The Religious Galaxy: Exploring the Phase Space of Religious Belief

The 'Religious Galaxy':
Exploring the Phase Space of Spiritual Computation (Religious Belief)

"There is no conflict between science and religion. Science asks what the world is, and religion asks what humankind and society should become" — Albert Einstein

The Religious Galaxy

What follows is our suggested map of the phase space of religious world views, an exploration of the polarities of religious belief. It was partially inspired by three synthetic works, Karen Armstrong's A History of God, 1994, Ken Wilber's A Brief History of Everything, 2001, and James Sire's problematic but helpful The Universe Next Door, 1997.

The Religious Galaxy

As the diagram shows, there are three dimensions (degrees of freedom) in this simple model.

1. The first dimension (z-axis, or top to bottom in the diagram above) of spiritual choice is the Belief in God: the degree that we believe the spiritual domain, the domain of belief, is relevant to our world view. We can define belief as unproven spiritual knowledge, received personally. There are at least five familiar levels to this dimension of spiritual computation:. Nihilism, Agnosticism, Philosophy, Relativism, and Mysticism.

Starting at the bottom of the diagram and working upwards, for Nihilists the primary belief is that no belief system can have any privileged position, nothing is knowable. For the Agnostics, the concept of God and related spiritual topics are assumed to be presently unknowable (a-gnosis). They admit no spiritual position, yet are open to the possibility of one in the future. Philosophers, the level at which most of us reside, have some number of spiritual beliefs which are relatively fixed and slow to change. Relativists have more spiritual beliefs than the Philosopher but at the same time they are less specific and held very lightly, as they believe all beliefs, including conflicting ones, have relatively equal or nearly-equal value, and represent different views of the same truth. Mystics are the most belief-driven. They hold even more beliefs than the Relativist but they hold them all much more strongly, and they regularly add new, transcendent, untested beliefs to their spiritual storehouse, ways of knowing that can change their world view. The Nihilist and Mystic positions are thus both polar extremes and rarified territories that few people inhabit for long, in practice.

2. The second dimension (x-axis, left to right in the diagram above) can be called the Influence of God: one's personal belief in the influence of spiritual concepts in the universe. This can be usefully divided into three common responses: Theism, Athiesm, and Deism.

Theists believe in a personal, present God, one who can actively influence their and universal life, and one that can be embodied as separate from the universe and from humans, one that is omniscient and omnipotent, one that transcends finite, material things. Usually (but not always) the theist's God has frequently revealed spiritual purpose to human beings through some particular scriptures (e.g. the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gîtâ), creating a "revealed religion." Theists spiritual knowledge comes primarily by faith, with some scripturally-allowed intuition, reason, and empirical testing. Deists believe in higher intelligence and power in the universe, but one that may turn out to only be the universe itself, acting as a finite, materially-based system. The Deist's Universe-as-God has influence, but only in abstract, probabilistic ways, via the universe's special structure, and also psychologically, via one's subjective and limited model of God (or the spiritual aspects of the universe), constructed in the process of experiencing the natural environment. Deists spiritual knowledge comes primarily by induction (and intuition), with experience- and intuition-allowed faith, reason, and empirical testing. Atheists see no or little personal value to the concept of God. They note the psychological influence of collectively-shared God-myth, and some would even grant the social value of this influence in a world where science still says little that is authoritative about human values, but they don't personally sense the influence of God or a higher spiritual dimension of the physical universe. Atheists spiritual knowledge (they would debate the use of this phrase) comes primarily by deduction (and empiricism), with logically- and empirically-allowed intuition and faith, kept as parsimonious as possible. An oft-quoted example of atheistic faith (which is not an oxymoron, just a rare creature) is belief in the validity of unproven, and possibly unprovable, scientific axioms.

3. The third dimension (y-axis, front to back in the diagram above) is Validation of God (System or Observer): the degree of exteriority (objectiveness/ general system), or interiority (subjectiveness/ unique observer) of our tests of the veracity of spiritual knowledge. Again there are three common choices: Objective, Subjective, and Integrative.

Objective theists, deists, and atheists validate their knowledge by way of their understanding of universal systems. Objective knowledge, to the extent we can give any knowledge this label, is that which has to date been found to be more permanent, consistent, and uniform, regardless of individual observer. It is those systemic features or data that can be reliably experienced and reexperienced, ideally via replicable scientific experiment. Some of the extreme believers in the privilege of this kind of knowledge have a strong anti-experience, anti-intuitive bias. Subjective theists, deists, and atheists validate their knowledge from their own perspective as a unique observer within the universe system. Subjective knowledge is therefore personal and immediate yet more ephemeral, individually varied, and observation-dependent. Each of our own individual consciousnesses, to the extent that they are both unique and self-referential, contains subjective knowledge. Some of the extreme believers in the privilege of this kind of knowledge have a strong anti-intellect, anti-theory, even anti-logos (words) bias. Integrative theists, deists, and atheists validate their knowledge by trying to include both external and internal ways of knowing, and to recognize the advantages of each in different contexts. Integral knowledge can be broadly applied to the search for balance between holism and reductionism, God and no-God, belief and no-belief, chance and necessity, evolution and development, creation and discovery, and all other fundamental natural dichotomies.

