The Wordsmith's Forge

Here's an article about science and spirituality, sort of. It doesn't have a very wide view of either.


Can you be scientific and spiritual?

This presupposes that they are two different and incompatible things, which is a tenet of some but not all religions and sciences. Others consider them two sides of the same coin, or even the same thing. A few are really explicit about that, like Odinani (Igbo sacred science).


Spirituality can be an uncomfortable word for atheists.

Let's not confuse science with atheism. Some scientists are religious, some spiritual, some atheist or agnostic. And some worship science itself, which gets classified in various ways.


But does it deserve the antagonism that it gets?

That generally depends on how much spirituality, religion, or atheism has helped or harmed a given person. If you look at history, spirituality does considerable good and little harm, whereas religion has wreaked ample havoc for ages. Not every religion is psycho, but enough of them are to cause serious problems.


While the anti-scientific bias of religious fundamentalism requires condemnation,

No it doesn't. If it did, nobody would follow it. But it's really popular. I like to condemn it, but then I'm into all kinds of unpopular things. I don't imagine they are popular or required just because I consider them prudent.


if we take a broader view, does the human inclination towards spiritual practice still require the same antagonism?

Doesn't matter whether people condemn it or not, you can't get rid of it. People have tried. Some tyrants have really, really tried. But some awareness of the numinous, and a surprising number of concepts and techniques, are either hardwired into Homo sapiens or the environment or both. It always respawns, and a lot of things repeat, even if the details vary. So people can bitch all they want, but it's not going away. That means we should learn how to handle it responsibly.

Individuals can be atheist or agnostic, but the species seems indelibly aware of and interested in the numinous, at least for observable history and present.


Rather than ontological claims about what exists in the universe, the terms spiritual and sacred can describe the character of an experience. Instead of a "thing" they can refer to an attitude or an approach.

Well, that's useful.


One can be entirely faithful to the path of inquiry and honesty that is science while making it one aspect of a broader practice embracing the totality of your experience as a human being in this more-than-human world.

Or you can view them as the same, or different aspects of the whole.

If you view the world as divine, then science and religion cannot conflict. It is only that you sometimes discover, in studying the world, that you didn't know it as well as you thought you did and have to readjust your thinking to match what you have just learned. Your religion can't be wrong, because it is the world; only your understanding of it is limited.

You might also have a religion, or some religions; a personal spirituality; a science, or some sciences; and view them all as a set of tools which you can apply sequentially or together in examining, taking apart, building, or repairing things.

These are very different from a belief system that considers science and religion to be separate and opposed.


First, it's important to distinguish between religion and what I'll call spiritual practice. In his excellent book "Sapiens," Yuval Noah Harari defines religion as "a system of human norms and values that is founded in the belief in a superhuman order."

Doesn't even have to be super-human, just other than human. Some religions put humans at the top, or the middle, or the bottom. Spirituality is about the personal awareness of the numinous; religion is about getting together with your friends to talk about or celebrate that.


There is an aspect of organized religion that has always been about establishing and enforcing social norms: Who is an authority; who justifies who is in charge; who marries whom; who tells you how to behave. This aspect of religion is about power within social hierarchies.

Well, sometimes. Not all religions are hierarchical. Neither are all societies, although it seems that hierarchy is much easier than therefore more stable than completely egalitarian systems are. (There are many fascinating examples from Pagan, feminist, and commune cultures attempting egalitarianism. It's a lot harder than it looks, but some terrific tools have emerged from the attempts. Just because an experiment fails spectacularly doesn't mean it's no use.) So far, the only universal human rule seems to be "sexual activity shall not be unregulated." But it's not always regulated by a religion, sometimes it's secular or familial or whatever.


The second part of Harari's definition refers to a "superhuman order." Note that he does not say a "supernatural" order. Why? Because some religions like Buddhism don't pivot around the existence of an all-powerful deity.

And some religions don't separate themselves from nature, or even actively worship nature. Then of course there the ones that revere humans as part of the divine. Namaste. Thou art Godness.

I have noticed that people who consider themselves and other humans to be part of the Divine and really contemplate that are 1) more inclined to respect others, and 2) more inclined to behave responsibly. It's one thing to screw off as an individual ape, but most folks seem uncomfortable with the idea of a deity, or any part of one, behaving abominably. Interestingly, the same pattern appears in people who really believe that angels walk hidden among us and Jesus meant that thing he said about "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, that you do unto Me." (Oh yeah, he meant it, dude is radical.) It just makes them more careful.


Even though I consider myself an atheist, experiences of a superhuman order have been with me since I was a kid. Heck, that's what science was to me—an order expressible in mathematics beyond the purely human. In fact, many of my deepest experiences of being alive had come to me through my scientific practice.

LOL handwriting of God LOL


To speak about sacredness is to understand that some experiences (the birth of your child, coming upon a silent forest glade, hearing a powerful symphony) evoke an order that is more than just our thoughts about that order. And to speak of "the spiritual" can call to the highest aspects of the human spirit: compassion, kindness, empathy, generosity, love.

True.


This is where we can draw a distinction between a spiritual practice and a religious one. In a spiritual practice, people purposely attempt to deepen their lived sense of the superhuman order they experience. It is, literally, a practice. You work on it every day, perhaps using meditation or ritual or service to others. The methods differ but the daily application and aspiration are the same.

We might say that spirituality is between you and the numen, whereas religion is between you and your neighbors.


The important point is that spiritual practice has a purpose: transformation. It is to become a person who lives in accord with that sense of experienced order, that sacredness.

Well, that's one option. There are plenty of other purposes possible. Or you can just let it, and yourself, be what is.

Transformation implies that you aren't already happy with how you are. This is common but by no means universal. Neither is it confined to religion. Back before chemistry split off, alchemists -- who were scientists of their age -- were obsessed with several things including immortality, personal transformation, and how to turn base metals into gold. All of those things are possible, but only transformation is likely with the tools they had at hand.


It's also possible to build such a practice outside of established religious tradition.

Hedgewitchcraft, hermits, etc.

In that case, the difficulty comes in inventing forms that can support a lifelong practice. There is something to be said for traditions or rituals that have endured for many generations and the best of these often occur within some religious traditions.

It's not that hard. Well, it's not hard if you're an introvert and you like nature. I imagine it's harder for extroverts who require company to reflect them to themselves. Many traditions are secular. And beyond that, many things appear in lots of religions, thus can be considered well-tested. These are the most prone to respawn.

Frex, almost everyone makes candles, and pretty much everyone who makes candles also uses them for spiritual/religious purposes. It's a tiny pet fire on a stick that smells good, what's not to love? But you have to remember that appearances can be deceiving, especially when you're trying to parse the Divine from a human perspective. It's kind of like looking at a flame through a glass of water: it looks bright and warm, but if you reach out, it will feel cold and wet, because of your perspective. That doesn't mean it is cold and wet, but that's an easy mistake to make if you can't, or haven't, shift your perspective.


I have long argued that science is one way that the aspiration to know the true and the real is expressed. It is one way we express that sense of an order beyond us. But there are other ways that go beyond descriptions and explanation, and all of them make up the totality of being human.

The universe is very like an elephant. Don't be fooled into thinking it's a rope just because you've grabbed it by the tail.