Thank you for your thoughtful reply Michael.
My experience working between the two poles of human knowledge has been that, if you try to take a position anywhere along the continuum between those two poles, you are immediately labeled as having an extreme view opposite the respondent. So, if I am criticizing secular meditation, I must be championing spiritual traditions. It’s like there is nothing between the States of New York and California…
However, my position is that by jettisoning the explanatory systems of spiritual traditions, and failing to replace them with anything (because as you said, scientists don’t have a naturalistic one ready), people are being exposed to danger. Thus, I am criticized for “my” view that, for example: “The root of your argument seems to be that science is wrong for approaching the study of mediation from a naturalist perspective, and that only by taking a spiritual perspective can meditation be understood.”
That is not what I am saying at all.
If you board a plane, you expect that it is in working order and there are no visible fractures in the fuselage, that the mechanical and electrical systems work, and the pilots aren’t inebriated. But, if you go into a secular meditation program, you can’t count on there being adequate safeguards against the potential that someone may (and they do) have experiences that make no sense in the absence of an explanatory framework, and can suffer great harm. In law, I believe that is called negligence (and I’m sure there will be legal practices springing up to litigate the damages real soon now). Thus, I am saying that the current enterprise of secular meditation is negligent because it exposes paying customers to the possibility of real damage.
And I am a longterm meditator who knows the benefits, but also the dangers of meditation (because I didn’t learn it in a traditional setting), and I think it should be taught throughout our children’s educational career, from grade school through university. I’m not against either side. I’m against endangering people unnecessarily.
The program directors engaged in secular mediation, and the scientists involved in research on the effectiveness of meditation, as well as the scientists involved in research on the dangers of meditation, can blame whatever problems might arise on the individual, and their presumed pre-existing mental issues, but a cursory view of how meditation is taught in spiritual traditions would make it clear that there is a hole in the fuselage of secular meditation — if one looks without the blinders of taking parochial sides.
There is no generally accepted non-spiritual explanatory system for, and a general absence of familiarity with, the progressive stages of enlightenment. But these stages occur, they occur in a certain order, and they have similar experiential characteristics at each point for all advanced meditators. As well, there is now a new and growing body of literature commenting on, describing, and expressing the dangers of meditation for “certain individuals,” and that literature is starting to repeat the same observations that have been made for millennia in spiritual traditions, who see these as expected experiences that will occur at different stages. Spiritual traditions observe them, and science observes them.
Thus, sooner or later, science as an enterprise has to accept that these things are happening — they can’t claim that these meditational insights don’t exist, while blaming people for their occurrence by asserting that they are caused by their own psychological problems that manifest while meditating. Well, morally they can’t. Commerce is a different matter…
It’s truly unfortunate that certain individuals have to suffer because science, as an enterprise, doesn’t “yet” have a solution or an explanation, but they know those dogmatists on the other side — that of spirituality — don’t know what they are taking about.
Which is of, course, a dogmatic position on the part of those involved in the enterprise of science.
I’m not on anybody’s side. I see the problem, I see the benefits, and I see collateral damage being caused by parochial prejudice. Humans solve problems by creating solutions. The “doctrinal” systems that these traditions have constructed can be seen as the best efforts on their part to allow others to benefit from advancing through their meditational journey, while not suffering destabilizing episodes that cause them harm. It’s too bad we can’t pay more attention to what they have done, without laughing in our ignorance, in light of their obvious success in overcoming a practical problem.
What I do see instead is a great deal of blindness on the part of science as an enterprise.
In response to your statement: “That being said, the evidence that brains operate on naturalist principals and give rise to the human experience of consciousness is large and growing faster than you can imagine.” I find two two things tied together here for which there is no justification. I accept the evidence that brains operate on naturalistic principals. In fact, I’ve never met anyone who doesn’t. But the assertion that the brain gives rise to “human experience of consciousness” has absolutely zero support, other than wishful thinking and unfounded hypotheticals — because it is a fact that scientists don’t know how the brain gives rise to the mind. And this DOES NOT mean that anyone is arguing that the brain and the mind are separate things. Most spiritual traditions insist that they are not separate things all. So this is just a straw man fallacy.
However, this also does not assert that science is right. Instead, they have it backwards, from the understanding of spiritual traditions. It all turns on what each side sees encompassed in that word “naturalistic.” For spiritual traditions there is a source that natures all “things” naturalistically.
Finally, your assertion: “Where I disagree with you vehemently is where you draw the conclusion that this means we should adopt spiritual beliefs, which are not rooted in deep understanding and instead defer to dogma to answer questions that the scientific method has not (yet) found answers for.” is completely without merit.
I have not drawn the conclusion that this means you should adopt spiritual beliefs. I don’t. My conclusion is that until science drops its parochial attitude of refusing to entertain the notion that spiritual traditions — in fact — have found solutions to real problems, that are deeply rooted in understanding the mind — not the brain — than people will continue to suffer unnecessarily. Science studies the brain to arrive at an understanding of the mind; spiritual traditions have studied the mind. I suggest you all meet up in Cincinnati. It exists in the middle.
Hopefully, you won’t take me as anti-science. I exist in the middle.
