Review of Robert Wright's The Moral Animal

The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology by Robert Wright
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I was introduced to this book during a course on Buddhism and Modern Psychology. Wright covers a lot of ground in this well organized and tightly written book.

Wright doesn't hand down laws, saying "This is how it is," but rather leads with questions and tries to work out the answers based on Darwinian Natural Selection. This is not an easy task; so much is not available when examining the world from a purely materialistic point of view. When one is not allowed to give credit to supernatural, or even non-biological mental events, it really demands a serious and deep interrogation of the biological, chemical, and other physical causes of why people do the things they do. Wright uses several events from Darwin's life as examples, and in doing so makes both evolutionary psychology and Darwinian Natural Selection accessible to his readers.

If you're interested in morality, Darwin, evolutionary psychology, or why people do what they do, this is an excellent read.

If you're not interested in those topics, it's STILL and excellent read! I highly recommend it.

View all my reviews

Review of Proof of Heaven, by Eben Alexander

Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Near-Death Experience and Journey into the Afterlife by Eben Alexander
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

I can understand where Dr. Alexander is coming from in this book. He was a materialist science-based doctor, who occasionally attending church, but had no real belief in a deity or an afterlife. Then, after his coma, he believes his experiences while in coma to be "real." He believes that he met God/the creator, and was given many "answers" to questions, etc.

My problem with this is: all of what he says sounds very much like a mixture of several of the world's religions: Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism, mostly. This does not discount his experience, but like all experience, it is subjective and if he (along with anyone else who "believes" his words) gets caught by those words or becomes attached to those experiences, he is then in essence following a new religion.

Some of the things he said "felt" true to me, in other words, I didn't get a definite "NO! That's a lie and that can't be true." For example: he said something along the lines that all the universe is based on love and compassion.  That is a Buddhist idea with which I agree.  But, that does not validate Alexander's experiences. Who am I? Other things in his experiences were just too convenient; I won't say what they are because I don't what to spoil the book for anyone else.

What it really comes down to for me is that if you need this kind of "proof" you probably won't accept it, in much the same way that Dr. Alexander did not accept the ideas and experiences of others who had had NDEs before he did. Any experience that CANNOT be replicated, tested, and ultimately be disproved, is NOT scientific; Dr. Alexander, a self-proclaimed scientist, should have known this and that he seems to overlook that gives me pause. He also claims that his NDE was not like others, which then, negates the idea that it indeed had been replicated. There does not seem to be enough knowledge of the causes of these experiences, and given that they are often similar is not enough to prove them outright.

The author states that science is not giving enough attention to this area, i.e. consciousness. The problem is that which I mentioned above: the experience cannot be duplicated and so there is nothing for science to do. True science is based on hypotheses that can be tested; how can I (if I were a scientist) test, i.e. replicate Eben Alexander's experience? How can anyone do that without being in exactly the same situation? The answer is, they can't. Each of those factors: the problem that caused the coma, the coma itself, the exact drugs that were used to treat the problem, the environment, etc.: all those have to be duplicated and get the same result (his experience). Given that what caused his coma is extremely rare, it is unlikely that anyone will have the same or even a similar experience anytime soon. There is no way to test and thus, no way to prove the experience was, as Eben Alexander says, "real."

That being said, they cannot be disproved, either, at least not at our current ability. So, the best stance for me is agnostic, as it was before I read this book. I'm not convinced by his story. You may be, and that is your prerogative. You will have to read it and make up your own mind.



View all my reviews

Get a copy, here:

Sacred/Profane/Spiritual/Secular

Sacred and profane are not mutually exclusive.  If you read sacred literature closely, you will see how it is often the profane that is set aside for destruction, i.e. set aside for the deity.  The meaning of "set aside for destruction" is to "make sacred."

Spirituality and secularism are exclusive.  Or are they?  I have often pondered this question.  I consider myself secular, humanist and atheist, but I also have an aspect to my way of seeing and being that I cannot label anything other than spiritual.  It's not that I believe in fairy tale creatures or deities or ghosts or anything else supernatural.  It is more like a connection to Jung's collective unconscious (a term I find amusing, because to be unconscious is like being, you know, passed-out/fainted/...errr, unconscious).  While I'm not sure how much I hold to this idea, I do have a need to spend time in quiet contemplation, which could be equated to the spiritual practice of meditation -- which I am also interested in.

But, and this is a big-O but, I don't believe that we are genetically spiritual.  Some scientists have found "evidence" of spirituality in the brains of subjects.  I think a good experiment to follow this, is to have atheists go through similar tests, but to use non-spiritual language, images, etc., to see what kind of result they come up with.

No 'God Spot' In Brain, Spirituality Linked To Right Parietal Lobe

“We have found a neuropsychological basis for spirituality, but it’s not isolated to one specific area of the brain,” said Brick Johnstone, professor of health psychology in the School of Health Professions. “Spirituality is a much more dynamic concept that uses many parts of the brain. Certain parts of the brain play more predominant roles, but they all work together to facilitate individuals’ spiritual experiences.”

There should also be the caveat here: spirituality does NOT by default mean YOUR specific brand of spirituality.  If there is a neuropsychological basis for spirituality, that does NOT mean there is a basis for a deity.  It is non sequitur to reach such a conclusion from this data.

I believe that people can have a form of, what could be called, spirituality without having recourse to deities or spirits.

I also believe that atheists can hold things as sacred.  What do atheists deem as sacred?  Sacredness usually connotes holiness or has a spiritual aspect, but can it not simply mean "set apart"?  They might hold their families as sacred, their friends, their intellect, even science.  They may hold the quiet beauty of the deep forest, or top of a mountain as sacred: not because it is inhabited by a spiritual being, but because it is a place where they can reach the deepest parts of themselves.

Atheists still have faith, right?  So why not sacredness?

Think about the things you consider sacred/profane; and about your outlook: is it more spiritual or secular?

NOTES:

Merriam Webster's Dictionary: Sacred - 1. a : dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity <a tree sacred to the gods> b : devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose) <a fund sacred to charity>