About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Thursday, July 08, 2010

Spiritual but not religious

I am not a religious person, and I'm most certainly not spiritual either. Both of these statements get me into trouble in polite society, especially when they are coupled. Apparently I'm not the only one, as anybody who has used an online dating service will readily testify. Typically, these web sites allow you to specify your religious beliefs (and to express a preference for the religious beliefs of your prospective dates). Try simply checking the "atheist" box (if there actually is one), and you'll be waiting a long time for your matches. But if you describe yourself as "spiritual but not religious" your chances are markedly improved (though the problem now is that you'll see a lot of new agey types showing up in your inbox). Why?
Despite the fact that more and more people are comfortable "coming out" as atheists, the word is still very much associated with being immoral, or at the very least amoral. This, of course, despite the fact that there is neither logical nor empirical reason to draw that conclusion. Ever since Plato's Euthyphro dialogue, philosophers have agreed that gods are simply irrelevant to morality, regardless of whether they exist or not. And of course modern sociological research shows that atheists are just as moral as religious believers. Still, the stigma persists.
Enter the word "spiritual," which is becoming synonymous with retaining all that is good in a religious person, without the religion. It seems that in many people's conception if you really can't be religious, at least you should try to be spiritual. If you are not, then you must be a damned selfish materialist, an implicit admission that is not likely to get you many dates on Match.com.
But what, exactly, does it mean to be "spiritual but not religious," or for that matter, just plain spiritual? One interpretation, of course, can be arrived at by taking the word literally: if you are spiritual you believe in spirits (not of the alcohol-laden type). In some sense, this must be right, as spiritual people seem to be averse to the idea that matter and energy are all there is to the universe (hence, the above mentioned cavalcade of new agers likely to populate your inbox). But if that is the case, it is not at all clear why holding such (entirely unfounded) beliefs should translate into someone being a better, more moral (and hence more datable) person. Being spiritual in this sense seems to me simply indicative of a slightly, if often benignly, deluded mind, not one with whom I would really enjoy associating for long periods of time.
A second possibility is that spiritual is meant to indicate someone who devotes part of her time and energy to cultivate her "spirit," as opposed to just being concerned with "material" things. But I'm not a dualist (another mild type of delusion), I don't think of my life as a dichotomous enterprise in the course of which I have to provide material/energy food for my stomach to process, as well as an entirely different kind of nourishment for my "spirit." My mind, whatever the detailed explanation of how it works, is a product of my brain, and the two simply can't be disconnected, upon penalty of the first one simply ceasing to exist.
Which brings me to the third interpretation of the word spiritual: someone who takes care of cultivating and reflecting on his ethics, of behaving justly and compassionately toward his fellow human beings, and of nurturing his aesthetic sense through arts and letters. Okay, by that definition, I am spiritual but not religious. But so is any human being who is not a psychopath. Yes, some people are more reflective than others, some more compassionate, some more inclined to read literature and go to art museums or concerts (the latter activities also of course greatly depending on one's means and education, not just his natural propensities). But I submit that to do the above is part and parcel of what it means to be human. As Odysseus famously puts it in Dante's Inferno, "Fatti non foste per viver come bruti, ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza" (We were not made to live like brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge).
I suggest, therefore, that we reclaim the basic notion that a compassionate, ethical, and interesting human being doesn't need to be either religious or spiritual. He just needs to be human. Do we have a word to suggest to Match.com and similar services to add to their list of possibilities? Yup: humanist, as in someone who is trying to live up to the best of what humanity can be. Now, wouldn't that person make for an interesting date?

56 comments:

  1. A second possibility is that spiritual is meant to indicate someone who devotes part of her time and energy to cultivate her "spirit," as opposed to just being concerned with "material" things.

    This is what is meant by being spiritual, I believe. Do not take "spirit" in the conventional meaning of the world. Let's say, a spiritually developed person would be highly contented in life. Who has attained immense understanding of the functioning of the world around him that he is no more prone to negative emotions like anger, depression, jealousy etc. He has total control over his "spirit". Spirit, in this sense. And for attaining this state, yes, it's necessary to give some time out to contemplate one's actions, others' actions, and their effects on human mind etc etc. That's called cultivating one's spirit.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sounds like someone is dissapointed in his Match.com profile inbox... kidding!

    I agree wholeheartedly that spiritual is a silly thing to be for an atheist. But I have a problem with your solution as well.

    If you read the various "humanist" maniphestos around, the contain a lot of hippie stuff like "we belive rituals to be a good thing" and stuff about sexuality and liberalism. Humanist is a tainted word. There are even humanist chaplains ffs.

