On reading an early draft "Trusting Doubt," which looks at my old evangelical beliefs from my current vantage as a nontheist, one reviewer commented, "This is a very spiritual book."
What?! I thought. A part of me protested: I don't believe in the Christian God any more, or for that matter any kind of humanoid god or for that matter any kind of supernaturalism. I'm not allowed to call myself spiritual. But another part of me kind of liked the label, even though I was startled by it. I tried it on for size. What would it mean for me, a freethinker, to think of myself as spiritual? What is spirituality if you scrub away the woo and soak any potential regrowth in a strong solution of reason and evidence?
Some nontheists argue that the idea of spirituality is too bound up with religion to be of any use to those of us who have left religion behind. Front and center are philosophical problems brought up by the term "spirit." Religions typically espouse one or another type of dualism -- a faith-based idea that some form of consciousness, also known as spirit, exists independent of our bodies and brains, rather than being emergent from them. Many forms of belief, like American Pentecostalism, go on to elaborate a whole realm of spiritual beings engaged in quasi-human affairs, including battles of good guys against bad guys, minus the substance of this physical world. Cognitive scientists now suspect our tendency toward dualism to be an artifact of the way our minds process information -- with separate hardwired subroutines for processing information about sentient persons and about physical objects including bodies.
Then, besides the philosophical problem, there's the social problem: As soon as you start talking about spirituality, even outside the bounds of traditional belief systems, people assume you are open to new forms of unsubstantiated and un-falsifiable ideas. You risk being proselytized, or scorned by skeptics, or ending up at a dinner party with Tim Minchen and Storm and being seated on the Storm side of the table.
Spirituality has a lot of baggage, bad history, bad company -- pick your metaphor.
And yet, despite everything, it is also our most understandable, most resonant way of referring to a dimension of life that is way too important to cede to white haired men in white collars and hippies with fairies on their derrieres. I'm talking about this: the profound sense that we are a part of something bigger than ourselves; the delight of reveling in the grand mysteries that lie beyond the bounds of our knowledge; the sense that some things are deeply, unspeakably sacred and others are deeply, unspeakably wrong; the yearning to have our lives matter, or as Steve Jobs put it, "to leave a dent in the universe."
Most nontheists are former believers. We've heard words like spirit and even love and joy and forgiveness and goodness bandied about until they become common, or twisted into Orwellian forms (loving kids means spanking them; forgiveness demands blood sacrifice; eternal punishment for temporal sins is good) to the point that many of us are wary of any thing that sounds remotely like whatever kind of church-talk we used to trust too much. So, one challenge in reclaiming these words and the underlying concepts is figuring out how to claim them in a way that allows us to access their power without the old associations. I have found that at least one part of the solution is simply pushing yourself over the hump. The more you use words like these in your own way, in your own context, the more they take useful shapes. The old associations become background as new ones get formed.
Why bother? To truly move beyond religion we need to engage in a process that will let us refine new answers to some of life's big questions. But absent the traditional vocabulary of spirituality, we are left without words with which to express deep existential questions and answers to each other or even to ourselves. That can leave us personally impoverished. It can also leave us isolated, because honest religious modernists who cherish what I am calling the spiritual dimension of life look for bridges into our community and fail to find them. Lastly, without a spiritual vocabulary we end up sounding hyper rational (and hyper boring) in conversations ranging from kitchen table banter to public policy debates. We face theists who speak from the heart, tapping some of the most powerful emotions known to humankind, while we limit ourselves to the kind of words and clauses that work in college essays.
Religion and morality are bound together, and parallel to the challenge of articulating a genuinely secular spirituality is the challenge of articulating secular morality. Embracing spirituality requires that secularists cast off the cloak of post-modern relativism (anything goes; it's all good) and re-engage in humanity's multi-millennial argument about what is right and wrong, about what ultimately is worth fighting for and worth dying for. If some things are good, some things are bad. If some things are precious, some are evil. I couldn't write this paragraph without using words (evil, moral, right and wrong) that are considered by many folks to be the exclusive property of religion.
But should they be?
We now know that the moral dimension of human life derives not from religion but from our need, as social animals, to cooperate and live in community with each other. We are social information specialists; that is our ecological niche, and a solitary human is a pretty sorry creature. That is why altruistic instincts and emotions like empathy, shame and guilt emerge early in child development in every culture around the world. Religion may provide justification for our moral impulses, but the building blocks are innate.
On top of that, there has been a clear trend across millennia toward increased cooperation among humans, a move away from vengeance toward mutual respect and dignity, with a corresponding evolution away from authoritarian structures toward pluralism and open inquiry. As humanity's moral consciousness evolves toward more sophisticated cooperation and decreased violence, iron-age religious texts and traditions pull people in the opposite direction, anchoring believers to a time when murder rates were 50 times what they are now, when women and children were chattel, literally and righteous slaves were admonished to serve their masters with due humility. Old-time religion is becoming the opposite of moral. It's anti-moral. I'll say it: Immoral.
