QUESTIONING SPIRITUALITY

A nonfiction book makes a pragmatic case for the rational viability of a spiritual belief in a higher power.

Taylor observes that “religion has been declining, secularism has been surging,” especially among the educated classes that increasingly take their cues from the scientific community. Some in the religious community have contributed to this fate by refusing to cast their beliefs in the language of rational analysis and by often insisting on doctrinal views that are incoherent or contradictory. But the author also bemoans atheists’ tendency to adopt a different dogmatism, one no less close-minded, that refuses to acknowledge the limitations of the scientific worldview and the obvious attractions of a spiritual one, simplistically reducing religion to “superstitious mumbo-jumbo nonsense.” According to Taylor, there are opposing views regarding science and religion. He defends the position that “science and religion are potentially in conflict.” As a theoretical concern, the issue remains inconclusive. But it’s a different matter when converted into a practical issue since the goal in that situation is to make a concrete decision about one’s own good. And the spiritual life is attractive on this level—it can inspire hope and peace, provide an intelligible horizon for the search for meaning, and become a springboard to happiness and emotional health: “Spirituality is not the domain of the so-called unintelligent, superstitious, uneducated, and so forth. I sincerely hope that you have come to recognize the inherent advantages in living spiritually, but more importantly than that, I hope you choose to live a life that contributes to your own self-actualization.” Taylor’s treatment of the issue is not original—the emphasis on faith as a practical decision has a pedigree that dates back at least to the early 17th century. In addition, he tends to reduce faith to its quotidian benefits—at one point, he mentions studies that claim it helps you avoid junk food and “puts a smile on your face,” hardly the stuff of Kierkegaard. Nevertheless, he makes a compelling case that the scientific worldview—one that sees humans as “meat machines”—is inconsistent with people’s experiences of themselves and is not nearly as rationally superior as it is so often presented. This alone makes the author’s compact consideration a worthwhile read.

A philosophically astute challenge to the rational supremacy of science over its spiritual rivals.