It brings me much pleasure to know and interact with two such deep and wide thinkers. Also much to aspire to which is a great thing!

So my question for you Mark would be why wouldn’t religion or spiritual beliefs fit within the criteria you assign here (not something to be considered objectively but rather subjectively and capable of being decided upon by each individual’s criteria) for worth if the belief in religion ad spirituality are capable of allowing individuals or even societies a way to providing meaning or value to life?

I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking. Religious/spiritual beliefs do fit the criteria. So are you asking why I don’t apply religious/spiritual beliefs myself when considering the worth of a life? If that’s the case, the answer is because they’re based on assumptions I don’t agree with.

how does one figure out what can be understood from science and what its limitations are? Why can you accept and believe in culturally specific values and how do you separate these from religious or spiritual values? What is the difference in your mind?

Naming a set of values as religious, cultural or scientific only points out what constructs the value arose from. The same value may arise in different constructs but still be identical. For example, in general, secular and religious belief sets both consider human life to be of the utmost value, though sub-groups within both groups value certain sectors of human life more or less than others (but nonetheless at least one sub-group of human life will be considered to have the utmost value, which is inevitably the group of which the individual who holds the belief is a part).

In other words, a particular value can be simultaneously associated with very different belief sets.

So why can I accept culturally specific values? Not because of it’s cultural roots, but because it is intrinsically valuable.

Science and spirituality are different perspectives of one reality. So as Jason said, there’s no hard line between them. I simply choose the perspective which seems most appropriate, and for me that’s the scientific perspective because it’s the perspective which attempts to explain how the world works in ways which I find easy to understand, yet still challenging through all the questions that understanding generally leads to. Spirituality attempts to do the same, sort of. Though as Jason said, the incomplete parts of spirituality’s understanding of the world are usually attributed to God (of some description), and since I have no reason to believe in God, I feel no need to make use of the spiritual perspective when an alternate works for me. If I encountered something science couldn’t even attempt to explain, and I felt a need for an explanation, then I would be much more likely to make more use of the spiritual perspective, or another alternative.

As far as the difference between subjective and objective reality, my position is that what is generally called “objective reality” is only a portion of the full reality It is necessary to accept some of the tenets of objective reality in order to function… gravity is an easy example.

Hmm, let me be blunt and go into slight detail here… I believe in God. I believe that God created and contains the entire universe, and is present in every part of it, including every person. I believe in spirits and/or forces that are not, at least currently, accepted by science (on the other hand, I believe that a lot of the accounts of these spirits are made up… but not all of them). I believe that these spirits can influence the physical world, but only have the power over you that you allow them to have.

I also believe that people are more than their physical body, and even more than their thoughts and feelings, as you know if you read my site… in fact I believe that the physical form, with its thoughts and feelings, is by far the smaller part of who we are.

I also believe in science. I believe that science digs for the mechanics behind the operation of the universe, trying different theories and approaches until one seems to fit all the available evidence, and this approach works very well, but as of yet is very incomplete (as is spirituality, actually, but with spirituality, you can attribute all of the stuff that you don’t know, the “incomplete” part, to God).

I think that the difference between science and spirituality is a difference in the belief of what ultimately lies behind everything, the source of what occurs in the world. When it all boils away, science believes that things are caused by a confluence of factors that is so complicated and involved that it essentially works out to random chance. Spirituality believes that something intentionally set up that confluence.

For example, Mark mentioned a while back (on his site) something about a state of paralysis when coming out of sleep. Science might say (I know I should take the time to research this, but I’m busy right now and still want to finish this comment) that this is a genetic tendency, that a specific gene makes one prone to this, and external factors (which may be listed) contribute to its likelihood of happening. Spirituality (without ignoring science) might say yes, but something caused that gene to be present, or something intentionally brought together those external factors.

People who follow science exclusively generally have a fault of rejecting something simply because it comes from a source that has the “flavor” of spirituality, People who follow spirituality exclusively generally have a fault of ignoring the useful information that science can give them, preferring to classify everything spiritually.

So essentially I accept both, and when they come into conflict, I try to see if one or the other is rejecting the other out of hand, without consideration. I also use personal experience… some of why I believe in certain spiritual things comes from my own past, things that happened that are unexplainable by any scientific means that I know of.

I guess what I’m saying is that you’re looking for a hard line where none exists. The line between science and spirituality is fluid and varies from one situation to the next, sometimes in spite of the situations being very similar.

Wow that was long, and I’m not sure how clear it was in regards to my total feelings on the subject, but I have to run… let me know if there’s something I can clarify better.

Well, anyhow can you try to answer the above questions anyway I’d be interested in your opinion either way just don’t want to put words in your mouth that you’re not saying!

Well, maybe you’ve succeeded in giving me more questions but you’ve also helped me solidify a couple of things (at least I hope so).

See the problem is I’m still learning and so I’m trying to understand the limits of and where exactly one type of knowledge/truth starts and another begins and what is really and truly understood about the transitions and finally how the said transitions are negotiated.

