ichthyoid

Note: This has been cross-posted to my friend's blog here, where he discusses and contemplates the mystical and spiritual. Definitely check him out!

Coming from a pretty strong Christian home, my immediate family never had a problem with coherence between rationalistic science and religious faith. Rather, we believed that science was simply humanity’s way of discovering God’s creation. And the conflict that seemed to exist at times between the two, we simply believed that somehow, someway, it was all going to eventually make sense.

After all, if light can exist as both waves and particles, then certainly the cognitive dissonance between our experience and values could be solved (eventually).

However, growing up in public school (and exploring on the Internet), there always seemed to be this line between science and faith. It was as if the two were doctrinal dogmas duking it out over which would be the ultimate arbiter of reality. On the one hand, you had a people of tradition standing firm by their roots and hope. One the other, you had the logical dissidents, fighting against the powers that be.

Or at least that’s how I saw it portrayed.

But in reality, the difference between science and faith isn’t so much ideology as genre. One dealt with worldviews and belief systems, while the other dealt with the practicals of living out such belief systems.

This is because science, for all its pomp in academia, is simply a set of values that results in a specific method.

What is Science?

There are four premises on which science rests:

1. Reality exists

2. This reality is consistent

3. The truth of this reality can be understood

4. Non-Truths can be falsified

First, notice that none of these premises can be falsified. We cannot test whether reality exists, since the act of testing presumes that it does. We cannot test consistency, because when we test, we assume that no changes can occur that fundamentally alters both previous and future conclusions. We cannot test understandability, because that would involve the ability to experience something outside of being human. And we can’t test falsifiability since the act itself is assuming its own validity.

Second, notice that all four premises are actually the normal ways that almost everyone would go about their lives. Most people live life as if the world around them is real. Most people live life with the assumption that reality doesn’t change on a day to day basis (i.e. gravity suddenly reverses, the Sun’s heat becomes cold, etc.). Most people live life as if they have some understanding of what they’re doing and how they can interact with the world. And lastly, most people live life as if we can improve upon it, taking out the bad, and making life better (or at least more comfortable).

Furthermore, notice that none of the premises require that we only apply science to the natural world. In fact, there is no definition of the natural world in the foundations of science at all. What is “natural” is simply “testable”. And there is no limit on what’s testable, because we believe that all of what is real can be tested.

And so we come to the method of science, which is simply making a guess about reality (often called an initial hypothesis), coming up with another guess that competes against the first (called an alternative hypothesis), and testing for which one is true.

What is Spirituality?

This one is difficult to define. The word means something different to different people. For some, it identifies with their whole life as related to their walk of faith. For others, it has to do with the esoteric or mysterious, yet personal parts of life. And still to others, it’s an unknowable, and therefore unquantifiable, superstition. I’ll ignore the last one.

For the purposes of this writing, I’m going to define spirituality as the exploration of meaning and purpose through the lens of personal experience and its interface with a greater reality.

Let’s break that down.

First, understanding meaning and purpose is like trying to understand the why of reality. While much of life is devoted to the who, what, when, where, and how’s of life, the purpose or meaning in someone’s life is the why. I’ve previously talked about the difference between why and how through an analysis of a debate. But in essence, why is almost always related to personal intention, which means that spirituality has a goal of knowing the intention behind life, either personal or in general.

The second part—the lens of personal experience—is an important part of spirituality. Each individual’s life is unique, and so often one’s spiritual walk is as well. That isn’t to say that there can’t be cohesion between spiritual experiences. After all, most people who claim to be religious or spiritual have a community in which they grow and share with, sometimes sharing actual spiritual encounters or experiences. But even in a group environment, there is always uniqueness to how individuals perceive the same event. It would be why everyone’s spirituality is at the very least somewhat dissimilar to others, if not outright completely different at times.

But if everyone’s experience is different, how can we agree on a spiritual reality?

That is where the last part of the definition comes in: its interface with a greater reality.

Originally, I wanted to just say “reality”. But often, there are experiences of a spiritual quality that bumps up against the limits of what we know is the commonly perceived reality (often recognized through the five senses). It’s not that the common reality isn’t real, but that the common reality isn’t all that there is. And so, I’m using the term “greater reality” to help give context to what spirituality engages with.

Why is it important to have this greater reality? Why not just let everyone’s unique personal lens give them meaning and purpose, without requiring conformity?

First, this question is partially due to doubt about whether spiritual realities are, in fact, real. But that’s a completely different discussion, so I won’t address it here.

However, having an agreed upon reality doesn’t necessitate strict conformity. Rather, it’s the basic assumption that our spiritual experiences are a real thing, and that they have real objective things to say about the world around us. The underlying foundation is that the spiritual is objective rather than subjective.

Therefore, having finally arrived at the whole point of this article, the understanding that our spirituality has to do with a greater shared reality allows us to refine, test, and reproduce key factors of experiences so as to benefit everyone around us, and not just our personal selves. We can lead or follow others into spiritual journeys in a tested way that has benefits for everyone. No one has to be left behind.

And this is where the actual exploring part of the definition comes in.

Engaging Spirituality with Science

And so we have come to the crux of the article. But it’s actually quite easy to work out.

To engage scientifically, we simply need to:

1. Make a prediction about a spiritual reality.

2. Create a working method or practice which can test the prediction.

3. Test the method.

4. Review the results of the test.

5. Interpret the results and define what it says about the prediction.

To make sure of your interpretation:

1. Do it again to see if the results are reproducible

2. Or refine the method.

A sequence of this can look like:

1. Prediction: Meditation results in greater spiritual engagement.

2. Method: Get two groups of people: one group that will not meditate, and another which will.

3. Test: Determine the course of time this experiment will happen, as well as control for how often the meditation group will meditate.

4. Results: interview individuals in both groups to learn how they perceive their spirituality during the trial

5. Interpret the results: did the meditating group report greater spiritual engagement?

The above is a simple test, and is a bit generalized, but demonstrates the ability of science to test and refine spirituality.

More importantly, this isn’t actually a new idea. Scholars and scientists have been doing actually been doing this for decades, and spiritual practices like meditation have been shown to both be beneficial for all kinds of people, as well as reproducible for those seeking greater meaning and purpose in life.

Final Thoughts

There’s much more I’d want to say, but I think this post is getting a little long. So here’s some thoughts that I have that don’t really fit above:

First, I’ve found that exploring spirituality is best done with a group or community of people. Having accountability as well as encouragement can create greater benefits for everyone involved. So I always recommend finding a group of people who have similar objectives in terms of spirituality.

Second, since I’ve made the case above that science and spirituality can certainly co-exist, it’s good to change our mode of thinking about the two practically. It’s no longer about science vs. spirituality, but rather about how we can use the scientific method to produce better spirituality. How can we derive or devise a testable practice that can enable us to explore meaning and purpose in our personal lives as it relates to a greater reality?

Third, I haven’t addressed any moral inquiries about the exploration of spirituality. For example: is it right to explore spiritual practices enhanced by the use of organic or synthetic substances? Is it right to use spiritual practices from one religion in another?

It’s difficult to argue that science can directly answer questions of morality, since science is simply a group of principles that result in a method. As such, science is amoral (in the sense that it doesn’t by itself comment on morality). However, I do think it is necessary to realize that what we believe is moral can be tested, as long as we’re willing and humble enough to correct ourselves when we’re shown to be wrong.

And that’s it! Hope you’ve enjoyed this look at science and spirituality. Have a good week!

Header Image credit to Pixabay.