The Role of Science in Practice
If we accept that self-directed transformation over time is possible, and that such transformation can result in deeper happiness, equanimity, inner fortitude, and so on; we may look to the next question. We might then ask, what exactly is the content of this wisdom we are supposed to internalize, and how do we know it is advice that results in the kind of change that will be most helpful?
Unfortunately, the past few centuries have set up a strange opposition between science and religion that does us a disservice – especially we naturalists who are looking for a meaningful spiritual practice.
Even among Spiritual Naturalists, the culture has led us to view science and religion or spirituality – even philosophy – as ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ at best, and competitors at worst.1 But if we look to how all of this started out, we get a clearer picture of what’s going on.
Although the modern formalized scientific method did not emerge until the Enlightenment, there were certainly rational approaches to understanding our world many centuries before this. These rational approaches, though imperfect at times, often contained many elements of the scientific method. More importantly, these were approaches that valued experience, observation, logic, reason, and peer review (in the form of discourse). When Heraclitus spoke of the transformation of materials to and from one another, it is impossible not to think of him sitting alongside a river, carefully observing his environment. When Socrates debated the nature of the soul (mind) with Simmias, it is obvious from their arguments that these were men who were carefully considering observations they had made and the implications of those observations. One would not have gotten far with Socrates by proposing any knowledge on the basis of ‘faith’. The same can be said of the Buddha who, as I’ve mentioned, specifically rejected faith as a source of knowledge.
These thinkers approached the same universal struggles and torments we all face in life even today. In their wisdom and through their observations, they arrived at many profound realizations. And, while they may have lacked much of the technical details - or even had many of the details wrong - a surprising number of those realizations still hold remarkably true. This is why, for example, Stoicism was such an inspiration to modern cognitive therapeutic techniques.
Prior to the extreme specializations of today, philosophers were not only moral guides and logicians, they were scientists. In fact, no good philosopher would not be scientist and vice versa. It was not too long ago that science was referred to as ‘natural philosophy’. This makes sense when we consider that philosophy is the love of wisdom and wisdom must include the accurate collection of facts, at a minimum. Thus, any time we are asking: (1) what is, (2) what ought to be, or (3) how do we know either of those two things – we are doing philosophy. Religion is philosophy, science is philosophy, ethics is philosophy, logic is philosophy. It is all a part of ‘wisdom’ and its pursuit.
Later, some philosophers decided to focus on the ‘what is’ portion, and they became what we call scientists today. Other philosophers decided to focus on ‘what ought to be’ and they became ethicists and moral leaders. Still other philosophers focused on ‘how do we know’ and they became mathematicians, logical analysts, linguists, and so on.
Each of these professionals needs to conduct themselves in their jobs such that the integrity of their respective methodologies are maintained. Yet, we as individuals have broader needs and concerns. The problem is that we’ve forgotten all of these folks are doing philosophy and all of this philosophy needs to play a role in our wisdom and our spiritual path if we are to be effective at achieving happiness.
When we realize the original role of philosophy, it should be clear that sciences such as social and cognitive psychology, for example, are not some new alternative to these traditions – they are the modern refinement and continuation of a centuries-long investigation.
For instance, in Buddhism we are invited to learn more about how our minds work, and experience that through introspective observation in meditation and mindfulness. For the modern naturalistic Buddhist, the latest cognitive theories should help to inform our practice.
As for methods of self-transformation, we are invited to experiment with these and studies on these methods are merely a continuation of the studies that have been conducted on practices by practitioners themselves since before we had a rigorous scientific method. A foundational integration of scientific knowledge and spiritual practice must be a distinctive characteristic of naturalistic spirituality if it is to be relevant and effective.
The Importance of a Sacred Approach
Yet, I should add a caution here regarding the role of science in our spiritual walk. While the technical terminologies and methodologies of science are critical for the integrity of its process and purposes, there are two things of which we should be aware: (1) spiritual wisdom requires more than a collection of raw facts and theories, important though they are, and (2) the technical framing of these phenomena is not fully effective for intuitive internalization of them.
By this, I mean that reading all the articles in all the scientific journals about practices, psychology, and happiness will never, on its own, result in spiritual transformation. This is not due to a lack of scientific knowledge yet to be gained. If you had access to God’s library of all Truth, you could come to memorize it all and this too would not result in spiritual transformation. At the same time, complete knowledge is not required for spiritual transformation, and is not a prerequisite to enlightenment.2
As described, transformation of our character, disposition, perspectives, and responses comes not from intellectual knowledge, but from a series of rich experiences that penetrate many different aspects of our minds, emotions, memories, feelings, and so on. This is how the non-intuitive becomes the intuitive. These kinds of experiences happen naturally in life from time to time, and we can harness them if we have the proper wisdom on hand. But as I’ve mentioned, these are only signposts.
The longer, more enduring process of transformation needs to have a moving aspect and an inspirational aspect. Technical language is not conducive to this.
Further, the third-person nature of scientific description is limited for these purposes, even if the data gained is illuminating and useful in its own way. Learning about the effects of meditation on a brain and why it has those effects will never be a substitute for meditating, and so it is with all other practices and rituals.
These are just a few examples of why a sacred/spiritual approach (as opposed to merely a technical/psychological one) is important. This is why Sacred Tongue was covered earlier. And it is why we looked at other important elements: music, physical procession, focal objects, human interaction, narratives, myth, iconography, etc.
In the last section of this book, I will include a detailed list of many different kinds of practices one might choose to explore and build into their personal practice. But first, I will talk about the nature and role of a spiritual community, and how to combine a spiritual practice with public activism.