COMPREHENSIVE PARADIGMS

H. Paul Zeiger & F. Richard Singer III

Edition Date May 2009

websites and email addresses: descriptivepsychologyinstitute.org & conceptualstudy.org

Abstract: Since comprehensive paradigms share many of the features of the paradigms described in Kuhn’s book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, his ideas that are most relevant to our purposes are briefly sketched. For further information, see the outline of Kuhn’s book given by Professor Pajares of Emory University emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/Kuhn. Kuhn coined the term ‘paradigm’ in relation to the endeavors a scientific community makes in regards to some realm of interest. His concept could be extended in an obvious manner to other types of communities having any other limited realms of interest. The main conceptual goal of the present paper is to formulate a concept of a paradigm that goes beyond any limited realm of interest. We will call such paradigms “comprehensive paradigms”. This and other conceptual considerations provide a background for bringing two preliminary questions and one capstone question into focus. What is the relationship between comprehensive paradigms and religions, especially as this relates to basic human needs? What are the prospects for comprehensive paradigms in the future? Finally and most significant, to what degree and in what ways can different religions and different comprehensive paradigms coexist in the same society? For each question, we sketch some answers that we find at least somewhat plausible. This is deliberately tentative and suggestive, and we do not attempt to formulate an exhaustive set of plausible answers. A related paper, entitled Comprehensive Paradigms Shifts, (Singer 2007a) speculates on some questions about the history of comprehensive paradigms. Which ones have played a significant role in which types of cultures? How did they emerge? How were they replaced? Perhaps this can suggest some additional perspectives on the last question above.

Scientific Paradigms: A conceptual net is a network of concepts and conceptual relationships. While a scientific paradigm utilizes a conceptual net in relation to some realm of interest, it goes beyond the net and includes all the shared core beliefs and commitments of the community using the paradigm. Components of the paradigm may include theories, laws, rules, concepts, and definitions that go into generally accepted fundamentals of the science for that realm. Kuhn says that a scientific community cannot function without some set of received beliefs about these components, that these core beliefs form the foundation that prepares for professional practice,a nd that the nature of the preparation helps ensure that the received beliefs exert a deep hold on the student’s mind. The community presumes to know what its world is like and takes great pains to defend that assumption. Minor challenges to the core will be either ignored or ridiculed, but a serious challenge will provoke a serious counterattack.

Some Background Concepts: This presentation of the comprehensive paradigm uses a method, usually called a paradigm case formulation, (see Ossorio 2006) taken from Descriptive Psychology. It also uses their {community, social practice, institution} concepts. An understanding of ordinary usage of these terms should be sufficient for a basic understanding of the presentation.

A comprehensive community is one whose members have an interrelated way of living. Moreover its institutions and practices provide the opportunity for these members to at least minimally satisfy all of their basic human needs and enhance their behavior potential in a multitude of realms of interest. A human need is called basic if failure to meet that need is likely to result in a major loss of behavior potential. A community is self-contained if its institutions and social practices need little or no outside support, altho it may interact with outside communities. The term ‘culture’ has a number of ordinary meanings. For the purposes of this paper, the term culture will refer to a self-contained comprehensive community.

SECTION 1: BASIC CONCEPTS

Paradigm Versions: A paradigm is not a static state of affairs, nor need it be so tightly unified that it cannot tolerate the existence of different versions. Differences within a paradigm, i.e. those compatible with its core, are expected and are considered as a source of vitality. Such differences may be settled using criteria of the paradigm. Doing this provides more conviction for those committed to the paradigm. It may also give rise to a more developed version of the paradigm. What cannot be tolerated is a threat to core components, altho even these may gradually evolve while retaining what is considered their essential characteristics.

Example: Placing considerations of simplicity in the fore, Copernicus argued that the planets move around the sun. This radical challenge to the accepted Ptolemaic paradigm was strongly resisted. The argument from simplicity was deemed epistemologically unsound. The Copernican account kept the idea that astronomical motion involved perfect circles. Again using simplicity criteria, Kepler claimed that orbits were elliptical. While Copernicus was creating a new astronomical paradigm, Kepler was working within this new paradigm, retaining its heliocentric core and the simplicity criteria. His difference with Copernicus, rather than challenging the paradigm, was instrumental in its development. Later Newton was able to provide additional criteria, namely his laws of motion and the ability to mathematically deduce elliptical orbits from these laws. From the perspective of the paradigm being used, we would say that altho Newton added important new epistemological criteria to the core, he was merely using a more developed version of the Heliocentric Paradigm that could be integrated with a new paradigm for physics. The simplicity and richness of Newton’s view was decisive.

Comprehensive Paradigms: The presentation of this concept will begin with a general model case of a comprehensive paradigm. This will be followed by some allowable transformations. These yield additional cases of comprehensive paradigms, some of which are not instances of the model case. As a prelude, some features of two specific instances of this model case are superficially sketched. These are primarily intended to make it easier to follow the general model case, which merely differ from these instances by omitting details irrelevant to the concept. Since we are outsiders to these paradigms, our sketches may not be completely faithful. However an accurate sketch is not essential for illustrating the concept of a comprehensive paradigm.

The Medieval Catholic Paradigm: Paradigms evolve, so we sketch this comprehensive paradigm as we think it was at a time when it dominated Europe. Moreover we think that most of its features were retained in newer versions. The realm of interest for this comprehensive paradigm includes everything. This means that altho it may not explicitly focus attention on various matters, it influences everything that those who accept it do and think about, and there is no act or thought that cannot be judged by the paradigm. The paradigm’s primary core belief is in an omnipotent God, who exists in a spiritual realm outside of the physical universe, but whose spirit also permeates this world that he created, and which is subject to his will in all ways. He has established His Church and its sacraments as the community for meeting spiritual needs for all who would be saved. The core epistemological belief is that God has revealed his will, to the extent that humanity needs to know it, and that he has established His Church to be the final authority for interpreting his will. His Church is a guardian of true knowledge about the nature of reality, the nature of good and evil, humanity’s place in the universe, etc. All other means of knowing are subject to error, and knowledge of even the most insignificant nature cannot be true if it is in any way incompatible with God’s revelation. The paradigm has strong prescriptive implications. All norms and social practices are subject to God’s judgment, and correct social and political institutions for maintaining them are rooted in his will. However God allows humans to make choices and they may act in evil ways. This cannot thwart his will, which of necessity must prevail, and persons will be judged for their actions and beliefs. As with everything else, His Church is the voice of God on earth and has authority to pass judgment in such matters.

Note: The above instance of the model case is of a comprehensive paradigm that is a religion, i.e. it consists of the shared core beliefs and commitments of a religious community. Any other branch of one of the world’s major religions could have been used for this purpose. The next instance of the model case of comprehensive paradigms is one that would not traditionally be classified as a religion.

The Imperial Roman Paradigm: We sketch this comprehensive paradigm as it might have been during the time of the late republic and the early empire. These features are taken from casual readings rather than a historical study. At that time, Rome had already acquired much of its empire. As with the Medieval Catholic Paradigm, the realm of interest for this paradigm includes everything, altho it is much less demanding about many matters. The paradigm’s primary core involved a belief in the superiority of the Roman traditions and Roman institutions. This was independent of any religious beliefs and had little or nothing to do to do with any ontology of creation (except for the founding of Rome). However the paradigm had a religious component consisting more of religious practices than beliefs. It recognized the importance of these practices within both the Roman community and in the other communities within its empire. Colleen McCullough wrote a sequence of novels set in the late republic See (McCullough 1990) for the first of these. If her perspective is correct, then the Roman gods were more like forces of nature than like persons and could be addressed using many names. Moreover she indicates that they believed that man’s place in the universe was strictly limited to his time in this world, and that he became a mindless shade upon death. Thus this paradigm allowed for many polytheistic religions within the empire, regarding their differences as inessential as long as the authority of Rome was acknowledged. The specific details of belief were not what held the empire together. What could not be tolerated were any beliefs that placed anything above the authority of Rome, hence the Roman problem with Jews and Christians, who looked beyond Rome to what they regarded as a higher law. The core epistemological belief is that what is substantiated by Roman tradition is what is true and sacred, and that Roman institutions can interpret this tradition. The paradigm has strong prescriptive implications for Roman citizens. All norms and social practices are subject to Roman authority and the correct social and political organization of society for maintaining them are rooted in Roman tradition. It also has prescriptive implications for both subject peoples and allies. Part of the ontology of Roman superiority entailed Rome’s right to impose its will on others. This left the others with obligations to Rome, but also left them considerable latitude with regard to their social practices and institutions.

The Model Case of a Comprehensive Paradigm: One feature distinguishing a comprehensive paradigm from a limited one is that it presupposes some of the most significant concepts from some fundamental conceptual net, and thus it cannot even be understood by someone using a radically different fundamental network of concepts. Another distinguishing feature is that its core concerns are broader than are those of a limited paradigm, as are its prescriptive attitudes towards behavior. In fact, nothing goes beyond its realm of interest, and for a person who accepts the paradigm, it may influence anything that person might do or think about. A person for whom this is the case is called an adherent of the paradigm. Being an adherent can vary from active to passive. An adherent is active to the extent that he/she has internalized the paradigm and endorses its beliefs and practices. A passive adherent may only pretend to endorse its beliefs and may follow its practices primarily to avoid sanctions. The model case has the features listed below, with most of feature (1) being essential to the concept.