And yet, think about it. When was the last time you used the word evil during an impassioned outburst of moral indignation? The Church has no problem calling you evil: your rejection of belief is evil; your sexual intimacies (if they are outside of marriage or queer or done for pleasure) are evil; your decisions to regulate your childbearing using modern methods are evil. But how many times have you used the word evil to describe the untold suffering the Church imposes on impoverished families denied contraception; or the lies told to protect belief; or the propaganda that turns resource wars into holy wars; or the specter of kind-faced volunteers threatening kindergarteners with hell?
For those of us who are avowedly secular to claim the power of moral and spiritual language requires that we define our terms and then dive into a vigorous debate, first with each other and then with the world around us. Religionists have been doing so for centuries. If you believe in the power of natural selection, then you have to believe that the arguments of religionists have been refined by one of the most powerful polishing processes known to humankind.
When it comes to joining the moral fray, Sam Harris launched an impressive opening salvo in the first few chapters of "The Moral Landscape," in which he asserts that we can talk about prescriptive morality -- should and should nots -- without any need for divine revelation. Harris makes a very simple argument: We know that there are sentient creatures who have varying degrees of wellbeing, and we can make decisions that increase that well-being -- or, on the contrary, increase suffering. This alone provides the starting point for a science of morality grounded in evidence and reason. Tim Killian at moreperfect.org takes this a step further. He says that Harris's arguments become even clearer and stronger when we move out of the abstract realm of ethical philosophy and into the realm of public policy.
All of which is to say, the time may be ready -- not just for us to try on the ancient moral words, but to start wielding them.
Ultimately, though, it is what I would call the spiritual dimension that makes the moral argument worth having. We have to decide what matters, what really matters, before we can measure our individual and collective behavior against that standard. We have to know what the land of milk and honey looks like before we can figure out if we are getting there. I used the word "know" but really I should have said, "decide" because in the end, defining the spiritual realm is really about reaching a set of collective agreements. The old way of doing it was to take a set of emergent hypotheses, a set of stories and precepts and intuitions that could be distilled out of the swirl of culture and mythos, and then put the name of God on them. "God said, God wants us to, God is speaking, God told Sarah Palin..."
But the reality always has been more like the Ouija board we played with at childhood slumber parties. It was just us, and we kind of knew it, but it gave us chills all the same. And some of us believed. As a species, we never have been channeling anyone but ourselves. But for God's sake, there is a lot of power in that! We live in the age of nukes and smart phones, and the "spirits" channeled by Middle-Eastern prophets (and the Middle-Eastern prophets channeled by modern self-anointed holy men) are still influencing who we kill and how many babies we have. Channeling our collective selves, whether through prophets or congregations or wikis is a part of how we leave a dent in the universe. Now that we know that doesn't mean we have to stop.
I say let's claim spiritual and moral language -- not in the way that some believers use old words to create ambiguity -- let's all use the word "God" and then pretend we're talking about the same thing -- but to say exactly what we mean. Nontheists are as yet a small minority of humankind. Most of us have thought deeply about what it means to be human -- to live well and die well. Many of us have devoted our lives to leaving this world more compassionate, or pursuing humanity's age old quest for truth, or protecting the sacred web that gave us birth. Our experience of love and wonder sustains us. Why should we go through life wearing muzzles that we ourselves have tied on?
Follow Valerie Tarico on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ValerieTarico
José Fernando López: Romney, Dawkins, and the 6th Article of the Constitution
Albert Einstein: Thoughts of a Freethinker
Spiritual Care on the NHS: Chaplains or Charlatans - The Freethinker
LONG LIVE THE FREE SPIRITS & FREETHINKERS! - Holistic Spirituality ...
Good article.
As a simple example, if I desire to lose weight, then I suspect that not eating foods high in fat content might become something of a moral imperative for me and others trying to attain the same goal...but if I am training to become a sumo wrestler and am trying to gain as much weight as possible, then that morally right precept, becomes immoral.
So when Christians, or others, speak of having an absolute moral guide...it doesn't really make much sense, because it truly depends on what type of society you are ultimately trying to attain. In addition, as Sam Harris points out, there typically is more than one "right" way to achieve a goal...so even with a common goal in mind, there are more than likely multiple valid ways to get there.
As you point out, the concept of absolute morality doesn't make much sense unless every person has a clear idea of what the absolute good (goal?) of that society is. It is clear that religionists attempt to create an absolute deity that pontificates from on high (burning bushes, golden or stone tablets, whatever) and these pontifications contain the absolute truths of the deity of what is good and what is bad. All one has to do, is to look to the long history of human behavior and you will find all kinds of heinous behavior tolerated and condoned by societies over the ages.
