

From where do we actually get our consensus on spiritual matters? Is this separation of epistemologies valid? Thoughts?

 

My Thoughts:

 

Philosophy is the bridge between faith/religion and science. Philosophy was/is the attempt to reconcile the two, imho. Ancient philosophers discovered mathematics and formulated scientific hypothesis in an attempt to discover how the gods worked. What they found was that the gods perhaps weren't as in control as they once thought them to be.

 

In our modern times, philosophy is a mostly forgotten endeavor and a joke amongst most. It is considered useless, because the "big" questions are supposed to be answered by analytical and logical means re: science. Faith is a folly and the spiritual immeasurable and unworthy of consideration by great minds and educated populaces.

 

Imho, I don't think that the separation of philosophy, faith and science is valid. They are meant to co-exist and rub up against one another. Science is the use of logic to measure and observe, to explain what is beyond human understanding at any given time. Philosophy is the use of logic and intuition to interpret and perhaps predict the wilderness of the human condition. Faith is merely what has yet to be discovered or understood. Cpt. Picard brought up dark matter in his response and it is a fantastic example.

 

We don't know much about dark matter. Dark matter is mostly beyond our understanding and that is why science seeks to find out more about it and how it works. Right now, we merely observe it to the degree that we are able; beyond that, we make cursory hypothesis and attempts at measurement. Even though we have very little understanding of dark matter, the scientifically inclined accept that its existence. To go beyond that acceptance, one must have faith that there is indeed something beyond our current knowledge on dark matter.

 

Philosophy hasn't really touched on the implications of dark matter and what it means to mankind. I'd say that dark matter is perhaps analogous to the sin that the church has spewed rhetoric about for millennia. It exists, just as evil exists. All matter is opposite of dark matter, just as the original creations were supposedly sin-free and were later corrupted by sin.

 

I think that a lot of the derision and drah-ma between faith and science in modern times is due to a lack of philosophical bridges between faith and science and an over-dependency upon mathematics, statistics in particular by both sides. Without philosophy, the two sides just go back and forth, brutishly tearing into their opposition without much care or finesse. Ever notice how most arguments between scientists/historians and faith end? In an uneasy draw, most of the time. No minds are changed, no opinions reconsidered, no new discussions taking place. It's the same old bullshit apologia, mostly. The faithful only defend their particular beliefs and rarely engage in serious study of sciences, maths, and secular history. Academia argue from their sources, but rarely do they consider that perhaps the story goes beyond the stats and studies.

 

Perhaps future generations will figure out how to rebuild the philosophical bridges. I'm not sure how that would work or if it will ever happen, honestly. Faith is losing ground because modernity has made a mockery of it. Intentionally ignorant denial of science such as creationism and anti-vaxx and medical refusal is really hurting their cause, so to say. There is no way (imho) that a sound case can be made in defense of such ignorance that doesn't make faith sound like a load of illogical horseshit when compared and contrasted with facts-based science.

 

I don't know where spiritual consensus comes from, honestly. I think it is probably more a product of social conditioning  and not some ZOMG! woahdudesque thing though, fwiw.

 

*I'm not a philosopher or a scholar. I'm just a lost soul, floating in a fishbowl....

[Orbit]

 

 

My Thoughts:

 

 

Imho, I don't think that the separation of philosophy, faith and science is valid. They are meant to co-exist and rub up against one another. Science is the use of logic to measure and observe, to explain what is beyond human understanding at any given time. Philosophy is the use of logic and intuition to interpret and perhaps predict the wilderness of the human condition. Faith is merely what has yet to be discovered or understood. Cpt. Picard brought up dark matter in his response and it is a fantastic example.

 

 

This is interesting. I think Wilber's intent is to protect the integrity of the contemplative mind, because atheists tend to reduce any mystic or meditative states to brainwaves. He uses the example of how we experience the different states to justify the separation. Science, he says, is apprehended by observation, measurement, and the eye of the senses. Philosophy, logic, and mathematics are not observed with the senses, but tested by human systems of logic. 2+2=4 isn't observed, it's an abstract concept. So he says on the level of abstract concepts, what counts as "proof" is internal consistency. When we get to the contemplative area of human experience, it is the intuition that is operating, and we can compare notes with others for verification of our experiences.

