Despite my days being full, your questions echoed in my mind even whilst asleep, so I want to respond to you with the same depth of attention you have given me.
Once again, thank you for your thoughtful response and for the opportunity to explore these ideas further. I appreciate the depth of your engagement and the way you fra…
Despite my days being full, your questions echoed in my mind even whilst asleep, so I want to respond to you with the same depth of attention you have given me.
Once again, thank you for your thoughtful response and for the opportunity to explore these ideas further. I appreciate the depth of your engagement and the way you frame the interplay between science, religion, and the broader meta-crisis.
Here is my attempt to deal with the principal issues you raise.
1. On the Enlightenment’s Harmful Consequences
The Enlightenment brought immense progress, particularly through science and reason, which liberated humanity from many dogmatic and oppressive systems. However, it also embedded certain ontological and normative assumptions that have contributed to our present meta-crisis. The key issues, as I see them, arise from:
• Excessive Rationalism and the Mechanistic Worldview: The Enlightenment’s emphasis on reason and measurable phenomena led to a dominance of left-hemisphere modes of attention, as argued by Iain McGilchrist. This worldview tends to fragment reality into isolated parts, prioritises quantifiable over qualitative aspects of life, and fosters an instrumental relationship with nature. The consequence has been a reductionist view of the world, where ecosystems, relationships, and even humans are often treated as resources to be managed or exploited.
• Anthropocentrism and Extractive Individualism: Enlightenment ideals elevated human rationality and individual autonomy to the pinnacle of value. While empowering, this has led to an alienation from the natural world and a cultural attitude that prioritises human needs over the integrity of Earth’s systems. Combined with capitalism’s growth imperative (a product of Enlightenment rationalisation), it has contributed to ecological degradation, climate destabilisation, and societal inequality.
• Loss of Holistic and Spiritual Dimensions: As science became the dominant epistemological framework, other ways of knowing—such as embodied, intuitive, or spiritual knowledge—were sidelined or dismissed as unscientific. This has created an impoverished sense of meaning and alienation in modern life, what John Vervaeke might call a “meaning crisis.”
Thus, the dysfunction arises not from the Enlightenment per se but from an imbalance—a neglect of right-hemisphere ways of knowing, of communal and sacred values, and of humanity’s embeddedness within the Earth system.
2. Ontology Without Normativity
You rightly point out that any epistemological system carries ontological assumptions and normative claims, but there are crucial distinctions to be made between their nature and function.
• Science: Science operates on provisional ontology. Its normative claims are methodological rather than prescriptive: shared processes of inquiry (hypothesis, experimentation, falsification) are normative, but truth claims remain open to revision. Scientific theories describe how things appear to work, not how things ought to be.
• Religion: Many religions, by contrast, tend to combine fixed ontology with prescriptive, moral, or existential normativity—claims about the nature of reality that are not open to revision, coupled with assertions about how we must live.
• Non-normative Ontology: In communal spirituality or “religion without religion,” ontology can remain open-ended and experiential rather than dogmatic. For instance, one might hold a relational, interconnected view of existence (as seen in Indigenous wisdom traditions or mysticism) without imposing specific doctrines or moral absolutes. It is a form of exploratory ontology, grounded in shared experience and deep reflection, without fixed normative demands.
To put it simply: ontology can describe our shared sense of what is without dictating how we must act. This does not mean it lacks normative implications (any understanding of reality influences behaviour), but these emerge organically through dialogue and reflection rather than hierarchical imposition.
3. Communal Spirituality vs. Religion
I see communal spirituality as distinct from organised religion in three key ways:
1. Absence of Dogma: Communal spirituality does not require fixed doctrines or creeds. It embraces mystery, ambiguity, and the evolving nature of understanding—much like science but applied to existential and spiritual dimensions of life.
2. Relational and Participatory: Rather than relying on hierarchical structures or authority, communal spirituality emerges through shared experiences, dialogue, and practices. It emphasises relationality—between people, with the natural world, and with the ineffable—rather than adherence to institutional norms.
3. Focus on the Experiential and Transformative: Where religion often centres on beliefs and rituals, communal spirituality prioritises lived experience and transformation. Practices such as contemplation, mindfulness, and shared rituals are tools for fostering a deeper sense of connection, purpose, and flourishing.
John Vervaeke’s “religion without religion” aligns with this idea: it seeks to address the meaning crisis and offer transformative practices without the doctrinal baggage of traditional religions.
For me, the term “communal spirituality” highlights the collective and participatory aspect. It acknowledges that humans are inherently meaning-seeking and relational beings but leaves room for pluralism, dialogue, and ongoing inquiry.
In Summary:
• The Enlightenment, while transformative, has contributed to humanity’s meta-crisis by fostering a reductionist worldview and alienating us from nature, meaning, and each other.
• Ontology need not be normative in a prescriptive sense; instead, it can remain open-ended, relational, and grounded in experience.
• Communal spirituality differs from religion by being non-dogmatic, participatory, and experiential, offering a shared space for exploring meaning without imposing fixed truths.