Further Explorations of the Middle Planes

On the central Philosophy plane, the greatest density of human spiritual inhabitants, we can usefully describe nine natural categories. At the far left we find Scriptural Theists. These are those for whom received scripture is an objective record of God's word and will. At the far right we find Natural Atheists, those for whom scientific knowledge is an objective, reliable record of a world in which God is not a useful concept. At the far middle we find Rational Deists, who favor objective knowledge for all spiritual questions. They see the value of commonly held (evolutionary psychological, and possibly pre-objective) religious belief, yet consider the subjective to be unreliable, and generally of little worth.

In the near left we find Existential Theists, who believe that contingent, personal revelation is the central record of God's word and will, for each of us. The scripture of their particular faith, while useful, is given to each believer as a jumping off point for the construction of their own spiritual thoughts and experiences, which are each very personal and not easily described. In the near right we find Existential Atheists, who believe that personal search for peace, pleasure and fulfillment, not metaphysical theory or limiting scientific paradigms, is the most important type of "spiritual growth." (They would be unlikely to use this term). In the near middle we find Existential Deists, who favor subjective knowledge for all spiritual questions, considering both scripture and science highly inadequate in describing the ineffable experience of God. In the middle left we find Integral Theists, who seek to promote, within one religious choice, both the objectivity of scriptural dogma and at the same time a wide variety of possible, conflicting personal spiritual journeys. In the middle right we find Integral Atheists, who see a Godless physical universe, but recognize the deep value of both scientific and unique, personally received knowledge in the search for wisdom, for living well in the world.

Finally, in the middle middle we find Integral Deists, who seek to integrate all of the abovementioned ways of spiritual knowing, without overreliance on any one of them. Perhaps their closest communities are Pantheists, or Scientific Naturalists who see the Universe as the only apparent Transcendent Higher Power, and who use science, philosophy, and minimal, examined personal belief in their spiritual search to understand the universe and its transcendent elements. Of the theists, they have close affinity to Unitarians, Quakers, Bahai, Stoics, and Gnostics, believers who seek to understand, empathize, and dialog with all the world's religions without professing the exclusive value of any of them.Of the athiests, they have close affinity to Freethinkers, Brights, and Secular Humanists, who seek to use critical rationality and science to understand and expose the past and current excesses of theism/religion, and to progressively work toward an increasingly secularlized world. In objectivity, Integral Deists admit the current value in both empirically tested scientific knowledge and in scripture that has remained popular and unredacted for generations, and is apparently serving some psychosocial functions that are yet unserved by scientific education. In subjectivity, Integral Deists champion the irreducible uniqueness of each individual path, and the great social and universal value of encouraging and empowering that uniqueness, and of judging very lightly, for none of us can be proven to hold a privileged value set.

On the Relativist plane we find individuals who profess the inability to privilege one value set over another, and the desire to see all beliefs as valid and useful. Nevertheless, all relativists will hold one set of beliefs personally over others, will be relativist about their beliefs in some of the other domains, and can be defined as objective, subjective, or integral, theistic, atheistic, or integral. On the Agnostic plane we find a rough inverse, individuals who profess the inability to know some particular about God, the universe, or the self, while being otherwise open to belief exploration in other areas. Again, all agnostics hold one set of beliefs personally over others, will be agnostic about their beliefs in some of the other domains, and can be defined as objective, subjective, or integral, theistic, atheistic, or integral. For examples of subjective agnostics, think of both sexes or two cultures, each professing not to understand the other. For objective agnostics, think of a scientist professing not to understand spiritual practice, or a behaviorist denying the relevance of subjective experience.

The true Mystic and Nihilist positions are perhaps more caricatures than planes. Few individuals inhabit them permanently, and most of us do so experimentally, for periods of time that are a small fraction of the average human thoughtspan. The middle three planes are far more persistently populated.

Gravitation of the Range of Religious Belief from 3D Toward 2D During Development

If we were to map it, I would argue that the distribution of human beliefs in the above phase space looks not like a cube, as a simple 3D model might expect, or even a sphere, but instead something closer to union of two low four-sided pyramids, joined at the base as drawn above, or even better, approximately like a stellar galaxy, viewed edge-on (see picture below). Were we to chart beliefs using the above dimensions we would discover that most human beings dwell on or near the Philosophy plane. In the past more individuals may have been relativists and mystics, but even in historical theocracies there were likely many selective agnostics and some closet nihilists (probably more than today, given the grave excesses of the Church in those eras) to balance the true mystics. In general, I suspect this distribution has always been roughly galaxy-shaped.