 

I think his biggest concern is that we see these are three different ways of "knowing" that aren't dependent on one another because the contemplative is so often dismissed by the everyday view that values science as a way of explaining human experience. Science wasn't designed to explain intuition, or beauty, for example.

 

I'd be interested to hear more about how you think the three could be related profitably without losing legitimacy for the contemplative.

[TrueFreedom]

I think that it's important to differentiate between religious faith and contemplative spiritual experiences, if there is a difference.

[Orbit]

I think that it's important to differentiate between religious faith and contemplative spiritual experiences, if there is a difference.

Yeah, there are a couple of ways to think about that. Wilber isn't talking about religious faith so much as he is talking about the contemplative experiences within those traditions--the experience itself, divorced from competing dogmas. It's definitely a utopian view. Elsewhere, he writes that people can be at different stages in how they relate to religion. I think what you're trying to separate out here is the influence of the dogmatic "mythic believer" e.g. those who take their religion literally. I think he's speaking to a more sophisticated audience.

 

But you are right, organized religion doesn't fit very well into this framework, because he is focused on mystic experience and meditative experience, which aren't part of mainstream or fundamentalist organized Christianity. There is a mystic tradition in Christianity which is historically very interesting, though. The Christian mystics tended to fly in the face of dogma and get in trouble with Church authorities over it.

 

But I digress. I think his main point is that spiritual *experience* has value. He's not really talking about organized religion, though it does present a sticky practical point with respect to his philosophy. I think he would say that mythic believers, dogmatic believers will always exist, but he's not really speaking to them in his work.

[seven77]

 

 

 

My Thoughts:

 

 

Imho, I don't think that the separation of philosophy, faith and science is valid. They are meant to co-exist and rub up against one another. Science is the use of logic to measure and observe, to explain what is beyond human understanding at any given time. Philosophy is the use of logic and intuition to interpret and perhaps predict the wilderness of the human condition. Faith is merely what has yet to be discovered or understood. Cpt. Picard brought up dark matter in his response and it is a fantastic example.

 

 

This is interesting. I think Wilber's intent is to protect the integrity of the contemplative mind, because atheists tend to reduce any mystic or meditative states to brainwaves. He uses the example of how we experience the different states to justify the separation. Science, he says, is apprehended by observation, measurement, and the eye of the senses. Philosophy, logic, and mathematics are not observed with the senses, but tested by human systems of logic. 2+2=4 isn't observed, it's an abstract concept. So he says on the level of abstract concepts, what counts as "proof" is internal consistency. When we get to the contemplative area of human experience, it is the intuition that is operating, and we can compare notes with others for verification of our experiences.

 

I think his biggest concern is that we see these are three different ways of "knowing" that aren't dependent on one another because the contemplative is so often dismissed by the everyday view that values science as a way of explaining human experience. Science wasn't designed to explain intuition, or beauty, for example.

 

I'd be interested to hear more about how you think the three could be related profitably without losing legitimacy for the contemplative.

 

 

Hmmm... Admittedly, I've not given much consideration to how others "know" things like maths. For me, 2+2=4 is a concept, but it certainly isn't abstract. It's part of a larger pattern of a vast system, which of itself is a series of patterns overlaying and rubbing against one another. I would argue that mathematics is observable, but not to everyone. I have read/heard stories about mathematicians and scientists seeing/feeling/hearing or otherwise observing numbers, equations and other such things in contemplative states, trances or dreams. Ramanujan is one I've heard quite a lot about and his case is certainly interesting, since he was not a westernized Christian. (link to wiki, scrolling required.)

 

Indeed, Ramanujan had a hard time finding academics that would take him seriously, since he lacked a degree and came across his ideas via unorthodox means. Those who made major discoveries with the benefit of degrees were generally taken more seriously. Albert Einstein [source] came up with ideas and solutions during daydreams, which could be considered contemplative states. Einstein referred to these contemplative states as "thought experiments".  Kekulé discoveries about benzene came to him during a daydream involving a snake. [source] Szilárd visualized the idea of nuclear chain reactions while crossing the street during a walk. [source]

 

Szilárd's story is one of my favorite nerdtastic tales. Here's an excerpt quoted from the wiki link above, emphasis mine:

 

 

When Szilárd told the story later he never mentioned his destination that morning. He may have had none; he often walked to think. In any case another destination intervened. The stoplight changed to green. Szilárd stepped off the curb. As he crossed the street time cracked open before him and he saw a way to the future, death into the world and all our woes, the shape of things to come.

