The overall experience is definitely something I recognize, it's the thing that Works (when it Works) when I go to shul.
And, due to who I am as a person, I'm also reminded of Bujold quotes:
"You are what you do. Choose again, and change."
"Events may be horrible or inescapable. Men have always a choice—if not whether, then how, they may endure."
"You go on. You just go on. There's nothing more to it, and there's no trick to make it easier. You just go on."
"What do you find on the other side? When you go on?"
She shrugged. "Your life again. What else?"
"Is that a promise?"
She picked up a pebble, fingered it, and tossed it into the water. The moon-lines bloomed and danced. "It's an inevitability. No trick. No choice. You just go on."
I followed a similar path — starting with Edith Hamilton's Greek Myths at a young age and including The Screwtape Letters but omitting space cobras — although I ended up a Bad Buddhist instead of returning to the practice of my great x6 grandparents who emigrated to the Penn colony. Thanks for describing how Quaker practice works in your experience.
This is perfectly timed for me - on the way home from celebrating Christmas with my family, my brother and I got into a conversation about religion/faith, and I remember saying that I suspect a lot of things can be explained by people coming in brief contact with the Divine (which I think of very similarly to how you describe the Inner Light here), having the immediate and powerful conviction that "the most important thing in my life is Getting Whatever-This-Is Right", and then making the subtle-but-critical error of assuming that the way to get it right was by getting very concerned about the properties and classifications of it rather than acting in accordance with it.
It's probably relevant to this that we were both raised Lutheran, a denomination that skews unusually orthodoxic even among Christians, a preoccupation dating back to its origins (Martin Luther becoming so frustrated with late medieval Catholicism's vibe-coded theological practices that he not only obsessively studied, but literally retranslated the bible in the conviction that the main obstacle between people and God was that nobody had properly explained Him to them). I also, when I was a very different sort of person, completed a substantial amount of the training necessary to become a Lutheran minister, a process that involves studying the approved and rejected doctrines of Lutheranism in a level of detail that few non-academics ever bother with. If you're hoping I'm about to tell the standard "the more I studied what we believed, the more I realized it was nonsense" deconversion narrative, I will have to disappoint; what actually happened is that the seminary suspected I was autistic, and removed me from the ministerial program out of the belief that autistic people were incapable of the level of interpersonal skills necessary for parish work.
I believe I've experienced the Inner Light - it matches something I used to describe as "the voice of God" and think of as a kind of spiritual flow-state, and I also used to think of it as a self-evident proof of the reality of God (though I no longer do). I used to experience it fairly regularly; I still do from time to time, but it's definitely more sporadic than it used to be. I also know a small number of people who seem to me to be experiencing something like it some-or-all of the time, including, funnily enough, my brother.
Any particular Introduction to Quakerism books you would recommend? Or any particular histories -- what led you to believe the Quakers have been right about almost every major moral question of the past several centuries?
Preface that this comment is not intended to denigrate your spiritual practices, or what works for your needs. I'm engaging with the implicit factual claims like an annoying rationalist.
I'm very skeptical that the always-living-from-their-Inner-Light people are being described accurately. First because it's easy to perceive that others are living idyllic lives on the outside, when they actually have severe personal problems that are either successfully hidden, or less salient to you because they're not problems you struggle with. More importantly, because while you assert these people are constantly accessing a similar state of mind as you do through Quakerism, I don't see any connection between the phenomena.
The more parsimonious explanation is that some people are kind and content by disposition, and changing yourself to become similar to them is about as difficult as changing any personality trait. Not impossible, but unlikely to be achieved, and usually a poor use of time. The existence of such people is not a good advertisement for Quakerism as a self-improvement practice, nor do they offer evidence "Inner Light" is a useful construct for understanding reality.
