Argument

1. Watson 1
Jeremiah Watson
Rational Spirituality and Natural Theism: An Argument in Favor
What can Mankind concede of its capacity within Nature? Is Man an insignificant
microcosmic occurrence, or does its inseparability from Nature somehow grant it purpose? The
precedents for the consideration of these opposing inquiries are, first, to identify the definitive
qualities of Mankind; then, to determine what is inherent regarding those qualities within Nature;
and then, to inquire holistically and existentially about the significance of the existence of
Mankind and Nature relative to one another. Certainly, religious doctrine and the supernatural
and anthropocentric morality are not the only qualifiers that determine the relevance of
spirituality or even theism. Since it cannot be definitively said that God does indeed exist, the
argument hereunder is that it is possible to both value spirituality and believe in a God free of
irrational dissent.
The defining qualities of Man are mortality, as man is limited in the universe; rationality,
as Man seeks to understand the order of things; and consciousness, as individuals are aware of
their mortality and their rationality. As these qualities adhere to the laws of Nature, they are
expressed in contingency with the omnirelevant "will" of Nature, the human manifestation of
which is the will to learn, to attain, and to impart, a sort of will-to-eternity in concert with the
laws of Nature.
And, if God and Nature are both described as omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient,
then they are in accordance with space-time, matter, energy and the nature of consciousness. So,
God and Nature are synonymous in this regard.
It follows that the whole of Humanity, from society to the individual, is but a measure of
an unabridged reality. As such, while we perceive ourselves to be separate from one another in

2. Watson 2
space-time, understanding, and consciousness; our perceptions are limited by our measure within
Nature. Therefore, we cannot be aware as Nature is aware, understand as Nature understands, nor
exist as Nature exists. That is that Nature encompasses all consciousness, is all that can be
understood and is all that exists. So, Man can learn the mechanics, physics and related
descriptive sciences of Nature, but cannot objectively comprehend Nature in its subjective
entirety.
That is not to say that Man should not seek knowledge. It is to say, however, that what
an individual professes to know regarding what they have observed is, by nature, subjective.
That does not diminish the efficacy of empirical data, as the object of empiricism is to determine
how we ought to implement and improve upon current knowledge. The object of empiricism is
not to determine objective truths. Moreover, and concerning consciousness, while an individual
may conceive of different forms of consciousness, they can never experience consciousness in its
most fundamental nor its most complex forms. That is because, the self is a manifestation of
human consciousness and to experience a separate and unadulterated form of consciousness, one
would have to remove themselves from the experience. Thus, rendering the experience
indescribable. In relation to this, there is a theory that consciousness is not predicated upon self-
awareness and that consciousness can exist in any integrated system. To put it more simply,
according to this theory it is currently plausible that everything may retain a level of
consciousness (Oizumi), lending a perceivably brighter outlook on Schopenhauer’s “The World
as Will.”

3. Watson 3
Additionally, there are these theories that demonstrate the vastness of the universe. Thus,
offering the humbling realization that Man is infinitesimal relative to the rest of existence. And
yet, at the very same instance, inseparable and therefore vital to the structure or identity of the
universe: M-Theory, the theory that there are dimensions in excess of four or that there are
infinite universes (Kaku); supersymmetric string theory, the theory of the fundamental one-
dimensional universe comprised of only subatomic vibrations (Kaku); and chaos theory, the
theory that some outcomes may be unpredictable (Forshaw)
Reason may also permit a concept that shares certain similarities with many theistic
concepts of eternal life. Reasoning in accord with the special theory of relativity and the B-
theory of time that states that time does not flow but exists as the fourth dimension in space-time
(Besnard). As such, all moments in time are immutable. Therefore, every perceived experience
in life is also immutable. In so far as human consciousness is concerned, the perceived quality of
life in every moment of life ostensibly determines the overall quality of perception that exists
within space-time. Therefore, life may, in essence, be eternal.
To conclude, since Mankind is of Nature, rational spirituality is permitted through the
consideration that how we perceive the quality of our lives over time is eternal and makes us a
necessary measure of the nature of consciousness. Also, natural theism is permitted by replacing
the concept of the supernatural with curiosity and reason as a means to understand Nature, or in
essence, come closer to God.
References
Besnard, Fabien. "Is There A Philosophy Of Time Compatible With Relativity And Quantum
Mechanics?." AIP Conference Proceedings 1446.1 (2012): 437-447. Web.

4. Watson 4
Forshaw, Scot D. "The Third State: Toward A Quantum Information Theory Of Consciousness."
Neuroquantology 14.1 (2016): 49-61. Web.
Kaku, Michio. "Highlights Of Supersymmetry, Superstrings, And M-Theory."Foundations Of
Physics 33.5 (2003): 689-706. Web.
Oizumi, Masafumi, Larissa Albantakis, and Giulio Tononi. "From The Phenomenology To The
Mechanisms Of Consciousness: Integrated Information Theory 3.0." PLoS
Computational Biology 10.5 (2014): 1-25. Web.
Schopenhauer. The World as Will. Cambridge University Press, 2010. Web.