 

The emphasized part certainly stands out as something beyond understanding, doesn't it? That seems very meta, very much like a vision that comes during a dream or whilst in a deep meditative state, imho. I like this description because it is very poetic. Nuclear physics isn't inherently beautiful, but this anecdote, Szilárd's vision, is very beautiful. Mystical, even.

 

It is worth nothing that Szilárd opposed the use of atomic bombs during WWII on ethical grounds. This speaks back to his vision, I believe. The bombs were meant to be a conceptual threat, not an observable weapon. Szilárd and some of his colleagues on the Manhattan Project went as far as to draft a petition calling for further tests prior to dropping the bombs on Japan, but were ignored. (If you are interested in reading more about that, HERE is the wiki link.)

 

-----------------

 

What does that have to do with contemplative states, the separation of philosophy, spirituality and science or anything else?

 

I think it has a lot to do with these topics. Too often, ideas are dismissed because they do not come from within the hallowed halls of academia, accompanied with numerous peer reviewed studies and the like. Granted, some ideas suck and not all ideas deserve further research. However, how many proverbial babies are being thrown out with the scientific bath water? And why isn't anyone talking about it outside of the psuedocrapsci fringe on talk radio and H2?

 

Imho, the discussions and debates aren't taking place because there is no engagement between what is (science) and what could be (spirituality). This engagement is called philosophy and without it, there isn't sufficient infrastructure to ensure an exchange of ideas between the two camps. In modern times, everything must be this or that, black or white, defined and easy or ill-defined and complex.

 

In our stratified western society, this is on purpose. The masses do not need to know or understand anything beyond 2-sided system. They live in a reactionary haze of frustrated emotions, of pipe dreams, of ghosts, angels, and gods. A few rise up and look around, seeing that the world has systems, things can be understood and that they don't have to live according to the dogma of the village bigman (pastors, teachers, parents, etc) anymore. The first group are the Spiritual (usually of the Christ-cultist variety that most of us have long since left behind). The second, the Scientific. We live by our minds and seek rationality at all costs.

 

If and when we ever develop an awareness of the missing Philosophical middleman, things will perhaps change. Perhaps we can unite. Some new form of mentalism, of shared consciousness, of contemplative states, will arise and some distant descendant will label those forms of mentalism as "religion" or "faith" and there will be an ex-whatever community there too.

[Orbit]

Seven77, I think you make a very good case for the value of contemplative states in creativity, both in science and the humanities. In that way, I agree that the levels can inform each other. I think what Wilber is trying to do is to keep the contemplative from being denigrated. You make one very good case for why it shouldn't be.

[Ellinas]

Seven's thought on the inseparability of science, philosophy and spirituality appeals to me.

 

Strikes me that a major issue with an attempt to separate them is that we just don't think that way.  I am not three separate consciousnesses, compartmentalized into the rational and irrational aspects of my mind.  On the other hand, I can distinguish the rational from the irrational in my thinking - I have to rely on logic professionally; equally, I have to be open to my intuitive/non rational side to be able to allow my imagination free reign in meditation.  I cannot analyze meditative experience outside of logic, but neither can logic constrain that experience if it is to be of any use to me.  I cannot ignore science in navigating this life and its' needs, but neither does science seem capable of explaining to me my own consciousness.  These are all aspects of me - of all of us.  The scientist who thinks he can never be anything but an empiricist is, in my view, deceiving himself.  The spiritual person who thinks that meditating over a stick of broccoli will cure the most serious illness is also practicing self deception.  But, in reality, much if not all of what we think and do is a combination of empirical thought, personal reaction dressed up in logical terms and downright emotive reaction.  The trick is to recognize this and hold them in balance, not to try artificially to separate them

[Leo]

Great topic. Here are my thoughts, as rambling as they usually are. I think the reason some of us from a scientific and engineering frame of mind tend to separate, Has everything to do with the way certain Christian and other groups have tried to invade the sciences. We can't have that, that's going to destroy progress in its own way. I think part of our reaction to that is a little bit of fear of polluting spirituality from us. What if what we do tries to pollute what they're doing?

