Spirituality should be based on reality

Since I bought it, my go-to book for reading prior to my morning meditation/quiet time has been David Barash's "Buddhist Biology: Ancient Eastern Wisdom Meets Modern Western Science."  My previous posts about the book are here and here.  For me, it's a home run in the spirituality without supernaturalism ballpark. In the same genre of Stephen Bachelor's "Buddhism Without Beliefs," yet more satisfying in certain ways, being based on solid science. Albeit with a healthy dose of modern secular Buddhism viewpoints. The core of Barash's book, which I've almost finished, is that three principles underly Buddhism in all of its…

Einstein talks about “spirit.” But not in a religious sense.

Can you be spiritual without being religious? Can you be spiritual and also scientific? Of course. It depends on what is meant by spirit.  A Google search produced this definition: 1. The nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character; the soul. 2. Those qualities regarded as forming the definitive or typical elements in the character of a person, nation, or group or in the thought and attitudes of a particular period. Obviously the first definition -- the non-physical part of a person, soul -- implies a religious sensibility. Or at least, a supernatural one. …

Buddhism without supernaturalism leaves reality

For me, giving up religious addiction isn't done "cold turkey," all at once. It's a gradual process. I discarded the most ridiculous notions early on, but afterwards I find myself letting go of faith-based beliefs bit by bit.

Buddhism and Taoism are examples of this. 

I've given away quite a few of my books in these genres that I couldn't bear to read any more. Even Zen books. Just because spirituality comes in an "Eastern" guise doesn't mean it is free of the dogmatism and supernaturalism that infects Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. 

So now I'm only able to enjoy Buddhist and Taoist writings that make scientific sense. Or at least aren't opposed to a rational, experiential understanding of everyday reality.

Which explains why I've started reading "Buddhist Biology: Ancient Eastern Wisdom meets Modern Western Science." I read a review of David Barash's book in New Scientist. 

(In case the review disappears from the New Scientist web site, I'll include it as a continuation to this post.)

Here's some excerpts from the first chapter that I resonate with.

Full disclosure: I have been a practicing biologist for more than four decades and an aspiring Buddhist (or "Buddhist sympathizer") for about as long, but I am definitely more the former than the latter. I have no religious "faith," if faith is taken to mean belief without evidence. 

Indeed, I have a powerful distrust of organized religion and a deep aversion to anything — anything — that smacks of the supernatural. Give me the natural, the real, the material, every time.

…I am a Buddhist atheist, a phrase that may seem contradictory but that has legitimacy not only in my case, but as a description of many others, of whom the former Buddhist monk and current scholar and author Stephen Bachelor is best-known.

…By contrast, it is hard to imagine a Muslim or Christian atheist, since the terms are oxymoronic: they contradict each other.

…a "Christian" who doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus would seem not only a poor Christian but no Christian at all. Interestingly, Jewish atheists are comparatively abundant, probably because unlike Islam and Christianity, whose followers are defined as those who espouse the tenets of their religion, Jews are defined as much by their ethnicity as their religious beliefs. There are also many "Jew-Boos," people who identify both as Jewish and as Buddhist.

…High on the list of Buddhist absurdities are the phenomenon of iddhi, supernatural events that are supposed to be generated by extremely skillful and committed meditation. They appear often in Buddhist texts and I don't believe a word of them.

…The traditional Buddhist cosmology is, however, very specific, and more than a little weird, with the world composed of thirty-one levels. 

…A final example in which I (and many other Buddhist sympathizers) part company with traditional Buddhist beliefs concerns the doctrine of reincarnation…. For those of us interested in reconciling Buddhism with science in general and biology in particular, traditional reincarnation remains a pronounced and irreconcilable outlier.

…the present book will likely trouble those otherwise gentle Buddhist souls who so revere Tenzin Gyatso that they append to his name the honorific "HH," His Holiness. "The Dalai Lama" is okay with me, since that is how this particular gentleman is widely known, but even though I greatly admire him for his kindness as well as his wisdom, I cannot swallow the notion that he is any holier than thou, or me, or Charles Darwin, or anyone else. Either we are all holy (whatever that means), or no one is.