    Freethinker is better.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hear, hear! This issue has long been a pet peeve of mine and you addressed it well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Try simply checking the "atheist" box (if there actually is one), and you'll be waiting a long time for your matches. But if you describe yourself as "spiritual but not religious" your chances are markedly improved (though the problem now is that you'll see a lot of new agey types showing up in your inbox)." - What exactly is this assertion based on?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Massimo, are you familiar with this group and what do you think of their agenda?

    http://www.eggandsperm.org/

    ReplyDelete
  6. Massimo: "It seems that in many people's conception if you really can't be religious, at least you should try to be spiritual. If you are not, then you must be a damned selfish materialist, an implicit admission that is not likely to get you many dates on Match.com."

    It stands to reason that if you are a materialist, then you would be more likely to have material values.

    Massimo: "But what, exactly, does it mean to be "spiritual but not religious," or for that matter, just plain spiritual? One interpretation, of course, can be arrived at by taking the word literally: if you are spiritual you believe in spirits (not of the alcohol-laden type)."

    I see the term "spritual" as meaning that which relates to the spirit. Those who are spiritual typically have a spiritual outlook, a spiritual practice, and spiritual values.

    Also, I do not necessarily see spirituality and religion as mutually exclusive terms. All religions have some form of spirituality.

    Massimo: "But if that is the case, it is not at all clear why holding such (entirely unfounded) beliefs should translate into someone being a better, more moral (and hence more datable) person. Being spiritual in this sense seems to me simply indicative of a slightly, if often benignly, deluded mind, not one with whom I would really enjoy associating for long periods of time."

    It doesn't seem to me that you can define morality in objective terms. IOW, it is subjective. So, what is your basis for determining what is moral and what is not?

    Massimo: "But I'm not a dualist (another mild type of delusion), I don't think of my life as a dichotomous enterprise in the course of which I have to provide material/energy food for my stomach to process, as well as an entirely different kind of nourishment for my "spirit." My mind, whatever the detailed explanation of how it works, is a product of my brain, and the two simply can't be disconnected, upon penalty of the first one simply ceasing to exist."

    Why are dualists delusional?

    Massimo: "But I submit that to do the above is part and parcel of what it means to be human. As Odysseus famously puts it in Dante's Inferno, "Fatti non foste per viver come bruti, ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza" (We were not made to live like brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge)."

    Well, on the materialist view, we are not made to do anything. We are simply the byproducts of blind determinism. You are presupposing a teleological outlook (i.e. the belief that we are made to follow virtue and knowledge) which belies your materialistic worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'd say spiritual people wish to cultivate a sense of "being in the moment." They recognize that life is spent in various states of consciousness, and enjoying tinkering with those states. They believe that there are hidden aspects to their selves, and these can be investigated. They wish to dim the effect that ego has on their perception. Etc., etc.

    All this differentiates a spiritual person from one who simply likes thinking a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have a slightly different take on spirituality. It seems to me that spirituality has become a defence for indefensible ideas. The positive emotional associations are added later as reason to see spirituality as a positive thing to be and are actually not the primary content of spirituality. The primary content is the indefensible ideas themselves, or rather the agreement to permit indefensible ideas to be held harmless from examination.

    When I hear, "Are you spiritual?" I interpret it as as, "Will you accept the immunity from question my entirely private internal world affords me if I agree to accept the immunity from question your entirely private internal world affords you?"

    My answer of course is, "No."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Spiritual but not religious? Sounds like an agnostic that leaves room for Deism.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Paisley Who told you that materialists assert that "We are simply the byproducts of blind determinism"? I'd like to smack 'em for fibbing to you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Putting down 'atheist' or 'humanist' as a worldview explicitly on a dating website is admitting to being a contrarian with serious opinions, that's all. 'Spiritual' serves as a signal: 'I'm open-minded and anything goes, beliefs-wise.' That is perceived by many unreflective people as the 'safe' option.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Despite setAD7's cavils I think "humanist" (with the small "h") is just fine. Most people won't even know what it means and it sounds nice and vaguely comforting. "Freethinker" sounds positively threatening to some. The point isn't to make some kind of ideological declaration. It's to get dates.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jimmy, I'm not familiar with that group. I do have some misgivings about human genetic engineering, but only up to a point. It's a complex issue that deserves it's own separate post.

    Paisley, it does not follow at all that if one has a materialist view of life (in the sense of matter and energy) one has to be materialistic (in the sense of attached to money and objects).

    ReplyDelete
  14. Induke,

    That assertion is based both on my personal experience (when I was dating) and on that of several friends, of both genders, who have gone through the same.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Try simply checking the "atheist" box (if there actually is one), and you'll be waiting a long time for your matches."

    This is contradicted by OKCupid's data:
    "Mentioning your religion helps you, but,
    paradoxically, it helps you most if you have no religion. We know that’s going to piss a lot of people off, and we’re more or less tongue-in-cheek with this advice, but it’s what the numbers say.