You're right, that science cannot describe beauty, or intuition. It can however describe where beauty comes from and how it is perceived, and it can describe the parts of us that make us intuitive. I believe I can give a fair analogy to this: I am a blind man, I have never seen color in my life. I am a human being, so I know that color is very emotional, artistic, creative, beautiful, and interwoven into the human experience for most people. I can even map out certain color patterns on a pallet, as a software developer. I'm doing this by remote control, if you will, because I lack the direct experience with it. But that doesn't mean that I don't understand it. It means that I don't understand what it's like to experience it. I don't think any scientist worth his or her salt really thinks that being rational is the only way to be, or that being intuitive doesn't count. After all, there are many places where the intuitive, or the gut, is a much more expedient way to do things. we're not even free from bias. we experienced love, love for individuals. That is clearly biased. it should be biased. I think it would be wrong for science to be required to validate every spiritual or intuitive experience. However, science can help describe where these experiences come from, what parts of the brain are involved. Science describes things like dopamine and oxytocin, Indirect reciprocity, delay gratification, and all other facets of love, for instance. But science is not love, and only you can experience giving and receiving love. You cannot scientifically validate that experience. Science is merely an explanatory tool, by which we can figure out how things work. You may understand the engineering that goes into a roller coaster, for instance, But that understanding is not the same at all as having the experience, the rush, the fear, of writing one.

I don't know if this is what you were talking about or not, this is as far as I have come thus far. Fortunately for all of us, knowledge and experience are not fixed. They seem to be endless.

[Merlin]

I don't think any scientist worth his or her salt really thinks that being rational is the only way to be, or that being intuitive doesn't count. After all, there are many places where the intuitive, or the gut, is a much more expedient way to do things. we're not even free from bias. we experienced love, love for individuals. That is clearly biased. it should be biased. I think it would be wrong for science to be required to validate every spiritual or intuitive experience. However, science can help describe where these experiences come from, what parts of the brain are involved. Science describes things like dopamine and oxytocin, Indirect reciprocity, delay gratification, and all other facets of love, for instance. But science is not love, and only you can experience giving and receiving love. You cannot scientifically validate that experience. Science is merely an explanatory tool, by which we can figure out how things work. You may understand the engineering that goes into a roller coaster, for instance, But that understanding is not the same at all as having the experience, the rush, the fear, of writing one.

 

Hey Leo,

 

I don't have anything to add to what you have said here, but I wanted to let you know that I think you have made an extremely valid point.  If proponents of purely scientific thinking and proponents of philosophical/spiritual thinking can treat each other with respect, a lot of progress in both areas of thought can be made.

[mikey101]

 

 

Wilber uses the analogy of examining a painting. From a scientistic point of view, it is a collection of pigments with specific chemical structures. But that's not how we experience the painting, how we feel pleasure from it, or see beauty. Those things belong to the contemplative mind. The main point seems to be a corrective to the idea that only science has value.

 

It seems to be mostly the science enthusiasts that have this one-sided view. Science isn't a religion or even philosophy really, so I don't know where that comes from.  Belief systems often arise from a  reaction to something else.  People get upset at religion and so tip the scale the other way,  or get upset at science and start Christian fundamentalism.  

 

I follow religion which personally I think is very helpful.. I love it.  To me it's amazing what the irrational mind is capable of.  Some people hate the word religion, but I say just call it what it is, no need for me to pussyfoot around it just because of the dicks out there. We don't really need yet another religion that says it's not a religion, thinking its' superior to everything else lol.

 

It's good to have some irrationality in my life.  Everything is so square (like houses) in our world, it needs some wildness.

[Deva]

 

 

 

Wilber uses the analogy of examining a painting. From a scientistic point of view, it is a collection of pigments with specific chemical structures. But that's not how we experience the painting, how we feel pleasure from it, or see beauty. Those things belong to the contemplative mind. The main point seems to be a corrective to the idea that only science has value.

 

It seems to be mostly the science enthusiasts that have this one-sided view. Science isn't a religion or even philosophy really, so I don't know where that comes from.  Belief systems often arise from a  reaction to something else.  People get upset at religion and so tip the scale the other way,  or get upset at science and start Christian fundamentalism.  

 

I follow religion which personally I think is very helpful.. I love it.  To me it's amazing what the irrational mind is capable of.  Some people hate the word religion, but I say just call it what it is, no need for me to pussyfoot around it just because of the dicks out there. We don't really need yet another religion that says it's not a religion, thinking its' superior to everything else lol.

