h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Since I'm new here, I thought, "what better way to get to know these FFFF chaps than to start a fight... er, I mean, a conversation. So here's something that seems on-topic about which I've been wondering sometimes.

Many people make the claim that man, in order to be healthy and balanced, needs some kind of spiritual life. I've seen theories that a balanced notion of health includes physical, social, mental and spiritual health. Physical health - we basically know what that is (let's assume). Social health would mean that you have friends with whom you have supportive relationships, I guess. Mental health... eh, maybe we should divide that into intellectual health - we should all be learning something, and thinking about /something/ - and emotional health - we should avoid being angry or depressed or anxious all the time, yet we should still experience /some/ emotions. So, what's up with spiritual health? People will recommend it without getting specific about what it means or why it should be necessary.

Maybe it isn't necessary for everyone to have a spiritual life. Maybe some of us can get by just fine without it. But what is "it"? It seems to help a lot of people. Alcoholics Anonymous, for example, emphasizes a spiritual approach to dealing with addiction, and they have a lot of success with a lot of people. Religion makes a lot of people feel fulfilled, and not all of them are idiots. For example, it must have made Albert Einstein feel pretty good to think that there is /some/ value to the concept of 'God,' or he wouldn't have held onto it.

Now, the religious answer to this question is easy: We really do have souls, and they, by their nature, strive towards their creator, or some c**p like that. I'm sure you could find it in any volume of Thomas Aquinas, were you so inclined. Let's, as the Freedom From Faith Forum, reject that answer (at least for the purpose of debate). The alternative is that some psychological need is fulfilled by fairy tales about old men pushing stars around. Why? What need? Is it really a "need," or does it depend on some belief or another which can be rationally challenged and overthrown, at which point our desire for spiritual fulfillment will vanish in a puff of logic?

If you really want to open a can of worms: How did a need/desire for spirituality EVOLVE?

That should be enough to get the ball rolling. Maybe this conversation has already been had here, but I missed it, and I ain't scrolling through all the old stuff to find it.

GTB, D.B., C.Y.

Umm, Einstein wasn't a theist in any particularly meaningful way. He deconverted from Judaism, and seems to have been an atheist/pantheist for most of his life...

[URL removed by moderator]

I did not mean to suggest that Einstein was a Christian or that he believed in a "personal" God. The link you provided has quotations where he says he believes in Spinoza's God. I think that makes him a theist. An atheist believes in NO God, not even Spinoza's (although Spinoza's contemporaries accused him of atheism). You say Einstein wasn't a theist in "any particularly meaningful way." I'll bet it was rather meaningful, to him.

Einstein most certainly used the word "God", repeatedly, when talking about order in the universe. He was not a fool, to bandy words about in a way that meant nothing to him. If he did not think that "God" was a worthwhile concept, then he would not have used the word. More to the point, it seems that the good Doctor had what might be called a "spiritual" relationship to his work. I ask, what is the nature/origin/point of that relationship?

Einstein: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists." Why would he say something like this? Why drove Einstein to look at the orderly harmony of what exists and see anything beyond ordered matter?

See what I'm asking?

Lucinda, you wrote "atheist/pantheist". There are worlds unspoken inside that slash. Do you consider the two so close? I am reminded of a song lyric:

An atheist is a pantheist with a bad attitude;
A pantheist is an atheist in a really good mood!

I would say 'spirituality' is probably a more or less inevitable side-effect of being a conscious, thinking animal. Throughout human history, the basic burning question that has bothered humans (after the obvious, survival-related ones like 'Where can I get food?' and 'I wonder if that large hairy animal is as unfriendly as it looks?') is 'How did I / we get here and why?'

Mysticism comes in at the point where people recognise the shortfall between what they know and what they would like to know. We use myth and metaphor to try to help us come to terms with all the stuff going on around us that we don't understand, or can't accept.

