One of common elements of theistic religion is the belief in a beneficent force that is aware of and concerned about individual humans. I assume that people have a wide range of emotions about this force, from fear to awe to comfort. We non-theists lack faith in such a supernatural consciousness and so we are absent of the anxiety or hope of our actions, thoughts, and prayers being weighed on celestial scales.

But Nature is not without its forces, blind to the welfare of humans as they might be. It is possible now to understand the world in a way that is far different than the clockwork materialists of the Enlightenment. Religious Naturalists no longer see the universe as being filled with just a bunch of matter knocking about the proverbial pool table. Rather, we can see an intricate web of subtle processes, a metaphorical river of being and creation.

One of the most profound processes we know about is natural selection. Although it is completely free of intention, natural selection is what made humans and every other living thing possible. That it has no consciousness behind it does not lessen the magnificent power of it; if anything, that makes natural selection just that much more awe inspiring. Adding in a deific designer explains nothing—it merely takes away from its splendor as the driving force behind evolution.

A related process that we are only just beginning to understand is emergence. Stated simply, emergence describes the creation of more complex phenomena out of the interactions between less complex phenomena. We can observe a hierarchy of organization, the ultimate base of which is the soup of elementary particles (quarks, gluons, elections, etc). What is interesting is that at each new level of complexity (from, say, particles to atoms to molecules, and so forth), novel things happen. New, unpredictable properties arise, where laws that exist at one level of complexity do not apply at lower levels. Really, it’s an astounding scientific concept.

We are, of course, continuing to increase our understanding of these forces as our scientific knowledge grows. We no longer need a supernatural consciousness to understand how the Cosmos works or how it’s possible for humans to exist. Nor are we, without gods and spirits, left only with a universe of dead matter to ponder nihilistically. Rather, science paints Nature as a dynamic, evolving set of processes capable of creating novel, increasingly complex phenomena. In other words, the universe isn’t a collection of things so much as one of processes between interacting properties.

It must be admitted, we lose something by a lack of faith in supernatural beings that are concerned with humans. We lack the dream of a blissful life spent with loved ones for all eternity. We lack the hope that comes from praying for a celestial Hand to take away pain and injustice. We lack the pleasure of thinking we are at the center of things, that we are somehow important in the grand scheme, or that a supreme destiny awaits us. We lack the comfort of believing that Someone is looking out for us. We lack the certitude and righteousness that comes from having moral behavior codified in scripture.

We might not need God to explain things anymore, but for many, God’s absence would leave a void that would not be easy to fill. There is no simple replacement for the hope, specialness, and certitude that faith brings, especially for folks who live with hardship or fear. But I maintain that what replacements we do have available to us are far more valuable! Critical thinking, rational optimism, self efficacy, and even the Four Virtues—courage, integrity, beneficence, and openness—might all take more effort than faith but potentially have a far greater return. Unlike faith, those skills and perspectives are not dependent on unreal things. They are built upon natural human capabilities.

A lived Religious Naturalism is not easy. It’s advanced spirituality. We reject the shortcuts of faith in favor of developing a worldview grounded in reality. We feel awe, reverence, and humility in the face of a dynamic, emergent universe that can create a neutron star as well as a Leonardo da Vinci. We recognize our inherent, natural power to experience optimism, compassion, and serenity. We humans have within us all we need to live meaningful, fulfilling, and joyous lives. And to that I say, Amen.

My yearly post outlining my journal's rules.

Essentially, there is only one real cost to having my journal remain public—it must remain a place for adult behavior.

I do not mind disagreement. You are welcome to comment on my journal and offer an opinion different than or contradictory to mine. If you are so inclined, please note the three standing rules:

1) You must be respectful of me and other commenters (i.e. no personal attacks or aspersions).
2) You must have a willingness to exchange information, meaning listening to it as much as giving it.
3) You must engage with good faith, meaning the object is not to twist or use my words to attempt injury to me or another.

EDIT! I've decided to add a fourth rule:

4) Verbal diarrhea is not allowed. Granted this is a bit vague and so will initially earn a warning, but most people can recognize this kind of comment when they see it.

Clear violations of any of these rules will get your comments deleted. Repeated violations will get you banned. If a situation flares up, I might ban for a short period for things to cool off. Asking me later to unban will likely succeed.

That is all. Have a nice day.

A virtuous person is one who intentionally seeks personal excellence. Of course, what defines excellence has been a topic of contemplation and debate for the entire history of humankind. Plato recognized four virtues: temperance, prudence, fortitude, and justice. Christianity looks to traits such as faith, love, meekness, and chastity as important virtues. Submission to the will of God is the central virtue in Islam. The Buddha extolled compassion. Humanity, filial piety, and loyalty are Confucian virtues.

In all, there are countless traits and actions that world religions and cultures have put forth as exemplars of excellence. Starting with this foundation, psychologist Martin Seligman and his colleagues have outlined a list of human strengths and traits that potentially lead to well-being—knowledge, courage, humanity, justice, temperance, and transcendence, each of which have a sub-list of yet more traits. No doubt research will continue to look into the scope and outcomes of various human traits.

Sacred River offers its own system of four cardinal virtues: Courage, Integrity, Beneficence, and Openness. These are not presented as immaculate virtues in the sense of a divine or revealed ideal. Rather, they are ways of being, both in action and attitude, in service to our central spiritual aim—leading a more meaningful, fulfilling, and joyous life.
( Read more... )

Needless to say, I am thrilled that Obama was sworn in yesterday as our 44th president. Although I expect to be frustrated and even disappointed by him from time to time, I am ultimately hopeful and enthusiastic about our future. In his speech, he said a couple of things that I really appreciated.

The first was his mention of “non-believers”. Considering that about 13% of Americans are non-theists, it is about time that we were acknowledged. It will be a long time before being non-theistic will no longer be a political liability. But that journey starts with the understanding that we exist and that, unlike popular misconception, we are not minions of Satan, we are not morally rudderless, we are not withering in existential misery (at least not more than anyone else), and we vote.

The second was his statement that science will be restored to its proper place. It has been painful to watch the last administration treat science as an inconvenience at best, tossed aside whenever it conflicted with conservative ideology. But as many are now finally realizing, ignoring scientific data doesn’t make reality go away. Having a president who actually respects science is a huge breath of fresh air, indicated by Obama’s excellent appointment of Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy. Let’s hope that this is but the start of a grand revival of science in America

Ever since FDR first introduced prayer at the inaugural ceremonies in 1933, they have each and every one invoked a monotheistic god. A strong case can be made to say that including such prayers is inappropriate at one of our chief secular rituals. Nevertheless, they are here to stay for the foreseeable future. This year, with Rick Warren, the anti-gay pastor of the Saddleback mega-church, set to give the opening prayer at Obama's inauguration, the issue has grown in significance. His support of California's Prop 8, which strips the right of marriage from gays and lesbians, makes his participation especially abhorrent.

