Does faith in God differ from dogma & morality?

You know the secrets of the universe?
Great. How does that help me love
my neighbor?

This week, Texas Faith asks:

In a conversation last week with Eric Metaxas, author of Bonhoeffer: Martyr, Prophet, Spy and now Socrates in the City: Conversations on Life, God, and Other Small Topics, he brought up the distinction between faith in God and dogma and morality.

As an example, he pointed to how dogma can become an idol of its own. People worship the tenets of their faith, not the God who is behind it.

Likewise, moralists can be pinched sourpusses. Their rigid code becomes a substitute for religious faith.

Of course, people of any faith need some guiding beliefs. Otherwise, their faith is grounded in nothing more than their subjective ideas.

So, as part of our ongoing debate about how people of any religious tradition balance faith and dogma, how would you respond to this question:

Is there a distinction between faith in God and dogma and morality? 

As a naturalist, I can answer this one of two ways. I can address the difference between faith in God and dogma and morality as naturalists see it in theists. Or, I can address what the distinction between foundational beliefs and dogma and morality are for the naturalist. But both can be answered in that this question, either way, ultimately boils down to our approach to knowledge and to ethics.

There can certainly be found many naturalists plagued by the hubris that is so hard for all human beings to avoid. Some of them say things like 'reason shows' as one would claim to know what 'God says'. The Spiritual Naturalist's aim is to have an approach to knowledge that places humility at its core. A humble approach to knowledge means that we accept our limited ability to know all things; we do not make claims for which we have no evidence. We instead attempt to discipline ourselves to recognize there are many things we simply don't know.

Dogma technically means simply the doctrines of a church, and this version of the word is fairly innocuous, or at least it could be. But dogmatism is thought of more as a rigid belief-based mindset whereby we become convinced in our own infallibility. Often we fail to recognize this because we claim that the sources to which we refer are infallible, and imagine that we can simultaneously recognize our own infallibility and therefore escape criticism of hubris. But this approach fails on two accounts: first, we can make mistakes in choosing which sources are wise to defer to. Secondly, sources are all ultimately written by some human hand, and as such, subject to imperfection as well - even if there may be a perfect 'message sender'. Rationalists meanwhile make claims about rationality, but fail to keep in mind that - although rationality itself may dictate something - they are imperfect in their ability to be perfectly rational at all times, even when they think they are. So, whether theist or atheist, if we are not guilty of personal hubris, we are guilty of hubris with respect to humanity when behaving in this manner. This is why all knowledge should be held to be provisional, subject to reconsideration upon new information.

Ethics refer to those principles on which we act. For the Humanist, these principles should be derived from the needs of human happiness and well-being. They are similarly judged by their objective effects on that objective. But to prescribe certain behaviors and principles requires we make a judgment about 'how things are'. If knowledge is provisional then, so are the ethics we derive from them.

We are all traveling on a boat that we're having to build and work on as we travel. This means we cannot wait for perfect knowledge before we establish ethical standards. We must endeavor to act ethically, but recognize that none of us are perfect in our ability to know the best ethics. We must do the best we can - not being nihilistic, not claiming to 'know nothing', and not claiming that all knowledge is hopelessly biased and subjective. But, at the same time, we must keep an open mind, be willing to reexamine our beliefs when reasonable challenges are made to them, and always be ready to correct our course - not flippantly or based on self interest, but with careful and earnest moral deliberation.

For those who believe in God, remember that while such a being would have definite qualities, your knowledge of them is subject to error. For those who have no such belief, remember that your knowledge of whatever is true is equally prone to misunderstanding. This humility is what is important for all of us. Rather than concerning ourselves so much with what our brothers and sisters believe or don't believe about the ultimate mysteries of existence, we should be considering something more within our immediate control and down to earth; namely: how compassionate and humble are we acting toward them?

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

What is 'personhood' for the naturalist?

The Winchester Mystery House,
reported to be haunted

As many have heard by now, one measure on the Mississippi ballot today asks voters to decide whether to redefine 'personhood' at the moment of fertilization of a cell (see report here). This seemed like a good time to explain the naturalist position on the matter.

What does 'personhood' mean for a naturalist?

Of course, I cannot speak for all naturalists, and I'm sure some may disagree with the following. But I can give the reader a view that is consistent with naturalism, and that is my view as a naturalist. Further, I believe the following, in general, to be in agreement with most naturalist views on the issue.

