02.16.06
Religion and naturalism
Dennett in Breaking the Spell passes himself off as some kind of persecuted enquirer after the truth of religion.
The spell that I say must be broken is the taboo against a forthright, scientific, no-holds-barred investigation of religion as one natural phenomenon among many.
Who on earth is stopping any scientist from doing any of this? Whose taboo? The scientists’? Otherwise, as always, noone is stopping anyone from supposed sacrilege in violating such a taboo (as the Danish cartoon incidents have shown). Scientists have complete free speech already, freedom to enquire, freedom to produce theories. The tremendous prestige and power of science puts the shoe on the other foot.
Obviously the real point is they are stymied by their own definition of naturalism, and in general can’t comprehend religion at all. I know, the ID people say the same thing, but I am not positing a naturalism/spiritualism duality, as such. It is simply the absurdity of the current definition of naturalism. It is obviously not absurd to scientists, but they have closed themselves in a box, and don’t consider the implications.
The result is the tactic of denying the existence of religious phenomena then concocting some silly Darwinian hypothesis for what is left after they have eliminated everything else.
Take Buddhism. Is enlightenment a naturalistic phenomenon? (the question, actually, is almost meaningless as stated.) Clearly the Dennetts are going to eliminate the phenomenon (by massive silence on the question, enforced by group ostracism, and/or charges of irrationality) from science and proceed to explain everything else but the crucial issue. Many Buddhists, themselves confused, would claim ‘enlightenment’ is a ‘spiritual’ phenomenon. But such a statement is also confused, perhaps. I should hasten to add that noone can take anyone’s word for claims of Buddhists, as Buddha himself would have insisted.
There is, ironically, a way to look at religious phenomena as ‘naturalistic’, the classic Indian Samkhya, one of many parallel streams in Indian religion.
Part of the problem is that Western scientists have only encountered decayed monotheism, and confused that with religion in a clash amidst secularization.
But that is no excuse.
The phenomenon of ‘religion’ has to be understood as to its real core, then the question of science might be relevant.
Alex said,
April 12, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Did the original Samkhya posit that there is a built in teleology to prakriti or was that a later corruption?
nemo said,
April 12, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Good question, I will check it out.
I think that the early Samkhya world and our main source the later Samkhya Karika (our main text may be a corruption!), about the time of Aristotle, would have had a marginal concept of teleology. The Samkhya still has marginal anthropomorphic elements, with ‘purusha’ being neutral and ‘doing nothing’, while prakriti is weaving the world of nature. But this nature includes much that we would call spiritual: that is the strength of Samkhya: they don’t call ‘spirituality’ spiritual (??!) it is all prakriti, high and low. Only ‘purusha’, which does nothing, qualifies.
In any case, intuitive teleology would no doubt enter the concept nexus as primitive design thinking.
Spirituality grows better, however, in this soil, because all forms of spirituality get a ‘reality check’ against the standard of ‘enlightenment’. Then most religious forms are seen as part of the illusion. Liberation comes as much from religion as from ‘samsaric’ secular life.