 

It's good to have some irrationality in my life.  Everything is so square (like houses) in our world, it needs some wildness.

 

 

 

Great post mikey101.

[Leo]

I think irrationality and bias are inevitable. I don't have a religion, unless you call love, honor and fidelity a religion. But clearly, we have a huge part of our brains dedicated to nonrational thought. I wouldn't say irrational, even though I take your meaning. I think nonrational is probably a better term. The myth that we only use 10% of our brains? Merely myth. Most of what we do with our brains has everything to do with relationships, like it or not. I know introverts who swear up and down this isn't true, only they expend all that energy avoiding relationships. Nonrational isn't always irrational, though. Nonrational is merely nonrational. You understand visual beauty, even asymmetrical beauty, in a way that I cannot. I can empathize with your need for beauty, and think that we often call things visually "frivolous" which are probably mainstay necessities for a sighted homo sapien's healthy habitat. But I cannot nonrationally understand what it's like to SEE a painting, or the night sky, or the full moon hanging there like a giant glowing orb. I find myself returning to the ideas of Francis Collins, not his particular faith brand, but the ideas behind the differentiation between what science produces, and what other forms of interpretation and experience produce. We are marvelous difference engines, and I think to tap into this, we have to avoid the binary black-and-white thinking of the evangelical Christians and the antitheists alike. But I differ with Collins not just in faith: I think the nonrational can in part be explained by the rational. It cannot be *experienced* by the rational, merely explained. Those are two different things. I read about being a father, but when I assisted the Wife in childbirth, and then took the daughter in my arms, I experienced things I cannot rationally fully understand. Medical people and psychologists may have some explanations for where some of the experiences came from and how the feelings arrived. But the experience came from my nonrational part. That part of me which is uniquely biased for my Wife and my daughter. That bias is not negotiable. I understand it's bias, but it's as real to me as is the rational understanding I have of computation, or my elementary understanding of some of the sciences. But nonrational doesn't even require faith in anything. It is experienced when I can observe birds contentedly foraging, or family members contentedly opening presents or enjoying something I have brought home for them. I experience powerful primeval urges to go "hunt and gather," get things and bring them home for the family. That is not some predefined set of gender norms and roles and things the modern psychology types talk about, it's just there. We all have some of this, I think. My understanding of the nobler qualities like love, honor and fidelity, or virtue, or courage, can be said to be rational. But my strong attraction to these things in other people, can be said to be wholly nonrational. One can rationally understand empathy and indirect reciprocity, but from a nonrational point, we feel and are compelled by these things. For me, the concept of a judicial iron-age god with a volcano to throw most of the earth's population into, really cheapens this whole affair. I know there are other religions and permutations of religions. But if they ever find a "belief gene", more likely a phenotype, as hypothesized now, I doubt I express it. My leanings in that direction for a time can be rationally explained by the culture, time, and upbringing I found myself in.

Some people seem to, though. I've known others wwho went to totally new belief systems like Buddhism or Hinduism. Statistical aberrations, for sure, but humans are pretty diverse. Where rationality comes into this, in explaining the nonrational, is when people take the time to explain their experiences. Because like it or not, your experiences will possibly resonate with people who are very different from you, perhaps people who experience things in a totally different way than you do. I think of Orbit's frequent writing on meditation on this site. Ironic as this sounds, it has given me a far better understanding of the experience of my Wife's faith. I mean, She does not swing the apologetics club, does not want to talk about Christian politics, or any of the standard stuff we nonChristians get from the Christians. She defers to experience. Now I know that many antitheists' hairs will stand on end, some antitheists for whom I have a lot of respect. However, what if the "belief gene" or "experiences gene" hypothesis is true? What if, instead of us taking solace in it to substantiate why we cannot make believe certain things, we are elevated to better understand why it is other people do believe things? Or experience things? Most people, after all, are not going to commit the types of attrocities committed by Isis, Yahweh of the Old Testament, Osamu Bin Laden, the god of Revelation, or any other desert fire gods. In fact, history will bear this out: Few in number were the inquisitors, many in number were the Muslims killed by Muslim extremists, and most who were called witches and heretics of yesterday would be called Christian today. Dawkins and Hitchens would hate me saying this. But Dawkins and Hitchens are woefully wrong on some pretty important areas, cultural anthropology being one. What if the fundamentalist Isis followers, Christian reconstructionists and Zionists are all similar to those of us without the "belief gene?" What if they are mere exploiters of others' experiences? We don't know this yet, of course. The "belief gene" hypothesis is still barely a hypothesis. But you know, I posited a similar question ten years ago in a Christian group RE: homosexuals and homosexuality. If I was deemed unorthodox then and didn't care, what would make an antitheist imagine that I would care now if deemed an unorthodox atheist?

