Reason and science-based 'spirituality.'

1-9-12

Thru science, which is a system of (dis)provable knowledge, we can put into practice our love and compassion. A person can have a compelling sense of concern for others, yet not possess the know-how to apply it.

Our habit of thinking of science as amoral may result from our over-reliance on religious and other mystical modes of getting our deepest sense of purpose, as individuals and as civilizations.

Though the work habits of scientists likely involve both their rational and intuitive faculties, they use reason, not intuition, to verify their hunches in ways that make sense not just to themselves or to member of their own culture, but to other scientists, and, in many respects, to people in general all over the world.

That process of creating systematic knowledge depends on rational thought. It’s science, verified thru reason, that unites humanity with a common understanding of truth, not religion or mysticism which is ultimately derived from our intuitive faculties, and often entangled in our cultural differences.

Sure, many of the things that human beings intuitively sensed via ancient religions and mysticism have been or can be verified by rational thought. But human beings use reason, not intuition, for our final reckoning of truth versus falsehood, as we build our understanding of ourselves and the world around us, and make that knowledge workable for all of humanity.

Yes, all fully functioning humans use both rational and intuitive faculties. But it’s our rational faculties that we use to verify knowledge, so as to work across cultures and across generations for collaboration that involves of all humanity, not just cultural subsets.

Thru science, as described above, human beings can further recognize how our empathy and compassion toward others benefits our own well-being and our prospects for survival, individually, and as a species.

Thru science, humans can further develop our knowledge of ourselves, other species, the planet and the universe. With that scientific knowledge, combined with the scientific knowledge of how compassion and empathy for others benefits us, we thereby have a type of morality superior to that which most of us have via religion.

As a self-reflective species, many humans throughout the ages have studied the question of what we are. That process seems to involve two extremes: the view that humans are basically good, on the one hand; and, on the other hand, the view that we’re basically bad.

You find Rousseau and a variety of (mostly secular ?) humanist thinkers in the former camp, and people such as John Calvin and other (mostly religious?) thinkers
in the latter camp. I suggest we think of humans as neither basically good nor basically bad, but instead as creatures with a set of primary needs.

But I do suggest that we can scientifically verify that empathy and compassion is conducive to our best interests as individuals and as a species. And I suggest that thru science, we have the know-how with which to do our imperfect best to put into practice our compassion for each other.

( tdziemia, CU) “If the species does commit suicide (specicide?), it will be for a rather interesting reason: lack of long term thinking, which is generally taken to be a unique capability of humans. Go figure.” Columbus Underground

Anthropocide might be a term fitting what you’re talking about. I see the irony you’re hinting at, and you may be correct. And I appreciate your investment of time and energy into making sense of our human situation on this planet. But to what degree is your critique of humanity based on compassion or ‘spiritual love’ ?

1-8-12, 11:30p

One thing that comes to mind as an an example of the danger of basing our moral decisions on a belief in an afterlife is this. Some of those who burned people at the stake didn’t do so for veiled political reasons, but, instead, seemed to have thought they were doing the heretic a favor. They may even have thought the unspeakable torture they were causing to another human being to have been an act of love : better to suffer the agony of burning at the stake than to burn for eternity in hell.

Of course, people have committed atrocities in the name of science and in the name of secular notions of ‘progress.’ But that is less likely to happen with the combination of two things: a detailed understanding of how to put love into practice, and a sense of what is good and bad that is based on the world we know exists, not the hereafter which may not exist.

So, I ask. Why not put spirituality—- that is, our process for getting to our deepest sense of meaning—- under the rational scrutiny of science? We’ve applied that scrutiny to so many other parts of the human condition.

When it comes to regarding ourselves as ‘educated’ and ‘modern,’ we tend to give reason and science more credence than mythology and superstition, when it comes to things such as sexuality, child-rearing, nutrition, evolutionary biology, geologic history–you name it. Why should our ways of getting our highest sense of purpose be anything other than scientific?

1-8-12, 4p

As for “reason and science-based spirituality,” two pursuits come to mind.

(1) Using the science of ecology and other fields of knowledge to meet human needs in ways that promote better relations

(a) among humans;
(b) among non-humans; and
(c) between humans and non-humans.

(2) Using the physical and social sciences and other fields of (dis)provable knowledge to determine how to promote human compassion and empathy and reduce indifference and hate.

I say “reduce” because I think it’s a mistake to entertain utopian ideas about the evolution of human consciousness. I get utopian responses when I talk with some folk about ‘love,’ along with, at the other extreme, cynical and fatalistic views on human prospects.