When all of us of any belief look at people, as life forms, we can see skin, muscles, bones, organs, a nervous system, brains, etc. We can see tissues, and we can look at them with instruments to see they're made out of small individual cells. We can see how these cells function, and we have discovered cells are made out of atoms, and know a good deal about how and why these atoms interact the way they do. When it comes to the actions of a human being, we can see that the activity of the brain has a great deal to do with them. We can look at cases of many varieties of unfortunate brain injuries, and see their effects on human personality, abilities, and consciousness.

We do not know every detail there is to know about all things in biology, but the overall picture of a functioning organism, including thoughts, personality, memories, and emotions, seems to have pretty convincingly come into focus through these discoveries. Does this mean an immaterial and invisible entity controlling these bodies is impossible? By the very nature of the claim, we can't know such a thing, and to say it's impossible would be unjustified. But we can at least all see and agree on the physical aspects of human functions that we do see.

Yet even the naturalist recognizes, in consciousness and personhood, there is obviously something there that is greater than the sum of its parts. The ancient Stoics distinguished between that which 'exists' and that which 'subsists'. While physical bodies exist, many things subsist via the relationships between them. In modern terms, we can consider subsisting phenomena to be those things which are a result of the complex interactions of components. These things consist of form, relationships, patterns, etc.

A wave is an example. A wave on water describes a relationship of interaction between particles. When we see an ocean wave move from left to right, nothing of material existence has actually moved in that direction at that distance, yet we can describe the motion and its effects mathematically. Something like an ecology, or a democracy, or capitalism are also examples of things which no one would say are supernatural, but yet are not physical objects you can hold in your hand. They are things that result from the complex interactions and relationships between their components. In scientific terms, these are called complex systems.

In complex systems theory, there is something called an emergent property. This is when components interact in such complex ways that they produce properties that don't exist among them individually, and these properties are said to be irreducible to the simple interactions between their components (in other words, greater than the sum of their parts). What's more, these emergent properties can be causal sources of their own, even creating a 'top-down' effect on the components out of which they are made.

As described in Plato's Dialogues, when discussing the nature of the soul with Socrates, a man named Simmias used an analogy to describe how he viewed the soul. He said the soul was like an attunement as produced by an instrument - existing as a result of the instrument's behavior, and ceasing to exist when the instrument is destroyed. Meanwhile, the Buddhists have a concept often translated as 'no-self' whereby they recognize that if we peel away our capacity of memory, feeling, thought, sensation, etc. that we will find there is no one single thing we can point to and say "that is me". Instead, we are the result of many aggregates operating in unison.

If we think of persons as beings capable of thought, memories, feelings, opinions, and a number of these features, it seems that Simmias and the Buddhists describe something very close to what we can all see in our modern understanding of the brain and biology. Personhood also seems, very well, to be like the kind of emergent property described by those who study complex systems like the brain. Just as 'democracy' is real, and results from the pattern of activity between individuals, a mind or person is also just as real, and results from the activities of the brain.

Spiritual naturalists hold life to be sacred, and persons to be supremely sacred. Yet, how do we know where the boundaries lie? To help illuminate the matter regarding the beginnings of life and personhood, let's look at how we handle the ending of life...

Regardless of whether we believe the person exists elsewhere or is gone, most of us recognize that a person is no longer present once their brain stops functioning. This is why no one is out there shooting morticians for embalming and burying the deceased. But consider an example where a person's brain has been completely destroyed, yet they are being kept 'alive' on machines. Here, the heart is beating, the cells of the body are replicating and living, nutrients are being used, the lungs are breathing, and so on. Yet, almost everyone would agree that to let this body die would not be a murder. Most cases of controversy in similar situations has been because some part of the brain was still functioning and there was debate over whether or not any person was there. But to keep a headless body alive on a machine? Most people would recognize this was simply tissue, even though it is human DNA and even though it is 'life'. So, even among those who believe in immaterial souls, there is some acceptance that the soul is only present while the brain is operating - at least at the end of life.

Now, looking at the beginning of life, we see a form that is coming into being gradually. Amidst this form is a brain which eventually begins functioning (I believe at around 8 weeks). Though even its first functioning stages do not have the kind of function we have been able to associate with what we would call a 'person' in the sense of a being that can have thoughts, feelings, experiences, ideas, and so on. The first kinds of brain functions to form are the simple systems that even insects have, which regulate heart operations and so on. In an injured adult, we would not consider these to be a 'person' if deciding to keep them on life support. However, the emergence of this property called personhood is fuzzy, but we can at least compare the point before brain activity to the headless body on a ventilator, quite easily.