(1) The paradigm has a set of primary core beliefs about how things are, and these are considered essential. One of its core components is an uncompromising cosmic version that implies what can and what must exist. To be uncompromising means that while other ontological claims might be intellectually acknowledged no others are live options. Included in this ontology are beliefs about the origin of the universe, the nature of reality, and humanity’s place in the universe. Another of its core components is a set of epistemological beliefs that govern acceptable practices for obtaining and verifying what is and can be known, especially in relation to core beliefs. These epistemological beliefs need not be explicitly stated or systematically formulated. They may even be as loose as an appeal to tradition.

(2) Its core beliefs provide a foundation for all the values of the adherents. This includes ways for thinking about human activity and criteria for making value judgments about such activity. This has strong prescriptive implications for personal behavior norms, especially those involving ethical or moral principles. This aspect of the paradigm is the one that is most essential to stability for its community of adherents. Many of that community’s social practices and institutions are organized around it, and it provides a rationale and support for these practices and institutions, including means for making judgments about any social practice or institution.

(3) The paradigm has sufficient influence to have a major impact on some culture for generations, primarily by being internalized by influential members of an important community in the culture. It thus provides internal cohesiveness, unity, stability, and a sense of security and wellbeing for that community.

(4) The paradigm will be strongly defended by active adherents if it is seriously challenged from without, and adherents who seriously challenge its core components will be severely sanctioned.

Allowable Transformations: These provide for comprehensive paradigms that are not instances of the model case.

In (1) weaken uncompromising in respect to ontology. Change epistemological beliefs to epistemic considerations.

Omit (2) or weaken it in any way.

Change culture in (3) to any group of persons or even a single person, and allow it’s the impact and the duration of its influence to be small. Allow different communities to have versions of the same paradigm. Weaken (3) by omitting cohesiveness or unity or stability.

Weaken (4) by changing strongly defended to something like defended. Allow for more, or even considerable, challenges or reservations from adherents.

Paradigm Versions: The main consideration for thinking of different paradigms as versions of some broader paradigm is whether there is sufficient unity. The most relevant criterion is how adherents of these regard each other. For instance, the predominant comprehensive paradigm for the Byzantine Empire was the shared core beliefs and commitments of the Orthodox Church. We could think of Medieval Christianity as involving two main paradigms. Since these two paradigms have enough of a common core, using the transformation that broadens (3) to allow different cultures to have the same paradigm, we could also regard them or as versions of a single broader Christian Paradigm. Whether this is appropriate depends not on how an outside observer feels about the commonality of these paradigms, but on the extent to which active adherents of the paradigms would consider these differences as essential.

After the reformation, there were several major comprehensive paradigms in parts of Europe, such as the Lutheran Paradigm and the Calvinistic Paradigm. Again, these would likely be regarded by adherents as different versions of the Protestant Paradigm. However adherents might have been reluctant to classify the Catholic and Protestant paradigms of that time as merely alternative versions of a single Christian Paradigm. Altho the core differences may not seem too great to an outsider, they were deemed significant enough by adherents of these paradigms to give rise to extreme hostilities. Currently, it seems appropriate to classify the traditional Catholic and Protestant paradigms as alternative versions of a single Traditional Christian Paradigm, or at least as evolving towards such a paradigm. Some of the more liberal versions of Christianity would not be considered as versions of Traditional Christian Paradigm, and would not be considered as even Christian by some traditional Christians. Later we reflect on a scenario in which the major traditional religious paradigms evolve towards being a version of some single traditional religious paradigm.

Paradigm Types: Perhaps the earliest comprehensive paradigms were animistic. These were probably followed almost everywhere by polytheistic ones. From the 10^th to the 20^th century, the main comprehensive paradigms in western and middle-eastern cultures have been theistic, with ontological beliefs about and attitudes towards a transcendent creator and his creation. This core had strong implications for thinking about human action and social practices. Altho the founders of modern science worked from a theistic paradigm, by the 19^th century, the rise of science began to challenge these paradigms, and some people adopted paradigms that were more physicalistic. The main things these have in common are beliefs that reject the existence of anything that is not within the universe of space-time as conceptualized in physics. However different physicalistic paradigms hold different beliefs about many aspects of the world. They may disagree about whether biological or sociological laws could be totally reduced to the laws of physics. In more pantheistic paradigms, everything is within the universe, but the universe would not be thought of in purely physicalistic terms. To clarify these concepts, some examples of comprehensive paradigms are given. The allowable transformations used are given for those that are not instances of the model case. These examples only give very brief sketches of the paradigms, with emphasis on a few of their distinguishing characteristics.

The Pure Physicalistic Paradigm: When asked where God fits in to his celestial mechanics, Laplace answered that he had no need for that hypothesis. Not long after Laplace, Comte formulated a philosophy called Positivism. This was the beginning of a paradigm widely embraced by influential people in a community of intellectuals. We call it the Pure Physicalistic Paradigm, because of the physicalistic core component of its ontology. Currently this means that space-time behaves according to the laws of contemporary physics (to the extent that these are correct), that nothing exists except the physical universe, etc. The epistemic core of this paradigm is empiricism, with reliable knowledge obtainable using some version of the scientific method. Altho many adherents of this paradigm have similar views about human behavior and social institutions, this does not seem be essential to its primary core. Altho this paradigm has had a major cultural impact, its active adherents form a relatively small minority even in the cultures of its origin.

Transformations: Omit (2), or at least significantly weaken it, especially as it relates to the prescriptive components being part of a unified core. Weaken (4) by omitting severely.

The Marxist Paradigm: As proposed by Marx, the core of this comprehensive paradigm was dialectical materialism, and Marx thought of history as unfolding in deterministic fashion. Altho his paradigm may not have had a complete ontology at its core, current versions would probably include the ontology of the physicalistic paradigm. The class struggle was considered as economic, and this was conceptualized in material terms. In particular, he explicitly rejected the existence of anything supernatural. However unlike a purely physicalistic paradigm, its core explicitly includes feature (2). The Marxist Paradigm could be called an augmented physicalistic paradigm.

The Traditional Christian Paradigm: Altho we classified the Orthodox and Catholic paradigms as versions of a single Paradigm, we did not recognize the early Catholic and early Protestant paradigms as version of the same paradigm. We will assume that differences between traditional Protestants and traditional Catholics have been muted enough to imagine a major comprehensive paradigm that is an instance of the model case. Its adherents include those who want to conserve what they consider core Christian components. The Traditional Christian Paradigm regards divine revelation as real and fundamental, maintains traditional attitudes towards sin, believes that Jesus is the Son of God sent to save us from sin thru his death on the cross, believes that he rose from the dead, etc. Different versions of this paradigm differ primarily in regards to institutional versus individual authority in interpreting God’s will. Modifications retaining the ethical components of the gospels, but discarding or playing down other traditional beliefs are not versions of this paradigm.

The Traditional Islamic Paradigm: There may be enough unity among adherents of Islam to think in terms of a Traditional Islamic Paradigm, with Sunnites and Shiites as being different versions. However as we are outside observers this is difficult for us to judge, and we do not know if it might not be more appropriate to classify these instead as separate paradigms. Moreover we will leave the description of this paradigm and its versions to others.

The Traditional Hindu Paradigm: Traditional Hinduism espouses a well-ordered universe in which the Religion and the government are thoroughly integrated. There is a place for everyone and everyone is in his place. The rules and principles are laid out explicitly in the Vedas, and implicitly in the epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Hindu ontology includes a rich pantheon of gods, presumably created as the result of aggregating local deities as the empire added regions, but each scripture identifies one of them with supreme consciousness. Thus claims that Hinduism is monotheistic and claims that it is polytheistic can both be defended. It is also rich in rituals for a wide range of occasions when external support is called for. We could tentatively characterize Hinduism as an umbrella religion, embracing a large number of sects with rather different doctrines. However in common, Hindu ontology provides universal justice via the notions of karma and reincarnation. Physical aspects of the paradigm receive much less attention than in the west, so conflicts with the physical sciences are correspondingly subdued. Psychosocial aspects of the paradigm are correspondingly emphasized, with the result that some Hindu scholars regard western psychology as naïve and simplistic.

The Traditional Buddhist Paradigm: Buddhism also provides universal justice via the notions of karma and reincarnation, but de-emphasizes political and ceremonial aspects relative to Hinduism. This has made it somewhat more portable – a religion that can be practiced within a variety of cultures. It focuses sharply on the human condition, delineating the various limitations and sufferings that it is heir to, and promotes a way of life designed to overcome them. High in the priorities for this way of life are compassion, even for those of other religions, mindfulness in everyday actions, and meditation as a path to inner reliable knowledge. Individual spiritual growth is correspondingly recognized and appreciated. Spiritual growth and moral behavior support each other: moral behavior purifies the individual for spiritual growth, and spiritual growth enhances discrimination in the perception of what is right. Furthermore, spiritual growth leads to the end of suffering. Buddhism includes a story of creation, but physical aspects of the paradigm are de-emphasized relative to the western perspective.