So, I'll agree with Dawkins that the realm of religious experience should not be held in some high regard, but how about we not hold it in some low regard either? Especially those of us who, when we think of religious things we think of obligations without tangible meaning, or of the fundamentalist followers of one sect or another. I was born without eyesight. But I do not ridicule the experiences of sighted people. I do challenge when a relative few of them argue that my experiences with things are less valid, or that I am by definition of lesser value or less capable. Of course I challenge that: what semi-evolved creature would not? So, in the same way, if I happen to have no 'belief gene," if that gene or phenotype turns out to exist, then why would I unconditionally challenge others who have strong beliefs in things and experiences, which are valid for them and harmless to other people? It's not like we who don't believe cannot understand believers. Part of being human is this unique and wonderful ability of ours to indirectly empathize with the experiences and feelings of other people, whose experiences and feelings are unattainable by us. We can do this. I know it's politically incorrect to say so, but a father can indirectly empathize with his Partner's feelings while She is pregnant and going through childbirth. In part by observation, and in part by Her communicating, and in part by some other things that are frankly above my current pay grade to understand. It's a wonderful aspect to being us, which has allowed us to understand the plight of the slave, the sex-trafficked young girl, the underprivileged in many ways, without having to individually experience every single type of experience first. In fact, we are greater than the gods we have created, because apparently the gods we create have a short circuit in this area, and can only be appeased by such barbarous things as a blood sacrifice, or illusory things as self-deprecation and self as an illusion. I now am convinced that we who don't believe or experience things in that particular intimate way, need to exercise and cultivate this indirect empathy that we already possess. Again, probably Hitch-slapped from the grave for that, but if I could take it from the Fundamentalist Christians for being double-minded, I think I can take it from the antitheists for being soft.

I asked permission to post on this forum, and lurked on this forum beforehand, in large part to deliberately cultivate such empathy. So I hope you who do hold to beliefs, experiences, and other similar things usually held up as religion, will humor us who don't, and will help us cultivate this indirect empathy by sharing your experiences, correcting conclusions where we are wrong about you, and using your rational mind to explain as best you can some of the nonrational experiences you have. One supreme advantage to a forum like this is that it is relatively dogma-free, unlike a Christian or an antitheist forum would be. I hope I didn't close any doors by using the birth analogy, as politically incorrect, unorthodox, and unpopular as that analogy usually is. It was well meant, as part of an appeal to what I consider to be one of our greatest emergent human properties, indirect empathy, a property few if any of the gods or devils we have created seem to possess.

[Orbit]

Nonrational isn't always irrational, though. Nonrational is merely nonrational. You understand visual beauty, even asymmetrical beauty, in a way that I cannot. I can empathize with your need for beauty, and think that we often call things visually "frivolous" which are probably mainstay necessities for a sighted homo sapien's healthy habitat.

The is very much the point that Wilber makes in the essay, that non-rational is not the same as irrational. Non-rational makes sense in the emotional, intuitive way of knowing.  I understand visual beauty, but perhaps you get a similar aesthetic experience from music.

 

when I assisted the Wife in childbirth, and then took the daughter in my arms, I experienced things I cannot rationally fully understand. Medical people and psychologists may have some explanations for where some of the experiences came from and how the feelings arrived. But the experience came from my nonrational part.

This is an important point. As I said to someone else, when I am in love, my thoughts produce oxytocin, not the other way around. And then I actively interpret that experience. Our experiences are not reducible entirely to brain chemistry. The causal arrows also go the other way, as our thoughts can produce brain chemistry. Our humanity, our emotions, our phenomenological experiences will never be reducible to brain chemistry.

 

 

 

possibly resonate with people who are very different from you, perhaps people who experience things in a totally different way than you do. I think of Orbit's frequent writing on meditation on this site.