    These are the religious terms that appeared a statistically significant number of times. Atheist actually showed up surprisingly often (342 times per 10,000 messages, second only to 552 mentions of christian and ahead of 278 for jewish and 142 for muslim)."

    http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2009/09/14/online-dating-advice-exactly-what-to-say-in-a-first-message/

    ReplyDelete
  16. OneDayMore: "@Paisley Who told you that materialists assert that "We are simply the byproducts of blind determinism"? I'd like to smack 'em for fibbing to you."

    This a materialist lie?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Massimo: "Paisley, it does not follow at all that if one has a materialist view of life (in the sense of matter and energy) one has to be materialistic (in the sense of attached to money and objects)."

    I think it is more likely. You do not see any relationship between secularism and materialistic values?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I have toyed with identifying myself as "Godless." Which is the simplest and clearest statement of my position. However, it's also the most loaded with negative judgment; I'd be begging for trouble. Isn't it odd that the most straightforward expression is the most provocative?

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Massimo 1:25AM: Exactly! But unfortunately I think it is often perceived to follow that materialists must also be materialistic, in the sense of attached to money and objects. A lot of the attraction to a word like "spiritual" (as a self-description) is based upon people thinking it means "non-materialistic" when it really means "non-materialist."

    I almost always ask, in the most polite and genuine way I can, what people mean when they describe themselves as "spiritual but not religious." I've found that their answers fall across the spectrum you've outlined, with one addition. Many are simply turned off by what they define as "organized religion," even some who embrace a great deal of Buddhist spirituality. So they are, in essence, religious people (sometimes only in a gooey sort of way, sometimes in a more rigorous manner), but they don't want to be associated with the terms "religious" or "religion." That's often the case, especially, with LGBT people who have a fundamentally religious outlook, but don't belong to any churches. And it's even true amongst some who have joined welcoming churches like MCC or UUC, but nonetheless find the "religious" moniker too tainted by the religious right's opposition to LGBT civil rights. So they adopt "spiritual but not religious."

    ReplyDelete
  20. Massimo,

    About dating strategies: exactly the opposite seems to be true, I thought I picked this up on your blog, incidentally: check out this statistical analysis of dating sites, skip to rule number 6: "Consider becoming an atheist"

    http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2009/09/14/online-dating-advice-exactly-what-to-say-in-a-first-message/

    Mentioning religion on your profile is off-putting, and coming out as an atheist a guaranteed success!

    By the way, what happened to your TAM8 talk this morning? Change of schedule?

    Maarten

    ReplyDelete
  21. Another line of approach (followed by Andre Compte-Sponville for example) is to reclaim the word "spiritual" from the abusive claws of believers in the supernatural and to restore a natural variant that expresses something like transcendental reverence, or like Hitchens would say, for the numinous. I think that it is a fruitless attempt since even most atheists don't buy into this.

    Of course this type of meaning isn't quite like the one you are in search for in the dating scene. "Humanist" somehow is kind of a no go alert too, I think. Why not just say that you are a warm and impassioned believer in fellow human-beings, if that's not too far off from what you are.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I think we tend to use "spiritual" broadly, probably more broadly than we did in the past. People feel things, and those feelings are often hard to describe, particularly feelings such as awe, and we've come to refer to such feelings as spiritual. This need not refer to religion or God, but may refer to a kind of experience of transcendance. I suspect the stoics, who were materialists, felt something of the kind, and portions of their writings strike me as "spiritual" though they rejected a personal God.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Maarten, Michael Shermer and I swapped places, because tomorrow he is talking at a libertarian meeting... Let's get together before the meeting is over!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Nadder, I don't know whether okCupid used actual data, or perhaps the discrepancy is a result of different demographics

    ReplyDelete
  25. Paisley, no I don't see any particular connection. Most Christmas shoppers are religious believers...

    ReplyDelete
  26. I put on my facebook profile that I'm a "spiritual atheist". The sense in your post that is closest to what I mean by this is the third one, and I am a passionate person who is intensely concerned with things like ethics and compassion, but that doesn't quite say it. While I don't believe in spirits or even "objective morality", I care deeply about meaning in life, which I take to be a combination of purpose (something we create) and significance (something every one of us has). I try to remain sensitive to the tragedy inherent in the existence of any contingent creature capable of valuing life, and the means by which tragedy can be answered and overcome. I call myself spiritual because these concerns mark my general perspective on life and I try to live in accord with them. I think spirituality is a good word for that, and I don't think there's anything better for it to mean.