The Non-Doctrinal Religious Paradigm: About the middle of the 20^th century there emerged a perspective that spread thruout much of mainline Protestant clergy and later among some liberal Catholics. It retained the ethical components of the gospels and played down or discarded traditional doctrines. Its outlook was highly ecumenical, easily accommodating other religious perspectives that were willing to mute doctrinal considerations. It had no quarrel with Reformed Judaism or Buddhism, altho they had different historical traditions. At least from this ecumenical perspective, these and some others could now be considered as different versions of a single Non-Doctrinal Religious Paradigm. Unlike a physicalistic paradigm, this paradigm would not seem to have any specific ontological version. Likewise its epistemological commitments seem vague, altho it involves a distinction about how to obtain knowledge of the spiritual realm and the temporal realm. This seems to entail a belief we can obtain knowledge about the realm of values and the human condition by our ability to use the collective wisdom of the ages in interpreting and understanding our human experiences. On the other hand, a large amount our knowledge comes from observations that could be tested more empirically; such as how processes work, what events have occurred, information about a multitude of states of affairs, etc. Unlike physicalistic paradigms, this paradigm provides a strong and long-standing foundation for values. Indeed, the core of this paradigm takes its value-foundation component from the common values of the world’s great religions, recognizing their common values as having an objective foundation. It claims that these values have emerged from elements that are universal to the human experience. This can be vaguely related to some form of higher power for good in the world, which would seem to be its main ontological commitment that is not merely physicalistic. This higher power may be called God, leaving it unclear as to whether or not God is a person or some impersonal form of higher power for good. (On the other hand, certain enthusiastic physicalists are seeking evolution-based reasons for the common moral principles of the world’s religions.)

Transformations: Significantly weaken (1), (2), and most parts of (4).

Versions of Traditional Religious Paradigms: Several aspects of the religious life of an individual cut across the traditional religions. For example, most religions have a mystic tradition that emphasizes individual spiritual growth and the individual’s relationship with the divine. Such traditions often feature a critical master-disciple relationship plus appreciation of, and recognition for, individual spiritual attainment. In contrast, within the same religions, stand the formalists, who emphasize adherence to the rules, practice of the rituals, and respect for the religion’s governing bodies. Formalists tend to de-emphasize individual spiritual attainment, instead assuring the individual that meeting the formal requirements will guarantee salvation. Among the Christian Apostles, John leaned toward formalism, Thomas toward mysticism. Among the Muslims, the Taliban lean toward formalism, the Sufis toward mysticism, Among Hindus and Buddhists, most conservatives lean toward formalism, the Tantrics toward mysticism.

A second dimension, not entirely independent of the first, concerns the relative importance given to doctrine versus experience and works. The doctrinaire branches of a religion typically specify their canon very carefully, and insist on strict belief in it, as represented by the reciting of a creed. At the opposite pole lie those who set little store by what you believe, but pay a lot of attention to the degree to which a relationship with the divine influences your attitude toward the world, the works that you undertake, and the spirit with which you participate.

Yet a third dimension is the degree to which the religious branch expects and promotes integration of religion and state. Until relatively recently, this expectation was universal. It certainly simplifies government if everyone is playing by the same moral rulebook, at least in respect to their social practices that have significant impact on society. However since the founding of the US, many nations have aspired to having several religions within their borders, and that requires espousing a certain level of non-integration of religion and state. Groups objecting to this non-integration typically fall into two categories: There are those who want a full theocracy (like the Taliban). Others merely want the nation’s laws to be less strongly influenced by the paradigm of those with more influence and to also reflect their own religious concerns (like non-Muslims in Indonesia). The latter are appropriate participants in negotiation and bargaining over the legal system.

This completes our introduction of conceptual resources and orienting examples. We next build on this foundation to examine the relationships between comprehensive paradigms and religions.

SECTION 2: COMPREHENSIVE PARADIGMS AND RELIGIONS

Religions: A religion is conceptualized as a comprehensive paradigm whose primary purpose is to provide the means for its adherents to satisfy all of their basic spiritual needs. Moreover this is an explicit purpose, and it views spiritual needs as interrelated and essential to personal wellbeing. This gives an immediate partial answer to the question below. It also allows conceptually for temporal comprehensive paradigms that may have primary focuses that are not explicitly spiritual and thus are not religions, even if they implicitly provide some means for the satisfaction of spiritual needs.

What is the relationship between comprehensive paradigms and religions, especially as this relates to basic human needs?

The discussion of spiritual needs below indicates more about the type of comprehensive paradigm a religion must be. It also should make it clear that the world’s great religions are religions in the sense indicated above, altho this does not indicate the extent to which they are capable of implementing their purpose. It also does not indicate whether or not a comprehensive paradigm might serve basic human needs that are not spiritual or whether it might satisfy some basic spiritual needs incidentally while focusing on needs not seen to be spiritual. To reflect on such issues, we outline some considerations about spiritual needs and indicate how religions relate to such needs. We then consider how temporal comprehensive paradigms relate to these needs.

Basic Spiritual Needs: Roughly speaking, a basic human need is spiritual to the extent that it relates to longings for something beyond our mundane wants and desires. Altho there may not be a total consensus on which spiritual needs are basic, we think that there is enough to make the concept of a basic spiritual need useful. Any lack of consensus may be more on the differences on highly individual requirements for meeting needs in this area than on what these needs are.

The broadest spiritual needs relate to or are aspects of comprehensive status concerns. The core of this concern is a need for some sense of belonging in the greater scheme of things. For many this involves making sense of the universe, usually in terms of a comprehensive paradigm. Since such a paradigm usually operates in an implicit fashion, most purely spiritual needs are basic but not vital, i.e. behavior is possible without meeting them, altho if unmet life would be spiritually impoverished. However even an implicit comprehensive paradigm can have an impact on almost anything a person does. For the spiritually oriented person even the most mundane actions connect to spiritual purposes, somewhere up the significance ladder (See the idea of ‘Under the aspect of eternity’ Shideler, 1985, Chapter 2). This partially explains the tendency for e.g. the Hasidic community to have spiritual concerns penetrate all mundane activities. As one way to expand on spiritual needs, we suggest seven types of interrelated spiritual needs that we call {sensible universe, spiritual practices, integrated purposes, moral compass, external support, ultimate justice, confronting mortality}.

Sensible Universe: This is the central need met by a comprehensive paradigm, altho aspects of it are often met by limited paradigms. Behavior is impossible in an utterly chaotic and unpredictable universe, so each religion offers a way for making sense of the totality of things. In the case of pure physicalism, the paradigm consists of some physical initiating event, at least for the universe we are in, plus everything that has been accounted for using physical laws that can be scientifically established, plus an IOU for everything that has not yet been so accounted for. For scripture-based adherents of traditional religions, it consists of everything stated in the chosen scripture plus its implications. For others, it includes a faith that we have and can formulate scientific laws or models that help us make sense of the physical world and its evolution. Moreover we can do something similar in relation to human behavior, even if human behavior is not fully determined. The other six spiritual needs could actually be considered as aspects of this one.

Spiritual practices: Images of sages meditating on mountaintops notwithstanding, hardly any person with a spiritual life goes it alone. Even persons of the stature of Theresa of Avila and Francis of Assisi had mentors and followers. One’s spiritual community is the maintainer of spirituality. It also provides for intrinsic spiritual practices. A person lacking intrinsic practices has no way of terminating, even for himself, a chain of questions of the form: “Why did you do that?” Thus intrinsic practices provide a boundary for chains of motivation. Intrinsic spiritual practices might include the singing of hymns or chants, prayer, meditation, or bringing others into the fold.

Integrated Purpose: In a mundane sense, saying that life has no purpose is preposterous. We live immersed in an ocean of purposes. Thus we are not plagued by the scarcity of purposes. Rather it is their overabundance and apparently arbitrary character that troubles us. The spiritual need is how to choose among purposes and actions, and what to do about our tendency to go in many directions or collapse in confusion.

Moral Compass: Altho different religions have different moral guidelines, all stress moral competence in some form. Moral competence includes ethical competence in dealing with others. It also includes having competence in choosing right actions and in living by other significant values. We can expect this competence to be acquired the same way as any other competence, namely by practice and experience in the practices that call for it. Most communities leverage this experience with some kind of guidance toward right living, e.g. a scripture, a trusted spiritual leader, or some kind of internal revelation, perhaps in meditation or prayer. The moral compass can never solve all problems of choice, but it is important that each person not start from square one in matters moral.

External Support: Desire outstrips our personal powers. Altho prayer for forgiveness and other religious practices meet safety needs, they also illustrate the need humans feel to connect with a power beyond our own inadequate powers. Altho assistance of a higher power is not the only way to obtain external support, the need for such assistance has been felt in a wide variety of ways. This need may come in the form of coping with overwhelming problems or potential disasters. The common saying ‘there are no atheist in foxholes’ illustrates this. Prayer is also used to help insure the success of specific enterprises and the realization of specific aspirations. Most important it has been deemed by many as essential for having the life and values of communities and humans rooted in the divine will. Without this, many feel that we not only fail, we perish.

