Religion plays an important role in any effort to make a radically wiser, weller world. However, today there is widespread allergy to religion, at least in the West. Is there a way forward?
Love the summary of the "good parts" of religion: separating commitment from attachment, and dogmatism from positivism. There is so much subtly that is respected within spiritual/religious traditions that are not recognized from outside.
One thing I felt missing is the sense of "larger than self" or "Greater than self". I can see alignment with the "More than matter, more than mind" and "interbeing" concepts - however I do feel there is a quality of experience that comes from "giving it to God" or "releasing form attachments/outcomes" or "doing God's work" or being "part of a larger whole" that is important in helping navigate our egos through transcendence.
🙏 and very much resonante with the Greater than self point - and its relation both to being in service and to feeling part of something bigger than ourselves.
There is some important subtly in that last point regarding how giving ourselves to something bigger than ourselves need not be a submersion where we give away our individuality but rather a growth or emergence into something greater - what Thomas Steininger and Elizabeth DeBold (and others) term transindividuation (btw they are doing amazing work here).
I also liked that. For the whole of her working life my mother Betty Scharf taught at the LSE and wrote The Sociological Study of Religion. She also started a gender studies course. When the School stopped teaching the sociology of religion (the most important subject on the planet?) I used my inheritance to award the Betty Scharf prize to the best work in Gender Studies on a religious theme in the hope to tempt more students into this important area of work.
Kudos for bringing up this subject so robustly. For the most part, it makes similar points to those that I do, and I am thoroughly convinced by the evidence and arguments proposed by the likes of Iain McGilchrist and John Vervaeke that the lack of a "spiritual" dimension to the predominant culture (at least in the West) contributes to humanity's present meta-crisis. What jars with me is what you say about religion needing both to have an agreed ontology, and to be normative. It seems to me that as soon as you combine these two features, you place religion in opposition to science, which has been the cause of a great deal of conflict and suffering for both individuals and whole societies. It will, in effect, risk perpetuating some of the Enlightenment's dysfunctional impacts on human relationships with the other participants in the Earth System. I'm happier with what John Vervaeke says about "religion without religion", although I tend to prefer "communal spirituality" to both.
Dear Terry, thank-you so much for commenting and so thoughtfully.
I've taken a bit of time to respond as you raise quite deep points. For example:
> It seems to me that as soon as you combine these two features, you place religion in opposition to science which has been the cause of a great deal of conflict and suffering for both individuals and whole societies. It will, in effect, risk perpetuating some of the Enlightenment's dysfunctional impacts on human relationships with the other participants in the Earth System
Could you say a bit more here? I'd like to understand a bit more, for example more about the dysfunctional impacts on human relationships and other participants in the Earth system.
For my part some quick comments.
> you place religion in opposition to science
This has indeed often been the case in the west over the last thousand years. However, as I say in the piece, I think is largely because religion (in this case largely christianity) became quite dogmatic (and oppressive). You could also say that in the last 200y science has become religion-like in the not-so-good sense e.g. it is becoming quite dogmatic (what we can't measure doesn't exist) and even oppressive -- if you don't agree with science on certain key points you'll probably be disqualified from certain important positions of authority.
So, first I think (modern) science and religion are more similar than we think - they are both epistemological systems (i.e. ways of knowing reality and deciding what is true).
Both surely have good qualities and also significant blindspots.
I should add this is not to say that, say, christianity and modern particle physics have the same epistemological status / validity. We can think that one
At the same time any given epistemological framework, be that science or buddhism, necessarily (at least as practiced in reality) comes with both ontological assumptions and normative claims. These may be hidden but they are still there. 😄
## What is religion without religion?
More on the sociological point: what for you would be something that had ontology and not be normative?
And what would distinguish communal spirituality from religion?
These are both very genuine questions -- it is questions I'm also reflecting on 🙏
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.
I’m happy to engage in dialogue, but I will not be able to do justice to your questions for a couple of weeks - this week I’m totally tied up with Rotary Charitable activities and a series of meetings, and next week visiting family for the festivities. In the meantime, as evidence that I agree with your point about the complementarity of science and religion, I would direct you to a recent blog post of mine: https://insearchofwisdom.online/embracing-humanity-why-we-need-science-philosophy-and-spirituality-to-understand-free-will-and-personal-agency/. I will reply more comprehensively, since this lies at the heart of my life’s studies. Have an enjoyable festive season.
