finding spirituality in science

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Can science be used as a guide for living well? Many have speculated on this question and, comparing it to religion in the sense that every religion tends to come along with practices that stem from the core principles of that religion, they say that the ‘practices’ of science manifest as the building of technology, but I wonder whether a more ‘spiritual’ (for lack of a better word) practice can be gleaned from unlocking the secrets of nature and the physical universe. What I mean by ‘spiritual’ is a guide to living well, or living life such that it is enriched and more fulfilling on some of the deepest levels of our psyche. Sure technology can, in some situations, make us more comfortable, secure, and even happy, and can help us solve a lot of technical and practical problems, but I question whether one even needs to build, or acquire, physical technology in order to feel spiritually fulfilled and to gain long-term peace of mind from scientific knowledge.

I question this because I often reflect on how my understanding of science and the nature of the physical world has had an impact on what I call my ‘spiritual path’ - that is, on the way I follow this path.

As an example, consider Newton’s revolutionary insight that every bit of matter in the universe exerts a gravitational influence on all other matter. This instills in one a sense that “everything affects everything”. This, over the years, has fostered an appreciation for the fact that there is nothing I can do that won’t have some effect on those around me and my environment broadly speaking. I don’t go so far as to assume my actions will have a significant effect on, say, someone living in Pakistan, but this too accords with the lessons of Newton’s theory of universal gravity - namely, that although every bit of matter exerts an influence on every other bit, that doesn’t mean that every such instance of influence is going to be that significant (an electron in one galaxy will only have an infinitesimal effect on an electron in another galaxy).

Another example is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, according to which we can never be absolutely certain of every state of every entity in a physical system all at once. This principle has even been taken so far as to be state as the states of things in a physical system are never precisely determined inherently in themselves (let alone human epistemic considerations). I have taken stock of this principle to remind myself never to be certain of anything and that nothing can be capture in perfectly black and white terms, that there is always a certain degree, however small, of ‘fuzziness’ to the state of things.

These lessons from science, like many others, have influenced me not only in affording me a wealth of technical knowledge about nature and physicality, but have touched me on a spiritual level. They have colored and guided my spiritual path and how I walk it.

So as for a topic to discuss in this thread, I want to pose the following questions: has science affected you in this way? Do you think we ought to allow science to affect us in this way? Do you think these effects, these spiritual lessons, are in fact ‘good’ or ‘correct’ in that, if heeded, our lives will be enriched, better, or even happier? In other words, is there something of value in living one’s life as to mimic the style by which nature herself appears to unfold? And finally, if all the foregoing is true, is science then just that much more like religion in that it yields a practice that’s not merely technical or practical, but spiritual and meaningful on a much deeper level?

2

We can find spirituality in pretty much anything. Human beings are quite adept at finding messages in things. The problem is that in so doing, we are usually merely affirming what we already believe. You listed some notions I’m sympathetic to, but I can take those and raise them a Social Darwinism. That is also applying a scientific concept to the human social order and deriving a moral meaning that is utterly abhorrent. But for certain classes of people in certain historical situations, such a message was indeed what they wanted to hear so they ran with it.

To use the language of the thread: moral self cultivation requires a great deal of activation energy before the proper state is reached. Ill-defined systems are rife with the potential for the lazy way out, a re-affirmation of the present state, making an “is” into an “ought” as Hume warned we oughtn’t. Generally, when I observe people finding spirituality in science or in other, traditionally non-self cultivational pursuits, that is precisely what I see happening.

3

I don’t doubt this is exactly what happens in a great many cases, but in other cases I think we’ll find those who arrive at new beliefs through their understanding of science - but in either case, I highly doubt the belief in question will be adopted for any other reason than that it sounds good and wholesome.

I think I know the kind of ‘moral meaning’ you’re talking about - would that be the right to dominate over other ‘less evolved’ races and to colonize their lands? Would it be the moral that fueled the fascism in Europe of the 1930s and 40s? I can even think of the manner by which many conduct business in today’s capitalist markets - survival of the fittest, they say, is the order of the day. These ideas do indeed spring from the lessons of science (or perhaps a more descriptive term would be ‘misinterpretations of science’?) - and as for their standing as ‘morals’ - I agree that they are abhorrent. But do you also consider them ‘spiritual’?