For those who do not assume there to be extra invisible forces present, this implies that pre-brain activity tissues are just that - tissue, with no person existing. I would therefore expect most naturalists to disagree with the notion of defining personhood as beginning with fertilization of a single cell.

This is not to say that the matter of how we treat such things should be made flippantly. Many may bring up the issue of 'potentiality'. Yet, even before fertilization there is potentiality if we do or don't perform various tasks. And, were our technology sufficient, every shed skin cell becomes a 'potential' person, so potentiality is a somewhat unconvincing measure. Rather - because potentiality exists throughout all situations, even in the thought of having children - all of the process is to be approached with reverence. This includes not only whether or not to carry a child to term, but whether or not to become pregnant in the first place, and much more. It is fitting and beautiful that mothers and fathers look on the unborn with love and caring, even at the earliest stages. But this is a different quality that does not necessarily mean that what they care for in the beginning is currently the person they hope it to become - a special and important quality nonetheless.

To the naturalist, saying there can be a 'person' without a high-functioning brain, is much like saying there can be a 'democracy' without a population of people. Again, by the very nature of the claim, an immaterial soul is not disprovable and we could never know if an immeasurable thing exists or not. But those who claim there is a person that must be protected which inhabits a single simple cell, are in the same logical boat as someone who argues before the state that houses where someone has died must be forbidden from being demolished because there is a disembrained 'person' still existing in the house. Can we prove a house is not haunted? No, and we cannot prove a cell is not haunted either.

But if some of us desire to legally protect either the house, or the cell, then the burden is upon them to show that it is inhabited by an invisible entity somehow existing apart from a physical brain. The reason the burden of proof is theirs, is because such laws impose on the free activity of other citizens. And, in a free democracy, any law which imposes restrictions on others, must be shown via publicly available means to be necessary to protect the rights of others - and the first step is showing that there is indeed an 'other' to protect in the first place.


Now, as to whether corporations are persons - that's a-whole-nother article :)

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Wisdom is justified, true happiness

The wisdom essential for
True Happiness must be
cultivated over time.
Photo: (cc) Oskar Nijs
(OskarN), Flickr.com.

Wisdom is justified, true happiness.

Knowledge is often described as "justified, true belief". This means, if you hold a belief, and it is true, that is not enough to call it knowledge. It must also be a justified belief. Meaning, there must be a good rational reason for the belief that is somehow causally linked to the external fact. So, a person could hold a belief for foolish reasons, that happens to turn out to be true by chance, but this is not knowledge.

On the other side of the coin, the belief being justified is also not reason enough to call it knowledge if it is not also true. Sometimes we have a good reason to believe something, but the evidence on hand simply points in a direction that isn't true. No matter how justified, if the belief isn't actually true, then it isn't really knowledge.

Now for wisdom...

Wisdom can be described as "justified, true happiness". This means that there are no distraught sages (ultimately wise folks). If a person is wise, you will know their wisdom by its fruit, which is happiness. While all sages are happy, not all happy people are sages. A person could be a 'happy fool'. In other words, they may be happy for ignorant, naive, shallow, or unrelated reasons. This is why I say that the happiness must be justified. A sage is happy because the sage understands the true way to happiness and reasons for happiness. The happiness must also be true happiness. In other words, it must be a deep enduring contentment and joy that transcends external circumstance, and not be a happiness based on shallow transitory pleasures.

So, if someone appears to be typically grouchy, mean-spirited, sad, upset, angry, bitter, or erratic in their happiness - then it is reasonable to question the wisdom of their ways. Beware the path they have chosen, unless you too wish to be similarly unhappy. True Happiness and relief from suffering is, after all, is the ultimate purpose of spiritual practice.


Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Images of God and mental health

Baylor’s Wave III religion survey, which came out in late September, takes a look at the connection between religion and mental health. Among the findings, the authors report that:

“When it comes to religion, beliefs are more important than are behavior or affiliation…Frequency of prayer has no consistent effect on the number of reported mental health issues in past month. Respondents who pray every day report statistically the same number of mental health issues as those who never pray or pray only on certain occasions.” 

Likewise, the authors report: 

“Prayer, religious attendance, and religious affiliation, three mainstay measures of religiosity in Western culture, have no effect on the number of reported mental health issues.” 

But here’s the part that makes a difference: 

“When it comes to mental health, the aspect of religion that matters the most is the nature of one’s relationship with God.” The authors concluded that “Those respondents who believe that they have a strong, loving relationship with God report fewer mental health issues, while those respondents who report more ambiguity in their relationship with God report more mental health issues.” 