Over time, a civilisation becomes more sophisticated and the level of knowledge increases, and many of the old 'myths' begin to look a little rusty. But that doesn't necessarily mean that myth and mysticism disappear altogether. Even today, there are innumerable things about life, the universe et al that we don't understand... Worse still, it seems likely that, regarding the really basic questions mentioned above, we are not really much further along the way than we were, say, several millenia ago. Our achievement is mainly a negative one - we've managed to eliminate one or two earlier attempts at explaining the universe, on the grounds that they don't tally with knowledge we have acquired in more recent years. But all we have to answer the question of 'Why are we here?' is some vague idea about a 'big bang' some millions or billions of years ago - hardly mouth-watering stuff...

I would say that mysticism can be a healthy enough thing, as long as a person makes an honest attempt to learn as much as they can about the world before succumbing to it. In other words, it should only be used as a last resort - a kind of spiritual equivalent to the 'black box' that scientists draw around the parts of a theory that they haven't got to grips with yet. And it has to be relevant to the here and now - to a person's lived experience. Regressing back to a two-thousand year old myth and expecting it to make sense today is simply not on, from a rationalist point of view...

Atheists regularly use the word "God" as an appropriate metaphor for the universe, and specifically the laws of nature. "know the mind of God", and all that. It also helps to sell books.

From what I know of Einstein, he was essentially a reductionist: that is, he had a deepseated (and irrational) belief that the complexities of the universe could be reduced to very simple rules. Is that spirituality? Perhaps. But perhaps not. Certainly it is very different, and I would say much less, than the spirituality of a Buddhist Monk or Christian Martyr.

--

However, I do see your point.

Here's one plausible answer. Good brains are now the dominant factor in evolution. 15% of women died in child-birth during their life, pre-modern age - and almost all of that is because the brain is as big as it can possibly be without birth being impossible. They use up 44W for the whole of our lives, waking or sleeping - if good brains were not vitally important for survival, then we'd select against them heavily.

Because brains are so important, when selecting a mate, it is important to know how 'brainy'* your mate is, particularly for females.

Hence it is important (especially for males) to display braininess, especially when in mixed company.

Philosophy and Spirituality, have evolved (memetically, or genetically, take your pick) as one means of doing so. Other means may include an appreciation of music, fashion, and art, an ability to dance, and an ability to converse about other topics, such as politics, 'small-talk', and others.

This is testable by finding if men are more into philosophy and suchlike than women, and by finding if people talk more philosophy in mixed company. Initial scientific observations seem to imply both of these to be true.

* brainy here means intelligence, creativity, logic, and other factors - whichever may be appropriate.

--

I said atheist/pantheist meaning a mixture or ambiguity between the two - not to suggest that they are the same thing. Same way that a physical chemist might be said to be a physicist/chemist...

The similarities of atheism and pantheism is a wholely seperate thing - later, perhaps?

I'm here trying to establish a connection between basic human attibuts, spirituality and, so is my theory, the cyberspaces of religion.

Let's start with basic human attributs that are important in this context:

The ability to think, whether analytical, associative or abstract.

Abstract is how the brain works, even brains of animals work that way. Our brain assign sysmbols to everything, cause working with symbols is much easier. (To get them isn't so y easy, but that's what our brain is good at) So if you see a tree you don't bother with individual branches, or even single leaves, you just think: it's a tree. So it's some kind of simplification. Have you ever noticed that you don't see any pixels, inspite of your eye seeing everything in pixels, just like a videocamera? That's because your brain cells comming directly after your retina convert everything to symbols. The pixels are lost. (BTW I once saw them in a very brilliant colourful dream. Very impressive)

Associative means to connect symbols, be it freshly incoming symbols or symbols in memory. If you see a tree, the symbol for tree pops up associations with leaves, roots, monkeys, birds, solitary trees standing in a sunset, and so on. There are many tricks to show you how misleading such associations can be. But from association comes the power to remember things, to build a web of related infomation ready to search. Without it the gigabytes of information we learned throughout our livetime would be lost.