In a way, I guess, it doesn’t matter. The point to be drawn from this might be as follows: that though science may be a source of inspiration for those seeking spiritual insights and guidance - that is positive or healthy insights and guidance - that doesn’t exclude it from offering insights and guidance of a totally different kind - merely non-spiritual in the best of case, abhorrent and catastrophic in the worst.

I’m not entirely convinced that ‘morality’ and ‘spirituality’ ought to be understood as synonyms - though in its broadest meaning, morality is usually understood as “the right way to live” which indeed constitutes a large part of spirituality, but I would think there is more to the latter than that.

That could very well be - though I don’t know if this is what happens in all cases - but it really is of secondary importance to me (that is, in the context of this thread). Though considerations of whether we ought to derive spiritual insight and guidance from science was one of the questions I posed, I’m more interested in whether it can and how readily. You seem to suggest that it can quite readily for spiritual insight and guidance can be derived from just about anything. I would take it then that the answer is quite trivial for you and obvious - that’s fine; it’s an answer to my question. It’s what I’m looking for in this thread.

4

You are right to point out that spirituality does not necessarily equal morality, but since I have very little spiritual need I tend to go straight to the moral component of spiritual systems because, hey, that is what I find interesting. But my answer does basically boil down to your elegantly expressed bullet point.

5

I’m going to add to this thread, offering up a few more spiritual insights that the facts of science have afforded me.

  1. F = ma

Newton’s second law of motion tells us that all change is gradual and continuous, that there is no such thing as an event that begins suddenly - that is, as a sharp break from the preceding event. In order to go from rest to a certain velocity, an object must accelerate to that velocity. There is no such thing as an instantanious transition from rest to some discontinuous velocity. This is true not only of motion but all instances of change generally.

This instills in me a sense that the universe ‘flows’ - as opposed to transitioning between discrete chunks or units we call ‘events’ with no seamless continuity between them. Therefore, in my desire to live my life mirroring the style of nature, I take this principle as a guide to how I conduct myself in life. I “go with the flow” - or at least, try to when I can.

This doesn’t mean I sanction any state of affairs or event that comes my as acceptable or requiring no resistance or counteraction, but that if I were to choose to resist or counteract, the best way to do so is to work with the flow of that event or state of affairs as I find it in that moment, and try to turn it around into something I deem more acceptable or appropriate. The best analogy I can give for this is the principles on which the martial art of Ninjitsu claims to be based. If an opponent attempts to throw a punch, the best reaction is not (as with other martial arts) to block or counter with a strike of your own, but to do the following: dodge the punch in a roling action - to rotate such as to role along the opponent’s arm as he extends it out in the action of punching. Then, as you role down the axis of him arm, approaching nearer his body, strike a blow at him in some way - preferrably to the head with the elbow seeing as that would be the best way to take advantage of your angular momentum generated by the act of rotating - that is, the energy of your rotation would be channeled - or flow - into your elbow and be released with maximal force upon impact with your opponent’s head. So you see how “going with the flow” can be used just as much to oppose a contentious force or event as it can to work with a cooperative one.

  1. Global Warming

The lesson I have drawn from this is that we cannot act in life without expecting certain unexpected consequences. In the case of global warming, we acted as to dospose of our industrial waste without expecting dire consequences somewhere in the distant future. We have now arrived at that future and our livelihood, as well as that of the planet in general, is being threatened by changes in the environment that could, in the worst case scenario, make impossible the conditions that sustain life here on Earth. If this can be generalized as a fundamental principle according to which nature herself operates - that is, that any event that occurs therein or any action done unto her will have consequences, sometimes significant, other times not, that could, like karma, return to the originator of such an event or action, even if that return occurs far into the distant future - then it seems fit to be classed with all the other principles so far considered in that it can be held up as a spiritual lesson to be observed by us and followed as a guide on how to live.

