076. ...substitute for the indefensible...
(morning thinking)
For a couple of years now I’ve enjoyed a long walk on a Sunday morning with my good friend Olly and his dog friend Luna. There are very few people in my life with whom I can have long, nourishing, rambling conversations spanning politics, psychology, economics, technology, philosophy, sociology, spirituality, movies, tv shows, books and videogames. Between us we know a little about a lot of things and there are always new ideas to share and questions to ask of each other. We also talk about ourselves and our other friends. Some of it’s just gossip is what I’m saying. There’s a good balance between exploration of curious ideas and chuffa-chuffa chitter chatter.
Sometimes Pete, Liv, Kev, Neelam or Keith will join us and feed into a conversation stream that eddies around fresh interests, beliefs and questions. Sunday morning’s are ace when it’s just me Olly and the dog, but I also love the way the dynamic changes when there are three of us, four of us or even, very rarely, when calendars magically align, five! We become a congregation.
I think, despite my recent and growing admiration for buddhism and the recognition of wisdom and compassion in all other religions I’ve poked into, I’m still an atheist. Nonetheless I’ve started to refer to our hill walks as Church. I recognise the value in ritual and structure and I see profound benefits from my time spent stomping up and down hills, talking and listening, with other people on a Sunday morning.
When we’re a group it feels different. More purposeful maybe? It’s not just calendar complexity that stops our ensemble hitting its full compliment. In the beginning, when it was just Olly and I, we got into a regular early morning groove. I like sunrise awe and front loading my day with physical and cognitive exercise and stretches.
Keith wants to walk but he’s not at all keen on the early mornings which means we only very occasionally enjoy his company of a Sunday. Keith likes the gathering and the conversation but he’s keen to explore a more seated secular Church*. He’s proposing that we might also meet, once a week, in a group, somewhere warm and comfy (not a rain soaked Scottish hillside), at a reasonable hour (not 7am). His idea is that when we’re all settled, after smiles and hellos, someone would read a passage from a good book - not the Good Book - and then after a pause for personal reflection we’d discuss the text.
It might be something on altruism and moral philosophy from Peter Singer’s The Life You Can Save or an interesting chunk on living longer from David Sinclair’s Lifespan. It could be the whole of Charlie Mackesy’s The Boy, the Mole, the Fox and the Horse. Or something from the The Tao of Pooh. Who’s to say?
Actually, it would probably be a group decision.
At the most basic level what Keith’s suggesting is an informal weekly book club where, instead of everyone reading a whole book in isolation then everyone talking about it in a group, one person reads a little bit of a book out loud to the group, the group talks about it and then we go about our week, mulling it over in the quiet moments.
I like this a lot.
What he’s suggesting is a bit like actual church really, but without the religious dogma, candles and incense. Although I see nothing wrong with candles or incense. Each to their own.
Whether or not you believe in any kind of god (I really don’t and I shouldn’t speak for him but neither does Keith. Pretty sure), I think it’s easy to argue that as our society has moved away from religion and “god” the subsequent loss of ritual and spirituality has left us less coherent as a society. Emil Durkeim (looks a bit like a Victorian version of my neighbour Jon) was big on this. In his 1897 book “Suicide” he proposed that suicide rates are negatively impacted (more folk die) by diminished religious observance. It’s more complicated than that, and he doesn’t put it as bluntly, but I’m right on the edge of what I understand so I’m going for broad strokes.
There’s a heap (technical term) of more modern research that suggests religious people are less prone to depression, anxiety, alcohol and substance abuse, and more likely to engage in pro-social behaviour like charitable giving. It’s obviously more nuanced than saying “religion is good for you” but the friends I have who nurture spirituality in their lives and who believe in something bigger than themselves are making a pretty good case for it. Nonetheless, I don’t think the benefits come from God.
Talking and listening are good for us. Sharing is good for us. Reflection is good for us. Structure is good for us.
We got more sciency and left religion behind. In the main I’d say that’s been a good thing but I can also see how it’s hurt us a bit. As our understanding of our universe grew our new perspective became increasingly incompatible with black and white ideas like good and evil, heaven and hell. I think we threw the baby out with the bath water and I don’t see that science and spirituality are incompatible.
There’s still so much we don’t know. So many aspects of our consciousness are still completely unknown. We can’t point to a place in our brain and say “THAT is where your consciousness is” but since Descarte we’ve had a pithy way of recognising, thinking that, we are am. Is. Be. We know we’re conscious but we don’t really know what that means.
I’m out of my depth.
We embraced science, turned our back on God and disregarded everything that didn’t fit with our new discoveries without considering that the things we don’t understand still far outweigh those we do. Science is about opening up fresh ignorance.
I feel like I’ve benefited from a regular Sunday check in with a community of friends and with my own morality and intellect. We talk about big ideas as they relate to us. We share our worries and successes. I don’t want to go to church church but I do think I’d like to lean into something more churchy. Just a little bit churchy.
In their conversation on Sam Harris’s Waking Up podcast theoretical philosopher Thomas Metzinger tells Sam, “What we need is a fully rational spirituality, for lack of a better word. We need an ethical world view and methodology to substitute for the indefensible doctrines that have come to us courtesy of religion. It has to be embraced in the spirit of science with logic and empirical rigour.”
I expect when you’re high heid philosopher at a prestigious university you aren’t allowed to just say we need some smart thinking, structure, ritual and togetherness.
And I think this is Keith’s jam. It’s mine too. I think we should start with Keith’s meetup in a local coffee shop or in a comfy bit of our Town Hall for a weekly secular celebration of thinking, talking and sharing. I like Sundays. Obviously I’d want it to be after my walk, because that’s church too.
Anyone else?
I definitely think this needs a caveat that explains in no uncertain terms my complete lack of any kind of philosophical, psychological or theological chops. I only finished high school by refusing to leave. Or, more accurately, it didn’t occur to me to leave. I might have this all up the wrong way and I’d not know it so if you have anything to say about how wrong I am, please do it kindly. I really do want to learn.
Thanks for reading. This was quite a long one.
Thanks for this. I listened to the Sam Harris podcast (until the paid content) do you subscribe? Funnily enough I co-organised a conference when I was studying psychology at Uni in Amsterdam about the Self and Metzinger was one of the speakers. I later co-edited a book on it and he wrote one of the chapters. It was seriously the hardest thing I ever read. My brain was sore. I have a very mint copy of his ‘Being No One - the self-model theory subjectivity‘ on my bookshelf. Let me know if you would like to borrow it ;) We definitely need a post-neoliberalist,-individualist mindset/philosophy in our society, focusing on sustainability, community and diversity. As someone who scores highly on openness to experience, count me in.