Ultimate Justice: As a man sows, that also shall he reap. This statement is one expression of the way many think an ultimately just world would be. For anyone who has no doubts that the world is ultimately just, the need for ultimate justice has been met. However casual observations suggest that the world may not be ultimately just. The wicked seem to prosper. The good die young. Etc. From this perspective, it is not so much a need for justice that seems to be involved, but a need to not feel that the world is inherently unjust. Thus a need for ultimate justice can still be met by finding a way to believe that underneath all apparent injustice, justice prevails. This is the way normally taken by traditional monotheistic religions. It is also the way taken by religions whose ontology entails reincarnation. Another way is to downplay the personal significance of injustice. Injustices can be regarded as just one type of hazard among many in an uncertain world, many of which are distressing but tolerable. They can even be taken as challenges, as was recommended by stoic philosophers. Social injustices can be taken as case-by-case problems to be solved rather than as ultimate.

Mortality Confrontation Needs: Intertwined with the needs for external support and deliverance from evil, is an awareness of biological death. Altho we may be able to postpone thinking about our own death, most of us will not be able to avoid thinking about the death of others. The need to cope with the death of loved ones is a spiritual need that no purely temporal institution has been able to meet. It is one in which religious practices have had a central role from as far back as we know. Awareness of the death of others confronts us with our own biological mortality. What, if anything, comes after and how does it relate to the life we lived? Consider the concept of reincarnation. Consider the concepts of heaven and hell. The Protestant doctrine of justification by faith and the Catholic sacrament of last rites are indicative of the attitudes that nothing we can do is adequate to insure our safety after our biological death. To cope with this, most humans appeal to some comprehensive paradigm, even if it tells them to fear nothing for they will cease to exist.

Temporal Comprehensive Paradigms: Since these types have a primary focus that is not explicitly spiritual, it should be instructive to see how they might provide some means to satisfy or mute basic spiritual needs. For this purpose consider PP and IR (the Pure Physicalistic Paradigm and the Imperial Roman Paradigm). The main feature of PP is a condescending spiritual tolerance. The main feature of IR is what we might call a broad supportive spiritual tolerance with acceptance of Roman authority as the only crucial limitation. It is this supportive tolerance and the ontology of Roman superiority that makes IR a temporal paradigm. The core of what this entails should be clear from our earlier sketch of these paradigms. Of course by its very nature, any comprehensive paradigm provides a means for satisfaction of the need for a sensible universe, altho how it does so may be suitable for some but not others. Let us examine PP and IR in relation to the other six spiritual needs that we indicated.

Altho IR is not a religion in the traditional sense or as conceptualized above, its ontology supports traditional Roman religious social practices for the Roman community. It also encourages other communities within the empire to engage in religious social practices. Altho PP holds religious practices in disdain, it does support activities that serve the need for at least one spiritual practice. Specifically it holds scientifically acquired knowledge as if it was sacred and rewards community practices that support the advancement of such knowledge.

For a Roman citizen, Roman tradition entails a multitude of social practices that integrate purposes and provide moral compass. Others within the empire have traditions that work in a similar fashion. PP is much narrower in this regard, altho the high regard (and outsiders might even call this worship) for knowledge can be a major factor in integrating the purposes of an adherent. However outside of professional ethics, PP does not entail any moral guidance. Adherents for whom this need is basic are likely to have it satisfied because of traditions in some other community.

For IR, long established traditional institutions and practices also provide religious means for the external support needs. Altho PP does not explicitly focus on these needs, it seems to implicitly hold that they can be met via acceptance and denial. Adherents would claim that the only support we have in meeting external challenges is what we can achieve individually and culturally thru our own endeavors. Moreover while this will not always suffice, we can often progress towards our reasonable goals. They would also say that any belief in the wrath of the higher powers is mere superstition. The evils of disease and natural disaster are not due to the wrath of higher powers, but are natural phenomena whose dangers can be met thru the advancement of science and technology.

For IR, established traditional institutions and practices probably meet the need for ultimate justice, mostly because this need was only seen as a need for social justice and because what we might consider social injustices were not so perceived by the Romans. This is not to say that all Romans thought that there were no social injustices, and in fact there was considerable conflict in the late republic about extending citizenship thru out the Italian peninsula. However the debate was never about the traditions. It was about how to apply them. That justice might apply in a broader sense was probably not a relevant idea in Roman Culture. Again PP is mute about such needs. It seems likely that most adherents would also see the need for ultimate justice as a need for social justice. Most would be likely to view suffering from natural phenomena as not having anything to do with justice.

There are two main ways to confront mortality, namely to either claim or deny that persons continue to exist beyond biological death. This positive claim was supported by most of the religious communities within the Roman Empire, but was not especially relevant to IR. However due to the limited belief by Romans about what aspect of a human might survive death, the emphasis was on this life. This was inherent in the comprehensive paradigms of the Stoics and Epicureans, which easily took root in Roman culture. In fact, Marcus Aurelius was explicit in his belief that there was no survival after death and that the way to live involved accepting this limitation. The ontology of PP adopts a similar attitude towards this need. In fact, PP ontology altho informed by modern physics, has even more in common with the materialistic ontology of Democritus, the forerunner of Epicurus.

Spiritual Values: While the spiritual needs of the individual influence which comprehensive paradigms are going to be viable, once a comprehensive paradigm is in place, it becomes a medium for preserving certain spiritual values.

The concept of a value is taken from Descriptive Psychology. A person’s values are the priorities that a person has the ability to act on. It is easy to see that many of a person’s values can be easily related to that person’s wellbeing as an organism. A value is spiritual to the extent that it focuses on other concerns. To call a value spiritual is only intended to indicate a role that it seems to play. It involves no ontological commitments. A deeper understanding may show that many or all values that seem to relate to other concerns are actually related to bio-wellbeing.

Many hedonic values and prudential values are easily related to bio-wellbeing. Some are so basic that they do not need even have to be acquired. We do not need to learn to positively value comforts and pleasures or the avoidance of pains and discomforts. Likewise, altho specific prudential values are acquired, the tendency to act with regard to some consequences seems to be inherent. Thus once such values are established, many of them have little need of support from a comprehensive paradigm. It is also easy to relate the valuing of conventional and ethical behavior to bio-wellbeing. On the other hand, many of a person’s specific conventional and ethical values are not as easy to relate to that person’s bio-wellbeing. Consider the kind of patriotism that includes dying for one’s country. In fact, values directly related to perceived self-interest are so strong that they may overwhelm other values, and one role of a comprehensive paradigm is to add power to values that seem remote from more immediate concerns.

Children acquire and establish many values in an extremely personal manner. An immediate source of various specific values is the people in their environment. A single experience can be sufficient for acquisition some of these. Give a child candy and a value is likely to be effortlessly established. Establishing numerous other values, even hedonic ones, may involve greater external influence. Altho surrounded by coffee drinkers, a person may never acquire the taste. The influence of others is especially significant in the acquisition of many spiritual values. The persons that children emulate are the sources for these values. These values can be acquired and established without a comprehensive paradigm. They can also receive considerable support without such a paradigm. Nevertheless, the added support from a comprehensive paradigm can provide significant security and stability, and can be extremely useful in rationalizing values when they are questioned. Note that many values, especially the ones less directly related to bio-wellbeing, are packaged and transmitted to future generations by a culture’s stories and sayings.

Altho a comprehensive paradigm may assist in the acquisition of values, its main function with respect to values is to support them. Traditional monotheistic paradigms have performed this function by rooting values in the will of a personal God. This type of support builds on the personal manner in which values are initially acquired and established. Worship gives a positive foundation, acknowledging God’s exalted status. The hedonic and the long-term prudential reasons for trying to act in accordance with the will of God can seem overwhelming, especially if the ontology involves a belief in an afterlife. Pantheistic paradigms also provide powerful hedonic and prudential reasons for acting in harmony with the universal principles, especially when the ontology involves a belief in reincarnation. A comprehensive paradigm that does not provide powerful hedonic or prudential reasons for acting in accordance with what it takes to be important values may need to find an alternative way of supporting these values. Unless there is a major change in the reasons most people have for their actions, this may not be possible.

SECTION 3: FUTURE PROSPECTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PARADIGMS

Scenarios: We first present a few constraints on possible futures, and then follow up with several possible scenarios. We are not promoting or predicting any of these. They are intended to give a feel for the range of possible options and for what forces may push history in which directions.

World Culture: In thinking about future prospects of comprehensive paradigms, we presuppose that the world is becoming sufficiently interrelated to consider most people as members of an emerging worldwide culture, which we will call World Culture. This does not mean that many people are not members of some subcultures with which they more closely identify. In fact, this seems likely to remain the case as long as World Culture is nascent. Nor does it mean that we claim that World Culture will inevitably mature. In fact, none of what we say is intended as predictive. We merely sketch some future scenarios that may seem at least somewhat plausible to some people. We make no judgement about the extent to which any plausibility attitudes are warranted, altho we do discuss some ways these various scenarios may come about and some reasons why they may not. These scenarios focus on the extent to which comprehensive paradigms might be culturally significant or even dominant in World Culture during the 21^st century. They are not intended to include all of those that people find plausible. Our account of this is imaginative rather than empirical. It is intended to illustrate the utility of various concepts in thinking about what people have imagined or might imagine. The purpose is to see how to bring differences into focus. This can serve as a pre-empirical prelude suggesting conjectures for an empirical study of future prospects. It can also provide a perspective for enabling some future possibilities to emerge or hampering the emergence of others.