And on the topic of Inner Light as a construct, insofar as it claims all or even most people would find the fundamental desire to be universally kind, forgiving, humble, etc., if they looked deep down, I disagree. I think the desires to be zero-sum competitive, tough, aggressive, status-seeking, etc. are just as fundamental, and depending on your culture, may be more in line with your values. (If the claim instead is that there is some distinct state of mind that comes with a set of values that may not match your own, why would anyone seek it out? If the Inner Light can manifest to match any person's values, including ones that you, Ozy, believe are bad, then how can it even be a secret to goodness?)
As someone with various virtues who has experienced neither the Inner Light nor the drive to be competitive, tough, aggressive, or status-seeking.... I think Ozy is just describing how he thinks Inner Light tends to work, not saying that it is accessible "deep down" or to everyone.
I don't think a human's values are necessarily constant. It's plausible to me that a man of selfishness and vice could have a spiritual experience and "see the light"--in that moment seeing the value in a different set of values, so to speak, and, for reasons involving neurotransmitters, pay a little bit more attention to virtues afterward.
I don't believe wanting to be competitive, tough, and so on is a vice, to clarify. I'm not a hardliner for moral relativism, but I believe all practical value systems are approximations, and some legitimate ones can value "toughness" more highly than mine does (which probably values "toughness" more highly than Ozy's does).
I mean, yeah, but I think most people need some kind of spiritual practice. Attempts to get rid of it seem to cause it to bounce back, as we can see with New Age spirituality and even cults arising out of rationalism. If people have to have something, Quakerism seems no worse than most and better than many.
I can't personally relate, having grown up in an environment where atheism was nearly universal, but I accept this is true for many people. I am not opposed to Quakerism, and think it is neutral or beneficial for most and harmless to try out, but I don't see evidence that it is particularly effective for self-improvement or that the concept of "Inner Light" is useful for understanding reality.
Quite a few things are understood only through experience — i.e., by trying them. One problem with a heavy reliance on rationality is that one can accept things as real/true if they "make sense" in the light of one's outlook and previous experience. For example, the belief that a heavier object will fall faster than a lighter object (because — duh! — it's *heavier*) was widely accepted because it obviously makes sense. Only Galileo actually tried using the idea, it turned out that it was wrong. Testing things can be awkward and burdensome, but to rely instead on whether something "makes sense" can be a block to learning something new and even lead one astray.
You misunderstand rationality. The point isn't whether things "make sense", but whether they are useful for modeling reality. Knowing the fact that heavier objects don't fall any faster than lighter ones allows you to make more accurate predictions.
"Inner Light", I would argue, makes plenty of intuitive sense, our culture is full of metaphors about seeking the guidance of some inner conscience or higher self. But are the specifics of Ozy's depiction of this phenomenon useful? That's what I'm skeptical of.
I would say that Ozy's depiction of the phenomenon is useful when it stirs people to try that approach and see for themselves. I think that the key is to test the approach.
I was raised a Quaker, although I haven't attended very often in recent years (I'm in my twenties and quite busy all the time). I found rationality in my late teens and was really struck by some similarities between the two. That everyone really accepts and believes that the goal is to figure out the right answer, not to bring your favourite idea and hope that it wins. That if you really feel troubled by a problem in the world, you are called to physically act to make it better, not just talk about how bad it is. I would like to attend Quaker meeting more often, and I would like to see more rationalists and quakers talking to each other.
This is what I as coming into the comment section to say. This feels like AA. "Do the next right thing". I combine this with the Thomas Merton Prayer, meaning I may be wrong about the 'right thing', but at least I am trying! Combine that with the idea that 'intent does not matter, impact does', meaning if your 'next right thing' is affecting others adversely, you owe amends and stop doing it!
The most shocking thing to a person of Christian heritage about modern Islam - at least in the current near east - is how orthopraxic it is. If you get to the mosque, pray five times a day, adhere to clothing and food conventions and act as a good and honest person, you're considered a good Muslim regardless of whether you personally struggle with elements of the faith.
I'd say that's more cultural religion. Same way most Christians barely know their own theology or Bible, but they show up to church and vote Republican, so they're good Christians.