Since it is safe to assume that his prayer (and those of the other religious speakers) will again call on a personal Father-God, I wanted to write my own benediction from a naturalistic orientation. The following is hardly poetic or memory-worthy, but I will be reading it during Warren's invocation, dreaming of a time when supernatural beliefs no longer have a place in our secular life.

---

On this historic day we inaugurate our new President and Vice-President, that solemn ceremony epitomizing the secular process of our enduring democracy. We offer our gratitude to those great minds that courageously embarked upon the American experiment, who had faith in the essential goodness of humanity and envisioned a country whose every citizen might equally enjoy the freedom, security, and opportunity that the rule of law might provide. We further give thanks to all those individuals, both civic and military, who have sacrificed all they have to forward the fortunes of our nation.

On this day, we grant unto President-elect Obama, Vice-President-elect Biden, as well as their families and members of their administration our support and our hope that they will find the strength and wisdom they will need in the coming years. In light of the challenges we as a nation face, may they never fall short of the fierce courage, unwavering integrity, compassionate beneficence, and broad open-mindedness they must have to fulfill the potential of their profound duties.

Despite the darkness of these days, we recognize that this can also be a wondrous time, a time of great renewal and revitalization. We must now reaffirm our dedication to a culture of social responsibility and environmental stewardship. Once again we must look to our own resources to refill the national vault, not only with economic prosperity, but just as importantly with our wealth of humanity—education, the arts, science and green technology, health care, and a new age of justice, liberty, and progress. The world is ready to look to us once again, not only as moral leaders, but as a partner in the struggle for a healthy planet and a lasting peace, and we must not, we shall not fall short of these sacred obligations.

Let us mark this day as a turning point in the journey towards the splendor that is our potential, a potential measured by our dedication to a world without poverty, injustice, or fear. A world where all humankind can embrace each other as the Great Family we truly are, and live as one on this divine earth as virtuous and responsible citizens.

One of the central tenets of Sacred River states that intentional change is a moral imperative. This is grounded in the idea that the one thing that makes us most human is intentionality, the ability to plan, reflect, imagine, and act with forethought. We can choose to think and behave in ways that our primordial disposition might otherwise prefer. Further, we have the power to learn; one's store of knowledge and skills is never fixed, even if age makes the process more challenging over time. And because our choices have consequences not only for one's personal well-being, but also in regards to our social and ecological impact, we have an obligation to "educate the will" as Emerson put it.

The Second Virtue within Sacred River is Integrity. One aspect of integrity is genuineness, which can be interpreted as embodying one's most authentic self. Of course, this "self" is not an unchanging relic, but an emergent process of being. There are many keys to achieving this flow of genuineness, but perhaps the most salient is self-knowledge or self-awareness. It is no small thing to be able to pay attention to the self, to one's quiet motivations, expectations, beliefs, assumptions, fears, values, and all the obscured habits of the mind, to follow the tangled thread in the cognitive labyrinth that leads to our manifested actions and feelings. Any increase in such awareness can be considered another step in the journey of personal growth.

It is true that there is value in the knowing alone, but the true value is in using awareness of the self to change. One metaphor for this is Michelangelo's description of sculpting, when he said that a statue is already fully formed within the stone, and that his job was merely to chip away the remainder. If it is true that a genuine self exists within each of us, then our job is to chip away at those things that prevent fully authentic expression.

Now then, all of these things are potentially disruptive—self-knowledge, chipping away at the inauthentic, and even genuine expression. By disruptive, I mean that  processes within ourselves, our daily lives, and our social systems are interrupted and become more chaotic or unpredictable, often resulting in anxiety. For most people, disruption isn't pleasant. This makes perfect sense—our survival has long depended on our (assumed) ability to control our environment and to predict outcomes. As such, well-being cannot be long maintained in a disruptive environment.

Considering how life is already chaotic enough without our intentionally throwing a wrench in the works, it makes sense that the idea of harmony, balance, peace, or tranquility would be a common theme in nearly every religion. Sacred River also supports these basic aims and recognizes their many values; after all, another aspect of Integrity is maintaining an optimal balance between all elements of the self.  Outside of oneself, harmony in the social and ecological environment is vital to establishing fairness and sustainability. It goes without saying that finding peace and contentment in one's life can be a source of great spiritual satisfaction.

The core aims of Sacred River are meaning, fulfillment, and joy. You may notice that tranquility is not on that list. This is because, regardless of its many positive virtues, tranquility is not an effective tool to achieve the kind of world for which we are working. Now then, one might experience tranquility as a byproduct of fulfillment, and no one here would begrudge that. But we are progressives here at Sacred River—we hold that things can always improve, and sustained contentment often inhibits the motivation needed to bring about change.

To be clear, I am not proposing we need to live a life of perpetual disturbance, or that it is good to induce chaos for its own sake. What I am arguing is that if we are going to aim for progress—both personally and socially—then we need to make friends with disruption. We each need to find ways to harness the power of disruption. A forest needs fires on occasion to stay healthy, and the same can be said of human life. Fulfillment and genuineness require that we challenge ourselves to break out of unnecessary habits of the body and mind, to learn new knowledge and skills, and to try novel ways of thinking and living. This requires the courage to leap into the unknown, the humility to realize that we don't have all the answers, and the curiosity to wonder what change might bring.

Crossposted from SacredRiver.org

2009 promises to be a year of momentous change. The rise of progressivism is long overdue, although too many Democrats are still under the sway of Reaganomics and general conservative thinking. The country, however, is ready for something new and if enough pressure from progressive groups is kept up, the incoming Obama administration might break the conservative chains that have shackled America for the last three decades. Although we can gripe about specific policies (and we will), overall we can look forward to a renewed respect for knowledge, science, education, health, and sustainability, all of which were largely abandoned in 1980. If we are lucky, we will also see major reform in corporate culture and government corruption through a resurgence of an ethic of responsibility.

No doubt about it, we have a mountain of problems to fix—two wars, an economic meltdown, a broken healthcare system, a melting planet, decaying infrastructure, and civil rights under siege. Although so many complex problems cannot be blamed on any one cause, I believe that a major component has been the abandonment of the idea of the common good, replaced by the promotion of selfishness, greed, and radical individualism. In fact, the notion of civic cooperation for secular purposes (religious efforts have been excepted) has been long attacked as communistic and fascist. One must admire the propaganda efforts put forth to convince so many Americans that when a tiny group of wealthy elites do well we all do well, and when they hurt we all hurt. Large cracks have finally appeared in this fantasy, but it will take many hammers from progressive groups and thinkers to shatter the illusion. This must happen, because our problems are so many and so large that only cooperative efforts will effectively address them.

