Tag Archive for 'moralism'

Spirituality, Religion, Science, & Spiritual Nihilism

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.” – Albert Einstein

“But in the end, science does not provide the answers most of us require. Its story of our origins and of our end is, to say the least, unsatisfactory. To the question, “How did it all begin?”, science answers, “Probably by an accident.” To the question, “How will it all end?”, science answers, “Probably by an accident.” And to many people, the accidental life is not worth living. Moreover, the science-god has no answer to the question, “Why are we here?” and, to the question, “What moral instructions do you give us?”, the science-god maintains silence.” – Neil Postman

Recently I had an interesting discussion with a friend of mine. He is a devout atheist, to the point of sometimes being militant. This is in contrast with my own beliefs: I consider myself spiritual without wishing at the moment to identify with an organized affiliation.

The subject of our discussion was purpose; specifically whether or not humanity as a whole, or individual people, had a purpose to their lives. His argument rejected any higher purpose other than survival and pleasure. I took the stance that people are able to perceive higher orders of thinking and those abstractions are a form of spirituality, even if not traditionally identified as such. Our purposes on earth – to seek out what we think is good and correct what we think is bad – is a form of spirituality that is crafted from our experiences and put into practice in our actions. Faith in that spirituality can be considered to be the belief that your knowledge of “what is good” is correct, despite a lack of concrete proof of the correctness of your perspective. Indeed, how can we have concrete proof? We are bound by our perceptions and can never know the absolutes. We can only act as best we can and do what we feel is right.

Some believe that purpose may be defined by individual perspective – we define our own purpose and act on that purpose, or fail to act and suffer regret. Others believe that our purpose comes from a higher power. While I do not practice an “official” religion, I nonetheless have a great deal of respect for people that have a faith and are aware of what that means: because their religion represents principles they value and I recognize their religion as a means for them to maintain those principles on a personal level. To use the stereotypical example: not all Christians are God fearing lambs, and not all atheists are rational and intelligent people that have outgrown “superstitions.” Clearly there are stereotypes being made here, and much misunderstanding about what spirituality and religion are and do. Spirituality is something that is intensely personal and it is very violating to have that experience casually dismissed as a silly delusion.

When my friend and I debated whether or not people had a purpose. Something suddenly disturbed me as he argued vehemently that we had no true purpose and that our lives were without consequence or meaning.

It was spiritual nihilism: any purpose we can create for ourselves is a delusion. To the spiritual nihilist, nothing has a purpose, we are just bags of meat careening randomly in a sea of nonsense, and nothing can convince him otherwise, because if we think differently, we are deluded.

However, my friend champions the glories of science, without question. But science and spirituality are not forces in opposition. On the contrary, science can be considered an organized religion in a sense. It is a belief system that rests on the principle that truth can be found in repetitious observation. For a long time, science and spirituality coexisted because they explained different things. However when the gospel of science is taken to the extreme: anything that cannot be observed ceases to exist. Anything that cannot be quantified becomes a trivial superstition or quaint notion that has no place in the worldview of the scientist. But this is ignorant and foolish. Truth does not come out of a test tube; no matter how many times the experiment is repeated. Love isn’t a collection of chemicals. Life isn’t a series of reactions. A person isn’t an organization of atoms.

We can hold principles, we have ideas, we can love, we can value, and most importantly, we can build a world around our values and beliefs and act on them to make the world a better place in our image of a brighter future. As the world does not disappear when we close our eyes, the faith that others have does not become a delusion simply because you do not agree with it. Regardless of where belief comes from, the understanding that the world and the people that wander on it have meaning brings us together. Faith in a God or Gods or Spirits or The Self or Goodness or Justice is something that lifts us out of the sea of meaningless and places our feet on something constant. We are anchored and from that point can act with purpose, because we have a purpose.

Spiritual nihilism contradicts the existence of a good or evil, even if the definitions of those terms are subjective. When the universe is devoid of meaning, and we are devoid of purpose, then there is no escape from delusion or distraction. It seems to me a bitter perspective to view the wonderful things that our consciousness allows us to perceive as mere fantasy.

Spirituality is a self expression of self-awareness and purpose. Even if some do not believe in a higher power or belong to an organized religion, we all can hold the belief or faith or understanding that there truly is a light at the end of the tunnel, and the light is there to guide us. We do the best we can with what we have.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • De.lirio.us
  • Fark
  • StumbleUpon
  • LinkedIn
  • Ma.gnolia
  • email

The Idiocy of Enviro-moralism

I read two great pieces in the new york a few weeks ago.  The first is an amazing rant by Stanely Fish, blasting all the lifestyle changes and costs incurred for his family to “go green.”  I agreed with everything he said – but aside from a powerful love for what seems to be an obsessive compulsive wife, I can’t see why he went through it all.  Stanley writes…

. A few months ago, we decided to renovate a 30-year-old kitchen. The plans were modest; the contractor was engaged; the price was reasonable; I was happy. Then I went on a trip and when I returned, everything had changed. I was informed that the wood we had ordered for the cabinets comes from some far-off place and would have to be stored, transported, stored again and transported again, adding scandalously to the carbon footprint of my poor small kitchen. If we were to avoid being labeled environmental criminals, we would have to de-order the wood (somehow we managed to do this without incurring a restocking fee) and we would have to find a company in a nearby locale that would send us wood from a tree that was not cut down until our order had been received. (How this would be monitored is something I never found out.) The same company would also immediately plant a tree to replace the one we were harvesting, and we would receive a certificate attesting to all this from the Forestry Stewardship Council.

- http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/i-am-therefore-i-pollute/

The sheer idiocy of the whole thing is striking to me.  As you readers know, I have a profound respect for Nature and the living, breathing, intelligent entity that is planet Earth.  Nonetheless, the green agenda is not an environmental movement – at least not a rational one.  It is born out of an irrational moralistic ideal.  Again, the brilliant (but always big government republocrat) new york times sheds light on the psychopathology of moralism.  You can read it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

The sheer self righteousness of this green movement is no different than that of radical right wing christians.  And just as global islamic terrorism grows abroad, we have a growing menace of domestic eco-terrorism in our own backyards.  Welcome to the new era of crusades where the rational and peaceful are nailed to the cross.  We live in a country where hummers are firebombed and where research facilities are vandalized.  Where is are the calls to liberate us from the menace of enviro-terrorism?

Here is a recently dugg article on the dangers of wind turbines to bat populations.

http://digg.com/environment/Wind_turbines_make_bat_lungs_explode

Of course bats are one of the main checks on rampant mosquito populations.  Preserving populations of bats is very important to human well being and comfort. Still, enviro-moralists are quick to decry any solution to the energy crisis short of returning to the stone age – thus sabotaging the progress of not just humans, but the future of all life on earth.

I would like to think there is a clear glimmer of hope, but I’m not so sure.  The mainstream has adopted the enviro-moralist agenda and bureaucrats are quick to pander with expensive solutions that will do nothing to make our world healthier and “greener.”  Still, such a dangerous and narrow ideology will eventually destroy itself in the darwinian market of ideas.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • De.lirio.us
  • Fark
  • StumbleUpon
  • LinkedIn
  • Ma.gnolia
  • email