I really like this, thank you Rufus and Sylvie. May this awareness blossom! 🙏🪷🌈
Love the summary of the "good parts" of religion: separating commitment from attachment, and dogmatism from positivism. There is so much subtly that is respected within spiritual/religious traditions that are not recognized from outside.
One thing I felt missing is the sense of "larger than self" or "Greater than self". I can see alignment with the "More than matter, more than mind" and "interbeing" concepts - however I do feel there is a quality of experience that comes from "giving it to God" or "releasing form attachments/outcomes" or "doing God's work" or being "part of a larger whole" that is important in helping navigate our egos through transcendence.
Excellent exposition - sharing with friends!!
🙏 and very much resonante with the Greater than self point - and its relation both to being in service and to feeling part of something bigger than ourselves.
There is some important subtly in that last point regarding how giving ourselves to something bigger than ourselves need not be a submersion where we give away our individuality but rather a growth or emergence into something greater - what Thomas Steininger and Elizabeth DeBold (and others) term transindividuation (btw they are doing amazing work here).
I also liked that. For the whole of her working life my mother Betty Scharf taught at the LSE and wrote The Sociological Study of Religion. She also started a gender studies course. When the School stopped teaching the sociology of religion (the most important subject on the planet?) I used my inheritance to award the Betty Scharf prize to the best work in Gender Studies on a religious theme in the hope to tempt more students into this important area of work.
👏 and couldn’t agree more.
And I explain why I remain allergic to religion. https://johnstokdijk538.substack.com/p/last-week-in-the-space-e99
Thank-you for sharing!
Kudos for bringing up this subject so robustly. For the most part, it makes similar points to those that I do, and I am thoroughly convinced by the evidence and arguments proposed by the likes of Iain McGilchrist and John Vervaeke that the lack of a "spiritual" dimension to the predominant culture (at least in the West) contributes to humanity's present meta-crisis. What jars with me is what you say about religion needing both to have an agreed ontology, and to be normative. It seems to me that as soon as you combine these two features, you place religion in opposition to science, which has been the cause of a great deal of conflict and suffering for both individuals and whole societies. It will, in effect, risk perpetuating some of the Enlightenment's dysfunctional impacts on human relationships with the other participants in the Earth System. I'm happier with what John Vervaeke says about "religion without religion", although I tend to prefer "communal spirituality" to both.
Dear Terry, thank-you so much for commenting and so thoughtfully.
I've taken a bit of time to respond as you raise quite deep points. For example:
> It seems to me that as soon as you combine these two features, you place religion in opposition to science which has been the cause of a great deal of conflict and suffering for both individuals and whole societies. It will, in effect, risk perpetuating some of the Enlightenment's dysfunctional impacts on human relationships with the other participants in the Earth System
Could you say a bit more here? I'd like to understand a bit more, for example more about the dysfunctional impacts on human relationships and other participants in the Earth system.
For my part some quick comments.
> you place religion in opposition to science
This has indeed often been the case in the west over the last thousand years. However, as I say in the piece, I think is largely because religion (in this case largely christianity) became quite dogmatic (and oppressive). You could also say that in the last 200y science has become religion-like in the not-so-good sense e.g. it is becoming quite dogmatic (what we can't measure doesn't exist) and even oppressive -- if you don't agree with science on certain key points you'll probably be disqualified from certain important positions of authority.
So, first I think (modern) science and religion are more similar than we think - they are both epistemological systems (i.e. ways of knowing reality and deciding what is true).
Both surely have good qualities and also significant blindspots.
I should add this is not to say that, say, christianity and modern particle physics have the same epistemological status / validity. We can think that one
At the same time any given epistemological framework, be that science or buddhism, necessarily (at least as practiced in reality) comes with both ontological assumptions and normative claims. These may be hidden but they are still there. 😄
## What is religion without religion?
More on the sociological point: what for you would be something that had ontology and not be normative?
And what would distinguish communal spirituality from religion?
These are both very genuine questions -- it is questions I'm also reflecting on 🙏
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
Hi Rufas,
I’m happy to engage in dialogue, but I will not be able to do justice to your questions for a couple of weeks - this week I’m totally tied up with Rotary Charitable activities and a series of meetings, and next week visiting family for the festivities. In the meantime, as evidence that I agree with your point about the complementarity of science and religion, I would direct you to a recent blog post of mine: https://insearchofwisdom.online/embracing-humanity-why-we-need-science-philosophy-and-spirituality-to-understand-free-will-and-personal-agency/. I will reply more comprehensively, since this lies at the heart of my life’s studies. Have an enjoyable festive season.
Felt like an arrow shot in the right direction