Analytical means to go for the details, not to think in symbols but trying to find the inner workings. Probably the best use humans can make of their brain, and probably the most unused feature. It's hard to prevent your brain from symbolizing it's input, and even harder to prevent it from associating with previously learned symbols, thus preventing you from seeing reality. Many inventions have been made with the force of analytical thinking.


Here comes the next layer: Motivation. What drives us to do things? Why are we not only sleeping, alone or with one, two or three partner (hmm, I'm getting carried away), eating and nothing more? We have a builtin motor, you can call it motivation or addiction or obsession, it's the same thing, albeit in different intensity. To collect food for the winter, to collect stamps, to collect money for your bankaccount, to spend hours of hours with H2G2. It's human.


And that's my statement:

Abstraction + association = spirituality.
Spirituality + obsession = god.
god + misuse (domination over people) = religion.
religion + some time in history = cyberspace.

This isn't the only way of looking at spirituality, but it's a useful alternative perspective in the context of this discussion:

I see spirituality as an alternative perspective. (Alternative to, for example, a non-theist 'scientific' world-view.) As Lear said (I'm quoting from memory, so I may get it wrong!), we see many (most?) things in terms of myth and metaphor. They enable us to understand things that might remain unexplained if approached directly.

[For those who've never realised the extent to which we rely on metaphor for our understanding of Life, the Universe and Everything, read "Metaphors we live by" by Lakoff and Johnson. If you've never given metaphor much thought, as I hadn't, this book will rock you in your boots! ]

So my contribution to the discussion is that the metaphors appertaining to myth and spirituality allow us to see things from a different point of view, no more or less valid than any other, but useful nonetheless.

Pattern-chaser

I would argue that spirituality is not, in fact, a basic human need. Many people seem to get along perfectly well without it, with no obvious ill effects that I can see. If there is any 'need' at all, it can be lumped under the heading of emotional and/or mental health -- depending on what exactly spirituality is for the person in question.

I find it impossible to easily classify spiritual health since the word has so many meanings to different people. It can run from meditation to private prayer to ritual to penance to creative conceptualization to internal dialogue with one's diety to acts of charity to abstinence from various self-destructive behaviors -- and so on and so forth.

In my mind, there are two reasons that people insist on paying attention to their 'spiritual health.' First, their religious beliefs may cause them to worry about the consequences to their afterlives/reincarnations if they do not keep up a certain level of worship. Second, they get a emotional/mental kick out of whatever it is they do under the heading of spiritual maintenance.

If programs like Alcoholics Anonymous are successful, it is because the first 11 steps of the program are geniunely useful and the 12th step isn't particularly harmful to most participants. But even then, I think there is a problem with including 'spirituality' in programs for addiction and various other personal ills. The problem is that atheists and agnostics will tend to avoid such programs, and a lack of alternatives in some cases amounts to a denial of needed care.

Even if an atheist does join AA, he will be unable to complete the program because he disagrees with the last step. And thus, the follow-up offered to religious participants will not be offered to the atheist. Furthermore, I expect atheists will have a higher rescidivism rate because they understandably feel that the AA program is flawed on some level.

Thus, Alcoholics Anonymous operates under a subtle form of discrimination against atheists. For that matter, many programs for the poor operate in the same manner. I feel this is unconscionable for a non-profit organization or one that claims to be broadly charitable in nature, but that's just me. The Catch 22 to all this, of course, is that many charitable or non-profit organizations have ties to organized religion exactly because many religions convince their adherents that charitable acts are part and parcel of their so-called 'spiritual health.'

So here's my take on the equation.

Abstraction + association = spirituality.

Not at all. Abstraction and association may lead to any number of things. These include creative output, invention, stereotyping, or even conspiracy theorizing. Spirituality is by no means a necessary byproduct.

Spirituality + obsession = god.

I don't agree. Some new age spiritualists who don't believe in God per se seem far more obsessed with their beliefs to me than most Catholics. God is just one possible facet of religious belief, with no necessary ties to obsession.

god + misuse (domination over people) = religion.

