In defense of the unnatural
Most everyone I know, without even thinking about it, is in praise of anything natural. What is perceived to be “natural” is good and “as it should be.” As consumers, we go out of our way to buy natural foods versus processed ones, the natural versus the synthetic. We talk about acting “naturally” as opposed to being contrived. We are in awe when we see “natural” talent. We appreciate human and nature’s processes that we see as natural, and therefore wholesome and good for us.
And often, the criteria for what is natural is anything that has not been touched, changed, altered by man and science.
I take a slightly opposite view. I am in awe of many things that are contrived, “abnormal,” unnatural or contrary to the processes of nature and life as we think we know them. I therefore write in praise of what has been touched, altered, improved or shaped by the artistic, logical, rational and scientific mind. These “unnatural acts” have made life easier for all of us.
Throughout history and even as I write this, there have been many “unnatural” interventions, discoveries, actions that have, in fact, been good for mankind and have helped us evolve as a species.
Let’s be simple and talk about the control of our bodily functions. There is no argument that it is natural for anyone to sweat, urinate, defecate, along with other human urges. But it is a great blessing that we learned to control when and where and how we must give in to these urges, even if only for sanitation purposes, not to mention the attendant and important social benefits that we enjoy when we rein them in. It is true also for our urges that are sexual in nature. There is indeed virtue in taming these natural urges.
When we watch children play, we are in awe of their natural state. But we react with annoyance when we see them doing other natural things such as having a tantrum, crying uncontrollably, being insolent and behaving in a spoiled manner. This is where the intervention of good parenting is needed and desired. In this case, leaving children in their “natural” state, without the benefit of discipline, will make them sorry adults later.
People tend to douse cold water on those who have lofty aims, goals and ambitions that strive for a higher experience, by pointing out that what is being attempted
goes against the grain of how things are, or even how God intended them to be. They imply that by doing what has not been done we are going against nature.
“If God wanted man to fly, he would have given him wings.” This was the argument long ago against flying, and it remains the spirit that ties the hands of many would-be innovators to this day. And the intended mention of “God” is supposed to lend an authoritative, dogmatic tone to the argument.
The scientific mind constantly challenges things as they are. Technology, one may argue, is man’s attempt to alter or intervene in what appears to be the natural state or order of things in order to get a different experience. But in fact, when we look at it closely, what the scientific mind is up to is trying to understand on a higher level the same natural laws of science that may not be obvious without microscopes and other scientific instruments. These are the not-too-obvious laws and processes of nature which, when understood and manipulated, bring us new inventions and life-altering experiences. So, in this sense, one might say that there is nothing “unnatural” about science since it operates within the laws of nature.
And because of this, many things that were considered “unnatural” or impossible in the past are not only possible today but are now taken for granted as natural. The ideas of the Age of Enlightenment have affected our concepts of governance, laws, formal education and other social engineering endeavors. Then there’s central heating, automobiles, refrigeration, cooking, eyeglasses, anesthesia, watching TV, hearing aids, calculators, vitamins, fashion — I could go on and on — which are, thanks to science, now part of how we live our lives. We hardly even question them as being “unnatural” interventions that may be bad for us.
It should be of no surprise that the spheres of religion and science, which have collided many times in the past, are again, and will continue to be, at odds. It is because the two spheres on the surface can seem like a battle between God (natural) and science (contrived rationality). While centuries ago, religion may have basked in its victories with the persecution of Galileo and other men of science, it has had to eat its words and apologize belatedly five centuries later.
I suspect that the more the Church lives in an increasingly secular scientific world, the more it will have to get more enlightened as an institution. And it will have to make many more apologies sooner or later concerning its stand on many other issues.
Some of the big debates of our time involving issues of sexuality, such as gay marriage and human reproduction, come to mind. Both science and religion appear to be confident and headstrong in addressing these issues with both sides insisting theirs is the correct view. Science (through history, humanities, social research and even religious tradition) points out that depriving gays of their full human rights is akin to how certain races were delegated to slavery and regarded as less human. It is discriminatory, plain and simple, and harkens back to medieval ignorance.
The Church, on the other hand, argues that homosexuality is an unnatural state, an aberration, and therefore a sin; it is immoral and must be suppressed.
The rest of us who are not scientists, nor religious leaders or scholars are left sifting through the arguments, and in the end, we will have to come to our own conclusions.
I think the difficulty lies in fundamentalism and dogmatism, in both science and religion.
Science can be a big bully when it insists that only what can be empirically observed, tested, validated and revalidated is real. In this view, faith, poetry, mystical experiences and the world of the unseen, though humanly experienced and felt, is gobbledygook. But this dismissive attitude does not explain the perennial experience of transcendence, the mystical experience of consciousness, or the spiritual that has been around since the beginning of time. Are those things unreal, or are some things simply immeasurable? Science cannot see what is not in its domain.
Religion, on the other hand, can be exasperating too when it proclaims as dogma ideas that have been debunked by rationality. The world is round and it revolves around the sun and no interpretation of any verse in the Holy Book can change that. Condoms do prevent AIDS, contrary to what Pope Benedict insists.
Joseph Campbell points out that the major mistake many religious believers commit is to treat holy text as scientific text. To do so would not only leave it open to debunking but demean its true power, which lies within the deeply symbolic and the holy spheres.
As a modern person, I do see the importance of science but I know its limitations. I also see the limits of religion and so I am drawn to the wider arena of mysticism and spirituality. I have long ago decided to embark on a path of knowing God and life not just exclusively through an established religion but in such a way that God is not reduced to a cookie-cutter deity and experienced as a franchise. And life is certainly more than a beaten path already trodden by others for me to simply walk on.
I choose a worldview that understands life from the unique natural instincts and intelligence I was born with, which are creativity, expansiveness, openness and reason.
I do not automatically accept what others insist to be true. I want to see, discover or awaken to it myself with full consciousness. From actual experience, I hope to find my truth.