Culturally Significant Comprehensive Paradigms: A comprehensive paradigm is culturally significant to the extent that it adherents are a community that has a lasting significant influence within the culture. Altho this is an intentionally vague criterion, there are cases that would clearly seem to be included and others that would not. All of the examples that we gave have been highly significant in some culture. The comprehensive paradigm of a cult that was largely disregarded by almost everyone else would not be culturally significant, altho it could be highly significant to its adherents and their relatives. One sign of cultural significance of a comprehensive paradigm is when adherents of others are concerned about its influence and view it as a competitor or threat to their own. However it is conceptually possible to have a multitude of culturally significant non-competitive comprehensive paradigms, as happened within the Roman Empire. Moreover a paradigm can be culturally significant even if a vast majority in the culture is almost completely ignorant about it. For example, most people know little about Logical Positivism, in spite of the impact it has had on philosophy of science and the impact that this has had on Western Culture.

The Present Status of Comprehensive Paradigms: None of the religious paradigms has enough adherents in all parts of the world to be as significant in World Culture as they have been in the cultures from which they emerged. During the 20^th century, religious paradigms have been challenged by physicalistic ones, but adherents of these still form a small minority. No comprehensive paradigm is clearly moving in a direction that most people think will enable it to become dominant in World Culture in the 21^st century. Perhaps this is because something is amiss in all these paradigms. On the other hand, this may be a temporary state of affairs and the signs that might lead us to suspect that not all is well with any them may be misleading. Moreover perhaps a new more ecumenical one could emerge as dominant. Before turning to the scenarios, we recall how the comprehensive paradigm concept relates to values. Our formulation does not demand that a comprehensive paradigm is the source of values, that it provides the reasons for human activities, or that it is the source of social practices and institutions. Altho it may do any of these, its main role is to establish and support important ethical and conventional values by securing-stabilizing-rationalizing them.

Scenario 1 A Traditional Religious Paradigm: While dominant in some subcultures, none of these paradigms is currently dominant in World Culture. In fact, a growing secularism might even suggest that their cultural significance is waning. Nevertheless, this scenario imagines one of them gaining enough adherents to become dominant before the end of the 21^st century.

One way this scenario might occur is if divine forces are guiding humanity in ways beyond our cognizance. If so, then such forces could thrust any paradigm to the center of the World Culture. This possibility will be discounted by anyone with a physicalistic ontology. For many adherents of a traditional religious paradigm, that divine forces are guiding humanity is a certainty, altho they may find different resulting scenarios more or less plausible. However even without divine support, there may be factors that would assist one of these paradigms in becoming culturally more significant, and perhaps in growing towards dominance. Traditional religious paradigms often need a challenge in order to be revitalized. Adherents see what they view as degeneration in their culture, accounting for this by the failure to recognize the eternal truths. To the extent that alternative paradigms are not providing a sense of security and wellbeing, traditional paradigms may gain new adherents. Some adherents of the charismatic version of the Traditional Christian Paradigm claim that it is having such a revival, that in a century it has grown from essentially no adherents to half a billion. They say that it now cuts across all denominations, and that its adherents are growing thruout much of the world.

One reason to doubt this scenario relates to the change in the impact of forces outside of a paradigm. Traditional religious paradigms evolved as dominant in cultures that were so sufficiently self-contained that for the most part the existence of other paradigms did not challenge the stability of any of them. The interaction between adherents of different paradigms has increased significantly and is still increasing, and often at a highly personal level. A growing number of persons cannot avoid having a high level of awareness of the fact that only a minority of the world’s population shares their paradigm. This provides several types of challenges. When interacting personally with others that we respect, we may think their paradigms are misguided at a fundamental level, but it is difficult not to actually interact as if the differences do not really matter. This can lead in practice to a fuzzy kind of implicit relativism in which adherents are somewhat less inclined to think of their own paradigm as the only correct one. At a more pervasive level, traditional paradigms are hard to maintain in a secular pluralistic society. Altho mere secularism may not provide an alternative paradigm, it influences behavior and social practices in ways that undermine those deemed crucial to traditional paradigms, especially when much of the media has a negative attitude towards these paradigms. Moreover institutions of higher education are strongly influenced by adherents of physicalistic paradigms. While adherents of a traditional paradigm may hold fast, it is not as easy to pass the paradigm on to their children. Physicalism may appear to rest on scientific authority, and most of its adherents ignore rather than debate other beliefs, which they regard as rooted in superstition. Being ignored can be even more damaging than being attacked.

Scenario 2 A Composite Traditional Religious Paradigms: This scenario was suggested by the Grand Tour novels of Ben Bova, and especially in Saturn. He imagines a state of affairs in which the main traditional religious paradigms see themselves as versions of a composite traditional religious paradigm. This paradigm becomes dominant on earth.

The main factor bringing about this state of affairs is a social crisis due to a number of disasters due to global warming. This is seen by various traditional religions as the result of an unbridled freedom of thought and the unchecked influence of godless science. To combat the common enemy of secularism, they put aside their differences and unite politically. This political alliance results in a muting of doctrinal differences. Instead of doing away with such differences, they downplay the importance once assigned to them. The barriers to a specific traditional paradigm becoming dominant might even work in favor of one like the one.

If this scenario seems implausible, consider the dispute about baptism once considered so important. Many Baptist may still believe that immersion is the only correct way, but few of them think that infant baptism is a serious offense to God. Moreover political considerations can mute doctrinal difference, or at least make them seem irrelevant for political purposes. Before the last half of the 20^th century, having a Catholic president of the United States was an anathema to many voters. Now most people would ignore such a concern.

One of the main reasons to doubt the occurrence of any scenario of this type is that traditional religious paradigms usually emphasize doctrines and consider core beliefs and practices as central. Thus even if something like the state of affairs imagine here emerged, it might remain a political alliance tolerating doctrinal difference rather than it being a comprehensive paradigm. The Traditional Christian Paradigm makes belief in salvation thru belief in Jesus so central that its adherents might find it impossible to regard their paradigm as a version of some composite one that includes versions that do not accept this belief. This doctrine may be harder to mute than doctrinal differences among traditional Christians. A similar remark applies to beliefs of the Traditional Islamic Paradigm and of the Traditional Hindu Paradigm. On the other hand, there was a time when Catholics were considered idolaters by Protestants and Protestants were considered heretics by Catholics. Moreover there are traditional Christians who believe that God has a special plan for saving Jews because they are his people. As more people with incompatible paradigms interact productively, their doctrines often have a tendency to shift. It is hard to actively believe that friends and trusted associates will be damned. Could a doctrinal modification giving everyone the option of accepting Christ at judgement be justified as biblical (as was universal salvation by Universalists)? Could there be some major doctrinal shifts in other traditional religious paradigms? If so, could one result be a traditional comprehensive paradigm that was a composite of the main traditional religious paradigms?

Scenario 3 The Pure Physicalistic Paradigms: Physicalistic paradigms have never had wide public appeal. Even in secular cultures, most people do not seem inclined to embrace such paradigms. Nonetheless, this scenario supposes that the Pure Physicalistic Paradigm grows in cultural significance during in the 21^st century. It also assumes that it does not come close to dominance and that its growing cultural significance is due to an implicit acceptance of some of it features by more people, rather than thru an increase in active adherents. In particular, by aligning itself with the prestige of science it continues to have an impact on institutions far beyond what might be expected from the number of its active adherents. In fact, this would seem to be what many fear, believing that its insidious influence will undermine faith in revealed truths, especially for the younger generation.

One limitation of this paradigm is that its core includes only an epistemology and an ontology rooted in this epistemology. It focuses much more on how we obtain knowledge than on any other aspect of human activity. Altho knowledge may be of central importance in intellectual communities, the focus of traditional paradigms has been more on evaluating and prescribing than on knowing. This focus is an essential to them, being the most important part for maintaining cultural stability. Social practices and institutions are organized around the rationale and support the paradigm provides for them. This is one reason why the Purely Physicalistic Paradigm may be unlikely to have much appeal outside of intellectual communities, inhibiting the growth of its cultural significance. Moreover with a primarily physicalist emphasis, human activity may seem like an insignificant feature in a vast universe. This is the theme of A Free Man’s Worship by Bertrand Russell. What is man to do in such a universe? While Russell has a personal answer, it is rooted in his ideals, which do not follow from his ontology or his epistemology. In general, adherents of a physicalistic paradigm often share many values that do not relate directly to the paradigm. They merely come from somewhere other than its core. Perhaps this is because these values are emerging from the common aspects of the human experience. Perhaps it is because the influence of traditional paradigms has a major impact even on those who do not except the core of those paradigms. We know that many of our own values were acquired in childhood, and that their evolution took place in reaction to values supported by the Traditional Christian Paradigm.

