Some people (like these people, for example) argue that spirituality is hard wired into the human psyche. I have no problem believing that could be true, but it does pose some challenges for a materialist atheist like myself. At the very least, I try to be open minded, and aware of my own belief systems, and I try to expand and explore my belief system when possible. I like the term belief system because I think that that phrase gets at part of the whole hard wired thing. It’s hard to imagine a person without a belief system, and once you have a belief system it’s hard to live for too long without needing (or wanting very badly) to fill in some of the gaps in that belief system with some sort of beliefs.
One thing I do tend to put my faith in is the scientific method. And I say this coming from a place of non-naivete about the scientific method. Philosophers have been trying to tear it down probably since it arrived on the scene, but I still think it ain’t half bad. From a historical perspective, the scientific method arose in ‘The West’ because some philosophers wanted to augment philosophical methods of getting at the truth with the requirement of objectivity. It’s possible that this inherently limits science, because it means that subjective experience, no matter how real, plays second fiddle in science. It’s not completely rejected, but its role is far from clear. I think subjective experience is very important, and also very real. Consequently, it’s important not to equate valuing the scientific method with devaluing or denying subjective experience. Having said that, when something can be objectively observed, I think it could be said that it gives that thing a certain property and a certain type of power.
For me, the spiritual search is about trying to grok the universe. The term ‘grok’ was invented by the science fiction author Robert Heinlein. It became somewhat popular in counterculture in the 60’s and then was absorbed into the hacker culture. It has various definitions. According to wikipedia, the word grok “is a verb that connotes knowledge greater than that which can be sensed by an outside observer. It is an understanding beyond empathy and intimacy.”
Now, groking would seem to be outside the realm of objective experience so it’s not clear what the scientific method has to do with this. However, in my experience, people in pursuit of groking the universe tend to also become interested in the ontology of reality- the nature of reality, how it works, and what is in it. This is often combined with questions of how we ourselves relate to, or connect with reality and also how we interact with reality on a day to day basis. To me, this is where the scientific method comes in, because I think it’s pretty useful when trying to figure out the nature of reality, and how it all works and how we work in relation to it. True- as I’ve said, the scientific method is limited to objective experiences but it is still extremely useful within the context of these limits and can, I believe, be useful applied when trying to answer some of these questions.
Of
course, I’m also a fan of Kuhn, which means that, at the very least, I
think that the application of the scientific method is greatly influenced
by the biases, prejudices and predispositions of those people applying the
scientific method. That’s why I enjoy coming across sites like The National Center for
Complementary and Alternative Medicine- a branch of the US National
Institutes of Health. Not that I think they are free from bias, but at
least it’s a step in the direction of applying the scientific method to
something, rather than simply dismissing it out right.
posted at 11:23 on Sun, 25 Feb, 2007 |
path: /living
All material copyrighted by Jen Schellinck. All rights reserved.