The state of our country was not inevitable; we have the resources and knowledge to address what ails us, but they have been suppressed under the yoke of conservatism. My own greatest hope is that the new administration will make the necessary investments to turn our assets into pragmatic solutions that will benefit one and all. We also have a chance to begin educating people on both the realities that face us and the ways we can better our situation, all without the filter of evangelical and conservative ideologies. Further, we can, if we are lucky and industrious, put forward a new public ethic grounded in empathy and integrity. In some cases this will need to be accomplished legislatively, especially in regards to corporate behavior, but ideally it will happen through example.

Many Americans are waking up from the dream woven by corporations, evangelicals, and conservatives; they are becoming savvy to the lies, fairy tales, and twisted logic. This is an opportunity for Naturalists to offer an alternative, one based in reason, empiricism, and pragmatism that is also guided by compassion, imagination, and wonder.
It is an opportunity to remind people of the virtues of cooperation and shared sacrifice in service to the greater good. It is an opportunity to make the switch from throwaway consumerism to sustainability. The pabulum Americans have been given has been attractive and sweet but ultimately without nourishment—it is time for people to find true sustenance, a richer fare that feeds lives of meaning, fulfillment, and joy. That is my wish for this New Year.

In general terms, tolerance can be defined as acceptance (even if grudging) of people who look, act, or believe differently than you do. This is a fine principle that falls under the Third Virtue, Beneficence. If Nature tells us anything, it is that variety is a fundamental property of a healthy system, and so even on a pragmatic level it makes sense to promote tolerance of difference. Homogeneity might be easier, but it would be static and, well, boring. Far better to celebrate diversity, no?

On the whole, I think it is better to err on the side of tolerance when faced with an uncomfortable difference. After all, who are we to say what is the right way to live? Religious Naturalists don't have a holy rule book, and so we are forced to use reason and empathy to determine which things are acceptable and which aren't.

But let's be clear here—not all things are acceptable. Suicide bombing, female castration, slavery, pedophilia, torture—these actions all represent clear moral failings, and as a humanist, I am not only intolerant of such things, I am also willing to fight for their eradication. Progressive humanism does not have an ethic of "perfect tolerance" in this regard.

Of course, the real trick is dealing with the stuff in the grey middle. There are no clear ethical standards when it comes to complicated issues that involve multiple variables; abortion is a good example. Dealing with such things will always require the messy push-and-pull process of articulating values, examining prevailing conditions, predicting outcomes, and trying to persuade people to accept new points of view.

This is what makes the spiritual journey so challenging. On the one hand, it is good to expand one's ability to see from multiple perspectives, to labor for the well-being of others, and to promote a patchwork culture that is fair, rich, and harmonious. On the other hand, it is also good to explore what things in society might need changing, and then to be willing to do something about it.

I understand this is a tough one for those postmodernists who want to protect anything that falls under the rubric of "cultural norm" or "religious belief". But norms and beliefs are not isolated specimens in a zoo—they have real-world consequences. As such, nothing should be off limits for critical examination.

Tolerance does not mean "anything goes as long as it's part of an established culture or population". As a progressive, my aim is to see increased fairness, opportunity, prosperity, and freedom in the world. If cultural norms or religious beliefs significantly inhibit any of these four, I consider it my right, and even my duty as a human, to try to counter them. Of course, persuasion and inspiration are my preferred tools, but vigorous debate, legal action, and peaceful demonstration are all legitimate options when called for.

Social transformation is an ancient religious tradition, and there is no reason for Sacred River, or Religious Naturalism in general, to be any different. The fact is, there are beliefs and norms out there (including some of our own as individuals, no doubt) that run counter to social justice and human flourishing that have too long been safe behind the wall of political correctness. If we want to see a more equitable and thriving world, then we must understand that tolerance does not require complacency or silence.

To be clear, what I'm talking about is not black and white. Human beliefs and behaviors are often messy, contrary, confusing, and horrible. But they can also be beautiful, magnificent, inspiring, and transformative. Often, which is which depends on the perspective one brings to a situation; there are few absolutes in life.

Tolerance is that which inhibits our natural drive to demonize difference by stepping out of one's personal perspective and empathizing with others. In this sense, tolerance is an approach to human interaction which tries to look for fundamental similarities behind the differences. In this way, we can fight those things that prevent a better world, accept benign if conflicting differences, and celebrate our shared heritage as humans, all at the same time.

This is not an easy path. As Naturalists, we do not see a simple world of right and wrong, good and bad. We must choose instead to get in the muck and really engage with the sticky issues of a complex world. We have some wonderful tools to do this with, including reason, empirical inquiry, compassion, and pragmatism. And when we are weary we can lean on history, which shows that the naturalist perspective, on the whole, consistently leads to more veridical, functional, and beneficial solutions. Our mandate does not come from God or any prophet, but from the realization that we alone are responsible for ourselves and if a better world is indeed possible, then it is up to us to get it there, together.

Okay, so far we've come a long way. Let's see what we have—at the core of Sacred River is the central aim of increasing a sense of meaning, fulfillment, and joy in one's life. The three central pillars of Sacred River include religious naturalism, allegoricalism, and progressivism. From this, we can say that sacredness is found within the lived experience of engaging with the natural world as understood via the natural sciences, but with an acknowledgment that religious objects and events can act as powerful doorways to our deepest emotional centers, which can allow for a sense of meaningful profundity. Behavior is guided by an ethic of humanism, which states that humans are worthwhile in their own right and that we are morally mandated to promote liberty, opportunity, and fairness in society, while also developing within ourselves increased health, agency, knowledge, and wisdom. The central key to progress is intentionality, the human tool that drives directed change.

Much of what we've been exploring so far has been theoretical, especially in regards to what underlies the religious impulse and letting go of supernaturalism as a way of interpreting nature. This is important, and no doubt many more theoretical essays will be written. A significant part of spirituality is the development of a particular worldview, and that is what we've largely been working on. However, it's vital to point out that a spiritual life is an active life. Since we do not have any mysterious "essence" that makes us more or less spiritual, being spiritual must include having a spiritual practice.

