Robert Tulip wrote:Notions of a purposeful universe can be presented in a scientific way. My reading of this problem is that just as the day and year provide meaningful structures of time, so too there are much slower cycles that embed a natural framework of purpose. And furthermore, these natural cycles, seen in physical patterns of glaciation over millions of years, also provide a framework that can help explain core mythological ideas in religions like Christianity.
The problem that Lewis well explains is that New Age writers like Chopra and Tolle inspire new forms of magical thinking.
I just saw, on Amazon, a book entitled "Everything Happens for a Reason, and Other Lies I have Loved." It made me think of this book, and your comments. I really like your version of a purposeful universe. I consider myself an "arc of history" liberal. That democracy is a skill, which, once learned, is hard to unlearn. That checks and balances are self-reinforcing because there are not enough predators out there, and predators are not willing enough to cooperate, to overcome people's natural dignity and mutual respect. This is obviously not even related, at least in ideology, to your sense of the orderliness of the universe, yet both approach "purposeful" in a way that is reassuring without offering a false sense of control.
Magical thinking is a short-cut to emotional comfort. It is not a wise one, since the thinking is likely to turn out false on any matter that really matters to us. Of course one may not know - one may adjust the chakras and end up cured for some totally separate reason, and conclude that the chakras did it. But then the next time the disappointment will be even worse.
I think we can get deep reassurance from a sense of purpose in the universe without having to have the emotional comfort of magical thinking. That's an example of a spiritual "technology."
Robert Tulip wrote:Despite that, the opposite danger is that people can view all wholistic spirituality with disdain. Practices such as yoga and meditation do have healing power, even if this is much less than people like Liam imagine. Aspiring to attunement to the universe can be a valuable aid to mental health, even if it is of little avail in curing cancer.
Well said. And aspiring to attunement to the universe can be a common enterprise around which community can be built. Many "nones" are finding that in yoga these days. Though maybe not as many as one finds at the gym.
I find myself dissatisfied with Eastern mystical versions of wholistic spirituality for a variety of reasons, but in the end I think it is a viable path. There are lots of loose threads hanging out which a skeptic can use to base "disdain" on. I just wish there were more of the guides who are good at translating and helping appreciate, without having to take the attitude that they are explaining "The Final Version of Truth." The three presentations I have been able to get through are Huston Smith's, from long ago, and "Wherever You Go, There You Are," plus several books by Thich Nhat Hanh, which take a nicely light-touch approach of offering insight, not Final Truth.
Robert Tulip wrote:Lewis usefully explains how acceptance of randomness can be liberating.
...constructing false patterns constitutes a form of mental bondage, constraining our understanding in a deluded imaginary construct that causes suffering, what Buddhism calls a false attachment, and what Ecclesiastes calls vanity.
Well, that's the problem with control, isn't it? Western society has empowered people to an extent never seen before in the world, but those whose plans and commitments don't work out can be very harsh on themselves because they wanted to believe the matter was in their hands.
One solution is to get very good at sorting out the probabilities, but if in the end the probabilities say a false belief makes it more likely that the believer will succeed, only a certain kind of person will be able to convince herself to believe in spite of the falsity. This is the "Small business illusion" (I only just named it, so don't Google it) where, by convincing herself that the odds don't apply to her, the entrepreneur increases the chances of actually succeeding.
Robert Tulip wrote:Lewis wrongly infers from his medical observation that much cancer is random that the universe is utterly random, ignoring the obvious evidence of orderly cosmic patterns that have been decisive to enable human evolution. It is true, contra to his assertion, that accepting that the universe is random would make life meaningless.
I thought his point, which probably could have been stated more clearly, was that the universe takes no special interest in me. The physical processes are not arranged either to help me or to hurt me, and coincidences do not reflect intentions by secret processes. Your point is well taken that the predictability of the universe is highly valuable to us, probably much more valuable than we are capable of grasping. But it is not any more predictable or under control for one person than it is for another.
This anti-egotistical reciprocity (I get the same treatment from fate that you get) is probably related to morality in some fundamental way, since morality is about reciprocity of applicability of rules. Yet there plainly is a lack of justice, which Rawls tried to undo with his "veil of ignorance", about who is born into nurturing families, and high-education societies, and the gender that is privileged, etc. We cannot help but see this injustice of life's providence, and I wonder if that isn't behind the resentment that is the second stage of reaction to terminal illness.
Robert Tulip wrote:The problem that Lewis usefully sets out is how a scientific mentality engages with the meaning of life.
Yes, I think that would be a fulfilling version of Lewis engaging the question of the title. A good way to ask the question, it seems to me, is the issue he has already raised about how, and when, to raise the factual issues that will help move a person out of emotionally harmful thought patterns. It may be that these need to have "alternative emotional structures" to offer along with the more factual perspective.
Robert Tulip wrote:There is a ‘Mary versus Martha’ dimension in Lewis’s account of Liam and Angie. Liam wants to be a Mary, sitting at the feet of the master to imbibe spiritual wisdom, while Lewis counsels him to be a Martha, looking after the practical needs of his sick wife and their young children. While this example is sound, there is a risk of using it as a general parable to discount the value of spiritual wisdom.
While I agree about the potential pitfall, and I think Michael Shermer has himself failed to seek wisdom in his obsession with rationality, I am not sure you are reading Liam right. He spent many nights, for example, researching cures instead of doing more spiritual things of relating to his family. Maybe he just sat at the feet of the wrong master, or in other words had his theology wrong.