"How I picked Artemis, I don’t remember. Certainly from my perspective today, as a promiscuous lacto vegetarian who hates nature, the virginal goddess of the wilds and the hunt seems like a weird choice. But Artemis it was."
I mean, come on. Artemis is cool AF, and you were 12.
I have been to two Quaker meetings since you first posted about them. I will probably continue to attend when I can. When I told a Quaker I had trouble attending due to two young children he said Quakers know their younger members have busy lives and will attend less, and that when you're a Quaker everyone under 60 is a younger member.
The services have felt closer to what I have understood as divine than other religious services I have attended, but I have struggled to directly experience some of what you discuss here. I think what you describe as the inner light is real, though, and that you describe it accurately, and I'm trying to figure out how to get closer to it or to accept it's guidance. I appreciate you sharing your experience!
You may have convinced me to give it a try. I miss church. I grew up Episcopalian, and the things I miss most are the music and the ritual, which, of course, I wouldn't get out of a Quaker meeting. But, I never enjoy going to church with my mom as an adult because I hate lying so the Nicene creed feels awful, and even just standing there feels like bearing false witness (lying in song is fine). I tried UU a little in college, but I didn't like it---too spiritual/woo.
Do you think most Quaker meetings are accepting of atheists, or is that a special Bay Area thing?
Do you bring your family? Is there a Sunday School equivalent?
FGC Quakers (Ozy's denomination of Quakers, also mine) are accepting of atheists if you're in the US; my impression is that the same is true of British, Australian, and Canadian Quakers. Other Quaker branches, which are mostly in the US and the developing world, might not be.
What a fabulous, thoughtful, insightful, articulate, weird and funny and brilliant piece. Thank you. There's a Quaker Meetinghouse not too far from me. Several times i've nearly gone. Now, I will.
I believe you are a good Quaker at least insofar as you managed to write a blogpost were pure warmth and even the Light can shine through the cracks in your writing.
I was interested in hearing how and when these Quaker meetings bring you the Inner Light, but I don't think you explained? I also thought it odd that you said you spoke to Gods, apparently meaning that Gods spoke to you.
To me these are opposite things, since I've never experienced this Inner Light. I was a Mormon for almost 30 years, spoke to God throughout that time as per my training, and never once did God ever give me a message. And I constantly beat myself up over not being good enough to receive answers to my prayers. Meanwhile, it slowly dawned on me that there were an awful lot of peculiar things about this God fellow, things that made me furrow my brow and frustratedly ask "why??" A healthy dose of epistemology sure would have been helpful to get me out sooner, or at least a link to NonStampCollector or the Letter to a CES Director.
And yet, aside from being sad and lonely all the time, and knowing that my social skills suck, I think I managed to turn out as the best version of myself. I know my epistemic rationality inside and out (albeit not at a world-class level because I'm distracted my other things, but Yud says something like "he who speaks overmuch of The Way risks not following it"); I signed the Pledge; I'm really, willing and eager to sacrifice for a greater cause... I just worry that I won't have anyone to do it with, and won't even be able to start before the Hinge of History is over.
Anyway, as someone who never figured out what "spiritual" even means, I'd like to hear you describe your spiritual experiences in more detail, like, on a sensory level. I asked a couple Mormons I know about their own spiritual experiences, and it struck me that they did not describe a sensory experience even though that's what I was trying to ask for. They spoke in a weird abstract manner reminiscent of a church seminary textbook. They described an interpretation of an experience rather than the experience itself.
I'm not remotely religious, never will be, but for some reason have always taken it seriously when someone says something feels "spiritual" to them. This post has explained it. What you describe as Inner Light to me reads a lot like simply Love (the same reason I cry over character dramas), but I've never been to a meeting and can't comment.
Oh this is beautifully written.
The overall experience is definitely something I recognize, it's the thing that Works (when it Works) when I go to shul.
And, due to who I am as a person, I'm also reminded of Bujold quotes:
"You are what you do. Choose again, and change."
"Events may be horrible or inescapable. Men have always a choice—if not whether, then how, they may endure."