With that as background, here’s the Texas Reason Blog question for this week:


How do you interpret this data about the supremacy of a strong, loving relationship with God?

In the first case, when they noted that frequency of prayer was not a factor so much as beliefs, this tells me that a person’s perspective matters. Indeed our perspective on life and our value judgments about ourselves and our world have an amazing effect on our happiness and well being. This is one thing I noticed in the power of Stoicism as it helped me to look at the world in a different way.

The second point is also unsurprising, that prayer, attendance, and affiliation have no effect on mental health. Especially in the West, religions are not typically looked at as a set of practices with direct improvement purposes, as you have in the East with meditation and so on (although in the original study there was one mention of meditation in relationship to entrepreneurship). Instead, the West tends to focus on what you believe, not what you do. Therefore the “practices” of Western religion tend to be largely ceremonial or obligatory, or even experiential rather than the kind of practice that is meant to cultivate any particular quality.

On the third item, there is a lot of presumption here. The survey has a sharp Western, even Abrahamic, bias in the way it has framed the matter at hand, and in surveys the way you frame things can greatly influence results. Here, it was assumed that all religion necessarily includes monotheism. Secondly, the above summary of the study suggests that a number of real effective practices were unaddressed because they weren’t part of the Judeo-Christian tradition. This is, perhaps, understandable since the study was meant to look at the United States, of which Eastern practices are an extreme minority.

But when it comes to those who do believe in one God, it makes perfect sense that a person’s disposition toward that God would be affected by one’s mental health, and the reverse causality should also be obvious. In more broad terms, what’s likely going on is that, when one has ‘made peace’ with one’s situation as they believe it to be (God, Nature, the universe, etc) then they are mentally more healthy, and are more healthy by that disposition. This, at least, is what I have noticed among non-theists as well. Therefore, I interpret this data to be touching on something more broad than just a particular mindset about a monotheistic belief.


Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Beware pseudoscience in the guise of spirituality

The End of the World
John Martin, 1851-1853

Occasionally I get emails from various bloggers, authors, or others sending me press releases because they'd like me to promote their product on my website. I suppose any blog that's been out and around a bit will end up on such lists. If something is genuinely related to the topics on which I write, and I feel it would be of interest to my readers, and I really do intend to check it out myself, then I'm more than happy to pass along word about it. Most of these messages don't fit that criteria, however.

Today I got a notice about a new book claiming that 2012 will be both the end of the world and a 'new beginning'. The language describing this book was along these lines...

Drawing on meticulous research as well as personal shamanic experience, the author clarifies the 'big picture' of planetary evolution from the perspectives of ancient wisdom and modern science. He reveals an intricate interplay between phenomena (such as galactic super-waves, magnetic pole reversals, evolutionary impulses within matter, and the descent of supramental light) shaping a new species of humanity on a rapidly evolving earth.

After reading that I thought to myself, "I hope I don't sound like this in my articles". I do use the phrases like, "ancient wisdom and modern science" to describe my subjects, but - as they say - the devil is in the details. I can see how someone could easily confuse this kind of book with the sound of some of my work if they only skimmed it.

While I do try to synthesize ancient wisdom with a modern scientific understanding of the universe, there are a few things I don't do. I don't try to stretch ancient peoples' ideas into meanings they probably didn't have in mind in order to fit it to some theory today. This would imply that I'm suggesting ancient people somehow had access to discoveries only made recently. That's not impossible, but such a claim would require a lot of evidence, not merely retrofitting some vague description to something else. More importantly, it implies I'm trying to prove things about 'what exists' by using ancient philosophy - which would never be the case. On the other side of the coin, I also do not try to bend or reinterpret scientific theories of our time into some different version of themselves in order to fulfill a predetermined belief or ancient idea (such as with the common distortions and misrepresentations of quantum physics by New Age and postmodern writers).

Genuine spirituality for the modern world should not be in the business of telling people what exists or doesn't, why the cosmos came into being, what happens in some unknowable realm, or what's going to happen in the future. Claims about reality should be left to those who do the hard work of observing the natural universe through proven scientific means. Instead, genuine spirituality takes the facts of Nature as best as science can approach them, accepts them provisionally, and builds upon that. It encourages a humble approach to knowledge. Cultivating such humility means we do not make claims about things we cannot show to others that we really know. Further, such a humble approach to knowledge is an important spiritual value itself.

