The New Humanism

Navigation

Transcendence Without the Bull

Lawrence Rifkin

Stripping the supernatural out of peak experiences.

Print This Article

by Lawrence Rifkin

"Non-rational transcendent emotions are harmonious with reason, evidence, and naturalism

A rush of powerful, transforming emotion. A bolt of altered perspective. A love that overwhelms. An unmediated encounter with pure beauty. A profound realization of significance—or insignificance.

When a humanist has a "wow" experience, by what name should we call it? Transcendence?

Transcendence is a word that makes many who embrace humanism and naturalism recoil. And for understandable reason, with its connotations to both supernaturalism and mumbo-jumbo. Can transcendence be expressed and understood in a way that is humanistic, rather than supernatural?

The answer is yes. For humanism to not explicitly embrace such experiences risks limiting humanism's appeal and reducing its potential for personal meaning. If a culture does not provide explicit links between such profound experiences and a naturalistic interpretation, these powerful and possibly transformational experiences can easily be misinterpreted, by default, as being part of a provincial religious story.

The rush of naturalistic transcendence is available in several ways: when we glimpse universals, when we treasure particulars, and when we expand our consciousness. All these types of experiences can be both transcendent and fully understood as naturalistic phenomena in a naturalistic world.

One common understanding of transcendence is an encounter with a world beyond ourselves, beyond full comprehension. But why must this be interpreted as supernatural? A naturalistic world offers an abundance of experiences and understandings beyond our individual lives. There is deep time, extending unfathomably into the past and unfathomably into the future, with our entire lives constituting but a blip. There is deep space, with hundreds of billions of galaxies separated by incomprehensibly vast distances, in which Earth is but a speck. There are concepts of energy, mathematics, human history, and evolution. There is joy in the idea that consciousness even exists. There is the experience of love. Neither a deity nor a complete loss of individuality to a greater power is necessary to experience the grandeur of these great mysteries. There's an awful lot that is bigger than any of us. And when we get it, really get it, when intellect and emotions come rushing together, transcendence seems a powerful word for that experience. After he survived a heart attack, Abraham Maslow felt as if "everything gets doubly precious, gets piercingly important. You get stabbed by things, by flowers and by babies and by beautiful things...every single moment of every single day is transformed." Charles Darwin, in a letter to his wife Emma in 1858, described the following experience: "I fell asleep on the grass, and awoke with a chorus of birds singing around me...and it was as pleasant and rural a scene as I ever saw, and I did not care one penny how any of the beasts and birds had been formed."

Transcendence—experience beyond the ordinary—is perhaps most powerfully felt not in our encounter with universals, but when we are overcome by particulars, experiences that are supremely individual. For some, it is triggered by new romance, an exercise high, the culminating moment of a particular song, knowing in the core of your being that you are doing something good, sudden acceptance of profound insight, or sex. It's a very personal thing. Every once in a while, out of the blue, I'll look at my children doing something commonplace—playing sports, sleeping, or just laughing—and I'll feel it. The wow of being a parent. The rush of life's transience and joys. The sense of meaning. It's the highest of highs tinged with sadness all at once. It's intensely personal—these are my children, my life. Supernatural explanations at such times are as unnecessary as they are factually inaccurate.

Then there are transcendent experiences of consciousness that are not "about" anything in particular. These take many forms, from contemplative awareness, to hallucinogenic consciousness expansion, to self-actualized acceptance of self and world. Regarding the possibilities of meditation, Sam Harris notes a feeling of being utterly at ease in the world, a state which fully transcends the apparent boundaries of the self. "There are states of consciousness," Harris writes, "for which phrases like 'boundless love and compassion' do not seem overblown." Regarding his experience with psychedelic drugs Harris writes "It is one thing to be awestruck by the sight of a giant redwood and to be amazed at the details of its history and underlying biology. It is quite another to spend an apparent eternity in egoless communion with it."

Humanists need not de-emphasize all these types of powerfully real human experiences. The important thing for those having the experience is to not discount reason, and not misinterpret the experience as part of some supernatural tale. Those who seek transcendent experiences and understandings need not seek religious or new-age groups as their only option. Numinous is not synonymous with miraculous.

Transcendence properly understood—a naturalistic transcendence—embraces the non-rational, not the irrational. For the good of individuals and society, irrationality must be confronted and kept out of public policy. Non-rational transcendent emotions, on the other hand, are harmonious with reason, evidence, and naturalism. They can be cherished as supreme human experiences.

Comments (now closed)

Ames Martin

18 Sep 2011 · 14:07 EST

It is a very important point that ideas like "Transendence" must be addressed. Attempts blow off these powerful, human experiences as supernatural only strengthen a religious man's faith. These experiences are real. They're what make life beautiful. I am guilty of needing groups however. Yes, my experience is individual and personal, but I am a person who craves meaningful interaction with others. For me these experiences have to be shared. I've traveled to some strange places in the world, and have experienced transendence. But so many times I've immediately wished my wife were there with me. Of course, her experience may not be the same, but it still makes it more meaningful for me to have her there. Recently, there were some people talking about "The meaning of life". I said, "Oh, that's easy. I figured that out long ago. The meaning of life is experience. You're here to to experience. As an atheist and an individualist, what else could it be?". Of course this is my opinion, but it works for me. This article talks about transendence as powerful experience (if I'm not missing the point entirely) and I like that.

Tom Platt

28 Nov 2011 · 08:55 EST

"When a humanist has a "wow" experience, by what name should we call it? Transcendence?" - quote from the article. Perhaps a much better name lies hidden in plain sight in Mr. Rifkin's extended title. Abraham Maslow, a "humanist psychologist" who is quoted by Mr. Rifkin, seemed to have a good term for it in "peak experience". This information can be found in Maslow's Wikipedia biography. If these are the peak experiences referred to by Rifkin, I found no indication that there was necessarily any supernatural to be stripped from them, even though the they might well be inclusive of such a perspective, and indeed are considered relevant to religious studies. So what's the point? Do we need to call it transcendence to make it sound more pretentiously vague and religion-like?

Tom Platt

02 Dec 2011 · 11:32 EST

Quote from Rifkin's article: "Those who seek transcendent experiences and understandings need not seek religious or new-age groups as their only option. Numinous is not synonymous with miraculous." nu·mi·nous/ˈn(y)o͞omənəs/ Adjective: Having a strong religious or spiritual quality; indicating or suggesting the presence of a divinity. I have to say that this is a great example of why Religious Humanism (as Rifkin appears to be promoting) leaves me cold. There seems to be a tendency to promote the broadest possible definition of traditionally religious terms coupled with adapting traditional religious forms and rituals by in turn expanding their meaning. As Humanists, can't we start from scratch without the pre-biases? Do we need this amalgam with the religious? As a result, I don't believe this form of humanism ends up as rational as it claims to be. For those who feel as I do, it may be better to more openly and forthrightly try to get along in this world without trying so hard to blend in with the woodwork.

Eli

05 Dec 2011 · 16:24 EST

Well said across the board, especially the distinction between the non-rational and the irrational. This view correctly identifies transcendence (or whatever) as worthwhile and valuable while pointing towards its limitations (e.g., it isn't a good starting point for the search for The Great Truths Of The Universe). I had almost this exact same idea almost a year ago (http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2010/10/like-your-body-is-temple-only-more.html), and I'm delighted to see something similar finding support in other circles.

PC Scipio

01 Jan 2012 · 18:30 EST

Mr. Martin, "The meaning of life is experience." Thank you.