We've looked at some of the things that such a practice is meant to accomplish. This includes the need to reduce existential anxiety, establish social connections, promote a sense of agency and purpose, express ourselves creatively, and develop a worldview that allows for meaning, values, and aims. There simply can be no one thing that a spiritual practice accomplishes—spiritual development obviously involves a complex web of biopsychosocial elements. This is why it is so useful to have a practice model, to provide a sense of organization and focus. This is something that I hope Sacred River can develop.
( Much more after the cut... )

I want to expand briefly on an idea from my last essay—the idea that science is the new occult. At one time, those we might now call occultists were those who were trying to explore the mysteries of nature. They wanted to discover that which was "hidden" (i.e. occult). For many of them, things like non-corporeal intelligences and super-terrestrial planes were not "supernatural", but accepted explanations for natural processes. Those folks really wanted to know how things worked, and they did the best they could with the knowledge and technology they had on hand.

What used to be "occultists" are now called "scientists". The essential shift happened with the humanistic discovery that gods and spirits are not necessary to explain the workings of the world. Similarly, the examination of humans moved away from souls and towards biology, sociology, and psychology. And as the scientific method improved, it was discovered that the universe was a vastly more complex and amazing place than any occultist could have predicted. And as science started peering into the very large, the very distant, and the very small, humans were truly exploring hidden domains utterly beyond the reach of normal modes of perception.

There is another element to this. Starting especially with the advent of books, all the various domains of technology and science became highly specialized, requiring a unique language for explaining things in shorthand for other experts. This has progressed to the point where not only are the concepts and skills in science incredibly complex, but even the scientific jargon itself lies far outside of everyday language. A casual glance at the language of neurology, genetics, biochemistry, or astrophysics leaves one baffled. It's amazing that as much information as is openly available to the general public, so little of it is really understandable to the average person.

As I have mentioned, the desire to know—or more specifically, to experience a feeling of knowing—is an inherent human trait. As such, curiosity and an attraction for the novel is ever-present in us. But since science has become so, well, occult, many people look to simpler systems to help them try to grasp the workings of the world. And those systems, more often than not, are religious.

The mainstream religions are the most common, obviously. For those who are inspired to reject the mainstream—for whatever reason—there are plenty of alternatives, such as the numerous Neo-Pagan, New Age, and magick-based systems. But virtually all of them have at least one thing in common—they provide a relatively simplistic and static model of the world that is based on things other than physical, observable, or testable evidence (Buddhism and Taoism offer some interesting exceptions). This is a perfectly understandable thing to do; if all the various domains of science are too numerous and complex for anyone to grasp (which is undeniably true), then religion can act as an acceptable, even if non-veridical substitute. Easing existential anxiety does not strictly require knowing much, it only asks for the feeling of knowing, and nearly all religions are custom made for this.

For some folks, religion isn't used to understand the natural world, but is rather intended as a method for understanding the self. I often wonder what people really mean by this. What kind of knowledge is it that people are seeking? Their traits, talents, values, beliefs, boundaries, strengths, weaknesses, or what? What's interesting to me is that three hours of psychological testing can say more about individual differences than any religious tool. There are literally hundreds of such instruments, many of which have been shown to have an excellent degree of reliability and validity, that can test nearly every aspect of human activity and interest, and provide a vast array of accurate, detailed, and personalized data about a given individual. For anyone interested, affordable testing can likely be had at a local graduate psychology program.

But I would argue that such knowledge isn't what spiritual seekers are really looking for. What people really want is to feel special. Understand, this is perfectly normal and natural; everyone wants to feel special, to believe that they have a purpose in life, that they matter. Science tells us that, in the grand scheme of things, we don't actually matter; the universe does not care about us; we, as individuals, are not needed; there is no Plan for us. What religion can do is provide a way around this, either by inventing transcendent personalities that do care about us or by creating systems that allow one to rise in power and authority. Also, for those who believe that there exist hidden dimensions to reality that can be perceived via spiritual practices, resulting phenomena can produce both a feeling of knowing and a sense of specialness by dint of their profound "discoveries."

This, then, is the challenge—to find effective ways to reduce existential anxiety, to gain a feeling of knowing about the world, and to have a sense of meaning and fulfillment without sacrificing curiosity, regard, and wonder about the veridical workings of the self and the universe. I strongly maintain that this is indeed possible. And more than possible—outright beneficial. This is what religious naturalism and Sacred River is all about, the development of such a system of spiritual thought and practice. Science might be the new occult, but together it is possible to pool enough knowledge resources to make our shared journey a meaningful, fulfilling, and joyous one.

The world is a confusing place in many ways. It is a dangerous one, too. It makes perfect sense that the evolutionary process would promote curiosity and the ability to discover and understand—by learning about the workings of the world, our ability to survive and even dominate nature increased exponentially. Eventually, our curiosity led to the creation of science, a highly effective, if imperfect tool for figuring out what things are, what they do, and how they do it.

A popular refrain states that science cannot answer all questions. That is undoubtedly true. Embedded within the universe are processes and events that will be forever beyond our ability to analyze, predict, or understand.

The part of us that desires to know things seduces us into thinking that there is a deeper level of reality that can be grasped by a special tuning process of the mind. After all, the brain is the only real mediator of experience (and therefore of all knowledge), so it must be possible to manipulate that tool to perceive and grasp this hidden reality that remains hidden to the keen eye of scientific examination. An extension of this perspective argues that some people in the past have indeed achieved this and developed translation systems that allow every day people to have access to this hidden wisdom—astrology, tarot, gematria, Cabala, goat entrails, tea leaves, entheogenic ritual, bibliomancy, augury, palmistry, scrying, Ouija, runecasting, and any other number of countless methods.

Employing these practices can have numerous etiologies and consequences. As stated, the foundation of them all is certainly the desire to know things, which itself derives from our common need to seek safety and reduce existential anxiety. It matters not one whit if the "knowledge" they provide has any objective veridicality—all that is important is that they produce the feeling of knowing.

The "feeling of knowing" is a somewhat poorly understood psychological phenomenon. In general, it is hypothesized to be a function of the familiarity process in memory. Key components include cues and target familiarity, which would perhaps explain why working within certain memorized systems (e.g. the Tree of Life or Tarot) might produce such strong feelings of knowing, because they provide numerous cues for highly familiar symbols. The key here is that such methods are closed systems—the data that they produce are only relevant to the system itself, and to nothing else in any objective sense.

But this is all academic. Nothing can explain away the intense desire people have to know things. On top of this, believing that one has an inside track to the secrets of existence can lead to feelings of pride and exceptionality. If one harbors deep doubts about one's self worth, then indulging in such systems can also provide profound relief. Likewise, if one has developed inadequate skills for dealing with every day life—especially in regards to predicting consequences and developing the necessary resources to thrive—then retreating into an occult world with relatively easy-to-follow rules might seem like a better choice.

Of course, this is certainly not true of everyone who is involved with occult/supernatural systems of knowing. Some simply have wonderful imaginations and take great pleasure in believing they live in a world described by mystics and prophets. These are the romantics, and I was certainly counted among their number at one time.

