We're currently hosting our discussions at Café Walnut, near the corner of 7th & Walnut in Olde City, just across the street from Washington Square Park. The cafe's entrance is below street level down some stairs, which can be confusing if it's your first time. Our group meets in the large room upstairs.
Since we're using the cafe's space, they ask that each person attending the meetup at least purchase a drink or snack. Please don't bring any food or drinks from outside. If you're hungry enough to eat a meal, they have more substantial fare such as salads, soups & sandwiches which are pretty good and their prices are reasonable.
The cafe is fairly easy to get to if you're using public transit. With SEPTA, take the Market-Frankford Line & get off at the 5th Street Station (corner of 5th & Market), and walk 2 blocks south on 5th and then turn right on Walnut Street and walk 2 blocks west. With PATCO, just get off at the 9th-10th & Locust stop and walk 3 blocks east & 1 block north. For those who are driving, parking in the neighborhood can be tough to find. If you can't find a spot on the street, I'd suggest parking in the Washington Square parking deck at 249 S 6th Street which is just a half block away.
IS (SECULAR) BUDDHISM TRUE? A SKEPTICAL LOOK AT THE SCIENCE BEHIND MINDFULNESS & MEDITATION
INTRODUCTION:
At our last meetup, entitled "Can Skeptics Fight Irrationality Without Succumbing To It?", we talked about the apparent failure of sociology's "secularization thesis" - i.e. the theory that modernization inevitably leads to a loss of religious belief in the general populace. Instead, what we've seen in modern societies over the last century suggests many people tend to leave organized religious institutions but retain a variety of religious, spiritual & paranormal beliefs. This raises the strong possibility that most humans have a deep psychological need for some sort of religion, life philosophy or spiritual practice. Several prominent members of the skeptic & atheist community - most notably Sam Harris - have suggested that a demystified version of Buddhism may furnish a model for a more rational approach to spirituality that is compatible with the latest findings in neuroscience & psychology.
This group discussion will pick up this question of secular/rational spirituality by examining some of the empirical claims that the science journalist Robert Wright makes about Buddhism in his 2017 book "Why Buddhism Is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment". Wright's title for the book was intentionally provocative and he doesn't claim that the supernatural aspects of Buddhism -- e.g. karma, reincarnation, heaven & hell realms, hungry ghosts, etc. -- are true.
Rather, Wright argues that insights into human psychology that Buddhist monks (and the Hindu ascetics that preceded them) have gained through centuries of meditative practice align with some of the recent discoveries in neuroscience about the nature of consciousness. He also makes connections between Buddhist ideas about the nature of our aversions & attractions with evolutionary psychology's theories about the "modular" nature of our instinctual drives like hunger, lust, aggression & fear. Wright's main thesis is that Buddhism is correct that we suffer and make others suffer because we don't see the world clearly, but rather project our assumptions upon it. Wright links this notion of the world as an illusion or projection with the Buddhist notion of "emptiness", i.e. the idea that nothing in our world has an essential nature and thus, as Hamlet said, "nothing is good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Wright argues that this is something beneficial that we can realize through meditative practice.
In this discussion, we'll assess how well Wright's claims match up with the research being done on the psychological effects of meditation.
This topic dovetails with some material we've covered in past meetups...
The past meetup that has the most overlap with this one is a discussion from last spring on the field of positive psychology entitled "The Science of Happiness" - see in particular Part 1 of the discussion outline where w covered the phenomenon of "hedonic adaptation (a.k.a. the "hedonic treadmill") that involves changes to the reward pathways in our brains that make us develop tolerance to most pleasurable drugs and pleasurable activities over time. This makes chasing happiness through various external sources of pleasure futile, and that's something that Buddhism & psychology agree upon: https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/246018303/
In some of the interviews about his book, Wright briefly talks about the psychological benefits of "unplugging" from the internet & cell phones, or at least cutting down on their use. We addressed this issue in a discussion last year entitled "What Is The Internet Doing to Our Brains?" https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/248928846/
Robert Wright bases a lot of his statements in his book on evolutionary psychology, and it's worth noting that this is a topic that has split the skeptic community. Some high-profile skeptics like PZ Myers & Rebecca Watson denounce it as pseudoscience, while others like Steven Pinker & Jerry Coyne argue that evolutionary psychology provides a useful corrective to a lot of social science research that falsely assumes human nature is a "blank slate". A lot of this debate centers around arguments about whether various observed gender differences are more the product of nature or nurture. We covered this debate in an earlier meetup entitled "Evolutionary Psychology and Its Skeptics". You can find the outline here: https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/237590334/
Wright talks about how meditation can reveal that "the self" is an illusion and that rather than following the philosopher René Descartes' maxim "I think, therefore I am", meditators realize that "thoughts think themselves", i.e. they emerge into conscious awareness in a somewhat mysterious manner from the unconscious mind. He also says that meditation reveals there are not one but multiple selves within us, which is known as the "modularity of mind theory" in psychology, and he says this has been empirically validated by split-brain experiments. This topic connects with a meetup we had back in the fall of 2016 on the psychologist Julian Jaynes' controversial "bicameral mind" theory. We looked a series of essays by the rationalist blogger Kevin Simler where he connects Jaynes' bicameral mind theory with the current "modularity of mind" theories in evolutionary psychology. Simler says this could help explain Tibetan Buddhism's practice of creating "tulpas" (seemingly independent conscious entities) through extensive meditation. https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/236043091/
When Robert Wright discussed his book with the science journalist John Horgan, Horgan was skeptical of the idea that Buddhist meditation could catch on with the general populace and/or that it would yield big psychological benefits if it did. This critique reminded me of an earlier meetup we had entitled "A Skeptical Take on Education" where we looked at various reasons that educational interventions that appear to work in small trials typically can't be scaled up to work nationwide for various reasons. Differences in students' innate abilities, the tendency for teaching methods to become diluted or reified, and problems with learning loss & learning transfer all play a role. https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/238151623/
The reasons that educational interventions typically don't yield impressive results may also explain why we don't see big differences in outcomes at the population level when we look at the effects of meditation - i.e. we run up against heavy genetic components in individuals' predispositions towards happiness & empathy, there's the problems of "learning loss" (for those who discontinue meditating) & "learning transfer" (for those who can't apply insights learned via meditation to other areas of life), and the quality of instruction varies so much that on average it doesn't exceed self-study. That said, just as the economist Arnold Kling pointed out that there's a big difference between self-study and no study when it comes to education, we shouldn't discount the possibility that simply getting many people to try meditation might yield big benefits if even a significant fraction of them stuck with it.