Although I have written about meditation in a general way, I have written surprisingly little about my experiences in meditation, for two reasons. One is that they are intensely personal, and the other is that I genuinely figured that no one was interested in the details.

 

So, I'll agree with Dawkins that the realm of religious experience should not be held in some high regard, but how about we not hold it in some low regard either?

This is an admirable stance. I would reiterate that religion does not own spiritual experience. Nor do I think that spiritual experience is "religious". We have been brainwashed into associating the two. There is nothing necessarily religious about the very human experiences that we call spiritual. I have said more about what I mean by "spiritual" in the Crisis of Non-Faith thread so I won't repeat it here. It has nothing to do with "New Age", crystals, pyramids or anything like that. I am referring to primal intuitive, emotional, and contemplative experience. I agree that these very human experiences should not be held in low regard.

 

I think you can use all kinds of language from both Eastern and Western philosophy/theology to talk about the spiritual without mistaking that for belief in Biblegod. Here is one of my favorite examples:

 

"On the spiritual level, through meditation and developing constant awareness, you experience yourself and all that is beyond the illusion of separation and see that we are Godhead, we are the Ground of Being, the Source, of everything that is. We are Emptiness, and form. We are God incarnate." ----Antlerman

 

[Orbit]

I follow religion which personally I think is very helpful.. I love it.  To me it's amazing what the irrational mind is capable of.

I think calling the spiritual irrational is doing a disservice. The spiritual isn't irrational, it's non-rational. There is a difference. Which is to say that just because it doesn't obey the logic of science does not mean that it has no logic of its own. It follows an intuitive logic. To call something irrational is to say that it doesn't make sense. Spiritual experiences make their own kind of sense.

 

We don't really need yet another religion that says it's not a religion, thinking its' superior to everything else lol.

I don't see where anyone in this thread has claimed that spirituality is "superior" to anything. As far as the term "religion" goes, it does have a meaning, and refers to organizations and practices that are institutionalized. By definition, a religion is a set of values, beliefs, and practices overseen by an organization. So no, spirituality is not necessarily religious, though it can be. The two are not mutually exclusive but nor do they define each other. Meditation, for example, can be part of a religion. But is meditation itself "religion"? Obviously not.

[mikey101]

 

I don't see where anyone in this thread has claimed that spirituality is "superior" to anything. As far as the term "religion" goes, it does have a meaning, and refers to organizations and practices that are institutionalized. By definition, a religion is a set of values, beliefs, and practices overseen by an organization. So no, spirituality is not necessarily religious, though it can be. The two are not mutually exclusive but nor do they define each other. Meditation, for example, can be part of a religion. But is meditation itself "religion"? Obviously not.

 

People that are 'spiritual' are just the same as the religious imo.  The  spiritual think they're better than the religious.  It shows they are just as dogmatic as their enemy.  

 

I'm not that interested in more division.. 'us' and 'them'.  As a person who escaped intolerance in Christian fundamentalism, it's pretty obvious what's going on with the whole New Age good guy spirituality being so much better than bad guy institutional religion.  Same old bullshit. 'It's a relationship not religion' . "We're spiritual, not religious"  Where's tolerance, unity and love?  Out the fucking door lol.

 

I agree with you that spirituality has it's own rationality.  And sometime to the rational mind it may seem irrational. That's all meant by it.

[Orbit]

 

I don't see where anyone in this thread has claimed that spirituality is "superior" to anything. As far as the term "religion" goes, it does have a meaning, and refers to organizations and practices that are institutionalized. By definition, a religion is a set of values, beliefs, and practices overseen by an organization. So no, spirituality is not necessarily religious, though it can be. The two are not mutually exclusive but nor do they define each other. Meditation, for example, can be part of a religion. But is meditation itself "religion"? Obviously not.

People that are 'spiritual' are just the same as the religious imo.  The  spiritual think they're better than the religious.  It shows they are just as dogmatic as their enemy.  Same old vicious cycle.

 

I'm not that interested in more division.. 'us' and 'them'. To me that's not very spiritual.  

 

I agree with you that spirituality has it's own rationality.  And sometime to the rational mind it may seem irrational. That's all meant by it.

 

I practice spirituality and I am not religious, nor do I think I am better than anyone. Where do you get these ideas? They sound like prejudices.