I must make something very clear here—there is infinite room in our lives for symbols and metaphors, for tools that inspire and focus. Life is hard and if a charm, horoscope, or ritual helps one to find greater meaning, fulfillment, and joy, then that is a good thing. A love amulet can help keep a mind open to potential partners; a prayer for employment might influence a person to keep looking when despair is near; a baptism often helps people to feel emotionally integrated into a new community. The allegorical perspective recognizes that symbols are doorways to emotional depths that are otherwise difficult to access, and as such, they have a vital role to play in our lives.

But there will always be things that are beyond knowing. This is not because there is a hidden world, mysterious powers, or unseen intelligences that care about our individual lives and manipulate events for some Grand Purpose. Mystery is simply intrinsic to reality. The emergent nature of the universe is such that a certain amount of randomness is inherent to existence. This is what gives things the wiggle room needed to change and produce variety. If randomness didn't exist, we would not have galaxies, planets, or people, only a homogenous cloud of elementary particles.

All knowledge is provisional. But this is not because all theories have equal value. When something is thought to be known, it takes a great deal to supplant it with new knowledge. As things stand, we now know a great deal about the origins, functions, and workings of nature. As new information comes in, what we now know will change or disappear. This is philosophy of science 101.

But supernatural systems don't follow the same rules. They do not allow for better ways of seeing things. They demand a static view of the world. If science is brought in, it is twisted to try to confirm existing conclusions. This is, for me, what makes supernatural systems completely inadequate as tools for exploring and understanding the natural world.

At some point, we need to accept the fact that there will be things we will never know. In some cases, that will be because they are beyond our ability to examine (e.g. what happens after death?). In other cases, it is simply because there are no Answers. Is there a Grand Purpose to Life? Not only is there no answer to that, it is the wrong question. The right question is: how do we make life more meaningful, more fulfilling, and more joyous? Part of the answer to that is to make peace with Mystery, to realize that there will be some things we can know and other things we can't, and to be okay with that. What will the next moment bring? Who knows.

In her classic book, The Sacred Depths of Nature, Ursula Goodenough writes:

As a religious naturalist I say "What Is, Is" with the same bowing of the head, the same bending of the knee. Which then allows me to say "Blessed Be To What Is" with thanksgiving. To give assent is to understand, incorporate, and then let go. With the letting go comes that deep sigh we call relief, and relief allows the joy-of-being-alive-at-all to come tumbling forth again.

Here Dr. Goodenough is briefly addressing a core existential challenge: to come to grips with reality. As one who looks to science as the primary instrument for understanding reality (or at least how it works), it can be daunting to accept that we humans (and myself in particular) have no real importance in the Grand Scheme of Things. The universe does not care about us. As absolutely amazing as life is, especially the emergence of self-awareness, life itself has no Ultimate Purpose. There is no Plan for us—there is absolutely nothing that we have to Learn or Accomplish, no preordained Destiny to fulfill.

Yes, acknowledging all that is a serious downer, no doubt about it. It very much goes counter to the human need to feel special, valuable, and safe.

But Goodenough provides one possible way out from the despair and nihilism that reality can impose: what she calls assent. Rather than responding with disappointment or resentment to a world that refuses to conform with our more childish desires or soothe our existential anxieties, we can choose to acquiesce—to say "What Is, Is."

I recognize the huge challenge of this orientation. For Goodenough, assent is the key to relief and joy. While assent might be necessary, I'm not sure it is sufficient, at least not for everyone. I agree that gratitude for "What Is" is very important (at a basic level, be thankful that there is something instead of nothing, because the latter could have happened just as easily as the former). But I maintain that, in general, humans have not developed into beings that tend to be satisfied with acceptance for what is (and in all fairness, I'm not at all certain that Goodenough would disagree with me here). It's certainly possible to achieve this state, of course—one could even claim that this is the basis of Buddhist practice.

For many, though, I hypothesize that joy comes about as a result of meaning and fulfillment. From a naturalist orientation, I would agree that both initially require assent to the general conditions of reality. This means giving up cherished stories and paranormal assumptions about the workings of the world. No small thing, that. It is akin to what addicts describe when they try to quit their drug of choice—initially, the world seems flat and bland without the high. Similarly, life without the magic and miracles might seem the same. But in both cases, it is possible to eventually see the world as it really is—a vibrant, unpredictable, beautiful, thrilling, magnificent place. And that we are beings with the astounding ability to influence ourselves and our environment to conform with our imagination.

A naturalist spirituality emerges out of this relationship between imagination and reality. Or said another way, to say "What Is, Is" and "What might be, might be"—the alliance between assent and creativity. And the creation of what might be—the ability to imagine and then to act to make a vision manifest—is what makes fulfillment and meaning possible.

This is also a part of the Sacred River—the ongoing dance between imagination and manifestation. This is not a mechanical process, but an emergent flow of being. We are not static, but careen down the channel of change. True, our brains thankfully provide an illusion of stability, but from moment to moment we oscillate between potential and discharge. And we can influence that! We can have a hand in the creation of ourselves and in the way we relate to Nature. And that makes us Gods.

Ursula Goodenough, one of the leading speakers in the Religious Naturalism movement, once pointed out that while the story of Nature can induce awe and wonder, the scientific knowledge of universal processes rarely inspires religious feelings. That is one reason why this spiritual movement isn't "religious scientism". It simply isn't enough to think that Nature is great in and of itself—religion is, ultimately, about the human condition. Unless a spiritual movement appeals to one's core existential concerns, it simply will not be of much use.

Goodenough also explains that religion answers two basic questions: How Things Are and What Is Important. I agree with her that the answer to the first question is, well, how things actually are. The single best method we've come up with to figure this out is the scientific method. This is not to say that there aren't an infinity of questions—of course there are. Science will never have it all figured out; that is a very good thing, because otherwise things would become very boring. At the same time, I maintain that we can scratch a few things off the list: what we know about the physical origins of the Earth, the general process of evolution, the biopsychosocial basis of human functioning, geology, engineering, and astrophysics pretty much rules out 99% of religious theories regarding How Things Are. Moreover, the scientific method is far more effective in finding out new things that we never even knew we didn't know.

