Humanism and Transendence

by Bill Creasy, Richard Akin, and Don Wharton

Richard Akin wrote on WASH's MDCPHILO list server on 4/16/08:

Humanists [should recognize] the need for "transcendence" experience is an innate human characteristic...There is legitimate question whether Humanists have considered, in depth or breadth, the factor of the need for transcendence.

The working definition of "transcendent" includes the mental and emotional realization that something or more than my personal life exists (and is a prime contributor to Homo sapien evolution). Further definition includes the realization that whatever it is, I am one with that. ...Christianity and other religions seek to address, however ineptly, that lack of knowledge and experience. My observation is that Humanism does not.

It is presumed that people who don't know what transcendence is, how to spell it, or know such is part of the human experience have had the experience, feel better (happier) for it, and their behavior is modified by it. I am not suggesting it is a cure-all, but a giant step forward in building a comfortable and pleasant human life. That it exists is of little question. How to induce it is of some consideration. Whether Secular Humanism ought to recognize, define, and address the need is the pertinent question.

The urge for transcendent experience may better define what has been called the god gene.... Humanism, drawing from science, can explain causal factors, provide better category definition, and suggest applications. I think it should.

----

Don Wharton wrote back:

“The transcendent” in religious circles includes “spiritual” qualities that most of us would call pure bunk. Your post includes in your meaning two qualities that we agree on: (1) the mental and emotional realization that something or more than my personal life exists and (2) the experience of oneness with that quality. Obviously the “something more” does not include the bunk asserted by the religious. However you are still leaving it far too ambiguous.

...What we are talking about is just an extraordinary positive sense of well being.... Happiness is quite wonderful. It is something that most of us at least say that we want. There is also a very substantial body of literature documenting the nuts and bolts of how it is created and nurtured. The people who I most admire in WASH are very positive people with all of the qualities that I assert are central to creating this positive sense of well being....

It is true that WASH has not doubled over the last ten years. However, with appropriate positive leadership we have seen explosive growth in organized humanism. Paul Kurtz certainly has been wildly successful with his constellation of organizations and publications. He wrote a book titled “Exuberance” and spoke numerous times on this theme. Robert G Ingersoll was extremely successful in his time. He said, "The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so." ...Margaret Downey has also been extraordinarily successful in her leadership of AAI. Her charisma comes from her deep, joyous connection with her network of secularist friends. She exemplifies the positive qualities that make for extraordinary leadership. The Humanists of Florida have also been very successful. They have placed great emphasis on social action which is again central to our theme of self-trancendence through service to others.

-----

Bill Creasy's thoughts:

Richard and Don discussed the idea of transcendence on the WASH listerv MDCPHILO. (Any WASH member can subscribe to the email list by request to Don Wharton.) I agree with Richard that secular humanism in general, and WASH in particular, should try to address or inspire any positive feelings that religion can evoke, to the extent that we can without promoting delusional fantasies. We expect that good feelings are the result of the functioning of the brain, and they don't come from supernatural communcation.

The problem with the idea of transcendence is that we must make a clear distinction between the subjective and objective domains. We like to think in terms of objective reality, or about ideas that can be tested scientifically. We can agree with Don's thought about the benefits of having social goals that are bigger than our own personal needs as long as they have demonstrated results.

But transcendence in a spiritual sense also includes feelings and motivations. These are subjective sensations that don't have objective proof, but they do cause people to take actions and do beneficial work. Perhaps some religious people want to use the subjective experiences to show there must be something supernatural that inspires it.

Humanists need to find a way to get a handle on this problem using naturalistic methods. We need to agree that transcendent feelings are OK, and that good, charitable works should be encouraged, but on the basis of reason and natural humanism.

Perhaps we can start by considering how consciousness works in the brain. The mind divides the observable world into parts that consist of the self and other (not the self). Obviously, the self includes the body.

But the mind is flexible and fluid enough that the sense of self is not fixed. It is not limited only to the person's body. Instead, it changes with the circumstances to include objects or social groups that are bigger than the individual.

Now, perhaps you think I'm saying that a person can't tell the difference between his or her body and everything else. But the question is not what you know. The question is, what are you paying attention to when you are consciously trying to accomplish a goal.

Consider some examples. When driving a car, what you are doing, physically, is turning the steering wheel and pushing pedals. What you are generally paying attention to is keeping the car on the road and adjusting the speed. In that sense, the car is part of your sense of self, because you are conscious of the movement of the car, not your body.

Riding a bicycle is another example. When first learning, you are conscious of trying to balance. After practice, balancing is as natural as walking, and the bicycle becomes included in the sense of self, and you become "one with the bicycle."

Your social group of friends is a very important part of your sense of self. When you think about what you are going to do, you include what your friends will be able to do with you. Also, the leader of an organization thinks about what the group will do, as if the leader's sense of self includes the group.

Perhaps the most dramatic example is when you read a novel. Your body is not doing anything but turning pages. But your imagination allows you to be part of the action in the novel, doing what the characters are doing, even if the setting and actions are nothing like what you have ever done.

A more general way to think about the sense of self is that the self is anything that the mind can use to accomplish a goal. As a result of this flexibility of the mind, the self can become much bigger than just the body.

It is even possible to have a state of mind that your self includes everything, and there is nothing that is "other." The feeling of "being at one" with the universe can come from a stroke (see Jill Bolte Taylor, My Stroke of Insight: A Brain Scientist's Personal Journey, Viking, 2008). But that is also a goal of Buddhist meditation. This can be a relaxing state, because there seems to be nothing external that can be a threat. This state of oneness can be very pleasant and blissful. But it is clearly a state of mind, and it has nothing to do with external, objective reality. You can feel at one with the universe without having a supernatural connection to everything in existence.

To return to the idea of transcendence, the fluid sense of self provides a naturalistic explanation. When a person feels transcendence, or has a transcendent goal, it means that the person has enlarged their sense of self to include something larger than their personal comfort or immediate needs. He or she may decide to be part of a larger social group with valuable goals. He or she may find a scientific question that can be studied, even if the question is not immediately relevant to their needs.

There is nothing wrong with having the feeling of transcendence. It is a natural part of brain function. Many great discoveries are made, and social progress is achieved, based on these subjective motivations. There are benefits to relaxing and focusing the mind on problems that are bigger than oneself.

There may be sources for feelings of transcendence that are not rational or even conscious. For example, the hormone oxytocin has been found to give a feeling of well-being in social situations, giving a feeling of belonging to a group. Evolution may have given rise to this mechanism to promote social cooperation.

As a result, humanists shouldn't have any misgivings about feelings that transcend their immediate, personal concerns and transport them to a sympathy for a larger entity or to greater goals. People shouldn't have a problem with the idea that feelings can be real, but real in the sense that they are "all in the head," a part of their mind's subjective organization.

Bill Creasy is president of WASH and coordinator of the Baltimore Chapter. Richard Akin is founder of the Alliance of Secularists USA and a WASH member. Don Wharton is on the WASH Board of Directors.

This article was originally published in the October 2008 issue of WASHline, the newsletter of the Washington Area Secular Humanists.