…I hold to the position that Buddhism in its most useful, user-friendly, and indeed meaningful form is not in fact a religion in the standard Western sense of the term. Rather, it is a perspective, a philosophical tradition of inquiry and wisdom, a way of looking at the world that is often perverted into a kind of "sky-god" faith complete with other nonsensical rigamarole, but, in its more genuine form, is anything but that.

Here's the New Scientist review:

Science isn’t separate from the rest of human rationality

Sam Harris has written a terrific response to this year's Edge question: "What scientific idea is ready for retirement?"  He proposes that we discard the notion that science is only something that physicists, biologists, chemists, and other obviously science'y types do. Rather... We must abandon the idea that science is distinct from the rest of human rationality. When you are adhering to the highest standards of logic and evidence, you are thinking scientifically. And when you’re not, you’re not.   I don't want to quote much more of the piece, because you really should read the whole thing. It isn't…

Brains are us: a fresh thought for a New Year

OK, this isn't exactly a New Year's resolution blog post. But I don't believe in resolutions. Those of the spiritual variety, at least. I've expressed my disbelief here, here, and here. A fresh thought, though... I'm up with that.  I enjoyed this letter in the yearend issue of New Scientist magazine. From Iain PetrieNeurophilosopher Patricia Churchland argues that it can be difficult to accept that "you're just your brain" (30 November, p. 30). So it would seem.  When she says, "I've made my peace with my brain," it rather suggests that she regards herself as an entity distinct from her…

The unconscious hugely influences our conscious life

"Know thyself." Yeah, right.  Tough to do under the best of circumstances, when the supposed self is out in the open, available for knowing.  But modern neuroscience and psychology know that our conscious awareness is just the tip of the iceberg of what lies below in unconscious depths. Early on in my blogging (2005), I wrote a blog post where I said: After I watched “I Heart Huckabees” I experienced a mild existential coincidence of my own. In the movie a character observes that only 5% of the matter/energy in the universe is recognizable. This is true. Physicists estimate that…

Benefits of realizing you’re just a brain

Being religious or non-religious isn't an on-off, binary, this-or-that state of mind. It's a continuum. Much the same as drinking or non-drinking is.

If someone once was a serious alcoholic, changing to only drink a couple of beers a day will seem like a huge difference. He or she will think, "I'm barely drinking." But to someone who doesn't drink at all, that person will appear to still be wedded to alcohol.

These sorts of attitudes are reflected in both comments and posts on this blog. What seems non-religious to some, will look like raging religiosity to others. It all depends on where you are on a continuum. This can be called the Spectrum of Theistic Probability

Richard Dawkins puts it this way:

  1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
  2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
  3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
  4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
  5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
  6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
  7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

But there is more to spiritual belief than God. Many people don't believe in God, but do believe in supernatural phenomena. They've given up a Father figure who resides in an ethereal heaven, yet hold on to other sorts of other-worldly entities.

Such as consciousness separate from the brain.

After heading down the churchless path, for quite a while I carried along this belief, or at least a "weak theist" version of it (I am very uncertain that consciousness exists separate from the brain, but I am inclined to believe that it does).

Now, though, I'm much more on level 6 of the continuum above. I live my life under that assumption that when I die, that's it. No more me. When my brain dies, so does my existence as a conscious entity. I can't be certain of this, but it seems like by far the most likely possibility.

A blurb on the cover of the most recent issue of New Scientist said, "Meaning of life. Learning to live with the reality of existence." Ooh… that sounded intriguing. It was the first story that I read.

Which turned out to be an interview with neurophilosopher Patricia Churchland called At peace with my brain. Or in the online version, The benefits of realising you're just a brain.

Here's some excerpts. I'll include the entire piece as a continuation to this post.

Why is it so difficult for us to see the reality of what we actually are?
Part of the answer has to do with the evolution of nervous systems. Is there any reason for a brain to know about itself? We can get along without knowing, just as we can get along without knowing that the liver is in there filtering out toxins. The wonderful thing, of course, is that science allows us to know.