Pursuits (1) and (2) are compatible with the emphasis on compassion found in most, if not all, religions. But the emphasis on ‘proof’ and the open-minded pursuit of truth is a matter of science, whereas the emphasis on belief, irrespective of ‘proof,’ is a key part of religion.

Science’s allowance for revision makes it more workable for fallible human beings than religion which involves claims of immutability (even though religious institutions are constantly changing according to the historical circumstances–ie the Protestant Reformation and other changes since.)

The common theme of compassion can unite theists and atheists alike. Religions can unite people of the same or similar faith, but it divides people in so far as religious doctrine is the focus.

But if the doctrine of your faith is not what ultimately matters, then why continue to call urself a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu or so on ? In other words, (Chris Sunami) how is being a Christian pertinent to realizing your potential for empathy and compassion?

If we focus on the common human concern for compassion and empathy, we sooner or later get to the point of questioning our particular religion and perhaps even questioning why compassion and empathy require us to have faith in any deity of any religion.

I humbly suggest what unites human beings is not faith in a deity, but instead it’s our common need for and common recognition of compassion and empathy, as a matter of our collective well-being and survival.

And when it comes to devising systems of knowledge thru which to more effectively develop our compassion and empathy, ‘science’ is superior to religion in that it upholds the ideal of knowledge being open to revision, subject to experimentation, and measured against apparent ‘results.’ Religion, on the other hand, involves doctrines containing assertions of immutability, along with unprovable, extraordinary claims.

I respectfully suggest the basis of morality is not belief in, and obedience to a deity that may or may not exist. It is, instead, empathy and compassion, of which our honest and open-minded pursuit of truth is a part. In order for that pursuit to be systematic and verifiable to any and all human beings with functioning rational faculties, spirituality ought to be based in science

If someone hasn’t already, I suggest terms such as ‘moral science’, ‘science of morality,’ ‘science of spirituality’ or maybe ‘science of love,’ or ‘science of empathy and compassion.’

1-7-13

Sure, humans have and likely continue to believe in falsehoods via science. But unlike religious doctrine, science does not involve claims of infallibility. Nor does it involve, to my knowledge, claims of immutability.

However, I’m not sure about something. On the one hand, it seems being motivated by a reward in an afterlife is a perversion of morality, which should, instead, be based on an intrinsic regard for the well-being of others.

Yet, on the other hand, I realize, to use my study of my own life as an example, that this sort of intrinsic regard for others I’ve been posting about comprises only part of what motivates me.

In my day to day life, my concern about how my conduct might affect others’ conduct toward me is a big part of what shapes my moral decision-making. Not only that, but there are at least some cases in which fear of physical or mental pain shapes how I treat others. Further still, my pursuit of peace of mind and other mental rewards motivate my ongoing focus on what I call ‘spiritual love,’ if not altruism. In some paradoxical and uncanny way, altruism is, essentially, a form of self-interest.

So, I’m not so sure I can say that a religious person’s concern about going to hell or heaven necessarily perverts her or his morality. I’m not ready to rule out that, for some people, the fear of hell and hope for heaven might somehow work out such that they care as much about the well-being of others as someone, such as me, who’s not concerned about an afterlife.

One way of looking at this is to say that the difference between an atheist and a theist is how we conceptualize reality. A key difference involves the question of duality, that is, whether mind exists apart from what we know of as the material world.

As I continue to think about this, it seems a matter of competing views as to the nature of the universe, not necessarily a matter of an atheist being more attuned to empathy and morality than a theist, or vice versa, such as is the conventional wisdom.

However, I continue, at least for my own purposes, to prefer a type of ‘spirituality’ that involves using causal reasoning and experimentation to figure out the practical details of how to promote well-being and reduce suffering, (without selling sort the roles of intuition, feeling, and wonder).

But even if we agree to disagree on the question of duality, there is still the question of how the extraordinary, unproved claims of religious doctrines add to or detract from humankind’s ability to make our imperfect world better.

My experience with this thread and related questions calls to mind the collaborative and work-in-progress nature of using social media for public discourse and building community. I intend to revisit this thread as my views evolve.

1-2-13

In terms of the risk of humankind destroying life on Earth, including ourselves, science itself is not the problem. It’s how we use science. Using it more wisely requires a new type of spirituality whereby be use science itself to achieve a better understanding of human purpose.

With that new sense of meaning, we may use technology and other aspects of our knowledge in harmony with the Earth, instead of exploiting and killing off much of the life on this planet.

With that new sense of collective human purpose, we are grounded in the present with minds free of the clouds of mythology, Yet we use our imaginations to take care for the near and the distant future, instead of concerning ourselves with a metaphysical heaven and hell; enhancing our relationships with each human and non-human other, instead of trying to have relationships with gods and spirits.