    I like to appropriate words like "spiritual" and "miracle" and use them in my own ways, with fair warning. These words have uses and I think it's a mistake to abandon them in favor of words like "humanist" or "rationalist" which strike me as rather milquetoast.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Massimo: "Paisley, no I don't see any particular connection. Most Christmas shoppers are religious believers..."

    Well, I do. I think there is a connection between scientific materialism and materialistic values.

    "Beginning in the 1990s, the most frequent reason given for attending college had changed to making a lot of money, outranking reasons such as becoming an authority in a field or helping others in difficulty. This correlates with the rise of materialism, specifically the technological aspect: the increasing prevalence of compact disc players, digital media, personal computers, and cellular telephones. Madeline Levine criticized what she saw as a large change in American culture – “a shift away from values of community, spirituality, and integrity, and toward competition, materialism and disconnection.” [11]"

    (source: Wikipedia: "Consumerism")

    ReplyDelete
  28. It's a good point. Ultimately the solution to this problem however would require a great deal of time and positive exposure in the popular media.

    Over the past 10 years, support for gay marriage in the US has gone up, at best, to nearly 50% (e.g. 47%) from perhaps about 30% at most, though it still depends a lot on the wording used. This is probably a consequence of the fact that the opposition has failed to come up with coherent arguments against it that don't sound manifestly stupid or reek of religious fundamentalism possessed only by a sizable minority of the populace. So they've not being doing themselves much good, and since the against position relies so much on gut-feeling, it's probably in their best interests the people that people don't think about it much about it anyway. The media and hollywood and so forth tend to cover gays quite positively (though comedically), but they don't seem to cover atheists much at all. The only thing that comes to mind for me is that creepy guy who saves the Gutenberg bible in Day after Tomorrow.

    The case for atheists is, with even minimal real-world purview, equally clear cut as that for homosexual rights. But it isn't being addressed like intolerance of homosexuals is. It's mostly being ignored. A lot of media is completely secular, but very little of it is explicitly so.

    So, for now, if we can afford to, the best we can do to change peoples' outlooks is not hide our beliefs and try to dissuade people of their prejudices by engaging them in discourse (that could bring up the statistics for instance) and by displaying as observable individuals that we aren't what they think we are.

    As far as finding a mate goes, the obvious solution is to look for others like us, although that unfortunately puts males at a disadvantage since statistically speaking most atheists are males by a large margin.

    Alternatively, you could just keep your religious beliefs a secret until people get to know you well enough that they won't dismiss you out of hand.

    You can also be subtle about your atheism. For instance, you could just say your a humanist or secular humanist, which explicitly means your an atheist with certain morals so it's also a fleshier answer to the question. If people have to look up what being a humanist means, that's all for the better because then they get educated your morals, which are precisely the things they could preconceive you to lack.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Massimo, I too share a dislike of that phrase. It sounds very wishy-washy to my ears, and "spiritual" can smuggle all manner of philosophical absurdities into a conversation that should really be about the human condition.

    I doubt it will catch on, but I very much like Jennifer Michael Hecht's appellation "Poetic Atheism." Her explanations of what she means by that are cogent, and I think the connotations are more clear than for the word "spiritual." Atheism connotes a rejection of all supernaturalism (or, conversely, an affirmation of naturalism), while poetic is a word that doesn't have connotations usually associated with atheism - it connotes beauty, and a feeling of transcendence. As JMH would certainly affirm, there are only feelings of transcendence, we can't REALLY transcend our lives here on earth - but so? As JMH pithily puts it, the meaning we feel IS the meaning. When I'm feeling especially charitable, I can see such a position as what the speaker wants to convey by "spiritual but not religious" but I think such a usage of that phrase is probably rare, and therefore easily misconstrued in a woo-ish fashion.

    So I'll stick with Secular Humanist, or Poetic Atheist. As my friend Dan has said, the problem with "Atheism" as a label is that, really, it only says what one doesn't believe, and doesn't affirm anything. That's what Poetic Atheism is all about - affirming the value of life, even in a world with no noumenal realm. The numinous is just a feeling, but that is no slander to the feeling of the numinous!

    ReplyDelete
  30. It's a complex issue that deserves it's own separate post.
    Agghh! Massimo! You are to be sentenced to ten years hard labour for abusing the apostrophe!

