Choosing Religious Assumptions

In my last post, I talked a little about assumptions that we have to make to arrive at religious beliefs based on spiritual feelings (I recommend that you read it before reading this one).  In this post, I will talk a little more about that.

As an example of how we make assumptions to arrive at religious belief, consider Mormonism.  In Mormonism, it is believed that God is the source of all truth, and that truth is communicated through the Holy Ghost.  By studying and praying, an individual can learn the truth about why we are here, what roles our families play, what happens after this life, who Jesus Christ was, what He did for us, etc.

The critical assumptions in this case are that:

1. God exists
2. God is interested in us
3. God is capable of teaching us
4. God teaches us through the Holy Ghost
5. The Holy Ghost communicates by giving us feelings of peace and comfort

These are "critical" assumptions because, if you don't make them, you can't find truth using the method prescribed by Mormonism (It is worth noting that the Mormon view of God's role in leading us to truth is not at all unique among Christian sects).

Now, is there anything special about the five assumptions that I listed?  Is there any specific, logical reason to accept these assumptions instead of another set?  For example, suppose that instead I start with a slightly modified set of assumptions:

1. God exists
2. God is interested in us
3. God is unwilling or unable to communicate with us directly
4. God designed us so that we feel good when we pursue constructive beliefs, even if they are false

This second set of assumptions has as much logical backing as the first, and it will lead to an entirely different belief system from that taught by Christian sects.  We could make hundreds of sets of assumptions on which to build religious beliefs, sets which have as much rational footing as any other.  That's why I mentioned in a previous post that beliefs can be seen as arbitrary - there really isn't anything to recommend one set of assumptions over another other than what happens to feel the best or make the most sense.

Does this mean that we shouldn't believe in God?  Not really.  After all, refusing to believe in God simply creates a different set of assumptions - a set in which God does not exist.  I think that the lesson to take from this is that we should be aware that the methods we use to arrive at religious belief aren't exactly well-founded.  We should allow for the possibility that we could be wrong, that there might be other systems of belief that are at least as valid as our own.  We should be unwilling to do things in the name of God or religion that conscience would generally decry as immoral.

There are also implications in terms of how we view people who have "fallen away" from faith.  All other things being equal (ie. no substantial loss of healthy moral standards), how can anyone say that an individual is worse-off because she decided to build a world-view using a different set of arbitrary assumptions?

Spiritualism

For lack of a better term, I'm using the term "spiritualism" to describe a certain way of looking at the world.  I'm guessing that someone else has already developed more or less the same worldview that I will describe in this post, and that it is probably already called by another name.  Maybe there is a whole philosophy built around it, I don't know.  If you happen to know, tell me so I can read about it.

The fundamental idea behind spiritualism is that it recognizes both the existence and the value of transcendental experiences, but it refuses to attach doctrinal significance to those experiences.  Rather, it takes a strictly existential view of them. Spiritualism only concerns itself with the existential interpretation of the transcendental.  Ugh, what a mouthful.

What I mean should become clear if I explain in a little more detail.  A "transcendental experience" is often called a "spiritual" or a "mystical" experience - it is something that falls outside the norm of everyday experience.  In Christian circles, a common transcendental experience might be described as a "burning," as the influence of the Holy Ghost, or even as pure enlightenment and understanding from God.

There is absolutely no question that these kinds of experiences exist: they have been reported by so many people in so many different contexts that there is little room for doubt.  Recent neurological research also shows that these experiences are actually measurable - we can see things happening inside the brain while people have transcendental experiences (see my last couple blog posts for some references).

The question is not whether the experiences exist.  Rather, the question is what we can learn from them.  Generally speaking, a religion might take those feelings and attach doctrinal significance to them - ie. because I feel a certain way when I contemplate God, He must exist.  Because I feel overpowering emotions when I read the Koran, it must be teaching absolute truth.  Because I feel spiritual enlightenment when I hear someone speak, that person must be a divine messenger of sorts.

These kinds of conclusions involve a huge leap of faith and a lot of implicit assumptions - assumptions about how reliable the emotions are, about where they come from, and finally about what they mean.  Each belief system will make different assumptions and arrive at different conclusions based on them.  The simple fact is that on any rational basis, these requisite assumptions are completely unjustified.  They are, in a very real sense, arbitrary.

There isn't anything necessarily wrong with forming beliefs based on incomplete information and assumptions.  It is part of the human condition and we have to do it all the time.  I believe that, in general, active religious belief provides meaning, happiness, and purpose to life.  The effect on society and on individuals is positive.  But some people have a problem with forming life-altering beliefs about the universe using fallacious reasoning and emotions that are clearly suspect.  It is a matter of principle and honesty to some people.

That is where Spiritualism comes in.  There are many benefits to pursuing religion, but Spiritualism holds that those religious benefits can be obtained outside the context of traditional religion.  The life-changing transcendental experiences usually obtained through religious worship can be found in meditative and spiritual practices that are perfectly disassociated with religious doctrine.  In a sense, Spiritualism is religion distilled to remove the fallacious assumptions that so many find disagreeable.

That is what I mean when I say that Spiritualism concerns itself only with the existential analysis of transcendental experiences.  Spiritualism actively pursues the transcendental because of the inherent existential benefits of the pursuit.  But it refuses to move beyond reason.