Instead of trying to 'nail down' all the grand secrets of the cosmos, genuine spirituality teaches us to accept that we do not know all things, including many things we really wish we knew. Instead, spirituality is about learning to live with what we do know and learning to be open to more as it becomes rational and responsible to accept it. But most of all, genuine spirituality is about focusing on making ourselves a better person, building our character, discipline, empathy, and compassion to the point where we can enjoy a deeper joy and contentment in life that is possible only through such virtues.

The truth is, we can't know what's going to happen in 2012, and it has yet to be demonstrated that anyone has any more access to that knowledge than anyone else (including the Mayans or their modern 'interpreters'). By all reasonable standards, we have little reason to suspect 2012 will be highly unusual. Instead of worrying what will happen to the world in 2012 or any other thing that's outside our control, a genuine spirituality would direct our attention to what the person in the mirror will do in 2012 to try and make life better for themselves and those around them.



Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Journaling and spiritual practice

I have recently started being more attentive to keeping a journal each night. While the benefits of keeping a journal have been espoused by many sources of wisdom, my particular practice is inspired by the Stoics, and takes on a certain form for a certain purpose.

In the past I have written about how we should have a sense of 'making progress' in our spiritual walk. In this effort, Epictetus prescribes careful self observation, saying that the Stoic philosopher "keeps watch over himself as over an enemy lying in ambush". Seneca likewise recommended self observation in the form of making a daily review of ourselves. Each night as we retire for the evening we should put these questions to ourselves: What bad habit have you cured today?, What fault have you resisted?, In what respect are you better? Seneca suggests that our sleep will be more tranquil, having 'sifted' through the whole day and admonished or praised ourselves appropriately. The practice of having to answer for that day's behavior will help us stay mindful and hold up in our continuous effort to make progress[1].

I've found this kind of review is best made in writing (or even typing/tapping). Putting this review into words makes them more real, and we can refer back to them easily if we need to. The famous Meditations of Stoic Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius were, in fact, a journal he wrote to himself; never intended for publication.

By practicing thus, I've noticed a few additional things that are helpful. For one, I make sure not only to review what I've improved, but where I've failed. Noting the good and the bad is important. I then sum up with what I plan to do tomorrow to improve.

Finally, there is one other benefit to this review in journal form that has been quite striking. Make a practice of reading again your previous night's entry the next morning, perhaps just after meditation. This is surprisingly powerful. I think it must be because our frame of mind changes so vastly over a night's sleep that we need to be reminded of that person who existed the night before and what their concerns were. If needed, the previous night's entry can be read yet again later in the day if we need to stay on course.

If you would like to try this ancient Stoic practice, here is a checklist you might entertain as you proceed:

1) Put thought into what form your journal will take. I originally had a small notebook, but later moved to the notebook app on my smartphone because the convenience of it made it easier to always have nearby, and since I always have my phone, I could easily review it each day. Think about what will work best for you in the long run.

2) Ask: What were my most significant failures today in my spiritual practice?

3) Ask: Did I perform all the regular practices I planned to?

4) Ask: Did the traits I am trying to cultivate hold up under the day's events? (think specifically through the events of the day and if you performed as you'd preferred)

5) Ask: What did I do right and where did I make progress? (it is important to look for things to praise as well)

6) Ask: What do I plan to do tomorrow that will further improve my habits and my spiritual practice? (these might be disciplines, better adherence to practices, read/study more, work harder, better mindfulness or things such as being more compassionate, considerate, or being kinder in demeanor, and more)

7) The next morning, re-read your previous night's entry. You will be surprised how well it helps you reset your focus and stay on the path. If you need to, read it again later in the day too.

Feel free to comment on how journaling has helped you, or even come back later after trying this to report your experiences!


Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404


[1] Professor Keith Seddon, "The Stoics on why we should strive to be free of the passions". [LINK]

Should the word "sin" be part of our political vocabulary?

I have contributed recently as one of the writers at the Texas Reason Blog, which is a secular response to the questions addressed by several religious leaders at the Dallas Morning News' Texas Faith Blog, which has decided not to present a Humanist viewpoint.

Today's question is:

Should the word "sin" be part of our political vocabulary?


Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Humanist Charities needs help amidst cholera in Haiti

This is based on a notice, just in, from Humanist Charities...

Last year when a devastating earthquake hit Haiti, Humanist Charities donors provided water, food, medicine, and supplies for the people of Jacmel—a city that hadn’t received any relief assistance until humanist volunteer Sebastian Velez arrived. Since then, Sebastian has worked to bring contraceptives and reproductive care for the women of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and Humanist Charities has helped to establish two humanist clinics that provide medications and services to hundreds of patients every month.