If religion is no longer needed to answer How Things Are, that really leaves What Is Important. Of course, religion isn't strictly needed for that, either. Philosophy and reason have done a pretty good job of constructing systems of ethics that are more flexible and relevant than the rigid rules of scripture. I maintain, as one example, that humanism is a more noble and pragmatic moral system than most of those put forward by major religions. Science is also starting to inform ethics—for instance, evolutionary ethics is a nascent system that recognizes that morality is itself an evolutionary adaptation.
( More after the cut... )

I have created a new website that I invite you to check out: sacredriver.org. Warning: all the posts are more or less the same as those on this journal. However, I eventually hope to expand the site as the project grows. Naturally it takes a back seat to my scholatic and professional work, but I'm happy with the speed with which it's coming along. I am below posting the "About" section from the site to give you a better idea of what it is I'm trying to accomplish with all this. I think it also gives a fairly concise outline of where I'm coming from spiritually. As always, your feedback is welcome.

Humans have an intrinsic need for things like purpose, connection, order, and a sense of how the universe works. We also depend on society to help guide our behavior and provide a set of values and beliefs. These things have long been the purview of religion, which has also tried to explain the workings of the world. As science progressed, a split between reason and spirituality occurred, seemingly leaving us with a choice of either dry empiricism or groundless supernaturalism. Although many religions have, in modern times, tried to integrate science into their teachings, it has largely resulted in, at best, an uncomfortable truce.

Fortunately, there have long been voices calling for a very different kind of religious orientation. Perhaps sacredness isn't a quality bequeathed by a transcendent god, but rather emerges out of meaningful relationships as an embodied experience. Instead of needing to attain a state of grace in order to gain entrance into Heaven after death, maybe our efforts are better spent by trying to attain a higher level of meaning, fulfillment, and joy in our lives. Although scripture can provide an outline for human behavior, it might be more beneficial to develop an ethics grounded in reason, compassion, and love. It could be that objects and processes in the manifested universe (including humans and human functioning) are not corruptions, but are actually worthy of awe, wonder, and reverence.

Sacred River heeds those calls and aspires to add to the rising chorus.  As such, it has accepted three general aims.

1. To promote an approach to spirituality that is grounded in progressive, humanistic principles, science as the primary way of understanding the universe, and a reverent orientation towards the natural world.
2. To establish small communities for the purpose of common celebration, support, and creative exploration.
3. To develop a system of thought and practice for the purpose of personal development.

This site will share ideas found in numerous fields of thought, including religious naturalism, pantheism, emergence theory, process theology, psychology, neurotheology, and any other area that might beneficially inform our work. Our object is not to create a new religion or even a church, but rather to add another vehicle for a larger movement well under way. This movement strives for a kind of spirituality that recognizes sacredness in ourselves and the natural world without a need for transcendent gods, non-corporeal intelligences, super-terrestrial environments, or occult forces.

This project is only in its bare infancy, but grand plans are in the works. Ultimately, we hope to develop a vibrant community that is open, respectful, curious, supportive, and creative. If the general ideas presented here are attractive to you, please consider lending us your own thoughts and stories. As we grow, no doubt the site will change, and we look forward to the adventure that awaits us.

What is divine? What things are sacred and what makes them so has been debated since the notion was invented. For many religions, even up to this day, sacredness has been seen as a kind of extension of a transcendent personality. In this general perspective, God, say, is inherently sacred (being God and all) and anything that God does, creates, or influences becomes itself holy. Of course, this orientation requires a dualism, where some things are sacred and some things are not. The not-sacred things/events/actions can range, depending on who you ask, from the blandly mundane to the wickedly profane, depending on those things' relation with the source of sacredness.

In some (not all) immanent systems of thought, the divine can be seen as something injected into or living within the stuff of the universe. In these cases, even though there is a strong relationship between matter and the divine, the two are nevertheless separate "substances". It is even possible to see sacredness as a kind of material property.

There exists, of course, countless argument and conceptions of the divine and its relationship to humans. But I would like to offer a completely different view of divinity (of which I certainly do not claim ownership). If you, like me, accept that spirituality is a biopsychosocial phenomenon, then perhaps you might agree that sacredness can be defined, not as a property (whether transcendent or immanent), but as a lived experience. In other words, something becomes divine because one experiences it as divine.

In this view, the source of divinity is us. As such, sacredness does not require a force or transcendent personality. Neither does the process of sacralization change the nature or essence of an object (even when that object is the self). Rather, what changes is the relationship between the person and the object. My primary area of interest in all this is in the nature of that relationship—its causes, consequences, scope, sensations, and meaning. These are things I hope to explore for, well, the rest of my life, not just intellectually, but personally.

This is the grand adventure of spirituality. There is no end goal out there, no Ultimate Truth to ascertain, no perfected state of being to accomplish. There is only the creative, dynamic flow of life, each person being an integrated part of the Universal All, unique and yet one with everything. In the religious naturalism, pantheistic view, being spiritual doesn't mean altering one's essential self, it means developing an ever more complex, mature relationship with the self and the world in a way that is highly meaningful, fulfilling, and joyous. This is the divine journey and what it means to swim the Sacred River.

To my mind, there is no such objective thing as essence, at least in the sense of a soul, genius, augoeides, higher self, or other non-corporeal form of self-being. In relation to this, I also do not recognize different spiritual states. By that, I mean that any experience of a "spiritual state" is a purely psychological phenomenon. This is not a bad thing at all; in fact, I am a big proponent of seeking such experiences. But they are purely subjective—no one is "more spiritual" than another person in any essential, objective sense.

There is a reason I put these two things together, spiritual states and essence. Religious transformations have not been shown to change the fundamental nature of people—such experiences can often change things like attitudes, aims, and beliefs, but not personal capabilities, bio-psycho functioning (with a caveat given below), or personality (a la the Big Five). Rather, such transformations often are aimed not at the biopsychosocial self but at one's essential self, frequently in terms of being "born again," "initiated," or "attained." The idea of attaining to objective spiritual states is an ancient one, although it takes a good number of forms, depending on the model one is working within. It's useful to remember that those models are all manmade.

Now then, certain religious practices certainly can change brain function—meditation, Yoga, and entheogen intake, for example. But it must be noted that significant changes to brain chemistry can also be induced by other practices, such as playing music, riding a roller coaster, or making love. The ability to change one's mental state does not imply nor require the existence of a spiritual essence.

For the most part, I don't care one way or another if someone believes in spiritual essence. But I am disturbed by many beliefs associated with it. For example, I very much dislike the idea that one's essence requires certain experiences for whatever reason and manipulates events to make them happen—this is an especially distressing explanation of why suffering and cruelty occur (e.g. "she was raped because her soul needed to learn something from that experience"). This general belief is dangerous because it takes agency and responsibility away from people and places it on mysterious, unseen forces.

Another related problem is spiritual bypassing. In this case, when someone wants to avoid dealing with difficult or intractable problems in real life, or even just normal adult responsibilities, it is possible to focus on one's spiritual essence. Similarly, people who are insecure can assuage their social anxiety by claiming spiritual superiority. In both cases, working with spiritual essence becomes a substitute for improving practical and social skills, becoming more conscientious, and facing personal demons.

