The Truth Inquiry

A Dualistic Perspective on Spirituality  

“Spiritual experience” can be a broad term, and a difficult one to define. I think, in a very general sense, we can begin by defining it as an experience that is unlike our normal day-to-day experience of the world. This may include a range of experiences that we don’t normally consider to be spiritual ones, such as being intoxicated, which is quite unlike a sober, ‘normal’ experience. What usually separates spiritual experiences from merely intoxicating experiences is a sense of transcendence, i.e. an experience that is profound or awe-inspiring so as to consist of something that is larger than, or beyond, the subject of the experience.

there is no thinking involved – you just do it…

One type of experience that is sometimes considered spiritual and that is well documented is “flow.” Flow, a term coined by the Hungarian psychologist, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, is an experience common in a variety of activities and contexts from sports, to music, to religion. It is mostly the result of having complete focus and attention on a particular activity. These experiences are often characterized by emotions of joy and bliss, but more so of a loss of the sense of self and of time. It seems there is no thinking involved – you just do it, or you just experience it. These experiences can often be ecstatic and stress-relieving.

Prior to Csikszentmihalyi’s research, flow experiences have been characterized by Eastern religious traditions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism. We can think of the self as an immaterial aspect of ourselves, which results in the sense that we are individual, thinking, acting persons with a sense of long-term identity. The sensation of a loss of self that is characteristic of flow can also be achieved via various forms of meditation, and this experience is used as evidence by the Buddhist tradition that the self is, in fact, not real, but an illusion. Flow is often characterized as a religious or spiritual experience as well. Christians, for instance, may have similar experiences, but fail to draw similar conclusions about the nature of the self.

However, even though many who are religious may interpret these particular types of flow experiences within the context of their religion, they are not dependent on religion itself, as already stated. In Waking Up, author Sam Harris argues that flow experiences affirm the Buddhist claim that the self is an illusion. Harris illustrates this within the practice of mindfulness mediation and from the perspective of neuroscience. He argues that, when we really examine our inner mind, we find that it is possible for our sense of self to dissolve, demonstrating the illusory nature of the self. Furthermore, when we look at the brain, we see no locus of the self governing over the functions of the brain. The brain operates via many simultaneous and interconnected processes, not under the direction of an immaterial soul or mind.

…the Buddhist tradition that the self is, in fact, not real, but an illusion…

Both of these statements – that one can experience a dissolution of a sense of self and that the brain operates via complex interconnected processes – are true, but I believe the conclusion – the self is an illusion – to be unwarranted. Harris is mistaken in assuming that if some immaterial aspect of us did exist, i.e. the mind, the self, or the soul, that we would be able to locate it in the brain and see it operating as the central focal point of the brain’s processes. This is not the case; therefore, he argues that substance dualism is false and materialism is true. However, the existence of an immaterial substance is, well, immaterial. By definition, it could not be empirically observable or quantified. Therefore, we would not expect to see an immaterial self or soul operating in the brain like Harris expects we would. Furthermore, it is not something that can be subjected to the scientific method, since the scientific method is based upon empirical observation, measurement, and experimentation. Rather, it is a job for philosophy.

Harris also notes that religious and non-religious people are capable of having profound, spiritual experiences and therefore concludes that spiritual experience cannot be taken to affirm the validity of any one god or religion, but that a common underlying principle must be the cause of this vast spectrum of experiences instead, namely the human brain. Again, I agree with his statements, but not his conclusion. This assumption, that if god did exist and only one religion were true, that we should expect only proponents of that religion to have mystifying and profound spiritual experiences of god, may be a false one.

We know that people of all religions, and even secular people, have mystifying and profound experiences of a divine or spiritual nature. Perhaps there are right and wrong answers when it comes to spiritual experience. Assuming god does exist, it is possible to be mistaken when claiming to experience god, and it is possible someone may have a true experience of god and be mistaken in attributing that experience to natural causes. Our ability as human beings to have non-religious experiences that are similar to religious experiences does not entirely rule out the possibility that god is the cause of some of these experiences. Consider the following:

Our brains are the sorts of things that are capable of producing or facilitating these experiences. So, if god did exist, would it be surprising that these experiences are still possible without the involvement of  god, like when taking LSD or DMT for instance? That would be like saying a piano can only make music if Chopin is the player. The piano is designed to create music and the music may change or differ depending on the skill of the player, but the possibility of music, is not dependent on any one musician. Any person may create music with the instrument. Similarly, the possibility of the brain producing or facilitating spiritual experience is not dependent on any one particular cause, be it god or psychedelics, and the analogy suggests it is possible to distinguish between causes of spiritual experience, just as one can distinguish between a skilled pianist and a novice. If so, how could we know a particular experience is, in fact, an experience of god and not an effect of some natural phenomenon?