"You go on. You just go on. There's nothing more to it, and there's no trick to make it easier. You just go on."
"What do you find on the other side? When you go on?"
She shrugged. "Your life again. What else?"
"Is that a promise?"
She picked up a pebble, fingered it, and tossed it into the water. The moon-lines bloomed and danced. "It's an inevitability. No trick. No choice. You just go on."
I followed a similar path — starting with Edith Hamilton's Greek Myths at a young age and including The Screwtape Letters but omitting space cobras — although I ended up a Bad Buddhist instead of returning to the practice of my great x6 grandparents who emigrated to the Penn colony. Thanks for describing how Quaker practice works in your experience.
This is perfectly timed for me - on the way home from celebrating Christmas with my family, my brother and I got into a conversation about religion/faith, and I remember saying that I suspect a lot of things can be explained by people coming in brief contact with the Divine (which I think of very similarly to how you describe the Inner Light here), having the immediate and powerful conviction that "the most important thing in my life is Getting Whatever-This-Is Right", and then making the subtle-but-critical error of assuming that the way to get it right was by getting very concerned about the properties and classifications of it rather than acting in accordance with it.
It's probably relevant to this that we were both raised Lutheran, a denomination that skews unusually orthodoxic even among Christians, a preoccupation dating back to its origins (Martin Luther becoming so frustrated with late medieval Catholicism's vibe-coded theological practices that he not only obsessively studied, but literally retranslated the bible in the conviction that the main obstacle between people and God was that nobody had properly explained Him to them). I also, when I was a very different sort of person, completed a substantial amount of the training necessary to become a Lutheran minister, a process that involves studying the approved and rejected doctrines of Lutheranism in a level of detail that few non-academics ever bother with. If you're hoping I'm about to tell the standard "the more I studied what we believed, the more I realized it was nonsense" deconversion narrative, I will have to disappoint; what actually happened is that the seminary suspected I was autistic, and removed me from the ministerial program out of the belief that autistic people were incapable of the level of interpersonal skills necessary for parish work.
I believe I've experienced the Inner Light - it matches something I used to describe as "the voice of God" and think of as a kind of spiritual flow-state, and I also used to think of it as a self-evident proof of the reality of God (though I no longer do). I used to experience it fairly regularly; I still do from time to time, but it's definitely more sporadic than it used to be. I also know a small number of people who seem to me to be experiencing something like it some-or-all of the time, including, funnily enough, my brother.
Any particular Introduction to Quakerism books you would recommend? Or any particular histories -- what led you to believe the Quakers have been right about almost every major moral question of the past several centuries?
Preface that this comment is not intended to denigrate your spiritual practices, or what works for your needs. I'm engaging with the implicit factual claims like an annoying rationalist.
I'm very skeptical that the always-living-from-their-Inner-Light people are being described accurately. First because it's easy to perceive that others are living idyllic lives on the outside, when they actually have severe personal problems that are either successfully hidden, or less salient to you because they're not problems you struggle with. More importantly, because while you assert these people are constantly accessing a similar state of mind as you do through Quakerism, I don't see any connection between the phenomena.
The more parsimonious explanation is that some people are kind and content by disposition, and changing yourself to become similar to them is about as difficult as changing any personality trait. Not impossible, but unlikely to be achieved, and usually a poor use of time. The existence of such people is not a good advertisement for Quakerism as a self-improvement practice, nor do they offer evidence "Inner Light" is a useful construct for understanding reality.
And on the topic of Inner Light as a construct, insofar as it claims all or even most people would find the fundamental desire to be universally kind, forgiving, humble, etc., if they looked deep down, I disagree. I think the desires to be zero-sum competitive, tough, aggressive, status-seeking, etc. are just as fundamental, and depending on your culture, may be more in line with your values. (If the claim instead is that there is some distinct state of mind that comes with a set of values that may not match your own, why would anyone seek it out? If the Inner Light can manifest to match any person's values, including ones that you, Ozy, believe are bad, then how can it even be a secret to goodness?)