I don't think that is an accident: complex systems are always trying to collapse the phase space that they range across, because when they can successfully do so, without throwing out information, they greatly accelerate useful computation. In other words, this grossly 3D to grossly 2D (from box or sphere to planar shape) transition is very commonly seen in evolutionary development at all systems levels. Think of developing galaxies, accreting solar systems, catalytic chemistry on the surface of rocks, the edges of the ocean, the living surface of Earth, and computer chips: all the action goes to a plane wherever possible. Even the most complex computation in human brains occurs primarily in six thin layers on the surface of our cortex, not evenly throughout the volume.

With regard to the theist-atheist axis above, the current distribution seems to be lopsided to the theists, so this galaxy shape is clearly not symmetric. Nevertheless, a good survey might differentiate among the nominal theists between those practicing religion-as-social-convention (many) and religion-as-belief (considerably fewer, judging by action). In recent centuries the social function of religion has grown in direct proportion to the shrinking of the social and political implications of theist belief, whatever the religion. It should also be noted that the typical lapsed theist is very often a diest ("spiritual but not religious") who does not yet subscribe to this term. Thus it seems likely that the historically lopsided shape of this phase space is likely to change into a more classically symmetric galactic shape over time. The number of atheists continues to rise slowly, and theists are also on a slow decline in Western societies, though this latter point is more controversial (particularly to theists). Neverthleless, as science continues its rapid advance in our age, I would argue that most humans will come to comfortably inhabit the middle realm, though this may take several more generations to occur.

We assert that the 3D distribution of all our spiritual practices in the phase space above tends closer and closer to a galaxy shape over time, and look forward to validating this claim. There are at present some extreme objectivists and subjectivists, and globally both groups are well represented, but there are also many who balance both perspectives. In Western societies the center of gravity is clearly on the objective side of integral, but in many Eastern and developing societies we see exactly the opposite, a championing of the subjective side, and of personal spiritual progress as an end even more important than the advance of objective knowledge. This Western/Eastern, Yin/Yang dichotomy may exist for fundamental reasons of universal evolutionary developmental design.

If the balance we have proposed truly exists, the slow emergence of an integral and scientifically consistent deism, by whatever name, may be one of the most important global spiritual developments of the coming century. Ecumencial and interfaith theistic beliefs that fully tolerate natural deism are, in this model, a weak but consistent developmental attractor influencing all human social systems. Some congregations of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), nonorthodox Bahai, variants of Sikhism, and freethinking Unitarian Universalists, are all important examples of this gravitation to a deistic center. Liberal Secular humanists and Freethinkers who champion love for all humans and allow for the concept of a universally-embodied intelligence or natural wisdom ("God") that far exceeds our own are also examples of a return to integral deism, as is Naturalistic Pantheism, and the recently formed Universist and Positive Deism faiths. All of these, however, generally do not elevate love and other subjective human emotion, experience, and intuition to the level of a universal force that is on par with objective rationality. Hence it may be true that they are mildly Objectivist, at least in Western tradition, and so have future room for a better understanding of the spiritual importance of emotion and in so doing make an all quadrant, all level, return to integral, as Ken Wilber might describe it.

One early historical expression of integral, science-championing deism can be found in the Positivist philosophy, developed in the 1840's into a "Religion of Humanity" by our first predictive sociologist and developmental futurist, August Comte, and reinterpreted by the philosopher of Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill. Developed in the last twenty years of Comte's life, to the consternation of his more scientifically-minded friends, and consisting of more than a hundred positivist congregations in Europe and North America at its peak, this religion survives (perhaps revived?) today in Brazil. It professes "love (and human subjective experience) as a principle, order (and objective reason) as a basis, and progress (and predictive science) as a goal" for humanity, and stresses the frequent priority of emergent collective morality over individual morality, while maintaining individual freedom and self-actualization.

It would be hard to find a credo more appropriate to the balanced emergence of our increasingly networked, intelligent, and transcendent global human-machine superorganism in coming generations.

Integral Deism: The Curious Middle

This model suggests that Integral Deism is a seed from which we all diverge as we evolutionarily explore all realms of the phase space of religious belief. Integral deism also appears to be a convergent developmental attractor toward which we continually return. That suggests it occupies a particularly important place within the pantheon of possible religious beliefs. Some famous (and often Integral) Deists include Charles Darwin, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, and Albert Einstein.

As we explore elsewhere on this site, the splendid design we see in nature may very well be entirely naturalistic and self organized, tuned into the special parameters of the seeds of developmental structures in this universe (suns, solar systems, chemistries, living beings, human-catalyzed technologies), by a process of cyclic evolutionary development as universes unfold and rebirth in the multiverse. The deism consists in the observation that the universal intelligence (creation guidance) encoded in those parameters is today mostly hidden, but is being progressively revealed over time. Fortunately, our sciences of simulation will allow increasingly sophisticated tests of such anthropic arguments for universal evolutionary developmental design in coming years.

The Sombrero Galaxy

What an amazing time to be alive.