In spite of the Purely Physicalistic Paradigm having promulgated an epistemology that is primarily a philosophy of science, its epistemology can be applied to any science. This has had considerable influence in the behavioral sciences. These have focused on understanding human activity in ways that were often claimed to be value neutral. To the extent that this approach is value neutral and has significant results, the cultural significance of this paradigm may continue to grow. On the other hand, even if a value neutral perspective explains much of what we do, it does not provide a foundation for deciding what values to accept and foster. Altho this paradigm provides ways for thinking about human activity, its core is ill equipped for evaluating human activity. Nor are most social practices and institutions organized around its core components. Moreover these components do not provide a rationale or support for social practices and institutions and a means for making judgments about them.

Even the endeavors that adherents of physicalistic paradigms have made in the area of ethics may seem far from the concerns of traditional ethics. Questions such as ‘Why should we do what is right?’ and ‘Can an obligation be derived from a fact?’ indicate a predilection towards metaethics rather than normative ethics. This is certainly the focus of Stevenson. He is a logical positivist who concluded that ethical language was emotive rather than cognitive. In essence, he claims that saying “X is good” is a way of indicating a positive attitude towards X by using a language that is intended to produce a similar attitude in others. This analysis of ethical language seems unlikely to gain broad appeal. To the extent that an epistemology gleaned from the physical sciences fails expectations elsewhere, the prestige of the Pure Physicalistic Paradigm may begin to decline.

An augmented physicalistic paradigm can have core components that provide a foundation for values and criteria for making value judgments about human activity. In a case such as Marxism, these can be highly prescriptive, including an extensive rationale for judging social practices and institutions. Many of its adherents expected it to dominate the world, and even its opponents viewed it as a threat. However in spite of its significant cultural impact on the world during the 20^th century and its hold on power in the Soviet Union, it lasted as a major social force in the Soviet Union for less than a century. Even under a communist government, dialectical materialism was not what provided unity and stability to Soviet Society. It was never effectively internalized by a sufficient number of ordinary people. Altho Marxism may seem likely to fade in cultural significance in the 21^st century, perhaps some other augmented physicalistic paradigm will become culturally significant. Marxism’s foundation for values is dialectical materialism and its implications of historical necessity. This foundation does not come from any personal source, and it does not provide strong prudential reasons for personal action. Historical necessity did not provide a rationale for human activity that had broad appeal. While being on the side of history may have a strong abstract appeal for some persons, for most it did not effectively compete with self-interest. It is hard for us to imagine that the act of hiding grain for personal use would inspire much guilt in the typical farmer merely because it is contrary to the movement of history. Any augmented physicalistic paradigm is likely to have a similar problem in gaining a very large number of active adherents.

Scenario 4 The Non-Doctrinal Religious Paradigm: This scenario supposes that the Non-Doctrinal Religious Paradigm grows in cultural significance during in the 21^st century, altho not coming close to dominance. This comes about primarily because secularism undermines traditional religious paradigms and the physicalistic ones seem too impersonal. Unlike physicalistic paradigms, the Non-Doctrinal Religious Paradigm provides a long-standing foundation for values, namely it recognizes the common values of the world’s great religions as having an objective foundation. Since the epistemic component for dealing with such matters has not been formulated, the ontology for this paradigm is fuzzy, and many of its adherents see no reason for its clarification. Thus it can accommodate persons with opposite ontological beliefs, as long as they are ontologically tolerant. What it cannot do is make authoritative judgments about value disputes among adherents. It has no authority to which it can appeal, and it has no agreed upon epistemology. To the extent that the people come to feel less of a need for consensus, this could be an advantage in a secular multicultural society.

Altho the Non-Doctrinal Religious Paradigm provides a long-standing foundation for spiritual values, it does so without focusing on a personal god or some form of afterlife that provides strong hedonic and prudential reasons for acting in terms of these values. Instead it claims that only by embracing higher values can a person achieve real personal fulfillment. This claim is hard to make precise, and the evidence for it may seem questionable to many people. Altho the ideal of being “fully human” as exemplified by say, Jesus, Buddha, or Mohammed, is a reason that some find suitable, it has yet to become an ideal that is powerfully motivating to most people. It may appear to leave the main support for important values dependent on the human ability to transcend narrow self-centered values primarily for idealistic reasons. This is one reason to doubt that the Non-Doctrinal Religious Paradigm can become dominant or even significantly increase its cultural significance in the 21^st century.

During the 19^th century the Quakers and Unitarians were non-doctrinal. They never attained the number of adherents that doctrinaire version of Christianity had, and lack of doctrine may have been a major reason. Likewise, altho the openness of the Non-Doctrinal Religious Paradigm allows it to accommodate itself to persons from diverse backgrounds, this has not yet given it an advantage over traditional paradigms. It is hard to tell whether not having a strict doctrine will be an asset or liability to a paradigm in the 21^st century. In fact, altho a version of this paradigm spread thru the clergy in many Protestant mainline denominations, it was strongly opposed by others who felt that doctrine was essential. Even in churches with non-doctrinal pastors, many of the members held to their traditional doctrines. Those of the laity who were comfortable with the non-doctrinal stance of their clergy tended to be those for whom only the ethical aspects of their faith were essential. Altho this may change, there currently seems to be a decline in the influence of the Christian version of this paradigm. Furthermore, we see no evidence that other versions of the Non-Doctrinal Religious Paradigm are growing. Nor do we see signs of a growing sense of unity among them. In general, this paradigm lacks some of the evangelical fervor of the traditional religious paradigms, and this is the one reason that it may not significantly increase its cultural significance anytime in the near future. Altho in the past evangelistic fervor may have been grounded in doctrine, this is not its only source. Adherents of a paradigm may also feel a strong desire to promote what they consider as more enlightened social practices and institutions. What may be lacking without doctrine is any ontological rationale for such endeavors. As with a strict doctrine, it is hard to decide whether the lack of a strict ontology will be an asset or liability to a paradigm in the future. Perhaps the ideal of being fully human could provide a better support. This ideal is certainly compatible with most other comprehensive paradigms, and if it increases as a significant common ideal it may mute some doctrinal differences. To the extent that this occurs, the prospects for the cultural significance of the Non-Doctrinal Religious Paradigm may be enhanced. We will have more to say about the idea of fully human in the next section.

Scenario 5 Individualistic Comprehensive Paradigms: This scenario supposes that comprehensive paradigms become more individualistic and fade in cultural significance during in the 21^st century. At least two factors are involved, the development of conceptual networks that transcend comprehensive paradigms and trends towards life styles that ignore comprehensive paradigms altogether.

The first of these factors requires conceptual tools, such as Descriptive psychology, that could enable adherents of different paradigms to bring both their own paradigms and the paradigms of others into better focus. Altho this could result in a sharpening of differences, with good will, it could also have a positive effect on mutual understanding. Moreover as remarked in Scenario 1, as interaction among adherents of different paradigms increases, many people decide that the differences do not really matter. There is a growing tendency to regard many values as a personal matter, at least as long as temporal matters can be settled by prudential negotiations and consensus. Interdependence could result in a greater need for communication, which would encourage further development of conceptual networks that were independent of any comprehensive paradigm.

The impact of the second factor depends on the life styles that take hold. For example, some people think there is a trend among young people towards a life style that could be classified as ordinary materialism. One version of this life style embraces short-run gratification, ignores religion, encourages narcissism, and fosters greed and cynical attitudes. One reason this scenario might develop could be due to a growing secularism. A culture that is affluent enough to support an ordinary materialistic life style for its members might enable them to mute their spiritual needs. As remarked earlier, such needs may be basic but they are not vital, as are some temporal needs. Altho adherents of most comprehensive paradigms might think that life and behavior potential without meeting spiritual needs would be impoverished in many ways, an individual can survive by ignoring spiritual needs. Whether a culture can survive if most of its members ignore spiritual needs is more debatable.

One reason many people may have for doubting the plausibility of such a scenario is a lack of historical precedents for viable cultures that works this way. Many people may retain traditional paradigms that claim that any culture not founded on eternal truths must degenerate.

We consider Scenario 5 in more detail in the next section, concluding this paper by reflecting on the two main alternatives we can imagine with respect to this scenario. These scenarios and many others seem possible. Many of the possible scenarios involve the simultaneous popularity of differing comprehensive paradigms. To what extent can this coexistence be achieved peacefully?

SECTION 4: COEXISTENCE OF DIFFERENT COMPREHENSIVE PARADIGMS

Obstacles to Coexistence: How can disparate comprehensive paradigms coexist within the same society? The US was founded with the assumption that this was possible for religious ones. That assumption was controversial then, and even today in many countries religious groups seem to be trying to prove otherwise. This section considers where the obstacles lie, suggest some countermeasures, and indicate a number of areas that need not be problematic.

First note that under consideration are different relational problems than those that arise between church and state (Singer and Zeiger 2006). The state has a unique position, with special eligibilities in areas like, for example, public safety. For our purposes here, the contention among comprehensive paradigms is a contest of equals – judgments concerning the superiority or inferiority of different paradigms will not be considered. Our approach will to review how comprehensive paradigms relate to spiritual needs and values, together with the opportunities each provides for collision with other paradigms. Altho possible resolutions exist for each of these collisions, all fail without a certain minimum amount of social cohesion in the society. We first consider how this cohesion may be trumped by principles that individuals may hold more dear.