I agree that there are many ways of achieving a goal. What happens when your method contradicts or gets in the way of my goal? Having studied a bit of engineering, I long ago learned that there are only a few ways of designing things right, but an almost infinite number of ways a designing failed projects.
God is just a consept in our brain, if you hear and talk to god, you really just talk to yourself. In my view we all have what we can call spiritual feelings. It is a part of our rich spectrum of feelings made by our brain. No external force or energy, but it still binds us together.
The new research in neuroscience gives new clues about this, and also how easy we fool ourself.
Our brain is a impressive organ. Some of the same thoughts: http://vimeo.com/16177455
Only one of the links was new for me....
With no such ethical constraint, the human individual has no basis upon which to object to any use of human beings for the benefit of the holders of human influence. One HuffingtonPost.com commenter appears to have recently suggested such a policy suggestion. Secular reports appear to suggest that economic conditions already attest to the draining of human economic livelihood for the benefit of others.
The article appears to suggest a time point “when we move out of the abstract realm of ethical philosophy and into the realm of public policy”. I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable perspective that, once the apparently objective standard of God, as the standard for right and wrong, is abandoned and, worse, should the “abstract realm of ethical philosophy” not be wholly incorporated in the realm of public policy, both Biblical and secular history appear to suggest that the inhumanity of humanity toward humanity that is appears to be currently considered to be disturbing appears to be reasonably considered to have much less, if not no, constraint. Secular history appears to suggest that humanity has been steadily trading in the ethical constraint of the dignity of human life for promised benefit to humanity, apparently somewhat similarly to the way that the Bible appears to suggest that Adam and Eve traded in their pure perspective and harmless habitat for the promise of additional knowledge and growth potential and perhaps similarly to the way that secular history appears to suggest that Native American Indian traded in the island of Manhattan for approximately $14.00 in beads and trinkets.
The article appears to refer to those “who are avowedly secular to claim the power of moral and spiritual language”. An apparently reasonable perspective appears to be that if there is a “power” in moral and spiritual language, perhaps this power suggests a source of such power beyond those whose apparently less-than-optimal implementation of such power has led to the apparently-suggested impropriety of their practice.
The article appears to suggest, “we can talk about prescriptive morality -- should and should nots -- without any need for divine revelation”. I humbly and respectfully submit that the Biblical and secular historical record appear to be reasonably interpreted as suggesting that such discussion has spanned the communicative history of humanity. This appears to refer to, at least, thousands of years, countless communities and a possibly unknown number of individuals. Apparently, the morally sophisticated trend that the article appears to suggest that humanity has exhibited appears to be reasonably considered to draw ever closer to the standard that the Bible appears to suggest that God has offered since humanity’s inception.
Humanity’s distorted sense of right and wrong appears to be credited with humanity’s inhumanity toward humanity. Certain apparently Biblical guidelines appear to endorse actions that contradict God’s original design. Without claiming authoritative knowledge, I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable perspective that such apparently contradictory guidelines appear to be reasonably construed as representing one of perhaps several stages of one of apparently several strategies to realign an apparently somewhat recalcitrant nation of Israel in intimate relationship with and leadership by God, rather than an endorsement of these actions.
We must keep in mind that virtually all societies have dicta that say you should not kill. Usually this is only applied to within that society, but many also see it to mean that killing that tribe over there is perfectly OK, that is why we have wars. It is only when we have a truly universal feeling of belonging to a universal human community that we will feel moral outrage at killing a fellow human. Obviously, that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
I humbly and respectfully submit a “lack of authoritative knowledge” caveat and suggest that the following perspective, nonetheless, appears to be appropriately sharable.
The concepts of (a) the existence of God as described by the Bible, (b) the validity of the Adam and Eve account, and (c) the impact of the preceding two upon humanity appear to have been reasonably suggested and, perhaps, demonstrated to, at least, appear to be currently neither humanly irrefutably proven or disproven. Consequently, I humbly and respectfully reserve comment on the apparent RedRat assertion that humanity’s distortion of right and wrong has nothing to do with God as described by the Bible.
For apparently similar reason, I humbly and respectfully reserve opinion pertaining to the apparent RedRat assertion regarding whether “’God’ of the ancient texts and myths has promulgated more wars and killings than just plain old homicidal actions on humans part”. However, in the interest of exploration of social dynamics theory, the following apparently reasonable perspective appears to be appropriately sharable.