For myself, I simply think that spiritual essence is not a very useful idea. Humans are not modeled on a Platonic ideal nor powered by an ethereal battery. We do not have a spiritual constituent within ourselves that rises or falls on some mystical axis. Rather, all things arise dynamically out of the complex soup of reality, a moment to moment emergence of being. As such, our existence does not require an unseen force, just as light does not need a luminiferous aether within which to travel.

It should be no surprise to you by now that I would argue that the root issue is existential anxiety. Belief in a spiritual essence can provide an emotional buffer against an indifferent universe. This makes perfect sense—it's challenging to think of being stuck in such a dangerous place as Nature. There is a social element as well; humans are intrinsically social creatures, and as such are designed to work within hierarchies. When someone feels socially inadequate, imagining an idealized spiritual self can be a great comfort. Again, perfectly sensible.

This is why I believe it is so important in one's spiritual life to work within several core areas, including intentionality, connectivity, character, exploration, and creativity. These are all areas that can lead to improved meaning, fulfillment, and joy. At the same time, it is useful to remember that the flesh is not corrupt, we are not Fallen, and no Final Judgment awaits us. There is no Grand Scale upon which our essential spirits are weighed. We simply are what we are, and what we are is both amazing and sacred, through and through. Our job, therefore, is not to be purified, idealized, or ascended, but rather to examine ourselves and work towards reaching our given potential, whatever that might be. We can always find ways to express ourselves in a more genuine way, to expand our horizons and gain insight into life and the universe. This really is a grand adventure and we are marvelous creatures. If we want to call this totality of our being essence, then I would be satisfied.

If you will, please consider the following hypothetical: a woman, 30-years-old, successful business owner, intelligent, socially active, and mother of three, gets into a terrible car accident. She suffers brain damage, and after recovering from her injuries displays many differences, such as impaired short term memory, marked irritability, frequent confusion, and difficulty maintaining focus. Because of this, she can no longer manage her business, she requires full-time assistance caring for her children, and loses many of her social connections. While few would disagree that this is a tragic story, my question is this: has the fundamental essence of this woman changed, or is her essence unchanged but now expressed differently due to her new neural state?

To answer this question, one must first have an opinion about essence. Do people have such a thing? If so, what is its nature? If intangible, what it its relation with the physical body? Or is essence merely the sum of all a person's traits and conditions? Perhaps there is no such thing as fundamental essence at all.

This is one of those areas of inquiry that I believe resist scientific examination and must remain in the realm of speculation. And yet, the opinions that people have about essence can have a profound influence upon worldview and behavior. When Christians, for example, speak of being "born again" or attaining a "state of grace", I believe they are describing changes in their fundamental essence (as opposed to, say, changes in mere consciousness or physiology). This is similar to those mystics who seek "attainment" or "initiation". In virtually all such cases, people are looking for more than just a certain kind of somato-emotional experience, they are seeking a change, usually an elevation of their fundamental state of being. And this desire can have a profound impact on how one's life is lived.

For some this change is related to the afterlife, where the state of their essence determines their ultimate fate, whether a final destination (such as Heaven or Hell) or the conditions of the next reincarnated life. This is not always true—I suspect that many (perhaps the majority) of folks who worry about the afterlife accept a behavioral model, meaning that their reward will be based fully on their actions (e.g. trying to be a "good person") rather than on the state of any fundamental essence. Either way, the core aim here is salvation or escape from present or future suffering.

The motivations for those who seek essential change sans afterlife worries (or in conjunction with them) are more subtle and varied. After all, if the object is not to escape post-death suffering, then what is the point of changing one's essence? What does one gain by it? For some, I imagine that is driven by the desire to be a more genuine person, to live in greater alignment with God or Nature. On the flip side is the desire to escape suffering, not after death but in this life. For yet others, I suspect that it is no more complicated than the drive for power and control (or rather the illusion of it, I would argue).

And what if there is no such thing as fundamental essence at all? It is possible to define one's self as a complex being whose ever-changing state emerges out of the dynamic soup of physiology, psychology, behavior, and environment. In this perspective, essence might be defined as the gestalt or totality of being-ness, in no way separate from the corporeal self within its physical surroundings. Or it might be viewed as an ideal, the highest potential one could reach within the scope of existing conditions. Finally, perhaps an essence is not possible because all conditions are constantly in flux, with the appearance of state merely being an illusion.

And so we come back to our tragic car victim. Has her fundamental essence changed or merely the conditions within which it can be expressed? Or does she not have an essence as such? What do you think?

In the last essay, we glanced briefly at the nature of religious experiences, defined as a profound and meaningful shift in perspective—whether of time, space, function, relation, or state of being—involving an embodied sensation and a resultant interpretation that is explicitly religious in nature. Such experiences generally have three components: (1) pre-existing schemas, (2) a somato-emotional event, and (3) an interpretation involving religious concepts. We also looked at some broad experiential categories, including: non-dual mysticism, psychism, portaling, group and individual affiliative connectivity, occultism, spiritual transformation, and tranquility. Finally, we introduced the Experience Grid, composed of emotional (tranquil to ecstatic) and rationality (rational to irrational) spectrums as a way to organize various experiences.

I ended that post with the two following statements:

1) All sensory experiences involve a physical process within the brain and so must be caused and mediated by physical objects and processes. As such, all metaphysical or supernatural sources or states are considered non-veridical.

2) Religious experiences, regardless of the veridicality of the interpreted source or medium, certainly do occur phenomenologically and can lead to increased well-being. As such, they possess great potential value.

The first assertion is perfectly reasonable in the context of religious naturalism, which denies the reality of non-corporeal consciousness, change at a distance, supra-terrestrial planes, and similar supernatural beliefs. As such, the objective existence of things like deities, spirits, demons, subtle bodies, or occult energies cannot be acknowledged.

But what must be acknowledged is the fact that so many people deeply value their belief in them. The supernatural might not be real, but the underlying human needs that keep them alive certainly are, some of which might not be satisfied in any other way but for religion. Furthermore, there is no doubt that, under the right conditions, certain religious experiences can have beneficial effects, such as improved physical health and emotional well-being.

Researchers and theorists have been trying to uncover the nature of those needs and their related functions for quite a while. This is an important area of inquiry, for if we are to design a system of religious practice that does not directly contradict empirical science, then we must understand what purposes religious experiences serve.

There are, of course, countless theories on this topic. I was going to present a review of the literature, but its scope and my limited time made this impractical. So, I will for now provide my own ideas based on readings and personal experiences. Imperfect, yes, but it's a place to start. Eventually I hope to expand on it.