I hope this clarifies my perspective and furthers our shared exploration. I would love to hear your reflections on these ideas.
Dear Rufas,
Despite my days being full, your questions echoed in my mind even whilst asleep, so I want to respond to you with the same depth of attention you have given me.
Once again, thank you for your thoughtful response and for the opportunity to explore these ideas further. I appreciate the depth of your engagement and the way you frame the interplay between science, religion, and the broader meta-crisis.
Here is my attempt to deal with the principal issues you raise.
1. On the Enlightenment’s Harmful Consequences
The Enlightenment brought immense progress, particularly through science and reason, which liberated humanity from many dogmatic and oppressive systems. However, it also embedded certain ontological and normative assumptions that have contributed to our present meta-crisis. The key issues, as I see them, arise from:
• Excessive Rationalism and the Mechanistic Worldview: The Enlightenment’s emphasis on reason and measurable phenomena led to a dominance of left-hemisphere modes of attention, as argued by Iain McGilchrist. This worldview tends to fragment reality into isolated parts, prioritises quantifiable over qualitative aspects of life, and fosters an instrumental relationship with nature. The consequence has been a reductionist view of the world, where ecosystems, relationships, and even humans are often treated as resources to be managed or exploited.
• Anthropocentrism and Extractive Individualism: Enlightenment ideals elevated human rationality and individual autonomy to the pinnacle of value. While empowering, this has led to an alienation from the natural world and a cultural attitude that prioritises human needs over the integrity of Earth’s systems. Combined with capitalism’s growth imperative (a product of Enlightenment rationalisation), it has contributed to ecological degradation, climate destabilisation, and societal inequality.
• Loss of Holistic and Spiritual Dimensions: As science became the dominant epistemological framework, other ways of knowing—such as embodied, intuitive, or spiritual knowledge—were sidelined or dismissed as unscientific. This has created an impoverished sense of meaning and alienation in modern life, what John Vervaeke might call a “meaning crisis.”
Thus, the dysfunction arises not from the Enlightenment per se but from an imbalance—a neglect of right-hemisphere ways of knowing, of communal and sacred values, and of humanity’s embeddedness within the Earth system.
2. Ontology Without Normativity
You rightly point out that any epistemological system carries ontological assumptions and normative claims, but there are crucial distinctions to be made between their nature and function.
• Science: Science operates on provisional ontology. Its normative claims are methodological rather than prescriptive: shared processes of inquiry (hypothesis, experimentation, falsification) are normative, but truth claims remain open to revision. Scientific theories describe how things appear to work, not how things ought to be.
• Religion: Many religions, by contrast, tend to combine fixed ontology with prescriptive, moral, or existential normativity—claims about the nature of reality that are not open to revision, coupled with assertions about how we must live.
• Non-normative Ontology: In communal spirituality or “religion without religion,” ontology can remain open-ended and experiential rather than dogmatic. For instance, one might hold a relational, interconnected view of existence (as seen in Indigenous wisdom traditions or mysticism) without imposing specific doctrines or moral absolutes. It is a form of exploratory ontology, grounded in shared experience and deep reflection, without fixed normative demands.
To put it simply: ontology can describe our shared sense of what is without dictating how we must act. This does not mean it lacks normative implications (any understanding of reality influences behaviour), but these emerge organically through dialogue and reflection rather than hierarchical imposition.
3. Communal Spirituality vs. Religion
I see communal spirituality as distinct from organised religion in three key ways:
1. Absence of Dogma: Communal spirituality does not require fixed doctrines or creeds. It embraces mystery, ambiguity, and the evolving nature of understanding—much like science but applied to existential and spiritual dimensions of life.
2. Relational and Participatory: Rather than relying on hierarchical structures or authority, communal spirituality emerges through shared experiences, dialogue, and practices. It emphasises relationality—between people, with the natural world, and with the ineffable—rather than adherence to institutional norms.
3. Focus on the Experiential and Transformative: Where religion often centres on beliefs and rituals, communal spirituality prioritises lived experience and transformation. Practices such as contemplation, mindfulness, and shared rituals are tools for fostering a deeper sense of connection, purpose, and flourishing.
John Vervaeke’s “religion without religion” aligns with this idea: it seeks to address the meaning crisis and offer transformative practices without the doctrinal baggage of traditional religions.
For me, the term “communal spirituality” highlights the collective and participatory aspect. It acknowledges that humans are inherently meaning-seeking and relational beings but leaves room for pluralism, dialogue, and ongoing inquiry.
In Summary:
• The Enlightenment, while transformative, has contributed to humanity’s meta-crisis by fostering a reductionist worldview and alienating us from nature, meaning, and each other.
• Ontology need not be normative in a prescriptive sense; instead, it can remain open-ended, relational, and grounded in experience.
• Communal spirituality differs from religion by being non-dogmatic, participatory, and experiential, offering a shared space for exploring meaning without imposing fixed truths.
I hope this clarifies my perspective and furthers our shared exploration. I would love to hear your reflections on these ideas.
Warm regards,
Terry