Throughout human history, mankind has looked to the supernatural to explain things that seemed mysterious. There was a lot of motivation for this, because much of the unknown seemed dangerous — maybe invoking the supernatural could bring benefit in the natural realm. However, as knowledge of the natural world became more and more complete and successful, there seemed less and less need for the supernatural. For many, it became interesting, but not important.

Yet needs and fears didn’t really go away, they changed. We no longer fear the dark, but fear uselessness and hopelessness. We no longer struggle to find food, but still struggle with the need for love and relationship. We seek to understand the unknown instead of fearing it, but also seek a basis for right and wrong. And so religion has persisted, itself evolving from mere dogma to something more transcendent, still claiming to shine a light on these persistent aspects of being human.

So now we are faced with a question: Has science provided enough of a solution, or is faith still the answer for such fundamental needs?

In my experience, most people answer this question with a preference, then build a justification upon that. They want to believe in God, and so see evidence for Him everywhere. Or they refuse to believe in anything religious, and see no evidence at all. Some see natural explanations as “good enough”, and simply choose that path. Others see holes, and choose religion to fill them.

To many, the trend from important to merely interesting is so clear that we should extrapolate it to the idea that there is no spiritual reality at all. When looking at the world, they see no evidence of the supernatural, and if the trend is for science to push the unknown further and further away, why doubt our senses, why question our common sense?

One reason to question is that extrapolation is notoriously dangerous, especially when the data is noisy, and common sense is inadequate for assessing deep truths. The natural perspective (science) seems to explain simple aspects of the world around us, but still has significant holes regarding the ultimate nature of reality and the behavior of complex systems (such as the human brain). It’s reasonable to assume that these holes will continue being filled over time, but that is still an assumption — we cannot just claim certainty, especially in the face of other reasonable models.

But just because some other models are reasonable doesn’t necessarily mean they are correct. Many claimed proofs of God (or any spiritual reality) are based on gaps in scientific knowledge, but that really proves nothing since science has been consistently filling such gaps over time. Individual spiritual experiences provide some evidence for a transcendent reality, but since some have been explained away, they cannot be considered definitive proof without careful investigation.

It seems that there is far less certainty about these matters than most people like to admit, and since no one can make absolute claims, conversation is often stymied by faulty attempts at proof. Believing in a simple model that matches our preferences is easier than really listening to other perspectives and trying to understand them.

The topic isn’t really important for many people, so effort towards serious discussion seems wasted. But all it takes is a look at the news to see the impact that spiritual perspectives have on the world. From Jewish nationalism to Isis, from some of the world’s greatest art to the world’s worst massacres, anyone who wants to think about the world carefully needs to take religion into account. We don’t have to find something interesting in order to recognize the importance of having a carefully thought out and tested perspective; this is as true for spirituality as for finance and politics.

For the individual, the topic is still is worth careful thought if there is any validity at all to the claims of the spiritual. It seems odd to spend the effort we do in seeking life fulfillment (or masking the lack of it) and then to simply ignore a path that has worked for many others.

So I’m trying to approach the topic with a balanced perspective, taking both views as reasonable, and looking at all the evidence from that starting point. This is different than the approach of assuming a perspective and trying to prove it, or disprove the opposite. The demand for proof seems to be what so often stymies conversation.

The reality is that I’m starting from a position of faith. On the one hand, this means I see no problem with spiritual reality being true. On the other hand, I’m a science-minded engineer who has wrestled with his beliefs, so also see pure naturalism as reasonable. Seeing both options as reasonable, I like to think the result to be described here is is a balanced and reasonable perspective. Maybe not, but I have to start somewhere.

The idea is that one can make reasonable assertions about either path, so that the decision is really a personal choice. It’s more a matter of saying “I choose … because …” rather than “I know”. Then we can compare notes about why we believe what we believe. We should share thoughts on what we find valuable or successful about our views, without demeaning someone else’s values or experiences.

On the one hand we have a successful but incomplete natural model. On the other we have unprovable mystical assertions. Where do we go from here? Next time I’ll talk about some indications that a spiritual aspect to reality is reasonable, and then how one might approach sorting through the various belief systems.