As someone with various virtues who has experienced neither the Inner Light nor the drive to be competitive, tough, aggressive, or status-seeking.... I think Ozy is just describing how he thinks Inner Light tends to work, not saying that it is accessible "deep down" or to everyone.
I don't think a human's values are necessarily constant. It's plausible to me that a man of selfishness and vice could have a spiritual experience and "see the light"--in that moment seeing the value in a different set of values, so to speak, and, for reasons involving neurotransmitters, pay a little bit more attention to virtues afterward.
I don't believe wanting to be competitive, tough, and so on is a vice, to clarify. I'm not a hardliner for moral relativism, but I believe all practical value systems are approximations, and some legitimate ones can value "toughness" more highly than mine does (which probably values "toughness" more highly than Ozy's does).
I mean, yeah, but I think most people need some kind of spiritual practice. Attempts to get rid of it seem to cause it to bounce back, as we can see with New Age spirituality and even cults arising out of rationalism. If people have to have something, Quakerism seems no worse than most and better than many.
I can't personally relate, having grown up in an environment where atheism was nearly universal, but I accept this is true for many people. I am not opposed to Quakerism, and think it is neutral or beneficial for most and harmless to try out, but I don't see evidence that it is particularly effective for self-improvement or that the concept of "Inner Light" is useful for understanding reality.
Quite a few things are understood only through experience — i.e., by trying them. One problem with a heavy reliance on rationality is that one can accept things as real/true if they "make sense" in the light of one's outlook and previous experience. For example, the belief that a heavier object will fall faster than a lighter object (because — duh! — it's *heavier*) was widely accepted because it obviously makes sense. Only Galileo actually tried using the idea, it turned out that it was wrong. Testing things can be awkward and burdensome, but to rely instead on whether something "makes sense" can be a block to learning something new and even lead one astray.
You misunderstand rationality. The point isn't whether things "make sense", but whether they are useful for modeling reality. Knowing the fact that heavier objects don't fall any faster than lighter ones allows you to make more accurate predictions.
"Inner Light", I would argue, makes plenty of intuitive sense, our culture is full of metaphors about seeking the guidance of some inner conscience or higher self. But are the specifics of Ozy's depiction of this phenomenon useful? That's what I'm skeptical of.
I would say that Ozy's depiction of the phenomenon is useful when it stirs people to try that approach and see for themselves. I think that the key is to test the approach.
I was raised a Quaker, although I haven't attended very often in recent years (I'm in my twenties and quite busy all the time). I found rationality in my late teens and was really struck by some similarities between the two. That everyone really accepts and believes that the goal is to figure out the right answer, not to bring your favourite idea and hope that it wins. That if you really feel troubled by a problem in the world, you are called to physically act to make it better, not just talk about how bad it is. I would like to attend Quaker meeting more often, and I would like to see more rationalists and quakers talking to each other.
The emphasis on truth seems a big one, though rationalists obviously have a different idea of plain language ;)
What is interesting is that you are also describing Alcoholics Anonymous ;)
Probably because it was influenced by Quakerism.
The concepts of speaking “as the spirit moves you” and of equality of position are very attractive propositions for a principled life.
This is what I as coming into the comment section to say. This feels like AA. "Do the next right thing". I combine this with the Thomas Merton Prayer, meaning I may be wrong about the 'right thing', but at least I am trying! Combine that with the idea that 'intent does not matter, impact does', meaning if your 'next right thing' is affecting others adversely, you owe amends and stop doing it!
The most shocking thing to a person of Christian heritage about modern Islam - at least in the current near east - is how orthopraxic it is. If you get to the mosque, pray five times a day, adhere to clothing and food conventions and act as a good and honest person, you're considered a good Muslim regardless of whether you personally struggle with elements of the faith.
I'd say that's more cultural religion. Same way most Christians barely know their own theology or Bible, but they show up to church and vote Republican, so they're good Christians.
