A Naturalistic View of Spirituality
Bridging paradigms. The case for a naturalistic understanding of spiritual experiences.
This essay is part of a Circles in Time series called ‘Seeing Ourselves as Systems’. Subscribe here to get access to future posts.
I have this sense that I am this separate self-determining being. That is to say that I, David, am an individual who feels he is separate in some important way from the rest of the world.
I have a personality. A character. A body that is mine. I have aspirations. Goals. Interests. Hopes. Worries. Fears. Regrets. Likes. Dislikes. Memories. Familiarities. Knowledge. Skills. All of this appears to belong to ‘David’.
Can you relate to this? I’m quite certain you can.
It is our modus operandi. Business as usual. So familiar we take it as a given.
But is this self, which seems so familiar, so obviously there, real? Natural?Fundamental? Or is the self an illusion?
WHEN POLES ALIGN
There are said to be two groups at opposite ends of the ontological spectrum—groups that seem to disagree on the fundamental nature of reality—yet share an assured, and perhaps outwardly contrarian, realisation
We can call the one group naturalists and the other group spiritualists.
Although these groups tend not to see eye-to-eye, they firmly agree that the self is an illusion—a fictional construct that exists nowhere other than the chambers of the human mind.
Naturalists, such as neuroscientists and biologists, have spent centuries looking for the self within the brain. Over time these scientists’ theories have improved, their instruments have gotten sharper and more powerful, and yet, the self is still nowhere to be found. Not in the brain. Not in the body. Not outside or in-between.
In fact, what science has had to acknowledge is that the natural world actually only makes sense if we don’t take the separate self as fundamental. There is just no room for it.
On the other end of the spectrum, spiritualists from various traditions around the world have recognised and taught that the self is an illusion.
In many ways, these traditions have been centuries ahead of science. Quiet climbers, patiently waiting at the top of the mountain for science to catch up.
As a result of this realisation, the seeming separateness, our duality, our disconnect from the world around us, are all seen to be false. A lie. And it is this lie that is at the root of all of our suffering.
Moreover, the illusion can be dissolved. Seen. Realised fully, without having to take on any supernatural beliefs. A perspective shift that every human being has the ability to make.
As a result of the realisation that the self is an illusion, both groups share a set of conclusions that appear as utterly foreign to one’s everyday experience of themselves.
For example, both groups conclude that separation doesn't exist—we are made of the same stuff as everything else. That free will doesn’t exist. That death doesn’t exist. That time doesn’t exist. That all these things are simply macroscopic illusions. Mirages of the mind that dissolve with careful inquiry.
THE PROBLEM:
Understood, yet not necessarily seen:
Scientific naturalists have arrived at the realisation through intellectual understanding. There is evidence that reality is made of the same fundamental stuff, and that you and I are no different from this stuff. That the self, souls, free will and death don’t really make sense outside the realm of our own psychology. That time is a macroscopic phenomenon that disappears when you look at things very closely. That the universe is infinitely more complex than our everyday experience, and simultaneously, infinitely simpler. That what human beings actually are these fully connected, complex systems—dynamic and resisting the relentless march of entropy. Ever-changing at one level and yet never changing at another.
The problem is that the naturalist’s realisation is understood intellectually, but not necessarily felt as a firsthand experience.
To use an analogy I heard about from the neuroscientist, James Cooke: It is as if these scientists can explain exactly how the 3D glasses you wear to a movie work, without having ever watched a movie in 3D. Explanation without having tasted what they are explaining.
This creates a conflict between what the scientist understands and how they actually experience the world.
Seen, yet not necessarily understood:
Spiritual non-dualists have arrived at the realisation through felt experience. They have tasted the eternalism of being. The being beyond time. The being that survives contact with death. They have seen through the illusion of the self, as this separate and central subject that engages with different objects outside of itself, in ‘the world’.
The problem is that the spiritual non-dualist’s realisation is felt, but not necessarily understood. And of course, on some level, the non-dual experience can never be fully understood. But what happens is that spiritualists may typically jump to supernatural explanations in an attempt to make sense of their experience, when naturalistic explanations will do.
BRIDGING THE PARADIGMS
Naturalistic explanations of spiritual realisations can help us integrate the two paradigms together, strengthening the chances of a move away from the overly dualistic, self-centeredness that is causing so much suffering, fear, confusion, conflict and disconnection.
Can we see, feel and know ourselves as the open, connected, complex systems that we are? That is what this essay series is attempting to explore.
Take care,
David