    ReplyDelete
  31. My beloved divine husband is an atheist and he is fun! specially for me, whom, you guessed? am a believer, practically of everything! as long as it's got love, some love, any love, good love, i dont care whether anyone believes in God or not... or in fate... or in life after death... who cares? I do and that's just about enough for me even living with my super-duper fascinating scientific man, who introduced you to me, and wrote some time ago here too, yep, his name is Ken... maybe you remember him from the artist, Marina's post, well, one of those kenny's was my kenny, anyway, as long as we know how to respect the other it's okay whatever we think of what's out there... or in there... and i certainly feel very proud of having a relationship working this fabulous taking into consideration that both of us are very much in love too with our own profiles... he, atheist, me, believer. It can be!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Massimo,

    I can say I am "spiritual" in a sense, and definitely not religious. I reject all dogmatic religions and literal interpretation of their "holy" books. On the other hand, there are reasons to believe that more exists than we can know based purely upon materialism. For example, the laws of nature are apparently such as to produce a dynamic, ever-changing universe which has produced ever more complex material configurations leading to life, and continuing on to produce ever more complex and capable life forms. The fact that the laws of nature are so fine tuned as to produce this directional trend of growth over billions of years suggests that there may be some great intelligence behind it all, which is likely beyond our ability to even begin to understand. Also, just intuitively, it seems that there is something more to this universe than "matter and energy."

    I like reading your posts, Massimo, because you express yourself clearly, logically, honestly, and with lots of insight. I applaud you, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and atheists in general for your work against fundamentalist and neo-fundamentalist religions.

    However, IMO agnosticism is a far more rational position than atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Paisley, really? That seems like very weak evidence indeed! How did they measure 'the rise of materialism'? How do we tell whether the (alleged) connection between materialism and consumerism is correlational or causal?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Kimpatsu, sorry but I'm afraid that was an effect of my ipad's overeager spell checker...

    ReplyDelete
  35. Look again, Paisley. It's obvious from the excerpt you provided that the "materialism" it refers to, and which it is easy to connect with consumerism, is the popular materialism which consists in valuing objects, property, and status over persons, experiences, and meaningful relationships. This is in no way necessitated by adherence to scientific or philosophical materialism.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I always found the "spiritual but not religious" to be synonymous with vitalism.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Paisley,

    "Well, I do. I think there is a connection between scientific materialism and materialistic values."

    As Massimo said, correlation doesn't prove causation. That's perhaps the most basic law of statistics, and in any statistics course it's one of the first things your taught. E.g. there is a correlation between the consumption of ice cream and the rate at which rape is committed, but this is because more ice cream is consumed when its hotter outside and so are more rapes.

    Also, Europe is less consumerist and capitalistic in general than the US is, in spite of it being more secular, so it follows that if scientific materialism leads to possessional materialism (something you've yet to establish) then other variables exist which can overpower and mask this effect.

    Delving into speculative theory, I think that people who are obsessed with science, philosophy, truth, knowledge, and so forth would be less consumerist because these intellectual pursuits necessarily distract from, and arguably trivialize through reflection, the desire to be as rich as possible at whatever expense to the life of the mind and heart.

    Skeptics, scientists, philosophers, and so forth rarely make much money, so these career paths clearly aren't appropriate for people whose main objective is to become rich.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Massimo: "Paisley, really? That seems like very weak evidence indeed!"

    Weak evidence is better than no evidence at all. And you did not provide any evidence whatsoever to support your assertions.

    There is extensive evidence to suggest that religiously and/or spiritually committed people are happier.

    "Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Center and the Pew Organization conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being "very happy" than the least religiously committed people.[26] An analysis of over 200 social studies contends that "high religiousness predicts a lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with sex life and a sense of well-being,"[27] and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of them showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem and lower levels of hypertension, depression, and clinical delinquency.[28][29]"

    (source: Wikipedia: "Happiness")

    There is evidence that links materialism with depression and anger.

    "Materialism Link to Depression and Anger - Study"

    Desiring someone who has spiritual values is a legitimate and valid criterion in selecting a prospective mate. Spiritually-committed people are more likely to be happy and there are studies to back this up.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Is spiritual the new supernatural?"

    A post-new-age brand of bland, generic spirituality is on the upsurge among our better educated demographics and it may be finding some sympathy within the progressive community.

    I recognize the importance of an "inner life", too, but does it have to be full of superstition and magical thinking to be valuable and poignant?

    Many of my peers seem to use “spirituality” as a device by which they can dodge having to rationally defend an assortment of nebulous or “universalist” articles of faith. Their unconscious intuition tells them that if they don’t spell out their magical thinking in so many words they won’t have to defend something which they never explicitly expose to rational thought.

    I’m not politely buying it anymore.

    Poor Richard

    http://almanac2010.wordpress.com/spiritual-new-supernatural/

    Poor Richard's Almanack 2010
    (http://almanac2010.wordpress.com/)

    ReplyDelete
  40. Paisley, you seem to be getting off topic. At any rate, research on happiness is pretty dicey, especially when based on self reports. Besides, even if believing in something that doesn't exist makes people feel better (jee, what a radical notion!) that says precisely nothing about the existence of whatever it is they believe in, or about their rationality.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @Paisley
    The study you posted once again refers to the popular economic form of materialism rather than scientific or philosophical materialism. Do you understand that the word "materialism" has different meanings?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Paisley,

    People who are religious, by virtue of the sense of community engendered in religious institutions like churches, have advantages that do not directly stem from religious beliefs. Furthermore, it may be that the type of people who are prone to become very religious are inherently also the type of people more prone to be happy.