I was confused (and I imagine many people are) thinking that science, or the people who embrace that point of view, sought to provide the answers for *everything* in a rather reductionist manner (please correct me if I’m using the wrong term) and this was why there was so much discounting of spirituality and other subjective experiences. Hmmm, I guess the same exactly flipped for religion/spirituality, and the people who embrace this point of view, which is why there is so much discounting of science. Is it possible many people are just very confused in the same way as I?

I don’t actually think that the sole indicator as to whether or not someone has wasted their life is whether or not they’ve reproduced any more than I believe that it is impossible for a person to waste their life due to some essential spiritual component in each and every human making wastefulness impossible. But why not? Just because I think so is a reasonable enough response if the only person involved is myself but not so if I’m trying to communicate to others.

So I thought I’d try the reductionist point of view on for size and it seriously fit rather well. Lots of answers there and I could potentially have certainty, well at least if I wanted to ignore things such as happiness, altruism, values and so forth. I didn’t need to write the other side as there has already been a time in my life (and specific experiences) when I’ve lived it. Again, it fits very well but only if I ignored things such as hatred, cruelty, violence, and so forth and explained them by calling all of life an illusion. Both rather cruel viewpoints in the end cutting out many of the essential components of the miracle that is humanity.

And so, I can safely say after fully exploring both extremes that while they have much knowledge the knowledge feels somehow lacking to me. Blah! So that means the answers are someplace in between. I think I need to better understand the veil between subjective and objective reality and universal versus contextual values and such. Where does the role/understanding of science end and the need to apply subjective criteria begin? And when applying subjective criteria what kind of context is this happening within? And when do we drop aside what everyone (all accumulated knowledge) says and substitute our own judgment?

I guess what I want to understand can best be summed up in your last comment Mark:

Perhaps worth in an evolutionary context can be determined objectively, but the worth of the evolutionary context itself would still be judged subjectively. So whether or not we have a useful, accurate set of objective criteria may be irrelevant to people who consider a different set of criteria more appropriate, for whatever reasons.

Ultimately, I don’t consider the evolutionary context to be ideal for determining the worth of a life, because evolution doesn’t require that life be enjoyed.

So my question for you Mark would be why wouldn’t religion or spiritual beliefs fit within the criteria you assign here (not something to be considered objectively but rather subjectively and capable of being decided upon by each individual’s criteria) for worth if the belief in religion ad spirituality are capable of allowing individuals or even societies a way to providing meaning or value to life?

Or perhaps I just need to re-read some of what you’ve written about earlier in more depth such as the post Science and Spirituality are Not Incompatiable but the thing is I just don’t get it - how does one figure out what can be understood from science and what its limitations are? Why can you accept and believe in culturally specific values and how do you separate these from religious or spiritual values? What is the difference in your mind?

Or in your last words Jason:

So what I’m saying is that there can be no objective worth of someone’s life, because it’s subjective just by choosing what to use to value it.

I’m honestly rather unclear what your position is Jason, where the line between spirituality/religion and science lies. Between subjective and objective reality. Would you mind explaining a bit further?

I’m not even sure any of this makes sense except in my head but guess I’ll find out soon enough…

And if you want objective criteria, spread across cultures, wealth works just as well as reproduction. I’m not aware of any cultures (not religions, mind you, but cultures) where wealth is not used as a criteria for judging the worth of a life. Many people say they don’t judge based on wealth, but very few people seem to actually follow through on that statement.

So what I’m saying is that there can be no objective worth of someone’s life, because it’s subjective just by choosing what to use to value it.

Perhaps worth within an evolutionary context can be determined objectively, but the worth of the evolutionary context itself would still be judged subjectively. So whether or not we have a useful, accurate set of objective criteria may be irrelevant to people who consider a different set of criteria more appropriate, for whatever reason.

Ultimately, I don’t consider the evolutionary context to be ideal for determining the worth of a life, because evolution doesn’t require that life be enjoyed. Just that it continues. Someone who lives a life of pain and misery, but who has children, and who doesn’t interfere with the ability of others to have children, could be judged to have lived a worthwhile life, in purely evolutionary terms. That’s not good enough for me.

Mark,
Your comment raises as many questions for me as it answers. You identify many different ways to determine whether or not a life is wasted ranging from an individual’s values all the way through to a societal context and this is what stops me. The only one of these which doesn’t seem completely subjective is the determination of worth within an evolutionary context.

You’ve argued before that values are primarily contextual in nature and this seems yet another example in the way you respond but I’m confused as to why you would take this path when there appears to be a clear objective criteria within which to determine whether or not a life has provided value or been wasted that applies across cultures. I’m not trying to give you a hard time (honestly) I’m merely trying to better understand why you’ve made this distinction.

Liara,
I’ll speak honestly to you and say that I find the position that no life can be considered wasted because we are all spiritual beings or miracles in our own way perplexing. And please note I’m not trying to personally challenge you any more than I am Mark rather I’m seriously trying to understand.

A life of casual violence with a general disregard for all humanity is a life wasted to me. A life spent in a drug-induced stupor is a life wasted to me. A life in which one lives only in fear of both themself and all others is a life wasted to me. If a person doesn’t recognize their own greatness and spends their life trying to be small and succeeds in word, thought and deed how does this life have value to the person living it?

Thank you both for your time and thoughts as I struggle with this question! You are both much appreciated!