"How I picked Artemis, I don’t remember. Certainly from my perspective today, as a promiscuous lacto vegetarian who hates nature, the virginal goddess of the wilds and the hunt seems like a weird choice. But Artemis it was."
I mean, come on. Artemis is cool AF, and you were 12.
I have been to two Quaker meetings since you first posted about them. I will probably continue to attend when I can. When I told a Quaker I had trouble attending due to two young children he said Quakers know their younger members have busy lives and will attend less, and that when you're a Quaker everyone under 60 is a younger member.
The services have felt closer to what I have understood as divine than other religious services I have attended, but I have struggled to directly experience some of what you discuss here. I think what you describe as the inner light is real, though, and that you describe it accurately, and I'm trying to figure out how to get closer to it or to accept it's guidance. I appreciate you sharing your experience!
You may have convinced me to give it a try. I miss church. I grew up Episcopalian, and the things I miss most are the music and the ritual, which, of course, I wouldn't get out of a Quaker meeting. But, I never enjoy going to church with my mom as an adult because I hate lying so the Nicene creed feels awful, and even just standing there feels like bearing false witness (lying in song is fine). I tried UU a little in college, but I didn't like it---too spiritual/woo.
Do you think most Quaker meetings are accepting of atheists, or is that a special Bay Area thing?
Do you bring your family? Is there a Sunday School equivalent?
"Non-theistic Quakers" ... I think there are quite a few of us.
https://nontheistquakers.org
FGC Quakers (Ozy's denomination of Quakers, also mine) are accepting of atheists if you're in the US; my impression is that the same is true of British, Australian, and Canadian Quakers. Other Quaker branches, which are mostly in the US and the developing world, might not be.
The quaker meeting I attended, in southern England, was majority atheist. There was a children's meeting every other week.
What a fabulous, thoughtful, insightful, articulate, weird and funny and brilliant piece. Thank you. There's a Quaker Meetinghouse not too far from me. Several times i've nearly gone. Now, I will.
That was beautiful. :)
I believe you are a good Quaker at least insofar as you managed to write a blogpost were pure warmth and even the Light can shine through the cracks in your writing.
Thank you.
I was interested in hearing how and when these Quaker meetings bring you the Inner Light, but I don't think you explained? I also thought it odd that you said you spoke to Gods, apparently meaning that Gods spoke to you.
To me these are opposite things, since I've never experienced this Inner Light. I was a Mormon for almost 30 years, spoke to God throughout that time as per my training, and never once did God ever give me a message. And I constantly beat myself up over not being good enough to receive answers to my prayers. Meanwhile, it slowly dawned on me that there were an awful lot of peculiar things about this God fellow, things that made me furrow my brow and frustratedly ask "why??" A healthy dose of epistemology sure would have been helpful to get me out sooner, or at least a link to NonStampCollector or the Letter to a CES Director.
And yet, aside from being sad and lonely all the time, and knowing that my social skills suck, I think I managed to turn out as the best version of myself. I know my epistemic rationality inside and out (albeit not at a world-class level because I'm distracted my other things, but Yud says something like "he who speaks overmuch of The Way risks not following it"); I signed the Pledge; I'm really, willing and eager to sacrifice for a greater cause... I just worry that I won't have anyone to do it with, and won't even be able to start before the Hinge of History is over.
Anyway, as someone who never figured out what "spiritual" even means, I'd like to hear you describe your spiritual experiences in more detail, like, on a sensory level. I asked a couple Mormons I know about their own spiritual experiences, and it struck me that they did not describe a sensory experience even though that's what I was trying to ask for. They spoke in a weird abstract manner reminiscent of a church seminary textbook. They described an interpretation of an experience rather than the experience itself.
Yeah, this is gorgeous.
I'm not remotely religious, never will be, but for some reason have always taken it seriously when someone says something feels "spiritual" to them. This post has explained it. What you describe as Inner Light to me reads a lot like simply Love (the same reason I cry over character dramas), but I've never been to a meeting and can't comment.
In any case, it's clearly a phenomenal community.
This was really insightful, great stuff.