I could clarify this by using the term 'organized religion.' Religion doesn't necessarily involve misuse or domination, and it rarely does when people practice their faith in private as a solo activity.

religion + some time in history = cyberspace.

This just baffles me. What does 'some time in history' really mean? Do you have a particular time in mind? I'm not sure how to reply to a theorum I don't understand. But to sample my cynical view of cyberspace as being apart from any social or religios meanin, visit my short column [URL removed by moderator]

Fragilis wrote: "Thus, Alcoholics Anonymous operates under a subtle form of discrimination against atheists..."

I think that's a little unfair. AA operate a programme that works for the majority of their clients, but not all of them, as you observe. Doctors offer penicillin to their clients, and it's very effective, but not for those who are allergic to it. Are those of us who are allergic being discriminated against? I think not. At least not by the medical profession. You could take the view that we are being discriminated against by God...

Pattern-chaser

Agreed. I would have thought that most people with the independence of mind to insist so vehemently on their atheism / agnosticism, would also have the mental strength to overcome their drink problem without the help of do-gooders such as the AA... or better still, to avoid getting into such trouble in the first place...

Yes, but God does not run AA. That is the work of individual people. I think that if God ran AA, he would not want atheist alcoholics to go untreated, since alcholics are a burden on society. Alcoholism is related to drunk driving, domestic abuse, unemployment and debt, abuse of sick leave policies, and so forth -- all of which effects Christians.

And comparing atheism to an allergy isn't exactly a fair distinction. You have no control over whether you have an allergy or not, nor can the doctor change penicillin in any way to make you non-allergic.

Atheism is a choice of free will, so on some level insisting on religious preaching during a treatment program is akin to coersion. After all, the AA member can finish the program if they agree to convert. And it would be relatively easy for AA to remove the 12th step from their program. I don't even think the success rate would decline.

Honestly, I'm okay with 12-step programs with religious leanings as long as alternatives exist that work for atheists. But when those matching alternative programs do not exist, I find it troubling.

To reply to Lear's sentiment that agnostics and atheists should not need AA, I wish we lived in such a perfect world. But in truth, alcoholics come in all persuasions. It is entirely possible to have an addictive personality no matter what your religious beliefs may or may not be.

As for the insinuation that atheists and agnostics should not need AA because they have additional 'mental strength', I would agree that in some cases this is true. But there are many cases where it is not. For instance, many agnostics, are of the 'I dunno' school of thought on God. This is hardly a sign of mental strength, persistence, or self-confidence.

what exactly *is* the 12th step?

Well, I dunno about that Fragilis... I think it's often a sign of courage to be able to say 'I don't know' when everyone else around is leaping to premature conclusions simply for the sake of looking 'strong' and 'decisive'.

More seriously, I do believe that someone who has thought their views on religion through to the point where they have decided that, God or no God, they are damn well gonna live without him and the hell with the consequences, (if you'll excuse the dreadful attempt at an American accent) is likely to be in a position where they have largely rationalised away 'addiction' and 'compulsivesness'. After all, for many people alcohol addiction is a kind of twisted spirituality - an attempt to find comfort in a difficult world, and a convenient temporary escape from it. The rationalist is likely to have achieved a certain level of detachment from this kind of temptation. I think. I hope...

Lucinda, I call it the 12th step because it is usually the last one covered in AA's structured meetings. Technically, AA classifies it as the 11st step. It is, "Seek through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out."

The site's FAQ file states: "Some alcoholics, when they first turn to A.A., have definite reservations about accepting any concept of a Power greater than themselves. Experience shows that, if they will keep an open mind on the subject and keep coming to A.A. meetings, they are not likely to have too difficult a time in working out an acceptable solution to this distinctly personal problem."

This bias is probably present because AA's two founders met at meetings of the Oxford Group, a 1940s pseudo-Christian group set apart from any particular sect but dedicated to general spiritual development. The site seems self-contradictory at times. The group wants all at once to be accepted as a secular solution, and to win the endorsement of religious leader.