    Your studies also don't look at non-religious spiritualists, they look at highly committed religious people which is a separate category.

    As Massimo implies, people aren't necessarily good at judging their own happiness nor do different people, and different types of people, necessarily judge it by the same standards.

    All this having been said, let's assume your right and being religious/spiritual makes us on average happier. If this happiness is built on false pretenses rather than legitimate causes, then what, besides its lack of negative health side effects, makes it any different than just taking drugs to elicit the same happiness? Isn't it the case that while happiness and suffering are a component of morality, they are not all that there is to it?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Massimo: "Paisley, you seem to be getting off topic. At any rate, research on happiness is pretty dicey, especially when based on self reports."

    Okay, but I can make the same argument for the research showing that "atheists are just as moral as religious believers."

    Massimo: "Besides, even if believing in something that doesn't exist makes people feel better (jee, what a radical notion!) that says precisely nothing about the existence of whatever it is they believe in, or about their rationality."

    It does say something about the pragmatic value of the belief. And this is no small thing. "Happiness" is big business. This is why the antidepressant drug business is a multi-billion dollar industry. And since you are bringing up the subject of rationality, what exactly is your rational basis for asserting that dualism is delusionary?

    ReplyDelete
  44. strangebeasty: "Look again, Paisley. It's obvious from the excerpt you provided that the "materialism" it refers to, and which it is easy to connect with consumerism, is the popular materialism which consists in valuing objects, property, and status over persons, experiences, and meaningful relationships. This is in no way necessitated by adherence to scientific or philosophical materialism."

    Agreed. But I never said that it was "necessitated." I simply stated that I believe there is connection. Upon further reflection, I probably should have stated it somewhat differently. "There appears to be an interconnection (or feedback loop) between science, technology, capitalism, and materialism."

    ReplyDelete
  45. Jared Croft: "People who are religious, by virtue of the sense of community engendered in religious institutions like churches, have advantages that do not directly stem from religious beliefs."

    I would argue that commitment to the faith community is a basic religious belief and value. It certainly is in Christianity.

    Jared Croft: "Furthermore, it may be that the type of people who are prone to become very religious are inherently also the type of people more prone to be happy."

    It could be. It could also be that those who are prone to be religious are more prone to be happy. (Keep in mind that I am using the term "religious" here to be interchangeable with "spiritual.")

    Jared Croft: "Your studies also don't look at non-religious spiritualists, they look at highly committed religious people which is a separate category."

    What is a "non-religious spiritualist?"

    Jared Croft: "As Massimo implies, people aren't necessarily good at judging their own happiness nor do different people, and different types of people, necessarily judge it by the same standards."

    I suspect the social scientists or researchers are the ones who ultimately made this evaluation, not the people involved in the study.

    Jared Croft: "All this having been said, let's assume your right and being religious/spiritual makes us on average happier. If this happiness is built on false pretenses rather than legitimate causes, then what, besides its lack of negative health side effects, makes it any different than just taking drugs to elicit the same happiness?"

    What drugs are you referring to? Can you be more specific?

    Jared Croft: "Isn't it the case that while happiness and suffering are a component of morality, they are not all that there is to it?"

    I am not sure what you are asking here, but I do see our present emotional state as providing feedback as to whether we are on course or not. What criteria do you use?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Massimo, until I began to RSS this blog, I used to enjoy your work. I am a 27-year-old Ph.D. in an EEB program in the US, and have read your latest book (Extended Synthesis). I cannot believe how poorly studied you are in some of what you criticize. For instance, in this article, YOU DON'T HAVE A SINGLE REFERENCE FROM ANYBODY THAT DOES SPIRITUAL WORK. There are intellectuals and others in the academy (what most other academics value the most) that would call you out for your ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Christopher,

    wow, big words and big accusations! First off, do you really expect citations to the primary literature in a blog post aiming at the general public? Second, citations about what? I am making a personal and philosophical point, not one relative to research on spiritual beliefs. What sort of references would you suggest, and apropos of what, exactly?

    ReplyDelete
  48. I am sorry, I did not mean to write "used to enjoy your work," and I realised that this came off in a way that was not productive and insulting.

