Science and spirituality are not incompatible
In my previous post I mentioned that the feeling of connectedness between all humans is a metaphor for the awareness of the similarities between all humans. It’s the connectedness of similar biological makeup, and of shared ancestral social development. Over the centuries we’ve diverged, but fundamentally we are still all capable of relating to each other at a deeper level than most of us do on a daily basis.
There is much scientific evidence for the neurological basis of feelings, including those feelings often described as spiritual. But it’s unfair to label the pursuit of that evidence, and the understanding it imparts, as degradingly reductionist, concerned only with taking apart something beautiful. Likewise it’s unfair to look at the component parts and say that the beautiful thing is only a bunch of other, more mundane building blocks. As Richard Feynmann said:
I have a friend who’s an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don’t agree with. He’ll hold up a flower and say, “Look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. But then he’ll say, “I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull.” I think he’s kind of nutty. [...] There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.
Likewise, an important point as made by Antonio Damasio in his book, Descartes’ Error.
To discover that a particular feeling depends on activity in a number of specific brain systems interacting with a number of body organs does not diminish that feeling as a human phenomenon. Neither anguish nor the elation that love or art can bring about are devalued by understanding some of the myriad biological processes that make them what they are. Precisely the opposite should be true: Our sense of wonder should increase before the intricate mechanisms that make such magic possible. Feelings form the base for what humans have described for millennia as the human soul or spirit.
As with the feeling of connectedness, the metaphors of spirituality which we intuit as a result of our personal experiences can provide guidelines by which to act, but like some metaphors they don’t necessarily define the source of that guiding force. It’s common to consider the ambiguous nature of the metaphor, and the often intangible yet certain nature of the feeling, and define the source as equally ambiguous, intangible, yet certain.
And ultimately that may be the case, yet we would miss out on much of the “excitement and mystery and awe” that this universe has to offer if we ignore the tangible basis of those things we might ascribe to an intangible source. Likewise if we ignore the intangible we ignore an alternate source of inspiration, mystery and beauty, and a potentially beneficial alternate perspective on the tangible elements of our existence.
I asked previously if spirituality were necessary. My conclusion is still the same; no it is not. But life would be far less enjoyable in the absence of the things many consider spiritual; love, beauty, compassion, etc. For some people it is beneficial to consider the essence of these things to be spiritual. That is fine as long as they don’t deny the same benefit to those who have different beliefs.
Likewise being scientific in your approach to life is not strictly necessary; one could happily live a life unconcerned with objectively verifiable evidence. Yet even if you’re happy to do away with all the benefits science has provided, I doubt many people would enjoy a life totally reliant upon instincts alone. Even building a simple shelter, even if it doesn’t require study, does require using scientific principles, as does anything else that effectively exploits an understanding of the way the world works.
What do you think? What’s your opinion of the scientific explanations of spiritual concepts, and of the spiritual aspects of “ordinary” experiences? Are they additive or subtractive, irreconcilable or complimentary?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
July 16th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
I think it would be useful to clarify what you mean by “necessary.” Is it indispensible? life-preserving? life-changing?
Some people sense a degree of spirituality is necessary to subsist if they believe that the soul exists to discover why it was born. Some people base their understanding of existence and evolution on Science.
Other people don’t believe in either Science or Spirituality and are quite content to live, breathe and function in their own ways.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
I didn’t clarify “necessary” because I meant it to apply unconditionally. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not beneficial in some respects. In the case of necessity for subsistence, that would be an irreconcilable disagreement between myself and whoever held that belief.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:37 am
While it is debatable whether spirituality is necessary (at least for all people) I don’t know that I would consider life worth living if love, beauty, and compassion were absent it whether those feelings come from biological (neurological) processes or spiritual ones.
At this point I no longer can tell you what I think as to whether spiritual and scientific explanations are irreconcilable or complimentary as my head is swimming with new ideas and thoughts, but one day…
What I can say is I feel humanity as a whole would be better served if it is possible for spiritual and scientific knowledge to be additive rather than subtractive of one another. But, maybe that just isn’t meant to be.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
I agree, Jenny, that being additive would serve us better, and since I don’t believe that anything is meant to be, or not, I believe we’ll reach that point one day, if it’s at all possible.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Funny that you comment on my use of the phrasing meant to be as it serves to further highlight a question I’ve been asking myself. I’ve begun to wonder how much of the confusion I have been experiencing when discussing and thinking about science, spirituality and religion is tied to semantics (laziness with word choice in particular). Authentic communication or learning is all the more difficult when the words/concepts one is using or encountering are inaccurate or misleading.
I guess this isn’t something that in most areas of communication I’m particularly aware of or find especially problematic perhaps because I already have a fair grasp of the subject matter and so glaring inaccuracies or biases are fairly easy to spot and account for and/or if I don’t the issues aren’t so emotionally charged by all involved. Over the past couple of months my biggest barrier to understanding doesn’t even have to do with science, spirituality or religion instead it has been my trying to follow “debates” on the subject for clarification or to further my understanding that are actually arguments or eloquent (and sometimes not so much…) defenses of already existing opinions.
July 18th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
The whole concept of what contributes to a life “worth” living seems rather presumptious. Who am I to impose my view on anyone but myself? This reminds me of a Star Trek TNG episode when the Enterprise encountered a planet with a curious civilization. Its people systematically suicided from age 50 or 60, regardless of health. The cultural assumption was that life was only worth living to a measurable point, where statistically, younger generations would survive and subsist on resources and not have the ‘burden’ of aging people. They were perceived by that civilization as expendable. A few of them stow away onto the Enterprise and were poised to break the planet’s laws. Yet, they ultimately conformed and returned to their fate. It raised questions about what kind of life is worth living. Our own Earthly societies impose cultural judgments about value and contribution. Some societies value older people as wide mentors whereas other societies lock them away in nursing homes or facilities so they’re ‘out-of-the-way’.
Communication isn’t limited to what we know. It can also be expanded from to include what we don’t know.
July 19th, 2007 at 4:10 am
Liara,
Although upon re-reading I see I didn’t specifically note that I was referring to my own life when musing that I am not sure life is worth living absent things such as beauty, compassion and so forth that was certainly the intention. I don’t find such *musings* presumptuous in the least, how can one understand a concept if they don’t fully question it?
I don’t understand what you are getting at regarding your statement on communication. Could you give me an example?
July 19th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Hi Jenny,
When it comes to ourselves and our own *musings,* I don’t consider those as presumptuous as assuming what kind of life may be worth living for someone else. Yet, as we grow to learn more about ourselves, we, as individuals tend to realize that initial assumptions we have about ourselves are also limited to what we know at a given time. As we expand, our musings expand and so does our understanding of life as we know it.
In terms of what I mean about communication, human beings are born and begin a process of discovery about themselves and their potential that continues throughout their lifetime. As time passes, you may be aware that you tap into 5 basic senses. Yet your potential with magnifying these senses and your potential to discover others is always there.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Thanks for clarifying Liara.
Yes, I would have to agree that as we learn more about ourselves and life our beliefs and assumptions change and grow.
OK, I see your perspective on communication although I’m still not sure how that applies to what I wrote but since I understand where you are coming from no need to address this.
July 25th, 2007 at 2:27 am
I see wonder and beauty in science and math. I see science and math as a subset or a dimension within the spiritual. To me, unspiritual is a abstract concept like subnatural.
July 25th, 2007 at 7:22 am
That’s great Assistant, there are so many ways of seeing the beauty in the world, and the happy coexistence of many different philosophies, practices, and systems of belief. Thanks for your comment!