But now cholera is spreading in Haiti, fueled by lack of latrines. One community of subsistence coffee farmers at the border between the Dominican Republic and Haiti is especially vulnerable to a cholera outbreak. Because the community is upstream from several other villages, an outbreak could affect thousands. Sebastian is working with community members with a goal of installing 100 latrines, enough for all the houses in this small community.

To learn more or offer your support in helping these villagers' fight against cholera, please see: http://humanistcharities.org/haiti.php


Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

How we view Nature and control

Click to enlarge.

My wife and I were talking last night about one way someone could think about the different faiths, religions, traditions, and philosophies. Most of these, in some way, address (1) how we view the world, and (2) how we should act in light of that. In more specific terms, one could consider how a spirituality looks at Nature, and how it looks at the issue of control.

In the first case, you have a spectrum that ranges from acceptance of Nature as one all-inclusive interdependent whole. Nothing 'transcends' or is outside of Nature. If the system includes deities, those would be immanent rather than transcendent. In other words, they would exist in and throughout Nature rather than outside it. On the other end of that spectrum is rejection of Nature as a lesser kind of thing, with a superior 'transcendent' reality outside or above Nature. By this view, Nature is something to be overcome.

On the other axis you have another spectrum that deals with how we are best off approaching the world in order to achieve happiness. On one end of that spectrum you have the outlook that we must learn about the important matters of our world so that we can better manipulate them and get them to do as we need. This end focuses on externals and external conditions, and the power to control them. On the other end of that spectrum, the focus is on self control. By this view, we must understand our world and ourselves so that we may condition ourselves to be in harmony with it, thereby being happy as a result.

So, looking at the graphic pictured here, you can see that in the upper left quadrant would be systems that say all of Nature is one interconnected whole, deities (if any) are immanent, and we are made happy by aligning ourselves with Nature. This would include Stoicism, Taoism, and much of conservative (earlier) Buddhism.

In the lower left quadrant, you have those that say all of Nature is one interconnected whole, deities (if any) are immanent, and we are made happy by learning to manipulate and control Nature. This would include many practitioners of Wicca, much of Paganism (particularly those with an emphasis on casting spells or conducting other rituals to bring about desired results), and much of New Age.

In the upper right, you have those that say Nature is to be rejected for a higher truth, deities (if any) are transcendent, and we are made happy by aligning ourselves with that transcendent truth. This would include some later Buddhism, but also those parts of Christianity that emphasize self discipline and acceptance of God's will.

In the lower right would be those that say Nature is to be rejected for a higher truth, deities (if any) are transcendent, and we are made happy by learning to manipulate and control higher powers. The words "manipulate" and "control" can have negative connotations those in this quadrant would likely reject, but the gist is that, by performing certain actions or having a certain disposition, one can get the higher powers to do things desired by the practitioner. This includes much of Christianity that prays for interventions and specific outcomes, as well as 'prosperity doctrine' within Christianity. It also includes some of the other Abrahamic religions, in part. Some of New Age also falls into this quadrant.

Most spiritual traditions will mix and match a little of each of these aspects, which is why it is better to view these as gradient spectra, with the traditions occupying a space that may overlap the central lines. But, generally speaking, this can be an illuminating way to look at these issues.


Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Exploring Humanism and Paganism with B.T. Newberg

B.T. Newberg

Many forms of Spiritual Naturalism are growing, inspired by the ideas and wisdom from many different philosophies and traditions. Naturalists also exist within paganism, and one website has been making strides in exploring the nexus between Humanism and Paganism.

B.T. Newberg is the editor of Humanistic Paganism, a website devoted to naturalistic spirituality for the 21st Century. I recently interviewed B.T. about his philosophy and his project...


DT Strain
Thanks so much for your time and your thoughts! I'll begin by asking, what is the best way to summarize Humanistic Paganism?

BT Newberg
Mythology and science married.  If you can picture that, you've got Humanistic Paganism.

In a nutshell, Humanistic Paganism is a naturalistic way of life rooted equally in science and myth.  Modern empirical science has revealed a startling universe that is a wonder to behold, and we have every reason to stand in awe.  At the same time, the world's ancient mythic traditions reveal our inner, psychological universe.  Both are valuable in the 21st century.  When it comes to science and religion, there's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  One way of life that fully embraces both is Humanistic Paganism.