    But, I was really upset when I wrote this. Why? Well, first, in your work from what I can tell, you strictly adhere to Western thinking. Western thought is, as far as I know, the one of the philosophies least versed and concerned with spirituality. Also, Western ideas about spirituality are so few of SO MANY others. What I wanted to recommend is that you expand your personal and philosophical ideas of spirituality (you may have, but I have not reflected in anything you have written) to do spirituality justice. Here are two interesting questions: Do you think that spirituality has any beneficial role in human society? Can humanists exist without spirituality? (The latter question is begging for a "yes," which is problematic because that would lead any humanist to believe in The Answer.)

    In addition, when writing for the general public, I think that we must hold each other MORE responsible since we have privilege and power with our earned educational capital. This capital must be used with caution because many people (mis?)take power for truth, will reference such truths as absolute, and thus perpetuate and pontificate about their uncritical beliefs. (I am not arguing that what you wrote was wrong, just somewhat narrow.) I just think posts like this accommodate the view of nearly ALL scientists I know that are ardent atheist empiricists. This has shown to be very problematic for western science both personally and politically. (I have been spending tens of hours contemplating the latter, which I would love to discuss.) This is largely why most post was more reactionary and less substantive.

    Again, my apologies, and I do respect you and your work very much.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Christopher, apologies accepted, no problem. Well, what can I say, I am a thorough going materialist of the western tradition. Any time I looked into the eastern one I didn't find anything of substance that would sway me in that direction. If by spiritual we mean something truly transcendental, beyond matter/energy, I have no evidence it exists, and I consider that kind of talk to be fluffy. If we mean instead the ability of human beings to feel emotions, awe, inspiration, etc. then of course we do have that, all of us, secular and religious people included.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Massimo: "If by spiritual we mean something truly transcendental, beyond matter/energy, I have no evidence it exists."

    What objective evidence do you have that our first-person experience of own subjectivity is physical (i.e. mass/energy)?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Paisley,

    "I would argue that commitment to the faith community is a basic religious belief and value. It certainly is in Christianity."

    If it is simply a matter of infrastructure and social organization, then faith isn't an essential ingredient.

    Community can exist with or without faith, and if we are trying to isolate the effect of faith alone, community gets in the way. Are atheists less happy because they don't have secular churches or because they don't have faith?

    I'd hazard to guess that in the rare instances wherein atheists have churches specifically tailored to them, like the NYC ethical society for instance, the happiness gap would be smaller or non-existent. Perhaps it would even be in their favor. We can't really know without studying rare instances such as that.

    Another thing to look at would be intelligence and education's effect on happiness. Half the population has an IQ 100 or below, and intelligence and education and atheism, and indeed intellectualism, are positively correlated. For obvious reasons, it is easier for an atheist to feel isolated than the average person who has an easier time relating to the general populace owing to more shared interests and similar level of cognitive function. Even a smart religious person can have this sort of problem, but the religious population is more generalized. Albeit, this is largely corrected for by the fact that your studies didn't even look at atheists per say. They just looked at non-religious people, who make up around 10% of the US population. Far less are self-described atheists, whom in turn make up only a small portion of this demographic.

    "It could be. It could also be that those who are prone to be religious are more prone to be happy."

    Same thing. The problem is how do you isolate the effect of faith from the effect of personality?

    "What is a "non-religious spiritualist?"

    Someone who isn't a member of any organized religion, who maybe doesn't believe in God but does believe in the soul and other supernatural things. It isn't, in the meaning we're using, a word with a precise definition, but it is definitely wrong in this context to use it as a synonym for being religious. If this all sounds hazy to you, it is, but it's also in vogue. This isn't something Massimo just made up.

    "I suspect the social scientists or researchers are the ones who ultimately made this evaluation, not the people involved in the study."

    In the case of the polls they were. However, upon rereading your post with the quote, it's apparent a lot of work was done that was less superficial than that and which came to the same conclusion.

    "What drugs are you referring to? Can you be more specific?"

    Imagine a version of the drug ecstasy that didn't harm your health in anyway. Should you take it because it makes you feel good? Should you believe in God because it makes you feel good to? The general idea is that the moral value of being happy is contingent upon being happy for a good reason. This is why a life of ubiquitous drug induced would not be morally positive. If, as many atheists believe, all tales and conceptions of divinities are manifestly at best speculative rather than empirically based then the analogy holds.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Jarred Croft: "If it is simply a matter of infrastructure and social organization, then faith isn't an essential ingredient.

    Community can exist with or without faith, and if we are trying to isolate the effect of faith alone, community gets in the way. Are atheists less happy because they don't have secular churches or because they don't have faith?
    "

    But the point is that this "sense of community" (more specifically, communion with God and each other) is central to Christianity. It stems directly from the religious beliefs of Christians. And it would appear that secularism is not capable of engendering this same sense of community.