In general, it seems that social utility, while considered in significant value debates, is seldom the only crucial concern. Observing a debate on cloning, it seems apparent that no amount of evidence about effects on society would sway either side. Something deeper is involved in this and other disputes involving deeply held principles. There seems to be a human tendency to treat some of their values as sacrosanct. Adherents of a traditional paradigm appeal to their ontology as a secure and immutable foundation for these values. Internal disputes become arguments using epistemological criteria of the paradigm. Adherents of other paradigms may feel just as strongly about some of their spiritual values, but it is not always clear about how the paradigm relates to these feelings. There are persons who embrace physicalistic paradigms and who acknowledge relativism with regard to values. Since they still react as if some values are sacred, perhaps this is merely an intellectual relativism. When it comes to some such values, their emotional commitments are just as deep as the commitments of adherents of traditional paradigms.

In order to bring the limitations of social utility criteria into sharper focus, imagine a debate between Jo and Bo about X, where X is a proposal for exploring for oil in ANWAR. Suppose that both are adherents of physicalistic paradigms, but that they place radically different priorities on two values relevant to this debate. These values are easy to name, altho what they entail may not be very precise. Jo places a high priority on preservation of the environment. Bo places a much stronger priority on maintaining an adequate standard of living and on extending its availability thruout the world. Bo argues for X on ground of economic necessity. Jo counters with the claim that all the oil expected would have only minimal effect on the worlds oil supply. Altho they may go back and forth about factual matters, these are not at the heart of their disagreement. Jo cannot afford to be convinced that an adequate standard of living thruout the world can only be obtained by radically altering the environment in ways that she deems unacceptable. Even if she could, she would place a higher priority over preservation of the environment. Likewise, Bo feels that a while X alone is not sufficient, opposition to X is just one of many attempts to place environmental issues over concern for humanity. The information relevant to such matters is vast and complex, and it is easy for either to argue that their position is best for society. Each of them is likely to give more weight to whatever supports their own attitude. Ultimately neither Bo nor Jo can treat the difference in these values as a matter of personal preference or social utility. Something deeper is involved, even if we cannot articulate how it relates to their comprehensive paradigms. In fact, the same disagreement could occur just as easily if Jo and Bo were adherents of some other type of paradigm.

In the days when there were self-contained cultures with a single dominant paradigm, disagreements about crucial values were less likely to occur. When they did the paradigm usually provided the tools for resolving them. Without a single dominant paradigm in a culture, the differences in sacrosanct values of influential groups are more likely give rise to passionate disagreement. Altho stabilizing social practices may provide at least a pragmatic way of handling these disagreements, each pragmatic solution that goes against the sacrosanct values of some group tends to lessen that group’s commitment to these institutions. It is also likely to lead passionate adherents to demonize those with opposing value commitments. For those whose attitudes are in a formative stage, the result may be confusion about values and feelings of alienation. Given the assumption that the need for secure values is deep, and given the difficulty of maintaining them in a culture with competing paradigms, this could be a prelude to a cultural breakdown. We find it at least somewhat plausible that, in spite of a multitude of stabilizing social practices, this could be the case in Western Culture. World Culture has not yet established potent stabilizing institutions and social practices, so we find it even more plausible that a breakdown of the emerging World Culture could occur. Given the interrelated character of the world, perhaps this could spill over to a breakdown of many regional cultures.

So much for general social considerations, now here are the possibilities for conflict that are specific to particular spiritual needs. Considerations of politics and power aside, religions exist primarily to provide community support for meeting the spiritual needs of their followers. For purposes of this discussion, we will consider four of the seven categories listed in Section 2: spiritual practices, mortality confrontation, sensible universe, and moral compass.

Spiritual Practices: Religions provide practices that members typically find rewarding: prayer, communion, chanting, meditation, etc. These are for the most part practiced within the confines of the community, thus presenting no problems outside it. But there are a few exceptions. One is practices that are expressly forbidden by some other segment of society, e.g. human or animal sacrifice. Another is practices that require one or more holidays (so that if a society sanctioned them for all religions, there would be an unduly sort work year). A third is proselytizing. A fourth is that a religion might demand universal conformity, only one community and only its practices. This can also be the case for a comprehensive paradigm that is not a religion, for instance consider Marxism.

For these situations, the state is the natural arbiter of where the boundaries on acceptable practices lie. The most troublesome case can be proselytizing. Many communities do not take kindly to other communities luring away their members; Islamic law explicitly forbids it (away from Islam; toward it is another matter). Yet for some, proselytizing is a core practice of the community! One possible resolution of this situation could be a kind of Geneva accord: persons happy with their religion (or lack of it) are not to be bothered, while those on the market for a religion are fair game. Another approach would be to permit proselytizing freely, depending on individuals to protect themselves appropriately. Laws of the state governing harassment might limit proselytizing behaviors under this option. None of these resolutions is likely to work in the face of one paradigm’s demand for universal conformity.

Mortality Confrontation: One of the extraordinary challenges that we all face is to confront our own mortality. A substantial opportunity for conflict among religions occurs when a particular community’s beliefs about life after death motivate its members to convert others as the only way those others can avoid eternal torment. This is a case where contrasting comprehensive paradigms can combine with a universal ethical principle – compassion – to cause trouble. This need can also cause problems if the existence of contrary beliefs raises doubts about the security offered by one’s own paradigm.

Sensible Universe: This is the area with the most opportunity for conflict. Behavior is impossible in an utterly chaotic and unpredictable universe, so each religion is a comprehensive paradigm for making sense of the totality of things. In the past, when people with disparate paradigms were physically isolated from each other, these differences caused little trouble. Now, with everyone elbow-to-elbow with everyone else, the disparate paradigms provide numerous opportunities to shock each other’s believers. Why can’t we just leave each other’s paradigms alone? In a very large number of situations we can. For example, American Quakers and Tibetan Buddhists could cooperate in running a nursing home based on their shared value of compassion, without being concerned about their disparate paradigms. But there is always the possibility of a disagreement over the appropriate action in a given situation, and in such a case, the contenders might appeal up what Descriptive Psychology calls the Justification Ladder (Shideler 1988 p81) to custom and theory. And the theories appealed to will typically be parts of disparate paradigms. Trying to change each other’s paradigms has a long and well-documented historical record of dismal (and often bloody) failure. Often a more realistic approach is to commit to sharing society (and the current task) with those espousing other paradigms; and then try to find a course of action that is at least not forbidden by any of the contending paradigms. That brings us to the last, and most troublesome, area of possible contention.

Moral Compass: There is good news here. If you compare the ethical prescriptions of some religions: the Ten Commandments for Judaism, the Yamas and Niyamas for Hinduism, and the Sharia for Islam, one is first struck by the degree of similarity among the basics: golden rule, non-violence, compassion, honesty, fair dealing, etc. This speaks well for peaceful coexistence of their members. But closer examination also reveals bad news: rules idiosyncratic to one religion, rules that promote harsh treatment of outsiders, rules contrary to the principles of humanistic societies, etc. These disagreements are particularly destructive to coexistence because of the likelihood that one religion will prohibit a course of action that is required by another. The same can be said with respect to some comprehensive paradigms that are not religions. The available tools for dealing with such situations include:

Mediation by the state

Negotiation to maximize the shared areas of the contending paradigms

Bargaining among the groups involved to reach a course of action that all can live with.

(For detail on “negotiation” and “bargaining”, (Shideler 1988 p80))

Note: A lot of information about the ethics of a community is carried, not in its explicit rules, which are typically only useful in fairly clear-cut situations, but in its stories, which capture trickier situations and higher levels of significance. Therefore a positive step in cross-community cooperation is to understand and appreciate each other’s stories. One of the major things they illustrate is a certain amount of agreement in what it means to be fully human. Later we will develop this component of being “fully human”, with indirect implications for values and moral compass.

So much for potential conflicts specific to particular spiritual needs, now for some general resources that might be brought into play on the side of peaceful coexistence.

Comprehensive Nets: To be a comprehensive conceptual net, the realm of interest for the net must include everything. Moreover the conceptual distinctions or the methods for formulating them must be sufficient to formulate any propositional claims made by any currently available comprehensive paradigm. Comprehensive nets differ from paradigms in many ways. However they might have the potential to serve some of the roles comprehensive paradigms once played. They have concepts for thinking about what the world is like, but without debatable ontological commitments. They have concepts for considering epistemologies rather than epistemological beliefs. They include an extensive net for thinking about values and human activity and social practices and institutions. However they do

not have prescriptive implications for personal behavior norms, nor do they provide a means for making value judgments. This does not mean that persons using such a net have no beliefs about such matters, and it certainly does not mean that they have no values. It means that these are not part of the net. Since a comprehensive net involves only beliefs rooted in the core of our common vital knowledge as persons, the only thing to be challenged are its utility and its conceptual adequacy. This should be welcomed by anyone using such a net to bring a paradigm into better focus. Moreover an adequate comprehensive net should include all concepts needed to understand any comprehensive paradigm.

We are not aware of any comprehensive net that is used by any major community. Peter Ossorio developed a net now used by The Society For Descriptive Psychology that is intended to be comprehensive, altho the name ‘Descriptive Psychology’ might suggest otherwise. Shideler (1988) provides an overview of this net, and on page 180 she indicates how it is intended to be comprehensive. Her comment is quoted in Singer (2007b), which is on the Descriptive Psychology section of conceptualstudy.org. Just search for page 180.