Are there any implications of neuroscience that you feel unsettled by?
I'd have to say no. It takes some getting used to, but I'm not freaked out by it. I certainly understand the ambivalence people have. On one hand, they're fascinated because it helps explain their mother's Alzheimer's, but on the other, they think, 'Gosh, the love that I feel for my child is really just neural chemistry?' Well, actually, yes, it is. But that doesn't bother me.

By and large I find neuroscience liberating because it allows us to see our connections to other biological things, and because it's not full of metaphysical junk about preparing your life for the great beyond. Of course it's possible we're wrong. But it doesn't seem very likely, and that lack of likelihood is sufficient for me to not want to organise my life around this possibility. I want to enjoy it now. I don't want to make useless and meaningless sacrifices, and I don't want to trash this planet because I think a better one awaits me.

…Some might say the idea that you are just your brain makes life bleak, unforgiving and ultimately futile. How do you respond to that?
It's not at all bleak. I don't see how the existence of a god or a soul confers any meaning on my life. How does that work, exactly? Nobody has ever given an adequate answer. My life is meaningful because I have family, meaningful work, because I love to play, I have dogs, I love to dig in the garden. That's what makes my life meaningful, and I think that's true for most people.

Now, at the end of it, what's going to happen? I will die and that's it. And I like that idea, in a crazy sort of way.

It’s possible to prove God does not exist

When faced with the lack of evidence of God's existence, one of the favorite retorts of religious people is, "Well, you can't prove that God doesn't exist." I've been prone to argue back, the burden of proof is on the person making a claim that something exists. Or, it is impossible to prove a negative. But these are rather simplistic responses. I've come to feel that a more nuanced reply should be, "Hell, yes, I can prove that God doesn't exist."  Here's how it can be done. Get some specifics from the God-believer. What are the characteristics of this God…

Wandering mind and focused mind: we need both

Driving home after a Tai Chi class tonight, I listened to part of an NPR interview with several psychologists. They talked about creativity, daydreaming, focused attention, the brain's default network. Interesting stuff. The basic notion being discussed was that the brain has several ways of functioning. These aren't exhaustive, of course. Scientists are nowhere close to understanding the intricacies of how the brain works. But common sense is in line with what sometimes is called "experiential focus" and "narrative focus." One of the psychologists said it is like what happens when we drive a familiar route. We don't need to…

Scientific faith is way different from religious faith

Here's an interesting look at faith: "No Faith in Science -- why the Higgs boson is not like a sea of milk that sustains the gods." Just because a scientifically minded person uses the word, faith, doesn't mean it is being used in the same sense as religious faith.  I have faith that global warming is happening, because the evidence in support of this conclusion is clear, convincing, and attested to by almost all of the world's climate scientists.  I don't have faith that Jesus saves, because this is a belief with zero demonstrable evidence backing it up.  The Slate…

Atheism is the rejection of theism, not a belief system

Here's a follow-up to my "Atheism isn't a belief. It is a lack of belief." That post had quotes from James Lindsay's second book.  The passages below are from Lindsay's first book, God Doesn't, We Do. Once again, he persuasively challenges the false assumption that theism, believing in God, and atheism, not believing in God, are somehow both belief systems. Doesn't make sense. Read on to see why. Another common misconception among believers is that infidels, atheists in particular, subscribe to a religious view that is called Atheism. This is incorrect, generally speaking. We might be able to call (capitalized)…

What are the odds of alien civilizations believing in our gods?

Astonomers have come up with an estimate of how many earth-like planets there are in our galaxy: some 40 billion. Wow.  The known odds of something — or someone — living far, far away from Earth improved beyond astronomers’ boldest dreams on Monday. Astronomers reported that there could be as many as 40 billion habitable Earth-size planets in the galaxy, based on a new analysis of data from NASA’s Kepler spacecraft. One out of every five sunlike stars in the galaxy has a planet the size of Earth circling it in the Goldilocks zone — not too hot, not too cold…

Faith is pretending to know things you don’t know

To most people, faith is a positive quality. Perhaps it is, if "faith" is construed as "hope" or "positive thinking." As in, I have faith that I'll be able to make it to the top of this mountain.  You don't know if you'll be able to reach the summit, but you hope that you will. Nothing wrong with this. Somewhat similarly, faith can be viewed in probabilistic terms. I have faith that my laptop will start up when I raise the lid in the morning, because so far it has every time I've done this. But in his book, "A…

