If it’s not too much trouble, perhaps you could provide a brief explanation of what ‘some spiritual beliefs are higher than rationality‘ actually means.

I won’t hold my breath.

please find and read a brief synopsis of spiral dynamics by clare graves. you are a level 5.

also: please look up the pre/post fallacy and study it. prerational religion resembles postrational religion to you because it’s all non-rational. turns out some spiritual beliefs are higher than rationality.

Make it whatever makes you happy, but don’t force it down anyone else’s throat.

‘How’ is actually useful.

I’m with Carl.

‘I’d contend that observers such as artists, musicians, poets, humourists (cartoonists even)? have more insightful things to say about those aspects of the human condition which don’t benefit much from scientific analysis…’

Here you confuse two different meanings of ‘insightful’: a literal meaning and a metaphorical meaning. The things art, music, poetry etc have to say about the human condition are metaphorically insightful. They re-present experiences or feelings we have in an aesthetically pleasing or emotionally moving way, or at most, provide us with another person’s view of an experience we may have had ourselves. The scientific method can reveal literally insightful things about them – ie. what is happening neurologically, what purpose these processes serve and why they evolved, how their evolution affected other aspects of society, what ramifications they might have had for other processes and so on. These ‘insights’ are fundamentally different types of thing.

Moreover, how do you know exactly which ‘aspects of the human condition don’t benefit from scientific analysis’? What criteria do you use to decide? How are you qualified to decide? The truth is, you have a pre-existing affinity for certain forms of human endeavour, and arbitrarily define these as being outside the remit of ‘science’.

‘romantic or parental love… pleasant delusions…’

Who describes love in this way? Love is a real function of the brain – it’s no more a ‘delusion’ than happiness, disgust, hatred, jealousy or any other emotion. Like them, we evolved it for a reason. Why do you think that these brain states are incapable of scientific investigation? On what do you base your assertion that science cannot tell us anything useful or interesting about them?

‘…these same scientists really believe that their children or life partners have no more intrinsic worth than a bacterium…’

So you’re referring to some specific scientists – which ones? I’d be interested to read their statements you’re referring to. How do you define ‘intrinsic worth’? Obviously, to me another human being has more worth than a bacterium, but my subjective judgment has no absolute meaning. It just depends on where you stand. I don’t understand how you can imagine that some creatures have varying ‘intrinsic’ worth.

You seem to subscribe to a very tabloid-newspaper view of cartoonish, inhuman, robotic boffins with no human feelings.

‘…ultimate value of a human life…’

Same problem.

‘…we are no better equipped with science to answer the questions of ultimate meaning than was stone-age man…’

And again. You’re fooling yourself that there’s some ultimate meaning. A very religious way of thinking.

‘…there are mysteries currently (probably indefinitely) beyond the reach of science…’

Are there? Which ones? How do you know?

‘…utilising other modes of thought besides the scientific which can have some very positive outcomes – for example, a system of thought which motivates altruistic/philanthropic/compassionate behaviour… has qualities which we should endeavour to carry over…’

Why do you believe altruism is outside the remit of scientific investigation? There are many studies into how this behaviour evolved. Regardless of what you might prefer to believe, only scientific investigation will help us to understand this phenomenon.

‘…any ultimate purpose to human existence…’

Again.

‘The need to apprehend something beyond/higher/transcendent – whether via religious belief, the arts, or altruistic action, is real…’

No. The desire exists. Calling it a ‘need’ merely flatters your own sense of self-importance.

The need to apprehend something beyond/higher/transcendent – whether via religious belief, the arts, or altruistic action, is real, has persisted across cultures and throughout human history, and won’t simply be nonsensed away by naturalistic analysis. We call that need “spirituality”.

Gronk and ID: “peak experience”? Phew! I prefer “orgasm” I still like “joy.” How about “amazement”? This suggests the unworldly aspect of something which is, of course, worldly but nonetheless surprising. Or as a stoned student of mine once said, “There we were on the beach, and the moon went down, and the sun came up. Wow. Emerson was right.” MY joyful moment was when he said that. Wow. Hmm: the “Wow Syndrome.” How’s that?

But don’t lose sight of the fact that we intentionally put that more humane society together in the first place, suggesting that there is a core human nature which given the opportunity will tend to promote and express humane / altruistic / generous-spirited behaviour.

We live by contract, dear ones. Most of our contracts are tacit: don’t hit me; I won’t hit you. Many others, of course, are formalized, thank Goddess: “Look here on this map from the courthouse–right there is your yard, and over this line is mine. OK?” Chaos ensues when contracts break down. Break into my house with intent to harm and I’ll blow your effing haid off, right? I wouldn’t call that “moral,” though it may be “pragmatic,” but what IS clear is that our social bond has popped loose. And we all know what happens to peace treaties. It’s interesting how much in religion rests upon the notion of a covenant.

Also spaketh Poor Rick,”Always read the fine print, girls and boys.”