    Jared Croft: "Another thing to look at would be intelligence and education's effect on happiness. Half the population has an IQ 100 or below, and intelligence and education and atheism, and indeed intellectualism, are positively correlated. For obvious reasons, it is easier for an atheist to feel isolated than the average person who has an easier time relating to the general populace owing to more shared interests and similar level of cognitive function. Even a smart religious person can have this sort of problem, but the religious population is more generalized. Albeit, this is largely corrected for by the fact that your studies didn't even look at atheists per say. They just looked at non-religious people, who make up around 10% of the US population. Far less are self-described atheists, whom in turn make up only a small portion of this demographic."

    It could just be that the cultivation of the basic spiritual values of "faith, hope, and love" is positively correlated with peace and contentment.

    Jared Croft: "The general idea is that the moral value of being happy is contingent upon being happy for a good reason."

    I don't believe you can experience genuine happiness based on the "wrong reasons."

    ReplyDelete
  53. The Center for Inquiry published the results of a study in Free Inquiry magazine about a year ago, which suggests some interesting variations among "the godless." The article is available online, so draw your own conclusions.

    I'll just point out that, on the topic most closely related to happiness - "life satisfaction" - the article observes that "life satisfaction was lower among the spirituals relative to the other three belief labels" (viz. agnostic, atheist, and humanist). Also: "Many of the nonreligious, particularly those involved with an increasingly visible movement or community characterized by stronger varieties of nonbelief, are actually as well-adjusted and satisfied as the highly religious, with those uncertain of their beliefs showing more distress."

    However, as the article states, "more research remains to be done", and, besides: (a) the reasons that one cites for one's happiness are not necessarily true (indeed, there might even be a negative correlation); and (b) research (e.g. as I recall from reading this book a while back) also suggests an innate "set point", which is a strong (albeit, not the only) influence in determining one's happiness and which suggests that reason and belief play at most minor roles.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Paisely,

    "But the point is that this "sense of community" (more specifically, communion with God and each other) is central to Christianity. It stems directly from the religious beliefs of Christians. And it would appear that secularism is not capable of engendering this same sense of community."

    Secularism as a worldview is definitively inspecific in regards to community, but it is perfectly capable of providing nourishing communities. As it is, it tends to do so less often than organized religions do, precisely because organized religion requires some form of community whereas secularism only permits these rather than ensures this. But one could just as easily use this as an argument for improving and promulgating secular communities as one could use it to justify people regressing back theology. This therefore isn't a means of isolating the variable of religion.

    "It could just be that the cultivation of the basic spiritual values of "faith, hope, and love" is positively correlated with peace and contentment."

    And these values may be easier to endorse by the masses than intellectuals. Dogs often seem way happier than most people are. Intellectuals are often the reverse because they find it more difficult to focus only or mostly on positive things given their natural tendency to explore everything. Through out history religion was an enemy to progress even when the status quo was horrible because religion was used to invoke faith and complacency in whatever already existed. Independent intellectuals couldn't accept this and succeeded, in many ways, in making the world a better place.

    The very fact that religion does on net now seem to induce greater well-being is reflection of the amount that secularism has forced religion to become more mellow and sweet by denying coercive authority and introducing a spiritual democracy in which more pleasant religious beliefs and practices expanded and consolidated at the expense of more traditional practices based around hate, greed, absolutism, fear, guilt, and intolerance.

    "I don't believe you can experience genuine happiness based on the "wrong reasons."

    You can if you define happiness as an emotion. If you don't, and people didn't used to, then you set up conditions for what else qualifies happiness. Aristotle did this extensively, but I don't see how this helps you. If someone argues that there is no more moral value in feeling or even doing better because of beliefs in things that aren't empirical than there is in taking drugs producing the same effect, you come to a dead end. Whether you find this arguement valid or not has to do with your emotions and intuitions.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Jared, methinks you concede too much to Paisley.

    For example, according to Gallup World Poll, reported in Forbes magazine, "The five happiest countries in the world--Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands--are all clustered in the same region, and all enjoy high levels of prosperity."

    Now, if Paisley wants to argue that these are also the most religious, spiritual, or Christian countries in the world (say, comparably so with the US, which is only #14 on the list), then that should be entertaining!

    PS: Note that the Forbes article, while quick to mention the wealth of these Scandinavian countries, is rather quiet about their social-democratic policies (i.e. what the American political right disparages as "socialism", these days often in reference to the Obama White House).

    ReplyDelete
  56. Humanist carries way too much baggage to cede spirituality to the religious. I think your third definition of celebrating and enjoying all that is involved in being an intelligent, socially adept human is rapidly becoming the common meaning of the word. And the phrase spiritual but not religious makes it clear that the religious connotations of spiritual are specifically excluded.

    And don't knock the woo-woo new agers. I would rather select from them than a bunch of rigid, humorless humanists.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.