The website by the same name appeals to all those who feel akin to this way of life, including a wide range of folk from Neopagans to Spiritual Humanists to Taoists.


DT
What can you tell us about your background and what brought you to what you're doing with Humanistic Paganism today?

BT
There was a moment in late high school when I was riding along on a John Deere tractor in the tiny, all-Christian town where I grew up, when I had a eureka experience.  It occurred to me: If I'd grown up in China, I would be just as certain about Buddhism being "true" as I was about Christianity.  In a flash the spell of dogma was shattered, and I saw religions as natural cultural phenomena.  Since then I've been agnostic but intensely interested in spirituality.

Fast forward a decade or so.  I'd explored most of the world's religious traditions, looking for some way to still be spiritual and revere nature, but without the woo-woo of superstition or dogma.  Paganism made a deep impression, and it had a long tradition of naturalism as one of its many valid modes of belief.  So I have come to practice Paganism in a form that puts those naturalistic elements at the forefront.  I call it Humanistic Paganism.  Others call it Naturalistic Paganism, and still others prefer a broader label like Spiritual Naturalism.


DT
Beyond the philosophy itself, tell us about what you're doing with the website, and what your future goals are.

BT
The mission of the website is to amplify the voice of naturalism within spirituality.  To do that, we seek out and publish the best writing of spiritual naturalists.  Some of our writers are established authors, but we are particularly interested in everyday folk like you and I.  The most honest and candid pieces often come from those who are just struggling to work out some kind of meaning in their daily lives.

Some of the writings are about the science of spirituality, like Rhys Chisnall's Paganism and the Brain.  Others explore practices, like Thomas Schenk's Bicycle Meditation.  Still others are personal experiences, like Ryan Spellman's How the Universe Speaks to Me.  We've even done interfaith work, like our ebook Encounters in Nature, which brings together a Celtic polytheist, a Vodou priest, and a Humanistic Pagan to talk about experiences in the wild.

In addition to publishing articles, we also provide resources and community links so naturalists can find each other more easily.  Most of all, our site is there to help the struggling seeker realize there are valid ways to be spiritual without all the woo-woo.

In the future, we hope to expand our line of ebooks, and refine our goals and mission.  Our next ebook, tentatively titled Our Ancient Future, aims to refine our roots as well as our vision for the days ahead.  That vision will be directly shaped by debates happening right now on a weekly website feature called Thing on Thursday.


DT
What do you say to Humanists who might think you're including a lot of material they see as extraneous at best, or perhaps even too condoning of superstition?

BT
They are right to be suspicious.  They should investigate us with a critical eye.  That's what good science does, after all.  If they do so, they'll find we subject our experiences and practices to the same examination.  We're working toward theories of spiritual experience which are consilient with biology and the physical sciences, and which make the least extraneous assumptions about God or gods beyond the observable universe.  Superstition is precisely what we leave behind.

Where we might have differences of opinion is on whether mythic language has any value today.  We think it does.  The symbols of myth, including words like "spirit", "Goddess", or "Dionysus", raise the hackles on our necks.  They lead us into certain vital states of mind that cannot be experienced in any other way.  How they do so is a matter for scientific inquiry.  That they do so is simply self-evident from experience.  That it enriches our lives is equally self-evident.  Experiencing the depth of myth is no less natural than experiencing the beauty of the full moon.  And like the latter, it deepens the sense of wonder and mystery in life.


DT
What are some of the criticisms you envision from the Pagan side, and how do you respond to them?

BT
One person reported going to a Pagan gathering and being pitied for not being "properly wired" to receive signals from the gods.  Author Brendan Myers has been accused of being a non-Pagan.  I've been scolded for using the names of the gods of myth if I don't "really" believe in them.  These are the sorts of criticisms we find leveled against us.  You see, lately there's been a swing in Contemporary Paganism toward literal belief, the idea that deities literally exist "out there" somewhere, independent of our minds.  Now, naturalism has been around in Paganism for a long time, all the way back to the Stoics of ancient Greece and farther still.  It used to be strong in modern Paganism too, whether you interpreted deities as Jungian archetypes, metaphors, or what not.  But lately some have started to assume that literal belief is the only genuine belief.  It's not unlike the fundamentalism of certain other religions.  We're responding by developing a stronger presence, amplifying our voices so people know that naturalistic Pagans are "real" Pagans too.

We're also responding by taking the situation as a challenge to refine our own understandings.  As John Halstead argues, when we psychologize gods as archetypes, we risk reducing them to "just" archetypes.  What we need to do is find a way to raise them back to gods, to express the truly godlike nature of archetypes, and to utter the numinous power of all such naturalistic phenomena.