Religious Origins: Safety, Agency, Knowledge, Creativity, Emotions, and (Mal)functions
I suspect that at the heart of the "religious instinct" is the desire for safety and a reduction of existential anxiety. This desire plays out in many ways, creating a complex tapestry of drives and behaviors. (The outline below should not be interpreted as a comprehensive list of simple or isolated effects—each of these are tied into other systems, such as reproductive drives and culture, as well as individual differences. That said, this is a preliminary and incomplete list of fundamental human drives that might influence the nature of and desire for various religious experiences).

One key way that people feel safer is to feel connected, especially to a social group. However, with our powerful neocortex, we can derive similar or even greater satisfaction from feeling connected to abstractions, such as "God" or "Nature." And so, the first major need is a sense of connectivity, which can influence everything from group affiliation to the aspiration of a non-dual state.

Another common manifestation is the desire for agency, a sense that one is able to influence events effectively. There are many ways in which this drive for competence is expressed. One in particular—the drive for control and power—is especially prevalent in religion. This drive partially explains those cases where people seek or claim special powers, traits, or authority based on their spiritual experiences. Similarly, for some there is a strong need for maintaining a sense of internal and/or external order, which reduces anxiety related to life's unpredictability.

Another expression of agency is knowledge-seeking. Humans certainly have an unquenchable desire to know things and to acquire novel experiences which underlies our natural curiosity, love of mystery, and sense of adventure. On the whole, the more knowledge I have, the more competent I can be and the less unpredictable the world becomes, so it makes sense that we would develop a powerful drive to learn and discover. It often manifests in religious terms as the search for the Big Answers or the Ultimate Truth. A common result of this religious orientation is a sense of wonder, the feeling of excitement when encountering something novel that is perceived as intensely meaningful or beautiful.

Another manifestation of the agency drive I'll mention is creativity. Creativity, at a basic level, arose out of the need to solve survival problems combined with an evolving neocortex that allowed for abstract thought. Suddenly humans could imagine future events, make plans, and try new options when something didn't work. Creativity can be split into two main branches—pragmatic and aesthetic—the former being grounded in problem solving and the latter in the pleasure of beauty. Needless to say, the creative impulse eventually developed a vast array of expressive vehicles and became integrated in one way or another into virtually everything we do, religion being no exception. (Although this is only getting a brief mention now, eventually creativity, and more specifically, art, will become one core theme in my exploration of the Sacred River).

Many of our basic emotions also serve as secondary influencers of religious experience. For example, two basic emotions—guilt and shame—underlie many beliefs and activities. It should be noted that evolutionary psychology posits that such emotions were, at least at one time, beneficial for survival. The idea was to correct for behavior that might get one kicked out of the tribe or demoted to a non-reproductive social strata; they are not beneficial or desirable emotions in and of themselves. From my perspective, it seems tragic that religious structures have been set up to encourage such feelings along with demeaning or punishing actions in response to them.

At the same time there are the pleasurable emotions, such as happiness, ecstasy, and tranquility. They too strongly influence religious experience, sometimes in conjunction with directly fulfilling our needs (e.g. being socially connected) and sometimes as byproducts of brain function (e.g. entheogenic consumption). While experiencing such emotions can make for a rich life, they can (as in substance abuse) become either addictive or used to ignore intractable problems in life (so-called spiritual bypassing).

Finally, there are religious elements that have arisen as by-products of brain (mal)functions. I've already mentioned apophenia, the perception of patterns where there are none, which seemingly developed as a response to feelings of powerlessness or confusion. My last post also mentioned psychism, involving sensory intrusions into consciousness; this happens to everyone to one degree or another, and is likely one source of beliefs regarding otherworldly and non-corporeal activity. And of course there is psychosis, a biological condition that can involve vivid and complex delusions and hallucinations.

To quickly summarize, the engine of religion is fueled by the need to reduce existential anxiety and to feel safe. This drive manifests in several ways, including seeking a sense of connectivity and a need for agency and competence (related to a desire for power, knowledge-seeking and creativity). Both positive and negative emotions also play an important role, sometimes beneficially and sometimes not. Religious beliefs are also influenced by unusual brain activity, including sensory intrusions into consciousness, the perception of non-existent patterns, and outright psychosis. In the future, I plan to argue that the three elements related to this list that can most effectively lead to meaning, fulfillment, and joy are connectivity, exploration, and creativity.

Commentary
It might seem as if reducing the religious instinct down to limbic drives somehow eliminates the positive or noble aspects of spiritual pursuits. Not so! The drives outlined above remain as fundamental to human existence as they ever have, and fulfilling them is one of the most meaningful things anyone can do. Moreover, the fact that religion can be understood in terms of basic drives doesn't erase the reality that religion can also influence a sense of grandeur and awe, the fight for social justice, a desire for personal and cultural development, and the creation of astounding beauty in art and music.

It is the expression of such things that makes religion worthwhile, even when certain beliefs and spiritual experiences have no relation to fact. Religion, like technology, is in itself morally neutral. Judging it as good or bad depends on how it manifests. For myself, religion falls in the "good" category when it promotes physical, mental, and characterological health; when it fosters vibrant, just, and caring communities; and when it contributes to greater meaning, fulfillment, and joy in people's lives. It falls in the "bad" category when it suppresses critical thinking and reason; when it encourages hatred, violence, ignorance, and passive obedience; and when it places ideology, faith, and fortunes of religious leaders above the general welfare of members.

This is the point of my exploring the internal workings of the human religious mechanism. If religion can be good or bad depending on the effects it has in people's lives, then it is imperative that we explore the reasons it exists in the first place—not just as a social phenomenon, but also as a personal, embodied experience. Because such experiences often seem so real, and because the underlying drives are so strong, no argument, no matter how rational or compelling, will eradicate religion. Ever. So, the question becomes a simple one: what kind of religion do we want?

We are human, and so we have a choice in this matter. I hope that in the coming years—in light of our daunting ecological, social, and economic struggles—we choose wisely.

While my posts thus far have focused on a philosophical framework for spirituality, it is important to understand that such constructs are not the meat of a religious life. Ultimately, what makes a path spiritual or religious is the experience of it as such. As Jennifer Dornan (2004) writes, "the symbols and abstract ideas of a religion do not have the social force of belief unless there is some performative, experiential aspect to provide meaning and import to those symbols." At the same time, such experiences have little intrinsic meaning until interpreted in the light of some established philosophy or ideology, and this dynamic dance is the engine behind the countless number of religious systems in the world. With this in mind, let's begin to explore the world of religious experience.
( Read on to begin the adventure... )