For instance, one of the AA Society's founding traditions is: "For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority — a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience." And yet another one is: "The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking." And indeed, you can be an atheist member. You just can't ever 'complete' the program without accepting a 'Higher Power' at some point during the process.

I got all this from the AA's official web site at[URL removed by moderator]

Lear, I feel we are perhaps at an impasse here. I will say that my father was a strong atheist, who was the first in our family line to refuse a Christian burial. He died 20 years before his time because he could not kick his addiction to cigarettes and fatty foods. It was his third heart attack. He wasn't an alcoholic, but his atheist father before him was. And I would certainly classify him as having an addictive personality.

Boy! I go away for, like, a day, and all this has happened! What fun.

Ok, Lucinda says that spirituality is a way for men to appear smart and attract mates. With that in mind, I'll talk about spirituality now . This almost HAS to be a factor (more so in some circles than in others), but I find it hard to believe that it's the main one. I think solitary people will be drawn to spirituality at least as much as social types. Men talk more about these things, yeah, but men are just more agressive, conceptually as well as physically.

Lear says that spirituality is man's attempt to answer the BIG questions. Ok, but why ask such questions? Are they just an artifact of our ability to ask questions? Since we can say, "why are you sharpening that rock?" we can also say "why do we exist?"?

It seems like some people are more bothered by the BIG questions than others. It never occurs to me, for example, to ask "Why did [misfortune] happen to me!?! WHY, GOD? WHY!?!?" Vonnegut once described someone in his family as refraining from such questions. She (his mother or sister, I forget) thought of all the horrible things that happened to her as "accidents in a very busy place," and she was ok with that. Why doesn't everyone look at it that way? WHY, GOD? WHY!?!?

I don't know how to respond to Wonko.... can you tell us more about this "cyberspace" thing?

Pattern-chaser: do you think that a "spiritual" perspective is incompatible with a "scientific" perspective (cf _The Tao of Physics_)?

And I agree wholeheartedly with PC's book review! Read _Metaphors We Live By_ by Lakoff and Johnson! One of the ass-kickin'est books I've ever touched! Totally rewired my head, in a good way! (that was a metaphor, of course... more like four, actually)

Fragilis says that spirituality *isn't* a need. Hmmmm... I can't refute that.

I would agree with the AA cats, that if you spend enough time around people who talk about God, eventually you'll figure out how to make it mean *something* acceptable to you. But atheism was a temporary state for me, and maybe I'm projecting my experience onto others. Sorry. I didn't find God in AA, either. I found Him in France! Who knew?

I have to check back here more often...

Oh, I guess I have opinions about it all, too. I guess it's looking to me like "spiritual health" is part of "emotional health." If you have certain attitudes about your relationship to the world around you, you'll end up reacting with different emotions to events like, misfortune, good fortune, death, addiction, missionaries at the door, etc. (Y'know, those days when a missionary shows up at your door bearing a check for $1million, news that your parents just died, and a barrel of whiskey, which you'd just resolved to quit drinking? They're always doing S**t like that around here.) Spirituality is when you find yourself BELIEVING something because it makes you feel good, rather than because it's been demonstrated by logic or experience. By this definition, everyone who believes ANYTHING is spiritual... hmmm.... Long post, huh?

Oh, who said that atheism is a choice made out of free will? The hell it is! Them's fightin' words where I come from!

> "if you spend enough time around people who talk about God, eventually you'll figure out how to make it mean *something* acceptable to you."

Cognitive Dissonance is a wondrous thing, no?

That's hardly fair. There's a lot of possible applications for a concept like "God" and if you're not constitutionally averse to finding one that doesn't suck, it's not hard. It doesn't mean that you have to become a "scientific creationist" or something. (That would be an application of the concept that *does* suck! )

Well, if you spend enough time around people talking about the Invisible Pink Unicorn, eventually you'll find a way to make it meaningful to you.

But it wasn't fair. I should have mentioned Peer Pressure and Brainwashing too...