DT
I like what Jung said in Halstead's article, that the gods refer to the "ruling powers" of our universe. That would indicate that, at least in some form, what the gods represent does indeed exist outside of our own minds wouldn't you say?  I'm reminded of Dr. Ellie Arroway in the film version of Contact - when the aliens appeared to her in a human form to which she could relate. Would you say that the gods are one way human beings can relate to those ultimate "ruling powers" of our universe which are difficult, perhaps impossible, to fully communicate in words?


BT
No.  There's a big "on the other hand..." coming up in a sec, but first I gotta say no.  I know a lot of readers will want to read that statement as supporting literalistic god concepts, i.e. intelligent beings with independent wills that respond to prayers and magical invocations, but with a minimally scientific twist.  We have to be very careful not to exploit science to justify our pet theories.  That happens a lot in Paganism, as when quantum physics is invoked to explain magic.  So, no, I wouldn't say it indicates something outside our minds, or alien-like entities unknowable except through myth.

On the other hand, if by "ruling powers" you mean the existential realities that shape our lives, like the sun, sky, death, love, or the profound sense of order in the universe, then my answer is yes.  They are outside our minds, and myths are uniquely capable of helping us fully express them.  Alternatively, if "ruling powers" means the archetypes, or modules in the unconscious mind that drive our deepest behavior patterns, then yes in that case too.  That's what Jung actually meant, as he makes clear elsewhere in the passage.  These are not outside our minds, but they are outside our conscious ego's control, so in that sense they are beyond us.  Since they are also beyond conscious perception, the symbolic images of myths help us glimpse them, just as Perseus glimpsed Medusa reflected in a mirror.  And I can't stress enough that this transcendence of the conscious self makes them godlike, deserving of religious awe.

This gives a sense of the razor's edge we walk when trying to heal the rift between science and religion.  The science has to be truly science, and the religion has to be truly religion.  It's not an easy path to tread.  But if we can do it, we may lead lives in which what we know about the world and what we need to feel fulfilled are in harmony.


DT
Yes, that latter sense of 'ruling powers' is the one I meant. Have you heard much from readers who are enthusiastic about Humanistic Paganism? And, what have you been most surprised and/or inspired by in those responses?

BT
I've been blown away by the response.  The website started out as a one-man show, a platform for my own personal explorations.  Within six months, it became a burgeoning spiritual community.  That was a big surprise.  We are now typically booked six weeks out with submissions from authors.

What inspires me most is the sheer number of folks out there, each trying to figure it out on their own.  Hey, there are others just like me!  At the same time, there aren't enough high-profile places for us to find each other.  So it's hard to connect, and easy to feel like you're on your own.  But others are out there.  We're out there.  And hopefully projects like Humanistic Paganism and the Spiritual Naturalist Society can help make it a little easier to link up. 


DT
Yes, I have high hopes for the Spiritual Naturalist Society. We'll be ready to launch soon and it's my hope that people doing work such as yours will find the Society a useful avenue to share what you're doing and contribute to an even larger community of Spiritual Naturalists that include Pagans as well as naturalists from many other traditions. How do you foresee your relationship with the SNS once it's up and running?

BT
Potentially intimate.  Humanistic Paganism can be seen as a form of Spiritual Naturalism, so it would fit right in as a close partner.  I'm looking forward to seeing what we can do for the SNS, and what it can do for us all.


DT
Is there anything else you'd like to share?

BT
Yes - we accept "challenge" pieces.  If you're reading this and you just don't buy it, write up your critique and submit it as an article!  As long as it's constructive and offered in the spirit of dialogue, i.e. not a rant or flame but a well-reasoned argument, we'd love to publish it. Peer review is an essential element of the scientific method.  Criticism may not be the most pleasant to hear, but it keeps us on our toes.  It's how all good ideas become great ideas. 

Finally, I'd like to finish up with a question:

What kind of spirituality is best suited for our times?

In this postmodern age of alienation and confusion, it is tempting to want to trade observable reality for simplistic supernatural models.  On the other hand, it is equally tempting to want to stamp out all spiritual language for fear of "fuzzy thinking."  We believe we can do better than both of these.

Imagine it: a natural world where the language of myth and the discoveries of science mutually reveal the wonder of life.

That's spirituality for the 21st century.


DT
Well said! Thank you so much for your time. I wish you all the best and look forward to working with you in the future.


Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404