Wisdom is humility in the face of mystery

The title of this post is a sub-heading in the final chapter of Robert Burton's "A Skeptic's Guide to the Mind: What Neuroscience Can and Cannot Tell Us About Ourselves."  Burton cautions against taking neuroscientific claims about how the human brain/mind works too seriously when they aren't backed up by solid evidence. Yet even when they are, he reminds us that our interpretation of evidence is guided by processes in the very brain/mind we're trying to understand. Naturally this applies to religious, mystical, spiritual, and philosophical claims equally, if not more so. Just because we feel like we can stand…

We humans think we’re special. What makes us believe that?

Oh, you're so special! Just about every parent has thought this about a child. Their child. Because in the realm of parenthood, as in Lake Woebegon, every child is above average.  Ditto for us humans as a whole. Why, it's just so obvious that Homo sapiens is a unique species. Somewhat like other animals, of course. But on the whole we're so special.  Ditto for every religion humans have come up with. Every religion, faith, spiritual belief system, mystical practice, and meditation approach considers that it is uniquely able to bring believers closer to truth, God, ultimate reality, enlightenment, whatever.…

“Soul Dust” shows how we create an enchanted world

Here's my new loving it book: "Soul Dust," by Nicholas Humphrey. I loved his "Seeing Red" also. Blogged about that earlier book of Humphrey's here and here. Intimations of "Soul Dust" are evident in this quote from "Seeing Red" that I included in the second post. My suggestion is that in the course of human evolution, our ancestors who thought of their own consciousness as metaphysically remarkable -- existing outside normal space and time -- would have taken themselves still more seriously as Selves. The more mysterious and unworldly the qualities of consciousness, the more seriously significant the Self. And…

Unbiased thought or pure perception is impossible: Neuroscience 101

Like I said before, now it's really tough for me to read books that reflect pre-scientific understanding of the human mind. Or to seriously consider any form of spirituality/meditation/philosophy that doesn't address what Robert Burton, M.D. says in the opening pages of his "A Skeptic's Guide to the Mind: What Neuroscience Can and Cannot Tell Us About Ourselves." Our brains possess involuntary mechanisms that make unbiased thought impossible yet create the illusion that we are rational creatures capable of fully understanding the mind created by those same mechanisms. Our brains have evolved piecemeal; contradictions, inconsistency, and paradox are hardwired into…

Buddhism is too serious and unscientific for me

I must really be entering the churchless deep end. Which is great! I enjoy diving into the depths of reality, rather than swimming around in the shallows of religious and philosophical concepts. For a long time I've enjoyed reading Buddhist books, so long as they aren't overly traditional. But now even edgy writings like "Rebel Buddha" seem too dogmatic to me. How can this quote be justified? Is mind the brain or a by-product of the brain? Is it chemicals and neurotransmitters lighting up pathways in the brain that spark sensation, thought, and feeling, and lead up to the brilliance…

God is as real as human consciousness

Below is a highly persuasive answer to the question, "Is God real?" I like the answer a lot, mostly because it is the answer I would have given to the question if I was as neuroscientifically wise as Michael Graziano, author of "Consciousness and the Social Brain," a book I've blogged about here and here. (Check out my Amazon review of the book.) Near the end of his book, Graziano asks Does God Exist? Here's extended quotes from that section. Graziano is such a good writer and thinker, I'm wary of paraphrasing this Professor of Neuroscience at Princeton University. Across all…

A puppet is as conscious as you are

I'm back!... to writing about Michael Graziano's super-interesting book, "Consciousness and the Social Brain." It was the subject of my Awareness is a fictionalized sketch of attention, which encapsulated the central theme of his neuroscientific theory. Every time I pick up the book I'm challenged to look at myself and the world in a fresh way. A believable way. Yet sometimes, a rather disturbing way. Like when I read this morning, after Graziano described how a ventriloquist makes a puppet look like it is alive, he said: It seems crazy to insist that the puppet's consciousness is real. And yet,…