Even a person without a comprehensive paradigm will have been influenced by comprehensive paradigms that are still culturally significant. Thus such a person may experience discomfort when using only a comprehensive net to reflect on spiritual value, wishing for something beyond this. A net provides ways of thinking and talking about spiritual values, but no support and grounding for them. Perhaps external support and grounding for one’s spiritual values is a basic human need, in which case comprehensive nets will never be an adequate replacement for comprehensive paradigms. On the other hand the desire for such grounding may be merely a residue effect due to the prevalent influence of traditional paradigms. If so, those without a comprehensive paradigm may find that they need only their own inner resources to support and ground their values. A grounding perspective between ultimately internal and ultimately external is also available, namely a flexible set of values rooted in some shared notion of what is entailed in being fully human. Perhaps all three types of perspective could coexist, as we shall discuss later. As a prelude, and having already considered the perspective on values taken by traditional comprehensive paradigms, we consider the ultimately internal perspective and the fully human perspective.

An Ultimately Internal Perspective: Altho persons acquire criteria for judging what they do thru their participation in social practices and thus tend to look beyond themselves for such criteria, they might still decide to look within for these criteria and choose not have any external grounding for what they do. They might embrace an attitude that takes all rules for how to evaluate their actions as tentative, an attitude that welcomes a radical incompleteness in the criteria for choosing what to do, what to become, what to create. This would involve embracing uncertainty and incompleteness, not only because of their limited perspective, but because they entertain highly pluralistic images of what the world is like and where they stand in the greater scheme of things. This position might involve doubts about the immutability of anything. Perhaps the universe does not proceed according to fixed laws or principles, because even these may evolve. Maybe there is no deep human need for a fixed ontology and a fixed epistemology, and the influence of comprehensive paradigms may decline without being missed by most people in the 21^st century.

The Fully Human Perspective: Competence in acting on the concept of person, as articulated in Descriptive Psychology, constitutes a kind of litmus test for personhood. If a robot or an alien clearly demonstrated that competence, we would take seriously the question of whether it should be granted the status of person in our human society. Human children typically are demonstrating this competence by age five, thus showing that they have reached a kind of first stage of eligibility in being treated like a person.

Most of the statuses in a society carry with them the notion of accomplishment in that status. We describe a person as an accomplished physician, musician, actor, mother, gardener, soldier, etc. How about accomplishment at being a person? Does the notion make any sense? We propose that not only does the notion make sense, but that every culture and every religion seems to have a, perhaps implicit, notion of “skilful person” – someone who is skilful at the broad status of person, in all its complexities. Real personages Jesus and Siddhartha, spring to mind, as well as protagonists of various epics: Rama, Arjuna, Lemminkainen. Perhaps even more telling are the exceptions that prove the rule, protagonists in tragedies, who illuminate skilful personhood by enacting a lack of some of its characteristics: Macbeth, Othello, Agamemnon. Closer to the present, spiritual and even political leaders are expected to evidence a certain degree of this skill, and are held to a higher standard than the person on the street.

What personal characteristics show up in this skill? How does it vary with culture? Are there any culture-free constituents? A basic culture-free constituent was mentioned above – competence in acting on the concept of person. At the other extreme lies competence in acting out the ethical choice principles of a culture – they vary substantially from culture to culture. (E.g. Rama and Lemminkainen display contrasting norms for truth-telling and for sexual behavior.) But under this variability lies a certain constancy: good judgment in balancing the ethical, esthetic, prudential, and hedonic considerations as seen by the person’s native culture, and more importantly, good judgment about when and how to break the rules (Jesus being a good example). This skill also reflects competence at using the justification ladder (Ref given earlier), and in often going beyond custom, principal, and theory directly to competence, the hallmark of a skilful person. Another characteristic only moderately sensitive to culture is emotional competence: having the right emotion under the right circumstances (fear when in danger, anger when provoked, etc.) and responding appropriately (perhaps even creatively) in a timely manner. And finally (for now) there is basic wisdom – knowledge about how the world works, tempered by an appreciation of its real uncertainties.

So much for the image of the individual generally skilled in personhood. How about the rest of us? How can we expect our skill to vary over our lifetimes? How much are we born with? Like any other skill there appears to be a combination of nature and nurture at work, but nurture is definitely important. Witness the very common cultural phenomenon of accreditation ceremonies to the status of adult (Bar Mitzva, Confirmation, etc.). It is also reasonable to expect a society embracing universal education to provide a component of education in skill as a person, for example, that used to be one of the main aims of a liberal education.

Let us close this comment with a sketch of two of the world’s currently unsolved problems regarding skill as a person:

1. For any country, what constituents of skill as a person to incorporate into the system of universal education, and what level of mastery to demand?

In the past, a time of more coherent cultures, this kind of education was implicit in growing up. In the US today, with multiculturalism and an education system designed in a day when it didn’t have to include skill as a person, some of us fear a damaging decline of that skill. Getting the appropriate training into the system requires figuring out how to teach skill as a person at all, and doing so in a way that denigrates nobody’s morality. Descriptive Psychology can help with both of those.

2. Similarly, for any religion, to what degree to encourage the emergence of new spiritual masters?

Here there is no question that skill as a person is on the educational plate. The problem is whether some level of mastery should be rewarded with some kind of advanced religious status. Among the Christian Apostles, John leaned toward no, Thomas toward yes. Among the Muslims, the Taliban lean toward no, the Sufis toward yes, Among Hindus and Buddhists, most conservatives lean toward no, Tantrics toward yes.

Pluralism and Tolerance: Traditional paradigms emerged as dominant in slowly changing cultures, where they functioned as a support for fixed values and as a rationale for rigid social practices and institutions. This may not be a useful function in World Culture if it is rapidly evolving and pluralistic. Perhaps the main reason that persons have stable spiritual values is because without them they would feel insecure. Almost everyone has criteria for making value judgments about human activity, and altho people with radically different paradigms may differ, they can often agree about many such judgments. Even highly spiritual values can be acquired and maintained without the support of a comprehensive paradigm. Perhaps all the values needed for social stability would better evolve if they were seen not to be dependent on any particular paradigm. If so, the role comprehensive paradigms have in supporting values are not as important as it might seem from examining the role they had previously played. In the future, it may not be possible to resolve differences by an appeal to some comprehensive paradigm, but many may still be resolved well enough for social stability. Tolerance is a value that does not depend on any particular paradigm, and it could be a sufficient stabilizing value if it were widely adopted. It would be expected that individuals would differ in their rationale for important stabilizing values and that differences about any spiritual values that did not interfere with these stabilizing ones would be expected, just as we expect people to differ in many of their hedonic and prudential values. However tolerance is not essential to social stability. With a single dominant paradigm, intolerance can be socially stabilizing.

Conclusions:

Imposing a single comprehensive paradigm has an unsavory history.

Maintaining a multi-paradigm society is possible, but requires:

Consensus on commitment to doing so,

State arbitration that is:

Equitable and

Minimal in its impositions on the various comprehensive paradigms, and

Agreement by the followers of the different paradigms to cede sovereignty over limited areas of human interaction to the state

Skills in negotiation and bargaining by representatives of the various sub-communities

And (we hope) some of the ways of talking practiced in this paper may be helpful.

References: Formulations of most of the concepts from Descriptive Psychology that are used in this paper can be found in the Concept Dictionary-Encyclopedia on the Descriptive Psychology section of conceptualstudy.org. For a comprehensive introduction to these concepts, see Persons, Behavior, and the World, by Mary Shideler. For a deeper perspective, see various books from the collected works of Peter Ossorio. The Behavior of Person covers all the material in Shideler, but with nuances, she does not consider. More about Descriptive Psychology and its applications are developed in the series Advances in Descriptive Psychology. These books can be ordered from the Society for Descriptive Psychology website sdp.org.

Bova, Ben (2003) Saturn. New York: Tor

McCullough, Colleen (1990) The First Man In Rome. New York: Avon Books

Kuhn, Thomas (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Ossorio, Peter (1998) Place. Ann Arbor MI: Descriptive Psychology Press

Ossorio, Peter (2006) The Behavior of Persons. Ann Arbor MI: Descriptive Psychology Press

Shideler, Mary (1985) In Search of the Spirit: a primer. New York: Ballantine Books.

Shideler, Mary (1988) Persons, behavior, and the world. New York: University Press of America

Shideler, Mary (1992) Spirituality

Internet References

Pajares, Frank; Outline and Study Guide for Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/Kuhn.

Russell, Bertrand (1903) A Free Man’s Worship. http://www.users.drew.edu/%7Ejlenz/fmw.html

Singer F. Richard III (2007a) Comprehensive Paradigm Shifts, conceptualstudy.org in the Conceptual Papers Section.

Singer F. Richard III (2007b) The Potential Impact of Descriptive Psychology, conceptualstudy.org in the Descriptive Psychology Section.

Singer, F Richard III and Zeiger, H Paul (2006) Church and State as Semicultures, conceptualstudy.org in the Descriptive Psychology Section.