The Bible appears to suggest a distinguishing attribute between homicide appropriately attributed to God and homicide not appropriately attributable to God: the purpose for the homicide. The Bible appears to suggest that God’s purpose for homicide has been elimination of challenge to God’s sovereignty and that humanity’s purpose for self-initiated homicide appears to be personal benefit. The Bible appears to suggest that challenge to God that God responds to with homicide is warranted based upon apparently multiple reasons, perhaps, including the impact upon reality of such challenge to God. The Bible appears to suggest that humanly-initiated homicide for personal benefit is unwarranted.
I welcome your thoughts.
In light of this apparent overall Biblical theme, an apparently reasonable perspective appears to be that human adversity is a result of the human individual’s choice to reject intimate relationship with and leadership by God. The Bible appears to suggest that this rejection of God’s relationship and leadership was followed by a distortion of human perspective regarding right and wrong. Biblical example of this distorted sense of right and wrong appears to include Adam and Eve’s sense of shame or wrong regarding their nakedness, which God had created as something pure and right. Later, Cain appears to be reasonably suggested as feeling right about Cain’s choice of sacrifice that God had rejected as wrong. Cain appears to be described as feeling right enough to harbor resentment (and feel right about harboring it) that God warned Cain about as being wrong. Cain later appears to be described as considering it right to murder Abel, although Abel appears to not be reported as having harmed Cain. Apparently, Cain appears to be described as having murdered Abel as if Abel had wrongly caused the rejection of Cain’s sacrifice, perhaps, as the Bible appears to suggest, because God had accepted Abel’s sacrifice as right.
The article appears to suggest, that “As humanity's moral consciousness evolves… Old-time religion is becoming …Immoral”. Without claiming authoritative knowledge, I humbly and respectfully submit that the macroscopic and panoramic view of the Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that God’s design for humanity appears to be clearly suggested in the first two chapters of Genesis. God’s design for humanity appears to be reasonably described as “good and very good”, as the Genesis appears to suggest God described it. The Bible appears to suggest that God gifted to humanity, literally, an entire world of opportunity without human or any other harm or adversity and solely one prohibition.
The Bible appears to suggest that, even when Israel was exiled in Babylon, apparently for rejecting intimate relationship with and leadership by God, God said “For I know the plans I have for you, … plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future” (New International Version). The King James Version appears to use the phrase “…thoughts of peace, and not of evil…” where “plans to prosper you and not to harm you” appears to be stated in the New International Version.
Consequently, as both Biblical and secular history appear to report, the potential for human error has been, and appears to still be, non-negligible. As a further apparent consequence, the success of the development of a set of guidelines to foster human well-being appears to be somewhat impeded by the potential for Point A (current conditions) to be wrong, for Point B (future optimal conditions) to be wrong, and for the intended connecting line (the best path forward) to not even correctly connect the two false points, not to mention the two correct points. I humbly and respectfully submit that an apparently reasonable perspective appears to suggest that the historical archive of humanly-caused adversity, both Biblical and secular, possibly reports and represents only a minute fraction of the historical human calculative margin of human experience management error, and that, therefore,
(d) humanity appears to not be qualified to fully manage the human experience, including the establishment of the fundamental moral standard.
Face the fact that humanity is the only source of any kind of moral code. I do not accept your premise that such an infinite being wrote and texts such as the Bible. The Bible is an interesting book of tales, no more and no less.
I welcome your thoughts.
The article appears to suggest, “We now know that the moral dimension of human life derives not from religion but from our need, as social animals, to cooperate and live in community with each other”. I humbly and respectfully submit that the Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that: (a) the source of the human individual’s moral standard is God,
(b) God appears to administer God’s moral standard at the individual-and-circumstance level,
(c) human limitation, both individually and collectively, appears to disqualify humanity for development of a moral standard. This premise appears to be supported by common human perspective regarding human capability. The human strategy for constructing a moral standard from behavior guidelines that foster achievement of human well-being appears to be to (a) assess current conditions, (b) determine what optimal future conditions should be, and to (c) interpolate the best path forward between the two. However, human limitations including those in knowledge, perception, and capability appear to be reasonably considered to constrain the advancement of these goals.
The article appears to suggest, “Lastly, without a spiritual vocabulary we end up sounding hyper rational (and hyper boring) in conversations ranging from kitchen table banter to public policy debates”. I humbly and respectfully submit that the Bible appears to suggest that:
(a) the individual human’s intimate relationship with and leadership by God is not only very rational and not boring, but apparently, potentially humanly overwhelming as evaluated upon any positive metric,
(b) the human individual appears to be reported by both Biblical and secular history as attempting to replace the apparently overwhelming excitement and satisfaction of the individual human’s intimate relationship with and leadership by God with something else,
(c) both Biblical and secular history appear to report that, when the human individual has been faced with the relative emotional dissatisfaction of that something else, the human individual has attempted to artificially infuse that something with apparently missing overwhelming excitement and satisfaction, and that
(d) both Biblical and secular history appear to report that this attempt has failed as often as the human individual has attempted it.