This isn’t to say that we should expect all such consequences to be negative, nor that all such consequences are even going to be that significant (or even noticeable), but what it does mean is this: that we should always expect the unexpected, that we should refrain from expecting that our actions can be carried out without any changes in our affairs and our lives other than those we had planned for or intended as a result of those very actions.

There are other principles of science that I could cite, principles like Einsteinian relativity, or the states of quantum superposition that strike us as so counterintuitive as to seem almost impossible, or the similarities and differences between the sciences of brains and computers, or the implications a theory like the Big Bang has on our relations to infinity and eternity, and so on.

But without having to extend the list ad nausium, I would like to bring this back to some of the basic questions and considerations I started out with in the OP. What does it mean, for example, to live one’s life ‘mimicking’ nature, and how does this differ from, say, mimicking a diety or some mystical spiritual essence that some suppose underlies and guides the unfolding of the universe?

For instance, one might quite predictably conclude that if he were to inquire into the nature of God and understand how He works, he could use that knowledge to his advantage by trying to emulate God’s nature the best he can, exemplifying the divine in his daily actions and lifestyle, and in that way gain God’s approval or favor which would certainly benefit him in life and in the afterlife.

But what are we to gain from ‘mimicking nature’? Is nature a diety that looks upon us with either favor or contempt depending on how well we emulate her? Is she a conscious and judging diety like the God of western religion? Well, if we are taking our spirituality from science, then it would seem that no such conclusion can be drawn, for science is not merely silent on such questions, but seems verily to answer in the negative - that is, if we are banking on what science teaches us, then it would seem that nature is totally indifferent to our actions and couldn’t care less how we conduct our lives.

On the other hand, I wonder what ought to be taken as a sign of her indifference, or at least the manner by which she reacts to our actions. For example, it could be noted that if one chooses a lifestyle of smoking, nature will react by revisiting (most likely) that person with lung cancer. Or, to take a case already alluded to above, we could consider global warming nature’s reaction to industrialization run amok. This isn’t to say, of course, that nature’s reactions are intentional or consciously carried out, nor especially that they are done out of spite, anger, or judgment towards mankind. But it is to say that our actions are not carried out in a vacuum that isolates us from nature and that nature will invariable react ‘indifferently’ to.

But another question this leaves lingering is whether to act in such a way as to incur favorable reactions from nature (favorable to us) is just to act as to ‘mimic’ her principles and styles. This is a lot more difficult to justify. Nevertheless, one could make the point that we are a part of nature, and therefore in a sense, on some level, whatever we learn about nature we also learn about ourselves. Also, that whatever we learn about nature we learn about human life and society, for the latter are as well extensions of nature. Does it follow, therefore, that our attempts to mold what we might call “post-human phenomena” (i.e. human life, society, politics, technology, etc.) would benefit greatly if it were guided by “pre-human phenomena” (i.e. physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) and the principles and styles unveiled thereby? Another point one could offer up is that although it would be much more reasonable to expect a conscious and judging diety who is interested in human affairs to react favorably to those of us who try to emulate it, it is also more reasonable to expect favorable results from similar attempts when the object of our emulation can much more reliably be verified as ‘real’. I don’t mean for this to become a debate between theists and atheists, but it seems clear to me that the methods of science are such that they afford us a quantum leap in the kind of evidence and reason mankind needs in order to ground his epistemic stock, and so we are far better off relying on principles and facts we know (or have the best knowledge of) rather than on flimsy speculation and guesswork. Now, whether this means that mimicking nature is the best use towards which this knowledge can be put is a whole other question, and at this point I don’t feel secure enough in my position (which is that it would foster us with a positive and beneficial spirituality) to turn this thread into a debate between me and others who might disagree, so I’d like to put it forward as a question: is mimicking nature in our lives and daily affairs the best road towards a positive, healthy, and beneficial spirituality insofar as we ground such mimicry on the lessons learnt from science?